Quotes acceptance

[Emporion]

Thanks. I'll call the first book Religion SUCKS!. I enjoy criticizing religion.

[corndog36]

I'm not sure that you would have to be famous in order to be quoted. A statement would simply need to be sufficiently profound, thought provoking, and/or amusing that people would want to repeat it. Where fame and respectability come in is in getting your statements heard. Your first statement contains errors:

If you have no proof based on reality as only an eye from any living species sees it,

eyes of living species do not see "reality" so that is not a valid argument.

God cannot possibly exist based on this undeniably critical thinking evidence.

Critical thinking is not evidence, there is no observable evidence that God cannot possibly exist.

science is all based on fact

Science is not based on fact, it is based on theories derived from observable evidence, many accepted theories have later been proved incorrect by better science.

Your last two statements seem a bit too obvious to be profound or thought provoking in my opinion.

[Emporion]

eyes of living species do not see "reality" so that is not a valid argument.

They can see the natural world, though.

Critical thinking is not evidence, there is no observable evidence that God cannot possibly exist.

I said, "If you have no proof based on reality as only
an eye from any living species sees it, God cannot possibly exist based on this undeniably critical thinking evidence.", as a sentence. Treating 2 parts of a sentence as separate sentences distorts the meaning of the whole.

Science is not based on fact, it is based on theories derived from observable evidence, many accepted theories have later been proved incorrect by better science.

Then there is no such thing as scientific fact?

[Rwandrall]

Why not? What is your evidence? Is it the religionist's pathetic rationalizations?

Dude, you are waaaay too condescending. Did you ever actually had a conversation with a theist who knows his stuff ? Theists have very smart people on their side, people who spend a lifetime making apologetics, excuses and rationalizations about their God. So acting like it is this simple to disprove God is simply laughable.

For example, your argument about inspired-by-God texts. Assuming Jesus is the Messiah (i know, its bullshit, but still) then he recognized the Old Testament as true and his disciples, being chosen by him, are also inspired by the Holy Spirit. So now you have to prove that Jesus is not the Messiah for your argument to be true. And to prove that, you have to prove he didn't exist. So then you have to prove that the authors mentionning him, and the Apostles who we knew existed, were either wrong or lying. Etc etc etc. It takes a LONG time, and some skill that you get from experience, to get a theist all the way to the end of his excuses and then bash him with your arguments until you make a slight, tiny crack into one of his ideas. It's not as simple as you seem to think it is.

Damn, but I liked it so much. Bad grammar can really fuck up a new
hopeful saying, can't it?
Has anyone come up with this version?
Critical thinking dies at the door of religion.
If not, can I save it in some way so I can use it if I become famous? Like trademarking it or something like that?

It just doesn't flow really well. I mean thinking of religion as a "building" doesn't really work. Maybe if you use "Christianity" instead for example it works better because then you get not a concept (religion), but something that is tangible (Christianity)

That's fine, I'm not offended. I'm sure that there are plenty of thrusts and atheists who are ok with the way things are because culture tells us from an early age to be tolerant of peoples beliefs and respect them, even if they ARE bullshit. I was taught the same thing, but when I learned how to critically think I saw how narrow-mindedness is sold to people through propaganda. They buy it in different ways and quantities, but they still buy it nevertheless. I think the world would be a better place without all of the narrow mindedness. If that was the case, we would not be fighting 2 wars in the Middle East right now. That's just one example. I want to change how the world thinks as to get rid of a lot of unnecessary problems in the world by utilizing science, critical thinking, and human constructiveness instead of narrow-mindedness.

Now that is some really condescending speech right there. Because i am tolerant of some theists (without explaining to what extent in any way) you assume i'm "fine with the way things are". I'm not, but i know that generalizing the superstitious as stupid ignorant bigots like you do is simplistic and untrue. You are the one that seems a little narrow-minded i'm afraid :/

Also, we are pretty much ALL irrational in one way or another. Many believe in True Love, many hope that their dreams can come true even in the face of overwhelming data against them. A fuckton of people play Lotto. Some people have lucky shirts. Do you think this is wrong and humanity should get rid of all that ?

I know someone who lost their wife of 23 years last year. Despite never usually going to Church or anything like that, he tried going to a prayer group for comfort. He openly admits that this idea, however unlikely, of seeing his wife again in the afterlife is the only thing that kept him able to keep his life from falling apart. Do you really want to blame people like that for this ?

Religious and/or superstitious thinking is perfectly fine as long as you keep them to yourself and don't make decisions based on those beliefs.

[theVOID]

And the self-promoting asshole of the year award goes to... David Tauraso!


Oh, and they aren't even good quotes...

[corndog36]

To answer your question, there is no such thing as scientific fact. We accept scientific theories as true when we find the evidence to be overwhelmingly conclusive. But even in those cases we sometimes find that we were wrong. Religions were created to provide answers to questions that couldn't be explained by the evidence of our eyes, because we don't see the "real" nature of the universe. Science has provided much more plausible answers to many of those questions, but not all. Until we can answer all of those questions, I think you will have a hard time convincing people of your point of view by saying, "I am right, and you are wrong."

One of my favorite quotes from Albert Einstein is: "I want to know God's thoughts, all else is details." The purpose of that statement is to inspire people to think. Perhaps a quotable statement needs to be less diatribe and more inspiration.

[Emporion]

To answer your question, there is no such thing as scientific fact. We accept scientific theories as true when we find the evidence to be overwhelmingly conclusive. But even in those cases we sometimes find that we were wrong. Religions were created to provide answers to questions that couldn't be explained by the evidence of our eyes, because we don't see the "real" nature of the universe. Science has provided much more plausible answers to many of those questions, but not all. Until we can answer all of those questions, I think you will have a hard time convincing people of your point of view by saying, "I am right, and you are wrong."

