Watch Live: Congressional Hearing on IRS Scandal

Live Now on TheBlaze Radio: ‘The Buck Sexton Show’

Faith

Atheist Mom Who Penned Viral Essay About Raising Kids ‘Without God’ Speaks Out

Jan. 31, 2013 9:32am Billy Hallowell

When Deborah Mitchell penned a story about atheism and raising her children without God, she had no idea just how much attention it would get. Coincidentally, the secular mother’s CNN essay, entitled, “Why I Raise My Children Without God,” became the most commented-on story in iReport’s history. Considering the very personal and pointed subject matter in the post, the response was intense. On Wednesday, Mitchell appeared on Current TV to speak with host John Fugelsang about the resulting furor, her decision to tout atheism and other related topics.

In her original post, Mitchell described lying to her son from an early age about the existence of God, as she wanted her child to feel safe. She told him religious stories, comparing the “elaborate tale” she built to the falsities many people tell their kids about Santa Claus. Fearing that her son would one day, after realizing that the stories were untrue, no longer trust his mother’s judgement, she made the decision to change course and raise him “without God.” Mitchell writes:

And so I thought it was only right to be honest with my children. I am a non-believer, and for years I’ve been on the fringe in my community. As a blogger, though, I’ve found that there are many other parents out there like me. We are creating the next generation of kids, and there is a wave of young agnostics, atheists, free thinkers and humanists rising up through the ranks who will, hopefully, lower our nation’s religious fever.

Deborah Mitchell Responds to Atheist Blog About Raising Kids Without God | CNN iReport

Atheist blogger Deborah Mitchell (Photo Credit: YouTube/Current TV)

Then, she went on to share the reasons why she decided to raise her children without God. Among them, Mitchell claims that: “God is a bad parent and role model,” “God is not logical,” “God is not fair” and “God does not protect the innocent.” These were only a few of the reasons she detailed (the rest can be read in her original post). Despite her overwhelmingly negative views about heavenly inclinations, Mitchell noted that she does not want religion to disappear all together:

I do not want religion to go away. I only want religion to be kept at home or in church where it belongs. It’s a personal effect, like a toothbrush or a pair of shoes. It’s not something to be used or worn by strangers. I want my children to be free not to believe and to know that our schools and our government will make decisions based on what is logical, just and fair—not on what they believe an imaginary God wants.

Naturally, people reacted strongly to her views on faith in America. As of Jan. 31, the article, which was published on Jan. 14, was viewed by more then 758,300 people, recommended by 65,000 and shared more than 7,700 times. When Fugelsang asked her about this widespread attention, the atheist mother said that she was surprised by the story’s viral nature.

“I was totally taken aback,” she said. “I was surprised that there were so many commenters and so many page views.”

But Mitchell also expressed a somber tone when it came to the comments and ongoing debate that were spawned by her anti-God commentary.

“I was a little disappointed in how mean people were — not just to me, but to each other,” she noted. “I really didn’t expect the sustained anger and — just attacks on each other. That surprised me.”

Despite penning such an open commentary about why she has intentionally raised her son without God, Mitchell made it clear that she would fully accept any religious decisions that her child inevitably makes. Rather than prevent him from being faithful, she said that the decision is up to him.

Among other subjects, Mitchell also spoke about the Boy Scouts and problems she and her family ran into when her son was asked to earn a religious badge. When the mother told the organization that the family is agnostic and doesn’t believe in a specific God, she was told that her son must believe in God to be in the Scouts.

“I’m surprised that an organization that’s so patriotic has no understanding of the constitution,” Fugelsang responded. “But Jesus never said anything against gay people either so I shouldn’t be surprised.”

Watch the dialogue, 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 (374)

Bamagal0007
Posted on January 31, 2013 at 10:14am
God is a bad parent and role model,” “God is not logical,” “God is not fair” and “God does not protect the innocent.”

I thought she said she was a non-believer…

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- Marine25
  Posted on January 31, 2013 at 10:49am
  One can speak of Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, and the Tooth Fairy and yet not be irrational enough to believe they exist.
  
  Report this comment
- stablepar
  Posted on January 31, 2013 at 12:23pm
  is she describing obama
  
  Report this comment
- vendingdude
  Posted on January 31, 2013 at 12:42pm
  Yes he is, yes he is, yes he is, and he doesn’t need to be. Any more incorrect observations?
  
  Report this comment
- charliesouth
  Posted on January 31, 2013 at 1:00pm
  STABLEPAR: Oh my god…HAD to bring Obama into something that had absolutely nothing to do with him. Sad, sad people.
  
  Report this comment
- sjpru
  Posted on January 31, 2013 at 1:14pm
  moral relativism…the foundation of the democrat party…nothing is wrong if it is right for you.
  
  Report this comment
- GhostOfJefferson
  Posted on January 31, 2013 at 2:37pm
  Sounds like she has “daddy issues”. She’s also guilty of a pretty mundane logical mistake: She attributes mortal human qualities to God, and also places her own expectations on him (“he doesn’t protect the weak!”), then judges him deficient. She’s a narcissist, and cannot see outside of her own world view. Which is fine, but she is quite narrow minded.
  
  I’ll bet she’s the type that just adores “crystal energy” and all that EST crap though.
  
  Report this comment
- The_Doors_Of_Perception
  Posted on January 31, 2013 at 3:30pm
  GhostofJefferson, all the athiest’s I know(like myself) don’t believe in “crystal energy” or EST?(ESP?). We don’t believe in the supernatural, only reality. Look up Michael Shermer…you might actually like him.
  
  Report this comment
- jimmymac1
  Posted on January 31, 2013 at 3:58pm
  If you in fact believe in God and live by his dictates the innocent will be protected along with everyone else. It is only when you omit Him do we have problems. As far as the rest have you forgotten what fairy tales are? They are parables that a child can understand to start them out in life in a manner that a young mind can understand and then later in life convert to grace, understanding, and even that horrible word love.
  
  Report this comment
- mycomet123
  Posted on January 31, 2013 at 5:41pm
  She seems to know God so well by all her opinions, but than she doesn’t believe in him?? Now that is insanity!
  
  Report this comment
- Bad_Ashe
  Posted on January 31, 2013 at 6:00pm
  @Marine – If one, while speaking of Santa Claus, The Tooth Fairy, and Harvey the Rabbit, doesn’t understand the difference between those clearly imaginary constructs as opposed to the metaphysical necessity of a creator God, then they are simply an idiot.
  
  Cheers!
  
  Report this comment
- BuzzardSays
  Posted on January 31, 2013 at 6:01pm
  She needs to read the book…”I don’t have enough faith to be an atheist” by Dr Norman Geisler and Dr Frank Turek. Who by the way are gentlemen much smarter than she ever will be. These are nice Christian men that can shed some light on the true logical fallacies atheists are laboring under.
  
  The law of non-contradiction should help her tremendously. Only a single truth can be true about a fact and this women flops about like a fish out of water. God help her.
  
  Report this comment
- The Jewish Avenger
  Posted on January 31, 2013 at 8:42pm
  Replace Government with God, sunshine, and you’ll actually show some smarts.
  
  Report this comment
- garylee123
  Posted on February 1, 2013 at 2:09pm
  How come there is no mention of the devil or evil?
  
  Report this comment
- VoteBushIn12
  Posted on February 3, 2013 at 11:15am
  @BAD_ASHE
  
  I know what you’re trying to say – but you sound ridiculous. Here’s a quick exercise:
  
  I believe in a deity called “Raffle”. Raffle is the creator of all things (even your “God”). To me – this is self evident, but to you I obviously just made this deity up. Now I am going to make your comment and tell me how it sounds…
  
  “If one, while speaking of Santa Claus, The Tooth Fairy, and Harvey the Rabbit, doesn’t understand the difference between those clearly imaginary constructs as opposed to the metaphysical necessity of a creator Raffle, then they are simply an idiot.”
  
  Because, to the Atheist, God IS AN IMAGINARY CONSTRUCT, your comment is laden with irony and down right laughable.
  
  You may not agree with the atheist, but you should at least understand why your position carries absolutely no sway. It is unconvincing.
  
  Report this comment
- Bad_Ashe
  Posted on February 4, 2013 at 2:11am
  @VOTEBUSH – No. You’re simply too short for this ride.
  
  Your first problem comes in the false premise of your hypothetical. Your evidence for belief in Raffle is nonexistent; you claim that you believe Raffle exists simply because it is self-evident to you.
  
  This is a strawman because I never made an argument that belief in God is simply self-evident, barring any additional evidence or logical inference/argument. While such a claim could be made, I didn’t make it. My general statement simply assumed that those reading along were not morons and understood the basic philosophical concepts to which I was referring.
  
  Your second bout of myopia is your perception that the issue is personal belief. This is narrow thinking on your part. People believe or disbelieve in many things, despite the evidence in front of them. So it simply doesn’t matter that personally for the atheist something is or isn’t an imaginary construct. By that basic logic one could also compare the Apollo moon landing to Bigfoot simply because to this person, these things are both imaginary.
  
  The issues at hand are criteria for evidence, and evidence itself…not personal belief. Based on those two things, comparing Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, et. al. to a creator God is a fallacious comparison, no matter the atheist’s personal opinion.
  
  Report this comment
- Bad_Ashe
  Posted on February 4, 2013 at 2:16am
  @BUSH – Allow me to expound…
  
  In the case of Santa, the Easter Bunny, etc. we have overwhelming direct evidence that they are either folklore partially based on real living individuals (St. Nicholas, etc.) or simply symbolic archetypes (the Easter Bunny).
  
