‘God particle’ coming into focus
December 12th, 2011
01:57 PM ET

‘God particle’ coming into focus

By Elizabeth Landau, CNN

(CNN)–Gossip isn’t just for teenage girls – scientists spread rumors, too. Physicists are giddy about an announcement that will come from the European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN) on Tuesday at 8 a.m. EST, although the details remain tantalizingly secret.

The word on the street is that scientists will unveil the first hints of the Higgs boson, also called the "God particle" in popular culture. This unimaginably small particle has never been detected, but would explain several unsolved mysteries about the universe – for instance, why building blocks of our world have mass.

But listen to Tuesday’s revelations with caution – there’s not enough data to make definitive statements yet about the Higgs, said Joe Incandela, chief spokesperson for the LHC’s Compact Muon Solenoid (CMS) experiment as of January.

Read the full story from CNN's Light Years Blog
- CNN Belief Blog

Filed under: Belief • God • Science

soundoff (390 Responses)
  1. George

    For all you who claim that physics gave us so much, what possible use is this God particle to us? I mean, do we routinely accelerate particles to the speed of light in real life? Come on. This is utterly useless and is designed to eliminate the need for God. God made theh universe as it is in just 6 days. I think that is more amazing than this useless research. This research is so useless that Congress rightly canceled a big accelerator in the US about 20 years ago. Best decision Congress ever made. This is liberal, atheistic science at its best.

    December 14, 2011 at 12:25 pm |
    • Chuckles

      Well I hope you're joking, but I guess not considering your other posts. Just keep in mind there have been many things discovered through "useless research" like say.... Penicillian..... or the Electron, which gave us things call electronics. I won't answer any of your other deluded questions, but just know that no research in science is ever useless.

      December 14, 2011 at 12:30 pm |
    • Eric G

      Why do you need God? How is science eliminating the need for God? If the need can be eliminated, do you really need it?

      December 14, 2011 at 1:15 pm |
    • Snow

      Dumba$$es like you must have argued what good E=MC2 would do when Einstein proposed it and what good radioactivity is when it was first recognized. I am sure when first space exploration and satellites were starting out, religious je.rkwards like you must have asked what good that would do..

      I am sure your minimal brain can also process the advantages those research has yielded today, eh George.

      December 14, 2011 at 3:40 pm |
    • Brad

      Well George, I'm a Christian and a scientist. Some of us find that the awe-inspiring complexity of the Universe reveals more about the nature of God. At least on that basis you might agree that pure science is worthwhile?

      December 14, 2011 at 4:21 pm |
    • George


      The nature of God is revealed in the Bible. That's all you will ever need.

      December 14, 2011 at 8:43 pm |
    • George


      "what good radioactivity is when it was first recognized. I am sure when first space exploration and satellites were starting out"

      The uses of radioactivity were almost immediately recognized. As to space exploration, the moon shots were completely useless except that they gave us bragging rights over the Soviets. But in and of themselves, they were useless, and a lot of money was wasted on them – mind you, that was tax payer's money; money that was stolen from hard working citizens. And what did they find on the moon? Nothing. And you know why? Because God created life on earth, and we are not meant to leave the earth. There's nothing to be found except possibly some bacteria.

      December 14, 2011 at 8:51 pm |
  2. myklds

    As what I've been saying:

    When Science and Religion met, it becomes an absolute truth.

    December 13, 2011 at 6:57 pm |
    • George

      "When Science and Religion met, it becomes an absolute truth."

      I have no idea what "it" refers to in that sentence. God is absolute truth.

      December 13, 2011 at 8:21 pm |
    • myklds


      Religion isn't God. Don't get confused.

      December 13, 2011 at 8:35 pm |
    • myklds

      and.."it" means anything what religion teaches that science agrees with and vice versa.

      December 13, 2011 at 8:46 pm |
    • HellBent


      Would that be when science said that there was no global flood? Or that we weren't created, we evolved? Or when it said the world was spherical (mostly)? Or when it showed our solar system was heliocentric? Or was it something else?

      December 13, 2011 at 8:48 pm |
    • myklds


      If you would allow, I'll answer your (series of) questions with a question.

      Does religion "continually" disagree any of those?

      December 13, 2011 at 9:44 pm |
    • Sarah

      mykids, maybe you should have a literate parent or teacher of yours review and grammar-check your posts a few times. They are pretty hard to decipher.

      You could try some extra writing exercises too, that you could have a teacher check over.

      December 13, 2011 at 9:56 pm |
    • myklds

      I would apologize if I'm giving anyone here a hard time comprehending my comments, for my profiecency of the English language is quiet limited.

      But I always try my best to answer all the questions but to nonsensical one.

      December 13, 2011 at 10:24 pm |
    • myklds


      December 13, 2011 at 10:26 pm |
    • LinCA


      You said, "anything what religion teaches that science agrees with and vice versa."

      If science ever agrees with anything that religion teaches, religion got lucky. Even if they agree, that does nothing to enhance the validity of religion. If they disagree, science is right and religion is wrong.

      Faith: Believing is seeing.
      Reason: Seeing is believing.

      December 14, 2011 at 2:48 am |
    • myklds


      Science and Religion have their ways on finding the truth. As per your elaboration:

      1.) "Faith: Believing is seeing.
      2.) Reason: Seeing is believing."

      While the former uses (only) number 2, the latter is open and using both approach.

      Allow me to state one good example:

      While Gallileo (a man of Science) had found that the earth is round (we all know that he didn't mentioned/used "sphere"), the p-ope DURING THAT TIME believes that it's flat. But when some group(s) of Religious navigators agreed with it, likewise confirmed the former's stand after they found by it their own way by cir-cu-m-navi-gating the earth. Althought it was later describe as "sphere" (perhaps to use a most correct discription OR...just to refute the Gospel in Isiah) but Religion continues to agree with it until now. It became an ABSOLUTE TRUTH then.

      Honestly I haven't known anything yet that Science agreed with what religion teaches. Apparently, Religion has never been lucky or let me say, NOT YET because....this (Higgs boson) discovery could be a very good start for another ABSOLUTE TRUTH.

      December 14, 2011 at 8:12 pm |
    • myklds

      *Although* and *description* Sorry for the messy grammar and spelling.

      December 14, 2011 at 8:17 pm |
  3. Snow

    Did you know that God was cheating on his wife? well, there is no archeological evidence or any sort of provable evidence that he is cheating on his wife, but .. but..I have a personal connection to god and see him in my own unique way every time I read the bible.. and one such time, I totally saw it, y'all! I did!

