Developing: Bridge Collapses Near Seattle…Unknown Injuries…See the Photos

Watch Today’s BlazeCast With Your Questions, Comments & Live Chat!

Faith

Who Won the 2012 ‘War on Christmas’ — Atheist Activists or Christians?

Jan. 6, 2013 11:04pm Billy Hallowell

The holiday season has officially come to a close, and with it, so too has the 2012 War on Christmas. While naysayers continue to dismiss this annual hoopla over atheist-generated battles against nativity displays and other religious symbols, this year brought with it some intriguing and fascinating spectacles and spats — many of which we covered at TheBlaze. Considering all of the back and forth between believers and non-believers, one can’t help but wonder who’s winning the seemingly never-ending battle.

Who Won the 2012 War on Christmas: Atheist Activists or Christians?

Photo Credit: HumanLight.org

Aside from exploring which camp — atheists or Christians — is the 2012 victor, we’ve decided to prepare a little recap to summarize all of the fascinating, entertaining and troubling stories we assembled this past holiday season. Let’s start with “HumanLight,” the non-theistic Christmas alternative that non-believers founded.

After all, nothing says “War on Christmas” like a new holiday intended to replace the annual celebration surrounding Jesus’ birth. While HumanLight is far from mainstream (read about it here), it’s observance is gaining traction in atheist circles across the nation. This, of course, is an extreme example of potential evidence that non-believers are waging an epic battle against America’s most popular and revered holiday.

As always, there were plenty of other anecdotal (and, arguably, more relevant) instances of non-theists stepping up attacks against religious themes this holiday season. While some examples of purported anti-Christmas actions were more benign in nature, others were pointed and strategic. Let’s begin with some lighter examples.

A public utility in Texas posted — then removed — a banner from the Knights of Columbus that read, “Keep Christ in Christmas” (naturally, the organization was less-than-pleased). In Mansfield, Massachusetts, the Jordan-Jackson Elementary School also raised some eyebrows after officials cancelled an annual holiday concert and replaced it with an anti-bullying program.

Now, let’s look at some of the more targeted examples.

In New York City’s Times Square, American Atheists, a non-profit devoted to spreading anti-theism, posted a banner mocking Jesus and the crucifixion. The sign read, “Keep the Merry! Dump the Myth!,” and featured an image of Santa with a photo of Jesus suffering on the cross. The “merry” corresponded to the traditional Christmas mascot, with “myth” (in caps) presented beneath the Christian savior’s picture, clearly in reference to Jesus’ death.

Photo Credit: American Atheists

In neighboring Pennsylvania, atheist activists were also fast at work taking their pokes at the holiday. So-called “Pastafarians” (members of a faux “religious” group made up of non-believers for the sole purpose of mocking Christians and other theists) advocated — to no avail — to have an atheist tree included at the courthouse in Chester County.

And in Little Rock, Ark., atheists created such a furor that students invited to a voluntary showing of “A Charlie Brown Christmas” were unable to attend and enjoy the show. Angry that the production was slated to take place inside of a church, non-theist parents advocated against children attending the show during the school day and the house of worship inevitably cancelled the event to prevent national and local controversy from further erupting.

And those are only a few examples here in the states. As reported, though, the War on Christmas didn’t just hit domestic targets. In fact, it stretched overseas, with the Military Association of Atheists and Freethinkers (MAAF), an atheist activist group, challenging the U.S. Navy to remove a live nativity tradition from public celebrations on a Bahrain base. The event was inevitably moved to a private chapel after atheists called the celebration “unconstitutional” and dangerous to U.S. servicemen.

Photo Credit: YouTube

Even the Minister Louis Farrakhan got in on the “War on Christmas” when, during a recent sermon, he called Christmas trees wicked and said that Santa Claus is a damaging lie that teaches kids “to look to white people.” His comments were made while he was visiting the Caribbean for a series of Nation of Islam talks.

Clearly, many non-Christians had a busy holiday season. But while atheist activists had some major victories this year, people of faith — particularly Christians — also pushed back fervently. Take, for instance, believers in California who staged a successful “Nativity Flash Mob” inside of a mall to protest the Santa Monica ban on unattended nativities in a local park.

Oh, and in the actual public park where the 60-year-old tradition was banned, Christians, in a separate effort, got creative and staged a live nativity scene (something that, unlike the unattended displays, is not yet banned).

And in Pittsburgh, Penn., to combat atheist pledges to sue over a nativity scene in front of a municipal building, believers maneuvered around the threats by placing the traditional display on a trailer on the street out in front of the public building. Plus, who can forget Fox News’ Sean Hannity and Bill O’Reilly delivering separate, yet equally-harsh on-air rebukes of atheist activists.

So, while non-believers scored a number of victories, their efforts did not go unmatched. Rather than sitting back and merely watching the War on Christmas pass them by, many Christians and the groups that represent them seemingly stood up and fought efforts to remove nativities and other religious symbols from their communities. And instead of merely relying upon rhetoric to respond to each incident, believers came up with creative alternatives and work-arounds.

So, what do you think about the 2012 “War on Christmas?” Who won — the atheists or the Christians? Take the poll, below:

In CONTROL, Glenn Beck presents a passionate, fact-based case for guns that reveals why gun control isn’t really about controlling guns at all; it’s about controlling us. Find out more HERE.

Back to The Blaze »

Comments (146)

ltb
Posted on January 7, 2013 at 11:45am
Humanlight? Once again, atheists prove that their problem isn’t that they don’t believe in God, but rather that they hate God. If these people truly didn’t believe in God, December 25th would be just another day for them, but they just can’t control themselves when it comes to getting jabs in against God. It’s like how they say “BCE” instead of “BC.” Like saying “Before the Common Era,” changes the fact that the common era started with the birth of Christ.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- Freedomlover_US
  Posted on January 7, 2013 at 11:57am
  Atheists don’t hate something they don’t believe exists, they hate religion. Big difference.
  
  Report this comment
- ltb
  Posted on January 7, 2013 at 12:12pm
  Jesus hated religion too, so why do atheists go after him so much? Like I said, if atheists truly didn’t believe in God, December 25th would be just another day for them. Did you know that people who believe in aliens celebrate “Flying Saucer Day” on June 24th? I don’t believe in aliens. Do you know what I do on June 24th? Nothing, it’s just another day for me.
  
  Report this comment
- The_Cabrito_Goat
  Posted on January 7, 2013 at 12:19pm
  BCE is the most redundant thing I’ve ever heard. What exactly happened on 0 B.C. that made every year after it “common”? I have no idea, it’s nonsensical, needless secularization without a point besides expelling faith wherever it can be found.
  
  Ever heard of the Fabian Society? Look it up. Educate yourself. Prepare. Though the group is long gone, their tactics have remained well into this century.
  
  We may be fighting them for the next millennium
  
  Report this comment
- Locked
  Posted on January 7, 2013 at 1:50pm
  @LTB
  
  “Jesus hated religion too, so why do atheists go after him so much?”
  
  Many Christians are not Christ-like, and love religion more than they wish to emulate Christ. That’s why you have so many people who listen to their pastors like they were God Himself, rather than reading and studying the Bible and Christ’s own words. It’s why we have Christians in this country who will rant and rail about how gay marriage will ruin the country and destroy the sanctity of marriage, but have no problem with their fellow parishoners getting divorced and remarried… something which Jesus Himself expressly forbids in the Bible.
  
  It’s when people use Christ’s words to support their own preconceived notions while ignoring His words about the things they disagree with that Christians run into problems. Religion enables this to happen, because all people need to do is find a pastor who says what they like and then nod along like drones.
  
  And then they strip free will out of the equation by legislating morality and pretending that they’re following the Bible. Christ didn’t use the government to teach or enforce morals… but some Christians think that’s what He wants? No way. Christ left moral decisions up to the people and simply informed them what the outcome would be. They could choose to believe or not; they were not forced to do so.
  
  I’m a fervent Christ follower, but I can easily see why atheists would be upset at religion.
  
  Report this comment
- bonesiii
  Posted on January 7, 2013 at 3:24pm
  You raise a lot of good points, Locked. But do you agree that hatred and attacking symbols do nothing to help those problems? For example, while some Christians are like that, taking away Christmas punishes those that are not like that. Like the old analogy of the teacher who punishes an entire class for the misbehavior of one. It’s illogical and wrong.
  
  Of course, this doesn’t, by the same token, mean all atheists are like that. (But ultimately what matters is that we accept Jesus; just being “nice atheists” will not cut it.)
  
  As for sin, I think what’s going on now is that many Christians have woken up to the fact that we’ve been silent too long as sinfulness gets incrementally worse and we’ve realized we have to start taking a stand. Yes, divorce is (usually) wrong, and so is a lot else, but that doesn’t mean we should also be silent about other sins. Rather, we should do as Jesus did and speak the truth that all sin is sin, even when we are guilty of it, and shine the light to Jesus’ forgiveness and the transformative power of the Holy Spirit. There’s a “this far, no farther” feeling to it. We’re tired of the enemy advancing and we’ve realized our complacency is our biggest mistake.
  
  At least so I hope. :P
  
  Report this comment
- Locked
  Posted on January 7, 2013 at 4:13pm
  @BonesIII
  
  “But do you agree that hatred and attacking symbols do nothing to help those problems?”
  
  I see two types of atheists… well, three, really. There are the atheists who are apathetic and just don’t care. There are those who see religious endorsement as unconstitutional and unfair, and work to promote inclusion or their own positive messages. And there are those who just hate religion and put up offensive displays and signs just to be jerks.
  
  The first groups is, in my view, the largest; they’re the majority of the, what, 10% of the US that calls themselves non-believers? The second I have little issue with. If an atheist group wants to join in the holiday displays and puts up a heart-warming but a-religious message, that’s fine. Then you have the FFRF and their ilk who put up displays mocking religion. I think they are the atheists’ version of WBC and serve only to antagonize the opposing sides. I’m happy to coexist with atheists; but the third group doesn’t want coexistance. Fortunately, they’re the smallest group. Unfortunately, they also capture the most media attention.
  
  “For example, while some Christians are like that, taking away Christmas punishes those that are not like that.”
  
  See, I haven’t seen “Christmas taken away” ANYWHERE. I understand the SCotUS ruling about religious displays on public land. Removing them is not ruling against Christianity. My town was flooded with displays on private land this year.
  
  Report this comment
- Locked
  Posted on January 7, 2013 at 4:20pm
  @BonesIII (cont)
  
  “As for sin, I think what’s going on now is that many Christians have woken up to the fact that we’ve been silent too long as sinfulness gets incrementally worse and we’ve realized we have to start taking a stand.”
  
  I agree… to a point. Yes, I think we should speak up about sin and call out the issues with our society today. However, I do not think that means we need to legislate morality. For example, I know divorce is almost always a sin, and remarriage is always adultery, but in no way do I advocate outlawing divorce and making remarriage a crime.
  
  “We’re tired of the enemy advancing and we’ve realized our complacency is our biggest mistake.”
  
  I think Christ’s message was that our biggest fight will always be within ourselves. You can’t force someone to believe. You can’t force them to become a better person; it’s human nature to strive to better oneself, but also to resist authority figures forcing change upon you. A person needs to accept their own failings are commit themselves to a more righteous future… without us forcing it upon them.
  
  So when I see things like “the enemy advanced” or “complacency,” it doesn’t make much sense to me. My objections to government are fiscal, not social (except where the two intertwine). I don’t think we should use big government to force good morals on people. Not sure if that’s along the lines of what you were thinking, but I wasn’t sure how else to read it.
  
  Report this comment
- Greenwood
  Posted on January 7, 2013 at 4:25pm
  @GOAT…………”What exactly happened on 0 B.C. that made every year after it “common”
  
  First there was no year 0…………………..second, A decree for all the inhabited earth to be registered.
  
  Luke 2:1-3 Now in those days a decree went forth from Caesar Au‧gus′tus for all the inhabited earth to be registered;2 (this first registration took place when Qui‧rin′i‧us was governor of Syria;)3 and all people went traveling to be registered, each one to his own city.
  
  Report this comment
- Greenwood
  Posted on January 7, 2013 at 4:41pm
  @LBT……….”It’s like how they say “BCE” instead of “BC.” Like saying “Before the Common Era,” changes the fact that the common era started with the birth of Christ.
  
  Jesus wasn’t born on December 25th and we can’t even be sure what year.
  The fact is that the common era started with the registration of all the known inhabited earth.
  
  Report this comment
- ltb
  Posted on January 7, 2013 at 5:17pm
  Greenwood wrote: “The fact is that the common era started with the registration of all the known inhabited earth.”
  
