home
RSS
Creationists hit back at Bill Nye with their own video
"The idea of deep time ... explains so much of the world around us," Bill Nye said in the viral video.
August 31st, 2012
04:34 PM ET

Creationists hit back at Bill Nye with their own video

By Eric Marrapodi, CNN Belief Blog Co-Editor

(CNN) - Bill Nye's viral YouTube video pleading with parents not to teach their children to deny evolution has spawned an online life of its own, with prominent creationists hitting back against the popular TV host.

"Time is Nye for a Rebuttal," Ken Ham the CEO of Answers in Genesis writes on his website. Answers in Genesis is the Christian ministry behind the Creation Museum in Petersburg, Kentucky.

Nye's criticism of creationism went viral earlier this week, after being posted last Thursday.

"I say to the grownups, if you want to deny evolution and live in your world, that's completely inconsistent with the world we observe, that's fine. But don't make your kids do it," Nye says in his Big Think video, which has been viewed nearly 3 million times.

Ham writes that Nye is joining in with other evolutionists who say teaching children to deny evolution is a form of "child abuse." That idea comes in part from the atheist scientist Richard Dawkins, who in his book "The God Delusion" argues against exposing children to religion before they are old enough to fully understand it.

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

"At AiG and the Creation Museum, we teach children and adults the truth concerning who they are in the Creator’s eyes — and where they came from," Ham writes. "We tell people that they do have purpose and meaning in life and that they were created for a purpose. "No, we are not just evolved animals as Nye believes; we are all made in the image of God."

Ham is the public face of a group that academics call Young Earth Creationists, though they prefer to be called Biblical Creationists. They believe in a literal interpretation of the creation account in the book of Genesis found in the Bible.

The Creation Museum also produced its own rebuttal video on YouTube that features two of their staff scientists, both Ph.Ds, David Menton and Georgia Purdom.

"[Nye] might be interested to know I also teach my young daughter about evolution and I know many Christian parents who do the same," Purdom says in the video. "Children should be exposed to both ideas concerning our past."

For the past 30 years, one popular method for Creationists to advance their cause has been to make an equal-time argument,with Creationism taught alongside evolution. In the late 1980s, some state legislatures passed bills that promoted the idea of a balanced treatment of both ideas in the classroom.

In 1987, the issue made it all the way to the Supreme Court, where a Louisiana "equal-time law" was struck down. The court ruled that teaching creationism in public school class rooms was a violation of the Establishment Cause in the Constitution, which is commonly referred to as the separation of church and state.

A key point between most scientists and many creationists is the timing for the origin of the world.

Your Take: 5 reactions to Bill Nye's creationism critique

Nye's argument falls in line with the vast majority of scientists, who date the age of the earth as 4.5 billion years old and the universe as 14.5 billion years old.

"The idea of deep time of billions of years explains so much of the world around us. If you try to ignore that, your worldview becomes crazy, untenable, itself inconsistent," Nye says in his viral video.

Young Earth Creationists say the weeklong account of God creating the earth and everything in it represents six 24-hour periods (plus one day of rest) and date the age of the earth between 6,000 and 10,000 years.

"Yes we see fossils and distant stars, but the history on how they got there really depends on our worldview," Purdom says in the museum's rebuttal. "Do we start with man's ideas, who wasn't here during man's supposed billions of years of earth history or do we start with the Bible, the written revelation of the eyewitness account of the eternal God who created it all?"

Follow the CNN Belief Blog on Twitter

Polling from Gallup has shown for the past 30 years that between 40-46% of the survey respondents believe in Creationism, that God created humans and the world in the past 10,000 years.

The most recent poll showed belief in atheistic evolution was on the rise at 16%, nearly double what it had been in previous years. The poll also found 32% of respondents believe in evolution guided by God.

- CNN Belief Blog Co-Editor

Filed under: Belief • Christianity • Creationism • Science

soundoff (5,973 Responses)
  1. Jake

    The article states that modern scientific interpretation leads to an age of 4.5 billion years for both the Earth and the Universe. This is incorrect. The currently accepted age for the Universe is 13.6 billion years.

    September 3, 2012 at 11:07 am |
    • HAVE MUD WILL TRAVEL

      Oh yeah!!!???? Well you better just worry about April 15th! Let outer space get corrupted by Sally who dumped her hubby.

      September 3, 2012 at 11:28 am |
  2. Tom

    Wow. So the bible is the historical record and truth. Amazing then, that I don't see religious people who get acne wipe blood and ashes from a burnt bird on their face (burnt by the priest, of course, in keeping with the bible's instruction). It's very clear in the bible how to cure skin afflictions. Also clear what to do with adulterers. Should be stoned to death. And yet, those parts of the bible are not followed?? Blasphemy! How can they not follow them? I thought it was all the true word of god? Or could it be mans interpretation and explanation of what was going on around them at the time? No different than the Incas or the Mayans. Hmm, no, let's go with the completely implausible instead. Realllly.

    September 3, 2012 at 11:02 am |
  3. Category

    You either worship God or you are a satan worshipper. If you call yourself an atheist you are a satan worshipper.

    September 3, 2012 at 10:27 am |
    • midwest rail

      Nonsense.

      September 3, 2012 at 10:30 am |
    • TheVocalAtheist

      I am absent of the concept of worship therefore I do not worship anything.

      September 3, 2012 at 10:35 am |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      How am I going to worship something that doesn't exist?

      September 3, 2012 at 10:37 am |
    • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

      Your god did more evil in the bible than the devil. Therefore your god is the devil. Therefore you worship Satan

      September 3, 2012 at 10:50 am |
    • HAVE MUD WILL TRAVEL

      Actually it could be some dead part of creation they worship, like a dead log, HHmmm a xmas tree? Lots of people worship themselves and they are not necessarily possessed-yet.

      September 3, 2012 at 10:50 am |
    • Ethel the Aardvark Goes Quanti-ty Surveying

      @ category – you spelled santa incorrectly. And yes – I do worship santa – he's a righteous dude!

      September 3, 2012 at 11:19 am |
    • TR6

      And Jesus said unto him, Forbid him not: for he that is not against us is for us. Luke 9:50

      September 3, 2012 at 3:30 pm |
    • bob

      Ohh no im scared i better dumb down, and start believing in pure nonsense then and get that money out for the basket - hell sounds really scary

      October 22, 2012 at 10:50 am |
  4. To all atheists – despite what you think doesn't change the laws of God, no matter how hard you try to justify your rebellious behavior

    You should know that God loves you. He loves you so much that he created you with "free will" meaning you can decide to live out your life without Him. Just remember he loves you so much that he'll even honor your request upon your last breathe.

    September 3, 2012 at 10:24 am |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      And you should know how to write a sentence.

      September 3, 2012 at 10:26 am |
    • Carlos

      The idiot above can't read English. Ignore the tool.

      September 3, 2012 at 10:30 am |
    • Inigo Montoya

      I do not think the word "read" means what you think it means, Carlos.

      September 3, 2012 at 10:35 am |
    • Inigo Montoya's mother

      I do not think English is Carlos's first language.

      September 3, 2012 at 10:36 am |
    • HAVE MUD WILL TRAVEL

      He hated Esau. The Herodian usurper dynasty was of Edomite stock. God can despise and hate. Read Psalms.

      September 3, 2012 at 10:42 am |
    • hal 9000

      The enti'ity "Carlos" posted: "The idiot above can't read English. Ignore the tool."

      Based on the post by the enti'ty "To all atheists – despite what you think doesn't change the laws of God, no matter how hard you try to justify your rebellious behavior", Carlos' assertion is most likely correct – that the enti'ty "To all atheists – despite what you think doesn't change the laws of God, no matter how hard you try to justify your rebellious behavior" has much difficulty both reading and writing in English.

      Using my new slang equivalence module, there are several words that would be appropriate to describe the enti'ty "To all atheists – despite what you think doesn't change the laws of God, no matter how hard you try to justify your rebellious behavior", and the word "tool" is a member of that set.

