home
RSS
Church extends authority to absolve sin of abortion for papal visit
August 18th, 2011
02:13 PM ET

Church extends authority to absolve sin of abortion for papal visit

By Dan Gilgoff, CNN.com Religion Editor

(CNN) - The Vatican has given authority to priests who are in Madrid during the pope’s visit there to give absolution to women who confess to having had an abortion - and has empowered priests to lift excommunications for such women.

Typically, only certain priests have the power to grant absolution for the sin of abortion and to lift excommunications that have resulted from terminated pregnancies, according to a Vatican spokesman.

“All the priests that are administering the sacrament of confession during World Youth Day have the general authority to give absolution from the penalty of excommunication for abortion if someone comes to confession… if someone has this need,” Vatican spokesman Rev. Federico Lombardi told CNN on Thursday, referring to the event that brought Pope Benedict XVI to Madrid on Thursday for a four-day visit.

Madrid Archbishop Antonio María Rouco Varela announced the extension of such authority to more priests in a statement on the archdiocese's website, saying the move was made in hopes that "all of the faithful who attend the celebrations of the 26th World Youth Day in Madrid can more easily attain the fruits of divine grace, that the doors to a new life open for them."

The church has set up 200 confessional booths in a Madrid park for priests to hear confessions in.

Varela said the Roman Catholic Church “has conferred to all the priests legitimately approved to hear sacramental confessions, who are in the archdiocese of Madrid during August 15 to 22, the delegated power to remit during the sacrament of penance the excommunication… corresponding to the sin abortion, to the faithful who are truly sorry, imposing at the same time a convenient penance.”

Benedict’s Spain visit coincides with a weeklong series of religious events that the Roman Catholic Church organizes every three years.

Lombardi said that the Vatican often extends authority to absolve certain sins and to lift excommunications at big papal events. Any woman who knows that the church considers abortion a sin and goes through with the procedure is automatically excommunicated, Lombardi said.

"This is not only for women," Lombardi said. "If a man has given the pressure on the women to do an abortion then he's guilty in the same way."
A spokesman for the Catholic Church in Spain said that the extension of priestly authority around abortion applies only to priests who are in the Madrid archdiocese for World Youth Day festivities.

On Thursday the pope was greeted by a large crowd of followers, including youths from all over the world, but his visit was not without controversy. With Spain suffering a deep economic crisis and nearly 21% unemployment, the amount that the pope's visit is costing the country has been top news in recent days.

The pope arrived in Madrid as protests took place in the city over that cost. The economic crisis has previously sparked protests in the country.

- CNN's Al Goodman and Mariano Castillo contributed to this report.

- CNN Belief Blog Co-Editor

Filed under: Abortion • Catholic Church • Spain

soundoff (1,031 Responses)
  1. Bob

    So if you're fortunate to confess your sin in Madrid during this time, all is well? How about the rest of the world? The Catholic church is so much BS. I'm not ripping on the Catholic faithful if they are sincere. But Christ died on the cross for our sins. Salvation comes through Grace alone, Faith alone, and Scripture alone. The marvelous atonement of Jesus Christ and the truth of his Word is so simple and it is for everyone. I have been so much more at peace since I realized the road to Heaven does not travel through Rome. Thank God!

    August 23, 2011 at 10:38 am |
    • brad

      Bob, is CNN your only source of information. Here's some first-person input: I've been a Catholic for decades. For many years the Catholic church has offered Rachel's Vinyard ( in 23 countries !) to help women cope with the effects of abortion. The Church also offers Project Gabriel to help BOTH mother and child. I personally know several women, practicing Catholics, who were reconciled years ago.

      As to you're comment about the churching being BS – Jesus knew what he was doing. Jesus chose Peter, a man who denied him, to be the first among equals in the early church. Thus, in spite of all the attacks from the outside and corruption from the inside, the church continues to survive, and has for 2000 years. That is the miracle of Catholicism. The other guys have the same problems, but they just keep sub-dividing and diluting themselves.

      August 23, 2011 at 11:34 am |
    • Baptist

      Really?? And who do you think wrote the bible? the Catholic Church, the only church estabished by God himself, who also gave it authority to bind and loose, but since you seem to be happy living a lie, you'll never bother to sincerely look for the truth.

      August 23, 2011 at 11:50 am |
  2. Wesley Fryer

    This seems closely analogous to the selling of indulgences by the Catholic Church in the 15th century. Why would God uniquely authorize grace and forgiveness to boost attendance at a Papal event in Spain this month? Answer: He wouldn't. This is an example of the will of men (the Pope and Catholic Church leadership, in this case) gone awry.

    August 23, 2011 at 7:40 am |
    • brad

      Indulgences are still sold. But not by the Catholic Church. If I listen to any televangelist from one of the over 30,000 differing Protestant groups, I find out how richly God will bless me if I send in a check.

      August 23, 2011 at 11:24 am |
  3. rey

    @DAVID
    God gave us these morals because HE is good and by the way you're name comes from a man who bowed down in worship to the LIVING YAH. Better change your name too huh and go all the way with your self righteous faithless questions

    August 21, 2011 at 4:14 pm |
  4. Reality

    Enda-ngered spe-cies in any form to include their eggs and emb-ryos are protected by the force of law. How tragic that we do not extend the same protection to our own spe-cies!!! (hyphens added to defeat this blog's secret word filter)

    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    August 21, 2011 at 2:03 pm |
    • RightTurnClyde

      ... and more than a few believe our species may be endangered ... from WW# weaponry misused to exotic viruses (and not so exotic) .. from over-grazing .. from depletion of the earth .. any number of reasons cause many excellent thinkers to rethink our viability...

      August 21, 2011 at 6:50 pm |
  5. Rainer Braendlein

    What is the pope in God's eyes?

    Is the pope St. Peter’s successor???

    Matthew 16: 18:

    "And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it."

    Ecclesiastical history probably doesn’t know any other verse, that has been misinterpreted so often like the above verse.

    The pope reasons his supremacy mainly by the above verse.

    Interpretation, refusing papacy:

    Reading some previous verses of Matth. 16: 18, we note that Jesus just had asked his disciples, what they would think, who he would be. There, St. Peter shoot ahead, and said: “You are Christ, the Son of the living God!”

    Jesus rejoiced over the insight of Peter and the other disciples, obviously God had started a work in them.

    The whole content of the gospels shows us that the disciples could indeed imagine to rule together with Jesus soon, therefore Jesus had to take Peter down a peg a little, after Peter had acclaimed Jesus as Christ (the King).

    Of course, it was right, Jesus from Nazareth was the Christ, the eternal Son of God and King of Israel, but Jesus’ time of rule had not yet come at all. God had prescribed that first Jesus had to suffer and to be rejected.

    Still, when Jesus was detained, Peter wanted to fight, using a sword. He indeed could not understand that Jesus didn’t fight back against the soldiers of the High Priests. Should the rightful King of Israel be conducted away like a mean criminal? At that time Peter was not able to understand this. The decision of God that Jesus had to be turned in, in order to suffer and to die, was hidden for the disciples up to that time.

    Let us return to Mattew 16: 18. What wanted Jesus to say be the words of this verse? The following: “Peter you are Peter (with all your dreams of earthly rule), but my Church I (the Father) will build on the low (self-humilated) and humble Jesus.

    This Jesus lowered himself down to the death on the cross, where he has borne the sins of the whole mankind. God brings about faith in Christ by the Holy Spirit. God builds his Church on Jesus, by causing faith in him on people.

    Seemingly, Jesus has foreseen that his Church will be continuously tempted to reach out for rule. However, Jesus doesn’t allow his Church to rule. To the contrary, the Church has to share the destiny of her Lord, that means, she has to suffer and to be rejected like her Lord.

    Matthew 16: 24-26:

    24 Then said Jesus unto his disciples, If any [man] will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me.

    25 For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: and whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it.

    26 For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?

    So, the correct interpretation of Matthew 16: 18 is contrary to the Roman Catholic interpretation of this verse. Matthew 16: 18 doesn’t reason the papacy, but rejects it: God doesn’t want a ruling church, but a suffering and low and rejected Church.

    What is the pope actually?

    He is the successor of the carnal desires (longing for rule) of St. Peter. Up to the time of Jesus’ crucifixion Peter and the other disciples had not yet understood that “Christ shall suffer”. They indeed hoped to rule together with him over the earthly state of Israel.

    Latest since Pentecost our Peter is a transformed Peter. At Pentecost the disciples received the Holy Spirit, which teached them about the true character of Christ: On earth the Church has to share Christ’s destiny to be rejected and to suffer up to Judgement Day. Of course Christ has returned to heaven and is ruler of the universe, but despite he feels the pains of his congregation. The congregation is his body in a real sense.

    The pope has a right to say: “I am the successor of St. Peter!”, but he should be aware that in fact he is the successor of Peter’s carnal desires.

    Pope, we tell you!: “You are Joseph Ratzinger, but on those rock God will build his Church!”

    I use the Power of the Keys: “Mr. Ratzinger as long as you claim, you would be the head of the Church, your sins are kept, and you are outcast from the Christian Church!”

    August 21, 2011 at 10:26 am |
    • Bridget

      He is the succesor to peter's seat to the leading of the Church that CHRIST himself founded look at the history of the early church ,with all due respect do your research before posting false things

      August 21, 2011 at 1:58 pm |
    • catholickeynesian

      Peter, however, did take up his cross and follow Jesus. He was martyred on a cross upside down in front of crowds of jeering pagans. Peters martyrdom was the ultimate profession of his faith in Jesus "as the Christ, the Son of the Living God". His humility was purchased at the cost of his blood. I have no idea why you have this strange contempt for Peter. Peter clearly held favor with the Lord and was held in high esteem at the first council of Jerusalem among his peers where he helped solve doctrinal disputes in the early persecuted Church. Peter's power isn't earthly, it's heavenly. He is given the power to bind and loose in heaven and on earth. For the office of the papacy, this authority has always been considered a great burden because it means that the Pope must stand accountable for every doctrinal or moral proclamation on this Earth. Would you like to stand before God with that sort of responsibility? Which is why the Church has always been in a position of preserving a doctrinal heritage, not trying to invent one, unlike Protestanism, which has as a matter of course divided the rock of Christian faith into 30000 separate pebbles of our Lord's teachings in the mere matter of 500 years. I prefer, following in the footsteps of our Lord who solemnly promulgated Peter's primacy Himself, and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it.

      August 21, 2011 at 2:12 pm |
    • Bucky Ball

      Jesus never said anything about "founding a church". That was done by Saul of Tarsus, (Paul), after his conversion experience, and his tussle with the followers of Jesus in Jerusalem.

      August 21, 2011 at 5:11 pm |
    • Nonimus

      @Bucky Ball,
      Not that I agree with any of this stuff, but wasn't it in Matthew where Jesus supposedly said the, "on this rock I will build my church..."?

