Famous Atheist Quotes

[noguru]

Part Two.

… And who exactly proclaimed their support of intellectual dishonesty? Just another way of saying that you think you're right then.

About being intellectually honest. If you believe both sides are then it’s a peculiar point to raise. If you don’t, it’s a peculiar objection you make here.

Anything is possible except what isn’t.

Of course you are.

Which, coincidentally enough, would be your position. Look, if I say there’s a wall in the darkness and you say we can’t know then you are saying you believe that I’m wrong in my assertion that I can know, however open minded you might be about the wall.

You’re confusing verifiable to the adherent with objectively demonstrable to others.

Faith is entirely verifiable and provable AND universal...faith in what is another matter. You mean God, not faith. You mean we cannot demonstrate the existence of the root of our faith. And we, chuckling, find it peculiar that in stating this you miss the point almost entirely.

No, but then I didn’t choose God (something of a long story in the telling). As for the Muslim or Jew, etc., the God who came calling is one I’ll trust to deal with them in both justice and mercy. I leave it between them…

No. I’m as certain of this fact, as I write this, as I am that the sun remains in the sky (well, more certain, for several seconds) and for the same reason. I experience them personally.

No. I don’t believe it’s rational to on the one hand posit a God who can fashion universal law and then suggest He might not be capable of passing along a few important ideas.

Rather, it’s that only one of us feels he has to.

Re: how to fashion purpose and meaning.

It will tell you any number of things. It will never instruct you in what is right or wrong or how to live your life abundantly.

You may as well not, for that matter…and it cannot give you a promising future, having divested you of that which makes promise meaningful.

No, Atheism fills it with another sort of nothing and is no more honest (demonstrably, objectively true) than its counter.

Not really my point, though I’d say given a choice between a joyful, meaningful, fulfilling approach to the unknowable and a fatalistic, nihilistic one…well.

Again, you’re killing me with the humility bit…though why you care about their attitude is beyond me and how you would feel fit to judge it should be beyond you.

Re: horrors and the name of God.

Really? Can you validate this? Most of this country proclaims itself to be Christian. How many witch hunts, crusades, etc. have come as a result of it? And how many millions have died under the self expressed godless will of communism? How many did Stalin manage to kill to suit his will? Pol Pott?

No, I’m not actually arguing that Atheism leads to that sort of evil nonsense any more than you should be arguing the counter. Men organize and do horrible things in the name of God or state or ideas of any number of stripes. They do this because often monsters wear a human face and cajole the monsters of others into sing-a-longs. And we all pay the piper at the chours.

Is that so? What are the actual numbers of people dead due to Christianity, as opposed to other religions and those states/organizations who kill absent that foundational belief? I think if you begin to look for those you’ll abandon the argument on this point.

My mother thanks you and right back at you.

Then for those very same reasons you must embrace anarchy, else Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pott or their like come again and perpetrate horrific acts in the name of the state.



I think you’re confusing the problem of man with the idea of God. If you are right and there is no God then it follows that all these horrors you attribute to religion are nothing more than man creating the means to do that which he wills and justify it. Just so, he will justify it in law (as in Germany) or in an allegiance to a greater tomorrow (as in the USSR)…Religion has never been the problem. Religion, like the state, has been used by evil men for evil purpose.

I just want to say to everyone that I thank God for having given me the opportunity to witness this man's apologetics. I am humbled by his humility and wisdom.

 

[Wessex Man]

No, I’m not actually arguing that Atheism leads to that sort of evil nonsense any more than you should be arguing the counter.

I would argue that men in general require some sort of spiritual grounding and a general lack of it will lead them to seek the certainty and comfort they get from it elsewhere and particularly in the state and political community in our society. It seems to me no accident that those regimes that attacked traditional society and spiritual beliefs so much like the Bolsheviks and Jacobins set up or tried to set up systems where the state or party could at least partially take the ground religion and society once occupied.