  On the other side, we have the evidence and logical argument for God. Based on the specified complexity and teleology of the cosmos, we can logically infer a designer. By way of philosophical arguments from contingency as well as cosmological evidence and argument, we can argue that such a being exists necessarily and is likely a metaphysically necessary, uncaused, immaterial, spaceless, timeless, creator of the universe. The list goes on…
  
  Now, if Raffle meets all of these criteria, this is essentially describing God. We can call him Raffle or Boy George or Ashley J. Williams for all I care.
  
  For the atheist, these God-affirming evidences, logical inferences, and arguments based on scientific evidence may not be convincing, but comparing them to the negative evidence for Santa and the Easter Bunny is simply intellectual laziness in an attempt at cheap mockery…the end result being that the only one who looks really stupid is the atheist when they run head-on into someone who actually knows what they’re talking about.
  
  Report this comment
- VoteBushIn12
  Posted on February 7, 2013 at 12:55am
  @BAD_ASHE
  
  You would have an argument IFF (if and ONLY if) there was evidence – however remote – that would suggest the existence of a God. However, there is none. In fact, even Religion agrees there is no evidence for God, that’s why they call it “Blind Faith”. That is, you have faith in His existence without being able to see or prove his existence. And if there is no proof, there is no substantiable evidence, and therefore, none that is even worth exploring.
  
  So, please, tell me again how my comparison is unfair; keeping in mind this fact of there being equal amount of evidence for Santa Claus as there is for God. That amount being 0.
  
  You can toss out big words all you like. They don’t fool me, I know what they mean, and I can decipher what argument you’re making. And, let me tell you, it is a fallacious one.
  
  Report this comment
- Bad_Ashe
  Posted on February 7, 2013 at 2:04am
  @VOTEBUSH12
  
  As I stated in my previous post, you are simply too short for this ride. Based on this post, you are more likely than not an intellectually dishonest weasel who resorts to handwaving and appealing to vague generalities. Alternatively, you could just be an idiot, but I’m willing to give you the benefit of the doubt.
  
  So let’s hit on some of your highlights:
  
  You essentially agree with the logic of my counterpoint. This is the only intelligent thing you did in this response. The rest of your response reeks of philosophical and theological ignorance.
  
  Who is this “they” you speak of? In which “religion” do they refer to faith as blind?
  
  There is plenty of sustainable evidence and logical proofs for God’s existence…you are either unaware of them or choose to ignore them. Out of all those apparently big words that you understand, you never actually addressed any of what they reference.
  
  It’s rare for even a mildly intellectually honest atheist (a contradiction in terms, admittedly) to dismiss these out of hand. Find them unconvincing? Sure. But dismiss them without addressing them? That takes a special kind of blind godless fanatic.
  
  No one said the comparison was unfair, it is simply moronic.
  
  Handwaving, avoidance, argument from personal incredulity…it appears that the only one with a fallacious argument here is you.
  
  Cheers!
  
  Report this comment
- VoteBushIn12
  Posted on February 9, 2013 at 4:33pm
  @BAD_ASHE
  “There is plenty of sustainable evidence and logical proofs for God’s existence…you are either unaware of them or choose to ignore them”
  Which one of us is doing the hand waving? If there is as much as you claim, you should have no issue supplying me one piece of “evidence” that cannot be explained by a modern scientific theory. I’ll wait…
  
  I don’t see how can you identify fairness in the comparison, yet still claim it moronic. If there is no evidence for the existence of God AND there is no evidence for the existence of Santa Claus, then – to any reasonably minded person – the likelihood of either of them existing is equal. Is it POSSIBLE one exists and not the other? Yes. But it’s just as likely that, if only one existed, the one is Santa Clause as it is likely it’s God and not Santa Claus. Thus, your argument favoring the scenario of God and NOT Santa Claus carries no weight. It is just as feasible a scenario has Santa and NOT GOD or Space Zombie Unicorns.
  
  You may think God exists – that’s fine. But keep in mind there is nothing “self evident” about it. There is no reason for me to put greater faith in God’s supposed existence than in Santa’s.
  
  Report this comment
- Bad_Ashe
  Posted on February 10, 2013 at 12:50am
  @BUSH — Oh…you have a reading comprehension problem…and you’re not particularly good at logical argument to boot. This whole thing makes more sense now.
  
  I never mentioned either fairness or unfairness in the comparison; one so moronic that fairness is a pointless topic of debate. I’m also still waiting for you to identify which “they” and “religion” you were talking about when it comes to self-referencing blind faith.
  
  Additionally, I never made the case that God’s existence was self-evident, even if such a case could be made. In fact, I even pointed this out as the primary strawman in your hypothetical. Again, that reading comprehension problem of yours is a doozy.
  
  As for the evidence and logical argument for God’s existence, you are deflecting again. I briefly mentioned some of these in my previous post…you stated you understood all my “big words” and that these arguments based on evidence were fallacious. I then pointed out that you never actually addressed these examples.
  
  Calling something fallacious does not make it so…you made the assertion, now it’s time for you to support it. When you do so, the conversation can continue. Glossing over those details on which I challenge you simply continues to display your intellectual dishonesty.
  
  There are plenty of things that cannot be explained by modern scientific theory…but not only is that largely irrelevant, we can tackle that if and when you support your claims of fallacy.
  
  I’ll wai
  
  Report this comment
- Bad_Ashe
  Posted on February 10, 2013 at 1:01am
  @ BUSH (2)
  
  Finally, with every post you make your comparison/hypothetical scurries further down the rabbit hole of abject stupidity.
  
  As I previously mentioned — and this is where your lack of reading comprehension and/or complex thinking fails you again — even if the atheist personally believes that there is no compelling evidence for God, or simply rejects it out of hand like the little pseudo-intellectual weasel they probably are, the comparison is still moronic. There is not simply a lack of evidence for the existence of Santa or the Tooth Fairy, rather there is a preponderous amount of negative evidence regarding these examples….and absolutely no logical or philosophical proofs that affirm them. Additionally, from a historical perspective, we can easily trace their origins as relatively recent fictional constructs.
  
  If you don’t understand the fundamental difference, the problem clearly lies with whatever level of intelligence and complex comprehension the God you don’t believe in granted you…it has nothing to do with me.
  
  Report this comment
- VoteBushIn12
  Posted on February 10, 2013 at 12:13pm
  @BAD_ASHE
  
  It’s amazing how you can write so much yet say so little. If there is any fault in my ability to comprehend your position, it stems entirely from your lack of forming a formal position. You’re talking in circles.
  
  Let me paraphrase where we’re at.
  
  1) You said It’s obvious that God exists, and obvious Santa does not. To compare the two is stupid
  2) I said, both have 0 evidence favoring their existence and therefore are equally likely to exist. Therefore the comparison is actually fair.
  3) You said there IS evidence to support God’s existence and evidence to disprove Santas
  4) I requested you to provide me with some – you did not.
  
  If there is no evidence to suggest his existence then it must mean the concept of God is contrived. And, if it is contrived then it becomes just as possible to be true as any other contrived idea – like Santa. Even without knowing exactly who or when it was first thought up like we do with Santa, we can rest assured that it was indeed thought up and, therefore, the details behind it are irrelevant.
  
  The only way you can argue against the comparison of Santa or the Easter Bunny to God is to prove that there is more evidence favoring one over the other. I’m not talking philosophizing about it, I’m talking empirical evidence. Until that time, they fall in the same imaginary bucket and are no different than any other entity I claim exists, but cannot prove.
  
  And the comparison holds water.
  
  I hope that makes sense.
  
  Report this comment
- Bad_Ashe
  Posted on February 11, 2013 at 2:36am
  @BUSH – Don’t blame me if you can’t separate rhetoric from dialectic. Additionally, brevity certainly isn’t helping out your argument. The issue here is that you can’t understand the position and simply gloss over the rest. So let’s try breaking things up into small, easily-digestible bits:
  
  1. You keep using the terms “self-evident” and “obvious”. and attributing them to me.
  
  While such an argument could be made, at no time did I make it. You have crafted a strawman.
  
  Please demonstrate where I stated belief in God was either “self-evident” or “obvious” or retract your statement.
  
  2. In a previous post, I referred to certain logical arguments for God’s existence, arguments in which the premises are supported by evidence.
  
  You asserted that “I know what they mean, and I can decipher what argument you’re making. And, let me tell you, it is a fallacious one.”
  
  Naturally, I asked you to demonstrate how these arguments are fallacious…twice. Nothing yet.
  
  Please address these arguments that you so clearly understand and demonstrate them to be fallacious…or retract your unsupported assertion.
  
  3. The problem with the fundamental logic of the comparison is that it conflates arriving at a conclusion via deductive reasoning based on evidence with arriving at a conclusion based on an argument from ignorance (a conclusion with no evidence), yet it treats both approaches as valid.
  
  If you truly can’t understand this, Carnegie Mellon owes you so
  
  Report this comment
- Bad_Ashe
  Posted on February 11, 2013 at 3:01am
  @BUSH – I will quickly address your points as well…though there is some overlap, mostly because you have a reading comprehension issue:
  
  1. Please demonstrate where I said that or retract the statement.
  
  2. Fair or unfair isn’t at issue…logical consistency is. You already admitted that if there is any evidence for God’s existence, this comparison doesn’t hold, but as I’ve mentioned previously, even if the atheist rejects this evidence, the comparison is still not logically sound — see #3 above.
  
  3. I did. But as I mentioned above, and in one of my previous posts, even if the evidence for God’s existence was null (or believed to be null by the atheist) the evidentiary standard is still not logically consistent when compared to something for which there is overwhelming evidence of a solely fictional existence.
  
  4. As for your request to provide evidence…I asked you first. (See #2 above). I pointed out early on that you did not support this assertion, and either implied or directly asked for you to do so. When this happens, we can move forward, but not until.
  
