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. Salero21

    Based on the posts by atheists in the blog since it's beginning we can conclude that atheism is a huge collection of absurdities. Therefore atheism is Absolute, Complete and Total NONSENSE. Atheists are without a doubt compulsive, habitual and pathological LIARS and extreme hypocrites.

    August 27, 2014 at 4:52 pm |
    • Dyslexic doG

      It's OK sally ... you just keep telling yourself that. There, there. It'll be alright. No need to be afraid.

      August 27, 2014 at 4:55 pm |
    • TruthPrevails1

      Do the nurses know you're out of your room?

      August 27, 2014 at 5:27 pm |
    • In Santa We Trust

      I wonder if christians feel embarrassed by being represented by salero21 and awanderingscot.

      August 27, 2014 at 5:34 pm |
      • evidencenot

        As an atheist, I applaud their efforts!

        August 28, 2014 at 12:57 pm |
        • G to the T

          No doubt. I often wonder if they ever have an inkling of how much damage they are doing to their own cause.

          August 28, 2014 at 2:53 pm |
  2. Dyslexic doG

    Alas ... all that power to create the universe but stymied by amputations. No use praying to him amputees ... there's nothing he can do. LOLOLOLOLOLOL

    August 27, 2014 at 4:50 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Other One

      And with all those people stumping for Jesus, too. It's a shame.

      August 27, 2014 at 4:52 pm |
      • ausphor

        Apparently our little solar system resides in a bubble and our religious brethren have their own exclusive bubbles to deal with. A bubble within a bubble and yet the no god has been named Bubbles!!!

        August 27, 2014 at 5:17 pm |
  3. Dyslexic doG

    Alas ... all that power to create the universe but stymied by the birth control pill. No wonder god's minions try to battle that evil pill!!! LOLOLOLOLOLOL

    August 27, 2014 at 4:49 pm |
    • G to the T

      I've often thought it odd that it only takes a condom to thwart God's will...

      August 28, 2014 at 2:57 pm |
  4. No Wake Zone

    The word “god” itself has no useful definition because in order to define the word, you have to make up the existence of the thing itself. How can one define a Supreme Being or moon goddess if it doesn’t exist?

    With that in mind, believing in gods is akin to vacationing in the lost world of Atlantis. Yes, we have a definition but nothing else. You will never find the address to the fictional hotel you didn’t actually book your stay at, but insist you did.

    August 27, 2014 at 4:25 pm |
  5. Løki

    "If it’s true that our species is alone in the universe, then I’d have to say the universe aimed rather low and settled for very little." ~George Carlin

    August 27, 2014 at 4:18 pm |
    • No Wake Zone

      I love George and understand what he means, I think, but disagree with the way he said it. Life on Earth is amazing, at least to my human brain.

      August 27, 2014 at 4:37 pm |
      • Dyslexic doG

        Agreed! There is no shortage of wonder and beauty in the real world, without having to resort to magic and mysticism.

        August 27, 2014 at 4:43 pm |
  6. clubschadenfreude

    Ms. Cupp is a lovely example of how atheism means only "having no belief in a god or gods". Having no belief in god or gods certainly doesn't mean one is automatically a decent person. Just like being a believer doesn't mean one is automatically a decent person or a bad person. Ms Cupp has chosen to be a liar, just like a believer might choose to claim that their god needs their lies.

    Thank you, Ms. Cupp, for showing humans and their actions are no different.

    August 27, 2014 at 4:13 pm |
  7. No Wake Zone

    What God is screaming in Ferguson, Missouri:

    "Fuck! Iron chariots!"

    August 27, 2014 at 4:07 pm |
    • igaftr

      You misunderstand...it is a question...What god is screaming in Ferguson, MI?

      August 27, 2014 at 4:53 pm |
      • No Wake Zone

        I just answered the question so....pretty sure I "understand". lol

        August 27, 2014 at 4:55 pm |
  8. G to the T

    Whatever a dictionary may say – the only definition that matters is what I actually believe. In so far as gods are concerned, based on the evidence provided, I don't believe god(s) exist. That being said, this is a conditional belief and not an active denial as some definitions might infer.

    August 27, 2014 at 3:39 pm |
    • awanderingscot

      GT
      – fence straddler, you are under the delusion this might help you someday, it won't.

      August 27, 2014 at 3:54 pm |
      • No Wake Zone

        There is no reason to believe in gods. Common sense rules them out. That does not mean there is "nothing". Nobody knows the truth about life and the universe, it is thus far hidden from us. Hence the religious nonsense.

        August 27, 2014 at 3:58 pm |
      • G to the T

        Fence-sitter? Now that's a new one.

        So it would be better if I'm not honest with myself? My general stance on anything is one of doubt until convincing evidence can be provided. I would consider myself more of a Doubting Thomas than anything...

        On a side note – how many people do you think you've alienated from ever being a Christian by your actions on this blog?

        August 27, 2014 at 4:00 pm |
      • Alias

        But what if I don't believe in fences?

        August 27, 2014 at 4:02 pm |
      • ausphor

        scotty
        Hou's aw wi ye?
        Just to let you know my name is James Angus Campbell born Dunoon in the year 1752, and though I was a shepherd for the first 100 years of my life, I soon got tired of fondling and servicing those stinky beasts. I became a typesetter and worked printing some of the greats, Charles Dickens and yes, Charles Darwin. Deny all you want but I was there and know the TRUTH. I may have lost a step or two but as a direct descendant of Noah and with all the advances in medicine I expect to be around possibly into the next millennium, just a kid at 362 years old.

        August 27, 2014 at 5:02 pm |
    • Sungrazer

      I sometimes tell people I'm a "non-theist". It has the benefit of (sometimes) being asked "what exactly is a non-theist?". If you say "atheist", people are going to think they already know what you mean. Dictionary entries have their uses, but to know really what someone believes/disbelieves, you have to ask. Similarly, "Christian" is a starting place, but as we all know, there are many different conceptions out there as to what consti.tutes a Christian. And I'm talking about among Christians themselves.

      There is also an "Atheism Plus" movement to get beyond being simply a dictionary atheist.

      August 27, 2014 at 4:01 pm |
      • No Wake Zone

        I am an atheist by definition. I am comfortable with that label.

        August 27, 2014 at 4:16 pm |
        • Sungrazer

          I am not uncomfortable with it. The problem is that the definitions are different between dictionaries and there are even multiple definitions within the same dictionary. The two entries below describe different (un)beliefs. And one could apply in one scenario and the other could apply in another scenario.

          1.
          the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
          2.
          disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.

          August 27, 2014 at 4:24 pm |
        • No Wake Zone

          I'm picking up what you're putting down.

          August 27, 2014 at 4:26 pm |
  9. Dyslexic doG

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

    Alas ... all that power to create the universe but stymied by iron chariots. LOLOLOLOLOLOL

    August 27, 2014 at 3:37 pm |
    • No Wake Zone

      The iron chariots are just a metaphor for common sense.

      August 27, 2014 at 3:55 pm |
      • Alias

        So ... comon sense can defeat the christian god?

        August 27, 2014 at 4:01 pm |
        • No Wake Zone

          No, of course not.

          August 27, 2014 at 4:04 pm |
    • ausphor

      One Tin Soldier...The Original Caste
      Rode away.....

      August 27, 2014 at 3:59 pm |
      • ausphor

        TV Evangelist Creed
        Go ahead and scam your neighbour
        Go ahead and cheat a friend
        Do it in the name of heaven
        You can justify it in the end

        Peace on Earth
        Was all it said
        Religion 101 in one brief song, thank you Dennis Lambert and Brian Potter.

        August 27, 2014 at 4:11 pm |
    • awanderingscot

      God made it rain to bog down the chariots. He wasn't defeated. You're an idiot who can't read.

      August 27, 2014 at 4:04 pm |
      • Alias

        He is not the idiot who can't read.
        It clearly says "because they had chariots of iron".
        This means the reason they were not able to drive out the inhabitants of the valley had nothing to do with rain.

        August 27, 2014 at 4:14 pm |
        • Tom, Tom, the Other One

          Bronze Age God can't deal with iron. Not so surprising, really.

          August 27, 2014 at 4:18 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          Judges 1 does NOT say God couldn't handle the iron chatiots..it said the PEOPLE couldnt

          August 27, 2014 at 4:40 pm |
        • awanderingscot

          Alias
          The reason they couldn't drive them out at that particular time was due to their faithlessness, nothing to do with iron chariots. Try reading the whole story instead of assuming you know God and His ways. You wouldn't get it anyway due to your carnal mind. They did drive them out later (900 chariots) but only when faith returned and with God's help. LOL .. maybe a picture book would help you?

          August 27, 2014 at 4:30 pm |
        • Alias

          Scot
          You are wrong. The passage does not say god left them because they lost faith, it plainly says because they had chariots of iron.
          You can stick with your drawings, I can read.

          August 27, 2014 at 4:41 pm |
        • harlow13

          Yes, Alias, stop assuming you know goD and hiS ways, That is for Awanderingsot's to do.

          August 27, 2014 at 4:56 pm |
      • awanderingscot

        “The kings came and fought,
        Then the kings of Canaan fought
        In Taanach, by the waters of Megiddo;
        They took no spoils of silver.
        They fought from the heavens;
        The stars from their courses fought against Sisera.
        The torrent of Kishon swept them away,
        That ancient torrent, the torrent of Kishon.
        O my soul, march on in strength!
        Then the horses’ hooves pounded,
        The galloping, galloping of his steeds.
        ‘Curse Meroz,’ said the angel of the Lord,
        ‘Curse its inhabitants bitterly,
        Because they did not come to the help of the Lord,
        To the help of the Lord against the mighty.’ – Judges 5:19-23, NKJV

        August 27, 2014 at 4:22 pm |
        • Tom, Tom, the Other One

          What is this stuff? Beowulf makes more sense.

          August 27, 2014 at 4:24 pm |
        • ausphor

          Judges are you sure, sounds more like something out of the Return of the King/Lord of the Rings, please check your source.

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

          There should be a bible in your nightstand there at the Motel 6. Put the bottle and crack pipe down and pick it up.

          August 27, 2014 at 4:33 pm |
        • LaBella

          Your testimony for Jesus is touching. He'd approve.

          August 27, 2014 at 4:40 pm |
        • ausphor

          Motel 6 often does not provide a sufficient supply of toilet paper resulting in large sections of the nightstand bible having been flushed. Genesis seems to be the gentlest on the anus.

          August 27, 2014 at 4:41 pm |
        • Dyslexic doG

          ausphor wins!

          August 27, 2014 at 4:47 pm |
        • awanderingscot

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

          August 27, 2014 at 4:58 pm |
        • LaBella

          Scot,
          You wouldn't know a real Christian if the Lord Himself came up to you and introduced himself.
          You are right about one thing: I am NOT the kind of hateful, lying, duplicitous Christian that you are. And I am content with knowing that I am not like you, for although you pay lip service to Jesus, your lying nature every single day on this blog belies His teachings.

          August 27, 2014 at 5:13 pm |
        • awanderingscot

          Akira, every Christian who has been on this blog more than a few times while you are here knows you are a fake. Let's hear the facts now 1) you believe evolution and not God created. (check). 2) you believe sin such as ho-mo-se-xuality is ok contrary to what scripture says. (check) 3) you believe a woman's "right to choose" is not murder (check). 4) you attack, lie, and give false testimony against Christians on this blog. (check) 5) you do not believe the bible is the inerrant word of God. (check). 6) you give aid and comfort to the enemies of God. (check) Why don't you quit lying to yourself and everyone here and openly admit you are an atheist. At least the atheists here are honest about who they are and that's more than i can say for you.

          August 28, 2014 at 9:09 am |
      • harlow13

        Whoops. Please omit the 's when reading my previous comment. Thanks.

        August 27, 2014 at 5:01 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Other One

      There was more to it than that. The chariots were red metal flake with so much chrome just the sight of them dropped the Judeans like a poleaxe.

      August 27, 2014 at 4:09 pm |
      • ausphor

        My chrome hubcaps are a replica of those used on the chariots, damn fine looking on a Gremlin.

        August 27, 2014 at 4:18 pm |
    • kermit4jc

      the Bible does NOT say GOD couldn't drive them out..but the PEOPLE could not...Just because god was with them does NOT mean he helped them fight the war....being with God and having God fight for them are two different things

      August 27, 2014 at 4:31 pm |
      • Tom, Tom, the Other One

        This is true. "Gott Mit Uns" did the Nazis no good at all.

        August 27, 2014 at 4:39 pm |
      • Dyslexic doG

        always with the technicalities and caveats ... Mr Frog must be a slimy lawyer in real life.

        August 27, 2014 at 4:57 pm |
  10. Dyslexic doG

    why do Christian keep claiming morality in arguments?! The bible is one of the most grotesquely immoral books ever written!!

    August 27, 2014 at 2:02 pm |
    • neverbeenhappieratheist

      It is unless you read it from the perspective of a Christian where any punishment or killing is for the "bad people" so that makes it okay. Of course Christians define "bad people" as anyone who doesn't kneel down at the mention of their Lord and Savior. Killing babies is bad, unless their God said that those babies weren't apparently worth saving like the Amalekite babies, then it's good to kill babies. Putting to death those who have relations with someone they aren't married to? Not as long as as it's a man and a woman cheating with eachother, that's to be expected and as long as they say sorry were all good, but two of the same gender and out come the throwing stones...

      August 27, 2014 at 2:18 pm |
      • awanderingscot

        Since science has now proven that morality is not reducible to pure matter, anyone whose spirit has not been made alive by the Holy Spirit is immoral. Atheists are immoral people.

