Subscribe to Listverse
Following our list of quotes from St Thomas Aquinas, this is the second in our series of famous quotes from great atheists and great religious minds. Here are 15 quotes from some of the greatest atheist minds in history.
Quotes 1 – 5
1. Creationists make it sound like a ‘theory’ is something you dreamt up after being drunk all night — Isaac Asimov
2. I don’t believe in God. My god is patriotism. Teach a man to be a good citizen and you have solved the problem of life. — Andrew Carnegie
3. All thinking men are atheists. — Ernest Hemingway
4. Lighthouses are more helpful then churches. — Benjamin Franklin
5. Faith means not wanting to know what is true. — Friedrich Nietzsche
Quotes 6 – 10
6. The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one. — George Bernard Shaw
7. Say what you will about the sweet miracle of unquestioning faith, I consider a capacity for it terrifying and absolutely vile. — Kurt Vonnegut
8. I believe in God, only I spell it Nature. — Frank Lloyd Wright
9. Man will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest. — Denis Diderot
10. A man is accepted into a church for what he believes and he is turned out for what he knows. — Samuel Clemens
Quotes 11 – 15
11. The whole thing is so patently infantile, so foreign to reality, that to anyone with a friendly attitude to humanity it is painful to think that the great majority of mortals will never be able to rise above this view of life. — Sigmund Freud
12. Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful. — Edward Gibbon
13. The church says the earth is flat, but I know that it is round, for I have seen the shadow on the moon, and I have more faith in a shadow than in the church. — Ferdinand Magellan
14. Not only is there no god, but try getting a plumber on weekends. — Woody Allen
15. It’s an incredible con job when you think about it, to believe something now in exchange for something after death. Even corporations with their reward systems don’t try to make it posthumous. — Gloria Steinem
December 7th, 2007 at 9:19 am
Good timing with the release of “The Golden Compass.” I don’t think the series is so much atheistic as it is just intelligently written.
December 7th, 2007 at 9:20 am
This topic is excitement waiting to happen. Good Job!
December 7th, 2007 at 9:23 am
wow, number 9 is pretty heavy! another great list though. great to see both sides of the arguments in brilliant and witty quotes. thank you!
December 7th, 2007 at 9:25 am
“If rascals knew how much money could be made in being righteous, they would be righteous out of plain rascality!” – Mark Twain
Dont know if he was an atheist, but I have always held this quote near my heart. and it seemed to parallel the topic.
December 7th, 2007 at 9:29 am
I find it somewhat interesting that the list of quotes from Thomas Aquinas is composed of introspective musings on the nature of man, theology, love, and faith; and then the list you have posted of quotes from famous atheists is nothing but derogatory polemics.
I find it odd as well that in compiling quotes from Aquinas, you’ve neglected to mention his versions of the classic arguments for the existence of God.
I think both lists could use some work, if you’re trying to have more than a couple of lists of two groups hurling insults at each other. The list on Aquinas had some good stuff, but I would open it up on the religious side to all great religious thinkers. And let the atheists have a little better representation…I mean seriously…Woody Allen? One of the greatest atheist minds in history?…That’s just sad.
December 7th, 2007 at 9:32 am
These are all great – fab list!
December 7th, 2007 at 9:33 am
Awesome list (Diderot!), although Ben Franklin was not an atheist, he was more of a deist who believed in a higher power but disregarded the superstition of organized religion. Also, Samuel Clemens (Mark Twain) although very clever and a man of great observational commentary particularly in regards to religion vs. faith was also not an atheist. Both men had similar opinions about organized religion, and it would be very easy to assume they are atheist, but they both had a favorable attitude towards the concept of faith in a higher power as written in some of their memoirs and biographies. They both felt that faith was a healthy part of the human condition, but thought that organized churches were somewhat exploiting the purpose of faith and restricting people’s ability to explore the tenets philosophies of their faith on their own. P.S. This site kicks ass.
December 7th, 2007 at 9:36 am
I have to take issue with the inclusion of some of these individuals and their quotes on this list, and also have a few comments to make:
A) We see why Ernest Hemingway was no great intellectual (I personally detest much of his work—though I acknowledge the greatness of some of his short stories) with his childishly overstated stance that “all thinking men are atheists.” Ridiculous. Hemingway would therefore have us believe that none of the great intellects–who were clearly believers, from the beginnings of Christianity right up through the Renaissance–were not “thinking men.” Okay, “Papa.” Go tell that to St. Thomas Aquinas, to Peter Abelard, to St. Francis, to St. Augustine, to Thomas More. Of course, Hemingway might have been referring only to our own times—modernity—in which case his statement would be slightly more accurate… but then he should have qualified it. Typical sloppy and solipsistic words from our old friend, the Great Overblown and Overesteemed American Blowhard of the 20th Century.
B) I don’t think it’s quite right to characterize Nietzsche as an atheist; he was anti-Christian, yes—he called it the religion of slaves—but he was interested in his notions of a hero-centered pagan faith (culminating in his views on the Superman). The pegging of Nietzsche as an atheist comes largely from his famous “God is dead” statement—but I believe there he was referring to the death of the Christian god—Christianity having really, in an intellectual sense, died out with the coming of the Enlightenment—and all the philosophical trappings that had grown up around “God” as a concept in the previous 2000 years. In any sense, it’s safe to presume that Nietzsche would have been okay with replacing the Judeo-Christian God with one more to his liking, one more in line with his philosophy.
C) I agree wholeheartedly with Vonnegut.
D) Frank Lloyd Wright clearly says that he believes in god–only he calls it nature. This is not strictly atheism, if Wright believed in any kind of consciousness within nature.
E) Diderot’s quote–while one sympathizes somewhat with the sentiment–also tends to give me the shivers. It presages the bloodshed of the Revolutionary period in France, and makes me wonder–why do some feel it so necessary to kill *people* in order to kill an old idea?
F) Magellan’s quote addresses the *Church*—not god as a concept or a belief. I doubt that Magellan, given his time and background, was an atheist.
G) Steinem raises a good point about one of the main problems regarding modern religion. It focuses on an afterlife reward/punishment system, rather than the fulfillment and betterment of the life we live now.
I’ll offer a quote of my own: Religion does more harm than good, faith should always be part intellectual, part spirit, part poetry… and the relationship one forms with god or the universe or nature or whatever you wish to call it—should be a personal one–not fostered upon others. Proselytization is an obsolete practice.
December 7th, 2007 at 9:37 am
My new favorite list.
Many great quotes from many great people, what’s not to love?
December 7th, 2007 at 9:44 am
a great list i agree with all the quotes as a massive atheist
December 7th, 2007 at 9:47 am
I absolutely love #13!! I think we all know how that one turned. Perhaps the only thing everyone will agree on – scratch that. People will fight over anything if it means they don’t have to get back to work!! – lol.
December 7th, 2007 at 9:52 am
For “God’s” sake Randall its just a list! Really Good one though! I liked the last few.
December 7th, 2007 at 9:53 am
Aardy , the list’s title does not claim that these are the greatest atheist minds in history?
The list is about famous atheist that happens to say something intriguing or interesting.
There is a difference. And I have faith in the “The List Universe ” that this is true.
December 7th, 2007 at 9:54 am
Frank Lloyd Wright’s quote is also not atheistic. There are many sects of faith that revere nature as their higher power, such as taoism, wicca, parts of buddhism and other relgions of native/aboriginal peoples in just about every habitable continent.
December 7th, 2007 at 10:01 am
when i joined the military we were required to list an approved religion. ordered to by our “superiors”. much as in the past,if you did not profess to the religion of the area you would be tarred or put to sea or driven into the wilderness. check into why many people came over. now some insist those folks were religious.
December 7th, 2007 at 10:03 am
Sorry, I just read the discription under the title but I still have faith.
December 7th, 2007 at 10:15 am
I would have to agree with Aardy–the first list had very little quotes on it concerning God in general, but these all do. I would have preferred it to have been more similar to the first list, with quotes regarding other aspects of the world and not just “God does not exist and everyone who thinks so is a damn fool.” (paraphrased, lol) but there are still some really good quotes here, and I am also glad to see another list of quotes anyway! As I have said before, I love them. =)
December 7th, 2007 at 10:17 am
This is more anti-Christian/church than anti-existance-of-God. The christian explanation/concept of God is not the only one out there.Also correct me if im wrong. Jesus never said the earth is flat. That was prolly said by those evil powerdrunk popes, right?
December 7th, 2007 at 10:28 am
Shabab: no, Jesus never said the earth is flat. Neither does the Bible (unless you take a metaphorical passage about being able to see the 4 corners of the world as “proof”). But, then, the Bible never says anything about the Rapture or the earth being 6000 years old or Jesus being born in December, either. That would be a great list: 10 things the Bible doesn’t really say, but that people think it does. Anyways, strong Christian here, I just hate having to chip away the stuff added to the Bible by people in the last 2000 years.
December 7th, 2007 at 10:34 am
I don’t know if he was an atheist, but I’ve got a nice Voltaire quote in my sig file:
“The atheist preserves his reason, which checks his propensity to mischief, while the fanatic is under the influence of a madness which is constantly urging him on.”
December 7th, 2007 at 10:35 am
What’s the last thing the parachuting atheist said when his rip cord did’t work?… “Oh God!”
December 7th, 2007 at 10:47 am
CRE, you don’t like the stuff added to the bible in the last 2000 years? That’s the entire new testament!
The 6000 yo Earth theory is from addition done from the bible.
December 7th, 2007 at 10:48 am
I have to say I agree with #11 and #12
December 7th, 2007 at 10:56 am
Harsha, there are no small lists… just small list readers.
December 7th, 2007 at 10:59 am
Shabab: frankly, the powerdrunk popes are no worse than the murderous teachings of many Islamic leaders old and new.
December 7th, 2007 at 11:02 am
oh – and I really didn’t expect this list to cause so much ire!
December 7th, 2007 at 11:04 am
“A casual stroll through a lunatic asylum shows that faith proves nothing.” – Nietzsche
“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.” – Stephen Roberts
“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
Great list jfrater. I love Woody Allen! Although calling him one of the great atheist minds in history is a bit hyperbolic
especially when you could have included stuff by Dawkins, Sagan, Russell etc
BTW you should do a list of Woody Allen’s best quotes. I have a book of his various writings called Without Feathers and it’s literally the funniest book I have ever read.
I’d also like to note that Hemingway, though an open atheist, never actually said that quote in #3. It’s spoken by the main character in A Farewell to Arms.
December 7th, 2007 at 11:10 am
Freud calling something infantile and foreign to reality is laughable.
And even as a Christian, I’d have to agree with #4 and #10 on a sadly large scale.
December 7th, 2007 at 11:43 am
Great list, inappropriate title. These are not all athiests. It is a dangerous thing to label one who does not believe or agree with the church (really, your church) an athiest. Deists, like Franklin, believe in a God even if that God is so perfect that micromanagement of Creation is not needed. Others find their own paths of worship that do not involve established churches (to the chagrin of most governments). Please change the title.
December 7th, 2007 at 11:44 am
Actually, the church really never taught that the earth is flat – this is a pejorative lie was admitted to and created by historian A.D. White to get back at Christians who criticized his plans for Cornell.
And, it has been repeated by anti-god atheists and secularists ever since.
See The biblical origins of science
December 7th, 2007 at 11:55 am
“I find it somewhat interesting that the list of quotes from Thomas Aquinas is composed of introspective musings on the nature of man, theology, love, and faith; and then the list you have posted of quotes from famous atheists is nothing but derogatory polemics.”
YOU READ MY MIND. *APPLAUDS* THANK YOU!
Also, Freud was a joke. 95% of the human race of his time (quoting from dim memory) believed in God (personal or not), and yet he called them all infantile. Way to be superior, dude. Get back up on your high horse.
As for Vonnegut, I just finished ‘Cat’s Cradle’, in which he expounds on the fictional Bokononism, a ‘religion based on lies to make people happy’. I don’t see what’s so vile and ridiculous about being happy. Why do all these ‘great thinkers’ have such an aversion to it? Are they so desperate to be miserable? If you’re going to be an atheist, don’t let your motivation be a mistaken impression that faithful happiness is impossible.
December 7th, 2007 at 12:00 pm
Just registered! Yay! About time.
Also, I agree somewhat with Black Lutefisk. My suggested new title: Top 15 Quotes From People Who Really Don’t Like Organized Religion.
Alternate suggestion: Top 15 Quotes From Dawgs Who Just Don’t Dig It, Yo.
December 7th, 2007 at 12:09 pm
I like the Dawgs one. How about “Top 15 Anti-Church Quotations” or “Top 15 Challenges to Traditional Religion”? To be clear: these are essentially arguments against the existance of established churches, not God.
December 7th, 2007 at 12:12 pm
I mean established religions, not just churches.
December 7th, 2007 at 12:13 pm
To create such a list and omit Carl Sagan and is monumental failure of this list.
“Once we overcome our fear of being tiny, we find ourselves on the threshold of a vast and awesome Universe that utterly dwarfs — in time, in space, and in potential — the tidy anthropocentric proscenium of our ancestors.”
-Carl Sagan-
December 7th, 2007 at 12:15 pm
Actually, now that I reread it, a good title would be ‘Top 14 Anti-Religious Quotations, and 1 from Woody Allen’. (#14 made me roffle)
And also, I disagree. A few of the quotes (#3, #8, and #14) are atheistic challenges. Though now that you mention it, yes, this list is definitely less about atheism and more about anti-religion.
I hate to say it, jfrater, but I think you dropped the ball on this one. I’d guess that the problem was that you tried to go too general (as opposed to the St. Aquinas one, which was a specific person).
December 7th, 2007 at 12:34 pm
Well guys – you all dislike the quotes I presented – how about giving ones you think are more apt? Obviously I failed at finding ones that Atheists are happy to be represented by – so show us what you want to be represented by
That way everyone wins! And we all like that 
December 7th, 2007 at 12:34 pm
Benjamin Franklin was not an atheist. He turned away from organized religion, but not faith in a higher power.
December 7th, 2007 at 12:35 pm
Oh – and JT – I will definitely do a Woody Allen list. Maybe you could whip up a Best Woody Allen films one too?
December 7th, 2007 at 12:58 pm
9. Man will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest. — Denis Diderot
12. Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful. — Seneca the Younger
of this list, these are 2 of my all time fav quotes..whether indicated as atheist or not.
each having to do more w/ government/politics than religion/faith. which has always been a major sore point w/ me as regards religion. how religion is perverted to serve the hidden agendas of the political powers that be.
as one who’s grown weary of the term ‘atheist’ since its become so damned fashionable of late, i prefer nontheist or no label at all.
its real simple. there is no god. period.
but i was raised Baptist. attended Catholic mass routinely as a child. had Muslim roomies at college. have also spent most of my life on a ’spiritual quest’ via much study and yes, prayer. to the point that i finally realized…there is no god. (the fact it coincided w/ this atheist fad irks me to no end..took me 50 years to get to this point damnit!)
that said…i do understand how someone who is not an atheist and is extremely well schooled in a particular faith would have difficulty in selecting specific atheist quotes that show a broader range of perspective.
still…i am listverse addict. i have a profound appreciation for what J does here. and i applaud this effort to showcase this genre of quotes.
it would be interesting for a real atheist to come up w/ a more wide ranging set of quotes though.
and no, t’ain’t me. cuz i’ve tried to come up lists and wind up drowning in the details.
so that’d be a challenge to one our fellow listers.
December 7th, 2007 at 1:48 pm
JFrater: This is a great list. You did not drop the ball on the content/quality of the list (Carl Sagan would be a good addition, I agree). What is wrong is the title. I don’t know technically if it is difficult to do that. But it should be done. How about “Top 15 Quotations that Question/Challenge Faith”
December 7th, 2007 at 2:04 pm
Cyn: I prefer the term “secular humanist”.
jfrater: I’ll see if I can come up with some good additional quotes for this topic.
December 7th, 2007 at 2:10 pm
Black Lutefisk: thanks
I appreciate the support 
I am clearly going to have to extend this atheism/religion series further 
December 7th, 2007 at 2:14 pm
Merry Christmas
December 7th, 2007 at 2:23 pm
BL reminded me to clarify: When I said that jfrater ‘dropped the ball’, I mean that he failed to provide a proper counterpoint to the St. Aquinas list. He presented a thinking, reasonable, and articulate religious intellectual, followed by a list of mostly-typical and -polemic drivel. If I were an atheist, I’m sure I’d be insulted.
Not being one, I can’t suggest any other appropriate quotes, but I _do_ suggest you make your next counterpoint a list of quotes by a specific person (Carl Sagan seems popular).
December 7th, 2007 at 2:26 pm
All I can say is … Amen
December 7th, 2007 at 2:42 pm
“I believe in only me, and what i can do”
famous samurai line, not sure exactly who said it through, but i think that would fit here
December 7th, 2007 at 2:51 pm
I think the problem is that atheism is not the opposite of Christianity, it is the opposite of theism. In other words, atheism does not count as a philosophy, merely a belief (or lack of) in a supernatural deity – no further. Atheism is divided into various philosophies, the same way theism is divided into different denominations or religions. The most popular atheistic philosophy is secular humanism.
A good example of some secular humanist quotes can be found here (not all the people here are secular humanists, but the quotes are thought to have meaning to secular humanists):
http://www.humanismbyjoe.com/humanism_quotes.htm
A few examples include:
“There is not sufficient love and goodness in the world to permit us to give some of it away to imaginary beings.” – Friedrich Nietzsche
“Man is the measure of all things.” – Protagoras
Both promote the central thesis of secular humanism which is finding the meaning of life purely on human terms.
December 7th, 2007 at 3:00 pm
no 4 …
Benjamin Franklin actually said that …
hehe …. i thought he was too busy discovering electricity and stuff …
December 7th, 2007 at 3:07 pm
There is an excellent site called Positive Atheism which has a very extensive list of quotations at the following address: http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/quotes/qframe.htm
December 7th, 2007 at 3:08 pm
JT: that is a very good observation – and perhaps the root of the problem for me with this list – I have not really studied atheism enough to know the subtleties of it. Why not write my second atheist list for me (after you do Woody Allen)
Carrie: do please!
December 7th, 2007 at 3:09 pm
Franklin, a noted deist, also said the following:
“ God governs in the affairs of man. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid? We have been assured in the Sacred Writings that except the Lord build the house, they labor in vain that build it. I firmly believe this. I also believe that, without His concurring aid, we shall succeed in this political building no better than the builders of Babel” –Constitutional Convention of 1787 | original manuscript of this speech
“In the beginning of the contest with Britain, when we were sensible of danger, we had daily prayers in this room for Divine protection. Our prayers, Sir, were heard, and they were graciously answered… do we imagine we no longer need His assistance?” [Constitutional Convention, Thursday June 28, 1787]
In Benjamin Franklin’s 1749 plan of education for public schools in Pennsylvania, he insisted that schools teach “the excellency of the Christian religion above all others, ancient or modern.”
In 1787 when Franklin helped found Benjamin Franklin University, it was dedicated as “a nursery of religion and learning, built on Christ, the Cornerstone.”
December 7th, 2007 at 3:46 pm
“If I were an atheist, I’m sure I’d be insulted.”
-FekketCantenel
===================================================
That was basically my point. As a non-atheist myself, I feel, that to believe this was the pinnacle of atheistic thought would be to create a straw man characterization of those who disagree with me.
However.
I do think a polemics list could be fun from the religious side as well. Basically what people have said about God, the Bible, or faith from a religious perspective. (I include the Bible simply because, lets face it…Most apologetic thought and debate seems to focus on Christianity.
A fun starter quote would be:
“When the French monarch proposed the persecution of Christians in his dominion, an old statesman and warrior said to him, ‘Sire, the church of God is an anvil that has worn out many hammers.’ So the hammers of infidels have been pecking away at this book for ages, but the hammers are worn out, and the anvil still endures. If this book had not been the book of God, men would have destroyed it long ago. Emperors and popes, kings and priests, princes and rulers have all tried their hand at it; they die and the book still lives.”
-H.L. Hastings
December 7th, 2007 at 4:12 pm
Carrie..’secular humanist’
…er…no offense but probably from my being in the ‘Bible Belt’ where that particular term has been beat to death…it just makes me shudder. also, i take issue w/ labels as a whole. and yes, i know, its a hella lot more convenient to just say, ‘i’m an atheist’ than to go on about knowing there is no god. it is complicated issue ill served by what to me is a too simplistic label.
December 7th, 2007 at 4:30 pm
Why do athiest get so offended at stupid stuff. Some are just as bad as bible thumpers.
December 7th, 2007 at 4:33 pm
Cyn: No offense taken! It’s funny, but here in California I don’t hear that term very often.
For anyone else who wants to know more about it go to http://www.secularhumanism.org/
December 7th, 2007 at 4:49 pm
I love it! Some are callous, some funny, some so very true. Sometimes I feel like the only atheist in the world. It’s good to know other people feel the same way I do.
December 7th, 2007 at 5:35 pm
“My mind is incapable of conceiving such a thing as a soul. I may be in error, and man may have a soul; but I simply do not believe it.”
– Thomas Edison
“It is, I think, an error to believe that there is any need of religion to make life seem worth living.”
– Sinclair Lewis
December 7th, 2007 at 5:43 pm
Here are two more quotes…
“My mind is incapable of conceiving such a thing as a soul. I may be in error, and man may have a soul; but I simply do not believe it.”
– Thomas Edison
“It is, I think, an error to believe that there is any need of religion to make life seem worth living.”
– Sinclair Lewis
December 7th, 2007 at 5:51 pm
Randall, will you marry me??
Just kidding, but you gotta love a person who is not afraid of using what they got between their ears…
December 7th, 2007 at 6:00 pm
Sorry about the double post. The first one wasn’t showing up so I tried again. Darnit.
December 7th, 2007 at 6:31 pm
Craig:
Hate to break it to you, but Mark Train *is* Samuel Clemens. Clemens wrote most of his books under the name “Mark Twain”.
December 7th, 2007 at 6:35 pm
Bill is right – I put Samuel Clemens presuming everyone knew e was “Mark Twain”. Twain was the nom de plume.
Carrie: ’tis okay – no one minds
Juggz: I did kinda feel that some of these quotes showed that too.
December 7th, 2007 at 7:19 pm
I think that when it comes to both groups (yes-God/no-God) you get your nice, friendly, you-go-your-way-I’ll-go-mine kind of people …
… And then, sometimes, you get the scary ones! As an Agnostic (or, too lazy to figure out what the “higher power” is) I prefer hanging out with the friendlier ones, but I think that goes without saying
.
Interesting sorta/kinda/maybe Atheist quote list. I love looking up random quotes, and this site makes it so much easier for me to do so!
December 7th, 2007 at 7:39 pm
I am Atheist, thank’s god !
December 7th, 2007 at 7:41 pm
These list are quite interesting.
Ferdinand Magelland do not have much faith in the church yet he used sword and cross in his conquest. He even gave an statue of Holy Child of Prague(Santo Nino de Praga)as a gift to a local queen in Philippine Islands when they embraced Christianity.
December 7th, 2007 at 8:31 pm
@Craig
Mark Twain was the pen name of Samuel Clemens, who appears on the list above.
December 7th, 2007 at 9:44 pm
It would be interesting to know the last thoughts or words of atheists on their death beds.
A wise friend of mine once shared the following with me in defining an atheist. Looking at the word itself we find that there are two crosses represented by the t’s and the words between the crosses tell us that He is.
December 7th, 2007 at 9:44 pm
Randall: Nietzsche was an atheist of the highest order. His oversimplified “God is dead.” quote has to be placed in its proper context. Nietzsche said God is dead because man created the (fictional) God and man’s reason later killed it off.
Also, I’m surprised I haven’t seen anyone post, “Prove god doesn’t exist!” on here which is akin to saying, “Prove flying rainbow colored unicorns aren’t real!”
December 7th, 2007 at 10:22 pm
I’m not sure who wrote this (possibly a character in a Dostoyevsky novel?), but it appears relevant enough to ad to your list, “The only reason man invented god, was to to stop from killing himself.”
December 7th, 2007 at 11:15 pm
“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.” –Stephen Roberts
December 7th, 2007 at 11:21 pm
I really like this list, but it was more against organized religion than god itself. Even as an atheist, I recognize this distinction, for I have little quarrel with Deists, but a war with theists. With Deists, I think, it is only, like atheism, a philosophical position in the area of metaphysics, but Theists begin telling us how we should live according to a barbaric book of death sentences for premarital sex and child disobedience. Jesus may have been a good man if he existed, but I do not like very many of his friends.
Anyway, I think, if a list were formed attacking specifically organized religion, one could even include Tolstoy: “Could it be that all this talk of love, goodness, God, religion, law, justice, and so on, was merely to conceal the grossest self-interest and cruelty?” ~ Resurrection pg. 387.
David Hume (Philosopher): “It is certain, that, in every religion, however sublime the verbal definition which it gives of its divinity, many of the votaries, perhaps the greatest number, will still seek the divine favor, not by virtue and good morals, which alone can be acceptable to a perfect being, but either by frivolous observances, by intemperate zeal, by rapturous extasies, or by the belief of mysterious and absurd opinions.”
December 8th, 2007 at 12:14 am
I was an atheist, till i realized i was god
December 8th, 2007 at 2:02 am
Anthony Burgess said:” God has failed humans by not existing”.
December 8th, 2007 at 3:44 am
Funny, the quotes comment on believers or belief, not on whether or not God exists.
From these quotes I’d say these men are non-believers, not atheists per sé.
Mattijs
December 8th, 2007 at 3:52 am
FYI: You have misattributed quote #12. It was actually Edward Gibbon who wrote it in chapter 2 of “The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire”.
http://tinyurl.com/2pq33q
That should link to a Google Books highlighting of the passage.
December 8th, 2007 at 5:40 am
Adam: Thanks – I have now corrected that.
December 8th, 2007 at 8:43 am
Let’s see… all negative, all hostile, all pretentious, all the time. That’s what atheism offers in response to Christianity? No thanks.
Of course there have been moments and movements of irresponsibility, apostasy, and embarrassment in the church. That’s why there are so many denominations after all — people encountered problems in the church, tried to lobby for change but ended up saying “Enough. We’re out of here.”
To suggest that the church and/or Christians hasn’t done much of value for humanity is patently absurd. Let me know if you’d like a list.
December 8th, 2007 at 9:46 am
You forgot Julia Sweeney (formerly of Saturday Night Live) She had a great one. She said,..”It’s because I take God so seriously that I can’t bring myself to believe in him.” Although this list is still very good.
December 8th, 2007 at 10:00 am
“Let’s see… all negative, all hostile, all pretentious, all the time. That’s what atheism offers in response to Christianity? No thanks.”
You are welcome…
December 8th, 2007 at 10:17 am
Every abused altar boy, every tortured Jew, every midwife with property burned at the stake, every South Afican denied medicine and food until they convert, every child drowned because his mother said god told her to, every Mormon child bride, every war America has been involved in–Doug, the list goes on and on. Provide yours, the big-brained atheist list is longer, and more compelling. But I am betting yours has top entertainment value, so it won’t be a total loss.
December 8th, 2007 at 11:03 am
Wow. I don’t usually comment, but I felt the need today. People are nit-picky as hell! Personally, I found the list to be interesting and entertaining; what it is SUPPOSED to be, after all.
and here’s a couple of quotes for you…
“Religious distress is at the same time the expression of real distress and the protest against real distress. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, just as it is the spirit of a spiritless situation. It is the opium of the people. The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is required for their real happiness. The demand to give up the illusion about its condition is the demand to give up a condition which needs illusions.”
Karl Marx, Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right
and for you NIN fans…
“God is dead, and no one cares. If there is a hell, I’ll see you there.” Trent Reznor
December 8th, 2007 at 11:34 am
Amen!
Religion stops a thinking mind.
December 8th, 2007 at 11:37 am
Everytime I think of religion, I am reminded of that great quote by Gerald Massey:
“They must find it difficult…those who accept authority as the truth, rather than the truh as authority.”
December 8th, 2007 at 3:46 pm
I do try my best to believe in God, but it takes work. I believe in evolution. I believe believing in God is hard, but I do believe he exists. I don’t think evolution disproves him. I think no matter what the truth of our material world is he still exists. Why? Cause I think he just happens to. Strangely enough he does. Faith shouldn’t run our society or our civilization, but it should not be totally discredited either. Faith is for the individual. For the individual faith opens up truth. But when the individual pushes others to believe in his or hers experience it only complicates. I don’t think God depends upon our beliefs or upon making others believe for his existence. Even if we forget him he still exists.
December 8th, 2007 at 7:08 pm
Fun list…thanks! The Christians here just don’t get it–which explains why they’re Christians.
December 9th, 2007 at 8:15 am
I’m fond of Trent Reznor’s “God is dead and no one cares,” though the one above from George Bernard Shaw is great too.
December 9th, 2007 at 1:19 pm
Mark Twain is Samuel Clemens Craig.
December 9th, 2007 at 8:08 pm
1. Ben Franklin-not an atheiest.
2. Ernest Hemingway-A woman beater that blew his worthless brains out or poisoned himself or something equally pathetic in a fit of self pity.
3. Frank Lloyed Wright? Seen his architecture? It was Awesome…since when did someone that good at something artistic ever have an easy time giving the credit to God?
4. Andrew Carnegie-yeah he built some libraries and such-but only because he didn’t feel like paying his workers a fair wage for the dangerous job of steel rifining-was also quoted to have stated something along the lines of “if I payed them more they would spend it improperly” He was just as evil a money-grubbing tycoon as there ever was…
5. Sigmund Freud was a cocaine junkie that was and still is laughed out of the room in his own profession. Period.
6. Woody Allen divorced his wife so he could sleep with his adopted daughter-another model citizen exposing us Christians for the scumbags we are…
7. Samuel Clemens? Also not an Atheist…Although I won’t make things up and say that this quote was taken out of context…I only know that he was not specifically an atheist.
December 9th, 2007 at 8:44 pm
8. Fredrrich Nietzsche-went bonkers 11 years before his death. Anybody know when he made this statement? Was it during his coherent years?
9. Magellan-was probably Catholic; even Catholics get tired of there own ways; but Catholics are still Christians.
10. Vonnegut Witnessed the bombing of Dresdin guys. I can understand his denial of God after that; he later wrote a book about his own insanity: “The Eden Express” I think it was.
11. Shaw-socialist; kind of intrinsic to their nature to remove God from the picture.
12. Steinem- a feminist (“You mean to tell me God is a MAN?!”)
13. Denis Diderot-a card-carrying Frenchman; need I saw more?
December 9th, 2007 at 9:34 pm
If there’s not god, what’s the point?
December 9th, 2007 at 9:55 pm
Playing “devil’s advocate” here (which may help the thread branch off in another direction, for good or ill): does there need to be a point?
December 10th, 2007 at 12:27 am
3. All thinking men are atheists. — Ernest Hemingway
‘At that time Jesus said, “I praise You, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that You have hidden these things from the wise and intelligent and have revealed them to infants.”‘ – Matthew 11:25
Ditto!
December 10th, 2007 at 12:35 am
What is more scary to believe in, that God doesn’t exist or that God doesn’t really care about humanity?
December 10th, 2007 at 6:46 am
smart pointers are C++ objects that simulate simple pointers by implementing operator-> and the unary operator*.
December 10th, 2007 at 5:31 pm
If there’s not god, what’s the point?
1. Take full responsibility of your acts
2. Live each day as it were the last. There is no second chance.
3. Live fearlessly. Full in true love and appreciation of the only chance you will ever have of seeing what you are seeing now in your life.
December 10th, 2007 at 9:58 pm
The Dum Guy, have you seen the movie, “Angels in America”? If so, remember the ending? god just walked away, leaving sad and confused angels and humans behind. Remember the devil’s rant against god to Reeve’s character towards the end of “The Devil’s Adovcate”, re: “an absentee landlord”? It’s worse if the dear old dad you believed in no longer cares. But really: why would a god just walk away/not care about such a beautiful creation? How could it be justified, except that we need to, as Sagan said, save a step. If god created man, then man created god. So let’s save a step.
December 10th, 2007 at 10:14 pm
Smartlydone: Funny thing, I once rented Angels In America on accident (I was wanting to rent the docu Paradise Lost 2, the follow up on the West Memphis 3, but someone put the wrong DVD in the case) but I wasn’t able to get into it enough to finish.
