home
RSS
July 25th, 2010
05:51 PM ET

Status report: Ted Haggard's new church

[cnn-video url= http://www.cnn.com/video/?/video/living/2010/07/19/co.haggard.new.church.kusa%5D

Fallen evangelical leader Ted Haggard says the church he founded last month is quickly gaining new worshippers. KUSA reports.

- CNN Belief Blog

Filed under: Christianity • Leaders • Scandal

soundoff (407 Responses)
  1. 67890

    re-post (i put in the wrong spot):
    bobross and luke, the reason you guys are going around in a circle is because discussion about theories will do just that, spiritual faith vs scientific faith. yes, you also need faith to believe in studies made by human beings and evolution as well as who created that something to evolve with. i never posted anything before when reading blogs but your discussion stirred me up (in a good way) for some reason. the only way to find an end to this circling is by personal experience. i used to believe in evolution and human intelligence, that the bible is full of errors, and to make this short, as life turned for me i have experienced god. it was always a challenge to convince anyone especially people and colleagues with great intelligence, but i pray that god will reveal himself to you the same way he did with me, so that you and those who read these posts will know with complete sense and intelligence, not just by faith, but through personal encounter, that god is real.
    (so sorry if this will offend anyone, just trying to share how my circling in the past ended)

    July 26, 2010 at 2:36 pm |
    • Luke

      Reposting so you see it: 67890 – There is no faith in what is proven by concrete evidence. Where you may have an argument are where theoretical physicists have ideas about dark energy, white holes (the opposite of black holes), the multiverse, string theory and M-theory. These ideas have evidence that support them, but by no means are proven. In my example above, the theory of evolution is fact in the same way that we have proven the earth goes around the sun (heliocentric theory) or that things with mass have gravitational forces. You don't get an opinion on those and it takes no faith. Religion, however, has attempted to undermine them in favor of its own advancement. You, and others, go in circles, because you refuse to accept fact, something I will not let you get away with.

      July 26, 2010 at 2:39 pm |
  2. JohnQuest

    bobross2, Question: If you have proof that evolution is factual, and the earth is more then 6000 years old would you consider the Bible wrong? Basically, are you willing to change your mind if you find that the Bible is fallible?

    July 26, 2010 at 2:32 pm |
    • Buster Bloodvessel

      Are you kidding? He'd just say you got your info from the devil and put his fingers in his ears. The earth is flat and the sun rises and falls, that kind of thing. Then he'd offer to burn you at the stake for heresy.

      July 26, 2010 at 2:46 pm |
  3. brad1001

    Ted Haggard even looks like a snake oil salesman.

    July 26, 2010 at 1:32 pm |
  4. 12345

    Luke you beleive what you want to beleive and let others beleive what they want to.

    July 26, 2010 at 1:31 pm |
    • Luke

      12345 – I do believe what I have studied and leave others alone. That's not the point, sir/madam. I study fact and evidence. Religious folk ignore fact and evidence and replace it with unsubstantiated fiction and faith. And I continue to act on the scientific front because it is constantly being infiltrated by people that elect officials to school boards, for example, that want to undermine the public education of our citizens. It's not like I go forcing my musical tastes on others because that is objective. Evolution, for example, is not objective in this case. If you don't believe it, you are ignoring fact. Furthermore, if you believe in talking snakes or that a man lived in a whale, then you immediately pay a price to society and will be judged henceforth. So go ahead, listen to Celine Dion or Elvis. I don't care. You get no opinion in the sciences, however, if you ignore evidence in favor of blind faith.

      July 26, 2010 at 1:38 pm |
    • Nonimus

      Luke, I suspect that you mean subjective, as in music is subjective, the theory of evolution is objective, not subjective.

      July 26, 2010 at 2:28 pm |
    • Buster Bloodvessel

      You have basically stated the main purpose of this country.

      July 26, 2010 at 2:56 pm |
  5. Gary

    Luke, evolution is so obvious Natural selection is not only proven but also obvious...plate techtonics , erosion,escarpments,mid oceanic ridges,animal fossils and fossile fuels all proof of an ancient billion old earth. Luke it is amazing how certain people adhere to religous texts. written just centuries ago.

    July 26, 2010 at 1:28 pm |
  6. Gary

    Bob ross 2 ....fair enough.

    July 26, 2010 at 1:17 pm |
  7. bobross2

    I am going to just have to agree to disagree on some of this stuff... I appreciate your efforts, but I feel as if we are going in a circle. As far as coming to NYC... I would love to come, but I am unsure how to exchange the type of information necessary to make that happen over this blog... any ideas?

    July 26, 2010 at 12:50 pm |
    • 67890

      bobross and luke, the reason you guys are going around in a circle is because discussion about theories will do just that, spiritual faith vs scientific faith. yes, you also need faith to believe in studies made by human beings and evolution as well as who created that something to evolve with. i never posted anything before when reading blogs but your discussion stirred me up (in a good way) for some reason. the only way to find an end to this circling is by personal experience. i used to believe in evolution and human intelligence, that the bible is full of errors, and to make this short, as life turned for me i have experienced god. it was always a challenge to convince anyone especially people and colleagues with great intelligence, but i pray that god will reveal himself to you the same way he did with me, so that you and those who read these posts will know with complete sense and intelligence, not just by faith, but through personal encounter, that god is real.
      (so sorry if this will offend anyone, just trying to share how my circling in the past ended)

      July 26, 2010 at 2:32 pm |
    • Luke

      67890 – There is no faith in what is proven by concrete evidence. Where you may have an argument are where theoretical physicists have ideas about dark energy, white holes (the opposite of black holes), the multiverse, string theory and M-theory. These ideas have evidence that support them, but by no means are proven. In my example above, the theory of evolution is fact in the same way that we have proven the earth goes around the sun (heliocentric theory) or that things with mass have gravitational forces. You don't get an opinion on those and it takes no faith. Religion, however, has attempted to undermine them in favor of its own advancement. You, and others, go in circles, because you refuse to accept fact, something I will not let you get away with.

      July 26, 2010 at 2:38 pm |
  8. bobross2

    Luke! How kind of you to offer your touring services! I would love to come to Manhattan seeing as how I haven't been since 2008 and I didn't get to see the Natural History Museum when I was there. Will you be paying to fly me out there? If so, I'm in. Back to our discussion though... You are still not addressing my question when I am asking about 'transition' species... Your example of my father and my grandfather is erroneous bc we are all humans... I'm asking about the different species that link us to our ancestors? And I've seen what you would most likely interject as fossil examples, but I still have an issue with why they would die off, yet their less evolved ancestors wouldn't? Also, I'm not quite following you on the incest topic. Where is your evidence for such cross-breeding? Finally, as far as Christianity being hypocritical, I have to address this. Many things are condemned as sin in the bible, but where did you get the authority to say that if someone sins, yet calls them self a Christian, then they are a hypocrite. First off, Adam and Eve weren't Christians! Secondly, that is the beauty and glory of Christ... the fact that we can fall short, yet still have salvation! TRUE CHRISTIANITY is not hypocritical, but some 'professing Christians' ignorance may make it look as such.

