home
RSS
February 7th, 2013
11:17 PM ET

What happened to God in America?

CNN's Carol Costello reports on the growing number of Americans who don't believe in God.

- A. Hawkins

Filed under: Atheism • United States

soundoff (770 Responses)
  1. god is your surrogate mommy

    Just like you believed in Santa when you were a kid, now god is your adult Santa Claus because you never matured EMOTIONALLY and you still need a hand to hold like you held your mommy's hand as a child.

    END RELIGION NOW

    February 9, 2013 at 2:13 pm |
    • John

      My mom has blue eyes and a smile that can melt icebergs. God loves her, 'cuz she's the best.

      February 10, 2013 at 1:38 am |
    • lol??

      Jesus is an XY, so He can judge both male and female with perfection.

      February 10, 2013 at 12:16 pm |
  2. Mecha Velma

    Nothing happened to God. He was never there to begin with and with the mass information of the internet, people are beginning to wake up and figure that out.

    February 9, 2013 at 12:56 pm |
    • The Truth

      Previously we had to rely on second hand accounts at best, the "I know a guy who prayed and it totally came true" or "I know this person who died and went to heaven and came back" or "this person in our church saw a Smurf doll get up and start trying to choke a baby..."

      Now we are far too connected for the old wives tales and urban legends of religion to carry any weight. Their faith has been judged and found wanting.

      February 9, 2013 at 1:40 pm |
  3. Rick Bell

    As intelligence increases, belief in religion decreases. It's the real proof of evolution. It's happened time after time before. Most European countries are years ahead of us.

    February 9, 2013 at 11:23 am |
    • Chad

      As scientific knowledge progresses, we see more and more proof of the existence of the God of Israel

      Fossil Record.
      From the late 1800's thru 1972 the notion of "Darwinian gradualism" held the world captive. The notion that purely random mutation preserved in the population by natural selection would produce a gradual change, which over time would create the complexity of life we now observe (phyletic gradualism).
      Then, in 1972 the publication of "Punctuated equilibria: an alternative to phyletic gradualism" by Stephen Gould (atheist) finally forced the scientific world to accept the reality that the fossil record does not show the gradual change over time that Darwin proposed.

      Instead, what the community was forced to acknowledge, is that the fossil record reflects stasis and rapid change.
      This supports the theistic evolutionist claim that God used natural processes to develop life on this earth, as pure chance can never explain the grand paroxysm of necessarily interrelated mutations that are required to occur to accomplish this rapid change.

      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

      February 9, 2013 at 11:28 am |
    • HotAirAce

      Conveniently ignoring that Hawking, and others such as Krauss and Dawkins, goes on to show that the universe is not fine tuned and that he rejects the existence of any god. You know a delusional believer is lying and grasping at straws when they misquote known atheists. I'm sure we'll next see some misuse of Einstein's statements.

      February 9, 2013 at 11:37 am |
    • Over 40,000 denominations of insanity

      "proof"??? are you kidding, Chad? there is no proof in any part of what you wrote. intelligent design as one of possibly many undiscovered possibilities perhaps, but again – to leap to the God of Abraham based on any of your points is just that – an incredibly huge leap.

      February 9, 2013 at 11:38 am |
    • Science

      Einstein letter, set for auction, shows scientist challenging idea of God, being 'chosen'

      By Jessica Ravitz, CNN

      Decades before atheist scientist and author Richard Dawkins called God a "delusion," one world-renowned physicist – Albert Einstein – was weighing in on faith matters with his own strong words.

      “The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honorable, but still primitive legends,” Einstein wrote in German in a 1954 letter that will be auctioned on eBay later this month. "No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this.”

      Stephen Hawking: God didn't create universe – CNN

      articles.cnn.com/.../hawking.god.universe_1_universe-abrahamic-fait...

      Sep 2, 2010 – God did not create the universe, world-famous physicist Stephen Hawking

      February 9, 2013 at 11:48 am |
    • Chad

      @HotAirAce "Conveniently ignoring that Hawking, and others such as Krauss and Dawkins, goes on to show that the universe is not fine tuned"
      @Chad "uh..no..
      Dawkins, Hawkings and Krauss accept that conditions that allow life in the Universe can only occur when certain universal fundamental physical constants lie within a very narrow range, so that if any of several fundamental constants were only slightly different, the Universe would be unlikely to be conducive to the establishment and development of matter, astronomical structures, elemental diversity, or life as it is presently understood.

      they just dont feel that the God of Abraham was behind it, they appeal to the multiverse theory (there are an infinite number of possible universes and we happen to find ourselves in this one)

      you should really consider doing some reading on the subject..
      Just kidding!!! lol, i know you would never do that.. nor do you need to,, right? who needs info when you know you're right?

      February 9, 2013 at 11:57 am |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Oh, the irony.

      February 9, 2013 at 11:59 am |
    • John

      It's sad that the ones claiming to be the most intelligent, didn't want to be friends with the most intelligent being in existence, the one that created everything they'd study, and knew their end from the beginning. They were wrong.

      February 9, 2013 at 12:02 pm |
    • Over 40,000 denominations of insanity

      The whole fine-tuning thing seems very self-serving to me. Why is it crazy to think that we are not the center of attention in the universe? Why is it so crazy to think that we are simply the product of the specific conditions that wound up this way at this time in the universe?

      February 9, 2013 at 12:04 pm |
    • Over 40,000 denominations of insanity

      (and in this particular area of the universe)

      February 9, 2013 at 12:05 pm |
    • Over 40,000 denominations of insanity

      @John – I don't have anything against the Easter Bunny either, but I have no reason to try to be friends with him either since I don't believe in him either.

      February 9, 2013 at 12:07 pm |
    • Chad

      @Over 40,000 denominations of insanit " Why is it so crazy to think that we are simply the product of the specific conditions that wound up this way at this time in the universe?"

      =>unh..
      because you have no clue what you are talking about?

      funny how you reject scientific conclusions that dont agree with what you want to be true...

      February 9, 2013 at 12:07 pm |
    • John

      Chad, it's actually pretty simple, they start out with rejecting God, and when left with nothing, they have to use it to create everything. To do that, they say basically: 0 = 1 – 1 and then separate the 1's and work with those, forming everything out of nothing... an entire universe forms on paper... once and never again. They haven't met God yet, and don't comprehend how zero hasn't done anything.... so the universe they've built on paper... doesn't exist, and the one they're living in, does... because God created it.

      February 9, 2013 at 12:13 pm |
    • Over 40,000 denominations of insanity

      I haven't rejected anything, Chad. I don't reject that conditions are perfect for life here and that small changes in many factors would not have allowed life to exist as we know it. My problem is where you take it from there which is a huge leap to assume the God of Abraham did it. So I don't disagree with the notion that the universe here is finely tuned for life. What I disagree with is that it necessarily suggests that a deity was involved. The people that have brought forth these theories, none of which have been proven, have not jumped to the God of Abraham as you choose to do.

      February 9, 2013 at 12:17 pm |
    • HotAirAce

      Chad continues to lie. . . These scientists do not say that the universe is fine tuned – they say it appears to be fine tuned and then go on to demonstrate why this is so. Yes, they might mention a multiple universe theory but that is not central to debunking the religious contention that some god specifically arranged conditions for our existence.

      February 9, 2013 at 12:17 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Other One

      National Enquirer-speak: "more and more proof"

      No more than a single proof is needed. That would require universally accepted premises, incontrovertible evidence and sound logic. Is anything like that available supporting the existence of the God of Israel?

      February 9, 2013 at 12:19 pm |
    • Over 40,000 denominations of insanity

      Above where I said "The whole fine-tuning thing seems very self-serving to me. " needs clarification. It only seems self-serving in the way that Chad/Craig are using it.

      February 9, 2013 at 12:23 pm |
    • HotAirAce

      Chad, what are the scientific conclusions that prove the existence of your god? Not support – prove, as you claimed above. No one has ever successfully proven the existence of any god, and certainly not using the scientific method – I don't think you (or your new buddy John) will be the first, but please do try.

      February 9, 2013 at 12:25 pm |
    • John

      Tom, eye witness accounts are often taken seriously by science. For example, history records comets showing up, stars brightening, eclipses and such, and science goes back and checks to see that yes, the witnesses were correct to say such. But when it comes to God and witnesses, science shuts down, they don't give God the benefit of the doubt when considering eye witness accounts. The eye witnesses are labeled insane, liars, or dreamers, and the accounts are tossed before consideration. This is done because they don't want to know God, or to do what he said to do. It's intentional ignorance at it's finest.

      February 9, 2013 at 12:29 pm |
    • Moby Schtick

      No, John, it's just that some stories have a very applicable parallel in what we know to exist: Supernovas and comets and such. Some stories offer science nothing to prove or disprove by verifiable measurement. What does any myth offer science that would allow science to measure and confirm it?

      And don't pretend that the process is that cut and dried, either. Science simply acknowledges that if the scientific data implies a comet or some such and the stories of the culture fit that explanation, it seems likely that the stories are connected to the probable event.

      February 9, 2013 at 12:33 pm |
    • Moby Schtick

      @John

      Because I don't know where my reply was to you last night, let me clarify my position.

      If there is a god then I most certainly want to know about it and what it thinks; however, I find no evidence for any gods described to me to date. I also DEEPLY DESIRE that some god exist. What am I ignorant of that I should consider in order to come to a belief in your god hypothesis?

      February 9, 2013 at 12:36 pm |
    • TANK!!!!

      " science shuts down, they don't give God the benefit of the doubt when considering eye witness accounts."

      You're really grasping at straws now.

      February 9, 2013 at 12:39 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      It's tragic that people like John believe there's an intelligent being who created them with brains they refuse to use for anything but balderdash.

      February 9, 2013 at 12:41 pm |
    • John

      HAA, eventually science catches up with God... the clothing on the sun for example.

      February 9, 2013 at 12:42 pm |
    • Moby Schtick

      Figurative language does not posses the level of specificity required to arbitrate fact.

      February 9, 2013 at 12:49 pm |
    • Moby Schtick

      @ John

      So many of your assumptions are wrong because of their stupidity. Disbelieving in god does not require that we "start with nothing," it only means that we have an unknown. Where did matter and energy come from? "Don't know."

      As far as "nothing" why should anyone, ever, at all, even consider that "nothing" exists or ever did exist? I assume that there has always been "something" even if that something is not able to be comprehended by our reasoning. I don't have to believe in god to believe that there is matter and energy and that "something" exists and "nothing" never has existed and never will.

      February 9, 2013 at 12:53 pm |
    • tallulah13

      John, you are simply putting your ignorance on an alter and calling it god.

      February 9, 2013 at 12:56 pm |
    • John

      MS, it's never good enough. Even if God wrote a paper and submitted it for review, science would deny it, because clothing on the sun although it's fairly descriptive of what they see, it doesn't give enough detail to hand credit to quickly hand it over to evolution as having done it. That's the key here, there is some level of reluctance on the part of God to simply hand it over, to be stolen later and given to a false god science promotes instead. Fusion on the surface of the sun... what could that give birth to anyway? Like a womb and a dust cloud... they certainly didn't know when he aske them... science even today is still trying to figure it out. Clothing on the sun, and color blindness... they're running out of excuses... time is ticking away.

      February 9, 2013 at 1:09 pm |
    • Moby Schtick

      John, if that's the best reply you can muster, than I'm pleasantly surprised. Keep up the stupidity, here, we atheists can always use more examples of moronic christian thought to point to.

      February 9, 2013 at 1:14 pm |
    • lol??

      Ace, finally someone, gave me the 5 laws of evolution, implied from darwin. Are these generally accepted in the scientific community enuff to be laws?