My point wasn’t to agree or disagree with atheism or “faith”, but to question what is the reason for many people’s need to believe in things they cannot fully fathom.
I for one do believe in a God (of sorts), but I don’t think he/she/it cares too much for the day-to-day lives of humanity. The closest thing I’ve found to quantify my belief system would be the label of a Nihilstic-Existentialist, I think we have a lot of power over our destiny (although chaos looms around us at all times), but I see no intrinsic value in “being”… anything.
December 10th, 2007 at 11:51 pm
Once again, it immediately becomes clear. Good grief. The Christians will nitpick the individual trees all day, and the reasoned person will even quickly agree on the nitpicks. Unfortunately, and alas, they are blind to the forest. Simple quibling doesn’t change reality.
December 11th, 2007 at 12:27 am
Mason Abbot: very well put – we all need to occasionally step back and look at the bigger picture.
December 11th, 2007 at 1:38 am
Mason Abbot: I agree, quibling doesn’t change reality. The only real thing that changes reality is mentaly caused or drug induced.
December 11th, 2007 at 2:47 pm
“Religion is the opium of the people”
K. Marx
December 11th, 2007 at 2:53 pm
K. god quote – though I think it was “Religion is the opium of the masses”
December 11th, 2007 at 3:06 pm
http://atheism.about.com/od/weeklyquotes/a/marx01.htm
the source of this version of that quote has a very detailed exploration of the quote in context of what Marx actually wrote and the ‘about’ article gives a much greater sense of what Marx was really saying. i strongly recommend reading that article.
December 11th, 2007 at 6:30 pm
Thank you for a most interesting list. I was reared in a very Christian fundamentalist household (my mother firmly believed the earth was flat and square. something about angels standing in the four corners of the earth). It is only in my adult life I have learned to question those beliefs and to think for myself. I have seen through the lie that is organized religion and lightning has not struck me dead!
December 11th, 2007 at 10:47 pm
@jonnie:
1. While technically a Deist, Franklin was certainly anti-religious and anti-church. He was about as close as you could get to being an atheist at the time (although not as close as Jefferson).
2. Clemens was most assuredly an atheist; just do a bit of research:
“I cannot see how a man of any large degree of humorous perception can ever be religious — unless he purposely shut the eyes of his mind and keep them shut by force.” –Samuel Clemens
3. You apparently have never heard of ‘ad hominem’ — one of the weakest forms of argument. Do yourself a favor and look it up, it might help next time you want to make a stronger argument.
December 14th, 2007 at 6:02 am
“The beauty of religious mania is that it has the power to explain everything. Once God (or Satan) is accepted as the first cause of everything which happens in the mortal world, nothing is left to chance…logic can be happily tossed out the window.”
~ Stephen King ~
December 16th, 2007 at 1:06 am
Magellan quote is a fabrication of Ingersoll
“The church says the earth is flat, but I know that it is round, for I have seen the shadow on the moon, and I have more faith in a shadow than in the church.” Ferdinand Magellan
The quote is a fabrication of Robert Green Ingersoll. It is found in his essay “Individuality.” This may be accessed at http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/robert_ingersoll/individuality.html
It’s in the fourth paragraph of his essay:
It is a blessed thing that in every age some one has had individuality enough and courage enough to stand by his own convictions, — some one who had the grandeur to say his say. I believe it was Magellan who said, “The church says the earth is flat; but I have seen its shadow on the moon, and I have more confidence even in a shadow than in the church.” On the prow of his ship were disobedience, defiance, scorn, and success.
This was first pointed out, as far as I know, by Dr. Tom Gorski in his website “Knowing What Ain’t So” at http://www.churchoffreethought.org/cgi-bin/contray/contray.cgi?DATA=&ID=000011010&GROUP=048. Dr. Gorski is one of four founders of the The North Texas Church of Freethought.
To the credit of Wikiquote it clearly points out the quote is disputed and attributes it to Ingersoll http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Talk:Ferdinand_Magellan
At http://www.animalliberationfront.com/Philosophy/Religion/Atheist%20Quotes.htm it immediately corrected the attribution: “The church says the earth is flat, but I know that it is round, for I have seen the shadow on the moon, and I have more faith in a shadow than in the church.”
……….Robert Green Ingersoll (not Ferdinand Magellan)
At http://www.iidb.org/vbb/archive/index.php/t-63650.html they already were able to determine that it was Ingersoll who in fact said the words he attributes to Magellan. “Regarding a flat earth, please note that Ingersoll used a quote attributed to Ferdinand Magellan (1480-1521), the Portuguese and Spanish explorer: ‘The Church says that the earth is flat, but I know that it is round, for I have seen the shadow on the moon, and I have more faith in a shadow than in the Church.’ Ingersoll uses this quote to make a point: ‘The trouble with most people is, they bow to what is called authority.’ Ingersoll’s thrust in this article is that ‘It is the duty of each and every one to maintain his individuality’ and ‘There can be nothing more utterly subversive of all that is really valuable than the suppression of honest thought–No man, worthy of the form he bears, will at the command of church or state solemnly repeat a creed his reason scorns.’ I agree with Ingersoll. If you do not, that is certainly your privilege.” The author assumes Ingersoll got it from an authentic source. But I have read the primary sources on Magellan—eyewitness accounts by Antonio Pigafetta, Gines de Mafra, Francisco Albo, The Genoese Pilot, Martinho de Aiamonte, Sebastian Elcano—nowhere is there such a statement from Magellan. Ingersoll most definitely cites no authority.
Vicente Calibo de Jesus
ginesdemafra@gmail.com
December 18th, 2007 at 7:50 am
Good example of quibbling. It wasn’t Magellan, so there.
December 22nd, 2007 at 6:30 pm
@scott m…
1. You’re wrong
2. You’re actually…correct; I apologize.
3. Psycho-babble is extremely infantile; if you have a legitimate gripe or can otherwise validate your desire to defend the individual then please tender it; I’m all ears when it comes to debate with fellow grown-ups. If you don’t then please don’t bother to respond. Cheers.
December 22nd, 2007 at 6:34 pm
Scott M…
That 3rd point was a bit rude-sorry. Fact is learning about straw-man, red herring, etc. was awfully boring the first time around. Bottom line; my arguement on Frankie works, just observe the world around you…arteeests rarely acknowledge a higher being of any king.
December 22nd, 2007 at 7:05 pm
@jonnie:
1. “For the arguments of the Deists, which were quoted to be refuted, appeared to be much stronger than the refutations; in short, I soon became a thorough Deist.” Benjamin Franklin, from his Autobiography (http://www.usgennet.org/usa/topic/preservation/bios/franklin/chpt4.htm)
2. Twain/Clemens was not a professed atheist (not many were back then), but he certainly was a free-thinker and very critical of organized religion. If you read what he wrote in _Letters from the Earth_, his notebooks, letters, etc, it’s pretty good evidence he was no friend of religion.
“I cannot see how a man of any large degree of humorous perception can ever be religious — unless he purposely shut the eyes of his mind & keep them shut by force.” Mark Twain’s Notebooks and Journals, notebook 27, August 1887-July 1888
“One of the proofs of the immortality of the soul is that myriads have believed in it. They have also believed the world was flat.” Mark Twain, Notebook (1900)
3. Psycho-babble? Wow, that’s quite an ignorant statement. I’ve studied rhetoric and was involved in debate teams (many years ago). I point you to Section 6 of Aristotle’s Art of Rhetoric or the various sites around the Web detailing logical fallacies of all types (e.g. http://www.logicalfallacies.info/). Rhetorical logic is the polar opposite of “psycho-babble.”
In your post you consistently judge the pronouncements of individuals based on who they were and what kind of person they were. “Woman beater”, “evil a money-grubbing tycoon”, “cocaine junkie”, “divorced his wife”, “went bonkers”, “socialist”, “feminist”, etc. Textbook ad hominem attacks which just don’t hold up when debating with “fellow grown-ups.”
December 23rd, 2007 at 12:56 am
great quotes of the great people thanks for sharing it
December 24th, 2007 at 1:39 am
I just gotta ask:
Why do you athiests care so much?
Why are you so angry all the time?
Why are you so vocal and vehement in your arguments?
Tis Christmas Eve, and Yarr is heavenly buzzed on Coors and Jaegermeister, so here goes…
Sports do not interest me. I think they are a total waste of time. Why do you care about what a bunch of overpaid thugs do on the weekends? How does the outcome of a game affect your life one way or the other? (Unless you’re a gambler, and then it’s a whole other conversation.)
Yet people will religiously spend time, money and emotion to the GAME, which is really just a bumper for beer and cellphone commercials. At the end of it all, I think anyone who cares a lick about sports of any kind is simply uncreative. They are living vicariously through someone they think they could have been in another life; someone they don’t know, and probably wouldn’t even like.
Pointless, stupid, and wasteful…
That being said, almost everyone I know likes sports in some way or another. I do not go around sharing my ‘philosophy’ with them. If a conversation turns to sports, I politely stay quiet or go get a beer or something. I don’t get angry because I REALLY don’t care. I think it’s stupid, but if that’s your thing, then whatever.
So, I believe in God.
You don’t
Good on you.
Why do you feel the need to spend so much time and energy trying to explain to me why you think something I like is dumb?
It’s Christmas!
Just kick back. Eat some ramen and sit around not believing in anything and let the rest of us have our fun.
But really- why are you people so mad all the time?
December 24th, 2007 at 1:42 am
Yarr: I think that is an excellent analogy – and I do wonder why some atheists can be as vehement and vocal as some extremist religious groups – it seems a bit weird. We appear to be moving in to an era of atheist fundamentalism which is as bad as religious fundamentalism. I think the best idea is for everyone to enjoy each other’s company and have fun.
December 24th, 2007 at 2:10 am
jfrater:
Right?
Merry Christmas and congratulations on the success of your site.
Tell New Zealand hello from a drunk dude on the other side of the world!
December 24th, 2007 at 2:18 am
Yarr: did you leave a bit off your first sentence?
Thanks for your congratulations and hello to the other side of the world from NZ and a drunk dude here! 
December 24th, 2007 at 2:18 am
Oh – and Merry Christmas to you too!
December 24th, 2007 at 2:19 am
Yarr: what are your plans for Christmas?
December 24th, 2007 at 2:36 am
Yarr, I agree with you, but I DONT believe in God in a traditional sense. I think that there is probably a creator or a starting point. I dont think ‘god’ is a person, hell I think its possible that it doesn’t even know what it has created, or that he created it intentionally. We might be a happy mix of accidents that result from their supreme power. But with that being said, in a discussion, I usually play the role of an atheist.
On the internet, I find my self more vocal on religion, simply because it is an avenue for a good discussion/debate. But in real life, I let people babble on about their religion, and will rarely interject unless asked, or the person is being offensive to other beliefs.
I really believe that the world would almost be a peaceful place if there weren’t religious extremists. No matter the denomination; christian, islamic, or atheism. And yes, I believe that TRUE atheism should be considered a religion, it takes the same amount of FAITH to believe in absolutely nothing,as it takes to believe in some Supreme power. Especially considering the limited amount of knowledge that we have in comparison with the enormity of the universe.
For the recors, I do celebrate christmas mostly just out of tradition, and because my family (aside from my mother) are strict roman catholic. Anyways, theres my two cents.
December 24th, 2007 at 2:45 am
Jfrater:
No, I didn’t leave anything off- I guess it makes more sense when it’s said out loud…
Person 1: “Something awesome.”
Person 2: “Right?”
December 24th, 2007 at 2:46 am
Got lots of folks coming to my house for 2 days of revelry, gluttony and loot!
Whoohoo!!!
How about you?
December 24th, 2007 at 2:54 am
Yarr: sounds good to me! I am having a family Christmas which will also involve lots of revelry, gluttony, and loot! I am really looking forward to it. Luckily it starts in a few hours!
December 24th, 2007 at 2:57 am
sddgrant:
All I’m saying is that so many people sure spend a lot of time and energy NOT believing in something, and even more being mad about it.
I don’t believe in unicorns.
If I met someone who did, I’d probably just shrug and walk away.
I surely wouldn’t be pissed about it.
That’s what I don’t get, and so that’s why I asked.
I have to get to sleep.
Merry Chrismas to all, and to all a good night!
December 24th, 2007 at 4:36 am
Yarr: I completely agree with you, sorry if I didn’t make it clear before. Most the people who get angry about it on the internet though, are usually teenager. Nothing against teenagers seeing as how im barely out of my teens, but when I was in high school I was the same way, but you just learn that it accomplishes nothing after awhile.
December 28th, 2007 at 4:16 am
Don’t forget Marx; “Religion is the opium of the people”
December 28th, 2007 at 7:12 am
The author of number 9 is not Diderot (who was a fond admirer of Catherine of Russia), at least at the beginning)but by Jean Meslier (1664-1729) : “Je voudrais, et ce sera le dernier et le plus ardent de mes souhaits, je voudrais que le dernier des rois fût étranglé avec les boyaux du dernier prêtre.” “I wish, and it will be my last and dearest wish, I wish the last king were strangled with the last priest’s bowels”.
Meslier knew what he was talking about : he was a priest himself.
January 3rd, 2008 at 4:58 pm
An interviewer once asked Bertrand Russell what he would say if he died and found himself confronted by an angry God who demanded to know why he had not believed. Russell said his reply would be “Not enough evidence, God, not enough evidence”.
January 7th, 2008 at 10:26 pm
In response to what jonnie wrote (#90) Kurt Vonnegutt didnt go insane. His son Mark Vonnegutt is a schizo and wrote the book The Eden Express decribing his insanity.
(Mark is by no means the writter his father was, but it is still a fairly good book.)
January 18th, 2008 at 3:30 pm
LOL it is so interesting that someone can be so far up their own ass that they can actually form a philosophy about NOT believeing in something. People seem to confuse the concept of god with the concept of organized religion. To me atheists have fallen for the biggest trick ever. They live under the conception that if the church’s conception of god is flawed then god musn’t exist at all, while all of the most enlightened people in history have known that things exist outside of the physical universe. There are forces in this universe that can be harnessed for good or evil, they are immense sources of power, and that is why religion repressed them. It takes an idiot to believe that just because a voice from the sky says that it is god, that it created the universe. It takes an even bigger idiot to preclude that that voice could never have possibly existed in the first place. i read the bible the way I read a history book 5% useful info 95% bs propganga. All of the worlds religous texts say the same thing, that a race of super-beings came from the heavens,giving us technology, and mated with the women of earth, and a race of giants was born. If organized religion is a stubborn old fool who won’t believe what is right in front of his face, then atheism is a small child having a tantrum because the world isn’t what the old man told him it would be. There is really no such thing as an atheist though, because while they may not worship a god, atheists worship their own pompous sense of intellectual superiority. Atheism serves a wonderful purpose ,just like religion, because it keeps stupid, small-minded people, away from the power that could make them gods upon this earth. If organized religion is being on your knees with your hands fixed in prayer, then atheism is being on your knees , with your head shoved so far up your own ass that that is all that one knows. To assume that because you can’t comprehend something in this amazing infinite universe that it doesnt exist is laughable. To say that after spending a few decades on this one planet in the infinity of existence, using only the 5 senses that are most readily accesible,without any exploration of consciousness or the internal universe is akin to a child saying that a solar eclipse is not real because he hasn’t seen one in his lifetime.
P.S. there is a cure for atheism, it’s called psychadelics.
P.P.S- the universe itself is the embodiment of “god”, and the life force that runs through it is the spirit of “god”. There are also hyper-terrestrial entities that exist outside of the physical realms.
January 18th, 2008 at 7:57 pm
Ahh yes. Like junior high and my first beer. The arrogance and ignorance is overwhelming.
February 1st, 2008 at 2:30 am
hahahahahaha JONNIE GOT SERVED HAHAHAHAHA freaking christians.
February 1st, 2008 at 2:31 am
hahahahahahaha, true dat
February 1st, 2008 at 2:33 am
hey monkey nuts, you need to shut the fuck up and smoke a lil weed.
February 1st, 2008 at 9:19 pm
Monkey Nuts, if you make any more straw men, we’ll have to have a fire ban. Atheism is not – “a philosophy about NOT believeing in something”. It’s like saying science is a philosophy about not believing in something because it doesn’t accept miracles. In fact, we could call Christianity a philosophy about not believing in something because it doesn’t accept Mohammed as a prophet.
The Atheist position put simply is that there is not enough evidence to suggest that God exists. I don’t know why that makes you angry. Atheists believe that to get closest to what might be true about the world, they should examine the world closely and question generally-held assumptions, including their own. I don’t think it is helpful to categorise those who don’t share your version of reality as either “idiots” or as people who “worship their own pompous sense of intellectual superiority”.
Also the analogy of the child with the eclipse is not a good one. The child can see photos on the internet of other eclipses, he can learn about eclipses (what they are, how often they happen etc) from many sources, he can hear stories from people who have seen eclipses first-hand – unlike what he can learn about the truth of the resurrection. You don’t have to go to China to believe in China.
Also your comment, “because you can’t comprehend something in this amazing infinite universe that it doesnt exist is laughable” is also a straw man. I can imagine all sorts of creatures, lands and stories – but imagining them doesn’t make them true. Some people find THIS universe so “amazing and infinite” that they don’t need sky-fairies to make it interesting.
February 2nd, 2008 at 12:39 am
By the Funk&Wagnalls: Religions are the beliefs, attitudes, emotions, behavior, etc., constituting man’s relationship with the powers and principles of the universe”. By that statement, Atheism is a religion.
Debbyo: I’m not sure, but I don’t think Monkey Nuts is so much angry here as perhaps frustrated. A lot of the Atheist’s rebuke to Theists amount to nothing more than derogatory phrases and insults. Trying to debate with an Atheist is often like debating Al Bundy, and it can be ‘frustrating’.. I’m not type casting all Atheists that way, some are articulate and fun to banter with. However, others are just an Al Bundy, re-read some of these posts.
Also, Debbyo: “The Atheist position put simply is that there is not enough evidence to suggest that God exists”……. For such research the first thing you’ll have to do is bring out that good ole “Scientific Principle”. The exact same one you were taught in school. It looks like you haven’t considered using the scientific approach here, your remark about “not enough evidence” was very much lacking..
February 2nd, 2008 at 2:38 am
wapiti, Atheism is not a religion. Religion requires faith. Atheists view faith as a hindrance to understanding the world. And I’ve never met any like Al Bundy.
You’re defending a guy who recommends psychadelics” as a cure for atheism?
February 2nd, 2008 at 2:48 am
wapiti, what evidence is there?
February 2nd, 2008 at 5:46 am
Brazil has some of the most beautiful and elaborate churches and cathedrals of modern times. Brazil has one of the New Seven Wonders of the World, the Christ the Redeemer statue. Brazil also has child prostitutes living in shanty towns of cardboard boxes and scrap steel sheeting running rift with their own excrement. I think the church could have found better ways to spend money in Brazil. This goes for the rest of the world. The sight of every cathedral offends me. The cost of every stone placed, every statue carved and every tile laid is borne by starving children and disadvantaged society all over the world. Believing in a God doesn’t bother me, the hypocrisy of Organized Religion does.
February 2nd, 2008 at 7:31 am
Have you ever seen inside the Basillica?
February 2nd, 2008 at 2:38 pm
Hi, jocboss: I’m not Catholic, but I’ve been inside the Basilica (been up on the roof with those huge perimeter statues as well), an awesome site….. Everything is “Organized” these days. Astronauts, to girl scouts, to Zoos. Of course, things that are DIS-organized should concern you,….. at least sometimes.
Hello jeff: “what evidence(?)”, a sane question, and without insults. I’d like to talk about that.
Debbyo: I don’t think I was defending anybody, I was just trying to add a possible motive behind someone’s statement, and I may have even been wrong. It was really just a guess, I have no complete way of knowing what’s behind anyone’s thinking.
Never met the ‘Al Bundy’s’..?? Have you actually read these posts..?? Well, if you haven’t just stand-by, with the comments I’m going to make, those Bundy’s of the world will most likely spew forth.
Atheism requires more faith than I can bring myself to muster up. Atheism requires faith in the unscientific.. Atheism is the process of shutting OFF the brain.. I can’t do that anymore. I did that for decades (including the pretense of having once been the ignorant Christian) (I carried that sorry banner for decades as well).
February 2nd, 2008 at 4:38 pm
The origin of every problem is this. People initially accept or deny an idea within a few moments. A person faced with the question wheather God exists or not for the first time, would answer yes or not, “immediately” and without thinking, and then for the rest of his or her life will try to justify this statement. The great thinkers will analyze the idea before they state their opinion. Unfortunately, people are faced with questions like this one, many years before they even know that phylosophy and free mind and ability to think as a complete individual even exsist.
February 2nd, 2008 at 5:02 pm
Hello, Dragi: I must agree with your first sentence. I’ll even add a bit to it: People initially accept or deny an idea, a family position, a Class position, or even a consensus at the bar, within a few moments.
A free mind, and ability to think, is what I wish for everybody on the face of this planet.. For some reason tho, it’s difficult to find.. The evidence of a true scientist will be that he/she is never, ever, satisfied (even after they’ve written their book).
February 9th, 2008 at 5:00 pm
If you believe in the christian god then surely you must believe that god LOVES YOU ANYWAY. So, if you do evil shit, thats just your perspective not gods. It doesnt matter whether you believe in god or not. Your belief does not define his/her/its existence. Some or other auther said that the only way that you could know if god existed is if you were god … That makes sense to me !
February 11th, 2008 at 10:47 pm
I’m an atheist so I believe that the existence of God is either insignificant or useless in modern day; there are still good people with good deeds and bad people with bad deeds regardless of their religions. I’m just a bit disappointed that those atheists who solved the mysteries of the universe are not credited for their works. I am also a Pacificist so if I respect Christianity, I hope for a respect from Christians (again, 3 people tried to convert me today). By the way, I just want to share this with others:
The Paradox of Omnipotence
1. Either God can create a stone that he cannot lift, or he cannot create a stone that he cannot lift.
1. If God can create a stone that he cannot lift, then he is not omnipotent.
1. If God cannot create a stone that he cannot lift, then he is not omnipotent.
1. Therefore god is not omnipotent.
Cowen 1974, reprinted in Martin and Monnier 2003, p. 337.
February 11th, 2008 at 10:51 pm
Wow, Marco, none of your math adds up. The Christian God says “Jacob he loved, Esau he hated” “he loves obedience, divorce he hates”. He’s the God of love and of hate. The Christian God doesn’t always love unconditionally: God gives each of us the free will to choose what path we will follow.
Anybody that says “the only way that you could know if god existed is if you were god” is just taking the easy way out. It’s easier to say simple things like that than to actually use one’s brain, with science, and reason things out. We have the option to THINK things out logically, or to simply bypass the brain challenge and settle for cute clichés.
Marco, I suspect you’re capable of a lot more logic than you’ve shown here. Reason and think first, then make your judgments.
February 11th, 2008 at 11:25 pm
Hi Trung LE: It’s good to hear that you, at least, respect Christianity. It sounds like you’re the type that participates well inside a “debate class”.
NASA has been trying to “solve the mysteries of the universe” for decades, and will always continue to do so. No Atheist has solved it or ever will. Christians have been given some answers to the mysteries, but not all. Not by any means. Christianity is the most scientific of all the ‘ism’s, but we’re still learning.
Your paradox doesn’t fit any equation. Your rock could be of infinite size, but what difference would it make, and who cares.?? God’s dimension is “spiritual” NOT physical. Your “rocks” (created by God) were created for US to live on, NOT for God to dwell on. God could take our ‘physical’ dimension and make it into one big solid monolith. So what.?? God wouldn’t have to lift it, it’s not his dimension.
February 12th, 2008 at 6:59 pm
Hi wapiti. Thanks for your response. It kind of let me down (again), that you suggest no Atheist has solved it or ever will. I don’t have specific examples about what other Atheists have, but on the personal level, you are saying I will never contribute to the progress of answering the questions of the universe. This kind of let people down, while you’re supposed to encourage others to contribute to the world, not the opposite. That maybe also one of the reason I’m an atheist, because I know I cannot predict the future and say something never will happen. However, I do agree Christians did have achievements and continue to achieve more.
For my paradox, I just think that if God can communicate with man, and is powerful, then he is also capable of “traveling” into the physical world. Then the paradox fits into the “if” situation.
February 12th, 2008 at 7:43 pm
Wapiti, I want to show you this article of Steven Weinberg. (http://www.physlink.com/Education/essay_weinberg.cfm)
He is one of the great atheist, so far as I know.
“One of the great achievements of science has been, if not to make it impossible for intelligent people to be religious, then at least to make it possible for them not to be religious. We should not retreat from this accomplishment.
“, said steven in April 1999 at the Conference on Cosmic Design of the American Association for the Advancement of Science in Washington, D.C. This confirm my assumption about his religious view.
Weinberg is famous for his unification of 2 of the 4 major forces into one complete force: the electroweak force. This theory has a strong impact in what I said “solving the mysteries of the universe”, because it is one step closer to the unification of general relativity and quantumn physics. Nobody can neglect the effect of his work.
One of my favourite arguments that he made in the article is:
“I have to admit that, even when physicists will have gone as far as they can go, when we have a final theory, we will not have a completely satisfying picture of the world, because we will still be left with the question ‘why?’ Why this theory, rather than some other theory? For example, why is the world described by quantum mechanics? Quantum mechanics is the one part of our present physics that is likely to survive intact in any future theory, but there is nothing logically inevitable about quantum mechanics; I can imagine a universe governed by Newtonian mechanics instead. So there seems to be an irreducible mystery that science will not eliminate.
But religious theories of design have the same problem. Either you mean something definite by a God, a designer, or you don’t. If you don’t, then what are we talking about? If you do mean something definite by ‘God’ or ‘design,’ if for instance you believe in a God who is jealous, or loving, or intelligent, or whimsical, then you still must confront the question ‘why?’ A religion may assert that the universe is governed by that sort of God, rather than some other sort of God, and it may offer evidence for this belief, but it cannot explain why this should be so.
In this respect, it seems to me that physics is in a better position to give us a partly satisfying explanation of the world than religion can ever be, because although physicists won’t be able to explain why the laws of nature are what they are and not something completely different, at least we may be able to explain why they are not slightly different. For instance, no one has been able to think of a logically consistent alternative to quantum mechanics that is only slightly different. Once you start trying to make small changes in quantum mechanics, you get into theories with negative probabilities or other logical absurdities. When you combine quantum mechanics with relativity you increase its logical fragility. You find that unless you arrange the theory in just the right way you get nonsense, like effects preceding causes, or infinite probabilities. Religious theories, on the other hand, seem to be infinitely flexible, with nothing to prevent the invention of deities of any conceivable sort. ”
I would say I shouldn’t have bothered feel disappointed about others. Afterall, we are different individuals, and one has no right to interfere with the other’s belief. I hope the article will show you a fair view of both religion and science. Also, even if you disagree with him, I hope you will realize that there are atheists who are very well-educated and respectful. Thank you very much for your time, and I’m welcome to any non-abusive response.
Trung Le
February 12th, 2008 at 7:45 pm
argg…and sorry for my English, i may have made some mistakes.
February 13th, 2008 at 9:28 am
@wapiti: “Christianity is the most scientific of all the ‘ism’s”. How can you observe, experiment, collect data, calculate, hypothesize and test God? Unless you meant “scientific” in a different way, as a study for example.
February 13th, 2008 at 10:48 am
wapiti:
“Atheism requires more faith than I can bring myself to muster up. Atheism requires faith in the unscientific.. Atheism is the process of shutting OFF the brain..”
The first point I can agree with. When you spend your whole life living in fear of burning in an eternal fire for even questioning the *will* of God, it can be quite a leap of faith to accept the fact that not only will you not spend the afterlife burning in hell, but that there is no afterlife, and indeed no God. For those people who were raised religous, or believe they have “found” religion through some other means, the thought that they have spent the majority of their lives and a great deal of effort in forming their identity around a belief that fails to live up to scrutiny is intensely uncomfortable, and instead they will invest their time into inventing reasons why their belief is correct, rather than acknowledge the evidence against them.
Secondly, perhaps you could tell me why you believe that Christianity is more “scientific” than atheism? Atheism is *non*-scientific. It is a belief….a belief not necessarily grounded in science, but definately supported by it. Christianity is also non-scientific in this manner, however it does not happen to have the support of science. Thus, how can you say that atheism requires belief in the unscientific….when clearly a majority of atheists are themselves researchers and scientists? Further….what exactly is this “unscientific” factor that atheists have faith in?
Lastly, I would contend that atheism is definately *not* the process of shutting off of the brain. I don’t even know how you might have formulated this opinion. Perhaps you could explain exactly what you mean by that statement. If your argument is that atheists close their minds to the possibility of a god-like supernatural force whose primary existence is based on a book and a concept that has been readically distorted and bastardized throughout the centuries….then I would not call that shutting down the brain, I would call that not being taken in, and standing firms in one’s beliefs…something Christians and other religous fundamentalists pride themselves on.
I might also call the person who made statements like the ones quoted above someone who is frightened and threatened by change and deviation from the beliefs they have spent so much of their time, energy, and identity in formulating. They seem awful reactionary from someone who claims to have an open mind.
February 13th, 2008 at 11:26 am
@wapiti: I agree with SlickWilly. Also, with the “shutting off the brain” concept, I want to provide my own experience to further support the opposition of your argument.
When I believed in God, I was not curious about the universe, I never cared to try to answer those mysteries, because what was the point when you knew who supposedly created it? When I believed in God, I’m fascinated by the beauty of nature, but I was never surprised, because it was arranged for me. When I believed in God, I also believed God had a reason for the Holocaust to happen.
However, when I questioned ‘why?’, I never satisfy. It’s along story how I become an atheist, but by being an atheist, my brain broadens. I’m more enthusiatic than ever, because now I have a lot more possibilities to investigate, a lot more theories to test, a stronger desire to answer, a stronger hope to discover and explore. My curiosity about nature never stops. I also see its beauty in a more friendly way, because now to me, nature reveals itself for its own sake, caused by its own power. Nature becomes a source of inspiration to me, and it is more friendly than God because I can walk in the woods, and swim in the river, I can ride a horse, and I can feel Nature. Being an Atheist, I never stop reasoning why unfortunate happens to all the good people. People died under Stalin because it is God’s plan? Because they had free will, so they chose to die to go to heaven? No. They died because Stalin was real, and he was acting according to his own plan. If God loves us so much, why did he let it happen? I am sorry but my life is short, I don’t want to waste my time trying to figure God’s plan. When I die I’m just dead. Therefore, I live every single day of my life to the best possible. Yes, I can tell you I never regret, and I am 97% happy (3% annoyed because sometimes I have to deal with intransigent people).
Also, keep in mind that Atheism is not one philosphy. It is not a combination neither. As in my case, I am more of a Objectivist and Humanist. Do you think I shut OFF my brain?
February 15th, 2008 at 2:20 am
“Atheism requires more faith than I can bring myself to muster up. Atheism requires faith in the unscientific.. Atheism is the process of shutting OFF the brain..”
What the hell does that mean? To say Atheism is a faith is like saying not collecting stamps is a hobby. Or bald is a hair color. Atheism is not a belief – it’s exactly the opposite. Atheists don’t accept the existence of God – because nothing has convinced them of his existence. No evidence. No miracles. No visions. No Belief. To say it’s shutting off the brain is such an amazing claim that I can’t even begin to interpret it. It’s like saying not believing in the Easter Bunny is shutting off your brain. It’s quite the opposite – it’s opening the brain to interpretations of the universe based on what we explore through our senses, through investigation, through knowledge.
As for science not unlocking the mysteries of the universe – well that is so amazing, I wonder if the person who stated this has the faintest notion of the universe. Everything we know about the universe is through science. What were once mysteries, like why the sun moves across the sky, is now known. Not because the Bible told us – but because scientists worked it out. Through honest and thorough investigation – not by making up stuff to make us feel good.
And finally, why do Christians expect respect for their beliefs but accord none to Atheists?
February 15th, 2008 at 2:35 am
Trung LE, I agree mostly with your very thoughtful and well-reasoned response except for perhaps the following: “Afterall, we are different individuals, and one has no right to interfere with the other’s belief.”