        August 27, 2014 at 2:59 pm |
        • TruthPrevails1

          Put the crack pipe down and take a walk...you're sounding more delusional by the comment.

          August 27, 2014 at 3:27 pm |
        • igaftr

          Yeah...Hitler said the same thing. And we all know what a pillar of morality he was...just like you scot.

          August 27, 2014 at 3:29 pm |
        • LaBella

          When did science prove that God's love is reducible to pure matter, Scot? Can you link that? Thanks.

          August 27, 2014 at 3:44 pm |
        • tallulah131

          Scotty's a troll. There's no point in discussing morals with a sociopath like scotty. His "morals" are whatever gets him attention.

          August 27, 2014 at 3:45 pm |
        • awanderingscot

          IGAFRT,
          This coming from a guy who researches other bloggers online trying to get information to use against them ... and the best part? He doesn't think it's immoral. LOL. You're a tool for sure.

          August 27, 2014 at 4:01 pm |
        • igaftr

          nice try wondering slvt. you said that before, and I explained that before. How lame you bother with that again.

          Where again is you evidence of your creation hypothesis?

          August 27, 2014 at 4:37 pm |
        • likklehero

          I used to be more active on this blog, but lately I have just been sitting back watching the action.

          Your post was the absolute definition of trolling, and the consensus in the psychiatric world is that internet trolling is the virtual equivalent of sadism. I am glad that you are not out actually stomping kittens, but I wonder what kind of gratification you are getting from this.

          I thought I might put a picture in the heads of the participants here – I picture you sitting in a dark basement in your underwear with a box of tissues at the ready. I hope that this stops everyone from responding to you ever again, and needless to say – this is the last time that I will ever respond to you.

          August 27, 2014 at 4:50 pm |
        • awanderingscot

          likklehero
          "I used to be more active on this blog, but lately I have just been sitting back watching the action."

          – LOL ... we've never had a conversation before and here you are attacking me. Feels good to be anonymous and say what you want doesn't it gutless wonder.

          August 28, 2014 at 9:19 am |
        • evidencenot

          Snotty is a cut-n-paste moron.... ignore his ignorant rants..

          August 28, 2014 at 1:52 pm |
      • Sungrazer

        Exactly. I had a conversation once with truthfollower01. He likes to argue the existence of objective morality and his favorite example is the Holocaust. He stated:

        "The Christian can affirm that the Holocaust is objectively morally evil."

        But when I bring up the Midianite genocide in Numbers 31:

        "Midian was responsible for corrupting the people at Peor."

        I proposed a scenario where the Holocaust was commanded by god and claimed if it was so, then he would be forced to admit it was moral. Oh no, this would "present a false god who is not the Christian God".

        I guess a true god can commit Midianite genocide but not Jewish genocide.

        August 27, 2014 at 3:14 pm |
        • joey3467

          I have had that same conversation with truth follower, he doesn't seem to realize that he destroys his own argument when he says that genocide is always wrong, except for when god orders it

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

          I think everyone here has had that argument with him.

          So, he takes the position that the Midianite genocide was justified. I would disagree, but at least we can debate that. But he flatly denies that god would/could command the Holocaust. Why not, when he commanded the Midianite genocide??

          Of course, Theo is famous for stating that the Holocaust was indeed orchestrated by god. This is disgusting, but at least it is consistent.

          August 27, 2014 at 3:35 pm |
  11. Doc Vestibule

    "Creationism or "creation science" — the belief that the origin of the world and the development of life were due to divine intervention — is not a scientific theory, but rather a matter of religious faith...AJC continues to oppose the teaching of "creation science" in public school science classes and opposes laws mandating its instruction alongside the theory of evolution."
    – American Jewish Committee

    "Taking into account the state of scientific research at the time as well as of the requirements of theology, the Encyclical Humani generis considered the doctrine of "evolutionism" a serious hypothesis, worthy of investigation and in-depth study equal to that of the opposing hypothesis...Today, almost half a century after the publication of the Encyclical, fresh knowledge has led to the recognition that evolution is more than a hypothesis. It is indeed remarkable that this theory has been progressively accepted by researchers, following a series of discoveries in various fields of knowledge. The convergence, neither sought nor fabricated, of the results of work that was conducted independently is in itself a significant argument in favour of this theory."
    – Pope John Paul II, "Message to Pontifical Academy of Sciences",/i> October 22, 1996

    "Resolved – That the theory of evolution provides a fruitful and unifying scientific explanation for the emergence of life on earth, that many theological interpretations of origins can readily embrace an evolutionary outlook, and that an acceptance of evolution is entirely compatible with an authentic and living Christian faith; and be it further
    Resolved – That Episcopalians strongly encourage state legislatures and state and local boards of education to establish standards for science education based on the best available scientific knowledge as accepted by a consensus of the scientific community;"
    – Episcopal Church, General Convention (2006)

    "We find that science’s descriptions of cosmological, geological, and biological evolution are not in conflict with theology. We recognize medical, technical, and scientific technologies as legitimate uses of God’s natural world when such use enhances human life and enables all of God’s children to develop their God-given creative potential without violating our ethical convictions about the relationship of humanity to the natural world. We reexamine our ethical convictions as our understanding of the natural world increases. We find that as science expands human understanding of the natural world, our understanding of the mysteries of God’s creation and word are enhanced."
    – The United Methodist Church (2008)

    "Whereas, "Scientific" creationism seeks to prove that natural history conforms absolutely to the Genesis account of origins; and, Whereas, adherence to immutable theories is fundamentally anti.thetical to the nature of science; and, Whereas, "Scientific" creationism seeks covertly to promote a particular religious dogma; and, Whereas, the romulgation of religious dogma in public schools is contrary to the First Amendment to the United States Consti.tution; therefore, Be it resolved that The Iowa Annual Conference opposes efforts to introduce "Scientific" creationism into the science curriculum of the public schools."
    – United Methodist Church

    August 27, 2014 at 12:51 pm |
    • Science Works

      Can Add the Insti-tute for Creation Research to the list too it looks like.

      But the reporter had a hard time explaining evolution it looks like.

      http://www.dallasnews.com/news/metro/20140814-dallas-researchers-out-to-scientifically-prove-biblical-version-of-creation.ece

      http://ncse.com/blog-tags/attack-science-education

      August 27, 2014 at 1:12 pm |
      • Doc Vestibule

        The ICR will never be on a list of religious groups that accept evolutionary theory.

        August 27, 2014 at 1:16 pm |
        • Science Works

          Agree Doc
          http://ncse.com/blog/2014/02/crystal-anniversary-wedge-doc-ument-0015370

          Take out dash in doc-ument for url to work.

          August 27, 2014 at 1:28 pm |
  12. awanderingscot

    Atheism
    Noun.

    Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.
    The doctrine that there is no God or gods.
    Godlessness; immorality.

    – This is the dictionary's definition of an atheist. Can anyone out there dispute this?

    August 27, 2014 at 12:45 pm |
    • Alias

      Now the dictionary is your bible?
      It is written, and therefore we must accept every word as truth?
      There can be no other definitions!

      August 27, 2014 at 12:52 pm |
      • kevinite

        Bible/dictionary, religious texts/secular texts; you just can't please some atheists.

        August 27, 2014 at 1:16 pm |
      • kevinite

        Definition of ATHEISM

        1
        archaic : ungodliness, wickedness
        2
        a : a disbelief in the existence of deity
        b : the doctrine that there is no deity

        Middle French athéisme, from athée atheist, from Greek atheos godless, from a- + theos god
        First Known Use: 1546
        (Merriam Webster)

        August 27, 2014 at 1:37 pm |
        • LaBella

          Now look up the meaning of 'archaic.'

          August 27, 2014 at 2:26 pm |
    • igaftr

      THE dictionary? There is only one?

      They clearly have it incorrect, but since you think that not believing in gods means you are immoral, you agree with Hitler.
      How does it feel to know you agree with Hitler,at least on this issue?
      Morality is an evolved trait. One does not need any belief in gods to be moral, and you believe in gods, but your posts show a huge amount of immorality. Perhaps you should examine that fact.

      August 27, 2014 at 12:56 pm |
      • awanderingscot

        Quantum Mechanics proves otherwise. Quantum information is not reduced to matter and thus materialism does not allow morality to evolve. Your argument fails.

        August 27, 2014 at 1:46 pm |
        • Doc Vestibule

          The toss the word "quantum" around with the same frequency as Deepak Chopra but with even less understanding of what quantum physics actually is.

          Through the quantum fluctuations of chronometric tachyon fields, one can surmise that at its core, the Universe is composed of Heinsenberg pulse waves interacting on the quantum level.
          Of course, these gravimetric oscillations can only be observed indirectly, but by noting their influence on the sub-atomic quantum flanging, the ferfanational matrices of gestalt knoncleotides proves, beyond a doubt, that the entire fabric of reality as we perceive it is nothing more than the passing whimsy of quantum midichlorians.
          Quantum quantum quantum.
          Therefore the Bible is literally true and evolution is false.
          Quantum.

          August 27, 2014 at 1:55 pm |
        • igaftr

          Quantum Mechanics does not prove that in the slightest. Quantum mechanics has nothing to do with morality.

          By all means, explain your hypothesis in detail.

          There is no need for beleif in "gods" to be moral.
          Look at you scot, you believe in god, yet 90% of your posts show very low morality, with all the out of context fallacies, and flat out lies, etc. You probably have convinced yourself that it is moral because you are lying for your god...pathetic scot, simply pathetic.
          Try being honest for once.

          August 27, 2014 at 1:56 pm |
        • Alias

          Thanks Doc
          I was confused there for a quantum minute.

          August 27, 2014 at 1:58 pm |
        • awanderingscot

          At the same time new and even more exciting possibilities opened up as scientists began thinking of quantum physics in terms of information, rather than just matter — in other words, asking if physics fundamentally tells us more about our interaction with the world (i.e., our information) than the nature of the world by itself (i.e., matter). And so the field of quantum information theory was born, with very real new possibilities in the very real world of technology.

          http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/14/opinion/sunday/the-possibilities-of-quantum-information.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

          – the finger of God at work

          '..who alone has immortality, dwelling in unapproachable light, whom no man has seen or can see, to whom be honor and everlasting power. Amen.' 1 Timothy 6:16, NKJV

          '..for since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse,..' Romans 1:20, NKJV

          '.. who being the brightness of His glory and the express image of His person, and upholding all things by the word of His power, ... – Hebrews 1:3

          – He upholds ALL THINGS BY THE WORD OF HIS POWER, no exceptions.

          August 27, 2014 at 2:50 pm |
        • Doc Vestibule

          At the same time new and even more exciting possibilities opened up as scientists began thinking of evolutionary theory in terms of information, rather than just biology.
          The principles are practically applied on a daily basis in fields like medicine, geology, mathematics, molecular biology, robotics, chemistry, astrophysics, agriculture, epidemiology, aerospace engineering, architecture, data mining, drug discovery and design, electrical engineering, finance, geophysics, materials engineering, military strategy, pattern recognition, robotics, scheduling, systems engineering etc.

          August 27, 2014 at 2:54 pm |
        • awanderingscot

          "At the same time new and even more exciting possibilities opened up as scientists began thinking of evolutionary theory in terms of information, rather than just biology."

          – Wrong. You can't have it both ways. Matter is all there is in evolution. Remember?

          August 27, 2014 at 3:14 pm |
        • igaftr

          "for since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen,"

          An obvious lie, first since anything that is invisible, is not clearly seen, and existance does not show any signs of any gods. Existance is evidence of existance, not of how it came to be.

          Thanks for pointing out yet another place the bible is obviously wrong.

          August 27, 2014 at 3:23 pm |
    • Sungrazer

      I didn't know you were a reader of evilbible.com!

      August 27, 2014 at 12:57 pm |
    • TruthPrevails1

      We're not the ones that add to that definition and make it to be more than it is. So your point here (whatever the hell that might be) is moot! Although I'm impressed that you located a dictionary.

      August 27, 2014 at 12:59 pm |
      • kermit4jc

        hmmm....so everything has to be according to English language? Cant use words as OTHER cultures and such yse it? for example..my wife is from the Philippines....the term "baby" can refer to children as old as 7 or 8 years old! and they are not belittling the kids for calling them babies..its part of THEIr culture and the way THEY use the word...for us in USA< babies typically refer to those under...what like 2 years old? so are the Filipinos in the wrong?

        August 27, 2014 at 1:07 pm |
        • Sungrazer

          What?? I don't see the connection to what TruthPrevails1 said.

          August 27, 2014 at 1:13 pm |
        • TruthPrevails1

          The word Atheist has but one meaning regardless of language.
          Oh my Steve was right about you...you hate women...you didn't attack him as viciously as you do the women on here!!

          August 27, 2014 at 1:32 pm |
        • awanderingscot

          TP
          Atheists are judgmental hypocrites. The guy has stated he has a wife and you accuse him of not loving her? You're disgusting.

          August 27, 2014 at 1:49 pm |
        • LaBella

          Please show where TP said Kermit doesn't love his wife, Scot.
          More extrapolation of the non-existent.

          August 27, 2014 at 1:54 pm |
        • TruthPrevails1

          awanderingdolt: I didn't accuse him of not loving his wife. Last night my husband had some form of communication with kermi....kermi attempted to converse with Steve, when I made comment the tone of kermi's comment back was hateful and rude...this is not the first time kermi is like that with women on the blog.
          I have no way of knowing if kermi loves his wife, that is not my judgment call and I suspect that given that she's more than likely Christian, he has no problem with her...his problem seems to lie with women who are non-believers, he attacks the men also but not so viciously.
          Next time try to keep up before jumping in and make silly assumptions!

