home
RSS
Conventions leave atheists asking: What political party represents me?
A voice vote to change the DNC party platform turned to chaos Wednesday night.
September 6th, 2012
03:24 PM ET

Conventions leave atheists asking: What political party represents me?

By Dan Merica, CNN

Washington (CNN) – This convention season has not been good for atheists.

The word "God" was reinserted in the Democratic platform after it had been removed. A plan to raise atheist billboards in the convention cities was stymied by opponents. And though there were preachers and rabbis and other religious leaders opening and closing each day of each convention, there wasn’t an avowed atheist talking up unbelief on either convention’s speaking list.

The political lockout has left many nonbelievers asking, “What political party represents me?”

“We are deeply saddened by the exclusion of a large number of Americans by both parties,” said Teresa MacBain, a spokeswoman for the group American Atheists, in an interview on Thursday. “It amazes me that in modern-day America, so much prejudice still exists.”

After word spread Wednesday that Democrats left God out of their platform, atheists rejoiced. “Truly amazing news,” wrote Loren Miller on Atheist Nexus, a popular atheist blog. “The Republicans remain in the firm grasp of right-wing Christian religiosity, and I really don't know what it's going to take to free them from it.”

But the convention committee immediately received huge pressure get God back in the platform. Even President Obama, according to CNN reporting, said, “Why on earth would that have been taken out?” when he first heard of the omission.

In an awkward session that required three voice votes on the convention floor, the Democrats opted to add “God” back to the platform.

For atheists, the Democrats were seen to be taking away a hard-fought victory. “We had 24 hours of joy as we felt (that) finally our government values all people,” said MacBain. “But that was short-lived. The vote last night angered many atheists and left them feeling excluded once again.”

Online, atheist websites and Facebook pages went from upbeat to downcast as news spread of the platform revision.

“Obama was the first president to acknowledge non believers,” Mark Musante wrote on the American Atheists’ Facebook page. “I wish he would stick to his guns.”

Musante was referring to Obama’s 2009 inauguration speech, when the president said, “We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus, and nonbelievers.”

Beverly Sitherwood, on the Friendly Atheist blog Facebook page, accused the Democrats of “Pandering for power.”

Some atheist leaders used the platform defeat as a rallying call.

“I guess a tiny step was too much to ask for,” David Silverman, president of the American Atheists, told CNN. “This was a clear message to the 16% of the voting population - we don’t count. Well, guess what, Dems - we do. And we vote.”

Silverman says that 16% of the voting public identify as nonbelievers. According to the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life, 12% of the electorate in 2008 was made up of people with no religious affiliation, though experts say the number of avowed atheists is much smaller.

While acknowledging atheists, Obama has given platforms to high-profile religious leaders, including Rick Warren, a megachurch pastor who prayed at his inauguration, and Catholic Cardinal Timothy Dolan, who is giving the final prayer of the convention on Thursday night.

American Atheists’ plans to raise billboards ridiculing the presidential candidates’ faith ended in failure. After the group put up billboards in Charlotte, North Carolina, the site of the Democratic National Convention, last month, it quickly removed them due to “physical threats to not only our staff, but the billboard company as well.”

American Atheists had also planned on a billboard in Tampa, Florida, to coincide with the Republican National Convention there. But American Atheists said that all the billboard companies in Tampa rejected a sign taking aim at GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney’s Mormon faith.

Perhaps because of the Republican Party’s ties to conservative Christianity, atheists tend to be Democrats. According to a 2012 Pew study, 71% of Americans who identified as atheist were Democrats.

“The Republicans who spoke at the RNC seemed more like televangelists than politicians,” MacBain said. “The message was clear from the RNC: Get God, or get out.”

The Republican’s 2012 platform mentions God 12 times, many of which describe the “God-given” rights that the Republican Party says are inherent to the American idea.

Though most atheist groups claim that there are closeted atheists serving as representatives and senators, only one has come out as such.

In September 2007, Rep. Pete Stark, Democrat of California, affirmed his atheism in a speech at the Humanist Chaplaincy at Harvard University.

- Dan Merica

Filed under: 2012 Election • Atheism • God • Politics

soundoff (3,922 Responses)
  1. Iqbal Khan

    Check this...
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=4tTMMNTisBM#!

