‘A’ is for Atheist?
Top 15 Quotes By Famous Atheists – listverse.com:
1. Creationists make it sound like a ‘theory’ is something you dreamt up after being drunk all night — Isaac Asimov2. 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
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
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
#152 – However the discussion is NOT pointless. Skip Atheism. The only valid ‘belief’ is Agnosticism. Anyone who claims to know the answer is a liar. A scientist is NOT Atheist. A scientist can only be Agnostic, or it is not a scientist.
You should learn what atheist means before you tell a lie like that. Atheism is perfectly valid. It simply means without God.
Agnostics are just hedging bets…
But all theists are foolish. What if God turns out to be a hyper-intelligent ravenous space squid who gets really annoyed by singing and prayer? What if it turns out God wanted all third babies born to be fed to lions? What if it turns out that God was really proud of his forests and rivers and seas and is really pissed off that we fucked up the planet?
Theists have no clue as to the nature of any god, who could conceivably take any of millions of forms, and be pleased by or offended by a seemingly infinite number of unknowable things.
God could in fact not even remember creating us. He might be in another universe now, still trying to perfect his designs.
The further you carry out the god issue the more insane it sounds to a rational mind that there may actually be a supernatural omnipotent and omniscient entity who cares about who we fuck and what we eat.
I’m never concerned about it. If there is a god, it does not matter because it never made itself known in any way and I have zero chance of correctly guessing what it wants me to do to please it… If it wants anything from me at all.
One thing is certain. This Jesus myth sure ain’t it. Nor is Allah or any other of the preposterous bullshit ideas man invented of whole cloth.
Mr. Mustard. You are inherently sure of yourself and your beliefs and I applaud you for it. However, your discussions, your rhetoric and your overall presence of being is crude and unnecessary. If I may be so bold, I would like you to defend for me the existence of a supernatural being who controls your world. And please sir, refrain from using the word belief in any way shape or form. Be it from USA Today, The New York Times or a scientific journal, my understandings of the world come from facts. You can belittle those around you however you like, but don’t underestimate the ridiculousness of your belief. You, like so many others, choose to take the easy road to life. Your inner peace, as you so love to call it, is a false inner peace. You are a true testament to the statement ignorance is bliss. What you substitute for facts is based on fiction! You believe only because you don’t understand. The reason Atheist’s are so unfriendly to your kind is because we consider you and your mindset to be false and absurd. Sure, it’s more comfortable, but it’s ridiculous, and you know it. I believe in everything I can see touch and comprehend. I believe in nature and the power of the universe. You believe that god created us all. I believe that we are another step in the evolution of life. However, we all make our reality, so if it makes you happy, then who am I to argue. Just don’t expect us to react favorably when you defend something that exists purely in your own mind.
>>If I may be so bold, I would like you to
>>defend for me the existence of a
>>supernatural being who controls your world.
I feel no need to do so, Defensive. What you think (dare I say “believe”?) is of no concern to me, just as what I think (…) should be of no concern to you.
If you were nicer to me, I might invite you to the Christmas Eve service at my church. But you’re not, so I won’t. Your loss.
As to my blissful “ignorance”, what’s it to ya? According you congregants in the Church of Atheism, once you’re dead, it’s all over. Better to be blissful than to be the miserable, arrogant, confused, self-loathing, bitter, thoroughly unhappy fucks that so many Atheists seem to be.
>>The reason Atheist’s are so unfriendly to
>>your kind is because we consider you and
>>your mindset to be false and absurd.
I have no doubt (i.e., AH BEEELIEEEVE) that you consider yourself superior in all ways to anyone who doesn’t share your unfounded beliefs. And no, don’t even start with the “anti-science” gibberish. I have every bit as much respect for science as I do for spiritual matters. Sadly for you, there is more (much more) to life than sodium chloride and the inner workings of a cell phone. We “blissfully ignorant” folks appreciate that. Perhaps some day you’ll join us. Imagine!
