home
RSS
First on CNN: Atheist group targets presidential candidates' faith with billboards
A billboard criticizing Christianity is going up in Charlotte, North Carolina, host city of the upcoming Democratic National Convention.
August 13th, 2012
10:03 AM ET

First on CNN: Atheist group targets presidential candidates' faith with billboards

By Dan Merica, CNN

Washington (CNN) - A prominent atheist group is using next month's Democratic National Convention to take aim at the presidential candidates' religion, putting up billboards targeting Mormonism and Christianity in Charlotte, North Carolina.

“Our political system is rife with religion and it depends too much on religion and not enough on substance," said David Silverman, president of American Atheists, sponsor of the ads.

"Religion is silly and religion has components that are inherently divisive. … There is no place for any of that in the political system,” he said.

The billboards go up Monday in Charlotte and will stay up for a month at a cost of roughly $15,000. The Democratic convention runs September 3-6.

CNN’s Belief Blog: The faith angles behind the biggest stories

The billboard targeting Christianity features an image of Jesus Christ on toast and this description of the faith: "Sadistic God; Useless Savior, 30,000+ Versions of ‘Truth,’ Promotes Hates, Calls it ‘Love.’ ”

The billboard targeting Mormonism lambastes - and, Mormons would say, distorts - specific Mormon doctrines: "God is a Space Alien, Baptizes Dead People, Big Money, Big Bigotry.”

The Mormon billboard features a man in white underwear, a reference to special Mormon garments.

Follow the CNN Belief Blog on Twitter

Both billboards feature the line "Atheism: Simply Reasonable."

American Atheists had wanted to put the anti-Mormon billboard in Tampa, Florida, to coincide with the Republican National Convention there later this month. Presumptive GOP nominee Mitt Romney is a Mormon. When no billboard company in the city would lease the group space for such a sign, Silverman said the organization decided to focus solely on the Democrats in Charlotte.

“Presidential conventions are for ideas, not ideology - platforms, not platitudes," Silverman said. "If a person believes stupid things, we have every right to question his or her judgment, and that directly impacts how the nonreligious voter votes.”

CNN Belief Blog: Atheist leader hopes to mobilize closeted nonbelievers

Some religious leaders said the billboards showed a misunderstanding of how faith works.

"That billboard makes the most common high-school error when it comes to atheism," wrote the Rev. James Martin, a Jesuit priest and author, in an e-mail to CNN. "It's not arguing against the existence of God, but against religion. The American Atheists need to go back to school on this one."

Martin also questioned the language used on the billboard: "And as for 'promoting hate' they're doing a bang-up job themselves with that billboard."

Terryl Givens, a Mormon professor at the University of Richmond, called American Atheists "petty and vindictive."

“If this example of adolescent silliness is what atheists mean by being reasonable, then neither Mormons nor other Christians have much to worry about," he said of the billboards. "When atheists organize to serve the poor and needy of the world, they will be taken more seriously."

CNN Belief Blog: Unbelieving preachers 'come out' as atheists

It's not the first time the American Atheists group has released in-your-face billboards. Earlier this year, the group put up two billboards in heavily Muslim and Jewish enclaves in New Jersey and New York bearing messages in Arabic and Hebrew.

“You know it’s a myth … and you have a choice,” the billboards said. At the time, Silverman said the signs were intended to reach atheists in Muslim and Jewish areas who may feel isolated because they are surrounded by believers.

In addition to the billboards, Silverman said his group plans to stage protests at both conventions.

- Dan Merica

Filed under: 2012 Election • Atheism • Barack Obama • Christianity • Mitt Romney • Mormonism • Politics

soundoff (7,477 Responses)
  1. PAUL

    So Say It The Shepherd!

    [youtube=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QmigBOhYTns&w=640&h=360]

    August 25, 2012 at 4:22 pm |
  2. PAUL

    So Say It The Shepard!

    [youtube=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QmigBOhYTns&w=640&h=360]

    August 25, 2012 at 4:21 pm |
    • PRISM 1234

      [youtube=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yYhXsRLaL-0&w=640&h=360]

      Oh, the depth of the riches both of wisdom and knowledge of God!
      How unsearchable are His judgments and His ways past finding out.
      He has hidden them from those who are wise in their own eyes, but revealed them to the humble and to those of broken and contrite hearts.

      August 25, 2012 at 11:43 pm |
  3. Nope!

    Atheists = losers in this life and the next

    August 25, 2012 at 12:22 pm |
    • Typo*

      *Nope! = Dope!

      August 25, 2012 at 12:25 pm |
    • Jesus Son of God

      It is not for you to judge who will lose in the next life....for if you do you will be the loser.

      J/K.....there is no "next life".

      August 25, 2012 at 12:29 pm |
    • Moby Schtick

      @Nope

      Can you really trust somebody who tortures people for a living?

      August 25, 2012 at 4:23 pm |
    • Nope!

      Nope!.... Not depended on dope!

      --------------

      We are to judge according to their fruits.

      God's word already said they are losers!

      You'd just love if we'd shut up... hm?
      Nope, won't do it!

      August 25, 2012 at 8:38 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Oh, Nope, you should definitely keep right on posting; you're especially effective as far as atheists are concerned. We enjoy seeing your posts and Ronnie's, as well. They make us look brilliant.

      August 25, 2012 at 8:43 pm |
  4. Moby Schtick

    Death threats from one human to another--how god gets things done.

    August 25, 2012 at 9:52 am |
  5. More Proof of God. Hare Krishna. Hallelujah.

    [youtube=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ELOe3f-hihc&w=640&h=360]

    Thanks, George.

    August 25, 2012 at 4:20 am |
  6. Proof of God...and Elvis lives at 1:33

    [youtube=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wBiLrZT3eno&w=640&h=360]

    August 25, 2012 at 4:13 am |
  7. Scopes' Monkey

    @red.

    Getting off work now. I will look at the paper in more detail tomorrow. I am very open to possibilities. We will see.

    August 25, 2012 at 2:26 am |
  8. Scopes' Monkey

    Yes, probability is the big problem. But one of the really odd things about life on Earth is how quickly it formed.

    August 25, 2012 at 1:34 am |
    • Scopes' Monkey

      oops

      August 25, 2012 at 1:35 am |
    • Damocles

      Hah! I do the same thing more often than I'd like. Makes me go grrrrrrrrr.

      August 25, 2012 at 1:52 am |
  9. I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

    I don't know the magic to post this link (remove the space):

    http://www.atheistbus.org .uk

    August 25, 2012 at 12:32 am |
    • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

      Ooops – reposted below.

      August 25, 2012 at 12:33 am |
  10. TheVocalAtheist

    For Immediate Release: August 23, 2012

    AMERICAN ATHEISTS REMOVES RELIGIOUS BILLBOARDS FROM CHARLOTTE

    Large Volume of Threats by Email, Phone Ends Campaign to Question Faith in Politics

    Cranford, NJ – American Atheists announced today that the billboards the organization had placed in Charlotte, NC, ahead of the Republican and Democratic National Conventions, criticizing Christianity and Mormonism would be coming down weeks early.

    “It is with regret that we tell our members and all of those who treasure free speech and the separation of religion and government that American Atheists and Adams Outdoor Advertising have mutually agreed to remove the billboards immediately,” said Amanda Knief, American Atheists’ Managing Director.

    “No subject, no idea should be above scrutiny—and this includes religion in all forms,” Ms. Knief said. “We are saddened that by choosing to express our rights as atheists through questioning the religious beliefs of the men who want to be our president that our fellow citizens have responded with vitriol, threats, and hate speech against our staff, volunteers, and Adams Outdoor Advertising.”

    Teresa MacBain, American Atheists’ Public Relations Director said, "It saddens me to think that our country is not a safe place for all people to publicly question religious belief. How can we grow as a nation when such censorship exists from our own citizens?"

    The billboards are scheduled to be removed by the end of day Thursday, August 23, 2012.

    August 25, 2012 at 12:05 am |
    • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

      @TVA,

      thanks for posting the press release here.

      I have two responses:

      1. What the hell was Silverman thinking. Did he expect, after placing anti-religious billboards in NORTH CAROLINA that there would be no backlash? These billboards were way too frontal and they they kind of had it coming to them.

      2. Free speech on the subject of religion in this country is a travesty of our 1st amendment rights. The fact that these billboards (even though they were a dumb idea) are coming down is wrong on so many levels.

      August 25, 2012 at 12:12 am |
    • TheVocalAtheist

      And it's our Christian brothers that scream persecution? This is a hate crime, pure and simple.

      August 25, 2012 at 12:17 am |
    • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

      Much like I posted many pages ago, messaging around atheism needs to be thought-provoking and positive with gentle humor – not negative like the Silverman billboards.

      This 'I reject your reality and insist on replacing it with my own' stuff doesn't work. It only attracts negative attention from good ol' boys with firearms and a poor long-term decision-making ability.

      The Brits know how to do this so much better than we do. I offer their example from the Atheist Bus Campaign:

      THERE'S PROBABLY
      NO GOD
      NOW STOP WORRYING
      AND ENJOY YOUR LIFE

      August 25, 2012 at 12:30 am |
    • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

      I don't know the magic to post this link (the space needs to be removed):

      http://www.atheistbus.org .uk

      August 25, 2012 at 12:33 am |
    • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

      @TVA,

      And it's our Christian brothers that scream persecution?

