home
RSS
August 22nd, 2014
07:00 AM ET

Why liberals are more tolerant of atheists

Opinion by Chris Stedman, special to CNN

(CNN) Conservative atheist and television pundit S.E. Cupp has come out swinging against progressive atheists.

In a clip (see above) for CNN’s “Crossfire,” she argues that conservative atheists are “better” than liberal nonbelievers. What’s more, Cupp says, those on the right respect and tolerate atheists more than liberals do.

She’s wrong, and here are three reasons why.

Fact: Atheists are still political outcasts.

“It seems like there’s this idea perpetuated by atheists that atheists are somehow disenfranchised or left out of the political process,” Cupp says. “I just don’t find that to be the case.”

Survey data contradict Cupp.

For instance, a 2014 Pew Research study found that Americans are less likely to vote for an atheist presidential candidate than any other survey category—even if they share that candidate’s political views.

Faring better than atheists: candidates who have engaged in extramarital affairs and those with zero political experience.

And unless she recently had a change of heart, Cupp herself falls in line with the majority of Americans. In 2012 she said, “I would never vote for an atheist president. Ever.”

While atheists are making political inroads, we’re also still on the margins in a number of ways. Cupp concludes the clip by saying, “I think our atheists are better than yours.”

Apparently they’re still not good enough to be president.

Fact: Conservatives are hostile toward atheists.

“There’s another myth: that conservatism is somehow hostile to atheism,” Cupp says. “I’m a conservative atheist (and) I’ve felt very welcomed.”

But Cupp goes beyond arguing that conservatives broadly welcome nontheists—she also argues that liberals are less accepting of atheists.

“I’d go so far as to say conservatism is far more intellectually honest and respectful of atheism than liberalism has been,” she says.

Again, Pew’s surveys suggest otherwise.

While the number of people who say they wouldn't vote for an atheist candidate sits at 70% among Republicans, that number drops to 42% among Democrats. (“Progressive,” “liberal,” and “Democrat” certainly aren’t synonyms, but there is overlap.)

Of course, conservative hostility toward atheists goes beyond voting for a presidential candidate.

Earlier this year, the group American Atheists announced plans to sponsor a table at CPAC, the country’s largest annual gathering of conservatives. But within hours, after a number of conservatives spoke out against their inclusion, they were promptly uninvited.

Many of the most prominent anti-atheist voices—including Sarah Palin, Erick Erickson, Mike Huckabee and Newt Gingrich—are conservative politicians and commentators, and I have yet to hear many other conservatives (Cupp included) condemn their anti-atheist remarks.

On the other hand, a number of political moderates and liberals have welcomed nontheists.

In 2009, for example, President Barack Obama became the first commander in chief to reference nonbelievers in an inaugural address. The next year, his administration became the first to meet with representatives from the atheist community.

Overall, a much larger percentage of the religiously unaffiliated (a category that includes many atheists) identify as liberal than conservative.

In 2012, Pew reported that 61 percent of nonreligious Americans are either Democrat or lean Democrat, while just 27 percent identify as or lean Republican.

If it truly were the case that conservatives are much more “respectful of atheism,” I would expect to see more Republican atheists.

Fact: Most liberals respect religious diversity.

“Conservatives appreciate an intellectual diversity,” Cupp says. “In contrast, on the left it seems as though there is this knee-jerk embrace of what is more like a militant hostility to faith.”

If you’ve been paying attention to Cupp’s arguments so far, this one should be a bit confusing. Which is it? Are liberals hostile toward atheists—or the religious? (Or are liberals just hostile toward everyone?)

But religious diversity is actually significantly greater among Democrats—for example, Pew reported in 2011 that just 11% of Muslims affiliate with Republicans, while 60% identify as or lean Democrat.

By contrast, as much as 74% of GOP voters identify as Christian, according to recent surveys and polls.

Finally, Cupp lifts up self-identified progressive Bill Maher—who has said, among other things, that religious believers have a “neurological disorder”—as an example of liberal intolerance.

I should give credit where it’s due: Cupp is partially right here. Maher’s take on religion is problematic and should be condemned.

But his views certainly aren’t representative of most of the progressive atheists I know. Suggesting that Maher speaks for atheism is like saying Pat Robertson represents all of Christianity.

In the end, I’m not arguing that progressives are perfect. We have plenty of our own issues and aren’t as welcoming of atheists or some believers as we could be.

But to say that we’re less tolerant of religious and nonreligious diversity than conservatives? Well, that’s just hard to believe.

Chris Stedman is Executive Director of the Yale Humanist Community, author of "Faitheist," and atheist columnist for Religion News Service. Follow him on Twitter @ChrisDStedman. The views expressed in this column belong to Stedman. 

- CNN Belief Blog

Filed under: Atheism • Culture wars • Discrimination • Nones • Opinion • Politics • Prejudice

soundoff (3,322 Responses)
  1. Tom, Tom, the Other One

    Robert, the believer, says atheists have no reason to believe in God. In fact, I saw God at a bus stop the other day. He's an old man in a grey coat. He's got one eye and keeps a couple of black birds with him. He was a little short on change. A nice teenager helped him out.

    August 25, 2014 at 1:32 pm |
    • Løki

      Two ravens flew from Hnikar’s shoulders; Huginn to the hanged and Muninn to the slain...

      August 25, 2014 at 1:39 pm |
    • Robert Brown

      Hey Tom,

      I continue to admire your sense and your sense of humor.

      August 25, 2014 at 1:41 pm |
    • tallulah131

      Wow, you got me thinking... I really need to read American Gods again.

      August 25, 2014 at 1:45 pm |
  2. SeaVik

    SE Cupp makes brain-dead, factually incorrect statements. And this is news?

    August 25, 2014 at 1:22 pm |
  3. Fine Tuna

    A sensible non believer will simply call himself an agnostic.
    In almost every case, an individual calling himself an atheist is interested in far more than personal metaphysical speculation.

    August 25, 2014 at 1:00 pm |
    • In Santa We Trust

      Most atheists are agnostic. Upon what do you base your last sentence?

      August 25, 2014 at 1:12 pm |
      • Fine Tuna

        The statements of the overwhelming majority of self described atheists.

        August 25, 2014 at 1:21 pm |
        • In Santa We Trust

          Examples?

          August 25, 2014 at 1:26 pm |
        • johnbiggscr

          'self described atheists.'

          self described? meaning what exactly? are people that call themselves christians just 'self described' therefore and somehow wrong?

          August 25, 2014 at 1:50 pm |
        • bostontola

          except the overwhelming majority of atheists haven't made any public statements, so how can you know this?

          August 25, 2014 at 1:58 pm |
      • Løki

        "an individual calling himself an atheist is interested in far more than personal metaphysical speculation"

        That's nonsensical even for a christian

        August 25, 2014 at 1:23 pm |
        • Fine Tuna

          Of course not. Most people who describe themselves as atheists are quite interested in inflicting their beliefs upon others.They are active proselytizers.

          August 25, 2014 at 1:26 pm |
        • Løki

          Oh... so atheists have come around to your neighborhood and invited you to non-believe? Or asked you to attend their non-churches? What a ridiculous supposition...

          August 25, 2014 at 1:32 pm |
        • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

          Tuna,

          When theists quit inflicting their beliefs on others I promise to quit responding to their nonsense.

          August 25, 2014 at 1:40 pm |
        • Doc Vestibule

          I can't stand those little pamphlets with cartoons about evolutionary biology that the Dawkins Witnesses leave in my mailbox.
          Or those well dressed young men with the black name tags that go door to door wanting to talk at great length about "A Brief History of Time" when you know all they want is for you to join the Church of Non-Belief that they call a "physics classroom".

          August 25, 2014 at 1:41 pm |
        • igaftr

          tuna
          "Of course not. Most people who describe themselves as atheists are quite interested in inflicting their beliefs upon others.They are active proselytizers."

          You claim most atheists...by all means, how did you leap to that conclusion.
          As an atheist, I simply do not believe in any of the gods men have worshipped.
          So I am seeking waht truly is, and in doing that see the baseless arguments for gods and religion, and show where the flaws in the logic are.
          If you believe a certain things, and you believe them but the reasons for the belief are flawed ( such as the fact that there is no evidence for any gods), would you not want someone to point out the error of your logic, or would you want to go on believing something that is baseless or false?

          If a teacher corrects a student in class, is that teacher trying to force his/her views on the student, or educate them?

          August 25, 2014 at 1:49 pm |
      • ragansteve1

        "Most atheists are agnostic."

        That statement seems confusing to me. Care to elaborate?

        My understanding is that agnostics, believe that the existence of God is unknowable, but therefore possible. In contrast, atheists disbelieve that God exists at all. From reading atheists writing on this blog, there appears to be little doubt among atheists that they believe a belief in God is a fantasy.

        I am curious as to how the two can be brought together.

        August 26, 2014 at 10:37 am |
        • In Santa We Trust

          The agnostic part as you say basically means we don't have enough information; the atheist part means that we don't believe in a god. For me, the only place I could believe a god exists is pre-Big Bang; definitely not the personal gods of religions – not only is there no evidence for them, all the evidence we have indicates that the creation stories are extremely inaccurate.

          August 26, 2014 at 11:18 am |
        • himpdahak

          Gnostic/Agnostic and theist/atheist are two different things. Gnostic/agnostic describes knowledge, while theist/atheist describes belief in gods. Everyone falls into one of four categories:

          You can be a gnostic theist where you claim to have direct knowledge that a god or gods is/are real.
          You can be an agnostic theist where you believe there is a god or gods but do not claim to KNOW there is/are god/gods.
          You can be a gnostic atheist where you claim to KNOW there is no god or gods.
          Or you can be an agnostic atheist where you do not believe there are gods but do not claim to know there are no gods.

          Most atheists are agnostic atheists who do not believe in gods, but do not claim to KNOW gods don't exist. I may not believe in a god, but I cannot claim that I know a god doesn't exist.

          From my personal experience, most people who claim to be 'agnostic' are agnostic atheists who aren't comfortable specifically saying they don't believe in gods. That is obviously anecdotal, but that is my experience.

          September 3, 2014 at 11:01 am |
    • Vic

      That's a word of wisdom.

      August 25, 2014 at 1:13 pm |
    • Løki

      Atheist = No gods
      Agnostic = A fence sitter

      August 25, 2014 at 1:17 pm |
      • joey3467

        I have always looked at it this way:

        Agnostics don't currently believe in god and are thus atheists.

        August 25, 2014 at 1:21 pm |
        • Alias

          Most agnostics believe in a higher power, they just realize how ridiculous the largest organized religions are.
          I used to be one of them in my transition fron catholic to sanity.

          August 25, 2014 at 1:34 pm |
        • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

          "Most agnostics believe in a higher power, they just realize how ridiculous the largest organized religions are."
          ------------------
          That's not what 'agnostic' means. What you describe is more like 'spiritual but not religious'.

          August 25, 2014 at 1:45 pm |
    • SeaVik

      I don't think it's very sensible to seriously think that the human concept of god is realistic. Agnosticism means you don't have enough information to form an opinion and I think we have plenty of information to disregard the posibility that a god exists.

      August 25, 2014 at 1:20 pm |
      • Fine Tuna

        Would you please explain the presence of the cosmological constant and its relationship to the complex structures present in the observable universe???

        August 25, 2014 at 1:23 pm |
        • Løki

          Ahhh... now I get it... you're another (or a named changed) creationist troll... you seem to be breeding like roaches...

          August 25, 2014 at 1:28 pm |
        • SeaVik

          No, I can't. Can you? If the explanation is god, then my next equally unexplainable question would be where did that god come from?

          August 25, 2014 at 1:40 pm |
        • Doc Vestibule

          Why that's easy.
          You see everything that exists in the entire Universe is there just so that we can exist here on Earth. Human beings are the jewel in Jahweh's crown of Creation.
          God really concentrated when making The Earth as opposed to, say – the Andromeda galaxy.
          Though physics and astrology seem to say otherwise, the fact is that The Earth really is the centre of the Universe.

          August 25, 2014 at 2:01 pm |
        • colin31714

          Lord Brahma made it that way so Hindus can exist on one of the 1,000,000,000,000 planets in our galaxy, which is itself one of at least 400,000,000,000 galaxies (each with as many stars and planets as ours).

          Problem is, he also had to accommodate all those pesky Christians, Jews, Muslims and Buddhists. the latest research in cosmology suggests it was some kind of deal cut between Lord Brahma, God, Yahweh, the Buddha and Allah.

          August 25, 2014 at 2:50 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Other One

      A person without god(s) – atheist – may simply be between gods. Gods are not all that reliable. The transmission goes out on one and you may have to make do on your own resources for awhile.