      August 21, 2011 at 6:20 pm |
    • Bucky Ball

      @Nomimus
      According to the Jesus seminar, 150 PHD scripture scholars, that quotation is not one of the authentic saying of Yeshua.
      It's not even on the list of candidates they voted on.
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_Seminar#Authentic_sayings.2C_as_determined_by_the_seminar
      😈

      August 21, 2011 at 7:59 pm |
    • Nonimus

      @Bucky Ball,
      Thanks for the link, I don't know much about he Jesus Seminar and found it interesting. Although, I do have to wonder about the credibility of such an organization and it's methods, but I guess history and literature not really being rigorous fields of study have different criteria, such as authenticity determined by vote. One thing does seem peculiar though, and I may be mistaken here, why would an organization that doesn't really buy into the miracles of Jesus, e.g. healings and resurrection, and by extension the divinity or prophetic nature of Jesus, e.g. Jesus as an "itinerant... sage", really be all that interested in determining exactly what Jesus said?
      Basically, without a divine nature or at least a divine inspiration, wouldn't the value be in the words themselves, not in who actually spoke them? I think of examples like Shakespeare and Socrates, where there is much debate about the true author of the words and yet no one debates the value of the words themselves regardless of the author. On the other hand, if the author is divine, or divinely inspired, (if one believes in such things,) then the determination of the author would be absolutely critical to the value of the words themselves.
      I have no basis, let alone credentials, for disagreeing with the Jesus Seminar's findings, but it does seem odd to me that such an organization would exist in the first place. If I were more interested in the subject itself, it might be worth more investigation.

      Thanks again for the thought provoking link.

      August 22, 2011 at 10:32 am |
  6. Naomi

    The world did not know that child-abuse or immorality was wrong and a crime. The Christian Church educated mankind. The West is becoming barbaric again by refusing to listen to the Church.

    August 21, 2011 at 3:06 am |
    • News Flash

      Holy crap. Now that's a new one. Now the perps are taking credit for the crimes as educational opportunities.

      August 21, 2011 at 9:04 am |
    • Kevin

      The church NOW certainly knows that child abuse is a crime and "sin" and they still cover it up or think money makes it go away...America, BTW, is not a "christian" nation...there are other equally committed people here and around the world who follow what they believe is a valid faith and millions of humanitarians that are atheists and agnostics.

      August 21, 2011 at 11:05 am |
    • Naomi

      No, the Christian Church is the greatest con-tri-butor. Atheists and agnos are far too short in charity considering their numbers, and they only mimic Christians in doing any good.

      August 22, 2011 at 11:33 am |
  7. rational free thinker

    Though they still condone pedophiles in their church and protect the priests' names that do it from the public. Yet they release the victims names. Catholicism has to be the right religion right? Since God and Jesus keep allowing this.

    August 20, 2011 at 11:59 pm |
    • HotAirAce

      Perhaps the abuse of innocent children, and the continued protection of the wicked by the rcc, is proof that god does not exist.

      August 21, 2011 at 12:41 am |
    • Casey

      Very irrational and typically hate filled non-thinker. You really should consider changing your name. Either you know nothing about the Church and are just pushing your own agenda without any facts, or... you know the facts and choose to misrepresent them in order to fit your agenda. Either way, you are a vile excuse for a human being.

      August 21, 2011 at 2:02 am |
    • catholickeynesian

      Can you list for me, the specific doctrinal letter that would have made this systemic? I'm curious. I did not realize that as a practicing Roman Catholic I was in error by supposing that our Lord was wrong when he taught us that harboring lustful thoughts and intentions (now celebrated in popular culture) is a sin.

      August 21, 2011 at 2:18 pm |
  8. Geez

    Congratulations, Ladies. The pope says you can go to heaven now.

    August 20, 2011 at 7:23 pm |
    • Bucky Ball

      Casey,

      God does NOT exist because YOU say so. For thoudands of years, humans have posited expanations for what they don't understand, (the "god of the gaps" argument), and they have, in the end, all been debunked. There is no reason to assume YOU are smarter than they ALL were. THEY thought they had all the answers also.

      To posit that a being "acted" within space-time, (it's creature, which it created at the BIg Bang), BEFORE it created it, (time), is illogical. On top of that to further project, (anthropomorphic projection), "person-hood" onto that being, because we, as humans, don't understand anything else, is a huge illogical leap. Space-time may be multi-dimensional, but at some point, god would have had to exist OUTSIDE it, BEFORE it created it. It still would have had to have "acted" BEFORE it created time, or else it is NOT the creator of everything.

      Don't pray for me. One, it has been proven prayer is ineffective, and two, if it does work, then the 10,000,000 starving Somalian people need it a lot more than me.

      You need to take a physics class. Pay particular attention to quantum fluctuations.

      Virtual particles come and go, into and out of existence all the time. No "one" creates them.

      Time is not a "contruct of anything, least of all matter. The best minds in physics as still trying to figure out what it is, and why it has only one observed direction. 😈

      August 21, 2011 at 7:41 am |
    • Casey

      Hey Bucky: Well... I have had quite a bit of physics... Phy/calc 1 and 2, quantum, and solid state physics. When you say that particles pop in and out of existence, I think you are you aren't accounting for matter state change. Conservation of mass and energy, coupled with mass/energy equivilence clearly states that this doesn't occur. But particles do indeed change state. I don't claim to be expert in physics, but I know some through education and practice. The Prime Mover explaination directly addresses your issues of an ent*ty acting prior to our current physical laws existing. I would further argue that prior to creation, we have absolutly no idea what laws may have been in effect. We consider that time did not exist, but this is really just a way of saying that we can't know anything that was in place before the Universe was created. So... we can't gain any insight from that. Space-time didn't exist, so there is no need to assume that something needs to act within it. The rules were different. In fact... that's the whole point of Prime Mover.

      I think you have made a pretty broad statement that ALL early explainations have been "debunked". We have certainly learned a lot more, so we can delve more deeply into God's, and the Universes nature. When Newton first described Gravity, it was a pretty good working model. We have leaned that the physics and the models that he put forward are flawed, but it doesn;t change Gravity's existence... and it doesn't change the fact that his simple mathematical models for it still work pretty well. There is nothing in science that is in clear conflict with the idea of a creator. So... scientific arguments against Him are simply ways for non-believers to support their own beliefs.

      As far as time goes, Einstein showed that it need not always flow forward. (His old ST of R theory of navigation near a super massive singularity.) We have trouble with it because we are single dimensional time critters, and 3 dimensionl spatial critters. Doesn;t mean we have the whole picture.

      I appreciate a good debate, and a good discussion on physics. It's a good opportunity to learn more. I get a little exasperated when people with different views start to fling accusations. This helps nobody. To be clear, and directly respond to your comments... I do not think I am smarter than those who went before. Like all thinking people, I'm trying to understand the nature of the Universe, and enjoy thought experiment. I generally need to think things through for myself, and draw my own conclusions... which admittedly may be flawed. It's just they way the human mind works. I think your words against my character, or ego are beneath you.

      One last point: I'm not sure where you got your data, but everything I have heard points to prayer being a positive and effective way of helping people who are sick. The studies show a statistically significant benefit to outcomes when people pray for those in need. Granted, these are statistics... I generally urge caution with the use of statistics. I bring it up only to repond to your comment about prayer being ineffective.

      I will pray for you... AND the people of Somalia. 🙂

      Best wishes.

      August 21, 2011 at 1:19 pm |
    • Bucky Ball

      You still have not explained how god could have "acted" before it created time. Linear or not, it is still a creature of a creator in your world, and it could not have acted within it, before creating it. It didn't HAVE to "act" within it, but if WE say it "acted", (created something), the definition of that word, (act), is to begoin and and something within a temporal sphere, or it has no meaning. (What this is REALLY about is linguistics).

      There are a number of studies that debunk the effectiveness of prayer. Google them. It doesn't work. They USED to think it did, they NOW know it doesn't. You must have gone to school a while ago. Lets see YOUR data. \

      As for Somalia, no loving god would let 10,000,000 people starve. Period.

      Good to see you agree there is no way of knowing what existed before the Big Bang, and you CHOOSE to think about it in terms of a creator, who you assume to be a "person". Both illogical leaps.

      August 21, 2011 at 3:07 pm |
    • RightTurnClyde

      but you don't in heaven or God or a pope .. probably not in motherhood .. what difference does it make to you .. it's just like a cow calving .. it cannot be sacred if there if nothing sacred... ... either you do not believe any of it or you do ..

      August 21, 2011 at 7:01 pm |
    • News Flash

      Why would a god who loved the people of Somalia care one way or the other whether you prayed for them or not ? Why would he be waiting for another prayer to do something, or send rain ? What exactly tips the scales, if your assumption is that prayer is effective, and something works ? Sounds mighty mean, and remote to me. Oh wait....it's all a bunch of BS.

      August 21, 2011 at 8:03 pm |
    • Casey

      I have engaged on the question of time because it is interesting. However, I find no need for a limitation to be placed on the creator for "acting" prior to the existence of the universe... of by your definition... before the existence of time as we define it. It is essentially a non-argument. I'm not sure... but you seem tp be refurring to Hawkings recent statements. It this is the case, you should know that Hawking really stepped outside the world of science with his conclusions. There was no basis in physics for his conclusions and all physicists I know (which are several... from Cal-Tech... Sandia National Labs) regard his statements as rather embarrasing. Having recently been disproven from his thesis of violations of the conservation of information in black holes.... he comes ut with this really non-physics based conclusion. Whithin the scientific community, Hawking has become somewhat of a joke. He did some interesting eraly work, but for the past 10 year or so... well... he is more of a pop culture phenomonon than a real physicist. I found his discourse on time flow reversal in a contracting universe to be really off base.

      There is no doubt that your beliefs are strongly held, as are mine. Mine come from a study of both theology and science (not in that order by the way). I suggest that you would find a study of theology to be interesting as well. But you have to go into it with ears that are ready to listen, and a mind that is prepared to truly consider what is being taught.

      Best wishes.

      August 21, 2011 at 10:46 pm |
    • Bucky Ball

      Casey,
      I HAVE studied theology, I suspect a LOT more than you, as well as biblical archeology at an Ivy League place. Saying something is a "non-argument, without refuting it, or explaining why you say that, is disingenuous, and you loose the debate. It IS a question of logic, and you refuse to engage it. I have read a lot of Hawking, but that's not what I'm talking about. You STILL have not faced and answered my questions, and it now appears you can't, or don't want to face the ramifications. Debunking some of Hawking does NOT answer or invalidate my question. Ahh, also Hawking knows a LOT more about physics than you do, or I do, and when YOU get to be the Lucasian Professor, then you can say he's a joke. Weren't you the one saying name calling was beneath us. Your assumption that there is only YOUR conclusion from studying theology is ridiculous. It IS from the study of it that made me an atheist. After you have read the mistranslations of mistranslations of mistranslations in Hebrew, Greek and Latin, then come back and tell me I know nothing about theology. 😈

      August 21, 2011 at 11:18 pm |
    • Casey

      I'll try one more time... and yet it is clear that the discussion has become futile. I see this to be a non-argument because I don't see why you think the creator would be unable to act prior to our definition of time to be in place. It's really a circular argument. Think about it... any being who is capable of creating the universe is necessarilly at least as complex as the universe He created. This means he has capabilities we... as three spatial dimensioned beings, and single dimensioned time beings, don;t understand. By definition, He existed prior to our universe existing (or He couldn;t have created it)... therefore, He was able to function under whatever those rules were. It is rather self-evident... to me at least. Your argument is that nothing existed before the point of Creation... and therefore there was not creator. and that the universe simply sprung into existence. My argument is that matter must always have a creator (Prime mover tenet, coupled with conservation of mass and energy)... and that He therefore had to exist before our Universe (by logical necessity)... and therefore He was quite able to function in that period. See... iyour question is a non-argument as it gives no new insight or information.