      Yes – it's unbelievable. I'm not sure about the 'hate crime' label. That get's thrown around a lot.

      Death threats or threats of violence are clearly very wrong. The most frustrating thing to me is the people who believe there is one set of standards for them and another for everyone else.

      As much as I didn't like these billboards they were no more offensive as the anti-atheist billboards that pop up all over the south.

      August 25, 2012 at 12:37 am |
    • Bill SD

      What do you expect when you mock what 90% of the population believes?

      August 25, 2012 at 12:52 am |
    • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

      @Bill SD,

      well, 24% of the population for Catholics and 1.7% for Mormons. Christians are at 78%.

      I think there are political factors involved here more than just the purely religious, but I agree with the essence of your point.

      August 25, 2012 at 12:59 am |
    • Moby Schtick

      "Death threats" Oh, it's about what I expected from believers with a god so week he can't deal with such problems on his own Does prayer work? No. Does god, in all his might and power reach down and change a few letters of the signs to change their message to one that glorifies him? No. It falls to the followers to make death threats. What a weak god; what typical, cowardly followers.

      August 25, 2012 at 8:28 am |
    • TheVocalAtheist

      @I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV
      "@TVA,

      "And it's our Christian brothers that scream persecution?"

      "Yes – it's unbelievable. I'm not sure about the 'hate crime' label. That get's thrown around a lot."

      Yes, it does get thrown around a lot (by who, yes, the religious) but I think the only difference in the crime is the way it is implemented; meaning in a physical fashion, violence, or in this instance a psychological attack insinuating a physical consequence. It is the apex of bullying without the mayhem. Couldn't we call it "attempted" hate crime, abuse, as*sault, or conspiracy to commit? That's right, it's free speech but doesn't this infringe into the ent*itlement? I am constantly amazed at how these religious organizations are getting a free pa*ss at perpetuating hate crimes. At the end of the day you have to call it what it is, a hate crime, please help me understand that it isn't.

      August 25, 2012 at 11:10 am |
    • Believer

      It's not a matter here THAT a difference in opinion was stated it was WHAT was stated. The message posted there be littles and oppresses the beliefs of not just 1 but 2 religious organizations. It's ok to voice your opinion and be different and perfectly within your rights as a citizen as long as you show respect while doing it and not discrimination.

      August 25, 2012 at 4:56 pm |
    • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

      @Believer,

      While I agree with you that these billboards wer in poor taste (and they were deliberately disrespectful) it is nonetheless protected free speech and indistinguishable from the disrespect shown atheists in billboards erected by evangelical groups.

      There should be NO double standard here.

      August 25, 2012 at 10:27 pm |
  11. Atheist B.S. Watch, a Public Service

    Richard Dawkins in a moment of "Gotcha Journalism"

    [youtube=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BoncJBrrdQ8&w=640&h=360]

    August 24, 2012 at 10:28 pm |
    • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

      This crap again?

      Really?

      August 24, 2012 at 10:31 pm |
    • Atheist B.S. Watch, a Public Service

      Oh, it's good....your arrogant, petulant, high priest putting his foot squarely in his mouth...it is beautiful....

      August 24, 2012 at 10:33 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Funny that it doesn't prove what you've been posting.

      August 24, 2012 at 10:35 pm |
    • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

      I wonder how many times this video has been linked here in this thread?

      We've seen it already.

      Atheism means disbelief in God, not proof of the non-existence of God.

      Lots of people trip over their words in an interview. Just ask your buddy Todd Akin.

      August 24, 2012 at 10:35 pm |
    • hawaiiguest

      Akin didn't trip over his words, he just accidentally said what he meant.

      August 24, 2012 at 10:37 pm |
    • hawaiiguest

      question: Is that the expelled clip? I'm at work and youtube is blocked.

      August 24, 2012 at 10:38 pm |
    • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

      @HG,

      of course he did.

      Ben Stein is a prat in this interview.

      Can't expect much more from one of Tricky Dicky "I am not a crook" Nixon's speechwriters.

      August 24, 2012 at 10:40 pm |
    • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

      @HG,

      it's the "how did the first self-replicating cell get started" ... "what about intelligent design" etc.

      August 24, 2012 at 10:42 pm |
    • Atheist B.S. Watch, a Public Service

      @tomtom:

      My other point is proven already. If you can read.

      Sorry guys, my wife just got home. I have to go. It was a girls night out and my life is going to get a lot more interesting than talking to you losers.

      August 24, 2012 at 10:43 pm |
    • hawaiiguest

      Yea people always forget about:
      1) The producers lied about the purpose of the film, and even the title of the film when they got those interviews.
      2) Heavy editing
      3) Completely dishonest reporting on the so-called "persecuted" scientists in the fillm.

      August 24, 2012 at 10:45 pm |
    • TheVocalAtheist

      I see your pus*sy-whipped? Most losers are.

      August 24, 2012 at 10:45 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      No, honey. What's been proven is that you're either an idiot or a liar, or that you're an idiotic liar.

      But then, that's nothing new, either.

      August 24, 2012 at 10:47 pm |
    • tallulah13

      If you actually watched this, what Dawkins admitted to was that perhaps aliens who evolved through Darwinian evolution seeded other planets with life they created. The big "Aha" here is that Ben Stein is as dishonest as you are, BS.

      August 24, 2012 at 10:50 pm |
    • Scopes' Monkey

      .This is actually pretty good. If intelligent design is possible...and Dawkins clearly says that it is...it should be studied. Just like panspermia is studied. It doesn't really matter who the designer is. Dawkins says it is an "intriguing possibility". LOL. He also states that the "designer" might have left his/her/it signature on the molecular level. There is no way the editing can make him say what he did. He just says it. The clip is not dishonest, it really just reveals the fundamental dishonesty in Dawkins' outspoken position against the study of intelligent design. He is a giant hypocrite.

      August 24, 2012 at 11:02 pm |
    • TheVocalAtheist

      @Scopes

      "There is no way the editing can make him say what he did"

      Really? How do you know that? Have you ever edited film and audio before? I have and ANYTHING can be done.

      August 24, 2012 at 11:18 pm |
    • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

      @monkey,

      he refers to a biochemical signature of a designer, such as an advanced alien species – not creationism masquerading as "intelligent design". Go watch Prometheus if you want the pulp sci-fi version of the idea.

      August 24, 2012 at 11:20 pm |
    • Scopes' Monkey

      If Stein doctored the clip, then Dawkins would have sued his a.ss off. He did not. Dawkins said what he said. You know it and I know it. I am not looking for any creationist story. I am not a fundamentlist. I believe in evolution by natural selection. That is not the point. Dawkins admits that intelligent design is both possible and "intriguing". If so, it sould be studied. It makes no difference if the designer was a supra intelligent alien from Alpha-Centuri or the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

      August 24, 2012 at 11:27 pm |
    • redzoa

      @Scopes – There is no positive evidence for Intelligent Design, only well-refuted negative arguments against evolution (See Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School Board transcripts). Furthermore, to my knowledge Dawkins opposes presenting "ID" as if it were a legitimate scientific theory on equal footing with the Theory of Evolution. This is different than opposing research into the hypothesis. What Dawkins and others understand is that science, at its heart, is a study of mechanism which provides predictions. ID offers no discernible mechanisms and thereby cannot offer any testable predictions. Its major proponents concede they have no means to distinguish apparent design (via evolutionary mechanisms) from actual Intelligent Design. Dawkins recognizes that ID could be possible (as any scientist must concede anything is possible), but there has been no affirmative showing by the ID camp to remotely crossover from possible to plausible, let alone, from possible to probable. There is no hypocrisy in pointing out these types of distinctions between ID and evolutionary theory.

      August 24, 2012 at 11:36 pm |
    • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

      @Scopes' monkey,

      The tape is edited a lot. I don't necessarily think the key bits of Dawkins audio were changed. There is clearly a lot of editing including all the Ben Stein voice-over, sound track etc. While the voice over is going, Dawkins is still speaking but you can't hear it.

      Dawkins' says "that designer could well be a higher intelligence from elsewhere in the universe" around 1:30. While it uses the same words, it does not mean what "Intelligent Design" means in terms of "Intelligent Design" curricula. Plus the topic is life on earth – not life in the universe.

      I don't see this as a big "ah hah" in any way – as you say it still supposes evolution.

      Disbelief in God is not proof of the non-existence of God.

      August 24, 2012 at 11:40 pm |
    • TheVocalAtheist

      Expelled:

      The general media response to the film has been largely unfavorable. It has been described as a propaganda film. It received an 8% meta-score from Rotten Tomatoes (later improved to 9% overall) where the film was summarized thus: "Full of patronizing, poorly structured arguments, Expelled is a cynical political stunt in the guise of a docu*mentary." Multiple reviews, including those of USA Today and Scientific American, have described the film as propaganda. The Chicago Tribune's rating was "1 star (poor)", while The New York Times described it as "a conspiracy-theory rant masquerading as investigative inquiry" and "an unprincipled propaganda piece that insults believers and nonbelievers alike." Christianity Today gave the film a positive review.

