 |
|
|
|
 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. |
  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.  |
|
|
|
So atheism has always been a religion? Atheists have lied to us!!!!
In this case, these people seek a subst.itute for religion.
I would agree that attending secular humanist 'services' is not much different from going to church, but atheism is not a religion.
Why don't atheists just admit they have faith and move on? Seems more logical than denying it to feel superior towards religious people. why must they mock for stupid and childish reasons? Atheism IS a religion that deserves the same treatment atheists give others.
The word "faith" does not make something a religion .. people have faith in many things that are not supernatural. Now please explain exactly how Non-theism (not believing in a God(s)) is a religion any more than not believing in unicorns is a religion.
A lot of atheists treat atheism like it is a religion.
Some atheists have faith, others do not. Because you believe investing in Jamco is a good idea, does not make that belief a religion. Believing no alien life exists is also not a religion, unless you have faith that that is the case based on a religions network of beliefs. If every belief position were a religion, we'd all have millions of religions.
"Why don't atheists just admit they have faith and move on?"
I suspect we have very different views on the meaning of the word 'faith'. For most Atheists, 'faith' means 'believing without evidence'. Since Atheists usually DON'T believe without evidence, they don't have 'faith' (in that sense). This does in no way make me feel superior toward others.
A federal court of appeals ruled yesterday Wisconsin prison officials violated an inmate’s rights because they did not treat atheism as a religion.
Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2005/08/31895/#4YgqjjYPjeG6t6qY.99
For those trying to turn atheism into a religion, don't bother, it's not a product that is easily marketable, there is very little to peddle since it's core is summed up in just not believing in things that there is no evidence of. There is no warm and fuzzy salvation to sell. There is no work involved in disbelief and no money to be made saying "Hey, I havn't found any evidence of God yet" so it's not a great start up idea. You need some sort of invisible deity that you claim to work for and know what they want which requires some monetary donation to prove your faith to make any money...
Atheism is a religion. Period.
Ignorant liar. Period.
http://askville.amazon.com/case-SCOTUS-rule-Atheism-religion/AnswerViewer.do?requestId=58057495
Atheism was a religion here too.
All hail the mighty word twister!
The Bible doesn't convey anything now known to be true, and not knowable in principle by the people who wrote it. It's hard to recommend the inspired word of God as an information source, but centuries of scholarship were wasted on the assumption that it is the primary source of truth. Some people even believe that now.
I have heard, "there are no Atheists in foxholes, along with other BS during my time in the military. It is true, however, that there are almost no Atheists in prisons.
Especially on Death Row. Everybody there is a Born Again Xtian.
This is true.
Nothing works a parole board like a recommendation from a minister.
Yep, I was The Atheist in The Foxhole. They tell you we don't exist and they tell you Gawd does – so that's two lies they told you.
Robert, thank you for serving. You are braver than I on more than one level. I'm a civilian that doesn't believe in any gods until I loose my keys.
If atheism is a religion it's the True Religion. The one you want to belong to. The Gawd of No Gawd. The Church of No Church. Join up today!
NO ONE is an atheist when his/her plane that is plunging to death.
Evidence?
They say there are no atheists in foxholes, but I'm a Vietnam veteran and I was.
planes are not alive, therefore they cannot be plunging to death
What a bunch of malarkey.
And you would know this how?
Let the little atheists have their fun... their numbers are too small (less than 5%) to do any harm while the rest of the world believes there is a higher power and is open-minded.
Aw, look at you there, trying to be all condescending while bragging about your invisible friend.
I don't believe any number of people can imagine up a real God.
"Open minded"...ha ha ha ha.
Get over yourself, Scott. You aren't any more special than the atheists in the article.
Are you open-minded about Vishnu; you accept that your god may not be real and in fact the Hindus have got it right? I doubt that very much.
Post by 'scott' is essentially an instance of the ad populumfallacy with additional ad hominem elements.
http://fallacyfiles.org/glossary.html
Post by 'scott' is essentially an instance of the ad populum fallacy with additional ad hominem elements.
http://fallacyfiles.org/glossary.html
"their numbers are too small (less than 5%) to do any harm"
It's the other 95% i worry about. Anyone who is willing to die for their invisible deity is a danger to humanity.
Funny...he doesn't look a thing like Jesus (except for the hair and beard).
Are they taking communion?
Why do you ask?
That is what I first thought.
Looks like they're drinking coffee to me...
They're English, so I'd hazard a guess that it's tea and biscuits*
* or as they are known in the US, cookies.
You're most likely correct...