    Ask George.. his logic made me see the truth!

    December 13, 2011 at 6:50 pm |
    • George

      So you want to say that the only truth is that which has proveable evidence?

      December 13, 2011 at 8:17 pm |
    • Snow

      ..O..M..G.. George proves he is capable of thought.. at least to some extent.. But hey george.. remember, bible does not approve of people thinking too much, coz thinking and knowledge will push you into satanhood!

      December 14, 2011 at 3:36 pm |
  4. Rock my soul ...

    ... on the boson of Abraham!

    December 13, 2011 at 6:41 pm |
  5. Higgs Boson

    peek a boo 😉

    December 13, 2011 at 5:34 pm |
  6. Brad

    George, is pure mathematics as ungodly as physics? At least it isn't as expensive as physics.

    December 13, 2011 at 4:49 pm |
    • George

      No, pure mathematics is just useless. Any fiscal conservative would support defunding it as well to the extent that it enjoys government grants.

      December 13, 2011 at 5:04 pm |
    • Bob

      Stupid George will say anything to try to defend the already lost cause of his nasty, sicko Christian supersti-tions.

      December 13, 2011 at 5:06 pm |
    • George

      And you, Bob, can only squawk like a parrot.

      December 13, 2011 at 5:09 pm |
    • HellBent

      "No, pure mathematics is just useless."

      You should at least clarify that its useless to you so that you don't sounds quite so dumb.

      December 13, 2011 at 5:11 pm |
    • Brad

      George, all science, engineering and information technology depend on mathematics. Perhaps the problem is mathematicians usually neglect to patent their best ideas. If they did, then mathematics might be self-supporting. Mathematics is generally a free gift to anyone who can use it and support for it is probably a good investment for a progressive society.

      December 13, 2011 at 5:20 pm |
    • George

      By definition it is pure and not applied. That means that there is no use for it or else it would be applied mathematics.

      December 13, 2011 at 5:20 pm |
    • George


      Don't make me laugh. You said pure mathematics, not applied mathematics. Pure mathematics is little more than exercises in logic.

      December 13, 2011 at 5:23 pm |
    • HellBent

      Applied mathematics uses principles developed in pure mathematics.

      This really isn't very hard.

      December 13, 2011 at 5:26 pm |
    • George


      There is a specific branch of mathematics called "applied mathematics." In that branch, they develop mathematics for specific purposes. It is original research, not hand-me-down from pure mathematics. It really isn't all that hard.

      December 13, 2011 at 5:30 pm |
    • HellBent


      Thanks for continuing to prove, as with the second law of thermodynamics, that you don't have the slightest clue what you're talking about. It would be amusing if it wasn't so sad.

      December 13, 2011 at 5:33 pm |
    • George


      When you are shown where you are wrong, and you can't win the debate, you just declare victory. Nice tactic.

      December 13, 2011 at 5:36 pm |
    • Bob

      Yes, everyone, George actually is that stupid.

      December 13, 2011 at 5:39 pm |
    • HotAirAce

      Pure mathematics, or any mathematics, as demonstrated by The Babble and using its value for pi is most definitely useless. We couldn't do without non-Babblical mathematics though.

      December 13, 2011 at 6:02 pm |
    • Applied Mathematics?

      Some of it is specifically developed for specific purposes. But a lot of it is FINDING new purposes for often hundreds of years old pure mathematics.

      December 13, 2011 at 6:45 pm |
    • HellBent

      George, since it was fine to watch you stick your foot in your mouth last time, let's try again. Please enlighten us what application mathematician and physicist James Maxwell was working on when we developed the theory of electromagnetism.

      December 13, 2011 at 8:45 pm |
  7. Bob

    How's that laser, bipolar transistor, and MOSFET background history research working out for you, George?

    December 13, 2011 at 4:32 pm |
    • George

      These were all designed and built by engineers.

      December 13, 2011 at 4:35 pm |
    • HotAirAce

      Based on research into atomic particles and quantum physics.

      December 13, 2011 at 4:38 pm |
    • Snow

      Right.. and the engineers, auto-magically got the divine download of designs and principles needed to make the machines.. isn't it, George? No research in physics or sciences was ever needed for engineers at alll..

      December 13, 2011 at 4:41 pm |
    • HellBent

      @George – no. They were invented and designed by physicists. Engineers have improved and mass-produced them, but it was physicists that invented them. You don't get to make up your own history, no matter how hard you try.

      December 13, 2011 at 4:42 pm |
    • Bob

      Stupid George will say anything to try to defend the already lost cause of his sicko Christian supersti-tions.

      December 13, 2011 at 4:56 pm |
    • George

      "They were invented and designed by physicists."

      They were physicists working in an engineering capacity (applied physics), but please provide some support for that statement. And while you are at it, please provide some information that they were getting public funds to invent them.

      December 13, 2011 at 5:08 pm |
    • Fallacy Spotting 101

      Post by George is the fallacy of circular reasoning.


      December 13, 2011 at 5:12 pm |
    • HellBent

      The initial design (design, it didn't get applied) was published in physics journals. Not applied physics journals. Lasers also rquire principles of physics that stem from electromagnetism and quantum mechanics. If you remove the knowledge of those two branches of physics, all the engineering in the world won't get you a laser. The developers of laser's precursor, the maser, were awarded the nobel prize in physics. Not applied physics. Not engineering.

      Seriously, how dense can one get?

      December 13, 2011 at 5:15 pm |
    • Bob

      HellBent, Physics and Biology terrify little stupid George, as he has already admitted, because they expose his fairy tale religion for what it is.

      He continues to make claims about both subjects, despite also admitting to understanding neither. I suppose it would be merely amusing, if he didn't vote.

      December 13, 2011 at 5:17 pm |
    • George

      There is no Nobel Prize in applied physics. The Nobel Prize in physics includes both.

      December 13, 2011 at 5:18 pm |
    • HellBent

      George. Stop. Think. Breath. How can you apply physics without ... physics?

      December 13, 2011 at 5:21 pm |
    • George

      Pure physics is physics developed for a specific purpose. It is not physics looking for God in a particle.

      December 13, 2011 at 5:27 pm |
    • HellBent

      To what purpose was quantum physics developed for? Relativity? Electromagnetism?

      No one is looking for god in a particle.

      Do you enjoy just making up your own little reality? My little niece likes playing with her imaginary friends, so I guess it must be fun.