      The American As*sociation for the Advancement of Science describes the film as dishonest and divisive propaganda, aimed at introducing religious ideas into public school science clas*srooms. The film has been used in private screenings to legislators as part of the Discovery Inst*itute intelligent design campaign for Academic Freedom bills.

      In 2011, Premise Media Holdings LP, the company that produced the Expelled, declared bankruptcy and auctioned the rights to the movie. In June it was sold for $201,000 to Walt Ruloff and his as*sociates, who were the original producers of Expelled.

      August 24, 2012 at 11:41 pm |
    • Scopes' Monkey

      I am not suggesting that ID should be placed into Biology texts, except maybe as an aside. I am a Deist and I believe that abiogenesis will eventually...maybe...solve the mystery of life's origin's. It is still very difficult, though. The complexity and information richness necessary for a self replicating molecule is, at this point, very difficult to assign to chance...even in a universe as large as ours. I believe that Dawkins IS being very hypocritical, though. ID is a possibility. There is just no way around it.

      August 24, 2012 at 11:47 pm |
    • TheVocalAtheist

      @Monkey

      "I am not suggesting that ID should be placed into Biology texts, except maybe as an aside"

      It sounds like you ARE suggesting that ID should be placed into Biology texts, doesn't it? Not going to happen. Nice try but no cigar!

      August 24, 2012 at 11:52 pm |
    • Scopes' Monkey

      I am not beating a drum here. ID is a possibility. Everyone knows it. The only ones who don't admit it are the Atheists who are not just "without belief", but will not admit even the possibility of a universal intelligence. There are such unfortunates. Science is running into some pretty serious walls, both cosmologically and in the realm of quantum mechanics and biology.

      August 25, 2012 at 12:03 am |
    • Damocles

      @scope

      Ok, so we have this 'designer of the universe', who would have to be an incredibly complex thing to bring it all about. How much more complex would the designer of the designer have to be? And then you have to consider the designer of the designer of the designer. How much complexity is too much?

      August 25, 2012 at 12:12 am |
    • Scopes' Monkey

      I think Shiva has been dancing for eternity. And I am not a Hindu.

      August 25, 2012 at 12:15 am |
    • redzoa

      @Scopes – It is not hypocritical to reiterate that ID has no positive supporting evidence and that, as its proposed mechanism is supernatural and indistinguishable from natural mechanisms, there is no viable means to scientifically investigate the hypothesis. In other words, ID proponents do not (because they cannot) conduct research which could support its hypothesis. Rather, ID attempts to foster scientifically-veiled arguments of incredulity against well-established evolutionary mechanisms.

      Again it's a leap from "possible" to "plausible" and still further to "probable." Combine this with the other reality that ID, as it is currently advocated, is openly a product of a priori religious belief and is the direct continuation of failed attempts to introduce "creation science" into science classrooms. ID is apologetics, not science and was found as such at the Kitzmiller trial. Lastly, what you personally find to be improbable is frankly irrelevant. One need only trace the history of science to find that what was once unimaginable is now common knowledge. But in each case, the path has been from "possible" to "plausible" to "probable" natural mechanisms with accompanying validated predictions. Abiogenesis is currently in the "plausible" stage of research with plenty of supporting physical evidence; however, it is still admittedly far from the "probable" stage. ID remains hopelessly mired in the "possible" stage for the reasons previously mentioned.

      August 25, 2012 at 12:17 am |
    • Damocles

      @scope

      So if I'm reading you correctly, you stop at one intelligent agent for the creation of the universe. This is a problem I have with ID proponents... a created thing has to have a creator, as they like to trumpet, yet they are unwilling to consider that their creator would also need a creator.

      August 25, 2012 at 12:24 am |
    • Scopes' Monkey

      Actually, abiogenisis is, at this point, more a leap of faith than anything else. It is spontaneous generation with a fancy name and a slightly longer timeline. The great assumption of empirisists is that eventually all phenomeon will be explainable mechanically. It is almost certainly not going to happen in physics or cosmology. The onion is disappearing. Biology? We will see.

      August 25, 2012 at 12:31 am |
    • b4bigbang

      @Damocles: I understand your line of reasoning for thinking that a creator needs a creator; this line of reasoning apparently assumes that there has to be a cause for every effect, even for God right?

      I've heard this line of reasoning before, and indeed, I thought this way before I learned theology.

      You do realize that one of the principal tenets of God-belief is that the eternality of God solves the problem of there needing to be a first cause right?

      August 25, 2012 at 12:31 am |
    • redzoa

      @Scopes – To call abiogenesis a leap of faith and compare it to Spontaneous Generation betrays a poor understanding of the two distinct concepts and further betrays minimal (if any) familiarity with the actual research. Again, you confuse your personal incredulity with what the science can and does tell us.

      August 25, 2012 at 12:36 am |
    • Scopes' Monkey

      @damo:
      No. I believe the cosmos has always existed and always will. It is illogical in the extreme.... it must be one way or another. If it arose ex nihilo it is illogical. If it is eternal it is illogical. Pick your poison. You are trying to explain the illogical with logic...pretty difficult stuff for a primate.

      August 25, 2012 at 12:36 am |
    • redzoa

      @b4bigbang – Isn't this just "special pleading" in the guise of definitional fiat?

      August 25, 2012 at 12:37 am |
    • Damocles

      @b4

      It may solve the issue of having to think about a creator needing a creator, but do I think its a good thing? No.

      Look, if you don't require a creator for your deity, why do you require one for the universe?

      August 25, 2012 at 12:42 am |
    • Scopes' Monkey

      @red:
      There are serious problems with abiogenesis unless there are unknown chemical laws in the cosmos. This seems unlikely.

      August 25, 2012 at 12:43 am |
    • b4bigbang

      redzoa: "@b4bigbang – Isn't this just "special pleading" in the guise of definitional fiat?"

      How so? Could you elaborate a little?

      August 25, 2012 at 12:44 am |
    • b4bigbang

      Look, if you don't require a creator for your deity, why do you require one for the universe?

      The 'Abrahamic religion' answer is because the same writings that tell us that the Creator is eternal/uncreated also tells us that he created the universe.

      The philosophical advantage to all this is that it solves the problem of 1st cause for time, the universe, everything.

      August 25, 2012 at 12:48 am |
    • Damocles

      @scope

      So you take an illogic thing (an eternal universe) and tack on more illogic (a necessarily eternal being to create an eternal universe)? How does that work?

      August 25, 2012 at 12:50 am |
    • redzoa

      @Scopes – Yes, there are unanswered questions, but if you actually cared enough to review the literature, you will find that answers have been and are continually forthcoming. See for example: Budin and Szostak. Expanding Roles for Diverse Physical Phenomena During the Origin of Life. Annu. Rev. Biophys. 2010. 39:245-63. There are "problems" with every scientific investigative process, but again, you confuse your incredulity with what is actually transpiring in this area of research.

      August 25, 2012 at 12:54 am |
    • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

      Given that species like Riftia pachyptila the tube worms that live around 'black smoker' deep submarine vents in a remote, unbelievably hostile environment seems to lessen the improbability of abiogeneis to me.

      They are there. I presume God doesn't come along and plant new ones when a new vent opens. I'm not saying that they spontaneously form around each new vent – frankly I have no idea how they get there but "God did it" is not a satisfactory answer to me.

      Stromatolites are hardly the most complex of organisms and I don't think most of us have any real comprehension of what a billion years really means as a unit of time. I certainly don't. (I know how many zeros it is – that's not what I am saying.)

      Dinosaurs lived 100M years ago, and that's only one tenth of a billion. We're working with 14.5B years here – perhaps 4B years for surface water, so 3.5B years for Stromatolites seems plausible to me.

      August 25, 2012 at 12:54 am |
    • Scopes' Monkey

      @damo:

      It works because they are the same thing.

      August 25, 2012 at 12:56 am |
    • Damocles

      @b4

      See, it all falls apart. If your deity exsisted before ANYTHING else... stars, planets, good, evil how could it make anything without the memories of creation? You have to have some kind of knowledge about things to do them. A one of a kind, eternal being would have no knowledge of anything. It probably wouldn't be aware it exsists.

      August 25, 2012 at 1:01 am |
    • redzoa

      @b4bigbang – "Special Pleading" in the sense that a premise is asserted (everything has a cause) but that their position is exempted from the premise. "Definitional Fiat" in the sense that one arbitrarily declares something. In other words, as Damocles pointed out, the argument by design relies on the premise that complex things require a creator. God is a complex thing, therefore, under the premise, God too would require a creator. The "Special Pleading" is that God is (by "Definitional Fiat") exempted from this rule.

      August 25, 2012 at 1:03 am |
    • Damocles

      @I'm not etc etc

      Yes, I have always felt that the large amounts of time involved make it hard for people to understand. Many people can't remember what happened to them last week. It is hard to graps the concept of millions and billions of years.

      August 25, 2012 at 1:04 am |
    • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

      Sorry – I messed up the dates there: 4.5BYA for the formation of the earth. I don't know where the extra ten came from.

