Quantcast

«

»

Jan 16 2013

Scientists, philosophers, award winning writers said, ‘There is no God’

Arthur C. Clarke, Nadine Gordimer, Isaac Asimov, Arthur Miller, Wole Soyinka, Gore Vidal, Douglas Adams, Germaine Greer, Iain Banks, José Saramago, Terry Pratchett, Ken Follett, Ian McEwan, Andrew Motion, Martin Amis, Michel Houellebecq, Philip Roth, Margaret Atwood, Salman Rushdie,Norman MacCaig, Philip Pullman, Matt Ridley, Harold Pinter, Howard Brenton, Tariq Ali, Theodore Dalrymple, Roddy Doyle, Redmond O’Hanlon, Diana Athill, Christopher Hitchens. All these renowned writers said, there is no God. There are hundreds of thousands of writers in the world say the same thing, God doesn’t exist. Why shouldn’t they say? It’s just common sense.

Albert Einstein on God

Stephen Hawking on God

Carl Sagan on God

Richard Dawkins on God

PZ Myers on God

Christopher Hitchens on God

James Randi on God

George Carlin on God

Stephen Fry on God

Sam Harris on God

20 comments

Skip to comment form

  1. 1
    sharmistha

    This is high time boss, ops sorry God…plz turn up ;)

  2. 2
    Mashuque Mazumder

    Removing these great people as said God is really unnecessary I think.

  3. 3
    Agni_B

    Billion Muslims think Allah exist- does not make them right- same logic applies to your above mentioned people

    We can’t define and have no clue about the attributes of God –but so arrogant and doctrineted to assert that he does exist or does not exist
    It is called atheist/scientific fundamentalism- just another new cult

    No scientist ever said ‘Eureka, found the formula –‘God doesn’t exist’- Believe is not science –just speculations
    Einstein – believed in natural God not personal- His famous line’ God does not play dice…’

    Human lack the brain power to comprehend the complexity of God mechanism etc. you have to have a god like intellect to understand God

    Scientist –human, science- is not. Scientist only knows tiny bit of universal laws- billions trillion s things- remains to be discovered and understood

  4. 4
    billyeager

    Oh Agni_B, short on logic, long on fallacy.

    Atheists/scientist, whatever, never declare they have proven God doesn’t exist, that would be as equally impossible as it would be for you prove my dear friend, mr invisible pink unicorn, doesn’t exist. You can’t do it.

    But, equally, I cannot prove he does. So do we declare the issue one where we are equally right? Of course not, you buffoon, it’s up to the people who are making shit up to provide reasonable evidence as to why their made up shit is ‘real’.

    You even provided for the absurd logical fallacy of ‘we can’t define and have no clue about the attributes of God’. Well, neither can we do same for my dear, dear friend, mr invisible pink unicorn. After all, while we’re in the game of making shit up, we might as well insist that the qualities of the ‘shit’ concerned are utterly undefinable.

    I don’t have to assert ‘there is no god’, I merely have to ask you to provide evidence to support your assertion that there is. You, however, opt for the dishonest claim that you’d have to actually have the intellect of a God in order to even ‘understand’ it’s ‘complexities’.

    You, my friend, are a tosser of word salad. May your reality remain ever confusing and beyond your comprehension. Which it will if you keep insisting on being such a tosser.

  5. 5
    Agni_B

    If you can’t understand my logic- no chance for you to comprehend God-
    Lots of babble from you –but no compelling argument

    If you are an atheist – and can’t prove God does not exist- just shut your gob-and don’t be an imbecile

    1)- No scientist ever said they have proof- just speculation
    2) Science examine how the laws of universe works with all its complexity- not looking for God.- which no one knows what it is.
    3) Atheism is just another cult now- propagating ideas and believes like Jihadist and hooker for Jesus.
    4) Theist/ Atheist are in same boat- none can prove or disprove anything- that
    Was my point- don’t know about yours