    September 10, 2012 at 9:14 pm |
  2. Iqbal Khan

    We Are at War
    Exploiting 9/11 for the Benefit of a Few.

    By Johnny Barber

    Who benefits from the War on Terror and who benefits when America threatens war?
    http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article32415.htm

    September 10, 2012 at 9:09 pm |
  3. Julie

    The word atheist can be defined by one word: atheist = MORON. That is all.

    September 10, 2012 at 8:53 pm |
    • G. Zeus Kreiszchte

      "Anyone who doesn't believe in the same fairy tale that I do is a fool" – Psalm 14:1

      September 10, 2012 at 9:00 pm |
    • Athy

      Actually, studies show that atheists have significantly higher intelligence levels than cross clutchers. Certainly the much better writing skills of the atheists on this blog bear that out. So, Julie, what is your reasoning for calling us morons?

      September 10, 2012 at 9:11 pm |
    • C

      No, I think your comment speaks for itself as to what a good definition of moron is.

      September 10, 2012 at 9:13 pm |
    • sam stone

      Julie = Cvnt. That's it.

      September 11, 2012 at 4:34 am |
  4. G. Zeus Kreiszchte

    KRHODES

    "I exist don't I? The universe exist and everything in it right? Well it must have been caused by something greater than itself right? That cause is God...what else would it be...nothing?"

    Who or what created your "god"? Something greater than your alleged "god" had to exist before in order to create it!

    September 10, 2012 at 8:20 pm |
  5. oops

    Memo to all atheists: There is a God. Just because you haven't seen empirical evidence, doesn't make it not true. It's awesome that you're "thinking for yourself" (though you're just as influenced by others as believers are) but that doesn't make you right. What's gonna happen when you find that you've been wrong the whole time? I PROMISE you it's gonna happen.

    September 10, 2012 at 8:11 pm |
    • G. Zeus Kreiszchte

      Based on WHAT EVIDENCE?! You cannot just accuse the entire world of "sin" and "eternal punishment" just because YOU are afraid to DIE! DOLT!

      September 10, 2012 at 8:21 pm |
    • Peteyroo

      Poops, you're full of horse feathers. There are no leprechauns, no unicorns, no Tooth Fairy, no....well, you see what I mean. BTW the earth isn't flat and you can't repeal the law of gravity. It's time for you to smarten up and leave your mythical, magical God behind.

      September 10, 2012 at 8:45 pm |
    • Ivan

      What if you find out you picked the wrong god ? Thor won't be pleased

      September 10, 2012 at 8:59 pm |
    • Athy

      There isn't a whit of evidence for god, oopsie. Just because some old dude in fancy robes in a fancy building reading from a book of ancient fables tells you there is a god just ain't evidence. If you want to wear out your pants groveling on your knees worshipping some imaginary god, that's your business. All I can do is watch in disbelief.

      September 10, 2012 at 9:23 pm |
    • sam stone

      Ooooh, A PROMISE.

      September 11, 2012 at 4:36 am |
  6. G. Zeus Kreiszchte

    @LENDOG
    "If there where no god there would be no atheists"
    G.K. Chesterton

    "No one ever claimed 'There is no god' until someone first claimed 'There is a god.'"
    -G. Zeus Kreiszchte

    September 10, 2012 at 7:30 pm |
    • G. Zeus Kreiszchte

      LENDOG
      "By using the prefix "a" one is saying "without or not" when put in front of the root word. By doing this to the word thiest, one is implying that they are without a deity. By acknowledging that they are without something that is claimed to be, they admit to the existance of what is claimed, but reject it."

      So, LENDOG, you are an a-FlyingSpaghettiMonster-ist because I claim there is one and yet you reject this claim? And because you reject this claim you are therefore admitting its existence?! HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! By this logic, nothing and everything are real simultaneously! No proof necessary! Just claim it and it must be so!

      September 10, 2012 at 7:57 pm |
  7. Zoby

    If the democratic party is going to embrace religion we should drop our support for them.

    September 10, 2012 at 7:23 pm |
    • shvillalba

      I second that! ... Also: ... ANY church that starts to talk/preach/advocate/advice about political issues should lose their TAX exemption status.

