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. lunchbreaker

    Exactly how literal can we take Genisis?

    When God said, "let there be light", are we to assume He had actual vocal chords that prodiced a sound that traveled through a medium?

    Before the creation of the sun, how literal can we interpret a day?

    August 26, 2014 at 11:15 am |
    • skytag

      How literally can anyone take any fairytale?

      August 26, 2014 at 11:28 am |
    • igaftr

      "Exactly how literal can we take Genisis? "

      That depends. Do you mean Genesis with Peter Gabriel, or after he left?

      August 26, 2014 at 11:55 am |
      • LaBella

        Like.

        August 26, 2014 at 11:58 am |
    • niknakk

      Lunch dude,
      ANYTHING is possible in make believe land........

      August 26, 2014 at 12:05 pm |
      • joey3467

        Except for defeating iron chariots. For some reason that can't even be done with magic.

        August 26, 2014 at 1:09 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          NOWHERE did Judges1 say that GOD could not defeat the irion chariots..it says the ISREALITES could not do it...sure..Judges says GOD WAS WITH THEM...but that does NOT say He FOUGHT for them.......youre adding into it.hoping to find a weakness which is not there

          August 26, 2014 at 4:08 pm |
        • joey3467

          The bible also says that when god is with you anything is possible. Except apparently defeating an army with iron chariots.

          August 26, 2014 at 4:26 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          The BIBle doesnots tate that....I think YOU may be referring to Matthew 19...where Jesus says :"With God all things are possible" if that's the case (that youre using from that passage) then that is a total miscontext....Jesus says this in reference to being SAVED..SALVATION...read the whole passage...the rich person came to Jesus to try to justify himself...and Jesus told him to sell all his possessions...when the man refused and turned away, the disciples were astonished...The yasked Jesus "If THIS man cant be saved, then WHo can?" thus Jesus answer..with man THIS (salvation) is impossible..but with God all things are possible.....

          August 26, 2014 at 4:31 pm |
    • neverbeenhappieratheist

      You just have to apply your Christ-o-meter when reading Genesis where you take anything you want that supports your religious worldview as literal and then when it get's way to unbelievable like 6 twenty four hour days to make the universe you can just hit the "figurative" button on the Christ-o-meter and glide right past it while still claiming the bible is 100% true...

      August 26, 2014 at 1:27 pm |
  2. unsername1

    CNN is keeping BB comment section closed on Furguson story for some time, what are they afraid of?

    August 26, 2014 at 11:12 am |
    • unsername1

      *Ferguson

      August 26, 2014 at 11:15 am |
    • igaftr

      Free speech. Since they are privately owned though, they can open or close any blog they want.

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

      CNN hasn't offered any insight into why they've limited commenting lately, but few stories about anything these days offer a chance to comment on them. The general assumption is that too many of the comments these days were troll junk and hate speech. I see no reason they were "afraid" of anything and can't imagine why a rational person would think they were.

      August 26, 2014 at 11:27 am |
      • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

        CNN has closed the comments to a large number of stories.

        At one point there was a comment (I think it was from Daniel Burke) stating that there was a new site-wide policy that only stories authored by/for CNN would permit comments.

        Given that the Ferguson story is shown as "Special for CNN" I can't think why the policy would apply, so I assume they are mitigating the inevitable inflammatory comments.

        August 26, 2014 at 12:00 pm |
        • skytag

          I wouldn't blame them if they simply decided to cut back on resources devoted to moderation their comment sections. You can't offer a forum for comments on the Internet without some sort of moderation or they turn into vitriolic cesspools. That moderation requires people to invest time and energy, and maybe CNN decided it just wasn't worth it.

          August 26, 2014 at 12:09 pm |
        • niknakk

          That is exactly what it is.
          My cousin is a journalist for a company that works with CNN and he said they could not support the racist nasty comments any longer and decided to shut them down on anything remotely political.
          Fox had to do the same thing.
          I used to post there and you would not believe the ugliness and racist comments that dominated their boards.
          They had to shut it down because it made them look really bad.
          Go to RedState and you can see the types of comments they have, much like Fox's boards were.

          August 26, 2014 at 12:12 pm |
        • skytag

          niknakk: I remember commenting on a story on Fox News when they were still using Disqus, before they shut them down for a while and the amount of hatred and vitriol was surreal. Rational comments presenting facts got voted down and anything expressing hatred for Obama or liberals got voted up.

          The people who complain the most about the loss of comment sections tend to be the kind of people who got them shut down.

          What too few people understand is that the greatest danger to rights and privileges are the people who abuse them. There are too many sadistic psychopaths trolling the Internet making it impossible to have substantive discussions about almost any issue unless maybe you're in a cooking or classical music forum. It's really a crying shame something that could be used for something good has been ruined by a relatively small number of mentally ill people.

          August 26, 2014 at 12:26 pm |
      • unsername1

        this was their response to my inquiry with them:

        "Greetings,
        Thank you for contacting CNN. We appreciate your interest in the interactive areas of CNN.com. We are working very hard to improve the commenting experience for people who come to our site to participate in relevant and civilized discussions. We monitor the site 24/7, but with 100+ stories published every day, each inviting conversation with our audience, it takes quite a bit of time to identify and remove problem comments. Often times these comments are incredibly offensive, and due to an overwhelming number of complaints regarding inappropriate comments we will be limiting the amount of time and number of articles that are open to commenting. Our goal is to foster thoughtful conversations that our readers enjoy, value, and want to engage with.

        Thanks again for reaching out to us, and thanks for choosing CNN.
        Regards,
        CNN.com Tech Support"

        August 26, 2014 at 8:37 pm |
    • tallulah131

      The trolling has gotten so far out of hand that it's almost pointless to have a comments section anymore. Hopefully the limited opportunities to spew vitriol and nonsense will lead to new hobbies for those trolls, so that someday the rest of us can resume commentary and debate on these articles.

      August 26, 2014 at 11:31 am |
    • Doc Vestibule

      They're likely afraid of the torrent of angry messages coming from white Christians angrily denying any semblance of racism.
      The Op Ed piece basically calls most Christians hypocrites when it comes to social justice because they believe that because they welcome people of all races into their church that they're free of culpability for racial inequality.

      I think Mormonism, that distinctly American religion, is a good example of what he's talking about –
      The religion is predicated on racism – that dark skinned people are inherently inferior because God cursed them with melanin for being "fence sitters" in the war on Heaven.
      Brigham Young went so far as to say that interracial marriage is a crime punishable by execution on sight. (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 10, p.11)
      By the 1960's, the LDS prophets were saying stuff like: "Dar.kies are wonderful people, and they have their place in our church." (Joseph Fielding Smith, Look magazine, October 22, 1963, page 79 )
      By the late 1970's, the Mormons had rescinded their ban on dark skinned people serving in the priesthood, but continued to teach that black people are the descendents of Cain and that there is a link between skin colour and righteousness.

      That kind of "inclusivele" racist ideology is in many ways more insidious than KKK style bigotry because it allows the follower a means to rationalize their own racism and convince themselves that they're not bigoted because, hey, there's a black guy sitting in the pew in front of me!

      August 26, 2014 at 11:39 am |
      • skytag

        I'm not aware of anything in Mormon doctrine that taught blacks were inferior to whites, only that their dark skin marked them as descendants of Cain.

        August 26, 2014 at 12:05 pm |
        • Doc Vestibule

          "We understand that when God made man in his own image and pronounced him very good, that he made him white. We have no record of any of God's favored servants being of a black race...every angel who ever brought a message of God's mercy to man was beautiful to look upon, clad in the purest white and with a countenance bright as the noonday sun." (Juvenile Instructor, Vol. 3, page 157)

          August 26, 2014 at 1:11 pm |
      • kevinite

        Key words "likely" and "I think".

        August 26, 2014 at 12:12 pm |
        • Doc Vestibule

          @Kev
          Quite so – this is purely conjecture on my part when it comes to why CNN has blocked out commentary.
          However, I know that the Mormon church is racist at it's core – and virulently so in its early days as the Journal of Discourses lays bare.

          August 26, 2014 at 1:33 pm |
      • Alias

        but it was a black person who said they couldn't listen to music about killing cops and then expect equal treatment from them. That makes it not racist, fight?

        August 26, 2014 at 12:15 pm |
  3. Doc Vestibule

    Joseph Smith cleared up the mystery about the Garden of Eden back in the 1800s.
    Genesis 2 mentions that it was close to the Tigris and Euphrates rivers in the Middle East – but it also says that God put a body of water there that split into 4 rivers – and the Pishon and Gihon rivers have never been found in the Middle East.
    Based on what the Archangel Mor.oni revealed to him through the magic Seer Stones, Smith determined that Eden was located in Jackson County, Mis.souri.
    Once kicked out, Adam and Eve went to live in Daviess County, Mis.souri.

    The real mystery about Eden is how exactly did the Satanic Serpent communicate?
    Did Adam and Eve speak Pars.eltongue?
    Did the serpent have magical vocal cords?
    Or maybe it was telepathic.

    August 26, 2014 at 8:31 am |
    • Theo Phileo

      The description of the location of Eden was pre-flood. No doubt the flood changed the landscape so dramatically that there is no way to locate it now. I grew up in Eastern NC, and I can tell you from experience that it doesn't take a whole lot of water to move a whole lot of land. In case you doubt that, try getting to Rodanthe from Hatteras after a bad Nor'easter.

      As for Joseph Smith, he has been proved to be a false prophet by Jude 4, 2 Corinthians 11:13-15, 1 Timothy 6:3-5, Isaiah 8:20, Deuteronomy 13, 18:20-22, 2 Peter 2:1-3, and on, and on, and on...

      August 26, 2014 at 8:39 am |
      • Doris

        That's interesting, Theo. I didn't know that hearsay can "prove" hearsay wrong – lol.

        I do know what you mean about that stretch on the Outer Banks. I tend to get down there every few years earlier in the summer. The configuration of the smaller temporary bridges always seems to be different each time.

        August 26, 2014 at 8:55 am |
        • Theo Phileo

          I still say that the most reliable transportation in Eastern NC is by sprits'l skiff.

          As to the heresay part... You say that because we are so far removed from the events that took place. And being out of that time and culture, it's easy to dismiss.

          But the Bible's veracity has been proved through the ages by the relentless efforts of an unbroken chain of scholarly individuals who risked their very lives to preserve those writings of men who recorded what they saw, heard, and touched.

          August 26, 2014 at 9:01 am |
        • Doris

          Theo: "I still say that the most reliable transportation in Eastern NC is by sprits'l skiff."

          Those are cool. I'll have to check – maybe there are some places that would rent those out manned for a day or half day of light fishing on the sound.

          August 26, 2014 at 9:09 am |
        • Doris

          Theo: "..relentless efforts of an unbroken chain of scholarly individuals who risked their very lives to preserve.."

          I don't doubt that. But people are people – I'm sure there were a lot of efforts of different kinds at play that resulted in what we have other than that. Some people won't throw out a nasty old pair of flip-flops until they actually break.

          August 26, 2014 at 9:14 am |
        • Theo Phileo

          Those are cool. I'll have to check – maybe there are some places that would rent those out manned for a day or half day of light fishing on the sound.
          --------------
          Not sure... Check out the Maritime Museum in Beaufort and surely someone there would know. I used to own one, and let me tell you those boats can be FAST! When you get her sails trimmed so that she leans a bit on her side and presents the chine as a knife edge to the water, it feels like you've mashed the gas pedal HARD and it will actually start planing on the water! Too much fun!!!

          August 26, 2014 at 9:15 am |
        • Theo Phileo

          I don't doubt that. But people are people – I'm sure there were a lot of efforts of different kinds at play that resulted in what we have other than that. Some people won't throw out a nasty old pair of flip-flops until they actually break.
          -------------
          Well, now we're on the topic of Textual Criticism, and that can get involved.

          August 26, 2014 at 9:18 am |
        • Doris

          Theo: "Check out the Maritime Museum in Beaufort "

          I might just do that for next time. I do like fishing at sunset on the sound – and it might be nice for a change to be able to cast a line somewhere where the water isn't still only a couple of feet deep – lol.

          August 26, 2014 at 9:31 am |
        • Theo Phileo

          Doris, if you are as enamored of Eastern NC as I am, and if you like paintings, then you have to check out Jack Saylor.
          http://www.jacksaylor.blogspot.com/
          I think he lives in Morehead City (my hometown), and paints all kinds of subjects in the area. He's a WONDERFUL artist.

          August 26, 2014 at 9:31 am |
        • Doris

          Thanks, Theo – I'll check that out.

          August 26, 2014 at 9:39 am |
        • Theo Phileo

          Doris,
          You mentioned that you liked the Spritsail Skiffs? Well, I bought this book some time ago after I had moved away from the beach following work. (frown) I had wanted to build a skiff of my own, but because I didn't have an ocean where I moved to, I settled for 1:12 scale. The book bases the boat on the actual plans that are available at the Beaufort Maritime Museum that were originally drawn up from an original boat by M.B. Alford of Morehead. If you're skilled in very basic woodworking, then it makes a GREAT mantlepiece decoration.

          http://www.amazon.com/Model-Boat-Building-Spritsail-Skiff/dp/0887405347/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1409062400&sr=8-1&keywords=building+the+spritsail+skiff

          August 26, 2014 at 10:17 am |
        • Theo Phileo

          Sorry, the link didn't do what I wanted it to...
          --http://www.amazon.com/Model-Boat-Building-Spritsail-Skiff/dp/0887405347/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1409062400&sr=8-1&keywords=building+the+spritsail+skiff

          August 26, 2014 at 10:18 am |
      • igaftr

        theo
        There never was a global flood, so there is no pre-flood or post flood.
        As you say, that much water would change the landscape, leave a trace...there is none. There is local flooding, but NEVER was there a global flood, at least not on this planet. Your bible is clearly wrong.

        August 26, 2014 at 9:22 am |
        • Theo Phileo

          -–http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m-H1gC7i4Q0

          August 26, 2014 at 9:24 am |
        • Doc Vestibule

          Of course there was a global flood.
          And a 600 year old man and his family built a 500 foot floating zoo in the middle of the desert.
          Even though all the planet's salt water overtook the bodies of fresh water, God magically de-salinated everything and re-populated the waters with aquatic life.
          Human beings can all trace their ancestry back to 3 breeding pairs of humans 4,000 years ago wherein all the males were first order relatives and all other terrestrial life stems from the single breeding pair for each species that was saved on said floating zoo.
          What's not to believe?

          August 26, 2014 at 9:29 am |
        • Doris

          Don't forget, Doc – also the earth was not spherical, but circular and mostly flat like a coin. When he wanted to populate the earth a bit more, God breathed more into the earth – kind of like blowing up a deflated beach ball the rest of the way.

          August 26, 2014 at 9:33 am |
        • Theo Phileo

          Doc,
          Although scientists can only ever speculate about our origins, Moses, who would become the author of the Genesis account, was able to speak to God in the desert “face to face.” God was the only witness to our origins since He was its author, and His conversations with Moses in the Tent of Meeting ensured that what Moses would write about creation, the fall, the flood, as well as those things to which there was no human witness, would be accurate, as he heard them straight from the lips of God.

          Numbers 12:8 – With him I speak mouth to mouth, clearly, and not in riddles, and he beholds the form of the Lord.

          This statement alone tells us that the Genesis account of creation is literal and not figurative. For if it were intended to be figurative, that would be a form of a riddle, and God’s own words deny this. God discourses with Moses freely and familiarly, and without any confusion or consternation, such as was sometimes the case with other prophets such as Ezekiel, and John himself, when God spoke to them. By other prophets God sent to his people reproofs, and predictions of good or evil, which were properly enough delivered in dark speeches, figures, types, and parables; but by Moses he gave accounts of creation, laws to his people, and the inst.itution of holy ordinances, which could by no means be delivered by dark speeches, but must be expressed in the plainest and most intelligible manner.

          August 26, 2014 at 9:35 am |
        • igaftr

          theo
          No you tube video will change the FACT that there never was a global flood on earth, at least no after life began. There would be evidence, obvious evidence, there is none. Your video does not address the myriad issue that prove beyond any doubt that the flood story in your book did in fact, never happen.
          Your bible is wrong.

          August 26, 2014 at 9:36 am |
        • Doc Vestibule

          @Doris
          That makes perfect sense!
          Pre-flood, the Earth was like a flat coin, but post-flood it became spherical.
          I knew the Bible couldn't have been wrong about the shape of the planet.

          August 26, 2014 at 9:36 am |
        • igaftr

          theo
          All that blah blah blah about Moses and god...there is no evidence any of that ever happened, so you are once again, showing us smoke. You continue to have nothing of any substance showing that your stories about moses have any basis in realtiy.

          August 26, 2014 at 9:40 am |
        • Theo Phileo

          Don't forget, Doc – also the earth was not spherical, but circular and mostly flat like a coin. When he wanted to populate the earth a bit more, God breathed more into the earth – kind of like blowing up a deflated beach ball the rest of the way.
          --------------–
          Never heard the "inflation theory" before... I thought that was scientists view of the expanding universe?

          If you are referring to Isaiah 40:22 – It is He that sits above the circle of the earth… Isaiah is explaining what he sees, that is, the horizon isn't straight, it's circular. As you know, standing on a beach and looking out across the expanse of the ocean, you instantly know that the earth is round. The horizon appears as a circle from left to right, and you know that the earth is circular because when a ship comes from a far distance, first you see the tops of the mast, then the upper decks, then the hull...

          Isaiah described the spherical earth in phenomenological language – standing at the sea, the earth is a circle in every direction.

          Job spoke about this in chapters 22 and 38 where he mentions the "circle of heaven" and also states that the earth rotates – "it is changed like clay under the seal." Look up the Nabonidus Cylinder to get an idea of what he is referring to. The seal must be rotated to make a change on the soft clay.

          August 26, 2014 at 9:44 am |
        • Theo Phileo

          No you tube video will change the FACT that there never was a global flood on earth, at least no after life began.
          ------------------
          I didn't post the video because I felt that it would be convincing evidence to you. I posted it because I thought it was a fun song. Yeah, he writes songs for kids, but what he does talk about is Biblical, so it's relevant.

          There would be evidence, obvious evidence, there is none.
          -------------------
          The evidence for a worldwide flood is billions of dead things burried in rock layers layed down by water all over the earth.

          Your video does not address the myriad issue that prove beyond any doubt that the flood story in your book did in fact, never happen.
          ------------------
          There is no proof against a worldwide flood. Look, we all see the same data. The same rocks, the same fossils, the same stars. It is the lenses through which we see the universe that drives our conclusions. If a scientist does not believe that God is responsible for all that is, then that idea will drive his conclusions. Likewise, if one believes that God is responsible for all there is, then that idea will drive all of his conclusions. Deciding WHICH is right and which is wrong, no observational evidence will ever be able to prove.

          Your bible is wrong.
          --------------
          That's just your opinion.

