Jesus, bombs and ice cream
Christian activist Shane Claiborne teamed up with Ben Cohen, of Ben and Jerry’s Ice Cream, for a presentation on militarism and ice cream.
September 11th, 2011
01:26 PM ET

Jesus, bombs and ice cream

By Sarah Hoye, CNN

Philadelphia (CNN) - An unlikely pairing took to the stage Saturday in front of a sold out audience at World Café Live to promote peace and ice cream.
Philadelphia-based Christian author and activist Shane Claiborne partnered with Ben Cohen, co-founder of Ben and Jerry’s Ice Cream, to raise public awareness about federal military spending.
The evening started off on a somber note with Cohen pouring 10,000 BB gun pellets into a metal container to illustrate the power of the United States’ nuclear arsenal in front of a stunned audience.
“It’s that kind of overkill mentality that drives an out-of-control Pentagon budget,” he said.
Cohen later used Oreos - with each one representing $10 billion of federal spending – to show how the money stacks up compared to social programs.
Cohen had read Claiborne’s book, “Jesus for President,” and thought the author was “on to something.”

The two were later introduced and planed the "Jesus, Bombs and Ice Cream Tour" over the past year.

“Imagine a world with fewer bombs and more ice cream,” Claiborne said. “We’re here (tonight) because it’s time to re-think our world and our federal budget.”
“There’s no better way we can imagine honoring the anniversary than by having hope that another world is possible,” he said.
The duo hosted the 90-minute variety show critiquing military spending, violence and war. It included Iraq veteran-turned-activist Logan Laituri, and Terry Rockefeller, who lost her sister during the September 11 attacks.

“There can be no war on terror. War is terror,” said Rockefeller who has traveled to the Middle East as part of the anti-war group September 11th Families for Peaceful Tomorrows. 

Artist and welder Josh Seitzer transformed a non-firing AK-47 into a potato pitchfork during Saturday

The event was peppered with musical performances by Philadelphia-based Christian rockers the Psalters and Nashville singer-songwriter John Francis. 
Things grew lighter by the end of the evening, when the hosts asked audience members to fight for a more peaceful world before the comical anti-violence juggling act by world champion juggler Josh Horton left them laughing.

Cohen lay on the stage while Horton juggled large knives above him.
And of course, there was ice cream, courtesy of Ben and Jerry’s.
“If we’re going to have fewer bombs and more ice cream, we need to shift our budget to what helps people live instead of killing people,” Cohen said.

- CNN Belief Blog

Filed under: 9/11 • Christianity

soundoff (279 Responses)
  1. CSX

    Another sick pathetic liberal hiding under Christianity.

    September 13, 2011 at 11:01 pm |
  2. herbert juarez

    The ultimate agenda of the true atheist is to disrupt,dismantle and destroy freedom.The greatest threat to the atheist ideology is the Judeo Christian underpinnings of the United States of America.Moral decline,perversion and corruption can all be traced back to minority atheist influence.There is nothing noble or intelligent in the doctrines of atheism.If it is good or noble or righteous or pleasing ,a self proclaimed atheist will try to destroy it,and after making a mess of whatever they touch , they always proclaim their lack of responsibility.This country has always been better served as one nation under God.

    September 13, 2011 at 7:55 pm |
    • herbert juarez

      hit report abuse on all reality posts ,nothing but copy paste spam

      September 14, 2011 at 5:29 am |
    • Reality

      Only for new members of this blog:

      Saving Christians from the Infamous Resurrection Con/Disease:

      From that famous passage: In 1 Corinthians 15 St. Paul reasoned, "If Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith."

      Even now Catholic/Christian professors of theology are questioning the bodily resurrection of the simple, preacher man aka Jesus.

      To wit;

      From a major Catholic university's theology professor’s grad school white-board notes:

      "Heaven is a Spirit state or spiritual reality of union with God in love, without earthly – earth bound distractions.
      Jesus and Mary's bodies are therefore not in Heaven.

      Most believe that it to mean that the personal spiritual self that survives death is in continuity with the self we were while living on earth as an embodied person.

      Again, the physical Resurrection (meaning a resuscitated corpse returning to life), Ascension (of Jesus' crucified corpse), and Assumption (Mary's corpse) into heaven did not take place.

      The Ascension symbolizes the end of Jesus' earthly ministry and the beginning of the Church.

      Only Luke's Gospel records it. The Assumption ties Jesus' mission to Pentecost and missionary activity of Jesus' followers The Assumption has multiple layers of symbolism, some are related to Mary's special role as "Christ bearer" (theotokos). It does not seem fitting that Mary, the body of Jesus' Virgin-Mother (another biblically based symbol found in Luke 1) would be derived by worms upon her death. Mary's assumption also shows God's positive regard, not only for Christ's male body, but also for female bodies." "

      "In three controversial Wednesday Audiences, Pope John Paul II pointed out that the essential characteristic of heaven, hell or purgatory is that they are states of being of a spirit (angel/demon) or human soul, rather than places, as commonly perceived and represented in human language. This language of place is, according to the Pope, inadequate to describe the realities involved, since it is tied to the temporal order in which this world and we exist. In this he is applying the philosophical categories used by the Church in her theology and saying what St. Thomas Aquinas said long before him."

      The Vatican quickly embellished this story with a lot CYAP.

      Of course, we all know that angels are really mythical "pretty wingie talking thingies".

      With respect to rising from the dead, we also have this account:

      An added note: As per R.B. Stewart in his introduction to the recent book, The Resurrection of Jesus, Crossan and Wright in Dialogue,


      "Reimarus (1774-1778) posits that Jesus became sidetracked by embracing a political position, sought to force God's hand and that he died alone deserted by his disciples. What began as a call for repentance ended up as a misguided attempt to usher in the earthly political kingdom of God. After Jesus' failure and death, his disciples stole his body and declared his resurrection in order to maintain their financial security and ensure themselves some standing."

      p.168. by Ted Peters:

      Even so, asking historical questions is our responsibility. Did Jesus really rise from the tomb? Is it necessary to have been raised from the tomb and to appear to his disciples in order to explain the rise of early church and the transcription of the bible? Crossan answers no, Wright answers, yes. "

      So where are the bones"? As per Professor Crossan's analyses in his many books, the body of Jesus would have ended up in the mass graves of the crucified, eaten by wild dogs, covered with lime in a shallow grave, or under a pile of stones.

      September 14, 2011 at 8:06 am |
  3. ColoredMountains

    It's useless. Where there is no righteousness, there is no peace. Punks should get high school diploma and read the Bible.

    September 13, 2011 at 10:05 am |
  4. Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

    HS is truly off her rocker. She insists that I'm Reality, posting under another name.

