Famous Atheist Quotes

[Alate_One]

I saw Ben Stein's movie Expelled 15 times as part of the American RTL movie marathon.

No indoctrination there.

Ben Stein and Richard Dawkins are both intelligent people but with nearly equally warped perspectives on science and religion. Dawkins unfortunately mixes his militant atheism too readily with evolutionary theory making it unpalatable to theists, while Stein uses an incredibly shallow view of science to paint evolution as "religious dogma". Admittedly Dawkins makes this much easier, but his ideas are not the basis of evolutionary theory, it existed before him and will continue without him.

In reality both Stein and Dawkins are completely and utterly wrong on different points. Evolution is a well supported scientific fact, it happened, but it isn't incompatible with Christianity. The sooner Christianity as a whole moves past this debate the sooner we can get back to focusing on changing lives for the better and saving souls, rather than wasting time, money and resources on a battle that doesn't need to be fought.

 

[Granite]

Any number of men believe in God without sharing my particular understanding of Him. To qualify my remarks, I think that more than a few generations of men have been seduced by a subtle appeal to their vanity, not that all of those came to their disbelief with the conscious intent to serve it. As I've said elsewhere and you're doubtless aware, the question always before us cannot be settled objectively. It becomes a matter of intent and declaration at its deepest level. But the choice we make, the declaration we raise like a flag going into battle, must say something about our motivation and what we value most. And while I believe that setting your hope on nothing but yourself is a vain premise, I recognize that one must see that choice before a contrary decision can be contemplated.

That makes more sense. There doubtless are infidels who presumed to continue in their ways based on an inflated sense of self, driven by some kind of ill-advised superiority complex. Skepticism for its own sake or for the sake of a perverse sense of accomplishment is ill-advised, to say the least.

My motivations are drawn from what I can deduce and see around me. Believe me when I tell you that my vanity only goes so far. If that makes sense.

 

[rexlunae]

Any number of men believe in God without sharing my particular understanding of Him. To qualify my remarks, I think that more than a few generations of men have been seduced by a subtle appeal to their vanity, not that all of those came to their disbelief with the conscious intent to serve it. As I've said elsewhere and you're doubtless aware, the question always before us cannot be settled objectively. It becomes a matter of intent and declaration at its deepest level. But the choice we make, the declaration we raise like a flag going into battle, must say something about our motivation and what we value most. And while I believe that setting your hope on nothing but yourself is a vain premise, I recognize that one must see that choice before a contrary decision can be contemplated.

Speaking of vanity, what about the proposition that in all this great cosmos, we, of all things are the point and purpose, given special dominion over all creatures, and given special contact and consideration by its creator, to the extent that we even say that we are made in his image?

The assertion of moral autonomy may seem hubristic, but it pales in comparison to the counterpoint.

 

[fool]

since it is impossible for him to meet the requirements necessary to usurp that level of authority.

What authority is that?

 

[The Graphite]

My nomination of a quote is:

"I patiently explained to him [Ben Stein] that life could conceivably have been seeded on Earth by an alien intelligence from another planet. The conclusion I was heading towards was that, even in the highly unlikely event that some such 'Directed Panspermia' was responsible for designing life on this planet, the alien beings would THEMSELVES have to have evolved ..."

-- Richard Dawkins, commenting on his "bombshell" revelation at the end of the movie "Expelled"


As for this one:

Jesus hardly made the greatest sacrifice. He knew he would be resurrected anyway. - Anonymous

A sad straw man. What a misunderstanding of the gospel!

Jesus did not make a sacrifice. He was the sacrifice. God the Father made the sacrifice. And that sacrifice wasn't simply that His Son would die and be quickly resurrected. Rather, Jesus Christ "became sin" on the cross. The word "sin" doesn't mean "evil" or "wicked." Rather, in simplistic terms, it means "separation from God" in a very intense and painful way. Christ became sin for us, and that sin was crucified on the cross, and our sin was thus taken away. At that moment, there the Son was separated from the Father, and the Father forsook (and effectively rejected) the Son. And was the deeply painful sacrifice.

For a "greatest conceivable being" that is capable of limitless and perfect love to reject His own beloved Son as sin, that is the greatest sacrifice of all.

And I say all that simply to point out what a lousy quote that quote really is.

 

[pozzolane]

Since Lamarck thought that a giraffe stretching his neck would produce offspring with longer necks through mutations, to hopeful monsters, to today... Darwinism does have to do with chance, because natural selection has NOTHING to select until random mutations bring about something that confers greater survivability.

