April 11th, 2011
11:21 AM ET

Leading atheist publishes secular Bible

By Jessica Ravitz, CNN

The question arose early in British academic A.C. Grayling’s career: What if those ancient compilers who’d made Bibles, the collected religious texts that were translated, edited, arranged and published en masse, had focused instead on assembling the non-religious teachings of civilization’s greatest thinkers?

What if the book that billions have turned to for ethical guidance wasn’t tied to commandments from God or any one particular tradition but instead included the writings of Aristotle, the reflections of Confucius, the poetry of Baudelaire? What would that book look like, and what would it mean?

Decades after he started asking such questions, what Grayling calls “a lifetime’s work” has hit bookshelves. “The Good Book: A Humanist Bible,” subtitled “A Secular Bible” in the United Kingdom, was published this month. Grayling crafted it by using more than a thousand texts representing several hundred authors, collections and traditions.

The Bible would have been “a very different book and may have produced a very different history for mankind,” had it drawn on the work of philosophers and writers as opposed to prophets and apostles, says Grayling, a philosopher and professor at Birkbeck College, University of London, who is an atheist.

“Humanist ethics didn’t claim to be derived from a deity," he says. "(They) tended to start from a sympathetic understanding of human nature and accept that there’s a responsibility that each individual has to work out the values they live by and especially to recognize that the best of our good lives revolve around having good relationships with people.” 

Humanists rely on human reason as an alternative to religion or belief in God in attempting to find meaning and purpose in life.

Determined to make his material accessible, Grayling arranged his nearly 600-page "Good Book" much like the Bible, with double columns, chapters (the first is even called Genesis) and short verses. And much like the best-selling King James Bible, which is celebrating its 400th year, his book is written in a type of English that transcends time.

Like the Bible, "The Good Book," opens with a garden scene. But instead of Adam and Eve, Grayling's Genesis invokes Isaac Newton, the British scientist who pioneered the study of gravity.

"It was from the fall of fruit from such a tree that new inspiration came for inquiry into the nature of things," reads a verse from "The Good Book's" first chapter.

"When Newton sat in his garden, and saw what no one had seen before: that an apple draws the earth to itself, and the earth the apple," the verse continues, "Through a mutual force of nature that holds all things, from the planets to the stars, in unifying embrace."

The book's final chapter features a secular humanist version of the Ten Commandments: "Love well, seek the good in all things, harm no others, think for yourself, take responsibility, respect nature, do your utmost, be informed, be kind, be courageous: at least, sincerely try."

Grayling, reached Friday at a New York hotel just as he began his U.S. book tour, has been dubbed by some a “velvet atheist” or an “acceptable face of atheism,” he says, in contrast to more stridently anti-religious writers like Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins, both of whom he counts as friends.

In other contexts, Grayling - who will soon take over as president of the British Humanist Association - admits he’s written critically about religion. But not in "The Good Book."

“It’s not part of a quarrel,” he says of his latest work. “It’s a modest offering… another contribution to the conversation that mankind must have with itself,” and one he says he wrote for everyone, Bible lovers included.

Given where society is today, inviting that conversation is all the more important, he says.

More than 16% of Americans say they are unaffiliated religiously, according to the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life. Even so, Grayling says the hunger for a spiritual connection continues. That yearning, he argues , can be satisfied for many by taking a walk in the country, curling up with a beautiful book of poetry or even in falling in love.

“In all different ways, we can celebrate the good in the world,” he says.

While many intellectual traditions – religious and otherwise – teach that there’s “one right way to live,” Grayling says he hopes “The Good Book” will encourage people to “go beyond your teachers, your text” to understand that “we have to respect and relate to one another.”

Early sales indicate that people are open to what this new "Bible" teaches. On Monday, Grayling’s book was number 41 on Amazon’s UK bestseller list and number 1 in the philosophy and spirituality categories.

- CNN Writer/Producer

Filed under: Atheism • Bible • Books • Culture & Science • Ethics

soundoff (3,021 Responses)
  1. Mike in SC

    Last comment was @ Stef Macardi.

    April 12, 2011 at 1:04 pm |
  2. Huw

    The word atheist is being used by people who have no understanding of the original meaning of the word. Atheist is used once in the scriptures, in Ephesians by Paul, "having no hope and atheist in the cosmos". Atheist means "without Elohim" (God). The atheist is without Elohim by the predetermination of Elohim and not by choice of the person. To be atheist is to be reprobate, set apart for destruction.

