Letter from an atheist to a Christian.

Sarah - posted on 10/02/2011 ( 74 moms have responded )

74

38

2

My mom brought this link home from church. Apparently, her pastor read it in church as part of a sermon on evangelism.

I'm curious to read others thoughts.

       "You are really convinced that you've got all the answers. You've really got yourself tricked into believing that you're 100% right. Well, let me tell you just one thing. Do you consider yourself to be compassionate of other humans? If you're right, as you say you are, and you believe that, then how can you sleep at night? When you speak with me, you are speaking with someone who you believe is walking directly into eternal damnation, into an endless onslaught of horrendous pain which your 'loving' god created, yet you stand by and do nothing.

If you believed one bit that thousands every day were falling into an eternal and unchangeable fate, you should be running the streets mad with rage at their blindness. That's equivalent to standing on a street corner and watching every person that passes you walk blindly directly into the path of a bus and die, yet you stand idly by and do nothing. You're just twiddling your thumbs, happy in the knowledge that one day that 'walk' signal will shine your way across the road.

Think about it. Imagine the horrors Hell must have in store if the Bible is true. You're just going to allow that to happen and not care about saving anyone but yourself? If you're right then you're an uncaring, unemotional and purely selfish (expletive) that has no right to talk about subjects such as love and caring."

—Letter to an Evangelist

 http://www.jesus-is savior.com/Believer's%20Corner/letter_from_an_atheist.htm

MOST HELPFUL POSTS

Krista - posted on 10/03/2011

12,562

16

842

There is bound to be more out there than the human mind could even dream up!



Exactly. So why do religious people keep insisting that their faith has all the answers?

Isobel - posted on 10/03/2011

9,849

0

282

I think it's also interesting to note that when questioned on matters of religions in general, atheists tend to fair much better than their religious counter parts.



My theory on this is that religion is so deeply ingrained in our culture that IF you have the balls to question it...you question it a lot...you seek out answers in hopes of finding one.



If, however you end up deciding that all religions are basically the same (which I did), that they all generally carry a message of peace and love but end up causing more separation, discord and grief...it becomes difficult to explain how you TRULY feel without being offensive to people who actually believe.



Do I believe that most organized religions are fairy tails? Kinda yes and kinda no. I think that the BASIC fundamental truth is valid.



Be good to your fellow man, do no harm, try to help when you can...all of that is great stuff.



BUT...then you get down to the nitty gritty and some crazy shit comes out.



"If you don't believe you will burn for all eternity", "If you can't have children you will live in darkness for eternity because the size of your family determines the light you get in heaven", "we are actually descendants of aliens" etc.



I have great respect for those who can look at the bible (or any other holy book) rationally, and see the bigger picture, the true message through all of the metaphor and allegory...BUT those who take such books literally make my head explode.

[deleted account]

"What I don't like is to see all this garbage about how religious people believe in fairy tales, mythical creatures, and how we are all mindless followers"

Calling you names is wrong. That's just rude. However, we atheists see no dfference between your deity and leprechauns or the tooth fairy. So it's not garbage to call Christianity a fairy tale.

Jaime - posted on 10/02/2011

4,427

24

196

Sarah, I get what you're trying to say in your interpretation of this letter, but even so it's not likely to ever be the case. That's why it's easy for most of us to see that this letter is fabricated. Atheists don't believe in religion, God, the Devil and any other Bible-centred God propaganda. Atheists don't care if religious people are shouting their faiths from the rooftops and recruiting members to become evangelical like them, because Atheists don't believe in it and most don't claim to understand the inner workings of a particular religion. Just simply that it is religion and it is not a path they choose to follow. A letter of this calibre is a calculated ploy to try and further the man-made teachings that have been passed off as God's word, God's will, God's plan and on and on and so forth. Atheists aren't in a camp together to rise up against the religious folk, atheists are common only in their individual approach to journeying through life and finding their own destiny/truth/greater purpose. I'm sure there are extremists that claim to be Atheists and want to bark in the faces of religious fanatics, but the extremism of few does not equal the majority, which again lends plausibility to the idea that this letter is a complete hoax and really a shame if it was concocted by a proposed man of God. I'm an Atheist and I will keep my mouth shut about religion so long as it doesn't infringe on someone's basic rights/freedoms...that's how it should always be.

[deleted account]

I have the same idea as Cathy. I don't really think this was written by an athiest, but an evangelical Christian posing as one.


Thank goodness I'm not the only one who thinks this. No way was this written by an atheist. I say that becuuse the bus analogy is actually very common amonng fundies. That and the house on fire analogy.

The atheist argument would have been more like this:

Are you able to enjoy heaven knowing that millions of people are suffering eternally for finite crimes? If you are, then you're a sociopath.