 

[noguru]

I would argue that men in general require some sort of spiritual grounding and a general lack of it will lead them to seek the certainty and comfort they get from it elsewhere and particularly in the state and political community in our society. It seems to me no accident that those regimes that attacked traditional society and spiritual beliefs so much like the Bolsheviks and Jacobins set up or tried to set up systems where the state or party could at least partially set up in the ground religion and society once occupied.

I think your statements are very accurate.

 

[noguru]

I would argue that men in general require some sort of spiritual grounding and a general lack of it will lead them to seek the certainty and comfort they get from it elsewhere and particularly in the state and political community in our society. It seems to me no accident that those regimes that attacked traditional society and spiritual beliefs so much like the Bolsheviks and Jacobins set up or tried to set up systems where the state or party could at least partially set up in the ground religion and society once occupied.

I think your statements are very accurate.

The question then becomes what is it that we define as state? Is it some nation, or is it a state of mind? Jesus tried to make us realize that there are no geographical or political boundaries that can seperate us if we seek freedom and full disclosure for all. If that is not our true goal then we will be fooled by the wisdom of men.

 

[Punisher1984]

I would argue that men in general require some sort of spiritual grounding and a general lack of it will lead them to seek the certainty and comfort they get from it elsewhere and particularly in the state and political community in our society. It seems to me no accident that those regimes that attacked traditional society and spiritual beliefs so much like the Bolsheviks and Jacobins set up or tried to set up systems where the state or party could at least partially take the ground religion and society once occupied.

It's not as though the "traditional" societies are significantly different - as both "traditional" social orders and "revolutionary" orders both demand individual submission to powers outside themselves: one society demands conformity to precident and norms of various social institutions (the family, the church, the government, etc...) whilst the other demands radical conformity to abstract concepts and authority figures that claim to represent them. In both institutions, the individual is a slave to mthe system.

I suggest eliminating both ideologies and build ideas to serve us as individuals rather than collectives.

 

[Wessex Man]

It's not as though the "traditional" societies are significantly different - as both "traditional" social orders and "revolutionary" orders both demand individual submission to powers outside themselves: one society demands conformity to precident and norms of various social institutions (the family, the church, the government, etc...) whilst the other demands radical conformity to abstract concepts and authority figures that claim to represent them. In both institutions, the individual is a slave to mthe system.

I suggest eliminating both ideologies and build ideas to serve us as individuals rather than collectives.

Actually they are quite different in the size, amount and function of the different social associations and their authorities. One is about a lot of different authorities, many small-scale, reasonably liberal and local and one is about one or a few large scale, rigid ones. The later is shared by many from the Nazis to communists the other many from Burke to Kropotkin.

I suggest that man has to live in society and his freedom is largely only possible through associations, as Proudhon said multiply your associations and be free.

I suggest we try and organise these associations so as to maximise individual freedom and individuality while recognising the importance of the associations and society for this.

 

[noguru]

It's not as though the "traditional" societies are significantly different - as both "traditional" social orders and "revolutionary" orders both demand individual submission to powers outside themselves: one society demands conformity to precident and norms of various social institutions (the family, the church, the government, etc...) whilst the other demands radical conformity to abstract concepts and authority figures that claim to represent them. In both institutions, the individual is a slave to mthe system.

I suggest eliminating both ideologies and build ideas to serve us as individuals rather than collectives.

And I suggest that it is a balance of both forces that leads to real freedom and true happiness.

 

[Punisher1984]

Actually they are quite different in the size, amount and function of the different social associations and their authorities.

I know that - but ultimately the goal is the same: assimilate the individual into a collective, subjecting him to the will of the herd. The only difference here is the size of said herd...

I suggest that man has to live in society and his freedom is largely only possible through associations, as Proudhon said multiply your associations and be free.

But what if the individual wants few associations? What if he desires to break away from existing social structures entirely? Multiplying associations won't make you free to do that...