I think it is important for human progress to challenge each other’s beliefs. Progress stood still for hundreds of years during the Dark Ages when churches ruled and scientist who challenged the flat earth theory were considered heretics. People who reject reason and logic because of a sky-fairy are choosing superstition over enlightenment. Challenging superstition is essential for open-mindedness and therefore human progress.
February 15th, 2008 at 3:31 pm
debbyo, Yes, I completely agree that it is important for human progress to challenge each other’s beliefs. However, in this case of God’s existence, I have had enough arguments. Maybe because I live in an environment where there is no atheist like me around, so I know that it’s best for my own safety to say that “one has no right to interfere with the other’s belief” (I have been ‘attacked’ so I’m really cautious now). Just so you know sometimes it was a social reason to keep my words sound fair for both sides.
February 15th, 2008 at 3:34 pm
trung lee: you were attacked? how?
February 15th, 2008 at 10:55 pm
nothing serious, just some very irritating discussions. that’s why i used ‘attacked’ instead of attacked.
February 24th, 2008 at 12:15 pm
I am god!!!! i’ve known since a day i was praying and i realized i was talking to myself
Dash (me)
March 23rd, 2008 at 9:25 am
a funny joke by Kinky Friedman,
“When an atheist dies his tombstone will read,
“All Dressed Up, and No Place To Go.”
March 27th, 2008 at 4:18 am
I have a couple of favorites that I haven’t seen listed here. Voltaire said “if God did not exist it would be necessary for man to invent him.” My favorite, though, is written on the sign outside Homer Simpson’s church. It simply asks “is God religious enough ?
April 10th, 2008 at 8:03 pm
richard dawkins ?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?
April 22nd, 2008 at 1:29 pm
It seems that the writer of this list has confused a belief in supernatural/preternatural/multidimensional entities with a prescription to organized religion.
An atheist is someone who thinks just enough to dispell the falsities that others have taught him, but doesn’t think enough to decipher the useful aspects of ancient knowledge from the dogmatic BS used solely to control him.
May 8th, 2008 at 7:33 pm
No bjork?
May 16th, 2008 at 4:22 pm
The only good thing about religion is the clothes and the windows.
May 21st, 2008 at 9:21 am
“Nietzsche is dead.”
-God
May 28th, 2008 at 1:03 pm
Vonnegut was NOT an atheist. He was a Humanist. Anyone who has read any of his work and considers him an atheist needs to read it again.
May 31st, 2008 at 12:34 am
Boo!
June 1st, 2008 at 6:05 pm
Randall sounds like a stupid winey bitch.
June 1st, 2008 at 6:07 pm
sean sound like a winey bitch.
June 1st, 2008 at 6:13 pm
wapiti is the queen of winey bitches.
June 1st, 2008 at 6:23 pm
Monkey Nuts if there were a god you would be dead by now!
June 1st, 2008 at 6:46 pm
God, your a fuckin’ loser
get a life, you stupid jerkoff
June 1st, 2008 at 7:12 pm
God-
what language from a ‘god’! oh my!
stating an opinion is fine. making a legitimate comment about a list is fine. being idiotic and hateful to people is not. cool it.
June 1st, 2008 at 7:26 pm
A favorite of mine by Kurt Vonnegut:
“If God were alive today, he would have to be an atheist, because the excrement has hit the air-conditioning big time, big time.”
June 2nd, 2008 at 3:53 pm
Can I ask a question? Did the title of this list get changed, because I don’t understand why people are complaining about it.
The list title suggests quotes by famous atheists. It does not automatically denote that the quotes have to be about God.
Anyways, awesome list. I like some of these quotes and I might a few in my blog (while of course giving listverse and you credit for finding them in the first place), unless you mind.
June 2nd, 2008 at 5:41 pm
Mpw Don’t you get it I do not EXIST sort of like your balls.
June 2nd, 2008 at 6:10 pm
god they do exist you just cant see them cause they are in your mouth!
June 2nd, 2008 at 6:11 pm
God: Don’t sneeze.
June 2nd, 2008 at 6:12 pm
check and mate….
June 2nd, 2008 at 6:15 pm
yes, please dont sneeze i beg of you
you set yourself up for that one
i hope you enjoy getting tea bagged
June 4th, 2008 at 2:26 pm
Now if your gonna keep talkin like a bitch then Im gonna slap you like a bitch.
June 4th, 2008 at 3:36 pm
God, time and place?
June 4th, 2008 at 3:58 pm
God: Maybe you should get out of that Old testament thinking and try to be a little more civil. There are fewer atheists that way.
June 6th, 2008 at 9:41 pm
I like the list, but I would like to point out that Samuel Clemens was actually not an atheist. He wasn’t big on Christianity, to be sure, but I am pretty sure he had some religious inkling to him. His wife, who he greatly loved, was very religious since birth and was healed of some horrible condition or another by a priest, which made her very hardcore. They sort of learned to tolerate each others beliefs, and he ended up getting at least a bit of religion from her, if only in that Mark-Twainy way. Later on he became interested in Eastern beliefs, spoke to yogis and gurus, professed an interest in some “new-agey” beliefs running around at the time, and in his autobiography said, and I quote: “I have been born more times than anybody except Krishna.” Of course late in his life he became broke and most of his family died in tragic circumstances, so his famous cynicism developed in to a somewhat nihilistic perspective on life, where everything was deemed awful, but especially Christianity. So the debate continues…
June 8th, 2008 at 11:51 am
these guys are my heroes! I love the 5th quote. These guys helped make nonreligious the 3rd largest ‘religion’ in the world- 16% of poeple in the world are nonreligious!
June 8th, 2008 at 5:33 pm
In response to: #78. Doug – December 8th, 2007 at 8:43 am
“Let’s see… all negative, all hostile, all pretentious, all the time. That’s what atheism offers in response to Christianity? No thanks.”
Doug – really? So scared to accept reality that we resort to name calling? I know it’s a hard pill to swallow to acknowledge that you will never know, but let’s try to put our big boy pants on and be mature and respectful.
I’m agnostic and JFrater – great list! I do think it’s more against organized religion rather than God, but anywho, it’s a great read!
June 8th, 2008 at 6:55 pm
MPW If your gonna keep talkin like a bitch then Im gonna have to call you by your mothers name.
June 8th, 2008 at 7:02 pm
crimanon maybe you should get out of that ignorant way of thinking and use a little bit of common sense theres less religous people that way.
June 8th, 2008 at 7:21 pm
i can just imagine, you are probably a fat fuckin’ middle schooler with no life so all you do is talk shit online all day
im serious you little bitch, i’d love to meet you so i could beat your pussy ass.
im guessin’ it takes you a few days to think of comebacks. i suppose i’ll hear from you on the 11th.
June 8th, 2008 at 7:23 pm
bite your tongue MPW. good comebacks tho
take a deep breath and calm down.
so, how have you been?
June 8th, 2008 at 7:28 pm
you’re right rushfan but that God person and im sure its a guy it has to be just pisses me off and i know there is nothing i can do about it.
im a man its in my nature to want to fight pricks like God
i’ve been well. how about yourself?
June 8th, 2008 at 7:35 pm
dang…All this time I thought this site was for grownups.
Ahh well.
Fortunately, I know the truth about the God question–all quibling aside.
June 8th, 2008 at 7:38 pm
We Kid, Mason
June 8th, 2008 at 8:17 pm
great list
June 8th, 2008 at 8:19 pm
~im a man its in my nature to want to fight pricks like God~
how funny is that sentence on its own, out of context
June 8th, 2008 at 8:20 pm
~im a man its in my nature to want to fight pricks like God~
how funny is that sentence on its own, out of context?
June 8th, 2008 at 8:22 pm
#197 & 198, my bad, experiment gone terribly wrong…
June 8th, 2008 at 8:22 pm
it is funny
June 9th, 2008 at 10:16 am
Why do we keep ending up with the Ebaumsworld intellectual dropouts?
June 12th, 2008 at 12:45 pm
Seeing comments like “these guys are my heroes” etc. just brings to mind something I heard somewhere- I don’t recall where.
Even those who claim to be atheists still choose to worship something, whether it is simply pseudo-intellectualism or controversy or condescension.
It seems that the term “atheist,” as used here, could be more accurately described as anti-organized religion.
June 16th, 2008 at 8:31 am
Great List !!
I’ve only just recently become a atheist ( because i tought the church was manipulative, sexiste and, well basically idiotic bullshit, excuse my disrespect ) ans find this list very well composed !
June 20th, 2008 at 11:24 am
God used to be the best explanation we’d got, and we’ve now got vastly better ones. God is no longer an explanation of anything, but has instead become something that would itself need an insurmountable amount of explaining. So I don’t think that being convinced that there is no god is as irrational or arrogant a point of view as belief that there is. I don’t think the matter calls for even-handedness at all.
Douglas Adams
June 27th, 2008 at 3:38 pm
A man is accepted into a church for what he believes and he is turned out for what he knows. — Samuel Clemens (aka Mark Twain)
F u ck ing A’ buddy.
People tell me that I have to get “saved” (which comes down to little more than being in an ideal psychological state.) They tell me that religion will bring me a new life. Honestly, the only new life that a church can give me is a social life, but being the perpetual misfit that I am, I know that it wouldn’t last too long.
“The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one.” George Bernard Shaw.
Jerry FatBastard Falwell was quoted as saying something to the effect “If you are not a Born-Again-Christian, you are a failure as a human being.” My life is miserable for a lot of reasons, but the fact that I am a freethinker is not one of them, buddy.
Understand though, I am very much an agnostic (hell I suppose I could be a Deist, which is basically the belief in a passive God) all the same, if simply being a Non-Christian warrants an infinite punishment in Hell (and yes, if you interpret The Bible literally, that is the bottom line) that means that the VAST majority of the world’s population faces uniform punishment for crimes ranging from rape, to murder, to theft, to jaywalking, to (something so arbitrary) as being a Non-Christian.
World Population: 6.6 Billion
Christian Population: 2 Billion
If simply being a Non-Christian warrants Hell, I have 4.6 Billion friends I’d like you to meet. Hey, that’s like one friend for every year that the planet Earth has existed. Fancy that.
(And BTW, I am aware that “Moderate” Christians and Muslims will say that Non-Members of said religions don’t automatically go to Hell. I just thought I would acknowledge that before someone else does.)
Cheers, Mates.
July 2nd, 2008 at 11:37 am
#13 is quite interesting. The Church did say the Earth was flat (Roman Catholic Church), yet in the very book they claimed to be the foundation of their religion, it said quite the opposite. The Bible says the Earth is a sphere and also explained gravity. Since the Bible was written long before Newton and Magellan were born (and long before mankind obtained this knowledge independently), it certainly makes one wonder what the Roman Catholic Church officials were reading all those years.
July 8th, 2008 at 7:34 am
hey! dont u think ayn rand made the most outrageous atheist comments of all time? i think it shud be featured no.1 in the list!!!
July 15th, 2008 at 11:49 am
4. Lighthouses are more helpful then churches. — Benjamin Franklin
it should say “than” not “then”
July 26th, 2008 at 8:23 am
shash: The Church didn’t say the Earth was flat. That’s a myth propogated since the 1800s (has to do with the story that Columbus was seeking to prove the world was round). St. Augustine and many others clearly stated the Earth was round (Isidore of Seville, Aquinas, various popes, a few of the Archbishops of Sienna, etc.). I don’t know where you get your history, but whoever told you this was simply repeating a common myth, and it’s utter nonsense.
August 11th, 2008 at 11:01 pm
A great list!!
“The fact that believer is happier than sceptic is like a drunken man is happier than a sober one!”
- George Bernand Shaw
Atheists rock!!
August 12th, 2008 at 10:13 am
shachee: Didn’t someone famous call religion ‘the opiate of the masses’? His name escapes me right now…
Oh. It was Marx I think
August 22nd, 2008 at 2:41 pm
My favorite is “It sure is fun being a famous atheist.”
August 23rd, 2008 at 2:28 pm
most do not know what the meaning of the word (church) is. they rant about things beyond what they understand. they find fault with every Christian that falls short of biblical perfection. then state the bible is not true in the first place, but still use it as the standard to judge people in the church. accurate history proves beyond argument(excepting the ignorant) that the church has done more good in this world than all other groups combined, food,clothing, medical aid, orphans, widows, prisoners, the outcast, charities abound. also the church has always stood in opposition to the evil acts that the ignorant blame on the church. and you can look this up as well, the idea that an innocent person can suffer was not in the realm of human thought, until the church taught it. calculate the effects of that thought alone on mans history, genocides, disasters, disease. without that thought all those victims deserved what they got. at least in your thinking.
September 2nd, 2008 at 5:42 pm
I believe the last truly persecuted group on the planet will not be homosexuals or Blacks or Jews, but Atheist’s.
September 2nd, 2008 at 5:42 pm
I believe the last truly persecuted group on the planet will not be homosexuals or Blacks or Jews, but Atheist’s.
October 1st, 2008 at 2:19 am
A good voltaire quote that i’ve always liked (not 100% sure if he was an atheist) was. (quote is paraphrased, dont remember it word for word)
“Now now my good man, it’s not the time to be making new enemies” (said on his deathbed, when a priest asked him to renounce satan)
October 5th, 2008 at 2:07 pm
“God is the creator !”
Why ? ? ?
October 7th, 2008 at 3:09 pm
This is just sad
oh and #205 DC Keep in mind that it’s Catholics (lovers of men, worshippers of man) that they are talking about and they are kinda confused.
any Catholics here don’t mean to offend you but a lot of you’re priests are gay and you do pray to sain’ts and not to Jesus and God.
October 17th, 2008 at 7:08 am
Well, i believe this
October 24th, 2008 at 1:37 pm
Nice collection. No these people aren’t all atheist but they don’t have to be atheist for their quotes to be correct. I added a few to my blog: godlessblogger.com
November 1st, 2008 at 8:54 am
great list. but I feel so frustrated why the Golden Compass was mixed with accusations of being “atheistic” . I mean, it is a movie for the family with a great message. Controversies should not be mixed with it.
———————————————–
You(whoever you can be applied) seem to believe that God does not exist because He is not seen in science.
Creationism and The Theory Evolution co-exist.
Science and God also harmoniously co-exist.
God created the world through science. More importantly, He cannot be found in the realm of science. He transcends it.
————
A teacher asked a student if he believes that God exists.
The student said “no, because I cannot see Him”
The teacher asked another student” Do you see my brain?”
The student said no.
The teacher said
“I therefore conclude that my brain does not exist.”
————
There will come a time in the near future that science will ultimately find the answers to the universe’s deepest mysteries(ex: the origin of life, the beginning of the universe).
Don’t smack down scientific evidence on other people’s faces that God is not real or merely a “psychological human need”. Don’t combat Christianity with science. Please. You cannot prove the existence of God through science because simply He transcends it.
Respect other people’s faiths as we will also respect your stand.
I believe that science answers the question how.
But I also believe that it cannot provide us the answer with the question why.(trust me. it cannot)
Answering the question why lies in God.
————————–
Do not respond or give arguments against this. I don’t ask you to believe in what I have said. If you want to believe in it, its ok ; if you don’t and feel disgusted in it, its also ok for me. This is just a chance to voice out my opinion. These are my beliefs. Stay out of it.
I respect atheists. But some of them just don’t know the meaning of the word “respect”. May they know it.
November 9th, 2008 at 12:42 pm
Number 12 was actually said by Lucius Annaeus Seneca (or Seneca the Younger) in like 20 – 50 C.E.
November 10th, 2008 at 11:13 pm
Awesome list
:D
November 19th, 2008 at 11:36 am
Some of the people commenting on this list make me sad. Especially the person who said that Catholics pray to “sai’nts”. What, pray tell, is a “sai’nt”?
I believe in God. It does not make me stupid or brainwashed. It does not make me inferior or bigoted. It doesn’t make me holier-than-thou and it doesn’t assure my acceptance into Heaven (which I obviously believe in).
I believe in God, because every time I question my faith, every time I feel willing to say ‘He is not real’, I find that some little thing draws me back. Some things are miracles. Some things cannot be explained away. And there is no way to unequivocally prove that something does not exist.
I need God in my life like I need air to breathe. I put my trust and faith in Him, and He’s yet to let me down. If you don’t believe in God, well. . . good for you. I won’t say you’re going to Hell, because how would I know? But I do know this “I would rather live my life as if there is a God, and die to find out there isn’t, than live my life as if there were no God, and die to find out there is.” If there is no afterlife, I won’t be disappointed, because I won’t be around.
Atheists trying to convert Christians are just as bad as Christians trying to convert atheists. Let’s all just stop trying to foist our religious beliefs (or lack thereof) on each other, shall we?
December 12th, 2008 at 6:46 pm
I think there should be a psychological study on christians vs. athiests. Which group is happier? Who is better at keeping their life in order? Who has the better sense of right and wrong? Who is more optimistic? Who is more likely to overcome the turmoils in life? On the other side, who is more pessimistic? Who is more likely to become alcoholics or have drug abuse? Who is more likely to commit suicide? Who is more negative to be around? Who is more likely to commit crime? Think about it. There are exceptions to both sides, but there is a trend with personalities and personal beliefs.
December 15th, 2008 at 9:34 am
“I must be God, because when I’m praying, I find that I’m talking to myself” -Anonymous
December 16th, 2008 at 2:04 pm
13. The church says the earth is flat, but I know that it is round, for I have seen the shadow on the moon, and I have more faith in a shadow than in the church. — Ferdinand Magellan
Hi All, I’m a mathematician/physicist doing a study on the odds against Biblical Prophecy which has been fulfilled. Being a Russian scientist and not being indoctrinated into Judeo-Christian ideology, I was amazed to learn that the “church”, meaning the early Roman Catholic Church proposed the flat earth hypothesis, while their Bible briefly explains the concept of gravity and states the Earth is round/spherical. Although I am not a sociologist or theologian, I am intrigued by the fact that the Roman Catholic Church has a long history of violating the principles in their own texts. I was never aware that the theological differences between Christianity and Roman Catholicism were so great.
December 16th, 2008 at 2:15 pm
To 213 and 214, known as “MT”. I have to strongly disagree with your theory about atheists being the persecuted group. The true powers of this world, the global elite (aka Bilderberg Group, Council on Foreign Relations, owners of the Federal Reserve and Central Banks in Europe) are the people who control policy and influence American/European elections. They love atheism, because atheists have proven to be more willing to obey and accept a New World Order, rampant globalism, corporatism, etc.
They hate Christians and Muslims and also are trying to destroy the traditional family, which is why homosexuality is suddenly in “vogue”. This is the last bastion of strong-willed people who will fight them. Being a new American, moved to U.S. from Moscow in 1994, I find it amazing how the U.S. Constitution is under attack from both Republicans and Democrats. The Rockefellers and Rothschilds of this world hate the U.S. Constitution even more than Christians.
December 17th, 2008 at 11:30 pm
Don’t forget Half man half biscuit.
”God gave us life, hallelujah, and he also gave us Lionel Blair”.
I reccommend Cristopher Hitchen’s ‘God is not great’ for a bloody good read and a fistful of amazing quotes.
January 2nd, 2009 at 7:04 pm
“Give a man a fish you feed him for a day, teach a man to fish you feed him for a lifetime, you give a man religion he will die praying for a fish” forgot who quoted but by far my favorite quote ever
January 4th, 2009 at 9:01 pm
I am GOD. Take it on faith, you cannot prove that I am not.
January 4th, 2009 at 9:04 pm
To Vladimir; The tyrants have always used religion to rule the masses. The church was as tyrannical as possible.
January 6th, 2009 at 8:02 am
I never understood religion.
There are 1,000+ gods, and each one of them is right?
Just dig deep within yourself, find out what you want in life, and go for it.
But some people need the social acceptance, so I understand why they did church.
January 7th, 2009 at 3:39 pm
we are naught but fragile atoms in the universe of the infinite and we cannot but obey and surrender to the will of providence.
January 7th, 2009 at 3:44 pm
it,s either a divine order which is rich in meaning or an insane jumble of atoms in which nothing is forbidden…the latter rests in my holy heart.
January 7th, 2009 at 5:01 pm
Well, if we consider humanity will not live for as many years as the dinosaurs have (we won’t, unless we get out of the planet and at this time no one seems to care much about it), our notion of God is completely irrelevant to the Universe. We will be gone and it will be fine because we don’t mater at all!
Creationists mean to say God waited ALL this time since the beginning of the Universe to create humans, and after creating stars, galaxies, clusters of galaxies, black holes and nebulas, humanity is God’s greatest achievement, or rather, even significant at all?
I… don’t think so.
The Universe is estimated to be 20 billion years old. Hominids are no more than 7 million, at best.
It does not compute.
As far as we know, animals and plants on Earth don’t practice any kind of religion and don’t seem to have any sort of faith. And that has only been a plus for them so far, right? YES.
How smug are we that we can say for sure God exists in a sense of reality we, as flawed creatures in most aspects, perceive regarding the Universe? We’re not even fit to be considered a flicker in the History of Time, let alone worthy of being addressed to by the ultimate Creator. Because, apparently God, in His/Her/Its/Their many forms spoke to a bunch of people, right? What for, anyway? Where has it gotten us but to hate, loss and destruction?
If you consider the knowledge we haven’t attained yet about existence, an informed decision on whether God exists or not is simply the most ridiculous and conceited thing ever cross a person’s mind.
Basics: the only essential guideline you MUST have in your lifetime is that you are not more important than the next guy/creature, so lead life while considering others are trying to do the same. Respect for what’s external to you as an individual – that is the key. And respect implies knowing what it’s like to be in the other guy’s shoes or at least, consider it when making a decision that can harm or benefit both you and others.
January 11th, 2009 at 10:02 pm
To Ron T,
The Russians, Chinese and a host of others have had very good success at tyranny without the need for religion. I know firsthand, I lived through it in Russia. There are many churches, so when you say the “church” I don’t know what church you are speaking of. Anyway what is exactly your point?
February 4th, 2009 at 5:30 pm
I have read Nietzsche in both English and the original German. Yes, Nietzsche was definitely an atheist. The “superman” (Übermensch) is not a supernatural being. It is also not a being that actually exists (yet). It is something that humans should strive to become. It is a future state in the historical/emotional/cultural evolution of mankind.
And “God is dead” is a metaphor. It was first introduced in “The Gay Science” (old meaning of “gay”) in a 3 page essay called “The Mad Man” (“Der tolle Mensch” — old meaning of the word “toll”). It is an inversion of the concept of original sin. Man commits the greatest of all sin — to kill God. But with no living god, there is no way he can atone for it. His only option is thus to affirm it. This is part of his whole theme of affirmation, of yes-saying.
This is poetically a really beautiful essay, and so much more so in the original.
He wrote this and “Thus Spoke Zarathustra” before he developed neurosyphylus. The development of syphylus is well-documented. It doesn’t attack the brain until it’s 3rd stage begins. It comes on quite quickly. It was very common back then. Today it is curable.
February 23rd, 2009 at 7:28 pm
You forgot Carl Sagan, another atheist or best said, agnostic. He said lots of clever quotes too…
I knew Nietchzse was insane, but not because he contracted syphylis, wow.
February 26th, 2009 at 9:33 pm
song: why i’m an atheist
http://www.ijigg.com/songs/V2CF44EGPD
February 27th, 2009 at 12:40 am
# 225 d: that’s a quote from the English movie ‘the ruling class’ starring peter o’toole. funny as hell, he thinks he’s Jesus then Jack the Ripper.
February 27th, 2009 at 6:02 am
I’m with #207 UMM. Ben Franklin would have said “than” not “then”
February 27th, 2009 at 7:56 am
I wonder if all of these people were such athiests on their death beds…..
February 27th, 2009 at 8:10 am
I believe the last truly persecuted group on the planet will not be homosexuals or Blacks or Jews, but Christians
February 27th, 2009 at 8:19 am
243. skiffo
Christians had a fair share of doing some persecuting as well. Don’t forget that…
I have friends both in Christian and Atheist beliefs…not comingled, however, simply because they don’t feel comfortable around one another and I’ve long since stopped trying to force interaction. On the occasional religious discussion, the atheists agree they are being oppressed by Christians and the Christians believe they are being persecuted by Atheists. It’d be a lot more peaceful if the prejudices would stop and people could talk with a degree of normalcy. They’d see that although perception is different, approach is actually rather similar.
February 27th, 2009 at 1:54 pm
…Only Benjamin Franklin was raised Presbyterian…
February 28th, 2009 at 6:38 pm
Awesome list.
February 28th, 2009 at 6:42 pm
The list is awesome but the comments are just hilarious!
March 1st, 2009 at 9:42 pm
I believe in sunshine,I believe in my dog , I believe in music ,I believe in
Love. Should I also believe what the so called smart atheist Have to say ?
NO…..I like to make up my own mind were I believe in
March 3rd, 2009 at 11:54 pm
nice quotes. No. 2,3 and 4 are stingers! 2 is most terrific. i never knew that the like of carnegie, franklin and hemingway were free thinkers too!
anybody with more such stuff please put up the links..would appreciate your generosity.
March 4th, 2009 at 5:04 am
Only disappointed believers adore what famous atheists have to say
March 5th, 2009 at 6:15 am
Dear God: More meatballs,less spaghetti,
Why did the unknown poet say that ?
March 12th, 2009 at 3:52 am
Disappointed believers… Better to be called that rather than being called “an illusioned” and “illogical religious minds” not any better than a fool!
March 19th, 2009 at 1:20 pm
Once upon a time everyone believed the world was flat.
All the believing didn’t make it so.
Just as the Earth was never flat god never was.
March 23rd, 2009 at 12:21 pm
Purplechaos…most Atheists I have met are not free thinkers, they are in many ways more zealous than their Islamic counterparts and the most dogmatic of all the religions.
I like comment 253. The irony being that the texts which claimed the Earth was round (Hebrew Torah aka Old Testament of Bible) were basically ignored by the corrupt Roman Catholic Church. This insitution once claimed the Earth was flat.
March 26th, 2009 at 11:11 pm
Samuel Clemens was not an atheist. He was anti-religion, but that is a whole different concept. One can be anti-religious but still believe in God or a higher power. Clemens, as I have read, was a deep believer in God; however, he did think that God got a bad rap and was misconstrued into things he is not. Also, Benjamin Franklin was not an atheist. He was also a deep believer in God and, like Clemens, felt he was misconstrued. In fact, Franklin was a Freemason; one of the requirments of Freemasonry is to believe in God. And finally, Nietzche was not necessarily an atheist. The reason why most people classify him as such is his whole “God is dead” statement. What he meant there was that the original Christian ideas of morals, values, and societal expectations were old and not applicable to todays terms and so he summed it up in the aforementioned statement. Granted, he wrote and talked about the absence of God very frequently. However, when reading his works, one has to wonder if he truly didn’t believe in God. Not to mention the fact that the “absence” of God is different than the “non-existence” of God.
March 27th, 2009 at 5:44 am
#255 Chase, you are right about Clemens and Franklin, but you are very wrong about the Masons. The Masons do believe in God and “newer” Masons are sucked in by thinking it is a Godly organization. However believing in God does not mean serving God. The Masons are Luciferians, those who worked their up the proverbial ladder to higher orders confirm this. The Masons worship Satan and dupe their underlings into thinking the cause is noble.
April 3rd, 2009 at 1:55 pm
@254 how is atheism dogmatic?
April 4th, 2009 at 4:11 am
arthur pewty. my grandfather was a mason and i have studied for many years all aspects of the society. it is quite clear that you now nothing of what you speak. there is only one reqierment regarding religion in which to become a member and that is that one must have a belief in the existence of a creater there are no specifications everyone beleives in what they wish. there are no ceremonies that focus on any one religion. in masonry the symbol of the pentegram represents the unified belief in a god.
April 9th, 2009 at 1:25 am
Religion begs to offer where science has yet to unfold.
Quote- David Ashton. Colsterworth England.
April 9th, 2009 at 5:22 pm
“Masons are Luciferians”…hahahahahaha! That’s awesome! It would be even more impressive if I hadn’t heard it before. You crackpots are all the same; you’ll believe anything that sounds sexy or helps you sleep at night.
And, David Ashton…ahem…quoting yourself is bad form; quoting your own badly composed statements is fricken hilarious! I just love the mixture of incompetence and arrogance. And, what’s this? Ooooooo, you’re from England, too? So what? I’m from Missouri. Impressed? No? Here, then, allow me to quote myself:
“I drank a cup of coffee last night, and it was a little too hot, you know, and it kind of burned my tongue.”
Quote-Casey Wollberg, of St. Louis, Missouri, the fucking Show-Me State (as in, “show me the goddamn evidence, you bunch of silly ninnies.”)
April 9th, 2009 at 5:43 pm
“@254 how is atheism dogmatic?”
chirp…chirp…chirp…
Well, he must be scrambling for his theist propaganda. Shall I have a go? Okay…rolling out the canard express…
Atheism is the belief in the non-existence of gods. It makes a positive claim about something that cannot be observed. Also Mao Tze Tung and Stalin were dogmatic atheists who killed thousands in the name of their firm and active belief in no gods, and they were Communists! Atheism also includes the dogma of Nihilism, in that it preaches the gospel of “nothing matters,” since we’re all just atoms bouncing around. Due to its inherent Nihilism, the belief system of Atheism encourages its followers to murder, rape, and pillage throughout the land. In fact, since Darwinism is one of its central tenets, it outright demands cutthroat and bloodthirsty selfishness through the discipline of Survival of the Fittest. To recap, the dogma of Atheism include:
1) Blind faith in the non-existence of gods.
2) Communism
3) Nihilism
4) Darwinism
5) Survival of the Fittest
6) (Also homosexuality, abortionism, anti-patriotism, and anti-xmasism).
Just thought I’d beat the theists to the punch.
April 9th, 2009 at 5:46 pm
@ 254…”Astrophysicist.” lol, I call bullshit.
April 9th, 2009 at 11:05 pm
Wow, casey. Atheist. “A-theist.”
Alas, the cluebird is afraid to land on casey’s shoulder.
April 9th, 2009 at 11:15 pm
Your making it sound as if homosexuality and abortions are inherently bad.
If thats true I feel truly sorry for you. In any case – on to refuting.
“the belief system of Atheism encourages its followers to murder, rape, and pillage throughout the land”
Really? How? You can draw up a list as long as your arm of immoral things condoned by religion, from slavery and racism to suicide bombings and genocide
From New Scientist:
“There is growing evidence that we have an innate moral sense – that morality is something that evolved, in other words. This may seem surprising to those for whom the phrase “survival of the fittest” conjures up images of lions ripping each other to shreds and stags clashing antlers. But “the fittest” can mean the cleverest, the sneakiest, the best camouflaged, the least aggressive, the most attractive – or the least selfish.
Natural selection can favour altruism and fair play in certain circumstances. Behaviours such as loyalty to kin, intolerance of theft and punishment of cheats – the roots of morality – can be seen in many of our primate cousins.”
Atheism does not have a central dogma. You can be an atheist and not believe in evolution!
How the hell are atheism and communism intwined? And why is communism inherently wrong?
My God (see what I did there) you are thick in the extreme!
April 10th, 2009 at 4:30 am
@ cym: Well done! (Psst, it’s me, casey, the outspoken atheist, and that was satire.) Good to hear from you again.
April 10th, 2009 at 10:06 am
Sorry casey! I’ve been away from LV for a fortnight! I seem to have forgotten who is who.
I stand by my comment though – it fits if you were casey, the outspoke theist, homophobe, and pro lifer!
April 10th, 2009 at 12:29 pm
re:260 Casey.
Its not a pro religious statement.
It is written in English.
Which is a language rarely used in Missouri.
I suggest supervision from an adult or carer until you have mastered hot drinks.
April 11th, 2009 at 7:33 am
@ Richard:
Maybe you’re the one who doesn’t know how to use English. I never addressed the content of your illustrious quote (which is not at all clear from your whacky syntax). You may be a philosophical brother, but I still don’t like your style. Now, somebody help me with my coffee.
April 11th, 2009 at 10:15 pm
God knew billions of years ago that you athiests would call Him down, and berate Him. He knew of all evil thoughts and deeds that would take place. It’s why He died in extreme pain on the cross.
