Do you believe in the Virgin Birth or the notion that Mary rose into heaven without dying?


The New Atheist.
“Three writers have sounded a call to arms. They are Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, and Daniel Dennett”
Dawkins is perfectly aware that atheism is an ancient doctrine and that little of what he has to say is likely to change the terms of this stereotyped debate. But he continues to go at it. His true interlocutors are not the Christians he confronts directly but the wavering nonbelievers or quasi believers among his listeners – people like me, potential New Atheists who might be inspired by his example.

Wired 14.11: The Church of the Non-Believers (http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/14.11/atheism.html)

Are you looking for an atheistic view or is this general?:)

Do you believe in the Virgin Birth or the notion that Mary rose into heaven without dying?


The New Atheist.
“Three writers have sounded a call to arms. They are Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, and Daniel Dennett”
Dawkins is perfectly aware that atheism is an ancient doctrine and that little of what he has to say is likely to change the terms of this stereotyped debate. But he continues to go at it. His true interlocutors are not the Christians he confronts directly but the wavering nonbelievers or quasi believers among his listeners – people like me, potential New Atheists who might be inspired by his example.

Wired 14.11: The Church of the Non-Believers (http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/14.11/atheism.html)
The New Atheists will not let like me off the hook simply because I am are not a believer. They condemn not just belief in God but respect for belief in God... Religion is not only wrong; it's evil.
I am simply wondering what others believe who do not practice a Religion.

Yes, I believe in Mary, the Mother of Jesus Christ. I believe she was chosen by God because she was in the lineage and also a pure young woman. I believe in the virgin birth and also that she was ascended in Heaven without an earthly death. Now just how old Catholic is that? Yes, it is and I do not apologize for my beliefs, even though I am not Catholic any longer.

Personally I believe in the virgin birth, but the notion that Mary didn't die is just that, a notion.

Personally i believe in the virgin birth, but the notion that Mary didn't die is just that, a notion.
Are you saying a Bible is not the literal truth then?

Yes, I believe in Mary, the Mother of Jesus Christ. I believe she was chosen by God because she was in the lineage and also a pure young woman. I believe in the virgin birth and also that she was ascended in Heaven without an earthly death. Now just how old Catholic is that? Yes, it is and I do not apologize for my beliefs, even though I am not Catholic any longer.
I did not mean I agreed, just thanking you for your response:)

No, I mean just that! The Bible nowhere gives even a hint that Mary did not die, or even that she remained a perpetual virgin for the rest of her life. There are a lot of common misconceptions about Mary.

No, I mean just that! the Bible nowhere gives even a hint that Mary did not die, or even that she remained a perpetual virgin for the rest of her life. there are a lot of common misconceptions about Mary.
Thanks for the clarification.:)

I believe in the virgin birth.
I believe that Jesus (alaihi salaam)ascended(taken up) to heaven, not Mary (May Allah be pleased with her).

I don't have a copy of the Vulgate or else I would look and see if and where it states Mary was "taken up" into Heaven. Common sense would tell you she did not remain a perpetual virgin - there were supposed brothers to Christ. But if memory serves me right, Mary's Ascension is not recorded in the Vulgate - but it is a Catholic doctrine of belief.

Whether anyone agrees or disagrees is totally their own option.

I believe in the virgin birth.
I believe that Jesus (alaihi salaam)ascended(taken up) to heaven, not Mary (May Allah be pleased with her).
Thanks... For the New Atheists, the problem is not any specific doctrine, but religion in general. Or, as Dawkins writes in The God Delusion, "As long as we accept the principle that religious faith must be respected simply because it is religious faith, it is hard to withhold respect from the faith of Osama bin Laden and the suicide bombers."

I'm with dawkins up to the point where he wants everyone to be like him (an athiest).
I think people should be able to believe whatever they want without ridicule.
That being said I don't take the bible/torah/qu'ran etc as proof of anything.

