Atheist Quotes
Sat, 2006-12-02 20:18 — Morbus Iff
A large collection of atheist quotes. Some of my favorites:
- "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
- "When I was a kid I used to pray every night for a new bicycle. Then I realised that the Lord doesn't work that way so I stole one and asked Him to forgive me." --Emo Philips
- "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
- "We must question the story logic of having an all-knowing all-powerful God, who creates faulty Humans, and then blames them for his own mistakes." --Gene Roddenberry
- "We must respect the other fellow's religion, but only in the sense and to the extent that we respect his theory that his wife is beautiful and his children smart." --H. L. Mencken
- "Jesus' last words on the cross, "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" hardly seem like the words of a man who planned it that way. It doesn't take Sherlock Holmes to figure there is something wrong here." --Donald Morgan
- "Everything is more or less organized matter. To think so is against religion, but I think so just the same. When did I realize I was God? Well, I was praying and I suddenly realized I was talking to myself." --Peter O'Toole
- "Why should I allow that same God to tell me how to raise my kids, who had to drown His own?" --Robert G. Ingersoll
- "The essence of Christianity is told us in the Garden of Eden history. The fruit that was forbidden was on the tree of knowledge. The subtext is, All the suffering you have is because you wanted to find out what was going on." --Frank Zappa
- Eskimo: "If I did not know about God and sin, would I go to hell?" Priest: "No, not if you did not know." Eskimo: "Then why did you tell me?" --Annie Dillard, 'Pilgrim at Tinker Creek'
- 41345 reads
David Hume, famous atheist on his deathbed "I am in flames". His desperation was a terrible scene
Sir Thomas Scott on his deathbed..."Up to this time I have believed there is no God, neither Hell. Now I believe there are both and I am delivered to perdition by the righteous judgement of Almighty God".
Re: B Brown's comments:
Well if that is not proof there is a god I don't know what is!
Actually, it shows that belief in god is emotionally laden. Which is why some people NEED to believe in god and therefore perpetuate its existence.
Neither of these ever happened. You are a liar.
must be a Christian
lol must be
Dude. Seriously.
ON their deathbeds? How could they possibly be experiencing hell/flames/perdition before being dead?
This is just another example of christians making up athiest-repenting-on-deathbed stories. Even if an athiest were to 'have an epiphany' on their deathbed, it would not be proof of the existence of god. It would simply be a manifestation of the natural human fear of death... the same thing that led our cave-dwelling ancestors to come up with the idea of an afterlife in the first place.
In relation to this, how come we never hear stories of muslim/buddhist/hindu/pagan/etc. deathbed conversions to christianity?
Is there really anyone who hasn't read these quotes before? They're not interesting anymore.
THANKYOU!
Goddam. I thumbs down all the atheist stumbles almost as much as I thumbs down all the lolcats.
GET OVER IT. LIVE AND LET LIVE. What the hell does it matter to you anyway if someone believes in something?
In other news, check out my crazy ass blog of weird shit I get up to chocolate-snow.blogspot.com
Well you could turn off the "atheist" choice in your Stumble upon list. Live and let live :)
What does it matter to Christians if someone doesn't believe in something? Why can't I be left alone in my schools, on my streets, why are there preachers at my doorstep?
"What the hell does it matter to you anyway if someone believes in something?"
I'm atheist, but I also condone religion. I think religion is (in theory) a good thing. I was raised in a baptist home, through religion I was taught morals and ethics. What matters is that we have a nut case in the white house who is going to war on the notion that Jesus or God thinks we should. Thats what bothers me. I agree! LIVE AND LET LIVE! But the problem there lies within religion. Most religions dont believe live and let live. Religion, no matter which one, always leads to death, destruction and violence. I guess if you want to argue that point we could just look at the dark ages, what a wonderful time that was... Thanks Jesus!!!
