home
RSS
After a schism, a question: Can atheist churches last?
Sunday Assembly founders Sanderson Jones and Pippa Evans have begun to franchise their "godless congregations."
January 4th, 2014
09:00 AM ET

After a schism, a question: Can atheist churches last?

By Katie Engelhart, special to CNN

LONDON (CNN) - The Sunday Assembly was riding high.

The world’s most voguish - though not its only - atheist church opened last year in London, to global attention and abundant acclaim.

So popular was the premise, so bright the promise, that soon the Sunday Assembly was ready to franchise, branching out into cities such as New York, Dublin and Melbourne.

“It’s a way to scale goodness,” declared Sanderson Jones, a standup comic and co-founder of The Sunday Assembly, which calls itself a “godless congregation.”

But nearly as quickly as the Assembly spread, it split, with New York City emerging as organized atheism’s Avignon.

In October, three former members of Sunday Assembly NYC announced the formation of a breakaway group called Godless Revival.

“The Sunday Assembly,” wrote Godless Revival founder Lee Moore in a scathing blog post, “has a problem with atheism.”

Moore alleges that, among other things, Jones advised the NYC group to “boycott the word atheism” and “not to have speakers from the atheist community.” It also wanted the New York branch to host Assembly services in a churchlike setting, instead of the Manhattan dive bar where it was launched.

Jones denies ordering the NYC chapter to do away with the word “atheism,” but acknowledges telling the group “not to cater solely to atheists.” He also said he advised them to leave the dive bar “where women wore bikinis,” in favor of a more family-friendly venue.

The squabbles led to a tiff and finally a schism between two factions within Sunday Assembly NYC. Jones reportedly told Moore that his faction was no longer welcome in the Sunday Assembly movement.

Moore promises that his group, Godless Revival, will be more firmly atheistic than the Sunday Assembly, which he now dismisses as “a humanistic cult.”

In a recent interview, Jones described the split as “very sad.” But, he added, “ultimately, it is for the benefit of the community. One day, I hope there will soon be communities for every different type of atheist, agnostic and humanist. We are only one flavor of ice cream, and one day we hope there'll be congregations for every godless palate."

Nevertheless, the New York schism raises critical questions about the Sunday Assembly. Namely: Can the atheist church model survive? Is disbelief enough to keep a Sunday gathering together?

Big-tent atheism

I attended my first service last April, when Sunday Assembly was still a rag-tag venture in East London.

The service was held in a crumbly, deconsecrated church and largely populated by white 20-somethings with long hair and baggy spring jackets (a group from which I hail.)

I wrote that the Assembly “had a wayward, whimsical feel. At a table by the door, ladies served homemade cakes and tea. The house band played Cat Stevens. Our ‘priest’ wore pink skinny jeans.”

I judged the effort to be “part quixotic hipster start-up, part Southern megachurch.”

The central idea was attractive enough. The Assembly described itself as a secular urban oasis, where atheists could enjoy the benefits of traditional church - the sense of community, the weekly sermon, the scheduled time for reflection, the community service opportunities, the ethos of self-improvement, the singing and the free food - without God. I liked the vibe and the slogan: “Live Better, Help Often, Wonder More.”

Shortly thereafter, Assembly services began bringing in hundreds of similarly warm-and-fuzzy nonbelievers. The wee East London church grew too small, and the Assembly moved to central London’s more elegant Conway Hall.

The Assembly drew criticism, to be sure—from atheists who fundamentally object to organized disbelief, from theists who resent the pillaging of their texts and traditions. But coverage was largely positive - and it was everywhere.

In September, a second wave of coverage peaked, with news that the Assembly was franchising: across England, Scotland, Ireland, Canada, the United States and Australia. That month, the founders launched a crowd-funding campaign that aims to raise $802,500. (As of mid-December, less than $56,000 had been raised.)

Still, prospective Sunday Assembly franchisers seemed exhilarated. Los Angeles chapter founder Ian Dodd enthused that he would “have a godless congregation in the city of angels.” In November, his inaugural Assembly drew more than 400 attendees.

But as the atheist church grew, it began to change—and to move away from its atheism.

“How atheist should our Assembly be?” wrote Jones in August. “The short answer to that is: not very.”