          August 26, 2014 at 9:50 am |
        • Doc Vestibule

          @Theo
          "He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth, and its people are like grasshoppers. He stretches out the heavens like a canopy, and spreads them out like a tent to live in. He brings princes to naught and reduces the rulers of this world to nothing. No sooner are they planted, no sooner are they sown, no sooner do they take root in the ground, than he blows on them and they wither, and a whirlwind sweeps them away like chaff."
          NIV Bible, Isaiah 40:22

          That's isn't a description of what a human being is seeing – it is a description of God's lofty view of the Earth from up on high. Maybe God has poor depth perception?

          August 26, 2014 at 9:51 am |
        • kermit4jc

          @ Doc V I suggest you read that again..that is HUMAN perception... LOOK at WHO Isaiah is talking about..everytime Isaiah says "he" he is referring to GOD..so this is nOT God saying this..but Isaiah..and that is HIS (Isaiahs) view/perception)

          August 26, 2014 at 9:59 am |
        • Doc Vestibule

          @Kermit
          Yes Kermi – Isaiah is describing God – he is preaching about how high and might God is and describing God's perspective "enthroned above the circle of the earth".
          Isaiah if speaking to King Hezekiah in his home – he isn't speaking while on a mountain or floating up in the air or standing next to God on a cloud in Heaven – Isaiah has his feet planted firmly on the ground.
          That's why in the subsequent verses, God says to look up for Him.

          August 26, 2014 at 10:07 am |
        • Theo Phileo

          I love these conversations. No matter what the outcome, it gets people to read their Bibles. And that's good enough for me. (smile)

          August 26, 2014 at 10:10 am |
        • Doc Vestibule

          "and also states that the earth rotates "
          Elsewhere in the Bible, it states that the planet is immovable and inert.
          "He set the earth on its foundations; it can never be moved."
          – Psalm 104:5
          "The LORD reigns, he is robed in majesty; the LORD is robed in majesty and is armed with strength. The world is firmly established; it cannot be moved."
          Psalm 93:1
          "Say among the nations, "The LORD reigns." The world is firmly established, it cannot be moved; he will judge the peoples with equity. Psalm 96:10
          "The sun rises and the sun sets, and hurries back to where it rises." Ecclesiastes 1:5

          The last of these verses was used as an argument for Geocentrism – a concept only reluctantly abandoned by the Church. Hell – it took the RCC some 300 years to finally admit that maybe Copernicus had a point

          August 26, 2014 at 10:13 am |
        • kermit4jc

          First of all....youre taking poetic stuff literally dude..second..the word "move" implies (using the Hebrew word and useage) that the earth does not spin out of control heading nowhere..it is fixed within an orbit..a course....try looking up the Hebrew woird..and remember this is poetic..not everything be taken literally.

          August 26, 2014 at 3:58 pm |
        • igaftr

          theo
          "The evidence for a worldwide flood is billions of dead things burried in rock layers layed down by water all over the earth."

          False. What you are referring to is the geologic records over BILLIONS of years. There is NOTHING showing the entire world all at the same time flooding, nothing at all. So the obvious evidence that would have to exist, does not exist at all. There has never been a global flood on earth, ever.

          August 26, 2014 at 10:20 am |
        • Theo Phileo

          The last of these verses was used as an argument for Geocentrism – a concept only reluctantly abandoned by the Church. Hell – it took the RCC some 300 years to finally admit that maybe Copernicus had a point
          -------------
          Yeah, I know, but that's bad hermeneutics. It's actually a good example of the practice of proof texting. That's where you have an idea and you pull out one or two verses that seem to support your idea, but the authorial intent actually has nothing to do with that.

          What that means is that the ordinances of God in creation are immovable. Compare that with Genesis 8:22 – “While the earth remains, Seedtime and harvest, And cold and heat, And summer and winter, And day and night Shall not cease.”

          The idea is that you never read just "a" Bible verse. Always read it in its context, even if to get the context, you have to re-read the entire Bible.

          August 26, 2014 at 10:23 am |
        • Doc Vestibule

          All all the waters of the Earth mixed together, there would have been no fresh water anywhere.
          What did Noah, his family and all the animals drink?
          How did plant life emerge in salted ground?
          Such changes in salinity levels would have killed off the overwhelming majority of aquatic life as well – so where did it all come from?

          August 26, 2014 at 10:25 am |
        • kermit4jc

          who supposedly started the Flood?

          August 26, 2014 at 4:00 pm |
        • Theo Phileo

          What you are referring to is the geologic records over BILLIONS of years.
          -----------–
          Really? Why is that? Because it takes Billions of years for fossils to form? Scientists tend to use the fact that fossilized bones are found in various rock layers across the planet as proof that they, and consequently, the earth is millions of years old. Well, how long does it take for rock to form anyway? A thousand years? A million years? What about this little piece of evidence… There is a waterwheel in Cape Leeuwin, Australia that is entombed in solid rock – this rock formed in as little as 65 years!

          August 26, 2014 at 10:26 am |
        • Theo Phileo

          so where did it all come from?
          ---------------
          I'll ask you a question, and if you answer me, I'll answer you. Where did the universe come from?

          August 26, 2014 at 10:28 am |
        • Theo Phileo

          Well, it had to happen... I gotta get back to work. Later all!

          August 26, 2014 at 10:31 am |
        • SeaVik

          "I love these conversations. No matter what the outcome, it gets people to read their Bibles. And that's good enough for me. (smile)"

          I do actually own a bible. I wanted to read it because even though it is pure fiction, I try to be a well-rounded person and the influences of the stories in the bible are everywhere, like it or not. However, despite a reasonable effort, I simply couldn't keep reading that extremely boring, self-contradicting, unlrealistic and confusing piece of work. Whoever wrote the bible was in severe need of an editor. Anyway, I can honestly say that none of these conversations have ever inspired me to pick up my bible again.

          August 26, 2014 at 10:44 am |
        • igaftr

          theo
          The dating methods we have are solid verifiable science. We can determine the age of the materials that form rocks, especially sedimentary rock where fossils will have been fouund. If I stand next to a volcano, it can spew out a rock...that rock is brand new, but the material that formed the rock is not.

          considering the fact that we can date sites accurately, we know for a fact that there has never been a world wide flood event.
          Your belief in myths clouds your judgement, so it is not surprising you ignore valid science for your nonsensical, baseless belief.
          The fact that there is no evidence of a worldwide flood event is but one of many, many reasons that we know for fact that your flood never happened, at least not on this planet.

          August 26, 2014 at 10:54 am |
        • SeaVik

          igaftr – Theo believes that dinosaurs and humans lived together at the same time. You are not going to change his mind with factual evidence. Perhaps if a new chapter of the bible were discovered ti.tled "Just Kidding" he might be convinced.

          August 26, 2014 at 11:04 am |
        • igaftr

          seavik
          Yeah, willful ignorance in the face of overwhelming evidence contrary to superst!tious beliefs is certainly a probelm, especially in someone who claims to "teach".

          August 26, 2014 at 11:14 am |
        • Doc Vestibule

          @SeaVik
          Buried deep in the Vatican Library is the seldom seen first page of the Bible.
          Written some 4,000 years ago on gopher wood parchment, the ancient Hebrew text reads:
          " "The events depicted in this book are ficti.tious. Any similarity to any person living or dead is merely coincidental."

          August 26, 2014 at 11:15 am |
        • ausphor

          Dos
          I asked the creationist crowd on how they could justify the survivors of a world wide flood, subsequently surviving the salinity problem some time ago. Of course they ducked the question, they will probably do so again.

          August 26, 2014 at 11:23 am |
        • skytag

          Doc: One could argue that since salt water is denser than fresh water, the rains that covered the earth in fresh water left the salt water in the oceans since they were the lowest points. At least that theory has a scientific basis. I want to know what the animals ate after they got off the boat.

          All land-based plant life would have been wiped out, so what would the herbivores have eaten? And then there were the carnivores. What did they eat?

          August 26, 2014 at 12:46 pm |
        • skytag

          Theo: "The evidence for a worldwide flood is billions of dead things burried in rock layers layed down by water all over the earth."

          More evidence religion makes people stupid. According to the Bible the flood lasted 40 days. No rock layers could form in 40 days, or even in a year. The flood story is a fairytale for people with the mind of a child.

          August 26, 2014 at 12:50 pm |
        • igaftr

          skytag
          "At least that theory has a scientific basis'

          Not really. Salt water is denser only for the heavier sodium and chlorine atoms, and since salt ionizes in water, in short order the salinity levels would change, there would be not separating layer, it would all mix.

          add in the way the water was supposed to have risen, it was not just from the rain, but from some underground resevoir that does not exist. The water level would have needed to rise at a rate of 6 inched per minute...more than enough kinetic energy to mix all of the waters of the earth to near uniformity anyway. It also does not account for the fact that in order to have happened, you would need 5 times the water on the entire planet. ( flood covered the highest mountians to over 15 cubits, Mt. Everest would have been slightly lower than now ( approx 1000 ft shorter), that still leaves 28,000 feet to cover, around the world.
          It is just a childrens story.

          August 26, 2014 at 12:59 pm |
      • Alias

        Christian web sites are full of people with no scientific knowledge misinterpreting evidence for others with no scientific understanding to explain how a flood happened.
        aka the blindly faithful christians
        guided by the willfully ignorant preachers
        believe the impossible
        bescause they don’t want to change their worldview.

        August 26, 2014 at 10:38 am |
      • skytag

        "No doubt the flood changed the landscape"

        Claiming their is no doubt something you believe is true doesn't make it true. There is considerable doubt about anything related to the flood story, as there should be since it's a fairytale for children. Only someone with the mind of a child would believe a story that ignores so much of what we know about the real world.

        August 26, 2014 at 11:34 am |
      • kudlak

        Theo
        Why would God have allowed Eden to be destroyed, or even altered? It was still created perfect, and should have remained so after the bad elements were ejected, right?

        August 26, 2014 at 11:56 am |
        • LaBella

          Good question.

          August 26, 2014 at 1:26 pm |
        • believerfred

          The Garden of Eden when God was present is the kingdom of God. Man in the image of God was placed in this Garden. There were two trees in the center and man left the presence of God (rejected God ) and was drawn into the deception symbolized by the tree of knowledge of good and evil. This is the fallen world we have existed in ever since. In this fallen world the position of the Garden of Eden is the region near Babylon. Most people know the region to the east as the cradle of civilization.
          Eden was hidden from man when man rejected God. One cannot have both the delusion of this physical world and the presence of God as he must choose who to serve. In Eden was also the tree of life and Adam could not have this eternal life because his choice was the delusion not God whose presence he knew.
          This is the same today. We can choose to be in the presence of God with God as our "King" or choose the delusion (naturalism)

          August 26, 2014 at 1:49 pm |
        • Alias

          Fred,
          You read from the bible at a low point in your life, and the wisdom of the bible has confused you into thinking the god of Abraham exists. You would have found the same wisdom in the Koran, or the teachings of the Buddha or Confucius.

          August 26, 2014 at 2:00 pm |
        • neverbeenhappieratheist

          He apparently blocked the path with angels weilding fiery swords, but now we should be able to get in via helicopter and avoid the whole fiery sword thing. Can't wait to try a piece of fruit from the tree of life...! It would taste delicious with some nectar of the Gods, if only they weren't completely mythilocigal.

          Seriously though, fiery swords blocking a garden that contains a tree that can grant immortality? And I thought the stories I read about Hercules and Zeus were fantastical.

          August 26, 2014 at 2:04 pm |
        • Alias

          Actually Fred,
          I tis a good thing you found the bible. If the Scientologists had found you first you would be in a labor camp by now.

          August 26, 2014 at 2:28 pm |
        • believerfred

          Alias
          "You would have found the same wisdom in the Koran, or the teachings of the Buddha or Confucius."
          =>That could only be possible if there was no God. Certainly you have noticed that your bias extends from godlessness. There are the two possible choices and yours is to reject God.
          Now, if there is no God then colin's self help book "Bootstraps for the Godless to Pull up On" would also work just as well.

          August 26, 2014 at 3:08 pm |
        • believerfred

          neverbeenhappieratheist
          As with anything we read Context, time, place and purpose of the writer helps understanding. Moses is expressing the fact no power of strength of man will allow him "the way the truth and the life". Man is dependent on God to find the way the truth and the life which is the eternal life given by what God did (aka the cross) not what man can.
          The knowledge of good and evil in man has no place in paradise. That desire for what we cannot handle is in man and is satiated outside the presence of God.
          Now, God is a holy God, purity, a burning holiness that refines all that is not of God. Man can no longer see God as good and evil are together in man. The way is guarded and you may paint a guard dog but Moses and the audience understood cherub (not necessarily angels) as guardians and a flaming sword as lightning flashes surrounding the All Mighty.

          August 26, 2014 at 3:58 pm |
    • tallulah131

      Maybe the serpent played the banjo.

      August 26, 2014 at 11:32 am |
      • Doc Vestibule

        "Yew gots a real purdy mouth" sayeth The Lord.

        August 26, 2014 at 11:41 am |
  4. Dyslexic doG

    Christianity hinges on a literal Adam and Eve and Garden of Eden for the Jesus sacrifice to make any sense whatsoever, and Adam and Eve and the Garden of Eden never existed. So the house of cards has fallen ... what now?

    August 26, 2014 at 8:06 am |
  5. awanderingscot

    "It is as though they [fossils] were just planted there, without any evolutionary history. Needless to say this appearance of sudden planting has delighted creationists. ...Both schools of thought (Punctuationists and Gradualists) despise so-called scientific creationists equally, and both agree that the major gaps are real, that they are true imperfections in the fossil record. The only alternative explanation of the sudden appearance of so many complex animal types in the Cambrian era is divine creation and (we) both reject this alternative." (Dawkins, Richard, The Blind Watchmaker)

    "Evolutionists of all stripes believe, however, that this really does represent a very large gap in the fossil record, a gap that is simply due to the fact that, for some reason, very few fossils have lasted from periods before about 600 million years ago. One good reason might be that many of these animals had only soft parts to their bodies: no shells or bones to fossilize. If you are a creationist you may think that this is special pleading. My point here is that, when we are talking about gaps of this magnitude, there is no difference whatever in the interpretations of 'punctuationists' and 'gradualists'." – Richard Dawkins

    – The cult of evolution still has not been to explain this ... oops !
    – Evolution is complete and utter nonsense and the adherents to this religion are delusional.

    August 25, 2014 at 10:02 pm |
    • observer

      awanderingscot,

      Speaking of utter and complete nonsense. please supply ONE FOSSIL or ANY PROOF WHATSOEVER of the existence of the Garden of Eden. Where was it? Where are Adam's bones? Where are Eve's bones? Where was Nod?

      August 25, 2014 at 10:14 pm |
      • awanderingscot

        Don't you read the bible, there were TWO people in the Garden of Eden. You go find them if you don't believe. I believe.

        August 25, 2014 at 10:17 pm |
        • observer

          awanderingscot,

          Yep. Creationists have ZIP, ZERO, NADA physical evidence.

          August 25, 2014 at 10:23 pm |
        • In Santa We Trust

          Where exactly is the garden of Eden?

          August 25, 2014 at 10:34 pm |
        • Madtown

          there were TWO people in the Garden of Eden
          ----
          And at least one snake.

          August 25, 2014 at 10:52 pm |
        • skytag

          Believing something doesn't make it true.

          August 25, 2014 at 11:18 pm |
        • skytag

          Something isn't true just because you believe it.

          August 25, 2014 at 11:19 pm |
        • niknakk

          I don't believe.
          And the vast majority of the world doesn't either, albeit for different reasons than me.

          Your kind are dying off Beam Me Up Scotty, and no one is going to miss you.

          August 26, 2014 at 12:02 am |
        • kermit4jc

          @nik...SO WHAT a majority of the world don't believe it??? truth is NOT based on popular votes! LMAO

          August 26, 2014 at 2:47 am |
        • skytag

          kermit4jc: "truth is NOT based on popular votes!"

          True. It's also not based on belief. Two billion Christians can believe something and it can still be wrong.

          August 26, 2014 at 5:19 am |
        • kermit4jc

          I never said truth is based on belief..try asking

          August 26, 2014 at 9:37 am |
      • kermit4jc

        youre silly....think about it..as scot said..TWO people..in a HUGE area! there are so many bones of other humans it slike finding a needle in a haystack..are we done looking? no! You think we are going to up and find the bones and other evidence right away? come one...get real!

        August 26, 2014 at 2:46 am |
        • observer

          kermit4jc,

          Get real yourself. Arguably the 2 MOST IMPORTANT people in history and apparently NOT ONE person bothered to mark and keep track of where they were buried. Nobody bothered to keep track of where mankind began. Get real.

          August 26, 2014 at 3:16 am |
        • kermit4jc

          maybe they DDI record it...ever thought of that? and the record is not YEt found...our argument is weak..you demand it be NOW....archeology is Never finished with finding new things.....

          August 26, 2014 at 3:20 am |
        • kermit4jc

          maybe you should really think about reality..the world is a HUGE place...the area which ADam and Eve came from is HUGE...as I said..like finding a needle in a haystack....youre just impatient

          August 26, 2014 at 3:21 am |
        • observer

          kermit4jc,

          No need for SCIENTISTS to do your work. It could have been EASILY recorded in the Bible. God, Moses, Jesus, etc. could have told mankind. Instead - NADA, NOTHING, ZILCH.

          August 26, 2014 at 3:23 am |
        • kermit4jc

          like you need evidence for the last couple..A and E? so then you throw out the baby with the bath water..even scientists don't do that!!!!

          August 26, 2014 at 3:33 am |
        • kermit4jc

          and again the Bible cannot contain every single piece of info silly..you know how big it is already..come one....

          August 26, 2014 at 3:33 am |
        • observer

          kermit4jc

          "and again the Bible cannot contain every single piece of info"

          You are a riot. Arguably the TWO MOST IMPORTANT people in history and you are delusional enough to claim that their graves are not worth noting in the Bible that is heavily dependent on their lives. Good one.

          August 26, 2014 at 3:37 am |
        • kermit4jc

          so A and E are evidence/proof of God???? come on....God shows Himself to be real....you are depending on weak stuff

          August 26, 2014 at 3:50 am |
        • kermit4jc

          besides..A and e are not God....its not all abot them

          August 26, 2014 at 3:51 am |
        • observer

          kermit4jc,

          Do you really think that ANYONE is buying your stalling tactics and TOTAL FAILURE to answer the question?

          Where is the Garden of Eden and where are the remains/burial sites of arguably the TWO MOST IMPORTANT PEOPLE in history? Still WAITING.

          August 26, 2014 at 4:00 am |
        • kermit4jc

          my my my...your enot buiying that the world is a huge place...your enot buying that the Middle East is a huge place....I guess you are thinking the world extends up till the gate in your backyard and we should be able to find everything under the sun in that little patch of land you have.......IM not stalling at all....the REALITY is its a huge place..and do ALL bones of every person survivie? is archology ALL finished with finding everything they need? (IM gueesing you thinking archeologists are out of business now, that they found everything)

          August 26, 2014 at 9:35 am |
        • austin929

          garden of eden might be in Africa, it is maybe near mount Hermon. that's where the watchers descended from heaven.

          other thing is that eden was somewhere before the continents split up. and Adam and Eve's location would have been wiped off the face of the earth.

