# Atheists/Freethinkers/Rationalists



## Fogey (Aug 27, 2005)

Below is a beautiful address by the late Madalyn Murray Oâ€™Hair, as published at www.atheists.org. I think that it is especially pertinent for a bit of perspective in these sad days of religious fanaticism.

~ ~ ~

_The following is the text of an address given by the founder of American Atheists at the Eighth Annual Convention of the American Rationalist Federation, on 25 August 1962, before the US Supreme Court had agreed to hear the case now known as Murray v Curlett. The speech was originally printed in The American Rationalist, Volume 17, Number 3, September/October 1962._

~ ~ ~

The indestructible foundation of the whole edifice of Atheism is its philosophy, materialism, or naturalism, as it is also known. That philosophy regards the world as it actually is, views it in the light of the data provided by progressive science and social experience. Atheistic materialism is the logical outcome of scientific knowledge gained over the centuries.

We make a fundamental error, I think, as we tilt at the windmills of imagined gods. We need to review from where we have come, under what conditions, and to see the threshold upon which we stand now.

Our history has been marked by a ceaseless struggle against ignorance and superstition. In ancient Greece the works of the materialist philosopher Democritus, who first taught the atomic theory of matter, were destroyed. Anaxagoras was banished from Athens for being an Atheist. The materialist philosopher Epicurus, revered by the ancients for having liberated man from fear of gods and for asserting the validity of science, was for 2000 years anathematized and falsely depicted as an enemy of morality and a disseminator of vice. The Alexandria library, housing 700,000 scientific and literary works, was burned by Christian monks in 391 AD. Pope Gregory I (590-604) destroyed many valuable works by ancient authors. In every society there have been forces that have stood to lose by the dissemination of progressive scientific views. In the past these forces either directly persecuted progressive scientists and philosophers or sought to distort scientific discoveries so as to deprive them of their progressive, materialistic implications.

The Inquisition, a papal invention for suppressing all opposition to the Catholic Church, savagely persecuted all progressive thinkers; Giordano Bruno, Ludilio Vanini, and Galileo come readily to mind.

Voltaire was imprisoned in the Bastille, and Diderot was sent to prison. In our own country we are familiar with the story of Thomas Paine, of the Salem witch trials, of Ingersoll, of Einstein. The struggle is unceasing, as important today as during any other period of history.

We need, therefore, to see what we fight and why. We need not direct our main assault against the Bible or the Koran. We need not argue endlessly about the historicity of Jesus. We should look past trinities and angels and other theological blind alleys. We must look to materialistic philosophy which alone enables men to understand reality and to know how to deal with it. It is true that today our kind are no longer burned at the stake, but there are many other ways of exerting pressure. Our scientists and progressive philosophers are dismissed from universities and other employment. Outspoken scientific and philosophical works are much less likely to be published than rather senseless junk. Character assassination is common. Reactionary religious propaganda is unceasingly drummed into unthinking minds through the captive media of mass communication. As always, our opponents today are formidable. But our strength lies in the positive approach of uncovering and publicizing the laws of nature and human behavior, and in applying these laws in the interest of human welfare. We need not waste our time with endless arguments about tortuous paths of the endless labyrinths of theology.

We need to know upon what we base ourselves. Atheism is based upon a materialist philosophy, which holds that nothing exists but natural phenomena. There are no supernatural forces or entities, nor can there be any. Nature simply exists. But there are those who deny this, who assert that only mind or idea or spirit is primary. This question of the relation of the human mind to material being is one of the fundamental questions dealt with by all philosophers, however satisfactorily. The Atheist must slice through all obfuscation to bedrock, to the basic idea that those who regard nature as primary and thought as a property (or function) of matter belong to the camp of materialism, and that those who maintain that spirit or idea or mind existed before nature or created nature or uphold nature belong to the camp of idealism. All conventional religions are based on idealism. Many varieties of idealism exist, but the apologist for idealism and opponents of materialism go under many names; we have, for instance, dualists, objective idealists, subjective idealists, solipsists, positivists, Machians, irrationalists, existentialists, neo-positivists, logical positivists, fideists, revived medieval scholastics, Thomists. And opposed to these stand alone the Atheistic materialists (or perhaps naturalists, Rationalists, freethinkers, etc.) who have no need for intellectual machinations, deceptions, or masquerades.

Whether or not the Bible is pornographic literature is only a side issue. Let us see what the Idealist camp features. The church teaches a contempt for earthly life and that to reach some imagined "heaven" is the main goal of life.

And, significantly, the church teaches that this goal can be achieved only as the reward for obedience and meekness. The church threatens the wrath of God and the torment of hell for those who dare to oppose its teaching. But Materialism liberates us, teaches us not to hope for happiness beyond the grave but to prize life on earth and strive always to improve it. Materialism restores to man his dignity and his intellectual integrity. Man is not a worm condemned to crawl in the dust, but a human being capable of mastering the forces of nature and making them serve him. Materialism compels faith in the human intellect, in the power of knowledge in man's ability to fathom all the secrets of nature and to create a social system based upon reason and justice. Materialism's faith is in man and his ability to transform the world by his own efforts. It is a philosophy in every essence optimistic, life-asserting, and radiant. It considers the struggle for progress as a moral obligation, and impossible without noble ideals that inspire men to struggle, to perform bold, creative work.

Modern materialism - or naturalism - is linked with the everyday experience of people. It believes in experiment as the basis of knowledge, and neglects no sphere of reality. It advances itself as an ideological weapon for use in progress. It is in social life that man develops his mind and emotions, will, and conscience, and puts meaning and purpose into life. He does not closet himself in solitary prayer and dream of death as a door opening unto eternal bliss. A materialist lives a full social life and is inspired by progressive ideals; he is concerned with the problems and joys of life, not death. He is deeply involved with shaping his life as a useful member of society and contributing what he can to its progress.

The Idealist sees science and man as subordinate to religion, to "idea," and sees knowledge as subordinate to faith. The ultimate object of the idealist is to furnish evidence of the existence of "God." He lays great stress on moral questions, but the morality he preaches is one of meek submission, of passive acceptance, and thus, of justification of existing social evils. This morality substitutes prayer and appeals for divine assistance for struggle and protest against social injustice. The entire Idealist philosophy is contrived, with deliberateness, to bolster the status quo.

Ours is a time when successful struggle against this reactionary philosophy requires more than a petulant argument over the authorship of the Gospels, more than a negative attack on the totalitarian and monolithic authoritarianism of conventional religion, but rather an aggressive action program to spread the positive philosophy of materialism.

~ ~ ~


----------



## Hugh Morrison (May 24, 2005)

I bet Christmas isn't much fun at his place...[}]

For all your pantomime requirements visit www.pantomimesonline.co.uk
'The casual idea is the triumph of misguided egalitarianism. By playing to the desire to seem non-judgmental, the Slob has succeeded in forcing his tastes on the world at large (because to object to inappropriate dress would be judgmental)'- Patrick07690


----------



## Rich (Jul 10, 2005)

Or (note the reference to a brown suit - not sure what the connotations are here - black suit = jesuit, brown suit = evangelist?):

Frank Zappa
_Dumb all over_
(Zappa)
From the album _You are what you is_, *1981*, (Bark 2-Barking PW2-37537)

Whoever we are
Wherever we're from
We shoulda noticed by now
Our behavior is dumb
And if our chances
Expect to improve
It's gonna take a lot more
Than tryin' to remove
The other race
Or the other whatever
From the face
Of the planet altogether

They call it THE EARTH
Which is a dumb kinda name
But they named it right
'Cause we behave the same...
*We are dumb all over*
Dumb all over,
Yes we are
Dumb all over,
Near 'n far
Dumb all over,
Black 'n white
People, we is not wrapped tight

Nurds on the left
Nurds on the right
Religous fanatics
On the air every night
Sayin' the Bible
Tells the story
Makes the details
Sound real gory
'Bout what to do
If the geeks over there
Don't believe in the book
We got over here

You can't run a race
Without no feet
'N pretty soon
There won't be no street
For dummies to jog on
Or doggies to dog on
Religous fanatics
Can make it be all gone
(I mean it won't blow up
'N disappear
It'll just look ugly
For a thousand years...)

