home
RSS
My Take: Are evangelicals dangerous?
Many evangelicals want to ban abortion, but does that mean they want theocracy?
October 15th, 2011
10:00 PM ET

My Take: Are evangelicals dangerous?

Editor's Note: R. Albert Mohler, Jr., is president of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, the flagship school of the Southern Baptist Convention and one of the largest seminaries in the world.

By R. Albert Mohler, Jr., Special to CNN

Here we go again.

Every four years, with every new presidential election cycle, public voices sound the alarm that the evangelicals are back. What is so scary about America’s evangelical Christians?

Just a few years ago, author Kevin Phillips told intellectual elites to run for cover, claiming that well-organized evangelicals were attempting to turn America into a theocratic state. In “American Theocracy,” Phillips warned of the growing influence of Bible-believing, born-again, theologically conservative voters who were determined to create a theocracy.

Writer Michelle Goldberg, meanwhile, has warned of a new Christian nationalism, based in “dominion theology.” Chris Hedges topped that by calling conservative Christians “American fascists.”

And so-called New Atheists like Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris claim that conservative Christians are nothing less than a threat to democracy. They prescribe atheism and secularism as the antidotes.

This presidential cycle, the alarms have started earlier than usual. Ryan Lizza, profiling Rep. Michele Bachmann for The New Yorker, informed his readers that “Bachmann belongs to a generation of Christian conservatives whose views have been shaped by institutions, tracts, and leaders not commonly known to secular Americans, or even to most Christians.”

Change just a few strategic words and the same would be true of Barack Obama or any other presidential candidate. Every candidate is shaped by influences not known to all and by institutions that other Americans might find strange.

What stories like this really show is that the secular elites assume that their own institutions and leaders are normative.

The New Yorker accused Bachmann of being concerned with developing a Christian worldview, ignoring the fact that every thinking person operates out of some kind of worldview. The article treated statements about wifely submission to husbands and Christian influence in art as bizarre and bellicose.

When Rick Perry questioned the theory of evolution, Dawkins launched into full-on apoplexy, wondering aloud how anyone who questions evolution could be considered intelligent, even as polls indicate that a majority of Americans question evolution.

Bill Keller, then executive editor of The New York Times, topped all the rest by seeming to suggest that conservative Christians should be compared to those who believe in space aliens. He complained that “when it comes to the religious beliefs of our would-be presidents, we are a little squeamish about probing too aggressively.”

Really? Earlier this month, comedian Penn Jillette - a well–known atheist - wrote a very serious op-ed complaining of the political influence of “bugnut Christians,” in the pages of The Los Angeles Times, no less. Detect a pattern here?

By now, this is probably being read as a complaint against the secular elites and prominent voices in the mainstream media. It’s not.

If evangelicals intend to engage public issues and cultural concerns, we have to be ready for the scrutiny and discomfort that comes with disagreement over matters of importance. We have to risk being misunderstood - and even misrepresented - if we intend to say anything worth hearing.

Are evangelicals dangerous? Well, certainly not in the sense that more secular voices warn. The vast majority of evangelicals are not attempting to create a theocracy, or to oppose democracy.

To the contrary, evangelicals are dangerous to the secularist vision of this nation and its future precisely because we are committed to participatory democracy.

As Christians committed to the Bible, evangelicals have learned to advocate on behalf of the unborn, believing that every single human being, at every stage of development, is made in God’s image.

Evangelicals worry about the fate of marriage and the family, believing that the pattern for human relatedness set out in Scripture will lead to the greatest human flourishing.

We are deeply concerned about a host of moral and cultural issues, from how to address poverty to how to be good stewards of the earth, and on some of these there is a fairly high degree of disagreement even among us.

Above all, evangelicals are those who believe that Jesus Christ is Lord and are most concerned about telling others about Jesus. Most of America’s evangelical Christians are busy raising their children, working to support their families and investing energy in their local churches.

