The Digg Crew wants to hear your thoughts!
Please take our short survey about Digg and potential feature ideas.
Top 50 Quotes on Atheism
leftofzen.com — A hefty selection of quotes on religion and atheism by Einstein, Nietzsche, Gandhi, Mark Twain, Voltaire, Stephen Hawking, and other notable thinkers.
tamar- 5844 diggs
- digg it
- pdsoul, on 01/14/2008, -88/+263Brilliant collection! Wish more people would identify with these...the world would be a better place indeed...
- moxx, on 01/14/2008, -9/+30Though this is probably going to be dugg down and considered "spam"...I actually made a blog about this very topic:
http://moizkhan.com/blog/?p=28
I don't really care for web traffic (no ads), but I would however wish people would be read some of the greatest statements ever made...- moxx, on 01/14/2008, -4/+5Bah, sorta messed up the last sentence there, and then comment system went all glitchy....but yeah...just read up on skepticism and free thought in general.
- teh_techie, on 01/14/2008, -32/+2Yes, it's the comment system's fault that your thoughts are incomplete...
- LostnTransition, on 01/15/2008, -4/+3Here is a complete thought. Fool.
- chocolatetacos, on 01/14/2008, -20/+7Can you cite sources on the Founding Fathers quotes? Seems like an awful lot of atheistic talk for a time when it would have been relatively heretical, and for people who included God in the early documents of the nation.
- imperium2000, on 01/14/2008, -4/+21Heretical? The time period of the 'Enlightenment' was filled with many of the first atheistic philosophers.
Many of the founding fathers were deistic, they believed in a creator or nature's god. They were opposed to organized religion and so made sure that religion would not play a significant role in the government.
What "god" is included in what documents?- chocolatetacos, on 01/14/2008, -4/+12"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights" - Thomas Jefferson, Declaration of Independence
Creator is capitalized, suggesting allusion to a supernatural being. They were not opposed to organized religion, just religion playing a role in the government. I'm sorry for being skeptical of what I read on the internet. Just looking to verify that these quotes weren't made up or taken out of context. However, from reading other comments, it appears that some were taken out of context. - imperium2000, on 01/14/2008, -4/+12Creator means something completely different to a Deist.
Thomas Jefferson was a Deist and did not like Christianity. Anyway, the Declaration is an important historical document but it does not have any legal power in the US.
Find me any statement of God in the Constitution. - rootneg2, on 01/15/2008, -0/+10a Creator is quite distinct from a God, *especially* to a deist. To a deist, the Creator is nothing more than a force, event, or mechanism; as opposed to a God, which is personal, anthropomorphic, willful, and moral. It's capitalization merely emphasizes it's power and importance, equal to the power and importance of our endowed Rights.
- daedalus1982, on 01/15/2008, -0/+5http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html
you are correct a word search for 'God' or 'Creator' yield no results in the US Constitution
- chocolatetacos, on 01/14/2008, -4/+12"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights" - Thomas Jefferson, Declaration of Independence
- senatorpjt, on 01/15/2008, -0/+4It's notable that the Declaration of Independence references "our Creator", not "God", and the Constitution has no reference to either.
- imperium2000, on 01/14/2008, -4/+21Heretical? The time period of the 'Enlightenment' was filled with many of the first atheistic philosophers.
- moxx, on 01/14/2008, -4/+5Bah, sorta messed up the last sentence there, and then comment system went all glitchy....but yeah...just read up on skepticism and free thought in general.
- ICSU, on 01/14/2008, -17/+124"We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further."
— Richard Dawkins
"Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too? "
— Douglas Adams
"Calling atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair color."
— Don Hirschberg- superfuxxorr, on 01/14/2008, -6/+18"Couldn't evolution be the answer to how, and not the answer to why?" - Stan
- moxx, on 01/14/2008, -13/+12What evolution does is annihilate the concept of a designer...and to a certain degree a personal god (one that cares for human affairs)...if you wish to believe in an impersonal god...well go ahead...thats called deism and its a perfectly respectable position. A literal genesis god is simply not.
- superfuxxorr, on 01/15/2008, -1/+19You should study more of Stan Marsh's work. He's definately one of the preeminent philosophers of our time.
- moskaudancer, on 01/15/2008, -1/+8He was a scientologist for a while, though...
- Double0Doug, on 01/15/2008, -2/+9Evolution does not “annihilate the concept of a designer”, it does nothing of the sort. Evolution does not speak to nor take into account any faith based beliefs. The Theory of Evolution simply describes a set of natural observances about descent with modification.
It is you who takes the next step and calls it proof of no god or supreme deity.
Science wants nothing to do with religion or atheism; that is left up to philosophers. - Chirp08, on 01/15/2008, -0/+1You could argue God created man which evolves, just as man could create a robot which would be self aware and be able to evolve. It doesn't remove this possibility, evolution merely explains how we have become what we are now, from what we were millions of years ago.
- moxx, on 01/21/2008, -0/+1You seem to not understand the concept of a designer...or atleast the modern connotaions of it...by it I meant, the literal conception of Genesis...or any creation myth.
- Groovemaster, on 01/15/2008, -1/+11"I don't think we're for anything, we're just products of evolution. You can say 'Gee, your life must be pretty bleak if you don't think there's a purpose' but I'm anticipating a good lunch." -- James Watson (co-discoverer of DNA)
- moxx, on 01/14/2008, -13/+12What evolution does is annihilate the concept of a designer...and to a certain degree a personal god (one that cares for human affairs)...if you wish to believe in an impersonal god...well go ahead...thats called deism and its a perfectly respectable position. A literal genesis god is simply not.
- SQLDigger, on 01/15/2008, -0/+1To Doug, one of my favorite writers - yes, it is enough for some, but not for everyone. I'm rather fond of the garden gnomes, myself.
- etruscan, on 01/15/2008, -2/+15I particular like:
"What can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof." - Christopher Hitchens
and...
"Properly read, the Bible is the most potent force for atheism ever conceived." - Isaac Asimov
...wise.- Double0Doug, on 01/15/2008, -2/+2I’d like to know why you think the second quote is “wise” other than it aligns with your particular point of view.
Why is the Bible the most potent force for atheism ever conceived? Have you read it? Do you know why Isaac Asimov said as much?
For the record, I do agree that the Hitchens quote is wise, if not obvious.- rotundo, on 01/15/2008, -0/+3I don't know about the original poster, but that quote from Asimov stood out to me too. Yes, I have read the bible, and it is hard to believe that it is divinely inspired -- it just reads so much like the work of man. It literally converted me from being a Christian to being an atheist. Sure, that's my "point of view", but so is any reading of the Bible.
- Double0Doug, on 01/15/2008, -0/+3@ rotundo
I don’t disagree with your sentiment at all, and you are absolutely right about point of view. The Asimov quote basically states that if you read the Bible from his point of view you would reach the same conclusion as he did. That’s fine and great, but doesn’t tell us anything about his point of view.
I’m not arguing for or against the Bible in this case, I’m simply pointing out the absurdity of this specific quote being framed without context and considered “wise”.
I would pose much the same question to a so called “true believer” spouting strings of unrelated scripture in an attempt to prove some abstract point.
- Double0Doug, on 01/15/2008, -2/+2I’d like to know why you think the second quote is “wise” other than it aligns with your particular point of view.
- shellacked, on 01/15/2008, -1/+6"You can tell you've created God in your own image when he hates the sampe people you do"
- superfuxxorr, on 01/14/2008, -6/+18"Couldn't evolution be the answer to how, and not the answer to why?" - Stan
- MxM111, on 01/14/2008, -12/+36My favorite is #42 (it must be about life, univerce and everything, right?):
42. Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?
- Epicurus- iucraigmc, on 01/14/2008, -32/+10Flawed argument. The premise of God not preventing evil is developing the understanding of what Evil is and why it is necessary to avoid it. If creatures such as human being were never exposed to evil then how can they appreciate the good that is God?
- imperium2000, on 01/14/2008, -9/+37So...your God is allowing death, murder, disease, etc. so that we can appreciate God more?
"Is he able but not willing? then he is malevolent"- TheTaoOfBill, on 01/14/2008, -16/+5According to the bible he allows bad things to happen because he allows us free will. We could have had no evil in our world. But that would have made us mindless slaves to God. Which is why I think it's redicious how so many people out there just want everyone to be a mindless slave to God and not have freewill. People get way into what is nothing more than a really good message. The point of Christianity was never to kiss God's ass. But that's what it's become.
The point was to teach people to love their neighbors and not act in violent ways toward each other. - imperium2000, on 01/14/2008, -6/+16A respectable position but it does not answer the question.
God could and can create a world with no evil or sin and never once violate free will. So why didn't god do that? - TheTaoOfBill, on 01/15/2008, -5/+6I suppose technically he could. But not without changing what we define free will as. However with our current understanding of free will being that we can choose to do whatever we want good or bad, no it's not possible.
This isn't a physics law we are talking about which many Christians claim God can defy. This is a definition. And as free will is currently defined or as we currently understand free will it would not be possible to end all evil choices and still give us what we define as free will without changing what free will means all together. So I guess it's all how you look at it. Sure an "all powerful being" could change the definition but it wouldn't be free will as we know it.
Also I would like to point out that though I am Christian I am not exactly the best Christian to be talking about this because personally I do not believe God to be all knowing or all powerful. Which is something most every Christian will disagree with me on. - LeeSoong, on 01/15/2008, -2/+3" Hallowed are the Ori ! "
- Zarokima, on 01/15/2008, -3/+13Sense, logic, and reason all point to the nonexistence of God (or if nothing else, a complete and utter lack of proof for God). I find it highly implausible that the same God who has blessed us with sense, logic, and reason has intended us to forego their use.
- PAStheLoD, on 01/15/2008, -3/+6@TheTaoOfBill: It's just genetics. God could purge aggression, and code more "humanity" and such into our genes. Not really a big feat. Also if you think of this as setting up rules that will be encoded into out minds, into our thinking and deciding process , then God could easily implement a set of rules that simply prohibit evil acts to form in our mind. Or maybe allow thinking about them, but make the mind constantly aware of that being a bad thing .. or what about absolute respect for other humans , encoded into our genes? That would mean, even if I hate my neighbor, no way I'd cause harm to him. (But I doubt that my neighbor would be able to give me cause so that I'd hate him..)
So if God is omnipotent, then he CAN make a world with free will and no evil. That comes from the definition of omnipotence :P - DooM, on 01/15/2008, -1/+3@TheTaoofBill - it's all a matter of timing. God (in this Christian-based scenario) DOES infringe upon free will because he punishes you for doing bad things with eternal hell fire and damnation - TRUE free will would entail no Godly consequences for your actions. If God were not somehow malevolent or negligent he would simply allow you to choose to do it, undo it and then cast you into Hell right then and there - same level of free will minus the innocent suffering bit.
