home
RSS
August 18th, 2013
07:49 PM ET

Debating why millenials are leaving the church

(CNN)–Rachel Evans and Hemant Mehta joined CNN's Brianna Keilar and Martin Savidge to speak about millenials losing their religion.

They were debating Evan's piece from the Belief Blog looking at why millenials are leaving the church and Mehta's response suggesting millenials are leaving the church to try atheism.

Tell us what you think.  Join the conversation in the comments.

- CNN Belief Blog

Filed under: Atheism • Belief

soundoff (1,388 Responses)
  1. Just the Facts Ma'am...

    Debating religion with a Christian is like trying to return a dead Parot that the pet shop owner refuses to believe is dead...

    August 21, 2013 at 2:22 pm |
    • Just the Facts Ma'am...

      and a dead Parrot too...

      August 21, 2013 at 2:23 pm |
    • Pet Shop Owner

      He's not dead He's just resting.

      August 21, 2013 at 2:34 pm |
      • Doc Vestibule

        He's pining for the fjords.
        Beautiful plumage though....

        August 21, 2013 at 2:41 pm |
    • Just the Facts Ma'am...

      Mr. Praline: 'Ello, I wish to register a complaint.

      (The Priest does not respond.)

      Mr. Praline: 'Ello, Miss?

      Priest: What do you mean "miss"? Priests can't be women.."

      Mr. Praline: (pause)I'm sorry, I have a cold. I wish to make a complaint!

      Priest: We're closin' for lunch.

      Mr. Praline: Never mind that, father. I wish to complain about this Christianity I subscribed to not half an hour ago from this very Church.

      Priest: Oh yes, the, uh, the special Catholic religion package...What's,uh...What's wrong with it?

      Mr. Praline: I'll tell you what's wrong with it, my lad. 'Christ's dead and hasn't returned in 2000 years!, that's what's wrong with it!

      Priest: No, no, 'e's uh,...he's resting. He will return you know...

      Mr. Praline: Look, matey, I know a dead relgion when I see one, and I'm looking at one right now.

      Priest: No no he's not dead, he's, Christ's restin'! Remarkable chaps, the Catholic religion , idn'it, ay? Look at the Pope! Beautiful plumage!

      Mr. Praline: The plumage don't enter into it. This religion is stone dead.

      Priest: Nononono, no, no! 'It's resting!

      Mr. Praline: All right then, if Christ is restin', I'll wake him up! (shouting at the cross) 'Ello, Mister handsom hippy! I've got a lovely fresh worshiper for you if you show...

      (priest bumps the cross)

      Priest: There, he moved!

      Mr. Praline: No, he didn't, that was you hitting the cross!

      Priest: I never!!

      Mr. Praline: Yes, you did!

      Priest: I never, never did anything...

      Mr. Praline: (yelling and hitting the cross repeatedly) 'ELLO HIPPY!!!!! Testing! Testing! Testing! Testing! This is your nine o'clock alarm call!

      (Takes Christ off of the cross and thumps its head on the counter. Throws it up in the air and watches it plummet to the floor.)

      Mr. Praline: Now that's what I call a dead religion.

      Priest: No, no.....No, 'e's stunned!

      Mr. Praline: STUNNED?!?

      Priest: Yeah! You stunned him, just as he was wakin' up! 2000 year old Saviors stun easily, major.

      Mr. Praline: Um...now look...now look, mate, I've definitely 'ad enough of this. That religion is definitely deceased, and when I bought in not 'alf an hour ago, you assured me that its total lack of movement was due to it bein' worshipped and praised following a prolonged sermon.

      Priest: Well, he's...he's, ah...probably pining for the fjords.

      Mr. Praline: PININ' for the FJORDS?!?!?!? What kind of talk is that?, look, why did he fall flat on his back the moment I got 'im home?

      Priest: Christ prefers keepin' on his back! Remarkable lord, id'nit, squire? Lovely plumage!

      Mr. Praline: Look, I took the liberty of examining that savior when I got it home, and I discovered the only reason that it had been sitting on its cross in the first place was that it had been NAILED there.

      (pause)

      Priest: Well, o'course he was nailed there! If I hadn't nailed the Lord down, he would have nuzzled up to those bars, bent 'em apart with his glistening muscles, and VOOM! Feeweeweewee!

      Mr. Praline: "VOOM"?!? Mate, this Christ wouldn't "voom" if you put four million volts through him! 'E's bleedin' demised!

      Priest: No no! 'E's pining!

      Mr. Praline: 'E's not pinin'! 'E's passed on! This Christ is no more! He has ceased to be! 'E's expired and gone to meet 'is maker! 'E's a stiff! Bereft of life, 'e rests in peace! If you hadn't nailed 'im to the cross 'e'd be pushing up the daisies! 'Is metabolic processes are now 'istory! 'E's off the twig! 'E's kicked the bucket, 'e's shuffled off 'is mortal coil, run down the curtain and joined the bleedin' choir invisible!! THIS IS AN EX-CHRIST!!

      (pause)

      Priest: Well, I'd better replace him, then. (he takes a quick peek behind the counter) Sorry squire, I've had a look 'round the back of the shop, and uh, we're right out of saviors...

      Mr. Praline: I see. I see, I get the picture.

      Priest: (pause) I got a Prophet Muhammad...

      (pause)

      Mr. Praline: Pray, does he talk?

      Priest: Nnnnot really.

      Mr. Praline: WELL IT'S HARDLY A BLOODY REPLACEMENT, IS IT?!!???!!?

      Priest: N-no, I guess not. (gets ashamed, looks at his feet)

      Mr. Praline: Well.

      (pause)

      Priest: (quietly) D'you.... d'you want to come back to my place?

      Mr. Praline: (looks around) Yeah, all right, sure.

      August 21, 2013 at 2:45 pm |
    • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

      "Does he talk?"

      "Well he 'mumbles' a bit"...

      August 21, 2013 at 3:37 pm |
    • No difference

      Debating religion with a atheist is like trying to return a dead Parrot that the pet shop owner refuses to believe is dead...

      August 21, 2013 at 3:57 pm |
      • Just the Facts Ma'am...

        Not so, the atheist told you up front that the parrot was dead, as a Christian you were just hoping you could resurrect it... when you were unsuccesful because your God is not real you tried to return it...

        August 21, 2013 at 5:34 pm |
      • skytag

        Nothing is lamer than repeating what someone else said with the parties changed.

        Actually, from the believer's perspective debating with an atheist is like trying to return a dead parrot without actually bringing the parrot.

        Believer: "I want to return the parrot you sold me because he died."

        Pet shop owner: "Okay, show me the parrot and I'll refund your money."

        Believer: "I don't have the parrot, but trust me, he's dead."

        Pet shop owner: "Why don't you have the parrot?"

        Believer: "He flew away."

        Pet shop owner: "Then how do you know he's dead?"

        Believer: "I just know. Can I have my refund now?"

        August 22, 2013 at 3:48 am |
  2. Frank

    All religions are man made scams. Do you know what happens to you after you die? You go to the same place you were before you were born. Your brain dies and you simply stop existing. Why is that so hard to accept?

    August 20, 2013 at 10:39 pm |
    • skytag

      Think of all the great movies you're going to miss.

      August 20, 2013 at 11:07 pm |
      • Ken

        Those would be balanced off by all the bad ones you'd also miss, correct? 🙂

        August 21, 2013 at 12:11 am |
        • skytag

          I'm already pretty good at missing those. 😉

          August 21, 2013 at 12:49 am |
    • skytag

      Very few religions are scams. The vast majority have been the product of sincere people trying to explain things they can't explain with their understanding of the world around them. They then evolved to be mechanisms that encourage their followers to be better members of their societies and put the interests of others ahead of their own self-interests.

      August 21, 2013 at 10:21 pm |
  3. bostontola

    Both religious and areligious people agree that man's capacity for knowing and understanding is quite limited. Religious people would say that's how god created us, scientifically minded folk would say we evolved our intelligence to be useful in our scale. Our ability to understand is very shaky far outside our scale. Quantum mechanics may not be truly understood by any person yet, but it has been validated to a part in a billion for its most bizarre predictions. Given that, people shouldn't think they can intuit what was going on at or before creation and use that as proof of their position. Time at our scale seems like an independent thing, but at small scales and high density it behaves nothing like what most people think. Don't try to prove your point using intuition based on a different scale.

    August 20, 2013 at 9:42 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Other One

      Scale is a problem with God: Creator of Reality vs micromanaging vindictive punisher

      August 20, 2013 at 9:56 pm |
      • Ken

        Perhaps God is just too egotistical to realize that there is a scale beyond even his understanding? How could any being know for certain that they are omniscient, for example? He may think that he knows everything, but how could he ever prove that he does?

        August 21, 2013 at 12:16 am |
        • Thinker...

          Well by definition an omnicient being would know it was omnicient (since it would have to know EVERYTHING). Personally I would think that perfect knowledge of everything that did, can, and ever will happen at all scales with no chance for a surprise would be really really boring. Particularly if you were eternal.

          August 21, 2013 at 10:47 am |
        • Thinker...

          Interesting addendum: If a being is truely all-knowing, then it cannot posses free will. It already knows what it will do for all eternity and cannot change that. That would make such a being no more than a fundamental force of nature rather than a being capable of emotion. More like a computer than a personality.

          August 21, 2013 at 10:54 am |
  4. Lee

    The problem is WE are starting to realize life, even entire cultures, history, "sky gods" existed before a couple of Jewish men found a creative way to control their people. I mean, unless you think God didn't care about anything for millions of years and then decided to bestow an elaborate set of rules, that do not transcend the bronze age, upon a group of hairy angry men and women wandering a desert (Jews).

    The real issue is, my generation does NOT believe in the supernatural, nor do we need a magical deity giving us a punishment or a gift to actually do the right thing. I do the right thing because it makes me feel good to help other people, not because I think my soul will magically live forever after I die.

    Also the the entire idea of Jesus is a CONTRADICTION. Jesus, being a perfect being, will always gladly sacrifice himself for us. He's perfect. But what about martyrs? Imperfect human being who give themselves up. The only difference between a martyr and Jesus, is that Jesus is perfect and would always have to sacrifice himself to maintain his perfection. A martyr can actually chose and willingly chooses to kill himself (for an idea).
    An imperfect being (martyr) sacrificing themselves the same way a perfect being did (Jesus) makes a martyr stronger and more powerful than Jesus, strictly because the martyr always had the option to say no. Jesus did not have a choice, he always had to do the selfless thing.
    Some people may say the mere existence of martyr proves Jesus must be real. Please people, martyr's are the ultimate sheeple and should have studied history and science a little closer.

    August 20, 2013 at 4:52 pm |
    • Dippy

      martyrs, not martyr's

      August 20, 2013 at 4:54 pm |
      • Lee

        I'm glad that's all you got out of my comment. ::sigh::

        At least you read it... =/

        August 20, 2013 at 4:55 pm |
    • Dyslexic doG

      well said Lee!

      August 20, 2013 at 5:30 pm |
    • pothead

      Thanks Lee! Get a life dippy doo

      August 20, 2013 at 9:52 pm |
  5. Dyslexic doG

    I was walking in the mountains last weekend and a bush burst into flames but it was not consumed. A voice came out of the bush and said "there is no god and religion is foolishness". I shrugged my shoulders and thought "OK ... I suppose a voice from a burning bush can't be wrong." So take note everyone. cheers!

    August 20, 2013 at 3:54 pm |
    • Rerun

      Guess dog found his inner Reality and will be repeating himself from now on.

      August 20, 2013 at 4:25 pm |
      • Dyslexic doG

        highly likely. 🙂

        August 20, 2013 at 5:32 pm |
    • mzh

      ha ha... are you sure that you were not talking with yourself? 🙂

      August 20, 2013 at 4:30 pm |
      • truthprevails1

        You mean like you do every time you pray?

        August 20, 2013 at 5:03 pm |
    • CommonSensed

      Where are your buried golden tablets? No epileptic seizure?

      August 20, 2013 at 5:34 pm |
  6. Sam Yaza

    Christianity is untrue, no truer statement has been said on broadcast television than that, how ever i you work in television your still a lair

    August 20, 2013 at 3:25 pm |
    • Dippy

      You're, not your.

      August 20, 2013 at 4:29 pm |
  7. Honey Badger Don't Care

    Mike from CT
    “See the only one that can make penance is a perfect man, and the only one that doesn't need pence is a perfect man.”