      February 9, 2013 at 1:33 pm |
    • Science

      Chad young earth creationism does not work, period

      February 9, 2013 at 1:58 pm |
    • End Religion

      I get the feeling John is lionlylamb without a thesaurus. He's got some sort of obsession about copper coils or some metal coils on the sun, and lamb has been posting those absurd magnetic coil videos.

      Oh, and Chad is just crazy and dishonest as usual.
      http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argument_from_fine_tuning#Argument_from_fine_tuning

      February 9, 2013 at 2:15 pm |
    • Chad

      Physicist Paul Davies has asserted that "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." He also states that "'anthropic' reasoning fails to distinguish between minimally biophilic universes, in which life is permitted, but only marginally possible, and optimally biophilic universes, in which life flourishes because biogenesis occurs frequently".[2] Among scientists who find the evidence persuasive, a variety of natural explanations have been proposed, such as the anthropic principle along with multiple universes.

      - Davies (2003). "How bio-friendly is the universe". Int.J.Astrobiol 2 (115): 115. arXiv:astro-ph/0403050. doi:10.1017/S1473550403001514.

      February 9, 2013 at 2:22 pm |
    • Lenn

      Chad
      99.99999....% of the universe is empty space, stars, black holes, dead planets, and radiation. How is that "fine tuned" for life? Maybe if the universe were as the Bible describes it, the earth at it's center with stars and space simply a thin layer around it, then you could argue that, but reality suggests otherwise.

      February 9, 2013 at 3:23 pm |
    • the AnViL

      life is finely tuned to the universe.

      not the other way around.

      arguments for the supposed fine tuning of the universe are like stating "ha! the god of abraham gave us 10 fingers so we can more easily use the decimal system!"

      foolishness, ignorance and sheer stupidity.

      February 9, 2013 at 3:29 pm |
    • Chad

      always nice to see atheists who feel forced to declare the scientific consensus incorrect because they feel it contradicts their belief system 🙂

      February 9, 2013 at 5:45 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Always nice to see Chard show himself to be completely blind to irony.

      February 9, 2013 at 5:47 pm |
    • HotAirAce

      John, you continue to throw out disconnected sentences about braided magnetic loops and clothing the sun. I previously confessed that I do not know what you are talking and asked that you provide additional information so that I might understand your argument. With apologies in advance if I missed your reply, similarly I have asked you to explain why you believe your god created exploding termites but I don't think you have replied to those direct questions. Again, please provide your explicit views.

      February 9, 2013 at 9:48 pm |
    • HotAirAce

      And I note that Chad continues to claim there is scientific evidence that proves his god exists but has not provided anything that even remotely backs up his blather. I do believe Chad is an outright liar, someone that cannot be trusted to speak the truth on any subject.

      February 9, 2013 at 9:52 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Yup. And in other news, water is wet.

      February 9, 2013 at 9:55 pm |
    • Moby Schtick

      What a dishonest little liar, Chad is. The universe APPEARS fine tuned, but that's irrelevant unless we can prove that something or someone did the fine tuning. Nobody can prove such a statement, Chad, and you know it.

      February 9, 2013 at 9:59 pm |
    • HotAirAce

      And only delusional believers or biased (non)scientists would set out to prove that there is some supernatural being twiddling knobs somewhere. Real scientists go where logic and evidence take them, and there is no evidence, and precious little logic if any, to steer a scientist to any god.

      February 9, 2013 at 10:04 pm |
    • John

      HAA, exploding termites are much like when we create guided missiles, yes it's a great missile and the video looks cool, but in the end it blows up and it's gone... much like the exploding termite. Are you claiming God can't be a creator? He can build whatever he wants, when ever he wants, like we can... except God isn't limited. The clothing on the sun is where you find out he was right in what he said thousands of years ago... right to the day. God described how earth got here, but how people interpreted what he said over the centuries was wrong, because they didn't have all the information needed to confirm what he said. Whed God said it was like a womb with a dust cloud, yes, it was. The braided filaments, like clothing on the sun, have multi million degree temperatures in them, never seen before, because they were color blind, they didn't look high enough, expecting much lower temperatures and not enough resolution. If you add in applied voltages across the loops, fusion is easily possible at much lower temperatures they see. The braided structure masks the fusion. God wasn't kidding when he said it was like a womb and a dust cloud... the line... who stretched it out? God did... and then he had pancakes... and here we are.

      February 10, 2013 at 12:04 am |
    • Stack 'Em Up

      John,

      Ain't fantasy fun...? This one has been castigated because stupid folks made it into racial slurs, but it was great before that happened:

      "Sambo is a South Indian boy who encounters four hungry tigers, and surrenders his colourful new clothes, shoes, and umbrella so they will not eat him. The tigers are vain and each thinks he is better dressed than the others. They chase each other around a tree until they are reduced to a pool of melted butter. Sambo then recovers his clothes and his mother makes pancakes of the butter." - Little Black Sambo

      February 10, 2013 at 12:15 am |
    • HotAirAce

      Sorry, but saying that an unproven god can do anything he wants doesn't cut it. Evolution provides a rational explanation of why some termites explode. That you do not like that explanation, and cannot seem to grasp the simple concept that the termites have every opportunity to pass on their traits before they explode, is not Darwin's problem.

      With respect to braided magnetic loops, you continue to fail at connecting the dots. I think I might know what you are talking about and am tempted to say that you are making a gigantic and twisted leap. But, I am not certain so will give you one more chance to clearly describe what you believe your alleged god allegedly said and how that agrees or disagrees with specific scientific knowledge. If you cannot do this, I will be forced to conclude that in addition to being a delusional believer, you are a blithering idiot spouting nonsense.

      February 10, 2013 at 12:26 am |
    • End Religion

      "Sorry, but saying that an unproven god can do anything he wants doesn't cut it."

      Maybe you didn't see where John pointed out the sun was clothed. Certainly that makes a difference?

      February 10, 2013 at 12:28 am |
    • John

      HAA, if you know about Moses and his telling Pharaoh at the time, that account, it's the same thing. If someone points out how God is right, and you don't want to know him, he'll make sure you completely miss it, and feel right about it. In the end though, he is right, and you didn't want to know, so you got what you wanted, and you can't complain about it later.

      February 10, 2013 at 12:48 am |
    • Lenn

      Chad
      Who is declaring the scientific consensus incorrect? Under biblical cosmology the Earth was the center of the universe, and nothing existed outside of the firmament of the heavens and a layer of water outside that. They had no concept of "outer space." To the biblical mind you literally could almost touch heaven from a high mountain top, which was why YHWH liked to hang out on one.

      In that system, most of "creation" could support life, but in reality people start dying at the top of high mountains like Everest because the atmosphere is too thin. You cannot leave this tiny speck of a planet without life support. The universe is hostile to life. If it weren't then life would be common on all the planets and moons, yes?

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oAg0f7rIu5c

      February 10, 2013 at 1:23 am |
    • John

      Lenn, I know that God will completely destroy my saying this to you, because you don't want to believe him, but if you bother to check, God told them they were speaking words without knowledge, that instead, it was like a womb with a dust cloud, the line stretched on it... where were you when he did it... how can you claim to know what he did... declare if you have understanding. That firmament was the dust cloud, later forming planets... where was it fastened? At the sun... a clothed sun.

      February 10, 2013 at 1:47 am |
    • HotAirAce

      John, did you really just say that if you try to convince me your god is real, your god will detect that I don't want to believe and your god will make sure that I don't get the message but I will feel good about not getting the message? In other words, your god will help me not believe but give me the warm and fuzzies anyway. I apologize if I misunderstood you. If I did understand correctly, I can only say that you and your beliefs are way too twisted to carry on a meaningful conversation. I find it difficult that you can belief such crap and are so mentally challenged, so am beginning to think you are a Poe.

      February 10, 2013 at 1:47 am |
    • HotAirAce

      Lenn, please take over. I can't cope with the increasing insanity. My head hurts. . .

      February 10, 2013 at 1:50 am |
    • redzoa

      Chad's reliance on PE as requiring divine intervention and his willful misrepresentations (e.g. "pure chance can never explain the grand paroxysm of necessarily interrelated mutations that are required to occur to accomplish this rapid change") have been repeatedly refuted. Again, I offer that he is either hopelessly ignorant or hopelessly disingenuous.

      Chad has repeatedly betrayed: his non-comprehension of what a species-level change is (i.e. the focus of PE) and that this most minor of changes does not require a wholesale reordering of a genome; his inability to grasp that gradualism, although the clear minority in the fossil record, is present in various lineages (See Gould's various references to Foraminfera); his non-comprehension of the role of historic genetic contingency (i.e. that silent mutations can coalesce into rather dramatic novel functionality, e.g. Lenskis' E. coli); that the nodes of PE are more than sufficient for the requisite species-level evolutionary changes (See Pod Mrcaru lizards); etc, etc.

      These facts and the related biological science (from molecular to ecological levels) have been painstakingly explained to him. Chad is the Black Knight from Python's Holy Grail. Unfortunately, he believes such behavior is virtuous, ever failing to see it as pathetically comedic...

      February 10, 2013 at 2:11 am |
    • John

      HAA, yes, exactly, God called it "hardening Pharaoh's heart" and he did it right after each instance that should have helped Pharaoh to see that God was right... because Pharaoh didn't want to know... so God made sure he didn't believe it... just as he'd started out not believing, he was left with it as it started... no belief. I can tell you how God is right, but you won't catch on until you want to know God, truely want to know him, and he knows if you really want to know him... it's the same thing. Why am I telling you then? Because someone has to say it, that's always how it is, someone has to answer the accusations against God... and be a pal, like he deserves, so others can find him too.

      February 10, 2013 at 2:18 am |
    • Arvn Huac

      Oh John, that is insane. If God prevents someone from understanding, then that person cannot possibly be guilty of not understanding. Your god is incredibly unjust. Good thing he doesn't exist.

      Seriously, aside from the insanity of believing what you do, the sheer illogic of what you are suggestion is easily grasped by the slightest critical thought.

      February 10, 2013 at 2:22 am |
    • John

      AH, no it's completely just, because if you didn't want to know God and what he wants, then you did in fact get what you wanted, and you were not biased by anything he said, or anything explained to you to convince you. To you, it remains nonsense, because really, if you didn't want to know him, he doesn't want to know you either... and it's left just... the balance wasn't tipped, unless you tip it.

      February 10, 2013 at 2:34 am |
    • Science

      This is Chad maybe

      The wedge strategy is a political and social action plan authored by the Discovery Insti-tute, the hub of the intelligent design movement. The strategy was put forth in a Discovery Insti-tute manifesto known as the Wedge Docu-ment,[1] which describes a broad social, political, and academic agenda whose ultimate goal is to defeat materialism, naturalism, evolution, and "reverse the stifling materialist world view and replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic
      convictions.
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedge_strategy

      February 10, 2013 at 10:37 am |
    • End Religion

      Wedge is YEC. Chad is not YEC. I think Live4Him is.

      February 10, 2013 at 11:56 am |
    • Lenn

      John
      Where does it say that "God told them they were speaking words without knowledge"? If it's in the Bible doesn't that cast doubt on it's credibility? The model in the video was the standard one until science proved it wrong. All you are doing is trying to reinterpret verses to match what you know from science, and it doesn't work. It's entertaining, but total nonsense.

      "how can you claim to know what he did"
      For argument's sake, how do you know that God did it as you said? Maybe the Bible is a total human invention and God, should he exist, created the universe just as science sees it, leaving zero trace of his existence? You were not there either, so how do you know that anything in the Bible is true?

      February 10, 2013 at 1:56 pm |
    • Clarity

      Several early Christian apologists claimed that the reason the gospel stories looked so much like *earlier* pagan stories was the Satan himself had set it all up in advance – a pre-emptive strike to confuse everyone. That's the ticket – it's wasn't plagiarism, Satan done it! okee dokee, wink wink..