      August 25, 2014 at 1:23 pm |
      • ragansteve1

        Interesting analogy. I wonder how many people actually change gods completely. Changing from Judaism to Christianity, or vice versa, wouldn't count. One might even argue that changing from Islam to Christianity or the reverse would not count. That covers about 2/3 of the people who are theists I think–at least half. So, any data on how many go from Hindu to Christian or the other way? As an example of course.

        August 26, 2014 at 10:28 am |
    • tallulah131

      I am by definition an atheist. I don't believe gods exist. To call myself an agnostic would be dishonest. Should evidence surface that supports the existence of a supernatural power or powers that could be considered a god or gods, then I would be a believer. But until such evidence exists, I am an atheist.

      August 25, 2014 at 1:29 pm |
  4. Tom, Tom, the Other One

    The nature of the Standard God (One True, or the Abrahamic God) and its purity cannot be denied, Fred says. The parsimonious way for that to be true is for the God and its nature to be purely imaginary.

    August 25, 2014 at 12:27 pm |
    • Løki

      "Man is a Religious Animal. He is the only Religious Animal. He is the only animal that has the True Religion–several of them. He is the only animal that loves his neighbor as himself and cuts his throat if his theology isn't straight. He has made a graveyard of the globe in trying his honest best to smooth his brother's path to happiness and heaven...." ~Mark Twain

      August 25, 2014 at 1:02 pm |
  5. Løki

    Regarding the creationist troll...

    Two studies published in 2013 and 2014 have found that people who are identified as trolls tend to have dark personality traits and show signs of sadism, antisocial behavior, psychopathy, and Machiavellianism.

    The 2013 study suggested that there are a number of similarities between anti-social and flame trolling activities and the 2014 study suggested that the noxious personality characteristics known as the dark triad of personality should be investigated in the analysis of trolling, and concluded that trolling appears "to be an Internet manifestation of everyday sadism." Their relevance is suggested by research linking these traits to bullying in both adolescents and adults. The 2014 study found that trolls operate as agents of chaos on the Internet, exploiting hot-button issues to make users appear overly emotional or foolish in some manner. If an unfortunate person falls into their trap, trolling intensifies for further, merciless amusement. This is why novice Internet users are routinely admonished, "Do not feed the trolls!" The 2013 study found that trolls often have a high expectation of what it means to be successful, which is higher than they are able to attain, and this results in them resenting others who think they are successful but who fall below their standards.

    August 25, 2014 at 11:55 am |
    • awanderingscot

      Did you find your picture when you looked up atheist troll ?

      August 25, 2014 at 12:12 pm |
      • tallulah131

        We all know that you are the troll here, scotty.

        August 25, 2014 at 12:14 pm |
        • awanderingscot

          thanks trollulah! lol

          August 25, 2014 at 12:23 pm |
        • Dyslexic doG

          Did you amuse yourself?

          Amusing yourself may be your problem. Amuse yourself any more and you'll go blind.

          August 25, 2014 at 12:32 pm |
        • tallulah131

          trollulah is pretty funny. But I'm not the troll, scotty. You are.

          August 25, 2014 at 1:30 pm |
      • Løki

        My name betrays my nature... do not overlay your sadistic personality traits on me troll.

        'I have said to the gods | and the sons of the god,
        The things that whetted my thoughts..."

        August 25, 2014 at 12:55 pm |
  6. Vic

    For the New Entry —closed for comments— :

    When the news first broke out about Ferguson, MO, the first thing came to my mind was "Don't give a cop a reason to shoot you!" and "If the cop is wrong, that can be settled in courts."

    And behold, a veteran cop gave a very good insight on the matter:

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/08/19/sunil-dutta-police-washington-post_n_5692266.html

    August 25, 2014 at 11:48 am |
    • bostontola

      Vic,
      That is a sad commentary on cops. If your first thought is don't do anything that might have a cop shoot you, your expectations on cops is way too low. I'm in the camp that they are there to protect and serve. If they live up to that, then the first thing you think wouldn't be don't give them a reason to shoot.

      August 25, 2014 at 12:10 pm |
      • Løki

        I concur

        August 25, 2014 at 12:15 pm |
      • Tom, Tom, the Other One

        My experience has been that you should hope they're having a nice day. They have an us vs them mentality regarding the people they are to protect and to serve. They also tend to be frustrated with a variety of things including pay and their perception of how the community and their leadership support them. Their domestic lives are likely to be stressful. Drug and alcohol problems are common. Best stay away from them if you can. Respond appropriately but don't engage with them if you can't.

        August 25, 2014 at 12:36 pm |
      • Vic

        I am approaching the matter from the precedence of human life over anything else standpoint.

        When people cooperate with cops†, the first thing taking hold here is saving lives, and that is the highest priority—unless of course a corrupt cop shoots right off the bat for no reason, there is nothing the victim can do in that case. Whatever wrong involved in an incident after that could be legally settled, and guess what, it would set a precedent for all, including cops, and that is a win-win situation.

        I in no way or fashion condone police brutality, rather, I elect for saving lives first and then settle matters.

        † One should not assume right off the bat that a cop is corrupt and wronging him/her, especially that we all know that the police force is a legitimate law enforcement in place to stop crime, protect and maintain order. If it turns out there is corruption involved, we all stand up against it.

        August 25, 2014 at 12:54 pm |
      • Alias

        This is a clasic 'walk a mile in their shoes' moment.
        You try keeping order in a slum for a few years and see how you react to a robbery suspect attacking you in the middle of the night.

        August 25, 2014 at 12:55 pm |
        • In Santa We Trust

          Except the officer did not know of the suspected robbery – this was over jay-walking. None of know if the officer was attacked – it's hard to believe that someone jay-walking unarmed would attack an armed officer over being told not to jay-walk. And I would note that you rarely, if ever, hear of unarmed white boys being shot dead by police.

          August 25, 2014 at 1:09 pm |
        • Alias

          Firstly, if a white boy had been shot by a white cop, the media would not have botherd reporting so you would not have heard about it.
          Secondly, the officer in question had injuries, and obviously had been attacked by someone.
          How 'bout we get all the facts before we reach a conclusion?

          August 25, 2014 at 1:28 pm |
        • igaftr

          "How 'bout we get all the facts before we reach a conclusion?"

          That is not the American way.

          First, hear about some incident third hand.
          Second, leap to a conclusion.
          Third, take it out on people that had nothing to do with it.
          ( Hey, isn't that how we got into the war in Iraq?)

          August 25, 2014 at 1:36 pm |
        • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

          "How 'bout we get all the facts before we reach a conclusion?"
          ---------------------------
          Yes, it would be nice to know why six bullets were required to restrain and unarmed teenager.

          August 25, 2014 at 1:42 pm |
        • bostontola

          I don't understand your comment. My comment was not anti-police. It was about what our expectations are. I think we should expect a lot, and not need to assume that the police will shoot in an unwarranted situation. Vic may have low expectations.

          August 25, 2014 at 2:39 pm |
        • In Santa We Trust

          Alias
          "How 'bout we get all the facts before we reach a conclusion?"

          Good idea. There has been no evidence that the officer in question had injuries – no photos, no video. In fact, he has been shielded from scrutiny and therefore transparency.
          Yet you appear to have reached a conclusion that the teenager had it coming.

          August 25, 2014 at 2:51 pm |
    • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

      Mom, kids pulled from car at gunpoint by cops:

      http://www.cnn.com/video/data/2.0/video/us/2014/08/24/dnt-texas-mom-kids-pulled-from-car.wfaa.html

      August 25, 2014 at 1:41 pm |
  7. awanderingscot

    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/11/unintended_cons079591.html

    – criticism of 'Darwin's Doubt' from evolutionists is making people skeptical of evolution.

    August 25, 2014 at 11:38 am |
    • igaftr

      no scot, ignorance and stupidity is making people doubt evolution...and only a few people at that

      August 25, 2014 at 11:59 am |
    • Doris

      I think I posted this before – I must have since Scotty likes to repeat himself. From the Wikipedia page on the author of Darwin's Doubt:

      "Meyer published Darwin's Doubt: The Explosive Origin of Animal Life and the Case for Intelligent Design on 18 June 2013.[39] In this book, he proposed that the Cambrian explosion contradicts Darwin's evolutionary process and is best explained by intelligent design.
      In a review published by The Skeptics Society t.itled Stephen Meyer's Fumbling Bumbling Amateur Cambrian Follies,[40] paleontologist Donald Prothero gave a highly negative review of Meyer's book. Prothero pointed out that the "Cambrian Explosion" concept itself has been deemed an outdated concept after recent decades of fossil discovery and he points out that 'Cambrian diversification' is a more consensual term now used in paleontology to describe the 80 million year time frame where the fossil record shows the gradual and stepwise evolution of more and more complicated animal life. Prothero criticizes Meyer for ignoring much of the fossil record and instead focusing on a later stages to give the impression that all Cambrian live forms appeared abruptly without predecessors. In contrast, Prothero cites paleontologist B.S. Lieberman that the rates of evolution during the 'Cambrian explosion' were typical of any adaptive radiation in life's history. He quotes another prominent paleontologist Andrew Knoll that '20 million years is a long time for organisms that produce a new generation every year or two' without the need to invoke any unknown processes. Going through a list of topics in modern evolutionary biology Meyer used to bolster his idea in the book, Prothero asserts that Meyer, not a paleontologist nor a molecular biologist, does not understand these scientific disciplines, therefore he misinterprets, distorts and confuses the data, all for the purpose of promoting the 'God of the gaps' argument: 'anything that is currently not easily explained by science is automatically attributed to supernatural causes', i.e. intelligent design.
      In his article Doubting "Darwin's Doubt" published in The New Yorker,[41] Gareth Cook discusses that this book is another attempt by the creationist to rekindle the intelligent design movement. Decades of fossil discovery around the world, aided by new computational analytical techniques enable scientists to construct a more complete portrait of the tree of life which was not available to Darwin (hence his 'doubt' in Meyer's words). The contemporary scientific consensus is that there is no 'explosion'. Cook cites Nick Matzke's ana.lysis that the major gaps identified by Meyer are derived from his lack of understanding of the field's key statistical techniques (among other things) and his misleading rearrangement of the tree of life.[42] Cook references scientific literature [43] to refute Meyer's argument that the genetic machinery of life is incapable of big leaps therefore any major biological advancement must be the result of intervention by the 'intelligent designer'. Like Prothero, Cook also criticizes Meyer's proposal that if something cannot be fully explained by today's science, it must be the work of a supreme deity. Calling it a 'masterwork of pseudoscience', Cook warns that the influence of this book should not be underestimated. Cook opines that the book, with Meyer sewing skillfully together the trappings of science, wielding his credential of a Ph.D. (in history of science) from the University of Cambridge, writing in a seemingly serious and reasonable manner, will appeal to a large audience who is hungry for material evidence of God or considers science a conspiracy against spirituality.
      From a different perspective, paleontologist Charles Marshall wrote in his review When Prior Belief Trumps Scholarship published in Science that while trying to build the scientific case for intelligent design, Meyer lets his deep belief to steer his understanding and interpretation of the scientific data and fossil records collected for the Cambrian period. The result (this book) is selective knowledge (scholarship) that is plagued with misrepresentation, omission and dismissal of the scientific consensus; exacerbated by Meyer’s lack of scientific knowledge and superficial understanding in the relevant fields, especially molecular phylogenetics and morphogenesis. The main argument of Meyer is the mathematically impossible time scale that is needed to support emergence of new genes which drive the explosion of new species during the Cambrian period. Marshall points out that the relatively fast appearance of new animal species in this period is not driven by new genes, but rather by evolving from existing genes through 'rewiring' of the gene regulatory networks (GRNs). This basis of morphogenesis is dismissed by Meyer due to his fixation on novel genes and new protein folds as prerequisite of emergence of new species. The root of his bias is his 'God of the gaps' approach to knowledge and the sentimental quest to 'provide solace to those who feel their faith undermined by secular society and by science in particular'.[44]"

      [39] Meyer SC (2013). Darwin’s Doubt. New York: HarperOne. p. 512. ISBN 978-0062071477.
      [40] Prothero, Donald (7 August 2013). "Stephen Meyer's Fumbling Bumbling Amateur Cambrian Follies". The Skeptics Society. Retrieved 13 August 2013.
      [41] Cook, Gareth (2 July 2013). "Doubting "Darwin's Doubt"". The New Yorker. Retrieved 13 August 2013.
      [42] Matzke, Nick (19 June 2013). "Meyer's Hopeless Monster, Part II". Panda’s Thumb. Retrieved 13 August 2013.
      [43] Long, Manyuan; Betran, Esther; Thornton, Kevin; Wang, Wen (2003). "The origin of new genes: glimpses from the young and old". Nature Reviews Genetics (Nature) 4 (11): 865–875. doi:10.1038/nrg1204. PMID 14634634.
      [44] Marshall, Charles (2013). "When Prior Belief Trumps Scholarship". Science (AAAS) 341 (6152): 1344. doi:10.1126/science.1244515

      Notice the recurring theme of misrepresentation....