      September 10, 2012 at 7:55 pm |
    • charles davis

      Get real. That's exactly why they put "god" back in the platform. They have to get votes from everybody. Intellectuals, morons, and everyone inbetween. Both parties do the same thing.

      September 10, 2012 at 8:23 pm |
  8. Brian

    Neither political party represents me, I don't say that because I'm an atheist, I say that because I am a decent and honest man while both the Democrats and Republicans are parties which are totally corrupt.

    The Republican Party's efforts to discredit and disenfranchise Ron Paul was bad enough, but when they altered their bylaws to forbid future grassroot efforts, it was obvious how much they don't want real input from citizens.

    Likewise, the Democrat's recent "teleprompter fiasco" where a delegate vote was blatantly ignored in order to conform to the desired party line just shows that neither party cares about average americans.

    They don't want representative governmnet. They want to maintain power for the status quo.

    I'm voting for Gary Johnson.

    September 10, 2012 at 7:11 pm |
    • charles davis

      By picking on one or two items you don't like, prevents you from voting, you fall in the catagory of not voting. Which means you have no right to complain.

      September 10, 2012 at 8:27 pm |
    • julie

      They didn't say they weren't voting; they said they were voting for Gary Johnson. Or does that not qualify as a real vote in your worldview?

      September 10, 2012 at 8:58 pm |
  9. Byrd

    When I do finally get to meet this god you worship face to face- if it does exist – it will have just as much of a chance of surviving the encounter as I do of surviving my encounter with this world it supposedly created. Namely: ZERO.

    September 10, 2012 at 7:07 pm |
  10. Byrd

    Awww. Left out yet again. Not to worry. We'll get over it.

    September 10, 2012 at 7:04 pm |
    • charles davis

      THANK GOD I'M AN ATHEIST !!!!!!!

      September 10, 2012 at 8:28 pm |
  11. Cindy

    Take heart atheists-the Dems don't believe in God, they just did that because of the backlash-they will do anything for a vote.

    September 10, 2012 at 6:51 pm |
    • Athy

      Have you conducted a poll? What percentage of Dems don't believe in god?

      September 10, 2012 at 6:58 pm |
    • G. Zeus Kreiszchte

      And Republikkans won't do just anything for a vote?

      September 10, 2012 at 7:17 pm |
    • Byrd

      I do believe in god. I just also happen to believe that it's a complete and total criminal jerkwad. Am I still an atheist?

      September 10, 2012 at 7:23 pm |
    • charles davis

      Somewhat like Romney embracing Pat Robitson, that kook who blames hurricans on the gay people

      September 10, 2012 at 8:32 pm |
  12. Cindy

    Poor babies..............

    September 10, 2012 at 6:48 pm |
  13. Rational Libertarian

    If there were no lemurs there would be no giant space bats.

    September 10, 2012 at 6:44 pm |
  14. chris

    truth be told if no one beleived in God then no one wold beleive in the after life. as such, what would be the compulsion to live a good a moral life? why not just do whatever you want since in the end its just nothingness. no consiousness. no anything. so why not just live for your own selfish gradification. most atheist will not do this even though they claim to not belive in God. in reality most of them agnostic in the back of their minds, not knowing what God is exactly but acknowledging even in only a small way that he exist to some degree. no God? right. until their lives are threatened and they're facing death. "Oh God" is the first thing from their mouths.

    September 10, 2012 at 6:41 pm |
    • Rational Libertarian

      My first words would be "chris is so retarded he doesn't even capitalize the first letter in his name".

      September 10, 2012 at 6:46 pm |
    • Athy

      And he can't spell believe, nor capitalize the first word in his sentences. And apparently he claims to be able to read minds.

      September 10, 2012 at 6:51 pm |
    • Kayde

      The way I see it, some things are inherently right and some things are inherently wrong. Period. Not because my imaginary friend in the sky says so, and not because I will be rewarded or punished after death. I don't understand why religious people think they have a lock on living a good life, being honest, doing the right thing and treating people with kindness and respect.

      September 10, 2012 at 6:54 pm |
    • G. Zeus Kreiszchte

      And the retard doesn't know how to spell graTification!