      February 10, 2013 at 2:21 pm |
    • John

      Lenn, this will fly right by you IF you aren't interested to get to know God, believe God, or do what he said to do. That said, it's at the end of Job in the bible. Realize though, the translators did the best they could without knowing what was being described by God, they didn't understand what our solar system looks like, it's history, or other things God was describing. If you look at it now, and correct translation issues, it reads just like someone describing the stuff as it is, to the people writing it up then. The veses prior to God speaking up, is where Job and his friends trying to console him, are saying things they mis-understood about what God did, based on the understanding of the day, then. That's why God spoke up, to correct them... and be obvious to us now that he's the source. It will go either way, depending on what YOU want it to be... nonsense... or listening to God tell them the truth, from the source: God. It's pretty awe inspiring when you see it... if you do. The first part of Job is where Satan is claiming he knows the future and what Job will do if Satan can do his worst, and God cleans up on that too, telling him he's wrong as well... God again ending up right. That last part of Job, confirms the account is from God, no one else could have known what he said at the time... and even today, they're still catching up. At the time they claimed to be the most intelligent in all history, they're still wrong compared to sheep herders simply repeating what God told them thousands of years ago.

      February 10, 2013 at 3:41 pm |
    • John

      Lenn, how do you know it's true? There is no other account saying such from that period of time, where God speaks up. You start out believing someone when they tell you it's the truth. You then begin reading and give the benefit of the doubt until you can verify things you have a question about. Others have already done much of this, and so have skeptics, and it's set up so they can tell you it's all nonsense to trip you up... it's your choice who you'll go to... and that's where you'll end up. Best to stay with the source, God. Eventually if your faith is strong enough, you'll end up knowing, and from there, nothing the apostles or prophets said will surprise you.

      February 10, 2013 at 4:03 pm |
    • Lenn

      John
      If the Bible is inaccurate then how do you even know that God exists? That's the point, isn't it? If they put in only what they could imagine or perceive with just their senses then the Bible doesn't impress as a source of information that trumps modern science, with our advanced instruments, computers and dedicated professionals all investigating how the universe actually works. Even biblical history fails to impress. Where is the evidence for the Flood, the Exodus, or even the Garden? The best you can come up with is a fleeting reference to the House of David, which leaves events that supposedly happened before that in the same realm as other ancient myths. You can make excuses for translators, but when the Bible can't even produce a close approximation for pi, something that was better known by the Greeks, then you know that it wasn't even written by highly educated people for the day. All told, the Egyptians had a better grasp of science and mathematics. Perhaps we should trust their stories more, eh?

      Job is a good story, but where did the authors get the dialogue between God and Satan except in a dream, or a "vision"? How is this any different from the kind of things that Stephen King dreams up for his books? I know, you FEEL it isn't, right?

      February 10, 2013 at 4:47 pm |
  4. Over 40,000 denominations of insanity

    Has anything improved with Christianity since 200+ years ago?
    =================================================

    Thomas Jefferson, POTUS #3:

    Millions of innocent men, women, and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined, imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity. What has been the effect of coercion? To make one half the world fools, and the other half hypocrites. To support roguery and error all over the earth.

    John Adams, POTUS #2:

    I almost shudder at the thought of alluding to the most fatal example of the abuses of grief which the history of mankind has preserved – the Cross. Consider what calamities that engine of grief has produced! With the rational respect that is due to it, knavish priests have added prostitutions of it, that fill or might fill the blackest and bloodiest pages of human history.

    James Madison, POTUS #4, chief architect of the U.S. Constitution & the Bill of Rights:

    During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What has been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the clergy; ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry, and persecution.

    Thomas Paine:

    All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit.

    February 9, 2013 at 11:11 am |
    • John

      Ya, the sun was clothed, so it might be a good time to look at your watch.

      February 9, 2013 at 11:17 am |
    • Over 40,000 denominations of insanity

      For example: "Lutheran pastor apologizes for praying in Newtown vigil" (another BB article)

      Then re-read Jefferson.

      February 9, 2013 at 11:22 am |
    • Chad

      @Over 40,000 denominations of insanity

      nice quote mining 😉

      February 9, 2013 at 11:32 am |
    • Moby Schtick

      John, the sun is not "clothed," you moron. Do you really think that figurative language can be used the way you're using it? LOL!!!

      February 9, 2013 at 12:59 pm |
    • John

      MS, ya, it's pretty funny and ignorance is bliss... 'cuz God knew the day too.

      February 9, 2013 at 1:56 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Who ties your shoes for you, Johnny?

      February 9, 2013 at 6:11 pm |
    • End Religion

      No one ties Johnny's shoes. They're eternally tied. They've always been tied. They will always be tied. Because the sun is clothed.

      February 9, 2013 at 6:15 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      I think they were tied to the legs of the highchair he's sitting in...

      February 9, 2013 at 6:17 pm |
  5. Douglas

    The timeleess truth of the Bible teaches LGBTQ to say no to fornication and yes to celibacy!

    Together, we can work to make progress in this area by prohibiting gay coitus.

    Reach out at your place of worship and encourage LGBTQ celibacy.

    February 9, 2013 at 8:22 am |
    • niknak

      I would rather reach out and strive for xtian celebacy so you fundies will die off sooner.

      February 9, 2013 at 10:57 am |
    • Tom, Tom, the Other One

      I think street signs are in order. Showing zones where gay coitus is prohibited. Within 100 meters of a Catholic Church, for example. What should the sign look like?

      February 9, 2013 at 11:00 am |
    • Over 40,000 denominations of insanity

      No. You advocate bigotry, not equality.

      February 9, 2013 at 11:23 am |
    • WhenCowsAttack

      Why? Would you enjoy your exploits more if they were "forbidden"? I kind of understand that, it does make se x rather hot.

      February 9, 2013 at 11:25 am |
    • tallulah13

      Douglas hates himself so much that he wants others to hate themselves, too. What a pathetic individual.

      February 9, 2013 at 12:57 pm |
  6. Douglas

    The Bible teaches LGBTQ to say no to fornication and yes to celibacy!

    Together, we can work to make progress in this area by prohibiting gay coitus.

    Reach out at your place of worship and encourage LGBTQ celibacy.

    February 9, 2013 at 7:57 am |
    • niknak

      Phuck the bible.

      February 9, 2013 at 10:58 am |
    • Over 40,000 denominations of insanity

      Actually, many Xtians disagree with you. So, go back and read what Jefferson said. If that's not good enough then face the wall of separation (and then what niknak said).

      February 9, 2013 at 11:24 am |
  7. Science

    For All creationists and the pope

    Published on Jan 13, 2013

    Program Description
    Over 60,000 years ago, the first modern humans—people physically identical to us today—left their African homeland and entered Europe, then a bleak and inhospitable continent in the grip of the Ice Age. But when they arrived, they were not alone: the stocky, powerfully built Neanderthals had already been living there for hundred of thousands of years. So what happened when the first modern humans encountered the Neanderthals? Did we make love or war? That question has tantalized generations of scholars and seized the popular imagination. Then, in 2010, a team led by geneticist Svante Paabo announced stunning news. Not only had they reconstructed much of the Neanderthal genome—an extraordinary technical feat that would have seemed impossible only a decade ago—but their analysis showed that "we" modern humans had interbred with Neanderthals, leaving a small but consistent signature of Neanderthal genes behind in everyone outside Africa today. In "Decoding Neanderthals," NOVA explores the implications of this exciting discovery. In the traditional view, Neanderthals differed from "us" in behavior and capabilities as well as anatomy. But were they really mentally inferior, as inexpressive and clumsy as the cartoon caveman they inspired? NOVA explores a range of intriguing new evidence for Neanderthal self-expression and language, all pointing to the fact that we may have seriously underestimated our mysterious, long-vanished human cousins.

    Science & Technology

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3nH1fqd0Ryo

    Peace

    February 9, 2013 at 6:30 am |
    • lol??

      You sound a little psycho, science. After teaching the culture to such an extant that neanderthal jokes are COMMON, you NOW want us to love some dead "cousins". Methinks your present cousins are STILL dead.

      February 9, 2013 at 8:27 am |
    • lol??

      C'mon psycho science. Give the wurld the five laws of evilution. I have a hunch you already have the big ol' number 6 penned but are fearful to release it.

      February 9, 2013 at 8:40 am |
    • Science

      Another timeline go figure interactive No reply needed FACT take it up with NBC

      For all creationists and bible thumpers !!!

      Earth’s timeline works better than the bible's timeline

      Trace our planet's geological and biological ages

      http://www.nbcnews.com/id/33184839/ns/technology_and_science/

      Peace

      Interactive timeline

      February 9, 2013 at 8:43 am |
    • lol??

      Isn't NBC one of those "special sons" of the Beast that hired Chelsea Clinton as a post presidential payback?

      February 9, 2013 at 9:24 am |
    • Science

      Facts are the beast.

      Peace

      February 9, 2013 at 9:40 am |
    • lol??

      Is Chelsea 50% neanderthal meandering through life?

      February 9, 2013 at 10:02 am |
    • lol??

      Methinks science is going gaga over giants.

      February 9, 2013 at 10:07 am |
    • HotAirAce

      From http://www.spaceandmotion.com/Charles-Darwin-Theory-Evolution.htm:

      To summarise Darwin's Theory of Evolution;
      1. Variation: There is Variation in Every Population.
      2. Compet!tion: Organisms Compete for limited resources.
      3. Offspring: Organisms produce more Offspring than can survive.
      4. Genetics: Organisms pass Genetic traits on to their offspring.
      5. Natural Selection: Those organisms with the Most Beneficial Traits
      are more likely to Survive and Reproduce.

      February 9, 2013 at 10:44 am |
    • lol??

      Ace, to quote Darwin from the same page, "Probably all organic beings which have ever lived on this earth have descended from some one primordial life form." He doesn't sound so sure that he would make those "laws". So you're gonna tell me that all the scientific evidence and observations since his time is where the distillation for the laws have risen, pun intended? Are these laws the standard, peer reviewed, and generally accepted views of the majority of scientists?

      February 9, 2013 at 12:58 pm |
    • tallulah13

      Hey, lol?? The world just laughs at trolls like you.

      February 9, 2013 at 1:09 pm |
    • John

      Darwin said "probably" because he didn't know. It's much the same as saying:

      probably 652+4572 = 7 , if I ignore the reality of addition

      In Darwin's case, he was ignoring the reality of God

      February 9, 2013 at 3:07 pm |
    • Lenn

      John
      I think that you are actually projecting the creationist underestimation of the age of the universe, which is woefully ignorant (intentionally) of the reality of the actual age, as best as we can determine. Please enlighten us as to how, exactly, you know for a fact that God exists?

      February 9, 2013 at 3:20 pm |
    • John

      Lenn, the people translating to english chose "day" rather than "era" or "period of time". I don't have any issue with someone saying the universe is X billion years old, or some shorter age. In either case, God could do it, but I'll side with the X billion age because that matches the measurements... so far.

      February 9, 2013 at 4:20 pm |
    • John

      Lenn, the clothing on the sun, known by God to the day, is more than enough. But it's about endless what he's done over history, and if you don't believe the apostles in simply writing up what happened, then you won't believe anyone today either. Nothing they wrote, in any way shocks me, at all. When Jesus told them he knew John was dead, he knew it, he didn't have to be there. Jesus had the power of the Holy Spirit... and he still does. God exists, Jesus exists, and the Holy Spirit is active. Time is ticking away...

      February 9, 2013 at 4:31 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Yeah, it's ticking away all right. Better get your GED before the world passes you by.