  —–
  
  Whatever. “Before the Common Era” is just another way of saying “Before Christ,” without acknowledging Jesus. Registration of all the known inhabited earth? Where do you people come up with this nonsense?
  
  Report this comment
- bonesiii
  Posted on January 7, 2013 at 5:47pm
  “See, I haven’t seen “Christmas taken away” ANYWHERE. I understand the SCotUS ruling about religious displays on public land. Removing them is not ruling against Christianity. My town was flooded with displays on private land this year.”
  It’s been “taken away” to some extent on public land in many areas, as you said, and even in private businesses and land as many are kowtowing to the “negative pressure” from those tiny few offensive types that you meantioned. Also, I don’t understand banning religious displays on public land — well, I do, but I understand that it’s anti-constitutional and wrong…
  
  “I agree… to a point. Yes, I think we should speak up about sin and call out the issues with our society today. However, I do not think that means we need to legislate morality.”
  I believe that you can’t JUST legislate morality, but neither should we fall for the trap of “let the country do whatever, who cares?” The Bible is clear that godly nations — reflected in their laws — receive God’s increased support and those that write sin into law risk his anger. He does not make any kind of distinction like that. Freewill is where he draws the line; against “thought police” type things.
  
  So I DO think that we SHOULD have moral laws and not immoral ones. :)
  
  Report this comment
- bonesiii
  Posted on January 7, 2013 at 5:48pm
  Continued…
  
  “For example, I know divorce is almost always a sin, and remarriage is always adultery, but in no way do I advocate outlawing divorce and making remarriage a crime.”
  The problem with that wording is it’s absolute. Divorce IS biblical IMO in some cases, as with an abusive husband for example. But I would argue that if we were truly a godly nation, we would outlaw much of what is allowed as divorce right now, as it has real negative effects that are proven.
  
  “I think Christ’s message was that our biggest fight will always be within ourselves. You can’t force someone to believe.”
  No, but you CAN send mixed messages by saying “it’s okay as far as the law should go for you to do wrong”, and it’s been shown that this only leads more people away from Christ. It’s counterproductive.
  
  Report this comment
- bonesiii
  Posted on January 7, 2013 at 5:52pm
  “Registration of all the known inhabited earth? Where do you people come up with this nonsense?”
  Yeah, guys, if you’re going to try to make an argument, don’t exaggerate. I think you guys know full well it was registration within the Roman Empire, and they were well aware that there were regions inhabited beyond their borders. ;) They were at war often with some of them lol.
  
  To be fair, it’s now believed that the “zero line” (or Year 1) is about four to eight years off from when Jesus was actually born. I can see the argument that “BCE” is just going with the same timing that is popular to avoid over-confusion, but what I can’t see is a plausible argument to actually make that change. BC works just fine. Besides, like most political correctness it’s getting away from brevity.
  
  Personally I would rather put the zero mark at the beginning of creation; Year 1 E (earth years), approximating to 4000 BC. since we don’t know exactly how many years that was, and right now we’re in Year 6012 E. Even more brevity, and puts it at a truly objective zero mark. Of course, unfortunately many people would raise the obvious objections right now, but we’ll see how long that keeps up as science eventually catches up. ^_^ It -does- make a lot of sense to put the zero mark at around Christ’s birth, though. Just not so fond of the negative years thing. Anywho.
  
  Report this comment
- Greenwood
  Posted on January 7, 2013 at 8:10pm
  @LTB…….”Where do you people come up with this nonsense?”
  
  The Bible………..Luke 2:1-3 If you were paying attention.
  
  Report this comment
- Greenwood
  Posted on January 7, 2013 at 8:25pm
  @LTB………Is this better the KJV of Luke 2:1-3 And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be taxed.
  
  All the world should be taxed. The bible sometimes speaks of “world or earth” not as the planet but people. At the time Rome was in control and was unchallenged, so in a sense they controled the world.
  
  Report this comment
- bonesiii
  Posted on January 7, 2013 at 8:38pm
  Greenwood, note that that verse does not say the entire “inhabited” world; that’s what we’re pointing out is wrong. Also, according to Blueletter, the primary meanings of that word, depending on the context, are:
  
  “a) the portion of the earth inhabited by the Greeks, in distinction from the lands of the barbarians
  
  b) the Roman empire, all the subjects of the empire”
  
  Since it’s about a Roman registration, the context clearly selects the second, not “entire inhabited Earth”. Some of the sense of the first may be intended too; the “civilized world” (by the Roman idea of that, which is basically only Roman territories are civilized lol). We use words like “world” in similar ways ourselves all the time.
  
  It’s also possible the Romans literally believed the whole population of Earth SHOULD be registered, since they wanted to conquer everybody eventually. :P This doesn’t mean they were. This was really a fairly normal occurance, akin to our ten-year census. It’s a misunderstanding to take this as a single event of major historical importance for its own sake; the only reason it’s mentioned is that it is why Jesus was born in Bethlehem rather than Nazareth or elsewhere, basically.
  
  Report this comment
- Greenwood
  Posted on January 7, 2013 at 9:02pm
  @BONES…………maybe you should compare other translations. Here are five.
  http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%202:1-3&version=KJV;NKJV;NASB;TNIV;NLT
  
  Some say inhabated earth some world or Roman Empire, thet controled the whole Mediterranean area.
  
  Report this comment
- bonesiii
  Posted on January 7, 2013 at 9:43pm
  “maybe you should compare other translations.”
  To what end? Nothing wrong with the suggestion, but why bring it up here?
  
  Report this comment
- Locked
  Posted on January 7, 2013 at 9:52pm
  @BonesIII
  
  “The problem with that wording is it’s absolute. Divorce IS biblical IMO in some cases, as with an abusive husband for example.”
  
  Actually, no. There’s only one case of divorce being permitted biblically, and it’s due to adultery. In all other cases the only solution is for the husband and wife to separate, but they are never permitted to take another spouse. Their only recourse is reconciliation.
  
  Now, I realize that it would be a sin to divorce in the situation you said, but I completely agree a wife SHOULD get out of an abusive relationship and divorce her husband… despite it being a sin. A bit hypocritical, but there it is.
  
  “No, but you CAN send mixed messages by saying “it’s okay as far as the law should go for you to do wrong”, and it’s been shown that this only leads more people away from Christ.”
  
  But that’s where we run into an issue where we turn away from the Bible and start using our own (vastly different) concepts. Where do you draw the line? Once you let mortal men start with line-drawing, you’ve completely undercut God and moved away from the Bible. I think the problem with legislating morality like this is that you leave what God said on the matter and put it into the hands of people who, honestly, are busybodies and modern-day Pharisees. Makes me nervous, especially since we’ve seen what “good” people we’ve elected to government positions.
  
  Report this comment
- bonesiii
  Posted on January 7, 2013 at 9:54pm
  A few more points, come to think of it. Your original statement was:
  
  “The fact is that the common era started with the registration of all the known inhabited earth.”
  
  You seemed to be implying that you meant that literally. But the Romans did not register every known human. Incidentally, if you’re trying to disengage from the Bible to begin with, why define “known” as the Roman Empire? Obviously the Japanese of the time knew full well that Japan was inhabited, so why exclude them? How about native Hawaiians? The reasoning simply breaks down, sorry. And again, this was not the only or likely even the first such census. Only reason you heard about it, apparently from your context, is from the Bible. So if we’re going to accept the Bible, why not admit that the zeromark was intended to be based on the birth of Christ? :)
  
  (I can see the point that since it wasn’t exactly then, some caution there is necessary, but at the same time, this registration didn’t happen at exactly that time either so moot.)
  
  BTW, is this ‘fact’ something you heard from anyone else? It’s the first time I’ve heard this particular excuse, and it comes across as just your opinion or idea, not fact at all… Certainly you don’t think the original dating choice was made for that reason, do you?
  
  In conclusion, sorry, but BC/AD was defined around the birth of Christ — that is what is actual fact. BCE/CE is just more PC revisionism.
  
  Report this comment
- bonesiii
  Posted on January 7, 2013 at 10:09pm
  @ only biblical divorce for adultery — Can you back that up? That’s one possible interpretation but I’m not aware of any references to say that it is more correct than mine, and I AM aware of plenty that back up mine. Not directly, admittedly, but the concept of a covenant being broken by violence/evil on the part of just one “signator” is all throughout the Bible, especially the Pentateuch. Of course, it WOULD be better if the husband would repent of that, accept Jesus, and live by the Spirit, so come to be gentle, etc. but I’m talking about a situation where it’s clear that’s not gonna happen.
  
  The reality here is that the Bible does not legalistically define every possible right action in every situation. There are gray areas, and in those areas we are instructed to be forgiving in good faith and withhold judgement. We are supposed to take all the principles it teaches in context, plus heartfelt guidance from the Spirit on a case-by-case basis too. Really the root problem in these cases is probably a marriage that shouldn’t have happened, but that’s very complicated.
  
  Really, even with adultery biblically repentance is a better solution IMO.
  
  “SHOULD get out… despite it being a sin.”
  You must have a very, very different meaning of “sin” in mind, then, since by definition sin is what (God knows) is wrong, and not what should happen… :P I think you should rethink this. :)
  
  Report this comment
- bonesiii
  Posted on January 7, 2013 at 10:17pm
  “Once you let mortal men start with line-drawing, you’ve completely undercut God and moved away from the Bible.”
  Isn’t that my whole point? If we let a government make its laws based on arbitrary whims, what is to stop them from going absolutely bonkers with it? Even to such extremes as slaughtering certain groups? God wants nations to make their laws based on the Bible. I fear you have somehow misunderstood what I’m saying, but maybe I’ve only misunderstood you…
  
  “problem… put it into the hands of people who, honestly, are busybodies and modern-day Pharisees.”
  Yes, if we are honest we must agree that is a risk, but the point is that there is ALWAYS risk of abuse with human governments, period, so this is of no help. Phariseeism has the same root problem as ungodly laws (really, it’s just another form of them, as Jesus often pointed out that they violated God’s laws; it was not as the common misconception goes a too-strict adherance to God’s actual laws, but the creation of anti-biblical strict manmade laws). Both that and licentiousness ignore what God wants the laws to be.
  
  Now, this only really gets solved if we change hearts “from the ground up”, don’t get me wrong. But we must not contradict ourselves by being lax on the legal front either. And keep in mind the enemy has no qualms about using our apathy to force their own bias into the law. There really is no middle ground there.
  
  Report this comment
- bonesiii
  Posted on January 7, 2013 at 10:23pm
  Also, let’s get specific here. We’re talking about homosexual marriage being recognized by the government, aren’t we? This is not the same as a “thou shalt not” but this is a positive recognition of an action by the God-ordained government, when that action is sinful. (Same for civil unions, incidentally.) Those are two very different things. I’m not saying we should pass a law against homosexual behavior itself, I don’t think any real conservative thinks that. I don’t think that’s consistent with Jesus’ teachings. But the government should not give any form of official endorsement of sinful behavior.
  
  Report this comment
- Locked
  Posted on January 8, 2013 at 9:03am
  @BonesIII
  
  “Can you back that up? That’s one possible interpretation but I’m not aware of any references to say that it is more correct than mine, and I AM aware of plenty that back up mine. Not directly, admittedly…”
  
  Yes, I can back it up: Matthew 19:9. By the words of Christ Himself, divorce is only allowed in the case of sexual immorality, but remarriage after a divorce is always adultery. I feel like you know this too, as you say that this is “one possible interpretation” and admit you cannot back up other biblically acceptable cases for divorce without your own interpretation… am I understanding you correctly?
  
  “The reality here is that the Bible does not legalistically define every possible right action in every situation. There are gray areas.”
  
  I absolutely agree, though divorce and remarriage are not one of those areas. Hence why I think it’s silly to use the Bible as the basis for secular law; first, it doesn’t cover all situations we’d encounter today, and secondly, we don’t even do that now.
  
  “Really, even with adultery biblically repentance is a better solution IMO.”
  
  If a couple wants to stay married, it is the only solution biblically.
  
  “by definition sin is what (God knows) is wrong, and not what should happen… :P I think you should rethink this. :)”
  
  Well no, I just disagree with God on this one. Sure, that makes me wrong, but even if God doesn’t think spousal abuse is sufficent grounds for divorce, I do :-)
  
  Report this comment
- Locked
  Posted on January 8, 2013 at 9:09am
  @BonesIII (cont)
  
  “Isn’t that my whole point? If we let a government make its laws based on arbitrary whims, what is to stop them from going absolutely bonkers with it? ”
  
  That’s the thing though: government makes laws neither on arbitrary whim nor on biblical principles. Since we’ve already established (or at least I think we have; correct me if you disagree) that secular law is not rooted inherently in biblical law, what kind of system do we have? Certainly not an arbitrary one that is completely bonkers. Nor is it completely perfect, obviously, but what government is?
  