And to me, the concept of heaven/hell is akin to a mob boss offering you 'protection.' You have a choice, you can pay the money and nothing bad will happen to you or you can not pay the money and have bad things suddenly happen.

If you see this, leave this form field blank.
Powered by RESPECT not THUMPS

74 Comments

View replies by

Deborah Ridgely - posted on 09/11/2013

59

0

7

It is not clear what kind of answers you are looking for other than reactions to the "letter" and starting an argument between Atheists and Christians. I looked at some of the really long-winded responses of certain atheists trying to prove whatever they believe. My response is what a waste of time! This "letter from an atheist" is probably not from an atheist. That is not the point! In a sermon, it was a communication simply meant to wake up the listeners in that congregation, so that they would consider living like they say they believe. Why should you atheists even care what Christians believe, unless you either fear that what they say and believe is true, or unless you believe that atheism is a better religion. Yes, a religion.
I think the intent of the "letter" read to the congregation was meant to be a " kick in the pants" to go out and practice what they preach.

Johnny - posted on 02/09/2012

8,686

26

318

"When one refers to a scientific theory, the typical layman’s concept of that word is not just different, but diametrically opposed to it. In the layman’s terms a theory is the opposite of a fact with nothing to differentiate it from other theories. In scientific terms there really are no “facts”, there are only theories with various degrees of probability, but once evidence comes to light to disprove a theory it is rejected in favor of a new theory which takes the new data into account."



http://thinking-critically.com/2010/07/0...



Do you also discount gravity? As a theory it is similar in proof.

[deleted account]

Simply put, evo is a theory and nothing more. None of what anyone says debunking evo will convince you otherwise just as what you have presented, which I have read before, does not convince me. And I never said I believed in the biblical creation, though I have looked into that. Yes you can not believe in evo, nor biblical creation! smh

Krista - posted on 02/09/2012

12,562

16

842

And I just wonder sometimes, if in any debate which discusses atheism, the emphasis on Christianity rather than on religion in general is a bit odd to atheists. The beliefs of Christians, to atheists are no more valid, attractive, interesting, useful or thought-provoking than the beliefs of Hindus, Zoroastrians, Muslims, Jains, Jews, Buddhists or Sikhs! I'm just wondering why these discussions always centre on Christians versus Atheists?



My guess is that it's simply due to cultural setting. Most of the women here are from countries where Christianity is the dominant faith. Were Hinduism the dominant faith in North America, England and Australia, I would imagine that we'd be focusing on it instead.

Johnny - posted on 02/09/2012

8,686

26

318

I am done. I apologize for being off track. But I refuse to sit by and just ignore blatantly incorrect information.

Johnny - posted on 02/09/2012

8,686

26

318

I will also include this post. It is not mine. It was written by a friend in a similar debate and it has been lent to me to use when the need arose:



To get a gauge of just how inane the belief in Adam and Eve is in the 21st Century, here are some areas fundamentalists must ignore, any one of which proves beyond rational argument that, not surprisingly, the World did not start about 6,000 years ago at the behest of the Judeo-Christian god, with one man, one woman and a talking snake.



First and most obviously is the fossil record. The fossil record is much, much more than just dinosaurs. Indeed, dinosaurs only get the press because of their size, but they make up less than 1% of the entire fossil record. Life had been evolving on Earth for over 3 thousand million years before dinosaurs evolved and has gone on evolving for 65 million years after the Chicxulub meteor wiped them out.



The fossil record includes the Stromatolites, colonies of prokaryotic bacteria, that range in age going back to about 3 billion years, the Ediacara fossils from South Australia, widely regarded as among the earliest multi-celled organisms, the Cambrian species of the Burgess shale in Canada (circa – 450 million years) the giant scorpions of the Silurian Period, the giant, wingless insects of the Devonian period, the insects, amphibians, reptiles; fishes, clams, crustaceans of the Carboniferous Period, the many precursors to the dinosaurs, the dinosaurs themselves, the subsequent dominant mammals, including the saber tooth tiger, the mammoths of North America and Asia, the fossils of early man in Africa and the Neanderthals of Europe.



The fossil record shows a consistent and worldwide evolution of life on Earth dating back to about 3,500,000,000 years ago. There are literally millions of fossils that have been recovered, of thousands of different species and they are all located where they would be in the geological record if life evolved slowly over billions of years. None of them can be explained by a 6,000 year old Earth and Noah’s flood. Were they all on the ark? What happened to them when it docked?



A Tyrannosaurus Rex ate a lot of food – meat- which means its food would itself have to have been fed, like the food of every other carnivore on the ark. A bit of “back of the envelope” math quickly shows that “Noah’s Ark” would actually have to have been an armada of ships bigger than the D Day invasion force, manned by thousands and thousands of people – and this is without including the World’s 300,000 current species of plants, none of which could walk merrily in twos onto the Ark.



