September 15th, 2011
07:53 AM ET

soundoff (998 Responses)
  1. Realist

    Biblical naratives/accounts were built from conjecturalize statements. Not even closer to reality as what we know it today.

    September 15, 2011 at 4:13 pm |
  2. Azathoth


    September 15, 2011 at 3:57 pm |
  3. Realist

    Thank you for the clarification @Lee. 🙂

    September 15, 2011 at 3:56 pm |
  4. Realist

    Having a faith to a god is not a proof that there is a god. You need to have a proof to validate your belief.

    September 15, 2011 at 3:46 pm |
  5. Realist

    Unifying religious beliefs and science is just like uncategorizing a long proven pseudoscientific ideas.

    September 15, 2011 at 3:36 pm |
  6. Anon

    All humans share common ancestry with other apes and we're the fifth ape.


    September 15, 2011 at 3:33 pm |
    • fred

      I note women came from monkies on this chart thank you. This is the chart used by Muslims. Do you have a christian chart I can use for the others on this site?

      September 15, 2011 at 4:39 pm |
    • NOo..oON

      Sure, it's like this for Christians:
      Man Man's imagination

      September 15, 2011 at 5:05 pm |
    • NOo..oON

      Man Man's imagination

      September 15, 2011 at 5:06 pm |
    • NOo..oON

      Nevermind, arrows aren't showing up.

      September 15, 2011 at 5:07 pm |
  7. Sagan is god

    It would be far better if people watched this video every sunday morning.


    September 15, 2011 at 3:30 pm |
  8. Realist

    To say that we're descended from *a monkey* is so misleading. There is a thing called *new world monkey* and *old world monkey*. Human descended from the *old world monkey* and they're all extinct (our ancestors).

    September 15, 2011 at 3:23 pm |
    • TruthPrevails

      we have a common ancestor....kind of like domestic cats have a common ancestor in lions and leopards

      September 15, 2011 at 4:08 pm |
    • David Johnson

      Christians, especially Creationists will always respond with some form of "You believe your came from a monkey." They will do this, no matter how many times they are corrected.

      The will also claim, "Evolution is just a theory!" Even though they are often told, theories have a different meaning in science.

      I doubt believers do this out of stupidity. I think they do it to be annoying.


      September 15, 2011 at 4:40 pm |
    • Jimmy G

      Wasn't it Evan who always misunderstood the word "theory" so badly? Or was it someone else?
      I remember Eric G. going fifty rounds with that tard. What a waste of time to argue with these idiots.
      But if they can be stomped down, then go to it! Booyah!

      September 15, 2011 at 5:57 pm |
    • David Johnson

      @Jimmy G

      There are a few, who make these claims. It is hard for me to imagine Evan arguing with Eric.

      Eric G., is one of the few truly brilliant people who comment on this blog. I certainly would never debate him. I wish I had his skill and knowledge.


      September 20, 2011 at 2:13 pm |
  9. Answer

    When a successful non-believer is featured on CNN on his non-beliefs the trolls from the religious group come online to defend their faith. How beautiful!

    Your faith must be shaky if you need constant reassurances that the only successful people are from your faith.

    September 15, 2011 at 3:21 pm |
  10. Realist

    To say that we're descended from *a monkey* is so misleading. There is a thing called *new world monkey* and *old world monkey*. Human descended from the *old world monkey* and they're all extinct.

    September 15, 2011 at 3:18 pm |
    • Lee

      Actually, the distinction between new world and old world monkeys is that they are from the Americas vs Africa and Eurasia, respectively. We are more closely related to old world monkeys and closer yet to the great apes, but descended from none of the above. We descended from a common ancestor.

      Anyway you are correct when you say that "we came from a monkey" is a gross oversimplification. "We share a common ancestor with monkeys" is a much more accurate way to describe human evolution.

      September 15, 2011 at 3:50 pm |
  11. Realist


    Level of support for evolution.

    September 15, 2011 at 3:02 pm |
    • Normon

      Great link, thanks!

      September 15, 2011 at 5:35 pm |
  12. JohnR

    Because the deeply ancient earth disproves ALL of the world's creation myths and therefore undercuts these religion's claim to be speaking the infallible truth, which comes in handy because of some of the other things they claim solely on the basis of the supposed authority of what is written in their highly fallible "holy" texts. It all hangs together.

    More generally, humans have the opportunity to use their rational minds to really understand the world quite deeply. Science is a beautiful thing. These conclusions are where science has led us.

    September 15, 2011 at 2:53 pm |
    • Sagan is god


      September 15, 2011 at 3:13 pm |
    • Sagan is god


      September 15, 2011 at 3:26 pm |
  13. Realist

    The idea that god created us is a logical fallacy to begin with. A God is just an idea that was created by the ancient people just to explain on why we exist and such. To make it short, it is just a make-believe reality or let us say a subjective interpretation of what really is going around us (a self-created reality).

    September 15, 2011 at 2:51 pm |
    • JohnR

      Oh, here I thought you were gonna say that god designed us, but outsourced production to some factory in Malaysia.

      September 15, 2011 at 5:11 pm |
  14. Realist

    Base on my experience, those who insists that evolution is wrong knows little about the subject matter. Their lack of knowledge about it lead them to conclude that it is wrong.

    September 15, 2011 at 2:37 pm |
  15. when

    Multiple EARTHQUAKES within an HOUR! The Birth pangs are getting closer! Just as Jesus said!

    September 15, 2011 at 2:10 pm |
    • Bible Bob, Knight of Infallibillibabbity

      It's true! There is absolutely NO WAY that this could be the normal operation of plate tectonics! The End of Days is night! Teeth will wail! Voices will gnash! Human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together, mass hysteria!

