Best 2951 quotes in «atheism quotes» category

Choosing comfort over knowledge is a sign of a weak mind..

Christians.....expend more “moral” energy opposing abortion than fighting genocide.

Christians believe that God loves you sooo much... he created hell, just in case you don't love him back.

Christianity voids any significance that would otherwise be attributed to a human life. It reduces all the good things you’ve done and all the bad things you’ve done to, well, nothing. All the good you’ve done won’t matter if you don’t have Jesus. All the bad you’ve done won’t matter if you do have Jesus. In either case, what you do doesn’t matter.

Christians think they're oppressed when they're not allowed to oppress others.

Christians don't think that Dawkins thinks that they think that God really has a beard. "Old man in the sky with a white beard" is a figure of speech – shorthand – which neatly encapsulates various errors which lazy atheists and naive theists sometimes make, for example: 1: They imagine that Christians think that God is a human being of some kind and therefore ask questions like: "What does he eat?"; "If he made the world, what did he stand on?"; "If he doesn't have a beard, how does he shave?" and "How did he evolve?" (Three guesses which of those questions troubles Professor Dawkins.) Christians don't think that God is an old man. They don't even think he is a man. They probably don't even think he's made of atoms. 2: They confuse symbols with representations: they think that when Michelangelo painted God on the Pope's ceiling, he was making an informed guess about what someone would have seen with their eyes if they bumped into God on the Roman metro – as opposed to using pictures to put across theological ideas. 3: They imagine that Christians think that God lives in some particular place in space and time. They may not think that we think that he lives in the sky, but I think that they think that we think that if you had a fast enough spaceship you could eventually track him down. Dawkins doesn't commit himself on the question of God's facial hair; but it is pretty clear that he thinks that God lives in the sky – or at any rate, in some place in the empirical universe.

Clearly, the chief enemy of open conversation is dogmatism in all its forms. Dogmatism is a well-recognized obstacle to scientific reasoning, and yet, because scientists have been reluctant even to imagine that they might have something prescriptive to say about values, dogmatism is still granted remarkable scope on questions of both truth and goodness under the banner of religion

Close analysis of ‘miracles’ have never led to any proof for a supernatural explanation, and, in fact, many have proven to be cheap magic tricks, hallucinations or primitive misunderstandings of natural phenomena.

Coincidentally, the words RELIGION and BULLSHIT both have eight letters.

Concerning the gods I cannot know either that they exist or that they do not exist, or what form they might have, for there is much to prevent one's knowing: the obscurity of the subject and the shortness of man's life.

...concepts have three fundamental properties—contextuality, intentionality, and abstraction—which independent things do not. To produce a mental world from the physical world, the physical world must first explain how contextuality, intentionality, and abstraction can arise.

Consideremos la larga historia de las actividades inspiradas por el fervor moral: los sacrificios humanos, las persecuciones de herejes, las cazas de brujas, los pogroms, hasta que se llega al exterminio en gran escala por medio de gases venenosos, que al menos uno de los colegas episcopales del doctor Barnes parece patrocinar, ya que sostiene que el pacifismo es anticristiano. ¿Son estas abominaciones, y las doctrinas éticas que las inspiran, realmente prueba de un Creador inteligente? ¿Y podemos realmente desear que los hombres que las practicaron vivan eternamente? El mundo en que vivimos puede ser entendido como resultado de la confusión y el accidente; pero, si es el resultado de un propósito deliberado, el propósito tiene que haber sido el de un demonio. Por mi parte, encuentro el accidente una hipótesis menos penosa y más verosímil.

Consider the enormity of the problem. Science has proved that the universe exploded into being at a certain moment. It asks: What cause produced this effect? Who or what put the matter or energy into the universe? And science cannot answer these questions, because, according to the astronomers, in the first moments of its existence the Universe was compressed to an extraordinary degree, and consumed by the heat of a fire beyond human imagination. The shock of that instant must have destroyed every particle of evidence that could have yielded a clue to the cause of the great explosion.

Control is a thinly veiled illusion that deceives and seduces mankind.

Conventions are, indeed, all that shield us from the shivering void, though often they do so but poorly and desperately.

Countries with a high percentage of nonbelievers are among the freest, most stable, best-educated, and healthiest nations on earth. When nations are ranked according to a human-development index, which measures such factors as life expectancy, literacy rates, and educational attainment, the five highest-ranked countries -- Norway, Sweden, Australia, Canada, and the Netherlands -- all have high degrees of nonbelief. Of the fifty countires at the bottom of the index, all are intensly religious. The nations with the highest homicide rates tend to be more religious; those with the greatest levels of gender equality are the least religious. These associations say nothing about whether atheism leads to positive social indicators or the other way around. But the idea that atheists are somehow less moral, honest, or trustworthy have been disproven by study after study.

Creationists eagerly seek a gap in present-day knowledge or understanding. If an apparent gap is found, it is assumed that God, by default, must fill it. What worries thoughtful theologians such as Bonhoeffer is that gaps shrink as science advances, and God is threatened with eventually having nothing to do and nowhere to hide.