      As far a Hawking goes... I was relaying what some quite brilliant folks have conveyed to me. Clearly, the conclusion he is drawing now are based on his personal belief. He did not provide any physics to back up his claim. He certainly has a right to them (his beliefs) but if is going to give them as if they were science based, he has to provide the proofs. I don;t think I was name calling... and if it came off that way I apologize.

      I don't hold myself up as some sort of physics guru... I'm not. I'm just holding a discussion. I would expect that you are right and Hawking does know more than I. (You can accuratly say that about many many people... that they know more than I... on both subjects of theology and science) I'm just saying what my understanding is, my conclusions, and conveying the things I have heard or learned.

      I have provided answers to your questions throughout this discourse... you just don;t agree. That's OK... I never expected you would.

      BTW... I think people get all jumped up in text exchanges because the communications media is flawed. You cannot hear my tone... or pick up on queues of expression... so often... these things come off as combative. This is not the case... or my intent, and I expect that is also true of you.

      Good Night... and God Bless. oops 🙂

      August 22, 2011 at 12:14 am |
    • Bucky Ball

      Hi Casey,
      I appreciate your persistence. In am a lot more tolerant of believer folks than I come off as, I just like to hold their feet to the "linguistics" fire.
      If it/she existed PRIOR to our universe, by definition, some sort of time already existed, or there would be no "prior". Either there really was no "prior", OR our human terms to talk about this are meaningless and inadequate. You are basically just coming up with the old "god works in mysterious ways", when you have no real answer. It may be "sef-evident" to you, but to me it is totally ILLOGICAL. I am NOT saying there was nothing prior to THIS universe, but OUR "time" did not exist until the Big Bang, and you seem to be saying there was "another" time, already in place, and on-going. (Where does that end?) I don't buy the Prime Mover business, it's just a "god of the gaps" argument, because you/they can't explain it any other way, YET. There is NO evidence for it, other than "I can't see any other answer", (YET). There have been too many non-intuitive things discovered to come up with a "it's just intuitive, right?", for me to buy it.
      have a great week, I will be very busy the next few days. Hope to see you around the boards. It's great arguing with someone as educated and intelligent as yourself. 😈

      August 22, 2011 at 10:32 am |
  9. nonono

    To whomsover it concerns:

    Prove to me God does not exist

    August 20, 2011 at 6:51 pm |
    • nonono is fscking stupid

      Prove first that there isn't an invisible teapot orbiting the sun.

      August 20, 2011 at 7:03 pm |
    • nonono

      Is that all you got? must have been very stressful on your grey cells to come up with that answer...

      August 20, 2011 at 7:31 pm |
    • LinCA

      @nonono

      You said "To whomsover it concerns:
      Prove to me God does not exist
      "

      Since you capitalize the "G", I'm assuming you are speaking of the christian god, but correct me if I'm wrong.

      The christian god is said to be all-knowing and all-powerful. If he is all-knowing, he will know the future. If he knows the future, he knows what he will do in the future. If he already knows what he will do, he has no choice but to do it. If he has no choice but to do what he must, he isn't all powerful.

      If, on the other hand, he can change his mind and do as he pleases, he can't know what the future holds.

      Therefor, being all-knowing and all-powerful are mutually exclusive, ergo the christian god can't exist.

      There is your proof.

      August 20, 2011 at 7:41 pm |
    • nonono

      Why do you need a "both and" logic to prove an "either/or" statement

      August 20, 2011 at 7:53 pm |
    • herbert juarez

      @linca
      Why didn't you just use the old scam," can God create a rock He can't lift?"That is about what your "proof" amounts too.The old, humanistic slight of hand.Men use human reference to try to explain the unexplained to one another.That is as close as we can get to describing God accurately.Point of fact ,your bogus "proof"is no proof at all.
      Three card monte with reason, anyone?

      August 20, 2011 at 7:57 pm |
    • The Lambly Winged Lion of The Gods Does Roar

      Of Gods made by GOD and manifested inside godly folks is the True Triune of Godliness. There are God-Loving men and God-fearing men and then there are godless men who deny any such ideology of GOD and Gods and godliness. To deny GOD or the Gods is but a sentence to become of Nothingness which is the Holy Spirit. Those who either Love and/or Fear GOD or even the Gods; being GOD's Sons, they will be found out and given their just treats and/or rewards in the abundancies of ever lasting multi-diversities of incarnations into the foreverness realms of eternal inwardness.

      August 20, 2011 at 8:05 pm |
    • nonono

      I asked a simple question and look at the mayhem in your answers, you fellows are going mad trying to answer the question for which you will NEVER know the answer...NONONO you can't answer the question please do not tax your little brains.

      August 20, 2011 at 8:12 pm |
    • LinCA

      @nonono

      Considering you haven't yet provided a single argument to refute mine, other than dismissing it, I consider your question answered. Until you make your case in support of your imaginary friend, there is no reason to spend even another second trying to answer your question. The ball is squarely in your court. Put up, or shut up.

      Anyone who has the ability and willingness to logically evaluate the case for your god, will inevitably come to the conclusion that it is severely lacking, and that your god doesn't exist. If everyone had the ability and willingness to apply logic and reason, there would be no believers.

      To be a believer you either have to delude yourself, or be dense enough to not know any better.

      August 20, 2011 at 8:39 pm |
    • herbert juarez

      @linca
      your "argument" was shown to be a fraud but you didn't catch it.
      You are applying human characteristics to a divine being,that doesn't work.God is more complex than that, you are running a shell game and calling it reason,you are ,in this instance and for the cited reason ,wrong.God is not a man ,his ways are so far above mans ways,they can not be comprehended.You cannot reduce God ,and cite that as proof.

      August 20, 2011 at 8:49 pm |
    • nonono

      @LinCA, you have not yet answered the big question-"Prove to me God does not exist".
      Instead, you have chosen to use a both/and statement to refute an either/or which defies logic and reason.
      You have not proved to me that God does NOT exist. You will NEVER be able to prove that God does NOT exist

      August 20, 2011 at 8:55 pm |
    • Colin

      LinCA – that last response was spot on.

      Nonono and Herbert Juarez – Even if one accepts the highly dubiuos notion that the inability to disprove somehow equals proof, one must apply the same rule across all gods, right? That is to say, there is no logical reason why the Christian god should get beneficial treatment.

      So, you both must believe in a lot of gods, from Allah to Zeus and a lot in between.

      August 20, 2011 at 8:56 pm |
    • Ooooanoo

      @nonono Q: Does God exist? A: I don't care.

      Now, begone.

      August 20, 2011 at 8:58 pm |
    • HotAirAce

      The only fraud here are herbie & co's claims that there are gods and their continued inability to back up their claims. As has been said so many times, the burden of proof is on those making the claim that there is a god, and after more than 2000 years, not a shred of objective factual evidence has surfaced. In fact, pretty much every time believers foolishly allow the impartial investigation of "holy objects" (shroud of Turin, black madonna, for example) they are shown to be fakes. But do keep ducking and diving – it is mildly amusing, but getting old...

      August 20, 2011 at 9:03 pm |
    • nonono

      @Colin, You guys have been unable to prove God does NOT exist.
      Instead you are going in circles with no way of proving to me God does NOT exist.

      August 20, 2011 at 9:05 pm |
    • Colin

      Nonono and HJ.

      I believe in Leprechauns.

      I believe that the Leprechaun King created the entire Universe about 6,000 years ago. I know there is a substantial amount of evidence suggesting that the Universe is significantly older than this, but I think a lot of that evidence comes from bad science, or from a worldwide conspiracy of scientists who want to deny Leprechauns. I know this because it is written in the Leprechaun Chronicles, a book cobbled together from various authors, most unknown, by our church during the Dark Ages.

      The Leprechaun King lives in Leprechaun Heaven, where he where he busies himself answering prayers, running the Universe and recording the lives of humans for their final judgment before him. He is surrounded by an entire society of magical beings – his son Merlin, the Holy Leprechaun Spirit, the good fairy Mary, thousands of Leprechaun saints, fairies, pixies and the souls of many millions of dead people.

      I believe that the Leprechaun King loves me and hears my prayers. He intervenes in my life periodically by saving me from various ills. All I have to do is think to myself and he reads my mind and answers my prayers. He loves me and when I die, provided I have lived a good life, I will go to Leprechaun Heaven, where I will live happily ever after with all other humans who have ever led good lives.

      I know there is not a lot of evidence to support my beliefs, but that is just the point. The Leprechaun King wants us to have “faith,” so he never reveals himself. To make an unambiguous appearance and settle once and for all the question of his existence would deprive us of free will and, even though he is all-knowing, he would not know who his true believers were.

      In fact, I believe that the Leprechaun King is “beyond understanding”. He is “outside the Universe” and any time I am faced with something about my Leprechaun belief that makes no sense, I don’t dare question it, I just close my mind and tell myself that my mind is too small to understand the greatness of the Leprechaun King. These answers are satisfying to me.

      Some people are called “atheists,” and they are skeptical of my belief in the Leprechaun King. They point out many inherent contradictions and unsupported assumptions that underwrite my belief in Leprechauns. But, they can’t prove he doesn’t exist, so he must exist. And so what! Even if I am wrong, and go my whole life believing in Leprechauns and it turns out I am wrong, I have lost nothing. However, if they are wrong, the Leprechaun King will send them to hell to burn forever in the presence of the Evil Ground Troll.

      Am I convincing you to believe in Leprechauns yet?

      When you reflect on why you still don't believe in the Leprechaun King, you will understand why I still do not believe in your god.

      August 20, 2011 at 9:07 pm |
    • LinCA

      @nonono

      You said "@LinCA, you have not yet answered the big question-"Prove to me God does not exist".
      Instead, you have chosen to use a both/and statement to refute an either/or which defies logic and reason.
      You have not proved to me that God does NOT exist. You will NEVER be able to prove that God does NOT exist
      "

      Of course not, because your god is to you as real as it gets. In your personal reality, your god exists. But here is a news flash for you, your god ONLY exists in your mind. Nowhere else.

