 |
|
|
|
|
October 9th, 2013
02:27 PM ET
Creationists taunt atheists in latest billboard warBy Eric Marrapodi, CNN Belief Blog Co-Editor (CNN)– A new video billboard in New York's Times Square has a message from creationists, "To all of our atheist friends: Thank God you're wrong." The video advertisement at 42nd Street and Eighth Avenue in Manhattan is one of several billboards going up this week in New York, San Francisco and Los Angeles, paid for by Answers in Genesis. Answers in Genesis is best known as the multimillion-dollar Christian ministry behind the Creation Museum outside Cincinnati. The museum presents the case for Young Earth creationism, following what it says is a literal interpretation of the book of Genesis, which says the Earth was created by God in six days less than 10,000 years ago. Ken Ham, president of Answers in Genesis, said the idea for the advertisements came from an atheist billboard in Times Square at Christmas. During the holidays, the American Atheists put up a billboard with images of Santa Claus and Jesus that read: "Keep the Merry, dump the myth." “The Bible says to contend for the faith,” Ham said. “We thought we should come up with something that would make a statement in the culture, a bold statement, and direct them to our website. "We're not against them personally. We're not trying to attack them personally, but we do believe they're wrong," he said. "From an atheist's perspective, they believe when they die, they cease to exist. And we say 'no, you're not going to cease to exist; you're going to spend eternity with God or without God. And if you're an atheist, you're going to be spending it without God.' " Dave Silverman, president of the American Atheists, said he felt sad for creationists when he saw the billboards. "They refuse to look at the real world. They refuse to look at the evidence we have, and they offer none," Silverman said. "They might as well be saying, 'Thank Zeus you're wrong' or 'Thank Thor you're wrong.' " Silverman said he welcomed another competitor to marketplace, noting that after atheists bought a billboard two years ago in Times Square that read "You KNOW it's a myth," the Catholic League purchased competing space at the entrance to the Lincoln Tunnel for a sign that read "You KNOW it's true." "I would suggest, if they're actually trying to attract atheists, they should talk about proof and reason to believe in their god, not just some pithy play on words," Silverman said. Ham says part of the goal of the campaign is to draw people to the website for Answers in Genesis, where he offers a lengthy post on his beliefs for the proof of God. Ham insists that this campaign is in keeping with their overall mission. "We're a biblical authority ministry. We're really on about the Bible and the Gospel. Now, we do have a specialty in the area of the creation account and Genesis because that's where we say God's word has come under attack." Ham said Answers in Genesis made the decision to split its marketing budget for the ministry between a regional campaign for the museum and this billboard campaign, rather than a national campaign. IRS filings for the ministry in recent years have shown a yearly operating budget of more than $25 million. Ham said the marketing budget is about 2% of that, about $500,000 a year. Though they are waiting for all the bills to come due for this campaign, he said he expected it to cost between $150,000 and $200,000. Silverman noted that his billboards were not video and cost approximately $25,000 last year. He said another campaign was in the works for this year. "They're throwing down the gauntlet, and we're picking it up," Silverman said, adding that his group would "slap them in the face" with it. Ham said that despite criticism from other Christians for being negative and the usual criticisms from secularists he received on his social media accounts, the advertisements have been a success. "We wanted people talking about them, and we wanted discussion about this. We wanted people thinking about God," Ham said. The Creation Museum and the theory of Young Earth creationism are widely reviled by the broader science community. In a YouTube video posted last year titled "Creationism Is Not Appropriate For Children," Bill Nye the Science Guy slammed creationism, imploring parents not to teach it to their children. "We need scientifically literate voters and taxpayers for the future," he said. "We need engineers that can build stuff and solve problems." The museum responded with its own video. For the past 30 years, Gallup Inc. has been tracking American opinions about creationism. In June 2012, Gallup's latest findings showed that 46% of Americans believed in creationism, 32% believed in evolution guided by God, and 15% believed in atheistic evolution. For as long as Gallup has conducted the survey, creationism has remained far and away the most popular answer, with 40% to 47% of Americans surveyed saying they believed that God created humans in their present form at one point within the past 10,000 years. The Creation Museum said it recently welcomed its 2 millionth visitor since its opening in 2007. soundoff (8,748 Responses)« Previous 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 80 Next »
« Previous entrySenate chaplain: Shutdown is 'madness'
|
  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.  |
|
|
|
This is an honest question. So if you are going to call me names or insult my intelligence, save it for something else. I do believe in evolution and I believe in God, that God directed it. I've heard evolutionists say that Natural Selection is not by chance. How so? Why is it not by chance? If Natural Selection carefully selects advantages that are presented to it by chance, isn't the basis of Natural Selection fundamentally chance. I had a Creationist use the argument that if you cut up pages from a book, dropped it on the floor, what are the "chances" that it will spontaneously arrange the pages into something legible. It will never happen. Thanks.