    July 26, 2010 at 12:17 pm |
    • Luke

      bobross2 – The transitory species are on display in the museum. I will show them to you. You can also see the most famous transitory fossils at the Museum in Nairobi, Kenya. Recently, we uncovered a fossil that that unlocked a mysterious period in human evolution. The fossils are part of a new species, Australopithecus sediba, which are estimated to be nearly 2 million years old and show similarities to both the southern African ape-man and the earliest humans, such as Lucy and Turkana Boy. Like apes, the species have long arms and extremely small craniums, but they also have short powerful hands, an advanced pelvis and long legs that the scientists say could have made them capable of walking and even running - all human characteristics. The example of your grandfather, you and your son is perfectly valid. If we line up your lineage back ten million years and ahead another 10 million years, you'll see that your ancestors were not what we know as human, and your future generations are not what we know as human. You just happen to live right now and have no idea how minuscule you really are. The evidence of cross breeding is in our DNA. Chimps share 99% of the DNA as you do. Gorillas a little less. Monkeys a little less than that. It goes on throughout the tree of life. A good example is how birds are modern day dinosaurs. One particular species survived and evolved to its environment (I don't recall which species, but I can show you the data at the Museum when you come!). That species is still alive today. The last third of your post on Christianity is irrelevant and merely ramblings. I do not address such things as they do not warrant a reply. Where do you live? If prices are reasonable, I'll fly you here so as long as you promise to be a good student and digest the data you are exposed to.

      July 26, 2010 at 12:31 pm |
    • ttwp

      @Luke: Your evidence is that we share 99% DNA. I guess that a watermelon, a jellyfish, and clouds all evolved from each other...since they all about 98% water.

      July 26, 2010 at 1:13 pm |
    • Luke

      ttwp – Seriously? Like...huh? I'm not answering that. Go read a book.

      July 26, 2010 at 2:30 pm |
    • ttwp

      @Luke: I read my Father's book...you may have heard of it...it's called the Bible. I encouage you to do the same.

      July 26, 2010 at 2:46 pm |
    • Luke

      ttwp – Your too far down the rabbit hole to be saved buddy. I don't debate the irrational. I happily respect and debate the rationale, however. I do have a nice reading list for you if you are interested however. I've read a few versions of the bible and koran too. Good fiction.

      July 26, 2010 at 2:49 pm |
    • Buster Bloodvessel

      ttwp, you read a book that made you think DNA and water are identical substances? Was it called DNA for Dummies?

      July 26, 2010 at 2:50 pm |
    • Kate

      ttwp, you don't share water which is a substance. You share the same genes in dna, which means you have the same instructions in your genetic diagram.

      Do you know how your car's engine works, complete with all the computer bits? If not, are you qualified to teach a course of mechanics? That's what you are pretending you can do with genetics. If you don't understand the first step, you are hardly qualified to tell the experts they are wrong.

      July 26, 2010 at 3:26 pm |
    • ttwp

      @Luke: "Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you. For everyone who asks receives; he who seeks finds; and to him who knocks, the door will be opened." I encourage you to seek Him humbly and he will take you out of your darkness and then you will know the truth and the truth will set you free.

      @Buster Bloodvessel: No one said they're identical substances. I was merely stating a fact that you can't always use percentages to state things as being related to each other.

      July 26, 2010 at 3:30 pm |
    • ttwp

      @Kate: You are right we do have instructions or information in our DNA. It didn't just happen...it was put there by our Creator.

      July 26, 2010 at 3:39 pm |
    • Kate

      So now you are backpedaling on your prior statement? There's no evidence of a god. Genes happened because conditions were right and the physical laws dictated it along with billions of years of time. Unless you are going to reduce your god to being only the rules of physics, then perhaps you could honestly say there is one, but other than that, your god hasn't bothered to show himself.

      Once again, if you don't understand it, you have no business telling people who do how it works. It didn't just happen, and there's no evidence of any god in it.

      July 26, 2010 at 6:05 pm |
    • ttwp

      @ Kate: He can can be known if you seek Him out. God is real. He revealed Himself to me in Spirit. Of course, this is foolishness to those without His Spirit. Stop being deceived. I encourage you to seek God out and He will bring you out of darkness and into His light. I encourage you not be "...ever hearing but never understanding or always learning but never able to acknowledge the truth." God Bless!

      July 26, 2010 at 7:37 pm |
    • MikeTheInfidel

      There are no 'instructions' or 'information' in DNA. DNA is a molecule. It undergoes chemical reactions, according to the rules of chemistry.

      July 26, 2010 at 7:39 pm |
    • ttwp

      @Mike: Suggest you do better research. Our DNA does contain information. Deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) is a nucleic acid that contains the genetic instructions used in the development and functioning of all known living organisms and some viruses. The main role of DNA molecules is the long-term storage of information. DNA is often compared to a set of blueprints, like a recipe or a code, since it contains the instructions needed to construct other components of cells, such as proteins and RNA molecules. The DNA segments that carry this genetic information are called genes, but other DNA sequences have structural purposes, or are involved in regulating the use of this genetic information.

      July 26, 2010 at 7:59 pm |
    • David Johnson

      @Luke

      You explained that, better than I could have. You have a really good understanding. Salute!

      July 29, 2010 at 1:29 pm |
  9. bobross2

    Also, why would incest be so surprising to you? Adam and Eve did chose sin? It logically follows that incest would not be out of the question.

    July 26, 2010 at 11:42 am |
    • Luke

      bobross2 – because direct incest in a small population would result mainly in mutual babies, most of which would not be able to reproduce. That doesn't mean there wasn't incest taking place in human history, but there was also a point where there was cross-species breeding, resulting in the human species and our closest cousins in the primate species. Our common ancestor has long since died off, but I can show you examples at the Natural History Museum. This occurred a few million years ago. Are you coming to NYC? I'm a member of the museum and can get you in free! Also, it's condemned in the bible, which makes the entire story yet another hypocritical point in Christendom.

      July 26, 2010 at 11:51 am |
    • Gary

      bobross 2 ....bible written by primitive men around 2100 years ago and earlier old testament. Earth is billions of years old,live your own life a little. if you choose to be religious and believe a religious text written by men is the exact word of God thats your right and I do repect it. just dont judge thinking folks like Luke and I who use our brains. We dont need a quron bible or any religious text to thinks for our selfs.......thou shall not kill,cheat on spouse,lie,steal from thy neib or really?? no crap!

