September 9th, 2013
03:29 PM ET

Fox News host: Atheists 'don't have to live here'

By Daniel BurkeCNN Belief Blog Co-Editor
[twitter-follow screen_name='BurkeCNN']

(CNN) - Fox News pundit Dana Perino said she's "tired" of atheists attempting to remove the phrase "under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance, adding, "if these people really don't like it, they don't have to live here."

The co-host of Fox's "The Five" was referring to a suit brought by the American Humanist Association in Massachusetts, where the state's Supreme Judicial Court heard a challenge to the pledge on Wednesday.

The group's executive director, Roy Speckhardt, called the suit "the first challenge of its kind," but Perino begged to differ.

Perino, who was White House press secretary for George W. Bush from 2007-2009, said she recalled working at the Justice Department in 2001 "and a lawsuit like this came through."

The former Bush spokeswoman added that "before the day had finished the United States Senate and the House of Representatives had both passed resolutions saying that they were for keeping ‘under God’ in the pledge."

"If these people don't like it, they don't have to live here," Perino added.

David Silverman, president of the American Atheists, called Perino's comments "bigotry."

"I, for one, am tired of those Christians, like Ms. Perino, who think that equality is somehow un-American," Silverman said. "If Ms. Perino doesn't like being only equal, it is she who will have to leave America to some other country that doesn't value religious liberty."

READ MORE: Famous Atheists and Their Beliefs 

In 2002, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals sided with atheist Michael Newdow who argued that the words "under God" in the pledge amounted to an unconstitutional government endorsement of religion. The Supreme Court overturned that ruling.

Congress added the words "under God" in 1954 amid the red scare over the Soviet Union. In November 2002, after the Newdow ruling, Congress passed a law reaffirming "under God" in the pledge.

Greg Gutfeld, another co-host on "The Five," continued the discussion after Perino, saying the Pledge of Allegiance "is not a prayer, it's a patriotic exercise. In a sense, it's basically saying: Thanks for giving us the freedom to be an atheist."

The Massachusetts case, which was brought by an unidentified family of a student at a school in suburban Boston, will be argued on the premise that the pledge violates the Equal Rights Amendment of the Massachusetts Constitution.

READ MORE: Behold, the Six Types of Atheists

It is the first such case to be tried on the state level: All previous attempts have been argued in federal court on the grounds that "under God" was an unconstitutional violation of the separation of church and state.

CNN's Kevin Conlon contributed to this report.

- CNN Religion Editor

Filed under: Atheism • Belief • Church and state • Courts • Culture wars • News media • Schools • TV

soundoff (7,255 Responses)
  1. Bible Clown©

    You guys have fun talking to the voices in your heads, ok? Bye.

    September 13, 2013 at 4:55 pm |
  2. Just the Facts Ma'am...

    Fox News host: People who don't believe in Gods 'don't have to live here'...

    Don't Christians refuse to believe in God's? You know, they reject Allah, Vishnu, Zeus, Odin, the list goes on and on... so is Dana saying those who don't believe in Odin should move? Really?

    Oh, you mean she was only talking about people who don't believe in her God? Because I'm pretty sure she doesn't believe in many other people Gods, and I don't think she was volunteering herself for deportation... so that makes her a prejudiced bigot who couldn't tell the difference between news and a hole in the ground, which is of course where Fox get's most of their stories...

    September 13, 2013 at 2:21 pm |
  3. Dyslexic doG

    earlier today there was a knock at my door. A pleasant and enthusiastic young couple were there.

    John: "Hi! I'm John, and this is Mary."

    Mary: "Hi! We're here to invite you to come kiss Hank's ass with us."

    Me: "Pardon me?! What are you talking about? Who's Hank, and why would I want to kiss His ass?"

    John: "If you kiss Hank's ass, He'll give you a million dollars; and if you don't, He'll kick the guts out of you."

    Me: "What? Is this some sort of bizarre mob shake-down?"

    John: "Hank is a billionaire philanthropist. Hank built this town. Hank owns this town. He can do whatever He wants, and what He wants is to give you a million dollars, but He can't until you kiss His ass."

    Me: "That doesn't make any sense. Why..."

    Mary: "Who are you to question Hank's gift? Don't you want a million dollars? Isn't it worth a little kiss on the ass?"

    Me: "Well maybe, if it's legit, but..."

    John: "Then come kiss Hank's ass with us."

    Me: "Do you kiss Hank's ass often?"

    Mary: "Oh yes, all the time..."

    Me: "And has He given you a million dollars?"

    John: "Well no. You don't actually get the money until you leave town."

    Me: "So why don't you just leave town now?"

    Mary: "You can't leave until Hank tells you to, or you don't get the money, and He kicks the guts out of you."

    Me: "Do you know anyone who kissed Hank's ass, left town, and got the million dollars?"

    John: "My mother kissed Hank's ass for years. She left town last year, and I'm sure she got the money."

    Me: "Haven't you talked to her since then?"

    John: "Of course not, Hank doesn't allow it."

    Me: "So what makes you think He'll actually give you the money if you've never talked to anyone who got the money?"

    Mary: "Well, maybe you'll get a raise, maybe you'll win a small lotto, maybe you'll just find a twenty-dollar bill on the street."

    Me: "What's that got to do with Hank?"

    John: "In this town, Hank is the same as good luck. All good things are attributed to Hank'"

    Me: "I'm sorry, but this sounds like some sort of bizarre con game."

    John: "But it's a million dollars, can you really take the chance? And remember, if you don't kiss Hank's ass He'll kick the guts out of you."

    Me: "Maybe if I could see Hank, talk to Him, get the details straight from Him..."

    Mary: "No one sees Hank, no one talks to Hank."

    Me: "Then how do you kiss His ass?"

    John: "Sometimes we just blow Him a kiss, and think of His ass. Other times we kiss Karl's ass, and he passes it on."

    Me: "Who's Karl?"

    Mary: "A friend of ours. He's the one who taught us all about kissing Hank's ass. All we had to do was take him out to dinner a few times."

    Me: "And you just took his word for it when he said there was a Hank, that Hank wanted you to kiss His ass, and that Hank would reward you?"

    John: "Oh no! Karl has a letter he got from Hank years ago explaining the whole thing. Here's a copy; see for yourself."

    From the Desk of Karl
    1. Kiss Hank's ass and He'll give you a million dollars when you leave town.
    2. Use alcohol in moderation.
    3. Kick the guts out of people who aren't like you.
    4. Eat right.
    5. Hank dictated this list Himself.
    6. The moon is made of green cheese.
    7. Everything Hank says is right.
    8. Wash your hands after going to the bathroom.
    9. Don't use alcohol.
    10. Eat your wieners on buns, no condiments.
    11. Kiss Hank's ass or He'll kick the guts out of you.

    Me: "This appears to be written on Karl's letterhead."

    Mary: "Hank didn't have any paper."

    Me: "I have a hunch that if we checked we'd find this is Karl's handwriting."

    John: "Of course, Hank dictated it."

    Me: "I thought you said no one gets to see Hank?"

    Mary: "Not now, but years ago He would talk to some people."

    Me: "I thought you said He was a philanthropist. What sort of philanthropist kicks the guts out of people just because they're different?"

    Mary: "It's what Hank wants, and Hank's always right."

    Me: "How do you figure that?"

    Mary: "Item 7 says 'Everything Hank says is right.' That's good enough for me!"