      If, in your mind, your god is both all-knowing and all-powerful, then he/she/it can't exists as those traits can never co-exist in the same being. No matter how desperate you wish for it.

      If your god isn't both all-knowing and all-powerful, then what is he/she/it? Either? Neither? Actually, never mind, I'm not all that interested in your delusions.

      August 20, 2011 at 9:09 pm |
    • LinCA

      @herbert juarez

      You said "@linca
      your "argument" was shown to be a fraud but you didn't catch it.
      You are applying human characteristics to a divine being,that doesn't work.God is more complex than that, you are running a shell game and calling it reason,you are ,in this instance and for the cited reason ,wrong.God is not a man ,his ways are so far above mans ways,they can not be comprehended.You cannot reduce God ,and cite that as proof.
      "

      Of course, in your deluded mind, you can make your imaginary friend have all the contradictory traits you feel like giving him/her/it. That doesn't make it true anywhere else.

      Unless you provide some tangible evidence for the existence of your friend, it is irrational to believe he/she/it exists for anyone else but you.

      August 20, 2011 at 9:11 pm |
    • nonono

      @Colin-My question was not about Lepre..... my question was not for you to prove to me which God is right.But to prove to me God does NOT exist.

      @LinCA-My question is for you to prove to me God does NOT exist. You are using a both/and to prove and either/or statement which defies logic

      August 20, 2011 at 9:18 pm |
    • Colin

      HotAirAce, LinCA. I'm out.

      There are only so many ways you can try to explain that a lack of disproof does not equal proof, nor even evidence. Good luck in trying to open hese guys' minds. You might as well try and pry open an oyster with a toothpick

      August 20, 2011 at 9:26 pm |
    • HotAirAce

      @Colin, I understand and agree. It is impossible to have a conversation involving logic with people that cannot read and comprehend. They have neither proof of gods or the ability to understand arguments against – they can only be blindly following the jesus myth.

      August 20, 2011 at 9:37 pm |
    • Dan

      Best you can do is prove God could not have created the Universe. Hawking did so on an episode of "Curiosity". See the Discovery Channel listings for your area.

      August 20, 2011 at 9:55 pm |
    • Baby Piglet

      JESUS KILLED MY MOMMY!!!

      August 20, 2011 at 9:57 pm |
    • Bucky Ball

      1. If you had ever taken one logic course, you would know that no one can prove a negative.

      2. The human concept of "existence" is a temporally dependant idea. If a supreme being were to exist, it would have to "be", (live) in a temporal environment. That means it would "act", and "be" from "moment" to "moment". If it were to act, (for example "create" something), then the act would have a beginning and an end, (or it would not be an act). The acts and the "moments" of this being could be divided into infinitely smaller segments of time, as better clocks were invented. The fact that this being would have had to "act", (a temporal concept), in a non-temporal environment, (ie "before' it created space-time), is completely illogical. There cannot be a "living" (supreme) being outside of space-time, before it created space-time, and still act within space-time. 😈

      August 20, 2011 at 10:58 pm |
    • SecularTruther

      @nonono How about prove god exists? Prove which religion is correct? Nobody on this planet can provide evidence that proves or disproves the existence of any diety. Why doesn't your higher power shut up all the skeptics by just showing himself/herself/itself/ themselves to the world? No religious texts on the face of the planet is substantial evidence either and that's the believer's proof, that and the word of mouth of others. By your own reasoning prove Allah, Zeus, Ra, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, the Tooth Fairy, extraterrestrial aliens, Little Red Riding Hood, Warewolves, Vampires, etc... don't exist.

      August 20, 2011 at 11:52 pm |
    • tallulah13

      In the history of all of humanity, there has not been a single verifiable shred of evidence that any god has ever existed. Don't you think it's time to maybe consider the possibility that the lack of evidence indicates a lack of supernatural superpower?

      August 21, 2011 at 2:07 am |
    • Casey

      God exists. I know of nothing that has ever come into existence without someone/something making it. The very fact of existence of the Universe proves that the Creator exists as well. This is known as the Prime Mover Tenent. Clearly, we do not understand His capabilities or fully appreciate His nature. Now... I know the next thing you're going to say is..."Ah HA!!! but who created God?" Applying Occam's Razor to the question which states that "The simplest answer is the correct one... provided the more complex answers provide no additional value." we can conclude that there is one God that created the Universe. Most people who don't believe do so because God, and/or religion asks something of them... that is... to live in a certain way..... and because what is being asked doesn't fit in with what they choose to do... they reject God and use whatever arguments are at hand to support their position. I Pray for you all that one day, you will listen to the Holy Spirit. Your lives will be better and you will be happier... in this life, and after.

      August 21, 2011 at 2:18 am |
    • tallulah13

      So in other words, Casey, you are content to give credit to god for everything you don't personally understand. Fine. I honestly have no problem with that. Having avidly listened to and read the findings of people who are actually trying to figure out how we got here, I am content to know that the likelihood of god is very slim, and the likelihood that it is the christian god is, for all intents and purposed, nonexistent.

      Not knowing where something came from does not automatically point to supernatural powers. The universe if very old and with enough time, anything can happen. It's just as valid to say the universe has existed forever as it is to say god has existed forever. After all, there's evidence that the universe actually exists.

      August 21, 2011 at 2:30 am |
    • Casey

      We have a pretty good understand of how Matter behaves. We know that any material object that exists was made by someone/something. By conservation of mass, we know that all matter that exists today was present (either in the form of matter or energy) at the Big Bang. We have never witnessed corndogs just springing into existence. So, logically, there must be a creator for all matter. The part that we don't understand is His nature.

      August 21, 2011 at 2:45 am |
    • Casey

      @Bucky Ball: I appreciate your reasoning. I would respond that physics shows that Time is not a linear quality. In fact, becaue of General Relativity, we know that Time can actually be considered to stop under special circ*mstances.... say... at the event horizon of a black hole.... or the instant before the Big B*ng. Time is actually a construct of matter, and ... at least in my mind... a byproduct of entropy. Further, according to Quantum Mechanics, Time does not exist unless we (or someone) is there to observe its passage... and measure it. We experience time just as you say... as a single point of zero dimension. Any yet that doesn't mean this is really the way the Universe works. God, by logical necessity, must be at least as complex as what He created... so if the nature of time is variable, and possibly multi-dimensional, God would also exist in variable and multi-dimensional time.

      August 21, 2011 at 3:03 am |
    • tallulah13

      Casey: I think learning about evolution would be good for you. Your corndog ana-logy is flawed, because life is a process. That's why an estimated 99% of the species that ever existed are extinct. They developed in favorable conditions, then died when those conditions changed and they could not adapt. Here is a hint how life may have developed on earth.

      http://www.chem.duke.edu/~jds/cruise_chem/Exobiology/miller.html

      August 21, 2011 at 3:28 am |
    • TruthPrevails

      nonono you said: "@Colin, You guys have been unable to prove God does NOT exist.
      Instead you are going in circles with no way of proving to me God does NOT exist."

      Due to the fact that we can't prove god does not exist merely means we see no evidence for one and therefore, don't believe one exists. You can't prove one exists any more than we can prove one doesn't exist. We are not the ones making extraordinary claims, so the burden of proof lies on the person(s) making the claim. We tend to listen to the experts who have researched and the history of the bible and have been able to show that it is full of fallacy and no evidence.

      August 21, 2011 at 5:53 am |
    • nonono

      I gave you one full night to go to the ends of earth to disprove the existence the God and you could not.
      You NEVER will be able to prove God does not exist.

      So, on this beautiful Sunday morning lets renew our Faith and Hope in GOD!

      God Bless!

      August 21, 2011 at 7:54 am |
    • herbert juarez

      @linca which part of God is not a man are you having a problem with?
      You got caught slipping the needed card up your sleeve, and palming the pea
      Set up your scam elsewhere, it might work there.

      August 21, 2011 at 8:17 am |
    • Casey

      @tallulah13: Ah!... Well... I think you must know that you have switched subjects. A corndog is not a living ent*ty (well... maybe it was at some point.... so I probably used the wrong example in trying to be funny.) Biology functions by mechanisms just as you describe. I think think the the preponderance of the evidence for evolution is clear and irrefutable. The only thing we don't get are the details of how this occured historically. Good stuff. The topic we were discussing was the initial creation of the universe, and matter contained within it. If our corndog was living at one point (and that may be debatable .. lol) at one point it existed as a pig snout and a chicken beak (at east the Dog portion). It ended in this form, like you say, through evolutionary processes. But the matter actually existed long before it was in those forms.

      August 21, 2011 at 9:45 am |
    • HotAirAce

      @nonono

      We had hoped that overnight you would re-read and comprehend what several of us have been patiently trying to educate you about, but alas it appears not to be. But I will give it one more try...

      Despite humouring you by using logic to demonstrate that your god, as characterized by believers, cannot exist because the characteristics are contradictory, we agree that no one will ever be able to prove that god does not exist. This is not because god exists but because it is logically impossible to prove a negative! This is a fundemental rule of logic that you seem not to be able to grasp!

      Please play close attention to the next sentence...

      Our inability to prove that god does not exist (our inability to break a fundamental rule of logic) does not mean that god exists!

      The burden of proof remains with those making the claim that god exists, and you have not presented any such proof. God might exist, but you have not proven that.

      So we are back to your unsubstantiated claim that god exists. As much as you would like this to be true, your claim is not proven and may be false. As an atheist, I fully recognize that god might exist, but believe the probability is so low (virtually zero given the lack of any objective factual evidence) that god does not exist. Of course, being a believer, you don't seem to be able to admit that possibility, and foolishly cling to the the erroneous position of "You can't proof god does not exist so god must exist!", and around and around we go...

      So, the only things that has been proven is that you are incapabale of reading and comprehending, but quite capable of clinging to your childish mythologies.

      With respect to herbie, he also has proven nothing with respect to the existance of his god. He is merely engaged in a shell game of his own, giving his non-existant supernatural being extraordinary powers so that it can maintain its centuries old disappearing act. Herbie is as fraudulent as his claims. He is just re-writing the rules of the world's largest fantasy role playing game to avoid openly admitting that there is a possibility, if not a high probability, that god does not exist.

      August 21, 2011 at 10:07 am |
    • nonono

      @Hotairace, You keep coming back with I cannot prove God does NOT exist, if you cannot why should I trust you? your words are empty and carries no meaning or message for me.

      I believe in having Hope and Faith, these are not things I see with my eyes, this is what I feel, I get my Hope by trusting in God, too sad for you if you do not wish to have that hope....but I will Trust in God.

      I do not need to see to believe, I believe and can see the goodness of God!!!!

      August 21, 2011 at 2:09 pm |
    • HotAirAce

      @nonono

      We've played your game lon enough – now it is your turn.

      Please prove that god exists. If you cannot prove god exists, why should I believe your claim that it/he/she does?

      August 21, 2011 at 2:34 pm |
    • LinCA

      @herbert juarez

      You said "God is not a man"
      That part is obvious. What is also obvious for those that have the ability to follow reason that in the physical universe that we inhabit, your figment is just that, a figment.

