home
RSS
Christmas exposes atheist divide on dealing with religion
December 20th, 2012
06:00 AM ET

Christmas exposes atheist divide on dealing with religion

By Dan Merica, CNN
[twitter-follow screen_name='DanMericaCNN']

Washington (CNN) – The Christmas season is revealing a growing rift among American atheists when it comes to the question of how to deal with religion.

Some atheist activists are trying to seize the holidays as a time to build bridges with faith groups, while other active unbelievers increasingly see Christmas as a central front in the war on religious faith. With the dramatic growth of the nonreligious in the last few decades, more atheist leaders are emerging as spokespeople for atheism, but the Christmas rift speaks to growing disagreement over how atheists should treat religion.

On the religion-bashing side, there’s David Silverman, president of the group American Atheists, which raised one of its provocative trademark billboards in New York’s Times Square last week. “Keep the MERRY!” it says. “Dump the MYTH!”
The sign features a picture of a jolly Santa Clause and another of Jesus dying on the cross – a not-so-subtle attack on Christianity.

“Christianity stole Christmas in the first place and they don’t own the season, they don’t own the Christmas season,” Silverman said, pointing to pagan winter solstice celebrations that predated Jesus Christ. “When they say keep Christ in Christmas, they are actually saying put Christ back in Christmas.”

The New York billboard, which will be up until early January and is costing the group at least $25,000, is the latest in a long line of provocative American Atheists signs, which attacked then-Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney’s religion during this year’s presidential campaign.

It’s not the only way Silverman is using Christmas to attack Christianity. In a recent TV interview with Fox News’ Bill O’Reilly, he said the American Atheist office be open on Christmas Day and called for an end to Christmas as a federal holiday.

O’Reilly, in turn, called Silverman a fascist.

Despite Silverman’s knack for making headlines, however, other prominent atheists are putting a softer face on the movement, including during Christmastime.

“I just think the whole war on Christmas story is bizarre” said Greg Epstein, the Humanist Chaplain at Harvard University, who has emerged as another spokesman for the burgeoning atheist movement. “I think that any atheist or humanist that is participating in that story needs to find better things to do with their time.”

From his point of view, atheism and religion can happily coexist, including at the holidays.

At the chaplaincy, Epstein has reached out to local religious groups, packaging holiday meals and breaking bread with believers to discuss their similarities and differences.

Sponsored by the Humanist Community at Harvard, evangelical Christians, Jews, Buddhists and Zoroastrians, along with a number of atheists, were among those represented at a recent meal packaging event for hungry kids in the Boston area. Around 250 people participated and over $10,000 was raised – including donations from local Lutheran and Methodist churches.
Epstein calls this sort of inter-religious dialogue “healthy.”

“We as a community need to be about the positive and we have so much positive to offer,” he said. “I think that we really can provide a positive alternative to religious holidays that are not meaningful because of their religious content.”
Silverman, for his part, is more than comfortable being negative when it comes to religion.

“We should look at the results - people are listening to us because we are shouting,” he said. “They don’t hear you unless you shout. … Sometimes you have to put political correctness aside. We need to get louder. I believe we are seeing the fruits of that volume.”

As proof, American Atheists points to the way their donations skyrocket after every billboard campaign. “We get donations and memberships because we are taking the stand that we do,” said Silverman, who would not give specific numbers on fundraising. “The donations are flowing in right now. People are loving it specifically because of the billboard.”

Epstein would rather see more emphasis on volunteerism, though he acknowledges that some atheists are drawn to Silverman’s vocal model. Both men said they appeal to different parts of the atheist movement.

“We are GOP and Dem, man and women, black and white – the only thing that holds us together is atheism,” Silverman said. “A movement like ours needs all sides. It needs people who are working to be conciliatory and it needs people who are willing to raise their voices.”

Religious “nones” – a combination of atheists, agnostics and the religiously unaffiliated, have been growing their ranks in recent years. According to a Pew Research study released this year, the fastest growing "religious" group in America is made up of people with no religion at all as one in five Americans is not affiliated with any religion.

The survey found that the unaffiliated are growing even faster among younger Americans. According to the poll, 34% of “younger millennials” - those born between 1990 and 1994 - are religiously unaffiliated.

Though not monolithic, younger atheists, according to Jesse Galef, communications director of the Secular Student Alliance, are more prone to celebrate a secular version of Christmas than to ignore the holiday.

“I am very much in favor of celebrating the secular Christmas,” Galef said. “It is a celebration of the spirit of giving and I think religious divisiveness goes against that effort.”

Other atheists celebrate Festivus, a December 23 holiday meant for atheists looking to celebrate during the winter without participating in a Christian holiday. The holiday, which entered into popular culture through the television show “Seinfeld” in 1997, has gained popularity in recent years.

At the Secular Student Alliance office in Columbus, Ohio, the staff will play Secret Sagan, a nod to the famed scientist, instead of Secret Santa. And instead of Christmas decorations, they put up a Winter Solstice Tree with ornaments from the movie “When the Grinch Stole Christmas.”

“We celebrate the holiday season, just not the religious holiday,” Galef said.

- Dan Merica

Filed under: Atheism • Christmas

soundoff (4,367 Responses)
  1. Bootyfunk

    jesus, santa and the easter bunny all have one thing in common...

    December 21, 2012 at 2:35 pm |
    • Really??

      A love of chocolate?

      December 21, 2012 at 2:41 pm |
    • The Truth

      They were caught on surveillance camera in a Vegas suite engaging in a raunchy three-some?

      December 21, 2012 at 2:44 pm |
  2. Jim

    ATHEISTS can be closer to God than Christians. LOVE is the standard by which each person will be judged, not whether or not they "say" they "believe" in Jesus. St. Augustine said it very well back in the early 300's (paraphrased) – "There are many in the Church God does NOT have, and there are many not in the Church God DOES have."

    December 21, 2012 at 2:34 pm |
    • Bev

      The problem is that there is no convincing some people that they might be in the wrong. It is very, very much easier to get an atheist or a small "c" Christian to admit that they might be wrong about there being a God then it is to get a capital "C" Christian to admit that God may not actually exist.

      December 21, 2012 at 2:44 pm |
    • Jim

      You can never be wrong about LOVE. "God is LOVE, and whoever abides in Love abides in God and God in them".

      December 21, 2012 at 4:15 pm |
    • 2357

      Empirical materialists by definition cannot acknowledge the existence of something as improbable as love. They'll go as far as evolutionary altruistic impulses genetically programmed into species for increasing the chances of collective survival. But sacrificial love with hopes of resonating with divine personal attributes? They laugh and sneer. Even the devil loves himself and those who serve him.

      December 21, 2012 at 4:46 pm |
  3. the AnViL

    seasons greetings to everyone!!

    there are no gods!!! xians are patently delusional!!!

    ho ho ho!!!

    December 21, 2012 at 2:32 pm |
  4. sybaris

    The allegedly resurrected jesus returned with the signs of his crucifixion visible. Can you imagine what the christian heaven looks like with all the people milling about who died from horrific injuries?

    December 21, 2012 at 2:27 pm |
    • K-switch

      Masterbating openhanded is quite a skill.

      December 21, 2012 at 2:30 pm |
    • Bootyfunk

      yeah, i always thought jesus looked really gross. if he came over for dinner, i'd tell him to go to the hospital and stop bleeding on my dining room table. but christians like wearing a torture/execution device around their neck, pretty demented.

      December 21, 2012 at 2:33 pm |
    • Hmmmmm

      lol, at first glance I saw "Masterbating orphenhanded is quite a skill."

      December 21, 2012 at 2:46 pm |
  5. Primewonk

    Our rights come from the consent of the governed. If you want to claim your rights come from your god, then you need to explain why your god is so fucking wishy-washy. Why does your god give me different rights than a man in Cuba and a woman in Finland? Why did your god only give rights to white male landowners 225 years ago? Why did your god change his mind so often about who gets which rights?

    It doesn't make any sense Bill.

    December 21, 2012 at 2:14 pm |
    • VanHagar

      What God gives, man takes away. (Or was that too simple?)

      December 21, 2012 at 2:20 pm |
    • TheRit

      Always a great point! Again that is the fault of man, not of God. The beauty of God (singular) is that He is EVERYONE'S GOD. Not just for one group of people but all mankind. That was a very difficult concept for people to understand in beginning of Judaism. Before the God of Abraham, gods (plural) were local gods and gave no protection when you left your city-state, etc.

      December 21, 2012 at 2:22 pm |
    • the AnViL

      VanHagar correction: there are no gods, man does it all himself. (Or was that too simple?)

      FIXED!

      December 21, 2012 at 2:23 pm |
    • ReligionIsBS

      So does god give, or does man take? That is the wrost statement ive ever read in my life. "God does it. But he doesnt. Man does."

      December 21, 2012 at 2:23 pm |
    • Huebert

      Van

      Man can take things away from God? Sounds like God is pretty puny.

      December 21, 2012 at 2:23 pm |
    • Moby Schtick

      Might makes right. (So say the god believers when they explain why god's rules are right and yet he can go against them whenever it pleases him).

      So, if man can take away what god gives, then man is mightier than god and man is right over god. Pretty simple when god is imaginary.

      December 21, 2012 at 2:23 pm |
    • ReligionIsBS

      Vanhager, TheRit is agreeing with you. Does that make you feel good? LOL

      December 21, 2012 at 2:24 pm |
    • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

      VanHagar,

      If man can so easily take away the rights that god himself bestowed how can you claim he gave them to us at all? If he cannot enforce those rights than he is by definition ineffectual at "giving" them.

      December 21, 2012 at 2:25 pm |
    • The Truth

      Because according to the religious God is a partisan. He only like certain color skin, he only likes those with penis's to approach him, and he has no time for those without enough cash to fill his apparently always empty pockets. So as long as you are a rich white male then God has a place for you at his table...

      December 21, 2012 at 2:25 pm |
    • Akira

      You don't get to legislate your beliefs into laws that affect people that do not share your beliefs, VanHagar.
      Or is that too simple for you?
      There are many countries that governs according to religious beliefs.
      The United States is not one of them.

      December 21, 2012 at 2:26 pm |
    • VanHagar

      Perhaps a clarification...I don't propose that God gives us necessarily any particular rights per se (except the promises He has expressly made). If he did give us certain rights (e.g. freedom of speech), my position would be that what is being taken away is not being taken away from God, its being taken away from us.

      December 21, 2012 at 2:35 pm |
    • Bev

      TheRit
      "He is EVERYONE'S GOD."
      So you believe, while nonChristians may believe in God without Jesus as his son, another god, gods, or no gods at all. If you don't need any evidence to convince yourself that this is true that's your business but if you want to go around stating it like it's a fact then you're going to have to dig some up. Fair enough?

      December 21, 2012 at 2:38 pm |
    • VanHagar

      @Akira...You say: "You don't get to legislate your beliefs into laws that affect people that do not share your beliefs, VanHagar.
      Or is that too simple for you?" I don't necessarily disagree with you. If you can find a post where I suggested legislating some type of Christian-Sharia law, more power to you (you won't because I haven't). Save your hate for someone else.

      December 21, 2012 at 2:42 pm |
    • JWT

      VH You are incorrect – your god is not my god.

      December 21, 2012 at 2:49 pm |
    • VanHagar

      @JWT-what part am I wrong about? Where did I say my god is your god? Did you mean to respond to me or someone else?

      December 21, 2012 at 2:56 pm |
    • JWT

      Quoted from one of your posts. " The beauty of God (singular) is that He is EVERYONE'S GOD. " While he may be your god – he is not my god for I have no god. Please do not go around infering things like we all have a god when it is not true. One of the more annoying things from people is the assumption that we all share a god or need to have a god or need to follow some version of godly rules. We do not.

      December 21, 2012 at 3:09 pm |
    • VanHagar

      @JWT...respectfully, I never wrote that. But since you seemed to cut and past it, why don't you tell me which article and then the page of comments and we can all go look for ourselves to confirm.

      December 21, 2012 at 4:24 pm |
    • JWT

      VH My apologies it was rit. My bad.

      December 21, 2012 at 4:52 pm |
    • VanHagar

      @JWT...it happens.

      December 21, 2012 at 5:32 pm |
  6. Christianity is a form of mental illness- FACT

    (1) Hallucinations – the person has invisible friends who (s)he insists are real, and to whom (s)he speaks daily, even though nobody can actually see or hear
    these friends.

    (2) Delusions – the patient believes that the invisible friends have magical powers to make them rich, cure cancer, bring about world peace, and will do so eventually if asked.

    (3) Denial/Inability to learn – though the requests for world peace remain unanswered, even after hundreds of years, the patients persist with the praying behaviour, each time expecting different results.

    (4) Inability to distinguish fantasy from reality – the beliefs are contingent upon ancient mythology being accepted as historical fact.