    Me: "Maybe your friend Karl just made the whole thing up."

    John: "No way! Item 5 says 'Hank dictated this list himself.' Besides, item 2 says 'Use alcohol in moderation,' Item 4 says 'Eat right,' and item 8 says 'Wash your hands after going to the bathroom.' Everyone knows those things are right, so the rest must be true, too."

    Me: "But 9 says 'Don't use alcohol.' which doesn't quite go with item 2, and 6 says 'The moon is made of green cheese,' which is just plain wrong."

    John: "There's no contradiction between 9 and 2, 9 just clarifies 2. As far as 6 goes, you've never been to the moon, so you can't say for sure."

    Me: "Scientists have pretty firmly established that the moon is made of rock..."

    Mary: "But they don't know if the rock came from the Earth, or from out of space, so it could just as easily be green cheese."

    Me: "I'm not really an expert, but not knowing where the rock came from doesn't make it plausible that it might be made of cheese."

    John: "Ha! You just admitted that scientists don’t know everything, but we know Hank is always right!"

    Me: "We do?"

    Mary: "Of course we do, Item 7 says so."

    Me: "You're saying Hank's always right because the list says so, the list is right because Hank dictated it, and we know that Hank dictated it because the list says so. That's circular logic, no different than saying 'Hank's right because He says He's right.'"

    John: "Now you're getting it! It's so rewarding to see someone come around to Hank's way of thinking."

    Me: "But...oh, never mind.

    from Jhuger.com

    September 13, 2013 at 1:54 pm |
  4. Jake

    Has anyone seen any follow up news on this? Has this woman issued an apology or even acknowledged how offensive and arrogant her statement was?

    September 13, 2013 at 1:53 pm |
    • Bible Clown©

      I think she got a raise and promotion and a vacation in the Bahamas.

      September 13, 2013 at 2:28 pm |
    • Ken

      She wouldn't be on Fox if she didn't make offensive and arrogant statements, so of course she knows.

      September 13, 2013 at 3:36 pm |
    • Sara

      I'm still waiting for her to issue a list of all countries that don't require recitation of religious oaths with a little check mark next to each one who's immigration policy says "We take all US citizens who don't want to say the pledge, no questions asked."

      September 13, 2013 at 4:21 pm |
    • Mike

      President George H. W. Bush said essentially the same thing years ago, that atheists do not deserve to live in the U.S.

      September 14, 2013 at 9:33 am |
  5. Inquiry and verification in the mindset of the believer

    To see how that's working out, let's take a peek inside


    September 13, 2013 at 1:44 pm |
  6. Mac

    Dame Meredith,

    " Harpier cries:—'tis time! 'tis time!
    Round about the caldron go;
    In the poison'd entrails throw.—
    Toad, that under cold stone,
    Days and nights has thirty-one;
    Swelter'd venom sleeping got,
    Boil thou first i' the charmed pot!

    Double, double toil and trouble;
    Fire burn, and caldron bubble. "

    Sounds just like you, hag... stirring up trouble just for cackles. Go brush your tooth or something.

    September 13, 2013 at 1:38 pm |
  7. Bible Clown©

    Part of the problem is that some Christians think that if they examine their faith closely, they will lose it. They fear finding out that the world really is science-based and we really did evolve from animals.So what? God presumably knows what's real and doesn't mind. Keep your faith and hope for the best, and one day you'll all be looking down from on high and jeering at the rest of us as we burn in hell. I know you look forward to that so much, I just don't know why.

    September 13, 2013 at 12:27 pm |
  8. Bible Clown©

    Number of Atheists Who Left The Country: 0

    September 13, 2013 at 11:40 am |
    • Just the Facts Ma'am...

      All this did was help some atheists still in the closet mad enough to come out. Thank you Dana.

      September 13, 2013 at 11:51 am |
    • lol?? Pithiest, YES!!

      lol?? Pithiest, YES!!
      Your comment is awaiting moderation.
      Number of clowns who escaped the circus:Unknown, protected by HIPAA.

      September 13, 2013 at 1:58 pm |
      • Bible Clown©

        Escape? I'll have you know they kicked me out. They hated my balloon tricks.

        September 13, 2013 at 4:40 pm |
  9. Believe and you shall be rewarded!


    September 13, 2013 at 9:59 am |
    • .


      September 13, 2013 at 10:01 am |
    • Rodolfo

      Pastor Popoff now offer Miracle Mixture. Do anyone know what in mixture? Is it stronger for money problem than water?

      September 13, 2013 at 10:06 am |
      • Løki

        Sinnlose ansprüche und priest ejakulat?

        September 13, 2013 at 10:24 am |
      • Bible Clown©

        Don't use it, it will make your peter popoff.

        September 13, 2013 at 11:23 am |
        • Løki

          Das war lustig, ich bin wütend, dass ich nicht von ihm zuerst zu denken ...

          September 13, 2013 at 11:31 am |
        • Bible Clown©

          schien offensichtlich

          September 13, 2013 at 11:42 am |
        • sam stone

          Bible Clown©
          Don't use it, it will make your peter popoff.

          i knew she couldn't refrain from her favorite topic

          thanks BOZO

          September 13, 2013 at 1:13 pm |
        • sam stone

          Bible Clown©
          Don't use it, it will make your peter pop off.

          i knew she couldn't refrain from her favorite topic

          thanks BOZO

          September 13, 2013 at 1:13 pm |
        • sam tone

          Bible Clown©
          Don't use it, it will make your peter pop off.

          i knew she couldn't refrain from her favorite topic

          thanks BOZO!

          September 13, 2013 at 1:14 pm |
        • Ham Bone

          Bible Clown©
          Don't use it, it will make your peter pop off.

          i knew she couldn't refrain from her favorite topic

          thanks BOZO!!

          September 13, 2013 at 1:14 pm |
        • Ham Bone

          Bible Clown©
          Don't use it, it will make your peter pop off.

          i knew she couldn't refrain from her favorite topic

          thanks BOZO!!
          ME II

          "...anyone who says, ‘You fool!’ will be in danger of the fire of hell."

          u stupid fool

          September 13, 2013 at 1:18 pm |
        • Pee Wee Herman

          I know you are, but what am I?

          September 13, 2013 at 1:48 pm |
        • The many names of the same bully troll, faith

          sam tone
          sam stone (stolen)
          yudhisthira mahabharata jr

          This person isn't Christian.

          September 13, 2013 at 4:21 pm |
        • FREE AT LAST

          Everyone can use a dose of humor from time to time. Thanks, your comment made me laugh

          September 13, 2013 at 11:59 pm |
    • Løki

      Nein danke ... Ich bin nicht in ass Vergewaltigung

      September 13, 2013 at 10:26 am |
    • Ken

      "Believe and you shall be rewarded!"
      That's what ponzi schemers and other all con men all say, right?

      September 13, 2013 at 3:31 pm |
  10. Agnostickids

    The greatest miracle Jesus ever performed, was being a white guy in the ancient Middle East.

    September 13, 2013 at 9:48 am |
    • Sea Otter (Leader of Allied Atheist Allegiance)

      Praise science!

      September 13, 2013 at 9:50 am |
      • I'm sorry Dave, I'm afraid I can't do that

        Science damn you.