April 12th, 2009 at 12:15 am
I-Ron:
On what is that statement based? I’m an atheist, and apart from some childish acts and selfish choices I’ve never done anything evil. Yet again atheists are labeled evil simply for not believing in the sky man.
April 12th, 2009 at 2:28 am
I-Ron,
now i know mel gibson would disagree, but isn’t the important part about jesus dying that he was resurrected? i don’t think the pain was the main part, pretty much every martyr in history -for any cause- shares that one with him.
i’m pretty sure that if he’d just suffered really, really painfully and then stayed dead it wouldn’t have been such a big deal. hell, the man who died in the salem witch trials after being slowly pressed to death by rocks (placed there by “christians”) was a martyr. -he refused to admit to something he was innocent of, and died horridly for it, but no one thinks he was god.
“As Paul the Apostle, an early proponent of Christianity, contended, “If Christ was not raised, then all our preaching is useless, and your trust in God is useless” (1 Cor. 15:14) The death and resurrection of Jesus are the most important events in Christian Theology, as they form the point in scripture where Jesus gives his ultimate demonstration that he has power over life and death, thus he has the ability to give people eternal life.” yes, i took that from wiki, but they took it from the bible.
today’s easter you know…
April 12th, 2009 at 2:28 am
p.s. i’m an atheist too, but i was raised catholic.
April 12th, 2009 at 6:53 am
Happy Spring Equinox, Christians (i.e., pagans)! Praise Attis!
April 12th, 2009 at 7:13 am
273, casey…
Spring equinox is in March. You’re a bit late.
April 12th, 2009 at 8:39 am
Shh, I’m sleeping!
April 12th, 2009 at 2:56 pm
Casey: Blessed be.
April 13th, 2009 at 3:07 pm
“Spring equinox is in March. You’re a bit late.”
While this is true, I was referring to the historical association between Easter (and similar pagan celebrations from which it is derived) and the Spring Equinox.
“The Christian churches calculate Easter as the first Sunday after the first full moon on or after the March equinox.” (Wikipedia entry under ‘Spring Equinox: Cultural aspects…”)
April 13th, 2009 at 3:19 pm
Of course, according to Holiday Insights, today is Blame Someone Else Day. Perfect for this list…
April 14th, 2009 at 1:40 pm
OK number 259. When you get to a higher degree in the Masons their purpose is clear. They lure in Christians but it is essentially a non-Christian cult. You drank the kool aid but somehow escaped from Jonestown.
April 14th, 2009 at 1:46 pm
I agree with 254. Atheists hold fast to their non-belief in a way which is non-scientific and arrogant. However I don’t think they are more dogmatic than the extreme Islamic element we are faced with today, but they are damn close.
261-This is the typical stance of Physicists and Mathematicans, even though many are unsure and Agnostic, many will not go out on the limb and claim there’s no God as this claim is impossible to make. It shows pure ignorance and a general lack of logic. Something which both mathematicians and physicists have in abundance.
April 14th, 2009 at 2:16 pm
@Vladamir:
Please tell us how it is “non-scientific” to withhold belief in some claim until evidence is provided. That is scientific by definition. Are atheists the only people who understand what the burden of proof means and where it lies? Atheism is not a claim, it is the rejection of a claim. So-called “strong atheism” is hardly ever promoted by anyone except in the case of specific, *falsifiable* god-concepts. Otherwise, atheism is merely a refusal to believe an unsupported, non-falsifiable claim. Get your facts straight and stop your pathetic attempt at shifting the burden of proof.
By the way, so called “agnostics” are just atheists who are afraid of the label. Agnosticism refers to lack of knowledge; atheism refers to lack of belief. These two categories are not mutually exclusive (“strong atheism” is sometimes called “gnostic atheism,” for example). I am agnostic in my atheism the same way I am agnostic in my refusal to believe claims of UFO abduction. I don’t know for sure, but the evidence is hardly compelling…therefore, I don’t accept the claim: I don’t believe.
I hope this has been an education for you.
April 14th, 2009 at 2:20 pm
@ Vladamir:
“OK number 259. When you get to a higher degree in the Masons their purpose is clear. They lure in Christians but it is essentially a non-Christian cult.”
Prove it.
April 14th, 2009 at 11:35 pm
Alas again. The cluebird has landed on MY shoulder. Guess I should’ve read more closely. I’m now a Casey fan–though don’t expect me to throw money. (Sorry…)
April 15th, 2009 at 4:04 am
Why do you think people dont worship fire anymore?
April 15th, 2009 at 5:07 am
“though don’t expect me to throw money.”
Dammit.
April 15th, 2009 at 12:45 pm
Casey, I would like to say your comments are ignorant to be polite, but it’s clear they are soemthing else. You lack intelligence and simple logic. When I was a chemistry professor in Russia (prior to moving to the United States) I was very friendly with many Physicists and Mathematicians at the University.
Needless to say we were/are a nation of people who do not cling to belief in God. Mathematicians who study religions tend to be Agnostic mostly because of ancient Hebrew texts. While most religions have predictions of “end time” events, these do not validate the religion because when the events have not happened the religious zealot simply says “because it is not the end time yet”. However Hebrew texts written by the Jewish “prophets” have predicted many events which could not have been lucky guesses, were not vague and in fact were very explicit. The mathematical improbability of these predictions are beyond enormous. Physicists note an uncanny order in the universe, and also very specific criteria which needed to be met for life as we know it to exist. The thing that the Physicists and Mathematicians have in common is a similar philosophy concerning the possibility of a creator.
If you search your property extensively for gold and find none, you can claim there’s no gold on your property, not that there is no gold in the state in which you live.
Similarly any individual who has not seen or heard God, can not say they know God exists. Assuming you are one of these individuals, you can say I have not seen God. I have not heard God. But only a fool can say there is no God, this would require knowledge of the entire Universe, which is something you do not have, nor anyone reading this assinine webpage.
Scientific Agnosticism is not arrogant. It simply a way of conveying there are some uncanny things which point to creator. It is being humble and saying I do not have total knowledge of the universe, therefore I can not make such a claim.
The dogma of Atheism is like the ravings of an Islamic jihadist, only it is a terrorist attack on logic and searching for the truth. Physicists and Mathematicians have no interest in proving to you that there is a God, especially if they themselves are unsure. There’s no burden of proof for someone who isn’t trying to convince anyone that there is God. However the possibilites of God’s existence are real, with probabilities that rival the chances that their is no God.
Perhaps Physicists and Mathematicians can not prove or disprove the existence of God. However they can spot an idiot from a mile away, any man who says they “know” there is no God would fall into this category.
English is my second language and did not proof read my typing, apologies for any spelling mistakes.
April 15th, 2009 at 12:58 pm
283. Chomto. I am not a Mason, nor do I have friends who are Masons this was not a thing we did in Russia.
When studying politics and the Western influences on pushing towards global government, naturally this leads you to study the origins and agenda of the Federal Reserve, IMF, Bilderberg Group, Club of Rome and Council on Foreign Relations. This quest for political understanding and truth lead me to also investigate the Free Masons. I have read many stories written by members who got out saying it was Satanic and generally an organization with a hidden evil agenda.
One such author is Jim Shaw who wrote the “Deadly Deception”. They are a few other testimonies but I am not bothering to look them up. The odds that you will research it on your own are slim to none, as this is typical with intellectually lazy Americans.
If you are not one of them, write back and I will look up the other testimonies I have read. Start with Jim Shaw’s book it is very intersting.
Oh…I don’t need to prove anything nor do I care to waste my time. Discern for yourself whether the testimonies of others are sincere or fabricated.
April 15th, 2009 at 1:02 pm
@vladimir
Despite your rambling lunacy, I stand by my lucid and well-supported statements about the definition of atheism and agnosticism, which you seem to have ignored in your rush to label me ignorant and lacking intelligence and “simple logic.” On what grounds do you make these accusations? Do they not teach chemistry professors in Russia the proper way to pursue an argument? Attacking my person is a bad way to discredit my position–it’s perfectly irrational in fact, the tactic of someone who has already *lost* an argument. Good luck with your faith in numerology and prophecy…and to be sure it is *not* shared by the majority of mathematicians and physicists. I notice you make it a point to insinuate that the opposite is true. This is pure sophistry. There are cranks in every profession (as you very well know, since you have met some of them).
April 15th, 2009 at 1:06 pm
“Oh…I don’t need to prove anything nor do I care to waste my time.”
I rest my case. Is this how you did your chemistry, too?
April 15th, 2009 at 1:16 pm
“However the possibilites of God’s existence are real, with probabilities that rival the chances that their is no God.”
This wimpy canard only works if you begin with the assumption that there *is* a god (instead of, say, multiple universes, or a virtual infinity of other possibilities that have not yet been imagined). That makes this a pointless exercise in circular reasoning. How, might I ask, does one calculate the probability of the existence of an entity one has not taken the trouble to describe? Seriously, how?
April 15th, 2009 at 1:22 pm
??? It’s interesting that you call clear logic rambling lunacy, you can not respond intelligently so you attack with anger. This is typical of someone who is frustrated.
Opinions are one thing. Let’s talk facts. At University in Russia I was friends with easily a dozen Physicists and a similar number of Mathematicians. None were Atheist for various mathematical and/or scientific reasons. This is a fact. These men of science were not athesits and their reasons were not due to religious indoctrination.
I am not saying I agree with them or disagree with them. My point is that mathematicians and physicists look at things from a different perspective than people like you, as it is clear from your writing that you are no scientist.
I would also like to point out I am not having an argument with you. Arguing with a religious zealot is typically pointless. My writing is mostly for the benefit of rational, free thinkers who visit this webpage. I do not write for the benefit of dogmatic zealots.
If your position is that you claim there is no God, it means you are 100% certain there is no God. This is something you do not know and can not know. Only a fool would make such a claim.
Also please look up Numerology, you don’t understand what this means. You used the word incorrectly. Statistics would be the field of mathematics that would be used to calculate the odds of an event happening and the ability for someone to predict such a futuristic event.
I have no faith in prophecy. Prophecy which has been fulfilled is an interesting topic. Nostradamus was vague and often incorrect. I have no faith in his predictions. Hebrew texts are another matter all together. The events in histroy that have been predicted by these men, would make anyone take notice.
Well except for someone dogmatic who cares not about the truth. Science is a search for truth. Einstein’s theory of special relativity and theory of gravitation would not have happened if he was not also a philosopher. The existence of a creator lead him to his hypothesis, which became theory and now virtually law.
How many Physicists are you personal friends with?
LOL More claims…do you believe in the tooth fairy also?
April 15th, 2009 at 1:28 pm
“…intellectually lazy Americans.”
Pot, meet kettle.
Do you really think that subscribing to any crackpot idea or conspiracy theory you read about is an activity that can be described as intellectually rigorous? Or that one’s intellect improves with each unsupported claim one accepts? Please. Keep trying, professor; you’re not quite there yet.
April 15th, 2009 at 1:30 pm
Casey why do you enter in on a conversation I am having with another person? I am not a Mason, never will be a Mason. However I read some interesting books and short articles written by those who have been Masons.
Either you read and trust what you read or you think the person is lying. This is not an important topic to me and I have no interest in researching it further.
Go argue with Arthur Pewty he is the one who wrote the comment, you like to argue maybe you can read each comment written here and argue with everyone.
April 15th, 2009 at 1:38 pm
When people at first thought Hitler and Stalin were evil before they revealed their intentions, this was also called conspiracy theory. Again I read one book and four or five articles written by past Free Mason members. This is called testimonial not conspiracy theory.
Again take a hint and go argue with Arthur Pewty I did not make the comment he did. Go argue with him little man.
April 15th, 2009 at 1:39 pm
“If your position is that you claim there is no God, it means you are 100% certain there is no God. This is something you do not know and can not know. Only a fool would make such a claim.”
You didn’t even read what I wrote, did you?
“At University in Russia I was friends with easily a dozen Physicists and a similar number of Mathematicians…How many Physicists are you personal friends with?”
I don’t care how many cranks you rubbed shoulders with. This does not support your position. It is an appeal to authority. Again I ask, do they not teach professors in Russia how to pursue an argument? Do they not teach basic logic? Obviously, you missed that subject.
You (and apparently your undereducated, myopic friends in the philosophy–I mean, mathematics and physics department) haven’t the slightest understanding of this subject either, and you refuse to be educated. Therefore, fuck off. (Not because I’m angry or frustrated about your apparent inability to respond to clearly stated, logical arguments, but because I don’t like sophist windbags.)
April 15th, 2009 at 1:40 pm
Pot meet Kettle….
Casey the dogmatic religious zealot meet Islamic jihadist (you will get along great!)
April 15th, 2009 at 1:42 pm
@Vladamir:
Please tell us how it is “non-scientific” to withhold belief in some claim until evidence is provided. That is scientific by definition. Are atheists the only people who understand what the burden of proof means and where it lies? Atheism is not a claim, it is the rejection of a claim. So-called “strong atheism” is hardly ever promoted by anyone except in the case of specific, *falsifiable* god-concepts. Otherwise, atheism is merely a refusal to believe an unsupported, non-falsifiable claim. Get your facts straight and stop your pathetic attempt at shifting the burden of proof.
By the way, so called “agnostics” are just atheists who are afraid of the label. Agnosticism refers to lack of knowledge; atheism refers to lack of belief. These two categories are not mutually exclusive (”strong atheism” is sometimes called “gnostic atheism,” for example). I am agnostic in my atheism the same way I am agnostic in my refusal to believe claims of UFO abduction. I don’t know for sure, but the evidence is hardly compelling…therefore, I don’t accept the claim: I don’t believe.
I hope this has been an education for you.
April 15th, 2009 at 1:44 pm
Personal friends with approximately 40 physicists, some Russian, some American, some Indian.
We have an in depth understanding of this subject. You probably work at Burger King.
April 15th, 2009 at 1:52 pm
I might have a different definition then the rest of these comments:
Atheism: Belief in no god, or no belief in god.
Agnostic: one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of god or a god.
The pissing contest and ad hominem here is a bit much, btw.
I don’t believe in god. Call me what you will, but I follow Inari so I’m good.
April 15th, 2009 at 1:55 pm
“Personal friends with approximately 40 physicists, some Russian, some American, some Indian.
We have an in depth understanding of this subject. You probably work at Burger King.”
Einstein worked in a patent office. What’s his point? So a bunch of highbrow elitist blowhards get together and read Hebrew scriptures. They also happen to be physicists. That means the Hebrew scriptures must be onto something, because “approximately 40″ physicists find them somehow compelling. Wow, the vaunted chemistry professor from Russia really understands how logic works! Let me just ask, since we’re using this “logic”: How many physicists are there in the world, and how many of them subscribe to Hebrew prophecies? How many of them have calculated the probability of the existence of “god,” and how many of them would consider this activity an exercise in nonsense? Perhaps our professor should reconsider his reliance on the authority of physicists.
April 15th, 2009 at 2:02 pm
@ oouchan:
No. Look it up. There’s a different word (or maybe two) for what you call “agnostic.” Apatheist or ignostic come to mind. “Agnostic” literally means, “without knowledge.” It doesn’t address belief.
As for the pissing contest and the ad hominem, it takes two to tango. Unfortunately, only one of the two is interested in veracity. I wonder where you stand on that. It’s easy to criticize, isn’t it?
April 15th, 2009 at 2:08 pm
casey: I did look it up. And my wording is a direct paste from the dictionary. It is easy to criticize but I didn’t jump all over you for it. I just pointed out that you and vladimir’s argument is baseless. You both are attacking each other without much to back up your statements. That’s an argument not a debate. Look that up.
April 15th, 2009 at 2:19 pm
Dudes I am pissing in my pants reading this fight!
Vladimir you totally kicked Casey’s ass, but lighten up on us Americans! We aren’t all like that. I was gonna call myself AmericanAtheist, but ya got a point Vladimir.
April 15th, 2009 at 2:24 pm
So I guess technically if you are a person who doesn’t believe there is a God you are an atheist and if you’re unsure you are an agnostic?
Anyway I understand Vladimir’s point. An Atheist who claims he knows there is no God is different than an Atheist who thinks there is no God, because you can’t really know until you die.
Dead men tell no tales, shimber me tivers matey!
April 15th, 2009 at 2:24 pm
By the way, I should ask, how does one “believe” in the non-existence of something? To say that atheists believe in the non-existence of gods, one must refer to a claim that is perfect nonsense: that god non-exists.
This is the problem with shifting the burden of proof; it demands the ad hoc synthesis of ridiculous claims that are the opposite of the original one, putting those who reject the claim in the strange position of having to accept it in order to reject it (“god non-exists” implies “god exists”). The statement that atheists believe in the non-existence of god is utter nonsense and a ruse popular with theist sophists.
You either believe a claim for the existence of some entity or you don’t, and it isn’t a choice. You can’t *choose* to believe something, and you certainly can’t choose to believe *not*-something. What is possible is a wavering belief, one that comes and goes. But this is not properly called agnosticism (which refers to belief not in the slightest). It is instead shaken theism.
April 15th, 2009 at 2:28 pm
this is to Casey,
Dude your arguments make me want to go to church, jk.
You got your booty kicked in this debate, but it was good entertainment.
To Vlad,
Which Hebrew prophecies got fulfilled? I only know the prediction about the ancient city of Tyre. Are there anymore?
Doesn’t mean there’s a God, maybe the ancient prophets had really go ouigi boards?
April 15th, 2009 at 2:30 pm
Wow, lots of idiots here today.
@ Oouchan:
No. Look it up. It’s more nuanced than what you will find in a dictionary. Try wikipedia; they have a nice article on it (that is, if you’re really interested in veracity). If you “don’t do nuance,” then you should probably try a different subject.
@ American Atheist:
You are the intellectually lazy American Vladimir was talking about…which is why you agree with him. I suggest you read more about this subject before you just decide what words like agnostic mean. (Hint: it means “without knowledge”.) Good luck.
April 15th, 2009 at 2:31 pm
I dunno Casey. I believe in non existence of the tooth fair. That was Vlads example. To disbelieve I suppose is not a big deal but it is kinda dumb to say I am absolutely sure there aint any God.
There is a difference between personal belief and making a claim that something is a fact when it is just ur own belief not backed up by anything
April 15th, 2009 at 2:31 pm
meant to say tooth fairy
April 15th, 2009 at 2:34 pm
“I only know the prediction about the ancient city of Tyre.”
Wow. We’re way down the rabbit hole now. Tyre still stands today…the prophecy failed. Of course, the true believer will find a way to make it work. You’re an agnostic, alright: you don’t know shit, and you’re about to go on a ride into some really ridiculous beliefs if you don’t straighten up. You could start with learning how to recognize a winning argument. Otherwise…all I have to say to you is, “keep the faith.”
April 15th, 2009 at 2:35 pm
I admit I dont know what Agnostic means, which is why I was asking you could have been nicer.
But you avoid the question. Are you saying you think there is no God based on the info you have, which is kinda like me or are you saying I Casey, the great one proclaim there is no God because I am master of the universe.
Sorry for pickin on ya Case I’m really on your side but u got outdebated by the Russian dude, who I dont think even believes in God but he is making a preeetty good point about being a know it all when you aint
April 15th, 2009 at 2:40 pm
“You either believe a claim for the existence of some entity or you don’t, and it isn’t a choice. You can’t *choose* to believe something, and you certainly can’t choose to believe *not*-something.”
Just trying to understand this…So we don’t have choices is what you are saying? We cannot choose to do anything in life? That can apply to anything but it doesn’t make sense. I claim I have to eat, but I don’t choose to.
I choose because I have rational thought. I think, therefore I am. It a matter of free will…does one have it or not?
“The statement that atheists believe in the non-existence of god is utter nonsense and a ruse popular with theist sophists.”
That was under agnostic not atheist. For an atheist, it’s a matter of a belief there is no god or that you don’t have a belief in god. One has the belief and the other doesn’t have one at all.
Agnostic to me is more the questioning of the presence god or a god whether real or not.
As for the idiot comment. That was what I was talking about. When you run out of things to say, you attack. Also, as for you comment on looking it up…I stay away from the evil wiki…if that is where you get your info, I am sorry. That is the dumbest place to go to as that is updated by people who don’t know what the hell they are talking about. I went to my local library online service to get my info. That is way more reliable.
Nothing I am saying here is attacking you. Just you comments. I guess you win the title of troll.
April 15th, 2009 at 2:40 pm
“I believe in non existence of the tooth fair.”
No you don’t. That doesn’t make sense. Did anyone make the claim to you that tooth fairies non-exist? Or did you instead come across a claim that tooth fairies exist and subsequently reject it? If the former, then I don’t know what universe you’re living in (maybe a theist one). If the latter, then you simply *don’t* believe in tooth fairies (as opposed to *believing* in their non-existence…whatever that’s supposed to mean). I’m sorry if you are out of your depth here (as it seems you are).
April 15th, 2009 at 2:44 pm
Guys – I am curious, what is the prediction about the ancient city of Tyre?
April 15th, 2009 at 2:47 pm
@ Oouchan:
I call you an idiot because of your low-quality posts full of statements like this one.
“I stay away from the evil wiki…if that is where you get your info, I am sorry. That is the dumbest place to go to as that is updated by people who don’t know what the hell they are talking about.”
I suppose you think that experts are barred from reading and editing wikipedia. Well, they aren’t. Try reading an article on anything relating to physics or mathematics (or, for that matter, high-falutin’ philosophical subjects like the definition(s) of atheism) and then get back to me. It’s actually one of the more reliable sources of information out there, and, especially in this case, it is more in-depth than a mere dictionary entry. Epic fail on your part (especially if you refuse to educate yourself because you don’t want to find out you’re wrong).
April 15th, 2009 at 2:50 pm
“But you avoid the question. Are you saying you think there is no God based on the info you have, which is kinda like me or are you saying I Casey, the great one proclaim there is no God because I am master of the universe.”
Nope. I never avoid a question. I don’t need to, because I maintain the utmost intellectual honesty and integrity (despite some well-placed name-calling). Here’s the answer to your question (which I posted twice and some time ago now):
@Vladamir:
Please tell us how it is “non-scientific” to withhold belief in some claim until evidence is provided. That is scientific by definition. Are atheists the only people who understand what the burden of proof means and where it lies? Atheism is not a claim, it is the rejection of a claim. So-called “strong atheism” is hardly ever promoted by anyone except in the case of specific, *falsifiable* god-concepts. Otherwise, atheism is merely a refusal to believe an unsupported, non-falsifiable claim. Get your facts straight and stop your pathetic attempt at shifting the burden of proof.
By the way, so called “agnostics” are just atheists who are afraid of the label. Agnosticism refers to lack of knowledge; atheism refers to lack of belief. These two categories are not mutually exclusive (”strong atheism” is sometimes called “gnostic atheism,” for example). I am agnostic in my atheism the same way I am agnostic in my refusal to believe claims of UFO abduction. I don’t know for sure, but the evidence is hardly compelling…therefore, I don’t accept the claim: I don’t believe.
I hope this has been an education for you.
April 15th, 2009 at 2:52 pm
“Guys – I am curious, what is the prediction about the ancient city of Tyre?”
That it would be razed to the ground, never again to be rebuilt. It is found in Ezekiel 26, I think.
April 15th, 2009 at 2:56 pm
315. casey: Again, if you want to follow wiki, have at it. It’s more wrong than right and many intelligent people on this site, don’t use it for that reason.
Again, you post an attack with no real substance. You didn’t address what I said, only address that I don’t use wiki because it’s wrong.
“Nope. I never avoid a question. I don’t need to, because I maintain the utmost intellectual honesty and integrity (despite some well-placed name-calling).”
Missed my question didn’t you? Just name calling is all that you are doing at this time.
Please do carry on with your baseless attacks. We all are allowed our opinion in this world. Yours is not the only one and its not the one that’s right.
So, I name thee troll and won’t feed you anymore. Enjoy.
April 15th, 2009 at 3:01 pm
@ Oouchan:
“Just trying to understand this…So we don’t have choices is what you are saying? We cannot choose to do anything in life?”
I don’t think you’re trying to understand it; it looks like you’re trying to misquote me. I didn’t say anything about free will (that’s quite another subject you aren’t prepared to deal with). I said we can’t choose to *believe* something–it’s like saying you can’t choose to feel something (and they are similar concepts, after all–so much so that we use the words interchangeably). Belief is a response, not a choice. You can try to make yourself believe something, the same way you can try to capture a feeling.
April 15th, 2009 at 3:04 pm
“Missed my question didn’t you? Just name calling is all that you are doing at this time.”
No, I didn’t. Would you like me to post the answer for the third time? Very well. Kindly read it this time.
@Vladamir:
Please tell us how it is “non-scientific” to withhold belief in some claim until evidence is provided. That is scientific by definition. Are atheists the only people who understand what the burden of proof means and where it lies? Atheism is not a claim, it is the rejection of a claim. So-called “strong atheism” is hardly ever promoted by anyone except in the case of specific, *falsifiable* god-concepts. Otherwise, atheism is merely a refusal to believe an unsupported, non-falsifiable claim. Get your facts straight and stop your pathetic attempt at shifting the burden of proof.
By the way, so called “agnostics” are just atheists who are afraid of the label. Agnosticism refers to lack of knowledge; atheism refers to lack of belief. These two categories are not mutually exclusive (”strong atheism” is sometimes called “gnostic atheism,” for example). I am agnostic in my atheism the same way I am agnostic in my refusal to believe claims of UFO abduction. I don’t know for sure, but the evidence is hardly compelling…therefore, I don’t accept the claim: I don’t believe.
“We all are allowed our opinion in this world. Yours is not the only one and its not the one that’s right.”
We weren’t discussing opinions; we were defining terms.
“So, I name thee troll and won’t feed you anymore. Enjoy.”
Humorous. Right back at ye, then.
April 15th, 2009 at 3:12 pm
@ oouchan:
“When you run out of things to say, you attack.”
Oh, I never run out of things to say, and my “attacks” only serve alongside my well-reasoned arguments (but I do tend to save the attacks for those who deserve them–typically people who consistently ignore the arguments…like you).
April 15th, 2009 at 3:17 pm
@ AmericanAgnostic:
“…being a know it all when you aint”
“In the land of the blind the one-eyed man is king.”
April 15th, 2009 at 9:56 pm
Wow. Casey is the only one speaking sense of late… Amazing to me how people just don’t see the truth.
April 15th, 2009 at 10:23 pm
I’m back, that was a bloody busy week
313. casey : Poor grammar doesn’t make a statement false. “I don’t believe that God exists” works the same way as “I believe that God doesn’t exist. I understand that double negatives are pointless and probably shouldn’t be used, but your attack on oouchan for one slip up doesn’t make you look right, it just makes you look petty.
315. casey : How about this, if you want to win arguments don’t resort to calling people idiots *period*
316. casey : Agnosticism is a legitimate belief – a fact you seem to not believe – it’s merely a “step below” atheism. If you’re a “hardcore” atheist and you don’t like people who don’t go the whole way, fine, but there isn’t much point attacking them here, because in this they’re on your side.
323. Chomto : What the hell is “the truth”? Seriously, I’m asking you to enlighten me seeing as you obviously have THE set of answers…
April 16th, 2009 at 4:31 am
“All matter is energy condensed to a slow vibration. We are one consciousness experiencing life subjectively. There is no such thing as death. Life is only a dream. And we are the imagination of ourselves.”
-Bill Hicks (“Einstein proved that”)
…a hundred years ago! Let’s evolve our ideas, people.
Science has certaintees, and certain limits. Mythology is one’s interface to the world. Nature is amoral, random, and chaotic. Think a thought a it will physically manifest in front of you (Carl Jung/syncronisty) Life is suffering. Truth is an ugly old woman. Love is the answer. Optimism is a State secret (ie. C.S. Lewis). Happiness is a warm puppy (Chas. Schultz). You make the day. You make the sun rise. (Black Elk). No matter what you do as long as you go with it you are in perfect harmony with the Universe (Aldous Huxley). And… Finding your true purpose, and not letting anyone throw you off it, makes you immortal (Joycian/H. Grail-ic).
Follow your conscious. As long as you have that you are alive. Fight, love and live. Just fight for what is worth fighting for, please.
April 16th, 2009 at 5:11 am
@Mark:
Great; another idiot.
I wasn’t addressing anyone’s grammar when I made the point that it is impossible to believe in the non-existence of something. No, it is not true that “I don’t believe God exists” is the same statement as “I believe God doesn’t exist.” The point about the burden of proof is not original with me, and is not a matter of grammar or semantics. Do some more research.
“315. casey : How about this, if you want to win arguments don’t resort to calling people idiots *period*”
How about this: if you don’t want to be called an idiot, don’t be one. Learn how to follow a clearly stated, logical argument. And, no, I’m not interested in winning arguments, because I’m not a sophist.
“316. casey : Agnosticism is a legitimate belief…”
No. It isn’t. Agnosticism is a lack of knowledge; uncertainty. The word agnostic literally means “without knowledge.” It doesn’t address belief. I’ve already covered this. Pay attention. Let me put it to you this way: you are entitled to your own opinion about the definition of agnosticism, but you are not entitled to your own facts about the definition of agnosticism. These facts are readily available to anyone who isn’t afraid to look them up and find out their opinion is unsupported.
As for your question about what “the truth” is, I’ll let Chomto answer for himself. I’d like to point out, however, that I subscribe to the correspondence theory of truth, which allows for things to be called true if they can be objectively and independently verified. The truth is “out there,” so to speak, external, rather than being a subjective fantasy like Bruce seems to believe. So, what theory of truth do *you* like best? There are several to choose from.
April 16th, 2009 at 5:32 am
326. casey : Nuh, you did not just pull out the “I” card on me already… You couldn’t have at least started civilly? I mean, even I made an effort. Why does the burden of proof lie on the other side of the fence? Because your logic says it does? “They should have to prove that God exists because they believe in him, not me”, that’s a fair enough statement. But you still haven’t disproven anything with it remember, all you did was take the pressure off yourself to make the final call.
You read The Wiki on agnosticism didn’t you. It’s not a “religious declaration”, but it is a BELIEF. Which is what I said it was. Good point by the way, “Well agnostic in Latin means without knowledge so agnostics don’t know nuthin’”. Agnosticism can actually be the belief that we can’t know whether or not there’s something up there, is that not a belief?
I don’t subscribe myself to any rigid thing that I would call the truch or the answer or the meaning. I find meaning in everything I do and experience. I take everything as it comes and trust my mental and emotional judgement to get me through. I hope that didn’t sound like new-age crap, because it’s not, it’s just the way I live. Take it as it comes and decide for yourself.
April 16th, 2009 at 7:08 am
Mark…Welcome back! Missed talking with you. Love your points. Keep it up.
April 16th, 2009 at 7:32 am
@Vladamir:
There is no point in telling a dog anything. Its not a language issue, just a lack of comprehension.
April 16th, 2009 at 7:37 am
328. oouchan : At least someone appreciates me, good to be back I guess. I’ll be back off for a couple of days soon though, but then I’ll be back at school. Another 8 weeks of blissful school, sport, guitar and LV, what a life eh?
April 16th, 2009 at 1:35 pm
@ Mark:
I called you an idiot; I didn’t realize you are also a liar. Nowhere in the wikipedia article on agnosticism does it use the word “belief” with regard to agnosticism. It uses the correct term: view. For example, it is my view that I have no certain knowledge of the truth value of the metaphysical claim “God exists.” However, since there is no compelling evidence to support the claim, I cannot force myself to *believe* it.
Like I said (and both the translation of the word as well as its definition in philosophical literature support me here), agnosticism does not address belief, only knowledge. To say “I am agnostic” is to leave one’s audience clueless as to what one believes or doesn’t believe. Have you heard of the term “fideism?” Didn’t think so. Fideists admit that they have no certain knowledge of their god’s existence, but believe regardless. They are agnostic theists (or deists). Am I getting across to you yet?
April 16th, 2009 at 1:43 pm
“Why does the burden of proof lie on the other side of the fence? Because your logic says it does?”
Give me a fucking break. Do your own research. Look up “burden of proof” *anywhere* and see what it says. Beware, though: you might find “my logic” to be rather popular.
April 16th, 2009 at 1:54 pm
“Well agnostic in Latin means without knowledge so agnostics don’t know nuthin’”
This is equivocation, and you are being disingenuous. I never said that or implied it.