    Well, since Jesus wasn’t perfect your hypothesis falls apart there. According to the bible he either sinned or he was a complete hypocrite, there is no way around that.

    August 20, 2013 at 3:15 pm |
  8. Dyslexic doG

    Christians arguing stories from their bible vs. scientific facts is like arguing about Santa's sleigh flying ... sure it says it flies in the stories but the facts are that there is no Santa (sorry kids), there is no magic sleigh, and there are no magical reindeer to guide his sleigh tonight. Anyone using any story in the bible as a fact to argue against scientifically proven evidence is deluding themselves and annoying the sane.

    And you Christians wonder why we atheists sound annoyed all the time.

    August 20, 2013 at 1:36 pm |
    • ME II

      But there are eye witness accounts of Santa and his flying reindeer. It is fully docu.mented in the script, Twas the Night Before Christmas, and he was a non-believer.

      August 20, 2013 at 2:21 pm |
    • Berief Brog Ninja

      Rionry Ramb! I shold ave neva rearned engrish from you. You say you teach supa good engrish! I fail engrish and ritarature! You dishonor my familry!

      August 20, 2013 at 2:32 pm |
    • Honey Badger Don't Care

      Or listening to two people from different flavors of xtianity arguing is like two people arguing Star Wars vs Star Trek.

      August 20, 2013 at 2:38 pm |
    • Segoy

      Such sciences as archaeology have used the Bible in their research. Obviously it is not wholly fallible.

      August 20, 2013 at 2:39 pm |
      • Midtown

        How much has archaeology confirmed the supernatural aspect? Oh, that's right. None.
        Does the fact that England exists confirm Harry Potter to be a true story?

        August 20, 2013 at 3:04 pm |
        • Honey Badger Don't Care

          Are you sure that England exists? Have you been there.

          Just kidding.

          August 20, 2013 at 3:44 pm |
        • Segoy

          Didn't say it confirmed anything supernatural now did I? Try and pay attention.
          Didn't say that if part of the text was accurate that it means all of it is. Again, pay attention and quit with the supposition.

          August 20, 2013 at 4:27 pm |
        • Midtown

          I was responding to this: "Such sciences as archaeology have used the Bible in their research. Obviously it is not wholly fallible."
          Which I did. Try to pay attention to your own posts, please? Or are you so unsure of what you write you have to be condescending to the answers you get?

          August 20, 2013 at 6:07 pm |
        • Segoy

          Midtown, you were busy showing what it wasn't showing, I was busy trying to tell you what it does show.
          Science isn't about proof through absence. The Bible has important information within it that science can use. Sure not all of it but only a fool would want to write it off entirely.

          August 20, 2013 at 8:26 pm |
        • Athy

          And what would that "important information" be? Can you give us a clue?

          August 20, 2013 at 8:32 pm |
        • Segoy

          Considering that the above comments were about archaeology, historical importance comes to mind.
          But also the content, writing style, language and philosophy, all can be of importance.

          August 20, 2013 at 8:37 pm |
        • Midtown

          I'll ask you to keep that in mind when the Bible is used as the proof of divinity, then; it isn't.
          That was my only point.

          August 21, 2013 at 7:12 pm |
      • Sam Yaza

        what has archaeology discovered about the bible,.. no record of fire and brimstone raining from the sky in Sodom and Gomorrah, just an Israelite attack on the twin cities, the Jews were never enslaved in Egypt, and the world is older then Yahweh said it was in the bible.

        August 20, 2013 at 3:29 pm |
        • Segoy

          Do a bit of research, Yahweh never gave an age to the Earth.

          The Torah did say there was Sodom and Gomorah. You take for granted the existence of those places but it wasn't till archaeology came about that confirmed those places existed.

          Archaeology has shown that the egyptians recognized Israel as an enti ty back as far as the 12th century BCE.

          I suggest you focus on what science/archaeology does show us and less on what it doesn't. Arguments by ignorance isn't a good way for you to go.

          August 20, 2013 at 4:34 pm |
        • ME II

          @Segoy,
          Science shows us that the appearance of life on this planet was generally in the order of simple animals then fish, then land plants, then reptiles, then mammals, then birds, then flowers, then man.

          The Bible says all plants (including fruiting plants, i.e. flowers), then fish and birds, then land animals, then man.

          The Bible is incorrect.

          August 20, 2013 at 4:46 pm |
        • lol?? Pithiest, YES!!

          Theories claimed as facts. They're per chance digging in the wrong spot. The Egyptians were embarrassed and did a major cover-up. That's my theory.

          August 20, 2013 at 5:03 pm |
        • Segoy

          ME II, in that aspect, the bible is incorrect. But, that does not mean it is wholly incorrect now does it?

          August 20, 2013 at 5:57 pm |
        • skytag

          @Segoy: "ME II, in that aspect, the bible is incorrect. But, that does not mean it is wholly incorrect now does it?"

          This is your defense of a book that is the basis for your whole life? That's just sad.

          August 20, 2013 at 8:57 pm |
        • Segoy

          No, blindly guessing about a person you know nothing about, least of all their beliefs, is what is quite sad. But yet you do that now don't you?

          August 20, 2013 at 9:04 pm |
        • skytag

          @Segoy: "No, blindly guessing about a person you know nothing about, least of all their beliefs, is what is quite sad. But yet you do that now don't you?"

          Actually, that's what you just did. If I've misunderstood where you are coming from religiously I'm sorry. You could correct my understanding, but you seem more interested in attacking and belittling. Exactly what religious beliefs do you hold that teach you to act that way?

          August 20, 2013 at 11:13 pm |
        • Segoy

          I merely mirror the actions of others on here.

          "Actually, that's what you just did."

          And does that somehow take away from you doing it?

          August 21, 2013 at 12:37 pm |
      • ME II

        @Segoy,
        "Obviously it is not wholly fallible."

        Not exactly a high bar there.

        August 20, 2013 at 4:37 pm |
        • Segoy

          Usually too high a bar for many atheists on here to come to. They just want to utterly dismiss the entire book. Honestly, that's pretty dumb from a historical perspective.

          August 20, 2013 at 5:59 pm |
        • ME II

          @Segoy,
          "Usually too high a bar for many atheists on here to come to. They just want to utterly dismiss the entire book."

          I think most atheists are addressing the theists' claims that the Bible is wholly inerrent, which requires only one error to disprove.

          "Honestly, that's pretty dumb from a historical perspective."

          If taken as historical docu.ment, yes, it shouldn't be dismissed, but if taken, as some theists do, as a docu.ment that is wholly accurate historically, then not so much, no.

          Rarely do I see people on here claiming that there is nothing correct in the entire Bible.

          August 20, 2013 at 6:22 pm |
        • Segoy

          ME II, when atheists say that the Bible and associated books are incorrect, their language seems to imply that it is entirely incorrect. I would hope they do not feel that way and might clarify that position a bit more when they comment.
          I agree with your perspective some. I don't understand how anyone can be a staunch literlist.

          August 20, 2013 at 8:34 pm |
        • HotAirAce

          In the context of its intent, to tell the alleged story of some unfounded history and its dependence or origin because of some unfounded gods, The Babble is 100% pure fiction – crap in other words. That it might contain the odd historical or geographical fact does not imply it is anything but crap, as a whole.

          August 20, 2013 at 8:41 pm |
        • Segoy

          ME II, see HotAirAce is a prime example. He calls it pure fiction which just shows his ignorance on the topic. The Torah/Tankh/NT shows not just historical importance but also the literary history and culture of a certain region that spans for thousands of years.
          To chuck it aside would be the same as throwing out the Book of the Dead, Dead Sea Scrolls, tens of thousands of cuniform tablets. The "I don't like religion so ignore it all" pov is pure undiluted ignorance.

          August 20, 2013 at 8:49 pm |
        • HotAirAce

          You clearly don't understand the concept of context.

          August 20, 2013 at 8:52 pm |
        • Segoy

          Actually I understand if quite well. But for a person to bluntly say it's 100% pure fiction is silly and that's the point.
          If you feel that there is nothing supernatural about it, then that's fine. But to take that belief that it's nothing important because of spiritual reasons and to imply it's not important at all, I'm sorry it just doesn't work.

          August 20, 2013 at 8:59 pm |
        • skytag

          @Segoy: "ME II, when atheists say that the Bible and associated books are incorrect, their language seems to imply that it is entirely incorrect."

          "Seems to imply" seems to imply you're invoking assumptions.

          "I would hope they do not feel that way and might clarify that position a bit more when they comment."

          Carefully and fully articulating positions in online discussions is not very common.

          "I agree with your perspective some. I don't understand how anyone can be a staunch literlist."

          And yet you apparently are one yourself.

          August 20, 2013 at 9:01 pm |
        • Segoy

          Sorry tag but I'm not a literalist. I've never been a literalist and never once implied that I was ever such a thing. You are again in error.

          August 20, 2013 at 9:08 pm |
        • skytag

          @Segoy: "Actually I understand if quite well. But for a person to bluntly say it's 100% pure fiction is silly and that's the point."

          I don't think it's much of a point.

          "If you feel that there is nothing supernatural about it, then that's fine. But to take that belief that it's nothing important because of spiritual reasons and to imply it's not important at all, I'm sorry it just doesn't work."

          I think you're making a mountain out of a mole hill. By far the most important question about the veracity of the Bible is, are the accounts of supernatural events accounts of real events or works of fiction? its value as a secular historical reference is not all that great, and if any of it is shown to be inaccurate that casts doubts on the accuracy of other parts of it as well.

          August 20, 2013 at 9:09 pm |
        • skytag

          @Segoy: "Sorry tag but I'm not a literalist. I've never been a literalist and never once implied that I was ever such a thing. You are again in error."

          Your objection to people saying the Bible is 100% fiction is based on a literal interpretation of that statement.

          August 20, 2013 at 9:23 pm |
        • Segoy

          "I don't think it's much of a point."

          So noted and tossed aside.

          August 20, 2013 at 9:31 pm |
        • skytag

          @Segoy: "So noted and tossed aside."

          As if anyone here cares what you toss aside. LOL

          You just seem to be here to argue. Do you have any positions you'd care to put forth or defend?

          August 21, 2013 at 12:57 am |
        • ME II

          @Segoy,
          I think @HotAirAce did present his/her context. "In the context of its intent, " and "That it might contain the odd historical or geographical fact does not imply it is anything but crap, as a whole."

          Just as, I would guess, that the Book of the Dead would be considered pure fiction by many people, despite it mentioning, I'm guessing, some things or events that are real.
          "In the context of its intent, " to describe the after-life and the proper way to get there, the Book of the Dead, is pure crap, but as a historical docu.ment it does hold insight into the society of that time.

          August 21, 2013 at 12:38 pm |
        • Segoy

          You cared enough to try and regain some standing by commenting.
          I stand for all sorts of things on here, though I do that at my choosing and not that of the peanut gallery's choosing.

          August 21, 2013 at 12:40 pm |
        • Segoy

          ME II, perhaps you are correct. I just hate though when it seems like people get into a "ignore it all" mentality. Sometimes there are atheists (thankfully not all) that seem to resist giving any credit in anyway to the Torah/Bible. It's as if recognizing it as accurate in one thing means they have lost some sort of argument.

          August 21, 2013 at 12:45 pm |
        • ME II

          @Segoy,
          For the most part, I agree with you... and the polar opposite sentiment, i.e. I don't like the "believe it all" mentality from some theists.

          August 21, 2013 at 1:17 pm |
        • skytag

          @Segoy: "You cared enough to try and regain some standing by commenting."

          Your delusions do not interest me. I'm just fine with my standing, and you're far too full of yourself for me to care what you think of my standing.

          "I stand for all sorts of things on here, though I do that at my choosing and not that of the peanut gallery's choosing."

          Blah, blah, blah. Thanks for not answering my question.

          August 22, 2013 at 6:23 pm |
        • Segoy

          skytag, is there some relevant topic that you just have to know my opinion on, that you won't be able to live without knowing?

          Delusions? I have no delusions.

          August 22, 2013 at 6:27 pm |
  9. bostontola

    When people criticize a scientific theory using arguments that are based on wrong premises and leave out critical elements they look foolish (see some posts below). You might as well explain to a heart surgeon why medicine is wrong. Then these same religious people get annoyed if an atheist comments on a bible passage and tells them they don't understand, it's quite hypocritical. Recommendation: Don't make definitive statements about things you don't understand and aren't educated in, ask questions instead.

    August 20, 2013 at 1:03 pm |
  10. Mike from CT

    The Church is anti-educational?