- TheTaoOfBill, on 01/14/2008, -16/+5According to the bible he allows bad things to happen because he allows us free will. We could have had no evil in our world. But that would have made us mindless slaves to God. Which is why I think it's redicious how so many people out there just want everyone to be a mindless slave to God and not have freewill. People get way into what is nothing more than a really good message. The point of Christianity was never to kiss God's ass. But that's what it's become.
- DooM, on 01/14/2008, -2/+20I don't need to be tortured to appreciate not being tortured - I don't need millions dead from famine, disease or war to know what 'evil' is. I would argue that story telling does a good job of giving us those ideas. I've never personally been stuck in a pod by robotic overlords and shoved into a Matrix, but I can relate that evil to my own life despite the fact that it is completely fictional.
- Infidelephant, on 01/15/2008, -0/+9"To have Free Will, we should not have had to choose between good and evil, heaven and hell, life or death. The choice between chicken or fish would have been sufficient." - - -Infidelephant
- rootneg2, on 01/15/2008, -1/+12you are suggesting, then, that God is still bound by the higher law of the nature of Good and Evil.
in which case god is not the ultimate. - JamesAJanisse, on 01/15/2008, -1/+3Even if human evil did exist because he gave us free will, how do you explain natural evil? Hurricanes, tornadoes, earthquakes... disease, birth defects, etc?
- imperium2000, on 01/14/2008, -9/+37So...your God is allowing death, murder, disease, etc. so that we can appreciate God more?
- brjohnson789, on 01/14/2008, -13/+7I don't like iucragmc's argument, because like Epicurus it assumes our understanding of evil is the same as God's. It also assumes like Epicurus that God cannot be ambivalent.
- Terr01, on 01/14/2008, -4/+11If our understanding of evil is not the same as God's, and we are made in his image, then clearly he WANTS us in a situation where our logic dictates he is malevolent, so we should think of him as malevolent, so as not to disappoint him!
- chocolatetacos, on 01/14/2008, -17/+3Similar argument: Assuming that if one is able, but not willing to stop evil, he is malevolent, would the United States be malevolent to not detain suspected terrorists without any real evidence, because it would be the only guarantee that they could not commit evil?
Preventing evil in all cases would abolish free choice and other freedom-related rights. Is that a price worth paying?- imperium2000, on 01/14/2008, -1/+18God being all powerful and knowing could easily create a cosmos with no evil and never once touch on free choice.
Your analogy is a non-sequitor. The US is not god. God knows all and can do anything. God would know if any evil will ever occur and can do anything to stop it. So why isn't god stoping evil?- TheTaoOfBill, on 01/14/2008, -9/+3No he can't. Because to prevent all evil you'd be preventing the choice to be evil. There isn't any way around that. You can either prevent evil or give people a choice. There is no middle ground there.
- thePuck77, on 01/14/2008, -0/+16Not when you make the rules...the only reason evil (or any other similar dualism) exists would be god's choice to create it. Being omnipotent, he could easily create a universe where freewill and no evil could exist. That's what "all powerful" means.
PS.: when discussing god, the statement "no he can't " should be the kicker that you are mistaken. The very concept of god makes any such statement false. - PAStheLoD, on 01/15/2008, -0/+1@ TheTaoOfBill : see my comment up above. .. :P
- imperium2000, on 01/14/2008, -1/+18God being all powerful and knowing could easily create a cosmos with no evil and never once touch on free choice.
- empiric, on 01/14/2008, -2/+0Summary refutation: "Food"
- sgtbutterscotch, on 01/15/2008, -3/+1Since the comment system is royally screwed I'm trying to find a somewhere I can post a response:
@thePuck77 and imperium2000,
Your PS is not true. For instance, if god is omnipotent and he wants to create a universe that contains the color blue but also does not contain the color blue...well that is impossible. Assuming there are people similar to man in this cosmos that imperium has put forth, and that they have free will, it is paradoxical to say that evil cannot exist. Free will and the ability to be able to choose between good and evil are mutually exclusive.- imperium2000, on 01/15/2008, -0/+3False. God could create a cosmos with no evil/suffering/pain etc. and therefore it would not violate any freewill since evil is never a possibile choice since in that cosmos, there is no such thing.
- PAStheLoD, on 01/15/2008, -0/+3@sgtbutterscotch: Well, you see it as impossible, because you're not omnipotent. But don't underestimate the ability to do/achieve _anything_ :]
And free will doesn't equals choosing between good and evil. It means that your thought process isn't being altered by God after it has been started. But doesn't mean , that God couldn't create you in that way that you won't have to choose between good and evil. - sgtbutterscotch, on 01/15/2008, -0/+1I guess I see what you're both what saying, but then life would be to easy. I guess this is why religions who believe in the existence of god believe there is another life after you die.
- sgtbutterscotch, on 01/15/2008, -0/+1Also, PAStheLoD, are you saying an omnipotent being can create a cosmos that is not a cosmos, because that would blow my mind and make want to crawl into a ball.
- sgtbutterscotch, on 01/15/2008, -3/+1Since the comment system is royally screwed I'm trying to find a somewhere I can post a response:
- Nekiruhs, on 01/14/2008, -13/+5False dichotomy. There is a middle ground wherein God allows evil because in our long term it benefits us in some way, thusly proving his love for us. Eg. the Crucifixion (Short term Evil) of Christ to allow us to be saved (Long term good).
Note: I'm not a particularly religious person, but I'd hate to let this logical fallacy stand.- LeeSoong, on 01/15/2008, -1/+12Ah, what is the point of Crucifixion when you are a Deity ?
Walk up and Machine Gun Jesus,
Toss him out of the space shuttle from orbit and watch his flaming reentry,
have him go swimming in a volcano, tie him between two mating hippos ?
What does death matter to an immortal ?
Kill Him a thousand times a thousand different ways, He's a God, right?
So, pop! Right back he comes to life again. No problemo.
So what was so special about that? Lots of gods die and come back all the time, in about every mythology humans created...
If Jesus wanted to Impress the people of Earth:
How about 1 week, JUST 1 WEEK, when no one, no place on earth died from violence, crime, war, disease, poverty, or accidents.
A ''Week of Life.'' No human deaths anyplace on the Earth.
Now, that would be very impressive! - rootneg2, on 01/15/2008, -0/+4"hey, yo, god, open up and let me in. It's me, the dude in your image."
"oh, nope sorry, you're...uhhh....'dirty'. I'm not letting you in my house"
"dude, wtf? now you're just making up ***** to keep me out."
"oh, yeah, and I'm gonna burn you alive for eternity, sorry..."
"DUDE WTF? i thought you loved me man!"
"...."
"DUDE!!"
"alright, fine, here's my kid. now check it out, those romans are gonna nail him to a stick to die, then i'll let you in"
"..."
"what? i said i'll let you in..."
"...you feeling alright god?"
whether you're saved or not is god's decision, why would he "have" to give up his son to decide to save you; unless god is bound by some higher law; in which case it's not a real god... - senatorpjt, on 01/15/2008, -0/+3Even so, doesn't short term evil leading to long term good seem suboptimal? I suppose you have to define what you're talking about when you're talking about God, but the usual idea of God that I hear doesn't lend itself to suboptimal solutions.
Sort of like saying there is a God, he just does a ***** job.
- LeeSoong, on 01/15/2008, -1/+12Ah, what is the point of Crucifixion when you are a Deity ?
- iucraigmc, on 01/14/2008, -32/+10Flawed argument. The premise of God not preventing evil is developing the understanding of what Evil is and why it is necessary to avoid it. If creatures such as human being were never exposed to evil then how can they appreciate the good that is God?
- theodenking, on 01/14/2008, -4/+13I was shocked that neither Dawkins nor Adams were included.
- senatorpjt, on 01/15/2008, -0/+3There's probably a top 50 list of quotes about atheism for each of them.
- naturaldisaster, on 01/14/2008, -18/+5Here's a little hymn I like to sing out loud, courtesy of XTC...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hk41Gbjljfo
"Dear God,
I can't believe in...
I don't believe in...
I won't believe in heaven and hell.
No saints, no sinners, no devil as well.
No pearly gates, no thorny crown.
You're always letting us humans down.
The wars you bring, the babes you drown.
Those lost at sea and never found,
And it's the same the whole world 'round.
The hurt I see helps to compound
That Father, Son and Holy Ghost
Is just somebody's unholy hoax
And if you're up there you'd perceive
That my heart's here upon my sleeve.
If there's one thing I don't believe in.....
It's you.....
Dear God"- iucraigmc, on 01/14/2008, -16/+2God, then, should be here to serve your purpose and glorify and bring great things to your life. It is understandable as to why you are bitter and angry about how he operates with this mindset. God's work is beyond this world, not of this world, pain and suffering fades into the next life. The worldly life is not what is important, as you so illustrate here. He is more interested in the eternal life that follows it, and this life is the preparation to understand why it is you need him.
- AxeSwinger, on 01/14/2008, -1/+24If your god promises misery in life for eternal paradise later, you can keep him. I'll try to make this life better for everyone i meet.
- thePuck77, on 01/14/2008, -0/+5Well, it's great that you have the lowdown on what god wants!
- alkaline213, on 01/15/2008, -0/+1I hope that person feels better now. Maybe more secure now that we have given a song of praise to the almighty god.
Now, doesn't that sound at least a little bit ridiculous when you say it out loud. Cut out all of the suspension of disbelief you walk into a church with and try to think about god.. It's hard with rational though and all.
- iucraigmc, on 01/14/2008, -16/+2God, then, should be here to serve your purpose and glorify and bring great things to your life. It is understandable as to why you are bitter and angry about how he operates with this mindset. God's work is beyond this world, not of this world, pain and suffering fades into the next life. The worldly life is not what is important, as you so illustrate here. He is more interested in the eternal life that follows it, and this life is the preparation to understand why it is you need him.
- dinostabOMG, on 01/14/2008, -0/+4Just gave it a glance for now, but number 2 by Carlin is also in the Principia Discordia - not sure who ripped off whom, but my guess is the Principia was first, as it was first written in the 1950s.
- illegalcortex, on 01/15/2008, -0/+1Considering it's a fairly obvious play on words, it's quite likely that neither ripped off the other.
- empiric, on 01/14/2008, -24/+2Sure. Just get Einstein, Nietzsche, and Gandhi -alone- in a room, and get them talking about World War 2. Then you'll see how far the mere supposed commonality of "Atheism" gets you.