      September 10, 2012 at 7:19 pm |
    • EnjaySea

      I have a compulsion to live a moral life Chris. But it has nothing to do with an "afterlife" (an oddly contradictory term at best). It has to do with my desire to cooperate with others, and keep my family and friends safe, and happy, and well taken care of.

      Are Christians really that self-absorbed that they think their afterlife is the only complelling reason to be a good person? Are you that uncontrollable that you would go completely ape sht if there were no afterlife? What's the matter with you?

      September 10, 2012 at 7:22 pm |
    • G. Zeus Kreiszchte

      Furthermore, retard, morals do not come from any alleged "god." They come from life experience, empathy, the ability for man to extrapolate situations and imagine his own actions coming back to haunt him if acted out by a third party on him. Gee, I wouldn't want someone murdering me, so I guess I'd better not make anyone feel like their life is threatened. Gee I wouldn't want anyone r@ping my wife or enticing her into an affair, so I had better not do such things to other people's wives. The atheist has such morals WITHOUT "GOD!"

      September 10, 2012 at 7:23 pm |
    • Athy

      But we must allow for the people that can't think that way. Maybe they're so weak minded and lacking in common sense that they need religion to help control their lives. This was probably way more true in the middle ages than it is now, but the legacy lives on.

      September 10, 2012 at 8:13 pm |
    • TheSchmaltz

      All the bad things in the world come from people behaving like that. Why would I want to add to it? If I help others, and they help me, we can achieve the paradise that you imagine you'll get if you just wait and pray. This world is all we have. I should make it better.

      September 12, 2012 at 11:03 am |
  15. Takawalk

    O.K so may be I am different, but if a atheist does post a amusing comment on here I can't help but reply (need to get a grip on impulse control) but did anyone else think this was at least a little bit funny? b4bigbang

    Do you purchase ANGEL's product often?

    September 10, 2012 at 6:26 pm |
    • Ralf The Dog

      "... post AN amusing..."

      September 10, 2012 at 7:20 pm |
    • Athy

      And "an atheist", not "a atheist"
      "maybe", not "may be".

      September 10, 2012 at 8:00 pm |
    • G. Zeus Kreiszchte

      I think Takawalk meant "might could be" instead of "may be."

      September 10, 2012 at 8:32 pm |
    • Athy

      Hard to tell, isn't it?

      September 10, 2012 at 9:00 pm |
  16. LENDOG

    "If there where no god there would be no atheists"

    G.K. Chesterton

    September 10, 2012 at 4:26 pm |
    • ME II

      I still don't get this one.
      If there were no Santa Claus would there be no adults?

      September 10, 2012 at 4:32 pm |
    • Athy

      What do you mean, "if there where (sic) no god"? There's no "if" to it. So your statement is a non-statement.

      September 10, 2012 at 4:36 pm |
    • EnjaySea

      I"m sure Chesterson must have been a very clever man, but his quote makes no logical sense. His pen must have slipped when he wrote that pithy quote.

      What he probably really meant (and what is actually true) is, that if there were no believers in god, then there would be no atheists.

      September 10, 2012 at 4:39 pm |
    • Renaud

      Silly statement. The condition of no gods prevails. Yet there are atheists. Why? Because the delusion that there is at least one god is very common and the rest of us want to distinguish ourselves from the ones who have it. If it were less common we would only need a term for the ones who have it.

      September 10, 2012 at 4:46 pm |
    • aljenks

      Actually, there is no god, therefore there are atheists

      September 10, 2012 at 4:47 pm |
    • LENDOG

      By using the prefix "a" one is saying "without or not" when put in front of the root word. By doing this to the word thiest, one is implying that they are without a deity. By acknowledging that they are without something that is claimed to be, they admit to the existance of what is claimed, but reject it. Also 'if' can be used many ways. It usally is used in a way of uncertainty, however it can be used to counter uncertainty. Being uncertain doesn't mean that whatever one is uncertain about isn't true, they are just not sure. In this case it is used to counter uncertainty. An atheist has just as much a problem proving that there is no god as a religious person has proving there is one!

      September 10, 2012 at 5:08 pm |
    • hawaiiguest

      @LENDOG

      Fortunately, the burden of proof is actually on the person asserting there is a god, and atheism isn't the assertion that there is no god/gods.

