text:
Joseph Priestley

Joseph Priestley (13 March 1733 – 6 February 1804) was an English Unitarian clergyman, theologian, political theorist, and the scientist who is usually credited with the discovery of oxygen, as he was the first to isolate it in its gaseous state.
 * See also
 * Experiments and Observations on Different Kinds of Air

Quotes

 * [The doctrine of air] I was led into in consequence of inhabiting a house adjoining to a public brewery, where I at first amused myself with making experiments on the fixed air [carbon dioxide] which I found ready made in the process of fermentation. When I removed from that house I was under the necessity of making the fixed air for myself; and one experiment leading to another, as I have distinctly and faithfully noted in my various publications on the subject, I by degrees contrived a convenient apparatus for the purpose, but of the cheapest kind.
 * Letter to Dr. Richard Price (Oct. 19, 1771) as quoted in John Towill Rutt, Life and Correspondence of Joseph Priestley (1831)

 * It is known to all persons who are conversant in experimental philosophy, that there are many little attentions and precautions necessary to be observed in the conducting of experiments, which cannot well be described in words, but which it is needless to describe, since practice will necessarily suggest them; though, like all other arts in which the hands and fingers are made use of, it is only much practice that can enable a person to go through complex experiments, of this or any kind, with ease and readiness.
 * Experiments and Observations of Different Kinds of Air (1775)

 * We more easily give our assent to any proposition when the person who contends for it appears, by his manner of delivering himself, to have a perfect knowledge of the subject of it.
 * A Course of Lectures on Oratory and Criticism (1777), Part III, Lecture XVI, p. 116

 * All hereditary Government is in its nature tyranny. An heritable crown, or an heritable throne, or by what other fanciful name such things may be called, have no other significant explanation than that mankind are heritable property. To inherit a Government, is to inherit the people, as if they were flocks and herds.
 * The Rights of Man (1791)

 * Our anxiety during the King of France's escape, and our joy on his capture, cannot be described. I hope the new constitution is now effectually established, and that all attempts to overturn it will be in vain. The high-party here are mortified in the extreme. They would have had France involved in a most ruinous civil war, for the imaginary rights of one man. A majority, I fear, of Englishmen are in these sentiments, so that we are far indeed behind the French. In spite of all we can write or do, an attachment to high maxims of government gains ground here, and the love of liberty is on the decline. Such is the influence of the court. Nothing but public difficulties will open our eyes.
 * Letter to Theophilus Lindsey (29 June 1791), quoted in John Towill Rutt, Life and Correspondence of Joseph Priestley, LL.D., F.R.S., &c. Vol. II (1832), p. 114

 * Having thought it right to leave behind me some account of my friends and benefactors, it is in a manner necessary that I also give some account of myself; and as the like has been done by many persons, and for reasons which posterity has approved, I make no further apology for following their example. If my writings in general have been useful to my contemporaries, I hope that this account of myself will not be without its use to those who may come after me, and especially in promoting virtue and piety, which, I hope I may say, it has been my care to practise myself, as it has been my business to inculcate them upon others.
 * Memoirs of the Rev. Dr. Joseph Priestly (1809). p. 1

 * I married a daughter of Mr. Isaac Wilkinson, an ironmaster, near Wrexham, in Wales, with whose family I had become acquainted, in consequence of having the youngest son, William, at my school at Nantwich. This proved a very suitable and happy connexion, my wife being a woman of an excellent understanding, much improved by reading, of great fortitude and strength of mind, and of a temper in the highest degree affectionate and generous; feeling strongly for others, and little for herself. Also, greatly excelling in every thing relating to household affairs, she entirely relieved me of all concern of that kind, which allowed me to give all my time to the prosecution of my studies, and the other duties of my station.
 * Memoirs of the Rev. Dr. Joseph Priestly (1809), p. 41

The History and Present State of Electricity (1767)

 * : with Original Experiments. Sources (1775 editions): Vol. 1 & Vol. 2.

 * The History of Electricity is a field full of pleasing objects, according to all the genuine and universal principles of taste, deduced from a knowledge of human nature. Scenes like these, in which we see a gradual rise and progress in things, always exhibit a pleasing spectacle to the human mind. Nature, in all her delightful walks, abounds with such views, and they are in a more especial manner connected with every thing that relates to human life and happiness; things, in their own nature, the most interesting to us. Hence it is, that the power of association has annexed crowds of pleasing sensations to the contemplation of every object, in which this property is apparent. This pleasure, likewise, bears a considerable resemblance to that of the sublime, which is one of the most exquisite of all those that affect the human imagination. For an object in which we see a perpetual progress and improvement is, as it were, continually rising in its magnitude; and moreover, when we see an actual increase, in a long period of time past, we cannot help forming an idea of an unlimited increase in futurity; which is a prospect really boundless, and sublime.
 * Preface, p. i.

 * The history of philosophy enjoys, in some measure, the advantages both of civil and natural history, whereby it is relieved from what is most tedious and disgusting in both. Philosophy exhibits the powers of nature, discovered and directed by human art. It has, therefore, in some measure, the boundless variety with the amazing uniformity of the one, and likewise every thing that is pleasing and interesting in the other. And the idea of continual rise and improvement is conspicuous in the whole study, whether we be attentive to the part which nature, or that which men are acting in the great scene. It is here that we see the human understanding to its greatest advantage, grasping at the noblest objects, and increasing its own powers, by acquiring to itself the powers of nature, and directing them to the accomplishment of its own views; whereby the security, and happiness of mankind are daily improved. Human abilities are chiefly conspicuous in adapting means to ends, and in deducing one thing from another by the method of analogy; and where may we find instances of greater sagacity, than in philosophers diversifying the situations of things, in order to give them an opportunity of showing their mutual relations, affections, and influences; deducing one truth and one discovery from another, and applying them all to the useful purposes of human life. If the exertion of human abilities, which cannot but form a delightful spectacle for the human imagination, give us pleasure, we enjoy it here in a higher degree than while we are contemplating the schemes of warriors, and the stratagems of their bloody art.
 * Preface, pp. iv-v.