  Finally, you weren’t talking about empirical evidence. In fact, you didn’t use the word empirical until now. Additionally, this implies that the only things you believe to exist are those which can be shown to exist empirically, and that you reject all other types of evidence. This is not only a stupid statement, but a demonstrably false one…but let’s not jump ahead.
  
  Cheers!
  
  Report this comment
- Bad_Ashe
  Posted on February 11, 2013 at 3:04am
  @BUSH – I almost forgot…I’m also still waiting on you to address who “they” are from which “religion” that refers to their own faith as blind. You’ve avoided that one twice now. Either demonstrate this or retract the statement.
  
  Cheers!
  
  Report this comment
Rashomon
Posted on January 31, 2013 at 10:11am
God gives you a “Life” and the “Choice” of what to do with it. It is a Test. No one will help you, no one will give you the correct answers. Do not read off other peoples papers. you are on your own but be sure to read the “test” booklet carefully.. After the test you will be graded/judged. If you pass, your “Real” life begins.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- DeavonReye
  Posted on January 31, 2013 at 10:20am
  Hogwash. There cannot be a TRUE choice when one side requires a high level of credulity, . . . no true evidence, and even claims that run contrary to scientific discovery, . . . . and the OTHER side has TONS of evidence of the natural world and how it operates, and in no way has “a supernatural entity” ever been discovered. This isn’t a “choice”! If you were born in Bagdad, you would be devoutly Muslim because you were raised [and indoctrinated] to believe a myth. If this WERE “a test”, billions would fail it merely due to the time and place they were born.
  
  Now, if the TRUE “test” was “how well a person lived and if they chose to be a moral person”, then okay. I would pass that test. If it is a test to “believe based on credulity”, in the face of verified evidence of “only natural mechanisms”, then the test is unjust.
  
  Report this comment
- COFemale
  Posted on January 31, 2013 at 10:47am
  Deavonrye just because you call it a myth does not make is so. You miss the whole point of believing in God or if you prefer a “higher being” than you. It is called faith in those things you can’t see. People without faith have no hope. If you rely on fellow man, many times you will be disappointed. Man is fallible and can either seek good or seek evil. God is unconditional love, but like any good parent will punish you for bad behavior when the time comes. That is what good parents do. If you are allowed to follow your own rules and everyone else did the same you would have chaos.
  
  What you can’t fathom is someone better than you. In your narcissistic arrogant view there is nobody better than you. You also feel because you are so enlightened, you have the right to dictate your beliefs on others. Call those who belief in God names and claim things about God in which you have no clue.
  
  For the record Christians do believe in science, but we also know scientist are fallible and can make mistakes in science. This has been proven several times, where scientist had to change a hypothesis or theory based on new data learned. So who is the real denier?
  
  Think about this in your pea brain. We know dirt, rocks etc are millions of years old, we can assume debris in space also falls in this category. When God brought all those pieces together to form earth, wouldn’t it make sense that the rocks, dirt, etc are millions of years old, but man is not?
  
  Report this comment
- COFemale
  Posted on January 31, 2013 at 10:51am
  Deavonrye I don’t see air, but I know it is there because I breathe it.
  
  Please explain who created you? How did you come about. If you say two cells. Who created the cells. See for everything you say existed, we can ask who created them. Nothing happens by chance. This is what you don’t get. If you descend from monkeys, who created the monkeys? On and on. One day you will get it.
  
  Report this comment
- justangry
  Posted on January 31, 2013 at 10:57am
  They don’t understand how insulting the cliche “if you don’t abandon reason you’re going to hell” argument is to a non-believer. They mean no harm. As you pointed out they were just brought up that way. On this site, you’re just antagonizing even though I agree with you. At least they don’t act like the spoiled toddlers over at the Huffpo.
  
  Report this comment
- AntonW
  Posted on January 31, 2013 at 11:03am
  Rashomon, since you can’t support your statement with proof, stating it as though it’s factual is illogical. Believe as you choose, but that’s where it ends.
  
  Report this comment
- AntonW
  Posted on January 31, 2013 at 11:06am
  Nicely put DeavonReye. So well said that you may qualify as being “EVIL” by PattyHenry.
  
  Report this comment
- AntonW
  Posted on January 31, 2013 at 11:10am
  Cofemale, your attempt at a logic has failed miserably. Your insults and name calling dug your hole even deeper.
  
  Report this comment
- Sergetov
  Posted on January 31, 2013 at 11:11am
  Deavonrye
  
  Its seems you are debating the truth in Christianity, as opposed to the possibility of a supreme being that created everything. Some of your arguments, when directed at christianity, may hold some water, but fall flat when trying to disprove the existence of a supreme being. Moreover, there is no evidence at all to fully affirm natural order. In fact, evolution is yet to be empirically proven and to believe in it enough to defend it takes faith… kind of the same faith that many put into God.
  
  Report this comment
- AntonW
  Posted on January 31, 2013 at 11:13am
  Cofemale, the universe is not puprose driven any more than a pile of sand is. Educate yourself by reading this book and you won’t have to continue embarrassing yourself with the type of sloppy thinking you’ve demonstrated here today. http://www.amazon.com/Universe-Nothing-There-Something-Rather/dp/1451624468/ref=ntt_at_ep_dpt_1
  
  Report this comment
- whitealaskan
  Posted on January 31, 2013 at 11:14am
  @cofemale
  Who created God? And who create that being? And on and on…
  
  Report this comment
- DeavonReye
  Posted on January 31, 2013 at 11:16am
  Cofemale, . . . I will disregard the “why” in your personal attacks. When I post, I may post against a belief structure, but will rarely turn it personal. That’s just me, but whatever.
  
  I am hardly an apex. There are MANY who are greater than me. And I can mentally conceive of a deity, . . . I just don’t see any credible/compelling evidence for it. It isn’t narcissistic or arrogant. It is actually a stance of sincere humbleness. I wish “the supernatural” WERE true. But that “wish” hardly makes it viable for me. I wish for a LOT of things that won’t happen. How powerful am I?!!! Not much. What I DO know, however, is that the natural world is filled with natural mechanisms. What was once thought to be “supernatural” in the past [lightning, for example] has been discovered in how it works. It’s why I rely on science to determine fact.
  
  I’m not close minded to the metaphysical. I would like to experience it. But what isn’t [at all] compelling is having other people merely TELL me “what is true” [when it has no evidential backign]. That could never be a firm foundation for a real truth for me. Science may have to change from time to time, based upon new evidence. I see nothing wrong with that. . . but is why I won’t elevate scientists or even the scientific method to the level of “a god”.
  
  Report this comment
- AntonW
  Posted on January 31, 2013 at 11:21am
  DeavonReye, one again, nicely said. Thank you for sharing your comments here.
  
  Report this comment
- DeavonReye
  Posted on January 31, 2013 at 11:25am
  Serge, I cannot dismiss the possibility of a “supreme being” existing. Yes, I just have issue with religious doctrines that are entangled with issues.
  
  Report this comment
- DeavonReye
  Posted on January 31, 2013 at 11:31am
  Thanks Anton. I’m not the most terse person in the world, at times, . . . but at least I am an honest person.
  
  Report this comment
- avgconservative
  Posted on January 31, 2013 at 1:12pm
  @Deavonray
  
  You have a very good understanding of a god which does not exist.
  
  The one who DOES exist, lives in the heart and has no evidence other than the faulty person in whom He dwells. You are right. There is tons of evidence which naturalists have built a good argument with. Will it last?
  
  Report this comment
- scarebear83
  Posted on January 31, 2013 at 1:49pm
  @ WhiteAlaskan – “Who created God? And who create that being? And on and on…”
  
  Exactly. I know you’re probably scratching your head but let’s say God had to be created. Well, who created Him? Who created that being etc. Logic dictates that eventually you’ll have to get to some thing or some one who has always been there, who is eternal. Think about it.
  
  Report this comment
- SimpleTruths
  Posted on January 31, 2013 at 2:52pm
  COFEMALE
  Well then who created God? Who created the creator of the creator? You’re right, the list goes on.
  
  Report this comment
- Bad_Ashe
  Posted on January 31, 2013 at 5:55pm
  @DEAVON – Hi Deavon…I’ve seen this movie before:
  
  You make a comment about compelling evidence.
  
  I ask you what type of evidence you consider to be “compelling”.
  
  You answer by somewhat dodging the “type” in question, yet generally cite an evidentiary standard which is inconsistent at best and hypocritical at worse.
  
  I rightly point out that your standards of evidence for a higher power are not the same as your standard of evidence for things that you readily accept.
  
  You engage in some hand waving and/or “the atheist dodge” before asking me to provide you compelling evidence of a higher power, even though we’ve already established that your evidentiary standard makes doing this a waste of time and effort.
  
  The End.
  
  Report this comment
- Bad_Ashe
  Posted on January 31, 2013 at 6:07pm
  @SIMPLETRUTHS – This is an idiotic “Sunday school” objection. No matter how you frame the problem of infinite regress, it applies to anything and everything, not just God. There cannot be “turtles all the way down” as they say. There must be a thing that is necessary, whether that thing be God or the universe itself.
  
  The question of “what created the universe” is equally problematic and the atheist must rely on the same answer that theists do, that this thing in question always existed…it is a necessary thing…the atheist simply replaces “God” with “Universe”.
  
  Of course, since Borde, Guth, and Vilenkin demonstrated that an expanding universe such as ours cannot be infinite in the past, the problem becomes that much more sticky for the atheist.
  
  Cheers!
  
  Report this comment
- Bad_Ashe
  Posted on January 31, 2013 at 7:44pm
  @ANTONW – You realize that citing a book by Krauss isn’t really making an argument? You’ve written on and on about the logical errors of others, yet I’ve seen not hide nor hair of any logical arguments of your own.
  