- imperium2000, on 01/14/2008, -2/+25What a big fat non-sequitor you have there?
There is NO commonality concerning atheism except for the lack of belief in a god.
Zen Buddhist, Scientologist, Satanist and a multitude of others are atheistic so you don't really have a point.- empiric, on 01/14/2008, -15/+1The whole point of this post is to advocate "atheism" per se, and my post was specifically in response to the contention that "the world would be a better place", clearly suggestive of resulting wider philosophical harmony. What twists of rationalization it must take to posit "atheism" as a reasonably-complete worldview, then immediately contradict yourself. Back and forth. Sucks to be you, I guess.
- imperium2000, on 01/14/2008, -1/+13Another Non-Sequitor, yes the post is a advocacy of atheism and the questioning of religious authority(it would be nice if you actually read some of the quotes). The world would likely be a better place without a religion but what makes you think that all atheistic philosophies must be in harmony or even agree with one another?
What a straw man, I never claimed that Atheism is a complete worldview but the beginning of building up your own worldview without religious dogma. Again, atheism is only and only the lack of belief in a god. How you justify this belief and what other world view is personal to each atheist.
Do you have something interesting to say or are you going to continue to make logical fallacies? - empiric, on 01/14/2008, -13/+1So, you, as an atheist (and you alone as an atheist, is as far as you would claim), claim that no further common specifics exist.
Hard to come up with something "interesting" to say to a position that's self-confessedly nothing at all. - imperium2000, on 01/14/2008, -1/+7Man, your continued inability to make any reasonable or even justified argument is just sad.
As I've stated multiple times, there is no commonality between atheist. Nothing to say about the fact that atheist are non-religious and do not need religion to live a moral and totally productive life? Good.
I am an agnostic atheist who happens to be a secular humanist with taoist leanings as well but even that is a generalization.- empiric, on 01/15/2008, -9/+0Hint: Two of your terms of self-description contain actual conceptual content. Two do not.
That said, I'll follow up when another "agnostic atheist who happens to be a secular humanist with taoist leanings" shows up. - imperium2000, on 01/15/2008, -0/+7Still nothing to say huh?
- MacEnvy, on 01/15/2008, -0/+6@empiric
"I'll follow up when another "agnostic atheist who happens to be a secular humanist with taoist leanings" shows up."
Whew, made it just in time.
Well? Are you going to follow up?
- empiric, on 01/15/2008, -9/+0Hint: Two of your terms of self-description contain actual conceptual content. Two do not.
- empiric, on 01/15/2008, -8/+0By the way, do you know what a "non sequitur" even is? Since you've spelled it wrong twice, I feel rather confident you won't be able to point where I've made two assertions claiming one is a logical inference from the other where it is not--especially since I haven't, either time.
- imperium2000, on 01/15/2008, -0/+7Non-Sequitor #1: You attempt to make a claim that differing philosophies must somehow have complete commonality because they are secular or atheistic. The logic does not follow.
Non-Sequitor #2: You attempt to claim that a single position of the non-belief or lack of belief in a god automatically means a)No belief whatsoever or b)a complete worldview. The logic does not follow again.
Now, do you actually have something to say? - imperium2000, on 01/15/2008, -1/+4Oops, spelled it wrong again...my bad.
- empiric, on 01/15/2008, -6/+0#1: No, I made no such claim. I'm agreeing with you that there is no commonality, thus no likelihood of resulting in "a better world" which is the context of discussion. "A better world" would not result, as a matter of social fact, from a philosophical and ethical complete-lack-of-consensus-worldwide.
#2: Nope, my claim remains that "atheism" means no specific worldview. If the submission had been intended to advocate Secular Humanism or Taoism, that should have been the title. To suggest "atheism" adds inferential content to either of those that actually have content, is -in fact- a non sequitur.
Everything there is to say "here" is from me. "Atheism" simply presupposes and utterly needs "theism" (my position), which provides all of the content, other than the word "not". Next time, if you argue on behalf of one of your other self-descriptors, that would be different--we'd have something to talk about.
Kudos on the spelling retraction, though--rare people are willing to do that. Maybe the Tao is trying to tell you something. ;)
- imperium2000, on 01/15/2008, -0/+7Non-Sequitor #1: You attempt to make a claim that differing philosophies must somehow have complete commonality because they are secular or atheistic. The logic does not follow.
- imperium2000, on 01/14/2008, -2/+25What a big fat non-sequitor you have there?
- alpharaptor, on 01/14/2008, -0/+4a quote from senneca the younger is AGAIN mis attributed to someone else
- IglooBurner, on 01/14/2008, -13/+6the person who composed this list need to learn the difference between Agnostic and Atheist.
Gandhi is NOT an atheist.
as much as i respect and love science or our understanding of the world through observation and reasoning... to be truly open minded... we can't rule out the possibility that science proves nothing, and that science is only a result of observation through our five senses... so even science takes a degree of faith.- Immij, on 01/14/2008, -3/+11They're quotes made on atheism, not necessarily by atheists. And you're conflating trust (in the scientific method) with faith (in religion). I trust my senses and the scientific method because they are consistently shown to be correct, can the same be said about religious faith?
- IglooBurner, on 01/14/2008, -8/+3your trust in your senses is no different than my faith in God. trust and faith are the same thing no matter how u look at it.
what if your 5 senses is not real? when you dream can u tell that your in a dream every time? what if nothing in this world is real? and the miseries of the world are created as tests, and your sole reason for existence is going through these tests?
can you scientifically prove this wrong?
can you scientifically prove that your 5 senses is indeed responding to something real? and not some artificial signal?
the only thing you can truly prove is that YOU exist as an entity, as stated by Descartes- Immij, on 01/14/2008, -3/+11Again with the conflation, trust and faith are virtually polar opposites. Trust is belief based on evidence, faith is belief in spite or absence of evidence. Also, I question the logic in your definition of real - you want to know how real your senses are? All you need is a blunt instrument and a sensitive part of your body, introduce one to the other then come back and tell me how unreal your senses are. I operate under the assumption that my senses are real because they are my only way of interacting with reality - they are real by definition. Solipsism as a philosophy is worthless bunkum.
- empiric, on 01/15/2008, -7/+2Immij:
Nope, "faith" is confidence in a process based on incomplete information, like, say, any projection for next year on anything.
The only "religion" that claims this definition is Dawkins', as he knowingly creates a manufactured false definition for a prepackaged argument. Christianity, for example, makes perfectly clear its position is that some people outright have received demonstration of God. Whether you believe this is true or not, is irrelevant to the question of whether "faith" means "belief in spite of the absence of evidence" in the context under discussion.
Basically, your position died with Logical Positivism. Science requires faith in its axioms, like it or not. - imperium2000, on 01/15/2008, -1/+6You are wrong. The definition of Faith as used by Dawkins and many other philosophers was first defined by Emmanuel Kant and has since been the most widely accepted definition among philosophers.
You can define faith as whatever the hell you want. However, the way it is used by theist is still a non evidence based belief in a proposition. - empiric, on 01/15/2008, -1/+1It's -Immanuel- Kant, and I'm a theist, and I use it, and I use it as my religion uses it. Summary refutation.
In any case, Kant would hardly be against propositions lacking formulation by direct evidence, as his entire structure of a priori Categorical Imperatives requires it, and he states it directly and makes no apologies for this. - IglooBurner, on 01/15/2008, -6/+1The way I see it, an atheist that refuses to see the world beyond his own senses is the same and just as narrow minded as a Fundamentalist Christian who refuses to see the world beyond the words of the Bible. I believe that science and the existence of a God can co-exist. Believe it or not, there's actually more to this world than what we can explain.
- MacEnvy, on 01/15/2008, -1/+6@Igloo
"Believe it or not, there's actually more to this world than what we can explain."
Unless you have evidence to support this position, you'll have to forgive me for rejecting it as superstitious BS. - imperium2000, on 01/15/2008, -0/+2I haven't read Kant in several years so you'll excuse me if I get his position wrong.
I know that Kant was a theist and many of his philosphical positions was in support on this belief. However, that definition of faith is as mentioned was nothing more than loophole for him to add in the believe in God wherever evidence was lacking or in contradiction. As you've mentioned, the structure of his argument demanded this which I argue is nothing more than a way of escaping from needing any evidence to justify his proposition.
- rootneg2, on 01/15/2008, -0/+1I think that your trust/faith distinction is particularly apt. Trust can, and should, be broken in certain instances. If, for example, I begin to get anomalous measurements from some instrument, or notice something like a dent in the side, or broken component, then i can/should cease to trust that instrument; our senses are nothing more than instruments for measurement. If, in a dream, I am suddenly able to fly, or unable to run, then perhaps i should no longer trust my eyes, realize it is a dream, and take control, or wake up (if it may be a nightmare); certainly this is not impossilble or ill-advised. To break *faith* however, is never acceptable (either morally, dogmatically, socially, personally, or otherwise).
Now, this is not to say that science does not leave room for a sort of "rational faith" IMHO. I do not think that this "faith" lies within the corpus of knowledge/methodology that truly is science (rather than individuals who use/extend/change it), but is somehow fundamentally "untouchable" by formal, logical methods. (hopefully without sounding too BS wishy-washy: a sort of metaphysical analogue of Godel's incompleteness Thm) For example, i feel like the sort of Einsteinian, deist view of "god as physics/nature" may be an example of this sort of "rational faith" that does does fall under same sort of umbrella as a religious faith; but yet I do not see this particular idea as falling within the realm of "science". Or consider, as I happen to have "faith" in, the Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics, and the "faith" that there *is* somehow a sort of deep connection between the purely physical world of measurements and observations, and the purely mental/incorporeal realm of logic and reasoning. We continue to make great strides in our knowledge of this relation, using the tools of science, we have developed Quantum Theory, Relativity, and united Electromagetism into a single force, but yet we still have gaps in our understanding. Even if we do not know yet, or are even fundamentally *unable* to know in the future, the nature of the connection in it's entirity, i have a faith that it exists and, and as i heard somebody put it so eloquently: "It's gotta be beautiful all the way down"
- IglooBurner, on 01/14/2008, -8/+3your trust in your senses is no different than my faith in God. trust and faith are the same thing no matter how u look at it.
- hmunkey, on 01/15/2008, -0/+2He was not an atheist, but he knew the destructive power of religion nonetheless.
- Immij, on 01/14/2008, -3/+11They're quotes made on atheism, not necessarily by atheists. And you're conflating trust (in the scientific method) with faith (in religion). I trust my senses and the scientific method because they are consistently shown to be correct, can the same be said about religious faith?