Pippa Evans, Assembly’s other co-founder, elaborated: “‘Atheist Church’ as a phrase has been good to us. It has got us publicity. But the term ‘atheist’ does hold negative connotations.”

Warm-and-fuzzy atheism gave way to not-quite atheism: or at least a very subdued, milquetoast nonbelief. Sunday services made much mention of “whizziness” and “wonder”—but rarely spoke of God’s nonexistence.

The newer, bigger Sunday Assembly now markets itself as a kind of atheist version of Unitarian Univeralism: irreligious, but still eager to include everyone.

In a way, this is a smart move. According to the 2012 Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life, 20% of Americans have no religious affiliation, but just a fraction of those identify as atheists.

A godless congregation is likely to draw crowds if it appeals to what Herb Silverman, founder of the Secular Coalition for America, calls “big-tent” atheism, which includes “agnostics, humanists, secular humanists, freethinkers, nontheists, anti-theists, skeptics, rationalists, naturalists, materialists, ignostics, apatheists, and more.”

But atheists who wanted a firmly atheist church—a Sunday Assembly where categorical disbelief is discussed and celebrated—will not be satisfied.

As the Sunday Assembly downplays its atheism, it also appears increasingly churchlike.

Starting a Sunday Assembly chapter now involves a “Sunday Assembly Everywhere accreditation process,” which grants “the right to use all the Sunday Assembly materials, logos, positive vibe and goodwill.”

Aspiring Sunday Assembly founders must form legal entities and attend “training days in the UK,” sign the Sunday Assembly Charter and pass a three- to six-month peer review. Only then may formal accreditation be granted.

This is not an East London hipster hyper-localism anymore.

Selling swag and charisma

Organized atheism is not necessarily new. French Revolutionaries, for instance, were early atheist entrepreneurs.

In 1793, secularists famously seized the Notre Dame Cathedral in Paris, to build a “Temple of Reason.” They decorated the church with busts of philosophers, built an altar to Reason, lit a torch of Truth - and brought in an actress to play Liberty.

A half-century later, French philosopher Auguste Comte drew acclaim for his “religion of humanity,” which imagined an army of secular sages ministering to secular souls. London has hosted formal atheist gatherings for almost as long.

History suggests, then, that there is nothing inherently anti-organization about atheism. As Assembly’s Sanderson Jones puts it, “things which are organized are not necessarily bad.”

To be sure, Sunday Assembly members in the United States say they've long wanted to join atheist congregations.

Ian Dodd, a 50-something camera operator in Los Angeles, had long been a member of the Unitarian Universalist Church; he enjoyed it, but wanted something more explicitly irreligious.

Nicole Steeves of the Chicago chapter found herself yearning for a secular community—a “place to check in and think about things bigger than the day-to-day”—after having her first child.

But it is one thing to support an atheist "church" - where the ‘c’ is small and the effort is local - and another to back an atheist ‘Church’ that is global and centralized.

The former responds directly to the needs and fancies of its community. The latter assumes that its particular brand of disbelief is universally relevant—and worthy of trademark.

Centralized atheism also feeds hungrily on charisma, and Sanderson Jones, who resembles a tall, bearded messiah - and who, despite the SA recommendation that Assembly hosts should be regularly rotated, dominates each London service - provides ample fuel.

But it remains to be seen whether the Sunday Assembly’s diluted godlessness is meaty enough to sustain a flock.

“Because it is a godless congregation, we don’t have a doctrine to rely on,” explains Sunday Assembly Melbourne’s founder, “so we take reference from everything in the world.”

So far, Assembly sermonizers had included community workers, physicists, astronomers, wine writers, topless philanthropers, futurologists, happiness experts, video game enthusiasts, historians and even a vicar. The pulpit is open indeed.

My own misgivings are far less academic. I’m simply not getting what the Sunday Assembly promised. I’m not put off by the secular church model, but rather the prototype.

Take an October service in London, for example:

Instead of a thoughtful sermon, I got a five-minute Wikipedia-esque lecture on the history of particle physics.

Instead of receiving self-improvement nudges or engaging in conversation with strangers, I watched the founders fret (a lot) over technical glitches with the web streaming, talk about how hard they had worked to pull the service off, and try to sell me Sunday Assembly swag.

