Someone told me that french dressing and eggs were a good combo. What did I do? Said yeah right, because why in the world would I try something that I
don't like? Nor will you see me go shopping to get it. I don't BELIEVE it's good, so why would I talk about it or be curious to try it? Maybe deep
down, I want to try it after all. I guess, it's a front for a bigger, hidden curiosity that I have. I mean...do people continually talk about things
that they don't think exists or is good?
Amazing Quotes On and Against Atheism
A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls
of his cell.
The atheist can't find God for the same reason that a thief can't find a policeman.
The worst moment for the atheist is when he is really thankful, and has nobody to thank.
Dante Gabriel Rossetti
Humanism or atheism is a wonderful philosophy of life as long as you are big, strong, and between the ages of eighteen and thirty-five. But watch out
if you are in a lifeboat and there are others who are younger, bigger, or smarter.
Absent an absolute moral authority independent of fallible humans, the only meaning “wrong” could have (pertaining to conduct) would be “in
opposition to X,” or “falling short of X’s standards,” which are only persuasive to those who have already accepted X.
The real attitude of sin in the heart towards God is that of being without God; it is pride, the worship of myself, that is the great atheistic fact
in human life.
The theory that thought is merely a movement in the brain is, in my opinion, nonsense; for if so, that theory itself would be merely a movement, an
event among atoms, which may have speed and direction but of which it would be meaningless to use the words 'true' or 'false'.
If there is no God, then all that exists is time and chance acting on matter. If this is true then the difference between your thoughts and mine
correspond to the difference between shaking up a bottle of Mountain Dew and a bottle of Dr. Pepper. You simply fizz atheistically and I fizz
theistically. This means that you do not hold to atheism because it is true , but rather because of a series of chemical reactions… … Morality,
tragedy, and sorrow are equally evanescent. They are all empty sensations created by the chemical reactions of the brain, in turn created by too much
pizza the night before. If there is no God, then all abstractions are chemical epiphenomena, like swamp gas over fetid water. This means that we have
no reason for assigning truth and falsity to the chemical fizz we call reasoning or right and wrong to the irrational reaction we call morality. If no
God, mankind is a set of bi-pedal carbon units of mostly water. And nothing else.
The atheist can appeal to nothing absolute, nothing objectively true for all people, it is just mere opinion enforced by might. The Christian appeals
to a standard outside himself/herself in which truth and qualitative values can be made sense of.
My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line
crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust? If the whole show was bad and
senseless from A to Z, so to speak, why did I, who was supposed to be part of the show, find myself in such a violent reaction against it?... Of
course I could have given up my idea of justice by saying it was nothing but a private idea of my own. But if I did that, then my argument against God
collapsed too--for the argument depended on saying the world was really unjust, not simply that it did not happen to please my fancies. Thus, in the
very act of trying to prove that God did not exist - in other words, that the whole of reality was senseless - I found I was forced to assume that one
part of reality - namely my idea of justice - was full of sense. If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no
meaning: just as, if there were no light in the universe and therefore no creatures with eyes, we should never have known it was dark. Dark would be
Science can tell us how to do many things, but it can not tell us what ought to be done.
If God would concede me His omnipotence for 24 hours, you would see how many changes I would make in the world. But if He gave me His wisdom too, I
would leave things as they are.
If the solar system was brought about by an accidental collision, then the appearance of organic life on this planet was also an accident, and the
whole evolution of Man was an accident too. If so, then all our present thoughts are mere accidents - the accidental by-product of the movement of
atoms. And this holds for the thoughts of the materialists and astronomers as well as for anyone else's. But if their thoughts - i.e., Materialism and
Astronomy - are mere accidental by-products, why should we believe them to be true? I see no reason for believing that one accident should be able to
give me a correct account of all the other accidents. It's like expecting the accidental shape taken by the splash when you upset a milk-jug should
give you a correct account of how the jug was made and why it was upset.
Man is certainly crazy. He could not make a mite, and he makes gods by the dozen.
Michel De Montaigne, Essays
The greatest act of faith takes place when a man finally decides that he is not God.
Johann Wolfgang Goethe
There are those who hate Christianity and call their hatred an all-embracing love for all religions.
Practicing psychiatry without faith in God is like meeting a hungry man and giving him a toothpick.
We must live with people to know their problems and live with God to 'help' solve them.
Men do not differ much about what things they will call evils; they differ enormously about what evils they will call excusable.
A great many of those who 'debunk' traditional...values have in the background values of their own which they believe to be immune from the debunking
Aim at heaven and you will get earth thrown in. Aim at earth and you get neither.
There are two different kinds of revelation, natural revelation, which we find in the world, and special revelation, which we find in the Word of God.
A basic rule of Biblical interpretation is that we should always interpret natural revelation through the grid of special revelation, that is the word
of God. We don't look at the world and then say this is truth, therefore we must conform the Scriptures to what we see. This view is a deadly mistake
and would lead to atheism. I interpret science through the lens of the word of God, which presupposes the truth of Genesis 1-3. There is no evidence
of higher value or authority than the word of God.
The traditional form of arguing for God's existence allows for the participants in the debate to stand on the sidelines, like two opposing coaches, in
order to look at how their respective teams are doing out on the field. A distinction is maintained at all times between the participants on the field
and the spectators along the sidelines. But a transcendental argument, on the other hand, is all-inclusive. A common mistake among those not familiar
with this form of argumentation is to assume that it is the same kind of argument as one of the more traditional arguments. This in turn leads to
misunderstandings and loud complaints when the transcendental players proceed to tackle the coach, water boy, trainer, and ESPN cameramen.