You can't run a country
By a book of religion
Not by a heap
Or a lump or a smidgeon
Of foolish rules
Of ancient date
Designed to make
You all feel great
While you fold, spindle
And mutilate
Those unbelievers
From a neighboring state

TO ARMS! TO ARMS!
Hooray! That's great
Two legs ain't bad
Unless there's a crate
They ship the parts
To mama in
For souvenirs: two ears *(Get Down!)*
Not his, not hers, *(but what the hey?)*
The Good Book says:
*("It gotta be that way!")*
But their book says:
*"REVENGE THE CRUSADES...
With whips 'n chains
'N hand grenades..."*
TWO ARMS? TWO ARMS?
Have another and another
Our God says:
*"There ain't no other!"*
Our God says
*"It's all okay!"*
Our God says
*"This is the way!"*

It says in the book:
*"Burn 'n destroy...*
*'N repent, 'n redeem*
*'N revenge, 'n deploy*
*'N rumble thee forth*
*To the land of the unbelieving scum on
the other side*
*'Cause they don't go for what's in the
book*
*'N that makes 'em BAD*
*So verily we must choppeth them up*
*And stompeth them down*
*Or rent a nice French bomb*
*To poof them out of existance
*While leaving their real estate just where
we need it*
*To use again*
*For temples in which to praise
OUR GOD*
*("Cause he can really take care of
business!")*

And when his humble TV servant
With humble white hair
And humble glasses
And a nice brown suit
And maybe a blond wife who takes
phone calls
Tells us our God says
It's okay to do this stuff
Then we gotta do it,
'Cause if we don't do it,
We ain't gwine up to *hebbin!*
(Depending on which book you're using
at the time...Can't use theirs... it don't work
...it's all lies...Gotta use mine...)
Ain't that right?
That's what they say
Every night...
Every day...
Hey, we can't really be dumb
If we're just following *God's Orders*
Hey, let's get serious...
God knows what he's doin'
He wrote this book here
An' the book says:
*He made us all to be just like Him,"
so...
If we're dumb...
Then God is dumb...
*(An' maybe even a little ugly on the side)*


----------



## Fogey (Aug 27, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Hugh Morrison_
> 
> I bet Christmas isn't much fun at his place...[}]


*A Christmas Sermon (1891)*

By [_American freethink_er] Robert G. Ingersoll.

The good part of Christmas is not always Christian -- it is generally Pagan; that is to say, human, natural.

Christianity did not come with tidings of great joy, but with a message of eternal grief. It came with the threat of everlasting torture on its lips. It meant war on earth and perdition hereafter.

It taught some good things -- the beauty of love and kindness in man. But as a torch-bearer, as a bringer of joy, it has been a failure. It has given infinite consequences to the acts of finite beings, crushing the soul with a responsibility too great for mortals to bear. It has filled the future with fear and flame, and made God the keeper of an eternal penitentiary, destined to be the home of nearly all the sons of men. Not satisfied with that, it has deprived God of the pardoning power.

And yet it may have done some good by borrowing from the Pagan world the old festival called Christmas.

Long before Christ was born the Sun-God triumphed over the powers of Darkness. About the time that we call Christmas the days begin perceptibly to lengthen. Our barbarian ancestors were worshipers of the sun, and they celebrated his victory over the hosts of night. Such a festival was natural and beautiful. The most natural of all religions is the worship of the sun. Christianity adopted this festival. It borrowed from the Pagans the best it has.

I believe in Christmas and in every day that has been set apart for joy. We in America have too much work and not enough play. We are too much like the English.

I think it was Heinrich Heine who said that he thought a blaspheming Frenchman was a more pleasing object to God than a praying Englishman. We take our joys too sadly. I am in favor of all the good free days -- the more the better.

Christmas is a good day to forgive and forget -- a good day to throw away prejudices and hatreds -- a good day to fill your heart and your house, and the hearts and houses of others, with sunshine.

~ ~ ~


----------



## Rich (Jul 10, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by JLPWCXIII_
> 
> I think it was Heinrich Heine who said that he thought a blaspheming Frenchman was a more pleasing object to God than a praying Englishman.


I didn't know that one - quite reassuring .


----------



## tiger02 (Dec 12, 2004)

In my experience, those who call themselves "Freethinkers" all have the same conception of reality, much like teenagers who rebel by wearing the same blue hair as all the other teenagers.

They are also as close-minded, unaccepting, and dogmatic as any deist.

Just my opinion.
Tom

--------------------
Death is...whimsical...today


----------



## Hugh Morrison (May 24, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by JLPWCXIII_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Aw, he's just trying to cover himself in case people stop sending him Christmas presents!

For all your pantomime requirements visit www.pantomimesonline.co.uk
'The casual idea is the triumph of misguided egalitarianism. By playing to the desire to seem non-judgmental, the Slob has succeeded in forcing his tastes on the world at large (because to object to inappropriate dress would be judgmental)'- Patrick07690


----------



## Murrah (Mar 28, 2005)

JLPWCXIII

You seem to have a ready picture of every type of building. Could you post some examples of atheist hospitals, homeless shelters, or orphanages?


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Why do people seem to react with more shock and hate towards athiests than towards satanists? The posts from Murrah and Tiger02 are prime examples. It really never ceases to amaze me and I often ponder why this is.

Warmest regards


----------



## Murrah (Mar 28, 2005)

I'm happy to see some pictures of hospitals, etc. built by Satanists too.


----------



## whnay. (Dec 30, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by Wayfarer_
> 
> Why do people seem to react with more shock and hate towards athiests than towards satanists? The posts from Murrah and Tiger02 are prime examples. It really never ceases to amaze me and I often ponder why this is.
> 
> Warmest regards


I did not read Tiger's post to infer that at all. He was pointing out that the thread reference doesn't play true in the real world, that in fact those who are more apt to claim themselves to be "free thinkers" or "open minded" are more often than not just as "close-minded, unaccepting, and dogmatic as any deist."

___________

"My problem lies in reconciling my gross habits with my net income." 
~Errol Flynn


----------



## KenR (Jun 22, 2005)

I don't care what religion a person believes in or doesn't believe in as long as they follow the golden rule "Treat others as you want to be treated".


----------



## Rich (Jul 10, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Murrah_
> 
> JLPWCXIII
> 
> You seem to have a ready picture of every type of building. Could you post some examples of atheist hospitals, homeless shelters, or orphanages?


The atheist Soviet Union built hospitals and orphanages and gave everyone somewhere to live. I don't think any of the buildings were of architectural interest, however.


----------



## whnay. (Dec 30, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by Rich_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Did they give everybody something to eat?

___________

"My problem lies in reconciling my gross habits with my net income." 
~Errol Flynn


----------



## Doctor Damage (Feb 18, 2005)

It is my understanding that most hospitals in the Western nations have been established, funded, and operated without reference to any particular religion, etc. The (thankfully) few such places I've had reason to visit seemed quite secular.


----------



## jbmcb (Sep 7, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Rich_
> The atheist Soviet Union built hospitals and orphanages and gave everyone somewhere to live. I don't think any of the buildings were of architectural interest, however.


The Soviet Union wasn't so much athiest, as much as against religion in general as competition to the communist party. I certainly wouldn't label the communist party of the USSR as humanistic, or of the free-thinker ilk.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_union#Religious_groups

Like the remaining communist states, there was an "official" church that you could attend, as long as the preists and rabbis towed the party line, they wouldn't be sent to the gulag.

Good/Fast/Cheap - Pick Two


----------



## Murrah (Mar 28, 2005)

> quote:The atheist Soviet Union built hospitals and orphanages and gave everyone somewhere to live. I don't think any of the buildings were of architectural interest, however.


That's the answer an atheist friend gave me to my query. I've not found any examples in the West. My experience has been that numerous institutions that benefit the public are founded by religions or their adherents. A large number of the hospitals in Houston were founded by Christian denominations (Methodist, St. Luke's, St. Josephs, etc.)


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

> quote:_Originally posted by Murrah_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Out of (morbid) curiousity, what is the purpose of this line of enquiry on your part? For example, in your original post, you specifically mention religous based orphanages so I might ask, are we interested in all of them or are we excluding the ones where the priests buggered the young boys on an ongoing and protracted basis?

Is your thesis that religion inspired some interesting architecture? If that is the case, I would have to agree. A fine example would be the pyramids found in the Americas where sacrifical victims were murdered in offering to the local gods.

Warmest regards


----------



## Trenditional (Feb 15, 2006)

> quote:_Originally posted by Wayfarer_
> 
> Why do people seem to react with more shock and hate towards athiests than towards satanists? The posts from Murrah and Tiger02 are prime examples. It really never ceases to amaze me and I often ponder why this is.
> 
> Warmest regards


We all want everyone to believe in someone, God or the Devil....choose

_Deny Guilt, Demand Proof and Never Speak Without an Attorney!_​


----------



## Trenditional (Feb 15, 2006)

> quote:_Originally posted by Doctor Damage_
> 
> It is my understanding that most hospitals in the Western nations have been established, funded, and operated without reference to any particular religion, etc. The (thankfully) few such places I've had reason to visit seemed quite secular.


If they were religious in nature, they wouldn't gouge financially the patients they are treating. My wife is in the medical professional and most hospitals are not religious, athiestic or satanistic they are financialistic.

_Deny Guilt, Demand Proof and Never Speak Without an Attorney!_​


----------



## Étienne (Sep 3, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Murrah_
> That's the answer an atheist friend gave me to my query.


In my home country, almost all hospitals, schools and the like are maintained and funded by the (secular) state or by secular, for-profit, private organizations.

I could also point to a school my (atheist) father founded in India a while ago, but I believe it has since closed.

I fail to see the relevance of the query, however.


----------



## Murrah (Mar 28, 2005)

> quote:Out of (morbid) curiousity, what is the purpose of this line of enquiry on your part?


I was interested in seeing the great good brought to civilization by atheists. Pure snarkiness on my part.


----------



## Doctor Damage (Feb 18, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Trenditional_
> 
> If they were religious in nature, they wouldn't gouge financially the patients they are treating. My wife is in the medical professional and most hospitals are not religious, athiestic or satanistic they are *financialistic*.


Good one! I will use it!