- r3negadeX, on 08/11/2008, -3/+19I still think that this is the best quote ever:
"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours"- etruscan, on 01/15/2008, -0/+3Good quote... from Stephan F. Roberts.
- r3negadeX, on 08/11/2008, -0/+1Thanks I forgot to cite the source
- etruscan, on 01/15/2008, -0/+3Good quote... from Stephan F. Roberts.
- appletalk, on 01/14/2008, -5/+4The best quote ever:
Religion is, indeed, the self-consciousness and self-esteem of man who has either not yet won through to himself, or has already lost himself again. But man is no abstract being squatting outside the world. Man is the world of man—state, society. This state and this society produce religion, which is an inverted consciousness of the world, because they are an inverted world. Religion is the general theory of this world, its encyclopedic compendium, its logic in popular form, its spiritual point d'honneur, its enthusiasm, its moral sanction, its solemn complement, and its universal basis of consolation and justification. It is the fantastic realization of the human essence since the human essence has not acquired any true reality. The struggle against religion is, therefore, indirectly the struggle against that world whose spiritual aroma is religion.
Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the Opiate of the people [Emphasis added]
The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions. The criticism of religion is, therefore, in embryo, the criticism of that vale of tears of which religion is the halo.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opium_of_the_People- ICSU, on 01/15/2008, -2/+1Marx just substituted religion for other dogmatic beliefs.
- rootneg2, on 01/15/2008, -1/+5They left of one of my favorites (especially being a math geek)
"I have no need of that hypothesis"
-- Laplace, in response to Napoleon's observation that God is not mentioned in his recent book on the System of the World. The precise quote is most likely an embellishment, but Laplace and Napoleon were known to have a heated debate on the subject at the time. - theblt, on 01/15/2008, -5/+13Ron Paul is a Christian Conservative. Will you stop your support for him?
*waits for buries*- VeritasAequitas, on 01/15/2008, -1/+7though true, I'm wondering for whom you are voting? I haven't seen anyone with the nerve to run for president as an atheist. Though I wish it would happen.
- hobonetweaver, on 01/15/2008, -4/+4Oh no a Christian! Who cares? Why is it always about what color his skin is or if she's a girl or if he's a Christian. Damn, we're talking about the president- the manager- of our country. If we're going to make it out of this next presidency alive, we need to stop getting hung up on stupid trivialities a talkative gossipy minority can't shut up about.
Pay attention to the person's ideas. Talk about their IDEAS. No more pointless hating.- theblt, on 01/15/2008, -0/+7So then discounting Mike Huckabee because he's a Baptist Minister should also stop here on Digg then, correct?
I agree with you that race, religion, gender has no place in politics. Unfortunately, it does.- dragonrice, on 01/15/2008, -1/+1hi
- rotundo, on 01/16/2008, -0/+1Sure, it would be fine to have Mike Huckabee as a minister-cum-president if he wasn't trying to change the nation to line up with his beliefs. My problem with Huckabee is not what he believes, its that he has a problem with what I believe, and a policy that will try to interfere with my life.
- taboam, on 01/15/2008, -0/+3The difference is race and gender aren't choices, religion is a choice and that choice can tell you allot about a person.
- moush, on 01/15/2008, -0/+1So what's with the pointless hating of christians?
- theblt, on 01/15/2008, -0/+7So then discounting Mike Huckabee because he's a Baptist Minister should also stop here on Digg then, correct?
- appletalk, on 01/15/2008, -1/+10It's fine as long as his personal religious ideas don't affect his policies. Which clearly is not the case.
- rotundo, on 01/15/2008, -1/+5I would rather have a Christian Conservative who believes strongly in individual liberty than a atheist who believed in making people's choices for them.
- me, a devout atheist - Chirp08, on 01/15/2008, -0/+3It has nothing to do with what he believes, it has to do with whether or not he projects his personal religious beliefs onto us through law. If he keeps church and state separate, then he is fine in my book.
- spillwater, on 01/15/2008, -0/+3that KFC dude was especially insightful.
- gstep, on 01/15/2008, -2/+8Bigot: a prejudiced person who is intolerant of opinions, lifestyles, or identities differing from his or her own. (wikipedia)
Hate to say it but Digg proves that there's plenty of bigots on both sides of the table, and I'm not referring to the collection of quotes but to the comments made in the threads.- wushi, on 01/15/2008, -0/+1http://www.somethingawful.com/d/news/atheist-athei ...
a very good article from a site you all know...
- wushi, on 01/15/2008, -0/+1http://www.somethingawful.com/d/news/atheist-athei ...
- betterth, on 01/15/2008, -1/+5"Brilliant collection! Wish more people would identify with these...the world would be a better place indeed..."
Religion is the tumor, but human nature is the cancer.
Religion is just an excuse to close the mind. Religion is just the means by which people justify their actions. It's the tool used by leaders to control people.
When one tool fails, we buy another. Removing the justification doesn't enlighten a man, it simply forces him to find another.
The world is not so simple that the lack of religion would turn the world into a peaceful, blissful planet. Hatred is something men feel regardless of gods. - mikesbaker, on 01/15/2008, -2/+9The bigotry of the nonbeliever is for me nearly as funny as the bigotry of the believer.
Albert Einstein - wootup, on 01/15/2008, -3/+3They left out my favourite atheism quote:
"The only church that illuminates is a church that's burning." - Buenaventura Durruti, Anarchist leader in the Spanish Civil War - RealHyperX, on 01/15/2008, -7/+3Atheists believe in God, his name is Steve Jobs.
- kmeredith03, on 01/15/2008, -3/+1What did the dyslexic atheist say to the Christian? "There is no dog!"
- Chirp08, on 01/15/2008, -0/+3i see what you did there...
...you just wasted my time.
- Chirp08, on 01/15/2008, -0/+3i see what you did there...
- moxx, on 01/14/2008, -9/+30Though this is probably going to be dugg down and considered "spam"...I actually made a blog about this very topic:
- gamingspartan, on 01/14/2008, -226/+23Atheism always reminds me of that Dane Cook bit with the atheist's body being used to make the bible.
- JigoroKano, on 01/14/2008, -10/+88Yeah, but who did that joke originally?
- tmccart, on 01/15/2008, -1/+3AHAHAHAHAHA,ZING!
- floridiot2, on 01/14/2008, -7/+36I don't think atheists believe in reincarnation.
- teh_techie, on 01/14/2008, -1/+7You think correctly.
- stevealford, on 01/14/2008, -1/+4Some do, some don't.
- Navicerts, on 01/15/2008, -0/+1They don't. Maybe an agnostic could believe that reincarnation is *possible*.
- Azerael, on 01/15/2008, -1/+2Most organic matter is recycled, either as dirt/sediment/whatever or as parts of other lifeforms.
It's highly likely the same matter that was part of some dinosaurs is in most of us right now. So, reincarnation isn't such a farfetched concept, it's just that you're not reincarnated as you are now, you're "reincarnated" as a number of other lifeforms. - Syphon8, on 01/15/2008, -0/+1What about Buddhists?
- Akintunde, on 01/15/2008, -0/+1The beautiful part about Atheism is that they (or we) don't believe in anything...
- teh_techie, on 01/14/2008, -1/+7You think correctly.
- Groovemaster, on 01/14/2008, -17/+13Dane Cook is a self-absorbed *****, which kind of invalidates anything he has to say.
- digichris, on 01/14/2008, -7/+13That joke took way too long to get to the punch line, and Dane Cook isn't really funny anymore.
- thebellmaster1x, on 01/15/2008, -2/+7I think you're confusing "anymore" with "ever."
- MaTT2011, on 01/14/2008, -4/+20Wait.....Dane cook is a comedian?! He tells jokes!?
I really couldn't tell, what with the lack of funny and all...- xlneoMAXlx, on 01/15/2008, -3/+2Dane Cook: OMFG YOU KNOW WHEN YOU PRESS THE POWER BUTTON ON YOUR COMPUTER AND IT DOESN'T COME ON WTF LOLOLOLOL AND YOU HAVE TO GO LIKE OMFG YOU HAVE TO GO PLUG IT IN ***** THEY SHOULD MAKE A CORD FOR THE OH WAIT LOL THEY DO, AND THEN YOU PRESS IT AGAIN AND ITS LIKE BAM IT WORKS LOLOL HUHUH SO FUNNY.
Sheeple: LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL HES SO ORIGINAL
- xlneoMAXlx, on 01/15/2008, -3/+2Dane Cook: OMFG YOU KNOW WHEN YOU PRESS THE POWER BUTTON ON YOUR COMPUTER AND IT DOESN'T COME ON WTF LOLOLOLOL AND YOU HAVE TO GO LIKE OMFG YOU HAVE TO GO PLUG IT IN ***** THEY SHOULD MAKE A CORD FOR THE OH WAIT LOL THEY DO, AND THEN YOU PRESS IT AGAIN AND ITS LIKE BAM IT WORKS LOLOL HUHUH SO FUNNY.
- aoneal417, on 01/15/2008, -2/+14since when did Dane Cook become a credible theologist
- mjanctil, on 01/15/2008, -7/+2since when did any of the people quoted become a theologian?
- Phyraxus, on 01/15/2008, -3/+7Since when did you have to have a Ph. D. in leprachaunology to disprove leprechauns?
- MacPh1st0, on 01/15/2008, -4/+1Looks like someone needs to learn the difference between disproving something and giving an opinion about it...
- Phyraxus, on 01/15/2008, -3/+7Since when did you have to have a Ph. D. in leprachaunology to disprove leprechauns?
- mjanctil, on 01/15/2008, -7/+2since when did any of the people quoted become a theologian?
- alien420, on 01/15/2008, -15/+1dane cook is a ***** hes not funny never has been. i cant even laugh at this ***** when im stoned so theres an idea of how lame he is.
- JigoroKano, on 01/14/2008, -10/+88Yeah, but who did that joke originally?
- gds923, on 01/14/2008, -59/+13Great thanks!
- alpharaptor, on 01/14/2008, -15/+2Your comment is vapid and adds nothing to an intellectual conversation. Do try to find yourself a recipient of the 2008 Darwin Awards, thanks!
- chipsdw, on 01/14/2008, -3/+0Thanks for making sure everyone's post is intelligent, "Alpha Raptor"... LOL
- freedomkeeper, on 01/15/2008, -2/+3And ironically, so is yours...and mine for that matter.
- alpharaptor, on 01/14/2008, -15/+2Your comment is vapid and adds nothing to an intellectual conversation. Do try to find yourself a recipient of the 2008 Darwin Awards, thanks!