      December 13, 2011 at 5:29 pm |
    • George

      You'd better do a little more research on electromagnetism. There were immediate uses for it and those who were studying it knew it. As to quantum physics, it is a religion. Relativity has no use whatsoever.

      December 13, 2011 at 5:34 pm |
    • HellBent

      "There were immediate uses for it and those who were studying it knew it. As to quantum physics, it is a religion. Relativity has no use whatsoever."

      And the fool continues to prove himself as such.

      Quantum physics is a religion? HAHAHAHA. Relativity has no use? Wow. I guess religion gives us computers. Is it hard to breath when you heard is buring that deep in the sand?

      December 13, 2011 at 5:37 pm |
    • George

      Tell me one use of relativity.

      December 13, 2011 at 5:42 pm |
    • Benjamin

      George, you said "Relativity has no use whatsoever."

      Actually, relativity is used throughout modern GPS, and in ring laser gyroscopes, and many other applications. A little diligence on your part would have confirmed that.

      Are you really prepared to stand behind your statement, or will you withdraw it?

      December 13, 2011 at 5:46 pm |
    • Bob

      Thanks, Benjamin. Another epic fail for stupid George.

      December 13, 2011 at 5:48 pm |
    • HotAirAce

      George, *no one* is looking for god in a particle! The name "god particle" came about because an editor didn't want to offend anyone by using the scientist's name for it: the "god damn particle" (because of how hard it was to find). So an attempt to not upset religidiots has upset religidiots – and caused at least one (that would be you George) to say incredibility stupid things about science. You are hopeless. You will say anything, and make things much more complex by doing so, to preserve your childish beliefs. *If* there is a god, I’m sure he would be working on disowning you, but unfortunately there is not...

      December 13, 2011 at 5:59 pm |
    • HellBent

      Another practical use for relativity – you wouldn't have e=mc^2 (and other equations relating mass and energy) without it.

      George, if you get your power from a nuclear power plant then you can't post on these boards without using technology based upon both relativity and quantum mechanics.

      December 13, 2011 at 8:58 pm |
  8. Snow

    One of my favorite myths pushed by the believers is that science is out to disprove religion and remove it.. the truth of the matter is, science is simply a pursuit of understanding the unknown.. It does not set out to eradicate religion.. That is why you find so many great scientists who also are religious people..

    But in its course, if it finds compelling evidence, it "may" disprove the existence of god. That "MAY" is the reason people like george get heckled and are so afraid of science that they go as far as trying to eradicate it completely.

    Who are on the defensive and who are on the offense..

    December 13, 2011 at 4:17 pm |
    • George

      As I've said many times, the winner in this debate will only be decided at the ballot box. This is why it is important to vote for conservative Christians. Even just plain old conservatives don't want to see their money spent on such useless pursuits as this.

      December 13, 2011 at 4:39 pm |
    • Brad

      Snow: Most scientists do try to eliminate unnecessary hypotheses, usually assuming that God is such.

      December 13, 2011 at 4:44 pm |
    • HellBent

      Brad, science necessitates eliminating non-falsifiable hypotheses, which god is.

      December 13, 2011 at 4:45 pm |
    • Snow

      Right George.. your statement was not biased at all.. only voting conservative christians will there be equal rights for eeeverybody.. isn't it?

      And BTW, if people did not spend money on useless pursuits like creating computers, internet, backbone routers,etc (which btw also uses so many concepts from physics in transferring each and every bit of information) you wouldn't have this great tool to toot you biased bigoted horn.. So why are you so bent on using the Satan's tool you scorn so much?

      December 13, 2011 at 4:54 pm |
    • Bob

      It's kind of a demonstration of modern computing usability, that people as stupid and dense as George and fred can actually use a computer and post here.

      December 13, 2011 at 4:59 pm |
    • George


      Why the heck did I say that is bigoted? We're talking about science here.

      December 13, 2011 at 5:00 pm |
    • George


      Why the he.ck did I say that is big.oted? We're talking about science here.

      December 13, 2011 at 5:01 pm |
    • Snow

      – you want to bring in the christian conservativism of the middle ages
      – you want to stop all the research for improving our understanding (science, if you are thick)
      – you want the govt money to be spent only on the church activities and nothing else..

      Not biased bigotry? what do you call that?

      compare that with the typical argument others make "whatever man, keep your god for yourself and stop shoving it down my throat unnecessarily" ..

      who's the a$$ now?

      December 13, 2011 at 5:06 pm |
    • Brad

      Hellbent: I'd take care in retaining or discarding non-falsifiable ideas – for example, the assumption that physical laws are the same everywhere and everywhen.

      December 13, 2011 at 5:06 pm |
    • George

      "you want the govt money to be spent only on the church activities and nothing else"

      That's where you're wrong. I don't want government money spent on any social programs, including religious. I want government support of religion through legislation and Const.itutional amendments, not money.

      Also, look up the meaning of the word "bigot."

      December 13, 2011 at 5:15 pm |
    • Snow

      bigot: (according to websters) : a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance ..

      Judging by all the comments you made supporting your ideas about "Physics should be banned" "get god into our secular governament" "Christians should be heard", Thanks for clarifying that you really are a bigot..

      December 13, 2011 at 6:35 pm |
    • Ruth

      "I want government support of religion through legislation and Const.itutional amendments, not money."

      Oh, Hell NO – We won't let it happen, it will go against everything this country stands for DIVERSITY!

      December 13, 2011 at 6:57 pm |
    • HellBent

      "I want government support of religion through legislation and Const.itutional amendments, not money"

      Then feel free to go somewhere and form your own theocracy. There are a few places in the middle east you could use as a template. We here in the US generally like our first amendment, though.

      December 13, 2011 at 9:02 pm |
  9. Muneef

    Story of Joseph PBUH



    December 13, 2011 at 3:55 pm |
  10. jb

    Ha! I can't believe they put this on the Belief Blog!!! In fact, the so-called "God Particle" has absolutely NOTHING to do with religion. Physicist Leon Lederman attached that label to the Higgs boson in 1993 to simply sell his book, and reportedly even he regrets it now.