----------



## J. Homely (Feb 7, 2006)

I guess I just don't understand 'atheism' when it's put out there as some kind of coherent movement or concept -- it doesn't seem to be actually based on any specific principle. It's based on NOT believing in a particular paradigm, which seems like a pretty weak concept to me, philosophically-speaking. I don't believe in Satan, but I wouldn't call myself an 'asatanist' or talk about what my asatanist cohorts think about anything. The whole idea just seems kinda silly and meaningless. Why do people try to put labels on everything and make a 'movement' or 'philosophy' out of it?


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

> quote:_Originally posted by Murrah_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I failed to realize this was required of atheists.

I do not know if you will find this a "great good" but most of the modern world was brought to you by agnostics and atheists. From the time of the ancient Greek philosophers who first questioned the existence of the gods, the doubters have often fueled progress. Those that tended to retard progress, oddly enough, were usually the most pious. One of my favorite examples was the torture and house arrest of Galileo.

Warmest regards


----------



## PennGlock (Mar 14, 2006)

> quote:_Originally posted by tiger02_
> 
> In my experience, those who call themselves "Freethinkers" all have the same conception of reality, much like teenagers who rebel by wearing the same blue hair as all the other teenagers.
> 
> ...


This is my experience as well. Being atheist involves taking a stand on the issue, and is as much a belief as any religion. Most of the times I hear people claiming atheist status is in the context of disparaging another belief. Isnt intolerance of other beliefs a core tenet of the fanaticism atheists warn against?

Atheists hold "that nothing exists but natural phenomena. There are no supernatural forces." As someone who grew up surrounded by the Physics breakthroughs of the last 20 years, I can tell you that line between what the layman perceives as natural and supernatural almost completely breaks down in modern Physics. I can also tell you that there are currently no self-proclaimed atheists at the Institute for Advanced Study. People possessing the real knowledge of the natural world find it easy to admit that many possibilities exist. At the big physics conferences, there is always at least one very popular lecture on spirituality. They know what they are seeing is just the tip of the iceberg, and could not comprehend worshiping at the alter of this tiny bit of knowledge.

Sorry if Im unfairly characterizing atheists, but my experiences with them have been totally negative. The atheists I have known are mad at the world and always looking to place the blame on someone. For some reason atheists choose to focus their wrath on American Christians, one of the most overwhelmingly positive forces in the history of mankind. I dont understand why atheists wouldnt at least focus more on the fundamentalist culture of the Mid East, which has kept their people in the dark ages for the last 1000 years. If anyone can cite me examples of atheists trying to improve the ass-backwards treatment of women in the Mid East, maybe I'll change my opinion on the bunch.


----------



## Trenditional (Feb 15, 2006)

> quote:_Originally posted by Doctor Damage_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Don't forget my royalties, it's trademarked and copywrited. 

_Deny Guilt, Demand Proof and Never Speak Without an Attorney!_​


----------



## android (Dec 8, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by Wayfarer_
> For example, in your original post, you specifically mention religous based orphanages so I might ask, are we interested in all of them or are we excluding the ones where the priests buggered the young boys on an ongoing and protracted basis?


Oh come now. You make it seem as if buggering was strictly restricted to young boys. The holy Roman empire was far more democratic than that. They also ran the Magdalen Asylums where young ladies could be abused and buggered as well.


----------



## pendennis (Oct 6, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by whnay._
> 
> 
> 
> ...


*No.* They only managed to feed a part of their population; and while feeding part of their population, they also managed to starve millions, fail at various "five year plans" to improve agricultural output, and have to go into the open market to purchase wheat from the evil countries like the United States and Canada.

Dennis
If you wish to control the future, then create it.
Est unusquisque faber ipsae suae fortunae


----------



## Étienne (Sep 3, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by PennGlock_
> This is my experience as well. Being atheist involves taking a stand on the issue, and is as much a belief as any religion. Most of the times I hear people claiming atheist status is in the context of disparaging another belief. Isnt intolerance of other beliefs a core tenet of the fanaticism atheists warn against?


Militant atheists are, surprise, surprise, militants. But I don't think they are a high proportion of atheists. Maybe slightly higher in a very religious society, like the US, but they are certainly not very numerous in more secular societies.

I believe there is no God. But I don't make a big deal about it, that is simply not an important matter for me. And living in a very secular society, I don't have to make a big deal about it the way I would if various religions were intruding in my everyday life. My experience of the US is that such a carefree attitude towards the subject is much more difficult to sustain. Anyway, that means I don't usually define myself as an "atheist" (nor as an "aghostist" since I don't believe in ghosts either, nor as an "a13ist" since I don't think the number 13 has any perticular property, etc.).



> quote:
> I can also tell you that there are currently no self-proclaimed atheists at the Institute for Advanced Study.


Most scientists I know don't care enough about religion to even call themselves "atheists". I have always read that scientists were the group where you find the most atheists in the US (far more than the less than 10% you find on average in the US population).


----------



## J. Homely (Feb 7, 2006)

> quote:_Originally posted by Ã‰tienne_
> Most scientists I know don't care enough about religion to even call themselves "atheists". I have always read that scientists were the group where you find the most atheists in the US (far more than the less than 10% you find on average in the US population).


That makes sense. Maybe it's somewhat more accurate to characterize 'Atheists' not as 'people who don't believe in God/Religion', but rather as 'social and political activists who stand in active vigorous opposition to the very concepts of 'God' and personal religiosity.


----------



## Rocker (Oct 29, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by Wayfarer_
> One of my favorite examples was the torture and house arrest of Galileo.
> 
> Warmest regards


I don't beleive Galileo was ever tortured - certainly no chains, floggings, iron maidens, whippings, dungeons, etc. I'm interested what your source is for saying that he was totured and how was he tortured - I've just never read that about him.

Thanks.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

> quote:_Originally posted by Rocker_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I stand corrected. I seemed to have remembered one or both of his legs were broken in the process of getting him to refute his work. I was incorrect, he was only toured through a torture chamber at the age of 70 and told by the Pope himself, that he would be tortured if a refutation did not occur. The house arrest (for life) part was on the money however.

Warmest regards


----------



## Vladimir Berkov (Apr 19, 2005)

She makes some great points. She was about as militant as they get however, she lived in my city for a number of years until she was murdered in some sort of scandal involving the funds of her organization apparently. 

I think it is in bad taste to spend your life openly criticizing those who are believers, so long as those believers aren't bothering anybody.

But when believers try to shove their dogma down everybody's throats (IE school prayer) then somebody needs to take a stand.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

> quote:_Originally posted by PennGlock_
> Sorry if Im unfairly characterizing atheists, but my experiences with them have been totally negative. The atheists I have known are mad at the world and always looking to place the blame on someone. For some reason atheists choose to focus their wrath on American Christians


While I am officially agnostic, I live my life atheistically. I can assure you that I am quite content and at peace with the world and am a huge proponent of personal responsibility. In my circle of friends, those of us that lack religion all seem quite happy at the state of our personal worlds. Then again, we are all well placed in society and have much in life to enjoy, so it might well be this factor more than our state of godlessness, I'll let the interested read decide  Further, the most well known atheist that comes to my mind, is Ayn Rand, another huge proponent of responsibility (albiet she did seem miffed at the state of affairs quite often).



> quote:
> If anyone can cite me examples of atheists trying to improve the ass-backwards treatment of women in the Mid East, maybe I'll change my opinion on the bunch.


Actually, I have a good friend, a former professor of mine, that is a bonified atheist and he did quite a bit of work with WHO. He is a healthcare economist and found the #1 predictive factor for infant mortality in such countries is the literacy rates of women and has worked tirelessly for over 25 years to promote literacy for such women, notably Yemen. I am 100% sure this anecdote will now have you sending positive thoughts towards us pagans.

Warmest regards


----------



## Rich (Jul 10, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by pendennis_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


True of course - though there has been no shortage of theocratic regimes that have failed to feed their people.

Seriously though, the original question puzzles me. The apparently automatic connection made between religion and hospitals, orphanages etc. surprises me as a Frenchman. In France, as Etienne says, these institutions are mostly either state-run, with no link whatsoever to any church, or run by private enterprise for a profit. My example of the Soviet Union was an obvious answer to the original question (although, of course, the USSR was a failure overall).


----------



## Fogey (Aug 27, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Murrah_
> 
> JLPWCXIII
> 
> You seem to have a ready picture of every type of building. Could you post some examples of atheist hospitals, homeless shelters, or orphanages?


 Sure.


----------



## Fogey (Aug 27, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by tiger02_
> 
> In my experience, those who call themselves "Freethinkers" *all* have the *same* conception of reality, much like teenagers who rebel by wearing the *same *blue hair as *all* the other teenagers.
> 
> ...


You seem to paint with quite a wide brush, my friend. If it's not too personal a question, what kind of theist are you?


----------



## Fogey (Aug 27, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Murrah_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


*Andrew Carnegie:* 'I donâ€™t believe in God. My god is patriotism. Teach a man to be a good citizen and you have solved the problem of life.'
*
Ernest Hemingway:* 'All thinking men are atheists.'

*Albert Einstein: *'I cannot imagine a God who rewards and punishes the objects of his creation, whose purposes are modeled after our own -- a God, in short, who is but a reflection of human frailty. Neither can I believe that the individual survives the death of his body, although feeble souls harbor such thoughts through fear or ridiculous egotism.'

*Isaac Asimov: *'I am an atheist, out and out.'