    What a freakin' bonehead.

    Why would I or anyone else do anything but laugh at the old biddy?

    September 12, 2011 at 8:30 pm |
  5. Bo

    @ kimsland I'm not sure just what you may mean by being a loner online, but in anyways I'm a loner too because I don't fit into the mainstream of Christians. I believe that no matter what position we take, we are God's children, he loves us all. Like I said, I feel the need to make a long post, and I can't do that on my cellphone, because it limits me to just so many characters, and punching out letters with my thumbs is rather slow. I have made notes. I do not know what blog you are on, but somewhere I'll catch up with you. Maybe I should post you on any blog no matter the subject.See you somewhere.

    September 12, 2011 at 8:06 pm |
  6. Bo

    @*frank*If being kind and polite is honoable and chase, than that is what I am, that is something anyone can do!

    September 12, 2011 at 7:49 pm |
  7. herbert juarez

    God is love.Thank you Shane and Ben!

    September 12, 2011 at 6:01 pm |
    • Sue

      'Love' like some poetic device, or some actual god who literally is 'Love', like Eros/Cupid, or maybe a goddess like Aphrodite/Venus?

      September 12, 2011 at 11:17 pm |
  8. Bo

    @Shadowfast1522 @ 9:24 Thank you for the reply, sorry I'm so long in replying. I agree whith you a lot, religion is a convient banner which to instigate conflict.It was used very well in the 30yrs war, but the real reason was political power over certain areas of Europe I don't understand what is meant by: religion is poor at stopping wars because of "fringe eliments" ? The conflict between Israeli/Palistne is both religious and polital and is a hopeless case because they are claiming the same thing. But, Christians are misled if the believe that Christ can not come until the temple is rebuilt, they don't understand the Bible. But, I have to disagree if that eliminating religion will elimiate war and evil–that is just a dream. However, I believe that apostate protestism will usher in the 2nd coming of Christ and by the signs of the times, that will not be too long. I'm glad we can discuss this civily, without name calling.

    September 12, 2011 at 2:26 pm |
  9. Bo

    @kimsland, I'm rather doubt that you will be back on this forum until next week, but just in case you do come back I want to say I'm so glad that we can discuss this in a civil way. I really enjoyed reading your reply, it is thoughtful. I want to make a reply, but I think it may be long and I don't want to write it and then it not be read, plus, I may have to go to the library to use a PC and the library is closed on Mondays. Can we talk later? Have an awesome day and take care

    September 12, 2011 at 1:33 pm |
    • kimsland

      Wow Bo

      Its true I'm not always on here, but you'll definitely catch me somewhere, on some blog or forum.
      Actually I enjoyed your conversations too, and being somewhat of a loner online that's pretty good.

      By the way, 'Jesus, bombs and icecream', really addresses my point that religion always try to associate themselves with children in all the wrong ways. Lol

      September 12, 2011 at 6:32 pm |
    • *frank*

      Bo, I hope your motives with this damsel are honorable and chaste!

      September 12, 2011 at 6:37 pm |
  10. Richard S Kaiser

    There is but one person needed who should if could, eliminate the injustices around the world. Such a person need pass the tests of amalgamated potentialities' common. On the provision said person is unable to pass the commonality equation, we need to pin that person to the wall of enigmatic proselytism in order for the masses to have a bargaining chip(s) should they be found out wronging themselves and the worldly attritions forsaking the one person potencies while begrudging the lots amassing in their rankness. Soon isn't good enough and now isn't right enough therefore later will always be in the woodwork of fumbling analogues and rythmic bystandings. Time will never know its' ending yet the one may never know their beginnings, be they prompt or be they sullen the poignancies of ridicule will always confound said oneness.

    September 12, 2011 at 9:04 am |
    • Filler Text

      Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Ut dolor elit, dolore aliquip culpa in nulla irure id esse veniam, et occaecat sed nostrud sed nostrud eu anim cupidatat veniam, consequat. sunt enim Excepteur voluptate ut ipsum proident, sed enim ad adipisicing est laborum.

      September 12, 2011 at 9:53 am |
    • BRC

      "Oh freddled gruntbuggly/thy micturations are to me/As plurdled gabbleblotchits on a lurgid bee.
      Groop I implore thee, my foonting turlingdromes. And hooptiously drangle me with crinkly bindlewurdles,
      Or I will rend thee in the gobberwarts with my blurglecruncheon, see if I don't!"

      September 12, 2011 at 10:00 am |
    • Filler Text

      Aute cillum incididunt dolore id aliquip nisi anim ea quis velit cupidatat dolore enim aliquip sint elit, sint nostrud exercitation do qui non eu veniam, Ut magna in culpa dolor eiusmod occaecat amet, consequat. magna anim quis et ex irure veniam, sint tempor cillum sunt qui nisi incididunt in cillum cillum id minim labore. 😉

      September 12, 2011 at 10:12 am |
    • JohnR

      I myself have never been drangled with crinkly bindlewurdles. But I'm still hoping! Ya gotta BELIEVE!!! :-D!

      September 12, 2011 at 11:49 am |
    • Sue

      I find Filler Text's comments more sensible than Richard's. 🙂

      September 12, 2011 at 12:19 pm |
    • Richard S Kaiser

      Rn tin tin rin tin tin
      rin tin casca bells
      Que el gria todo el dia
      rin tin casca bell
      Oh que falicidad
      Pasear en un trineo
      E las montanas
      que blancos ya estan
      Rin tin tin rin tin

      (Spelling might be wrong) Have a jingly daily whaly saline day!

      September 12, 2011 at 1:40 pm |
    • Richard S Kaiser

      I owe my parentheticals to J Edgar Casey and his writings,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, 🙂

      September 12, 2011 at 1:43 pm |
  11. William Demuth

    I have always felt that the tradeoff between military expense and the civilian application of the technologies created from it were a double edged sword.

    In many ways it hastens the day were humans might leave our planet for new horizons, yet also grows the risk we might kill ourselves before we find the exit.

    In truth, it seems quite apparent to me that the ONLY way humanity survives another thousand years is if we diversify of this rock we call home.

    To that end, if we cannot do the research without using war as a rational, and we are going to spend the money anyhow, I just hope some good may come from it.

    September 12, 2011 at 8:46 am |
  12. William Demuth

    Big explosion in a French Nuclear reactor.

    ANy Frenchman on at the moment?

    September 12, 2011 at 8:04 am |
    • Laughing

      I love that you report the news on a newssite

      September 12, 2011 at 10:20 am |
    • William Demuth

      Whenever disaster strikes I am at the ready!

