home
RSS
Atheist group apologizes for misquoting Palin, but defends billboard's intent
March 4th, 2013
04:06 PM ET

Atheist group apologizes for misquoting Palin, but defends billboard's intent

By Dan Merica, CNN

Washington (CNN) – An atheist group that misquoted former vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin in a billboard in Texas is apologizing to the Republican and correcting the mistake. But it continues to defend the “intent and context” of the effort.

CNN first reported on Sunday that American Atheists, a group known for its in-your-face tactics, was sponsoring a billboard calling out Palin for something she said while on Fox News.

“We should create law based on the God of the Bible,” the billboard reads.

The only problem: That isn’t what Palin said.

In an interview with Fox News’ Bill O'Reilly, Palin addressed the growth in American secularism by saying of America's founding fathers “we would create law based on the God of the Bible and the Ten Commandments,” not “should.”

Dave Muscato, the group’s public relations director, said in a release that because American Atheists holds itself “to the highest standards of accuracy,” it will “move the quotation marks at our expense, so they do not include the word ‘should.’”

Both Muscato and David Silverman, the group’s president, however, stand by the “intent and context” of the billboard.

“While I admit that the word 'should' should technically not be inside the quote, the meaning was correct,” Silverman said in a statement to CNN.

Silverman initially defended the misquotation, tweeting that “Sarah Palin was NOT Misquoted” and directing readers to a headline from a Huffington Post story. The story headline, however, was also incorrect and did not put quotes around should.

Silverman was critiqued for that double down. Hemant Mehta, an influential atheist blogger at Patheos, wrote that a mistake like this “sheds doubt on the whole idea that atheists are the ones who are being honest with you.”

Although Silverman said in an e-mail to CNN that he believes “Ms. Palin would stand by what we have quoted her as saying,” he said “all future quotes will be exactly as spoken.”

A spokeswoman for Palin failed to respond to CNN’s request for a comment and has not contacted American Atheists about the mistake.

Although Palin’s billboard is getting the most attention, it was one of seven ads going up around the Dallas and Austin, Texas, area. Also featured were: former House Speaker Newt Gingrich and former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum, the Rev. Robert Jeffress, pastor at the First Baptist Church in Dallas, and Benedict XVI, now the pope emeritus.

Santorum is condemned for when he told an Iowa crowd last November that, “our civil laws have to comport with a higher law: God's law,” while Gingrich is criticized for a remark he made at a CNN debate on October 18, 2011, in Las Vegas. “How can I trust you with power if you don't pray,” Gingrich posited.

Virginia Davis, spokeswoman for Santorum, thanked American Atheists for the publicity.

“At a time when many are trying to remove God from the public square, the senator is appreciative of someone helping him very publicly express his strong belief that we are one nation under God,” Davis wrote in an e-mail to CNN.

The billboards cost the group $25,000 and will be up for the rest of the month.

American Atheists is used to controversy around their billboards.

Last March, the group targeted Muslims and Jews with billboards that called God a "myth" in both Arabic and Hebrew and the same group posted a billboard around the holiday season in 2010 that read, “You KNOW it's a Myth. This Season, Celebrate REASON.”

Both these billboard campaigns generated resistance and praise from the communities around them.

Silverman, who has been criticized for this brand of atheism, has long defended the tactic, saying confrontation is meant to “grow the cause and benefit the country.”

- Dan Merica

Filed under: Atheism • Politics • Sarah Palin

soundoff (2,069 Responses)
  1. Felix Sinclair

    AA acknowledged that it made a mistake and apologized for misquoting a target of its attack. This action alone makes AA a more ethical organization than almost every religion in the history of humankind.

    March 6, 2013 at 1:30 pm |
    • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

      That sets the bar pretty low don't you think?

      March 6, 2013 at 1:33 pm |
  2. Denny

    Robert Brown: "If you are still alive when Jesus returns and you have yet to repent, you will be fodder for the great tribulation."

    This is exactly what I am referring to when I say I am free from the shackles of any religion. THIS guy, who typed this comment, is so far into the religious sauce, that he actually thinks he can throw out a threatening comment by simply "claiming" something that isn't based in any material, reasonable or common sense. This is laughable, at best. He would be amoung the same kind of people who make claim that god transcends everything, time, space, the universe itself; that no human can even begin to fathom the power and omnipotence of god. Yet these people, and their book, quite easily give this same god a gender, a human quality. Sure, god transcends the entire cosmos, but, god is a male. I see the problem in this. I repeat, I am so happy and filled with joy not to have to accept this obvious, man made non-sense. No flakey "claim" or bible quote is going to shake my natural foundations; it may make me laugh out loud..... maybe.

    March 6, 2013 at 1:12 pm |
    • Lucifer's Evil Twin

      LET's Religiosity Law #4 – If a bible verse furthers the cause, it is to be taken literally. If a bible verse is detrimental to the cause, it is either: taken out of context; is allegorical; refers to another verse somewhere else; is an ancient cultural anomaly; is a translation or copyist's error; means something other than what it actually says; Is a mystery of god or not discernible by humans; or is just plain magic. (See Law #5)

      March 6, 2013 at 1:16 pm |
    • christianity, is a living death

      Yes, I am so happy that I have avoided the living death my parents endured, living a joyless life, held down and hemmed in by the repressive rules of christianity

      March 6, 2013 at 3:38 pm |
    • ttwp

      You are not free...you are in bondage to sin. That's why Jesus came...to free us. Those who the Son frees...is free indeed.

      The cross is foolishness to those who are perishing. Repent and seek God.

      March 6, 2013 at 6:42 pm |
    • Austin

      At Denny and lucifer

      I totally remember going through all the mental pictures you present, Christianis being the living dead. What you say about your parents. And then I got saved. And experienced the seal of the holy spirit.
      The truth is, because you are not in Gods will, you are unable to honor your parents. Because you are a slave to the carnal mind which is death, your Christian parents to yu are the aroma of death leading to death. A discreet, humble life, you vehemently hate. And you serve an evil , sensual vibe, which is false and will leave you desolate.

      March 6, 2013 at 7:38 pm |
    • hawaiiguest

      @Austin

      Back again you pathetic little troll? How sad that your self-hate has already gotten to the point where you need to come back and make unsubstantiated, veiled threats and moronic posts. I'd feel sorry for you if you deserved it.

      March 6, 2013 at 7:42 pm |
  3. Live4Him

    What are the facts supporting the doctrine of atheism?

    On the first posting of this question, everyone wanted to argue against the dictionary definition of the term 'atheist'. Hopefully, everyone has gotten that quibble out of their systems and can address the question on this posting. ARE there any facts supporting atheism?

    March 6, 2013 at 1:12 pm |
    • Denny

      I would be more than happy to attempt a formal response to your question regarding the facts of being an atheist, if at first you would clearly present to me what this "doctrine of atheism" you refer to is.

      March 6, 2013 at 1:16 pm |
    • Doc Vestibule

      If someone says they are apolitical, do you ask them how they formed their political opinions?

      March 6, 2013 at 1:17 pm |
    • Lucifer's Evil Twin

      "ARE there any facts supporting atheism?"

      Fact: Atheists are less retarded than christians... there, you happy now? (Rhetorical question...you're christian, of course you aren't happy – unless of course you are attending a picnic)

      March 6, 2013 at 1:20 pm |
    • Doc Vestibule

      Atheism is simply a null hypothesis.
      You'd be better to ask what the facts are to support the doctrine of naturalism, materialism or secular humanism.

      March 6, 2013 at 1:21 pm |
    • .

      Since you still insist on using 'doctrine' incorrectly, you're going to get the same answers, you pompous, arrogant twit. And then come back and ask it again? Full of yourself, aren't you? Dishonest to the nth degree. Oh, and feel free to ignore this, just like you did on the posts about the meaning of doctrine as it relates to atheism.

      March 6, 2013 at 1:23 pm |
    • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

      @Live4Him,

      I'll indulge myself in a silly cliché. "Denial is not just a river in Egypt."

      You continue to be in total denial. There is NO doctrine of atheism. None, nada.

      The word simply means people who don't believe in a god. No more, no less. It is not a religion. It is not a belief. It is not a lifestyle. It does not predicate values.

      March 6, 2013 at 1:23 pm |
    • Live4Him

      @Denny : I would be more than happy to attempt a formal response to your question regarding the facts of being an atheist, if at first you would clearly present to me what this "doctrine of atheism" you refer to is.

      You can define it any way you want, but support it with facts. But, please do define it upfront.

      Maybe you could start with the Humanist Manifesto I and II?

      March 6, 2013 at 1:24 pm |
    • Felix Sinclair

      ARE there any facts supporting the lack of belief in the existence of flying pink unicorns?

      March 6, 2013 at 1:25 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      So then, Lie, you can't define "doctrine." Then it's time to move on, isn't it?

      March 6, 2013 at 1:25 pm |
    • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

      @Lie4Him,

      "Maybe you could start with the Humanist Manifesto I and II?"

      Your 'Humanist Manifesto' is just as mythical as your God.

      March 6, 2013 at 1:29 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Lie: "please do define it up front." Why? You're the one who called it a doctrine. If you can't define what you mean "up front," you can't require such of anyone else.

      March 6, 2013 at 1:30 pm |
    • .

      There IS no doctrine! If you want to know what an atheist thinks about a given subject, ask a question! Apparently you think that there is some sort of rule book out there, Liver! Atheists don't believe in the existence of ANY gods...even yours! Why are you so stuck on some sort of.........bible for atheists? Doesn't exist!

      March 6, 2013 at 1:32 pm |
    • Live4Him

      @Lucifer's Evil Twin : Fact: Atheists are less retarded than christians

      This is a conclusion without supporting premises. Failed.

      @Doc Vestibule : Atheism is simply a null hypothesis.

      This presumes that atheism is the standard to be judged against, but this is not reflected historically. Historically, theism is the null. Thus, your statement has been falsified.

      @. : Since you still insist on using 'doctrine' incorrectly

      I've used a definition found in the dictionary. Why don't you accept the dictionary definition?

      @I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV : There is NO doctrine of atheism. None, nada.

      Then why is this definition found in the dictionary?

      Question: Do atheist live in an alternate reality, chosing to ignore the facts in lieu of their own?

      March 6, 2013 at 1:33 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      No, you aren't using the definition correctly at all. I posted it and challenged you to show how atheism fits any of the definitions. You can't. Therefore, your entire premise is falsified.

      March 6, 2013 at 1:35 pm |
    • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

      @Lie4Him,

      "Then why is this definition found in the dictionary?

      It's a poorly written definition – and it's a secondary one at that.

      March 6, 2013 at 1:35 pm |
    • Live4Him

      @I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV : Your 'Humanist Manifesto' is just as mythical as your God.

      You don't seem agree with any of the doctrines stated in these manifestos. Is this correct?

      March 6, 2013 at 1:37 pm |
    • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

      Also it's "a" dictionary, not "the" dictionary.

      Other dictionaries don't include the crappy Merriam-Webster alternative.

      March 6, 2013 at 1:37 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      a : something that is taught
      b : a principle or position or the body of principles in a branch of knowledge or system of belief : dogma
      c : a principle of law established through past decisions
      d : a statement of fundamental government policy especially in international relations
      e : a military principle or set of strategies

      March 6, 2013 at 1:37 pm |
    • .

      Since you feel you have all the facts, present your atheistic doctrine. You ignored the common definition for the less common one; a common tactic with the dishonest debater. Which you most assuredly are.

      March 6, 2013 at 1:38 pm |
    • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

      @Live4Him,

      "You don't seem agree with any of the doctrines stated in these manifestos. Is this correct?

      I have no idea what you are talking about. I have never read any Humanist Manifesto. I don't intend to. Why should I need to?

      March 6, 2013 at 1:39 pm |
    • meifumado

      Are you really this dumb?

      March 6, 2013 at 1:52 pm |
    • Doc Vestibule

      @Live4Him
      Naturalist Null Hypothesis:
      The natural world is all that exists.

      Theist Hypothesis:
      There is a supernatural realm.

      And how do you know whether or not early man believed in God?
      Were you there to speak with them? There is no census of the religious belief of cro-magnon man to examine.
      Of all the myriad mythologies dreamed up by man throughout history, the one thing we can say for certain is that they cannot all be right – but they can all be wrong.

      March 6, 2013 at 2:00 pm |
    • JWT

      The facts of atheism are self-evident. I do not believe in any gods thus I am an atheist. There's an absolute fact that proves atheism exists.

      March 6, 2013 at 4:03 pm |
  4. Denny

    After reading, for an hour, this long page of retaliations, comments, and arguments; I must say, I am so very happy and filled with the natural joy we get out of life itself, that I am free from the shackles and burdens and rituals of any religion. I am grateful to be alive, because I enjoy life. I can love another human being because I understand through experience the pleasure and benefit of being loved. I reject giving credit for any of this to some supernatural force for which I must have "faith". I live my life to the fullest because I understand there will be an end to my experience of it and I will not go to any everlasting heaven. Something not a single religion in the world can make claim to.