    (5) Paranoia – the belief that anyone who does not share their supernatural concept of reality is "evil," "the devil," "an agent of Satan".

    (6) Emotional abuse – ­ religious concepts such as sin, hell, cause feelings of guilt, shame, fear, and other types of emotional "baggage" which can scar the psyche for life.

    December 21, 2012 at 2:07 pm |
    • TheRit

      I like how you stress "FACT" and yet all of your definitions are obviously your own or from an atheistic pamphlet somewhere. Awesome!

      December 21, 2012 at 2:16 pm |
    • ReligionIsBS

      ThRit,
      Why do you change topics when people destory you? Please explain to me why you dont think i know what sarcasm is? or are you just getting frustrated by getting clobbered with logic all the time?

      December 21, 2012 at 2:20 pm |
    • ReligionIsBS

      TheRit
      Go to a dictionary (the other big book you dont actually read) and look up those definitions. I think they're pretty accurate, whether you're a theist or atheist.

      December 21, 2012 at 2:21 pm |
    • Thoth

      @Rit – while the poster is taking creative license on definitions, it is a fact that Religion is excluded from the DSM because if you interviewed someone using the universally accepted methods, you would arrive at a positive diagnosis for delusions. Why is it that someone who talks to a magic unicorn and believes it created and controls the universe is considered delusional, yet people who talk to, and believe in some all-powerful being are socially accepted?

      December 21, 2012 at 2:28 pm |
    • Chance

      (1) Talking or praying to God is not a hallucinations – Invisible friends? Is not Orthodox Christianity – to claim nobody hears or sees invisible friends is not a attack on Christianity, again Christianity is not about invisible friends.

      (2) Delusions – Orthodox Christianity does not teach invisible friends have magical powers to make them rich, cure cancer, bring about world peace.

      (3) Denial/Inability to learn – this has nothing to do with God or Christianity. Christianity believes in free will. World peace can only be realized via mans power. Why blame a god you don't believe in for the lack of peace when the responsibility sits squarely on mans shoulders.

      (4) Inability to distinguish fantasy from reality –- Within the bible you can correlate historical facts to events that took place.

      (5) Paranoia – This is a false stereotype. In Christianity everyone is considered a sinner and everyone falls short of the requirements of God. Therefore no one can stand on a soap box and condemn people because we are all imperfect.

      (6) Emotional abuse – ­ Immorality and evil are a reality of life. Doing immoral things like stealing and lying do bring bad feelings. Regardless of the immoral act committed guilt will accompany the person believer or not. If we do something bad there are consequences, that's just life. Your stereo types are weak at best.

      December 21, 2012 at 2:34 pm |
    • craniumthedumb

      @mental illness

      We have had this discussion before. You present no valid arguement to prove your point. There is no substance to your statement.

      December 21, 2012 at 3:19 pm |
  7. chad

    Sorry for waisting your time guys, im an idiot.

    December 21, 2012 at 1:59 pm |
    • Xmas

      Chad confession is good for the spiriit, ask Bill Deacon for the required penance.

      December 21, 2012 at 2:13 pm |
    • Bill Deacon

      idiocy is no sin. so no penance there. Wasting others time could be a sin provided they were using it profitably to begin with. For penance read the book of Tiitus and continue to share the Gospel.

      December 21, 2012 at 4:15 pm |
  8. Mohammad A Dar

    John flip-flop Kerry is in a process of being nominated for the State Department job; what is important to us.....bi tching about Christmas killing time or stop Kerry idiot from being nominated, goons?

    December 21, 2012 at 1:52 pm |
    • The Truth

      The republicans WANT Kerry for the nomination so they can have a shot at his senate seat. To bad Scott Brown will lose the special elecion just like he did when trying to hold on to one he already owned.

      December 21, 2012 at 2:07 pm |
  9. TheRit

    Can somebody PLEASE EXPLAIN SARCASM to ReligionIsBS?!!!! PLEEEAAASSSSE!!

    December 21, 2012 at 1:48 pm |
    • Bill Deacon

      Yeah, i saw that. Thought it was hilarious.

      December 21, 2012 at 1:56 pm |
    • ReligionIsBS

      I know what scarasm is, I explained it to you like 7 pages ago. You tried using sarcasm to prove a point, and it failed horribly. I encourage everyone to go back through the pages and look at the converstation that transpired. It was comedic gold.

      December 21, 2012 at 2:06 pm |
    • ReligionIsBS

      This is the actualy reason why TheRit thinks I dont know what sarcasm is. Enjoy!

      "TheRit
      You guys are absolutely right! War itself was actually an invention of religion! It never happened before until Abraham came along with his lies, did it? The world before religion was such a peaceful place, completely without harm to anyone! Absolute utopia! In fact, we as people, did not even have the desire to murder, cheat, steal, fight, etc. It was religion that created all those desires wasn't it? The flaws of religion are the flaws of man. Simple as that. God provided us with the plan as to how to treat each other. We either choose to follow or not. It would be a SCARY world if that plan was never revealed."

      ReligionIsBS

      So you're stating that when wars, lies and murders dont occur, its because of religion.

      But when wars, lies and murders do occur, its because the followers of that religion are human?

      LOL

      You've seriously gotten destroyed evey time you've posted.

      December 21, 2012 at 2:12 pm |
    • ReligionIsBS

      Why was that hillarious Bill? Fill us in on the joke.

      December 21, 2012 at 2:13 pm |
    • Bill Deacon

      His first statement is obviously extremely sarcastic which should have clued you in that the rest was hyperbole. Yet you picked it up, turned it into a straw man and argued about it for the next four or five paragraphs. If he was a poe he couldn't have pulled your chain any better. LOL

      December 21, 2012 at 4:18 pm |
  10. John Stefanyszyn

    "Keep the Merry".....then the atheist desires to celebrate something at this time of year.
    ...is it the solstice?

    If this is the "reason" then it is a pagan reason and therefore it is the "god of sunlight" that one embraces....is this not also a religion?

    Whatever the reason, for "Christmass is a pagan pervesion of the True Christ", there is a common universal reason that all share, even the atheist,.....the god which says it is right to be free to worship any "god"...freedom of self rights and of all religions.

    But it is Only Christ that will rule.

    December 21, 2012 at 1:43 pm |
    • Thoth

      Why can't we just celebrate our existence (humanity) without the insertion of cultural constructs? Is that so wrong?

      December 21, 2012 at 1:50 pm |
    • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

      I can celebrate the renewal of the seasons without attaching a supernatural or supersti tous cause to it.

      December 21, 2012 at 1:54 pm |
    • snowboarder

      john – it is unnecessary to worship any god to have a celebration.

      December 21, 2012 at 2:06 pm |
    • Akira

      I wasn't aware that the word "merry" belonged to any religion at all.
      Merry Friday.

      December 21, 2012 at 2:12 pm |
    • Really??

      John
      Your assertion that the solstice is pagan and "therefore worship of the sun" is just rediculous.
      The solstice happens without anyones beliefs in anything. I am atheist but celebrate the new celestial year on the solstice, like man has done long before your god was created.
      The "pagans" celebrated it for the same basic reasons as we all still celebrate today.
      No gods involved.

      December 21, 2012 at 2:48 pm |
  11. Bev

    Even if they just put up signs saying "Remember that you are not alone." and sign it American Atheists there would be plenty of people who would see this as an attack upon Christmas and Christianity. These people are offended that we even exist, never mind what we might say publicly.

    December 21, 2012 at 1:30 pm |
    • The Truth

      Logical, reasonable non-blind human "Excuse me, but why is the Emperor completely naked?"
      The Satus Quo "Shhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

      December 21, 2012 at 1:37 pm |
  12. Bootyfunk

    it's unlikely jesus ever existed. like most of the major parts of the bible, jesus' story was told before. christianity plagiarized other religions/mythologies. see mitra, horus, dionysus, hercules and more:
    http://listverse.com/2009/04/13/10-christ-like-figures-who-pre-date-jesus/

    christians, step back and look at the bible with a critical eye, the same way you look at greek mythology. understand religion is a human construct. it was our first attempt at explaining the world around us. science offers a better way. give up religion and think for yourself.

    December 21, 2012 at 1:28 pm |
    • The Life of 3.14

      Are you still putting out this stuff?
      Whether you believe the supernatural aspects of the NT isn't important really in regards to history. What matters is that Jesus was a historical character.

      So it is more likely that Jesus existed than not.

      December 21, 2012 at 1:31 pm |
    • Bev

      Nothing hard about believing in Jesus. Lots of wandering "miracle workers" were roaming the land back then. Even guys claiming to be sons of gods were common. Most of the Roman Emperors back then all made that claim. It's entirely possible for a guy to think that he was God's son back then. proving that he was is another question altogether.

      December 21, 2012 at 1:35 pm |
    • ReligionIsBS

      If jesus was a historical character then why didnt any of the 32 historians around that area around that time write about jesus? Let me guess, you're going to say josephus and then im going to have to explain to you why thats wrong.

      December 21, 2012 at 1:36 pm |
    • WASP

      @life: i can guarentee 100% that a man named jesus lived not only in biblical time but is still alive today.
      1) jesus is a popular hispanic name. 🙂
      2) jesus was a popular name all throughout history. 🙂
      3) chance of said guy having any sort of magical/ spiritual power...........................0%. 🙂

      so yeah a human may have lived back in history named jesus, however over time he was turned into a greater than life myth.

      December 21, 2012 at 1:38 pm |
    • Bev

      The Life of 3.14
      The problem with that is that most Christians cannot separate the Historical Jesus from the Christ of Faith while the two are about as similar as the facts and the myths surrounding Davy Crockett. If you say that you might believe that Jesus existed all they hear is that you believe in Christ, so tied together are the two idea for most Christians.

      December 21, 2012 at 1:44 pm |
    • TheRit

      There is no evidence to prove Jesus existed? How about the dozens and dozens of stories written about him by authors across the region? Was this like the greatest chain letter hoax ever? What would even be the purpose? Any knowledgeable person most certainly accepts that Jesus Christ was a living person. The miracles, etc., is the point of separation.

      December 21, 2012 at 1:51 pm |
    • ReligionIsBS

      Rit, if your using the bible as evidence for jesus, you're failing misserably. But that is what you seem to like to do best isnt it? The gospels cant even get the story of jesus correct. Why all the contradictions between the gospels?

      Please list a source outside of the bible. Please use josephus so I can tell you why you are wrong.

      December 21, 2012 at 2:08 pm |
    • A Frayed Knot

      TheRit,
      "How about the dozens and dozens of stories written about him by authors across the region?"

      That is certainly not the case. Aside from the obviously biased Evangelists, there are only a few references by regional writers, long after the alleged fact, who reported what the early Christians believed about their hero. That's it.

      December 21, 2012 at 2:12 pm |
    • Bootyfunk

      historic jesus? what historical evidence is there? writing about him long after he was dead? josephus, who also wrote about hercules? what evidence is there that jesus lived at all?

      December 21, 2012 at 2:31 pm |
    • apostate

      He served me at IHOP just the other day name badge and all.

      December 21, 2012 at 2:35 pm |
    • craniumthedumb

      @Booty

      Provide empirical evidence he does not exists.

      You can not. This means people who believe are as likely to be correct as you are.

      December 21, 2012 at 3:33 pm |
    • snowboarder

      cranium – that is a logical fallacy. if you believe in something preposterous, but i am unable to prove you wrong, it does not make your position equally valid.

      December 21, 2012 at 3:47 pm |
    • craniumthedumb

      @snow

      Who's definition of preposterous? What I see as preposterous might not be what you see as such. Everything must be able to be proven absolutely else the entire argument is invalid. It is the basis of logic. If there is any assumption or piece of the argument that is invalid, you can't use it for an argument to be true.

      December 21, 2012 at 6:46 pm |
  13. snowboarder

    in our house we celebrate a secular christmas.

    December 21, 2012 at 1:27 pm |
  14. I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

    The Pew numbers for the unaffilliated are interesting. (Percentages are for the whole population.)

    Believe in God or Universal spirit:
    Yes, certain ....... 6.0%
    Yes, uncertain ... 7.6%
    No ....................... 5.4%
    Dont' know ......... 1.0%

    Religious ............................ 3.6%
    Spritual but not religious .... 7.4%
    Neither ............................... 8.4%

    Atheist and Agnostic ......... 5.7%

    It's clear that the 20% is a very mixed bag.

    December 21, 2012 at 1:27 pm |
    • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

      Ooops – posted in the wrong place, disregard.

      December 21, 2012 at 1:28 pm |
  15. Chad

    Belief is what requires reasons, not disbelief. Disbelief is a compulsion to a belief without sufficient reasons for it. – – Moby Schtick

    December 21, 2012 at 1:24 pm |
    • hawaiiguest

      I dont think that means what you think it means. Then again you don't care do you?