        September 13, 2013 at 10:54 am |
        • Derek

          Your science is flawed

          September 14, 2013 at 1:29 am |
  11. Sea Otter (Leader of Allied Atheist Allegiance)

    Al Gore: I am here to educate you about the single biggest threat to our planet. You see, there is something out there which threatens our very existence and may be the end to the human race as we know it. I'm talking, of course, about Manbearpig. It is a creature which roams the Earth alone. It is half man, half bear, and half pig. Some people say that Manbearpig isn't real. Well , I'm here to tell you now, Manbearpig is very real, and he most certainly exists—I'm serial. Manbearpig doesn't care who you are or what you've done. Manbearpig simply wants to get you. I'm super serial. But have no fear, because I am here to save you. And someday, when the world is rid of Manbearpig, everyone will say, "Thank you Al Gore—you're super awesome!" The end.

    September 13, 2013 at 9:44 am |
    • Lucifer's Evil Twin

      I'm super serial...

      September 13, 2013 at 9:46 am |
      • Sea Otter (Leader of Allied Atheist Allegiance)

        Kill the table-eaters, IN THE NAME OF ALMIGHTY SCIENCE!

        September 13, 2013 at 9:49 am |
        • Løki

          Sie sind genial!

          September 13, 2013 at 9:54 am |
        • Knights Who Say...


          September 13, 2013 at 9:56 am |
  12. Agnostickids

    How the heck did Jesus find guys named Peter, John, James, Matthew, Andrew, Philip, Thomas and Simon in the Middle East???

    Think about it.

    September 13, 2013 at 9:43 am |
    • Bible Clown©

      Um, "Petrus" means rock. Those names seem familiar to you because a lot of people are named after Bible characters. Sch-mu-el or Samuel means gift of god, I think. We're so used to bin-Jamin as Benjamin that it sounds British.

      September 13, 2013 at 10:33 am |
    • ME II

      It's all been "translated". Even Jesus was "Yeshua", wasn't it?

      September 13, 2013 at 12:39 pm |
    • I'm sorry Dave, I'm afraid I can't do that

      It was a joke guys.

      September 13, 2013 at 1:40 pm |
      • I'm sorry Dave, I'm afraid I can't do that

        I assume it was anyway.

        September 13, 2013 at 1:40 pm |
    • Meredith S.

      These names were Anglicized from the original Greek version on the New Testament, when it was translated into English for the main stream Bible readers. The OT names were Anglicized, also, for easier understanding and to make reading more comfortable and easier to relate to.

      That being said, I get the joke!

      September 13, 2013 at 4:36 pm |
  13. molosar

    Pope Francis continued, “We must meet one another doing good. ‘But I don’t believe, Father, I am an atheist!’ But do good: we will meet one another there.”

    September 13, 2013 at 9:04 am |
    • niknak

      Or not.....

      September 13, 2013 at 9:17 am |
  14. Jenny

    Jimmy Vick is the lowest form of arrogant ass hole on the planet.

    September 13, 2013 at 8:37 am |
    • Observer


      Your ignorant comment makes all atheists and agnostics look bad.

      Grow up.

      September 13, 2013 at 8:55 am |
      • niknak

        How do you know Jenny Craig is an atheist?
        Maybe she just doesn't like that guy.

        September 13, 2013 at 9:19 am |
    • Bible Clown©

      Too harsh, but his arrogant insistence that "moderators are censoring him" is childish, and all he does is insult people and then cry when they shrug him off. Maybe he'll take the afternoon off and learn about the Grocer's Apostrophe.

      September 13, 2013 at 10:36 am |
      • kati

        Unlike Sam stone

        September 14, 2013 at 9:25 am |
  15. Jimmy Vick

    I am always amused when Atheist's parade around individuals such as Carl Sagan, Einstein, and Jefferson as if they were Atheists. There is a vast gulf between extreme agnostic skepticism and Atheism. The irony is, if Atheist's want a formal theory of Quantum Gravity they are not going to like what it will take to get it nor what getting it implies.

    I know the allure of Atheism, I grew up with some of the most irrational caveman religious fanatics you can imagine. In 4 sentences I could get the people I am suppose to love to completely contradict themselves Loving the irrational and willfully ignorant is impossible without grace.

    All I can say is, if someone is going to chose Atheism, please chose to be an Objectivist. Marxist Atheists are the lowest form of organism on this planet.

    September 13, 2013 at 7:01 am |
    • Ken

      Jimmy Vick
      Not many atheists claim to know that no gods exist anywhere; we are just not convinced by the various claims of there being actual gods that are out there. Generally then we are agnostic about the possibility of gods. The character God, however, really is a logical impossibility if he in omni-everything and still supposed to be "good", and allowing people free will. We can pretty confidently cross off the Christian god as easily as we can cross off the sun being a god.

      Any actual scientific theory that proves a god exists would be welcomed by most atheists, I suspect. We tend to respect whatever the evidence actually points to, unlike some others.

      Marxism isn't so atheist as it's anti-organized religion. If you read Marx he's actually concerned with the way organized religion serves the state as a way of suppressing the working class.

      September 13, 2013 at 8:13 am |
      • Sara

        I can cross most versions of the Christian god off the list on just the radical free will part of their claim. That's one of the most anti-scientific, illogical ideas around, and so entrenched I even hear atheists promoting such "free will" as there but "unexplained". Just goes to show that logic is not a big priority for humans.

        September 13, 2013 at 8:37 am |
        • Vic

          If humans don't have "free will," why then are they held accountable for their crimes by the law of the land?!

          Also, how do you explain "consciousness" when science is completely clueless about it?!

          September 13, 2013 at 8:54 am |
        • Doc Vestibule

          We hold each other accountable becuase in order to survive, we must cooperate.
          To cooperate effectively, we need rules by which we agree to abide.
          These rules are not the same for all communities – hence we've had so many different types of religion and government throughout history.
          Religion binds communities by giving a common frame of reference. Shared fears (like divine retribution), hopes (like going to heaven) and rituals allow the instinct for self preservation to extend beyond one's self and immediate family.
          This is why the great majority of evolutionary biologists find no conflict between religion and science – as long as religion is recognized solely as a social adaptation.

          Neurology is a young science with comparatively few experts.
          Give it time to accu.mulate, interpret and apply data.
          We once were ignorant of a great many things, but through patient and consistent application of the scientific method, we have made astounding strides in the last 200 years regarding our understanding of how just about everything works.
          Dogmatic, rote answers that rely on supernatural suppositions don't add to our species' pool of knowledge – they detract from it by putting up walls of cognitive dissonance.
          Once a proposition has been accepted on faith, it cannot thereafter be examined by reason.
          Many things are unknown, but nothing is ultimately unknowable.

          September 13, 2013 at 9:03 am |
        • Sara

          I don't know about you, Vic, but I think it's a pretty good idea to deter crime through. punishment, keep habitual criminals off the street, and where possible, work to rehabilitate. Do you disagree with these ideas?

          September 13, 2013 at 9:07 am |
        • Bible Clown©

          "Also, how do you explain "consciousness" when science is completely clueless about it?!" The alarm clock rings and I open my eyes and get out of bed. Do you have to be reanimated by a mad doctor every dawn before the rooster crows?

          September 13, 2013 at 11:35 am |
        • ME II

          "If humans don't have 'free will,' why then are they held accountable for their crimes by the law of the land?!"

          Not that I agree, but if there is no free will, then perhaps people are held accountable because we are "programmed" by our environment and biology to do so, end of story.