 * Great conquerors, we read, have been both animated, and also, in a great measure, formed by reading the exploits of former conquerors. Why may not the same effect be expected from the history of philosophy to philosophers? May not even more be expected in this case? The wars of many of those conquerors, who received this advantage from history, had no proper connection with former wars: they were only analogous to them. Whereas the whole business of philosophy, diversified as it is, is but one; it being one and the same great scheme, that all philosophers, of all ages and nations, have been conducting, from the beginning of the world; so that the work being the same, the labours of one are not only analogous to those of of another, but in an immediate manner subservient to them; and one philosopher succeeds another in the same field; as one Roman proconsul succeeded another in carrying on the same war, and pursuing the same conquests, in the same country. In this case, an intimate knowledge of what has been done before us cannot but greatly facilitate our future progress, if it be not absolutely necessary to it.
 * Preface, pp. vi-vii.

 * Hitherto philosophy has been chiefly conversant about the more sensible properties of bodies; electricity, together with chymistry, and the doctrine of light and colours, seems to be giving us an inlet into their internal structure, on which all their sensible properties depend. By pursuing this new light, therefore, the bounds of natural science may possibly be extended, beyond what we can now form an idea of. New worlds may open to our view, and the glory of the great Sir Isaac Newton himself, and all his contemporaries, be eclipsed, by a new set of philosophers, in quite a new field of speculation. Could that great man revisit the earth, and view the experiments of the present race of electricians, he would be no less amazed than Roger Bacon, or Sir Francis, would have been at his.
 * Preface, pp. xiv-xv.

 * Were it possible to trace the succession of ideas in the mind of Sir Isaac Newton, during the time that he made his greatest discoveries, I make no doubt but our amazement at the extent of his genius would a little subside. But if, when a man publishes discoveries, he, either through design, or through habit, omit the intermediate steps by which he himself arrived at them; it is no wonder that his speculations confound others... [W]here we see him most in the character of an experimental philosopher, as in his optical inquiries... we may easily conceive that many persons, of equal patience and industry... might have done what he did. And were it possible to see in what manner he was first led to those speculations, the very steps by which he pursued them, the time that he spent in making experiments, and all the unsuccessful and insignificant ones that he made in the course of them; as our pleasure of one kind would be increased, our admiration would probably decrease. Indeed he himself used candidly to acknowledge, that if he had done more than other men, it was owing rather to a habit of patient thinking, than to any thing else. ...[T]he interests of science have suffered by the excessive admiration and wonder, with which several first rate philosophers are considered; and... an opinion of the greater equality of mankind, in point of genius, and powers of understanding, would be of real service in the present age.
 * Vol. 2, pp. 167-169.

Essay on the First Principles of Government, 2nd Edition (1771)

 * Man derives two capital advantages from the superiority of his intellectual powers. The first is, that, as an individual, he possesses a certain comprehension of mind, whereby he contemplates and enjoys the past and the future, as well as the present. This comprehension is enlarged with the experience of every day; and by this means the happiness of man, as he advances in intellect, is continually less dependent on temporary circumstances and sensations. The next advantage resulting from the same principle, and which is, in many respects, both the cause and effect of the former, is, that the human species itself is capable of a similar and unbounded improvement; whereby mankind in a later age are greatly superior to mankind in a former age, the individuals being taken at the same time of life.
 * Section I, "Of the First Principles of Government, and the different kinds of Liberty"

 * And since every man retains, and can never be deprived of his natural right (founded on a regard to the general good) of relieving himself from all oppression, that is, from every thing that has been imposed upon him without his own consent; this must be the only true and proper foundation of all the governments subsisting in the world, and that to which the people who compose them have an unalienable right to bring them back.
 * Section II, "Of Political Liberty"

 * Governors will never be awed by the voice of the people, so long as it is a mere voice, without overt-acts.
 * Section II, "Of Political Liberty"

 * If the power of government be very extensive, and the subjects of it have, consequently, little power over their own actions, that government is tyrannical, and oppressive; whether, with respect to its form, it be a monarchy, an aristocracy, or even a republic.
 * Section III, "Of Civil Liberty"

 * For the government of the temporary magistrates of a democracy, or even the laws themselves may be as tyrannical as the maxims of the most despotic monarchy, and the administration of the government may be as destructive of private happiness. The only consolation that a democracy suggests in those circumstances is, that every member of the state has a chance of arriving at a share in the chief magistracy, and consequently of playing the tyrant in his turn; and as there is no government in the world so perfectly democratical, as that every member of the state, without exception, has a right of being admitted into the administration, great numbers will be in the same condition as if they had lived under the most absolute monarchy; and this is, in fact, almost universally the case with the poor, in all governments.
 * Section III, "Of Civil Liberty"

The History and Present State of Discoveries Relating to Vision, Light, and Colours (1772)

 * Full Text

 * Contemporary with Vitellio and Peccam was... Roger Bacon, a man of almost universal genius, and who wrote on almost every branch of science. He frequently quotes Alhazen on the subject of optics, and seems to have carefully studied his writings, as well as those of other Arabians, which were the fountains of natural knowledge in those days, and which had been introduced into Europe by means of the Moors in Spain. Notwithstanding the pains this great man took with the subject of opticks, it does not appear that, with respect to theory, he made any considerable advance upon what Alhazen had done before him.
 * Period I To the Revival of Letters in Erope

 * Great as Bacon was, he was far from being free from the mistakes and prejudices of those who went before him. Even some of the most wild and absurd opinions of the antients have the sanction of his approbation and authority. He does not hesitate to assent to an opinion... that visual rays proceed from the eye; giving this reason for it, that every thing in nature is qualified to discharge its proper functions by its own powers, in the same manner as the sun, and other celestial bodies. He acknowledges, however, that the presence of light, as well as several other circumstances, is necessary to vision.
 * Period I To the Revival of Letters in Erope

