Thread: Quotes On Religion From History's Greatest Thinkers

It really surprised me that the founding fathers and the first Presidents of the united states were actually atheists, or at least were in favor of a secular state with seperation of Church and State.

And now, you have G. W. Bush that claims to do god's command by starting a war, and he once said he thinks 'Atheists arn't real citizens, it is one nation under god'.

Sickening.

-

Also, Einstein is often misqouted by Christians. He did talk about the existance of a 'god', but the einsteinian god is more like 'the rules of the universe' such as gravity. Einstein didn't actualy believe the myths about Christ and stuff.

Originally Posted by Neruo

It really surprised me that the founding fathers and the first Presidents of the united states were actually atheists, or at least were in favor of a secular state with seperation of Church and State.

And now, you have G. W. Bush that claims to do god's command by starting a war, and he once said he thinks 'Atheists arn't real citizens, it is one nation under god'.

Sickening.

-

Also, Einstein is often misqouted by Christians. He did talk about the existance of a 'god', but the einsteinian god is more like 'the rules of the universe' such as gravity. Einstein didn't actualy believe the myths about Christ and stuff.
[/b]

Yep, you would never know it by listening to the government or the news media here. I actually think the news media is too damn conservative when it comes to stuff like that, but they are way too liberal when it comes to economics and foreign policy. In other words, I disagree with the media on absolutely everything.

I remember when Bush said that. He is such a retard when it comes to social issues. So you now see that I am not some Bush sheep, which I often get accused of being when I express support for the war in Iraq.

Originally Posted by Universal

I remember when Bush said that. He is such a retard when it comes to social issues. So you now see that I am not some Bush sheep, which I often get accused of being when I express support for the war in Iraq.
[/b]

lol. Quite true

-

Really ALL governments should be secular, free of religion. It would take alot of stress away from relations between certain countries. A country shouldn't be governt by people that follow something blind and are certain of Their right and don't accept any other.

-

There is this (small) party in the nederlands here. They are die-hard Christian. They don't allow any women in their party, and they are against just about every freedom we have. Like drug-legalisation. :0

Originally Posted by Neruo

There is this (small) party in the nederlands here. They are die-hard Christian. They don't allow any women in their party, and they are against just about every freedom we have. Like drug-legalisation. :0
[/b]

I am completely convinced that drug laws are religion based. A gigantic pink elephant in the room here that so few people acknowledge is the blatantly obvious contradiction of legal alcohol and illegal marijuana and psychedelics. The number of people who have ever died of a marijuana overdose is zero. I am pretty sure the same is true of mushrooms, LSD, peyote, and others. Those drugs also tend to make people avoid others and not hurt anybody. But what does alcohol do? It makes a very high percentage of its users want to go out into society and get aggressive and dangerous. A ton of fights, murders, and domestic abuse occur as a result of alcohol use. Lots of drunk driving wrecks and overdoses happen on it too. So why is it legal here while those others are illegal? Business men drink alcohol every day in every part of every city as they make business deals, but people are having their lives ruined in prison because of psychedelic drugs. If you get caught with a certain amount of LSD here, you might as well have been possessing anthrax. That is such a horrible and illogical situation, and the irrationality of it reminds me of religion. I put that on top of the fact that psychedelic drugs cause people to have "spiritual" experiences while alcohol does not, and I conclude that the contradiction has a religious explanation. Christians see psychedelic drugs as a false idol and want to please God by hurting people who use them. They think that psychedelics are God's competition and are lashing out in his name. They will never admit that because it would make them look ridiculous, and they would lose too much support, so they talk with all of this, "Drugs are bad, mmmmkay? Oh, but alcohol is different." garbage. That is one more example of where Christianity is really harmful to society.

There is a similarity between being for religion and against drugs, because a lot of people believe in these things like sheep, but I don't think religion is the reason drugs are illegal. I think it is because there are a lot of people making a lot of money by keeping them in the black market. That's why politicians no matter what else they claim to be for or against are never for legalizing drugs.

Originally Posted by Universal

I am completely convinced that drug laws are religion based. A gigantic pink elephant in the room here that so few people acknowledge is the blatantly obvious contradiction of legal alcohol and illegal marijuana and psychedelics. The number of people who have ever died of a marijuana overdose is zero. I am pretty sure the same is true of mushrooms, LSD, peyote, and others. Those drugs also tend to make people avoid others and not hurt anybody. But what does alcohol do? It makes a very high percentage of its users want to go out into society and get aggressive and dangerous. A ton of fights, murders, and domestic abuse occur as a result of alcohol use. Lots of drunk driving wrecks and overdoses happen on it too. So why is it legal here while those others are illegal? Business men drink alcohol every day in every part of every city as they make business deals, but people are having their lives ruined in prison because of psychedelic drugs. If you get caught with a certain amount of LSD here, you might as well have been possessing anthrax. That is such a horrible and illogical situation, and the irrationality of it reminds me of religion. I put that on top of the fact that psychedelic drugs cause people to have "spiritual" experiences while alcohol does not, and I conclude that the contradiction has a religious explanation. Christians see psychedelic drugs as a false idol and want to please God by hurting people who use them. They think that psychedelics are God's competition and are lashing out in his name. They will never admit that because it would make them look ridiculous, and they would lose too much support, so they talk with all of this, "Drugs are bad, mmmmkay? Oh, but alcohol is different." garbage. That is one more example of where Christianity is really harmful to society.
[/b]

Hmmm, yeah I totally agree. Especially intresting: Maybe Christians feel treathend by (psychadelic) drugs, because they feel they are a competator. Religion is most certainly like a drug too, it is extremely addictive, makes you hurt others and it Completely warps your way of reasoning.