    March 6, 2013 at 1:00 pm |
    • End Religion

      Congrats on your freedom, Denny!

      March 6, 2013 at 1:02 pm |
    • lol??

      Refreshing, you only mentioned the "wegod" once. However the "Igod" was there 12 times. Copycat much??

      March 6, 2013 at 1:09 pm |
    • Doobs

      A very nice post. I was raised a dedicated catholic and then became a born again fundie for many, many years. I heard over and over about "freedom from bondage to sin" and how great it was supposed to make me feel. But the reality was a constant feeling of dread and shame brought on by the incessant stream of horror stories and threats of punishment from the pulpit.

      The first instance of true freedom that I've ever felt was the moment I realized I didn't believe in god anymore. You put it much more eloquently than I could.

      March 6, 2013 at 1:23 pm |
  5. lol??

    A&A's are just two flavors of the NOT bride.

    March 6, 2013 at 12:58 pm |
    • .

      And you're two flavors of batshit crazy, lunatic.

      March 6, 2013 at 1:06 pm |
  6. Lucifer's Evil Twin

    LET's Religiosity Law #1 – If Jesus came back today he would be shot in the head. That's what you do to put down zombies; otherwise they eat your brains.

    March 6, 2013 at 12:25 pm |
    • Robert Brown

      LET,

      If you are still alive when Jesus returns and you have yet to repent, you will be fodder for the great tribulation.

      March 6, 2013 at 12:33 pm |
    • Lucifer's Evil Twin

      @Brown – jesus porked sheep..., or he's the guy who does my lawn... ah, what were you saying?

      March 6, 2013 at 12:47 pm |
    • End Religion

      I hope I'm alive during the time of the Great Tribadism.

      March 6, 2013 at 12:48 pm |
    • Felix Sinclair

      Robert: Threats of imaginary punishment by imaginary friends are adorable.

      March 6, 2013 at 12:50 pm |
    • lol??

      End Religion sayz.
      I hope I'm alive during the time of the Great Tribadism."

      Why would you want to change?? Part of the hopey changey Hindu Socialist DOCTRINES??

      March 6, 2013 at 1:01 pm |
    • Lucifer's Evil Twin

      @lol?? – are you mentally challenged, or 15yr old? (same thing really), just curious.

      March 6, 2013 at 1:09 pm |
    • Hodor

      i would think if god did exist and when the judgment time came, god would be pretty stoked that some people were willing to question things like the existence of god, that some people actually used their brains to think critically rather than queuing up in droves to regurgitate rote nonsense. maybe atheists would even be forgiven. and if it's god's will that there are believers and there are also nonbelievers, does that not render belief in god meaningless since no one really has a choice?

      March 6, 2013 at 1:29 pm |
    • Doobs

      Lol?? is the smarmy, annoying little brother of the Belief Blog. He's always hanging around, trying to fit in. He says stupid things in an attempt to be funny. Every so often someone gets sick of him and gives him a shove. That's about all there is to lol??

      March 6, 2013 at 1:30 pm |
    • ttwp

      Those whose eyes are darkened are only wise in their own eyes. Only if you knew the grace and love of God, but for now your eyes are blind.

      March 6, 2013 at 6:45 pm |
  7. JMEF

    Oh mein Gott
    fred, Topher, Live4Him and Chad on the same thread at the same time, we are doomed.

    March 6, 2013 at 12:19 pm |
    • ME II

      "For where two or three come together in my name, there am I with them."

      When does Jesus show up?

      March 6, 2013 at 12:22 pm |
    • clarity

      What happened to John? He must have accidentally triangulated himself.

      March 6, 2013 at 12:23 pm |
    • Hodor

      Jesus is already here, filling the aforementioned posters' godholes

      March 6, 2013 at 12:25 pm |
    • Robert Brown

      ME II,

      He is here now, in the midst.

      March 6, 2013 at 12:26 pm |
    • ME II

      @Robert Brown,
      So it has been claimed, but the same might be said of the invisible pink unicorn.

      March 6, 2013 at 12:31 pm |
    • End Religion

      With this many lying nutters involved, there's a strange wobble around the thread where the definitions of words seem to actually change AS YOU READ THE WORDS. It begins to seem as if you no longer understand the language you've spoken since birth because these lunatics are redefining everything. There's very little point in discussion with these dishonest, delerious knuckleheads which is why generally now I just poke them with sticks.

      March 6, 2013 at 1:01 pm |
    • Live4Him

      @JMEF : fred, Topher, Live4Him and Chad on the same thread at the same time, we are doomed.

      Atheists love to gang up against Christians, and while they still have the numbers, they're complaining about it. 🙂

      March 6, 2013 at 1:19 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      JMEF never said in what way "we" were "doomed."

      I contend we're doomed to a bunch of nutters pretending to be god-loving Christians.

      March 6, 2013 at 1:24 pm |
    • Science

      JMEF

      They doom themselves,

      Looks like a Chad smiley face on L4H post

      Poke

      March 6, 2013 at 1:46 pm |
    • fintastic

      "Oh, God? eh? Very nice. And how'd you get that, eh? By exploiting the workers. By hanging on to outdated imperialist dogma which perpetuates the economic and social differences in our society"

      March 6, 2013 at 2:38 pm |
  8. fred

    Atheists follow their doctrine as members of a small splinter cult of non believers. Philosophical naturalism is the core belief of atheists in general. The fundies of this core belief have extrapolated biologic evolution into a world view. Believers understand the purpose of existence as being in God while non believers cannot have a purpose as it is all a big accident.

    Atheist defend their god with the use of a term "unknown" when they encounter self evidence of God in Creation. Somehow the term unknown validates theirs need to appear logical.
    We must treat this splinter group with dignity since it is not their fault and celebreate their diversity as a benefit to society.

    March 6, 2013 at 12:06 pm |
    • ME II

      @fred,
      Your presumptions about a philosophical naturalist conspiracy are unfounded.

      "non believers cannot have a purpose" that is handed down by some deity, but they can and do find their own purpose.

      "self evidence of God"? How exactly is "God" self-evident?

      March 6, 2013 at 12:11 pm |
    • Lucifer's Evil Twin

      good troll... want a cookie to go with the crap you're serving?

      March 6, 2013 at 12:14 pm |
    • End Religion

      You've used appropriate nouns and verbs to construct what should be meaningful sentences yet you still have not expressed coherent thought because the definitions of the words you've used simply have no context when referring to atheism.

      March 6, 2013 at 12:15 pm |
    • Bob

      fred, that's quite the false equivalency you are trying to shove on us there. Nice try, but I rate it an epic FAIL.

      And for comparison, your sick, disgusting, obsolete Christian blood cult (yes, it is a blood cult) is a harmful set of self-contradictory supersti-tions that time and time again has held back advances in science and medicine, has been the direct source and justification for discrimination, hate, and many unnecessary deaths, and generally has stifled human progress.

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

      March 6, 2013 at 12:15 pm |
    • Chuckles

      "never argue with an idiot. They'll just drag you down to their level and beat you with experience"

      I think this quote is pretty apt for Fred's post. This is Fred's way of trying to make sense of atheism by assigning characteristics of a religion and then dismantling it the way he would any other religion out there.

      @Fred

      Evolution is not a "world view" nor does it extend any further than basic understanding of our genetic history. The term "unknown" in no way equates with any sort of god, and it's not wrong to point out that you don't know or understand something.

      March 6, 2013 at 12:16 pm |
    • Mark DC

      There are many studies on this and atheists tend to be skeptics and tend toward logic. Studies also show they do not enjoy or function well at picnics and such which is why they score lower than believers as to happiness.
      “A compelling body of scholarship exists which proposes that religious and spiritual beliefs exist in every human society because they reflect fundamental aspects of evolved human nature. This raises the question: why do atheists exist and are atheism and non-belief unnatural? A diverse and growing literature on irreligion reveals that distinct personality and cognitive styles are associated with atheists and non-believers”

      March 6, 2013 at 12:16 pm |
    • clarity

      My goodness, fred, "Atheist defend their god" – really?? You sound like a great-grandfather trying to teach a grandchild math these days with a broken slide rule. If you think this is what atheists "believe", I really have to wonder about what kind of crazy ideas you have in your own beliefs.

      March 6, 2013 at 12:18 pm |
    • Lucifer's Evil Twin

      "they do not enjoy or function well at picnics and such " that is hilarious...

      March 6, 2013 at 12:23 pm |
    • fred

      ME II
      God is self-evident in creation. One point would be in human thought. If there is no God or absolute source then thought just happened without purpose through coincidence. If it is coincidence that believers and non believers look at the same reality with two completely different thoughts leading to knowledge that is mutually exclusive thought cannot be trusted. An atheist must trust logic and this is not logical.

      March 6, 2013 at 12:28 pm |
    • clarity

      fred – the problem is this part – " If there is no God or absolute source then thought just happened without purpose through coincidence" – we don't actually know about. Not yet anyway.

      March 6, 2013 at 12:32 pm |
    • Jen

      fred, better look up Kurt Gödel. When logic works, it works, essentially, and that is where you keep falling flat.

      Your "logic" is flawed out of the gate in most of the statements that you are making. Until you get that righted, you'll just go on being a laughingstock here, and basically just a pest.

      March 6, 2013 at 12:33 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      AHHHAHHHAHAHHAHHA! How does one measure the level of one's ability to "function well at a picnic"??

      What, they don't eat the right number of hot dogs? Maybe they have an extreme fondness for DEVILED EGGS!

      March 6, 2013 at 12:34 pm |
    • Jen

      Mark DC, present citations of the studies you re claiming, please. Better not be from Deep South Inbred Christian Bible Thumper College Inc.

      March 6, 2013 at 12:36 pm |
    • Jen

      Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son, I think you and I would get along just fine together at a picnic :-). Have a great day!

      March 6, 2013 at 12:39 pm |
    • End Religion

      "thought cannot be trusted"

      Wow, someone has been heavily indoctrinated into a cult. I hope you see reason one day before the cult sucks you dry.

      March 6, 2013 at 12:41 pm |
    • ME II

      @fred,
      "then thought just happened without purpose through coincidence."

      Correct, thought appears to be an emergent property of massively parallel neurological and chemical activity, although much is not yet understood.

      "thought cannot be trusted"

      True, thought alone cannot always be trusted, which is why evidence is often needed to verify a conclusion.

      March 6, 2013 at 12:43 pm |
    • End Religion

      TTPS has nailed the measurement criteria for the picnic hypothesis. You may want use Sam's Club or Costco to buy the dogs for this experiment.

      March 6, 2013 at 12:44 pm |
    • fred

      Chuckles
      “Evolution is not a "world view"”
      =>I agree but non believers extrapolate principles and conclude that morals “evolve” thus we do not need God for an absolute moral standard as an example. A designer is not needed because through the evolution process man exists. These are world views not scientific views based on supportable evidence.

      The Chosen Ones are an excellent example of a people created to reveal God just as atheists reveal God. Consider the contrast. A stubborn stiff necked people that continue to reject God over a course of 6,000 years and actually carry out the final sacrifice of the Lamb of God in atonement for sin yet remain blinded to the truth of what they themselves revealed. The atheist reveals existence without the knowledge of God as they hand their children over to an unknown world without the presence of God that promises death without purpose or reason into an eternal abyss.

      God is revealed you just refuse to see ……perhaps it is genetic.

      March 6, 2013 at 12:48 pm |
    • clarity

      God is rehashed mythology you just refuse to see ……perhaps it is genetic.

      March 6, 2013 at 12:58 pm |
    • fred

      clarity
      “– we don't actually know about. Not yet anyway.”
      =>This is about the same reply from the Christian fundie that says “God did it”. I understand you are aware that is what non believers use as justification for “no god needed” yet is not supported by the evidence. Atheism is illogical based on this alone. Believers at least tell you right up front as does the Bible that it is by faith not by sight (reason or logic) that we can see God.
      In the past 500 years the motto of the non believer is we just know yet. The problem is that we are no closer to resolving the mystery of life while the power and scope of the unknown increases when we bring fine tuning into view. We continue to discover scientific cause that we could not possibly exist if probabilities of random occurrences are taken into account. In order to maintain logic we must then discount the random nature of occurrences to fit the known timeline of existence. All of which remain unproven……we actually don’t know as atheists but as Christians we know.
      The typical personality profile of an atheist would lean away from the need for love and towards an individualist lifestyle. This is a deviation from the norm but as I said it is cause to celebrate diversity.

      March 6, 2013 at 1:03 pm |
    • clarity

      fred: ". . evidence . ." you have none

      fred: [ "we actually don’t know as atheists but as Christians we know." ]

      No you don't and you've failed time and again to provide any real evidence.

      fred: [ "The typical personality profile of an atheist would lean away from the need for love and towards an individualist lifestyle. " ]

      That's BS.

