Home Archives Random Quotes Latest Comments Top 100 Submit Quote Search Log In

Quote# 3000

What a scientist discovers, another proves wrong. Stupid atheists never learn. Einstein and Darwin had mental defects that are discussed widely on the internet, look it up. Newton was a fundamentalist Christian, he is undeniably the greatest and most pious scientist that the Lord has ever risen up. His work was devoted to proving the bibles truths. If you think your religion of science has any enduring answers for you all you need to do is look at its history. It is just the religion of atheists. All religions are false, run by satan to ensnare the minds of fools like yourselves. They are lies and they are false.

Lord of Lords, Biblical Pitfalls 16 Comments [5/1/2003 12:00:00 AM]
Fundie Index: 9
WTF?! || meh
Username:
Comment:



1
David D.G.

Oh, brother, where to begin with this one?

<< What a scientist discovers, another proves wrong. Stupid atheists never learn. >>

Assuming that \"stupid atheists\" is code for \"scientists who make possible such things as antibiotics, space travel, and the Internet on which I post this,\" it is highly ironic that he says that they \"never learn\" -- when in fact the whole point of what scientists do is to learn, thus expanding the realm of human knowledge. Fundies, on the other hand, rely on the same words written centuries ago (or as near to them as they can get in their own language) those are the ones who never learn.


<< Einstein and Darwin had mental defects that are discussed widely on the internet, look it up. >>

Pure libel; \"discussing\" a nonexistent phenomenon doesn't make it true; and even if it did, it wouldn't invalidate discoveries these men made, if they were valid -- and they are, as has been shown by observation and experimentation innumerable times. Fundies, on the other hand, distort facts, ignore evidence, and pretty much deny reality altogether -- a very good working definition of \"mental defects\" in action, as far as I can tell (and, yes, this also is \"discussed widely\" on the Internet!).


<< Newton was a fundamentalist Christian, he is undeniably the greatest and most pious scientist that the Lord has ever risen up. His work was devoted to proving the bibles truths. >>

This is rich, because one of Newton's greatest passions was alchemy! That's right, this \"pious\" scientist was a would-be sorcerer! I have no idea what his attitude toward God might have been otherwise, but if he were attempting sorcery, which the Bible decreed against, would it matter?


<< If you think your religion of science has any enduring answers for you all you need to do is look at its history. It is just the religion of atheists. >>

This is just poor projection. Science is NOT a religion, and \"atheist\" is NOT a synonym for \"scientist\" (or even for \"one who understands the scientific method\"). What's more, science has quite a robust and enduring SYSTEM for finding answers, which is why we don't get stuck forever with \"enduring\" answers that should have been discarded centuries ago. It's called \"learning\"; you should try it.


<< All religions are false, run by satan to ensnare the minds of fools like yourselves. They are lies and they are false. >>

Apart from the use of the word \"satan\" (unless that's intended as a synonym for \"greedy, power-hungry manipulators\"), this is the closest thing to a coherent and factually accurate sentence in this whole post. Please note that you did say ALL religions.

The defense rests.


~David D.G.

2/7/2006 4:15:52 PM

Rysith

Well, at least he says that all religions are false, although I wouldn't go so far as to say that they are run by Satan (plus, doesn't that make Satanism true?).

6/16/2006 6:53:53 AM

Nicole

David D.G. basically sums the whole thing up.

I'm not sure about Darwin, but Einstein wasn't an atheist and believed in some kind of 'god', as non-traditional as that may have been. He's been quoted numerous times stating his interest in physics was to 'know the mind of god'.
Newton was more interested in figuring out how things worked. He just also happened to be religious. Wrong motivation.


We also know that Newton's works on classical mechanics are considered incomplete/inaccurate whatever by most physicists and believe relativity provides a more accurate description of the motions of larger objects, so he must not be this perfect awesome thinker you make him out to be (granted he was more than impressive).

He was also \"diagnosed\" as possibly having the same \"defects\" Einstein supposedly had. So does Bill Gates according to these discussions. Better not use your computer, asshole. Not that this matters, but do some research.

Go on about how science is false. And when you get sick, just pray, it'll make it all better. No use going to atheist doctors, who undoubtedly took science classes for several years and must be wrong.

Good to know you consider your own religion false. At least there's some progress there.