      February 9, 2013 at 6:12 pm |
    • Bob

      Sounds like John's god was too prissy and prudish to be able to bear a naked sun...as usual, we are presented with the Christian "god" sky fairy and its pathetic limitations.

      February 9, 2013 at 6:24 pm |
    • John

      Bob, you're the one trying to put limitations on God... he isn't limited. It is his choice to not prove himself to people that reject him. And if he wants to put clothing on the sun and later have pancakes, who would argue with him? Not me.

      February 9, 2013 at 11:05 pm |
    • HotAirAce

      Darwin was the first one to propose evolution and it was reasonable to allow for uncertainties and unknowns. Also, Darwin knew that his proposals opposed prevailing religious views so he phrased his words to not directly challenge the religious establishment. Since then, knowledge of evolution has increased and there are fewer uncertainties. My understanding is that the vast majority of scientists support evolution. Do you know of any credible scientists that have successfully refuted evolution, as in have had peer reviewed articles refuting evolution published in recognized scientific journals?

      February 9, 2013 at 11:20 pm |
    • John

      HAA, anything God does can be taken and then claimed that "evolution" did it instead. The problem you have is to explain why when a male and female make the most offspring, but then you have spiders eating the male, and bees eating the female before offspring even exist. That take planning and knowledge, because the claim was that evolution maximizes offspring, but in those cases, it isn't doing what is claimed it should do. Obviously God did it, he planned it, and he left it as a signature of his design.

      February 10, 2013 at 12:28 am |
    • End Religion

      John, do you ride the short bus to school? Does it appear spiders have trouble making offspring? If bees are god's design and religion provides all answers, why the fuck are honeybees dying out, because no one seems to know exactly. And you know, they're a bit vital to our survival. Let me guess.... gays fucking somewhere upset your petulant god, AGAIN, and so he's causing bees to die, to cause fruit and vegetable plants to fail, to cause us to die. Makes perfect sense!

      February 10, 2013 at 12:41 am |
    • Lenn

      John
      How did the story of Jesus being tempted in the desert by Satan get into the Gospels? Was there some external "eyewitness" to these temptations, or did the Gospel writer just hear the story from Jesus, or the Devil?

      February 10, 2013 at 12:47 am |
    • Lenn

      John
      If you take ancient writing on face value, and you can believe anything that the Gospel writers wrote, then what is there to stop you from believing anything that Homer wrote in the Iliad and the Odyssey? Honestly, I do not see any difference between those writings and the Gospels, objectively. You may have a subjective love of, and trust in Christian scriptures, but can you actually demonstrate how they are more trustworthy? If you cannot then we could just as easily be discussing how Hercules exists, his father Zeus exists, and that Hercules slew the nine-headed Lernaean Hydra, right? All we would have to do is convince ourselves that he was real.

      February 10, 2013 at 1:01 am |
    • John

      ER, if your claim is the bees are dying off and "evolution save us", then why isn't evolution correcting it's error and making the bees stop killing the females? Have your asked your evolution god about this? What did it say?

      February 10, 2013 at 1:03 am |
    • HotAirAce

      John, I am not a biologist so cannot personally answer every question you have. I am reasonably certain that biologists have investigated your example curiosities, and more, and likely have explanations consistent with evolution. It shouldn't take a clever person more than a few minutes to research these things, and i would do it except you seem to ignore anything that does not fit your god view, so I will not waste more of my time. Or there may not be an explanation – the answer could be "we don't know." "We don't know" does not mean some god did it, especially given that there is no evidence for any god.

      February 10, 2013 at 1:06 am |
    • redzoa

      @John – Perhaps you should read E. O. Wilson's "Sociobiology: The New Synthesis" for a better understanding of how specific individual behaviors may favor overall reproductive fitness for a species where, frequently, these behaviors appear to be to the detriment of the individuals involved. Then follow this with Dawkin's "Selfish Gene" and Gould's "The Panda's Thumb."

      There are a wide range of reproductive strategies resulting from the competing interests at various levels of selection, that is, the level of individual genes/gene clusters, the level of the individual and the level of the population/species. These contributory and competing interests are, too, affected by various external selection pressures, for example, intra/inter-species compet-ition/predation.

      Lastly, there is some confusion regarding what evolution attempts to maximize. While #s of offspring are a common metric, the quality of offspring is an equally important consideration (See "r" v. "K" species selection). It appears you are basing your conclusions on a limited and very anthropocentric view of what the ideal reproductive strategy should be for a given species.

      February 10, 2013 at 1:06 am |
    • HotAirAce

      John, you are the only one claiming there is a god of evolution. Evolution is a natural process. Nothing is planned. It explains that organisms react to their (usually changing) surroundings and that species that adapt better than others survive. No gods required or evident.

      February 10, 2013 at 1:12 am |
    • John

      Lenn, God knows the entire history of everyone, through all history. If God wanted Luke to know exactly what happened, he would show it to Luke and Luke would write it down. The Holy Spirit is the power of God, and he gives it to who he wants, to do what he wants done. Luke was no exception.

      February 10, 2013 at 1:13 am |
    • End Religion

      John, I'm sorry, I thought the bee thing was common knowledge. I should have assumed your ignorance.
      http://whatsnext.blogs.cnn.com/2012/05/11/the-mysterious-case-of-the-disappearing-bees/

      I realize you don't understand how evolution works but you've at least heard it takes time for a species to adapt? And... "it is estimated that 99.9% of all species that have ever existed are now extinct."
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extinction

      February 10, 2013 at 1:13 am |
    • John

      Lenn, there are no other gods. The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, is the only God there is. Other false gods being made into stories passed on, is no different than your "evolution" god, present day made up and passed on. I've told you already, nothing the apostles and prophets said in the bible, none of it surprises me. But given you won't listen to them, 12 there with Jesus as witnesses, you certainly won't listen to 1 person today, telling you what you don't want to know.

      February 10, 2013 at 1:21 am |
    • HotAirAce

      John, according to your cult's 10 commandments, there are other gods. Even one of your fellow delusional belivers (Austin I think, but I could be wrong) said there are other but lesser gods. It would be so nice if christians would be consistent. . .

      February 10, 2013 at 1:31 am |
    • Johnny Guitar

      John: your reasons for dismissing the other gods are exactly why yours can be dismissed.

      February 10, 2013 at 1:32 am |
    • John

      HAA, there are false gods, they are made up, imaginary gods... like your "evolution" god. Austin could be referring to the power of the Holy Spirit, that is the power of God, and if someone like Jesus is using it, then that is truely God at work.

      February 10, 2013 at 1:58 am |
    • Lenn

      John
      "Show" it to Luke how, exactly? Through a vision (hallucination), or a dream? Are you arguing that we should take either a hallucination, or a dream that some guy had 2000 years ago seriously?

      February 10, 2013 at 1:47 pm |
    • John

      Lenn, when you look at a mirror... there is no one there. Remember that... there is no one there, but you know what it means.

      February 10, 2013 at 4:32 pm |
    • Lenn

      John
      I'm sure that your dubious esoteric comments really impress your fellow pew-mates, but they only serve to reinforce my opinion that you don't know what you're talking about. I can't look into a mirror and see God, or whatever it is that you're cryptically trying to say. I honestly have no idea what it is you think I know about what a simple reflection means.

      February 10, 2013 at 6:09 pm |
    • John

      Lenn, the vision you seein the mirror, is of something that does not exist, there. The photons are reflecting off the mirror and coming into your eyes and you think you're looking at someone on the other side of the glass, and you adjust your shirt, or shave, etc... based on a vision of someone not in front of you. If God takes that concept further, and puts photons in someone's eyes to allow them to see someone somewhere else, what is the difference other than God decided to do it?

      February 10, 2013 at 6:28 pm |
  8. Reality

    Only for the new members of this blog:

    “John Hick, a noted British philosopher of religion, estimates that 95 percent of the people of the world owe their religious affiliation to an accident (the randomness) of birth. The faith of the vast majority of believers depends upon where they were born and when. Those born in Saudi Arabia will almost certainly be Moslems, and those born and raised in India will for the most part be Hindus. Nevertheless, the religion of millions of people can sometimes change abruptly in the face of major political and social upheavals. In the middle of the sixth century ce, virtually all the people of the Near East and Northern Africa, including Turkey, Syria, Iraq, and Egypt were Christian. By the end of the following century, the people in these lands were largely Moslem, as a result of the militant spread of Islam.

    The Situation Today
    Barring military conquest, conversion to a faith other than that of one’s birth is rare. Some Jews, Moslems, and Hindus do convert to Christianity, but not often. Similarly, it is not common for Christians to become Moslems or Jews. Most people are satisfied that their own faith is the true one or at least good enough to satisfy their religious and emotional needs. Had St. Augustine or St. Thomas Aquinas been born in Mecca at the start of the present century, the chances are that they would not have been Christians but loyal followers of the prophet Mohammed. “ J. Somerville

    It is very disturbing that religious narrow- mindedness, intolerance, violence and hatred continues unabated due to randomness of birth. Maybe, just maybe if this fact would be published on the first page of every newspaper every day, that we would finally realize the significant stupidity of all religions.

    February 8, 2013 at 11:43 pm |
    • John

      And that is a good point, parents should teach their kids about the only God there is, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, the one that sent Jesus to die for the sins of others.

      February 8, 2013 at 11:57 pm |
    • HotAirAce

      Zzooooooommmmmm.......!!!

      February 8, 2013 at 11:59 pm |
    • End Religion

      Indoctrinating kids into religion means willfully handicapping them. Why be so cruel to the wee tykes?

      February 9, 2013 at 12:00 am |
    • TANK!!!!

      @ John Your parents did that to you and look how badly you turned out. You're the poster boy for the antireligionists.

      February 9, 2013 at 12:16 am |
    • Reality

      (from Professor JD Crossan's book, "Who is Jesus" co-authored with Richard Watts)

      "Moreover, an atonement theology that says God sacrifices his own son in place of humans who needed to be punished for their sins might make some Christians love Jesus, but it is an obscene picture of God. It is almost heavenly child abuse, and may infect our imagination at more earthly levels as well. I do not want to express my faith through a theology that pictures God demanding blood sacrifices in order to be reconciled to us."

      "Traditionally, Christians have said, 'See how Christ's passion was foretold by the prophets." Actually, it was the other way around. The Hebrew prophets did not predict the events of Jesus' last week; rather, many of those Christian stories were created to fit the ancient prophecies in order to show that Jesus, despite his execution, was still and always held in the hands of God."

      "In terms of divine consistency, I do not think that anyone, anywhere, at any time, including Jesus, brings dead people back to life."

      February 9, 2013 at 7:31 am |
    • lol??

      reality quotes arrogance,
      "John Hick, a noted British philosopher of religion, estimates that 95 percent ..........." What's the methodology used in to reach this Hick conclusion?

      February 9, 2013 at 7:36 am |
    • lol??

      Reality quotes a paradiddle,
      "....Moreover, an atonement theology that says God sacrifices his own son in place of humans who needed to be punished for their sins ...." TThey ddon't bbelieve God iis jjust. SSimple..

      February 9, 2013 at 7:44 am |
    • Reality

      For those interested in the studies of Professor John Hick, you need to read his books:

      Faith and Knowledge, (1st ed. 1957, 2nd ed. 1966)

      The Many Faced Argument with Arthur C. McGill (1967, 2009).