*Arthur C. Clark:* 'Religion is a byproduct of fear. For much of human history, it may have been a necessary evil, but why was it more evil than necessary? Isn't killing people in the name of God a pretty good definition of insanity?'

*Benjamin Franklin:* 'Lighthouses are more helpful than churches'.

*Bertrand Russell:* 'Religion is based . . . mainly on fear . . . fear of the mysterious, fear of defeat, fear of death. Fear is the parent of cruelty, and therefore it is no wonder if cruelty and religion have gone hand in hand. . . . My own view on religion is that of Lucretius. I regard it as a disease born of fear and as a source of untold misery to the human race.'

*Clarence Darrow:* 'I believe that relgion is the belief in future life and in God. I donâ€™t believe in either. I donâ€™t believe in God as I donâ€™t believe in Mother Goose'.

*Elizabeth Cady-Stanton:* 'The memory of my own suffering has prevented me from ever shadowing one young soul with the superstitions of the Christian religion'.

*Voltaire: *'If we believe absurdities, we shall commit atrocities'.

*Galileo:* 'They know that it is human nature to take up causes whereby a man may oppress his neighbor, no matter how unjustly. ... Hence they have had no trouble in finding men who would preach the damnability and heresy of the new doctrine from the very pulpit'.

*Nietzsche:* 'All religions bear traces of the fact that they arose during the intellectual immaturity of the human race â€" before it had learned the obligations to speak the truth. Not one of them makes it the duty of its God to be truthful and understandable in his communications'.

*George Bernard Shaw: *'At present there is not a single credible established religion in the world'.

*Arthur Rubenstein:* '[God?] No. You see, what I believe in is something much greater'.

*John Adams: *'This would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it'.

*James Madison: *'Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise'.

*John Stuart Mill:* 'The time appears to me to have come when it is the duty of all to make their dissent from religion known'.

*Karl Marx: *'The wretchedness of religion is at once an expression and a protest against real wretchedness. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the feeling of a heartless world, just as it is the spirit of unspiritual conditions. It is the opium of the people'.

*Napoleon Bonaparte:* 'Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich'.

*Dr James Watson:* 'I don't think we're here for anything, we're just products of evolution. You can say 'Gee, your life must be pretty bleak if you don't think there's a purpose' but I'm anticipating a good lunch'.
*
H.L. Mencken: *'Since the early days, [the church] has thrown itself violently against every effort to liberate the body and mind of man. It has been, at all times and everywhere, the habitual and incorrigible defender of bad governments, bad laws, bad social theories, bad institutions. It was, for centuries, an apologist for slavery, as it was an apologist for the divine right of kings'.

*Frank Lloyd Wright: *'I believe in God, only I spell it Nature'.

*Denis Diderot: *'Man will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest'.

*Richard Burton: *'The more I read about man and his maniacal ruthlessness and his murderous envious scatological soul, the more I realize that he will never change. Our stupidity is immortal, nothing will change it. The same mistakes, the same prejudices, the same injustice, the same lusts wheel endlessly around the parade ground of the centuries. Immutable and ineluctable. I wish I could believe in a god of some kind but I simply cannot'.

*Mark Twain: *'If there is a God, he is a malign thug'.

*Robert Frost:* 'I turned to speak to God, About the world's despair; But to make bad matters worse, I found God wasn't there'.

*Susan B. Anthony:* 'I was born a heretic. I always distrust people who know so much about what God wants them to do to their fellows'.

*Vincent Van Gogh: *'I can very well do without God both in my life and in my painting, but I cannot, suffering as I am, do without something which is greater than I am, which is my life, the power to create'.

*Thomas Jefferson:* 'And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerve in the brain of Jupiter. But may we hope that the dawn of reason and freedom of thought in these United States will do away with this artificial scaffolding, and restore to us the primitive and genuine doctrines of this most venerated reformer of human errors'.

*Thomas Edison: *'Religion is all bunk...I cannot believe in the immortality of the soul.... No, all this talk of an existence for us, as individuals, beyond the grave is wrong. It is born of our tenacity of life â€" our desire to go on living â€¦ our dread of coming to an end.'

*Thomas Paine: *'All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit.'

*Sigmund Freud:* 'Neither in my private life nor in my writings, have I ever made a secret of being an out-and-out unbeliever...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'.

*Percy Shelley: *'It is easier to suppose that the universe has existed for all eternity than to conceive a being beyond its limits capable of creating it'.

*Seneca: *'Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by rulers as useful'.

*Christopher Marlowe: *'I count religion but a childish toy and hold there is no sin but innocence'.

*Sir Charles Chaplin:* 'By simple common sense I don't believe in God, in none'.

and the list could go on and on and on of distinguished non-religious, freethinking, rationalist, and atheistic personages. Their contribution to civilisation is staggeringly out of proportion to their incidence in the general population.

Geniuses are disproportiately non-believers. Pure co-incidence?


----------



## PennGlock (Mar 14, 2006)

JLPWCXIII

Not to be too nit-picky, but half of your list is made up of christians!


----------



## 16128 (Feb 8, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by KenR_
> 
> I don't care what religion a person believes in or doesn't believe in as long as they follow the golden rule "Treat others as you want to be treated".


Amen! Or, er... yeah!

*"Buy the best, and you will only cry once." - Chinese proverb*


----------



## odoreater (Feb 27, 2005)

I studied religion in college and I agree with the statement that there are just as many (relatively) fundamentalist atheists as there are religious fundamentalists. In my studies, I preferred to use what is called methodological agnosticism. Basically, you do not make a value judgment regarding the truth or untruth of the belief, because the question of all these beliefs is an arbitrary question (that is, it has no answer - you can't prove that God doesn't exist as much as you can't prove that he does).

Officially I am an Eastern Orthodox Christian, but Eastern Orthodoxy is simply how I practice my religion - in fact, I am an agnostic. Atheists say they don't believe in God because there is no proof that he exists. As an agnostic, I don't not believe in god either because there is no proof.


----------



## Fogey (Aug 27, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by odoreater_
> 
> I studied religion in college and I agree with the statement that there are just as many (relatively) fundamentalist atheists as there are religious fundamentalists. In my studies, I preferred to use what is called methodological agnosticism. Basically, you do not make a value judgment regarding the truth or untruth of the belief, because the question of all these beliefs is an arbitrary question (that is, it has no answer - you can't prove that God doesn't exist as much as you can't prove that he does).
> 
> Officially I am an Eastern Orthodox Christian, but Eastern Orthodoxy is simply how I practice my religion - in fact, I am an agnostic. Atheists say they don't believe in God because there is no proof that he exists. As an agnostic, I don't not believe in god either because there is no proof.


 As an agnostic, you are in effect claiming that you have reason to believe that one or more god(s) might in fact be residents of reality.

Which one(s)?


----------



## odoreater (Feb 27, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by JLPWCXIII_
> As an agnostic, you are in effect claiming that you have reason to believe that one or more god(s) might in fact be residents of reality.
> 
> Which one(s)?


Wrong. As an agnostic I am claiming that one or more god(s) may or may not in fact be residents in reality and that it is impossible to know for sure.


----------



## Fogey (Aug 27, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by odoreater_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 So, whilst you can't determine whether or not a magical god could exist in the real world, you can simultaneously say for absolutely certain that no one else can, either?


----------



## odoreater (Feb 27, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by JLPWCXIII_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


That sounds about right. I know for a fact that you do not know for a fact that a god does or does not exist. For you to claim otherwise would be irrational.


----------



## tiger02 (Dec 12, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by JLPWCXIII_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I'm not going to give you a neat little lable to slap on my forehead, but if you're actually interested in the beginnings of an answer, I recommend this thread: https://styleforum.net/showthread.php?t=13661&page=12. Everything before page 12 really isn't worth it but starting with post #176 on the linked page there's some good discussion going on.

If you're interested, you've fallen for a common logical fallacy. I made an observation about a group of people, and rather than refute you chose to claim that I also fit the observation (without evidence, but that's not really the point). One is free to make an observation that may or may not include oneself. It is also interesting that when I clearly said that I was referring to the few atheists I know, people on the board took it as a personal attack.

Odoreater, well said. Also, I would not go so far as to say that all my experiences with self proclaimed atheists have been negative. Two in particular are good friends.

Tom

--------------------
Death is...whimsical...today


----------



## Fogey (Aug 27, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by odoreater_
> That sounds about right. I know for a fact that you do not know for a fact that a god does or does not exist. For you to claim otherwise would be irrational.


Again - please define the attributes of this 'god' of whose existence you are so uncertain. Omniscience? Jealousy? Omnipresence? Ability to turn water into wine? Adoration of the smell of burning animals?

Only afterwards are we capable of having a meaningful discussion as to whether or not you seriously believe such an entity is compatible with reality.

I have no belief in the supernatural, and I've yet to hear of a god or goddess that is even conceptually plausible, much less of one for which even the slightest evidence exists.


----------



## Fogey (Aug 27, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by tiger02_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I certainly didn't interpret it as a personal attack. Yet I'm not going to comb through a long Style Forum thread merely to determine your beliefs about dieties. If you'd rather not discuss this topic, one wonders why you engaged it in the first place (unless it was merely to troll).


----------



## tiger02 (Dec 12, 2004)

> quote:I certainly didn't interpret it as a personal attack. Yet I'm not going to comb through a long Style Forum thread merely to determine your beliefs about dieties. If you'd rather not discuss this topic, one wonders why you engaged it in the first place (unless it was merely to troll).


