(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({}); I went on a search.
I am Atheist now, I am also an Ex-Catholic.
So Instead of being biased, I went to look at both sides of this argument. I got motivational quotes from both Atheists and Christians/Religious People. And it was shocking.

The Best Atheist Quotes:













Okay so heres this part.
All the above quotes were by some of the smartest people who ever lived. The best philosophers, scientists ect.
But yet when I come to the Christian side, I find that 99% of the quotes are taken directly from a 2000 year old book which people call the bible. Or some cheesy ass shit like this:



So tell me, How come nearly every famous scientist that has ever lived has been atheist? And that normal Religious people cannot come up with faults in Atheism?

This is the shit that turned me Atheist.

Thank you for Reading.

It kind of makes me wish God is real. Any god that makes bears rip childrens heads off deserves a pat on his omnipresent back

Oh you don't know how disgusting and grotesque the bible actually is.
If I can remember, In 2 Chronicles 21:12-19 , God gives someone (can't remember name) a bowel disease that will worsen until their bowels fall out. So If I really want to believe in a person that is worse that Hitler and Joesph Stalin put together, Shame on me.



It does. And I like the sarcasm and the way god doesn't have a capital g :love:

Is there any scientific proof of God?

Before we can discuss the existence of scientific proof of God, we need to identify what we mean by proof. Also, to know what type of evidence supporting the existence of God would be considered by science, we also need to know which definition of science applies.

The definition of science has changed within the last century from an overall search for truth to a more limited scope of natural explanations of natural processes. Using the current narrow scope definition, there is not any scientific proof of God. The truth or untruth of this statement is not based upon evidence or lack of evidence, but by definition alone. Even though there is extensive, solid evidence for God’ s existence, none of that evidence would be admissible in the science court of law using the current definition.

Consequently, to know what evidence really supports the existence of God, we need to base our statements on the old classic definition of science to eliminate the disqualification of the evidence. The kind of evidence we need to consider is the same type that would be admissible in a court of law.

The level of proof is different in a criminal court than a civil court. In a civil court the prosecution only needs to prove that the preponderance of evidence tips the scales in their direction. Alternatively, in a criminal court a higher level of proof is required. The prosecutor needs to provide evidence that proves the defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

What types of evidence are admissible in courtrooms? These include direct evidence such as fingerprints, DNA, or eyewitness accounts. Also, circumstantial evidence is normally admissible unless it is abnormally weak. Although circumstantial evidence is indirect, it can be powerful evidence to prove guilt or innocence.

Scientific Proof of God – The Evidence
What evidence exists that could prove the existence or non-existence of God? Does God exist?

* First, the non-existence of God cannot be proven. One cannot prove a universal negative. Alternatively, the existence of God is provable.

* The concept, design, and intricate details of our world necessitate an intelligent designer.

* Both direct and indirect evidence for God’s existence are well known and well documented. Nothing in history is better known or better documented than the birth, life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. We even use the year of His birth as the basis for our calendar. He perfectly matched the over 100 unique Messianic prophecies in the Old Testament regarding His birth, life, death, and resurrection. The laws of probability cannot give us a reasonable explanation for either the Messianic predictions or the resurrection, let alone both by the same person.

Jesus’ miracles were witnessed by many and were documented redundantly for additional corroboration. He was seen by at least 500 people after His resurrection. He was seen ascending into heaven. His transfiguration was seen by Peter, James, and John. His wisdom in dealing with many circumstances was astounding. He never promoted Himself or His miracles. C. S. Lewis stated that He couldn’t have just been a good teacher. He was either a liar, lunatic, or Lord. He didn’t even come close to meeting the profile of a liar or lunatic, so He had to be God.

* Jesus Christ also supported the truth of the Old Testament and quoted it many times. Consequently, with Jesus Christ, we have an eyewitness to the truth of the Old Testament. This gives credibility to the creation account and God’s interaction with man. The entire Old Testament account is about how God is trying to have a relationship with man while man is separating himself from God by sin. It tells how God is long-suffering and merciful and ultimately how God sent His Son to die for our sins so God could ultimately have a relationship with us.

God’s interaction with man in the Old Testament was often and powerful. Some of the main interactions included Adam, Cain, Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Jacob, Moses, Joshua, the Israelites, the prophets, and the kings. In addition to Jesus’ testimony to the truth of the Old Testament, ancient manuscripts, archaeology, and internal consistency also testify to its truth. Consequently, much direct evidence including eyewitness accounts and indirect evidence corroborate the existence of God and the truth of the Bible.