      Evil and the God of Love, (reissued 2007)

      Death and the Eternal Life (1st ed. 1976)

      An Interpretation of Religion: human responses to the transcendent (reissued 2004)

      The Metaphor of God Incarnate (2nd ed. 2005)

      (Editor) The Myth of God Incarnate (1977)

      (Editor with Paul F. Knitter) The Myth of Christian Uniqueness: Toward a Pluralistic Theology of Religions (1987)

      Philosophy of Religion (4th ed. 1990)

      The New Frontier of Religion and Science: Religious Experience, Neuroscience and the Transcendent (2006)

      February 9, 2013 at 10:47 am |
    • Reality

      For those interested in the studies of Professor JD Crossan, you need to read his books:

      Scanning the Sunday Gospel,1966

      The Gospel of Eternal Life, 1967

      In Parables: The Challenge of the Historical Jesus, 1973, reprinted 1992, ISBN 0-06-061606-7

      The Dark Interval: Towards a Theology of Story, 1975, reprinted 1988, ISBN 0-944344-06-2

      Raid on the Articulate: Comic Eschatology in Jesus and Borges, 1976, ISBN 0-06-061607-5

      Finding Is the First Act: Trove Folktales and Jesus' Treasure Parable, 1979 ISBN 0-8006-1509-3

      Cliffs of Fall: Paradox and Polyvalence in the Parables of Jesus, 1980, ISBN 0-8164-0113-6

      A Fragile Craft: The Work of Amos Niven Wilder, 1981, ISBN 0-89130-424-X

      In Fragments: The Aphorisms of Jesus, 1983, ISBN 0-06-061608-3

      Four Other Gospels: Shadows on the Contours of Canon, 1985, reprinted 1992, ISBN 0-86683-959-3

      Sayings Parallels: A Workbook for the Jesus Tradition, 1986, ISBN 0-80062109-3

      The Cross that Spoke: The Origins of the Passion Narrative, 1988, ISBN 0-06-254843-3

      The Historical Jesus: The Life of a Mediterranean Jewish Peasant, 1991, ISBN 0-06-061629-6

      The Essential Jesus: Original Sayings and Earliest Images, 1994, reprinted 1998, ISBN 0-7858-0901-5

      Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography, 1994, ISBN 0-06-061662-8

      Who Killed Jesus? Exposing the Roots of Anti-Semitism in the Gospel Story of the Death of Jesus, 1995, ISBN 0-06-061480-3

      Who Is Jesus? Answers to Your Questions about the Historical Jesus, edited with Richard Watts, 1996, ISBN 0-664-25842-5

      The Birth of Christianity: Discovering What Happened in the Years Immediately After the Execution of Jesus, 1998, ISBN 0-06-061660-1

      Will the Real Jesus Please Stand up?: A Debate between William Lane Craig and John Dominic Crossan, 1999, ISBN 0-8010-2175-8

      The Jesus Controversy: Perspectives in Conflict (Rockwell Lecture Series), with Luke Timothy Johnson, Werner H. Kelber, 1999, ISBN 1-56338-289-X

      A Long Way from Tipperary: A Memoir, 2000, ISBN 0-06-069974-4

      Excavating Jesus: Beneath the Stones, Behind the Texts, with Jonathan L. Reed, 2001, ISBN 0-06-061634-2

      In Search of Paul: How Jesus's Apostle Opposed Rome's Empire with God's Kingdom, with Jonathan L. Reed, 2004, ISBN 0-06-051457-4

      The Last Week: A Day-by-Day Account of Jesus's Final Week in Jerusalem with Marcus J. Borg, HarperSanFrancisco (February 28, 2006) ISBN 978-0-06-084539-1

      God and Empire: Jesus Against Rome, Then and Now, HarperSanFrancisco, 2007, ISBN 978-0-06-084323-6

      The First Paul: Reclaiming the Radical Visionary Behind the Church's Conservative Icon, co-authored with Marcus Borg, 2009, ISBN 0-06-143072-2

      The Greatest Prayer: Rediscovering the Revolutionary Message of The Lord's Prayer, 2010, ISBN 978-0-06-187567-0

      The Power of Parable: How Fiction by Jesus became fiction about Jesus, 2012, ISBN 978-0-281-06811-1

      February 9, 2013 at 10:58 am |
    • Reality

      From Professor James Somerville posted at http://www.theosophical.org/theosophy/questmagazine/mayjune2000/exclusivism/ and http://www.theosophical.org/theosophy/questmagazine/julyaugust2000/somerville/

      Two important observations by Professor Somerville:

      1. "The faith of the vast majority of believers depends upon where they were born and when."

      2. "Religion can bring us to the verge, to the brink, but like Moses, who led his people to the Promised Land, but could not enter in, there is no place for religion in the world to come. Religion is our vehicle for the journey. Once arrived, it will be left at the door."

      February 9, 2013 at 11:09 am |
    • Reality

      Professor Somerville's views on the convergence of religions are now posted at:

      http://www.theosophical.org/component/content/article/42-quest-magazine/1488-from-exclusivism-to-convergence-part-1

      http://www.theosophical.org/component/content/article/42-quest-magazine/1354-from-exclusivism-to-convergence-part-2

      February 9, 2013 at 11:18 am |
  9. lamb of dog

    Who cares about this silly god guy anymore anyways.

    February 8, 2013 at 11:12 pm |
    • John

      The blind, deaf, and dumb have a lot of trouble caring about what they can't perceive.

      February 9, 2013 at 12:02 am |
    • HotAirAce

      That pretty much describes believers trying to deal with reality!

      February 9, 2013 at 12:06 am |
    • TANK!!!!

      Only difference is believers make a conscious effort to NOT perceive anything.

      February 9, 2013 at 12:17 am |
    • Moby Schtick

      Nothing that happens is not part of god's plan; thus, it is his will. Thus, those who are blind, deaf, and dumb are that way because god desires it. As to why he can't use some of his all-powerful magic to get through to that person anyway certianly is a bit of a mystery.

      February 9, 2013 at 11:42 pm |
    • John

      MS, the best way to explain it is for you to imagine that within you, is a "God" balance, a balance with scales and weights. And if the balance is tipped towards "love God and what he wants" because you put weights on that side... he will make it possible to understand what he's said and to know him better. If you have weights tipping the scale away from loving God, he will NOT tip the scale for you, he will leave it as it is, so you continue to get exactly what you wanted, even if someone attempts to help you find him, it will remain what you wanted it to be, nonsense.

      February 10, 2013 at 3:16 am |
    • A Frayed Knot

      John,

      That totally discredits your legends about Paul of Tarsus, Doubting Thomas, and quite a few others who have claimed 'miraculous' 'enlightenment' from this "God" character.

      February 10, 2013 at 3:22 am |
    • John

      No, because Saul wanted to do things for God and thought he was helping God. Saul internally had a "God" scale tipped towards loving God, and thought he was helping God by tracking them down and having them killed. Jesus made himself known to Saul, this did not tip the scale from where it was at, Saul still loved God. Jesus told him to stop what he'd been doing, enlightened him as to what was going on, and Saul changed course, and name... to become Paul. None of this changed Paul for or against loving God, but did put more weight on the "love God" side. And that's the key, God won't tip the scale towards loving him, YOU have to do that yourself, first, after that, God will add more to the scale to keep it there, if that's what you want. At some point though, you know, and at that point, it's over, you know God is there, there's no turning back.

      February 10, 2013 at 4:48 am |
    • John

      As for Thomas, his doubt that Jesus had just appeared to them, didn't do anything for or against his love of God.

      February 10, 2013 at 4:57 am |
  10. Joel

    Yeshua/Jesus died for our sins. This was foretold throughout Tanakh. Saul/Paul was more opposed to Christianity than any anti-christian zealout of today. Yeshua appeared to Him and let him know that he was, shall we say, off course. The writings of Paul in the New Testament, or New Covenant provide us with clear understanding and meaning of the Life, Death, Burial and Resurrection of Messiah. As God used Moses to write the Old Covenant, so He used Paul to write the New. If you reject the writings of Paul in the New Covenant than you are rejecting the Words of God. You are in fact rejecting God, and you are without hope and you will die in your sins. Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ/Yeshua HaMeshiach and you will be saved....Romans 10:9 I am the resurrection and the life; he that believes in Me, though he were dead, yet shall he live. ....Yeshua Jn. 11:25 The message is the same. Blessed be His Name.

    February 8, 2013 at 9:04 pm |
    • Athy

      Man, how can any reasonable person possibly believe that tripe?

      February 8, 2013 at 9:13 pm |
    • lol??

      First ya gotta lay down the tripe you're already eating.

      February 8, 2013 at 9:37 pm |
    • HotAirAce

      OK lol??, I believe that there are no gods (but leave room for the very slim possibility that there might be) and that The Babble and jesus myth are complete crap. I am completely open to being wrong – I have laid down my tripe. Now prove me wrong.

      February 8, 2013 at 9:43 pm |
    • Chad

      @HotAirAce "jesus myth are complete"

      @Chad "it may interest you to know that the are virtually no historians that view Jesus as not a historical figure.

      Ever ask yourself why you feel the need to deny the obvious historical reality of Jesus of Nazareth?

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

      [5] Jesus and His Contemporaries: Comparative Studies by Craig A. Evans 2001 ISBN 0391041185 pages 2-5
      [6] Christopher M. Tuckett In The Cambridge Companion to Jesus edited by Markus N. A. Bockmuehl 2001 ISBN 0521796784 pages 122-126
      [7] Amy-Jill Levine in the The Historical Jesus in Context edited by Amy-Jill Levine et al. 2006 Princeton Univ Press ISBN 978-0-691-00992-6 pages 1-2
      [8] Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium by Bart D. Ehrman (Sep 23, 1999) ISBN 0195124731 Oxford Univ Press pages ix-xi
      [9] In a 2011 review of the state of modern scholarship, Bart Ehrman (who is a secular agnostic) wrote: "He certainly existed, as virtually every competent scholar of antiquity, Christian or non-Christian, agrees" B. Ehrman, 2011 Forged : writing in the name of God ISBN 978-0-06-207863-6. page 285
      ^ Robert M. Price (an atheist who denies existence) agrees that this perspective runs against the views of the majority of scholars: Robert M. Price "Jesus at the Vanishing Point" in The Historical Jesus: Five Views edited by James K. Beilby & Paul Rhodes Eddy, 2009 InterVarsity, ISBN 028106329X page 61
      [10] Michael Grant (a cla ssicist) states that "In recent years, 'no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non historicity of Jesus' or at any rate very few, and they have not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant, evidence to the contrary." in Jesus: An Historian's Review of the Gospels by Micjhael Grant 2004 ISBN 1898799881 page 200
      [11] Richard A. Burridge states: "There are those who argue that Jesus is a figment of the Church’s imagination, that there never was a Jesus at all. I have to say that I do not know any respectable critical scholar who says that any more." in Jesus Now and Then by Richard A. Burridge and Graham Gould (Apr 1, 2004) ISBN 0802809774 page 34
      [12] Robert E. Van Voorst Jesus Outside the New Testament: An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence Eerdmans Publishing, 2000. ISBN 0-8028-4368-9 page 16 states: "biblical scholars and cla ssical historians regard theories of non-existence of Jesus as effectively refuted"
      [13] James D. G. Dunn "Paul's understanding of the death of Jesus" in Sacrifice and Redemption edited by S. W. Sykes (Dec 3, 2007) Cambridge University Press ISBN 052104460X pages 35-36 states that the theories of non-existence of Jesus are "a thoroughly dead thesis"
      [14] The Gospels and Jesus by Graham Stanton, 1989 ISBN 0192132415 Oxford University Press, page 145 states : "Today nearly all historians, whether Christians or not, accept that Jesus existed".
      [15] Paul L. Maier "The Date of the Nativity and Chronology of Jesus" in Chronos, kairos, Christos: nativity and chronological studies by Jerry Vardaman, Edwin M. Yamauchi 1989 ISBN 0-931464-50-1 pages 113-129
      [16] The Cradle, the Cross, and the Crown: An Introduction to the New Testament by Andreas J. Köstenberger, L. Scott Kellum 2009 ISBN 978-0-8054-4365-3 page 114
      ^ Joel B. Green, Scot McKnight, I. Howard Marshall, Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels (InterVarsity Press, 1992), page 442
      [17] The Historical Jesus in Recent Research edited by James D. G. Dunn and Scot McKnight 2006 ISBN 1-57506-100-7 page 303
      [18] Who Is Jesus? by John Dominic Crossan, Richard G. Watts 1999 ISBN 0664258425 pages 28-29
      [19] James Barr, Which language did Jesus speak, Bulletin of the John Rylands University Library of Manchester, 1970; 53(1) pages 9-29 [1]
      [20] Handbook to exegesis of the New Testament by Stanley E. Porter 1997 ISBN 90-04-09921-2 pages 110-112
      [21] Discovering the language of Jesus by Douglas Hamp 2005 ISBN 1-59751-017-3 page 3-4
      ^ Jesus in history and myth by R. Joseph Hoffmann 1986 ISBN 0-87975-332-3 page 98

      February 8, 2013 at 10:58 pm |
    • ElmerGantry

      @HotAirAce,

      Well stated. Odds are you will only get silence or apologist tripe.