Bob,

With each comment you make on evolution, it becomes clearer that you are either completely unimaginative, completely stupid, or completely ignorant. For your benefit, I will assume ignorance and attempt to correct your gross errors regarding such comments as the one above. Your argumentation against evolution with strawmen regarding what we "evolutionists" now know to be absurd but once hypothesized, is incredibly incredulous. Not a single evolution proponent believes Lamarcks hypothesis regarding giraffe's to be accurate. This should be common knowledge since the theory by which evolution occurs is widely accepted to be Natural Selection. A giraffe stretching his neck to reach his food is not anything close to resembling this theory, other than perhaps a spark of imagination to the mind of Darwin (but this is just me pondering). The less a giraffe has to stretch out in order to eat his food on the top branches, the more food he/she can digest, and hence the more suitable for life and reproducing it becomes. That is, if it is advantageous to have a longer neck than the giraffes with which you compete for breeding, than you will most likely reproduce more readily and more often than the competition. After a few century's you would find that the average neck length of the giraffe's would have increased due to this process. This is a textbook example of natural selection, and as you can see it's not at all by "chance".

evolution for two centuries has been unable to come up with a workable mechanism.

And I just gave an example above that it has.

:e4e:

 

[Town Heretic]

Speaking of vanity, what about the proposition that in all this great cosmos, we, of all things are the point and purpose, given special dominion over all creatures, and given special contact and consideration by its creator, to the extent that we even say that we are made in his image?

All things are made to the glory of God and to suit His purpose. Inside creation there is an order (you witness this in nature) and, relative to other animals, man has preeminence. And next to God he is nothing. That recognition of God and His nature, that understanding of His glory and our own failure to do more than dimly reflect some portion of it should preclude a rational vanity on that account...should.

The assertion of moral autonomy may seem hubristic, but it pales in comparison to the counterpoint.

Is it hubris for a child to proclaim the love of his parent? And if that child is given authority over some of his parent's holdings is it hubris to recognize the fact? No, so long as we understand the source of our authority and are mindful of its implications and obligations, we remain safe from an exaggerated opinion of our role or worth, all of it owed to and flowing from the God who loves us.

What authority is that?

:chuckle: As I implied, you have to know a door is there to open it.

 

[pozzolane]

I appreciate the challenge pozzolane to develop a list of the more modern fathers of the sciences who believe in a Creator. Of course:

* many of those place settings have already been taken up (there are only so many father's of modern astronomy, genetics, etc.)
* my post pointed out that there is censorship pressure today like there was in the middle ages against opposing the pagan Greek Aristotilian and Ptolmaic geo-centrism which easily intimidates working scientists into silence regarding their belief in a Creator (see Expelled; I did )
* you'd probably discount any of the hundreds of advanced degreed scientists currently working that we could list (from CRS; from the book I'm currently reading by 50 scientists who are creatinists; from an engineer friend who worked on the Hubble to whom I gave a young-earth presentation; etc., etc.) by referring to them as quacks as you identified microbiologist Behe (PhD from Univ of Penn).

But still, I appreciate the challenge and over time will look for accomplished scientists to bring my list more current.

Thanks!

p.s. Please email recommendations to Bob@KGOV.com!

Hey Bob,

What you're engaged in is a matter of appealing to authority (a common logical fallacy). The only problem is that you're appealing to those who have none regarding the topic at hand. A mathematician, although smart in his own field of mathematics, is no more credited to speak technically on evolution, than the girl who pumps my gas, or the kid who delivers my pizza. The tag "scientist" isn't a special pass to have technical authority regarding any old topic.

Not to mention that what you define as "creation" is not the same as what some scientists you may list would define it as. Some would define creation as the spark to life where after natural selection was allowed to take place by the seemingly passive hand of their god. Others like you, disregard everything that doesn't jive with that of the literal interpretations of their holy books.

I could give you a large list indeed of modern Christian scientists whom have authority on the topic of evolution (There is one for sure on this very web site - member Alate_One). But not one that I know of with any reputation to their name believes in a literal interpretation of genesis as favored over evolution. And neither does Micheal Behe. But he is a quack because of the way he does science (he theorizes without regard to all available evidence) and he was exposed for it on the trial stands during the Dover trials.

As for the movie Exposed, I take it about as serious as I take Zeitgeist. It's propaganda at best.

 

[fool]

:chuckle: As I implied, you have to know a door is there to open it.

What are the ramifications of not?

 

[Town Heretic]

What are the ramifications of not?

You want the serious answer or are we still smiling and dancing?