What’s more, instead of just hop, skipping and jumping over to a local venue, as I once did, I now had to brave the tube and traverse the city.

Back in New York, Lee Moore is gearing up for the launch of Godless Revival - but still speaks bitterly of his time with the Sunday Assembly network.

Over the telephone, I mused that the experience must have quashed any ambition he ever had to build a multinational atheist enterprise.

“Actually,” he admitted, “we do have expansion aims.”

Katie Engelhart is a London-based writer. Follow her at @katieengelhart or www.katieengelhart.com.

- CNN Belief Blog

Filed under: Atheism • Belief • Church • Faith • Houses of worship • Leaders

soundoff (4,535 Responses)
  1. theridge

    Anyone who denies the spiritual world, look into "remote-viewing" A top secret army program later declassified from the 50's. Crazy stuff but you can't argue on what you can't see. Of course the flouride in the water, gmo's, and all the vaccines we take seem to be taking quite the toll on our ability to have originality in our thinking.

    Anyways remote-viewing is hard evidence of the spiritual world that all you sheeple deny since your narrow-visioned eyes can't see it.

    January 6, 2014 at 12:46 pm |
    • Bootyfunk

      except that there's zero evidence for remote viewing or any other ESP power. have evidence? i'd love to see it.

      btw, the sceptic's society offers $1M to anyone that can prove god, fairies, aliens or ESP. funny how no one has collected on it and it's been offered for years...

      January 6, 2014 at 12:48 pm |
      • theridge

        Anybody is capable of it. Just certain personalities are easier to train than others. Your Penial Gland is the proof so pay up! Here's my checking acount number: (nobody else look) 896-85-347855433SHEEPLE

        January 6, 2014 at 12:55 pm |
        • Bootyfunk

          then why don't you go collect the million dollars offered to anyone that can prove ESP? sounds like you'll be rich. weird how everyone that has tried has failed...

          January 6, 2014 at 12:57 pm |
        • theridge

          Bootyfunk: you owe me and I will track you down using ESP, fairies, and my alienware tech. You better run....RRRUUUNNN vigin no-life blogger!

          January 6, 2014 at 12:59 pm |
        • Bootyfunk

          see? if you had ESP powers (or just asked your mom) you would know i'm not a virgin. hehe.

          January 6, 2014 at 1:03 pm |
        • igaftr

          "Your Penial Gland is the proof so pay up"

          Not proof...it does not do what you claim...more baseless BS.

          By all means Prove it to James Randi...he is the one offering the prize....since I already know you will fail....AHHH too bad your ridiculous assertions are without merit.

          January 6, 2014 at 1:21 pm |
  2. Alias

    MAT 1:16 And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.
    LUK 3:23 And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli.

    Okay, let the excuses begin again.

    January 6, 2014 at 12:46 pm |
    • Madtown

      "Those are just stylistic differences between authors."

      – Topher

      January 6, 2014 at 12:58 pm |
  3. Live4Him

    Live4Him : For example, I could prove no light exist
    @igaftr : There is no such thing as negative light. There is light in varying levels or no light. NEVER negative light. Try again.

    Yes, you need to try reading my post again. I didn't advance the claim of negative light, but rather 'no light exist' (because it was similar to 'no biblical god exist' which was claimed to be a negative).

    <><

    January 6, 2014 at 12:41 pm |
    • WASP

      @him:

      darkness is the absence of light.

      this universe is the absence of god. XD

      NO GODS, even if there were gods, i prefer the norse gods. they were fun and had a great after-life

      January 6, 2014 at 12:49 pm |
    • Bootyfunk

      live4him, pls stop trying to use logic to explain how you can prove a negative. you can't. how can you prove that light doesn't exist anywhere in the universe? tell me.

      January 6, 2014 at 12:55 pm |
      • Ann

        By his logic, if I look at my desk and do not see a taco on it, I have just disproved the existence of tacos.

        January 6, 2014 at 1:18 pm |
  4. But...

    What does the fox say?

    January 6, 2014 at 12:39 pm |
  5. Corkpuller

    God is laughing.

    January 6, 2014 at 12:36 pm |
    • Jim R

      So, he is laughing while also allowing 9 million children under the age of five to die every year. So, he either can't do anything to save them or won't. So he is either impotent or evil. But maybe you have another answer, we'd love to hear it. Oh, I forgot, he works in mysterious ways.