    December 13, 2011 at 11:58 am |
    • jeremy

      Your cute i like the way you "think!!!" it's simple ....... Ok aside from the particle that everyone hope exists. Because if it does not think how many children you could have feed in this word 🙁 sad really. Second sir ..mam....bob I LOVE the multi verse theory, it's great imagine an endless or ( near endless finite non the less) body known as space and in every universe something is different one i am a girl the other i marry JayLO in the other silicon not carbon rules ALL. Imagine in an endless universe never ending some how has (an end) and it is stacked on the next universe and so on.......endlessly . SO a never ending mass has a twin...and cousins and so on......endlessly? how in an endless existence .....and for that an series of endless existence’s plot there location in the entire scheme? how can one say this is where we are? Oh and there is an endless number of universes a never ending supply of me in each?????? "KOOL"This is just like where scientists said they found earths twin the other day and released a photo showing Green land and water ....even though the actual photo does not exist. THEY CAN'T SEE IT they only know it exists because a black ball is orbiting a close star. On a 24 hr cycle ...haahahahhahaha Nice. Face it losers your just like the religious nuts out there your scared of the dark you fear being alone. I my mind God is more believable than this explanation....... But hey can't trump peoples religion...the religion OF THEREORETICAL SCIENCE.

      December 13, 2011 at 12:40 pm |
    • Chuckles


      I'm a little confused here. Are you saying because it's tough for you to understand and grasp the magnitude of a couple of theories that it's impossible to be true, however since god makes sense that must be right? I guess we better call CERN and tell them the search is over, Jeremy doesn't undersand so we better shut up and start praying right?

      December 13, 2011 at 12:57 pm |
    • Fallacy Spotting 101

      Post by Jeremy is the Ad Ignorantiam fallacy.


      December 13, 2011 at 8:32 pm |
  11. Primewonk

    George wrote, " I said that we need to cut funding for all of this. Christians have got to stand up and be heard."

    How does you being a Christian have anything to do with government funding of science?

    You do understand, don't you, that we are not a theocracy?

    December 13, 2011 at 11:32 am |
    • George

      How does funding of science have to do with Christianity? Because Christians don't want our hard-earned tax dollars going to that which seeks to disprove God. Godless science is what it is – physics together with evolutionary biology. Stick to engineering, chemistry and medicine. There is no need for wasting money on looking for a "god" particle and other such useless pursuits. We need to wake up and cut taxes. You will find all the answers you need as to the beginning of the universe right in the Bible.

      December 13, 2011 at 1:12 pm |
    • Ellen

      George, sounds like you are very scared that your fairy tales will be examined and exposed as such.

      December 13, 2011 at 2:07 pm |
    • TAK

      Holy crap. People like George are allowed to vote and breed. Next stop, Dark Ages II.

      December 13, 2011 at 2:07 pm |
    • Ellen

      Not only that, but the bible gets a lot of science just plain wrong. Biology especially. Diseases don't spread in the way that the bible says they do, just to name one of hundreds of errors.

      The bible has been tossed out of science classrooms for very valid reasons.

      December 13, 2011 at 2:10 pm |
    • HotAirAce

      George, science does not set out to disprove god. The increasing probability (virtually 100%) that there are no gods is an unintended benefit of discovering facts and theories far superior to "I don't understand so a god must be responsible!"

      December 13, 2011 at 2:12 pm |
    • hmmmmm

      "Because Christians don't want our hard-earned tax dollars going to that which seeks to disprove God. Godless "

      How about just disproving the bible then.....

      Exodus never happened and the walls of Jericho did not come a-tumbling down. How archaeologists are shaking Israel to its biblical foundations.

      Israel Finkelstein, chairman of the Archaeology Department at Tel Aviv University, with archaeology historian Neil Asher Silberman, has just published a book called "The Bible Unearthed: Archaeology's New Vision of Ancient Israel and the Origin of Its Sacred Text."

      "The Israelites were never in Egypt, did not wander in the desert, did not conquer the land [of Canaan] in a military campaign and did not pass it on to the twelve tribes of Israel. Perhaps even harder to swallow is the fact that the united kingdom of David and Solomon, described in the Bible as a regional power, was at most a small tribal kingdom."

      Jerusalem was essentially a cow town, not the glorious capital of an empire. These findings have been accepted by the majority of biblical scholars and archaeologists for years and even decades.

      The tales of the patriarchs - Abraham, Isaac and Joseph among others - were the first to go when biblical scholars found those passages rife with anachronisms and other inconsistencies. The story of Exodus, one of the most powerful epics of enslavement, courage and liberation in human history, also slipped from history to legend when archaeologists could no longer ignore the lack of corroborating contemporary Egyptian accounts and the absence of evidence of large encampments in the Sinai Peninsula ("the wilderness" where Moses brought the Israelites after leading them through the parted Red Sea).

      Finkelstein is an iconoclast. He established his reputation in part by developing a theory about the settlement patterns of the nomadic shepherd tribes who would eventually become the Israelites, bolstering the growing consensus that they were originally indistinguishable from the rest of their neighbors, the Canaanites. This overturns a key element in the Bible: The Old Testament depicts the Israelites as superior outsiders - descended from Abraham, a Mesopotamian immigrant - entitled by divine order to invade Canaan and exterminate its unworthy, idolatrous inhabitants.

      The famous battle of Jericho, with which the Israelites supposedly launched this campaign of conquest after wandering for decades in the desert, has been likewise debunked: The city of Jericho didn't exist at that time and had no walls to come tumbling down. These assertions are all pretty much accepted by mainstream archaeologists.

      "Research is research, and strong societies can easily endure discoveries like this." By comparison with today's skeptical turmoil, the early years of the modern Israeli state were a honeymoon period for archaeology and the Bible, in which the science seemed to validate the historical passages of the Old Testament left and right. As Finkelstein and Silberman relate, midcentury archaeologists usually "took the historical narratives of the Bible at face value"; Israel's first archaeologists were often said to approach a dig with a spade in one hand and the Bible in the other. The Old Testament frequently served as the standard against which all other data were measured: If someone found majestic ruins, they dated them to Solomon's time; signs of a battle were quickly attributed to the conquest of Canaan. Eventually, though, as archaeological methods improved and biblical scholars analyzed the text itself for inconsistencies and anachronisms, the amount of the Bible regarded as historically verifiable eroded. The honeymoon was over.

      Marcus says that Finkelstein is "difficult to dismiss because he's so much an insider in terms of his credentials and background. He's an archaeologist, not a theologian, and he is an Israeli. It's hard to say that someone who was born in Israel and intends to live the rest of his life there is anti-Israeli."

      The biblical account of the capture of the city is the only one we have, and in the opinion of most modern scholars, the Bible is not an entirely reliable historical document.

      The Bible is not – and was never intended to be – a historical document. A work of theology, law, ethics and literature, it does contain historical information; but if we want to evaluate this information we should consider when, how and why the Bible was compiled.