  “God wants nations to make their laws based on the Bible.”
  
  Then God must hate every nation, because none do this. The closest you’d have are theocratic nations like Israel or the Holy See.
  
  “Yes, if we are honest we must agree that is a risk, but the point is that there is ALWAYS risk of abuse with human governments, period, so this is of no help.”
  
  Which is the flip side of the coin of what you were saying before. If a Biblically based system has Pharisees, and a non-biblically based system goes “bonkers,” then both seem doomed to fail. However, the “arbitrary” system has worked well enough for the US to last over 200 years. I don’t see a reason to start legislating theocratic principles now. In fact, I see it as a prelude to a backlash… because as said, the bible is not sufficient to legislate secular governments. It’s meant for individuals.
  
  Report this comment
- Locked
  Posted on January 8, 2013 at 1:59pm
  “Now, this only really gets solved if we change hearts “from the ground up”, don’t get me wrong.”
  
  I do agree with this. As for legislating morality, I think it should be done only in the case that it harms others. In the same way that God lets us believe or not, I don’t think it’s the government’s place to take specific dogmatic ideas and force them on others if the only one hurt would be themselves. You can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make it drink; and the Word of God is nothing if not the purest water!
  
  Report this comment
- bonesiii
  Posted on January 8, 2013 at 3:39pm
  Matthew 19:9 says: “And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery.”
  
  This doesn’t cover the situation I said, as I was talking about the wife iniating the divorce because the “he” is abusive. True, it’s possible for wives to be the abusive ones, but yeah. I doubt that was the sort of thing Jesus would be bringing up before that audience lol. Anyways, the main point is, it is obviously a mistake to take Jesus’ meaning here as absolutely intended to cover all possible exceptions. The Bible is filled with such statements, which are meant to be taken in context of the rest of the Bible. For example, Mark 10:11-12:
  
  “Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her, and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery.”
  
  Jesus does not include any “except” clause here, and yet we know that he DOES consider there to be an exception. Clearly, Jesus is talking about unjustified cases. When he mentions the exception of sexual immorality, he is mentioning the -least example- of possible exception. His point appears to be “for anything less than sexual immorality, divorce is wrong.” So he’s saying “You don’t divorce your wife because you don’t find her as attractive anymore or because she has some habit that annoys you.”
  
  There are many other examples of this type of use of grammar, and we use it often today.
  
  Report this comment
- bonesiii
  Posted on January 8, 2013 at 3:48pm
  “I absolutely agree, though divorce and remarriage are not one of those areas. Hence why I think it’s silly to use the Bible as the basis for secular law; first, it doesn’t cover all situations we’d encounter today, and secondly, we don’t even do that now.”
  I’m talking about honest, hermeneutically sound interpretation of the whole Bible in context. There is, yes, room for doubt and abuse there (if people abandon the honest part), but abuse goes much higher if we don’t, as we see right now. But I’m NOT just talking about taking one verse out of context and assuming it’s meant universally. ;)
  
  The fact that we don’t do that now is argument from the status quo, a fallacy. I’m talking about what should happen. It’s not likely to… but it has happened in history before and basically it’s up to we the people. If we come to agreement with large enough a majority, it will happen (and hopefully we’ll avoid the mistake of generations like this in the Bible who failed to teach this knowledge to their kids).
  
  “Well no, I just disagree with God on this one. Sure, that makes me wrong, but even if God doesn’t think spousal abuse is sufficent grounds for divorce, I do :-)”
  It looks like you’re disagreeing with your misunderstanding of what you thought God meant, though. Do you mean that you don’t understand what you think to be God’s view? If you think a view is false, then it seems to me you don’t actually believe it. :P
  
  Report this comment
- bonesiii
  Posted on January 8, 2013 at 3:57pm
  “Since we’ve already established (or at least I think we have; correct me if you disagree) that secular law is not rooted inherently in biblical law, what kind of system do we have?”
  That’s circular reasoning. By definition, if our law is “secular” then it is not rooted in biblical law. But our founders explicitly founded our national law on God. :) I think someone else covered this in a previous comment here but I may be thinking of a different article; we were founded as a godly nation, and from that objective basis we can grant freewill (of what to believe, or not believe, not necessarily of what to DO; hence law) as that is God’s standard. Without that it does become completely arbitrary, but it’s a bit of a long explanation if you want the full reasons why.
  
  “Certainly not an arbitrary one that is completely bonkers. Nor is it completely perfect, obviously, but what government is?”
  A government founded and run (we’ve got the first, other nations in the past have had the second, and we have for a while partially) on honest understanding (in context, and with care for grammar) of God’s Word. That is an ideal to strive for — just because in our sinful state we will never -perfectly- reach it is no excuse not to try (no excuse to let things get even worse, in other words). And I’m a strong believer that even in this fallen world, it IS possible for humans to do the right thing.
  
  Report this comment
- bonesiii
  Posted on January 8, 2013 at 4:43pm
  “theocratic nations like Israel”
  Pet peeve about that word; liberals have greatly abused it to imply there is supposed to be a disconnect. But the Bible teaches that God establishes all governments, even the sinful ones, and he does expect them all to be perfect. Yes, perfect. God DOES have a perfect standard, and guess what, we all fail! Isn’t this the whole reason Jesus had to come to begin with? This shouldn’t really be news. :P However, some nations have come closer than others, and God DOES appreciate and want that.
  
  Also “theocracy” could refer to ANY “god” and that’s obviously not what I’m talking about. Think of it as “Elohimocracy” if you will.
  
  Think about it — are we to be Christlike? Well, the Bible says that Jesus will someday return and rule all the nations for a thousand years (in this fallen world) rightly. Do you think he’ll turn down that job under some idea of avoiding theocracy? No! This is the same reason we know we are to interpret Scripture in context and logically rather than misinterpretations of little snippets; this is what Jesus himself demonstrated countless times.
  
  “both seem doomed to fail.”
  With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible. :) This is why it’s vital we elect truly godly people to office, who actually listen to the guidance of the Holy Spirit and really care about understanding God’s word the way the all-knowing God who is Love intended. :)
  
  Report this comment
- bonesiii
  Posted on January 8, 2013 at 4:47pm
  “As for legislating morality, I think it should be done only in the case that it harms others.”
  I kinda sort tentatively agree with this, for now. :P But here’s the catch — how do you know what harms others in the grayer areas like homosexual marriage being recognized by government? For example, it’s been shown that the more this is pushed and accepted by states, the more they also push to allow homosexual couples to adopt children. And also shown that the healthiest parentage for children is a man and a woman (though there’s more to it). By accepting that, are we not harming those children?
  
  Now the obvious place to take this, and it’s uneccesary here, is the cases of single mothers/fathers, etc. I get that. But I’m talking about legally accepting something that God clearly reveals is wrong, and that we know hurts others. Yet we have so many people out there claiming that this DOESN’T hurt others.
  
  It’s not the extreme example, like murder, but it DOES hurt people. Of course, then we can bring up abortion which -does- murder people… sigh…
  
  Report this comment
- bonesiii
  Posted on January 8, 2013 at 5:02pm
  “specific dogmatic ideas”
  Dogmatism is basically a synonym for stubborn and the opposite of honesty and truthseeking; I’m arguing for the latter. :)
  
  Put it this way — given that God exists, that he is all-knowing, that he is perfectly loving to all his creations, that he gave us insight into what’s wrong, and taught us to use honest logic to determine gray areas, and that we want our governments to do the best for all people, what truly reasonable people wouldn’t want our government to pay attention to what God wants?
  
  Now there are people who disagree with various parts of those “givens”, but all of them can be soundly explained, and this is where that ground/heart movement part comes in, where we the people can choose an “Elohimocracy”, for the sake of others, as we were founded and were for almost 200 years though not perfectly (we were not “secular” as the popular humanistic/liberal revisionism has recently claimed).
  
  Report this comment
ltb
Posted on January 7, 2013 at 11:29am
Christmastime has always been the happiest time of year for me. If someone had told me when I was a child that real life Grinches and Scrooges would try to take away Christmas when I got older, I would have said I don’t want to live in such a world. What’s not to like about Christmas?

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- Freedomlover_US
  Posted on January 7, 2013 at 11:53am
  Christianity
  
  Report this comment
- ltb
  Posted on January 7, 2013 at 12:18pm
  So what is it you hate about Christianity? After all, Christianity is the belief that God came to earth to die for the sins of mankind… what’s to hate about that? If you don’t believe Jesus is the Christ, don’t believe and stop trying to force your opinion onto other people.
  
  Report this comment
- Freedomlover_US
  Posted on January 7, 2013 at 12:42pm
  What I don’t like it that it teaches people lies and gives people cover to do terrible things. It teaches ridiculous nonsense, like contraception is wrong, gay marriage is somehow a threat to something, people who don’t believe like you are going to hell. I’ve been having this nonsense shoved down my throat my whole life and a lot of people are sick of it.
  
  Report this comment
- ltb
  Posted on January 7, 2013 at 1:04pm
  It’s kind of weird how you’ve become what you hate. I don’t seen Christians trying to ram their beliefs down your throat, what I see is you trying to ram your beliefs down the throats of other people.
  
  Also, no one has ever done anything terrible based on the advice, teachings or example of Jesus Christ. Jesus said that we are to love even our enemies, so if people do hateful things, it’s not because of anything that Jesus told them to do. As far as things like contraception are concerned, if you can show me one person who makes a habit of sleeping around with different people and says (s)he is happy, I’ll show you a liar. If God says something is wrong, he does so because he knows where things like indiscriminate sex lead to (e.g., disease, unwanted children, deflated self-worth, etc.). One other thing, Christianity is not about following a bunch of rules to get into Heaven. Jesus already followed all of the rules, then was crucified as if he had broken all of them. His offer to you is eternal life if you will just believe in him. It’s really an awesome deal and why anyone would refuse it is beyond me.
  
  BTW, did you know that Islam teaches EVERYONE goes to Hell and that after you meet allah [sic] in Hell, he decides if you stay in Hell or go to paradise. Two questions: Why do you give Islam a pass on this when their teaching on Hell is much more severe than the Bible’s teaching, and don’t you find it odd that the god of Islam meets his follow
  
  Report this comment
- The_Cabrito_Goat
  Posted on January 7, 2013 at 1:25pm
  “What I don’t like it that it teaches people lies and gives people cover to do terrible things.”
  
  Huh? Blanket statement. Not even going to go into such drivel.
  
  “It teaches ridiculous nonsense,”
  
  Here we go…
  
  “like contraception is wrong,”
  
  O woe is me, the horror of having a personal opinion! What’s that? You’re trying to make me pay for your lifestyle choices? Haha no thanks. Huh? I’m a troglodyte for not wanting to pay for someone’s condoms? Why not call me a bronze age goat herder too if I don’t want to subsidize your candles and Barry White music as well?
  
  “gay marriage is somehow a threat to something,”
  
  The AIDS virus has mutated multiple times since the 80s. Wait until it ‘jumps’ and becomes airborne.
  
  Then tell me that their actions have no consequences/
  
  “people who don’t believe like you are going to hell.”
  
  Sorry to so rudely try to help you.
  
  “I’ve been having this nonsense shoved down my throat my whole life and a lot of people are sick of it”
  
  You have two ears, and ten fingers.
  
  Report this comment
- Freedomlover_US
  Posted on January 7, 2013 at 3:14pm
  LTB – who is giving Islam a free pass? You only brought up Christianity. I think all religions are ridiculous. And people kept slaves because Jesus didn’t condemn it – for the perfect son of god that is a big thing to get wrong.
  
  Report this comment
- bonesiii
  Posted on January 7, 2013 at 3:30pm
  Freedomlover (a name I question based on your post…), if someone is running towards a cliff, do you hate them for daring to insult you by saying that you’re doing something bad or heading for a bad place?
  
  Even if they’re WRONG about it, and it’s nonsense, shouldn’t you be grateful that they at least care enough about your safety to warn you?
  
  That’s why this hatred you express is so clearly irrational. A lot of us believe it exposes your real motives to be a deeper knowledge that the Bible -is- true, and you’re acting in rebellion towards him, so you get upset about any idea associated with it, even if basic human decency would logically cause you to feel good about parts of it, because the psychological pattern fits that exactly.
  