      March 6, 2013 at 1:09 pm |
    • hawaiiguest

      Check out
      https://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2013/01/05/my-take-jesus-was-a-dirty-dirty-god/comment-page-103/
      and
      https://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2013/03/03/first-on-cnn-atheists-ratchet-up-rhetoric-use-billboards-to-attack-republican-politicians/comment-page-30/?replytocom=2200981#respond
      These two things demonstrate the dishonesty and uselessness of fred. There is no use is pointing anything out to someone who takes Martin Luthers "Lying for Jesus is good" so seriously.

      March 6, 2013 at 1:15 pm |
    • fred

      clarity
      “God is rehashed mythology you just refuse to see”
      There is only speculation not proof as to who borrowed what in their Holy Books. Adam and Eve as well as Cain and Able seemed to know right and wrong ways of worship. We are not told what this time period was but Cain did use bronze which gives us some idea. If Adam was the first man then of course any idea of God or gods would come from him.
      The difference is that the Bible gets it right as in the beginning God. God as shown is not in the image of man which most other holy books then to begin with. God is not of substance that we know as is creator not part of the created things which is what we are and the known world around us is comprised of.

      March 6, 2013 at 1:31 pm |
    • fred

      clarity
      http://www.patheos.com/blogs/scienceonreligion/2012/05/atheism-a-personality-profile/

      March 6, 2013 at 1:37 pm |
    • clarity

      fred: [ "The difference is that the Bible gets it right as in the beginning God. God as shown is not in the image of man which most other holy books then to begin with. God is not of substance that we know as is creator not part of the created things which is what we are and the known world around us is comprised of." ]

      All of that fred is pure speculation from mythology. Again – you've failed to provide any evidence, fred.

      March 6, 2013 at 1:41 pm |
    • clarity

      Someone's opinion on a "personality profile" for an atheist from a faith-based site? lol – I don't think so, fred.

      March 6, 2013 at 1:46 pm |
    • meifumado

      Your wrong fred, try again

      March 6, 2013 at 1:47 pm |
    • Tommy

      The problem, fred, is that Adam, Eve, Cain, and Abel never existed.

      March 6, 2013 at 1:52 pm |
    • Chuckles

      @Fred

      You use the term "evolve" in two completely different ways and equate the two. The Theory of Evolution only discusses the biological change of animals over a long period of time. Morals on the other hand are a construct by man in order to live in a world where we group together in massive cities and maintain a sense of civility. Unlike Ants, or termites or other insects that have essentially an unquestioned monarchy, we have self-aware individuality and need morality as a way to all live together, these have changed according to society, there's no denying this. At no point was god ever needed in this equation in order to govern the change of morality of different cultures.

      The other part of your post was garbage.

      March 6, 2013 at 1:56 pm |
    • fintastic

      @fred............. "God is self-evident in creation"

      The only thing here that's "self-evident" is your extreme stupidity.

      March 6, 2013 at 2:41 pm |
    • fred

      Chuckles
      Thanks, so the evolution of thought has a biologic component “theory of evolution” and a social component or construct due to “self-aware individuality and need morality as a way to all live together”. That fits with the Adam and Eve created physical by god and suddenly becoming aware of their need for morality when they were aware of their nakedness.
      We have a tone of evidence on the biologic side so rightfully that theory stands.

      I do not see evidence on the need for morality other than speculation on the observation of a pattern of behavior. This sounds no different to me than when Freud took his Oedipus theory and said people link their own fathers with God. God, said Freud, is a "father figure and our att-itude toward God and our father are very similar." Just as Freud used his personal bad experience to explain religion science takes their need to explain away God as the motivation to untie morality and God.

      With regard to the behavior of the Chosen Ones I would like to know why it is garbage. Based upon the Bible (ignore if true or not) it was the Priests of the Chosen Ones who handed Christ up for the final atonement of sin for all.

      March 6, 2013 at 2:55 pm |
    • hawaiiguest

      Wow, that's more twisting than fred is usually capable of. He's getting better at being dishonest. Soon he'll just be another Chad.

      March 6, 2013 at 3:00 pm |
    • fred

      Tommy
      Proof as to existence of Adam and Eve is immaterial to the truth of God with us. The Word of God never comes back empty but reveals the heart and soul of the reader. Adam and Eve did not believe the Word of God either so they found themselves without the presence of God and suddenly were ashamed and hid.
      Atheists were once ashamed and hid in a godless way. Now there is no shame in what was once immoral throughout our society as the End of Days approaches. Interesting how the truth of Bible is constantly revealed yet no one cares to see it. As Jesus said it will be as the days of Noah where men were oblivious to the coming judgment.

      March 6, 2013 at 3:07 pm |
    • fintastic

      @fred.......... "Interesting how the truth of Bible is constantly revealed"

      There ya go lying again Fred. Haven't you heard? truth requires evidence...... where's your evidence that the miracles in the bible are "truth" ????

      March 6, 2013 at 3:16 pm |
    • fred

      fintastic
      I will not bore you with all the prophecies of the Bible that have come true with the last one pending.
      I will bore you with the truth. If you do not believe you need God you will find exactly what you are looking for. If you need God you will believe.

      March 6, 2013 at 3:32 pm |
    • End Religion

      There is no such thing as supernaturally inspired prophecy. Mundane prophecy, sure, a certain percentage will guess the appropriate winning football team. Anyone who makes enough guesses will get a percentage right. Speak vaguely enough, ignore the losses, and anyone can be a Nostradamus. If anyone feels so certain in their prophetic ability, there's always the unclaimed James Randi Challenge.

      March 6, 2013 at 3:48 pm |
    • fred

      End of Religion
      Most prophecies were very clear. God told Abraham descendents of Ishmael (Palestinian Arabs) would be constantly fighting and attacking descendents of Isaac (nation of Israel). To this day we have the Arabs against Israel.

      March 6, 2013 at 4:22 pm |
  9. john1513

    Militant atheists quote HuffPo's errors and HuffPo repeats militant atheists' errors. It's a depressing relationship based on disinformation.

    March 6, 2013 at 11:38 am |
    • Lucifer's Evil Twin

      my, aren't you keen and insightful?

      March 6, 2013 at 11:46 am |
    • Richard Cranium

      As if the bible was full of reliable info?

      March 6, 2013 at 12:26 pm |
    • fintastic

      one friggin word..... give me a break.

      March 6, 2013 at 2:41 pm |
  10. Lucifer's Evil Twin

    1. You have brains in your head.
    You have feet in your shoes.
    You can steer yourself
    any direction you choose.
    You're on your own.
    And you know what you know.
    And YOU are the one who'll decide where to go....
    – Dr. Seuss, (Oh! The Places You'll Go!)

    March 6, 2013 at 11:15 am |
  11. Live4Him

    What are the facts supporting the doctrine of atheism?

    Any atheist willing to step up to the plate?

    March 6, 2013 at 11:15 am |
    • Felix Sinclair

      What are the facts supporting the doctrine of not believing in flying pink unicorns?

      March 6, 2013 at 11:18 am |
    • LinCA

      @Live4Him

      You said, "What are the facts supporting the doctrine of atheism?"
      There is no doctrine, simply a lack of belief in fairy tales.

      Fact: There is no evidence that any gods actually exist outside of the minds of believers.

      There is equal evidence for gods as there is for Tooth Fairies, Easter Bunnies, Pink Unicorns and Flying Spaghetti Monsters. Equal evidence means that there is equal reason to believe in them.

      Fact: Without evidence for the existence of gods, a belief in them is equally rational as a belief in the Easter Bunny. Without evidence for gods, a belief in them is as infantile as a belief in the Tooth Fairy.

      If you wish to dispute these fact, I suggest you provide some evidence of your god.

      March 6, 2013 at 11:23 am |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Lie4ever: define "doctrine." Define "facts." Define "supporting."

      Oh, wait. You've discussed this until you're sh!t-faced. Time to move on.

      March 6, 2013 at 11:26 am |
    • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

      And Live4Him goes with number one on my list of the most irritatinly stupid arguments made by religionists:

      1. Conflating atheism with belief
      eg: “Atheism is a religion” – Ummm, no, really, it’s not!
      Atheism is a religion like not collecting stamps is a hobby,
      Atheism is a religion like health is a disease,
      Atheism is a religion like not smoking is a habit,
      Atheism is a religion like bald is a hair color,
      Atheism is a religion like off is a television channel,
      Atheism is a religion like abstinence is a sex act.
      Atheism has no sacred text, no orthodoxy, no rites or rituals, no houses of worship … it is not a religion or a faith. It is the absence of faith in God. Sure there are militant atheists, some of whom act as zealously as believers, but it is not a belief system. Atheism does not require the positive belief in the non-existence of God.

      March 6, 2013 at 11:29 am |
    • ME II

      @Live4Him,
      There is no "doctrine of atheism".

      March 6, 2013 at 11:32 am |
    • Chad

      Atheism is not a religion, but atheism certainly is a belief system.
      Agnosticism is not a belief system.

      March 6, 2013 at 11:35 am |
    • Lucifer's Evil Twin

      non-sequitur: the german mustard on my sandwich is awesome!

      March 6, 2013 at 11:36 am |
    • ME II

      @Chad,
      I don't think most atheists use the strong/positive definition of atheism in describing themselves.

      March 6, 2013 at 11:40 am |
    • JMEF

      Chad
      Athiest
      Agnostic
      Deist
      Theist
      Fundie delusionist.

      March 6, 2013 at 11:42 am |
    • Science

      Wow they are both on same thread Poke.

      March 6, 2013 at 11:50 am |
    • Doc Vestibule

      Once again:

      The prefix "A" = Lack of.
      "Theism" = Belief in Gods.
      A + Theism = Lack of belief in gods.

      Atheism is a negative statement that describes only what one does NOT believe.
      There is no doctine as such.

      It's like calling a vocalist an "a-instrumentalist".
      It doesn't say what they actually do, only what they don't do.

      March 6, 2013 at 11:50 am |
    • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

      @ME II,

      "I don't think most atheists use the strong/positive definition of atheism in describing themselves."

      I concur. I only see these definitions used by believers who struggle to comprehend that anyone can disbelieve in God.

      March 6, 2013 at 11:52 am |
    • ME II

      @Doc Vestibule,
      I think the root is atheos, not theism.

      Definition of atheism
      noun
      [mass noun]
      disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.
      Origin:

      late 16th century: from French athéisme, from Greek atheos, from a- 'without' + theos 'god'
      ( http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/atheism)

      March 6, 2013 at 11:54 am |
    • End Religion

      Christians: alogos?

      March 6, 2013 at 12:00 pm |
    • clarity

      I agree with ME II as well.

      March 6, 2013 at 12:00 pm |
    • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

      @ME II,

      you are correct, but it essentially means the same thing. From the OED for atheism:

      Etymology: < French athéisme (16th cent. in Littré), < Greek ἄθεος : see atheal adj. and -ism suffix. Compare Italian atheismo and the earlier atheonism n....

      atheal, n;

      Etymology: < Greek ἄθεος without God, denying God ( < ἀ priv. + θεός God) + -al suffix. Compare French athée....
      Obs.

      Atheistic.

      The derivation essentially means 'without God' and in the derivation the initial "a" still means 'not'.

      March 6, 2013 at 12:04 pm |
    • JMEF

      L4H
      Please provide the gospels that the supposed athiest doctrines are based on. As far as I know Talamud, Quaran, Bible, Vedas, Tripitaka, etc, are the basis for religious belief systems, where is the atheist tome?

      March 6, 2013 at 12:08 pm |
    • JMEF

      My bad atheist.

      March 6, 2013 at 12:10 pm |
    • ME II

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

      Agreed, to a certain point, but sometimes the "A + Theism" route leads to without religion or anti-religious, which is not correct. Theism is often misconstrued to mean religious.

      However, I don't disagree with you or @Doc's usage.

      March 6, 2013 at 12:17 pm |
    • fintastic

      @chad..... changing word definitions to fit your need is dishonest.

      "Atheism is not a religion, but atheism certainly is a belief system." WRONG.

      March 6, 2013 at 12:23 pm |
    • Live4Him

      http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheism

      This is reality, not someone's opinion:

      Definition of ATHEISM
      2b) the doctrine that there is no deity

      March 6, 2013 at 12:26 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      If that's the case, honey, then the issue is with you and what you call everyone else. I have never said there is no god. I see no evidence for one. I am therefore technically not an atheist, is that correct?

      March 6, 2013 at 12:28 pm |
    • Richard Cranium

      doctrine refers to something that is taught by an organized group. So while some groups support a doctirne, not all atheists work in groups, so they do not support a doctrine.

      What's your point Lie4him?

      March 6, 2013 at 12:30 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Doctrine definition Merriam Webster:
      a : something that is taught
      b : a principle or position or the body of principles in a branch of knowledge or system of belief : dogma
      c : a principle of law established through past decisions
      d : a statement of fundamental government policy especially in international relations
      e : a military principle or set of strategies

      Now, if that's what a doctrine is, how does atheism fit the definition, Lie4ever?