      Until comparatively recently, the Bible was accepted as the word of God by most Jews and Christians, and therefore scholarly works dealing with it concentrated on its interpretation. In the 19th century CE, the "Age of Reason," scholars began subjecting the biblical texts to linguistic, textual, and literary analysis, noting inconsistencies and interrupted rhythms, comparing styles, and placing the text within the archaeological, historical and geographical background.

      There are still many differing opinions regarding the origin of the Bible, when it was written, and under what conditions; but it is fair to say that, outside fundamentalist circles, modern consensus suggests that the assembling and editing of the documents that were to constitute the Bible began in the seventh century BCE, some three centuries after David's time. (The earliest actual material in our possession, part of the Dead Sea Scrolls, dates to the second century BCE at the earliest).

      In particular, the account of Joshua's conquest of Canaan is inconsistent with the archaeological evidence. Cities supposedly conquered by Joshua in the 14th century bce were destroyed long before he came on the scene. Some, such as Ai and Arad, had been ruins for a 1000 years.

      The Book of Judges, which directly contradicts Joshua, and shows the Israelites settling the land over a prolonged period, is nearer historical reality; but even it cannot be taken at face value. The archaeological surveys conducted over the past two decades indicate that the origin and development of the Israelite entity was somewhat different from either of the rival accounts in the Bible. The survey was conducted by more than a dozen archaeologists, most of them from Tel Aviv University's Institute of Archaeology.

      Around 1200 bce, semi-nomads from the desert fringes to the east and the south, possibly including Egypt, began to settle in the hill country of Canaan. A large proportion – probably a majority of this population – were refugees from the Canaanite city states, destroyed by the Egyptians in one of their periodic invasions. The conclusion is somewhat startling to Bible readers who know the Canaanites portrayed in the Bible as immoral idolaters: most of the Israelites were in fact formerly Canaanites. The story of Abraham's journey from Ur of the Chaldees, the Patriarchs, the Exodus, Sinai, and the conquest of Canaan, all these were apparently based on legends that the various elements brought with them from their countries of origin. The consolidation of the Israelites into a nation was not the result of wanderings in the desert and divine revelation, but came from the need to defend themselves against the Philistines, who settled in the Canaanite coastal plain more or less at the same time the Israelites were establishing themselves in the hills.

      Thus the founders of Israel were not Abraham and Moses; but Saul and David. It was apparently Saul who consolidated the hill farmers under his rule and created fighting units capable of confronting the Philistines. It was David who defeated the Philistines and united the hill farmers with the people of the Canaanite plains, thus establishing the Kingdom of Israel and its capital city.

      December 13, 2011 at 2:12 pm |
    • George


      I don't care what a bunch of atheist writers think. And just because there is no archeological evidence doesn't mean it isn't true. I had to laugh that you even bothered to put up that drivel.

      December 13, 2011 at 2:44 pm |
    • George

      "The bible has been tossed out of science classrooms for very valid reasons."

      The Bible exaclty SHOULD be in the science classroom. There is massive evidence (complexity, law of entropy, etc.) for intelligent design, and it is being covered up by evolutionists. Atheists and evolutionists have done all that they could to take God out of the classroom, and it will be up to conservative Christians to put Him back in.

      December 13, 2011 at 2:55 pm |
    • HellBent


      You don't have engineering without physics. Wake up and get a clue.

      December 13, 2011 at 2:56 pm |
    • HellBent


      Please enlighten us as to why the law of entropy supports creationism. Really – I'm highly amused to see what you come up with.

      If you think Intelligent design is science, then you don't understand basic scientific principles. And, just out of curiousity, if the design is so intelligent, why did the designer see fit to give us an organ that provides little to no benefit, is entirely unnecessary, and occasionally kills.

      December 13, 2011 at 2:58 pm |
    • George


      Google "Discovery Inst.itute" and head on over to their website. You will find information that you need there. If you don't then head on over to the Creation Museum.

      December 13, 2011 at 3:10 pm |
    • HellBent

      I'll just take that as confirmation that you don't actually understand the second law of thermodynamics. Thanks.

      December 13, 2011 at 3:31 pm |
    • George, oh George...

      @George – "...head on over to the Creation Museum."
      The Creation Museum...where children play with dinosaurs. HAAAAAAA!

      December 13, 2011 at 3:32 pm |
    • Hubdashery

      If you go back far enough, you will see that "George" and "fred" keep posting the same idiotic retarded wrong ideas.
      He has tried talking about the second law of thermodynamics MANY times. Always with the same results.
      Everyone keeps explaining and showing him how wrong and stupid and ignorant he is but he just keeps on doing the SAME THING OVER AND OVER.

      So take my advice, people: ignore George and fred. They are as intractable and stupid as lumps of dirt and always will be.
      Do not respond to them. Do not talk to them. Ignore every post by them. They are totally unworthy of notice and you would be wasting your time. Just go back and look at who they are. They've been here months and months without showing any intelligence whatsoever. If we could ban such people from the internet I would vote for that in a heartbeat.
      Ignore them. Do not feed these trolls.

      December 13, 2011 at 3:39 pm |
    • Snow

      George.. why should medicine be discounted from the list of god's rejected sciences(those researches that he does not want men to conduct)? coz it keeps you alive? wouldn't you be going against your god's prewritten fate for you to die when you use a medicine created by a man's knowledge? Just to extend your pathetic existence of sin when you could be clinking wine glasses with ye almighty?

      why do you want to use any medicines when you could just ask god for a cure? .. and I hear that if you pray correctly, and he feels you deserve it, you would be cured! So why use medicine of any kind? Answer that correctly and I will consider hearing your other dumb arguments..

      December 13, 2011 at 3:46 pm |
    • George


      I'm not an expert. I'll freely admit that. But there are experts who can argue the law on entropy very well. I'm sorry I can't. I just know that the argument has been very successful that order cannot come from disorder.


      Medicine has been given to us by God. It is in the Bible. Did you know that Luke was a physcian?

      December 13, 2011 at 4:12 pm |
    • Snow

      God synthesized the molecular compositions of Tylenol? Oh gee..

      December 13, 2011 at 4:18 pm |
    • George


      And the atheists don't post the same arguments over and over and over again? This goes back way before I starting posting on here. I observed for quite some time before posting, and I noticed that everytime a person of faith posts anything, the atheists jump all over him/her with the same tired arguments they use against me. And they are just as intractable in their position.