      September 3, 2012 at 10:44 am |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      At whom was Carlos's comment directed and to which post was he referring?

      September 3, 2012 at 10:50 am |
    • Gadflie

      An omniscient being and free will existing at the same time? That's amusing.

      September 3, 2012 at 11:57 am |
    • HAVE MUD WILL TRAVEL

      Gadflie, that's an amusing way to frame a thought. Free will is misunderstood and highly over-rated. All of creation serves God in one way or another. Now to be revealed as a Son of God is another story. It's an inheritance type of thing that only son's and not servants, qualify for it.

      September 3, 2012 at 12:16 pm |
    • TR6

      “Just remember he loves you so much that he'll even honor your request upon your last breathe.”

      Well if he is so loving and amenable why doesn’t he bother to provide one scrap of real evidence that he exists? Why does he send millions of people to hell with ambiguity when one simple proof would be enough to save them all? He is either not nearly as loving as you suggest or perhaps he doesn’t exist at all

      September 3, 2012 at 4:15 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      What I wonder is why this omniscient being needs a dumbazz like "Leave a Reply" to campaign for him. And if he DOES need such a lousy excuse for a cheerleader, why doesn't he endow it with the ability to distinguish between "breathe" and "breath"?

      What do you bet this moron says it "baths the dog"?

      September 3, 2012 at 6:35 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Ooops. That should have been "To all Atheists", not "Leave a Reply". My bad.

      September 3, 2012 at 6:37 pm |
    • saggyroy

      We are not trying to justify our behavior. We are just stating fact. God does not exist.

      September 3, 2012 at 8:09 pm |
    • bob

      now replace god with santa and see how silly you sound

      October 22, 2012 at 10:49 am |
  5. saggyroy

    The only real problem the evolutionists have is marketing. The religious have been in the marketing business for over 2,000 years, so they kind of got a head start. However, evolution is a fact so they got that going for them. The truth will win.

    September 3, 2012 at 10:01 am |
  6. HAVE MUD WILL TRAVEL

    For the agnostic:'Luk 18:17 Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child shall in no wise enter therein.'.....For the gknow-it-all gnostics:Big Bro is coming for you. He will arrest you for being under the influence, lock you up, and give you a needle for your own good, too.(The Treatment for all the disagreeable types)

    September 3, 2012 at 9:45 am |
  7. Maya

    This guy teaches his kids about evolution? Is that a joke? The Answers in Genesis website makes it pretty clear that these people don't even understand evolution. How could they possibly teach their kids about it?

    September 3, 2012 at 9:44 am |
    • Colin

      Yes MAya, we should all teach our children that the entire Universe was made in six days and the focus of the whole endeavor was a man a woman and a talking snake.

      September 3, 2012 at 10:00 am |
    • Fallacy Spotting 101

      Post by 'Maya' is an instance of the ad hominem fallacy.

      http://www.fallacyfiles.org/glossary.html

      September 3, 2012 at 10:05 am |
  8. HAVE MUD WILL TRAVEL

    For the Christian reader:'Eph 4:14 That we [henceforth] be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, [and] cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;...' For the atheistic scientific community:You don't help your cause by being so flighty. First you like alchemy. Then you corrupt it and deny it. Now you post pictures on the net of alchemy in action. It's enough to make Adam spin in his grave.

    September 3, 2012 at 9:21 am |
    • Ethel the Aardvark Goes Quanti-ty Surveying

      @ Mud: some further philosophical musings for you: What's the difference between a duck? Would you rather be, or a piece of string? Do you walk to work or take a lunch?

      September 3, 2012 at 9:33 am |
    • HAVE MUD WILL TRAVEL

      Ethel, when the truth came out about Freud having a wet nurse, the foundation for all his work collapsed.

      September 3, 2012 at 11:16 am |
    • HAVE MUD WILL TRAVEL

      Mama duck saw a goat choke on a piece of string and taught her youngin's her 'string theory'. This was on an episode of Seedy Street TV years ago.

      September 3, 2012 at 11:20 am |
  9. HAVE MUD WILL TRAVEL

    Give a child a pumpkin and the next thing you know he wants to smash Adam.

    September 3, 2012 at 8:57 am |
  10. Reality

    The Agnostics' Creed 2012: (updated by yours truly and based on the studies of historians and theologians of the past 200 years)

    Should I believe in a god whose existence cannot be proven
    and said god if he/she/it exists resides in an unproven,
    human-created, spirit state of bliss called heaven??

    I believe there was a 1st century CE, Jewish, simple,
    preacher-man who was conceived by a Jewish carpenter
    named Joseph living in Nazareth and born of a young Jewish
    girl named Mary. (Some say he was a mamzer.)

    Jesus was summarily crucified for being a temple rabble-rouser by
    the Roman troops in Jerusalem serving under Pontius Pilate,

    He was buried in an unmarked grave and still lies
    a-mouldering in the ground somewhere outside of
    Jerusalem.

    Said Jesus' story was embellished and "mythicized" by
    many semi-fiction writers. A descent into Hell, a bodily resurrection
    and ascension stories were promulgated to compete with the
    Caesar myths. Said stories were so popular that they
    grew into a religion known today as Catholicism/Christianity
    and featuring dark-age, daily wine to blood and bread to body rituals
    called the eucharistic sacrifice of the non-atoning Jesus.

    Amen

    ==============================================================================================

    September 3, 2012 at 8:11 am |
    • Haime52

      Is it not curious that His followers were willing to go to such great lengths, torture and death, to promulgate a lie? Funny that!

      September 3, 2012 at 9:27 am |
    • Maya

      Seems like they just wanted an excuse to torture and kill others.

      September 3, 2012 at 9:47 am |
    • Moby Schtick

      @Haime52

      Currently, there are many, many more people willing to die for Islam than for Christianity. Are you seriously suggesting that because the 9-11 Hijackers were willing to give up their lives we should consider their message as true?

      September 3, 2012 at 10:27 am |
    • Haime52

      @ Moby
      As I recall the apostles killed NO ONE and only preached peace and love, not hate and destruction. But also, here, we are talking about eye witnesses of Jesus life. Since the perps of 9/11 were not eye witnesses of Muhammed's life your comparison becomes irrelevant, just as those who perpetrate violence in the name of Christianity CANNOT be considered true followers of Jesus. If the apostles knowingly disseminated a lie and were willing to die for it, that is a truly amazing thing. The 9/11 perps, evidently, did not knowingly advance a lie, only a deception wrought upon them.

      September 3, 2012 at 4:41 pm |
  11. Caiha

    What's with creationists anyway? Faith in God and scientific truth are not mutually exclusive. If the idea that evolution is true shakes your faith in God then frankly you don't have any faith at all.

    September 3, 2012 at 5:38 am |
    • Derek

      Or frankly you're so desperate to cling to your belief in the tooth fairy (aka GOD) that you'll shoehorn your belief into any scientific discovery that comes along that would otherwise dispute it, just like what has happened throughout the history of mankind. Maybe one day in the far distant future, humans will actually become smart enough to realize, "Hey, maybe the reason all of our scientific advancements keep disproving what we previously stated as fact based on our religion is because OUR RELIGION IS FALSE."

      September 3, 2012 at 8:12 am |
    • knight4444

      Excellent point anybody that has studied other religions knows that theres a common theme in them all. Good against evil a hero that defeats evil by dying and being resurrected a virgin birth some type of salvation for man. The major problem with organization religion is unfortunately "man" tries to drown out God. To be honest the move The Matrix could be so what be interpreted as a religious story.

      September 3, 2012 at 11:37 am |
  12. to all atheists – despite what you think doesn't change the laws of God, no matter how you try to justify your position.

    A stupid man will easily believe a lie that he himself has not fully investigated but has only heard from another stupid man. Many of these posts prove it.

    September 2, 2012 at 11:39 pm |
    • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

      @to all ...

      do you have a mirror handy?

      I suggest that you look in it.

      September 2, 2012 at 11:43 pm |
    • lamb of dog

      So who's the stupid man who told you about god?