          September 13, 2013 at 12:45 pm |
        • Ken

          In context, the argument goes that the Christian God is incompatible with "free will." So any argument for our having free will is also an argument against your God, see?

          September 13, 2013 at 4:03 pm |
        • Sara


          "Also, how do you explain "consciousness" when science is completely clueless about it?!"

          Sorry I forgot to respond to this part earlier. This is actually the one and only good argument most religious folks have, and you are best off sticking with it. The greatest weakness of the materialist is ignoring the hard problem of consciousness.

          September 13, 2013 at 4:26 pm |
        • Vic

          Thank you Sara, that's very genuine of you. I have no doubt that we all are honestly looking for the truth.

          September 13, 2013 at 4:56 pm |
    • Bible Clown©

      You wouldn't know an atheist if one took out your appendix, and the opinion of a person who is baffled by apostrophes and capitalizes "Atheism" as if it were a religion is worth very little in an open discussion. I bet you think Marxism and Communism are exactly the same thing, too, so get on the bus and go to school and keep up with your studies, young feller.
      "Loving the irrational and willfully ignorant is impossible without grace." I have a mentally-ill family member. Don't pretend I need a crutch myself. See above about your opinion's value.

      September 13, 2013 at 8:19 am |
    • Observer

      Jimmy Vick,

      None of the 3 men mentioned believed in the God portrayed in the Bible.

      September 13, 2013 at 8:27 am |
    • Doc Vestibule

      I think you'll find that there are few atheists who utterly and completely deny even the possiblity of a God.
      The chances of one of the myriad gods humans have dreamed up of being The One True Creator, Shaper and Ruler of the Universes is so terrifically slim, however, that one must treat it as if it were not so.
      It is possible that the Galactic Overlord Xenu detonated a nuclear bomb in a volcane and cursed the Thetans to forever roam the aether as incorporeal enti/ties that today influence our psyches.
      Because there is no way to disprove, one must allow for the possibility
      In the world of religion, they can't all be right – but they can all be wrong.
      And please try not to conflate atheism with communism. The collective psyche of the USA still echoes with the voice of Joe McCarthy – let's not encourage it.
      Atheism as a denial of the supernatural is not the same as communism as a political ideal.
      As Karl Marx himself noted: noted “Atheism as a denial of this unreality; has no longer any meaning, for atheism is a denial of God and tries to assert through this negation the existence of man; but socialism as such no longer needs this mediation...”

      September 13, 2013 at 8:27 am |
      • Sara

        Doc, I agree with almost all of what you said except

        "Atheism as a denial of the supernatural"

        Atheism is just about belief about gods. In theory an atheist could believe all sorts of supernatural things, and I've seen atheists on this forum going on about qi and energy and free will and all sorts of other things that most of us would call "supernatural".

        September 13, 2013 at 8:33 am |
        • Doc Vestibule

          Just becuase I am a naturalist doesn't mean other atheists are.
          That's the problem with the "atheist" label – it only describes one specific thing that one does NOT believe.

          September 13, 2013 at 8:37 am |
        • Sara

          Yeah, it's not very useful in most contexts so I rarely use it. I'm an a-Qiist but I don't talk about that much either. Even when people ask my religion what they really want is both a metaphysics and an ethics and "atheist" answers neither. The right answer to that question is usually something on the lines of "idealist utilitarian" or "neutral monist humanist" or "scientific pantheist unitarian. And usually such answers are convenient ways to end conversations with anyone who isn't up for a discussion.

          September 13, 2013 at 8:49 am |
        • Sue

          It is a joy to read comments by Sara and Doc Vestibule on this blog. Thank you both.

          September 13, 2013 at 8:50 am |
        • sam stone

          sue: i agree

          September 13, 2013 at 8:59 am |
        • truthprevails1

          sue and sam: Absolutely...they both keep the board slightly sane.

          September 13, 2013 at 9:46 am |
        • Sara

          Now I feel obliged to say something insane in the next couple of hours.

          September 13, 2013 at 10:01 am |
        • Doc Vestibule

          The Mark of the Beast is likely on your cr/otch right now.
          Look at the zipper on your pants – it likely bears the letter "YKK'.
          This subtle, yet ubiquitous symbol is the sign that the 1,000 years of Tribulation prophesied in Revelation started 13 years ago.
          The cabal of Illuminati who rule humanity tried their best to goad people into preparing for it by hyping the "Y2K" bug's potential reprecussions, but few people took heed.
          Alas, Satan is a subtle liar and has managed to conceal His machinations thus far, but have no doubt that the four Horsemen are saddling up to begin their reign of doom.

          September 13, 2013 at 10:15 am |
        • Sara

          Good point, Doc, I just checked and you are indeed correct. Is there a way to eliminate this curse without stripping my clothes off?

          September 13, 2013 at 10:21 am |
        • Doc Vestibule

          You should find a good, Amish tailor.
          Just don't mention why you seek their services – they tend to be a bit touchy about not getting Raptured.

          September 13, 2013 at 10:33 am |
        • Bible Clown©

          Being an atheist doesn't seem to protect us from our brains' natural urge to correlate patterns, even when there are none. Plenty of people who don't fall for gods end up believing in psychic powers(Pro Tip:"Everyone who believes in psychic powers also believes that he or she HAS psychic powers." – L. Niven) or crystal resonances or ghosts, usually because of some pseudo-scientific explanation. But I can tell you that lots of immaterial things exist, like love and beauty and regret and hope. I can't quantify these things, but I live and die for them.

          September 13, 2013 at 10:42 am |
        • I'm sorry Dave, I'm afraid I can't do that

          Many neurscientists would argue that those things are material.

          September 13, 2013 at 10:45 am |
        • Bible Clown©

          "It is a joy to read comments by Sara and Doc Vestibule on this blog. Thank you both." Agreed, and thanks to sam stone and Observer for enraging the insane troll person so much. And a big shout out to Dana Perino for being such a tiresome load of ox extrusions, and let's hope she takes her own insane advice and leaves.

          September 13, 2013 at 11:31 am |
        • Lucifer's Evil Twin

          "The Mark of the Beast is likely on your cr/otch right now. Look at the zipper on your pants – it likely bears the letter "YKK'." Nope... I took precautions and switched out all of my zippers with Velcro. I get a lot of strange looks when I change clothes at the gym...

          September 13, 2013 at 11:51 am |
    • Sara


      You seem a little confused about what atheism is, particularly with this strangeidea that there are only two kinds of atheist. Where on earth did you get that? There are idealist atheists, materialist atheists, panpsychic atheists.... heck, there are Buddhist atheists, and New Thought atheists and neutral monist atheists both of Hindu and western traditions. And your connection to Marx is bizarre. While Marx may be one example of many of the millions of atheists (as are many people on this forum) he was simply one type of materialist and the rest of his thought has nothing at all to do with the subject.

      Einstein, btw, was a Spinozan. Whether you consider that atheist or noth is a matter of definition.

      September 13, 2013 at 8:29 am |
    • Vic

      It is also ironic that Carl Sagan was agnostic and heavily criticized atheists, and that Albert Einstein believed in God and opposed "Quantum Physics.".

      September 13, 2013 at 8:46 am |
      • Sue

        "It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."

        – Albert Einstein, 1954

        September 13, 2013 at 8:49 am |
        • Vic

          "God doesn't play with dice."