      December 13, 2011 at 4:21 pm |
    • HellBent

      " I'm sorry I can't. I just know that the argument has been very successful that order cannot come from disorder."

      Any argument I've ever heard stating that the 2nd law of thermodynamics argues against evolution ALWAYS ignores that the law only applies to a closed system, which the earth is not. In an open system, as the earth is (because of the sun) or can and does come from disorder. This is quite evident every spring. So no, the argument is not successful.

      December 13, 2011 at 4:21 pm |
    • Snow

      or did god gave humans this divine magical box and some divine black ink papers so people can put them around a person's hand and like magic get the image of the bones?

      or did god also magically put the knowledge of using that same machine to screen people for possible tumors?

      December 13, 2011 at 4:23 pm |
    • HellBent

      "I observed for quite some time before posting, and I noticed that everytime a person of faith posts anything, the atheists jump all over him/her with the same tired arguments they use against me."

      We use well-doc.umented facts, evidence, and reason. If people keep coming on to these posts saying, erroneously, that the the second law of thermodynamics states that evolution is impossible, would you rather I just quietly continue letting people post such incorrect nonsense? I'm guessing so, since while science demands that it be questioned, religion demands that it no be.

      December 13, 2011 at 4:25 pm |
    • Wow

      "I don't care what a bunch of atheist writers think. And just because there is no archeological evidence doesn't mean it isn't true"


      December 13, 2011 at 4:25 pm |
    • @fred

      ……………………………..,< `.._|_,-&"......u r soooo stupid fred!

      December 13, 2011 at 7:41 pm |
    • @George / fred

      well I was laughing so hard....

      December 13, 2011 at 7:45 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      George, really, you are pushing it. No one is going to buy this nonsense. Your attempts to portray the conservatives as complete whackaloons is admirable, but your posts are as much parodies as captain ass hole's.

      December 13, 2011 at 9:31 pm |
    • LinCA

      It is obvious that the GOP would like to do away with mathematics, pure or applied (whatever), as they rely on morons to not understand the basics of economics. They require enough idiots to remain ignorant for them to be able to convince them to vote for them. Anyone with a basic understanding of economics will realize that the Republicans are only interested in serving those that finance their campaigns (and provide them with cushy jobs after they leave office).

      Simple math (there it is again) will show that there aren't sufficient beneficiaries of republican politics to secure the election. They therefor need the help of the uninformed and uneducated. The religious are an easy target. By claiming to support their prehistoric world view, dazzling them with faulty logic (easy task), and outrageous claims about the need for welfare for the wealthy, they herd their sheep to the ballot box.

      December 14, 2011 at 2:36 am |
  12. Truth Seeker

    Pathetic! CNN doesn't even have a dedicated Science section!

    December 13, 2011 at 11:02 am |
    • Primewonk

      Go to the light years blog cnn

      December 13, 2011 at 11:34 am |
    • Jules Winnfield

      Indeed. Why the hell is this news relegated to the "beliefs blog"? Just because some numbskull's pet nickname caught on? The Higgs boson has NOTHING to do with religion, at all.

      December 13, 2011 at 11:35 am |
    • AGuest9

      The closest they come is "light years" and "tech".

      December 13, 2011 at 11:39 am |
    • Nonimus


      December 13, 2011 at 11:41 am |
    • Truth Seeker

      "Go to the light years blog cnn"

      But where is CNN's actual SCIENCE section (with actual science reporters)!!!!

      December 13, 2011 at 11:58 am |
  13. Truth Seeker

    I guess this had to go in the "Beliefs" section since STUPID CNN doesn't even have a science section (like the BBC does)!! I guess for CNN Religion is still more important than science – and why wonder why our young people are falling behind everyone else in the world when it comes to science education!!!

    December 13, 2011 at 11:00 am |
    • Jules Winnfield

      Jesus says, "Science is for chumps!"

      December 13, 2011 at 11:36 am |
  14. AGuest9

    All this nonsense [including the, umm, wisdom of CNN placing it in the Belief Blog] because Leon Lederman's 1993 book, originally ti.tled "The Godd.amn Particle: If the Universe Is the Answer, What Is the Question?" had its ti.tle edited by the publisher, which refused to print it on the cover of a book. Thus, a mess in popular science was created.

    December 13, 2011 at 10:27 am |
    • Truth Seeker

      Very interesting!!! Didn't know that.

      December 13, 2011 at 10:51 am |
  15. Just that

    CNN is slow this morning in reporting the updates..

    December 13, 2011 at 10:22 am |
  16. Rebecca

    Well OBVIOUSLY the FSM is responsible for this. With his divine noodly appendage, he purposely put these particles in place to contradict religion and cause arguement among us, because he's bored and has nothing else to do.

    December 13, 2011 at 10:16 am |
    • Jimtanker


      December 13, 2011 at 10:32 am |
    • PureDurum

      I believe that evidence will show that what was actually detected was the elemental parmigiana particle.

      December 13, 2011 at 11:47 am |
    • TAK

      So you are a Ramenite? Infidel! Only Ronzoni is the one true pasta! Prepare to be bombed.

      December 13, 2011 at 2:15 pm |
    • CNN filtHer

      AtheiSteve? Truth Prevails? When did you become Rebecca?

      Using several names just to make a handful looks like a lot, is the same dirty old (dog) tactics of a typical atheist.

      December 14, 2011 at 11:34 pm |
    • Rebecca

      @ CNN filtHer

      Dude, what are you talking about? That's my name. I found this article while in one of my college classes and decided to comment. Just because there are people that disagree with you doesn't mean they're all in a conspiracy against you. Chill-ax. And also, may you be touched by His noodly appendage this holiday season. May you find wenches, drink grog, and pillage to your hearts content.

      December 23, 2011 at 9:23 pm |
  17. David

    I feel very fortunate to not be named George.

    December 13, 2011 at 9:25 am |
    • Goliath

      Me too!

      December 13, 2011 at 11:52 am |
    • me2

      I think we all are

      December 13, 2011 at 7:43 pm |
  18. AGuest9

    How incredibly arrogant of us to as.sume that all of this was created just for US!

    December 13, 2011 at 8:53 am |
    • George

      And yet it was.

      December 13, 2011 at 9:30 am |
    • George

      More precisely it was created by God for God. But God turned it over to us and gave us dominion.

      December 13, 2011 at 9:32 am |
    • Jimtanker

      And you have NO evidence of any of that. Just a bunch of hot air.