April 16th, 2009 at 2:19 pm
casey:
Isnt what Vladamir saying up in post 286 summarized as “meaningful statements about the universe are always qualified by some degree of doubt. The fallibility of human beings means that they cannot obtain absolute certainty except in trivial cases where a statement is true by definition…” which appears on the entry AGNOSTICISM on Wiki.
Basically, all he was saying is that it is not possible to state for certain that God does not exist as human experience is short. You can say that your experiences/observations so far have not proven the existance of God but to be completely honest you have to keep the option open.
April 16th, 2009 at 4:09 pm
LOL!
Such quibbling…
Sorry all, but casey is still the only one making sense here.
April 17th, 2009 at 1:47 am
@ GTT:
No, that’s what *I* was saying. Vladimir was saying that Hebrew scriptures have predicted world events and that physicists and mathematicians have done the math and concluded that god exists. So, no, he was saying the exact opposite of what I was saying. Jesus! is Chomto the only one on here who knows how to read? Let me re-post my touchstone entry that clears up all of these misconceptions and has been already posted and re-posted about five times, but which everyone keeps ignoring, apparently because they just want to disagree with me. Here it is; please read it…
@Vladamir:
Please tell us how it is “non-scientific” to withhold belief in some claim until evidence is provided. That is scientific by definition. Are atheists the only people who understand what the burden of proof means and where it lies? Atheism is not a claim, it is the rejection of a claim. So-called “strong atheism” is hardly ever promoted by anyone except in the case of specific, *falsifiable* god-concepts. Otherwise, atheism is merely a refusal to believe an unsupported, non-falsifiable claim. Get your facts straight and stop your pathetic attempt at shifting the burden of proof.
By the way, so called “agnostics” are just atheists who are afraid of the label. Agnosticism refers to lack of knowledge; atheism refers to lack of belief. These two categories are not mutually exclusive (”strong atheism” is sometimes called “gnostic atheism,” for example). I am agnostic in my atheism the same way I am agnostic in my refusal to believe claims of UFO abduction. I don’t know for sure, but the evidence is hardly compelling…therefore, I don’t accept the claim: I don’t believe.
April 17th, 2009 at 1:51 am
“Sorry all, but casey is still the only one making sense here.”
@ Chomto:
Thanks, but tell me: what the hell happened to the choir? Are they all on vacation?
April 17th, 2009 at 2:17 am
“I don’t know for sure, but the evidence is hardly compelling…therefore, I don’t accept the claim: I don’t believe.”
What is it about this statement, by the way, that is so hard for you people to understand and accept (or even *notice*, for crying out loud!)? It reveals something about you, I think: that you are under the impression that the existence of god is to be assumed.
It is a completely alien concept to your under-evolved, peanut-sized minds that one would have no knowledge of the existence of gods and still fail to believe in them. It is frightening to you that someone would come along and threaten your cozy, unexamined, culturally-induced bias.
And so you proclaim, “AGNOSTICISM!!! Please, for God’s sake, agnosticism!” You use this word like a fetish to ward off the demons of free thought (i.e., thought free of baseless assumptions). You are afraid of its real definition because that extinguishes its power to insulate you from the reality of the situation: that an absence of belief is the default position.
April 17th, 2009 at 2:20 am
Sorry, I should have said, “from a *rational* perspective, an absence of belief is the default position.” Just wanted to be clear on that point.
April 17th, 2009 at 2:24 am
Agnostic definition as was defined by T.H. Huxley, the man who coined the term that means one should not profess to a belief in something that cannot be proven.
Therefore it is reasonable a person’s belief be founded upon the notion that what cannot be proven is irrelevent, inconsequential and to be avoided as an article of faith/reliability. A mythology of weeding out the “ridiculous”, and assuming a belief incorporates what is believed, it would be finding “true” knowledge in the harvests of scientific research.
Huxley’s term means ‘without knowledge’ in the sense that a knowledge of the spirit, or spiritual knowledge, is unfounded and irrelevant given the vast ‘knowledge’ of proveable facts. Being a key defender of Darwin’s “Origin of the Species” against the denunciations of the Church, despite his own doubts of Darwin’s findings, he established that science shall not be rediculed and scientific aurguments be exclusively between scientists.
…At the time this served as ‘protection’ to the fledgling growth of science. Today it allows for a certain palpitable lack of modesty to flourish among the scientifically educated. They have some good reason to be excused of this, at times. But it often blinds them to even their own scientific realities. Which are very real, and not real, and very likely what is ‘proven’ only appears proven within the limits of our ability to perceive and observe. Anyone got a look at the quantum particle double slit test?
Hmmm. So a result can be the result of an observer’s experience of a result. Hmmmm. Additionally a result can be one result, another result, neither result, all results, and no result, as a result of the observer’s experience. Hmmm. I think I see the light?!?! No, it’s just God f&*%ing with me again. Wasn’t that what Einstein’s subjective fantasy was based on?
April 17th, 2009 at 2:41 am
“You can say that your experiences/observations so far have not proven the existance of God but to be completely honest you have to keep the option open.”
Yes, this is true. In the same way, and according to precisely the same logic, you must “keep the option (of belief, upon the presentation of evidence) open” that fairies, unicorns, Russell’s Teapot, Santa Claus, or any other fantastic claim might actually turn out to be true. The point is the onus is on the claimant to provide evidence for his claim; or do you think you should be expected to believe in Santa Claus until you can convince yourself otherwise by examining every square inch of the North Pole? (And even then, faithful Santa-Clausists would be able to rationalize some magical explanation for the lack of evidence.) You don’t believe in Santa Claus, do you? Why not? You may even claim that you *do* leave the option open–but do you call that “belief?” So, even if you “leave the option open,” you still don’t believe in Santa Claus. Right? So…why not?
April 17th, 2009 at 3:50 am
@ Bruce:
In case you think you’re on to something and are slipping into post-modernist mumbo-jumbo, let me just point out a couple of things.
1) Science doesn’t attempt to “prove” things, beyond doubt or question. As has been said here before, proof is for mathematicians. Science is the activity of following evidence to the most probable, tentative conclusion, which is itself then put to the test. Science is a crucible, not an oracle, and its work is never done because the perfection of any given explanation is an ongoing process.
2) Your mention of the observer effect has me cringing in the same way I did when I watched “What the Bleep Do We Know,” wherein an ancient spirit inhabiting the bloated body of a New Age cult leader abused scientific concepts it didn’t understand in order to peddle its metaphysical wares upon a public more dazzled than literate when it comes to science (especially regarding quantum mechanics). I don’t know what you’re getting at, but I have the feeling you’re trying to say, basically, “What the bleep do we know.” And in that case I can’t take you seriously.
And…yep. I called it, didn’t I? Your link is to what seems to be a companion piece to the very film on new age pseudoscience I mentioned. Furthermore, I did some research on the double-slit experiment and cannot find anything verifying the claim that there was an observer effect involved at all (i.e., that when the particles were fired one at a time, they were measured to determine which slit they went through, with the result that no interference pattern emerged on the screen, and with the conclusion then being that the act of measuring the electrons collapsed their wave-forms, making them behave properly rather than being in two places at once). Either way, it only shows that reality is weird (to say the least) on the quantum level. Newtonian physics work quite well regardless of an observer; and we *do* know this, because we can take precise measurements of large things and they don’t get offended by it. I like what Michael Shermer said: “There is no micro-macro connection. Subatomic particles may be altered when they are observed, but the moon is there even if no one looks at it.”
April 17th, 2009 at 4:47 am
I’ve been LVing since a month after this site started and I have to say casey has the sexist brain I’ve seen since I met my girlfriend (Seriously, someone come up for a new word).
This is one of the most entertaining things I’ve seen since the Your Views.
April 17th, 2009 at 5:07 am
casey : Ok, now you are being pedantic and picky. If it is my VIEW that we cannot prove or disprove thee existance of an omnipotent being then I *must* by extension BELIEVE that we cannot prove or disprove thee existance of an omnipotent being. That’s all I meant by agnosticism can be a legitimate belief, no need to pull out the “L” card as well so shortly after the “I”, people will just think that you’re running out of real facts to use.
“…Give me a fucking break. Do your own research. Look up “burden of proof” *anywhere* and see what it says. Beware, though: you might find “my logic” to be rather popular.”
I agree with you about the burden of proof, but the law in America once said that the black man could never be the equal of the white. Just because something is, doesn’t mean it has to be, doesn’t mean I have to agree with it and it definitely doesn’t mean that it’s right.
“…This is equivocation, and you are being disingenuous. I never said that or implied it.”
Yep, you’re right, I articulated my point very poorly, I’ll try again. Just because in Latin an “a” in front of “gnostic” would mean, “no knowledge” it does *not* mean that that is what the words usage in English is.
335. Chomto : Why? Because she (he?) is being aggressive and insulting? You might want to actually add something to the discussion in future, or just don’t say anything – which I find to generally be the best option on LV
343. Crimanon : Wait a second… Is it mentioned whether casey is a he or a she – obviously I missed it if it was – because if it wasn’t you could be coming up on a guy right now…
April 17th, 2009 at 5:16 am
Mark: I can admire a good Brain regardless of the sex, Not much booty to see here anyway since the NSFW lists are gone. Can’t a man just have a quick fantasy?
April 17th, 2009 at 5:24 am
345. Crimanon : Of course they can – as a 16 y/o I’m more than entitled and don’t worry, I use the entitlement
– but I just wanted to make sure you realized the implications of this if you don’t swing both ways. Fantasies can be… Harmful, to your mental health… Trust me 
April 17th, 2009 at 5:32 am
How can Atheists prove GOD does not exist?
April 17th, 2009 at 5:49 am
347. Cybogen : I don’t know, how can you prove that he does?
April 17th, 2009 at 5:54 am
Sure be glad to mate then you can disprove why you say GOD does not exist.
When it comes to the possibility of God’s existence, the Bible says that there are people who have seen sufficient evidence, but they have suppressed the truth about God. On the other hand, for those who want to know God if he is there, he says, “You will seek me and find me; when you seek me with all your heart, I will be found by you.” Before you look at the facts surrounding God’s existence, ask yourself, If God does exist, would I want to know him? Here then, are some reasons to consider…
1. Does God exist? The complexity of our planet points to a deliberate Designer who not only created our universe, but sustains it today.
Many examples showing God’s design could be given, possibly with no end. But here are a few:
The Earth…its size is perfect. The Earth’s size and corresponding gravity holds a thin layer of mostly nitrogen and oxygen gases, only extending about 50 miles above the Earth’s surface. If Earth were smaller, an atmosphere would be impossible, like the planet Mercury. If Earth were larger, its atmosphere would contain free hydrogen, like Jupiter.3 Earth is the only known planet equipped with an atmosphere of the right mixture of gases to sustain plant, animal and human life.
The Earth is located the right distance from the sun. Consider the temperature swings we encounter, roughly -30 degrees to +120 degrees. If the Earth were any further away from the sun, we would all freeze. Any closer and we would burn up. Even a fractional variance in the Earth’s position to the sun would make life on Earth impossible. The Earth remains this perfect distance from the sun while it rotates around the sun at a speed of nearly 67,000 mph. It is also rotating on its axis, allowing the entire surface of the Earth to be properly warmed and cooled every day.
2. Does God exist? The universe had a start – what caused it?
Scientists are convinced that our universe began with one enormous explosion of energy and light, which we now call the Big Bang. This was the singular start to everything that exists: the beginning of the universe, the start of space, and even the initial start of time itself.
Astrophysicist Robert Jastrow, a self-described agnostic, stated, “The seed of everything that has happened in the Universe was planted in that first instant; every star, every planet and every living creature in the Universe came into being as a result of events that were set in motion in the moment of the cosmic explosion…The Universe flashed into being, and we cannot find out what caused that to happen.”
Steven Weinberg, a Nobel laureate in Physics, said at the moment of this explosion, “the universe was about a hundred thousands million degrees Centigrade…and the universe was filled with light.”
The universe has not always existed. It had a start…what caused that? Scientists have no explanation for the sudden explosion of light and matter.
Does God exist? The universe operates by uniform laws of nature. Why does it?
Much of life may seem uncertain, but look at what we can count on day after day: gravity remains consistent, a hot cup of coffee left on a counter will get cold, the earth rotates in the same 24 hours, and the speed of light doesn’t change — on earth or in galaxies far from us.
How is it that we can identify laws of nature that never change? Why is the universe so orderly, so reliable?
“The greatest scientists have been struck by how strange this is. There is no logical necessity for a universe that obeys rules, let alone one that abides by the rules of mathematics. This astonishment springs from the recognition that the universe doesn’t have to behave this way. It is easy to imagine a universe in which conditions change unpredictably from instant to instant, or even a universe in which things pop in and out of existence.”
Does God exist? Unlike any other revelation of God, Jesus Christ is the clearest, most specific picture of God revealing himself to us.
Why Jesus? Look throughout the major world religions and you’ll find that Buddha, Muhammad, Confucius and Moses all identified themselves as teachers or prophets. None of them ever claimed to be equal to God. Surprisingly, Jesus did. That is what sets Jesus apart from all the others. He said God exists and you’re looking at him. Though he talked about his Father in heaven, it was not from the position of separation, but of very close union, unique to all humankind. Jesus said that anyone who had seen Him had seen the Father, anyone who believed in him, believed in the Father. He said, “I am the light of the world, he who follows me will not walk in darkness, but will have the light of life.” He claimed attributes belonging only to God: to be able to forgive people of their sin, free them from habits of sin, give people a more abundant life and give them eternal life in heaven. Unlike other teachers who focused people on their words, Jesus pointed people to himself. He did not say, “follow my words and you will find truth.” He said, “I am the way, the truth, and the life, no one comes to the Father but through me.” What proof did Jesus give for claiming to be divine? He did what people can’t do. Jesus performed miracles. He healed people…blind, crippled, deaf, even raised a couple of people from the dead. He had power over objects…created food out of thin air, enough to feed crowds of several thousand people. He performed miracles over nature…walked on top of a lake, commanding a raging storm to stop for some friends. People everywhere followed Jesus, because he constantly met their needs, doing the miraculous. He said if you do not want to believe what I’m telling you, you should at least believe in me based on the miracles you’re seeing.
Jesus Christ showed God to be gentle, loving, aware of our self-centeredness and shortcomings, yet deeply wanting a relationship with us. Jesus revealed that although God views us as sinners, worthy of his punishment, his love for us ruled and God came up with a different plan. God himself took on the form of man and accepted the punishment for our sin on our behalf. Sounds ludicrous? Perhaps, but many loving fathers would gladly trade places with their child in a cancer ward if they could. The Bible says that the reason we would love God is because he first loved us.
Jesus died in our place so we could be forgiven. Of all the religions known to humanity, only through Jesus will you see God reaching toward humanity, providing a way for us to have a relationship with him. Jesus proves a divine heart of love, meeting our needs, drawing us to himself. Because of Jesus’ death and resurrection, he offers us a new life today. We can be forgiven, fully accepted by God and genuinely loved by God. He says, “I have loved you with an everlasting love, therefore I have continued my faithfulness to you.”18 This is God, in action.
GOD does not force us to believe in him, though he could. Instead, he has provided sufficient proof of his existence for us to willingly respond to him. The earth’s perfect distance from the sun, the unique chemical properties of water, the human brain, DNA, the number of people who attest to knowing God, the gnawing in our hearts and minds to determine if God is there, the willingness for God to be known through Jesus Christ.
April 17th, 2009 at 5:55 am
347. Cybogen – “How can Atheists prove GOD does not exist?”
How can theists prove god DOES exist? At the moment both ways are anecdotal and thus impossible for either way to create as an valid point in argument because there is no empirical evidence to go either way.
Fellow atheists, don’t jump down my throat. It’s an overused ploy to attack atheists and I’m simply cutting it quickly at the knees here and now because frankly, I see/hear this far too much.
April 17th, 2009 at 5:58 am
goodness, that’s a lot of crap in #349… and as I said in my little blurb: All suppositions, no empirical evidence.
Of course, I skimmed it so perhaps I missed a tidbit or two. Peruse later. I will be late to gym and teacher will not be happy.
April 17th, 2009 at 6:10 am
Gabi319- yes mate its alot of info to take in but I did it for Marks sake.
April 17th, 2009 at 6:36 am
349. Cybogen : No offence, but you wasted you time with that. It’s all pointless, there’s no empirical evidence, which is the only thing that’s going to clench it one way or another.
Number 1 is a complete joke, you say it had to be intelligent design I say the law of averages says that it had to happen somewhere in this huge universe. If it had happened somewhere else they’d probably be thinking the same thing, but step back for a second and think of how it would be WITHOUT God given what I said. It would be exactly as it is now.
Number 2 is even more pointless, you say everything had to start somewhere but can you tell me where God came from?
“The greatest scientists have been struck by how strange this is. There is no logical necessity for a universe that obeys rules, let alone one that abides by the rules of mathematics. This astonishment springs from the recognition that the universe doesn’t have to behave this way. It is easy to imagine a universe in which conditions change unpredictably from instant to instant, or even a universe in which things pop in and out of existence.”
If we were in one of those universes that had no laws you’d be sitting here saying :
“The greatest scientists have been struck by how strange this is. There is no logical necessity for a universe that lacks rules. This astonishment springs from the recognition that the universe doesn’t have to behave this way. It is easy to imagine a universe in which conditions remain stable and constant, or even a universe in which things pop in and out of existence.” – Ok, couldn’t think of something to replace the last clause with. But you get my point.
Saying that God must be real because Jesus ran around is pretty insane because I can think of some other prophets. Also, claiming that Jesus must’ve been right because he was the only one who was insane enough to believe himself to be the God he preached of is illogical. If I go around tomorrow and start saying “I am Allah, worship me and everything will be sweet.” Does that mean that suddenly Islam’s version of the lord is as likely as yours?
By the way, you mentioned Moses. Wasn’t he preaching about the same god as Jebus? Just wondering because if he was that makes your assertion that God is more likely because of Jesus even more fallacious.
“GOD does not force us to believe in him, though he could. Instead, he has provided sufficient proof of his existence for us to willingly respond to him. The earth’s perfect distance from the sun, the unique chemical properties of water, the human brain, DNA, the number of people who attest to knowing God, the gnawing in our hearts and minds to determine if God is there, the willingness for God to be known through Jesus Christ.”
God left us with just too much to doubt his existence, if he’s out there, that is his problem.
I only replied to selected or very ambiguous sections of the comment because I don’t have a few hours on my hands at the present moment. I wouldn’t bet that I couldn’t pick it apart a bit better if I were you, so please don’t bother asking
April 17th, 2009 at 7:00 am
Cybogen…good morning! Sorry, dear, but I have to agree with Mark. Your comments did come over a bit preachy, but I know where you were going with this.
It’s really hard to prove either side…one with facts and the other with a belief. I will just sit back and see what unfolds.
Mark…I agree with your post 344. You make a hell of a lot more sense. Thank you.
April 17th, 2009 at 7:07 am
354. oouchan : Good morning… Aww, I’ll be off to bed relatively soon, it’s just hit midnight here. Big day tomorrow too, haircut before I go back to boarding school – yay, school
– day. I’ll be back doing my stupid choice of 6 subjects for 5 days of the week on Tuesday 
Good that I made some sense to someone, I think I always do to you though
April 17th, 2009 at 7:12 am
Mark….Well night to you. Have fun at school and don’t get it cut too short! (I know they have regulations)…
Yes…you do make sense…even when you call me old! :p
I’m off to work now.
April 17th, 2009 at 7:13 am
Oouchan – Good morning to you to my lady. Its is fine with me how you feel about my opnions. I must admit many things I said on my last post were copy and pasted from a Scriptural site I read often. I want you to know that what ever your opinion is towards your beliefs and my beliefs does not change the fact that I Love You and am glad to be your friend. Its my pleasure to know you!
April 17th, 2009 at 7:17 am
Cybogen….yay! Someone loves me….hee,hee.
Ok…One thing I should have pointed out is that I wasn’t attacking you by any means. You do have a sweet way of bringing your points to the table.
Going to work now. Will pick this up again later!
April 17th, 2009 at 7:20 am
Of course I do. How could I not. : )
April 17th, 2009 at 7:23 am
356. oouchan : You have no idea how much I try to not get it cut too short. Alas, I don’t want to get raped by the school marshal and I do board so it’s not eady to get one once I arrive at school so I must get it done properly the first time
There’s a very good reason that I make sense, ESPECIALLY when I call you old
April 17th, 2009 at 7:25 am
357. Cybogen : Oh great, not only do I have to put up with someone making me wasting my time typing *huge* replies to copied work. BUT you also have to hit on oouchan right here… Bro, get a room
April 17th, 2009 at 7:55 am
Mark – You do not understand the real cooncept of Love. Its not for you to think of Love more than just sex by the comment you made “Bro, get a room” though it doesn’t surprise me you said it.
Still I have no regret at all for what I say to Oouchan as She is decent and caring lady and I understand her.
April 17th, 2009 at 8:03 am
362. Cybogen : My dear lord it’s hard to convey a joking and playful tone across the internet. Maybe if you knew me as well as oouchan does you would’ve understood that I was just being an idiot. I didn’t mean to offend you and I do apologize if I did.
I understand the concept of love a lot better than you think. There are many types of love, the type you are experiencing is what is known as “hypocritical love”, it’s the love the Bible says it’s ok to have, but also not quite so and sometimes it’s just plain unacceptable.
Don’t start any fundie stuff on me now, too tired to put up a fight anyway. I hope you and oouchan hit it off real nicely *wink wink nudge nudge*. *whispers in ear* You do notice she’s got a 13 y/o kid right?!
April 17th, 2009 at 8:09 am
360. Mark: hahahaha! I will never be old! When I become 80 I will still be the same way! I’ll be the coolest granny on the block, lol.
Cybogen: I actually got what Mark was saying…it’s fine. Thanks for sticking up for me. (and Mark, what does me having a kid have to do with it?)
April 17th, 2009 at 8:15 am
364. oouchan : “Oldness is in the eyes of the beholder” Anonymous (It might’ve been Mark now I think of it?)
[Hypothetical]
You’re at a bar, there are twins there, either of which will sleep with you if and when you get them drunk – 34 y/o twins we’ll say. You have to pick one – only one! Oh noes! – one of them has a 13 y/o daughter, the other doesn’t.
[/Hypothetical]
WHAT TYPE OF PERSON WOULD PICK THE ONE WITH THE KID???
April 17th, 2009 at 8:22 am
Mark…easy…if you have the kid, it means you are not virginal. match-set-point.
April 17th, 2009 at 8:25 am
Its alright Mark. No grudges held. Its only that I do see some critical people on here at times and I don’t know whether there real at times or joking. you gotta admit some peole come across with some serious words. Its all good still cuz we do have that ability to speak freely and I see where you are coming from now.
Its OK with you Ouchan having a kid no matter what. I happen to like kids. I think their innocence in being able to not judge others and having no hatred in them makes them role models for adults. You got to admit as people grow up in the world their hearts at times grow cold. The child is given love and grows as you hope is healthy and happy. I love kids cuz I am a parent as well.
Oouchan I bet you have a beautiful child that shares your qualities!
April 17th, 2009 at 8:29 am
366. oouchan : And it means if you get hitched you wouldn’t have any little turds to annoy you…
367. Cybogen : You just can’t help yourself can you? First of all it’s “I love you oouchan” and now you’ve graduated to “I bet you have a beautiful child”. You see, this is why I told you to get a room, no one here wants to see your feeble pick up attempts. Take whatever you can get, hey?
April 17th, 2009 at 8:43 am
368. Mark:………I know you are attempting some humor, but it’s not funny anymore. That was a little mean spirited…at least to me. I took that one a little harder only because you don’t know what I had to go through to have her. I would give up anything for her … so the best thing we can do is to get off this subject.
Cybogen…I have a clone. She looks exactly like me and we can pass as sisters. If you want, go to the pictures thread in the forums. I’m there along with my clone kid!
April 17th, 2009 at 8:57 am
369. oouchan : Wow, touchier than I thought, I apologize then. I new you were very “protective” of her, I obviously didn’t gauge the extent very well, so sorry. It’s just that Cybogen is kinda freaking me out with his (her?) crazy hippy/fundie love is in the air way of speaking about you and your kid. I find it rather disturbing, like the old lady that give you drugged tea and you wake up and find yourself tied to the table and she’s got the huge carving knife ready to butcher some prime cuts for dinner… Ok, don’t ask me where that came from, but that’s what all this “love” stuff makes me think of…
April 17th, 2009 at 9:37 am
Mark: You know….It didn’t occur to me to take it that way, so I apologize. (you are right, I am really sensitive about her
) I see now that you were sticking up for me.
You had to go there with that image! I have to say that is a nightmare of mine. Waking up somewhere else and having someone over me…..yeach! I do NOT want to be someone’s dinner!
April 17th, 2009 at 10:18 am
ROFL!
*star trek transporter noise*
…as we beam to a fan club’s soiree.
April 17th, 2009 at 10:49 am
Chomto: That happens alot here. You should see the Your View: Should Creationism Be Taught In Schools? list.
April 17th, 2009 at 12:21 pm
Ouchan- Sorry I have been busy here at work, and I finally got to your profile. ITS REALLY NICE!
April 17th, 2009 at 12:29 pm
374 Cybogen: Dude your stalking is getting creepy. oouchan, do you want me to kick his ass? We internet tough guys can do that from right here behind our keyboards you know.
April 17th, 2009 at 12:34 pm
375. Maggot- Hey you’re pretty funny son. Maybe thats why I’d let you get up off the floor after I knocked your sorryass down. Just kidding. I’d let you stay down! You have no idea what you’re dealing with boy!
April 17th, 2009 at 12:41 pm
376 Cybogen: Oh I have a pretty darn good idea…wus.
lol
April 17th, 2009 at 12:45 pm
Now boys…behave.
Tough guy aka Maggot….I’m good. But thanks for the offer! That is very nice.
(makes me feel fluffed!)
I have a few champions out there in cyberspace. Makes me feel loved…oops…sorry Mark. Instead of “love” how about “fluff”? I like that word.
April 17th, 2009 at 4:38 pm
casey (336):
OK, pot, meet kettle. In your hurry to refute my comment you failed to re-read the post I was referring you to. Please note:
“Similarly any individual who has not seen or heard God, can not say they know God exists. Assuming you are one of these individuals, you can say I have not seen God. I have not heard God. But only a fool can say there is no God, this would require knowledge of the entire Universe, which is something you do not have…”
And your comment in 339…
“from a *rational* perspective, an absence of belief is the default position.” Just wanted to be clear on that point.
Wow… Arrogant much? I accept that you do not believe. However, why do I have to be irrational if I have faith? It´s something you dont understand, cannot accept based on observable evidence, I get it, but what is the point in belittling everyone else?
April 17th, 2009 at 4:40 pm
OK, so I just through the multiple posts regarding oouchan and love and getting a room and granny with a carving knike (WTF?), and the beating up bit… I´m not sure whether to laugh or be really freaked out and leave!
April 17th, 2009 at 4:49 pm
GTT: Join us…..
Ha! We derailed quickly didn’t we on this?
Glad that you posted that comment in 379. It’s easier to insult someone when they differ from your point of view it seems. Even still, we believe what we want to believe. Even if I share the same point of view with someone, how I get to that point is my own.
“You say tomato, I say tomahto” is appropriate, don’t you think?
April 17th, 2009 at 4:50 pm
378. oouchan – “oops…sorry Mark. Instead of “love” how about “fluff”? I like that word.
(makes me feel fluffed!)”
Oh no, oouchan! This thread is creepy enough but you had to say ‘fluffed’?! I’ll chalk it up to naivete? I wouldn’t want to ruin the innocence.
GTT, I think it’s to the point of “be really freaked out and leave!”
April 17th, 2009 at 5:30 pm
382. gabi319….I did that for Mark’s sake. He doesn’t like the word “love”. He said so in post 370. I was being nice for him. However, I like that word so it was for everyone else. Naivete? Hardly….
April 17th, 2009 at 5:37 pm
oouchan, it makes you feel like your being kept aroused for the filming of a porn?
April 17th, 2009 at 5:41 pm
371. oouchan : Lol, me neither
Lols at Maggot and Cybogen. Nice one fellas, testosterone flying everywhere.
380. GTT : Yeah, sorry about the granny thing, but it was what came to mind. If that exchange freaks you out too much you probably should leave, it’s not going to get any better on LV.
383. oouchan : Thank you, but I don’t care if you use it, just not some fundie trying to come up on you – or not, but just really seeming like it.
April 17th, 2009 at 5:48 pm
Apparently downhighway61’s the only one who understood my reference.
…unless oouchan’s “Naivete? Hardly…” means…?? UGH!!! I MUST GOUGE OUT MY EYES TO PROTECT MY INNOCENCE!!!! ew ew ew ew!
April 17th, 2009 at 5:58 pm
All hail the church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. By the logic above, His Noodlyness is just as likely to have created this mortal pasta-coil as any other deity.
April 17th, 2009 at 6:01 pm
there goes gabi again…
*sigh*
Give her 5 minutes guys
April 17th, 2009 at 6:09 pm
Mark… It’s all good, really. I don’t take too much of the love to heart anyway. It’s just fun.
gabi319…. No…I’m not like that at all. I try to be tame as I can, really. I have a bad habit of speak first think later. Thank the love of little green apples that I type and *look* at what I type first before submitting. If I didn’t, I would be kicked off this site.
I also have to be good as the kid gets on here to see what I have written…sigh.
April 17th, 2009 at 6:14 pm
387/388 – You’re going to need all the multiple posts you can write my friend…
389. oouchan : It’s all good to you, but as I mentioned above it scares the shit out of me
April 17th, 2009 at 6:29 pm
Not competing this week Mark.
But just wait. I will lurk. and when you least expect it I shall pop up on every SINGLE list and trump you by many hundreds
You won’t even know it was me
April 17th, 2009 at 6:39 pm
391. cymraegbachgen87 : You should’ve put the smiley after “You won’t even know it was me” ’cause that’s the bit I found the funniest. Well except for the premise of the comment of course
April 17th, 2009 at 6:43 pm
What I find funny is the premise
for your 392!
And of course you know the premise for my 393! (which will turn out not to
be 393 and make me look stupid)
And hey – I’m not witty
at the best of times, let alone nearly 2.45am. I will put my smileys wherever the voices in my head tell me to!
April 17th, 2009 at 6:44 pm
Yay! got 393!
April 17th, 2009 at 6:45 pm
This spurious posting is making me sleepy.
For now I shall cease, but only to recharge and come on a renewed offensive in the morning! Or maybe afternoon – it IS a weekend after all!
Good night LV!
April 17th, 2009 at 6:48 pm
Wow. This is a circle jerk. I’m not going to respond to any more of these confused and infantile “arguments.” (Why should I when my most relevant points, oft repeated, are consistently ignored or mishandled–this is obvious sophistry.) It is clear that those who have a problem with what I’m saying also have a problem with clear thinking and reading, not to mention honesty. I don’t think that’s just a coincidence.
“I’ve been LVing since a month after this site started and I have to say casey has the sexist brain I’ve seen since I met my girlfriend…”
@ Crimanon:
I’ll assume you meant “sexiest,” rather than “sexist,” and in that case, thank you. But I’ll also be a little *sexist* by asking you the following question: From the quality of my logic, did you ever really have any doubt that I am male? (Tongue in cheek, I promise!)
Glad to see there are at least a few clear-headed, honest people on here.
April 17th, 2009 at 7:09 pm
396. casey : LOL! Yeah, you win the argument because you call my points confused and infantile… I hope that’s not what you’re trying to do because I would’ve expected a bit more from you. My above – way above because of oouchan and her romantic interests – post outlines some good points which are not just re-hashed from above and you haven’t bothered to refute any of them. All you’ve done is say “I’m sick of this, I’m leaving.”. That’s all good with me, just don’t think that you automatically “win” because of that, because that’s definitely not the way it works.
April 17th, 2009 at 7:19 pm
casey: I’ve had a few debates where everyone thought I was a woman. “because your smarter than me.” I laughed for a good hour after reading that gem. I’ve seen more women win arguments around here, so assumptions some times turn out wrong.
Oh well, you won’t get any head from me, but you may very well get drunk.