          August 26, 2014 at 4:15 am |
        • skytag

          After nearly 2000 years two billion Christians can't produce a shred of objective evidence that anything they believe about God is true, and you're telling other people to "get real." That's too funny.

          August 26, 2014 at 5:20 am |
        • kermit4jc

          2000 years only? we got more than that dude..and just because you cannot accept our evidence, it does not mean we provided it.....the proof isn't whether the receiver of the evidence accepts it....that's bad logic..YOU guys keep bringing up proof of evolution, and yet we do not accept it..so I guess you guys never brought up any evidence! try that one on for size

          August 26, 2014 at 9:39 am |
        • Dyslexic doG

          Austin
          "other thing is that eden was somewhere before the continents split up. and Adam and Eve's location would have been wiped off the face of the earth."

          ahhhhh ... if the earth is only 6,000 years old, how much do you think the continents have moved in 6,000 years? LOLOLOL

          August 26, 2014 at 8:03 am |
    • Tom, Tom, the Other One

      Actually, in the theory of information, there are many systems that evolve slowly until a sort of breakthrough occurs and complexity bursts into being. Cellular automatons can act that way. A simple one is Conway's Game of Life. I know you resist new ways of thinking, scot, but I thought there might be some chance you might read on this.

      August 25, 2014 at 10:26 pm |
    • In Santa We Trust

      Do you have any evidence for creationism?

      August 25, 2014 at 10:31 pm |
      • Tom, Tom, the Other One

        When it feels right you know it's right. That's the Holy Spirit telling you.

        August 25, 2014 at 10:41 pm |
        • Doris

          Goodness, so He's been talking to me all this time whenever I'm in the "library"? And here I was just ignoring him and trying to fit in a quick game of Bejeweled in there.

          August 25, 2014 at 11:21 pm |
        • Tom, Tom, the Other One

          "You know you've got it, child, if it makes you feel good.
          Oh yes indeed"

          August 25, 2014 at 11:27 pm |
    • evolveddna

      scot.. still nothing on creation yet then..carry on...

      August 25, 2014 at 10:38 pm |
    • skytag

      More proof religion makes people stupid. The cult of Christianity can't explain a lot of things. An inability to explain something only means we don't know the explanation at this time.

      August 25, 2014 at 10:56 pm |
    • realbuckyball

      Which MUST be why virtually every academic Genetecist, Bilologist etc etc with FAR FAR FAR more education than Snotty has disagrees with Snotty's unsupported nonsense.
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientific_bodies_explicitly_rejecting_Intelligent_design
      ttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i1fGkFuHIu0

      August 25, 2014 at 11:16 pm |
    • Reality

      Scot,

      http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_011

      Get back to us when you have finished the course.

      August 26, 2014 at 12:12 am |
    • TruthPrevails1

      You, Theo, Austin and kermi need mental health help for the delusions you suffer from...if kermi was not lying about what he does for a living he'd know the following definition fits all of you but honesty and living in the 21st century is not something any of you seem capable of:
      "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.

      Less commonly, the individual may have the delusion of having a special relationship with a prominent person (such as being an adviser to the President). Or the person may believe that actually are a very prominent and important person, in which case the actual person may be regarded as an imposter.

      Grandiose delusions may have religious content, such as the person believes he or she has received a special message from God or another deity.

      Sometimes, in popular language, this disorder may be known as “megalomania,” but is more accurately referred to as narcissistic personality disorder if it is a core component of a person’s personality and identity. In such disorders, the person has a greatly out-of-proportion sense of their own worth and value in the world. People with this issue can also sometimes have a taste for the finer, more extravagant things in life. "
      http://psychcentral.com/encyclopedia/2008/delusion-of-grandeur/

      August 26, 2014 at 5:00 am |
      • kermit4jc

        TP...YOU need some mental help for delusions of thinking yo uare a psychologist who knows better than the other psychologists of the world who don't see a problem with what we know and believe.....seek help before you star thinking you are Hitler or something

        August 26, 2014 at 9:37 am |
        • TruthPrevails1

          I fail to see you reasoning here when what I did is no different than you quoting the bible to attempt to prove a point.
          Or does the reality of what I posted scare you?
          It doesn't take a psychologist to see how you and some of your ilk meet the description (from a reputable site and a site that you as an apparent psychologist should trust).
          Hitler is one of your ilk and unlike you, I could never treat another human so poorly (you prove that when you try to use your belief to deny others their rights).
          Have a good day kermi...

          August 26, 2014 at 9:42 am |
        • kermit4jc

          what a liar..YOU been treating people POORLY here all the time! yo ureally DO need help..now you are also a compulsive liar....there is treatment for that....lady....hardly ANY reputable psychologist ever say we are deluded..thats You who is deluded to think such..again I work with hundreds of them over 15 years and not OE of them says IM deluded for my beliefs or my religion..its you who thinks you know better than psychologists and Psychiatrists....get some help..quickly!

          August 26, 2014 at 9:48 am |
        • TruthPrevails1

          Pot meet kettle kermi...don't call anyone out. What I meant was you comparing me to Hitler was out of line...I could never treat another human the way he did.
          I posted something directly from a website that pertains to psychology, sorry if you don't agree with it.
          I'm doing quite well...no delusions of hearing gods; no delusions of a personal relationship with one..
          This part here is very descriptive of you and most of your ilk: "Grandiose delusions may have religious content, such as the person believes he or she has received a special message from God or another deity"....
          There is no reason for me to accept your claims of being a psychologist, you can be who you wish on the internet. If you are, you are but I wouldn't trust an innocent child to you and I doubt many here would either and in case you haven't clued in, I'm not the only person who has stated they don't believe you.
          Once again kermi, have a good day...I've stated my opinion and you got angry...I pity the hate you are filled with.

          August 26, 2014 at 9:58 am |
        • kermit4jc

          I di dnOT compare youto Hitler...sheesh..read again...I said yo uwere going to become so delusional yo uwere going to think you were some great person from the past (the point is yo are deluded to thinking yore something you are not..namely you oknowing better than all psychologsts and psychiatrists) and you been way out of line..so don't complain about it...you are a liar and you know it..you treated people poorly in this blog...and yet you seem to deny that....delusion

          August 26, 2014 at 10:02 am |
        • kermit4jc

          “Grandiose delusions may have religious content, such as the person believes he or she has received a special message from God or another deity”….<-this isn't me..so again yo uare really getting delusional here....yo never nother to ask me much quesiotns..most of what you say about me is BS (I am no more special than anyone else to get revelations from God) etc etc (oh..and was it you who thought I worked in a Christian school?)

          August 26, 2014 at 10:03 am |
        • TruthPrevails1

          Have you not stated that you have had conversations with God?
          And no, I have never claimed you worked in a Christian school...I only know that you attended (according to what you have stated) a Christian run University I believe called Sampson.
          So tell me something...if I'm wrong I apologize but I'm curious to know what your opinion of Austin claiming things have been revealed to him by god, is? Maybe he's more fitting to the description of grandiose delusions.

          August 26, 2014 at 10:10 am |
        • kermit4jc

          yes..i said God speaks to me..but I do NOT claim to be more special than anyone else because of it...as for austin..I haven't really paid any attention to him....been to busy with dealing with people like you and doc and others

          August 26, 2014 at 10:13 am |
        • TruthPrevails1

          Take some time to read some of Austin's posts.

          August 26, 2014 at 10:18 am |
        • Doc Vestibule

          @Kermit
          Whenever someone says that God speaks to them I have to wonder exactly how that works.
          Some claim they receive perfectly clear psychic messages – a voice speaks language to them.
          Some claim a more ambiguous experience – the Holy Spirit guides them to this or that conclusion but no specific instructions are given.
          Some say they receive cryptic visions in their dreams, or sometimes hallucinations while awake.
          The only thing they all have in common is that the experiences are never testable or apparent to others.
          Testimony of divine, psychic messages must be taken on faith.
          That's the stuff Prophets are made of – from Abraham to Moses to Mohammad to Joseph Smith to David Koresh...

          August 26, 2014 at 10:22 am |
        • atlantic9

          According to a phychiatrist I met believing a god is talking to you is psychotic.

          August 26, 2014 at 1:41 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          yeah..ONE psychiatrist....why not the WHOLE association of APA? hmm? as I mentioned before..not ONE of the ones I work with say such..I did not deny NO ONE says it....the CONSENSUS is that we are not deluded

          August 26, 2014 at 4:10 pm |
  6. Vic

    From the article:

    [
    “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?)
    ]

    That is a very crucial question. As a matter of fact, in the video clip, S.E. Cupp is basically saying that Liberal atheists are hostile to religion while Conservative atheists are not.

    In the meantime, coupled with Chris Stedman's provided data, that might mean that while Liberal atheists exhibit "Intellectual Diversity" by including Muslims, they miserably fail "Intellectual Diversity" by excluding Christians.

    I believe S.E. Cupp's entire message is as follows:

    She is a Conservative but she doesn't want to be a theist AND that Conservative atheists are better than Liberal atheists.

    Here is S.E. Cupp's video clip in words—transcript:

    "I don't know, I don't believe in God but I'm not mad at him. I think I'm an atheist because I'm not a joiner. I didn't want to be a part of a club or a group, it seems like there is this idea perpetuated by atheists that atheists are somehow disenfranchised or left out the political process, and I just I don't find that to be the case. I think, in fact, atheists have grown more vocal over the past decade or two than ever before. In fact, in many ways, atheists act like a religious body onto themselves. There is another myth that Conservatism is somehow hostile to Atheism, I also don't find that to be the case. I am a Conservative atheist, I've felt very welcomed [laughter] by this party. In fact, I'd go so far as to say, Conservatism is far more intellectually honest and respectful of Atheism than Liberalism has been. For Conservatives, Atheism is something that is tolerated, respected, we appreciate an intellectual diversity; most Conservative atheists I know, including myself, have a really healthy respect for the role of religion in society and in this country in particular, and in contrast, on the Left, it seems as though there is this knee-jerk embrace of what is more like a militant hostility†, a reaction against intellectual diversity; it's exclusionary. Bill Maher thinks 95% of the world has a neurological disorder, I don't think you can find that on the Right, and for that reason, I'll say it, "I think our atheists are better than yours."

    † There is no "to faith" in the video clip as as in the article.

    Early on:
    http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2014/08/22/are-conservative-atheists-really-better/comment-page-1/#comment-3063061

    August 25, 2014 at 9:03 pm |
    • observer

      "For Conservatives, Atheism is something that is tolerated, respected, we appreciate an intellectual diversity"

      From the Comedy Channel, right?

      August 25, 2014 at 9:07 pm |
    • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

      @Vic,

      did you go to this much trouble because you feel like Ms. Cupp was somehow misrepresented?

      What did you think she said Liberals had a militant hostility to rather than "faith"? She did say "militant hostility", right?

      Would you rather the author said "the role of religion in society" which is the apparent context?

      It changes things not one whit. Based on the Pew survey you linked last week, Ms Cupp is hoisted on her own petard.

      Republicans hate atheists much more than Democrats do. It's in the Pew data in black and white.

      http://www.pewforum.org/2014/07/16/how-americans-feel-about-religious-groups/

      August 25, 2014 at 9:30 pm |
      • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

        Democrats treat all religions pretty much equally whereas Republicans are trimodal – they love Evangelicals, Catholics and Jews, but hate atheists and Muslims.

        August 25, 2014 at 9:51 pm |
        • Tom, Tom, the Other One

          I had thought to say they had a little fling with Mormons, but, as someone said, it wasn't a fling. They bedded down and f_cked hard.

          August 25, 2014 at 10:05 pm |
      • Vic

        I pointed out the addition of "to faith" by the author just to be accurate in my assessment, in case that redaction altered the meaning.

        I believe that the whole point of discerning what S.E. Cupp is saying is that Liberal atheists are not reasonable in their approach towards Theism, and in my educated assessment, I believe they go so far as to single out Christianity, and that's very sad.

        Meanwhile, I referred to the Pew Survey

        [http://www.pewforum.org/2014/07/16/how-americans-feel-about-religious-groups/]

        before and last week as a reality check for where things stand on the matter, regardless of the different opinions about it.

        August 25, 2014 at 10:33 pm |
        • skytag

          Atheists single out Christianity in this country because it's the only religion that ever had any political power in this country. Muslims are responsible for laws banning gay marriage and Jews aren't responsible for the old Blue Laws that prohibited businesses from opening on Sundays. It wasn't Hindus who put provisions in seven state constitutions prohibiting atheists from holding public office.

          I haven't seen you in a while, Vic, but you're obviously just as dumb as I remember, because what I just said should be obvious, yet you don't seem to understand why atheists have a particular issue with Christianity in this country. Also, you bought into Cupp's BS. She isn't really an atheist and that stuff about conservative atheists being more tolerant is a wholly unsupported partisan claim.

          August 25, 2014 at 11:15 pm |
        • skytag

          That should be "Muslims aren't responsible for laws banning gay marriage."

          August 25, 2014 at 11:16 pm |
        • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

          " I believe they go so far as to single out Christianity, and that's very sad."
          --------------------–
          Vic, this is not borne out in the Pew data. Liberals don't single out Christians at all.

          The "temperature" score for Evangelical Christians by Democrats is 53 – it is right in the middle of the spread between Jews (62) and Mormons (44). The *data* shows that Democrats have somewhat equitably similar feelings for *all* religions in the middle of the range.

          Republicans on the other hand have three bands. They really like Evangelical Christians, Jews and Catholics (71-66), Have middling feelings toward Mormons, Buddhists and Hindus (52 – 47) and really don't like atheists and Muslims (34-33), the latter group of which is really very low and puts the lie to Ms. Cupp's assertions.

          August 26, 2014 at 11:53 am |
        • Vic

          Quickly:

          I am not referring to Democrats in general, rather, Liberal atheists in particular, and from different sources along with the Pew 2011 & 2012 surveys linked to above—reflecting Liberal atheists and Muslims to be mainly Democrats and/or Lean Democrats, altogether, talk shows—Bill Maher is a perfect example, and personal observations over time. A major example of Liberal atheists singling out Christianity is the American Atheist organization's militant activism against such, as well as the so-called online atheists. That's what S.E. Cupp refers to as the 'knee-jerk embrace of what is more like a militant hostility†, a reaction against intellectual diversity;' regarding the Liberal atheists' attitude towards religion/faith; she equates tolerance of religion/faith to "Intellectual Diversity."

          Given all that, I believe it is safe to say that S.E. Cupp posits that Conservatives are tolerant of Conservative atheists.

          † Notice the possible confusion arising from adding "to faith" here since in the very next sentence S.E. Cupp refers to the the whole stance as 'a reaction against intellectual diversity; it's exclusionary.' It's better to leave "to faith" out so equating intolerance of religion/faith to that has its intended weight.

          August 26, 2014 at 12:52 pm |
        • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

          Vic,

          there is no Pew data that I am aware of to suggest *anything* specifically about "Liberal atheists".

          They have lots of data about "Liberals" – often specifically Democrats, most of whom are religious.
          They have lots of data about "atheists" without a breakdown of liberal versus conservative.

          Bill Maher may be a Liberal atheist. He is not a "perfect example". He speaks for no one but himself. I happily concur that he is a militant anti-theist, but his views cannot be extrapolated to mean "all Liberal atheists". Certainly there will be common viewpoints but he is extreme in his position. He is a good example of a politically liberal anti-theist.

          August 26, 2014 at 1:48 pm |
        • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

          "Given all that, I believe it is safe to say that S.E. Cupp posits that Conservatives are tolerant of Conservative atheists."
          ---------------------
          No, it's really not. The only hard data is that Republicans pretty much hate atheists – they scored atheists (34) lower than any other group except Muslims (33) and not by much.

          There is no distinction in the data between "liberal and conservative" atheists.

          Atheists being 'unwelcome' at CPAC (even if it is David Silverman) is more evidence that conservatives are absolutely not inclusive of atheists – even conservative atheists.

          It's not surprising. They treat women the same way.

          August 26, 2014 at 1:53 pm |
    • skytag

      "I think I'm an atheist because I'm not a joiner."

      As soon as she said that she lost all credibility with anyone who has a brain. Atheists are atheists because they see no reason to believe anything one could reasonably call a god exists. No one is an atheist because he's "not a joiner."

      Cupp and Palin prove conservative women can get away with saying the stupidest stuff imaginable as long as they're hot looking and say it with enough conviction.

      August 25, 2014 at 11:06 pm |
    • realbuckyball

      Baloney. Liberal atheists do not embrace Islam any more then they accept the crap of Christianity. Vic and Stedman are either high or retarded.

      August 25, 2014 at 11:18 pm |
      • skytag

        They don't "embrace" Islam, but they don't view it as negatively as they do evangelical Christians, probably because evangelical Christians are the worst group in America for imposing their beliefs on the rest of us.

        August 25, 2014 at 11:25 pm |
        • realbuckyball

          I beg to differ. Atheists look at Islam with more disgust and negativity than Christianity. At least the founders of Chrisianity were not pedos, and at least they do not preach infidels should be beheaded. As Bart Ehrman said, the reason they don't talk about Islam, is the FEAR the consequences.

          August 25, 2014 at 11:47 pm |
        • skytag

          realbuckyball: I'm an atheist and my sense is that most objectionable aspects of Islam as is it practiced in some countries are as much cultural in their origin as religious. Muslims here in America are not calling for beheadings.

          I view them both pretty negatively. Islam for it's extreme views, and Christianity because I have to deal with its idiøts on a regular basis. Just yesterday a Jehovah's Witness woman came to my house to sell her fairytale. She sounded like a simpleton, dumb as a post. Muslims never come to my house.

          August 26, 2014 at 12:02 am |
        • realbuckyball

          Well you're lucky then. Some did come to some office towers I know of. I'm not aware of Christians blowing themselves up in crowds these days. The Quran says infidels should be killed. It's every bit as nasty and barbaric as the holy books of other cults.

          August 26, 2014 at 12:20 am |
        • skytag

          realbuckyball: There were quite a number of bombings in Northern Ireland during the latter part of the last century.

          August 26, 2014 at 5:26 am |
        • realbuckyball

          Your point is, exactly, what ? The POINT was concerning atheists tollerance of Islam. Bombings in N Ireland are irrelevant. Go to any atheist forum. You wil find equal opportunity condemnation of the nonsense of Islam, which, in 2014, presents at least as much a threat to the world peace, and liberty, as anything on could think of.

          August 26, 2014 at 7:15 am |
      • Tom, Tom, the Other One

        Earl of Sandwich: "Sir, I do not know whether you will die on the gallows or of the pox."
        John Wilkes: "That depends, my lord, on whether I embrace your lordship's principles or your mistress."