      I got more alert feeds than Batman!

      September 12, 2011 at 11:49 am |
    • Parp

      That was so informative I may just parp.

      September 12, 2011 at 2:19 pm |
  13. Kebos

    One doesn't need to be a Christian activist to realize the wrong being done by America and it's allies in these wars against humanity. Guns and bombs will not change Afghanistan and Pakistan. Education and understanding will.

    September 12, 2011 at 7:46 am |
    • William Demuth


      The Christians are the ones DRIVING the wars. Surely you realize that?

      September 12, 2011 at 8:55 am |
  14. doctore0

    Imagine no religion!
    No don't imagine it, lets do it; Religion is what is causing most of our problems; Religion is madness; Religion is about war, about greed, religion is man made.
    If there ever was a god.. he/she/it would want religion to go away

    September 12, 2011 at 3:47 am |
    • Kebos

      Totally agree. Religion is a prop or a crutch used by those who don't want to solve their own problems.

      September 12, 2011 at 7:47 am |
    • HeavenSent

      Jesus' wisdom is righteous truth about life and the hereafter. Religion is man made. All the other religions in the world are a rip off of what Jesus is. They took 95% of His truth, blended it with 5% of whatever lies were necessary for them to ensure man/woman doubted. Worked, didn't it?


      September 12, 2011 at 9:37 am |
    • BRC

      That's an interesting premise, but how can you say that other religions took 95% of their material from Christianity, when Christianty is comparetively a very new religion (there are more religions older than christianity then newer).

      September 12, 2011 at 9:52 am |
    • myweightinwords


      You do realize that most religions pre-date Christianity, yes? And that much of what the bible claims about Jesus was claimed before by other faiths, and that much of what Jesus reportedly said was from Judaism and other religions which came before him?

      September 12, 2011 at 9:57 am |
    • Free

      Again, can you explain how worshipping a man as a god isn't actually a religion?

      September 12, 2011 at 9:57 am |
    • JohnQuest

      HeavenSent, that is the exact opposite of the truth, Christianity (all Abrahamic belief systems) appear to be a combination of several older belief systems (in other words, they stole ideas from other beliefs systems).

      September 12, 2011 at 10:11 am |
    • Al

      Jesus' wisdom is righteous truth about life and the hereafter. Religion is man made. All the other religions in the world are a rip off of what Jesus is. They took 95% of His truth, blended it with 5% of whatever lies were necessary for them to ensure man/woman doubted. Worked, didn't it?


      This is why there will never be peace. They all think they are correct. There are a few conversions from one religion to another, but the majority of religious people practice the first religion that they are exposed to. It's the world's most common form of brainwashing.

      September 12, 2011 at 10:14 am |
    • AHansen

      Christianity did not borrow from other religions. You are confusing the fact that the Old Testament was written by Jewish men instead of Christian men because Jesus had not yet come to earth. Christianity is a should be a living, active relationship with a person who came to save humanity. It is not just following doctrine and doing what a group of people tell you is the right thing to do. Different doctrines are the reasons for so many denominational religions. Christianity has its roots in the beginning of humanity, not just from the time Jesus was born. Even the Jewish Old Testament prophesizes that Jesus is coming in the first chapter of the Bible, which is believed to have been written approximately 600 years before Jesus was born.

      September 12, 2011 at 10:56 am |
    • Laughing


      You make me sad. I understand this is what you believe, but how exactly do you explain all the borrowed concepts and ideas from earlier religions ingrained in christianity? Virginal Birth – Egyptian, Sunday holy day – Pagan/Roman, son of a god born on Dec. 25th – Egyptian again. And on it goes. If you really think it's not christianity borrowing from other religions to make conversion of other cultures easier, than how may I ask did Egyptians then borrow from a religion that didn't exist yet?

      Yes, in the Torah there is a prophacy of a messiah coming, which is not uncommon during that era. Keep in mind jews go through hard times a lot in history, obviously they create a story of a savior to come and deliver them from bondage, it happened a bunch. You just see a couple of those prophecies and say they apply to jesus even though they don't. Any prophecy made in the NT is ridiculous to take at face value considering I can write prophecies of things that have already happened too. For instance, "Today I will wake up a little later than usual because I forgot to set my alarm" BEHOLD! It's happened! I must be divine because I prohpesized something that would happen today and it did!

      September 12, 2011 at 11:12 am |
    • BRC

      Christiany annexed the entirety of the Torah (which has several stories, such as the flood, which can be found in older mythology from the region) as the Old Testament, then wrote a small addition and called it the Bible. How is that not taking from other religions?

      September 12, 2011 at 11:12 am |
    • Free

      For starters, the name for God in the creation story in Genesis is Elohim, but Elohim are the sons of El in the Canaanite pantheon. Their Lord as El Elyon (God Most High) and, later, by Hadad the rain god, who is known as Baal, or 'Lord', in the OT. Melchizedek, the Canaanite High Priest of El Elyon and king of Salem, blessed Abram in Genesis 14:18-22, and Abram accepts this god as his.

      In the Sumerian creation epic Enuma Elish, the god Marduk battles the great dragon Tiamat, the primeval waters, and divides her body to create the heaven and the earth. In Genesis 1, God's Spirit moves upon the face of the waters and then divides them. Marduk hangs up his bow in the sky after his victory over Tiamat, much as God does in Genesis 9:13 after the Flood. The borrowing just continues from there. You may want to read J R Porter's 'Guide To The Bible', or something similar.

      Believing that Jesus came to save all of humanity is doctrine, my friend. Not all Christians believe that Christ is the ONLY way. Reading Jesus in the OT messianic prophecy depends on non-Jewish interpretation of Jewish scripture, and even then doesn't cover all the prophecies concerning the messiah. The messiah will rule at a time when the Jewish people will observe God's commandments, Ezekiel 37:24, but Jesus' has to work very hard to instill morality, and Isaiah 66:23 states that the messiah will
      rule at a time when everybody believes in God, which was also certainly not the case in Jesus' time, or since.

      September 12, 2011 at 11:37 am |
    • J.W

      The Bible never says Jesus was born on Dec. 25. That is just when it is celebrated.

      September 12, 2011 at 11:57 am |
    • Mike from CT

      Laughing you make me sad believing every you tube video you have seen

      No where in the doctorines of Christianity does it proclaim that the "son of a god born on Dec. 25th"

      The Jews were intergrated with the Egyptians, you really need to look into the Zeitgeist movie and the faith you put into it.