You live in a world filled with the presence of God and that presence impacts everything about you and around you, even if you are unaware of it. You flirt with an existence at some point utterly removed from that presence, completely separated from the source of all good and the horror of what that would entail with regard to both you (in the sense of how you are intellectually and emotionally constituted) and your circumstance is part of what drives me to attempt to move you from that course, in my own clumsy and frequently inadequate fashion.

 

[fool]

You flirt with an existence at some point utterly removed from that presence,

You can hear distant lighting on an AM radio tuned to a staticy area.
Would you say that a person who had chosen a favorite AM channel and liked to play it loud was in a better postion than one that was slowly turning the dial and listening to the clicks?

 

[Stuu]

Stuart, if you re-read my post, that was Dawkin's argument (which I agree has some merit). His point was that if microbiology shows that life is too complex to have arisen in billions of years of Earth history, then it must have arisen in billions of years of some other place's history. Crick punted likewise.

-Bob Enyart
KGOV.com

you wrote: ...he admits that the complexity observed in microbiology could be evidence that life on earth originated from a higher intelligence, somewhere out there in the universe.

Would you please provide a reference for where Dawkins said exactly that phrase?

Stuart

 

[rexlunae]

All things are made to the glory of God and to suit His purpose. Inside creation there is an order (you witness this in nature) and, relative to other animals, man has preeminence. And next to God he is nothing. That recognition of God and His nature, that understanding of His glory and our own failure to do more than dimly reflect some portion of it should preclude a rational vanity on that account...should.

The order to creation you describe can be maintained only if we assume that the top is defined by someone who thinks like us, which is exactly the arrogance I am pointing out. If we evaluate life based on its intelligence, we probably come out on top, given what we currently know, but it is a tentative victory. If we evaluate life based on, say, swimming ability, or flying ability, we loose. If on dominance, we put up a fair fight, for mammals, but it must be the bacteria that win, and the insects place before us.

But my point wasn't restricted to just life, or just this planet. If one were to conclude that there is a purpose to the Universe based upon the order therein, I think that it would have to be an interest in stars and galaxies more obviously than an interest in life or humans in particular. But really, I think any assertion to know what such a creator values is hubris.

Is it hubris for a child to proclaim the love of his parent? And if that child is given authority over some of his parent's holdings is it hubris to recognize the fact? No, so long as we understand the source of our authority and are mindful of its implications and obligations, we remain safe from an exaggerated opinion of our role or worth, all of it owed to and flowing from the God who loves us.

I see two hubrises at play here: First of all, projecting our parenting and property models unto the Universe in general, and second, the assumption that we can derive knowledge of the creator of the Universe through our limited faculties.

 

[Stuu]

Let's go with the parenting analogy though. What would you do if your 'father' had admitted to killing at least 2,300,000 (maybe as many as 32,000,000 people, a proportion of them children, and that death was the suggested answer for unruly offspring? Is it therefore acceptable for parents to kill their children?

It is normal that human adolescents go through a phase of questioning and rebellion in order that they emerge as independent adults. You hope that their relationships with parents develops along with it of course, but it is necessary for the young to eventually overtake their parents. This god keeps its children in childhood permanently, not allowing them to do what is suggested in Corinthians to leave behind the things of childhood. Is that good parenting?

Stuart

 

[PlastikBuddha]

The order to creation you describe can be maintained only if we assume that the top is defined by someone who thinks like us, which is exactly the arrogance I am pointing out. If we evaluate life based on its intelligence, we probably come out on top, given what we currently know, but it is a tentative victory. If we evaluate life based on, say, swimming ability, or flying ability, we loose. If on dominance, we put up a fair fight, for mammals, but it must be the bacteria that win, and the insects place before us.

If I might be allowed to jump in here?
I believe that both our unique status in this universe (as far as we are aware, anyways) as self aware beings with the ability to ponder the past and contemplate the future in abstract terms- and I do think we are unique, btw, there is evidence of self awareness in other species but we are leaps and bounds beyond them-, the ubiquity of other traits like swimming and flying, and the fact that self awareness seems to be a integral part of our perception of Godhood, unlike say the ability to fly or swim, lends credence to the idea that we are a special part of the Divine's plan. How special, or exactly what that plan is, I can't even speculate.

But my point wasn't restricted to just life, or just this planet. If one were to conclude that there is a purpose to the Universe based upon the order therein, I think that it would have to be an interest in stars and galaxies more obviously than an interest in life or humans in particular. But really, I think any assertion to know what such a creator values is hubris.

