home
RSS
June 17th, 2014
02:36 PM ET

'Cosmos': the creationist version

"Creationist Cosmos" has an answer for all the mysteries of the Universe: God did it.

Sharp satire or offensive stereotyping? Weigh in below.

- CNN Belief Blog

Filed under: Uncategorized

soundoff (1,386 Responses)
  1. bostontola

    This video merely contrasts the biblical creation story and science using humor. In reality, there are many creation stories from many religions and cultures. None of those creation stories are scientifically accurate, but some align with science more than others.

    Some have the ordered world emerging from chaos. This aligns with the universe shortly after the Big Bang. Some have our world emerging from earlier worlds, similar to multiverse hypotheses. Some are pretty nutty, where the world comes from limbs of some primal being.

    Overall, the biblical creation story isn't the most out of step with science, but it's not the best aligned either. It reflects thinking of pre-scientific people, some guessed better than others. All miss on many important aspects.

    June 18, 2014 at 8:51 pm |
    • Robert Brown

      Order from chaos? Can you explain how this is possible?

      June 19, 2014 at 11:28 am |
      • G to the T

        "Order from Chaos"

        Though it may seem counter-intuitive, it is quite possible (almost inevitable) that some form of order will arise out of chaos. After all, chaos is really just another way of saying "infinitely random" – as such, there would be multiple configurations that, from our perspective, we would call "order". Most often the difference between "order" and "chaos" is just a matter of how close/far away you are observing a system.

        June 19, 2014 at 1:26 pm |
      • bostontola

        Robert,
        There are many ways actually. Gravity is the easiest to directly see order from chaos. A cloud of gas (as chaotic as it gets) will collapse into a star (relatively ordered). There are many ways chaos spontaneously orders when energy is added. When you heat a liquid slowly, hexagonal convection columns spontaneously form in the liquid. There are an enormous number of examples of spontaneous ordering.

        June 19, 2014 at 5:37 pm |
      • igaftr

        How is it possible? Basic science. External forces.

        If I have sand evenly distributed on the bottom of a pool, then add energy to the water in a circlular motion, that sand collects in the center, the area with the lowest energy. Order from chaos. Simple as that. There are many other energies that have an ordering effect due to the physics involved.

        Nitrogen and Oxygen are in the air. Lightning strikes. It splits the Nitrogen and the Oxygen molecules that then due to natrual elemental attraction, some of that reforms as N-O...Nitrates...needed by all life on the planet.
        Thousands of tons of nitrates are made by lightning every day. Order from chaos.

        June 22, 2014 at 1:06 pm |
  2. athiesmishealthy

    Bottom line, there is no god. I was watching the comments today, and although I don't think a belief in god is truly schizophrenic it is delusional. Mythology has no place in 2014 or the future to use as a crutch for politics, education or science. It truly sickens me that our President places his hand on a "holy" book when he takes his oath of office, or that we have statements on our currency that state "in god we trust". I can keep ranting over god, religion, and the pathetic holy books that have infected our society but will stay on point with the comment "there is no god, and there will never be proof of a god"

    June 18, 2014 at 7:07 pm |
    • Dalahäst

      Come on! Trolling.

      June 18, 2014 at 7:11 pm |
    • athiesmishealthy

      Not a troll, that honor stays with salero the idiot. I just started posting today in this blog and will be more frequent

      June 18, 2014 at 7:16 pm |
      • Dalahäst

        Sorry. It is rare that an atheist says there is no God and there will never be proof of God. I thought you were a believer pretending to be an atheist.

        June 18, 2014 at 7:20 pm |
        • fintronics

          There is no god.

          June 19, 2014 at 2:48 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          There is a God.

          June 19, 2014 at 2:51 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          http://www.salon.com/2014/04/19/science_doesnt_disprove_god_where_richard_dawkins_and_new_atheists_go_wrong/

          June 19, 2014 at 3:41 pm |
        • kudlak

          Actually boys, neither one of you can be absolutely sure of what you believe about God's existence. Let's just say that one of you is convinced that he's real, and the other one isn't, eh?

          June 20, 2014 at 8:36 am |
        • Dalahäst

          How can you be absolutely sure of that?

          By your own standards: you can't. That is just what you believe.

          Despite what you believe, I can be sure of God's existence.

          I am sure.

          June 22, 2014 at 7:28 am |
        • colin31714

          What one can fairly say is that there is absolutely no credible evidence for the existence of any god, much less the Judeo-Christian god. It is as likely as the tooth fairy, despite how warm, comforting or supportive belief in it might be to the weak, inattentive or childish mind.

          June 22, 2014 at 7:35 am |
        • Dalahäst

          There is plenty of credible evidence for God. It is not like believing in the tooth fairy. Despite what you read in your philosophical musings from Richard Dawkins, the warm, comforting and supportive words to your ears from his lips are not the truth.

          I'm not weak, inattentive or childish – at least not any more so than you are. You definitely have been prone to temper tantrums.

          June 22, 2014 at 7:53 am |
        • kudlak

          Dalahäst
          If I can be mistaken, and he can be mistaken, so can you. That's the standard. Nobody can be certain of something like this that manifests through personal perception. I can be sure that you believe what you do, just like I can of someone claiming alien abduction, but that doesn't mean that I accept your perception of what happened to you as factual.

          June 22, 2014 at 12:46 pm |
        • igaftr

          "There is plenty of credible evidence for God. It is not like believing in the tooth fairy."

          You cannot show that to be true. It does look like they areexactly alike. YOU have accepted something as if it were evidence, but since you haven't been able to exclude all of the other possibilities ( except to yourself) it is simply you lying to yourself.

          You claim credible evidence, by all means present it. I know you won't because you have been asked for credible evidence many times but since you use different defintions of words than those accepted by everyone else, credible means something different to you.

          June 22, 2014 at 12:57 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          I can't prove that you are not a tooth fairy pretending to be an atheist so nobody finds out tooth fairies actually exist.

          I have credible evidence to believe in God. If I didn't I would be an atheist. And I probably wouldn't spend so much time on a religion blog. That would be crazy.

          June 22, 2014 at 12:59 pm |
      • Dalahäst

        Oh, and welcome! I haven't seen Salero post in awhile. That is amazing you know about him after 1 day. Or maybe you have just been lurking and now are letting yourself be known.

        Have you posted under any different names?

        June 18, 2014 at 7:24 pm |
      • realbuckyball

        Before anyone looks for or talks about evidence for a "gawd", one has to come up with a coherent definition for one.
        There is none.
        St. Paul told believers faith was a gift" and a "virtue". There is not, nor ever will be "proof" of a deity.
        It defies the definition of, (and need for) "faith".

        June 18, 2014 at 8:14 pm |
      • kudlak

        If a giant face appeared in the sky all around the world at the same time, could zap people into toast with rays from it's eyes, and could say it was God in every language on Earth, there would still be loads of people who would suspect some elaborate holographic trick.

        Can anyone define a proof of God that everyone would have no choice but to accept? We live in an age where Star Trek aliens are so god-like that we'd suspect any super-powerful being claiming to be God of being something else, right? What would God have to do to impress us in this day and age?

        June 18, 2014 at 8:26 pm |
        • realbuckyball

          He could start by curing some innocent children of their cancers, and feeding some starving babies.

          June 18, 2014 at 8:33 pm |
        • zhilla1980wasp

          kudlak why on earth would a god zap people with lazer beam eyes? seriously.

          if a face popped up all around the world and soke to everyone in every language on earth, it could just as easily understand what it would take to convince each and every person on earth of it being real.
          do you seriously think some all powerful god would use spoken words? i highly doubt it seeing it lacks vocal folds to produce sound waves for our brains to translate; thus it would have to connect to each and every mind in the world at the same time to communicate with us, seeing it was connected mentally with all humans it would know what is in our minds and be able to provide the proof each of us requires.

          a simple task for such an imaginary creature.

          June 19, 2014 at 7:08 am |
        • Theo Phileo

          Actually, Revelation 11:1-14 talks about two witnesses who will come in the last days who will be preachers, witnesses of God before a godless people, and they will have the power to call down fire from heaven to consume any that would oppose them... Interesting story, but what is amazing is that in that modern age, even the miraculous is not enough to persuade the hard, stony hearts of those who have committed themselves to a worldview that discounts God.

          June 19, 2014 at 8:47 am |
        • kudlak

          zhilla1980wasp
          They use to think that lightening was some god's way of smiting his enemies, and some people still talk about tornadoes as "the finger of God", so why not laser beams from eyes?

          In the Comics, Martian Manhunter could communicate with all of humanity telepathically. You have to come up with something truly dazzling, and unique for everyone to end up believing.

          June 19, 2014 at 10:05 am |
        • Dalahäst

          Isn't it weird that people who say they aren't interested in faith, belief, God or religion – come to a blog and talk about faith, belief, God and religion so much?

          June 19, 2014 at 10:07 am |
        • Theo Phileo

          "You have to come up with something truly dazzling, and unique for everyone to end up believing"
          ------------
          EXACTLY!!! And indeed that is the purpose of the miracles to take place during the tribulation. Some see it as cruel vengence of God, but the Bible presents it as divine mercy in postponing His ultimate wrath for 7 more years, and present the world with such miracles during that time as has not been seen since Jesus walked the earth – all for the purpose of bringing about the repentance of ungoldly men.

          Sadly, because of men's hard hearts, even while readily admitting that only God could cause such things, they sink deeper into their resentment for God, and only fortify themselves in their unbelief, trusting in the mere inventions of man to save them from their fates.

          June 19, 2014 at 10:17 am |
        • Doc Vestibule

          " You have to come up with something truly dazzling, and unique for everyone to end up believing."
          Lots of people have tried!
          There was a dude named Rudolf Steiner who preached that Jesus was going to grant a select few people psychic powers to join Him on the etheric plane.
          In 1982, Benjamin Creme said that Christ was going to make a worldwide television announcement on June 21st – and maybe He did. Those were the days before TiVo after all....

          June 19, 2014 at 10:19 am |
        • Doc Vestibule

          I think I'm going to hedge my bets regarding The Rapture until I see news reports of a giant, amphibious, 7 headed, 10 horned, bear pawed monster climbing out of the oceans.
          I would also accept entomological evidence in the form of a grasshopper with the face of a man, the hair of a woman, the mouth of a lion and the tail of scropion with a tiny little crown atop its head.

          June 19, 2014 at 10:22 am |
        • kudlak

          Theo Phileo
          First of all, why would characters in a book claiming they will witness something, sometime in the future be a compelling argument for anything?

          Secondly, why should such a "loving" God need mafia enforcers to help get people to believe in him? Can't he just "use his words" instead of his fists, like we teach our children whenever they feel like bullying others?

          Finally, if a similar head appeared and told the world that he was Allah, and that Muhammad was indeed his last prophet, would you just believe it, or suspect some illusion? People back then believed that demon possession explained disease. All anyone would have needed back then were some children's party level magic skills to convince people that they could do miracles. people are still pretty easily convinced. A whole town could be levelled by a tornado, but if a bible happens to be found open amongst the wreckage it's a clear sign from God.

          June 19, 2014 at 10:24 am |
        • Theo Phileo

          Doc, those are metaphores. And metaphores which made perfect sense to the Jewish mind at the time.
          Check out the book "Because the Time is Near" and the author goes into a lot of detail in explanation.

          June 19, 2014 at 10:31 am |
        • kudlak

          Dalahäst
          Oh, I have always had a great interest in faith, belief, God and religion. That's what led me to investigate them, which eventually led to my atheism. Perhaps, if more religious people actually took an interest in the subject we'd end up with fewer of them? As it is, I see too many people just lazily going with the crowd, never really thinking about what they believe, all because it seems to be the popular, expected thing for them to do.

          June 19, 2014 at 10:31 am |
        • Theo Phileo

          "As it is, I see too many people just lazily going with the crowd, never really thinking about what they believe, all because it seems to be the popular, expected thing for them to do"
          ------------
          I agree, I wish more people WOULD study more. And in so doing they would be so fortified in their understanding of the veracity of the Bible that atheism would all but disappear.

          “The evidence indicates that the written sources of our Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John) are not later than c. AD 60; some of them have even been traced back to notes taken of our Lord’s teaching while His words were actually being uttered… We have then in the Synoptic Gospels, the latest of which was complete between 40-50 years after the death of Christ, material which took shape at a still earlier time, some of it even before His death, and which, besides being for the most part 1st hand evidence, was transmitted along independent and trustworthy lines.”
          F.F. Bruce, “The New Testament Doc.uments: Are they Reliable?”

          “The interval then between the dates of original composition and the earliest extent evidence becomes so small as to be in fact negligible, and the last foundation for any doubt that the Scriptures have come down to us substantially as they were written has now been removed. Both the authenticity and the general integrity of the books of the New Testament may be regarded as finally established.”
          Kenyon, Frederic (1940) “The Bible and Archaeology"

          June 19, 2014 at 10:40 am |
        • gulliblenomore

          Theo...the greatest doc-ument ever produced to conform a person to atheism is in fact, your bible.

          June 19, 2014 at 10:55 am |
        • Science Works

          Hey Theo and Dala – The OMG gang and the claptrap .

          History
          Goddidit

          Creation Ministries International began life as the Creation Science Foundation, in 1979, when Ham quit his job as a public school science teacher to begin speaking on creationism. In 1986 Ham left Australia to teach at the Insti-tute for Creation Research; by 1987 his absence was causing leadership problems, and in February he handed control over to Andrew Snelling. In 1993, after 7 years in the US, Ham decided to start, with the assistance of CSF, the Creation Science Ministry, which later became AiG-US. By 1995 the CSF had become the Australian arm of AiG. They initially shared board members, but AiG-Australia suffered a hilariously acrimonious schism from its now much larger partner in 2005[1] culminating in accusations of witchcraft and hurt feelings all round.[2] They changed their name to Creation Ministries International as a result.

          Much like AiG, CMI is an ardent promoter of young Earth creationist claptrap. However, CMI attempts to take a rather more "scholarly" tone than does AiG, if that term can possibly be applied to any creationist organization; it uses the presuppositionalist style of argument, which along with the scholarly veneer may help to explain why CMI doesn't have its own ignorance museum, complete with saddled Triceratops.

          http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Creation_Ministries_International

          No saddles needed !

          Cleveland Museum of Natural History. "New horned dinosaur reveals unique wing-shaped headgear."ScienceDaily, 18 June 2014.
          http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/06/140618111801.htm.

          June 19, 2014 at 10:53 am |
        • Theo Phileo

          Science Works,
          So? I quoted two of many textual critics whose works serve prove the veracity of the Bible. The fact that many have failed to live up to its dictates is not an admonition against the Bible, but rather against its adhearants.

          Upon its own merits the Bible stands. Many hammers have been broken, but the anvil remains.

          June 19, 2014 at 10:59 am |
        • gulliblenomore

          Theo...no, the bible has stood the test of time due to mans constant need for purpose and answers to tough philosophical bents that we have yet to discover. It is extremely flawed (Red Sea, Noah, Lots wife, Job, resurrection from the dead, etc) and has been shown to be so by scientific discoveries which you conveniently choose to ignore.

          June 19, 2014 at 11:04 am |
        • Theo Phileo

          Science Works,
          And if a saddled dinosaur is ridiculous to you, saying that life here on earth was seeded by aliens is ridiculous to us.

          June 19, 2014 at 11:01 am |
        • Doc Vestibule

          @Theo
          This is one of the Standard Issue responses when a believer is confronted with the more absurd parts of the Bible.
          1) Mistranslation
          2) Taken out of context
          3) Metaphor
          4) God works in mysterious ways
          5) Shut you sin hole you heathen
          .....or any combination of the above.

          I love Revelation for its pure entertainment factor – just like Dante's Inferno.
          But c'mon – even Martin Luther himself didn't think much of it as far as the Divine Word goes...

          June 19, 2014 at 11:13 am |
        • kudlak

          Doc Vestibule
          The little crown sounds adorable. Reminds me of Jiminy Cricket in his little top hat.

          June 19, 2014 at 11:14 am |
        • Science Works

          Oh Theo and the OMG cover-up is The Fig Leaf no or the talking donkey ?

          June 19, 2014 at 11:17 am |
        • kudlak

          Theo Phileo
          Technically, all we would have to do is send a rocket to Mars with a capsule of tough bacteria, like those we had strapped to the outside of the ISS to be "aliens seeding a world".

          June 19, 2014 at 11:23 am |
        • Lucifer's Evil Twin

          LET's Religiosity Law #6 – If a bible verse furthers the cause, it is to be taken literally. If a bible verse is detrimental to the cause, it is either: taken out of context; is allegorical; refers to another verse somewhere else; is an ancient cultural anomaly; is a translation or copyist's error; means something other than what it actually says; Is a mystery of god or not discernible by humans; or is just plain magic.

          June 19, 2014 at 11:24 am |
        • Robert Brown

          “realbuckyball

          He could start by curing some innocent children of their cancers, and feeding some starving babies.”

          Kind of like the stuff Jesus did when he walked the earth?

          June 19, 2014 at 11:32 am |
        • gulliblenomore

          Got any proof of that other than heresay?

          June 19, 2014 at 11:36 am |
        • kudlak

          Theo Phileo
          You know, they've done a lot of work since the 1940s? You might want to catch up with the times.

          People like you seem to like arguing that the Gospels were merely the records of eyewitnesses, but id that's the case, who could have been the eyewitness to Jesus being tempted by Satan in the wilderness? Nobody else was around. So, did the Gospel writers simply take the word of a man who had just spent over a month in the desert without food, or did they interview Satan?

          June 19, 2014 at 11:33 am |
        • kudlak

          Theo Phileo
          "metaphors which made perfect sense to the Jewish mind at the time"

          Maybe, but why assume that they make any kind of sense to Christian minds of this time?

          June 19, 2014 at 11:38 am |
        • Robert Brown

          “gulliblenomore

          Got any proof of that other than heresay?”

          Written docu.mentation from 3 reliable sources.

          June 19, 2014 at 11:41 am |
        • gulliblenomore

          Nope....still heresay. Joseph Smith says he read golden tablets out if his hat. I don't believe that either

          June 19, 2014 at 11:46 am |
        • Robert Brown

          Ooops, make that four reliable sources.

          June 19, 2014 at 11:43 am |
        • gulliblenomore

          Reliable according to you, not to me.

          June 19, 2014 at 11:47 am |
        • Theo Phileo

          "So, did the Gospel writers simply take the word of a man who had just spent over a month in the desert without food, or did they interview Satan?"
          ----------------
          They questioned Jesus, who, proving Himself to be God, was of course a reliable source. And since much of the Synoptic gospels were written from notes that were taken during the life of Jesus, and some even written while He was speaking the words, we know they are accurate. But I'm sure you already knew that.

          June 19, 2014 at 11:58 am |
        • kudlak

          Robert Brown
          The canonical gospels aren't even reliable amongst themselves. They contradict each other like crazy.

          June 19, 2014 at 12:00 pm |
        • Robert Brown

          “kudlak

          Robert Brown
          The canonical gospels aren't even reliable amongst themselves. They contradict each other like crazy.”

          I haven’t found this to be the case, kudlak. They actually complement one another very well. Have you found contradictions?

          June 19, 2014 at 12:08 pm |
        • kudlak

          Theo Phileo
          Most people would have started hallucinating from hunger long before the 40 days were up, so I'm not so sure why modern people should be so quick to accept that tale. Especially when the story includes the impossible claim of being taken to some high point and being able to see all the empires that existed at that time.

          How do you know there were notes? Do we have them? Is there any indication that any of the disciples actually knew how to write?

          June 19, 2014 at 12:09 pm |
        • kudlak

          Robert Brown
          "Have you found contradictions?"

          I don't know, have you got a few spare hours?

          From the differing genealogies of Jesus to the conflicting reports of who saw the resurrected Jesus the Gospels don't seem to agree on much except that he said some wise things, did a few miraculous things, and wound up crucified. You would probably argue that we should just jumble up all these stories into a single narrative, but you can't do that without throwing away some conflicting material, and there's no reason why the other gospels shouldn't be lumped in with the mix.

          June 19, 2014 at 12:22 pm |
        • Theo Phileo

          "You know, they've done a lot of work since the 1940s? You might want to catch up with the times."
          ------------–
          You mean the trash contributed by liberal theologians like Bart Ehrman and the Jesus Seminar whose only qualification of the truth of the text was if it is politically correct or not?

          I'm a student of theology – I make it my point to read as much as I can on the subject, Ehrman included, and I can categorically say that his ilk are historical revisionists whose drastic reinterpretations are only eclipsed by those in the United States who declare that the Confederate States of America won the War of Northern Aggression in 1865.

          June 19, 2014 at 12:47 pm |
        • Doc Vestibule

          Oh wherefore art thou, Live4Him!
          They had the best explanation for how Jesus was able to survey every kingdom on Earth all at once.
          Since there were no high mountains in Isreael from which he could have seen all the Earth's landmasses, Jesus went to the moon. This is logical becuase He exists outside of time and space and that's how the Bible predicts a speherical Earth.

          June 19, 2014 at 12:47 pm |
        • kudlak

          Theo Phileo
          In most places of the US, the traditional biblical literalism you seem to like, is what's politically correct. Try getting elected as an atheist. There's nothing politically correct, or even prudent in being a nonbeliever down in Jesusland.

          June 19, 2014 at 12:55 pm |
        • Theo Phileo

          "The canonical gospels aren't even reliable amongst themselves. They contradict each other like crazy."
          -------------
          Have you ever seen a parallel of the synoptic gospels where columns are laid out side by side observing the similarities in the texts?

          It requires no very detailed study to discover that these three (Matthew, Mark, and Luke) have a considerable amount of material in common. For instance, the substance of 606 out of the 661 verses of Mark appears in MAtthew, and that some 350 of Mark's verses reappear with little material change in Luke.

          To put it another way, out of the 1,068 verses of MAtthew, about 500 contain material also found in Mark; of the 1,149 verses of Luke, about 350 are paralleled in MArk.

          Altogether, there are only 31 verses in Mark which have no parallel in either Matthew or Luke.

          When we compare Matthew and Luke by themselves, we find that these two have about 250 verses containing common material not paralleled in Mark. This material is cast in language which is sometimes practically identical in MAtthew and Luke, and sometimes shows considerable divergence. We are then left with some 300 verses in Matthew containing narratives and discourses peculiar to that gospel, and about 550 verses in Luke containing matter not found in the other gospels.

          And all are in complete harmony with one another.

          If you're saying that the synoptic gospels contradict each other, then CLEARLY you have not researched these books.

          June 19, 2014 at 12:57 pm |
        • kudlak

          Theo Phileo
          By "parallels", you mean places where they often still present different details.

          I don't have hours right now, so lets start with the nativities. Matthew and Luke may have "parallel" genealogies, but why can't they get the father of Joseph straight? Why do they even bother tracing Joseph's line if he wasn't even Jesus' father? Why don't the other two have nativity stories? Why does the angel come to Mary in one, and Joseph in the other? Even if separate angels came to both, why did his family not believe in his mission in Mark 3:20-21? If you check the dates, Luke has Jesus being born 10 years after Matthew. There's two conflicting ways that they get Jesus born in Bethlehem. The census story in Luke is total BS. No Roman record even hints that they would ask for such a thing, and the Romans kept great records, right?

          Let's see you mash those together into a single story like the Hollywood movies and children's Christmas pageants like to do, eh?

          June 19, 2014 at 1:33 pm |
        • kudlak

          Doc Vestibule
          And Neil Armstrong saw the footprints of Jesus' sandals up there, but those evil scientists at NASA are covering it up!

          June 19, 2014 at 1:45 pm |
        • Theo Phileo

          By "parallels", you mean places where they often still present different details.
          -----------------
          Different? Sure, in some cases. But a study will show that they are compliamentary, not contradictory.

          "Matthew and Luke may have "parallel" genealogies, but why can't they get the father of Joseph straight? Why do they even bother tracing Joseph's line if he wasn't even Jesus' father?"
          --------------------–
          Matthew's opening geneology is designed to doc.ument Christ's credentials as Israel's king. Matthew's geneology moves forward from Abraham to Joseph, and Luke move backward from Jesus to Adam. Luke's geneology differs from Matthew's from Joseph to David because he was giving the geneology of Mary, and Matthew (with view to kingship) chronicled Joseph's line. Thus the royal line is passed through Jesus' legal father, and His physical descent from david is established by Mary's lineage.

          Was this REALLY an issue? Or were you just choosing something that required study just to be contentious?

          "Why don't the other two have nativity stories?"
          ------------
          Would you like all the gospels to say exactly the same thing? How boring would that be!

          "Why does the angel come to Mary in one, and Joseph in the other?"
          ---------------–
          Because an angel visited both Mary, and Joseph. The author of the book chose to mention what he chose to mention. Neither author said that an angel DIDNT see the other. You're extrapolating something that isn't there.

          "Even if separate angels came to both, why did his family not believe in his mission in Mark 3:20-21?"
          -------------------
          Actually, it was only after the resurrection that many (including His family) really believed. Ever been told something that sounded too good to be true, and you wanted to believe it so bad, that even though you "believed," you still have some doubts? Well, that was the condition that His family was in. But all doubts were removed at the resurrection. That's human nature, we all doubt. And actually, it makes the story more credible because it paints everyone as they truly are.

