home
RSS
April 29th, 2013
10:51 AM ET

New film examines science vs. religion

(CNN) – Lawrence Krauss and Richard Dawkins discuss religion in the modern world and debate science in their new film.

- Dan Merica

Filed under: Atheism • Belief • Science

Next entry »
soundoff (1,595 Responses)
  1. Trance

    [youtube=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hKxk9TvyJrs&w=640&h=360]
    /

    May 3, 2013 at 1:55 pm |
  2. Trance

    [youtube=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hKxk9TvyJrs&w=640&h=360]
    ,,.

    May 3, 2013 at 1:55 pm |
  3. Salero21

    This is your daily reminder that atheism is stupidity in FULL bloom.

    These reminders will be a feature in these articles in the Belief blog, that purports to give atheism a relevance equal to belief and faith. Also humanism is akin with amoralism.

    May 3, 2013 at 1:47 pm |
    • Salero22

      This is your daily reminder that christianity is like sucking out man seed from a used condom thats been at the bottom of a porta-potty in FULL bloom.

      These reminders will be a feature in these articles in the Belief blog, that purports to give christianity a relevance equal to the painful dingleberry I extracted this morning. Also reigion is akin with stuffing your fist in your own backside while attempting to limbo.

      May 3, 2013 at 1:54 pm |
    • Salero21

      Salero22 is a stupid atheist.

      May 3, 2013 at 2:13 pm |
    • Which God?

      Sal'srodeo21 takes great delight in being a willful ignoramus, as well a having a one track mind, which was derailed when his mother dropped him on his head. She tried knocking some sense into him. Alas, we see it didn't work. She should have dropped him again on another track.

      May 3, 2013 at 2:21 pm |
  4. Trance

    [youtube=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hKxk9TvyJrs&w=640&h=360]
    =

    May 3, 2013 at 10:50 am |
  5. Vic

    Throughout my personal and professional experiences, I have come to the conclusion that even though Evolution/Abiogenesis is the official stand of the Scientific Community, it does not mean it is the prevailing hypothesis nor even personally accepted by scientists as the True Origin of Species/Life. I believe that the Scientific Community adopted Evolution/Abiogenesis as an accepted buffer until it arrived at the True Origin of Species/Life. That way, no one can have control over nor dictate what the Origin of Species/Life is.

    May 3, 2013 at 10:04 am |
    • Science

      The African Rift

      [youtube=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=okWkmgkS00w&w=640&h=360]

      Dover Trial Transcripts............................................. FACTS.

      Below are the complete transcripts from the Dover Trial. Thanks to our friends at the National Center for Science Education for helping us fill in the missing transcripts.

      http://www.aclupa.org/legal/legaldocket/intelligentdesigncase/dovertrialtranscripts.htm

      May 3, 2013 at 10:49 am |
    • Science

      Hey Vic

      Holy Hallucinations 35

      [youtube=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3XTCRdC8Dlo&w=640&h=360]

      May 3, 2013 at 10:51 am |
    • Vic

      Hey Science,

      Are you EMPIRICALLY PROVEN yet?! LOL!

      Cheers.

      May 3, 2013 at 11:19 am |
    • Moby Schtick

      Existence cares not whether it be empirically validated. It is. I am. I am that I am.

      Science does not claim absolutely that it knows how life began, nor does it claim to know every detail of how the evolutionary process operates. Science simply gives us the best analogies and models to describe what appears to occur by demonstrating the accuracy of the predictions based on reliable observation of similar events. It does not claim to "know" anything; it provides models that are proven to be accurate enough to allow measurable prediction.

      May 3, 2013 at 2:03 pm |
    • Which God?

      Vic, I take it that your professional experince has been to elude your viilage? They have been looking for their idiot. I suggest you go home.

      May 3, 2013 at 2:24 pm |
    • ME II

      @Vic,
      You are mixing two separate concepts.

      Evolution is well substantiated science and accepted the vast majority of scientists in related fields as the origin of species and the diversity of life that we see.

      The origin of life is not yet known, but is hypothesized to be some mechanism of abiogenesis, or life from non-life.

      They are actually completely unrelated.

      May 3, 2013 at 4:27 pm |
  6. Trance

    [youtube=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hKxk9TvyJrs&w=640&h=360]
    ~

    May 3, 2013 at 8:43 am |
  7. Atheism is not healthy for children and other living things

    Prayer changes things

    May 3, 2013 at 5:53 am |
    • Science

      Thanks for the help Cap't

      Einstein's Gravity Theory Passes Toughest Test Yet..........splat goes a fairy in the sky !

      Apr. 25, 2013 — A strange stellar pair nearly 7,000 light-years from Earth has provided physicists with a unique cosmic laboratory for studying the nature of gravity. The extremely strong gravity of a massive neutron star in orbit with a companion white dwarf star puts competing theories of gravity to a test more stringent than any available before.

      http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/04/130425142250.htm

      Hey James Madison................religion has none it looks like.............with the comments on this blog.

      The Big question is ETHICS ! does religion have any ?

      The Ethics of Resurrecting Extinct Species

      Apr. 8, 2013 — At some point, scientists may be able to bring back extinct animals, and perhaps early humans, raising questions of ethics and environmental disruption.

      http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/04/130408165955.htm

      April 30, 2013 at 4:16 pm | Report abuse |

      May 1, 2013 at 12:42 pm | Report abuse |

      May 3, 2013 at 6:39 am | Report abuse |

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

      By Jessica Ravitz, CNN

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

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

      https://religion.blogs.cnn.com/category/culture-science/

      May 3, 2013 at 7:27 am |
    • Science

      And NO ANGELS the pope KICKED them OFF the TEAM last year !

      From Soup to Cells—the Origin of Life

      http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/IIE2aOriginoflife.shtml

      May 3, 2013 at 8:46 am |
    • contemplativethinker

      prayer is belief. belief affects the mind biologically. atheism is NOT bad.

      May 4, 2013 at 1:44 pm |
  8. squaji

    all you need to know....right here....very funny

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/danweiss/ten-commandments-for-starting-your-own-religion_b_2729533.html

    May 2, 2013 at 10:56 pm |
  9. Salero21

    Always remember and never ever forget that atheism is stupidity in Full bloom. Also, humanism is akin to amoralism.

    May 2, 2013 at 10:11 pm |
    • Dippy

      We're not so stupid that we think "full" should be capitalized.

      May 2, 2013 at 10:38 pm |
    • tallulah13

      Salero is an epic fail as a troll. You'd think that a religion blog would be a great place for creative trolling, but the locals have gotten complacent and just downright dull. Hopefully, when school gets out we'll get a new generation of trollers, ones with fresh ideas instead of the stale dross we're getting now.

      May 4, 2013 at 1:54 pm |
  10. foomanchyu

    There are some overarching commonalities among all religions despite principles uniquely valuable to each. Some refer to them as the 'Golden Rules,' or the ethics of reciprocity. Religious 'conflict' today boils down to the matters of open-mindedness and the capacity to develop humanitarian-type worldviews. Religious strife and irrational acts arguably arise from 'skewed' interpretations of scriptures and differing opinions on the importance of certain principles... but then again, there's always the question of authority: who's to say 'right' from 'wrong'?

    There are different spiritual styles (religious orientations): quest, intrinsic, and extrinsic. Liberals tend to score high on quest religious orientation. A study showed that quest religion could be the source of universal compassion and altruism. I personally believe that these golden rules, which transcend almost all religions, are the core of them.

    II personally believe that almost every human being is born with an innate sense of morality that can be attributed to our evolutionary predisposition towards a stable, harmonious living environment. Our brains have evolved processes revolving around forgiveness, compassion, and social cooperation. I feel that developing a humanitarian acknowledgement of the separateness of a person (physical) from his/her beliefs is key in reducing religious violence. Where should the line between human rights and spiritual practices be drawn?

    P.S. The relatively novel interdisciplinary field of neurotheology is absolutely fascinating!

    May 2, 2013 at 6:42 pm |
    • Salero21

      Being Fascinated by something that is "fascinating" is not exactly the best of things.

      May 2, 2013 at 10:16 pm |
    • Dippy

      And we're not so stupid to think "fascinated" should be capitalized.

      May 2, 2013 at 10:41 pm |
    • The real Tom

      Apparently he has a fascination with the letter "F." Dippy.

      May 2, 2013 at 10:43 pm |
  11. akht

    check it yourself.
    http://www.islamforlife.co.uk/sciencefacts.htm

    May 2, 2013 at 6:22 pm |
  12. eaglesshine

    Why is it that the world wants to tell believers of God how to live? you cant control us we serve God not man! as a believer the world can do whatever it wants to do But you can not make me accept what we reject. The same way we can make the world accept what they reject. leave us alone do what you want but we will never accept what you live we have that right it was given to us by God!

    May 2, 2013 at 5:02 pm |
    • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

      When you leave everyone else alone, we will leave you alone.

      May 2, 2013 at 10:24 pm |
    • Holy Moley

      @eaglesshine said "...Why is it that the world wants to tell believers of God how to live?"

      Well, maybe it's because the believers of God want to tell the world how to live. History proves christianity has killed, tortured, burned and inquisitionized Millions that didn't agree with them. the Holy Wars and Crusades weren't about selling sheets and linen. The more recent "moral majority" has many more hypocrits than apostles. To be fair, the non-christian "other side" also seems intent on killing all the infidels, proving "their god" is god. Plenty of this going around, so the non-believers are just following your lead.