      August 25, 2014 at 11:59 am |
    • bostontola

      To the scot-bot programmer:

      When is scot-bot 2.0 coming out? The current scot-bot is boring.

      August 25, 2014 at 12:03 pm |
      • hal 9001

        It does appear, bostontola, that the scot-bot's databases, CPU and communication interfaces are very outdated and limited. Its rudimentary Idiomatic Expression Equivalency Module (IEEM) seems to have been loaded with only snide ad hominems.

        August 25, 2014 at 12:28 pm |
        • evidencenot

          "Scot-Bot Re-Loaded"

          August 25, 2014 at 12:40 pm |
    • johnbiggscr

      You know how much you can ignore such a site when their description of 'Intelligent design' spouts the following nonsense:

      'Is intelligent design the same as creationism? No.
      Is intelligent design a scientific theory? Yes'

      Of course it is the same as creationism, and certainly isnt a scientific theory.

      August 25, 2014 at 12:22 pm |
  8. believerfred

    What God is SCREAMING in Ferguson, Missouri

    Moses led slaves in bondage out of Egypt by presenting the truth. The only way out of the bondage of sin is to Love God and love your neighbor as yourself.
    The first step is to love God. Exactly how does one do that if, as the anti theists claim, there is no God. Vision must be given to the people. Moses presented the vision of God he saw in the burning bush. God is; a holy God, a burning holiness, radiant purity more powerful than all the gods of Egypt. Let my people go screamed God through Moses as each of the gods of Egypt where taken down one at a time until Egypt feared God who was with Moses. It took two generations of chosen ones before they all had the same vision of God and with that vision they entered the promised land. They loved God and believed in His power and love for them being set apart from the rest of the world as a special people, a holy people with God in their midst.
    Jesus came and presented the model leadership of loving others as God loves others to the point of laying down your life for your neighbor. Love your neighbor as yourself is to be like Christ.
    It is as simple as that if we want to change humanity for the better. We change ourselves to be more like Christ. It is the plan of creation the will of God for our lives and it begins with a proper vision of God.

    August 25, 2014 at 11:08 am |
    • Dyslexic doG

      pure "cult-speak"

      August 25, 2014 at 11:09 am |
      • believerfred

        More than that. It is the form and substance of God which you cannot deny. The reality is that God is present in his people just as the Bible claims. If you doubt it just look around you everywhere taking note how God is very real indeed. Cult speak is when the anti theist reveals their foundations of belief. Just as Moses took down the gods of Egypt your gods are without power as they are of man. Take your theories of evolution that basically say look cellular life forms have the same basic characteristics..................OMG let me pick myself up off the ground. Look the basic characteristics have been around a really long time.....................OMG let me pick myself up off the ground as you dig up a few more transitional fossils to support the claim cellular life forms have the same basic characteristics.
        Please let me know what your religion of anti theism claims is the purpose of existence.

        August 25, 2014 at 11:32 am |
        • Science Works

          .Hi fred

          And remember fred you used to post ICR links no ?..

          August 25, 2014 at 11:37 am |
        • Doris

          Who said there needs to be a purpose, fred? Purpose in the eyes of who or what?

          August 25, 2014 at 11:37 am |
        • Doris

          (of whom..)

          August 25, 2014 at 11:41 am |
        • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

          "More than that. It is the form and substance of God which you cannot deny"

          That is only because it is the form and substance that you can't validate.

          August 25, 2014 at 11:41 am |
        • igaftr

          fred
          " It is the form and substance of God which you cannot deny."

          Certainly can deny somethings substance and form, when no one can show any substance or form whatsoever.
          You can't show this "god" of exists, so you cannot show any form or substance...just like all imaginary things.

          August 25, 2014 at 11:54 am |
        • atlantic9

          I have higher standards than to be like any of the gods.

          There is no need of any of the thousands of gods but if it makes someone happy to believe then go for it. Just keep your religion out of the laws of the land.

          August 25, 2014 at 11:57 am |
        • believerfred

          atlantic9
          Sorry, but they are part of our existence and part of our reality. Exactly what is it you love so that is threatened by the purity of God?

          August 25, 2014 at 12:12 pm |
        • believerfred

          igaftr
          In the ancient days the enemies of Israel did not fear the God of Israel they feared Israel because God was with them. That one form and substance of God should be sufficient for anyone and that form and substance is present to this very day in those who truly love God and love others as themselves.
          Do you claim you have never seen this form or substance in another?

          August 25, 2014 at 12:19 pm |
        • believerfred

          Blessed are the Cheesemakers
          "That is only because it is the form and substance that you can't validate."
          =>sure I can, give me your address and I'll come give you a hug

          August 25, 2014 at 12:21 pm |
        • midwest rail

          " Do you claim you have never seen this form or substance in another? "

          Certainly not on these pages.

          August 25, 2014 at 12:24 pm |
        • johnbiggscr

          'Please let me know what your religion of anti theism claims is the purpose of existence.'

          There is no purpose to it, other than what we ourselves decide to assign to it.

          August 25, 2014 at 12:24 pm |
        • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

          If you think a hug validates your claim of form and substance you have bigger issues than I realized.

          August 25, 2014 at 12:25 pm |
        • believerfred

          Doris
          "Who said there needs to be a purpose, fred? Purpose in the eyes of who or what?"
          =>there is purpose onto man which Eve went after in the tree which is deception of knowledge of good and evil. This can be summarized today as the purpose and meaning anti theists claim their life has
          =>purpose greater than man has a sense of agency greater than man. That purpose is always seen as above our purpose and on mountain tops never below (Satan worshipers excluded ). That purpose speaks to transcendence of our physical and addresses humility in understanding there is something greater, much greater than self.

          August 25, 2014 at 12:30 pm |
        • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

          "In the ancient days the enemies of Israel did not fear the God of Israel they feared Israel because God was with them."

          Unless they had Iron Chariots...

          "And the LORD was with Judah; and he drave out the inhabitants of the mountain; but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron."
          — Judges 1:19

          August 25, 2014 at 12:33 pm |
        • TruthPrevails1

          "sure I can, give me your address and I'll come give you a hug"

          What a nasty image...this creepy old man showing up at your door and a crazy, disrespectful one at that.
          Does the nursing home let you go for many visits?

          August 25, 2014 at 12:35 pm |
        • believerfred

          johnbiggscr
          "There is no purpose to it, other than what we ourselves decide to assign to it."
          =>So then why intentionally limit your purpose to the physical like say a Whale. The whale swims, eats, breaths, has young that they raise and carry a great tune.............

          August 25, 2014 at 12:36 pm |
        • johnbiggscr

          'believerfred
          =>So then why intentionally limit your purpose to the physical like say a Whale. The whale swims, eats, breaths, has young that they raise and carry a great tune............."

          You can claim whatever you want for your purpose, there just isn't an overarching one to existence.

          August 25, 2014 at 12:40 pm |
        • igaftr

          fred
          "Do you claim you have never seen this form or substance in another?"
          Never. I have seen nonsensical baseless belief in others. Imaginary things do not have form or substance.
          And by the way, all armies believe god is with them...just more superst!tious nonsense.

          August 25, 2014 at 12:42 pm |
        • Tom, Tom, the Other One

          Why are people expected to be comforted because everything has a purpose under God? What, for example, is the purpose of the sport of dog fighting under God? And should the animals feel grateful that they are part of a larger plan? Fred, sometimes it just sucks to be part of God's plan.

          August 25, 2014 at 12:42 pm |
        • Doris

          fred: "there is purpose onto man which Eve went after in the tree which is deception of knowledge of good and evil. This can be summarized today as the purpose and meaning anti theists claim their life has"

          OK – well that's obviously part of your belief. I don't believe that.

          fred: "purpose greater than man has a sense of agency greater than man. That purpose is always seen as above our purpose and on mountain tops never below (Satan worshipers excluded ). That purpose speaks to transcendence of our physical and addresses humility in understanding there is something greater, much greater than self."

          OK – again that's part of your belief. But I don't believe a divine purpose, this notion stemming from ancient belief, needs to exist for one to have respect for everything that is part of our shared existence.

          August 25, 2014 at 12:43 pm |
        • LaBella

          Fred,
          At what point did you decide you were going to be born human instead of a whale?

          August 25, 2014 at 12:43 pm |
        • evidencenot

          A "whale" is real (reality) Fred. God is not. So sorry you can't see the difference between imagination and reality.

          August 25, 2014 at 12:43 pm |
        • believerfred

          TruthPrevails1
          Not to worry, first I will send some Jehovah's Witnesses to let you know only 144,000 get to heaven, then I send two Mormons on a bike who will offer you your own planet and when I show with forgiveness of sin you will embrace me with open arms.

          August 25, 2014 at 12:48 pm |
        • LaBella

          You think you are the one who forgives sin, Fred? Whoa.

          August 25, 2014 at 12:53 pm |
        • TruthPrevails1

          Funny fred! Once again, sin is an imaginary disease and given that It is, I have no reason to worry. You worry about your own small one-man world and I'll worry about min. When you start paying my bills then my life will be of concern to you, until then it isn't...is that too hard for you to understand?
          Why is it so difficult for you to show respect to others that may not agree with you? Why the need to pretend you speak for this god? Why the arrogance?

          August 25, 2014 at 1:00 pm |
        • believerfred

          evidencenot
          "A "whale" is real (reality) Fred. God is not. So sorry you can't see the difference between imagination and reality."
          =>Reality is that if you want to see God you must be able to hear the testimony of Jonah who was in the belly of a whale for 3 days.
          =>Here is what anti theists do not understand. The absolute truth of God is not about the physicality of the whale but the reality that the word of God was given by Jonah to the people of Nineveh who upon hearing it repented and followed God.
          =>No imagination necessary it happened and it happens every second of every day. People are blessed by the word of God and lives are transformed by the word of God.
          =>while you are busy looking for the beginning where science is barred further knowledge at the Planck epoch the actual beginning was with the word and the word was with God.

          August 25, 2014 at 1:00 pm |
        • tallulah131

          The exodus myth has been fairly well debunked by archeology, so you might as well be talking about Gandalf leading the Fellowship through Mordor.

          August 25, 2014 at 1:17 pm |
        • believerfred

          TruthPrevails1
          I fail to see how forgiveness of sin is any disrespect as that is what Jesus accomplished on the cross. I understand how the concept of sin rubs many the wrong way. Unfortunately it is sin that keeps us from the presence of God in our lives. You are an atheist and take it personal when I say rejecting God is the one sin that brings eternal consequences. You can ignore the word sin if it bothers you because it does not change anything as it is rejecting God that is the cause and eternal consequence is the effect. Nothing personal it is like the law of gravity where if you fall you hit ground regardless of your opinion is towards gravity.

          August 25, 2014 at 1:23 pm |
        • TruthPrevails1

          fred: Stop twisting things! What is disrespectful is YOU pulling the ARROGANCE card and THINKING you speak for your imaginary friend god. It doesn't matter what your bible says, not all of us are living in the 1st century some of us have moved to the 21st century and take responsibility for judging (as you do) without hiding behind an out-dated book that has been proven fallacious (as you do). You obviously don't truly care about humanity, just ensuring your imaginary friend is appeased by you blindly following it. You need help for your delusions....please seek it and be a better human.

          August 25, 2014 at 1:28 pm |
        • atlantic9

          There are no gods fred no evidence for them at all, and if there were evidence they would not be my gods. They are all figments of the imagination that some misguided & ignorant fools believe should laws governing all people should be made around.

          August 25, 2014 at 1:34 pm |
        • believerfred

          tallulah131
          "The exodus myth has been fairly well debunked by archeology"
          =>even Richard Dawkins the high priest of the atheist religion has admited there is no evidence to support atheism or lack of agency in creation. There is no evidence to support spontaneous creation. Even the once touted existence out of a quantum flux has been proven false by existence of dark energy. I am amazed how many people still believe this myth.
          =>Given our current experience with destruction of artifacts by ISIS, Taliban etc. I would be surprised we find any evidence if present behavior is typical of past. The Egyptians got rid of everything associated with the Hebrew God who embarrassed their gods and killed their first born. There are also new digs in progress along a different path Moses may have taken. The Hebrew carried with them all the remnants after Egypt cleaned house.
          =>anti theists also claimed no evidence of the Old Testament until the dead Sea Scrolls were found
          =>anti theists claimed no evidence of King David then oopps we found a temple footing attesting to David
          =>In short it has not been debunked. but there is an army of special interests trying to do just that.

          August 25, 2014 at 1:49 pm |
        • believerfred

          atlantic9
          My guess is that God is not in favor of a one religion world given the direct lesson from the Tower of Babble. God allowed Ishmael and Issac thousands of years ago to form nations that conflict as to belief (Jews and Muslims). Man according to Jesus and history corrupt the truth and religion to suit their power needs and are just as bad as any other institution.

