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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dark_crow

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

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by andrewyha

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by shygrneyzs

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by andrewyha

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by firmbeliever

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dark_crow

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!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by templelane

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dark_crow

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

---

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).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by templelane

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jillianleab

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... :)