Tea with milk is an abomination. No wonder the US branch split off...
Gotta agree with you there.
"The genealogies in Matthew and Luke were both recorded to show Christ’s right to the throne. Matthew’s account showed that through Joseph’s genealogy, Christ was a legal descendant of Jeconiah (Coniah), but could not sit on and rule from the throne because of the curse. This account also proved how Christ was born of a virgin woman, because the curse would have passed onto Christ if Joseph were, in fact, His natural father. Of course, Christ was really the Son of God—begotten by the Holy Spirit!
Luke’s account showed that through Mary’s genealogy, Jesus was a descendant of Nathan—David’s son. This allowed the inheritance to pass to Joseph, who in turn passed it onto Christ.
Matthew 1 clearly explains that Joseph is Mary’s husband. Matthew recorded this for legal purposes, to show the Jews that Christ was the Messiah. It was the custom of the Jews to trace and record the father’s descent. The Jews simply saw Christ as legally Joseph’s Son (Jn. 6:42).
Joseph’s lineage was also given to show that Jesus was, in fact, born of a virgin. If Joseph had been Christ’s natural father, then Christ could never have sat on the throne of David, because of a curse God placed on one of Joseph’s ancestors.
This ancestor, Jechonias, is mentioned in Matthew 1:11-12. He is also referred to as Coniah in Jeremiah 22:24-30. Verse 30 states, “Thus says the Lord, Write you this man childless, a man that shall not prosper in his days: for no man of his seed shall prosper, sitting upon the throne of David, and ruling any more in Judah.” This man was so evil, that God cursed him and his descendants. Jeconiah (as his name is spelled in the Old Testament) did go on to have children (I Chron. 3:17). But, this curse was fulfilled because none of his children went on to rule from the throne of David.
So how could Christ, a descendant of David, qualify to rule from the throne?
This is how Luke 3 complements the Matthew account. Luke records Mary’s genealogy. According to Jewish tradition, in marriage, Mary’s genealogy was placed in her husband’s name. The Greek simply records that Joseph was “of Heli” (Luke 3:23). But since Jacob was Joseph’s father (Matt. 1:16), Joseph was the son-in-law of Heli.
Mary’s lineage did not have this curse as Joseph’s did. And Mary descended from Nathan—one of David’s sons! (see Luke 3:31). God honored Nathan, and made him the ancestor to the promised King—Jesus Christ—who would sit on David’s throne forever (Luke 1:31-33). This fulfills God’s promise of establishing David’s throne for eternity!
According to Israel’s law, if a daughter were the only heir to the father, she would inherit all his possessions, inheritance and rights—but only if she married within her tribe (Num. 27:1-8; 36:6-8). Since Mary had no brothers who could be heirs to her father, she was able to transmit David’s royal inheritance—and the right to the throne—to her husband upon marriage. This made Joseph heir to Heli, giving him the right to David’s throne. This inheritance was then passed to Christ.
Joseph’s lineage was also given to show that Jesus was, in fact, born of a virgin. If Joseph had been Christ’s natural father, then Christ could never have sat on the throne of David, because of a curse God placed on one of Joseph’s ancestors."
Sounds like a plot from the old Dark Shadows series.
L4H – Vic – AE – fred and topher too or you know all creationists !
National Geographic: The Story of Earth HD
Published on May 5, 2013
The Earth might seem solid beneath our feet but five billion years ago there was no sign of the planet we call home. Instead there was only a new star and a cloud of dust in our solar system. Over millions of years, a series of violent changes led to the formation of our world and, eventually, the creation of life.
Cutting-edge imagery also reveals how humans first began to walk on two feet and looks into the future to see what may be in store for our home over the next five billion years.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xsn3wpVAcjk
Thanks.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JbvDYyoAv9k
AE surprised you posted a video from Niel with his stance on ID !
I'm surprised you posted "National Geographic: The Story of Earth HD" as a means to put down Christians, when there is a good chance that actual Christians contributed to the story writing, production, animation and scientific knowledge that went into creating that movie.
Really AE glad you know all the people that worked on the project. By the way wasn't there an editor of the BB that went to work for them ?
Oh, big bloody deal, you condescending snot. I'm sure there were Christians in production of NdGT's, video too. What does that prove? Nothing. Same as your assertions of ID.
Get over yourself.
I don't know all the people that worked on it. I couldn't find a credit list. But I guessed there is a very good chance that Christians did contribute to the story since so many work in scientific fields. I'm not sure if a BB editor went to work for them. Maybe he/she worked on this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LYa9VPVAJI8#t=40
Cheryl
"Science Works" posts off topic science videos at me some times. I have no idea why. I'm trying to figure out what he is talking about. I as.sume he thinks I reject science, because I'm Christian? I really don't know.