      Oh, I forgot, I'm on the famous Lie4ever Ignore List.
      Dang!

      March 6, 2013 at 12:31 pm |
    • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

      @Live4Him,

      seeing as only a believer will play the "my dictionary is better than your dictionary game" I won't bother the use the OED definition – even if Oxford is a more reliable source when it comes to "English" than Noah Webster's inventions.

      I'll stick to your Merriam/Webster version.

      What's wrong with definition 2 a that you chose to ignore it. This is the primary definition.

      2 a : a disbelief in the existence of deity

      March 6, 2013 at 12:38 pm |
    • Robert Brown

      Ok, how many nonbelievers posting here have never read the god delusion by richard dawkins?

      March 6, 2013 at 12:39 pm |
    • Chad

      @ME II "I don't think most atheists use the strong/positive definition of atheism in describing themselves."
      @Chad "most atheists want to say "God doesnt exist until you prove He does", not sure where that fits in to the definitions..
      I call it utterly fallacious, but since that position exhibits a belief, then it qualifies as a belief system. It is not merely lack of belief.

      =======
      @Doc Vestibule "Atheism is a negative statement that describes only what one does NOT believe"
      @Chad "stating what you do not believe is a belief system. If you are claiming you do not believe something, you are claiming knowledge of it."

      =======
      @GOPer "I concur. I only see these definitions used by believers who struggle to comprehend that anyone can disbelieve in God."
      @Chad "disbelieving is a belief system.
      not having a belief is completely different than disbelieving

      disbelieving: To refuse to believe in; reject.To withhold or reject belief.

      March 6, 2013 at 12:48 pm |
    • ME II

      @Robert Brown,
      Ok, how many believers here think that all non-believers follow Dawkins' every word.

      (ps I have read the God Delusion, not that it matters)

      March 6, 2013 at 12:50 pm |
    • ME II

      @Chad,
      As perhaps @Robert Brown is alluding to, how would you classify Richard Dawkins' 6.9 out 7 statement?

      "Richard Dawkins: '6.9 out of seven' sure that God does not exist"
      ( http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/9102164/Richard-Dawkins-6.9-out-of-seven-sure-that-God-does-not-exist.html )

      March 6, 2013 at 12:59 pm |
    • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

      @ME II,

      you and I are in full accord on this:

      ... sometimes the "A + Theism" route leads to without religion or anti-religious, which is not correct. Theism is often misconstrued to mean religious.

      This stems from a common misunderstanding of the prefix "a". It means "not or without" as a complement. People wrongly conflate this with the prefix "anti", which means something quite different. The OED descibes the prefix a- (6) as

      Forming nouns and adjectives, with the sense ‘without’; ‘not’; ‘-less’.

      typical
      atypical ("not typical" is accurate, "anti-typical" is not the intended meaning)

      symmetrical
      asymmetrical (not symmetrical, without symmetry, etc. Ppposition to symmetry is not the intended meaing)

      Contrasting a-theos (the Greek root of atheism) with a-theism, while etymologically sound, is a distinction without a difference, since the root for theism is theos anyway.

      theism, n, Etymology: modern < Greek θεός god + -ism suffix. Compare French théisme (Voltaire).

      This is my favorite definition of 'theism':

      A morbid condition characterized by headache, sleeplessness, and palpitation of the heart, caused by excessive tea-drinking

      Subst.tute bible reading for tea-drinking and there you are.

      March 6, 2013 at 1:01 pm |
    • Robert Brown

      ME II,

      The guy seems real sharp, but him writing a book about God would carry about as much weight as yours truly writing a science book.

      March 6, 2013 at 1:02 pm |
    • JMEF

      Robert Brown
      As a deist that can accept the idea of a creator that could be anyone of the dozens of creation myths or a scientific explanation of creator/creation and will not accept the concept of a judgemental and vengeful god like the christian one; I can tell you I have no need to read atheist authored books. However I did really enjoy reading my copy of the Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster much more than the as silly bible stories I learned as a defenseless child.

      March 6, 2013 at 1:04 pm |
    • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

      @Robert Brown,

      I have not read Dawkin's 'God Delusion'. I don't know that I will.

      March 6, 2013 at 1:04 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Chad, or is it Rachel today, says it is not merely a lack of belief.

      Based on what? Your say-so? How do you know what someone else thinks about anything?

      March 6, 2013 at 1:06 pm |
    • Live4Him

      @I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV : What's wrong with definition 2 a that you chose to ignore it. This is the primary definition.

      You don't seem to use a dictionary much. ALL of the definitions are valid – which means my use of 'doctrine' is valid.

      March 6, 2013 at 1:06 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Wrong, Lie, based on the definition of "doctrine" from your own source.

      March 6, 2013 at 1:11 pm |
    • Chad

      @ME II ""Richard Dawkins: '6.9 out of seven' sure that God does not exist""
      @Chad "I would call that a claim to knowledge.
      what would you call it? What else could you possibly call it?

      again: most atheists want to say "God doesnt exist until you prove He does",it is utterly fallacious, but since that position exhibits a belief, then it qualifies as a belief system. It is not merely lack of belief.

      ===
      "The God Delusion" should be required reading for all theists. I was shocked when I read it, a sloppily organized attack against religious institutions.
      How does the fact that the church has done many evil things mean that God doesnt exist? If you ever want to convinced of the lack of any rational argument against God, just read that book.

      March 6, 2013 at 1:11 pm |
    • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

      @Chad,

      "not having a belief is completely different than disbelieving

      disbelieving: To refuse to believe in; reject.To withhold or reject belief.

      Chad, really it's not. You may think so, but we're not in willful denial of the reality of God here.

      All our words stem from a world-view suffused with religiosity since the dawn of language so at best the words for disbelief express absence or denial of faith. It's like trying to define "atypical" without using a synonmyn for typical.

      March 6, 2013 at 1:12 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      It most certainly IS a lack of belief for me. I don't care what "most" atheists or agnostics say, Chard.

      March 6, 2013 at 1:13 pm |
    • Saraswati

      @Robert Brown,

      I haven’t read Dawkins since many years before he wrote The God Delusion, and back then I didn’t find him a very interesting writer. I come from a family of mixed beliefs but which contains non-believers going back well over a century so this was hardly new stuff. It's not like Dawkins was the first to raise these issues – heck, hard core philosophers don't even take him seriously because they moved past discussing this stuff so long ago. And as for science, this guy writes about the evidence for evolution for goodness sake! In what backwater do people need to read pop philosophers writing on that kind of topic?!?!? I'm not saying his writing's bad (I don't remember enough), but it's kind of superfluous.

      March 6, 2013 at 1:15 pm |
    • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

      @Live4Him,

      what a moron you are.

      "You don't seem to use a dictionary much. ALL of the definitions are valid – which means my use of 'doctrine' is valid.

      So extending your argument, from the online OED:

      theism, n.

      A morbid condition characterized by headache, sleeplessness, and palpitation of the heart, caused by excessive tea-drinking.

      I can conclude since ALL definitions are equally valid according to the great luminary of thought "Live4Him", it follows that all believers in God have a morbid condition caused by drinking too much tea.

      (And that gentle reader, is a textbook reductio ad absurdum, handed to me on a plate.)

      March 6, 2013 at 1:18 pm |
    • hawaiiguest

      Oh look, the dishonest little shit Chad has stuck his foot in it again.

      "most atheists want to say "God doesnt exist until you prove He does",it is utterly fallacious"
      And yet, despite Chad's calim, that's completely and utterly false. If one doesn't need to prove something first, then you would hold multiple contradicting positions due to their unfalsfiability, unless of course you engage in special pleading, which I'm sure Chad agrees with as long as it's special pleading in favor of his stupidity.

      March 6, 2013 at 1:21 pm |
    • JMEF

      Chad
      How arrogant of you to state "most atheists want to say" how did you come to that conclusion? I am a deist, am I supposed to find out what you think I want to say, ridiculous.

      March 6, 2013 at 1:24 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Chad the Liar is arrogant beyond measure.

      March 6, 2013 at 1:28 pm |
    • Chad

      @GOPer "not having a belief is completely different than disbelieving. disbelieving: To refuse to believe in; reject.To withhold or reject belief. Chad, really it's not. You may think so, but we're not in willful denial of the reality of God here."
      All our words stem from a world-view suffused with religiosity since the dawn of language so at best the words for disbelief express absence or denial of faith. It's like trying to define "atypical" without using a synonmyn for typical."
      @Chad "Wow..
      wrong at virtually every turn..
      1. If you dont like the definition of the word disbelief, use another. You dont get to say "well, that definition is unduly influenced by religion so I want to change the definition of it"
      2. the word "disbelief" applies to anything that you refuse to believe in or reject, not just God.
      3. "we're not in willful denial of the reality of God here", oh really.. so, why do you incessantly call believers stupid for holding that belief and claim they have no basis for it?

      curious, how do you reconcile these two statements??
      @ GOPer "Your 'Humanist Manifesto' is just as mythical as your God."
      @ GOPer we're not in willful denial of the reality of God here

      lol, like I said.. atheists want to deny God, they just dont want the burden of proof that goes with denying something.

      March 6, 2013 at 1:43 pm |
    • Chad

      @JMEF,
      A. If you like, I can provide dozens of examples of how atheists want to claim that "God doesnt exist until you prove He does"
      B. You are a deist????

      March 6, 2013 at 1:47 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Wrong again, no matter how many times you post it, Chad/Rachel (by the way, which one are you today?). I don't "want to deny god." I simply see no evidence there is one. Do you have any? Because you've been posting for endless months and you've yet to show it.

      I love it when egomaniacs try to tell me what I think.

      March 6, 2013 at 1:47 pm |
    • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

      @Chad,

      "why do you incessantly call believers stupid for holding that belief and claim they have no basis for it?"

      Again you show yourself to be the disingenuous lying little twerp that you are.

      I do not call believers stupid. I respect people who live lives of faith.

      I certainly reserve the right to call the arguments of people that post here on the belief blog 'stupid' and I will respond to people who attack my thoughts in kind, but I do not call believers 'stupid' for their faith.

      For nonsense like creationism, for nonsense like believing that the US is a Christian country, for nonsense like trying to legislate the beliefs of a religious minority into the laws of the land, yes I will say all kinds of uncomplimentary things but I do not call people stupid for their faith.

      March 6, 2013 at 1:49 pm |
    • Chad

      @Chad "atheists want to claim that "God doesnt exist until you prove He does""

      @Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son "I don't "want to deny god." "
      @Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son "No, dear, he doesn't. You claim a god exists. Prove it. The onus is on you. One cannot prove that something doesn't exist. Try to prove unicorns don't exist"

      March 6, 2013 at 1:51 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Nope, didn't say that unless you prove him, he doesn't exist, Chad. I said that I see no evidence for a god. Have you posted it?

      March 6, 2013 at 1:53 pm |
    • JMEF

      Chad
      Atheist want to deny god and Chad wants to deny all gods other than his god of Isreal, can't really seem to see a difference.

      March 6, 2013 at 1:54 pm |
    • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

      @Chad,

      curious, how do you reconcile these two statements??
      @ GOPer "Your 'Humanist Manifesto' is just as mythical as your God."
      @ GOPer we're not in willful denial of the reality of God here

      When I made the reference to the 'Humanist Manifesto as mythical' I was unaware that any such thing existed. (At the time, I thought it was an artifical contrivance of Live4Him. I was incorrect.)

      I don't think I'll bother to look into it further.

      March 6, 2013 at 1:56 pm |
    • End Religion

      Thanks Non-GOPer, I have now updated my definitions as such...

      Christianity: The belief that a Cosmic Winged Jewish Zombie, who is his own Father and virtuously r@ped his own 12 year old mother, can make you live forever in some other dimension if you symbolically eat his flesh and drink his blood while telepathically telling him that you accept him as your Master so that he will remove an evil force from your soul, which is present in all humanity because a woman he made out of one rib bone and a mound of dirt was tricked into eating fruit from a magical tree by a talking snake.

      Theism: a morbid condition caused by drinking too much tea.

      March 6, 2013 at 1:57 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Other One

      Like every beginning student Chad and Live4Him need something to push against. Atheism must be analogous to religion, have a doctrine and a core belief. Give them something to push against. Take it away and watch them fly across the room.

      March 6, 2013 at 1:57 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Imagine Chad/Rachel at a picnic.

      March 6, 2013 at 2:03 pm |
    • clarity

      Chad – what about someone who is not from an area that is predominantly Christian? Say they have vaguely heard of some of the ideas of Christianity, but have also vaguely heard of the ideas of some other religions. Say this person was not raised to believe in any particular one, but would be open to believing should someone provide hard evidence to them. They really don't have a need to claim disbelief in any one of the religions they have heard of – they were just not raised to have any belief; they were never the object of any effort to bring them into any one of the religions they have only heard about. Wouldn't that person be an agnostic atheist? How is it that they would be categorized as having a disbelief versus just "not having" several other beliefs?