  As for the “nonsense” thing, I could go on and on but the one thing I most want to hear your answer on is, how in the world could you possibly know that hell is nonsense? That’s beyond any of us. (Until we’ll find out. ;)) Isn’t the mere risk of it enough to motivate you to work like crazy to look into it, and take it seriously? This glib rejection simply doesn’t make sense at all. It comes across as immature, at the very best…
  
  Report this comment
- bonesiii
  Posted on January 7, 2013 at 3:34pm
  Also, if you really think all religions are wrong, how do you define “religion” and why? Do you include atheism and evolution? (I do, as do many; they seek to answer the same questions.) The only thing that to me seems nonreligious is what I was for a while; “soft” agnosticism (not being sure what to believe, versus “hard” agnosticism which is the belief that we can’t discern the truth at all).
  
  Even when I was that, I can now admit that all along, deep down I always felt that biblical Christianity was true, but now I know from sound logic why so, consciously. (Basically I think the subconscious can “think” more powerfully using parallel processing than the linear conscious, so it tends to give us true conclusions by conscience/intuition faster.)
  
  If part of your answer includes, as I’ve seen others do, “diety” or “gods”, then how do you define that? I’ve never seen an atheist do it. And more importantly, why arbitrarily leave them out and not other things?
  
  Report this comment
- Freedomlover_US
  Posted on January 7, 2013 at 4:26pm
  BONESIII – a religion is a belief system based on faith. Atheism is simply a lack of a belief in any God, I’m more hard agnostic. If I thought the bible was true, I wouldn’t rebel against any omnipotent deity, but because I have read the bible, I know it cannot be true. I also wouldn’t be very happy that any god would create a soul and let it languish in eternal torment, especially if that person’s only “crime” was non belief. Doesn’t spell good things for people in North Korea, who already live in a living hell and have very little chance of deciphering the one “true” religion.
  
  Evolution isn’t a religion; it’s the best available evidence. Atheism/agnosticism isn’t a religion; there are no fixed beliefs.
  
  And how exactly does being a freedom lover contradict not being religious? I appreciate the freedom of thought and freedom from the burdens of religion.
  
  Report this comment
- ltb
  Posted on January 7, 2013 at 5:05pm
  Freedomlover_US, one monumental mistake that most atheists make is assuming all religions are the same (and I use the word “religion” to describe Christianity for convenience). The god of Islam is very cruel and prides himself on being a liar, so if you confuse him with the God of the Bible you are going to have a very distorted view of the one true God.
  
  The God of the Bible may have passed judgment on wicked groups of people when the world was young, but even in his judgment he was merciful. Did you know that the people who were killed during the flood of Noah weren’t sent directly to Hell? The Bible says that Jesus preached the Gospel to those people in the Spirit after he was crucified and before he was raised from the dead (1 Peter 3:18-20), so they were actually given an opportunity to go to Heaven. That’s pretty merciful.
  
  As far as Jesus not speaking out about slavery, that wasn’t his mission. He could have spoken out about a lot of evil things, but he didn’t come into the world to condemn it, he came into the world to save it (John 3:17).
  
  Report this comment
- bonesiii
  Posted on January 7, 2013 at 6:02pm
  “a religion is a belief system based on faith. Atheism is simply a lack of a belief in any God, I’m more hard agnostic.”
  Technically atheism is a faith that God does not exist, over and above agnosticism. But I’m especially talking about the dogmatic type of atheism, and especially its “creation myth” of evolution which very much IS pushed as fact.
  
  @ hard agnosticism — well, that would be an interesting discussion to have as to why, if you’re interested in taking the time here. :) I see myself as a truthseeker; that while some truths might currently be beyond our reach as we just don’t have the tools, in general we CAN always find truth if we look hard enough.
  
  @ if I thought — ah, but here’s the key — you’re talking about -conscious- thought. What we think is that -subconsciously- you think God is true, and you’re basically “lying to yourself”, and this creates psychological friction that results in the sorts of irrational reactions we witness. I believe this is what that “no excuse” verse in Romans is talking about. The thing is, I know based on easy observations of basic reality and sound logic that God must exist, and must be like the Bible says, and it’s such a simple calculation I think the subconscious definitely HAS to run it, even in most animals IMO, not to mention all humans. What I notice is that most atheists have not even consciously asked the right questions to consider these things.
  
  Report this comment
- bonesiii
  Posted on January 7, 2013 at 6:17pm
  “And how exactly does being a freedom lover contradict not being religious? I appreciate the freedom of thought and freedom from the burdens of religion.”
  What about freedom to express religion, enshrined in the Constitution? I admit your wording just in those posts doesn’t clearly say you don’t, though.
  
  But I do mean a lot more by it than just that — I don’t see any freedom in atheism / agnosticism. I see addictions to self-harming sinfulness and rejection of true freedom in Christ, and worse, rejecting salvation from our human condition. We’re on the road to the final prison, the ultimate opposite of freedom, hell, without Jesus. Now I don’t expect you to have concluded these things yourself yet, but I have, and they matter more than anything else IMO.
  
  Also, “religious” is not enough, in that sense. I don’t agree with just any old religion, although clearly some kind of religion by the common “diety” meaning has to be true; pure atheism is ruled out by many considerations I’ve never heard addressed.
  
  “Evolution isn’t a religion; it’s the best available evidence.”
  Technically, evolution is the beliefs that some have been convinced that there is evidence for. Anyways, all versions of evolution or creation are all religious, because they require faith (we weren’t there, etc.).
  
  @ no fixed beliefs — Plenty of religions don’t Technically via interpretation science, Christianity doesn’t. Grasping at straws? ;)
  
  Report this comment
- bonesiii
  Posted on January 7, 2013 at 6:17pm
  “because I have read the bible, I know it cannot be true”
  I highly doubt that. More likely you’ve encountered some things that were easy to (consciously) interpret as difficult to reconcile (and we admit those exist), but stopped your thinking there because you WANT that to be true. In order to feel better about sinning (is the common theory, and it is the only rational explanation I’ve thought of so far), but you don’t understand that sin hurts the self always, and the all-knowing God who is Love knows this. :)
  
  ” I also wouldn’t be very happy that any god would create a soul and let it languish in eternal torment”
  Alternative is robots; it’s freewill. Also, what about a God who would totally murder people by ending them as with standard atheism’s answer? But anyways, this cannot be an argument against all religion or necessarily all versions of Christianity even. It’s unclear, from my own research, whether EVERY unsaved soul is tormented forever — some are, but not sure it’s confirmed that all are. Some interpret it as a permanent end for humans but torment for demons. More to the point, what if it’s the only way? We can’t let emotions cloud our judgement on this. I wish it wasn’t true but logic forces me to agree it apparently is. As Dawkins once said, we have to face facts.
  
  Report this comment
- bonesiii
  Posted on January 7, 2013 at 6:24pm
  Anyways, all you really raised very questions about Christianity — many of them valid and things believers have struggled with (and done in-depth homework on because of that to find the answers, and usually found them!). What you didn’t answer is how you know it’s nonsense. That’s a faith position.
  
  I believe that atheism and evolution (“upvolution”, that is; it’s often fallaciously equivocated as change, which is of course fully biblical) are nonsense, based on tons of reasoning, research, thinking, and also my intuition, among other reasons. But even I admit that I kinda like the idea of it. It’s clever. I can say the same for most other religions too. Even the whole pasta thing lol. I just don’t buy that anyone has a rational utter dislike of Christianity, a total disrespect for it. I see that as just more evidence of that whole “no excuse” thing.
  
  BTW, you could argue those under tyrants have even MORE reason to conclude there is a God and put Hebrews 11 style faith in Him, a saving faith, without knowing the name of Jesus per se. But IMO it’s really equal for everyone. It’s such a basic consideration, I think any living being with a few neurons has probably already concluded it undeniably. (I know, that’s pretty radical as almost nobody says it, but it seems logical to me.) The only logical explanation of atheism I’m aware of is an addiction to sin, leading psychologically to the desire to “rationalize”.
  
  Report this comment
- bonesiii
  Posted on January 7, 2013 at 6:33pm
  Typo: Anyways, all you really raised were questions about Christianity.
  
  BTW, to be clear, I’m not saying we can know much absolutely for sure, so I suppose I’m “hard agnostic” in that sense. There’s at least a little faith involved in everything except the core undeniable truth that I exist. (Or from your POV, you do.) But existence also has patterns and if we stop intentionally blinding ourselves to them and think about them, we can find rational, self-consistent explanations from them, including that the Bible is true. :)
  
  Report this comment
- Greenwood
  Posted on January 7, 2013 at 9:25pm
  @LTB……”The Bible says that Jesus preached the Gospel to those people in the Spirit after he was crucified and before he was raised from the dead (1 Peter 3:18-20), so they were actually given an opportunity to go to Heaven. ”
  
  These are the same Spirits from Genesis 6:2 “the sons of the true God who took wives and produced the Nephilim. They were demons. And it was after Jesus was resurrected because he died in the flesh but was raised in the Spirit. Flesh and blood can not enter the kingdom of heaven. Most people will be resurrected on a paradise earth. John 5:28 All those in the memorial tombs will hear his voice and come out.
  
  Report this comment
- Locked
  Posted on January 8, 2013 at 9:26am
  @BonesIII
  
  I know you were talking to freedomlover, but I saw a few things that you wrote that piqued my interest.
  
  “Also, if you really think all religions are wrong, how do you define “religion” and why? Do you include atheism and evolution? (I do, as do many; they seek to answer the same questions.) ”
  
  Religion requires a set of criteria: formal services, a belief in some sort of supernatural deity or phenomenon, a set of traditions, a hierarchy of clergy. Atheism and evolution both fail at all of these. Atheism is simply someone saying “there is no god.” Not “no God,” but any supernatural being. I think it’s an unscientific stance to take (as you can never prove a negative), but it’s certainly not a religion.
  
  Evolution doesn’t even come close to that. It’s a scientific theory, confirmed by scientific consensus. It is simply the best, natural, explanation of how life came to be as it is today. As it is a scientific theory (which is a vastly different meaning than the layman’s term “theory”), it means that there has been no evidence to disprove it to this date. As it’s a scientific consensus, it means that people who actually spend their lives studying this and have years of education and background in the subject largely agree with it.
  
  Report this comment
- Locked
  Posted on January 8, 2013 at 11:19am
  @BonesIII
  
  Ugh, The Blaze ate my other post, so this one will be shorter.
  
  “But I’m especially talking about the dogmatic type of atheism, and especially its “creation myth” of evolution which very much IS pushed as fact.”
  
  It seems like you’re mistaking the theory of evolution for the hypothesis of abiogenesis. Evolution makes no claims of a creation myth: it simply states that over time (ie, many generations), the biological adaptations that best suit an organism to its environment will become dominant. It is a scientific theory (different from the layman’s definition of a “theory”) and it is the scientific consensus. This means that no evidence has ever disproven the theory of evolution, and it is held by the majority of relevant scientists to be the most conclusion explanation.
  
  Abiogenesis is the hypothesis that organic life can arise from non-organic materials, and that this is the basis for life on earth. While experiments in abiogenesis have proben that amino acids can arise from “natural” inorganic materials, this does not mean that these amino acids became proteins or proto-cells. There is not a theory of abiogenesis nor a scientific consensus; it’s simply a possibility that has some evidence behind it.
  
  It’s important to acknowledge the difference between these two. There is no “creation myth” in evolution; it’s as close to “true” as science allows such things to be.
  
  Report this comment
- bonesiii
  Posted on January 8, 2013 at 5:21pm
  “Religion requires a set of criteria: formal services, a belief in some sort of supernatural deity or phenomenon, a set of traditions, a hierarchy of clergy. Atheism and evolution both fail at all of these.”
  Well, that’s your definition of the word, then, not his, and it doesn’t rule out all of what atheists usually mean by it either. Usually they just draw the line at supernatural deity, but what does that mean, and who determines what is “supernatural” and what is “natural”? Ultimately it’s just the atheist arbitrarily defining it as “whatever I don’t believe in” and it is circular reasoning.
  
  More importantly, atheism and evolution don’t OBJECTIVELY fail ANY of those definitions.
  
  Do they have formal organization? Check. Tons of them, deeply entrenched — you know them. “Services”? Well what does that mean? Worship services? Or any kind of service? How about educational services? And what is worship? Many believe that even knowing idolatry is “worship” of created things rather than the Creator. I say yes, they both often have this.
  