      September 15, 2011 at 2:13 pm |
    • Magic


      The Book of Revelation - an early attempt (1st century) at science-fiction/horror/fantasy, and just as likely to happen as "Battlefield Earth" 🙂

      September 15, 2011 at 2:56 pm |
    • Jimmy G

      Birthpangs? Is Jesus going to come out of a volcano? Wouldn't that be more in line with Satan or something? What?

      September 15, 2011 at 3:05 pm |
    • BRC

      Now that is a truly difficult question- What would be worse, living through the actual events described in revalations, or having to watch that awful movie with John Tavolta? I have to be honest, I'm kind of leanign towards little scorpion locusts.

      September 15, 2011 at 3:12 pm |
    • No One Is Safe

      Battlefield: Earth is one of my favoritest movies, ever!! it is absolutely *hysterical*!!

      September 22, 2011 at 4:51 pm |
  16. Colin

    BRC, Laughing etc. I admire your patience in arguing with Chad. I can’t do it. I can argue issues of complexity with a theist, but not the whole talking snake crowd or their apologists. I get so frustrated with how scientifically and historically ignorant they are and how they play fast and loose with the truth, that I just end up insulting them – and then feel guilty about it. A classic no win situation.

    As Sagan said, logic did not lead them to their beliefs, so no amount of logic will dissuade them from them. Their belief does not come from common sense, but from a deep seeded need to believe.

    September 15, 2011 at 2:09 pm |
    • Laughing

      HA, yeah I guess it's patience. It's incredibly tough arguing with this one because he's incredibly sure that modern cosmology, evolution, science in general can be laid over genesis and match but decides to infer, imply and generally ignore verses to do so. Then when I make a condescending comment (not even my worst ones either) he askes why atheists always resort to name calling.

      I died a little inside.

      September 15, 2011 at 2:21 pm |
    • fred

      It is not that hard to see that Bible makes it very clear one cannot find God through logic or reason. “You cannot serve two masters for you will cling to one and hate the other” applies to Christians and Atheists alike. You and Laughing cling to logic as much as Christians cling to virgins and angels. The main principles of God as expressed in the Bible apply whether you believe in God or not. At a minimum the stuff in the Bible has been recycled into countless self help books that the public gobbles up. When Dr. Phil says it we are amazed yet find the exact same statement in the Bible it is trashed.
      Blinders have the same function when applied to Christians as to Atheists.

      September 15, 2011 at 2:36 pm |
    • William Demuth


      I have learned from the Thiests to ignore my own guilt!

      September 15, 2011 at 2:42 pm |
    • Colin

      Fred, you refer to logic and common sense as though they were disposable commodities in the search for truth. Once one unhinges themselves from logic and accepts something on faith, they are almost bound to be wrong. The only way they can be right is if the Universe, in a most improbable of coincidences, happens to comport with their wishes.

      People who make the so called “leap of faith” to their particular sky-fairy do not so much "believe" in a god as much as they hope for a god, or wish for a god.

      September 15, 2011 at 2:59 pm |
    • Laughing

      When did logic and reason become bad words? Why must you ever shelve these two things when pursuing anything? Why is blind faith a virtue? I honestly can say I don't understand why these things are acceptable, even encouraged.

      September 15, 2011 at 3:04 pm |
    • fred

      You said “The only way they can be right is if the Universe, in a most improbable of coincidences, happens to comport with their wishes” to which I agree. Is this not the basis which an Atheist assumes on faith that you and I are here hanging on thread in the vastness of dark matter?
      You said “People who make the so called “leap of faith” to their particular sky-fairy do not so much "believe" in a god as much as they hope for a god, or wish for a god” to which I agree again. The chosen ones roaming in the desert needed God for the simplest of things such as water to appear out of a rock. We know where our water comes from so on a day to day basis God is not so important. Are we at a point where the only “need” for a god is an explanation of the most improbable of coincidences?
      Wow, the only difference between you and I is what lies behind a most improbable of coincidences.
      A simple quark of nature.

      September 15, 2011 at 3:50 pm |
    • fred

      You said “Why is blind faith a virtue”
      In the words of the great Yoda: “and this is why you fail.” I go back to Jesus here when he told Nicodemus “I have spoken to you of earthly things and you do not believe how then will you believe if I speak of heavenly things.” The att-itude you bring into the game impacts your outcome. Science and Reason is not a negative it is just not the skill set that allows one to find “God”.
      I suspect the term blind faith is a virtue came from Jesus when he said blessed are those that believe and have not seen.

      September 15, 2011 at 4:18 pm |
    • Laughing


      It was more of a rhetorical question, but basically what you've just proven to me is that you need to blindly follow something in order for it to become apparent to you and we're told it's virtuous and good by the guy you have to do the believing in! Sorry, but I prize virtues like honesty and loyalty because those have good effects and can generally help raltionships, blind faith has never helped anybody and the only reason why it's actually viewed as "good" in certain capacities actually disgusts me more than I can clearly express on this blog. Blind Faith should not ever be something that someone strives for but something to always, always reject

      September 15, 2011 at 4:29 pm |
    • fred

      There is a difference between blind faith and putting blinders on when it comes to faith. That is what I referred to. Blind justice as in Lady Justice as in being objective. Yet, you are defensive when it comes to not being able to see God or miracles. If God wanted you to have blind faith to find Him He would have taken away your free will, He would not have given you the gift of awareness and imagination. It was religious blinders of their own choosing that heaped evil upon Christ.

      September 15, 2011 at 5:06 pm |
    • Jimmy G

      You can't heap evil on a non-existent being. Unicorns are pure because they do not exist. Like your fake "god".