      July 26, 2010 at 12:21 pm |
    • bobross2

      Gary, I'm talking to Luke and I'm trying to recall me ever judging Luke? In fact, Luke and yourself are probably better men than myself for all I know? What I don't understand is where this defensive nature is coming from? I'm having a discussion with Luke, we are sharing our evidence for our beliefs, and for the most part we are being pretty friendly about it. Why does this bother you? And, in case you haven't read any of my comments, I do think for myself, but what you must understand is that if what I'm saying is correct, then I should share Christ with you guys. If you DID believe in hell, and if you DID believe that anyone without Christ would go there... wouldn't you talk to them? You seem to define your own morality so I'm curious to know if you find that to be an "immoral" idea?

      July 26, 2010 at 12:33 pm |
  10. bobross2

    OK, Luke, you addressed only emotion... What about morality? What about these 'transitory' species? Affection is an emotion, but that is not what I was getting at, so if you could, please address my other questions sir?

    July 26, 2010 at 11:34 am |
    • Luke

      Ever read about how some animals feed abandoned babies from other species? For example, how a leopard will feed lion cubs? We see this often in the animal kingdom across species, but within the same genus usually. Sounds like morality to me. We also see it in our primate cousins, where we shares 99% of the same DNA. Primates are notorious for protecting their kind, a highly moral issue within the genus. As for transitory species, go to the Nature History Museum on West 79th Street in Manhattan. They have plenty of fossils there. I live close by. I'll even be your personal guide through the evolutionary theory wing of the museum at no charge. An even easier look at transitory species would be to line up your grandfather, yourself and your son in a straight line. You are the transitory species. Creepy, eh?

      July 26, 2010 at 11:41 am |
    • ttwp

      @Mike: Suggest you do better research. Our DNA does contain information. Deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) is a nucleic acid that contains the genetic instructions used in the development and functioning of all known living organisms and some viruses. The main role of DNA molecules is the long-term storage of information. DNA is often compared to a set of blueprints, like a recipe or a code, since it contains the instructions needed to construct other components of cells, such as proteins and RNA molecules. The DNA segments that carry this genetic information are called genes, but other DNA sequences have structural purposes, or are involved in regulating the use of this genetic information.

      July 26, 2010 at 7:58 pm |
    • Luke

      ttwp – Nice copy and paste. Do you have any thoughts of your own on the topic?

      July 26, 2010 at 9:53 pm |
    • ttwp

      @ Luke: No I don't submit lies as you do. I do my research. Stop denying God, seek him out and he take you out of the darkness you are living in.

      July 27, 2010 at 11:08 am |
    • Bob

      Bobross2, why do we have to address things at all? Why do we have to know how the unvierse came into being? Why do we have to know anything about evolution or abiogenesis? Let me present to you an argument.

      Let's say I tell you there are invisible dragons that breathe fire. And if you didn't believe them, they'd burn your soul for all eternity. I also tell you that I have no proof except an ancient book. Regardless of what you thought of me, you'd have two options before you.

      1. You accept what I tell you without evidence. That is to say, you accept it until they're proven not to exist.
      2. You do not accept what I tell you without evidence. That is to say, you require proof to believe.

      Putting aside that you cannot prove a negative, which would you choose? 1 or 2?

      If you choose 1, you hold conflicting beliefs. Because if you accept things are true without evidence, you have to accept Christianity, Islam, Buddism, etc on faith. And they all can't be right.

      So, the only real option is 2. Not believing until you have evidence. What's your evidence for a God?

      July 27, 2010 at 5:00 pm |
  11. NL

    Back to Haggard, I think the question many people have here is: Is there ANYTHING that a minister could possibly do that would completely rule out their ever making a comeback? I mean, Peter Popoff was shown using radios to fake getting information from God, yet he is still on TV and making a living out of Christianity. Celebrity ministers seem to be able to gather followers no matter what they do. In fact, the more they "sin" the more street cred they seem to get within the Christian community. Along the same lines, how many people would trust Bernie Madoff with their money again?

    July 26, 2010 at 11:06 am |
    • Woody

      I'd be willing to bet that if Bernie Madoff came out with a statement that he found the Lord and was Born Again and was starting a prison ministry, the money would start rolling in. The number of gullible people out there has to be astronomical.

      July 26, 2010 at 3:55 pm |
    • NL

      Christianity values the once sinful Prodigal Sons far more than the always loyal churchgoers. Bernie would do well.

      July 26, 2010 at 11:46 pm |
    • David Johnson

      @NL

      You said, "Christianity values the once sinful Prodigal Sons far more than the always loyal churchgoers. Bernie would do well."

      I agree. Most of the prisoners coming up for parole are born again. Why is that?

      July 29, 2010 at 1:59 pm |
  12. bobross2

    As far as macro-evolution... don't worry, I won't go quoting people, I've managed not to do that thus far so I'll try to fight the urge now... If you must know, I'm not a professional scientist.... but I am a completely redeemed believer in Jesus Christ, the LORD of all... The only authority that I need is God's word and that is enough to prove to me that macro-evolution is false.... I don't care if every LOST scientist in the world comes to me and tells me that we all have a common ancestor, I'm still not going to believe it... you wanna know why??? BECAUSE IT IS RIDICULOUS!!! Do you really think that life came from non-life??? That is a logical fallacy? I will quote William Lane Craig by saying that is 'literally worse than magic'! And I apologize for my attitude, but you are getting me fired up. As far as the 2 being mutually exclusive, don't worry, I completely agree! If God created Adam and Eve, and Eve was created from Adam's rib, then how can people say that the 2 can go hand in hand? If we all evolved from a common ancestor, then that ancestor would have to have been less advanced than a human? Agreed? Therefore, that in itself proves to me that if I believe in God, then I can't believe in evolution... a lot of people don't share this opinion, but I don't care... I would like you to show me why you think that we are related to animals without emotions, morality, or souls? Furthermore, I would like you to show me why scientists have so much evidence for all of these 'transition' species without proof of why they are all extinct? Wouldn't natural selection prove otherwise?

    July 26, 2010 at 10:56 am |
    • Luke

      bobross2 – LOL, what? If you believe in the Adam and Eve story and they had two sons, how did they populate the earth? Ewwwwww, incest! The bible is gross, Bob. In any event, our cousin animals display a wide variety of emotions and morality. Dogs wimper when their owners yell at them. Dogs also crawl under the covers and cuddle their owners. Cats play with other cats. Monkeys carry their young on their backs through dangerous situations. Gorilla nurture and protect other primates from hunters. Gorillas show emotion to human handlers and even speak via sign language that they are happy, sad and hungry. Many species of birds actually court their mates by making pretty displays of affection with flowers and nests. No emotion? What a nature show, Bob.