  Supernatural phenomenon? Evolution, the Big Bang, and/or whatever other explanations an atheist might someday believe in when/if those are finally abandoned since science has disproved them. Don’t believe me? Explain why — how are those not “supernatural” by any objective definition that would also rule the One True God out?
  
  Traditions and authority figures (“clergy”), check.
  
  Report this comment
- bonesiii
  Posted on January 8, 2013 at 5:29pm
  Now let’s try it on biblical belief, but taking the opposite approach. Yes, this is ‘word games’, but I’m doing this to make a point — such definitions as this are far too ambiguous to be logically binding.
  
  “Religion requires a set of criteria: formal services, a belief in some sort of supernatural deity or phenomenon, a set of traditions, a hierarchy of clergy.”
  
  I often don’t attend formal services (due to my work schedule), and the services I attend could be called informal (by intention of our leaders). If I were to stop going at all to any of them, I would still believe.
  
  I don’t believe God is objectively “supernatural” by any definition that wouldn’t also rule out things like quantum mechanics or relativity; scientists have proven that physics does have multiple levels. If we rule those out, then God is “natural”. And in any case, arguing about the meaning of that word has no effect on whether he exists.
  
  My church purposefully changes traditions sometimes to avoid traditionalism, and I have a pet peeve personally about them. I don’t believe in tradition for tradition’s sake (nor avoiding doing something that’s right just because it’s been done before either). And my church doesn’t have the large-scale heirarchy, and again if I were to stop going altogether, I still believe. And if a religion must have ALL those parts, then a heirarchy alone doesn’t count.
  
  See my point? Such definitions “miss the meat”.
  
  Report this comment
- bonesiii
  Posted on January 8, 2013 at 5:40pm
  The point is, there’s no objective reason to rule out atheism and evolution from the same thinking that goes into the statement “religions are wrong.” The fact remains that they try to answer the same questions and that they require faith, especially the origins part since we don’t have time machines to directly observe the truth ourselves. Yes, there can be science, even honest science, mixed into this attempt, as you say, but by the same token, so does creationism (despite the obvious lies of those who claim otherwise).
  
  None of those arguments are logically of any help in ruling out what he means by “religion”, in favor of his own worldview. He probably has been fooled into thinking evolution is true, and then this is evidence of atheism. Neither argument follows, but that’s probably because he hasn’t been trained to think logically — I don’t blame him even for that, heh, I blame our (humanist-hijacked) schools.
  
  And yes, there can be a scientific consensus about a religious view. However, evolution is NOT the “best” explanation of how life came to be, since it’s been proven false, but that’s a long story. ;) That is, though, what it’s popular to say so I’m obviously not surprised to hear it repeated again.
  
  Report this comment
- bonesiii
  Posted on January 8, 2013 at 5:41pm
  “It seems like you’re mistaking the theory of evolution for the hypothesis of abiogenesis. Evolution makes no claims of a creation myth: it simply states that over time (ie, many generations), the biological adaptations that best suit an organism to its environment will become dominant.”
  I think I covered this elsewhere in my above posts, sorry if I’ve confused this for a previous article though. That is the fallacy of equivocation. Evolution as the atheistic origins story refers to much more than merely biological change and natural selection, which biblical creationists believe in (and talked about before Darwin anyways). Since both sides agree on that, it’s rather red herringey to even bring it up, but I get that again that is the popular “stock response” to this point.
  
  But my argument stands. Evolution — the whole package, not just an equivocated little part of it that we both agree on ;) — is religious. Remember there is also “stellar evolution” etc. That term is applied to literally everything, not just biological change. Also, even within biology, we disagree on the “upvolution” idea, that from the simplest original life, it got more and more advanced by upward change rather than the universall observed downward or neutral changes. That part of the biological category is religious too; it is not observed and must be believed by faith.
  
  FTR, I’m very familiar with this subject; no mistaking here. :)
  
  Report this comment
- bonesiii
  Posted on January 8, 2013 at 5:55pm
  “This means that no evidence has ever disproven the theory of evolution”
  Oh yes it has, on many fronts. What you mean is that no evidence has been thought of as disproving it according to the (expressed; we allege often due to fear of consequences) opinions of scientists. Universally observed downward/neutral changes in genetic information, radiocarbon, various other clocks that give maximums far to young for it, as well as the positive proofs of the Bible and its hermeneutically correct interpretation of a Creator who told us he did not use death & suffering to create as that came after Adam’s sin. The list could go on and on. And that’s just the biological part you’re talking about; “evolution” in general as the full religious belief includes a lot more which has also been disproved in other ways.
  
  Basically, the only support evolution has left is a fallacy — Ad Populum or appeal to the majority. But that can and should change, and obviously it wasn’t always the majority so its own adherants are forced to believe that sometimes majority opinion should change; they didn’t object when Darwin and others changed the minds of the majority of their day.
  
  Report this comment
- bonesiii
  Posted on January 8, 2013 at 6:06pm
  But just for fun, let’s see what happens if we toss all that aside and pretend that everything he meant by “religion” is out and atheism and evolution (or in your case — apparently? — just evolution?). Even if so, then we’re back at square one, with no good answer to our question of “why not like religion?” since he likes things that answer the same questions and also require faith, EVEN if we don’t slap the label “religion” on his view.
  
  Note again, this question is not “why not agree with religion?” but why act like he utterly detests or at best strongly dislikes the whole idea? There’s no logical answer I’ve ever heard.
  
  And I do ask for a good reason — I’m honestly curious to know what answers atheists might give to this. I have asked it many times but sadly they have all apparently refused to answer, so I’m left with a mystery… and apparently more evidence that deep down they know they’re wrong because they realize their reasoning is illogical and can’t stand up to scrutiny. I’m a curious kind of guy, and even if I’m wrong about the evidence part of this, then it’s still disappointing ‘cuz I really wanna know. “Why?”
  
  You aren’t an atheist and you might be the only person still reading this so maybe I’m just wasting my time now though lol. :P If you have a guess, though, I’d love to hear it. :)
  
  Report this comment
- bonesiii
  Posted on January 8, 2013 at 6:12pm
  Typo: pretend that everything he meant by “religion” is out and atheism and evolution (or in your case — apparently? — just evolution?) is in.
  
  Report this comment
- bonesiii
  Posted on January 8, 2013 at 6:20pm
  Incidentally, another thing I would have added in previous posts if there was space:
  
  “As it’s a scientific consensus, it means that people who actually spend their lives studying this and have years of education and background in the subject largely agree with [evolution]”
  If you take away all the mindless assumptions based on mere words like “clergy” “seminary” and the like, this description is fully true of biblical Creationists too, yet he would call that a religion. All you’re really saying is that people who are convinced of a view tend to spend their lives working with things that it would affect, and/or people who spend their lives working with things it would affect tend to become convinced of a particular view. This is equally true (I would say much more true) of biblical creationists, and also true of various other beliefs.
  
  When you ‘trim the fat” from these arguments, all we’re really saying is that there are people who are convinced of particular views. Well… duh? :P
  
  Report this comment
- bonesiii
  Posted on January 8, 2013 at 6:24pm
  Rewording: When you trim the semantic fat.
  
  Besides, I have spent my life studying this issue far more in-depth than most scientists, who tend to merely focus on their scientific specialty rather than specifically and honestly (freely) questioning the big issues. Evolution is accepted by fiat and tradition today with little attention or thought put into it even by its most vocal proponents. Usually even the big names like Dawkins or Hawking aren’t even aware of the very basics of what we believe, but we’re intimately familiar with what they believe (often more so than them).
  
  It’s partly because I’ve observed that creationists tend to have worked far harder at honestly studying these questions that I was convinced. ^_^
  
  Report this comment
- ChrisDiamond
  Posted on January 14, 2013 at 11:22am
  So much to say…
  
  First, LTB, Christmas is a great time of year, for everyone. My Christian parents, sons, sister and niece came to my atheist home and communed with me and my Buddhist wife and children. We spent time together, loved each other, broke bread, exchanged gifts, enjoyed our time together… we played music, sang, play games, and nurtured important family bonds… all without a focus on Christ, Buddha, or the flying spaghetti monster. No one is trying to take Christmas away. Let’s get a grasp on reality, ok?
  
  THE_CABRITO_GOAT
  
  Your remark about Freedom’s take on contraception was a red herring. He said nothing about forcing anyone to purchase his contraception. You’re smarter than this and capable of much, MUCH better arguments. Further, the AIDS virus mutation is par for the course with the pathology of viruses. Why limit your blame to homosexuals? I mean there are bisexuals and IV drug users who should at least share the blame, no? You can do better.
  
  “Sorry to so rudely try and help you.” – You’re assuming that sin and hell are real, which we do not. So essentially, your ‘help’ through proselytizing etc is like trying to vaccinate us against a virus or bacteria that (to us) doesn’t exist.
  
  I’m going to have to read the other comments before responding to anything else, but TCG, and I mean this with all sincerity, you are capable of much, MUCH better arguments than these.
  
  Report this comment
- ChrisDiamond
  Posted on January 14, 2013 at 11:31am
  LTB
  
  From your 2nd response to FREEDOM:
  
  “I don’t seen Christians trying to ram their beliefs down your throat, what I see is you trying to ram your beliefs down the throats of other people.” – Of course you don’t. You’re a Christian, and only see Christian efforts as good, and right. You must consider your biases. How is FREEDOM expressing his opinions and thoughts forcing his beliefs down your throat? When you proselytize, isn’t that the same thing?
  
  “Also, no one has ever done anything terrible based on the advice, teachings or example of Jesus Christ. Jesus said that we are to love even our enemies, so if people do hateful things, it’s not because of anything that Jesus told them to do.” – I would encourage you to learn some history. Start with Pope Urban II, the birth of the Christian “Just War” theory, then the Spanish Inquisition, any any other ethnic cleansing for foundations in (or cover of) religious impetus.No, this isn’t directly from the teachings of Jesus, per se, but his words were twisted by many to serve some pretty atrocious agendas.
  
  “His offer to you is eternal life if you will just believe in him. It’s really an awesome deal and why anyone would refuse it is beyond me.” – The law was fulfilled, not undone. And simple belief in Him is not all that is required. You must believe in your heart, confess w/your mouth that Jesus is Lord, repent from sin and ask forgiveness. Some claim water baptism is necessary, too.
  
  Report this comment
- ChrisDiamond
  Posted on January 14, 2013 at 11:58am
  @BONESIII (from your 1st response to FREEDOM)
  
  Would you feel grateful toward a group of people warning you about the ‘real’ danger of the Boogeyman?
  
  “A lot of us believe it exposes your real motives to be a deeper knowledge that the Bible -is- true,” – Of course that’s what you tell yourselves. It reinforces your beliefs and paints those who do not believe as you do in a box you can more comfortably deal with us. We’re crazy, after all, or can’t see our true motives, but through your superior insight and knowledge you can blanket define everyone who doesn’t act/behave/believe as you do. That’s an extension of humanity’s tribal nature, and little more.
  
  Regarding the risk of potential hell… isn’t Pascal’s wager a lil overdone? It isn’t immature, it’s decisive. I do not believe in hell, so I shall not be shackled by fear of a non-existent place. See the Boogeyman remark above.
  
  Your reliance on logic to prove Christianity is illogical. You should know better.Even your remark about consciousness and linearity delves into the metaphysical as opposed to the empirical.
  
  I’m not sure I understand the last question about leaving deities and ‘other things’ out. To put it succinctly, atheism or hard agnosticism (I like that) disavows any belief in a supernatural being, or a conscious entity with powers, abilities, capacity etc that are not naturally observed in the universe… like super strength, speed, telekenesis, mind-reading, etc… like Jehovah.
  
  Report this comment
emilyhasbooks
Posted on January 7, 2013 at 11:04am
Freedom wins when church & state are kept separate. Also, there is no “war” & tossing that word around is careless.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- ltb
  Posted on January 7, 2013 at 11:33am
  There is no “separation of Church and State” and tossing those words around is what’s careless. If you want to know what a secular State looks like, where all religion has been banned, look at the former Soviet Union. If you want to know what a Christian State looks like, where everything is built upon the precept of “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you,” look at America.
  
  Report this comment
- Freedomlover_US
  Posted on January 7, 2013 at 11:55am
  LTB – secular does not mean “forced atheism”, it simply means no governmental preference of religion. The problem with the Soviets is that their communism was too much like a religion; no society ever had it’s downfall because people were too reasonable.
  
  And yes, there is a very real seperation of church and state – get over it.
  