Well, then why did I learn about the term "scientific fact" in a science textbook?

One of my favorite quotes from Albert Einstein is: "I want to know God's thoughts, all else is details." The purpose of that statement is to inspire people to think. Perhaps a quotable statement needs to be less diatribe and more inspiration.

Maybe, but Einstein was still religious. He also apparently didn't think rationally enough to avoid religion entirely.

Dude, you are waaaay too condescending. Did you ever actually had a conversation with a theist who knows his stuff ?

Religion = Poison.
Yes, and she is a christian and she refused to consider my side of the discussion, although nicely.
The point is to trap them so that the only way to escape means to commit logical fallacies which doesn't get them out. If they are smart enough, they will find that they are beaten.

Theists have very smart people on their side, people who spend a lifetime making apologetics, excuses and rationalizations about their God.

Good for them! Should we give them a medal for they're hard work of irrationality? I think not.

So acting like it is this simple to disprove God is simply laughable.

Why not? Its so simple to dispel religion. Trap it.

For example, your argument about inspired-by-God texts. Assuming Jesus is the Messiah (i know, its bullshit, but still) then he recognized the Old Testament as true and his disciples, being chosen by him, are also inspired by the Holy Spirit. So now you have to prove that Jesus is not the Messiah for your argument to be true. And to prove that, you have to prove he didn't exist. So then you have to prove that the authors mentionning him, and the Apostles who we knew existed, were either wrong or lying. Etc etc etc. It takes a LONG time, and some skill that you get from experience, to get a theist all the way to the end of his excuses and then bash him with your arguments until you make a slight, tiny crack into one of his ideas. It's not as simple as you seem to think it is.

Okay, I've only talked on one theist other than 2 Jehovah witnesses long ago.

It just doesn't flow really well. I mean thinking of religion as a "building" doesn't really work. Maybe if you use "Christianity" instead for example it works better because then you get not a concept (religion), but something that is tangible (Christianity)

Okay. Critical thinking dies at the gate of religion. So what if it is abstract?

Now that is some really condescending speech right there. Because i am tolerant of some theists (without explaining to what extent in any way) you assume i'm "fine with the way things are". I'm not, but i know that generalizing the superstitious as stupid ignorant bigots like you do is simplistic and untrue. You are the one that seems a little narrow-minded i'm afraid :/

I didn't say they were stupid. I only said that they accept narrow-mindedness.

Also, we are pretty much ALL irrational in one way or another. Many believe in True Love, many hope that their dreams can come true even in the face of overwhelming data against them. A fuckton of people play Lotto. Some people have lucky shirts. Do you think this is wrong and humanity should get rid of all that ?

I know someone who lost their wife of 23 years last year. Despite never usually going to Church or anything like that, he tried going to a prayer group for comfort. He openly admits that this idea, however unlikely, of seeing his wife again in the afterlife is the only thing that kept him able to keep his life from falling apart. Do you really want to blame people like that for this ?

No, just the narrow-mindedness. It weakens the strength of brain security.

Religious and/or superstitious thinking is perfectly fine as long as you keep them to yourself and don't make decisions based on those beliefs.

It weaken's brain security.

---

you assume i'm "fine with the way things are". I'm not

Well, then what else are you doing about it besides postmg in an atheist forum?

[Emporion]

I know someone who lost their wife of 23 years last year. Despite never usually going to Church or anything like that, he tried going to a prayer group for comfort. He openly admits that this idea, however unlikely, of seeing his wife again in the afterlife is the only thing that kept him able to keep his life from falling apart.

Heresay is not proof and unfortunately we don't have the technology to prove if his emotionally weak condition could have been solved in a secular fashion.

Emotions are a bitch sometimes, and when that happens, people have to let go of emotion and accept what happened in order to maintain a tough mental security system. When they don't let go, irrationality has a chance to poison them through many mediums.

---

For example, your argument about inspired-by-God texts. Assuming Jesus is the Messiah (i know, its bullshit, but still) then he recognized the Old Testament as true and his disciples, being chosen by him, are also inspired by the Holy Spirit. So now you have to prove that Jesus is not the Messiah for your argument to be true. And to prove that, you have to prove he didn't exist. So then you have to prove that the authors mentionning him, and the Apostles who we knew existed, were either wrong or lying. Etc etc etc. It takes a LONG time, and some skill that you get from experience, to get a theist all the way to the end of his excuses and then bash him with your arguments until you make a slight, tiny crack into one of his ideas. It's not as simple as you seem to think it is.

If "Jesus is the Messiah" is magically a given, then you have a sound point, but "Jesus is the Messiah" is not magically a given because you have to prove it first. It's heresy, and untill you prove it with empirical evidence, not biblical evidence, it doesn't exist to our rational knowledge of the world.

[corndog36]

And the self-promoting asshole of the year award goes to... David Tauraso!

A bit harsh, in my opinion.

Oh, and they aren't even good quotes...

This was what I was attempting to point out, in a reasoned and hopefully constructive way. I appear to have failed.

[Emporion]

Theists have very smart people on their side, people who spend a lifetime making apologetics, excuses and rationalizations about their God.

Big deal. They can make all of the excuses as they want because they'll just commit fallacy after fallacy. They can talk until they are DARK blue in the face. The truth does not change just because they want it to. It's a cIassical wishful thinking fallacy.

---

This was what I was attempting to point out, in a reasoned and hopefully constructive way. I appear to have failed.

How? Please explain. I'm all ears.