      Within this universe, your god can't exist for the simple reason that he has mutually exclusive traits. Claiming otherwise defies logic. But that in and of itself doesn't exclude all gods, just the ones that are claimed to have those traits.

      You said "You got caught slipping the needed card up your sleeve, and palming the pea"
      In the deluded minds of simpletons, perhaps. Maybe in the minds of those that dismiss, or are too dense to comprehend, simple logic because it contradicts their fantasies.

      You said "Set up your scam elsewhere, it might work there."
      It actually appears that you have fallen for one of the oldest schemes around, and are actively perpetuating the nonsense.

      There isn't a single solitary shred of evidence that your god, or any other gods, interact with the reality as we experience it, or that they exist. It is irrational to assume they exist.

      So, let me guess. I'm guessing that you have pretty much the same basic beliefs as the community you grew up in. You probably believe in the same god as your parents do. You follow the same book that they do. Odds are, you even associate with the same denomination.

      Yet, if you look at a community just a few miles away, you will already find differences. If you look at beliefs in different countries or on different continents, they will become more diverse.

      Someone's religious beliefs are, to an enormous degree, correlated to the beliefs of the community in which they grow up. You get your delusions from your parents. If there was one true god, everyone would believe the same.

      Religion is imprisoning people with shackles that are applied when they are young, yet only exist in their minds. Only you have the power to free your mind. You have the choice to stay ignorant and keep deluding yourself, or throw off the shackles.

      August 21, 2011 at 2:38 pm |
    • herbert juarez

      @linca
      By setting the standard for reasoning on your own intelligence, you have set the bar way too low.You appear as one who is a legend in their own mind.

      August 21, 2011 at 3:14 pm |
    • nonono

      @Hotairace,

      I have got the answer, but you are notiready for it...

      Tell me when you are ready and I will be happy to show you why you are not on this planet by chance, why you were created to be at this time and place for a reason, your life is not meaningless...you matter....

      August 21, 2011 at 3:29 pm |
    • HotAirAce

      @nonono

      I'm as ready as I'm ever going to be. Go for it!!

      August 21, 2011 at 3:33 pm |
    • Magic

      If one wants to believe that the sum total of physics, natural laws, verified cause and effect, etc. are "God", I can understand that concept. It's when this proposed ent.ity is endowed with human-like characteristics - love, hate, vengeance, the desire for being worshiped, etc. - that the problems arise.

      One "son of god", Gravity, is a fact. One can worship it, glorify its name, pray to it, sacrifice to it, ring bells, burn incense or whatever other superst.itious behavior imaginable - it will not affect its nature. Gravity does not "hate" you when you plunge to the pavement after jumping from a 20-story building (unaided by mechanical devices). Gravity does not "love" you when you are able to walk across the room without falling down. It is what it is.

      There is no verified evidence for supernatural beings or events.

      August 21, 2011 at 3:43 pm |
    • LinCA

      @herbert juarez

      You said "By setting the standard for reasoning on your own intelligence, you have set the bar way too low.You appear as one who is a legend in their own mind."

      You appear to be under the mistaken impression that I choose my intelligence to set the bar. Nothing could be further from the truth. I choose very rudimentary logic for the purpose of keeping it simple enough for even those with very limited abilities to have a chance of grasping it. Unfortunately, even that appears to have been too high a threshold.

      I've tried to dumb it down enough for the likes of you to have a chance of grasping the fallacy of the notion of your god. I guess that I will have to accept that there is nothing I can say that will sway your mind when you are unwilling to consider it. So how about, you take a shot at convincing me? Please provide me with some evidence or a reasoned argument that shows that there is even a chance that your god exists. Keep in mind that since you and nonono have been capitalizing the "G" in reference to this being, I expect specific arguments in favor of the existence of yours and not some run-of-the-mill god.

      August 21, 2011 at 3:45 pm |
    • nonono

      Are you positive to recieve the news I have for you? are you sure? if you are 100% sure let me know then I will tell you....

      August 21, 2011 at 3:52 pm |
    • Just For The Halibut

      @nonono - "Tell me when you are ready and I will be happy to show you why you are not on this planet by chance, why you were created to be at this time and place for a reason, your life is not meaningless...you matter...."

      Awaiting your evidence with 'baited' breath...

      August 21, 2011 at 3:55 pm |
    • nonono

      It takes 'FAITH' to Believe in GOD, do you have FAITH????

      August 21, 2011 at 4:01 pm |
    • LinCA

      nonono said "It takes 'FAITH' to Believe in GOD, do you have FAITH????"

      And there we have it. Finally he/she admits that you have to believe the nonsense in order to believe the nonsense. Circular reasoning. What else is new?

      Of course it takes faith. It requires faith because it isn't supported by any other means.

      August 21, 2011 at 4:15 pm |
    • HotAirAce

      @no Ono

      That's it? That's the best you can do? I was expecting so much more...

      You did not answer the challenge – you have not provided any proof of the existence of god. You have merely restated your belief – nothing more – and that is not good enough.

      So, no, in addition to having no evidence, I have no faith.

      But let me ask you a different question: why do you have faith in the unproven?

      August 21, 2011 at 4:18 pm |
    • nonono

      JESUS died for the sins of mankind and rose again from the grace!!! What other proof are you looking for???

      August 21, 2011 at 4:50 pm |
    • HotAirAce

      @no Ono

      I strongly suspect I am wasting my time, but please do provide support for your claim re: jesus. I don't believe you have anything but the circular logic of The Babble.

      August 21, 2011 at 5:20 pm |
    • nonono

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=ogKput7FPPI

      August 21, 2011 at 6:23 pm |
    • Normon

      @nonono,
      "Prove to me God does not exist"
      What's God?

      August 21, 2011 at 6:34 pm |
    • HotAirAce

      There's about 5 minutes of my life I will neve get back...

      So, nonono (or herbie 'cause I'm sure you're lurking out there..), what was that supposed to prove? Once again you come up long on claims and absolutley short on proof. Seems to me we have a double standard here – you asked for proof that god does not exist, and we (multiple people) accommodated you within the bounds of logic and evidence (lack thereof), but you have not (cannot!) provided the slightest argument for god, never mind objective factual evidence.

      August 22, 2011 at 12:57 am |
    • nonono

      What proof do you seek when you plan your tomorrow? you have faith you will live for another day , another week ,another month , another year and so on? You accept this faith without any proof whatsoever for this life and plan for life? we have Faith not only for this life but also life eternal.

      May God grant you that Faith!

      August 22, 2011 at 10:09 am |
    • Juggling Squirrel-Jesus

      "What proof do you seek when you plan your tomorrow? you have faith you will live for another day , another week ,another month , another year and so on?"
      --
      I can extrapolate that there will be a tomorrow based on prior experience. I do not know that I will live to see tomorrow, but I do know that the odds are good. Thus, based upon these odds, it is prudent to plan ahead.

      You, however, have no reason except faith to plan for an afterlife. There is no objective, repeatable, verifiable evidence that leads one to conclude that there is an afterlife.

      August 22, 2011 at 10:15 am |
    • nonono

      show me proof that you will live for X number of years, what extrapolation are using you enlightened one!!, may you impart that knowledge to us earthies as to exact number of years we live??

      I believe your lack of faith in God is not due to lack of proof, because that proof already exists in hte life of Jesus Christ.

      You are not acknowledging God because you do not want to follow what the Moral laws given by God, you feel you can live your life anyway it pleases you.Go for it if that makes you content why question others?

      Let me be clear here, by atheists yelling and screaming and kicking their feet in the air is not going to change the TRUTH. You will NEVER be able to change the TRUTH and you will NEVER be able to prove GOD does NOT exist. GOD exists whether you like it or not. You can deny it for yourself if it suits your lifestyle, enjoy it while it lasts!!!!

      August 22, 2011 at 10:33 am |
    • SeanNJ

      @nonono: Rage! Rage against the dying of the light!

      You and your belief system are endangered species.

      August 22, 2011 at 10:37 am |
    • Juggling Squirrel-Jesus

      @nonono,
      I suggest that you actually step back, take a breath, and then read what I actually wrote – not what you wanted to see. Where did I say I have proof of tomorrow? I was alive yesterday so it is reasonable to think that I will be alive tomorrow. No faith required.

      -Proof. You keep using that word, but you obviously don't know what it means. Using a two thousand year old text that uses second (or more) hand accounts of events that occurred decades in the past is not proof.

      One does not need a god to be moral. I don't need to feel like someone is watching over my shoulder to act like a good person. Is the only thing that compels you to be good is because you think you'll be rewarded for it (or punished for a lack of it)t? If so, I feel sorry for you. So much for being good for goodness sake.

      August 22, 2011 at 10:54 am |
    • nonono

      you can hide behind the facade there is no God to suit your moral lifestyle, enjoy it while it lasts.
      I am not here to protect any species that in is HIS ABLE CARE!!!

      August 22, 2011 at 10:56 am |
    • HotAirAce

      @nonono

      You are behaving like the cornered rat you are. You demand proof from atheists that there is no god, but will not (cannot!) provide proof of your god. You are incredibly stupid, probably mentally ill and without a doubt, a hypocrite!

      August 22, 2011 at 1:06 pm |
    • nonono

      Is that your final answer for the original question? you must have really strained your grey cells to come up with that gibberish!!!

      Just proves atheists babble vainly most of the time and more so when they FAIL an argument or FAIL to see reason as is the case above.

      August 22, 2011 at 1:19 pm |
    • Anti Christian Taliban Schizophrenics

      nonono

      It takes 'FAITH' to Believe in GOD, do you have FAITH????

      ---------
      No it takes faith to first believe man who says to believe in a god. Any faith of any religion is in man. Your faith in god is equal to the faith in man.
      .
      Prove what a schizophrenic see and hears in not real.

      August 22, 2011 at 1:28 pm |
    • HotAirAce

      @nonono

      You continue to display your inability to read with comprehension. You question(s) have been answered numerous times by multiple people. You are very very stupid or choosing to ignore what several have clearly written – or most likely, both. It has been very clearly shown that there is much doubt about the existance of god but you are incapable of admitting that – that is your problem, not mine. I encourage you to seek the assistance of a mental health professional. In any event, enjoy your delusions while you can...

      August 22, 2011 at 1:33 pm |
    • Judge Moody

      I have looked at the evidence presented by atheists to 'disprove God', and their arguments lack coherent thinking. In most cases their arguments are supported with 'name calling' and hurling 'insults' instead sticking to the facts of the case.

      I hereby hold atheists incapable of holding any discussion and deem them not fit for any kind of argument.

      People of Faith your calling is much higher and your time is much more valuable in the use of humanitarian causes , continue the good works and may God so help you!

      Case Closed!!!!