      August 25, 2012 at 1:05 am |
    • Damocles

      @scope

      If you try to make the case that anything created needs a creator, you can't single out your deity as immune to that rule.

      August 25, 2012 at 1:07 am |
    • Scopes' Monkey

      @gop and red:

      Extremophiles are fascinating, of course, but hardly are proof of abiogenesis. When an extremophile with a different DNA structure is found...now that will be something. It has not happened yet, though.

      The problems with abiogenesis are much more fundamental than those of most theories. If there were any other "possibilities" allowed, abiogenesis would probably not be taken seriously. The problems are in the fundamental laws of chemistry.

      August 25, 2012 at 1:07 am |
    • b4bigbang

      Damocles: "@b4See, it all falls apart. If your deity exsisted before ANYTHING else... stars, planets, good, evil how could it make anything without the memories of creation? You have to have some kind of knowledge about things to do them. A one of a kind, eternal being would have no knowledge of anything. It probably wouldn't be aware it exsists."

      That would be the case if not for the attribute of God known as omniscience. This idea doesn't limit God to knowing all things after they happen, but rather knowing all things before they happen.

      I'm only telling you how it is that we believe these things – not arguing its truthfullnes.

      August 25, 2012 at 1:09 am |
    • redzoa

      @Scope – Please explain what you mean by problems in the fundamental laws of chemistry. To my knowledge, all abiogenesis research is focused on simulating naturally occurring environments predicted to have existed ~500 million yrs after the formation of the earth and yielding pre-cursor biomolecules in appropriate concentrations, with appropriate chirality with sufficient longevity to interact with other pre-cursor biomolecules. I know of no work which requires bending fundamental laws of chemistry.

      August 25, 2012 at 1:13 am |
    • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

      @scopes'

      "The problems are in the fundamental laws of chemistry."

      Granted: the right concentrations of the right elements in the right place to combine in the right way.

      It is easy to recognize the appeal of a deist solution. Einstein did with Spinoza's God.

      August 25, 2012 at 1:17 am |
    • b4bigbang

      redzoa

      @b4bigbang – "Special Pleading" in the sense that a premise is asserted (everything has a cause) but that their position is exempted from the premise. "Definitional Fiat" in the sense that one arbitrarily declares something. In other words, as Damocles pointed out, the argument by design relies on the premise that complex things require a creator. God is a complex thing, therefore, under the premise, God too would require a creator. The "Special Pleading" is that God is (by "Definitional Fiat") exempted from this rule.

      That would be true in this case if it were not for the fact that we're discussing religion/theology. I'm certainly nowhere near an expert in the field of Logic, neither do I have an expert's knowledge of its history [the furthest back in logic-history we went in my Critical thinking 101 class was the ancient Greeks], but I suspect that belief in God/gods occurred before Logic as a science was invented.

      I'm not sure that everything has to be logically sound in order to have happened or be true.
      I'm also not sure if all the rules of Logic have been discovered or invented at this time.

      August 25, 2012 at 1:19 am |
    • Scopes' Monkey

      The necessary information rich complexity of the simplest conceivable form of self replicating molecule is almost impossible to have formed "accidently". It is just too difficult to put a strand of molecules that long together perfectly and by mere chance. Unless there is some chemical law that mitigates toward it.

      August 25, 2012 at 1:19 am |
    • Damocles

      @b4

      What you describe is an everything and nothing type being. It could not develop feelings of anything because it has no opposing viewpoints on anything.

      August 25, 2012 at 1:25 am |
    • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

      @damocles,

      As I understand it, it's a probablity problem more than anything else. The simplest single celled organisms are still very complex chemically. We need long chains of amino acids to form nucleotides and ultimately RNA and DNA.

      Once the cellular 'engine' is there, it's much easier.

      August 25, 2012 at 1:25 am |
    • Damocles

      @I'm not

      Yes and this is the problem that arises with 'time'. Time breaks down to parts... half seconds and so on, down to some rediculously small number and beyond. Now, in all those parts of seconds, how many probabilities come to fruition?

      August 25, 2012 at 1:33 am |
    • b4bigbang

      "...develop feelings of anything because it has no opposing viewpoints on anything."

      Firstly, another attribute of God [according to theology] is known as self-sufficiency which means that God has never needed to develop and never will. This is tied into another attribute known as 'immutability' which means that God has never changed [in his essence] and never will change.

      The problem you're having wrapping you mind around this is that you're attempting to 'figure God out' by using human logic. Logic and science works great with understanding the creation but fails miserably when applied to attempts to figure God out.

      In fact, the Bible says that God is 'past finding out', meaning that very little is known of him even from the Scriptures.

      This makes perfect sense, as a being with these infinite attributes would necessarily be this way to our finite understanding.

      August 25, 2012 at 1:34 am |
    • Scopes' Monkey

      Yes, probability is the big problem. But one of the really odd things about life on Earth is how quickly it formed after the earth was cool enough to permit stable organic molecules to form.

      August 25, 2012 at 1:38 am |
    • Damocles

      @b4

      If a being is self-sufficient, meaning able to sustain itself by itself, there is no need to create anything. If it is 'everything' it requires nothing. It seeks no justification because it has already justified itself. If this being actually exsisted, you wouldn't be able to describe it, at all. How could you?

      August 25, 2012 at 1:42 am |
    • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

      @Damocles,

      agreed – there are an awful lot of seconds in 500M years (4MYA – surface water to 3.5MYA Stromatolites).

      Once the cellular engine exists, reproduction is unbelievably rapid.

      We could look at human population growth as an analog of reproduction. Humans have more than doubled in the 60 years from 2.55B in 1950 to 7B today and that's despite huge impacts like famines in China early after the middle of the 20th century.

      August 25, 2012 at 1:42 am |
    • Damocles

      @scope

      That only becomes odd if we find out on other planets that life takes longer to develop there. We could end up finding out that life on earth developed at an appallingly slow pace compared to other planets. We can only say that life to roughly X amount of time to develop here, we can't say if its odd or not.

      August 25, 2012 at 1:45 am |
    • Damocles

      @I'm not

      Yes I'm always amazed at humanity's ability to bounce back.

      August 25, 2012 at 1:49 am |
    • b4bigbang

      Damocles: "@b4If a being is self-sufficient, meaning able to sustain itself by itself, there is no need to create anything.
      Exactly. Theology says that God created as an act of love, condescending to create all.

      If it is 'everything' it requires nothing.
      Again correct!

      It seeks no justification because it has already justified itself.
      Correct again!

      If this being actually exsisted, you wouldn't be able to describe it, at all. How could you?"

      Correct yet again – a grand-slam! We know pretty much nothing about God's essence, we don't even know his name (apart from the Earthly name [Jesus] he took in his incarnation).

      August 25, 2012 at 1:52 am |
    • *facepalm*

      @b4 – the being you describe is not the deity described in the bible. The bible calls Yahweh jealous, angry, and vengeful. Those traits are entirely inconsistent with what you describe. How do you reconcile that?

      And why in the world would the creator of the universe get jealous over some supposedly non-existent mythological being?

      Worship your deity or get eternally tortured. That doesn't sound like a very confident or secure being to me. More like a sadistic, narcissistic tortured and neglected teenager who enjoys pulling the wings off of flies.

      August 25, 2012 at 1:56 am |
    • Scopes' Monkey

      No. It would be very odd if the necessary molecules formed in the necessary sequence and chirality strictly by chance that quickly. It would be very odd indeed. It would almost be impossible. If it did happen that quickly, the universe should be teeming with life. We should see evidence of advanced civilizations everwhere we look in the sky. We don't.

      August 25, 2012 at 1:59 am |
    • Damocles

      @b4

      What act of love? How does this thing know love? It certainly couldn't experience it. Forms, be they emotional or physical, would be anathema to it.

      August 25, 2012 at 2:01 am |
    • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

      From a purely mathematical position, even with the horrors of ~70M people that were killed before mid-Century during WW2, that still would only have affected the third most significant figure in the total population and the world population actually grew by 200M between 1940 and 1950.

      Plus, a percentage of those war casualties reproduced and many of them would be dead by now even if their life had not been cut short.

      The multiplier effect of reproduction is pretty amazing.

      August 25, 2012 at 2:02 am |
    • Damocles

      @scope

      Yes, Ive heard the whole 'universe should be overflowing with intelligent life' thing. It makes me chuckle that we think life leads to what we call 'intelligence'. We get flummoxed when we don't hear 10,000 species trying to talk to us. I think that the more that emotions and 'intelligence' come into play, the less likely it is that a species will thrive.

      August 25, 2012 at 2:05 am |
    • b4bigbang

      Damocles:@b4What act of love?

      The act of creating is considered an act of love in this case.

      How does this thing know love? It certainly couldn't experience it.
      Remember, God is omniscient. Furthermore, all things came from him.

      Forms, be they emotional or physical, would be anathema to it."

      Only if he wanted them to be anathema to himself.

      August 25, 2012 at 2:06 am |
    • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

      We should see evidence of advanced civilizations everwhere we look in the sky. We don't.
      The Fermi Paradox is an interesting observation.