      December 21, 2012 at 1:27 pm |
    • Huebert

      I think I understand what Moby is trying to say, but I don't like his wording.

      I would say that belief in a position requires support. Disbelief is the natural response to a position without sufficient support.

      December 21, 2012 at 1:29 pm |
    • Chad

      Moby was inadvertently brilliant..

      "position without sufficient support": looking at the evidence provided and making a determination of what is sufficient/insufficient is of course a reasoning process.

      But, that's where Moby was brilliant. He inadvertently demonstrated that the atheist doesnt actually look at the evidence to see if it is sufficient/insufficient. Their disbelief is without reason.

      December 21, 2012 at 1:36 pm |
    • ReligionIsBS

      What evidence?

      December 21, 2012 at 1:40 pm |
    • hawaiiguest

      @Chad

      That's right Chad. Keep being completely dishonest. Do you want to know how we all know that your aware of it? Because your not demanding previous evidnece of being dishonest. You're ignoring everyone pointing out how dishonest you're being, when you usually use more idiocy to cover it up.

      December 21, 2012 at 1:41 pm |
    • Chad

      Origin of the universe, fine tuning of the universe, origin of life on earth, fossil record, empty tomb.

      now the typical response is "none of that is evidence", which is what Moby is talking about..

      the rational response would be to examine the evidence. But.. that's the rational response..

      December 21, 2012 at 1:43 pm |
    • Moby Schtick

      Chad, I'm so glad that you've decided to prove to everyone here what a lying dovchebag cvnt you are. Yes, what I said was brilliant, and you're a fvcking fool not to see it.

      A person is compelled to disbelief by the positive belief not having good reasons. It's why you and I both disbelieve in unicorns.

      Why do you disbelieve that you are an alien with superpowers? Is it because you are compelled to that disbelief by the reality that there are no good reasons to believe that you are an alien with superpowers? Obviously.

      But I'm glad you're so proud of your stupidity. It makes your christ and belief in him look that much more fvcking retarded.

      December 21, 2012 at 1:43 pm |
    • ReligionIsBS

      I want to know why chad thinks I didnt look at the evidence. What evidence was he talking about and how would he possibly know I didnt look at it?

      December 21, 2012 at 1:44 pm |
    • Moby Schtick

      Chad, just because you label X as "evidence" for your position doesn't mean that it is.

      For example, the fossil record is evidence for evolution-–if you care to actually review that evidence. It's not evidence for "intelligent design by Chad's god." The difference between you and me is that I actually follow the evidence where it leads and then decide what to believe. My disbelief is simply attained; my disbelief goes to that which does not have sufficient reasons for belief. I disbelief in Santa, unicorns, Yahweh, and fairies for the same reason-–there is not sufficient evidence for them.

      December 21, 2012 at 1:48 pm |
    • hawaiiguest

      @Chad

      LOL You're still using those same 5 points which prove absolutely nothing that you want it to? Wow you really are completely fucking worthless.

      December 21, 2012 at 1:48 pm |
    • ReligionIsBS

      Origin of the universe – the universe exists. Correct, but how is that evidence for god?

      fine tuning of the universe – 99.999999999999% of the universe is uninhabitable and the earth will eventually end when the sun runs out of hydrogen.

      origin of life on earth – You stating that god was the origin of life is not proof of god. Its the statement, not the answer

      fossil record – evidence for evolution by natural selection

      empty tomb – prove it happened.

      "now the typical response is "none of that is evidence", which is what Moby is talking about.." Correct, none of that was evidence for god. Not even close.

      December 21, 2012 at 1:49 pm |
    • Moby Schtick

      ReligionisBS

      Chad is an atheist trolling to make the Christian position look untenable. He is fantastic at his work, and he and I have a very nice working arrangement.

      December 21, 2012 at 1:49 pm |
    • WASP

      @chad: you disbelieve in bigfoot, santa clause, etc etc etc your disbelief in those things is directly related to NO SUPPORTING EVIDENCE of those creatures being real; thus to non-religious people it is the same for us.
      no god has ever saved any humans life ever in human history; i don't mean figuritively i mean physically pulling a human that is in a fire or drowning in the ocean to safety with their own power.
      until that happens there will never be evidence of anything close to a god exsisting.

      December 21, 2012 at 1:50 pm |
    • The Truth

      "He inadvertently demonstrated that the atheist doesnt actually look at the evidence to see if it is sufficient/insufficient. Their disbelief is without reason"

      And Chad once again demonstrates that he has little to no grasp on logic or reason. If you have more than half a brain you see what is being said, that the default position without evidence is disbelief. If and when someone has evidence for God then the atheist can study it, reason it and then suspend disbelief if the evidence is found to be real and valid. Until then it takes no evidence or reason to hold the disbelief because nothing has been presented to warrant moving from disbelief to belief, so in that sense yes, it takes "no reason to maintain disbelief" since it is the starting point of any debate without prior evidence to prejudice ones understanding.

      Chad however is already prejudiced to believe without evidence and thus stands proud and firm upon emptiness and is too stubborn to open his eyes to find out he's not standing at all...

      December 21, 2012 at 1:51 pm |
    • sam stone

      okay, chard, let's exaine that "evidence".....all you pointed out suggests (at best) the possibility of a creator. how do you make that leap from a creator to a god? i look forward to an answer, but i suspect i am not going to get a (rational) answer...give it a shot, boy

      December 21, 2012 at 1:55 pm |
    • PaulB

      Chad
      In a court trial you don't have to absolutely believe that the accused is innocent in order to acquit, all you have to do is conclude that the state hasn't made it's case. That's all. For us, religion has not made it's case that gods actually exist. We are unconvinced, and will remain so until better evidence is presented to us. Never in a trial is the jury asked to prove, or disprove the state's case. The defence of Reason that atheists present is more than enough to cast reasonable doubt upon the claims of religion. See how it works?

      December 21, 2012 at 1:56 pm |
    • snowboarder

      chad, you are definitely misunderstanding that quote.

      December 21, 2012 at 1:57 pm |
    • Moby Schtick

      Chad, what better reason is there to disbelieve than that the positive belief does not have sufficient reasons?

      December 21, 2012 at 1:58 pm |
    • mama k

      Chad: "atheist doesnt actually look at the evidence"

      Who's not looking at evidence?? I guess some have trouble looking at items in their spam folder and seeing the obvious.

      December 21, 2012 at 1:59 pm |
    • Xmas

      Jesus, why humor Chad? The conclusion is always, "the Judeo/Christian God of Isreal is real." and we all know that any devious underhand method of getting to that conclusion is what the Chad is all about. Not very Christian of Chad to be such a liar, but it seems to be ethical for such a hypocrite.

      December 21, 2012 at 2:03 pm |
    • Bill Deacon

      Paul, what you are describing is a shift that has occurred in recent times. In the past, man was convinced of his own inherent darkness, his evil heart, his sin. Men of old knew that their motives were selfish and impure and sought to reconcile themselves to that which is "better". Modern man has lost his sense of sin. In today's world anything goes and the only sin is not accepting someone else's perversion. So, at this time rather than seeing ourselves as supplicant before the judgement of a righteous and holy God, we have put God on trial and demanded of Him "Where were you and what were you doing?" We have inverted the dynamic between the Creator and the created, in the process making ourselves into our own tiny gods. I think this is properly known as hubris or what my priest would call pride.

      December 21, 2012 at 2:04 pm |
    • Moby Schtick

      @snowboarder

      Originally, Chad jumped all over that quote because of the last word: "it" He thought that the "it" referred to disbelief, when in actuality the "it" referred (properly, if one knows the rules of grammar) to the closest noun/antecedent, "belief."

      Of course, he did not realize that until he finished reading the sentence you've just read. And so until now, he has been busy trying to figure out how to save face and continue to make the quotation look silly when it is, in fact, the perfect reply to his nonsense bullsh!t about one needing "reasons to disbelieve."

      My guess is that even though he now realizes his mistake, he will continue to defend the silly position he has put forth so far. After all, he doesn't have the courage to admit to making a mistake or to jumping to an incorrect conclusion because he did not thoroughly examine the rationale so clearly placed before him.

      December 21, 2012 at 2:05 pm |
    • Bill Deacon

      As a concluding thought I submit as evidence the knowledge that good exist but my own self examination finds me coming up short. I could rationalize and justify myself but the truth is that I have sinned, in what I have done and what I have failed to do. Therefore the evidence of my own sin convicts me of the need for God in order that I maintain the possibility that I may be made whole.

      December 21, 2012 at 2:08 pm |
    • snowboarder

      bill – that is an interesting spin, but utter BS. the evolutionand advancement of human knowledge and access to information has caused man to question the mythology so commonly held by our predecessors for no other reason than indoctrination and ignorance. nothing more.

      December 21, 2012 at 2:12 pm |
    • Bill Deacon

      I submit that your evolution and advancement are incomplete

      December 21, 2012 at 2:15 pm |
    • The Truth

      @Bill Deacon – You and the rest of the religious zealots have misused and abused the word sin by applying it to everything from r a p e to just admitting that you don't believe in any deities. Because of that the word "sin" has lost all of it's power and that is why those like you are gnashing their teeth and weeping at the loss of your words of power. No one trembles anymore when you proclaim things in Gods name, no one bats an eye when you declare something sinful. And yet morallity has not disapeared, the secular in society hold firmly to basic human rights and empathy for our fellow man. We treat others as we want to be treated instead of creating two set's or standards, those we apply to our enemies and those we apply to ourselves as Christianity has done.

      December 21, 2012 at 2:15 pm |
    • Bill Deacon

      Truth, I'm on the verge of using your post as an example of how people rationalize and justify themselves. Surely you're not telling me that every moment of your existence is spent in perpetual love, empathy and service to your fellow man?

      December 21, 2012 at 2:17 pm |
    • snowboarder

      bill – evolution is never complete, but the intelligence to question the unsupportable mythology of the past is a significant step forward.

      December 21, 2012 at 2:18 pm |
    • Bill Deacon

      I already offered you support for my conclusion. My self examination informs me that I am a sinner in need of a Savior. If you have, in fact conducted such and examination and have in fact concluded that you are without stain or blemish, then congratulations. You'd be the first person I ever met that has.

      December 21, 2012 at 2:23 pm |
    • snowboarder

      bill – the mental ability for introspection and understanding our own nature indicates no necessity for a savior. that is simply the indoctrination speaking. our introspection allows us self improvement, but nothing more.

      December 21, 2012 at 2:27 pm |
    • Moby Schtick

      @Bill

      You're believing because you choose to define yourself according to the paradigm set forth by the philosophical belief. In essence, you're like an ancient Greek who asks, "But do not some men have too much 'fire' within them given by the gods? Does not that man need to increase their consumption of water to maintain proper balance of earth, wind, fire, and water?"

      December 21, 2012 at 2:30 pm |
    • The Truth

      "every moment of your existence is spent in perpetual love, empathy and service to your fellow man?"

      Is that your newest definition of not sinning? One must now spend every moment in service to others? One might reply that you cannot truely love anyone else if you first do not love yourself. I do spend every moment of my existence in appreciation for what I have which does not require knowing exactly where what I have comes from, though I am earnestly seeking to understand what we do know of the universe and if some day evidence is found as to our true origins, something concrete and verifiable, not just some ancient texts that have endless interpretations without an ounce of fact, then and only then will I bend my knee. Until then I must assume the default position of dibelief.

      December 21, 2012 at 2:39 pm |
    • Chad

      @mama k "Who's not looking at evidence?? I guess some have trouble looking at items in their spam folder and seeing the obvious."
      @Chad "so what are your reasons for your disbelief?"

      ======
      @PaulB "In a court trial you don't have to absolutely believe that the accused is innocent in order to acquit"
      @Chad "absolutely true,
      however, you DO have to consider the evidence presented. You dont get to say "we dont have to have a reason to believe he/she is guilty, we just do"

      so what are you reasons for your disbelief?

      ======
      @The Truth " that the default position without evidence is disbelief
      @Chad "that is what is called a pre-supposition.
      presupposition (or ps) is an implicit assumption about the world or background belief relating to an utterance whose truth is taken for granted in discourse.
      In other words, atheists START with the belief that God does not exist.
      which is fallacious

      you are confirming with Moby inadvertently said. That disbelief requires no reason (in your terms, it is the default position).

      the default position on anything is neutral, neither believing or disbelieving.
      Your default position indicates you chose to disbelieve before considering any evidence.

      excellent discussion! revealing to say the least.. and all of this really came out of my asking GOPer what his reasons for disbelief were, and being quite astonishment at the result.

      December 21, 2012 at 2:40 pm |
    • hawaiiguest

      @Chad

      Why are you being so dishonest with Mobys post? Do you realize you're just making yourself look really bad by doing that?