April 17th, 2009 at 7:27 pm
“from a *rational* perspective, an absence of belief is the default position.” Just wanted to be clear on that point.
“Wow… Arrogant much? I accept that you do not believe. However, why do I have to be irrational if I have faith? It´s something you dont understand, cannot accept based on observable evidence, I get it, but what is the point in belittling everyone else?”
Here’s an example of what I mean by mishandled points. I didn’t say people who believe are necessarily irrational (people often do quite a good job rationalizing their beliefs to their own satisfaction). I said that from a rational perspective, lack of belief is the *default* position concerning any particular claim. You aren’t born believing in Santa Claus, for example.
My clarification about rationality was included here to allow for a more-or-less default position of belief arising from emotions such as fear, comfort, or belonging, or from being raised from birth in an environment that conditions one for and reinforces a given belief–these are phenomena that are different from a rational consideration of facts and/or evidence.
From that standpoint (the standpoint of rational consideration of facts and/or evidence) lack of belief is necessarily the default position (that means it’s where you start)–otherwise there would be no point in considering facts or evidence, because…say it with me…you would *already* believe the claim!
Just imagine that “God exists!” was a brand new claim. Would you start by believing it, or by withholding belief until you could examine the evidence (should some be supplied)? It is because this claim is not new but very old and culturally reinforced that you suffer such confusion about what it means to be agnostic with regard to it. Well, that and your general inability to think things through sufficiently, do research, and be honest with yourself and others.
April 17th, 2009 at 7:43 pm
@ Mark:
“you win the argument…[yada yada]”
God, you’re stupid. I never said anything about “winning” the argument; I’m not interested in “winning” any argument. That parade is for sophists like you. I was interested only in getting my point across, but you and your colleagues are so goddamn thick (and vile in your intellectual dishonesty) that it was not possible.
“…some good points which are not just re-hashed from above and you haven’t bothered to refute any of them.”
No. I’m sorry. I read them and they aren’t good points (you only think they are because you are not good at thinking). Fortunately I am not under any obligation to refute them for you (again and again, ad nauseum). Work out your own salvation, brother.
@ Crimanon:
“Oh well, you won’t get any head from me, but you may very well get drunk.”
Yeah, well, I don’t get drunk without head–preferably floating on the top of a St. Peter’s Cream Stout, if you please.
April 17th, 2009 at 8:34 pm
these guys are probably dead now,and obviously burning in hell.
April 17th, 2009 at 8:44 pm
401. Zoombafoo:
Refer to item #15:
15. It’s an incredible con job when you think about it, to believe something now in exchange for something after death. Even corporations with their reward systems don’t try to make it posthumous. — Gloria Steinem
And interesting how you say “these guys are probably dead now” when item 14 is a quote from Woody Allen. Methinks you probably didn’t even read the list before deciding to insult the atheists…
April 17th, 2009 at 9:14 pm
401. Zoombafoo
Thankyou for providing yet another great example of religious ignorance!
*smiles*
April 17th, 2009 at 9:30 pm
400. casey : Me and my colleages are thick are we? What colleages are these? I’m not a fundie, heck, I’m not even a Christian so how are the other people that disagree with you my colleages? You obviously think that ad hominem attacks are helpful don’t you? I’m “…not good at thinking…”? That’s a bit harsh especially when you consider that oouchan liked my thoughts in 344
I’m not going to lose my head and stoop to your level though. If you really think my points were subpar – let alone not worth acknowledging – then maybe it’s you who is bad at thinking.
401. Zoombafoo : You make it sound like them being dead is the insult there, don’t Christians die too?
April 17th, 2009 at 9:53 pm
“I’m not a fundie, heck, I’m not even a Christian so how are the other people that disagree with you my colleages?”
Surprise, surprise; Mark misses another point. I was being *sarcastic*, Mark, with the term “colleagues.” I don’t think you are a fundie. The point is you are hardly a professional or a scholar: the same can be said for the rest of the motley crew you’ve thrown in with (is that more accurate terminology?).
April 17th, 2009 at 9:55 pm
“Me and my colleages are thick are we?”
Yes. But don’t forget dishonest. You’re that, too.
April 17th, 2009 at 9:57 pm
This is getting better by the minute. Even my small derailment with the love issue.
I’d like to see the challenge between Mark and cym in regards to who will overtake the number one spot. But…since I already have that spot, I don’t plan on giving it up so easily, boys. Toodles!
April 18th, 2009 at 2:37 am
405/406 casey : What? How were those even constructive or helpful at all? I realized you weren’t calling me a fundie, I was just pointing out how stupid it is that you group me with “the rest of the motley crew”. There’s only one reason you throw me in with them anyway, because you’re insanely arrogant. You are very intelligent, that is obvious, but you can’t fathom that it may be you that is wrong. All you’ve done since my reply in 344 is attack my person, you haven’t refuted *any* of those points, at all. Maybe you should put your intellect to better use. I don’t doubt that you’ll have a different view on them than me – and unlike you I don’t assume that mine *must* be right – and I’m interested to hear it.
April 18th, 2009 at 2:38 am
407. oouchan : Hey! Remember who had the no.1 spot before he had to take a week-and-a-bit break from LV.
April 18th, 2009 at 3:16 am
I mention Love on here and some people get freaked out by it. It must be because I said it on an atheist listing. Not believing in GOD which is Love proves one can’t believe in Love. Everybody deep in their hearts wants to feel love but some will express anger when it is mentioned. It does’t matter I suppose but there is one certain fact and that is that Love is the most powerful force in the universe.
April 18th, 2009 at 3:30 am
410. cybogen : Ok, I was being as civil as I could before but now you’re pushing it. Are you married? Ever had any kids? A girlfriend? What was the feeling you felt then? Wouldn’t you call it love? I sure would. Don’t atheists do these things too? Or are we just robots that turn off when you “real people” aren’t around???
April 18th, 2009 at 3:36 am
Woah there. ‘God’ is not ‘love’. Neither does God equal ‘hope’. Neither does God equal ‘kindness’. Neither does God equal ‘moral’. Christians do NOT hold the monopoly on any of these emotions/characteristics even though you are implying it.
Contrary to popular theist stereotype, we do not rape, pillage and kill simply because we believe in no god. We are not godless heathens and for you to think it in your head shows further ignorance not only regarding atheists but also in the word ‘heathen’ because that’s as far from godless as one could get.
This anger of mine from your stereotyping is not indicative that deep in my heart I want your love.
And everyone knows the most powerful force in the universe is Chuck Norris.
April 18th, 2009 at 3:45 am
412. gabi319 : The way you put it just made me think of something even sweeter to say, if God is love why *all* the suffering? I can understand a little – well, not really, but I’ll never get out of this argument if I don’t concede a bit – but why the rape and torture? Why the disasters? Why the wars? The famines? All of the immense suffering being forced onto people as we comfortably debate here on LV, if God is love, why doesn’t he stop it?
April 18th, 2009 at 5:54 am
“…and I’m interested to hear it.”
No, you aren’t; you’ve proven that by ignoring it the first time. You’re a sophist and a liar. Someday, when you’re older, perhaps you’ll develop some ability to have honest discussions with people you don’t agree with, instead of this pathetic urge to “win” by ignoring well-made points.
“…if God is love, why doesn’t he stop it?”
A more daunting problem for theistic morality is the Euthyphro Dilemma. Look it up; it’s pretty good.
April 18th, 2009 at 6:10 am
414. casey : You think you’re pushing home a point calling me a sophist and a liar? I am neither, I think most people see that, but there’s always the stubborn few. I haven’t lied to you this whole time. I *am* interested in what you say, why else would I answer you? But I suppose that if you don’t have anything to say back to my points – which is looking more and more likely – you could save a lot of face by just admitting it. I find that being honest is the best method.
April 18th, 2009 at 6:40 am
410. cybogen: “Not believing in GOD which is Love proves one can’t believe in Love.”
That’s not right. I don’t believe in god but I love. You know that I follow and love Inari. I also love my daughter. For your statement to work, everyone must believe in god and if they don’t they are missing out. I don’t feel that I have missed out on anything. Please don’t think that I am calling you to task, just wanted to point out how I feel.
Mark…I named casey as troll ealier in this post. He/She may be intelligent, but to be that insulting and rude takes away any intelligence. That is because he/she has 1 point to make and is not accepting any other point of view. Even if mine is similar to his/hers (and differs by a word or two) this person has the one and only answer and none other shall come before it. Sounds familar doesn’t it?
April 18th, 2009 at 6:46 am
416. oouchan : Yeah, I probably shouldn’t bother, but I need to wast the next 2 1/4 hours so I’m still waiting
April 18th, 2009 at 6:48 am
Oh yeah, I assume you were referring to Pi were you? Or the fundies? Because I think they both have that attitude.
April 18th, 2009 at 6:54 am
Yes…that is exactly what I was refering to. “One for all and all agree with me”
. Pi, Q and other fundies out there fall into that category. I don’t know if you had a chance to see the thread on the Atlantic Ocenliners list, but this one is starting to look like that.
What are you waiting for? Isn’t it late there? Oh, I meant to ask after you got back, how did your tournaments go? You had a cricket game or two, right?
April 18th, 2009 at 7:09 am
419. oouchan : Of course I saw the Atlantic Ocean Liners list, it was great fun watching Anon and Q go for it.
Arsenal’s playing their FA Cup semi-final agaisnt Chelsea this morning – at 2am and it just hit midnight – so I’ll be with you all for a bit longer yet.
The cricket was good enough, the first game I had an ever so slight hangover – I say that with no hint of sarcasm in my voice, only 4 beers (yes, full strength) and I didn’t have a headache, which was a plus – and I found it very hard connecting with the ball. They had to retire me because I wouldn’t get out but I wasn’t scoring anything, I think I got 5 off about 100 balls, ROFLMFAO, shouldn’t have had anything to drink.
The coach then thought I would do better coming in at No.8 in the next game. I only scored 7 or something, but I did catch my billet out while we were fielding. Dinner was rather awkward that evening
Then there was the futsal… It didn’t really click with me until I got there what playing in the 17’s as a 16 y/o meant. It mean pain, lots and lots of pain. I literally got a *bruise* on my thigh from standing in the wall for a free kick – which I didn’t even concede
– a freakin’ futsal ball sized bruise. I did score 3 goals though, w00t, 3rd top scorer for my team. Considering that there was only one other 16 y/o and then 6 17 y/o and the two people that scored more than me both got picked in an Australian team I was pretty happy with my performance. It also turns out that I am faster than most 17 y/o futsal players – I weigh about 105-110kg, so I’m not exactly made for running – which is pretty amazing. But anyways, what did you get up to while I was gone? Apart from STEALING my No.1 commentors spot 
April 18th, 2009 at 7:25 am
All of that is amazing! Sorry for your bruise! I know about those as I played field hockey in high school. I was pretty damn brutal, too. Broke one girl’s hand. (she got in my way
) Great way to get rid of some agression, though. I also played softball. We were first in the legue due to an impressive line up. I came in at number four for the legue as the best player.
By the way, I am also wasting time here. I have to take the kid to a choir concert today. On top of that, she has a birthday party to go to and I have to get my hair done. I also have to get it cut. I hate getting my hair done. I am thinking of getting dreadlocks just so I don’t have to worry about it anymore.
I SWEAR that I didn’t know about getting the number one spot until one of my co-workers pointed it out to me. I really don’t care but it’s a thrill just to see my name there!
April 18th, 2009 at 7:47 am
421. oouchan : Field hockey and softball? You’d be a great cricketer
I would know, I’ve played cricket with a girl who now plays for Australia O.O And the captain of that team I went away with recently got picked in an honorary Australian team – so called because they don’t actually play any games, but I think it’s all quite amazing 
Are you a pitcher or a batter? I don’t really know a lot about SOFTball, I do however have a vested interest in the St. Louis Cardinals
Haircuts do suck don’t they, I got mine cut today
It looks terrible compared to before, stupid school regulations. Dreadies! That would be sweet, go for it, low maintenance as you said – which is more than enough of a reason to do it IMO, I’m just lazy 
“…I SWEAR that I didn’t know about getting the number one spot until one of my co-workers pointed it out to me. I really don’t care but it’s a thrill just to see my name there!”
Don’t get used to it, another shitty term of school coming up, I’m gonna be on LV a helluva lot.
April 18th, 2009 at 8:23 am
422. Mark: I would love to play cricket! I finally got to watch a game on the net and it was so amazing. However, due to some very unfortunate issues I can’t run anymore. It’s all good, though.
I was a pitcher and batter. It really is similar to baseball. The difference is the type of pitching and the size of the ball. And as for the Cards…so do I. My aunt is from MO. She’d kill me if I went with anyone else!
And you can be number 1 again…whatever makes you happy. But I won’t make it easy on you….hehe!
(Also…tried to post this earlier, but will try again now)
I forgot to mention that my daughter and I got a second ear piercing this week. I also have gone up 2 sizes for the gauges in my ears. I am at 10mm now. I keep saying I won’t go any bigger but….I can’t seem to help myself.
Also, I got a new bathroom. This has been the bone of contention in my house. When I bought the home I didn’t notice anything wrong with my bathroom. About a year ago, I noticed that the walls looked a little off…not straight anymore. Also at this time, we noticed a dark spot on the carpet in the room behind my bathroom. We cleaned it and went on. There was trunk sitting in front of this spot so we didn’t notice anything from that area. That is the set up.
Now… About a month ago, I was in the shower and I noticed what looked like a dark spot or shadow on the tiles. I barely touched it and the tile fell *in* the wall. Basic bathroom set up is to install what is know as a green board. This stops the water from eroding into the wall and causing damage or mold. The jerk who I bought the home from didn’t install this. I have lived in my home for 6 years. So 6 years of water damage was behind that wall. It ate clean through and to the wall on the other side. That was what that spot was. It destroyed the wall and carpet. When we tore into the wall and the carpet….mold everywhere! Needless to say, I had someone come in ASAP to fix it all. It was a friend so it didn’t cost me as much.
To the guy I bought the home from, I am wishing he was infected with fleas.
April 18th, 2009 at 8:46 am
423. oouchan : Cricket is a beautiful sport, I got a tour around the SCG while I was on tour, it was amazing. But that game you watched, you said it was amazing? It must’ve been Australia playing then
Bit of a disappointing display by the bullpen last game wasn’t it? Ryan batted so well too… But that’s the way it goes, I really don’t care where the Cardinals finish, as long as it’s in front of the Cubs.
10mm…. Nice… Our futsal goalkeeper – he’s the Queensland keeper as well, don’t know how we didn’t win with that team – has gauged ears, his parents are paying him to ungauge them, $2,500! Man I wish I had his parents.
@ the bathroom thing, lol is all I can say. I think that’s hilarious, except, fleas? You couldn’t have thought of something more creative?
April 18th, 2009 at 8:57 am
424. Mark: It was Australia…Like I would do that to you! As for the Cards…yeah as long as they finish above anybody…I’m happy. My aunt though…diehard fan, there.
I might take the money, too, but I really like what I am doing so it would be a hard choice.
As for the guy I bought my house from…I didn’t want to ruin the delicate sensibilites of some of the LV readers by putting what I really wanted to do to that jerk.
’
If you are interested, in the forums, there are pictures of my bathroom (start to finish) on the pointless annoucements thread and on the lv pic thread.
April 18th, 2009 at 9:02 am
*
April 18th, 2009 at 2:26 pm
“if you don’t have anything to say back to my points…”
This is one of the lies I’m talking about. Why should I make points that I have already made several times and you ignored? Are you suggesting you won’t ignore those same points this time around? Why should I believe you, and why can’t you just go back and read what I posted (this time with a mind to honestly understand what I am saying, as it applies to your position?) Furthermore, I could point to my entire canon of arguments here and ask you why you have not bothered to respond to them directly (instead of attacking straw men in some cases and blatantly ignoring me in others). If you really are interested in what I have to say, then I challenge you to go back and read it. I re-posted my most relevant argument about five times: it shouldn’t be hard to find.
Beyond that, I’m not interested in “saving face” with a snotty, little teenager who can’t think straight and ignores everything I say. You’re very young: you’ll figure out soon enough that you have a lot to learn and a lot of intellectual maturing ahead of you. It’s a process we all go through, typically once we get past the heady narcissism of adolescence. (And please note that what I’m saying here does not qualify as ad hominem, since it is not intended to address any arguments: I already did that, and demonstrably well).
April 18th, 2009 at 2:36 pm
“Mark…I named casey as troll ealier in this post. He/She may be intelligent, but to be that insulting and rude takes away any intelligence. That is because he/she has 1 point to make and is not accepting any other point of view. Even if mine is similar to his/hers (and differs by a word or two) this person has the one and only answer and none other shall come before it. Sounds familar doesn’t it?”
@ oouchan:
Well, I called you an idiot before and I’m sticking by my statement. The points I made are readily verifiable (and if you’re so frightened of the evil magic of “wiki” then I could provide other sources which say the same thing). I did not offer an opinion in response to an opinion. Your facts are simply incorrect. I corrected them. I remember learning how to distinguish between fact and opinion in grade school. Did you forget those lessons?
April 18th, 2009 at 7:58 pm
427. casey : “This is one of the lies I’m talking about. Why should I make points that I have already made several times and you ignored?…”
You are insanely arrogant, that is rather evident. Do you know the difference between refuted and ignored? I didn’t just not mention these things you pointed out, I came up with another POV, which you have in turn been ignoring. If you really can’t explain to me why agnosticism can’t be a legitimate belief then so be it, but at least be man enough to tell me.
“..Furthermore, I could point to my entire canon of arguments here and ask you why you have not bothered to respond to them directly…”
Why? Because I AGREE with you on most of these points that’s why I don’t argue them, are you really complaining about that?
“…If you really are interested in what I have to say, then I challenge you to go back and read it. I re-posted my most relevant argument about five times: it shouldn’t be hard to find…”
That may be, but I only argued with you about one point, which you haven’t replied to yet, maybe *you* could just scroll back up and read that before lecturing me.
“…Beyond that, I’m not interested in “saving face” with a snotty, little teenager who can’t think straight and ignores everything I say…”
That was completely uncalled for, not in the least because it is a lie – which you so eloquantly accuse me of doing earlier – but the way it is presented. I may be a teenager, but at least I have an open mind, that makes me a lot better off than you. Even if you do have a lot more “intelligence” – which as you so rightly pointed out will be coming to me soon too.
“…It’s a process we all go through, typically once we get past the heady narcissism of adolescence. (And please note that what I’m saying here does not qualify as ad hominem, since it is not intended to address any arguments: I already did that, and demonstrably well).”
HAHA! Fair enough it might not be ad hominem, but if you’d thought about it first it was actually worse, how is calling me narcissistic for no purpose other than because you could better than doing it to prove a point? Then of course there’s the problem with calling me narcissistic, I don’t pretend to be right and have all the answers, I know full well that I’m still looking for them, *you* on the other hand…
April 18th, 2009 at 8:00 pm
Oh yeah, just one last thing I forgot,
“…it is not intended to address any arguments: I already did that, and demonstrably well).”
No you didn’t, not to my points anyway. You’ve completely disregarded and ignored them – something you accused *me* of doing not too long ago – please, point out where you explained *why* agnosticism can’t be a legitimate belief. Because in 344 I gave a compelling reason why it can be.
April 18th, 2009 at 8:13 pm
Mark: Very good! The troll keeps trying. I love how he/she called me an idiot again, when I wasn’t talking to him/her. I have pointed that out before, but hey, some people just don’t listen. I do want to add however that this person seems to like wiki a whole lot and seem to cling to it like gospel or something. You might want to concider that is where most of this arguement is coming from.
Per my definition I posted above: Agnotic – one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of god or a god. So, I like your description better, Mark. It comes down to the same thing no matter which way you look at it. You are questioning god or a god. As I said before, it doesn’t matter how you reach that point, if we are all going to the same place. Semantics is what this all is.
I find this highly amusing, by the way. Keep it up.
April 18th, 2009 at 8:24 pm
431. oouchan : For you, sure, but I’m heading off really soon and I won’t see another computer for at least 24 hours. Even then I’ll be a bit preoccupied with getting back into the groove of school and insane amounts of sport – training at least 4 days a week, once we start futsal it’ll be 5, if not 6 – but I will endeavour to get on ASAP
April 18th, 2009 at 9:35 pm
Mark, agnosticism is not a belief because it is not about belief, but knowledge. I’ve said this a thousand times to you. But I’m going to say it again, please read carefully and thoughtfully. Read it all the way through to the end (I know it’s boring, but you have to persevere). Don’t skim! Don’t look for flaws that you can attack. Try honestly to get the gist of what I’m saying. If it strikes you to do so, do some research to verify the facts I mention. But don’t get sidetracked with the various straw men that pop up in your brain. Stay focused. Here we go…
To be agnostic is to take the view that one cannot *know* whether a metaphysical claim is true or not. It says nothing about belief in the claim at hand. Also like I said before there are those who take this view and believe regardless; these are called fideists. There are agnostic atheists, like myself (and most atheists), who appreciate that it is not possible to disprove a non-falsifiable claim, but do not believe the claim because of a lack of evidence in support of it.
If you say “I am agnostic,” my question then would be, “So, do you believe in gods?” And it would be a fair question, because by saying “I don’t know if gods exist or not,” you are saying nothing about what you *believe*.
This is and has been my answer to your question. Any “points” you have made that you are claiming I “ignored” were in fact duly noted as irrelevant because they did not directly address my argument.
For example, you “argue” that agnosticism could be considered a “belief” that one cannot know whether god exists, but this is not the sense of “belief” that we are talking about (and if you were honest you would concede this–you were wringing the term for all you could get out of it). It does not address what one’s belief concerning god’s existence actually *is*–it does not answer the question, “Do you *believe* in god?” It answers the question, “Do you think you can *know* whether god exists?”
Agnosticism is not a compromise between theism and atheism, it is the opposite of *gnosis* (knowledge of the divine). This is why atheists and theists alike can claim either certainty or uncertainty about their belief or lack thereof (although most atheists are agnostic with regard to most god-claims because they understand that a falsifiable claim can’t be falsified, by definition).
Now I’ve rehashed the whole thing in new words, just for you. You may go on to ignore my argument and come up with some brand new nonsense in an attempt to redefine this term. But if you’d like to just reject the entire history of human thought on this subject because it is inconvenient to your position, I’m afraid you’ll only persuade fools and multiply their confusions. Is that really what you want to do? Or would you rather assist this pedantic and arrogant bastard in clearing up a popular misconception, often peddled by theists to great effect?
April 18th, 2009 at 9:51 pm
edit: “…a *non*-falsifiable claim can’t be falsified…”
Sorry.
“…cling to it like gospel or something.”
Oouchan, your intellectual cowardice is pitiful. I just mentioned it’s a good source for information, and you know that. Quite unlike your superstitious fear of it, I was just being reasonable. I wonder why you cling to your anti-wikipedia dogma without examining the evidence for yourself.
It’s funny how people who should be licking their wounds in silence are so often the ones pointing out the non-existent injuries of their opponents. A little advice from the Man upstairs, “First cast out the beam in thine own eye, that thou might better see to pluck the speck from thy brother’s”
April 18th, 2009 at 9:54 pm
433. casey : I’ve gotta go now, but I’ll quickly say something here because I don’t have to write a large reply.
I see what the problem is here, you are taking belief as an exclusively theological thing, the belief you are talking about is a belief in a god. Belief isn’t an exclusively theological word in common usage and that’s obviously what I’m using it as. We could argue all day – as you’ve obviously noticed – but all we’d be doing is going in circles. I think that agnosticism is a legitimate belief, you don’t, I think it would best be left at that given the circumstances. For now at least
I’ll catch you in a couple of days.
April 18th, 2009 at 10:14 pm
No, Mark, it’s not that I don’t “think” that agnosticism is a “legitimate” belief, it’s that I *know* it isn’t. (See the difference?) It is only a “belief” in the sense that it is a philosophical position on whether knowledge of the divine is possible. Knowledge, Mark. Certain knowledge. Not belief. They are two separate things. You may say an agnostic “believes” that it is not possible to *know* whether god exists, but he does not say it is impossible to BELIEVE in god. He may very well believe in god, or he may not, or he may not yet know whether he believes in god. Either way, his agnosticism is a matter of the possibility of divine *knowledge*, not *belief* in the divine. For the sake of all that is true and good, would you just look up agnosticism in an encyclopedia and read there the exact things I have been saying? Jesus fucking Christ, you people act like I’m making this all up! You’re as bad as apologists. You just change the meanings of words to fit your uneducated impressions, instead of making a couple of mouse clicks or flipping a few pages. That’s called willful ignorance, Mark.
April 18th, 2009 at 11:05 pm
380 GTT: and the beating up bit…I’m not sure whether to laugh or be really freaked out and leave!
Never fear, GTT. Half the shit I say around here is tongue-in-cheek. Your mission, should you choose to accept it, is to try and figure out which half.
April 20th, 2009 at 1:30 am
@ casey
Apologies if the link was to rubbish. It’s not my intention to present bs. My knowledge of Quantum Physics is admittedly weak, but I love science (and spirituality, thank, you) and I believe both are capable and audacious.
As for the Moon, maybe the right shutter speed would remove it from space. At 1/11000 of a second electrons “disappear” from electron microscopes. Oh, yeah, that’s “micro” again. I hear you, “there is no macro-micro connection”. Here’s a link to a photograph of the wave-particle double nature of a macroscopic object.
http://www.physorg.com/news78650511.html
I believe the science is good. Astounding, but good. Your thoughts?
As for God vs. No God, by all the certainy we witness from both sides I sense conversions either way aren’t imminent. By Comment #30000, maybe, but who cares?. Until then, I am curious though of where “a day of reckoning” and “forgiveness” might diverge between the two. That is where the difference may lie. Is it personal nonetheless, as I suspect, and does that mean one’s own conscious “spirit” is it’s own resulting gnostic experience?
My own “God” is a personal God, I am just one thread, a journey of conscious free will bound to my human and often unconscious life. To me both the “Reckoning” and the “Forgiveness” are moments of conscious dilemma when reliance on inner strength depends.
As grace and guidance, I rely on accepting unknowable understanding exists beyond me for my inner strength. And the unknowable can seem quite communicative at times, along the way.
Yeah, OK, maybe I’m an undiagnosed schizophrenic with a huge existential monkey god complex, but I don’t think so.
Any thoughts?
April 20th, 2009 at 4:21 am
435. Mark – April 18th, 2009 at 9:54 pm
433. casey : I’ve gotta go now, but I’ll quickly say something here because I don’t have to write a large reply.You are insanely arrogant, that is rather evident. Do you know the difference between refuted and ignored? I didn’t just not mention these things you pointed out, I came up with another POV, which you have in turn been ignoring. If you really can’t explain to me why agnosticism can’t be a legitimate belief then so be it,
So what do agnostics believe in?
April 20th, 2009 at 4:23 am
Ouchan- I’m sorry I said anything about Love here. I guess that its the wrong place to speak about Love. I just thought that people understood where I was coming from. WOn’t happen again.
April 20th, 2009 at 4:53 am
439. Cybogen : I think casey has me stymied on that front until I think about it for a bit longer but look up further, that was my original take on it. But as I said, I’m rethinking at the moment so casey, don’t bite my head off, because if you look back up at 326, I believe between now and then you’ve amended your view on atheism.
440. Cybogen : I don’t mind you saying it, I was joking when I first pulled you up for it – it was only an off-hand comment that wasn’t meant to be taken seriously anyway – and then you blew it way out of proportion. But by all means, don’t say it anymore if you don’t want to, it makes my life a helluva lot less disturbing.
April 20th, 2009 at 5:03 am
Done
April 20th, 2009 at 5:32 am
“I believe between now and then you’ve amended your view on atheism.”
No. I haven’t.
April 20th, 2009 at 5:39 am
“Yeah, OK, maybe I’m an undiagnosed schizophrenic with a huge existential monkey god complex, but I don’t think so.
Any thoughts?”
Yes. I think you’re on to something there. Maybe you should go more Alan Watts and less Oprah Winfrey in your spiritual search. And, please, try to express yourself more clearly; I could hardly discern what you were trying to say.
April 20th, 2009 at 5:39 am
443. casey : In 326 you said that you can’t believe in the non-existence of God. But your atheism at the very least obviously advocates a “belief that God does not exist”.
April 20th, 2009 at 7:06 am
Mark…good catch there. Remember though, this person can’t accept another point of view only theirs. It’s been interesting to read, however.
Also someone (an antheist by their own words) pointed this out “A little advice from the Man upstairs, “First cast out the beam in thine own eye, that thou might better see to pluck the speck from thy brother’s”” ummmmm….Not sure how that fits in to thier belief…I mean claim.
Also as I pointed out before, wiki is trash. I will do my own research at a library or using online sources but will stay way from falsehoods. So far a vast majority of wiki is incorrect. Why direct me to that crap?
cybogen…that’s ok. I understand.
April 20th, 2009 at 7:14 am
446. oouchan – That was a good quote you brought up and I remember hearing it too! it actually came from luke in the New Testament. Good words of Wisdom!
Luke 6:40 “A pupil is not above his teacher; but everyone, after he has been fully trained, will be like his teacher.
Luke 6:42 “Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Brother, let me take out the speck that is in your eye,’ when you yourself do not see the log that is in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take out the speck that is in your brother’s eye
April 20th, 2009 at 8:01 am
447. Cybogen: Wish I could take credit for it, but it came from the other poster on here. I just got a kick out of it because they were quoting from the bible when they are atheist. Of course you know it doesn’t mean anything to me.
It’s a good quote, just like the one you mentioned.
April 20th, 2009 at 9:59 am
The Lord Jesus said in Revelation: “Because thou hast kept the word of my patience, I also will keep thee from the hour of temptation, which shall come upon all the world, to try them that dwell upon the earth. Behold, I come quickly: hold that fast which thou hast, that no man take thy crown.” -Rev 3:10-11
April 20th, 2009 at 2:29 pm
“In 326 you said that you can’t believe in the non-existence of God. But your atheism at the very least obviously advocates a “belief that God does not exist”.”
No, atheism is the *absence* of belief in gods. The absence of a belief is not a belief. If you can’t understand the difference then you are woefully stupid. I keep saying this, and you keep ignoring it and insisting that atheism is a belief, despite the fact that it isn’t. I can’t believe that gods (in general) do not exist any more than I can believe that they do, because neither claim can be supported by evidence. But I can reject both claims, thereby *not* believing in gods, making me an atheist. Rejecting a claim is not equal to accepting an opposing claim. And the burden of proof lies firmly upon the claimant in any case. I will not explain this again.
April 20th, 2009 at 2:34 pm
“Also someone (an antheist by their own words) pointed this out “A little advice from the Man upstairs, “First cast out the beam in thine own eye, that thou might better see to pluck the speck from thy brother’s”” ummmmm….Not sure how that fits in to thier belief…I mean claim.”
You really are abysmally foolish if you think an atheist couldn’t possibly know anything about the Bible or find in it some useful advice. It is often the case, in fact, that atheists know the Bible better than those who promote it as a holy book. Also, many atheists are former Christians, as I am.
“I will do my own research at a library or using online sources but will stay way from falsehoods.”
When will you start doing that?
April 20th, 2009 at 2:39 pm
“Mark…good catch there.”
No, it wasn’t, you sycophantic little lap dog; it was a failure at reading comprehension.
April 20th, 2009 at 2:46 pm
Mark: Don’t you think this whole conversation has been going around in circles? There was a clear case of someone being wrong, but typical…they don’t see it. Claiming that you were the one at fault. This has been again, highly entertaining.
Just to get off subject, once more….how was your trip up to school?
April 20th, 2009 at 2:51 pm
@ Bruce:
I read the article in your link, and I’m still not clear what they did or how this makes a connection between Quantum physics and Newtonian physics. It seems to me that their a priori statement, “a droplet of silicon oil and the surface wave packet it emits, which should be thought of as one entity,” (why?) is precisely what they have to show…and didn’t. Waves on the surface of a fluid are not a property of the object making the waves; they are a property of the fluid. In any case, the article makes the experiment sound highly dubious. I remain skeptical that it even occurred.
April 20th, 2009 at 2:56 pm
I’m done repeating myself to no avail. Mark, there may be hope for you once you learn how to read and think properly. Oouchan, you’re probably the stupidest person I’ve ever conversed with.