All i'm saying is that its not particularly just religion that is the problem. The problem is that there aren't nearly enough humans out there who want to know the truth. Nobody wants to know whats really going on. Take your Prozac, praise the lord almighty, and pay your taxes. We need to question... everything, religion, politics, physics, without questioning we are just monkeys in a zoo. Doing what we are told, eating when we are told, and only living because we are being taken care of. When in fact we as humans are capable of so much more. Alcoholics dont need AA, and crack heads dont need rehab. Most importantly NOBODY needs god. We are fully in control of our lives, we have the ability to change our lives, work hard for what we want, and accomplish ANYTHING! We dont need some douche bag telling us that we are alcoholics and need to admit we are powerless to get clean, and we certainly don't need God or Jesus to get us through the day. You need a good heart, understanding, and high self-esteem. With those three things, nothing we set out to do will be impossible.
Sorry but i have to say that none of mankinds problems spawn from relig, that was just a way to control the minds of those who were over coming the fear of the more powerful. mankind developes a mind powerful enough the question therefore man begins to "GUESS" about the things which suround him/her time passes emotional attachments to those close by grow, death takes its tole. the question (No.1 question) arises about death and its meaning, the destination if any. BANG the unanswerable enigma that is the animate gone inanimate, and the last journey back to the planets resources. in the end some very intelegent person or people developed a convincing enough story about an almighty being aswering both where we came from and where we go afterwards. basicaly things spiraled downward from there, the story became belief, the belief became fact (in many differant forms) and the fact became a leash for the masses. there is no going back there is no change to be made its gone to far. there is nothing to be done as far as i see it ( and this is just my opinion)(badly spelt opinion). its not about who or what one believes its about what we do from here. there is no communication there is no understanding there is only death, we will all know soon enough who was right, or on the other hand we will just poof gone....be no more
it doesn't matter to me if someone believes something...until it becomes a world movement that effects the very fabric of society, myself included. the catholic church has more power than god (joke intended) and control many, many aspects of MY world. this is an organization that didn't accept the finding's of Galileo until the 1990's...???...SO AS FAR AS THE CHURCH WAS CONCERNED THE EARTH WAS FLAT UNTIL LESS THAN 20 YEARS AGO and this is a group setting policy for me and my children. that is when i care! dumbass
I assume there are certainly people who haven't read these before. And in your arrogance I'm sure they're not interesting anymore, to you.
"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
The problem is that most gods aren't possible, because they possess some attribute that can not exist without rewriting the myth. And this revising of the myth must continue until, eventually, it becomes as vague as the basic monotheistic concept of God, so that there is no point in distinguishing one from the other. The basic concept of God, as far as we know, can exist, without redefining what it means. So I contend that Stephen Roberts has failed to comprehend that there is a fundamental difference between God and Thor.
"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
Why call God "God" if he/she is malevolent? Because he is all-knowing and all-powerful. If that doesn't satisfy you, then you're just being difficult. Not to mention the possibility that a being that is everywhere at once just might have a different idea of what is "good" and what is "evil".
"Everything is more or less organized matter. To think so is against religion, but I think so just the same. When did I realize I was God? Well, I was praying and I suddenly realized I was talking to myself." --Peter O'Toole
What about light, magnetism, and electricity? None of these things are matter.
"The essence of Christianity is told us in the Garden of Eden history. The fruit that was forbidden was on the tree of knowledge. The subtext is, All the suffering you have is because you wanted to find out what was going on." --Frank Zappa
Actually it was the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. I guess the subtext there would be that all the suffering you have is because you think you can determine what is good and what is evil.
The problem is that most gods aren't possible, because they possess some attribute that can not exist without rewriting the myth. And this revising of the myth must continue until, eventually, it becomes as vague as the basic monotheistic concept of God, so that there is no point in distinguishing one from the other. The basic concept of God, as far as we know, can exist, without redefining what it means. So I contend that Stephen Roberts has failed to comprehend that there is a fundamental difference between God and Thor.