    April 12, 2011 at 1:02 pm |
  3. Bill 8432

    The day science adequately explains the human soul, and where it comes from, is the day I will believe in nothing. I've read Evolution of the Species, and Darwin speaks nothing of the soul; just the biological functions. As for the secular Bible...too late, Mr. Grayling, Thomas Jefferson has already beat you to the punch.

    April 12, 2011 at 12:51 pm |
    • Nonimus

      What exactly do you mean by a "soul"?

      April 12, 2011 at 2:55 pm |
    • Doc Vestibule

      I've read Darwin's "On The Origin of Species", but never the one you cite. Do you know where I can get a copy?
      And to echo Nonimus, please define soul for us.

      A Candid Conversation between Two Species

      The Man: I am the predilect object of Creation, the centre of all that exists…
      The Tapeworm: You are exalting yourself a little. If you consider yourself the lord of Creation, what can I be, who feed upon you and am ruler in your entrails?
      The Man: You lack reason and an immortal soul.
      The Tapeworm: And since it is an established fact that the concentration and complexity of the nervous system appear in the animal scale as an uninterrupted series of graduations, where are we cut off? How many neurons must be possessed in order to have a soul and a little rationality?
      – Santiago Ramon y Cajal, Recollections of My Life

      April 12, 2011 at 4:16 pm |
    • Ed

      I can not prove it to you but we are more than our biologic physical forms. Our intellict also can not be easily explained. The adult human has similar mass throughtout the species some slightly large then others but similar. However some of use are singnificantly smart than others. I for one am no Einstein but am of above average intelligence. There is no significant evidence that a perosn with a slight larger brain is smarter. Therefore the size of the brain is not the determing factor. It would be logical to assume it was but its not. Our intelligence is more than just our physical brain size. Our brain does not explain emmotions so far science has not be abl to explain love, hate, desire, fear, anger etc or why the same stimulus has a different effect of people. Some of it is learned but not all. Emotions come from a unknown force. So if hour intelligence and emtions can not be expalined soley by brian size can not a soul also exist? Also there are numerous stories of well ghosts. Science inself recognize the study of the paranormal now if your physical body is all the is wher do the ghost come from? Finally for years people said the did not believe in atoms becasue the could not be seen. The still can't but we know they are there just because you can see a sould doesn't mean its not there.

      April 12, 2011 at 5:43 pm |
  4. hannsulu

    to all pathetic believer of the medieval book do wake up from ur dream and start facing the truth about the reality. the things have been brainwash human mind for century and it time for u to look and think from different angle and aspect and u probably will found something different. Human is the creation of human.

    Atheist is life

    April 12, 2011 at 12:04 pm |
    • Lycidas

      Wow, you really need to work on your time references...ALOT.

      And according to atheism, nothing is "life" as you use the term.

      April 12, 2011 at 2:31 pm |
  5. Marianne

    Christian, Atheists, Muslims... you are all the same to me... pathetic and whining fanatics that need to impose your beliefs or lack-there-of on other people.

    April 12, 2011 at 12:01 pm |
    • Nonimus

      Thanks for imposing your beliefs on this blog.

      April 12, 2011 at 2:52 pm |
  6. Lucas

    Oh Baby Jesus save us!

    April 12, 2011 at 11:52 am |
  7. Glennie Burks

    WHAT THING OR SOMETHING DO WE KNOW(seen to the eye) THAT HAS NEVER FAILED US ONCE IN LIFE OR HAVE NOT LIVED TO OUR EXPECTATIONS SOMEHOW??? Everything has! Down to the very roads we must take detours on. Even our parents at times bc they are not perfect. However what is not seen to the eye has NEVER failed us..You must believe and This Book puts an eye and comprehension on things simply bc Man can not do as such with God

    April 12, 2011 at 11:49 am |
    • Glennie Burks

      and Whats not seen has not failed us simply by the first act of its never reviled its self....DONT WE GET IT? Why would God Come down and say HEy Im GOD, thats like a teacher giving us all the answers on the test and we learn nothing.

      April 12, 2011 at 11:52 am |
  8. Stef Macardi

    I disagree whole heartedly with most of this. Robert Patinson is perhaps the only actor alive today who can balance stunning good looks with strong acting ability.