          Albert Einstein

          September 13, 2013 at 8:59 am |
        • Ted

          Vic, that dice quote is overused by religious nuts such as you who exploit it at every turn. Einstein's thinking was, as he often stated, that quantum theory was an incomplete description, and that a more general unified theory should be sought. That is not support for your silly god fable, which itself can be discarded due to its own inconsistency as well as its many errors on points of fact and science.

          Now pay attention, and think: whether Einstein was right or wrong about quantum mechanices, neither case would mean that your crazy, self-contradictory god story is valid. The explanation for the origins of our universe obviously does not rest within the absurd Christian dogma that you keep trying to promote here.

          September 13, 2013 at 9:34 am |
        • truthprevails1

          Vic: It is easy to understand why brilliant men like Einstein might have spoke about god. It probably has less to do with belief than it does with the potential risks of admitting disbelief. It's easy to look back over time and see how our acceptance of things have changed, it's easier now and less risky to admit to not believing than it might have been 30 or 100 years ago.

          September 13, 2013 at 9:51 am |
        • Vic

          Funny you should mention that!

          I actually believe it is the other way around. It is extremely hard for a renowned scientist to admit believing in God. I argued before that Einstein, among other renowned scientists, might very well had been a closet believer, and that he used his direct statements to the contrary as a disguise while subtly alluding to belief in God, and a personal God, mind you!

          September 13, 2013 at 10:33 am |
        • Vic

          Here are some examples:

          Stephen Hawking:

          "Even if there is only one possible unified theory, it is just a set of rules and equations. What is it that breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe?"

          "The usual approach of science of constructing a mathematical model cannot answer the questions of why there should be a universe for the model to describe. Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing?"

          "If we do discover a complete theory, it should be in time understandable in broad principle by everyone. Then we shall all, philosophers, scientists, and just ordinary people be able to take part in the discussion of why we and the universe exist."

          Albert Einstein:

          “No one can read the Gospels without feeling the actual presence of Jesus. His personality pulsates in every word. No myth is filled with such life.”

          In An Interview by George Sylvester Viereck
          The Saturday Evening Post
          Oct. 26, 1929

          September 13, 2013 at 10:44 am |
        • Bible Clown©

          ""God doesn't play dice with the universe." – Einstein
          And if there's no god, the statement's still true, right?

          September 13, 2013 at 10:44 am |
        • I'm sorry Dave, I'm afraid I can't do that

          We can all argue that anybody is a closet anything. I can argue that William Lane Craig is actually an atheist and when he defends Biblical genocide, what he's actually saying is "I'm afraid of reality so I disguise my fear with an illogical defense of indefensible mass murder".

          September 13, 2013 at 10:51 am |
        • Lucifer's Evil Twin

          I like how you cherry pick a quote (bible thumper's are good at that after all) from one of the most avowed atheists on the planet... and try to make it appear that he's not REALLY an atheist... comical

          September 13, 2013 at 11:41 am |
        • Just the Facts Ma'am...

          "might very well had been a closet believer, and that he used his direct statements to the contrary as a disguise"

          I think Vic must be a closet atheist and he uses his comments here as a disguise.

          Hitler also must have been a closet atheist and just used his insistent Catholic adherence as a ruse... or maybe Vic and Hitler are both real Christians but just following their own flawed version of it...right Vic?

          September 13, 2013 at 11:44 am |
        • Just the Facts Ma'am...

          "might very well had been a closet believer, and that he used his direct statements to the contrary as a disguise"

          The funniest part of this statement is that when Einstein was alive no one "pretended" to be an atheist, as that would have been like putting on black face and pretending to be a ne gro in the south in the early 1800's. Only the bravest of the brave would pronounce their atheism for at that time it was something that could get you tarred & feathered and run out of town if not worse.

          September 13, 2013 at 11:49 am |
        • Bible Clown©

          "I like how you cherry pick a quote (bible thumper's are good at that after all) from one of the most avowed atheists on the planet... and try to make it appear that he's not REALLY an atheist... comical"
          They are masters at fooling themselves. He can't believe we aren't eating it up the way he did.

          September 13, 2013 at 11:49 am |
        • Vic

          Why does nobody believe that I'm serial?

          September 13, 2013 at 11:56 am |
        • ME II

          On Einstein...

          He stressed however in a conversation with William Hermanns that, "I seriously doubt that Jesus himself said that he was God, for he was too much a Jew to violate that great commandment: Hear O Israel, the Eternal is our God and He is one!' and not two or three."[42] Einstein lamented, "Sometimes I think it would have been better if Jesus had never lived. No name was so abused for the sake of power!"[42]
          ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_Albert_Einstein)

          September 13, 2013 at 12:54 pm |
        • Vic

          Ah..I see someone masquerading as me right above!

          Anyway, simply, I don't do the "double talk" closet believers or the opposite do! I am a straight shooter. I believe in God Almighty, the Father, Son (Lord Jesus Christ) and Holy Spirit.

          September 13, 2013 at 12:56 pm |
        • Bible Clown©

          "Why does nobody believe that I'm serial?" I don't even believe you are Vic now.

          September 13, 2013 at 1:00 pm |
        • Vic

          That goes along with what I am saying about a Einstein's possible disguise, plus, that quote reveals a very Jewish belief!

          September 13, 2013 at 1:01 pm |
        • midwest rail

          "... I don't do the "double talk" ..."
          " That goes along with what I am saying about a Einstein's possible disguise..."
          Case closed.

          September 13, 2013 at 1:04 pm |
        • Vic

          "Excerpting" and still makes no case for you!

          September 13, 2013 at 1:07 pm |
        • Vic

          Albert Einstein and Carl Sagan both did the "double talk" about their beliefs, and today, Stephen Hawking does! Who knows how many "closet believer" scientists are out there!

          September 13, 2013 at 1:13 pm |
      • Doc Vestibule

        Einstein's "God" was more akin to Spinoza's pantheistic concept than the Judeo-Christian ideal.

        September 13, 2013 at 8:50 am |
      • Sara


        Einstein quotes:

        "it seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I cannot take seriously. I feel also not able to imagine some will or goal outside the human sphere. My views are near those of Spinoza: admiration for the beauty of and belief in the logical simplicity of the order which we can grasp humbly and only imperfectly. I believe that we have to content ourselves with our imperfect knowledge and understanding and treat values and moral obligations as a purely human problem—the most important of all human problems."

        "I believe in Spinoza's God, who reveals himself in the harmony of all that exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fate and the doings of mankind."

        I think you might be confusing Einstein's metaphorical use of the term God with your own meaning.

        September 13, 2013 at 8:56 am |
        • Vic

          You need to realize that Albert Einstein wanted to and believed in a God all along but could not come to terms with neither a personal God nor Atheism! He completely rejected and disassociated himself from Atheism!

          Here are some of his quotes regarding that:

          "I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal God is a childlike one. You may call me an agnostic, but I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth. I prefer an attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our own being."

          "In view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognize, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what really makes me angry is that they quote me for the support of such views."

          September 13, 2013 at 9:22 am |
        • Sara

          Vic, What Einstein didn't like was people who thought they knew the answers. He didn't know himself. But when he referred to "God" as a concept it was nothing like the personal Christian god. He didn't have that concept. his view was Spinozan as he made clear on several occasions. Have you read Spinoza?

          September 13, 2013 at 9:29 am |
        • LIathEistS

          "there are yet people who say there is no God. But what really makes me angry is that they quote me for the support of such views."