    See this is the problem you ask people what is wrong with the church and whatever the respondent says, regardless of the facts, becomes enough "evidence" to distance themselves from the church. And then the believer in the historical Christ gets ridiculed for unfounded beliefs.

    Go look up who where the people that started the Ivy League universities before you make that statement.

    August 20, 2013 at 12:16 pm |
    • Bob

      One still has to ask how much further ahead we would be now had not Christians in Europe suppressed science and tortured scientists in earlier times. And regarding the Christ nonsense, how is it again that your omnipotent being couldn't do his saving bit without the whole silly Jesus hoopla? And how was Jesus' death a "sacrifice", when an omnipotent being could just pop up a replacement son any time with less than a snap of his fingers? Pretty pathetic "god" that you've made for yourself there.

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

      August 20, 2013 at 12:23 pm |
    • Mike from CT

      I can play too.

      How far along would we have been without Stalin, Napoleon, Plot, or Hitler (and please do us a favor and don't say he was a follower of Christ)?

      "And regarding the Christ nonsense, how is it again that your omnipotent being couldn't do his saving bit without the whole silly Jesus hoopla?" What you are describing is called cheap grace. That is restoration without consequences which is no grace at all. You can look up more on cheap grace.

      "And how was Jesus' death a "sacrifice", when an omnipotent being could just pop up a replacement son any time with less than a snap of his fingers? "
      It was still very painful and very obedient. See the only one that can make penance is a perfect man, and the only one that doesn't need pence is a perfect man, so your objection is why did he help us or to use the analogy

      your objection amounts to "Why do those that know how to write teach kids to write, I scream they have an unfair advantage!!!!"

      Ask the questions. Break the chains. Join the movement.
      http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2009/01/30/feedback-god-heal-amputees
      http://www.gotquestions.org/God-heal-amputees.html
      http://www.lookinguntojesus.net/answering.htm
      http://givemeananswer.org/

      August 20, 2013 at 12:35 pm |
      • Lawrence

        I love http://www.gotquestions.org!! I go there quite a bit. Try this one out: http://www.gty.org, John MacArthur is truely a modern day puritan.

        August 20, 2013 at 12:58 pm |
      • Just the Facts Ma'am...

        Yes, Hitler was a devout Catholic, at least according to himself.

        As for the rest of your buffoonery, please try to explain these inconsistencies in regards to facts and your bible:

        Our DNA shows we did not descend from a single pair of humans. Our DNA shows humans interbred with neanderthals about 20,000 – 30,000 years ago. The remains of h omo sapians from that time show the average ages of the remains are close to those of other primates at the time and no where near the 700 – 900 year life spans for early humans as the bible claims. The geological evidence dating back over 150,000 years shows there has been no global flood. What we now know about inertia and our solar orbit along with physics proves the earth never stood still for a whole day just so a small tribe in the middle east could wipe out their enemies.

        August 20, 2013 at 1:04 pm |
        • Mike from CT

          Didn't we have this conversation already?

          Science is currently revising their previous as.sumptions
          http://www.livescience.com/38613-genetic-adam-and-eve-uncovered.html

          and "“If identical female twins get pregnant by the same man will their children be exactly the same if they are the same s.ex?”" is not true why do you as.sume that a common ancestor would point to an exact match of dna
          http://genetics.thetech.org/ask/ask128

          August 20, 2013 at 2:02 pm |
        • Just the Facts Ma'am...

          "Didn't we have this conversation already?" Not that I saw,no one has answered my questions as of yet.

          "If identical female twins get pregnant by the same man will their children be exactly the same if they are the same s.ex?”" is not true why do you as.sume that a common ancestor would point to an exact match of dna"

          You do see the giant flaw in your logic don't you? If identical twins get pregnant by the same man their children will indeed share that mans DNA which is traceable to him as an ancestor.

          So the long and short is that your answer is not an answer as so many others seem to be when faith is faced with reality.

          August 20, 2013 at 2:27 pm |
        • Bob

          Science does not claim to be inerrant and unchangeable. Religion, being purely dogmatic, cannot change without acknowleding its prior god fable to be wrong, yet Christian dogma has often been revised. Yes, we can go on all day posting links. Now, this time, try, in your own words, to answer the questions directly, rather than dodging with linkspew:

          How is it that your omnipotent being couldn't do his saving bit without the whole silly Jesus hoopla? And how was Jesus' death a "sacrifice", when an omnipotent being could just pop up a replacement son any time with less than a snap of his fingers?

          August 20, 2013 at 3:01 pm |
        • ME II

          @Mike from CT,
          from your article:

          "Despite their overlap in time, ancient "Adam" and ancient "Eve" probably didn't even live near each other, let alone mate."

          Adam and Eve?
          "These primeval people aren't parallel to the biblical Adam and Eve. They weren't the first modern humans on the planet, but instead just the two out of thousands of people alive at the time with unbroken male or female lineages that continue on today."

          August 20, 2013 at 4:22 pm |
      • Richard Cranium

        Mike from CT
        Why are you trying to deny that Hitler was Christian?
        And Napoleon was Roman Catholic.
        What point are you trying to make with references to them?

        August 20, 2013 at 1:05 pm |
        • Mike from CT

          Because there is no fruit in his life to point to him being a believer.

          What makes you think he was a follower of Christ? Because he said so..... do you also help Nigerian princes in finance troubles who email you using the same logic ?

          Matthew 7:15-23

          August 20, 2013 at 2:04 pm |
        • Mike from CT

          The point was the replier was trying to point to the inquisition as the only thing that has ever stopped progress and that is just intellectually dishonest.

          August 20, 2013 at 2:08 pm |
        • ME II

          @Mike in CT,
          "Because there is no fruit in his life to point to him being a believer."

          Sounds like a fuzzy indicator if I ever heard one. What is "fruit"? How do you know he didn't have any? Are you saying anyone with "fruit" is a believer?

          August 20, 2013 at 2:29 pm |
        • Richard Cranium

          Mike from CT
          Ok, no "fruit" just countless speeches, his own writings, his close association with the RCC, and on and on and on. He was a christian, you'd need to have blinders on not to know that much. Maybe he wasn't your kind of christian, but I doubt you are his kind of christian either. Perhaps when you get to heaven you can ask him. He may have repented in his final moments so the gates of heaven would have opened to him....they can't for me, because even though I am not responsible for the deaths of millions, I do not believe so I am the one with the worse godly trespass, eternity in hell for me, simply because I don't believe in a book that anyone with a rational mind, would see the falseness of.

          August 20, 2013 at 2:39 pm |
        • Just the Facts Ma'am...

          Would not Hitler be forgiven if he repented? Would he not have the God of the hebrews remove his punishment and kill a baby instead like he did when David showed himself a philandering murderer?

          "13 Then David said to Nathan, “I have sinned against the Lord.” Nathan replied, “The Lord has taken away your sin. You are not going to die. 14 But because by doing this you have shown utter contempt for[a] the Lord, the son born to you will die.” 2 Samuel 12:13,14

          August 20, 2013 at 2:51 pm |
        • skytag

          I'm not aware of any reason to believe Hitler was a Christian, and I think it's a stupid point to argue. What we do know is that the population of Germany was overwhelmingly Christian when the Nazis came to power and they were happy to go along with it. What that tells me is that all that Christian training and upbringing didn't keep the people from following Hitler.

          August 20, 2013 at 6:35 pm |
        • Mike from CT

          @Rich
          Which of Jesus teaching did Hitler follow, when did he profess Jesus as Lord over his life?
          you'd need to have blinders on not to know that much

          " Maybe he wasn't your kind of christian, but I doubt you are his kind of christian either"
          What does that even mean, stop spirtulizing the word. A Christian is a follower and believer in Jesus Christ.
          "We must therefore stick to the original, obvious meaning. The name Christians was first given at Antioch (Acts 11:26) to "the disciples," to those who accepted the teaching of the apostles."

          @Just
          Would Hitler be forgiven if he repented? Yes.

          August 21, 2013 at 8:19 am |
        • Mike from CT

          In parts to find the offending word

          Far deeper objections may be felt-and have been expressed- against my use of the word Christian to mean one who accepts the common doctrines of Christianity. People ask: "Who are you, to lay down who is, and who is not a Christian?" or "May not many a man who cannot believe these doctrines be far more truly a Christian, far closer to the spirit of Christ, than some who do?" Now this objection is in one sense very right, very charitable, very spiritual, very sensitive. It has every amiable quality except that of being useful. We simply cannot, without disaster, use language as these objectors want us to use it. I will try to make this clear by the history of another, and very much less important, word.

          August 21, 2013 at 8:24 am |
        • Mike from CT

          The word gentleman originally meant something recognisable; one who had a coat of arms and some landed property. When you called someone "a gentleman" you were not paying him a compliment, but merely stating a fact. If you said he was not "a gentleman" you were not insulting him, but giving information. There was no contradiction in saying that John was a liar and a gentleman; any more than there now is in saying that James is a fool and an M.A. But then there came people who said-so rightly, charitably, spiritually, sensitively, so anything but usefully-"Ah, but surely the important thing about a gentleman is not the coat of arms and the land, but the behaviour? Surely he is the true gentleman who behaves as a gentleman should? Surely in that sense Edward is far more truly a gentleman than John?"

          August 21, 2013 at 8:25 am |
        • Mike from CT

          They meant well. To be honourable and courteous and brave is of course a far better thing than to have a coat of arms. But it is not the same thing. Worse still, it is not a thing everyone will agree about. To call a man "a gentleman" in this new, refined sense, becomes, in fact, not a way of giving information about him, but a way of praising him: to deny that he is "a gentleman" becomes simply a way of insulting him. When a word ceases to be a term of description and becomes merely a term of praise, it no longer tells you facts about the object: it only tells you about the speaker's att.itude to that object. (A "nice" meal only means a meal the speaker likes.)

          August 21, 2013 at 8:26 am |
        • Mike from CT

          A gentleman, once it has been sp.iritualised and refined out of its old coa.rse, objective sense, means hardly more than a man whom the speaker likes. As a result, gentleman is now a use.less word. We had lots of terms of approval already, so it was not needed for that use; on the other hand if anyone (say, in a historical work) wants to use it in its old sense, he cannot do so without explanations. It has been spoi.led for that purpose.

          August 21, 2013 at 8:28 am |
        • Mike from CT

          Now if once we allow people to start spiritualising and refining, or as they might say "deepening," the sense of the word Christian, it too will speedily become a useless word. In the first place, Christians themselves will never be able to apply it to anyone. It is not for us to say who, in the deepest sense, is or is not close to the spirit of Christ. We do not see into men's hearts. We cannot judge, and are indeed forbidden to judge.
          It would be wicked arrogance for us to say that any man is, or is not, a Christian in this refined sense. And obviously a word which we can never apply is not going to be a very useful word. As for the unbelievers, they will no doubt cheerfully use the word in the refined sense. It will become in their mouths simply a term of praise. In calling anyone a Christian they will mean that they think him a good man. But that way of using the word will be no enrichment of the language, for we already have the word good. Meanwhile, the word Christian will have been spoiled for any really useful purpose it might have served.
          We must therefore stick to the original, obvious meaning. The name Christians was first given at Antioch (Acts 11:26) to "the disciples," to those who accepted the teaching of the apostles. There is no question of its being restricted to those who profited by that teaching as much as they should have. There is no question of its being extended to those who in some refined, spiritual,inward fashion were "far closer to the spirit of Christ" than the less satisfactory of the disciples. The point is not a theological, or moral one. It is only a question of using words so that we can all understand what is being said. When a man who accepts the Christian doctrine lives unworthily of it, it is much clearer to say he is a bad Christian than to say he is not a Christian.
          I hope no reader will suppose that "mere" Christianity is here put forward as an alternative to the creeds of the existing communions-as if a man could adopt it in preference to Congregationalism or Greek Orthodoxy or anything else.

          August 21, 2013 at 8:28 am |
        • Richard Cranium

          You can try to rationalize it all you want. When somoeone idebntifies themselves as a christian, when he calls on God almighty (meaning the christian god), when he makes many statements indicating that one needs belief in order to be moral, on and on and on. Guess what, Hitler was a Christian. No matter how you try to rationalize it, no matter how you try to change the meanings of words, or re-interpret things, it won't change the fact that Hitler was Christian, he used his belief to justify what he wass doing, in the name of your god. He was your brother in Christ, and if he could do all that he did , and get into heaven, and I cannot simply because I am not gulklible enough to believe the ridiculous stories that make up the bible, well then I judge your god to be unworthy. Just the same as all man made gods.