Secondly, there are those little things we call oil, natural gas and other fossil fuels. Their mere existence is another, independent and fatal blow to the creationists. Speak to any geologist who works for Exxon Mobil, Shell or any of the thousands of mining, oil or natural gas related companies that make a living finding fossil fuels. They will tell you these fossil fuels take millions of years to develop from the remains of large forests (in the case of coal) or tiny marine creatures (in the case of oil). That’s why they are called fossil fuels. Have a close look at coal, you can often see the fossilized leaves in it. The geologists know exactly what rocks to look for fossil fuels in, because they know how to date the rocks to millions of years ago. Creationists have no credible explanation for this (nor for why most of it was “given to the Muslims”).



Thirdly, most of astronomy and cosmology would be wrong if the creationists were right. In short, as Einstein showed, light travels at a set speed. Space is so large that light from distant stars takes many years to reach the Earth. In some cases, this is millions or billions of years. The fact that we can see light from such far away stars means it began its journey billions of years ago. The Universe must be billions of years old. We can currently see galaxies whose light left home 13.7 billion years ago. Indeed, on a clear night, one can see many stars more than 6,000 light years away with the naked eye, shining down like tiny silent witnesses against the nonsense of creationism.



Fourthly, we have not just carbon dating, but also all other methods used by scientists to date wood, rocks, fossils, and other artifacts. These comprehensively disprove the Bible’s claims. They include uranium-lead dating, potassium-argon dating as well as other non-radioactive methods such as pollen dating, dendrochronology and ice core dating. In order for any particular rock, fossil or other artifact to be aged, generally two or more samples are dated independently by two or more laboratories in order to ensure an accurate result. If results were random, as creationists claim, the two independent results would rarely agree. They generally do. They regularly reveal ages much older than Genesis. Indeed, the Earth is about 750,000 times older than the Bible claims.



Fifthly, the relatively new field of DNA mapping not only convicts criminals, it shows in undeniable, full detail how we differ from other life forms on the planet. For example, about 98.4% of human DNA is identical to that of chimpanzees, about 97% of human DNA is identical to that of gorillas, and slightly less again of human DNA is identical to the DNA of monkeys. This gradual divergence in DNA can only be rationally explained by the two species diverging from a common ancestor, and coincides perfectly with the fossil record. Indeed, scientists can use the percentage of DNA that two animal share (such as humans and bears, or domestic dogs and wolves) to get an idea of how long ago the last common ancestor of both species lived. It perfectly corroborates the fossil record and is completely independently developed. It acts as yet another fatal blow to the “talking snake” theory.



Sixthly, the entire field of historical linguistics would have to be rewritten to accommodate the Bible. This discipline studies how languages develop and diverge over time. For example, Spanish and Italian are very similar and have a recent common “ancestor” language, Latin, as most people know. However, Russian is quite different and therefore either did not share a common root, or branched off much earlier in time. No respected linguist anywhere in the World traces languages back to the Tower of Babel, the creationists’ explanation for different languages. Indeed, American Indians, Australian Aboriginals, “true” Indians, Chinese, Mongols, Ja.panese, Sub-Saharan Africans and the Celts and other tribes of ancient Europe were speaking thousands of different languages thousands of years before the date creationist say the Tower of Babel occurred – and even well before the date they claim for the Garden of Eden.



Seventhly, lactose intolerance is also a clear vestige of human evolution. Most mammals only consume milk as infants. After infancy, they no longer produce the enzyme “lactase” that digests the lactose in milk and so become lactose intolerant. Humans are an exception and can drink milk as adults – but not all humans – some humans remain lactose intolerant. So which humans are no longer lactose intolerant? The answer is those who evolved over the past few thousand years raising cows. They evolved slightly to keep producing lactase as adults so as to allow the consumption of milk as adults. This includes most Europeans and some Africans, notably the Tutsi of Rwanda. On the other hand, most Chinese, native Americans and Aboriginal Australians, whose ancestors did not raise cattle, remain lactose intolerant.



I could go on and elaborate on a number of other disciplines or facts that creationists have to pretend into oblivion to retain their faith, including the Ice Ages, cavemen and early hominids, much of microbiology, paleontology and archeology, continental drift and plate tectonics, even large parts of medical research (medical research on monkeys and mice only works because they share a common ancestor with us and therefore our fundamental cell biology and basic body architecture is identical to theirs).



In short, and not surprisingly, the World’s most gifted evolutionary biologists, astronomers, cosmologists, geologists, archeologists, paleontologists, historians, modern medical researchers and linguists (and about 2,000 years of accu.mulated knowledge) are right and a handful of Iron Age Middle Eastern goat herders were wrong.

Johnny - posted on 02/09/2012

8,686

26

318

Richard Leakey is a self-avowed atheist. So while he may have a difference of opinion on transitional fossil evidence, I don't think you should take that to suggest a belief in biblical creation.