      December 21, 2012 at 2:42 pm |
    • The Truth

      Once again Chad you prove yourself to be a dishonest charlatan. The neutral position you describe is one of disbelief unless you claim that in neutral anything that person is told automatically moves then into a non-neutral position. I will accept that the true neutral position is a person who has never been asked or has never asked themselves "How did I get here" and would in fact be a person who has never had a moment of self reflection in their lives.I could claim you don't believe in "tookernaughts" since I just made up the word, ishould I consider your default position on tookernaughts as unreasonable since you had never heard of them before? And now that you have heard of them, would you say it is unreasonable to dismiss them since I have provided no proof of their existence and in fact am unable to provide said proof? I say that it is unreasonable to claim belief without proof and anyone who does so is delusional and thus not capable of claiming belief or disbelief in anything.

      December 21, 2012 at 2:57 pm |
    • Moby Schtick

      @Chad

      Why aren't you answering my question? What better reason can you have to disbelieve than that the belief does not have sufficient reasons?

      You've really fvcked yourself up your own azz, today, Chad, and you did it in front of everyone. I appreciate it.

      December 21, 2012 at 3:08 pm |
    • Chad

      @The Truth, the true default position is to be neutral, neither believing or disbelieving.

      That you have a starting point of disbelief indicates your have a predisposition, you start with a prejudice against belief.

      perhaps definitions will help:
      disbelief – doubt about the truth of something
      disbelief – a rejection of belief
      disbelief – the inability or refusal to believe or to accept something as true.
      disbelief – the act of disbelieving : mental rejection of something as untrue

      as you can see, starting out with a position of disbelief indicates a prejudice, it is a presupposition (To believe or suppose in advance).

      very enlightening discussion.

      December 21, 2012 at 3:09 pm |
    • The Truth

      Proof the earth is billions of years old and humans have evolved to our current state? – Nearly every biologist and scientist accepts those facts based on millions of pieces of evidence and studies and experimentation as well as the mammoth task of decoding our own DNA.

      Proof the earth is a few thousand years old as the bible claims and that a sentient all powerful deity created the universe just for us to enjoy? – None, zip, zilch, zero, nada.

      December 21, 2012 at 3:11 pm |
    • Moby Schtick

      Yes, Chad, the discussion has been enlightening. It's shown everyone here that not only are you a lying fvckstick, but that you are so stupid as to proclaim your lies and stupidity as if they were virtues held by you alone.

      By your own reasoning, it's very stupid of you to disbelieve any belief, no matter how unreasonable, because you don't accept that insufficient reasons for a belief are reasons to disbelieve. I've never realized that you were actually as stupid as you've proved yourself today.

      December 21, 2012 at 3:16 pm |
    • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

      @Chad,

      "so what are you reasons for your disbelief?"

      Again with this question Chad? If you genuinely sought to hear what we think, I would applaud you for asking it.

      But all you seek to do here is twist people's responses into a point scoring exercise where you inflate your ego by (what you usually erroneously think is) 'besting' an atheist at rhetorical games – just like you think you did with @Moby's ambiguous wording. Your actions are petty and unbecoming.

      As I did with you yesterday, I welcome a conversation on this topic. But it is a game to you. You are a sad little troll. Merry Christmas and go back under your bridge.

      December 21, 2012 at 3:18 pm |
    • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

      @Moby,

      @Chad is not stupid. He is petty, and small in spirit.

      December 21, 2012 at 3:21 pm |
    • Chad

      @Moby: your obscene language is moving you very close to the point where I stop responding to you. If you find it impossible to engage in a civil discussion, you will find yourself in the same bin as @Tom Tom..

      @Moby "What better reason can you have to disbelieve than that the belief does not have sufficient reasons?"
      @Chad "Ah, that would be fine as the position would have been arrived at by a consideration of the evidence. There would be a judgement on the evidence, that disbelief would be backed up by reasons.

      Which would be the opposite of your other statement "Belief is what requires reasons, not disbelief"

      both belief and disbelief require reasons.

      what are your reasons for disbelief?

      December 21, 2012 at 3:23 pm |
    • The Truth

      One must by definition be presented with a belief to display any kind of disbelief. Therefore, one who has never been presented with the belief in God does not display disbelief in God, they just do not believe in God because the concept is foreign to them. Until they are introduced to the concept their default is that of not having a belief, which is different than disbelief. Disbelief appears as soon as a person like Chad makes the claim for God without proof and then get's all angry claiming that our disbelief was predetermined.

      December 21, 2012 at 3:25 pm |
    • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

      Why is Chad so rabid in his questions on disbelief?

      Thus sayeth the Chad (or more correctly, wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_lady_doth_protest_too_much,_methinks)

      The quotation "The lady doth protest too much, methinks." comes from Shakespeare's Hamlet, Act III, scene II, where it is spoken by Queen Gertrude, Hamlet's mother. The phrase has come to mean that one can "insist so passionately about something not being true that people suspect the opposite of what one is saying."[1]
      Furthermore, the above meaning is based on a misunderstanding of the meaning of the word "protest" as it was used in Shakespeare's day, as the "protest" of the lady is not a protest in the modern sense of the word, but an affirmation or avowal.[2]
      The phrase's actual meaning implies the increasing likelihood of suppressed feelings for the contrary of that which is being argued. I.e., the more pa.ssionate and fervent the argument, the greater likelihood the cause is a suppression of belief for the contrary argument, and the subsequent confirmation that it is the (actual) truer statement.

      "The Chad doth protest too much, methinks."

      December 21, 2012 at 3:29 pm |
    • Chad

      @The Truth "One must by definition be presented with a belief to display any kind of disbelief."
      @Chad "true, so how can disbelief be a default position??"

      =====
      @The Truth "Therefore, one who has never been presented with the belief in God does not display disbelief in God, they just do not believe in God because the concept is foreign to them"
      @Chad "no, now you are straying off course.
      if you never heard of God, you neither believe or disbelieve, you have no opinion, you are neutral. It is a potentially false statement to say that a person who has never heard of God "does not believe".

      It can only be said that a person that has never heard of God "does not believe OR disbelieve". They are neutral, neither believing or disbelieving. That is the default position

      December 21, 2012 at 3:32 pm |
    • Chad

      @GOPer, I'm sorry you feel embarrassed by yesterdays exchange. You are free at any time to enumerate the reasons for you disbelief.

      December 21, 2012 at 3:34 pm |
    • mama k

      @mama k "Who's not looking at evidence?? I guess some have trouble looking at items in their spam folder and seeing the obvious."
      @Chad "so what are your reasons for your disbelief?"

      Page 23, Chad. Please try to keep up. Of course I have all kinds of reasons for disbelief, but today's topic for me there was the gospels. Not what's in them, but the little we know about them. So before consider the empty tomb, you should explain everything we know with certainty about the writings themselves.

      December 21, 2012 at 3:34 pm |
    • mama k

      before we consider

      December 21, 2012 at 3:35 pm |
    • Chad

      @mama k "I still would like theists to explain why there is any reason to believe the stories in the four gospels by first explaining the validity of the writings themselves."

      =>you will need to explain your question further,
      A. are you asking if what we have in our possession is what was originally wrote?
      B. are you asking if we know when they were written?
      C. are you asking if the content of the Gospels is true?

      December 21, 2012 at 3:38 pm |
    • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

      @Chad,

      I don't find being honest to be embarrassing.

      December 21, 2012 at 3:45 pm |
    • The Truth

      "yes, I do think one needs reasons to disbelieve.."

      "if you never heard of God, you neither believe or disbelieve, you have no opinion, you are neutral. It is a potentially false statement to say that a person who has never heard of God "does not believe".

      Yet you claim it requires reasons to disbelieve? But for someone as you describe who has never been exposed to the concept of God, once exposed they now require reasons not to believe? You fail Chad. You are not using logic in any way, you are attempting to use definitions of words to hide your faulty reasoning but doing a very poor job of it. Not that I am surprised, you come on here every day showing how little you really know.

      December 21, 2012 at 4:04 pm |
    • Chad

      @The Truth "But for someone as you describe who has never been exposed to the concept of God, once exposed they now require reasons not to believe?"
      @Chad "yes, I do think one needs reasons to disbelieve. It seems pretty irrational to say "I dont have a reason for not believing what you are saying is true, I just dont believe it is true". I cant honestly think why someone would say something like that. Why would you hold a belief or disbelief that didnt have an underlying reason for it?"

      December 21, 2012 at 4:12 pm |
    • Smithsonian

      ""I dont have a reason for not believing what you are saying is true, I just dont believe it is true". I cant honestly think why someone would say something like that. "

      No, we do research and find out it's not true. The stories found in the Book of Genesis, Chapter 1-12, such as the flood story, the record is quite different: the time period under consideration is much more ancient. The factual bases of the stories are hidden from our view archaeologically. The stories remain a part of folk traditions and were included in the Bible to illustrate and explain theological ideas such as: Where did humans come from? If humans were created by God (who is perfect and good), how did evil among them come to be? If we are all related as children of God, why do we speak different languages? It must be remembered that the Bible is primarily a book of religion, a guide to faith. it was not a book of history, poetry, economics, or science. It contains all sorts of literary genre, which are used to teach about the relationship between God and mankind. Even biblical history is edited history: events were chosen to illustrate the central theme of the Bible. The Biblical writers did not pretend they were giving a complete history; instead they constantly refer us to other sources for full historical details, sources such as "The Annals of the Kings of Judah" (or Israel).

      It is therefore not possible to try to "prove" the Bible by means of checking its historical or scientific accuracy. The only "proof" to which it can be subjected is this: Does it correctly portray the God-human relationship? In the best analysis, the Bible is a religious book, not an historical document.

      December 21, 2012 at 4:16 pm |
    • Smithsonian

      ""I dont have a reason for not believing what you are saying is true, I just dont believe it is true". I cant honestly think why someone would say something like that. Why would you hold a belief or disbelief that didnt have an underlying reason for it?""

      We've done research to show it's not true. The stories found in the Book of Genesis, Chapter 1-12, such as the flood story, the record is quite different: the time period under consideration is much more ancient. The factual bases of the stories are hidden from our view archaeologically. The stories remain a part of folk traditions and were included in the Bible to illustrate and explain theological ideas such as: Where did humans come from? If humans were created by God (who is perfect and good), how did evil among them come to be? If we are all related as children of God, why do we speak different languages? It must be remembered that the Bible is primarily a book of religion, a guide to faith. it was not a book of history, poetry, economics, or science. It contains all sorts of literary genre, which are used to teach about the relationship between God and mankind. Even biblical history is edited history: events were chosen to illustrate the central theme of the Bible. The Biblical writers did not pretend they were giving a complete history; instead they constantly refer us to other sources for full historical details, sources such as "The Annals of the Kings of Judah" (or Israel).

      It is therefore not possible to try to "prove" the Bible by means of checking its historical or scientific accuracy. The only "proof" to which it can be subjected is this: Does it correctly portray the God-human relationship? In the best analysis, the Bible is a religious book, not an historical document.

      December 21, 2012 at 4:20 pm |
    • Moby Schtick

      @Chad

      Actually, I'd prefer that you NOT respond to me, you fvckwit liar azzhole. You are the most arrogant fvckwad liar on these boards, and you know it and you're proud of it.

      You know my answer was SPOT ON, and that there's not one single thing you can bring against it. You know it was the perfect reply and the best response there is. The absolute best reason for disbelief is that there is no good evidence for the belief. It is indeed the absolute perfect reply to your repeated bullsh!t that attempts to put the onus on the disbeliever for some fvcked up reason that only makes sense in your pureed brain matter.

      Rather than deal with my superior response to your bullsh!t squarely, you lie and gloat in your lying azzhole methods. I appreciate your behavior because it shows the sort of fvcked up behavior you christians think is appropriate for your god.

      Now, unless you have an actual response to my excellent analysis, go fvck yourself with a barbed wire wrapped baseball bat and never speak to me again. You lying fvckwad son of a gang-ra ped wh ore.

      December 21, 2012 at 4:20 pm |
    • Smithsonian

      sorry for double post.

      December 21, 2012 at 4:21 pm |
    • Moby Schtick

      The LIAR Chad said:

      " It seems pretty irrational to say "I dont have a reason for not believing what you are saying is true, I just dont believe it is true"."

      Yeah, that is irrational, and nobody is saying that, lying fvckwad. What we're saying is that we HAVE THE BEST REASON for not believing what you're saying. The reason is that we've looked at the data you've put forth and found it to be insufficient. Since the reasons are insufficient, we're not believing in your stupid belief. THAT IS the reason. If you can stop lying for a few minutes perhaps you can actually understand what everyone is telling you.