      May 3, 2013 at 11:30 am |
  13. Seewoo

    If the universe is a simulation, this means that science itself is a simulation.

    May 2, 2013 at 4:36 pm |
  14. JMEF

    Chad
    The MRFF was set up by a Jew who was discriminated against and later his sons while in the military. Inviting me a deist or an agnostic or atheist to a religious event that they decline should be the end of the story. You may not like the regulation but aggressive proselytizing is forbidden.

    May 2, 2013 at 2:11 pm |
    • Chad

      You'll need to define what "aggressive proselytizing " is exactly. What kind of behavior are you talking about, exactly.

      Discrimination of any kind based on religious preference is against the law. That is not sufficient for your purposes? what are you looking for additionally?

      May 2, 2013 at 2:20 pm |
    • Field Guide

      "You'll need to define what "aggressive proselytizing " is exactly"

      The creature identified by:

      Kingdom: Animalia
      Phylum: Chordata
      Class: Mammalia
      Order: Rodentia
      Family: Cricetidae
      Subfamily: Arvicolinae
      Tribe: Lemmini*

      are unable to smell their own odor.

      (informal name examples: Chad, Topher, Austin)

      May 2, 2013 at 2:45 pm |
    • Richard Cranium

      Chad
      "Discrimination of any kind based on religious preference is against the law"

      True, so the position of chaplain is by it very nature discriminatory and needs to be removed.
      The is no problem though if a soldier was an infantry man and in his off time a chaplian.

      May 2, 2013 at 2:49 pm |
    • JMEF

      Chad..I do not have to define anything that you would twist to you disingenuous interpretation. Other posters can figure out the meaning if you cannot tough sh1t, do not feel like playing your silly game.

      May 2, 2013 at 2:52 pm |
    • Chad

      smart move, better to not define "aggressive proselytizing"
      – that way you can later on make it mean whatever you want
      – you dont then have to explain why we arent already covered by the existing prohibition on the basis of a persons religion

      May 2, 2013 at 2:57 pm |
    • JMEF

      Chad... Those of us that have followed you for some time know that answering you is just like throwing gas on the fire for your disingenuous statements. If you are so stupid to not know what aggressive means, I rest my case. I take it you have never been in a military environment?

      May 2, 2013 at 3:16 pm |
    • Mass Debater

      Because Chad uses the same dishonest arguments daily I think his motivation is just to get people to read the bible which is fine, he just shouldn't expect the same conclusions from others as he came to himself. Once he knows you have read the bible he usually backs off and heads to another thread somewhere.

      May 2, 2013 at 3:24 pm |
    • ME II

      "The Defense Department released the statement to Fox news, which reads, 'Religious proselytization is not permitted within the Department of Defense' and punishments can include court-martial." (http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/us/2013/May/Atheists-Seek-Pentagon-Crack-Down-on-Proselytizing/)

      May 2, 2013 at 3:41 pm |
    • Chad

      what it shows is that you are unwilling to clearly articulate what "aggressive proselytizing" means in practice.

      May 2, 2013 at 4:03 pm |
    • JMEF

      Chad.... Why are you being so obtuse? The are separate words, aggressive, look it up, proselytizing, look it up, putting them together does not change the meanings.

      May 2, 2013 at 4:11 pm |
    • In Santa we trust

      Chad,
      Is it acceptable for a workplace superior to make a subordinate act according to the superior's religion?
      Is it acceptable for someone to persistently try to sell you merchandise or tell you about their religion?
      I think both you and Topher feel it is acceptable when it is the christian on the "giving" end but I doubt you'd be as happy to be on the "receiving" end.
      Christians on here complain about Islam's dictate to spread the word but seem OK with christians doing just that.

      May 2, 2013 at 4:11 pm |
    • JMEF

      Chad....Perhaps an example, disingenuous posting, look up disingenuous, then look up posting, then look in a mirror.

      May 2, 2013 at 4:15 pm |
    • Chad

      @Santa "Is it acceptable for a workplace superior to make a subordinate act according to the superior's religion?"
      @Chad "no, that is currently illegal, see Ti tle VII of Civil Rights Act of 1964"

      @Santa "Is it acceptable for someone to persistently try to sell you merchandise or tell you about their religion?"
      @Chad "define "persistently". Laws are in place preventing harassment. But if someone wants to offer me a deal at the McDonalds I walk past every day, there is no law against that. There are no laws against Hare Krishnas in airports for example, or street preaching.

      ===
      @Santa "II think both you and Topher feel it is acceptable when it is the christian on the "giving" end but I doubt you'd be as happy to be on the "receiving" end"
      @Chad "I hear from environmentalists and atheists every day, doesnt bother me. Why would it? I'm not about to tell anyone what they can and can not say in public (unlike atheists..) unless it endangers someone.

      May 2, 2013 at 5:03 pm |
    • JMEF

      Chad.... Define rectal orifice, look in the mirror?

      May 2, 2013 at 6:06 pm |
    • JMEF

      Chad...Is thar the best you can do.. define... define....define.....why do not you define for a fu -cking change , always questions no answers.

      May 2, 2013 at 6:33 pm |
    • In Santa we trust

      Chad,
      Christians, despite separation of church and state, do try to impose their beliefs on the rest of us – religion taught as science, their god on the currency, their religion at public events, their religious symbol on public buildings, their religious beliefs as the basis of laws, etc.
      The point I was making about the superior is that is exactly what happens frequently in the military – so it sounds as if you agree that a religious officer should not be allowed to impose his/her religion on his/her subordinates.

      May 2, 2013 at 6:35 pm |
    • Which God?

      Ther is another Chad, posting like this, on another blog. That other Chad is female. and sound like this Ched posting here. This Chad never "sounded" masculine to me.

      May 3, 2013 at 2:38 pm |
  15. Honey Badger Don't Care!

    Topher, (or any other christian)

    What year do you think that the flood supposedly occurred?

    May 2, 2013 at 1:56 pm |
    • G.T.

      2370 B.C.E.

      May 2, 2013 at 2:37 pm |
    • Honey Badger Don't Care!

      G.T.,

      Just as a followup question, how did you come by that answer?

      May 2, 2013 at 2:39 pm |
    • Chad

      The bible doesnt say when it occurred.

      It is a common misunderstanding on the part of atheists unfamiliar with the bible that it identifies a date..

      May 2, 2013 at 5:06 pm |
    • Chuckles

      @Chad

      Honey badger just asked a question, didn't imply a date, didn't state any specific date, he just asked. So when do you think it happened. You don't even have to use the bible to find the date, search through the fossil record and show where apparently the entire earth was covered in water.

      Go on, I can wait.

      May 2, 2013 at 5:10 pm |
    • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

      @Chad,

      yet the same young earth creationists who count all the begats come up with ~6,000 years for Genesis 1. They can come up with a date for the hypothetical flood.

      Are they heretical because they truly believe that the bible implies a date?

      May 2, 2013 at 5:10 pm |
    • Chad

      @Chuckles " So when do you think it happened "
      @chad "I have no idea, an extremely long time ago"

      ======
      @GOPer "yet the same young earth creationists who count all the begats come up with ~6,000 years for Genesis 1. They can come up with a date for the hypothetical flood. Are they heretical because they truly believe that the bible implies a date?"
      @Chad "why would they be heretical for thinking that? A person gets to spend eternity with the God of Israel when they accept the atoning sacrifice of His Son Jesus Christ.
      There are no other entrance exams.

      For all I know, I could be wrong about theistic evolution and God could have indeed created the universe with it's "age" built in to it as young earth people believe. Photons in the process, fossils in the ground, evidence of past changes in the polarity of the the earth's magnetic field all of that built in. I dont think I'm wrong, but I certainly could be.
      I dont really sweat it, because it doesnt bear on my getting into heaven.

      May 2, 2013 at 6:20 pm |
    • Chuckles

      @Chad

      "@Chuckles " So when do you think it happened "
      @chad "I have no idea, an extremely long time ago""

      - Not good enough. If you believe the claim that a worldwide flood happened within the span of 40 days during one point of earths history, there would be evidence of such an event, plain and simple. Like I said above, go search through the fossil record, I can wait. However, saying you think it happened but you don't know a date because you have no evidence of such an event is not a good enough answer, not nearly good enough.

      May 2, 2013 at 6:27 pm |
    • Chad

      @Chuckles " So when do you think it happened "
      @chad "I have no idea, an extremely long time ago""
      @Chuckles "Not good enough. If you believe the claim that a worldwide flood happened within the span of 40 days during one point of earths history, there would be evidence of such an event, plain and simple"

      @Chad "ahhhh, you didnt really want to know when I thought it happened (a question to which "I dont know when it happened is certainly a response), you want me to speculate when it happened..

      A. It is not clear from the bible if the flood was local or global. You dont like it, but it's a fact. There have been discussions about whether or not the flood was local or global for literally hundreds of years, long before our understanding of geology has matured to it's current state.
      B. There is simply no way of knowing when the flood occurred. Adding up the "begats" is not what genealogies are there for.
      C. We dont know that a global flood DIDNT happen, see Bruce Masse's work for example.