April 20th, 2009 at 3:03 pm
Does this mean you’re leaving? I hope so. I am happy that I fill that special little place in your head. I really am. Your comments are brash, rude and inconsistent. I know how intelligent I am. I could sound just like you if I read wiki too.
I tried not to post directly to you because you are the most stubborn person I have ever talked with. Even fundies sound better. You have one view and because no one agrees with you, everyone is dumb. Ok…I’m dumb. Glad to be, instead of on your side. It’s been fun.
April 20th, 2009 at 4:14 pm
casey (399):
OK, I see your point about the default position. Yes, a person who is sheltered from all outside influences and belief structures would definately grow up without any beliefs. However,
“Well, that and your general inability to think things through sufficiently, do research, and be honest with yourself and others.”
I cannot believe you have the audacity to call me out on naming you AN ARROGANT, PEDANTIC SOB (extra adjectives added) when you post this shit.
April 21st, 2009 at 3:26 pm
LOL. There is a huge disconnect between content and delivery. Casey’s huge and understandable frustration with poor arguments has affected his delivery, and many of you have allowed yourselves to be sucked in by shifting the issue to one more personal… This, then, leads to the proverbial “vicious cycle.” The fact remains that casey’s arguments are 100% sound. There is no personal adjective that will change this.
April 22nd, 2009 at 2:27 pm
458. Chomto : You really don’t get it, do you? There is no guarantee that Casey is right. He thinks he is, so do you obviously, but no matter how much *you* think you are right, it doesn’t make you so. Just as Casey said to me earlier.
April 22nd, 2009 at 5:31 pm
Summitted purely for enjoyment; an atheist’s modern version of the Bible:
http://www.thebricktestament.com/
The author’s background and inspiration for his work:
http://www.thebricktestament.com/press/philadelphia_inquirer_03_12_11.html
April 23rd, 2009 at 1:35 pm
This is so entertaining, I was so glad to see how recent the comments were!
I really don’t get the whole agnostic thing, you either believe something or you dont.. You can’t sit on the fence about something like this, it just doesn’t make sense.
”It must be because I said it on an atheist listing. Not believing in GOD which is Love proves one can’t believe in Love. ” – Cybogen
WHAT?
this is the most ridiculous thing I’ve ever read. Correct me if I’m wrong but I’m assuming you mean, if you’re an athiest you can’t experience love because ”god” is love?..
I love my family, my boyfriend, my cat, my friends.. are you saying I don’t because I don’t believe?
What a stupid thing to come up with!
Anyway,
I’m on Casey’s side right now, for keeping on the right track and talking a whole load of sense
And someone asked how an athiest could prove ”god” does not exist? Okay, so what about peadophiles, disability, natural disaster, war, etc, etc…? The common answer to that is ”god moves in mysterious ways” yeah?
That is like the verbal equivalent of saying ”look over there!” and making a run for it!
Doesn’t anyone agree?
April 27th, 2009 at 3:47 pm
The arrogance of some of these posts is really something to behold.How can either side talk in absolutes?I am ,for lack of a better term,a wishful and open minded atheist.I would love to be able to blindly believe in some supernatural being who would love me and grant me eternal life,but without any concrete proof..the default position is atheism.People claiming religious beliefs are the only way to live a moral and love filled life are either bigoted or brain washed .I am a very responsible and loving dad and I don’t need to be told what is right,I know,and anyone with an IQ over 45 has the moral compass to see what is right and wrong.And I know,without a doubt two things about God,that no one reading this post can argue (1.)I am not God (2.)Neither are you
May 3rd, 2009 at 4:51 pm
In all this time this article has been up, nobody has seen fit to correct the Benjamin Franklin quote? There is a big difference between “then” and “than.” I’m sure Ben Franklin would not have been so stupid as to say “then”!
May 8th, 2009 at 2:10 pm
carnegie was a thief. vonnegut was an agnostic who criticized scientists for suppressing natural discussion about design intent in creation.
ben franklin was a christian.
May 8th, 2009 at 4:18 pm
Dazz – you’re NOT god? You might have told me that before I started building a church in your honour.
May 10th, 2009 at 4:57 am
Only a true Atheist has every quality of being a true believer of God of any religion, all he needs to do is to overcome the Terminal Velocity of his wisdom.
May 12th, 2009 at 1:26 pm
look, you can still believe, because i know you would rather die, than believe YOU ACTUALLY DO
and LOL if i go to ‘hell’ it is all Gods fault xD cause he has made it so obveous that there is no God
May 16th, 2009 at 12:13 pm
“and LOL if i go to ‘hell’ it is all Gods fault xD cause he has made it so obveous that there is no God” -lol that was funny XD
May 16th, 2009 at 12:15 pm
oh, and i checked out bricktestament.com, from 460. it’s neat how they’re all made up of lego bricks. XD
May 17th, 2009 at 4:34 am
Ja ok so who created God.??
May 17th, 2009 at 8:00 am
“ben franklin was a christian.” -james1785
No, Franklin was a Deist, as were most of the founding fathers.
May 17th, 2009 at 10:17 am
“and LOL if i go to ‘hell’ it is all Gods fault xD cause he has made it so obveous that there is no God”
I have to agree, this statement is hilarious. With a little grammar and spelling adjustments, this would be something I might expect to find a book of funny quotations or something. Seriously, this just made my day.
May 23rd, 2009 at 7:41 am
Not feeling these quotes because most of them just seem to put down religion, which only supports the stereotype that atheists are self-righteous assholes.
I think it’d be more effective if they said really smart, invaluable things that didn’t talk about religion (or just plain bash it, rather) I think it would make more of an impact.
These quotes can only be used to preach to the choir. It’s only going to alienate religious people and make atheists for “damn straight!”
May 26th, 2009 at 6:27 pm
I have a quote although i cant remember who it is by,
it is: “Animals do not believe in god, because they are smarter then that”
May 27th, 2009 at 8:52 am
We are all atheists about most of the gods that societies have ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further.
— Richard Dawkins
June 4th, 2009 at 3:54 am
I posted this list on the Facebook Atheist Group Discussion Topic “Your Best Atheist Quotes”, linking back to here. http://www.facebook.com/topic.php?topic=7717&post=43146&uid=2210222015#post43146
July 5th, 2009 at 6:06 pm
Asimov is right on the money!
I use it all the time and then end with this one:
The ability to quote is a serviceable substitute for wit.
W. Somerset Maugham
July 5th, 2009 at 11:35 pm
1 woman 14 men…
July 7th, 2009 at 3:39 am
I need to get that Asimov quote put on a shirt.
July 14th, 2009 at 10:18 pm
I’m not sure whether or not I believe in God and I have been reading many comments here, but I had to write about comment #310 from a guy named Casey. I may not know much about Atheism or other religions, but I know about the ancient city of Tyre. It was utterly destroyed. The new city Tyre (named after the old original Tyre) overlooks the ancient city which was sacked and is currently underwater. If anyone made a prediction about Tyre being destroyed prior to its actual destruction, now this would be an amazing prediction. It could not have been Nostradamus because Tyre was destroyed before Nostradamus was born.
September 2nd, 2009 at 10:24 pm
“Men rarely(if ever) create gods superior to themselves. Most gods have the morals and manners of a spoiled child.” Robert Heinlein.
God’s existence cannot be proven. It is a matter of faith and your choice to believe or not. Whatever you decide; leave me out of it.
September 13th, 2009 at 6:16 am
adults with imaginary friend is stupid!
September 13th, 2009 at 6:52 pm
I thoroughly despise atheists who say things along the lines of “God cannot be proven.” I know how much atheists hate it when a theist says, “Prove that He does not.”
It goes both ways, doesn’t it? I know some of you have better arguments than “God cannot be proven” but i would just like to point out that everytime you say that to a theist, they will tell you that he cannot be disproven either. And it is extraordinarily hypocritical for you to tell me that telling you to disprove His existence is stupid, but then you go and tell me that i have to prove His existence for you. Explain to me how that makes sense.
And I am also aware that atheists really hate it when i say that you technically believe that God doesn’t exist, which as i said cannot be proven or disproven, so YOU HAVE A FAITH TOO! You believe in something that is unproveable, soooo you clearly have set a certain amount of faith on this.
I just had to say this. I’m not a particularly vocal or vehement “Bible-thumper” but i wanted to mention a few atheistic statements that really bug me.
Also–you do not like theists who blindly say, “Atheists are all immoral” so please do not make similar bigoted statements about us. Not all theists are alike–I for one am strongly opposed to organized religion. My religion is the Bible. I read it, believe it, and pray to the God it tells about. I don’t do whatever some man calling himself God’s Holy Person tells me.
And i agree wholeheartedly that many theists are completely self-righteous and pretentious and seem to think it is their job to right the wrongs of the world. None of us are God. Some know that. But that doesn’t stop certain extremists from doing what they do.
I won’t tell you to believe what i believe if you stop telling me to to believe what you believe. I do not appreciate being told my beliefs are stupid; i will believe what i believe and leave you out of it so long as you *stay* out of it.
September 13th, 2009 at 7:13 pm
KK, most of you probably have no interest in hearing from me again, because Christians aren’t exactly popular among the atheistic crowd, but suck it up cuz i still have something to say
I agree with 473 ABF when it comes to the bashing religion thing. Bashing religion does nothing to change the minds of those who treasure it. It will, however, make theists dislike you quite a bit. It doesn’t matter that these were great thinkers–great thinkers are not necessarily right about everything.
Also, i reread the quotes a minute ago and realized i forgot to mention something else:
Numbers 4 and 10 are totally accurate. The church is messed up, and people who think anything different need to take another look.
However, just because the church gets everything wrong does not mean that the Bible is a lie. the church and the Bible are two very different things. The church just uses the Bible for its own selfish reasons. But tell me, how does this make the Bible vile?
Ha i hope you all enjoyed that.
Also, i have some atheistic quotes i thought were funny, although i don’t agree with them. I still want to post them. Not a clue who said them, though.
“It’s your God. They’re your rules. *You* go to hell.”
“My God carries a hammer. Your God died nailed to a tree. Any questions?”
There are more out there, but i’m having a mental block on the rest
My Christian quote because i wanted to even it out a bit:
“Going to church doesn’t make you a Christian any more than standing in a garage makes you a car.”
And there you have it.
September 21st, 2009 at 11:56 pm
nice on guys!! I like atheist
September 22nd, 2009 at 5:29 am
Ben Franklins was a Deist, not an Atheist.
September 23rd, 2009 at 11:04 am
Seal sang, “Its the loneliness that’s the killer”. To be fair, he’d have been more accurate if he sang “Its blind faith thats the killer”. Don’t think he would have made it to No.1, but never-the-less, religion sucks \m/
September 28th, 2009 at 10:14 am
GOD TOTALLY EXISTS
September 29th, 2009 at 4:03 pm
Most of these could be just as easily turned and used word for word against athiesm. Visit christianquotes.org for TRULY insightful quotes.
Oh, and as far as “thinking” people being athiest, Hemmingway was an idiot. All major branches of science were started by CREATIONISTS aka believers.
October 3rd, 2009 at 10:54 am
Hang on a minute, how can a patripotestal god exist ?!?!? Its crazy arrhenotokous comments like that, that give muttonhead religious fanatics their terrible reputation. And its bloody well deserved, the nescientness of it !
October 6th, 2009 at 12:41 pm
YOU ALL ARE LIARS YOU NEED TO WAKE UP AND SMELL THE COFFEE GOD IS REAL !!!!
October 6th, 2009 at 12:45 pm
Woah really?! For the record, I KNEW that the coffee god is real despite the naysayers. Coffee god is good. Coffee god is great. Coffee god makes gabi a happy gabi. …unless gabi ends up getting coffee from coffee satan who enjoys overroasting the beans. Coffee satan also delights in giving gabi a latte with no milk. Damn you, coffee satan…
October 14th, 2009 at 10:33 am
Coffee God?
Hahahaha.
Hey, Alex (September 29th, 2009)
“Hemmingway was an idiot”
If Hemmingway was such an idiot, I don’t believe his name would still be repeated to this day, and he very well would not have gone down in history as one of the greatest writers/poets of all time.
If you’re soo imperior to Hemmingway, why have I never heard you’re name before?
You’re religion is good for two things,
Mind-Control and War.
And the sooner you wake up and smell the Coffee God,
I think we’ll all be better off.
October 14th, 2009 at 10:49 am
I personally believe that, the Atheist vs. Theist perspectives can be looked at in a less controversial light.
In most cases when you say Atheist, people think of dark, sinister people who don’t believe in morality or who reject the idea of values and purpose. This isn’t the case. An Atheist is a realist: the Atheist denies God or gods, and nothing more. This religion bashing thing, is so unnecessary. In fact, there are many “I LOVE JESUS” and “CHRISTIAN FREAK101″ commenting on quotes meant to be purely Atheist. The fact is, we are humanity. Our belief is just as legitimate as those of Buddhists or Christians. So why sit here and call us purely lies and BS? Atheist is a name given to those who do not believe or accept the belief in God. Atheist was given to us by Theists.
We are people just like you, Theists.
So why are you Atheist bashing on an Atheist website?
October 19th, 2009 at 12:53 pm
What do Atheists and Beleivers have in common? They both know something I don’t!
October 21st, 2009 at 2:59 pm
Those who think that Ben Franklin, Mark Twain, and others were not atheists because their statements were more critical of organized religion rather than an outright rejection of God forget two things.
1) Up until recently openly declaring oneself an atheist could seriously damage your reputation and get you in a lot of trouble. Few people were willing to stick their neck out and for good reason: it might be chopped off.
2) Science has progressed so much in the last century and now proves things, like evolution, which before only religion seemed able to explain.
I’m quite sure that if Ben Franklin were alive today he would be an outspoken atheist.
October 21st, 2009 at 3:18 pm
@Aiden (496):
“…2) Science has progressed so much in the last century and now proves things, like evolution, which before only religion seemed able to explain
I’m quite sure that if Ben Franklin were alive today he would be an outspoken atheist…”
Saint Thomas could be too…
October 24th, 2009 at 9:54 am
@JT (27): As a strong Christian, I have something nice to say about many atheists. They are not fools. The ones that are are the ones who “say in their hearts” (making their hearts dictate to their minds, rather than vice versa), “there is no God.” As long as you really want to seek and to know the real truth which reality imposes on us all, you are no fool. Its not easy to cut through all the bad press both sides have gotten throughout history. The fallacies are legion. And sorting all this out can take years, decades, or a lifetime. Few people have tons of hours to meditate on these matters. You have my respect until you prove unworthy of it. You can make mistakes in your thinking; I have; its ok; no one is perfect; we love you anyway. Please forgive Christians who do not understand the difficulty. However, stubborn and excessive criticism should be avoided. The main thing is to be very fair with the question, does God exist? Then, even if you are wrong, God will be fair with you. This intellectual side is a little over rated. Instead, try the grace method for a week or two. Grace can get you answers faster. Believe and pray for a week or two and see what happens. The experience of grace is proof enough.
October 24th, 2009 at 2:35 pm
Randall,
I’m not a huge Hemingway fan either, however, I find his quote, “all thinking men are atheists,” neither childish
or ridiculous… and I’ll explain why in just a minute.
You suggest that Hemingway would have us believe that none of the great intellects were atheists. Yet you stated that these great minds, who were clearly believers, from the beginnings of Christianity right up through the Renaissance–were not “thinking men.” Then you listed a few that, apparently, you hold in high regard (ie:St. Thomas Aquinas, to Peter Abelard, to St. Francis, to St. Augustine, & Thomas More).
What I find absurd is your opinion that these men were great thinkers and intellectuals. That idea is laughable… but only when you understand that which Hemingway was talking.
Hemingway’s meaning is very clear. If one believes in fairy tales then it is very clear that such a man has not given much thought to the matter. Anyone who has diligently thought about God and religion will, sooner or later, dismiss it as folly.
As for the men you listed in your post, their intellects are in question mainly because of their adherence to and belief in a thing which clearly doesn’t exist.
THINK ABOUT IT.
October 24th, 2009 at 2:43 pm
Randall,
I’m not a huge Hemingway fan either, however, I find his quote, “all thinking men are atheists,” neither childish
or ridiculous… and I’ll explain why in just a minute.
You suggest that Hemingway would have us believe that none of the great intellects were atheists. Yet you stated that these great minds, who were clearly believers, from the beginnings of Christianity right up through the Renaissance–were “thinking men.” Then you listed a few that, apparently, you hold in high regard (ie:St. Thomas Aquinas, to Peter Abelard, to St. Francis, to St. Augustine, & Thomas More). So, do you also believe that there were no intellectuals before the beginnings of Christianity? Perhaps YOU should have qualified THAT too?
What I find absurd is your opinion that these men were great thinkers and intellectuals. That idea is laughable… but only when you understand about which Hemingway was talking.
Hemingway’s meaning is very clear. If one believes in fairy tales then it is very clear that such a man has not given much serious thought to the matter. Anyone who has diligently thought about God and religion will, sooner or later, dismiss it as folly.
As for the men you listed in your post, their intellects are in question mainly because of their adherence to, and belief in, a thing which clearly doesn’t exist.
Just because a person has a PhD doesn’t prove that they are intelligent. PhDs in religion hold as much credibility with me as a PhD in Nursery Rhymes!
THINK ABOUT IT.
October 24th, 2009 at 3:06 pm
To Not just another crazy Jesus freak: I am actually a Deist. I just don’t buy all the dogma. When I said that it was your choice to believe or not, I had already made mine. I should have added “or disproven” but I didn’t. My bad. God’s greatest mistake: Humanity. (I’m also a misanthrope.)
October 24th, 2009 at 4:06 pm
@Andrew London (500):
“THINK ABOUT IT,” Andrew? Yeah, no thanks… I don’t need you to exhort me to “think.” I’ve got that pastime down pat. You, on the other hand, are typical of the sort who yells at others to think when you haven’t even got a handle on making sense yet.
I’ve read your rather rambling, half-coherent diatribe directed at me three times now, and I still find it difficult to detect the logic that you seem so certain is buried in it somewhere.
“I’m not a huge Hemingway fan either, however, I find his quote, “all thinking men are atheists,” neither childish
or ridiculous… and I’ll explain why in just a minute.”
OOOooooh, Andrew, I can’t wait.
“You suggest that Hemingway would have us believe that none of the great intellects were atheists.”
No, I don’t suggest it–that’s clearly what Hemingway said, and meant.
“Yet you stated that these great minds, who were clearly believers, from the beginnings of Christianity right up through the Renaissance–were “thinking men.””
Umm, do you suggest otherwise? Do you even know who they are? Have you ever read any of their works?
“Then you listed a few that, apparently, you hold in high regard (ie:St. Thomas Aquinas, to Peter Abelard, to St. Francis, to St. Augustine, & Thomas More). So, do you also believe that there were no intellectuals before the beginnings of Christianity?”
Uh, no jackass, I neither believe that, nor did I say it. I, in fact, am a former instructor in Ancient History. I LOVE the Greeks. But ordinarily, when a modern person uses the term “atheist,” he is using it to refer to someone who doesn’t believe in “god,” period—but in the MODERN sense, we ordinarily take that to mean the Judeo-Christian-Islamic god. Of course, there’s lots of other gods in the world too–the Hindus have lots, other Asian groups have whole bunches, and so do the African tribes, the Polynesians, and so on. But it was simply convenient for me to refer to those Christian scholars and intellects who were believers. I could have dragged in a whole bunch of others, from various cultures. But why not be brief? Sadly, you’re now forcing me to be otherwise.
But I actually also fail to see your point. MANY of the pre-Christian intellects WERE also believers—either in their cultural pantheon of gods and goddesses, or, in a sense, in the idea of a single “god,” facets of whom were represented by these separate “personalities.” Are YOU suggesting otherwise?
“What I find absurd is your opinion that these men were great thinkers and intellectuals.”
Oh? And just how is that “absurd,” Andrew? Care to enlighten us? Care to explain to all of us in the academic profession, let alone every intellect, philosopher, thinker and scientist over the last thousand years or more how the men I mentioned were NOT great thinkers and intellects themselves?
“That idea is laughable… but only when you understand about which Hemingway was talking.”
Okay… A) you are blindly, stupidly, and ignorantly saying that… oh… say, Peter Abelard was NOT an intellectual. Not to mention any of the others I cited. (Not to mention Plato, Aristotle, Heraclitus, Pythagoras… shall I go on? Do the mention of the ancient pagans make you feel better?) B) you are LAUGHABLY saying that we should take the word of ERNEST HEMINGWAY on this? Hemingway, whose claim to ANY status of being considered a great intellect rests on his only half-way decent writing (the other half of the time it was lousy) and… well… nothing else? So… Ernest Hemingway qualifies, in YOUR book, as an intellect superior to Thomas Aquinas? Or Abelard? Or Heraclitus? Confucious? the Buddha? Jesus Christ?
Uh huh. I see. And MY statements were supposed to be laughable, huh? Are you *sure*?
Moron.
“Hemingway’s meaning is very clear.”
Yes it was—and as was typical of the man, it was sloppy and sophomoric thinking—like his often sloppy and sophomoric work. A master of the short form (though his style grates after a while) he failed and fell apart when attempting to step up to plate with anything that ran the distance of novel-like and depth. And this is reflected in his silly and adolescent notion that “no thinking men believe in god.” But then, it’s also true that Hemingway was something of an arrested adolescent.
“If one believes in fairy tales then it is very clear that such a man has not given much serious thought to the matter.”
Logical fallacy, Andrew. That YOU believe something to be a “fairy tale” is your OPINION. It is NOT an established fact. That you can’t tell the difference says a great deal about YOU. Not about Abelard, et al.
Now, in point of fact, I myself believe the Bible to be mythology. I believe the Gospels to be replete with metaphor–in fact, I think the whole thing is meant to be read as metaphor. But–there is a difference between “mythology” and “fairy tale.” Of course, we could go into the detail behind the differences, but at bottom you mean “fairy tale” as a pejorative. And THAT is absurd and stupid of YOU. Not to mention narrow-minded and childish. Mythology and metaphor are ways for our minds to examine and know truth of the spirit, if you will. You needn’t BELIEVE in miracles or the LITERAL truth of mythology—in fact, my recommendation would be to NOT do so. But to DISMISS mythology is as dumb, narrow-minded and provincial as believing in it LITERALLY as true.
“Anyone who has diligently thought about God and religion will, sooner or later, dismiss it as folly.”
Religion–perhaps. Perhaps. Though it would depend on what you mean by “religion.” But god? No. In this you are dead, dead wrong. And you have the attitude of the snotty teenager who thinks he knows it all, but really doesn’t grasp even the half of what he’s talking about.
You can trust most assuredly that men like Joseph Campbell, Henry Miller, the Dalai Lama, Aquinas, St. Francis, Michelangelo, Pythagoras, Confucious, Suzuki, and yes, even Einstein, thought both diligently and deeply about god, little Andrew. None of them were out-and-out atheists. Some were strong believers in the Christian god… others in Eastern faiths and spiritual systems of living a life of depth and meaning. Some were ancient philosophers who saw behind the poetic imaginings of their pagan traditions. Some, like Einstein, believed that god was manifest in the universe itself and its laws. But none *denied* god as a possibility. Now, I don’t say it’s wrong to do so–I believe it to be a personal intellectual choice. But I have met very few actual atheists who were really very intellectual about it. MET, I stress. Naturally there were many great atheists of great intellect. But the truly great ones never dismissed the beliefs of other intellects as “fairy tales.” They recognized that spirituality and spiritual focus are personal intellectual choices for some–and it is not a question in which there can be a “right” or “wrong” answer, as there is no logical way to end up at a definitive conclusion no matter what one does.
“As for the men you listed in your post, their intellects are in question mainly because of their adherence to, and belief in, a thing which clearly doesn’t exist.”
That is the pompous, know-it-all arrogance of a child. To begin with, you have no evidence or logical ground to stand on which allows you to make the statement that god “clearly doesn’t exist.” You are qualified to make such a statement for YOURSELF, since such beliefs ought be personal and we ought to have the freedom to believe as we choose, for ourselves. But to make such a statement on behalf of OTHERS is arrogant, stupid, and as bad as someone who says that “all non-Christians go to hell,” or that all who are “not Islamic are infidels doomed to die.”
Quite simply, such people are narrow-minded, UNintellectual bigots—as are you.
October 25th, 2009 at 2:07 am
LOL. It looks like I pushed some buttons here! Considering that your post was made on December 7th, 2007, I really didn’t expect a reply this quick. But then, you must have alot of free time on your hands! You probably just sit around hoping someone will talk to you, and when they do, such as my good self, you flame them and call them names, proving beyond a shadow of a doubt your ignorance. So I am a narow-minded, bigoted jackass? And you are the smart one here? Yet you had to read my post three times and still didn’t understand it. Yeah, you must be very intelligent. Hehehehe. And yes, to answer your question, I have read most everything that your so-called wise men have written. But did you know that St. Francis was against learning of any kind? This is true. He was strongly opposed to any kind of higher education and prided himself on his utter simplicity of intellect. But hey, if you ever read any of his writings, they seem more pagan than Catholic. Dude, you give atheists a bad name. You know why? You are just like the Theists… no matter what anyone says, you have to argue with them to prove you’re the one who’s correct. Get a life!
October 25th, 2009 at 11:08 am
Randall (504),
Have you read the “read me first” rules of this forum? Apparently not. You broke more than one! Other than your post being too long, (the moderators want short concise posts), and too hateful (friendly comments are better; you don’t have to agree with everyone, just keep your arguments clean), which leads me to point out that as soon as you insult someone, you lose! That’s the moderator’s quote, not mine. For someone who claims to dislike Hemingway’s childish quote, you sure revereted very quickly to childish name calling! And I found it very humorous that you couldn’t understand Andrew’s comment. It was only 6 short paragraphs, which hardly qualifies as rambling! Futhermore, he has a point… he was just trying to explain to you where Ernest was coming from. There’s even a quote on this site that says the more educated a person is the less likely they are to be religious. That, I believe, is what Ernest was meaning in his aforementioned quote. Apparently you hate Ernest Hemingway. However, he won the Nobel and the Pulitzer for his work? Have you won any literary awards? Just curious.
And Andrew (500),
Don’t bother with Randall. That is a waste of time. We’ve seen his/her type before. They want to argue with everyone, as you so elequently pointed out. This person is the kind of person that would try to hammer a square peg in a round hole and then curse the peg for not going in as well as cursing the hole for not allowing the peg to go in, while not being intelligent enough to realize his/her frustration is born of his/her own stupidity! I call it the “Blame it on someone else syndrome.”
Lastly, I want to leave everyone here with a thought. I visit alot of atheist websites and it seems like a recurring post… people always claiming that they can have the truth for themselves but that truth is not relative to anyone else because of personal bias and experiences, etc. However, I don’t necessarily think this is true. One could say that “before I was born, the world did not exist and after I die, the world will cease to exist.” From a personal point of view, this may be true. However, we who have survived the death of another and have witnessed the birth of another, can conclusively dismiss such an idea, knowing that the world did exist before the birth and will go on existing after the death. So, personal experience and bias is not a very good tool for determining such things. A truth is only a truth is it is true and if it is true then nothing can usurp that truth. Therefore, personal truths are a waste of time. We must develop our Logical Deductive Thinking (LDT) to full capacity before claiming what is and what is not, a truth.
October 25th, 2009 at 12:27 pm
Thanks Mark, for the head’s up on our very argumentive friend, Randall. Personally, I didn’t mean to upset him (or anyone else here), I was just trying to clarify a point. For someone that didn’t understand my post (after reading it three times) it sure upset him… to the point of name calling and character bashing. Indeed, not a very intelligent response. Perhapse he was angry with himself for not being able to understand such a simple and straightforward post and he just took it out on me? Oh well, such is life.
Nonetheless, this is a very interesting website. But, I’m sorry, I’ve not been properly introduced.
My name is Andrew London. I’m a romantic-adventure novelist (and Randall, just for your information, I have a Doctorate in Philosophy from a major university, have been a professionally pubilished author since 1997, have worked with 6 different publishing corporations in America as well as in the UK, Europe, and the Philippines, have written both fiction as well as non-ficton, in 5 different genres, under 3 nom-de-plumes, have 10 books in print, and was recently nominated for the Pulitzer Prize in Letters; care to discuss your literary and intellectual achievements? I didn’t think so).
My novels are not the typical trashy romance novels you find at the supermarket. I try to live my life by the philosophy of plain living and high thinking. My novels are always laced with deeply proufoud philosophical thoughts… and sometimes arguments. It’s my hope that through the publication of my novels, I will be giving people food for thought. How well they digest this food is anyone’s guess. (Winks at Randall). But hopefully, over time, my presentation of practical thinking will usurp the dark-ages menatlity that has fettered mankind to his own ignorance for over 5000 years.
Thank you sincerely for allowing me to post here.
October 27th, 2009 at 8:00 am
Randall @ 501
I have only one question for you. Why are you here on this site? I have seen your hateful and unintelligent posts and can hold my tongue no longer! It is exceedingly clear that YOU are NOT an atheist. So I ask again: WHY ARE YOU HERE ON THIS SITE?
By the statements that you have posted here, it is incredibly obvious that you are a gay Catholic with a mean streak that enjoys the adolescent practice of name calling.
Sir, the men you that listed as intellectuals are NOT intellectuals! Whilst they may be more intelligent that you, which any child with an IQ over 7 undoubtedly is, they certainly cannot qualify as being high thinkers.
For starters, St. Thomas Aquinas was not an intellectual; he was a Catholic priest, a zealot, and a witch hunter. The majority of the men you named as intellectuals were NOT intellectuals, but Catholics. So you MUST be a Catholic since you respect these fools and hold them in high regard.
Furthermore, you MUST be gay because 1) you consistently scream insults at the good people here on this site; 2) you quite freely use the term bigot; and 3) you are constantly hiding behind a person’s individual personal CHOICE. These are all red flags for homosexuality.
And lastly, you are NOT an atheist because you believe in 1) God; 2) the soul; 3) the afterlife.
My final word on this subject is that you, along with everyone else that blindly holds onto the nonsensical beliefs of religion, spiritualism, and a metaphysical paranormal existence beyond this life, are NOT intellectuals, but fools of the highest order of magnitude. For, the true intellectual has delved into the questions of these issues and has conclusively discovered that they are complete untruths, whereas they are dismissed and never again discussed.
To back up my statement, I now record here for posterity, quotes that were posted here on this site proving beyond the shadow of a doubt that to believe in any form of theism is NOT the practice of intellectuals, but fools. (ie: no one here agrees with your stupidity).
Richard Dawkins
I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with NOT understanding the world.
Francis Crick
If revealed religions have revealed anything it is that they are WRONG.
John Adams
God is an essence that we know nothing of. Until this awful blaspheme is got rid of, there never will be any REAL science in the world.
Karl Marx
Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.
George Bernard Shaw
The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact than a drunken man is happier than a sober one. The happiness of GULLIBILITY is a cheap and dangerous quality.
Stephen Roberts
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.
Annie Wood Besant
No philosophy, no religion, has ever brought so glad a message to the world as this good news of Atheism.
Carl Sagan
It is said that men may not be the dreams of the Gods, but rather that the Gods are the dreams of men.
Arthur C. Clarke
It may be that our role on this planet is not to worship God, but to create him.
Jesse Ventura
Organized religion is a sham and a crutch for weak-minded people.
Carl Sagan
Extraordinary claims REQUIRE extraordinary evidence.
Chapman Cohen
Gods are fragile things; they may be killed by a whiff of science or a dose of common sense.
Friedrich Nietzsche
In Christianity neither morality nor religion comes into contact with REALITY at any point.
Denis Diderot
Men will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest. The philosopher has never killed any priests, whereas the priest has killed a great many philosophers.
Abu Ala Al-Ma’arri
The world holds two classes of men: intelligent men WITHOUT religion, and religious men WITHOUT intelligence.”
Thomas Jefferson
Religions are all alike: founded upon fables and mythologies.
John Adams
The divinity of Jesus is made a convenient cover for ILLOGICALITY.
October 27th, 2009 at 1:33 pm
@Mark (504):
Mark, honestly, fuck you. And I mean that sincerely.
“Have you read the “read me first” rules of this forum? Apparently not.”