- fthead9, on 01/14/2008, -35/+57Now that is what you call a thought provoking start to the day, great stuff.
- geekchic, on 01/14/2008, -9/+9Or a good way to finish the day for people in other parts of the world.
- Lucas123, on 01/15/2008, -0/+111. "I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ." I guess that's why Christ died on the cross. Isn't it?
- Spektr4, on 01/15/2008, -0/+1http://www.monkeyquiz.com/atheist-quotes.html
50 more. The article left out some good ones. - Garbagio, on 01/15/2008, -1/+1This is just one of my own thoughts on the subject:
It is irrelevant how the universe came into being. What is far more important is understanding that how you treat others, and how you live your life will leave a much more detailed and irrefutable legacy. In this, I become my own god.
- cbeach, on 01/14/2008, -27/+171The top 1129 (and counting) atheist qutoes, ordered by popularity:
http://www.chrisbeach.co.uk/viewQuotes.php- SideShowMel0329, on 01/14/2008, -3/+10I like this one better.
- empiric, on 01/14/2008, -11/+1"When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible political parties, you will understand why I dismiss yours."
(???)- digichris, on 01/14/2008, -0/+8You will understand the quote when you understand it.
- empiric, on 01/15/2008, -7/+1When you understand why you dismiss many other replies, you will understand why I dismiss yours.
This is handy! :p - Akintunde, on 01/15/2008, -0/+1XD and you digger's thought I'd put something like the rest of these dudes...
...I will when you will?
- empiric, on 01/15/2008, -7/+1When you understand why you dismiss many other replies, you will understand why I dismiss yours.
- digichris, on 01/14/2008, -0/+8You will understand the quote when you understand it.
- GMorgan, on 01/14/2008, -10/+44"There once was a time when all people believed in God and the church ruled. This time was called the Dark Ages."
I like that one because it's true.- theodenking, on 01/14/2008, -11/+3That's a misleading term for it though.
- MonarchWastxD, on 01/14/2008, -3/+9How about the renaissance? The dark ages were called so because there was very little documentation about those eras.
- GMorgan, on 01/14/2008, -5/+15The renaissance was when people once again started to question god.
- sodade, on 01/14/2008, -0/+7Interestingly enough, the Inquisition really got its legs during the renaissance.
- Terr01, on 01/14/2008, -1/+6Mainly because the existing church structure got busy torturing the renaissance-ers.
- mysticjim, on 01/15/2008, -0/+8no, they called it the Dark Ages because someone forgot to pay the enlightenment bill
- empiric, on 01/14/2008, -3/+0Um, no it isn't. The "Dark Ages" is a small subset of the "a time", and there was never a time that "all people believed".
- montiff, on 01/15/2008, -0/+1And this is why cbeach is my friend
*edit "internet friend" - rootneg2, on 01/15/2008, -0/+4you just like it because you can vote on things, you digg addict.
-also likes the voting...- DefaultGen, on 01/15/2008, -0/+2*diggs up*
- redeye69, on 01/15/2008, -0/+6"You're basically killing each other to see who's got the better imaginary friend"
Genius!- Akintunde, on 01/15/2008, -0/+1Thats what i said...I actually started busting up laughing in school and got in trouble...lol
- Scroogl, on 01/14/2008, -46/+371Atheism: A non-prophet organization. Dugg
- MonarchWastxD, on 01/14/2008, -13/+3Oh har har.
- Elranzer, on 01/14/2008, -4/+12 - George Carlin
- ZebraCrew, on 01/14/2008, -13/+2actually it's more like "Atheism: a non-organization."
- Jeffler, on 01/14/2008, -1/+5Whoosh
- ZebraCrew, on 01/15/2008, -8/+1no i ***** got. Carlin was saying that churches all about getting money from people. But "a non-profit organization" doesn't make since because Atheism isn't an organization so it can't be a non-profit organization.
bitch- ZebraCrew, on 01/15/2008, -6/+0god damn. got it*. sense*.
- CCB0x45, on 01/15/2008, -0/+7Wow you really, really didn't get it.
- Zeonix, on 01/15/2008, -0/+6You missed the joke again. See how it says Prophet and not Profit? Yeah, atheists don't have prophets. That's the joke. No Atheist versions of Jesus or Mohammed.
Get it? Cool.- ZebraCrew, on 01/15/2008, -0/+0still not an organization regardless of what the word is.
- ZebraCrew, on 01/15/2008, -8/+1no i ***** got. Carlin was saying that churches all about getting money from people. But "a non-profit organization" doesn't make since because Atheism isn't an organization so it can't be a non-profit organization.
- Jeffler, on 01/14/2008, -1/+5Whoosh
- majin23x, on 01/14/2008, -1/+4I think he stole that from the Discordians.
http://www.23ae.com/format/pdorig/pdoriga.htm
- bagelpirate, on 01/14/2008, -36/+25This is much better than the list of fundamentalist christian quotes:
http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache:http%3A//www. ...- iamlXl, on 01/14/2008, -25/+77Holy ***** Christ. I'm skimming through those. These just confirm how absolutely insane fundamentalists are. Here's a gem from the website:
"Athiests as a Majority
This is what it would be like, if the majority of people were athiests.
ATHIEST KID: Mom, I'm going to go ***** a hooker.
ATHIEST MOM: Okay, son.
ATHIEST KID: Afterwards, I'm going to go smoke pot with my friends, since it's "not addictive."
ATHIEST MOM: Okay, come home soon!
The athiest kid leaves the room. The father comes home from work several minutes later.
ATHIEST DAD: Hey!
ATHIEST MOM: Hi, honey! I'm pregnant again. I guess I'll just get another abortion, since "fetuses don't count as human life."
ATHIEST DAD: Okay, get as many abortions as you want!
ATHIEST MOM: Oh, and don't go in the bedroom.
ATHIEST DAD: Why not?
ATHIEST MOM: There are two gay men ***** eachother in there.
ATHIEST DAD: Why are they here?
ATHIEST MOM: I wanted to watch them do it for awhile. They just aren't finished yet.
ATHIEST DAD: Okay, that's fine with me!
Suddenly, their neighbor runs into the house.
ATHIEST NEIGHBOR: Come quick, there's a Christian outside!
ATHIEST MOM: We'll be right there!
The athiest couple quickly put on a pair of black robes and hoods. They then exit the house, and run into the street, where a Christian is nailed to a large, wooden X. He is being burned alive. A crowd of athiests stand around him, all wearing black robes and hoods.
RANDOM ATHIEST: Damn you, Christian! We hate you! We claim to be tolerant of all religions. But we really hate your's! That's because we athiests are hypocritical like that! Die, Christian!
THE END
Scary, isn't it?"- meatmcguffin, on 01/14/2008, -2/+18That makes a pretty awesome joke on 4chan et al.
Just replace "scary, isn't it?" with "awesome, isn't it?"- theblt, on 01/15/2008, -8/+1So burning those that believe in a religion is awesome to you?
- meatmcguffin, on 01/15/2008, -1/+7The IQ of everyone that read your comment just dropped slightly
- theblt, on 01/15/2008, -8/+1So burning those that believe in a religion is awesome to you?
- BoneheadFarker, on 01/14/2008, -4/+30My favourite is:
I am a bit troubled. I believe my son has a girlfriend, because she left a dirty magazine with men in it under his bed. My son is only 16 and I really don't think he's ready to date yet. What's worse is that he's sneaking some girl to his room behind my back. I need help, God! I want my son to stop being so secretive! - EarlOfLade, on 01/14/2008, -4/+3I don't know what an "athiest" is, anyone? The level of education shown is alarming.
- Terr01, on 01/14/2008, -1/+1But who is the athiest atheist?
- sdlvx, on 01/15/2008, -1/+1Oh man how did my story get on the internet? Im *****.
- meatmcguffin, on 01/14/2008, -2/+18That makes a pretty awesome joke on 4chan et al.
- aaabatteries, on 01/14/2008, -19/+14meh,
I don't think that's quite fair. they certainly don't speak for all Christians.- tschau, on 01/14/2008, -4/+22oh, I thought those were the consensus of every living Christian on the planet. My mistake.
- pintomp3, on 01/14/2008, -5/+12my favorite christian fundamentalist quote:
"evolution is a theory and i don't accept it"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6JyvkjSKMLw- BabyWookie, on 01/14/2008, -1/+6I like this one, as well:
"The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers."
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul148.html- rootneg2, on 01/15/2008, -0/+3"The Founding Fathers envisioned a robustly Christian yet religiously tolerant America, with churches serving as vital institutions that would eclipse the state in importance."
wow, is Ron Paul for a theocracy? (no, clearly not, and he would deny it up and down; i'm merely illustrating a point)
you know, Ron Paul seemed great from an economic, and foreign policy standpoint, but this isn't all the a president does. The more I *really* research into the candidates i realize how much i think his ideological standpoint is entirely wrong to run this country in the right direction. Gay rights, religious rights, abortion rights, oversight of the educational system, 'obscenity' censorship, etc. ; All of these are important issues for the government that i'm not sure Ron Paul would handle appropriately.
- rootneg2, on 01/15/2008, -0/+3"The Founding Fathers envisioned a robustly Christian yet religiously tolerant America, with churches serving as vital institutions that would eclipse the state in importance."
- BabyWookie, on 01/14/2008, -1/+6I like this one, as well:
- ibookfast, on 01/14/2008, -11/+4Believing in God is not the same as believing in a religion... I'm an atheist to the Judeo-Christian "God". The one I believe in can be described as being All There Is, and underneath all of that is Love, Truth, and Joy, ideas/actions which all lead to each other. :)
- Acolyte357, on 01/14/2008, -4/+2"I'm an atheist to the Judeo-Christian 'God'"== this doesn't work
Your statement corrected " I don't believe in the Judeo-Christian 'God'" - JonStark, on 01/14/2008, -4/+4wouldn't his statement qualifies him as being agnostic? Last time I read atheist don't believe in "All There Is"
- Navicerts, on 01/15/2008, -0/+1An agnostic is someone who does not practice religion and does not believe in any God but admits that there is a "possibility" that God exists. An atheist is someone who does not believe in God and thinks the whole idea has been conjured out of texts written by humans.
- Immij, on 01/14/2008, -1/+2You mean you're trying to define your god into existence using previously defined concepts?
- ibookfast, on 01/14/2008, -1/+1What else would I use? All I'm saying is that "there ain't nothin' but God", .... She is the Light and shadows, the greatest intelligence there is, the original Creator. He is not some neurotic, schizophrenic, anthropomorphized, machismo douche bag described in the Bible.