I'm sorry that my beliefs cannot be distilled into one or two sentences, maybe I'm in the minority there. I pointed you to that thread not because I don't want to discuss, but because I've discussed it quite a bit over the last couple of days and thought it would be inappropriate to re-post. Well, here's what this troll wrote over there. I'll leave it up to you if you'd like to read the outstanding posts in between; I'm not going to repost saucemaster, johnapril, oman, Arethusa, chrysalid, globetrotter, Steve B, and Margaret's comments.



> quote:As a Catholic, I am intensely offended by the last quote, regarding atheists and citizenship. Sounds like Bush 41, not 43? As for the rest of the quotes, they illustrate my point well: you can't separate religious and secular morals, so a religious person doesn't necessitate a bad politician. Truman, despite being a vile racist, was one of the country's greatest presidents.





> quote:Historically, mostly, but I'd also say that it's going to be hard to divorce philosophy from history. Attempts to create dualities, including secular/religious, ultimately only create conflict for its own sake. I'll lay out up front that I don't claim to have all the answers and some of my arguments might be muddy.
> 
> OK, where did our morals come from? Our system--political, ethical, economic, social--is undeniably rooted in Judeo Christian morality. So much so that when we hear about cultures that stray widely, we are shocked. For example, China's aggressive one-child policy. Under strictly rationalist guidelines, it often serves the greatest good to force abortion or even sterilization of a portion of the population. That does not keep us from recoiling at the overt difference of the policy. It does not uphold the Judeo Christian nee American secularist ideal of individual empowerment.
> 
> ...





> quote:Also: we seem to be hard-wired for belief in the supernatural:
> 
> https://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200512/god-accident





> quote:No worries man, we're all (usually) reasonable here. That's a good question. First let me rebadge myself again--yes Catholic but with heavy Eastern influences and a good dose of "I thinks." I grew up with Catholicism and think it offers a strong and useful structure while still allowing for a wide range of views.
> 
> Most religious rules came about as a result of expediency--eating beef as taboo because of the problems inherent in raising cows cleanly and keeping the meat fresh pre-electricity. Others came about as a form of control/form of proving devoutness, depending on how cynical you are. No meat on Fridays fits this mold.
> 
> ...





> quote:Wow did you miss the point. I haven't read The Tao of Physics, so all I can recommend for a physicist is B. Alan Wallace's Choosing Reality: A Buddhist Perspective of Physics and the Mind. He's strong on his physics but a little weak on his philosophy.
> 
> Please don't take this as criticism, but a chance to learn.





> quote:Sauce, first, I agree with everything you say. I agree that there is no fundamental difference between the practice of secular and religious moral codes, and also that both areâ€¦not entirely arbitrary, except at the edges. Taken out of context, there is nothing about my moral code that requires belief in a deity. My personal concept of that deity would not be recognizable to most Christians, anyway. HOWEVERâ€¦
> 
> Like everyone, my moral code was imparted by my experiencesâ€"parents, church, friends, stuff I saw and just said â€œthat ainâ€™t right.â€ This is where we get into the historicity (is that a word?) of the reification of religious concepts, and vice versa. Iâ€™ll fall back on the same China example: forcing families to produce one child, no more, no less. It infringes on the right of the individual but contributes to the greater good. I would guess that in your moral framework, this practice would not pass muster. Why not? Certainly not humanistic reasons, but just as certainly not religious reasonsâ€"that is, not because God says itâ€™s wrong. Itâ€™s because traditional western religious doctrine has been ingrained in the western social structure. Again, or vice versa. Chrysalid, does this address the question of whether â€œhurting another personâ€ is enough of a test? If you want to go down another rat hole where did the impetus to value someone elseâ€™s experience come from? Not Ayn Rand...
> 
> Guilt. This one Iâ€™m supposed to be an expert on, as a Catholic Margaret, I do not agree that guilt is useful. Or rather, that it is desirable. Why should we have to go beyond recognizing and correcting a transgression? What is this stomach weakness that keeps us from doing the wrong thing? In my mind it is the same as any authorityâ€"God, state, conscience, gut.


--------------------
Death is...whimsical...today


----------



## odoreater (Feb 27, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by JLPWCXIII_
> 
> Again - please define the attributes of this 'god' of whose existence you are so uncertain. Omniscience? Jealousy? Omnipresence? Ability to turn water into wine? Adoration of the smell of burning animals?
> 
> ...


I don't think you are understanding me. I'm telling you that it is impossible to know whether or not any type of god with any kind of attributes exists. Are you so arrogant as to claim that you have knowledge of something that is impossible to know? Just because it isn't conceptually plausible to you, that doesn't mean that it can't exist (unless you are all-knowing, which it seems you are not). 1000 years ago computers would have been conceptually implausible, yet today they exist so your argument about conceptual implausability is meaningless.

Until somebody offers me definitive proof that there is no god, then I will continue to believe in the possiblity and I will continue to claim that I do not know if there is a god or not.


----------



## jbmcb (Sep 7, 2005)

I'm a fan of Pascal's Wager.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pascal-wager/

Otherwise, don't try to apply the laws of logic to human behavior. We aren't logical creatures. If we were entirely logical, life would be dull, and everyone would be wearing synthetic shirts and plastic shoes.

Good/Fast/Cheap - Pick Two


----------



## tiger02 (Dec 12, 2004)

Odoreater--don't bother. This is a common line of arguement, that unless you are able to define a god, then you are an atheist, not an agnostic. It is often argued in conjunction with accusatory statements about omnipotent and omnipresent (ie Western-centric) conceptions of God. This is what I mean when I say that "freethinkers" can be quite dogmatic.

Crap, I swore I wouldn't get involved in these threads. I'm done.

Tom

--------------------
Death is...whimsical...today


----------



## tck13 (Nov 4, 2005)

Just wanted to add this about Atheism. Some posters seem to be describing people that are just angry, not atheists.

Also, some quotes on both sides of the fence below. 
I got all of this from a great website - [urlhttps://www.religioustolerance.org/index.htm#new[/url]

Madalyn Murray (later O'Hair), wrote a document used in the court case Murray v. Curlett, 1961-APR-27. It reads, in part: 
"An Atheist loves himself and his fellow man instead of a god. An Atheist knows that heaven is something for which we should work now - here on earth - for all men together to enjoy. An Atheist thinks that he can get no help through prayer but that he must find in himself the inner conviction and strength to meet life, to grapple with it, to subdue, and enjoy it. An Atheist thinks that only in a knowledge of himself and a knowledge of his fellow man can he find the understanding that will help to a life of fulfillment. Therefore, he seeks to know himself and his fellow man rather than to know a god. An Atheist knows that a hospital should be built instead of a church. An Atheist knows that a deed must be done instead of a prayer said. An Atheist strives for involvement in life and not escape into death. He wants disease conquered, poverty vanquished, war eliminated. He wants man to understand and love man. He wants an ethical way of life. He knows that we cannot rely on a god nor channel action into prayer nor hope for an end to troubles in the hereafter. He knows that we are our brother's keeper and keepers of our lives; that we are responsible persons, that the job is here and the time is now." 4

*Isaac Asimov*, "On Religiosity", Free Inquiry magazine: "Although the time of death is approaching me, I am not afraid of dying and going to Hell or (what would be considerably worse) going to the popularized version of Heaven. I expect death to be nothingness and, for removing me from all possible fears of death, I am thankful to atheism."
*H. Havelock Ellis*: "And it is in his own image, let us remember, that Man creates God."
*George H.W. Bush*, as presidential nominee for the Republican party; 1987-AUG-27: "No, I don't know that Atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered as patriots. This is one nation under God." 1
*Dan Barker*, Author: "Losing Faith in Faith: "I have something to say to the religionist who feels atheists never say anything positive: You are an intelligent human being. Your life is valuable for its own sake. You are not second-class in the universe, deriving meaning and purpose from some other mind. You are not inherently evil -- you are inherently human, possessing the positive rational potential to help make this a world of morality, peace and joy. Trust yourself."
*Doug Jesseph*: "As an atheist, I deny exist of all Gods: those of the Mayans, the Hindu, the Ancient Egyptians, and the God of the Old and New Testaments. If I am right, all of these are fictional constructs invented by clever humans for purposes, a variety of purposes, ranging from psychological comfort to entertainment." 2
*Steve Hays*: "Unbelievers deny the existence of God because that gives them sexual license. Unbelievers deny the existence of God because theyâ€™re afraid of divine judgment." 2
John Buchan: "An Atheist is a man who has no invisible means of support" (We suspect that he meant this quote to apply equally well to women).
*Annie Wood Besant*: "No philosophy, no religion, has ever brought so glad a message to the world asthis good news of Atheism."


----------



## Fogey (Aug 27, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by tiger02_
> 
> Odoreater--don't bother. This is a common line of arguement, that unless you are able to define a god, then you are an atheist, not an agnostic. It is often argued in conjunction with accusatory statements about omnipotent and omnipresent (ie Western-centric) conceptions of God. This is what I mean when I say that "freethinkers" can be quite dogmatic.


 All agnostics are also atheists, since, by their assertion that it is impossible to know whether or not a god exists, they simultaneously imply that they don't believe in any gods.