6/16/2006 7:06:15 AM

Julian

Going to have to stop you there Nicole - Here's some quotes from Einstein:

I cannot imagine a God who rewards and punishes the objects of his creation, whose purposes are modeled after our own -- a God, in short, who is but a reflection of human frailty. Neither can I believe that the individual survives the death of his body, although feeble souls harbor such thoughts through fear or ridiculous egotisms.

I cannot conceive of a God who rewards and punishes his creatures, or has a will of the kind that we experience in ourselves. Neither can I nor would I want to conceive of an individual that survives his physical death; let feeble souls, from fear or absurd egoism, cherish such thoughts.

It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I cannot take seriously. I also cannot imagine some will or goal outside the human sphere.... Science has been charged with undermining morality, but the charge is unjust. A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death.


Einstein believed in Spinoza's God. (Namely Nature and Reality, not a personal theistic God.)

Excerpt from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baruch_Spinoza

Known as both the \"greatest Jew\" and the \"greatest Atheist\", Spinoza contended that God and Nature were two names for the same reality, namely the single substance (meaning \"to stand beneath\" rather than \"matter\") that underlies the universe and of which all lesser \"entities\" are actually modes or modifications. The argument for this single substance runs something as follows:

1. Substance exists and cannot be dependent on anything else for its existence.
2. No two substances can share an attribute.
Proof: If they share an attribute, they would be identical. Therefore they can only be individuated by their modes. But then they would depend on their modes for their identity. This would have the substance being dependent on its mode, in violation of premise 1. Therefore, two substances cannot share the same attribute.
3. A substance can only be caused by something similar to itself (something that shares its attribute).
4. Substance cannot be caused.
Proof: Something can only be caused by something which is similar to itself, in other words something that shares its attribute. But according to premise 2, no two substances can share an attribute. Therefore substance cannot be caused.
5. Substance is infinite.
Proof: If substance were not infinite, it would be finite and limited by something. But to be limited by something is to be dependent on it. However, substance cannot be dependent on anything else (premise 1), therefore substance is infinite.
Conclusion: There can only be one substance.
Proof: If there were two infinite substances, they would limit each other. But this would act as a restraint, and they would be dependent on each other. But they cannot be dependent on each other (premise 1), therefore there cannot be two substances.
Spinoza contended that \"Deus sive Natura\" (\"God or Nature\") was a being of infinitely many attributes, of which extension and thought were two. His account of the nature of reality, then, seems to treat the physical and mental worlds as two different, parallel \"subworlds\" that neither overlap nor interact. This formulation is a historically significant panpsychist solution to the mind-body problem known as neutral monism. The consequences of Spinoza's system also envisage a God that does not rule over the universe by providence, but a God which itself is part of the deterministic system of which everything in nature is a part. Thus, God is the natural world and has no personality.

Spinoza was a thoroughgoing determinist who held that absolutely everything that happens occurs through the operation of necessity. For him, even human behaviour is fully determined, with freedom being our capacity to know we are determined and to understand why we act as we do. So freedom is not the possibility to say \"no\" to what happens to us but the possibility to say \"yes\" and fully understand why things should necessarily happen that way. By forming more \"adequate\" ideas about what we do and our emotions or affections, we become the adequate cause of our effects (internal or external), which entails an increase in activity (versus passivity). This means that we become both more free and more like God, as Spinoza argues in the Scholium to Prop. 49, Part II. However, Spinoza also held that everything must necessarily happen the way that it does. Therefore, there is no free will.

Spinoza's philosophy has much in common with Stoicism inasmuch as both philosophies sought to fulfil a therapeutic role by instructing people how to attain happiness (or eudaimonia, for the Stoics). However, Spinoza differed sharply from the Stoics in one important respect: he utterly rejected their contention that reason could defeat emotion. On the contrary, he contended, an emotion can be displaced or overcome only by a stronger emotion. For him, the crucial distinction was between active and passive emotions, the former being those that are rationally understood and the latter those that are not. He also held that knowledge of true causes of passive emotion can transform it to an active emotion, thus anticipating one of the key ideas of Sigmund Freud's psychoanalysis.

Some of Spinoza's philosophical positions are:

The natural world is infinite.
There is no real difference between good and evil.
Everything done by humans and other animals is excellent and divine.
All rights are derived from the State.
Animals can be used in any way by people for the benefit of the human race.