And as Neil DeGrasse Tyson says, there are a minority of Christians (usually of the evangelical protestant persuasion) that do actively reject science.
Several people who think like that regularly post here.
National Geographic: The Story of Earth (TV 2011) TV Movie – Doc-umentary http://www.imdb.com/ti-tle/tt1985159/
Category
Education
AE is a disingenuous and wimpy little turd.
I'm not a GOPer
And there are also people who think logic and science leads everyone to atheism, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
I'm curious, AE. If you believe you know there is a God, something must, in your mind, point to God as a fact. If logic together with perfectly sound science happened to contradict that, which would give way: your belief in God or your belief in logic and science?
@AE,
clearly while some people have found that logic and science led them to atheism, it does not have to be true for everyone.
If someone accepts that evolution is God's plan for the development of his 'creation', that's fine with me – it's a 'reasonable' approach. I will say that young-earth creationism is an absurd notion.
I don't see any evidence that logic and science leads to theism. The theism comes first (it is axiomatic to the believer) and is then rationalized with logic.
Tom
I have yet to meet a human being that is completely logical. But if some man or woman comes along that can demonstrate they are completely logical and have knowledge of a perfectly sound science I might take to heart what they have to say about the existence of God. As long as they don't talk about imaginary teapots.
But that's the whole point about the teapot – it replicates the religious argument; that's how religions look without the centuries of social acceptance .
Speaking of creationists who reject science, the 800 tickets to the Bill Nye / Ken Ham debate scheduled for February 4 at the Creation Museum in Kentucky have sold out.
http://www.wdrb.com/story/24373374/800-tickets-to-bill-nie-ken-ham
Look for this on the belief blog a couple of times between now and the first week of February.
That's a wonderful statement by Neil deGrasse Tyson, fair and balanced.
For "Evolution of the Species" to be valid, it requires "the presence of the ancestral fossils prior to the emergence of the first forms of animal life," which are completely missing from Charles Darwin's research and from Evolutionary Biology to date!
Furthermore, there exists no evidence in the fossil record that any species has ever evolved from another species since no undisputed transitional forms have ever been discovered.
Vic you might want to read this !
'Ardi' Skull Reveals Links to Human Lineage
Jan. 6, 2014 — One of the most hotly debated issues in current human origins research focuses on how the 4.4 million-year-old African species Ardipithecus ramidus is related to the human lineage. "Ardi" was an unusual primate.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/01/140106160041.htm
Speculation at best. I enjoyed reading the article though. I couldn't help thinking, could Evolution have happened backwards, that is other species have evolved from humans?! The article says that the human cranial base pattern is at least 1 million years earlier than Lucy's, an afarensis.
vic so confirms now = speculation ?
New research led by Arizona State University paleoanthropologist William Kimbel confirms Ardi's close evolutionary relationship to humans. Kimbel and his collaborators turned to the underside (or base) of a beautifully preserved partial cranium of Ardi. Their study revealed a pattern of similarity that links Ardi to Australopithecus and modern humans, but not to apes.
Hello all, science have found God in the equations of mathematics.
kenrick Benjamin,
Not exactly. The Bible says that the ratio pi is equal to 3.
Observer- That's because they took it to the closest hole number.
Yeah, I've had this conversation before. An atheist here was complaining that the Bible says pi is 3. So I asked him what it really was. He said 3.14. Then I had to explain how that's not it either and how he was doing the same thing he was complaining the Bible did.
I don't think the Bible claims pi is a constant at all. In general, there's not much useful mathematics in the Bible.
Simply put, Pi (π) is the ratio of the circumference to the diameter of any circle. The most common value approximation used is the two decimal point precision of 3.14 while the actual precision is an infinite series, that is an infinite number of decimal places (3.14159265359...) The point of contention here is who discovered it first.
Some claim ancient Egyptians but that's not proven. Meanwhile, the Bible clearly mentions that ratio in 1 Kings 7:23 & 2 Chronicles 4:2, that is a circumference of 30 cubits and brim to brim diameter of 10 cubits, hence the ratio 30/10 which equals 3. Now many argue that is a good ballpark for initiating the concept, while others go further by by using a more accurate approximation of the cubit to show a more accurate Pi. At any rate, the mention in Bible is not intended for geometrical accuracy; meanwhile, it is without a doubt an OUTSTANDING record of Pi.
p.s. Using Hebrew Gematria, the Bible verses about Pi reflect an accurate 3.14 value!
