home
RSS
Your take: Comments on Jesus deniers
Jesus depicted healing a sick child.
April 8th, 2012
09:37 PM ET

Your take: Comments on Jesus deniers

Our story on a small cadre of authors challenging the existence of Jesus Christ drew almost 5,000 comments on Easter Sunday, with some upset that we did the story, others objecting to its publication on Easter, and plenty of others defending the article and the run date and debating the merits and implications of the debate.

Of course, most comments had nothing to do with our story, revolving instead around the debate about legitimacy of religion itself.

A sampling of the criticism:

Easter on CNN

You've gone too far.

While I am an advocate of spiritual exploration – by atheists to disprove or by the faithful to validate – running an article questioning the very core of a religious belief system on a holy day is indelicate, to say the least. Will you question that Muhammad received the word of God, running similar articles during Ramadan? Or on Yom Kippur, draw on conjecture to argue that the Book of Life is for fools?

This is not journalism. This sensationalist pander.

edeveryday

I would like to see if CNN would dare run a story saying that Muhammad was a "myth" on the Muslim' s holiest holidays and that Abraham was a "myth" on the Jewish holidays. Go ahead CNN and give it a try and see what happens.

rbsrs

Every Easter?...I mean why a negative story every Easter?? It has become a running joke.

ANGRY AT CNN!!!

CNN: IF YOU READ THIS GO TO HELL FOR YOUR ANTI-CHRISTIAN BIGOTRY THIS EASTER SUNDAY!!!!

Many other readers took aim at the critics:

JHC

To those who are insulted by this article,

If your faith is so weak that it cannot stand up to being looked at from an objective, historical, evidence based perspective, then this article is the least of your problems.

nomdefaitour

It is ironic that so many christians are "offended" at a dialogue about religion sponsored by CNN instead of greeting the opportunity to express their views. Perhaps they are shamed that we all know they are surfing the web when they should be worshipping on Easter Sunday.

Others weighed in on the merits and upshot of the debate over Jesus' existence:

JBOO

I do not doubt that a man named Jesus existed, and that he probably did preach about God. But I believe he was no different than any cult leader today that preaches about their own religious beliefs and gains a small number of followers. The difference with Jesus is that Christianity was already more wide spread, and the general population was very uneducated and easily influenced by a great orator. Do I actually believe their is a God, and Jesus is his son? No. But I'm sure the man existed.

Keith

It is actually more reasonable than not to conclude that Jesus was an actual living person. Whether or not he was "the Christ" is the only worthwhile point of debate. Regardless, many of the teachings of Jesus are worthy of people to take to heart whether they are Christians or not. As an agnostic, I take those things that are wise from any and all religions, and leave behind those things that are destructive.

gimmeslack12

I don't care whether he really existed or not. It's his story that never happened, at least the son of god part and dieing and coming back to life stuff. What matters to Christians is that he is a support system that is able to take the blame for all the bad stuff in your life so that you can move past them and continue living.

I was thinking about it the other day, and I think Jesus really is a great thing, because it allows people to psychologically take pressure, grief or guilt and remove the effects of anxiety and pressure that those feelings create. On the flipside it possible allows someone to conjure up Love by themselves.

I think Jesus is a psychological whipping boy for all things that people don't have or can't (don't want to?) deal with. So I think atheists and non-Christians (heck, maybe Christians themselves) are missing the point about the importance of Jesus to some people.

The Twitter conversation over the article was mostly complimentary:

@JoshTheLink

Interesting debate from CNN's site about whether or not Jesus was a real person: https://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2012/04/07/the-jesus-debate-man-vs-myth/?hpt=hp_c1

@CommonDescent

CNN asks: Did Jesus exist? https://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2012/04/07/the-jesus-debate-man-vs-myth/?hpt=hp_c2 Honestly, this is a topic I don't know much about. I'd like to learn more.

@TTCNews

CNN interviews two Thoughtful Christian authors for this intriguing question–Craig A. Evans... http://fb.me/1idvhPxXD

- CNN Belief Blog

Filed under: Christianity • Easter • Jesus

soundoff (2,443 Responses)
  1. Atheism is not healthy for children and other living things

    Prayer changes things

    April 9, 2012 at 7:28 am |
    • hellodollyllama

      Spamming the same lies and insults over and over won't make them true. It just makes you look foolish and delusional. Food for thought.

      April 9, 2012 at 6:15 pm |
    • lol

      And Jesus wasn't white like the picture suggests.

      You fundies need to come to grips with the fact that Jesus was most likely black. If Jesus was black, it only stands to reason that his pops was/is too.

      Somebody is gonna have some 'splaining to do when they go to see the big man.

      April 9, 2012 at 9:44 pm |
    • God

      Let's feed them violent stories about a sky fairy instead so they can grow up to be just as ignorant and immature as their parents.

      April 9, 2012 at 10:13 pm |
  2. vjack

    If you are going to legitimize religion by covering so many pro-religion stories here, it only seems fair that you'd point out once in awhile that there are many of us who don't accept it as valid. Besides, our numbers are increasing and that itself is newsworthy.

    April 9, 2012 at 6:45 am |
    • Jackripper

      it's funny, because biblical scripture says that is exactly what is going to happen at the end times......hahaha.....in the end God is the judge.....and for that, I am glad

      April 9, 2012 at 7:22 pm |
    • Atheism is not healthy for children and other living things

      You have no soul. nothing to judge or pray for

      April 10, 2012 at 9:59 am |
    • Ezra

      Atheism is not healthy for children and other living things
      You have no soul. nothing to judge or pray for
      ------–
      Niether do you. You just don't know it.

      April 10, 2012 at 10:36 am |
  3. Rainer Braendlein

    Someone could remark that the Bible could not be neutral, because it was written by Christians, and thus the stories about Jesus in the Bible may be invented. However, there are accounts about Jesus outside the Bible and the Christian Church. The accounts, I quote below, are even drafted by enemies of Christ and thus historically trustworthy. It should make us minding that Jesus was mentioned even by non-Christians or pagans, which hated him and had no interest to promote Christianity by invented stories.

    Jesus was historical. It is proved by science of history!

    There was a very famous historian of the Roman Empire, which lived in the first century after Christ (AD 56 – AD 117), that means extremly near-term to the events, which had came to pass in Palestine. He, Tacitus, was a pagan, which had no reason at all to promote Christianity and to tell us lies about Jesus. We can be sure that it was historical, what he wrote about Jesus, because he was an enemy of Jesus:

    "Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superst-ition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judæa, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multi-tude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind".

    This passage is a clear evidence for the historicity of Christ Jesus.

    There was a famous Jewish historian of the first century, who gives acount of Jesus Christ. Jews have no reason to promote Christianity and thus we can be sure that Flavius Josephus told us the truth about Jesus:

    "And now Caesar, upon hearing the death of Festus, sent Albinus into Judea, as procurator. But the king deprived Joseph of the high priesthood, and bestowed the succession to that dignity on the son of Ananus, who was also himself called Ananus... Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrin of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned."

    A Jew confirms the historical reality of Jesus, the founder of Christianity. That is very great!

    April 9, 2012 at 6:40 am |
    • God

      Perhaps you'd better go back to school. Legitimate scholars (as opposed to quack "faith-based" scholars) have consistently pointed out for decades that the most damning piece of evidence against the existence of a flesh and blood "jesus" is the utter absence of any reference to him in the vast (and extant) literature of the important historians and teachers of the time in other countries with which the writings of the times were were widely circulated. The scholars of that time were very thorough in their recording of every significant personage and event...it's highly unlikely that the whole known world at that time would have been unaware of the so-called "son of god" with his alleged miracles and all. When you go back to school, you might also major in mythology...where you'll be amazed to discover that the exact story and person of "jesus" exists in countless ancient civilization that far far predate Christianity...including the ritual of human sacrifice on a tree or cross (Christians stole the cross symbol also) that nearly all ancient civilizations performed at the time of the year that is now known as "Easter".

      April 9, 2012 at 10:27 pm |
  4. sez

    This wouldn't be so sad. I realize you work for these people. The only reason I even go to the CNN page is because of more content. The really juvenile enquirer approach by Foxnews. Don't get the mistake I think your any different than them. (Really I could be looking for someone intelligent to talk to here). Believe me you have these people really snowed. They don't know anything but the facts you people throw out.

    This country the people that own CNN loves divide and conqueor. This whole political system is divide and conqueor. Not about the elections which is one long "further" indoctronation into America. Far more people believe in "government" than they do religion anyday. Thats usually the "atheists" religion. Division conqueors again in a different way albeit. So you can gather I don't believe in religion, government or CNN. Really when you get right down to it I don't believe a whole lot of what you people say because I know where your coming from.

    I don't believe you are persecuting Christians. I don't believe Foxnews is persecuting Athieists or gays. I believe however you are persecuting me with this nonsense. Lack of intellgence or use of ones sense. The constant drivel that comes from the comments that is nothing but parroting for the most part. Off of what they get from the one way diatribes from the "free press" which is nothing but hired paid lackeys that carry the owners of most everything around, opinions. Or more aptly the methods they use or try to use to steal from me. You can gather I don't believe in Rockefeller, Buffet. The Quack of England or Max Keiser or anything like it. They are all accomplished theives.

    Try to raise the bar just a little. Some of the comments are nothing but parroting. Its like they don't both athiest and religious have a mind of their own once again. Because they believe in religion, government or the (rich) thieves or are afraid of one of those mention or are looking for some kind of re-ward from one of the aforementioned by carrying and parroting their messages to the gullible. Its getting so boring hearing the same thing year after year day after day.

    April 9, 2012 at 6:40 am |
  5. Jessica

    I was an atheist at one time. And like many atheists, the issue of people believing in God bothered me greatly. What is it about atheists that we would spend so much time, attention, and energy refuting something that we don't believe even exists?! What causes us to do that? When I was an atheist, I attributed my intentions as caring for those poor, delusional people...to help them realize their hope was completely ill-founded. To be honest, I also had another motive. As I challenged those who believed in God, I was deeply curious to see if they could convince me otherwise. Part of my quest was to become free from the question of God. If I could conclusively prove to believers that they were wrong, then the issue is off the table, and I would be free to go about my life.

    I didn't realize that the reason the topic of God weighed so heavily on my mind, was because God was pressing the issue. I have come to find out that God wants to be known. He created us with the intention that we would know him. He has surrounded us with evidence of himself and he keeps the question of his existence squarely before us. It was as if I couldn't escape thinking about the possibility of God. In fact, the day I chose to acknowledge God's existence, my prayer began with, "Ok, you win..." It might be that the underlying reason atheists are bothered by people believing in God is because God is actively pursuing them. The months that followed i was amazed by his love.
    Jesus Christ is king (: humble yourself , seek his face, and find yourself in his arms. Godbless (:

    April 9, 2012 at 6:23 am |
    • momoya

      It's a common enough story.. Lots of christians were former muslims or atheists; lots of muslims were former christians and atheists; lots of atheists were former christians or muslims.. You get the idea..

      Most converts who used to be atheists had really, really stupid reasons for being an atheist in the first place.. I tend to listen more to people who, like me, were believers for decades of their adult life, and had a tough time of realizing the falsity of religion/gods.