      But let's start... what other stories of birth forth from a human woman is there? Key words there virgin and birth forth from a human woman

      September 12, 2011 at 12:32 pm |
    • BRC

      2 easy ones. Hinduism has it occuring repeatedly, and some stories in Zoroastrianism (hundreds of years older than Judaism) asay that he was born from a virgin after being concieved by a shaft of light. I'm quite srure there are more. It's a simple search.

      September 12, 2011 at 12:42 pm |
    • JohnQuest

      Mike, please review the following:

      Krishna was born of the virgin Devaki
      Savior Dionysus was born of the virgin Semele.
      Buddha was born of a virgin
      Hertha was a virgin impregnated by the heavenly Spirit and bore a son.

      September 12, 2011 at 12:52 pm |
    • Mike from CT

      Budda was 4th centry - that is after the gospels so it can be a copy from the future

      Krishna was the eighth son born to the princess Devaki, and her husband Vasudeva

      Savior Dionysus

      Hertha I do not know about


      September 13, 2011 at 9:56 am |
    • Mike from CT


      The story of Saoshyant is written in the literary style of Mythology.... think.. Once upon a time... Homer's Odyosse

      and not historical narriative... At this time and place this person was here, this country was here, this person was the ruler.

      September 13, 2011 at 10:02 am |
    • Ladervijd

      "Men despise religion. They hate it and are afraid it may be true." – Blaise Pascal

      Krishna, Buddha, Dionysus, Jesus, ... – probably all the same guy/soul, respectivly, different faces of One God. There can obviously be various interpretations of particulars, as eg. Jesus Christ is more/different than an individual ego-bound body.
      Nevertheless, mediating everything at once is like that scene from the recent indiana jones movie, where instant ultimate knowledge = madness. in other words, everyone has their own spiritual journey, all those journeys being more or less on the same path, but everyone being elsewhere, with Jesus Christ being first and last. Or someth"Men despise religion. They hate it and are afraid it may be true." – Blaise Pascal

      Krishna, Buddha, Dionysus, Jesus, ... – probably all the same guy/soul, respectivly, different faces of One God. There can obviously be various interpretations of particulars, as eg. Jesus Christ is more/different than an individual ego-bound body.
      Nevertheless, mediating everything at once is like that scene from the recent indiana jones movie, where instant ultimate knowledge = madness. in other words, everyone has their own spiritual journey, all those journeys being more or less on the same path, but everyone being elsewhere, with Jesus Christ being first and last. Or something in these lines anyways.

      September 13, 2011 at 10:09 am |
  15. Bo

    @ Kim, forgot to say, I'm going to be on the phone for about an hour.

    September 11, 2011 at 10:26 pm |
    • kimsland

      I tend to answer questions from the top of my head, so I won't wait the hour.

      The New York Mayor said 'exclude religious leaders', and I also agree with this.
      No wars are not just religious. Religion is what keeps us in the dark, it forces people not to take responsibility for life on Earth. This is clearly shown by the attacks of 9/11.
      These people were religious, they truly believed that it was right by their god to do such horror.

      I ask you how far would you go if you felt you were doing something the lord commanded? Would you take your sons life or your own as Moses thought was right? Would you go against all of society and decide on your own religious morals over law itself?

      Religion gives individuals excuses to cause grief onto others. It gives promise of a better place after you're dead.
      Religious people feel there is nothing to learn here, especially such things as life on other planets, even if life did exist outside of Earth (100% likely) even then religious people say they will be without souls, since they were not born of Earth and under, man to look like god, law.
      By believing you denounce that a greater intelligence must exist elsewhere in our universe, and that is just not on.

      Religion IS evil and it DOES create war (quite obviously) Religion is meant for the weak and the ones that don't question (ie faith) It was created thousands of years ago by backward people (obviously they were highly ignorant back then) Hopefully we are not THAT ignorant any more?

      We DON"T need religion to fight wars, or to end them. People already have love and understanding in themselves, otherwise we all would have killed at parents the first time they said no.

      I say NO to religion, NO to this ridiculous nonsense, NO to 'leaders' that allow such barbaric statements about useless prayer.
      This is not a case of if it doesn't hurt then why not. This is a case of lieing to others so they don't learn that fear and hate is NOT welcome.

      September 11, 2011 at 10:46 pm |
    • Ladervijd

      Oh please, you don't know what you are writing about. Sure, persons can be brainwashed (even today rather easily), but eg. german nazism is a show of that you don't need Religion for that.

      "even then religious people say they will be without souls"

      Noticed the similarity between the words soul and sol?

      "By believing you denounce that a greater intelligence must exist elsewhere in our universe, and that is just not on."

      Huh? On the contrary.

      "Religion IS evil"

      Religion is an abstract term, is it not? Even when we compare religion to something such as a car, are cars evil because they are part of killing persons?

      September 13, 2011 at 10:25 am |
    • Ladervijd

      *actual religion being about brain-cleaning, respectivly about cultivation of body, mind and soul

      September 13, 2011 at 10:28 am |
  16. Bo

    @Kimsland. Hi Kim I hope you are still around, I mean on the forum. I ask you a question a few evenigs ago, but you left the site and I didn't see you again for a while. you had said something to the effect that you hoped that you could eradicate religion from the world. I replied and asked what makes you think this world would would be ant better off without religion. What would change to make it a better place to live? (And by the way, don't fool yourself by saying no more wars, because greed is the driving force of war, and greed would have to be iradicated, so you would need a plan to do that. Actually I have asked that several times and nobody has given a good answer.

    September 11, 2011 at 10:24 pm |
    • Shadowflash1522

      Hi Bo,
      I noticed that you said you've asked this question a couple times, so I'll try to offer an honest, realisitic answer:

      Religion is arguably not the root cause of every war, as you've noted. Politics, greed, pride, and a number of other factors contribute as much if not more to global conflict. However, there are two significant practical ways in which religion supports war and blocks peace:

      1. Religion is a convenient banner under which to instigate conflict. I understand the "no true Christian/Muslim/insert religious denomination here would do that" standpoint, but the reality is that even the most organized religions have a very shaky grip on how their teachings are used and misused. Eliminate religion and you eliminate an important point of rhetoric for warmongers. Similarly, religions are also very poor at stopping wars because they cannot control their fringe elements.

      2. Religion is often a huge stumbling block on the path to peace (see the Israeli/Palestinian conflict to illustrate). When religious differences cannot be resolved, especially as they relate to the code of law, they again become a rallying point for division and hatred. Even if we all just decide to live and let live, that still doesn't solve the problem of which country gets to own Jerusalem. The world would be a better place because we could talk sensible practicalities instead of letting religious pride and turmoil stymie negotiations.

      In a nutshell, eliminating religion would force the exposure of greed and corruption for what they are. It would encourage the use of reason, logic, and sense as uniting forces and eliminate an important point of rhetoric and division.