    April 12, 2011 at 11:49 am |
  9. Bob

    The evidence of G0d is all around us.. Look at the details of an organism, life, environment, space. Can you really feel secure knowing this was all just a wild chance happening? Really? If you are secure in that belief, then that is all you need to know and you are good with that belief. There is nothing I can do to change that. If I then asked you what are the odds of a hurricane blowing through a junkyard and leaving in its wake a fully functional 747 ready to take off.. what would you say to me? Thats impossible? I know I would say "no way that can happen". Life, earth, the universe are so much more ordered and precise than any machine we can make, yet a majority of people just believe we are here because of "chance". We as humans and our planet and our universe just happened to become a product of the "big bang". There was indeed a big bang and there is evidence of it. I believe the evidence, but I also believe the origin of the big bang was G0d opening his hands and creating everything we are aware of. I live my life in faith, but I certainly dont try to convince anyone to believe what I do. Faith and belief come from the heart and can never be forced on anyone. Nobody wins when we all try to convince everyone else that we are right and they are wrong. Everyone must be secure in their own faith, whatever that may be. I hold G0d and Jesus as my truth. I live my life trying to reflect that love to the world. If someone asks me "what is it in you that makes you who you are?" I will explain to them what my faith is. I will not try and convince them of anything. The decision is yours.. not mine. Free will, we all have it.

    April 12, 2011 at 11:36 am |
    • Nonimus

      "I will not try and convince them of anything."
      And yet that is what you are doing with your "...evidence of God... all around us...".

      First, evolution is not "all just a wild chance." Specifically, natural selection means that those individuals best adapted to their environment reproduce more successfully than other individuals, which is not random.

      Second, the old "hurricane through a junkyard" argument is an invalid analogy since the materials in a junk yard and 747s are not living things. When you show us 747s mating and producing little Cessnas, then we can revisit your analogy.

      April 12, 2011 at 2:49 pm |
  10. ThorGoLucky

    Excellent, an actual good book instead of one that's crazier than a bag of wet weasles about a jealous genocidal maniac god. "Bible" simply means "book" and it's a happy thing that the word is being used in a secular context. Bravo!

    April 12, 2011 at 11:25 am |
  11. Corie Robe

    It is too dumb to think that if you choose not to believe in God it would be "too late" when it is time to "face the absolute truth." I remain neutral because it is frustrating to ask the constant what if's? and I can't fathom the idea of my children not being taken care of in the "after life" because we chose not to attend Church.

    April 12, 2011 at 11:17 am |
  12. Lara

    I get so very tired of these discussions. I am tired of religious people telling me I'm going to hell, I'm sick of atheist viewing all believers as stupid. Morallity has little to do with faith. We're all good people (well not all of us, but there are good people in both groups) because we act on what we feel is right. Whether that is based on the book your parents thought you to read, respect and live by or by the morals that are simply embedded in our society and tought to us, we all try to be good people. Religious people would do well to realise that the bible is a 2000 year old interpretation of what the writers witnessed and that you cannot rely on it to be entirely true. Atheist would do well to get off their high horse and concider al believers as followsome sheep that cannot think for themselves, they did and they came to the conclusion that the bible was the guide they wanted to use to lead their lives.
    Now, if there is a god and he truly is infallible, than none of his creations will go to hell.

    April 12, 2011 at 10:49 am |
    • Carlton

      Believing in the Living God is not a religion. People need to look past religion and learn that believing and have faith in God is a lifestyle that is meant to draw people in and not to condemn you. The "real" bible says that everbody has sinned and done something that they were not supposed to but Jesus saved us all when he died on the Cross. All you have to do is to believe. To God be the Glory.

      April 12, 2011 at 11:19 am |
    • Carlton

      God does not want you to go to Hell. He doesn't send you there, you will be judged on your actions that you have performed on this earth by God. He only judges you on the things that you have done. If you haven;t been doing what the Bible says then God said that he was Just and only gives you what you deserve. You will reap what you sow. You have a choice between Heaven and Hell. Just believe.

      April 12, 2011 at 11:23 am |
  13. Steve

    I'm an atheist and I hope this book is a complete flop. CNN: there is no such thing as a "leading atheist" (or especially a "top atheist" as the tag link said from the front page.) There is no such thing as a securlar Bible. The actual Bible was not the work of a single compiler and does not represent some sort of pocket encyclopedia of one man's favorite writings and ideas. Of course the Bible would have been a "very different book". Duh. It also wouldn't have been of any interest to the people it was written for.