- Immij, on 01/14/2008, -0/+1"What else would I use?" How about a novel concept? Otherwise what's the point in redefining things that are already defined? Love, truth, joy, light, shadows, intelligence, etc are already defined. I mean, go ahead and be a pantheist or whatever you want but to me this looks a lot like the christian canard of saying 'god is love, therefore god exists'. I think that actually love is love and god is still no more clear a concept than when we started...
- ibookfast, on 01/14/2008, -1/+1What else would I use? All I'm saying is that "there ain't nothin' but God", .... She is the Light and shadows, the greatest intelligence there is, the original Creator. He is not some neurotic, schizophrenic, anthropomorphized, machismo douche bag described in the Bible.
- Acolyte357, on 01/14/2008, -4/+2"I'm an atheist to the Judeo-Christian 'God'"== this doesn't work
- ZachSka87, on 01/14/2008, -5/+4Wow. I am a Christian but the people on that list make me shudder.
- sodade, on 01/14/2008, -5/+5Then stop holding hands with these freaks and voting like them.
- chocolatetacos, on 01/14/2008, -3/+8Because of course every Christian votes mindlessly conservative, and so since he's a Christian, he must be voting for them too. I mean, being Christian and liberal, that would be like being a woman and able to drive a car. Impossible!
/sarcasm - letitbleed62, on 01/15/2008, -0/+1my mom goes to church every Sunday and is the biggest liberal i know
- chocolatetacos, on 01/14/2008, -3/+8Because of course every Christian votes mindlessly conservative, and so since he's a Christian, he must be voting for them too. I mean, being Christian and liberal, that would be like being a woman and able to drive a car. Impossible!
- ZachSka87, on 01/14/2008, -1/+2Ron Paul (or Obama) or bust.
- sodade, on 01/14/2008, -5/+5Then stop holding hands with these freaks and voting like them.
- toastybeast, on 01/14/2008, -1/+19Here's someone who obviously knows their fair share of science.
"One of the most basic laws in the universe is the Second Law of Thermodynamics. This states that as time goes by, entropy in an environment will increase. Evolution argues differently against a law that is accepted EVERYWHERE BY EVERYONE. Evolution says that we started out simple, and over time became more complex. That just isn't possible: UNLESS there is a giant outside source of energy supplying the Earth with huge amounts of energy. If there were such a source, scientists would certainly know about it. [emphasis added]"
The second law of thermodynamics does not state that it is impossible for anything to become more ordered, just that, over time, the overall entropy of a system will increase.
Oh, and there just so happens to be "giant outside source of energy supplying the Earth with huge amounts of energy." I believe it's commonly referred to as the sun.- mjanctil, on 01/15/2008, -5/+0You're right in pointing out that there is some error in the quote about the second law of thermo. But your rebuttal of it is flawed itself.
- rootneg2, on 01/15/2008, -0/+3If you are referring to the perhaps the lack of an external source of energy for tthe solar system as a whole, or on up the chain; yes the rebuttal is a bit incomplete.
The thing is that the "order" is highly localized. The nice, cool, uniform, large in volume, and extremely low density gas cloud initially *did* have less entropy than the same volume of space around our solar system today (roughly, give or take a little from faraway stars, or the occasional cosmic ray, and radiation we emit, and now the voyager probes) and the concept *can* be extended to the "big bang" as it were, unlike the "outside source of energy" argument
- rootneg2, on 01/15/2008, -0/+3If you are referring to the perhaps the lack of an external source of energy for tthe solar system as a whole, or on up the chain; yes the rebuttal is a bit incomplete.
- mjanctil, on 01/15/2008, -5/+0You're right in pointing out that there is some error in the quote about the second law of thermo. But your rebuttal of it is flawed itself.
- DibsOnThePirate, on 01/14/2008, -2/+1without even looking at that list i am sure there are some quotes that may stand to be disregarded
but then we ought not to base our lives upon lists of quotes that we simply regurgitate to throw back and forth...
That list itself has some quotes out of context, the 23rd, by Hawking Id say is an intelligent play on Einsteins words from about 80 years ago when he attempted to challenge Bohr's theory of the atom at a conference in Brussels. Its not so much to do with God as it is to do with the conflict between conservative scientists, that being Einstein, and the radical thinkers, Bohr.
But ill stop there, I'm just getting picky- chocolatetacos, on 01/14/2008, -2/+3Because atheists are smart by definition, they don't need to have standards for choosing quotes, obviously.
They'll just subscribe to them anyway. Kind of like Christian fundamentalists...
- chocolatetacos, on 01/14/2008, -2/+3Because atheists are smart by definition, they don't need to have standards for choosing quotes, obviously.
- paidhima, on 01/14/2008, -2/+1I read each and every one of those and visited quite a few of the websites. What I saw there (when the quote wasn't sarcastic and taken out of context) was simply astonishing and it made me realize something: The ridiculous instructions on pop tarts (thanks Brian Regan), shampoo (thanks Ellen), and myriad consumer goods; the media frenzy over violent (and immoral/amoral) games and movies; this constant kowtowing to the lowest common denominator. It's not for us. It's for *them*. The one that demands, if we are evolved from monkeys, why humans aren't born monkeys. The one that scoffs at millions of years of evolution to get from monkey to human because *monkeys don't live for millions of years*. The girl who can't understand why she got expelled from school after confronting a Wiccan classmate and demanding that classmate pray for forgiveness (and subsequently places religious tracts decrying the wiccan religion and notes promising an eternity in hell). These are the people that can't handle a pop tart, or distinguish between reality and video games.
- joegibes, on 01/14/2008, -2/+6Sure, just read all the positive quotes about Atheism and just the negative ones about Christianity. Last I heard, that's called BIAS.
- iamlXl, on 01/14/2008, -25/+77Holy ***** Christ. I'm skimming through those. These just confirm how absolutely insane fundamentalists are. Here's a gem from the website:
- Teddsy, on 01/14/2008, -27/+16Excellent
- liah, on 01/14/2008, -29/+193This is my personal favourite. Admittedly I don't remember the source, but its honesty is beautiful.
“We atheists do not believe in gods, or angels, or demons, or souls that endure, or a meeting place after all is said and done where more can be said and done and the point of it all revealed. We don’t believe in the possibility of redemption after our lives, but the necessity of compassion in our lives. We believe in people, in their joys and pains, in their good ideas and their wit and wisdom. We believe in human rights and dignity, and we know what it is for those to be trampled on by brutes and vandals. We may believe that the universe is pitilessly indifferent but we know that friends and strangers alike most certainly are not. We despise atrocity, not because a god tells us that it is wrong, but because if not massacre then nothing could be wrong.”
Could somebody tell me who said it?- iamlXl, on 01/14/2008, -5/+65Here's a website with the quote. Apparently a professor at Virginia Tech said it in response to the criticism of atheism after the shootings. Thanks for sharing it, I hadn't read it before.
http://theperplexedobserver.blogspot.com/2008/01/w ... - oblivinated, on 01/14/2008, -13/+16More like a humanistic approach rather than atheism.
- Angostura, on 01/14/2008, -6/+14Well, all humanists are atheists. Personally, I would style myself an atheists but the above quote is a pretty good summation of my philosophy.
- tyywebb, on 01/14/2008, -10/+3You mean all atheists are humanists.
- imperium2000, on 01/14/2008, -0/+6Actually there are religious humanist and there are many non-humanist atheist.
Humanism is a personal ethical and moral philosophy while atheism is the rejection of the proposition of the existence of god. They are neither inclusive or exclusive to each other.
- Angostura, on 01/14/2008, -6/+14Well, all humanists are atheists. Personally, I would style myself an atheists but the above quote is a pretty good summation of my philosophy.
- ZenMojo, on 01/14/2008, -3/+28Atheism != humanism anymore than theism = Christianity.
- empiric, on 01/14/2008, -2/+7You can rule out Stalin, anyway.
- iucraigmc, on 01/14/2008, -13/+3What happens when human rights and dignity become inconvenient to the masses who espouse their care for the world as it is? It still operates under a human frame of reference, skewed and perceived to the will of the individual without any attempt of a basis of 'moral framework'. Morality, as it is, is a reference to some framework of right and wrong, and if right and wrong is all relative - as explained by the atheistic belief - then who is to say one man is right and the other not? It's easy to have a belief system where 'everyone is right' as long as the world is not facing atrocity. The advocating of human rights in one hand while at the same time believing morality is relative breaches all forms of logic. At some point you have to say someone is doing 'wrong' or 'evil' - and it is at that point that your 'belief system' is espoused as greater than the other mans, and his rights are oppressed. How is it men can suggest their belief system is better than others? Well, because time has shown it to be true. If time has shown it to be true, does that not point to an overall schema of right and wrong, in which theology suggests to begin with and realtivism becomes debunked?
- imperium2000, on 01/14/2008, -1/+11Define "good" and "evil"
Please give me an example of an absolute moral that has not changed due to the time.
Rights are rights granted by men to other men and enforced by men. Rights change with time and is therefore relativistic. There is nothing illogical about supporting 'rights' with a relativistic morality. - JQP123, on 01/14/2008, -1/+13"...right and wrong is all relative - as explained by the atheistic belief"
If you read carefully, I think you'll find that right and wrong is also relative as explained by the Bible.
Morality is independent of religion and often runs counter to it. Example: Slavery is inherently evil and immoral, yet deeply entrenched with a long history in the Judeo-Christian religion. - Zorn, on 01/15/2008, -1/+2Moral relativism gets us nowhere. Yes, moral norms have origins. But we need to separate genesis from validity. Validity is established through intersubjective argument and judgement. That is, groups with different moral norms argue about the relative merits, argue about how to assess norms, etc, and out of that process we may be able to generate better, more 'universal' norms (bear in mind that universal also just means consistent, not being a hypocrite, etc). This is not an easy process, but it is the only process we have. It is a process that also affirms freedom, democracy, participation and pluralism. Absolute morality does not allow us the freedom to take responsibility for the moral norms that we ourselves invent.
- imperium2000, on 01/14/2008, -1/+11Define "good" and "evil"
- JQP123, on 01/14/2008, -1/+7Thanks for posting this.
Those familiar with my posts know that I'm proud to be an atheist ... but after reading this, I'm more proud to be a Virgina Tech graduate.- akamurph, on 01/15/2008, -5/+0I'll say a prayer for you.
- rotundo, on 01/15/2008, -0/+2Why? Because if you don't God won't help them? What a nonsense system :/
- akamurph, on 01/15/2008, -5/+0I'll say a prayer for you.