Why don't you quite copypasting this stupid dreck? You suck.
Why don't you say that to Colin?
Let me have a shot at it.
The classic definition of a species is that two members of the same species can breed and produce fertile offspring, but cannot mate with members of a different species. A human of any race can mate with a human of any other race, but none of us can mate with a chimpanzee, for example. So, all humans are in the same species, but we are all a different species to chimpanzees. Easy stuff.
Indeed, it is often easy to tell that two organisms are of different species just by looking at them. Compare, for example, a dog to a horse. Where it gets a little complex, however, is where you have two organisms that look very similar, but are of different species, or two different species that look very similar. Dogs are a great example of both. Compare a lighter-coated German Shepherd to the wolf. They look very similar, but are of a different species (or sub-species, depending on the definition one uses). Likewise, a Great Dane looks very different to a Corgi, but they are of the same species Canis lupi.s familiaris, the domestic dog.
Why are Great Danes and Corgis considered to be the same species (along with German Shepherds) but wolves and German Shepherds not? For the same reason as humans. Great Danes, German Shepherds and Corgis can and will mate and produce fertile offspring, but none of them will mate with a wolf, absent human intervention. However, and this is where evolution kicks in, all breeds of dog alive today descended from wolves. In fact, it is likely that they all descended, ultimately, from a small pack of wolves that were domesticated in the Middle East some 10,000 years ago. Some research suggests Manchuria as the location, but I digress.
What happened was that humans noticed that certain, less aggressive wolves were handy to have around. They ate pests and garbage and alerted the camp when predators lurked nearby. So, humans began to intentionally feed and try to tame them. The tamer, less aggressive wolves were less afraid of human interaction and less likely to harm their human hosts. They, therefore, received more attention, food and protection, which gave them a breeding advantage, and they passed on this favorable trait, call it “tameness,” to their offspring.
These tamer offspring were constantly chosen (probably unknowingly) for care and support and the wilder, more aggressive members of the litter discarded, perhaps for biting or avoiding humans. After hundreds or thousands of years of inadvertent selection for “tameness” the camp wolves started to become dependent on their human hosts and to even look different to their still wild ancestors. They lost the extreme aggressiveness that helped them in the wild, became less streamlined and tooled for the kill and contained less adrenaline, a principal hormone that causes aggression. In other words, they slowly became, in a sense, fat, dumb and happy. Doggie dough-boys. Girlie-men compared to their wild cousins, still red of fang and claw.
These first domestic dogs were so popular with humans that their “use” spread and humans all over the globe – Australian Aboriginals, New Zealand Maoris and other Polynesians, Egyptians, Greeks and Romans – all began to use dogs. Then something astounding happened. Humans actually noticed that, if there was a specific trait you liked about your, say male dog, you could breed it with a female with the same trait and the offspring would inherit that trait. If, for example, a hunter-gatherer only ever allowed the fastest male dogs to breed with the fastest female dogs, the litter they produced would be slightly faster than if either parent had randomly mated with a partner dog. The humans could repeat this process, generation after generation, allowing only the fastest members of the litters to breed. After many years of such selective breeding, the resultant dogs would differ so much in body shape, leg length and, perhaps, lung capacity to their ancestor as to be considered a separate breed.
No one set of offspring would differ greatly from its parents, but it will differ a little more from its grandparents, and even a little more from its great-grandparents etc., until we go all the way back to the original dog, which will be quite different in appearance.
Bang – dog breeding was born. Humans selected for speed, resulting in the Greyhound, smelling and tracking ability (Bloodhounds) ability to herd sheep (Collies and Australian Shepherds) appearance (Dalmatians and Pomeranians) size (Chihuahuas and Great Danes) and a host of other traits.