Stick it up your ass, Mark. I’m one of the originals on this site and don’t need lectures from you or anyone else on “posting etiquette.”
“You broke more than one! Other than your post being too long, (the moderators want short concise posts),”
You must not be the same Mark I’ve talked to elsewhere on the site, or else you’d know that it’s my habit to post comments that are as long as I feel they need to be. I have not yet had a SINGLE protest from the moderators or from Jamie, the site owner, since I came here shortly after the site’s inception.
“and too hateful (friendly comments are better; you don’t have to agree with everyone, just keep your arguments clean),”
Okay pollyanna. Whatever. This is the internet. Grow up. And I wasn’t the one who started in with the attacks–in case you hadn’t noticed.
In point of fact, I almost NEVER attack first. But I DO defend myself when some little pissant insults me. And then, inevitably, I get some little prick like you who comes out of the woodwork to wag their little disapproving finger at me. BUT–NEVER to address the ARGUMENTS I have made–just the TONE I’ve used.
Well Mark, it’s THAT kind of shit that wastes EVERYONE’S time… most importantly MINE. So if you have something germaine to add to the discussion, go for it. But if you simply feel it’s incumbent upon you to “correct” me, then fuck off and find something better and more useful to do with your time. Because I’m not going to change OR listen to the likes of you. If you don’t like it, too bad—you’re welcome to ignore me.
“which leads me to point out that as soon as you insult someone, you lose!”
Oh, bullshit. For chrissakes I am so sick of listening to that nonsense.
Winning our losing arguments, Mark, turns on facts and their correct interpretations, and when facts are absent, on the most logical and reasonable interpretation of what we DO have. That’s it. Now, in a professional setting, no, people don’t go around talking colorfully, etc., but THIS ISN’T A PROFESSIONAL SETTING. This is the internet, and I have no reason to suppose that the person I’m talking to is some professional colleague — in fact, I have a lot of reason to suppose otherwise when they babble out inane and nonsensical BS as a substitute for clear and rational critical thinking.
“And I found it very humorous that you couldn’t understand Andrew’s comment. It was only 6 short paragraphs, which hardly qualifies as rambling!”
AH, so I see now… the truth is this is nothing more than a grind you have against ME, because now you’re taking it personal. Uh huh. And you have the gall to lecture me on proper behavior. Sure.
No Mark, I don’t find it “amusing.” Rather, I found Andrew’s post to be awkwardly and badly phrased and written. And “rambling” does not ONLY refer to length, smartass, but more pointedly to rhetoric that goes nowhere and does not adequately convey its intended message—and Andrew’s post was certainly guilty of that.
“Futhermore, he has a point… he was just trying to explain to you where Ernest was coming from.”
NO! WAS HE? I never would have thought of that! Thanks for pointing that out to me! How could I have missed that? How silly of me!
Douche.
“There’s even a quote on this site that says the more educated a person is the less likely they are to be religious. That, I believe, is what Ernest was meaning in his aforementioned quote.”
WRONG, Mark. Read the fucking quote. You don’t get to re-interpret someone’s words for them, particularly when they’ve been quite clear with them. Hemingway *was* quite clear, and he was saying a good deal more than merely drawing a parallel between education and a disinclination towards religion.
“Apparently you hate Ernest Hemingway.”
Nope, I just don’t genuflect at his feet–I never thought he was a very good writer. Great with short works, lousy with novels.
“However, he won the Nobel and the Pulitzer for his work? Have you won any literary awards? Just curious.”
Aw, gee, nope, Mark—guess that makes me an inferior lout, huh?
You argue like a fucking child. And a smug one too, who doesn’t have the sense to know what a dimwit he is. That Hemingway won awards proves nothing–let’s go examine a list of the people who’ve won the Nobel for literature and Pulitzer prizes, and see how many of them you even recognize, let alone have read. Awards are not a measure of an artist’s worth, jackass. And the mere fact that an artist wins awards does not mean that he’s then exempt from criticism.
“Don’t bother with Randall. That is a waste of time. We’ve seen his/her type before. They want to argue with everyone, as you so elequently pointed out.”
It’s like a couple of spotty twelve year olds who have no friends, sitting in a corner consoling each other on how much “better” they are than the cool kids. Laughable, if it wasn’t coming from someone who PRESUMABLY is an adult—or are you an adult, Mark?
“while not being intelligent enough to realize his/her frustration is born of his/her own stupidity! I call it the “Blame it on someone else syndrome.””
OH BOY! Mark’s even invented a NAME for the syndrome he’s pegged me with! What a clever little scout you are, Mark!
Honest to god, you little twerp… no one has ever had the gall to call me “stupid.” I suggest you re-think that one.
A) You have nothing WHATSOEVER to offer the argument at hand. You’ve simply decided that you “like” Andrew and dislike me. Well good for you, we’re all proud that you have a moral compass. But there IS an actual intellectual discussion underway here—and yet YOU are the one who’s offered NOTHING to it. And *I* am supposed to be the one suffering from “stupidity”?
B) You clearly know nothing of me on this site, or else you would not have made this atrocious blunder. I will cop to many things, Mark. Many vices. Stupidity is NOT one of them.
October 27th, 2009 at 1:51 pm
@Bo (506): JFrater, please get this hateful, bigoted, hypocritic comment off here, before I make the most cuss-filled, raged, vulgar reply to him. THINK OF THE CHILDREN.
October 27th, 2009 at 2:44 pm
@Bo (506):
You need to simmer down and take a pill, sport. In fact, I suggest you have the doctor up your meds considerably. At start doing the “sessions” TWICE a week, not just once a month.
“I have only one question for you. Why are you here on this site?”
My probation officer says I have to be. How’s that?
Why are YOU here? What, I have to justify my presence with YOU first? I thought the owner of the site was my buddy, Jamie Frater. I had no idea that above Jamie was an elusive, shadowy figure named “Bo.” I’m frankly shocked to find that a labrador retriever is actually master of List Universe, I never would have saw that one coming.
“I have seen your hateful and unintelligent posts”
UNINTELLIGENT? Please, “Bo.” Let’s not be silly. Sarcastic, nasty, bitter and bilious, sure. Unintelligent? Hardly.
“and can hold my tongue no longer!”
ewwwwwww… I’m all a-quiver!
I can’t believe you actually just wrote that you can “hold your tongue no longer.” Who do you think you are? WHAT do you think you are?
Tyrone Power, perhaps, in a bad pirate movie?
“It is exceedingly clear that YOU are NOT an atheist.”
You just got that? My you’re sharp.
No, Bo, I’m not an atheist. I was, or thought I was, when I was about 18. But neither am I Christian or Jew or Muslim. I have my own, private spiritual beliefs. I can’t share, cuz they’re dirty, and I suspect you’re a youngster.
“So I ask again: WHY ARE YOU HERE ON THIS SITE?”
Are you…. laboring under some misconception that this is an atheist web site, Bo? Are you clueless or just an asshole?
Take a look around List Universe, and you’ll find out what I do here. I’m the voice of reason, learning, wit and intellect for the site. I have a contract.
“By the statements that you have posted here, it is incredibly obvious that you are a gay Catholic”
PARDON ME?
Well you have one redeeming trait, Bo… you’re unintentionally humorous. I actually chuckled aloud.
No, Bo. Neither gay nor Catholic. I have no doubt I’m straighter than you are. A good deal straighter. And the closest I’ve been to Catholicism was being married to one. Which I admit, is pretty close, but that doesn’t mean *I* was Catholic.
“with a mean streak that enjoys the adolescent practice of name calling.”
Well I DO very much have a mean streak. And by god, you might think it adolescent, but it’s satisfying and entertaining.
“Sir, the men you that listed as intellectuals are NOT intellectuals!”
Okay, now you’re just being a ridiculous moron. Can we have the next contestant please?
I honestly want you to tell me how in god’s green earth (’scuze me mr. Atheist for mentioning the non-existent deity, bad habit) the men I cited were NOT intellectuals? I mean are you freakin’ KIDDING me?
“Whilst they may be more intelligent that you, which any child with an IQ over 7 undoubtedly is, they certainly cannot qualify as being high thinkers.”
Honestly, you’re calling ME adolescent with THAT line?
Peter Abelard, Thomas Aquinas, et al—these were NOT high thinkers? That’ll be a big surprise to my colleagues here at the Philosophy and Classical Studies departments at the university. They may have to find other jobs.
“For starters, St. Thomas Aquinas was not an intellectual; he was a Catholic priest, a zealot, and a witch hunter.”
So…. no one in your world can be an intellectual UNLESS they agree with you in regards to your atheistic beliefs? Priests aren’t allowed?
As for zealots and witch hunters… well… I can’t say I care for such people myself, but I never said I loved Aquinas. I merely defended the man’s intellect.
Intellectual men can and have done lots of terrible things, in case you haven’t noticed, Bo. And they’ve supported terrible things. Said terrible things. Being an intellectual doesn’t automatically confer upon one grace and goodness.
“The majority of the men you named as intellectuals were NOT intellectuals, but Catholics.”
OH… I GET IT. You’re a bigoted Catholic hater. OKAY. Now we know where we are. You’re just crazy. I get it now.
Sorry I didn’t realize it sooner. I encounter so MANY crazies on this site, you’d think by now I could recognize them at first glance. My mistake.
“So you MUST be a Catholic since you respect these fools and hold them in high regard.”
Ummmm, yeah… wrong there, Bo. Nice, super-crazy try though.
(I was raised Presbyterian actually, but gave that up decades ago).
“Furthermore, you MUST be gay because 1) you consistently scream insults at the good people here on this site; 2) you quite freely use the term bigot; and 3) you are constantly hiding behind a person’s individual personal CHOICE. These are all red flags for homosexuality.”
Oh goodness… And you’re a HOMOPHOBE too! Nice trifecta, Bo… Ignorant, anti-Catholic AND homophobic. You must be a riot at parties.
Listen jackass… if anything screams suppressed homosexual, it’s assholes like you who hate the poor bastards. Seek some therapy and perhaps you can come to terms with what you really are.
Me, however, sorry to disappoint you, but loved the ladies all my life… and still do–as often as I can. If you know what I mean, whack job.
“And lastly, you are NOT an atheist”
Uh…. pssst…. Bo? I never SAID I was an atheist. Pinhead.
“because you believe in 1) God;”
Kinda, yeah. Something that we may “call” God, yes. Einstein’s, Henry Miller’s, Joseph Campbell’s and D.T. Suzuki’s idea of “god.” Like that.
“2) the soul;”
Meh.
“3) the afterlife.”
Nope, sorry… wrong again, weirdo.
“My final word on this subject”
Thankfully.
“is that you, along with everyone else that blindly holds onto the nonsensical beliefs of religion, spiritualism, and a metaphysical paranormal existence beyond this life, are NOT intellectuals, but fools of the highest order of magnitude.”
Ummm, sure, Bo. Sure. How many hours of internet access do they allow you in the “Home” anyway?
October 27th, 2009 at 3:21 pm
@Randall (509):
Hi Randall. How are you? Just a quick thing,
I know you love yourself and think you’re funny and clever and everybody on this site loves you and appreciates what you’re doing here and you bring intellect and wit and blah blah blah blah…..
But seriously, you’ve got to start doubting yourself. The sheer numbers suggest that you are wrong. I know you say things like,
‘for every one person who doesn’t like me on this site, I can find two who do.’
….but thats just not true is it big man. It’s very rare that a list goes by without at least, at least, one person bringing in to question what a tool you are. Surely even you, a man so practiced in self delusion, has got to start looking at the evidence and coming to the only possible conclusion. Much like the argument about religion, when you consider the evidence, the answer becomes blindingly obvious. There is no God. You are a tool. It’s black and white my friend.
Oh, one last thing…
‘You need to simmer down and take a pill, sport. In fact, I suggest you have the doctor up your meds considerably. At start doing the “sessions” TWICE a week, not just once a month.’
I see you’re still using this joke? Even though we are all painfully aware of just how unfunny it is? Interesting.
October 27th, 2009 at 4:30 pm
@archiealt (510): It’s black and white my friend.
Nothing ever is. If there weren’t two sides to every argument, there wouldn’t be an argument. I’ve found it particularly liberating, enlightening, and at times enjoyable to open my mind’s door, put on a pair of somebody else’s shoes, and walk around for a bit. I recommend it, actually.
And before you claim open mindedness, I can tell you thought God was bullshit from the get-go. If you were open about it ever, you would have respect for religious folk rather than contempt. I have many atheist friends who see no reason whatsoever to give me shit for my beliefs. Make as many assumptions about me as you want, insult me as much as you want. I’ve dealt with you before, and you didn’t get under my skin then, nor will you now. Have at me, all narrow-minded atheists.
And Randall, out of sheer curiosity, what is your personal standing of religion? What are your personal beliefs? If you do not feel it is worth answering, simply let me know, I can respect that.
October 27th, 2009 at 5:06 pm
@archiealt (510):
archie, the more you do this, the more of an ass you make of yourself. In fact, it’s worse than that–you become downright sickening.
Now, I’ll tell you something. One of the things that WILL get you kicked from this site is when you follow someone around from thread to thread only to harass them. And it IS a form of harassment. Think about it.
Because LITERALLY almost the only thing you do on this web site is pop up in whatever thread where I’m in the midst of an argument or debate, only to post pointless comments like the one you just offered up. It has no *bearing* on the topic, and contributes NOTHING to the discussion. Nothing. And yet you keep doing this.
Why? We had this discussion before, and you seemed to get it. But here you are again. You can’t leave it alone. It’s not just sad, it’s not just pathetic… it’s disgusting. AGAIN… what do you hope to accomplish? What do you intend? Do you think you’re going to shut me up or hound me off the site? You’re not. Ever. Do you think I’m going to listen to you? Agree with you at some point? Again, I won’t. Ever.
Frankly, it’s obvious–and I do mean this seriously, it’s no joke–it’s obvious that you follow me around trying to goad me because *that’s all you’ve got.* ALL you’ve got. You NEVER offer anything more. I offer information to this site, humor, entertainment, and I’ve contributed several lists… and in fact just submitted another. What have you offered? What have you contributed? NOT A THING. You’re a waste of space here and a waste of everyone’s time. And all you can do is follow me around, like the dullwitted little bullying child who, out of his own pathetic insecurities, keeps trying to get the goat of the smarter and better kid–because it’s all he’s got to make him feel “big” and important. He wants attention, and it’s the only way he can get it.
WHY do you keep repeating yourself? Why do you keep insisting that I see MYSELF and MY life YOUR way? Why the “tool” label again and again? (and then you have the nerve to turn around and mock me for apparent unoriginality of humor). It isn’t working, I’m not going away. I’m not changing because some prick like you on the internet calls me fucking names. But I think you know this. I think you COUNT on it. Because, again, as I say… it’s ALL you are, and all you’ve got.
Now here it is seriously to you. You leave me the fuck alone, you don’t address me again, you have nothing to say to me, you never fucking follow me to another thread again—or I will report you to the moderators and to Jamie. Because, as I say, it’s becoming sickening and more than a little twisted that you keep doing this. Harassment is harassment, even on the internet you fucking asshole.
Consider yourself warned, and if you take this lightly, that’s your decision. I’m not taking it lightly at all.
October 27th, 2009 at 5:12 pm
@ianz09 (511):
True, there are indeed two sides to every argument. What we must do, to see which side of the argument is more valid, is to asses the evidence. Weigh up both sides and see which holds more water. If this principle was not followed, then the whole world would collapse. When we do this with organised religion it becomes clear that they are, in fact, a sham. Even a man of faith such as yourself must admit that there is no real evidence whatsoever to support your claim. Real evidence, not anecdotal. Their is, however, a lot of evidence which suggest that the teachings and principles which organised religion is based on, in Christianity’s case, The Bible, is absolute nonsense.
I think it is unfair to say that I have contempt for religious folk, merely their beliefs. I have religious friends, and they are wonderful people who I can have a whale of a time with. I think it is also important to say that all of the friends I have who are religious, have very religious parents themselves. This is by no means a coincidence. Religion is something you are taught. Fact. I would bet every single pound I had in this world that you yourself were brought up in a religious household.
Neither am I ‘narrow minded’. Just because I think all religion is complete rubbish, that does not make me ‘narrow minded’. I would be incredibly interested in knowing just why it is you consider me to be ‘narrow minded’?
Oh, and I haven’t thrown any insults your way whatsoever, so please don’t try and take the moral high ground.
October 27th, 2009 at 5:46 pm
@Randall (512):
Listen Randall, I don’t follow you from post to post mate. The whole ‘religious debate’ is one that interests me greatly, i happened to notice that one was brewing over here and have been following it’s progress.
You then did your whole ‘angry man’ bit and started flying of the handle dishing out insults left right and centre.
At this point I jumped in and started mouthing of at you.
Now, Randall, you can’t honestly expect to have a go at the amount of people you do, chuck about all these insults, and then get annoyed when somebody has a go at you for doing it.
And trust me mate, there are a lot of times when you get in to unnecessary arguments with people, start to go off on one, and all I want to do is throw in my two cents. But I don’t because, let’s face it, it’s not my battle and who the fuck cares about my opinion. Despite what you may think I find it much more enjoyable to have actual discussions/debates with people on this site, rather than the pointless back and forth arguments I end up having with you.
But it’s hard, because it’s very rare that a good discussion gets going on this site without you chipping in and getting all ‘aggressive’ (aggressive’s not the right word…but you know what I mean). So inevitably the discussion turns to you and your ways, rather than about the actual list. Have a browse over the past couple of weeks list’s and you’ll see what I mean.
October 27th, 2009 at 7:18 pm
@archiealt (513): Even a man of faith such as yourself must admit that there is no real evidence whatsoever to support your claim.
None whatsoever. As a believer, I believe for reasons not based in evidence. I used to be a rather arrogant atheist, and scientifically, I guess I still am. I won’t pull the “you can’t prove God doesn’t exist, so He could exist” bullshit, because that is a moot argument. I believe for very personal reasons that I can’t explain or fully understand. I just kind of know, I guess you could say. It isn’t anything I could use on anybody else to push my religion upon people, not that I’d want to. From your standpoint, I have nothing to support my beliefs. I only have a personal, internal reason, which I am well aware won’t hold up to anybody else’s scrutiny, only my own.
I think it is unfair to say that I have contempt for religious folk, merely their beliefs.
I’m not sure why you do, but you seem to have a vendetta against religion, and on this site I have yet to see a very calm and polite disagreement towards it, from you or anyone. Not to say the religious folk are respectful either, but the point remains: people are people, regardless of their beliefs.
Neither am I ‘narrow minded’. Just because I think all religion is complete rubbish, that does not make me ‘narrow minded’. I would be incredibly interested in knowing just why it is you consider me to be ‘narrow minded’?
Your view of religion isn’t why, your hostility towards it is why. Religious and non-religious folk who are openly hostile and contemptuous towards the opposing viewpoint are all on the same island, just on a different side of the fence. You consistently attack people. While you may or may not start these arguments, continuing them makes you a guilty party as well. When the Fundy Baptist bible-thumper chews you out, you would look better retaliating in a non-hostile, calm manner, and he would look bad. And I am not saying you don’t, but I can only observe what I see, and I haven’t seen very polite remarks from you.
Religion is something you are taught. Fact. I would bet every single pound I had in this world that you yourself were brought up in a religious household.
Correct. My belief in a higher power, though, was not influenced at all by this. As I said earlier, that is the result of a personal journey that holds no water as evidence for anybody but myself. I will admit, that my assuming it is the Christian depiction of God was influenced by the household. I can really only pick (what I perceive as) my best option and go with my gut. I realize this sounds weak, but I see it this way: a one in a million chance still beats zero. Call it however you please, I wouldn’t blame you for having a problem with this.
Oh, and I haven’t thrown any insults your way whatsoever
Which I appreciate.
so please don’t try and take the moral high ground.
I only take the moral high ground when I truly believe I am being a better person. Your last post was pretty respectful, and I see no cause to do any such thing. I hope you didn’t assume I would be moralistic simply because I am religious.
I do not preach, I only defend.
October 27th, 2009 at 7:46 pm
@Andrew London (505):
Okay Andrew, you want to play it this way, we can.
“For someone that didn’t understand my post (after reading it three times)”
Okay, smartass… to begin with, it is not that I didn’t “understand” your post. It’s that I found it poorly worded and was shocked to the point of disbelief that anyone could and would characterize men like Abelard and Aquinas as “non-intellectuals.” But let’s get to the fun part here, shall we? Your monumentally shallow and insecure ego.
“My name is Andrew London.”
Ah yes, I checked out your name. Googled you. And let’s temper this boastful crap of yours.
“I’m a romantic-adventure novelist”
Uh huh. Seems like one novel. But more about that in a second.
“(and Randall, just for your information, I have a Doctorate in Philosophy from a major university,”
And you can sit there, with an apparent straight face, and claim that the men I cited were NOT intellectuals? What “major” university was this, Andrew? Perhaps one where all the work is done online? That advertises on matchbook covers?
It’s amusing that you boasted about your credentials and publication, but with all this *apparent* openness, you failed to identify the institution from which you earned this doctorate.
But let’s leave that aside. It hardly matters. Because a PhD doesn’t make someone a great intellect, nor, apparently, does it increase someone’s critical thinking skills, if they’ve failed to cultivate them in the first place. And some places will give degrees and doctorates to anybody.
“…have been a professionally pubilished author since 1997,”
Well that’s amusing, since I could find only ONE novel online, that belonged to you… published by XLibris… a *vanity* publisher.
Which means, to those of you looking in who aren’t aware, that your “novel” was self-published, by *paying* someone to print it for you–namely XLibris.
And those of us who know–and yes, I know–know that vanity publishing is bottom of the barrel. It’s for writers who can’t sell their work legitimately, because it basically isn’t good enough. And it’s a way for the egotistical to get their little bit of “genius” out there even though the big boys won’t touch it, because it stinks.
“…have worked with 6 different publishing corporations in America as well as in the UK, Europe, and the Philippines,”
“worked WITH?” Hmm… so… you answered the phones?
Amusing, again, that with all these publishers you “worked with,” that none of them would touch your “novel.”
“have written both fiction as well as non-ficton, in 5 different genres, under 3 nom-de-plumes,”
OH… I see. Your “real” works are under your “non-de-plumes.” Uh huh. Oh, and by the way Andrew–we who are writers say “pseudonym.” We do NOT say “nom-de-plume.” *Douchebags* call it a “nom-de-plume.”
“have 10 books in print, and was recently nominated for the Pulitzer Prize in Letters;”
Self-nominated, perhaps? Or maybe mom put your name in?
“care to discuss your literary and intellectual achievements? I didn’t think so).”
Three degrees; no doctorate, but I never found it necessary, especially since I changed careers a few years back and abandoned teaching. Published works both fiction and non-fiction–articles, stories, etc. Oh, and yes–journals people would have heard of. I don’t use a pseudonym, though I’m working on some new material for which I just might. First novel nearing completion, (no genre–it’s straight, literary fiction) have an agent interested. Waiting to hear on a set of stories that just went out.
Good enough for you?
But let’s get back to parsing your transparent gasp for respect and attention, it’s more fun:
“My novels are not the typical trashy romance novels you find at the supermarket.”
Translation: You desperately fear they’re no good, but can’t admit it even to yourself. No REAL writer has to boast that his or her works are “not the typical trashy romance novels at the supermarket.” A writer secure in himself or herself doesn’t bother with such nonsense. I never feel I have to explain my work in this manner–I’m secure in what it is. You, on the other hand–vanity publishing. Says it all.
“I try to live my life by the philosophy of plain living and high thinking.”
How profound. Excuse me while I gag.
I can just see you, patting yourself on the back. We *are* pleased with ourselves, aren’t we Andrew? And what a little bit of cant that is–”plain living and HIGH thinking.” There’s even a little bit of the “golly gee” about it—as in “golly gee that Andrew is a smart fella!” Said, of course, by Andrew–about Andrew.
“My novels are always laced with deeply proufoud philosophical thoughts… and sometimes arguments.”
And you write your own jacket blurbs I see. Nice. The insecurity rages on. Couldn’t get the New York Review of Books to take notice? Oh, but I forget–nominated for a Pulitzer… mmm hmm.
But anyway, listen to the self-congratulation of that sentence: “My novels are always laced with deeply PROFOUND philosophical thoughts…” It just throbs with self-importance. I begin to believe you about the PhD, and suspect you of being a particularly rabid about what an accomplishment that was. Only an insular, smug little mind with an ego twice as large could write such things with a straight face.
“(Winks at Randall).”
No, don’t wink at me. I’m not at all interested. Nor am I impressed.
“But hopefully, over time, my presentation of practical thinking will usurp the dark-ages menatlity that has fettered mankind to his own ignorance for over 5000 years.”
Unbelievable! So Andrew, all on his own, will overturn the dark and backward daydreams of mankind… with his oh-so-important novels. You have the poses for your statues all planned, no doubt. I like the one with the hand raised to the heavens–that kind of schmaltz always gets the most photos of tourists taken in front of it.
Andrew… you truly are… a piece of work. I’ve in fact met a lot of fellow writers in my life—famous ones, not so famous, published, unpublished, flashes in the pan, old hands… and I’ll be the first one to admit that I don’t very much like writers. A lot of them tend to be self-absorbed pricks with huge insecurities and absurd egos. Thank you for once again verifying my better judgements in these matters. You truly are a typical example of the kind of person that gives writers a bad name.
Allow me to point one other thing out. As a professional in the field of higher education, I feel it is incumbent upon me to point out that a man who professes to hold a PhD in ANYTHING should not by any stretch of the imagination have the absurd notions you have about some of the greatest minds in human history–but then again, what am I saying? I’ve known more than a couple crazy-ass PhDs who believed they were practically a step or two below god. But it continues to amaze me that people like you actually exist. And it depresses me to no end.
October 27th, 2009 at 8:00 pm
@archiealt (514):
I am not going to repeat myself. You knock it the fuck off, period.
“Listen Randall, I don’t follow you from post to post mate.”
BULLSHIT. I can go back and count up the threads where I’ve been contributing and you’ve suddenly appeared to do NOTHING but bash me. NOTHING. It has happened time and time again. And you’ve done it AGAIN here.
AND you don’t take the fucking hint. GET OFF MY FUCKING BACK. If you have something to TALK about in regards to a topic at hand, DO SO. Otherwise, SHUT UP and do NOT address me.
You keep *on me* about what I do here, NEVER fucking acknowledging that I am ALWAYS arguing ABOUT something. YOU, on the other hand, have never ONCE had anything to say ABOUT a topic at hand when addressing me–you simply keep needling me and goading me about my “behavior.” It’s a waste of EVERYONE’S fucking time.
NOBODY FUCKING CARES what your opinion is about me, asshole. NOBODY is listening to you—and LEAST OF ALL ME. I have told you TIME AND TIME AGAIN–you are not going to get rid of me here, or change me. You aren’t DOING or ACCOMPLISHING ANYTHING. SO FUCKING STOP IT.
“Now, Randall, you can’t honestly expect to have a go at the amount of people you do, chuck about all these insults, and then get annoyed when somebody has a go at you for doing it.”
YES, I can, when that is ALL you do, TIME AND TIME AGAIN. NO ONE on this site appointed you watchdog or defender of the poor downtrodden that I’m talking to, in ways YOU feel are inappropriate.
I can’t BELIEVE you don’t see the fucking weirdness of this. But no, apparently you have a serious problem here.
So I’m telling you for the LAST TIME. Leave me the fuck alone. Don’t talk to me, don’t address me, don’t refer to me. If you have something to say ABOUT a topic, and wish to say it to me, DO SO. But if all you have is this constant, unending, POINTLESS fucking nipping at my heels, DO NOT DO IT. I’ve had it, this is fucking harassment, and I won’t stand for it.
October 29th, 2009 at 7:47 pm
@jptw (498):Hormones are the opium of the intellect. Many of the posters to this site are obviously very young and have blocked their minds by hormonal sex drive from allowing credance to any idea which would restrict their unbridaled sexual activity. Therefore, there is no God, so that the 6th and 9th commandments may be dismissed. Give them a few decades in which to mature, and they will sing a more reasonable tune sans their opium.
November 1st, 2009 at 7:52 am
Sir Issac Newton, maybe the greatest thinker of us all Was a CHRISTIAN. That is not noted. I guess that makes him infantile and childish in his hopes? Christians, Islam, Buddaist, ect, just say the non believers are poor in spirit, not unintelligent, and surely not lump you all together. There has been alot of evil on both sides. When a person with a faith is evil it cast a dark shadow on all faiths in the atheistic mind, but when a non believer is evil, it is solely his or her actions, not non believers in general. Believers should be viewed the same way. Infact a believer of faith is no more likely to be evil and a non believer. If you truly have faith, is it more likely you will not be evil than to be evil. Lastly is GOD’s presence more improbable than our own? Also why do non believers celebrate Christmas or Hanukah? sounds hypocritical to me.
November 1st, 2009 at 8:51 am
Has anyone mentioned Issac Newton? He was a devoted follower and believer as was Albert Einsten (Jewish), Gandhi (Buddhist), John Adams (Unitarian), Copernicus (Catholic), Galileo (Christian), Kepler (Christian), Dr. Martin Luther King (Christian), Dr. Benjamin Franklin raised Puritan (Christian) introduced the idea of daily prayer in the Constitutional Convention (1787), so I think many, many, many GREAT GREAT THINKERS, ARE and WERE CHRISTANS, JEWS, BUDDAHIST, ISLAMIC, HINDU and beleivers of faith and GOD.
Also lets list the man who had the most influence on our world today Jesus Christ. (A jew) and the most devoted believer that we have ever known. Are all these men childish? infantile? uneducated thinkers? I think you see my point.
November 1st, 2009 at 8:58 am
By the way Freud was a coke head! so there is a great thinker for you, If I wanted a crack head to think for me I just would have to interview a guy from Compton. Plus Freud’s theories have now been dismissed greatly in his field of psychology. COKE HEAD Freud, with a Oedipus Rex complex.
November 3rd, 2009 at 10:55 am
Man I really like this site but I wish the comments would go away.. Some are normal “hey great list” comments but others are pathetic fool’s who think they know everything when in fact they know nothing of what they speak.. Anywho great list but this site makes me understand why I hate People so much.. Yes some are good but if I could I would clean the land of the minor annoyance’s. People are the worst creation by god…
November 5th, 2009 at 1:10 am
@tjwoods(520):
appeal to authority…i see your point, and your point is fallacious…
November 7th, 2009 at 11:32 am
@JT (27):
Critique of Epicurius
On the contrary, I answer that of Epicurius’ four profound questions, only the first part of the first question requires an answer, because subsequent questions depend upon the answer to the fiest. Is God willing to prevent all evil? Now lesser goods ought to be subordinated to greater goods, and these to the greatest good. So that what seems evil to a lesser good may not be so to the greatest good. And one of the greatest goods is the glory of God as apprehended by angels and men. And much to the glory of God is the free will love and obedience of men and womwn. I say freely they must love him. For his glory’s sake, God will never force us. Would you rather be a robot or a man who can choose his end? And if we are really free, then all must be really free to do greater and lesser evils.
However, God will soon reward every unmerited suffering many, many fold, both in quality and in exceeding duration, as in eternity. So that, every undeserved suffering will be rewarded tens of thousands of times over, to the overwelming joy of all the true victims, and they will all cry out, “where is the evil; it has all been disolved in such exceedingly disproportionate good. Blessed are you O’ Lord for bringing this enormous good out of such tiny evils as we momentarily suffered to our enormous profit and joy.”
Jerry P. T. Weaver
November 10th, 2009 at 8:54 am
I don’t believe in the God that the bible teaches us, but is there not a possibility that something, some energy or intellect beyond are ability to even comprehend planted the seed of the Big Bang? I’m sure no one was around to witness it, but it seems logical to me that something happened and I know that no one knows what that something was.
I am a little confused with atheism. Do they mean that there is just no biblical God? Or are they taking the extra step in saying that there is absolutely no outside intervention with the creation of the universe; that it “just happened” to me that seems pretty open ended.
November 10th, 2009 at 9:42 am
I have heard the argument that if there was a being that created the universe then who created the being? I submit that we know nothing of the reality that existed prior to the creation of our universe and the question may be totally non sequitur for that reality.