 * In his Opus Majus he demonstrates, that if a transparent body, interposed between the eye and an object, be convex towards the eye, the object will appear magnified. This observation our author certainly had from Alhazen... this writer [Bacon] gives us figures, representing the progress of rays of light through his spherical segment, as well as endeavours to give reasons why objects are magnified... From the writings of Alhazen and these observations and experiments of Bacon together, it is not improbable that some monks gradually hit upon the construction of spectacles, to which Bacon's lesser segment, not withstanding his mistake concerning it, was a nearer approach than Alhazen's... Whoever they were that pursued the discoveries of Bacon, they probably observed, that a very small convex glass, when held at a greater distance from a book, would magnify the letters more than when it was placed close to them, in which position only Bacon seemed to have used it. In the next place, they might try whether two of these small segments of a sphere placed together, or a glass convex on both sides, would not magnify more than one of them. They would then find, that two of these glasses, one for each eye, would answer the purpose of reading better than one; and lastly they might find, that different degrees of convexity, suited different persons. It is certain that spectacles were well known in the 13th century, and not long before. ...It would certainly have been a great satisfaction to us to have been able to trace the actual steps in the progress of this most useful invention, without which most persons who have a taste for reading must have had the melancholy prospect of passing a very dull and joyless old age; and must have been deprived of the pleasure of entertaining themselves by conversing with the absent and the dead, when they were no longer capable of acting their part among the living. Telescopes and microscopes are to be numbered among the superfluities of life when compared to spectacles, which may now be ranked almost among the necessities of it; since the arts of reading and writing are almost universal.
 * Period I To the Revival of Letters in Erope

Institutes of Natural and Revealed Religion (1772–1774)

 * It is the earnest wish of my heart, that your minds may be well established in the sound principles of religious knowledge, because I am fully persuaded, that nothing else can be a sufficient foundation of a virtuous and truly respectable conduct in life, or of good hope in death. A mind destitute of knowledge (and, comparatively speaking, no kind of knowledge, besides that of religion, deserves the name) is like a field on which no culture has been bestowed, which, the richer it is, the ranker weeds it will produce, If nothing good be sown in it, it will be dccupied by plants that are useless or noxious.
 * Vol. I : The Dedication (March 1772)

 * The mind of man can never be wholly barren. Through our whole lives we are subject to successive impressions; for, either new ideas are continually flowing in, or traces of the old ones are marked deeper. If, therefore, you be not acquiring good principles be assured that you are acquiring bad ones; if you be not forming virtuous habits you are, how insensibly soever to yourselves, forming vicious ones…
 * Vol. I : The Dedication (March 1772)

 * Respect a parliamentary king, and chearfully pay all parliamentary taxes; but have nothing to do with a parliamentary religion, or a parliamentary God. Religious rights, and religious liberty, are things of inestimable value. For these have many of our ancestors suffered and died; and shall we, in the sunshine of prosperity, desert that glorious cause, from which no storms of adversity or persecution could make them swerve? Let us consider if as a duty of the first rank with respect to moral obligation, to transmit to our posterity, and provide, as far as we can, for transmitting, unimpaired, to the latest generations, that generous zeal for religion and liberty, which makes the memory of our forefathers so truly illustrious.
 * Vol. I : The Dedication (March 1772)

 * The mind of man will never be able to contemplate the being, perfections, and providence of God without meeting with inexplicable difficulties. We may find sufficient reason for acquiescing in the darkness which involves these great subjects, but we must never expect to see them set in a perfectly clear light. But notwithstanding this, we may know enough of the divine being, and of his moral government, to make us much better and happier beings than we could be without such knowledge; and even the consideration of the insuperable difficulties referred to above is not without its use, as it tends to impress the mind with sentiments of reverence, humility, and submission.
 * Vol. I : Preface (1772)

 * If any person, discouraged by these difficulties, should think to relieve himself by rejecting all religion, natural and revealed, he will find, if he reflect at all, that he has miserably deceived himself, and that he is involved in greater perplexity than ever; the scheme he has adopted not only filling his mind with great darkness and distress, but being contrary to some of the plainest appearances in nature, and therefore manifestly irrational and absurd.
 * Vol. I : Preface (1772)

 * When we say there is a GOD, we mean that there is an intelligent designing cause of what we see in the world around us, and a being who was himself uncaused.
 * Vol. I : Part I : The Being and Attributes of God, § 1 : Of the existence of God, and those attributes which art deduced from his being considered as uncaused himself, and the cause of every thing else (1772)

 * It may, perhaps, be true, though we cannot distinctly see it to be so, that as all finite things require a cause, infinites admit of none. It is evident, that nothing can begin to be without a cause; but it by no means follows from thence, that that must have had a cause which had no beginning. But whatever there may be in this conjecture, we are constrained, in pursuing the train of causes and effects, to stop at last at something uncaused. That any being should be self created is evidently absurd, because that would suppose that he had a being before he had, or that he existed, and did not exist at the same time. For want of clearer knowledge of this subject, we are obliged to content ourselves with terms that convey only negative ideas, and to say that God is a being untreated or uncaused; and this is all that we mean when we sometimes say that he is self existent.
 * Vol. I : Part I : The Being and Attributes of God, § 1 : Of the existence of God, and those attributes which art deduced from his being considered as uncaused himself, and the cause of every thing else (1772)

An History of the Corruptions of Christianity (1782)

 * Full text online

 * The unity of God is a doctrine on which the greatest stress is laid in the whole system of revelation. To guard this most important article was the principal object of the Jewish religion; and, notwithstanding the proneness of the Jews to idolatry, at length it fully answered its purpose in reclaiming them, and in impressing the minds of many persons of other nations in favour of the same fundamental truth. The Jews were taught by their prophets to expect a Messiah, who was to be descended from the tribe of Judah, and the family of David, — a person in whom themselves and all the nations of the earth should be blessed; but none of their prophets gave them an idea of any other than a man like themselves in that illustrious character, and no other did they ever expect, or do they expect to this day. ''' Jesus Christ, whose history answers to the description given of the Messiah by the prophets, made no other pretensions; referring all his extraordinary power to God, his Father, who, he expressly says, spake and acted by him, and who raised him from the dead: and it is most evident that the apostles, and all those who conversed with our Lord before and after his resurrection, considered him in no other light than simply as "a man approved of God, by wonders and signs which God did by him."
 * Part I : The History of Opinions Relating to Jesus Christ, Introduction