- Why is your God more likely or less likely then Allah? Or Thor? And what empirical evidence do you have of the difference between your God and Thor? Reread Robert's statement with this in mind.
Why call God "God" if he/she is malevolent? Because he is all-knowing and all-powerful. If that doesn't satisfy you, then you're just being difficult. Not to mention the possibility that a being that is everywhere at once just might have a different idea of what is "good" and what is "evil".
-As to why call him "God" if he/she is malevolent- you should ask yourself that. And to say that a person is just being difficult isn't an argument.
What about light, magnetism, and electricity? None of these things are matter.
- E = MC^2 <--- Look it up.
Actually it was the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. I guess the subtext there would be that all the suffering you have is because you think you can determine what is good and what is evil.
- Why create man with a reasoning brain and then smack him down for trying to think?
"What about light, magnetism, and electricity? None of these things are matter."
Light: E=MC^2. C is the speed of light. Energy is just MATTER times the speed of light squared. Technically you could say that the world is just organised energy, and be right also. Or, M=E/C^2
Magnetism: A direct effect of things inside a certain part of atoms. (Awkwardly, the school system doesn't tell what part(s) align...
Electricity: The movement of electrons/positrons which are both matter. The movement releases kinetic energy.
"Actually it was the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. I guess the subtext there would be that all the suffering you have is because you think you can determine what is good and what is evil."
I agree with both sentences. Whether the first sentence was factual or not (in realms of actual life, not in the myth).
"The problem is that most gods aren't possible, because they possess some attribute that can not exist without rewriting the myth. And this revising of the myth must continue until, eventually, it becomes as vague as the basic monotheistic concept of God, so that there is no point in distinguishing one from the other. The basic concept of God, as far as we know, can exist, without redefining what it means. So I contend that Stephen Roberts has failed to comprehend that there is a fundamental difference between God and Thor."
This is a problem of people's definition of God. For me, it's whoever/whatever created us. We could be a computer simulation for all you know!
"Actually it was the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. I guess the subtext there would be that all the suffering you have is because you think you can determine what is good and what is evil."
Actually, I find the subtext to be that your god is no more "mature" than a child with a magnifying glass burning ants. He creates man without the ability to discern the difference between good and evil and then punishes not only Adam and Eve, but everyone to follow for doing "evil". Um, if they didn't know the difference between good and evil, they didn't know it was wrong to eat from the tree, even though god told them not to. Without the knowledge that was granted by the tree, they wouldn't know it was wrong to disobey the god and eat from it. Worse yet, your god is supposed to be all knowing, so he should've known Eve would snag an apple against his wishes. So, by placing the tree in there, he was preordaining mankind to punishment. And, since your god had knowledge of good and evil in advance, that makes him evil by every definition of the word (well, the mass infanticide is usually a good indicator of evil, but you dingleberries often need other examples.)
Now you can try to play this off with the rhetorical "you can't understand god's plan" bull, but sorry it don't fly. If it don't make sense, that means it's a lie. Period.
No, it was indeed the tree of knowledge, period. What most Christians & atheists don't know is that the story is symbolic & its primary purpose originally was to lead men away from Goddess religions. The Good & Evil part was added by the early Church editors. And it wasn't about learning their private parts were showing, either. The "nudity" that was suddenly noticed represents awareness, something those in power did not want the masses to have. The snake is an ancient symbol of the wisdom of medicine men, shaman, etc. & even today, it is used as the symbol of medicine, the caduceus. Archaeology has shown that the earliest religions revered women. In my opinion, this is because women were able to produce new life & man did not yet understand his role in that. When men realized their contribution to the reproduction of life, mankind began the transition into a religion that was patriarchal. After all, other than the life producing feat, men were generally bigger, stronger, more aggressive, etc. but revered the Goddess only because of the miracle of life women produced.