          "If you check the dates, Luke has Jesus being born 10 years after Matthew."
          -------------------
          I'm not aware of any contradiction in the nativity narrative. Although modern tradition and Christmas hymns have obscured the Biblical texts...

          "There's two conflicting ways that they get Jesus born in Bethlehem."
          -------------------–
          Once again, I'm not aware of a contradiction here...

          "The census story in Luke is total BS."
          ----------------
          Actually, yes there is proof. See here: http://www.orlutheran.com/html/census.html

          I'm begging you, stop reading atheists websites and PLEASE do some serious studying on your own.

          June 19, 2014 at 2:03 pm |
        • kudlak

          Theo Phileo
          They only seem to complement each other if you presuppose that they do. Taken separately, as they were originally intended, they tell the story of the same character, but with differences. Too many differences if we are to believe that actual eyewitnesses were the sources of the information.

          Why should there be actual differences between the genealogies, apart from the order?

          "Would you like all the gospels to say exactly the same thing? How boring would that be!"
          Why have just four then? There were dozens that could have entertained people even more with Jesus' antics. How about just having one, definitive record? If Mark were the first one written, and it's 100% accurate, why bother to write sequels?

          Maybe you're extrapolating something that isn't there. If they took the angel(s) word seriously enough to flee from Herod, why would they be doubting his sanity later on?

          According to Matthew, Jesus was born during the reign of Herod the Great (Matthew 2:1). According to Luke, Jesus was born during the first census in Israel, while Quirinius was governor of Syria (Luke 2:2). This is impossible because Herod died in March of 4 BC and the census took place in 6 and 7 AD, about 10 years after Herod's death. Surely you encountered this in all your "study"?

          Mary and Joseph travel from their home in Nazareth to Bethlehem in Judea for the birth of Jesus in Luke, but Matthew says that it was only after the birth of Jesus that Mary and Joseph ended up in Nazareth, and only then because they were afraid to return to Judea.

          You seem to be getting all your workarounds from apologist websites, while I learned all this stuff back when I got one of my BAs in Religious Studies.

          June 19, 2014 at 2:40 pm |
        • fintronics

          "Isn't it weird that people who say they aren't interested in faith, belief, God or religion – come to a blog and talk about faith, belief, God and religion so much?"

          Isn't it weird when believers post claims to "know god" yet fail to provide any evidence?

          June 19, 2014 at 2:50 pm |
        • Theo Phileo

          According to Matthew, Jesus was born during the reign of Herod the Great (Matthew 2:1). According to Luke, Jesus was born during the first census in Israel, while Quirinius was governor of Syria (Luke 2:2). This is impossible because Herod died in March of 4 BC and the census took place in 6 and 7 AD, about 10 years after Herod's death. Surely you encountered this in all your "study"?
          ----------------–
          A fragment of a stone discovered at Tivoli (near Rome) in AD1764 contains an inscription in honor of a Roman official who, it states, was twice governor of Syria and Phoenicia during the reign of Augustus. The name of the official is not on the fragment, but among his accomplishments are listed details that, as far as is known, can fit no one other than Quirinius. Thus, he served in as governor in Syria twice. He was probably military governor at the same time that history records Varus was civil governor there. With regard to the dating of the census, some ancient records found in Egypt mention a worldwide census ordered in 8BC. Evidently, the census was ordered by Caesar Augustus in 8BC, but was not actually carried out in Palestine until 2-4 years later, perhaps because of political difficulties between Rome and Herod.

          Because of that, the precise date of Christ's birth cannot be known with certainty, but it was no earlier than 6BC, and certainly no later than 4BC. Luke's readers, familiar with the political history of that era, would no doubt have been able to discern a very precise date from the information he gave.

          June 19, 2014 at 2:59 pm |
        • Theo Phileo

          "You seem to be getting all your workarounds from apologist websites, while I learned all this stuff back when I got one of my BAs in Religious Studies."
          ------------–
          Well, I'm envious in that regard, I wish that I had time to go to school for a degree in theology. Actually, you may be suprised to know that I very rarely go to religious websites to look up anything. There's far too much liberality when it comes to websites. It's kindof like expecting to get good information from Wikipedia when ANYONE can update the blessed thing.

          I get 90% of what I say on here from what I read. The rest is usually from sermons from men like Robert Godfrey, Sinclair Ferguson, Justin Peters, John Gerstner, Paul Washer, John MacArthur, R.C. Sproul, A.W. Pink, Steven Lawson, A.W. Tozer, R.A. Torrey, John Owen, Jonathan Edwards, John Calvin, Martin Luther, Albert Mohler, Adrian Rogers, Ray Comfort, Todd Friel, F.F. Bruce, Ravi Zacharius, Paris Reidhead, Alistair Begg, John Piper, C.H. Spurgeon, Erwin Lutzer, John Bunyan, J.I. Packer, and Stephen Charnock.

          June 19, 2014 at 3:03 pm |
        • kudlak

          Theo
          You get your information from sermons?!?

          Time to pick up a book, my friend, and maybe something written after the 1940s.

          June 19, 2014 at 3:55 pm |
        • Theo Phileo

          "You get your information from sermons?!?
          Time to pick up a book, my friend, and maybe something written after the 1940s"
          -------------------–
          So... You DIDNT read my post then? I get less than 10% from sermons. At least 90% are from books. This month, I've read "The Knowledge of the Holy," by A.W. Tozer, "The Holiness of God," by R.C. Sproul, and listened to an audiobook of "The Sovereignty of God," by A.W Pink. Right now I'm in the middle of "The New Testament Doc.uments" by F.F. Bruce.

          What's so great about more recent theologians? There are some good ones for sure, but if you're including the Jesus Seminar and men like Bart Ehrman, who serves as a convenient stereotype of the age of liberalism that we find ourselves in, then I would suggest that you narrow your reading list somewhat.

          Mayperhaps "Christianity and Liberalism" by J. Gresham Machen would be a good book for you to look over. Should the undiscerning mind be unaware of the dangers of liberalism in this modern age that is.

          June 19, 2014 at 4:13 pm |
        • Theo Phileo

          Time to pick up a book, my friend, and maybe something written after the 1940s
          ----------------
          Just so that I know where you are coming from, would you be so kind as to recommend to me 4 good books on theology (post 1940) that you have read that you feel would be of benefit to me?

          June 19, 2014 at 4:16 pm |
        • kudlak

          Theo Phileo
          Why do you get anything from sermons? Sermons are just apologetics packaged towards believers, aren't they?

          F.F. Bruce died in 1990. Why do you depend on any theologians? Is their opinion any better than yours?

          Ehrman is a New Testament scholar, not a theologian.

          Why would I recommend any books on theology when I don't believe that they are any path towards actually understanding the Bible?

          June 19, 2014 at 5:21 pm |
        • Theo Phileo

          kudlak,
          How in the world could you obtain a BA in Religious Studies when you suck at it so bad???

          June 20, 2014 at 7:28 am |
        • Theo Phileo

          "Ehrman is a New Testament scholar, not a theologian. "
          -------------
          Bart Ehrman is a New Testament scholar in the same sense that I can stand in a garage and be a car. What he is, is a liberal historical revisionist. And anyone who has ever done any serious studies knows this. The only people he is fooling are either those in the same deluded camp as he is, or those too ignorant or lazy to know better.

          Unfortunately, study takes a lot of effort, and too many people are content knowing what they do just because somebody told them to believe that way. Bart has a special mojo with those people, but then, those are usually the same people who are motivated by the church of Oprah Winfrey.

          June 20, 2014 at 7:33 am |
        • Theo Phileo

          Kudlak,
          I don't know where you obtained your degree in religious studies, but if that insti.tution aided you in the beliefs you now hold concerning theology, then may I suggest the Master's Seminary in Sun Valley, CA.

          June 20, 2014 at 7:37 am |
        • kudlak

          Theo Phileo
          You forgot to call me "Poopy Pants".

          June 20, 2014 at 8:44 am |
        • Theo Phileo

          "You forgot to call me "Poopy Pants"."
          ------------------
          Poopy Pants!
          OK, I'll admit I got my dander up, and I do apologize for that. I didn't mean to be like Paul before the high priest in Acts 23, when he got his dander up and called him a "whitewashed wall."

          I just get upset when people (not saying you do, but I have seen this) look at men with degrees on their walls like Ehrman and take what they say as absolute truth, when to someone who has done the research for themselves knows that he has an agenda. He is a bitter man who has become disallusioned with his faith, and now desires to revise history according to modern notions of political correctness.

          Furthermore, men in the Jesus Seminar are leading thousands within Christendom astray by obscuring who Jesus is through an academic fog created to distort...

          We are far removed from the time when Jesus walked the earth, and that makes sloppy scholasticism very easy since to get to the truth of a matter so long ago, it takes a lot of in depth digging, and just scratching the surface with just enough reading to put a piece of paper on your wall generally isn't enough. (I'm speaking again of liberal theologians, not you)

          When a man takes it upon himself to study the life of Jesus with a desire to find the truth, and then tell others, it would serve them well to remember Jesus' words in Matthew 18: "but whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to stumble, it would be better for him to have a heavy millstone hung around his neck, and to be drowned in the depth of the sea." And for this reason, James says "Let not many of you become teachers, my brethren, knowing that as such we will incur a stricter judgment."

          If you search for the truth, you'd better make darn sure you've actually found it before you tell others about it.

          June 20, 2014 at 9:21 am |
        • gulliblenomore

          Theo....And just exactly how do you think you know 'the truth' and everybody else is just too stupid to get it? What kind of arrogance does it take for somebody to think this way? You have no idea if you are right or not. You are just guessing and believing just like everybody else.

          June 20, 2014 at 9:54 am |
        • kudlak

          Theo Phileo
          You're right, to a point. Degrees don't really matter, especially in an age where "Christian universities" hand out Doctorates for creationism and where they create their own "scientific" journals to publish their papers, were legitimate journals wouldn't. What counts is the research, and how well it's supported. In this, you are incorrect about Ehrman and the Jesus Seminar. I've read a lot of books on biblical criticism and I can't think of anyone who is as methodical and meticulous as John Dominic Crossan in his research.

          The type of author you seem to prefer just state opinions and traditional theology as though they were fact in a "We all know that this is true, wink, wink" way. There's a difference between "knowing" the truth and being able to demonstrate it, and the folks you tend to cite just can't demonstrate it beyond calling people to just accept what they say on blind faith.

          Sorry !I guess I'm still Poopy Pants to you then?

          June 20, 2014 at 10:12 am |
        • gulliblenomore

          kudlak...The biggest problem that every single believer I have ever met can be described by your last post. They have no concept of the words "believe" and "know". I know of a few people that absolutely swear they were transported aboard an alien spacecraft and probed. They know that this happened, yet are unable to provide proof. Of course, they haven't eliminated all other possibilities....imagination, day-dreaming, Bigfoot using a mind-meld on them, etc. yet they maintain that they "know" that it happened to them. Same with believers....especially those that claim that "god spoke to them". Unbelievable is the only way to describe these people.

          June 20, 2014 at 10:26 am |
        • Theo Phileo

          John Dominic Crossan believes in a "magician" Jesus, not a miracle working one simply because it seems that Crossman has trouble believing in miracles. Interesting though that even non-Christian historians who refer to Jesus at any length do not dispute that He performed miracles, only that they attributed them to a non-miraculous explanation.

          Josephus for instance, calls Him a "wonder-worker," later Jewish references in the rabbinical writings attribute His miracles to sorcery, even as those in His day attributed His miracles to demon-possession. Celsus, the philosophic critic of Christianity in the 2nd century also called Him a sorcerer.

          The apostles referred to His miracles as facts, and their audiences were as well acquainted with them as they themselves were. The early apologists even refer to them as events beyond dispute by the opponents of Christianity.

          All in all, Crossman takes a biased approach to Jesus. He FIRST assumes that miracles have never happened (based simply on the fact that he, himself has never actually seen one), and so he tries to invent a more "human" explanation for Jesus. Anything other than to call Him fully God, even after the preponderance of the evidence and testimonies solidly prove that He is just that.

          June 20, 2014 at 1:07 pm |
        • kudlak

          Theo Phileo
          That might depend on what you mean by "miracle". In the vernacular, a miracle could just mean a really unexpected event which benefits you, or it could be an adjective used to describe something a "working really well". Like Crossan, I have no experience of anything so strange that if I could not identify it's cause, it could have no other explanation than your God. I have no problem with admitting when I don't know an answer, you see?

          Magical illusion, however, is something I've known exists since I got a magic kit for Christmas one year. Drop a David Copperfield anywhere into the 1st century Roman Empire and he'd have no trouble getting himself labelled a god. Besides, stories of miracle workers were pretty commonplace at the time. Even the Emperor Vespasian was said to have the healing touch by respected Roman historians.

          June 20, 2014 at 2:28 pm |
        • Theo Phileo

          "Even the Emperor Vespasian was said to have the healing touch by respected Roman historians"
          -------------------
          Sure... and even magicians such as Simon are mentioned in the Bible, so we know for certain that there were charlatans in that day.

          But I would submit that not even a modern magician can raise himself from the dead. And therein lies the linchpin of the whole issue. For, we may observe that the closer that we go to the time of the actual events of Jesus, the stronger the belief in the resurrection as fact. And indeed, this would be exactly opposite if indeed the resurrection of Jesus was a lie, and there were no eyewitnesses to it.

          And it is the definition of foolishness to say "the apostles stole the body." Because to say this is to say that they willingly died horrible martyr's deaths for something that they knew to be a lie. Furthermore, fishermen and tax gatherers would have had to overpower heavily trained Roman solders...

          Neither can it be said that Jesus merely "swooned" at the cross and didn't die. With no medical aid, no man can survive a piercing blow to the pericardial sac like Jesus received.

          No explanation for the resurrection stands up to scrutiny other than a miracle.

          June 20, 2014 at 3:00 pm |
        • kudlak

          Theo Phileo
          There are people in the Philippines who have themselves crucified every year, complete with whippings. They only hang for a few hours, but so did Jesus. Josephus even tells of how they were able to nurse one man back from crucifixion.

          I don't actually believe that the Swoon Theory is the only explanation, but is is a definite possibility. You have no idea whether he got medical aid, or not. There were men (angels) in the empty tomb, and the herbs they brought were healing ones, not embalming ones. Add to that the point that they didn't break his legs, as was routine, they gave him something to drink, the Roman who declared him dead also declared him son of God, making him a possible conspirator, and there's plenty of reasonable doubt that he actually died.

          Even if he had, the lesson of Elvis' death alone tells us that people can hallucinate seeing loved ones who have passed. If the resurrection story passes your scrutiny, then I question the veracity of your scrutiny.

          June 20, 2014 at 3:28 pm |
      • ddeevviinn

        Just what we need, another militant ( from either side ) unable to control their emotional outbursts. It is a pitiful state when an an adult is unable to divorce the individual from the issue and only gains satisfaction via ad hominems.

        June 18, 2014 at 11:25 pm |
        • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

          I hate it when I am forced to agree with you devin....

          and besides....trolls are boring

          June 19, 2014 at 12:26 am |
        • ddeevviinn

          Well my friend, it's like I always say " Truth At All Cost ", even when it forces you to agree with your philosophical nemesis.

          June 19, 2014 at 1:15 am |
        • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

          Truth at all cost...

          and trolls are just a real life version of Python's "Argument" sketch...they do it better too.

          June 19, 2014 at 1:25 am |
    • awanderingscot

      "You are of your father the devil, and the desires of your father you want to do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own resources, for he is a liar and the father of it". – John 8:44, NKJV

      June 18, 2014 at 7:17 pm |
      • athiesmishealthy

        wanderingazzhole, spouting scripture babble does nothing to improve the human race. Get a grip on reality and do something useful for mankind. The Egyptian book of the dead makes more sense that your christian book of spells

        June 18, 2014 at 7:22 pm |
        • awanderingscot

          athiesmishealthy
          I am not as calm and collected as the other atheists on this blog, but they have earned my respect for their intelligence. Yes, my atheism is militant and does symbolize some anger, but it's not an anger towards a god (as gods don't exist) but an anger towards the idiots that judge others by their silly beliefs and babblings of their book of spells. The fact that creationism is growing is very worrisome, and I feel a need to speak out.

          Thanks alot friend, you've pretty much summed up why atheists are here on this blog; they're full of anger and hate because they cannot disprove the existence of God. Good job there.

          June 19, 2014 at 8:44 am |
        • Doc Vestibule

          @Scot
          If you read carefully, you'll see that he is describing his own feelings and reasons and doesn't deign to speak for anyone else – hence the use of "my" instead of "our".
          You're the hateful, judgmental one here – desperately trying to stereotype all non-believers as bitter, misanthropic, baby killing, demonic fools.

          June 19, 2014 at 8:56 am |
        • awanderingscot

          like i said, the ONLY reason you are here is to try and disprove the existence of God. you judge yourself here. as for the baby-killer in you, you never did give a straight answer as to whether or not you were pro-choice or not. instead you obfuscated and said that you supported the decision of the woman, so if a woman does not accept responsibility for her pregnancy and decides to abort her baby, then you support abortion. you support the murder of unborn children; but you don't have the guts to come out and say it.

          June 19, 2014 at 9:10 am |
        • Doc Vestibule

          @Scot
          I wrote a legthy tome yesterday regarding abortion.
          Since you never replied, I assumed that it was too long so you didn't read it.
          I'm not here to try and disprove the existence of God. That's pointless and impossible.
          I do try to encourage people to question dogma, explore other ideas and faiths to see their merits and to accept the reality of moral relativism.
          And to point out the absurdity of taking the Bible (especially the Old Testament) as literal, historically accurate, actual factual truth.

          June 19, 2014 at 9:26 am |
        • gulliblenomore

          Doc...you are trying to reason with an idiot.

          June 19, 2014 at 9:33 am |
        • awanderingscot

          if you're going to come here and slander my Lord, and think you can do it with impunity you're mistaken. if you have issue with something in scripture and wish to discuss it we'll discuss it. but if anyone here wants to declare moral ascendancy over my Lord, he should expect a challenge.

          June 19, 2014 at 9:35 am |
        • Doc Vestibule

          @Scot

          The Bible is not the source of all ethics and you are not the arbiter of morality.

          June 19, 2014 at 10:27 am |
        • In Santa We Trust

          wandering, As there is no evidence of a god, let alone your god, you should start there. Until you can find something other than the circular reasoning of your religion, why would anyone fear your god?

          June 19, 2014 at 10:31 am |
        • awanderingscot

          moral relativism is only aprobate amongst those who do not have the Lord. when the Lord demanded that Pharaoh (and Egypt) let His people go, Pharaoh said "who is God that I should obey him"? Moses responded saying "let us go 3-days into the wilderness to sacrifice to our Lord". Pharaoh refused and God visited him with plagues. after the 4th plague Pharaoh (the 'devil') said ok you can worship in the land (Egypt, the 'world'), Moses replied no our Lord said 3 days into the wilderness (complete separation from the world). Pharaoh then said ok BUT "only you shall not go very far away." THIS IS MORAL RELATIVISM, the whispering of Satan, ok go and worship but remain close to the land (Egypt, the 'world') "not far away", remain a part of the world (many in Christianity today). But the Lord commanded complete separation (3 days away into the wilderness) from the world (Egypt). "They are not of the world, just as I am not of the world." – John 17:16; 'Even so we, when we were children, were in bondage under the elements of the world.' Galatians 4:3; the Lord freed the children of Israel from bondage under the Egyptians. the 1rst law of being a Christian is complete and total separation from the world, no moral relativism.

          June 19, 2014 at 10:48 am |
        • igaftr

          scot
          Quoting from your man made story book as if it had any credibility is ridiculous. I only recognize that men made your book, and in it made a whole bunch of unsubstantiated claims about god. They IMAGINED a god, and wrote it in a book. You have no idea if it has any bearing on reality or not.
          Just because you believe it doesn't change the fact that you have no idea of its validity.

          Humans had humanity. That humanity was then written into your book, and they attribute it to god, in your book. There is nothing indicating your book is correct. Even your Jesus...most of the things he allegedly said, were said by the Buddha 400 years earlier The wisdom of man, and especially the Buddha, came down the silk road,got to the area where the writers of the bible were, and this was then written into the new testament. The trail is easy to see how MEN had the info and MEN wrote it into the bible and the MEN propogated it to you as the single greatest piece of propoganda ever written.

          Attempting to use the bible as any authority fails.

          June 19, 2014 at 11:12 am |
        • Doc Vestibule

          Right. The Bible is the source of all morality because it says to in the Bible.

          10 PRINT "The Bible is true because..."
          20 GOTO 10

          June 19, 2014 at 11:23 am |
        • awanderingscot

          what makes you think the books you read have any more authenticity? you're reading something a man wrote too. what makes your books any more believable, because they say they can back it up by fact? your books change all the time, constant revision. the concepts and precepts of the bible don't change, have not for thousands of years. much more reliable.

          June 19, 2014 at 11:51 am |
        • fintronics

          "what makes your books any more believable"

          because they're not claiming to be the word of an imaginary god.

          June 19, 2014 at 12:12 pm |
        • Doc Vestibule

          I don't think any book is the sole source of morality, nor do I base my entire worldview on what any literature says.
          I am a skeptic by nature. The reason scientific literature is appealing is because a scientist is required to meticulously docu.ment their suppostion (hypothesis) and then outline every step taken in the experiment to test the veracity of said hypothesis, whatever the result of teh experiment. That is so anybody else who is interested can repeat the experiment and confirm the results for themselves.
          Once a given hypothesis has been tested and proven accurate by multiple groups of researchers, it then becomes a working theory upon which other hypotheses can be built and tested.

          " the concepts and precepts of the bible don't change, have not for thousands of years. much more reliable."
          Except that the concepts and precepts of the Bible are constantly being re-interpreted and applied in different ways by different groups.
          Why do you think there are tens of thousands of Christian sects?
          The best part about citing God as your authority is that He is never around to correct you.

          A recent example is the way in which Southern Baptists spouted scripture to justify insti.tutionalized racism in the 20th century.
          When the American south was forced to rescind Jim Crow laws and accept racial integration, it was Baptists who most strongly opposed equality.
          Wallie Criswell, an extremely popular and influential Southern Baptist Minister famously said "Let them integrate! Let them sit up there in their dirty shirts and make all their fine speeches. But they are all a bunch of infidels, dying from the neck up."
          Scarcely half a century later, the zeitgeist has shifted so radically that such open racism is considered abhorrent to the very same Christian sect that spouted scripture to justify insti.tutionalized bigotry.

          And yet somehow they fail to recognized that their prevailing condemnation of ho.mose.xuality will soon be viewed with the same sense of shame that the memory of segregation elicits.

          If the One True Deity, shaper of The Universe, wishes their words to be transmitted and adhered to, they should have been a bit less ambiguous. Expecting people to select The Truth out of limitless possibilities on faith alone seems a sloppy way to run things – especially if the punishment for a wrong choice is eternal torment

          June 19, 2014 at 12:19 pm |
        • igaftr

          scot
          Can you not tell the difference between fiction and non-fiction?

          Someone wrote in a book that 2+2=4... I can independantly verify that.
          Someone wrote a book about English. When I then take that knowledge and TEST it by writing something in English and have someone read it, that verifies that the English book is correct.

          All of the science books are testable, verifiable.

          Your book makes a bunch of wild unsubstantiatable supernatural claims....cannot test, cannot verify, and science tells us that some of theose claims are not possible. Until there is something that can be verified, it must be assumed to be incorrect, especially for the verifiable things that prove it could not have happened. For example, we know that the myth of Noah did not happen on Earth, and we know this for MANY reasons. You book claims it did, but you must simply take the books word for it. That is irrational.

          June 19, 2014 at 12:22 pm |
      • realbuckyball

        Until you provide evidence for the authority of the texts you quote, they have as much weight as Harry Potter.
        One of the prime rules of debate is "know your audience". You can use Babble quotes ONLY for Babble believers. No one buys there are devils in 2014. Dr. Elaine Pagels at Princeton demonstrated in her book "The Origins of Satan" they are ALL complete myth. Bad angels. Why do you think all the angel's names end in "el", as in Rapha-el ? Messengers of the Babylonian deity, El.

        June 18, 2014 at 8:19 pm |
    • athiesmishealthy

      here is something for you to think about, religion and everything it represents needs to permanently discredited and barred from politics, education and science. Creationism should be considered a crime against humanity and all idiots like theo and wanderingazzhole need to be locked up in a psychiatric ward

      June 18, 2014 at 7:19 pm |
      • Dalahäst

        Some atheists belong to a religion.

        June 18, 2014 at 7:21 pm |
        • athiesmishealthy

          yes some do.

          June 18, 2014 at 7:31 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          Do you want to bar religion from atheism?

          How do you propose barring religion from politics, education and science? You are going to have to change the const.itution and very important principals this nation was founded on. I guess you can use the Soviet Union as a model to base your new nation on.