          August 27, 2014 at 2:04 pm |
        • evidencenot

          Christianity...... the religion of "this means that"

          August 27, 2014 at 2:35 pm |
        • awanderingscot

          " Oh my Steve was right about you...you hate women..."

          – So are you saying his wife is not a woman now? You are still disgusting.

          August 27, 2014 at 3:17 pm |
        • TruthPrevails1

          awanderingdolt: Re-read what I wrote!! Geez stop twisting peoples words.

          August 27, 2014 at 3:30 pm |
        • awanderingscot

          TP
          – What is ironic is that you don't even know when you are lying anymore, that's how immoral you are. You just assassinated the man's character by saying he hates women and then you turn around and lie about what you said.

          August 27, 2014 at 3:45 pm |
    • In Santa We Trust

      Which dictionary has an erroneous definition? Or is this more made-up nonsense from you?

      August 27, 2014 at 1:06 pm |
      • Sungrazer

        I found it on a page of definitions on evilbible.com. Supposedly from American Heritage Dictionary, fourth edition, 2000. But at ahdictionary.com, the definition is a different one.

        August 27, 2014 at 1:12 pm |
    • Doc Vestibule

      atheism

      noun
      Disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.

      – Oxford Dictionary

      Etymology:
      1570s, from French athéiste (16c.), from Greek atheos "without god, denying the gods; abandoned of the gods; godless, ungodly," from a- "without" + theos "a god"

      August 27, 2014 at 1:06 pm |
      • kevinite

        English definition of “atheism”
        atheism
        noun [U] /ˈeɪ·θiˌɪz·əm/
        › the belief that God does not exist
        (Definition of atheism noun from the Cambridge Academic Content Dictionary © Cambridge University Press)

        August 27, 2014 at 1:22 pm |
      • kevinite

        atheism
        [ey-thee-iz-uh m] Spell Syllables
        Examples Word Origin
        noun
        1.
        the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
        2.
        disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.
        (Dictionary.com)

        August 27, 2014 at 1:25 pm |
        • evidencenot

          noun

          noun: atheism

          Atheism;

          "disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods."

          Not "I believe that I don't believe"..... moron

          All hale the Christian word twisters!!!

          August 27, 2014 at 2:41 pm |
    • neverbeenhappieratheist

      After checking all the available online dictionarys including Merriam-Webster and Oxfords I was unable to locate a single definition of "atheism" or "atheist" that included "immorality" as one of the definitions. This is just another example of scot being a liar for his hollow faith.

      Here's one for you scot, it's crazy, the word "gullible" isn't found in any online dictionary either, check it out for yourself...

      August 27, 2014 at 1:13 pm |
      • Sungrazer

        http://www.evilbible.com/Definition_of_Atheism_3.htm

        The link to Bartleby.com is broken so it can't be verified. It would certainly be interesting if a dictionary from 2000 had that as part of the definition.

        August 27, 2014 at 1:20 pm |
        • neverbeenhappieratheist

          Any dictionary that would print that as one of the definitions isn't worth being called a dictionary. Much like the "Urban Dictionary" should be called the "poor language skills tracker".

          August 27, 2014 at 1:37 pm |
      • awanderingscot

        LOL ... just because you can't find it, it doesn't exist right? That is the epitome of atheist logic.

        August 27, 2014 at 1:35 pm |
        • Dyslexic doG

          just as LIES are the essence of religion ...

          August 27, 2014 at 1:38 pm |
        • TruthPrevails1

          awanderingdolt: It is a disbelief in gods, it speaks to nothing more.

          August 27, 2014 at 1:41 pm |
        • neverbeenhappieratheist

          So you are unable to use the American Heritage Dictionary 5th edition that is found online that does not include "immorality" as they corrected their own book after finding such a glaring error? You have to cherry pick flawed definitions from a 22 year old dictionary to do what? Prove to everyone how much of an idiot you are? Trust me, we need no more evidence of your insanity, we just need any evidence that empirically proves anything supernatural and all you can do is cut and paste useless drivel.

          August 27, 2014 at 1:43 pm |
    • awanderingscot

      Third Edition of the American Heritage Dictionary

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

        How doe sthat book define 'evolution'?

        August 27, 2014 at 1:26 pm |
        • LaBella

          Probably why theor was included.

          August 27, 2014 at 2:15 pm |
      • LaBella

        Christian

        Syllabification: Chris·tian
        Pronunciation: /ˈkrisCHən /
        ADJECTIVE

        1Of, relating to, or professing Christianity or its teachings:
        the Christian Church

        1.1 INFORMAL Having or showing qualities associated with Christians, especially those of decency, kindness, and fairness.

        Noun
        A person who has received Christian baptism or is a believer in Jesus Christ and his teachings.

        From Oxford.
        You constantly try to redefine what a Christian is, so for you to suddenly take a dictionary's definition of a word as sacrosanct is positively laughable, Scot.

        August 27, 2014 at 1:42 pm |
        • atlantic9

          Hmmm not so sure about that noun defn. I;ve been baptised but have never been a christian.

          August 27, 2014 at 2:09 pm |
        • LaBella

          Placed properly:

          Probably why the or was included. You know best what you are, however, not the dictionary.

          Point is, Scot's dependence on a dictionary to define things changes arbitrarily.

          August 27, 2014 at 2:22 pm |
        • neverbeenhappieratheist

          only some would define it that way, likely those who believe you have to baptise babies so they don't go to baby heII if they accidently die early in life, aka those who are about as sharp as a bag of marbles...

          August 27, 2014 at 2:26 pm |
        • joey3467

          It is not all useless, some of it is good for a laugh.

          August 27, 2014 at 2:42 pm |
    • zhilla1980wasp

      ignorantscot:

      a·the·ism/ˈāTHēˌizəm/
      noun
      disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.
      ----

      all the rest is your hatefullness showing.
      as others have said your not very christ-like to call yourself a christian are you scot? lmfao

      August 27, 2014 at 1:43 pm |
    • Doc Vestibule

      Religion
      Noun

      Religion is an artefact.
      We've managed to describe, well, almost everything, in physical terms.
      We've even managed to explain a great deal, too.
      God? Well, he and his kin have been relegated by science to the very beginning of time – the exact moment of the big bang – when all the matter in the Universe was concentrated into one minute area.
      Everything after that time is accounted for by physics, if only in a general way.
      And even then, God seems highly improbable.
      Science says that God is irrelevant to everything we do and everything we are; that means we have to work to make everything we do and everythig we are relevant; and that's hard.
      Religion is an impossiblity our mind allows because it makes us feel safe.
      Religion is the ability to completely fail to learn how to reconcile some parts of one's knowledge with other parts into a coherent worldview, , honed by our parents in our youth by the impatient hushing of our incessant "why?"s
      Religion is the cave-man instinct that comes upon us when we're confronted by something we don't understand.
      We have a difficult time getting beyond the conditioning we received in early childhood: "stop talking and take our word for it."

      August 27, 2014 at 2:04 pm |
    • SeaVik

      adelusionalscot /ay/dee/looj'/in/ul/skot

      Noun

      1) An internet troll who believes in fairy tales.

      Ex: Wow, that annoying moron is a real adelusionalscot.

      Verb

      2) To behave like an adelusionalscot.

      Ex: I was curious to see some intelligent comments on this article, but someone just adelusionalscotted all over the board.

      August 27, 2014 at 2:37 pm |
    • tallulah131

      Scotty is a troll. He's lying and acting out to get attention, no doubt because he's such a useless person in real life, this is the only attention he gets.

      August 27, 2014 at 3:47 pm |
  13. awanderingscot

    "It is certain that the mortality or immortality of the soul must make an entire difference to morality." – Pascal

    August 27, 2014 at 11:34 am |
    • igaftr

      Pascal was an idiot, his wager is a logical fallacy.

      August 27, 2014 at 11:47 am |
    • Woody

      Sorry, Scot. There's absolutely no evidence of a soul. Much like your god, the soul is a product of the human imagination.

      August 27, 2014 at 12:30 pm |
      • neverbeenhappieratheist

        "I think, therefore I am, and I think that 80 to 90 years of life isn't enough for this thinker, I want more! I think, therefore I want, and the more I think, the more I want!" Inventor of Religion...

        August 27, 2014 at 1:24 pm |
        • Dyslexic doG

          "I am too weak physically to get anywhere in life but if I tell everyone that I represent the thing that created the world and that what I say is actually his words, I might just get the power and money and girls that I want and I'll never have to work a day in my life."
          – the founder of religion

          August 27, 2014 at 1:59 pm |
        • neverbeenhappieratheist

          Also the thoughts of Joseph Smith, Muhammad, Jim Jones, L. Ron Hubbard, George Baker, David Koresh, Baha'u'llah, Jose Miranda, Sun Myung Moon and Marshall Applewhite...

          August 27, 2014 at 2:35 pm |
  14. sanddudian

    On the topic of children and religion. I have a friend who is separated from his wife and they have a five year old girl who lives with the mother. The mother is insisting on putting her into a Seventh Day Adventist school this week (her religion). My friend is an atheist, doesn't want to do it but it has turned into an ugly fight. Any similar experiences out there or some sound advice for my friend?

    August 27, 2014 at 11:18 am |
    • Reality

      Probably a lost cause but a weekly atheist news letter sent anonymously to the wife's home might get her to think. And considering how easy it is to put the kibosh on all religions, the daughter will come around as she gets older with some guidance from her dad.

      August 27, 2014 at 11:45 am |
      • sanddudian

        Thanks Reality. Wife is totally brainwashed and yes, I agree, the father is going to have to exert his influence when ever possible. She is a very bright girl and hopefully she will not be indoctrinated.

        August 27, 2014 at 11:51 am |
    • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

      This is a nasty situation.

      Your friend has to do two things:
      1. Encourage critical thinking
      2. Take the high road and not criticize his spouse or her beliefs in front of his daughter. (Better yet not at all.)

      Children are smarter than most adults give them credit for. If your friend can be a role model of 'moral' behavior and critical thinking, the daughter will see and process this. He needs to answer his daughter's questions questions honestly and directly without bashing the girls mother and the SDAs.

      His answers need to be consistently in the form of "I believe xyz." Not "Your Mom and SDAs are crazy." He will lose the high ground as soon as he criticizes his daughter's mother. Children are remarkably perceptive. She needs a role model illustrating that the correct interpretation is self-evident.

      August 27, 2014 at 12:11 pm |
      • LaBella

        Yes. This. Never bash the parent in front of the child.

        August 27, 2014 at 12:16 pm |
      • sanddudian

        Great answer and much appreciated!

        August 27, 2014 at 12:31 pm |
    • Science Works

      sanddudian

      Give your friend Cosmos episode 2 for back ground noise when daughter is over ?

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

        Thanks I have all the episodes saved on my pvr. Love that show and can't wait for season 2. A friend recently gave me the dvd collection of the original shows with Carl Sagan. He wasn't exactly the greatest orator. They actually followed many of the episode's themes but what a difference our technology has made with HD and specially effects.

        August 27, 2014 at 2:52 pm |
  15. Alias

    How about that perfect word of the all-knowing god?
    People used to think the bible accepted slavery. It does say who you may buy, and give guidelines for how to sell your daughters, but today slavery is wrong and bible believers are against it.
    A man survived after being in the belly of a great fish for 3 days.
    Jesus is recorded as having said 3 different things just before he ‘gave up his ghost’. How many of the people who recorded this were close enough to the cross to hear his final words, anyway?
    It used to be perfectly clear that the world was the unmoving center of the universe. Now those passages are not to be taken literally.
    That is, of course, the standard; if taking it literally goes against science then it was meant as a metaphor.
    Christianity is total nonsense that requires a lot of denial and blind faith.

    August 27, 2014 at 10:45 am |
    • Dyslexic doG

      "How many of the people who recorded this were close enough to the cross to hear his final words, anyway?"

      No-one ... I repeat NO-ONE who wrote about jesus was there for any of it. Even more laughable is the first things written were put to parchment 40 years ... I repeat 40 YEARS after the supposed events. The rest of the "jesus said" and "jesus did" parts of the bible were put to parchment 50, 60, 80, 100 years later. At a time when the average person lived little more than 30 years, and at a time when everything was passed on verbally, and at a time when everyone had every reason to embellish a story to make their god bigger than the next man's god, the final writings lack any credibility.

      August 27, 2014 at 10:52 am |
      • Alias

        I agree with your point, but I was referring to the fact that he was hanging on a cross with roman guards around him. If he had been strong enough to speak just before he died, who was close enough to hear the words?
        This also calls into question the forgiving of the criminal one cross over. I doubt there was a lot of conversation going on.

        August 27, 2014 at 11:10 am |
        • Dyslexic doG

          well said!

          August 27, 2014 at 11:13 am |
        • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

          " I doubt there was a lot of conversation going on."
          ---------------
          No, they were singing. It's well docu.mented. There's even video evidence.

          -https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SJUhlRoBL8M-

          Some things in life are bad
          They can really make you mad
          Other things just make you swear and curse
          When you're chewing on life's gristle
          Don't grumble, give a whistle
          And this'll help things turn out for the best...

          August 27, 2014 at 12:41 pm |
      • kermit4jc

        apparenmtly you are blind to the situation....this was Passover...THOUSANDS of people in and around Jeruslaem..and the execution was NOT a privte deal..it was PUBLICLY displayed!!!

        August 27, 2014 at 12:43 pm |
        • TruthPrevails1

          Oh my, Stop pretending you have it right and everyone else has it wrong-that is EGOTISTICAL AND ARROGANT. You weren't there either so your interpretation of the story is no more valid than that of anyone else!