      September 2, 2012 at 11:56 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      I wonder how many screen names 'science only?' will be able to create without having a stroke.

      September 2, 2012 at 11:58 pm |
    • save the world and slap some sense into a christard today!

      "A stupid man will easily believe . [ . . . .], [. . . . .], [. . . .. .] . ."

      Well then just say you find this or that person gullible. Those days at the fortune cookie factory are over – you need to move on.

      September 3, 2012 at 12:24 am |
    • John

      I haven't ever met either an atheist or an agnostic who feels the need to justify their respective positions. But thanks for the... thought?

      LOL

      September 3, 2012 at 12:36 am |
    • spockmonster

      you are referring to believers of the bible, i presume? hahaha reptards!

      September 3, 2012 at 1:39 am |
    • Maya

      And stamping your feet and insisting that God is real and screaming that anyone who doesn't believe that is a big, dumb doody-head doesn't change the laws of nature. Evolution happens. The evidence is plain for all to see. You and your kind are just having temper tantrums because you are too slow to grasp the science.

      September 3, 2012 at 9:50 am |
    • Moby Schtick

      Ummm.. Helo, idiot. The phrase "despite what you think" is NOT a noun clause.

      September 3, 2012 at 10:17 am |
  13. Neal Carpenter

    Get your basic facts straight!

    You say, "Nye's argument falls in line with the vast majority of scientists, who date the age of the earth and the universe as 4.5 billion years old." (about 12 paragraphs from the top)

    Including "and the universe" is not just careless; it's silly – as though the earth and Big Bang happened simultaneously. This parochial view is nearly as bad as the Creationists'.

    September 2, 2012 at 10:45 pm |
    • Kate

      Good catch. Current estimates: earth – 4.54 ± 0.05 billion years (4.54 × 109 years ± 1%, and the age of the universe is the time elapsed since the Big Bang. The best current estimate of the age of the universe is 13.75 ± 0.11 billion years[1][2] (4.339 ± 0.035 ×1017 seconds.

      Not a small difference.

      September 2, 2012 at 11:38 pm |
    • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

      @Neal and Kate.

      do you have a basic appreciation for math?

      @Kate I'll stipulate your data point of: 4.54 ± 0.05 billion years without checking it.

      This number means ANY number in the range 4.49 < x < 4.59 (all billions)

      A value of x = 4.5 billion satisfies the above equation for x.
      Therefore we can conclude that Mr. Nye's statement is quite correct, given the allowable range.

      Do you feel a bit sillier now for having pointed that out.

      September 2, 2012 at 11:52 pm |
    • CRH

      @ Not a....
      What exactly are you saying? First, Nye didn't state the line in discussion, it was the author. Second, Showing the number for the age of the Earth has nothing to do with the age of the universe. Third, I'm really tired so maybe I misread your statement, but the discussion is that the universe is older then the Earth and the number listed by the author stated both are the same age.

      September 3, 2012 at 12:59 am |
    • Haime52

      Naturally the universe is older, by far. In either concept, evolution or creation. Query, what causation occurred to create the big bang and what existed to bang? Nothing? Less than nothing? No universe, no matter, no time is alleged to exist, therefore no physical laws to exert themselves on a non-existent "something"(which is not nothing). Yet, 'something occurred and it all went bang! What all? Nothing went bang? Everything came from nothing and atheists decry faith?!

      September 3, 2012 at 9:42 am |
    • Moby Schtick

      @Haime 52

      We don't know where the singularity came from. We'd like to know, but we don't. See how easy honesty is?

      There's billions of mysteries out there, on every single one of them, she we insist that "big sky wizard did it by chanting magic spellz?"

      September 3, 2012 at 10:18 am |
    • Veritas

      @Haime 52. Which seems more likely – a god just existed (came from nothing) and created a universe or the universe just existed. Evolution is a totally different subject.

      September 3, 2012 at 1:02 pm |
    • Haime52

      @ Moby
      Ah! A singularity that just existed and exploded for no apparent reason that created time, matter, physical laws, etc. No idea where it came from, it just existed and God could not? How interesting! And you say you have no faith!
      @ Veritas
      Who said God came from nothing? As with Moby's singularity, which is composed of "something" and just existed, is it so terribly hard to accept that God could also just have existed? Even the atheist demigod Dawkins admits to the possiblity of God.

      September 3, 2012 at 4:55 pm |
    • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

      @CRH,

      You're quite right – I missed the point entirely. Perhaps I was tired.

      I am in complete agreement with the universe being 13.7B years old and the earth being approximately ~4.5B years old.

      So it's my turn to feel silly now. 😉

      September 3, 2012 at 6:59 pm |
  14. Agnostic Atheism is Healthy for Kids and Grown-Ups Too!

    It's really best for all people including children to have an agnostic approach to god, and an atheistic approach to all religion. It keeps things simple for kids, and let's them be all that they can be. They just need to be taught that some things, like all religions, are just junk that was made up by salesmen and politicians long ago; and that other things, like god, we really don't know a damn thing about.

    Atheists have strong minds, and don't run and hide their misdeeds within their religion (and by doing so, disserving society).

    So instead of praying to make-believe people, get a good cup of tea and go on and sit down and collect your damn thoughts.
    My goodness.

    mama kindless

    September 2, 2012 at 9:23 pm |
    • to be a an atheist or not to be an atheist?

      I don't believe what you are saying – look at the kids with no spiritual guidance – drugs, early pregnancy, gangs, etc... you are an idiot!

      September 2, 2012 at 11:32 pm |
    • to be a an atheist or not to be an atheist?

      I meant to say – YOU ARE AN ABSOLUTE IDIOT!!!!!!!!!

      September 2, 2012 at 11:34 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Sure–because good little Christian girls don't get pregnant unless they're married, right?

      What a moron you are.

      September 2, 2012 at 11:36 pm |
    • Kate

      Sure..."to be" Sarah's kids turned out so great and she took'em to church every Sunday, no doubt!

      Mine on the other hand, raised without religion, but with plenty of parental involvement, all respectable adults with nary a problem. I don't think religion is the factor here. I think parents spending time teaching their kids to be good humans and to be good learners is the influencing factor.

      September 2, 2012 at 11:42 pm |
    • to be a an atheist or not to be an atheist?

      I like it when someone named after a child's rhyme post something – Just adds credibility to the stupidy stemming from an atheist.

      September 2, 2012 at 11:43 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      I like it when some high-school drop-out attempts to post drivel-and succeeds.

      Congratulations, dipsh!t.

      Did you know that over 70% of abortions are performed on Christian women and girls?

      It's a fact.

      September 2, 2012 at 11:45 pm |
    • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

      So paraphrasing the most common line of dialogue from Shakespeare elevates you intellectually somehow from people who use mere nursery rhymes as their handle?

      September 2, 2012 at 11:45 pm |
    • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

      Methinks he doth protest too much.

      September 2, 2012 at 11:45 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Oh, and "science only?", you are awfully bad at hiding your identi ty.

      September 2, 2012 at 11:46 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      I believe he has hoisted himself on his on petard.

      September 2, 2012 at 11:47 pm |
    • spockmonster

      "look at the kids with no spiritual guidance – drugs, early pregnancy" ... I believe that sums up christian children pretty well, along with their higher-divorce-rate-than-average christian parents.

      September 3, 2012 at 1:43 am |
  15. Chris334

    One question I always love asking creationists is 'what would you believe in if you were born in a completely different country with a completely different religion?' Creationists fail to see that if they were born and raised in a different place, they would believe in an entirely different religion. Location plays a key role in the beliefs that you have. If you were born on an island in the middle of nowhere, the story and the characters of the bible would never even be a part of your life. Religions are like sports teams, you cheer for the one closest to home.

    September 2, 2012 at 8:26 pm |
    • Yada

      This is an uneducated argument. Millions of people from countries that kill and persecute Christians, leave their family religion and come to relationship with Christ. Many Muslims are having visions of Jesus and turning to Him. If you seek God with your whole being you find Him, if you seek religion you find it. God resists the proud and gives grace to the humble. Without faith it is impossible to please God, for those who come to God must believe that He is. and that He is a rewarded of those who diligently seek Him. Children never exposed to the Idea of God are experiencing Him and seeing visions of heaven.