The story of Eden was a symbolic way of telling men not to follow a matriarchal religion. Of course, that it was symbolic has never been admitted, so fundamentalists take it literally. The apple tree is associated with matriarchal religions. Hence, Eve eating the apple given to her by the snake gave her wisdom & knowledge & she would no longer be submissive. It was a way to tell men not to allow their women to become learned. Merlin Stone is one author among many who have done extensive research on ancient religions & this theory.
And seriously, if one takes the story literally, doesn't it naturally make one wonder exactly what kind of omniscient, all-powerful God needs earth & ribs to create?
I'm not downing men here, either. Remember I am talking about early mankind & religion was, & still is, a method of controlling the masses.
By the way, I believe in a higher consciousness, power, source, or even God, if you want to call it that & my reasons for believing could never be anyone else's reasons, so I never bother to debate the existence of such. I'm not talking about faith, either. I do NOT, however, believe any religion properly addresses this source of consciousness & instead, religions collectively have built so many superstitions, myths & dogma around this source that I completely understand the reason atheists scorn it. I do not believe in sin, I do not believe in hell unless you want to call this hell & I do not believe Jesus or Buddha or any other avatar of religion is the ONE any more than the rest of us. I guess my belief could be, somewhat inadequately, summed up by this comment: Thou Art God. Grok?
I respect the atheists' views when not argued with emotion & sarcasm & I am saddened that religion gives all believers a bad rap, but I believe the marriage of science (quantum physics) & spirituality (non-denominational) is the only way to discern the truth. A great site that is a proponent of this view is www.meta-religion.com. If we don't tie the "mystical" with science, we will never figure it out. Science cannot explain miracles, yet they do occur. I don't understand why science doesn't JUMP on all the data surrounding near death experiences, miracles, etc. & start to analyze it. For example, what spiritual people call psychic powers is called ESP by science. Why aren't more scientists trying to prove or disprove it for once & for all? Also, check out www.victorzammit.com. This lawyer takes scientific opinions & reduces them to subjectivity the same way many atheists do religious views. It cannot be proven a God exists. It also cannot be proven a God does not exist. Period.
In my experience, many atheists are simply the other side of the coin. They argue subjective material just as Christians do. I think both groups need to open their minds to the true potential of mankind. Author Sam Harris is heralded by many atheists for his splendid reasoning about religions. What many atheists seem to have missed, or forgotten or never knew because they never actually read his book "The End of Faith" is that Sam is very open to the possibility of a higher consciousness. He just doesn't think mainstream & extremist religions are good for humanity & neither do I.
Peace!
First off, I'd like to compliment your analysis of the Garden of Eden. It's nice to hear an impartial explanation.
The merging of science and spirituality does seem ideal, but it isn't a direct path to truth. No one person would be able to hold their beliefs and factual knowledge equally. In the end, either science would be used to affirm religion, (Creationism) or religion would be used to affirm science.
When Voltaire was asked to renounce satan on his deathbed he said: "I think that now is hardly the right time for making enemies."
I often find myself wanting to believe in the God of the bible, but I just can't, I think I'll hold out and see if a much nicer one gets invented by someone.
Religion is institutionalized hear/say, perpetuated by ignorance, fear and peer-pressure.
> "Is God ... omnipotent. .... ..?" --Epicurus
First I wonder how the Jewish/Babylonian tribal gods (the Yaweh god and The El gods) ever came to be combined into one divine entity. Next, I wonder how this conglomerate became combined with a Greek-style "holy spirit" and a dead village carpenter/travelling hippy preacher from Middle Eastern antiquity. How does at least five supernatural entities become a Mono-deity?
Then, I wonder how people decided that this extraordinary concatenation of entities was "omni-potent"(all powerful), "omni-scient"(all knowing), "omni-present" (everywhere) and "omini-agape" (all loving).
Can anyone enlighten me as to how these characteristics became attached to this combination-god-figure? They don't seem to be consistent with the Christian version of the Jewish holy writings or even with the early Christian writings, even those which were a third century committee of blood-thirsty waring clerics decided were divinely inspired. So where did these ideas come from? And why do today's Christians consider them to be things which distinguish their (multiple) versions of a diety from the dieties, demi-gods, semi-gods, spirits and other supernatural beings created by others .