      January 6, 2014 at 12:42 pm |
  6. Defined

    -ism n.
    a distinctive doctrine, theory, system, or practice: capitalism, socialism, atheism and other isms.

    January 6, 2014 at 12:34 pm |
    • Jim R

      Wrong! So is "a-deism" a doctrine as well?

      January 6, 2014 at 12:38 pm |
      • Defined

        According to my dictionary: Yes.

        January 6, 2014 at 12:40 pm |
        • Jim R

          the word is not even in the dictionary!

          January 6, 2014 at 12:45 pm |
  7. Jim R

    The word atheism is a misnomer – everyone is an "atheist", assuming they don't believe in at least one other god such as Zeus, Thor, A ll ah etc. As Sam Harris says, there are no "a-astrologists? We simple don't "believe" – because there is no evidence. But here's a clue. The universe is the way it is whether you like it or not. Stop the wish thinking. Death is real and existence ceases, just as it was before you existed to begin your short stay. Religion is a man made manacle that began during the infancy of our species. It's time to grow up.

    January 6, 2014 at 12:30 pm |
    • AE

      I'm not an "atheist".

      January 6, 2014 at 12:37 pm |
      • Jim R

        so then you believe in Thor? All ah and the more than 3,000 other mythical gods. Case closed

        January 6, 2014 at 12:47 pm |
        • AE

          No, I'm not an atheist. I believe in God.

          January 6, 2014 at 12:51 pm |
        • G to the T

          The point AE (and I'm pretty sure you know it) is that you are atheistic on the question of the existence of these other gods but not on the existence of Yahweh.

          January 6, 2014 at 3:46 pm |
    • Former Xtian

      Ding Ding Ding! We have a winner!

      January 6, 2014 at 1:27 pm |
  8. Live4Him

    @WASP : you can't prove a negitive

    This is a misnomer. For example, I could prove no light exist (i.e. a 'negative') by measuring the light level and finding it to be zero. so, this issue is more about an improperly defined hypothesis than it is about the inability to conduct the experiment. To 'prove a negative', one would only have to falsify the inverse (although absolute 'proof' is scientifically impossible, but rather it is the inability of falsification).

    Thus, on the subject of the Biblical God, one could falsify the Biblical God by falsifying one or more of the Biblical God's attributes. But, one cannot 'prove God exists' because there are infinite tests that could be conducted to falsify God – all of which would need to fail to falsify Him in order to prove His existence.

    And since Atheism holds that God doesn't exist, then atheists should be able to falsify one of God's Bibilical attributes. But can they? Nope. 🙂

    <><

    January 6, 2014 at 12:29 pm |
    • Robert Raulerson

      Could Gawd create a rock too heavy for Gawd to pick up? Are you sure Gawd is 'omnipotent'?

      January 6, 2014 at 12:32 pm |
      • theridge

        I can tell your IQ is as high as an Ape with all the flourdated water you've been sipping on. Give your kids some fluoride tablets for the teeth they don't have. And take a few more flu-shots for "my safety" hahahahah!

        January 6, 2014 at 12:38 pm |
    • igaftr

      False logic once again.

      There is no such thing as negative light. There is light in varying levels or no light. NEVER negative light.

      Try again.

      January 6, 2014 at 12:32 pm |
    • Jim R

      It's an "un-falsifiable" argument. It can't be disproved – what is it that you don't understand?

      January 6, 2014 at 12:33 pm |
    • Doris

      L4H: "And since Atheism holds that God doesn't exist..."

      Nope – failed again. That doesn't fairly reflect mainstream atheism. Try again.

      January 6, 2014 at 12:33 pm |
    • Bootyfunk

      lol, you don't understand what proving a negative means. you really don't.

      January 6, 2014 at 12:35 pm |
    • Eric G

      Sorry, logic flag on the play!

      You have made a claim that the god exists. The burden of proof lies in your claim. You are attempting to shift your burden of proof responsibility.

      10 yards from the spot of the foul. Repeat first down.