      August 22, 2011 at 5:29 pm |
    • HotAirAce

      @Judge Moody

      There is no question that insults have been thrown, but if you sift through that, I believe that you will find the athiests have stuck to the facts, as in:

      – we have agreed that you cannot logically prove that something does not exist

      – the impossibility of proving something does not exist does not give any weight to an argument that something exists.

      – there is no factual objective evidence for the existance of god

      – we have agree that god might exist, but the probability is very low

      – the theists have not provided a coherent argument or evidence for the existance of god, other than "wishful thinking"

      *If* you were actually impartial, you would find that the atheist position (it is unlikely or unproven that god exists) is more realistic than the theist position (god absolutely exists).

      August 22, 2011 at 7:07 pm |
  10. hehehe

    Atheist headstone inscription read: "All Dressed Up And Nowhere To Go".

    August 20, 2011 at 6:27 pm |
    • The Lambly Winged Lion of The Gods Does Roar

      The only way out is to go with the flow to the depths of inner space where one's synnergy(spirit) does beckon one home inside the body(Temple), the KIngdom of the Gods made manifest by GOD & the Holy Ghost whose Nothingness does hold all the elements together whether they are of such smallness or ever so great, for The Holy Ghost is but Nothingness, the great divider and essences in voids of the VOIDS between the Inner and Outer Spaces.

      August 20, 2011 at 7:53 pm |
    • EvolvedDNA

      HEHEHE.. actually we do get to go every where..as our atoms separate we become part of anything.. you could have your some of your atoms become part of a tree or as a water molecule and spend time traveling the earth, you may even become part of Lamb of Goddy here. In fact our atoms have been around since the universe came into existence .. and the iron in our blood came from a sun that died or many of them eons ago. The religious almost have it right except they spell sun differently from those who know the real truth.

      August 21, 2011 at 12:59 am |
    • EvolvedDNA

      Lambly.. just a question when you go into a restaurant and order food.. do you get what you ordered?

      August 21, 2011 at 1:02 am |
    • tallulah13

      Christian headstone inscription: All dressed up and not going anywhere.

      August 21, 2011 at 2:08 am |
    • NOo..oON

      Christian headstone:
      "Awww, what a rip off!"

      August 21, 2011 at 6:36 pm |
  11. RightTurnClyde

    Wow the preceding is really stupid. Why not just ignore the stuff?

    August 20, 2011 at 5:59 pm |
  12. herbert juarez

    @ whoever
    if you have to hide behind impersonation,you might be an atheist
    if you have to resort to copying another persons post, you might be an atheist

    August 20, 2011 at 5:41 pm |
  13. herbert juarez

    @ david johnson
    let me be perfectly clear , i had other things to do this afternoon.
    the post referencing"i forgot one" was not posted by me but rather by an impersonator of extremely low character.

    August 20, 2011 at 5:32 pm |
  14. herbert juarez

    @eric g
    if you think it's intelligent to use unicorns as an illustration , you might be an atheist

    August 20, 2011 at 5:22 pm |
  15. David Johnson

    @J.W

    The syntax and word usage is almost identical. WoW! This is like Children of the Corn.

    I am afraid...

    Cheers!

    August 20, 2011 at 1:40 pm |
  16. Rainer Braendlein

    Does Papa Ratzi tell us the truth about himself?

    No, Papa Ratzi is a storyteller.

    Matthew 16: 18 or is the pope St. Peter’s successor???

    Matthew 16: 18:

    "And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it."

    Ecclesiastical history probably doesn’t know any other verse, that has been misinterpreted so often like the above verse.

    The pope reasons his supremacy mainly by the above verse.

    Interpretation, refusing papacy:

    Reading some previous verses of Matth. 16: 18, we note that Jesus just had asked his disciples, what they would think, who he would be. There, St. Peter shoot ahead, and said: “You are Christ, the Son of the living God!”

    Jesus rejoiced over the insight of Peter and the other disciples, obviously God had started a work in them.

    The whole content of the gospels shows us that the disciples could indeed imagine to rule together with Jesus soon, therefore Jesus had to take Peter down a peg a little, after Peter had acclaimed Jesus as Christ (the King).

    Of course, it was right, Jesus from Nazareth was the Christ, the eternal Son of God and King of Israel, but Jesus’ time of rule had not yet come at all. God had prescribed that first Jesus had to suffer and to be rejected.

    Still, when Jesus was detained, Peter wanted to fight, using a sword. He indeed could not understand that Jesus didn’t fight back against the soldiers of the High Priests. Should the rightful King of Israel be conducted away like a mean criminal? At that time Peter was not able to understand this. The decision of God that Jesus had to be turned in, in order to suffer and to die, was hidden for the disciples up to that time.

    Let us return to Mattew 16: 18. What wanted Jesus to say be the words of this verse? The following: “Peter you are Peter (with all your dreams of earthly rule), but my Church I (the Father) will build on the low (self-humilated) and humble Jesus.

    This Jesus lowered himself down to the death on the cross, where he has borne the sins of the whole mankind. God brings about faith in Christ by the Holy Spirit. God builds his Church on Jesus, by causing faith in him on people.

    Seemingly, Jesus has foreseen that his Church will be continuously tempted to reach out for rule. However, Jesus doesn’t allow his Church to rule. To the contrary, the Church has to share the destiny of her Lord, that means, she has to suffer and to be rejected like her Lord.

    Matthew 16: 24-26:

    24 Then said Jesus unto his disciples, If any [man] will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me.

    25 For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: and whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it.

    26 For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?

    So, the correct interpretation of Matthew 16: 18 is contrary to the Roman Catholic interpretation of this verse. Matthew 16: 18 doesn’t reason the papacy, but rejects it: God doesn’t want a ruling church, but a suffering and low and rejected Church.

    What is the pope actually?

    He is the successor of the carnal desires (longing for rule) of St. Peter. Up to the time of Jesus’ crucifixion Peter and the other disciples had not yet understood that “Christ shall suffer”. They indeed hoped to rule together with him over the earthly state of Israel.

    Latest since Pentecost our Peter is a transformed Peter. At Pentecost the disciples received the Holy Spirit, which teached them about the true character of Christ: On earth the Church has to share Christ’s destiny to be rejected and to suffer up to Judgement Day. Of course Christ has returned to heaven and is ruler of the universe, but despite he feels the pains of his congregation. The congregation is his body in a real sense.

    The pope has a right to say: “I am the successor of St. Peter!”, but he should be aware that in fact he is the successor of Peter’s carnal desires.

    Pope, we tell you!: “You are Joseph Ratzinger, but on those rock God will build his Church!”

    I use the Power of the Keys: “Mr. Ratzinger as long as you claim, you would be the head of the Church, your sins are kept, and you are outcast from the Christian Church!”

    August 20, 2011 at 12:46 pm |
  17. David Johnson

    Morals are relative, not objective.

    There is no evidence outside the Gospels, that Jesus ever actually existed. No eyewitness testimony, anywhere.

    I am an atheist. I am also a Humanist. I believe in the golden rule and love my fellow-men.

    The World would be far better off, if we gave up silly notions of a sky daddy.

    Cheers!

    August 20, 2011 at 12:18 pm |
    • Martin T

      @ David, have you ever gone to the website for the Freedom From Religion Foundation? It's pretty awesome, they put out a monthly newletter, some of what they print is just awesome.

      August 20, 2011 at 1:41 pm |
    • Bridget

      Truth isn't relative such claims are self destructive murder is evil helping someone in need is good there is good and evil right and wrong

      August 21, 2011 at 2:03 pm |
    • Bridget

      The ressurection of JESUS is actually one of the most historically attested to events

      August 21, 2011 at 2:04 pm |
    • HotAirAce

      @Bridget

      Please provide some support for your claim re: the resurrection of your mythological man/god.

      August 21, 2011 at 4:28 pm |
  18. herbert juarez

    if you can lie to yourself with immunity, you might be an atheist
    if you think the indifferent support your side , you might be an atheist
    if you don't think at all, you might be an atheist
    if you are drawn to religious discussions thinking someone wants to hear your opinion, you might be an atheist
    if you copy paste every piece of crap theory you find, you might be an atheist
    if you think you are right no matter what the evidence shows, you might be an atheist
    if you can't hold your water when you think about science, you might be an atheist
    if you can't write the word God,with proper capitalization, you might be an atheist
    if you think your view has enough support to be a percentage of the seven billion people on earth, you might be an atheist
    if you think The View has enough support to be a percentage of the seven billion people on earth, you might be an atheist
    if you live in a tar paper shack, writing manifestos, you might be an atheist
    if you think you're basically a good person,and your own final authority you might be an atheist
    if you think your great aunt Tillie was a simian, you might be an atheist
    if you own an autographed copy of Origin Of The Species, you might be an atheist
    if you think that when you die you're worm food , you might be an atheist
    if you think the sun rises and sets for you alone, you might be an atheist
    if all you can think about is Charles Darwin when you're with your significant other, you might be an atheist
    if all you can think about is you when you're with your significant other, you might be an atheist
    if you attend a church but palm the offering plate when it passes , you might be an atheist
    If think this exhausts all the possibilities of definition, you might be an atheist.

    August 20, 2011 at 11:48 am |
    • David Johnson

      @herbert juarez

      Prove there is a god, and make all the atheists repent.

      Cheers!

      August 20, 2011 at 12:11 pm |
    • herbert juarez

      @dj
      "Prove" there isn't a "G" God!

      August 20, 2011 at 12:16 pm |
    • HotAirAce

      @herbie

      Prove that your "virgin" Mary wasn't an adulterous whore.

      August 20, 2011 at 12:28 pm |
    • Colin

      Herbert, I had no idea you were agnostic. I thought you were a Christian. I guess I was wrong.

      August 20, 2011 at 12:28 pm |
    • Eric G

      It is not the responsibility of the Atheists to prove there is no God or Gods in the same manner it is not our responsibility to prove that there is no unicorns.

      Burden of proof is the responsibility of those making claims of fact.

      Please try harder next time or stay in the shallow end of the pool with the other children while the adults talk.

      August 20, 2011 at 12:29 pm |
    • David Johnson

      @herbert juarez

      You said: "Prove" there isn't a "G" God!"

      The "g" is not capitalized when talking about the gods of mythology. These, were just as real as the current crop.

      Actually, since it is the believers that are positing a god, it would be their burden to supply evidence that god does indeed exist. It is like me, saying I have elves living in my left shoe. It would be up to me to prove this is true (extraordinary claim) by producing extraordinary evidence. It would not be on you to prove me a liar. If I can produce no acceptable evidence, then you would be free to ignore my claim.

      No one can prove a negative. I can't prove that god does not exist. I also can't prove Santa Claus does not exist. But in life, we decide what is real and not real, based on what we see in the real-world.

      In the real world, any object that provides no evidence for its existence is classified as imaginary.

      I think we can rule out god, in the same way we rule out any other mythological creature. I can't prove vampires or werewolves or fairies don't exist. But, I bet you would agree, that they are not real. They just don't fit in with the reality we see all around us.