I understands Dawkin's take on agostics (from the OP's original post) but in my opinion they are probably the wisest of us all, everything that isn't agnostic is based on pure conjecture/ sheer belief. Does this make sense?

Thanks...For the New Atheists, the problem is not any specific doctrine, but religion in general. Or, as Dawkins writes in The God Delusion, "As long as we accept the principle that religious faith must be respected simply because it is religious faith, it is hard to withhold respect from the faith of Osama bin Laden and the suicide bombers."

Sad to see that what the media feeds as mainstream Islam is being accepted as the real thing by so many...

Not my loss though!

I'm with dawkins up to the point where he wants everyone to be like him (an athiest).
I think people should be able to believe whatever they want without ridicule.
That being said I don't take the bible/torah/qu'ran ect as proof of anything.

I understands Dawkin's take on agostics (from the OP's original post) but in my opinion they are probaly the wisest of us all, everything that isn't agnostic is based on pure conjecture/ sheer belief. Does this make sense?
Myself, I've decided to refuse the call, it’s another kind of absoluteness as is Fundamentalism. My bedrock faith: the faith that no matter how confident we are in our beliefs, there's always a chance we could turn out to be wrong.:p

Firm I think Dawkins way making a point that to respect on random belief is to respect them all whether they be everyone should be painted purple or kill everyone with more than six letters in their name.

He just randomly picked that one because it was popular at the time. 10 year ago I'm sure he would have mentioned Catholics and the IRA.

Do you believe in the Virgin Birth or the notion that Mary rose into heaven without dying?


The New Atheist.
“Three writers have sounded a call to arms. They are Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, and Daniel Dennett”
Dawkins is perfectly aware that atheism is an ancient doctrine and that little of what he has to say is likely to change the terms of this stereotyped debate. But he continues to go at it. His true interlocutors are not the Christians he confronts directly but the wavering nonbelievers or quasi believers among his listeners – people like me, potential New Atheists who might be inspired by his example.

Wired 14.11: The Church of the Non-Believers (http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/14.11/atheism.html)

Let me start by saying I don't believe the virgin birth or about Mary ascending to heaven without dying. I also have not read the link in full (but I will!).

Dawkins, Harris and Hitchens are often called the "Unholy Trinity" :) Dennett is usually left out for some reason; he's not quite as aggressive as the others.

I think the three of them make some decent points, but I don't agree with (Dawkins', mostly) view that religion in all instances is bad and should be done away with. I know many people of various religions who are good, wonderful people who would not dare press their beliefs on others, would not bomb this or that because they don't like it, etc. They believe because they believe and they are a-ok with me not believing. I think Dawkins is absolutely correct that no matter what he says religion isn't going to change, and atheism isn't likely to be accepted and well-respected. He also says that he thinks it is ridiculous you can't criticize religion, religious views or religious icons because they are "holy". This is silly because we are free to argue the points of anything else under the sun, but add god to the equation and it's off-limits.

I'm actually in the middle of "The God Delusion" (Dawkins) right now; and my husband is reading "The End of Faith" (Harris). "Delusion" is interesting, it makes some good points, but a lot of it is Dawkins just whining. I would encourage anyone who is curious to read it - I think for some it might re-affirm their faith, for others it might put them on the other side of the fence (assuming you were a fence-sitter to begin with).

Firm I think Dawkins way making a point that to respect on random belief is to respect them all whether they be everyone should be painted purple or kill everyone with more than six letters in their name.

He just randomly picked that one because it was popular at the time. 10 year ago I'm sure he would have mentioned Catholics and the IRA.

To expand a little on that, he's also picking the worst examples he can find of religion as an example as to why it is bad; 9/11 was a horrible, horrible tragedy and (sadly) is used by a lot of people to further their objectives.

Let me start by saying I don't believe the virgin birth or about Mary ascending to heaven without dying. I also have not read the link in full (but I will!).

Dawkins, Harris and Hitchens are often called the "Unholy Trinity" :) Dennett is usually left out for some reason; he's not quite as aggressive as the others.