      December 21, 2012 at 4:24 pm |
    • The Truth

      " It seems pretty irrational to say "I dont have a reason for not believing what you are saying is true, I just dont believe it is true". I cant honestly think why someone would say something like that. Why would you hold a belief or disbelief that didnt have an underlying reason for it?"

      If I were to tell you that I am a tookernaught and have fine silver fur coating a green scaled skin and can shrink to the size of an atom whenever I sense danger which is why no one has ever discovered me or any of my race, do you require some "reason" not to believe me? Without knowing what I would claim you already had a prejudiced position because you have never been exposed to anything like that or heard of anything like that before, that for you is likely enough "reason" to not believe me. Would not someone never exposed to the concept of God have some disbelief upon being presented with the concept just based on the fact that it was outside all known understanding they did have up to that moment?

      December 21, 2012 at 4:27 pm |
    • Tookernaught

      "Shhhhhh!!!

      December 21, 2012 at 4:31 pm |
    • mama k

      @mama k "I still would like theists to explain why there is any reason to believe the stories in the four gospels by first explaining the validity of the writings themselves."

      Chad: [ "you will need to explain your question further,
      A. are you asking if what we have in our possession is what was originally wrote?
      B. are you asking if we know when they were written?
      C. are you asking if the content of the Gospels is true?" ]

      Chad, I am asking about A & B & "exactly WHO?"

      Those things obviously need to be discussed before even considering C.

      December 21, 2012 at 4:33 pm |
    • Chad

      @mama k "I am asking about A & B & "exactly WHO?""
      @Chad "so:
      1. No reputable scholar that I am even aware of disputes that what we have in our possession is what was originally wrote. There is virtually -0- textual corruption, end of story. Good luck arguing otherwise.
      2. There is very little dispute about exactly when the Gospels were written, again, good luck arguing otherwise. Scholarly estimates rarely differ by more than 10 years on any of the Gospels.
      3. Who wrote them? the Gospels themselves do not claim authorship.

      That is the basis for your disbelief? No claim of authorship?

      December 21, 2012 at 4:45 pm |
    • Moby Schtick

      Chad, you should really reply to the post by "The Truth" as it totally destroys your position........oh, I guess I understand why you're not responding.

      December 21, 2012 at 4:53 pm |
    • mama k

      @mama k "I am asking about A & B & "exactly WHO?""
      Chad: [ "so:
      1. No reputable scholar that I am even aware of disputes that what we have in our possession is what was originally wrote. There is virtually -0- textual corruption, end of story. Good luck arguing otherwise.
      2. There is very little dispute about exactly when the Gospels were written, again, good luck arguing otherwise. Scholarly estimates rarely differ by more than 10 years on any of the Gospels.
      3. Who wrote them? the Gospels themselves do not claim authorship.

      That is the basis for your disbelief? No claim of authorship?" ]

      In part, Chad. Because we don't know who, your #1 doesn't mean much to me – it just says that some person who knew this popular story at the time wrote about from another vantage point to breathe new life into the story – and that this other author was in roughly the same time frame. Now what do we have that you consider credible evidence outside of the gospels to validate the stories within?

      December 21, 2012 at 5:05 pm |
    • Chad

      @ The Truth "If I were to tell you that I am a tookernaught and have fine silver fur coating a green scaled skin and can shrink to the size of an atom whenever I sense danger which is why no one has ever discovered me or any of my race, do you require some "reason" not to believe me?"
      @Chad "now, please pay attention:
      1. Before you told me of your tookernaught, I had neither belief or disbelief. I was neutral, I had no opinion.
      2. I considered your evidence:
      – in my known experience I am not aware of any natural creature capable of doing that which you claim your tookernaught can do (that doesnt mean one doesnt exist, it just means that a creature of that type is not known to exist)
      – you present no further evidence other than your statement that the tookernaught is real
      – you present no one else to attempt to corroborate your claim

      3. As a result I come to the conclusion that I do not believe that you have a tookernaught, although you are free to provide more evidence than what you have done so far (which was limited to your personal statement).

      – so, I started out with a neutral position ( I neither believed or disbelieved).
      – based on that evidence, I came to the conclusion that I dont believe you possess a tookernaught.
      – I dont make a claim that you dont possess a tookernaught, I merely state that I dont believe you possess a tookernaught .

      Now, you'll find that the case for the God of Israel is radically different than the case for your tookernaught.

      December 21, 2012 at 5:08 pm |
    • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

      @Chad,

      "Now, you'll find that the case for the God of Israel is radically different than the case for your tookernaught.

      In what way? (Other than the silver fur and green scales.)

      December 21, 2012 at 5:12 pm |
    • Moby Schtick

      Wow, Chad, so you don't believe in the Tookernaught because you find that there are no good reasons to believe in it. You are compelled to disbelief because the proposition does not have good reasons for belief. So you agree with my statement after all. Tthat lying bullsh!t that must have been just for show, I see.

      December 21, 2012 at 5:17 pm |
    • Chad

      @GOPer "In what way? (Other than the silver fur and green scales.)"
      =>LOL
      ok, so for starters the claim of the existence of the tookernaught is not falsifiable. There is no evidence given other than the statement that he has one in his possession. There is nothing about that which can be demonstrated to be false.

      Contrasted with:
      1. The origin of the Jewish people
      2. The content/claims of the bible
      3. the person of Jesus Christ

      All of those make claims about the God of Israel that are falsifiable. They could be proved false if in fact they were false.

      December 21, 2012 at 5:20 pm |
    • President of Nigerian Bank

      Dear Mr. Chad,

      I have a fantastic financial offer for you. I have recently come into a large sum of money that needs safe keeping in your country – can you help me?

      December 21, 2012 at 5:24 pm |
    • Moby Schtick

      Of course the claim is falsifiable. If you can prove that something of those characteristics can not possibly shrink to the size of an atom at will, the claim is proved false.

      December 21, 2012 at 5:24 pm |
    • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

      @Chad,

      1. The origin of the Jewish people
      2. The content/claims of the bible
      3. the person of Jesus Christ

      1. We're not talking about dirt and ribs here right – you're still OK with 'common ancestry'?

      2. fairy tales, myth, selfimposed rules, poetry, narrative in the form of tall tales

      3. So? Even presuming the existence of an itinerant rabble rouser executed by the Romans, which may well have been their 'thing', there's no evidence for the resurrection besides hearsay of those involved. He hasn't popped back to say hello? For the omnisicent ruler of the universe it's too much trouble to visit every now and again?

      'Cause you said so, doesn't cut it.

      December 21, 2012 at 5:35 pm |
    • Chad

      1. The origin of the Jewish people
      2. The content/claims of the bible
      3. the person of Jesus Christ

      ======
      @GOPer "We're not talking about dirt and ribs here right – you're still OK with 'common ancestry'?"
      @Chad "the Jewish people, where did they come from? What about the narrative of their origin in the Bible?
      Not a single piece of information in there has ever been proven incorrect. By what do you discount it?
      (other than "don't know, can't be bothered to investigate, much easier just to say "that's all nonsense""

      ======
      @GOPer "fairy tales, myth, selfimposed rules, poetry, narrative in the form of tall tales"
      @Chad "willful ignorance on your part. Nothing in there has ever been dissproven.
      your irrational predisposition is showing 🙂

      to simply dismiss it out of hand is to demonstrate that investigating it terrifies you..

      ========
      @GOPer "So? Even presuming the existence of an itinerant rabble rouser executed by the Romans, which may well have been their 'thing', there's no evidence for the resurrection besides hearsay of those involved."
      @Chad "how do you explain the empty tomb? How do you explain the origin of the belief by the disciples that they had witnesses a physically resurrected Christ?

      that really is the huge difference between anti-theists and believers in the God of Israel.
      Anti-theists come to the table with the predisposition that God does not exist, and simply dismiss evidence out of hand without any investigation.

      That is why anti-theists simply can not enumerate the reasons for their disbelief, and in many cases, incredibly, view a predisposition against the God of Israel as the only valid stance to take.

      December 21, 2012 at 8:14 pm |
    • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

      @Chad,

      "How do you explain the origin of the belief by the disciples that they had witnesses a physically resurrected Christ?"

      perhaps they made it up? Perhaps the oral stories grew in the telling such that when finally written down decades later they were different.

      No different to the walls of Jericho falling down at the sound of trumpets.

      Any why are the details of the resurrection discussion in all four versions of the Gospels so different, even when it is clear that three of them are derived from the same source and this is the single most important part of establishing the divinity of Jesus?

      December 21, 2012 at 8:20 pm |
    • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

      @Chad,

      "Not a single piece of information in there has ever been proven incorrect. By what do you discount it?

      so you believe that Methuselah literally lived for 969 years do you?

      I'll grant you that it has never been disproven. But it's not like we can drop by the archives in Ur and ask for his notarized birth certificate and death certificate now is it?

      December 21, 2012 at 8:25 pm |
    • The Truth

      Sorry for the delayed response, gotta work sometimes though 🙂

      " I started out with a neutral position ( I neither believed or disbelieved)." – Okay...
      " I considered your evidence: – in my known experience I am not aware of any natural creature capable of doing that which you claim your tookernaught can do (that doesnt mean one doesnt exist, it just means that a creature of that type is not known to exist) – you present no further evidence other than your statement that the tookernaught is real
      – you present no one else to attempt to corroborate your claim – based on that evidence, I came to the conclusion that I dont believe you possess a tookernaught. – I dont make a claim that you dont possess a tookernaught, I merely state that I dont believe you possess a tookernaught .

      Now, you'll find that the case for the God of Israel is radically different than the case for your tookernaught.

      Okay, lets see how "radically" different it is...

      I considered your evidence: – in my known experience I am not aware of any natural creature capable of doing that which you claim your God can do (that doesnt mean one doesnt exist, it just means that a creature of that type is not known to exist)
      – you present no further evidence other than your statement that the God is real
      – you present no one else to attempt to corroborate your claim
      – based on that evidence, I came to the conclusion that I dont believe you pray to a real God. – I dont make a claim that you dont pray to a God, I merely state that I dont believe you pray to a real God.

      Am I missing something here Chad? You seem to be making my point for me.

      December 21, 2012 at 8:47 pm |
    • Chad

      @GOPer "perhaps they made it up?"
      @Chad "so, they went to their deaths refusing to recant the statement that they had witnessed a physically resurrected Christ, when they knew it was just a lie that they made up?
      Not really plausible, right? that's why that theory was discarded long ago, and no serious atheist scholar attempts to make that argument now.

      =====
      @GOPer "Perhaps the oral stories grew in the telling such that when finally written down decades later they were different."
      @Chad "first written references to physical resurrection within 10 years of the event. Original witnesses still alive. Persecuted movement based on a resurrected messiah could never survive in the face of an occupied one..
      that's why no one(serious) tries to make that argument..

      ======
      @GOPer "No different to the walls of Jericho falling down at the sound of trumpets."
      @Chad "how DID the walls of Jericho come down?
      archaeology has shown that the walls came down "in dramatic fashion" at the time described in the bible.

      how?

      ======
      @GOPer "Any why are the details of the resurrection discussion in all four versions of the Gospels so different, even when it is clear that three of them are derived from the same source and this is the single most important part of establishing the divinity of Jesus?"
      @Chad "different?
      you mean, why do they provide different details, but never contradict each other?

      ===
      @Chad ""Not a single piece of information in there has ever been proven incorrect. By what do you discount it?
      @GOPer "so you believe that Methuselah literally lived for 969 years do you?"
      @Chad "yes I do"

      @GOPer "I'll grant you that it has never been disproven. But it's not like we can drop by the archives in Ur and ask for his notarized birth certificate and death certificate now is it?"
      @Chad "so, By what do you discount it?"

      seems fairly straightforward.

      December 21, 2012 at 8:52 pm |
    • Chad

      @The Truth,
      A. you didnt investigate the evidence (have you read the entire bible?)
      B. 2 billion corroborating witnesses
      C. Other evidence beyond my statement: bible, origin of the universe, fine tuning, fossil record, empty tomb

      I guess other than completely missing the entire exercise, you were sort-a-close.
      NOT

      December 21, 2012 at 8:57 pm |
    • mama k

      What witnesses, Chad? Outside of these supposed accounts of unsigned authorship, what witnesses?

      December 21, 2012 at 10:13 pm |
    • Chad

      I guess you lost track of the thread..

      @The Truth "- you present no further evidence other than your statement that the God is real
      – you present no one else to attempt to corroborate your claim"
      @Chad "2 billion corroborating witnesses (the number of Christians in the world)"

      December 21, 2012 at 11:28 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      You apparently confused the word 'witnesses' with the word "believers." They are not equivalent.

      Are you sure you know what you want to accomplish on this blog, Chard? Do you think you're achieving that goal?

      December 21, 2012 at 11:30 pm |
    • Observer

      Chad makes the ridiculous assumption that if a large number of people believe in something, then it must be true.