      Clearly we don't *know* what it means – yet.

      August 25, 2012 at 2:07 am |
    • redzoa

      @Scopes – Please take a look at the referenced paper above. It is free available by searching PubMed. Your argument is still one of incredulity, not of any violation of chemical laws. The incredulity appears to result from teleological thinking and a misconception that a given functionality (including information storage) must be wholly present in the first incarnation of a pre-cursor biomolecule and ignores known processes like co-option, combinatorial chemistry, etc. Although only proof of concept, it has been demonstrated that in vitro evolution can yield cross self-replicating RNA species. We know that large pools of randomly assembled RNA molecules applied to some functional selection filter will invariably yield interesting and unique functionalities ranging from highly specific binding to autocatalysis. Contrary to your claim, the early pre-cursors need not have been impossibly large or "specifically" assembled.

      August 25, 2012 at 2:12 am |
    • b4bigbang

      Oops, getting kicked off the pc, but will be back in an hour or so....

      August 25, 2012 at 2:14 am |
    • Damocles

      @b4

      Just because I can make a shiv, doesn't mean I'm doing it for love. I feel like I'm playing the kid's game 'why' with you b4.

      August 25, 2012 at 2:18 am |
    • Scopes' Monkey

      To paraphrase Herman Melville: everything's weird, ain't it?

      August 25, 2012 at 2:18 am |
    • Scopes' Monkey

      Getting off work now. I will look at the paper in more detail tomorrow. I am very open to possibilities. We will see.

      August 25, 2012 at 2:27 am |
    • Mass Debater

      "How does this thing know love? It certainly couldn't experience it.
      Remember, God is omniscient. Furthermore, all things came from him."

      I love this kind of statement from believers. "Remember, God is omniscient"... as if an atheist is going to hear that and think "Oh yeah, I forgot, God is omniscient, all powerful and everywhere and can do anything, gosh, I guess that just proves anything I have to say wrong..."

      It's like saying "Remember, Genie's in bottle's can always grant three wishes, but you can't ever ask for more wishes or you will lose them all. It's just common sense..."

      August 25, 2012 at 8:48 pm |
    • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

      @b4bigbang

      The act of creating is considered an act of love in this case.

      [youtube=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zO6D_BAuYCI&w=640&h=360]

      ...
      I gotta be cool relax, get hip
      Get on my track's
      Take a back seat, hitch-hike
      And take a long ride on my motor bike
      Until I'm ready (Ready Freddie)
      Crazy little thing called love

      This thing called love I just can't handle it
      this thing called love I must get round to it
      I ain't ready
      Crazy little thing called love
      Crazy little thing called love
      ....

      August 25, 2012 at 11:39 pm |
  12. Atheist B.S. Watch, a Public Service

    From Discover Magazine 4/13/2010:

    Are Top Scientists Really So Atheistic? Look at the Data

    by Chris Mooney

    Elaine Howard Ecklund is a sociologist at Rice University; we cited her work on the topic of science and religion in Unscientific America. Now, she is out with a book that is going to seriously undercut some widespread as.sumptions out there concerning the science religion relationship.

    The book, soon to be out from Oxford University press, is ent.itled Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really Think. And let me give you just a taste of her answers, from the book jacket (I haven’t dug in yet):

    In the course of her research, Ecklund surveyed nearly 1,700 scientists and interviewed 275 of them. She finds that most of what we believe about the faith lives of elite scientists is wrong. Nearly 50 percent of them are religious. Many others are what she calls “spiritual entrepreneurs,” seeking creative ways to work with the tensions between science and faith outside the constraints of traditional religion…..only a small minority are actively hostile to religion. Ecklund reveals how scientists–believers and skeptics alike–are struggling to engage the increasing number of religious students in their classrooms and argues that many scientists are searching for “boundary pioneers” to cross the picket lines separating science and religion.
    Incidentally, the universities whose scientists were surveyed for the book are: Columbia, Cornell, Duke, Harvard, Johns Hopkins, MIT, Princeton, Stanford, Penn, U.C. Berkeley, UCLA, U. of Chicago, University of Illinois-Urbana Champaign, U. Michigan, U. Minnesota, UNC Chapel Hill, U. Washington-Seattle, U. Wisconsin-Madison, U.S.C., Washington University, and Yale.

    August 24, 2012 at 10:00 pm |
    • TheVocalAtheist

      She is the director of the Religion and Public Life Program

      August 24, 2012 at 10:11 pm |
    • Atheist B.S. Watch, a Public Service

      Sooooooooooooooooo?

      Her data matches perfectly with the Pew research data. Over 70% of US scientists believe in a higher power, a supreme intelligence. They ACTIVELY believe in it.

      August 24, 2012 at 10:17 pm |
    • hawaiiguest

      @Atheist B.S Watch

      1) Link to the site so that others can confirm your information
      2) So fucking what?

      August 24, 2012 at 10:19 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      What qualifies as a "higher power", BS? What sort of "higher power" was being identified? How many of the scientists belong to an organized religion? How many are Christians?

      By the way, where's that list you promised me? Figured out who Poulenc was yet?

      August 24, 2012 at 10:23 pm |
    • TheVocalAtheist

      Did you read her blogs on the Huffington Post? She assumes a lot and guesses and is religiously biased. I'm extremely skeptical of her agenda.

      August 24, 2012 at 10:25 pm |
    • Atheist B.S. Watch, a Public Service

      Richard Dawkins types are an aberration in science, not the norm.

      August 24, 2012 at 10:26 pm |
    • mfsbt

      tommy who the f cares about your stupid reference to some 19th century french composer GOD you are boring

      August 24, 2012 at 10:27 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Do tell. And you know this how, exactly? Got anything to back up this claim?

      Still haven't seen an answer as to what qualified as a "higher power" in this study. When are you going to provide that niggling little detail?

      August 24, 2012 at 10:28 pm |
    • hawaiiguest

      @Atheist B.S. Watch, a Public Service

      Awww whats wrong little troll? Unable to actually answer questions posed to you? Unable to even provide a link to your (probably non-existent) sources?

      August 24, 2012 at 10:28 pm |
    • TheVocalAtheist

      Will you please get to the fu*cking point? What is it that you are trying to prove or say? Just make it clear.

      August 24, 2012 at 10:28 pm |
    • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

      @B.S.

      how do you turn the statement in your quote:
      "Nearly 50 percent of them are religious."

      Into 70%? Math is not your strong suit is it?

      August 24, 2012 at 10:29 pm |
    • hawaiiguest

      @I'm Not A GOPer

      I think a more accurate word would be reality is not his strong suit.

      August 24, 2012 at 10:31 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      And yes to what HG asked. What do you think your statistics, if they're valid, mean? As it stands, it's already abundantly clear that the percentage of scientists who believe is lower than the percentage of the general population who believe.

      Doesn't seem like that statistic is exactly proving what you seem to think it is.

      August 24, 2012 at 10:32 pm |
    • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

      @B.S.

      I'm going to post this again, since you moved to a new thread further up the page.

      Sorry Charlie, this is a fail:
      "72% of AAAS members are not Atheists or Agnostics. They believe in some higher power. It is very easy to understand."

      Look here at the source of 'your' data:
      http://www.pewforum.org/Science-and-Bioethics/Scientists-and-Belief.aspx

      Scientists who believe in God ................... 33%
      Scientists who believe in a higher Spirit ... 18%
      Scientists who believe in NEITHER: ............41%
      Don't know / Refused to answer ...............07%

      Want to try your assertion again?

      August 24, 2012 at 10:33 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Other One

      If God does not answer questions then God is not relevant.

      August 24, 2012 at 10:35 pm |
    • Atheist B.S. Watch, a Public Service

      Anyone can go to the site and read the data for themselves....my numbers are available on the site....the difference in figures is simply in semantics. 72% of US scientists are neither athesit nor agnostic. Most of you parrots have been B.S. ing the world with the 93% atheist/agnostic figure for weeks...

      August 24, 2012 at 10:38 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Oh? So now you're BSing back? Is that what this is? A p!ssing match?

      You still have not identified what sort of "higher power" your survey was describing. Why is that?

      August 24, 2012 at 10:40 pm |
    • hawaiiguest

      I'd like to see the stats on what percentage of those scientists have degrees from schools like the ones on this site

      http://www.nwcreation.net/colleges.html

      August 24, 2012 at 10:41 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      No, honey. What's been proven is that you're either an idiot or a liar, or that you're an idiotic liar.

      But then, that's nothing new, either.

      August 24, 2012 at 10:45 pm |
    • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

      @B.S.

      "Most of you parrots have been B.S. ing the world with the 93% atheist/agnostic figure for weeks.."

      Doubtless someone has claimed 93%. I certainly didn't. I would say that is probably wrong.

      What is the most significant thing about the Pew Forum data is that scientists are 10 TIMES more likely to not believe in God than a general public that is *overwhelmingly* theist. I think that still says something really significant.

      August 24, 2012 at 10:45 pm |
    • Boot

      You can't change facts from being facts no matter how many people can't handle the facts.
      Your statistics don't mean sht.