      I am curious what it will be.

      February 8, 2013 at 11:02 pm |
    • ElmerGantry

      @HotAirAce,

      Bing, the apologist tripe it is.

      That was fast.

      February 8, 2013 at 11:05 pm |
    • HotAirAce

      Chad, as usual you are incapable of reading for comprehension and your memory is non-existent. As recently as yesterday I stated (again) that I do not dispute the historical existence of some dude named jesus. I do not believe in and do not believe there is any credible evidence for a divine jesus, but pease do go ahead and attempt to educate me.

      February 8, 2013 at 11:06 pm |
    • Chad

      @HotAirAce "The Babble and jesus myth are complete crap"
      @HotAirAce "I do not dispute the historical existence of some dude named jesus. "

      =>words escape me... again..

      February 8, 2013 at 11:10 pm |
    • End Religion

      The Hobbit is complete fiction. Yet the main characters do walk through the woods and travel on roads. There is a dragon in it but there is also a human. We do not say it isn't fiction just because it has a few real elements like mountains, roads and trees.

      The bible is complete fiction even though it may mention figs, goats and wine. Just because the main character could possibly have shared a name with someone doesn't make it any less of a fiction. What would be nice to prove it is NOT fiction would be if there were a single piece of empirical evidence that this miracle worker existed. There isn't because said baby jeebus never existed.

      February 8, 2013 at 11:16 pm |
    • HotAirAce

      Chad, again, words escape you because you have absolutely no credible counter argument. Congratulations on descending below Topher, fred and Austin in intelligence.

      February 8, 2013 at 11:17 pm |
    • Moby Schtick

      @Chad

      I wish words wouldn't escape you so often; you do such an outstanding job of displaying the arrogant stupidity of your faith when you you can hold on to a few and put them to your usual use.

      February 8, 2013 at 11:32 pm |
    • TANK!!!!

      This silly reliance on consensus is the reason why theology is looked down upon by people in serious fields of study. Where is the evidence? Just because a group of stuffy old men desperate to keep their profession relevant agree on something does not make it true.

      February 9, 2013 at 12:09 am |
    • lol??

      haAce sayz,
      ".....Now prove me wrong.". The friendly diabolical debaters see the trap in this. Provin' a negtive? That's unAmerican! Innocent until proven guilty!

      February 9, 2013 at 7:03 am |
    • lol??

      I've heard it all before, "I WANT personal visitations from God before I'll believe!" ........"Dan 8:27 And I Daniel fainted, and was sick [certain] days; afterward I rose up, and did the king's business; and I was astonished at the vision, but none understood [it]."..........That sure is a mean God. He makes people SICK!

      February 9, 2013 at 7:14 am |
    • HotAirAce

      lol??, no one has to prove a negative to prove me wrong. They merely have to prove their own (positive) claims.

      February 9, 2013 at 10:29 am |
    • lol??

      Well Ace, I have no way of determining if you are serious or not. So if you want to know how people attain the faith, here it is, quite simply, "Rom 10:17 So then faith [cometh] by hearing, and hearing by the word of God."......It would be prudent to stay away from churches now, too. If it hasn't worked for you yet and you already tried studying, just keep going back. You are not in charge of timing.

      February 9, 2013 at 10:58 am |
    • Over 40,000 denominations of insanity

      Circular/self-referencing evidence lo??l uses. let's hope the CIA doesn't rely on such methodology. Of more interest are the early Xtian apologists who said the reason the gospel stories looked so much like earlier pagan writings was that it was a pre-emptive strike by Satan. It wasn't plagiarism – it was something that Satan did these early Xtian apologists said.

      February 9, 2013 at 11:07 am |
    • HotAirAce

      So lol??, I meet your conditions for learning why people believe the tripe they do, and all you can come up with is to question my seriousness and to basically say "you have to believe to believe." No evidence or argument for anything. And you apparently want others to take you seriously? You are a big time failure, but don't feel too bad – no believer has yet proven their claims despite 2,000+ years of bullsh!t and bluster.

      February 9, 2013 at 11:09 am |
    • John

      HAA, that's not true. The eye witness accounts in the bible convince people daily. If you don't take them seriously, what do you expect? God is the most incredible being in the universe, intelligence beyond comprehension, powerful beyond measure, and knows the end from the beginning. Yet he's attacked and accused constantly, merely for being who he is, God. It is how it is, because of this.

      February 9, 2013 at 11:49 am |
    • lol??

      Ace sayz,
      ".............."you have to believe to believe." No evidence or argument for anything.............." I gave you the "how" God works in the salvation of people. That's why I quote scripture a lot. I don't have any idea what would click with you or anybody else. God is spirit and their is plenty of spiritual evidence, from both sides, to validate His claims. I've already done plenty of arguing on these blogs. Plan A is the best: scripture.

      February 9, 2013 at 12:41 pm |
    • tallulah13

      Hey Chad? The word that you can't seem to grasp here is "myth". It's entirely possible that a man named Jesus did exist. But the "myth" (the miracles, the divinity, etc) has no supporting evidence. See the difference?

      It's sort of like that time I asked you for unbiased (I may have said unsympathetic), contemporary evidence for the miracles of Christ. You somehow twisted these two reasonable requests into a very different list of five or so conditions, which you then had the audacity (and fundamental dishonesty) to attribute to me.

      Either you have terrible reading comprehension, or you are a bald-faced liar. As far as I can tell, it's the latter.

      February 9, 2013 at 1:19 pm |
    • Lenn

      Chad
      Evidence for Jesus, the man, is not the same as evidence for Jesus, the divine Christ, right? It's difficult to argue that the humble rabbi from the Galilee didn't exist, but it's incredibly easy to argue that there is no evidence that he was a son of any god, actually performed miracles, or that much of his legend isn't based upon prior myths of dying and rising hero/gods. Most Christians can't separate the man from the myth, and I doubt that may of your sources would argue that Jesus was exactly as the Gospels depicted, correct?

      February 9, 2013 at 3:15 pm |
    • Bob

      You can argue all day long if you want about that bizarro Christian book known as the bible, but it is undoubtedly an old book, revised many times by many people. Roughly 2000 years old, or parts of it are, anyway.

      So, the unavoildable questions and reasonable doubts remain. Christians, why is it that your sky fairy can't even get with the past decade and produce his own website (no, religious shill sites don't count), or even push some tweets out? Even the pope, that criminal hider of criminal priests, can do the latter.

      The obvious reason is that your god doesn't exist.

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

      February 9, 2013 at 6:18 pm |
    • John

      Bob, the media God uses is not the issue, it's the content, and you've rejected the content, time and time again. When God says something before, and you see it happen after, it's not like reading it in the text where it's already happened and you are reading it after it's over. When it happens for real, in front of you, that's when it hits you that God is not like anyone you've ever interacted with, and the story like feel of the text is gone. The media used makes no difference for that, other than you can't deny texts written up thousands of years ago, they are what they are and have been all that time.

      February 9, 2013 at 11:36 pm |
    • HotAirAce

      Bob, I look forward to your translation of John's reply above. I got a headache trying to parse it but will wait for a second opinion before declaring it a non-sensical piece of crap.

      February 9, 2013 at 11:47 pm |
    • Harry

      John
      Beyond the Golden Rule, which is something that was already pretty universal and predates the Bible by hundreds of years, what moral advice the Bible gives is hopelessly outdated, and it's message of a preferred people, be they Jew or Christian, is really rather elitist. I thought we got rid of all the Master Race talk with Uncle Adolph?

      February 10, 2013 at 1:40 pm |
    • John

      Harry, why do you expect God can't have friends or those that love him? If you created something, and someone took it and gave credit to someone else, and laughed at you afterwards, would you want to be their friend? Why do you think God would feel happy about that, if you wouldn't? The accounts were given, held onto, and still exist because God made the right choice for who to give them to, over history, they didn't forget him.

      February 10, 2013 at 6:46 pm |
    • Bob

      HAA, actually, I think your description is right on; John's post really was a load of crap, as is his whole Christian superstition.

      So, John, not only does your message lack substance, but you still are just dodging the question, So, here it is again, back at you. This time, grow some courage and try to answer the question directly instead of doing your usual slimy dodges, you pathetic, slippery and deluded coward:

      We've already examined the "content", and I've presented why it is suspect already. So, why is it that your sky fairy can't even get with the past decade and produce his own website (no, religious shill sites don't count), or even push some tweets out? Even the pope, that criminal hider of criminal priests, can do the latter.

      The obvious reason is that your god doesn't exist.

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

      February 10, 2013 at 8:46 pm |
  11. Scholar

    Keep in mind that Jesus did not create Christianity, being a devout Jew. People who came after Him did that, creating a church that Jesus may not have been in favor of.

    February 8, 2013 at 6:21 pm |
    • Susan StoHelit

      So very true!

      I've heard it said that what is called Christianity would be better termed Paulism – they follow Paul more than Jesus.

      February 8, 2013 at 6:32 pm |
    • the AnViL

      keep in mind there's no actual evidence that jebus ever existed.
      also keep in mind that every account of jebus is hearsay.
      be sure to keep in mind that every account of every account of jebus was also hearsay.

      those are all good things to keep in mind.

      keep that in mind.

      February 8, 2013 at 7:06 pm |
    • lol??

      SuzyQ, how long have you been speaking the dialectic dragon talk?

      February 8, 2013 at 7:15 pm |
    • Scott

      That's a distinction without a difference. Christianity, meaning slaves of Christ, is meant to follow his teachings.

      February 8, 2013 at 7:16 pm |
    • Scott

      In the LCMS church that I was raised, Christianity was considered the completion of Judaism, not an entirely different religion. It's ironic, considering that Luther was a raging anti-Semite, but it is what it is, isn't?

      February 8, 2013 at 7:19 pm |
    • junior

      Jesus founded his church.

      February 8, 2013 at 7:56 pm |
    • Sirpluss More

      I love comments like this that testify to the unfortunate fact that it doesn't matter how dumb or implausible or utterly brainless one's absurd view is. So the apostles got it all wrong, and one or two lines plucked entirelly out of context is enough to base the most ridiculous inanities. You'd think books had been outlawed in your area.

      February 8, 2013 at 8:21 pm |
    • Ted

      SirPiss, speak for yourself.

      February 8, 2013 at 8:27 pm |
  12. Scholar

    A person can hold a personal view of God that does not depend on any organized religion.
    Jesus, in the Book of Matthew, advised us to pray in private, to avoid making a big public show of piety that He called hypocritical.
    We can be capable of being religious without belonging to any particular church.