But over recent decades, evangelical Christians have learned that the gospel has implications for every dimension of life, including our political responsibility.

We’re dangerous only to those who want more secular voices to have a virtual monopoly in public life.

The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of R. Albert Mohler, Jr.

- CNN Belief Blog

Filed under: Christianity • Opinion • Politics

soundoff (5,318 Responses)
  1. Kevin

    Funny that you should mention Chris Hedges and Richard Dawkins in the same breath. Hedges is concerned as the author is about secualr fundamentalists. But Hedges rightly, I think, argues that the problem with religious fundamentalists and secular fundamentalists is their dogmatism and their hatred for people who are not like them. The real problem with many evangelicals is not their religious beliefs, but the fact that their political beliefs tend to be right wing and that they want to use politics as a vehicle for furtherinng their religious platform. I don't think that the author is right that secularists have a monopoly over public life, nor do I think secularists should have a monopoly over public life. But in a democratic society nobody has the right to impose their religious beliefs on anybody else to do so is , as Hedges would say, fascistic.

    October 16, 2011 at 3:14 am |
  2. EricKuma

    Christians are fascist by nature.
    All Christians want is their beliefs made into law.
    This exudes everyone that does not believe the same way they do.
    Their scripture demands their faith or face a painful oblivion.
    Your dangerous to everybody and anyone who is different than you.
    Stay out of politics and stay out of our lives.

    October 16, 2011 at 3:14 am |
    • Geoff

      It doesn't seem you really know what fascism is... I wonder if you ever really experienced it, or are just using it as a powerful word to attack with.
      Where do you think laws come from? People decide what is important to them and make laws to govern. You try to make it seem nuts that Christians would dare to base laws on what they believe in. Sounds pretty hypocritical, because you apparently just want laws that work for your beliefs.
      You are kind of on the right track with your next statement... the Scripture does tell us that you can either choose to be with God or be without Him... and without Him is a pretty bad place. That's just the truth. You get to choose, and no one can force you. Christians want to tell people that because those are pretty high stakes. Sounds like the decent thing to do. If someone cares about people, I'd think they would want to warn them so they could make a good decision.
      Christians dangerous to everyone? I guess only if you think of "danger" as having to face differing beliefs than yours.
      Stay out of politics? So I guess you figure only people who you agree with should be running the government? If you hadn't remembered, the country was started in a large part by a lot of people who were Christians, and perhaps you are enjoying a lot of the benefits of the sacrifices made by those people that were involved in "politics" because of their Christian beliefs.

      October 16, 2011 at 3:55 am |
  3. Niclas

    The only difference between evangelic USA and iran would be the turbanes, both abrahamic religions share the same narrowminded, straight up hatefilled way of seeing things, its like stupidity in a neat little package regardless of how many phd's you have.

    I give god, jesus and whatever historical character you can name from your book the same credence i give santa and the toothfairie and then then people wonder why it bothers me someone who belives in either would even be slightly suitable to be the POTUS ?

    Separation of church and state, of power and faith, thats how it should be, leave religion out of it, stop backing idiots who feel unsure about evolution, seriously this is at the same intellectual level as the universe revolving around earth, your book is wrong, its old and was written by a goatherder drop the argument already.

    religious (not people with faith) are dangerous cause they will always be able to justify their attoricities with dogma and fickle notions of the afterlife, that is why they are not meant to hold power.

    October 16, 2011 at 3:11 am |
    • Kevin

      I disagree that Christianity and Islam are essentially hate-filled religions. I know little about Islam, but I do know a few things about Christianity and I do know that the teachings of Jesus are far from the teachings of the evangelical right. There are many, varied accounts of Jesus' teachings and some of them do , in fact, justify hatred and bigotry. I think the Gospel of John is especially dangerous as it seems to state that the only important thing is belief in Jesus as GOD. Other gospels however teach that love, justice, mercy, and care for the poor, outcast and downtrodden are essential. Their is a Jesus in the gospels who is appaled with legalism and self-righteousness, but he is forgotten completely by the religous right. Be wary of any Christian who is uninterested in the real ethical teachings of Jesus and are only concerned with faith in an afterlife.