      December 13, 2011 at 9:36 am |
    • George

      I have the strongest evidence. I have the Bible. And that's all the evidence anyone should need.

      December 13, 2011 at 9:47 am |
    • SeanNJ

      You're a mess, George.

      December 13, 2011 at 9:59 am |
    • Jimtanker

      George, you're funny. Now I know that you're a troll.

      December 13, 2011 at 10:11 am |
    • claybigsby

      "I have the strongest evidence. I have the Bible. And that's all the evidence anyone should need."

      No what you have is a book written by various human beings claiming they were under the influence of god, not a book written by god. The people who wrote about Jesus only wrote about him 40 years after he died. So I guess hearsay is considered "evidence" now.

      December 13, 2011 at 10:55 am |
    • Jimtanker

      AT THE VERY LEAST 40 years after his death. Some were hundreds of years later.

      December 13, 2011 at 10:57 am |
    • claybigsby

      Jim...ill give him the benefit of the doubt with the 40 years after jesus died comment.

      December 13, 2011 at 10:59 am |
    • Meaghan

      Yes George, because the Bronze Age goatherders who "wrote" the Bible know more about science than.... modern scientists?

      December 13, 2011 at 11:44 am |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      OF COURSE George is a troll. Poe's Law is fully in effect.

      George is posting satire, just like captain ass hole.

      December 13, 2011 at 9:33 pm |
  19. Ungodly Discipline

    Fred, I saw your post. Nice google skills. I liked your last sentence about the rabbits. Good call. I am surprised at you though. Think man. Think.

    December 13, 2011 at 12:38 am |
    • fred

      Most of the information is from memory. I have interests other than those based in theology.

      December 13, 2011 at 12:51 am |
    • llɐq ʎʞɔnq

      "I have interests other than those based in theology"
      -Oh really ? We had no idea you knew anything about theology.

      December 13, 2011 at 1:06 am |
    • AGuest9

      Do George and Fred know one another?

      December 13, 2011 at 8:54 am |
    • Hubdashery

      George and fred are the same person, formerly known as Steve(the real one) and other names.
      Do not respond to them. Do not talk to them. Ignore anything they say.
      Ignore these stupid troll people and find yourself with some free time for worthier pursuits.
      That's what I did long ago. Don't bother with retards. You can't fix stupid.

      December 13, 2011 at 3:43 pm |
    • George


      I am not fred, and I don't even know who Steve is. I'll take your post as an admission that you have no winning counter arguments.

      December 13, 2011 at 4:25 pm |
    • Wow

      "I am not fred, and I don't even know who Steve is. I'll take your post as an admission that you have no winning counter arguments."

      Wow are you a moron, they were answering the question above their post. So you loose on your pathetic argument.

      December 13, 2011 at 4:28 pm |
  20. George

    I'm glad that this is being done in Europe. We need to cut funding for this here. I don't want my tax dollars going to that which goes against my faith.

    December 13, 2011 at 12:05 am |
    • Ungodly Discipline

      My GOD George you are an idiot. The CERN project is an international effort.


      The first large proton synchrotron was the Cosmotron at Brookhaven National Laboratory, which accelerated protons to about 3 GeV. The Bevatron at Berkeley, completed in 1954, was specifically designed to accelerate protons to sufficient energy to create antiprotons, and verify the particle-antiparticle symmetry of nature, then only strongly suspected. The Alternating Gradient Synchrotron (AGS) at Brookhaven was the first large synchrotron with alternating gradient, "strong focusing" magnets, which greatly reduced the required aperture of the beam, and correspondingly the size and cost of the bending magnets. The Proton Synchrotron, built at CERN, was the first major European particle accelerator and generally similar to the AGS.

      The Stanford Linear Accelerator, SLAC, became operational in 1966, accelerating electrons to 30 GeV in a 3 km long waveguide, buried in a tunnel and powered by hundreds of large klystrons. It is still the largest linear accelerator in existence, and has been upgraded with the addition of storage rings and an electron-positron collider facility. It is also an X-ray and UV synchrotron photon source.

      The Fermilab Tevatron has a ring with a beam path of 4 miles (6.4 km). It has received several upgrades, and has functioned as a proton-antiproton collider until it was shut down due to budget cuts on September 30, 2011. The largest circular accelerator ever built was the LEP synchrotron at CERN with a circ umference 26.6 kilometers, which was an electron/positron collider. It achieved an energy of 209 GeV before it was dismantled in 2000 so that the underground tunnel could be used for the Large Hadron Collider (LHC). The LHC is a proton collider, and currently the world's largest and highest-energy accelerator, expected to achieve 7 TeV energy per beam, and currently operating at half that.

      The aborted Superconducting Super Collider (SSC) in Texas would have had a circ umference of 87 km. Construction was started in 1991, but abandoned in 1993. Very large circular accelerators are invariably built in underground tunnels a few metres wide to minimize the disruption and cost of building such a structure on the surface, and to provide shielding against intense secondary radiations that occur, which are extremely penetrating at high energies.

      Current accelerators such as the Spallation Neutron Source, incorporate superconducting cryomodules. The Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider, and Large Hadron Collider also make use of superconducting magnets and RF cavity resonators to accelerate particles.

      George, it is ok to just admit that you are dumb. It is not your fault. It is genetics. Do you believe in genetics George?

      December 13, 2011 at 12:17 am |
    • George

      I said that we need to cut funding for all of this. Christians have got to stand up and be heard.

      December 13, 2011 at 12:21 am |
    • fred

      UD, I answered a previous post of yours on page one. Feel free to run it through a plagiarism checker if you feel I'm too utterly incompetent to form my own thought processes.

      December 13, 2011 at 12:26 am |
    • Ungodly Discipline

      Well George, you can stand up if you want. Why you would want to set human history back to the dark ages is beyond me, but please stand up. I will point and laugh at you and science will move forward. You can't stop it no matter how pathetically ignorant you are.

      December 13, 2011 at 12:30 am |
    • llɐq ʎʞɔnq

      "Geor'gy Por'gy, Puddn n Pie, kissed the girls, and made them cry", (and made a LOT of us laugh). I am starting to think someone we know from here took the name George, and is just putting this stupid act on, just to goad people. Nobody can actually be THAT stupid. When someone in George's family gets cancer, and his doctor, (assuming he isn't just praying), sends him/them to Nuclear Medicine for his radiation RX, we all know that he will decline it, because it is the work of the debil. And as for Europe, don't worry George about them doing things in Europe, and not here. Sweeden is fast outpacing the US in many areas of science. Instead they teach Creationism to the poor little Evangelical kids here. Do you know the actual percentages of the US vs Europe's populations that think the Theory of Evolution is on track ? Very scary.