      Logic failure.

      December 21, 2012 at 11:33 pm |
    • The Truth

      And yes Chad, much like most atheists I have read the bible cover to cover, three times in fact. It does not "prove" anything, it tells a story, a tale interlaced with history and myth much like many of the other odyssey's of ancient times. It cannot be taken completely literal and therefore cannot be blindly accepted as fact which is where the interpreters have come in, and for the last 2000 years they have been telling people what the bible means and it always happens to coincide with them remaining in power and promising lots of wonderful things if people behave and do what they want them to or lots of pain and torment if they don't. I will accept that there are a great many valid principles the bible relays but virtually every one exists in some other ancient text and most predate the bible. On top of that, if it's a good moral principle I should apply in my life I would hope to be able to apply it without being threatened with eternal hell fire or promises of eternal bliss to extort good behavior. I don't r a p e children, not because the bible said I shouldn't, in fact a case might be made in the exact opposite from the reading of some scriptures, but because I have empathy and would never want that to happen to me or my child and cannot imagine how anyone could. That is why there will still be "moral" laws long after religion just as they existed long before your religion.

      December 22, 2012 at 3:11 am |
    • The Truth

      I did digress a bit, but back to the larger point of, you have yet to present a shred of evidence. Just because you have a billion "believers" does not equate proof, those same billion likely have varying degrees of "disbelief" about evolution because they hold a prejudice view they grew up with of "God did it" and were told not to question. They were given enough sweets and presents during holidays it made accepting the "magical" and "miracle" parts of the traditional histories more fun. It's easier to explain God after having explained the giant fat man that squeezes down their chimneys and brings them presents like magic!! And it's so much darn fun you just want to share the lie, I mean love... And then kid's are told it's okay to grow out of their belief in Santa... but for some reason they never get called back in to their parents room in their 50's or 60's to be told the other thin guy doesn't exist either... no, they grasp onto that last hope of something more than this with all their might since they often have squandered their youth either running to sin or from it and are now saddled with the guilt of a misspent childhood, and they can't give it up, they are addicted to blaming Satan for their failures and praising God for their success. And the holidays just mask their sadness...

      December 22, 2012 at 3:29 am |
    • Chad

      @The Truth "much like most atheists I have read the bible cover to cover, three times in fact."
      @Chad "Well, in the time I have spent on this blog, I have met I believe one atheist that demonstrated that he had in fact read the bible and was familiar with the contents.
      If you could do the same, you would be #2.
      I have met many atheists that claim to have read the bible, but cant answer simple questions and daily demonstrate a complete misunderstanding of basic Christian theology.

      In any case you know that there has never been a historical fact in the bible that was proven to be false.
      What does that say to you about the reliability of it?"

      ======
      Regarding evidence for the theistic claim: origin of the universe, fine tuning of the universe, origin of life, fossil record, empty tomb

      December 22, 2012 at 4:56 pm |
    • The Truth

      Bible in a nu.tshell: Child raised by Egyptian princess returns from ban.ishment to lead his people out of ensla.vement and writes the tale of not only that adventure but of the actual beginning of creation naming the first two humans who were perfect but then were tricked into eating of the tree of the knowledge of good and bad but got kicked out of the garden before they could eat of the tree of life, and then Moses gives a lineage linking himself and his brethren from Adam to their long dead ancestors who survived a global flood that wiped out all of humanity except those animals that could fit on a wooden boat and then Moses explains why there are so many languages, because God did not want them staying in one place and building a tower so he confused their language, then the Creator of the universe became friends with a nomad named Abraham, also in the lineage Moses is writing down 500 years after the fact, who God makes a covenant with, to redeem mankind that had sinned by sending his own perfect son to be the ransom sacrifice which was symbolized by the offering of his own miracle child Isaac but whom God spared so that he could become a mighty nation, cou.ntless like grains of sand on a beach.

      December 23, 2012 at 12:58 am |
    • The Truth

      And so Moses continues the tale of Abraham's son having sons of his own, Jacob & Esau, of whom Jacob bought his older brothers birthright with a bowl of stew and then changes his name to Israel and goes on to have sons of his own, 12 apparently, 11 of which were none to happy about the 12th, Joseph, who was his father favorite but then sold into slavery which brings them up to Moses own day and their captivity in Egypt. Moses grew up a prince of Egypt, well versed in their mythologies and creation myths.

      December 23, 2012 at 1:01 am |
    • The Truth

      After convincing his ex-brother to let his people go through some miraculous means, none of which are recorded in Egyptian history, he leads them into the desert for 40 years after supposedly being redire.cted from their promised land while Moses writes the nations pre-history and lineage back to Adam. Then the war with the Palestinians began, and is still being waged, over their "promised land" which they didn't happen to own when it was "promised" to them.

      December 23, 2012 at 1:02 am |
    • The Truth

      Then fast forward to the time of the judges that gives way to the first king Saul which leads to David and Go.li.ath and Jonathan and eventually Bathsheba and then later Solomon and then into captivity by the Babylonians and some adven.tures with Daniel and then home again, then taken over by the Romans and this is where it gets a little fuzzy because the Hebrew bible ends but then the Christian books continue and were decided upon by a council over 300 years after Christ lived and chose them from hundreds of letters and docu.ments from early Christians but not a single contemporary writer was incl.uded.

      December 23, 2012 at 1:08 am |
    • The Truth

      But as they would have you believe, the son of God was implanted in a vir.gin and then grew up a perfect human which is apparently the only fitting sacrifice to give for another perfect human life, and he had to grow up as a human completely sinless then got baptized at 30 by his cousin John and had his pre.hu.man existence revealed to him, then wandered the wilderness and was tempted by Satan, rejected him and then started preaching a very different message than the Israelites were expecting, one might even call it eastern philosophy compared to the fire and brimstone God that they had worshiped. Then he got some priests and rich men angry speaking truth to power, they had they Roman masters put him on trial for blasphemy and hung him up to die and then pierced his side. Three days later he pops out of the tomb and appears to some women on the road then to his followers then to as many as 500 before floating off in the sky but then comes back in visions to Saul who become Paul and writes letters to the Christian congregations that later become most of the Greek scriptures and it's all followed up by the book of Revelation given to John that describes all sorts of wild beasts, Har.lots of Babylon, Dragons and a great battle that every Christians for the last 2000 years feels they will be on the right side of all ending with lions lying down with the lambs and children playing with vipers for the tent of God is with mankind.

      December 23, 2012 at 1:08 am |
    • The Truth

      "In any case you know that there has never been a historical fact in the bible that was proven to be false."

      The time frame described by the lineage from Adam to Abraham are quite clearly proven false by the fact that cave art and evidence of early humans far predates any possible time frame described in the bible along with the global flood account described which geologists have shown could not be possible let alone plausible.

      December 23, 2012 at 1:13 am |
  16. Mild Sauce

    Ultimately this banner is far more tasteful than the one I had in mind: "Keep the Merry!! Take a dump on the Myth!" (new "bottom" picture included)...

    December 21, 2012 at 1:20 pm |
    • Jim

      Thank you Bev for your response. And what do you think it really means to be "saved"? What is the measure by which God will judge each person? "There will be many who say on that day, Lord, Lord .. did we not do this and do that in your name" paraphrased ..

      December 21, 2012 at 1:27 pm |
    • snowboarder

      jim, saved from what? christianity requires you to believe that you are broken so that they may sell you the cure.

      December 21, 2012 at 2:01 pm |
    • Bill Deacon

      Are you not broken snow?

      December 21, 2012 at 2:21 pm |
    • Bev

      Jim
      Well, they say "The road to Hell is paved with good intentions", but I doubt that many hard line Christians ever wonder if their "good intentions" aren't actually wrong, or not something that God also wants. They're convinced that they're right and doing what God wants, and a lot of people have done some pretty horrific things with that rigid mind set.

      Once you're absolutely convinced that you're right then you can justify just about anything. That's what makes the atheistic mind set so rational. Our confidence in science comes from knowing that what we believe today may be proven wrong tomorrow, so it's best not to become rigidly, emotionally attached to ideas.

      Creationists might say that we're attached to the idea of evolution, for example, but that's not attachment, only confidence in an idea that has withstood the test of every new discovery since it's inception. Once the evidence starts casting doubts on evolution then we'll start losing confidence, but that seems highly unlikely to occur as things look now.

      If there is a God, and he judges people based on how well they have treated others, then heaven will be filled in such a way that might upset the Christians who think that they have an exclusive VIP pass in.

      December 21, 2012 at 2:24 pm |
    • snowboarder

      bill – no i am not broken. i am simply human. my conduct a result of some portion nature and some portion nurture. i have not inherited some ficticious curse of "sin". the entire concept is plainly ludicrous.

      December 21, 2012 at 3:09 pm |
    • Bill Deacon

      I don't know that it's ludicrous. I know hundreds of people personally who admit to brokenness. Most find it a blessing. The Bible states there are those who will not find it in themselves, so I guess you are one of those.

      December 21, 2012 at 4:25 pm |
    • Pete

      " I know hundreds of people personally who admit to brokenness. Most find it a blessing. The Bible states there are those who will not find it in themselves, so I guess you are one of those."

      Christians have to sell it to people that they are broken so they can convert them to their cult. The fact is we are all human, but NONE of use are ever really broken. It's sad your religion has to convince people of that to sell their god.

      December 21, 2012 at 4:28 pm |
    • tallulah13

      Religion preys upon human weakness. This is why so many people turn to it when their lives are in turmoil. Religion gives them an excuse (They're "broken") and gives them an easy fix (They will be "whole" when give their lives to Jesus).

      Honestly, I can see how this appeals to some, but it holds no interest for me. I have had both good things and terrible things happen to me, and I have learned that I am strong enough, and prefer to deal with my own problems, without the crutch of a supernatural father for which there is no evidence.

      December 23, 2012 at 1:27 am |
  17. Jim

    Atheists can be closer to God than Christians who say they "believe" in God. Any fundamentalist Christian care to debate that one? Christian fundamentalism makes me sick

    December 21, 2012 at 1:15 pm |
    • Bev

      Atheists, or any other nonChristian can be better behaved than Christians. Few Fundamentalists would argue otherwise, but to get into heaven and avoid hell requires being "saved". Being a good person will not save you from the fires according to folks like Billy Graham. Some Fundamentalists feel sad about this, but they still think its fair.

      December 21, 2012 at 1:23 pm |
    • Topher

      Not only is it fair, it's just. And makes perfect sense.

      December 21, 2012 at 1:28 pm |
    • Jim

      Thank you Bev for your response. And what do you think it really means to be "saved"? What is the measure by which God will judge each person? "There will be many who say on that day, Lord, Lord .. did we not do this and do that in your name" paraphrased ..

      December 21, 2012 at 1:29 pm |
    • hawaiiguest

      @Topher

      Then it is unfortunate to say, but you're just as immoral, divisive, self-righteous, and self-important as your god.

      December 21, 2012 at 1:32 pm |
    • Jim

      Topher – It is because of Christian fundamentalists like you that people don't become Christians. Ghandi was right when he said the reason he never became a Christian was because he never met one.

      December 21, 2012 at 1:35 pm |
    • Topher

      Because God is just people won't become Christian? How does that make sense?

      December 21, 2012 at 1:36 pm |
    • hawaiiguest

      @Topher

      Do you ignore the point of what people say on purpose?

      December 21, 2012 at 1:42 pm |
    • Jim

      Topher – if you don't get it right about LOVE, you have got it ALL WRONG. God is Just sending someone to an eternal lake of fire for saying they "believe" in Jesus? God is a little more reasonable and understanding than Christian fundamentalist morons. You have got a really REALLY small understanding of God and the scriptures.

      December 21, 2012 at 1:43 pm |
    • Jim

      oops – typo ... God is JUST for sending someone to an eternal lake of fire for NOT saying they believe in Jesus? I wonder if you even believe non-Christians are human beings.

      December 21, 2012 at 1:45 pm |
    • Jim

      Let me try to put it to you very simply so that even a 1st grader could understand – What is the measure by which God will judge each person? Saying they "believe" in Jesus? LOVE is what saves a person .. not someone who just parrots they "believe" in Jesus.

      December 21, 2012 at 1:49 pm |
    • Topher

      Jim

      The Gospel IS about love. Just read John 3:16 ... "For God so loved the world ..."

      God doesn't send you to Hell for believing in Jesus. He is just in that you've broken the laws and deserve to be punished. We've all lied, right? And the Bible says that all liars will have their part in the lake of fire. And I bet you think that the punishment doesn't fit the crime. But we have to look at who the crime is committed against.