But doesn’t it upset you that your bliss prevails through the unbelievable horrors of the “real” world? As I believe Woody Allen one said, “I can’t enjoy anything unless everybody is. If one guy is starving someplace, that puts a crimp in my evening.” Your bliss comes at the expense of others, especially given that it is derived from one of the most blood-soaked regimes in history. Do you really feel that being gay is wrong? What about the subordinate position of women – do you defend that as well? What about the oppression of others based solely on their beliefs or skin color? Religion has been used for terrible things, so wouldn’t we all be a little more blissful if it disappeared? By the way, I really do respect your steadfastness, it’s hard to come by people who are willing to defend themselves.
Contrary to how Atheist’s may appear to you, I am one who is not unhappy or miserable. In fact, I find that a fair bit of my happiness comes from my separation from religion, for it has freed me in so many ways. As a strict pentecostal for many years, I was awakened to the openness that comes from free thinking. I’ve opened doors in my mind that I had never even conceived before. I’m telling you, experience both sides of the fence before you choose, and do so with the clearest of minds. For if you don’t, and confusion stays with you, you’ll never be truly satisfied. I don’t consider myself an atheist, since that would imply the recognition of religion at all. I am a man of this world and this planet, no more, no less.
Christ came down to this earth in the form of a human ya know. There is evidence proving this as well as Noah’s Ark in the Bible. What atheists are saying is that Christ, while on earth, was just like a magician like Criss Angel or something? I find that thought to be amusing. Atheists also believe that the Bible is just a book full of cool stories. I have had to fight a battle within myself whether God exists or not. It was tough because I felt like there wasn’t a God. In the end, I felt like something was convicting me to become a Christian. I have gone through so many hard times having to deal with my mom and stuff but the Holy Spirit of Christ is what is keeping my heart at peace!
I mean what is gonna take to get atheists to see the truth that there is an almighty being watching over us as we speak hoping that His people come together under Him?
#150 – Then it’s the extremists of all kinds that we need to fight against, not each other.
And that’s the last thing I’m going to say here, because it’s obvious that this hole I started has been dug far enough. I don’t agree with the people who think that it’s provable there is no God, but you’ve got every right to say it. Meanwhile, I believe in balance, even though it’s becoming very apparent to me that humanity in and of itself is unbalanced.
Whatever apocalypse may end this world, I welcome it.
Good day.
>>Your bliss comes at the expense
>>of others
Oh, don’t be silly. You have no idea about me, the sources of my bliss, or what I do in my spare time. If you want to lump me in with Bible-thumping holy rollers, it’s only to your own detriment.
>>Religion has been used for
>>terrible things
You’re right, of course, and the Atheist religion has been used for some of the worst. Do we really have to go through this “Mao, Pol Pot, Stalin” thing all over again? I don’t claim you’re an inflicter of brutal genocide like those Atheists, so lay off the Inquisition and Crusades stuff with me, OK? I didn’t have anything to do with them.
>>I’m telling you, experience both
>>sides of the fence before you choose
Oh, I have. I was variously “Atheist”, “agnostic”, and “non-religious/ secular” for many years. As I got older, I got wiser. And more tolerant. So I decided to take a more spiritual path. Maybe some day you’ll join us! Not all forms of spirituality are as horrendous as strict Pentacostal.
“Lighthouses are more helpful then churches. — Benjamin Franklin”
I’m pretty sure old Ben would have said “…THAN churches.”
Honestly, has anyone rung the Queen and told her what the Yanks are doing to her language?