As for Francis Crick who once joked, "Christianity may be OK between consenting adults in private but should not be taught to young children." I'm guessing not much of a creationist either. In fact, in his book Of Molecules and Men, Crick expressed his views on the relationship between science and religion. After suggesting that it would become possible for people to wonder if a computer might be programmed so as to have a soul, he wondered: at what point during biological evolution did the first organism have a soul? At what moment does a baby get a soul? Crick stated his view that the idea of a non-material soul that could enter a body and then persist after death is just that, an imagined idea. For Crick, the mind is a product of physical brain activity and the brain had evolved by natural means over millions of years. Crick felt that it was important that evolution by natural selection be taught in schools and that it was regrettable that English schools had compulsory religious instruction.



I'd also have to suggest that the following people on your list are probably educationally not equipped to have any special scientific knowledge on evolution given their areas of study:



Dr Paul Ackerman, Psychologist

Dr Bob Compton, DVM

Dr Jerry Bergman, Psychologist

Dr David R. Boylan, Chemical Engineer

Prof. Linn E. Carothers, Associate Professor of Statistics

Prof. Jeun-Sik Chang, Aeronautical Engineering



My husband is a physicist, and while he agrees with evolutionary theory, I would not take his independent word for it as his area of study does not make him an expert in evolutionary biology. My nephew however, who is working on his post doc in cellular biochemistry I do tend to take as a source of reasonable information. He can't even be bothered to engage in a discussion of whether evolutionary theory is supported by the evidence because the argument is utterly ridiculous.



Science is always changing and developing. We never KNOW everything. However, biblical creation has been repeatedly disproved in a multitude of ways.



If you wish to have faith in the stories of the bible, then do so by all means. But please stop trying to suggest that ancient stories passed down orally for generations and then finally transcribed by bronze age tribespeople are somehow more scientifically accurate than the enormous amount of evidence that has been amassed to support evolutionary theory.

[deleted account]

Angela Barker- You are absolutely right. I steered off topic big time...I brought in something similar but not what the topic was about. Sorry and I didn't mean any harm to anyone, was not being rude to anyone either.

[deleted account]

Dr Paul Ackerman, Psychologist

Dr E. Theo Agard, Medical Physics

Dr James Allan, Geneticist

Dr Steve Austin, Geologist

Dr S.E. Aw, Biochemist

Dr Thomas Barnes, Physicist

Dr Geoff Barnard, Immunologist

Dr Don Batten, Plant physiologist, tropical fruit expert

Dr John Baumgardner, Electrical Engineering, Space Physicist, Geophysicist, expert in supercomputer modeling of plate tectonics

Dr Jerry Bergman, Psychologist

Dr Kimberly Berrine, Microbiology & Immunology

Prof. Vladimir Betina, Microbiology, Biochemistry & Biology

Dr Raymond G. Bohlin, Biologist

Dr Andrew Bosanquet, Biology, Microbiology

Edward A. Boudreaux, Theoretical Chemistry

Dr David R. Boylan, Chemical Engineer

Prof. Linn E. Carothers, Associate Professor of Statistics

Dr Robert W. Carter, Zoology (Marine Biology and Genetics)

Dr David Catchpoole, Plant Physiologist (read his testimony)

Prof. Sung-Do Cha, Physics

Dr Eugene F. Chaffin, Professor of Physics

Dr Choong-Kuk Chang, Genetic Engineering

Prof. Jeun-Sik Chang, Aeronautical Engineering

Dr Donald Chittick, Physical Chemist

Prof. Chung-Il Cho, Biology Education

Dr John M. Cimbala, Mechanical Engineering

Dr Harold Coffin, Palaeontologist

Dr Bob Compton, DVM

Dr Ken Cumming, Biologist

(http://creation.com/creation-scientists)

And this is just a short list of Scientists who do not believe in evolution. Now you can not tell me that these people are all stupid and uneducated or do you believe that they truly are dumb because they dispute evolution although they have a very nice education under their belt? What does it take to be a "respectable" Scientist in your opinion?

As well, there are over 800 Scientists (and the numbers keep rising) who are against evolution as well.

http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org

You speak of the staggering amount of evidence but I have not seen this evidence, all I see are arguments saying this is 'more than likely' what happened, and all I see is Micro. I am not trying to be rude I am just simply stating that I do not believe in Macro evolution.



http://wasdarwinright.com/sciencequotes....



"An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that, in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle." -Francis Crick

"If pressed about man's ancestry, I would have to unequivocally say that all we have is a huge question mark. To date, there has been nothing found to truthfully purport as a transitional specie to man, including Lucy, since 1470 was as old and probably older. If further pressed, I would have to state that there is more evidence to suggest an abrupt arrival of man rather than a gradual process of evolving". -Richard Leakey



And as for me continuing to read that Bible, I will.