 * As the greatest things often take their rise from the smallest beginnings, so the worst things sometimes proceed from good intentions. This was certainly the case with respect to the origin of Christian Idolatry. All the early heresies arose from men who wished well to the gospel, and who meant to recommend it to the Heathens, and especially to philosophers among them, whose prejudices they found great difficulty in conquering. Now we learn from the writings of the apostles themselves, as well as from the testimony of later writers, that the circumstance at which mankind in general, and especially the more philosophical part of them, stumbled the most, was the doctrine of a crucified Saviour. They could not submit to become the disciples of a man who had been exposed upon a cross, like the vilest malefactor. Of this objection to Christianity we find traces in all the early writers, who wrote in defence of the gospel against the unbelievers of their age, to the time of Lactantius; and probably it may be found much later. He says, "I know that many fly from the truth out of their abhorrence of the cross." We, who only learn from history that crucifixion was a kind of death to which slaves and the vilest of malefactors were exposed, can but very imperfectly enter into their prejudices, so as to feel what they must have done with respect to it. … Though this circumstance was "unto the Jews a stumbling-block, and unto the Greeks foolishness," it was to others "the power of God and the wisdom of God." 1 Cor. i. 23, 24. For this circumstance at which they cavilled, was that in which the wisdom of God was most conspicuous; the death and resurrection of a man, in all respects like themselves, being better calculated to give other men an assurance of their own resurrection, than that of any super-angelic being, the laws of whose nature they might think to be very different from those of their own. But, "since by man came death, so by man came also the resurrection of the dead." Later Christians, however, and especially those who were themselves attached to the principles of either the Oriental or the Greek philosophy, unhappily took another method of removing this obstacle; and instead of explaining the wisdom of the divine dispensations in the appointment of a man, a person in all respects like unto his brethren, for the redemption of men, and of his dying in the most public and indisputable manner, as a foundation for the clearest proof of a real resurrection, and also of a painful and ignominious death, as an example to his followers who might be exposed to the same … they began to raise the dignity of the person of Christ, that it might appear less disgraceful to be ranked amongst his disciples.
 * Part I : The History of Opinions Relating to Jesus Christ,

 * We find upon all occasions, the early Christian writers speak of the Father as superior to the Son, and in general they give him the title of God, as distinguished from the Son; and sometimes they expressly call him, exclusively of the Son, the only true God; a phraseology which does not at all accord with the idea of the perfect equality of all the persons in the Trinity. But it might well be expected, that the advances to the present doctrine of the Trinity should be gradual and slow. It was, indeed, some centuries before it was completely formed.
 * Part I : The History of Opinions Relating to Jesus Christ, § III : The Supremacy was always ascribed to the Father before the Council Of Nice

 * Most of the early Christian writers thought the text "I and my Father are one," was to be understood of an unity or harmony of disposition only. Thus Tertullian observes, that the expression is unum, one thing, not one person; and he explains it to mean unity, likeness, conjunction, and of the love that the Father bore to the Son. Origen says, "let him consider that text, 'all that believed were of one heart and of one soul,' and then he will understand this, 'I and my Father are one.'"
 * Part I : The History of Opinions Relating to Jesus Christ, § III : The Supremacy was always ascribed to the Father before the Council Of Nice

 * It is sufficiently evident from many circumstances, that the doctrine of the divinity of Christ did not establish itself without much opposition, especially from the unlearned among the Christians, who thought that it savoured of Polytheism, that it was introduced by those who had had a philosophical education, and was by degrees adopted by others, on account of its covering the great offence of the cross, by exalting the personal dignity of our Saviour.
 * Part I : The History of Opinions Relating to Jesus Christ, § IV : Of the Difficulty with which the Doctrine of the Divinity of Christ was Established.

 * As I conceive this doctrine to be a gross misrepresentation of the character and moral government of God, and to affect many other articles in the scheme of Christianity, greatly disfiguring and depraving it; I shall show, in a fuller manner than I mean to do with respect to any other corruption of Christianity, that it has no countenance whatever in reason, or the Scriptures; and, therefore, that the whole doctrine of atonement, with every modification of it, has been a departure from the primitive and genuine doctrine of Christianity.
 * On conventional doctrines of Jesus Christ's atonement for sins, in Part II : Opinions Relating to the Doctrine of Atonement, Introduction

 * It is hardly possible not to suspect the truth of this doctrine of atonement, when we consider that the general maxims to which it may be reduced, are nowhere laid down, or asserted, in the Scriptures, but others quite contrary to them.
 * Part II : Opinions Relating to the Doctrine of Atonement, § I : That Christ did not die to make satisfaction for the sins of men.

 * Whenever our Lord speaks of the object of his mission and death, as he often does, it is either in a more general way, as for the salvation of the world, to do the will of God, to fulfil the scripture prophecies … or more particularly, to give the fullest proof of his mission by his resurrection from the dead, and an assurance of a similar resurrection of all his followers. He also compares his being raised upon the cross to the elevation of the serpent in the wilderness, and to seed buried in the ground, as necessary to its future increase. But all these representations are quite foreign to anything in the doctrine of atonement.
 * Part II : Opinions Relating to the Doctrine of Atonement, § I : That Christ did not die to make satisfaction for the sins of men.