      May 2, 2013 at 6:49 pm |
    • Science

      Chad.............rather read the fossil records................... OK........... education for works or children !

      First Snapshot of Organisms Eating Each Other: Feast Clue to Smell of Ancient Earth

      Apr. 29, 2013 — Tiny 1,900 million-year-old fossils from rocks around Lake Superior, Canada, give the first ever snapshot of organisms eating each other and suggest what the ancient Earth would have smelled like.

      http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/04/130429154107.htm

      By the way thanks again for the HELP !

      May 2, 2013 at 7:06 pm |
    • Chuckles

      @Chad

      Speculation has nothing to do with it. This isn't a philisophical question. This a question that should have cold, hard facts either supporting it or not.

      Next, show me where this "debate" is happening that the flood all of a sudden is a "local" event even though the bible says it was when it happened, it flooded the entire world. Furthermore, the flood supposedly wiped out everyone in the entire world except 8 people so if it was local....

      I also pointed out you don't need to use the bible and count the begats to find the age of an event that effected the entire world. You can go on all day about geneological telescoping all you want, but in this instance, such an event could be supported by external evidence. Like I have asked twice now, show me in the fossil record a global flood event that coincides throughout the entire world. It doesn't even need to have happened in the last 6,000 years, I'll give you all 4.3 billion years of earths history to find a singular, global flood event.

      I can wait......

      Masses work hypothesizes a comet smashed into earth creating giant tsunamis and super hurricanes. Fine, that's a solid hypothesis and might be possible. However there are a couple of problems. One, the event was completely non supernatural and again does not need a god to account for it. B) The bible says that the entire world perished except for 8 people which is contrary to the epic of Gilgamesh or South American flood myths where people clearly survived. C) A global flood means that water covered the entire earth. Even if Masse's work is correct and this insanely huge event occured over the course of human history and was passed down orally and later written down, it's hyperbolic at best because I'm sure you can agree with me places like Everest, K2, etc.. which are above the cloud line and immune from giant tsunamis would not have been covered in water.

      I know you were answering a question, "when did it happen" and yet I still see no precise date. This isn't a philisophical question chad, so please, try again.

      May 2, 2013 at 7:21 pm |
    • Chad

      @Chuckles "This a question that should have cold, hard facts either supporting it or not."
      @Chad "lol, sorry to disappoint you, but I dont have all the answers."

      ====
      @Chuckles "Next, show me where this "debate" is happening that the flood all of a sudden is a "local" event even though the bible says it was when it happened, it flooded the entire world. Furthermore, the flood supposedly wiped out everyone in the entire world except 8 people so if it was local...."
      @Chad "actually, you are speculating.. it's quite amazing what you can learn if you do some investigation.
      see for example: http://www.conservapedia.com/Great_Flood

      http://biologos.org/questions/genesis-flood

      ====
      @Chuckles "supported by external evidence. Like I have asked twice now, show me in the fossil record a global flood event that coincides throughout the entire world. It doesn't even need to have happened in the last 6,000 years, I'll give you all 4.3 billion years of earths history to find a singular, global flood event."
      @Chad "See for example Masseys work for possible global flood. See also Robert Ballard's work on a localized flood.

      ====
      @Chuckles "..., the event was completely non supernatural and again does not need a god to account for it. ..."
      @Chad "I have this mental image of you making fun of your neighbor Noah for hundreds of years while he build this gigantic boat in his driveway, mocking his repeated warnings that a flood was coming

      then watching this comet go past

      then bobbing in the water

      .... glub.. glub... "NOAH!!!"
      glub... "NOAH! this doesnt prove ANYTHING!!"
      .... glub.. glub...
      .... glub.. glub... .... glub.. glub...
      .... glub.. NOAH YOU RETARD, COMETS ARE NATURAL...

      .... glub.. glub... NOAH, CAN YOU HEAR ME???
      .... glub.. glub... .... glub.. glub... .... glub.. glub...

      May 2, 2013 at 8:50 pm |
    • Chuckles

      @Chad "lol, sorry to disappoint you, but I dont have all the answers."

      - for a guy saying he doesn't have all the answers he sure acts like he does. You're not disappointing me by saying you don't know. I've said it more than once and I'll say it again. Admitting ignorance is the first step towards learning. It's a shame that you are able to say you don't know and you don't have all the answers and yet conversely believe you have more answers than I do....

      ====

      @Chad "actually, you are speculating.. it's quite amazing what you can learn if you do some investigation.
      see for example:
      –Actually, the only "speculation" going on here is you considering I'm only basing what I believe off of facts that we currently have (there was no global flood thus the noah story is false) and you are speculating (the noah story is real, here is some suspect evidence)

      The websites you provided by the way are also conjecture and apologetic bull that you so strongly favor. The website, like many things you post, realize the ridiculousness of the postulations and try and pretend the story is allegorical rather than literal. My favorite was probably when one of your "sources" talks about going into a specific word translations about it being "land" instead of "world" but ignores the fact that god wanted to destroy all of creation..... More apologetic bullish.it where you try and rationalize one part so much and pretend like the other part doesn't exist.

      ====

      @Chad "See for example Masseys work for possible global flood. See also Robert Ballard's work on a localized flood.
      - Localized flood, entirely possible, actually is probable. You don't have to convince me of that. Masse's work discusses the possibility of a global event (note: not a global flood, which has different implications). Do you need me to hold you hand while we walk through how non of these needs a god?

      ====
      @Chad "I have this mental image of you making fun of your neighbor Noah for hundreds of years while he build this gigantic boat in his driveway, mocking his repeated warnings that a flood was coming"
      - Funny guy, really hilarious. Tell me, do you listen to all the doomsdayers on the street? What about Harold Camping? He thought the same thing and yet it looks like so far he has a horrible record and I get to laugh at the sad man saying the sky is falling. So lets ask ourselves, should we take every doomsdayer seriously because one could be right?

      My answer: no, your answer: yes!

      May 2, 2013 at 10:30 pm |
  16. JMEF

    Chad
    Sorry, no. If you invited someone to a religious event and they declined end of the story. It is only when you insist that a Jew, Muslim, Deist or Atheist conform to the Christian majority view that rises to the level of aggressive proselytizing and discrimination. The founder of MRFF was a Jew and found discrimination in the military and is doing his best to ensure freedom of religion and harassment in the military no matter what the beliefs of the individual.

    May 2, 2013 at 1:45 pm |
    • Chad

      You'll need to define what "conform to the Christian majority view" is exactly. What kind of behavior are you talking about, exactly.

      Discrimination of any kind based on religious preference is against the law. That is not sufficient for your purposes? what are you looking for additionally?

      May 2, 2013 at 2:04 pm |
    • sam stone

      "Discrimination of any kind based on religious preference is against the law"

      Perhaps you should convey that to your felllow christians (including gopher) who want to deny gays their civil rights based on the concept that the gays are sinning

      May 2, 2013 at 2:19 pm |
    • Chad

      @Chad "Discrimination of any kind based on religious preference is against the law"

      @sam stone "Perhaps you should convey that to your felllow christians (including gopher) who want to deny gays their civil rights based on the concept that the gays are sinning"

      @Chad "how exactly are gays being denied a civil right?
      Unless a particular state changes the definition of marriage to include same sex unions, it is not a civil rights issue.

      May 2, 2013 at 2:25 pm |
    • Chuckles

      @Chad

      Of course it's a civil rights issue. If marriage were strictly a religious ritual then you might have a point. It's not like jews have to allow non-jews to get bar mitzvahed in any legal capacity. But marriage isn't strictly a religious ceremony, it cocerns many different facets of our legal system and there are certain tax exemptions for married vs. single people, different rights for married people (ie visiting a spouse in the hospital vs. barring anyone that isn't family).

      As of now, gay people are denied the right to get marriage and gain this status within the US simply because your religion has determined these people are "sinning".

      So tell me again how this isn't a civil rights issue?

      May 2, 2013 at 2:30 pm |
    • sam stone

      chad: the supreme court said it was a civil right in 1967

      May 2, 2013 at 2:35 pm |
    • Chad

      @sam stone "the supreme court said it was a civil right in 1967"

      @Chad "no..
      the supreme court said that marriage between a man and a woman is a civil rights issue.

      Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967),[1] was a landmark civil rights decision of the United States Supreme Court which invalidated laws prohibiting interracial marriage and ending all race-based legal restrictions on marriage in the United States

      =====
      @Chuckles,

      you seemingly do not understand what a civil rights issue is..
      Unless and until a state changes it's definition of marriage to include same sex unions, it is not a civil rights issue.

      May 2, 2013 at 2:47 pm |
    • Chuckles

      @Chad

      You seem to think that a) civil unions somehow don't exist and b) that in order for something to "become" a civil rights issue it has to be changed in a consti.tution. I can as.sure Chad, that things get changed BECAUSE they're civil rights issues. Civil rights issues are not the product of a change, but vice versa. Do you really not understand that? Are you saying slavery wasn't a civil rights issue until the emancipation proclamation?

      So please, enlighten me and everyone else here how exactly this isn't a civil rights issue again?

      May 2, 2013 at 2:54 pm |
    • JMEF

      Chad....Again do not have to define anything to you, if you are to stupid to understand a simple sentence, you are confused, you do not understand, you are actually full of crap using dishonest debating techniques but that is all you are good at.