As with most human activities, as our knowledge of evolution and genetics increased, dog breeding improved and exploded in the 1900s. There are now 600 or so breeds of dog, all of which descendent from the original wolf. Many breeds of dog alive today evolved over the past few decades and did not even exist as late as 1900. But, every last domestic dog, from the Teacup Chihuahua in Paris Hilton’s purse to the Great Danes of European car advertisements, are the end result of selective breeding down different paths from the original wolf.
Most breeds of dog do not (and likely cannot) breed with wolves for a variety of reasons, including allopatric and/or human induced separation and mating rituals. Not only that, but put almost any domestic dog in the wild and it would not survive a month. A wolf is much more likely to eat a Shih Tzu than bonk it. They are separate species. In the struggle for life, the domestic dog species originated through means of selection as a favored race from the original wolf.
If this last sentence sounds slightly familiar to you, that is because it is. It is essentially the full ti.tle of Charles Darwin’s seminal work: “On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life”. Now, in the example I gave you, humans were acting as the selective agent, selecting which dogs would breed and which wouldn’t. Now take humans out of the equation and parachute in a purely natural factor, such as a predator. Imagine if, instead of dogs, we are dealing with zebras on an African savannah. In this case, in lieu of humans, the predators – hyenas, lions and wild dogs – will be the agent (blindly, unintentionally) doing the selective breeding. They will tend to kill and eat the weaker, slower zebras, allowing the faster, or better camouflaged individuals to preferentially survive, breed and pass on their advantageous traits to their children.
So, in a sense, if one generation is considered, it is chance. But, over the long term, it can add up.
spam
I buy everything you said. But your examples presuppose existing life and animals. How did the first cell with life originate? The first functional genetic material? There is so much in the most basic baterium, that it seems impossible for it to form by chance. Scientists can't do it. Once you have life, once you have a viable living organism, then I'm with you.
Natural selection is the nonrandom survival of random variants.
And the very first genetic material?
if you cut up pages from a book, dropped it on the floor, what are the "chances" that it will spontaneously arrange the pages into something legible. It will never happen.
If dropped an infinite number of times it will happen – but this is a mathematical notion.
Pragmatically speaking, the paper is under the effects of entropy, gravity, wind resistance and the laws of motion. These will shape the outcome – just like the laws of physics and chemisty shape the outcome of evolution – not pure randomness.
And this was posted yesterday to the same question so I'm a little suspect of how 'genuine' this question is.
GOPer
The point is that the existence of intelligent life is impossible based on what we know today. I am not going to argue with Stephen Hawking who agreed and thus ran for cover under M theory. It requires an infinite number of universes to make our existence even a remote possibility. So if you want to believe (without any scientific evidence) that there are an infinite number of universes and we just happen to evolve out of an improbable event that is your faith in action.
Just how do you compare my contention that we came into existence through an unknowable act of creation by an incomprehensible eternal entity outside of our space and time constructs with your faith?
I am an agnostic THEIST. I believe in evolution. I love science, I majored in science. If I want to express my religious opinions then I speak as a philosopher not as a scientist. Science and religion are not one and the same. The two will never meet not even in the middle and I think that unless you can understand a metaphor it's probably a good idea to stay away from philosophy entirely.
Is a human person simply a material being? Is there nothing immaterial about us? I have a "will." I can move my body and objects if I choose to or if I choose not to. I have a reason and can think about great ideas. I can create music that has never existed before. Words convey meaning and I am moved by great speeches such as Martin Luther Jr.'s "I have a dream." If I analyze the chemical makeup of the paints and canvas used to create the Mona Lisa but have not seen it, have I understood it truly. If I know the light frequency of a color, but am blind, do I truly know the color? No, I know one aspect of the truth of color, it’s not the full truth, it’s a partial truth. If I know the sound frequency of every note used in a symphony, but am deaf, have I truly captured what a symphony is? Science only measures material objects interacting with other material objects. Science is simply a method to obtain knowledge but will never answer all things. Science is only one form of knowledge. Logic, semantic, and systemic are other forms and methods to obtain knowledge.