          August 27, 2014 at 12:50 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          so you rather pretend NO context then? I know you pretty well..you HATE context..you don't LIKE context..you like to communicate by making up things along the way...

          August 27, 2014 at 12:53 pm |
        • TruthPrevails1

          Wow, that was an ignorant child like come back!! You context/interpretation is no better than that of anyone else. How you view it and how the next Christian views it are probably going to differ.
          Stop pretending you are the one who always has the proper context and others don't.
          I was not responding to the OP, I was responding to your non-stop arrogance on any subject pertaining to your imaginary friend.

          August 27, 2014 at 12:59 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          so my stating FACTS that PAssover was happening at the time and FACTS that Jerusalem was flocked with thousands of people and FACTS that crucifixion accorded in public places means nothing and is ONLY an interpretation and people can choose to ignore those FACTS?

          August 27, 2014 at 1:04 pm |
        • TruthPrevails1

          I understand that reading comprehension is not one of your abilities. You failed to comprehend that I was not arguing with you on that point, I was merely pointing out that once again you are giving your interpretation. As for you calling them facts, the better word would be fiction since there is nothing to support the stories outside of your belief system. Many religions before yours was imagined had similar stories...why are they wrong and yours right?

          August 27, 2014 at 1:10 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          MY God you are so ignorant of history! Passover celebrations were FACTS...it is FACt and well known that Jerusalem was flocked yearly for Passover celebrations..it is FAct and well known that crucifixions were held publicly...not just IN the Bible..but by other writers as well...its very well known among historians that these things happened

          August 27, 2014 at 1:12 pm |
        • TruthPrevails1

          Not ignorant of history at all, I know passover is a fact but it's still based on your bible which isn't fact and takes its stories like this from other religions.

          August 27, 2014 at 1:29 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          you ASSUME it takes stories from other religions.....just because they are similar does not make it fact they were taken from other religions

          August 27, 2014 at 1:33 pm |
        • TruthPrevails1

          I don't assume, it is common knowledge...something you open your mind to when you leave the Christian cult. Sorry if you can't accept that!!

          August 27, 2014 at 1:37 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          loL>.common knowledge among WHOM? SOME historian and such> come on...youre making up BS and you know it It is NOT a consensus among historians that they took from other religions as you claim

          August 27, 2014 at 1:40 pm |
        • TruthPrevails1

          Not making anything up!! It doesn't take much to look at history and religions that existed before and see the similarities.
          If you wish to speak of made up stuff, go read your bible...that is all made up!

          August 27, 2014 at 1:42 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          again similarities does NOT mean that they in fact took from other religions....got to back up the evidence

          August 27, 2014 at 4:06 pm |
        • TruthPrevails1

          You're right but it doesn't mean they aren't either.

          August 27, 2014 at 4:11 pm |
        • Løki

          'The plural of anecdote is not data.' ~R. Brinner

          August 27, 2014 at 1:13 pm |
        • LaBella

          "I find that the people who shout "context!" the most are the ones who are guiltiest of taking things out of it."
          – FJK
          (Also known as my father)

          August 27, 2014 at 1:31 pm |
        • Alias

          As usual kermit,
          you are trying to changre the conversation. No one said it was not public.
          What was your point?

          August 27, 2014 at 1:32 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          he implied it was private...by asking if people were close enough to hear him say things, and a few other words he used..the fact is..thousands of people were around, surely enough people were close enough to hear what Jesus said

          August 27, 2014 at 1:35 pm |
        • kudlak

          kermit4jc
          Passover was all the more reason for the Roman authorities to make an example out of a rabble rouser like Jesus, correct? They did put the taunting poster declaring him the "King of the Jews" over his cross, clearly expressing their reason for finding him worthy of such treatment. There's little reason to believe the story of Herod finding no guilt in Jesus, then.

          August 27, 2014 at 1:47 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          HUH? whats your point/

          August 27, 2014 at 4:09 pm |
        • Alias

          No, even your bible gives account of the guards that were there. One stabbed him in the side with a spear, remember?
          No one was close to him except maybe the guards, and I don't think they were the one who gave the accont of the situation.
          Having thousands of people around would only make it harder to hear.

          August 27, 2014 at 1:49 pm |
        • Dyslexic doG

          Kermit is trying to use bluster and smoke to distract us from the fact that whether it was public or not, no-one ... I repeat NO-ONE who wrote about jesus was there for any of it. Even more laughable is the first things written were put to parchment 40 years ... I repeat 40 YEARS after the supposed events. The rest of the "jesus said" and "jesus did" parts of the bible were put to parchment 50, 60, 80, 100 years later. At a time when the average person lived little more than 30 years, and at a time when everything was passed on verbally, and at a time when everyone had every reason to embellish a story to make their god bigger than the next man's god, the final writings lack any credibility.

          August 27, 2014 at 1:50 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          the 40 years is FALSE>.please xplain this..HOW is it that a fragment of a COPY of the Gospel of John was found in Egypt and dated to about 64 AD? that's only 30 years after Jesus..and again a COPY....meaning tha t the orginal was written much earlier! and second...JOhn was there...Jesus spoke to John..He was close enough...when Jesus told John to take care of his mother......sorry..but you seem to be grasping at straws and trying to find things to discredit the Bible

          August 27, 2014 at 4:21 pm |
        • kudlak

          Alias
          The head guard, the guy who determined that Jesus' legs didn't need to be broken after all, which would have assured his death, was also the same guy who announced that he was certainly the Son of God. Fuel indeed for conspiracy theorists who hold to the "swoon theory", eh?

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

          ctually, the account in John does nOT say it is same guy who said surely Jesus was SOn of God..in fct..it says ONE Of the soldiers... thrust the spear into Jesus side

          August 27, 2014 at 4:39 pm |
        • LaBella

          Kermit,
          If you are talking about Papyrus 52, that wasn't dated to 64AD.
          Please link what you are referring to. Thanks.

          August 27, 2014 at 4:31 pm |
        • Alias

          kudlac
          They didn't need to break his legs because he had been stabbed in the side. It was proof that he was dead.
          Also, I was referring to relating the last words jesus spoke. Did the guard tell eveyone what jesus was saying?

          August 27, 2014 at 4:51 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          The guard wasn't the only person present...John was present,,,Jesus told John to take care of his mother..others were around....how is there a conclusion no one heard Jesus other than the guards?

          August 27, 2014 at 4:57 pm |
        • austin929

          I don't know if this interests anyone.....but in Jude who Peter recopied with one of his books....they quoted the book of enoch.............meaning that they were all students of the book of enoch. Jude was Jesus half brother. He quoted enoch.

          and in the book of Enoch..........they found this book with the dead sea scrolls in the caves of Qumran.........and Enoch uses the ancient prophetic term "Son of Man"..........this was a messianic t.itle from the seventh son of Adam.

          That is a major factor in messianic prophetic terms.........and the usage of the word "Son".

          August 27, 2014 at 5:08 pm |
        • kudlak

          kermit4jc
          It was a Roman officer, a Centurion, who had declared Jesus the Son of God upon his death in Mark. Perhaps this was the same Centurion whose servant Jesus cured, mentioned in the miracle? Such a man would have already been a believer, right?

          August 27, 2014 at 6:30 pm |
        • kudlak

          Alias
          People survive being stabbed in the side. Hell, people sometimes survive being shot several times. The point is that there was a usual protocol for ensuring that people on the cross were dead and it wasn't followed. The whole thing was a rush job according to the gospels. Typically, people would die slow, agonizing deaths on the cross lasting days. By all accounts, Jesus only got a fraction of the usual treatment.

          How did Jesus' followers manage to overhear what he prayed in the Garden, or what Pilate or Herod said to him at trial? For that matter, who overheard the conversation between Jesus and Satan during his temptation in the desert? For a text that owes it's supposed authenticity to possible eyewitnesses to Jesus' life, there are obvious problems with that idea.

          August 27, 2014 at 6:37 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          actually.....that theory doesn't follow whats in the Bible kduak..for by the time Jesus was on the cross..he was already in critical condition! great loss of blood from the scourging, the thorns on the head,,.and the fact that "water" ame out with blood..showing a ruptured heart..fluid that had come from around the pericardium of the heart...that was built up, plus the stress of being on the cross and the beating heart trying to keep the low blood volume to go to the significant parts of the body...Jesus is no doubt dead already when the spear was thrust into his side

          August 28, 2014 at 2:01 am |
        • observer

          kermit4jc,

          So science counts when you use it and is written off as "poetry" when others use it. Well done

          August 28, 2014 at 2:10 am |
        • kermit4jc

          <y God that's NOT what the BIble is! It is NOT a science textboolk..NEVER claims to be one..and TRUTH is NOT alwayts contained in science!!!! truth can be found in philosophy, in poetry..etc etc....truth is NOT limited to science literature only

          August 28, 2014 at 2:12 am |
        • kermit4jc

          BTW your post shows you don't ever read poetry and don't know what poetry is even if it slapped you in the face

          August 28, 2014 at 2:13 am |
        • observer

          kermit4jc,

          No one claims the Bible is a science book. It's supposedly the PERFECT word of a God who seems to be lacking in knowledge of math and science.

          August 28, 2014 at 2:19 am |
        • kermit4jc

          PERFECT does NOT mean it cannot use poetic license..thats NOT what is being tauight here...YOUR sense of perfect is shallow...PERFECT in that it tells truth..ad it tells truth of the workld in POETIC forms! again truth is nOT exclusive to science...truth is NOT exclusive to scientific words..it can be found in poetry....I would have thought you knew that as yu claimed to have read lots of poetry

          August 28, 2014 at 2:21 am |
        • kermit4jc

          also..if you say perfect as in inerrant...then even poetry is not err...poetic writing does not say "this is literal" as in the sunrise and sunset....and sun "hasting to go down....its showing how the days are ongoing, never wobbling....they are same....its constant....and that was written in poetic form...and is not in error

          August 28, 2014 at 2:23 am |
        • observer

          kermit4jc

          So when the Bible screws up math and science, it's now a book of poetry.

          You're a riot!

          August 28, 2014 at 2:28 am |
        • kermit4jc

          I di dno say that idiot....I never said that about math..don't frigging put words in my mouth..got it? and again it is POETRY cause of the STYLE of writing..thats why I told you YOu don't know poetry if it slapped you in the face..seems you cannot even recognize it

          August 28, 2014 at 2:30 am |
        • kudlak

          kermit4jc
          You're missing the point. The Romans had crucifixion down to a set routine through thousands of applications. Every convicted person would have been whipped and treated harshly before being put up. Maybe the crown of thorns was particular to Jesus, but that and the poster taunting him for being the King of the Jews points to the Romans intending to make a public spectacle out of him. Roman historians are clear that people usually lasted days up on the cross, slowly being picked apart by the birds and dogs.

          There's even an account of a crucified person being taken down, and nursed back to health. The example of Jesus seems to indicate that he was only up there for a few hours. So, assuming that the rumours he mentions of his being a drunk and a glutton were false, then he was a strapping man in good health prior to all this. It's puzzling, then, that he died so quickly, especially when it's clear that the Romans intended to make an example out of him.

          August 28, 2014 at 8:22 am |
        • kermit4jc

          LOLOLOL..so the Romans are nOT allowed to break ROUTINE????? again the description of Jesus; wounds indicate he was ALREADY in critical condition! and the FACT that ewater and blood flowed from spear wound..IINDCATING he is ALREADY dead! I suggest you read up some medical books on this...apparently you have NO idea what a body goes through in this torture..the Romans were most effective in killing their prisoners...you know the word excruciating? it comes from "out of the cross" the BREAKING of the legs is so they can hurry the death!..when they came to Jesus..they saw he was ALREADY dead and confirmed it with the thrust of the spear

          August 28, 2014 at 9:44 am |
        • kudlak

          kermit4jc
          Lots of stuff that Christians build their hard theology upon could just be poetry misinterpreted as well then, right?

          It cuts both ways, my friend.

          August 28, 2014 at 8:25 am |
        • kermit4jc

          MUCH of theology is NOT BASED on the poetic form....it is made very clear..much of theology about Jesus (death, resurrection, deity) is made clear by Jesus in PLAIN conversations!

          August 28, 2014 at 9:46 am |
        • Dyslexic doG

          Again with the asinine claims that ANYONE actually knows one word uttered by your bronze age book's "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. NO ONE! These words you quote are words imagined by some "holy" man sitting in a monastery by candlelight long, long ago and imagining these words because they fit his idea of the story he was inventing.

          August 28, 2014 at 9:49 am |
        • kermit4jc

          you words don't hold much...since you are not stating facts about the writings...again there is evidence they were written within 20 years..and do you believe the 4 Gospels are anonymous? if so..HOW can you say they were NOT written by anyone who was there? you contradict yourself.....try doing better in your debate skils ok

          August 28, 2014 at 9:53 am |
        • zhilla1980wasp

          kermie: seeing how you enjoying using the whole " context" thing as your amin point as to how we athiests don't understand your bible.
          i have a question for you that basis every thing you have said into perfect context and makes all your "you don't understand the context" stuff menaingless bs.
          --------–

          QUESTIONS:

          1) what was the literacy rate during the time period of your "jesus"?