      May 2, 2013 at 2:56 pm |
    • Science

      Thanks for the help Chad !

      May 2, 2013 at 3:05 pm |
    • Paul

      Chad, in reality the decision stated

      Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival

      I don't see where it mentions the s.ex of the people getting married at all. Can you show otherwise?

      May 2, 2013 at 3:09 pm |
    • JMEF

      Chad
      Not that I think you will understand but when I was in the military there were church parades or services and it did not matter if you were a Jew, Muslim, Agnostic, or Atheist you were ordered under pain of discipline to attend what was a Christian service. I also found that an evangie fundie would take great pleasure in throwing their faith in your face and haras-sment was not unusual, cue aggressive.

      May 2, 2013 at 3:29 pm |
    • sam stone

      chad: if it is a civil right for one group of citizens, but not another, it is not a civil right

      the supreme court is going to take this down, too.

      they will use the same just(14th amendment)

      then you, gopher, doogie, et al, can go fvck yourselves

      May 2, 2013 at 4:29 pm |
    • Chad

      @sam stone " if it is a civil right for one group of citizens, but not another, it is not a civil right"
      =>so then, I assume you are all for extending the definition of marriage to include polygamy, adult/child, human/animal, human/object, etc, etc..

      after all, you're all about unfettered civil rights, right?

      May 2, 2013 at 6:23 pm |
    • midwest rail

      When did animals and objects become citizens ? When did children become legally able to enter into a contract ?

      May 2, 2013 at 6:25 pm |
  17. Mary

    Why doesn't Richard Dawkins go back to hosting Family Feud?

    May 2, 2013 at 12:58 pm |
    • Cpt. Obvious

      Stupid troll is stupid.

      May 2, 2013 at 12:59 pm |
    • Truth Prevails :-)

      When did Richard Dawkins ever host Family Feud?? I think you're looking for Richard Dawson...not quite the brilliant man that Dawkins is.

      May 2, 2013 at 1:27 pm |
    • Bill Deacon

      Which one comes from a family of slaveholders?

      May 2, 2013 at 1:40 pm |
    • Dan

      Dawson, Dawkins, it's all the same to a moron. More than a few conservative Christian women wanted a kiss from old grease face, likely because they weren't getting any at home from their closeted gay Christian husbands.

      May 2, 2013 at 1:40 pm |
    • In Santa we trust

      Bill, In common with many US presidents. What matters is what RD thinks and does.

      May 2, 2013 at 1:45 pm |
    • fintastic

      I really hope Mary was joking................ yes?

      May 2, 2013 at 1:46 pm |
    • Dippy

      I think Mary truly is a moron.

      May 2, 2013 at 8:03 pm |
    • Rich

      Thanks Mary. That was pretty dang funny. It was a nice break from everyone pistol whipping poor Chad.

      Who cares what Chad believes? It's not like he's a doctor or anything. He doesn't have to believe in evolution to get through life. As long as he's not trying to teach religion in the publics it really doesn't matter what he believes, to anyone but him of course.

      I did notice he said he wasn't a young earth creationist, though.

      May 3, 2013 at 5:19 am |
    • Rich

      That was teach religion in public schools, by the way.

      May 3, 2013 at 5:26 am |
  18. Brother Maynard

    A bit off topic ... but ...
    Xtians question for you -
    Where do the souls of aborted babies go ?

    May 2, 2013 at 12:56 pm |
    • Richard Cranium

      Apparently unborn babies don't have souls.

      Many xtians think they need to be born again for their soul to be able to reach heaven, they are not conceived again, so the conceived yet unborn must not have a soul.

      May 2, 2013 at 1:00 pm |
    • Bill Deacon

      Hi genius! Here's the catechism:

      2322 From its conception, the child has the right to life. Direct abortion, that is, abortion willed as an end or as a means, is a "criminal" practice (GS 27 § 3), gravely contrary to the moral law. The Church imposes the canonical penalty of excommunication for this crime against human life.

      2323 Because it should be treated as a person from conception, the embryo must be defended in its integrity, cared for, and healed like every other human being.

      So, while the souls of the aborted are in the hands of God along with the souls of others who have been killed. It is the souls of those who participate in abortion who should be asking the question for themselves.

      May 2, 2013 at 1:38 pm |
    • chubby rain

      Bill, half of all pregnancies naturally miscarry. That's a lot of souls never born because God is a really bad "intelligent" designer. Or a monster.

      May 2, 2013 at 2:05 pm |
    • Brother Maynard

      Bill Deacon sez:
      "So, while the souls of the aborted are in the hands of God"
      So the church wants to "save" these babies so they can go through pain and suffering ( and to be fair pleasure and joy ) that life enevitably ( sp? ) gives just so they can go to the place where they would be with out pain and suffering?
      So actually for the baby ... abortion is a GOOD thing. They are in heaven with god right?

      May 2, 2013 at 2:26 pm |
    • SImran

      IT'S ME.......... GOD
      By Jay Martel

      Here’s my problem: I don’t believe in people.

      To me, human beings and their world are nothing more than the product of our collective imagination, a sad manifestation of our need to feel important beyond our actual existence. I also can’t help feeling that our lives would be better if no one believed in people; only then would we be able to truly deal with our problems without nursing the delusion of a universe that’s completely dependent on us.

      The bottom line is that there are no easy answers to the questions we all have about life.

      Why are we here? Why are we all-seeing, all-knowing and immortal? How are we able to be everywhere at the same time?

      I don’t pretend to know. I do know, however, that these questions are not made easier by believing there’s a planet of people somewhere out there who depend on us to land their planes safely.

      Like most of us, I was raised by parents who believed in the existence of people. Before every meal and every bedtime, we would sit quietly, “listening” to their prayers, and every Sunday morning I was awakened early so we could all go sit on our heavenly thrones for an hour, pretending to be worshipped.

      How ridiculous that all seems now!

      At the time, though, I never questioned any of it. In fact, for most of my teens, I spoke to a person named Moses who I believed was completely dependent on my advice. I now realize, of course, that this was nothing more than a delusion I needed in order to break free of my cloying parents and their needs.

      As I grew, persistent questions nagged at me. I asked my father: If we have ultimate power over peoples’ lives, why can’t we just make them perfect and alleviate their suffering? That way, they wouldn’t need to pray anymore, and we wouldn’t need to listen!

      My father shook his head with a long-suffering look as if he’d caught me playing with his best lightning bolts. He explained to me that of course we couldn’t intervene in peoples’ lives like that, because then how would they grow and become purer souls? It’s hard to believe that I actually believed this. Absolutely crazy - the idea that we created people just to torture them!

      After rejecting my parents’ faith, I dabbled in different forms of people-belief. For a while, I believed that people became happier when they killed animals for me. Then I believed that I buried a gold tablet for people to find. I even flirted with even flakier religions, believing that the peoples’ sun wouldn’t rise in the morning if I didn’t haul it up with my chariot (I was on anti-depressants at the time).

      Then, at perhaps my lowest point, I imagined that I had a son who I sent to the people to do with as they wished - some kind of bizarre loaner, I guess.

      Then I had a breakthrough: Why did the people I believed in need me so badly?

      If I truly had dominion over every aspect of their lives, as I was led to believe, why were they so screwed up? I was familiar with the arguments of theologians - that somehow peoples’ sorry existence was further proof of their need for me. But I just couldn’t buy it anymore.

      Since throwing off the shackles of believing in people, it hasn’t been easy living in a culture where everyone seems to think they’ve talked to some guy in a desert. When I recently tried to get medical help for my now-senile father - who actually believed that dead people with wings had come to live with him - I was told that my father was “comforted” by this delusion.

      When will we realize that there is nothing comforting about ignorance?

      I’m frequently asked: Don’t you sometimes, late at night, at your lowest moments, wish that you were worshipped? When the chips are down, when you feel completely worthless, don’t you wish you could hear the prayers of billions of people asking you for help and comfort?

      And I would not be completely truthful if I didn’t say that sometimes, I do. After all, I’m only a god.

      May 2, 2013 at 2:28 pm |
    • Bill Deacon

      Br. Maynard, yes, I think that is my point. The babies are martyred. It is the souls of the killers who are in jeopardy.

      May 2, 2013 at 2:37 pm |
    • Brother Maynard

      Bill Deacon
      "Because it should be treated as a person from conception, the embryo must be defended in its integrity, cared for, and healed like every other human being."
      So if is the SOUL of the mother that is at issue ... WHY does the catechism need to defend the baby?
      2323 is really useless

      May 2, 2013 at 2:55 pm |
    • Science

      No soles Bill ........... except on the bottom of shoe.............can be replaced or repaired !

      May 2, 2013 at 2:56 pm |
    • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

      If souls are eternal, where were they before conception?

      May 2, 2013 at 5:07 pm |
    • Chad

      @GOPer "If souls are eternal, where were they before conception?"

      =>the bible doesnt say that souls are eternal in the "past", merely that they are eternal in the future (unless you are an annihilationist)

      May 2, 2013 at 5:11 pm |
    • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

      @Chad,

      it is your hypothesis that God magics souls into existence at the point of conception then?

      Much keep him pretty busy.