- rplantz, on 01/15/2008, -5/+2If a worldview has no absolute to guide it ('a universal'), then 'the particulars' lose their meaning. Atheism (and Secular Humanism) have been searching long and hard for a guiding 'universal' since the early optimistic days of pre-Enlightenment thinking. However, ever since Rousseau knocked some sense into thinkers along this line, this worldview has slowly been realizing that their worldview provides no universal and therefore no foundation to support morality, no basis for existence, etc.
- liah, on 01/15/2008, -1/+6I personally find it sad that people need to imagine a God to threaten them into morality. In my personal opinion, a general Atheist is more moral than most Christians-- they have nothing to fear, no repercussions for being immoral, and yet they still act morally because they understand that it's not about heaven or hell, it's about compassion and an ethos that did not come from any sort of God or religion.
It is quite self-centered and incredibly arrogant to believe that morality is founded solely in religion. Morality, as in the basics-- don't kill, don't steal, don't rape-- has been around a lot longer than any written text. It is an unwritten law-- do not make other people feel bad. Those things cause others to feel bad, as well as yourself if they happen to you. Where do you think the idea of the ten commandments came from? Thin air? They've always existed simply because humans do have that little thing called compassion that no other animal does. Why do you think these rules are so universal throughout all countries, ethnicities, religions? - imperium2000, on 01/15/2008, -2/+3No foundation to support morality without god huh?
How about a biological basis or even a selfish basis?
There is pretty strong reasoning to believe that many "morals" are based on evolutionary or genetic pressures such as community support etc.
Many secular ethics and moral systems are based on the basic idea of selfishness as a driving force for morality as well. Don't steal, kill etc. because I don't want society to accept such behaviors. Altruistic behavior may also be selfish since it may give the altruistic person pleasure in these 'altruistic' activity. - JQP123, on 01/15/2008, -1/+5"Atheism (and Secular Humanism) have been searching long and hard for a guiding 'universal' ..."
Really? I didn't know this. I wish someone had asked, I could have given it to them. This "universal' that you speak of is enlightened self interest. It's the golden rule --- do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Why? Because it makes for a much more civilized and enjoyable society in which to live. No imaginary friend or questionable ancient moral code required. - rotundo, on 01/15/2008, -0/+3Actually there's a very simple absolute: the reality of survival. We do what works.
Incidentally, morality works.
This seems simplistic and easy to dismiss, but trust me: it turns out to be the key to understanding almost everything. - StarlessKnight, on 01/15/2008, -0/+2The Universal: You only live once, don't screw it up?
- liah, on 01/15/2008, -1/+6I personally find it sad that people need to imagine a God to threaten them into morality. In my personal opinion, a general Atheist is more moral than most Christians-- they have nothing to fear, no repercussions for being immoral, and yet they still act morally because they understand that it's not about heaven or hell, it's about compassion and an ethos that did not come from any sort of God or religion.
- kryptonite514, on 01/15/2008, -1/+2That is an incredible quote. Quite a thing to state publicly.
- jiltjouster, on 04/27/2008, -0/+1liah - each of those statements strikes me as sincere. but at the end of each period, I found myself asking the question, "Why?"
- iamlXl, on 01/14/2008, -5/+65Here's a website with the quote. Apparently a professor at Virginia Tech said it in response to the criticism of atheism after the shootings. Thanks for sharing it, I hadn't read it before.
- morningmatters, on 01/14/2008, -16/+172Some quotes on this list are not from atheists. The quotes are however anti organized religion.
- pjkli, on 01/14/2008, -12/+26I agree. They also left out some of the most famous quotes (on purpose maybe?) from Albert Einstein.
"Before God we are all equally wise - and equally foolish."
"My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble mind. "
"We should take care not to make the intellect our god; it has, of course, powerful muscles, but no personality."
I'm not trolling but if you are going to include one religous quote (or anti-religous) include them all.
http://www.quotationspage.com/- Fenix, on 01/14/2008, -2/+24Einstein also said this
"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."
"I do not believe in immortality of the individual, and I consider ethics to be an exclusively human concern with no superhuman authority behind it."- unusualbob, on 01/15/2008, -0/+1Thank you, I have really been wondering which way Einstein fell on this issue. I had heard it both ways and as one of the greatest minds of our time I had stopped to consider that if he was religious then maybe there was something I was missing. Apparently he was very firm as to being non-religious.
- SuperMoses, on 01/14/2008, -1/+2Einstein was a deist.
- Phyraxus, on 01/15/2008, -0/+2More like a pantheist.
- achoo5000, on 01/15/2008, -0/+2relativist.
zing!
- Fenix, on 01/14/2008, -2/+24Einstein also said this
- thirstyg, on 01/15/2008, -6/+18Actually A LOT were not from atheists. The entire article is very misleading.
Just a few -
Voltaire - Deist
Jefferson - Deist
Einstein - Deist
Ghandi - Hindu
Franklin - Deist - Haecceity, on 01/15/2008, -4/+17Top 50 Quotes on Atheism
leftofzen.com — A hefty selection of quotes on religion and atheism by Einstein, Nietzsche, Gandhi, Mark Twain, Voltaire, Stephen Hawking, and other notable thinkers.
I'm sorry, but where in there does it claim that the authors were atheists?- BabaRamDass, on 01/15/2008, -3/+1It's implied.
- proseandpromise, on 01/15/2008, -1/+2And "on atheism" means that the quotes are talking about atheism. Half of them are about a particular religion being wrong, or about the danger of organized religion. Neither of those things corresponds to "there is no god(s)." This is just as bad as when any religious group hijacks an out-of-context statement from some scientist to back ID, etc. Digg hypocrisy at it's finest.
- Haecceity, on 01/16/2008, -0/+1"quotes on religion and atheism" -- which part of that are you not understanding? I guess it must be the "quotes on religion" part.
- rawheadrex, on 01/15/2008, -7/+4>>I'm sorry, but where in there does it claim that the authors were atheists?
Well the list was obviously compiled to promote atheism (and NOT to demote radical fundamentalism), so including quotes from known deists/theists is quite simply disingenuous. - elknino, on 01/15/2008, -1/+5i think einstein could be more properly titled agnostic
- bowens44, on 01/15/2008, -4/+2No, he was an atheist.
- Beakerz, on 01/15/2008, -1/+2failedprototype just kicked your ass...
- failedprototype, on 01/15/2008, -3/+5"In view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognize, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what really makes me angry is that they quote me for the support of such views." - Albert Einstein
- ComradeGoby, on 02/25/2008, -0/+1Who cares what Einstein thought? He had some good ideas, but he was not the only scientist in the world. In my opinion, Einstein is overrated and over glorified. Watson and Crick's discovery (and co) was more important for humanity than his and they don't get as much credit from the general populace.
- ComradeGoby, on 02/25/2008, -0/+1Who cares what Einstein thought? He had some good ideas, but he was not the only scientist in the world. In my opinion, Einstein is overrated and over glorified. Watson and Crick's discovery (and co) was more important for humanity than his and they don't get as much credit from the general populace.
- bowens44, on 01/15/2008, -4/+2No, he was an atheist.
- Beakerz, on 01/15/2008, -0/+4Some of these quotes aren't even against organized religion. Thomas Jefferson's quote (number 17) is from one of his letters to Peter Carr where he believed that he was prepared to make is own decisions about religions and was attempting to get him to question it so that he makes his own, personal decision about the subject...it was also to apply to other areas of his live if you read on. But, of course Jefferson had is own deist views in there as well...
- Tetraca, on 01/15/2008, -0/+1I believe the technical term is "anticlerical".
- pjkli, on 01/14/2008, -12/+26I agree. They also left out some of the most famous quotes (on purpose maybe?) from Albert Einstein.
- iamlXl, on 01/14/2008, -47/+34These make me proud to be an atheist. I just wish I could phrase my beliefs (or lack there of) as well as these.
- KatieBee, on 01/14/2008, -63/+48Jesus loves us anyway!
- markbri, on 01/14/2008, -8/+17lol . ..
- hierophantus, on 01/14/2008, -7/+21Great, thanks!!!11!!
~~SMILES!!!~~
^___^
(*puke*) - jezsik, on 01/14/2008, -10/+37Yes, as does the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
- MOJIRA, on 05/17/2008, -4/+7rAmen!
- TxAggie08, on 01/14/2008, -8/+4Except Jesus was, at the least, a real person.
- michnuc, on 01/14/2008, -3/+12And the Mighty FSM was a real ball of flying spaghetti and meatballs
- Exbzurg, on 01/14/2008, -2/+6rAmen
- spudnic, on 01/14/2008, -1/+2You mean 'there was a real person called Jesus'.
It's not the same thing.- GeneralFault, on 01/14/2008, -2/+8Yeah he and Jose are heading down to the market to pick up a couple of packs of smokes. Want them to get anything for you?
- MonkCanatella, on 01/15/2008, -2/+3Jesus is my lawn boy.
- Ouchimoo, on 01/15/2008, -0/+3That's debatable.
- michnuc, on 01/14/2008, -3/+12And the Mighty FSM was a real ball of flying spaghetti and meatballs
- GeneralFault, on 01/14/2008, -7/+24Except for the Iranians. He would bomb them.
- gregdigg, on 01/14/2008, -2/+4No, he bombs them so they can rest in his arms for eternity. That's what Jesus does, he holds dead people in his arms for eternity.
- GeneralFault, on 01/14/2008, -2/+2eeeewww, gross. Even the ones that got splattered?
- gregdigg, on 01/14/2008, -2/+4No, he bombs them so they can rest in his arms for eternity. That's what Jesus does, he holds dead people in his arms for eternity.
- EarlOfLade, on 01/14/2008, -17/+8Well, since Jesus never existed in real life, I doubt it!
- Dax420, on 01/14/2008, -8/+4He probably did. The only difference between Jesus and David Koresh is 2000 years later we are still drinking Jesus's Koolaid.
- EarlOfLade, on 01/14/2008, -5/+5No, he most likely never existed and to all the ones digging me down, why don't you produce some extraiblical evidence to support a real life jesus? Oh that's right, no such thing exists!
- ordig, on 01/15/2008, -0/+1Jonestown was actually the kool-aid incident. Just saying...
I lol'd anyway
- Groovemaster, on 01/14/2008, -3/+4I agree. There were dozens and dozens of stories about similar man-gods around the time that "Jesus" supposedly existed.
I find it highly unlikely that he was anything other than the subject of one such fairytale.
- Dax420, on 01/14/2008, -8/+4He probably did. The only difference between Jesus and David Koresh is 2000 years later we are still drinking Jesus's Koolaid.
- Hollow5, on 01/14/2008, -4/+5does he loves jews ?