      January 6, 2014 at 12:36 pm |
    • Piccolo

      Proving a negative is about existence of a phenomena, not a negative statement. We know stars exist, planets, galaxies, black holes, etc etc because we can observe them and their effects on the universe. God cannot be observed, tested or even suggested in anything anywhere. Asking somebody to prove god doesn't exist is faulty logic. The burden of proof is ALWAYS on the person who claims existence. I say stars exist, it can be verified. You say god exists, but it cannot be.

      January 6, 2014 at 3:54 pm |
  9. Robert Raulerson

    I've had it with you Hamlet-like Agnostics. Maybe – maybe not. Who knows? You won't make doodie, but you won't git off the post neither. I liken you all to Velveeta Cheese and Spam on Wonder Bread sandwiches. Blecch!

    January 6, 2014 at 12:28 pm |
  10. Janthropologist

    There is a dark side to the atheist movement. Just like there has been a dark side to every human movement. Be weary of it...

    January 6, 2014 at 12:26 pm |
    • Marcus Welby, MD

      A dark human movement does not indicate a problem. A bloody one does.

      January 6, 2014 at 12:29 pm |
    • Robert Raulerson

      I think you meant 'wary'.

      January 6, 2014 at 12:29 pm |
  11. Robert Raulerson

    Yes I'm gonna Rapture
    Yes I'm gonna Fly
    I'm headin straight
    For the Pearly Gate
    And I won't even have to die!

    Beam me up Jayzus! Praise the Lord and Pass the Rattlesnake!

    January 6, 2014 at 12:25 pm |
    • theridge

      You used that already. Think with an original thought for once sheep

      January 6, 2014 at 12:27 pm |
      • Robert Raulerson

        You still sing 'Rock of Ages' and it's been around since before forever.

        January 6, 2014 at 12:33 pm |
        • theridge

          I hope so hahahaha! Flouride-breath!

          January 6, 2014 at 12:39 pm |
  12. FloRida

    Every wacko fundamentalist Christian at least admits their beliefs rest on faith. The atheist insists that he has serious logic on his side, yet refuses to even consider any position that they don't agree with.

    January 6, 2014 at 12:22 pm |
    • Eric G

      As an atheist, I will only consider claims of fact that are supported by verifiable evidence. Can you give me an example of any other claim of fact that is made without supporting verifiable evidence that should be given serious consideration besides the claims made by those who believe in a god?

      I don't understand why belief should be provided an intellectual mulligan when asked for verification of their claims of fact. Any claim of fact carries an inherent burden of proof.

      January 6, 2014 at 12:33 pm |
  13. Eric G

    Which is more important to you?

    Believing something to be fact, or knowing something to be fact?

    January 6, 2014 at 12:21 pm |
  14. Robert Raulerson

    Lemmee say again – at the risk of repeating myself – the issue isn't Gawd, but religion. Religion does exist – no debate. And it's a problem, tho some of you clearly don't know that.

    January 6, 2014 at 12:20 pm |
  15. Live4Him

    Wait everyone, I have to go and spank my monkey.

    January 6, 2014 at 12:17 pm |
    • Mac

      How secular humanist of you.

      January 6, 2014 at 12:20 pm |
    • Robert Raulerson

      Little more information than I need there.

      January 6, 2014 at 12:21 pm |
    • Topher

      I just got back from that. Enjoy!

      January 6, 2014 at 12:26 pm |
    • Live4Him

      Copy-cat – Reported.

      January 6, 2014 at 12:31 pm |
  16. Calling Dr. James W. Watts, line 2

    $ 🙂 $

    January 6, 2014 at 12:16 pm |
  17. Live4Him

    Moore promises that his group, Godless Revival, will be more firmly atheistic than the Sunday Assembly, which he now dismisses as “a humanistic cult.”

    For those on the forum: Is Humanism a cult of Atheism? Why or why not?

    January 6, 2014 at 12:13 pm |
    • Live4Him

      Wait everyone, I have to go and spank my monkey.

      January 6, 2014 at 12:16 pm |
    • No Name

      Atheism has always been a religious cult. Actually, the atheistic leaders who killed their own people used this cult to gain power and strike fear into the heart of every man. In fact, most atheistic leaders were viewed as gods and saw that religion had to be banned or destroyed. Over 100 million people died as a result of the brutal rule of these atheistic men. Thus this disproves the atheist fairy-tale that it takes a religious person to do evil. No, it doesn't. Atheists have caused the most damage in the past century alone. Of course atheists will deny this but the facts remain true. Their fairy-tale that religion is the source of all violence is false.