You must login or register to view this content.


[ame=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ppIgFEFUpjw]YouTube - Scientific Proof of God[/ame]

[ame="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K9NhryjXz0c"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K9NhryjXz0c[/ame]

I believe in God; I just don't trust anyone who works for him.

I cannot imagine how the clockwork of the universe can exist without a clockmaker. ~Voltaire

If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him. ~Voltaire

Young man, young man, your arm's too short to box with God. ~James Weldon Johnson

Maybe the atheist cannot find God for the same reason a thief cannot find a policeman. ~Author Unknown

No matter how much I prove and prod,
I cannot quite believe in God;
But oh, I hope to God that He
Unswervingly believes in me.
~E.Y. Harburg, attributed

"What do you think of God," the teacher asked. After a pause, the young pupil replied, "He's not a think, he's a feel." ~Paul Frost

Why attack God? He may be as miserable as we are. ~Erik Satie

I've been hiding from God, and I'm appalled to find how easy it is. ~Mignon McLaughlin, The Second Neurotic's Notebook, 1966

If Creation were a crime, would not God be the prime suspect? ~Robert Brault, You must login or register to view this content.

I prefer to think that God is not dead, just drunk. ~John Marcellus Huston

Is man one of God's blunders, or is God one of man's blunders? ~Friedrich Nietzsche

If you are not as close to God as you used to be, who moved? ~Author Unknown

" This thing [a scale model of our solar system] is but a puny imitation of a much grander system whose laws you know, and I am not able to convince you that this mere toy is without a designer and maker; yet you, as an atheist, profess to believe that the great original from which the design is taken has come into being without either designer or maker! Now tell me by what sort of reasoning do you reach such an incongruous conclusion?"Sir Isaac Newton [1642-1727]

here are some quotes from scientists:

Fred Hoyle (British astrophysicist): "A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question." (2)

George Ellis (British astrophysicist): "Amazing fine tuning occurs in the laws that make this [complexity] possible. Realization of the complexity of what is accomplished makes it very difficult not to use the word 'miraculous' without taking a stand as to the ontological status of the word." (3)

Paul Davies (British astrophysicist): "There is for me powerful evidence that there is something going on behind it all....It seems as though somebody has fine-tuned nature’s numbers to make the Universe....The impression of design is overwhelming". (4)

Paul Davies: "The laws [of physics] ... seem to be the product of exceedingly ingenious design... The universe must have a purpose". (5)

Alan Sandage (winner of the Crawford prize in astronomy): "I find it quite improbable that such order came out of chaos. There has to be some organizing principle. God to me is a mystery but is the explanation for the miracle of existence, why there is something instead of nothing." (6)

John O'Keefe (astronomer at NASA): "We are, by astronomical standards, a pampered, cosseted, cherished group of creatures.. .. If the Universe had not been made with the most exacting precision we could never have come into existence. It is my view that these circumstances indicate the universe was created for man to live in." (7)

George Greenstein (astronomer): "As we survey all the evidence, the thought insistently arises that some supernatural agency - or, rather, Agency - must be involved. Is it possible that suddenly, without intending to, we have stumbled upon scientific proof of the existence of a Supreme Being? Was it God who stepped in and so providentially crafted the cosmos for our benefit?" (

Arthur Eddington (astrophysicist): "The idea of a universal mind or Logos would be, I think, a fairly plausible inference from the present state of scientific theory." (9)

Arno Penzias (Nobel prize in physics): "Astronomy leads us to a unique event, a universe which was created out of nothing, one with the very delicate balance needed to provide exactly the conditions required to permit life, and one which has an underlying (one might say 'supernatural' plan." (10)

Roger Penrose (mathematician and author): "I would say the universe has a purpose. It's not there just somehow by chance." (11)

Tony Rothman (physicist): "When confronted with the order and beauty of the universe and the strange coincidences of nature, it's very tempting to take the leap of faith from science into religion. I am sure many physicists want to. I only wish they would admit it." (12)

Vera Kistiakowsky (MIT physicist): "The exquisite order displayed by our scientific understanding of the physical world calls for the divine." (13)

Robert Jastrow (self-proclaimed agnostic): "For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries." (14)

Stephen Hawking (British astrophysicist): "Then we shall… be able to take part in the discussion of the question of why it is that we and the universe exist. If we find the answer to that, it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason - for then we would know the mind of God." (15)

Frank Tipler (Professor of Mathematical Physics): "When I began my career as a cosmologist some twenty years ago, I was a convinced atheist. I never in my wildest dreams imagined that one day I would be writing a book purporting to show that the central claims of Judeo-Christian theology are in fact true, that these claims are straightforward deductions of the laws of physics as we now understand them. I have been forced into these conclusions by the inexorable logic of my own special branch of physics." (16) Note: Tipler since has actually converted to Christianity, hence his latest book, The Physics Of Christianity.