      September 12, 2011 at 9:24 am |
    • JohnQuest

      Bo, two other points to consider, 1) When a person believes that death is rewarded by a deity than the act of killing is not a crime but a "Blessing", after all you are doing the "Lords" work and sending the person to a "better place". 2) If a person believes the creator of the universe is guiding their actions, and the creator can do no wrong, then any actions by that person has to be right (no matter how heinous).

      September 12, 2011 at 10:46 am |
  17. *frank*

    A real brain trust on this page.

    September 11, 2011 at 9:11 pm |
    • Parp

      Idiots will always find a way to do more stupid things.

      September 12, 2011 at 2:23 pm |
  18. Perspective

    My, my these comments are so intelligent and thought provoking! how deeply profound indeed.

    See these 'specimens' arguing against God. What is there to argue if there was no God?

    Would'nt these specimens want to spend time elsewhere on scientific research and furthering science? Guess not!

    September 11, 2011 at 8:57 pm |
    • just so you know

      If there is no god there will be no atheists.

      GK Chesterton

      September 11, 2011 at 9:00 pm |
    • Perspective

      Then why are these here quarelling?

      September 11, 2011 at 9:01 pm |
    • just so you know

      'it' must be a restless mind trying going in different direction having rejected God, 'it' now is left to find answers on 'its' own, science cannot explain everything, so 'it' is soooo lost, other reasons include and not limited to the fact that it does not like a moral figure, 'it' thinks 'it' can justify all its actions to 'itself' being 'it's own moral authority.

      September 11, 2011 at 9:07 pm |
    • Barack Obama

      @Perspective – Your comment is spot on. Every religious article drives the atheists out to droves so they can argue against something they don't believe in. They do indeed seem rather angry as well. Good Day 🙂

      September 11, 2011 at 9:08 pm |
    • John Richardson

      The GK Chesterton quote is easily one of the most insipid things any supposedly eminent author has ever written. A perfectly parallel statement would be "if there are no unicorns, the will be no people who don't believe they exist". Indeed, by this bit of reasoning, you can "prove" the non-existence of mathematicians: if there is no largest prime, there will be no one who thinks there is no largest prime. Of course, we KNOW there is no largest prime and know that those of us who know this exist. I mean, this is really so banal that it is nothing less than horrifying that anyone could in all serious run the argument that Chesterton ran.

      @Perspective "Specimens"??? You have no idea what we do with the rest of our time. So stick your arrogance in your ear. If you don't want to see arguments against your favorite beliefs, go away. You won't be missed.

      September 11, 2011 at 9:41 pm |
    • John Richardson

      @just so Science can't explain everything, but it's sheer hubris to think the fossilized thought called religion explains ANYTHING. And I hate to break it to you, but everyone ultimate chooses what to believe, including what moral precepts to believe. But NOBODY starts from scratch. Some of us simply like to consult a wide range of source material instead of buying into some package deal that some authority figure or other in our lives tried to foist upon us.

      September 11, 2011 at 9:45 pm |
    • just so you know

      @JR-You just proved GK Chesterton's one liner about you, by your argument.

      September 11, 2011 at 9:59 pm |
    • just so you know


      The question is not about your belief or unbelief it is totally your choice.But be mindful about spewing hatred and insults on believers and the GOD they worship, if you do not want to bow down to the creator it is totally up to you.

      Whether you like it or not God exists. (Period)

      September 11, 2011 at 10:05 pm |
    • tallulah13

      Just so you know, if there were proof of god, there would be no atheists. You have no proof, and your opinion does not equal fact.

      September 11, 2011 at 10:10 pm |
    • *frank*

      (ludicrousness of claim) x (confidence with which it's asserted) = degree to which the one making the assertion looks like an idiot

      September 11, 2011 at 10:13 pm |
    • just so you know

      do you even realize that you are making a negative assertion on an absolute statement, your argument is illogical.

      September 11, 2011 at 10:13 pm |
    • LinCA

      @just so you know

      Whether you like it or not Bob the Magical Blue Sock exists. (Period)

      September 11, 2011 at 10:15 pm |
    • just so you know

      you needed idiot to complete your sentence? you will be ignored.

      September 11, 2011 at 10:15 pm |
    • just so you know

      If it is your belief that bob the blue or red or green cat exists and you want to worship it, go for it! It doesn't deserve an argument

      September 11, 2011 at 10:18 pm |
    • John Richardson

      @just so. I didn't prove Chesterton's argument. You obviously don't understand even the rudiments of logic. What he COULD have said but DIDN'T is that if there was no CONCEPT of god or if the concept of god were culturally insignificant, there would likely not be a group of people who label themselves as non-believers in god. But that is MANY steps removed from what he actually did say. Chesterton and those who quote this bit from him sympathetically are asserting something utterly imbecilic.

      September 11, 2011 at 10:20 pm |
    • just so you know

      @JR- your argument of a negative assertion on an absolute statement is illogical.

      September 11, 2011 at 10:23 pm |
    • John Richardson

      Look in the mirror, Just So. This whole thread started out as a happy little hate fest amongst believers spewing scorn at those who don't believe.

      September 11, 2011 at 10:23 pm |
    • LinCA

      @just so you know

      Equal evidence yields equal merit. Bob the Magical Blue Sock is equally (un)likely to exist as that figment of your imagination.

      There is significantly more evidence for the existence of the Loch Ness monster or Bigfoot. Even Santa is more likely to exist than your imaginary friend.

      September 11, 2011 at 10:24 pm |
    • just so you know

      @JR-To GK Chesterton's point if you didn't believe in God, why spend so much time arguing with Theists.

      Wouldn't your time be valuably spent elsewhere?? What is your point? We say God Exists you say God does not exist Period end of story move on with your life, why come here on a belief blog?

      September 11, 2011 at 10:26 pm |
    • just so you know

      @Linca-Keep repeating those characters to yourself and amuse yourself if you want to worship those characters the choice is yours!!!

      September 11, 2011 at 10:29 pm |
    • LinCA

      @just so you know

      You said, "Keep repeating those characters to yourself and amuse yourself if you want to worship those characters the choice is yours!!!"
      You just don't get it, do you? I don't believe in any of them. I outgrew irrational beliefs when I was 6. None of these creatures, including your god, exist.

      Believing in the existence of any of these creatures, including your god, without so much as one iota of evidence, is not reasonable. Believing in a creature that is claimed to have mutually exclusive traits, is downright irrational.

      The amusement I get is from the boundless ignorance displayed by believers like yourself. Keep deluding yourself, just keep that nonsense out of my life.