    1. 5.1
      Nalliah Thayabharan

      Imagination and projection and hallucination and illusion — they are all parts of the mind. Mind is the world — and going beyond the mind is the beginning of God.
      People are fast asleep. Somebody is asleep as a Catholic, and somebody is asleep as a Hindu. That doesn’t matter — sleep is sleep.If a Catholic, a Hindu and a Muslim get too drunk, will there be any distinction, differentiation between their drunkenness The Catholic will behave as foolishly as the Hindu; and the Hindu will behave as stupidly as the Muslim. Once they are drunk, they are drunk. And people are asleep. It makes no difference what kind of theology you have used as a pillow for your sleep. Whether the pillow is blue or pink or white or red does not matter. Once you fall asleep, you fall asleep; the pillow becomes immaterial. Whether you are sleeping on the New Testament, on the Bhagavad Gita, on the Qur’an does not make any difference; you are using a pillow. Somebody is using the New Testament as the pillow, somebody else is using the Qur’an as the pillow. And you are snoring over your scriptures. And Jesus and Krishna and Allah remain strangers

      Theology begins with a belief, with faith. And philosophy begins with doubt, logic, reason. Philosophy is thinking; theology is believing without thinking. No religion allows thinking, so no religion has a philosophy: they all have theologies.
      Christianity does not have any philosophy, it has a theology. It says “believe” — believe in the savior, believe in Jesus Christ, believe that he is the only begotten son of God, believe in God, believe in the trinity. But it is always “believe,” and believing makes a man a hypocrite, because deep down you know that belief cannot become a truth. Deep down you know that this is only a belief; you have not experienced it. There is no base for it, it is baseless: a single doubt and the whole edifice will be shattered on the ground.

      Now, a Christian believes that Jesus is born of a virgin mother. Can you think about it? If you think, doubt will be needed. You can only believe, and in believing… you know perfectly well that it is unnatural, it cannot happen.

      Christianity says that Jesus was resurrected after his death. You have to believe it because there is no proof, no evidence. In the contemporary literature of Jesus Christ’s life, even the name of Jesus is not mentioned. Do you think a phenomenon like a man getting crucified, getting resurrected, would go unnoticed? that a man who brings dead people to life would not be reported anywhere? that a man who walks on water…?

      Do you think this man would have been crucified? He would have been hailed as the messiah by the Jews themselves, because what more do you want? — none of your other prophets have done anything of this kind. But there is not even a mention that there was such a person as Jesus Christ. And he did not have a big following.
      If you think, you cannot believe in these things. If you think about God, you cannot believe. So Christianity has no philosophy. No religion can afford to be philosophical; it can only remain theological.

      All the organized religions care basically depriving humanity of religion because they are misdirecting you. They are always directing you outwards — their God is far away in the sky. And when you pray, folding your hands towards the sky, you don’t realize that there is nobody to hear you.

      In fact, the one who is praying, the one who is alive in you, the one who is breathing in you, is the God.

      You have just to discover it.

  6. 6
    David Wells

    Agni B,

    You are right on three points.

    1) Simply asserting that these people have said there’s no God is as fallacious as billions of Muslims saying that Allah is real does not make Allah any more or less real.

    2) Scientists have never made a discovery and said “ah, therefore God doesn’t exist.” They have, through time said: “ah, so that’s how that works, obviously that supernatural explanation that we most-likely made up to explain the phenomena we now have a wholly naturalistic explanation for is bunk and can be relegated to mythology.”

    3) We cannot prove that God does not exist (or that he does), and we don’t know everything about the universe, so yes, hypothetically there’s a gap somewhere that God can fit into, and the definition of what god may or may not be can continually to be twisted and fabricated to fill that ever-changing emptiness of ignorance that humans will (hopefully) continue to fill with knowledge, as one of our most beneficial characteristics is to continue to seek answers for the questions we do not know the answer for yet.

    However, that being said, if we have no proof, no evidence, no reason to believe he exists…then why do it? If there is some reason other than belief in something utterly unproven for beliefs sake, then I would love to hear it. Some philosophical argument that said god does, or is even likely to exist other than blind-faith.

    I’m sure you’ve heard it before, but let me restate one of the basic argument that many of these people have tried to make: Zeus, Unicorns, elves, Odin, pink dragons, Ketzalkoatl, Osiris, Leviathan, Mammon, Enki, Tiamat, Allah, Yahweh, Peter Pan, Sasquatch, Jehovah, Chupacabra, etc. (http://www.godchecker.com/), what possible reason would for believing in any one particular God or proposed mythical entity without proof or evidence, when you don’t believe in the others whose existence have more or less the exact same lack of proof attesting to them?