          The actual existence of God in the past is immaterial as of this moment since nothing would change. Outside of this physical presence at this point in time and space there either is or is not some form of transcendence. A very small minority of people do not sense the existence of something greater than self. Sensing or not sensing something greater than self does not affect that something although it may have effect. The Bible reflects the understanding of that presence through the revelation of God in the history of the Hebrew then the New testament following Christ. Other beliefs do the same.

          The most important thing is to never limit your potential to experience God real or imagined.

          August 25, 2014 at 2:09 pm |
        • believerfred

          TruthPrevails1
          God has not changed in 20 centuries. It is no more arrogant for me to quote the Bible than for the anti theists to quote the same tired Dawkins sound bites from militantatheist.com

          August 25, 2014 at 2:13 pm |
        • johnbiggscr

          'God has not changed in 20 centuries. '

          The religion has though. The same bible used today is the same one used during the time of the inquisition, salem witch trials, support of slavery, etc. Trying to use the bible as somehow some final word on something is kind of pointless if people can, and do, interpret what it says in different ways.

          August 25, 2014 at 2:25 pm |
        • believerfred

          johnbiggscr
          Yes, man takes the word of God and twists it to suit man. I would not doubt most if not all religions have done this. Jesus had no shortage of correction for those who were, since the time of Moses, tasked with bringing forward the word of God.

          August 25, 2014 at 3:06 pm |
        • believerfred

          johnbiggscr
          "... salem witch trials, support of slavery, etc. Trying to use the bible as somehow some final word on something is kind of pointless if people can, and do, interpret what it says in different ways."
          =>In most cases support of slavery etc. happen when mans personal agenda is driving the search for truth. Context, time, place and purpose of the author must be taken into account. The Bible does not conflict with itself and there are few contradictions when viewed as intended. Slavery is a prime example where any abusive thought or actions against another is wrong and is sin. Even before the new testament when Moses noted a few verses regarding treatment of slave we see the entire chapter is subject to never being abusive towards slaves as the Egyptians were towards them. God sets you free from such oppression.

          August 25, 2014 at 3:31 pm |
        • tallulah131

          Fred? I don't care what Richard Dawkins says. He doesn't think for me. And your interpretation of science has no bearing on what I think. I listen to the experts, not a believer futility trying to make a case for his specific god.

          You have no proof that the Egyptians destroyed anything. You are simply making excuses because you lack evidence to support your claims. Any one of those plagues would have weakened Egypt and that certainly would have been noted even if they did not include your god. Absolutely the loss of a generation of sons would have been noted. The loss of a large population of slaves would have and effect on the economy and that would have left evidence. Archeology is more than just official writing. It's garbage, it's pot sherds, it's graffiti, it's bone fragments. There is no evidence that there was a large population of jewish slaves. There is no evidence the the exodus occurred. Sorry. You believe because you want to believe. Not because it is true.

          August 25, 2014 at 5:54 pm |
        • believerfred

          tallulah13
          If Akhenaten was the abusive Pharaoh then the exodus comes together about 1330 BC under Tutankhamun. A little digging and we see Akhenaten had no sons so Tutankhamun the son in law assumed power, Ra (sun god), Hapig(god of the Nile), Kermit, (fertility goddess of frogspawn) Osiris, (corn god) hit with locusts all these scientifically proven accounts fit the Exodus account where Moses sets of the frogs, locusts, darkness, blood red Nile.
          I will agree with you we do not know if this was the pharaoh of Exodus or not or if the Hebrew were the hundreds of thousands of slaves who made the mud bricks of that city . But I can guarantee you that if Gilgamesh had freed these slaves you would have claimed Moses stole the story.

          August 25, 2014 at 6:32 pm |
        • believerfred

          tallulah131
          You are correct in that I believe without scientific evidence and I believe the Exodus story for what it says not for its archaeology where it is not given in the Bible. If someday we have proof that it never happened just as with the flood story then I would ask how does this new information change the Word of God. It does not as the stories stand on their own with or without evidence.
          Do you not see that the power of a living God is not effected retrospectively by the discovery of subsequent data? We once thought the universe was 25 million years old and subsequently it was 14 billion. Tell me how that affected your life or the salvation of your soul? Will you forever bash the people that came before Hubble? If we discover the exodus took place on the other side of the red sea would that really matter?

          August 25, 2014 at 6:43 pm |
    • Alias

      So Moses led them out of slavery,
      and they went north for a while,
      then settled down and starting taking slaves from surrounding tribes.
      That sounds a lot like the way the jews were trated in Europe,
      before they went back to Israel and started killing the people who had sellted there.
      History repeating itself something something.....

      August 25, 2014 at 11:17 am |
      • believerfred

        The bondage is sin and we see all factions in the current Middle East Conflicts are slaves to the sword. Live by the sword and die by the sword is where they are.

        August 25, 2014 at 11:36 am |
        • igaftr

          complete nonsense fred. Most of the people there do not live by any swords...most are non-combatants.

          How did your view of the world get so twisted fred?
          Were you like that before your religious indoctrination, or was your brainwashing complete before you turned adolescent?

          Thatnk you very much fred, for showing the inherent dangers of nonsensical baseless belief.

          August 25, 2014 at 12:13 pm |
    • Doris

      Like Alias said, fred.

      I could say, let's make Ward Cleaver our absolute model for the right way. "Ward is the Way" – that's got a nice ring to it. But that character wasn't perfect, of course. And a lot of young folk don't even know who Ward is, but it might be easier to show them. But then that wouldn't be fair to everyone and sooner or later, a law would probably be passed – rightfully so – to get rid of the forced showing of Leave It To Beaver episodes as part of the school curriculum. Also, many kids might just get thrown off course by the absence of color in those shows.

      It would really be better to start off with "to love your neighbor as yourself" as the first and foremost step. I think if that's the first step, then – even if your God helps you maintain that, then I would think you're not as likely to get off course in an odd way as we see some Christians do (Uganda anyone?). But if loving your God comes first, well – that leaves a lot of room within the various interpretations to find funny ways of loving "your neighbor".

      August 25, 2014 at 11:32 am |
      • believerfred

        Doris
        It appears part of Gods plan to put a little Eddie Haskel in everyone's life as we move from black and white images into the full color spectrum that is the image of God. To those hung up on evolution our progression is one where Ward and June fell victim to natural selection with Miley Cyrus is the new and improved June. This goes against absolute truth and God who does not change (can't improve on perfect holiness) .
        The ancients were faced with the same choice of holiness or the world (symbolized by Egypt). The image of God is not Ward Cleaver or the blue eyed grandfather in all the various paintings but it is hope, hope in a promised land, an absolute of;purity, power, knowledge, justice but most of all love. The plan of creation is for us to get this vision and realize how short we fall, realize we need God (this image) and without God cannot achieve the vision.
        Lucifer fell because he lost sight of that vision as did Adam, Eve you and I.
        I think what you are saying is forget blue eyes and get with the vision. I agree because we were made in the image of God and over time forget what that is.

        August 25, 2014 at 11:59 am |
        • Doris

          "June fell victim to natural selection with Miley Cyrus is the new and improved June."

          lol. I enjoyed your response, fred. Regarding June < - > Miley, I don't think that qualifies as an example of a transitional form. Maybe if you call it natural $election; lol.

          August 25, 2014 at 12:17 pm |
      • tallulah131

        I really like "Ward is the Way". It's rather fun to say. Rather like "Jack is Lord".

        August 25, 2014 at 1:23 pm |
        • believerfred

          I am the Ward your God you shall have no other gods before me.

          August 25, 2014 at 3:34 pm |
        • tallulah131

          Good one, fred!

          August 25, 2014 at 5:55 pm |
    • joey3467

      Moses led slaves in bondage out of Egypt by presenting the truth. The only way out of the bondage of sin is to Love God and love your neighbor as yourself.

      Actually there is absolutely zero evidence to back that up, and thus it most likely never happened.

      August 25, 2014 at 11:33 am |
      • believerfred

        joey
        You can claim that but even the best of atheist uses the principles set down by Moses as to the importance of vision in leadership and the need to have your people become part of the vision and see that vision. Godlessness is not the vision and has no vision. Godlessness has no vision of holiness, no vision of purity, no vision of hope based on faith, no vision of purpose to existence and no vision of life outside that of a frog. The Egyptians had Frog gods also that were helpless against the vision of God presented by Moses.

        August 25, 2014 at 12:08 pm |
        • joey3467

          Fred, it is a made up story that never happened, so I don't really know what you are talking about.

          August 25, 2014 at 12:16 pm |
        • TruthPrevails1

          Such baseless claims fred! You can't possibly know what hope we have, what our view on life is...you're merely making assumptions based on what you've been force-fed by your cult. You and Austin suffer from delusions of grandeur and perhaps you two could ask to share a rubber-room together at the asylum.

          August 25, 2014 at 12:38 pm |
        • evidencenot

          Fred pulls these ridiculous statements out of thin air..... or maybe someplace else..

          August 25, 2014 at 12:48 pm |
        • igaftr

          fred
          "Godlessness is not the vision and has no vision. Godlessness has no vision of holiness, no vision of purity, no vision of hope based on faith, no vision of purpose to existence and no vision of life outside that of a frog.'

          It also does not come with the delusions that you mentioned.

          August 25, 2014 at 12:53 pm |
  9. Robert Brown

    Atheists have no reason to believe in God. There is no evidence of, or for God. The Bible is full of impossibility, improbabilities, and inconsistencies. It was obviously a product of human imagination. Organized religions are full of hate, corruption, and greed. If there were such a thing as a loving God, the world would not contain evil.
    Believers, on the other hand, have reasons to believe. The most convincing of reasons is a supernatural salvation experience. Their belief is affirmed and reaffirmed throughout their journey with God by answered prayer and intense spiritual blessings.

    August 25, 2014 at 10:56 am |
    • igaftr

      RB
      "Their belief is affirmed and reaffirmed throughout their journey with God by answered prayer and intense spiritual blessings."

      So their belief is re-affirmed by their belief...that is also known as self-delusion.

      August 25, 2014 at 11:05 am |
      • Robert Brown

        Igaftr,
        Belief is reaffirmed by experience.

        August 25, 2014 at 1:13 pm |
        • igaftr

          RB
          Since none of those experiences can be directly attributed to any "god", and since there are many , many other possibilities for those experiences, all they are doing is self-affirming baseless belief. My statement stands correctly.

          August 25, 2014 at 1:23 pm |
        • Robert Brown

          Igaftr,

          I believe that you currently believe what you stated. There is one way you could find out for sure.

          August 25, 2014 at 1:36 pm |
        • joey3467

          Keep in mind that if you do as Robert suggests and don't come to the same conclusion as him then you did it wrong.

          August 25, 2014 at 1:53 pm |
        • dandintac

          "Belief is reaffirmed by experience."

          Robert–does this hold true for other religions as well? If not, why not? How can experience be considered valid evidence for your claims, but invalid for the claims of those who follow the god Vishnu?

          And if experience is equally valid for belief in all gods, do you accept that they all have an equal basis in reality? How could they all exist–especially since most of them make incompatible claims, or claims of being the only God?

          Finally, would you accept this sort of "evidence" for any other big claim, or a claim where we are expected to believe that the Laws of Physics are suspended in order for the claim to work? If someone claimed they had an invisible incorporeal dragon in their garage, what sort of evidence would you want before you would accept this claim?

          August 26, 2014 at 12:53 am |
    • Alias

      So what you are saying is that peopel with vivid imaginations are more likely to be christians?
      I have to agree that is one factor.
      How else could you think a perfect god wrote a book full of impossibility, improbabilities, and inconsistencies.

      August 25, 2014 at 11:10 am |
      • Robert Brown

        Alias,
        Having read and studied the bible for a few years, I think the problems folks think they have with the bible are in many cases lack of understanding on their part.

        August 25, 2014 at 1:14 pm |
        • tallulah131

          Actually, the bible has so many inconsistencies that there are websites dedicated to recording them. I think the problem is on your part; You deliberately blind yourself to the problem because you don't want to admit that the bible is a deeply flawed document.

          August 25, 2014 at 1:19 pm |
        • Alias

          The only way to defend the bible is to blame the reader.
          Kermit4jc has done this repeatedly.
          If you read the bible with te unquestioning belief that it is perfect, then your only possible conclusion is that you're not reading it right.
          The truth is that there are errors in the bible. Factual errors and stories that just could not be true. There are also several logical errors/impossibilities that must be justified in a similar way.

          August 25, 2014 at 1:24 pm |
        • Robert Brown

          Tallulah,
          There are also websites where you can find answers to the questions posed by the claimed inconsistencies, if you are interested.

          August 25, 2014 at 1:26 pm |
        • Robert Brown

          Alias,
          Stories that just could not be true.

          Ultimately, if you can accept no possibility of the miraculous, could you believe in God?