      For instance, if I lie to a little kid, nothing will happen to me. If I lie to my wife, I'll be sleeping on the couch. If I lie to my boss, I'll be fired. If I lie to the government, I'll be thrown in prison. Notice what changed in these scenarios? It was the one against whom the crime was committed. And how much more so should our punishment be when the crime is committed against a holy and righteous God? It is absolutely just for Him to send us to Hell.

      So I have to ask the questions ... Have you ever told a lie? Stolen anything regardless of when it was or how much it was worth? Ever use God's name to express disgust? Ever look at someone and lust after them? If so, you'll be found guilty of breaking the law... the 10 Commandments. And we've only looked at 4 of them. You'd deserve Hell just like I do. But if you go there, that's your fault, not His. He has offered you a way to be right with Him, even though you don't deserve it.

      God paid your fine on the cross. It was a legal transaction ... you're guilty and He took your punishment. So that if you'll receive that gift, you'll be able to go to Heaven. To do that, you must repent (not just say you are sorry, but turn from your sins) and trust in the Savior.

      "Though your sins be as crimson, they shall be as white as snow."

      December 21, 2012 at 1:56 pm |
    • WASP

      @chris-TOPHER: i've met more pleasent non-religious people in my life that i would gladly share hell with then the hypocrites that you will so readily sacrifice your "free will" to live along with in heaven.

      December 21, 2012 at 2:00 pm |
    • sam stone

      How is it fair, Gopher? Apparently, you are every bit the vindictive little pr1ck your god is. Run, boy, run

      December 21, 2012 at 2:02 pm |
    • sam stone

      Gopher: It is not about god being just. It is about inbred fvcks like you purporting to speak for god. Face it, d-bag, you are about the greatest argument against Christianity we have on these boards

      December 21, 2012 at 2:05 pm |
    • Doc Vestibule

      @Topher
      The doubter says:
      "I could never follow Stalin. He puts people in the Gulag"
      That is what the doubters tell themselves to rationalize their rejectioin of Stalin. But the truth is that Stalin does not send anyone to the Gulag. It is those who have hardened their hearts against him who send themselves to the Gulag through their bourgoise atti.tudes and counterrevolutionary actions. This was not Stalin's plan at all. He truly wants everyone to go to the Worker's Paradise. And it grieves him that so many harden their hearts against him. But he will nto force anyone into the Worker's Paradise against their wishes. He respects free will.
      So if you don't want to go to the Gulag, just open your heart to the boundless love of Stalin. And stop resisting him.

      Sound familiar?

      December 21, 2012 at 2:08 pm |
    • Jim

      If you actually read my earlier post – you will see that it was a typo that I corrected ... the first time I accidently said for believing .. i meant to say "for not believing" .. you have a child's understanding of the Gospel my friend

      December 21, 2012 at 2:11 pm |
    • Bill Deacon

      Doc, you can do better can't you?

      December 21, 2012 at 2:13 pm |
    • sam stone

      gopher:

      god is omniscient
      god knew who would accept his son as a savior before they were born
      god created those who would not anyway
      why?

      also, if god already knows who will accept his son, what is the point of you evangelizing, other than to make yourself feel all fvcking pious?
      people are going to choose whichever way they will, with or without you.

      now it is time for you to wet yourself and run away.....

      December 21, 2012 at 2:14 pm |
    • Topher

      My understanding of the Bible matches up with the church fathers for the last 2000 years.

      December 21, 2012 at 2:23 pm |
    • Doc Vestibule

      @Topher
      Which church?
      Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, oriental Orthodox, As.syrian, Byzantine, Lutheran, Anglican, Presbyterian, Anabaptism, Brethren, Methodist, Pietism, Apostolic, Pentocostal, Charismatic, African Initiated, United, Quakers, Couthcotti.tism, Millerism, British-Isrealism, Latter Day Saints, Mennonite, 7th day Adventism, Kelleyism, Co.oneyism, Shakers, Methernitha, Strigolniki, Yehowism, Christadelphians, Christian Science, doukhobors, Iglesia ni Cristo, Makuya, Molokans, Subbotniks, Ebionism, Martinism, Rosicrucians, Rastafarianism, Santo Daime, Umbanda or one of the others of the thousands of sects of Christianity that have been squabbling over mythological minutiae for 2 thousand years?

      December 21, 2012 at 2:35 pm |
    • lol??

      Jim sayz, "........Christian fundamentalism makes me sick."..........You don't have to state the obvious. Now quit posting on the belief blog until you get better. BTW, big Pharma might have a pill fer ya.

      December 21, 2012 at 3:08 pm |
    • sam stone

      Wow, how surprising, Gopher avoids a question.......

      December 21, 2012 at 4:13 pm |
    • Bill Deacon

      minutia is right Doc. Most of the deep theological differences are insignificant between the church today. They only serve as fodder for people who point to them as reason to reject the overarching message of Christ's Passion.

      December 21, 2012 at 4:28 pm |
  18. 2357

    Does logic exist? What is your material evidence?

    December 21, 2012 at 1:10 pm |
    • Really??

      The evidence is at your fingertips. That keyboard is attached to a computer which works on pure logic.

      December 21, 2012 at 1:12 pm |
    • Huebert

      Logic is a method for arriving at a conclusion, it's not a thing. You might as well ask if investigation exist.

      December 21, 2012 at 1:12 pm |
    • Bev

      Every bit of science and medicine that has yielded us with inventions and medicine that actually works is testament to the existence of genuine logic, my friend. If you lack confidence with logic then why are you wasting your time with using computers?

      December 21, 2012 at 1:18 pm |
    • Chad

      @Huebert "Logic is a method for arriving at a conclusion"
      @Chad "so, what reasoning did you use to arrive at your position of disbelief?"

      December 21, 2012 at 1:26 pm |
    • Moby Schtick

      Fvckwad liar, Chad, thinks you need reasons to disbelieve, instead of disbelief being a natural conclusion when the idea proposed has no good reasons for belief.

      I am soooooooooo glad that you are a christian, Chad. Keep on lying and being a completely dishonest fvcktard for your beliefs. It's great for the ATHEIST position.

      December 21, 2012 at 1:28 pm |
    • Chad

      yes, I do think one needs reasons to disbelieve..

      December 21, 2012 at 1:32 pm |
    • Moby Schtick

      Chad, what better reason is there to disbelieve than that the positive belief does not have sufficient reasons?

      Why do you disbelieve in unicorns? Could it be that you disbelieve because you lack any good reasons to believe in unicorns. My stars you are one stupid fvcking dovchebag lying little sniveling cvnt.

      December 21, 2012 at 1:34 pm |
    • Jim

      Do you acknowledge reality? Do you acknowlege there exists something in the natural world called 'objective reality'? If yes, then we can have a conversation. Otherwise, you are a moron.

      December 21, 2012 at 1:38 pm |
    • Really??

      Chad
      One USES reason to not believe.
      One must throw out reason to believe, hence the need for faith over reason.

      December 21, 2012 at 1:41 pm |
    • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

      2357,

      Logic is a by-product of living in a consistent universe.

      December 21, 2012 at 1:56 pm |
    • Huebert

      @Chad

      There is not sufficient evidence for god, therefore I do not believe in God.

      December 21, 2012 at 2:09 pm |
    • 2357

      Truth is, no one can claim the existence of logic, reason, coherence or order at the beginning of the universe. But theoretical physicists and their slow cousins in biology all take the presupposition as a given, that all things happened then as they happen now. This is a huge assumption, yet without it there would be no discourse upon which to found their respective rackets in academia. Talk about hypocrisy.

      December 21, 2012 at 4:36 pm |
    • Chad

      @Huebert "There is not sufficient evidence for god, therefore I do not believe in God."
      @Chad "by what basis do you discount this evidence? (note "none of that is evidence" is not a reason.. it's just blind faith. One needs to demonstrate that they have considered the evidence to demonstrate they have a basis for their disbelief)

      origin of the universe, fine tuning of the universe, origin of life on earth, fossil record, empty tomb.

      December 21, 2012 at 4:38 pm |
    • hawaiiguest

      @Chad

      Still the same useless points that proove nothing I see. You must be really desperate.

      December 21, 2012 at 4:40 pm |
    • Huebert

      origin of the universe – The big bang is the first knowable moment in the universe. There is no point speculating about anything "previous to" or "outside of" the moment time and dimensions began.

      fine tuning of the universe – The universe is not fine tuned.

      origin of life on earth – I don't know how that happened.

      fossil record – What about it?

      empty tomb – Embellishment.

      December 21, 2012 at 4:45 pm |
    • Moby Schtick

      Because, liar fvckwad dipsh!t, the "reasons" you put forth are not sound for one reason or another. Thus, they are not reasons to believe. Because the reasons for belief are not valid, the compulsory response is the default position of disbelief.

      "origin of the universe, fine tuning of the universe, origin of life on earth, fossil record, empty tomb"

      1. Origin is a mystery
      2. We have no idea if the universe is or is not "fine tuned"
      3. Origin is a mystery
      4. Fossil record is not evidence of any one god or not
      5. Empty tomb is not proved and even if it were would not account for the abject stupid actions of the god of the bible

      Now, Chad, sit there and think for a few days what better reason there is for disbelief in a proposition than that the proposition does not have any good reasons going for it. You lying, fvckwad sack of sh!t.

      December 21, 2012 at 4:46 pm |
    • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

      I love the fact that the Chad believes 'fine tuning of the universe' is 'evidence'.

      Chad *is* Douglas Adam's sentient puddle in a pothole.

      "This is an interesting world I find myself in—an interesting hole I find myself in—fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!"

      December 21, 2012 at 4:50 pm |
    • mama k

      I don't buy this fine-tuning crap for a minute. I mean sure, it's OK to think that many factors are necessary in a certain way to support life, but this notion of fine tuning sounds so self-serving. As if we are the only intelligent beings in the universe, and that other parts of the universe are "tuned" the same way we are. Why can't we just say we are part of the results of the universe in this area winding up the way it did?

      December 21, 2012 at 5:20 pm |
    • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

      And of course we all know the story of the empty tomb. ...

      Captain Kirk had approached too close to a black hole and it had time warped the USS Enterprise back to Earth, Ca thirtysomething CE. Unfortunately the time warp had depleted the dilithium crystals in the warp drive. Orbiting earth, Spock detected a dilithium deposit in the vicinity of Jerusalem so Kirk, Spock, McCoy and Ensign Smith (in security red) beamed down to the planet and stole some clothing along with a helmet to hide Spock's ears.

      Regrettably Ensign Smith became separated from the others, who were busy extracting dilithium, was a doppelganger for Jesus and he was arrested by the Romans. While Jesus ran off with John the beloved, Ensign Smith was horribly executed.

      Afterwards, Kirk, Spock and McCoy found their way to the garden and rolled back the stone. After the inevitable "He's dead Jim." Kirk communicated with the Enterprise: "Four to beam up, Mr. Scott" and they whipped the Enterprise back around the sun to travel forward in time.

      The end.

      December 21, 2012 at 5:25 pm |
    • 2357

      Aaaalrighty. So no fine tuning, perceived order is actually patterned chaos. There is no persistent order but mere probabilities. So why should anyone expect proof of anything, when nothing we say we know can actually be evidenced outside of our subjective convictions? Why even bother with a rah rah billboard...perhaps just lonely from the season?

      December 21, 2012 at 6:16 pm |
    • Chad

      @Scientist "the earth is round"

      @lat-earther "no it isnt, MORON!!!"

      @Scientist "ah... hmm.. ok, let me show you some data"

      @flat-earther "don't bother that's all nonsense, MORON!!!"

      @Scientist "ah.. ok, so, how are you determining that this evidence is nonsense, without having any clue what the evidence is?

      @flat earther "look RE-TARD, I Dont have to be an expert on leprechaunology to know that leprechaun arent real. MAN you are STEWPID!"

      @Scientist "ah.. ok, so, why dont you do this, look at the data, understand it, and point out the specific flaws. Dont you think the best way to refute a position is to understand it completely?"

      @flat earther "ooh ooh I have an idea"

      @Scientist "what?"

      @flat earther "go @#$## yer-self, MORON!!! what a retard you are. I cant believe what an uneducated idiot you are!!!

      @Scientist "ah.. I see."

      December 21, 2012 at 8:28 pm |
    • Chad

      Origins of the universe
      For most of scientific history, the universe was thought to have always existed, directly refuting the theistic claim that the universe had a beginning, and a creator.

      Then, a series of discoveries resulted in a complete transformation of thought, we now know that our universe has not always existed, rather it had a beginning, confirming the theistic claim:
      – 1929: Edwin Hubble discovers red shift (the stars and planets are all moving away from each other. The universe is expanding in all directions)
      – 1965: discovery of microwave cosmic background radiation (the echo's of the big bang)
      – 1998, two independent research groups studying distant supernovae were astonished to discover, against all expectations, that the current expansion of the universe is accelerating (Reiss 1998, Perlmutter 1999).
      – 2003: Borde, Guth, and Vilenkin's Past-Finite Universe proves our universe had a beginning

      Fine Tuning of the universe

      In the past 30 or 40 years, scientists have been astonished to find that the initial conditions of our universe were fine-tuned for the existence of building blocks of life. Constants such as gravitational constant have been found, the variation of which to even the smallest degree, would have rendered the universe utterly incapable of supporting life.