"We account the Scriptures of God to be the most sublime philosophy. I find more sure marks of authenticity in the Bible than in any profane history whatever."

- Isaac Newton



:)

Angela - posted on 02/09/2012

2,405

9

321

Never said you were mean, Alessia! In fact I never said that ANYONE was mean!



Commented that you and Missy were now debating Atheism generally and not the so-called "Atheist letter" which is what the thread is supposed to be about!



Also commented that I'm finding people fairly polite on this thread.



Ended up by saying we should be nicer to each other as I felt that here & there on threads such as this there are one or 2 people getting wound-up. Actually, to be fair, I think there are some that are too quick to jump to offence when possibly no offence is intended.

Alessia - posted on 02/09/2012

107

58

2

I don't think my post was mean at all. I am actually encouraging this woman to read her Bible. It really is a good book!



I didn't see either of our posts as a Christians versus Atheists debate at all. Nor was it an evolution versus non. Again, if you note my post, I make the point that evolution makes no claims on religion and is independent of that idea all together.



Maybe some people are just looking for a fight when there isn't one.

Angela - posted on 02/09/2012

2,405

9

321

Alessia & Missy - you're both now debating the question of Atheism versus Theism (or maybe Religion versus Science?) but these weren't the topics introduced in the opening post of this thread.



The thread is about an open letter to Christians supposedly from an Atheist! I identified it as an evangelical tool of which it's very doubtful that it's originally penned by an atheist.



And I just wonder sometimes, if in any debate which discusses atheism, the emphasis on Christianity rather than on religion in general is a bit odd to atheists. The beliefs of Christians, to atheists are no more valid, attractive, interesting, useful or thought-provoking than the beliefs of Hindus, Zoroastrians, Muslims, Jains, Jews, Buddhists or Sikhs! I'm just wondering why these discussions always centre on Christians versus Atheists?



I'm a Christian myself - I enjoy these debates and don't feel upset or tearful that my religion may be "given a bashing" now and again. My faith is pretty steadfast.



I agree that Atheists are generally polite and although they're pretty steadfast in their own affirmations they seem to accept that those with religious beliefs are entitled to theirs.



So can we all be a bit nicer to each other now and not get so wound-up and emotional?

Alessia - posted on 02/09/2012

107

58

2

Sorry but no "respectable scientist" denies Evolution. In fact, 99.85% of America's earth and life scientists accept that the theory is valid.(source religioustolerance.org) Evolution is the key unifying theory that unifies many different branches of science, from cosmology to biology. It makes no claim on the supernatural, therefore it poses no conflict between the theist and the atheist.



You can believe whatever you want, but please don't try to claim that the scientific community agrees with you.



Also, one cannot "believe" in Evolution. It's not like believing in Santa Claus. Once ACCEPTS the (staggering amount of) evidence presented and deems it valid.



And lastly, keep reading that Bible!



"'Properly read, the Bible is the most potent force for atheism ever conceived." - Isaac Asimov



:)

[deleted account]

I can't call my self a Christian because I honestly do not know what to believe. I have been doing a lot of research though (on evolution and creation as well as starting to read the Bible) Here are a few things I would like to address that bother me. I seen one lady on her speak of religion as fairy tale, tooth fairy type business. If atheist do not like to be called fools or ignorant and that they are wrong for not believing I do not think it is fair to blatantly criticize a Christians belief in God. People know the tooth fairy is a myth, come on lets be logical about this, but many, many, many people believe in God, NOT the tooth fairy and you know it, so you are pretty much calling a person who believes in God delusional. In my opinion if you do not believe it is best to just say that and leave all other unnecessary things out, same goes for religious people when speaking to atheist. Like I said I have been struggling with believing there is a God and that the Bible is true but I also do not believe in molecule to man evolution. I'm NOT here to argue or to be called names, this is obviously a place for moms, so lets not get nasty as we are all entitled to our opinions. I have had too many incidences where I have been called stupid because I do not feel macro evolution is true. I am not alone in this, there are many respectable scientist who feel the same way! Anyway, the Bible intrigues me in many ways, one; how old it is. It is pretty mind blowing to realize that a book that is as old as it is was written the way it was. I can't even describe in words what I am trying to say but I will try. One example is when it comes to Creation and evolution you look in the bible and it says (and I am by no means a Bible know it all, I am just going off of what I find interesting) Genesis 1 says, "after its kind/after their kind". To me that is just an interesting way for some regular man thousands of years ago to word a sentence. Evolution surely was not thought of back then so the specific wording there grabs my attention. People have asked me 'Since you do not believe in macro evolution and you are unsure if there is a God, what do you believe?' My answer? 'I do not know' It's that simple! I also feel there are many other people, scientist and religious people alike, that 'just do not know' either but, you probably won't hear them say that. It really does take some research to understand why I do not believe in macro evolution but the reasons are out there, if they weren't I wouldn't even be discussing it. I am not coming from a a point of view as a Christian because I am not one nor am I an atheist....I am just me, I'm open minded..maybe one day I'll will believe whole heartily in one or the other...who knows. But one thing is for sure we are all entitled to our opinion, I just wish that many more people could do it respectably.