    This is a book written by a man with a very poor grasp of both human nature and history. Ivory tower to the core. Do not buy into his false modesty. He is buoyed by his own ego.

    Atheism has no tenets. No commandments. Not even advice. Atheism is simply the lack of religious belief. NOTHING MORE. My beliefs and values are not his. He does not represent me. This man does no service by connecting his work wth the Bible or any other religious text. He simply insults the followers of Biblical religions and hardens their position against atheism. Let him have his 15 minutes, and then fade away out of even the annals of history.

    April 12, 2011 at 10:43 am |
    • Michael

      "My beliefs and values are not his. He does not represent me. This man does no service by connecting his work wth the Bible or any other religious text. He simply insults the followers of Biblical religions and hardens their position against atheism."

      So... If it doesn't conform to what you personally believe, then it should just go away. You are the only person on the planet that can believe a certain way? Sounds more like an agenda than a faith...

      April 12, 2011 at 11:07 am |
    • GSOgymrat

      This book appears to be about Humanistic principles, not atheism per say.

      April 12, 2011 at 11:39 am |
    • Steve

      My agenda is quite simple. (Treating "agenda" as a dirty word is silly.) I am an atheist. Atheist is a word with a particular, man-made definition. That definition is a person who does not believe in gods. If society changes the definition, then I will simply stop calling myself an atheist. But it hasn't. Therefore I do not want anyone ascribing their personal belief system to me. That is my agenda. There is no Pope of atheism. He can publish his beliefs all he wants, but I don't want it to succeed. He can believe anything he wants, but don't try to say this is what atheists "believe". Atheism is a LACK of belief, pure and simple. Call this Graylingism, not atheism.

      April 12, 2011 at 11:44 am |
    • Nonimus

      While I agree with your intent to clarify Atheism, in Grayling's defense his ti.tle is actually, “The Good Book: A Humanist Bible,” subti.tled “A Secular Bible” in the United Kingdom.

      April 12, 2011 at 12:05 pm |
    • Steve

      Hi GSOgymrat. I understand your point. I could accept it better if this book wasn't so explicitly tied to the Bible.

      April 12, 2011 at 12:07 pm |
    • Mike in SC

      You really seem to be getting caught on this "Bible" concept. It sounds more like a compilation or "greatest hits" book with a certain overarching organization to it. The "Bible" moniker seems like a wink and a nod kind of thing. The fact that you would overtly want this book to fail before either reading it or finding more of what it is about strikes me a highly irrrational thing to do to be honest. At first it made me wonder if you were just a religious nut claiming to be an atheist... I'm not entirely convinced you still aren't but w/e.

      April 12, 2011 at 12:53 pm |
    • Ed

      As a "religious nut" I have to disagree with you Steve I hope his book does well I plan to read someof it enought to determine if I want to buy it or not. If I decide to buy it then read the whole think. He claims he wrote it in the style of the Bible because the Bible was well designed for the masses in the interview. I have read some of the great philosphers work like Confucious, Socrates etc this book seems to compile their work into one source whicj will make easier for people to to be exposed to them. I think its a god idea. I have not read any of it yet so it may turn out to just be a bad book but I hoepe not. I think your making the same mistake some of my follow christian have and judging it before you read any of it. Like them I would suggest reading some of it first.

      April 12, 2011 at 2:41 pm |
    • Ed

      of course I am a "religious nut"

      April 12, 2011 at 2:41 pm |
    • Steve

      Mike and Ed:  First, thank you for your replies.  I want to say that because, while I don't agree with your positions, I appreciate that you took the time to present them.

      Mike:  The axe I have to grind is specifically around connecting an atheistic work to the Bible, which is one of the reasons I'm banging on about it.  (Humanism or Secularism is simply a way to soft wrap "atheism" here.)  It's that sort of approach that makes people call atheism a religion.  It's that sort of approach that inflames hostility towards atheism and, more pertinently, atheists.  It's that sort of approach that makes people say, "this is what all atheists believe".  Whether you choose to say it out loud or not, the message to a believer is clear;  "You're dumb.  Your religion is a joke.  Only an ignorant fool believes it."  To take someone's sacred text and parody it simply offends believers.  Go to Amazon and start reading his Genesis, and try to honestly say this isn't both a parody and an attack on Christian beliefs.  Also, while I obviously can't prove it, I am an atheist, although some people might prefer "agnostic".  I have concluded that there is no God or gods, but recognize that I don't know everything there is to know, and so could be wrong.