          August 21, 2013 at 8:31 am |
        • midwest rail

          " We do not see into men's hearts. We cannot judge, and are indeed forbidden to judge. "
          Contemporary evangelical Christians would disagree, vehemently.

          August 21, 2013 at 8:31 am |
        • Mike from CT

          @Rich
          "You can try to rationalize it all you want. When somoeone idebntifies themselves as a christian, when he calls on God almighty (meaning the christian god), "

          Ok let's follow this logic, if someone identifies themselves as an electrician then they must be an electrician regardless of whether they have a permit or not. Or if someone identifies them as an officer or judge then you must be subject to their judgement and if they decide to arrest you, then don't fight it they identify them self as an officer..... yeah that logic fails badly.

          "when he makes many statements indicating that one needs belief in order to be moral, on and on and on." - this is a good example, this is not a Christian belief.

          @Midwest, there is a distinction of passing judgement and making an evaluation. What you are referring to is passing judgement and deem that someone is worse than ourselfs. (matt 7:1-5) But to hold someone to a standard for evaluation is not against the Christian belief (matt 7:15-20 same chapter)

          August 21, 2013 at 10:06 am |
        • midwest rail

          No, I refer specifically to posters here who will gladly cite verses that they claim gives them the right and duty to judge others.

          August 21, 2013 at 10:10 am |
        • Just the Facts Ma'am...

          "Ok let's follow this logic, if someone identifies themselves as an electrician then they must be an electrician regardless of whether they have a permit or not. Or if someone identifies them as an officer or judge then you must be subject to their judgement and if they decide to arrest you, then don't fight it they identify them self as an officer..... yeah that logic fails badly."

          Yes, your logic fails badly as this has nothing to do with someone calling themselves a Christian. Each example you listed is an actual occupation that requires training, to believe in Christ it takes virtually none. In fact many believe it is enough to be a Christian just to be born of and baptized as a Christian, which Hitler certainly was. Does the fact that later in life his drug addled and syphilitic brain had him ordering some horrific things in the name of Christ mean he wasn't a Christian? Are you still a Christian if you had a bit too much to drink at a party but attempted to drive anyway where you ran a family of five off the road killing them? Your drug addled brain caused you to make a bad decision and people died, are you really automatically no longer a Christian? I am in no way defending Hitler, but it is interesting to note that he maintained his faith in his writing and in his speeches to the very end, so at least one person believed he was a Christian doing Gods work, himself.

          August 21, 2013 at 12:07 pm |
        • Mike from CT

          "In fact many believe it is enough to be a Christian just to be born of and baptized as a Christian, "
          And if many people still believe 3*4 = 11, does it make it correct?

          Your analogy fails badly to compare Hitler's reign to one bad decision in life.

          "he maintained his faith in his writing and in his speeches to the very end, "
          Key statement faith in what? Was it "those who accepted the teaching of the apostles"? I think not.

          August 21, 2013 at 12:42 pm |
        • Richard Cranium

          Mike from CT
          Still clinging to the No True Scotsman fallacy, I see.

          August 21, 2013 at 12:49 pm |
        • Just the Facts Ma'am...

          My point was that you do not get to decide who is and who is not a Christian. You seem to be perfectly fine with the genocides commited by Gods chosen people in the bible when they were told to go and destroy the towns and villages in and around the promised land, killing women and children, all at Gods command. And yet in our modern times you have a person who claims God is using them to cleanse their land and so sanctions similar genocide but you claim that as proof they are no true Christian. Effectively you are claiming the ability to judge others in contradiction to your own scripture. Hitler said he was a Christian, preached about his Catholic faith to his followers and proclaimed Catholicism as the national religion of Germany. If there is a God (which I highly doubt) then he and only he would get to judge any of us. If there is no God, then Hitler is just another in a long line of examples of a humans using religion to their own ends. Christian, Muslm, Hindu etc., they are all the same, just different colored vehicles for humans to shirk individual responsibility and pursue their own desires where if things go wrong, it's not their fault, it was Satan or whatever evil demon you prefer. If things go well it's your righteousness that you feel God is rewarding, a smug self confidence that often has people thinking they get to judge others because of their perceived personal piety.

          August 21, 2013 at 12:57 pm |
        • fintastic

          @just the facts................ well said!!!

          August 21, 2013 at 1:55 pm |
        • Mike from CT

          @Rich I urge you to learn what the No True Scotsman fallacy is.
          For we are not using it at all. What you are saying is equivalent to

          R: Hitler self claimed to be short stop for the Yankees
          M: But he is not, nor is there any evidence in his life that he ever met that qualification.
          R: "NO TRUE SCOTSMAN FALLACY"

          Just show me the evidence that Hitler "accepted the teaching of the apostles."? Shouldn't be so hard.

          August 21, 2013 at 2:39 pm |
        • Mike from CT

          @Just
          1. "My point was that you do not get to decide who is and who is not a Christian"
          And neither do you, and neither does Hitler get to self proclaim it, we agree on this point.
          So if I can't claim he is not a Christian then how do you get to decide if he is a christian. You would / did contradict your own statement.
          But we do get to evaluate if the person meets the standards of the definition of the word, any word for that matter whether it be Christian, male, electrician, american citizen

          2. ". And yet in our modern times"
          Key phrase, by modern times you mean under the new covenant, and that is an important distinction not to overlook.

          3. "Effectively you are claiming the ability to judge others in contradiction to your own scripture."
          Not at all please re-read 5 post above yours for the distinction. Matthew 7 verse 1-5 vs 15-23

          4. "Christian, Muslm, Hindu etc., they are all the same, just different colored vehicles for humans to shirk individual responsibility"
          That is a very offensive statement. To call all religions the same is lazy, incompetent, dishonest and down right stupid. If you want to be involved in discussions like this one you should take the time to understand each belief system as well as your own.

          So now it is clear this amounts to I am argue with someone about someone else being christian when that person them self doesn't understand Christianity.

          That would be like you arguing with physicist over string theory based upon half Wikipedia article.

          August 21, 2013 at 2:51 pm |
        • Just the Facts Ma'am...

          "1. "My point was that you do not get to decide who is and who is not a Christian"
          And neither do you, and neither does Hitler get to self proclaim it, we agree on this point.
          So if I can't claim he is not a Christian then how do you get to decide if he is a christian. You would / did contradict your own statement." No, I did not contradict anything, I said we don't get to decide, it is up to the person making the claim. I never said Hitler was a Christian, I said he believed himself to be a Christian.

          "But we do get to evaluate if the person meets the standards of the definition of the word, any word for that matter whether it be Christian, male, electrician, american citizen" Of which if looking at figures in the bible who were supposed to be gods servants, then Hitler fits that definition perfectly. Insane sycophant uses religion to murder and dominate his neighbors.

          2. ". And yet in our modern times"
          Key phrase, by modern times you mean under the new covenant, and that is an important distinction not to overlook."

          Did the God of your bible change or not? Was he the same God who ordered the murder of the pagan nations women and children or not? Your new covenant excuse is so full of holes it's laughable. To say the ancient God of the Hebrews just turned on a dime from the jealous and violent God of the Hebrews to the turn the other cheek God of Christ, but also God never changes, is in fact one of the biggest contradictions in the bible.

          3. "Effectively you are claiming the ability to judge others in contradiction to your own scripture."
          Not at all please re-read 5 post above yours for the distinction. Matthew 7 verse 1-5 vs 15-23. You say Hitler was not a Christian, you are judging others, end of story.

          4. "Christian, Muslm, Hindu etc., they are all the same, just different colored vehicles for humans to shirk individual responsibility" That is a very offensive statement. To call all religions the same is lazy, incompetent, dishonest and down right stupid. If you want to be involved in discussions like this one you should take the time to understand each belief system as well as your own." The only thing that is dihonest are those that attempt to hide and ignore their own faiths failings because they are insecure and refuse any self examination because to do so would be to doubt your faith, which ALL those religions do. They are all lies and deceit wrapped in honeyed words all for the purpose of fleecing their flocks.

          "So now it is clear this amounts to I am argue with someone about someone else being christian when that person them self doesn't understand Christianity." I was a Pastor in an Ohio congregation for over a decade. It was my reading of the bible and continued examination of scripture that led me to read other religions doctrine and compare most of the worlds organized religion and found them all wanting.

          Your religion is false, your Christ is dead and he's not coming back. Organized religion as we know it is circling the drain and has not long to live as more and more real facts about our universe come to light. Good riddance.

          August 21, 2013 at 3:25 pm |
        • ME II

          Not sure if this qualifies:

          "My feeling as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter."

          Speech delivered at Munich 12 April 1922; from Norman H. Baynes, ed. (1942). The Speeches of Adolf Hitler: April 1922-August 1939. 1. New York: Oxford University Press. pp. 19-20.
          (as quoted at http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler's_religious_views )

          August 21, 2013 at 3:45 pm |
        • Mike from CT

          MEII I would say not because it is a personal feeling, which is contrary to the doctrine Christ taught.

          August 21, 2013 at 4:17 pm |
        • Mike from CT

          I was a Pastor in an Ohio congregation for over a decade. It was my reading of the bible and continued examination of scripture that led me to read other religions doctrine and compare most of the worlds organized religion and found them all wanting.

          If this was a true statement I would expect you to know the difference of the faiths you listed. Even Dawkins and Ehraman grasp that.

          August 21, 2013 at 4:19 pm |
        • Marlon

          “…the only way of getting rid of Christianity is to allow it to die little by little.” -Hitler

          August 21, 2013 at 4:26 pm |
        • Marlon

          Our epoch will certainly see the end of the disease of Christianity. It will last another hundred years, two hundred years perhaps. My regret will have been that I couldn’t, like whoever the prophet was, behold the promised land from afar. We are entering into a conception of the world that will be a sunny era, an era of tolerance.” -Hitler

          August 21, 2013 at 4:27 pm |
        • Marlon

          “Christianity is a rebellion against natural law, a protest against nature. Taken to its logical extreme, Christianity would mean the systematic cultivation of the human failure.” -Hitler

          Only a fool would think hitler was a Christian.

          August 21, 2013 at 4:31 pm |
        • ME II

          Mike from CT
          "I would say not because it is a personal feeling, which is contrary to the doctrine Christ taught."

          I meant as a declaration that he was "... a follower and believer in Jesus Christ." He apparently believed in Jesus as his "Lord and Savior," whether he followed or not, or did so successfully or not, seems to be a matter of judgement.

          August 21, 2013 at 4:55 pm |
        • Just the Facts Ma'am...

          "If this was a true statement I would expect you to know the difference of the faiths you listed. Even Dawkins and Ehraman grasp that."

          It is a true statement but I fail to see the difference between all of these faiths. The bibe, the Upanishads, the Quran and even the book of Mormon are all books of men, written by man for man.

          August 21, 2013 at 7:09 pm |
      • ME II

        @Mike form CT,
        The amputee question is not the same as the Theodicy question as AIG frames it, nor is it an invalid question as gotquestions frames it. The question is simply:

        If God does heal people for whatever reason, as meany have claimed, then why has God apparently never healed an amputee?

        This question is more a refutation that a supposed god intercedes and heals anyone rather than a direct refutation of the existence of God. Further argument would be needed for that.

        August 20, 2013 at 1:46 pm |
        • ME II

          "many" not "meany" (although many may be mean as well)

          August 20, 2013 at 1:47 pm |
        • fred

          "why has God apparently never healed an amputee"
          =>A couple of amputees got together and cornered me as to why I never prayed with them for God to heal them (implication was to make their old limbs spontaneously reappear). Now, I am not sure what Gods purpose for them is so I cannot comment on all those possibilities but, I can comment on why I never prayed for healing of the limbs.
          Our existence has two components namely physical and spiritual. God purposed existence for eternal souls that reveal their desire to express, appreciate and incorporate the love and awe which is the Glory of God. The Kingdom of God is very different from our entanglement with this world. Limbs although a great proof of the power of God are not key to the refinement of our soul. When I meet with disabled suffering people I attempt to connect the root of suffering with the will of God. God does not answer prayer that is not according to His will. In short I focus on the spiritual side of the brokenness made obvious from a physical perspective.
          Captain Dan (Forest Gump movie) finally accepted Gods revelation which was the spirit that needed healing. Once the relationship with God was healed Dan received new hardware thanks to Gods hand in the purchase of Apple stock when first issued. If Dan received instant new legs he may never have found God who knew something about Apples and the tree of Life.