          2) which of the two main social classes were more likely to be illiterate?
          a) the rich
          b) the poor

          3) of those that were at "jesus" death which class of people would have been more likely to attend?
          a) the upper class
          b) the poor
          --------

          August 28, 2014 at 9:58 am |
        • kermit4jc

          hold on a minute..before I answer..wha tare these questions for? you looking to show about those who can read and if they read the written things about Jesus at the time? or those who can write about Jesus? be more clear on where this is going..I already went thru crap with observer for being misleading

          August 28, 2014 at 10:09 am |
        • zhilla1980wasp

          the context of the question is simple; what does being illiterate mean?
          can not read nor write.

          now of the two social classes which one followed jesus around until his death?
          A) the upper class
          B) the lower class

          now remember only the upper class during this time period could afford to be literate; which gave them the advantage over their poorer counter-parts.

          so in the context of how ancient society operated who would have been there to record anything of what "jesus" had to say?

          August 28, 2014 at 10:17 am |
        • kermit4jc

          what the heck does literacy have to do with who follows Jesus around when he is alive?

          August 28, 2014 at 12:00 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          ok..I reread the post......the numbers don't matter....obviously there was a couple of people who CAN write! the facts show for themselves...the writing (accounts-Gospels) are evidence of this) so why does the literacy rate matter?

          August 28, 2014 at 12:02 pm |
        • zhilla1980wasp

          the literacy rate matter in the context that none of jesus' followers came from wealthy families; which according the knowledge we have from that time period.

          none of them could have written any of the books of the bible much less their own name.

          August 28, 2014 at 1:12 pm |
        • Dyslexic doG

          I am going by the world's biblical scholars' agreement that the earliest mention of jesus words or jesus actions are 40+ years after he had been crucified. If you know better than the Christian experts, then you go right ahead and say so. Lying comes so easily to you, there's no need to stop now.

          Kermit, you are the most UN-Christian Christian I have ever come across. You behave more like a cult member than a Christian. I think that I, as an atheist, have a better chance of getting to heaven than you do.

          August 28, 2014 at 10:02 am |
        • kermit4jc

          and thus you are willing to ignore evidence of earlier dates.PHYSICAL evidene that flies aginst what you argue?

          August 28, 2014 at 10:10 am |
        • zhilla1980wasp

          kermie:
          be so kind to provide proof that the story of jesus, or just the bible as a whole wasn't at anytime during it's 300 year journey from seperate books to the cannon of which books would be "in" and which would be labeled "heretics"
          that not a single thing was:

          A) lost
          B) edited
          C) destroyed
          D) hidden
          E) or just an out right lie/ forgery
          --------

          August 28, 2014 at 10:07 am |
        • kermit4jc

          first of all..the Bible was put together in a 1200 year period of time..second..you are asking for too much info that I cannot fill here, my recommendation then would be to red Brian H Edwards "Why 27" It will give you way miore evidence, and detail than I can provide here.

          August 28, 2014 at 12:21 pm |
        • zhilla1980wasp

          ok so a simple answer kermie would be "you don't know".
          if you have the ability to refer reading material to me, then you must have read it which means "you do know".

          see that's the problem; you fail to be able to do either.
          it is literally impossible to state that none of the bible has been tampered with; thus the only logical conclusion is the whole bible is a fabrication and can not be trust to be tamper free of human will.

          my main winning point is your continued " it's about context" bs.
          god has no context; he trancends time/space, so the bible should be valid and easily understood regardless of which era you are reading it.

          the only reason the bible would require a contextual reading basis would be if it was....... (drum role)...written by humans; oh and not inspired by anything more than their own lust for power.

          August 28, 2014 at 1:19 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          DID YOU NOT READ MY POST???????????????? I said there is TOO Much info to give here! YOU asked for too much! it is not that simple..there was a LOT of things gong on! I cannot give yo a SIMPLE answer cause there is NO simple answer! 300 years?? and you expect a SIMPLE answer? THAT is why I recommended a book to you....I done studies on the book and am going to teach it to my sunday school class over a courseof a few months! which means there uis MUCH info..I DO know the answers to YOUR questions...if YOU want the answers in full..then go read the book..giving you SOME of it will be a diservice

          August 28, 2014 at 1:55 pm |
        • zhilla1980wasp

          -smh- the question doesn't require a long winded explainination; it's a simple yes or no.

          over the course of 300 years from jesus death to when the final "holy book" was assembled; was it ever tampered with?

          is the book that you hold in your hands, the book directly inspired by god?

          now don't forget we have found many "missing gospels" over the course of history; we know through papual writings that parts of the bible labeled "hereitcal" were thrown out or burned.

          so think about your answer carefully; yet not too long because i know how fond you are of avoiding your losing battles by refusing to reply.

          again a simple yes or no will do; is the bible 100% tamper proof?
          if not, then none of the bible can be trusted because you will never know which part has been tampered with.

          August 28, 2014 at 2:02 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          Again it is nOT that simple..YOU have to factor in making copies, what the texts were written on...the numerous quotations from early church fathers, the number of lists which by 150 was ALREADY showing 24 of the 27 New Testament books already accept widely byu the church..PLUS in the 300s they were NOT voting which to INCLUDE...they were CONFIRMING that which was ALREADY accepted...I can go on and on with much more info that factors into this! You are being too simpleminded and trying to debink soething you obviously dontknow much of..now go read the book and get more facts of how the Bible came about ok?

          August 28, 2014 at 2:09 pm |
        • zhilla1980wasp

          i know how the bible came about you simple minded toad.
          it was written by humans, inspired by their hunger for power.
          no gods ever had anything to do with the bible ever.

          the book of enoch amoung others were removed as being heretical, they thought he was crazy, yet what if he truly did go and learn from the angels and god, what if they truly did have jobs and such.
          who gets to say which of the thousands of volumes of writings lost, burned, edited, destroyed were from a god?

          remember humans are flawed, we make mistakes, seeing it was a bunch of flawed humans that finally decided on which of those lovely little horror stories got into your "holy book" how do you know each of those books are the ones god inspired and not inspired by human lust for power.

          if you truly believe the bible is as it shold be according to god, then simply answer yes.
          if you know the bible has been tampered with, then the answer is obviously, no.

          if the answer is no, then how do you know which parts are a lie?

          August 28, 2014 at 2:23 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          I said no more responses..since you falsely accused me of not questioning and thinking for myself...if that's the case..why you even asking me things? you are being hypocritical here..you don't even question about me..you make stupid and false accusaitons of me personally....

          August 28, 2014 at 2:25 pm |
        • zhilla1980wasp

          it's not a false accusation, it's on the money.

          i know of few religious people that have bothered to truly "put their bible to the test"; and those that did so, became atheists. lmfao

          kermie i only talk to you on here out of shear boredom while on my over paid job.
          in real life i would just point and laugh out of enjoyment for seeing another mindless god-machine attempting to do the impossible;'
          convince people that their god is the right one.
          if people are prone to believeing in ghosts they will see ghosts; if they have a mind that understands there are no ghosts, they don't see ghosts.

          i guess that's the whole "seeing is believeing thing"

          i see no gods, no angels; no ghosts; thus i don't believe in such childish things.

          thanks for entertaining me today. you are always good for a laugh.

          August 28, 2014 at 2:38 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          it’s not a false accusation, it’s on the money. no.it is a false acusation and youknow it...stop the stupid games..just because we come to different ocnclusions does NOT mean I never question..yo uare a hopeless liar...Im done with your arrogance..btw..may Imake a suggesiotn..Try asking and stop making assumptions..YOu accuse me of not questioning when You don't even do it of me...you don't learn unless you question...try it..it works...I doubt you ever actually questioned the Bible..since ALL I seen in here of YOu is assumptions assumptions and more assumptions..I never see you asking about MYSELF

          August 28, 2014 at 2:42 pm |
        • zhilla1980wasp

          why would i question a simpleton?

          seriously i only speak with you lame brain out of boredom because you just keep replying.

          it passes the time i have at my boring, over paid job.

          well my shift is almost over time to go home and relax; thanks for entertaining me through the day.

          bye.

          August 28, 2014 at 2:44 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          now don’t forget we have found many “missing gospels” over the course of history; we know through papual writings that parts of the bible labeled “hereitcal” were thrown out or burned. <–by the sounds of it you seem to not have muchb info on this..and how that came about..virtually all of the "missing" Gospels were written long AFTER the Gospels..and have contained erors in the knowledge of roman culture to show these people were NOT authorized to write and have no credibility in the writings! that's to name a few things....we have arguments by the early church fathers using the already accepted canon to argue against the claims of the "missing gospels" as I said..this is NOT a smiple mater with a simple answer to your question!

          August 28, 2014 at 2:12 pm |
        • zhilla1980wasp

          so the dead sea scrolls; are a lie. nice to know.
          how about the gospels written by mary, both of them.
          are they lies or did those women truly write them and they were edited out by power hungry men?

          August 28, 2014 at 2:25 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          again a simple yes or no will do; is the bible 100% tamper proof?
          if not, then none of the bible can be trusted because you will never know which part has been tampered with. <-this is an ignorant and misleading question....we have textual criticism to show what has been tampered with and what hasn't...we can KNOW with almost 100 percent certaintiy whats in the Bible...again your quesiotns are done out of ignorance and to answer as You want here would be misleading...

          August 28, 2014 at 2:13 pm |
        • zhilla1980wasp

          you enjoy that whole calling people ignorant thing don't you kermie?

          how do you know i lack information you have?
          what if the truth of the matter is i have lots more information than you do and i'm simply poking you for funa nd games knowing you to simply be a child that hates other kids playing with your toys.

          oh and i'm certain i know more than you so the point is mute. you see things from the "good little christian" blind as a bat point of view; i see every possible avenue through simple logic.
          ---–

          here i will hand you the answer on a silver plater;
          no the bible can not be trusted to be 100% the word of god because we have seen hundreds of versions of the bible in circulation even in today's world.

          kjv, nwv, etc etc etc etc.

          these are edits to the word of god; thus all of the prior books could have been edited thus none of them can be trusted.

          August 28, 2014 at 2:33 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          my main winning point is your continued ” it’s about context” bs.
          god has no context; he trancends time/space, so the bible should be valid and easily understood regardless of which era you are reading it.<–and thus YOU missed the whole point of the Bible..the BIble was NOT for GOD to read..but for MAN to read..and CONTEXT is very important between man....your argument fails since you don't seem to grasp communication then and its purpose...the Bible ws written by rich and poor, king and peasants, was written in a language DIFFERENT from English, using MIDDLE eastern figures of speech etc..let me give you another example..My wife is from the Philippines..it is very difficult to tell her jokes...not because her English (which is very good) but because a lot of the jokes deal with context of AMERIcAN culture! She doesn't get a lot of jokes I tell..and I do NOT get a lot of jokes she tells!

          August 28, 2014 at 1:58 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          the only reason the bible would require a contextual reading basis would be if it was……. (drum role)…written by humans; oh and not inspired by anything more than their own lust for power. we never DID say God wrote the Bible..He inspired it.and as far as your last claim of power? the writers gained NOTHING but DEATH for it! you are being willfully ignorant and making up BS

          August 28, 2014 at 1:59 pm |
        • zhilla1980wasp

          it isn't i that is willfully ignorant; the authors of the bible.....well let's say they weren't even capable of reading their own names if i spelled it out for them.

          so who could have written all those books? hmmmmm nah couldn't have been scribs in the service of the controlling families during those time periods.....no never them.

          what use would the religious faction in a region have to "inspire" a holy book?
          and then declaring it "from god".

          your ability to just accept what you have been told and not question and think of other contributing factors to the creation of your "inspired scripture" is truly sad.

          it's not like the popes and so forth through history wouldn't edit, destroy or even "accidentally" lose portions of the holy scripture to benefit themselves.

          why did they have to cannonize the bible in the first place? it was all inspired by god correct.

          oh and the context thing; god has no context, he doesn't exist in time, so being perfect and all knowing he would have understood how to inspire things that would trancend every era.

          the stories would be valid in today's time as they were suppose to be thousands of years ago; yet we don't sell our daughters any longer, we don't own slaves, we have laws against child abuse.

          so your bible can only be taken in the context of those that truly wrote your bible because that is the culture and ethics the writters knew, and it's not a god that contributed but their lust for power.

          August 28, 2014 at 2:13 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          your ability to just accept what you have been told and not question and think of other contributing factors to the creation of your “inspired scripture” is truly sad. <–and here is where I end responding to you for making such a liar out of yourself.....I do NOT do as y ouaccusse me of..I gone through years of QUESTIONING and studying..your an idiot to make such a statement of someone you don't know.....youre an idiot to not even ask HOW I came to this point..yo made assumptiosn..in SAME way you made assumptions that the followers of Jesus were illiterate..when YOU start learning to ASK about the other person...then I will reconsider and repond to any future posts....you are a sick person to make such inflammatory statements...accusing me that I don't question...that's sick

          August 28, 2014 at 2:18 pm |
        • observer

          It's always fascinating to see Kermit consistently show his HYPOCRISY with frequent name-calling. Just like Jesus?

          August 28, 2014 at 2:25 pm |
    • kermit4jc

      That is, of course, the standard; if taking it literally goes against science then it was meant as a metaphor.<-I don't see you targeting meteorologists for using the terms sunrise and sunset.....they are a terrible lot...they are against science, and they claim its just figure of speech, a metaphor....come on dude...your logic is failing..and second...Jesus said ALL three things before he gave up his spirit..NOWHERE does it say those were the ONLY words he said..thts people ADDING to the mi.....the MOST LOGICAL thing to do in this case is to put the accounts TOGETHER and see that Jesus said ALL three of those things before he died

      August 27, 2014 at 12:41 pm |
      • Løki

        The terms 'sunrise' and 'sunset' would be considered a common-usage colloquialism from the 16th century. No one is going to start saying "sunsight" and "sunclipse".... everything else you said is also silly... was there a point to it?