      Scientific facts are not determined by any popularity contest.
      Just because someone might be religious as well as a scientist neither supports religion nor nullifies science.
      You are surely one of the stupidest fundies I have ever seen on the internet.

      The truth is not something you get to vote on, or choose. No matter how many people believe a lie, it remains a lie and not the truth. There is no god, no proof of one, and no reason to even suggest that one might exist beyond the schizophrenic ravings of a bunch of normal, everyday lunatics like you.
      Delusions aren't worth risking your life or your soul over, son.
      Put your hands where we can see them and step away from the computer.
      Your statistics don't mean shit where reality is concerned.
      A poll measures opinion. Science is used to determine the reality around you. Religion makes you talk to your invisible friend in your head.
      Try to keep up.

      August 24, 2012 at 10:48 pm |
    • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

      @HG,

      what's really funny about this list:
      http://www.nwcreation.net/colleges.html

      is that even the really right-wing liberal arts/seminary schools like "Wheaton College" are not on that list.

      August 24, 2012 at 10:48 pm |
    • hawaiiguest

      I know, weird isn't it. Then again, this is specifically "creationist science" schools.

      August 24, 2012 at 10:51 pm |
    • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

      @HG,

      even Berry College, the home of S. Truett Cathy / WinShape (aka Chik-fil A) scholarships is not on that list of goofy creation schools.

      August 24, 2012 at 10:52 pm |
    • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

      One of the other interesting things in the Pew data here:
      http://www.pewforum.org/Science-and-Bioethics/Scientists-and-Belief.aspx

      is that Jews, who represent only 1.7% of the general public, represent 8% of scientists. It's not quite as big a increase (5X)as for non-believers (10X), but consistent with observations you could make about the history of Nobel prize winners in science.

      The pont is that representation of Jews in science increases while Catholics and particularly Evangelical Protestants* decrease.

      * From the biggest group in the general population at 28% to just 4% of scienists. Clearly science is ant'thetical to Evangelical Protestants. (Not that we didn't already know that, but it is obvious in the data.)

      August 24, 2012 at 11:05 pm |
    • *facepalm*

      The 93% is the figure often (accurately) quoted that reflects the non beliefs of the members of the national academy of sciences. That is, the most educated and respected scientists are usually the least religious. Figures that quote that 70% of 'scientists' have a belief in god usually take a fairly liberal view of who gets the label of scientist and nearly always includes, for example, the social sciences. When one looks at the religious beliefs of those who study the natural sciences – biologists, physicists, astronomers, chemists, etc., the number is always significantly lower.

      August 25, 2012 at 1:50 am |
  13. Atheism is not healthy for children and other living things

    Prayer changes things*

    August 24, 2012 at 9:51 pm |
    • Observer

      Neither was God if you weren't one of the ONLY 8 survivors of the Flood he caused.

      August 24, 2012 at 9:54 pm |
    • Ronald Regonzo

      Execute the guilty reward the good no problem.

      August 24, 2012 at 10:12 pm |
    • Observer

      Ronald Regonzo,

      So God so badly misjudged how his work would turn out that he ended up scrapping all but 8 of the humans he made in his image. If he was evaluated for his job performance, God would likely have been fired. His percentage of defective products was huge.

      August 24, 2012 at 11:57 pm |
    • Ronald Regonzo

      @observer
      You really should not try thinking for others, you aren't that good at it yourself. Guilty punished no problem. For all we know your parents could have been normal decent people who tried their best. They are not at fault for how you are.

      August 25, 2012 at 2:28 pm |
  14. mfsbt

    just amused

    August 24, 2012 at 9:49 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Sure.

      August 24, 2012 at 9:50 pm |
    • che

      word

      August 24, 2012 at 10:01 pm |
  15. Atheist B.S. Watch, a Public Service

    2009 Pew Research poll of scientists religious beliefs:

    Mainline Protestant: 16%
    Catholic: 10%
    Jewish: 8%
    Evangelical Protestant: 4%
    Other religion: 10%
    Refused to answer: 4%
    Nothing in particular: 20%
    Agnostic: 11%
    Atheist: 17%

    1 Discussion of the beliefs of scientists is based on a survey of members of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), which partnered with the Pew Research Center on the survey. AAAS is the world's largest general scientific society and includes members representing all scientific fields. However, the survey of AAAS members may not be representative of all scientists in the U.S.

    72% of U.S. scientists believe in some form of "SKY FAIRY" !!!!..or maybe they believe in Odin or Zeus or the Flying Spaghetti Monster...many of them actually put much credence in the "myths" of Bronze Age goat herders. But the A.Hole young Atheists on this thread know BETTER. Anyone who believes in such things is an ID.IOT. Can you say P.U.N.K.S. ?

    August 24, 2012 at 8:26 pm |
    • Gadflie

      A more interesting statistic. If the rapture would happen today, the prisons would almost totally clear out (95%+ profess themselves Christians) and the members of the National Academies of Science would pretty much all still hang around (93% consider themselves agnostic or atheist).

      August 24, 2012 at 8:58 pm |
    • Atheist B.S. Watch, a Public Service

      Can you not read, I.D.I.O.T. ? The poll above is of AAAS members. 17% are Atheist. An Agnostic is NOT an Atheist.

      August 24, 2012 at 9:12 pm |
    • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

      An agnostic does not claim knowledge.

      An atheist does not believe.

      They are not mutually exclusive.

      August 24, 2012 at 9:20 pm |
    • TheVocalAtheist

      Atheists and Agnostics now more about the bible and it's contents than the religious, statistically proven.

      August 24, 2012 at 9:25 pm |
    • TheVocalAtheist

      now = know

      August 24, 2012 at 9:29 pm |
    • Atheist B.S. Watch, a Public Service

      So What? Polly Want a Cra.cker? Polly Want a Crac.ker?

      August 24, 2012 at 9:30 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Hey, Atheist Watch, did you finally get off your can and figure out that there are and were numerous artists who were or are atheists?

      Or are you going to post your inane and disingenuous question about it yet again?

      August 24, 2012 at 9:32 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      I don't think that everyone who believes in a god is an idiot. But I can certainly see that YOU are one.

      August 24, 2012 at 9:33 pm |
    • TheVocalAtheist

      "So What?"

      So, we know more about the bible than you do, we didn't just take it on faith and face value to be true. We actually use our mind and our brains to question what is real and what isn't. Do you have an education?

      August 24, 2012 at 9:35 pm |
    • Atheist B.S. Watch, a Public Service

      No. What I found out was that practically every figure you mentioned was a Deist of some sort and NOT an Atheist. Atheists love to try to claim anyone with unorthodox beliefs as an Atheist....and wouldn't you? The list of "great" Athesits in any field is pitifully small.

      August 24, 2012 at 9:36 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      I call complete bullish!t. Back up your claim and prove that the composers I cited were all deists. Go ahead, you little phony. I can wait.

      August 24, 2012 at 9:37 pm |
    • Atheist B.S. Watch, a Public Service

      @vocal: You are calling 72% of US scientists, members of AAAS I.D.I.O.T.S.

      You are a pompous windbag who is probably attending community college somewhere.... if you are out of high school.

      August 24, 2012 at 9:38 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      I doubt you are even familiar with many composers other than the most famous. Ever hear of Poulenc? When he was on his deathbed and the priest asked him about his faith, he said he was a pianist.

      You're a complete fraud, you dimwit.

      August 24, 2012 at 9:40 pm |
    • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

      @B.S.

      given that for centuries Abrahamists have been executing anyone who professes the heresy of unbelief, that's hardly surprising now isn't it?

      It's nice to live in a country with guaranteed freedom of and from religion.

      August 24, 2012 at 9:40 pm |
    • TheVocalAtheist

      Now that I think about it, wouldn't your God have to be an atheist in theory?

      August 24, 2012 at 9:41 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      I'm betting community college was your last hope.

      August 24, 2012 at 9:41 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Other One

      What the Pew Research Center actually found:

      A poll of scientists who are members of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, conducted by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press in May and June 2009, found that 51% of scientists believe in God or a higher power. That figure is far below the 95% of the American public that professes such belief, according to a Pew Research Center survey of the general public conducted in July 2006.

      http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1399/religion-and-science

      BTW, the AAAS is not at all an exclusive body.

      August 24, 2012 at 9:44 pm |
    • mfsbt

      Looks like community college worked for you Tom Tom – you can spell!

      August 24, 2012 at 9:45 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Aww, what's the matter, honey? Did I hurt your little feelings again?

      August 24, 2012 at 9:47 pm |
    • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

      @TTTOO,

      here's the detail page:

      http://www.pewforum.org/Science-and-Bioethics/Scientists-and-Belief.aspx

      I didn't thoroughly check, but it squares with the data B.S. ripped off from yesterdays post (p58).

      August 24, 2012 at 9:48 pm |
    • Atheist B.S. Watch, a Public Service

      According to a recent study published in The American Journal of Psychiatry religious affiliation is associated with significantly lower levels of suicide compared to religiously unaffiliated people, atheists and agnostics. Source: Kanita Dervic, Maria A. Oquendo, Michael F. Grunebaum, Steve Ellis, Ainsley K. Burke, and J. John Mann. "Religious Affiliation and Suicide Attempt" (161:2303-2308, December 2004).