      April 9, 2012 at 8:04 am |
    • your god is irreducibly complex

      "He has surrounded us with evidence".

      We are still awaiting this "evidence" you are speaking of. If there was any, this would not be an issue. The main difference between an atheist and a religious person, is just a small amount of proof is all an atheist would need to believe, but no matter how much proof you have against the religious person's faith, they just dismiss it and keep believing in their fairy tale.

      April 9, 2012 at 8:57 am |
    • JA

      "If you truly seek understanding, then first, empty your cup"

      Evidence is all around us.

      April 9, 2012 at 12:42 pm |
    • sam stone

      JA: Could you be a bit more specific?

      April 9, 2012 at 1:03 pm |
    • steve

      you made my day. same story as mine. thank you.

      April 9, 2012 at 6:01 pm |
    • JA

      Interesting, Jessica. I'm much the same as you when you were an atheist; I think about the issue of atheism and God's existence almost everyday. But unlike you, the more I examine the evidence and look at history, the more I'm convinced that God doesn't exist, or that if he does, he is not the Christian god we imagine him to be.

      Religion is a construct of man, and is tooled to serve man, and to control him. If there is a god(s), he/they are not what we imagine them to be, and furthermore, we are fools to imagine that they care about a bunch of violent, hairless apes on an infinitesimally tiny speck in the middle of a universe we can barely comprehend.

      April 9, 2012 at 8:23 pm |
    • Valval

      Trust me, you were never an atheist. Atheist do not spend their time caring for "those poor, delusional people". We spend our time defending science and reason (and I can't believe anyone has to in 2012) because religion has invaded every aspect of life and it has to stop. We are not here to convert or deprogram anyone. Rather, we have been silent and appeasing the religious entirely too long and it's time to put the breaks on.

      Although I never believed in God I tried) I avoided the subject completely. But the recent GOP candidates pushed me over the edge. I decided to go to the Reason Rally and following Atheist convention to check it out. And I have to say, it was the most "religious" experience I have ever had. So I hope those of you who really don't believe in the bull, will stand up and be heard. "Coming out" is not an easy thing for some for all kinds of factors. But if you can, it's time. This has to stop. Our country is going back in time. Women especially, don't allow your life to be dictated by anyone but you. And teach your kids facts, you don't need fairy tales and fear to instill good character. Atheist are good people- they are honest, trustworthy and very supportive because they have all been down the religious road.

      April 9, 2012 at 8:44 pm |
    • Andrew Harris

      I agree hun. I was too, but I came to realize that my perception of God was flawed. I've also realized that many atheists take it on faith they will wake up the next, believe in things like the power of positive thinking, and think they are just thinking when their soul is actually trying to pray. The Bible does say, lean not on your own understanding. My big problem was the idea that the horrible things in the world were the Lord's fault. Many times it's mainly the devil's fault because satan wanted everything for himself. Sure we made mistakes, some because we were mislead, some because we were stubborn. Some satanists claim that satan rebelled because the Lord was a tyrant. This isn't true. The Lord love us, and many times our sin is a mask that the devil put on us. We have to get in touch with the good Lord to learn who we really are, why we are here, etc. When people don't believe in the Lord it's mainly because when they looked for the Lord they looked at what they wanted to do, more than what was best for them, fell victim to false teachings of people who were mislead themselves(not trying to say they are the definition of perfect under that mask either). We were created to become like God, not to take His place, but to become more loving, more caring, and learn that when we help someone else, even when it causes us pain, we are actually helping ourselves. There are several no doubt signs in creation. This link is one of those.

      With that being said, God is love. Take care of yourself. Thank you.

      April 9, 2012 at 11:13 pm |
    • Myke

      As an atheist, I can honestly say that I'm not all that hung up about other's beliefs. There are people that believe in Jesus, there are also people that believe they have been kidnapped by aliens. I am happy to support their right to believe in anything that makes them happy – right up until they start trying to pass laws or taking other actions in an attempt force me to abide by their personal beliefs.

      April 10, 2012 at 9:25 am |
  6. morkindie

    Easter is the perfect day to question the Resurrection.

    April 9, 2012 at 2:32 am |
  7. Mr.Makaveli

    Looks like the devil was very busy on Easter, thanks for showing your true colors CNN and it was quite funny to read these shameful atheists slandering everything that is sacred.

    April 9, 2012 at 1:26 am |
    • jduck99

      O the devil is in me right now I can feel him or it in my hands typing on the computer, stop it devil stop it.....the devil can't type very well as you can see. Wait I see santa clause he is here too, huh help me I'm confused......

      April 9, 2012 at 1:41 am |
    • Ungodly Discipline

      Mr.Makaveli
      How are you an authority on what is sacred?

      April 9, 2012 at 1:47 am |
    • Infallible Bible

      We tend to be equal-opportunity slanderers, though. I imagine that you would find things such as reincarnation to be weird and would probably say such things don't happen. But, according to you, you would be attacking that which is 'sarcred'. Here's a clue: Get Over Yourself!

      April 9, 2012 at 1:48 am |
    • Darth Manilow, Evil Pounge Singer

      I might think that Mr. Makaveli is a Machiavellian player, one of the dark side.

      Welcome to the dark side. We have cookies.

      April 9, 2012 at 2:04 am |
    • sam stone

      "it was quite funny to read these shameful atheists slandering everything that is sacred"

      not as funny as people with a bronze age comic book shoved up their a$$es claiming to KNOW what is sacred

      April 9, 2012 at 5:14 am |
    • sam stone

      And, I cannot speak for the other atheists, but I am not "shameful".

      April 9, 2012 at 5:17 am |
  8. beth

    I am so glad that Jesus came down to where I was and got me out of my miserable life and saved me. My life has been unbelievably better ever since. He is God and Lord of all. Every knee will bow and every mouth will confess.....one day, everyone will see who Jesus is.

    April 9, 2012 at 1:06 am |
    • Ungodly Discipline

      You are incorrect. Sounds like you pulled your own head out of your own a.s.s. and got your s.h.i.t together. Give yourself credit. No 2000 year old zombie had anythig to do with it. Now that you are feeling better, try out some reality. It is good too.

      April 9, 2012 at 1:11 am |
    • Right

      You have obviously drunk the AA bathwater.

      April 9, 2012 at 1:16 am |
    • jduck99

      Did Jesus actually do it or was it you that did it. I mean really did Jesus show up at your door and offer you a lottery ticket, drug re-hab a new car a job, what was it?

      April 9, 2012 at 1:38 am |
    • mickey1313

      If the mythos of judao-Christianity is true, i still wouldn't repent. Any god that requires blind faith, is crud. Remember, absence of evidence IS evidence of absence. Happy easter.

      April 9, 2012 at 2:22 am |
    • Cheeses

      LOL

      April 9, 2012 at 9:58 pm |
    • God

      Religious people all have persecution complexes – it's part of the neurological disorder.

      April 9, 2012 at 10:54 pm |
    • God

      It was _you_ that got yourself to a better place...not a silly story. Stand on your own two feet and respect yourself and your capabilities...don't give all that up to a cartoon man.

      April 9, 2012 at 10:56 pm |
    • Sean

      Beth,
      Don't listen to these morons. Christianity is a personal choice. I choose to believe in Christ, who represents, and is, love, mercy, caring, humility, and forgiveness. I too lived a self-centered life of alcohol and debauchery for 20 years. It almost killed me. Thank God it didn't.

      I can't explain God, I can't understand God....I have many doubts and questions. Like most. But I choose to believe. I choose to admit that I am not the center of the universe....literally or figuratively. I choose to help others, and to care for others. (Oh, I have a long way to go, and much improvement to be made).

      To you doubters and angry atheists/agnostics: forgive me for calling you morons. Your rhetoric does make me angry. And I will fight for and defend what I believe. Through conversation, prayer, forgiveness, and love. (Yes, easier said than done....help me Lord!)

      I have chosen my path. It is the one laid forth by Jesus Christ. We all must choose.

      God Bless and protect you all.

      April 10, 2012 at 5:45 am |
  9. Ungodly Discipline

    I was saved by childhood divorce when I was 5.

    I was saved by friends.

    I was saved by my alcoholic mother.

    I was saved by my abusive step fathers.

    I was saved by the choir director who s.e.xually molested me when I was 11 years old.

    I was saved by Rock and Roll.

    I was saved by bullying.

    I was saved by caring teachers.

    I was saved by drugs and alcohol.

    I was saved by friends.

    I was saved by the need to explore the world.

    I was saved by my wife.

    I was saved by my children.

    I saved myself.

    Jesus was not present. We are on our own.

    April 9, 2012 at 1:04 am |
    • just sayin

      Drugs and alcohol are the most likely to let you actually see and talk with Jesus, though he is just as likely to sing the Teletubbies theme song as say anything profound.

      April 9, 2012 at 1:14 am |
    • Ungodly Discipline

      What Jesus? I just said he was not present.

      April 9, 2012 at 1:20 am |
    • the real just sayin

      That was the work of the evil atheist antiChrist fraud just sayin, not the well-loved and highly respected just sayin who eveyone worships and admires.

      April 9, 2012 at 1:25 am |
    • lollypop

      I am so sorry you were treated so badly. I am glad you were saved though.

      April 9, 2012 at 4:48 am |
    • Muneef

      It must have been unreligious house not holding religious teachings...then as well you have to seek GOD for him to look upon you.. Read what our first sura of the Quran teaches ;

      In the name of Allah , the Entirely Merciful, the Especially Merciful. 1:1

      [All] praise is [due] to Allah , Lord of the worlds – 1:2

      The Entirely Merciful, the Especially Merciful, 1:3

      Sovereign of the Day of Recompense. 1:4

      It is You we worship and You we ask for help. 1:5

      Guide us to the straight path – 1:6

      The path of those upon whom You have bestowed favor, not of those who have evoked [Your] anger or of those who are astray. 1:7

      April 9, 2012 at 5:28 pm |
    • Rob

      What were you saved from?

      April 9, 2012 at 6:11 pm |
    • Muneef

      From polytheism

      April 9, 2012 at 7:54 pm |
  10. JJJJJJJ

    DUH THE SUN IS OUR ONLY SAVIOR. HAPPY SOMEBODY ELSE KNOWS. THE WORLD IS AWAKE NOW.

    April 9, 2012 at 12:26 am |
    • ?

      Huh?

      April 9, 2012 at 12:57 am |
    • jduck99

      Well easter is actually the celebration of the vernal equinox after the first full moon. I'm not sure about the easter bunny and jesus I still haven't seen or heard anything out of either of them.

      April 9, 2012 at 1:43 am |
  11. PhilG.

    More of Jesus teachings is spread through the living example of decent Christian's living their lives and being decent to all the people they meet then anything that CNN or any other news organization could print or broadcast.

    In the guidance on a loving grandparents admonishments that Jesus would'nt do things that way or Jesus is watching what you do are the mentors guiding lights that streatch across thousands of years.

    So go ahead CNN-print whatever you want.

    People who understand the teachings of Jesus and live them will not be affected at all.

    They are too busy standing up and stretching out helping hands for the lost souls of this world and trying to help through just this day. into the next.