      October 16, 2011 at 3:24 am |
    • Anon

      Screw mythological Jesus, even a clown can offer better advice.

      October 16, 2011 at 3:27 am |
    • Mark from Middle River

      So to tell you but folks will use any reason or cause to justfy. All we have to do is look at instances such as "Blood Diamonds", gold, and oil.

      I believe that the best people who should hold office is one that recognizing all parts of society.... not just painting an entire side as villians.

      Eveytime one of you says you are scared that a person of Faith is in elected office and how things will go look at how many racist said that Whites would be handed over into slavery if a African American got into the Oval Office. What if a woman get into the Oval Office, ...the list you hateful come up with is both sad and pathetic.

      October 16, 2011 at 3:30 am |
  4. Rickote

    Evangelicals in the amounts of this country are in deed dangerous for many of the reasons that this article deny. We need to keep the fight to ridicule evangelist views, so they go back under their rocks and stop prosellytizing inocent children. Let stop this pest with simple reason, please stop being politically correct with this skum that corrupt the future generations and so our image in the developed world as a serious power. In other developed countries (like most of Europe) they ARE considered like the ones that see UFOS and talk to extraterrestials. Let's mock them, they deserve it.

    October 16, 2011 at 3:10 am |
    • Mark from Middle River

      You teach your kids to ridcule them and they teach their kids to tell you that you are going to burn un torment forever.

      I think all of you on the extremes need to just evolve into being members of a tolerant society or think about allowing yourselves to go extinct.

      October 16, 2011 at 3:18 am |
    • Rickote

      I am tolerant with religious people that do not threat the society, but I can't with Evangelists or other fundamentalist pests that try to impose their moral views on the society by any means. Sorry, but if you enjoy tolerating and acepting them, and let them to discriminate, insult, and ostracize your friends, that is your problem. I won't stay still. I came originally from Europe, where people is very open mind and respect each other, no matter your religion, race, nationality, or s.orientation. Here, I am shock with what I see every day!

      October 16, 2011 at 3:36 am |
    • Rickote

      And by the way, I don't teach my kids what to think or mock anybody, that is what evangelists do. I teach them the basis of how to think and to love the knowledge in general, so they can build their own views over the time. These views may have some comon points to mine, but I won't expect to be the same.

      October 16, 2011 at 3:45 am |
    • Mark from Middle River

      Rickote – Very deep post but while you say: "Let's mock them, they deserve it." but then say you are shocked with how people treat each other here. I can feel that you are probably pretty cool but you are sending very sorted messages.

      October 16, 2011 at 3:57 am |
  5. frank hernandez

    religion has NO place in govt. PERIOD !

    and YES, they DO want a theocracy.

    October 16, 2011 at 3:09 am |
    • Bob

      It does when these Evangelicals vote with their morals and beliefs. Love them or hate them, they are a force that has to be noticed.

      October 16, 2011 at 3:11 am |
    • Anon

      Evangelical are akin to the Borg from Star Trek.

      October 16, 2011 at 3:13 am |
    • WilltheFree

      Sadly, Bob is correct. Regardless of how fringe these people are, they get a vote that counts the same as yours or mine. All we can do is hope to educate their followers to the point where they stop sending their $$$, because no religion has ever survived without financial support.

      October 16, 2011 at 3:15 am |
    • Insanityrains

      Good thing I have all of you telling me what I believe as a Christian. What is I were an Evangelical Democrat??? OMG

      October 16, 2011 at 3:16 am |
    • Greg

      The first 'person' that separated religion from the state was Jesus Christ. Isn't it funny?

      October 16, 2011 at 3:19 am |
    • Anon

      Jesus is a myth AKA cruel practical joke, get over it.