I think the three of them make some decent points, but I don't agree with (Dawkins', mostly) view that religion in all instances is bad and should be done away with. I know many people of various religions who are good, wonderful people who would not dare press their beliefs on others, would not bomb this or that because they dont like it, etc. They believe because they believe and they are a-ok with me not believing. I think Dawkins is absolutely correct that no matter what he says religion isn't going to change, and atheism isn't likely to be accepted and well-respected. He also says that he thinks it is ridiculous you can't criticize religion, religious views or religious icons because they are "holy". This is silly because we are free to argue the points of anything else under the sun, but add god to the equation and it's off-limits.

I'm actually in the middle of "The God Delusion" (Dawkins) right now; and my husband is reading "The End of Faith" (Harris). "Delusion" is interesting, it makes some good points, but a lot of it is Dawkins just whining. I would encourage anyone who is curious to read it - I think for some it might re-affirm their faith, for others it might put them on the other side of the fence (assuming you were a fence-sitter to begin with).
You are right on about this. If you read the article you will find that Dennett writes about the personal risk inherent in attacking faith. :)

I do think the author of the article rejecting the extremism of atheism is a good thing for himself as this would have lead to the problem of having a life filled with suspicion and unease.

Always at war within even when some religious teachings make sense one is unable to accept it whole heartedly because one thinks it is wrong.

I find that some athiests respect for other religions make it a more balanced life than pure hatred against us religious followers. I have found that the prejudice against religion say for example Islam seems to make some I know want to find something wrong with it just to prove a point.
And sometimes even take one away from the truth,even when one is staring in their face.

For me personally,
If I was not a fundamentalist I will not be a proper muslim,because the fundamental beliefs of Islam,like pure monotheism and following the ways of Muhammad(pbuh) is what differentiates a muslim from any other faith.
If I did not follow the fundamentals of Islam,I may as well call myself deist.Just because some people have redefined the term fundamentalist to suit their needs(calling terrorisers fundamental) does not mean I will stop calling myself a fundamentalist.

Another thing I always will believe is that however much anyone says anything about organised religion,Islam is the right path whether you believe it or not.
I would have quoted the Quran here,but may seem like I am imposing so I refrain.
But in the Quran it is stated many times that those who wish to not believe will say that the Quran is man made or wrong or written by a mad-man.And it also states that those who dispute will say that this life is all we will have and there is nothing beyond death.
I could go on but many of the arguments atheists and others pull up is mentioned in the Quran that people will say these things just to not believe even when they do not know the truth.

Sad part is I as a muslim in trying to explain Islam as it is am hoping that those who find it to be the truth will find that it is the right path.
And I pray and hope that all of you here will find that eternal peace in knowing upon our deaths that it is the best investment we could ever make in this life to open an account with the almighty which gives unrestricted after the day of judgement.

I know some of you will think, poor firmbeliever she is so deluded in her thinking that by following Islam she will be saved or that poor thing is deluding herself embracing an organised religious doctrine because she does know any better.

Sometimes I do wish the dead souls come back to haunt this earth,the stories they could tell of what happens after death.
But then that would make it much too easier to have faith,this way faith is hard to accept and keep.But harder the struggle,better the reward I always believe.

Sorry DC,
I seem to be rambling a bit...
Just my 2 cents and more... :)

Do you believe in the Virgin Birth or the notion that Mary rose into heaven without dying?


The New Atheist.
“Three writers have sounded a call to arms. They are Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, and Daniel Dennett”
Dawkins is perfectly aware that atheism is an ancient doctrine and that little of what he has to say is likely to change the terms of this stereotyped debate. But he continues to go at it. His true interlocutors are not the Christians he confronts directly but the wavering nonbelievers or quasi believers among his listeners – people like me, potential New Atheists who might be inspired by his example.

Wired 14.11: The Church of the Non-Believers (http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/14.11/atheism.html)


Having grown up Roman Catholic I respect the teachings on Mary, but don't put much emphasis on it.