        August 27, 2014 at 1:05 pm |
        • Løki

          Humans have probably being using those terms for a few thousand years... the 16th century reference is when the heliocentric model was proposed by Copernicus

          August 27, 2014 at 1:07 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          umm..that is when you consider the ENGLISH usage......the Bible wa snot originally written in English.....and thus sunrise and sunset can STILL be used a a figure of speech..certainly it is found in the poetic parts of the Bible..psalms, Eccelsiastes, etc....I find no reason to think they literally thought the sun actually rose (the Bronze age people were not not that stupid-in fact there is new evidence from letters and writing of ancient "scientists" who say the earth revolved around the sun and that the earth was a globe, not a flat circle

          August 27, 2014 at 1:10 pm |
        • Løki

          Ignorance and stupidity are not the same thing... I doubt bronze age humans had the scientific wherewithal to realize the Sun did or did not rotate around the Earth. That doesn't mean they were stupid... I'm sure it wasn't on their priority list.

          The fact that you attribute meaning/apologetics to the hearsay and outright fictional accounts in the bible is what dismays many of us.

          August 27, 2014 at 1:19 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          The fact that you attribute meaning/apologetics to the hearsay and outright fictional accounts in the bible is what dismays many of us.<-clarify please

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

          kermit4jc,

          The derivation of the words "sunrise" and "sunset" is irrelevant (and could even trace back to IGNORANT people in biblical times), just like "dragonflies" are not flies from dragons. It is the DEFINITION of those words that matter.

          The most significant related statement from the Bible LIES about the sun hurrying around to start a new day. Just another ERROR in the Bible.

          August 27, 2014 at 7:10 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          so no poetry allowed in the Bible? poetic writing is all false and should not be written?

          August 28, 2014 at 1:54 am |
        • observer

          kermit4jc,

          The Bible is SUPPOSED to be all TRUE because it was God's inspired words. It doesn't seem like math or science were good subjects for God.

          August 28, 2014 at 2:07 am |
        • kermit4jc

          nooooo....apparently you don't read poetry..one can gain TRUTH from poetry....doesn't mean everything has to be LITERAL...God is communicating to HUMANS..using HUMAN literary devices..he is nOT trying to communicate to himself

          August 28, 2014 at 2:11 am |
        • observer

          kermit4jc,

          I've read lots of poetry but none talking about science and NO science books with poetry in them. You need to learn how to separate the two.

          August 28, 2014 at 2:16 am |
        • kermit4jc

          OH MY GOD....WHY you keep bringing up science? I told you..the BIBLE is NOT a science textbook....and I still don't believe you read poetry.....let me ask you this....psalmists write about the wonders of the creation in poetic form..as entertainment..do poets do that even today? one can find literal truths in poetry...I didn't say one can find "science" in poetry...you better try to do some actual reading

          August 28, 2014 at 2:19 am |
        • observer

          kermit4jc

          "you better try to do some actual reading"

          I'd suggest the same for you. You might start with math and science books instead of spending so much time on a book that talks about talking animals and unicorns.

          August 28, 2014 at 2:25 am |
        • kermit4jc

          I do math and science you dolt...knock it off...I went so far as calculus in college, and numerous science classes..biology, physical science etc etc

          August 28, 2014 at 2:29 am |
        • observer

          kermit4jc,

          Good. So you should KNOW these answers.

          If a circle has a diameter of 10 then the circ-umference is 30. TRUE or FALSE?

          The sun hurries around the earth after sunset to start a new day. TRUE or FALSE?

          Let's see HOW MUCH you learned.

          August 28, 2014 at 2:31 am |
        • kermit4jc

          NO..YOU r quesiotns are misleading and I don't play your idiotic game..knock it off...as for the pi..again APROXIMATE numbers..the writer is nOT concerned with precise measurements..that was NOT even the point of his writing....he was giving approximate size..he did not take a tape measure oput there and get a measurement...He was nOT trying to design a pool, nor was he telling someone how to design it.....as for sun racing around...no..it does NOT literally do that...that passage is in POETIC style and you are ignorant of poetry as you have been showing here...

          August 28, 2014 at 2:34 am |
        • observer

          kermit4jc

          "he was giving approximate size.."

          To show you have ANY CREDIBILITY at all, supply the quote where it said the word "approximate" instead of giving the correct number.

          I'll wait. Good luck.

          August 28, 2014 at 2:40 am |
        • kermit4jc

          GO TO SCHOOL and learn reading comprehension..apparently you cannot figure it out! I already gave you the intent..let me try THIS approach..why the author setting out plans on how to build the pool? was he writing this to send it to architects and contractors? yes or no..answer the question please

          August 28, 2014 at 2:43 am |
        • observer

          kermit4jc

          "he was giving approximate size.."

          To show you have ANY CREDIBILITY at all, supply the quote where it said the word "approximate" instead of giving the correct number.

          Where is the word "approximate" or were you just smart enough to know that the math in the Bible was COMPLETELY WRONG?

          August 28, 2014 at 2:47 am |
        • kermit4jc

          ANSWER my question...was the writer submitting plans to a contractor or such? was he writing this to submit it somewhere?

          August 28, 2014 at 2:48 am |
        • observer

          kermit4jc,

          I will answer your question after you answer the questions I've asked OVER and OVER.

          August 28, 2014 at 2:52 am |
        • kermit4jc

          boy you sure got poor memory..i answered those questions about 10 mins ago...IM waiting....

          August 28, 2014 at 2:54 am |
        • observer

          kermit4jc,

          Nope. As usual, you REFUSED.

          So what are the answers?

          If a circle has a diameter of 10 then the circ-umference is 30. TRUE or FALSE?

          The sun hurries around the earth after sunset to start a new day. TRUE or FALSE?

          August 28, 2014 at 2:58 am |
        • kermit4jc

          I will REPEAT then.YOUR questions are MISLEADING....but I will answer....the PRECISE number is NOT such and the sun does NOT LITERALLY hurries around the earth to start a newday....HAPPY now???? NBOW..YOU answer MY question..was the writer trying to submit plans to a contractor or such when he wrote this?

          August 28, 2014 at 3:03 am |
        • observer

          kermit4jc,

          Good. We BOTH agree that the answers were: FALSE and FALSE.

          August 28, 2014 at 3:05 am |
        • kermit4jc

          YOU liar and coward! we do NOT agree you idiot..cause you failed to answer my quesiotn...YOU pare dishonest person who plays a stupid game..thats why I was initially refusing to answer your quesiotns....you are a vile being...now LAST time..ANSWEr my question!

          August 28, 2014 at 3:08 am |
        • observer

          kermit4jc,

          There was no mention of a pool, but that is irrelevant. If you don't believe in supplying people with accurate numbers and lack the INTEGRITY to tell them that what you said is JUST APPROXIMATE, that would make anyone a LIAR. Check what the Bible says about lying.

          August 28, 2014 at 3:11 am |
        • kermit4jc

          You did not answer my question. You are now a coward and a dishonest debater..you mislead people with your questions....I will no longer respond to any of your post..You are such a hypocrite to mention integrity..you have NONE whatsoever! enjoy your life....

          August 28, 2014 at 3:15 am |
        • observer

          kermit4jc,

          You claimed I lied when I said your answers were FALSE and FALSE. So what ARE your answers to these VERY SIMPLE questions that ANYONE knowing math and science SHOULD be able to answer?

          If a circle has a diameter of 10 then the circ-umference is 30. TRUE or FALSE?

          The sun hurries around the earth after sunset to start a new day. TRUE or FALSE?

          August 28, 2014 at 3:17 am |
        • observer

          kermit4jc,

          Yep. Declare victory and RETREAT.

          Please ask school children to help you with the answers.

          August 28, 2014 at 3:20 am |
        • kermit4jc

          READ,I said YOUR questions are MISLEADING!!!!!! They are meant to PURPOSEFULLY and DISHONESTLY twist my words and get off the real point..in fact you STIL:L refusaed to answer my question..thus YOU are the one who has lost ALL integrity..which is why I refuse to respond to your posts..yes..I am clainming victory over your pitiful games and lack of integrity and am moving on...good luck with your life

          August 28, 2014 at 3:26 am |
        • observer

          kermit4jc

          I NEVER refuse to answer questions. I did. I said it never mentioned pools but it didn't matter. It NEVER said APPROXIMATE, You just IMAGINED it did.

          Restate your question if you think I didn't answer it.

          August 28, 2014 at 3:29 am |
        • kermit4jc

          ok..BASIN....I know the KJV ays sea..but the Hebrew word and the description shows it is a basin..and you are making excuses to answer..you did NOT answer my question..now try again...was the author submitting plans to a contractor or such to have them build a basin? yes or no?

          August 28, 2014 at 3:35 am |
        • observer

          kermit4jc

          "was the author submitting plans to a contractor or such to have them build a basin? yes or no?"

          Obviously NO, as I stated. He wasn't building ANYTHING. NO. NO. NO. NO. Just like I said.

          Understand?

          August 28, 2014 at 3:40 am |
        • kermit4jc

          so does precise measurements mean anything then? see..thi s is the context...it is OBVIOUSLY not something that the writer is worried about...precise numbers..we see from the whole passage from 1 Kings that He is MERELY giving general descriptions....IM so sorry you insist on knowing the exact size of the basin..as if it actually means something to you....

          August 28, 2014 at 3:45 am |
        • observer

          kermit4jc,

          Math may be the most ACCURATE way to express FACTS. For any measurable amounts, people are EXPECTED to quote ACCURATE numbers. When they can't give ACCURATE NUMBERS, people of HONESTY and INTEGRITY make it clear that the answer is "approximately", "about", "nearly", "almost", etc.

          But not all people care about ACCURACY and complete HONESTY.

          August 28, 2014 at 4:02 am |
        • kermit4jc

          get out of the basement ou live in and welcome to THE REAL world.....people do this ALL the time....its not about "honesty" approximations are not a bad thing...WHY do you hate the word approximate? The author is nOT making this a MATH text book either....sersiously dude..I tthink yore trying to make excuses not to believe in a god.....you don't want there to be a god evidently

          August 28, 2014 at 9:37 am |
        • observer

          kermit4jc

          "so does precise measurements mean anything then? see..thi s is the context...it is OBVIOUSLY not something that the writer is worried about...precise numbers.."

          It's fascinating that non-believers think the Bible should be ACCURATE, but believers DON'T CARE.

          August 28, 2014 at 4:14 am |
      • Alias

        kermit,
        I point out where the bible is wrong and you respond with, "I don't see you targeting meteorologists for using the terms sunrise and sunset."?
        Why not stay on topic? Unless you know you're wrong and would prefer to evade the issue.

        August 27, 2014 at 1:36 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          I AM on topic...you ASUME the Bible was wrong....and since they meteorologists used the terms sunrise and sunset then they are wrong too...why be using double standard?

          August 27, 2014 at 1:39 pm |
        • Alias

          Meteorologists are not claiming to quote from a perfect book inspired by god.
          When speaking or writing, it is comon to use the phrase "and then" to convey the idea that one event immediately followed the other. When you read the biblical accounts with no assumptions you would come to the conclusion that the book is contradicting itself..

          August 27, 2014 at 1:45 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          just because it is COMMON< doesn't mean it is every single instance that it is immediately...

          August 27, 2014 at 4:08 pm |
        • Alias

          Kermit
          Learn to use English. It does mean that when that particular sentence structure is employed.

          August 27, 2014 at 5:00 pm |
      • Alias

        kermit
        ".....the MOST LOGICAL thing to do in this case is to put the accounts TOGETHER and see that Jesus said ALL three of those things before he died"
        Actually that is not logical at all. That is a lame excuse from someone who cannot consider that the bible could be flawed.
        All 3 verses do imply that one thing immediately proceeded the other. Even in the Philipines.

        August 27, 2014 at 1:41 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          Lets use a situation here...two people report to the police of a robbery at a store, the customer says he did not see a gun, the store clerk says he saw a gun...does this report contradict, yes or no?

          August 27, 2014 at 4:06 pm |
        • Alias

          kremit
          in your example, there is no contradiction because one saw something the other did not. Unfortunately fo ryou this is a really bad analagy of the biblical errors.
          If somone in your robbery story told the poilce. "they grabbed the money and ran out the door", it means one thing happened immediatly after the other. It does not need to be stated that they did not sit for a bit of tea before leaving. It is the same with the bible. When you say "x, then y" you are conveying that one immediatly followed the other. It would be misleading ic a, b, and c happened in between.
          Please learn the proper use of english.

          August 27, 2014 at 4:57 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          LMAO..uhh..the Bible was NOT originally written in English! you know that...and again....Jesus could have said ALL three and still immediately died....it snot like he spoke for 5 or more minutes or such....he could Still say all three and immediately died

          August 27, 2014 at 4:59 pm |
        • Alias

          Once again, who would have been close enough to have heard him?
          In a croud of thousands, as you have said, you must either speak louldy or be close to the person speaking to hear them.
          jesus was dieing and trhe guards were keeping the croud away.

          August 27, 2014 at 5:10 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          Again WHO says they could NOT get close to Him? Obviously they COULD..agann Jesus SPOKE to JOhn to tell him to take care of his mother!! WHERE is eople getting the silly notion they could not get close to Jesus to hear him???

          August 27, 2014 at 5:16 pm |
  16. colin31714

    To pick up on SeaVic's theme, these are my Ten Commandments that every child should be taught.

    10 Commandments that every child should be taught.

    1. DO NOT automatically believe something just because a Christian minister, Jewish rabbi or Islamic Imam tells you that you must. They can’t all be right.

    2. DO NOT think that claims about magic, miracles and the supernatural are more likely true because they are written in old books. That makes them less likely true.