          August 20, 2013 at 3:11 pm |
        • ME II

          @fred,
          Thanks for missing the point.

          As I said, it is not a question of Theodicy, or why is there suffering/evil, it is a question of if He heals some why not some amputees.

          "If God does heal [some] people for whatever reason, as meany have claimed, then why has God apparently never healed an amputee?

          August 20, 2013 at 3:52 pm |
        • Alias

          OBVIOUSLY, GOD DOES NOT WAT TO REVEAL HIMSELF.
          If he did, then we would have proof of him, and faith would lose all value.
          This is the same god who has been out of site since burning a bush in front of Moses, when no one else was watching!

          August 20, 2013 at 4:49 pm |
        • fred

          Alias
          Exactly what would God look like if He appeared to you and still be God? It is more than a matter of faith as it is logical and reasonable to understand the Father and the Son are not the Droids you are looking for.

          The best we have is Jesus where the physical form was man so we could visualize form. Even so Jesus was the full radiance of the Glory of God. What you should be looking for is that radiance of Gods Glory not things of matter energy formed by man or substance known to man.

          Have you seen the unknown that exists outside the boundaries of our scientific knowledge? I guess it does not want to be seen so atheists take it on faith.

          August 20, 2013 at 6:06 pm |
        • skytag

          fred has learned the most important thing a Christian needs to know: How to make excuses for God. Always excuses, never any evidence.

          August 20, 2013 at 6:55 pm |
        • skytag

          fred, God has done such a great job of ensuring there is no reason to believe he exists that I'm convinced he doesn't exist. He should be very pleased by my atheism.

          August 20, 2013 at 6:58 pm |
        • Just the Facts Ma'am...

          " God does not answer prayer that is not according to His will. In short I focus on the spiritual side of the brokenness made obvious from a physical perspective.
          Captain Dan (Forest Gump movie) finally accepted Gods revelation which was the spirit that needed healing. Once the relationship with God was healed Dan received new hardware thanks to Gods hand in the purchase of Apple stock when first issued. If Dan received instant new legs he may never have found God who knew something about Apples and the tree of Life."

          So the long and short of freds argument is that it is not Gods will to heal amputees because he wants them to learn a lesson and then after they do he will reward them, just not with legs. It's one of the stupidest things iv'e ever heard him say.

          August 21, 2013 at 8:35 am |
        • fred

          ME II
          I was not going down the path of theodicy and stated I do not know why God does not heal lost limbs. There is much apologetics on the topic but we cannot know the mind of God.

          I have not prayed for nor have I been in the presence of prayer by others asking for new limbs. The standard cop out would be those praying lack faith that God will heal or they pray for the wrong reason. My justification is that the Holy Spirit has never led me to pray for the miraculous regeneration of limbs. As I said I am led to pray for the root of the suffering and pain of the amputee.

          August 21, 2013 at 1:43 pm |
        • fred

          Just the Facts Ma'am...
          That is not why I pray for the root causes and needs of an amputee. Perhaps there is some confusion as to prayer and the will of God.
          God has brought all things into existence according to his will the result of which is that all things work to the good of those who believe. Prayer is simply time with God where we express thanks and give praise in a personal way. During that time God may bring things to our attention and we bring before God our needs. All that we need is a personal relationship with God who we know works everything (including the bad) for our good (whether we understand it or not). A new set of legs or arms is nice but it is not our highest need even though we think it is at the moment. Our highest need is to know and love God with all our hearts. Existence is the process that aligns our highest need with Gods purpose for creation that is the will of God for us as individuals and all creation.
          God does not necessarily allow loss of limb to teach a lesson and or bring about a desired result anymore than allowing Katrina so as to teach a lesson or bring about a desired result. As humans when we go through good and bad those relationships we have with others deepen causing greater bonding or sometimes the reverse can happen. With God our personal relationship grows stronger and love deepens as we walk with God through good and bad times. It is the will of God that our relationship with God grows stronger and deeper.

          August 21, 2013 at 3:30 pm |
        • fred

          ME II
          ""If God does heal [some] people for whatever reason, as meany have claimed, then why has God apparently never healed an amputee?"
          =>Skeptics and atheists would not accept the claim of healing if it did happen. I am not aware of any healing where the non believer untouched by the Holy Spirit would accept it as proof of God. Thus God has never apparently healed anyone in the eyes of those opposed to God. This fits with what Jesus said when the High Priests and skeptics demanded a miracle to prove Jesus was Christ. Jesus said "none will be given to you except the sign of Jonah" (Jonah spoke the spirit of God moved and Nineveh turned from their evil ways after he was in the belly of the fish 3 days).. Jesus was not about the miracle of special healing but the miracle of spiritual rebirth and salvation that comes only from God.
          =>Assuming all those stories of healing you have encountered were true would you believe Jesus was the Son of God who died for your sins?

          August 21, 2013 at 3:53 pm |
        • ME II

          @fred,
          "...we cannot know the mind of God."

          There are two cases where this might be true, God is beyond our comprehension or God does not exist.

          "I have not prayed for nor have I been in the presence of prayer by others asking for new limbs."

          I feel confident in guessing that you are not an amputee and have not dealt with such a loss.

          "My justification is that the Holy Spirit has never led me to pray for the miraculous regeneration of limbs. "

          Is your response then that you are unaware of anyone ever actually attempting to pray for limb regeneration? That seems disingenuous; while it may be technically accurate, it hardly seems an honest assessment of amputees or any reasonable situation where such prayers might be made. It would seem very consistent with human behavior to assume that most, if not all, amputees that believe in God would have prayed for their limbs to come back at one time or another. Whether you yourself have ever prayed for limb regrowth seem highly irrelevant.

          August 21, 2013 at 4:01 pm |
        • ME II

          @fred,
          "Skeptics and atheists would not accept the claim of healing if it did happen."

          Irrelevant.

          "Thus God has never apparently healed anyone in the eyes of those opposed to God."

          How convenient. Unaltered before and after photos or x-rays would be sufficient, and yet, nada.
          The whole point of this question is that unlike other claims of healing limb regrowth would be very difficult to fake.
          Or, are you saying that the reason God doesn't heal amputees, is because it would give evidence of His existence and therefore He will not?

          "Assuming all those stories of healing you have encountered were true would you believe Jesus was the Son of God who died for your sins?"

          "All those stories of healing," or just the ones of healing by Jesus/God? Should I exclude the healings by Voodoo shamans, Thetans, the Great Spirit, Nganga, and Aliens?
          I will admit that if all the healings attributed to Jesus/God were actually cases of true healing, then it would definitely be worth investigating and possibly believing. However, this is not the case, so it is a moot point.

          Perhaps you are setting up an invalid question:
          'If all the miracles attributed to God were truly miracles from God, would you believe in God?'

          In other words, begging the question of miracles from God.

          Let me ask you the corollary,

          "Assuming all those stories of healing you have encountered were [*not*] true would you believe Jesus was the Son of God who died for your sins?"

          August 21, 2013 at 4:28 pm |
        • fred

          ME II
          "...we cannot know the mind of God."
          There are two cases where this might be true, God is beyond our comprehension or God does not exist.

          =>God is beyond our comprehension. God is beyond our comprehension even if God exists. Throughout time we see man assigning known or understandable attributes to that which is incomprehensible. Scientifically God is not comprised of matter and energy that can be measured or quantified in any way (God is not of the stuff we know about i.e. God is not of created things which themselves are comprised of other created things).
          At the moment I cannot think of any proof that even the assigned attributes of God have a basis in fact.

          I know that what the Bible refers to as the Holy Spirit (mans best shot at assigning form and substance to a component of God) came into my life and instantly converted me into a believer of that which escapes comprehension and scientific validation. The Holy Spirit is the Spirit of God and for some reason I understand that Spirit does not have form or substance like Casper the Ghost but is somewhat like the attribute we assign to the human spirit. I believe the capacity to be filled with the Holy Spirit is part of our biological form as is the need to assign knowable attributes to that which produces faith. Given my conversion was like a switch that was thrown and I was a new person I assign great power to that filling. I cannot comprehend the source or construct of that power.

          August 21, 2013 at 5:23 pm |
        • fred

          ME II

          "the reason God doesn't heal amputees, is because it would give evidence of His existence and therefore He will not?"
          =>no, I am not suggesting that however, it is by faith we please God and by faith we "see" God. Jesus had a string of followers but all fell to the way side when Jesus did not continue to meet their physical expectations.

          "Assuming all those stories of healing you have encountered were [*not*] true would you believe Jesus was the Son of God who died for your sins?"
          =>no, man assigns attributes to God that meet their ability to understand. It is very hard to discount the actual healing I have observed so I would find some apologetics that reconciles the falsehood.

          August 21, 2013 at 5:39 pm |
        • ME II

          @fred,
          "God is beyond our comprehension."

          Pure speculation, as is the rest of that posting.

          "It is very hard to discount the actual healing I have observed so I would find some apologetics that reconciles the falsehood."

          Interesting, I didn't think you would state that so plainly. You wouldn't even consider that you might have been wrong?

          August 21, 2013 at 6:06 pm |
        • ME II

          @fred,
          "God is beyond our comprehension."

          Pure speculation, as is the rest of that posting.

          "It is very hard to discount the actual healing I have observed so I would find some apologetics that reconciles the falsehood."

          Interesting, I didn't think you would state that so plainly. You wouldn't even consider that you might have been wrong?

          August 21, 2013 at 6:07 pm |
        • fred

          ME II
          "God is beyond our comprehension."

          Pure speculation, as is the rest of that posting.

          =>The unknown is beyond your comprehension. Is that also pure speculation on your part.

          August 22, 2013 at 12:17 pm |
      • Bob

        Mike, grow some guts, and try to answer the questions in your own words. I doubt that you can. Again, the questions:

        How is it that your omnipotent being couldn't do his saving bit without the whole silly Jesus hoopla?
        And how was Jesus' death a "sacrifice", when an omnipotent being could just pop up a replacement son any time with less than a snap of his fingers?

        August 20, 2013 at 3:05 pm |
        • Mike from CT

          @Bob let me try again
          How is it that your omnipotent being couldn't do his saving bit without the whole silly Jesus hoopla?
          Who said he could not? But if He did, then it would be cheap grace. That is penance without a cost. And we see how this plays out today. Rich kid smashes his fathers car. Father buys a new car and rich kid learns absolutely nothing making the same mistake again and again. There is a cost to sin and that cost is death (Romans 6:26). Why death? Because all sin is is treason against the Creator of the universe. And every nation treats treason with death.

          And how was Jesus' death a "sacrifice", when an omnipotent being could just pop up a replacement son any time with less than a snap of his fingers? This one as I said, there is still pain and obedience in the act, which makes the act so loving. Jesus did not come to not only get us "off the hook" but also put himself on the hook, to suffer along side us, to go through everything we go through but still be the only one to fulfill the whole law (Hebrews 4:15)

          See the only one that can make penance is a perfect man, and the only one that doesn't need pence is a perfect man, so your objection is why did he help us or to use the analogy

          "I have heard some people complain that if Jesus was God as well as man, then His sufferings and death lose all value in their eyes, "because it must have been so easy for him." Others may (very rightly) rebuke the ingratitude and ungraciousness of this objection; what staggers me is the misunderstanding it betrays. In one sense, of course, those who make it are right. They have even understated their own case. The perfect submission, the perfect suffering, the perfect death were not only easier to Jesus because He was God, but were possible only because He was God. But surely that is a very odd reason for not accepting them? The teacher is able to form the letters for the child because the teacher is grown-up and knows how to write. That, of course, makes it easier for the teacher, and only because it is easier for him can he help the child. If it rejected him because "it's easy for grown-ups" and waited to learn writing from another child who could not write itself (and so had no "unfair" advantage), it would not get on very quickly. If I am drowning in a rapid river, a man who still has one foot on the bank may give me a hand which saves my life. Ought I to shout back (between my gasps) "No, it's not fair! You have an advantage! You're keeping one foot on the bank"? That advantage-call it "unfair" if you like-is the only reason why he can be of any use to me. To what will you look for help if you will not look to that which is stronger than yourself?"

          Hope that helps.

          August 21, 2013 at 10:29 am |
  11. bostontola

    Atheism is not the belief in science as many religious people like to frame it. Atheism is merely not believing in a god. I know atheists that are artists, they find science a foreign language.