I also wonder how many of these characteristics are also supposed to be shared by the opposing dieties, demi-, semi- and hemi-gods listed in ancient Jewish holdy writings: Satan, Belzebub, Baal, Gabriel, etc.
Faith is cold as ice
Why are little ones born only to suffer
For the want of immunity
Or a bowl of rice?
Well, who would hold a price
On the heads of the innocent children
If theres some immortal power
To control the dice?
~Niel Peart, Rush - Roll the Bones 1991 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roll_The_Bones
There are those who think that life has nothing left to chance,
A host of holy horrors to direct our aimless dance.
A planet of playthings,
We dance on the strings
Of powers we cannot perceive
"The stars aren't aligned,
Or the gods are malign..."
Blame is better to give than receive.
Chorus
You can choose a ready guide in some celestial voice.
If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice.
You can choose from phantom fears and kindness that can kill;
I will choose a path that's clear
I will choose freewill.
There are those who think that they were dealt a losing hand,
The cards were stacked against them; they weren't born in Lotusland.
All preordained
A prisoner in chains
A victim of venomous fate.
Kicked in the face,
You can't pray for a place
In heaven's unearthly estate.
Chorus
Each of us
A cell of awareness
Imperfect and incomplete.
Genetic blends
With uncertain ends
On a fortune hunt that's far too fleet.
Chorus
~Niel Peart, Rush - Freewill 1980 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permanent_Waves
Neil's social commentary has always been a breath of fresh air in a world gasping for truth. If you have never heard Rush's music, and are a fan of intelligent, masterful rock music, I highly suggest it. With a catalogue spanning over thirty years, you are bound to find something you simply adore. http://www.rush.com/ , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rush_%28band%29
Why do you call yourself "free thinker" you have produced no original thought. Any mind slave can quote from sources where they find "truth ". This is not free thought, no more than someone coming here and quoting the bible. (even though I dig Rush, next time derive what the lyrics mean to you and write about that.)
if dna proves we are not all related, then how does the story of adam and eve make any sense! science is real and proven, religion is fairytale. if someone can find a single flaw in the bible, then who's to say that any of it has a basis of facts. its just a bunch of stories made up, to make people feel better about dying. After all, isn't death the greatest fear of all? the bible is a fairytale that got out of hand. its the same as someone believing vampires or dragons exist.
According to the Bible, Adam and Eve were the FIRST humans, but they were not the ONLY humans. This bothers me whenever people bring it up. Adam was created, then Eve, then they bore Cain and Abel. Cain killed Abel, and then Cain left to go to a city. Now, I doubt very much that in his lifetime Eve had born enough children to create a city, let alone sent them all away to live on their own. This means that God created other people, logically. So, the argument is null.
Now, according to the Bible, we are all descended from the family of Noah, because he and his offspring (and his wife, and their wives) were the only ones to be allowed on the arc. Therefore, if DNA does not corroborate the statement that we are all interrelated, then you can discredit the Bible.
I don't mind arguments for or against Christianity, or any religion. In fact, I enjoy them as I'm still trying to make up my mind. Just make sure that the argument you decide to make is a logical one based on the actual facts/tenets that you are trying to explain. Thank you very much.
we're all related in a very distance since. you can track mitochondrial dna (through females) back thousdands of years to see your own lineage, its pricey though
There is loads of stuff in the bible that is 'way out there'
Look up Leviticus, check out the laws on mildew! you know those funny black spots you get on shower curtains or damp walls, or your sports kit when you left it in the bag too long.
Well apparently, if you get it in your house you should prey for it and if it doesn't go away you should tear it down and throw the bricks out of the city.
Oh and women on their Monthy cycle...the laws on the are ridiculous.