      July 26, 2010 at 11:28 am |
    • ThinkRationally

      Bob, the concept of transition species is a red herring. There were not species that served only and specifically as transition species. Were you to go back millions of years you would not be able to readily identify any transition species at all–everything would look normal, as though it all fit in. Without foreknowledge you would not be able to tell what species would evolve into what. Either you know this and are putting out the red herring intentionally, or you don't have an understanding of the science (which means you have no credibility in refuting it–you should recognize this within yourself and accord your "common sense" evidence an appropriately low level of credibility).

      "Transition species" is just a term used in retrospect when mapping the evolutionary path. Many are not around today, and so in some sense may have served as step along the path before vanishing. In their time, they fit in just as everything around them did. The term transition species is just a term. There are no half-man, half-ape, or half-fish, half-whatever, as some people as to be shown (though I'm not sure if you've conjured this ridiculous question yourself).

      July 26, 2010 at 2:57 pm |
    • ThinkRationally

      bob said, "would like you to show me why scientists have so much evidence for all of these 'transition' species without proof of why they are all extinct? Wouldn't natural selection prove otherwise?"

      How does natural selection disprove transition species? Why do you need proof about “why” something is extinct? I’m not sure I understand your question here, but I think natural selection can actually explain why many so-called transition species are extinct. The adaptations of their offspring generations may have simply proven more capable and therefore evolution favored that route.

      Look around you now, bob. Can you identify the transition species? No, you can’t, no more than you could have if you were looking around in any time period in history (setting aside for a minute the fact that you don’t believe all of this). In 100 million years, maybe that common species of bird that visits your lawn will be viewed as a transition species. It got too hot or too cold, its food source got scarce, whatever, but some of its offspring were able to adapt and head in a new direction; without proper adaption the bird species you know faded (just a simple hypothetical to discuss the topic of transition species). Does your question still make sense when things are viewed this way?

      July 26, 2010 at 3:27 pm |
  13. bobross2

    LUKE
    'You are going on unsubstantiated evidence from uneducated witnesses from 2000 years ago?'... Since when do you have to be educated in order know whether or not you saw someone??? And 2000 yrs ago? I don't understand what you're getting at? Obviously this all took place 2000 yrs ago, but since when does the age of an event and its evidence prove its falsity? It's not like there was a 400 yr gap between the resurrection and when the eye witnesses made their accounts. Does the fact that someone was born 500 yrs ago make them less real than someone who is born today??? And as far as unsubstantiated??? This is how I'm going to address this.... IT ALL COMES BACK TO THE EXISTENCE OF GOD!!!! The BIBLE is the only authority I need, but it doesn't help that there is historical evidence outside of the word....

    July 26, 2010 at 10:51 am |
    • Luke

      bobross2 – enjoy your ignorance.

      July 26, 2010 at 11:21 am |
    • NL

      bobross2-
      Many fantastic legends popped up about Davy Crockett even before he died, but were they true? Telling tall tales is only human nature, and many famous people have dubious stories told about them. Perseus, the Buddha, Romulus, Attis, Genghis Khan, Krishna, Huitzilopochtli, Horus, and Mercury were also said to have been born of virgins, but do you believe in these virgin births too?

      Isn't it fair, then, to say that you choose to believe in the bible over other equally ancient accounts not because of the inherent reliability of ancient sources in general, but because you are biased? That's hardly rational, but you can believe in whatever you wish, just as long as you realize that it's as obvious to the rest of us, OK?

      July 26, 2010 at 11:45 am |
    • MikeTheInfidel

      "It's not like there was a 400 yr gap between the resurrection and when the eye witnesses made their accounts."

      Nope – just 120 years, give or take a few decades. Well beyond the actual lifespan of an actual eyewitness...

      July 26, 2010 at 7:36 pm |
  14. Reality

    Once again, "There is a sucker born every minute"- P. T. Barnum

    July 26, 2010 at 10:42 am |
  15. Gary

    Luke this man is pathetic. Folks are either born gay or straight. He is a liar and a coward.

    July 26, 2010 at 10:09 am |
    • Luke

      Gary – Not that it really matters whether or not one is born gay or straight; he's gay or has gay experiemental habits and is a lair to the nth degree. And his flock buys it. I say he's smart, but his flock in a much worse state of mind.

      July 26, 2010 at 10:38 am |
  16. JohnQuest

    Luke, Interesting point church as a business. I don't think gullibility is the correct term, 99.9 % of believers grow up in that environment (by that I mean faith of some kind or another), they were indoctrinated before they could reason. They were taught that human reason was not sufficient to understand the soul, divinity, or spirituality. Consequently, although reason tells them that everything they were taught makes as much sense as the "moon being made of cheese " they substitute reality for faith. Not their fault, we can blame their parents and teachers, it is however their fault for continuing this to believe in the face of overwhelming evidence against such a belief and for passing it on to their children.

    July 26, 2010 at 10:01 am |
    • Luke

      It's called religion as a factor of geography. Look at a map with religion painted over the lines. It'll blow your mind.

      July 26, 2010 at 3:03 pm |
    • Atul C

      Religion will fail you but it is a man made thing but relationship with Jesus Christ will take you newer heights that you cannot understand with your finite mind. Of course, faith requires lot of belief in something. Funny thing is that there is not much scientific about science. Let me explain this. Science demands proof. If someone has a terminal cancer, you have to have certain level of faith to take those treatments/medications to get healed or better. How many people have really got healed of those treatment? Generally, cancer is terminal so should people stop taking medications. No. Treatments/medications work different for different people. Some people respond better, some don't. One of the factors that affects your treatment is your attitude and will power. Similarly, when faith and preparedness meet, miracles happen. If we could prove this scientifically, we could become God. Small kids have all the faith in their parents, they just believe their parents as it is. Santa, tooth fairy etc are the stories to mention to describe kids' faith.

      I have never met God personally but have experienced it which can not be explained scientifically. BTW, I have two master's degrees, one of them in Math majoring in "Einstein's theory of relativity". I would love to try to explain everything, but I accept that I cannot because we are humans have finite brain.

      July 26, 2010 at 5:24 pm |
    • hedshel01

      Atul C Science does not demand anything, in fact science is a tool for humans to gain knowledge and clearly it does a far better job than a relationship with Jesus could. As far as your comment on cancer treatments, the mind is a powerful tool without a doubt, and it is through science that we are beginning to understand the mind's ability to make physiological changes within the human body to aid the healing process i.e. the placebo effect.