        August 25, 2014 at 11:35 pm |
      • tallulah131

        I don't embrace any religion, but it is not my place to tell people what or how to believe. I can try to inform and educate them, but what they do with that information is up to them. I can certainly use my vote and my voice to protest actions by religious groups that try to legislate their beliefs, and I can certainly mock those who pretend their religion grants them special rights or powers. But part of the bargain of living in a country where my belief (or lack thereof) is protected is that I must accept that the beliefs of others are protected equally.

        August 26, 2014 at 11:48 am |
        • G to the T

          Well said tal – couldn't have said it better.

          August 26, 2014 at 11:58 am |
      • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

        "Liberal atheists do not embrace Islam any more then they accept the crap of Christianity. Vic and Stedman are either high or retarded.
        ----------------------
        You conflate "Liberal atheists" with "Liberals" here.

        Liberals (most of whom are religious) have similar feelings towards both atheists (46) and Muslims (44).

        http://www.pewforum.org/files/2014/07/Views-of-Religious-Groups-full-PDF-for-web.pdf

        In the full report on page 4, atheists hate Evangelical Christians (28) the most. Atheists rate Muslims the same as Liberals do (44).

        Evangelical Christians hate atheists even more (25).

        Unsurprisingly (given what goes on here) the biggest gap in religious animus is between Evangelical Christians and atheists and it's mutual. It could be considered a chicken and egg thing, but I think the atheist position is a response to animus by Christians – unlike the way Fox positions it as the opposite.

        August 26, 2014 at 12:14 pm |
  7. Doris

    jknbt: "[...] science is treated as a friend these days by religious people. science is taught in every christian university and christian private high school [..] so can we please keep the discussion current to 2014?"

    Well – not exactly. Take places like Bob Jones University. They boast a study body of about 2,850 and claim to have graduated 35,000. They have a TACCS accreditation and with other NCCAA schools in sports, but otherwise have virtually no serious accreditation. The university supports young-earth creationism, all their faculty are young Earth creationists and the university rejects evolution, calling it "at best an unsupportable and unworkable hypothesis".

    The following is snipped from an article on america/aljazeera.com by Claire Gordon called "Rape victims say Bob Jones University told them to repent":

    ======

    Raised in a conservative Mennonite home in rural Ohio, Katie Landry was a sheltered kid. She hadn’t even held hands with a boy when, at age 19, she says her supervisor at her summer job raped her. Two years later, and desperate for help, she reported the abuse to the dean of students at her college.

    “He goes, ‘Well, there’s always a sin under other sin. There’s a root sin,’” Landry remembers. “And he said, ‘We have to find the sin in your life that caused your rape.’ And I just ran."

    Landry ended up dropping out of college, and didn’t tell anyone else for five years.

    Her college was Bob Jones University in Greenville, S.C., the flagship campus of American fundamentalism, which teaches a literal interpretation of the Bible and separation from the world. Last year, BJU hired a watchdog group to investigate how it may have failed victims of sexual abuse. The so-called “fortress of faith,” one of the most closed-off Christian colleges in America, was finally opening itself up.

    In an America Tonight investigation, five former students detailed similar and scarring treatment at the hands of BJU faculty. They spoke of a larger culture that heaped on shame and pushed them to silence - one focused on purity and reputation, and insistent on unquestioning obedience. But most damaging was how, through the language of Scripture, victims say they were told that their sins had brought on their rapes, that their trauma meant they were fighting God and that healing came from forgiving their rapists.

    The women interviewed for this article attended BJU during the course of three different decades – from the early 1990s to the 2010s – and none of them have fully recovered.

    ======

    August 25, 2014 at 5:41 pm |
    • Doris

      The date of that online article that I quoted is June 18, 2014.

      August 25, 2014 at 5:47 pm |
    • Robert Brown

      Aweful

      August 25, 2014 at 5:59 pm |
    • rogerthat2014

      The Bible says that ra pe is ok.

      August 25, 2014 at 6:02 pm |
      • Robert Brown

        Nope

        August 25, 2014 at 6:05 pm |
        • rogerthat2014

          You know it does. Tell me where to find the contradictory verse where it condemns ra pe.

          August 25, 2014 at 6:08 pm |
        • Robert Brown

          Duet. 22:25 But if a man find a betrothed damsel in the field, and the man force her, and lie with her: then the man only that lay with her shall die:

          August 25, 2014 at 6:31 pm |
        • niknakk

          Your book of nasty says it is ok to do all kind of horrible things.
          Hell, the first version was filled with so much nasty they had to rewrite the whole thing.

          When you get people to believe the earth is only 6k years old, then you can get them to do all kind of nasty things, and not feel any guilt in doing them.

          August 25, 2014 at 6:34 pm |
        • rogerthat2014

          This from one of God's best, Moses.
          Numbers 31:7-18. Here is 15-18.

          15 Moses said to them, "Have you let all the women live?
          16 Behold, these, on Balaam's advice, caused the people of Israel to act treacherously against the LORD in the incident of Peor, and so the plague came among the congregation of the LORD.
          17 Now therefore, kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has known man by lying with him.
          18 But all the young girls who have not known man by lying with him keep alive for yourselves.

          August 25, 2014 at 7:17 pm |
        • rogerthat2014

          Duet. 20:

          10 "When you draw near to a city to fight against it, offer terms of peace to it.
          11 And if it responds to you peaceably and it opens to you, then all the people who are found in it shall do forced labor for you and shall serve you.
          12 But if it makes no peace with you, but makes war against you, then you shall besiege it.
          13 And when the LORD your God gives it into your hand, you shall put all its males to the sword,
          14 but the women and the little ones, the livestock, and everything else in the city, all its spoil, you shall take as plunder for yourselves. And you shall enjoy the spoil of your enemies, which the LORD your God has given you.

          August 25, 2014 at 7:24 pm |
        • rogerthat2014

          Deut. 21:

          10 "When you go out to war against your enemies, and the LORD your God gives them into your hand and you take them captive,
          11 and you see among the captives a beautiful woman, and you desire to take her to be your wife,
          12 and you bring her home to your house, she shall shave her head and pare her nails.
          13 And she shall take off the clothes in which she was captured and shall remain in your house and lament her father and her mother a full month. After that you may go in to her and be her husband, and she shall be your wife.
          14 But if you no longer delight in her, you shall let her go where she wants. But you shall not sell her for money, nor shall you treat her as a slave, since you have humiliated her.

          August 25, 2014 at 7:26 pm |
        • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

          DEUTERONOMY 22:28

          28 “If a man meets a virgin who is not betrothed, and seizes her and lies with her, and they are found, 29 then the man who
          lay with her shall give to the father of the young woman fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife, because he has violated her; he may not put her away all his days.

          Hmmm...so if the woman is not betrothed suddenly it is a loophole for the man to take a wife by force...and the woman has to marry her attacker...and the man is not punished for the r@pe at all....because it is a property crime.

          August 25, 2014 at 7:35 pm |
        • rogerthat2014

          Since you brought up Deuteronomy 22, let's read a little further.

          28 "If a man meets a virgin who is not betrothed, and seizes her and lies with her, and they are found,
          29 then the man who lay with her shall give to the father of the young woman fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife, because he has violated her. He may not divorce her all his days.

          Of course if they aren't found, then don't worry about it.

          August 25, 2014 at 7:40 pm |
        • rogerthat2014

          Cheese got it first.

          August 25, 2014 at 7:42 pm |
        • Robert Brown

          I understand that in our modern civilized society these things seem harsh, but at that time in that place this was protection for women.

          August 25, 2014 at 8:15 pm |
        • observer

          Robert Brown,

          This is a standard EXCUSE from apologists. The "cultural" ALIBI amounts to saying that God didn't do what was RIGHT, just what was POLITICALLY CORRECT.

          If that kind of excuse is allowed, then God apparently supports gay marriage today.

          August 25, 2014 at 8:27 pm |
        • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

          Robert,

          What was wrong with "Thou shall not r@pe"...period.

          It is simple, direct and does not require a person to marry their attacker.

          August 25, 2014 at 8:30 pm |
        • Tom, Tom, the Other One

          I'm not clear on why God could not have ordained for his chosen people respect for women and a status for them equal to that of men. Was he too preoccupied with dietary restrictions, Robert?

          August 25, 2014 at 8:34 pm |
        • Robert Brown

          Observer, I think it had more to do with preventing women from starving to death.

          August 25, 2014 at 8:55 pm |
        • Robert Brown

          Blessed, taken far enough, thou shalt not commit adultery, handles it.

          August 25, 2014 at 8:57 pm |
        • observer

          Robert Brown,

          It's hard to think of anything more HEARTLESS that to FORCE a r@pe victim to marry the low-life rapist and be stuck with that constant reminder for the rest of your life.

          This was one of several LOW POINTS in the Bible. It's PATHETIC that you or anyone would defend such barbaric actions. Once again, the Bible horribly discriminated against women. Being politically correct is a PITIFUL excuse.

          August 25, 2014 at 9:04 pm |
        • Tom, Tom, the Other One

          I think Abrahamic religions are alike in that God's laws exist to be obeyed. Only secondarily to embody some system of justice. Women could show obedience to God by being good wives to their rapists. There are worse things in the bible, but not by much.

          August 25, 2014 at 9:33 pm |
        • Robert Brown

          This could be helpful;
          http://www.gotquestions.org/Deuteronomy-22-28-29-marry-rapist.html

          August 25, 2014 at 9:54 pm |
        • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

          Robert,

          Apparently it wasn't.

          August 25, 2014 at 10:07 pm |
        • Madtown

          This could be helpful;
          ---
          That site looks extremely fair, balanced, and non-biased. Also, the moon is made of green cheese.

          August 25, 2014 at 10:56 pm |
        • skytag

          According to your scripture it's okay to rape a woman if she isn't betrothed. Or put another way, you can't rape another man's property.

          August 26, 2014 at 12:04 am |
    • Tom, Tom, the Other One

      I think this group of fundamentalists is being true to the most primitive basis of their religion: there is sin, always, and there are always penalties to be paid. Justice is one of the things religion simplifies and guarantees. It makes it very simple. All evil is punishment for evil that we do.

      August 25, 2014 at 7:00 pm |
      • Doris

        Yes, perhaps this is right in line with those who on this blog have expressed that the Holocaust was the Christian God's righteous punishment for apostasy. Maybe moderate Christians are not true Christians. Maybe one of the Abrahamic God's satellite offices is at BJU. Hmm – Jesus < – > Yahweh; heck – maybe he has a satellite office at BYU too....

        August 25, 2014 at 8:30 pm |
  8. Alias

    Would one of you christian bible experts please explain why the bible says the world is unmoving, and the sun orbits the earth. The church taught this until the 17th century.
    Galileo's championing of heliocentrism was controversial within his lifetime. The matter was investigated by the Roman Inquisition in 1615, which concluded that heliocentrism was false and contrary to scripture, placing works advocating the Copernican system on the index of banned books and forbidding Galileo from advocating heliocentrism. Galileo later defended his views in Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems, which appeared to attack Pope Urban VIII. He was tried by the Holy Office, then found "vehemently suspect of heresy", was forced to recant, and spent the rest of his life under house arrest.
    Those of you apologists who claim he was only at odds with the church because he insulted the pope are in denial of the truth. Galileo was trying to show that the Earth was round and orbiting the sun, which was in contradiction to what the church was teaching at the time.

    August 25, 2014 at 4:41 pm |
    • awanderingscot

      God still loves you, even though you make a fool of yourself every day.

      August 25, 2014 at 4:52 pm |
      • Dyslexic doG

        a cowardly dodge.

        August 25, 2014 at 4:54 pm |
      • LaBella

        So that would be a "no, I can't explain it."

        August 25, 2014 at 4:57 pm |
        • awanderingscot

          I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and chalk it up to pure ignorance and sloth in not researching this. I got pulled away earlier and thus could not respond with more at that time. Books such as Proverbs, Psalms, Song of Songs, and Ecclesiastes have in addition to wisdom a certain amount of prose and thus you have phrases such as "ends of the earth". This does not mean that educated people of the day believed the earth to be flat or that the sun revolved around the earth. The great maritime culture of the Phoenicians knew precisely that the earth was round and revolved around the sun as did Assyrian astrologers. God's revelations in scripture also contain scientific truth. It is only ignorant men such as those church leaders you relate to that have things wrong. Smug and foolish pride calls the ancients illiterate and uneducated. Here are some appropriate passages for you to contemplate.

          It is He who sits above the circle of the earth, and its inhabitants are like grasshoppers, who stretches out the heavens like a curtain, and spreads them out like a tent to dwell in. – Isaiah 40:22, NKJV

          As the heavens for height and the earth for depth, So the heart of kings is unsearchable. – Proverbs 25:3, NKJV

          The sun also rises, and the sun goes down, And hastens to the place where it arose. – Ecclesiastes 1:5, NKJV

          – Solomon was merely using the language of human appearance. The sun appears to rise and set. It is so readily understood that it should not require explanation.

          August 26, 2014 at 10:59 pm |
        • LaBella

          I didn't ask the question, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and not chalk it up to abject ignorance on how a thread works or the inability to use the reply button correctly, but instead merely assume you placed it here accidentally.

          August 26, 2014 at 11:14 pm |
      • Alias

        Scot
        This is a very obvious mistake in your bible.
        Now that we have proven it is not the perfect word of any god, shall we discuss what else it has wrong?

        August 25, 2014 at 5:09 pm |
        • awanderingscot

          I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and chalk it up to pure ignorance and sloth in not researching this. I got pulled away earlier and thus could not respond with more at that time. Books such as Proverbs, Psalms, Song of Songs, and Ecclesiastes have in addition to wisdom a certain amount of prose and thus you have phrases such as "ends of the earth". This does not mean that educated people of the day believed the earth to be flat or that the sun revolved around the earth. The great maritime culture of the Phoenicians knew precisely that the earth was round and revolved around the sun as did Assyrian astrologers. God's revelations in scripture also contain scientific truth. It is only ignorant men such as those church leaders you relate to that have things wrong. Smug and foolish pride calls the ancients illiterate and uneducated. Here are some appropriate passages for you to contemplate.

          It is He who sits above the circle of the earth, and its inhabitants are like grasshoppers, who stretches out the heavens like a curtain, and spreads them out like a tent to dwell in. – Isaiah 40:22, NKJV

          As the heavens for height and the earth for depth, So the heart of kings is unsearchable. – Proverbs 25:3, NKJV

          The sun also rises, and the sun goes down, And hastens to the place where it arose. – Ecclesiastes 1:5, NKJV

          – Solomon was merely using the language of human appearance. The sun appears to rise and set. It is so readily understood that it should not require explanation.

          August 26, 2014 at 11:01 pm |
        • observer

          "The sun also rises, and the sun goes down, And hastens to the place where it arose. – Ecclesiastes 1:5, NKJV"

          Just more proof that the Bible contains much NONSENSE and errors.

          August 27, 2014 at 12:24 am |
        • kermit4jc

          HEY..may I suggest you call your local news stations and tell the meteorologists to stop the nonsense of sunrise/sunset then

          August 27, 2014 at 2:00 am |
        • observer

          kermit4jc,

          So what you got out of that was that I think sunrises and sunsets are NONSENSE?

          Funny that you OMITTED the part about the sun RACING around.

          Please try to get REAL someday.

          August 27, 2014 at 2:19 am |
        • kermit4jc

          I di dnot omit that...the point is...the Bible uses literary devices....just as we do...meteorologists say sunrise and sinset....so did Bible authors, figures of speech..and since the sun "racing around" is in same passage...sentence...it too is a figure of speech...so no reason to think they are wrong.... (I figured you would be able to connect the dots)

          August 27, 2014 at 3:44 am |
        • observer

          kermit4jc,

          The sun rises, and the sun goes down, And hastens to the place where it arose – – TRUE or FALSE?

          August 27, 2014 at 4:16 am |
        • kermit4jc

          WHAT? oh come on.....are you seroous???? I already explained it...you LREADY got the answer..knock it off

          August 27, 2014 at 9:30 am |
      • Russ

        @ Alias: a few key things are often overlooked in the Galileo discussion:
        1) Galileo never stopped being a Christian
        2) this was a debate AMONG Christians (not a case of religion vs. science)

        a longer article that you might find helpful:
        http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2011/09/the-myth-of-galileo-a-story-with-a-mostly-valuable-lesson-for-today/

        August 25, 2014 at 5:39 pm |
        • MidwestKen

          Russ,
          Wasn't pretty much everyone Christian then? Did they really have a choice in that society?

          August 25, 2014 at 5:44 pm |
        • Russ

          @ MWKen:
          no. that'd be like saying "isn't everyone in Iraq Muslim?" it's both historically inaccurate & rather ethnocentric to imply "they just didn't have a choice."

          August 25, 2014 at 5:59 pm |
        • joey3467

          All of which has nothing to do with the bible being wrong or not.

          August 25, 2014 at 5:46 pm |
        • Russ

          @ joey:
          seems a foregone conclusion in your mind that the only type of Christian you know is a young earth creationist. so, even if i point out that many early Christians (probably most famously, Augustine) pointed out the text did not necessarily teach such things, you will simply toss it aside. and then there's the "3 level cosmogony" argument (heaven above, earth, hell below), which fails both to actually read the text or to read the ancient commentators on the text.

          so yes, Galileo is an historical discussion on how science is understood among Christians. but no, the Bible's accuracy is not necessarily the same discussion. but you seem insistent on categorizing all biblical Christians into a group you can more readily mock – which, ironically, requires you sharing the very same method of interpreting the Bible as those you mock.

          as is often the case: the far left looks an awful lot like the far right.

          August 25, 2014 at 6:10 pm |
        • joey3467

          Well Ken, according to people like Theo since they were Catholics none of them were Christians.

          August 25, 2014 at 5:53 pm |
        • Alias

          Heresy was a crime in most of western europe at the time. So even if he wasn't christian, he would have claimed to be. Iraq was a bad example, try Iran. They do arrest peopl ein Iran for preaching other religions there.

          August 25, 2014 at 6:07 pm |
        • Alias

          Russ
          "2) this was a debate AMONG Christians"
          This is another important point I'm trying to make, If the christians cannot agree on what their bible says, then how are they supposed to know what to do to please their god and get to heaven?

          August 25, 2014 at 6:10 pm |
        • Russ

          @ Alias:
          there is *some* variance on *some* teachings, but that's a far cry from saying "no one can agree on haven & God (i.e., what matters most)" is simply untrue.

          take for example the Apostles' Creed. it's a brief but rather complex list of doctrines which virtually ALL of the world's 2 billion Christians agree upon – and it dates from roughly 180 AD. that's an awful a lot of agreement on what matters most, even if there is some disagreement on peripheral matters (and yes, despite the outrage of non-theists, science is peripheral in comparison to salvation, God, etc.).

          August 25, 2014 at 6:16 pm |
        • MidwestKen

          Russ,
          Wasn't Galileo actually tried by the Roman Inquisition?

          Hardly sounds like a paragon of freedom and choice.

          August 25, 2014 at 6:11 pm |
        • Russ

          @ MWKen:
          as a Protestant, I'm not here to defend the Catholic Church's response to the Reformation... but the Reformation is an historical fact. and there were non-Christians in Europe at that time, too. so yes, there was a choice.