Krista - posted on 02/08/2012

12,562

16

842

Pretty much, Angela. :) It's alarming to think that there are actually people out there who would be fooled by this into thinking that atheists just LOVE it when Christians proselytize.



The whole thing is just really quite ham-handed, isn't it?

Angela - posted on 02/08/2012

2,405

9

321

I'm a Christian and I'll tell you straight off, this isn't a GENUINE letter from an Atheist. An Atheist wouldn't be interested, in fact an Atheist would prefer a Christian NOT to promote their religion.



I think it's an evangelical parable - and not a very good one either!

Jennifer - posted on 02/02/2012

448

72

38

When I was in High School I had a guy (who was a pastors son from another church) who used to tell me all the time I was going to hell. I had alot I was going through and looking back I would of given anything for a friend to listen to me and love me through. Later on in life I did become a Christian but will carry the scar of that experience deeply to remind me that I know that place and how NOT to act. Its true alot of people use their faith to hide behind .. but many are trying to seek love mainly because they know their own aching hurts and hang ups themselves.. I am sad that anyone would judge or throw a stone at anothers sin but it happens alot and it happens alot within churches. If we only remembered who we are, looked at our own imperfections and just grew in that through Love then it would be different. Its not okay to use your faith to lord over anothers issues and I believe thats wrong myself.. I also see that people are people and cannot fill me.. though one person may hurt me I cannot allow my heart to become closed and put that image to "all".. I may miss out on some great people by isolating a mass of people. To me its not a matter of if your atheist or catholic or lutheran or polka dots or whatever.. its a matter that you are valuable and worthy of love just like anyone else and as long as there is a mutual respect and not war between us then we can bridge.

Jennifer - posted on 02/02/2012

448

72

38

I am sorry that someone never reached to you in your pain. Especially someone who sounds like you were depending on to help. Nothing is more devastating than when you are left at your most pivotal point of need. I think we all as people have failed each other and will continue to do so. Growing in love is a walk. Its a lifelong journey and it is painful at times. This letter breaks my heart but is understandable entirely. This letter makes it more apparent why I must seek my heart before God and grow more in love. Its not easy in a critical, judmental world that wars on all religion and looks outside of themselves rather than within to their own hearts. Remember though we are all growing and learning from each other.. I hope that you take this to heart as to grow and seek love more deeply as you know how it feels to be left in pain when you so needed it most. This is my response to the writer of the letter. I think it is time that the church as we know it come outside of its walls and walk in love to a hurting world and not against it.

Alessia - posted on 01/15/2012

107

58

2

An Atheist wouldn't waste their time writing this idiocy. Actually, no intelligent person would (and that includes ALL intelligent people).

Elizabeth - posted on 01/14/2012

16

1

1

Sorry, but I seriously doubt it was written by an atheist. It sounds like it was written by an evangelical Christian to encourage the flock to harass people who have rejected their worldview. Well intentioned or not, that is what evangelism often amounts to.

Jane - posted on 01/02/2012

206

7

33

As an atheist, I absolutely agree that this is no way in hell (pun intended!) that an atheist wrote this pile of codswallop!

I can safely say that neither myself nor any atheist I know would want to encourage fundamental christians trying to 'save' us! We don't need saving for a start - we are perfectly happy thank you! :) We don't care about hell or heaven because we know that when we die, that's it - end of story, lights out, nothing more. The only way we 'live on' is in the memories of our loved ones and that is as much as anyone can wish for.

Tam - posted on 12/27/2011

216

2

28

They would know better, The thing that they make the mistake on is assuming that an atheist would NOT.

[deleted account]

I can't disagree with you on that point, Jen. That would make more sense to me. Like I said, it doesn't make any sense for an atheist to be that up in arms about something they don't believe in. But, especially if it were written by an evangelical, my ignorance statement would be even MORE applicable, because they should know better! :)

[deleted account]

I don't actually believe this was written by an atheist. I think it's a strawman atheist written by an evangelical.

[deleted account]

I guess I just don't really understand why the athiest would care? It seems almost as if he is calling out for someone to evangelize to him...?

That said, it would be more appropriate for him to actually know what he was talking about before he wrote such a provocative letter. This letter and the ideals that it contains are narrow-sighted at best and clearly shows that he is unfamiliar with the ENTIRE Bible and Christianity as a whole. Where on earth did this guy get his information regarding the origin of hell and eternal damnation? We must have read different Bibles?