I think that this thread itself is reflective of the problems both sides have posted against each other. Whether one thinks of god as a man in robes or as non-existent, the belief can easily be twisted into an evil thing(ie the sarcasm, flaming, as grand displays of know-it-allness from above, and as I’m sure, below as well). Neither science nor religion are whole, and in fact require(in my point of view) to be balanced with each other. To me they don’t seem mutually exclusive, just complimentary of each other. It really comes down to the idea that everything is made up of the same stuff. The entire universe is made up of the same stuff, just different configurations and placement. The universe itself is a living entity in that sense and to me thats as close as I get to identifying a god. That is to say that we are all expressions of the energy and material of god. Both sides of the fence should be able to agree that at least matter exists and that everything we know is composed of matter and energy or their antithesis(antimatter/blackholes). I always think of the body metaphor, in that every part of the universe is both infinitely independent and as well, infinitely dependent, just like your body. The red blood cell is independent(as it can be identified), it is role-serving, and it is also ultimately dependent to the whole for its existence. <– Just like our place in the universe (even if we just seem like space fillers). How I connect to the universe/god/existence and conceive of my relation to it is my own business, to which I consider myself very business-savvy(which means I’m in awe and I don’t really know shit. Science allows us to see things in a microscopic sense -observing the cause and effect relations in nature. Spirituality allows us not to see but to feel the way thing are independently from the system- emotions, feelings, beauty, evil, fear etc. Art is a good exmple of that.
To sum:
Don’t fight.
The truth is bigger than all the ideas above.
Both sides have their merits and are essential.
Balance should be sought foremost.
ALSO- Please if your going to disagree, post why and use some form of intelligent thought to do so. This post is just my way of seeing the world and it is just food for thought, to you. Please be aware I was not treating upon the subject of religion in the sense of bibles and prophets, because it is wholly unrelated to the actual pursuit of truth or an acknowledgment of it. Cases could and inevitably will be made for organized religion, but the very nature of it precludes it to corruption and falsehood. Thanks for reading.
#161: Thank you! That is another post I can agree with, and I hope maybe it’ll finally put an end to this mess I’ve made.
#157 – I mean what is gonna take to get atheists to see the truth that there is an almighty being watching over us as we speak hoping that His people come together under Him?
Evidence.
Answer the questions I ask, don’t analyze the parts that satisfy your argument. Regarding your older, wiser and more tolerant statement, I believe you don’t have enough age and wisdom to play those cards. I was a church-going man for 32 years. I’ve lived the life you proclaim is so wise and satisfying. And yes, I am proposing that I understand a bit about your life. I can and will lump you in with whatever religious sect that your beliefs are associated with. What you seemingly don’t understand is that your context, especially on these types of discussion boards, speaks much louder than your words. Tolerance is not a term I would associate with religion either, for the multitude of reasons that don’t need mentioning.
You consider this to be a battle of wits, but in reality, what purpose do you serve? If you live for god, then I must say that it is you, sir who are the narcissist. As for what you do in your free time, I think the majority of people browsing this website can account for that.
Again, please answer the questions I asked above. Otherwise you can’t hardly defend yourself, can you?
>>I can and will lump you in with
>>whatever religious sect that your
>>beliefs are associated with.
OK then. Turnabout is fair play. How about those hundreds of millions of innocent, God-fearing folks killed by your forebears, the murderous Atheists, in the name of their beliefs??
And this really serves NO purpose. I will agree with you on that.
#158 –
Whatever apocalypse may end this world, I welcome it.
Then fuck you.
You welcome MY death? My son’s death? My parents? My friends? The company I work for? The other 6 billion people on the planet? You welcome the annihilation of all those people?
You must be the extremist freak I was talking about. You must be the danger in our midst. What kind of sick fuck tells me and everyone else here that they can’t wait till we all die?
That’s why you people are crazy and that’s why I rail against you and that’s why you must be marginalized politically and why you can’t be trusted to educate your kids and why atheists and most everyone else looks at your sad sorry sack of shit life with scorn.
#161 – There is this new invention called paragraphs. Look into it.
[[That’s why you people are crazy and that’s why I rail against you and that’s why you must be marginalized politically and why you can’t be trusted to educate your kids and why atheists and most everyone else looks at your sad sorry sack of shit life with scorn.]]
Jeez. And they say I’m mean.