      September 15, 2011 at 6:00 pm |
    • fred

      Jimmy G
      To say Jesus never existed is about as bad as saying the holocaust never happened or we never landed on the moon. You may want to say he was not God or at best a religious teacher that many of his day claimed did miraculous things. You cannot throw out all the testimony from the writers that lived during his time claiming personal witness or historians of the day. Even the Jews had record of Jesus in the Talmud.

      September 15, 2011 at 6:48 pm |
    • uh

      "You may want to say he was not God or at best a religious teacher that many of his day claimed did miraculous things."

      Really, how do you really know especially since many of the books about him were written 30 -50 years after he died. It's well know that folk lore embellishes the more times the story is told. Plus, when you factor in the other pagan religions claiming the same thing – it truly makes it not believable.

      September 15, 2011 at 6:58 pm |
    • Jimmy G

      [citations needed}

      You got proof? Real proof and not just second-hand reports? Of ANYTHING that would prove your "god" exists?

      September 15, 2011 at 9:36 pm |
    • Jimmy G

      Tell me somethng.
      Where are the words your so-called Jesus wrote HIMSELF?

      Where the hell are those words? Manuscripts? Doodles on the cellblock wall when he was waiting to be executed?

      Nah. YOU got NOTHIN'.

      September 15, 2011 at 9:39 pm |
    • fred

      Fox news was not around in 30AD. Consider the first written accounts of Alexander the Great did not happen until 400 years after his death. The average Roman did not hear of Christ until some time after his death and the Jews were doing everything they could to cover up Jesus existence. You were stoned if you mentioned what the Jews did to Jesus.

      September 16, 2011 at 1:33 am |
    • fred

      Jimmy G
      You cannot say Jesus did not exist. You can claim he was not God or nothing more than a religious teacher that some claim performed miraculous acts. 27 New Testament books written by people who either witnessed the events or had first hand information. The Gemara of the Jewish Talmud refer to Jesus. Flavius Josephus was a noted Jewish historian wrote of Jesus in his famous Antiquities of the Jews. Antiquity historian, Cornelius Tacitus. wrote of Jesus. Archeologists have confirmed many sites mentioned in the New Testament. Take a trip to the Holy Land and walk where Jesus did, visit the archeology.
      Just how much information could come out with Jews running amok killing anyone that brought up Jesus. Read acts and see the apostles run for their lives and eventually most of them killed for refusing the truth about Jesus.

      September 16, 2011 at 1:41 am |
    • Jimmy G

      All that and no answer as to why you have nothing written by Jesus himself. Huh.

      Well, fred. I asked and you got nothin'. Just like I expected. Why don't you explain why there is nothing from Jesus himself?
      Or are you going to run around in circles forever?

      There are no first-hand accounts of Jesus anywhere. "Gospels" admittedly written decades later is proof of nothing but that some people will accept anything that gives them the slimmest thread of hope no matter how outlandish or fake.
      All those sources you cited are third-hand accounts and the bible is full of crap upon which your whole New Testament is based on. There is no reason to think the story of Jesus is anything more than a lot of BS. Even if he existed all he said was BS, for your god DOES NOT EXIST. Anything based upon the existence of your god is false. Prayers do not work. Living according to every contradictory rule, law, and mere suggestion does not work.
      There is no sin because Adam and Eve did nothing wrong. If there is no sin there's no reason to be "saved" from it.
      Plus, there's NO GOD to worry about or to sin against. The Ten Commandments are the lamest and stupidest ten commandments anyone could come up with. Moses was a fraud if he existed. There's doubts about that as well.
      No real god would ever have done things the way they are described in your Bible. Your "god" is a fake psychotic terrorist who does nothing in a consistent way, nor does he do anything in a sensible way or in any way at all.
      With no god needed to create the universe, there is nothing left. Your god disappeared.
      He ran away with Jesus perhaps? That's why there is no proof of your god anywhere in the whole universe?

      Wow. Talk about digging a hole and pulling it in after you. That guy wins the hide-and-seek award of ALL TIME.
      Really, fred. I've been where you're at in trying to argue, but the real world is right here, right now.
      You can test your religion at ANY TIME. It does not work. You can try getting your god to talk, but there is NOTHING.
      Pray and you get the normal distribution of probabilities no matter what you pray about. You get the same results as if there was NOBODY THERE but the echoes inside your skull. If you really do hear voices, can you make out what they're saying?
      Voices inside your head mean you have incipient psychosis. Voices outside your head mean you are hearing actual noises or are having audible hallucinations.
      Unless you can actually strike up a conversation, chances are you're just getting brain static of some sort. A real god would actually be able to say something if you've got a personal relationship, right?
      Or is it the wordless rush of emotional feedback that tells you that? That's your endocrine system, not proof of a god.

      Well, I need a break. I'll stop here. When you've got real proof let me know. Your "god" surely "knows" where to find me!