The definition of ignorance is: the state or fact of being ignorant : lack of knowledge, education, or awareness.

So, this, to me, is a perfect example of ignorance. IMO, I try to be very well versed in an opposing political ideal or a differing religion BEFORE I speak about it, even if I am not in disagreement. These two things are near to the heart of people and I try my best to respect others when voicing my opinion about religious or political topics. The only way that I can really respect someone else's views is to either a) learn as much as I can before I stick my nose in their business, or b) keep my trap shut.

Everyone that knows me, knows my beliefs. I have studied the Bible since I was a child. I don't hide behind Christianity. I adhere to the Bible as it says, "Judge not, lest ye be judged." The Bible is endlessly clear about loving one another, not passing judgement, etc. The Bible commissions Christians to love and educate their fellow man, NOT condemn them to hell, because that is not our place. Furthermore, as a person who does believe in God, it would be extremely foolish of me to ASSUME that I know His will. Therefore, I cannot look at anyone and tell them what their future (i.e. eternity) holds. I can only share with them what I believe (when and if they ask), and love them as they are no matter what they believe. That is what my God has commissioned me to do.

[deleted account]

"Just because someone isn't a Christian doesn't make them a bad person. I wish more people would understand what it is to be a TRUE Christian. Maybe then so many people wouldn't be against the idea of Christianity"

Dusty, let me preface this by saying that I really do appreciate your kind sentiments.

However I think the problem is in exactly what your opinion is as well. We look back at the torture and executions of non-Christians by Christians throughout the history of the religion. The people committing those atrociites (for so they were) really honestly believed that Jesus and Yahweh wanted them to do that. Before you stop and say that they were wrong, wait a moment. It is perfectly within the scope of the teachings of Jesus, Paul and the OT combined to kill an apostate or nonbeliever. I don't know if you're CAtholic but it's worth reading some St. Augustine or the writings of Pope Innocent to see why they did what they did.

If people within Christianity no longer do those things, it's because society became more secular and less religious. It's not that suddenly Christians are doing it right unless you can counter the very serious thought put into the Inquisition. They honestly believed that it was better to make a person suffer in this life if it meant saving them from eternal damnation and isn't that actually a good thing? If the Christian hell is a real place and the nonbeliever and workers of iniquities really are tortured and tormented *forever*, isn't it better to suffer for a short period of time now if it means they'll convert and be saved?

Now I don't believe in any of it but the thought process is not inconsistent with the religion.

Dusty - posted on 12/26/2011

128

10

8

I think this letter makes alot of sense in today's world. Way too many people who claim to be Christians are actually just hiding behind what they think (the majority of) society wants to see. To be a TRUE Christian, you don't judge, nor push, someone who is a different religion than you. I am a born & raised Christian, but I have plenty of friends that are of other religions (satanists, atheists, catholic,etc). Although I love them dearly, & would NEVER want them to end up in Hell, I have never once pushed my religion on them. I have shared with them, & if they don't want to talk about it, then I don't push it on them. However, I do not back down from my faith either. If something is going on around them that I do not agree with, I leave. I don't "shun" them for "sinning." I am still friends with them. I have friends who attend satanists concerts, where they literally burn pages of the Bible, talk about killing Christians, pastors, etc. Do I believe it's right? No. But do I tell them I can no longer be their friend because of it? No. I pray for them. I don't sit there & say "oh, I'm praying for you because you are sinning & I believe you're going to Hell." I just pray for them. That's what unconditional love is, & that's the type of love that Christians are supposed to give. Even Jesus hung around sinners, the worst of them. & to quote a beatiful country song, "I bet He'd understand a heart like mine." Jesus understands EVERY heart, whether the person is Christian or NOT. Just because someone isn't a Christian doesn't make them a bad person. I wish more people would understand what it is to be a TRUE Christian. Maybe then so many people wouldn't be against the idea of Christianity.

~♥Little Miss - posted on 10/03/2011

18,896

9

3002

Oh yes. I was not arguing that point for sure, just trying to make it clear that sometimes people are harmless and just need something to believe in.

Krista - posted on 10/03/2011

12,562

16

842

I have no problem with that, Marina, if that's all it was. But you know as well as I do that throughout history there have been plenty of religious folk who have insisted that their faith was FACT, and they were MORE than happy to persecute and kill others if they didn't agree.

~♥Little Miss - posted on 10/03/2011

18,896

9

3002

I don't think it is so much as knowing all the answers, as much as finding comfort in a belief. Something that makes people feel not so alone.....to try to make sense out of the vast knowledge we are lacking about everything.

~♥Little Miss - posted on 10/03/2011

18,896

9

3002

BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! I saw that on face book from a sign someone took a picture off....funny as hell cause my mom is the one that re posted it!