There's nothing wrong with this. It's not offensive and they have a right to express themselves. They won't convince anyone with it, since there is no evidence for their assertion and no rational argument they can make but if it makes them happy to express themselves, then fine. Atheists would be well advised to respond politely in kind. Maybe a Thank Thor it's Thursday compaign?
...and once again the people of the United States become the laughing stock of the western world.
For the most part Atheists lack love at an early age. They usually have drugged out parents or suffered a horrible tragic event and when god didn't answer they pushed him aside. Everybody's mind is set on proof. "pictures or it didn't happen" that's an easy statement to make. But just because a few of you stray away from religion does not mean the rules will change. You are free to think and believe what you want. The word "faith" means exactly that... faith. If you can't have faith I feel sad for you. It's too much of an effort for most people to go to church anymore. The people that do attend church have very happy lives. The atheists will bring all the negative energy to this discussion and ruin it like always. Atheists are just unhappy and dumb people. I hate to say it but I have never met one I couldn't look at and say "okay I see why you are an atheist". I'm sure a swarm of hateful negative atheists will attack my post but I could care less. Let out your anger and reply, it's better then holding it in 😉
When people lie – they lie because they know the truth isn't on their side. They know that the truth would be against them. It might even say things they don't want to hear.
What you say isn't remotely true about atheists. So the question is – why are you making up lies?
Go away
Actually you are quite wrong. I suggest you actually get to know an Atheist (though you are probably one of those individuals that will claim they have when the haven't).
Dumb is a dumb word.
I'm not an atheist and I am not a Christian but I have no anger to let go. I'm really sorry that atheists feel a need to constantly criticize the choices of others and in such a public fashion. They have every right to not believe in God. You have every right to believe in him. While I do not believe that Jesus was the one and only son of God, I do believe he existed. Would he have wanted Christianity to be used to divide people? Everyone has the right to believe as they choose and should not try to force it on others.
/Atheists/ feel the need to constantly criticize? Well, gee, golly gosh, I'll remember that the next time some religious extremist threatens me with hell because I don't share his or her beliefs.
Yes Jesus would want to divide, at least according to him.
“Think not that I came to send peace on the earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I came to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law” Matthew 10:34-35
Your statement is the biggest steaming pile. How dare you make assumptions.
You believe in a fairy tale and I feel sorry for you that you have been brainwashed into believing there is a 'man' in the sky watching over you. I am – you guessed it – an atheist, I am a realist.
LOL thanks for proving in black and white how little you actually know about atheists and how much you rely mostly on assumptions to make your judgements.
I'll bet you're one of those people who thinks masturbating makes you go blind too.
Ooo assuming is fun, no wonder you do it so much!
For the most part (re: entirety), you don't have a clue about what you're talking about.
If Answers-in-Genesis want to provide a public service, they should change the billboard message to a picture of a caveman riding a dinosaur, above the caption "The Earth is only 6000 years old". At least then, they could give New Yorkers a well-needed laugh.
No wonder America no longer has a production based economy and can't innovate anymore. Almost half of the country denies science and scientific proof of evolution in favor of some magic being that waved his finger and created the world and life? Unbelievable! I have nothing against religion if it helps to bring you strength or a sense of belonging, but when you start reading the Bible as a literal history book you've taken it too far.
@No wonder- "No wonder America no longer has a production based economy and can't innovate anymore. Almost half of the country denies science and scientific proof of evolution..."
Yeah because 50 years ago when we produced so much more....we had so many more atheists and people with deep understanding of science than we do now. Oh..wait a second...that's not right. Why? Because your comment is stupid.
The president of the creationist group that put up this sign, Ken Ham, has got to be one of the most apelike looking men I've ever seen. Breaking news... the missing link has been found.
Did you know that Good and bad people go to hell????
Hell (“Sheol” and “Hades” in the Bible’s original languages) is simply the grave, not a place of fiery torment. Who go to hell? Both good people and bad people. (Job 14:13; Psalm 9:17) The Bible says that this common grave of mankind is “the house of meeting for everyone living.”—Job 30:23.
Even Jesus went to hell when he died. However, “he was not kept in hell,” because God resurrected him.—Acts 2:31, 32, The Bible in Basic English.
Is hell eternal?