Religious families are the most dysfunctional.
# 167 <—- Very interesting stuff, those paragraphs. Thanks-
I think that this thread itself is reflective of the problems both sides have posted against each other. Whether one thinks of god as a man in robes or as non-existent, the belief either way can easily be twisted into an evil thing (i.e. the sarcasm, flaming, as grand displays
of know-it-allness from above, and as I’m sure, below as well). Neither science nor religion are whole, and in fact require (in my point of view) to be balanced with each other.
To me they don’t seem mutually exclusive, just complimentary of each other. It really comes down to the idea that everything is made up of the same stuff. The entire universe is made up of the same stuff, just different configurations and placement. The universe itself is a living entity in that sense and to me that’s as close as I get to identifying a god. That is to say that we are all expressions of the energy and material of god. Both sides of the fence should be able to agree that at least matter exists and that everything we know is composed of matter and energy or their antithesis (antimatter/black holes).
I always think of the body metaphor, in that every part of the universe is infinitely independent and as well, infinitely dependent, just like your body. The red blood cell is independent (as it can be identified), it is role-serving, and it is also ultimately dependent to the whole for its existence. <– Just like our place in the universe (even if we just seem like space fillers). How I connect to the universe /god/ existence and conceive of my relation to it, is my own business, to which I consider myself very business-savvy(which means- I’m in awe and I don’t really know shit.)
Science allows us to see things in a microscopic sense -observing the cause and effect relations in nature. Spirituality allows us not to see but to feel the way thing are independently from the system- emotions, feelings, beauty, evil, fear etc. Art is a good example of that.
To sum:
Don’t fight.
The truth is bigger than all the ideas above.
Both sides have their merits and are essential.
Balance should be sought foremost.
ALSO- Please if you’re going to disagree, post why and use some form of intelligent thought to do so. This post is just my way of seeing the world and it is just food for thought, to you. Please be aware I was not treating upon the subject of religion in the sense of bibles and prophets, because it is wholly unrelated to the actual pursuit of truth or an acknowledgment of it. Cases could and inevitably will be made for organized religion, but the very nature of it precludes it to corruption and falsehood. Thanks for reading.
# 167 <—- Very interesting stuff, those paragraphs. Thanks-
I think that this thread itself is reflective of the problems both sides have posted against each other. Whether one thinks of god as a man in robes or as non-existent, the belief either way can easily be twisted into an evil thing (i.e. the sarcasm, flaming, as grand displays
of know-it-allness from above, and as I’m sure, below as well). Neither science nor religion are whole, and in fact require (in my point of view) to be balanced with each other.
To me they don’t seem mutually exclusive, just complimentary of each other. It really comes down to the idea that everything is made up of the same stuff. The entire universe is made up of the same stuff, just different configurations and placement. The universe itself is a living entity in that sense and to me that’s as close as I get to identifying a god. That is to say that we are all expressions of the energy and material of god. Both sides of the fence should be able to agree that at least matter exists and that everything we know is composed of matter and energy or their antithesis (antimatter/black holes).
I always think of the body metaphor, in that every part of the universe is infinitely independent and as well, infinitely dependent, just like your body. The red blood cell is independent (as it can be identified), it is role-serving, and it is also ultimately dependent to the whole for its existence. <– Just like our place in the universe (even if we just seem like space fillers).
How I connect to the universe /god/ existence and conceive of my relation to it, is my own business, to which I consider myself very business-savvy(which means- I’m in awe and I don’t really know shit.)
Science allows us to see things in a microscopic sense -observing the cause and effect relations in nature. Spirituality allows us not to see but to feel the way thing are independently from the system- emotions, feelings, beauty, evil, fear etc. Art is a good example of that.
To sum:
Don’t fight.
The truth is bigger than all the ideas above.
Both sides have their merits and are essential.
Balance should be sought foremost.
ALSO- Please if you’re going to disagree, post why and use some form of intelligent thought to do so. This post is just my way of seeing the world and it is just food for thought, to you.