      May 2, 2013 at 5:15 pm |
    • Chad

      @GOPer "it is your hypothesis that God magics souls into existence at the point of conception then?"

      =>I dont really know, the bible is silent on the topic, it doesnt say souls are eternal in the "past" or not eternal in the "past"

      The God of Israel created the entire universe by "speaking" it into existence, do you think souls present a real problem?

      May 2, 2013 at 5:25 pm |
    • Science

      Wow chad again..........thanks for the help !

      May 2, 2013 at 7:22 pm |
    • Rich

      I'm pretty sure the souls of aborted babies go where ever God chooses. God is not bound by anyone's dogma.

      May 3, 2013 at 5:24 am |
  19. JMEF

    A court martial for intimidating and discrimination.
    Missed your answer on the pope thread, short form....
    How did your 8 people from the ark manage to build many major pyramids in Egypt between 2500 and 2000 BC?

    May 2, 2013 at 12:41 pm |
    • JMEF

      Meant as reply for Topher.

      May 2, 2013 at 12:43 pm |
  20. In the News

    (from radio.foxnews.com)

    By Todd Starnes

    Religious liberty groups have grave concerns after they learned the Pentagon is vetting its guide on religious tolerance with a group that compared Christian evangelism to “rape” and advocated that military personnel who proselytize should be court martialed.

    The Military Religious Freedom Foundation is calling on the Air Force to enforce a regulation that they believe calls for the court martial of any service member caught proselytizing.

    President Mikey Weinstein and others from his organization met privately with Pentagon officials on April 23. He said U.S. troops who proselytize are guilty of sedition and treason and should be punished – by the hundreds if necessary – to stave off what he called a “tidal wave of fundamentalists.”

    “Someone needs to be punished for this,” Weinstein told Fox News. “Until the Air Force or Army or Navy or Marine Corps punishes a member of the military for unconstitutional religious proselytizing and oppression, we will never have the ability to stop this horrible, horrendous, dehumanizing behavior.” . . .

    full article:

    http://radio.foxnews.com/toddstarnes/top-stories/pentagon-religious-proselytizing-is-not-permitted.html

    May 2, 2013 at 11:42 am |
    • Topher

      Religious tolerance/rights starting to go away ...

      May 2, 2013 at 11:58 am |
    • WASP

      @CHRIS-topher: let's see some religious tolerance from religion first then we can talk. 🙂

      your right to believe in religion and my right to say you're crazy are both protected from any governmental body trying to take them away, so stop being so paranoid.

      answer to you being paranoid: nevermind i found the root of the problem.............FAUX NEWS. they're not right leaning at all. XD

      May 2, 2013 at 12:07 pm |
    • Topher

      WASP

      "let's see some religious tolerance from religion first then we can talk."

      Like what?

      "your right to believe in religion and my right to say you're crazy are both protected from any governmental body trying to take them away, so stop being so paranoid. "

      I hope you're right. The problem is that I think it WILL go away ... part of leading up to the end times. But for now, I support your right to think I'm crazy. 😉

      "answer to you being paranoid: nevermind i found the root of the problem.............FAUX NEWS. they're not right leaning at all. XD"

      Don't tell me who wrote the story. Tell me if it's true. A court martial for witnessing? Wow.

      May 2, 2013 at 12:22 pm |
    • In Santa we trust

      Topher, So if you were in the military and your CO were a Sikh and insisted you wear a turban you would rightly resist. Why should Christians be allowed to force their religion on others?
      Separation of chuch and state is under constant threat as it is.

      May 2, 2013 at 12:31 pm |
    • Chad

      Amazing how intolerant the "new atheists" are.

      Would these regulations prevent an atheist from discussing his/her atheism?

      lol, for some reason, I doubt it.

      May 2, 2013 at 12:46 pm |
    • JMEF

      Topher
      A court martial for intimidation and discrimination.
      Missed your answer on the pope thread, short form...
      How did your 8 people from the ark manage to build many major pyramids in Egypt between 2500 to 2000 BC?

      May 2, 2013 at 12:46 pm |
    • Topher

      In Santa we trust

      "Topher, So if you were in the military and your CO were a Sikh and insisted you wear a turban you would rightly resist. "

      Not the same thing that's going on here.

      "Why should Christians be allowed to force their religion on others?"

      No Christian I know of is forcing their religion on anyone. Witnessing is not forcing their religion on you. If a Sikh wants to tell me about his religion, have at it. He's not forcing it on me. If anything it would be good information. Making me wear a turban would be.

      "Separation of chuch and state is under constant threat as it is."

      I agree ... apparently by the government.

      May 2, 2013 at 12:47 pm |
    • trollintraining

      It is so expected that you religious nuts will take things out of context to make a false point.

      May 2, 2013 at 12:56 pm |
    • Topher

      JMEF

      The story says the group "compared Christian evangelism to “r.a.p.e.” and advocated that military personnel who proselytize should be court martialed."

      May 2, 2013 at 12:56 pm |
    • sam stone

      Evangelism is funny to begin with. Evangelists should be publicly ridiculed, whether they are TV preachers or blog preachers.

      May 2, 2013 at 12:59 pm |
    • Topher

      Sam Stone

      That's fine. But it shouldn't be illegal.

      May 2, 2013 at 1:01 pm |
    • sam stone

      "Witnessing is not forcing their religion on you."

      How is it not?

      May 2, 2013 at 1:02 pm |
    • sam stone

      There are many employers who would not allow an employee to proslytize to another employee. At my place of employment, it falls under the EEO regulations

      May 2, 2013 at 1:04 pm |
    • JMEF

      Chad
      Normally your comments state those that respond have not investigated the topic. It is not discussion that is the problem but aggressive evangelical proselytizing .

      May 2, 2013 at 1:04 pm |
    • sam stone

      "Religious tolerance/rights starting to go away "

      You are a fine one to talk about tolerance

      May 2, 2013 at 1:08 pm |
    • sam stone

      "Like what? "

      Like denying a groupl of people their civil rights because you feel they are sinning

      May 2, 2013 at 1:09 pm |
    • Bea

      It should be obvious that the complaint is about proselytizing and not just "discussion" as Chad puts it. I would think there is just not enough time in the service for someone to steal some of it for such purposes. If there was time, then it's still taxpayer time, aside from the emotional stress associated with constantly receiving unrequested "sermons".

      May 2, 2013 at 1:10 pm |
    • Topher

      sam stone

      "How is it not?"

      Because it's just talking. I'm not forcing you to do anything. If you don't want to hear it, you can turn them down.

      May 2, 2013 at 1:11 pm |
    • sam stone

      If they turn you down and you continue witnessing, is that forcing it upon them?

      May 2, 2013 at 1:12 pm |
    • trollintraining

      Yo! Morons!
      This is about not letting people push religion on foriegn soil!
      This is not new policy. We did not allow our troops to hand out bibles in Iraq. This is the same issue.
      It does not mean they cannot preach to whoever wants to listen here at home – on their own time and not in uniform or representing the US armed forces.

      May 2, 2013 at 1:13 pm |
    • sam stone

      Whether you are forcing me to do anything or not, it is still forcing your opinion on those who do not want to hear it

      May 2, 2013 at 1:13 pm |
    • Chad

      " It is not discussion that is the problem but aggressive evangelical proselytizing "

      =>actually, you are 100% incorrect
      The Military Religious Freedom Foundation is calling on the Air Force to enforce a regulation that they believe calls for the court martial of any service member caught proselytizing.

      Such a regulation would allow anyone that invited a person to a Christian service or shared the Gospel with another to be court martialed.

      Those are the facts.

      May 2, 2013 at 1:15 pm |
    • Topher

      sam stone

      "Like denying a groupl of people their civil rights because you feel they are sinning"

      Ah, so your complaint is I'm opposed to immorality and giving an endorsement to something that isn't yet their legal right but you're OK with taking away something that is currently a right. So what you're saying is you're a hypocrit.

      May 2, 2013 at 1:16 pm |
    • Topher

      sam stone

      "If they turn you down and you continue witnessing, is that forcing it upon them?"

      THEN you might have a complaint. Maybe. Depends on the situation.

      May 2, 2013 at 1:18 pm |
    • DavidTX

      Christian proselytizing in the military is just like r a p e. You are in a confined location where you are forced to work and live, albeit by choice when you sign up, but now forced by threat of disciplinary action, and surrounded by peers who outrank you who have a power over you and your future based on what they think of you. Are you a team player? Are you a Christian? If not they will push and push and push, using their rank to force their belief system on you. They use peer pressure, shame, name calling and hazing to intimidate non-Christians to join their clubs. It is mental, physical and emotional r a p e in every sense of the word and should be stopped.

      May 2, 2013 at 1:19 pm |
    • Topher

      Sam

      So you're opposed to people having opinions? Do you have contact with any people at any time? Everyone has opinions and they live their lives by them. That includes you.

      May 2, 2013 at 1:20 pm |
    • R.M. Goodswell

      DaveTX

      well said.

      May 2, 2013 at 1:21 pm |
    • Bea

      Yes, DavidTX, I believe there have already been articles about this, maybe even here on this blog.