 * From the fame opinion of a soul distinct from the body came the practice of praying, first for the dead, and then to them with a long train of other absurd opinions, and superstitious practices.
 * General Conclusions, Part I : Containing Considerations addressed to Unbelievers and especially to Mr. Gibbon

 * That miracles are things in themselves possible, must be allowed so long as it is evident that there is in nature a power equal to the working of them. And certainly the power, principle, or being, by whatever name it be denominated, which produced the universe, and established the laws of it, is fully equal to any occasional departures from them. The object and use of those miracles on which the christian religion is founded, is also maintained to be consonant to the object and use of the general system of nature, viz. the production of happiness. We have nothing, therefore to do, but to examine, by the known rules of estimating the value of testimony whether there be reason to think that such miracles have been wrought, or whether the evidence of Christianity, or of the christian history, does not stand upon as good ground as that of any other history whatever.
 * General Conclusions, Part I : Containing Considerations addressed to Unbelievers and especially to Mr. Gibbon

 * Indeed, if any man can say, that it is not an interesting question, whether his existence terminate at death, or is to be resumed at a future period, and then to continue for ever, he must be of a low and abject mind. To a rational being, capable of contemplating the wonders of nature, and of investigating the laws of it, and to a being of a social disposition, his existence, and the continuance of his rational faculties, must be an object of unspeakable value to him; and consequently he must ardently wish that christianity... may be true. For to a philosopher, who forms his judgment by what he actually observes, the doctrine of soul, capable of subsisting and acting when the body is in the grave, will never give any satisfaction. To every person, therefore, who is capable of enjoying his existence, the christian doctrine of a resurrection opens a glorious and transporting prospect.
 * General Conclusions, Part I : Containing Considerations addressed to Unbelievers and especially to Mr. Gibbon

 * I am sorry... to have occasion to admonish Mr. Gibbon, that he should have distinguished better than he has done between christianity itself, and the corruptions of it. ...He should not have taken it for granted, that the doctrine of three persons in one God, or the doctrine of atonement for the sins of all mankind, by the death of one man, were any parts of the christian system; when, if he had read the New Testament for himself, he must have seen the doctrine of the proper unity of God, and also that of his free mercy to the penitent, in almost every page of it.
 * General Conclusions, Part I : Containing Considerations addressed to Unbelievers and especially to Mr. Gibbon

 * Too many christians have been chargeable with... confounding the Logos of Plato with that of John, and making of it a second person in the trinity, than which no two things can be more different.
 * General Conclusions, Part I : Containing Considerations addressed to Unbelievers and especially to Mr. Gibbon

Had Mr. Gibbon lived in France, Spain, or Italy, he might with the same reason have ranked the doctrine of transubstantiation, and the worship of saints and angels among the essentials of Christianity, as the doctrines of the trinity and of the atonement.
 * Mr. Gibbon has much to learn concerning the gospel before he can be properly qualified to write against it. Hitherto he seems to have been acquainted with nothing but the corrupt establishments of what is very improperly called Christianity; whereas it is incumbent upon him to read and study the New Testament for himself. There he will find nothing like Platonism, but doctrines in every respect the reverse of that system of philosophy, which weak and undistinguishing christians afterwards incorporated with it.
 * General Conclusions, Part I : Containing Considerations addressed to Unbelievers and especially to Mr. Gibbon

 * The friends of genuine, and I will add of rational Christianity, have not, however, on the whole, much reason to regret that their enemies have not made these distinctions; since by this means, we have been taught to make them ourselves; so that Christianity is perhaps as much indebted to its enemies, as to its friends, for this important service. In their indiscriminate attacks, whatever has been found to be untenable has been gradually abandoned, and I hope the attack will be continued till nothing of the wretched outworks be left; and then, I doubt not, a safe and impregnable fortress, will be sound in the center, a fortress built upon a rock, against which the gates of death will not prevail.
 * General Conclusions, Part I : Containing Considerations addressed to Unbelievers and especially to Mr. Gibbon

Quotes about Priestley

 * Inquisitions and Despotisms are not alone in persecuting Philosophers. The people themselves, we see, are capable of persecuting a Priestley, as another people formerly persecuted Socrates.
 * John Adams, letter to Joseph Priestley (February 19, 1792) as quoted by Jenny Graham, "Revolutionary in Exile: The Emigration of Joseph Priestley to America 1794-1804" Transactions of the American Philosophical Society (1995) new series, 85, No. 2, p. 177. See also Steven Johnson, The Invention of Air (2008) p. 8.

 * What does Priestley mean, by an unbeliever, when he applies it to you? How much did he unbelieve himself? Gibbon had it right when he denominated his Creed, "scanty." We are to understand, no doubt, that believed the resurrection of Jesus, some of his miracles, his inspiration; but in what degree? He did not believe in the inspiration of the writings that contain his history. Yet he believed in the Apocalyptic beast, and he believed as much as he pleased in the writings of Daniel and John. This great and extraordinary man, whom I sincerely loved, esteemed, and respected, was really a phenomenon; a comet in the system, like Voltaire, Bolingbroke, and Hume. Had Bolingbroke or Voltaire taken him in hand, what would they have made of him and his Creed?
 * John Adams, in a letter to Thomas Jefferson (18 July 1813), The Works of John Adams, Second President of the United States Vol.10 (1856)

 * Joseph Priestley of Warrington, Doctor of laws, Author of a chart of Biography & Several other valuable works, a gentleman of great Merit & learning, & very well versed in Mathematical & philosophical Enquiries, being desirous of offering himself as a candidate for election into this Society, is recomended by us on our personal knowledge, as highly deserving that honour; & we believe that he will, if elected, be a usefull and valuable Member.
 * , William Watson, Benjamin Franklin,, , , Nomination as a member of the Royal Society (March 13, 1766) elected June 12, 1766; Archives, Royal Society of London (EC/1766/12).

 * Nathaniel Lardner, the author of Letter on the Logos, the work Priestley credited with his own conversion from Arianism to Socinianism, had published anonymously to avoid retribution from both the civil authorities and private citizens — in vain as it turns out.
 * J. D. Bowers, Joseph Priestley and English Unitarianism in America (2010)

 * That the vegetable creation should restore the air which is spoiled by the animal part of it, looks like a rational system, and seems to be of a piece with the rest. Thus fire purifies water all the world over. It purifies it by distillation, when it raises it in vapours, and lets it fall in rain; and farther still by filtration, when keeping it fluid, it suffers that rain to percolate the earth. We knew before that putrid animal substances were converted into sweet vegetables when mixed with the earth and applied as manure; and now, it seems, that the same putrid substances, mixed with the air, have a similar effect. The strong, thriving state of your mint, in putrid air, seems to show that the air is mended by taking something from it, and not by adding to it. I hope this will give some check to the rage of destroying trees that grow near houses, which has accompanied our late improvements in gardening, from an opinion of their being unwholesome. I am certain, from long observation, that there is nothing unhealthy in the air of woods; for we Americans have everywhere our country habitations in the midst of woods, and no people on earth enjoy better health or are more prolific.
 * Benjamin Franklin's "Letter to Joseph Priestley" in response to Priestley's "experiments on the restoration of air [by plants] made noxious by animals breathing it, or putrefying it..." read in Philosophical Transactions LXII 147-267 of the Royal Society (1772) & quoted in John Towill Rutt, Life and Correspondence of Joseph Priestley... Vol.1 (1831)