          August 25, 2014 at 1:30 pm |
        • tallulah131

          There are all sorts of sites that make excuses for the inconsistencies of the bible, Robert, and I'm sure you've read them all. But all the spin in the world does not alter the reality: the bible is a deeply flawed document, full of inconsistencies and fabrications.

          August 25, 2014 at 1:33 pm |
        • Robert Brown

          Tallulah,
          I think it all really devolves into opinion, regardless of the site, for or against. Who you gonna believe?

          August 25, 2014 at 1:38 pm |
        • Alias

          Robert,
          Please explain how christians believed the world was flat and immobile for 1700 years, because the bible said so.
          Forget Noah's boat,
          The Garden of Eden,
          Living in a fish for 3 days,
          Satan existing,
          The slavery,
          The changing morals,
          The contradictions,
          The need to kill jesus,
          The fact that bible scholars cannot agree to what it says

          August 25, 2014 at 1:39 pm |
        • tallulah131

          Robert, I'm going to believe the people that quote the book directly, not the people who make up excuses. But you go ahead and believe what you need to.

          August 25, 2014 at 1:43 pm |
        • TruthPrevails1

          Robert: For you it is confirmation bias...all it needs to do is slightly meld with your bible or what you think is your god and you accept it as truth. To admit there are ginormous issues within the belief system, would be for you to question your belief and for some people that thought is truly frightening, as I imagine it would be for you. You're probably surrounded by like minded people...probably the same people you grew up with, probably attending the same church you attended growing up...so exposure to others who don't share your opinion has been very limited but we can count on the fact that you have had it rammed in to your head over and over about how everyone else is wrong and your ilk are not. Mob mentality is what keeps Christians the sheep they are.

          August 25, 2014 at 2:04 pm |
    • lunchbreaker

      "supernatural salvation experience"

      That's the only way I see myself becoming a theist. I don't see myself converting to a religion because some one cuts and pastes an article claiming evolution to be false or someone arguing about dino soft tissue.

      August 25, 2014 at 11:24 am |
      • Robert Brown

        True lunchbreaker, those who are scientists or interested in science aren’t going to be drawn to seek God by arguments against science. I have read testimonies of scientists who became interested in seeking God through discoveries in their field.

        August 25, 2014 at 1:15 pm |
        • In Santa We Trust

          They still have no evidence of a god and they do have evidence discrediting the creation myths of all religions.

          August 25, 2014 at 1:18 pm |
        • Robert Brown

          Santa,
          In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

          Please provide the evidence that says this is not true. Thanks.

          August 25, 2014 at 1:33 pm |
        • Dyslexic doG

          what? prove that your imaginary sky daddy does not exist? LOLOLOL

          prove that a 3 legged pink fluffy unicorn isn't orbiting the moon. prove that the tooth fairy or santa or the easter bunny don't exist?

          the onus is on the person making a claim for the existence of something for which there is absolutely no evidence. the onus is on YOU and your infantile slave mind to prove that despite all evidence to the contrary, there is a god.

          and please stick to just the facts ... a retreat to mysticism is the first refuge of the cornered fool.

          August 25, 2014 at 1:45 pm |
        • tallulah131

          The utter lack of evidence for the existence of gods speaks for itself. The fact that every culture has it's own gods to explain the existence of the universe indicates that humans have been inventing gods for a very long time.

          August 25, 2014 at 1:48 pm |
    • mk

      "Their belief is affirmed and reaffirmed throughout their journey with God by answered prayer and intense spiritual blessings."

      What if the prayer is not answered? Or what if I pray to a jar of pickles and the prayer is answered? Who answered it? What if "intense spiritual blessings" are attained by those who don't pray or believe in a god?

      August 25, 2014 at 11:35 am |
      • Robert Brown

        Mk, we can, what if, anything to death. We are told to try the spirits to determine whether they are of God, or not. So, there are other spirits.

        August 25, 2014 at 1:16 pm |
        • tallulah131

          A nice vodka is my preferred spirit. Although I recently purchased a very lovely bottle of gin.

          August 25, 2014 at 1:20 pm |
        • mk

          OR! you could use your common sense and realize that its all been made up.

          August 26, 2014 at 10:48 am |
    • kudlak

      Robert
      How do you know when a "supernatural salvation experience" is not some delusion? After all, there is a whole lot of discussion about such things within the Christian community, and much anticipation for many to have theirs. The average pre-saved believer hears many conversion stories prior to experiencing his, so isn't it a distinct possibility that many are simply convincing themselves that they've had such an experience? If five year olds are telling how they experienced their supernatural salvation experience, how reliable can the process be?

      August 25, 2014 at 11:55 am |
      • Robert Brown

        Kudlak,
        That is a legitimate concern. We are told that each person much work out their own salvation. In other words, each person should be fully persuaded. The way to be fully persuaded is to take your pet.ition to God. He will let you know if you have the real thing, or not. Jesus wants us to try him, if he does what he has promised this generates confidence. This confidence gives peace and assurance.

        August 25, 2014 at 1:19 pm |
        • kudlak

          Robert Brown
          Each person could be fully persuaded if it's actually them creating the delusion that something supernatural happened to them, correct? Taking your pet.ition to God really means praying on the subject, which itself cannot be distinguished from you talking to some part of yourself, so you can easily persuade yourself that God had communicated with you and sent you some sign. I really don't see how you could ever rule out delusion with this.

          August 26, 2014 at 11:50 am |
  10. Dyslexic doG

    if there is an omnipotent and omniscient being that created the universe then it certainly wouldn't be concerned with the bible's endless primitive rules about what you can wear and who you can sleep with and how to treat slaves and what crops to plant and what tribes to slaughter so on. It wouldn't be concerned with punishing people in the most heinous way for any errant thought they might have in their lives.

    Your bronze age book is an insult to any god that exists. You need to decide whether you worship an omnipotent and omniscient god or an ancient book written by primitive man. Perhaps if all religions moved past their ancient books of nasty and their primitive rituals and focused on a pure being, we might be in a much better world.

    August 25, 2014 at 10:48 am |
  11. awanderingscot

    Flores Bones Show Features of Down Syndrome, Not a New 'Hobbit' Human
    Aug. 4, 2014 — In October 2004, excavation of fragmentary skeletal remains from the island of Flores in Indonesia yielded what was called 'the most important find in human evolution for 100 years.

    – http://www.sciencedaily.com/news/fossils_ruins/human_evolution/
    – as usual, evolutionists are wrong again. Imagine that, Downs Syndrome existed waaaaaay back then. LOL.

    August 25, 2014 at 10:28 am |
    • In Santa We Trust

      Do you have any evidence for creationism?

      August 25, 2014 at 10:44 am |
    • igaftr

      How does that refute evolution? The fact that downs syndrome exists, shows one of the mechanisms that causes evolution to occur.

      What evidence do you have for the creation hypothesis?

      August 25, 2014 at 10:50 am |
    • awanderingscot

      In October 2004, excavation of fragmentary skeletal remains from the island of Flores in Indonesia yielded what was called 'the most important find in human evolution for 100 years.

      – Evolution is full of hoaxes, half-truths, and lies. This is yet another example.

      August 25, 2014 at 10:58 am |
      • igaftr

        scot
        That does not refute evolution. Not even close. Not lies, not half truths, but evidence. This is why science requires peer review...to eliminate mis interpretations and errors.

        Where , again, is your evidence for the creation hypothesis?

        August 25, 2014 at 11:02 am |
      • In Santa We Trust

        Do you have any evidence for creationism?

        August 25, 2014 at 11:19 am |
    • LaBella

      Wouldn't that rather prove that science is self-correcting?

      August 25, 2014 at 11:26 am |
    • johnbiggscr

      'as usual, evolutionists are wrong again. Imagine that, Downs Syndrome existed waaaaaay back then. LOL.'

      Well seeing as the guy who published the article isnt an expert in the field, picked his own peer review team, and the article has been widely criticized by the scientific community, I wouldnt make claims like that just yet skippy.

      August 25, 2014 at 12:42 pm |
  12. Løki

    Religion: Because thinking is HARD...

    August 25, 2014 at 10:17 am |
    • awanderingscot

      Paganism. Because not using the heart and mind is much too easy. Wooden dolls are easier to carve and worship.

      August 25, 2014 at 10:30 am |
      • Dyslexic doG

        Oh the irony!

        Coming from a person who worships a polytheistic religion that has been completely transformed by pagan dates, stories, rituals and beliefs over the years in a desperate search for membership.

        What a joke you are!

        August 25, 2014 at 10:37 am |
        • awanderingscot

          For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man—and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things. – Romans 1:20-23, NKJV

          – so basically you are on the level of an animal.

          August 25, 2014 at 10:45 am |
        • Løki

          @awanderingdolt – LET's Religiosity Law #14 – If you use words and phrases like: "Insert whatever whack-job, derived from a bible verse, comment they just made.” Then be aware that you have declared yourself a dumbass … and your opinion is categorized accordingly.

          August 25, 2014 at 10:48 am |
        • Dyslexic doG

          Sir Scott ... that was nothing but a cowardly dodge.

          August 25, 2014 at 10:53 am |
        • awanderingscot

          not a dodge at all, it's explains why you are the way you are.

          August 25, 2014 at 10:56 am |
        • Dyslexic doG

          keeeeep dodging ...

          August 25, 2014 at 11:11 am |
        • Doris

          Nonsense, Scotty. It's really no surprise that you gravitate toward the NT's most sanctimonious hearsay author to help you maintain your tunnel vision.

          You know the people who assembled the NT really shouldn't have argued so much over Peter 2 if they really wanted people to have faith in Paul as a messenger from the God of Abraham. That's the place where apostle Peter allegedly gives his blessing to Paul's works as divine scripture. Of course, most NT scholars now give good reason for the unlikeliness of Peter 2 being authored by Peter.

          August 25, 2014 at 11:13 am |
  13. niknakk

    Same reason liberals are more tolerant of minorities, gender equality, ses ual equality, same s marriage and legalizing Mary.
    Rupubs, have this obsession with trying to make us all go back to the '50s, 1850s that is.

    August 24, 2014 at 10:51 pm |
    • Alias

      The christians had/have a strong influence on the cultutre of this country.
      The largely christian republicans are trying to keep that control.

      August 25, 2014 at 11:23 am |
  14. jknbt

    Tolerance of Evil is not a Good Thing

    http://heartoftn.net/users/gary27/SinOf.htm

    http://www.bulletininserts.org/bulletininsert.aspx?bulletininsert_id=113

    http://www.patheos.com/blogs/godandthemachine/2012/03/evil-talks-about-tolerance-only-when-it-is-weak/

    http://www.tbm.org/should_not_christians_be_tolerant.htm

    take a look. intelligent response invited

    August 24, 2014 at 8:16 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Other One

      I've seen evil. Sick and frightened people, or people who'd simply been misled, flocking around an altar looking for things promised by a corrupt evangelist. They were willing, desperate even, to surrender everything in return for it. They were filled with love and trust for the man. I remember he had perfect hair.

      August 24, 2014 at 8:51 pm |
    • tallulah131

      When you use religion rather than reality to define "evil", you've already lost the battle. Common sense and common good are the proper arbiters of what is to be considered "evil". If we still used your bible, we'd still be burning witches (like some christians in Africa still do). Thankfully, this nation was created so that religion is no longer the deciding factor when creating laws.

      Your religion is your private business. It has no legal bearing on the laws of this land.

      August 24, 2014 at 9:01 pm |
      • austin929

        Hey talullah..............you are good at making points. I give you that.

        but saying that we would be burning witches....or that we would exhume Hitlers body and use it as a rallying point for Christianity is not so intelligent. would you care to interpret the new testament for me?

        are you talking about the gospel..? whos gospel are you talking about Talullah and just state that for us,.............who's gospel and what is that gospel?

        August 24, 2014 at 11:02 pm |
      • austin929

        talullah.........................you have no right to represent the bible like that. If you want to represent Judaism.....fine..........but I can honestly tell you not to attempt to represent the new testament the way you did.

        That is slander of the most High God.

        August 24, 2014 at 11:05 pm |
        • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

          "That is slander of the most High God."

          Sacred cows make the best hamburger.

          August 24, 2014 at 11:29 pm |
        • tallulah131

          Austin: I have no idea why you are obsessed with Hitler.

          Right now in Africa, christians are killing people accused of being witches. Right now in Africa, your religion is being used as an excuse to commit atrocities. I don't give a shit about your god. Even if there were a shred of evidence to indicate your god exists (which there is not), I wouldn't worship such a petty monster. I think it's pathetic that you ignore reality because it interferes with your fantasy. Grow up.

          August 25, 2014 at 12:32 am |
        • TruthPrevails1

          Austin: Silly child, you need help. You can't slander the imaginary.
          This little piece describes you almost perfectly:
          "People with a delusion of grandeur often have the conviction of having some great but unrecognized talent or insight. They may also believe they have made some important discovery that others don’t understand or appreciate." http://psychcentral.com/encyclopedia/2008/delusion-of-grandeur/
          Now after reading that you should be turning off your computer and seeking help...obviously you're suffering from a form of mental illness.