Agreed, but it's all we have to work with. Based on this I would have to say that understanding the Divine's plan for us and the universe is not a necessary part of that plan. We can't help but try, however.

I see two hubrises at play here: First of all, projecting our parenting and property models unto the Universe in general,

It is a human foible, but one that can be limited with objective reasoning and furthermore one that, given the idea that we believe we share at least a part of the Divine's concept of personhood, may not be totally wrong in some applications.

and second, the assumption that we can derive knowledge of the creator of the Universe through our limited faculties.

The idea that we can acquire complete knowledge of the Divine with our limited faculties is, of course, nonsense. We can hope to get enough to point us in the right direction, however.

 

[JustinFoldsFive]

I always find it ironic how the ones who actively proclaim their lack of understanding of the cosmos (weak-form atheists) are accused of hubris, vanity, and foolishness. Meanwhile, these accusers take the existence of God (a completely faith-based proposition) as a given, while judging those who believe God does not exist (strong-form atheists) in light of their own articles of faith; e.g. "The intelligent move would have been to remain obedient to the very source of reason." Their own assumptions are taken as maxims, while accusing others of all sorts of intellectual dishonesty for doing the same thing (only in reverse).

As I have said before, the only rational position is that of "I don't know." We can use all sorts of ancient texts, emotional and moral appeals, personal accounts, and scientific evidences to support our proposition, but in the end, we are taking a stab in the dark of the unknown.

 

[rexlunae]

If I might be allowed to jump in here?

By all means, PB, your comments are always welcome. Although, I do feel that we must be careful to avoid hijacking the thread more than is reasonable to finish the point. I may be an atheist, but I'm neither famous, nor as quotable as I ought to be to have so many quotations in this thread.

I believe that both our unique status in this universe (as far as we are aware, anyways) as self aware beings with the ability to ponder the past and contemplate the future in abstract terms- and I do think we are unique, btw, there is evidence of self awareness in other species but we are leaps and bounds beyond them-, the ubiquity of other traits like swimming and flying, and the fact that self awareness seems to be a integral part of our perception of Godhood, unlike say the ability to fly or swim, lends credence to the idea that we are a special part of the Divine's plan. How special, or exactly what that plan is, I can't even speculate.

I don't share your view that we are leaps and bounds ahead of other species in self-awareness. At best, it only considers our one planet in a vast cosmos, and even limiting ourselves to Earth, I find it likely that there are other species that are close to us. But more to the point, it seems to me a great hubris that we project our emphasis on that trait onto God.

Agreed, but it's all we have to work with. Based on this I would have to say that understanding the Divine's plan for us and the universe is not a necessary part of that plan. We can't help but try, however.

It is a human foible, but one that can be limited with objective reasoning and furthermore one that, given the idea that we believe we share at least a part of the Divine's concept of personhood, may not be totally wrong in some applications.

The idea that we can acquire complete knowledge of the Divine with our limited faculties is, of course, nonsense. We can hope to get enough to point us in the right direction, however.

It may sound strange coming from me, but one of the main reasons that I reject all claims of knowledge of the divine is because I think that any such claim would undermine the original posit. If there were some being which transcends nature, that was great enough to create all the cosmos, then how can we expect anything that we come up with to be meaningful in the face of such a being? We drag our lack of imagination and our biases and our hopes and our fears into the topic, and all of a sudden, we're talking about a parochial wishing-well persona, who suddenly becomes our enabler and our justifier, who usually gets around to endorsing the things that we want to do anyway. I think it's better and more honest to leave such posits alone.

 

[PlastikBuddha]

By all means, PB, your comments are always welcome. Although, I do feel that we must be careful to avoid hijacking the thread more than is reasonable to finish the point. I may be an atheist, but I'm neither famous, nor as quotable as I ought to be to have so many quotations in this thread.



I don't share your view that we are leaps and bounds ahead of other species in self-awareness. At best, it only considers our one planet in a vast cosmos, and even limiting ourselves to Earth, I find it likely that there are other species that are close to us. But more to the point, it seems to me a great hubris that we project our emphasis on that trait onto God.

I would not be at all surprised if there were other species that shared our self awareness elsewhere. The sci-fi fan in me demands that there must be- but evidence is scanty. We can look at the odds, at the size of the universe, and come to the conclusion that there should be, but we just don't know. As for here on Earth, even the brightest animals are outdone by even the youngest humans. I think we really are something special in that regard. On a side note, imagine how interesting it would be to compare the thought processes of a human being and even a closely related self aware being like a neandrathal!
It may very well be hubristic to ascribe personhood to the Divine, but I believe it is the hubris of a puddle comparing itself to the ocean rather than projecting things that just don't exist. The personhood of the Divine, unlimited by the matrix of meat and the linear, inexorable passage of time within which we define ourselves would necessarily be different from ourselves- but it is a plain fact that the Divine must by definition be transcendant of the physical universe and that would, in some way, encompass that which It has created, personhood included.