 * Yours is one of the few lives precious to mankind, and for the continuance of which every thinking man is solicitous. Bigots may be an exception. What an effort, my dear sir, of bigotry in politics and religion have we gone through! The barbarians really flattered themselves they should be able to bring back the times of Vandalism, when ignorance put everything into the hands of power and priestcraft. All advances in science were proscribed as innovations. They pretended to praise and encourage education, but it was to be the education of our ancestors. We were to look backwards, not forwards, for improvement … This was the real ground of all the attacks on you. Those who live by mystery and charlntanerie, fearing you would render them useless by simplifying the Christian philosophy — the most sublime and benevolent, but most perverted system that ever shone on man — endeavored to crush your well-earned and well-deserved fame. But it was the Lilliputians upon Gulliver. Our countrymen have recovered from the alarm into which art & industry had thrown them; science & honesty are replaced on their high ground; and you, my dear Sir, as their great apostle, are on it's pinnacle.
 * Thomas Jefferson, in a letter to Priestly (21 March 1801); published in The Life of Thomas Jefferson (1871) by Henry Stephens Randall, Vol. 2, p. 644

 * In 1774 he thought he had obtained nitrous oxide... in 1775 he saw the gas as dephlogisticated air... If we refuse the palm to Priestley, we cannot award it to Lavoisier for the work of 1775... Lavoisier insisted that oxygen was an atomic "principle of acidity"… formed only when that "principle" united with "caloric"... Ignoring Scheele, we can safely say that oxygen had not been discovered before 1774, and we would probably say that it had been discovered by 1777 or shortly thereafter. But... any attempt to date the discovery must inevitably be arbitrary because discovering a new sort of phenomenon is necessarily a complex event, one which involves recognizing both that something is and what it is.
 * Thomas Samuel Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (1962)

 * Few men have had to struggle for so many years with circumstances more straitened and precarious than my father; few men have ventured to attack so many or such inveterate prejudices respecting the prevalent religion of his country, or have advanced bolder or more important opinions in opposition to the courtly politics of the powers that be; few have had to encounter more able opponents in his literary career, or have been exposed to such incessant and vindictive obloquy, from men of every description, in return for his unremitting exertions in the cause of truth; yet none have more uniformly proceeded with a single eye, regardless of consequences, to act as his conviction impelled him, and his conscience dictated. His conduct brought with it its own reward, reputation, and respect, from the most eminent of his contemporaries, the affectionate attachment of most valuable friends, and a cheerfulness of disposition arising in part from conscious rectitude which no misfortunes could long repress. But to me it seems, that conscious rectitude alone would hardly of itself have been able to support him under some of the afflictions he was doomed to bear. He had a farther resource, to him never failing and invaluable, a firm persuasion of the benevolence of the Almighty towards all his creatures, and the conviction that every part of his own life, like every part of the whole system, was preordained for the best upon the whole of existence. Had he entertained the gloomy notions of Calvinism, in which he was brought up, this cheering source of contentment and resignation would probably have failed him, and irritation and despondency would have gained an unhappy ascendancy. But by him the deity was not regarded as an avenging tyrant, punishing, for the sake of punishing his weak and imperfect creatures, but as a wise and kind parent, inflicting those corrections only that are necessary to bring our dispositions to the proper temper, and to fit us for the highest state of happiness of which our natures are ultimately capable.
 * His son, Joseph Priestley, in the Preface (1 May 1805) to Memoirs of the Rev. Dr. Joseph Priestly (1809), p. 41.

 * Priestley, in 1774, was the first to prepare gaseous by heating together sal ammoniac and [slaked] lime and collecting the gas over mercury. He gave to this gas the name of "alkaline air," which later became "volatile alkali."
 * Samuel Philip Sadtler, Virgil Coblentz, A Text-book of Chemistry (1900) Vol. 1, p. 282.

The Invention of Air (2008)

 * : A Story of Science, Faith, Revolution, and the Birth of America by Steven Johnson

 * Priestley thought he had stumbled across a crucial observation: "mephitic" air... was a conductor of electricity... only to discover in the coming weeks... condensed water in the glass... but the experiment led him to one of his most important contributions to the science of electricity: the addition of charcoal to the then short list of substances... capable of conduction, alongside water and metal.

 * Why did the problem of air become visible..? Why were Priestley, Boyle and Black able to see the question clearly enough..? ...because they had new tools. The air pump designed by Otto von Guericke and Boyle (...in collaboration with his assistant Robert Hooke...) were essential to Priestley's lab in Leeds. ...In a way, the air pump had enabled the entire field of pneumatic chemistry in the seventeenth century... [T]he air pump allowed you to... create a vacuum, which behaved markedly differently... even though air and the absence of air were visually indistinguishable.

 * The ... voted to award him the Copley Medal, the most prestigious scientific prize of its day, "on account of the many curious and useful Experiments contained in his observations on different kinds of Air." In receiving the prize, Priestley was joining the ranks of his friends Canton and Franklin... Only five years after they had encouraged him to turn his experimental hobbies into a serious vocation, Priestly had reached the highest pinnacle of scientific achievement.

title: Joseph Priestley


text:
Talk:Atheism

Positive Atheism
http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/quotes/qframe.htm -Adraeus-

Personal quote
Removed following quote:
 * "Logic and reason are just atheist slang for their own dogma and absolute morality."
 * Unknown

If you knew anything about Atheism, you'd know that we don't believe in absolute morality. That would be a Dogmatic position.

I'm an atheist and I believe in absolute morality. Still, the quote is meaningless. 203.161.74.152 11:01, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

"If it weren't for Religion, Columbus could have landed on the Moon." (Anon) - http://www.digitalfreethought.com

Ethics
A question of ethics here --

There's a quote on this page that's credited to Don Hirschberg, namely "Calling Atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair color."