      October 16, 2011 at 3:23 am |
    • WilltheFree

      Greg – you have absolutely no proof whatsoever that Jesus even existed. Of all the records the Roman Empire kept (and yes, they kept plenty) nowhere is there a mention of this Jesus of whom you speak. It's as if the Wall Street marchers made up a guy named Bob 300 years from now and wrote a bunch of stories about him and then declared that he must have existed because of those stories.

      Facts. Not fiction.

      October 16, 2011 at 3:25 am |
    • Greg

      That can be applied to anyone from the past.

      October 16, 2011 at 3:28 am |
    • Mark from Middle River

      >>>"you have absolutely no proof whatsoever that Jesus even existed. "

      Interesting claim....have any proof to prove your statement?

      October 16, 2011 at 3:33 am |
    • WilltheFree

      Greg and Mark:
      To Greg – yes, I can find lots of compelling truth that other people from the past have existed. It's ridiculous to claim otherwise and you know it.
      Mark – the old disprove a negative argument. The burden of proof is not on me, it's on anyone who claims that a guy lived 2,000 years ago, was dead for 3 days, then rose from the dead. Only an idiot would believe that and then tell anyone else to prove it wrong. Now if lots of people around here were dying for 3 days and coming back to life, you might have an argument, but something tells me you'd think I was crazy if I claimed that...

      October 16, 2011 at 3:49 am |
  6. thes33k3r

    Religion poisons everything. Mohler is flat-out lying about his (and other theocrat's) intentions. He is attempting to strike a moderate note in this write-up in order to lure people into believing that there is nothing about the ultra-conservative Xtian movement in this country with which to be concerned. I used to be a Christian. I am happily free from that slavery.

    "A man is accepted into a church for what he believes and he is turned out for what he knows."
    –Mark Twain

    October 16, 2011 at 3:09 am |
  7. Caveman73

    Yes we should fear you fundies. You believe in a Sky Daddy, you wantonly wear a torture device around your necks and think human life begins at conception.

    October 16, 2011 at 3:08 am |
  8. Da King

    Guess I am the only believer up this late. All the rest are sleeping to be rested to praise God and learn from him in Church tomorrow. So, I'll sign off too. Someday some of you will understand and have the peace of God in you. That will be a great day for you. Nite, all.

    October 16, 2011 at 3:07 am |
    • thes33k3r

      OR you are a deluded Xtian. Freedom from religion is much better than the "peace of god" that you imagine is a part of the fabric of reality.

      October 16, 2011 at 3:12 am |
  9. Dennis

    So Dawkins correctly states that Perry is a moron, which the author of this opinion finds horrible "as polls indicate that a majority of Americans question evolution." – hint to the author of this article: scientific consensus is not determined by popular vote. You, sir, are a moron, too. Nothing new here, coming from a man of a petty god.

    October 16, 2011 at 3:07 am |
    • WilltheFree

      Thank you, Dennis. Dead on. Typical evangelical idiocy – a majority of Americans think something, so it must be true. Wasn't the world also flat and the center of the universe too?

      October 16, 2011 at 3:13 am |
    • clearfog

      The fact that so many Americans do not believe is evolution is caused exactly by the fundamentalists interfering with the education system. I am 62 and learned evolution in school. Now, it is too controversial to be taught. Too controversial? This is stupid.

      October 16, 2011 at 3:19 am |
  10. redseca2

    Yes they are.

    October 16, 2011 at 3:03 am |
  11. clearfog

    "We’re dangerous only to those who want more secular voices to have a virtual monopoly in public life." Guilty as charged. It is called separation of church and state. Also, I just have to say it, secular belief systems are not just different, they are better. There, I said it. Guilty as charged.