Skimming over the article they use similar "religious " terms like, war, evangelize, and there is the typical I'm right, your wrong attitude that can be attributed to the "religious."

To characterize religion as "evil" is wrong. Sure there are tragedies like the inquisition, 9-11, darfur, northern ireland etc...

But "religion" has also been at the forefront of abolition, civil rights, Polish solidarity. And organizations like the Salvation Army can hardly be described as evil.

Christianity teaches that humans are not perfect, and because of that any human efforts at perfection are going to fail.

Without religion, or the atempt of eliminating religion, you had Stalin and the former USSR, China under Mao. With the aim of perfecting humanity, you have eugenics and the Holocaust.

Everyone needs to make a free, informed choice on whether they believe in God or not.






Grace and Peace

Okay Here's my two cents
I am an atheist and a scientist, It is my opinion that it is important to view the world through a scientific mind set. In this you should assume that something is untrue until you receive receive evidence to the contrary.

In the case of religion a large number of hypotheses have been presented. There is the christian, jewish and islamic hypotheses, the budhist hypothesis, the daoist hypothesis, the greek hypothesis, the egyptian hypothesis and even scientology presents a hypothesis. However non of these hypotheses present any credible evidence in support of their claims as a result there is no way of saying that religion A is more likely than religion B or religion C etc. As a result it is logical to assume that none of the religion hypotheses are true until you receive proof overwise.

In essence I am of the opinion that you should default to atheism though remain open minded of any evidence to the contrary that you receive

Do you believe in the Virgin Birth or the notion that Mary rose into heaven without dying?

Nope. Simple and concise.

/Dawkins for President... err I mean... if only foreign born individuals were able.
//Dawkins for Prime Minister!

Okay Here's my two cents
I am an atheist and a scientist, It is my opinion that it is important to view the world through a scientific mind set. In this you should assume that something is untrue until you receive receive evidence to the contrary.

In the case of religion a large number of hypotheses have been presented. There is the christian, jewish and islamic hypotheses, the budhist hypothesis, the daoist hypothesis, the greek hypothesis, the egyptian hypothesis and even scientology presents a hypothesis. However non of these hypotheses present any credible evidence in support of their claims as a result there is no way of saying that religion A is more likely than religion B or religion C etc. As a result it is logical to assume that none of the religion hypotheses are true until you receive proof overwise.

In essence I am of the opinion that you should default to atheism though remain open minded of any evidence to the contrary that you receive
I agree with the author of the article, it is time to declare our position, whatever it is. However, I do sympathize with the “closet unbeliever” to some extent; similarly the gays have found out, “coming out” can be a dangerous thing to do, but on the other hand living a lie can also be a dangerous thing for the individuals psychological well being.

I agree with another thing the author points out, I too agree with Dawkins when he said that he looks forward to the day when the first US politician is honest about being an atheist. "Highly intelligent people are mostly atheists," he says. "Not a single member of either house of Congress admits to being an atheist.

It just doesn't add up. Either they're stupid, or they're lying. And have they got a motive for lying? Of course they've got a motive! Everybody knows that an atheist can't get elected." Now I wonder if this an example of a civil rights violation?

I wonder why people think that all highly intelligent people have to be atheists?

Having grown up Roman Catholic I respect the teachings on Mary, but don't put much emphasis on it.


Skimming over the article they use similar "religious " terms like, war, evangelize, and there is the typical I'm right, your wrong attitude that can be attributed to the "religious."

To characterize religion as "evil" is wrong. Sure their are tragedies like the inquisition, 9-11, darfur, northern ireland etc...

But "religion" has also been at the forefront of abolition, civil rights, Polish solidarity. And organizations like the Salvation Army can hardly be described as evil.

Christianity teaches that humans are not perfect, and because of that any human efforts at perfection are going to fail.