          The stand of Einstein 'against' atheism/atheists was clear as high noon and as firm as brick. Quik putting words on his mouth by your 'lame' arguments.

          September 16, 2013 at 5:24 am |
        • Sara


          If you look at the totality of what he said, you'll see that Einstein is objecting here to people who felt a certaintly of position regarding existence of gods. He had no such certaintly, and even had a conception of something that he was inclined to believe might be called "God". Howver, he did not personally hold a belief in a conscious involved god, beyond the pasic panpsychism of a Spinozan world view. This would make him very close, at least, to the dictionary definition of atheist, and the one used by most atheist organization. You can debate what terminology should be used all you want, but we're talking historically here about a man who thought there was no Judeo-Christian god, but that there likely was some sort of conscious trait associated with all matter. Put whatever labels on it you like.

          September 16, 2013 at 11:15 am |
        • LIathEistS


          Your attempts to warp Einstein's statements AGAINST atheist is tiresome. He said that he was ANGRY to people who don't believe in God and who were quoting him to support their views, period! Where in that statement hard for you to understand? Better quit your hullabaloos.

          September 23, 2013 at 9:35 am |
      • sam stone

        vic: agnostic and atheist are not mutually exclusive, nor is agnostic and theis. one deals with knowledge, the other with belief.

        get over yourself

        September 13, 2013 at 9:00 am |
        • karie

          As you burn forever, fool

          September 13, 2013 at 9:24 am |
        • Ted

          karie, ah, your jerk of a god being excessively violent again. And do look up Pascal's Wager.

          September 13, 2013 at 9:36 am |
        • ME II

          "...anyone who says, ‘You fool!’ will be in danger of the fire of hell." (Mt 5:22)

          September 13, 2013 at 12:59 pm |
      • Sara

        On Sagan I think you really get into ownership of the term "atheist". That term as used today refers both to those who lack a belief in God and those who positively believe there is none. I agree this is a bad state of affairs, but there you have it.

        Sagan wrote

        "The idea that God is an oversized white male with a flowing beard who sits in the sky and tallies the fall of every sparrow is ludicrous. But if by God one means the set of physical laws that govern the universe, then clearly there is such a God. This God is emotionally unsatisfying ... it does not make much sense to pray to the law of gravity."

        He clearly neither believed ina Christian type involved god nor wanted, as Einstein did, to associate God with the universe and it's laws. He does appear to have had any belief in personal gods of any sort, but to have kept an open mind to the vast array of possibilities....of which the Christian god was not really considered one.

        September 13, 2013 at 9:02 am |
        • Vic

          "An atheist is someone who is certain that God does not exist, someone who has compelling evidence against the existence of God. I know of no such compelling evidence. Because God can be relegated to remote times and places and to ultimate causes, we would have to know a great deal more about the universe than we do now to be sure that no such God exists. To be certain of the existence of God and to be certain of the nonexistence of God seem to me to be the confident extremes in a subject so riddled with doubt and uncertainty as to inspire very little confidence indeed."

          Carl Sagan

          September 13, 2013 at 9:31 am |
        • Sue

          We can be absolutely certain that the god described in the Christian myth book does not exist.

          September 13, 2013 at 9:40 am |
        • Sara

          Vic, That is a commonly used definition of atheism, but not the one used by most atheists. The OED defines as:

          disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods."

          Simply lacking a belief is enough to make you an atheist by most dictionary definitions, and you'd be hard put to find one that references "certainty". By these definitions, whether they use the term or not, Sagan and Einstein and Jeffereson are atheists.

          That said, I don't personally like the ambiguity in the term atheist. I wouldn't go as far as you and say certainty should be in the definition, but I do think the positive/negative atheist distinction should be more clearly described by separate terms. Many of us who don't believe in gods don't like to use the term atheist because it associates us with people who are militant and overly certain. For someone like Sagan, associating with that term at the height of his popularity could, among other things, have hammered his book sales and speaking opportunities. But just because we don't like the term atheist doesn't mean we can tell others they are factually wrong in using it. I think etymologically there are better terms. I think it is unwise to use that term with all it's baggage. But despite what someone like Sagan says about himself, by the dictionary definition he is an atheist and arguing against this point will just open you to valid criticisms of ignorance of the terminology.

          September 13, 2013 at 9:59 am |
        • Ken

          Carl Sagan was not Mr. Webster, and did not get to define atheism for the world. What he's describing is what many of us call a "gnostic atheist", someone claiming to know for certain that no gods exist. I'm an "agnostic atheist". I don't know that there isn't a single god out there, somewhere, but I am totally unconvinced by any of the claims that people make, or have made, about certain gods being real, including the Christian god. That's why I say that I don't believe that any gods are real rather than saying that I know that none exist.

          To be fair, I would say the same thing about unicorns, mermaids, and elves too. I can't possibly claim to know that none of these creatures have, or do exist, but I'm inclined to believe that none of the reports, or stories about them are true because they lack any hard evidence. God also lacks any hard evidence, but the Christian god is also logically impossible, which is why I rule out all likelihood of his actually being real while other gods still might.

          September 13, 2013 at 10:23 am |
        • Bible Clown©

          Technically, true atheism would require proof that the entire universe contains and never has contained a god. That proof is impossible to get, so unless you swap out faith in nonexistence for proof of it, we are actually all agnostics. I'm pretty certain the Old Testament God never existed, but do I have proof in my wallet? Heck no, and so like any believer, I have to take it on faith.

          September 13, 2013 at 10:49 am |
        • I'm sorry Dave, I'm afraid I can't do that

          "That proof is impossible to get."

          Says who?

          September 13, 2013 at 10:55 am |
        • Bible Clown©

          "Says who?" You can't search the entire infinite universe particle by particle, and God might be behind you the whole time, doing the invisible gawd thing, Not practical.

          September 13, 2013 at 11:13 am |
        • I'm sorry Dave, I'm afraid I can't do that

          Not practical doesn't mean impossible. Putting limitations on what science may conceivably achieve is what the unimaginative and fundamentalists do.

          September 13, 2013 at 11:17 am |
        • tallulah13

          So basically not just god, but anything could exist. It might be out there somewhere, hiding in a molecule or behind a sun. I would have to agree that we can't check everywhere right now, but that may change at some future date. After all. Anything is possible.

          September 13, 2013 at 11:19 am |
        • ME II

          While positive evidence of non-existence is likely impossible, logical proof of non-existence simply requires a contradiction to the premise that god does exist. Also, very difficult.

          September 13, 2013 at 1:03 pm |
      • S-3B Viking

        Dear Vic,

        If you currently own and utilize a laser printer, I encourage you to run, not walk, and put it out with the morning trash.

        For the "laser" portion of laser printer could not have been brought to us except through the wonders of quantum physics...

        ....despite your very poor interpretation of who Sagan and Einstein were and what quantum physics is.

        But we do appreciate your comments...they are worthy of much "bread and circuses"

        September 13, 2013 at 9:08 am |
        • Vic

          Good morning, and hold your horses!

          What you are describing are ONLY effects/behaviors that can be theorized of at the Quantum scale/level. Atoms, electrons, protons, etc., all follow "Physical Laws," aka "Classical Physics/Mechanics," and products like semiconductors, and modern electronics in general, are all designed accordingly. The nature of how they work can be analyzed/explained at the Quantum scale/level but NOT manipulated. We use them pretty much like black boxes.