    October 16, 2011 at 3:01 am |
  12. jo

    Some of the most intelligent people in our history believed in a God that was the creator. Einstein and Newton, to name a few. I think the more you probe in science and gain knowledge, you realize the vastness of truth out there to realize that we know very little. How is it unintelligent to recognize the limits of our human understanding and believe in God. Evolution can and may be a tool of God's creative power, but what many people believe as definitive may not be. Think of even the some of the most definitive laws of physics. These are subject to change upon new discovery, and they have been changing ever. I believe science and religion can coexist as all truth comes from God or points to Him.

    October 16, 2011 at 3:01 am |
    • clearfog

      Einstein did not believe in god. Evolution is a scientific theory that accounts for all known phenomena. Scientific theories change as new data are discovered – that is why it is called science and not religion.

      October 16, 2011 at 3:06 am |
    • Anon

      Because it was common place during those eras when science was still in it's infancy. Either you believed or were ostracized or worst. The christian god is a cruel practical joke upon humanity.

      October 16, 2011 at 3:08 am |
    • WilltheFree

      Jo – I agree with you. There is no reason why science and religion can't peacefully co-exist. Regardless of how deep we get in science, there will always be the question of what was there before. And even if we know exactly how things happen, one can always believe that they happen that way because of a diety (God) in the background. Science cannot disprove God.

      The real danger is not in God, but in religion, especially when it gets in the way of science. The example of the earth being the center of the universe is the easiest example, but religious authorities had people put to death for that very assertion. It seems that religion doesn't like being accountable when they were wrong in the past, and they continue to get in the way of science, even though it isn't incompatible.

      Personally, I think I believe in a higher being, but anyone who relies on a book written 2,000 years ago and a church that has made tons of mistakes in the past has questionable judgement at best. And an attempt to bring these beliefs in the way of science or social progress is ludicrous.

      October 16, 2011 at 3:22 am |
    • Anon

      Actually science can disprove the christian god, getting the Christians to admit is the hard part since their religion depends on blind faith and submission, no matter the cost.

      October 16, 2011 at 3:26 am |
    • Andrew

      Einstein did not use the word 'god' as you use the word god. Plus I never really liked his religious philosophy anyway, I find it too dressed up in religious language. I was much more a fan of the reductionist Dirac.

      But if I've gotta pick any scientist whose philosophy appeals to me, it won't be Newton, it won't be Einstein, it'd be Feynman. Who was an atheist, fyi.

      (Oh, and Newton was writing before Darwin, so back then, most everyone was religious. I sincerely doubt Newton would be a christian in the 21st century. )

      October 16, 2011 at 3:29 am |
    • clearfog

      Newton did get a bit strange in his old age. He tried to divine the nature of god by manipulating numbers. Smart can also be crazy. I accept the F=ma stuff (as modified by E=mc2), but not the religious stuff.

      October 16, 2011 at 3:39 am |
    • Anon

      He even tried some alchemy which does nothing.

      October 16, 2011 at 3:55 am |
  13. Jill

    What I find troubling about the American evangelical movement is how narrowly it defines 'Christianity' and Christian theology, as well as the radical tone that is often adopted by them – to the exclusion of respectful, intelligent and constructive dialogue around key issues and amongst people of various faiths/worldviews.

    October 16, 2011 at 3:00 am |
  14. Dave

    Yes, there should be a complete monopoly of secular voices in anything having to do with the government or public life.

    God's realm is the spiritual, personal, and private spheres. Not public life, not policy, not government, not politics.

    Religious leaders (and their followers) should be pushign for this themselves, in fact.

    October 16, 2011 at 2:57 am |
    • jo

      This is what the article was addressing, quite respectfully. Being a believer in God is spiritual, yes. However, if it stops there only, then there is little point. It should permeate our whole lives. We don't promote our religion in the government, but rather our values. Everyone has values, including yours where you believe only secular beliefs should be in governments. Where do each of us draw our moral lines, what is good or bad, what should be law or not? These all stem from our moral opinions, and whether you devised them, were told by others, raised by them, or were taught in church, we all have the right to hold our own and promote that in our government. This is what democracy is- a representation of the people, of all faiths or no faith.