      "There is now broad agreement among physicists and cosmologists that the Universe is in several respects ‘fine-tuned' for life". However, he continues, "the conclusion is not so much that the Universe is fine-tuned for life; rather it is fine-tuned for the building blocks and environments that life requires." - Paul Davies

      "The laws of science, as we know them at present, contain many fundamental numbers, like the size of the electric charge of the electron and the ratio of the masses of the proton and the electron. ... The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life"
      - Stephen Hawking

      December 21, 2012 at 8:34 pm |
    • hawaiiguest

      @Chad

      Are you ever going to have anything other than the same arguments that prove absolutely nothing, let alone your concept of god? I've asked before, but you never answer, nor do you give the logic that would point to your specific god.

      December 21, 2012 at 8:38 pm |
    • Chad

      Am I ever going to stop presenting scientific information that validates the theistic claim that the God of Israel is real?

      uh... no.

      are you ever going to actually investigate something so as to try and refute a specific claim, or are you going to just continue with "that's all nonsense" when you are clueless what "it" is?

      December 21, 2012 at 9:01 pm |
    • hawaiiguest

      @Chad

      So you're just going to ignore that when you say the universe has a beginning, you're only talking about the current state of matter and energy, and there is no way at this point to know what matter was doing before the Big Bang?

      Or the fact that "fine-tuning" is merely an expression used to convey that life as we know it is tenuous. Taking the words, and just running with it doesn't prove anything. Yes, things are a certain way, if they were different, we wouldn't be here. Doesn't prove a god.

      December 21, 2012 at 9:16 pm |
    • Chad

      @hawaiiguest "So you're just going to ignore that when you say the universe has a beginning, you're only talking about the current state of matter and energy, and there is no way at this point to know what matter was doing before the Big Bang?"
      @Chad "I guess you just, somehow, amazingly, for the umpteenth time, missed the really important thing.
      please pay attention

      THE UNIVERSE HAD A BEGINNING, ALL MATTER CAME INTO EXISTENCE, IT DID NOT EXIST "BEFORE".

      please do some reading!!

      I wont even bother with your fine tuning nonsense.. you arent going to learn much cosmology reading Douglas Adams..

      December 21, 2012 at 9:20 pm |
    • Chad

      put another way
      -I can cite multiple members of the National Academy of Science that believe the universe is fine tuned for the building blocks of life, and that the universe had a beginning, there was nothing "before"

      – you, on the other hand, can cite NO ONE to support your nonsense (except of course science fiction writers)

      December 21, 2012 at 9:25 pm |
    • hawaiiguest

      @Chad

      And you wonder why people call you dishonest. You gave no refutation, merely went into super assertion mode without giving anything. Where is the scientific evidence that says matter was "created". As far as we know, matter/energy cannot be created or destroyed.

      As to fine tuning, I find it hilarious that you merely skip it and think you're proving something.

      December 21, 2012 at 9:25 pm |
    • Chuckles

      Chad.... why do you keep running away?

      Also, fine tuning? Please explain, are you saying the earth is fine tuned or the entire universe, which so far we've found to be 99.999999999% inhabitable.

      December 21, 2012 at 9:31 pm |
    • mama k

      And again, Chad, it just as easy to look at the scientific observation of fine-tuning and conclude that we are simply part of the result of that set of circumstances. Saying that life as we know it can only exist here under very narrow conditions in the universe in no way indicates how this part of the universe arrived at its current state.

      December 21, 2012 at 9:55 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Chard, there is still, after all your posts, not a single thing that connects your "fine tuning" hypothesis with the existence of a god. When are you going to show a connection?

      December 21, 2012 at 10:06 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Chard says: put another way
      -I can cite multiple members of the National Academy of Science that believe the universe is fine tuned for the building blocks of life, and that the universe had a beginning, there was nothing "before"

      – you, on the other hand, can cite NO ONE to support your nonsense (except of course science fiction writers)"

      And this proves god? How, exactly?

      December 21, 2012 at 10:11 pm |
    • Chad

      Fascinating to watch anti-theists try and refute the views of Stephen Hawking and Paul Davies (atheists themselves), for one, and only one reason.
      The just cant bear the thought that science does indeed support the theistic claim of the God of Israel.

      fascinating stuff..

      =========
      Fine Tuning of the universe

      In the past 30 or 40 years, scientists have been astonished to find that the initial conditions of our universe were fine-tuned for the existence of building blocks of life. Constants such as gravitational constant have been found, the variation of which to even the smallest degree, would have rendered the universe utterly incapable of supporting life.

      "There is now broad agreement among physicists and cosmologists that the Universe is in several respects ‘fine-tuned' for life". However, he continues, "the conclusion is not so much that the Universe is fine-tuned for life; rather it is fine-tuned for the building blocks and environments that life requires." - Paul Davies

      "The laws of science, as we know them at present, contain many fundamental numbers, like the size of the electric charge of the electron and the ratio of the masses of the proton and the electron. ... The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life" – Stephen Hawking

      =====
      @mama k, how DID the universe arrive at this finely tuned state?

      December 21, 2012 at 10:12 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Why don't YOU answer that question, Chard? Because not a thing you've posted indicates that this "fine tuning" is the action of some invisible sky-fairy.

      December 21, 2012 at 10:15 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      What's really telling, though, is Chard's inability to say "I don't know."

      He thinks he already knows all. Tells all. He's the Magic Eight Ball.

      December 21, 2012 at 10:17 pm |
    • mama k

      Chad: [ Fascinating to watch anti-theists try and refute the views of Stephen Hawking and Paul Davies" ]

      You're being dishonest again and trying to change my clear point. I did not refute the theory that conditions are very narrowly tuned, otherwise life as we know it would not be possible. I do see it as a huge leap, an unreasonable leap to assume that it was your deity of choice that had anything to do with it. Show me where Hawking attributes the "fine tuning" of the universe to the God of Israel, Chad. You're using this as one of your points of proof of your god, when it is not a valid point at all.

      December 21, 2012 at 10:29 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      @mama k: Betcha Chard will attempt to sidetrack, obfuscate, confuse, derail, or otherwise find a way to ignore your point, which is pretty much what I was trying to say.

      I wonder if believing he has all the answers makes him happy. I wonder if his Christmas is any more meaningful than yours or mine.

      Somehow, I cannot imagine that it is, for him or for anyone that knows him in real life. He's truly an insufferable prig.

      December 21, 2012 at 10:33 pm |
    • Chuckles

      @Chad

      The "fine-tuning" you're speaking of is that there are such things as natural laws. That's not "proof" of anything, and using a fact like "the sky is blue" in no way implies anything, it's just you wanting to infer something from nothing. Furthermore, you've talked about this fine-tuning as if the universe was made just for us but look around, look at just how dangerous the universe is for life. Whether it's anywhere outside of Earth as well as places around the earth as well. If anything it shows that god is trying to kill us.

      December 21, 2012 at 11:08 pm |
    • Chad

      science cannot answer why there are physical laws or why the universe obeys physical laws Leonard Mlodinow

      December 21, 2012 at 11:15 pm |
    • mama k

      He seems to have left "2 billion corroborating witnesses" behind to fend for themselves further up on page 24.

      December 21, 2012 at 11:17 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Neither can you, Chard. And you cannot make any connection that proves that your God of Israel was the cause.

      December 21, 2012 at 11:18 pm |
    • Chuckles

      @Chad

      A) why is that relevant?
      B) We have found no evidence so far to show that there's an external force that enforces the laws of nature, they just are.
      C) Considering no where in the bible does it say that god is the one who enforces the laws of nature every nanosecond, of everyday for all time, you have 0 evidence to stand on to say that because science has yet to explain why there are laws of nature, it must be god.

      December 21, 2012 at 11:53 pm |
    • Chad

      The fact that the universe is fine tuned for the building blocks of life is relevant for two important reasons:

      1. It DOES NOT support the atheistic claim that the entire universe, time and space itself arose from nothing, by nothing. The extraordinarily low entropy, highly ordered state at the big bang demands an explanation, "chance" could not have produced it.

      2. It DOES support the theistic claim that the universe was brought into existence by the God of Israel. The extraordinarily low entropy, highly ordered state of the universe at the big bang is exactly what we would expect to see if the universe was created.

      December 22, 2012 at 4:22 pm |
    • Moby Schtick

      @Chad, the fvckwad liar

      1.Atheists do not cloaim that "the entire universe, time and space itself arose from nothing, by nothing," you lying cvnt. Atheists don't have various ideas about it. Most atheists don't claim to know, and use the honest "we don't know" answer that's much, much, much more honest, direct, and integrity-full than "big invisible sky wizard with magic spellz."

      1a. No, the "extraordinarily low entropy, highly ordered state at the big bang" says nothing at all about "chance" which nobody is claiming anything about. The only people who discuss "chance" are those who are lying fvckwads strawmaning the atheists position-–like you.

      2. No, it does NOT "support the theistic claim that the universe was brought into existence by the God of Israel." It would only do that if someone could demonstrate the the "god of israel" is some sort of "low entropy, highly-ordered" universe creator. Something no one ever, has ever shown to any degree whatsoever. You are presuming what you want to insist before you even start the process of thinking about the subject.

      2 b. No, "the extraordinarily low entropy, highly ordered state of the universe at the big bang is exactly what we would expect to see if the universe was created" ONLY if we knew all sorts of other facts that we do not have at our disposal. Since we don't know how universes might come into existence or what low-entropy, minimally-ordered states of universes look like or produce or do or don't do or anything at all about any universe except our own, any judgments we make about universes is dependent upon a set of only ONE, which is not enough to give us any certain statements about the process of "universe making" as you so often stupidly do. You're a stupid as fvck, assuming, ignorant, idiot who lies and uses idiotic "reasoning" that is only valid by your own judgment and in your own mind. It doesn't hold up, and that's your cross to bear, fvckwad liar.

      December 22, 2012 at 4:35 pm |
    • Chad

      "science has yet to explain why there are laws of nature"

      You make a huge mistake in saying that.
      Science will NEVER explain why their are laws of nature, that it is impossible, by definition.

      Leonard Mlodinow (co-author with Stephen Hawking of "The Grand Design") explains it as:

      "Science starts from rules, from laws that exist, that's what science is. As such, science can never explain why the laws that govern the universe exist.... I sometimes wonder why the laws of our universe exist”
      Leonard Mlodinow.

      December 22, 2012 at 4:37 pm |
    • Moby Schtick

      Excuse my typo: "atheists HAVE various ideas about it."

      The lying fvckwad Chad lumps all atheists together on beliefs and ideas as if we all share all our thoughts simultaneously.

      December 22, 2012 at 4:37 pm |
    • Moby Schtick

      @chad the lying fvckwad

      Yep, "We don't know" is more honest and direct than "big invisible sky wizard with magic spellz."

      Decent, honest scientist: "We don't know why the laws of the universe are the way they are."
      Lying god-beiever: "Big invisible sky wizard with magic spellz did it!!!"

      December 22, 2012 at 4:42 pm |
    • Chad

      Note the distinction between:
      – we dont know (yet) why the universe obeys laws
      and
      – explaining why the universe is governed by laws is not something that science can ever do. EVER. Because science by definition starts with the existence of those laws. Science is predicated on their existence. Science describes the universe using those laws. Why they exist is not something that science can EVER explain.

      December 22, 2012 at 5:40 pm |
    • Moby Schtick

      Note the distinction between:

      "We don't know"
      and
      "Invisible sky wizard did it with magic spellz"

      December 22, 2012 at 5:42 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Other One

      Regarding the rules, can God do something that is impossible ( as in the modal "impossible" of modal logic )?

      December 22, 2012 at 5:47 pm |
  19. The Truth

    Atheists may insult your religion but unlike Christianity they don't insult your intelligence.

    December 21, 2012 at 12:56 pm |
    • HarryJ

      If you consider exposing the problems with something an "insult", that is.

      December 21, 2012 at 1:01 pm |
    • sybaris

      Correct!
      Religion requires ignorance to perpetuate

      December 21, 2012 at 2:24 pm |
  20. Colin

    Going now. Merry Xmas tol all

    December 21, 2012 at 12:51 pm |
    • HarryJ

      Merry Xmen to you too! 🙂

      December 21, 2012 at 12:59 pm |
    • sam stone

      merry christmas, colin

      December 21, 2012 at 4:15 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
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.