I suggest we try and organise these associations so as to maximise individual freedom and individuality while recognising the importance of the associations and society for this.

And I go in the opposite direction: keep social orders as disconnected as possible, thus preventing them from ever forming a collective strong enough to tie down anybody that desires to go down alternative paths or forge new ones all by himself.

 

[Punisher1984]

And I suggest that it is a balance of both forces that leads to real freedom and true happiness.

"Freedom" and "happines" for who? Those that conform to the collective or the individual?

Note: you can't have both.

 

[Wessex Man]

I know that - but ultimately the goal is the same: assimilate the individual into a collective, subjecting him to the will of the herd. The only difference here is the size of said herd...

Not really one does not control the whole lives of individual and allows him many outlets and you forget that size is exceedingly important. Such a change in size means a qualitative change in relationships. The one stifles and controls the individuals, the other gives him that grounding and support he needs to actually achieve true individuality without usually overly controlling him.

But what if the individual wants few associations? What if he desires to break away from existing social structures entirely? Multiplying associations won't make you free to do that...

Then he can have them but most men require association.

And I go in the opposite direction: keep social orders as disconnected as possible, thus preventing them from ever forming a collective strong enough to tie down anybody that desires to go down alternative paths or forge new ones all by himself.

And that will lead to tyranny because men need society and association. They will look for its comforts and its functions elsewhere and only too often will they try and find these in the hands of despotism.

 

[noguru]

"Freedom" and "happines" for who? Those that conform to the collective or the individual?

Note: you can't have both.

Of course you can have both. Actually you cannot divide the two. It is simply a matter of where you place your priorities. Do you place more priority on short term creature comforts than on long term principles? Life is a game of give and take. There are some people who think that taking is better than giving. There are others who think that giving is better than taking. I say that neither is better than the other. And at the risk of sounding like Kahlil Gibran, we are suspended in life between the two. While one is sleeping at the foot of your bed the other is dancing and rejoicing in life.

 

[Punisher1984]

Not really one does not control the whole lives of individual and allows him many outlets and you forget that size is exceedingly important. Such a change in size means a qualitative change in relationships. The one stifles and controls the individuals, the other gives him that grounding and support he needs to actually achieve true individuality without usually overly controlling him.

But who or what defines "overly controlling?" As far as I'm concerned, anything more than a few basic conduct guidelines is "overly controlling."

Then he can have them but most men require association.

If there's anything social orders hate it's people who operate outside them - which would be required fo a man to have few or no associations.

And that will lead to tyranny because men need society and association.

Or so it's commonly believed...

They will look for its comforts and its functions elsewhere and only too often will they try and find these in the hands of despotism.

But historically despotic regimes utilized strong social institutions to thier advantage - I stongly doubt that despotism would rise in a social anti-order (as everyone would be accustom to handling thier problems alone - thus no need for government to come in and solve them).

 

[CabinetMaker]

But historically despotic regimes utilized strong social institutions to thier advantage - I stongly doubt that despotism would rise in a social anti-order (as everyone would be accustom to handling thier problems alone - thus no need for government to come in and solve them).

If you truly believe that life without a government makes everybodies life better, I seriously invite you to go to Congo or Somolia or Angola. See what life is really like for people with little or no organized government. What do you think has given rise the levels of piracy we are seeing right now?

 

[Punisher1984]

Of course you can have both. Actually you cannot divide the two.

I beg to differ - as conflict between the individual and the collective is inevitable.

Do you place more priority on short term creature comforts than on long term principles?

I only have one principle to live by: let do as thou wilt be the whole of the law.

Life is a game of give and take. There are some people who think that taking is better than giving. There are others who think that giving is better than taking.

And hisotry tend to favor the former over the latter: the "takers" tend to exploit the "givers" until the "givers" grow sick of bring used and become "takers" themselves.

While one is sleeping at the foot of your bed the other is dancing and rejoicing in life.