      September 16, 2011 at 4:10 am |
    • fred

      Jimmy G
      You should be very concerned about the condition of your heart. It is one thing to be an atheist yet another to go about spinning lies to discredit. Read the Gospels and you will see that your condition is not unusual for un believers. You actually are missing out on a great treasure of the mysteries of God when you approach in such a negative manner. Consider if you did this in other pursuits in your life those areas would also be filed with darkness. In short you are going about life very wrong even if you do not believe in God. Go find something good and positive that gets you excited. Approach life from the position of being helpful and leaving a better world in your wake.
      Ok here are answers:
      >” why there is nothing from Jesus himself?”
      Why didn't Socrates write anything down himself, either? Even if there were it would not change your mind or att-itude as you have already discounted existing written history. However, writing is not something of importance 2,000 years ago (you attempt to apply today’s communication standards)as oral was the methodology of that day. Jesus purpose was to not to write a book but bring salvation to all by his death on the cross. Everything we need to know about that has been said and done. When Jesus died he said “it is finished”, this is true for you and for me as it is a finished work (nothing you or I could add). Even when Jesus wrote in the sand to those that wanted to stone the adulterous woman did you note nothing was written that we could see? Jesus said he would send the Holy Spirit that would reveal all truth to the believer (what now he should say oh, in case you don’t have the Holy Spirit here are the Cliff Notes). Jesus said those who reject Him are blind (Please don’t say if he was God he could have written in braille). Don’t forget Jesus said my sheep hear my voice, My sheep know the voice of their Shephard. Jesus said the theif tries to come in the back gate i.e. there is no way unless you hear the voice (many are called but few are chosen). Please do not be discouraged there is a way for you to find Jesus but, it is not on the path you are currently on.
      >” Gospels" admittedly written decades later”
      This is simply not true. They were written between 37 and 170 AD and Jesus died somewhere about 30AD. Most respected scholars do not dispute this.
      >”sources you cited are third-hand accounts”
      New Testament books were written by authors who either knew Jesus or received firsthand knowledge of him from others

      Now, Jimmy I would never have even looked at this stuff on God because my life was just fine. I did not give God a moment of my time with the exception of thinking gods were for sick people. Then one day after I had lost everything God found me and everything changed inside and out. As you said “your god surely knows where to find me”.

      September 16, 2011 at 2:45 pm |
    • uh

      “Go find something good and positive that gets you excited. Approach life from the position of being helpful and leaving a better world in your wake.”

      You don’t need a god for that.

      “Don’t forget Jesus said my sheep hear my voice, My sheep know the voice of their Shephard.”

      That means the gullible will think their hearing voices even though it’s their own mind and we need to brainwash them into thinking it’s a god. Otherwise our churches will go broke, they won't sweat and work in the fields for nothing and the con can’t go on. DUH!

      September 16, 2011 at 2:50 pm |
    • fred

      You do not want to live in a country where there is no church. I know atheists think that a godless world gives them freedom but they have never lived in one. That is pure speculation on their part. Basically, 5 % of the population is atheist and somehow you think 5% which is outside the normal bell curve (i.e. abnormal) should lay down the law of the country you live in? That should work out real good.

      September 16, 2011 at 5:26 pm |
  17. BRC

    I mean this question in the least offensive way possible. I'm just trying to understand the thoughts of the people around me. i find that when we ask instead of assuming, we can get along a lot better, despite our differences. So, with the disclaimer out of the way-

    Why is it important that the Bible is correct, and the word of "God"? The Bible could be a complete fabrication, invented by raving drunkards as a prank, it could be a tool written by a group of crafty people looking to gain influence over the people around them by referencing a power that they couldn't understand, or it could be a book of stories, written by people who saws the troubles and pitfalls of the people around them and while they had limitaed knowledge of the world they wanted to set forth whatever guidance they could to keep their society alive and strong. It could be any 3 of those thing, or more, and not 1 of them would have any effect on "God". If you believe that "God" exists, created the universe, is watching (even if not interfering) over the world, and will be there in the end to comfort you if you led a good life and hopefully even reward you; why does the Bible need to be RIGHT? No matter what its origin, divine, mundane, or political, the bible was written by men. As long as you know what you believe, and you are comfortable in your faith, you've thought about it, you know what you think and what your hopes are, why does the Bible matter? If "God" is real, he would be well beyond any human understandings, so why does the book matter as anything beyond a piece of literature that can provide comfortor if the person wishes?

    September 15, 2011 at 2:08 pm |
    • Adam


      We Believe Bible to be the word of God
      You on the other hand Believe Bible to be a work of literature, so be it!

      These are two polar opposite views and we can never come to agree on the Truth.

      The truth for us is Bible is the Word of God.

      September 15, 2011 at 2:28 pm |
    • Magic

      Adam: "The truth for us is Bible is the Word of God."

      Sorry, but truth is not arbitrary and "for us" (whoever "us" may be). Truth = Facts. You do not have them. You have an hypothesis that the Bible is the Word of God – that is all.

      September 15, 2011 at 2:39 pm |
    • BRC

      I appreciate the distinction, but that wasn't the question. The question was, why does the Bible NEED to be the word of "God"? If it held the same messages and you were taught the same life values by your parents and religious leaders growing up, would it make a difference if it was divinely inspired or if they were just good ideas?

      September 15, 2011 at 2:41 pm |
    • Adam

      The Bible is the word of God and it is.

      How does God communicate to earthlings? by his word, therefore the Bible is the word of God

      September 15, 2011 at 2:45 pm |
    • JohnR

      I'm betting that Adam is Herbert Juarez.

      September 15, 2011 at 2:48 pm |
    • Laughing


      As I see it, for the bible to followed as ardently as it is and for everyone to have faith in it, it has to be infallible. It can't be wrong. Since an entire religion (actually three religions) are built with the bible as its foundation, this foundation needs to be as strong as possible, it can not have any people doubting its veracity or else it collapses.

      Hope that sort of answers it, then again this is coming from an atheist so who knows if people necessarily agree with that.

      September 15, 2011 at 2:51 pm |
    • BRC

      I think that's a very realistic answer (and I saw that you ended up making a very similar post on the last page as I was about to write this question). From a practical standpoint I think you're completely right, if you are trying to make someone believe something that is contrary to our natural senses then you have to have some very convincing reasoning, "word of God" fits the bill. But that's coming form two people who don't believe it. I would think that someone who did have faith, and who believed it might have a different reason. Or not, that's why I'm checking.

      September 15, 2011 at 2:57 pm |
    • BRC

      Okay, we've established that the Bible is the word of God and that you didn't evolve. But can we move past that?