      Ed:  there are lots of anthologies out there.  The issue (to me) is, again, there is no reason to parody a religious text in compiling it.  It's disingenuous of Greyfing to say it isn't an attack on religion.  It doesn't matter if every word of it is amazing, it's the APPROACH that is problematical.

      April 13, 2011 at 12:00 am |
    • Nonimus

      Not sure I completely understand your position, because you seem to be confusing Atheism with Humanism, which are not the same thing. Unlike Atheism, which is a lack of belief, Humanism does propose concepts which are believed to be good to follow, or as Wikipedia puts it:
      "A secular ideology which espouses reason, ethics, and justice, whilst specifically rejecting supernatural and religious dogma as a basis of morality and decision-making."

      While "Atheist publishes a secular Bible" is technically correct in that Grayling is an Atheist. It is misleading in that it is *not* an Atheist bible, but a Humanist Bible written by an Atheist. I also would not disagree that calling it a bible in the first place is counter productive, but how does that affect you as an Atheist.

      April 13, 2011 at 5:34 pm |
  14. Steve

    Why do people always forget that Thomas Jefferson did the same thing 200 years ago.

    April 12, 2011 at 10:28 am |
    • Nonimus

      This seems a bit different. Correct me if I'm wrong but the Jefferson Bible was entirely from the Bible, just an "abridged" version. Grayling's seems to be more a composite of a variety of sources of "wisdom," not just the Bible.

      April 12, 2011 at 11:54 am |
    • Mediocrates

      Because, Steve, did not write a secular bible. He merely annotated the new testament.

      April 12, 2011 at 12:00 pm |
  15. Geneva

    You are very lucky that God is full of mercy and love, that he is not prompt to anger..if not you couldn't say all tha foolishness you are saying without dropping dead

    April 12, 2011 at 10:05 am |
    • Rob

      Obviously you haven't read the Old Testament. God's kill-count is higher than any human genocidal maniac you can name. He's full of anger.

      April 12, 2011 at 10:26 am |
    • Nonimus

      Alternatively, Atheists *are* glad that God doesn't exist, so they don't have to worry about such nonsense.

      April 12, 2011 at 11:51 am |
    • Mike in SC

      Just as we are all lucky that unicorns are gentile creatures rather than angry. Otherwise they would be skewering and stampeding us CONSTANTLY!

      April 12, 2011 at 12:34 pm |
  16. Frespech

    There simply is no basis to believe that if man is just an animal then the only lesson learned is survival of the fittest. No room for morals-no punishment for killing-great thinkers were such because they have qualities of God inherent in them. But hey if Sarah Palin can make money off of publishing nonsense, then why not a secular bible.

    April 12, 2011 at 9:54 am |
    • Wayne

      Religion is a very poor source of ethics. Most moral people recognize tthis.

      April 12, 2011 at 1:10 pm |
  17. Mosterd

    Once again it becomes clear that Atheism is solely rooted in the denial of physical death. You can write all the Humanist bibles you want, but by pretending that dead does not exist for you is living a lie. The Bible is not centered on enhancing the life experience of human beings at all, it is centered around things that TRANSCEND humanity and humanness, such as the spiritual reality ,birth, death, afterlife, God, salvation, heaven, mysticism, hell. The 'perfect moral you' is not the theme of the Bible at all. Again, atheists are in denial about the sure reality of physical death. They delude themselves thinking they live forever on planet earth.

    April 12, 2011 at 9:49 am |
    • Doc Vestibule

      I call foul on you, sir.
      The atheist does not deny physical death. If anything, he has more readily accepted his mortality than the religionist.
      A religionist desperately clings to the comfort that comes from teh concept of an afterlife.
      The atheist recognizes that this corporeal life is all we shall ever have.
      Delusions of immortality are the stuff of religion, not atheism.

      April 12, 2011 at 9:56 am |
    • KRS1

      How do you figure the atheist won't accept death. Is it not religion that tells you that you don't really die... that you go to heaven and it's the happiest place ever? if anything religion is responsible for making death seem less scary.