Just recently I actually heard my dad say it is completely ridiculous that alchol is legal and soft-drugs arn't (in the netherlands, they are just 'allowed&#39. Not that my dad would ever smoke weed, but even besides that he acknowledges that it is silly.

I am quite sure it are mostly Christians that are against legalisation... Man, if only if jesus did some LSD instead of wine on his last supper.

On that topic, (would jesus be real,) could jesus get totally shitfaced by drinking alot of wine? It is pretty silly that a super-human-god-son drinks booze, or even need food at all.

"The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one. The happiness of credulity is a cheap and dangerous quality."

-George Bernard Shaw

"A little philosophy inclineth man’s mind to atheism, but depth in philosophy bringeth men’s minds about to religion."

-Sir Francis Bacon

I'm going to say something that you lot have said to me, in relation to your quote link

"Apeal to Authority"

you clame that the Scientists and phylosophers who beleive in a God are fools, and quote there contempreas.

charming

After coming into contact with a religious man I always feel I must wash my hands. - Nietzsche

thats harsh

Originally Posted by Keeper

I'm going to say something that you lot have said to me, in relation to your quote link

"Apeal to Authority"

you clame that the Scientists and phylosophers who beleive in a God are fools, and quote there contempreas.

charming
[/b]

I didn't say that the fact that those great thinkers were atheists or at least against mixing church and state proves that God does not exist. I posted the link because there are so many profound quotes in it. I started the thread by posing a question, and I would love to know your answer.... Why were history's greatest thinkers atheists? Why does that correlation exist?

Originally Posted by Keeper

I'm going to say something that you lot have said to me, in relation to your quote link

"Apeal to Authority"

you clame that the Scientists and phylosophers who beleive in a God are fools, and quote there contempreas.

charming
[/b]

Haha. Appeal to autority? Who here post 'scientific' sites all the time? The site universal mind posted at least didn't look like it was make in someone's mom's basement.

what does layout have do do with anything?

Originally Posted by Keeper

what does layout have do do with anything?
[/b]

If someone intented a brilliant theory that would change the world of physics, would he pupish a report printed on pink papper with a curly type of letters and lots of spelling errors?

Would someone that spend alot of time even permit his work to be under-valued because of a bad presentation?

Proper argumentation is important. Someone that basicly is wrong can lose a debate if he doesn't have enough skills in rethoric. Just look at american courts. Get the jury and you win, you don't have to be right.

It is just a fact that a good way of putting your arguments forward is important in this world. Perhaps a bad thing, but all the smart people usually make sure they do it anyways.

-

There most certainly is somewhat of a correlation between appearance of a internet site and it's trustworthyness.

-

Anyhow, you DO appeal to authority. For crying out loud, you made a topic 'so science says god doesn't exist?'. That is written with sarcasm, so you do trust the 'scienctists' that claim god does exist, thus you appeal to authority.

"dosn't matter if you are right"

...

okay then


apeal to authority? prahapse, but I am just pointing out what Nester pointed out to me earlier

Originally Posted by Universal

Why is it that the most brilliant people who ever lived were atheists? Here are some very profound quotes...

http://atheistempire.com/greatminds/

For anybody who wants to claim that the United States was founded on Christianity, check out the founding father quotes at the top of that page.
[/b]

I think the pilgrams came here to flee persecution for there religion which was christianity.If you dont belive in God why are you so against it.Shouldnt you be trying to accomplish some thing with your life other than telling people how wrong they are?

"Beer is living proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy."
Benjamin Franklin.

Originally Posted by bendstringz

I think the pilgrams came here to flee persecution for there religion which was christianity.If you dont belive in God why are you so against it.Shouldnt you be trying to accomplish some thing with your life other than telling people how wrong they are?
[/b]

The pilgrims and the founding fathers were not the same people. I am talking about the people who shaped the American government. The pilgrims were just the early settlers, and they came here because of the religious intolerance from rival Christians in the English government.

I do a lot more with my life than come here and argue about religion. I do it here because I love debate and think the subject of religion is very interesting, and I don't like debating religion with unwilling participants. The people who argue here literally signed up for it. They know what goes on here, and they decided to engage in the disputes. Most people who know me don't know I am an atheist. I have never had a reason to tell them. This forum is just one of my hobbies. I don't think Ice Dawg is ready to start paying me a salary for arguing here, so it will probably remain just a little hobby.

so you say the founding fathers wheren't Christian?

Originally Posted by Keeper

so you say the founding fathers wheren't Christian?
[/b]

Most of them not really. Not 'true christians', probably more a kind of agnostic or deitist instead of theists. 'The God Delusion', great book by Richard Dawkins has a part about the founding fathers.

Site with no real value, but it might be true, not that certain because it is on the internet: http://www.earlyamerica.com/review/s...7/secular.html

An article.
http://atheism.about.com/b/a/258174.htm

Some info.
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20050221/allen

Anyhow, the founding fathers didn't want a Christian nation (but didn't want a nation where religion was forbidden, it really didn't matter for them I think, because they were founding a country, what has that have to do with religion?).

Religious Americans made it into what it is today.

Originally Posted by Keeper

I'm going to say something that you lot have said to me, in relation to your quote link

"Apeal to Authority"

you clame that the Scientists and phylosophers who beleive in a God are fools, and quote there contempreas.

charming
[/b]

This is not an appeal to authority, because the quotes themselves have meaning independent of who said them. After looking at the content of the quotes for their own merits, however, it is quite meaningful to consider who said them. The founding fathers are often referred to as a defense for bringing god and christianity into our government and into our policies. When you take a prominent person's statements out of context and use it to push your own agenda, that is an appeal to authority. When you consider a prominent person's statements in the intended context, or consider the original context and openly apply it to a new context, it is not an appeal to authority.

Thanks for the link, UM, I believe I will begin to use some of these references in some of the work I'm involved in.