          June 18, 2014 at 7:42 pm |
      • awanderingscot

        Atheismishell
        you aren't here to attack religion, you're here to attack people who have a faith in God, eh doctor?

        June 18, 2014 at 7:28 pm |
        • athiesmishealthy

          wandeingazzhole, bible thumpers like you need to be put in you place. All that mumbo jumbo you spout makes no sense. If I recall correctly, aren't you the moron that stated you knew a nobel prize winner? did you ever give the name when requested?

          June 18, 2014 at 7:53 pm |
        • new-man

          ...."All that mumbo jumbo you spout makes no sense."

          But the natural, nonspiritual man does not accept or welcome or admit into his heart the gifts and teachings and revelations of the Spirit of God, for they are folly (meaningless nonsense) to him; and he is incapable of knowing them [of progressively recognizing, understanding, and becoming better acquainted with them] because they are spiritually discerned and estimated and appreciated.

          June 18, 2014 at 8:39 pm |
        • awanderingscot

          atheismishell
          ahhh...lurking isn't so nice and i see you've changed your name, why would you want to do that? ashamed? and how do you propose to put me in "my place" anyway? you really don't have the intelligence for that, you should have figured that out in our last exchange. so you've been harboring some ill will all this time have you? that's unfortunate as i see it's been consuming you, scripture calls this a bitter root. go away now you unregenerate heathen mutt.

          June 18, 2014 at 8:47 pm |
        • midwest rail

          " you really don't have the intelligence for that,..."
          Most unintentionally funny post of the day.

          June 18, 2014 at 8:55 pm |
        • awanderingscot

          and if you hadn't been lurking like a pervert you would have heard me mention a guy named Leland who won a nobel prize in 2001 for physiology. now run along heathen dog.

          June 18, 2014 at 8:58 pm |
        • atheismishealthy

          wanderingazzhole

          "lurking like a pervert" nice jab, is that all you got. Why don't you pray to your passive aggressive & suicidal jeebus whose father was a bipolar megalomaniacal moron?

          June 18, 2014 at 9:13 pm |
        • atheismishealthy

          wanderingazzhole, why not try masturbating with a cheesegrinder? it might help you connect with the pain of being nailed to the cross and then you and your jebus can have something in common

          June 18, 2014 at 9:19 pm |
        • Akira

          Leland Hartwell? Any relation to you, awanderingscot?

          June 18, 2014 at 9:19 pm |
        • atheismishealthy

          wanderingazzhole, have your sticky fingers put down the book of spells and respond instead of acting spineless. we are waiting

          June 18, 2014 at 9:28 pm |
        • awanderingscot

          atheismishell
          Oh but for the eloquent language of the uneducated atheist.

          June 18, 2014 at 9:50 pm |
        • awanderingscot

          where does all that emotional vomit originate in you

          June 18, 2014 at 10:11 pm |
        • otoh2

          awanderingscot,

          The Listerine rinse on your words does not disguise your bitterness.

          June 18, 2014 at 10:28 pm |
        • Akira

          awanderingscot, is Leland Hartwell the name of the 2001 Nobel Prize winner you were referring to, and are you related to him at all?

          June 18, 2014 at 10:31 pm |
        • realbuckyball

          "where does all that emotional vomit originate in you"
          -– Duh, The debil. The debil made him do it. Is that simple-minded enough for even you ?

          June 18, 2014 at 11:21 pm |
        • Doc Vestibule

          A quote from an article that Hartwell co-athored for Nature:

          "General principles that govern the structure and behaviour of modules may be discovered with help from synthetic sciences such as engineering and computer science, from stronger interactions between experiment and theory in cell biology, and from an appreciation of evolutionary constraints.

          Although living systems obey the laws of physics and chemistry, the notion of function or purpose differentiates biology from other natural sciences. Organisms exist to reproduce, whereas, outside religious belief, rocks and stars have no purpose.

          We're supposed to believe that this guy is a Creationist??

          June 19, 2014 at 10:55 am |
        • awanderingscot

          D0C
          what are you talking about? all he is saying is that ALL ORGANISMS have to obey the laws of physics and chemistry. in fact the laws of physics and chemistry actually work against evolution.

          June 19, 2014 at 12:13 pm |
        • igaftr

          scot
          "in fact the laws of physics and chemistry actually work against evolution."
          Well that statement is simply wrong, but please, explain what you mean by that.

          June 19, 2014 at 12:25 pm |
        • awanderingscot

          for example, arthropods for example are an anathema for evolutionists for very good reasons. here are just 3 reasons:
          1) molting would expose larger "evolved" forms to predation and extinction.
          2) the exoskeleton in most cases is not strong enough to support larger "evolved" creatures
          3) because of the way they are designed, arthropods can only get enough oxygen to support small bodies.

          I could go on and on about the myths of evolution if i had the time. Right now i'll just cap this by saying evolutionary constraints due to physics and chemistry leave little room for your pipe dream of man's ascent from a single-celled organism. delusional evolutionists!

          June 19, 2014 at 12:29 pm |
        • igaftr

          scot
          Your reply had nothing to do with the subject. That is just one of the absurd things you got from creationist site, and it does not mean what they calimit does. What laws of physics and chemistry go against evolution?
          Explain. I know chemistry and physics quite well, and nothing in either branch refutes evolution.

          June 19, 2014 at 12:52 pm |
        • awanderingscot

          in addition to the external constraints that make evolution implausible you have internal constraints. one example of an internal constraint would be those imposed upon a butterfly. the dyes that create the patterns on a butterfly's wings are formed into specific concentrations at the exact location in order to make that particular pattern. it cannot and will not concentrate in another area. this is a design for an effect, camouflage. this is intelligent design that does not come about by evolution. the very short metamorphosis in a butterfly is also by design so as to mitigate any predation. intelligent design is everywhere when you actually look for it. there is no doubt evolution is for the feeble minded.

          June 19, 2014 at 1:06 pm |
        • igaftr

          scot
          " this is a design for an effect, camouflage. this is intelligent design "
          That is a wild assumption, but there is nothing backing that up. It is entirely possible to have evolved.
          Simply declaring that it had to be designed does not make it so.

          You then declare that metamorphosis is also by design...by simply declaring it. again invalid.
          declaring that intelligent design is everywhere, is equally invalid.

          Then addinig an insult at the end... that is what we have come to expect from you scot. Once again...you need to grow up.
          none of your assertions have any validity simply because you say so.

          June 19, 2014 at 1:28 pm |
        • awanderingscot

          ig
          you need a good dose of reality to wake you up. i could easily apply the same logic you apply to religion with the various denominations of Christianity. just look at all the theories of evolution out there; divergent, convergent, and parallel; lamarckism, neo-lamarckism, germplasm, natural selection, mutation, genetic drift, isolations, catastrophism, uniformitarianism, etc etc etc

          June 19, 2014 at 2:24 pm |
        • awanderingscot

          i'm not really surprised you cannot grasp the concept of intelligent design; it's most likely because the word "intelligent" is in the name.

          June 19, 2014 at 2:27 pm |
        • colin31714

          Intelligent design can be summed up in two sentences.

          1."I don't know the answer so a god did it."
          2. "That god is the one I was brought up to believe in."

          June 19, 2014 at 2:31 pm |
        • igaftr

          scot
          Throwing around a bunch of technical terms does not change the fact of evolution. The number of sub theories and hypothesese is irrelevant. There are over 41,000 versions of christianity
          Declaring it must be intelligent design is nothing but opinion. ( with NOTHING to verify, so is only a hypothesis, not even a theory)
          And you think I need a dose of reality? Ironic.

          June 19, 2014 at 2:34 pm |
        • awanderingscot

          igftr
          "the fact of evolution. The number of sub theories and hypothesese is irrelevant."
          – lol, but of course facts are irrelevant when they apply to evolution. i agree with your freudian slip. that's awesome, thanks alot.

          June 19, 2014 at 3:02 pm |
        • igaftr

          scot
          I made no slip, you clearly do not understand.
          The core of the evolutionary theory has been confirmed countless times. There are many portions of the field that are then studied, to find out more and more of the process.

          You clearly do not understand ANYTHING about science, so you claiming ANY science as invalid is moot. You don't understand what you are denying.

          June 19, 2014 at 4:15 pm |
      • Dalahäst

        Most mental health professional's aren't hostile to religion or believers in God like the atheists who post on religion blogs. Maybe some of you guys could enter a mental health studies at an university and quickly work your way up the ranks? And then back your claims with some evidence that will convince people outside the ranks of internet atheism! You can do it!

        June 18, 2014 at 7:47 pm |
      • Theo Phileo

        "Creationism should be considered a crime against humanity and all idiots like theo and wanderingazzhole need to be locked up in a psychiatric ward"
        -------------
        If you value the Consti.tution of the United States so little (which guarentees the free exercise of religion in whatever venue I choose) then you should know that the borders are open, and you are free to move to any other country you wish.

        June 19, 2014 at 7:39 am |
        • zhilla1980wasp

          all joking aside; if creationism was to be shown damaging to people mental health and thus causing them to become dangerous or allow dangerous thought patterns to bloom inside their psychi then on a technicality it could be revoked as being a harmful practice............the same as we don't permit religions that require a living sacrifice.

          June 19, 2014 at 7:55 am |
        • Theo Phileo

          "if creationism was to be shown damaging to people mental health and thus causing them to become dangerous or allow dangerous thought patterns to bloom inside their psychi then on a technicality it could be revoked as being a harmful practice............"
          ------------------
          Absolutely true. Unfortunately, that idea is not always consistent. For instance, infanticide is permitted because the secular god of convenience takes precedence over the sancti.ty of human life. And in order to permit the legality of murder, the definition of life is legally changed to protect the guilty.

          Furthermore, children, from a very young age are told that they are nothing but animals through evolutionary indoctrination, and then society is suprised when they start acting like animals. If Chance be the father of all flesh, disaster is his rainbow in the sky, and when you hear of a “state of emergency,” “sniper kills ten,” “troops on rampage,” “youths go looting,” “bomb blast in school,” it is but the sound of man worshipping his maker... (Steve Turner)

          "the same as we don't permit religions that require a living sacrifice"
          -----------------
          Well, LIVING sacrifices are fine, and that is what each Christian is. And even animal sacrifices are legal in this country. What isn't legal is HUMAN sacrifice. But, as I said, that's not consistent, because humans sacrifice their own children to the god of convenience all the time in this country, and it's legal.

          June 19, 2014 at 8:27 am |
        • TruthPrevails1

          "infanticide is permitted"

          Where??

          June 19, 2014 at 9:02 am |
        • Theo Phileo

          "infanticide is permitted"

          Where??
          -----------------–
          The blood of infanticide is on the hands of Margaret Sanger, and others like her.

          June 19, 2014 at 9:07 am |
        • TruthPrevails1

          So you don't agree with a woman having control over her own body? How about we take away your rights over your body and see how much you like it?
          Your ilk lost the abortion issue...time to move on and mind your own business for a pleasant change!

          June 19, 2014 at 9:17 am |
        • Theo Phileo

          "So you don't agree with a woman having control over her own body?"
          ----------------
          I've got no problem with women having control over their own bodies. But there are two points of contention here:

          #1 The baby in the womb IS NOT THE MOTHER'S OWN BODY, and neither can it be shown to be her own body.
          #2 No one is permitted under the law to use their own body to murder another human being.

          June 19, 2014 at 9:22 am |
        • gulliblenomore

          Theo....as to your point number one: the group of cells in a woman's womb are much more a part of her body than any of you zealots. Therefore, it is much more her business than yours. Unless of course, that the group of cells in question contacted you and hired you to speak for them.

          Point 2..,,that group of cells is not another human being. While you may not agree with that, too bad. You do not get to establish the rule of when a group of cells becomes a human being.

          June 19, 2014 at 9:31 am |
        • Theo Phileo

          gulliblenomore,
          As I said, definitions have been changed to protect the guilty.

          June 19, 2014 at 9:34 am |
        • gulliblenomore

          Theo....what you say is of no consequence. Your definition is not the end all answer just because you do not like the outcome.

          June 19, 2014 at 9:52 am |
        • Theo Phileo

          The unborn child is a human being from conception. This is easily seen using simple comparisons. Any characteristic or description of the unborn child can only fit into one of four categories:

          1)Size
          2)Level of Development
          3)Environment
          4)Degree of Dependency

          Take any one of these, and use them to parallel an unborn child with a born child to see the point.

          For instance: a baby in the womb is smaller than a 3 year old child, but the 3 year old child is smaller than me. Does that make the 3 year old less human than me? Obviously, not.

          Well, a baby in the womb may not be fully developed, but a 3 year old is not as developed as I am. Does that make the 3 year old less human than me? Obviously not.

          What about environment? The baby is in the womb. Yes, separated from the outside world by a matter of inches. I was at home a few hours ago, 22 miles from work, where I am now. Am I somehow less human when I am at work than when I am at home? I may feel that it does sometimes, but it does not.

          OK, lastly, degree of dependency. That baby is 100% dependent on the mother for its existence. Yes, that’s true, but my father is 100% dependent on the heart stints that exist in his body to survive. Is he less human than I am just because I don’t depend on them? No.

          Therefore – the baby is human, and no one, not even the mother, has a RIGHT to kill that child in her womb.

          June 19, 2014 at 9:56 am |
        • gulliblenomore

          Theo....again, your definition is of no consequence just because you do not like the outcome. Your points were argued already and they failed. You can claim all you want that a zygote is a human being, but it was not decided so by people with more intelligence than you or I.

          I don't like that churches don't have to pay taxes, but too bad for me. You don't see me picketing outside my local church demanding they pay their fair share.

          June 19, 2014 at 10:14 am |
        • Theo Phileo

          "You can claim all you want that a zygote is a human being, but it was not decided so by people with more intelligence than you or I."
          -----------------
          Your claim or mine can have no affect on truth. As I have so often stated, TRUTH is not what we make it out to be, truth just is, and it is independent of our beliefs. And the truth of the matter is that it is a child, a human being. And no amount of arguing will ever be able to prove that it isn't a human being, because one cannot argue against truth.

          "I don't like that churches don't have to pay taxes, but too bad for me. You don't see me picketing outside my local church demanding they pay their fair share."
          -------------------–
          There's nothing in the Bible that says that churches shouldn't pay taxes. As a matter of fact, in Romans 13 and in other places, it actually states categorically that we SHOULD pay taxes. The fact that our government gives concessions to non-profits is great, but hardly necessary.

          June 19, 2014 at 10:23 am |
        • gulliblenomore

          Theo...I am just not sure why you are having trouble grasping this rather simple concept. Whatever you personally determine what the 'truth' is is inconsequential. Your definition if 'truth' was apparently not the definition that was used in allowing abortions to become law. You personally do not get to decide what is 'truth' for everybody else. Sorry...but your 'truth' is invalid on this point. Move on.

          June 19, 2014 at 10:51 am |
        • atheismishealthy

          The fact that churches do not pay a dime in taxes is insane. This proves the sick influence that religion has on this country. We, as americans, are one of the most taxed people on earth and religious organizations can horde their cash, provide money to their insane pastors to purchase Cadillacs, and open christian coffee shops that sell jesus lattes and moses muffins

          June 19, 2014 at 11:04 am |
        • Akira

          As much as I abhor abortion, it is not infanticide.
          Trying to change a word meaning to support an argument is hyperbolic.

          June 19, 2014 at 11:04 am |
        • Theo Phileo

          "Theo...I am just not sure why you are having trouble grasping this rather simple concept. Whatever you personally determine what the 'truth' is is inconsequential. Your definition if 'truth' was apparently not the definition that was used in allowing abortions to become law. You personally do not get to decide what is 'truth' for everybody else. Sorry...but your 'truth' is invalid on this point. Move on."
          -----------------
          So your "truth" is determined by the government then? What if the government said that marriage between a man and a woman was now illegal. Would you divorce your wife?

          What about if you went into a store to buy an iten marked $5, but you onlt felt you should pay $1, are they going to let you have your "truth?" No.

          Truth is not determined by any opinion, belief, government, or council of men. What men HAVE done, is to change definitions in order to protect the guilty.
          > a woman is no longer "with child" she is pregnant
          > It isn't a child anymore, it is a zygote
          > it isn't murder, it's abortion
          > he's not an executioner, he's a doctor
          > it's not a torture chamber, it's planned parenthood

          June 19, 2014 at 11:07 am |
        • gulliblenomore

          Theo....once again, you are trying to impose your definition on a process. Regardless of your opinion (and it is only your opinion, not fact), a doctor performs abortions. Pretty simple stuff really. You calling it a human being does not just make it so. That is just what you believe and is not a fact. Of course, I'm talking here with someone that states categorically that god exists, even though there is no shred of proof, so I can understand your confusion as to what a belief is vs a fact.

          June 19, 2014 at 11:23 am |
        • Theo Phileo

          "The fact that churches do not pay a dime in taxes is insane...."
          ---------------
          No reason for you to be militant here. I actually don't have a problem with churches paying taxes because of Biblical reasons (Romans 13 and others). But it's more complicated than that. If the government has an exception for one kind of non-profit, it opens the door to make all non-profits pay taxes.

          June 19, 2014 at 11:11 am |
        • Dalahäst

          Secular and humanist groups also receive tax exemptions under the same umbrella that religious groups do.

          June 19, 2014 at 11:29 am |
        • kudlak

          Theo Phileo
          Actually, no one is permitted under the law to force anyone to risk their lives for someone else. You don't have the right to demand organs, or even blood from others to save yourself, right? You wouldn't be prosecuted for not running into a burning building to save someone either. So, what gives a fetus the right to endanger a woman through pregnancy?

          June 22, 2014 at 12:55 pm |
    • Akira

      Having to create an account before joining the conversations contributes to lurking behavior.
      This isn't abnormal.
      Welcome.

      June 18, 2014 at 7:35 pm |
      • athiesmishealthy

        thank you

        June 18, 2014 at 7:40 pm |
      • athiesmishealthy

        I am not as calm and collected as the other atheists on this blog, but they have earned my respect for their intelligence. Yes, my atheism is militant and does symbolize some anger, but it's not an anger towards a god (as gods don't exist) but an anger towards the idiots that judge others by their silly beliefs and babblings of their book of spells. The fact that creationism is growing is very worrisome, and I feel a need to speak out.

        June 18, 2014 at 7:47 pm |
        • Lucifer's Evil Twin

          Creationism: "Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups." – George Carlin

          June 19, 2014 at 8:37 am |
        • fintronics

          "It has never mattered to me that thirty million people might think I'm wrong. The number of people who thought Hitler was right did not make him right... Why do you necessarily have to be wrong just because a few million people think you are?"
          - Frank Zappa,

          June 19, 2014 at 12:41 pm |
    • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

      "It truly sickens me that our President places his hand on a "holy" book when he takes his oath of office,"
      ---------------------
      That's a tradition that I would like to see end. It creates the appearance that it is a part of the Consti.tutional requirement for the oath, but is nothing of the sort. I can't say that it 'sickens' me but it is unnecessary and misleading.

      John Quincy Adams refused to swear on the bible stating that it mixed the profane with the divine. He affirmed the oath with a law book. I would respect a religious president for doing the same thing.

      "or that we have statements on our currency that state "in god we trust""
      ---------------------------–
      This makes no cents at all when there is no reference to God in the Consti.tution.

      June 18, 2014 at 7:57 pm |
    • thesamyaza

      "there is no god, and there will never be proof of a god"

      and what if proof of other dimensional beings becomes known.
      not exactly maintain skepticism are you

      and saying their is not god just doesn't work for people like me i can look up in the sky and see my "god" when i hold the sand i can feel another one of my gods.

      still i believe it is unhealthy to denounce anything regardless of evidence. such as that statement does

      ohh but i agree their is way to much Christianity in the state, it discourages people like me from taking part in civilities as well as atheist

      June 18, 2014 at 8:59 pm |
      • Lucifer's Evil Twin

        That is some good weed you're smoking...

        June 19, 2014 at 8:40 am |
        • thesamyaza

          yes marijuana there's a goddess for ya.

          oh i'm from Humboldt so to answer your question "train wreck"

          June 20, 2014 at 1:27 am |
        • Lucifer's Evil Twin

          LOL

          June 20, 2014 at 7:50 am |
  3. Lucifer's Evil Twin

    O' great mighty powerful Oz, I mean God...Please deliver on to me some habenero-mango chicken wings... for I am hungry and wish to consume your holy deliciousness

    June 18, 2014 at 6:27 pm |
  4. Kev

    Didn't know that God is a bearded, old man. Who woulda thunk?!?

    Some people have fertile imagination when it comes to the Creator and that imagination is so far from the truth – what a shame!

    June 18, 2014 at 5:33 pm |
    • Dalahäst

      They may have just watched too many cartoons.

      June 18, 2014 at 5:40 pm |
    • Akira

      Aside from that, which has been going on for many, many centuries, everything depicted in this clip is precisely what many, many people, including my beloved MIL, believes.
      Absent the flying mini-van, of course.

      June 18, 2014 at 5:42 pm |
      • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

        The flying minivan with the very authentic looking logo is one of the best aspects of this spoof of Neil DeGrasse Tyson's "Cosmos ship".

        June 18, 2014 at 5:45 pm |
        • Akira

          I get the reference.
          My MIL doesn't believe in minivans, either. Honestly. She says they're neither mini, nor vans.
          She is a unique person.

          June 18, 2014 at 5:52 pm |
        • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

          Funny.

          The Holy Roman Empire was neither Holy nor Roman, discuss. /pun

          June 18, 2014 at 6:20 pm |
        • Akira

          Now I'm verclempt.

          June 18, 2014 at 6:54 pm |
    • Lucifer's Evil Twin

      "Creater" lol

      June 18, 2014 at 6:19 pm |
    • archtopopotamus

      Since all gods are creations of the imagination, what's your point?

      June 18, 2014 at 6:39 pm |
      • thesamyaza

        no some gods are manifestations of people(ancestral gods),places(Athena),things(the sun)

        June 18, 2014 at 9:20 pm |
    • TruthPrevails1

      When it comes to a god, everyone has an imagination about them...none have yet to be proven to exist and until that happens there is no valid reason to believe.

      June 19, 2014 at 5:32 am |
      • gulliblenomore

        TP....and, even for those that believe....they have no idea what their god would even look like. To be offended at all in this depiction is truly juvenile.

        June 19, 2014 at 8:18 am |
  5. beliefingodisakintoschizophrenia

    Thorazine should be a christian's holy communion, with the dsm as the gospel to treat them

    June 18, 2014 at 2:58 pm |
    • Lucifer's Evil Twin

      Long handle...

      June 18, 2014 at 3:13 pm |
    • Lucifer's Evil Twin

      I recommend Christians are Crazy to shorten it up... make it a little more concise.

      June 18, 2014 at 3:35 pm |
      • Lucifer's Evil Twin

        Hmmm... on second thought that excludes Muslims and that wouldn't be fair

        June 18, 2014 at 3:39 pm |
        • tallulah131

          How about "ohthatwackytheism"?

          June 18, 2014 at 3:42 pm |
        • Lucifer's Evil Twin

          dietiesarenomatchforgoodchickenwings

          June 18, 2014 at 3:50 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          How about "Strong people dont put others down...they pick them up." or "“Putting people down to make oneself feel better,
          is a cowardly version of confidence"?

          June 18, 2014 at 4:06 pm |
        • midwest rail

          " "“Putting people down to make oneself feel better,
          is a cowardly version of confidence"?"
          I agree. Calling people vile, demonic, unregenerate, and foolish is cowardly. And no, I'm not saying you do that.

          June 18, 2014 at 4:28 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          Yep! The rabid theists can be just as vicious as the rabid atheists. And vice versa.

          June 18, 2014 at 4:35 pm |
    • Dalahäst

      beleifinatheismisalinktoautism

      Is that a good name, too?

      And belief in God is not a link to schizophrenia. Belief that you are God is. We can turn to the science of psychology to deal with that issue if you like.

      June 18, 2014 at 3:58 pm |
      • fintronics

        I prefer, jeebus'snosemakesitsownbubblegum

        June 18, 2014 at 4:04 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          I like "It seems clear to me that religion isn’t a form of mental illness, and that calling it one reflects a shallow understanding of both mental illness and religion—or, worse still, a knowing attempt to use mental illness as an insult"

          June 18, 2014 at 4:08 pm |
      • bostontola

        Belief in atheism. Is that like a veggie burger?

        June 18, 2014 at 4:09 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          Yea! Poorly worded on my part

          Just atheism. Not belief in atheism.

          June 18, 2014 at 4:14 pm |
        • bostontola

          How is atheism akin to autism?

          June 18, 2014 at 4:17 pm |
        • kudlak

          Autistics are known to be notoriously difficult children to indoctrinate in any kind of belief system that relies on "faith". Many are also brilliant, logical thinkers. All in all, I think Dalahäst was actually paying us a compliment.

          June 18, 2014 at 4:25 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          The same way belief in God is linked to schizophrenia.

          It is not.

          I know and love people with autism. And schizophrenia.

          My point is trying to show the absurdity of the OP's name. Why question me and not him?

          June 18, 2014 at 4:31 pm |
        • bostontola

          kudlak,
          I don't see it that way. Autism is a very serious disease and is very sad for the family. Autistic people have a hard due to their illness, logical or not.