6/16/2006 8:52:35 AM

Julian

Going to have to stop you there Nicole - Here's some quotes from Einstein:

I cannot imagine a God who rewards and punishes the objects of his creation, whose purposes are modeled after our own -- a God, in short, who is but a reflection of human frailty. Neither can I believe that the individual survives the death of his body, although feeble souls harbor such thoughts through fear or ridiculous egotisms.

I cannot conceive of a God who rewards and punishes his creatures, or has a will of the kind that we experience in ourselves. Neither can I nor would I want to conceive of an individual that survives his physical death; let feeble souls, from fear or absurd egoism, cherish such thoughts.

It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I cannot take seriously. I also cannot imagine some will or goal outside the human sphere.... Science has been charged with undermining morality, but the charge is unjust. A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death.


Einstein believed in Spinoza's God. (Namely Nature and Reality, not a personal theistic God.)

Excerpt from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baruch_Spinoza

Known as both the \"greatest Jew\" and the \"greatest Atheist\", Spinoza contended that God and Nature were two names for the same reality, namely the single substance (meaning \"to stand beneath\" rather than \"matter\") that underlies the universe and of which all lesser \"entities\" are actually modes or modifications. The argument for this single substance runs something as follows:

1. Substance exists and cannot be dependent on anything else for its existence.
2. No two substances can share an attribute.
Proof: If they share an attribute, they would be identical. Therefore they can only be individuated by their modes. But then they would depend on their modes for their identity. This would have the substance being dependent on its mode, in violation of premise 1. Therefore, two substances cannot share the same attribute.
3. A substance can only be caused by something similar to itself (something that shares its attribute).
4. Substance cannot be caused.
Proof: Something can only be caused by something which is similar to itself, in other words something that shares its attribute. But according to premise 2, no two substances can share an attribute. Therefore substance cannot be caused.
5. Substance is infinite.
Proof: If substance were not infinite, it would be finite and limited by something. But to be limited by something is to be dependent on it. However, substance cannot be dependent on anything else (premise 1), therefore substance is infinite.
Conclusion: There can only be one substance.
Proof: If there were two infinite substances, they would limit each other. But this would act as a restraint, and they would be dependent on each other. But they cannot be dependent on each other (premise 1), therefore there cannot be two substances.
Spinoza contended that \"Deus sive Natura\" (\"God or Nature\") was a being of infinitely many attributes, of which extension and thought were two. His account of the nature of reality, then, seems to treat the physical and mental worlds as two different, parallel \"subworlds\" that neither overlap nor interact. This formulation is a historically significant panpsychist solution to the mind-body problem known as neutral monism. The consequences of Spinoza's system also envisage a God that does not rule over the universe by providence, but a God which itself is part of the deterministic system of which everything in nature is a part. Thus, God is the natural world and has no personality.

Spinoza was a thoroughgoing determinist who held that absolutely everything that happens occurs through the operation of necessity. For him, even human behaviour is fully determined, with freedom being our capacity to know we are determined and to understand why we act as we do. So freedom is not the possibility to say \"no\" to what happens to us but the possibility to say \"yes\" and fully understand why things should necessarily happen that way. By forming more \"adequate\" ideas about what we do and our emotions or affections, we become the adequate cause of our effects (internal or external), which entails an increase in activity (versus passivity). This means that we become both more free and more like God, as Spinoza argues in the Scholium to Prop. 49, Part II. However, Spinoza also held that everything must necessarily happen the way that it does. Therefore, there is no free will.

Spinoza's philosophy has much in common with Stoicism inasmuch as both philosophies sought to fulfil a therapeutic role by instructing people how to attain happiness (or eudaimonia, for the Stoics). However, Spinoza differed sharply from the Stoics in one important respect: he utterly rejected their contention that reason could defeat emotion. On the contrary, he contended, an emotion can be displaced or overcome only by a stronger emotion. For him, the crucial distinction was between active and passive emotions, the former being those that are rationally understood and the latter those that are not. He also held that knowledge of true causes of passive emotion can transform it to an active emotion, thus anticipating one of the key ideas of Sigmund Freud's psychoanalysis.

Some of Spinoza's philosophical positions are:

The natural world is infinite.
There is no real difference between good and evil.
Everything done by humans and other animals is excellent and divine.
All rights are derived from the State.
Animals can be used in any way by people for the benefit of the human race.