  Report this comment
- ltb
  Posted on January 7, 2013 at 12:28pm
  Freedomlover_US, Who in the world taught you this nonsense about there being separation of Church and State in America? I’ve no doubt that’s what you were told to believe when you were indoctrinated in a State run school, but you were lied to. Evidently your teachers thought you were too stupid and too lazy to research the matter yourself. Don’t prove them right, read the writings of the founding fathers (hint, Stalin was not a founding father), read about the role of establishmentarianism in the colonies and then read the Congressional records from 06/07/1789 through 09/25/1789. After you’ve educated yourself, come back and let’s chat.
  
  —–
  
  “If this court doesn’t stop talking about separation of church and state, someone will think it is part of the Constitution.” – from the Supreme Court’s dissenting opinion in Bear v. Colmorgan, 1958
  
  Report this comment
- ltb
  Posted on January 7, 2013 at 12:41pm
  Freedomlover_US, BTW, if secular means “no governmental preference of religion,” then you need to read the Constitution if you think America was founded as a secular nation. The Constitution doesn’t say, “The government shall have no preference in matters of religion,” it says “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof….” Until Congress passes a law that says something like “Methodism will be the official religion of America and all Americans will pay a 10% tithe to the Methodist Church of America,” you people need to stop whining about this mythical separation of Church and State doctrine you’ve deluded yourselves into believing is part of the Constitution.
  
  Report this comment
- Freedomlover_US
  Posted on January 7, 2013 at 12:47pm
  Ah yes, the State run school conspiracy theory – they’re all teaching us lies!!! What about letters written by early president in which they clearly state “we are not a christian nation” (Adams and Jefferson both said it) and about how there is no religious test for public office. I’m sorry, but you are seriously deluded if you think the Constitution doesn’t have a strict seperation of church and state. But I’ll indulge you: what do you think it means, and what should the government do, in your opinion, regarding church and state?
  
  Report this comment
- ltb
  Posted on January 7, 2013 at 1:42pm
  When you say that Jefferson said, “we are not a Christian nation,” presumably you’re talking about the Treaty of Tripoli. If you’re going to cite the Treaty of Tripoli as support for your mistaken claim that America was never a Christian nation, go back and read the treaty, but this time consider the punctuation and don’t take any comments out of context. The Treaty of Tripoli states that while America IS a Christian nation, it is not a Christian nation like heretical European “Christian” nations that used Christianity to justify the Spanish Inquisitions and the Crusades.
  
  After you’ve read the Treaty of Tripoli, read the opinion of the Supreme Court in 1899 (Church of the Holy Trinity v. United States), which concluded that America is a “Christian Nation” after considering 87 precedents, quotes from the Founding Fathers and excerpts from Congressional Acts. Do you know how many precedents and excerpts from the Congressional records the liberal dominated Supreme Court cited in 1947 when it reached the unfounded conclusion that there is wall of separation between Church and State? Not one and the only quote they referenced from Jefferson was taken completely out of context.
  
  Report this comment
- bonesiii
  Posted on January 7, 2013 at 3:47pm
  Sorry but to say there’s no “war” is just obvious denial. It’s all over the place. And naive to think that their motives actually are their “cover story” of “separation”. Even if so, that’s not in the Constitution and it actually -protects- our right to religious expression, no exception made for public land. These atheist attacks are not about separation but about unconstitutionally “establishing” their own religion at the expense of Christianity.
  
  “LTB – secular does not mean “forced atheism”, it simply means no governmental preference of religion.”
  Thing is, we expect answers like this from atheists, because something we’ve begun to notice is that it IS a religion, whose first rule is “it’s okay to lie” and second is “always lie that it’s not a religion.” This allows you to get around the establishment clause, force evolution down kids’ throats in science classes (and anywhere else), and illegally ban free expression of other religions under the guise of the extra-constitutional “separation” idea.
  
  Also, as soon as you guys feel you can get away with it, you DO infringe on our expression rights even on private property by various other deceptive means, putting the lie to the claim that it’s just about government property. Cases have been numerous, especially recently. Basically, you can keep saying this lie, but the cat’s out of the bag now. (I just hope you realize those you’re blindly parroting ARE lying.)
  
  Report this comment
Lesbian Packing Hollow Points
Posted on January 7, 2013 at 10:09am
There is no “War on Christmas” to win, therefore, no one won it. No one lost it.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- ltb
  Posted on January 7, 2013 at 11:34am
  Why do you hate Christmas?
  
  Report this comment
- Lesbian Packing Hollow Points
  Posted on January 7, 2013 at 1:23pm
  Be– uh, because I do NOT wage war on Christmas– I hate it?
  
  Report this comment
- The_Cabrito_Goat
  Posted on January 7, 2013 at 1:26pm
  Merry Mass of Christ.
  
  Report this comment
- bonesiii
  Posted on January 7, 2013 at 3:58pm
  If only we could do this for all wars! Hitler killing people? Eh, there IS no Holocaust, and no WWII! So no war to win. Voila, problem solved.
  
  Yeesh…
  
  Report this comment
- ChrisDiamond
  Posted on January 14, 2013 at 12:38pm
  @LTB
  
  “Why do you hate Christmas?” – You’re a huge fan of employing logical fallacies. Let me know how that works out for you.
  
  Report this comment
vaman
Posted on January 7, 2013 at 9:21am
Yet again, the fictional war on xmas from the blaze. Keep making the religious extremists even more crazy. Keeping your little crosses and baby’s off of public land is not an attack, it the correct thing to do.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- bonesiii
  Posted on January 7, 2013 at 6:35pm
  So one side in a way doing what they believe is right makes it not a war?
  
  Don’t both sides do what they think is right? So do we. Defending our constitutional right to free expression of religion is what’s right, logically.
  
  And none of that changes that there very much is a conflict. Label it what you like, but that’s just a word game and has no effect on the reality of it.
  
  Report this comment
- bonesiii
  Posted on January 8, 2013 at 6:15pm
  Typo: one side in a war.
  
  lol
  
  Report this comment
- ChrisDiamond
  Posted on January 14, 2013 at 12:15pm
  While I agree that the promotion of the notion of a war on Christmas is a tactical move more than an objective analysis of reality (the Blaze would never…), I agree with a lot of what BONESIII said, too. It is completely logical for Christians to stand up and defend themselves and their freedom to commence in their religious practices. With two opposing sides in the matter, it’s arguable that there is a ‘war’ of sorts between the religious and the secualrists. My biggest fear is that this is being hyped and promoted to encourage folks to ‘pick teams’ and prepare them mentally to accept or even demand harsh action being taken against the ‘other’ side. And the masses on both sides play right into that hand.
  
  I hereby declare that I shall not, in any way, shape or form, commit myself to or otherwise lend any support to any course of action that infringes upon the natural rights of any sentient being, even if the right in question is to worship something I do not believe exists. I also explicitly retain the right to defend myself and my freedom from coercive efforts to force my participation in, financial support of, or otherwise sanction any religion, religious denomination, religious congregation, doctrine or practice.In other words, Christians (and Jews, Muslims ad nauseum), this atheist is NOT your enemy.
  
  Report this comment
jungle J
Posted on January 7, 2013 at 9:08am
the sane won….what a stupid question. God always wins.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
Locked
Posted on January 7, 2013 at 8:46am
As their is no war on Christmas, I’d say Christians won. I saw mangers, trees, and lights everywhere I went. Almost all the major radio stations in the area played Christmas music from Thanksgiving through the New Year. Services on Christmas Day were packed at my church.

Anyone who thinks Christmas is in danger of disappearing is insane.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- Locked
  Posted on January 7, 2013 at 9:39am
  Thinking about it, saying “Christians won the war on Christmas!” is akin to saying “Congress kept us from going over the fiscal cliff!” It’s like making up your own problems just to “solve” them and then pat yourself on the back.
  
  Report this comment
Firemedic049
Posted on January 7, 2013 at 8:41am
Christmas at Northway Church, in upstate NY and the Berkshires, 11 services over 3 days, record attendance. I’d say that the Christians won.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
Chromo200
Posted on January 7, 2013 at 8:35am
atheists can take Christ out of Christmas and call it winter holiday but I will keep Christ in my home, and I will exercise my freedom of speech anytime and anywhere I can.

After a while Christmas season will be another few days of “celebration” without a sole .. It will be like a day out to a corn eating festival.

As long as Christians keep the faith, we will celebrate Christmas and make it fun, and atheists will be a sad bunch of people.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- ChrisDiamond
  Posted on January 14, 2013 at 12:28pm
  You really had me until this statement:
  
  “As long as Christians keep the faith, we will celebrate Christmas and make it fun, and atheists will be a sad bunch of people.”
  
  I don’t know why in the world Christians hold tight to this fallacy that atheists are a ‘sad bunch of people.’ Have you pondered how senseless and ridiculous this assumption is?
  
  Report this comment
woodyee
Posted on January 7, 2013 at 7:28am
First line ol’ Bill wrote was “The holiday season has officially come to a close,…”

Even ol’ Billy doesn’t know the Reason for the “season”.

Hey, ol’ Billy, what phrase are you going to use to describe Ramadan? “Holiday season” again?

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
Kara_ite
Posted on January 7, 2013 at 6:11am
Sorry, but I hate Christmas, hate it, hate it!
But, I would never interfere with anyones belief system, ever. I am a Libertarian and believe in personal liberty for all.
If you want to celebrate anything, as long as it is legal and won’t hurt anyone, I am all for your own personal liberty!
I like my liberty to hate it and I like your liberty to enjoy it to the fullest.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- mikefromaltoona
  Posted on January 7, 2013 at 7:43am
  As a God believing non-Christian, I love Christmas, love it, love it! I will continue to blissfully ignore the atheists and Christians as they battle on. It matters not to me if there is a manger scene in the town park or an anti-Christmas ad on a city bus. I enjoy being wished merry Christmas or happy holidays.
  Christmas, for me, is a time to reflect on the philosophy espoused by the man Jesus and to bask in the warm affection of friends and family.
  
  Report this comment
- Locked
  Posted on January 7, 2013 at 8:49am
  “Sorry, but I hate Christmas, hate it, hate it!”
  
  How can you hate Christmas? I’m honestly interested. The only reasons I can think of are:
  -Tacky decorations and caroles
  -Too much spending
  -You hate Christianity
  
  And hardly anyone falls into that last category; most who hate Christmas fall into the first. As a Christian, even I was sick of the constant Christmas music on the radio by the time the actual day came around!
  
  Report this comment
cmr396
Posted on January 7, 2013 at 4:16am
To fellow atheists. Please stop getting so involved in religion, we are non believers. This doesn’t mean everyone else also has to be the same way.
And to those religious, I just want to say that not all atheists are this annoying or set on stopping Christmas. I’m an atheist and Christmas is my favorite holiday! I love giving to others and seeing everyone is such great spirits.
Sheesh it seems atheists are geting more involved in religion than the religious! Lol

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- American Drywaller
  Posted on January 7, 2013 at 7:52am
  The most intelligent post by an atheist I think I’ve seen on the Blaze.
  
  Report this comment
- woodyee
  Posted on January 7, 2013 at 8:18am
  My God! An atheist with their head and arse in the right places for a change! It’s another merkle!
  
  ;-)
  
  Report this comment
- Melika
  Posted on January 7, 2013 at 8:24am
  That’s because it has become Atheist, with a capital “A”. I know a lot of these clowns and the facts are that they hate Christmas and Christianity because of a combination perceived slights and a desire to feel more important and smarter than others. Atheism has become a religion for small minded, emotionally weak people.
  I can no longer have intelligent discussions about religions and their evolution with other “atheists” because they quickly devolve into an historically incorrect bashing of Christianity that can’t be derailed. I wish these Atheists would stop calling themselves atheists and just go with Satanism so I stop wasting my time.
  
  Report this comment
- ChrisDiamond
  Posted on January 14, 2013 at 1:13pm
  @MELIKA
  
  “I know a lot of these clowns and the facts are that they hate Christmas and Christianity because of a combination perceived slights and a desire to feel more important and smarter than others.” – So you’re omniscient, and know people’s ‘true’ intents? Their motivations? They disagree with you and are willing to debate and argue about it with you. Of COURSE they only want to exalt themselves and feel intellectually superior. Meanwhile, you, the Christian insult them by calling them clowns… Hmm…
  
  “Atheism has become a religion for small-minded, emotionally weak people.” – Beacuse YOU say so. Now, who is attempting to exalt themselves as intellectually superior here? We’re small-minded? Emotionally weak? To ask the age-old philosophical question, as compared to what?
  