Unless, of course, they are mad, and profess belief in a god in which they simultaneously admit belief is impossible.

Which of these is your group?


----------



## Fogey (Aug 27, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by jbmcb_
> 
> Otherwise, don't try to apply the laws of logic to human behavior. We aren't logical creatures. If we were entirely logical, life would be dull, and everyone would be wearing synthetic shirts and plastic shoes.


 Do you have any reasoning behind this imperative, or was it given to you on a mountain top?


----------



## Fogey (Aug 27, 2005)

> quote:I don't think you are understanding me. I'm telling you that it is impossible to know whether or not any type of god with any kind of attributes exists.


 So it is impossible for you to know whether or not a god which looks like a giant octopus exists on the lawn of the White House? Surely you can admit that some things can be ruled out - many things, in fact. Such as omnipresence. And omniscience. And Omnipotence. And a heaven with virgins as a reward for aero-terrorists.



> quote:Are you so arrogant as to claim that you have knowledge of something that is impossible to know? Just because it isn't conceptually plausible to you, that doesn't mean that it can't exist (unless you are all-knowing, which it seems you are not). 1000 years ago computers would have been conceptually implausible, yet today they exist so your argument about conceptual implausability is meaningless.


 You are mixing apples and giant, supernatural oranges. A god, like a computer, is a human invention - that much you have correct. So if I were arguing that inventions were impossible, then you'd have a point against me. But we're not arguing the plausibility of inventions, but of existing supernatural dieties. Do you assert that everything is possible? Is it possible that a unicorn is reading a book whilst sitting on the top of your head right now? Why or why not?


----------



## odoreater (Feb 27, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by JLPWCXIII_
> 
> All agnostics are also atheists, since, by their assertion that it is impossible to know whether or not a god exists, they simultaneously imply that they don't believe in any gods.
> 
> Unless, of course, they are mad, and profess belief in a god in which they simultaneously admit belief is impossible.


Wrong again. Agnostics do not claim that belief in god is impossible. Agnostics claim that knowledge of the existence of god is impossible. Don't confuse belief with knowledge. As an agnostic I say that it is impossible to KNOW whether god exists or not, not that it is impossible to believe in God. In fact, if I knew that there was a god, then it would not require faith for me to believe in god because I don't need faith to believe in something that I know is true.

Again, to summarize my point (because it seems that you need to hear things multiple times before you understand them): As an agnostic I claim (correctly so, because any other claim is irrational - such as the ones you are making) that I do not know whether or not a God exists. That statement says nothing about what I believe. Belief and knowledge are two totally different things. It's possible to believe in things of which you have no actual knowledge.


----------



## odoreater (Feb 27, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by JLPWCXIII_
> 
> So it is impossible for you to know whether or not a god which looks like a giant octopus exists on the lawn of the White House? Surely you can admit that some things can be ruled out - many things, in fact. Such as omnipresence. And omniscience. And Omnipotence. And a heaven with virgins as a reward for aero-terrorists.


It's not impossible for me to know whether there is a giant octopus on the lawn of the White House. Why would that be impossible? It's objectively provable to a high degree of certainty that there is not a giant octopus on the lawn of the White House. On the other hand, it's not objectively provable to any degree of certainty that things like omnipresence, omniscience, or omnipotence exists. It's also not objectively provable that there is a heaven with virgans as a reward for aero-terrorists. Therefore, because these things cannot be proven, and because knowledge of these things is impossible (whereas knowledge of a giant octopus on the White House lawn is possible) then I accept the possibility of their truth. I don't believe that there is a heaven with virgins for terrorists, but I can't say for sure that there isn't either.



> quote:
> 
> Do you assert that everything is possible? Is it possible that a unicorn is reading a book whilst sitting on the top of your head right now? Why or why not?


No, I don't assert that everything is possible. Some things can be objectively proven to a high degree of certainty (as I noted above) as not true. For example, it is possible to have knowledge of whether there is a unicorn reading a book while sitting on the top of my head to a high degree of certainty. Therefore, I can accept that there is no such unicorn. However, since the existence of a God cannot be proven or disproven to any degree of certainty, I cannot say that I have knowledge of whether or not a God exists (and neither can you because you do not have any special knowledge that enables you to make that determination).

Therefore, my conclusion is that you are just as irrational and just as confined a thinker as any religious fundamentalists. Religious fundamentalists claim that they know that God is real, when it is impossible to have knowledge of the existence of God. Therefore, those people are irrational and it is not worth conversing with them because arguing with irrational people is more or less a pointless endevour. In the same vein, atheists claim that they know that God is not real, when it is impossible to have knowledge of the non-existance of God. Therefore, these people are also irrational and it is not worth conversing with them because arguing with irrational people is more or less a pointless endevour.

I mean, just look at some of the questions you are asking me:

I say that it is impossible to know whether or not god exists.

You say that I can't then believe in God because I said that knowledge of God is impossible. There's no reasoning behind this because knowledge and believe are two totally different thing. As a Christian my religion requires only the latter.

I say that knowledge of God is impossible.

You ask me about an octopus on the White House lawn and a unicorn on my head. So I'm telling you that it is impossible to prove things such as God, you claim then that it must also be impossible to prove the non-existance of things that can easily be observed and disproven. Again, there is no reasoning behind that.

For someone who claims to be a rationalist and a freethinker, you sure are closed-minded, and you sure make a lot of arguments that have no reasoning behind them.


----------



## Fogey (Aug 27, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by odoreater_
> It's possible to believe in things of which you have no actual knowledge.


 Yes, but it's not very intelligent - nor right, is it?


----------



## Fogey (Aug 27, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by odoreater_
> 
> It's objectively provable to a high degree of certainty that there is not a giant octopus on the lawn of the White House.
> ...
> No, I don't assert that everything is possible. Some things can be objectively proven to a high degree of certainty (as I noted above) as not true.


 Such as things which violate physical laws?


----------



## odoreater (Feb 27, 2005)

See my above posts about how it's not worth arguing with people who are irrational.


----------



## J. Homely (Feb 7, 2006)

> quote:_Originally posted by JLPWCXIII_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Belief, by definition, doesn't even operate in the realm of 'knowledge', so it seems fairly ridiculous to suggest that one should only 'believe' things that are "provable within a reasonable degree of certainty".


----------



## Fogey (Aug 27, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by J. Homely_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 Lewis Carroll, I presume?


----------



## Fogey (Aug 27, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by odoreater_
> 
> See my above posts about how it's not worth arguing with people who are irrational.


 It's certainly your prerogative to abdicate the argument, but don't deceive yourself into thinking that you won it.


----------



## odoreater (Feb 27, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by JLPWCXIII_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Of course not. It's impossible to win an argument against someone who refuses to use reason and who makes arguments not grounded in logic.


----------



## Fogey (Aug 27, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by odoreater_
> Of course not. It's impossible to win an argument against someone who refuses to use reason and who makes arguments not grounded in logic.


 If you're capable of proving that, then by all means be my guest. For a supposed agnostic, you surely make an awful lot of all-or-nothing claims.


----------



## odoreater (Feb 27, 2005)

The argument is over. Let the people decide now who has convinced them.


----------



## Martinis at 8 (Apr 14, 2006)

What I say to agnostics and atheists is, "Look outside your window. Do you think all that you see is by mere accident?".

In my opinion agnostics/atheists represent the height of man's arrogance in that they believe in no power higher than there own. Such men, if given power over the long term, will seek to enslave other men. If not outright, then by guile.

M8

_I've seen so much in so many places
So many heartaches, so many faces
So many dirty things
You couldn't even believe_


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

> quote:_Originally posted by Martinis at 8_
> 
> What I say to agnostics and atheists is, "Look outside your window. Do you think all that you see is by mere accident?".
> 
> In my opinion agnostics/atheists represent the height of man's arrogance in that they believe in no power higher than there own.


You have created a logical flaw in the case of agnostics; agnostics claim not to know if there is a power higher than their own. We are a humble lot and admit we do not have the answer. I find the arrogance lies with those that think their limited minds can proclaim certitude on the unlimited, be it the presence, or lack there of, of a diety or dieties. Courage lies in being able to say, "I do not know." Any charlatan can proudly proclaim, "I HAVE THE ANSWERS!" We have seen it time and again in history.

Warmest regards


----------



## Martinis at 8 (Apr 14, 2006)

> quote:_Originally posted by Wayfarer_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Then you should read the writings of Thomas Aquinas, who even says "we can not know", this is why faith is required. Saying we can not know, is nothing original, nor is it enlightenment.

M8

_I've seen so much in so many places
So many heartaches, so many faces
So many dirty things
You couldn't even believe_


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

> quote:_Originally posted by Martinis at 8_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


So then I think you need to retract your statement concering the arrogance of agnostics, if even the good Aquinas admits to not knowing. I merely lack faith according to you. One can hardly therefore deduce the absence of faith is the presence of arrogance, concerning my cosmological views. It would seem your chosen support text for this thesis is just as on target as the one you chose in your other thread.