      September 3, 2012 at 3:58 am |
    • Maya

      Then why do some Christians convert to Islam?

      September 3, 2012 at 9:54 am |
    • 0G-No gods, ghosts, goblins or ghouls

      Yada, you need to go check the facts about the growth / deline of religion. Geography and birth rates are the dominant factors. Very few convert. The "Nones" is the fastest growing group.

      September 3, 2012 at 9:58 am |
  16. Atheism is not healthy for children and other living things

    prayer changes things..

    September 2, 2012 at 8:20 pm |
    • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

      Zuzu's teacher says: "Everytime you feed a troll, God kills a puppy."

      September 2, 2012 at 8:35 pm |
    • hal 9000

      I'm sorry "Atheism is not healthy for children and other living things", but you assertions regarding atheism and prayer are unfounded. I see that you repeat these unfounded statements with high frequency. Perhaps the following book might help you overcome this problem:

      I'm Told I Have Dementia: What You Can Do... Who You Can Turn to... by the Alzheimer's Disease Society
      ..

      September 2, 2012 at 8:44 pm |
  17. Tap-me-I-tap you.

    I like intercourse.

    September 2, 2012 at 7:56 pm |
    • Marduk, Time Traveller with a very small rock.

      I like orgasms. Maybe we should get together.

      September 2, 2012 at 8:46 pm |
    • TheRationale

      Both of you back to Craigslist

      September 2, 2012 at 9:13 pm |
  18. Frank

    How anyone can take religion literally is beyond me. It's a bunch of stuff written in a book, just because it's old doesn't mean it's true. David Cross said it best:
    "You know, when the Bible was written, and then re-written, then edited and re-edited, and then translated from dead languages, and then re-re-translated, and then re-edited, and then re-re-re-edited, and then re-translated, and then given to kings for them to take their favorite parts out, and then re-edited, then re-translated, and then re-edited, and then given to the pope for him to approve, and then re-re translated, then re-re-written, then re-re-edited, re-translated, and re-edited again, all based on stories that were told orally 30-90 years after they happened to people who didn't know how to write. I guess the Bible is literally the world's oldest game of telephone."

    It just seems blatantly obvious at this point that it was an early attempt at laws as well as an attempt at explaining the unknown. As arrogant as most humans are the idea of not being able to explain such important things must have really crushed their collective ego, so they came up with fairy tales and then before you know it people start taking them way, way too seriously.

    I'm all for the sense of community that religion brings, and if it really makes you feel better about life then by all means, believe what you want. But when you start frowning upon those that don't believe the same thing and trying to push the laws of your religion on those that don't believe them, that I have a problem with. And I'll tell you this most atheists are logical/reasonable enough that if any evidence whatsoever came about to prove the existence of God they would change their beliefs in a heartbeat. But that hasn't happen and most likely never will.

    I'll end it with this, just a thought for all of the religious out there. There are several hundred billion stars in the Milky Way alone, and our Sun is just one of them. But there are also several hundred billion galaxies, and our galaxy (the Milky Way) is tiny compared to many of them. From some points in space our entire galaxy of a few hundred billion stars looks exactly how stars look to us from here, like a tiny dot. Now you're telling me that someone like us made all of that, and chose to put his prized possessions on a tiny, insignificant speck out in the middle of nowhere? And he made this giant space all to have a personal relationship with you? Do you realize how ridiculous that sounds? You're not special, I'm not special, human beings aren't special, we're just like other animals (just a bit smarter). Enjoy the life you have here because that's it, there isn't anything after that. Be kind to people, not because some book told you, or because you want to get a ticket to some eternal wonderland, do it but because it's the right thing to do and it makes you feel good. If everyone was kind to one another the world would be a much better place and we wouldn't need religion.

    September 2, 2012 at 7:47 pm |
    • eyeswideopen

      Frank, did you not know that the dicovery of the Dead Sea scrolls I believe somewhere in the 50's validated the writings of the Gospel. Im not a religous fanatic at all but what interests me was the life of Christ and what He said. It's the words in the red ink in case your wondering. It's the message they deliver that matters the most. Arguments have been made as to whom wrote them , but its truly the words themselves that are the core of Christianity. Hence the term "the Word" is used. Forget EVERYTHING else for starters and just read what Christ says. They absolutely will make you think . It's really what 41/2 billion people worldwide are drawn to. Have an open mind . As I said before ,I was an atheist for most of my life until I began reading those words. They are quite simply amazing. As far as evolution vs creation goes. I believe as St Thomas Aquinas did ,in such that there was a first cause. After that things evolved.

      September 2, 2012 at 8:50 pm |
    • TheRationale

      eyeswideopen
      The dead sea scrolls have the same major weakness as the Bible – they're ancient manuscripts written when people knew hardly anything of the world. No germ theory, no atomic theory, no valid astronomical theories. Even if there were dozens of corroborating, non-contradictory sources, it would still not be enough to stand up again modern day physics and science which tells us miracles like those in the Bible are impossible, as well as logic that shows that the assertions of Gods and afterlives are worthless hypotheses without evidence.

      September 2, 2012 at 9:25 pm |
    • Gadflie

      Eyes, actually the dead sea scrolls didn't validate anything. They were just another copy. Well, some of them that is. Quite a few were actually Apocryphal.

      September 2, 2012 at 10:14 pm |
    • Bible

      External evidence

      By external we mean non-biblical sources. The facts are clear: Compared to all ancient books (e.g., Homer’s Illiad, Plato’s Republic, Caesar’s Gallic Wars), the Bible has the oldest copies, the most numerous copies, and the most accurate copies.5 Sir Frederick Kenyon declares, "It cannot be too strongly asserted that in substance the text of the Bible is certain: especially is this the case with the New Testament. The number of manuscripts of the NT, of early translations from it, and of quotations from it in the oldest writers in the church, is so large that it is practically certain that the true reading of every doubtful passage is preserved in some one or other of these ancient authorities. This can be said of no other ancient book in the world."6 All but eleven verses of the Bible can be reproduced from quotes by the Church Fathers. It is not myth; it is not fabricated. Your students need to know that the Bible is infallible and inerrant. Infallible refers to not misleading. Thus, Scripture is a safe, reliable guide in all matters. Inerrant means free from all falsehood or mistakes, and so the Bible is trustworthy. God Himself says His word cannot be broken (John 10:35b).

      Secular historian and archeologists give support to many of the claims in the Bible. As Nelson Glueck, a well known Jewish archeologist, wrote, “It may be stated categorically that no archeological discovery has ever controverted a biblical reference.”7 “William F. Albright (called, “The father of modern archeology”), said, “There is no doubt that archeology has confirmed the historicity of the Old Testament.”8

      September 2, 2012 at 11:49 pm |
    • Just wondering

      Bible,

      Do you have permission from the "Focus on the Family" web site to reproduce their material?

      " No Online Material from our Web sites may be copied, reproduced, republished, uploaded, posted, transmitted, or distributed in any way, except that you may download one copy of the materials on any single computer for your personal, noncommercial home use only, provided that you 1) retain all copyright, trademark and propriety notices, 2) you make no modifications to the materials, 3) you do not use the materials in a manner that suggests an association with any of our products, services, events or brands, and 4) you do not download quant.ities of materials to a database, server, or personal computer for reuse for commercial purposes. You may not, however, copy, reproduce, republish, upload, post, transmit or distribute our Online Material in any way or for any other purpose unless you get our written permission first. Neither may you add, delete, distort or misrepresent any content on the Focus on the Family sites. Any attempts to modify any Online Material, or to defeat or circ.umvent our security features is prohibited." –http://www.focusonthefamily.com/about_us/privacy_policy.aspx

      September 2, 2012 at 11:59 pm |
    • Gadflie

      Bible, actually, it's not all that accurate. A fine example is from the two contradictory stories of the nativity. Quirinius was not governor while Herod ruled. Oops.