      So, we can look for attributes of god, that should provide evidence that He exists.
      If positive evidence is found, we should conclude that god probably exists.
      If positive evidence is not found, then we should conclude that the Christian God, beyond a reasonable doubt, does not exist. Just like Santa. Just like fairies. Just like vampires.

      One of the most compelling reasons for rejecting god, is the fact that there are so many versions of god(s). Some, not even human (The elephant-faced god – Ganesha etc.). Each religion, each denomination of each religion, defines god's wants differently. All of these religions cannot be right. But they can all be wrong.
      Perhaps man has not yet found the one true god, or perhaps He does not exist.

      Christians claim their god is Omnipotent ( all powerful), Omniscient (all knowing) and Omnibenevolent (all good).

      1). If god is Omnibenevolent, He would WANT every human to believe in Him.

      The bible says He does:

      2 Peter 3:9
      9The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance. King James Version (KJV)

      1 Timothy 2:4
      4Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth. King James Version (KJV)

      2.) If god is Omniscient, then He would KNOW exactly how to convince anyone and everyone that He exists.

      3.) If god is Omnipotent, then He would be ABLE to convince anybody and everybody that He exists.

      Yet, ~ 67% of the world's population are not Christians.

      Therefore, the Christian god is very unlikely to exist.

      In the same vein as the above, notice how many denominations of Christianity there are (~ 34,000). Each denomination can show you scripture, that "proves" they understand the wants of Jesus/god.
      All of the denominations could not be correctly interpreting the bible. Many are contradictory.
      Many of these denominations believe only their members will be saved.

      If the Christian god exists, and He is all knowing and all powerful and all good, why didn't He provide a bible that could not be misinterpreted? That everyone's comprehension of His wants would be the same?

      The bible says:
      1 Corinthians 14:33 – KJV
      33For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.

      Christians believe god's purpose in creating the Bible is to guide human beings towards a knowledge of God, and to help them lead moral lives, Christians must be certain of the meaning of the Bible.

      ambiguity – a word or expression that can be understood in two or more possible ways : an ambiguous word or expression.

      "There are in excess of 1,000 Christian faith groups in North America. They teach diverse beliefs about the nature of Jesus, God, the second coming, Heaven, Hell, the rapture, criteria for salvation, speaking in tongues, the atonement, what happens to persons after death, and dozens of other topics.

      On social controversies, faith groups teach a variety of conflicting beliefs about abortion access, equal rights for ho_mo$exuals and bi$exuals, who should be eligible for marriage, the death penalty, physician assisted suicide, human $exuality topics, origins of the universe, and dozens of other topics.

      The groups all base their theological teachings on the Bible. Generally speaking, the theologians in each of these faith groups are sincere, intelligent, devout, thoughtful and careful in their interpretation of the Bible. But, they come to mutually exclusive conclusions about what it teaches. Further, most are absolutely certain that their particular interpretations are correct, and that the many hundreds of faith groups which teach opposing beliefs are in error." Source: Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance

      If the bible is ambiguous, then it cannot be said to be inerrant. If the bible is not without error, then how do we know which parts to accept as truth and which to reject as fiction?

      The Christian god is very unlikely to exist.

      Another reason to reject the idea of a god, is because there appears to be no need for one. Each hour of each day, science fills another gap in man's knowledge, that god once filled. So far, science has found no need for a god.
      Belief without a reason or evidence, is called "delusional".

      Christians often quote:
      John 3:16 – For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

      If the Christian god so loves the world, why does he allow / cause so much suffering? Disease, famine, floods, earthquakes etc. ad infinitum, ad nauseum. ?

      I can explain the existence of these horrors as being due to natural causes and evolution, but my explanation fails when I include an all loving Creator in the equation. I keep getting a "Can't divide by zero" error.

      Christians say their god is omnibenevolent (all good); omnipotent (all powerful); omniscient ( all knowing)

      1. If the Christian god is all knowing, He would be AWARE of all the suffering on earth.

      2. If the Christian god is all good, He would WANT to rid the world of suffering / evil.

      3. If the Christian god is all powerful, He would be ABLE to rid the world of suffering / evil.

      4. Yet, evil persists.

      Therefore, The Christian god is very unlikely to exist.

      The Christian god is said to be omniscient and omnipotent. But these attributes are not compatible.

      If the Christian god is all knowing, if the future can be known, then even god would be bound by events in the future. Everything would be predetermined.

      1. If the Christian god, knows what will happen in the future, and does something else...then, He is not all knowing.

      2. If the Christian god knows the future and cannot change it, then He is not all powerful.

      3. The attributes attributed to the Christian god conflict with one another.

      The Christian god with these attributes cannot exist. No being can have these attributes at the same time.

      Evolution, with its evidence of transitional fossils, geological column, DNA evidence, vestigial organs etc., is very damning to the biblical Creation Story.

      If god created all the organisms on the planet, then He must have created even the diseases that have caused and are causing so much death and misery for humans and animals. He would have had to fashion the tick and the flea. The mosquito and blood flukes. And worms that bore into a child's eye.
      How could an all good god do such a thing? Why would He spend His time creating gruesome things to cause human suffering? Yet, these horrors exist. And if god didn't create them, who did?

      Evolution explains the diversity of the planet's organisms, including the pathogens and the parasites that have caused so much human death and misery.

      If the Creation Story is a fable, then Adam and Eve did not exist.

      If Adam and Eve did not exist, then there was no original sin.
      If there was no original sin, then it cannot be the reason god allows so much suffering in the world. We can dump the guilt trip.

      If there was no original sin, then there was no need for a redeemer.

      If there was no redeemer, then Christianity is a based on a false premise.

      "If we cannot believe in the First Adam, why believe in the Last [Christ]?" 1 Corinthians15:45

      If the Creation story is a myth, then there is no reason to believe any of the bible.

      If we evolved, there is no soul –> no afterlife –> no need of a heaven or hell.

      LOL, which is why the Evangelicals fight so hard against evolution.

      Evolution is the Christian god's Achilles' heel.

      The Christian god is no more likely to exist than unicorns, satyrs, fiery serpents, or talking snakes or Santa. And you don't believe in any of those, Right?

      Cheers!

      August 20, 2011 at 12:29 pm |
    • herbert juarez

      if ignorance was a virtue you are overly blessed.
      i do not like assassins or persons of low character.adios

      August 20, 2011 at 12:30 pm |
    • herbert juarez

      I forgot one:

      If you have wild, absurd, hate-filed stereotypes for atheists, you might be a Christian.

      August 20, 2011 at 12:32 pm |
    • HotAirAce

      I think herbie just ran away with his eyes closed and his ears covered, babbling some unintelligible anti-thinker mumbo-jumbo, maybe asking his god for help with refuting a couple of simple questions...

      August 20, 2011 at 12:35 pm |
    • David Johnson

      @herbert juarez

      You said: "If you have wild, absurd, hate-filed stereotypes for atheists, you might be a Christian."

      Hmm... If you are an idiot, you also might be a Christian.

      Cheers!

      August 20, 2011 at 12:52 pm |
    • HotAirAce

      If you are a christian (or a believer in any god), you might be an idiot...

      August 20, 2011 at 12:57 pm |
    • Martin T

      @ David Johnson – Your response was perhaps one of the best I've ever seen written or heard spoken. I've been fortunate to have met the likes of Dawkins and Hawking, and many others who are the leaders in the Atheist Movement, if you call it that, and none have been quite as accurate as you. Thank you and I plan to use, with a nod to you, your words in some of my future writings. Thanks...

      August 20, 2011 at 1:04 pm |
    • Martin T

      @ Herbert – you are what I would call a normal Christian Rabble-rouser, with little else on your mind than making trouble for people. Your attempts at humor are very weak, and yet you think others should somehow "get it" and when they do not, you continue to call people names, like THEY are the ones with the issues. This "list" of evidences of atheism is trite, simplistic, and actually quite unfactual; but then again, when was the last time that Christians actually sought facts about something... Peace.

      August 20, 2011 at 1:13 pm |
    • David Johnson

      @Martin T

      Please use anything that I write, that you might feel helpful. I believe most freethinkers want to share their ideas.

      My hope is to give the people who have not yet drank the Kool Aid, alternatives to the "opinions" expressed by the the believers.

      Cheers!

      August 20, 2011 at 1:23 pm |
    • tallulah13

      Well, I'd rather be an atheist than someone who slings groundless insults and is so afraid of death he believes in a supernatural being who will give him special rewards when he dies, if only he says he believes in that supernatural being - without a grain of proof.

      August 20, 2011 at 1:25 pm |
    • Peace2All

      @Herbert Juarez

      LOL...!!!! -Herbert !!! Nice '20 point... How you know you are an atheist.'

      Your not even in the same universe, IMO, with -Colin and his lists, but you did give me a really good chuckle 😀

      Thanks.

      Regards,

      Peace.

      August 20, 2011 at 1:45 pm |
    • Martin T

      @ David, thank you and yes, I do think most freethinkers want to share their ideas and thoughts. I enjoy reading the thought processes of atheists, and sometimes theists, mostly to compare the difference between the mindless acceptance of the Christians versus the actual thought and research of the atheists.

      August 20, 2011 at 1:51 pm |
    • herbert juarez

      @colin
      if you are wrong on your assessments all or most of the time , you might be an atheist

      August 20, 2011 at 5:20 pm |
    • herbert juarez

      @masrtin t
      if you continually miss the humor in life ,you might be an atheist

      August 20, 2011 at 5:34 pm |
    • herbert juarez

      @erig g
      if you think it adult or intelligent to reference unicorns in a reply, you might be an atheist

      August 20, 2011 at 5:38 pm |
    • herbert juarez

      @david j
      in my absence ,someone posted in my place ,I have no problem speaking for myself and do not apologize for my comments.

      August 20, 2011 at 5:46 pm |
    • herbert juarez

      @peace2all
      if you are the only one in a dozen that recognized humor for what it is, you might not be an atheist.

      August 20, 2011 at 5:51 pm |
    • HotAirAce

      So herbie, how about we all quit the childish stuff and argue the facts? The facts are you have no objective evidence for your claim that a god (any god) exists. I look forward to you proving us atheists wrong...

      August 20, 2011 at 5:57 pm |
    • herbert juarez

      @hot air ace
      if the original reply post was yours ,there is really nothing i wish to speak with you about.

      August 20, 2011 at 6:08 pm |
    • HotAirAce

      So, herbie, I assume you are conceding that you cannot make a factual objective case for a god. Excellent! We are making progress towards eradicating religion.

      August 20, 2011 at 6:14 pm |
    • herbert juarez

      @david johson
      your long response offers no proof of anything,opinions and personal interpretation are not "proof"you admitted as much (,the old i can't prove a negative)but you impressed the heck out of martin t (not particularly difficult on that, as he appears to thrive on any bs that seems to support his"position")
      Just a side bar Santa does exist, or rather did,Saint Nicholas,Didn't know him personally and I don't think he was anything like the "Coke" version, but the persona is supposedly based on an actual person.