      Go ahead, boys. Take the plunge now, don't wait till you are old and bitter and alone...your lives are meaningless anyway...

      August 24, 2012 at 9:49 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Other One

      Now, if you want to look at the upper echelons of science:

      Our chosen group of "greater" scientists were members of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS). Our survey found near universal rejection of the transcendent by NAS natural scientists. Disbelief in God and immortality among NAS biological scientists was 65.2% and 69.0%, respectively, and among NAS physical scientists it was 79.0% and 76.3%. Most of the rest were agnostics on both issues, with few believers. We found the highest percentage of belief among NAS mathematicians (14.3% in God, 15.0% in immortality). Biological scientists had the lowest rate of belief (5.5% in God, 7.1% in immortality), with physicists and astronomers slightly higher (7.5% in God, 7.5% in immortality).

      Nature, Vol. 394, No. 6691, p. 313

      August 24, 2012 at 9:49 pm |
    • mfsbt

      Maybe Tom Tom if you mattered.......just passing the time you are amusingly boring and prosaic

      August 24, 2012 at 9:52 pm |
    • TheVocalAtheist

      Atheist BS

      What is your point? Do you have one?

      August 24, 2012 at 9:53 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      B.S., why is it you need to pull out statistics to make your point, whatever the hell it might be? Do you think you're going to convince someone to believe in a god by doing so, you knucklehead?

      August 24, 2012 at 9:53 pm |
    • Atheist B.S. Watch, a Public Service

      Atheist are such losers that they always try to skew the stats by claiming that anyone who is not a mainline Christian is an Atheist. It is just Baloney. The vast majority of scientsist believe in a supreme intelligence of some kind.

      August 24, 2012 at 9:54 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      ms whatever, if I'm that boring and prosaic, then why are you bothering to respond to my posts? Apparently, you are fascinated. Otherwise, you'd be playing with your Legos.

      August 24, 2012 at 9:56 pm |
    • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

      @B.S.

      you call 53% – 41% a "vast" majority? You've got to be kidding. What is amazing is just how different the scientific communitiy is from the average in terms of belief.

      Go look at the graphic half-way down the page here:
      http://www.pewforum.org/Science-and-Bioethics/Scientists-and-Belief.aspx

      Since you just ripped off what was posted by someone using another handle, I doubt you checked the source.

      August 24, 2012 at 9:58 pm |
    • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

      @B.S.

      you call 51% – 41% a "vast" majority? You've got to be kidding. What is amazing is just how different the scientific communitiy is from the average in terms of belief.

      Go look at the graphic half-way down the page here:
      http://www.pewforum.org/Science-and-Bioethics/Scientists-and-Belief.aspx

      Since you just ripped off what was posted by someone using another handle, I doubt you checked the source.

      August 24, 2012 at 9:58 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      And it just p!sses you off, doesn't it?

      Cry me a river. You can't even figure out the rules of capitalization a 3rd grader would know, if he had an ounce of intelligence.

      If you don't want to be called dumb, then stop being dumb.

      August 24, 2012 at 9:58 pm |
    • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

      ooops – sorry for the double post, my browser did not refresh

      August 24, 2012 at 9:59 pm |
    • TheVocalAtheist

      "Atheist B.S. Watch, a Public Service
      Atheist are such losers that they always try to skew the stats by claiming that anyone who is not a mainline Christian is an Atheist. It is just Baloney. The vast majority of scientsist believe in a supreme intelligence of some kind."

      I'm not getting it BS, sorry. I think the Christian mainliners would be calling the non-Christian mainliners Atheists, not the way you described it. As far as your statement about scientists I would disagree.

      August 24, 2012 at 10:00 pm |
    • mfsbt

      Hardly – it is just your predicatable rant.........again you don't matter it's just amusing

      August 24, 2012 at 10:01 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Still waiting for that list of famous composers who are deists and not atheists. Why is it taking you so long? You said you'd researched the issue. You should be able to produce your results faster than this.

      By the way, can you tell me without Googling, what sort of music Poulenc wrote and in what musical era?

      August 24, 2012 at 10:01 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Other One

      I'd like to see another poll: investment bankers and analysts. Those who take Pascal's wager vs those who don't.

      August 24, 2012 at 10:03 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      "predicatable"? Were you under the misapprehension that was an actual word, you idiot?

      August 24, 2012 at 10:03 pm |
    • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

      @TTTPS,

      would you trust investment bankers to answer poll question with the same level of accuracy as scientists?

      I wouldn't trust them to write their names on a sheet of paper, unless it was the signature form to a Swiss bank account, or maybe an offshore trust in the Cayman Islands.

      August 24, 2012 at 10:06 pm |
    • mfsbt

      again little buddy you don't matter nor does your spell check rant, just cruising and being amused

      August 24, 2012 at 10:08 pm |
    • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

      Sorry – @TTT Other One

      August 24, 2012 at 10:08 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Yes, little turd, so you keep insisting.

      I don't think you've earned your GED yet.

      August 24, 2012 at 10:09 pm |
    • Atheist B.S. Watch, a Public Service

      72% of AAAS members are not Atheists or Agnostics. They believe in some higher power. It is very easy to understand.

      August 24, 2012 at 10:10 pm |
    • mfsbt

      now who's feelings are hurt you little turd, again your ideas are meaningless and your so called facts are f up! your are a joke, and yep getting bored with you,....... not much here

      August 24, 2012 at 10:12 pm |
    • hawaiiguest

      @Atheist B.S. Watch, a Public Service

      Here's a quick question. So what? Even if you weren't data mining, so what?

      August 24, 2012 at 10:13 pm |
    • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

      @B.S.

      Sorry Charlie, this is a fail:
      "72% of AAAS members are not Atheists or Agnostics. They believe in some higher power. It is very easy to understand."

      Look here at the source of 'your' data:
      http://www.pewforum.org/Science-and-Bioethics/Scientists-and-Belief.aspx

      Scientists who believe in God ................... 33%
      Scientists who believe in a higher Spirit ... 18%
      Scientists who believe in NEITHER: ............41%
      Don't know / Refused to answer ...............07%

      Want to try your assertion again?

      August 24, 2012 at 10:17 pm |
    • psst's understudy

      Hint: "who's" is a contraction for "who is." "Whose" is a possessive.

      "You're" is a contraction for "you are." "Your" is a possessive.

      For example: "You're a complete idiot; your lack of understanding of simple grammar is proof."

      "Who's your daddy? Whose sperm did your mama inject with that turkey baster?"

      August 24, 2012 at 10:19 pm |
    • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

      Accuracy is important here.

      I should say the 41% are scientists who don't believe in God or a universal spirit or higher power.

      Not a majority, but I never said it was. It is a *dramatic* increase over the general population.

      August 24, 2012 at 10:20 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Other One

      I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV –

      True, but I'd like to know what the weasels do. I know scientists. I am one. Religion is just not relevant. God doesn't answer questions.

      August 24, 2012 at 10:20 pm |
    • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

      @TTTOO,

      Generally I would say that investment bankers would say whatever they thought made them look good.

      On Wall St. however, I think we would see is a significant number of Jews compared with the general population. I suspect Pascal's wager is less important to them.

      August 24, 2012 at 10:26 pm |
    • Gadflie

      Atheist BS, sorry kid, the difference between your study and mine (which was published in "Nature"), is that your organization does NOT require any scientific credentials at all to become a member. But, the one I used for an example (The National Academy of Sciences) absolutely does. So, you are pretending that your survey is of scientists where it clearly is not. But, mine is exclusively of actual working scientists.

      August 24, 2012 at 10:31 pm |
  16. Jewel of Allah

    Allah, all praise be unto Him, actually has both male and female genitalia (how could it be otherwise?). Ibrahim knew this and was ashamed of Allah, all praise be unto Him, and began the lie that so many believe today that Allah, all praise be unto Him, is somehow male. Nothing of the sort! Self-copulation, practiced by those truly made in the image of Allah, all praise be unto Him, has always been the right and good practice of all who have been faithful to Him from the beginning. All should pray fervently that the sons of Ibrahim should turn away from Ibrahim's lie and self-copulate to the glory of Allah, all praise be unto Him.

    August 24, 2012 at 7:42 pm |
    • PRISM 1234

      @ Jewel
      You can not know God unless you know Jesus Christ. All others are false shepherds and do not care the sheep. Jesus Christ is the lamb of God whom he sent as a propitiation for the sins of mankind. If you have no Christ, you have no way to the Father!

      August 24, 2012 at 8:11 pm |
    • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

      @PRISM 1234,

      spare your plat'tudes for this troll. It is not here to listen.

      August 24, 2012 at 8:20 pm |
    • PRISM 1234

      Not-GOPer,
      Thanks.... but that's OK, my 'plat/itudes' are there for a reason, even when directed to a troll....

      August 24, 2012 at 8:32 pm |
    • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

      "You can not know God unless you know Jesus Christ."

      Prism,

      You have no more basis for your fairy tale than they do for theirs.

      August 24, 2012 at 8:54 pm |
    • PRISM 1234

      "You have no more basis for your fairy tale than they do for theirs."