All those who go to hell will come back out, brought to life by Jesus through God’s power. (John 5:28, 29; Acts 24:15) Speaking of that future resurrection, the prophecy at Revelation 20:13 says that “death and HELL delivered up the dead which were in them.” (King James Version) Once hell has been emptied, it will no longer exist; no one will ever go there again because “death will be no more.”—Revelation 21:3, 4; 20:14.
I am an atheist. And I couldn't have less of a problem with religious people. Most 99% of religious people are perfectly nice people, who only incorporate the best lessons of religion into their lives. It's mostly harmless. My fellow atheists on the other hand, are a bunch of smug spoil sports. What's worse, a lie that draws a smile, or a truth that draws a tear?
I'm a bigot now.
There's no way you can prove it one way or the other so arguing over it is just a waste of time, I just want the religious people to not push it on me and if the atheists wants to do something productive they can go burn down the Westboro Baptist Church
You should read Anthony Flew's latest book. He used to be the "pope" of atheism but died believing in God.
So, as he became old and febrile, and his mental faculties failed him, he started believing in myths.
Sounds like degenerative brain disease.
He was never the "pope" of atheism. Atheism does not have a pope and never has.
How about truth that draws a smile?
I don't like it when people pass on their opinions as facts. That's what this billboard does. That's what any believer in gods does.
The billboard says their belief – that atheists are wrong about god. This isn't bad – atheists believe Christians are wrong about god. Neither of these are bad things to say.
The lie is worse – because the smile is temporary until you find out that it's a lie. Knowing the truth at least leaves you with the ability to work to improve it, rather than being blind.
As to your awful atheist friends – sounds more like you've got a problem with who you are choosing to be around – every atheist I know is a good person, and nearly all are very considerate of believers.
You see I am quite sure people would believe you, until you began attacking all Atheists with your comment.
What about the 1%??? Actually, I bet it's 1 out of 12 or 8.3%. Judas was one of the 12 and betrayed Christ. Regardless, 8.3% is a lot and proves something I'm sure
Being taunted by creationists about religion is like being told your dumb by the dumbest person in the room. It's meaningless drivel that might make you angry or might make you feel sorry for them but is ultimately meaningless.
religion = ignorance
You = bigot
Ah....I don't even know what a bigot is. What can I say, I'm from NJ.
That's funny you call him that given that Christians have proven to be the biggest bigots in American history.
Who was there throwing bible quotes to the masses during the civil war over their right to keep slaves?
Who was there throwing bible quotes to the masses and trying to impose their religion in to law when white and black people wanted the right to marry eachother?
And who was there, again, throwing bible quotes to the masses and trying to impose their religion in to law when gays wanted rights? And on that note, which group creates not one but dozens of organizations tasked to preventing these people from getting their rights?
Ok. Interesting. Cute double standard there.
LAWS of conservation of mass and energy. So where did it all come from?
Weren't those laws passed by congress a long time ago?
They have been eliminated because they point to God, and that made atheists feel bad. Awww.
Actually, the catholic church sentenced Galileo to house arrest for espousing the first version of those laws of physics. Nice try.
It's good to ask why, that motivates to find the truth and not accept "because".
Are Colin's posts a cry for help?
Look at the religious freak doing their bit in capital letters. Scream louder idiot.
Why does that guy point out logical fallacies in other people's posts, and ignore his? And he ignores the 5 other people on here that use them, too?
Should we intervene?
Stop whining and go get a hobby.
Delusionist.
I am not trying to demean anyone's belief system but I am very curious as I have never really been exposed to the teachings of creationism. How do creationists explain radiometric dating? We can and do measure the decay rates of certain isotopes and therefore can back calculate the date of their origin. So is it your contention that God placed partially decayed isotopes into geologic formations and organic material to trick people and make faith more deserving of a reward?
The basic argument is that we can't trust radiometric dating because we can't live long enough to see that it's accurate.
I think this argument would be more valid if anyone could postulate a reason for the rate of molecular decay to change. The fact that different isotopes with different decay rates corrobate each other makes this a pretty tough sell. If you combine this with the Geologic laws of superposition and faunal succession you've got an extroardinarily high certainty of the passage of time.
I believe in God and evolution. No problem here.
I haven't read the objections lately, but one thing may be that it requires acceptance that the rate remains the same, or nearly the same.
It has never been observed to vary. Ok, I can understand that, but we haven't been observing for a million years.