      September 11, 2011 at 10:38 pm |
    • John Richardson

      Oh, here we go again. Logic 101 time again. You CAN prove a negative. You CAN prove a universal. You CAN prove a negative universal, ie an absolute statement of non-existence. 'There is no largest prime' is just such a beast and it was proven in antiquity. But to do any of this, you have to be working in a field that allows of proof, which is basically just math and logic (and meta-math and meta-logic). You can't PROVE negative or positive universals empirically. No matter how many white swans you find or how long you go without seeing a non-white swan, you have not proved either the positive universal 'all swans are white' or any of the negative universals 'no swans are black (or blue or green or whatever)'. These can be disproven by counterexample in the former case or confirming instance in the latter, but never proven. That doesn't make the ASSERTION of these universals illogical. They are not self-contradictory or meaningless, hence they are not illogical. Moreover, they pass muster as scientific hypotheses, which merely must be falsifiable, which they are.

      The statement that there is no god is not illogical. It is not PROVABLE. But it is not illogical and it is a perfectly reasonable default belief, ie in the absence of evidence that there IS a god, one can assume that there isn't one. One CAN be wrong and one might wven one day be PROVEN wrong. But there is nothing in logic or science or philosophy that precludes the possibility of believing this statement and quite possibly being right.

      This was all probably wasted on you, Just So. It was posted as a public service to anyone willing to apply the little effort you obviously never bothered to apply to understand the relevant matters so that maybe just maybe fewer people in the future will fall for the claptrap you've fallen for.

      September 11, 2011 at 10:38 pm |
    • John Richardson

      @Just So Once again, what you are trying to say now is not what Chesterton did say. It matters to get these things right. But to the point you actually want to make, the reason atheists (of which I'm strictly speaking not one, btw, but don't trouble your (very) little mind about that just now) argue with theists is that theists aren't like people who believe in the Jersey Devil who just have their interest and pretty much leave everyone else alone. No, they don't just believe that there IS a god, but that they know all sorts of very specific things about god, including god's opinion on modern legislative issues. These notions must be combatted. Believe me, all non-believers would love to be able to go off and do something else and of course we all do do quite a few other things. But we can't let this issue lie as long as there are people who want to govern the country according to their conception of who god is and what he wants. It would be irresponsible to sit idly by while theists make their mischief.

      September 11, 2011 at 10:49 pm |
    • just so you know

      @LINCA/JR-You both are just repeating yourselves, just putting your statements in paragraph does not help your case.

      Within an absolute statement you are trying to make an assertion that is negative, which is a fundamental fallacy and is illological and does not warrant any argument.

      The bottomline you are spending way too much time in trying to prove there is no God.

      If I were you I and I believed that Science needs to provide me an answer, I will spend my time more on that ,rather than coming here an making illogical statements which is futile.

      September 11, 2011 at 10:51 pm |
    • John Richardson

      Just So, you are simply ignorant. You don't understand the terms you are using. You would be laughed out of every math, logic, philosophy or science class in the world. YOU are the one simply repeating yourself. I've explained the relevant matters in detail and even explained why I bothered to post these explanation despite the fact that I strongly suspected that you are either simply too stupid or too willfully ignorant to understand them. You have now confirmed my suspi-cions. Buh bye!

      September 11, 2011 at 11:05 pm |
    • LinCA

      @just so you know

      If you want to believe that monster you call your god exists, even worship it, go right ahead. If you wish to remain ignorant, that's entirely your choice. Your delusions are just that, yours.

      If you want to convince anyone that your god exists, provide some evidence.

      If you choose to accept an irrational notion of an all-knowing and all-powerful, yet entirely absent, creature that watches over you, all I can do is suggest you get a mental health evaluation.

      September 11, 2011 at 11:06 pm |
    • John Richardson

      Oh, you'd be laughed out of most theology classes, too, Just So. Just thought I'd mention that.

      September 11, 2011 at 11:07 pm |
    • just so you know

      for the n'th time you cannot make a negative assertion on an absolute statement, it is ILLOGICAL! That is why I am saying why waste time on a belief blog?

      Unless you have travelled to outer galaxies to disprove others, I don't see any reason why I should give you a sec of my time? wait., on second thought, why should I even give you a nano second of discussion time

      September 11, 2011 at 11:11 pm |
    • John Richardson

      From vocabularly-vocabulary.com:

      "'Fatuous' describes a lack of awareness of how stupid one's comments or actions are. In the second meaning, a fatuous person may be deluded by some idea or hope."

      Sound like someone we know? 😀

      September 11, 2011 at 11:15 pm |
    • LinCA

      @just so you know

      While I can't prove with 100% certainty that your god, or any other gods exist, the lack of evidence makes believing any of them exist just plain stupid.

      As I said before, equal evidence yields equal merit. Every mythical creature and god is equally (un)likely to exist as that figment of your imagination. There is virtually 0% chance that your god, or for that matter Zeus, Thor, Ra and thousands of other gods exist.

      But since you are making the claim, it is your responsibility to provide evidence in support. Put up, or shut up.

      September 11, 2011 at 11:26 pm |
    • just so you know

      To bring to your attention this is a Belief blog, you don't come here and leave useless commentary,if you don't believe in God do not waste your time here...

      September 11, 2011 at 11:37 pm |
    • LinCA

      @just so you know

      You said, "To bring to your attention this is a Belief blog, you don't come here and leave useless commentary,if you don't believe in God do not waste your time here..."
      The absence of belief is merely the flip side of the same coin. I come here to show occasional visitors, who may still be on the fence, how utterly ridiculous religion really is.

      Who knows, maybe I'll save a soul.

      By the way, where is your evidence?

      September 11, 2011 at 11:43 pm |
    • just so you know

      I am a textbook unimaginative troll.

      September 11, 2011 at 11:46 pm |
    • just so you know

      I thought I was smart because I read a book about Sartre and a book called Introduction to Logic, but now I think maybe I'm dumb, so I'll make a flippant remark, slink away and come back later.

      September 12, 2011 at 12:30 am |
    • Peace2All

      @just so you know

      Hmmm... I believe this fits within the scope of the logic model here. 'If there is no god there will be no theists.'


      September 12, 2011 at 2:57 am |
    • cow down

      If I feel like I am losing the argument the most convenient thing for me to do is to steal your moniker..Beware!!!

      -Society of unethical behavior a.k.a Atheists

      September 12, 2011 at 8:11 am |
    • Shadowflash1522

      Well done on the Logic 101. As an engineer/philosopher, I approve this message 🙂

      The only thing I would add is that, in practice, there are some negative universals that can be proven. For example, the statement 'There are no keys in my car'. It is possible to have searched every corner of my car, several times, and definitively say that there are no keys in my car. However, real universals cannot be proven such as 'There is no God [anywhere in the universe]' because it is not technologically possible to search every corner of the universe for God...yet.