    That’s all we’re asking: What possible reason for believing without evidence just for belief’s sake? What purpose does it serve?

    p.s. Please for the sake of my sanity do not throw out Pascal’s wager…really tired of that nonsense.

    1. 6.1
      Agni_B

      David W

      Glad to see you still preserved your independent mind
      and have not joined the band wagon

      Only Buddha, I think, was not interested in finding God’s existence – he thought it was not important
      and also incomprehensible- “finite mind can’t comprehend the infinite….”

      Agni B

  7. 7
    No One

    Agni_B

    you have to have a god like intellect to understand God.

    And how do you know this? Your saying it does not make it so. Sounds like made up bullshit. Perhaps if you look in your hat you can find where there is gold in the earth.

    1. 7.1
      Agni_B

      Let me simplify for your understanding-

      Can a brick layer (no offence) without any education comprehend Einstein “E= MC²?” – Or can you converse theory of relativity if not a physicist

      If you looking for bullshit- try any toilet

      1. No One

        Let me clarify. Your simplification is bullshit (offense intended). Einstein existed. Physicists exists. I don’t need to understand them to know that they exist. So to draw comparisons to between existing intellect and an intellect that there is no evidence for is I believe a false equivocacy.

        And as an afterthought how would you know what criteria is necessary in order understand the mind of this imaginary being? I mean since you would need a godlike intellect and all that.

        And as an after, afterthought… bulls do not shit in toilets. I’ve seen cats do it, but never bulls. More magical thinking on your part?

      2. Carbon12Atom

        Yes, a brick layer without any education can comprehend Einstein “E= MC². Yes, a non physicist can converse theory of relativity. Yes, everybody can see you absolutely diluted with bullshit. That is the dumbest shit I’ve ever heard.

  8. 8
    Mashuque Mazumder

    Existence of God would have been solved at the first day of human conscience appeared to humankind,but it was not and remained same till date. As suppose actually substances are science. So as per my idea no science exists at all like God.

  9. 9
    billyeager

    If you can’t understand my logic- no chance for you to comprehend God-

    Oh I understand your logic or, rather, your fallacious logic.

    Lots of babble from you –but no compelling argument

    Ooh, how clever of you to completely ignore the valid argument I made by simply claiming I didn’t! Genius.

    If you are an atheist – and can’t prove God does not exist- just shut your gob-and don’t be an imbecile

    Either you’re an idiot or you are dishonest to the core.

    I don’t have to prove anything, science doesn’t have to prove anything, you do.

    What don’t you understand about making an assertion? I think you’ll find the label ‘imbecile’ applies to the party in this conversation who doesn’t appear to understand what an assertion is.

    You assert, “God exists”, we say, “Where’s the evidence?”

    You cannot keep ignoring that question by applying additional attributes to your ‘God’. Prove your ‘God’ exists first.

    1. 9.1
      Agni_B

      Position your spectacles and read again- never stated God exist or does not exist.

      So don’t need to prove anything- Proof should come from Theist and Atheist

      1. billyeager

        Well by the simple fact that you declare “God” to be far too complex for us to understand, you are asserting that a God exists according to your absurd premise of arbitrarily assigning attributes to it.

        Atheist’s have nothing to prove, we’re not the ones asserting anything.

        You’re the one who has asserted the existence of a God by way of it having attributes we could not possibly understand. Which is, quite simply, one of the most fallacious and hilariously nonsensical assertions I have heard in a long time.

        Thanks for the laugh.

  10. 10
    Mohsen Nourani

    Richrd Dawkins did not say god does not exist. He said: ” we don’t know if it exists.”

    1. 10.1
      No One

      That’s why he wrote “The god delusion”. He is a 6 on a scale of 7 in disbelief. He probably would say the same thing about Rusell’s Teapot and leprechauns. That which is posited without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. It is disingenuous to quote him out of context .

    2. 10.2
      No One

      Richard Dawkins bibliography:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Dawkins_bibliography

      Reading some of his books might prevent uninformed posts (about Richard Dawkins) in the future.

  11. 11
    HeisseSussy

    naturally like your website however you have to test the spelling on quite a few of your posts. A number of them are rife with spelling problems and I to find it very bothersome to tell the reality then again I’ll definitely come again again

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>