          June 18, 2014 at 4:36 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          I was just trying to demonstrate how poor in taste the OP's name is.

          Maybe if someone from his side would question him, not encourage him like LET, it would be helpful.

          June 18, 2014 at 4:42 pm |
        • bostontola

          Schizophrenia is the inability to distinguish imaginary sensation from physical sensations (hallucinations, voices, etc.). Since there is no physical, or objective evidence for God, a person sensing God could be said to fall into that category. Severe schizophrenics have other symptoms that most believers in God don't, so I wouldn't say they are, but akin is not outrageous. I don't see anything about atheists as a group akin to autism.

          June 18, 2014 at 4:44 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          It seems like there are theories similar to beliefingodisakintoschizophrenia that people with autism may be pathologically predispositioned to be atheists since they cannot accept a higher power that is greater than themselves.

          I don't agree with that. But I've always thought theists that argue that are just as bad as atheists that argue the schizophrenia viewpoint. Using either viewpoint as a means to insult seems pathetic.

          June 18, 2014 at 5:06 pm |
        • bostontola

          Even if what you report were true (I have not seen any science indicating that), that would explain how people with autism would be predominantly atheists, not how the group atheists are akin to people with autism.

          June 18, 2014 at 5:19 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          There is physical, or objective evidence for God.

          Scripture says love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control are the signs of God in your life.

          Hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions and envy; drunkenness are signs God is not in your life.

          Do most schizophrenics demonstrate love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control?

          What side of those 2 spectrums would you say beliefingodisakintoschizophrenia is demonstrating?

          June 18, 2014 at 5:25 pm |
        • bostontola

          "schizophrenics have other symptoms that most believers in God don't, so I wouldn't say they are". I already stated that.

          June 18, 2014 at 5:28 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          Phew! I missed that and was getting worried about you. OK!

          June 18, 2014 at 5:38 pm |
        • bostontola

          "love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control are the signs of God in your life."
          These traits are in atheists at roughly the same rate as theists.

          "Hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions and envy; drunkenness are signs God is not in your life."
          These traits are in theists at roughly the same rate at atheists.

          Belief in God is not the differentiator.

          June 18, 2014 at 5:45 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          They are evidence of doing God's will. An atheist can do God's will. While a theist does not do God's will.

          June 18, 2014 at 5:53 pm |
        • kudlak

          bostontola
          Sometimes, but not always is it a complete disaster. Many of the most brilliant minds throughout history may have been high-functioning autistics.

          If he meant people on the low end of the spectrum, that would have just been completely tasteless and insensitive to those people and their families.

          That's why I'm sure he'd say he meant it as a compliment.

          That right, Dalahäst?

          June 18, 2014 at 8:18 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          Some great minds have also been schizophrenic.

          I was trying to play devil's advocate with the OP.

          If you are autistic, my apologies for making light of your situation. I have a cousin who is schizophrenic and the social stigma against that is tough for him to live with. I know and love many people with autism. If you think that because you don't believe in God it is a compliment for you because autistic people display amazing qualities... that is just plain silly.

          I should have just asked the OP not to use a mental illness as a means to insult a group of people he dislikes. Or not to be such a bigot.

          June 18, 2014 at 10:53 pm |
        • igaftr

          "There is physical, or objective evidence for God.

          Scripture says love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control are the signs of God in your life."

          scripture just means someone wrote it down.
          None of those things require any gods, so the existance of those things is no indicator of any gods. That is a very weak argument, and clearly false.

          June 19, 2014 at 9:00 am |
        • Dalahäst

          IG

          You missed the point. Jesus used the Good Samaritan parable to drive home a point. Sometimes those who profess to know and love God don't follow God's will And someone outside the religion – a person that most people from their society looks down on – is the one that demonstrates God's will.

          God didn't choose the Jews because they followed His will so well. They failed miserably at it. He used them as an example.

          Anyway, it would be great if you could demonstrate you can do those things without God. Some on here seem to be able to do it. But not you. You seem to be on the negative and irrational side of life.

          June 19, 2014 at 9:42 am |
        • igaftr

          dala
          the irrational ones are those who keep claiming god, or needing god, but not one can show any such thing exists.
          I do not have to demonstrate how these things are possible without god, because until anyone can show any of these alleged gods, the default position is there aren't any. You would need to demonstrate that there actually is a god, and then try to show how this god gave us these abilities, which you cannot. Your position is the irrational one.

          June 19, 2014 at 10:35 am |
        • Dalahäst

          That doesn't make you perfectly rational.

          Because you are not very rational at times.

          And God does exist. Just because you can't see that, doesn't make it not so. You are not the first irrational person to claim God doesn't exist.

          June 19, 2014 at 11:27 am |
        • igaftr

          dala
          I do not say god does not exist. I do not believe any "gods" exist, but I am not so arrogant as to claim I know.
          You claim god exists, but you do not know, you believe. You claim there is a test for god, there is not.

          You are absolutley delusional to make those claims, and quite irrational to leap to such an unjustified conclusion.

          By all means, what is this test you have for god, let me try it. By all means, show you proof of this "god" of yours...and I suppose this "god" of yours is exactly the way you imagine, right?

          You are too close to the tree to see the forest. Your belief has certainly blinded you to the infinite number of other possibilities.

          June 19, 2014 at 11:37 am |
        • Dalahäst

          Maybe you are the blind one.

          Maybe God doesn't operate by your standards.

          I don't operate by your standards. You are the only one that does.

          It doesn't have to be arrogance to know our Creator and seek Him for being real.

          June 19, 2014 at 12:31 pm |
      • bostontola

        Belief in adragonism is akin to pyromania.

        June 18, 2014 at 4:15 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          Belief that religion is mental illness is akin to narrow-mindedness?

          June 18, 2014 at 4:16 pm |
        • bostontola

          Perhaps. But it could also be the other way. Since most people believe in God, most wouldn't think it a mental illness. Therefore you'd need an open mind to see it that way. Assuming it's not may be narrow-minded.

          June 18, 2014 at 4:20 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          That is true. I was considering the source of the statement.

          Most atheist don't think atheism is mental illness. But they just might be closed-minded to that idea. If they can consider religion a mental illness, atheism should be, too.

          June 18, 2014 at 4:28 pm |
        • kudlak

          Dalahäst
          Believing that your personal "experience" that God is real cannot be a misperception, however, can be a delusion, or at least close-mindedness, right?

          June 18, 2014 at 4:29 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          Same with your beliefs.

          June 18, 2014 at 4:33 pm |
        • beliefingodisakintoschizophrenia

          Its your right to believe in delusions such as sky fairies, winged sky fairy soldiers, a bad red colored dude with horns and a holy book of spells....just don't push your sick fantasies on society. Seek help and when your mind is clear of this silliness help others

          June 18, 2014 at 4:41 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          I don't push my views on people. I go to religion blogs to discuss them. Where people like you push your views on me.

          June 18, 2014 at 4:52 pm |
        • beliefingodisakintoschizophrenia

          Looks to me as if you are an insecure and pathetic ex athiest. Dala go back to reading your book of spells

          June 18, 2014 at 5:11 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          I appreciate your beliefs which are important to you. But please don't push them on me. I'm sure you wouldn't appreciate me talking to you the way you do to me. Imagine if I talked to one of your loved ones that way.

          "Then there are the fanatical atheists whose intolerance is of the same kind as the intolerance of the religious fanatics and comes from the same source. They are like slaves who are still feeling the weight of their chains which they have thrown off after hard struggle. They are creatures who—in their grudge against the traditional "opium of the people"—cannot bear the music of the spheres. The Wonder of nature does not become smaller because one cannot measure it by the standards of human moral and human aims." Albert Einstein

          June 18, 2014 at 5:15 pm |
        • kudlak

          Dalahäst
          I mistrust anything that I believe just because I experienced it myself. I could be wrong, after all.

          June 18, 2014 at 5:23 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          When we are wrong, we make mistakes. And we learn from those mistakes. It is ok to be wrong.

          June 18, 2014 at 5:30 pm |
        • beliefingodisakintoschizophrenia

          Dala, I am not pushing my lack of belief on you, I am calling you out for one reason. You are intelligent and need to continue your mental evolution not fall behind with the other morons that cave into religion . Stop being spineless by using god as a reason nd use critical thinking

          June 18, 2014 at 5:30 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          What name do you normally post under?

          Can you demonstrate honesty?

          You are pushing your views on me. And they aren't viewpoints I haven't considered before. It sounds like you are just parroting the God Hates Amputees website. You sure do seem to be proselytizing something.

          June 18, 2014 at 5:38 pm |
        • kudlak

          Dalahäst
          Sometimes, you can be wrong and just not know it.

          June 18, 2014 at 7:51 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          Yep. Sometimes that is called having "blind spots".

          A program of accountability, which some religions and spiritual programs provide, can be a good tool to deal with that. As can a therapist or psychologist. Even some secular groups and atheist groups see the advantage of that and incorporate that into their programs.

          June 18, 2014 at 11:14 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          Its your right to believe in delusions such as religious people are the cause of all the world's problems, atheism is science, scientists who believe in God are not real scientists, and The God Delusion is sound logic... just don't push your sick fantasies on society. Seek help and when your mind is clear of this silliness help others

          If someone said that to you I'm sure you would feel they were pushing their views on you.

          But I might be wrong. And that irrational atheist doesn't need to be questioned. But I do.

          Sounds reasonable. It is easy for an atheist to say he embraces reason, much harder to demonstrate it I'm noticing today. I mean most do demonstrate. But some completely fail at it.

          They probably don't think they are wrong.

          June 18, 2014 at 11:24 pm |
        • kudlak

          Dalahäst
          Why do you feel so threatened by Dawkins? Surely he has as much right as a scientist to give his opinion on theology as a theologian has to give his opinion on science, right?

          June 20, 2014 at 5:08 pm |
    • lunchbreaker

      Technically, a disorder is partially characterized by what is considered normal behavior, in that case theists have the majority, so theism is quite normal.

      June 18, 2014 at 5:18 pm |
  6. Lucifer's Evil Twin

    Po: This may be our greatest challenge yet.
    Monkey: Bandits?
    Viper: Raiders?
    Po: No. Place settings.

    June 18, 2014 at 2:58 pm |
  7. Alias

    I know they used the bible in this particular video, but the same basic creationist story also can be found in jewish and muslim teachings.
    They are all of equal value.

    June 18, 2014 at 2:28 pm |
    • Reality

      And equally worthless ! Details previously presented.

      June 18, 2014 at 2:55 pm |
  8. bostontola

    "God did it."

    Some religions believe God is it.

    In this context, 'it' is the physical world we experience. Different religions have different stories about 'it'. Different sects even have variations on 'it'. So saying "God did it" adds nothing. That just returns to the old refrain "which God".

    Science on the other hand doesn't address whether "God did it". Science investigates how 'it' works using the scientific method. Whether religion and science are in conflict depends on the religion. Some are, some aren't.

    June 18, 2014 at 2:19 pm |
  9. Dalahäst

    Science is imagination.

    June 18, 2014 at 2:03 pm |
    • fintronics

      Your god is imagination...

      June 18, 2014 at 2:17 pm |
      • Dalahäst

        You are a figment of God's imagination.

        June 18, 2014 at 2:18 pm |
        • awanderingscot

          Here is some imagination for you.

          Recent exploration of the Chauvet Cave in southern France has yielded the oldest footprints of Ho.mo sapiens sapiens and a cavern with a dozen new animal figures. The footprints appear to be those of an eight-year-old boy, according to prehistorian Michel Alain Garcia. They are between 20,000 and 30,000 thousand years old,

          footprints from an eight-year old boy from 20k-30kyrs ago mind you. LOL. oh my we have imaginations don't we!

          June 18, 2014 at 3:23 pm |
        • awanderingscot

          i just wish they would hurry up with the unseen animal paintings. i can hardly wait, i'm sooo excited.

          June 18, 2014 at 3:29 pm |
        • igaftr

          scot
          A bunch of men wrote in a book that someone was resurrected but there is nothing to verify at all, no evidence of it whatsoever, yet you believe it, and these scientists run a huge variety of tests to determine the validity of their work, but you can't comprehend it so it is bunk? Hilarious.

          June 18, 2014 at 3:34 pm |
        • Akira

          awanderingscot, they have photos available online on some of what is found in the Chauvet cave.

          June 18, 2014 at 3:51 pm |
        • Doc Vestibule

          I know, right?
          It's not like rockslides could seal off a cave for thousands of years, preserving the contents.
          That is simply absurd!
          And those fossilized dinosaur footprints are obviously all recently made by some guy wearing enormous, saurian snowshoes while under Satan's influence.

          June 18, 2014 at 3:57 pm |
        • awanderingscot

          Garcia estimates that the boy was about four-and-a-half feet tall, his feet more than eight inches long and three-and-a-half inches wide. First spotted in 1994 by Jean-Marie Chauvet, the cave's discoverer, the footsteps stretch perhaps 150 feet and at times cross those of bears and wolves.

          – of course they did, little 8 year old boys always cavort with bears and lions! LOL .. gotta love that imagination!

          June 18, 2014 at 3:58 pm |
        • Doc Vestibule

          Werner Herzog recently made a stunning, docu.mentary about the Chauvet caves called "Cave of Forgotten Dreams".
          Whether you believe them to be 30,000 years old or not, the paintings and the geological formation itself are amazing to see in 1080p.

          June 18, 2014 at 3:58 pm |
        • Doc Vestibule

          @Scot
          The idea that a human could walk in the same place as another creature defies logic!
          I mean, it isn't even possible to think that a bear could leave tracks and then another creature, let alone a human being, could walk in the same area at some later time...

          June 18, 2014 at 4:01 pm |
        • awanderingscot

          'The prints from the Chauvet Cave, like nearly all footprints thus far discovered in Palaeolithic caves, are from bare feet, which has led scholars to speculate that people of the time either left footwear at cave entrances or carried them.'

          'has led scholars to speculate' – why? because just like modern-day 'scholars' those cavemen were ever so concerned with hygiene. and mama cave woman always admonished cave children to take off the shoes before entering cave. this practice of course did not apply to the bears, wolves, and lions.

          June 18, 2014 at 4:06 pm |
        • awanderingscot

          "Cave of Forgotten Dreams"
          why must they be "forgotten"? they are still in your dreams.

          June 18, 2014 at 4:08 pm |
        • igaftr

          Apparently scot thinks that people always wear shoes (even though there are many peoples in the world that do not wear shoes),and that I cannot walk the same area as wild animals, or that all footprints in an area are created at exactly the same time
          Seriously scot, do you have any cognitive ability?

          June 18, 2014 at 4:19 pm |
        • awanderingscot

          Meanwhile, a team of 15 specialists, directed by French prehistorian Jean Clottes, recently investigated a uninventoried room originally discovered by Chauvet. There they found a dozen new paintings of mammoth, bison, and horses, among other animals.

          'recently investigated a uninventoried room originally discovered by Chauvet' – so there you have it folks, we totally forgot about the 'spare' bedroom in this cave for 20 years which incidentally happen to have a dozen "previously undiscovered" paintings. Boy those are going to look so good on my big screen with 1080p. LOL such good entertainment!

          June 18, 2014 at 4:23 pm |
        • hal 9001

          I'm sorry, "igaftr", but "awanderingscot" is completely devoid of cognitive ability.

          June 18, 2014 at 4:27 pm |
        • Doc Vestibule

          @Scot
          the caves have been mapped electronically, though not all have been explored by human beings.

          June 18, 2014 at 4:29 pm |
        • awanderingscot

          http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2014/03/chauvet-cave-art-not-work-of-earliest.html

          **BS ALERT** .. "new and improved" radiocarbon dating now dates the 'smoke' in the Chauvet Cave to a still unbelievable date range of 26k – 18k years ago (still quite a large range for the "new and improved" radiocarbon dating, at least they are getting closer to a believable date.)

          June 18, 2014 at 4:47 pm |
        • igaftr

          scot
          The smoke residue in a cave in Europe would have been from fires over the span of several millenia , so yes, there would be a large range. Most caves in Europe have been used for many millenia by humans, animals, neanderthal, etc.

          Seriously...think man.

          June 18, 2014 at 4:52 pm |
    • Alias

      Some things deserve to be mocked.
      Your post and your religion are definitely 2 of those things.

      June 18, 2014 at 2:21 pm |
    • bostontola

      I'd say science is a type of knowledge. Imagination helps put knowledge to work in products, services, understanding, and in gaining more knowledge.

      June 18, 2014 at 2:23 pm |
      • Dalahäst

        "Science is imagination in a straitjacket."

        June 18, 2014 at 2:37 pm |
        • bostontola

          Putting aside the negative connotation of 'straightjacket', science doesn't constrain imagination at all. Human limitations constrain imagination.

          The constraints are inherent in nature itself. F=MA. It simply isn't true that F=2MA. That isn't science's fault, that is nature.

          Engineering imagination is constrained by science, and that is a good thing. If it weren't, you couldn't trust a bridge, a building, an airplane, etc. to be safe.
          Art imagination is not constrained by science. Also a good thing. Art is constrained by other things like human taste.

          June 18, 2014 at 3:04 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          I actually had a conversation with someone down below, zhilla1980wasp, who seems like his imagination has been placed in a straightjacket by science.

          Or what he thinks science is.

          June 18, 2014 at 3:15 pm |
        • beliefingodisakintoschizophrenia

          Dala you are a delusional and pathetic ex athiest. You should be ashamed of yourself by jumping back into religion, it shows you are a member of the lower end of the gene pool

          June 18, 2014 at 3:20 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          Why did you change your name?

          June 18, 2014 at 3:44 pm |
      • Dalahäst

        Imagination is the fuel of rational science.

        June 18, 2014 at 2:38 pm |
        • lunchbreaker

          Is someone trying to use genetics to make unicorns?

          June 18, 2014 at 3:18 pm |
        • igaftr

          We are currently trying to creat Pegusi. As a side business, I'm making steel umbrellas.

          June 18, 2014 at 3:45 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          "The greatest scientists are artists as well," – Albert Einstein

          June 18, 2014 at 3:52 pm |
        • kudlak

          It starts with imagination, and it dies if never moves past the level of imagination.

          Can you test for God? If not, then it's not science that you're talking about, but an argument from ignorance fallacy.

          June 18, 2014 at 8:10 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          Sorry. Science isn't the only way to know something. And knowing something that science is incapable of answering doesn't inherently mean one is committing an argument of an ignorance fallacy.

          June 18, 2014 at 11:06 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          And you can test for God. You need to use your heart, not just your mind.

          June 18, 2014 at 11:10 pm |
        • igaftr

          "And you can test for God"

          No you most certainly can not. I'm certain you have convinced yourself you can, but you actually have no test for any god...the idea is absurd.
          Also, your "heart" is a part of your mind.
          The problem is that you imagine the test, imagine the results..the whole process takes place in your head exclusively. SO all you are doing is verifying you believe there is a god.
          If someone who does not believe does your :"test" for god, will it work? If not, then it is no test at all.

          June 19, 2014 at 8:33 am |
        • gulliblenomore

          Igaftr.....when my aunt was in the hospital dying, my uncle wanted to believe so badly in god and an afterlife, he was outside the hospital and noticed a bird sitting in a tree. He asked god to give him a small sign that he was there and watching. He asked god to have the bird fly from one tree branch to the tree next to it. The lousy p-rick of a god wouldn't even do that. There's your test.

          June 19, 2014 at 8:50 am |
        • Dalahäst

          Sure you can test for God. You are just taking the wrong approach. You seem to be interested in God as an idol. Or something confined by what scientists discover via the scientific method. But God isn't confined by your limitations or understandings of what goes on in your head.

          It seems like each one of you internet atheists cherry picks something from varying philosophies from science and preaches that as gospel. The problem is, each one of you is preaching something different. The rest of us – the 95% of the US that isn't an atheist doesn't know who or what to believe. Maybe you guys should start comparing notes?

          June 19, 2014 at 9:49 am |
        • igaftr

          Dala
          What possible test is there for god?
          This must be a test that anyone could take, believers and non-believers alike.
          If I take your test, and still do not see any indication of any gods, would you agree that your test is flawed as I know it is?

          June 19, 2014 at 10:42 am |
        • Dalahäst

          No. Because you are not the judge of what is and isn't in this world. You are a bit irrational.

          But, try this.

          Think about God. A God who loves you. Who made this world. We marvel at the creation in science. Imagine the creator.

          Get on your knees. Admit to God you are flawed. You are not perfect. And you could use some help. Ask him to reveal Himself to you in a way you can understand. In His way, not your way.

          You don't have to get on your knees. But they key is to ask humbly. That is an exercise and way to test that out. We live in an instant gratification culture. It may take patience on your part.

          If you can not or will not do that, there are other tests we can try.

          June 19, 2014 at 10:46 am |
        • igaftr

          That is absurd. That is no test at all. And you claim I am irrational?
          So what test is there? What you gave is not a test in the slightest. Do you not see the obvious flaw in that which makes it a completely invalid test?

          June 19, 2014 at 11:50 am |
        • Dalahäst

          Think about what you are. A human being. You don't exist because of what science does.

          You are irrational. All human beings are irrational. Life is irrational. It doesn't make sense. Everybody just cherry picks what works for them.

          It is human nature. You can't escape it. Even scientists go mad. They often do – that is why we all are familiar with mad scientists.

          The test? Your heart.

          Instead of arguing and judging people on religion message boards maybe you could test out what Jesus says we should do with our lives. There is nothing in that that will cause you to abandon reason or science. But you will be helping others.

          Selflessly. Pray to God to have your flaws revealed to you. Not the flaws of others. Seeing your flaws is tougher.

          June 19, 2014 at 11:56 am |
        • igaftr

          I have no need to pray to know my flaws. No one needs to pray to know their flaws.

          You still have not provided a valid test for god.
          By the way, the heart that you speak of is a part of the mind. If your tests are solely in one's mind, it is not a verifiable thing, so is no test at all.

          What test is there for god that you claim to have?

          June 19, 2014 at 12:59 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          Most people have blind spots and are unaware of certain flaws.

          You can't simply measure the heart of a person by solely examining the mind.

          What is a valid test? Is there a valid test to know how one can love their enemies? Is there a test to measure whether a person is compassionate?

          If a being transcends science and academics – what kind of test should you invoke? A spiritual one? A personal one?

          A valid test for God isn't determined by you, igaftr. You are not God. When you tell me what a valid for God is you are playing as if you are God.

          You can try what I suggest. Or seek other means. Or not do anything but cruise religion blogs telling everyone how right you think you are.

          June 19, 2014 at 1:07 pm |
        • igaftr

          dala
          You are the one who claimed to have a test, but you have not presented one.
          You are the one who claims to know god, but can show none exist.

          No matter how much you doubletalk, that does not change.

          June 19, 2014 at 1:53 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          You are right. There is not suitable test to determine if God exists for you and you alone.

          Congrats on believing that. It should suit you well for proving yourself on religious blogs every day for the rest of your life.

          June 19, 2014 at 1:54 pm |
        • igaftr

          You have proven YOUR god to YOURSELF, and only yourself. Classic self delusion.

          June 19, 2014 at 2:14 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          Or you have proven something to yourself. And only yourself. Self delusion.

          Nobody else preaches exactly what you preach. Each non-believer presents a different theory to me on why I believer. Most end in an insult – like delusion or mental retardation.

          We are both searching for answers on religion blogs.

          June 19, 2014 at 2:18 pm |
        • kudlak

          Dalahäst
          Apart from science, religion isn't the only way to know something either. Philosophy can address pretty much all of the same questions, but without the necessity of assuming that the supernatural is at play.

          June 22, 2014 at 12:59 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          I've never said religion was the only way to know something. I'm actually taught no to think that way.

          I'm not assuming that the supernatural is at play. I know God exists. And not because of philosophy.

          June 22, 2014 at 1:01 pm |
    • kudlak

      Dalahäst
      Science begins with imagination, you mean, and so does science fiction. Often, the ideas of both prove to be correct over time, but not always. Unlike religion, both science and science fiction actually require verifiable evidence to claim any level of truth, however.

      June 18, 2014 at 8:00 pm |
      • Dalahäst

        You mean scientists require verifiable evidence when operating outside of human life and under the limits of verifiable evidence. You are using your imagination to describe science as something that requires verifiable evidence. Science isn't capable of requiring something. It needs a person to do say that for it.

        June 18, 2014 at 11:01 pm |
    • kudlak

      Science starts with imagination, but no idea is never accepted as factual until it has objective evidence to support it. Something that religion does not require.

      June 20, 2014 at 5:12 pm |
      • Dalahäst

        Wrong. Some religion does require objective evidence.

        And I do know facts in which there is no objective evidence to support such knowledge.

        June 22, 2014 at 7:46 am |
        • kudlak

          Belief in God, apparently, does not.

          June 22, 2014 at 1:02 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          Are you seeking God?

          June 22, 2014 at 1:04 pm |
  10. SeaVik

    Satin put these fossils on earth to trick you. Did he getcha?

    June 18, 2014 at 1:15 pm |
    • Theo Phileo

      And what verse in the Bible says that? Oh yeah, there isn't one...