          August 25, 2014 at 6:13 pm |
        • Russ

          @ Alias: have you not been reading the news? heard of ISIS & what they are doing to groups of multiple different religions with whom they disagree?

          August 25, 2014 at 6:11 pm |
        • MidwestKen

          Russ,
          Not sure what you being a protestant has to do with anything. I'm not not blaming Christianity for the Inquisition, just saying that he didn't much of a choice.

          While there may have been a small minority of non christans, but was it not common for apostates to be tortured and even killed. Being a catholic already , Galileo hardly had a choice to leave, other than through death of course.

          August 25, 2014 at 6:42 pm |
        • observer

          Russ

          "Galileo never stopped being a Christian"

          As a "Christian", Galileo was FORCED to spend the last 8 years of his life under house arrest. Think how much worse it would have been like if he said anything to indicate he wasn't a "Christian". Claiming that he "never stopped being a Christian" has NO PROOF and likely could be wishful thinking.

          August 25, 2014 at 8:52 pm |
      • realbuckyball

        "God still loves you, even though you make a fool of yourself every day."

        Really ? But your god is omniscient. She KNOWS that some people are going to reject her and go to hell. Does she "love" those in hell ? Is that "good for them" ? If so, then at some point she stopped loving them. When is that point the omniscient being started listening to the voices in it's head ?

        August 25, 2014 at 7:55 pm |
      • skytag

        A real Christian would never say such a thing. Yet another Christian fraud.

        August 25, 2014 at 11:30 pm |
        • awanderingscot

          Sorry, it takes a real Christian to know a real Christian .. and you don't qualify.

          August 27, 2014 at 9:06 am |
      • awanderingscot

        I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and chalk it up to pure ignorance and sloth in not researching this. I got pulled away earlier and thus could not respond with more at that time. Books such as Proverbs, Psalms, Song of Songs, and Ecclesiastes have in addition to wisdom a certain amount of prose and thus you have phrases such as "ends of the earth". This does not mean that educated people of the day believed the earth to be flat or that the sun revolved around the earth. The great maritime culture of the Phoenicians knew precisely that the earth was round and revolved around the sun as did Assyrian astrologers. God's revelations in scripture also contain scientific truth. It is only ignorant men such as those church leaders you relate to that have things wrong. Smug and foolish pride calls the ancients illiterate and uneducated. Here are some appropriate passages for you to contemplate.

        It is He who sits above the circle of the earth, and its inhabitants are like grasshoppers, who stretches out the heavens like a curtain, and spreads them out like a tent to dwell in. – Isaiah 40:22, NKJV

        As the heavens for height and the earth for depth, So the heart of kings is unsearchable. – Proverbs 25:3, NKJV

        The sun also rises, and the sun goes down, And hastens to the place where it arose. – Ecclesiastes 1:5, NKJV

        – Solomon was merely using the language of human appearance. The sun appears to rise and set. It is so readily understood that it should not require explanation.

        August 26, 2014 at 10:57 pm |
    • jknbt

      we live in the current century. why do you expect people to take the blame for what happened 500 years ago? what were your ancestors doing 500 years ago?

      science is treated as a friend these days by religious people. science is taught in every christian university and christian private high school.

      so can we please keep the discussion current to 2014?

      August 25, 2014 at 4:55 pm |
      • Alias

        My point is that the bible was wrong then, and it is wrong now.
        Current enough?

        August 25, 2014 at 4:58 pm |
        • believerfred

          You are wrong now. The Bible never said the earth stood still is terms of a planet not in orbit.

          August 25, 2014 at 5:33 pm |
      • Dyslexic doG

        I think atheists would love to have a 2014 discussion.

        But as long as Christians judge and oppress people using the words of a book written thousands of years ago, we have a problem.

        lie: "science is treated as a friend these days by religious people"
        lie: "science is taught in every christian university and christian private high school."

        August 25, 2014 at 5:01 pm |
        • believerfred

          Tell me, am I judging you when I say those who reject God with their dying breath will not enter the kingdom of God?

          August 25, 2014 at 5:41 pm |
        • atlantic9

          Cant enter a place that does not exist,

          August 25, 2014 at 6:42 pm |
        • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

          fred,

          yes...it is called a proxy threat.

          August 25, 2014 at 7:52 pm |
        • believerfred

          Blessed are the Cheesemakers
          aha, thanks I have been called judgmental and just could not figure out why someone who believes there is no God and the Bible is fiction yet gets bent if I mention the fate of those who reject God.
          As to me calling you godless would that be offensive or simply a statement of fact for which you would be glad to give me a hug for finally presenting a factual statement.
          Speaking of facts I am thinking if being godless has form and substance opposite of the form and substance of the presence of God within...............nope just the absence of presence.

          August 25, 2014 at 8:05 pm |
        • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

          fred,

          I don't get bent because you call me godless, or even that you judge me for being so, but the fact remains that you are judging people and that was your question.

          August 25, 2014 at 8:17 pm |
      • Reality

        OK to updating to 2014. For example, scroll down to the 2014 version of the Apostles' Creed.

        August 25, 2014 at 5:03 pm |
      • MidwestKen

        Jknbt,
        2014:

        http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2014/01/creationism_in_public_schools_mapped_where_tax_money_supports_alternatives.html

        August 25, 2014 at 5:05 pm |
      • joey3467

        why do you expect people to take the blame for what happened 500 years ago?

        This is exactly what Christianity teaches, only it goes back like 6000 years instead of 500.

        August 25, 2014 at 5:07 pm |
        • Alias

          I'm not trying to make anyone take blame.
          I want you to admit the bible is wrong. Of course, that won't happen. Most christians are either too delusional or not honest enough for that.

          August 25, 2014 at 5:12 pm |
        • joey3467

          I agree with you. My point is that if jknbt considers him or herself to be a Christian then that sentence I quoted from the post makes no sense.

          August 25, 2014 at 5:15 pm |
      • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

        "science is taught in every christian university and christian private high school."
        ------------------------
        Most of them do teach science. There are a number of (mostly) Bible Colleges that do not. You can easily Google a list that teach "creation science".

        Azusa Pacific is one of the Universities that teach such nonsense.

        I wouldn't want to attend a "science" class at Liberty University, even if they listed such a course in their curriculum.

        August 25, 2014 at 5:11 pm |
      • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

        why do you expect people to take the blame for what happened 500 years ago? what were your ancestors doing 500 years ago?
        -----------------–
        Exodus 20
        5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;

        August 25, 2014 at 5:15 pm |
      • MidwestKen

        "Creationism being taught in private schools..."
        http://rt.com/usa/politico-study-private-schools-957/

        August 25, 2014 at 5:17 pm |
    • believerfred

      Alias
      I am not aware that the Bible says the sun revolves around the earth
      There were some within the church that got the Bible wrong but their error is not a black eye for the Bible. Atheists get the Bible wrong all the time and refuse to listen when their proposed contradictions are shown not to exist at all. So in answer to your questions the leaders of the the institution are not much different that the leaders of the Dawkins foundation. Science has gotten many things wrong and it sometimes takes a while for the real facts to take hold.
      The church God like the church of atheism both hold onto what they cannot prove.

      August 25, 2014 at 5:23 pm |
      • MidwestKen

        Believerfred,
        I think it is premised on the description of the earth being unmovable and upon a foundation, which is in Bible and clearly incorrect.

        August 25, 2014 at 5:39 pm |
        • believerfred

          I have not seen such a verse other than those verses where the world will not be moved, or is steady, unshakable, unmovable ....all which have to do with spiritual significance not orbital capacities.

          August 25, 2014 at 5:44 pm |
        • Science Works

          Oh Jeez la-weez fred – you have TIME to learn something tonight maybe ?

          http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/channel/going-deep-with-david-rees/episodes/how-to-climb-a-tree/

          Next Airing: MON AUG 25 7PM ET

          August 25, 2014 at 5:59 pm |
        • MidwestKen

          Believerfred,
          If that same "spiritual significance" can be applied to genesis then perhaps you're on to somthing.

          How exactly does one determine when it is speaking spiritually vs physically?

          August 25, 2014 at 6:03 pm |
        • believerfred

          MidwestKen
          The Bible does not contradict itself or give a factually incorrect account. When we scratch our heads at the flood account for example and look at just how far we need to twist known natural laws to create a plausible scenario I ask what is the impact if it is a spiritual account. If the net effect is the same and conforms with the Bible then I just set the physical account aside. I could claim God did it but that goes without saying anyway.

          August 25, 2014 at 7:01 pm |
        • MidwestKen

          believerfred,
          So are you saying that you assume that the descriptions in Bible are physically correct until it is shown to be incorrect and then you assume that it really just spiritually correct?
          And this logic is based on the presumption that the Bible does not contradict itself nor physical reality.

          August 25, 2014 at 8:08 pm |
        • believerfred

          MidwestKen
          In actual process for me anyway I thought the Bible to be foolish tales from thousands of years ago although never having read it. Then one day after suffering great loss I opened a Bible and began to read. I was struck after my simple request Jesus if this is real help me and life has never been the same. It never dawned on me that any part of the Bible was not the complete literal truth. Then I was caught flat footed one day when asked how I could believe the flood story given all I know about various scientific disciplines.
          These days I am distracted by such thoughts when reading the Bible which bothers me. I read with the purpose to hear what God has to say to me today with this reading. When I stumble across a miraculous birth the distraction meter goes off in my mind and ruins the moment followed by brief unbelief. I stop and pray until I again realize existence is about the miraculous, life is better with a hope in the miraculous, I love to look at the night sky with a sense of thankfulness whereas once I was just stunned by the wonder of it I have a combination of awe rapped in appreciation of God.
          As to the new testament either Jesus walked on water or God is not bound by physical laws created through agency both are miraculous. If I am going to have ideals that get me through life and tether my awareness on the miraculous I cannot think of a greater, more noble or holier thought than God. In the event awareness is free flowing then anyone who tethers their thoughts, feelings and awareness to the physical risks the possibility (regardless how remote) of being tethered to the physical which is in my book worse than hell as that physical is death in more respects than just a tombstone.

          August 25, 2014 at 8:56 pm |
        • MidwestKen

          believerfred,
          So you believe because to not believe is unthinkable, is that it?

          August 25, 2014 at 10:00 pm |
        • believerfred

          MidwestKen
          "So you believe because to not believe is unthinkable, is that it?"
          =>I believe because Jesus actually did exactly what was promised would happen in the Bible when I asked Jesus to help me. I believe because the presence and power of the Holy Spirit revealed God and the truths of the Bible to me in an instant. What was not visible was suddenly clear.
          =>There are many times when I lose faith and it seems God is very distant. I begin to rely on reason and start turning over all the possibilities to explain what I have experienced relative to scientific facts.
          Atheism is false on its core foundation of naturalism because all science is based upon assumption not upon known fact. The speed of light is assumed to be constant and is central to the physics which is the foundation of our ability to measure and predict outcome. We have no idea if the speed of light is constant as we can only say that it is observed to be constant within our observable horizon.
          Agnosticism is a lie because everyone knows or has drawn a conclusion based on lack of knowledge
          Belief is where I have observed testimony of others matches my personal experience. This observation and personal experience as a foundation is every bit as valid in the area of faith as is the assumption of a constant speed of light is in physics.
          =>No, I do not believe believe because of the horrid plausibility of self awareness tethered to the physical. That is an unnecessary risk regardless of probability assessment. It is the reason I try and warn people.

          August 26, 2014 at 1:26 am |
        • dandintac

          Fred,

          I actually agree with you on something–well, sort of. About Agnosticism. I am convinced most agnostics are really atheists. I called myself agnostic for years. Eventually I realized though, that belief is active–if asked if you believe in God, and you have to say anything else other than "yes"–then you don't really believe, do you? If you say "I don't know" or "I haven't formed a conclusion", that's basically an admission that you do not believe in God. However, I don't bug people about it because everyone has the right to self-label, and a lot of people see that label as a middle ground, something reasonable–a fence-sitter, etc.

          Anyway–I'd like to address this notion you have, that "personal experience" is valid evidence for such a huge extraordinary claim as a God. Would this be enough for you to admit that all other religions are just as valid? After all, there are many people around the world who also have "personal experience" regarding their religions. If so, how do we tell which religion is correct, since they certainly cannot all be true, given that they make contradictory claims, and have gods who declare themselves to be the only true god? I've never heard a satisfactory answer to this–Christians usually just talk around this problem of personal experience, but please give it a shot.

          Also regarding "personal experience"–would you accept this "evidence" with regards to any other extraordinary claim? If I came to you and told you there's a dragon in the forest, would my "personal experience" be enough for you to buy it? Some other people have "personal experience" of this dragon too.

          "What? You want to SEE it? Sorry–it's invisible."

          "What? Tracks? No tracks–the dragon is incorporeal."

          "How do I know? PERSONAL EXPERIENCE!"

          "You don't believe? Well, that's your choice–that means you are going to burn forever in the dragon's fire though–so you'd better choose to believe."

          "Oh–and did I mention, this dragon wants to have a personal relationship with you!!"

          Small wonder churches and rulers had to make it a criminal offense punishable by death for those who publicly refused to believe and questioned. Christianity lost its best argument when they were no longer allowed to burn people for not believing, but by that time, parents had learned to indoctrinate their children for their own protection–continuing the cycle.

          August 26, 2014 at 9:46 pm |
      • Alias

        Fred,
        Galileo was tried for proving about 50 bible verses false and being too noisy about it. Here are a few:
        Ecclesiastes 1:5
        The sun rises and the sun goes down, and hastens to the place where it rises.
        The earth is stationary:
        1 Chronicles 16:30
        tremble before him, all earth; yea, the world stands firm, never to be moved.
        Psalms 93:1
        The Lord reigns; he is robbed in majesty; the lord is robbed, he is girded with strength. Yea, the world is established; it shall never be moved.
        Psalms 96:10
        Say among the nations, "The Lord reigns! Yea, the world is established, it shall never be moved; he will judge the peoples with equity."
        The bible clearly says the Earth does not move. It is wrong. You may interpret the bible differently from the priests in 1600 because they lacked our scientific knowledge, but my primary point is that the bible is not a perfect book.
        I also disagree that it is not a black eye for the bible that the majority of the people got the interpretation wrong. The bible is supposed to be the way to god. If we cannot understand it, then how am I supposed to believe an all knowing god was responsible for it? Why give us a book that we cannot understand? That is a problem with the bible itself.
        This can be underscored with the debate about baptism, how necessary is it?
        I don’t care what the ‘right’ answer is. I’m just pointing out that there is a debate with many bible experts on both sides.
        The bible has mistakes and is unclear on important issues. It is not the word of any all-knowing god.

        August 25, 2014 at 5:57 pm |
        • believerfred

          Like I said, sounds like the anti theists on this board who put Christians on trial

          "Ecclesiastes 1:5 The sun rises and the sun goes down, and hastens to the place where it rises."
          =>not related to orbital motion only a figure of speech and please tell me how the hastens back to where it rises? If the sun was quick as a fox to where it rises wouldn't the fur burn off ?

          "1 Chronicles 16:30 tremble before him, all earth; yea, the world stands firm, never to be moved.
          =>What God has willed nothing known to earth can change

          "Psalms 93:1The Lord reigns; he is robbed in majesty; the lord is robbed, he is girded with strength. Yea, the world is established; it shall never be moved."
          =>Again, nothing can change what God has made or willed.

          "Psalms 96:10Say among the nations, "The Lord reigns! Yea, the world is established, it shall never be moved; he will judge the peoples with equity."
          =>God is perfect Justice and sovereign this will never change

          "The priests in 1600 because they lacked our scientific knowledge"
          =>no they wanted to be like god and were protecting there false pride

          "my primary point is that the bible is not a perfect book."
          =>it is not a science book. Where else is it not perfect?

          "Why give us a book that we cannot understand?"
          =>because you can never understand God on your power you can only know what God gives you. It is like riding a bike. You can read complete perfect instructions but you have never ridden a bike until you get on it. Abraham could not prove his faith until he stepped out into the unknown land, knew God at a whole new level when he raised his knife to kill Isaac.

          "This can be underscored with the debate about baptism, how necessary is it?"
          =>sillyness of religion not the Bible. The Bible is clear one must be born again if Christian.

          "The bible has mistakes"
          =>not that I know of
          "unclear on important issues."
          =>absolutely clear on important issues. Tell me after reading the Bible what do you need to do if you want to be saved?

          August 25, 2014 at 7:33 pm |
        • evolveddna

          Fred.. can you be a prematurely born again Christian? does your god discriminate against those folks? is it possible that you can be born with deformities that you did not have prior to the rebirth?

          August 25, 2014 at 9:06 pm |
        • believerfred

          evolveddna
          Ha, you sound a bit like Nicodemus who asked Jesus how can one be born again! can one return to the womb.
          It is actually a full spiritual awakening where you are a new person fully transformed where the process of sanctification begins.

          August 26, 2014 at 1:31 am |
    • Robert Brown

      Alias, where specifically does it say that?

      August 25, 2014 at 5:46 pm |
      • Alias

        https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20071023042645AAad2dS
        http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Geocentrism

        This one clearly is biased, but it does quote the passages
        http://biblebabble.curbjaw.com/errors.htm

        August 25, 2014 at 6:03 pm |
        • Robert Brown

          Thanks Alias, the reason I asked is because I have read and studied it for years and never saw anything that made me think it revolved around the sun or that it was stationary. I read the verses quoted, I don't think that is what they are saying. If your interested read the whole chapter, it helps with context.

          Also, everyone has bias.

          August 25, 2014 at 6:18 pm |
        • evidencenot

          I get it.... passages that are contradictory, promote bigotry, murder, violence, and are generally negative in nature are being taken out of context and must be translated, interpreted re-defined, etc.... how convenient...

          August 26, 2014 at 12:04 pm |
  9. lunchbreaker

    Theo Phileo

    It's been my experience that those who scream the loudest that they do not believe in God, it is not so because of any intellectual reason. Although we can address those intellectual issues, the biggest reason that people choose to not believe in God is because they hate God.

    Most have no problem with the possibility of a creator God who made everything and then stepped away from it. On the other hand, they have a HUGE problem with a God that tells them that He will judge them for everything they have ever done, said, or thought in this life that was done outside of His boundaries.

    August 25, 2014 at 1:44 pm | Reply

    ____________________________________________________________________

    My only concern would be YOU telling me what to do because the God you believe in says so.

    August 25, 2014 at 4:17 pm |
    • Alias

      Why is it so hard to understand that I cannot hate god when I don't believe it exists?
      Does Theo hate the FSM?

      August 25, 2014 at 4:21 pm |
    • Dyslexic doG

      My only concern would be theo telling me what to do because bronze-age con men using the old "god told me so" for their own selfish gains said so ...

      August 25, 2014 at 4:26 pm |
  10. Dyslexic doG

    Christianity hinges on a literal Adam and Eve and Garden of Eden for the Jesus sacrifice to make any sense whatsoever, and even Christians will admit that the literal Adam and Eve and the Garden of Eden never existed.