    Art and science have something in common that is also opposite of the Abrahamic religions, art and science are creative while those religions are static. Man is extraordinarily creative, it may be what most separates man from other living things. Religion stunts that creativity (only support that which doesn't conflict with dogma), science and art help it flourish. That static aspect of religion is repulsive to my nature, I'm sure it is comforting to others. To each his own.

    August 20, 2013 at 12:10 pm |
  12. Your spell check is off

    It's 'millennial' and not 'millenial'

    August 20, 2013 at 11:31 am |
    • Bob

      Geez, stop being picky.

      August 20, 2013 at 11:33 am |
      • sky is falling!

        hey, that spelling is a distraction to an otherwise meaningful debate 😉

        August 20, 2013 at 11:39 am |
        • Harris Dawkins

          Hemant is a hindoo name, what interest does a hindoo have in millennials leaving the church???

          August 20, 2013 at 11:47 am |
        • sky is falling!

          That must be a Trojan horse!

          August 20, 2013 at 11:53 am |
        • Commenter

          Harris Dawkins:
          "what interest does a hindoo have in millennials leaving the church???"

          Ask Ravi Zacharias... bet you'll drool with delight over his answers.

          August 20, 2013 at 12:17 pm |
        • George

          Answering your question, how about– pagans are deceptive!

          August 20, 2013 at 12:51 pm |
  13. My name is Stats 101

    Millennials are leaving the church because they have access to the internet and can verify most religious claims as being the wishful thinking and hogwash that they are.

    August 20, 2013 at 11:23 am |
    • Rynomite

      +1

      Information. Information. Information.

      August 20, 2013 at 11:29 am |
    • Mike from CT

      Can you give an example or two?

      August 20, 2013 at 12:04 pm |
  14. Frank

    Why do we no longer believe in the Greek or Roman Gods? That is why Christianity is dying. It is no longer believable.

    August 20, 2013 at 10:53 am |
    • Robert Brown

      Christianity killed the greek and roman gods, next.

      August 20, 2013 at 12:19 pm |
      • Bob

        The internet is killing Christianity, and that's great news.

        August 20, 2013 at 12:25 pm |
      • Ganesh

        Christianity did not kill the Hindu gods.

        Facts and realism will eventually kill all gods, next.

        August 20, 2013 at 12:25 pm |
        • Segoy

          Your faith in facts is strong.

          August 20, 2013 at 12:57 pm |
      • G to the T

        Almost Robert – Let me fix that – "Christians destroyed the greek and roman gods". Only people are capable of doing something, a religion or philosophy cannot do anything on it's own.

        So really, "people who no longer believed in the greek and roman gods, destroyed the religions around them." Which is exactly what we're seeing today with Christianity...

        August 20, 2013 at 3:21 pm |
      • sam stone

        christianity will disappear, too, robert

        don't be so fvcking pompous

        August 22, 2013 at 2:29 pm |
  15. bostontola

    I have been trying to understand why many religious people can't stop their circular reasoning. I think it is because in their minds, the existence of god and the truth of their scripture occupy the same role as axioms in mathematics. They are not to be proved, they are defined as true. Logical deductions from them are true.

    The problem is, religions' dogma doesn't logically deduce from the axioms, they are all defined by men. In that sense, all dogma is axioms. That is a trivial system. Another problem is axioms themselves have been shown to not be self evident truths as believed by mathematicians for centuries, but more like defined starting points for useful deductions. In geometry, the parallel axiom was taken as self evident, 2 parallel lines will never cross. That's because we assumed the universe (and any universe) could only be flat. People found that there are other consistent geometries where that isn't true, then Einstien found that our universe is such a place and gravity can be viewed as the unflatness.

    If only religious people could be open minded enough to review their axioms, they might uncover a vast new world to explore like mathematicians did. It's hard, it took mathematicians centuries to open their minds and they didn't have the fear of eternal fire to deal with.

    August 20, 2013 at 9:35 am |
    • I'm sorry Dave, I'm afraid I can't do that

      "They are not to be proved, they are defined as true."

      I'd say that's a perfect description of the average theist's mindset.

      August 20, 2013 at 9:37 am |
    • nclaw441

      boston– I think you are correct in your analysis, but incorrect regarding what religious people see as their purpose.

      Religious believers (like myself) do not seek to prove anything to anyone. Religion is not science, and most do not claim it to be such. We DO begin with the assumption, admittedly and necessarily unprovable, that God exists. If you are expecting proof of that tenet you will be disappointed. We call this part of religion faith. It is not blind faith, but neither is it scientifically provable.

      From there Christianity and other religions develop.

      August 20, 2013 at 9:53 am |
      • bostontola

        nclaw,
        I didn't comment on believer's purpose at all. You may have assumed that. I disagree on your assessment of your faith. It is blind faith. The parallel axiom was not blind faith, there are systems where it is true, it just isn't universally true. Your belief in god has absolutely no evidence to support it, that is blind faith. I don't say that as an insult, blind faith is the purest form and can only come from love.

        August 20, 2013 at 10:02 am |
        • JimK57

          Exactly! Good post.

          August 20, 2013 at 11:33 am |
      • Kyle Dasan

        "I refuse to prove that I exist,'" says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing."

        "But," says Man, "The Babel fish is a dead giveaway, isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. QED."

        "Oh dear," says God, "I hadn't thought of that," and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic.

        August 20, 2013 at 11:48 am |
      • skytag

        "We DO begin with the assumption, admittedly and necessarily unprovable, that God exists."

        Exactly. With no evidence whatsoever to support this, people simply decide to believe in one or more gods. Then some of those believers decide to believe they know that their god or gods want. Then some of those decide that needs to be enforced on their society to keep their imaginary gods happy.

        August 20, 2013 at 12:34 pm |
      • Just the Facts Ma'am...

        "It is not blind faith" it's just that no one can see any evidence... which would by definition make it blind faith... or are you talking about turning your targeting computer off, closing your eyes and "feeling" for the death star exhaust port with the force? When we have science and technology that can help us build an accurate picture of our universe, why close your eyes to it?

        August 20, 2013 at 3:03 pm |
  16. Lawrence

    Time + Chance is not a creative force...

    To say that God doesn’t exist is to say that our universe came into existence by blind chance. Either there is a God who created the universe and sovereignly rules His creation, or everything was caused by blind chance. The two ideas are mutually exclusive. If God rules, there’s no room for chance. Make chance the cause of the universe, and you have effectively done away with God. But the problem is that chance is not a force, it is merely an expression of mathematical possibility; therefore it has no power to do anything, it cannot be the cause of any effect. The principles of thermodynamics, physics, and biology suggest that chance cannot be the determinative force that has brought about the order and interdependence we see in our universe—much less the diversity of life we find on our own planet. Ultimately, chance simply cannot account for the origin of life and intelligence. One of the oldest principles of rational philosophy is ex nihilo nihil fit. Out of nothing, nothing comes. And chance is nothing. Naturalism is rational suicide.

    Someone once estimated that the number of random genetic factors involved in the evolution of a tapeworm from an amoeba would be comparable to placing a monkey in a room with a typewriter and allowing him to strike the keys at random until he accidentally produced a perfectly spelled and perfectly punctuated typescript of Hamlet’s soliloquy. And the odds of getting all the mutations necessary to evolve a starfish from a one–celled creature are comparable to asking a hundred blind people to make ten random moves each with five Rubik’s Cubes, and finding all five cubes perfectly solved at the end of the process. The odds against all earth’s life forms evolving from a single cell are, in a word, impossible.

    One Nobel laureate, Harvard professor George Wald, acknowledged the absurdity of this. Pondering the vast array of factors both real and hypothetical that would have to arise spontaneously in order for in–animate matter to evolve into even the most primitive one–celled form of life, he wrote, "One has only to contemplate the magnitude of this task to concede that the spontaneous generation of a living organism is impossible." Then he added, "Yet here we are—as a result, I believe, of spontaneous generation." How did Wald believe this impossibility came about? He answered: "Time is in fact the hero of the plot. The time with which we have to deal is of the order of two billion years. What we regard as impossible on the basis of human experience is meaningless here. Given so much time, the ‘impossible’ becomes possible, the possible probable, and the probable virtually certain. One has only to wait: time itself performs the miracles." Given enough time, that which is impossible becomes "virtually certain." That is sheer double–talk. And it perfectly illustrates the blind faith that underlies naturalistic religion.

    August 20, 2013 at 9:20 am |
    • I'm sorry Dave, I'm afraid I can't do that

      Hokum.

      August 20, 2013 at 9:21 am |
    • tallulah13

      Quote mining George Wald does not prove your point; indeed you left out this part of his full statement:

      "The important point is that since the origin of life belongs in the category of at-least-once phenomena, time is on its side. However improbable we regard this event, or any of the steps which it involves, given enough time it will almost certainly happen at least once. And for life as we know it, with its capacity for growth and reproduction, once may be enough."

      If anyone would like to read what George Wald actually said back in 1954, here an overview:

      http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/part4-2.html

      August 20, 2013 at 9:34 am |
      • Lawrence

        However the assumption that is made is still the same – that chance is a motivating force. And it is not. Chance doesn't exist as a mover. Neither can time be considered as a force of creation, for time itself once did not exist.

        August 20, 2013 at 9:39 am |
        • I'm sorry Dave, I'm afraid I can't do that

          What created the creator? Chance?

          August 20, 2013 at 9:48 am |
        • Richard Cranium

          Lawrence
          Time is a dimension, it has always existed in one form or another. Time is without mass, substance. It is not linear, it is a dimension. To say time at one time did not exist, is making a wild leap with no justification.

          August 20, 2013 at 9:52 am |
        • tallulah13

          Just because you don't understand, Lawrence, doesn't mean it didn't happen. Your scientific ignorance is not proof of god. It's just proof that you are scientifically ignorant.

          Other people, people smarter than us, are researching exactly how life came to exist. Amino acids, the building blocks of life, have been created in a lab. A synthetic self-replicating, bacterial cell has been created a lab.

          We many never know the exact mechanism that brought life to this planet, but there is absolutely nothing to indicate that it was a supernatural being. Gods are what people create when they don't know - or don't want to know - honest answers.

          August 20, 2013 at 9:52 am |
        • Lawrence

          I'm Sorry Dave: It's not illogical to have a self-existent Creator, which is exactly what is necessary in order to get around the illogical premise that the universe is self-created.

          August 20, 2013 at 9:53 am |
        • I'm sorry Dave, I'm afraid I can't do that

          It's very illogical. How can anything be self-created?

          August 20, 2013 at 9:56 am |
        • Lawrence

          Richard: to say that time always existed is to make a wild leap with no justification. The modern assumption is that things exist now just as they always have, and that's an ungrounded assumption.

          Still, even if time always existed, it is not a motivating force. Neither is chance.

          August 20, 2013 at 9:57 am |
        • Lawrence

          I'm sorry Dave: Exactly... Nothing is self-created, but if you do not believe in God, then that is the only conclusion that you are left with. Something that cannot happen. The universe is not eternal – there is no mathematical model of an eternal universe that works, but even if one did, the math must stack up to observable reality, and reality is that the universe is changing – if something changes, then it is not eternal.

          August 20, 2013 at 9:59 am |
        • Brother Maynard

          I've actually been thinking about this whole "chance" thing. I'm not a physicist, so my fellow physicist/ atheist please correct me if my premise is incorrect.
          So IF the universe is expanding and acclerating in that expansion. Would not it be infinate? meaning it would NOT colapse back on itself and "RE Big Bang" ?
          AND if that is true then does not chance then become %99.99999999999999999999999999 ( 9's to infinity ) certain? If I have an infinate amount of time and an infinate amount of space all 'events' will eventually come to pass

          August 20, 2013 at 9:59 am |
        • tallulah13

          Again, Lawrence, your scientific ignorance is not proof of god. It is merely proof of your scientific ignorance. You want to believe that "god did it", that's all fine and good, but there is no proof that any god did do it, nor is there any real need.

          August 20, 2013 at 10:02 am |
        • I'm sorry Dave, I'm afraid I can't do that

          You say so much without saying anything. If all this BS were true, why is the multiverse theory the most prevalent theory in theoretical physics with regards to the origin of the universe?

          August 20, 2013 at 10:04 am |
        • tallulah13

          So, Lawrence you said this: "Nothing is self-created, but if you do not believe in God, then that is the only conclusion that you are left with. "

          So who created your god?

          August 20, 2013 at 10:06 am |
        • Lawrence

          Tallulah13: There's a difference between "Self-Existent" and "Self-Created." Something can be Self-Existent and not defy logic, but something cannot be self-created. God is not self created, He is self-existent.