  Based on your own apparent lack of intellectual fortitude, it should be no surprise that the book you cited is by Krauss, a man who doesn’t actually understand, and more often than not misrepresents, the fine-tuning (design in the universe) argument, yet has spent a good portion of his time over the last few years attempting to wrangle it down before finally being forced to outright deny that any sort of appearance of fine-tuning exists.
  
  This is particularly laughable, since most of his fellow atheists have resorted to appealing to a multiverse theory in order to explain the apparent fine-tuning of the universe. Krauss has decided he is simply going to close his eyes and pretend it isn’t there. Of course, I could go on about Krauss’ other misrepresentations and false premises, but you get the picture.
  
  Even Richard Dawkins, king Delta Bravo of the atheists, has admitted to Francis Collins that the apparent fine-tuning of the universe is a serious problem for the atheist worldview…yet Krauss is content to stick his fingers in his ears and scream “lalala can’t hear you.”
  
  Cheers!
  
  Report this comment
- Freedomlover_US
  Posted on January 31, 2013 at 8:06pm
  How is “obey me or you’ll burn in hell for all eternity” a choice? It’s the same choice a robber gives their victims.
  
  Report this comment
- DeavonReye
  Posted on February 1, 2013 at 9:41am
  Ashe, the question of “what would suffice as evidence” really is a tricky one. I’m agnostic, so I am not opposed to the metaphysical realm [should it exist]. I decided that it can’t be something easily answered, due to the subject matter and how anything metaphysical WOULD present itself.
  
  Yes, when it comes to what I see as fact, I will give an ear first to that which CAN be experimented on and repeated with success. I think I have come to the place where I am able to determine, on a personal level, how to assign a “level of truth” to what I am being presented with. Should an “entity” choose to surprise me one day, . . . I will welcome it. Until then, just having another human being say, “I swear to you that it’s true”, isn’t going to be compelling for me.
  
  If I experience something beyond myself, I will be sure to tell you all about it on here.
  
  Report this comment
- GodsLaw
  Posted on February 1, 2013 at 11:59am
  @DeavonReye – True religion does not contradict true science, and true science does not contradict true religion. Case in point: the “missing link” in evolution and the Higgs Boson particle (HB) in the big bang theory. We all know what the missing link is, so I won’t ‘splain it.
  
  The HB is necessary in order that matter can come into being from nothing. Without the HB the whole theory that matter can come into existence without intelligent design falls apart. [I won't discuss the fact that even if the HB was proven to be true the question still remains of where the photons, form which the HB is supposedly made, came from.]
  
  These two discrepancies cannot be explained by human science. I take God at His word about creation; that is my explaination for both the missing link and the HB. I think that it takes more faith to believe that matter can come into being from nothing than the amount of faith it takes to believe in God.
  
  I am not critizing your beliefs; that is not my intention because it is none of my business what you believe. That is strictly between you and God. God wants you to come to know Him of your own free will and I will not interfere with His plan. I would fight for your right to not believe in God in order to protect your freedom of choice. So will the majority of Christians because the majority of Christians do not want to force you into belief; we know that forced submission is not true belief and we really do want to be true to G
  
  Report this comment
- DeavonReye
  Posted on February 1, 2013 at 12:20pm
  Godslaw, I appreciate the way you have comported yourself here. It is refreshing in light of the personal attacks that are prevailant here. Thank you!
  
  If there is a god, he/she/it knows how to reach me [as a person]. If this happens, and is undeniable, then there can be [between this deity and me] an open discussion on other topics. Until then, I am unable to “just believe” when all there is . . . is a book and people telling me “that book is truth”. It is not in my nature. I have tried!
  
  Again, thanks for your demeanor.
  
  Report this comment
- Bad_Ashe
  Posted on February 1, 2013 at 2:59pm
  @DEAVON – This is a perfectly reasonable admission, though it more or less boils down to the only evidence you might truly accept is God showing up at your door with some hot wings (from BW3 — because if God loves wings, it’s gotta be BW3).
  
  The thing that I find most interesting though is that in spite of your apparent agnosticism, and your claim of not really having a dog in the fight so to speak, here you are, once again, responding to a religious story and engaging via a negative position with the religiously-minded. I understand that you come from a religious background that you abandoned, but if your position has changed from religious to agnostic (rather than outright atheism) I’m curious as to why you feel compelled to engage consistently in such a manner.
  
  Cheers!
  
  Report this comment
- avgconservative
  Posted on February 4, 2013 at 9:48pm
  @Freedomlover
  
  May I re-frame your contention of “believe in me or burn in hell is no choice.”
  
  The spiritual being knows of two “existences.” One in this world. The other in the world to come. The choice a person has is in this world. I do not believe there is anyone in the world, who is a rational human, who has not heard of the two dimensions I speak of.
  
  You can choose to live a life which is confident that there will be no existence after death, therefore no consequences in living a life where you have rejected something/someone who doesn’t exist. it is your choice… in this life. If you truly believe there is no after life.
  
  However, if you claim the aforementioned logic, then a presupposition or admission that there is an existence after this current one has to be made in order to claim that logic as truth. Or at the very least, to claim that logic, the existence of God has to be claimed.
  
  So the choice is no a “no choice” situation. In this life it is a clear choice. It is only believers who understand both the justice of God and the grace of God. If you don’t believe in God or life after this one, you have made the choice.
  
  Report this comment
Dudley Do-Right
Posted on January 31, 2013 at 10:11am
I was agnostic for most of my life until about two years ago. I agreed with all of the explanations agnostics believe to explain away the existence of God. But then I had a profound experience that you wouldn’t believe if I told you, anyway I went back to Church and made my first confession in over 35 years. It was the hardest thing I ever did in my life. Now the biggest regret I have in my life is not bringing my kids up with God. Spriritually, I have been a terrible father. I feel responsible for their salvation and pray that God will reveal himself to them. Please pray for my kids.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- FidesEtRatio
  Posted on January 31, 2013 at 10:24am
  Welcome Home :) It is heartening to read about your return to the faith. May God, through the prayers of the Saints and His Holy Church, bless you and your loved ones for all of your days.
  
  And I will certainly offer prayers for your kids. I will do so after posting this message.
  
  Report this comment
- YOURSENSEI
  Posted on January 31, 2013 at 10:30am
  Mr or Ms DUDELY DO RIGHT,
  
  This is what you ,must know:
  
  Don’t confuse the agony of a guilty conscience with the redemption of a divine being.
  
  It is so.
  
  Report this comment
- Dudley Do-Right
  Posted on January 31, 2013 at 12:01pm
  Thank You all, your prayers are appreciated.
  
  Report this comment
- conservative1986
  Posted on January 31, 2013 at 12:52pm
  I love a good prodigal son testimony. Congratulations brother do right.
  
  Report this comment
- Granny58
  Posted on January 31, 2013 at 4:45pm
  I’m so glad you have had a return to faith. Would love to know your journey, but accept your privacy.
  
  Report this comment
- aiello78
  Posted on February 1, 2013 at 5:32pm
  I found faith in Christ after a long period of agnosticism. My early doubts about the existence of the spirit realm caused me to seek a better understanding of Christianity and the Bible. When I started exploring the Bible from the perspective of seeking inner peace and strength, it started to make sense. The idea of releasing self through unconditional trust in God eventually made Christianity useful for me in a very real way. I doubt that science and reasoning can ever understand the effects of the Spirit because the Bible says that faith is the thing that provides the evidence for the unseen. Science and reasoning cannot provide the peace that passes all understanding.
  
  Check out my free online book on Biblical Higher Power Spirituality for Inner Peace and Strength titled Hidden Treasure. Click here: http://sites.google.com/site/aiellopeter01
  
  Report this comment
thibx
Posted on January 31, 2013 at 10:11am
i feel sorry for he kid, if this child grows up and he decides to follow Jesus Christ, she will hate the kid. hell awaits you lady.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- VanceUppercut
  Posted on January 31, 2013 at 11:08am
  @thibx
  
  What awaits zealots who turn their back on their kid when they found out he or she is gay?
  
  Report this comment
- AntonW
  Posted on January 31, 2013 at 11:28am
  Thibx, you just made an idiotic statement and it’s the kind of silly mean-spirited hogwash that makes nonreligious people have negative feelings against religious extremists like yourslef.
  
  Report this comment
- Slammo
  Posted on January 31, 2013 at 12:39pm
  I’m sorry, but one thing you need to learn is that athiests do not hate religion or anyone who believes in it. We just don’t believe in your fairytales and choose not to pass it down to our children. We also believe you should keep it to yourselves and not try and push it on others. Maybe you should read what this lady said, instead of just bringing hate into it.
  
  Report this comment
- rollthebones
  Posted on January 31, 2013 at 5:38pm
  I was raised nonreligious. I am nonreligious today.
  Having no experience with any kind of religion I have been curious about many beliefs. Still am of course.
  There is some truth to what THIBX said. For some people, what THIBX wrote is reality. Some members of my immediate family have not been exactly civil about my interests in religion. Hate is a word I’ve heard them say to me over this issue. Also that I am stupid and wishes that I wasn’t born.
  So…. you can not exactly say ‘we’ dont hate religion or ‘we’ dont hate people who believe in it. SOME DO! I’ve experienced it from my own flesh and blood!
  
  Report this comment
- 4truth2all
  Posted on January 31, 2013 at 6:59pm
  Yo Antonw:
  
  It’s kind of like Ghaundi said … don’t follow believers (they do make a poor example at times) follow whom they follow …
  
  Report this comment
- Bad_Ashe
  Posted on February 1, 2013 at 12:16am
  @ANTONW -
  
  “Some beliefs are so dangerous that it may be ethical to kill people for believing them” – Sam Harris
  
  “Horrible as sexual abuse no doubt was, the damage was arguably less than the long-term psychological damage inflicted by bringing the child up Catholic in the first place.” – RIchard Dawkins.
  