      October 16, 2011 at 3:05 am |
    • Anon

      The main point about the abrahamic religions is its desire for worldwide theocracy yet you people are painfully oblivious to it.

      October 16, 2011 at 3:15 am |
  15. Marie

    Coming from another country to Alabama turned me into an atheist (I was a catholic before)t. Here the so called "christians" are the most hypocritical people you can think of. If going to heaven means to be in their company, I'd rather go somewhere else.

    October 16, 2011 at 2:56 am |
    • Anon

      Hypothetically the christian heavenly paradise would be my hell torment.

      October 16, 2011 at 2:59 am |
    • clearfog

      You would both get a laugh out of Bloch's The Hell-Bound Train." Either read it or its summary on Wiki. http://en.wikipedia dot org/wiki/That_Hell-Bound_Train

      October 16, 2011 at 3:14 am |
  16. Andrew

    I find it strange that evangelicals consistently paint such strawmen of Dawkins. It's like "atheist extremist!" When it is extremist to say "look, your beliefs are silly... but I still respect your right to believe them", then it's the moderates who scare me.

    October 16, 2011 at 2:56 am |
  17. Jake

    Abortion should be retroactive.

    October 16, 2011 at 2:55 am |
  18. Shawn Irwin

    Would you want someone who thinks that "god" tells them what to do in charge of our, or anyone else's nuclear weapons?

    October 16, 2011 at 2:54 am |
    • Insanityrains

      I think you call those suicide bombers,.

      October 16, 2011 at 3:14 am |
  19. James

    The thing is that certain things are true regardless of belief. 2+2= 4 is true in the same way that it is true that man and monkeys share a common ancestor. When Christians suggest that 2+2=7 or that the Earth was created long after the Babylonians invented glue, they are harming society. The denial of reality to propagate belief in the validity of bronze age ramblings endangers the future of medical breakthroughs that will allow my children to live longer than I will. It directly threatens my future. While I merely roll my eyes when a person tells me that they believe in god or Santa, it's a different story when they want to make the public school children learn about it on my dime. Not all evangelicals seek violence and I certainly won't compare even the worst of them to Hitler. However, they can keep their mental illnesses out of anything my taxes pay for. You have the right to believe whatever nonsense you want but I'm not obligated to support it with my taxes. You have the right to spout your beliefs from the pulpit or the street corner but so does everyone else. What you're not allowed to do is make me complicit in funding your views by force of law.

    October 16, 2011 at 2:52 am |
    • Anon

      In the Christians minds EVERTHING is 1 + 1 = Jesus.

      October 16, 2011 at 2:54 am |
    • Jake

      amen to that brother.

      October 16, 2011 at 2:57 am |
    • Bob

      They can look at it the same way as you look at them. Evangelicals will VOTE with their morals and beliefs just as you do. Agree with them or not, they must be doing something right to be noticed.

      October 16, 2011 at 2:59 am |
    • WilltheFree

      James – right with you on this. Stem cells are a great example... I heard once that stem cells have the ability to lead to research that could potentially cure 2/3rds of the diseases that we face, but we are being crimped from experimenting on already-aborted fetuses by idiots who somehow believe an aborted fetus is alive and sacred. These are the same people who claim that some guy rose from the dead 2,000 years ago. The best part – I am 100% OK with them believing that – I just don't want them projecting ridiculous bronze age opinions onto modern science.

      October 16, 2011 at 3:11 am |
    • Seth Hill of Topanga, California

      I'm sorry, but 2+2=4 is a mathematical equation that can never be false; that humans and monkeys share a common ancestor is a theory supported by a lot of evidence, but capable of being disproved if new evidence appears. Back to the article: I'm an atheist, but I believe evangelicals have every right to promote their views, as long as they don't pass laws forcing me to be religious ... and as long as they pay taxes like the rest of us.