It may sound strange coming from me, but one of the main reasons that I reject all claims of knowledge of the divine is because I think that any such claim would undermine the original posit. If there were some being which transcends nature, that was great enough to create all the cosmos, then how can we expect anything that we come up with to be meaningful in the face of such a being? We drag our lack of imagination and our biases and our hopes and our fears into the topic, and all of a sudden, we're talking about a parochial wishing-well persona, who suddenly becomes our enabler and our justifier, who usually gets around to endorsing the things that we want to do anyway. I think it's better and more honest to leave such posits alone.

Not a bad position, but ask yourself this- what if the Divine wished, in spite of our misunderstandings and biases, that we should know It? What form might such a message take? It is true that our best efforts must be woefully inadequate, but is it possible that our own efforts are not all that is available to us to help us know the Divine?

 

[Town Heretic]

First, well done and interesting, slight differences/qualifications notwithstanding, PB. :thumb:

The order to creation you describe can be maintained only if we assume that the top is defined by someone who thinks like us, which is exactly the arrogance I am pointing out. If we evaluate life based on its intelligence, we probably come out on top, given what we currently know, but it is a tentative victory. If we evaluate life based on, say, swimming ability, or flying ability, we loose. If on dominance, we put up a fair fight, for mammals, but it must be the bacteria that win, and the insects place before us.

Man's preeminence on a naturalistic level is the result of the intelligence that allows him to circumvent his natural limitations otherwise...but the order I describe depends on and is reflective of one simple proposition, that there exists a sentient wellspring of absolute good from which all things derive their existence/meaning and in whose will is found our order and our authority. It isn't arrogant if it's true and to those who believe it is true. My intent was not to present you a proof, only a context that negated your assumption and I believe I've done that. I don't assume you'll accept the reality of that context for yourself. You must, however, concede that for the Christian it exists. To judge the posture of the Christian without understanding that context invites the errant notion of hubris where none is found (well, where none should be).

But my point wasn't restricted to just life, or just this planet. If one were to conclude that there is a purpose to the Universe based upon the order therein, I think that it would have to be an interest in stars and galaxies more obviously than an interest in life or humans in particular. But really, I think any assertion to know what such a creator values is hubris.

Given you must think the assertion of that creator, being objectively impossible to demonstrate, is hubris to begin with...

I see two hubrises at play here: First of all, projecting our parenting and property models unto the Universe in general,

Again, it isn't if doing so reflects the reality of the situation, though I don't see how dominion over animals relates to black holes.

and second, the assumption that we can derive knowledge of the creator of the Universe through our limited faculties.

First, a Christian would be inclined to remind you that we don't claim to have discovered God through the use of our faculties. We hold that God has been with man and revealed Himself to man since the beginning of our kind. Now, in a more general Theistic response, how else would you allow for it or the knowledge of any particular thing?

Always a pleasure bumping into you around here, rex. :e4e:

 

[rexlunae]

As for here on Earth, even the brightest animals are outdone by even the youngest humans. I think we really are something special in that regard. On a side note, imagine how interesting it would be to compare the thought processes of a human being and even a closely related self aware being like a neandrathal!

I still disagree. I think there's a good case to be made that a newborn baby human is less intelligent than a dolphin, but there is a rather difficult problem of how to measure this, and it is a human conceit that tells us that we are better.

but it is a plain fact that the Divine must by definition be transcendant of the physical universe and that would, in some way, encompass that which It has created, personhood included.

Maybe. Or maybe the Divine wanted to see the pretty lights, and so it created a Universe, and we just happen to be one of its byproducts. There's really no way to know.

Not a bad position, but ask yourself this- what if the Divine wished, in spite of our misunderstandings and biases, that we should know It? What form might such a message take? It is true that our best efforts must be woefully inadequate, but is it possible that our own efforts are not all that is available to us to help us know the Divine?

If the Divine wanted us to know it, I would think there would be better ways than what we have seen from religion. On the other hand, maybe the Divine wants us to leave it alone. Or, maybe the Divine doesn't have anything that can be called a want. My point is that making claims about the Divine is necessarily arrogant because there is no way of knowing.