      June 18, 2014 at 1:39 pm |
      • SeaVik

        Oh, ok, so you don't think the earth is only thousands of years old anymore? What is your explanation for the endless scientific evidence, including fossils that are millions of years old, which makes it obvious that the earth is much older?

        June 18, 2014 at 1:45 pm |
        • Theo Phileo

          Did someone find a date stamp next to their "Made in China" sticker?

          I don't think that it is possible for anyone to determine how old the planet, or our universe is. I believe the creation narrative because I am a Christian, and also because Jesus Himself endorsed the creation narrative in Genesis.

          But when the universe was created, we are told that it was created in a mature state, so our own observations can only tell us a partial story. In other words, uranium and lead were created at the same time.

          If scientific observations could ever tell us a complete story, then conclusions about our origins wouldn't be such an impossible target for scientists to hit. And that is one of the reasons why science is useless for cosmogony.

          June 18, 2014 at 1:52 pm |
        • Doc Vestibule

          @Theo
          Ever hear of the Chauvet caves?

          June 18, 2014 at 1:58 pm |
        • SeaVik

          "I don't think that it is possible for anyone to determine how old the planet, or our universe is."

          Oh, well you must not read the news. Not only is it possible to determine how old the planet is, we've already figured it out. We know the bible is wrong. Your only explanation is that there is some sort of deception going on and all of the evidence we have was made to look older. Equally as foolish as saying that satan made the fossils like that to trick us.

          June 18, 2014 at 2:07 pm |
        • Theo Phileo

          Doc,
          Nope, I had to look that one up. But if your point is going to be about radiocarbon dating, I've got a story to tell you about an experiment in college that we did with a suit of clothes buried out back behind the greenhouses for a year... Apparently, they were 100,000 years old. Must have had something to do with their environment, we were told... What it told us was that there are a LOT of assumptions that are made that often are not even realized that we are making in tests like that.

          June 18, 2014 at 2:11 pm |
        • SeaVik

          "I've got a story to tell you about an experiment in college..."

          So you think it's prudent to ignore the world community of scientists who know way more about this than you ever will because of an experiement you did who-knows-how-many years ago in college? Is it not adundantly clear to you how weak your position is?

          June 18, 2014 at 2:22 pm |
        • Akira

          Wouldn't using a modern set of clothes be the big tip off that they weren't 100,000 years old? Because I would think most scientists would take that into consideration.

          June 18, 2014 at 2:23 pm |
        • Theo Phileo

          "Wouldn't using a modern set of clothes be the big tip off that they weren't 100,000 years old? Because I would think most scientists would take that into consideration."
          ----------–
          Yeah, but that was the point... To show that environmental conditions can severely hamper results... And I don't claim to know anything about this stuff, the professor did, I'm sure, but I wasn't taking a course in that kindof thing, it was an aside that he wanted to show us as something he was working on.

          June 18, 2014 at 2:28 pm |
        • Alias

          Theo
          Nice college story.
          However, stating that scientists can make discoveries in no way implies that you couldn't try and fail.

          June 18, 2014 at 2:32 pm |
        • Theo Phileo

          "Nice college story.
          However, stating that scientists can make discoveries in no way implies that you couldn't try and fail."
          -----------
          Hey, all I'm trying to say is that there is no method of scientific investigation that is immune from internal or external influences that impede results. The test itself may be flawed, or it may be flawed by improper assumptions made on the part of the investigator. No one should be able to disagree with that statement.

          June 18, 2014 at 2:36 pm |
        • gulliblenomore

          It is impossible to discuss anything rational with a person that believes men walked with dinosaurs

          June 18, 2014 at 3:12 pm |
        • Akira

          Did the professor employ every single test that is available to scientists working in that field? Were multiple tests done to arrive at the consensus that he did? Where can I read about this experiment? Did you observe the different tests being performed? What college was this performed at? Is this professor actually schooled in the field?
          So many questions, lol.

          June 18, 2014 at 2:37 pm |
        • SeaVik

          "The test itself may be flawed, or it may be flawed by improper assumptions made on the part of the investigator. No one should be able to disagree with that statement."

          Agreed. However, when the same conclusion can be reached over and over through many different types of tests as well as directly observable evidence, it would be foolish to assume that all of those tests are wrong simply because you have a story that doesn't fit with the results.

          I'm curious – do you think the dinosaurs ever walked on earth, or do you actually believe that your god just made the earth with dinosaur fossils already in it? (I'm not baiting you, just honestly curious.)

          June 18, 2014 at 2:42 pm |
        • Alias

          Hey, all I'm trying to say is that there is no method of scientific investigation that is immune from internal or external influences that impede results
          ---------------
          So your logic is that because it could be wrong sometimes, it is always wrong.
          One more line of reasoning that deserves to be mocked.

          June 18, 2014 at 2:46 pm |
        • awanderingscot

          And you forget the Lord your Maker,
          Who stretched out the heavens
          And laid the foundations of the earth;
          You have feared continually every day – Isaiah 51:13a, NKJV

          our Lord God, creator of the universe, knows the exact age of the earth and the universe since He created it!

          June 18, 2014 at 2:50 pm |
        • awanderingscot

          You're brainwashed AND delusional. Fossils don't prove the age of anything. your god of radiocarbon dating is bunk.

          June 18, 2014 at 2:55 pm |
        • Reality

          Again, back to Science:

          As per National Geographic's Genographic project:

          https://www3.nationalgeographic.com/genographic/

          " DNA studies suggest that all humans today descend from a group of African ancestors who about 60,000 years ago began a remarkable journey. Follow the journey from them to you as written in your genes”.

          "Adam" is the common male ancestor of every living man. He lived in Africa some 60,000 years ago, which means that all humans lived in Africa at least at that time.

          Unlike his Biblical namesake, this Adam was not the only man alive in his era. Rather, he is unique because his descendents are the only ones to survive.

          It is important to note that Adam does not literally represent the first human. He is the coalescence point of all the genetic diversity."

          o More details from National Geographic's Genographic project: https://genographic.nationalgeographic.com/

          "Our spe-cies is an African one: Africa is where we first ev-olved, and where we have spent the majority of our time on Earth. The earliest fos-sils of recognizably modern Ho-mo sapiens appear in the fossil record at Omo Kibish in Ethiopia, around 200,000 years ago. Although earlier fossils may be found over the coming years, this is our best understanding of when and approximately where we originated.

          According to the genetic and paleontological record, we only started to leave Africa between 60,000 and 70,000 years ago. What set this in motion is uncertain, but we think it has something to do with major climatic shifts that were happening around that time—a sudden cooling in the Earth’s climate driven by the onset of one of the worst parts of the last Ice Age. This cold snap would have made life difficult for our African ancestors, and the genetic evidence points to a sharp reduction in population size around this time. In fact, the human population likely dropped to fewer than 10,000. We were holding on by a thread.

          Once the climate started to improve, after 70,000 years ago, we came back from this near-extinction event. The population expanded, and some intrepid explorers ventured beyond Africa. The earliest people to colonize the Eurasian landma-ss likely did so across the Bab-al-Mandab Strait separating present-day Yemen from Djibouti. These early beachcombers expanded rapidly along the coast to India, and reached Southeast Asia and Australia by 50,000 years ago. The first great foray of our species beyond Africa had led us all the way across the globe."

          June 18, 2014 at 3:01 pm |
        • Doris

          Snotty: "your god of radiocarbon dating is bunk."

          It's good to see that Snotty and Theopatra are keeping the comedic spirit of this article alive with their zany comments, but just in case there are small children about who might take them seriously, I'll repeat this post from Colin:

          ======= (Colin) =====
          To put the sheer idiocy of Topher's, Awanderingscots' etc. creationist claims in context, here are some very basic pieces of evidence that make the biblical creation story utter garbage.

          Of first and most obvious importance is the fossil record. The fossil record is much, much more than just dinosaurs. Indeed, dinosaurs only get the press because of their size, but they make up less than 1% of the entire fossil record. Life had been evolving on Earth for over 3 thousand million years before dinosaurs evolved and has gone on evolving for 65 million years after the Chicxulub meteor likely wiped them out.

          Layered in the fossil record are the Stromatolites, colonies of prokaryotic bacteria, that range in age going back to about 3 billion years, the Ediacara fossils from South Australia, widely regarded as among the earliest multi-celled organisms, the Cambrian species of the Burgess shale in Canada (circa – 450 million years ago) the giant scorpions of the Silurian Period, the giant, wingless insects of the Devonian period, the insects, amphibians, reptiles, fishes, clams, crustaceans of the Carboniferous Period, the many precursors to the dinosaurs, the 700 odd known species of dinosaurs themselves, the subsequent dominant mammals, including the saber tooth tiger, the mammoths and hairy rhinoceros of North America and Asia, the fossils of early man in Africa and the Neanderthals of Europe.

          Indeed, the fossil record shows a consistent and worldwide evolution of life on Earth dating back to about 3,500,000,000 years ago. There are literally millions of fossils that have been recovered, of thousands of different species and they are all located where they would be in the geological record if life evolved slowly over billions of years. None of them can be explained by a 6,000 year old Earth and Noah’s flood. Were they all on the ark? What happened to them when it docked?

          Not only did a Tyrannosaurus Rex eat a lot of food, but that food was meat- which means its food would itself have to have been fed, like the food of every other carnivore on the ark for the entire 360 odd days Noah supposedly spent on the ark. T-Rex was not even the largest carnivorous dinosaur we know of. Spinosaurus, Argentinosaurus and Carcharodontosaurus were all larger and ate more even meat. Even they were not large enough to bring down the largest sauropods we know of, many species of which weighed in at close to 100 tons and were about 100 feet long. This is in addition to the elephants, hippopotamus, giraffes, and other large extant animals (not to mention the millions of insects, bacteria, mites, worms etc. that would have to be boarded). A bit of “back of the envelope” math quickly shows that “Noah’s Ark” would actually have to have been an armada of ships larger than the D-Day invasion force, manned by thousands and thousands of people – and this is without including the World’s 300,000 current species of plants, none of which could walk merrily in twos onto the ark.

          Coming on top of that, of course, there are the various races of human beings. There were no Sub-Saharan Africans, Chinese, Australian Aboriginals, blonde haired Scandinavians, Pygmies or Eskimos on the Ark. Where did they come from?

          Oh, second, there are those little things we call oil, natural gas and other fossil fuels. Their mere existence is another independent and fatal blow to the creationists. Speak to any geologist who works for Exxon Mobil, Shell or any of the thousands of mining, oil or natural gas related companies that make a living finding fossil fuels. They will tell you these fossil fuels take millions of years to develop from the remains of large, often Carboniferous Period forests, in the case of coal, or tiny marine creatures in the case of oil. For the fossils to develop into oil or coal takes tens or hundreds of millions of years of “slow baking” under optimum geological conditions. That’s why they are called “fossil fuels.” Have a close look at coal, you can often see the fossilized leaves in it. The geologists know exactly what rocks to look for fossil fuels in, because they know how to date the rocks to tens or hundreds of millions of years ago. Creationists have no credible explanation for this.

          Laughingly, most of astronomy and cosmology would be wrong if the creationists were right. In short, as Einstein showed, light travels at a set speed. Space is so large that light from distant stars takes many years to reach the Earth. In some cases, this is millions or billions of years. The fact that we can see light from such far away stars means it began its journey billions of years ago. The Universe must be billions of years old. We can currently see galaxies whose light left home 13, 700,000,000 years ago. Indeed, on a clear night, one can see the collective, misty light of many stars more than 6,000 light years away with the naked eye, shining down like tiny accusatory witnesses against the nonsense of creationism.

          In fourth, we have not just carbon dating, but also all other methods used by scientists to date wood, rocks, fossils, and other artifacts. These comprehensively disprove the Bible’s claims. They include uranium-lead dating, potassium-argon dating as well as other non-radioactive methods such as pollen dating, dendrochronology and ice core dating. In order for any particular rock, fossil or other artifact to be aged, generally two or more samples are dated independently by two or more laboratories in order to ensure an accurate result. If results were random, as creationists claim, the two independent results would rarely agree. They generally do. They regularly reveal ages much older than Genesis. Indeed, the Earth is about 750,000 times older than the Bible claims, the Universe about three times the age of the Earth.

          Next, fifth, the relatively new field of DNA mapping not only convicts criminals, it shows in undeniable, full detail how we differ from other life forms on the planet. For example, about 98.4% of human DNA is identical to that of chimpanzees, about 97% of human DNA is identical to that of gorillas, and slightly less again of human DNA is identical to the DNA of monkeys. This gradual divergence in DNA can only be rationally explained by the two species diverging from a common ancestor, and coincides perfectly with the fossil record. Indeed, scientists can use the percentage of DNA that two animal share (such as humans and bears, or domestic dogs and wolves) to get an idea of how long ago the last common ancestor of both species lived. It perfectly corroborates the fossil record and is completely independently developed.

          Sixth, the entire field of historical linguistics would have to be rewritten to accommodate the Bible. This discipline studies how languages develop and diverge over time. For example, Spanish and Italian are very similar and have a recent common “ancestor” language, Latin, as most people know. However, Russian is quite different and therefore either did not share a common root, or branched off much earlier in time. No respected linguist anywhere in the World traces languages back to the Tower of Babel, the creationists’ simplistic and patently absurd explanation for different languages. Indeed, American Indians, Australian Aboriginals, “true” Indians, Chinese, Mongols, Ja.panese, Sub-Saharan Africans and the Celts and other tribes of ancient Europe were speaking thousands of different languages thousands of years before the date creationist say the Tower of Babel occurred – and even well before the date they claim for the Garden of Eden.

          Seventh, lactose intolerance is also a clear vestige of human evolution. Most mammals only consume milk as infants. After infancy, they no longer produce the enzyme “lactase” that digests the lactose in milk and so become lactose intolerant. Humans are an exception and can drink milk as adults – but not all humans – some humans remain lactose intolerant. So which humans are no longer lactose intolerant? The answer is those who evolved over the past few thousand years raising cows. They evolved slightly to keep producing lactase as adults so as to allow the consumption of milk as adults. This includes most Europeans and some Africans, notably the Tutsi of Rwanda. On the other hand, most Chinese, native Americans and Aboriginal Australians, whose ancestors did not raise cattle, remain lactose intolerant.

          I could go on and elaborate on a number of other disciplines or facts that creationists have to pretend into oblivion to retain their faith, including the Ice Ages, cavemen and early hominids, much of microbiology, paleontology and archeology, continental drift and plate tectonics. Even large parts of medical research would be rendered unusable but for the fact that monkeys and mice share a common ancestor with us and therefore our fundamental cell biology and basic body architecture is identical to theirs.

          In short, and not surprisingly, the World’s most gifted evolutionary biologists, astronomers, cosmologists, geologists, archaeologists, paleontologists, historians, modern medical researchers and linguists (and about 2,000 years of accu.mulated knowledge) are right and a handful of Iron Age Middle Eastern goat herders copying then extant mythology were wrong. Creationists aren’t just trying to swim upstream against the weight of scientific evidence; they are trying to ascend a waterfall.

          All this is probably why evolution is taught in every major university and college biology program in the World. Not 99% of them, but EVERY one. Universities with extensive evolutionary biology departments include Oxford University, Cambridge University and the Imperial College in England, the Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität in Germany, the École Normale Supérieure and École Polythecnique in France and Leiden University in the Netherlands and the Swiss Federal Insti.tute of Technology in Switzerland. This is just a sample. ALL university and colleges in Europe teach evolution as a fundamental component of biology.

          The number of universities and colleges in Europe with a creation science department: ZERO. The number of tenured or even paid professors who teach creation science at any of these universities or colleges: ZERO

          In the United States, the following Universities have extensive evolutionary biology departments staffed by thousands of the most gifted biologists in the World; Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Colombia, Duke, the Massachusetts Insti.tute of Technology, Brown, Stanford, Berkley, and the University of Chicago. These are just some of the more prestigious examples. Again, ALL university and colleges in the USA with tertiary level biology classes teach evolution as a fundamental component of biology.

          The number of universities and colleges in the United States with a creation science department: ZERO The number of tenured or even paid professors who teach creation science at any of these universities or colleges: ZERO

          In Australia and Asia, the following universities and colleges have extensive evolutionary biology departments manned by more of the most gifted biological scientists in the World; Monash University in Melbourne, The University of New South Wales, Kyoto University in Ja.pan, Peking University in China, Seoul University in Korea, the University of Singapore, National Taiwan University, The Australian National University, The University of Melbourne, and the University of Sydney.

          The number of universities and colleges in Australia and Asia with a creation science department: ZERO The number of tenured or even paid professors who teach creation science at any of these universities or colleges: ZERO

          The most prestigious scientific publications in the Western World generally accessible to the public include: The Journal of the American Medical Association, the New England Journal of Medicine, Scientific American, Science, New Scientist, Cosmos and Live Science.

          Every month, one or more of them publishes a peer reviewed article highlighting the latest developments in evolution. The amount of any creationist science articles published in ANY of these prestigious publications; ZERO.

          I could repeat the above exercise for the following disciplines, all of which would have to be turned on their heads to accommodate creation science – paleontology, archeology, geology, botany, marine biology, astronomy, medicine, cosmology and historical linguistics.

          Nearly every scientific society, representing hundreds of thousands of scientists, have issued statements rejecting intelligent design and a peti.tion supporting the teaching of evolutionary biology was endorsed by 72 US Nobel Prize winners.

          Number of creation science Nobel Prize winners: ZERO

          The American Association for the Advancement of Science, the world's largest general scientific society with more than 130,000 members and over 262 affiliated societies and academies of science including over 10 million individuals, has made several statements and issued several press releases in support of evolution.

          Number made in support of creation science: ZERO

          According to The International Federation of Biologists, there are more than 3 million biological scientists globally who rely on the 5 laws of Darwinian evolution for their jobs every single day.

          There appears to be three possible explanations for all this:

          (i) there is a worldwide conspiracy of universities, colleges and academic publications, including all their hundreds of thousands of professors, editors, reviewers, and support staff, to deny creation science;

          (ii) the creationists like Topher have a startling new piece of evidence that was right before our eyes that will turn accepted biological science and about 10 other sciences on their heads if ONLY people would listen to them, no doubt earning them a Nobel Prize and a place in history beside the likes of Darwin, Newton and Einstein; or

          (iii) they are a complete blowhards who have never studied one subject of university level biology, never been on an archaeological dig, never studied a thing about paleontology, geology, astronomy, linguistics or archaeology, but feel perfectly sure that you know more than the best biologists, archaeologists, paleontologists, doctors, astronomers botanists and linguists in the World because their mommy and daddy taught them some comforting stories from Bronze Age Palestine as a child.

          I know which alternative my money is on.
          =====

          June 18, 2014 at 3:16 pm |
        • lunchbreaker

          Theo:

          What university was the expirment done at?
          What was the professors name?
          Has he published his results? If so where?
          What was his feild of study?

          June 18, 2014 at 3:22 pm |
        • Akira

          Some of the responses articulated on this blog encapsulates the point of the satirical clip quite nicely.

          June 18, 2014 at 3:38 pm |
        • Theo Phileo

          "I'm curious – do you think the dinosaurs ever walked on earth, or do you actually believe that your god just made the earth with dinosaur fossils already in it? (I'm not baiting you, just honestly curious.)"
          ---------------
          I had to get a few things done here, so I'm having to be choosey about what I respond to for the moment...

          Of course dinosaurs were real. Before the 1800's, we had another name for them: "animals."

          June 18, 2014 at 4:02 pm |
        • jknbt

          your objections go away with the "long day" interpretation of genesis 1.

          June 18, 2014 at 4:02 pm |
        • Doris

          Theo: "Of course dinosaurs were real. Before the 1800's, we had another name for them: "animals."

          Before the fourth century, people didn't know the earth had a spherical shape. So what's your point?

          June 18, 2014 at 4:18 pm |
        • kudlak

          Theo Phileo
          You trust Jesus, so you're willing to just rubber-stamp anything you're told is linked to belief in him "approved" without even examining it first?

          June 18, 2014 at 4:34 pm |
    • igaftr

      I didn't know they had any fossils of satin.

      Maybe Satan put them there.

      June 18, 2014 at 2:55 pm |
      • Lucifer's Evil Twin

        Satin is our third cousin from Alabama...

        June 18, 2014 at 3:25 pm |
        • Doc Vestibule

          Satin is the most fabulous of all the fallen angels.

          June 18, 2014 at 4:05 pm |
        • igaftr

          I think I saw Satin dancing the Canadian Ballet at the Sundowner near Niagra Falls.

          June 18, 2014 at 4:26 pm |
        • awanderingscot

          Upon the wicked He will rain coals; fire and brimstone and a burning wind shall be the portion of their cup. – Psalms 11:6

          June 18, 2014 at 8:31 pm |
        • athiesmishealthy

          wanderingazzhole, who is your nobel prize winner reference? Hiding behind quotes from the book of spells does not add credibility

          June 18, 2014 at 8:34 pm |
  11. bostontola

    I've been the butt of jokes, probably most people have been. When I was a kid, it hurt, I might even feel like I was being attacked and I would lash back. Then I learned to control myself, I still felt like lashing back but didn't. Then I grew so secure in myself, that i didn't feel attacked at all, the laugh was sincere and I even learned something about myself from the joke.

    Humor can easily be misinterpreted. Insecurity seems the core of the inability to laugh at yourself or your group. If you feel offended by humor, you may want to do some self-examination and find out why.

    I personally abhor thought policing. I give humor the widest berth of all in that. I sensed no hate in this video, no intent to hurt. In the absence of that, if you are offended I think it is your issue.

    June 18, 2014 at 12:49 pm |
    • Theo Phileo

      So, drawing a comic of Mohammed wearing a bomb on his head as a turbin is OK? Great, then let's all put on t-shirts wearing that image and go buy some shoes in Tehran.

      See, no one cares about mocking Christians, but I have yet to see a video like this that just an unashamedly portrays Muslims. And if one DOES exist, come on, CNN, post it for the world to see that you're not afraid to post something that could be portrayed as anti-muslim!

      June 18, 2014 at 12:57 pm |
      • Dalahäst

        Don't take yourself so seriously.

        That website parodies Creationists and Atheists.

        Putting a cartoon of Mohammad with a bomb on his head is harmless until fundamentalists start rioting and murdering people.

        June 18, 2014 at 1:04 pm |
      • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

        "So, drawing a comic of Mohammed wearing a bomb on his head as a turbin (sic) is OK?"
        -------------------------
        Absolutely. It is curious that before the fatwa against the Danish cartoonist South Park had included Muhammad in the League of Super Best Friends and no one complained.

        The terror caused by such fatwas is what cowed the media. Do you suggest that Christians should bring themselves down to the level of others who threaten free speech.

        June 18, 2014 at 1:05 pm |
      • Dalahäst

        http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/003addbb34/liquor-goblin-episode-1-regrets-i-ve-jihad-a-few

        June 18, 2014 at 1:06 pm |
      • Theo Phileo

        "Do you suggest that Christians should bring themselves down to the level of others who threaten free speech."
        -----------------–
        No, I mean two things...

        1) that if your intent is to make a point, and you wish to use humor to do so, then there is no harm, but mockery only breeds anger, and proves the desperation of the author. Mockery is not funny, it is childish. And how we can scold our children for it and at the same time applaud adults for it is beyond my understanding.

        2) that "free speech" does not protect slander or libel. And to say that the Bible doesn't allow you to ask why things happen, and that the Bible says that fossils are a deception of Satan is most certainly slander. (unless of course the author of the video is ignorant of what the Bible actually says, in which case he is just that: ignorant.)

        June 18, 2014 at 1:13 pm |
        • SeaVik

          How do you define the difference between humor and mockery? If you find that video to be mockery, perhaps it is because stating religious beliefs as if they are actually believable shows how insane they are. It's the extreme insanity of your beliefs that makes it feel like mockery to you.

          June 18, 2014 at 1:20 pm |
        • Theo Phileo

          "How do you define the difference between humor and mockery?"
          --------------
          Because this particular video would lead the viewer to believe lies about the Bible. Like "you aren't supposed to ask why," and "fossils are a deception of Satan," just to name two. That's defined as defamation. And the tone of the video is one of extreme sarcasm in persuading others to those lies. Hence, mockery.

          June 18, 2014 at 1:24 pm |
        • otoh2

          "Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus."

          -Thomas Jefferson, letter to Francis Adrian Van der Kemp, 30 July, 1816

          June 18, 2014 at 1:30 pm |
        • Lucifer's Evil Twin

          “The Bible: proof that gullible people will believe any dumbass thing that you tell them” ~LET

          June 18, 2014 at 1:30 pm |
        • Akira

          Theo,
          Can you show what is slanderous or libelous about this video?
          It portrays what many, many, MANY people, including my MIL, actively believe. She explains that dinosaur bones have been placed by a deceiver. It is similar to the theory that all Dino bones found in nature are man-made. It's absurd, but there you go. She believes this.
          Not everything that is actively believed is Biblically based. As we see every day.
          If it is the tone of the narrator you dislike, that's one thing. But he didn't misrepresent what is believed by many people.