Without religion, or the atempt of eliminating religion, you had Stalin and the former USSR, China under Mao. With the aim of perfecting humanity, you have eugenics and the Holocaust.

Everyone needs to make a free, informed choice on whether they believe in God or not.

Grace and Peace

I agree that to assert religion is inherently Evil is simply not logical; doing so is to adopt the language of religion. There are a great many religious people who view a Bible as an evolving school of knowledge, mainly having to do with social society.

The mistake of Stalin, Mao and the Crusaders was to try and force belief by governmental force.

Christianity teaches a lot of thing and a great many are contradictory to others, and when you include Judaism and Islam the whole thing falls apart, how one determines which leaders to follow is outside the realm of logic and relies on faith alone. The problem with living without faith, is as in Breaking the Spell, where Dennett writes about the personal risk inherent in attacking faith. There is a difference however between religious faith and the faith Dennett suggests which is that the one is absolute and the other holds the possibility of error.

I wonder why people think that all highly intelligent people have to be atheists??
I’m certainly not “highly intelligent,” yet I’m an atheist; :) I believe there are many who are ‘closet atheist’ and so it can not really be known whether it is accurate to say, as did Dawkins when he said, "Highly intelligent people are mostly atheists," and I certainly don’t believe that many people believe that to be the case.

So Atheists are not highly intelligent people? ;)

So Atheists are not highly intelligent people??;)
Following is a list of atheist, you decide. :p


List of atheists - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_atheists)

Did these become more intelligent after atheism or before atheism? :)

I have no use for the monotheism that came out of the middle east... those stories are their cultural myths of long ago... Creation, the Garden of Eden, and so forth. They read like children's stories, fairy tales, as it were. Those who *chose to believe* in the various monotheisms enter a world of dreams, of fantasy. Children who are indoctrinated into a fantasy world of dreams suffer child abuse at the hands of the "religion pusher".

Those who are educated at Christian Schools and those educated at Islamic schools receive the best education the 12th and 7th Centuries have to offer, respectively.

Because monotheistic thinking is so backward and dreamlike, its fruits upon world peace, overpopulation and cooperation is super negative.

Did these become more intelligent after atheism or before atheism??:)
The following definition of Atheism was given to the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Murray v. Curlett, 374 U.S. 203, 83 S. Ct. 1560, 10 L.Ed.2d (MD, 1963), to remove reverential Bible reading and oral unison recitation of the Lord's Prayer in the public schools.
“Your petitioners are Atheists and they define their beliefs as follows. An Atheist loves his fellow man instead of god. An Atheist believes that heaven is something for which we should work now – here on earth for all men together to enjoy.
1. An Atheist believes that he can get no help through prayer but that he must find in himself the inner conviction, and strength to meet life, to grapple with it, to subdue it and enjoy it.
An Atheist believes that only in a knowledge of himself and a knowledge of his fellow man can he find the understanding that will help to a life of fulfillment.
He seeks to know himself and his fellow man rather than to know a god. An Atheist believes that a hospital should be built instead of a church. An Atheist believes that a deed must be done instead of a prayer said. An Atheist strives for involvement in life and not escape into death. He wants disease conquered, poverty vanquished, war eliminated. He wants man to understand and love man.
He wants an ethical way of life. He believes that we cannot rely on a god or channel action into prayer nor hope for an end of troubles in a hereafter.
He believes that we are our brother's keepers; and are keepers of our own lives; that we are responsible persons and the job is here and the time is now.”

American Atheists -- Atheism (http://www.atheists.org/Atheism/)

I have no use for the monotheism that came out of the middle east....those stories are their cultural myths of long ago....Creation, the Garden of Eden, and so forth. They read like childrens stories, fairy tales, as it were. Those who *chose to believe* in the various monotheisms enter a world of dreams, of fantasy. Children who are indoctrinated into a fantasy world of dreams suffer child abuse at the hands of the "religion pusher".

Those who are educated at Christian Schools and those educated at Islamic schools receive the the best education the 12th and 7th Centuries have to offer, respectively.