JuLeah - posted on 10/03/2011

3,133

38

681

Just saw this quote- guna piss someone off for sure

Religion is like a penis:
It is fine to have one
It is fine to be proud of it
Please don't whip it out in public and start waving it around
And, Please don't try to shove it down my throat.

JuLeah - posted on 10/03/2011

3,133

38

681

But, is this not why they knock on door after door?



As I understand they get points for saving a souls, the more they put into heaven, the more God likes them.



So, you could argue they are not doing the door knocking for the greater good but for their own, still, many have attempted to save me and were reduced to tears when I remained unsaved.



They said they were heart broken thinking about what awaits me. They pleaded, asked me to just pretend to believe if I couldn't really believe - at least send a check.



If there is a hell, many of us will meet up there. It will be nice to see some of you face to face - we can write a joint "you were right" letter to the folks above ... good times

America3437 - posted on 10/03/2011

1,052

12

85

I believe in God but don't answer the door as that pisses me off as well.

Johnny - posted on 10/03/2011

8,686

26

318

For this atheist, hell is having to put up with people ringing my doorbell to "save my soul" but instead waking my daughter early from her nap. I know she's going to be cranky all afternoon, but I'm very doubtful that I am going to be burning for an eternity.

~♥Little Miss - posted on 10/03/2011

18,896

9

3002

The point is, we don't know until we know.....and neither side is right. We believe what we feel is right. Neither side is wrong. I just hate the bicker between the two. There is no hardcore evidence either way, it is whatever helps us sleep at night.

~♥Little Miss - posted on 10/03/2011

18,896

9

3002

Could be Dyan. You are right, cause Atheist tend to not care about what Christians think about burning in hell....since according to an Atheist there is not hell....and certainly they do not want Christians attempting to heal their souls with faith....and getting them to believe in religion.

Rosie - posted on 10/03/2011

8,657

30

315

it actually doesn't sound like something ANY atheist would say. it's possible i suppose, but what seems more plausible, is that it's something made up by a christian to "encourage" more christians to go spread the "good word"

America3437 - posted on 10/03/2011

1,052

12

85

Well I don't think it's any more of a delusion than some thinking it doesn't exisit. There is bound to be more out there than the human mind could even dream up!

~♥Little Miss - posted on 10/03/2011

18,896

9

3002

Yup. Delusions of an all being power that created heaven, earth, the universe, and controls our fate.

~♥Little Miss - posted on 10/03/2011

18,896

9

3002

This kind of shit pisses me off. Religious people from all walks of life try to spread the word. People who fail to have religion judge those that do for having delusions about an imaginary man up in heaven giving directions to hell or the pearly gates. People who are bible thumpers believe souls will be damned in an eternal burning fire. Why the fuck would an athiest give a shit about it if they don't believe in heaven or hell???? This makes no sense to me. Talk about intolerance.

Rosie - posted on 10/03/2011

8,657

30

315

yeah, i'm not big on evangelicals or any religion trying to push their religion on me, why encourage it, lol?

Sara - posted on 10/03/2011

9,313

50

584

I can't imagine the average atheist actually saying anything like that to an Evangelical. As an atheist myself, I'm not into encouraging proselytizing from those who believe

America3437 - posted on 10/03/2011

1,052

12

85

Amen! As a person who believes in God I pray for those who don't as it is my duty! I don't really think all christians are as this person sees it. There are those of us out here who love with an open heart and would stop anyone from walking blindly into "traffic". I help those who need it based on my compassion not their belief or non belief!

Lacye - posted on 10/03/2011

2,011

31

160

Despite what most people think, most Christians do not try to convert people who don't want to be converted. In the end, it is the person's own choice if they want to believe in God or not. I am a Christian, I'm not ashamed of it, but I'm not going to go around and push my beliefs on a person who doesn't want to agree with me.



As for religion being "based on sheep following their Shepard", it's not actually calling Christians sheep. It's a metaphor. At that particular time, most people raised sheep and the shepherd would herd the sheep together. The members of a congregation have their own free will to do whatever they want to do, unlike sheep who have no free will to do what they want but are forced to obey the shepherd. I see this quote all over religious debates and it kinda irks me because God isn't actually calling his children sheep. I have to go to class in a few minutes but I figured I would throw that in there. :D



ETA: As for this letter being real, doubt it. I call bullshit on this. lol! There has only been one atheist that has said something like this to me and that is my husband and he only does it to piss me off and start a fight (which he knows will end up in some angry sex so it's a win/win situation there.) :D

If you see this, leave this form field blank.
Powered by RESPECT not THUMPS

Join Circle of Moms

Sign up for Circle of Moms and be a part of this community! Membership is just one click away.

Join Circle of Moms