Being an agnostic, I still can't say that the bible is just one big fallacy, nor is it made to scare us about death. It contains stories of meaning, certain people's perceptions on events that happened, and some history.
The story of Noah and his ark for example. To build a ship to hold 2 of each specie would be a HUGE ship if it were possible to make. But in the story, it talks about how it rained for forty days, and forty nights. That is a long time right? Through translation, we learn that when that book was written, there was no word for 'many' and forty had the same meaning. Also, people all over the world (South/Central America) reported massive amounts of rain.
Even if you think the bible is a crock, try reading it. Understand that it isn't meant to be, but rather tell stories, educate and scare.
Somebody once asked the best question: Without god, would we have ethics and morality? If you want to be considered a 'free-thinker,' answer that in your own words.
I am an atheist, but there is something I don't understand:
A huge part of x-ianity (and all religions) is based on community. Many websites dedicated to atheism seem to be giving their viewers an arsenal of quotes from famous persons. This can be used to bolster one's belief in "not-god" or "no-thing;" but further more it gives people a sense of being involved in a community. Much like going to a sporting event, where you can feel the "spirit of the crowd," the act of participating in ANY community is spirit building (or creating).
According to x-ianity this is God--the Holy Spirit--Community--the Church of God--and simply: church.
Most idiots on the street will give you some hokey explanation of what they think the Spirit of God is, but would you believe them?. (I sometimes wonder why I even bother to stop and ask for directions at a gas station.) However If you speak with a learned man, with regards to matters of religion, they will give you a more useful and realistic understanding of x-ianity.
Atheists have been duped by the media and unintentional public propaganda as much as bible beating x-ians who think that satanists want to eat their children.
"-Me",
I don't think your equation of "christianity" with "community" and "church" is a common one. In fact, I'd never heard of it before. I don't think my apparent status as "street idiot" is to blame here.
I agree that it is unlikely that atheists are immune to propaganda or the delusions consequent to suppressed information or lack of it. They may, however, be less swayed by it, especially those who have slowly come to the conclusion that the supernatural is unlikely to exist by virtue of prolonged deep thinking and ruthless sifting of the evidence. Some of us were once "brow beating x-tians", too. In fact, most of us moved away from, or through, some level of the religious beliefs prevalent in our community. Not all of us, of course.
In any case, I'm not sure of your point here. Is it to point out that everyone needs to relate to a community? There's no argument there. Psychological science has confirmed that in spades. Even freshly born babies need hugs, affection and human interaction in order to survive and thrive.
People tend to gravitate to those who share similar beliefs as this helps to confirm them as worthwhile people. Academics and professionals do the same thing. The solution to comfortable survival, however, does not require that the social support network be based on religious conviction or lack of it.
I always thought that a belief in God came through ignorance. In the past people made up stories that might explain the unexplainable. In this day and age of science and knowledge I am amazed in the number of folks that now only believe but shut their minds to the questioning of others. Believe what you will.....after all, there is Flat Earth Society.
"belief in God came through ignorance "
You cant believe the creation of even a single needle by accident or the probability is absolutely zero
But you can believe the creation or the design of the universe, human brain, etc....... are by accident
hence " belief in "No God" also came from ignorance and blank thinking "
Well you've just committed the lottery fallacy. The idea is that this sequence of events is one that took place by chance. Now consider a lottery winner. With a single ticket, he had a 1 in over 1,000,000 chance of winning (assuming its a fairly standard lottery). Now, somebody had to win. In fact, it would have been stranger if somebody HADN'T won. Now suppose the lottery winner decided that because the chance of him winning was so low, yet he did, he must have won because of some sort of divine intervention.
Silly huh?
This occurs all the time. Stories about the downright unbelievable, such as a snowboarder getting caught in a massive avalanche and emerging from it at the end unburied and uninjured (which I saw the video footage of only a few days ago on the Discovery Channel), do emerge, but just because these incidents are so rare, its not to say that they are in any way due to "god".