Because monotheistic thinking is so backward and dreamlike, its fruits upon world peace, overpopulation and cooperation is super negative.
Thank you for exhibiting a willingness to be so public and unapologetic, it is encouraging others to do the same — to be open and public about their atheism, skepticism, and rejection of traditional religion:)

The following definition of Atheism was given to the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Murray v. Curlett, 374 U.S. 203, 83 S. Ct. 1560, 10 L.Ed.2d (MD, 1963), to remove reverential Bible reading and oral unison recitation of the Lord's Prayer in the public schools.
........................

Thanks for that detailed definition-

I am just going to look into it in sections and give my views/ask questions, I hope you do not mind!

An Atheist believes that heaven is something for which we should work now
I have no problems with that because I believe that heaven is something we work for NOW (may not be in the same context it is used in the definition:))

the inner conviction, and strength to meet life, to grapple with it, to subdue it and enjoy it.
Inner conviction and strength I think is a good quality.
About grappling with life and subdueing it, how can one enjoy while fighting it to tame it?
And for that matter why does life have to be tamed?

in a knowledge of himself and a knowledge of his fellow man can he find the understanding that will help to a life of fulfillment
I agree knowledge is necessary to understand the world we live in, humans and other creatures included.

An Atheist believes that a deed must be done instead of a prayer said. An Atheist strives for involvement in life and not escape into death.
I agree with the part that deeds must be done not instead of prayer,but along with it.

Could you explain the bit about involvement in life and not escape into death?From what I know we do not have a choice about the time or place of death, so how can one escape into death?Is that about suicide or not?

He believes that we cannot rely on a god or channel action into prayer nor hope for an end of troubles in a hereafter.
About end of troubles in a Hereafter, does any atheist believe there is one?Or does all believe there is none?

the job is here and the time is now.
The job being here and now, I believe that too.This life is all we have to do good/bad, no more second chances!

Thanks in advance.

Do you believe in the Virgin Birth or the notion that Mary rose into heaven without dying?


The New Atheist.
“Three writers have sounded a call to arms. They are Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, and Daniel Dennett”
Dawkins is perfectly aware that atheism is an ancient doctrine and that little of what he has to say is likely to change the terms of this stereotyped debate. But he continues to go at it. His true interlocutors are not the Christians he confronts directly but the wavering nonbelievers or quasi believers among his listeners – people like me, potential New Atheists who might be inspired by his example.

Wired 14.11: The Church of the Non-Believers (http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/14.11/atheism.html)
I believe in the Virgin Birth.

I can't say that that detailed definition has the same meaning today as it did then; it was not written as an infallible truth. I do object to the use of the word 'Heaven' though. Just as I object to what the humanist chaplaincy at Harvard University, Greg Epstein referred to as Atheist "Fundamentalism." These are the terms of 'Religion'... it's a false category created by religious theists who are trying to draw a false analogy between unapologetic atheists and fundamentalist religion.

I believe in the Virgin Birth.
How about that Buddha came from a lotus blossom? Do you believe that too?
:)

Are you saying a Bible is not the literal truth then?
Where does it say in the Bible that Mary ascended into heaven without an earthly death? To believe that Mary ascended into heaven without dying is not a biblical notion. To not believe it is not doubting the Bible. The Bible clearly supports the Virgin Birth but it does not support Mary's lack of a physical death.

Crow you know where I stand with my faith. Dawkins with his as you say absolutism either proves my contention that Atheism is a faith all unto itself ;or that he is truly not an atheist as much as a pure god hater .

Dawkins with his as you say absolutism either proves my contention that Atheism is a faith all unto itself ;or that he is truly not an atheist as much as a pure god hater .

Dawkins cannot be a god hater. You can't hate something you don't believe exists. A religion hater maybe, I think he might have actually gone as far to say that anyway.