    April 8, 2012 at 11:16 pm |
    • Kevin Lester

      best comment so far

      April 9, 2012 at 12:27 am |
    • EvolvedDNA

      This is what i have always thought..you do not need any god to be good, just be a human.

      April 9, 2012 at 1:29 am |
    • jduck99

      Well jesus isn't doing it that is humans. The omnipotent jesus let's 30,000 children die every day of starvation

      April 9, 2012 at 1:45 am |
    • jduck99

      I wish the rapture would hurry up and take all these believers with it. Plus I won't have to go in to work tomorrow or file my taxes this year......

      April 9, 2012 at 1:54 am |
    • God

      Uh hun...more like stretching out their arms so they can be gittin' all up into people's un der wear and in their be d rooms. What is it with Christians that they're so absolutely obsessed with s e x? They're either yelling at someone for having s e x, or they're on their knees in the mens room, or they're caught with their mistresses. Christians...they are the wackiest people.

      April 9, 2012 at 11:02 pm |
  12. Leslie Todd

    Just stay with the Holy Bible, If you are a Christian you dont have anything to worry about , they are going to say even worst things in the years to come its all a part of the end times senario that must play out before the end comes ,
    You should be excited to know that JESUS is comeing soon , The Gospels talk about this very thing occuring in our time .

    April 8, 2012 at 11:11 pm |
    • reason

      Wow! That is one of the most dangerous things I've ever heard! Its people like you who encite the weak minded and convince them to start wars! Its a self-fulfilling prophecy! If you belive that Jesus will come after a war in the middle east then you purposely stary that war, killings untold millions! Stop the hate!

      April 8, 2012 at 11:39 pm |
    • menotyou

      "The Gospels talk about this very thing occuring in our time"

      No it doesn't, you just made that up.

      The Gospel states: Mark 13:32 "But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father." & Matthew 24:36 "But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, but My Father only."

      That means that the end could come in a million bazillion years from now, so these aren't the end times and instead of waiting for the end times, you should be out helping your fellow person in this lifetime while you have a chance.

      April 8, 2012 at 11:50 pm |
    • Oh no, it's not so

      Actually Leslie, the predictions Jesus repeatedly makes about the "End of Times" very clearly states that it will be in the lifetimes of some of his audience. The events he lists in conjunction with the Kingdom of God on Earth in their lifetimes cannot fit the transfiguration argument many apologists claim, as they clearly have not happened.

      Jesus himself, who you must accept as a far better authority than yourself, said it would happen in the lifetimes of some of the audience present when he said it. There is nothing in any scripture that even remotely implies that The End Is Near (oh dear!) beyond the usual wild guesses Christians have made for millenia based on VERY vague "prophecies".

      Jesus said the End of Times would have happened by 1900 years ago. Some might think something like that would be solid grounds to question the validity of Christianity, but most ignore it and go find some other part of the Bible to focus on . . . like hating gays.

      April 8, 2012 at 11:56 pm |
    • jduck99

      Can I have your car when jesus comes back....Still waiting 2,000 years later how long must we wait.........

      April 9, 2012 at 1:46 am |
    • jduck99

      End times hurry up already! Do you have health and car insurance ms. end times? I bet you do. Why bother if the end times are coming in fact you should just sit in your house and wait for it.....Don't eat, do nothing.......

      April 9, 2012 at 1:57 am |
    • tallulah13

      People have been claiming that "Jesus is Coming Soon" for the last 2000 years.

      April 9, 2012 at 3:32 am |
    • lollypop

      you go menotyou! The only one in the thread with a fact! People are so ego driven to be right that they don't even think about facts!

      April 9, 2012 at 4:56 am |
    • sam stone

      Which time is that, Leslie?

      April 9, 2012 at 5:24 am |
    • JA

      ~Oh no its not so

      hmmm where should i begin?

      Jesus IN FACT did not say that the end times would happen in the generation in which he preached.

      “Now learn this lesson from the fig tree: As soon as its twigs get tender and its leaves come out, you know that summer is near. 33 Even so, when you see all these things, you know that it[e] is near, right at the door. 34 Truly I tell you, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened."

      Key word here is the Fig Tree, often referred to as the Holy Land or Israel. In 1948 when Israel became a nation, many Jewish folk have been flocking back to the Holy Land since. This is what many scholars to believe this event is tied to that verse. So could it be that the generation that sees this happened be the last? Question is, how long is a generation? Unfortunately, there isnt a credible source that defines the length of a generation. Its been said 20 years, others 25. Some say 40 or even 50.

      Jesus said all these things must happen including famines, earthquakes, wars and rumors of wars. Lets look at earthquakes. Some say the reason why there's been more earthquakes is because of increased media coverage. When in fact, this website http://www.iris.edu/seismon has listed earthquakes over time. Ive been following this site since 2007. The site lists earthquakes above 4.0 for a 30 day time period. On average in 2007 was about 200 earthquakes per month. In 2009 it was around 300. This year we have been averaging 600 earthquakes per month.

      Matthew 24:8 "All these are the beginning of the birth pains"
      It is common that contractions in pregnant humans increase in frequency and magnitude closer to the time of birth. Much like the earthquakes that have been happening for the past few years.

      I guess we will all know in time what truth may bring. In the meantime buckle your seatbelts, its gonna be a bumpy ride.

      April 9, 2012 at 1:56 pm |
    • God

      No, it isn't a part of the "end times". People are speaking lots of inconvenient truths about Christianity because Christianity is corrupt, aggressive and violent, and obsessed with money, s e x, and power. Oh, and it's backstory is crazy as my old aunt Geraldine. Babbling crazy..

      April 9, 2012 at 11:06 pm |
    • Zabazoom

      Just say it with Grimm's fairy tales. Just say it with Krishna. Just say it with the Space Brothers. Just because some book and a untaxed entertainment industry called a church tells you to believe something, it must be true, right?

      April 12, 2012 at 3:53 am |
  13. Cathy

    CNN

    I am done reading news from your site. DONE. You have gone beyond far, and you are beyond Anti-Christian.

    To all Christians/Catholics: shake the sand from the sole of your shoe off and never return to this site. Enough is enough.

    April 8, 2012 at 10:58 pm |
    • AGuest9

      Better yet, stay in the your church, and stay out of my childrens' schools, the state house and my lab!

      April 8, 2012 at 11:01 pm |
    • Larry

      Well Cathy, now you know what we feel like when oour child brings home a Bible or Book of Mormon that someone foisted off on her to save her, with instructions not to tell us (which has happened repeatedly to me), or when yet another Generation of religious parents raise hell about the state-mandated teaching of evolution and other science at our school, or the insistence on prayer at school.

      Look at your own kind when that self-righteous indignation comes upon you. But thanks for casting the first stone.

      April 8, 2012 at 11:07 pm |
    • Ungodly Discipline

      Cathy, the sand you are shaking off your sandles is 15 billion years old. Show some respect.

      April 9, 2012 at 1:14 am |
    • jduck99

      well don't let the door hit you on the way out of this blog site....we will miss you...

      April 9, 2012 at 1:47 am |
    • sam stone

      how is this "beyond anti-christian", cathy?

      April 9, 2012 at 5:29 am |
    • God

      Cathy, don't let the door bang you on your rear end on the way out.

      April 9, 2012 at 11:07 pm |
  14. Muneef

    Jesus in Islam
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_in_Islam

    April 8, 2012 at 10:19 pm |
    • Ungodly Discipline

      Muneef, how many little girls did Jesus throw acid on?

      April 9, 2012 at 1:17 am |
    • lollypop

      That remark is uncalled for–you don't know anything about Muneef. Keep a civil toung in your head.

      April 9, 2012 at 5:10 am |
    • Muneef

      Lollypop.
      Thank you for standing for me... It is not of Islam that I know and was brought up with...these acts are not of our Prophet Muhammed nor his companions...these acts are introduced lately by foreign Islam rather Islam of the Terrorists..or in certain cases by uneducated ignorants such as peasants..
      It is no one's right over any one but their families who brought them up to tell them what to wear or how to act in public and that's what we been tought... I can promise you one thing though; Islam from the right source is right but deluded Muslims are being wrong...after all islam has now crossed the boarders of the Arabian Peninsular and unfortunately came back to invade the Islam of the Arabian Peninsular with new motivated ideas exceeding the teachings of the Quran and the Prophet Muhammed (saw)... Our Islamic Religion was supposed to be the Religion of Mercy and that's why we start our readings and writings with;

      In the name of Allah , the Entirely Merciful, the Especially Merciful.

      April 9, 2012 at 5:16 pm |
  15. Muneef

    Read all the stories from the link provided;
    --–
    [All] praise is [due] to Allah , who has sent down upon His Servant the Book and has not made therein any deviance. 18:1

    [He has made it] straight, to warn of severe punishment from Him and to give good tidings to the believers who do righteous deeds that they will have a good reward 18:2

    In which they will remain forever 18:3

    And to warn those who say, " Allah has taken a son."18:4

    They have no knowledge of it, nor had their fathers. Grave is the word that comes out of their mouths; they speak not except a lie.18:5

    Then perhaps you would kill yourself through grief over them, [O Muhammad], if they do not believe in this message, [and] out of sorrow.18:6

    http://quran.com/18

    April 8, 2012 at 10:18 pm |
    • EvolvedDNA

      Muneef..I bet if you would be allowed to think and question, your intellect would push you to the truth which does not involve any of the fairy story books of the ancients.

      April 9, 2012 at 1:36 am |
    • Muneef

      E.DNA.
      Faith,Belief is located in my Heart and not in mind to question or doubt.. Our belief is on the unseen as our Prophet Abraham and all the Prophets that followed him down to Seal of Prophets... Why do you expect me to disbelieve all those before us and to believe doubts that Satan wisper in to our ears to delude us from the path of righteous..? How do you expect that I disbelieve all Prophets and the Holy Books of the unseen to believe that nothing exists from those who can not see or know more than they should as limits... Guess I trust in believing my heart more than my mind alone...

      April 9, 2012 at 4:57 pm |
  16. SP

    DENY. NO.MORE, youtube.com/watch?v=ksnjKKeJSXw
    Google – "SpiritWorldBlog" ALL IS EXPLAINED.

    April 8, 2012 at 10:11 pm |
  17. Robert Brown

    Hey CNN,

    Thanks for helping us spread The Word. God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son to be the propitiation for the sins of the world, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish but have eternal life. John 3:16; I John 2:2.

    April 8, 2012 at 10:07 pm |
    • jduck99

      Well god actually impregnated a virgin with himself, grew up, died and then killed himself on the cross and then resurrected himself and wait that makes no sense.... is that what you believe?

      April 9, 2012 at 1:49 am |
    • sam stone

      Wow, Robert, a book! Nothing more convincing than THAT. Now, go home and get your shinebox

      April 9, 2012 at 5:33 am |
    • A

      Okay, so Jesus came down and died so our sins could be forgiven. The main belief of all Christianity, right?

      So, answer this – why was that necessary?

      I mean, if God wanted our sins to be forgiven, why didn't he just forgive them? He's God, isn't he? All-powerful and all that?

      Sounds like your supposedly all-powerful god is controlled by other rules, if the whole human sacrifice thing was necessary. Or, maybe he's just a sick s o b who's just into death and blood. Not very all-loving.