    February 8, 2013 at 6:17 pm |
    • the AnViL

      yes people don't need to belong to any congregation to perpetuate their religious delusions.

      good stuff.

      February 8, 2013 at 7:07 pm |
    • junior

      except the fact that we are created for community in Christ

      February 8, 2013 at 7:57 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Sez you, junie.

      February 8, 2013 at 8:15 pm |
    • End Religion

      Juno, you were evidently created only to display mankind's propensity for celebrating superstition.

      February 9, 2013 at 2:28 pm |
  13. Scott

    I don't see how having "no religious affiliation" equals atheism. They could just as easily be agnostic, deist, or simply fed up with organized religion.

    February 8, 2013 at 5:50 pm |
    • Over 40,000 denominations of insanity

      Yup.
      =================================================

      Thomas Jefferson, POTUS #3:

      Millions of innocent men, women, and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined, imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity. What has been the effect of coercion? To make one half the world fools, and the other half hypocrites. To support roguery and error all over the earth.

      John Adams, POTUS #2:

      I almost shudder at the thought of alluding to the most fatal example of the abuses of grief which the history of mankind has preserved – the Cross. Consider what calamities that engine of grief has produced! With the rational respect that is due to it, knavish priests have added prostitutions of it, that fill or might fill the blackest and bloodiest pages of human history.

      James Madison, POTUS #4, chief architect of the U.S. Constitution & the Bill of Rights:

      During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What has been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the clergy; ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry, and persecution.

      Thomas Paine:

      All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit.

      February 8, 2013 at 5:55 pm |
    • Susan StoHelit

      They're quoting only part of the stats – but atheism is on the rise. It's of course not all nor most of the 20%, but considering how small it used to be, and that the 'undeclared' portion can be almost anything and many are those who are actually atheist but fear the term, don't know what it means (many think it means that you are anti religion, declare your belief there is no god, or other such stuff), or were raised where that term was about the same as calling yourself satan – it's a number that isn't meaningless either.

      February 8, 2013 at 6:34 pm |
    • Scott

      I doubt that anybody not affiliated with organized religion is afraid of being called atheist. I'd be willing to bet that the 20 unaffiliated percent (of which I am a part) is more due to the rise of agnosticism and of organized religion shooting itself in the foot by supporting buffoons like Rick Santorum.

      February 8, 2013 at 7:04 pm |
    • HotAirAce

      I worked for three USA based multinational corporations and very quickly learned not to reveal my true religious beliefs. And I know that cliques of believers promoted and protected each other. Externally, especially when in sales, you would never be open about being an atheist – too many delusional buyers you need to buy from you. On the other hand, being of the same cult or tribe was leveraged at every opportunity.

      February 8, 2013 at 7:10 pm |
    • HotAirAce

      But I do agree that Santorum, Chad, Topher, Bad Bob, Lie4Him, fred and John are fantastic examples of delusional believers that greatly assist people to see the stupidity of religion and the sanity of atheism. Thank You Gentlemen!

      February 8, 2013 at 7:20 pm |
    • Scott

      Well, one of the rules about getting along in the professional world is not to talk about religion or politics, and I don't. However, in my personal life, I'm more than willing to tell my friends, family, my old pastor (who is intelligent, well spoken, and respectful, which makes for engaging conversations) or the random evangelists handing out pamphlets on the street what I think.

      February 8, 2013 at 7:25 pm |
    • Greg Manko

      Many atheists will check the box "no Organized religion" or agnostic rather than describe themselves as atheist, as they are used to the discrimination that comes with the word.

      February 8, 2013 at 8:26 pm |
    • John

      HAA, what's interesting to me is that atheists often will attack the NT thinking it's historically inaccurate, only to later agree that it is accurate. The issue they end up having is not accuracy, but that God is mentioned, and anything God does. I think that happens because they do not like him, or what he wants. And if God didn't want anything at all, they'd then be fine with him too. So it really comes down to one item that atheists reject the accounts for, they don't like what God wants, and that is not an issue for God to change to meet you, but for you to change, to meet him.

      February 8, 2013 at 10:34 pm |
    • End Religion

      It is difficult for fiction to be inaccurate, really.

      February 8, 2013 at 10:39 pm |
    • HotAirAce

      I can only speak for myself...

      I agree that The Babble has a few historical facts contained within mostly bullsh!t. Of greatest importance, there is absolutely no evidence for the existence of any god or the divinity of the man called jesus. Without such evidence there is no logical reason to live as if these unfounded imaginary beings and myths exist. Oe might just as well live according to Lord of the Rings or Harry Potter.

      February 8, 2013 at 10:52 pm |
    • John

      HAA, and that's the crux of it, that there are multiple witnesses saying mostly the same thing, that the history is fine, but if they mention what is typically called a "miracle of God", that it instantly becomes trash, rather than history. The fact is, the history is fine, and the multiple witnesses are in agreement about that, so history is a non-issue. As for the miracles, I see them as being relatively insignificant compared to creating a universe. For example, people are recorded as having woken up at their own funeral, or in a morgue, no one realistically denies it happening. But when the claim is made that Jesus knew it would happen, then all the sudden it becomes too "of God" for someone to accept... and the account is written off by atheists as trash... when it's not. It was simply that Jesus knew ahead of time, not that it happened. The references to angels, those too are "of God", and so it's rejected from that as well. Meanwhile, I already know he's there and I'm fine with the "of God" aspects of the account, along with the historical accuracy, and Jesus having known ahead of time... which is really what the power of God is about, things only God can do, through the Holy Spirit... the power of God... which atheists do not want to know about. That's what it comes down to, atheists do not want to know about the power of God, or what God wants. The rest of the account, is fine with them... if God is removed... and that is wrong to do that, very wrong, and very short sighted.

      February 8, 2013 at 11:09 pm |
    • End Religion

      There's not a single credible eyewitness account and if there were we understand eyewitness testimony is not very reliable. Religious zealots would be at the bottom of reliable testimony, down with mental ward patients and politicians.

      February 8, 2013 at 11:21 pm |
    • HotAirAce

      Joe Average Human waking up after being declared dead is a medical f'ck up or a statistically extreme occurrence. Some dude claiming to be the son of an unproven god, and others believing that and his resurrection, without any supporting evidence is mythology, if not mental illness.

      February 8, 2013 at 11:26 pm |
    • Moby Schtick

      John, the arrogance in your silly assumptions is staggering. Fine christian.

      Atheists care about truth, even if it's cold nothingness instead of warm fuzzy-wuzzy sky wizard with magic spellz. The babble and it's childish terroristic god don't seem true. That's it. Come up with something that sounds more true and we might believe it is.

      Of course I would rather there be some warm, comforting sky daddy, and it'd be cool to know he was cool with me, but I'm not going to lie to myself just to feel better about reality.

      February 8, 2013 at 11:28 pm |
    • Scott

      First of all, several atheists are as belligerently evangelistic as the most annoying Pentecostals.

      Second of all, you organized religion types value structure over individual analysis of scripture. The clergy is no more inherently intelligent and qualified than anyone else, but plenty of people meekly think whatever they are told to think, without introspection. Most just believe what their parents believe and aren't willing to think outside the box.

      If you aren't willing to have your faith challenge by others does that mean it's too weak to be challenged? If you just believe what you are told to believe by the clergy, how is that YOUR faith? If you were God, would you reward the guy who closed his eyes and stumbled in the direction that he was told to by someone, or the man who intellectually chose the path he followed?

      I've seen the best of both worlds, but I've also seen a lot more of the worst.

      February 9, 2013 at 12:58 am |
    • Scott

      And really, what discrimination do you get for identifying as atheists? Do people try to convert you, or do they make fun of you? Boohoo. Are you having trouble professionally? That's probably because you're not playing the game. Don't be controversial unless you respect the person that you are talking to. Get over it.

      February 9, 2013 at 1:08 am |
  14. Ken Margo

    Did you notice that on these religious blogs it seems the the non religious out number the religious? It proves there is less of the religious whack jobs (thankfully) and the religious people are embarrassed about the nonsense they spout.

    February 8, 2013 at 4:50 pm |
    • Bill Deacon

      Or that most of them are bored with dirt bags like you Ken

      February 8, 2013 at 4:59 pm |
    • Ken Margo

      There's one.

      February 8, 2013 at 5:00 pm |
    • VanHagar

      Wait...I though atheists we're supposed to be smarter than the religious...but you posted absolute nonsense! More atheists post here than believers so that proves there are less believers or that they're embarrassed? Yeah, you run with that.

      February 8, 2013 at 5:09 pm |
    • Ken Margo

      @sammy VanHagar.................The proof is in the pudding. Catholic schools (here in NY) are closing at a record pace. more and more people DO NOT align them themselves with a particular religion. Church attendance is waning. You would figure those that strongly believe in their god would scream to the heavens to support their "idol".

      February 8, 2013 at 5:33 pm |
    • Susan StoHelit

      Actually, there's a few reasons for it. One of them is that atheists are still sufficiently discriminated against that most of us are in the closet. So, give us a place we can speak without fear for our jobs, friends, safety, kids, etc. – and we do. Another reason – the demographics of atheists more closely match the demographics of internet users. We're still no majority – not online any more than anywhere else.

      February 8, 2013 at 6:05 pm |
    • VanHagar

      Ken...I was just responding to your original argument. If you want to change the argument, more power to you. I'm sure the Catholic school issue has absolutely nothing to do with the economy or that Church's absolute moral failings with respect to its pedophile priests (eye roll please). There are some parts of the country where church attendance is going down–true enough–and in other parts its going up. Nothing new here. There is no writing on the wall.

      February 8, 2013 at 6:09 pm |
    • lol??

      Suzy StoQ is begging for Affirmative Action and that's an old story, alright. It's written all over her victim mentality. Now put another Christian on the fire to stay warm.

      February 8, 2013 at 6:11 pm |
    • Ken Margo

      @susan..................Discriminated? I think people are mad at atheists not discriminating against them. As far as the internet goes. There are PLENTY of extremist religious web sites out there. Just look for any anti Obama website.

      February 8, 2013 at 6:13 pm |
    • lol??

      Ken Margo, the catholic church was the original gubmint church, remember? Very shady origins.

      February 8, 2013 at 6:14 pm |
    • Sirpluss More

      Uh Ken. Having studied a little philosphy and then having read the stunningly uninformed and not so new atheists, it would be almost certainly boredom that would keep them away. For my part I can scarcely credit how intelllectually vacuous they are. It actually just seems an avoidance strategy so they can focus on consuming coupled with the most naive empiricistic scientism conceivable. Your comment here rather fits the general level of competence.

      February 8, 2013 at 6:41 pm |
    • Ken Margo

      What?

      February 8, 2013 at 6:55 pm |
    • Ken Margo

      I think people are taking what I wrote to the extreme. It's a general statement based on what I've seen on this and other blogs. Bill Deacon, Chad, Logic and just a couple of religious individuals who are responding on this and other religious blogs. I know their are more christians than them. Some reply once, Get their reply ripped to shreds and don't come back. Why, I don't know. My guess is they have no REAL answer to the incorrect statements they made in their posts. The three people I mentioned earlier say the same crap over and over again. I'm sure even some the "believers" don't believe the nonsense Bill deacon and his ilk put out there.

      February 8, 2013 at 7:07 pm |
    • Terry

      As for one sect, the whole Catholic new catachism thing that the Vatican has been trying to push isn't taking hold with the new generation. Former and potential young Catholics have moved on to greener pastures: other religions, or nones. Dying religion, views matter less and less. A few desperates are still posting but that is all they are.

      February 8, 2013 at 7:12 pm |
    • Ken Margo

      @Terry.................That is the point I was trying to make. I did a very bad job of doing it.