      In science/logic, the default standpoint is traditionally the null hypothesis (in our case, God does not exist) because it takes only a single counterexample to disprove it and then we can move on. In other words, we can stop searching as soon as we find a God as opposed to claiming God exists and having to keep searching until you find a God or until you've canvassed the entire universe. It's chiefly semantic, I suppose, but there you have it. Scientific atheists (not to be confused with dogmatic atheists) have the semantic high ground 🙂

      September 12, 2011 at 9:46 am |
    • Shadowflash1522

      sorry, I meant to say "proven EMPIRICALLY" in the first paragraph. Of course they can be proven mathematically/logically. Mind moving faster than fingers...

      September 12, 2011 at 9:48 am |
    • LinCA

      @cow down

      You said, "If I feel like I am losing the argument the most convenient thing for me to do is to steal your moniker..Beware!!!
      -Society of unethical behavior a.k.a Atheists

      Shouldn't that be:
      "When I finally realize I'm out of my depth and the arguments on my side don't hold water, the most convenient thing for me to do is to make unfounded accusations!
      – Klan of dimwits, a.k.a. believers"?

      While I can't say with certainty that nobody stole just so you know's moniker (I'm assuming you are referring to the posts where just so you know appears to be acknowledging defeat at 11:46 pm and 12:30 am), I know for a fact that it wasn't me and sincerely doubt that John Richardson did. But, unless you can show that 1) someone used someone else's moniker, and 2) that it was done by an atheist, you are making a claim not supported by evidence.

      September 12, 2011 at 10:37 am |
    • Our Downward Spiral

      @just so... Where exactly in the sentence "There is no sufficient evidence to believe in God" is a negative assertion being made?

      You really do a great job of representing the typed form of someone sticking fingers in both ears and screaming "nanny nanny boo boo, I can't hear you!"...

      September 12, 2011 at 11:22 am |
    • Free

      'Barack Obama'
      "Every religious article drives the atheists out to droves so they can argue against something they don't believe in."

      Why would anyone argue against something they DO believe in?

      September 12, 2011 at 11:43 am |
    • Free

      just so you know
      "To bring to your attention this is a Belief blog, you don't come here and leave useless commentary,if you don't believe in God do not waste your time here..."

      To bring your attention to the "About this blog" posted up above it clearly states that The CNN Belief Blog is a "global conversation about the role of religion and belief in readers' lives". Some of us just aren't very impressed with religion's role in people's lives. Besides, a lot of the articles here are specifically about atheism, while others are about religions other than Christianity. If you aren't interested in hearing any other opinions maybe you should try one of the many Christian testimonial sites?

      September 12, 2011 at 12:02 pm |
    • Free

      The real assertion being made by believers is that God cannot be detected without his say so by any human means. It's part of their definition of who God is. He is all-powerful, and able to do anything, so is more than capable of remaining hidden from us. He is not even limited to the laws of nature, then, which is where they step out of reality and into the realm of fantasy. After all, if it's possible to exist outside of the laws of nature and our perception, then how could God be absolutely sure that he is the most powerful god, and omniscient to 'everything' in existence? An even more powerful god could have been his creator, manipulating us to gage his reactions, right?

      September 12, 2011 at 12:15 pm |
    • Judge Moody

      After having carefully considered the arguments presented by both sides, I hereby declare that

      Atheistic claims in tryin to prove the fallacy of their illogical statement lies in the assertion of a 'negative' in an absolute and holds no water.

      I declare this argument by the atheist Void and Illogical and it does not merit any further discussion.

      Case Closed!!!

      September 12, 2011 at 12:35 pm |
    • JohnR

      @Shadowflash Actually, a very relevant case of an "empirical negative" being arguably proven, or at least close to proven, concerns the Exodus story. If 3 million Jews really did spend 40 years in the desert between Egypt and Canaan, there should be evidence galore, but it appears there isn't even the va-guest hint of evidence of this supposedly massive, fairly long term occupation. But then, maybe they were just REALLY, REALLY fastidious about those "carry in, carry out" laws about 3500 years before they were adopted in US national parks. So I guess the case is technically still open!

      September 12, 2011 at 2:44 pm |
    • LinCA

      @Judge Moody

      You appear to be under the mistaken impression that we are competing for the title of American Idiot. That competition is easily won by the believers. No contest. The atheists don't stand a chance, and you are the perfect judge for it.

      The depth and complexity of issue under discussion here, on the other hand, far exceeds you skills and capabilities, as you've made abundantly clear.

      In your case, it would have been far better to remain silent and let the world think you're an idiot, than to speak and remove any remaining doubt.

      September 12, 2011 at 3:19 pm |
  19. Robert

    Bla bla blaaaa. Liberal propaganda. God is not opposed to war. He is opposed to unjust wars. In fact the Bible records wars that God commanded. The Us possessing nuclear bombs is not unjust. Nuclear deterrence has prevented a lot of wars and has kept America safe.

    WAR WILL ALWAYS EXIST AS LONG AS THERE ARE UNJUST PEOPLE IN THE WORLD. When Christ returns and judges all people only then will there be true peace and safety.

    September 11, 2011 at 8:57 pm |
    • John Richardson

      No, God instigated several unjust wars in the Old Testament.

      September 11, 2011 at 9:46 pm |
    • tallulah13

      Blah, blah, blah. Christian excuse making. Man makes war, then uses god to excuse it. It's a story as old as time. Perhaps if people would stop making excuses, humanity would be able to discuss and maintain peace.

      September 11, 2011 at 10:01 pm |
    • Peace2All


      Hi -Robert...

      You Said: " Bla bla blaaaa. Liberal propaganda. "

      Not sure of what 'liberal propaganda' you are speaking of, but it does seem to me, IMHO, that the major portion of people who proclaim themselves as somewhat 'liberal' in their views, are (typically) concerned about finding ways of developing and maintaining peace.

      You Said: " God is not opposed to war. He is opposed to unjust wars. In fact the Bible records wars that God commanded. "

      And for some people, a lot of what is literally written in the Bible, allegedly inspired by God appears on virtually every level of ana-lysis to be 'insane' 'cruel' 'non-sensical' 'deranged' 'non-loving' 'insecure' 'demanding' 'unstable' etc... etc...etc...

      Not a God that seems to be 'worthy' of following, really(at least the one I believe you are referencing as 'described' in the Bible).