      Here's a hypothetical, God appears to the world tomorrow and says "My little people, it's good to see you, I appreciate all of you trying to live good lives, I know this world I made is difficult, but there is a reason you will know one day. Oh, one thing though, the Bible did not come from me; there are some good messages in there, but really, I didn't write it. I will see you all again one day" Would you change your life? Or would you continue to follow the book to the letter?

      September 15, 2011 at 3:02 pm |
    • fred

      You said:"Truth = Facts. You do not have them. You have an hypothesis that the Bible is the Word of God – that is all"
      Fact: Jesus said "my sheep hear my voice", I personally heard.
      Fact: Jesus said "follow me and I will make you fishers of men". I am here fishing right now, look out.
      Fact: Jesus said "he who seeks finds and to him who knocks the door will be opened". Jesus opened the door for me personally.
      Fact: Jesus said I must leave so the Holy Spirit may come to dwell in the hearts of the believer. I have the Holy Spirit in me.
      I am not anything like the person I was before Jesus came into my life. Jesus changed my life and I have personally witnessed the same happening to others.
      Magic I agree with you Fact = Truth

      September 15, 2011 at 3:06 pm |
    • Adam


      The reason it is not up for argument is that as I established earlier your view are diametrically opposite to my Belief. I can only tell you Bible is the word of God, I cannot go into any hypothetical statement and argue on something that does not make any sense to me.

      We have to agree like I have said before.

      Reasoning and Faith are independant
      Science and Faith are independant

      Faith is a personal conviction, Faith does not need proof.

      September 15, 2011 at 3:15 pm |
    • BRC

      I'm going to attempt an inference here. I don't like doing it, but apparently at some point you turned off your imagination and can't do hypothetical situations.

      Is it safe to say, that for you, the Bible must be the word of "God", because you desire and love his existance so much that you can't think of life without him? If the Bible wasn't the word of "God", would that mean he didn't exist? Is the inability to think of a like where the Bible is not the word of "god" because of comfort, structure, or fear?

      September 15, 2011 at 3:29 pm |
    • BRC

      Also, just throwing this out there, but if faith doesn't need proof; you could believe in and love "God" without the Bible existing at all. Just a thought.

      September 15, 2011 at 3:30 pm |
    • Magic


      Prudence requires that I reply, "No comment" to you.

      I just didn't want you to think that I didn't see your post.

      September 15, 2011 at 3:40 pm |
    • Adam

      Why as a person of Faith should I accept God and reject his word which is the BIble?

      September 15, 2011 at 3:42 pm |
    • Laughing


      I'm aghast and appalled that you refuse to consider a view other than you're own, let alone allow that someone else might have the right answer. How have you made it through life this way? Do you have friends? These are all serious questions not because I'm trying to be mean or angry or anything, I'm just very curious how you can be so resolute in your face and yet are so weak in it that you won't for a moment even entertain a hypothetical

      September 15, 2011 at 3:47 pm |
    • Maybe try logic

      @Adam – Because it's full of contradictions and immoral, evil, arcane laws? And because you can actually think for yourself and not throw logic and reasoning out the door in order to stick to your preconceived notions?

      September 15, 2011 at 3:50 pm |
    • BRC

      @Adam, I can only think of one more way to ask this question so that I might help you understand what I mean-

      What is more important, God or the Book?

      September 15, 2011 at 4:03 pm |
    • Adam


      I do not see any reason why i should argue on hypotheticals that make absolutely NO sense to me.

      September 15, 2011 at 4:04 pm |
    • Adam


      Yes reading the Bible is part and parcel of the 'Christian life'.

      September 15, 2011 at 4:07 pm |
    • Laughing


      Now i'm confused, are you having real issues thinking of a world that hypotheticall has a god and does not have the bible, like you are just unable to do so, or are you just refusing to because your narrow world view can't even fit that sort of understanding into it. Keep in mind there is no right answer (except door number 3 where you actually understand the BRC is actually asking you if you follow god or a book more) I understand that you believe the book and god is one in the same, but sadly for you, you are in the very very very small miniority of people who believe that, incuding christians.

      September 15, 2011 at 4:14 pm |
    • Adam


      I don't have patience to pour over prose, could you ask your question in a sentence please?

      September 15, 2011 at 4:18 pm |
    • DamianKnight


      To answer your question, if given only those two options, God is more important. However, Jesus said, "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them." (Matthew 5:17)

      September 15, 2011 at 4:20 pm |
    • Laughing

      @Adam....HA, what?! Too many words for you?


      Do you speak to god through your book or not. If the bible didn't exist, you would still believe in god?

      September 15, 2011 at 4:20 pm |
    • HellBent

      @Laughing – let me translate for Adam. I don't understand what you're saying because I lack the ability to comprehend it. Please dumb it down for me

      September 15, 2011 at 4:21 pm |
    • Laughing


      Can you expand on that more? It's actually confused me for a long time. What's the difference between not having to follow a law because someone else fulfilled it vs. someone abolishing it? Why make the specification of WHY someone has to stop following The Law and hasn't jesus, by fulfilling the law, effectively abolished it as well?

      September 15, 2011 at 4:23 pm |
    • Adam


      God speaks to man through his word.

      September 15, 2011 at 4:32 pm |
    • Laughing


      So in the longest way possible you've basically answered BRC question. The bible needs to be correct because it is his word, if it is not correct then god does not speak to man. I think that's all he wanted to know.

      September 15, 2011 at 4:34 pm |
    • DamianKnight


      The way I have been given to understand it is, Jesus didn't come to write a new law. In fact, if you read it, He raised the bar on God's law. For instance, He said (and I'm paraphrasing), "You read it said, don't murder. But it goes beyond that, if you hate someone, you've murdered them in your heart." Same thing with adultery, "If you lust after a woman, you've committed the sin of adultery."