    3. DO analyze claims about religion with the same critical eye that you would claims about money, political positions or social issues.

    4. DO NOT accept it when religious leaders tell you it is wrong to question, doubt or think for yourself. It never is. Only those selling junk cars want to prohibit you from looking under the hood.

    5. DO decouple morality from a belief in the supernatural, in any of its formulations (Christianity, Judaism, Islam etc.). One can be moral without believing in gods, ghosts and ghouls and believing in any of them does not make one moral.

    6. DO a bit of independent research into whatever book you were brought up to believe in. Who are its authors and why should you believe them in what they say? How many translations has it gone through? Do we have originals, or only edited copies of copies of copies– the latter is certainly true for every single book in the Bible.

    7. DO realize that you are only a Christian (or Hindu or Jew) because of where you were born. Were you lucky enough to be born in the one part of the World that “got it right”?

    8. DO NOT be an apologist or accept the explanation “your mind is too small to understand the greatness of God,” “God is outside the Universe” or “God moves in mysterious ways” when you come upon logical inconsistencies in your belief. A retreat to mysticism is the first refuge of the cornered fool.

    9. DO understand where your religion came from and how it evolved from earlier beliefs to the point you were taught it. Are you lucky enough to be living at that one point in history where we “got it right”?

    10. DO educate yourself on the natural Universe, human history and the history of life on Earth, so as to be able to properly evaluate claims that a benevolent, mind-reading god is behind the whole thing.

    August 27, 2014 at 10:33 am |
    • Tom, Tom, the Other One

      Similarly, children should be coached on recognizing people who want to use them for sex or otherwise harm them.

      August 27, 2014 at 10:37 am |
      • kudlak

        Sadly, there are a lot of adults who haven't learned that lesson yet.

        August 27, 2014 at 10:39 am |
    • TruthPrevails1

      If they were taught that there would not be any more god believers. Common sense and courtesy are not part of their belief system.

      August 27, 2014 at 10:42 am |
    • Reality

      Most excellent !!

      August 27, 2014 at 11:32 am |
  17. SeaVik

    Sometimes, I have to take a minute to reflect on the fact that in this day and age, with all of the spectacular things we've learned over the years, we still have people who dispute basic things like evolution. Awanderingscot, Theo, etc, are undeniably delusional. However, what is truly concerning is that we still live in a society where we actually have presidential candidates that are similarly delusional. I have to assume that these people aren't all complete idiots, but rather, the nature of their upbringing has had a brain-washing effect. These people are prime examples of why I actively oppose teaching religion to children.

    August 27, 2014 at 10:14 am |
    • awanderingscot

      and we will continue to teach children the truth that is God.

      August 27, 2014 at 10:18 am |
      • SeaVik

        I know you will. So sad for the children that you can't see the harm you're doing. They may very well end up just as delusional as you.

        August 27, 2014 at 10:22 am |
      • Dyslexic doG

        Child abuse. You should be ashamed.

        August 27, 2014 at 10:28 am |
      • atlantic9

        Which "truth" about which god ? There are so many gods and so many variations.

        August 27, 2014 at 10:31 am |
      • TruthPrevails1

        So you think brainwashing children and lying to them is okay?

        August 27, 2014 at 10:33 am |
        • awanderingscot

          Brainwashing children into believing there is no God is sick and immoral. Look at all the murderous kids of the past decades who murder other kids and adults. Are you in denial of this phenomenon? Recently one of these godless kids asked his victim if she believed in God and when she answered yes, he shot her. Sick and twisted generations of Godless people. It will only get worse.

          August 27, 2014 at 11:00 am |
        • TruthPrevails1

          Wow, could you please point us to the stats that show those kids were non-believers??
          I raised a kid without god and she is in college; doesn't drink; doesn't do drugs; doesn't smoke; doesn't have a criminal record...so I've just proven you wrong :). A recent study done shows that children who are brainwashed to believe in god have a very difficult time differentiating between fact and fiction.
          The teenage pregnancy rate is highest amongst good little Christian girls; the abortion rate is highest amongst good Christian women...seems your ilk is less than perfect.

          August 27, 2014 at 11:08 am |
        • Alias

          Right on Scot!
          Bring back the hard line White Anglo Saxon Protestants and the god fearing groups like the KKK that believed in the god of te bible and id his work!

          August 27, 2014 at 11:04 am |
        • SeaVik

          adelusionalscot – A child is not born with a belief in a god. You have to brain-wash a child to change them from an default atheist.

          August 27, 2014 at 11:18 am |
        • In Santa We Trust

          wandering
          "Recently one of these godless kids asked his victim if she believed in God and when she answered yes, he shot her."

          Can you provide a link?

          August 27, 2014 at 11:22 am |
        • Løki

          "Recently one of these godless kids asked his victim if she believed in God and when she answered yes, he shot her"

          That urban legend never happened. Eric Harris said "peek-a-boo" before shooting Cassie Bernall. Cassie was praying at the time but obviously that didn't help the poor girl.

          August 27, 2014 at 11:23 am |
        • James XCIX

          awanderingscot – "Recently one of these godless kids asked his victim if she believed in God and when she answered yes, he shot her."

          That story is not true–see the link below.

          http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/WPcap/1999-10/14/026r-101499-idx.html

          August 27, 2014 at 11:54 am |
        • Alias

          Since when has Scot cared about the truth?

          August 27, 2014 at 12:12 pm |
        • TruthPrevails1

          Just to clarify, I ignored his story about the kid asking the other if she believed in god primarily due to the fact that I know awanderingdolt likes fiction much more than he likes reality, so anything he claims is taken as another delusion rolling off his fingertips.

          August 27, 2014 at 12:17 pm |
      • Doris

        Some religious folk talk about "truth" and "God" like they are something they stock up on at their local Bait & Tackle shop.

        Of course it's obvious to most who read these blogs that Scotty shops at the Bait & Switch shop...

        August 27, 2014 at 10:56 am |
        • Dyslexic doG

          nice.

          August 27, 2014 at 11:15 am |
      • igaftr

        so scot, you claim youa re going to teahc the truth about god?
        So you are going to teach them that there is no evidence of any gods at all, that there are thousands of gods men have worshipped, but no evidence of any of them?
        That the existance of god is merely a hypothesis, and that there are many, many other possibilities?

        If you claim you are teaching the truth, that is what you would be teaching.

        August 27, 2014 at 11:17 am |
      • evidencenot

        Oh snotty..... here's more of that truth for our child abuse class

        Cannibalism: "And the king said unto her, What aileth thee? And she answered, This woman said unto me, Give thy son, that we may eat him to day, and we will eat my son to morrow. So we boiled my son, and did eat him: and I said unto her on the next day, Give thy son, that we may eat him: and she hath hid her son...." (II Kings 6:28-29)

        August 27, 2014 at 2:52 pm |
        • evidencenot

          "your child abuse class"

          August 27, 2014 at 2:53 pm |
    • colin31714

      It is paradoxical. Whatever one may think of his politics, Newt Gingrich is smart. Smart enough to be the defacto leader of the Republican Party for a while. Look at how Theo writes. they guy is sharp and articulate. I could provide 20 other examples without much thought of people who are smart and successful, but who believe the most transparently obvious nonsense – like creationism.

      To adopt a common saying – smart people do smart things and dumb people do dumb things, but to make a smart person do dumb things requires religion.

      August 27, 2014 at 10:24 am |
      • awanderingscot

        To adopt a common saying – smart people do smart things and dumb people do dumb things, but to make a smart person do dumb things requires religion.

        – using hyphens between words not meant for conjuction is not proper english and not smart. Neither are run on sentences.

        August 27, 2014 at 10:30 am |
        • Dyslexic doG

          but the saying is oh so RIGHT!

          August 27, 2014 at 10:36 am |
        • In Santa We Trust

          If only you'd paid that much attention in science classes.

          August 27, 2014 at 10:54 am |
        • LaBella

          Capitalization rules:
          Rule 1. Capitalize the first word in a sentence.

          August 27, 2014 at 11:03 am |
        • Sungrazer

          I don't see any problem with the hyphen and there is no run on sentence. I do, however, see a problem with "conjuction".

          August 27, 2014 at 11:19 am |
        • TruthPrevails1

          Oh Dear, the punctuation police...how funny coming from someone who never finished elementary school!

          August 27, 2014 at 12:41 pm |
        • evidencenot

          Is this what happened to you snotty?

          If your genitals have been damaged, stay out of church: "He that is wounded in the stones, or hath his privy member cut off, shall not enter into the congregation of the Lord."(Deuteronomy 23:1)

          August 27, 2014 at 2:54 pm |
      • SeaVik

        Religion...or booze....or a hot date.

        August 27, 2014 at 10:44 am |
      • kudlak

        Still, parroting a belief in creationism could just be a bit of voter pandering for some politicians. It could just be the price some Republicans feel they have to pay in order to get elected, like supporting the NRA. Maybe, if the Tea Party splits off into an actual third Party, the Republicans can narrow their umbrella down to those concerned about more serious issues, eh?

        August 27, 2014 at 10:57 am |
        • SeaVik

          Oh yeah, I have no doubt that many of our presidents were closet atheists. But the fact that they all have to at least pretend to believe in a religion to have a chance at getting elected is disturbing.

          August 27, 2014 at 11:25 am |
        • kudlak

          SeaVik
          That goes for people in everyday life too. There are probably some people who are merely claiming to be atheists in order to fit in, but I'm willing to bet that a whole lot more people are faking belief in God, despite how they respond to polls. I can remember still writing in that I was a Christian long after I had made up my mind otherwise. Seems silly now, but I guess that I just didn't trust the integrity of the person collecting the survey, such was my fear of being "outed" as an atheist.

          August 27, 2014 at 12:24 pm |
        • joey3467

          If you aren't willing to tell young earth creationists that they are delusional then I consider you part of the problem.

          August 27, 2014 at 12:30 pm |
        • kudlak

          joey3467
          You just have to be mistaken to believe in Young Earth Creationism, but you do have to be delusional to believe that science supports your belief.

          Is that good enough for you?

          August 27, 2014 at 1:14 pm |
        • joey3467

          Lets just say that I won't be voting for any republican candidate who panders to creationists. If asked a direct question about how old Earth is and they don't say about 4.5 billion years old, or if they dodge the question and claim something like we can't know, I would consider that pandering.

          August 27, 2014 at 2:58 pm |
        • kudlak

          joey3467
          Pandering doesn't mean deluded, however, and I would much prefer a pandering politician to one so hopelessly deluded as to believe that science actually supports such a belief.

          August 27, 2014 at 4:26 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Other One

      I object when people with an particular intellectual agenda want access to the education of children. It is well to teach children to think critically, give them the ability to formulate and recognize good arguments, and provide them with the most accurate information we can. The fate of religion could then fall where it may.

      August 27, 2014 at 10:27 am |
      • Dyslexic doG

        this is why religion is best described as a virus. It has evolved to be ruthless in infecting new hosts

        August 27, 2014 at 10:30 am |
    • Sungrazer

      It is indeed basic. Someone who disputes evolution may as well dispute that the Earth rotates around its own axis. They would be no less wrong.

      August 27, 2014 at 11:24 am |
      • SeaVik

        True. However, there is a very significant portion of our population that actually questions evolution. It is extremely embarrassing, but much more so concerning that these people are voting and reproducing.

        August 27, 2014 at 11:27 am |
        • Sungrazer

          Oh, yes, I'm aware that the acceptance rate is low, at least in the U.S. Even in other countries it is lower than it should be.

          A person may be quite content to accept that an atom is made up of protons, neutrons, and electrons, or that stars fuse hydrogen into helium, because this is what they have been taught and scientists have done the hard work and can be trusted. But teach that person that all living things share a common (non human) ancestor, then the biologists must be lunatics or liars.

          August 27, 2014 at 12:21 pm |
    • Science Works

      Everyone should support them....but...

      http://www.nea.org/home/stem.html

      August 27, 2014 at 1:34 pm |
  18. Løki

    I know a lot of fancy dancers,
    people who can glide you on a floor,
    They move so smooth but have no answers.
    When you ask "Why'd you come here for?"
    "I don't know" "Why?"

    August 27, 2014 at 10:03 am |
    • awanderingscot

      "When you ask "Why'd you come here for?""

      – the correct question would be "what did you come here for?" or "why did you come here".

      August 27, 2014 at 10:22 am |
      • SeaVik

        From the guy who doesn't even capitalize the first words in sentences...

        August 27, 2014 at 10:23 am |
        • awanderingscot

          How is that chess game going with your dog SeaVik? Have you been able to win one yet?

          August 27, 2014 at 10:27 am |
        • Dyslexic doG

          fooW

          August 27, 2014 at 10:37 am |
        • SeaVik

          Adelusionalscot, I'm still waiting for you to tell me what your point is when you allude to the fact that my dog is smart?

          August 27, 2014 at 10:39 am |
        • TruthPrevails1

          Your dog is probably smarter than awanderingdolt...take it as a compliment.

          August 27, 2014 at 10:44 am |
        • Tom, Tom, the Other One

          scot may have painted himself into a corner: the dog is smart but it does not profess to know anything about God.

          August 27, 2014 at 10:51 am |
      • Doc Vestibule

        Yew done gots more gooder wordiness than I has.

        August 27, 2014 at 10:29 am |
      • LaBella

        It's a song, Scot. Take it up with Cat Stevens.

        August 27, 2014 at 10:53 am |
        • Dyslexic doG

          a muslim.