      April 9, 2012 at 12:03 pm |
  18. jim

    I look at it as their call if they don't believe but if they are wrong God help them

    April 8, 2012 at 10:06 pm |
    • lollypop

      Either way God will help them–he is love after all.

      April 9, 2012 at 5:13 am |
    • sam stone

      The same could be said about those that deny any of the other thousands of gods man has created

      April 9, 2012 at 5:34 am |
  19. b4bigbang

    Atheists, tell us that atheism isnt a religion by these definitions:

    1. A set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially [Note: especially, but not limited to – see other defs] when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs. [Note: atheists are generally into the humanist moral code].

    2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects. American Atheists, et al.
    3. the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: [Note: Atheist orgs.]

    Origin:
    1150–1200; Middle English religioun (< Old French religion ) < Latin religiōn- (stem of religiō ) conscientiousness, piety, equivalent to relig ( āre ) to tie, fasten ( re- re- + ligāre to bind, tie; compare ligament) + -iōn- -ion; compare rely.

    Note: conscientousness, humanism, the moral code of the atheist, where they remind us that they're as conscientous as the religious or even more so.

    Also note the root from Latin: To bind, tie and rely. They recently had a national 'coming-out' gathering together, a body in unity, celebrating their world-view. They've also had atheist and humanist org official membership for years.
    Conclusion: by definition, ALL the hallmarks of religion, just omitted the supernatural, that's all.

    April 8, 2012 at 9:59 pm |
    • Well done CNN!

      Atheism is NOT a religion!

      April 8, 2012 at 10:05 pm |
    • AGuest9

      Making the crux of both points concerning "beliefs" is your biggest problem, and highlights the fallacy in your claims. If you can't deal with the procedures and protocols inherent to scientific research, that is YOUR problem.

      Furthermore, you make the incorrect assumption that many who are atheist follow some organization. If one can't think for him/herself, one might as well join a church!

      April 8, 2012 at 10:20 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Desperate are you, b4? Poor little moron.

      April 8, 2012 at 10:40 pm |
    • Levi Called Biff (Jesus's best friend)

      Kiddo,

      This is easy enough, Atheism is a rejection of religion..... that's all, it's a rejection of your belief in a god, rejection of rituals and practices and a rejection beliefs held without evidence. That's it, that's all.

      April 8, 2012 at 11:00 pm |
    • Chad

      I dont think atheism is a "religion", but it certainly is a view.

      As a view, atheists should be willing and able to defend their viewpoint.

      How was the universe created?
      How was life on earth created?
      Why does the universe obey laws?
      How do you explain Jesus of Nazareth?
      – He was a real person
      – He was crucified and buried in a tomb
      – After three days that tomb was found empty by a group of women followers
      – Following that, many people (believers, skeptics and persecutors) reported meeting a physically resurrected Jesus. They believed this truth so profoundly that it radically changed their immediate behaviors (from running and hiding to proclaiming the truth of the resurrection), to the point that they were willing to die for the truth of the statement that Jesus was physically resurrected

      If you want to be an atheist, you need to explain all of that.

      April 8, 2012 at 11:07 pm |
    • Levi Called Biff (Jesus's best friend)

      Chad

      No, to become an atheist all you need to do is reject religion, that's all. To answer those questions are an altogether different matter. How was the universe created? Running theory is the Big Bang, I believe it but if given evidence of something else I would be ready to change that.

      How was earth created? When the sun's accretion disk started to cool and the sun began to form, the material that was left over began to also began to absorb pieces of rock and spin and form a planet. In theory, a comet also whizzed by and smashed into the earth giving us our abundance of water.

      Why does the universe obey laws? most likely because if they didn't the universe would fall apart. We have yet to see anything that makes the universe follow laws, we just know the universe must follow laws or else there will be issues.

      Explain jesus of Nazareth? I don't want to go too much into detail with you but yes, he could have been a real person, there have been many real persons throughout history. There has also been a lot of people who were crucified.
      After that, the tomb being found empty could have happened, for any number of reasons.
      Lastly, people dying for a belief proves.....what? That people are willing to die for something they believe in? Neat.

      Sorry chad, you're making too many leaps to actually make sense.

      April 8, 2012 at 11:46 pm |
    • Another b4 intellectual faceplant

      Just another example of your astounding mix of stupidity and dishonesty, b4justsayin. Neither fit atheism. Allow me to demonstrate.

      The definition you supplied (from Dictionary.com) is: "a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe" No, actually atheism is only the non-belief in deities. There is no accepted set of beliefs on the cause, nature and purpose of the universe. The only thing we share is non-belief. Many prefer the answers of science, but others are existential or humanist or nihilist or even Marxist (though that is pretty rare these days). No set of accepted beliefs – the only unity is not believing yoour fairy tales. And of course, without a deity, there is no purpose to the universe – it just is.

      So that part fails miserably. Next . . .

      "Especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies" – Obviously does not fit atheists AT ALL.

      "Usually involving devotional and ritual observances" – care to tell us what those are? I have never heard of atheist devotional and ritual observances.

      "And often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs." Atheist moralities can be based on a wide number of things, for philosophy to common sense to ethnic traditions to personal experience to almost anything. Again, there is no commonly accepted morality, and in general, we create our own in a Maslow sense of the matter.

      You perverted the second and third definitions, but is anyone bothers to look at Dictionary.com's entry, they will see that they do not fit either. Not at all.

      So your definition totally flops. You completely failed to prove that atheism is a religion, and I can certainly pull definitions from other sources that make your basic premise even more absurd.

      So you blew it again. Not a surprise.

      April 9, 2012 at 12:21 am |
    • Timmuh

      No Chad, atheism is not a world view. It's simply a sub-group of skepticism and the rejection of an assertion that there is a particular god. Moreover, both you and I don't know how the universe came into existence. The fact that we don't know, YET, doesn't mean you get to stick your god into that gap. If we were having this conversation 500 years ago, you could claim that if I reject your god then I need to explain the phenomena of tsunamis, lightening, earthquakes and plagues. Finally, you are making the same dishonest claims here as before. The authors of the gospels simply assert that many people saw the risen lord and that's not the same as having actual testimony from individuals who were there, or most probably not.

      April 9, 2012 at 12:35 am |
    • Chad does a major intellectual faceplant

      You are indulging in some very deceitful and dishonest argumentation, Chad! Allow me to illuminate:

      "As a view, atheists should be willing and able to defend their viewpoint." Fine. Their viewpoint is that there is no God, nothing more.

      "How was the universe created?" What has this to do with the view that there is no God. You are being very deceitful here – you are asking people to already know an area of science that is extremely technical and theoretical and naissant. It is not necessary at all to know that or even consider it when deciding tha there are no deities. That decision can easily come from experiencing the bad behavior of religious people, or rejecting the absurd claims of religious people, or just looking at the world around them and realizing that everything behaves as if randomness and natural laws are at play, and nothing looks like supernatural intervention. The Problem of Evil is a far more appropriate to an incipient atheist.

      Very dishonest reasoning there, Chad!

      "How was life on earth created?" Again with demands that a very technical and theoretical area of science must be completely understood by atheists. Sorry, but as above, the decision to be an atheist does not need to be based in science – though some might prefer that. I do say that in general we get a great laugh out of the absurd version that religious people provide, with plants and trees being made before the sun was made, and the 6,000 year old Earth, and dinosaurs and people coexisting.

      We don't need PhDs in Physics to realize how insane your version is.

      "Why does the universe obey laws?" Same deal. A tiny bit of logic would let you realize that if there were no laws, there could only be pure randomness, but even pure randomness is subject to laws also (see Chaos Theory). A system with no laws is really a very weird and utterly impossible concept.

      "How do you explain Jesus of Nazareth?" Totally unnecessary for someone to be an atheist to even have heard of Jesus, much less have an opinion on him. I'll happily explain him – he was either a fictional character or just another self-appointed guru who had the rare luck of having his gig go big time, just like Mohammed and Buddha and Joseph Smith did.

      – "He was a real person" Maybe. I tend to think so, others do not, but this is totally irrelevant to the decision to be an atheist. Same is true for Buddha and L. Ron Hubbard.

      – "He was crucified and buried in a tomb" Maybe. I don't care. Has absolutely nothing to do with being an atheist.

      – "After three days that tomb was found empty by a group of women followers." Maybe, but you have totally digressed away from your thesis. And each of the scriptures disagrees on how many women, and what they found. Incompatible accounts, so much so that they cast this part of the story in severe doubt. Grave robbery is every bit as likely, as is "totally made up". But again, this has absolutely nothing to do with being an atheist, and we are no more responsible for dealing with your mythology that you are of explaining Quetzlcoatl's behavior in Aztec traditions.

      – "Following that, many people (believers, skeptics and persecutors) reported meeting a physically resurrected Jesus. They believed this truth so profoundly that it radically changed their immediate behaviors (from running and hiding to proclaiming the truth of the resurrection), to the point that they were willing to die for the truth of the statement that Jesus was physically resurrected" - You are into pure unsubstantiated myth here (and very dubious myth it is), and you are perverting them. All an atheist has to do is say "that sounds like total bullshit" – which it does – and that's the end of it. Atheism does not depend on explaining every unsubstantiated claim every religion makes. Do you have to explain every nuance of ancient Egyptian myth to be a Christian? Of course not. What a stupid point!

      "If you want to be an atheist, you need to explain all of that." No we don't, and you don't get to elect yourself the authority to demand that. We answer to ourselves.

      You are an idiot. Fuck off, and take your insane impossible superstitions with you.

      April 9, 2012 at 1:04 am |
    • Infallible Bible

      1. Atheists do not have a common set of beliefs as to how the universe came about, and there is no common moral code. Fail

      2. A lack of a belief is not a belief in the same way that bald is not a hair color. Fail

      3. See #2. Fail.

      April 9, 2012 at 1:45 am |
    • Another b4 intellectual faceplant

      Hey, that's what I said . . . I just used a lot more of those word thingies.

      April 9, 2012 at 2:07 am |
    • mickey1313

      Thiesm of any flavor are based on faith, meaning belief. Atheists have no uniting beliefs except that evidence is required. There are good and bad athiests, same as any group. Christians need to get off their higj horses

      April 9, 2012 at 2:36 am |
    • Chad

      Anyone who defines atheism as someone who is simply not a theist redefines the word and trivializes the claim of the presumption of atheism, for on this definition, atheism ceases to be a view. It is merely a psychological state which is shared by people who hold various views or no view at all. On this re-definition, even babies, who hold no opinion at all on the matter, count as atheists!

      What are atheists so anxious to so trivialize their position? If atheism is taken to be a view, namely the view that there is no God, then atheists must shoulder their share of the burden of proof to support this view. But many atheists admit freely that they cannot sustain such a burden of proof. So they try to shirk their epistemic responsibility by re-defining atheism so that it is no longer a view but just a psychological condition which as such makes no assertions. They are really closet agnostics who want to claim the mantle of atheism without shouldering its responsibilities.

      This is disingenuous and still leaves us asking, “So is there a God or not?”

      -William Lane Craig.

      April 9, 2012 at 8:31 am |
    • Chad

      @ does a major intellectual faceplant ""How was the universe created?" What has this to do with the view that there is no God. "
      @Chad " if you are claiming there is no God, then how do you explain those events that God did?"