Please be aware I was not treating upon the subject of religion in the sense of bibles and prophets, because it is wholly unrelated to the actual pursuit of truth or an acknowledgment of it. Cases could and inevitably will be made for organized religion, but the very nature of it precludes it to corruption and falsehood. Thanks for reading.
#168 – Jeez. And they say I’m mean.
WTF?!?!?!
He said he wanted me and you and our families and friends and everybody else to die!
And I’m mean?
>>He said he wanted me and you and our
>>families and friends and everybody else
>>to die!
Naw, he just said he welcomed the Rapture, or something like that. Nothing he can do about when it comes, so there’s no threat to you.
Besides, I’m sure you and your family and friends are all going to Heaven anyway 😉
#170 – # 167 <—- Very interesting stuff, those paragraphs. Thanks-
You magnificent bastard!
I posted a snide jab at you for not using page breaks, and I know it was a shitty thing to do, but I was feeling snippy…
But you… You respond as above? You defeated me resoundingly sir. You have bested me on the field of text. You have shown me to be a lessor poster to you, and the crowd favors you for it.
I bow in concession…
#173 – Besides, I’m sure you and your family and friends are all going to Heaven anyway
I’m sure that we deserve to go to Heaven, but I am certain I’m going into the ground.
>>I’m sure that we deserve to go to
>>Heaven, but I am certain I’m going
>>into the ground.
You never know, OFTLO. You just never know.
#157:
“Christ came down to this earth in the form of a human ya know. There is evidence proving this as well as Noah’s Ark in the Bible.”
Bwahahahahaha! Good one! You just made my day. Please provide this evidence.
“I mean what is gonna take to get atheists to see the truth that there is an almighty being watching over us as we speak hoping that His people come together under Him?”
How about this: proof of his existence?
Somehow this reminds me of a lump of dog shit on the sidewalk. Guaranteed to attract all types of flies. And maggots. And comments by those disgusted by it’s being there. And amazement from those who see life’s cycle. And joy for those who like to play with shit.
Which is why I don’t call myself an atheist. I am normal. So for all you proselytizers, eat shit. 50 billion flies can’t be all wrong.
Mister Mustard uses the word belief meaning faith but scientst use the word belief meaning confidence. Same word just a slightly different meanings in its use. It is true that I can not test every experiment myself but I have confidence in the work of the scientist that do. An example of the distinction; When a friend of mine tells me his new girlfriend has a blue car, I believe him. I haven’t seen the car but it doesn’t mean I have faith that the car is blue, it means I have confidence that the car is blue because I trust my friend. If need be, I can check for myself. Scientist believe but with skepticism. Faithful people believe without skepticism.
The bit about the cloning fraud is a very ignorant cheap shot. Science doesn’t claim to be perfect but to be perfecting. It is only faithful people who claim their god to be perfect. The cloning incident was human error not scientific error.
Hey skippy glad I could make your day. But seriously they have found Christ’s tomb and Noah’s Ark. Not only that but all of Christ’s prophecies have come true to this day besides the one about Him coming back to save His people that have remained faithful. aka the rapture..
As for proof of existence, look around you skippy and know for a fact that life is precious. Life is way too complex to just evolve by chance through simple amino acids. Christ works at His own pace among us. He does not guarantee us our next breath, but He has given us all a chance by putting life on this earth. I don’t mean to preach because I am only 18, but He wants us to surrender to Him.
I had a hard time believing that there is a heaven and a hell because it sounded pretty made up to me. I’m a believer now and going to heaven or hell is an all or nothing cause. Either surrender to Christ and follow Him to go to heaven or the opposite and follow the devil.
Atheists, whether you have chosen to follow the devil or not, you have most certainly chosen to not follow Christ. Therefore you will still suffer the consequences but there is still time to fix that. Christ is all about forgiveness which is something He is still offering to anybody who reads this message to this day.
>>The cloning incident was human
>>error not scientific error.