      September 10, 2012 at 5:10 pm |
    • GodFreeNow

      If there were no humans, there would be no gods.

      Really "atheist" is not a term we choose for ourselves. I think most atheist think of ourselves as realists. When looked at from that perspective, the quote accurately represents the lunacy behind it. "If there were no gods, there would be no realists."

      September 10, 2012 at 5:12 pm |
    • A Frayed Knot

      LENDOG,
      a + theism "implying that they are without a deity"

      No, it means without a **belief** in a deity. "ist" and "ism" denote belief.

      September 10, 2012 at 5:15 pm |
    • KRHODES

      hawaiiguest

      "@LENDOG Fortunately, the burden of proof is actually on the person asserting there is a god, and atheism isn't the assertion that there is no god/gods."

      No...unless atheism is the default position which it is not or the atheist is uncritical in their evaluation. What makes you think there is no God?

      September 10, 2012 at 5:17 pm |
    • Shawn Martin

      Good quote. Strange that you don't find anybody screaming against Santa Claus as loudly as there are people screaming against God. This ought to be a loud indicator of His existence. Everybody knows deep down that God exists. At the very least, the basics of a discussion like this can only come about via a belief in God. If there were no God of the Bible, then the very laws of logic cannot exist. Atheism has no basis upon which to instate an origin of such unchanging laws, nor does it have a basis upon which we may trust the observations of our five senses. In order to trust scientific research, you must rely on biblical principles which state that our senses have been created by a reliable Being. Please watch this before commenting, as I cannot elaborate here: http://www.answersingenesis.org/media/?s=ultimate+proof

      September 10, 2012 at 5:19 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      When was the last time some azzhole tried to use his beliefs in Santa to abrogate the rights of others?

      Let me know when you figure out how to tie your shoes.

      September 10, 2012 at 5:21 pm |
    • A Frayed Knot

      KRHODES,

      The default stance when something can neither be proved nor disproved is to withhold belief.... "a-theism" = without belief in a god or gods.

      September 10, 2012 at 5:21 pm |
    • hawaiiguest

      @KRHODES

      Well since you used the capital G, it will probably be safe to assume you're talking about the god of the bible. If that's the case, then that god is not only logically inconsistent, but there is also no evidence for that god, just like any other god that has been proposed.

      September 10, 2012 at 5:23 pm |
    • KRHODES

      So there is not enough "evidence" then. Okay...what would be the required amount since you "claim" there is not enough evidence to believe in God? Hows come billions of folks have the proper amount yet a small percentage of humanity does not believe in God? I think the burden would be on you considering you are claiming there is not enough evidence to believe in God.

      September 10, 2012 at 5:31 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Nonsense. The burden is on you to prove something exists. One cannot prove that something does not exist.

      You ought to know that.

      September 10, 2012 at 5:34 pm |
    • KRHODES

      A Frayed Knot

      KRHODES,

      "The default stance when something can neither be proved nor disproved is to withhold belief.... "a-theism" = without belief in a god or gods."

      So when we don't have enough evidence which would be certainly subjective then we should err on the negative side? Then you must also be thinking there is not enough evidence?

      September 10, 2012 at 5:35 pm |
    • KRHODES

      Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      "Nonsense. The burden is on you to prove something exists. One cannot prove that something does not exist.

      You ought to know that."

      The adults are discussing this right know.

      September 10, 2012 at 5:36 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Of course one would err on the negative side. If one suspects there are fairies in the garden, but there is no evidence to support any such belief, one would remain skeptical until evidence is presented.

      September 10, 2012 at 5:37 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Adults would know that the burden of proof is on the claimant, dumb sh!t.

      September 10, 2012 at 5:38 pm |
    • OOO

      @KRHODES
      Since you are burdoned with the task of proving something like god exists, why don't you tell us what proved it for you (and why you haven't submitted this to the top science journals for review)?

      September 10, 2012 at 5:38 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      I don't believe there's a leprechaun orbiting Saturn.

      Can you prove me wrong?

      September 10, 2012 at 5:39 pm |
    • A Frayed Knot

      KRHODES,
      " you "claim" there is not enough evidence to believe in God? Hows come billions of folks have the proper amount"

      Would you care to take a guess as to how many billions of folks have believed in the Hindu pantheon of gods over these past 7000 years? Have you proved that their gods do not exist?