      ==========
      @ does a major intellectual faceplant "It is not necessary at all to know that or even consider it when deciding tha there are no deities. That decision can easily come from experiencing the bad behavior of religious people"
      @Chad "the fact that religious people do bad things has no bearing on the existence of God, right? Read the bible, people are doing bad things throughout! thats the entire point, we need a savior (Jesus).

      ==========
      @ does a major intellectual faceplant "the decision to be an atheist does not need to be based in science"
      @Chad "very true 🙂 "

      ==========
      @ does a major intellectual faceplant "Why does the universe obey laws?" Same deal. A tiny bit of logic would let you realize that if there were no laws, there could only be pure randomness, but even pure randomness is subject to laws also (see Chaos Theory). A system with no laws is really a very weird and utterly impossible concept"
      @Chad "you havent explained why, you merely observed that they do. That is not an explanation.
      Something must explain why they do, right?

      ==========
      @ does a major intellectual faceplant ""How do you explain Jesus of Nazareth?" Totally unnecessary for someone to be an atheist to even have heard of Jesus, much less have an opinion on him"
      @Chad "completely incorrect, being an atheist requires(by definition) a rejection of Jesus' claims of divinity and messiahship.

      April 9, 2012 at 8:40 am |
    • Levi Called Biff (Jesus's best friend)

      Chad

      That's a shame..... the shame of course being that you think you were able to refute my peer here with incredibly faulty and sad logic.

      Beginning of the universe..... "" if you are claiming there is no God, then how do you explain those events that God did?" We explain it through theory, like the big bang. THat might not be good enough for you, but rarely is it satisfying. I understand that you give credit to god, but your proof is a fallacy at best, idiocy at worst. Your proof of how the universe began is as much as (actually less) than the proof of a big bang.

      You're persistent question of "why does the universe obey laws" does not prove anything other than we know that laws must exist or else, as @Chad's intellectual face plant pointed out, it would be an utterly weird and impossible place to be and live. That's observation and that's what we can base our understanding. To decide and toss in your version of god is your as.sumption once again. There may be a god that does, knowingly for millennia keep tabs on universal laws and make sure it works, but considering there's nothing in your bible that says your god does this, you can only say with as much certainty as me that your god does this.

      Also, maybe in YOUR definition that an atheist needs to reject jesus' claims of being a messiah and god, but that's just the tip of the iceberg. And I'm sure you've already been given the quote that we both already reject most religions, you just reject one less than I do. You reject buddha's insistence that he's the buddha, and that Krishna is who he is, and Mohammed was what he said he was because...... oh yeah, but you believe in christianity (which isn't an explanation, it's evasion).

      April 9, 2012 at 1:10 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      @Chad " if you are claiming there is no God, then how do you explain those events that God did?"

      What events did God "do"? Cite proof that a god did anything. The fact that you don't understand how something occurred does not mean that goddidit.

      What part of that do you not grasp? There is no evidence that what you don't know or understand yet was the work of some celestial clock-maker.

      Cite evidence without resorting to the Bible.

      April 9, 2012 at 1:11 pm |
    • Fetchez la vache!

      Chad, you are like the Black Knight in Monty Python and the Holy Grail, teetering on the ground with your arms and legs chopped off, screaming "Running away eh? You yellow bastard, Come back here and take what's coming to you. I'll bite your legs off!"

      So staying in that idiom, "Go and boil your bottoms, son of a silly person. I blow my nose on you, so-called Chad-dangler, you and your silly Christian Niiiiincompoops. I don't want to talk to you no more, you empty-headed animal, food trough wiper. I fart in your general direction. You mother was a hamster and your father smelt of elderberries."

      April 9, 2012 at 1:14 pm |
    • HotAirAce

      Chad, without going into the variations of agnostic / atheist, a non-believer in general does not believe there are any gods, therefore it is incredibly stupid of you to ask a non-believer to ". . . explain those events that God did?" Before that question is relevant, you have to prove the existence of at least one god, and you, and all other believers, have failed spectacularly at this basic requirement for justifying your myths.

      The inability of non-believers to expalin everything does not strengthen your unsupported claims that "god did it!"

      No matter how many stupid questions you ask, and how many foolish straw man arguments you throw up, you have absolutely no proof of your foundational claim. No proof of any god = childish tribal myth!! Provide some proof, or shut up!!

      April 9, 2012 at 1:16 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      @Chad "you havent explained why, you merely observed that they do. That is not an explanation.
      Something must explain why they do, right?

      Why must it? And why must that 'something' be an invisible being? People once believed that the earth was flat. We discovered that to be false. Your assumption that because we can't yet explain how the universe came into existence it "must have been created by God" is no less ridiculous.

      April 9, 2012 at 1:30 pm |
    • Chad

      @Levi Called Biff (Jesus's best friend) Beginning of the universe.... We explain it through theory, like the big bang"
      @Chad "The big bang describes the rapid expansion. We know from Kraus/Hawking that all of the matter in the universe and time itself came into being at that point.
      Since we know our universe had a starting point, and that if it was indeed created by yet an earlier universe, that universe cant be infinite in the past (no universe can), there had to be an eh-nihilo starting point.

      so, what created that? We know that there was necessarily an uncaused cause, something doesnt come from nothing (no, please dont cite Kraus intellectually dishonest title of same.. as he conceded in his debate with Craig his "nothing" requires laws, it isnt a nothing in the sense of the absence of everything, which is the eh-nihilo condition).

      Since everything that science relies upon came into being at the creation point, it by definition does not seek to go prior.. Typically atheists just say "well, what happened before is irrelevant" which is simply a dodge.

      ============
      @Levi Called Biff (Jesus's best friend) "You're persistent question of "why does the universe obey laws" does not prove anything other than we know that laws must exist or else, as
      @Chad "observing that laws exist doesnt in any way shape or form explain why they exist.. It's a standard dodge by atheists uncomfortable with the question.

      Would you accept the answer to "why is there day and night" to be "well, if there wasnt, nothing would grow"
      lol

      ============
      @Levi Called Biff (Jesus's best friend) "Also, maybe in YOUR definition that an atheist needs to reject jesus' claims of being a messiah and god, but that's just the tip of the iceberg"
      @Chad "if your an atheist, you reject all claims to divinity, that's the definition. If you dont like it, label yourself an agnostic.

      ============
      @Levi Called Biff (Jesus's best friend) "I'm sure you've already been given the quote that we both already reject most religions, you just reject one less than I do. You reject buddha's insistence that he's the buddha, and that Krishna is who he is, and Mohammed was what he said he was because...... oh yeah, but you believe in christianity (which isn't an explanation, it's evasion)."
      @Chad "well, of course the difference between belief in no gods and one God is pretty huge. If I explicitly reject the claims of Kirshna and Mohammed, then I have a burden of proof.
      Just as you have a burden of proof when explicitly rejecting the claim that the God of Abraham and His son Jesus are real.

      April 9, 2012 at 4:56 pm |
    • hellodollyllama

      Atheism isn't "belief". It is an embrace of sound logic and proven fact. You don't get to define us, or our beliefs. Nice try.

      April 9, 2012 at 6:21 pm |
    • Timmuh

      Chad, saying I don't believe you because you have given no evidence to back up your positive assertion that there is a particular god does not have a burden of proof. You have, by default, put yourself in a precarious position by claiming to know the truth. Atheists don't claim to know the opposite, They simply reject the idea that you know. Moreover, just for your information, Christians in America have endeavored to have atheism relabeled as a religion, If they can do so, they can then claim that evolution is one of its tenets and demand that creationism be taught in schools also.

      April 9, 2012 at 6:48 pm |
    • Chad

      @hellodollyllama "Atheism isn't "belief". It is an embrace of sound logic and proven fact. You don't get to define us, or our beliefs. Nice try."

      =>you dont believe atheism? you embrace something you dont believe in?

      I'm not trying to tell you what to believe, I'm just finding it amazing how far atheists will go to avoid defending their viewpoint.

      April 9, 2012 at 6:48 pm |
    • Chad

      @Timmuh "saying I don't believe you because you have given no evidence to back up your positive assertion that there is a particular god does not have a burden of proof."
      @Chad "why? you just want to call people names apparently.., right? no data to back up your viewpoint?
      If all you are saying is you dont believe the theistic argument, then you're an agnostic.
      If you want to go farther and say there is no God, then you are making a positive assertion.

      It isnt that complicated 🙂

      April 9, 2012 at 6:51 pm |
    • HotAirAce

      Chad, the only defense an atheist needs is that there is no (none, zero, nada, nothing!) factual, objective, verifiable or independent evidence for any god! Until believers establish a foundation for their basic belief, that there are gods, even just one, The Babble is merely a piece of bad fiction and you are are engaged in quibbling over the rules for the world's oldest, and silliest, fantasy role playing game.

      April 9, 2012 at 6:54 pm |
    • Snow

      "If all you are saying is you dont believe the theistic argument, then you're an agnostic.
      If you want to go farther and say there is no God, then you are making a positive assertion."

      huh.?? Do you mean to say that a claim like "There is god and he made everything" is not a positive assertion? that it is so neutral that it does not need any proof to back it?

      April 9, 2012 at 6:59 pm |
    • GodPot

      Is bald a hair style?
      Is not collecting stamps a hobby?
      If you live in an Islamic region, would not praying 5 times a day be considered your prayer ritual?

      April 9, 2012 at 7:18 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      @Levi Called Biff (Jesus's best friend) "You're persistent question of "why does the universe obey laws" does not prove anything other than we know that laws must exist or else, as
      @Chad "observing that laws exist doesnt in any way shape or form explain why they exist.. It's a standard dodge by atheists uncomfortable with the question.

      Would you accept the answer to "why is there day and night" to be "well, if there wasnt, nothing would grow"
      lol

      No, dipwad, I don't accept it. You have failed to even come close to any answer to the question I posed: Why do you assume that the only possible cause of the universe is a god? AGAIN, you numb nuts, just because you don't yet KNOW the cause does not mean a god did it.

      What is wrong with you, Chard?

      April 9, 2012 at 7:25 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      And again, Chard, why do you assume that in the future, the nature of the universe's beginning will not be discovered?

      You're as blind as those who were certain that the sun revolved around the earth.

      April 9, 2012 at 7:27 pm |
    • Chad

      @Snow "Do you mean to say that a claim like "There is god and he made everything" is not a positive assertion? that it is so neutral that it does not need any proof to back it?"

      =>It's simple:
      – if a person is making an assertion that there is a God, then that person needs to provide data to back it up.
      – if a person is making an assertion that there is NO God, then that person needs to provide data to back it up.

      both of those statements are viewpoints, assertions.

      why are you so scared of backing up your viewpoint?

      April 9, 2012 at 9:06 pm |
    • Chad

      @HotAirAce "the only defense an atheist needs is that there is no (none, zero, nada, nothing!) factual, objective, verifiable or independent evidence for any god! Until believers establish a foundation for their basic belief, that there are gods"

      =>why do you hold to a view you cant defend?

      April 9, 2012 at 9:08 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Hey, Chard, I'm sad for you that your high school didn't have a debate team. Otherwise, you'd have figured out by now that one cannot prove a negative. Either you're an ignoramus, or you're dumb as a box of hair.