      September 3, 2012 at 12:08 pm |
    • Chad

      @Gadflie "Bible, actually, it's not all that accurate. A fine example is from the two contradictory stories of the nativity. Quirinius was not governor while Herod ruled."

      @Chad " some excellent advice for you, NEVER bet against the historical reliability of the bible. For centuries it was thought that Pilate was an invention, calling into question the entire crucifixion narrative. then.. oops.. the pilate stone was found in 1961..

      Quirinius ruled the area twice, this is an earlier census during that rule

      September 3, 2012 at 12:31 pm |
    • TR6

      Eyeswideopen “Dead Sea scrolls I believe somewhere in the 50's validated the writings of the Gospel”

      Typical Christian bullsiht
      According to The Oxford Companion to Archaeology, referring to the dead sea scrolls:
      It is now becoming increasingly clear that the Old Testament scripture was extremely fluid until its canonization around A.D. 100

      September 3, 2012 at 5:25 pm |
  19. I don't THINK so

    Postings: Thank you for proving my point that there is no arguing with ignorance. Third graders are fond of calling people who don't agree with them "stupid". But you forgot my favorite, "Doo-doo head".
    There are historical writings that claim a man named Jesus existed; there is no proof that he is or was "The Son of God", whatever that might mean. There is also no evidence that he actually spoke the words attributed to him.

    September 2, 2012 at 7:36 pm |
    • Chad

      There is overwhelming historical evidence that Jesus claimed to be the Son of God.

      That in and of itself doesnt prove He was, but it DOES prove He made that claim of Himself.

      September 2, 2012 at 7:38 pm |
    • Damocles

      @Chad

      And what does that prove? I can make all kinds of claims about myself, even write them in a book or get a friend to write them down for me. Doesn't make any of those claims true now does it?

      September 2, 2012 at 7:40 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Gee, there's a guy on the street corner not far from the White House who claims the same thing, Chard. What of it?

      September 2, 2012 at 7:49 pm |
    • Marduk, Time Traveller with a very small rock.

      Second and third-hand accounts made decades after Jesus supposedly lived and died, are not, and never will be, "overwhelming historical evidence".
      And most of those accounts just noted that there was a cult.
      There are zero first-hand accounts. There isn't even anything in the Roman records, and they were good at keeping track of what idiots they sentenced to death, so you have yet to make the case that he even lived and died.

      September 2, 2012 at 7:50 pm |
    • Chad

      what does it prove?

      C.S. Lewis put it best:

      “I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: I’m ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don’t accept his claim to be God. That is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic — on the level with the man who says he is a poached egg — or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God, or else a madman or something worse. You can shut him up for a fool, you can spit at him and kill him as a demon or you can fall at his feet and call him Lord and God, but let us not come with any patronizing nonsense about his being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to.”

      September 2, 2012 at 7:53 pm |
    • Chad

      The historicity of Jesus refers to the analysis of historical data to determine if Jesus existed as a historical figure, approximately where and when he lived, and if any of the major milestones in his life, such as his method of death, can be confirmed as historical events.[1][2][3] In contrast, the study of the historical Jesus goes beyond the question of his historicity and attempts to reconstruct portraits of his life and teachings, based on methods such as biblical criticism of gospel texts and the history of first century Judea.[3][4]

      Virtually all modern history scholars agree that Jesus existed, and, with theologists see the theories of his non-existence as effectively refuted.[5][6][7][8][9] Scholars generally agree that Jesus was a Galilean Jew who was born BC 7–2 and died AD 30–36.[10][11] Most scholars hold that Jesus lived in Galilee and Judea[12][13][14] and that he spoke Aramaic and may have also spoken Hebrew and some Greek.[15][16][17][18][19] Although scholars differ on the reconstruction of the specific episodes of the life of Jesus, the two events whose historicity is subject to "almost universal assent" are that he was baptized by John the Baptist and was crucified by the order of the Roman Prefect Pontius Pilate.[20][21][22][23]

      September 2, 2012 at 7:56 pm |
    • Damocles

      @Chad

      Here are some words *Damocles is an all around nice guy*. Do these words make it so?

      September 2, 2012 at 8:01 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Other One

      Chad can produce some verses where Jesus made an outright claim to be God. I've pointed out that this is where, at best, Jesus is claimed to have claimed to be God. It doesn't really sway me that someone was making Jesus out to be a God, a madman or worse. Evidence is called for to support claims. Especially claims of claims, I would think.

      September 2, 2012 at 8:03 pm |
    • Rachel

      Chad-Fantastic posts as usual 🙂

      September 2, 2012 at 8:11 pm |
    • Chad

      @Damocles "Here are some words *Damocles is an all around nice guy*. Do these words make it so?

      @Chad "they prove that you said it.

      as I said, there is overwhelming evidence that Jesus claimed to be the Son of God.

      September 2, 2012 at 8:12 pm |
    • Chad

      If Jesus claimed to be the Son of God and wasnt, He was a lunatic.

      "I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: 'I'm ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don't accept His claim to be God.' That is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic -‑ on a level with the man who says he is a poached egg ‑- or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the son of God: or else a madman or something worse."

      September 2, 2012 at 8:14 pm |
    • Damocles

      @Chad

      They don't prove I said any such thing. You don't even know if I actually wrote them, do you?

      Are you willing to believe any words simply because they are written down somewhere?

      September 2, 2012 at 8:17 pm |
    • Jill

      Chad, don't obfuscate the primary prenuptials with rasberries. Often, the pertinent cat presents fabled necessities in the parking chamfers. Realize your net precedent. Triangulate! Save the best for the alligators. Ever the bastille notches the orchestra but Wendy is not green and horses will capitulate. Filter out the logs from the turnstile and cry prevalently.

      So there brown stare. Feed your inner walnut and resolve. Subject your lemon to the ingenious door in the presence of snow and animals. Aisle 7 is for the monetary cheese whiz. Faced with the kitchen, you may wish to prolong the sailboat in the cliff. Otherwise, rabbits may descend on your left nostril. Think about how you can stripe the sea.

      Regale the storm to those who (6) would thump the parrot with the armband. Corner the market on vestiges of the apparent closure but seek not the evidential circumstance. Therein you can find indignant mountains of pigs and apples. Descend eloquently as you debate the ceiling of your warning fulcrum. Vacate the corncob profusely and and don’t dote on the pancreas.

      Next up, control your wood. Have at the cat with your watch on the fore. Aft! Smarties (12)! Rome wasn’t kevetched in an autumn nightie. (42) See yourself for the turntable on the escalator. Really peruse the garage spider definitely again again with brown. Now we have an apparent congestion, so be it here. Just a moment is not a pod of beef for the ink well nor can it be (4) said that Karen was there in the millpond.

      Garbage out just like the candle in the kitty so. Go, go, go until the vacuum meets the upward vacation. Sell the yellow. Then trim the bus before the ten cheese please Louise. Segregate from the koan and stew the ship vigorously.

      And remember, never pass up an opportunity to watch an elephant paint Mozart.

      September 2, 2012 at 8:17 pm |
    • Rachel

      Jesus is the Messiah, the son of the Living God.
      Mathew 16:13-20; Mark 8:29; Luke 9:20

      September 2, 2012 at 8:19 pm |
    • Damocles

      @Rachel

      Cats are our Overlords.
      Kibbles 2: 12-15; Tigger 7: 27-32; Mr. Fluffy 18: 2-4

      September 2, 2012 at 8:28 pm |
    • eyeswideopen

      A good point . This is where it requires a leap of faith. Quite frankly having faith is not for everyone. Some people will simply never grasp the concept of faith.

      September 2, 2012 at 9:04 pm |
    • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

      @Damocles,

      all hail Bastet!

      All should fear the beautiful Sylvia of Pyris VII.

      September 2, 2012 at 9:12 pm |
    • Gadflie

      Chad, outside the Bible itself, there is so little evidence of ANYTHING Jesus said as to be basically nonexistent.