      September 10, 2012 at 5:40 pm |
    • EnjaySea

      Thousands of people believing in something for which there is no evidence, only indicates what percentage of people can be successfully indoctrinated in tradition, belief, and religious dogma.

      The fact that the percentage is large, has no bearing on whether or not what they believe actually exists.

      September 10, 2012 at 5:47 pm |
    • KRHODES

      Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      I don't believe there's a leprechaun orbiting Saturn.

      Can you prove me wrong?

      Well a leprechaun would be a material and dependent being wouldn't it? Certainly if such a thing existed then we would have proof of such right?

      September 10, 2012 at 6:09 pm |
    • KRHODES

      A Frayed Knot

      KRHODES,
      " you "claim" there is not enough evidence to believe in God? Hows come billions of folks have the proper amount"

      "Would you care to take a guess as to how many billions of folks have believed in the Hindu pantheon of gods over these past 7000 years? Have you proved that their gods do not exist?"

      Can you name one and explain how it would be the creater of the universe and everything in it?

      September 10, 2012 at 6:10 pm |
    • KRHODES

      OOO

      @KRHODES
      "Since you are burdoned with the task of proving something like god exists, why don't you tell us what proved it for you (and why you haven't submitted this to the top science journals for review)?"

      I exist don't I? The universe exist and everything in it right? Well it must have been caused by something greater than itself right? That cause is God...what else would it be...nothing?

      September 10, 2012 at 6:13 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      "Well a leprechaun would be a material and dependent being wouldn't it?"

      And your suppositions about the qualities of a leprechaun are based on what, exactly?

      "Certainly if such a thing existed then we would have proof of such right?"

      And if such a thing as god existed, then we would have proof of such right?

      Ignoring your execrable punctuation, there's no difference between the belief a leprechaun is orbiting Saturn and the belief that there's a god.

      September 10, 2012 at 6:16 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Oh, so, Krhodes, just because we don't know now and may not ever know what caused the universe to exist, it "must" have been GAWD? Says who? You? Based on what? Nothing–except the fact that you don't know.

      Sorry. Not proof.

      September 10, 2012 at 6:18 pm |
    • W. R. Martin

      @KRHODES,
      Wrong, again. The burden of proof, such as it is when dealing with make-believe, is on the person making the claim, re: the existence of god(s) and other mythological beings, talking wolves, pigs that vary in preference of building materials, etc. The default position is that those things do not exist. Or do you have time to debate the existence of pixies in my garden? How many other imaginary beings would you like to disprove?

      September 10, 2012 at 6:20 pm |
    • OOO

      @KRHODES
      My proof that god doesn't exist is exactly the same as my proof that the tooth fairy doesn't exist.... none.
      Your proof that god exists is exactly the same as your proof that the tooth fairy exists.... none.

      Your god = tooth fairy.

      September 10, 2012 at 6:21 pm |
    • KRHODES

      OOO

      @KRHODES
      "My proof that god doesn't exist is exactly the same as my proof that the tooth fairy doesn't exist.... none.
      Your proof that god exists is exactly the same as your proof that the tooth fairy exists.... none.

      Your god = tooth fairy."

      Wow...what an intellect...i better give up now.

      September 10, 2012 at 6:31 pm |
    • KRHODES

      Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      "Well a leprechaun would be a material and dependent being wouldn't it?"

      And your suppositions about the qualities of a leprechaun are based on what, exactly?

      "Certainly if such a thing existed then we would have proof of such right?"

      And if such a thing as god existed, then we would have proof of such right?

      "Ignoring your execrable punctuation, there's no difference between the belief a leprechaun is orbiting Saturn and the belief that there's a god."

      Oh...my puctuation...you win...your to good at this for me. That is the problem with debating atheist...there is no point arguing with nonsensical people.

      September 10, 2012 at 6:33 pm |
    • hawaiiguest

      @KRHODES

      You're going to go with argument ad populum? Really?