      That's why Jesus' sacrifice was so important. He raised the bar to these (close to) impossible standards. "This righteousness is given through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference between Jew and Gentile, for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and all are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus." – Romans 3:22-24. Because Jesus raised the bar to a standard we cannot, as sinners, achieve, we need His sacrifice to atone for it so that we can be right with God.

      September 15, 2011 at 4:38 pm |
    • ThinkForYourself


      You'd think he'd have been a little clearer, then. And maybe condemn the whole slavery and polygamy thing a bit more. And not contradi.ct himself so much. And not play favorites. And not kill essentially every living thing on the planet. And not advocate stoning disobedient children.

      September 15, 2011 at 4:42 pm |
    • Adam


      That is not what I said.

      I addressed the question of BRC separately, and I addressed yours separately, if you want to infer something else by comibing your posts with his, suit yourself.

      All my responses have been to specific questions.

      September 15, 2011 at 4:43 pm |
    • Adam


      If your really want to read the Bible, I would suggest you start with the New Testament and once you have comprehended the message work backwards into the Old.

      Do yourself a favor don't take any verse of passage out of context, it only confuses you.

      September 15, 2011 at 4:48 pm |
    • Laughing


      But our questions are basically the same just rephrased. It essentially askes why the bible is so important. You stated, "God speaks to man through his word.", now maybe I'm missing something but considering his word is the bible, it's important it be his words and not man's words interpreted to be his yes? Ok, great, glad I could get you up to speed.

      Sorry if there were too many prose in that paragraph, I know long sentences are difficult for you.

      Interesting, I guess my deal is this. Didn't he technically rewrite the laws if he says "thou shalt not committ adultry" is now "thou shalt not lust or else it's as good as adultery". I guess in this way I can understand he wants to make sure to say that the law still applies its just now a lot more strict, much more so than the original........but don't worry because jesus fulfilled it so if you break the law jesus saved you already. It sounds like he's raising the bar but taking away the consequences.

      September 15, 2011 at 4:49 pm |
    • David Johnson


      You said: "The Bible is the word of God and it is."

      Is the bible also inerrant?

      Curious in Arizona

      September 15, 2011 at 4:51 pm |
    • i wonder

      Re: Adam,

      Has Justina/Adelina/PrincessWinterSpringSummerFall taken on a male persona now?

      September 15, 2011 at 4:52 pm |
    • DamianKnight


      I can certainly see how it seems that way. But in order for sins to be forgiven, repentence has to take place. And within repetence, one has to have every intention of not doing so again. It's not just as simple as "Oh, sorry, God. My bad." It's a serious heart condition.

      September 15, 2011 at 5:05 pm |
    • BRC

      Yeah, I really didn't want to boil the question down to that, but I wasn't getting anything in the way of cogent response so I had to make a shift. The original question is still what interests me most; if a person is at a comfortable place with their faith, would it really matter if the Bible, just the book, was found to be completely written by man. I'm not saying no god, not even discounting Jesus, just would it be a problem if the Bible wasn't there anymore.

      September 15, 2011 at 5:30 pm |
    • DamianKnight


      Ultimately, all man needs is God. However, I find that the Bible helps me understand the mind and ways of God. I use it as a guidebook for behavior. What did people in the past do? What situations did they run into? Are any of them related to what I'm going through? How did they react? How did God feel about the way they acted?

      Now obviously, there's some interpretation that has to go along there and seem deep soul searching, but generally speaking, it helps me.

      September 15, 2011 at 5:39 pm |
    • Jimmy G

      In other words, the answer is no. It wouldn't matter if the bible was proven to be false.
      Because "it helps" them.

      That's it, folks. That's a wrap. Not much left now.

      September 15, 2011 at 9:41 pm |
  18. Jimmy G

    Who the F*** is Richard Branson and why do we have an article with a ti.tle but no body?

    September 15, 2011 at 2:05 pm |
    • Maybe try logic

      Richard Branson is one of the most successful entrepenuers of our time. What rock have you been hiding under? And the "article" is a video – hence no text.

      September 15, 2011 at 2:07 pm |
    • Really?

      You are either a troll or a monumental moron: it's obviously a video.

      September 15, 2011 at 2:10 pm |
    • Jimmy G

      Sorry, Java is blocked. No video to be seen. But neither have I ever heard of this man before today.
      Why can't CNN summarize the video or something? Geez.

      September 15, 2011 at 2:55 pm |
    • Anton LaVey

      Jimmy needs to get back to his nascar

      September 15, 2011 at 3:05 pm |
    • Jimmy G

      I happen to be one of the most extreme atheists you'll ever meet, anton. I must say that your nascar reference is insulting in the extreme. I am not some dumb southern hick who fawns over the tea party and says goddidit to everything, okay? Geez.

      September 15, 2011 at 3:11 pm |
    • Anton LaVey

      Jimmy G

      I happen to be one of the most extreme atheists you'll ever meet, anton. I must say that your nascar reference is insulting in the extreme. I am not some dumb southern hick who fawns over the tea party and says goddidit to everything, okay? Geez.

      lol my bad...the name Jimmy G I just assumed.

      September 15, 2011 at 3:32 pm |
    • Awkward Situations

      @Jimmy G: I'm shocked you have never heard of Richard Branson. Surely you've heard of the VIRGIN brand, as in Virgin Records and Virgin Atlantic Airways. He owns those companies plus a helluva lot more. He's also known in the media for his world record breaking attempts in the sea and air. Anyhow, you should read up on him sometime, his success is quite amazing.

      September 15, 2011 at 3:54 pm |
    • Jimmy G

      Oh, THAT guy!
      Well if he'd just change his name to something a little less generic or assassinate the Pope, I'd have known who he was.
      Didn't know he was branching out past what I'd known about. Virgin mobile sux, btw. He's not a god, okay?