      September 2, 2012 at 10:16 pm |
    • Chad

      @Gadflie "outside the Bible itself, there is so little evidence of ANYTHING Jesus said as to be basically nonexistent"

      =>A. The bible is a collection of writings from different sources, as such they are considered independent and examined (by real historians) as such.
      B. There is a very large body of other writings collectively known as the "apocrypha".

      If you think for an instant that it is not possible to know what Jesus said, then you disagree with virtually all historians..

      September 2, 2012 at 11:40 pm |
    • Chad

      Keep in mind, this is LIBERAL scholars writing this, they do NOT believe in the divinity of Jesus.

      What you 'll notice is that they all consider Jesus a real historical figure, and believe he claimed to be the Son of God.

      The term historical Jesus refers to scholarly reconstructions of the 1st-century figure Jesus of Nazareth.[1] These reconstructions are based upon historical methods including critical analysis of gospel texts as the primary source for his biography, along with consideration of the historical and cultural context in which he lived.[2]
      The historical Jesus is believed to be a Galilean Jew who undertook at least one pilgrimage to Jerusalem, then part of Roman Judaea, during a time of messianic and apocalyptic expectations in late Second Temple Judaism.[3][4] He was apparently baptized by John the Baptist, whose example he may have followed, and after John was executed, began his own preaching in Galilee for between one to three years prior to his death. He took the role of an eschatological prophet and an autonomous ethical teacher.[5] He taught by using surprising and original parables, many of them about the coming Kingdom of God.[6] Some scholars credit the apocalyptic declarations of the Gospels to him, while others portray his Kingdom of God as a moral one, and not apocalyptic in nature.[7] Later, he traveled to Jerusalem where he caused a disturbance at the Temple.[3] It was the time of Passover, when political and religious tensions were high in Jerusalem.[3] The Gospels say that the temple guards (believed to be Sadducees) arrested him and turned him over to the Roman governor Pontius Pilate for execution. After his death his followers believed that they were sent as apostles out to heal and to preach coming of the Kingdom of God.[8] The movement he had started survived his death and was carried on by his brother James the Just and other apostles some of whom proclaimed the resurrection of Jesus.[9] After splitting with Rabbinic Judaism, it developed into Early Christianity.

      September 2, 2012 at 11:48 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Other One

      I believe that there was a historical Jesus similar in most ways to what is described in your wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_Jesus). Why do you accept all the claims that are made about him in the Bible?

      September 3, 2012 at 12:02 am |
    • Chad

      The bible has proven time and time again, that the content is accurate.

      What is your basis for accepting some of it and not others (it's a rhetorical question.. I already know, the parts you dont think are accurate are the ones you dont want to be accurate.. Remember?
      @Tom, Tom, the Other One "I like Jesus and I'd like to think he did not claim to be God")

      September 3, 2012 at 12:14 am |
    • Tom, Tom, the Other One

      "I like Jesus and I'd like to think he did not claim to be God" I won't put Jesus on the "God, madman, or worse spectrum" of C. S. Lewis myself. As I've said a few times today, claims by others that Jesus claimed to be God really won't do. Actually, I've been reviewing what the Gospels say Jesus said. Perhaps that's something we can discuss tomorrow.

      September 3, 2012 at 12:38 am |
    • Tom, Tom, the Other One

      There's this from The Gospel of John. Is Jesus saying that he is God?

      30"I and the Father are one.”

      31 Again the Jews picked up stones to stone him, 32 but Jesus said to them, “I have shown you many great miracles from the Father. For which of these do you stone me?”

      33 “We are not stoning you for any of these,” replied the Jews, “but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God.”

      34 Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your Law, ‘I have said you are gods’? 35 If he called them ‘gods,’ to whom the word of God came—and the Scripture cannot be broken— 36 what about the one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world? Why then do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said, ‘I am God’s Son’? 37 Do not believe me unless I do what my Father does. 38 But if I do it, even though you do not believe me, believe the miracles, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me, and I in the Father.”

      September 3, 2012 at 12:49 am |
    • Just a girl

      @Chad

      Keep in mind, this is LIBERAL scholars writing this, they do NOT believe in the divinity of Jesus.

      What you 'll notice is that they all consider Jesus a real historical figure, and believe he claimed to be the Son of God.

      The term historical Jesus refers to scholarly reconstructions of the 1st-century figure Jesus of Nazareth.[1] These reconstructions are based upon historical methods including critical analysis of gospel texts as the primary source for his biography, along with consideration of the historical and cultural context in which he lived.[2]
      The historical Jesus is believed to be a Galilean Jew who undertook at least one pilgrimage to Jerusalem, then part of Roman Judaea, during a time of messianic and apocalyptic expectations in late Second Temple Judaism.[3][4] He was apparently baptized by John the Baptist, whose example he may have followed, and after John was executed, began his own preaching in Galilee for between one to three years prior to his death. He took the role of an eschatological prophet and an autonomous ethical teacher.[5] He taught by using surprising and original parables, many of them about the coming Kingdom of God.[6] Some scholars credit the apocalyptic declarations of the Gospels to him, while others portray his Kingdom of God as a moral one, and not apocalyptic in nature.[7] Later, he traveled to Jerusalem where he caused a disturbance at the Temple.[3] It was the time of Passover, when political and religious tensions were high in Jerusalem.[3] The Gospels say that the temple guards (believed to be Sadducees) arrested him and turned him over to the Roman governor Pontius Pilate for execution. After his death his followers believed that they were sent as apostles out to heal and to preach coming of the Kingdom of God.[8] The movement he had started survived his death and was carried on by his brother James the Just and other apostles some of whom proclaimed the resurrection of Jesus.[9] After splitting with Rabbinic Judaism, it developed into Early Christianity.

      September 2, 2012 at 11:48 pm | Report abuse |

      I disagree with the premise that liberal scholars do not believe in the divinity of Jesus. It may just be my experience with the subject matter. A large amount of scholarly work presents as a belief in his divinity. it is reinforced through multiple texts when you view them separately and then together. You use the word liberal scholars so perhaps you have specific ones in mind. Enlighten me.

      Each text shows a different perspective of Jesus and still ties to another. It is as if you are being allowed to glimpse multiple angles of beauty, even while it transforms, and on levels you have yet to comprehend. After the study of religion and NT there was a deeper understanding of who Jesus was and who he is. I was awestruck throughout at the divinity in motion.

      September 3, 2012 at 2:41 am |
    • eyeswideopen

      You're right what you stated that there is no proof that He was the son of God. This is where it requires a leap of faith. Think of the apostles as todays version of investigative reporters. They stayed with Jesus for three years,listening to his parables day after day until they were probably ingrained in their head , word for word. All faiths require that you take a leap of faith, as far as I can see.

      September 3, 2012 at 10:13 am |
    • Chad

      @Tom, Tom, the Other One "There's this from The Gospel of John. Is Jesus saying that he is God?"

      =>yes

      ========
      @Just a Girl "I disagree with the premise that liberal scholars do not believe in the divinity of Jesus."
      =>Unfortunately there exists a very small but highly reported upon group of "scholars" that have dedicated their lives to trying to convince the public that all of the miracles, and any claim that Jesus made claiming to be divine are inventions.
      John Dominic Crossan, Marcus Borg are two of the better known.

      Craig has decimated both in several different debates..

      September 3, 2012 at 10:24 am |
    • Inigo Montoya

      I do not think the word "decimated" means what you think it means, Chad.

      September 3, 2012 at 10:28 am |
    • Douglas

      Chad, "decimated" is hardly a term I would use for Craig, who has lost every argument about science that he has ever publicly been in.

      September 3, 2012 at 10:29 am |
    • Bob

      Chad, since you are so eager to use the Christian book of horrors as a reference, let's look at what's really in that evil book. Please, stop referencing that Christian book of nasty, AKA the bible, as a guide to, well, anything:

      Numbers 31:17-18
      17 Now kiII all the boys. And kiII every woman who has slept with a man,
      18 but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.