  You know, that’s the kind of silly mean-spirited hogwash that makes religious people have negative feelings against atheists like yourself.
  
  Report this comment
- Bad_Ashe
  Posted on February 1, 2013 at 1:17am
  @SLAMMO – This is demonstrably false. Many atheists hate or at the very least are extremely hostile to religion and religious adherents. When prominent atheists refer to it as a “virus of the mind”, or a “poison”, when they state that some should be killed for their beliefs or that religious belief is tantamount to child abuse, are we to take these as cleverly coded messages of peace, love, and understanding?
  
  Report this comment
DavidZion
Posted on January 31, 2013 at 10:11am
Why do “Christians” get offended by atheism? Islam is offended by the unbeliever to the point of murder, because they can’t stand in challenge of their beliefs. Jesus can defend himself it is Christians that should show his example thru love not hatred or spiteful words. It isn’t the church’s place to enforce Christianity. That happened before beginning with Constantine and look what that accomplished.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- REALID 239823749828-HIF
  Posted on January 31, 2013 at 10:53am
  Real Christians aren’t offended by agnostics, atheists, hindus, buddhists, humanists, satanists (though most don’t know the reality of satanism), or any other religion. Most of us have strong feelings about radical islamists, not because it’s a different religion, but because of the evil and hate it perpetuates.
  
  We are sometimes offended when atheists try to take away what we believe is our right to spread the Word of God, as we are commanded to, but that’s completely different than being offended by someone because they’re an atheist.
  
  For instance, one of my good friends is gay, and agnostic. I want him to come to Christ, and the best way I know to do that is to be an example to him of what a real Christian is. I do not condemn him, or his lifestyle. I show him love and acceptance, and make it known to him that while I believe homosexuality is a sin, I also believe that I sin every day, and that his sin is no worse than mine. I treat him as I believe Christ would have, or at least as close to it as I can, being imperfect.
  
  The reality of the situation is, Jesus died on the cross to cover ALL sin. Not just some, not just straight people’s sin, and not only Christian’s sins. All you have to do is accept that gift from him, and you’re good to go. The act of accepting that gift makes you a Christian.
  
  I get offended by some people’s actions. Never because of their chosen religion.
  
  Report this comment
- rubydee
  Posted on January 31, 2013 at 12:29pm
  I am a Christian and am NOT offended by athieism or for that matter anything else.
  
  The question I have is why athiests are offended by Christianity. Christians are not the ones trying to stop athiests beliefs. Athiests are the ones who are trying to block everything Christian in the public sector because they are offensiive to them. Why are they so offended by something that doesn’t even exist in their beliefs? Why does it hurt them so badly? Could it be that they don’t want to look too deeply inside themselves and the face of Christianity forces them to do just that?
  
  That is the big question that is never answered by athiests.
  
  Report this comment
- charliesouth
  Posted on January 31, 2013 at 1:19pm
  Dawwww, REALID 239823749828-HIF, that gave me a warm and fuzzy feeling. We need more Christians like you.
  
  Report this comment
- REALID 239823749828-HIF
  Posted on January 31, 2013 at 2:10pm
  Thank you Charlie. I really don’t want to sound holier than thou, because I’m not, but I hope that posts like this one can remind people that being a Christian means to be Christlike.
  
  :)
  
  Report this comment
- tmbell87
  Posted on January 31, 2013 at 11:41pm
  @rubydee,
  You don’t seem to grasp the paradox of your own stipulated point. As an atheist myself, I would be happy to enlighten you as to why I bristle when you proselytize.
  
  You said it yourself, “Atheists are the ones who are trying to block everything Christian in the public sector because they are offensive to them.” EXACTLY! The public sector! In the public domain, the separation of church and state must be maintained. I don’t care if you hold home bible study, go to church everyday, or put up pro-christian symbols in your front lawn. What I do care about, is the use of public facilities, which my taxes pay for, in the promotion of your faith. If you want to put up a nativity scene, pay for it yourself and do it on private property.
  
  “Why are they so offended by something that doesn’t even exist in their beliefs?” – The problem here is not “God” per say, but the people who act in his name. By your holy book, you are morally bound to spread the word and convert non-believers. If this is done on private property, then I don’t care. Keep it in your private sphere of influence. But don’t use the public domain and the force of government to sustain you. Again, the problem here is not the existence of a god/gods, but the people who use God as a medium to a claim of moral right.
  
  The truth is, we were not founded as a “christian” nation. If you want evidence of this, simply read the Treaty of Tripoli in 1797 Article 11. The founders were very clear
  
  Report this comment
- Bad_Ashe
  Posted on February 1, 2013 at 2:37am
  @TMBELL87 – The problem is that the separation of church and state was never meant to be interpreted the way it is today, particularly the way atheists take a strict separationist application a la Everson vs. BOE. That the Supreme Court at the time (full of Roosevelt liberals) based this ruling on the Danbury Baptist letter from Thomas Jefferson rather than archives regarding the Constitutional Congress is a joke.
  
  Philip Hamburger, one of the greatest living legal scholars on the FIrst Amendment, wrote that there is no legitimate basis for reading the Establishment Clause as a separation of church and state, much less Jefferson’s “wall of separation.” He rightly notes that the idea of separation is radically different from the non-establishment guaranteed by the First Amendment.
  
  The amendment was designed to limit government, not religious belief, and it certainly wasn’t designed to prevent Bible study in public schools or prayers at religious meetings. If that were the case, then the founders simply decided to willfully ignore their own Constitution…and this went on relatively unchallenged into the 20th century.
  
  No one wants the Church of England here, or wants the pope running the country, but that being said, the separation clause was never meant to prevent a majority Christian community from having a nativity display in a public park. Atheists simply want to continue to bastardize the Constitution in their effort to rid the public square of religious b
  
  Report this comment
- FreedomGal76
  Posted on February 1, 2013 at 11:01am
  REALID 239823749828-HIF : If I may dovetail… if I believe the same as you (and I do) and there is no God, I haven’t lost anything, but I live a life that takes a good moral ground and hopefully improves my life and others’ lives. If God is real and I don’t believe, I’ve lost my soul and I shutter to think what the hereafter brings. It isn’t WHY I believe, but it’s something to noodle for all of you who may take pause to ponder. He is the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end, in Him, time does not exist (thus He is who is, who was and who is to come).
  
  93 million miles from the sun; a few degrees closer and we’d disinigrate, a few degrees closer and we’d freeze. The axis of the earth is tilted at a perfect 23 degree angle for equal global distribution of the sun’s rays, allowing the food chain to exist. The combination of nitrogen and oxygen in the air just happens to be the exact mix that life needs to prosper; it doesn’t happen on any other planet. The sheer symbiotic nature of our planet; amazing.
  
  You put a stick of dynamite under all the materials needed to build a house and blow it up… does it create anything beautiful? The big bang theory is out the window for me. And why would ANYONE respect anyone else thinking we evolved from apes…. if we did, why are there STILL apes out there? Why haven’t they evolved? Evolution is out the window for me. Who created the creator? He always was and he created me. I am His child. I’m good wit
  
  Report this comment
1FreeVoice
Posted on January 31, 2013 at 10:05am
Without going into the existence or non-existence of God (as she defines it), there are other things she has not considered. What we allow in private has influence on actions with effects beyond ourselves. If you think that the only thing that matters is how others see you, whether they will know if you do something less than ethical, whether you will get caught and punished… that will have an impact on behavior. The idea of being judged by something outside of yourself that has very high standards and can see everything no matter how private, personal, or secret, influences people away from less ethical behavior. Without the idea of God, what else does she propose to fill that space with?

If her idea is simply to judge her own behavior, then I would respectfully point out that people make excuses for themselves and lie to themselves. What external standard and judge does she look to? If she looks only at friends and neighbors etc. and does not want to shame herself in their eyes, then what about the little things that no one else sees… which still establish habits of thought and behavior which can have consequences. I am thinking of a short book called As A Man Thinketh.

The works of Spong ( retired Bishop), and some of CS Lewis’s work like The Problem Of Pain would interest her. She is rejecting religion based on her pre-conceived ideas of what it could mean to some people. There is more that she should know and think about. Not everyone defines G

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- oldguy49
  Posted on January 31, 2013 at 10:17am
  it is obvious its not in the schools anymore………….glad it was when i was in school
  
  Report this comment
- God_Is_Not
  Posted on January 31, 2013 at 1:59pm
  So you’re admitting that you wouldn’t behave in a moral manner if a god wasn’t watching over you? In my opinion that says more about your character than anything else.
  
  Most humans can act morally without an authority figure watching over them. They act according to the golden rule and have no interest in harming or cheating their fellow creature.
  
  Report this comment
athiest-infedel
Posted on January 31, 2013 at 10:05am
Telling an athiest he is going to hell is like an athiest telling a christian he is going to Mordor.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- Dan_o
  Posted on January 31, 2013 at 10:15am
  However, only one can be accurate.
  
  Report this comment
- circleDwagons
  Posted on January 31, 2013 at 10:25am
  Mordor? She does look like an elf
  
  Report this comment
- The_Doors_Of_Perception
  Posted on January 31, 2013 at 10:55am
  Dan, they can both inaccurate.
  
  Report this comment
- Dan_o
  Posted on January 31, 2013 at 11:00am
  Doors, how is that?
  
  Report this comment
- The_Doors_Of_Perception
  Posted on January 31, 2013 at 11:07am
  Which is an actual place? Mordor or Valhalla?
  