      July 26, 2010 at 6:39 pm |
  17. Gary

    Ted is still Gay and still earning $ from guillable followers.

    July 26, 2010 at 8:58 am |
    • Luke

      Sad, isn't it? Think about where all of that money could be used for genuine causes such as scientific advancement, medicinal studies, education, AIDS research, feeding the hungry in Africa, local arts programs, etc. Makes my head explode.

      July 26, 2010 at 9:12 am |
  18. sheetiron

    Although you fell Ted. Its good that you know that nothing can separate you from the love of God, and that he is not through with you yet.

    July 26, 2010 at 8:41 am |
    • Luke

      What about all those years of bashing homosexuals, being a strident leader of those that deny gay rights, only to turn out to be a Meth addict that pays men for sexual favors? Doesn't being a disingenuous liar separate you from your god? What kind of person are you?

      July 26, 2010 at 9:10 am |
    • sheetiron

      What about being a person who out of zealous religious extreemism makes it a personel mission to lead a campaign to completely wipe out Christianity from the face of the earth by imprisoning, torturing its followers in every town? What about going from house to house grabing men, women, and children who adhere to the Christian faith and taking them to their death? That person should definitly be separated from the love of God dont you think? As it turns out, that person wasnt separated from the love of God. He later claimed to have an encounter with the ressurected Jesus, and became a Christian missionary. He single handedly spread Christianity throughout Europe, and wrote two thirds of the New Testament. We know him today as the Apostle Paul.

      July 26, 2010 at 9:09 pm |
    • Sybaris

      Of course not. In the name of his God there's more pockets to pick!

      July 27, 2010 at 4:33 pm |
    • bvilleyellowdog

      Yeah sure. More like he missed the easy money from gullible old ladies.

      July 28, 2010 at 2:20 pm |
    • David Johnson

      @Sheetiron

      Probably The Emperor Constantine had something to do with the spread of Christianity. Just a little. Wee bit.

      July 29, 2010 at 1:43 pm |
  19. Peter F

    Now that's a life turned around.

    July 26, 2010 at 12:39 am |
  20. Gatortarian

    I suppose it makes sense, religious people are gullible by nature or they would be atheists.

    July 25, 2010 at 6:31 pm |
    • Gary

      Gatortarian so true!

      July 25, 2010 at 8:36 pm |
    • bobross2

      Explain how religious people are gullible by nature Gatortarian? Believing in God is common sense, in fact you have to go out or your way to prove to yourself the falsity of something that is so self-evident... I think you may have it turned around, but I would be glad to point you where all of the evidence leads.

      July 26, 2010 at 8:22 am |
    • Gatortarian

      People who grow up with no knowledge of God don't believe in him, how is believing common sense? Only a gullible person would dedicate their lives to an idea that cannot be proven in any way.

      July 26, 2010 at 9:04 am |
    • Luke

      Well, it isn't all that hard to explain that the religious, particularly the followers of the Abrahamic religions, are gullible. Strictly by doctrine, you must believe wholeheartedly that a Jewish man, who is really his father, sacrificed himself via torture and then arose from the grave 3 days later. Furthermore, you must also believe absolutely concretely that a man lived in a whale, that the earth is only 6,000 years old, that evolution is false, that there is a personal god that interjects himself in your every action, that essentially the entire eastern world is following the wrong god(s), that Jesus will return to earth (people have been betting on this happening during their lifetimes for 2000 years only to be disappointed before they die themselves), that there is only one path to Yahweh, that the End Days is coming, etc. If you do not believe all of this, then you are cherry picking your religion. If you believe it all, you are gullible. End of story.

      July 26, 2010 at 9:08 am |
    • bobross2

      'People who grow up with no knowledge of God don't believe in him'... Who in the world grows up with no knowledge of God??? If you were the only person on earth you would have a knowledge of God, we were made in his image... its called self-revelation... that is why we all have a conscience and thus know right and wrong universally... Oprah likes to use this argument, but it is simply false... And God can be proven, if you would spend some time searching for the TRUTH, you could see that TRUE science and PHILOSOPHY point toward GOD(ID)... besides you have the burden of proof, not us.

      Luke: As far as your statements go... Why do you have such a small image of GOD... you are obviously thinking of GOD as a man, that is why you and so many others can't believe in the story of Jonah or the resurrection... It all starts with the resurrection... I personally have no problem believing in something that actually OCCURRED, there were 500 eye witnesses! What more do you need? Once you've established the validity of the resurrection, it is quite easy to believe that a GOD who rose Christ from the dead would also be capable of putting a man inside of a whale, etc... As far as the second coming.. you should really consider reading the bible, bc it predicts exactly where our culture is headed right now... and no one knows when Christ is coming back, but he is... I don't even want to begin on evolution... micro, I have no problem with, but macro is ridiculous... You would HAVE to be GULLIBLE to believe in MACRO-EVOLUTION.. I don't care how many SECULAR scientist tell you that its true... If you really think about it, it becomes obvious... all of these people are trying to hide GOD, but it is impossible bc he is everywhere!

      July 26, 2010 at 9:46 am |
    • Luke

      bobross2 – No knowledge of god? You mean most of China, most of Japan, most of India and the rest of the non-Abrahamic religions and nationas? So ethnocentric of you! When are you going to realize that religion is merely a factor of geography?

      July 26, 2010 at 9:58 am |
    • Luke

      bobross2 – 500 eyewitnesses? You are going on unsubstantiated evidence from uneducated witnesses from 2000 years ago? We can't even convict people of murder where there eye-witnesses in today's society! And you have just proven the gullibility factor. Furthermore, I have the bible (many versions of it in fact). Also, I would love for you to explain how macro evolution is false in your professional opinion. Don't go quoting people now. I would like your opinion. Evolution is the change in the inherited traits of a population of organisms through successive generations. It is mutually exclusive to the origins of life, which is very likely an unknown advanced chemical reaction. Evolution does not take into account the origins of life as well know it and occurred after the fact. You are lost.

      July 26, 2010 at 10:04 am |
    • civiloutside

      I would say I grew up with no knowledge of God, and I was raised Christian. Actually, to be closer to the truth, I was raised with exactly as much knowledge about the God of the Bible as I was raised with knowledge of the gods of ancient Rome, Greece, Egypt, or the Celts. Which is to say, just a bunch of stories that people told or wrote about them, but no personal experience of their existence whatsoever. The only difference being that my parents kept telling me that the one set of fables was true, and the other set of fables was "mythology."

      July 26, 2010 at 10:15 am |
    • civiloutside

      I'll point out that there is a substantial difference between there being 500 eyewitnesses to an event, and there being a single account which claims an event took place in front of 500 people.