Cuando hablamos de la "ira" del cielo, la "agitación" del mar, la "resistencia" de los diamantes a ser tallados, la "atracción" que ejerce la Tierra sobre un asteroide cercano o la "excitación" de un átomo, de nuevo pensamos en una especie de visión animista del mundo. Estamos atribuyendo existencia real a objetos inertes. Algún nivel primitivo de nuestro pensamiento dota a la Naturaleza inanimada de vida, pasiones y premeditación.

Darkness can inspire light, and light can inspire darkness, its just a difference of distant of these two contrasting forces.

Deeds are divine, not doctrines. Actions are religious, not creeds.

Demons do not wear white.

Decide for yourselves as to what you should thing of those who say there is God, that he is the preserver of justice and that he is the protector of all, even after seeing the practice of untouchablity in the form of man being banned from human sight and contact, from walking into the streets, from entering the temples and drawing water from a tank, is rampant in the land, and yet that land is not spared from being razed by an earthquake, burnt by the fiery lava of a volcano, engulfed in a deluge from the ocean, submerged in the chasm of the earth, or fragemented by thunder-storm.

Don't create unbelief or doubt in people's minds. When you do so you ruin their lives and you have nothing to give them in its place. It's ok if people delude themselves; those delusions keep their day running.

Did god make man too perfect, So that a piece has to be removed through circumcision?

Disbelief in God, openly admitted by a majority, is a recent event, not yet completed. Because this event is so recent, Non-Religious Ethics is at a very early stage. We cannot yet predict whether, as in Mathematics, we will all reach agreement. Since we cannot know how Ethics will develop, it is not irrational to have high hopes.

Do not all theists insist that there can be no morality, no justice, honesty or fidelity without the belief in a Divine Power? Based upon fear and hope, such morality has always been a vile product, imbued partly with self-righteousness, partly with hypocrisy. As to truth, justice, and fidelity, who have been their brave exponents and daring proclaimers? Nearly always the godless ones: the Atheists; they lived, fought, and died for them. They knew that justice, truth, and fidelity are not conditioned in heaven, but that they are related to and interwoven with the tremendous changes going on in the social and material life of the human race; not fixed and eternal, but fluctuating, even as life itself.

Digo-te, ó sagrado Baal do céu, que não existes. Mas, se existisses, eu te amaldiçoaria de tal modo que esse teu céu palpitaria com o fogo do inferno. Em verdade te digo: ofereci-te meus serviços e tu os recusaste; repeliste-me, e hoje eu te viro as costas para sempre, pois nunca soubeste conhecer a hora da Visitação. Em verdade te digo: sei que vou morrer, e, não obstante, com a morte diante dos olhos, eu te desprezo, ó celeste Ápis. Empregaste contra mim a força, e não sabes que jamais me dobrei perante a adversidade. Pois deverias sabê-lo. Por acaso dormias quando plasmaste meu coração? Em verdade te digo: durante toda a vida, cada gota de sangue em minhas veias sentirá alegria em desprezar-te e escarnecer de tua Graça. A partir deste momento, renuncio a ti, a tuas pompas e tuas obras; lançarei o anátema sobre meu pensamento, se jamais ele te pensar; arrancarei os lábios se jamais eles pronunciarem teu nome. Se existires, digo-te a última palavra da vida e da morte: digo-te adeus. Depois, calo-me, viro-te as costas e sigo meu caminho.

Don't creationists ever wonder about the fact that the paleontologists found ape-like skulls with the 'human leg and foot bones,' rather than the other way around, i.e., human skulls with 'ape leg and foot bones?' . . . Come on, creationists, think about it! Did God hide the human skulls, only leaving behind leg and foot bones belonging to human midgets with misshapen feet, and mix such bones only with the skulls of ape-like creatures with larger cranial capacities than living apes? What a 'kidder' the creationists' God must be.

Don’t curse the gods; you will feel shame when you have to call on them for help

Dragons and Afterlife .. I don't see any difference between both of them, we didn't see neither the dragons nor afterlife, we just heard about them and both of them are superstitions with no scientific or logical evidence .. But the only reason you believe in afterlife unlike dragons is that you've been taught to believe in it from your birthday. now if they taught you to believe in dragons and if it were mentioned in your Bible or your holy book you would have believed in it .. herein lies the danger of religions, you can believe something exists without any evidence .. and that's why you should only follow science and let go of your religious teachings

Do you think a sociopath cries to God as they die? Ironic that one counterfeit being would cry out to another for help, said Chiron.

Dr. Peter Boghossian’s A Manual for Creating Atheists is a precise, passionate, compassionate and brilliantly reasoned work that will illuminate any and all minds capable of openness and curiosity. This is not a bedtime story to help you fall asleep, but a wakeup call that has the best chance of bringing your rational mind back to life. (Review of Dr. Peter Boghossian's book, 'A Manual for Creating Atheists')

Either blasphemy is a victimless crime or its victim is powerful enough to take care of himself without any help from you.

Education levels are highly and negatively correlated to religious belief. In other words, ignorance is bliss.