  Report this comment
- Dan_o
  Posted on January 31, 2013 at 11:12am
  Doors, I misread. I thought you said they can both be accurate.
  
  Report this comment
- The_Doors_Of_Perception
  Posted on January 31, 2013 at 11:18am
  No worries friend…
  
  Report this comment
- qualityrkc
  Posted on February 20, 2013 at 12:33pm
  Dano they both can be accurate, one can be accurate, but most likely neither are accurate bc both ideas of hell and mordor are human constructs. Since man has never gone to hell/mordor then come back to tell of it and even bring some souvenirs to prove he was there, it would be impossible for man to accurately forsee a hell/mordor. In otherwords, they are just geusses. Neither has any more intellectual merit than the other. One was written in a book thousand of years ago and the other more recently. Both are provably fiction so its kind of silly to believe they are absolutely real.
  
  Report this comment
athiest-infedel
Posted on January 31, 2013 at 10:02am
He would answer???? But god will still let her be raped.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- Bad_Ashe
  Posted on February 1, 2013 at 2:45am
  So if God allows and evil act, then that is evidence of either his evil nature or his nonexistence. But if a concerned citizen just happens to come across such a heinous crime and prevents it, this is simply evidence of what…coincidence?
  
  You can’t have it both ways you intellectually dishonest little troll.
  
  Howzabout this for a nugget of fried gold. What if we are all simply granted libertarian free will and can freely commit good or evil acts? We are not God’s marionettes, we are free to come to him, and to walk whatever path we choose to walk, good, evil, or otherwise.
  
  The problem of evil as you’ve delivered it in your oh-so trollish way is easily solved by the argument from free will.
  
  Report this comment
athiest-infedel
Posted on January 31, 2013 at 10:01am
Gods protection, rape the child but I will punish you in hell after a long life. If I let that happen I would be a monster.
Lets make a deal, don’t pray for athiests.
stop saying were going to hell and we will stop calling you deluded morons.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- Dan_o
  Posted on January 31, 2013 at 10:08am
  No deal.
  
  Report this comment
- DavidZion
  Posted on January 31, 2013 at 10:23am
  @atheist you said “Telling an athiest he is going to hell is like an athiest telling a christian he is going to Mordor.”
  
  Then in you next post you asked Christians to quit telling you your going to He’ll.
  
  If Hell equates Mordor why would you care if some says your going to He’ll?
  
  If you will look you will find Gods word promises. God wants you back no matter if you believe or not. So if you don’t believe what would it hurt to just say. God if you exist and I’m wrong reveal yourself to me. Because I’m seeking truth not just prove that I’m right.
  
  Report this comment
Dan_o
Posted on January 31, 2013 at 10:00am
“I do not want religion to go away. I only want religion to be kept at home or in church where it belongs.”

First, she must have a terrible understanding of Christ and what He commanded. Second, she absolutely does want it to go away. She wants her non-belief to be the norm so that “religion” is not seen or heard by anyone. Third, it is so painful to hear people hide behind the so-called separation clause of the constitution and then call other people stupid for not understanding it. I cannot and will not give a shred of credibility to anyone who thinks the constitution explicitly or implicitly calls for a separation of church and state. That is a flat out lie and anyone who thinks otherwise should not be trusted.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- BetterNTexas
  Posted on January 31, 2013 at 11:06am
  She basically wants people to act religious only within the walls of their home and church. Then, apparently, they are to lie to the world about who they are everywhere else. She doesn’t understand that by doing so they would violate their belief system–which is the point and purpose behind why they attend church and practice religion in the first place.
  
  Additionally there is a separation of Church and State and she already enjoys it–the separation is that the State will not force a religion upon her or her children. Having a moment of silence in the schools or offering a Bible class is not forcing religion. The moment the State forces marches her into a church or pushes her into a font, I’ll agree that her rights have been violated.
  
  Report this comment
- Winedude
  Posted on January 31, 2013 at 11:45am
  The founding fathers were smart enough to keep religion totally separate from government:
  
  “The United States is in no sense founded upon the Christian doctrine.” –John Adams
  
  “The purpose of separation of church and state is to keep forever from these shores the ceaseless strife that has soaked the soil of Europe with blood for centuries.” –James Madison
  
  “Religions are all alike – founded upon fables and mythologies.” – Thomas Jefferson
  
  “The Christian God is a being of terrific character — cruel, vindictive, capricious, and unjust.”
  – Thomas Jefferson
  
  “In no instance have . . . the churches been guardians of the liberties of the people.”
  - James Madison
  
  Report this comment
nonofmybiznez
Posted on January 31, 2013 at 10:00am
Why do Agnostics have to bully believers? You are not forced to believe. You either do or you don’t. Its fine if you want to raise your son without God. But don’t bully him by bullying believers.

Any child wants unconditional love and acceptance from their parent. When you show your bias, you are forcing them to choose. Surely they don’t want you to hate them or be biased toward them.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- AntonW
  Posted on January 31, 2013 at 11:31am
  Religion has had its foot on the neck of humanity for centuries. Now that science is allowing people to realize how false the religious narrative is, religion whines that it’s being bullied.
  
  Report this comment
- Verceofreason
  Posted on January 31, 2013 at 11:31am
  Where’s the bullying?
  That’s the same lame ‘argument’ as folks saying
  “Why can’t gay rights people, just shut up,”
  
  Report this comment
jungle J
Posted on January 31, 2013 at 9:58am
Dope, illegal or prescribed gives them all that certain look if you study them a little. Only the sane understand.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
FiscalBill
Posted on January 31, 2013 at 9:58am
“I do not want religion to go away. I only want religion to be kept at home or in church where it belongs. It’s a personal effect, like a toothbrush or a pair of shoes.”

I dont want it to go away but I want to pretend this isnt anti-religious speak.

” I want my children to be free not to believe and to know that our schools and our government will make decisions based on what is logical, just and fair”

Ask soldiers exposed to venereal diseases and nuclear testing how “fair, logical and just” the government is. Ask those exposed to Agent Orange the same question. Ask Ruby Ridge and Waco about their exposure to logic, justice and fairness while you are at it.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
Tigress1
Posted on January 31, 2013 at 9:56am
The reason why there are so many killings in Chicago is because the people there are GODLESS. Woman, YOU are the problem in this country.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- DeavonReye
  Posted on January 31, 2013 at 10:08am
  Because . . . there are no religious people in the prisons? No christians are sent to penitentiaries?
  
  Report this comment
- Tigress1
  Posted on January 31, 2013 at 10:44am
  Devonrye, Sure there are people in prison who believe in God, but I don’t see how anybody could possibly believe in God and commit all these random or gang related crimes. People who believe in God might commit crimes of passion, or even less serious crimes (none of us is perfect) but random violence (which we see in Chicago) especially murder is nothing but pure evil, perpetrated by a person without a conscience, any sense of morality and definitely no basic foundation in the belief of God. The only true cure for this problem is to bring God back into our society. This is the solution that Progressives cannot accept because they are the ones who drove God out.
  
  Report this comment
- DeavonReye
  Posted on January 31, 2013 at 10:54am
  I understand why you believe this, Tigress1. I used to be like you. But we must be realistic. A person is still just a person, regardless of whether or not they claim a religion. . . . . even claiming it piously! I have personal examples of this. Those who make it to prison do so because they act incorrectly. This transcends religious beliefs or no religion at all.
  
  I am a non-religious person. I see nothing to indicate [even remotely] “a deity” existing. However, I have a strong moral code that would keep me from doing things that would require a prison stay.
  
  Report this comment
- Tigress1
  Posted on January 31, 2013 at 11:17am
  Devonreye, I think a person who does not believe in God must be much stronger than the person who believes because he has one less thing that can guide and support good behavior. However, if a person TRULY believes in God and wants to do His will, then it would be IMPOSSIBLE for that person to commit these random crimes. Obviously, (from the prevalence of these crimes) most people are not as strong as you are.
  
  Report this comment
- DeavonReye
  Posted on January 31, 2013 at 11:48am
  I am going to assume that you are one who would say “it would be impossible for me because of my faith”. I would like to ask you a serious question. If you were not a believing person, could you conceive of a time where you would actually want to either rob from someone, hurt them meaninglessly, or kill them? I would bet you wouldn’t. I just see it as “the way a person’s makeup is”. I am not a neuro-biologist so I can’t understand what makes some people susceptable to committing crime. However, I would say that those who are willing, . . . probably will [if not in a fit of rage or other input].
  
  Good talk, btw! :-)
  
  Report this comment
- Tigress1
  Posted on January 31, 2013 at 12:42pm
  Devonreye, you pose a tough question. In complete honesty, if I didn’t believe in God I would probably be a Progressive. If I didn’t believe that there was an afterlife, I would want there to be a heaven on earth – a utopia. I would want to control everything, and I wouldn’t worry so much about doing the wrong thing because there wouldn’t be any punishment, unless it was illegal and I’d be thrown in jail. I don’t know how “evil” I’d be because my belief makes me who I am. Without my beliefs that I have today, my “essence” might be completely different! People who believe in God are fundamentally different from those who don’t. Perhaps this woman is simply performing an experiment, kind of like the old experiment where a Rhesus monkey was raised in a cold metal cage with no physical contact whatsoever, (remember that God IS love) and another was raised with a blanket to offer contact comfort. Unfortunately, this experiment has already been performed repeatedly, and the results are being seen in Chicago.
  
  http://psychology.about.com/od/historyofpsychology/p/harlow_love.htm
  
  Report this comment
- DeavonReye
  Posted on January 31, 2013 at 12:55pm
  I see. Thanks for your input, Tigress1. I’m pretty much the same person today as I was when I was a “true believer”. I have no fear of a judgement. I choose to treat people with respect for their sake. . . and because even though “the Golden Rule” is usually found in a religious sense, . . . there is truth to it.
  