The only ones rejoicing in society are those who are adept at exploiting everyone else - those that go outside society can rejoice because they neither exploit nor are exploited themselves.

 

[Punisher1984]

If you truly believe that life without a government makes everybodies life better, I seriously invite you to go to Congo or Somolia or Angola. See what life is really like for people with little or no organized government. What do you think has given rise the levels of piracy we are seeing right now?

I told you before - they do have a government, that being the rulers of their respective tribes. What we see over there is not the absence of government, but rather the absence of an entity known as the nation-state.

 

[Shibby]

I just went through this whole thread and read maybe 10 quotes

:sigh:

 

[Punisher1984]

I just went through this whole thread and read maybe 10 quotes

:sigh:

Sorry about that - it got hijacked down the line. I'll bring it back on track...

"Was it man that was the greatest mistake of 'god,' or is 'god' the greatest mistake of man?" - Nietzsche

"So long as there is a master in heaven, we shall be slaves here on earth" - Bakunin

"In the time of spirits thoughts grew till they overtopped my head, whose offspring they yet were; they hovered about me and convulsed me like fever-phantasies -- an awful power. The thoughts had become corporeal on their own account, were ghosts, e. g. God, Emperor, Pope, Fatherland, etc. If I destroy their corporeity, then I take them back into mine, and say: "I alone am corporeal." And now I take the world as what it is to me, as mine, as my property; I refer all to myself." - Stirner

 

[This Charming Manc]

'isn't it hot here?' - anon

 

[noguru]

I beg to differ - as conflict between the individual and the collective is inevitable.

That is exactly my point. They are two sides of the same coin. If you focus on one the other is neglected. That is why balance is important.

I only have one principle to live by: let do as thou wilt be the whole of the law.

And what if what you chose to do infringes on my right to do what I want to do?

And hisotry tend to favor the former over the latter: the "takers" tend to exploit the "givers" until the "givers" grow sick of bring used and become "takers" themselves.

No one has to let themselves be exploited. If you don't like being used then don't let yourself be used. I tell my fiance all the time that I don't like being used, of course I am kidding. I love it when she uses me. Of course I also think that those who like using others should also allow themselves to be used.

The only ones rejoicing in society are those who are adept at exploiting everyone else - those that go outside society can rejoice because they neither exploit nor are exploited themselves.

People rejoice for all sorts of different reasons.

How do you go outside society? Do you live in Frontier Land or what?

 

[Wessex Man]

But who or what defines "overly controlling?" As far as I'm concerned, anything more than a few basic conduct guidelines is "overly controlling."

Yes but you're some weird Stirnite. I don't put much faith in your views on society.

If there's anything social orders hate it's people who operate outside them - which would be required fo a man to have few or no associations.

Really.

Or so it's commonly believed...

And largely known beyond all doubt. Your viewpoint would be laughed out of a sociology classroom.

What you don't understand is that these associations require functions to have much meaning in the lives of the individual. The decline of things like the family, local community, church etc are due, at least in part, by the replacement of their ancient institutional functions in the lives of individuals by larger, more authoritarian institutions like the state, factory and corporation. If these associations and society did not have a function then romance and sentiment would not hold them together long and they have a function because man needs them, he is not this autonomous being you try and paint him as.

But historically despotic regimes utilized strong social institutions to thier advantage - I stongly doubt that despotism would rise in a social anti-order (as everyone would be accustom to handling thier problems alone - thus no need for government to come in and solve them).

Actually despotic regimes have tended to break down the traditional, small scale, less authoritarian associations and replace them with their own state-run or authorised, larger and more authoritarian ones. That has been a basic hall-mark of authoritarian regimes. One way of looking at totalitarian regimes is that they aim to replace all associations with state run or heavily state controlled associations.

Obviously traditional associations had their problems, although these palled to the modern state, the point today is balancing them with what could be called a general "liberal democratic" ethos rather than what has happened and they have been removed to be replaced only by the large-scale ones of the state and corporation with all the problems that entails.