          August 27, 2014 at 11:16 am |
        • igaftr

          dyslexic

          Not really. Cat Stevens was not a muslim...he became Yusuf Islam when he converted to Islam. It was after that he vowed to never play "Peace Train" ever again. ( ironic since Islam is supposed to be the religion of peace)

          August 27, 2014 at 11:34 am |
        • LaBella

          Yes. Yusuf Islam, formerly Cat Stevens. Converted in 1977.
          Scot should take it up with him.

          August 27, 2014 at 11:36 am |
        • Løki

          He played "Peace Train" this year at his induction into the R&R HofF

          August 27, 2014 at 11:42 am |
        • igaftr

          Yes, he did...breaking his vow...Not surprising...everytime he needs money he falls back to being Cat Stevens again.
          He also is one of the only people who is banned from the White House, while at the same time being one of the people most invited to the White House.
          His personal life is a mess.

          August 27, 2014 at 11:52 am |
        • Løki

          I liked his music when I was a kid and sang his songs in chorus... his songs are timeless... it doesn't bother me that he is religious/mentally confused.

          August 27, 2014 at 11:56 am |
        • igaftr

          Loki
          I love Cat Steven's music...Lady D'arbonville is one of my favorites. I play many of his songs on my guitar, as I have since the 70's.

          It is odd to me that so many musicians are so troubled in their personal life, but I know some of my own original songs, the best ones, all came out of personal trajedy.
          I'm trying to compose a new one called "Wine, Women and Song", a happy, get together song, but I find it more difficult to write from happiness, than from sorrow.

          August 27, 2014 at 12:10 pm |
        • LaBella

          Løki,
          "I liked his music when I was a kid and sang his songs in chorus... his songs are timeless..."

          Ah, that takes me back. The very first song we learned in chorus was Morning Has Broken.

          August 27, 2014 at 12:29 pm |
        • Løki

          MoonShadow for me... and it is still one of my favorite songs

          August 27, 2014 at 12:40 pm |
      • In Santa We Trust

        What a shame that you didn't pay that much attention in science classes.

        August 27, 2014 at 12:09 pm |
  19. awanderingscot

    Darwinism occupies an official place in the curricula of schools and universities in just about every country of the world today. Scientific facts are ignored, and even distorted, and misused, in an effort to use them in favor of evolution, as this outdated theory is kept propped up for ideological reasons.

    LEARNING DARWINIST FAIRY-TALES IS COMPULSORY, WHILE THE TEACHING OF THE SCIENTIFIC FACTS IS BANNED!

    The fact remains that the theory of evolution is unable to explain how the first living cell or even a single protein could have formed. Not one single tr-ansitional form fossil showing that life forms are descended from one another has ever been found from among the more than 350 million fossils discovered to date. If the myths of evolution are to be taught in schools, these facts revealed by science must also be taught. Children and young people need to be educated with the facts revealed by 21st-century science, not pagan teachings left over from Sumerian times.

    Yet the Darwinist d-ictatorship never permits that. Evolution is taught in a compulsory manner, as part of the curriculum, in the school textbooks of just about all countries.

    Nonsense such as the myth of giraffes acquiring longer necks as they stretched up to reach higher leaves, the hoax of the industrial melanism and peppered moths, the lie that human beings and monkeys are descended from a common ancestor and the fiction of primitive man living in caves is still taught to young people in Europe as if were scientific fact.

    Moreover, young people in Turkic states and even Iran are also educated with these myths of evolution, not just those in European countries.

    Ernst Haeckel’s fraudulent embryo drawings, the lie of the existence of fict-itious half-reptile and half-bird creatures and the fairy tale of the evolution of the horse are all taught as if they were scientific truth.
    Yet young people have no right to demand any supporting evidence in the face of this nonsense!
    They have no right to express the facts revealed by science!
    They have no right to give the answers shown by science in exams! – Harum Yahya

    August 27, 2014 at 10:03 am |
    • Dyslexic doG

      I would have thought that Christians would love the idea of evolution.

      If the christian god really did design every animal, then he is the most inept designer ever ... as 99% of the creatures that have ever lived have been so badly designed that they have become extinct.

      A 99% failure rate does not indicate an omnipotent, omniscient god. It indicates absolute incompetence. Evolution would give christians an escape hatch to explain such incompetence by their god, and yet they argue against it.

      Seems christians worship the stories of bible more than they worship their god.

      August 27, 2014 at 10:35 am |
      • kermit4jc

        terrible and ignorant argument.as if you presume to be a counselor to an all knowing God

        August 27, 2014 at 12:36 pm |
        • evidencenot

          That's a real fine religion you got there bunky!

          August 27, 2014 at 2:56 pm |
        • evidencenot

          But incestuous rap-e is cool: And when she had presented him the meat, he took hold of her, and said: Come lie with me, my sister. She answered him: Do not so, my brother, do not force me: for no such thing must be done in Israel. Do not thou this folly. [II Kings 13:8-12] But he would not hearken to her prayers, but being stronger overpowered her and lay with her. [II Kings 13:14]

          August 27, 2014 at 2:57 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          are you saying the Bible supported this action? in cestuous ra pe?

          August 27, 2014 at 4:28 pm |
    • MidwestKen

      Awanderingscot,

      As has ben explained multiple times before:
      Evolution does not cover the origin of life.
      Many transistional fossils exist.
      Your giraffe example is Lamarkian not evolutionary.
      Etc. Etc.

      August 27, 2014 at 10:59 am |
    • igaftr

      scot
      "Scientific facts are ignored, and even distorted, and misused,"
      By you scot, and your other creationists. They have NOTHING to support the creation hypothesis, so have to attempt to invalidate reality.

      Ever heard of the "Steve Project"?

      August 27, 2014 at 11:40 am |
      • awanderingscot

        Sure, are you Adam?

        August 27, 2014 at 12:13 pm |
        • evidencenot

          You can kill a woman if she seizes a man's private parts without his permission: Deuteronomy 25:11-1: If two men are fighting and the wife of one of them comes to rescue her husband from his assailant, and she reaches out and seizes him by his private parts, you shall cut off her hand. Show her no pity.

          August 27, 2014 at 2:48 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          first of all..that doe snot aply to us ..second....its not merely grabbing his privates...but assaulting to the point of causing injury

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

          The bible is the word of god... yes or no.

          August 28, 2014 at 1:59 pm |
    • tallulah131

      Scotty is a troll. He knows that he's posting 100% BS, but as long as he can get a reaction, he'll continue copying and pasting utter nonsense.

      August 27, 2014 at 11:59 am |
      • awanderingscot

        ok Trollulah, whatever you say.

        August 27, 2014 at 12:14 pm |
        • LaBella

          Mature.

          August 27, 2014 at 12:20 pm |
        • evidencenot

          Look snotty! I can post crap too!,,, and right from your holy book of nasty mythology!

          Perversity and human trafficking condoned: "Slaves, be subject to your masters with all reverence, not only to those who are good and equitable but also to those who are perverse." (1 Peter 2:18)

          August 27, 2014 at 2:49 pm |
    • In Santa We Trust

      wandering,
      You have the facts but the major educational institutes of the world do not. Just reflect on that. Any reasonable person would accept that they were probably wrong. This puts you in a category with Jenny McCarthy.

      August 27, 2014 at 12:08 pm |
    • LaBella

      I am glad you embrace Islamic Creationism, Scot.
      Also, the other things Yahya (real name Adnan Oktar) is known for: Anti-Zionism, Anti-Masonry, Ijaz Literature.
      Good to see you embracing another religion.

      August 27, 2014 at 12:11 pm |
    • G to the T

      "Ernst Haeckel’s fraudulent embryo drawings, the lie of the existence of fict-itious half-reptile and half-bird creatures and the fairy tale of the evolution of the horse are all taught as if they were scientific truth."

      Speaking of half-truths and lies – try finding a single current science textbook that still references these drawings. You won't find it. This is just one of the many LIES told by the creationist side. If you are disingenuous in this aspect, why should we consider you as being honest in any other aspect?

      August 27, 2014 at 12:14 pm |
  20. awanderingscot

    Darwinism occupies an official place in the curricula of schools and universities in just about every country of the world today. Scientific facts are ignored, and even distorted, and misused, in an effort to use them in favor of evolution, as this outdated theory is kept propped up for ideological reasons.

    LEARNING DARWINIST FAIRY-TALES IS COMPULSORY, WHILE THE TEACHING OF THE SCIENTIFIC FACTS IS BANNED!

    The fact remains that the theory of evolution is unable to explain how the first living cell or even a single protein could have formed. Not one single tr-ansitional form fossil showing that life forms are descended from one another has ever been found from among the more than 350 million fossils discovered to date. If the myths of evolution are to be taught in schools, these facts revealed by science must also be taught. Children and young people need to be educated with the facts revealed by 21st-century science, not pagan teachings left over from Sumerian times.

    Yet the Darwinist dictatorship never permits that. Evolution is taught in a compulsory manner, as part of the curriculum, in the school textbooks of just about all countries.

    Nonsense such as the myth of giraffes acquiring longer necks as they stretched up to reach higher leaves, the hoax of the industrial melanism and peppered moths, the lie that human beings and monkeys are descended from a common ancestor and the fiction of primitive man living in caves is still taught to young people in Europe as if were scientific fact.

    Moreover, young people in Turkic states and even Iran are also educated with these myths of evolution, not just those in European countries.

    Ernst Haeckel’s fraudulent embryo drawings, the lie of the existence of fict-itious half-reptile and half-bird creatures and the fairy tale of the evolution of the horse are all taught as if they were scientific truth.

    Yet young people have no right to demand any supporting evidence in the face of this nonsense!

    They have no right to express the facts revealed by science!

    They have no right to give the answers shown by science in exams!

    August 27, 2014 at 10:00 am |
    • Jill

      lostscot, how's about you list the "evidence" that supports your religious beliefs. There isn't any.

      That elephant in the room isn't alone in his Mozart art.

      August 27, 2014 at 10:05 am |
      • Løki

        Don't feed the troll... all he wants is someone to pay attention to him

        August 27, 2014 at 10:09 am |
      • Løki

        Don't feed the troll... he has a perverse desire for negative attention

        August 27, 2014 at 10:10 am |
      • Løki

        Don't feed the troll... he has a perverse desire for negative attention

        August 27, 2014 at 10:11 am |
      • Løki

        Don't feed the troll... he has a perverse desire for negative attention

        August 27, 2014 at 10:11 am |
      • Løki

        Don't feed the troll... he has a perverse desire for negative attention

        August 27, 2014 at 10:11 am |
      • Løki

        Don't feed the troll... he has a perverse desire for negative attention

        August 27, 2014 at 10:11 am |
        • Løki

          Freaky... how did that^ happen?

          August 27, 2014 at 10:13 am |
        • Doris

          I'm guessing it could only have been spirits of Satanic manifestation. (eyeroll)

          August 27, 2014 at 10:22 am |
        • Dyslexic doG

          too much coffee this morning Løki?

          August 27, 2014 at 10:40 am |
      • awanderingscot

        Jill, the evidence is all around you, just open your eyes.

        August 27, 2014 at 10:15 am |
        • Doc Vestibule

          Yes, Jill.
          The evidence for (insert invisible, supernatural, undisprovable enti/ty) is all around you.
          If you just open your heart to The Truth of (insert invisible, supernatural, undisprovable enti/ty), They will reveal Themselves to you.
          When all mankind heeds the Word of (insert invisible, supernatural, undisprovable enti/ty), we shall finally be at peave.

          August 27, 2014 at 10:31 am |
        • igaftr

          "the evidence is all around you,"

          Where specifically scot?, I do not see any evidence of any supernatural anything, anywhere near me.

          August 27, 2014 at 11:41 am |
        • atlantic9

          This reminds me of a person whose daughter used to drive around cars on the road that only she could see. Apparently it made for some interesting driving experiences for her mother.

          August 27, 2014 at 11:51 am |
        • awanderingscot

          God's creation is all around us. In fact we are His creation.

          August 27, 2014 at 12:16 pm |
        • TruthPrevails1

          Awanderingdolt: Using circular reasoning to answer a question further proves your ignorance...kudos!

          August 27, 2014 at 12:20 pm |
        • igaftr

          "God's creation is all around us. In fact we are His creation."

          Or, not. Most likely not.
          The existance of the universe is not evidence of any "gods". It is evidence of the universe, not how it came to be.

          August 27, 2014 at 1:44 pm |
    • evidencenot

      LE 14:33-57 God himself believes that a house or clothes can have leprosy and he details the remedy.

      LE 14:49-53 The cure for leprosy involves incantations and the blood of a bird.

      NU 11:31-33 A "wind from the Lord" brings such an abundance of quail that "he who gathered the least gathered ten homers," or about 62 bushels. Altogether, this would have been enough to fill several thousand boxcars. Unfortunately, it was immediately followed by a great plague (food poisoning?) from the Lord.

      NU 22:21-30 A donkey sees an angel, recognizes it as such, and then speaks in human language (presumably Hebrew) to his master.

      August 27, 2014 at 11:59 am |
    • evidencenot

      LE 14:33-57 God himself believes that a house or clothes can have leprosy and he details the remedy.

      LE 14:49-53 The cure for leprosy involves incantations and the blood of a bird.

      NU 11:31-33 A "wind from the Lord" brings such an abundance of quail that "he who gathered the least gathered ten hom-ers," or about 62 bushels. Altogether, this would have been enough to fill several thousand boxcars. Unfortunately, it was immediately followed by a great plague (food poisoning?) from the Lord.

      NU 22:21-30 A donkey sees an angel, recognizes it as such, and then speaks in human language (presumably Hebrew) to his master.

      August 27, 2014 at 12:00 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.