      May 2, 2013 at 1:23 pm |
    • sam stone

      topher: i am not against people having opinions. i don't know why would even suggest that other than to create a strawman. i am against people forcing others to listen to their opinions

      May 2, 2013 at 1:23 pm |
    • sam stone

      topher: explain how someone can continue witnessing after being asked to shut the fvck up and not call that forcing an opinon on others

      May 2, 2013 at 1:25 pm |
    • Chad

      @DaveTX

      so I assume you are also in favor of allowing a person to be court martialed if they discuss their lack of faith with anyone.

      May 2, 2013 at 1:25 pm |
    • In Santa we trust

      Chad/Topher
      http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/1004/p13s02-lire.html
      Plus there are several books documenting how Christianity is pushed by NCOs and officers

      May 2, 2013 at 1:26 pm |
    • Eeewwww

      Eeeww. It would be terrifying to be in the service with Austin in close quarters and be woken up in the middle of the night to see his inverted body hovering over his bed.

      May 2, 2013 at 1:28 pm |
    • Bea

      This is not about discussion, Mr. Chad. In addition to being subjected to someone or group preaching to me, I wouldn't want someone spending my tax dollars selling Amway products on government time either.

      May 2, 2013 at 1:31 pm |
    • DavidTX

      "so I assume you are also in favor of allowing a person to be court martialed if they discuss their lack of faith with anyone."

      In the confined space of the military I am for court martials for those who use pressure tactics such as I listed above to force anyone to listen to or accept a religious or non-religious opinion. It is neither the time or the place for that kind of conduct and we should hold our military to a higher standard than in civilian life where you can go knock on doors all you like.

      May 2, 2013 at 1:33 pm |
    • Topher

      sam stone

      "explain how someone can continue witnessing after being asked to shut the -- up and not call that forcing an opinon on others"

      There could be several things. For instance, if someone is street preaching to a crowd. You don't like it, move on. You don't like me or someone else witnessing here, don't come to a place called Belief Blog.

      But members of my family that aren't saved ... I'll never stop witnessing to them. I might lay off for a while, but will never stop. Though I did start witnessing to a friend the other day and he kindly asked me not to. So I stopped, but told him if he ever had any questions, he could ask and that he wouldn't offend me if he disagreed.

      May 2, 2013 at 1:34 pm |
    • DavidTX

      Oh, and on top of it all, it's my tax dollars that are paying to house and outfit these soldiers as well as their paychecks, as small as they are. That means that when you are in the military you are on the clock and should not be spending MY tax dollars proselytizing a religious belief that I do not share on captive audiences who are supposed to be busy protecting the nation from real threats.

      May 2, 2013 at 1:37 pm |
    • sam stone

      fair enough. i have fun with street preachers.

      as far as your family goes, feel free to preach to your heart's content. don't be surprised if they stop inviting you to family gatherings

      May 2, 2013 at 1:38 pm |
    • In Santa we trust

      Topher, Why do you think that harassment is acceptable – I'm sure if a Muslim or Hindu were doing that to you, you wouldn't want it or a salesperson calling you or financial advisor. Especially as you have no evidence to support your position except your faith.

      May 2, 2013 at 1:40 pm |
    • Honey Badger Don't Care!

      That is so ridiculous. CENTCOM General Order Number 1 clearly states that proselytizing is forbidden. Many other organizations have the same rule for the simple fact that it is destructive to good order and discipline not to mention a clear violation of the 1st Amendment.

      May 2, 2013 at 1:41 pm |
    • Chad

      And you would presumably eliminate the position of chaplain from all branches of the military...

      thank God our country has sense enough to ignore your kind of nonsense.

      May 2, 2013 at 1:42 pm |
    • Honey Badger Don't Care!

      Topher,

      Youre not supposed to be preaching in public, or have you not read your bible?

      May 2, 2013 at 1:42 pm |
    • sam stone

      "There could be several things. For instance, if someone is street preaching to a crowd. You don't like it, move on. You don't like me or someone else witnessing here, don't come to a place called Belief Blog."

      In the context of this story, folks WERE being forced to hear the blathering....err, witnessing....of the faithful

      May 2, 2013 at 1:42 pm |
    • Bill Deacon

      St Francis of Assisi is reported to have said the following. Though he probably didn't precisely speak these words, his minstry embodied the concept:

      "Go out and spread the Gospel. Use words if you have to."

      May 2, 2013 at 1:42 pm |
    • Topher

      In Santa we trust

      I don't consider it harras.sment. I find it a learning opportunity if they want to witness to me. And a good opportunity to witness back.

      May 2, 2013 at 1:47 pm |
    • Dan

      Just because you love peanut butter sandwiches does not give you the right to shove them in other people mouths. I understand you think that your peanut butter is the answer to all questions, but it's not and you can and will harm people if you don't listen to them as they try and tell you of their peanut allergies.

      May 2, 2013 at 1:48 pm |
    • Topher

      Honey Badger Don't Care!

      "Youre not supposed to be preaching in public, or have you not read your bible?"

      I read my Bible every day. No where does it say to not do that. Christ did it all the time. So did Paul and the other apostles.

      May 2, 2013 at 1:50 pm |
    • Pete

      Topher, there is a reason those people were executed.

      May 2, 2013 at 1:51 pm |
    • Terry

      " I find it a learning opportunity if they want to witness to me."

      Here's the thing. There is nothing to "witness" about, you did not "witness" anything of import. You have never seen God. You have never witnessed a verifiable miracle. What did you witness that you want to share? Oh, you got indoctrinated into a religion as a child and told to go "bear witness" about that and if you don't you are a very very bad boy, and I guess that stuck. You are lost in a sea of makebelieve and can't even tell which way is up.

      May 2, 2013 at 1:52 pm |
    • Topher

      Pete

      "Topher, there is a reason those people were executed."

      Yes. Intolerance and persecution. Why is another reason why the whole "they made it up" is such bunk.

      May 2, 2013 at 1:54 pm |
    • Ken

      Chad
      We could still use councillors and therapists in the military, but if you think chaplains are important, why not also have astrologers, psychics and mediums?

      May 2, 2013 at 1:55 pm |
    • Honey Badger Don't Care!

      Matthew 6:5-6
      5And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.
      6But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly.

      May 2, 2013 at 1:55 pm |
    • sam stone

      "I don't consider it harras.sment."

      Of course you don't.

      You probably don't consider denying people their civil rights to be bigotry, either

      May 2, 2013 at 1:56 pm |
    • JMEF

      BD. Passing strange that when St Francis lived 1180 to 1226, it coincides with the medieval inquisition, including the Episcopal Inquisition 1184 to 1230's, the RCC into torturing and murdering the heretics. Being who you are you ignore the naughty bits and just swoon over the holy bits, really Bill.

      May 2, 2013 at 1:57 pm |
    • Topher

      Terry

      First, I have the Word of God to tell me all about Him. Second, I was not "indoctrined" as a child. I was not born again until nearly 30. I did not grow up in a church.

      May 2, 2013 at 1:57 pm |
    • Bea

      Mr. Chad, having chaplains accessible to military personnel is quite different from someone proselytizing to someone who is bothered by it, but would be chastised for not being receptive. You have not already heard of this problem in the military?

      May 2, 2013 at 1:59 pm |
    • sam stone

      "Why is another reason why the whole "they made it up" is such bunk."

      And the 39 people who died in the Heaven's Gate schtick do not prove Marshall Applewhite was a prophet

      May 2, 2013 at 2:01 pm |
    • Pete

      Bea, people like Chad and Topher don't consider it a problem until someone who is not Christian does it.

      May 2, 2013 at 2:01 pm |
    • Richard Cranium

      Topher
      You have the "word of god' according to men.
      There is not one word put there by any of the thousands of gods that men have made.

      May 2, 2013 at 2:02 pm |
    • sam stone

      "First, I have the Word of God to tell me all about Him."

      No, you have the translated, edited hearsay of iron age man to tell you about god

      May 2, 2013 at 2:03 pm |
    • sam stone

      topher: did your interest in church coincide with your developing relationship with your wife?

      May 2, 2013 at 2:05 pm |
    • Chad

      @Bea "having chaplains accessible to military personnel is quite different from someone proselytizing to someone who is bothered by it, but would be chastised for not being receptive"

      =>discrimination based on religious preference is already illegal.
      What are you looking for additionally?

      May 2, 2013 at 2:06 pm |
    • DavidTX

      @chad "And you would presumably eliminate the position of chaplain from all branches of the military...thank God our country has sense enough to ignore your kind of nonsense."

      Yes, I would like to get rid of all paid religious personal in the military. If there are volunteer pastors and priests who would like to visit the troups and bases that would be fine as long as secular representatives are allowed as well.

      This is going to be the face of the new military whether you like it or not. I predict by 2020 we will have removed all chaplains thanks to the fact there is no God to protect their positions, no invisible force working behind the scenes other than the illegal peer pressure that has been going on for decades but will soon be completely dismantled in the light of day.

      May 2, 2013 at 2:08 pm |
    • Topher

      sam stone

      "And the 39 people who died in the Heaven's Gate schtick do not prove Marshall Applewhite was a prophet"

      COMPLETELY different situations. The apostles and other followers at the time witness Jesus and His miracles and thus knew He was who He claimed to be. The Heaven's Gate people were only told there was a UFO behind a comet ... neither of which they saw.