I believe belief is irrelevant and facts stand up, therefore I believe people can believe whatever they want.
I'm a non-believer who is very tolerant of believers. I don't mind listening to their ideas, I keep my mind open, I've been to church many, many times in order to appease believing friends and relatives. but this kind of thing just makes me want to cling to my atheism. As soon as you belittle someone, they become deaf to your message.
If you came by your atheism honestly why would you have to "cling" to it? You are either convinced that a god, or gods exist, or you aren't. If you aren't, then there is no way to "make" yourself believe in something you know isn't true.
An atheist tolerant of those of faith is rare. Hats off to you for not being a jerk about your belief like so many. I am curious though about your feelings toward your fellow atheist who often belittle those of faith.
Actually I would say the majority of atheists are tolerant of those of faith... you just don't hear from them one way or the other. They have have their a-theistic belief and feel little reason to discuss it with others.
If someone were to tell you that they believe that Bugs Bunny is real, omnipresent and omniscient, would you respect that person's belief? Would you not know that person to be insane? People who believe are no different from people who believe in Santa Claus, The Devil or the boogeyman.
When you know someone well, and you know they believe STRONGLY in unicorns, it's difficult not to view them as being more than a little strange and out of touch with reality.
Rett,
"An atheist tolerant of those of faith is rare."
I'd love to know where you got that stat. Most people are tolerant to the point they see the,selves or others threatened. I have friends of many beliefs I not only tolerate but respect. However other beliefs, both godly and atheistic, are either absurd or dangerous. Would you really recommend tolerating everything? Every belief in racial superiority or withholding medicine from kids? We all pick and choose some beliefs over others.
In this case it went both ways. As a Christian I am embarrassed that other Christians would create billboards like this, to me it doesn't seem Christlike at all, and that is what I Christian is supposed to be, isn't it? I also must admit that as a Christian I have trouble believing a literal translation of Genesis because I am also a scientist. I think logically, and it doesn't seem very logical. That being said, I do believe God CAN do what is described in Genesis, I just am not sure as to exactly how, to me it seems like he left enough clues that the earth is very old.
True. Unfortunately many atheists aren't tolerate, and are extremely condescending...especially behind these anonymous websites when many an argument against a believer is the amazingly profound, intelligent, and well-thought out "You're Stupid to believe in the make believe man in the sky." Like that is going to get me to throw up my hands and say, "Oh my God! You're right! In fact X out that G-word in the beginning of this statement because you've convinced me He doesn't exist!" LOL. With all that the "atheist extremists", so to speak, have done over recent years to try to erase anything that has to with God in our society, I can't help but say, "good!" to this sign. I wish we didn't have to "fight", but enough has gone on that sometimes you got to counter.
Delusion is possible without stupidity, but that would be mental illness.
Believing in myths is not a sign of intelligence, but a sign of fear.
So, the question you should ask yourself is; are you, stupid, fearful, or delusional?
I think you proved AM's point
Forgive me if I take the complaints of a lack of tolerance from someone making a mass attack on atheists with a grain of salt.
The christian religion seems to be getting desperate if they feel a need to take up the fight against non believers. Religion's worst enemy is education that encourages people to ask questions.
A private website paid for and desired that ad. Not the entire Christian religion.
Ditto for the atheist billboard(s). One atheist organization does not represent all atheists.
In a way, they are winning our case for us just by talking publicly. It's easy to imagine that creationist beliefs are somehow reasonable until you actually hear some of them. One explanation I've heard for how all the animals got spread over the world after the flood is that they were carried thousands of miles via volcanic clouds. No, really, that is an actual explanation. They also argue that animals like T-Rex and the Great White Shark were once vegetarians until Man's sin brought suffering into this world. It's a weird, weird little world that they live in.
Sometimes people just want to argue.
Atheists are the ones who started attacking Christianity. How is that not intolerance and hate speech and not considered an outrage by the general public and punished in courts? How is it not bullying? Fine, they don't believe in God, to each their own. But you don't see atheists attacking Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism and other religions. Just Christianity. For a people who don't believe in God, they sure do hate Him an awful lot. These types of atheists are all hypocrites, bullies, bigots, intolerant and violators of hate speech crimes. This world may not deal with you but you will surely not escape your judgment before God.