    So the house of cards has fallen. Where to from here?

    August 25, 2014 at 4:16 pm |
    • Alias

      As an american, all I need is patience.
      The younger generation is not accepting religion like my generation did, and there is no reason to think the trend will reverse. Religion has far less influence on culture than it ever has in my lifetime.
      Christianity is going away. If we just wait it will become as irrelevant as I want it to be by the time my grandchildren reach college.

      August 25, 2014 at 4:56 pm |
      • Dyslexic doG

        amen!

        August 25, 2014 at 5:02 pm |
      • Rynomite

        Internet > Religion

        August 25, 2014 at 5:19 pm |
      • niknakk

        Ramen to that!

        August 25, 2014 at 6:42 pm |
    • Robert Brown

      Dd,

      Christianity hinges on the need of a savior. So, all we need is for someone to disobey God. Oh yeah, that happens everyday. Never mind carry on.

      August 25, 2014 at 5:53 pm |
      • evidencenot

        But while you're obeying the Christian god, you're disobeying all the other gods!...

        August 26, 2014 at 12:07 pm |
  11. Dyslexic doG

    Gods are fragile things they can be killed by a whiff of science and a dose of common sense.
    – Chapman Cohen

    August 25, 2014 at 4:14 pm |
  12. awanderingscot

    Don't you mean...

    Astronomy – Evolution
    Neurology – Evolution
    Physics – Evolution
    Chemistry – Evolution
    Biology – Evolution
    Evolution – Evolution

    August 25, 2014 at 3:39 pm |
    • Doc Vestibule

      Don't you mean

      Astronomy – Goddidit
      Neurology – Goddidit
      Physics – Goddidit
      Chemistry – Goddidit
      Biology – Goddidit
      Evolution – Goddidit with dirt and rib clones

      "All I need to know about Neurophysiology I learned from Genesis"

      August 25, 2014 at 3:44 pm |
      • evidencenot

        I built a computer from a schematic I got out of the bible!... true story!

        August 26, 2014 at 12:09 pm |
  13. Doc Vestibule

    Scientific Disciplines and their Pseudo-Scientific Parallels

    Astronomy – Astrology
    Neurology – Phrenology
    Physics – Numerology
    Chemistry – Alchemy
    Evolution – Creationism

    August 25, 2014 at 3:33 pm |
    • MidwestKen

      Pharmacology – Homeopathy

      August 25, 2014 at 3:41 pm |
    • colin31714

      Rugby League – American Football

      August 25, 2014 at 11:42 pm |
  14. Dyslexic doG

    The ti.tle of this blog post ... "why liberals are more tolerant of atheists" ... is perplexing. Why should ANY christian be intolerant of someone who does not believe in the same thing they do? So garbled is the message, that there are over 41,000 sects of christianity. Are christians intolerant of other christians who believe in a different interpretation of their book? Are christians intolerant of other religions?

    August 25, 2014 at 3:28 pm |
    • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

      It is a counterpoint to S.E. Cupp's premise that Conservatives were more tolerant of atheists.

      In fact, atheists are the least popular philosophical group, though much more so for Republicans than Democrats.

      August 25, 2014 at 4:04 pm |
    • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

      "Are christians intolerant of other religions?"
      -----------------–
      Yes, atheists and Muslims most of all.

      http://www.pewforum.org/2014/07/16/how-americans-feel-about-religious-groups/pf_14-07-16_interreligiousrelations_totalratings1/

      August 25, 2014 at 4:06 pm |
  15. Theo Phileo

    OK, there's a lot of smart people in here.... Here's a "SQUIRREL" moment to lighten the mood (and hopefully answer my question)

    I'm designing a transmission line speaker enclosure by graphing the formulas:
    Y=280/(x/12)
    Y=Fs((Vas/(Vol/1728))+1)^0.5
    The problem is that the functions do not take into account the Qts or Bl rating of the speaker. Would that give me a box tuning frequency that would leave both sides of the speaker still out of phase? I don't think there would be a big difference, but I'm just curious in case there's any number crunchers out there...

    August 25, 2014 at 3:10 pm |
    • awanderingscot

      i would love to help Theo but i"m in telecom and although i deal with s/n ratios i'm not at all familiar with your problem, might need to go to a forum. best wishes.

      August 25, 2014 at 3:35 pm |
    • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

      42

      August 25, 2014 at 3:45 pm |
      • Theo Phileo

        Keep hitchhiking.

        August 25, 2014 at 3:56 pm |
        • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

          Keep pretending to know things you don't know.

          August 25, 2014 at 4:50 pm |
        • Theo Phileo

          I didn't say that I DID fully know how to calculate the speaker's free air resonance inside of a sealed box of a given volume by using the Qts and Bl Thiele/Small Parameters. That's why I asked...

          Do mathematics scare you?

          August 26, 2014 at 7:52 am |
        • evidencenot

          "Would that give me a box tuning frequency that would leave both sides of the speaker still out of phase?"

          Too bad that statement doesn't make any sense...... out of phase compared to what???

          August 26, 2014 at 12:12 pm |
        • Theo Phileo

          Too bad that statement doesn't make any sense...... out of phase compared to what???
          ---------------–
          I'm beginning to think that people in here would dismiss anything I said just because I said it. OK, basic acoustics tells you that the sound coming out of the back of the speaker is 180 degrees out of phase with the sound coming out of the front of the speaker. This is why you hear interferance. To combat this, it is common practice to build a speaker box whose length is 1/4 the wavelength of the frequency of the speaker. The problem with that is that the moment you put a speaker into a box, you change the speaker's resonant frequency in air, so you have to use the Thiele/Small Parameters of the speaker in order to design a box whose volume accounts for 1/4 the wavelength of the speaker. Got it?

          August 26, 2014 at 1:59 pm |
        • evidencenot

          Not to get into a speaker design theory thread but.... in your original post, you only provided little bits of information... we're not inside your head...... and do tell.... what do you think would happen if the sound from both the front and back of the speaker were IN PHASE?...... ..... in a ported enclosure the sound from the back of the speaker is being reflected off the back wall of the speaker enclosure so it's no longer in a 180 deg relationship.... AND in addition, phase is all frequency dependent.

          August 26, 2014 at 5:26 pm |
        • awanderingscot

          "Too bad that statement doesn't make any sense...... out of phase compared to what???"

          – what a moron

          August 27, 2014 at 9:11 am |
    • harlow13

      Slap on "The Ramones Leave Home" and crank her up to 11. Gabba gabba hey.

      August 25, 2014 at 4:00 pm |
      • tallulah131

        Best answer ever.

        August 25, 2014 at 5:18 pm |
      • evidencenot

        ...."beat on the brat with a baseball bat..."

        August 26, 2014 at 12:14 pm |
  16. Reality

    Protesting comes in many forms- my version using a creed with all the good intentions of saving the "souls" of two billion brainwashed Christians:

    The Apostles' Creed 2014: (updated by yours truly and based on the studies of historians and theologians of the past 200 years)

    Should I believe in a god whose existence cannot be proven
    and said god if he/she/it exists resides in an unproven,
    human-created, spirit state of bliss called heaven??

    I believe there was a 1st century CE, Jewish, simple,
    preacher-man who was conceived by a Jewish carpenter
    named Joseph living in Nazareth and born of a young Jewish
    girl named Mary. (Some say he was a mamzer.)

    Jesus was summarily crucified for being a temple rabble-rouser by
    the Roman troops in Jerusalem serving under Pontius Pilate,

    He was buried in an unmarked grave and still lies
    a-mouldering in the ground somewhere outside of
    Jerusalem.

    Said Jesus' story was embellished and "mythicized" by
    many semi-fiction writers. A descent into Hell, a bodily resurrection
    and ascension stories were promulgated to compete with the
    Caesar myths. Said stories were so popular that they
    grew into a religion known today as Catholicism/Christianity
    and featuring dark-age, daily wine to blood and bread to body rituals
    called the eucharistic sacrifice of the non-atoning Jesus.

    Amen
    (references used are available upon request)

    August 25, 2014 at 2:57 pm |
    • awanderingscot

      – How many brainwashed atheists, again?

      August 25, 2014 at 3:01 pm |
      • Dyslexic doG

        four

        August 25, 2014 at 3:09 pm |
      • Alias

        None.
        Teaching children critical thinking and facts is not brainwashing.

        August 25, 2014 at 3:13 pm |
        • awanderingscot

          cold, soulless, and carnal beings.

          August 25, 2014 at 3:44 pm |
        • LaBella

          You think children are cold, soulless, carnal beings? Stay away from them, I beg of you.

          August 25, 2014 at 3:51 pm |
        • awanderingscot

          no just the people teaching them there is no God.

          August 25, 2014 at 4:08 pm |
        • TruthPrevails1

          awanderingdolt: The only thing you have right there is soul-less...soul's don't exist, thus everyone is without one.
          As for your opinion of children raised without god, you're a vicious person to judge them. It is a well known fact that non-believing children can differentiate between fact and fiction, whereas children raised with a belief in god have a hard time with the two.
          My kid was raised without a belief in god and she's a good kid...in college; doesn't drink/smoke/do drugs; not a criminal and best of all not a Christian...she can tell the difference between fact and fiction-can you?

          August 25, 2014 at 4:14 pm |
        • TruthPrevails1

          "no just the people teaching them there is no God."

          Is lying not a bad thing? I'm not going to tell a child god exists when that would be dishonest.

          August 25, 2014 at 4:16 pm |
        • tallulah131

          Scotty's frequent use of "carnal" brings to mind another poster who has been missing from this debate for quite a while. Heaven Scent, is that you?

          August 25, 2014 at 5:19 pm |
        • evidencenot

          Snotty is bucking for the queen of the trolls ti-tle.

          August 26, 2014 at 12:40 pm |
  17. LaBella

    You're going to give a source that just confirms your interpretation.
    Jesus spoke about hetero adultery.
    Jesus said not one word about gay people. None. Nada. Zip.

    August 25, 2014 at 2:52 pm |
    • awanderingscot

      And He answered and said to them, “Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning ‘made them male and female, and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate.” – Matthew 19:4-6, NKJV

      – "let not man separate.”

      August 25, 2014 at 2:59 pm |
      • Dyslexic doG

        again with the asinine claims that ANYONE actually knows one word uttered by your jesus character.

        all words and actions attributed to jesus were written down 40 to 100 years after he was supposed to have been crucified and what's more, written by people who weren't even there!!!

        NO ONE actually knows one word uttered by your jesus character.

        August 25, 2014 at 3:04 pm |
      • johnbiggscr

        '– "let not man separate.”'

        And yet you dont have people campaigning to bring in laws outlawing divorce but apparently the idea of gays causes fits.

        August 25, 2014 at 3:07 pm |
        • joey3467

          Exactly, they expect you to believe that they view being gay as a sin just like everything else in the bible, and then set out to pass laws to ban only the sin of being in a gay marriage. This is why I don't believe them. In order for me not to view you as hypocrite you must be actively trying to ban every single thing the bible says is a sin.

          August 25, 2014 at 3:23 pm |
      • LaBella

        I'm not talking about gay marriage.
        I'm talking about gay people, of which Jesus said not one thing about.

        August 25, 2014 at 3:10 pm |
        • awanderingscot

          But He said to them, “All cannot accept this saying, but only those to whom it has been given: For there are eunuchs who were born thus from their mother’s womb, and there are eunuchs who were made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake. He who is able to accept it, let him accept it.” – Matthew 19:11-12, NKJV

          August 25, 2014 at 3:48 pm |
        • awanderingscot

          For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due. – Romans 1:26-27, NKJV

          August 25, 2014 at 3:50 pm |
        • LaBella

          Can you quote Jesus saying anything about gay people?
          Mathew is quoting Jesus, but not about gay people. Eunuch ≠ gay.
          Romans is Paul, not Jesus.
          Have something that He actually said?

          August 25, 2014 at 3:58 pm |
        • jhg45

          Luke 17: 29,30 tells us "on the day that Lot came out of Sodom it rained fire and sulphur from heaven and destroyed them all, 30 The same way it will be on that day when The Son of man is to be revealed" who is talking ? and who was he talking about ? and why were they destroyed ? do we need more detail than that ? read more in Matt.ch..24; Markch.13 Luke ch.21, so many signs but you are right about one thing, he said nothing about being "gay", just Happy. Matt.ch.5

          August 25, 2014 at 4:09 pm |
        • awanderingscot

          If you choose to not believe the bible LaBella, that's your own business.

          August 25, 2014 at 4:10 pm |
        • LaBella

          If you don't know, Scot, please admit it instead of trying to turn it around to me.

          August 25, 2014 at 4:14 pm |
        • LaBella

          Jhg,
          I know who was talking in that Luke passage. I also know that the Sodom and Gommorah were not destroyed because its inhabitants were gay.
          I also know that Jesus said not one word about gay women or gay men. I am glad someone acknowledges that.

          August 25, 2014 at 4:20 pm |
        • awanderingscot

          Not judging anyone here LaBella, just telling you straight up what the bible says. You can choose to believe it or not, lots of babies spit out or vomit their milk so you wouldn't be the first.

          August 25, 2014 at 4:29 pm |
        • LaBella

          Then you can straight up tell me where withing the Bible Jesus said anything about gay people, Scot.

          August 25, 2014 at 4:47 pm |
        • LaBella

          *within

          August 25, 2014 at 4:48 pm |
        • jhg45

          la, gay or straight, Sodom and Gomorrah were all about the immorality. so no one should fool themselves and think that He is OK with this world today. satan is still the "ruler of this world", "the god of this system" and will be eliminated with all who wish to follow his ways. (see 1 John 5:19, rev.ch.12; Matt.ch.4, Luke ch.4; ch.22:31 and so many others)

          August 25, 2014 at 8:26 pm |
        • Doris

          jhg45: "satan is still the "ruler of this world", "the god of this system"

          According to early Christian apologists, he was in many ways. Of course there is little evidence of the extent of his hand in the pot. Early apologists even said he was able to plagiarize historical evidence in reverse time order. Imagine that. With such capability, he could have very well have plagiarized the entire Bible. Yes, early Christians got Satan tied to their hip early on. They needed him to scare people....

          August 25, 2014 at 8:40 pm |
        • jhg45

          doris; one more response, are you serious? either you believe that the Bible is God's word or you do not. for those who do they see satan is just as real as he was in Eden and so many other places recorded in the Bible. recorded chronology takes the message in Rev. ch.12 down to our day to 1914 when he was kicked out of heaven down to the earth and WW1 broke out and this planet has been going downhill since. anyone who does not recognize the immorality and violence that he promotes is not going to look into the Bible seriously and realize he may be the ruler of this world but he still has no control over Jesus, His Father or His word. That will be fulfilled and he and those he misleads will be gone.

          August 25, 2014 at 9:11 pm |
        • Doris

          So more scare tactics – this time courtesy of Rev. Gee what a surprise. (eyeroll) They say the only book that had a more difficult time making it into the canon was Peter 2 – the one where Peter allegedly gives his blessing for Paul's works. Of course most NT scholars now agree it is unlikely that Peter authored Peter 2....

          August 25, 2014 at 9:18 pm |
        • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

          "recorded chronology takes the message in Rev. ch.12 down to our day to 1914 when he was kicked out of heaven down to the earth and WW1 broke out and this planet has been going downhill since"
          ----------------
          This is just hilarious.

          August 25, 2014 at 9:34 pm |
        • Tom, Tom, the Other One

          Satan killed the Archduke. I saw it on the History Channel.

          August 25, 2014 at 9:38 pm |
        • observer

          jhg45

          "this planet has been going downhill since"

          So things were going well in biblical times?

          Lol. Please get serious.

          August 25, 2014 at 9:39 pm |
        • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

          "Satan killed the Archduke. I saw it on the History Channel."
          -----------------–
          And the Kaiser sold his soul for Champagne (the region, not the beverage).

          Pleased to meet you
          Hope you guess my name
          But what's puzzling you
          Is the nature of my game
          I stuck around St. Petersburg
          When I saw it was a time for a change
          Killed the Czar and his ministers
          Anastasia screamed in vain

          August 25, 2014 at 9:47 pm |
        • Doris

          "And the Kaiser sold his soul for Champagne"

          This is where things start getting fizzy – I mean fuzzy. I think to get the real dirt on this you have to be well acquainted with Nostradamus' challenged brother – Nutsadamus.

          August 25, 2014 at 9:54 pm |
  18. portlandtony

    To my mind, an active demonstrating atheist is an idiot. It's like protesting against, in their mind, a faery story like Snow White or the existence of Paul Bunyan and 'Babe'! Unless you're worried about it (Religion), let it be! Jeez!

    August 25, 2014 at 2:46 pm |
    • johnbiggscr

      Again, atheists dont believe in a god but they do know religion exists, and its that that any 'protests' are against.
      Its not that hard of a concept to grasp.

      August 25, 2014 at 2:49 pm |
      • awanderingscot

        **NEWFLASH** Atheism is a religion.

        August 25, 2014 at 4:19 pm |
        • LaBella

          **NEWSFLASH** Bald is a hair color.

          August 25, 2014 at 4:26 pm |
        • Alias

          **NEWFLASH** Not collecting stamps is a hobby

          August 25, 2014 at 4:27 pm |
        • igaftr

          False again scot

          Theism is the basis belief in god or gods. It in itself is not a religion, so a-theism also is not a religion in and of itself.

          August 25, 2014 at 4:28 pm |
        • awanderingscot

          Atheism is indeed a religion. It has as it it's god the material world and it's miracles are ascribes to the natural world.

          August 25, 2014 at 4:38 pm |
        • atlantic9

          I see the trolling is worse than ever.

          August 25, 2014 at 4:42 pm |
        • LaBella

          I am not surprised that one who thinks eunuch means gay wouldn't know the definitions of either atheist or religion.

          August 25, 2014 at 4:53 pm |
        • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

          It really isn't you know.

          August 25, 2014 at 5:03 pm |
        • evidencenot

          **NEWSFLASH** ...you are a moron

          August 26, 2014 at 12:44 pm |
    • bostontola

      No one is trying to put ID into science classes as an alternative to evolution because they believe in Snow White or Paul Bunyan. They aren't trying to get Snow White and Paul Bunyan put into history classes either.

      August 25, 2014 at 2:51 pm |
      • neverbeenhappieratheist

        I heard the Republicans just tried to ban blue ox meat!

        August 25, 2014 at 2:54 pm |
      • johnbiggscr

        Yeah, when ID supporters cant even be honest and admit its just creationism in a groucho marx disguise then you certainly need to speak up about it.

        August 25, 2014 at 2:55 pm |
        • bostontola

          lol, groucho marx disguise.

          August 25, 2014 at 2:59 pm |
    • neverbeenhappieratheist

      I would agree if it weren't for so many of the Snow White fans handing out poisoned apples wherever they go. They poison the public schools, they poison our politics, they poison our judicial system. That is the only reason I ever speak out, because if they were just a bunch of Fairy story fans who had no effect on the real lives of others then I would not be concerned at all.