      July 26, 2010 at 10:19 am |
    • NL

      bobross2
      Honestly, if God were self-evidednt then what need would we have of missionaries, ministers, the bible, or even churches? These things are part of a religious indoctrination system where God is taught to us, usually beginning in childhood. We are told that a sunrise is as sign of God, we are told that the bible is true, we are told that we were made in God's image, and we are told that a child surviving a car crash that claimed the rest of her family is still a miracle. These things are not self-evident, despite what you've read in Romans 1 & 2.

      If all eyewitness accounts constituted undeniable proof then everyone should believe in UFO aliens, Bigfoot, Leprechauns, the undead Elvis, and a host of other things, right? How about any eyewitness account mentioned in a book? Other religions claim eyewitness proof of miracles. Should we automatically believe? There are even eyewitness accounts of people being healed by touching Roman emperors. Should we choose to believe in those as well?

      July 26, 2010 at 10:49 am |
    • Woody

      bobross2 writes, "And God can be proven". Congratulations!!! If you can produce evidence, that can survive all scientific scrutiny, that absolutely proves that your god or any other god exists, you'll be the first person in the history of the world to do so.

      July 26, 2010 at 1:07 pm |
    • ThinkRationally

      Wow, bobross2, you are a master of rationalization.

      “If you were the only person on earth you would have a knowledge of God, we were made in his image”

      So, my appearance is what it is because there is a God? And God made me in his image, which is why my appearance is what it is? This is circular reasoning, bob, sorry.

      “that is why we all have a conscience and thus know right and wrong universally”

      We know right from wrong universally, do we? This implies that right and wrong are absolute, which implies that they never change. Let’s look at things from the Old Testament—the stonings, the killings, the wrath (over some comparatively trivial things, in many cases), and so on. Would you accept this as moral today, bob? If you respond with “no” then you are admitting that right and wrong (morality in general) is not absolute, thus refuting your statement. If you respond with “yes” then you condone stoning people to death for working on the Sabbath, the slaying of “every man his brother, and every man his companion, and every man his neighbor” to the tune of 3000 killings in Exodus 32, and a list of other atrocities. These would be considered reprehensible by the majority today, indicating no continuity of morality, and therefore no absolute morality (or right and wrong).

      “Why do you have such a small image of GOD”

      Argument through condescension?

      “Once you've established the validity of the resurrection, it is quite easy to believe that a GOD who rose Christ from the dead would also be capable of putting a man inside of a whale,”

      In for a penny, in for a pound? Why require evidence for everything, right? That would be so difficult. The premise here is that if you can believe one thing, then you might as well believe it all. You don’t, however, seem to apply this to micro evolution and on to macro evolution. You have one-way skepticism.

      “you would HAVE to be GULLIBLE to believe in MACRO-EVOLUTION.. I don't care how many SECULAR scientist tell you that its true... If you really think about it, it becomes obvious”

      So your premise is that you have it all figured out by just thinking about it, huh? No need to look at the evidence, because the facts are perfectly obvious? Just like when it was perfectly obvious that the Earth was flat? Just like when it was perfectly obvious that the Earth was the center of the universe and the Sun Revolved around the Earth? That kind of obvious, bob? Why keep the blinders on?

      “Believing in God is common sense, in fact you have to go out or your way to prove to yourself the falsity of something that is so self-evident”

      With reasoning like that, nobody is going to convince you otherwise. Just remember that lots of things once considered common sense (see above) are now known to be false.

      “you have the burden of proof, not us”

      Huh? Those who don’t believe are required to prove a negative? If there is no evidence to rebut, there is no need for any “proof” that the evidence is false.

      “consider reading the bible, bc it predicts exactly where our culture is headed right now”

      A prediction is only a prediction if it can be identified, with specifics, BEFORE an event happens. Looking at events and then cramming them into Biblical "prophecy" is simply an exercise in self-deception.

      Thank you for the torrent of illogic.

      July 26, 2010 at 2:24 pm |
    • RAWoD

      Agnostic doesn't count?

      July 26, 2010 at 2:25 pm |
    • Buster Bloodvessel

      To be more specific, if you intend to believe that a virgin had a baby and it grew up to be a god, but then it was arrested and killed but came back and then vanished, you;d better be pretty hard-headed about everything else. Where does it stop? You believe in Christ, but also that the president has no birth certificate and UFOs are stealing your cattle and the purple Teletubby is gay? Easier to say "you are just gullible." bobross is a good example, since he believes that the Bible predicts today's civilization. Wonder which iPhone app is the Bible's favorite? Does the Bible recommend Mac or PC computers, or is God into Linux? Does the Bible prefer the east or west coast rappers? bobross even says: "Do you really think that life came from non-life??? That is a logical fallacy?" Actually, that's called either "scientific creationism" or "intelligent design," depending on your religion, and is indeed a fallacy.

      July 26, 2010 at 2:39 pm |
    • ThinkRationally

      I should restate the circular reasoning bit from the above post more clearly. What you’re saying is that we know that God exists because he made us in his image, and we know we were made in his image because the Bible says so, and we know that the God of the Bible exists because he made us in his image...

      Aside from man-made images, are there even any images of God with which to compare humans? It makes much more “common sense” to say that God was created in man’s image (by man).

      July 26, 2010 at 2:44 pm |
    • Dan

      Even scientists believe in God, are they gullible? or have you mistakenly assumed that science should be the criteria for proving God's existence?

      July 26, 2010 at 2:57 pm |
    • Matthew

      To believe that the existence of God is "self-evident" is misunderstand the nature of faith. A true Christian is someone who understands that he or she is not allowed to know for certain that God exists. That is the whole point of faith; it is believe in something that you cannot verify with any amount of witnesses or facts. You must believe it on face. To attempt to turn religious faith-based ideology into fact destroys ones faith in that ideology. It is to attempt to turn religion into science. If scientific facts are proven to a sufficient degree, you do not "believe" in them, you learn and know them. To turn religion into a list of facts is to destroy your own chance to belief on faith. If you are going to belief something on faith, which is where the true power of a religious life lies, then you are not allowed to convert it to fact. You are not allowed to know if there is a god or not. You are not allowed to know the mysteries of the origin of the universe or its workings. You are not allowed to put yourself in the place of God. As you revere the Bible so much, I suggest that you read or reread the book of Job.

      July 26, 2010 at 2:59 pm |
    • Nonimus

      Matthew,
      While I can somewhat understand your argument for pure faith, I would have to wonder why then were the Apostles provided evidence?