6/16/2006 10:37:56 AM

Julian

Lord of Lords - you are a deluded lying sack of shit!

1. Einstein and Darwin proved a lot of people wrong, what does that say?
2. Newton was not a fundamentalist Christian! Fundamentalist Christians believe in the inerrancy of the Bible - Newton wrote many papers, including one called \"An Historical Account of Two Notable Corruptions of Scripture\". Fundie my ass!
2a. Blaise Pascal, a French adversary was a lot more religious and pious and was actually trying to use science to prove God, and Newton showed him up on many occasions.
2b. His work did a lot to show the bibles lies.
3. You are correct - all religions are false.
4. No, they're not run by Satan, Satan doesn't exist, see 3.
5. \"They [religion] are lies and they are false\" - VERY GOOD!

6/16/2006 10:38:13 AM

Nicole

Well, he did say he believed in something, not necessarily as Spinoza did. Atheism believes no god whatsoever. That's why I mentioned non-traditional. (Hence the disbelief in a non personal god). Point being, the fundie doesn't know his ass from his elbow.

6/17/2006 1:57:36 AM

Rysith

Julian,
I'm not sure what you think there was to stop about Nicole's comment. You very nicely proved that Einstein didn't believe in a personal, theistic god. However, I don’t think that that was ever debated. Nicole said that Einstein believed in a non-traditional god. From your own post Einstein believed in Spinoza’s concept of god, which is certainly a belief in god, and therefore not atheistic, although not a traditional belief in god. Please don’t make the mistake that so many fundies do and equate the word “god” with only the God of the Monotheistic religions.

6/17/2006 2:21:52 AM

Crosis

<<< What a scientist discovers, another proves wrong. >>>

As opposed to religion, which sticks to its doctrine, damn the evidence, damn the facts, and damn anyone who dares poke holes in their logic.

That is, indeed, the beauty of science - you don't have to take some other guy's word for it. And you will note that what generally happens (with well-established theories, at least) is not that the preceding theory gets thrown out - it gets modified to cover edge cases that weren't recognized before. Newton's Laws are a good example of this, actually - F=ma is not quite so straightforward at high speeds or tiny distances.

<<< Newton was a fundamentalist Christian, he is undeniably the greatest and most pious scientist that the Lord has ever risen up. His work was devoted to proving the bibles truths. >>>

Interestingly, his work is best known where it had little to do with the Bible. I mean, where in the Bible does it say, \"And lo, an object's velocity will change at a rate equal to the forces applied divided by its mass\"?

<<< If you think your religion of science has any enduring answers for you all you need to do is look at its history. >>>

Science is not a religion. It has nothing to do with religion, except where a religion makes testable claims (and invariably, those claims have fallen apart upon inspection).

And a look at its history tells me that, while mistakes have been made, very few fundamental results of earlier experiments get overturned. The theory gets tweaked, but the biggest changes are not to things we already thought we knew - they are in areas where almost nothing was known.

<<< All religions are false >>>

Truer words you will never speak. (You do realize Christianity is a religion, correct?)

6/17/2006 2:36:06 AM

Julian

Yes from memory the bible was very big on; for every action there will be a sevenfold reaction, not an equal and opposite one!

6/18/2006 6:45:13 AM

Liz

In a few biographies I read, they said that Einstein didn't talk until he was four, which may be indicative of an autism spectrum disorder of some kind. I don't know about Darwin. Is that the mental defect to which you were referring?

6/10/2011 10:18:31 AM

Canadiest

Fundamentalist American Christians have NOTHING in common with Issac Newton. Issac Newton didn't hate knowledge, despise looking for answers or think people shouldn't persue these questions. As others have mentioned, he discover contradictions in the Bible and wrote about them so he was NEVER a literalist.

Devout and dedicated Christian:Yes. Fundamentalist, literal Christian : Never

6/11/2011 11:48:00 AM

Blarghonius

Yes, all religions are false. Thanks for finally realizing that.

6/15/2011 11:27:35 AM

Saringuy

let's see... ad hominems, ad populums, lies, calling atheism a religion, lies, stupidity, not getting what science is...

yep, fundie debating!

3/27/2012 2:20:33 PM

Ebon

Fundementalism didn't exist in Newton's day, moron.

8/21/2012 1:43:17 PM

Quantum Mechanic

Stop using computers and modern medicine.

8/1/2013 1:24:36 PM
1