Warmest regards


----------



## Martinis at 8 (Apr 14, 2006)

> quote:_Originally posted by Wayfarer_
> 
> So then I think you need to retract your statement concering the arrogance of agnostics, if even the good Aquinas admits to not knowing. I merely lack faith according to you. One can hardly therefore deduce the absence of faith is the presence of arrogance, concerning my cosmological views. It would seem your chosen support text for this thesis is just as on target as the one you chose in your other thread.
> 
> Warmest regards


Nice try, but nonsense. The good Aquinas substitutes faith for the non-knowing that agnostics cite. Man would like to resort to the non-knowing excuse so that he can establish himself as supreme, and then rule over other men.

M8

_I've seen so much in so many places
So many heartaches, so many faces
So many dirty things
You couldn't even believe_


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

> quote:_Originally posted by Martinis at 8_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Excuse me sir, but the nonsense is on your part. Please explain to me the _logical necessity_ (and if you do not know the exact meaning of that term, I will direct you to read a text for a change) that a lack of faith = a presence of arrogance. Feel free to break it down into symbolic logic if that will help, what you need to do here is called a "conditional proof" and is pretty basic logic. I am sorry to take this tone, but being told my logic is "nonsense" has brought this on.

Warmest regards


----------



## Martinis at 8 (Apr 14, 2006)

> quote:_Originally posted by Wayfarer_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


It's very simple. One either has faith or one does not. If one does not, then one is either agnostic or atheist. Those who refuse to believe in a higher authority, believe themselves to be the the autority and masters of the universe, and by virtue of this, seek to control others.

Agnosticism and atheism is even beneath the Devil. For even Lucifer believes in God 

Hottest regards,

M8

_I've seen so much in so many places
So many heartaches, so many faces
So many dirty things
You couldn't even believe_


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

> quote:_Originally posted by Martinis at 8_
> 
> It's very simple. One either has faith or one does not. If one does not, then one is either agnostic or atheist. Those who refuse to believe in a higher authority, believe themselves to be the the autority and masters of the universe, and by virtue of this, seek to control others.


Please, and again, do go educate yourself, what is the _logical necessity_ in your conditional chain? Simply presenting antecedents and conditionals does not *prove* them to be true.

Example:

All philosophers are professors.
All philosophers are logicians.
Therefore:
All logicians are professors.

I am abashed I have to present you with the most basic of logical forms to try and point you on the way, but there it is. For one who has told me to consult two reference texts, I implore you to heed your own advice. I can point out so many ways your above argument is flawed, not only logically, but even in regards to Xtian dogma, which you have intimated you are quite familiar with. For instance, according to Xtian dogma, god *is* the highest authority in the universe yet Xtian texts, i.e. the Bible, etc., quite clearly explain he does not seek to control others but rather values free will. QED.

Very last, did not Jesus say something to the effect of, "A camel stands a better chance of fitting through the eye of a needle than a wealthy man does to enter the kingdom of heaven"? If that is so, your multiple threads designed to show us your affluence doom you to hell. Shooting fish in a barrel.

Warmest regards


----------



## odoreater (Feb 27, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Martinis at 8_
> It's very simple. One either has faith or one does not. If one does not, then one is either agnostic or atheist. Those who refuse to believe in a higher authority, believe themselves to be the the autority and masters of the universe, and by virtue of this, seek to control others.
> 
> Agnosticism and atheism is even beneath the Devil. For even Lucifer believes in God


Are you paying attention to the discussion here at all? What does knolwedge have to do with belief? I am an agnostic because I profess no knowledge of whether god exists or not. I am a Christian because I believe that God exists. What do the two have anything to do with each other?

Some agnostics, called agnostic theists, claim no knowledge of whether god exists or not, but believe that he does. Some agnostics, called agnostic atheists, claim no knowledge of whether god exists or not, but believe that he does not.

Even if you look at the New Testament, the Gospels say that the whole point is to believe without knowing.


----------



## Martinis at 8 (Apr 14, 2006)

> quote:_Originally posted by odoreater_
> Even if you look at the New Testament, the Gospels say that the whole point is to believe without knowing.


I have stated this above as "Faith". So, who is not paying attention. My statements stand. "Forensic trickery" deemed as "logic" is simply deviltry. One has faith, or one does not. Simple as that.

One does not have to resort to religious dogma in order to have Faith, i.e., Freemasons.

M8

_I've seen so much in so many places
So many heartaches, so many faces
So many dirty things
You couldn't even believe_


----------



## odoreater (Feb 27, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Martinis at 8_
> 
> If one does not, then one is either agnostic or atheist.


Wrong. I am agnostic and yet I have faith. Faith and knowledge are two totally unrelated concepts. In fact, if one has faith, then one MUST be agnostic. You cannot have faith in something you know to be true. That is not faith, that is just knowledge. Faith is the belief in something of which you have no material proof, in other words, the belief in something that you do not know to be true.


----------



## Martinis at 8 (Apr 14, 2006)

> quote:
> Very last, did not Jesus say something to the effect of, "A camel stands a better chance of fitting through the eye of a needle than a wealthy man does to enter the kingdom of heaven"? If that is so, your multiple threads designed to show us your affluence doom you to hell...
> Warmest regards


Since you are an agnostic, why would you use a biblical referenece. Now who is being illogical? 

Who said my posts were designed to show my affluence? That is what you choose to infer. My post are designed to show my style, and this is a forum about style, and so are appropriate on this venue. Furthermore, you may want to read my West Africa post, .

My work in West Africa entails helping West Africans to better themselves and their countries through the understanding and application of technology. I do this as a 1-man business, because I choose to. I could easily remain in the comforts of the First World, and could have avoided such episodes of malaria, dysentery, etc.

What are you doing for your fellow man? Giving to UNICEF through some corporate giving program? Or maybe other short-term feel good stuff like helping build a house along with Jimmy Carter 

M8

_I've seen so much in so many places
So many heartaches, so many faces
So many dirty things
You couldn't even believe_


----------



## Martinis at 8 (Apr 14, 2006)

> quote:_Originally posted by odoreater_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I read that in your opening post. Illogical.

My statement stands.

M8

P.S. BTW, I think Eastern Orthodoxy is a very nice tradition. I visit a Latin church on occasion, and lament the changes of Vatican II.

_I've seen so much in so many places
So many heartaches, so many faces
So many dirty things
You couldn't even believe_


----------



## odoreater (Feb 27, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Martinis at 8_
> 
> I read that in your opening post. Illogical.


Please explain what is illogical about it.


----------



## Martinis at 8 (Apr 14, 2006)

> quote:_Originally posted by odoreater_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Because you say you practice your religion, but have no faith.

Practicing a religion means that one does have faith, otherwise one is not practicing.

M8

_I've seen so much in so many places
So many heartaches, so many faces
So many dirty things
You couldn't even believe_


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

> quote:_Originally posted by Martinis at 8_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I would use it to show that even within your own paradigm, you are basically out of your depth. It is a very complex trick often referred to as *"internal consistency"*. Or will this be deemed "deviltry" too? LOL, you are just too precious.



> quote:
> Who said my posts were designed to show my affluence? That is what you choose to infer.





> quote:*How I do (sic) Vegas....*


Yes, what was I thinking? Coupled with your ISS thread, no doubt I am totally off base. *chuckle*



> quote: What are you doing for your fellow man?


 I have made no claims about myself in regards to this and therefore have nothing to defend. My only claim is that my agnosticism is not arrogance. Quite simple really.


----------



## odoreater (Feb 27, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Martinis at 8_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


See, I knew you weren't paying attention. I don't say that I practice my religion but have no faith. I say that I have faith in God and in Eastern Orthodoxy, but no knowledge of whether it is actually true or not.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

> quote:_Originally posted by Martinis at 8_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


This is really too much. He quite clearly explained he had faith. You are obviously grasping at straws are fail to comprehend what you are reading.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

I need to bow out of this as I feel the callous on my forehead getting bigger from banging it against the logic wall. M8 you seem to be a nice fellow. Please accept that compliment from one you deem arrogant and having a wish to be master of the universe.

Cheers


----------



## Martinis at 8 (Apr 14, 2006)

This is laughable. Below is your opening post.



> quote:_Originally posted by odoreater_...
> Officially I am an Eastern Orthodox Christian, but Eastern Orthodoxy is simply how I practice my religion...


Hence you state you practice a religion. Then you go on to say...


> quote:_Originally posted by odoreater_
> ...As an agnostic, I don't not believe in god either because there is no proof.


If you do not believe in God, then you have no faith.

Now you are claiming that you have faith? Go figure. Let's let the readers decide. Hopefully they are reading this thread.

M8

_I've seen so much in so many places
So many heartaches, so many faces
So many dirty things
You couldn't even believe_


----------



## odoreater (Feb 27, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Martinis at 8_
> 
> This is laughable. Below is your opening post.
> 
> ...


Read that a little bit closer my friend. It says I don't NOT believe in god. It doesn't say I don't believe in God. It's a double negative "don't NOT".


----------



## Martinis at 8 (Apr 14, 2006)

> quote:_Originally posted by odoreater_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Doh! [:0]

Hahaha! The use of double-negatives is NOT allowed 

Then your logic is still flawed. The argument here is that faith supplants the knowledge. Hence the Nicene Creed, etc. Therefore you are not an agnostic if you believe, and are not a believer if you claim to be agnostic.

M8

_I've seen so much in so many places
So many heartaches, so many faces
So many dirty things
You couldn't even believe_


----------



## odoreater (Feb 27, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Martinis at 8_
> 
> Then your logic is still flawed. The argument here is that faith supplants the knowledge. Hence the Nicene Creed, etc. Therefore you are not an agnostic if you believe, and are not a believer if you claim to be agnostic.