          September 13, 2013 at 10:15 am |
        • Løki

          @Vic – Sie klingen dümmer jedes Mal wenn Sie etwas eingeben ... Ich bin super serielle

          September 13, 2013 at 10:30 am |
        • Bible Clown©

          Sorry Vic, masers and then lasers were built after a lot of research and careful design, not discovered accidentally like vulcanized rubber. Most of the gadgets you use daily are direct contradictions of the Bible's world, where it's all flat and Heaven is above us, and most important inventions had to fight the church to be made. Remember Columbus sailing off the edge of the flat world? Me neither.

          September 13, 2013 at 10:56 am |
      • Observer


        Read Sue's quote again.

        Many people believe that Jesus may have been real, but don't believe he was divine. Thomas Jefferson was one.

        September 13, 2013 at 11:40 am |
    • Sara


      Would it make you feel better if we referred to Einstein, Sagan and Jefferson as "dudes who generally kept an open mind but were pretty darn sure the idea of the personal Christian god was silly"?

      September 13, 2013 at 9:05 am |
    • Pat Sajak

      JV: "if someone is going to chose Atheism, please chose to be an Objectivist."

      Would you like to buy a couple of vowels, Jimmy?

      September 13, 2013 at 9:27 am |
    • Ken

      We could just as easily be talking about superheroes instead of gods. So far, we have no actual evidence of any real life superheroes, right? Yet, that is not a claim to know that no superheroes actually exist. How could we possibly confirm such a claim? Yet, some superheroes are less likely to be real than others. Some version of Batman, for example, is totally possible, but the standard version of Superman isn't. There is no way, according to our understanding through science, that any being could become that powerful simply because of the differences between red suns and our own. The Flash is another example. He would have to eat tons of food in order to get enough energy to run even a fraction of the speed he supposedly can. Writers of that character, however, have come up with a solution, the "Speed Force", that they say solves this problem, but it's as much a fiction as any theological invention dreamed up to solve the Christian god's impossibility.

      September 13, 2013 at 10:08 am |
      • Sara

        "Spped Force", "free will"... it's all just chewing gum holding weak stories together.

        September 13, 2013 at 10:14 am |
      • Doc Vestibule

        They exist!

        September 13, 2013 at 11:03 am |
      • Ken

        I hope they do better than the bunch in Kick A$$ 2.

        September 13, 2013 at 3:22 pm |
    • Susan StoHelit

      You've an odd view of atheists.

      All atheism means is that you do not have a belief in god. It doesn't mean that you are positive there is no god, that you're some crazed offensive atheist fundamentalist, nor that you're a darwinist or whatever. The majority of atheists are, in fact, agnostic atheists – agnostic is a word meaning that you do not believe that the existence of god can be proven nor disproven. There are theistic agnostics (people who believe in god but are not certain), and atheistic agnostics – people who don't believe in god, but don't believe it's can be disproven.

      You shouldn't judge any group, Christian nor atheist, based on stereotypes and even less so based on message boards or the worst people in the group that you meet.

      September 13, 2013 at 12:50 pm |
      • Bible Clown©

        "You shouldn't judge any group, Christian nor atheist, based on stereotypes and even less so based on message boards or the worst people in the group that you meet." If you are a Christian, you DARE NOT judge others. That is God's business, not yours, and there's a fiery furnace with devils and stuff waiting and it's really really real, really it is, be scared.

        September 13, 2013 at 1:06 pm |
    • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

      Of course, the old conflating all 'atheists' with anti-theists argument.

      I hope that @Jimmy Vic and @Vic have read the cogent discussion here.

      Atheisim simply means disbelief. Those who positively assert the non-existence of God are but a subset of atheists.

      And Einstein was essentially a deist (Spinoza's God). He did *not* believe in an Abrahamic God. Nor did Carl Sagan who is an atheist in terms of the way most people who self-identify as atheists use the word today.

      September 13, 2013 at 1:23 pm |
    • I'm sorry Dave, I'm afraid I can't do that

      Are you retarded?

      September 13, 2013 at 1:27 pm |
  16. barry

    the following is not for atheists.

    how many chronically drunk teenagers would kill innocent people driving drunk if the punishment for chronic drunkenness, lawlessness, rebellion, etc., was the death penalty?

    September 13, 2013 at 6:12 am |
    • truthprevails1

      Sorry but anyone can answer on a public blog. If you don't want Atheists answering you try something more suited to your mentality...FOX news is a good place.
      Your question is moronic and it's not just teens that drink and drive. However, anyone who would commit such a heinous act does not deserve the death penalty, they deserve their driving privileges revoked and if they kill someone in the process they should never get the chance to drive again.

      September 13, 2013 at 6:19 am |
    • S-3B Viking

      oh, Barry...another cup of coffee...please.

      And then ask why there are so many chronically drunk, teenage pastor's sons and daughters.

      September 13, 2013 at 6:22 am |
      • per capita

        S-3B Viking

        Simply because,... there's a lot of Pastors who have lots of son and daughters.

        Go get yourself a remedial class in Basic Math.

        September 16, 2013 at 4:33 am |
    • Bible Clown©

      barry=karie=faith=braindead yammerhead on crack

      September 13, 2013 at 8:12 am |
      • sam stone

        yep. faith/etc is the same old diseased gash troll he/she/it has always been

        September 13, 2013 at 9:07 am |
    • karie

      The correct answer is zero.

      September 13, 2013 at 9:22 am |
      • truthprevails1

        Zero? The number of functioning brain cells you have?

        September 13, 2013 at 9:42 am |
    • Atheistic Antítheist

      Why would innocent people be driving drunk?

      September 13, 2013 at 11:22 pm |
  17. karie

    Really feel bad for the widow, huh alqeada? Pallen not so much.


    September 13, 2013 at 5:43 am |
    • barry

      athies got nothin. no frame of reference for any judgements. the fact that they detest a god who would wipe out children proves they believe in god. how else would they have a sense of right and wrong? they wouldn't.


      September 13, 2013 at 6:02 am |
      • S-3B Viking

        Sorry, Barry...try another cup of coffee....and try reading, with comprehension, the numerous comments by atheists.

        They don't "hate" a being that doesn't exist...they do despise the "moral framework" that you follow and blame (i.e. "God made me do it."), a product that your (human) religious ancestors created.

        They "despise" the fact that you are unable to exercise any measure of wisdom by not seeing this or seeing the end result of what is mostly nonsense found between Genesis 1 and Revelation 22.

        September 13, 2013 at 6:16 am |
        • Bible Clown©

          barry-karie won't talk to you, it's some kind of gollum. It hates us forever.

          September 13, 2013 at 8:21 am |
        • Doc Vestibule

          Tricksy atheistises....

          September 13, 2013 at 8:45 am |
        • S-3B Viking


          September 13, 2013 at 9:10 am |
      • S-3B Viking

        Finally, Christian "Wisdom" has answered that life-enhancing question (right up next to "why is there something rather than nothing?"

        Why are there 22 chapters in Revelation when St.John has 21chapters and 1-3Jn has 7chapters?

        1b. Regarding bible books John, 1-3John & Revelation; There are 21chapters in John and in 1-3John there are 7chapters (3X7=21); So why are there 22chapters in Revelation (3X7=21+1=22)?