      January 6, 2014 at 12:23 pm |
      • In Santa we trust

        Believers and non-believers can do harm. The point is that there are many examples, historically and currently, of violence driven by religious beliefs. The examples typically given for atheists are totalitarian regimes who did not kill for lack of belief.

        January 6, 2014 at 12:39 pm |
      • igaftr

        Your lies are not facts.

        You imply that people suffer at the hands of atheists, which implies they suffered as a RESULT of the atheism, which is not true. Stalin, Pol Pot did not do what they did BECAUSE of not believing in gods. Their reasons were separate.Politically motivated...not so with believers such as Hitler who did what he did BECAUSE of his belief in the Abrahamic god.

        Try not to misrepresent history this badly...it is nothing but a deflection, a smoke screen, and really pointless.

        January 6, 2014 at 1:50 pm |
  18. Live4Him

    L4H: "all definitions of a word could apply"
    @Doris : Why ignore mainstream atheism to make a point in a way that is way too generic to be of any use?

    Again, who made you the deus ex machina in this issue? All you can discuss is YOUR views.

    <><

    January 6, 2014 at 12:08 pm |
    • Doris

      You may call it my views, but anyone who's been paying attention to the articles here over the past year or so along with polls and other sources that many have quoted from would know better than make generic claims on atheism as if all atheists were strong/positive-type atheists.

      January 6, 2014 at 12:14 pm |
      • Live4Him

        @Doris : anyone who's been paying attention ... would know better than make generic claims on atheism

        And yet, you DO! Why?

        <><

        January 6, 2014 at 12:35 pm |
        • Doris

          Maybe because I've been paying attention where you choose to repeatedly ignore...

          January 6, 2014 at 12:58 pm |
    • Charm Quark

      L4H
      All you can discuss is your views, look in the mirror you moron.

      January 6, 2014 at 12:14 pm |
  19. Sunflower

    in other NJ breaking news, someone stole baby Jesus statue from roadside display; police profile says; white male, 5'9", in late 30s, atheist.

    January 6, 2014 at 12:08 pm |
    • Petra

      And they deduced he was an atheist....how?

      January 6, 2014 at 12:10 pm |
      • Sunflower

        Gee I thought people had some sense of humor.

        January 6, 2014 at 12:14 pm |
        • Petra

          I'm just questioning the veracity of your claim, that's all. Wondering how a profiler would describe an atheist so they're instantly recognizable....

          January 6, 2014 at 12:18 pm |
        • Alias

          Way to miss the joke after it was explained.
          Christian?

          January 6, 2014 at 12:40 pm |
    • Robert Raulerson

      Why would an atheist steal a statue of baby Jayzus?

      January 6, 2014 at 12:15 pm |
      • Sunflower

        forget about it, you guys are humorless......no wonder why.

        January 6, 2014 at 12:46 pm |
    • G to the T

      If one person in a class fails an exam, it's probly that student's fault. If the majority of a class fails an exam, that's the teacher's fault.

      I'm sorry if we didn't "get it". Maybe it just wasn't funny?

      January 6, 2014 at 4:07 pm |
  20. Jesus' Beloved

    @theridge: "since we all have the penial gland that is suppose to operate as a sort of spiritual antenna to the heavens."

    Hi, first time I've seen someone else associate the pineal gland to the spirit of the Lord. Right on!

    "In the candlestick the Spirit of the Lord encompasses the other six spirits and is the overall enti.ty of light. The pineal gland is described asour window to the face of God."
    God Bless.

    January 6, 2014 at 11:52 am |
    • theridge

      mainstream science will not even attempt to speak on it since they know it will end all debate at to the spiritual world. So the sheep can keep living in the matrix

      January 6, 2014 at 11:56 am |
      • Petra

        They won't speak of it because it can't be medically proven, and as such, mere speculation.

        January 6, 2014 at 12:08 pm |
        • theridge

          They can prove it but they won't. It's like man-made global warming. mainstream science is only looking to prove what their agenda is trying to promote. they throw anything else out the window that doesn't go along with what they are trying to accomplish ie carbon taxes and shutting down industry.