      April 12, 2011 at 11:24 am |
    • Mike in SC

      Your rant makes virtually no sense, but it does have some entertainment value, like listening to scat music. Yours is like reading scat.

      April 12, 2011 at 12:30 pm |
    • Ed

      @mosterd I have to agree with the atheist on this. They aren't dening death they are dening the after leife you seem to have it backwards

      April 12, 2011 at 1:01 pm |
    • Barlingwood

      häää? Its amazing how you have things exactly backwards! I am a practicing humanist and I live my life to the full and try to make those around me happy accepting that this one life is all I have and death really is final as in the end of my consciousness. The only thing that lives on beyond my biological death is the effect I have had on others. YOU christians are the ones who live under the delusion that your conscious perspective can be immortal. That if you are a really good boy or girl then the omnipotent wizard that created the fabric of reality and actually cares about you personally, insignificant virus that you are in comparison to him/her/it, will party with your ghost forever and ever and it will never get boring or old...

      April 12, 2011 at 2:21 pm |
  18. McDowell

    I bet the book is full of contradictions.

    April 12, 2011 at 9:49 am |
    • Roger

      like the bible

      April 12, 2011 at 10:01 am |
    • Educated_1981

      Roger, you have never read the Bible cover to cover have you? No greater teacher in the history of mankind than the Bible, everything in it lines up with itself, from the teachers pre-Jesus Christ, to his teachings to mankind. This book by an atheist, will be a joke, and a flop.

      April 12, 2011 at 11:58 am |
    • Ed

      May be people should read at least some of it before basing judgement on it. I not saying its a good or bad book. I haven't read any of it so I don't know. I don't see why so many of my follow christians are upset about it though. Its a book that in some fashion or another expresses the atheist point of view. I don't know how I haven't read it. It is not an attack on the Bible or even from what the article indicated inteneded to convert believers to none believers. So let those whio don't beleive read it and those who read it too if their faith is strong it will be a book read if not, well their faith is already weak so it may or may not make a difference. I thinks its a great idea I will at least read some of it before I pass judgement on whether I want to read it or not. In any case I not worried about its effect on the Bible which will continue anyway.

      April 12, 2011 at 12:56 pm |
  19. james

    "Like the Bible, "The Good Book," opens with a garden scene. But instead of Adam and Eve, Grayling's Genesis invokes Isaac Newton, the British scientist who pioneered the study of gravity."
    Well Newton said: "Opposition to godliness is atheism in profession and idolatry in practice. Atheism is so senseless and odious to mankind that it never had many professors.[Brewster, Sir David. A Short Scheme of the True Religion, manuscript quoted in Memoirs of the Life, Writings and Discoveries of Sir Isaac Newton Edinburgh, 1850.]

    What an irony. We accept some ideas of that Person but rejects what goes against our point of view...

    April 12, 2011 at 9:38 am |
    • Carlos Marin

      It's called thinking by yourself rather than submitting to authority. For example, you can embrace Bobby Fischer's ideas about chess strategy and not share his anti-American and anti-Semitic rantings.

      April 12, 2011 at 12:50 pm |
    • Maybe


      Newton was heavily into numerology and alchemy too. We can certainly accept his proven ideas and reject those with no proof.

      April 12, 2011 at 1:01 pm |
  20. bones1918

    “And besides, really, how can you be a militant atheist? How can you be militant non-stamp collector? This is really what it comes down to. You just don’t collect stamps. So how can you be a fundamentalist non-stamp collector? It’s like sleeping furiously. It’s just wrong.”

    A.C. Grayling said that. Coudln't have said it better myself.

    April 12, 2011 at 9:30 am |
    • Ed

      @bones1918, I agree being a militant ateist seems contradictory but I have known 2 examples. My aunt is very dogmatic in her disapproval of relegion so much so the my grandmother who is in poor health and lives with her is afraid to ask to go to church becasue in her words my aunt "will get mad at her." Why let the woman go to church if it makes her feel better its not hurting my aunt is it? The other was in high school a small group of students who were ateisist according to them would start fights with any one the heard say God in anyway. I am sure these are the exception to rule and most atheist I know are not like this. However these are 2 examples of what could be considered militant ateism.

      April 12, 2011 at 12:30 pm |
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39
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.