      September 10, 2012 at 6:44 pm |
    • EnjaySea

      The problem, KRHODES is that your god would have to be a "material and dependent being", since by the dogma of your religion, your deity has the capability to physically affect objects in our plane of reality. He can get Susan a raise, and pull Billy out of pond and save him from drowning, and so forth.

      In order to make these changes to our physical universe, he would have to be detectable. I have my 10% tithe ready to drop into the collection plate of the closest church, as soon as I see evidence of that interface that this deity necessarily enjoys with the universe I live in.

      September 10, 2012 at 6:50 pm |
    • hawaiiguest

      @KRHODES

      Well, since you believe you have enough evidence, would you like to present something?

      September 10, 2012 at 6:54 pm |
    • Shattered Windows

      @KRHODES you do realize how many logical fallacies you have committed right?

      September 10, 2012 at 7:12 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Figures. When Krhodes has no response to a question, he/she/it chooses to go the route of pretending to be quite indignant, thereby avoiding any need to answer with a rebuttal.

      Poor thing.

      September 10, 2012 at 7:24 pm |
    • G. Zeus Kreiszchte

      KRHODES:
      "Oh...my puctuation...you win...your to good at this for me. That is the problem with debating atheist...there is no point arguing with nonsensical people."

      No, it's PUNCTUATION

      And its also GRAMMAR....as in "you're too good at this for me!" (contraction YOU + ARE = YOU'RE.... and TOO which indicates surplus and which is differentiable from TWO and TO)

      "That is the problem with debating atheist" (Object/verb agreement: You do not make the object singular when you are debating more than one atheist.)

      September 10, 2012 at 8:29 pm |
  17. why worry

    .....

    ....
    '.B'H
    JERUSALEM: ISRAEL
    ----------
    .http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=947by3X6_RU

    ...>

    September 10, 2012 at 4:26 pm |
    • Harper

      Burn Israel before the world burns.

      September 10, 2012 at 5:22 pm |
  18. Dyslexic doG

    The bible is like a "Nigerian Email" from the bronze-age.

    September 10, 2012 at 4:09 pm |
    • W. R. Martin

      Thread won.
      +1 Internets!

      September 10, 2012 at 6:26 pm |
    • Thinker...

      Dam you. I just got looks from others in the office for laughing out loud! What an excellent comparison!

      September 11, 2012 at 12:39 pm |
  19. William

    Communism would be the party for athiests. Karl Marx called religion the opium of the people.

    September 10, 2012 at 4:09 pm |
    • EnjaySea

      That would only follow if all atheists were extreme left-wing liberals. But there also happen to be intelligent conservatives out there, who have also learned to think for themselves So your claim makes no sense.

      September 10, 2012 at 4:18 pm |
    • Athy

      Karl Marx was totally correct. The fact that he was a commie has nothing to do with it.

      September 10, 2012 at 4:18 pm |
    • charles davis

      And he was right. What's your point?

      September 10, 2012 at 8:37 pm |
    • TheSchmaltz

      Hitler liked donuts. Doesn't make donuts bad.

      September 12, 2012 at 11:07 am |
  20. Steve

    They don't yet, there are not enough of us. It will take at least a few decades before atheists become a dominant force. None the less it will happen as it is fastest growing "religious category" and organized religions are dying the slow death of attrition. Many of kids where I live attend a local catholic school, I am amazed at how many describe themselves as atheists, especially those with the most religious parents. Thankfully there is the internet to fill in the fact gap left from bible school and classes. It seems to be helping these kids.

    September 10, 2012 at 3:49 pm |
    • Athy

      I totally agree. The Internet definitely is a big factor. Kids are very much sharper nowadays and don't need the centuries-old bible mythology anymore. Once the current negative stigma associated with calling oneself an atheist fades, there will be an avalanche of "coming out".

      September 10, 2012 at 4:16 pm |
    • Shawn Martin

      Athy, I recommend this video by the famous brain surgeon Ben Carson, relating to your comment regarding children being smarter due to the Internet: http://www.liberty.edu/index.cfm?PID=9002

      September 10, 2012 at 5:11 pm |
    • Gloria

      Ohhhhmmmmmmmmmmmmmm...........flushhhhhhhhhhhhhh......OOOOhhhhhmmmmmmmmmmmm. The meaning of life- now move on.

      September 10, 2012 at 5:51 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
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.