      February 8, 2013 at 7:19 pm |
    • Moby Schtick

      Sirpluss reads like an idiot trying to sound smart to convince himself he is.

      February 8, 2013 at 11:04 pm |
  15. JohnQuest

    Multiple answers, Education, Reason, Critical Thinking.

    February 8, 2013 at 4:27 pm |
    • Susan StoHelit

      Increased availability of information that leads to a less limited worldview than in the past – it's easier to see more different ways of living than before, harder to be sheltered and isolated from other worldviews, other perspectives.

      A decade ago, the "war on Christmas", I'd have to educate many people that X-mas was a CHRISTIAN abbreviation for Christmas, based on Christ's true name, not a secular insult, the fact that it was based on many pagan holidays. And people would reject it out of hand, not even checking. 5 years ago, many still didn't know, but it was better. This year, I didn't have to do the Xmas bit even once, and most know, and accept the pagan rituals. They still feel they own Christmas, but at least they know the true history.

      The internet and availablity of information changes things.

      February 8, 2013 at 5:04 pm |
  16. hypatia

    Which God?

    February 8, 2013 at 4:23 pm |
    • My Dog's Better Than Your God

      Exactly.

      February 8, 2013 at 4:24 pm |
  17. John Herling

    Atheism happened.

    February 8, 2013 at 4:12 pm |
  18. Science

    Earth's timeline interactive fun

    http://www.nbcnews.com/id/33184839/ns/technology_and_science/

    Peace

    February 8, 2013 at 3:52 pm |
    • Reality Bites

      Cool. Christian tales sure don't fit that picture.

      February 8, 2013 at 4:19 pm |
    • Science

      Thanks
      Just a little older than what the creationists say.
      Peace

      February 8, 2013 at 4:42 pm |
    • lol??

      The mob approves of the 5 laws of evilution, science. What are they? Perchance the science high priests are ashamed of the silliness of them? Got em packed away in da closet?

      February 8, 2013 at 6:06 pm |
  19. derp

    "What happened to God in America"

    We stopped believing in outdated mythology.

    February 8, 2013 at 3:45 pm |
    • The Bottom Line

      People are coming to their senses.

      February 8, 2013 at 4:04 pm |
    • My Dog's Better Than Your God

      Dogs have always been there for us. Christian god has to be among the worst, maybe pops his head up once in 2000 years and then just gets dry waterboarded. Pathetic. At least Zeus had lightning bolts.

      February 8, 2013 at 4:26 pm |
    • Ginny

      I love my dog. As for god, no thanks. What's with that no shellfish thing of his again anyway?

      February 8, 2013 at 4:30 pm |
    • Al

      My Dog's, "dry waterboarded" -hilarious. I could hear the air whooshing out of their balloon.

      February 8, 2013 at 4:37 pm |
    • lol??

      Evilution is when the mob gangs up on the weaker traveler and santa gubmint approves. Hey mob of sociopaths, what's cookin'?

      February 8, 2013 at 5:00 pm |
    • lol??

      Son of Sam is their symbol! BBbbbwwwwaaaaahahahaha

      February 8, 2013 at 5:02 pm |
    • ¿¿lol

      Perhaps more are seeing through the excuses made by early Xtian apologists – claiming that the gospels weren't copy-cat stories, but that Satan had made a pre-emptive strike to confuse. That's how you apologize – use Satan to plug up the holes in your religion.

      February 8, 2013 at 5:08 pm |
    • lol??

      Watch out killa mommies. Yer DOG might talk to ya.

      February 8, 2013 at 5:09 pm |
    • lol??

      Hey copycat, what's da 5 LAWS of Evilution you use in your copycat theology? Wanna be like the MOST HIGH much?

      February 8, 2013 at 5:20 pm |
    • ¿¿lol

      who said anything about evolution? discussion of such is not even necessary to see the embarrassment on the wall from the early Xtian apologists.

      February 8, 2013 at 5:31 pm |
    • junior

      Many became their own gods. We are witnessing persons who are selfish, unwilling to forgive and lack compassion. I don't see many charities that claim unbelief. Why is that?

      February 8, 2013 at 8:04 pm |
    • End Religion

      junior, instead of boasting about childish notions like belief in imaginary beings, secular charities get on with their business. before you bother trying to post that christian charities donate more than others (which is the usual next "modest" post by a nutter) you may want to look into the Gates Foundation.

      February 8, 2013 at 8:11 pm |
    • lol??

      Da Gates that are in with the mexican gubmint and get prizes from dem?

      February 8, 2013 at 9:33 pm |
  20. John

    Sue, Jesus grew the mustard tree. I am growing weeds and thistles at the moment.... but God knows for sure what ever they are.

    February 8, 2013 at 3:25 pm |
    • End Religion

      It is nice your fractured fairy tale keeps you anesthetized, I have a feeling.

      February 8, 2013 at 3:54 pm |
    • Akira

      I'm not growing anything at the moment.
      It's winter.

      February 8, 2013 at 3:57 pm |
    • Over 40,000 denominations of insanity

      LOL @Akira.

      February 8, 2013 at 4:00 pm |
    • Reality Bites

      Maybe god can help John find the reply button.

      February 8, 2013 at 4:18 pm |
    • Primewonk

      "Maybe god can help John find the reply button."

      I bet it's cause he don't pray hard enough. If he would pray harder, I bet Jebus puts a glowing halo around the reply button and a flashing sign says "click here"

      February 8, 2013 at 4:24 pm |
    • My Dog's Better Than Your God

      Nah, he'd just get detected as a virus and blocked. Which he is – a mind virus, nothing more.

      February 8, 2013 at 4:28 pm |
    • lol??

      Hey wonkster, ya commie little kweer. Where's the 5 laws of evilution? No sense hidin' them in da closet, dog bone.

      February 8, 2013 at 4:47 pm |
    • ¿¿lol

      Who needs to argue evolution, lol?? more and more religion tears itself down – no help needed by current theory.

      February 8, 2013 at 5:42 pm |
    • lol??

      Yer current theology is a copycat version. Are you copyrightin' it? Yer not very creative, BTW.

      February 8, 2013 at 6:02 pm |
    • ¿¿lol

      Not my theory. I'm afraid it's the claims of early Xtian apologists.

      February 8, 2013 at 6:04 pm |
    • John

      lol?? copycat theology is right. God simply does what he wants, when ever he wants to. Their claim about that is that it's ridiculous to say "God did it" as a reason for how it occurred. But then when asked about their claimed god called "evolution", they come back with the exact same answer, and pound their chest saying it's legit, that "evolution did it" because they say so and to not question it when termites explode, spiders eat their mate... etc... I agree with you, I have yet to see any of them post their claimed 5 laws of evolution as you asked for multiple times, nor have I heard of anything evolution said to back up it's claims to having done anything at all. We should all hand God credit for all he did, sadly, they've fallen for a false god, that does nothing, and won't save them.

      February 8, 2013 at 10:52 pm |
    • Exploding Termites

      We can't help it. It is our response to religious bullshit. If moronic religious babble gets anywhere near us a chemical reaction takes over and we must explode. I will share a little known secret with you: many of us upon hearing constant religious chatter *prefer* to explode rather than continue listening to it.

      February 8, 2013 at 11:01 pm |
    • John

      ET, realize that in copying "God did it", you've admitted his actions were right in what and how he did what he did, but didn't have the courtesy to hand him credit for it. It is really just "who did it" rather than it being done... and that is what God has an issue with, that all credit for what he did, is being handed to false gods, rather than him. It is not what he did, or the historical account, it is only God himself and what he wants, that atheists have an issue with... the rest they're fine with.

      February 8, 2013 at 11:34 pm |
    • Exploding Termites

      .-•* KABOOM! *•-.

      February 8, 2013 at 11:42 pm |
    • tallulah13

      John, the problem with every single one of your statements is that you have absolutely nothing to back up your claims. Sorry. You are simply worshiping a comforting delusion. There is no virtue in that.

      February 9, 2013 at 1:02 pm |
    • John

      T13, just like the eye witnesses that claimed comets showed up, Jesus knew what would happen, and he prepared by gathering 12 witnesses, knowing people would believe 12, rather than zero witnesses, himself... and God. Jesus has the power of God, the Holy Spirit, and he could know their heart while talking to them, because that's what it means, that's what God can do. Like the comet reports, you can write them off, or you can believe them and track them down... like I did... if you bother to believe God, seriously believe him, and don't have any problem with what he wants, the apostles accounts won't be any shock to you either.

      February 9, 2013 at 2:32 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      You don't know what Jesus "thought." All you know is what someone else wrote about him.

      February 9, 2013 at 2:35 pm |
    • OTOH

      John,

      Over 2,000 years now and still 2/3rds of the world does not believe this Jesus legend, despite heavy propaganda. For an alleged god, he left very shoddy evidence of his existence and godhood.

      February 9, 2013 at 2:37 pm |
    • OTOH

      Also, John, Joseph Smith also gathered witnesses to his magical golden plates story. Some people actually bought/buy into it - most don't.

      February 9, 2013 at 2:40 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      John blathers on and on about how atheists are 'against god' and "don't want to do what god wants."

      What is it he thinks christians are doing that atheists aren't? I mean, other than choosing to ignore science.

      February 9, 2013 at 2:40 pm |
    • John

      OTOH, disregarding denominations, 33% of the world population believes Christiantiy in one form or another, where Jesus was born of Mary, with God using the Holy Spirit to form him within her, and Jesus using the Holy Spirit later, dying on the cross, and then giving the Holy Spirit to the Apostles after ascending to heaven. For a guy that showed up and gathered 12 followers, Jesus did pretty well for God given the last 2000 years passing. My guess is that the Holy Spirit had a lot to do with it... the Holy Spirit being active today as well.

      February 9, 2013 at 3:33 pm |
    • OTOH

      John,

      No, that is not a good record at all, especially for an allegedly real smart god. 2,000 YEARS to get only 1/3 of the world on board?! Real things take nowhere that long to circulate and be accepted - Newton's theory of gravity probably took around 50 years (if that) and nowadays it can take just a few weeks/months for newly discovered facts to get around.

      February 9, 2013 at 3:44 pm |
    • John

      Tom, it's obvious why Jesus gathered 12 apostles first, when he told Nicodemus that if he couldn't believe the 12 apostles there with him that day about that day's events, then how could he believe Jesus about things in heaven, when none of them had been to heaven. Jesus became a sole witness at that point, and it's unlikely Nicodemus could believe just one witness, rather than 12. Much like today... 1 witness doesn't carry the weight of "more than 1 witness".

      February 9, 2013 at 3:46 pm |
    • Bob

      John, your sicko Christian blood cult is in decline. Islam, however, is a bigger problem, for the most part, and looks to be getting worse.

      February 9, 2013 at 3:51 pm |
    • John

      OTOH, if you check, the universe is about a million times older than that 2000 year delay after Jesus showed up. Is God in a rush? What if he's looking for the best and doesn't mind the wait? What if he wants to see work for him and consider it? That and he was around before the universe he created, and he's outside time, it's not a restriction binding him down. He knew to the day, 2000 years ago, he's it, the best there is. Given that level of power, intelligence, experience, and dynamic range in all the characteristics you can and can't imagine... why would you want to reject him?

      February 9, 2013 at 3:59 pm |
    • John

      ... 10 million times older...

      February 9, 2013 at 4:07 pm |
    • Dean

      John, you're really grasping at straws there. Seems you get more and more desperate as your standard old (and badly flawed )arguments get taken apart. Just like Sue said, twists and turns and dodges, to try to make your stories fit a reality that they just don't match at all.

      February 9, 2013 at 4:09 pm |
1 2 3 4 5
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.