          August 25, 2014 at 6:16 am |
        • Science Works

          Come on Austin – the old barn cat still chasing tail ? But talking about tail you should read this ? the se-x thingy Austin.

          http://newsdaily.com/2014/08/20/our-life-with-the-neanderthals-was-no-brief-affair/

          August 25, 2014 at 8:36 am |
        • igaftr

          austin
          ".........................you have no right to represent the bible like that

          Everyone has the right to represent that pack of myths any way they choose.
          Also, since it is written it is libel, not slander.
          Men wrote your book...you don't seem to have a problem with other people writing, changing and editing the myths, so why would you think you have some authority to tell others they can't do it?

          August 25, 2014 at 8:46 am |
      • jknbt

        tallulah- people have morals and expect to be treated fairly (and rightly so)
        all laws are based on ideas of public morality
        religion teaches morality
        therefore all laws are based on religion
        this includes humanists' religions or humanist religious philosophy or even atheist philososphy
        so keep your religion private too, okay? and don't force your humanistic morals and religions on people of conscience who cannot abide the corruptions and evils of the end times apostacy. don't go around telling the hobby lobby owners that they are obligated by federal law to go against their conscience by making them pay for their employees to abort (murder) their unwanted children, a typical humanist law. even the liberal supreme court didn't buy into that one. so keep your humanist laws off of the backs of christians and other people of conscience.

        August 25, 2014 at 11:19 am |
        • igaftr

          "therefore all laws are based on religion"

          Patently false.
          Humanity exists and was written into your religion and our civil laws.
          No religions are needed to have laws.

          We are also finding out that our humanity is an evolved trait, as many other animals have variations on morality

          August 25, 2014 at 11:28 am |
        • LaBella

          What do you think of a law that would require people to adopt the births they want to force? Wouldn't that be an elegant solution? If not, why not?

          *disclaimer: I do not condone this. I'm just throwing it out there.

          August 25, 2014 at 11:32 am |
        • jknbt

          hey Iggy....the first thing God tried with humans was the law of conscience. There was only one rule back then (don't eat of the tree of knowledge), and guess what? As soon as God took a break from walking in the garden, the first humans broke the only rule.

          Adam's fall introduced the general cussedness that is in all of us called original sin. It is the proclivity to do wrong, sometimes just for the fun of it.

          Sad to say, sometimes animals are more moral than humans. Anyone who has known the loyalty of a dog or seen a mama cat go into a burning house to rescue her kittens understands that.

          Humans still have a little natural morality in them. It is sometimes called the Law of Common Sense. This law says don't do things that will do you harm like drinking to excess. If it was universally followed all the time, we would still be in the Garden.

          August 25, 2014 at 5:04 pm |
    • bostontola

      What is more evil, an honest person that feels no God, or a devout religious person (e.g. ISIS) who kills in their God's name?

      August 24, 2014 at 10:50 pm |
      • austin929

        I caught someone on utube twisting the words around on a bible verse so that it sayed that Israel had to be completely restored before Christ returns..............and they added in the words "completely, and before"

        and now I am going to have to get someone who has a gift for discernment to help me

        August 24, 2014 at 10:55 pm |
      • austin929

        Acts 3
        20 And he shall send Jesus Christ, which before was preached unto you:

        21 Whom the heaven must receive until the times of rest.itution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began.

        the guy was saying that this restoration has to happen before Christ returns.........is that what that says?

        August 24, 2014 at 10:58 pm |
        • TruthPrevails1

          41000 sects and every believer has their own interpretation...so your own may not even be right. Stop judging people and start being a better human...you are ill and need help.

          August 25, 2014 at 6:18 am |
        • ragansteve1

          Austen, The only Biblical "prediction" of when the end will come is in Matthew 24, at least as far as I am concerned. There is no date, and no final sign. But many things will happen, and then . . .

          "9 “Then you will be handed over to be persecuted and put to death, and you will be hated by all nations because of me. 10 At that time many will turn away from the faith and will betray and hate each other, 11 and many false prophets will appear and deceive many people. 12 Because of the increase of wickedness, the love of most will grow cold, 13 but the one who stands firm to the end will be saved. 14 And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come.

          August 25, 2014 at 9:45 am |
        • evidencenot

          Debating mythology can be fun!

          August 25, 2014 at 12:58 pm |
      • ragansteve1

        This, of course, is one of your false dichotomous questions designed to disparage religion. But to the answer, the religious person who kills is obviously the more evil. Having said that, a person who" feels no god" can easily be either honest or evil, as I have demonstrated several times previously with historical facts. Thus, religiosity is not the standard for determining evil. Behavior is.

        August 25, 2014 at 10:46 am |
        • bostontola

          steve,
          There is no dichotomy in my comment, therefore there is no false dichotomy. I asked a question contrasting 2 things relevant to the OP.

          Start with the headline:
          "Why liberals are more tolerant of atheists"

          Next the OP comment:
          "Tolerance of Evil is not a Good Thing"

          Followed by my question:
          "What is more evil, an honest person that feels no God, or a devout religious person (e.g. ISIS) who kills in their God's name?"

          I think the entire train of thought carries through. No dichotomy was formed. No mention of religious people in general, just ones that kill in the name of their God.

          You have read more into many of my comments than was there. A pattern has formed.

          August 25, 2014 at 11:00 am |
        • ragansteve1

          I don't have to read very deeply to see you pairing dishonest religious person vs honest atheist. That is a false dichotomy.

          di·chot·o·my
          dīˈkätəmē/
          noun

          a division or contrast between two things that are or are represented as being opposed or entirely different.

          Honest atheist vs dishonest religious person.. The implication is that religion makes people evil. That seems very clear on the surface. But after reading numerous other of your posts, and others on this blog, it becomes obvious.

          My point is that there are many things that cause evil behavior. Religion is only one that may be the excuse for evil behavior, but not the cause.

          Obviously, we continue to disagree. You should not be surprised.

          August 26, 2014 at 9:43 am |
        • ragansteve1

          BTW: I respond to your posts because I actually learn from interacting with you, in contrast with some of the more rabid atheists on this blog, I often disagree, but I am also challenged. And that is a good thing.

          August 26, 2014 at 9:49 am |
  15. haime52

    Actually, an atheist as president, if they were the tolerant, "I'll fight for the rights of all, even if I don't agree with them", type, would be more preferable than a far right evangelical, " everyone has to be Christian and be conformed to my idea of one', type. Personally, I fear either extreme no matter what and some of the middle because of the baggage they both carry and the prejudice they have implanted in their minds.

    August 24, 2014 at 8:10 pm |
    • Sungrazer

      "I'll fight for the rights of all, even if I don't agree with them", type

      You find this an extreme? And one to be feared?

      August 24, 2014 at 11:16 pm |
      • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

        Everyone???!!! That is pretty extreme....

        August 25, 2014 at 12:44 am |
  16. tallulah131

    Conservative atheist or liberal atheist, I really, really hate the font they used on the signs in the photo. Come on, people! There are many nice sans serif fonts. Futura is my go-to, but Helvetica is a classic!

    August 24, 2014 at 4:53 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Other One

      My vote for Helvetica.

      August 24, 2014 at 4:55 pm |
    • LaBella

      Reminds me of Norman Lear shows.

      August 24, 2014 at 8:54 pm |
      • tallulah131

        Very definitely a 70s font. Either Cooper Black or Souvenir.

        August 24, 2014 at 9:02 pm |
        • LaBella

          Diff'rent Strokes Font.

          August 24, 2014 at 9:13 pm |
        • tallulah131

          It's an evil font. I like it not.

          August 24, 2014 at 9:16 pm |
        • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

          Sarcasm font is my favorite.

          August 25, 2014 at 12:40 am |
        • tallulah131

          If more people used the sarcasm font, it would be a lot easier to tell the difference between a snarky comment and a stupid one.

          August 25, 2014 at 2:31 am |
        • LaBella

          Oh, I wish there was a sarcasm font!

          August 25, 2014 at 10:01 am |
  17. ausphor

    Dalecarlian Horse
    What moderates have called out colin on this board, really, please list them? IMHO it is only you posing as a moderate in your own mind that has called him ou;, are you really sure you are not Chad?

    August 24, 2014 at 2:37 pm |
    • ausphor

      reply button blues, sigh.

      August 24, 2014 at 2:41 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Other One

      Let's have a toast. To Chad, and the God he defended with the fierceness of a rampant weasel.

      August 24, 2014 at 3:21 pm |
      • snuffleupagus

        Acutally Tom, I'd rather sing Chad a hymn: "Hymn hymn, fukk hymn."

        August 25, 2014 at 12:23 pm |
    • tallulah131

      Dala kind of makes me miss Chad. Dala doesn't even make sense half the time. At least Chad was consistent in his religious fervor.

      August 24, 2014 at 3:34 pm |
    • Dalahäst

      I'm not Chad.

      I've been accused of being him or someone else many, many times. I've denied being Chad before and have been called a liar for doing so. And yet I'm really not Chad. Some how to the skeptical anti-theist and his logic that makes me a liar. I think he was Catholic, which I'm not. I don't know. I figure he is actually doing something productive with his life. This message board doesn't really help much. Nor do people accomplish much here. Kind of addictive though. Starting tomorrow I'm focusing my time on school, not here. Going to get smarter!

      August 24, 2014 at 3:35 pm |
      • ausphor

        Dalecarlian Horse
        No you won't get any smarter than you are now, but perhaps the information you are able to retain will make you more knowledgeable, not the same thing. Some god must only know how you got into the sad state of belief you are now in. Good luck, assuming you are not taking theological studies.

        August 24, 2014 at 3:44 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          Now that was just dumb.

          August 24, 2014 at 3:53 pm |
        • ausphor

          Dalla

          August 24, 2014 at 4:02 pm |
        • igaftr

          ausphor
          "No you won't get any smarter than you are now"

          Incorrect. One can increase your overall IQ. Certain activities actually increase the amount of grey matter and white matter in the brain. Things like learning to play an instrument or simply learning to juggle will increase the number of physical nerve cells in your brain, increasing your IQ....what one does with it on the other hand......

          August 24, 2014 at 4:32 pm |
        • ausphor

          I stand corrected. I was incorrect. I am not Dalla....

          August 24, 2014 at 5:08 pm |
      • Tom, Tom, the Other One

        Do you need a take home assignment?

        Either God exists or blue is a shade of red.
        Blue is not a shade of red.
        Therefore God exists.

        If you were to make this argument would it be sound?

        August 24, 2014 at 3:48 pm |
      • doobzz

        Dala, didn't you post as AE before we were required to register with WordPress?

        August 24, 2014 at 9:58 pm |
    • MidwestKen

      I thought Russ was Chad.

      August 24, 2014 at 3:56 pm |
      • Tom, Tom, the Other One

        Russ is in a different league altogether. I enjoy discussing ideas with him. I was pleased to see he still comes here.

        August 24, 2014 at 4:02 pm |
        • LaBella

          Sure, when Russ isn't inventing arguments.

          August 24, 2014 at 4:11 pm |
    • ausphor

      TTTOO
      I am really going to miss Dalahast if he can not find time to post, as much as I may disagree with his posts I do have to admire his (somewhat delusional) defence of his positions, aka our dearly lamented Chad. So again Dalecarlian Horse I wish you all the best in your non theological studies, SKOL.

      August 24, 2014 at 4:00 pm |
      • Dalahäst

        You are the only Deist I have ever met that has hated and insulted me just as much as the fanatical anti-theists. You introduced yourself to me as a Deist and kept promoting a Deist website to me. It reminded me of the Jehovah's Witness who come to my door handing out pamphlets. Except when I say 'no thanks' to them, they leave.

        You keep coming back.

        So you probably used to obsess over Chad and make direct and passive aggressive insults? He hasn't posted here in a long time and this is the second time I've heard you re-obsessing over him. And when I leave you will find someone else to obsess over.

        And instead of working on yourself, you will focus on others. You'll keep missing the log in your own eye, as you point to the speck of dust in others.

        August 24, 2014 at 4:14 pm |
        • colin31714

          What are you giong to study?

          August 24, 2014 at 4:22 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          Community college! Biology of behavior. Human figure drawing. Public speaking. Working toward an education degree (either teaching art, communications or computer), as it appears the communications industry I work in won't be such a great industry soon. And I've found recently I love teaching kids.

          August 24, 2014 at 4:34 pm |
        • ausphor

          Dalecarlian Horse
          Lordy, lordy, I do not hate you or anyone else. I wouldn't hurt a hair on your head, I mock you only because that I believe that believing in gods, any gods, is divisive to humanity. Christians seem to maintain themselves in some sort of unrealistic bubble that religion/belief, and I would include all religions/beliefs is a force for good on our planet, religious is not or has never has been anything but a curse to humanity.