No, the cloning incident was about scientists lying about what they had done and found. Other scientists believed them, without any evidence to support their belief, just like religious believers do. In the cloners’ case, the belief turned out to be unfounded.
If you didn’t like the cloning example, how about cold fusion? How about the fraudulent data reported by Thereza Imanishi-Kari and David Baltimore (Nobel Prize winner and former president of Rockefeller University, now at CalTech, currently president of the AAAS)?? Do those do it for ya?
The simple truth of it is that because of the cost, time, and work involved in replicating experiments in modern research, much of it goes unreplicated. Therefore, much of science is based on belief (that what the scientists are claiming is true), not objective “truth”. I have read estimates that between 50% and 85% of all published scientific literature is (or has been, or will turn out to be) unreplicatable, whether because of “human error”, dishonesty, or the luck of the draw (p < 0.05 means that 5% of the time it’s wrong). In applied sciences, like engineering, the percentage is lower, because somebody may use the finding to try and build a machine or a bridge or something, but it’s still greater than 0%.
So sing the praises of Almighty Science if you will, but just be cognizant of the fact that you’re engaging in a form of belief. Just like the religious.
No need to get holier-than-thou about things.
Oh, and bac, if the examples I gave didn’t sit right with yah, how about Jan Hendrick Shon, the “star researcher” at Bel Labs who doctored up his superconductivity and molecular electronics data. Not much chance of you finding about that at home with a Mr. Wizard set.
And then of course, there’s always this stuff, courtesy of the Wiki-whatever entry for “scientific fraud”:
* Emil Abderhalden’s “defensive enzymes” (biochemistry, immunology)
* Elias Alsabti scandal (cancer immunology)
* Steven F. Arnold data falsification endocrine disruptors
* J. Michael Bailey (sexology/psychology)
* David Baltimore and the Thereza Imanishi-Kari affair (immunology)
* Jacques Benveniste affair (immunology)
* Bruno Bettelheim (psychology)
* Aubrey Blumsohn Procter & Gamble Affair [5] (Medicine)
* The Bogdanov Affair (physics)
* Stephen E. Breuning scandal (medicine)
* Cyril Burt affair (psychology)
* Ranjit Chandra controversy (nutrition)
* Inge Czaja (plant biology)
* John Darsee scandal (medicine)
* Charles Dawson’s Piltdown man (anthropology)
* Jacques Deprat (the Deprat Affair)(geology)
* Shinichi Fujimura (archaeology)
* Robert Gallo (virology)
* Bruce Hall (immunology)
* Woo-Suk Hwang (Hwang Woo-Suk) (biotechnology)
* John Lott (sociology)
* Dănuţ Marcu (mathematics)
* William McBride (medicine)
* Sir Roy Meadow (medicine) [6]
* Raghunath Anant Mashelkar
* Richard Meinertzhagen(ornithology)
* Gregor Mendel’s impossibly perfect data (genetics)[5]
* Josef Mengele’s cruel experimentation on humans (medicine)
* Robert Millikan’s data selection in his famous oil-drop experiment (physics)
* Victor Ninov’s superheavy element (physics)
* Leo A. Paquette [7][8] (chemistry)
* Luk Van Parijs (immunology)
* Eric Poehlman (medicine)
* Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischmann’s cold fusion
* Reiner Protsch (anthropology)
* George Ricaurte (medicine), see also Retracted article on neurotoxicity of ecstasy
* Karen M. Ruggiero (social psychology) [9]
* Gerald Schatten (biotechnology)
* Jan Hendrik Schön scandal (physics)
* Dalibor Sames (chemistry)
* Jon Sudbø, Andrew Jess Dannenberg (cancer research)
* William Summerlin scandal (cancer immunology)
* Kazunari Taira [10](molecular biology)
* Andrew Wakefield MMR-autism
* John B. Watson’s Little Albert (child psychology)
* Ian Wilmut (biotechnology)