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 h