      May 2, 2013 at 2:12 pm |
    • Topher

      sam stone

      "did your interest in church coincide with your developing relationship with your wife?"

      No. It was several years before I met her.

      May 2, 2013 at 2:14 pm |
    • Chad

      @DavidTX "thanks to the fact there is no God to protect their positions, no invisible force working behind the scenes other than the illegal peer pressure that has been going on for decades but will soon be completely dismantled in the light of day."

      =>interesting post, you seem to be claiming that the God of Israel is not real?

      what do you back that up with?

      May 2, 2013 at 2:15 pm |
    • Cpt. Obvious

      The point, Topher, is that when a person lays down his life for what he believes, it does not prove anything, one way or the other, about the accuracy of the belief.

      The 9-11 bombers faith in their mission does not prove their beliefs correct. The committment to the Heaven's Gate teachings do not prove their beliefs correct. The supposed willingness of the apostles to lay down their lives proves nothing about the accuracy of their beliefs, either. Get real.

      May 2, 2013 at 2:16 pm |
    • sam stone

      "COMPLETELY different situations"

      Of course it is. It does not involve your belief

      May 2, 2013 at 2:22 pm |
    • Topher

      Cpt. Obvious

      I agree. But what I'm saying is that it proved the apostles didn't make it up. The 9-11 bombers or Heaven's Gate people were not there at the beginning of their religion and were going on faith that it was true. The apostles saw God, spoke with Him and saw Him perform miracles. They weren't just told about it. But some atheists would like you to believe they had all made it up for whatever reason. If that were true and Christ never existed or did the things they claimed to have witnessed, they certainly wouldn't have went to their deaths over a lie. They saw Him, believed what they saw and died for it. It proves they didn't make up the stories. It doesn't prove the stories true, yes, but it proves they didn't make it up.

      May 2, 2013 at 2:22 pm |
    • WASP

      @CHRIS-topher: the only "end of times" will be your own lonely death, but whatever helps you sleep at night. XD

      ok so you wouldn't mind a follower of islam preaching to your children of how wrong they are for being christian and how mohammed is the one true prophet?

      oh and that's what i mean by religious tolerance, not to mention the other things like:
      right to choose.
      gay rights.
      religious rights of other religions you bark against.
      etc etc etc.

      you're a bigot and we know it christopher. 🙂

      May 2, 2013 at 2:23 pm |
    • Bea

      Chad wrote "=>discrimination based on religious preference is already illegal.
      What are you looking for additionally?"

      Service members should not be subjected to uninvited proselytizing. Recent articles have highlighted this problem. You're not understanding this main point of the article, Mr. Chad?

      May 2, 2013 at 2:23 pm |
    • sam stone

      "you seem to be claiming that the God of Israel is not real?

      what do you back that up with?"

      back atcha, chard

      May 2, 2013 at 2:23 pm |
    • In Santa we trust

      Chad.
      "... you seem to be claiming that the God of Israel is not real? what do you back that up with?"

      The fact that there is no evidence for a god and specifically no evidence for your god. Christians make the claim based upon a bible which is not credible – science shows that the creation myth did not happen as described, nor did Adam and Eve, nor Noah. Same replies you get every time you say that.

      May 2, 2013 at 2:25 pm |
    • WASP

      @TOPHER: here is my challenge christopher. we can meet in a public place..........say times square and have a debate on your religious views verses my logic. i will show you rocks and math to prove life without god, you just have to bring your god to prove he is real.
      otherwise he is fake and so is your conviction. put up or shut up time you little toad.
      1 KINGS 18:36 At the time of sacrifice, the prophet Elijah stepped forward and prayed: "LORD, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Israel, let it be known today that you are God in Israel and that I am your servant and have done all these things at your command.
      1 KINGS 18:37 Answer me, LORD, answer me, so these people will know that you, LORD, are God, and that you are turning their hearts back again."
      1 KINGS 18:38 Then the fire of the LORD fell and burned up the sacrifice, the wood, the stones and the soil, and also licked up the water in the trench.

      NOW YOU PRAY AND HAVE YOUR GOD PERFORM TO PROVE HIMSELF AND I WILL SIT AND WATCH. 🙂

      May 2, 2013 at 2:33 pm |
    • Chad

      @Chad "... you seem to be claiming that the God of Israel is not real? what do you back that up with?"

      @Santa "The fact that there is no evidence for a god and specifically no evidence for your god"

      @Chad "A. The existence of anything is not contingent on evidence being available for that existence (see absence of evidence is not evidence of absence")

      B. The fact that you personally feel the evidence put forth to support the existence of the God of Israel is insufficient does not mean that the God of Israel doesnt exist.

      C. Evidence for the existence of the God of Israel:
      Historical evidence
      – no historical detail in the bible has ever been proved to be incorrect
      – Historicity of Jesus of Nazareth
      – Historicity of the empty tomb
      – Origin of the disciples belief that they had met a resurrected Jesus, a belief they held so strongly that they were willing to go to their deaths proclaiming the truth.

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

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

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

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

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

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

      "The laws of science, as we know them at present, contain many fundamental numbers, like the size of the electric charge of the electron and the ratio of the mas ses 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

      “As we look out into the universe and identify the many accidents of physics and astronomy that have worked together to our benefit, it almost seems as if the universe must in some sense have known that we were coming.” - Professor Freeman J. Dyson of the Insti tute for Advanced Study in Princeton

      ”The big bang appeared to be a very peculiar kind of explosion. Just imagine a pin balancing on its point. Nudge it slightly in any direction and it will fall. So it is with the big bang. A large universe sprinkled with galaxies, like the one we see around us, is produced only if the power of the primoridial blast is fine tuned with incredible precision. A tiny deviation from the required power results in a cosmological disaster, such as the fireball collapsing under its own weight or the universe being nearly empty” – Alexander Vilenkin

      Now, neither Davies or Hawking is a believer in God. They both believe in fine tuning, they just posit natural reasons for it.

      Evidence from human experience
      – Objective morality exists
      – Free will exists (it doesn’t in the atheist/naturalist/determinist view)

      May 2, 2013 at 2:35 pm |
    • Topher

      WASP

      "ok so you wouldn't mind a follower of islam preaching to your children of how wrong they are for being christian and how mohammed is the one true prophet?"

      I don't have any children. But if I did, I can't force them to be a Christian. And if they were an adult and a Muslim wanted to witness to them, I can only hope their faith in Christ is strong enough to realize the truth. No one can be forced to be a Christian. It doesn't work that way. You must repent and trust the Savior to be saved. So even if I were a radical and beat you until you said, "OK, OK, I'm a Christian" that wouldn't make you a Christian. It would only make you a liar. No one can be forced to repent and trust.

      "you're a bigot and we know it christopher. "

      When following God makes me a bigot ... I'm fine with that label.

      May 2, 2013 at 2:35 pm |
    • DavidTX

      @chad – "=>interesting post, you seem to be claiming that the God of Israel is not real? what do you back that up with?"

      Yes, I am claiming the God of Israel is not real. I back it up with the evidence my brain uses to conclude there is no Santa Claus, Easter Bunny, Leprechauns, Unicorns, Huffalumps, goblins or elves, i.e. the lack of any evidence of any of them. All we have is opinion and conjecture to take a giant leap of faith to your conclusion of a God, and I am unwilling to be another rube who get's taken advantage of by the organized religion machine, built by non-believers during Constantines reign to control the ignorant and the daft, and for the last 2000 years have gone largely unchallenged except by other control groups wanting power who used their own invented deities to claim supremecy. Sorry, but informations not just for the Kings' and Priests anymore, their reign sitting on our backs is over, as is their Gods.

      May 2, 2013 at 2:36 pm |
    • sam stone

      none of that is proof of the god of israel, but chard sure likes to bloviate that it is

      May 2, 2013 at 2:38 pm |
    • sam stone

      "When following God makes me a bigot ... I'm fine with that label."

      I imagine you would fit in well in 1954 mississippi

      Following god does not make you a bigot. Denying others their rights makes you a bigot. Hiding you bigotry behind a sacred text just makes you a pious bigot

      May 2, 2013 at 2:40 pm |
    • Chad

      @DavidTX "Yes, I am claiming the God of Israel is not real. I back it up with the evidence my brain uses to conclude there is no Santa Claus, Easter Bunny, Leprechauns, Unicorns, Huffalumps, goblins or elves, i.e. the lack of any evidence of any of them"

      =>hmm.. except there IS evidence of the existence of the God of Israel (see post above).

      Have you done any investigation at all of that?

      May 2, 2013 at 2:42 pm |
    • Topher

      sam stone

      "I imagine you would fit in well in 1954 mississippi"

      So now I'm also a racist.

      "Following god does not make you a bigot. Denying others their rights makes you a bigot. Hiding you bigotry behind a sacred text just makes you a pious bigot"

      I haven't denied anyone their rights. And if I'm a pious bigot, I'm still fine with that.

      May 2, 2013 at 2:43 pm |
    • Which God?

      Topher, it isn't 'wintnessing. There aren't any witnesses, yesterday, today or tommorrow. No one has ever witnessed anything. To say you wintness for your god is an outright lie. You especially cannot witness for a supposedly dead guy, who supposedely came back to life, and is god as well. False witnessing, as it is delusional to even think it is real. No bible quotes, Topher, it does no good, and your "history" is full of holes, as has been proven by others on so many ocaacsions.