          January 6, 2014 at 12:11 pm |
        • Petra

          They would be the most famous doctors in history if they could prove it.
          They can't.
          Global warming has nothing to do with it; that's a red herring that you are throwing out.

          January 6, 2014 at 12:15 pm |
        • theridge

          oh and the medical field, I'm conviced you have one or a couple flavors of cancer if you trust those preachers in the white robe. Its a eugenics system meant to keep you coming back. So drink your fluoridated water and take your vaccines and petro-chemical big-pharma pills!

          January 6, 2014 at 12:18 pm |
        • theridge

          those doctors would loose their job if they talked about it. Like many journalists, inventors, and alot of obaaam's cabinate member's/military staff that don't play ball. it's the twilight zome peeps. but most cnners won't get it

          January 6, 2014 at 12:21 pm |
        • Chikkipop

          Live by yerseff in a dark room, do ya?

          January 8, 2014 at 9:45 pm |
        • Petra

          Um...what?

          January 6, 2014 at 12:21 pm |
        • Petra

          I'll repeat: these doctors would go down in history if they could prove what you assert.

          The red herrings you continue to throw out notwithstanding, this would literally change the world...and how people view God.

          January 6, 2014 at 12:27 pm |
        • theridge

          The drs aren't in the business of proving anything. They only treat the symptoms of your degenerate diseases and keep you coming back. Take a flu-shot for me too "for my safelty" hahahahahahah

          January 6, 2014 at 12:41 pm |
    • WASP

      you wouldn't happen to be refering to this gland in the endocrine system would you?

      The pineal gland, also known as the pineal body, conarium or epiphysis cerebri, is a small endocrine gland in the vertebrate brain.

      January 6, 2014 at 11:57 am |
      • Jesus' Beloved

        Do you have another pineal gland?

        The body is the temple of the Lord. Did you think this part was a joke? It would behoove all doubters to figure out how this actually works since most claim to be very scientific.

        Adrenal gland – Spirit of Might
        Pituitary gland – Spirit of Wisdom
        Ovaries/Testes – Spirit of Knowledge
        Thymus – Spirit of the Fear of the Lord
        Thyroid gland – Spirit of Counsel
        Pancreas – Spirit of Understanding

        And the all encompassing Pineal gland – Spirit of the Lord

        January 6, 2014 at 12:07 pm |
        • Petra

          Wouldn't it be up to you to prove it since you are the one making the claims?

          January 6, 2014 at 12:12 pm |
        • Charm Quark

          Jb
          Now I get it. What you are saying is that L4H, LofA, Topher, AE, yourself, etc. have either had oophorectomy surgery or have been castrated thus the resulting lack of knowledge. Thanks for clearing that up.

          January 6, 2014 at 12:23 pm |
        • WASP

          OMFG! YOU HAVE TO BE THE DUMBEST CHRISTIAN I HAVE EVER MET.

          thanks for the laugh, no seriously. organs some that kill us "communicate" with god?
          do you also believe in ckakrah as well?

          please show proof that can be evaluated by TRUE scienctists about how the endocrine system "communicates" with any god. XD

          January 6, 2014 at 12:28 pm |
        • igaftr

          If what you say is true ( which of course is just made up out of thin air) prove it...there is a $1,000,000 prize waiting for you.

          Those glands do a PHYSICAL function creating chemicals...there is no evidence anywhere that there is anything spiritual in the first case, and in the second case, there is nothing to back up they do anything along the lines you say. Baseless assertions.
          They perform a biological function, and nothing more.

          January 6, 2014 at 12:30 pm |
        • Jesus' Beloved

          The proof is in your Bible.
          Read it for yourself. Just ask the Holy Spirit for wisdom, and she will guide you in all truths. So when you don't understand something you've read, you ask the Holy Spirit for understanding and you will have it.

          January 6, 2014 at 12:30 pm |
        • igaftr

          JB the self exhalted one.

          Reading the bible is exactly why I don't believe it.

          They did not know what glands were, let alone what their real purpose was. Using the bible to exlplain reality never works siince the ignorant men who wrote the work could not ever know what the glands actually did, so they just made it up, like the rest of your book.