Each mind conceives god in its own way. There may be as many variation of the god figure as there are people in the world

El obispo pasa a argüir que 'el universo ha sido hecho y está gobernado por un propósito inteligente' y que sería una falta de inteligencia el haber hecho al hombre para que pereciera. Hay muchas respuestas a este argumento. En primer lugar, se ha hallado, en la investigación científica de la Naturaleza, que la intrusión de valores estéticos o morales, ha sido siempre un obstáculo para el descubrimiento. Solía pensarse que los cuerpos celestes tenían que moverse en círculos, porque el círculo es la curva más perfecta; que las especies tenían que ser inmutables, porque Dios sólo creaba lo perfecto y, por lo tanto, no había necesidad de mejora; que no debían combatirse las epidemias como no fuera mediante el arrepentimiento, porque eran un castigo del pecado, etc. La naturaleza es indiferente a nuestros valores, y sólo puede ser entendida ignorando nuestros conceptos del bien y del mal. El universo puede tener un fin, pero nada de lo que nosotros sabemos sugiere que, de ser así, ese propósito tiene alguna semejanza con los nuestros.

Either god exists or it doesn’t exist. If a god does exist, it either interacts with the universe in some detectable way or it doesn’t. If it doesn’t, that god is indistinguishable from a non-existent god. That only leaves a god who interacts with the universe in some detectable way. But if science, which is the greatest realization of the use of our senses to, you know, detect things, hasn’t found this god, that doesn’t say much for individuals. In short, the god you’ve created is, in fact, undetectable by science. The limits of science are not the province of religious knowledge. Where science is ignorant, so is religion. The only difference is that religion lacks the integrity of science.

Es gibt keinen Gott und Dirac ist sein Prophet. (There is no God and Dirac is his Prophet.) {A remark made during the Fifth Solvay International Conference (October 1927), after a discussion of the religious views of various physicists, at which all the participants laughed, including Dirac, as quoted in Teil und das Ganze (1969), by Werner Heisenberg, p. 119; it is an ironic play on the Muslim statement of faith, the Shahada, often translated: 'There is no god but Allah, and Muhammad is his Prophet.'}

Epicurus's old questions are still unanswered: Is he (God) willing to prevent evil, but not able? then he is impotent. Is he able, but not willing? then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? then whence evil?

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?

Essentially, almost all humans are born with a fear of the unknown. It casts a pall of anxiety which pushes us into the arms of religions and soothsayers and their made-up answers.

En toda mi vida, nunca me ha preocupado lo que la gente pensara de mí, le digo. Pero, en el fondo de mi corazón, me preocupaba mucho lo que pensara Dios. Y ahora veo que no piensa. Sólo está allí sentado, tan contento de ser sordo. Pero no creas que es fácil tratar de pasar sin Dios. Aunque una sepa que no existe, es duro darle la espalda.

Ergo, while the Argument from Design appears to be a nice, neat answer to account for the presence of a multifarious Universe, the truth is that it backfires on itself, shifting the need for an explanation back and back and back…and back…without end, without resolution. This is called an infinite regress, and its presence in the logic of the argument fails to prove the existence of God; if anything, it reveals that the idea of a designer is patently ridiculous, even more so than a godless Cosmos. The argument therefore answers nothing; it merely moves the mystery of origins to an even higher level, demanding that the Creator have his own Creator.

Europe's rise is written in the terms of Christianity & Monarchy, Europe's decay in the terms of Republicanism, Progressivism & Godlessness.

Even the devils are theists. I am of all people one of the least qualified to judge, but I do believe that some atheists are closer to God than are some theists. With Him, it is better to be distant in the mind but near in the heart than it is to be distant in the heart but near in the mind.

Even the staunchest atheist growing up in Western society cannot avoid having absorbed the basic tenets of Christian morality. Our societies are steeped in it: everything we have accomplished over the centuries, even science, developed either hand in hand with or in opposition to religion, but never separately. It is impossible to know what morality would look like without religion. It would require a visit to a human culture that is not now and never was religious. That such cultures do not exist should give us pause.

Even those, who some time ago believed all the stories about God, that is who believed that divine power exists, have now come to be so ashamed of their own belief, hiding their ignorance, they are now struggling hard to prove those stories as scientifically true.

Even those who want to go to heaven would rather kill than be killed.

Every agnostic has a minister, Mike. Otherwise, they's be atheists.

Every argument for God and every attribute ascribed to Him rests on a false metaphysical premise. None can survive for a moment on a correct metaphysics.... Existence exists, and only existence exists. Existence is a primary: it is uncreated, indestructible, eternal. So if you are to postulate something beyond existence—some supernatural realm—you must do it by openly denying reason, dispensing with definitions, proofs, arguments, and saying flatly, “To Hell with argument, I have faith.” That, of course, is a willful rejection of reason. Objectivism advocates reason as man’s sole means of knowledge, and therefore, for the reasons I have already given, it is atheist. It denies any supernatural dimension presented as a contradiction of nature, of existence. This applies not only to God, but also to every variant of the supernatural ever advocated or to be advocated. In other words, we accept reality, and that’s all.