      March 6, 2013 at 2:06 pm |
    • Chad

      @GOPer "I do not call believers stupid. I respect people who live lives of faith."

      @GOPer "Your 'Humanist Manifesto' is just as mythical as your God."
      @GOPer "I only see these definitions used by believers who struggle to comprehend that anyone can disbelieve in God.
      seeing as only a believer will play the "my dictionary is better than your dictionary game"
      @GOPer "This is my favorite definition of 'theism': A morbid condition characterized by headache, sleeplessness, and palpitation of the heart, caused by excessive tea-drinking Subst.tute bible reading for tea-drinking and there you are."
      @GOPer "what a moron you are."
      @GOPer "what a preposterous post. As an engineer you should be a better analyst of data."

      March 6, 2013 at 2:09 pm |
    • Chad

      how do you reconcile these two statements??
      @ GOPer "Your 'Humanist Manifesto' is just as mythical as your God."
      @ GOPer we're not in willful denial of the reality of God here

      First statement you made was that God is mythical, second was that you dont deny the reality of God..
      how do you reconcile those statements?

      March 6, 2013 at 2:11 pm |
    • JMEF

      Chad
      Yes a deist, willing to accept a creator, but not willing to accept a god that watches over each and every human on earth then will judge all humankind. This makes me a non-believer in your obsession, the god of Isreal and also all the other gods and belief systems in the world. I reject Pascal's wager as being unreasonable without logic.

      March 6, 2013 at 2:13 pm |
    • ME II

      @Chad,
      Isn't denying the reality of a myth consistent?
      Isn't that part of the definition of a myth, i.e. not real.

      March 6, 2013 at 2:16 pm |
    • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

      @Chad,

      I have never called anyone stupid for their faith.

      I called Live4Him a moron because s/he doesn't know how to use a dictionary, and demonstrated such by ignoring a primary definition.

      I do happen to think that all Gods are probably mythical. Because I stated that is how I feel, doesn't follow that I have called someone stupid for their faith.

      March 6, 2013 at 2:19 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Other One

      Chad, he did say "just as mythical as YOUR God" (emphasis mine). In some since there is no doubt that your God exists. After all, if someone says your God (an individual) does not exist then you have to ask what does "does not exist" refer to. Your God exists, is real in that sense, but has the property of being imaginary (or a myth).

      March 6, 2013 at 2:20 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Other One

      sorry: "sense"

      March 6, 2013 at 2:23 pm |
    • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

      @Chad,

      I said: "You may think so, but we're not in willful denial of the reality of God here."

      How is this in any way discordant with disbelief? Our perception of reality is different – very different.

      March 6, 2013 at 2:23 pm |
    • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

      @Chad,

      your behavior here is so typical of your crap. You appear to be gleefully thinking 'ah ha, I've got notaGOPer in a word trap now'

      You really don't.

      The only thing I got incorrect in this thread today is not realizing that the Humanist Manifesto is something that actually existed. (I Googled it and realized my mistake.)

      There isn't anything else I've said that is inconsistent in any way.

      Calling someone's argument stupid is very different to calling someone stupid for believing in a faith.

      And Live4Him is still a moron – and not because of his/her faith but because of the way s/he behaves – which is in an intellectually dishonest way, just like someone else here.

      March 6, 2013 at 2:32 pm |
    • Chad

      @ME II "I don't think most atheists use the strong/positive definition of atheism in describing themselves."
      @Chad "most atheists want to say "God doesnt exist until you prove He does", not sure where that fits in to the definitions..
      @ME II "Isn't denying the reality of a myth consistent? Isn't that part of the definition of a myth, i.e. not real."

      @Chad "if you think the God of Israel is a myth, then you are denying His existence, which makes you a strong atheist.

      and, since you are a strong atheist, what evidence do you have to support your claim that the God of Israel isnt real?

      March 6, 2013 at 2:42 pm |
    • Chad

      Guess you somehow missed it, re-posting:

      @ GOPer "Your 'Humanist Manifesto' is just as mythical as your God."
      @ GOPer we're not in willful denial of the reality of God here

      In your first statement you said that God is mythical
      In your second statement you said that you dont deny the reality of God..
      how do you reconcile those statements? If you say something is mythical, you are saying it isnt real. If you say it isnt real, you are denying its reality.

      March 6, 2013 at 2:48 pm |
    • fintastic

      @swarryazz... "In what backwater do people need to read pop philosophers writing on that kind of topic?!"

      He's an evolutionary biologist, not a philosopher you moron.

      March 6, 2013 at 2:51 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Other One

      GOPer said that Chad's God is mythical. GOPer said that he did not deny the reality of God. Perhaps Chad assumes that the reality of his God can't be rejected without rejection of the possibility that there is a real God.

      March 6, 2013 at 2:55 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Other One

      It just occurred to me. Chad's whole line of reasoning. Months of it. It's all a means to make God his hostage.

      March 6, 2013 at 3:00 pm |
    • JMEF

      And there you have Chad, start, what evidence do you have for rejecting the God of Isreal?...no matter what happens in between....the end, why do you reject the God of Isreal? The thing is Chad, if you believe as most christians that everyone has freewill, that is why I reject your god of Isreal and am prepared to take any mythical consequence that you all may think will happen to me. I do not have to explain my reasons/evidence to the likes of you and your delusional buddies, it realy is none of your business.

      March 6, 2013 at 3:03 pm |
    • Chad

      The point, shown very clearly here on this thread, is that atheists continually deny the reality of the God of Israel, but instantly shrink from any request to provide evidence for their denial.

      Very, very typical. The atheist position is utterly irrational in every aspect, very easy to point out where..

      March 6, 2013 at 3:09 pm |
    • Chad

      @JMEF,

      the point is, your claims that the God of Israel isnt real carry with them no credibility unless you can demonstrate that what you are claiming is true.

      Otherwise, it's just talk.. an opinion for which no evidence is offered.

      March 6, 2013 at 3:12 pm |
    • hawaiiguest

      @Chad

      You're pathetic. You say "deny the reality of the god of israel" when people say they haven't been shown sufficient evidence. Then you give your 5 point idiocy that isn't evidence, reassert that it is evidence for a few days, then go back to your same claims. Your pattern is transparent, dishonest, and shows you to be a self-righteous, dishonest pile of shit.

      March 6, 2013 at 3:17 pm |
    • Science

      Hey Chad does your god of Israel hold your hand when you go to the store?

      Peace

      March 6, 2013 at 3:19 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Other One

      Chad, I think your basis for identifying any real God, should there be one, as your God of Israel is that someone claimed that God, apparent to him as God, identified itself to him as the God of Israel. He believed, so you believe?

      March 6, 2013 at 3:20 pm |
    • fintastic

      @chad.......... you are the one making the claim that god is reality, you are the one that must provide the evidence.

      ..................... are you really that stupid?.............. never mind.

      March 6, 2013 at 3:21 pm |
    • Chad

      I can never determine if you atheists are just to unsophisticated enough to understand the difference between these two statements, or you actually do understand it, but just willfully ignore it..

      1. I do not believe the God of Israel exists
      2. The God of Israel does not exist

      March 6, 2013 at 3:26 pm |
    • JMEF

      Chad
      Who the hell do you think you are to demand why I reject the god of Isreal or anything else for that matter, it is my freewill choice, without answering to the likes of you? Here is a challenge for you, make the pilgrimage to Mecca, stand in the square and demand why those folks reject the god of Isreal with emphasis on jesus christ. Lots of courage to come on a blog and make stupid demands of others but that is what you have become, no wonder your family ridicules you.

      March 6, 2013 at 3:27 pm |
    • Chad

      @JMEF,

      you have an expectation that you'll be able to post here that the God of Israel is not real, and ridicule folks for their belief, without having to provide evidence for your claim that He isnt real?

      not sure how you could reasonably expect that..

      March 6, 2013 at 3:34 pm |
    • ME II

      @Chad,
      Atheists " continually deny the reality of the God of Israel, but instantly shrink from any request to provide evidence for their denial."

      What I've been trying to get at is that this is an example of begging the question.
      In order to deny the "reality of the God of Israel" one has to accept the "reality of the God of Israel", which has not been shown to be real.
      I deny that "the God of Israel" has been shown to be real. Granted, S/He may actually exist, but it has not been shown.
      Additionally, the myths about the "God of Israel" have not been shown to be true, either. Therefore, they can be appropriately be called myths.

      March 6, 2013 at 3:47 pm |
    • JMEF

      Chad
      When you provide the evidence why all the other god's you reject are not real, real evidence, because your OT god said so, no other god's before me, so prove his compet iton is not real. When you accomplish that task, I will explain to you in detail why I am a deist, deal?

      March 6, 2013 at 3:47 pm |
    • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

      @Chad,

      "Guess you somehow missed it, re-posting:"

      I answered you at least twice. I did not state, nor do I concede any "reality of God".

      I said, and let me quote it again (with emphasis this time) since you deliberately abridged my comment each time and somehow seem to have missed it:

      "YOU MAY THINK SO, but we're not in willful denial of the reality of God here."

      I don't believe in God. I never said or implied any acknowledgement of the 'reality of God', merely indicated that this is the way YOU represent disbelief.

      Your continued insisted implication that somehow I did is moronic. I'm not going to play silly games with you Chad.

      March 6, 2013 at 3:49 pm |
    • Chad

      @ME II "In order to deny the "reality of the God of Israel" one has to accept the "reality of the God of Israel", which has not been shown to be real."
      @Chad "dude... what? I hope that wasnt what you intended to say..

      in any case, no
      In order to deny the "reality of the God of Israel" one has only to accept the possibility of the reality of the God of Israel.
      Naturalists for example dont accept that possibility, they exclude the possibility of the reality from the pool of live options. They dismiss the possibility of anything supernatural out of hand.

      If you are not a naturalist, then you have accepted the possibility of the reality of the God of Israel.

      ====
      @ME II "I deny that "the God of Israel" has been shown to be real. Granted, S/He may actually exist, but it has not been shown."
      @Chad "if you accept that the possibility is there, you are not a naturalist.

      ====
      @ME II "IAdditionally, the myths about the "God of Israel" have not been shown to be true, either. Therefore, they can be appropriately be called myths."
      @Chad "no, fallacious logic
      unless you show that the information regarding the God of Israel is not real (a myth), then you have no basis for asserting that that information is a myth.

      you are just putting a lot of words around "the God of Israel isnt real unless you prove He is"
      as I said before 🙂

      March 6, 2013 at 3:54 pm |
    • End Religion

      Chad, where's that empirical evidence for your wimpy god?

      March 6, 2013 at 3:54 pm |
    • End Religion

      Science has made great discoveries in the past 100 years confirming the reality of the Flying Spaghetti Monster as creator.

      Historical evidence
      – no historical detail in the The Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster has ever been proved to be incorrect
      – Historicity of the Spaghedeity
      – Historicity of the empty colander
      – Origin of the disciples belief that they had met a boiled Flying Spaghetti Monster, a belief they held so strongly that they were willing to go to their deaths proclaiming the truth.

      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 FSM 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

      Now, neither Davies or Hawking is a believer in FSM. They both believe in fine tuning, they just posit natural reasons for it. The only problem with my fine tuning argument is...

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

      March 6, 2013 at 3:56 pm |
    • hawaiiguest

      And Chad continues his stupidity of "I'ts real until you prove it's not". Talk about fallacious.

      March 6, 2013 at 3:57 pm |
    • Religion is not healthy for children nor any living thing

      What are the "facts" and "rules" for not collecting stamps? Makes just as much sense. None, that is!

      March 6, 2013 at 3:59 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Other One

      Chad, rejecting your claim that the God of Israel is real (or is the real God, should there be a real God) is done simply by recognizing that you have nothing to compel anyone to accept your claim. The only reason to consider your claim is as a sort of favor to you since anyone can make a claim that something imaginary is real with no compelling evidence that it is.

      March 6, 2013 at 4:00 pm |
    • science

      Chad does your god of Israel hold your hand when you go potty ?

      Peace

      March 6, 2013 at 4:03 pm |
    • Chad

      statement 1: @ GOPer ""YOU MAY THINK SO, but we're not in willful denial of the reality of God here."
      statement 2: @ GOPer "Your 'Humanist Manifesto' is just as mythical as your God."

      =>ok, i'll go slow and explain it..
      .
      you dont read posts very carefully...

      1. You claim in statement #1 that you are NOT in a willful denial of the reality of God. You are saying that you arent denying the reality of God. Correct?

      2. You claim in statement #2 that the God of Israel IS a myth (that's what you meant.. since you originally thought the manifesto was fake). Correct.

      statement 1 says you arent denying the reality of God, statement 2 says you think God is a myth.
      how do you reconcile those two statements?

      March 6, 2013 at 4:03 pm |
    • hawaiiguest

      @everyone else

      Hint: When Chad is ignoring you, that's a sign that he can't actually address what you're saying.