      October 16, 2011 at 3:11 am |
    • Anon

      That's the point, they don't want to. Either you're with them or you're the enemy. That's their stubborn mindset.

      October 16, 2011 at 3:17 am |
  20. e

    They believe in fake stuff like deities, so yes they are dangerous like every other person in the world who believes. The thing is so many people in the world have been brainwashed into believing, and religon does and will destroy everything eventually. So sad feel bad for what the human race could have achieved if 99% of them were raised to be dumb as rocks

    October 16, 2011 at 2:51 am |
    • Bob

      The only difference with Christians and athiests is at least Christains can admit that their belief in God is based on faith. You haven't been to the other side of the curtain either, so you can't prove there is no God.

      October 16, 2011 at 3:04 am |
    • Anon

      Faith does not equal having evidence. I swear you people have the mentality of that Spongbob hail the magic conch shell episode.

      October 16, 2011 at 3:10 am |
    • Bob

      You're right Anon, faith does not equal evidence and I won't lower myself to childish name calling as you do. I'll simple reply that you can't prove that there is no God because you haven't been to the other side of the curtain either. So your views are based on faith as well. At least the Christian can admit that their beliefs are based on faith, unlike you.

      October 16, 2011 at 3:17 am |
    • Sam

      Bob, I believe there's a magical invisible dragon in the sky who watches over us all (it's definitely true because I read it in a book). Prove to me there is no dragon.

      See how that works? I can make any spurious claim I want. The onus is on me to prove my claim, not you to disprove it.

      October 16, 2011 at 3:18 am |
    • Anon

      As an ex-christian for nearly 21 years I can freely admit that Christianity is a mish-mash of other cults that somehow has stuck with us to this very day.

      October 16, 2011 at 3:20 am |
    • Andrew

      Bob, the insult was really appropriate. Seriously, you're going to have to do better than 'but you can't prove god doesn't exist' if you want to show you don't have the intellectual capacity of a newt.

      Think about it for a second, do you accept, on faith, that unicorns do not exist? Do you accept, on faith, that there is not a teapot orbiting jupiter?

      Now, both could possibly exist. Maybe your god has hidden both from us, it's possible, 'god works in mysterious ways'. Or maybe just aliens performing an experiment on all the world's unicorns and will return them in 500 years. So is it faith for me not to believe in those which I cannot prove to exist?

      It's the fact that you cannot prove a negative which makes your argument silly. I cannot prove to you there is no god because I cannot disprove the existence of something which doesn't exist. I can't prove there isn't a flying spaghetti monster either, but do you believe in that?

      All of that might be a bit difficult for you to grasp, so allow me to pose to you a question. What evidence would convince you that you are wrong? If god doesn't exist, how could I prove that?

      October 16, 2011 at 3:24 am |
    • Sam

      2nd reply to Bob: I think you might misunderstand the definition of "atheism". Atheists do not claim for a fact that there is no god (unlike Christians, who state god existing as a fact). Atheism literally means "not theism". In other words, they LACK a belief in god, because there is no evidence for it.

      Not only do Christians claim there is a god, but they make incredibly specific claims about that god: the things he says and commands, the number of days it took him to create the universe, even his very name. They stick to these claims despite a complete lack of evidence for any of them. Atheists do not have "faith" that there is no god. They extrapolate that, based on evidence, there probably is no god. They are willing to change their mind if evidence comes along. A true Christian never changes his mind, despite any evidence that contradicts his beliefs.

      October 16, 2011 at 3:26 am |
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81
Advertisement
About this blog

The CNN Belief Blog covers the faith angles of the day's biggest stories, from breaking news to politics to entertainment, fostering a global conversation about the role of religion and belief in readers' lives. It's edited by CNN's Daniel Burke with contributions from Eric Marrapodi and CNN's worldwide news gathering team.