This quote, I (Mark Schnitzius) contend, was actually my own; I thought it up and posted it on Usenet way back in 1993, as you can see here:

http://groups.google.com.au/group/alt.atheism/msg/ef4ed06dfeb9804a?hl=en&

As it's the only thing I've ever been quoted on, I'm a little protective about it (grin). It's been collected in lists of "Atheist Quotations" in various places; occasionally it'll pop up with someone else's name to it, but usually it's me. There's no record of the phrase any time early than 1993 on Usenet, but I don't know of any way of proving that no one said it before me. It's certainly been quoted enough times since then on Usenet, so I believe it would've appeared earlier there if someone had actually said it earlier. It's never credited to Don Hirschberg until the 2000s. But I don't know if it's right for me to just go in and change it. Opinions?

 * Do it, if it's yours. If anyone disgrees, they can post their evidence here and you can debate it. For now, I say change it. --Urbane legend 16:44, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Huh. Well, I did, but now someone's gone and changed it back. And added a thing that says Hirschberg said it in a letter to Ann Landers. No date or anything like that, though... I've added my quote with a year next to his.

 * There's a reference to the Ann Landers letter here, but I'm not going to update the page with an attribution to Hirschberg -- not because the source is lacking (which it is), but because after reading that alt.atheism post I'm convinced that Schnitzius should be credited with the quotation. Sysmsifa 01:34, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I've contacted Don Hirschberg; he confirmed that his letter to Ann Landers was after 1993 and indicated he had made some attempt to contact Mark Schnitzius, to no avail. perhaps we could agree that the quote originated with Mark Schnitzius and was popularized by Don Hirschberg.

Internet chats
Should there really be all these quotations from internet chats? Does Wikiquote have a policy on this? (I don't know, I haven't gotten into wikiquote like it was wikipedia).

 * Actually, Wikiquote follows the same policy as Wikipedia for requiring sources for its content, which means that Internet chats (and USENET postings, discussion boards, and other unreliable sources) are not valid sources of quotes. Feel free to delete any you find. As with all other wiki work, such trimming is done by those who notice the problem. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 14:53, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Well we could keep in this talk page the ones which get removed from the main page, for fun.
 * I saw one on the Net today, in a discussion forum : "Atheism is a religion in which no one believes." --Jerome Charles Potts 03:35, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Agnosticism
Should this page contain quotes which are obviously agnostic, there are quite a few. (The first Asimov quote for a start.)

 * Agnostic is not an alternative to atheist. Gnostic and agnostic refer to knowledge.  Atheist and theist refer to gods.  If someone states they are agnostic you should ask them of what they do not have knowledge.

Internet quotes?
The quotes put in by user IP 203.144.160.246 look like they're all quotes from internet forum users or something...I don't think that makes them at all relevant and even borders on vandalism. I'm new to this, can anyone confirm my thoughts on this?

 * Please be careful about the term "vandalism"; it should only be used for irrelevant material clearly meant to sabotage an article. That said, you are correct in thinking that quotes from Internet forums and private conversations are not suitable for Wikiquote. As with other Wikimedia Foundation projects, Wikiquote expects to have reliable sources for its material. Of course, this is often not the case for existing quotes, just as it is with Wikipedia, but the goal remains, whatever the current reality. Because of this, you should never feel any compunction against removing quotes from such sources. In this case, I removed them myself. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 10:39, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Now wait a minute. 1) Is Google Groups not a "reliable source"? Is there question as to its authenticity?  Do you think that the historical record of Usenet posts it contains may have been compromised?  Don't equate "contains a lot of frivolous material" with "is not an accurate accounting of who said what, when".  2)  What about something that was said originally on Usenet, and then was quoted elsewhere in other media? Is one not allowed to mention Usenet as the true source of the quote in that situation? schnitzi

 * Usenet posts are not a reliable source in the Wikimedia sense. To quote w:Wikipedia:Reliable sources:
 * Posts to bulletin boards and Usenet, wikis or messages left on blogs, are never acceptable as primary or secondary sources. This is because we have no way of knowing who has written or posted them. In the case of wikis, the content of an article could change at any moment, and there is no editorial oversight or third-party fact-checking.
 * [Emphasis in the original.] If someone quotes Einstein in a Google Groups posting, we can be sure the posting was made when Google Groups says it was, and is intact, but it says nothing confirmable about who is writing or whether their statement is accurate. (For quotes, it's horrifying how often such statements aren't accurate, and 99% of the time, they fail to include any source whatsoever, let alone a verifiable one.) Furthermore, Wikiquote collects quotes from notable people and creative works, not from anyone who knows how to use Usenet, bulletin boards, web discussion forums, blogs, or any other media without any professional editorial supervision. Sadly, we may miss a lot of excellent quotes, but that's how Wikiquote is designed. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 02:53, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Highly Misleading
A lot of these quotes are highly misleading; for instance, there are numerous quotes from [U.S.] Founding Fathers obviously regarding Deism. Agnosticism does not equate to atheism, nor does deism; this wikiquote needs to be improved and made more accurate. I have no problem removing them myself. ~ Tyler C (talk) 5:03, 16 June 2006

 * The wiki pages should be making it clear that it is not correct to treat agnostic and atheist as alternative points of view. If someone simply states they are atheist we have no information as to whether they are agnostic or gnostic in their atheism.  We are in fact agnostic.

 * Whether they like it or not, agnostics (as the term is typically understood) do meet the minimum requirement for atheism, that is, they do not believe that a God or gods exist. The fact that they don't believe these things don't exist either is irrelevant, as that is only one type of atheism, namely strong or positive atheism.

RS
Hello! I am RS. I created this account today. I will make several changes in the article in future. RS 03:10, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

HItler quote
I think the quote Secular schools can never be tolerated because such schools have no religious instruction, and a general moral instruction without a religious foundation is built on air; consequently, all character training and religion must be derived from faith; we need believing people. should be removed, as it is only tangentially related to atheism, but is rather a (slightly sophistic) argument against religious schools.