      Either answer the questions or blow. You've lost all credibility here. There isn't a single poster who can defend your lies and evasions.

      April 9, 2012 at 9:30 pm |
    • Chad

      @Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son "And again, Chard, why do you assume that in the future, the nature of the universe's beginning will not be discovered?"

      =>here's the thing
      1. our universe had a beginning
      2. either our universe was created ex-nihilo, or it was created by another pre-existing state of being
      3. If our universe was created ex-nihilo, what created it?
      4. if it was created by a pre-existing state of being, what created that?

      that is the infinite regression problem.
      We know that there is no such thing as an infinite past regression, that is logically contradicting.
      so
      What ever created the first universe, must have not had a beginning.

      that is God.

      so, regardless of the ultimate resolution of the origin of our universe, the same problem exists. There simply is no answer to the infinite regression other than God.
      Right?

      April 9, 2012 at 10:56 pm |
    • God

      You seem not to understand that the absence of a sky fairy, heavens, hells, angels, etc...is exactly what makes atheism not a religion. Religion has all those crazy things and way more which is what makes it religion.

      April 9, 2012 at 11:10 pm |
    • Timmuh

      Chad, you wrote: "If all you are saying is you don't believe the theistic argument, then you are agnostic." No, that is wrong! If you say that you don't believe in the theistic argument, you ARE an atheist, not an agnostic. Thereafter you state: "If you want to go farther and say there is no God, then you are making a positive assertion." However, atheists don't say there is no god, they say they don't believe your assertion that there is one. Not believing something is NOT the same as denying it, which carries a burden of proof. In summary, agnosticism pertains to knowledge, as in "I don't know if there is a god or not, and atheism pertains to belief, as in I don't believe you (the theist) have met your burden of proof. How do atheists not end up with a burden of proof? Easy: we have not bitten off more than we can chew, or prove! It's called being intellectually honest. If you get confused about these definitions again, just remember: atheism is spelled with a lower case 'a', due to the fact it is NOT a belief system.

      April 10, 2012 at 1:49 am |
    • Levi Called Biff (Jesus's best friend)

      @Chad

      THe crux of your argument is that atheism is the as.sertion there is no god. Incorrect. Atheism is rejecting your as.sertion there is a god because so far you have not given good enough evidence to prove your god is as real as say, a tree, or a rock. It's simple enough to prove why your "evidence" is wanting, namely that it relies strictly on belief in the unprovable. The best you have been able to come up with, so far, is "the universe obeys laws" and "people died rather than recant they saw a physically resurrected christ". Both these things aren't proof in any sense of the word but rather inferring conclusions without connecting either side other than personal belief.

      Long story short, because I reject your beliefs, I neither need to show you every inch of the universe to show you god does not inhabit it nor must I come up with answers on this comment board to show you why you're wrong. Since neither of us can not prove what was before the big bang, it makes more sense to say, "I don't know" rather than infer god.

      April 10, 2012 at 1:53 am |
    • Levi Called Biff (Jesus's best friend)

      Timmuh! You beat me to the punch!

      April 10, 2012 at 1:56 am |
    • Timmuh

      Chad, you wrote: "There simply is no answer to the infinite regression (of The Universe) other than God, right?" How do you know this? What knowledge is available to you that has been denied me? We don't know the exact details of the first moments of the Universe so god did it is a non-sequitur.

      April 10, 2012 at 2:02 am |
    • HellBent

      Chad is making an argument for god based upon causality. However, causality is a human concept that requires movement in time. However, at the point of the big bang, time is as non-existent as the logic behind Chad's argument.

      April 10, 2012 at 2:06 am |
    • Timmuh

      Chad, there simply is no answer to earthquakes, tsunamis, eclipses and plagues other than God, right?" Oh hang on, wrong century for that argument.

      April 10, 2012 at 2:09 am |
    • Chad

      @Timmuh "If you say that you don't believe in the theistic argument, you ARE an atheist, not an agnostic."

      =>so, we'll put this to rest by posing a simple Yes/No question to you: "Does the God of Abraham exist?"

      there are only 3 answers, "yes", "no" and "I dont know"
      right?

      The problem is that you have adopted a stance known as "weak atheism", which is indistinguishable from agnosticism.

      so, answer the question: "Does the God of Abraham exist?"

      you're inability to answer the question will demonstrate my point.. 🙂

      April 10, 2012 at 8:49 am |
    • Chad

      @Timmuh "There simply is no answer to the infinite regression (of The Universe) other than God, right?" How do you know this? What knowledge is available to you that has been denied me? We don't know the exact details of the first moments of the Universe so god did it is a non-sequitur."
      @Chad " we know all matter and time itself came into being at that point.
      we know what an infinite regression of causes is self contradicting
      therefor, there must be a first uncaused cause.

      ==============
      @HellBent "Chad is making an argument for god based upon causality. However, causality is a human concept that requires movement in time. However, at the point of the big bang, time is as non-existent as the logic behind Chad's argument"
      @Chad "ah yes, the old 'since time was created at the origin of our universe, and the term "causality" requires time then it doesnt make sense to talk about what happened "before" the big bang, therefor "what caused the big bang" is an irrelevant question we shouldn't ask.

      utter nonsense of course, a transparent attempt to dodge the question.

      The question of how all the matter in the universe and even time itself was first created is quite obviously a relevant an compelling argument for God.
      Right?
      🙂

      April 10, 2012 at 8:57 am |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Chard blabbers:The question of how all the matter in the universe and even time itself was first created is quite obviously a relevant an compelling argument for God.
      Right?

      Wrong. It is nothing of the sort. Again, you dim bulb, you are attempting to claim that because we do not YET know something, it must have been God. There's no reason to think so. None.

      You can continue to stubbornly insist, but again, we don't know what we don't know. The discoveries continue to undermine every silly argument you make that it "must have been God." It's exactly what morons like you said hundreds of years ago to explain every thing they didn't understand then.

      Really, it's an insult to a very good vegetable to call you 'Chard'.

      April 10, 2012 at 10:28 am |
    • Adam C

      Chad, you are starting with the default assumption that "God did it". Atheists do not start with such a default position. If we both wipe our positions completely clean, no one is asserting anything, then what would happen? A religious person would say "God exists, and created the world." That is asserting something. When the inevitable question of "Prove it" comes up, you would be put into the position of trying to prove your assertion.

      Atheists deny the existence of god. But it is not a belief. They deny the existence of god due to lack of evidence. If god descended to the earth and proclaimed himself the Abrahamic god, and there were a group of people that still did not accept it, THEN it would be a religion. As they would be not believing based on faith in their viewpoint, rather than evidence.

      April 10, 2012 at 1:11 pm |
    • Chad

      answer the question: "Does the God of Abraham exist?"

      there are only 3 answers, "yes", "no" and "I dont know"

      you're inability to answer the question will demonstrate my point..

      April 10, 2012 at 2:10 pm |
    • Levi Called Biff (Jesus's best friend)

      Chad

      Short answer, I don't know

      Longer answer: neither should you, and saying "i don't know" might make a "weak atheist" as you insultingly put it, but I'd wager about 90% or more of people you discuss things with on this board are on the same board. I wear it as a badge of pride when I say I don't know and that my atheism could easily be changed given the right proof. That's not weakness in the negative sense of the word, it's flexibility.

      April 10, 2012 at 2:59 pm |
    • Chad

      @Chad : "How would you answer the question: "Does the God of Abraham exist?""
      @Levi Called Biff (Jesus's best friend) "I dont know"

      so, why dont you want to be known as an agnostic then?

      It's fascinating stuff.. The redefinition of the word "atheist" to include a form indistinguishable from agnosticism (known as "weak" or "negative" atheism) turns out to be a fairly recent phenomena.
      There is just this whole group of people that abhor the term "agnostic", yet dont want to have the burden of proof that goes along with the traditional (and still the dictionary definition) of "atheism".

      The more fascinating piece of this for me, is not shirking the burden of proof necessarily.. it's the fact that this group abhors the term "agnosticism". Why?

      April 10, 2012 at 5:18 pm |
    • First!

      Chad

      It stems from your ignorance in not understanding the difference between the two terms "agnostic" and "atheist". Agnosticism deals with whether or not god or a god exists, atheism deals with religion and rejects the notion of God or the god of abraham. There has been no need to redefine atheist, the whole deal is helping people like you understand the difference between the terms. I would say if you actually asked most people who say they are atheists they could easily, without damaging their position agree to being agnostic. You and I can both probably agree that no one can outright reject that god, or God, or gods exist. If they do you and I will both be asking for the proof of how they know for certain there is none. But I accept when most atheists also can say I reject your definition of god and until I see proof of existence I will live my life under the as.sumption that god, God, or gods do not exist.

      April 10, 2012 at 5:25 pm |
    • Levi Called Biff (Jesus's best friend)

      Yeah.... pretty much what he (she?) said

      April 10, 2012 at 5:30 pm |
    • Chad

      agnostic: a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as God, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience. Synonyms: disbeliever, nonbeliever, unbeliever; doubter, skeptic, secularist, empiricist; heathen, heretic, infidel, pagan

      atheist  a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.

      seems pretty simple right? Those are the dictionary definitions, right?
      What becomes pretty clear, is that people want to be known as atheists.

      You didnt answer the question: Why dont you want to be known as an agnostic? The answer is, it has to do with your need to reject God.

      That need you have to explicitly reject God, is of course very powerful evidence for the implicit knowledge that we all have, namely that God is very real.

      April 10, 2012 at 6:10 pm |
    • Levi Called Biff (Jesus's best friend)

      Chad

      as First! said, you can call me an agnostic, but if you want the full de.finition of atheism, here is it: atheism

      noun

      1: the belief that there is no God [syn: {godlessness}] [ant: {theism}]

      2: a lack of belief in the exi..stence of God or gods

      I think you still have trouble understanding the difference, so here it is. Human nature is limited to observation and experience and the universe is unknowable (Agnoticism) however I live my life with a lack of belief in god, an unbeliever (Atheism). Everyone is an agnostic to some degree, even you with faith can't know for sure and hold that the universe is unknowable, nor have you ever met or have any proof that your god is real (if you had, there wouldn't be any discu.ssion or doubt on the matter). You just live your life maintaining that even though everything is unknowable, god is most likely there, I live mine as an unbeliever . I go by the t.itle atheist because that's easier to let people know where I stand on RELIGION vs. when I say Agnostic I can still very well be Je.wish, Chr..istian, Mu.slim, etc...

      April 10, 2012 at 6:35 pm |
    • Chad

      you have some pretty major logic error's ..

      @Levi Called Biff (Jesus's best friend) "Everyone is an agnostic to some degree, even you with faith can't know for sure and hold that the universe is unknowable"
      @Chad "??? of course I am in no way an agnostic with respect to God. I do not hold that I understand everything, but I DO hold that everything IS understandable/knowable/known (by God).

      =================
      @Levi Called Biff (Jesus's best friend) "nor have you ever met or have any proof that your god is real"
      @Chad " of course I have proof, origin of the universe, origin of life on this planet, universal laws, Jesus Christ, ... "

      @Levi Called Biff (Jesus's best friend) " You just live your life maintaining that even though everything is unknowable, god is most likely there"
      @Chad "no, everything IS knowable, and I know God IS there."