- SteveMax, on 01/14/2008, -3/+5Of course he does! Not loving them would make him a nazi, and Jesus cannot possibly be nazi! He only hates the Iranians. And the North Koreans. And the Palestinians. And the Syrians. And whoever else his Great Prophet says is a part of the axis of evil.
- Hollow5, on 01/15/2008, -0/+1aight coo
- SteveMax, on 01/14/2008, -3/+5Of course he does! Not loving them would make him a nazi, and Jesus cannot possibly be nazi! He only hates the Iranians. And the North Koreans. And the Palestinians. And the Syrians. And whoever else his Great Prophet says is a part of the axis of evil.
- tyywebb, on 01/14/2008, -5/+4Check her other comments I don't think she was being sarcastic guys.
- thejwac, on 01/14/2008, -1/+8Who cares? There seems to be some mass delusion (not religion) that getting every one to realize the rational argument we present would make the world a noticeably better place.
The evil which resides within humanity has no god and fears no science. Wars would still happen and innocent people would still be exploited and killed.
- thejwac, on 01/14/2008, -1/+8Who cares? There seems to be some mass delusion (not religion) that getting every one to realize the rational argument we present would make the world a noticeably better place.
- Ghiren, on 01/14/2008, -1/+13Jesus, I don't mind so much... his fan club is waaaay over the top though. They're the ones that are a little crazy.
- blackjack75, on 01/14/2008, -11/+8Jesus was a man. And when a man says he loves you, he intends to ***** you.
- r3negadeX, on 08/11/2008, -4/+5Jesus loves us anyway!
....but he's still sending us to hell!- madm0nk, on 01/15/2008, -2/+1The funny thing is .... nowhere in the bible does it say anything about being in everlasting torment, and sitting a pit of fire being poked at by a laughing demon or any of the other depictions of "hell". And where in the bible (in the earliest translations not some goofy ***** up new misleading translation) is the word 'hell' even written?
- r3negadeX, on 08/11/2008, -1/+1OK..."lake of fire" if you're into technicalities...
- madm0nk, on 01/15/2008, -1/+1That is in revelations and it has nothing to do with eternal punishment for being non-christian, sins, etc.
- csw1342, on 01/15/2008, -1/+0could be wrong but wasnt revelations added to the bible some 600 + years after council of Nicea?? Or does historical accuracy fall out of the criticism as well
- r3negadeX, on 08/11/2008, -1/+1OK..."lake of fire" if you're into technicalities...
- madm0nk, on 01/15/2008, -2/+1The funny thing is .... nowhere in the bible does it say anything about being in everlasting torment, and sitting a pit of fire being poked at by a laughing demon or any of the other depictions of "hell". And where in the bible (in the earliest translations not some goofy ***** up new misleading translation) is the word 'hell' even written?
- burnin8r28, on 01/15/2008, -3/+2amen!
- meruru, on 01/14/2008, -9/+16I like how the "unknown" section has the sources for all the quotes.
- Ozzimo, on 01/15/2008, -0/+1Well as you probebly know, you couldn't be a "outted" Athiest until maybe the 1700's without major action against you. This way at least the quote gets out there.
- ashwinmudigonda, on 01/14/2008, -14/+3Great, but for some of the fake photos.
- aralls, on 01/14/2008, -24/+3050 atheist bumper stickers:
http://www.cafemom.com/journals/read.php?post_id=6 ...- Haiz, on 01/14/2008, -7/+2Some of those were pretty funny, but a lot were outright assholeish.
- GeneralFault, on 01/14/2008, -2/+2"So you use arrogance to cancel guilt?"
"It's a good system."
Dilbert and Dogbert - Jan 11 2008- Speed, on 01/14/2008, -0/+1The Jan 11 comic was Dilbert and PHB arguing about the feasibility of a design.
- GeneralFault, on 01/14/2008, -0/+1Unless you got a different calendar for xmas (atheists still get xmas presents), then check again.
- GeneralFault, on 01/14/2008, -0/+1Unless you got a different calendar for xmas (atheists still get xmas presents), then check again.
- Speed, on 01/14/2008, -0/+1The Jan 11 comic was Dilbert and PHB arguing about the feasibility of a design.
- bejayel, on 01/14/2008, -0/+4which made them even more funny
- GeneralFault, on 01/14/2008, -2/+2"So you use arrogance to cancel guilt?"
- digichris, on 01/14/2008, -0/+846. Oh, Look, Honey Another Pro-lifer For War.
That's great. - Grolsch, on 01/14/2008, -2/+2I wouldnt get this bumer sticker or t-shirt......
"34. ALL Americans Are African Americans."- rootneg2, on 01/15/2008, -0/+2does that mean i can use the N-word now?
- KYLIEISNEET0, on 01/15/2008, -2/+4Too Stupid to Understand Science? Try Religion. YES, thankyou :D
- EviLiu, on 01/15/2008, -0/+1Great link!
- thephosphorbox, on 01/15/2008, -0/+218. GOD. - APPLY DIRECTLY TO FOREHEAD!
LOL I hate that damn commercial.. but I love the bumper sticker! - aakoch, on 01/17/2008, -0/+1Link doesn't work anymore. :(
- Haiz, on 01/14/2008, -7/+2Some of those were pretty funny, but a lot were outright assholeish.
- ScottyDontKnow, on 01/14/2008, -24/+36" Last generations Religion is this generation literary entertainment"
- from "the god delusion - Richard Dawkings"- aralls, on 01/14/2008, -3/+4Dawkins is actually quoting Emerson, IIRC. Great line.
- haxorjoe, on 01/14/2008, -5/+6I'm currently reading that book actually. Another quote that was in the book (but not by Dawkings)
"‘When one person suffers from a delusion, it is called insanity. When many people suffer from a delusion it is called Religion." - Robert M. Pirsig- empiric, on 01/15/2008, -0/+0But then he said much the same thing about the "ghost" of Western "reason". And, if you read ZMM, and accusation of "insanity" would seem rather hypocritical, given Phaedrus.
I'm actually going to call ***** on this quote. Being pretty familiar with Pirsig's works, I'd like to see a citation that says specifically what and where.- betterth, on 01/15/2008, -0/+1"I am inclined to follow Robert M. Pirsig, author of Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance: 'When one person suffers from a delusion, it is called insanity. When many people suffer from a delusion it is called Religion.'" - The God Delusion, pg 28 (Softcover)
I don't have my copy of Zen and the Art of MM handy to source the quote and context though. This may help you some, though.
- betterth, on 01/15/2008, -0/+1"I am inclined to follow Robert M. Pirsig, author of Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance: 'When one person suffers from a delusion, it is called insanity. When many people suffer from a delusion it is called Religion.'" - The God Delusion, pg 28 (Softcover)
- empiric, on 01/15/2008, -0/+0But then he said much the same thing about the "ghost" of Western "reason". And, if you read ZMM, and accusation of "insanity" would seem rather hypocritical, given Phaedrus.
- TxAggie08, on 01/14/2008, -5/+3God in the Equation is a much better book.
- aaabatteries, on 01/14/2008, -26/+426"I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ." -Mahatma Gandhi
Amen.- skeen07, on 01/14/2008, -28/+3I don't get it. They're real? They exist?
- electrohome, on 01/14/2008, -34/+10That's pretty hypocritical of you.
You will bash Christians for being judgmental, then you go ahead and judge us on something you don't believe in.- aaabatteries, on 01/14/2008, -1/+29nope. I am a Christian.
- gudnbluts, on 01/14/2008, -10/+0Heh heh heh. Nice.
- madm0nk, on 01/15/2008, -0/+3http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/assumption
- aaabatteries, on 01/14/2008, -1/+29nope. I am a Christian.
- Shawn4168, on 01/14/2008, -13/+52The sad thing is that so many people simply ignore the first sentence of that quote. Just because you hate the followers of Christ is not a good reason to not believe in Christ yourself. As a Christian, I agree that the vast, vast, majority of us are very much unlike Christ. And I hate hearing some of the things that I do from some Christians. But that's no reason to hate Christ himself. He didn't do anything wrong. We did.
- rotundo, on 01/15/2008, -1/+5But you're confusing believing in Christ with believing he was god. I don't deny that he was an amazing, forward thinking philosopher of his day. I would even say I am "Christian" in the sense that I appreciate most of his humanitarian values. But I don't think he was god. And I am an atheist.
Even so, I know that most Christians are good folks. It's the ones who get too into it that are trouble. Which is true of most anything. - mdmadph, on 01/15/2008, -3/+3He didn't do anything wrong? Well, I heard he could be a bit of a potty mouth.
- rotundo, on 01/15/2008, -1/+5But you're confusing believing in Christ with believing he was god. I don't deny that he was an amazing, forward thinking philosopher of his day. I would even say I am "Christian" in the sense that I appreciate most of his humanitarian values. But I don't think he was god. And I am an atheist.
- sadilak, on 01/14/2008, -9/+3True. Considering the fact that Christ thrived on simplicity, the pope is decked from top to the bottom. Religion is just a means of making money. If I had around 50 million dollars, I would probably go to a poor/3rd world country and start a religion called Diggism with my own crazy random ideas. Religion is the root of all evil( In addition to George Bush and Dick Cheney)
- avengingturnip, on 01/14/2008, -1/+3I guess I need to call all theoe religious who have taken vows of poverty on their greed. That life of labor, prayer, and self-denial is simple hypocrisy according to a bunch of pimply faced nerds sitting at their computers burping up Frito flavoring.
- chocolatetacos, on 01/14/2008, -2/+5Human nature is the root of all evil.
- ryan83189, on 01/14/2008, -1/+1Ill go; but im not drinking the koolaid.
- Buddhaismybuddy, on 01/15/2008, -0/+1Money is the root of all evil.
- iucraigmc, on 01/14/2008, -7/+16This is a good quote, it points out the reality of Christians. We aren't anything like Christ. Christ tells us that himself. We don't deserve to be saved, we are wretches. Mahatma's perception of Christians is exact, but whether he realized it or not, that is what is defined as part of being Christian and a human being. Christ saves us despite our human weakness, this is why we need him. I hate to say it, but he doesn't necessarily make us good people, but he definitely puts pressures in our lives to try to be more Christ like.
- proseandpromise, on 01/14/2008, -1/+12The problem mostly is that we see Christ as savior, but not Lord. If we really sought, with, say the tenacity of Eastern Monks (or Christian monks for that matter) to be like Christ, I think it would be at least closer to possible. We'll never be perfect, but our lives and our priorities could certainly reflect more closely those of He who his followers called "teacher."
- AnarkeIncarnate, on 01/15/2008, -1/+3The problem is, being a ***** and thinking