      March 6, 2013 at 4:06 pm |
    • Saraswati

      @Chad, I don't know what GOPer's position is but want to point out that it is perfectly possible to believe it possible for a god or gods to exist while disbelieving in a particular god or god description. I suspect you do that yourself.

      March 6, 2013 at 4:07 pm |
    • hawaiiguest

      Or he's to busy twisting what everyone else is saying to twist what you say. Either way, Chad is a dishonest little shit.

      March 6, 2013 at 4:07 pm |
    • Chad

      "rejecting your claim that the God of Israel is real (or is the real God, should there be a real God) is done simply by recognizing that you have nothing to compel anyone to accept your claim.

      I can never determine if you atheists are just to unsophisticated enough to understand the difference between these two statements, or you actually do understand it, but just willfully ignore it..

      1. I do not believe the God of Israel exists
      2. The God of Israel does not exist

      March 6, 2013 at 4:08 pm |
    • Chad

      @Saraswati "it is perfectly possible to believe it possible for a god or gods to exist while disbelieving in a particular god or god description"

      =>true, but GOPer was talking about the God of Israel in both statements.

      March 6, 2013 at 4:10 pm |
    • Really-O?

      From the mouth of Chad – "I can never determine if you atheists are just to unsophisticated enough to understand"

      Oh, the irony.

      March 6, 2013 at 4:13 pm |
    • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

      @Chad,

      "1. You claim in statement #1 that you are NOT in a willful denial of the reality of God. You are saying that you arent denying the reality of God. Correct?

      No, you have the emphasis wrong.

      You believe in the reality of God.

      When someone other than you says "I don't believe in God", then logically you can only conclude that they must be denying the reality of your God."

      This is exactly what my statement said, though as usual you want to twist the meaning.

      I don't believe in God. I do think God is mythical. I do not categorically state that there is no God and will happily stipulate that therefore I can't really know there isn't one. We both agree (as we have done multiple times) that I cannot prove non-existence, and nor do I attempt to.

      It feels like we have had essentially the same exasperating conversation innumerable times.

      We're done on this topic. Pick something new and I'll discuss it with you.

      March 6, 2013 at 4:15 pm |
    • Chad

      @GOPer "I do not categorically state that there is no God"
      @GOPer "... is just as mythical as your God."

      if you say God is mythical, you are saying He doesnt exist..

      March 6, 2013 at 4:20 pm |
    • JMEF

      Chad
      The most honest, and very rare, thing you have said......
      "If there is no evidence, to belive in God is a purposeful delusion. How could that possibly be justified?"
      Any evidence you have ever presented is flawed, no evidence at all, therefore a delusion. Although I believe in the premise of a creator/creation it does not require the kind of god you cannot proves exists.

      March 6, 2013 at 4:21 pm |
    • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

      @Chad,

      "if you say God is mythical, you are saying He doesnt exist.

      No Chad, and I'm only sticking with this because this is the heart of the matter.

      "I don't believe in God", is indeed essentially the same as I think God is mythical.

      This is different from categorically saying "God does not exist."

      In this context "I think" is the related to the aggregation of empirical and cultural observations, the sum of probabilites and a personal judgement. If it helps you understand better I'll restate it as "I think God is most probably mythical".

      It is an opinion, not a fact. I do think it is a well-founded opinion.

      March 6, 2013 at 4:28 pm |
    • Chad

      @GOPer ""I think God is most probably mythical"."

      =>ah, but that isnt what you said, was it 🙂

      the algorithm is always the same
      atheist – "The God of Israel is a myth!! He isnt real! You are crazy to believe in Him! He doesnt exist"
      theist – "well, if you are claiming that God isnt real, what evidence do you have?"
      atheist – "I dont need to prove He's fake, you need to prove He's real!!!"
      theist "well, If I claim He is real, I need to demonstrate it, if you claim he isnt real, you need to demonstrate it"
      atheist "ah.. well... I acknowledge the remote possibility, I'm not saying He doesnt exist, I'm just saying I dont believe it"

      -next day..
      atheist – "The God of Israel is a myth!! He isnt real! You are crazy to believe in Him! He doesnt exist"

      March 6, 2013 at 4:37 pm |
    • Saraswati

      OK, I must be missing something. It looks to me like GOP isjust saying "I think God is mythical but I don't know it". I understood the "reality of your god" bit to be a reference to the Christian use of that expression which assumes the existence of god.

      GOP is this right?

      March 6, 2013 at 4:38 pm |
    • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

      @Saraswati

      "I understood the "reality of your god" bit to be a reference to the Christian use of that expression which assumes the existence of god."

      Yes. Precisely.

      It is curious that Chad the disingenuous wants to wrestle with this one sice my original comment:

      "The Humanist Manifesto is as mythical as your God"

      was not even directed at Chad but Live4Him.

      My comment to Live4Him was flawed in any case, seeing as I made it without realizing that the 'Humanist Manifesto' was something that actually existed.

      March 6, 2013 at 4:49 pm |
    • Saraswati

      Thanks GOP. Yeah, that all seems fairly straight forward.

      March 6, 2013 at 4:53 pm |
    • Science

      Come on Chad does your god of Isral hold ypour hand when you go POTTY?

      Peace

      March 6, 2013 at 4:56 pm |
    • Science

      Oops your

      March 6, 2013 at 4:57 pm |
    • ME II

      @Chad,
      I never claimed to be a natrualist.

      "the God of Israel isnt real unless you prove He is"

      I did not state this, you are putting words in my mouth. As I said, the existence of God is true or not regardless of whether I believe it true.

      March 6, 2013 at 5:26 pm |
    • ME II

      @Chad,
      What exactly is the "reality of the God of Israel" that you claim atheists are in willful denial of?

      March 6, 2013 at 5:31 pm |
    • Chad

      @ME II "I never claimed to be a naturalist."
      @Chad "I didnt say you were, nor that you claimed to be one

      what I did say, was that most atheists claim that "the God of Israel isnt real unless you prove He is"
      which is fallacious.

      ===
      @ME II " As I said, the existence of God is true or not regardless of whether I believe it true."
      @Chad "agreed"

      ===
      I pointed out @GOPer just because he fits the pattern, saying things like "God is mythical", but then backing away from it and claiming he just really meant that he merely thinks God is mythical, he doesnt know for sure.

      =====
      you never did address this:

      @ME II "IAdditionally, the myths about the "God of Israel" have not been shown to be true, either. Therefore, they can be appropriately be called myths."
      @Chad "no, fallacious logic
      unless you show that the information regarding the God of Israel is not real (a myth), then you have no basis for asserting that that information is a myth.

      March 6, 2013 at 5:40 pm |
    • Chad

      @ME II "I never claimed to be a naturalist."
      @Chad "I didnt say you were, nor that you claimed to be one

      what I did say, was that most atheists claim that "the God of Israel isnt real unless you prove He is"
      which is fallacious.

      ===
      @ME II " As I said, the existence of God is true or not regardless of whether I believe it true."
      @Chad "agreed"

      ===
      I pointed out @GOPer just because he fits the pattern, saying things like "God is mythical", but then backing away from it and claiming he just really meant that he merely thinks God is mythical, he doesnt know for sure.

      =====
      you never did address this:

      @ME II "IAdditionally, the myths about the "God of Israel" have not been shown to be true, either. Therefore, they can be appropriately be called myths."
      @Chad "no, fallacious logic
      unless you show that the information regarding the God of Israel is not real (a myth), then you have no basis for asserting that that information is a my th.

      March 6, 2013 at 5:40 pm |
    • Chad

      @ME II "What exactly is the "reality of the God of Israel" that you claim atheists are in willful denial of?"

      =>where did I say that on this thread?
      you're having trouble following the argument.

      March 6, 2013 at 5:42 pm |
    • the AnViL

      semantic juggling and silly word games are offensive.

      2. The God of Israel does not exist.

      until one of you retards provides evidence to support the existence of gods – that's the end of it.

      seriously.

      March 6, 2013 at 5:42 pm |
    • Chad

      thank you AnVIL, you are making the fallacious claim that I have been talking about, namely that "The God of Israel doesnt exist until you prove He does"

      many, if not all, atheists make that fallacious claim.

      March 6, 2013 at 5:45 pm |
    • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

      @Chad,

      still having trouble separating statements of fact and opinion I see.

      It must be a very sad world in that little head of yours.

      Are you going to ask everyone about the empty tomb again?

      March 6, 2013 at 5:48 pm |
    • ME II

      @Chad,
      Chad: "I didnt say you were, nor that you claimed to be one"

      Your reference at March 6, 2013 at 3:54 pm mentioned it.?. I have no idea why.

      Chad: "If you are not a naturalist, then you have accepted the possibility of the reality of the God of Israel."

      ME II: "Additionally, the myths about the "God of Israel" have not been shown to be true, either."
      Chad: "unless you show that the information regarding the God of Israel is not real (a myth), then you have no basis for asserting that that information is a myth."

      If the "reality of the God of Israel" is defined by a literal interpretation of the Bible then yes, there is plenty of reason to think it a myth, because there are many things in the Bible that are incorrect, as we have discussed.

      Chad: "where did I say that on this thread?
      you're having trouble following the argument."

      The point, shown very clearly here on this thread, is that atheists continually deny the reality of the God of Israel, but instantly shrink from any request to provide evidence for their denial.
      March 6, 2013 at 3:09 pm

      Are you following, now?

      March 6, 2013 at 6:07 pm |
    • Chad

      @GOPer "still having trouble separating statements of fact and opinion I see."
      =>no.. the problem is when people state their opinion as fact, then dont want to back it up...

      it's fairly straightforward,
      statement of opinion: "I think your God is mythical"
      statement of fact: "Your God is mythical"

      the problem is, the statement of opinion just doesnt carry with it the necessary ridicule... that's why it's never used.

      March 6, 2013 at 6:15 pm |
    • Chad

      @ME II
      Look, it is simple. If you want to say that the God of Israel is a myth, then that is a statement of alleged fact and you have to back that up.
      If we're agreed on that, we're all set.

      March 6, 2013 at 6:18 pm |
    • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

      Nevertheless the intent was clear all along, as all effective communication should be.

      The issue of fact versus opinion was never really in question.

      Your pettiness continues to astound me.

      March 6, 2013 at 6:23 pm |
    • Chuckles

      @Chad

      Tsk Tsk, you still aren't outlining what you would consider to be evidence of how the god from the bible is myth. You are asking for proof but you've stated that there is nothing that will convince you that god isn't real so what exactly are you asking for?

      March 6, 2013 at 6:24 pm |
    • Moby Schtick

      Who needs evidence or facts when you can just use faith? The "god" of the bible is pure myth. Take it on faith because of the evidence we do have-–namely, that the character portrayed is too inconsistent, ridiculous, and childish to be considered any sort of "higher power."

      March 6, 2013 at 6:24 pm |
    • the AnViL

      "thank you AnVIL, you are making the fallacious claim that I have been talking about, namely that "The god of Israel doesn't exist until you prove he does"

      no, Captain Disingenuous... thank you for once again opening yourself up to yet another opportunity to receive education at the hands of the AnViL.

      the statement “gods do not exist” is a negative claim that only responds to the positive one (gods exist).

      it wouldn't make any sense to anyone except the enemies of reason to go around denouncing the existence of unknown or flatly fictional beings if there isn't anyone making the positive claim that those things do exist.

      the bible existed before any of us – and it's the basis for the positive, additive claim that "gods exist".

      none of us need to wait for any of you delusional xian nimrods to publicly posit the existence of the abrahamic god. it's already been done.

      to state that the assertion “gods do not exist” is fallacious is absurd, ridiculous and flat out wrong.

      this is just more kindergarten shit logic from captain disingenuous (chad)

      .
      .
      .
      .
      .
      cha chaaaaaaaa captain disingenuous... you are dismissed.

      March 6, 2013 at 6:32 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Other One

      Chad's weakened position refers to the possibility of the reality of the God of Israel – perhaps as in "I believe it is possible that the God of Israel is real" (not an actual quote).

      The possibility of the reality of the God of Israel – how possible is that? As possible as anything else you might claim with no better argument than that it can't be shown that it's not so. In that category are all the assertions or suppositions that can be described as not even wrong (Pauli). There's no reason to favor the supposition that the God of Israel is real over any of those. Nothing compels us to address a truth claim by any of them as "possible".

      I am curious, if you were able to establish that there is at least one real god, Chad. How would you get from there to "that god is the God of Israel"?

      March 6, 2013 at 6:46 pm |
    • Chad

      strong atheism [denying that God exists] carries an initial burden of proof which does not exist for weak atheism. Any time a person asserts that some god or any gods do not or cannot exist, they obligate themselves to support their claims.

      source: http://atheism.about.com/od/atheismquestions/a/strong_weak.htm

      March 6, 2013 at 7:08 pm |
    • Bob

      Chad(Rachel), how's that treadmill workout turning out for ya? Still no thigh gap? Better ease off on the calories too or Rachel-Chad will be even less credible.