As for atheism as a religion, I can find an agreed definition on what religion is in order to argue it. However atheism has no institution, no worship, no idols, no spiritualism, no place of worship, no holy books. I think philosophy or belief system would cover it better than religion, but I definitely think it falls short of religious status.

I did not say it was a religion . I said it was a faith . You have to believe there is no God to be as strong an atheist as Dawkins (yes I understand the distinction between strong atheism and the wishy washy soft brand that is really agnosticism )

I did not say it was a religion . I said it was a faith .Faith deals with believing what cannot be proven, atheism does not deal with such issues.

But atheist have a faith that there is no God, right?

Question is why are they always asking believers to prove that there is a God that they supposedly don't consider.

Why do non- believer's, or at least those who do not accept the Bible as the inspired word of God, go to such lengths as to "prove " that there is no God?

Are they trying to "evangelize" believers in God to their belief that there is no God?





Grace and Peace

but atheist have a faith that there is no God, right?No, they don't think about it, they just go about their daily lives without considering it.


Question is why are they always asking believers to prove that there is a God that they supposedly don't consider.I believe you have run across some militant atheists, most don't really care; people sometimes get riled up by their militant religious counterparts telling how wrong they are living their lives.


Why do non- believer's, or at least those who do not accept the Bible as the inspired word of God, go to such lengths as to "prove " that there is no God?I don't know of any that do that, sorry.


Are they trying to "evangelize" believers in God to their belief that there is no God?I haven't seen any go door to door to try to persuade others.

but atheist have a faith that there is no God, right?

Question is why are they always asking believers to prove that there is a God that they supposedly don't consider.

Why do non- believer's, or at least those who do not accept the Bible as the inspired word of God, go to such lengths as to "prove " that there is no God?


Because you can prove a positive i.e. chairs exist but you cannot disprove a negative.

As to the second question why do people go to such lengths to prove there is no God? They are bored and not smart enough to realise you can't disprove a negative?

but atheist have a faith that there is no God, right?

Question is why are they always asking believers to prove that there is a God that they supposedly don't consider.

Why do non- believer's, or at least those who do not accept the Bible as the inspired word of God, go to such lengths as to "prove " that there is no God?

Are they trying to "evangelize" believers in God to their belief that there is no God?


Not to be insulting or anything, but have you turned those questions around on yourself?

Why are there christians who are always asking non-believers to prove to them there is no god ("You don't believe in god, PROVE he doesn't exist!")?

Why do believers, those who accept the bible or other holy texts, go to such great lengths to "prove" there is a god to non-believers?

Why are believers always trying to "evangelize" everyone/everything they come in contact with?

Again, I'm not trying to insult you here, but it comes from both sides of the fence. Let's face it, there are members of BOTH sides which just won't be happy to let the other side carry on believing whatever they want. For the most part, I couldn't care less what someone else believes, it really doesn't affect my life that much. But there are theists in this world who make it their mission to preach to everyone and convert everyone they come into contact with that they think needs "saving". It's those people who inject themselves into my (supposedly) secular government and everyday life whom I have a problem with.

And before anyone gets on my case for arguing with theists on this board, no I don't care what you believe, I just like to debate. It's all in good fun! :)

I was woken up the other morning by two men knocking at my door they wore white short sleeve shirts and black ties. I am sure almost all of you know who these men were and what they wanted.
When was the last time an atheist knocked on your door telling you how great it was to not have religion in your life my guess is never. Have you ever seen the video of how people react to atheists going door to door and you will know why. YouTube - Door to Door Atheist! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l7wOz5a6yns)
As out spoken as I am here about being an atheist. I keep quite about it in my personal life not because I'm ashamed but because of other peoples problems with dealing with it. You can only defend yourself for so long before you decide its not worth the effort and avoid the subject.

Jillean...

No offense taken, but

non- believers typically take what science tells us or take the Bible out of context to "prove" that there is no God.

We see and agree on the same things but interpret it differently.