      September 15, 2011 at 6:03 pm |
    • Awkward Situations

      @Jimmy G: He may not be a god but I'd kneel down at his altar any day! hehe.

      September 15, 2011 at 6:46 pm |
    • Jimmy G

      You are aptly named.

      September 15, 2011 at 9:50 pm |
  19. Richard S Kaiser

    Can anyone tell me how vast the Cosmos is and are there more than one universe within said Cosmos? If so how many more than our own?

    September 15, 2011 at 1:20 pm |
    • Richard S Kaiser

      The theories of the Cosmos are few and much is written about our universe being all there is in outer space. Our perceptions regarding the Cosmos is hampered and closeminded by the generalizations of what I call scientific simpleton's ideals of one universe. I am centered to believe in an immeasurable amount of universes undetectable as yet by our sciences' yet to be produced telescopes to peer beyond that which is as yet to be seen.

      September 15, 2011 at 1:30 pm |
    • Laughing


      So to understand the scope, right now we orbit one star. We're in a solar system comprised of 8 planets (PLUTO WHY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!) thousands of planetoids and dwarf planets and probably a couple of million of small asteroids.
      We are in the milky way galaxy. A spiral galaxy that holds a couple of billion observable stars, in the shape of a spiral theoretically orbiting around a super massive blackhole at the center. We have seen that there billions of galaxies out there (billions of stars comprise each one of those). Also keep in mind our star is relatively small compared to some of the bigger stars. To get an idea google Canis Majoris XY (I think, something along those lines) and it will give you a to scale size of how big our sun is compared to it.

      As for multiple universes in the cosmos. It depends. Some theorize that there are many many more dimensions than our observable ones and string theory basically says that every decision every person makes creates a new universe. for instance this morning when you decided to put on a t-shirt, a universe was created for every instance where you put on a different tshirt as well as if you didn't put on a tshirt, or if you put on a long sleeve shirt instead and so on.

      As of now in the observable universe and what we know, there's only one universe and its the one we currently inhabit.

      September 15, 2011 at 1:31 pm |
    • go

      @Richard, too funny, you being among the simplest of the simpleton posters here. You silly, pretentious little boy.

      September 15, 2011 at 1:36 pm |
    • I'm The Best!

      I like to think of our universe as one of an infinite amount. I mean, if you believe the cosmos are comprised of more than the 3 dimensions we see here then there has to be. If you think about a three diminsional space, it is made up of an infinite number of 2 diminsional planes. So a 4-d space is made up of an infinite number of 3-d spaces. This can keep going making more and more 3-d universes and in string theory I believe there are 10 dimensions including one of time so a total of 11. So I believe there is an infite number of universes.

      September 15, 2011 at 1:53 pm |
    • Richard S Kaiser

      @ Laughing,,,,, "As for multiple universes in the cosmos. It depends. Some theorize that there are many many more dimensions than our observable ones and string theory basically says that every decision every person makes creates a new universe. for instance this morning when you decided to put on a t-shirt, a universe was created for every instance where you put on a different tshirt as well as if you didn't put on a tshirt, or if you put on a long sleeve shirt instead and so on."

      My perceptions regarding "dimensions" deals with what is termed as being Fractal Cosmology, which is an up and coming theory regarding there being universes within universes ad infinitum. Your statement stating, "that every decision every person makes creates a new universe" I find to be non-resolute. Such perceptions to me are based upon the aloofness of generalizations of imperceptabilities. Fractal Cosmology is the dimension of a more plausble theory.

      I googled regarding "Canis Majoris XY" and was directed to wikipedia where it was "Nature of VY Canis Majoris" where I found said star was "3.063 billion km or 1.7 billion miles in diameter" or "between 1800 and 2100 solar radii".

      Google Laughing Fractal Cosmology and look for a Robert Oldershaw who has a site that suggests the similarity between stellar nebulas and atomic nebulas and there are schematics along with photos to infer upon.

      September 15, 2011 at 1:58 pm |
    • Laughing


      VY Canis Majoris is the star I'm referring to. How neat right?! I mean, the size and scope of this singular star is gargantuan, and it's the biggest one we've found but there could easily be a bigger one out there.

      Googled Fractal Cosmology, it's a little out there but I think it's a solid premise, I mean fractals do naturally occur, so why no on a grand scale?

      September 15, 2011 at 2:18 pm |
    • JohnR

      There are at least two different senses in which some modern cosmologists are amenable to the idea of multiple universes. One is that universes can pop into being like ours supposedly did and they may have different laws of physics and/or different values for the properties of their fundamental particles. This theory actually counters the intelligent design idea. The fact that this universe is amenable to life is in principle an accident. Other universes come and go without life. Some spawn life. Obviously, we, as living things, have to be in one of the universes that allows life. But nothing was fixed in favor of life by an intelligent designer. The values are set randomly and some universes just happen to have values that work for life.

      Then there is the many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics, according to which at every choice point in history (and there are gazillions of them constantly), ALL choices are made, but divied up among alternative universes. This creates a huge number of universes popping into existence, each one in turn rapidly producing gazillions more. I'm not real fond of this model, but it is one of the currently viable interpretions of certain quantum puzzles vying for acceptance.

      Both of these theories are sometimes called multiverse theories. They can of course be combined. Indeed, the former can be enfolded into the latter on the theory that setting the laws and fixing the values of constants WERE (among) the first quantum choice points. But they can also be separated.

      September 15, 2011 at 2:38 pm |
    • Jimmy G

      Sounds like Richard has misunderstood that words like "universe" and "cosmos" need to be defined in the context of the question. They can mean the same thing to some people. They can also mean different things.
      If you ask a silly question, you get silly answers.