There are some here, believe it or not who do not believe, see the attacks on one specific religious group and therefore come in here to argue because we are not going to wait for an invisible force to deal out social justice.
Not believing in gods makes sense. Hating a religious group just annoys me.
Jeff Williams
Jack, how can someone hate something that doesn't exist? Care to enlighten us on that?
1. There is no God.
2. I hate him!!!!!!
Jack Parker,
Speaking of HYPOCRITES, do you believe EVERY word of the Bible or just pick-and-choose?
Everyone in this country has every right to pick and choose from not only the Bible but from every other book including the works of Mark Twain if they want too. Why don't you move into the real political issue that is upsetting you rather than attacking nonsense?
Do you ever shut up?
Funniest post of the day. Congrats! The irony quotient is off the charts.
Atheists have been the evil boogeyman in Christian sermons for centuries. And you think somehow we're the ones on the attack?
Baw, someone feels so persecuted today.
Atheists hate the idea of God and people that believe in God
Idiot...you can't hate something that doesn't exist.
You can hate an idea. I hate Communism. Can you touch it, is it material? No. It's a political idea.
Jack
There's lots of other characters in literature that I find offensive, but none of them killed millions of children just to prove a point to a nation's leader, or killed all but 8 of the Earth's humans just because he didn't like them, or ordered even half the other genocides that YHWH supposedly had. As a literary character God isn't very likeable.
I don't get it. How am I supposed to believe in an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent god that created the Earth and stars and all living things, who can heal the sick and cure the blind, when he is still depending on someone to rent him a billboard in order to get his message across?
Ya gotta believe to believe. The Good Lord works in mysterious ways. Ya gotta believe to believe. The Good Lord works in mysterious ways. Repeat constantly. . .
We really don't have to decide that GOD exists or doesn't exist for sure. Every person has his or her own opinion which is again just their thoughts. Silly thing is everyone trying to force their ideas on others and want others to believe what they believe just to make their own beliefs justified which they were never sure to start with. If I was born to American parents, probably I would believe in Jesus, in China, believe ancestors ghosts, in India – Krishna and other Gods, in Saudi – Allah, in Israel – whatever that God is. So what is the truth and who is the true God? Its pretty clear that you have been passed on the belief system by your family and surroundings and Idea of God is not clear to anyone who claims and preaches the same.
Did you know that Good and bad people go to hell??
Hell (“Sheol” and “Hades” in the Bible’s original languages) is simply the grave, not a place of fiery torment. Who go to hell? Both good people and bad people. (Job 14:13; Psalm 9:17) The Bible says that this common grave of mankind is “the house of meeting for everyone living.”—Job 30:23.
Even Jesus went to hell when he died. However, “he was not kept in hell,” because God resurrected him.—Acts 2:31, 32, The Bible in Basic English.
Is hell eternal?
All those who go to hell will come back out, brought to life by Jesus through God’s power. (John 5:28, 29; Acts 24:15) Speaking of that future resurrection, the prophecy at Revelation 20:13 says that “death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them.” (King James Version) Once hell has been emptied, it will no longer exist; no one will ever go there again because “death will be no more.”—Revelation 21:3, 4; 20:14.
Wait a minute, are you saying that the atheists that claim God will torture people with fire for eternity don't know what they are talking about?
No wonder they troll religious boards/not practice logic.
HM – Most "christian" organizations teach falsehood...but the atheist dont even bother to know if what is said related to God is true or not...
Either they had some really bad preachers or they just don't get it. I blame looney atheist website and lame doc()mentaries.
Even if there were some "divine" apparition that happened like that of Fatima, Garabandal or Medjugorje for everyone to witness, even if Jesus did heal all those people and people saw him resurrected, even if the Virgin Mary herself appeared to me 100 times, even if a bald pastor healed the blind girl in the name of Jesus, that wouldn't be scientific proof that God exists. Science is built on "verification through replication" of the experiment. Future peoples and scientists a hundred years from now should be able to reproduce these results. But we can't. Science is the same 1 million years ago, yesterday and today. Therefore, none of these things happened and God doesn't exist.
I think I would believe then.
If you saw the Virgin Mary 100 times, You'd be an idiot not to believe. Just shows you're the irrational one.
How could you be sure it's her?