      How would YOU know?!

      August 24, 2012 at 9:08 pm |
    • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

      Because your "proof" is the same as theirs.

      August 24, 2012 at 9:16 pm |
    • PRISM 1234

      Never mind MY proof. I have no proof unless it was given to me. And THAT's what I have. But it is not mine to give it to you. God gives it to those in whose hearts He sees the "fertile soil" But you can't have that with pride and arrogance in your heart! That's obviously what your problem is! It is blinding you to the Truth!

      August 24, 2012 at 10:48 pm |
    • tallulah13

      So what Prism is saying is that he/she has no proof, but his/her delusion is the right one because he/she has an emotional connection to it.

      August 24, 2012 at 10:55 pm |
    • No Truth, Just Claims

      Prism,

      Things that are actually true don't need someone to be humble to understand them. You are describing "cult logic".

      August 25, 2012 at 1:27 am |
  17. JecBeans

    Judging from the comments posted on this board – I think we all need to take a Religion 101 course. So much misinformation and barbs are running through these threads. There are some productive comments, which are necessary. It gets us all talking. We are not going to agree with each other as we do have different views – but at least we're talking.

    So, in the spirit of "talking" – For the Atheists that are posting on this board – can you please answer a question?

    Do you pray? If you have a terrible tragedy in your life (child or family member who is very sick, horrible accident, etc...) – what do you do? Do you ask that they get better or does your belief only allow you to accept what has occurred?

    August 24, 2012 at 7:24 pm |
    • Science

      Answer:

      No, not in the sense you're talking about. When tragedy strikes, I hope it gets better, but I, and most people, would hardly call that "praying" in the most literal sense of the word. Furthermore, I don't just hope something gets better, I take action in order to make it better. When my uncle committed suicide, I didn't sit around and do nothing and pray he's in a better place. I sat with my aunt and my niece, I dealt with relatives and I helped plan what we would do after the fact.

      PS saying "there's so much misinformation here" is your way of saying that atheists posting are highlighting the things you dislike about your religion and instead of taking a hard look at what being a christian/jew/muslim entails, you deny that it even exists.

      August 24, 2012 at 7:39 pm |
    • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

      @JecBeans,

      how do you define hope and the hopeful thoughts people naturally have in such circvmstances.

      If a loved one is ill we wish and hope they will get better – and more importantly get them all the medical care they need.

      Worrying about loved ones will likely go through our minds a lot – and particularly before going to sleep. Those kind of thoughts are pretty indistinguishable from prayer, except that we don't believe there is a God listening to our thoughts. They have just as much impact as 'prayer'.

      August 24, 2012 at 7:40 pm |
    • Jeanie

      I think. When someone is ill or injured, I hope the doctors and nurses taking care of them are competent. There is no other choice than to accept what occurs. Praying changes nothing.

      August 24, 2012 at 7:41 pm |
    • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

      @JecBeans,

      If prayer demonstrably worked, we'd probably believe in God.

      August 24, 2012 at 7:41 pm |
    • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

      @JecBeans,

      assuming that you believe in an omnipotent God, and you had a very sick loved one,
      – would you be angry with God for causing your loved one to be sick,
      – or ask God why he caused your loved one to be sick?

      Atheists don't look to God for answers to those questions.

      August 24, 2012 at 7:45 pm |
    • Joe

      When there is a mine cave in, the community and all the families pray for the miners. When the first miners surface, they rejoice and thank God for answering their prayers. When the remaining miners are found dead, what can we determine? Does God have a limit on the number of people he can save? Does he favor some miners over others? Is He too busy answering more impotant prayers? Does He check to see if they have been naughty or nice?

      August 24, 2012 at 7:54 pm |
    • PRISM 1234

      Joe, God determines the time of birth and the time of death of every person.

      August 24, 2012 at 8:06 pm |
    • JecBeans

      To Science –

      I think the misinformation is coming from both ends. I've been on both ends of the spectrum – I wouldn't call myself an atheist, but I never embraced religion. Frankly, I thought it was a nice "story" that someone made up. Most of my beliefs of Christianity came the preachers on TV, so I didn't have a whole lot of respect or understanding of religion. Not to insult anyone – but I always thought those that embraced religion were not very intelligent. I was one of those pseudo-intellectuals and, yes – I did pass judgment. I never even read the bible before – yet I was willing to pass judgment on those that followed it.

      I've always lived my life thinking I was strong enough to get through whatever hit me. I did everything on my own – put myself through school, had a very successful professional practice and raised a family on my own. I didn't need G-d because I did everything myself.

      Last year, I had a terrible tragedy in my life that basically caused me to question everything in my life that I believed to be true. I could have gone down the path of alcohol or drugs (or therapy) to deal with it. But, I didn't. I went to Church. I had no clue what was going on. It tooks months but it was comforting to learn that I'm not alone. I never in a million years would have believed that I would embrace Christianity and become born-again. But I've found that to truly have "faith" is tough – it's a lot tougher than I ever would have imagined. My life has completely changed as a result. My outlook is different. My life is different. My family is different.

      But the most amazing thing was that all of these years that I was "hoping" when things were getting bad or tought ... I was really praying. I just didn't know it at the time.

      I'm not saying to anyone that they have to be one way or another. It's your choice and it's up to you. What I am saying is that there needs to be more tolerance and understanding on both ends. There needs to be a healthier debate. I would venture to say that most posters here have probably never read the bible, just as I would say that most people don't understand atheism.

      To those that say if that if prayer worked, there would be G-d. Faith can't be seen. Prayers are sometimes answered in ways that we don't understand. It's something in your heart. It took a tragedy in my life to open my eyes. As hard it was to get through this – I never would have found this peace had it not happened.

      August 24, 2012 at 8:13 pm |
    • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

      @JecBeans,

      I'm very happy for you – I'm glad to hear you have found your path. Faith is a gift and a faith-based life can be a well-lived life.

      Many of the atheists who post here were brought up in a Christian tradition and have rejected it as unsubstantiated and false. Each to their own.

      August 24, 2012 at 8:18 pm |
    • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

      @JecBeans,

      You said: "What I am saying is that there needs to be more tolerance and understanding on both ends. There needs to be a healthier debate.:

      Look to the post from Atheist B.S. Watch, a Public Service at 8:26pm on 8/24 further up this page. We get this every day here. Is there any wonder it gets ugly sometimes?

      August 24, 2012 at 8:33 pm |
    • Science

      @JecBeans

      Everyone deals with tragedy in their own way. I already told you my tragedy in the above passage and I've dealt with it without the help of a god. I had my friends and family and although it was held in a synagogue, I didn't feel like the community was grieving with me or that there was any god that was present.

      I also had a feeling that you would try to make hoping a form of praying. It isn't in the most literal sense of the word. It can be seen as praying only if you define pray as the internal hope that everything would be alright. You're not peti.tioning or asking for divine intervention nor is there a speci.fic request.

      That's great that yo've been able to find com for in religion and I would venture to say that most people on this board don't begrudge you one bit. The issue lies when christians try to 1) insert prayer, ritual, religion into our lives by legislation 2) Trying to force atheism into a pseudo-religion.

      I would also venture to say that most people who engage in debate and don't do the "hit-and-run" style comments most certainly have read the bible, they just focus on the bad stuff instead of the good.

      My question for you is, since you've become a born-again do you think the bible is now more than a "story" and actually the words of god and completely true?

      August 24, 2012 at 8:44 pm |
    • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

      Pray to who or what? If you pray you believe in some ent.ity or being that can and does manifest itself in our material world. There is no reason to think there is such a being.

      August 24, 2012 at 9:05 pm |
    • hawaiiguest

      @Science

      I don't think it is possible to be intellectually honest and say the bible has absolutely nothing good in it.

      August 24, 2012 at 9:13 pm |
    • JecBeans

      @science

      Thanks for the comments. I believe the Bible is the Word of G-d.

      August 24, 2012 at 9:17 pm |
  18. Lol just Lol

    The Christian god slaughtered countless millions of innocent babies.
    That's your "totally awesome hero".......
    Lol just........... lol!

    August 24, 2012 at 6:54 pm |
  19. JESUS THE SUPER-JEW HATES YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    JESUS HATES YOUR GUTS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    August 24, 2012 at 6:07 pm |
  20. tave1165

    Shame on them. They are looking for publicity you at CNN are giving it for free.

    August 24, 2012 at 5:46 pm |
    • glennrobert

      The Atheists are beginning to sound as stupid as the faithful. Yes I am agnostic, neither side can prove what they believe!

      August 24, 2012 at 7:39 pm |
    • hawaiiguest

      @glenn

      Atheism isn't the automatic assertion that there is no god.

      August 24, 2012 at 7:40 pm |
    • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

      Glenn,

      If you respond to the question of "do you BELIEVE in a god" by saying you are agnostic you are not answering the question. Agnosticism has to do with knowledge and you are saying you don't know and I assume can't know. You can be an agnostic but still believe and I can be agnostic and not believe. If I don't believe I am an atheist but can still say "I don't know".

      Atheism is saying we don't believe in a god, not that we actually know with certainty.

      August 24, 2012 at 9:13 pm |
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64
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.