      @Levi Called Biff (Jesus's best friend) "that's easier to let people know where I stand on RELIGION vs. when I say Agnostic I can still very well be Je.wish, Chr..istian, Mu.slim, etc..."
      @Chad "yes.. the need to explicitly deny God..."

      interesting gymnastics you attempted.. try to expand the definition of agnosticism .

      You simply dont understand what the term agnosticism means if you think there is such a thing as a person who believes in God, but doesnt think it's possible to know if there is a god 🙂

      What kind of a person thinks that belief in God unknown or unknowable, yet believes it anyway? that's nuts...

      April 10, 2012 at 7:15 pm |
    • Get Real

      Chad – "What kind of a person thinks that belief in God unknown or unknowable, yet believes it anyway? that's nuts..."

      The Pascal's Wager folks who are on here at least 20 times a day - that's who. They are most likely all around you at church every time you go...

      April 10, 2012 at 7:20 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Chad, you are so ridiculous it's a shame. You are the one attempting to redefine agnosticism to suit your own purpose.

      Furthermore, you still have not proven that simply because we do not YET know how the universe originated, it must have been God.

      Really, grow up, kid.

      April 10, 2012 at 7:23 pm |
    • Levi Called Biff (Jesus's best friend)

      Chad

      Pity, and here I thought you would understand. No, there is no problem in my logic nor were there gymnastics, that's just expanding on definitions that are both there, in black white.

      Look at your definition of agnostic again, "HUMAN knowledge is limited to experience", aside from that though, the flaw in your logic is what you said how you KNOW god exists is not proof, but as.sumed proof. You haven't actually proven anything (other than maybe something in your deluded brain). Like I pointed out before, if "origin of the universe, life, etc..." was good enough to actually prove the existence of god, there wouldn't be any room for doubt, since there is, all of those things you have put forth as proof haven't actually been answered, just have various theories.

      There's also no NEED per se to explicitly deny the existence of god, atheism is the rejection of your belief and living the life in a universe where a god, or gods, exist. That's not denying god, it's denying you, because well, god most likely doesn't exist.

      Also, chad.... have you ever heard of a secular person? You know, the person who might be of a certain religion but doesn't practice? Anyone with 2 brain cells to rub together and a healthy dose of skepticism can make the reasonable statement that no matter how hard they believe god exists they, like you, have no more proof of gods existence than I do. For most believers, they are comfortable enough operating within a world where god has a really great chance of existing, but not 100%. For you to believe otherwise means that you simply don't have curiosity, or imagination (isn't it fun to tell someone else what they feel like?).

      Also, there was no expansion of the definition of agnosticism, I literally used the exact same words that were in the definition to show you how it applies to real people instead of the fake, made-up people you apply it to.

      April 10, 2012 at 7:36 pm |
    • HotAirAce

      Chad, you are truly an idiot – no matter how much you cut and paste and pretend to have something intelligent to say, you simply cannot read and comprehend. It has been explained to you many, many times that the burden of proof is on the one making the extraordinary claim. That is you and your fellow delusional believers. No matter how much you ignore this, it is your problem, and you have not, and most likely cannot, prove any god exists. Atheists do not have to defend their views because we are not making an extraordinary claim – we are merely reacting to an unsupported, and frankly ridiculous, claim that should have gone the way of astrology hundreds of years ago. Time to face reality – you have no facts to support your foundational beliefs – nothing!

      April 10, 2012 at 7:49 pm |
    • Chad

      Apologies, I have been buried at work, just getting back to this now...

      @HotAirAce ".... the burden of proof is on the one making the extraordinary claim..."
      @Chad "The burden of proof is on anyone making any claim.. it's amazing to watch you guys twist and turn on this issue.

      It's simple, if you to say "there is no God", then you have a burden of proof.
      if you say "I dont believe your claim that the God of Abraham is real", then you have a burden of proof
      If you say "It cant be known if there is a God or not", then you are an agnostic

      simple

      April 11, 2012 at 1:09 pm |
    • Chad

      @Levi Called Biff (Jesus's best friend) "Look at your definition of agnostic again, "HUMAN knowledge is limited to experience", aside from that though, the flaw in your logic is what you said how you KNOW god exists is not proof, but as.sumed proof."
      @Chad "no, I have proof. Origin of the universe, laws of the universe, origin of life, Jesus, etc..... That is not assumed truth, that is absolute truth.

      Look, it's simple, you are trying to cast all believers in the God of Abraham as agnostics simply so that you can say "well, since I dont want to be confused with a believer, I dont want to call myself an agnostic" right?

      That is clearly utter nonsense and a complete misscharacterization of the word agnostic. right?
      Is Billy Graham an agnostic? please.. it's nonsense. nuff said.

      as well, why exactly is it so important to let people know your belief on the reality of the God of Abraham, when you steadfastly maintain that you dont have a belief (you have said over and over that you dont have a belief that there is no God, you merely have a lack of a belief that there is one.) and therefor have no need to support that belief with proof
      😉

      your logic needs work 🙂

      April 11, 2012 at 1:18 pm |
    • Really-O?

      It is glaringly apparent that Chad is unable to understand the nuance between the meaning of "non-belief" and "disbelief"...or he's just being dishonest again.

      April 11, 2012 at 1:36 pm |
    • Get Real

      Chad,

      Has Billy Graham (or you) ever said anything along the lines of, "We don't know all of the mysteries of "God" or the reasons for 'his works'? THAT is agnosticism (lack of knowledge). It is a spectral issue... from not knowing *some* to not knowing *all* or *any*.

      Theism (belief) and atheism (lack of belief) are different issues than agnosticism.

      April 11, 2012 at 1:50 pm |
    • Chad

      @Levi Called Biff (Jesus's best friend) " I go by the t.itle atheist because that's easier to let people know where I stand on RELIGION vs. when I say Agnostic I can still very well be Je.wish, Chr..istian, Mu.slim, etc..."

      =>so, you have a view on the existence of the God of Abraham, and it's important to you that you let people know what it is, yet you feel no need to back that view up with any data..

      You have expanded the term "atheist" to include anyone that has not ever even heard of the term "god" (like some remote amazon forest people who have never had contact with the outside world), and infants. Right?

      You are attempting to include EVERYONE in your definition of agnostic, even those that believe in the God of Abraham.
      clearly a complete mangling of the definition:

      Agnosticism is the view that the truth values of certain claims—especially claims about the existence or non-existence of any deity, but also other religious and metaphysical claims—are unknown or unknowable

      it's utter nonsense.. and all because you dont want to have to back up your "stand" with any kind of data..

      April 11, 2012 at 1:58 pm |
    • Really-O?

      @Get Real –
      Very well said; unfortunately it is "pearls before swine".

      April 11, 2012 at 1:58 pm |
    • Chad

      @Get Real Has Billy Graham (or you) ever said anything along the lines of, "We don't know all of the mysteries of "God" or the reasons for 'his works'? THAT is agnosticism (lack of knowledge). It is a spectral issue... from not knowing *some* to not knowing *all* or *any*."
      @Chad "no it isnt 🙂
      using your line of reasoning, there would then be gnostic theists, and agnostic theists, right?
      now, a gnostic theist would be an untenable position, as it would require the holder to know everything there is to know about God.
      which would of course mean that ALL theists would be agnostic theists.

      utter nonsense..

      Theism (belief) and atheism (lack of belief) are different issues than agnosticism.

      April 11, 2012 at 2:05 pm |
    • Really-O?

      @Chad – "Theism (belief) and atheism (lack of belief) are different issues than agnosticism."

      I believe you just admitted that atheism is lack of belief (non-belief), not disbelief. It's encouraging to see that you CAN learn and are willing to admit when you are wrong.

      April 11, 2012 at 2:11 pm |
    • Chad

      lol

      no

      cut and paste error, post should have read:
      ==============

      Chad
      @Get Real Has Billy Graham (or you) ever said anything along the lines of, "We don't know all of the mysteries of "God" or the reasons for 'his works'? THAT is agnosticism (lack of knowledge). It is a spectral issue... from not knowing *some* to not knowing *all* or *any*."
      @Chad "no it isnt
      using your line of reasoning, there would then be gnostic theists, and agnostic theists, right?
      now, a gnostic theist would be an untenable position, as it would require the holder to know everything there is to know about God.
      which would of course mean that ALL theists would be agnostic theists.

      utter nonsense..

      April 11, 2012 at 2:12 pm |
    • Really-O?

      @Chad – "Lol...no..."
      Well, at least you admit that you can't learn and aren't willing to admit when you're wrong. I guess that is sort of a "man up". Good for you.

      April 11, 2012 at 2:18 pm |
    • Really-O?

      @Chad –
      Since you're coming clean, do you want to denounce any of the following bits of idiocy you've previously posted on this blog?

      "I dismiss all other gods other than the God of Abraham because the God of Abraham has told me that they aren't real."

      "Every book that purports to accurately record history needs to be examined critically for internal consistency and for its accuracy in detail. The bible succeeds on all accounts."

      "The Genesis account stands alone amongst all creation stories of the time, a fact universally acknowledged...We are only know [sic] beginning to scientifically discover how accurate it is indeed."

      'As for supernatural vs natural processes, I also believe that the origin of life, and the development of more and more complex life forms on earth in the stages reflected in the fossil record, is the direct result of supernatural intervention (it's called "punctuated equilibrium" )'

      April 11, 2012 at 2:26 pm |
    • Really-O?

      @Chad – "which would of course mean that ALL theists would be agnostic theists."

      In fact, all theists are agnostic theists – they don't actually have esoteric knowledge of the supernatural, they just believe they do.

      April 11, 2012 at 2:34 pm |
    • Chad

      @Really-O? In fact, all theists are agnostic theists – they don't actually have esoteric knowledge of the supernatural, they just believe they do."

      =>ah, the invention continues.. of course that's nonsense, as of course it would necessarily then have to be said that there are only agnostic atheists.

      which would leave two groups: agnostic atheists, and agnostic theists (there are no such things (by definition) as gnostic atheist, or gnostic theist)

      so, your little exercise eliminates agnosticism as a position in and of itself, which contradicts the definition, namely:
      an agnostic is someone who neither believes nor disbelieves in the existence of a deity or deities, whereas a theist and an atheist believe and disbelieve, respectively.

      as your exercise in redefinition is self contradicting.. it fails.. right?

      April 11, 2012 at 3:04 pm |
    • Chad

      @Really-O? "Since you're coming clean, do you want to denounce any of the following bits of idiocy you've previously posted on this blog?"

      =>actually, I never understood how you felt that citing selections from my other posts would somehow bother me.. I stood and stand behind them as being true..
      🙂

      April 11, 2012 at 3:07 pm |
    • Really-O?

      @Chad – Regarding your "ah, the invention continues" post.

      Actually, you are correct...at bedrock there are only agnostic-theists and agnostic-atheists as agnosticism posits that the supernatural is unknowable (which, no matter how much you hold your breath and stomp your feet, it is). What you seem not to be able comprehend (perhaps you're distracted by making up your own absolute definitions for words in a weak attempt to support your unsupportable claims) is that agnosticism (root gnosis) concerns "knowledge" whereas theism and atheism concern "belief".