          June 18, 2014 at 1:31 pm |
        • SeaVik

          "Like "you aren't supposed to ask why," and "fossils are a deception of Satan," just to name two. That's defined as defamation."

          Those aren't lies – those are exactly the types of things religious people like you say. You don't seem to realize how crazy the things you say are. You may have not spoken those exact sentences, but your explanation as to where we came from, how old the earth is, etc, is issentially the same.

          You have claimed that asking where god came from is not a valid question. In other words, "you aren't supposed to ask why".

          You have claimed the earth is only thousands of years old. In other words, "These fossils that are millions of years old must just be the deception of satan."

          Exaggeration is not necessary to make a joke out of your beliefs.

          June 18, 2014 at 1:32 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          otoh

          "I advance it therefore as a susp.icion only, that the blacks, whether originally a distinct race, or made distinct by time and circu.mstances, are inferior to the whites in the endowments both of body and mind. … This unfortunate difference of colour, and perhaps of faculty, is a powerful obstacle to the emancipation of these people."

          Thomas Jefferson on "blacks"

          June 18, 2014 at 1:36 pm |
        • Doc Vestibule

          @Theo
          The video isn't mocking God per se- it is mocking Creationists.
          Creationists like this guy:
          http://loveforlife.com.au/content/10/09/14/dinosaur-deception-dinosaurs-never-existed-dinosaur-fossils-are-hoax-dinosaurs-scie

          June 18, 2014 at 1:41 pm |
        • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

          " "free speech" does not protect slander or libel"
          ------------------
          Even if I stipulated that this is slander or libel (which it isn't) exactly who is being slandered or libeled here? God?

          What's his address? I'd like to subpoena him to testify regarding his existence.

          June 18, 2014 at 1:43 pm |
        • Theo Phileo

          "You may have not spoken those exact sentences, but your explanation as to where we came from, how old the earth is, etc, is issentially the same."
          ----------
          Would you please explain to me how it is not equally "crazy" to seriously posit things like multiple universes or panspermia? Why are ideas like THAT considered not insane? Just because someone has a math problem to back it up? Math doesn't make reality...

          June 18, 2014 at 1:46 pm |
        • gulliblenomore

          Theo...mathematical equations actually do make reality.

          June 18, 2014 at 2:47 pm |
        • Theo Phileo

          "You have claimed that asking where god came from is not a valid question. In other words, "you aren't supposed to ask why"."
          -----------------
          It's not a valid question in the sense that God is not in the category of things that are contingent. Not that you can't ask the question. I don't know that there isn't a single kindergartener who hasn't asked that question. But a reasoning person understands that since infinite causal chains do not exist, our contingent universe requires a creator who is eternal. For, to say that the creator had a creator is to say that infinite causal chains DO exist, when that is impossible.

          "You have claimed the earth is only thousands of years old. In other words, "These fossils that are millions of years old must just be the deception of satan.""
          -------------------–
          Based on the geneologies and histories in the Bible, yeah, we get that impression, but there's no way to determine an exact date, no matter how impressive Ussher's chronology is. And no, it's not a deception of Satan in the sense that Satan put them into the ground as a test, but only in the sense that everyone sees the same evidences: the same stars, the same rocks, the same fossils, but it is our WORLDVIEWS that drive our conclusions.

          "Exaggeration is not necessary to make a joke out of your beliefs."
          -----------------–
          When properly misunderstood, it is easy for even the most intelligent of people to mock Christianity.

          June 18, 2014 at 2:01 pm |
        • SeaVik

          "but it is our WORLDVIEWS that drive our conclusions."

          NO Theo, that is absolutely wrong. THAT is precisely the difference between scientific conclusions and religious views. Scientific conclusions are based on what we discover and change as we learn more. Your religious view or "world view" is based on a bible and doesn't change no matter how much we've learned. We have proved beyond any reasonable doubt that the bible is factually wrong, yet you cling to your world view and deny reality. Don't put science in that boat with you – science takes precisely the opposite approach.

          June 18, 2014 at 2:30 pm |
        • SeaVik

          Regarding the rest of your posts...you pretty much did exactly what the video was making fun of. Saying we shouldn't ask questions (or that we shouldn't try to answer them...or can't possibly answer them) and denying the reality of the age of our earth.

          June 18, 2014 at 2:31 pm |
      • bostontola

        Theo,
        Even if Christians were the only target of all jokes, YOU SHOULDN'T CARE. If you were secure, you simply wouldn't care.

        June 18, 2014 at 1:15 pm |
        • Theo Phileo

          I AM secure in my faith. The reason that this is upsetting to me is because it makes a foolish idol of God by portraying Him in an unglorifying manner... And God commands that when He is referred to, or when we approach Him, He WILL be regarded as holy... (I harshly scolded the neice to my pastor because she publicly and flippantly used "OMG" for a similar reason as this)

          The second commandment forbids us to make and worship any images. We are called to know God ONLY as He revealed Himself, and to serve Him ONLY according to His ordinances, not in any other way devised by human wisdom. “Whatever I command you, be careful to observe it; you shall not add to it nor take away from it” (Deuteronomy 12:32).

          In Leviticus 10:1-3, we read how Nadab and Abihu worshipped God in a manner that was not prescribed, and God killed them for it. Idolatry isn’t just making some thing to bow down to and worship, but it is also worshipping the RIGHT God, but in the WRONG way, and only a worship that begins in heaven is right worship, all else is idolatry.

          Hebrews 10:29 – How much severer punishment do you think he will deserve who has trampled under foot the Son of God, and has regarded as unclean the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has insulted the Spirit of grace?

          June 18, 2014 at 1:20 pm |
        • bostontola

          "The lady doth protest too much, methinks".

          June 18, 2014 at 1:26 pm |
        • SeaVik

          "I harshly scolded the neice to my pastor because she publicly and flippantly used "OMG" for a similar reason as this."

          Poor child. That is truly sick behavior Theo. You are mentally abusing your neice and forcing your insane views on her. Stop it.

          June 18, 2014 at 1:27 pm |
        • Doc Vestibule

          “Whatever I command you, be careful to observe it; you shall not add to it nor take away from it”
          Therefore, pepperoni pizza is an abomination unto the lord and disobedient children should be stoned to death by their family and neighbours.

          June 18, 2014 at 1:31 pm |
        • Theo Phileo

          Pepperoni pizza violates the moral law of God? (Exodus 20:1-17)
          I can't wait to hear this one... How???

          June 18, 2014 at 1:35 pm |
        • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

          "God commands that when He is referred to, or when we approach Him, He WILL be regarded as holy."
          --------------------
          Something that is only binding to believers.

          Let me remind you of something relevant here:
          Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press;

          You simply cannot make your third* commandment into a law.

          * At least I assume for you it is the third. For others it is the second.

          June 18, 2014 at 1:39 pm |
        • Doc Vestibule

          " However, of those that chew the cud or that have a split hoof completely divided you may not eat the camel, the rabbit or the Coney. Although they chew the cud, they do not have a split hoof; they are ceremonially unclean for you. The pig is also unclean; although it has a split hoof, it does not chew the cud. You are not to eat their meat or touch their carcasses."
          – Deuteronomy 14:7

          "Who sit among the graves and spend their nights keeping secret vigil; who eat the flesh of pigs, and whose pots hold broth of unclean meat."
          – Isaiah 65:4

          " Those who eat the flesh of pigs and rats and other abominable things–they will meet their end together," declares the LORD."
          – Isaiah 66:17:

          June 18, 2014 at 1:54 pm |
        • observer

          Doc Vestibule,

          The perfect and unchanging God changed all those rules about food.

          June 18, 2014 at 2:00 pm |
        • Theo Phileo

          Doc, I said MORAL law. You are referring to the civil, ceremonial, and dietary laws. Those were abolished with the New Covenant.

          (A great study of covenant theology can be found here: http://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Covenant-Theology-J-I-Packer-ebook/dp/B008EDG8E2/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1403114607&sr=1-1&keywords=covenant+theology)

          June 18, 2014 at 2:04 pm |
        • Lucifer's Evil Twin

          Those darn Canadians and their continued misspelling of "neighbours" ...and comical pronunciation of "house"

          June 18, 2014 at 2:10 pm |
        • awanderingscot

          O Lord my God, You are very great:
          You are clothed with honor and majesty,
          2 Who cover Yourself with light as with a garment,
          Who stretch out the heavens like a curtain. – Psalms 104:1-2, NKJV

          God is great

          June 18, 2014 at 2:17 pm |
        • Theo Phileo

          "Those darn Canadians and their continued misspelling of "neighbours" ...and comical pronunciation of "house""
          ----------
          Oh, that's nothing... When I was in college, studying to be an architect, I used to pronounce the word facade like "Fa-Cade."

          Hey, when you grow up in Eastern NC speaking Outer Banks English, you begin life with a speech handicap! But I love poking fun at that, I think dialects are really interesting and fun!

          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jXs9cf2YWwg&feature=player_detailpage

          June 18, 2014 at 2:17 pm |
        • Lucifer's Evil Twin

          CNN moderators are removing videos from the blog now and don't want us posting them anymore.. (potential copyright issues)

          June 18, 2014 at 2:24 pm |
        • Lucifer's Evil Twin

          I rent a house down in Corolla almost every year since I moved to Virginia... beautiful beaches. Horrible traffic trying to get through Duck.

          June 18, 2014 at 2:26 pm |
        • Theo Phileo

          "I rent a house down in Corolla almost every year since I moved to Virginia... beautiful beaches. Horrible traffic trying to get through Duck."
          -----------–
          Although I'm a little biased, I think that Eastern NC is about as close to heaven as we're gonna get here on earth. Excepting for the fact that we had good reason to vote the mosquito as our state bird... We were voted out though...

          June 18, 2014 at 2:31 pm |
      • observer

        Theo Phileo,

        The most radical Muslims are following many of the laws set down by God in the Bible when he stated how he wanted things run. They just haven't yet had a Jesus-figure to come along and show them how wrong and barbaric many of God's commands were.

        June 18, 2014 at 1:20 pm |
    • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

      This link was posted here yesterday:

      http://FunnyOrDie.com/m/8d10

      With no comments, which I found curious.

      It started strongly, but lost its way with some tired assertions.

      The criticism I would offer is Shakespeare's "Brevity is the soul of wit". At more than 6 minutes it is way too long and should have been no longer than the advertising spots that it spoofs (and more closely match the editing style of the ads.) Even the 'Creationist Cosmos' video is a 3:17 spoof of almost five hours of programming.

      I wouldn't say I found the video in the link here offensive, though I suspect many here might.

      June 18, 2014 at 1:00 pm |
      • Dalahäst

        That wasn't a FOD original. I think anyone can put something on their site. Search YouTube and other sites to see comments.

        June 18, 2014 at 1:10 pm |
  12. Vic

    ♰♰♰ Jesus Christ Is Lord ♰♰♰

    "God did it" is a comprehensive scholarly statement of total knowledge and wisdom. It encompasses all the underlying sophistication of this existence.

    June 18, 2014 at 12:00 pm |
    • igaftr

      God did it is belief, and as such, is not scholarly in the slightest.

      June 18, 2014 at 12:38 pm |
    • tallulah131

      "God did it" is a simplistic place-holder for those who don't have the patience, curiosity or integrity to seek honest answers.

      June 18, 2014 at 12:53 pm |
      • Dalahäst

        Some of the world's greatest scientists have said "God did it." Some of the fields and disciplines we embrace today came from the minds of scientists who said "God did it."

        June 18, 2014 at 1:12 pm |
        • fintronics

          Bullcrap.. name one scientist who claimed "god did it" as a result of a scientific investigation.

          June 18, 2014 at 1:17 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          “A scientific discovery is also a religious discovery. There is no conflict between science and religion. Our knowledge of God is made larger with every discovery we make about the world.”

          –Joseph H. Taylor, Jr., who received the 1993 Nobel Prize in Physics for the discovery of the first known binary pulsar, and for his work which supported the Big Bang theory of the creation of the universe.

          June 18, 2014 at 1:19 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          “Astronomers now find they have painted themselves into a corner because they have proven, by their own methods, that the world began abruptly in an act of creation to which you can trace the seeds of every star, every planet, every living thing in this cosmos and on the earth. And they have found that all this happened as a product of forces they cannot hope to discover…. That there are what I or anyone would call supernatural forces at work is now, I think, a scientifically proven fact.”

          –Astronomer, physicist and founder of NASA’s Goddard Inst.itute of Space Studies Robert Jastrow

          June 18, 2014 at 1:20 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          “For myself, faith begins with a realization that a supreme intelligence brought the universe into being and created man. It is not difficult for me to have this faith, for it is incontrovertible that where there is a plan there is intelligence—an orderly, unfolding universe testifies to the truth of the most majestic statement ever uttered—-’In the beginning God.’”

          –Arthur Compton, winner of the 1927 Nobel Prize in Physics for his discovery of the Compton Effect.

          June 18, 2014 at 1:20 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          “Let me say that I don’t see any conflict between science and religion. I go to church as many other scientists do. I share with most religious people a sense of mystery and wonder at the universe and I want to participate in religious ritual and practices because they’re something that all humans can share.”

          –Sir Martin Rees, the British cosmologist and astrophysicist who has been Astronomer Royal since 1995 and was the president of the Royal Society between 2005 and 2010. Rees is the winner of the Crafoord Prize (which is the most prestigious award in astronomy), amongst many other awards.

          June 18, 2014 at 1:22 pm |
        • tallulah131

          Any scientist who is content to observe something and conclude that "God did it" is not really a scientist. However, I do believe that there are scientists who wish to believe "God did it" even as they search for the real, honest answers. How they maintain their belief in the face of discovery is their own contradiction to reconcile.

          June 18, 2014 at 1:23 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          No.

          They are real scientists.

          You are not a scientist.

          They contribute to science.

          You do not.

          Very few scientists, even atheist scientists, would claim what you said.

          June 18, 2014 at 1:26 pm |
        • bostontola

          "There is no conflict between science and religion."
          Doesn't that depend on the religion? There are definitely religions that have beliefs in conflict with science.

          "God did it". Science doesn't concern itself much with that statement at all. Science investigates how 'it' was done.

          June 18, 2014 at 1:23 pm |
        • fintronics

          "name one scientist who claimed "god did it" as a result of a scientific investigation...."

          That would be NONE.... thanks for proving my point.

          June 18, 2014 at 1:33 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          They said "God did it"

          and then did something you are incapable of doing at a level they did.

          Demonstrating science.

          June 18, 2014 at 1:38 pm |
        • tallulah131

          Any scientist who is content with the answer "god did it" is not a real scientist. "God did it" is the ultimate cop-out and any scientist who chose that answer would only be hired by religious groups who are more interested in propaganda than they are proof. A scientist may want to believe that "god did it", but if they are doing their job correctly, they won't be looking in a bible for answers.

          June 18, 2014 at 1:38 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          A scientist who happens to believe in God isn't inherently content with the answer "God did it".

          That is why so many scientists, who you say are not scientists because they say "God did it", have done things you haven't.

          Like win recognition from their peers.

          You are trying to limit science. Which isn't helpful.

          Not a real scientist. Ha!

          As if.

          June 18, 2014 at 1:41 pm |
        • tallulah131

          I am not a scientist, but my sister and her husband are. Both work at a major university. They are both members of a religion, and while I don't know the depth of my brother-in-law's faith, I know my sister very much believes in a higher power. Neither of them have ever ONCE claimed that "god did it". They are far too concerned with real causes because they are working toward a cure for a major disease, and they believe that real answers are out there, Claiming "god did it" is offensive to the people who are dying every day while waiting for honest scientists to come up with honest answers.

          I was deliberately vague about my family because I am uncomfortable with telling a story which is not mine to tell. But I assure you that my knowledge of scientists is personal and close. Real scientists don't observe something and claim "god did it". That would be irresponsible, and that sort of irresponsibility has no place in science.

          June 18, 2014 at 1:55 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          Real scientists do believe in God.

          It doesn't matter if your philosophy disagrees with them.

          Scientists are human beings. They aren't gods with access to supreme knowledge. They just study the created universe.

          There is nothing in science that prevents them from being a human being and seeing evidence of a Creator – or seeing no evidence of a Creator and expressing that.

          Scientists are free to believe in God and express that.

          June 18, 2014 at 1:59 pm |
        • tallulah131

          I have never said that real scientists don't believe in god. I know for a fact that some do. What I said was that real scientists are not content to simply say "god did it". That is scientific negligence.

          There are no real creationist scientists. When you give up on looking for honest answers, you are a scientist in name only, by grace of whatever degree you have earned.

          June 18, 2014 at 2:12 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          I'm stating they aren't just being content.

          They are believing in God and making breakthroughs in science.

          And you are just philosophizing. While some scientist thinking "God did it" just discovered something new.

          Don't put limits on science or scientists.

          June 18, 2014 at 2:17 pm |
        • tallulah131

          So Dala, what is your scientific background? Since you are so well versed in the beliefs of scientists, you must be among them a lot.

          June 18, 2014 at 2:48 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          I always did well with biology, not so good with chemistry in school. I'm not a scientist. Although part of my vocation involves computer science. But that is not really as science as we are discussing it. But it does take a good understanding of logic.

          June 18, 2014 at 3:07 pm |
        • fintronics

          @dalah... "They said "God did it".. and then did something you are incapable of doing at a level they did."

          Well since you don't know me or what I'm capable of doing I'd say you're talking out of your azz again... just like when you claim to "know god".. no surprise there,

          June 18, 2014 at 3:24 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          Can you do in science what some people you claim just say "God did it" have done in science?

          June 18, 2014 at 3:43 pm |
        • fintronics

          You made an ignorant statement, now you're asking?..... wow

          June 18, 2014 at 4:20 pm |
        • fintronics

          "Can you do in science what some people you claim just say "God did it" have done in science?"

          I see many deluded believers here claiming "god did it" so the answer is yes.

          Can you or anyone else provide scientific evidence that "god did it"? I'm waiting....

          June 18, 2014 at 4:27 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          There is nothing inherent in my belief in God that prohibits me from accepting scientific evidence.

          I can use it just like you.

          June 18, 2014 at 4:29 pm |
        • fintronics

          and you still haven't answered my question.....

          " name one scientist who claimed "god did it" as a result of a scientific investigation."

          June 18, 2014 at 4:29 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          Most of what I know and you know as a human being isn't the result of a scientific investigation.

          Albert Einstein did say they more he studied science, the more he believed in God. He was a deist, not an atheist or Christian, but he saw a God involved behind science.

          June 18, 2014 at 4:33 pm |
        • tallulah131

          I personally believe Einstein was most likely an agnostic. His comments on belief were complex and sometimes contradictory, but he never flatly admitted to anything. You are welcome to your opinion, but when you claim flat out that Einstein a deist, you are most certainly being dishonest.

          June 18, 2014 at 6:05 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          I might be wrong. Not trying to be dishonest. He certainly was not an atheist. And certainly not a Christian. But did say things about believing in a God.

          June 18, 2014 at 6:08 pm |
        • kudlak

          Dalahäst
          They may have said it, but none have ever demonstrated it professionally, right?

          People often do and say things that they can't justify professionally. Witness now many medical doctors still smoke, for example.

          June 18, 2014 at 8:05 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          Yea. Like Christopher Hitchens used to belittle all religious people for being illogical. Yet he chain smoked cigarettes and drank enormous amounts of alcohol when the dangers of both were widely known by him. The irony was he failed to demonstrate logic in his own life.

          June 18, 2014 at 11:05 pm |
        • fintronics

          "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)

          And while we're at it, claiming god is real because some scientist is a believer in god is a failed argument unless you can provide some direct correlation between his work as a scientist and his belief in god.....

          June 19, 2014 at 9:53 am |
        • Dalahäst

          I made it very clear that Einstein did not believe in a personal God (that he was a deist is). I know I said twice he certainly was not an atheist and not a Christian.

          I also never claimed God is real because so many scientists are believers. Nope.

          I think I was showing that non-scientist internet atheists opinions on science aren't the only opinions on science out there.

          This is an opinion blog! We share our opinions. Usually on the subject of God and religion. It is logical and reasonable to find believers in God here, no? It is not like we are knocking on your door. You choose to come here!

          June 19, 2014 at 9:59 am |
        • fintronics

          " The irony was he failed to demonstrate logic in his own life. "

          Because he drank and smoked, he failed to demonstrate logic in his life?.... Either you're not familiar with his work, or you're once again twisting word definitions, (as you've been know to do) or just flat out lying, either way, again, no surprise from dalah the deflector...

          June 19, 2014 at 10:15 am |
        • fintronics

          "I also never claimed God is real because so many scientists are believers"

          More lies.... you certainly have.... backpedaling again...... a common habit of deluded internet atheist haters.

          June 19, 2014 at 10:20 am |
        • Dalahäst

          You are off the deep end. Quick to call me a liar? Because I disagree with your opinion?

          June 19, 2014 at 10:29 am |
        • Dalahäst

          I'm familiar with Hitchens. He was journalist. And to point out some of his flaws: he was described as a misogynist and held a dubious record in regards to his political stance – especially in regards to the war in Iraq.

          He also did some good things. But he wasn't perfectly logical and it is fair to say he was a bit hypocritical at times.

          I don't try to prove God with quotes from scientists. That is your imagination getting carried away with you. That is in your head.

          June 19, 2014 at 10:27 am |
      • tallulah131

        So basically you are simply making assumptions about scientists and their beliefs, basing it on some quotes you culled from others sources. Yet you make claims like you are an expert on the topic.

        I wonder, when your scientist who is a believer has his "aha" moment, how does he quantify god into his equation? Because if he doesn't put god into the equation, then he really isn't saying "god did it". He is simply believing in god while using scientific principles to solve his questions.

        June 18, 2014 at 3:15 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          No, that is not what I'm doing. I'm showing evidence that not all people agree with what you claim. Some actual scientists disagree with you. And other scientists disagree with them. And science says nothing about it.

          June 18, 2014 at 4:22 pm |
        • tallulah131

          Dala, you just don't get it. Scientists can believe anything they want. What they can't do is put god in the equation and expect their discoveries to be taken seriously. You can't quantify god. You can't even prove that god exists. Do they use prayer to fly planes? Does your doctor simply anoint you with oil and call it good?

          Your god does not belong in science, no matter the personal belief of any particular scientist. If you think otherwise, you don't understand science.

          June 18, 2014 at 6:01 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          You are silly. Pilots who happen to be Christian fly a plane, they do it the same as everyone else. Instead of just praying to your imaginary sky fairy, they do the work. As God intends them to do. And then people, like atheists and scientists who happen to be atheist, place their faith in these men when they fly their planes. And the fact that the man is a Christian doesn't bother them. Because they know Christians are reasonable and capable of piloting airplanes. They aren't idiots just sitting there praying and trying to make the plane work that way.

          Same with the medical fields. Christians built hospitals and studied medicine. Not just prayed for a sky fairy to wave his magic wand.

          June 18, 2014 at 11:31 pm |
        • tallulah131

          Poor obtuse dala. They don't use prayer to fly planes. They use the laws of physics. There is no flight without science. There is no medicine without science. Faith has utterly no effect on the ability of an individual to learn a skill such as piloting or medicine, but the flight and medicine are dependent on natural laws, not religion.

          Perhaps if you read this slowly, you will comprehend it this time:

          You cannot quantify god into an equation. You cannot claim a god as part of a process until you can prove that a god exists. It does not matter what a faith a scientist may follow: If he/she wishes to be taken seriously, they cannot include a god into an explanation or a theory.

          You cannot claim magic as part of an equation, explanation or theory.

          You cannot claim extra-terrestrial intelligence as part of an equation, explanation or theory.

          Gods, magic and extra-terrestrial intelligence cannot be proven to exist, therefore you can't claim their influence, unless you wish to be laughed out of your field.

          I hope you finally understand what I have been trying to say, but I don't hold out a lot of hope. You seem to think that deliberately misunderstanding is a virtue.

          June 19, 2014 at 6:57 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          Most religious people fully embrace science.

          That is why you don't worry if the pilot of your plane is a Christian.

          An atheist who doesn't pray and has no pilot's license < A Christian with a pilot's license who prays twice a day

          June 19, 2014 at 10:48 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          People who say the believe in God win Nobel Prizes/ not get laughed out of their field.

          Thank God most scientists don't think and act like you. And amen!

          June 19, 2014 at 10:50 pm |
    • bostontola

      "scholarly statement of total knowledge"

      I am thinking that many of our disagreements are rooted in subtle differences in our understanding of the meaning of some words. I find "God did it", neither scholarly, nor related to knowledge. It may be a catchy phrase that you imbue with meaning, but others will see different meaning. That is not scholarly. There is serious scholarly work going on in theological schools, raising this to scholarly diminishes that.

      I also think we have very different ideas about what it means to know something. That is fair, you get to decide your own personal threshold for declaring that you know something. Having a deep feeling about something can easily be conflated with knowing something. Where is the line drawn? That is a personal choice. I tend to restrict the term 'know' only to things that have been independently verified. Many things I feel deeply about, or even other things I believe. Some religious people label 'know' to things I label feel or believe.