      August 25, 2014 at 2:53 pm |
    • colin31714

      PortlandTony, to answer your point, I would like to extrapolate on a theme I once heard Sam Harris use in a debate. Imagine if you lived in the Dark Ages when most people believed in witches. A good deal of daily life was spent engaged in rituals to fend off withes and every Sunday morning most of the town gathered together in a ceremony related to witchcraft. Further, all diseases were believed to be caused by witches; storms, failed crops and other natural events were attributed to the nefarious machinations of witches and mental illness was often diagnosed as possession by witches.

      Now imagine if you were part of a small group of the population that did not believe in witches. Instead, you believed that disease was caused by an unknown, but entirely natural agent and that the rituals performed every day or week by your community were not able to alter natural events (such as bringing the rains or preventing disease) nor did they ward off witches.

      Now imagine further if the 90% of the population that believed in witchcraft also believed it was immoral or at least highly suspect not to believe in witches, that "In Wizards We Trust," was printed on your money, that community leaders made regular allusions to witches in their speeches and that you were regarded as “angry,” or “bitter,” or at least a little odd for being skeptical of the whole witchcraft thing.

      Imagine further that, when you looked around, you noticed that the better educated a person was, the less likely they were to believe in witches and that those villages with a greater proportion of nonbelievers tended to be controlling their economy and environment better and flourishing a little more than those where virtually everybody believed in witches. You also noticed that about 60% of those who believed in witches thought the Earth was designed to be flat and was less than 10,000 years old, and wanted to teach that in schools as “Intelligent Design” and that it was almost always those who believed in witches who wanted to deny people the right to marry people of the same star sign.

      Finally, imagine that you noticed many abuses caused by the belief in witches, such as people giving 10% of their crops to highly suspect priests to ward off witches, belief in witches and elves being used to deny the pollution you noticed building up in your village and laws being passed controlling how a woman must act during menstruation based on witchcraft.

      Think, as a nonbeliever, how much you would want to oppose the belief in witches and witchcraft. Think of how you would view witchcraft as a retarding influence on society and how you would long for the day when the shining light of science and reason would illuminate your village and the majority of the population would adopt reason and logic to govern their lives, rather than laboring under the stultifying effects of their belief in witches, pixies and elves.

      Well, that is how it can feel to be an atheist in the 21st Century USA. The sooner we consign Bronze Age Jewish superst.itions to the dustbin of history, the better.

      August 25, 2014 at 3:01 pm |
      • harlow13

        I found this a bit hard to follow, but it sounds like we had best get after them witches.

        August 25, 2014 at 4:15 pm |
      • portlandtony

        By actively ridiculing the witches, you only make their beliefs seem more real to them! You know: "godlessness is rampant etc..."
        You can find solice in a belief in a god. You don't need to believe man walked with dinosaurs 6000 years ago and the rest of the crap the creationists use as science!

        August 25, 2014 at 5:10 pm |
    • tallulah131

      @portlandtony:

      Your opinion is duly noted and given the consideration it deserves. Next!

      August 25, 2014 at 5:21 pm |
  19. awanderingscot

    Trollulah, don't continue to be irrational, evolution is a myth. lol.

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

      Right, which is why 99.9% of biologists and scientists believe in it. But you are smarter than them right scot? You'll pick the .1% anyday if it supports your deluded self serving savior complex.

      August 25, 2014 at 2:17 pm |
      • awanderingscot

        yes, i'm smarter

        August 25, 2014 at 3:03 pm |
        • bostontola

          Since the scot-bot proclaims it is smarter than biologists educated and working in the field, I will change my entire worldview and become a born again Christian.

          August 25, 2014 at 3:08 pm |
        • LaBella

          Ignorance pairs much better with humility than it does with belligerence, Scot. You may want to remember that.

          August 25, 2014 at 3:39 pm |
    • In Santa We Trust

      Do you have any evidence for creationism?

      August 25, 2014 at 2:21 pm |
    • evidencenot

      awanderingdolt enjoys embarrassing himself here on the belief blog.

      August 25, 2014 at 2:26 pm |
      • neverbeenhappieratheist

        I think he believe it earns him extra ride tokens on the carousel in Heaven...

        August 25, 2014 at 2:56 pm |
    • bostontola

      Too bad the scot-bot isn't an Apple product, Siri is much more sophisticated.

      August 25, 2014 at 2:48 pm |
    • tallulah131

      It doesn't matter what you call me, scotty. You are the troll here and everyone knows it.

      August 25, 2014 at 5:57 pm |
  20. awanderingscot

    But I was very unwilling to give up my belief... Thus disbelief crept over me at a very slow rate, but was at last complete. The rate was so slow that I felt no distress, and have never since doubted even for a single second that my conclusion was correct. I can indeed hardly see how anyone ought to wish Christianity to be true; for if so the plain language of the text seems to show that the men who do not believe, and this would include my Father, Brother and almost all of my friends, will be everlastingly punished.

    And this is a damnable doctrine.”
    ― Charles Darwin, The Autobiography of Charles Darwin, 1809–82

    – the real reason Darwin was a proponent of evolution was not in the interest of science.
    – he was not a scientist, but a philosophical materialist, and did not want to be under the authority of God, just like atheists today.
    – evolution is complete an utter nonsense.

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

      More out of context fallacy.
      Why did you edit it so much? you left out quite a bit, not just at the beginning and end, but pieces from the middle.
      Why do you need to lie so much?
      Where is your evidence for the creation hypothesis?

      a wondering slvt is complete and utter nonsense.

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

        – The entire book is not required, and thus your feeble ad hominen attacks are exhibited. i do understand however that you are unable to defend the evolution myth.

        August 25, 2014 at 1:57 pm |
        • igaftr

          There is no evolution myth, so I cannot defend it. There is the fact of evolution, which various people have given you huge amounts of evidence verifying the fact.

          As far as ad hominem...I simply returned the favor you do to me...so you can do it and I can't a wondering slvt?

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

          i'm so not insulted by the likes of you.

          August 25, 2014 at 3:24 pm |
        • igaftr

          "i'm so not insulted by the likes of you"

          Of course you are, otherwise you wouldn't mention it, and you would not go around insulting everyone else.

          August 25, 2014 at 3:28 pm |
        • evidencenot

          Snotty doesn't believe in electricity

          August 26, 2014 at 10:05 am |
    • Theo Phileo

      It's been my experience that those who scream the loudest that they do not believe in God, it is not so because of any intellectual reason. Although we can address those intellectual issues, the biggest reason that people choose to not believe in God is because they hate God.

      Most have no problem with the possibility of a creator God who made everything and then stepped away from it. On the other hand, they have a HUGE problem with a God that tells them that He will judge them for everything they have ever done, said, or thought in this life that was done outside of His boundaries.

      August 25, 2014 at 1:44 pm |
      • johnbiggscr

        'It's been my experience that those who scream the loudest that they do not believe in God, it is not so because of any intellectual reason. Although we can address those intellectual issues, the biggest reason that people choose to not believe in God is because they hate God. '

        A common claim made by believers is this idea that someone who says they dont believe in god must be because they hate god. This ignores that you cant hate something you dont believe in.

        August 25, 2014 at 1:47 pm |
        • Theo Phileo

          Try telling that to the guy who was OK with my arguments until I told him that ho.mo.se.xuality was sinful.

          Besides, "those who scream the loudest" does not include all atheists, just many that I've spoken with...

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

          it's been my experience that those who boast the loudest and most of the time smallest in stature.

          August 25, 2014 at 2:02 pm |
        • johnbiggscr

          'Try telling that to the guy who was OK with my arguments until I told him that ho.mo.se.xuality was sinful.'

          Dont confuse anger at a religion with anger at a god. We know the religion exists, we dont need a god to be angry at in order to get upset. Indeed it would make us more so because to us we see such a religious claim as being based on something that doesnt exist in the first place.

          August 25, 2014 at 2:04 pm |
        • Theo Phileo

          Dont confuse anger at a religion with anger at a god.
          --------------------
          I'm not confusing it. You see, the 10 Commandments reflects the moral character and nature of God, so neither can be divorced from the other. The Law does not define religion, or exist as a product of religion, the Law reflects God and defines who He is.

          Our morality (or lack of it) is defined by how well we conform to the character of God.

          August 25, 2014 at 2:07 pm |
        • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

          I'm still not sure how hom0se-xuality pertains to the 10 commandments.

          August 25, 2014 at 2:11 pm |
        • johnbiggscr

          'I'm not confusing it. You see, the 10 Commandments reflects the moral character and nature of God, so neither can be divorced from the other. The Law does not define religion, or exist as a product of religion, the Law reflects God and defines who He is.
          Our morality (or lack of it) is defined by how well we conform to the character of God.'

          No, that is what you claim. Its not what I claim.
          That is the difference. If I get annoyed at a religion claiming such and such is a sin I am not going 'darn you god, that makes me mad', I am going 'bloody religion again, and its nonsense'. I dont get angry at a deity I dont believe in.

          August 25, 2014 at 2:12 pm |
        • LaBella

          It doesn't, GOP.

          August 25, 2014 at 2:17 pm |
        • MidwestKen

          Theo,
          If they ok with a god until you bring up the 10, then how can they be considered as not believing in God?

          August 25, 2014 at 2:18 pm |
        • Theo Phileo

          I'm still not sure how hom0se-xuality pertains to the 10 commandments.
          ------------------
          The 7th Commandment says you shall not commit adultery. Jesus told us in Matthew 5:27-28 that if you so much as look at someone with lust, then you commit adultery with them in your heart.

          “Immoral men/fornicators” and “ho.mos.e.xuals” (1 Timothy 1:10) violate the 7th commandment which prohibits s.exual activity outside the marriage bed.

          Furthermore, Jesus forbade Sodomy in His endorsement of the Genesis model of marriage in Matthew 19:4-6. Here Jesus clearly referred to Adam and Eve and affirmed God’s intended design for marriage and se.xuality. For those who follow Jesus, se.xual practices are limited. Rather than take a permissive view of se.xual immorality and divorce, Jesus affirmed that people are either to be single and celibate or married and faithful to one spouse of the opposite gender. Jesus considered any other expression of se.xuality to be sinful. This would include same-se.x activity.

          August 25, 2014 at 2:31 pm |
        • colin31714

          But you don't "address those intellectual issues." It's not your fault though, they can't be addressed. The only way to address them is to provide evidence for the existence of God. Evidence is not:

          1. I "just know" God exists because he (or Jesus) talks to me/directs my life/makes me feel good.

          2. The Bible says X. That is the assertion not evidence, evidence is what backs up the assertion. One exception to this would be if the Bible said something like "there are four great continents yet to be discovered, one of which is located at the South Pole and is covered in ice" or something else suggesting the book was of divine inspiration. Having challenged Christians for 20 years to point to something and never got a real answer, I am confident there is nothing.

          3. Mental gymnastics – such as the cosmological or ontological arguments. They do not prove the Judeo-Christian god. They don't even prove any god and have regularly been rebutted.

          4. I prayed for X to happen and it did. This would only be evidence if; (i) the prayer was independently verified BEFORE the event took place; and (ii) the event itself is so unlikely that the intervention of the god to whom the prayer is offered is more likely than the event just happening.

          August 25, 2014 at 2:34 pm |
        • Theo Phileo

          If they ok with a god until you bring up the 10, then how can they be considered as not believing in God?
          -------------–
          I don't know, that's what they told me – that they didn't believe in God. My guess is that it's the lie of the post-modern perspective that says that truth is defined by what works for the individual. He may not have believed in God, but that just means that God doesn't exist "for him." At least he was able to admit at the end of the conversation that absolute truth DOES exist because we can't make up truth.

          August 25, 2014 at 2:34 pm |
        • Science Works

          Hi Theo – not open to all – something about a monument that has ten in it ?

          http://www.aclu-nm.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/Felix-Distrcit-Court-Opinion.pdf

          August 25, 2014 at 2:36 pm |
        • LaBella

          So...suddenly adultery means any type of s.exual activity instead of
          a·dul·ter·y
          əˈdəlt(ə)rē/
          noun
          voluntary s.exual intercourse between a married person and a person who is not his or her spouse.

          Gotcha. Okay. Sure.

          Nope.

          August 25, 2014 at 2:37 pm |
        • Theo Phileo

          But you don't "address those intellectual issues."
          ---------------–
          I have addressed them in the past, but that's not my job. My job is to preach the gospel.
          Christians claim that the proof for God is shown in the existence of the Natural universe. (Romans 1:18-32) But non believers choose not to see that because they have suppressed that idea with the notion that either the natural world has always existed (which is neither observable, nor provable) or that the universe created itself (which is impossible).

          OR – and this one is my favorite – they lean on the "I don't know" button to the point that it's now fashionable to be ignorant.

          August 25, 2014 at 2:40 pm |
        • joey3467

          And note they are only trying to ban one type of adultery and not all types, which makes it impossible to take them seriously.

          August 25, 2014 at 2:43 pm |
        • johnbiggscr

          'OR – and this one is my favorite – they lean on the "I don't know" button to the point that it's now fashionable to be ignorant.'

          Interesting that you seem to look down on the notion that someone could claim not to know something.
          And seriously, pointing at the universe and saying 'taa-daa' doesnt carry much weight as an argument.

          August 25, 2014 at 2:43 pm |
        • MidwestKen

          Theo,
          I don't know what your discusion entailed, but 1) using a single discussion as representative is misleading and 2) is it possible that you misunderstood and they simply didn't belive in *your* god?

          August 25, 2014 at 2:46 pm |
        • Theo Phileo

          LaBella,
          I'm not giving you my interpretation, I'm giving you what the Apostles and even Jesus Himself said. The Hebrew word used for Adultery also means to commit fornication. It's not as simple as our English word. That's why we must look to those who certainly knew what was intended by the law, namely, Jesus and His Apostles.

          http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H5003&t=KJV

          August 25, 2014 at 2:48 pm |
        • igaftr

          theo
          "OR – and this one is my favorite – they lean on the "I don't know" button to the point that it's now fashionable to be ignorant"

          Seriously????

          So you would rather believe in a bunch of made up, unverifiable nonsense than admit you do not know?

          That shows the basic illogic of belief theo, thanks for showing how you would rather make up crap and lie rather than admit you do not know....the basic problem with nonsensical man made myths and superst!tions.

          I find it difficult to believe that you cannot admit your ignorance while showing incredible ignorance...incredibly ironic...you always leave me shaking my head in disbelief theo...but this time you really take the cake.

          August 25, 2014 at 2:53 pm |
        • Theo Phileo

          I don't know what your discusion entailed, but 1) using a single discussion as representative is misleading
          ----------------
          If this was an isolated case, then I would agree with you. But I speak to hundreds of self proclaiming atheists every week, and I see this all the time. It's not isolated, trust me. Many that I speak to say that they
          1) don't believe in God
          2) usually don't have a problem with a "divine watchmaker" kind of God, because utimately science can never explain the existence of the natural universe, so they keep that idea as an open possibility
          3) Hate the idea of a judge-God

          and 2) is it possible that you misunderstood and they simply didn't belive in *your* god?
          ----------------
          Could be. But it isn't "my God" (as in my personal interpretation of God). I merely present the God of the Bible.

          August 25, 2014 at 2:55 pm |
        • LaBella

          Properly placed:
          LaBella
          You're going to give a source that just confirms your interpretation, Theo.
          Jesus spoke about hetero adultery.
          Jesus said not one word about gay people. None. Nada. Zip.

          August 25, 2014 at 2:59 pm |
        • LaBella

          But I speak to hundreds of self proclaiming atheists every week [...]
          Hundreds. Every week.
          Really?
          I know maybe 5 total atheists, outside of those here.
          Where is it that you live that you speak to hundreds?
          Every week?
          And here I thought Georgia was one of the more devout states of the US.

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

          Theo,
          " 1) don’t believe in God
          2) usually don’t have a problem with a “divine watchmaker” kind of God..."

          This does not sound logically consistent.

          "I merely present the God of the Bible."

          You present what you think is the God of the Bible. It may be based on lots of study and research but it is still your evaluation of what the text means, or your evaluation of what others say that the text means.

          August 25, 2014 at 3:09 pm |
        • colin31714

          Theo, you said:

          Christians claim that the proof for God is shown in the existence of the Natural universe. (Romans 1:18-32)

          As I explained above, the Bible contains the assertion, not the evidence. The mere existence of the Universe is not evidence for God, Allah, Lord Brahma or any other god.

          You said:

          But non believers choose not to see that because they have suppressed that idea with the notion that either the natural world has always existed (which is neither observable, nor provable) or that the universe created itself (which is impossible).

          Not so. I haven't "oppressed" anything. The idea itself is a non-started and does not require "suppressing." The Universe may have existed for all time – we just don't know. Appealing to a creator solves nothing as you then have to either (i) declare the creator as self-creating, thereby breaching the very assumption you used to get to the creator; or (ii) come up with a being that created your creator

          OR – and this one is my favorite – they lean on the "I don't know" button to the point that it's now fashionable to be ignorant.

          But "I don't know" is the only honest answer when it comes to the cosmos. Nobody truly knows the origins of the Universe. All we have are theories. If you truly knew the answer to the origins of the Universe, you would own a Nobel Prize. Not one theory we have points to the Judeo-Christian god. That is a purely theological position and a highly flawed one.

          August 25, 2014 at 3:11 pm |
        • Theo Phileo

          Where is it that you live that you speak to hundreds?
          ------------
          I live in N. Georgia. I speak to so many people through missions.

          August 25, 2014 at 3:16 pm |
        • LaBella

          And every person at the missions are atheist?

          August 25, 2014 at 3:22 pm |
        • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

          You know who else I hate...? Sauron...and Valdomort

          August 25, 2014 at 4:04 pm |
        • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

          "Voldemort" If you must mention he who must not be named you have to spell it correctly.

          And you missed Morgoth. Sauron was but his lieutenant.

          August 25, 2014 at 4:08 pm |
        • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

          I don't hate Morgoth...I just strongly dislike him.

          August 25, 2014 at 4:38 pm |
        • evidencenot

          Snotty said = "it's been my experience that those who boast the loudest and most of the time smallest in stature."

          It has been my experience that those who reject evolution are extremely ignorant.

          August 26, 2014 at 10:07 am |
      • tallulah131

        It's been my experience that people like Theo make up things about people they don't know because they feel the need to insult those who don't share their belief. I like to call them "Liars for Jesus".

        August 25, 2014 at 1:54 pm |
        • Theo Phileo

          Really? Then explain to me how when I was speaking to someone about God recently (not on CNN), they were fine with it until I began to go through the 10 Commandments and began to condemn the sin in their life, and the first thing they bark is "who are you to judge me?"

          As I said, many people are fine with the idea of God – but it's always THEIR version of God that they are fine with. The God of the Bible they hate because He is not a permissive God who allows you to live how you want to live.

          August 25, 2014 at 1:59 pm |
        • LaBella

          Yes, tallulah, explain a conversation that totally anecdotal in nature and one you weren't privy to.