      August 20, 2011 at 6:21 pm |
    • herbert juarez

      @ hot air ace
      no ,i am conceding you are a person of low character ,in whom i have no interest in conversing.As time passes and God allows I may at my discretion post arguments concerning faith.They just won't be with you.If anyone reading these posts can't see you for what you are then they sorely deceived.adios

      August 20, 2011 at 6:27 pm |
    • HotAirAce

      So, herbie, because Santa Claus might have been based on some saint, that supports your claim that god(s) exist?

      August 20, 2011 at 6:29 pm |
    • HotAirAce

      So, herbie, why am I a person of low character? Because I challenge your claims? Because I don't belief what you believe? Because I responded with a comment in your style? Because you are incapable of backing up anything you say? Because?

      August 20, 2011 at 6:34 pm |
    • i wonder

      herbert juarez: "Santa does exist, or rather did,Saint Nicholas,Didn't know him personally and I don't think he was anything like the "Coke" version, but the persona is supposedly based on an actual person."

      Don't you see that this perfectly parallels process of the Jesus legend?... Based on a perhaps real person and embellished repeatedly over the years to arrive at its ultimate fantasy status.

      August 20, 2011 at 6:42 pm |
    • nonono

      Atheist-Prove to me God does NOT exist.

      August 20, 2011 at 6:48 pm |
    • herbert juarez

      @i wonder
      well no it doesn't parallel .Awhile back i met Jesus.

      August 20, 2011 at 7:05 pm |
    • herbert juarez

      oh and tallulah13, I don't fear death.

      August 20, 2011 at 7:18 pm |
    • tallulah13

      I mean real death, herb. The kind where you just die and don't exist anymore. Not the made up death where you go to meet god and feel all special and live forever with ice cream and puppies.

      Tell me you're okay with not existing. I've asked this question of christians here, but never gotten a real answer: Would you still be a christian without the promise of heaven?

      August 21, 2011 at 2:12 am |
    • herbert juarez

      @ tallulah
      I meant real death ,i do not fear , no reason to, you seem to fear it though,i can't change what is and neither can you.From birth to forever we exist,go figure.

      August 21, 2011 at 8:02 am |
    • tallulah13

      Nope, herb. I don't fear death. I don't know why you think I do, because I'm not the one who follows a belief system that promises eternal life in exchange for your soul.

      You didn't answer my question. Would you still be a christian without the promise of heaven?

      August 21, 2011 at 11:00 am |
    • herbert juarez

      @tallula
      would you still be a human being without oxygen?

      August 21, 2011 at 1:08 pm |
    • tallulah13

      I'd be dead without oxygen. Just so much decaying organic material. So I guess you mean no, herbert. You would not be a christian without the promise of heaven. At least you're honest, even if you won't answer a simple yes or no question.

      August 21, 2011 at 1:25 pm |
    • herbert juarez

      @ tal
      missed the point completely,not an unnatural occurrence for those who think they are indoctrinated in atheism
      heaven is as natural as oxygen, it is not an issue as to there or not,in the grand scheme of things ,your opinion and a buck will get you something from the value menu at Wendys.

      August 21, 2011 at 3:10 pm |
    • tallulah13

      Yes or no, Herb.

      August 21, 2011 at 3:19 pm |
    • J.W

      I think I would still be tallulah. It isnt just about the afterlife. It is about living according to the teachings of Jesus as well.

      August 21, 2011 at 3:26 pm |
    • herbert juarez

      well said jw

      August 21, 2011 at 3:33 pm |
    • tallulah13

      Thank you JW. I appreciate a real answer. And I believe you. Doing right is it's own reward.

      August 21, 2011 at 5:29 pm |
    • herbert juarez

      @ tal
      Is English your first language?You always come to the opposite conclusion of what is being said.

      August 21, 2011 at 6:20 pm |
  19. Faith

    Europe and America declined because they became anti-christian and very immoral.

    August 20, 2011 at 10:46 am |
  20. Faith

    The West is barbaric without Christianity. De-christianized trashy West proved they have nothing worth without Christianity.

    August 20, 2011 at 10:44 am |
    • David Johnson

      @Faith

      I forgot to click on reply when I replied to you. I think it might have been Satan.?

      Morals are relative, not objective.

      There is no evidence outside the Gospels, that Jesus ever actually existed. No eyewitness testimony, anywhere.

      I am an atheist. I am also a Humanist. I believe in the golden rule and love my fellow-men.

      The World would be far better off, if we gave up silly notions of a sky daddy. And did that which helps / makes happy, the greatest number of society. Gay marriage hurts no one, and would make that segment of of our nation happy. It should be allowed. Believing in "pie in the sky" is harmful. A belief in an afterlife, where the persecuted of this world receive compensation, allows despots to thrive. It should be banned.

      Cheers!

      Cheers!

      Cheers!

      August 20, 2011 at 12:49 pm |
    • Naomi

      Both truth and morals are objective and eternal. Man is not the measuring rod but the Word of God is. The evidences for God and Jesus is everywhere. Relativists leave victims alone to continue to suffer and humanists cause the two world wars last century. Atheists have no morals. Gay marriage destroys the society and perverts don't obtain happiness but only insanity.

      August 20, 2011 at 1:04 pm |
    • tallulah13

      Ohh! Naomi? New name alert?

      August 20, 2011 at 1:20 pm |
    • J.W

      I think Faith, Adelina, etc are all different people. They are a group that goes to a computer lab together every day, but they have about the same ideas.

      August 20, 2011 at 1:36 pm |
    • David Johnson

      @Naomi

      You said: "Both truth and morals are objective and eternal. Man is not the measuring rod but the Word of God is."

      Did god give us these morals because they are good, or are these morals good because god gave them?

      Curious in Arizona

      August 20, 2011 at 1:37 pm |
    • Martin T

      @ Naomi, I am always amused at Christians who say "atheists have no morals." Tell me, do you personally know EVERY atheist that ever existed? What measurement do you use to make such a statement? I bet if you came to my office and sought assistance, you would not think for a moment that I had no morals, in fact I'd be willing to be the thought would not enter your mind, only that you had received the assistance you sought. Even Louis Farrakahn blessed me, before he knew I was a "white devil," of course. What is amusing is that many of mankinds most loved and most helpful have been atheists or agnostics. It would be like me calling all Muslims jihadists, or all Christians, Mormons.... or something along those lines.. It's very insulting...

      August 20, 2011 at 1:49 pm |
    • David Johnson

      Well J.W, I think one of the other "girls" have the brain right now. Naomi isn't responding.

      I am being pestered to cut the lawn... I will check back later.

      Cheers Everyone!

      August 20, 2011 at 2:01 pm |
    • I_get_it

      J.W

      No, they are all the same person, and she freely acknowledges it. She is an elderly Asian woman who long ago was indoctrinated by some harsh Christian missionaries (Baptist? Calvinist?). She is accustomed to tyranny and wishes to impose her own brand of it upon the world.

      August 20, 2011 at 2:13 pm |
    • *frank*

      Her cerebrum is the size of a walnut, and the smell of her privates would make a turkey vulture retch.

      August 20, 2011 at 5:48 pm |
    • I_get_it

      *frank*: "Her cerebrum is the size of a walnut..."

      No, her brain size is quite adequate. She speaks/writes at least two languages, and is seemingly quite educated. It's mostly that her emotions were hijacked by this supernatural fantasy and, in turn, her damaged emotions have overpowered her intellect. Also, perhaps it is a cultural thing, but she has absolutely no people skills, or expertise on how to convince rather than demean, command and demand.

      August 20, 2011 at 6:12 pm |
    • Naomi

      @David, God is perfect and good and He created the world in accordance with His nature though mankind marred it. The reason we see this world as something it should not be. God also subjected Himself to His own structured world when He came here as Man. He is going to restore everything.

      @To All, I'm a singular person but changed the user names because of abuses by others. There have been my fakes so dis-cretion is advised if it's your interest. I omit the phrase "I think" and that's why you think I'm harsh. I love atheists and hope you will all come to the right sense. Get some humility as a creature. Say whatever you want about me but listen to the Evangelical Christians in your land. They are the only ones who love you and do any good to you.

      August 21, 2011 at 4:25 am |
    • Naomi

      I want to immigrate to America, the nation Christians created for Christians. May I? ^^ Will it make any of you miserable? America is my distant dream and my love dearer than the distant stars...

      August 21, 2011 at 4:41 am |
    • Naomi

      For nearly half century I loved Americans every single day. To think of it, it's great wonder I'm talking to Americans freely like this in CNN blog... What a shame to find this new generations of Americans(Westerners) totally anti-God and pervertic. You guys are no American. Must be aliens to destroy the best nation on planet. Or just plain evil spoiled kids...

      August 21, 2011 at 4:46 am |
    • tallulah13

      Miss Many Names, you never loved America. Somebody told you a lie about America and you loved that lie. You honestly have no clue about America or Americans, and sadly, you refuse to learn. You would just rather condemn us for not being what you thought we should be. That isn't fair and it isn't moral. So you can either find another lie to believe, learn about real Americans, or keep blaming us for someone else's lie.

      Americans aren't going to change and spewing untruthful venom at them is only going to make you look like a bitter fool.

      August 21, 2011 at 11:09 am |
    • Naomi

      Tallulah13, what lie? It's true America is immoral and doomed for it. The only difference between Sodom and USA is the existence of Christian population. America needs to change or at least learn the US history properly. You guys are worse than the Ja-panese and Turks in recognition of history. Only Christians admit history as it is in any nation, no one else does.

      August 21, 2011 at 10:56 pm |
    • Naomi

      Tallulah13, I was in USA before; that's why I know the Hollywood perverts are not the only Americans in existence. I liked USA very much because I was with American Christians. I feel sorry the terrorists did not meet the right Americans(Christian ones) and hate USA so badly. Actually I like posting to non-Americans defense of the role of historic America but here in religion blog only many evil atheistic Americans come. It's ridiculous you think America belongs to you just because you live there. It doesn't. America belongs to Christians.

      August 21, 2011 at 11:07 pm |
    • tallulah13

      Naomi, when you were here, you were hosted b y people who told you what you wanted to hear. You didn't experience the real America. You visited here. I was born and raised here. My ancestors literally WERE those puritans you like to praise; my grandmother could traces both sides of my family to the Mayflower. I can also trace my ancestry to both the Cherokee and Seminole tribes of native Americans. My family IS American history. I have studied American history, I have lived American history. Your dream of America is just that: a dream. Again, I suggest you use your internet access to study the reality of America, because your tirades against this country are malicious lies.

      August 21, 2011 at 11:20 pm |
    • Naomi

      Tallulah, then your ignorance is from the lack of knowledge on the world history. In order to understand America, you need to know the Bible, the history of Britain, Europe, Christianity, ancient civilization, ancient Israel, history of Africa, Asia, and of the Middle East. I suggest you to read proper textbooks first instead of reading only what you prefer in internet.

      August 22, 2011 at 12:03 am |
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
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.