  Report this comment
- Tigress1
  Posted on January 31, 2013 at 1:17pm
  Were you a “true believer” before you became a “non-believer”? In other words, were you raised to be a believer? If so, then you already have the fundamentals built in. It’s still there even if you don’t see it or recognize it anymore. Someone who was raised not believing in anything, just morality (if even that) it’s like an untapped talent. For example, if a person was never exposed to music or musical instruments, he might never know that he could be a musical genius. He might still be a good person but he won’t know what he is missing.
  
  Report this comment
- charliesouth
  Posted on January 31, 2013 at 1:36pm
  Trigress you pose a good point on that last one, for I am the same as far as losing my faith but retaining the “do unto other’s” mentality. But I feel that if raised properly, morally, a child could still know right from wrong without the existence of God in their lives. Being raised on not wanting to hurt other people got me picked on and beat up without fighting back (well I tried kicking a guy who was pushing me once..) but I digress. If you have a morally decent atheist raising their children to accept love and peace in this world without God, I believe firmly that those kids will come out all right. Unless they have a chemical imbalance, which sometimes cannot be helped.
  
  Report this comment
- DeavonReye
  Posted on January 31, 2013 at 1:37pm
  Morality is actually a learned behavior, . . . one that came about because any social species must accept certain criteria, and violations that can damage the whole are responded to accordingly. Now, am I as I am today because of my religious upbringing? Hard to say. I DO know that there are many aspects to the character of god that I once thought “was cool”, but no longer do. That’s a whole other topic, though.
  
  Report this comment
- Tigress1
  Posted on January 31, 2013 at 2:13pm
  Religion is a learned behavior also, but a belief in God tends to delve into farther recesses (not just rote learning) to those who like to ponder. Some people say that religion is simply a way for the church(s) to have control over the people and this may be true, but I believe that God gave people certain rules to follow (the 10 Commandments) so that there wouldn’t be chaos on earth. God understands chaos (He created it) and He also wants there to be order. Something that I find fascinating and actually reaffirms the existence of God is Chaos Theory, and especially fractals and patterns in nature:
  
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patterns_in_nature
  
  I think a person can grow up fine without religion, but depriving children from the concept of the existence of God is a huge disservice. God is the foundation of order, morality and conscience, love, and all of existence.
  
  Report this comment
- Bad_Ashe
  Posted on February 1, 2013 at 2:56am
  This was an interesting conversation, but the important question is not whether someone can be good without God, because they can…the question is that on atheism, how do you define “good”?
  
  On atheism, what basis is there for believing in any kind objective moral values from which good and evil can be divined? To that end, what makes human beings have any objective moral worth?
  
  After all, aren’t we just nature’s random whoops, recently evolved to become top o’ the food chain on this worthless speck called the Earth? Why is human well-being any more important or objectively good than the well-being of bats, rats, or platypodes?
  
  If you take the naturalistic path, claiming that moral values are just a product of social conditioning and evolution (as Deavon does), then morality is simply a survival mechanism for reproduction, and will adapt subjectively based on environment. On this view, if one were to blow the whole thing up and start human evolution over again, the odds are that we would see a much different set of moral values.
  
  “Nature” is morally neutral, and for us to think that human beings are special or that our morals are objectively true based on nature is simply unjustified bias. So therein lies the rub. If atheism is true, it logically follows that good and evil are simply subjective personal judgements or a numbers game boiled down to cold utilitarianism.
  
  Report this comment
Free_Thought
Posted on January 31, 2013 at 9:55am
Bravo. It must be tough to raise your child properly only to get scorn from te “christians.” And really. A religion badge. What a joke. But i am sure the blaze “christians” will say she is raising her kids wrong, they are doomed to eternal fire etc.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- nonofmybiznez
  Posted on January 31, 2013 at 10:10am
  Well, I have to agree with the requirement for a religious badge. That said, you have to be aware that your son is a member of a religious organization. The rules they have are there to protect your precious child.
  
  Report this comment
- tmbell87
  Posted on February 1, 2013 at 12:19am
  @non,
  If the Boy Scouts of America want to exclude Atheists and Gays from their ranks, fine. Then I only have one demand to them: Stop taking government money! If you want to be a religious organization that discriminates on religious preference and sexual orientation, then privately fund yourselves. Otherwise, open the doors for new members and stop isolating yourselves.
  
  Report this comment
HOOT_OWL
Posted on January 31, 2013 at 9:53am
“God does not protect the innocent”..?

God sent the LAW…. !

And Satan sent liberals lawyers to INTERPRET it ..!

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- DavidZion
  Posted on January 31, 2013 at 10:02am
  The Law was never intended for Gentiles. The Law only leads to Death. The Law was the path back to God that Jesus walked for man and died for us. To return to the Law is to deny the need for Jesus. For if YOU can keep the law why do you need a savior. The word says that there is only one way to God and that is through Jesus. Whom God Was pleased to crush for our salvation. The entire story in scripture is our father wanting his kids back in his presence.
  
  Report this comment
- 4truth2all
  Posted on January 31, 2013 at 10:46am
  And so many like this woman who are not interested.
  
  Report this comment
- God_Is_Not
  Posted on January 31, 2013 at 1:49pm
  You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me. Exodus 20:5
  
  That doesnt sound like a god who protects the innocent. You can believe whatever you want, just dont expect others to ignore everything you do.
  
  Report this comment
- charliesouth
  Posted on January 31, 2013 at 1:49pm
  What does God sending the law have anything to do with Sandy Hook, children starving to death or being butchered in Africa? What does God’s law have to do with victims of molestation, rape, domestic violence and lukemia? Go ahead and tell me it’s all part of his plan, and I’ll tell you to never take medicine or accept help from any paramedic or police man ever again.
  
  Report this comment
- 4truth2all
  Posted on January 31, 2013 at 6:37pm
  Yo Is_not:
  Amazing how those of you who say God is not refer to scripture: like using the words of the “ARE NOT” to disprove that they ARE NOT. You love to use verses that your godness believes make Him look the fool yet you don’t even understand the verses you use. God does not punish me for your sin nor you for mine, and if you understood scripture you would know this. They try to tell you that alcoholism is in our genes (never mind the proof) and runs in the family … like father like son … apply those verses correctly to what I just said and you have some truth …
  
  Yo Charliesouth:
  
  Except lukemia … you discribe the actions of men and the reason Jesus came and died >>> TO PUT IT RIGHT … including lukemia.
  
  Report this comment
- God_Is_Not
  Posted on January 31, 2013 at 7:55pm
  @4tru
  
  “punishing the children for the sin of the parents”
  
  It means what is says.
  
  You can believe what you want. Just know there are rational people out here who see right through your apologetics.
  
  Report this comment
- 4truth2all
  Posted on February 1, 2013 at 9:07am
  Yo Is_not:
  
  Concerning your X-ray vision …. get some glasses …
  not sure what “apologetics” has to do with it …
  I simply gave you 1+1=2 … if you say it’s 5… OK then, don’t know how rational that is …good day
  
  Report this comment
- FreedomGal76
  Posted on February 1, 2013 at 11:22am
  @God_is_not: Exodus 20:6 But I lavish unfailing love for a thousand generations on those who love me and obey my commands.
  
  God does not like “hate”.
  
  Report this comment
- God_Is_Not
  Posted on February 1, 2013 at 1:33pm
  @FREEDOMGAL76
  
  Apparently this god hates ‘hate’ so much that he’s willing to punish the innocent children of the haters; and the children of the children of the haters; and the children of the children of the children of the haters. I find it hard to imagine anything more reprehensible and unjust.
  
  Report this comment
- 4truth2all
  Posted on February 1, 2013 at 2:19pm
  Yo God_is_not:
  
  I believe you made your own list
  Something more reprehensible would be someone calling the God who “IS LOVE” reprehensable.
  
  Report this comment
progressiveslayer
Posted on January 31, 2013 at 9:51am
I want my children to be free not to believe and to know that our schools and our government will make decisions based on what is logical, just and fair.

I think this sentence sums up her naivety about government because there’s nothing logical safe and fair about the federal government.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- progressiveslayer
  Posted on January 31, 2013 at 10:05am
  ‘Logical just and fair’. I don’t want to misquote her.
  
  Report this comment
nocalifornia
Posted on January 31, 2013 at 9:50am
Somehow this woman has confused her role as a parent with Gods role. She is right,” “God is not logical,” “God is not fair” and “God does not protect the innocent.” These things are HER job as a parent to teach and protect the children God gave her. I look with dismay to the day her children grow up, and not having a strong moral foundation in God, become the next conscienceless monsters that walk into an elementary school.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- naughtycal
  Posted on January 31, 2013 at 10:00am
  She also said Jesus(god) is a bad role model….I would love to see her explain that one.
  
  Report this comment
- DeavonReye
  Posted on January 31, 2013 at 10:05am
  I do not agree with your assessment of who can have a strong moral base. I am not religious, but am quite moral. Morality is a learned behavior and often times can transcend religious faiths [plural].
  
  Report this comment
- 4truth2all
  Posted on January 31, 2013 at 10:31am
  Yo Devonreye:
  
  Correct me if I’m wrong, but haven’t you stated as to being a long time church goer.
  Morality by your standard will leave you far short by God’s standard
  
  Report this comment
- DeavonReye
  Posted on January 31, 2013 at 10:47am
  Yes, all. I was born and raised in the church, left entirely in my early 40′s. Struggled with the issues that I have already stated in the past [on here] for about 10 years, but remained faithful regardless, . . . until I REALLY started to study and research.
  