  “I can no longer have intelligent discussions about religions and their evolution with other “atheists” because they quickly devolve into an historically incorrect bashing of Christianity that can’t be derailed. I wish these Atheists would stop calling themselves atheists and just go with Satanism so I stop wasting my time.”
  
  Pardon me, but it doesn’t sound like you’ve ever had an ‘intelligent’ conversation with an atheist. You’ve betrayed yourself as someone quick to label someone and dismiss them if they disagree with you and dare debate. Your wishing we would just ‘go with Satanism’ is hysterical. Why would we believe in that fairy tale? It’s logically inconsistent
  
  Report this comment
urrybr
Posted on January 7, 2013 at 3:00am
I thought it was funny that they called Jesus Christ mythical, but had a picture of Santa Claus. Are these guys really that stupid?

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- YAHSHUARULES
  Posted on January 7, 2013 at 3:23am
  Left plans and goals are at WAR with God: a moral people who believe their rights come from God would never want nor need what they are selling and they know it. Stalin said “If I could control Hollywood, I could rule the world.” Lenin founder of Soviet Union said “Give me four years to teach the children and the seed I have sown will never be uprooted.” John Dewey went to Russia and influenced education to socialize child to be a tool of the state – to dumb down not teach to critically think. Once there is control of teacher’s unions, education colleges this becomes self perpetuating you remake the country in the schools rather then by throwing bombs. Your children in government schools 7hrs a day for 13 years being indoctrinated with anti-American, anti-God, anti-capitalism. Journalists now trained to interpret events and not report facts. Teachers union supports forcing every child to attend public school. Home schoolers beware.
  
  All part of the Agenda to create an America so corrupt it stinks; use public policy to subvert America from inside, infiltrate and influence our culture driving us in a direction designed to destroy us. . If you don’t know all this you need to find out!
  
  I have watched it 12X to absorb all that is in it! Give this movie 5 minutes of your time and you won’t be able to walk away
  This is the most comprehensive, best movie. Watch it. Share it. Arrange a showing in church, groups,
  https://vimeo.com/52009124
  
  Report this comment
- Marine25
  Posted on January 7, 2013 at 9:27am
  @URRYBR
  So Santa flying about in a magic sleigh is mythical, and Christ resurrected is truth? Yet there are the same sorts and amounts of evidence for each; dusty books, cultural acceptance, well-told stories.
  
  Report this comment
13a
Posted on January 7, 2013 at 1:57am
Every year the “War on Christmas” is won by the atheists. In fact, every year they win more battles than they won the previous year. There was no draw, Christians didn’t win, and there is a war of sorts, so the only correct answer is “The atheists won naturally”. If you voted for any other choice then you really must be in hardcore denial. Expect them to have another big win in 2013.

Hey, even Bob Marley said “we’ve got to fulfill the book” ya know?

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- bonesiii
  Posted on January 7, 2013 at 2:07am
  In a -sense- they have had those victories, yes, but by any truly objective or meaningful measurement, they’re not really victories at all, are they? They can ban a symbol (well, not legally, but yeah), they can ban speech, they can ban expression… They could even at some point fall so far as to kill people who disagree with them or even suspected to, like in the book 1984 — but they cannot ban free thought.
  
  Honestly, it’s hard to even see how if they got everything they wanted it could REALLY be a victory. All it would do is trap more people into a path towards hell, as well as more misery in this life. “Be careful what you wish for”, as it were.
  
  But yes, things have gotten worse, so I agree we can’t, by the same token, say that Christianity has been making huge strides. Still, as long as more people are coming to Christ, we’re doing the right thing. :) (Yet, we MUST be spurred to do more and more, as lives are on the line.)
  
  Report this comment
bonesiii
Posted on January 7, 2013 at 1:52am
Victory is when even just one more person accepts Jesus’ free salvation for eternal life. :) You can’t measure that in the illegal bans of the atheists. What they never seem to realize is that this obvious foolishness only gives us more opportunity to point out how wrong they are, how insecure in their beliefs to need to become Thought Police — and how hypocritical while claiming to be “freethinkers”.

Really, there IS no path to true victory for atheism, for the very simple reason that it is FALSE. I have faith that there will -always- be people who will see through falsehoods, and no lie will stand forever. So any apparent victory they can claim is miserably hollow.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- YAHSHUARULES
  Posted on January 7, 2013 at 3:27am
  Behind ever “ism: is a communist or socialist – and everyone of them target the traditional family. Marx was a war with the bourgeois – that is biblical family. In 1960’s all on the left realized Gramsci was right they needed to infiltrate Hollywood, non-profits, media, labor, education, churches, and government to change the culture. In a Judeo/Christian society they never would persuade people to rise up in a Marxist Revolution and start killing each other off. They had to penetrate the institutions of influence to change people from within. As far back as 1930’s effort has been underway to break down basic rules of morality and move culture in a direction designed to destroy it. Large part of this agenda is to make us immoral people. All these ideologies work together to break down the value, sanctity of all human life. The left validated the Judeo/Christian world view by what they attack.
  
  There is much more then just a war on Christmas
  https://vimeo.com/52009124
  If America goes down, the free world will go down with it and it will be finished for a very, very long time…
  
  Report this comment
- ChrisDiamond
  Posted on January 14, 2013 at 2:36pm
  @YAHSHUARULES
  
  There is some of your post I agree with, and I’ll get to that at the end to finish on a good note, but…
  
  “Behind ever (sic) “ism: is a communist or socialist – and everyone of them target the traditional family.” – Hmm… Agorism, monotheism, polytheism, Deism, Catholicism, Mormonism, Baptism (HA), Libertarianism, Capitalism, Conservatism, Calvinism… I could go on, but hopefully these few are enough to paint this comment you made with the appropriate level of scrutiny as to show it’s absurdity.
  
  In the 60′s Irving Kristol and fellow Trotskyites also gave birth to neoconservatism (another ism), and this is an important inclusion to the other things you mentioned. They promote God and Guns under illusions like the Christian ‘just war’ theory, and the dismantling of liberty under their ‘traditional values’ mantra.
  
  But it’s not correct (or just) to lump all atheists in with the radicals like the FFRF. I’ll agree that they have a messed up agenda for precisely the reasons you listed. I believe they are a tool to help demoralize society by turning it away from a moral base. That being said, atheists like myself take morality quite seriously, and engage in discussions regarding morality often, with theists and atheists alike. We do not all believe “Do what thou wilt,” or “If it feels good, do it.” I hope you would consider my type of atheist as someone who is not your enemy, despite our religious disagreement.
  
  Report this comment
truthspeare
Posted on January 7, 2013 at 1:40am
We Christians have been the brunt of intolerance for over 2,000 years. The irony is, Jesus taught us peace and love, which led to our hatred. So it is, in the best of all worlds. Now a song: Dose.

Truthspeare Copyright, Sometimes 2013

Flying that carpet made of lead
Rubbing a lamp
Images by smoke
Filling the head

Genie on a flight plan
Destination some special address
To that little girl
Wearing a special black dress

Ride junkie ride, to succeed?
Will it ease the afflictions?
Is it what you need?
To ease the addictions?

Have you walked the line?
White like snow?
Does it make you stuck?
Or just press your go?

Have you seen the hem
Long legs to top thinly go
All atop heels
Where all desires grow

Where you also see things high,
What stretching fabric reveals
Such attractive nature
Mankind refuses to conceal

What is your prescription plan?
So what is your choice medicine?
Do you like the way it makes you feel?
Do you like the things it makes you do?
What is the result when your thru?

Dosing is an appetite that grows
On what it feeds and the result shows?
What you take, it’s what you do
In and out of your clothes

But if you deny it, it don’t come close
Enough to catch a fever love knows
To ride that carpet of need
When ya find that dose to succeed
And you find it’s true
When you like the way it makes you feel
When you like the things it makes you do.
And it’s why you take the dose that becomes you.

Copyr

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- truthspeare
  Posted on January 7, 2013 at 2:03am
  Should have said “hatred of us”, instead of “our hatred”, but my real meaning was in context.
  Just a line for hatred atheists. We Christians have been mocked you as being child like, like believing in Jesus Christ is like believing in Santa Claus. Let’s examine.
  
  Jesus Christ was a human being with a philiosophy. Peace and love. Now it is true, it is open to debate, currently, whether eternal life exists. I concede Santa Claus is a myth.
  
  Now we turn to your belief. What exactly do you believe in?
  
  If you believe in science, exactly what science do you believe in? We do not even understand the Sun, where it came from, not seen its core, etc, etc, etc. But we do know it will eventually burn out. End. Do you believe in the Earth, it also will eventually demise.
  
  The point is, hatred atheist, what you acuse me of is not so different than yourself, it is all a matter of degree, really. Yes, Santa Claus, as child-thought, is a temporary concept, yet, whatever it is you believe in, is the same, like, kind of like, Santa Claus. So what is the point of mocking Christian belief in Jesus Christ, who is an actual historical person, with actual philosophy, with mythical Santa Claus? If you believe in nothing, we reach the same conclusion. At the end, we have a philosphy, you have nothing and remain, predicatably, pointless. You have cute lines, but they are absurd. Truthspeare. I await your response. Let’s go.
  
  Report this comment
- macpappy
  Posted on January 7, 2013 at 2:39pm
  You don’t know much about the history of the Christians, here let me enlighten you:
  The First Crusade was the most successful from a military point of view. Accounts of this action are shocking. For example, historian Raymond of Agiles described the capture of Jerusalem by the Crusaders in 1099:
  “Some of our men cut off the heads of their enemies; others shot them with arrows, so that they fell from the towers; others tortured them longer by casting them into the flames. Piles of heads, hands and feet were to be seen in the streets of the city. It was necessary to pick one’s way over the bodies of men and horses. But these were small matters compared to what happened at the temple of Solomon, a place where religious services ware ordinarily chanted. What happened there? If I tell the truth, it will exceed your powers of belief. So let it suffice to say this much at least, that in the temple and portico of Solomon, men rode in blood up to their knees and bridle reins.”
  Yep, peaceful.
  
  Report this comment
- ChrisDiamond
  Posted on January 14, 2013 at 2:54pm
  TRUTHSPEARE
  
  What do atheists believe in? Most importantly, and I believe most all atheists would submit this, we believe that we do not presume to know the answer before the question is asked. We do not believe in the “God of the Gaps”, whenever science is unable to explain something. We readily admit that science does not ‘know’ everything, but acknowledge that, at the very least, science admits what it doesn’t know, and when it’s wrong. This is absolutely critical to the continual advancement of science and our knowledge/understanding of the amazing world and universe around us. I’ll readily admit that I cannot disprove the existence of God. I wonder if you would admit that you cannot prove His existence.
  
  We actually do understand the sun. A google search would provide plenty of resources.
  
  Finally, Santa Claus is based on a ‘real person’, too. So your entire argument in the final paragraph is really moot. But to put more light on your bias and ignorance, you claim that Christians have philosophy, and we have nothing… Were Aristotle, Plato, Socrates, Shakyamuni Buddha, Confuscius (just to name a few recognized fathers of or parties heavily influential to philosophy) Christians? NOPE. So get over yourself.
  
  “Sin” was a disease invented to sell you a cure that you did not need. Religion is a mechanism by which the few control the many. That is more easily arguable than is a supernatural deity for who’s existence there still remains no proof.
  
  Report this comment
Ben Stewart
Posted on January 7, 2013 at 1:33am
Christian believers constantly get. Certainly not stop trying this combat. Atheist should need to work through the The holiday season Getaways or perhaps refuse this spend.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
The Third Archon
Posted on January 7, 2013 at 1:26am
“After all, nothing says “War on Christmas” like a new holiday intended to replace the annual celebration surrounding Jesus’ birth. While HumanLight is far from mainstream (read about it here), it’s observance is gaining traction in atheist circles across the nation. This, of course, is an extreme example of potential evidence that non-believers are waging an epic battle against America’s most popular and revered holiday.”
WHAT?! We already have a replacement holiday and it’s been around for awhile–it’s called the Saturnalia.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
Smokey_Bojangles
Posted on January 7, 2013 at 12:52am
” If ye have faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye shall say unto this mountain, Remove hence to yonder place; and it shall remove.”
Satan does not require that much faith.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
Farwalker
Posted on January 7, 2013 at 12:37am
Strange really. Atheists don’t believe in “all this religion and faith stuff” so to them it is all fake….

Have you ever seen a person or group of people fight against something so passionately that they don’t believe in?