      May 2, 2013 at 2:46 pm |
    • sam stone

      "So now I'm also a racist."

      No, you are just another garden variety bigot hiding his bigotry behind his bible

      "I haven't denied anyone their rights"

      You oppose gays having the right to marry. You have stated many times you would vote to keep them from having the same rights as you

      "And if I'm a pious bigot, I'm still fine with that."

      You wear it like a fvcking badge

      May 2, 2013 at 2:50 pm |
    • DavidTX

      Historical evidence
      – no historical detail in the bible has ever been proved to be incorrect: FALSE – The global flood account has been proven to have not occured and based on what we now know about amount of water and surface area would not have even been possible ever, unless you subscribe to that lunatic who claims the earths size was much smaller back when the flood occured but has been expanding ever since.

      – Historicity of Jesus of Nazareth – Because someone existed does not make them a divine being from another dimension.

      – Historicity of the empty tomb: Tomb NEVER found, never verified and no one to this day can prove otherwise.

      – Origin of the disciples belief that they had met a resurrected Jesus, a belief they held so strongly that they were willing to go to their deaths proclaiming the truth. – This excuse is beyond moronic. First, we have no proof of authorship of the gospels and every reason to believe they were at best written by late first century Christians decades after the events. Second, we have lot's of other accounts of prophets of Islam and Hindu teachers who braved death and torture "proclaiming their truths" so saying your guys did it too add's nothing to your argument.

      May 2, 2013 at 2:51 pm |
    • Proof of God

      I've seen a snow flake under microscope and it looks like it was woven from ice by a master designer, so that proves there is a God... or tiny little microscopic ice sculpters in the atmosphere we just havn't discovered yet! Science can't explain that!

      May 2, 2013 at 2:55 pm |
    • Topher

      sam stone

      "You oppose gays having the right to marry. You have stated many times you would vote to keep them from having the same rights as you"

      They don't legally have the right to marry (yet) and thus I'm not denying them their right. And no, I will not endorse their immorality. And they already have the same rights as me ... they can marry anyone the law says it's OK to marry ... a man a woman and a woman a man.

      "You wear it like a badge"

      Yep. God is the standard and the Creator. He gets to say what's right and wrong. And because of what He's done for me, I'll follow Him.

      May 2, 2013 at 2:56 pm |
    • DavidTX

      @Topher – "They don't legally have the right to marry (yet) and thus I'm not denying them their right."

      Interacial marriage pre- 1967

      "They don't legally have the right to marry (yet) and thus I'm not denying them their right."

      I'm glad you have squarely put yourself on the losing side of history.

      May 2, 2013 at 3:01 pm |
    • Topher

      DavidTX

      Hahaha. I totally expect to lose the gay marriage battle. But I've read the end of the Bible ... WE WIN.

      May 2, 2013 at 3:07 pm |
    • fintastic

      @chaddy.....

      "Historical evidence

      – no historical detail in the bible has ever been proved to be incorrect.............. (that's a lie that can easily be shown)

      – Historicity of Jesus of Nazareth............................. (A man name Jesus existed...... so? that, again proves nothing)

      – Historicity of the empty tomb............. ......... (zero evidence of any so called resurrection)

      – Origin of the disciples belief that they had met a resurrected Jesus, a belief they held so strongly that they were willing to go to their deaths proclaiming the truth.....

      (and how many people throughout history have given their lives for something/someone they believe in? again, zero evidence of any god...... proves nothing except that deluded people have existed)

      Big fail...

      May 2, 2013 at 3:14 pm |
    • DavidTX

      "But I've read the end of the Bible ... WE WIN."

      I've read all of it including the end and guess what? No one wins, unless your definition of a win is to have 99% humanity being eternally tortured while the 1% supposedly "faithful" get to hang out doing nothing but being "fulfilled" by the mere presence of their God like some orgasmic marshmallow.

      May 2, 2013 at 3:18 pm |
    • Paul

      Good luck trying to convince Chad and Topher that something in the bible has been proven false. People do it everyday, and then they come back the next day and claim that nothing in the bible has ever been proven false.

      May 2, 2013 at 3:18 pm |
    • Topher

      DavidTX

      Isn't it funny that you say no one wins because "99%" are going to hell when this very topic is on people not being allowed to witness to people so they won't have to go to hell?

      May 2, 2013 at 3:22 pm |
    • Topher

      Paul

      Because no one has proven anything in the Bible to be false. All you've got is some people who don't believe, for instance the flood, happened. They've got their reasons for not believing ... but they certainly have not proven it didn't happen.

      May 2, 2013 at 3:24 pm |
    • DavidTX

      "Isn't it funny that you say no one wins because "99%" are going to hell when this very topic is on people not being allowed to witness to people so they won't have to go to hell?"

      You may find it funny that the God you worship would choose to torment his own creations for eternity based on a few years of bad behavior on this planet, but I don't. I find it sick and twisted and think you worship an evil deity that should be removed from the history of mankind along with it's sick ideology and doctrines.

      As for your comical attempt to convert people to avoid your wicked God's wrath, I think it's more sad than funny since you could be using your time to help feed the hungry or take care of needy children, something actually useful.

      May 2, 2013 at 3:42 pm |
    • ME II

      @Topher
      "Because no one has proven anything in the Bible to be false. All you've got is some people who don't believe, for instance the flood, happened. They've got their reasons for not believing ... but they certainly have not proven it didn't happen."

      I find this wording interesting. I'm guessing that because this happened in the past that won't accept any evidence as "proof" that something didn't happen. Is this correct?
      If not could you give an example of acceptable evidence?

      May 2, 2013 at 3:46 pm |
    • Topher

      ME II

      To be honest, I don't know what evidence that would be. I guess I'd have to take it case by case. Everything in the past that was held up to be evidence against the Bible has fallen away ... it was once claimed the Gospels couldn't be true because Pontius Pilate never existed. Then we found evidence He in fact did. It was even claimed there's no evidence of the city of Jericho ... then we found the ruins. Or "we don't even know that Jesus lived" ... except we have non-Christians sources from the time that discussed Him. The Bible proves over and over again to be historically and scientifically correct. That's why all some people have is "bats aren't birds" which has also been explained.

      May 2, 2013 at 4:00 pm |
    • trollintraining

      wht about the world being flat Topher, how do you expalin away the bible saying that?

      May 2, 2013 at 4:10 pm |
    • Topher

      Trollintraining

      Where does the Bible say that?

      May 2, 2013 at 4:14 pm |
    • Topher

      Well, my freetime is up. Off to work I go. Thanks for the conversation everyone. Hope you all have a great day. God bless.

      May 2, 2013 at 4:30 pm |
    • sam stone

      "I've read the bible. WE WIN"

      Oooh, you've read a book

      Congrats

      Pious Bigot Coward.

      May 2, 2013 at 4:34 pm |
    • sam stone

      topher: you have done an awful lot of bloviating about no one "proving" the bible to be wrong. since you are so enamored with "proof", where is yours that the bible is correct?

      May 2, 2013 at 4:44 pm |
    • fintastic

      The bible is the claim......can't also be the evidence....

      Just like anything else, honest evidence must be external to the claim... so where's the evidence for god external to the bible?

      May 2, 2013 at 4:49 pm |
    • Paul

      The bible claims the earth is a circle, circles are flat. Earth is actually a sphere, therefore bible proven false at least once.

      May 2, 2013 at 5:03 pm |
    • fred

      Paul
      When the Bible referred to the earth as a circle in Isaiah for example it was poetic in reference to the wedding circle of the Hebrew. That tradition is still practiced today and the circle is 3 dimensional surrounding the wedding couple.
      Aside from that the Bible actually is written by and to specific culture over the years. It would be common to present things in such a way.
      When you look at the moon and the sun is it a two dimensional circle or a sphere to the eye? From a mountain top do you see curvature or a flat surface?

      May 2, 2013 at 8:21 pm |
    • ME II

      @Topher,
      "Everything in the past that was held up to be evidence against the Bible has fallen away ... Pontius Pilate ... the city of Jericho ... [Jesus] we have non-Christians sources from the time that discussed Him. The Bible proves over and over again to be historically and scientifically correct. "

      I would suggest that you are experiencing confirmation bias. Intentionally or not, if you forget the examples that don't confirm your beliefs, then it appears that all the data supports your position.

      "That's why all some people have is 'bats aren't birds' which has also been explained."

      While the bats verse may be a relatively simple translation issue, there are many consistency issues that are not so simple.

      The order and timing of "creation" does not agree with what we see in the geologic record.
      There is no evidence of a global flood that one would expect to be fairly evident in the geologic record.
      The "sun" stopping for Joshua doesn't seem supported by any evidence nor historical docu.mentation.
      Two gospels place Jesus' birth in mutually exclusive time frames; both cannot be correct.
      ... and many others.

      And there are many scientific issues as well.

      Descriptions of the earth as a circle, not a sphere.
      Inaccurate descriptions of genetics, i.e. new-born goat's color patterns being controlled by what their parents saw.
      The foundations of earth and the pillars of heaven.
      Animals described incorrectly, not the bats, but rabbits, insects, snakes, etc.

      May 3, 2013 at 11:01 am |
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Next entry »
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.