      March 6, 2013 at 7:19 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Other One

      Actually, I was curious about the strength of your theism Chad. As in one of these:

      -Chad believes it is possible that the God of Israel is real
      -Chad knows it is possible that the God of Israel is real
      -Chad believes the God of Israel is real
      -Chad knows the God of Israel is real

      March 6, 2013 at 7:58 pm |
    • In Santa we trust

      Chad, All these tangents are fine. Bottom line: you have yet to show evidence that your god exists and proof for the non-existance of all the other gods.

      March 6, 2013 at 9:32 pm |
    • fintastic

      @ANVIL....."semantic juggling and silly word games are offensive.

      2. The God of Israel does not exist. until one of you retards provides evidence to support the existence of gods – that's the end of it. seriously."

      Thanks Anvil,,,,,,,, that's simple enough even a christian could understand.

      March 7, 2013 at 11:30 am |
  12. Topher

    Sam and my other sparring buddies

    Yesterday I made a claim that I shouldn't have. I told you about a video and then found it and posted it. The problem was that I misremembered the details. I thought the woman was a college president (she was a dean), I thought she was talking about Christians (it was Creationists) and I thought she said she like to throw them out (she said she didn't want them to graduate). I never should have brought up the video before I went back and rewatched it. This was a misfire on my part and I apologize. Please forgive me.

    March 6, 2013 at 10:52 am |
    • The Devil

      Wow topher what did I miss ?

      you slamming US LOL

      March 6, 2013 at 11:06 am |
    • JMEF

      Topher
      Mea culpa's are always welcome, tell Chad, Live4Him, fred, truth be told, etc, etc,

      March 6, 2013 at 11:07 am |
    • midwest rail

      One more problem – she did NOT say she didn't want them to graduate. She said she didn;t want them to graduate still believing in Creationism. Big difference.

      March 6, 2013 at 11:19 am |
    • lol??

      An A&A evangelical?? They're everywhere!

      March 6, 2013 at 11:26 am |
    • ME II

      @Topher,
      I wasn't following this particular discussion, but thanks for owning up to a mistake. More of us here could follow your example.

      March 6, 2013 at 11:37 am |
    • fintastic

      Where's the evidence for god?... why won't you directly answer the question?............. I think I know why...

      March 7, 2013 at 11:32 am |
  13. lol??

    A&A's are always tryin' to trick the Christians into laying down their defense.

    "Eph 6:16 Above all, taking the shield of faith, wherewith ye shall be able to quench all the fiery darts of the wicked."

    March 6, 2013 at 10:45 am |
    • Billy

      What defense? There is no defense. No sir!

      March 6, 2013 at 10:52 am |
    • fintastic

      LOL?? = pathetic troll = ignore

      March 6, 2013 at 10:54 am |
    • Live4Him

      @Billy : What defense? There is no defense. No sir!

      How do you know this to be a fact?

      March 6, 2013 at 10:55 am |
    • midwest rail

      lol?? !! There ya are, you batsh!t crazy fundie, we missed you.

      March 6, 2013 at 11:01 am |
    • End Religion

      lol?? has been here posting under other monikers.

      March 6, 2013 at 11:04 am |
    • lol??

      Even the term "troll" is a pathetic attempt at copyin' the Most High.

      "Mat 4:19 And he saith unto them, Follow me, and I will make you fishers of men."

      March 6, 2013 at 11:06 am |
    • Akira

      "Even the term “troll” is a pathetic attempt at copyin’ the Most High."
      Wait, what? Are you calling God a troll?

      March 6, 2013 at 11:10 am |
    • More quotes from the bible

      "Do not boil a young goat in its mother's milk"
      – Exodus 23:19, 34:26; Deuteronomy 14:21

      March 6, 2013 at 11:18 am |
    • lol??

      Looks to me like he's callin' you a fish. Akira. When you get a package in the mail from your friends and you open it up and find a fish, look for a hidden message.

      March 6, 2013 at 11:24 am |
    • clarity

      I think not lol??. What is fishy is several early Christian apologists having only the excuse "the devil did it" when challenged that the unauthored gospel stories looked so much like earlier pagan stories. Yep – the devil plagiarized backward in time. My goodness. Today, we use a spam folder for such ridiculous ideas.

      March 6, 2013 at 11:31 am |
    • Akira

      Can't answer one simple question, lol?? Yoy are the one who made the statement, not I.

      March 6, 2013 at 11:33 am |
    • lol??

      Clare, I've seen you grasp tightly to that thought over and over.

      "Gen 3:15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.".............That's very early in the days of man. You must think the serpent is just a dumb ol' snake.

      March 6, 2013 at 11:42 am |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      If your god is so omnipotent, lollypoop, why are you needed for defense?

      March 6, 2013 at 11:47 am |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      And really, if a god is depending on you, he's got lousy taste in defenders.

      March 6, 2013 at 11:48 am |
    • Lucifer's Evil Twin

      LET's Religiosity Law #3 – If you habitually spout off verses from your "holy" book to make whatever inane point you're trying to make, and not once does it occur to you to question whether your book is accurate in the first place, then you are definitely mentally retarded. (See Law #4 & #5)

      March 6, 2013 at 11:52 am |
    • clarity

      lol??: "Clare, I've seen you grasp tightly to that thought over and over."

      Yes. Each ridiculous variation on this particular theme exposes the myth of the "foundation" that it tries to support. If you're going to buy into Xianity – one may as well go all the way and buy into the claim of Joseph Smith & Related Families, Inc.

      March 6, 2013 at 11:56 am |
    • lol??

      Pipe sayz,
      "If your god is so omnipotent, lollypoop, why are you needed for defense?" Your mind is playin' tricks on ya. I need the defense. Christians need the defense. Must be opposite day.

      March 6, 2013 at 11:58 am |
    • lol??

      clarity, Jesus had no problem with the beginning. Why should I??

      March 6, 2013 at 12:00 pm |
    • lol??

      Well excuuuuuse me akira. I didn't realize that was a literal question. UUUUmm, no. But it appears The LORD God might be calling the bride, fishermen.

      March 6, 2013 at 12:05 pm |
    • clarity

      Why shouldn't you have trouble with any of the other myriad of mythologies out there from men who were afraid of their own shadows. lol?? What evidence can you show that explains why your particular brand is something real and not just a homogenized, pasteurized version of older myths?

      March 6, 2013 at 12:09 pm |
    • OTOH

      lol??
      "The LORD God might be calling the bride, fishermen."

      What do fishermen do with their catch?
      - Kill them
      - Gut them
      - Sell them or use them for food or other commercial purposes

      The guy who thought up that analogy was silly.

      March 6, 2013 at 12:11 pm |
    • lol??

      Clarity, you can't see it anymore than you can see the radio waves that God created. 'Sides you could be on the wrong frequency.

      "2Cr 5:7 (For we walk by faith, not by sight:)"

      March 6, 2013 at 12:26 pm |
    • lol??

      OTOH
      lol??
      "The LORD God might be calling the bride, fishermen."

      What do fishermen do with their catch?..........."

      Party on sunday mornings. Music, feasts, lively social intercourse. Commune with God. Keep ye ol' stomach in great shape with a little wine. Might even trade women. Kick back and not worry about sharks that are not of the family.

      March 6, 2013 at 12:34 pm |
    • clarity

      lol?? channeling the Chatty Cathy Paul again I see. Yep – Paul was one of the early gullible ones. He should have investigated the unauthored gospels more carefully.

      March 6, 2013 at 12:53 pm |
    • OTOH

      lol??
      "Party on sunday mornings. Music, feasts, lively social intercourse" [fishermen with their catch]

      Sorry, but I have yet to see or hear of a group of fishermen partying with a boat-load of dead tuna.

      It is a stupid analogy.

      March 6, 2013 at 1:17 pm |
    • fintastic

      Sir Bedevere: "...and that, my liege, is how we know the Earth to be banana shaped. "

      King Arthur: "This new learning amazes me, Sir Bedevere. Explain again how sheep's bladders may be employed to prevent earthquakes."

      March 6, 2013 at 2:56 pm |
  14. the AnViL

    in the united states – you can sue anyone for anything at any time.

    slander is spoken

    libel is broadcast

    in order to prove libel you have to demonstrate that the statements which are in contention are false.

    be careful when you throw around words like slander and libel... it's hard to prove.

    in the case of xianity – every negative assertion leveled against it is well earned – and you're going to have a really hard time proving libel court.

    now – whoever feels 'slandered' – i suggest you hike up your skirt and get the fuck over it.

    try turning the other cheek – stupid butthurt assholes.

    March 6, 2013 at 10:44 am |
    • Akira

      Austin, who are you talking to with your posts?
      "You deny this, you deny that, [paraphrased]"
      You make giant leaps to false conclusions about people, and it is extremely disingenuous.
      Really, if you came to my door and proselytized to my face like you do here, I would close the door in it.

      March 6, 2013 at 12:43 pm |
    • Akira

      Sorry, wrong place.
      Apparently the reply button escapes me, also.

      March 6, 2013 at 12:57 pm |
  15. Live4Him

    @leonid7 (March 5, 2013 at 11:33 pm) : where is your evidence that atheism has never been about facts
    @leonid7 (March 6, 2013 at 1:13 am) : And I was part of the church for many years and studied theology in college

    Lets put your challenge to the test. Based upon your statements here, you've apparently left the church for atheism. What were the FACTS that caused you to turn to atheism?

    leonid7 : Stating an opinion is not slander.

    Opinions can be slander, if they give the appearance of stating a fact. Hawaiiguest gives that impression when he stated "Christianity, from a scriptural basis, is no less dangerous that Islam." However, courts also tend to treat all statements on blogs as opinions rather than verifiable facts. So, in short, Austin is correct in advancing the claim that it is slander and you're correct in your rebuttal – i.e. it is slander but not enforceable in a court of law.

    https://www.eff.org/issues/bloggers/legal/liability/defamation

    merely labeling a statement as your "opinion" does not make it so. Courts look at whether a reasonable reader or listener could understand the statement as asserting a statement of verifiable fact. (A verifiable fact is one capable of being proven true or false.)

    March 6, 2013 at 10:17 am |
    • Thoth

      Perhaps I'm not understanding your patched together post but slander requires a specific individual or corporate target, along with a specific, reasonably believable claim that can be proven misleading or false AND has caused harm to that individual or corporate ent.ity. One cannot (in today's US legal system) slander "christians" because the term consists of a wide range of individuals with varying ideology.

      March 6, 2013 at 10:29 am |
    • The Devil

      WoW

      March 6, 2013 at 10:29 am |
    • Saraswati

      You're leaving out the whole part about how something has to be false to be defamation. I'd love to see this one in court.

      March 6, 2013 at 10:31 am |
    • End Religion

      You folks are making the classic mistake of assuming reality and facts will resonate with Lie4It.

      March 6, 2013 at 10:34 am |
    • LinCA

      @Live4Him

      Fact: There is no evidence that any gods actually exist outside of the minds of believers.

      If you wish to dispute this fact, I suggest you provide some evidence of your god. Until you do, there is equal evidence for gods as there is for Tooth Fairies, Easter Bunnies, Pink Unicorns and Flying Spaghetti Monsters. Equal evidence means that there is equal reason to believe in them.

      Without evidence for your god, a belief in it is equally rational as a belief in the Easter Bunny. Without evidence for your god, a belief in it is as infantile as a belief in the Tooth Fairy.

      March 6, 2013 at 10:37 am |
    • myweightinwords

      L4H,

      Slander, Noun
      The action or crime of making a false spoken statement damaging to a person's reputation.

      Stating an opinion is not slander.

      I can say that I think hawaiiguest is a big doodie head and it isn't slander. Now, if I state that hawaiiguest IS a big doodie head and I saw him with doodie on his head, when in fact I have never met hawaiiguest, then we are sort of approaching slander. Of course, that would depend on whether my statement actually affected his reputation for the negative.

      BTW, hawaiiguest, I don't think that at all, just borrowing you for my example.

      March 6, 2013 at 10:41 am |
    • Live4Him

      @Thoth : slander requires a specific individual or corporate target

      As in 'Christians'?

      @Thoth : has caused harm to that individual or corporate ent.ity.

      Potential harm is the only requirement – i.e. potential loss of business, potential to mistreat Christians, etc.

      @Saraswati : You're leaving out the whole part about how something has to be false to be defamation.

      As in 'Christians are as likely to attack the Twin Towers as Muslims are'?

      March 6, 2013 at 10:42 am |
    • Live4Him

      @myweightinwords : Stating an opinion is not slander.

      This qualification is not in your definition. So, you're adding to the true definition.

      March 6, 2013 at 10:45 am |
    • Ad Hominem

      L4H, one of your favorite escapes when you are backed into a corner.
      Ad hominem is an allack on the person, not the person's arguement. Your problem is that you are always stating untruths/out right lies and when someone points that out you call it an attack on you rather than the fallacy of your arguement, a nice trick I/we will not let you get away with. Of course you could start telling the truth and backing up your arguements, that would be refreshing.