Alexander Polyakov (Soviet mathematician): "We know that nature is described by the best of all possible mathematics because God created it."(17)

Ed Harrison (cosmologist): "Here is the cosmological proof of the existence of God – the design argument of Paley – updated and refurbished. The fine tuning of the universe provides prima facie evidence of deistic design. Take your choice: blind chance that requires multitudes of universes or design that requires only one.... Many scientists, when they admit their views, incline toward the teleological or design argument." (1

Edward Milne (British cosmologist): "As to the cause of the Universe, in context of expansion, that is left for the reader to insert, but our picture is incomplete without Him [God]." (19)

Barry Parker (cosmologist): "Who created these laws? There is no question but that a God will always be needed." (20)

Drs. Zehavi, and Dekel (cosmologists): "This type of universe, however, seems to require a degree of fine tuning of the initial conditions that is in apparent conflict with 'common wisdom'." (21)

Arthur L. Schawlow (Professor of Physics at Stanford University, 1981 Nobel Prize in physics): "It seems to me that when confronted with the marvels of life and the universe, one must ask why and not just how. The only possible answers are religious. . . . I find a need for God in the universe and in my own life." (22)

Henry "Fritz" Schaefer (Graham Perdue Professor of Chemistry and director of the Center for Computational Quantum Chemistry at the University of Georgia): "The significance and joy in my science comes in those occasional moments of discovering something new and saying to myself, 'So that's how God did it.' My goal is to understand a little corner of God's plan." (23)

Wernher von Braun (Pioneer rocket engineer) "I find it as difficult to understand a scientist who does not acknowledge the presence of a superior rationality behind the existence of the universe as it is to comprehend a theologian who would deny the advances of science." (24)

Carl Woese (microbiologist from the University of Illinois) "Life in Universe - rare or unique? I walk both sides of that street. One day I can say that given the 100 billion stars in our galaxy and the 100 billion or more galaxies, there have to be some planets that formed and evolved in ways very, very like the Earth has, and so would contain microbial life at least. There are other days when I say that the anthropic principal, which makes this universe a special one out of an uncountably large number of universes, may not apply only to that aspect of nature we define in the realm of physics, but may extend to chemistry and biology. In that case life on Earth could be entirely unique." (25)

Antony Flew (Professor of Philosophy, former atheist, author, and debater) "It now seems to me that the findings of more than fifty years of Deoxyribonucleic acid: the chemical inside the nucleus of a cell that carries the genetic instructions for making living organisms.DNA research have provided materials for a new and enormously powerful argument to design." (26)

Frank Tipler (Professor of Mathematical Physics): "From the perspective of the latest physical theories, Christianity is not a mere religion, but an experimentally testable science." (27)

You must login or register to view this content.

First of all, You didn't read that.
Second of all, All you did was Copy and Paste. Anyone can do that.
It also made no theoretical sense as recalling this part
"Jesus’ miracles were witnessed by many and were documented redundantly for additional corroboration. He was seen by at least 500 people after His resurrection."
How did people know that? How did people see him ascend into Heaven?
I can also say that I saw a Flying Spaghetti monster in my back Garden, Write it down and get my Granchildren to pass it on and BAM. There's a new Religion.

Referring to this part:
"* First, the non-existence of God cannot be proven. One cannot prove a universal negative. Alternatively, the existence of God is provable."

The existence of God is not provable. Full stop.
But the non-existence is also non provable I know, But why would I have to prove the non existence when I don't believe in him.
You would have to prove he's real before I prove he's not real.

Lastly, Dear God watch the video before you Copy and paste it here.
You don't even read my replies, You just come up with mumbo jumbo shit like this.
Prove some of my replies wrong first before I start proving this crap wrong.

<3..........

[ame=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HvhGeNzdRZA]YouTube - Does God Exist ? Albert Einstein[/ame]

---------- Post added at 09:28 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:25 PM ----------



<3..........

Well... one major flaw in your reasoning that you have just exposed is that previously you said Albert Einstein believed in God...

Now you're saying he doesn't. YOU CHRISTIANS CONFUSE THE **** OUT OF ME.

when did i say im christian?