Here's the Nicene Creed:



> quote:
> 
> I believe in one God,
> the Father Almighty,
> ...


Where does it say anywhere in there anything other than that I have to "believe" those things. Where does it say that I have to know anything to be a fact?


----------



## Martinis at 8 (Apr 14, 2006)

> quote:_Originally posted by Wayfarer_
> 
> 
> > quote:*How I do (sic) Vegas....*
> ...


Hahaha!  You are just jealous.

Wouldn't you rather be the guy in the photo with _Martinis, Girls, and 'Gars_, or perhaps you would like to be the old Buddhist monk in the Southeast Asia blog at the other end of the spectrum. Or, perhaps even the fisherman in Angola who is repairing his net.

Fact is, this is a forum about style. Perhaps some of us should personalize some of this style, instead of just dreaming about Cars for the Upper Crust.

Wadda ya think 'bout 'dat? 

M8

_I've seen so much in so many places
So many heartaches, so many faces
So many dirty things
You couldn't even believe_


----------



## Martinis at 8 (Apr 14, 2006)

> quote:_Originally posted by odoreater_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You are using legalese semantics in your argument. Oh the cleverness of deviltry! 

You really need to go talk to your Bishop before you slide into apostasy.

_I've seen so much in so many places
So many heartaches, so many faces
So many dirty things
You couldn't even believe_


----------



## odoreater (Feb 27, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Martinis at 8_
> 
> You really need to go talk to your Bishop before you slide into apostasy.


I just got back from church (we had our midnight Easter liturgy tonight), and I think I'm still cool with my bishop.


----------



## LS400 (Sep 12, 2005)

You just got back from church? Someone has been on your computer impersonating you for 2 hours writing responses to my other threads! I'd get to the bottom of this if I were you! [:0]


----------



## odoreater (Feb 27, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by LS400_
> 
> You just got back from church? Someone has been on your computer impersonating you for 2 hours writing responses to my other threads! I'd get to the bottom of this if I were you! [:0]


Haha, no. That post is from last Sunday!


----------



## Aus_MD (Nov 2, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by JLPWCXIII_
> *Albert Einstein: *'I cannot imagine a God who rewards and punishes the objects of his creation, whose purposes are modeled after our own -- a God, in short, who is but a reflection of human frailty. Neither can I believe that the individual survives the death of his body, although feeble souls harbor such thoughts through fear or ridiculous egotism.'


Einstein's theology was rather complex. When asked if he believed in the God of Spinoza:



> quote:I am not an atheist [and] I do not know if I can define myself as a pantheist.


Aus


----------



## Chapeau (Apr 18, 2006)

[/quote]

*Andrew Carnegie:* 'I donâ€™t believe in God. My god is patriotism. Teach a man to be a good citizen and you have solved the problem of life.'
*
Ernest Hemingway:* 'All thinking men are atheists.'

*Albert Einstein: *'I cannot imagine a God who rewards and punishes the objects of his creation, whose purposes are modeled after our own -- a God, in short, who is but a reflection of human frailty. Neither can I believe that the individual survives the death of his body, although feeble souls harbor such thoughts through fear or ridiculous egotism.'

*Isaac Asimov: *'I am an atheist, out and out.'

*Arthur C. Clark:* 'Religion is a byproduct of fear. For much of human history, it may have been a necessary evil, but why was it more evil than necessary? Isn't killing people in the name of God a pretty good definition of insanity?'

*Benjamin Franklin:* 'Lighthouses are more helpful than churches'.

*Bertrand Russell:* 'Religion is based . . . mainly on fear . . . fear of the mysterious, fear of defeat, fear of death. Fear is the parent of cruelty, and therefore it is no wonder if cruelty and religion have gone hand in hand. . . . My own view on religion is that of Lucretius. I regard it as a disease born of fear and as a source of untold misery to the human race.'

*Clarence Darrow:* 'I believe that relgion is the belief in future life and in God. I donâ€™t believe in either. I donâ€™t believe in God as I donâ€™t believe in Mother Goose'.

*Elizabeth Cady-Stanton:* 'The memory of my own suffering has prevented me from ever shadowing one young soul with the superstitions of the Christian religion'.

*Voltaire: *'If we believe absurdities, we shall commit atrocities'.

*Galileo:* 'They know that it is human nature to take up causes whereby a man may oppress his neighbor, no matter how unjustly. ... Hence they have had no trouble in finding men who would preach the damnability and heresy of the new doctrine from the very pulpit'.

*Nietzsche:* 'All religions bear traces of the fact that they arose during the intellectual immaturity of the human race â€" before it had learned the obligations to speak the truth. Not one of them makes it the duty of its God to be truthful and understandable in his communications'.

*George Bernard Shaw: *'At present there is not a single credible established religion in the world'.

*Arthur Rubenstein:* '[God?] No. You see, what I believe in is something much greater'.

*John Adams: *'This would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it'.

*James Madison: *'Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise'.

*John Stuart Mill:* 'The time appears to me to have come when it is the duty of all to make their dissent from religion known'.

*Karl Marx: *'The wretchedness of religion is at once an expression and a protest against real wretchedness. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the feeling of a heartless world, just as it is the spirit of unspiritual conditions. It is the opium of the people'.

*Napoleon Bonaparte:* 'Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich'.

*Dr James Watson:* 'I don't think we're here for anything, we're just products of evolution. You can say 'Gee, your life must be pretty bleak if you don't think there's a purpose' but I'm anticipating a good lunch'.
*
H.L. Mencken: *'Since the early days, [the church] has thrown itself violently against every effort to liberate the body and mind of man. It has been, at all times and everywhere, the habitual and incorrigible defender of bad governments, bad laws, bad social theories, bad institutions. It was, for centuries, an apologist for slavery, as it was an apologist for the divine right of kings'.

*Frank Lloyd Wright: *'I believe in God, only I spell it Nature'.

*Denis Diderot: *'Man will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest'.

*Richard Burton: *'The more I read about man and his maniacal ruthlessness and his murderous envious scatological soul, the more I realize that he will never change. Our stupidity is immortal, nothing will change it. The same mistakes, the same prejudices, the same injustice, the same lusts wheel endlessly around the parade ground of the centuries. Immutable and ineluctable. I wish I could believe in a god of some kind but I simply cannot'.

*Mark Twain: *'If there is a God, he is a malign thug'.

*Robert Frost:* 'I turned to speak to God, About the world's despair; But to make bad matters worse, I found God wasn't there'.

*Susan B. Anthony:* 'I was born a heretic. I always distrust people who know so much about what God wants them to do to their fellows'.

*Vincent Van Gogh: *'I can very well do without God both in my life and in my painting, but I cannot, suffering as I am, do without something which is greater than I am, which is my life, the power to create'.

*Thomas Jefferson:* 'And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerve in the brain of Jupiter. But may we hope that the dawn of reason and freedom of thought in these United States will do away with this artificial scaffolding, and restore to us the primitive and genuine doctrines of this most venerated reformer of human errors'.

*Thomas Edison: *'Religion is all bunk...I cannot believe in the immortality of the soul.... No, all this talk of an existence for us, as individuals, beyond the grave is wrong. It is born of our tenacity of life â€" our desire to go on living â€¦ our dread of coming to an end.'

*Thomas Paine: *'All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit.'

*Sigmund Freud:* 'Neither in my private life nor in my writings, have I ever made a secret of being an out-and-out unbeliever...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'.

*Percy Shelley: *'It is easier to suppose that the universe has existed for all eternity than to conceive a being beyond its limits capable of creating it'.

*Seneca: *'Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by rulers as useful'.

*Christopher Marlowe: *'I count religion but a childish toy and hold there is no sin but innocence'.

*Sir Charles Chaplin:* 'By simple common sense I don't believe in God, in none'.

and the list could go on and on and on of distinguished non-religious, freethinking, rationalist, and atheistic personages. Their contribution to civilisation is staggeringly out of proportion to their incidence in the general population.

Geniuses are disproportiately non-believers. Pure co-incidence?









[/quote]

To the above I offer a paliative:

For, in the words of Hippolytus, those who "have learned the fundamental principles of the heresies," are the ones who will stand firm in the darkness. They will be able to "warn the sinner of his wicked ways." They will stand as watchmen on the walls. They will keep the flame of the gospel burning brightly in an hour of great apostasy, until, at God's appointed time, at the certain rendezvous of the Son with the nations, the truth will blaze forth, across the planet and the cosmos, in the final word of universal confession--in terms paternal, indeed patriarchal--that "Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father."

Thy kingdom come that earth's despair may cease
Beneath the shadow of its healing peace:
Lift high the cross, the love of Christ proclaim,
Till all the world adore His scared name.


----------



## odoreater (Feb 27, 2005)

Just when you think a thread is about to whither away and die unnoticed...it rears its ugly head again.

_I fought the law and the law won._​


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

> quote:_Originally posted by odoreater_
> 
> Just when you think a thread is about to whither away and die unnoticed...it rears its ugly head again.


Would it be wrong for me to say the thread has been resurrected?  Re-incarnated? [8D]

Warmest regards


----------



## odoreater (Feb 27, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Wayfarer_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


_LOL!_

_I fought the law and the law won._​


----------