As for you pin analogy, that doesn't work very well. You're comparing a theory that suggests change over billions of years, so something that you seem to be implying should happen quickly (instantly?).
Over the same time period of billions of years you'll find that this pin did happen to just occur, from humans creating it. Think OUTSIDE the square.
But in any case, I also think you'd find that given tens of billions of years, an object resembling a pin would emerge eventually.
Now as for "belief in "No God" also came from ignorance and blank thinking", well no.
If you bothered to research the arguments of atheists, you would find that many of our arguments of proof against god rely upon scientific evidence (which admittedly, as empirical evidence, has the capacity to be disproved, but this is what gives it credibility). On the other hand, virtually NO religions make statements which can be directly proven or dis-proven because of their vague nature. That alone ought to render most religious arguments completely invalid, because they tend to appeal to one possibility out of many (one specific god from many, or even no god) without solid justification for doing so (the circular reasoning of the bible does not count).
"belief in God came through ignorance "
You cant believe the creation of even a single needle by accident or the probability is absolutely zero
But you can believe the creation or the design of the universe, human brain, etc....... are by accident
hence " belief in "No God" also came from ignorance and blank thinking "
Not by accident. . .but by coincidence
The religion and the movie industry thrive off of the same concept "Suspension of Disbelief". You can only believe it if you allow yourself to forget that it's bullshit. I've never known a dumb athiest but plenty of retarted Christians. Let the gays marry so they can suffer with the rest of us.
It's cerulean.
Is not, it's sky blue.
No it isn't.
Is too.
Is not.
i love satan.
there is no god.
only satan
I will now state the only truthful thing one can about the existence and/or non-existence of a supreme being:
I don't know.
No one knows if there is or is not a god. Plenty of people have strong BELIEFS one way or the other, but there is the same amount of hard proof for the existence of a god as there is for its non-existence, which is exactly none.
Faith is belief in the absence of proof, which means that atheism is a much a faith as Islam. I think faith is a cowardly way to avoid admitting you just don't know something. Is there a god? I'll find out when I'm dead, or not.
Okay, I know I'll probably be flamed for this, but I want to reply and set some of these comments on a better path.
First and formost, there can be no proof of God except faith in his existence. However, if you start with the belief that God exists (an infinite, eternal, all-loving god), it won't introduce logical inconsistencies, unless you try to depend too much on dogma.
I do understand why I reject all other gods, and I still believe in God. Not that this will convince anyone else, but I'm not really trying to do so, I suppose.
Evil exists because we live in a finite universe. God already created perfect worlds. Ours was not intended to be perfect. We must evolve and spiritualize.
If you discount the parts of the bible that do not fit with the character of god (infinite, eternal, all-loving) you'll understand that this idea was put there by fallible mortals. The idea that god would blame us for being flawed is itself flawed. Of course he understands we're not perfect (yet).
Mind and spirit are more than matter. This will never be shown by science because science is the study of matter. Science must be united with religion through philosophy, or the world will not make sense.
The garden story has been altered in the course of human events, by human hands. It is flawed, and the character of God presented in it must be rejected.
There is no hell but the one in your mind. God loves you. Love your neighbor as a brother.
Joy to all.
"I do understand why I reject all other gods, and I still believe in God. Not that this will convince anyone else, but I'm not really trying to do so, I suppose."
I would assume then, that you reject all other gods because your holy book tells you to. Try picking a specific god that you reject and coming up with an argument for that god's non-existence. Then see if this argument could be used to argue the non-existence of your god. Remember, regardless of what god you believe in, there's another holy book to tell you that it doesn't exist.
"Evil exists because we live in a finite universe. God already created perfect worlds. Ours was not intended to be perfect. We must evolve and spiritualize."
I'm not sure why our universe being finite implies the existence of evil. Imagine a finite universe with only one living organism in it...can evil exist in this universe? It would be much easier to argue that evil must exist in an infinite universe. Also, how can one comment on what our universe was intended to be?