  As for morality, I am quite moral, . . . and am MORE moral than many of the supposed “greats of the bible”, and even that of the god depicted in it. Now I must qualify that with “just because the BIBLE states ‘a god did or ordered something’, that doesn’t mean an actual deity really DID”. Man makes mistakes all the time. It wouldn’t be surprising that man did the same when it came to his attempt at “understanding things beyond him”.
  
  Report this comment
- VanceUppercut
  Posted on January 31, 2013 at 11:11am
  @naughtycal
  
  No, your right, I think children should be taught that if someone wrongs you, you should kill every first born child in their nation. Or wreck a man’s life to win a bet with the devil (talkin’ ’bout Job).
  
  Report this comment
- naughtycal
  Posted on January 31, 2013 at 12:33pm
  vANCEUPPERCUT,
  If you call enslaving a people for a two thousands years burying their friends and family understone while building momument using their blood to make motar a simple wronging then you’re obviously an evil thats only dwarfed by the hitlers of the world or one of the most ideologically blinded people on the planet. And then refusing to release them from slavery even after all the plaques were send down on you. I’ld say it is one stupid arrogant SOB that stands on the tracks and trys to stare down a train. When God warns you which he rarely ever did YOU MIGHT WANT TO LISTEN.
  That being said Jesus never did those things and came here to tell us of the love that is God and that his father can temper forgiveness even stronger than he can smite evil.
  
  Report this comment
- 4truth2all
  Posted on January 31, 2013 at 1:48pm
  Yo Devonreye:
  
  So … your moral standard is higher then God’s as depicted in scripture ?
  
  Report this comment
- DeavonReye
  Posted on January 31, 2013 at 3:13pm
  All, . . . in some places, yes. But not in that my morality is better than any actual “deity” type being. Just than those who lived in those times and thought many of their actions as “okay”.
  
  Report this comment
- 4truth2all
  Posted on January 31, 2013 at 6:47pm
  Yo Devonreye:
  
  God did use flawed character … he also said: “that Her came for the sick and the healthy are not in need of Him.”
  
  Report this comment
- FreedomGal76
  Posted on February 1, 2013 at 11:30am
  @DeavonReye 2 Tim 3:16-17 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.
  
  However, (almost the entire book of) Romans clearly explains how it is our faith and not our works that gives us our salvation (Isaiah 64:6) otherwise His sovereignty would be null and void. Our choice to believe is all we need; His spirit does the rest in us.
  
  Report this comment
- DeavonReye
  Posted on February 1, 2013 at 12:13pm
  I actively “chose to believe” for years and never had anything “spiritual” happen.
  
  A god who rewards credulity, . . . . and punishes those who CANNOT be, . . . is not moral.
  
  Report this comment
- 4truth2all
  Posted on February 1, 2013 at 2:13pm
  As I said Deavonreye:
  
  You put yourself over God knowing better then Him , being more righteous then Him, more holy then Him, more just then Him , MORE LOVING THEN HIM.
  
  YOUR WORDS …
  
  What was “spiritually” supposed to happen?
  
  Report this comment
feddup
Posted on January 31, 2013 at 9:49am
“I’m surprised that an organization that’s so patriotic has no understanding of the constitution,” Fugelsang responded.

That’s because you, Mr. Fugelsang, are an ignorant, pseudo-intellectual, elitists who can only regurgitate what you’re told and are incapable of free thought.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- nonofmybiznez
  Posted on January 31, 2013 at 10:01am
  The Boy Scouts only want to protect your children.
  
  Report this comment
- VanceUppercut
  Posted on January 31, 2013 at 11:10am
  @nonofmybiznez
  
  By covering up the fact that they had hired pedophiles? Google it.
  
  Report this comment
biohazard23
Posted on January 31, 2013 at 9:49am
When it comes to the negative attention she received, she sounds like dear leader’s regime when (more) bad economic reports come out: “This was so unexpected!”

And like the regime, she is sooooo full of caca it’s amazing. If you believe for a minute that she didn’t think this would happen, then I’m Kate Upton. Pleased to meet you.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
DavidZion
Posted on January 31, 2013 at 9:48am
This is the Church’s fault. For they have forgotten grace and preached the law. Without grace the church has no power, and no man can keep the law. When we shake our fingers at sinners expecting them not to sin because of Gods law. Yet who amoung Gods righteous gained righteousness thru works? So the worlds heart grows cold against the church because love is no longer our message. We set up our own kingdoms seeking political power in lieu of Holy Spirit power lost to the church for so many years because of its focus on sin instead of divine grace. All abilities and works are nothing without love.

Amen

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- Hammerdown
  Posted on January 31, 2013 at 10:12am
  David, maybe you should look for a new church.
  
  Report this comment
- DavidZion
  Posted on January 31, 2013 at 10:29am
  Not referring to the Church as one particular building or body of believers. For sake of discussion using church to encompass all believers and Christian organizations in the US counted as a whole.
  
  Report this comment
barber2
Posted on January 31, 2013 at 9:46am
” our government will make decisions based on what is logical, just and fair…” For a woman of no faith in ” an imaginary God,” she sure shows a huge faith in these government officials who will be allowed to determine what is ” logical, just and fair.”

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
Sharon Rose
Posted on January 31, 2013 at 9:43am
Why give her any attention?

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- AntonW
  Posted on January 31, 2013 at 11:18am
  Because so many 10′s of thousands found her ideas worth paying attention to. That’s just one reason.
  
  Report this comment
Cavallo
Posted on January 31, 2013 at 9:42am
Want to see mean, take a look at what atheist godless governments have done to people. Mao, Stalin, Lenin, Saloth Sar. The theocracies of Iran and Saudi Arabia can’t hold a candle to those butchers.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- YOURSENSEI
  Posted on January 31, 2013 at 10:32am
  Mr or Ms CAVALLO,
  
  This is what you must know:
  
  Which of them was responsible for the Crusades? The Inquisition?
  
  It is so.
  
  It is so.
  
  Report this comment
- phatboypa
  Posted on January 31, 2013 at 11:56am
  @ Yoursense – Learn your history if not for the crusades Islam would have been forced on all.
  
  Report this comment
- charliesouth
  Posted on January 31, 2013 at 1:59pm
  phatboypa
  I’ll give you that, but lets look African genocides, the Bosnian conflict, 9/11, gynocide (look it up)…the deaths caused by those who don’t believe are greatly outweighed by those who have basically said “bleh, you don’t belive in my god? DIE!”
  
  Report this comment
- Freedomlover_US
  Posted on January 31, 2013 at 8:11pm
  Those regimes simply replaced religion. What an actual freethought society would look like would be Scandinavia. Majority non-religious; very low crime rate and high freedom index.
  
  Lenin-Stalin-Mao – their religion was communism.
  
  Report this comment
- Bad_Ashe
  Posted on February 1, 2013 at 2:21pm
  @SENSEI & FREEDOMLOVER – I was surprised to not yet see a “no true atheist” argument made in this discussion, but lo and behold I simply missed it. I knew it had to be around here somewhere.
  
  Outside of the “no true atheist” argument being a fallacy (the atheists were communists, and communism is religion in all but name only, ergo, they weren’t atheists but simply communist religiosos…after all, they didn’t kill in the name of atheism”, atheists still have a statistical problem on their hands when they decide to compare death counts with Western religion.
  
  Atheists usually trot out the Spanish Inquisition as the worst example in all of Christendom, an event in which roughly 3,000 people died. Can we say the same about atheistic-driven events like the Great Leap Forward (43,000,000) or the Spanish Red Terror (72,000), or the Holodomor (3,500,000)?
  
  The total body count of 52 atheist leaders between 1917 and 2007 is just over 140 million, three times more than those killed by general war, civil war, and individual crime in the entire 20th century combined.
  
  This makes the historical death toll of atheism roughly 180,000 times worse than the Spanish Inquisition. Think about it this way, the average atheist crime against humanity is roughly 18 million times worse the most atrocious event ever committed by Christianity, even though atheist leaders have had less than 1/20 the opportunity.
  
  Report this comment
- charliesouth
  Posted on February 1, 2013 at 3:46pm
  Yes, but Bad_Ashe (awesome username/pic btw) you are only accounting over the last hundred years, where as I’m not talking just Western religion, but FAITH of some sort whether it were pagan or monotheistic have cause way more of a dent in the population in the history of mankind than secularists.
  
  Report this comment
- Cavallo
  Posted on February 1, 2013 at 4:35pm
  @Bad_Ashe, Perfectly said.
  
  Report this comment
- Bad_Ashe
  Posted on February 1, 2013 at 6:45pm
  @CHARLIESOUTH – But this goes to my point. Atheist leaders have killed million upon millions in what is (when compared to the history of religious thought) a markedly short amount of time. Additionally, if “God envy” where historically the motivator behind conflict and murder as you assert, the logical inference would be that it would also be the primary cause of conflict on a mass scale….yet historically this doesn’t hold up.
  
  According to the Encyclopedia of Wars, only 7% of the 1,763 wars fought between 800BC-2000AD can be classified as religious in nature. If you eliminate Islam from that equation, only 3.2% of that total is religious in nature.
  
  The other problem here is that in many ways you’ve essentially broadened your definition to the point that it can be argued that ANY strongly held belief by a group in a position of power, be it hierarchal or simply by way of population, causes violence and murder.
  
  Keep in mind there is a certain truth in this statement, people are willing to kill or to die for their strongly held beliefs, the flaw in atheist argumentation comes when they try dump that trait at the feet of religious belief, even though the historical data demonstrates the opposite.
  
  Cheers!
  
  Report this comment
circleDwagons
Posted on January 31, 2013 at 9:41am
She sounds very confused. I pray that one day she forgives herselve and opens her heart to Jesus.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply

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.