      When terms mean different things to people, the argument is fruitless. It doesn't matter to me if you think you know God, or you believe in God. The real discussion is whether your God actually exists. Science nor logic will prove or disprove God, although a particular God can have objective evidence for or against it if there is a body of work attributed to the truth of that God (as in the bibles).

      June 18, 2014 at 1:11 pm |
      • awanderingscot

        Thus says the Lord, who stretches out the heavens, lays the foundation of the earth, and forms the spirit of man within him. – Zechariah 12:1b, NKJV

        the Lord God Almighty is the giver of knowledge, not someone with letters after his name!

        June 18, 2014 at 2:21 pm |
        • gulliblenomore

          Scot...church is on Sunday....

          June 18, 2014 at 2:53 pm |
  13. new-man

    the reasons I don't take offense at the video the Belief Blog chose to publish are:
    1. I see it as a sad attempt at stereotyping believers as uncritical non-thinkers with only the default position of "God did it"= MASSIVE FAILURE & LIE
    2. Atheism is not synonymous with being knowledgeable, wise, & scientific as many desperately try to portray. Many atheists have chosen to make science into a religion- it reeks of desperation.
    3. The only ones deceived are the ones who choose mockery thinking they are making fools of believers, but you're wasting your time in trying to insult the intelligence of those who are 'dead to self.' I can assure you that God is not mocked because these very seeds of mockery that you're sowing, you're the very ones who will reap its harvest. That's just the way it is – spiritual law, you know- the ones you all ignore while asking stupid questions when you and those around you begin to reap the harvest of your idle mockery.

    June 18, 2014 at 11:21 am |
    • igaftr

      " I can assure you that God is not mocked "

      What assurance can you give? You can't even show any god exists, so you can assure nothing of the sort.

      " I can assure you that I IMAGINE ( or beleive) God is not mocked." Fixed it for you.

      June 18, 2014 at 11:34 am |
      • new-man

        wrong!
        you have blinded yourself and hidden the truth of God's existence in unrighteousness.
        with all the evidence of God surrounding you, you choose to use your lying lips to declare otherwise! I ASSURE YOU, GOD IS NOT MOCKED!!!!!!!!!

        June 18, 2014 at 11:36 am |
        • Doc Vestibule

          Mock God and He'll send a bear to maul you and your friends!

          June 18, 2014 at 11:43 am |
        • Lucifer's Evil Twin

          LOL

          June 18, 2014 at 11:45 am |
        • igaftr

          newman
          Existance is not evidence of any god.
          Your assurances mean nothing.
          You cannot show any gods exit.
          AS far as any can show, all gods exist in mens imaginations.

          June 18, 2014 at 11:49 am |
        • new-man

          DV,
          correction: Mock a man of God, and that man of God used the power and authority of the WORD to call down a bear to maul the mocker and his friends. Big difference. If you don't see the huge difference then you don't yet know the power of the spoken word under authority.

          June 18, 2014 at 11:56 am |
        • gulliblenomore

          Newman....yeah, big difference. Why no bear for Hitler? I know my mother prayed for one.

          June 18, 2014 at 1:07 pm |
        • Doc Vestibule

          I have no fear of any shaman's magic words or incantations – only the punitive actions of their followers.

          June 18, 2014 at 12:01 pm |
        • observer

          new-man,

          So God sits around and watches the horrendous tragedy of two dozen school kids get slaughtered, but does respond to requests for bears to maul a group of kids for what they SAID.

          Nice guy. You can support that because I sure can't.

          June 18, 2014 at 12:01 pm |
        • Lucifer's Evil Twin

          "Mock a man of God, and that man of God used the power and authority of the WORD to call down a bear to maul the mocker and his friends. Big difference. If you don't see the huge difference then you don't yet know the power of the spoken word under authority." This fairy-tale example of barbarism is proof that your religion is ridiculous superstitious nonsense.

          June 18, 2014 at 12:04 pm |
        • gulliblenomore

          Newman....church is on Sunday. Seriously....unrighteousness?

          June 18, 2014 at 1:06 pm |
        • awanderingscot

          Let them praise the name of the Lord,
          For He commanded and they were created.
          He also established them forever and ever;
          He made a decree which shall not pass away. – Psalms 148:5, NKJV

          God created the universe

          June 18, 2014 at 1:18 pm |
        • gulliblenomore

          Scot....church is on sunday

          June 18, 2014 at 2:54 pm |
        • fintronics

          I've been told here on these blogs...... "you're storing wrath!"........... what a joke...

          June 18, 2014 at 1:19 pm |
        • gulliblenomore

          Fintronics...I've been storing wrath too and glad of it. Can you imagine being stuck with these nuts for eternity?

          June 18, 2014 at 1:28 pm |
        • tallulah131

          Apparently god didn't get the memo, newman. God gets mocked a lot, and he can't seem to do anything about it.

          June 18, 2014 at 1:41 pm |
        • fintronics

          @gull......... Yea, really! I can't imagine being stuck for eternity with these nut jobs..... it's like a bad nightmare I once had.

          Yea, I'm storing wrath.... got a big pile in my garage

          June 18, 2014 at 1:48 pm |
        • igaftr

          "God created the universe"

          Funny considering the fact that from everything we can see, god was created by man.( actually thousands of them)

          June 18, 2014 at 3:25 pm |
    • gulliblenomore

      Newman......this is making a mockery of creationists, not all believers, and in your list, number 1 is definitely true. Creationists need to be mocked in every possible way.

      June 18, 2014 at 11:41 am |
      • awanderingscot

        Lift up your eyes on high,
        And see who has created these things,
        Who brings out their host by number;
        He calls them all by name,
        By the greatness of His might
        And the strength of His power;
        Not one is missing. – Isaiah 40:26, NKJV

        the Lord God Almighty created the universe.

        June 18, 2014 at 1:43 pm |
        • fintronics

          "Facing this stuff in real life is not like school. In school if you make a mistake you can just try again tomorrow, but out there when you're a second away from being murdered or watching a friend die right before your eyes, you don't know what that's like." [Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix]

          June 18, 2014 at 1:51 pm |
  14. idiotusmaximus

    Creationist Cosmos" has an answer for all the mysteries of the Universe: God did it.

    LOOLOLOLOLOLOLOLLOLOLOLOLOL....they always have the short lazy answer to everything.....that's why so many are disappointed with reality and wonder why their prayers don't work...if they're brave enough to actually keep track.

    June 18, 2014 at 10:30 am |
    • Dalahäst

      "I really hate to be the one to break the news, but scientist is not synonymous with atheist. Scientists also don't all have the same gender, race, se.xual orientation or political ideology, much less religion or lack thereof. Whether or not a person is religious, with respect to their vocation as a scientist, is completely irrelevant. Just like se.xual orientation, race and gender should be irrelevant to being a scientist. Reinforcing the scientist = atheist stereotype, whether you are for it or against it, necessarily excludes people. No one should be excluded from science if they want to do it, be excited about it or read about it."

      – Dr Sylvia McLain

      I take it you are not a scientist?

      June 18, 2014 at 11:15 am |
      • new-man

        lol, because that's exactly what I just posted.
        funny these people don't see how desperate they come off trying to 'seem scientific'... science can only explain what God has already done, and science has a lot of catching up to do...

        June 18, 2014 at 11:24 am |
        • observer

          new-man,

          Science says that the Bible is full of nonsense for claiming that the sun and the moon suddenly stopped in orbit.

          Science says that the Bible is full of nonsense for claiming that people could suddenly turn into salt.

          Science says that the Bible is full of nonsense for claiming that the ratio pi is equal to 3.0.

          June 18, 2014 at 11:28 am |
        • Dalahäst

          There is nothing a believer in God can't do in science that an atheist can do in science.

          Both viewpoints can lead to new ideas and breakthroughs. It is pretty anti-science to declare a group unable to conduct science because of a differing belief system.

          But yea, it is generally non-scientists that preach scientism and spread the myth that believers in God just say "God did it". The evidence points to believers in God helping with scientific, technological and medical breakthroughs.

          June 18, 2014 at 11:32 am |
        • new-man

          that's your atheist opinion masquerading as science.
          as I said above science has not been able to explain most things so far – so keep searching friend and stop pretending you have all knowledge.

          June 18, 2014 at 11:32 am |
        • Dalahäst

          Science doesn't say anything.

          June 18, 2014 at 11:34 am |
        • gulliblenomore

          Newman....there is no proof that god created anything. None. No proof. It is just what you believe, nothing more. Don't you people see how desperate you are to explain life that you wave your arms in the air proclaiming "god fit it" every time an explanation is not immediately forthcoming?

          June 18, 2014 at 12:54 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          Instead of waving their arms and saying "God did it"...

          ...or desperately waving their arms and saying "God didn't do it..." like you...

          ...some actually do something and seek how or why things happen. Both believers and non-believers.

          June 18, 2014 at 12:59 pm |
      • In Santa We Trust

        dala, Because some scientists are believers is not evidence of a god – they certainly didn't use the scientific method to establish that. So we're back the usual – you're making a claim with no evidence.

        June 18, 2014 at 11:55 am |
        • Dalahäst

          Santa,

          I didn't say that was evidence of God.

          I know that is all you think about. Evidence of God. And that is all you want to talk about. And anything I talk about you try to turn into evidence about God.

          I think your obsession is evidence of something.

          What is your approach in seeking God? What are you looking for?

          Are you trying to use the scientific method to find God? If so, it sounds like you want an idol – not God.

          June 18, 2014 at 11:58 am |
        • In Santa We Trust

          Isn't everything you post on here predicated on that being true? So surely you'll have evidence to support that or else the rest has no foundation.

          June 18, 2014 at 12:01 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          My posts have limitations,there are a lot of things relevant to the human condition that I cannot answer and am still seeking. So I don't think everything I post is predicated on that being true.

          But I do have evidence that God can answer those things that are very relevant to our human condition that many of us are seeking. So I share about that. It is very logical and reasonable to find a person like me on a religion blog dedicated to faith and belief.

          I used to not have that evidence. And it was sad. I did things like visit religion blogs and try to bully people into submitting into my limited understanding of the universe and how it operates.

          It was a waste of time. I had very little joy. Very little peace. And my posts – even my derogatory user name reflected that.

          I can only assume you visit a religion blog so much and talk about God so much because you lack something? I really don't know. It is speculation. But what you do is very curious.

          June 18, 2014 at 12:11 pm |
        • In Santa We Trust

          What is your approach in seeking leprechauns?

          June 18, 2014 at 2:58 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          I haven't had a chance to talk to any believers in leprechauns or even leprechauns themselves that have mastered a science or have demonstrated a high understanding of logic and reason to me. I'll keep looking at will let you know.

          June 18, 2014 at 3:14 pm |
        • Lucifer's Evil Twin

          The old "passive-aggressive attack on a users name" gambit...

          June 18, 2014 at 12:29 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          ...says the passive-aggressive king – what is LET's Laws always prove? Your passive-aggressiveness.

          Come on!

          I think his name is disrespectful. Nothing passive-aggressive about that. It just reflects his obsession with God in my opinion.

          June 18, 2014 at 12:33 pm |
        • Lucifer's Evil Twin

          LOL... and that's the best you could come up with? Go snuggle up with your Jesus teddy-bear and pray yourself into a religious stupor...

          June 18, 2014 at 1:18 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          Uh.. as you would say 'The old "passive-aggressive attack on a users' belieft" gambit...'

          June 18, 2014 at 1:23 pm |
      • lunchbreaker

        I agree with much of what you said Dalahast and newman, but if you want to combat scientist = atheist (which I agree is just completely wrong, but not sure how many people really have said that and/or believe that), many Christians need to drop the evolutionist = atheist argument. Debating evolution is just fine, but to debate evolution is to debate other members of your own religion.

        June 18, 2014 at 11:59 am |
        • Dalahäst

          Yea. And some atheists do not believe in evolution. Or have any idea what it really entails.

          June 18, 2014 at 12:00 pm |
      • EdSed

        It doesn't matter how many Christian or other religious scientists you trot out, as we knew you would, and as you indeed did ad nauseum. Religion and science are plainly antithetical. Religion requires belief, whereas in science everything should be fully and freely open to question. Imagination is essential to science in various ways, but religion is not imagination; it is rather a sorry byproduct of imagination, in some ways. Religion taints and limits science.

        June 18, 2014 at 2:51 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          Thanks for your opinion.

          Some hold other opinions than you in regards to religion and science.

          I think your viewpoint taints and limits science. But, like you, just my opinion.

          June 18, 2014 at 3:09 pm |
        • EdSed

          No, and that is very deceitful guile that you are again attempting to use in saying that. Look again. What I presented was not "just an opinion". It would serve you well in future to understand and acknowledge why that is the case. Your use of false equivalence above is also noted.

          June 18, 2014 at 7:12 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          There are actual atheist scientists that disagree with you.

          Most scientists are not religious hating atheists.

          I really have no reason to trust what you say. You are an extremist and sound very zealous about your scientism philosophies. The world is a lot more complex than you try to paint it.

          The fact remains – if you wanted to master a new discipline in science there is a high probability that you would learn from a God believer who belongs to a religion. And it is guaranteed you would learn from somebody that doesn't agree with what you preach on this blog. Real scientists that disagree with your opinions on science.

          June 19, 2014 at 9:53 am |
        • fintronics

          Dalah simply does not understand that there is no connection between what someone does professionally (like an airline pilot) and their personal belief in god.

          June 19, 2014 at 10:26 am |
        • fintronics

          What difference does it make that I learned to fly from a pilot who is a god believer? one has nothing to do with the other...
          he is attempting to force a connection between the two where there is none.

          June 19, 2014 at 10:30 am |
    • awanderingscot

      Thus says God the Lord,
      Who created the heavens and stretched them out,
      Who spread forth the earth and that which comes from it,
      Who gives breath to the people on it,
      And spirit to those who walk on it: – Isaiah 42:5, NKJV

      the universe God created is expanding!

      June 18, 2014 at 1:46 pm |
      • fintronics

        "For me, Batman is the one that can most clearly be taken seriously. He's not from another planet, or filled with radioactive gunk. I mean, Superman is essentially a god, but Batman is more like Hercules: he's a human being, very flawed, and bridges the divide."

        Christopher Nolan

        June 18, 2014 at 3:30 pm |
        • tallulah131

          I always preferred Spiderman until they came out with the new, completely unnecessary movies and fiddled with canon.

          June 18, 2014 at 3:40 pm |
  15. Kev

    Seriously – this is what is called satire?

    This is not satire , this is a mockery of everything 'satire' stands for. Amateur and childish is what it is.

    June 18, 2014 at 10:25 am |
    • gulliblenomore

      Kev....creationist idea simply deserve to be mocked. I dint think this video went far enough.

      June 18, 2014 at 10:38 am |
    • Lucifer's Evil Twin

      Lighten up, Francis.

      June 18, 2014 at 10:56 am |
    • awanderingscot

      For thus says the Lord,
      Who created the heavens,
      Who is God,
      Who formed the earth and made it,
      Who has established it,
      Who did not create it in vain,
      Who formed it to be inhabited:
      “I am the Lord, and there is no other. – Isaiah 45:18, NKJV

      June 18, 2014 at 1:49 pm |
      • otoh2

        awander,

        The psongs and psonnets and psymbolic flights of fancy from The Bible are instances of the ancients waxing rhapsodic. They are no more evidence that their fantasies were real than "Over the Rainbow" or "The Big Rock Candy Mountain" are real just because they were fantasized about.

        June 18, 2014 at 1:56 pm |
  16. fintronics

    "Creationist Cosmos" has an answer for all the mysteries of the Universe: God did it."

    Isn't that the default position of believers? If science has yet to provide an answer for an unknown, "that's god" if we don't understand it now, "that's god"

    As time goes on, they won't be able to rely on mythology for answers to the unknown.

    June 18, 2014 at 9:49 am |
    • Vic

      I believe there is a lot of misconceptions about believers regarding God & Science. Yes, we believe "God did it;" meanwhile, we use whatever means available to study how what God created works, hence Science. In the pursuit of understanding our own reality, that we believe God created, Christians, for the most part, founded the branches of Modern Science as well as the Modern Scientific Method. Unfortunately, this has become severely under appreciated.

      June 18, 2014 at 10:01 am |
      • midwest rail

        Perhaps if the majority of modern evangelicals didn't ignore the scientific method, that wouldn't be a problem.

        June 18, 2014 at 10:04 am |
      • Doc Vestibule

        Early scientific endeavours do indeed owe much to the Church.
        Prior to the 20th century, clergy were amongst the few literate castes in society and thus some of the greatest discoveries in science were made by monks, priests, and others sponsored by the church.

        As we have become more sophisticated in our understanding of the mechanisms behind the universe's workings, God's role in the grand scheme of things has been pushed farther and farther back.
        Now, literal, creationist religion is an artefact. We've managed to describe, well, almost everything, in physical terms. We've even managed to explain a great deal, too.
        God, well, he and his kin have been relegated by science to the very beginning of time, the exact moment of the big bang, when all the matter in the Universe was concentrated into one minute area. Everything after that time is accounted for by physics, if only in a general way. And even then, God seems highly improbable. Science says that God is irrelevant to everything we do and everything we are; that means we have to work to make everything we do and everythig we are relevant; and that's hard.
        It goes further. More than just keeping an imaginary friend around to make the world seem less bleak, some religious people DO understand some basic facts about objectivity and credibility, and attempt to prove religion, an ultimately unprovable hypothesis by its very belief-based nature. This gets funny, because "facts" become tools that must be selectively presented. This is a rigourous process of double-think, where some things are ignored or made smaller while others are made huge and important. The common thread, however, is the inability to reconcile some things with others: reality with aggrandizement, hope with reality, anecdote with fact, ideas with proof. Everything is fair game, even if some of it is basically assumed and other stuff is questioned so rhetorically as to lose all meaning.
        I have a hard time wrapping my head around the average creationist's intellectual blindness, the dogma of credibility and the confusion of basic assumptions with actual reality. You can come up with anything depending upon where you start. But if you don't start from reality, you'll never get the right answer.

        June 18, 2014 at 10:31 am |
      • gulliblenomore

        Vic....do you believe in the absolutely proven concept of evolution?

        June 18, 2014 at 10:45 am |
        • Vic

          Don't be offended but I respect science too much to call 'Evolution of Species' proven, so, no.

          June 18, 2014 at 10:58 am |
        • gulliblenomore

          Vic....I'm not offended, but it might offend every scientist that knows, through peer review, that evolution is proven. Oh, and every University in the U.S. Where evolution is taught as fact.

          I only asked to see how much you really respect science. I see now that you respect science only as long as it does not counter your belief system. Got it.

          June 18, 2014 at 11:06 am |
        • awanderingscot

          By faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that the things which are seen were not made of things which are visible. – Hebrews 11:3, NKJV

          June 18, 2014 at 2:01 pm |
        • igaftr

          Through reason we understand that we don't know what created existance, but understand men will create gods to explain that which they do not understand.
          Igafter 15:21

          June 18, 2014 at 3:22 pm |
    • kudlak

      Nowadays, it's more like "God did it, but in a way that looks completely natural, as though he didn't have a hand in it, ... but we know that he still did it!!!"

      June 18, 2014 at 10:27 am |
    • idiotusmaximus

      Even if we UNDERSTAND IT NOW they will still say it's ALL GOD.

      June 18, 2014 at 10:31 am |
    • Dalahäst

      A scientist who happens to be a believer doesn't just simply say "God did it". They study and pioneer in science like any other scientist.

      There is nothing that a non-believer scientist can do that a believer scientist can do. It is a myth that a scientist who happens to be a believer settles with "God did it". That is like saying an anti-theist scientist simply says "God didn't do it". Or an evolutionist just says "evolution did it." Or a Richard Dawkins' disciple says "a leprechaun did it."

      June 18, 2014 at 10:56 am |
      • Lucifer's Evil Twin

        Definition of oxymoron = "believer scientist"

        June 18, 2014 at 10:59 am |
        • Dalahäst

          Says the guy who probably can't do what some believer scientists do:

          – Like father/mother a field of science.

          – Win a Nobel Prize.

          – Get paid to teach science to non-scientists like you.

          – Discover something groundbreaking that changes the way we all view science.

          June 18, 2014 at 11:06 am |
        • Dalahäst

          "The cartoon stereotype that all scientists are religion-hating atheists isn't just annoying; it is harmful. It is divisive and does nothing to encourage people into scientific discovery. In fact, it reinforces the idea that only a certain type of person can do science. This is not true. Professional science has enough diversity problems as it is, with women and minorities still grossly under-represented, without throwing religious-typing in there too. Public scientists and critics alike need to take a bit more care in lumping all scientists into the same stereotypical category. The world is much more complex than that."

          – Dr Sylvia McLain

          Stop LET's Rules of Ignorance from ruining our science.

          June 18, 2014 at 11:09 am |
        • Dalahäst

          What survey team conducted that study and what questions did they ask?

          Why does Pew Research studies put the number lower?

          Most atheists are not scientists. Nor is there atheism based in science.

          June 18, 2014 at 11:21 am |
        • Doc Vestibule

          When you get into the field of biology, the number of believer scientists drops to almost none.
          Creationist Biologist really is oxymoronic.

          Sometimes you find folk, like a certain Dr. Snelling, who try to straddle both sides of the fence.
          When wearing his Creationist hat, Snelling publishes articles espousing a Young Earth worldview (less than 10,000 years old). When speaking as a geologist for peer-reviewed scientific publications, Snelling routinely references ages that are millions of years.
          The degree of double-think required to maintain a literal interpretation of the Bible while pursuing unbiased scientific inquiry is astounding.

          June 18, 2014 at 11:24 am |
        • Dalahäst

          Was that the study from 1998 you reference?

          Another around that time found:

          "American Men and Women of Science in 1996, results were very much the same with 39.3% believing God exists, 45.3% disbelieved, and 14.5% had doubts/did not know."

          June 18, 2014 at 11:24 am |
        • Lucifer's Evil Twin

          John Winger: Why'd the chicken cross the road?
          Soldiers: To get from the left to the right
          John Winger: He stepped out of rank, got hit by a tank
          Soldiers: He ain't no chicken no more

          June 18, 2014 at 11:34 am |
        • new-man

          you make that moronic statement because YOU have no clue what science is, nor what a scientist does.

          clue for you – science is not an atheist religion, though you're desperately trying to make it one.
          science is just a language, a means of trying to explain what God has already created.

          technology produces useful products.

          June 18, 2014 at 12:33 pm |
        • gulliblenomore

          Newman....you have no proof that any god, let alone your particular god created anything. None. No proof. It is just what you believe

          June 18, 2014 at 1:12 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          new-man

          There is something called scientism. It is kind of an atheist/science religion. Not many scientists follow it. But there are a significant number of atheists that preach and follow it. Luckily, most atheists do not believe in scientism. But the ones that do are very vocal about it. And they usually choose religion blogs to preach about it.

          June 18, 2014 at 12:37 pm |
        • Lucifer's Evil Twin

          @new – how do you even tie your shoes in the morning? Or do you use those velcro straps?

          June 18, 2014 at 12:39 pm |
        • observer

          new-man

          "science is just a language, a means of trying to explain what God has already created."

          Nonsense. That is not the goal of science.

          The beginnings of studying math and science originated mainly in ancient Greece, not with any believers in God.

          June 18, 2014 at 12:41 pm |
        • igaftr

          LET
          Oxymoron+ Billy Mayes or Anthony Sullivan

          June 18, 2014 at 12:47 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          "The beginnings of studying math and science originated mainly in ancient Greece, not with any believers in God."

          They believed in gods. Like Asclepius the god of medicine.

          June 18, 2014 at 12:48 pm |
        • new-man

          Dalahast,
          thanks,
          I've seen you use that term before, but I just thought it was a term you made up to label their desperate attempt at conversion of science into religion.
          now I know better. thank you.

          June 18, 2014 at 12:49 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism

          June 18, 2014 at 12:50 pm |
        • Lucifer's Evil Twin

          I like how a comment I made about the idiocy of religion... gets 'believers' all riled up and they start accusing me of believing science is my religion. They fail to see that their superstitious belief in a deity to keep the boogieman away... does not translate into me requiring to adopt some other religious framework to replace theirs. i.e. I don't believe in their god... so I must need to replace it with some other equally ridiculous belief system.

          June 18, 2014 at 12:56 pm |
        • Lucifer's Evil Twin

          @igaftr – HA!

          June 18, 2014 at 12:57 pm |
        • Lucifer's Evil Twin

          @igaftr – I forgot who said it first but "Mormon...the second "m" is silent."

          June 18, 2014 at 1:00 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          Belief in God doesn't simply mean supersti.tious belief in a deity to keep the boogieman away. There is evidence against that opinion of yours. You can preach that if you want.

          June 18, 2014 at 1:16 pm |
        • zhilla1980wasp

          @dala:

          if you truly researched human history you would find the ancient chinese created a lot of inventions, namely mathmatics.
          take a look at the governmental systems the pagan greeks created.
          let's not forget the military tactics the romans invented; plus the fact of allowing anyone to join the military.
          the middle east and ancient arabia (iraqi) was known far and wide for it's scienctists. bagdad was once called the "city of light" due to the number of literate scollars that were there.

          your unknown,unnamed "god" merely rode the shirt tails of those that were in front of him.