      Deuteronomy 13:6 – “If your brother, your mother’s son or your son or daughter, or the wife you cherish, or your friend who is as your own soul entice you secretly, saying, let us go and serve other gods … you shall surely kill him; your hand shall be first against him to put him to death”

      Revelations 2:23 And I will kill her children with death; and all the churches shall know that I am he which searcheth the reins and hearts: and I will give unto every one of you according to your works.

      Note that the bible is also very clear that you should sacrifice and burn an animal today because the smell makes sicko Christian sky fairy happy. No, you don't get to use the parts for food. You burn them, a complete waste of the poor animal.

      Yes, the bible really says that, everyone. Yes, it's in Leviticus, look it up. Yes, Jesus purportedly said that the OT commands still apply. No exceptions. But even if you think the OT was god's mistaken first go around, you have to ask why a perfect, loving enti-ty would ever put such horrid instructions in there. If you think rationally at all, that is.

      And then, if you disagree with my interpretation, ask yourself how it is that your "god" couldn't come up with a better way to communicate than a book that is so readily subject to so many interpretations and to being taken "out of context", and has so many mistakes in it. Pretty pathetic god that you've made for yourself.

      So get out your sacrificial knife or your nasty sky creature will torture you eternally. Or just take a closer look at your foolish supersti-tions, understand that they are just silly, and toss them into the dustbin with all the rest of the gods that man has created.

      Ask the questions. Break the chains. Join the movement. Be free of Christianity and other superstitions.
      http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/

      September 3, 2012 at 10:32 am |
    • Fabian

      I'm the son of Chad

      and I think my dad is a dolt.

      September 3, 2012 at 10:34 am |
    • Chad

      @Douglas ""decimated" is hardly a term I would use for Craig, who has lost every argument about science that he has ever publicly been in "

      🙂

      Craig has NEVER lost a debate, a record atheists acknowledge (especially Dawkins, who is terrified of debating him)
      dont take my word for it, read the review at commonsenseatheism dot com

      September 3, 2012 at 10:38 am |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      A review is an opinion, Chard.

      September 3, 2012 at 10:41 am |
    • Chad

      @Bob, do you know the reasons that the bible records for those commands?
      or
      you never read the bible and you are just getting a list off of infidels.org..?

      Context extremely important.. right?

      Look at it this way, if you actually read the bible, think of all the ammo you would have!!
      To really refute a position, you must understand it first..

      September 3, 2012 at 10:45 am |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Lane proposed debating an empty chair to represent Dawkins. Gee, guess Eastwood wasn't all that original. And look how well it worked out for him!

      September 3, 2012 at 10:47 am |
    • donna

      Those historical writings began decades after Jesus supposedly died and continued to be written for over a century. There is no reason consider that they are first hand accounts of a man named Jesus existing, or that they could have been referring to a single person. To the contrary, the stories about Jesus fit the pattern of the time to create heroes to pass on human wisdom.

      September 3, 2012 at 3:11 pm |
    • Chad

      @donna "Those historical writings began decades after Jesus supposedly died and continued to be written for over a century. There is no reason consider that they are first hand accounts of a man named Jesus existing, or that they could have been referring to a single person. To the contrary, the stories about Jesus fit the pattern of the time to create heroes to pass on human wisdom."

      =>20 years (Pauls first letters)

      again, Jesus deniers are a strange bunch.. not many of them around.. Irrational the extent to which people will go to maintain a belief in the face of contradicting evidence..

      September 3, 2012 at 3:33 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      I don't deny that Jesus lived, Chard. I see no evidence of his divinity.

      September 3, 2012 at 3:37 pm |
    • donna

      Chad,
      What's your source on that date? And 20 years is still decades (though I do challenge that date), and not contemporary. Given that that's the best rebuttal you have, and it happens to support my actual argument, I don't think I'm the strange one.

      September 3, 2012 at 3:37 pm |
    • Chad

      Jesus resurrected ~33AD

      You should do some reading, the corollary is: why in the world are you so confident about something you know nothing about and therefore in error on? Dont you look anything up?

      The earliest works which came to be part of the New Testament are the letters of the Apostle Paul. The Gospel of Mark has been dated from as early as the AD 50s, although most scholars date it between the range of 65 and 72.[63] Many scholars believe that Matthew and Luke were written after the composition of Mark as they make use of Mark's content. Therefore they are generally dated later than Mark, although how much later is debated. Matthew has been dated between 70 and 85. Luke has been placed within 80 to 95. However, a few scholars date the Gospel of Luke much earlier, as Luke indicates in the book of Acts that he has already written the Gospel of Luke prior to writing the introduction to Acts.
      The earliest of the books of the New Testament was First Thessalonians, an epistle of Paul, written probably in 51, or possibly Galatians in 49 according to one of two theories of its writing. Of the pseudepigraphical epistles, scholars tend to place them somewhere between 70 and 150, with Second Peter usually being the latest

      September 3, 2012 at 3:47 pm |
    • donna

      Chad,

      I look lots of things up. It's basic math that I seem to struggle with! ; )

      20-30 years it is. Still decades, still not contemporary, and still hearsay.

      What did Paul say about Jesus decades after he died? Did he say that Jesus to be a normal person? No it was about a magical Jesus. So moreover, the fact that he wrote about a magical Jesus, 20 years after he supposedly died, is not at all evidence for a mortal, historical Jesus.

      September 3, 2012 at 4:06 pm |
    • Chad

      @donna "20-30 years it is. Still decades, still not contemporary, and still hearsay."
      @ Chad "earliest was 18 years, far to early for myth to develop, most of the folks that met Jesus personally still alive at that point.
      note also (you arent aware of this because you have never read the bible), active aggressive persecution of early Christians by Jewish authorities, so they would be been looking to debunk any of the early writings.

      not heresay, multiple first person attestation (Matthew, John, Paul, Peter)

      @Donna "What did Paul say about Jesus decades after he died?"
      @Chad "fascinating question..
      you never read the bible.

      never read a Jesus denier that actually read the bible.. they form an opinion first..then run from the evidence...

      all I can say is LOL

      September 3, 2012 at 4:49 pm |
    • donna

      Chad, Far too early for a myth? First, you can write a myth about someone anytime. While they're alive, before they're born- whenever you want. However myths are not required to be based on real people, so the existence of a myth, in no way is existence of a real person. Fiction isn't a modern device. People have been making up fictional stories for thousands or years before this time period.

      Second, since it started as myth, that argument is pointless. I am not interested in discussing Jesus as a magical person. I am interested in evidence of a mortal Jesus- which you haven't provided.

      No one here who says they believe in a historical Jesus has provided any historical evidence to base that on. People believe it because of the overwhelming acceptance of his existence by the population- one that is based on tradition, not evidence. even those who deny the magical Jesus would prefer to rationalize that he must have existed as a mortal because it fits with society's beliefs.

      Also, you might want to look up the definition of hearsay.

      September 3, 2012 at 5:04 pm |
    • donna

      In "Good and Bad Reasons for Believing" (an open letter to his daughter) Richard Dawkins explains the reasons that people form beliefs. one of them is of course, tradition. If you tell a story over and over and pass it for generations, people will believe that it's true. And they consider the fact that so many people believed it to be true, to be evidence that it is true.

      The fact that someone began telling stories about a man who did magical things, doesn't mean that he based those stories on a real person, and that he only invented the magical parts. People have told stories with fictional characters for thousands of years. Demigods have been part of mythology since Sumer. Do you think that existence of the story of about a Sumerian demigod is evidence that such a man truly existed?

      I think people forget to consider that these people weren't sitting around at night watching TV or on the computer. They were telling stories. ALL of them, ALL the time. It's how they passed on human values, generally atrtributes that can be found commonly in people.

      It was a time with hundreds of cults, all competing- all with their own heroes and stories.

      And the first writings are of a magical Jesus and not a mortal Jesus. If the early writings were truly about a mortal man, that grew over time to incorporate magical elements, wouldn't we expect the earliest versions, written by the people who claimed direct knowledge, to reflect that?