          August 20, 2013 at 10:10 am |
        • I'm sorry Dave, I'm afraid I can't do that

          tallulah13

          C'mon tallulah, everybody knows that. He's eternal or he created himself or some other BS that makes no sense that tries to eliminate god from having to have a first cause.

          August 20, 2013 at 10:11 am |
        • I'm sorry Dave, I'm afraid I can't do that

          Out of interest Lawrence, which deity are we talking about? Odin? Zeus? Apollo?

          August 20, 2013 at 10:12 am |
        • Brother Maynard

          Lawerence sez:
          "There's a difference between "Self-Existent" and "Self-Created." Something can be Self-Existent and not defy logic, but something cannot be self-created. God is not self created, He is self-existent."

          So cannot I just say "The universe is self-existent"
          I mean I have as much proof of my statement as you do of yours. Therefore it is true

          August 20, 2013 at 10:14 am |
        • AtheistSteve

          Lawrence

          If you consult with another Lawrence, one named Krauss, then you would discover that the universe could In fact be the ultimate free lunch. The universe has a net energy of zero which means that all the matter and energy we observe is balanced by an equal negative energy component. The Big Bang is just a fluctuation or instability of the general zero state.
          Picture it like this. If you stand on a flat plain and wish to create a hill you must first get the material you need by digging a hole. If you're going to continue to claim that we can't get something from nothing when physicists agree that at the quantum level stuff pops in and out of existence all the time then you need to prove them wrong first.

          August 20, 2013 at 10:14 am |
        • Lawrence

          I'm Sorry Dave: We can leave that for another day. What I am trying to show is the impossibility of a pure naturalistic explaination of our existence.

          To say that God doesn't exist is to give Time and Chance the status of prime mover. And neither one exists as such.

          August 20, 2013 at 10:16 am |
        • Vic

          Precisely as Lawrence puts it.

          God is NOT created, God is Eternal in Generation.

          August 20, 2013 at 10:17 am |
        • Lawrence

          Atheist Steve: Sure, here's the proof that they're wrong – stuff doesn't "pop out of nothing..." After all, what are they claiming is "nothing?" Is space nothing? Nope. Is a vacuum nothing? Nope. Nothing is nuttin' honey. Nothing is the stuff that rocks dream about. Look at it this way, if at any time "nothing" existed, then "nothing" would ever exist. You can't have an isolated "nothing" in a test tube, because the universe as we know it is "something" that cannot be made into "nothing." Scientists just don't know where these things are coming from, that's all.

          August 20, 2013 at 10:20 am |
        • Vic

          Anything that changes has a beginning and end, hence temporal, hence finite, hence non-eternal, hence can not be self-existent!

          August 20, 2013 at 10:21 am |
        • Madtown

          Vic
          God is NOT created, God is Eternal in Generation
          ------
          Could be, but you have no way of knowing and therefore can't make statments of conclusion. You statement should be preceded with an "I THINK or BELIEVE...".

          August 20, 2013 at 10:22 am |
        • I'm sorry Dave, I'm afraid I can't do that

          Lawrence

          Why leave it for another day? You mentioned sovereignty in your first post, so it's evident that you don't just believe in a prime mover or deistic concept of a god. You clearly believe in a personal deity. I'd like to know which deity you believe in and why.

          August 20, 2013 at 10:25 am |
        • Lawrence

          I'm Sorry Dave: Because you're not willing to admit the absurdity of naturalism. The fact that it is intellectual suicide because it posits either an eternal universe, or a self-created universe, and that time+chance=everything. If I can get you to admit that, then we can discuss the validity of Judeo-Christian theology.

          August 20, 2013 at 10:31 am |
        • Vic

          Actually, it is both, a "belief" and a "logical deduction" by reason, Madtown.

          August 20, 2013 at 10:34 am |
        • I'm sorry Dave, I'm afraid I can't do that

          An eternal universe doesn't posit that time and chance created everything as there was no initial creation. Also, there is no validity to Judeo-Christian theology. Canaanite mythology based around the war god Yahweh is not a rational basis for the origin of the universe. The multiverse theory or the cyclical universe model seem like safer bets to me.

          August 20, 2013 at 10:37 am |
        • Richard Cranium

          Lawrence
          How do you make the leap from we do not know to there must be a creator, since that is only a hypothesis, one of an infinite number of hypothesese.
          You are trying to claim that the universe did not create itself, another hypothesis. It is likely another universe fluctuated and created this universe. It is also possible that there have always been universes, but since time is relative, those universes could spark out of our universe and actually exist before ours, or after ours or at the same time.

          There is only one fact. we do not know. To say we do not knkow so there must be a creator, is just you grasping at straws.

          August 20, 2013 at 10:37 am |
        • Madtown

          Vic
          Actually, it is both, a "belief" and a "logical deduction" by reason, Madtown.
          ------
          LOL!! Your definition of "reason" doesn't meet the generally acceptance and legitimate definition of the word. The bottom line is, NO ONE knows the real answers to any of these questions or discussions. It's the one thing you have entirely in common with any athiest, neither of you know for certain.

          August 20, 2013 at 10:43 am |
        • AtheistSteve

          Lawrence

          That's the point. No scientist claims there ever was a nothing. You continue to make the claim that the universe emerged from nothing. Does it follow that previous to the universe your god inhabited nothing? Was nowhere? The Big Bang only posits that at some point our entire universe was extremely small, hot and energetic. That clearly isn't nothing. Neither is it clear that the medium that the infant universe expanded into was "nothing". Our local bubble of space/time is all we know about. The multiverse theory has our universe embedded in an infinite "foam" of universes. In any case your claim that our universe requires "intent" for it's formation is unfounded. Why is a supernatural cause more plausible than a natural one when everything we observe has a naturalistic explanation?

          August 20, 2013 at 10:44 am |
        • Sue

          Questions about how the universe came into being have not been answered with absolute certainty, and may never be. What we do know for absolute certain is that the Christian stories about creation and much of the Christian belief set are flat out wrong. Those stories are not even internally consistent, and they claim contradictory characteristics for the supposedly divine beings that they present.

          August 20, 2013 at 10:45 am |
        • Lawrence

          But we do know for certain, because a universe that is eternal cannot exist. It's like a perpetually bouncing ball... Perpetual motion doesn't exist, but it would have to in order for an eternal universe to work. Are we supposed to believe in impossible things now? How is that scientific?

          In the universe, things begin and they end... That's the very nature of something that is finite. Here's the important things to remember, if something is infinite, it does not change. If something changes, it is not infinite.

          August 20, 2013 at 10:47 am |
        • I'm sorry Dave, I'm afraid I can't do that

          You keep saying 'the universe' as if it's the only universe that ever existed. With the multiverse and cyclical universe model, there are possibly infinite numbers of universes.

          Also, why the Judeo-Christian deity and not Odin?

          August 20, 2013 at 10:53 am |
        • Lawrence

          I'm Sorry Dave: OK, let's reason together...
          Would you not agree that for an "infinite number of universes" to exist eternally (because we know they were not self-created) that would require perpetual motion?
          Do you agree that perpetual motion does not exist?

          OK, the Judeo-Christian theology question... It would be too long to post here, but use your Google-Fu and look this up... Many decades ago, Christian theologian and philosopher Dr. John Edward Carnell proposed a systematic method for testing any belief system to determine its validity. That should at least be a starting point.

          August 20, 2013 at 10:57 am |
        • Richard Cranium

          Lawrence
          It is quite obvious that you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. You make a lot of false a$$umptions, then make illogical leaps to conclusions with nothing more than your belief to back it up, and your belief is not based in any current scientific theory, though occasionally you use the same words science does. It is pointless discussing any of this with you since you clearly do not have the slightest grasp of the concepts you are questioning.

          August 20, 2013 at 11:04 am |
        • Sue

          Lawrence, why should we restrict ourselves to using the method of your "Christian theologian"? Actually, basic logic is sufficient to demonstrate that the Christian stories about their god are simply nonsense. Christianity is a collection of absurd fairy tales from people with less knowledge than we have today, and that whole religion should mainly just be put aside as the quaint tales of ignorant people who just didn't know any better.

          So how are your mustard trees growing?

          August 20, 2013 at 11:06 am |
        • Lawrence

          Richard: so you revert to attacking me?
          So are you saying that an eternal universe doesn't require perpetual motion?
          Or that perpetual motion exists?
          Or that Time+Chance can be a prime mover?

          August 20, 2013 at 11:08 am |
        • Lawrence

          Sue: Less knowledge than we have today? OK, tell me how they built the pyramids again?

          August 20, 2013 at 11:09 am |
        • Richard Cranium

          lawrence
          I did not attack you. simply identified and pointed out the fact that you do not know what you are talking about. None of what you say indicates a creator, you are making unjustifyable leaps to a conclusion, and the only conclusion that can be made is we do not know. For some odd reason, you can't accept that and try to create a creator from your false arguments.

          August 20, 2013 at 11:13 am |
        • Lawrence

          Richard: They're not false assumptions... The step to a Sovereign Creator is a logical one since there are only 4 options for the universe...
          1) The universe is an illusion and doesn't exist
          2) The universe is self-created
          3) The universe is self-existent
          4) It was created by someone who is self-existent.

          There are no other options.

          August 20, 2013 at 11:17 am |
        • I'm The Best

          You keep saying that the universe can't be eternal because perpetual motion is impossible. But the reason we can't make perpetual motion is because energy must be conserved to have something that moves forever, but everything we do disperses energy, mostly through heat. But the universe does not do this, energy is conserved within the universe, as far as we can tell there is no energy loss from the big bang until now meaning that the universe itself is a perpetual motion machine. If no overall energy is lost, then something can go on forever, even if that evergy changes.

          So it appears that all the energy that was present at the big bang is still present within the universe and therefore no energy is being lost, meaning the universe itself is a perpetual motion machine, meaning that it could theoretically have been in existance forever.

          August 20, 2013 at 11:19 am |
        • AtheistSteve

          Perpetual motion isn't a problem. An object in motion remains in motion unless acted upon by an outside force. Basic Newton. Perpetual motion machines in which energy is extracted can't exist. This demonstrates the flaw (just one of many) in your reasoning.

          August 20, 2013 at 11:21 am |
        • Richard Cranium

          lawrence
          only 4 options...gosh so glad you cleared that up, since I can think of many, many more options, but since you say only 4 possibilities, I guess my carrer is at an end.

          Trying to forward Aristotle's work and the work that the often wrong Thomas Aquinas is quite trite. We've moved along from that wild speculation long ago. You may continue to forward it as if it had any merit, but you are clearly failing to see the gaping holes in your logic.

          August 20, 2013 at 11:27 am |
        • Lawrence

          I'm the best/Atheist Steve: Sorry, I don't buy that... And the reason is that when you talk about the universe, you're talking about its energy as well. Where did that energy come from in the first place?

          No matter or energy in the universe exists without a cause.

          Ergo, there must have been a prime mover who is self-existent and without cause.

          August 20, 2013 at 11:31 am |
        • AtheistSteve

          2nd Law
          Energy can be neither created nor destroyed.
          Therefore the energy of the universe has always existed. It's eternal. At best we can argue about how it changes form.

          August 20, 2013 at 11:35 am |
        • Vic

          If the total energy of the universe is zero, then that means what is in motion is winding down to rest, hence the total of zero energy is preserved!!

          August 20, 2013 at 12:05 pm |
        • Vic

          If the total energy of the universe is zero (equilibrium,) then that means what is in motion is winding down to rest, hence the total of zero energy is preserved! The Prime Mover for choice of words is ringing all the bells!!!

          August 20, 2013 at 12:10 pm |
        • Vic

          Jesus Christ Is Lord

          August 20, 2013 at 12:12 pm |
        • Bob

          Vic, your beliefs are just plain stupid. How is it again that your omnipotent being couldn't do his saving bit without the whole silly Jesus hoopla? And how was Jesus' death a "sacrifice", when an omnipotent being could just pop up a replacement son any time with less than a snap of his fingers? Pretty pathetic "god" that you've made for yourself there.

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

          August 20, 2013 at 12:21 pm |
        • Madtown

          Vic
          Jesus Christ Is Lord
          ---–
          "Before I can agree with your position, can you please tell me who this Jesus guy is, and why he should be considered my Lord?"

          – signed,
          that guy who God placed in a region of the world with no christianity

          August 20, 2013 at 12:29 pm |
        • Sue

          Lawrence, stop dodging my question, coward. Back at you. Why should we restrict ourselves to using the method of your "Christian theologian"?