Aside from measurements, I can't recall off the top of my head there is any mathematics there. Nor would I expect there to be. I'm not a math textbook.
* It's not
Didn't Odin-ism come first?, the oldest belief system invented. Or was it paganism? weren't the latter religious beliefs based somewhat on these the oldest of religions and if so begs the question wasn't the true religion perverted for mans benefit?
You also have to factor in Purple Monkey Dishwasher.
It wasn't a purple monkey dishwasher...it was a purple monkey dishSCRUBBER....GEEZ
Once again:
Churches for atheists? Give us a break!! It is obvious a money-making con.
We will see when said "church" files their IRS Form 990 this year.
Once again: nobody cares about your repeated copy pastas.
Just curious...what do you think you will see?
As with most "non-profit" cons, the founders/CEO will make take at least $200,000 a year from the donations as his/her salary.
Some infamous con men/women:
Glen Beck, $32 million in 2010, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/08/glenn-beck-earned-32-mill_n_529903.html
and from guidestar.org (from the posted IRS Form 990s)
Rev. Franklin Graham $800,000+/yr.
Rev. Billy Graham, $400,000/yr
Rabbi Bradley Hirschfield $331,708/yr
Rev. Susan Brooks Thistlethwaite, $200,000/yr
Erica Brown $134,221/yr
Eboo Patel $120,000/yr and his “non-profit’s” investment portfolio of $1.2 million
Dr. Herb Silverman $100,000/yr. ?
Imam Rauf and his wife Daisy, $400,000/yr/ea estimated
Susan Jacoby ????
If I have Faith
The Moon's a Balloon
Will the Moon
Be a Ballon?
No
It's still Green Cheese
No matter what
I Believe.
Testing 1 2 3 ... is this microphone on? Just wanted to see if I'm still allowed to post after ruffling some Xtian feathers earlier today.
Go for it. I hear ya.
I told them the Austrian Corporal with the funny little mustache was an Xtian. They don't like to hear that.
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/01/13/weekinreview/word-for-word-case-against-nazis-hitler-s-forces-planned-destroy-german.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm
Robert:
No, that's one of the hot button topics they will avoid at all costs.
Doesn't negate the fact that Hitler was a Christian................
Hitler hated Christianity. He called it a disease and said it was invented by the Jews. He killed pastors and replaced them with Nazi pastors. He replaced the cross on Bibles with a swastika. He rewrote the BIble and created an Aryan, anti-Semitic, non-Jewish Jesus.
And there are ample examples in AH's writings that state the exact opposite. That he was a devoted Christian. So?
Can we agree that he was a monster who doesn't reflect the views of EITHER Christianity OR atheism?
I've never stated or implied he was atheist. Just that he hated Christianity.
Must have been at odds with himself, since he repeatedly proclaimed his Christianity throughout his life. Tsk tsk.
Most politicians lie.
Robert,
In case you run into a problem with your posts not appearing, Google "CNN Belief Blog Word Press filter" and look for the list of hints of forbidden word fragments.
you all got it all figured out don't ya. your not getting the right answers because your asking all the wrong questions..its not a matter of proof..its a matter of faith. Your lost, totally in the dark... which most people are these days
As long as you're not trying to present faith as truth, I'm good with that.
As for your other assertion: nonsense.
Sorry, who said what the "right answers" were?
And what are the right questions?
I only ask the right questions, because the ones I don't ask are the only ones left
(sorry)
You're, not your.
Yes, I figured it out. You're using your incorrectly.
It's better than the "u r" I see so commonly used here...lol. Although not by much.
I will agree that 'u r' is worse, but they are both fingernails down chalkboards style irritating.
Agreed. Two of my pet peeves.
BELIEVE
Your lost, totally in the dark...which most people are these days. Really, I don't know any people like that, do I have to go to church to find some?
"faith": believing something without a single shred of proof.
it amazes me that religious folk see this word as a badge of honor while any logical thinking person sees it as a mark of foolishness or insanity.
quite a disconnect.
That definition of faith is too simplistic to be adequate in regards to Christian faith.
Tangible proof. Evidence that exists outside of the believer's mind.
"...any logical thinking person sees it as a mark of foolishness or insanity."
No no no no no no. Bad dog. You've obviously never been involved in mathematics or science if you have never met a logical thinker who happens to have faith in God.
Using religious faith to find "Truth" is like hunting in the dark for a black cat that isn't there.