      DOH! I've allowed myself to engage you as a peer! I'm a junkie and your nonsense is my heroin.

      April 11, 2012 at 3:21 pm |
    • Chad

      I guess you missed the part about:

      so, your little exercise eliminates agnosticism as a position in and of itself, which contradicts the definition, namely:
      an agnostic is someone who neither believes nor disbelieves in the existence of a deity or deities, whereas a theist and an atheist believe and disbelieve, respectively.

      as your exercise in redefinition is self contradicting.. it fails.. right?

      😉

      April 11, 2012 at 3:28 pm |
    • Really-O?

      @Chad – "actually, I never understood..."

      Don't be so narcissistic – I post your quotations for the entertainment of the bloggers on this forum...any humiliation you suffer is just a sweet side effect. Keep ém com.ing!

      April 11, 2012 at 3:31 pm |
    • Really-O?

      @Chad – "I guess you missed the part about..."

      Nope, I saw it; however, you're simply incorrect. Gnosis and agnosticism deal with "knowledge", not "belief". And "agnosticism" really can't be "a position in and of itself" as there is always at least the implication of what one is "agnostic" about (in the current discussion, the object of agnosticism is god; however, one could be agnostic about ANYTHING...fairies...bigfoot...even the origins of the universe).

      I've refrained from asking this question until now as it may appear politically incorrect, but I need to know – do you have Asperger syndrome?

      April 11, 2012 at 3:41 pm |
    • Chad

      I guess you missed (again! funny that)... the part about:

      so, your little exercise eliminates agnosticism as a position in and of itself, which contradicts the definition, namely:
      an agnostic is someone who neither believes nor disbelieves in the existence of a deity or deities, whereas a theist and an atheist believe and disbelieve, respectively.

      as your exercise in redefinition is self contradicting.. it fails.. right?

      😉

      April 11, 2012 at 3:44 pm |
    • Davey

      Chad, Kudos! Looks like your opponents have run out of valid counters/ arguments.

      You have way too much patience with some of these dullards!

      Your posts are AWESOME!

      April 11, 2012 at 3:56 pm |
    • Really-O?

      @Chad –
      No Chad, I didn't miss it either time. Unfortunately this blog does not support presenting arguments in the form of pictures so you will actually have to read the words I wrote, like the big kids do (however, I have no confidence you'll actually understand).

      April 11, 2012 at 3:57 pm |
    • Really-O?

      Hey look...now Chad is posting as "Davey"!

      April 11, 2012 at 3:59 pm |
    • Levi Called Biff (Jesus's best friend)

      Chad

      Really-O has the right of it, you don't KNOW there is a god the same you KNOW that say, your eyes are X color. You as.sume it, you even infer it from unacceptable proof, but you can't for sure KNOW it because, like I said before, if you had that sort of proof, there wouldn't be different religions or a huge amount of unbelievers because the proof would be right there (and again, NO , existence, origin of the universe is not proof no matter how many times you keep saying it is, it's only inference, and wrong inference at that).

      I stand by Really-O in that most, if not all, atheists are agnostics, that's sort of the point. I'm not trying to run away from trying to back up my proof, I don't need to.
      "It's simple, if you to say "there is no God", then you have a burden of proof.
      if you say "I dont believe your claim that the God of Abraham is real", then you have a burden of proof
      If you say "It cant be known if there is a God or not", then you are an agnostic" -

      So what would you say when I still stand by my saying that I can't know if there is a god or not (my agnosticism) AND I don't believe your claim that even if there is a god, it's specifically the god of abraham because you haven't provided acceptable proof (my atheism).... you see how it doesn't really work to show you proof? Short of first discovering 100% of the universe, down to the tiniest boson to the largest black hole AND THEN showing you all of that to show you there is no god, I operate that until such time as we find this god of yours, he doesn't exist. And considering everything you supposedly know about him (even though the only thing you know about him is through a small book) you somehow know for certain that the god of abraham exists, which is patently ridiculous

      April 11, 2012 at 4:00 pm |
    • Really-O?

      Check out the big brain on Levi! Unfortunately, as I've said before about Chad, "pearls before swine".

      April 11, 2012 at 4:04 pm |
    • Chad

      @Levi Called Biff (Jesus's best friend) "So what would you say when I still stand by my saying that I can't know if there is a god or not (my agnosticism)"

      =>again, the thing you keep avoiding is the inherently self contradicting nature of the interpretation you are forcing on the term "agnosticism".

      You believe there are only two groups: agnostic atheists, and agnostic theists (there are no such things (by definition) as gnostic atheist, or gnostic theist)

      You therefore eliminate agnosticism as a position in and of itself, which contradicts the meaning of the word agnosticism, namely:
      an agnostic is someone who neither believes nor disbelieves in the existence of a deity or deities, whereas a theist and an atheist believe and disbelieve, respectively.

      your exercise in redefinition is self contradicting, so it fails.. right?

      you dont get to redefine "agnosticism" so that you can avoid the burden of proof associated with atheism 😉

      April 11, 2012 at 5:38 pm |
    • Really-O?

      @Chad –

      All kidding aside, you do seem to be revealing yourself as someone with cognitive deficit. I haven't done the math, so the following may be a hasty generalization, but do you realize that people on this blog seem to call into question your rationality and/or intelligence with greater frequency than the average poster? Doesn't that raise any questions for you? Honestly.

      April 11, 2012 at 6:03 pm |
    • Timmuh

      Okay, let's put this to bed: I don't know weather or not the Abrahamic god exists, and I don't believe you have met your burden of proof which asserts that he does. I am an agnostic atheist. The two terms are NOT mutually exclusive. They simply seek to define two different things. Either way, I do not have a burden of proof! As I said, one pertains to knowledge, the other to belief, or lack thereof. Moreover, you wrote: "we know all matter and time itself came into being at that point. We know that an infinite regression of causes is self contradicting, therefore, there must be a first uncaused cause." Well, first explain how you know that the first cause was (your) god? Then explain how he came to be if you say that everything needs a cause? Then if you say that he lives outside space and time and doesn’t need a cause, tell me how you know this? Also, how do you know that instead of a god, there isn't another infinite regression existing outside our time and space? The human mind is uncomfortable with the concept of infinity, but reality has no obligation to make you feel comfortable.

      April 11, 2012 at 6:57 pm |
    • Levi Called Biff (Jesus's best friend)

      Chad

      Really-O makes a point, is it that you can't read what and have trouble comprehending or that you are purposefully avoiding the points made and are a really good troll?

      Your definition above of agnostic : an agnostic is someone who neither believes nor disbelieves in the existence of a deity or deities, whereas a theist and an atheist believe and disbelieve, respectively." yet, yesterday you gave the definition: "agnostic: a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as God, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience. Synonyms: disbeliever, nonbeliever, unbeliever; doubter, skeptic, secularist, empiricist; heathen, heretic, infidel, pagan"

      Make up your mind chad, choose a definition and stick to it. I think the only disingenuous person here is you.

      April 11, 2012 at 8:28 pm |
    • Timmuh

      Chad, moreover, I am not a soft atheist, whatever that means.

      April 11, 2012 at 9:19 pm |
    • Chad

      agnostic: someone who neither believes nor disbelieves in the existence of a deity or deities, whereas a theist and an atheist believe and disbelieve, respectively.

      agnostic: a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as God, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience.

      I challenge you to find a material difference between the two definitions (dictionary.com vs wiki)

      🙂

      =====================
      @Timmuh "I am not a soft atheist, whatever that means"
      @Chad "the terms "negative" and "positive" atheist as well as "weak" and "strong" atheist are not my invention 🙂
      check out wiki..
      clearly they exist to provide folks like yourself a way to call yourself an atheist, but avoid the burden of proof that goes with the traditional definition of the term.
      So, if you are unwilling to shoulder that burden, you fall under the definition of negative (weak/soft) atheism.

      I wouldnt care to be referred to as such either.. but you made your bed 🙂

      April 11, 2012 at 11:05 pm |
    • Levi Called Biff (Jesus's best friend)

      Chad

      First and foremost, you don't help your cause with emoticons, It's tough to take you seriously when you use them.

      Second, I trust dictionary.com way more than wiki, but do you really not see the difference between one definition that deals with the essential nature of the universe and the other definition that deals with god/gods. Also, how can you neither believe or disbelieve god? You nothing a god? The first definition from dictionary.com deals with the idea of a all-knowing being and the other deals with God/religion in general. I understand that you don't see the difference, but honestly it's not my job to take you to school or teach you reading comprehension, that should have been done a long time ago.

      April 12, 2012 at 1:38 am |
    • Chad

      I didnt see a material difference either..

      April 12, 2012 at 11:53 am |
    • Really-O?

      A "Chad" moment...
      [youtube=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EbVKWCpNFhY&w=640&h=360]

      April 12, 2012 at 12:05 pm |
    • Really-O?

      @Chad – "I didnt see a material difference either"

      Why would anyone expect you to see a difference. Again and again you claim to "know" things that you actually only believe (that god exists, that Jesus was resurrected, that miracles occur, that our understanding of the origin of the universe is evidence for god, that evolution only occurs under limited circu.mstances that you define with extordinarily odd logic, etc. etc. etc.). Either by nature or training your reason is a blunt-tool that is incapable or unwilling to see nuance. That mindset is required for someone to be so co.cksure of things they cannot possibly know and assert as fact completely unsupported claims. I've said it before – you're lost.

      April 12, 2012 at 12:28 pm |
    • Really-O?

      I inadvertently hit "Post" before proofing...sorry folks.

      @Chad – "I didnt see a material difference either"

      Why would anyone expect you to see a difference? Again and again you claim to "know" things that you actually only believe (that god exists, that Jesus was resurrected, that miracles occur, that our understanding of the origin of the universe is evidence for god, that evolution only occurs under limited circu.mstances that you define with extraordinarily odd logic, etc. etc. etc.). Either by nature or training your reason is a blunt-tool that is incapable or unwilling to see nuance. That mindset is required for someone to be so co.cksure of things they cannot possibly know and assert as fact completely unsupported claims. I've said it before – you're lost.

      April 12, 2012 at 12:35 pm |
    • Levi Called Biff (Jesus's best friend)

      Really-O

      Love the Spinal Tap video, pretty much sums up Chad.

      Chad, like I said, I won't fall into the roll of teacher for you just because you have reading comprehension problems.

      April 12, 2012 at 12:58 pm |
  20. Well done CNN!

    I see no reason why this piece should upset so many. On Earth Day, does the media not discuss whether Climate Change is real? Discussion is good! You never know what you may learn.

    April 8, 2012 at 9:57 pm |
    • JD

      It's cause they make a very one-sided (albeit weak ) argument against the existence of Jesus. It really discredits them for me as a real news agency to publish something A. this one sided and B. this hollow.

      April 9, 2012 at 12:55 am |
    • Mark from Middle River

      >>>"On Earth Day, does the media not discuss whether Climate Change is real? "

      Climate Change ... there is not really any discussion but when the debate goes to the causes of Climate Change then folks like Al Gore feel that there should be absolutely no discussion on what is causing or what we should do to battle climate change.

      April 9, 2012 at 1:00 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
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.