For example, dna. It can be seen as some random chance that 4 different nucleotides in some chemical mush just decided to get together in specific pairing in specific sequences multiplied by the thousands, and over billions of years ribosomes and aminoacids and cell membranes all sort of just all go together purely by chance and the laws of chemistry and physics to make a cell that can reproduce and be subject to selective pressures. I see that and am amazed. Some accept this is by chance and can't prove it, others see it as a mark of the creator.

Believers, and I take it to mean of the big 3 religions, to different degrees want to share their version of salvation. Yes it can be annoying and a bother to non- believers, but is that really a bad thing? These religions share a belief in an almighty, that will judge according to his standards, and that there are eternal consequences. If we are wrong, we all die and end up as food for worms. At least from my Christian perspective, knowing that there is a loving and forgiving God brings comfort, peace and joy during this lifetime. If one of these religions is correct, do you want to be on the wrong end of judgement?

There are Christian ministrys helping the poor, visiting prisons, starting hospitals, building houses etc.. All because God has blessed us.

I don't believe in a theocracy, but believers have every right to participate in the political process.

And because we are all humans, there are rotten apples to spoil every barrel.
There are judgemental, hypocritical, un-loving, unforgiving Christians. I don't deny that.
I am that at times also. I strive to be holy, but rely on His grace.




Grace and Peace

Michaelb

"I was woken up the other morning by two men knocking at my door they wore white short sleeve shirts and black ties. I am sure almost all of you know who these men were and what they wanted. "

At first I thought you meant the IRS.




Grace and peace

inthebox

Like you said, there are bad apples out there, and I think on both sides. I'm sure it is just as obnoxious for theists to have someone screaming in their face "God doesn't exist!" as it is for atheists to have someone screaming in their face, "The bible is the TRUTH!" There are atheists in this world out to "prove" there is no god, and those are the ones who get the most attention. However, those few don't really represent the majority. I remember seeing an episode of "Real Time with Bill Maher" (who is a rather outspoken atheist) in where he said something to the effect that anyone who believes in god is stupid, less intelligent, etc, etc. In my opinion, and in the opinion of all the atheists I personally know, that is not only insulting, but uncalled for. In that way, he's a bad apple. On the Christian side, remember the lady on that mom-swap show? The one who went nuts screaming about gargoyles and satan and unholy things? She's sort of a legend now... Anyway, during that show, the mom who switched into her life believed in god, but not the Christian god; this woman was insulted, treated horribly and ignored by people who were supposed to be "good Christians". Those are bad apples.

The thing about preaching salvation I have a problem with is the manner in which some people do it. Some people get in your face and yell and scream (we've had a few of those on this site, in fact), as if intimidation will make you submit. Others realize that won't work, but will preach non-stop about the goodness of god and how wonderful this and that is. If that is being directed to someone who is seeking a new faith (or first faith!), I have no problem with it. But it is a waste of time and energy to preach to someone who has no intention of changing their belief system. For example, I could tell you all the wonderful reasons to be an atheist, all the great things that come with it, etc, and is it going to matter? I'm going to guess not! So why would one think it would work in reverse? I'm well aware according to the "big three" I'm doomed, and I'm OK with that. I don't lose sleep over it, I don't worry about it. Do you worry that you are wrong and you've wasted your life praying and behaving in a certain manner all to become worm food? Again, I'm going to guess not!

I agree, there are ministries who help the poor and do humanitarian work. But there are some who do it conditional on belief in "their god", which I think is immoral. It should also be noted one does not have to believe in a god to perform good deeds and humanitarian work!

I also agree that people of all faiths have the right to participate in the political environment. The problem comes when the religion is directly injected into the way the country is governed. Let's take birth control for an example. Birth control, including condoms, to the best of my knowledge, is against the Catholic faith. If you are Catholic you wait until you are married to have sex and the only method you may use is the rhythm method. If our government outlawed condoms, the pill and all other forms of birth control because Catholics say it's bad, that's religion interfering in the government. That's what I don't want to see and what I hate to see.