      December 13, 2011 at 12:44 am |
    • tallulah13

      George, I'm not at all surprised that you are against any knowledge and learning. Your sort of thinking is why the United States is becoming less relevant in the world. If people like you had their way, the U.S. would be a third-world, feudalistic society, ripe for the conquest of other, more forward-thinking nations. You truly hate the United States, George, and you show it every time you post.

      December 13, 2011 at 12:44 am |
    • LinCA

      George would like to pick an arbitrary point in history and set the whole civilization back to that point. Pretty much like the Amish did when they suddenly decided that the then current state of technology was enough. Progress from that point on was evil.

      How about you start by setting the example, George? Get off your computer, do away with your car, rip out the electrical wiring and indoor plumbing in your house, and quit using any and all technological advancements made since the year 0. You appear to be yearning for that time.

      On the other hand, you could just get rid of one thing and accept that you've been lied to. Shed the shackles of your religion and insane beliefs in imaginary creatures.

      Instead of shunning reality, why don't you join it?

      December 13, 2011 at 12:44 am |
    • SixDegrees

      Quite honestly, Christians need to be fed to the lions. They are incapable of living amicably in the world's most tolerant society – the United States – and simply will not accept a world where anyone holds views different from their own. They are an existential threat to America and its most fundamental ideals. The Romans had similar problems with them, and finally found a workable solution.

      December 13, 2011 at 4:41 am |
    • JA


      There are many Christians who work here at Fermilab as scientists and techs. Part of your wish has been completed. We have shut down our main accelerator this year, and some people lost their jobs. Some were Christians and some were not. I hope you are happy that they have to feed their children jiffy mix for every meal.

      December 13, 2011 at 8:35 am |
    • AGuest9

      George, just go and withhold the part of your taxes that you pay for basic research in this country. Give it to your church. See how much disease they cure and how much they educate the children in the sciences.

      December 13, 2011 at 8:56 am |
    • George

      As I explained before, computers, TV, medical imaging, and all technology was and is developed my engineers. It really is quite different from trying to find out things about the universe that has already been explained in the Bible. The answers to all the big questions have already been answered in the Bible. But producing practical technology is the purview of engineers. Engineers are not arrogant enough to pontificate on the origins of the universe. I would hope that people could understand the difference.

      December 13, 2011 at 9:28 am |
    • David

      Science is a tool for explaining how the universe has and continues to work.

      Faith is a tool for trying to explain a book that was written thousands of years ago.

      December 13, 2011 at 9:31 am |
    • JA

      We havent just used particle physics for to explore the secrets of the cosmos, but also developed different flavors of particle beams used in neutron therapy and proton therapy to treat cancer. Something that will most likely be used by you and any of us since the chance of the cause of our death will likely be some sort of cancer.

      December 13, 2011 at 10:13 am |
    • JA

      Its actually sad to see that you dont want your tax dollars funding research for new technologies that will better this planet, your life, and your children's life and their children's life.

      December 13, 2011 at 10:19 am |
    • HellBent


      How do you think the engineers who designed and built your computer knew how electrons moved, or could determine the quantum effects that such small electronics have on each other? It was with basic science research like this. But if you want to see America go back to the dark ages, I guess that's your right.

      December 13, 2011 at 10:22 am |
    • AGuest9

      I'm leery of your positive view of engineers, George. You do realize that engineering IS actually applied physics?

      December 13, 2011 at 10:33 am |
    • GDChampions

      Guess what, George. You won. 2 Timothy 2:12

      December 13, 2011 at 11:47 am |
    • Bob

      Fortunately, the "George"'s of the world and their sicko Christian supersti-tions are in steep decline and won't matter much in the future. For the time being, we can just step on him when he posts his standard bullcr@p.

      December 13, 2011 at 3:30 pm |
    • Bob

      How's that laser, bipolar transistor, and MOSFET background history research working out for you, stupid George?

      December 13, 2011 at 3:32 pm |
    • George

      I realize that engineering is applied physics. It's pure physics that is ungodly.

      "Fortunately, the "George"'s of the world and their sicko Christian supersti-tions are in steep decline and won't matter much in the future."

      And the atheists thought that they stamped out religion in Soviet Russia as well. Now it is flourishing. Actually, religion is on the rise world-wide. Unfortunately, it is Islam that is the fastest growing religion.

      December 13, 2011 at 4:33 pm |
    • HellBent

      "I realize that engineering is applied physics. It's pure physics that is ungodly."

      You realize that you can't have applied physics without pure physics, right? How do you get electronics if you never have electromagnetism? How can you build a nuclear reactor if you don't know about nuclear physics? How do you get modern medicine without quantum mechanics/modern chemistry?

      December 13, 2011 at 4:36 pm |
    • Bob

      George is utterly terrified of research in basic science, because it lays bare the idiocies and fallacies of his sick religious beliefs.

      If he ever needs to go to an MRI, ultrasound, or xray clinic, the staff there should just slug him and throw him out the door onto his fat stupid old ass.

      December 13, 2011 at 5:21 pm |
    • LinCA

      As science advanced, it has become clear that there are no gods. Not only are religious accounts of history being thoroughly debunked by the various sciences, the technological advances enabled by science allow for a wider and faster distribution of information about it.

      George and his fellow fundies, are scared shitless about the prospect of someday having to admit that their imaginary friend is just that; imaginary. With that, their entire world will collapse. It must be a scary thought.

      As Colin said so eloquently:
      "As the light of science is increasingly shone upon the natural World, the gods, ghost and goblins are in full retreat. They are forced now to hide in the few dark corners where the illumination of our understanding is yet to penetrate – the origins of the cosmos being one, the uncritical mind of the believer another."

      December 13, 2011 at 6:19 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      George, you really shouldn't attempt satire when you've been smokin' dope and drinking hooch.

      December 13, 2011 at 9:35 pm |
    • sixfeetALL

      "Quite honestly, Christians need to be fed to the lions."

      @six degrees

      RREEEAAALLLLYYYYYYY? Ah, let me give you a true honest, logical comparative statistical and demographical facts.

      If all Christians will be feed to all the lions, it surely takes one or a couple of years for the latter to totally consume the former.

      On the other hand, if all atheists will be feed to all the lions, they are not (enough) for a complete calory requirement of a one and single meal.

      December 14, 2011 at 11:56 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.