Atheism IS in itself a religion. It is a religion of anti-faith. Atheists (not all) are practicing bigotry, discrimination, intolerance, and persecution of other religious groups. Atheists groups like Freedom From Religion should be designated as a HATE group just like the KKK, Neo-Nazis, Black Panthers, and NAACP.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- ChrisDiamond
  Posted on January 14, 2013 at 3:02pm
  FARWALKER,
  
  When believers can (and do) use the political process to influence laws we have to live under, then it becomes a threat to our freedom, even if the impetus for the believers’ belief is imaginary. If Pastafarians started gaining political support for removing all food but pasta from grocery stores under the helm of Pastafarianism, you’d fight against that, wouldn’t you? Bad example, but I think you get my point.
  
  Your 2nd paragraph shows some political savvy on your part by conjuring the tactics of the left to your advantage… but shows your true colors, in my opinion.
  
  Government is force. Washington said it… but when I and others who believe as I do attempt to show others the government ‘gun in the room’, we quickly discover that most people do not like it, but aren’t willing to give it up. Further conversation reveals that, ultimately, they like having that gun to point at others when the issue is something they champion, and they’re willing to have it pointed at them for issues they disagree with just to hang on to their lil piece of power behind that gun. That’s you. That’s a lot of people here at The Blaze. But you’ll say I’m intolerant, hateful, bigoted…? Look in the mirror, pal. What did Jesus say about motes and splinters…?
  
  Report this comment
Wisdom7
Posted on January 7, 2013 at 12:37am
Wisdom of Solomon 2

For the ungodly said…

10 Let us oppress the poor righteous man, let us not spare the widow, nor reverence the ancient gray hairs of the aged.

11 Let our strength be the law of justice: for that which is feeble is found to be nothing worth.

12 Therefore let us lie in wait for the righteous; because he is not for our turn, and he is clean contrary to our doings: he upbraideth us with our offending the law, and objecteth to our infamy the transgressings of our education.

13 He professeth to have the knowledge of God: and he calleth himself the child of the Lord.

14 He was made to reprove our thoughts.

15 He is grievous unto us even to behold: for his life is not like other men’s, his ways are of another fashion.

16 We are esteemed of him as counterfeits: he abstaineth from our ways as from filthiness: he pronounceth the end of the just to be blessed, and maketh his boast that God is his father.

17 Let us see if his words be true: and let us prove what shall happen in the end of him.

18 For if the just man be the son of God, he will help him, and deliver him from the hand of his enemies.

19 Let us examine him with despitefulness and torture, that we may know his meekness, and prove his patience.

20 Let us condemn him with a shameful death: for by his own saying he shall be respected.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- Wisdom7
  Posted on January 7, 2013 at 12:38am
  It is written, “My people perish for lack of knowledge”. This so called “war” would not be taking place if the church would have first taken care of its own house. God did not call his house to be divided. There are too many “preachers” paying lip service for the filthy lucre. Look inward before looking outward and you won’t like what you find. Worry not about the atheist. It’s time to clean house.
  
  Report this comment
Bigmac1947
Posted on January 7, 2013 at 12:27am
Christians always win. Never give up the fight. Atheist should be forced to work during the Christmas Holidays or refuse the pay.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
banjarmon
Posted on January 7, 2013 at 12:04am
I will keep CHRIST in CHRISTmas and wish everyone a MERRY CHRISTMAS no matter who they are!!!
IF THEY DON’T LIKE IT ….TOUGH NUGGIES!!!

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- neverending
  Posted on January 7, 2013 at 12:27am
  Many of us join you in that.
  
  Report this comment
The-Monk
Posted on January 6, 2013 at 11:17pm
Hi Billy H,

You need a 5th choice….. IMHO.

Nobody won and everyone lost.

The Atheist lost for being pompous, ignorant, arrogant jerks and will suffer from the guilt they will feel for treating fellow Humans the way they did. (This is inescapable BTW)

The Christians lost for having their celebrations messed up AND the guilt some will feel for having grievances against the Atheists and their actions.

In the 2012 Atheist vs Christian Christmas saga…. their were no winners and only losers.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- ModerationIsBest
  Posted on January 6, 2013 at 11:30pm
  Ah, religion once again playing the victim card.
  
  I”m sure there were no Christians being pompous, ignorant and arrogant.
- TSUNAMI_22
  Posted on January 6, 2013 at 11:40pm
  ModerationIsBest
  
  Ah, religion once again playing the victim card.
  
  “pompous, ignorant and arrogant.”
  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
  I believe you’re describing Islam.
  
  Report this comment
- The-Monk
  Posted on January 6, 2013 at 11:53pm
  Howdy Mod,
  
  Let me splain it to ya….
  
  “….the guilt some will feel for having grievances against the Atheists…”
  
  is being
  
  “…pompous, ignorant and arrogant….” in many ways.
  
  Got it now?
  
  Report this comment
- The-Monk
  Posted on January 6, 2013 at 11:56pm
  Also Mod,
  
  I never mentioned or alluded to anyone, “playing the victim card”.
  
  That’s what came out of your mind.
  
  Report this comment
- ModerationIsBest
  Posted on January 7, 2013 at 1:21am
  @THE-MONK
  
  How interesting you decided to finish your sentence with “….” instead of with what you really originally posted which was just three more words.
  
  What words were those you may be asking? “and their actions.”
  
  Therefore the context of your sentence was that Christians lost because their celebration got “messed up” and may have guilt for the grievances of ” Atheists and their actions” Therefore logic dictates that your statement is saying that the only reason a Christian would be “pompous, arrogant, and ignorant” is because of the atheist and their actions. Ergo, “I’m only acting this way because of what you’re doing to me” IE, “victim card.”
  
  The “War on Christmas” is initiated by Christianity because they can no longer shove their religion in everyone’s faces without some push back.
  
  I’ve always noticed that religion cries for religious freedom as long as they’re the dominant religion and can impose their religion through legislation. Once a religion is no longer powerful enough to impose themselves, they cry about persecution.
  
  Report this comment
- The_Cabrito_Goat
  Posted on January 7, 2013 at 1:19pm
  What religious legislation?
  
  Report this comment
- ModerationIsBest
  Posted on January 7, 2013 at 10:58pm
  @THE_CABRITO_GOAT
  
  Hmm, let’s see
  “I believe life begins at conception, therefore we’re going to outlaw all abortion and even some forms of the morning after pill.”
  
  “God says homosexuality is an abomination therefore it shouldn’t be allowed.”
  
  “We should teach creationism alongside evolution.”
  
  Those ring a bell?
  
  And some other forms of religious encroachment on a secular form of government
  Under God being put in the pledge in the 1950s
  In God we Trust being put on our dollars in the 50s and being listed as our motto
  
  I have friends who say that the Bible should be consulted on matters of domestic and foreign policy. I also see tons of Christians advocating for something very similar.
  
  Need more examples or will those suffice?
  
  Report this comment
- The_Cabrito_Goat
  Posted on January 8, 2013 at 1:10am
  “I believe life begins at conception, therefore we’re going to outlaw all abortion and even some forms of the morning after pill.”
  
  That’s not a secular-non secular issue, it is a human issue. It can be decided based on science. The embryonic baby has its own unique DNA strand, as unique as a fingerprint. Any child can look at a 4D or 3D image with today’s technology and say ‘baby!’
  
  “God says homosexuality is an abomination therefore it shouldn’t be allowed.”
  
  Keep government out of the marriage business. Ba da boom.
  
  Also, disallow it? Who says that? What, we gonna make a police state against homosexual activity? That’s not even worth discussing further.
  
  “We should teach creationism alongside evolution.”
  
  Get government out of education. It has no constitutional place there.
  
  “And some other forms of religious encroachment on a secular form of government
  Under God being put in the pledge in the 1950s
  In God we Trust being put on our dollars in the 50s and being listed as our motto”
  
  It’s silly. It was meant to ‘smoke out the commies’
  
  “I have friends who say that the Bible should be consulted on matters of domestic and foreign policy. I also see tons of Christians advocating for something very similar.”
  
  This again? Second time and it still hasn’t stuck. Yes or no does a mere consult, just READING many different sources before making a contemplated, informed decision in the arduous process of government, establish a state-
  
  Report this comment
- ChrisDiamond
  Posted on January 14, 2013 at 3:06pm
  THE_CABRITO_GOAT
  
  Now that was an argument I am more used to reading from you. Excellent points.
  
  Report this comment
soybomb315_II
Posted on January 6, 2013 at 11:09pm
i just dont understand why christians are so hell bent on fussing about public places having a big fat santa clause….That is more in the atheist ballpark
Log in to ReplyReply
- ModerationIsBest
  Posted on January 6, 2013 at 11:31pm
  The best and only option is, “there is no war on Christmas.”
- Quester55
  Posted on January 6, 2013 at 11:36pm
  Soy, It’s really an attack on JESUS & Those that Follow his Teachings, Than it is on the One Day of the Year in this Country, Whereas People, seem to treat one another as, EQUALS & NOT ENEMIES.
  This Peaceful Action, For Some Mysterious Reason, offends & Scares the Hell out of All MUSLIM & ATHEIST Alike! These Mindless ATHEIST Don’t Believe in OUR GOD, JESUS, And It Is Their Right To Choose Not To Believe! No One is Standing behind them with a COURT ORDER DEMANDING THAT: LOOK AT, WATCH a Program, Listen to a Song Or Even Go to a Church, Yet they Half Kill themselves, Trying to FORCE THE REST of Us That DO BELIEVE IN JESUS, AS THE LORD GOD ALMIGHTY, To REJECT OUR FAITH. WHY!!!
  Have you’ve ever heard their Silly Reasons?
  Some Atheist Claim that as their is no god, Then THEY are Trying their Hardest to ” HEAL US of our DELUSIONS,”. Furthermore, They say that having a Faith in ” Something or Someone you can’t Feel, Touch, Smell,Taste, Hear, or See, Is a Sure Sign of Mental Illness!
  Yet they Always FAIL when Tested? By their own Words: Can You TASTE LIGHT – NO!, Can You, Taste Space – No, Can you Hear SILENCE? – No, Can you SMELL the SUN? – NO! So how do You Prove Beyond a Doubt that any of those things I asked about are REAL?!?
  At this point, You’ll see most atheist Get very Angry & Stomp, off in a Huff!!!
  Point is, The Atheist FEAR Believers, Not for their FAITH, But for Their own FEAR of being WRONG!>
  RESIST the devil & he’ll Flee from You.
  
  Report this comment
- ModerationIsBest
  Posted on January 6, 2013 at 11:39pm
  @QUESTER55
  
  HAHAHAHA WHAT?! Wait, is this a serious post?
  
  “Can you smell the sun?” No, but I can see the sun.
  
  Wow, where are you going with this?
- jeanr
  Posted on January 7, 2013 at 12:00am
  I can smell the sun. It’s very gassy.
  
  Report this comment
- BODYBAG
  Posted on January 7, 2013 at 12:04am
  This website now has comment threads started by trolls who are responded to by other trolls?
  Wow. Time to make a move to better company.
  
  Report this comment
- Anonymous T. Irrelevant
  Posted on January 7, 2013 at 12:10am
  TIMMY? Is that you? New handle?
  
  Report this comment
- The_Cabrito_Goat
  Posted on January 7, 2013 at 1:29pm
  Always on the front page. How suspicious.
  
  Trust me, we would be head and shoulders over the Huffington Post if the dayum moderators would do their jobs and make sure the tens of thousands of visitors that come to the blaze everyday were not greeted by ugly contempt spewed by troll squads.
  
  Report this comment
- ChrisDiamond
  Posted on January 14, 2013 at 3:15pm
  QUESTER
  
  Yes, we claim there is no God, but it’s a little more involved than that: I cannot prove that God does not exist, but based on all known evidence and empirical data, I believe God’s existence to be so remote of a possibility that it is almost certain God does not exist.
  
  But then you go off in the weeds, man. Light can be seen, it’s waves are even used to carry electronic signals. It’s speed can be measured. We dont need to taste or hear light to know it exists. We don’t need to taste or feel space to know it exists. It is observable whether we can taste it or not. Hearing silence? Really? What is silence but the absence of sound? What is darkness but the absence of light? Sound produces measurable waves that we can manipulate to carry signals. The term silence is nothing more than a descriptor for the absence of sound. So not to parrot MODERATION, but… is this a serious post?
  
  CABRITO
  
  If you’re including the hate-mongering by good Christians here like BODYBAG and a few others, I’ll agree with you.
  
  Report this comment

It appears that you have Javascript Disabled. Please enable Javascript in your browser preferences for a better user experience on TheBlaze. You can not comment without Javascript enabled.