          August 24, 2014 at 4:39 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          The way you act is divisive to humanity.

          There are believers in God who demonstrate better ways than you do.

          You seem to not want people to treat you the way you treat others. Maybe you should try treating others how you want to be treated?

          Fred Phelps used to say he treated g.ays bad and mocked them because they deserved it. And if he deserved it like they did (which he said he didn't because he was better), he would want people to mock and ridicule him. So that makes it ok.

          That seems like your mindset.

          August 24, 2014 at 4:44 pm |
        • Tom, Tom, the Other One

          D, the world needs good teachers above almost all else. Try to be a good one. Think critically and try to teach those kids to do likewise, eh?

          August 24, 2014 at 4:52 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          Yep!

          August 24, 2014 at 4:54 pm |
        • ausphor

          Dalecarlian Horse
          I hope you do not get the opportunity to teach others, it would be a scary. You are a loser as a poster on this blog, who in hell has ever agreed with you other than your delusional brethren. I would rather have you on a street corner trying to flog the latest version of The Watchtower. Please, please, do not try and influence young people to get to the rather ridiculous place that you are now in, please.

          August 24, 2014 at 4:57 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          You don't know me very well.

          I already do teach kids, just not as a vocation. One setting is in a very secular and public environment – I've already told you a bit about it. So I work with kids of many different faiths, beliefs, backgrounds and cultures. And none of the doctors, parents or hospital staff have a problem with me. Nor how I teach others. And they actually know me better than you.

          August 24, 2014 at 5:01 pm |
        • colin31714

          Good luck Dalahast, I'll miss you – really.

          August 24, 2014 at 5:51 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          Ah, I'll be back. But thanks. I'd be lying if I didn't learn more about The Bible, myself and others from you. A lot of things get lost in translation via web/message boards. I honestly believe you don't understand belief in God. And you don't mean that in a derogatory way. You said something similar to that about a month ago and I've been thinking about that and how I could relate.

          August 24, 2014 at 6:36 pm |
        • evidencenot

          Understanding mythology 101

          August 25, 2014 at 1:01 pm |
      • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

        SKOL!!!!

        August 25, 2014 at 2:15 am |
  18. Dalahäst

    Anyone seen the movie "Calvary"? Saw it last night. Wow!! What a disturbing, yet good, story.

    http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/calvary_2013/

    August 24, 2014 at 2:23 pm |
    • colin31714

      No, I'm not a big Science Fiction fan.

      August 24, 2014 at 2:28 pm |
      • Robert Brown

        Considering the enormity of the universe, how do you think we can overcome the vast distances to be able to explore it?

        August 24, 2014 at 2:37 pm |
        • colin31714

          I think we are trapped into relying solely on telescopes of increasing acuity for the foreseeable future.

          August 24, 2014 at 2:39 pm |
        • Robert Brown

          We need to figure out how to travel way faster than the speed of light.

          August 24, 2014 at 3:24 pm |
        • Tom, Tom, the Other One

          People who believe the Universe was created with humankind as its main theme must be dismayed by the enormity of the parts of it that are unreachable and will always have nothing to do with us. Eh, Robert?

          August 24, 2014 at 3:30 pm |
        • igaftr

          "We need to figure out how to travel way faster than the speed of light"

          If that is even possible. According to Einstein, one can travel faster than light, or slower, but you cannot cross that barrier.
          Perhaps, as shown in the movie Dune, we could fold space and actually move space around us...interdimensional travel.
          Even tachions, which travel faster than light, are only theoretical at this point.

          Then you have the issue of time not being linear, so you could get to say travel to the Andromeda galaxy, at close to the speed of light, would a bit longer than 2.5 million years. On Earth, a very different amount of time would have passed.

          you could simply wait for apporx 4.5 billion years, when the Milky Way and Andromeda Galaxies will collide, but earth will long have been destroyed by then.

          August 24, 2014 at 3:34 pm |
        • Robert Brown

          Hey Tom, I think God had humans in mind as far as the earth at least. If these guys come up with something we may have more to explore; http://mobile.nytimes.com/2013/07/23/science/faster-than-the-speed-of-light.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

          August 24, 2014 at 3:37 pm |
        • Robert Brown

          Igaftr,

          Or a combination warp drive time machine.

          August 24, 2014 at 3:41 pm |
        • ragansteve1

          "More power, Scotty! I need more power!"

          "I'm doin' the best Ah cain, capn! She goin' tu breeak apart!"

          August 24, 2014 at 4:19 pm |
        • Science Works

          Hello Robert – you mentioned the Times – well here is something from the LA Times..... something about a soul and
          remembe – internet is a gift from god- Pope Francis .

          2 hours ago – Facebook

          Vatican social media guru: Catholics should give Internet 'a soul'. The Pope's social ... Trina Melissa Williams Did he really say, "troll"? Too funny! 3 · August 13 ...

          August 24, 2014 at 5:01 pm |
      • Dalahäst

        I think you are making a completely wrong assumption about the film.

        Oh well, your mistake – not mine.

        August 24, 2014 at 3:01 pm |
    • ausphor

      Dalecarlian Horse
      Your time may be better spent watching "The Rapture" or "Leap of Faith" to help you escape your delusion, just saying.

      August 24, 2014 at 2:29 pm |
    • Reality

      Calvary”

      Rated R for se-xual references, profanity, brief strong violence and the depiction of drug use. 100 minutes."

      A movie maybe good Christians should boycott? Will it be banned in South Korea?

      August 24, 2014 at 3:12 pm |
      • Dalahäst

        It is a realistic movie. It reflects life – which isn't always very pretty. No sugar coatings.

        August 24, 2014 at 3:29 pm |
    • MidwestKen

      I've wondered if Christians tend to overrate religious movies on Rotten Tomatoes just because they are religious. For example, "God is not Dead" got a 17% by critics and a 82% by viewers. There is often a disparity between critics and viewers, but over 60% is pretty large.

      August 24, 2014 at 3:46 pm |
      • Dalahäst

        Didn't see that movie. But I think this one was a lot different.

        August 24, 2014 at 3:52 pm |
        • tallulah131

          For once, I agree with you. "Calvary" appears to be a smart, well-scripted movie with real, talented actors, while a lot of "christian" movies are little more than propaganda starring d-listers and unknowns. I'm still not going to see it, but only because I don't watch a lot of movies and the subject matter isn't interesting to me.

          August 24, 2014 at 4:50 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          I actually don't think I've ever seen a "Christian" movie. haha. Was Les Miserables a "Christian" movie? It had Christian characters. Hmm.

          August 24, 2014 at 4:56 pm |
        • tallulah131

          There is an unrelated series of movies made by Kirk Cameron and his crowd that are overtly, deliberately christian. I'm not sure if "God's Not Dead" is from the same bunch, but it's the that uses the most offensive stereotypes and the most utterly trite melodramatic script. It's so bad that a lot of christians hate it, but it is very much a christian movie. made by christians for christians. I'm surprised I have to tell you this, since they've run articles about these movies on this blog before. Perhaps you've just missed them.

          August 24, 2014 at 6:45 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          I'm kind of familiar with them. I've just never actually watched them. I don't watch that many movies myself.

          August 24, 2014 at 6:52 pm |
        • LaBella

          His "Left Behind" movies cannot get any more Christian...

          August 24, 2014 at 6:55 pm |
        • kudlak

          LaBella
          Unless you're Catholic, Orthodox, or any of the many forms of protestant who all regard the whole Rapture thing as silly and unbiblical.

          August 25, 2014 at 11:44 am |
  19. ausphor

    colin
    Quite right, carry on.

    August 24, 2014 at 1:26 pm |
    • ausphor

      Sheesh.

      August 24, 2014 at 1:28 pm |
  20. colin31714

    Dalahast, I take it from your little parody of me that you have no problem being parodied in a conversation.

    Dalahast: I believe in God and that Jesus loves me:

    Skeptic: Ok, what proof do you have that your god exists?

    Dalahast: I know he exists.

    Skeptic: I get that. I understand you firmly believe he exists, my question was, what evidence do you have to support your belief?

    Dalahast: Define evidence.

    Skeptic. You can’t be serious. I mean facts that support your belief that god exists.

    Dalahast: I never said I believe god exists. That might be some people’s belief, but it is not mine. Sorry.

    Skeptic: But you just said you did. You said “I believe in God.”

    Dalahast: Well, that’s different isn’t it. Define “exists.”

    Skeptic: Now you’re just being evasive and silly.

    Dalahast: Some evasive people are silly, but not all. I know of silly people who are evasive, too. At my church, we discuss silliness and evasiveness. I could do better at being neither silly nor evasive. I try to love everybody, including evasive people and silly people. Sometimes I fall short.

    Skeptic: Huh? What does that have to do with anything? Look, I asked you for evidence that god exists and all you have done is run around hiding behind definitions and throwing out meaningless plati.tudes.

    Dalahast. Some scientists throw out meaningless plati.tudes. Einstein, who was a gifted orator, once said; “Just because we can define meaningless plati.tudes as a string of words does not make their meaning any less plati.tudinal.” I, for one, know God exists. God loves me and sent Jesus to save me and help guide my life.

    Skeptic: Once again, I get that you believe this. What I keep asking you for is evidence to support your belief.

    Dalahast: Well, what if God doesn’t live by the same rules we do. What if he exists in a plane we can know nothing about?

    Skeptic: But you just said you knew of God’s intentions (about Jesus and your life). Well, which is it? Can we know things about him or not. It seems Christians like you are quick to claim they know God’s wishes, hopes or intentions but, the minute they are cornered on an issue, they immediately resort to mysticism and claim God is “unknowable.”

    Dalahast: I don’t believe God is unknowable. Some people might, but I don’t. Sorry.

    Skeptic: But you just said EXACTLY that!

    Dalahast: Define “unknowable.” Many scientists are unknowable. Isaac Newton once said, “to be unknowable is like the reflection of true love passed through the prism of human experience.”

    Skeptic: That isn’t even logical. It makes no sense whatsoever!!

    Dalahast: What I mean is that there are logical explanations for belief in God. Your beliefs are not completely logical. All human beings are imperfect, even their greatest attempts to remain logical fail. I've seen you do this before.

    Skeptic: Look, you repulsive little tu.rd, either answer my question or admit you have no evidence God exists.

    Dalahast: Some repulsive little tu.rds may answer questions, but not all. You call me names and make personal attacks. I try not to. I could do better.

    Skeptic. I’m sorry, but you infuriate me. You spend hours and hours on here day after day and, whenever anybody engages you in debate, you go on with the same dribble, running around, being evasive and arguing in circles.

    Dalahast: Martin Luther King once said that it takes a scientist with more credentials than you have to argue in circles.

    August 24, 2014 at 1:20 pm |
    • ausphor

      colin
      Quite right, carry on.

      August 24, 2014 at 1:27 pm |
    • Dalahäst

      I take it when you criticized me for putting words in other people's mouths, even when I prefaced it with I think he is saying..., and then turned around an put words in my mouth I never said you are either blind to or don't care about the fact you criticize me for the same things you do. The exact same thing!

      You say, 'Oh, I'm just making an observation. It is different when I do it.' Uh, what?

      This is your second little parody you have written about me. It is just as simple minded and childish as the first one. It is probably the 1,000 parody you posted on this blog about believers. For some reason you post the same ones over 100 times.

      Again, I don't believe what you say I believe. If I try to tell you that, you resort to circular reasoning to say I do.

      I think you need help. You are so fanatical and obsessed about your atheism, you spend hours writing up manifestos to believers.

      For crying out loud, you've been called out by the mods on this board for stepping over the line! How childish is that? I've only seen it happen to you and Salero!

      You 2 seem to have the same mindset! Trying to reason with you 2 is difficult!

      August 24, 2014 at 2:14 pm |
      • ausphor

        Dalecarlian Horse/Dalahast (Swedish)
        Poor baby , everybody seems to pick on you ever wonder why? Try reading your past posts and you may be able to figure out why people see you as a disingenuous tool. Not just us two, you are so arrogant and pompous you cannot see the obvious, it is you that has the PROBLEM, not everyone else. Talk about growing up. BTW you do not reason with people you preach in a circle, always a circle, you are pathetic.