"If you discount the parts of the bible that do not fit with the character of god (infinite, eternal, all-loving) you'll understand that this idea was put there by fallible mortals. The idea that god would blame us for being flawed is itself flawed. Of course he understands we're not perfect (yet)"
I think I agree with some of what you said here: "this idea was put there by fallible mortals." I agree, we are fallible, and that the idea of god is a product of the human mind; that's right, god didn't make us in its image, humans made god in their image. I'm not sure what you mean by "we're not perfect (yet)." Almost by definition, perfection is unattainable.
"Mind and spirit are more than matter. This will never be shown by science because science is the study of matter. Science must be united with religion through philosophy, or the world will not make sense."
I've seen no evidence to support the claim that the mind is something non-physical. What I see is an area of human anatomy and physiology we don't yet understand. I've seen the historical precedent that when humanity is confronted with something we cannot explain, we attribute it to something supernatural (i.e. non-physical). Then, a scientist or group of scientists comes along and explains the phenomenon through natural processes (think lightning, earth quakes, the motions of the planets, etc). To me, this is strong evidence to support the idea that there is nothing supernatural about the world we live in, only stuff we don't understand yet.
"The garden story has been altered in the course of human events, by human hands. It is flawed, and the character of God presented in it must be rejected."
So...what holy book do you subscribe to? There have been many copy errors found throughout the bible. Even if we've not found a copy error in a specific passage, we cannot assume that it does not contain some error. By your logic, then, the entire bible is flawed, and the character of god presented in it must be rejected.
Miracles prove God is real. Some of you Atheists have poor exscuses for your lack of belief in them. What about the resurrection on Jesus? Do you call God a liar? Be not deceived God is not mocked. "Life without Jesus is death." God is common sense but faith is believing without seeing. How did we get here? The after life is unexplained in atheism. My,my,my your soul? What about your soul? Your comment about Jesus saying My God, My God why have you forsaken me? That was the agony he was feeling expressed to his father. But God gives us an answer to your question. John:17;18 "Therefore My Father loves me, because I lay down my life that I may take it again."No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of Myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This command I have received from my Father." Without his death there would be no resurrection. The truth will set you free. May you find it soon.
Div.
hey dont mock god this book he wrote says hes the center of the universe
lol
The tree of knowledge of good and evil may have literally been the human brain eaten for it's aphrodisiac qualities and hence, the result was an overwhelming awareness of ones nakedness and an improved propensity for guilt due to (the side effect of) brain growth. Once human brains became large enough as a consequence of this practice to begin causing brain damage (due to the limited capacity of the human skull) the practice of elongating the skull began and as an effect of that some people were able to regain the lost gifts of esp that humans would have used for communication before our explosive brain growth. Skull elongation still happens in cannibalistic societies. Because of the increasing problems of brain growth causing defects the practice became taboo although secretly we must always know the terrible reason for our intelligence, resulting from sacrifice and suffering, and feel guilt bound by moral prescriptions regarding reasonable expressions of our desires. You have inherited this earth from your ancestors, you benefit from their chosen paths and with your sub-conscious guilt-memory you pay. Ha! I meet god a few times and I still don't believe. At a push I would probably choose mono pantheism with Hindu symbolic archetypes.
Both sides are right. Understand that and you will be enlightened.
To all atheists, God loves you. Do not be among the many stubborn unbelievers who have gone before who may now be in eternal remorse. God is real. Just ask a dying atheist on his deathbed. Trust me on this one.
A dying Atheist is more at peace with his death than a Theist.I was told this twice by a nurse and a Sister who worked at a hospice.Reason,they know life is over.The religious have doubts."Have I got the right religion",What about that sins I committed" "Is there really a God". Trust ME on this one.
Regan I would love to see citations for that one. Brain eating. Farm raised and wholesome. Hmm, on the other hand, it would explain Fundamentalism nicely.
Post new comment