          Silly baseless assertions...not only nothing to back up the claims, but instead, we KNOW what those gland ACTUALLY do, and NONE of them have to do with anything except regulating the INTERNAL working of your body.

          Unbelievable to lengths you guys are trying to go to...pointless and baseless.

          January 6, 2014 at 12:37 pm |
        • WASP

          @JB: "The proof is in your Bible.
          Read it for yourself."

          XD

          that's why i'm an atheist to begin with; i truly read that book front to back. it was the worst book i ever read.
          your god must have some kindof mental disorder to not even be able to "inspire" a book that would read properly.

          January 6, 2014 at 12:44 pm |
        • doobzz

          Sounds a lot like the seven chakras of Hinduism.

          January 6, 2014 at 12:47 pm |
    • theridge

      scientist has discoved that each of your billions of cells have the same sort of antenne that resonates with space. They cannot explain and so many of them are turning to try and prove terreforming since there is no way Intelligent design can continue to be ruled out. won't read that in a rockefeller controlled textbook though.

      January 6, 2014 at 11:59 am |
      • Jesus' Beloved

        Last week I mentioned that we're made from Quantum Particles, and according to science, these are the properties of Q.P.

        1. They are visible
        2. They can be invisible, i.e. they're still there, they've just changed form (hmmm)
        3. They're always connected
        4. They can communicate with themselves in the past and in the future

        So I asked, since we're made of Q.P. can we do all the things that science says Q.P. does.
        People who doubt have no co.ncept of the spirit world or just totally disbelieve and ignore it.
        YES, and it's all Biblical.

        January 6, 2014 at 12:22 pm |
        • Charm Quark

          JB
          Sorry but you seem to be referring to entangled particles and not all sub atomic particles. BTW using the common meaning of visible is also not quire right, they are observable by a system measurement by an operator or gauge. Splitting hairs perhaps but the majority of particles we understand are not entangled.

          January 6, 2014 at 12:31 pm |
        • Charm Quark

          JB
          Just to be clear, I for one totally disbelieve any ignore any spirit world exists outside of the minds of those that believe in such nonsense. Harry Houdini never got back to us despite all his best efforts , ever wonder why? The spirit world has no evidence of its existence, please provide some.

          January 6, 2014 at 12:42 pm |
      • doobzz

        Here's some more stuff "scientist has discovered" re: the pineal gland:

        "An awakened pineal gland brings the ability to consciously astral travel, explore other dimensions, foresee the future and receive communications from loving dimensional beings."

        http://humansarefree.com/2011/02/how-to-clean-up-pineal-gland.html#sthash.tjcavQMw.dpuf

        January 6, 2014 at 12:59 pm |
    • Charm Quark

      JB
      Your posts the other day on quantum particles were pretty misleading, would you care to elucidate?

      January 6, 2014 at 12:00 pm |
      • Jesus' Beloved

        I will.
        But misleading in what way?

        Words are very important to me. I try not to use them lightly.

        January 6, 2014 at 12:26 pm |
        • Charm Quark

          JB see post above, most of your statements refer to entangled particles.

          January 6, 2014 at 12:35 pm |
    • Anthony Crispino

      My wife's groin doctor knows another doctor who says that when people are abducted by aliens they get frozen in this state sort of like being hypnotized but more like a possum suddenly being faced with light. It's gotta be that same gland.

      January 6, 2014 at 12:06 pm |
      • theridge

        LOL! Don't get me started talking about aliens!

        January 6, 2014 at 12:12 pm |
    • JesusSuperHero

      > spiritual antenna

      That's great news. I always wondered how prayer worked.
      Now we can measure the throughput, signal quality and error rate, of the transmission.

      Care to share your findings on how reliable prayer is compared to sending him an email, or throwing letters into a burning bush?

      January 6, 2014 at 12:17 pm |
      • theridge

        don't give the NSA any ideas knucklehead!

        January 6, 2014 at 12:23 pm |
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49
Advertisement
About this blog

The CNN Belief Blog covers the faith angles of the day's biggest stories, from breaking news to politics to entertainment, fostering a global conversation about the role of religion and belief in readers' lives. It's edited by CNN's Daniel Burke with contributions from Eric Marrapodi and CNN's worldwide news gathering team.