If you board the wrong train, it is no use running along the corridor in the other direction.
I believe in Christianity as I believe that the Sun has risen, not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else.
Some people complain because God puts thorns on roses, while others praise God for putting roses among thorns.
A heathen philosopher once asked a Christian, 'Where is God'? The Christian answered, 'Let me first ask you, Where is He not?'
I was at this time of living, like so many Atheists or Anti-theists, in a whirl of contradictions. I maintained that God did not exist. I was also
very angry with God for not existing. I was equally angry with Him for creating a world.
No philosophical theory which I have yet come across is a radical improvement on the words of Genesis, that 'In the beginning God made Heaven and
There is no neutral ground in the universe: every square inch, every split second, is claimed by God and counterclaimed by Satan.
Whatsoever is good for God's children they shall have it, for all is theirs to further them to heaven; therefore, if poverty be good, they shall have
it; if disgrace be good, they shall have it; if crosses be good, they shall have them; if misery be good, they shall have it; for all is ours, to
serve for our greatest good.
For when we cease to worship God, we do not worship nothing, we worship anything.
G. K. Chesterton
How often we look upon God as our last and feeblest resource! We go to Him because we have nowhere else to go. And then we learn that the storms of
life have driven us, not upon the rocks, but into the desired haven.
Someone once said that if you sat a million monkeys at a million typewriters for a million years, one of them would eventually type out all of Hamlet
by chance. But when we find the text of Hamlet, we don't wonder whether it came from chance and monkeys. Why then does the atheist use that incredibly
improbable explanation for the universe? Clearly, because it is his only chance of remaining an atheist. At this point we need a psychological
explanation of the atheist rather than a logical explanation of the universe.
A silly idea is current that good people do not know what temptation means. This is an obvious lie. Only those who try to resist temptation know how
strong it is... A man who gives in to temptation after five minutes simply does not know what it would have been like an hour later. That is why bad
people, in one sense, know very little about badness. They have lived a sheltered life by always giving in.
C. S. Lewis
Prayer is not overcoming God's reluctance, but laying hold of His willingness.
If God were small enough to be understood, He would not be big enough to be worshiped.
An utterly fascinating illustration of this duping of ourselves is the latest arts building opened at Ohio State University, the Wexner Center for the
Performing Arts, another one of our chimerical exploits in the name of intellectual advance. Newsweek branded this building "America's first
deconstructionist building." It's white scaffolding, red brick turrets, and Colorado grass pods evoke a double take. But puzzlement only intensifies
when you enter the building, for inside you encounter stairways that go nowhere, pillars that hang from the ceiling without purpose, and angled
surfaces configured to create a sense of vertigo. The architect, we are duly informed, designed this building to reflect life itself-senseless and
incoherent-and the "capriciousness of the rules that organize the built world." When the rationale was explained to me, I had just one question: Did
he do the same with the foundation?
The laughter in response to my question unmasked the double standard our deconstructionists espouse. And that is precisely the double standard of
atheism! It is possible to dress up and romanticize our bizarre experiments in social restructuring while disavowing truth or absolutes. But one dares
not play such deadly games with the foundations of good thinking.
Out of 100 men, one will read the Bible, the other 99 will read the Christian.
The secret formula of the saints: When I am in the cellar of affliction, I look for the Lord's choicest wines.
It is our wisest and our safest course to stand at the farthest distance from sin; not to go near the house of the harlot, but to fly from all
appearance of evil (Prov. 5:8, I Thess. 5:22). The best course to prevent falling into the pit is to keep at the greatest distance; he that will be so
bold as to attempt to dance upon the brink of the pit, may find by woeful experience that it is a righteous thing with God that he should fall into
The Christian ideal has not been tried and found wanting; it has been found difficult and left untried.
If you ask why we should obey God, in the last resort the answer is, 'I AM.'
To know God is to know that our obedience is due to Him.
God exists whether or not men may choose to believe in Him. The reason why many people do not believe in God is not so much that it is intellectually
impossible to believe in God, but because belief in God forces that thoughtful person to face the fact that he is accountable to such a God.
Robert A. Laidlaw
Occam's razor states that one should not increase, beyond what is necessary, the number of entities required to explain anything, however, the simple
theory must be able to account for or explain what needs explaining. It's not enough to have a simpler theory if you can't account for anything.
Though we shouldn't add entities beyond what's needed, we also should not subtract entities beyond what's needed.
Atheism is a crutch for those who cannot bear the reality of God.
Still, even the most admirable of atheists is nothing more than a moral parasite, living his life based on borrowed ethics. This is why, when pressed,
the atheist will often attempt to hide his lack of conviction in his own beliefs behind some poorly formulated utilitarianism, or argue that he acts
out of altruistic self-interest. But this is only post-facto rationalization, not reason or rational behavior.
Nobody talks so constantly about God as those who insist that there is no God.
Merely having an open mind is nothing; the object of opening a mind, as of opening the mouth, is to shut it again on something solid.
The most valued attributes of mankind do not come naturally to the human animal; character borrows from the divine.
If you were a angelic being whose sole purpose was to take away souls from your Creator and your knowledge and wisdom were light years ahead of
humans. With all of that power at disposal, what methods would you use in order to achieve that goal?
edit on 21-11-2012 by scmoG because: To
add more information.