          August 25, 2014 at 2:04 pm |
        • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

          "As I said, many people are fine with the idea of God – but it's always THEIR version of God that they are fine with."
          -----------------------------
          As is always true with anyone who believes in a God.

          I thought you started the thread with atheists? Atheists don't have a 'version' of God that they believe in.

          There are plenty of people who identify as 'spiritual but not religious' who will reject your religion and your God.

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

          ' and the first thing they bark is "who are you to judge me?" '

          How does that equate in anyway to a supposed hatred of god? You were using your belief to tell him where you think he was going wrong and he called you out on it, not god.

          August 25, 2014 at 2:14 pm |
        • Theo Phileo

          Atheists don't have a 'version' of God that they believe in.
          --------------
          As I said, this is their statement – that they are an atheist. The conversation usually begins in small talk, and I always ask "what church do you go to?" And they'll return something like "Oh, I don't believe in God." Then I tease that statement out for a bit, and that's when I come to my conclusion that they COULD actually believe in a God if He didn't affect their life in any way.

          August 25, 2014 at 2:58 pm |
        • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

          "I come to my conclusion that they COULD actually believe in a God if He didn't affect their life in any way."
          ---------------------------------
          I think you are extrapolating too much. In this context for the conversation that you reiterate, I would say that what you show them is a God they don't want to believe in because they see your God as immoral.

          One either believes in God (or a higher power) or not, irrespective of the code defined by worshipers of a particular God. They reject your God as representing values they do not accept. I would contend that if we are honest, we are all agnostic. None of us can prove existence or non-existence, so we cannot truly *know* either way.

          August 25, 2014 at 3:05 pm |
        • tallulah131

          Wrong again, Theo. The only way I'd believe in a god is if there were irrefutable evidence to prove the existence of a god. Even then, "worship" would depend on the nature of the god. Considering the sheer volume of gods worshiped by humans throughout history, there is very little likelihood that any potential god would be the christian god, anyway.

          I'm not a bad person. If I harm others, I apologize. I am responsible for my actions and try not to do things that are detrimental to the world around me. Believing in your god wouldn't change my life at all, except to add a completely illogical layer of bigotry and the pointless waste of time spent worshiping something that doesn't exist.

          August 25, 2014 at 6:08 pm |
        • skytag

          "I come to my conclusion that they COULD actually believe in a God if He didn't affect their life in any way."

          Something isn't true just because you conclude it. I can't explain conversations to which I wasn't privy and about which you offer no details, but I suspect you're conclusions are based on your own preconceived notions about atheists than what we really believe.

          August 26, 2014 at 11:57 am |
      • SeaVik

        "the biggest reason that people choose to not believe in God is because they hate God."

        Theo, first of all, remember that there is no "choice" involved. I can't choose to believe in a god. I am an atheist whether I like it or not. I could lie, but I can't change the fact that I don't believe in a god.

        Since I don't believe in a god, it would be impossible for me to "hate God", so you're wrong on that front as well. I do hate many aspects of religion though, particularly what it does to children and the immoral behavior that adults justify with their religions.

        August 25, 2014 at 2:09 pm |
        • Theo Phileo

          I do hate many aspects of religion though, particularly what it does to children and the immoral behavior that adults justify with their religions.
          --------------
          I never said "all," I said "many." And I could cite dozens of examples...
          And about what religious people have done over the years through a misunderstanding of the Bible, I agree. Fallen people will inevitably sin. But that's no admonition against God, that's an admonition against what sinners have done in the name of a God that they do not understand.

          August 25, 2014 at 3:01 pm |
      • skytag

        In my experience believers often believe stupid stuff about atheists to discredit them. Also in my experience, the atheists who most actively denounce religion are those who are angry because they perceive it has harmed them in some way. The idea that any atheist hates God is patently stupid.

        August 26, 2014 at 11:46 am |
    • johnbiggscr

      Bearing false witness doesnt have a disclaimer that you can do so if you are claiming evolution is wrong, or if the person you are bearing false witness against is Darwin.

      You present half a quote, chopped to give the illusion of a particular viewpoint. You also ignore an 1879 letter that he wrote that said:

      'What my own (religious) views may be is a question of no consequence to any one but myself. But, as you asked, I may state that my judgment often fluctuates. Moreover whether a man deserves to be called a theist depends on the definition of the term: which is much too large a subject for a note. In my most extreme fluctuations I have never been an Atheist in the sense of denying the existence of a God. I think that generally (and more and more as I grow older), but not always, that an Agnostic would be the more correct description of my state of mind. '

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

        quote the whole book if you like, it won't come close to making evolution true.

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

          no...that won't make evolution true. The mechanisms and processes that we confirm daily...THAT is what makes evolution true...the fact that it has been ongoing, and continues.

          No amount of your throwing red herrings will change the fact of it.

          August 25, 2014 at 2:07 pm |
        • johnbiggscr

          I dont need to quote the whole book, just the parts that show you are deliberately choosing to bear false witness, which I assume you are expressly forbidden to do so.

          August 25, 2014 at 2:16 pm |
        • evidencenot

          Where's your evidence for creationism snotty?

          August 25, 2014 at 2:36 pm |
    • MidwestKen

      Awanderingscot,
      The (out of context) quote says nothing about evolution. Why do you make presumption about his motivations?

      Theo Phileo,
      Just because someone points out the unethical nature of a supposed god does not mean that they hate that supposed god, just that if the god is as asserted then the god is unethical.

      August 25, 2014 at 1:57 pm |
      • Theo Phileo

        You claim that God is unethical merely because He does not conform to your standards of morality.
        God is moral because morality is defined by His nature alone.

        August 25, 2014 at 2:01 pm |
        • joey3467

          So you claim, but that doesn't make it true.

          August 25, 2014 at 2:06 pm |
        • johnbiggscr

          Well that's a good cop out to excuse all sorts of evil deeds.
          Thing is isnt this the same god that handed out a series of commandments of what was 'moral' or not?
          And wasnt 'not killing' one of them?

          August 25, 2014 at 2:07 pm |
        • MidwestKen

          Theo,
          How is inherited sin ethical?
          How is blood sacrifice ethical?

          If something is moral simply because God says so, then it is arbitrary and therefore not ethical, e.g. if God says to kill an innocent.
          If God only points out what is already moral, then morality is above God as well.

          August 25, 2014 at 2:11 pm |
        • Theo Phileo

          And wasnt 'not killing' one of them?
          ----------------–
          That's the way that Erasmus rendered it in the Textus Receptus, but he wasn't translating the Hebrew. The Hebrew word there means "murder."

          Murder is always killing, but not all killing is murder. (such as the capital punishment of a lawfully convicted criminal)

          August 25, 2014 at 2:12 pm |
        • johnbiggscr

          'That's the way that Erasmus rendered it in the Textus Receptus, but he wasn't translating the Hebrew. The Hebrew word there means "murder."
          Murder is always killing, but not all killing is murder. (such as the capital punishment of a lawfully convicted criminal)'

          I do love how people want to make that claim these days, but no matter.
          So if the commandment says 'no murder' its ok for Joshua to kill every man, woman and child in Jericho because they didnt worship god, and that wasnt murder because it was sanctioned? Got to love semantics being used to justify atrocities.

          August 25, 2014 at 2:20 pm |
        • Theo Phileo

          How is inherited sin ethical?
          --------------
          Inherited sin is (wait for it) sinful. That's why there's the law. That's why there's the Gospel. That's why there's salvation.

          How is blood sacrifice ethical?
          -------------–
          I would ask how is it not ethical? It's just the ritualistic killing of an animal for food. You do know that the sacrificial animals were eaten, right? The only difference between the Levitical Sacrifices and a steak at the grocery store is a lack of ceremony. When Jesus died on the cross, He was voluntarily paying the debt that we owed, but could not pay. We didn't ask for it, it was voluntary. That was gracious.

          Something is defined as moral if it is in agreement with the moral character and nature of God. God defines what is "good" by who He is – He is the standard of morality.

          Incidentally, outside of the propitiation made by Christ, God has never killed an innocent person. No person is innocent for we all have inherited sin. We are not sinners because we sin, rather, we sin because we are sinners. And in case you need proof of that, look at it this way, have you ever had to teach children to disobey their parents? No. They do that naturally.

          August 25, 2014 at 2:20 pm |
        • Doc Vestibule

          And when the neighbourhood comes together to stone a harlot or a disrespectful child to death in the town square, that isn't murder either. Just good Ol' Testament Godly justice.

          August 25, 2014 at 2:21 pm |
        • Theo Phileo

          So if the commandment says 'no murder' its ok for Joshua to kill every man, woman and child in Jericho because they didnt worship god
          -------------–
          Don't make light of the Canaanite. God didn't order their execution merely because they "didn't believe in God."
          This was a thoroughly evil culture, so much so that the Bible says it nauseated God. They were into brutality, cruelty, incest, bestiality, cultic prost.itution, and even child sacrifice by fire. They were an aggressive culture that wanted to annihilate the Israelites. By ordering their destruction, God enacted a form of corporate capital punishment on a people that were deserving of God’s judgment for some time.

          Jericho was part of the Amorite kingdom, a grotesquely violent, totally depraved, thoroughly pagan culture. Amorites were so hell-bent on the pursuit of everything evil that God Himself had condemned them and ordered the Israelites to wipe them from the face of the earth (Deuteronomy 20:17). In fact, the Amorite culture had been completely and maliciously corrupt for so long (going back at least to the time of Abraham), that their evil lifestyle was the very reason God granted Abraham and his heirs the right to their land in the first place (Deuteronomy 18:12; 1 Kings 21:26).

          The Lord promised Abraham that his descendants would take possession of the land as soon as the wickedness of the Amorites was complete (Genesis 15:16). That time had now come. The evil nation reached God’s maximum tolerance level and Israel was God’s instrument by which He would administer judgment.

          August 25, 2014 at 2:24 pm |
        • LaBella

          I feel so bad for all of the newborns born with inherited sin.

          August 25, 2014 at 2:25 pm |
        • Theo Phileo

          And when the neighbourhood comes together to stone a harlot or a disrespectful child to death in the town square, that isn't murder either. Just good Ol' Testament Godly justice.
          --------------–
          Reader's Digest Version: No.

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

          For them if God does it or says it then it is moral. Much like when Nixon said "When the President does it, that means it is not illegal..."

          So if Satan were God then apparently his nature would be moral as well. So it has nothing to do with the morality of a thing, it just matters who made everything and that guy gets to make up whatever rules he wants.

          For the rest of us mundane humans, morality is based on how actions effect other humans. It is subjective morality and decided upon by a group of humans who also act as judge, jury and executioner of their subjective morality. No deities ever get involved as none have ever answered when asked "Is this or that moral?" However, there are many many accounts of humans claiming to be the mouthpiece of God who said "God wants you to do this!" and "God wants you to do that!" and "God wants you to kill that guy and give all his land to me!, er, I mean, to the Church!" So much for objective morality...

          August 25, 2014 at 2:27 pm |
        • johnbiggscr

          'This was a thoroughly evil culture, so much so that the Bible says it nauseated God. They were into brutality, cruelty, incest, bestiality, cultic prost.itution, and even child sacrifice by fire. They were an aggressive culture that wanted to annihilate the Israelites. By ordering their destruction, God enacted a form of corporate capital punishment on a people that were deserving of God’s judgment for some time.
          Jericho was part of the Amorite kingdom, a grotesquely violent, totally depraved, thoroughly pagan culture. Amorites were so hell-bent on the pursuit of everything evil that God Himself had condemned them and ordered the Israelites to wipe them from the face of the earth (Deuteronomy 20:17). In fact, the Amorite culture had been completely and maliciously corrupt for so long (going back at least to the time of Abraham), that their evil lifestyle was the very reason God granted Abraham and his heirs the right to their land in the first place (Deuteronomy 18:12; 1 Kings 21:26).'

          You actually believe that nonsense dont you? That somehow there was this 'evil' culture and they all deserved to die, even the children and babies, because they angered god.
          For crying out loud. Its nonsense like that that is why atheists are angry at religion. When believers make claims like you made we dont need a god to be angry at, your justification of mass murder and slaughter is enough to turn anyone's stomach.

          August 25, 2014 at 2:32 pm |
        • MidwestKen

          Theo,
          "Inherited sin is.. sinful."
          "...we all have inherited sin."

          Not sure how that works out. Is it moral to punish the child for the parent's crime or not?

          The supposed absolution of sin, or mitigation of responsibility / punishment for crime, via the killing of another living thing is not logical, let alone ethical.

          August 25, 2014 at 2:34 pm |
        • evidencenot

          "Inherited sin is (wait for it) sinful. That's why there's the law. That's why there's the Gospel. That's why there's salvation."

          "Inherited sin" is a big LOAD OF CRAP!.

          August 25, 2014 at 2:35 pm |
        • joey3467

          If someone thinks genocide was acceptable because god ordered they don't really have any morals in my opinion. Might makes right is not a good basis for morality Theo.

          August 25, 2014 at 2:39 pm |
        • neverbeenhappieratheist

          I think picking your nose and eating it is gross, but it's not immoral, but apparently if God said anyone who picked their nose and ate the booger was now unclean and to be put to death, murdering that booger eater would be moral, at least according to the religious.

          August 25, 2014 at 2:41 pm |
        • johnbiggscr

          'If someone thinks genocide was acceptable because god ordered they don't really have any morals in my opinion. '

          Its not really any different from the justification that ISIS uses, though I doubt he sees it that way.

          August 25, 2014 at 2:46 pm |
        • neverbeenhappieratheist

          "Its not really any different from the justification that ISIS uses"

          I see no difference, do you?

          August 25, 2014 at 2:48 pm |
        • TruthPrevails1

          Christianity give you the disease-SIN and then it offers you a solution-HEAVEN. So be good or else...
          Great loving divisive god you have there...sounds more like the classic abuser, at least its gullibles and the silly book make it sound that way.
          Even if there was a god, which there is zero evidence for any presently, it is highly unlikely that said god would be the one of the bible. The one of the bible is not worthy of worship.

          August 25, 2014 at 3:04 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          @labella...so yo uhate that newborns are born with ability to make choices? I feel so sad for you...IM all for ability to make choices....seems as if y uodont

          August 26, 2014 at 3:00 am |
        • observer

          kermit4jc,

          Since you are all for newborns being able to make choices, it must be really disappointing to know that God didn't ALWAYS feel that way.

          August 26, 2014 at 3:20 am |
        • kermit4jc

          maybe I did not make myself clear....the newborns have the ability in that, when they get older, they will be able to make choices..and what do yo umean about God doesn't feel that way????

          August 26, 2014 at 3:32 am |
        • observer

          kermit4jc,

          God didn't ALWAYS believe in giving newborns the freedom to make choices.

          Read about the great flood. Amazed you didn't know that.

          August 26, 2014 at 3:35 am |
        • kermit4jc

          uhhh....silly...I don't mean in THAT way..sheesh
          they can reject God or accept him...those who died in the flodd went right t heaven..they did not sin and you think that's bad?

          August 26, 2014 at 3:49 am |
        • observer

          kermit4jc

          "those who died in the flodd went right"

          That's great news for aborted babies, too, but unfortunately you need to find the EXACT quote about that IN the flood story. NEVER heard one starting that flood babies and fetuses went directly to heaven. Here's a chance for you to PROVE you know what you are talking about. I won't stay up waiting for you to FAIL to do that.

          August 26, 2014 at 3:56 am |
        • kermit4jc

          yes..you ae one of those incapable of connecting the dots...you got to have me do all your homework for you...what is sin? SIN is a CONSCIOUS decision to reject God, do babies do that? babies don't make conscious decisions to do wrong..they cannot grasp that! you know it....thus if they cannot grasp sin and righteousness, death and life, they are not gilty. The baby will go to heaven! For they done no wrong to go to hell!

          August 26, 2014 at 9:32 am |
        • evidencenot

          "connecting the dots" = translation = interpreting mythology to say what you want it to say.

          August 26, 2014 at 9:54 am |
        • kermit4jc

          prove it..prove Im only interpreting it say what I want it to say

          August 26, 2014 at 10:00 am |
        • observer

          kermit4jc,

          Yep. Connect the dots. Women having abortions are sending their fetuses directly to heaven. Hopefully, the Christian women protesting at clinics will tell the mothers there about that to help them decide and this will comfort them if they choose abortion. Good news from the Bible. Thanks for telling us.

          August 26, 2014 at 5:59 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          more ignorant talk of my beliefs.....I already told you..WE are NOT one to judge to kill babies in the womb.....I made that perfectly clear before...yet you still seem to have trouble connecting the dots that I have to spell out everything for you

          August 26, 2014 at 6:05 pm |
        • observer

          kermit4jc,

          Do ABORTED fetuses go to heaven? YES or NO?

          In other words, do women having abortions give their fetuses a DIRECT TRIP to heaven?

          August 26, 2014 at 6:11 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          They DO goto heaven..but that is NOT justification for them to abort babies! they are bing selfish and denying the baby the right to live...they are nOT judge of the babies life....yet they have appointed themselves arrogantly to be judge

          August 26, 2014 at 6:14 pm |
        • observer

          kermit4jc

          "denying the baby the right to live..."

          Which is better - living on earth or being in heaven?

          August 26, 2014 at 6:17 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          the question is moot..again WE are not the judges to determine that.....you keep making yourself (women) judge an executioner in arrogance

          August 26, 2014 at 6:22 pm |
        • observer

          kermit4jc

          "denying the baby the right to live..."

          Which is better – living on earth or being in heaven?

          Still STUMPED?

          August 26, 2014 at 6:24 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          ianswered you already

          August 26, 2014 at 6:33 pm |
        • James XCIX

          kermit – Assuming there is a paradise, do you really think anyone would care how arrogant the person who gets them into paradise might be?

          August 26, 2014 at 6:27 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          Again WE are not God..WE are not judge

          August 26, 2014 at 6:33 pm |
      • kermit4jc

        @Midwestern...sin being "inherited" means that people are born with ability to choose right from wrong....is that unethical?

        August 26, 2014 at 3:03 am |
        • MidwestKen

          Kermit4jc,
          That would be the capability to sin, not sin itself.

          August 26, 2014 at 10:41 am |
        • kermit4jc

          thanks for saying it better..I was tired and at loss for a different word

          August 26, 2014 at 4:01 pm |
        • Science Works

          Good Morning Kermit – it looks like it got mixed up with gods people/creationists ?

          http://www.uni-heidelberg.de/presse/news2014/pm20140823_simply-complex-the-origin-of-our-body-axes.html

          why your mouth is not your ass ?

          August 26, 2014 at 11:39 am |
        • kermit4jc

          I have NO idea what youre talking about or what youre responding too..please calrify

          August 26, 2014 at 4:04 pm |
        • Science Works

          Hello kermit

          Maybe read the article and you might figure it out.

          August 28, 2014 at 10:39 am |
    • In Santa We Trust

      Do you have any evidence for creationism?

      August 25, 2014 at 2:22 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.