      You Said: " When Christ returns and judges all people only then will there be true peace and safety. "

      Ahh... yes, of course. It seems to always come down to this absolutely insidiously ridiculous belief, that you stated directly above in quotations.

      When arguably the most peaceful, kind and loving human/deity to walk the earth 2000 years ago "returns," 'He' becomes 'warrior Jesus' out to slay people, regardless of how incredibly, loving, kind, caring, etc... they are, 'just because'... they didn't happen to "believe."

      If that isn't one of the craziest narratives, and one of the greatest reasons 'not' to believe nor follow the God of your Bible, than I don't know what is.

      I know... I know... on judgement day I think twice, etc... etc...



      September 12, 2011 at 12:55 am |
    • fred

      John Richardson
      God and unjust wars do not go together. I think a lot of problems come about because we mix up what the Bible says with what man thinks. The God of the Bible is revealed as perfect in all ways. In particular God is the only one who could administer perfect justice. In order to say God is unjust we must first say God is not who He has shown Himself to be. Now that God is no longer the God of the Bible you can say any darn thing you want about god. I would agree with you that if any other ent-ity that did what it appears the God of the Bible did that enti-ty could be unjust.
      The God of the Bible cannot be unjust. We can make up a hypothetical god and take pot shots at that dart board. We do not need to believe in that God of the Bible but must understand that God (matters not if it is true) is perfect in all ways.

      September 12, 2011 at 1:17 am |
    • Peace2All


      Hey -Fred... Hope that you are well.

      You Said to @John Richardson

      "God and unjust wars do not go together. I think a lot of problems come about because we mix up what the Bible says with what man thinks. The God of the Bible is revealed as perfect in all ways."

      Aren't you starting off already with your unspoken premise as your 'proof' that "God is perfect" and "the God of the Bible is (revealed) as perfect in all ways" by using circular reasoning i.e... "cause it says so in the Bible" as your 'proof' of such claims...?

      " In order to say God is unjust we must first say God is not who He has (shown) Himself to be. "

      Again, "shown" himself to be...? Isn't this just more circular assumptions to try and validate a shaky premise already...?

      Unless... somehow, you have other proof of God "showing" or "revealing" himself outside of the Bible...?

      The God of the Bible cannot be unjust. "

      And... why not...? Again, is this more circular reasoning, as in... "cause the Bible says so"...?

      " We do not need to believe in that God of the Bible but must understand that God (matters not if it is true) is perfect in all ways. "

      I'm not sure I'm following you on this last one here, -Fred.

      **BTW-if my posting is coming across as a bit 'snarky'... I'm really tired. So, apologies. No offense intended. Just trying to understand and get to the point.



      September 12, 2011 at 2:53 am |
    • David Johnson


      Dude! What you said! I'm grateful to have had the privilege to read it.


      September 12, 2011 at 10:48 am |
    • The Further Adventures of No-No-Bad-Dog


      The Iraq war is unjust, and started by America and its Christian president and heavily supported by Christian such as you. By your theory, American Christians are unjust. I agree.

      September 12, 2011 at 11:42 am |
    • JohnR

      @fred Your claims are preposterous, but have already been dealt with effectively by Peace2All. I will address another problem, that of deciding when a war is in fact just and how the faith that God is on your side can serve to "justify" (in the believers' minds) even the most barbaric of wars. The wars of extermination recorded in the bible are actually cases in point. If you feel wars commanded by god are by definition just and feel that god has indeed commanded you to go to war, it is absolutely meaningless to claim that god doesn't countenance unjust war as you have no indepedent criterion for when a war is and is not unjust.

      September 12, 2011 at 11:57 am |
    • NOo..oON

      "The God of the Bible cannot be unjust."
      Unless He was simply lying. It is much easier to connect a lying God with the existing Bible than a truthful one, however it is even easier to assume that God was misquoted and that the Bible is not inerrant and 100% accurate.
      Easiest of all, of course, is to assume that there is no God and the Bible is an acc.umulation of multiple oral traditions, moral parables, aphorisms, and antiquated healthy living tips.

      September 12, 2011 at 12:43 pm |
  20. Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

    OH, blah dee oh blah dah, life goes on oh.

    Makes just as much sense as anything posted by the religious nuts here.

    September 11, 2011 at 8:29 pm |
    • Robert

      Atheists are the biggest nuts of all religious nuts, as well as the most violent.

      September 11, 2011 at 8:58 pm |
    • AGuest9

      When was the last time you saw an atheist murder someone outside an abortion clinic?

      September 11, 2011 at 9:21 pm |
    • precious

      I was precious too in my mothers womb they murdered me, why is no one talking on my behalf?

      signed by
      precious by the millions

      September 11, 2011 at 9:29 pm |
    • say what

      Atheist are not violent , Communist are, same ideology! go figure...

      September 11, 2011 at 9:31 pm |
    • John Richardson

      @precious If the womb you were in was American, chances are you were aborted by your CHRISTIAN mother.

      September 11, 2011 at 9:47 pm |
    • John Richardson

      @say what Communists are atheistic, but not secular, let alone humanists.

      September 11, 2011 at 9:49 pm |
    • baby piglets

      Jesus made our mama go crazy and run off a cliff! The crazy jew man murdered our innocent mama! Why do people love that vicious bastard?!? We hate you, Jesus!!!

      September 11, 2011 at 9:57 pm |
    • tallulah13

      Of course, "precious" there are children born every day who are not wanted. Many of these become abuse victims, murder victims or just the parents of the next generation of unwanted children. In a perfect world, every child would be wanted and every person able to reproduce would be willing and able to raise and love a child. Sadly, that is not the case.

      September 11, 2011 at 9:59 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Idiots. Abortions aren't up to you OR your 'god'. Get over it.

      September 11, 2011 at 10:14 pm |
    • Reality

      The failures of the widely used birth "control" methods i.e. the Pill and male condom have led to the large rate of abortions.( one million/yr) and S-TDs (19 million/yr) in the USA. Men and women must either recognize their responsibilities by using the Pill or condoms properly and/or use other safer birth control methods in order to reduce the epidemics of abortion and S-TDs.

      September 11, 2011 at 10:58 pm |
    • HeavenSent

      Tom, Tom, cough, I mean reality. Give it a rest being a heathen. Come into the light.


      September 12, 2011 at 9:40 am |
    • Free

      Atheists are religious nuts and violent!?!

      All the atheists I know do is talk about why they don't believe in things that don't have any evidence to back them up. I guess you wonder why James Randi isn't on the FBI's most wanted?

      September 12, 2011 at 10:21 am |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      What light? You aren't anywhere near bright enough to know where there's light, you old bat.

      September 12, 2011 at 8:29 pm |
1 2 3
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.