      September 15, 2011 at 3:02 pm |
  20. Adam

    I was created in the image of God by my Creator, I am not from monkeys and I am not going to become someone else.

    September 15, 2011 at 1:19 pm |
    • Maybe try logic

      Believing it to be so doesn't make it any more of a fiction.

      September 15, 2011 at 1:33 pm |
    • Eve

      Adam, I was created from a bone taken from you, but look I look more beatiful than you!!!!!

      September 15, 2011 at 1:35 pm |
    • BRC

      Actually you were created from your parents, and are a composite of their images, and when you have offspring that will carry on a portion of you (your genetic strengths and weaknesses), so while you will not become something else you will contribute to something else, which could be quite different.

      September 15, 2011 at 1:40 pm |
    • TruthPrevails

      Wow...nothing like the uneducated speaking their closed minds. Try picking up a book outside of the church Adam. If understanding evolution is so difficult, re-read BRC's comment....it sums it up in terms that most children can comprehend.

      btw: what exactly is the image of god?? since it has never shown itself, there is no evidence of what it looks like. If you are referring to the apparent good, you have not read the buybull...your god is an evil thing.

      Do you also believe the earth is flat? That the earth is only 6000 years old?

      September 15, 2011 at 1:52 pm |
    • Adam

      Whether you believe in the Bible or science, you gotta believe...the Bible is the truth as we believe. It is God's word, just because you are not able to comprehend the Creation theory doesn't mean that was the way we came into being.

      As far how old this earth is, does it really matter to your Life today or tomorrow, does it make it better because it 6050 Vs 10021 Vs 100000000000000000239 years

      September 15, 2011 at 2:25 pm |
    • JohnR

      @Adam The age of the earth matters. And you descend from other primates.

      September 15, 2011 at 2:41 pm |
    • Adam

      @John R

      Just give a one liner or two sentences as to why the age of this earth matters for your living?

      September 15, 2011 at 2:47 pm |
    • Jimmy G

      Facts matter when they contradict popular belief. You believe in something untrue, therefore any actions or thoughts you have that are based on false information are more likely to go "astray" and not coincide with reality at some point.
      You believe in a lie and do stupid things. How is that not important to you?

      September 15, 2011 at 2:58 pm |
    • Adam

      The problem with discussing with you Atheists is there is not one question and answer in sequence, each one jumps in and takes the topic off tangent.

      If you want to continue on this topic , please respond to my last q to john r was give me a oneliner why the age of the earth is important to your life as it is today or tomorrow?,

      September 15, 2011 at 3:19 pm |
    • TruthPrevails

      Okay Adam, I'm not the one with the comprehension problem. There is enough evidence to prove that what you state is a fallacy. I don't have to believe the buybull exists any more than I have to believe Santa exists. Just because you are too inept to pick up a book of science does not make me wrong.
      As for the age of the earth...it does matter b/c it disproves your book of multiple choice/fairy tales/horror stories.
      I highly suggest you read some books by Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkins...these people may open your eyes to reality b/c you're not living it.

      September 15, 2011 at 3:22 pm |
    • Adam

      Yeah right, good try , try that with someone else, you may be gullible and delusional to try and disprove the existence of God, I am not, sorry.

      I will not spend my time on something that I already know is the Truth and that is God exists.

      As far as the age of the earth, I do not really care as to how old it is, it does not make an iota of a difference to my belief in God.

      September 15, 2011 at 3:31 pm |
    • TruthPrevails

      No gullibility involved on my behalf. I am not the one who believes in something that can't be evidenced to exist This proof you claim to have, please provide it.
      Carl Sagan said it best "Extraordinary claims, require extraordinary evidence"
      You are making a claim that science dismisses and then you claim to have knowledge of this divine monster...until you can provide the evidence, you sound like the schizophrenic claiming he/she has heard voices.

      how old are you? 8 maybe...point being only children believe in fairy tales..

      September 15, 2011 at 4:14 pm |
    • Maybe try logic

      "Whether you believe in the Bible or science, you gotta believe...the Bible is the truth as we believe. It is God's word, just because you are not able to comprehend the Creation theory doesn't mean that was the way we came into being."
      Comprehending the creationist theory isn't hard in the least. Like using religion to explain other phenomenon, like the rising and setting of the sun, or natural disasters, it boils down to the fact that if you can't explain it, god did it.

      And no belief is required for science. Just falsifiable hypothesis and evidence to support that hypothesis.

      September 15, 2011 at 4:19 pm |
    • Adam


      What can I say buddy, Faith is an extraordinary grace from above, the more I talk to atheists the more I am convinced it is truly a Gift from above.

      But for his Grace I would not have been saved.

      I would wish everyone can have that personal conviction.

      September 15, 2011 at 4:25 pm |
    • David Johnson


      Why does Adam have nip_ples?

      Curious in Arizona

      September 15, 2011 at 4:58 pm |
    • David Johnson


      You said: " I would wish everyone can have that personal conviction."

      You wish for everyone to be a non-thinking sheep? That would be baaaad.


      September 15, 2011 at 5:01 pm |
    • TruthPrevails

      @Adam: personal conviction does not require the belief in a god. You use a god to set your morals, we use common sense to set ours. You're not going to be convinced that you are wrong and you're not going to convince us that you are right. I see no reason for your belief in a deity of any form, especially given that there are so many god's out there for people to believe in and not one of them can be agreed to be the correct one.
      It really is sad that you have been so blinded by indoctrination and fail to open your eyes to the truth.

      September 15, 2011 at 5:11 pm |
    • Fred1

      @Adam: If the bible is truth how come Judas dies in 2 completely different ways in the bible?

      September 15, 2011 at 9:55 pm |
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
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.