          June 18, 2014 at 1:24 pm |
        • Lucifer's Evil Twin

          He is just going to claim that his 'god' works in mysterious ways and claim ownership.

          June 18, 2014 at 1:27 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          Uh, no. I think you missed the point.

          June 18, 2014 at 1:30 pm |
        • Lucifer's Evil Twin

          “Religion: the word of man trying to convince other men that it is the word of God” ~LET

          The only point to western religion is to frighten children and to keep them in line. And they need your money...

          June 18, 2014 at 1:37 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          That is why I don't follow Western Religion.

          In my 'religion', we don't have much money. What we have, we give to those in need.

          June 18, 2014 at 1:48 pm |
        • Lucifer's Evil Twin

          You have stopped providing any comedic relief to me... moving on to someone funnier...

          June 18, 2014 at 1:55 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          says the guy who hates religion but visits religion blogs everyday.

          June 18, 2014 at 2:00 pm |
        • Lucifer's Evil Twin

          Still not funny... and I don't come on here every day.

          June 18, 2014 at 2:05 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          Thanks for your input. It sounds like it is very important to you. Hold on to that. Your opinions and feelings matter. Thanks for sharing your beliefs with me. I'm sorry I don't entertain you. I'll work on a character for you.

          June 18, 2014 at 2:11 pm |
        • Lucifer's Evil Twin

          Oh my god, they killed Kenny! Those bastards!

          June 18, 2014 at 2:13 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          That is always funny. Repeating South Park. That is funny how you have a South Park looking character for your avatar. Lol!

          June 18, 2014 at 2:18 pm |
      • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

        "A scientist who happens to be a believer doesn't just simply say "God did it".
        -----------------------
        No, nor are a large number of believers "creationists".

        It is however fair to describe the creationists view of cosmology as "God did it".

        As parodied in this video, it is Evangelical Protestants (like Baptists) who form the core of "creationists".

        June 18, 2014 at 11:16 am |
        • Dalahäst

          "Isn't that the default position of believers?" he asked.

          June 18, 2014 at 11:27 am |
        • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

          fintronics posed this assertion:
          "If science has yet to provide an answer for an unknown, "that's god" if we don't understand it now, "that's god" (my emphasis)
          --------------------------
          Which is a reasonable statement for believers who do embrace generally accepted "science". Things that broadly accepted science does not yet adequately explain – like sentience/consciousness or what happened before the big bang are understandably given supernatural causes by such people.

          The video is a pointed commentary on people who wholly reject contemporary astronomy and geology, but not believers who embrace the well accepted theories.

          June 18, 2014 at 11:53 am |
        • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

          Where does one go to get a definitive ruling on which cults are truly christian?
          ---------------------–
          Self-identification is the inevitable approach and why there are thousands of sects.

          "Ask two rabbis and get three answers."

          June 18, 2014 at 11:55 am |
        • Dalahäst

          "As time goes on, they won't be able to rely on mythology for answers to the unknown."

          Believers in God (as well as all other groups of people) generally provide more answers to the unknown than the typical atheist blog poster who does not have a scientific background or credentials to speak for science.

          June 18, 2014 at 12:16 pm |
        • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

          'Believers in God (as well as all other groups of people) generally provide more answers to the unknown than the typical atheist blog poster who does not have a scientific background or credentials to speak for science'
          -------------------------–
          I was originally going to challenge this as an unfounded opinion and and evidence of axe to grind with all the people who reflexively challenge you here, but I've changed my mind.

          Of course believers have more answers to the unknown.

          The unknown is literally and precisely that – unknown. I think 'no answer' should be expected from atheists with or without a strong background in science when the answer is unknown. Beliefs in the supernatural are the imagined answers to the unknown and unknowable – like believing in a life after death. It is a matter of faith.

          June 18, 2014 at 12:29 pm |
        • fintronics

          "Believers in God (as well as all other groups of people) generally provide more answers to the unknown than the typical atheist blog poster who does not have a scientific background or credentials to speak for science."

          Another statement from deluded imagination unless of course you can provide sources to back it up.
          Of course you "know" and can speak about the "typical atheist blog poster" just like you "know" god.

          Yup..... anti-logic

          June 18, 2014 at 12:30 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          Thanks for illustrating my point fintronics.

          June 18, 2014 at 12:39 pm |
        • fintronics

          What a hypocrite....

          June 18, 2014 at 12:57 pm |
        • fintronics

          "Believers in God (as well as all other groups of people) generally provide more answers to the unknown..."

          attempted answers to the unknown that are based on mythology, imagination and superst-ition are not valid answers.

          another fail from dalah...

          June 18, 2014 at 1:01 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          Humans are simply not built to be coldly logical. It’s simply not human nature. As such, science by itself cannot be used as the sole basis for a world view. It denies the irrational, the creative, things without which science cannot operate, because we, as humans, cannot operate without it.

          June 18, 2014 at 1:18 pm |
        • zhilla1980wasp

          @dala:
          "Believers in God (as well as all other groups of people) generally provide more answers to the unknown than the typical atheist blog poster who does not have a scientific background or credentials to speak for science."

          ok believer challenge accepted:
          test your might!

          1) explain how your god create the universe.
          1a) i will explain the beginnings of the universe according to known physics

          2) explain how the human body in all it's flaws was created by a perfect being.
          2a) i will explain how evolution takes place from the single cell to the multi-celled creatures.

          3) explain why you are so ignorant of science
          3a) i can answer this one right now...................you are so full of buybull that you are simply regurgetating it back out with no proof (faith) and circular logic.

          June 18, 2014 at 1:37 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          Uh, that is weird what you just did.

          You missed the point.

          You just explained what is known. We are talking about what is unknown. And many of the theories you reference findings from believers in God. They agree with you that those are known. So do I.

          June 18, 2014 at 1:46 pm |
        • zhilla1980wasp

          @dala:
          "Humans are simply not built to be coldly logical. It’s simply not human nature. As such, science by itself cannot be used as the sole basis for a world view. It denies the irrational, the creative, things without which science cannot operate, because we, as humans, cannot operate without it."

          irrational is emotions...........and yes with a well trained mind you can seperate your emotions from the logic centers of the brain.
          i was trained how to not only from my discipline teacher as a child but also from the army so as to not have my emotions get in the way of firing on targets that haunt soldiers afterwards........i.e. women, children that are used as explosive carriers.

          the creative comes from the imagination which most adults lose most access to due to our brains becoming more streamlined for whatever task we grew up doing. children have the best imaginations and they can take a life of their own with imaginary friends and boogeymen in the closet. they can also see the simplest route to complex problems, well if you listen to what children have to say.

          no emotion required for science, it's simply hypothesis, test data, results repeat.
          what is so hard about that? why would you get emotional about a result one way or another?

          it's simply DATA. if i found data supporting the idea that a drug i created could cure cancer why would i get excited? i wouldn't; the lives that medicine would save would make me excited, not the data i would gain from testing a hypothesis.

          oh and BTW, the found that you can destroy cancer cells if you flood the body with high levels of pathogens that can be cured.
          a women classified as terminal, is still alive today thanks to that.
          a man in england thanks to the discovery of DELTA-32 is alive because they discovered a human gene, that blocked HIV; this guy had full blown AIDS. now he shows no signs of the illness.

          who has your god saved lately? NO ONE. he sent two tornados though to those evil nebraskans.

          June 18, 2014 at 1:49 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          You sound like you were brainwashed by the government.

          Most of our greatest scientific and technological advances come from creative and imaginative thinking. And emotions also lead to great scientific and technological breakthroughs.

          Straight, logical and rigid thinking rarely considers new ideas. People that dare to be illogical and irrational and childish do consider new ideas.

          Keep an open mind.

          June 18, 2014 at 1:55 pm |
  17. Vic

    Look at the bright side, this video is a great opportunity for people to hear about God, and it is informative BTW, it is a "the glass is half full" opportunity at no cost. We can't have the perfect opportunity for everything and all the time.

    I couldn't help it LOL at the video, it is very funny, and I loved it. I might feel offended a little as a believer but I didn't, rather, I felt it was ice breaking. I get a kick out of a lot of satire like that, this video has nothing on South Park.

    June 18, 2014 at 9:48 am |
    • Science Works

      Hey Vic visit the Hall of Human Origins you might learn something maybe !

      http://www.amnh.org/exhibitions/permanent-exhibitions/human-origins-and-cultural-halls/anne-and-bernard-spitzer-hall-of-human-origins?gclid=CPvxypf9g78CFQcJaQod4Y0ATA

      June 18, 2014 at 1:51 pm |
  18. Lucifer's Evil Twin

    I am guessing that the word filter restrictions have been expanded?

    June 18, 2014 at 9:45 am |
    • otoh2

      Uh oh - what new problems have you run across?

      June 18, 2014 at 11:16 am |
      • Lucifer's Evil Twin

        words that I have positicely used before, but now I have to add breaks into them Religiosity for example

        June 18, 2014 at 11:33 am |
      • Lucifer's Evil Twin

        and apparently 'chicken' now also requires a word break

        June 18, 2014 at 11:35 am |
      • Lucifer's Evil Twin

        I just had to put a break in 'LOL'

        June 18, 2014 at 11:49 am |
        • igaftr

          LET
          Clear your browser cache and try it again.

          June 18, 2014 at 1:04 pm |
        • Lucifer's Evil Twin

          Clearing the cache and restarting the browser did not work

          June 18, 2014 at 1:40 pm |
      • otoh2

        test
        religiosity chicken lol

        June 18, 2014 at 12:37 pm |
        • otoh2

          hmmm, those went through for me - I wonder what the glitch is...?

          June 18, 2014 at 12:39 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          Some God did it.

          June 18, 2014 at 2:40 pm |
  19. Reality

    If you have not already done so, please watch Julia Sweeney's monologue "Letting Go of God".

    Julia Sweeney, Letting Go of God

    (Ex-Catholic, now atheist) Julia Sweeney's monologue "Letting Go Of God" is one of the final nails in the coffin of religious belief/faith and is and will continue to be more effective than any money-generating book or blog.

    Buy the DVD or watch it on Showtime. Check your cable listings.

    from http://www.amazon.com

    "Letting Go of God ~ Julia Sweeney (DVD – 2008)
    Five Star Rating

    June 18, 2014 at 8:52 am |
    • gulliblenomore

      Reality.....awesome recommendation. It is a great monologue! I recommend it to all my Christian family, but of course, they refuse to watch it

      June 18, 2014 at 8:55 am |
    • lordssword

      Who has measured the waters in the hollow of His hand,
      Measured heaven with a span
      And calculated the dust of the earth in a measure?
      Weighed the mountains in scales
      And the hills in a balance?
      Who has directed the Spirit of the Lord,
      Or as His counselor has taught Him?
      With whom did He take counsel, and who instructed Him,
      And taught Him in the path of justice?
      Who taught Him knowledge,
      And showed Him the way of understanding? Isaiah 40:12-14

      June 18, 2014 at 9:13 am |
      • gulliblenomore

        Sword....church is on Sunday.

        June 18, 2014 at 9:21 am |
      • Lucifer's Evil Twin

        LET's Religiosity Law #3 – When a Christian reaches for their book to reference a quote... you know they are about to lie their ass off...

        LET's Religiosity Law #4 – If you habitually spout off verses from your "holy" book to make whatever inane point you're trying to make, with total disregard to the recipients' beliefs or disbeliefs, and not once does it occur to you to question whether your book is accurate in the first place, then you are intellectually destitute.

        June 18, 2014 at 9:42 am |
      • fintronics

        Quotes from mythology again?.... how convincing...

        June 18, 2014 at 10:28 am |
    • fintronics

      I'm going to order that today....

      June 18, 2014 at 10:28 am |
      • fintronics

        ....... the DVD....

        June 18, 2014 at 10:29 am |
  20. jknbt

    thanks wandering scot and new-man for your positive comments...

    want to stretch your forebrain a little? if you mind is not closed like a shut steel trap, try this on for size....go to this website for some discussions and information about creation studies...you might learn something....do a google search for:

    reasons to believe . org

    June 18, 2014 at 8:39 am |
    • igaftr

      That site is hilarious..thanks for the laugh.

      Their bias is quite evident, they do what all of these belief based sites do. They do not present arguments, they attack the sciences, even going so far as to misrepresent the words of well respected scientists.

      These guys would be really funny, if it wasn't so sad.

      Why do they always attack science, rather than present a solid case of their own?...simple. They have NOTHING that can be verified or validated...weak attacks on valid science is all they have.

      June 18, 2014 at 9:27 am |
      • awanderingscot

        unverifiable "knowledge" presented as knowledge should be confronted.

        June 18, 2014 at 9:41 am |
        • igaftr

          scot
          you have proven countless times you do not know what knowledge means. You even tried to present known hoaxes as "evidence".You cited a source that specifically siad not to cite it.

          Get some education.

          June 18, 2014 at 9:59 am |
        • awanderingscot

          ig and air
          well look who showed up, dumb and dumber, lol

          June 18, 2014 at 10:29 am |
        • gulliblenomore

          Scot....Jesus must be so proud of you.....

          June 18, 2014 at 10:42 am |
        • gulliblenomore

          Ace....can I join too? I'd hate to be affiliated in any way to scot. He has proven over and over what an ignoramus he truly is.

          June 18, 2014 at 10:43 am |
        • awanderingscot

          air
          thx, i'll remember that when you beg me for some water to cool your tongue.

          June 18, 2014 at 10:44 am |
        • awanderingscot

          dumb, dumber, and now dumbest. oh boy i'm in trouble now, lol

          June 18, 2014 at 10:45 am |
        • gulliblenomore

          Scot....chances are, if you are an azzhole on this blog (and you are), then you are an azzhole in life. You should be happy though....they just raised the minimum wage, so you might make more than 10.00 an hour now!

          June 18, 2014 at 10:48 am |
        • igaftr

          And there goes scot again, can't think of anything intelligent, so turns to insults.
          Grow up scot.

          June 18, 2014 at 10:45 am |
        • awanderingscot

          D0C
          thanks for that wonderful obfuscation, one can always depend on you to give a straight answer. i can't blame you though, who really wants to admit to supporting the butchery of unborn, defenseless children.

          June 18, 2014 at 10:52 am |
        • observer

          awanderingscot

          "who really wants to admit to supporting the butchery of unborn, defenseless children."

          Yes, God was sure BRUTAL to EVERY child, baby and fetus on the face of the earth.

          June 18, 2014 at 10:55 am |
        • Doc Vestibule

          @Scot
          My stated position regarding abortion has been consistent here for as long as I've been posting.
          All I did yesterday was call you out on your assumption that I must be pro-choice, which in your view is semantically equivalent to pro-abortion (or being in favour of murdering children as you put it).
          That's like saying that someone who believes in the 1st amendment must be pro-Nazi. If you think there should be no limits to free speech, then obviously you must at least tacitly agree with every thing said or printed, including neo-nazi propaganda.

          June 18, 2014 at 11:04 am |
      • Doc Vestibule

        Remember kids, God isn't "supernatural" – He is hypernatural.

        June 18, 2014 at 9:41 am |
        • awanderingscot

          so are you pro-choice or pro-life? you seem to vacillate quite a lot.

          June 18, 2014 at 10:27 am |
        • Doc Vestibule

          @Scot
          It doesn't matter one whit what my personal opinions are because I am a male.
          Whether to carry a child to term or not cannot ever be my choice – I can only choose whether or not to support my partner in her decision.
          In biological terms, a man's contribution to the process is over faster than you can say "zygote".

          If your mother were on life-support, I wouldn't deign to tell you whether or not you should pull the plug – and neither should the state.

          June 18, 2014 at 10:37 am |
        • Doc Vestibule

          @scot
          If a blastocyst is the same as a child, then an acorn is the same as an oak tree and squirrels are responsible for uncountable volumes of deforestation.

          June 18, 2014 at 10:57 am |
        • Doc Vestibule

          During the last 100 years or so, medical science has, in the 1st world anyways, cut infant mortality rates from 50% to 2%. We also live a lot longer than we did even a few generations ago.
          It is nigh genocidal to encourage people to keep spitting out as many cr0tch critters as they can (looking at you Catholics and Quiverfull cults!). It is foolish not to provide an 'out' for those who conceived accidentally and haven't the means or the desire to care for a child.
          Of course the ideal would be to educate people about their options pre-conception and to provide safe, easy accessible and societally condoned contraception so that abortion is not needed – but cold hard reality shows that foolish people will still breed accidentally.
          I'll not even get into the idiocy of denying abortion to victims of r.ape/incest. How could any mother help but see that child as a daily reminder of the trauma they endured? Such resentment, whether overt or subconscious, is not healthy for either parent or child.
          Unwanted pregnancies can be tragic – but unwanted CHILDREN are much worse.
          There are around a half million kids in foster care in the U.S.
          Fully 1/4 of adopted kids between the ages of 12 and 17 will be returned to orphanages by the adoptive parents.
          3 times the cost of foster care, and 10 times the cost of welfare, is the cost to operate an orphanage.
          50% of street kids in the US are runaways from foster homes.
          40% of adoptees wind up in schools for disturbed children.
          Over 65% of inmates in California were foster kids.
          Of the 15,000 orphans aging out of state-run inst.itutions every year, 10% committed suicide, 5,000 were unemployed, 6,000 were homeless and 3,000 were in prison within three years.
          That's what I mean when I say that unwanted children are worse than unborn children.

          s each and every foetus and infant precious to God?
          It seems to depend on one's definition of "precious".
          Newborn males are worth 5 shekels and females (of course being inferior) are worth 3. (Leviticus 27:6)
          The low estimate isn't too surprising as they are not to be counted as real people yet (Numbers 3:15).
          This is fairly practical assessment given the infant mortality rate 2,000 years ago.
          But if the child was conceived out of wedlock, God suggests burning the mother and foetus together (Genesis 38:24).
          Does that mean that they go to Hell together, or does the unborn go to purgatory, limbo or Heaven?

          But at what point does a blastocyst get divinely endowed with a soul?
          Thomas Aquinas said males get a soul after 40 days and females after 80. Therefore, they aren't people in the early stages of gestation. Many Jewish theologans believed that ensoulment took place with the first breath of air – the soul enters the body at birth at leaves at death, in other words. Muslim scholars traditionally taught that God sends an angel to form a foetal soul after 42 nights.

          But beyond debating mytholigical minutiae, there are real world consequences and considerations when taking a hardline pro-life stance. The nation of Chile absolutely bans abortion is any circu/mstance, including in the case of an 11 year old whose father-in-law ra/ped her last year. Despite popular protest, she is being forced to carry to term.

          And what of a mother's right to self-determination? There are no laws stopping a pregnant woman from adversly affecting foetal development by smoking, drinking or poor diet. Should all pregnant women be required by law to do everything possible to encourage optimal foetal development?

          Even amongst staunch pro-lifers, there are vast seas of contradictory views.
          All life is sacred – until it is born. A good portion of Republican pro-lifers want the kids born, but not thereafter fed, housed, clothed, or educated. This is evident by the way in which they consistently vote against social programmes that would assist at risk youth.
          At the extreme end of the spectrum is the outright hyprocrisy of folk like The Army of God and other (self-professed) Christian groups who kill doctors that deign to discuss abortion with their patients.
          And such confusing messages are being taught to young women in the US.
          We say “here, have a condom. No, I can’t tell you more, or your parents will sue. Sure, you’ll have s.ex anyway, but we can’t give the impression that we approve, so we just won’t tell you about how to handle it if it does happen.”
          People think that being a mother is good, except we tell them not to get pregnant. Motherhood is grand, but it’ll wreck your life. If you give up a kid for adoption, you’re a failure! If you get pregnant, you’re a failure! Young, unwed women get demonized, and yet the same people make the choice to carry to term and give the kid for adoption seem worse than abortion.
          We need to encourage people to have abortions if they must, and make damn sure that the next generation doesn’t have to.
          We need to stop arguing about the semantic evils of abortion and concentrate on making it unnecessary.

          June 18, 2014 at 11:17 am |
      • jknbt

        your comments are superficial...you only looked long enough to justify your bigotry and ignorance...

        so go back, read, study, learn....the people on their have doctorates, high IQ's, & forebrains (not like you)....if you are as smart and scientific if you think you are, you can afford to learn from them

        June 18, 2014 at 12:46 pm |
        • igaftr

          Each of the articles I looked at, the first thing they did was create a strawman of the scientific position and then attacked it. No one can learn anything from them.

          June 18, 2014 at 12:51 pm |
    • awanderingscot

      JKNBT
      thanks much friend, I'll check it out

      June 18, 2014 at 9:33 am |
    • lunchbreaker

      Well, a positive of the site is that it supports both the Big Bang and evolution. I'm still not sold on the conclusion that the Christian God, or any god, caused those things to occur, but I respect that they aren't trying to disprove those theories.

      And as a side note, I 've said many times before that debating Big Bang/evolution as if it were a clean theist vs atheist debate is a waste of time. Many Christians and adherents to other religions see no conflict between said theories and thier beliefs.

      If I have any religious revelations in the future I doubt it will come from a science book. Any inner inklings I have that thier may be a creator come from within.

      June 18, 2014 at 9:46 am |
      • gulliblenomore

        Lunch....evolution is consistently contested by creationists, but then again, they are just nuts.

        June 18, 2014 at 9:49 am |
    • nojinx

      On open mindedness:

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T69TOuqaqXI

      June 18, 2014 at 11:29 am |
      • Theo Phileo

        Do you ever hear anybody say, “Well, I have an open mind.” Well shut it because you’ve got to decide what to let in and what to keep out. Having an open mind is not a virtue. That’s one step above being a moron. Render a judgment on something. It’s like the people who say, “I am an agnostic,” proudly, from the Greek, one who doesn’t know. They do, “I’m an agnostic.” You hear people say that. You know what the Latin word for agnostic is? Ignoramus. You hear anybody say, “I’m an ignoramus?” Really? You have a door on your house and the reason you have a door on your house is to keep some things in and some things out. You want to keep the cool air in, the children and everything else that belongs to you. And you shut the door to keep those things in. You make a judgment as to when you open it and when you don’t. That’s why you have a hole in it, right? You don’t live in your neighborhood with your door wide open and welcome everybody. You’d be a fool. Too much danger. You make a discerning decision when you shut the door and that’s a great analogy for the mind.
        >Dr. John MacArthur

        June 18, 2014 at 11:36 am |
        • Doc Vestibule

          “The hardest part about gaining any new idea is sweeping out the false idea occupying that niche. As long as that niche is occupied, evidence and proof and logical demonstration get nowhere. But once the niche is emptied of the wrong idea that has been filling it — once you can honestly say, ‘I don’t know’, then it becomes possible to get at the truth.”

          ― Robert A. Heinlein

          June 18, 2014 at 11:39 am |
        • Theo Phileo

          Why continue to have an open mind about things which are known to be true? In the man, Jesus, we have found truth in primary causality, spirituality, and theology.

          Any scientific inquiry into our naturalistic realm falls into the category of a study of secondary causality, and for that there is reason for much observation and experimentation. The fact that it is difficult to get ultimate understanding of any natural occurance is but a testament to the complexity and beauty of this world created all for the glory of God.

          June 18, 2014 at 11:52 am |
        • Doc Vestibule

          "Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blind-folded fear."

          – Thomas Jefferson

          June 18, 2014 at 11:58 am |
        • Theo Phileo

          ""Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blind-folded fear.""
          ---------------
          First off, I don't know why so many people quote the founding fathers as if they were superhuman. The only thing that separates them from any bloke off of the street today is that they were willing to die for something they were passionate about. Precious few in this world today are passionate enough to be willing to die for ANYTHING.

          Next, I did question if God exists. I discovered through scholarly inquiry that He does. The mutable, contingent nature of physical reality proves that there must be a transcendant, non-physical, and eternal enti.ty.

          June 18, 2014 at 12:45 pm |
        • observer

          Theo Phileo

          "The mutable, contingent nature of physical reality proves that there must be a transcendant, non-physical, and eternal enti.ty."

          Nope. It doesn't PROVE anything. Even if there was something that caused this, there is NO proof that force was "God". It could have had an infinite number of sources including Zeus or a committee of zombies.

          June 18, 2014 at 12:51 pm |
        • Theo Phileo

          "Even if there was something that caused this"
          --------------
          Of course something caused this. The fact that the nature of all physical reality is marked by contingency, then that demands that something created it.

          June 18, 2014 at 1:02 pm |
        • observer

          Theo Phileo,

          Yes. ZERO PROOF that if true, it was caused by "God", just like the ZERO PROOF that if God exists, he wasn't created.

          June 18, 2014 at 1:05 pm |
      • jknbt

        hey nojinx–

        you hypo crite....you are the only one reciting prejudices here...what shameless bigotry!

        June 18, 2014 at 1:00 pm |
1 2 3 4
Advertisement
About this blog

The CNN Belief Blog covers the faith angles of the day's biggest stories, from breaking news to politics to entertainment, fostering a global conversation about the role of religion and belief in readers' lives. It's edited by CNN's Daniel Burke with contributions from Eric Marrapodi and CNN's worldwide news gathering team.