      July 26, 2010 at 3:14 pm |
    • Matthew

      Nominus,

      I doubt they were. The individuals in whom the spark of religious creation ignites rarely deal in absolutes and facts. Their metaphysical musing are later converted to physical musings by followers who are either incapable of the conviction necessary to accept what the origin genius proposed on faith, are in some way dissatisfied with the ambiguity or incompleteness of what they have been taught, or who wish to turn psychospiritual ideas into dogma for the power and control of others.

      July 26, 2010 at 3:47 pm |
    • thes33k3r

      Thank you to Luke and ThinkRationally and for your posts. Keep up the good work.

      July 26, 2010 at 4:13 pm |
    • Nonimus

      Matthew,
      I'm confused. Are you saying that Jesus did not perform miracles and did not appear 3 days after crucifixion as evidence of the power of God? Are you saying that it was all a metaphor or allegory for people who are not strong enough to believe for belief's sake?

      July 26, 2010 at 4:31 pm |
    • Bob in North Carolina

      Actually Luke, you summarized the Christian faith quite well, and I do believe those things with 2 exceptions:

      1) The Bible does not say that Johah was swallowed by a whale – the exact wording is great fish.
      2) The actual age of the earth is up for discussion, but is not millions, billions of years as claimed by the evolutionists.

      The main problem with evolution, especially as it relates to the origins of the universe, is those pesky laws of thermodynamics, one of which says that matter and energy can neither be created nor destroyed. Which means that at some point in the history of the universe, there had to be an ultimate cause to which those rules did not apply. We Christians refer to that as God.

      The bottom line is that I cannot prove to you that God exists anymore than you can prove to me that He doesn't. It is a matter of faith. If that makes me gullible in your opinion then so be it.

      July 26, 2010 at 4:55 pm |
    • Matthew

      Nominus,

      What I am saying is that the resurrection of Christ, along with many of the the other particulars of the Christian faith, or any faith for that matter, are not intended to be verifiable as facts in the same way that we would check the barometer on our windowsill if we wished to know if a storm was approaching. People who belief things on faith are not allowed to know the mysteries of the universe. They believe in the psychospiritual ideas and even in the historicity of men like Jesus Christ on faith. I have no idea if Jesus Christ was a real man who lived and died during the Roman occupation of the tribal lands of the Hebrews. I do not know if he was the son of God, or if he arose. I do not even know if there is a God. I am not allowed, nor I think is any other human being allowed to verify or disprove these ideas empirically. Moreover, I believe a true Christian is someone who understands that belief in these ideas and even in the history of Jesus is a leap of faith, and is not equivalent to believing that a book or any eye witness reports confirm the events or ideas.

      I am well aware that this flies in the face of many passage in the Bible, which contains many absolute statements, not the least repeated of which is the affirmation of its own infallibility. But, I personally believe that the Bible, as a physical object in our imperfect world, has not been kept safe from the corruption of its many human contributors.

      July 26, 2010 at 4:55 pm |
    • Luke

      Bob in North Carolina – Evolution speaks nothing of the origins of the universe, or the origins of life on earth for that matter. You have proven, by your own words, that you have no idea what you are talking about and should refrain from posting on the topic. What you should be engaging in is a debate about astronomy, cosmology and theoretical physics. Try again.

      July 26, 2010 at 5:07 pm |
    • Nonimus

      Matthew,
      I can understand someone not wanting to have their faith depend on some piece of physical evidence, however, I think one would need to believe at least some aspect of the Bible in order to claim belief in a biblical god at all, else why call it that. Similarly, if one doesn't believe in the resurrection of Christ why call oneself a Christian? And, here again, why were the Apostles provided evidence?
      Or, in a larger sense, if "true Christians" are not allowed to be certain of any of these things, then why does to bible exist at all? Belief without even the Bible would seem to be the biggest of all leaps of faith and therefore the most worthy.

      Perhaps i'm a bit slow, but it seems to me that all this leads to the purest faith possible requiring the absence of any knowledge whatsoever, but then the faith itself would seem absent any meaning since one would not know what one's faith is in. hmmm, too much for me, i guess.

      July 26, 2010 at 5:36 pm |
    • Jeffzb

      It's important to remember that gullible people have no idea that they're gullible.. and will, upon being referred to as gullible, defensively scramble for every scrap of argument they can find to demonstrate they're living a life of facts.

      Faith is not fact, faith is faith. It's (an unfortunate) fact that faith exists, but it's not factual that the objects of that faith exist. People who believe in god tend to point at their FAITH in the existence of god as FACT that god exists, which, of course, is not only not valid, but also not sound.

      What I find so profoundly horrifiying is how the faithful so radically scramble to defend the one thing (i.e. religion) which has consistently demonstrated itself to be the single most damaging device to humanity over the course of recorded history. How many religion-induced genocides, wars, bombings, etc, etc, etc must humanity endure before we collectively realize that we must cast religion aside, for all time, to improve our collective condition. Ironically, despite its teachings, faith kills, people. The more fervently religion is defended, the more hate, fear, and death ultimately results.

      July 26, 2010 at 7:52 pm |
    • ThinkRationally

      Bob in North Carolina, just a couple of comments:

      “The actual age of the earth is up for discussion, but is not millions, billions of years as claimed by the evolutionists.”

      I don’t think “the evolutionists” are the ones who've established the age of the Earth. This is based more on other sciences like geology. It just so happens that it fits nicely with the very long timescales required for evolution. How have you established that the Earth is much younger than science has found?

      Luke has already commented on your error with regard to thermodynamics and evolution. I fail to see how the beginning of the universe is directly related to evolution.

      “Which means that at some point in the history of the universe, there had to be an ultimate cause to which those rules did not apply. We Christians refer to that as God.”

      I’m not sure all Christians would agree. What you’re describing sounds more like pantheism or panentheism than Christianity. Your statement seems to carry with it the implication that God set in motion the universe, but has not interfered with it since. Science does not actually rule this out, that I’m aware, as yet. However, as I understand it this is most certainly not the Christian view, nor can it be reconciled with the stories in the Bible (or even the existence of the Bible, or of Jesus, or any miracles, or anything like that).

      July 27, 2010 at 8:30 am |
    • Dawn

      Human beings have a natural need for a higher power. Ancients had gods. Primitive cultures had gods.

      July 27, 2010 at 8:46 am |
    • Mike Mazzla

      hey listen if this nut, with all his baggage, can trick a bunch of gullible religious bumpkins to joining his "church" more power to him. I give him props for making money off the religious.

      July 27, 2010 at 12:56 pm |
    • Chris

      I think I was more gullible in the past when I believed the lie that we are all alone.