          Actually, basic logic is sufficient to demonstrate that the Christian stories about their god are simply nonsense. Christianity is a collection of absurd fairy tales from people with less knowledge than we have today, and that whole religion should mainly just be put aside as the quaint tales of ignorant people who just didn't know any better.

          And regarding your idiotic pyramid "reply", most of the infrastructure in any modern city is vastly more complicated than the pyramids, and our medical science now is far beyond what was possible thousands of years ago.

          And again, how are those mustard trees of yours growing?

          August 20, 2013 at 12:30 pm |
        • skytag

          "However the assumption that is made is still the same – that chance is a motivating force."

          No such assumption is made. I have no idea where you got that.

          August 20, 2013 at 12:36 pm |
        • Lawrence

          Eternal Universe
          Any purely naturalistic idea of the origins of the universe centers around some form of this idea, that the universe is eternal.

          BUT

          In order for something to be eternal, it must exist without a cause.
          Matter and energy do not exist without a cause
          Keep in mind too that an infinite series of causes involves a contradiction, because it does not explain how the causal chain began, so to say that the universe undergoes a series of expansion and contraction is merely conjecture with no proof.

          And I don't believe that Newton was attempting to make a statement about the origins of our universe when he discussed the conservation of matter and energy. After all, Newton was a Christian.

          August 20, 2013 at 12:38 pm |
        • Just the Facts Ma'am...

          "Jesus Christ Is Lord" "Jesus Christ Is Lord" "Jesus Christ Is Lord"

          I can see Vic chanting this like Willow Ufgood was chanting "Tanna! Looatha! Looatha!" trying to stave off Bavmorda's evil spell...

          August 20, 2013 at 12:38 pm |
        • Just the Facts Ma'am...

          "Matter and energy do not exist without a cause" Or so standard physics says, but it also says that the phenomenon Einstein called sp o o ky action between quantum particles could not be possible, and yet it is...

          You are so sure of your God derived universe that you close your mind to any and all other possibilities which is extremely dishonest if you try to present yourself as arriving at your conclusions based on anything other than blind faith.

          August 20, 2013 at 12:44 pm |
        • Richard Cranium

          Lawrence
          Saying Newton was a christian, only goes so far as his public image. His actual beliefs included the belief that worshipping christ as a god was idolatry. He avoided becoming an ordained priest, something required by the fellows of his university, and even had special dispensation to avoid it later on.
          Though he publicly was christian, his private views would be considered heresy by many today.
          He also was most likely gay, since it was noted by several who knew him that he never showed the slightest interest in women.
          Saying he was Christian shows you do not understand what his beliefs were, and most likely would offend him.

          August 20, 2013 at 12:47 pm |
        • Lawrence

          Just the Facts: with respect, who's showing blind faith now???

          Richard: I didn't say that he was perfect in his theology, only that it would be logical for him to believe in creation, since the idea that there is no creation is a fairly new one.
          Incidentally, Newton's views on the prophecy of the 70 Weeks in Daniel was WAY off base. So, yes, I'm familiar with Newton's theology – I'm more read than you give me credit for.

          August 20, 2013 at 12:51 pm |
        • skytag

          @Vic: "Actually, it is both, a "belief" and a "logical deduction" by reason, Madtown."

          It is not a valid logical deduction because your logic isn't valid. You simply state what makes sense to you and then declare that's logical. You wouldn't stand a chance in a discipline based on logic.

          August 20, 2013 at 12:54 pm |
        • Lawrence

          OK, gotta get back to work, so talk amongst yourselves. I'll give you a topic...

          If you mom was an ironing board, and your dad was an iron, how many pancakes would it take to cover a doghouse? Six, because motorcycles don't have doors.

          Have fun, cheers!

          August 20, 2013 at 1:03 pm |
        • Sue

          Lawrence, you are simply a coward. COWARD!

          August 20, 2013 at 3:03 pm |
        • sam stone

          "God is NOT created, God is Eternal in Generation."

          God is ENTIRELY created

          August 22, 2013 at 2:32 pm |
    • I'm The Best

      I always liked the monkey and the typewriter example. But he did have one thing wrong when he first explained it. Evolution doesn't work that way, it takes the 'best' of a random biological change and keeps it, making the species slowly change. This can best be thought of in the monkey and typewriter example as keeping the correct letter in the correct position when the monkey is typing and he only continues to work on the next letter until he hits the right key, slowly writing the whole play. When looked at this way it wouldn't take too long or be much of a stretch for a tapeworm or starfish to evolve because of the evolutionary process.

      Now the idea of chance leading to the start of the universe is just one idea. There are others that say the universe has always existed and is just currently in an expansion stage so it looks as though there was an initial big bang, where in reality, the universe just collapsed on itself, becoming close to a sigularity, then expanding again. With this example, the laws of physics and thermodynamics never break down because the universe never gets that small.

      August 20, 2013 at 9:52 am |
    • Vic

      Very well and professionally put, Lawrence. God bless.

      For the doubters:

      There CAN NOT be "existence" from non-existence. The universe and life in it could have not sprung out from non-existence. The universe and life in it could ONLY have come from Eternal Existence that has no beginning nor end.

      "Chance" is a finite mechanism within the "randomness" that God put in the "Nature" of His creation. "Chance" CAN NOT be a first cause!

      Praise and Glory be to God Almighty, the Father, Son (Lord Jesus Christ) and Holy Spirit.

      August 20, 2013 at 9:52 am |
      • Madtown

        Praise and Glory be to God Almighty, the Father, Son (Lord Jesus Christ)
        ----–
        "Who is Jesus Christ?"

        – signed,
        a human being equal to you, but who God has placed through birth in a sector of the world where christianity doesn't exist

        August 20, 2013 at 9:58 am |
      • I'm sorry Dave, I'm afraid I can't do that

        Why Yahweh? Why not Odin?

        August 20, 2013 at 9:59 am |
      • Jerome Haltom

        This argument is bunk. It's trivial to simply reject all the premise's as unsupported. If you think the premises are supported, then you offer evidence for them, I can't think of any.

        August 20, 2013 at 12:11 pm |
      • skytag

        "There CAN NOT be "existence" from non-existence."

        I know this is the crux of your belief, but it's not much of an argument given that you believe it doesn't apply to your God. Obviously you're too dumb and brainwashed to recognize that God is just your copout, your go-to answer for any question you can't otherwise answer. Your whole argument is basically that God needs to exist so you can have answers. It's not as compelling an argument as you seem to believe.

        August 20, 2013 at 12:41 pm |
      • skytag

        "Praise and Glory be to God Almighty, the Father, Son (Lord Jesus Christ) and Holy Spirit."

        Regular repetition of these mantras are key to maintaining your deeply brainwashed state. What a brainwashed simpleton you are.

        August 20, 2013 at 12:44 pm |
    • JohnQuest

      Your argument boils down to "we are here, therefore God MUST exist", that is not much of an argument, never have been. The Cosmological Argument has been debunked since the idea was thought up.

      The bottom line is:

      1) If something exist, something intelligent had to have made it:
      2) The Universe is something and it exist, something intelligent had to make it:

      If God is something and it exist something intelligent had to have made it:

      If God is something and it exist and nothing intelligent made it, then the second premise of this argument is false, and something can exist and NOTHING intelligent made it, therefore the Universe can exist and nothing intelligent had to make it. To say otherwise is illogical and intellectually dishonest.

      August 20, 2013 at 9:56 am |
      • skytag

        Don't you know that God is thpecial and none of the usual rules of logic appeal to him?

        August 20, 2013 at 1:19 pm |
    • Alias

      WHEN YOU SAID,"Someone once estimated that the number of random genetic factors involved in the evolution of a tapeworm from an amoeba would be comparable to placing a monkey in a room with a typewriter and allowing him to strike the keys at random until he accidentally produced a perfectly spelled and perfectly punctuated typescript of Hamlet’s soliloquy"
      You made a false assumption. It doesn't have to form a specific species, it just has to evolve. Evolution will lead to an comperable state in time, even if it is not the one that happened on this planet this time.

      August 20, 2013 at 11:10 am |
    • Kyle Dasan

      "...it is merely an expression of mathematical possibility; therefore it has no power to do anything..."

      Don't discount Mathematics. After all, Neo was the sum of a remainder of an unbalanced equation inherent to the programming of the matrix. And he brought The Matrix down to its' knees.

      August 20, 2013 at 11:51 am |
    • Vic

      If the total energy of the universe is zero, then that means what is in motion is winding down to rest, hence the total of zero energy is preserved!

      August 20, 2013 at 12:02 pm |
    • skytag

      "Someone once estimated that the number of random genetic factors involved in the evolution of a tapeworm from an amoeba would be comparable to placing a monkey in a room with a typewriter and allowing him to strike the keys at random until he accidentally produced a perfectly spelled and perfectly punctuated typescript of Hamlet’s soliloquy."

      Atlas is correct. The fatal flaw in this argument is the premise that when the evolutionary process began there was a specific goal it had to achieve in order for evolution to be a valid theory. There is no reason whatsoever to accept that premise as valid, so any argument based on it is worthless.

      August 20, 2013 at 1:05 pm |
      • Sara

        Exactly. Every time I hear this argument I shake my head. If you are assuming who we are in our current state was some sort of GOAL you have already laid out a very strong religious premise to live up to. If there is no goal, be are just one of the billions and billions of possibilities. We can even see in the world today so many surviving variants in our species and others. Lots of different kinds of mutations could have survived. We see the ones that happened and made it.

        August 27, 2013 at 8:58 am |
  17. ronvan

    AAAAH! The ever ending argument over religion! While I see many comments, pro & con, I continue to see TWO WORDS that seem to be missing? FAITH & BELIEF? They can be used by all and WE use them throughout our lives. Put an atheist & a beleiver in a room and lets see who can prove, disprove their faith & beleifs. Which religion can say 100%, without doubt, that THEIR books & teachings are the "true" religion? Religious books, the bible, etc., have been written by humans! Stories embellished, changed, omitted, by those humans in their period of time. The simple fact that, today, churches, religions, have changed their teachings, and "word of God", for me, indicate that what they had been teaching is more of THEIR faith & beleifs rather than accurate scripture?

    August 20, 2013 at 5:03 am |
  18. Carly

    I left the church because I got tired of playing the guilt-game, of being forced into an extrovert box as an introvert, and of the hypocrisy. Later on, I left the faith because I found out that none of it could hold water when faced with the overwhelming historical and scientific evidence against it.

    August 20, 2013 at 1:55 am |
  19. bostontola

    1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

    1:28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

    To me, this may be the most poisonous viral meme in the bible. This justifies the selfish things people do to the earth and it's living things. Clinging to this may retard our moral development enough that we destroy ourselves before we balance our impact. I hope humans get rid of this notion soon enough. Believers often ask why atheists care what they believe, it's because bible notions like this are destructive to all mankind and the overall health of earth.

    August 20, 2013 at 12:10 am |
    • skytag

      To make it even worse, some of them simply don't care how much damage we do because they think God is going to renew the Earth.

      August 20, 2013 at 2:08 am |
      • observant

        All who love SAM stone, so do I.
        This is Horus saying wass up. Jesus was an imposter. I dated his cousin Lucille. What a cutie. She told me jo and Mary made up the whole thing to get SAM shtone worked up over nothing. Jtfm took the bait.

        August 27, 2013 at 8:50 am |
  20. Alias

    People are leaving the christian churchs because the christians do not act very christian.
    *Do what they say, not what they do.
    *Judge everyone, harshly
    *Pick the sins to condemn others for, but forgive the ones the want to commit.
    Add a touch of skepticism and science, and membership goes way down.

    August 19, 2013 at 11:32 pm |
    • Ken

      Just like the Pharisees who supposedly opposed Jesus throughout the gospels. How ironic, eh?

      August 20, 2013 at 12:15 am |
    • hharri

      Like you know.

      BTW, how are Christians not acting like Christians? You mean based on the fairy tale that tells them to murver everyone? Or the great teacher? BTW, what was so great about his teachings? Do you know what he taught? I mean besides go kiln everyone? What did he say that made him a wonderful guy? Huh? What do you base that on, you know, what he supposedly said? Are you suggesting, not you, but plural you atheists, are you saying this great teacher's words as recorded in the new testament-the big fairy tale book- that he said some really good things? Are you all morons? How dare you. That is the testament of heck and gnashin and stuff.

      August 20, 2013 at 8:53 am |
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
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.