        August 24, 2014 at 2:26 pm |
      • colin31714

        Oh Dalahast, now I see why that guy called you a repulsive little tu.rd. Here is what you believe (straight from your own mouth):

        Religion is of this world. Jesus is from heaven.
        Religion tells us to do. Jesus tells us it is done.
        Religion tells us to focus on sin in the flesh in order to modify our behavior. Jesus tells us to focus on Him in the Spirit in order to bring forth the fruit of the Spirit in our lives.
        Religion says our heart as a believer is evil still. Jesus says our heart as a believer is new and good, with no evil.
        Religion is all about the outward and seen. Jesus is all about the inward and unseen.
        Religion tries to repair and fix the old creation. Jesus made us a New Creation!
        Religion’s yoke is hard work. Jesus said His yoke was easy.
        Religion uses fear to manipulate people to act. Jesus’ love compels people to act, with joy!
        Religion is proud. Jesus is humble.
        Religion says we must continually confess our sins to stay cleansed and righteous. Jesus says our sins have been taken away, past, present and future, and they are no longer being counted against us!
        Religion says that sins are being counted against the believer. Jesus says His righteousness is being counted for the believer!
        Religion is blind. Jesus gives us new eyes to see the unseen.
        Religion is all about the knowledge of good and evil. Jesus is all about His Life in us!
        Religion is boring. Jesus is an unexpected journey and adventure!
        Religion is an old cell phone where the service has been cancelled. Jesus is a new cell phone with new service!
        Religion is insecure. Jesus is confident and secure.
        Religion is compet.itive and envious. Jesus is a rest.
        Religion says we must love God with all our heart, soul, mind and strength first! Jesus said He first loved us and that we are to believe first that He loves us with all His heart, soul, mind and strength!
        Religion thinks itself wise. Jesus thinks Religion is foolish.
        Religion is a dead end. Jesus is an open door to endless possibilities!
        Religion is man-centered. Jesus is God-centered.
        Religion wants to control other men. Jesus wants to set men free to live by Him.
        Religion is death. Jesus is Life!
        Religion is depressing. Jesus is joy unspeakable and full of glory!
        Religion keeps people in a boat that is sinking. Jesus empowers people to walk out of the boat onto the water to Him!
        Religion’s gospel is “fear the Lord and obey His commandments!” Jesus’ gospel is “believe on Me and fear not, for I give you my righteousness!”
        Religion is about rules to keep. Jesus is about His love to receive.
        Religion tries to get people to keep God’s laws so that the people will be righteous. Jesus tries to get people to see that He kept all the laws for them and they need only believe in Him to be righteous.
        Religion is bondage. Jesus is freedom!
        Religion needs money to exist. Jesus’ life needs no silver or gold to live and prosper!
        Religion is mean to you when you do not agree with it. Jesus is kind even to those who nailed His hands and feet.
        Religion says to change you must see your sin! Jesus says to change you must look away from your sin and see Him!
        Religion is Satan’s tool. Jesus is God’s Son!

        Wow, you really are batsh.it crazy aren't you?

        August 24, 2014 at 2:34 pm |
        • ausphor

          colin
          Quite right, carry on.

          August 24, 2014 at 2:39 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          I didn't write that, but I like it. It is interesting and I wanted to share it to see what others thought.

          I wouldn't say it is exactly what I believe. And I probably should have posted the author's name – if there is one.

          Just because you write manifestos on religious blogs to prove that you are right and everyone else is wrong doesn't mean that is what I was doing. I'm not that silly!

          August 24, 2014 at 2:54 pm |
        • colin31714

          So, you stole somebody else's work and posted it as your own? Tsk, tsk...that is plagiarism and is highly dishonest.

          August 24, 2014 at 2:58 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          Oh, well. I wasn't trying to profit or make others think it was me. I basically posted it anonymously and without much thought. It is not like this message board is the same as a classroom, debate forum or media outlet. It is like writing on a bathroom wall. You can write anything. If the owner of the bathroom doesn't like it, he will paint over it. Otherwise just something most people ignore.

          August 24, 2014 at 3:27 pm |
        • dojams

          Wow... spot on....

          August 24, 2014 at 9:20 pm |
        • evidencenot

          Colin speaks the truth....... Dalah's posts are a constant flip-flop word salad.... but I give him credit... it takes talent to post many words and say nothing..... oh those naughty anti-theists!

          August 25, 2014 at 1:08 pm |
    • Dalahäst

      I really don't ask people to define words like Colin suggests I do.

      If you look up the word "evidence", saying I have no evidence to believe in God is inaccurate.

      That has usually been my point and the reaction from what I'm trying to explain. The amazing thing is: I'm skeptical of what these anti-theists are saying. And some of the most fanatical anti-theists hate my skepticism of them!

      Also, an anti-theist will tell me only delusional, brainwashed idiots beleive in God. Or that all Christians are anti-science. Or that they are cowards. Or some other completely childish and simple statements.

      So I provide examples of people that make me skeptical of that claim. I see actual people who believe in God doing things these anti-theists do not do – like provide credentials of their understandings or the support of their peers in the field of their study.

      Or the fact that a lot of atheists I know don't actually make the claims these anti-theists keep ranting about on this blog.

      I don't know how to approach this writing of Colin's. I really didn't say or intend to say a lot of what he claims.

      It reminds me of the book "The God Delusion" Dawkins made a horrible logical fallacy, he mistook a quote of CS Lewis as an explanation for God's existance. Which the explanation wasn't. Dawkins twisted the intention and meaning of the quote.

      And I see Colin do that, too.

      The other day Colin told me he saved my messages that proved his point – and that I was being dishonest. Yet he failed to follow through with his evidence. And it makes me think he was actually being dishonest and was trying to bluff me. He also completely missed the point I was trying to make. He seemed to be too busy trying to prove his point of view was the only right one.

      And I am just skeptical of that kind of mindset.

      August 24, 2014 at 2:41 pm |
      • ausphor

        Dalecarlian Horse
        List the moderates that called out colin, please. There have been at least a half dozen posters that called out you as deceitful just today.

        August 24, 2014 at 2:44 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          I'm pretty sure it was Daniel Burke. He steps in from time to time with messages or asking people to be more respectful of others.

          August 24, 2014 at 2:51 pm |
        • LaBella

          Pretty sure that wasn't Colin, but Apple Bush and thefinisher1.

          August 24, 2014 at 2:53 pm |
        • ausphor

          Dalecarlian Horse
          You completely miss the point that posters are trying to make about you that you are pompous, arrogant and deceitful, see how that works?

          August 24, 2014 at 2:56 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          Pretty sure it was. Think Colin going a bit to extreme in one of his anti-Catholic rants. And I'm not surprised if those 2 were called out, too. I def. remember Apple Bush getting called out. But this was way before that.

          August 24, 2014 at 2:57 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          ausphor

          The other day you said I was a troll. No doubt about it.

          But LaBella said I wasn't a troll. And her and I haven't always seen eye to eye, but haven't done anything like you do to me. So I will trust her opinion on this matter.

          I don't know why you keep posting at me. I haven't seen you talk about much at all but me. I really don't care what you think about me. Sorry.

          You act pompous, arrogant and deceitful yourself. Why should I listen to you try to find new ways to insult me?

          August 24, 2014 at 3:00 pm |
        • colin31714

          Actually Dalahast, I am not aware of once being called out by a moderator. Fell free to show where I was though. If you can't, admit you made it up.

          August 24, 2014 at 3:02 pm |
        • LaBella

          Huh. Must have missed that one, and I've been here a while. I wonder why he's never called out anyone else about their vitriolic anti-Catholic rants; there have been so many. Rainier cones to mind. Never saw him call out Salero, either.

          August 24, 2014 at 3:03 pm |
        • ausphor

          Dalecarlian Horse
          My god, if I had one, you just slither along as if people actually take you seriously.
          Trolling, trolling trolling, keep that key board trolling.

          August 24, 2014 at 3:04 pm |
        • ausphor

          colin
          Caught Dalahast in one of his lies when he said some Korean baseball fan took his city by storm, so I assumed Dala... was from Kansas City, he later back tracked saying he Dala.. was not living in Missouri, so he just makes up BS as it suits him, not to be taken seriously.

          August 24, 2014 at 3:13 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          ausphor

          You are trolling me.

          Colin, Labella

          I may be wrong. But I think in a Pope Francis and g.ays story the moderator stepped in.

          That was also the time when posts were being deleted. It is possible I mistook a post of Colin's being deleted as being moderated. I'm not so sure now.

          August 24, 2014 at 3:19 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          Ausphor

          You said something like, 'Well, we know Dala is a Missourian, so bla bla bla..."

          And I said I'm not a Missourian. And I'm not!

          The Korean baseball fan went to other cities than Kansas City, MO. I told you he was near my neighborhood and created some excitement. He also went to Arkansas, Kansas, California and other states – I do believe.

          August 24, 2014 at 3:22 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          If I said I was a Missourian, that would have been a lie.

          You confuse me.

          August 24, 2014 at 3:23 pm |
        • ausphor

          Dalecarlian Horse
          Of course I am trolling you. The difference is I have no problem being called a troll as you seem to be. Passing strange that you do not point out to Salero or the wanderingdoofus that they are trolling. I am not conflicted by Christian teachings that I should turn the other cheek, I dish out as good as I get often first, too bad you cannot live up to the standards of your delusional beliefs. You bad born again Christian you.

          August 24, 2014 at 3:28 pm |
        • ausphor

          Dalecarlian Horse
          Please provide a reference that states SungWoo Lee took another American city, other than Kansas City, by storm as you stated. Could find nothing on his twitter page or google search to find any information on that. Reference please, not from your imagination.

          August 24, 2014 at 3:35 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          I do think Salero is a troll. And I have told him so.

          I haven't read much of Scott's stuff.

          I try to avoid trolls. But you keep following me around and jumping in to tell people how much you hate me. I think we all get it by now: you hate me.

          August 24, 2014 at 3:37 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          SungWoo Lee: He also went to a minor league game in Arkansas. And he also went to places on the Kansas side of the state line – including a BBQ restaurant near where I live. Which people in my hood were talking about. Which is not in Missouri. And I'm not a Missourian.

          So, when I told you I'm not a Missourian I wasn't lying. And when I said Lee had taken my city by storm I was not lying.

          August 24, 2014 at 3:46 pm |
        • Science Works

          http://www.google.com/#q=pope+paying+trolls
          About 48,400,000 results (0.41 seconds)

          This is the 4th one dala ?
          Pope: The Internet is a – CNN Belief Blog
          religion.blogs.cnn.com/2014/01/...pope...trolls/comment-page-8/
          CNN
          Jan 23, 2014 – I do not care about this stuff. it does not matter if you pay attention to what ...... What's odd is the the Pope never said a word about internet trolls; ...

          August 25, 2014 at 11:42 am |
      • colin31714

        See above. Feel stupid yet?

        August 24, 2014 at 2:50 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          Ha!

          August 24, 2014 at 2:55 pm |
        • ausphor

          Dalecarlian Horse
          So provide the list of those that called out colin?

          August 24, 2014 at 2:58 pm |
        • colin31714

          He can't, because I wasn't. I never have been (at least that I am aware of).

          August 24, 2014 at 3:03 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          If he was not aware of it, it probably didn't happen. Sorry if I got that wrong.

          I think I've mentioned it before and you never denied it so I thought it was true. I either mixed you up with someone else or misunderstood Burke's posts and your messages being deleted.

          August 24, 2014 at 3:49 pm |
      • colin31714

        The quote about CS Lewis in " The God Delusion" is as follows:

        "There are still some people who are persuaded by scriptural evidence to believe in God. A common argument, attributed among others to C. S. Lewis (who should have known better), states that, since Jesus claimed to be the Son of God, he must have been either right or else insane or a liar: ‘Mad, Bad or God’. Or, with artless alliteration, ‘Lunatic, Liar or Lord’. The historical evidence that Jesus claimed any sort of divine status is minimal. But even if that evidence were good, the trilemma on offer would be ludicrously inadequate. A fourth possibility, almost too obvious to need mentioning, is that Jesus was honestly mistaken. Plenty of people are. In any case, as I said, there is no good historical evidence that he ever thought he was divine."

        How is that out of context?

        August 24, 2014 at 2:57 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          It was a nice try, but miscasted. Lewis wasn't making an argument from Scripture for God's existence. It doesn't come from Scripture. And it wasn't an attempt to prove God's existence.

          August 24, 2014 at 3:11 pm |
        • kudlak

          colon
          And there's a fifth possibility, that Jesus never made so bold a claim, but that his followers later and that they were honestly mistaken. The Lewis argument hinges on shaming the reader out of considering the possibility that Jesus could have been anything but sincere and correct in the claim. I, however, am often left to regard what the pious rabbi would make of being made into such a blasphemy to his beliefs. It honestly makes me rather sad for Jesus.

          August 25, 2014 at 11:36 am |
        • kudlak

          Sorry, "colin"!

          Calling you a colon really wasn't my intent. There's plenty of "colons" posting here, but you certainly are not one of them.

          August 25, 2014 at 11:39 am |
        • colin31714

          lol, no offense taken.

          August 25, 2014 at 12:15 pm |
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Advertisement
About this blog

The CNN Belief Blog covers the faith angles of the day's biggest stories, from breaking news to politics to entertainment, fostering a global conversation about the role of religion and belief in readers' lives. It's edited by CNN's Daniel Burke with contributions from Eric Marrapodi and CNN's worldwide news gathering team.