      July 27, 2010 at 1:32 pm |
    • Pablo

      No. According to your logic, they have to be narcissistic and arrogant to be atheists. Some of the brightest people I know are people of faith. God or no God, the fact that we are all here and alive is crazy, so every belief is a little bit crazy. But we are not gods, so we can't understand God. Rather simplistic to generalize in that sense.

      July 27, 2010 at 2:54 pm |
    • Pablo

      What I find a little off, is these people claim to love Jesus, but in joining Haggard's church (or churches like it), they are putting no effort into seeking authentic, original Christian truth, but rather a new-age interpretation with no connection to the original Christian church. That helps spread division and schisms.

      July 27, 2010 at 2:56 pm |
    • Belief

      Just so you know athiest have faith as well. They believe that they are right and no God exist, but your view cannot be proven just as much as that of a believer could. There is no definate way that you are able to prove that God does not exist. It seem you are in the same position a believer is.

      July 27, 2010 at 4:00 pm |
    • Mike

      "Just so you know athiest have faith as well. They believe that they are right and no God exist, but your view cannot be proven just as much as that of a believer could. There is no definate way that you are able to prove that God does not exist. It seem you are in the same position a believer is."

      Not quite. The burden of proof falls on the believer not the nonbeliever. If I tell you that there are fairies in my garden then it is up to me to prove that there are actually fairies in my garden, not up to you to prove a negative. You can't prove the negative anyway, you can look in my garden and say "I see no fairies!" and I can simply reply "they are invisible". You are assuming that we (atheists) hold a negative belief in the same way that you hold a positive belief and this just isn't true. I don't believe that God exists, but that doesn't mean that I am 100% sure that he doesn't, just that there is no logical reason to believe that he does. "Believers" will tell you that God exists, and I will tell you that he probably doesn't; one requires faith, the other doesn't. Understand?

      July 27, 2010 at 4:26 pm |
    • Tim Olsen

      Wait until you experience the power of God. They you will not say this.

      July 27, 2010 at 5:15 pm |
    • Michael

      Tim Olsen,

      Which god? I like Ra personally.

      July 27, 2010 at 8:56 pm |
    • Ned Racine

      We need to disrespect the religious. They are, after all, delusional. I "disrespect" them in the same sense I disrespect those who believe in the Easter Bunny, believe in astrology, or who hear voices. Those who hear voices do so out of illness, however. Those who choose to "believe" in God do so out of choice, although many are also mentally ill.

      We need to stop "respecting" religion. It is a lie. It hurts people. It is taught to young children and it then hurts them. It isn't cute to teach children lies. It is child abuse. We would never feel it is acceptable to teach children that the Germans won WWII, or that the boogy monster really exists, but we find it acceptable to lie to children about this. So yes, I "disrespect" the religious, and anyone that cares about society and our children should do so as well.

      July 28, 2010 at 9:36 am |
    • T

      Why is it up to the Christian to prove God exist? Why don't you prove he doesn't.

      July 28, 2010 at 9:44 am |
    • Truth

      Actually, every athiest I know is either an alcoholic, an abuser or has low self-esteem. Usually all three.

      July 28, 2010 at 11:36 am |
    • civiloutside

      @ Truth: Really? Every atheist I know (including myself) is either a teetotaller or a mild social drinker, has never laid a hand on anyone in anger, and is reasonably happy with their lives and selves at the moment. But I've known plenty of religious people who were alcoholics, abusers, or had low self esteem. Anecdotal evidence proves nothing beyond your own experiences (and/or prejudices).

      July 28, 2010 at 12:28 pm |
    • brad

      religion is a system of ideas. Atheism is only an attitude. Imagine there's no heaven, it isn't hard to do.
      There's a choice here between gullible people and mentally lazy ones after all "it's easy if you try."

      July 28, 2010 at 1:03 pm |
    • Nonimus

      @T:"Why is it up to the Christian to prove God exist? Why don't you prove he doesn't."

      It is generally the responsibility of the one making a claim, like 'God exists', that is responsible for backing up their claim. Most atheists, that I'm aware of, aren't making a claim; they are simply saying that they don't believe the claims of theists. Asking someone to prove God doesn't exist is like someone asking you to prove that Zeus doesn't exist, assuming you are not a follower of Zeus.

      July 28, 2010 at 1:32 pm |
    • Reason4Doubt

      I tend to consider metaphysical discussions rather pointless.

      July 28, 2010 at 2:54 pm |
    • Nonimus

      @Reason4Doubt: Good point.

      July 28, 2010 at 2:56 pm |
    • David Johnson

      @ThinkRationally

      Good job refuting bobross2's arguments. I could not have done better. Salute!

      July 29, 2010 at 12:21 pm |
    • David Johnson

      @RAWoD

      You said, "Agnostic doesn't count?"

      Not only counts, but in my opinion, it is the only reasonable position to take. I can't prove there is no god. Believers can't prove there is a god.

      July 29, 2010 at 12:31 pm |
    • David Johnson

      @Dan

      You said, "Even scientists believe in god"

      WikiAnswers:
      In the United States, 7 percent of eminent scientists believe in God, while 40 percent of less eminent scientists believe in God. In Britain, the survey indicated that just under 5 percent of eminent scientists believe in God. A lesser proportion would believe in creation; it is known that many of the general population who believe in God do not necessarily believe in a literalist version of the Creation story. In fact, Biblical-literalist creationism is considered a fringe belief"

      It would depend largely on which discipline you singled out.

      July 29, 2010 at 12:50 pm |
    • David Johnson

      @Dawn

      You said, "Human beings have a natural need for a higher power. Ancients had gods. Primitive cultures had gods."

      Yes, but all that proves is that humans like to invent gods. I recently read a book. It had 3 pages, single spaced, names of all the gods that men have worshipped throughout history. They are all forgotten now. But once, they were loved and prayed to and feared.

      No one wants to die. Gods give us a chance to never die.

      Cheers!

      July 29, 2010 at 1:02 pm |
    • David Johnson

      @Nonimus

      There are thousands of different Christian denominations. Mathew has just invented one more! Pure faith!

      July 29, 2010 at 1:12 pm |
    • David Johnson

      @Truth

      The cry from the religious is that atheists are not moral. The country, if not the world, would fall into chaos with everyone doing horrible things.

      Look out your door. Millions of non-believers are not raping, robbing or killing. They are living peaceful and productive lives, apparently without the help of any god.

      Meanwhile, not all of course, but millions of believers are raping, robbing and killing. It seems that, for some reason, the gods failed to inject them with that "code" you speak of. OOPS!

      If a belief in god gives a person the "one up" on morality, why aren't non-believers more visible as a leading criminal element in society?

      Using percentages of total population, the percentage of atheists in prison is much smaller – less than 1%.

      July 29, 2010 at 1:35 pm |
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
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.