        [There are 21 chapters in St.John. He reveals in the last Chapter that he is the beloved disciple & that Peter would be martyred & he wouldn't. (3X7=21)
        There are 7 chapters in 1-3John. (3X7=21)
        And there are 22 chapters in Revelation. And he warns the plagues or name taken out of the book of life if one adds or takes away (plagiarizes) in the 22th Chapter.

        I am thinking that it might be that the 22 Chapter represents the New Day.
        Like the 1st day after the 3X7=21 (1+21=22). Like Jesus saying, "Come to me on the 8th day (1st Day after 7 days). Or like Pentecost (1st Day after the 7 weeks following Passover). (FROM Yahoo answers).

        And this is the logic of a good percentage of the citizenry of the US.

        September 13, 2013 at 6:20 am |
      • Doc Vestibule

        Oh ye troll of many monikers (Barry for today):
        Evolution favours the development of communities – but not only those bound by religion.
        There are examples of societal ideals based on principles other than Gods. One need look no further than the Declaration of Independence for such as example.
        As individuals, we are prey animals – soft, squidgy, slow and bereft of in-built offensive capabilities. As a cooperative group, we have become the dominant species in nearly every eco-system on Earth.
        But it takes a mighty big stick to beat the selfishness out of us! Historically, it has been a God sized stick capable to inflicting unimaginable devastation in this life and the hereafter.
        . Effective cooperation is a learned skill and the successful religions recognize this. Christianity reveals this truth about ourselves most poignantly in the character of Jesus Christ. His message is one of peace, charity, modesty and forgiveness – the traits most important to develop when living in a society.
        But the character of Jesus is not unique – He is an example of an archetype in mythology.
        In the 21st century we have numerous examples of irreligious governments running successful societies, like Ja/pan, Switzerland and my home, Canada.
        Some of our elected officials may be religious, but we expect them to act as Humanists, not religionists.
        Ultimately, to survive we must reject tribalism.
        Sociological evolution is leading us away from religion. Not because Christianity, Islam, Hinduism etc are negative in and of themselves, but becuase they are necessarily divisive.

        September 13, 2013 at 8:17 am |
    • Akira

      Palin's (you keep ignorantly spelling it wrong) husband is alive; the 9/11/01 widow's husband is not. I fail to see why you don not grasp that.
      Me name is A k i r a. You keep spelling that wrong, also.

      September 13, 2013 at 12:58 pm |
  18. NO EVIL!


    September 13, 2013 at 2:57 am |
  19. Eric Nelson

    History lesson: Under God was added to the Pledge back in the early 50s. It was a time of the Red Scare and McCarthyism was in ascendancy. Addition of the two words was a joint project of several religious and conservative groups such as the Knights of Columbus and the Liberty Lobby. It's about time that those two words were taken out of the Pledge. Many and I do mean many people are just plain uncomfortable reciting them.

    September 13, 2013 at 2:10 am |
    • Tom, Tom, the Other One

      I feel uncomfortable making loyalty oaths in general.

      "Quando omni flunkus moritati"

      September 13, 2013 at 2:17 am |
    • Bible Clown©

      I recall having to sign a loyalty oath that said I wasn't a member of a group seeking to overthrow the USA to get a summer job once.

      September 13, 2013 at 8:24 am |
    • Sara

      I always found the idea of pledging to a flag rather then a country pretty weird. I get that it's symbolic, but it just always sounded kind of silly to me as a kid.

      September 13, 2013 at 10:19 am |
  20. Jimmy Vick

    Since moderators here are afraid of what I have to say being heard, check it out here for yourself. Top of my timeline, word for word what was censored.


    September 13, 2013 at 1:24 am |
    • Tom, Tom, the Other One

      Don't mind Daniel. He just likes to pretty up his blog now and then. It's his own back yard after all.

      September 13, 2013 at 1:27 am |
      • Jimmy Vick

        I made a post and Akira responded, while I was trying to type a response to her response the whole thing got dumped into moderation. Since I had a response already written to Akira's response I stuck it in txt doc and tried to recopy the whole conversation that was in moderation with my response added. Attempts to post this failed so I tried to break things up and do a work around. I was only being allowed to partially repost segments. Observer and Analyzer responded to what is only roughly half of my response to Akira's response. The second half of what was in all a fairly good argument.

        September 13, 2013 at 2:33 am |
        • Tom, Tom, the Other One

          Take care about things that trip the automatic filter – even things like "spic" in conspicuous, "jap" in "Japanese and "tit" in Constitution.

          September 13, 2013 at 2:37 am |
        • Hints

          Bad letter combinations / words to avoid if you want to get past the CNN Belief Blog/WordPress automatic filter:
          Many, if not most, are buried within other words, so use your imagination.
          You can use dashes, spaces, or other characters or some html tricks to modify the "offending" letter combinations.
          ar-se.....as in ar-senic.
          co-ck.....as in co-ckatiel, co-ckatrice, co-ckleshell, co-ckles, etc.
          co-on.....as in racc-oon, coc-oon, etc.
          cu-m......as in doc-ument, accu-mulate, circu-mnavigate, circu-mstances, cu-mbersome, cuc-umber, etc.
          ef-fing...as in ef-fing filter
          ft-w......as in soft-ware, delft-ware, swift-water, drift-wood, etc.
          ho-mo.....as in ho-mo sapiens or ho-mose-xual, ho-mogenous, sopho-more, etc.
          ho-oters…as in sho-oters
          ho-rny....as in tho-rny, etc.
          inf-orms us…
          hu-mp… as in th-ump, th-umper, th-umping
          jacka-ss...yet "ass" is allowed by itself.....
          ja-p......as in j-apanese, ja-pan, j-ape, etc.
          koo-ch....as in koo-chie koo..!
          ni-gra…as in deni-grate
          o-rgy….as in po-rgy, zo-rgy, etc.
          pi-s......as in pi-stol, lapi-s, pi-ssed, therapi-st, etc.
          p-oon… as in sp-oon, lamp-oon, harp-oon
          p-orn… as in p-ornography
          pr-ick....as in pri-ckling, pri-ckles, etc.
          ra-pe.....as in scra-pe, tra-peze, gr-ape, thera-peutic, sara-pe, etc.
          se-x......as in Ess-ex, s-exual, etc.
          sm-ut…..as in transm-utation
          sp-ic.....as in desp-icable, hosp-ice, consp-icuous, susp-icious, sp-icule, sp-ice, etc.
          sp-ook… as in sp-ooky, sp-ooked
          ti-t......as in const-itution, att-itude, t-itle, ent-ity, alt-itude, beat-itude, etc.
          tw-at.....as in wristw-atch, nightw-atchman, salt-water, etc.
          va-g......as in extrava-gant, va-gina, va-grant, va-gue, sava-ge, etc.
          who-re....as in who're you kidding / don't forget to put in that apostrophe!
          There's another phrase that someone found, "wo-nderful us" (have no idea what sets that one off).

          September 13, 2013 at 3:29 am |
        • Sara

          If you got an "in moderation" message that means it hasn't yet been viewed by a moderator but users have flagged it. I have no idea what you said, but there are a few people who appear to just randomly flag posts for moderation. I have too short an attention span to really track my own posts long enough to see it happen much, nut a bunch got blown away a few months ago.

          September 13, 2013 at 8:45 am |
    • doobzz

      I gave up posting today when none of them showed up. No naughty words, either.

      September 13, 2013 at 1:32 am |
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79
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.