      March 6, 2013 at 10:45 am |
    • Thoth

      @Live – good luck getting that on any court Docket.

      Update list. Time to move on. (figure I'd save us both some time).

      March 6, 2013 at 10:47 am |
    • Live4Him

      @Thoth : good luck getting that on any court Docket.

      I've already acknowledged that in my first post. Apparently, no one bothered to pay any attention to this admission and continues to bring up the legal standard.

      March 6, 2013 at 10:53 am |
    • JMEF

      L4H
      Example only...
      It is my opinion that Richard Nixon's conduct when president was criminal.
      Richard Nixon's conduct in office was criminal.
      Which is slander or is either?

      March 6, 2013 at 10:56 am |
    • Science

      Good one Thoth

      Update list.

      Peace

      March 6, 2013 at 10:59 am |
    • JMEF

      L4H
      Your first post was jumbled together in such a manner that only you could discern what you were trying to say, typical.

      March 6, 2013 at 10:59 am |
    • Austin

      Slander against God? Is there a judge and a court ?

      March 6, 2013 at 11:00 am |
    • Austin

      Live4him,

      Thank you.

      March 6, 2013 at 11:01 am |
    • Akira

      Ok, this whole Austin "slander" episode can be traced back to my making a statement of fact: "Hitler was a Christian." This is all I said.
      Austin proceeded to tell me that I am slandering Christianity, and that I will be going to hell for it.
      Now, how did I slander Christianity by stating the true fact "Hitler was a Christian"?
      Is this going to turn into the "no true Scotsman" argument?
      Scratch that. I don't care, really. I didn't slander Christianity. 'Nuff said.

      As Thoth said...moving on.

      March 6, 2013 at 11:05 am |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      How are the statements you're referencing "damaging to...reputation"?

      It would be pretty difficult to damage your reputation, Lie4ever, considering what you do here.

      March 6, 2013 at 11:06 am |
    • Live4Him

      @JMEF : Your first post was jumbled together in such a manner that only you could discern what you were trying to say, typical.

      I only addressed two topics and it confused you? Why?

      March 6, 2013 at 11:08 am |
    • leonid7

      Classic...just classic. And Hawaiiguest's original post is clearly an opinion and value judgement about two books. Pure opinion. There is not a single fact referenced much less misrepresented. And even if there was, as I said before, it would be libel, not slander.

      March 6, 2013 at 11:42 am |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      So funny. Lie4ever can't seem to distinguish between "spoken" and "written." Maybe it hears all these posts in its head.

      March 6, 2013 at 11:45 am |
    • Austin

      The defamation is against the ministry of Jesus in my opinion. Akira still states that hitler is a Christian. Hawaiiguest states that, scripturally Christianity is comparable to Islam .

      We know what slander and defamation meant. Is this court? Mental evasive deception.

      Where are the verses condoning war from the new testament. What does the new testament say about the great apostasy, false teachers, and Antichrist deceivers.

      First off, not recognizing the authentic ministry of the holy spirit is a problem, And of course you also choose to call hitler a Christian. This is a double error, and it is the total opposite of what the bible says. In slander, you lie.

      March 6, 2013 at 11:50 am |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      "We know what slander.....meant."

      No, apparently you don't.

      March 6, 2013 at 11:53 am |
    • End Religion

      "It rubs the lotion on its skin or it gets the hose again. Oh, and can anyone explain the atheist doctrine?"

      March 6, 2013 at 11:56 am |
    • Austin

      You deny the resurrection, and pin the definition of Christian on the Antichrist deceivers and evil political movements.

      Are the sunni and Shiites killing each other because of Islam? Are the Sudanese killing each other because of religion, or because of resentment for a prior white presence and religion? Was the conquest for African oil a religious effect ?

      These are regional conflicts.

      March 6, 2013 at 12:02 pm |
    • Austin

      You deny the resurrection, and pin the definition of Christian on the Antichrist deceivers and evil political movements.

      Are the sunni and Shiites kil.ling each other because of Islam? Are the Sudanese kil.ling each other because of religion, or because of resentment for a prior white presence and religion? Was the conquest for African oil a religious effect ?

      These are regional conflicts.

      March 6, 2013 at 12:08 pm |
    • Austin

      Tom Tom, the pipers son, Ok well can you pretend this is not a court house and cope the simple intended meaning of negligent defamation.

      March 6, 2013 at 12:10 pm |
    • Akira

      Austin, who are you talking to with your posts?
      “You deny this, you deny that, [paraphrased]”
      You make giant leaps to false conclusions about people, and it is extremely disingenuous.
      Really, if you came to my door and proselytized to my face like you do here, I would close the door in yours.

      March 6, 2013 at 1:02 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      "Defamation" is a legal term, you witless wonder. If you're going to use it, then use it correctly.

      March 6, 2013 at 1:08 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Austin was the bozo who thought "defamate" was a word.

      March 6, 2013 at 1:09 pm |
    • meifumado

      @Austin

      Please educate yourself

      My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. ...Today, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed his blood upon the Cross. ...

      – Adolf Hitler, speech on April 12, 1922

      There's plenty more if you like.

      March 6, 2013 at 1:13 pm |
    • myweightinwords

      L4H,

      @myweightinwords : Stating an opinion is not slander.

      This qualification is not in your definition. So, you're adding to the true definition.

      An opinion isn't fact, therefore it is not a statement of fact and is not false. It can be formed based on false information, but it is still only opinion.

      And a statement that is not false is not slander.

      I add nothing to the dictionary definition.

      March 6, 2013 at 1:17 pm |
    • Defamate

      I know in my hearty of heartness our Lord and Savior God created the omnibus, therefore, ipso facto, e pluribus unum: God exists. Non-believers dwell in darkness, therefore, reductio ad absurdum, wingardium leviosa, they are weevil and don't see it because they are Blind and have no moral rocketivity. This is my testemony.

      March 6, 2013 at 2:09 pm |
    • fintastic

      @Lies for jeebus.........

      "When I first came here, this was all swamp. Everyone said I was daft to build a castle on a swamp, but I built in all the same, just to show them. It sank into the swamp. So I built a second one. That sank into the swamp. So I built a third. That burned down, fell over, then sank into the swamp. But the fourth one stayed up. And that's what you're going to get, Lad, the strongest castle in all of England."

      March 6, 2013 at 3:01 pm |
    • leonid7

      Austin, "In slander, you lie."

      That one of the first things you've gotten right all day. And since nobody lied, we can finally stop throwing around errant terms. Stating a belief that something is bad, good, dangerous, or safe is not a lie, it is a value judgement, which is an opinion. Setting the precedent you have, simply disagreeing with you makes someone a liar and slanderer. Not a very effective methodology for meaningful conversation.

      March 6, 2013 at 4:01 pm |
  16. Thoth

    The Palins, Santorums and Bachmanns of the world fail to see the irony, and hypocrisy in aspiring to 'God's Laws" over "man's laws"...even though the Bible and all it's stories, laws, creeds, etc... were written by middle-eastern men during a time of far less scientific understanding. Additionally, many of the 'laws' contained in the Bible (along with much content) were quite clearly borrowed from previous civilizations.

    March 6, 2013 at 10:13 am |
  17. errybody's problem

    The typical day of an atheist consists of patting oneself on the back for his or her success; going around and telling his or her friends that “God doesn’t exist”; getting offended by every person walking out of a church; looking for a four leaf clover; trying to memorize all of Stephen Hawkins’ arguments; throwing a penny into a wishing well; carrying a horse shoe; checking the Internet to make sure that their favorite celebrities are still atheists; watching their favorite episodes of “Survivor” and “Amish Mafia”; and disrespecting anyone with a religious background.

    March 6, 2013 at 9:49 am |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Knock off the spam, azzhole.

      March 6, 2013 at 9:52 am |
    • WASP

      @problem: ummmm four leaf clover, wishing well, horseshoe................i don't believe in your god of magic so why would we believe in lucky items?

      March 6, 2013 at 9:56 am |
    • Thoth

      Not even close to my 'typical day'. Should all we 'atheists' start making generalized presumptions about the 'typical day' of a Christian?

      March 6, 2013 at 9:59 am |
    • Science

      Sounds like a pi-ssed of Chad/live4him MAYBE

      Peace

      March 6, 2013 at 10:02 am |
    • Science

      Oops off

      March 6, 2013 at 10:03 am |
    • the AnViL

      i think he meant richard dawkins – not stephen hawking

      lolz

      March 6, 2013 at 10:03 am |
    • Saraswati

      I don’t believe in god and currently, aside from on discussion boards, I almost never discuss this. My friends and family already know one another’s positions and this isn’t an interesting issue. I am rarely near a church on Sunday mornings (hike with the dog) and pay no attention to churches.

      I have an idea that you are mixing up Stephen Hawkings with Richard Dawkins to get someone named Stephen Hawkins or am I missing someone? Anyway, I found Dawkins boring and never paid attention to Hawkings on God as I was more interested in the science.

      I have never watched Survivor and don’t know what Amish Mafia is. No, I’m not going to look it up.

      As for supersti’tions, there is in fact some evidence that atheists are more likely to hold non god-related supersti’tions so I’ll give you part of that one, though you over-extend the findings. Christians are equally reliant on supersti’tion and actually hold it at a higher rate: 100%. They just have a different area of supersti’tion than the much lower percent of atheists who hold other supersti’tions. 100% of Christians supersti’tious (when you count things like prayer) vs 30% (or so) of atheists still leaves a lot more supersti’tious Christians. The numbers only go down for Christians if you use a Christian bias and exclude Christian supersti’tions.

      March 6, 2013 at 10:20 am |
    • Doobs

      Not even close, but even if it was true, it's a better use of time than going to church and hearing how I was born bad and god will punish me if I don't believe in him.

      March 6, 2013 at 10:43 am |
    • KLARGAR

      Too bad you were born with only a brain stem.

      March 6, 2013 at 11:34 am |
    • fyi

      His name is Stephen Hawking (no 's').

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Hawking

      March 6, 2013 at 11:49 am |
    • fyi

      ... and correct, the other one is Richard Dawkins.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Dawkins

      March 6, 2013 at 11:51 am |
    • Mass Debater

      " getting offended by every person walking out of a church; looking for a four leaf clover; trying to memorize all of Stephen Hawkins’ arguments; throwing a penny into a wishing well"

      There are no atheists who are offended by someone throwing their own penny in the wishing well, it's just when a group of you get together and try to force the rest of us to throw our pennies in as well that we get upset.

      March 6, 2013 at 11:55 am |
  18. Austin

    Tom, Tom, the other one, Fair enough, on same basis is it does not condone war, it would not condone it on Jews. Furthermore it does say that the Jews wii be persecuted, but by who? Any there is unfilfilled prophecy pertaining to the millineal kingdom and the day of the lord, and passages that show that God still has a plan for israel in Israel, . Understanding this theology and prophesy easily shows the gross error in pointing toward validation of Christian persecution of israel.

    Can you share in Luther's view of persecuting Israel?

    March 6, 2013 at 9:46 am |
    • Austin

      Wrong place thread

      March 6, 2013 at 9:47 am |
    • Tom, Tom, the Other One

      I did respond on your thread.

      March 6, 2013 at 10:24 am |
    • fintastic

      @austin.......reply button challenged are we?

      March 6, 2013 at 11:08 am |
  19. Your god is just a myth

    Lets see here. I've been doing some research. God sent his son here so he could be tortured and excuted and used him as a scape goat so that I could be forgiven for a crime that someone else commited . Ok ! Now I got it! Yup ! Makes perfect sense.

    March 6, 2013 at 9:37 am |
    • lol??

      You are a criminal.

      March 6, 2013 at 10:23 am |
    • Akira

      Is lol??'S statement slander?

      March 6, 2013 at 11:38 am |
  20. Akira

    "Ok. Defamation. Slanderous defamation. Hawaii guest probably does not understand or believe in evil."

    You have deliberately misused what leonid7 just said, Austin; let me refresh your memory.
    .
    "And defamation, slander, and libel all require the deliberate use of misinformation. Again, opinion is none of the above..."

    HawaiiGuest states his OPINION. He is not slandering or defaming anyone. You have been told this. Please retain this information for future reference when you feel like getting hot and bothered because someone doesn't think, feel, or believe exactly as you do, all right?

    March 6, 2013 at 8:36 am |
    • Live4Him

      It IS slander but not enforceable in a court of law.

      March 6, 2013 at 10:24 am |
    • myweightinwords

      L4H,

      Slander: Noun
      The action or crime of making a false spoken statement damaging to a person's reputation.

      How is stating an opinion, which by it's very nature can not be "false" (it can be based on false information, but an opinion is not fact, so can not be false) slander?

      It is not. It is opinion and protected as free speech in the US.

      March 6, 2013 at 10:31 am |
    • Akira

      No, it is not slander.

      March 6, 2013 at 10:47 am |
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
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.