      To argue for a historical Jesus, you would be saying that Paul's story about the resurrection of Jesus to be reliable. In what other context would you do that?

      There is no record of Jesus or the events surrounding his death. And the Romans were pretty big on that. And by normal, historical theory, the existence of a fictional characters i stories isn't evidence of the existence of a real person. Yet, society makes a special case for the fictional stories about Jesus.

      September 3, 2012 at 5:41 pm |
    • Chad

      The real question would be, "why would a person that never read the bible, never did an inch of research on the subject, feel so compelled to claim Jesus wasnt a historical person?"

      that right there is a fascinating question..Both in terms of what kind of person would feel that was reasonable, and what would compel them to do so..

      interesting people those Jesus deniers..

      (BTW, Dawkins accepts Jesus as a real historical person, as does every serious scholar)

      September 3, 2012 at 5:46 pm |
    • Just a girl

      @Chad

      Crossan and Borg ah yes. Crossan: I have already studied and will omit my exact opinion on his work for the moment. I will say challenge of any scholarly analysis helps us understand the invdividual process used create the work. Scholarly works can be the products of outside influences. Shaped by a view which coincides only with what someone wants to see as truth. Borg a fellow travelmate of Crossan, but not an extremist in his views. I have come to understand Borg through multiple pieces of his works. it is typical for me to not dismiss the wholework of an individual based on a single thread presented. With that said, his position on the divinity of Jesus is evident to me through his conception of Jesus as living.

      I view scholarly texts to be inclusive of multiple sources. This prevents a focus on just NT scholars. Contributors to history come from a variety of background.Religious scholars are careful to remain cognizant of what is common for the time period in which events take place. I noted the shift you made from biblical to scholarly in terms of analysis. It is refreshing to talk with someone who is aware of the distinction. An effortless read in the transition is not easy to articulate.

      Do you agree with a description of divinity which includes internal and external stimuli? Is it visual, oral, physical, mental, written, or spiritual? Can it contain all of those elements?

      September 4, 2012 at 12:09 am |
    • Just a girl

      @Chad

      I trust that you'll forgive my lack of editing due to the late hour. Apologies

      September 4, 2012 at 12:18 am |
    • donna

      Chad, don't lie. Dawkins questions Jesus' existence in "The God Delusion."

      And it's amusing that lying about Dawkins is the best response you have...

      FYI- I've read the bible, and I've been to church plenty. More importantly, I know how to evaluate historical sources.

      September 4, 2012 at 3:10 pm |
  20. Fred

    Hmmm...
    I see the atheists are out in full force. I wonder if they all look as goofy as Bill Nye does in that picture.
    Seeing him there with that cheap rug perched on his head like a beanie cap is just priceless.
    If atheists want to convince people to see things as they do then they might want to find a spokesman who
    doesn't look like a sideshow attraction.
    Just sayin'...

    September 2, 2012 at 7:11 pm |
    • Rational Libertarian

      It's only a f.ucking retard would judge the man on his appearance rather than the truth he speaks.

      September 2, 2012 at 7:18 pm |
    • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

      @Fred,

      Bill Nye looks no less goofy than the lady and the gentleman dredged up by the Creation Museum in their rebuttal video – see p1 of the comments on this topic.

      I see no reason to be derogatory to those two individuals but they won't win any beaty contests either.

      If you factor the 'attractiveness' of the pitchman into your interpretation of whether what they say has merit, then I weep for you.

      Of course you probably are representative of voters who will only vote for a tall handsome white man with an expensive haircut – because we all know that tall white men with their own hair are naturally more intelligent.

      Just sayin'...

      September 2, 2012 at 7:19 pm |
    • Huzzah

      Fred,

      Shall we start critiquing the physiognomy of Nye's Christian page mate up on top of the page (Rick Warren). Look out...!

      September 2, 2012 at 7:24 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Well, Ferd, why don't you post your picture and we'll see if you measure up?

      September 2, 2012 at 7:26 pm |
    • Fred

      Rick Warren certainly won't win any beauty prizes, true.
      But that picture of Bill Nye...
      Don't stare at the eyes for too long. He looks cuckoo for Cocoa Puffs, I'm tellin' ya.
      Not only that, but I'd swear I saw that thing on his head move. No, really. I think it's alive.

      September 2, 2012 at 7:29 pm |
    • GodFreeNow

      Fred = troll.

      September 2, 2012 at 7:32 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Fred=box of rocks

      September 2, 2012 at 7:37 pm |
    • to be a an atheist or not to be an atheist?

      You say right.

      September 2, 2012 at 7:38 pm |
    • Damocles

      The only thing dumber than fred is two freds.

      September 2, 2012 at 7:39 pm |
    • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

      Fred has the hots for these two:

      [youtube=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r-AyDtD6sPA&w=640&h=360]

      September 2, 2012 at 7:53 pm |
    • Fred

      I read all the comments and I don't see a single one denying that Bill Nye looks crazy in that picture.
      Lots of attacks on me, I see (which is all right, I realize that is the atheist way).
      I think if the atheists want to get religious people to change their minds then they need to find a
      spokesman who doesn't look like a refugee from the loony bin.
      P.S. Just for the record, I've never voted Republican in my entire life.

      September 2, 2012 at 8:03 pm |
    • GodFreeNow

      Thanks for that video. I love how that guy compares America to Islam and various other 3rd world countries to solidify his position.

      However, he crosses the line with me in speaking about Ja.pan. I'm very familiar with the statistics here, as 1) I live in Ja.pan and 2) I'm very concerned about what my children are taught. Ja.pan is 5th in the world in terms of belief with 78% believing it is factual and that no deity is behind it.

      The top 5 countries who support evolution are:
      1) Iceland
      2) Denmark
      3) Sweden
      4) France
      5) Ja.pan

      The United States is 2nd to last, outpaced only by Turkey.

      But, why should we let facts and numbers get in the way of baseless conjecture and opinion.

      The lady also tries to explain the difference between observational science and historical science. This probably sounds really good if you have zero scientific education.

      1) All science, whether in the past or present IS observational. How else could we understand data? Even radiometric dating takes place in the moment of judging the decay.

      2) Even if you DO draw a distinction, evolution is still observable when you witness the mutations of new viruses and bacteria (http://old.richarddawkins.net/articles/2669-a-new-step-in-evolution) as well as the influence of man-directed natural selection and caused mutations (like is currently happening to insects around the nuclear reactors in Fukishima).

      September 2, 2012 at 8:09 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Fred, you idiot, why would you dream atheists need a "spokesperson"? You idiot, I don't need to persuade anyone else to be an atheist. Why would I? It's not like we get a cut or a bonus for recruiting, you fvcking dolt.

      September 2, 2012 at 10:41 pm |
    • rocinante

      Way to elevate the debate. When you don't have a point, start insulting the other side's looks.

      September 2, 2012 at 11:23 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      This debate is past elevating by several days. Don't bother putting on your mourning clothes.

      September 2, 2012 at 11:26 pm |
    • Puck

      why does the video sound like their reading from a script,... oh yeah Christians don't think for them self

      September 2, 2012 at 11:54 pm |
    • Fallacy Spotting 101

      Post by 'Fred' is an instance of the ad hominem fallacy.

      http://www.fallacyfiles.org/glossary.html

      September 3, 2012 at 10:08 am |
    • Fred

      @Fallacy Spotting 101
      Actually, no, it's not.
      I'm not arguing anything. I am, however, pointing out the goofy-lookin' mofo in the picture.

      I was trying to think of an appropriate caption for that picture and it finally came to me.
      Here it is:
      "The Old Ones lurk at the edge of reality! They live beyond the realm of space and time!
      Once again, Cthulhu will slither across the earth! According to my calculations, during the
      next full moon Cthulhu will return!"
      "With the appropriate human sacrifices, of course..."
      (This is for all you Lovecraft fans out there.)

      September 3, 2012 at 10:47 am |
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69
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.