 * I agree and have removed it. "Secular" is not the same thing as atheistic. A secular school deliberately avoids discussing religion, whereas atheists (generally) reject religious beliefs. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 05:09, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

 * It's back. I'll remove it, but I doubt it'll do any good.

The Bill Saunders quote seems to have been taken out of context
Although I'll admit i was a bit confused by the context it was taken out of. I'm not sure if he was expressing this sentiment, reporting it, or claiming that it was the logical consequence of something else. If the first, he's an idiot, and iff either of the other two he could have been clearer. I think it should be at least considered for removal.

 * The quote is from a book review by Saunders, found here. From what I can tell, he is expressing the exact sentiment implied by the quote. I leave it to others to decide if the quote is appropriate here (I don't know what would make Saunders, apparently a book reviewer for The Independent, notable in this regard). Prothonotar 08:36, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Inadequately sourced
I've just moved a huge number of unsourced and poorly sourced quotes from the "Sourced" section, some to the "Unsourced" section, most to a section titled "Inadequately sourced" because there are so many of these almost-sourced quotes that I'd like to call specific attention to them in the hopes of getting them fixed quickly.

Wikiquote sources are specific descriptions of where one can find the quote as cited in an existing publication from a reliable publisher. (They are not merely identifying the quotee.) They are required to make the job of verification easier for readers. Wikiquote, like Wikipedia, does not have an editorial board. Our accuracy is directly dependent not upon our non-existent board's reputation, but upon the quality of the sources that anyone can check. Therefore, the sources must be specific, lest we demand that our readers read an entire book, a year's worth of magazines (or even just an entire magazine), or an entire TV series just to confirm for themselves the accuracy of a single quote. Examples of specific sources include:

 * Books: title, author (if not the quotee), original year published, specific edition and date (with an ISBN if one exists to avoid potential confusion between ambiguously described editions), page number or at least a chapter
 * Magazines and journals: article title, magazine title, date and/or volume/issue, page number (arguably not necessary for short, titled articles)
 * Songs: song title, album title, album year
 * Films: film title, year; a specific, concise scene description is very helpful
 * TV shows: show title, episode title and number; date aired is desirable; a specific, concise scene description is very helpful
 * Speeches: specific publication of transcription of speech or citation of the exact quote, following the above guidelines for whatever medium in which it's published
 * Note that speeches are ephemeral sound, and are not inherently verifiable. We absolutely must have a published transcription or citation.

URLs are certainly helpful, but they should meet three requirements:
 * They must include the quote. (You might be surprised how often this basic requirement is not observed.)
 * They must be permalinks (i.e., links to pages whose content does not change frequently, like blogs or discussions).
 * They must be reliable sources, not just any webpage found in Google or another search engine. This especially disallows blogs, discussion boards, and personal webpages (often identifiable by a tilde and user name in the URL, like "~jenniferp").

Perhaps one way to think of it is to ask yourself, "If I had the source in front of me, could I find the quote in less than 30 minutes?" If not, I suggest the quote be consider unsourced and moved to that section. In addition, it is helpful to cite the specific problems (e.g., "unidentified article", "unidentified page", "unidentified date", "unidentified episode") to encourage editors who may have access to the material to fill in the missing information.

I ask editors of this article to help work to resolve the sourcing deficiencies described above. Thank you for your attention and assistance. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 18:57, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Favorite, unsourced quote
"Once you understand why you reject all other gods, you'll realize why I reject yours as well" Unfortunately I don't know who originally said it, but I love it! -- MacAddct1984  22:00, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

 * I first read it in Sam Harris' book "Letter to a Christian Nation". I believe he did cite who had coined it.  Or maybe the cite was in Richard Dawkins' "The God Delusion". When I have more time I'll dig it up. -- Greyed 22:06, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

 * On his website, Harris credits Australian historian Stephen Henry Roberts with the original quote:
 * I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.
 * Stephen Henry Roberts; quoted in
 * I don't have a copy of Letter handy (stupid, because I have another need for it at the moment and forget to grab it while I was at two different libraries in the past few hours!), but I've cited what I do have so it can be added somewhere. (Neither we nor Wikipedia currently have an article for Roberts.) ~ Jeff Q (talk) 00:16, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

 * Ah, excellent work! I didn't realize it was actually quoted already in the article, but I've added the reference and moved it up to the "Inadequately sourced" section. -- MacAddct  1984 (talk • contribs) 02:36, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

 * I've tweaked your changes to the citation in the article. There seems to be some confusion among websites about which Stephen Roberts said this (which is the kind of thing that makes us not want to use them even as preliminary sources). But Harris is clear about it being Stephen Henry Roberts. I also took the opportunity to recast it with cite news, since you correctly observed that Harris's website was reprinting an LA Times article. (Sorry 'bout that.) Normally, we would consider this to be adequately sourced, as it's a specific article and date of a reliable publication, even though it doesn't cite the original quote's source, which is of course preferred. On Wikiquote, "inadequate source" tends to mean newspaper titles without article titles or pages (or sometimes even dates!), book titles without editions and page numbers or at least chapters, TV-series titles without episode titles/numbers or airdates — basically anything that forces someone to spend hours sifting through material trying to find the specific quote. On the other hand, I would really would like to find that original source. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 03:12, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Seems like good changes, the F. Roberts was a mistake carried through from the previous version of the page. --MacAddct  1984 (talk • contribs) 05:17, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

 * While we're on the topic of that article, Sam has another great quote: "There is no society in human history that ever suffered because its people became too reasonable." Is that worth adding? -- MacAddct  1984 (talk • contribs) 02:44, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * It is a good quote but I'm not sure if it is appropriate for Atheism. The context of the quote is in response to the often raised argument against Atheism; Nazi Germany and Communist Russia.  Both were nominally secular states but suffered from the same fanaticism Harris argues is part and parcel of organized religion.  So it isn't about theism or atheism but about fanaticism. -- Greyed 03:07, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, as I was posting that I thought it may be straying too far from atheism, or even religion for that matter. --MacAddct  1984 (talk • contribs) 05:17, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Another removal
I removed this:
 * God is an essence we know nothing of. Until this awful blasphemy is gotten rid of there will never be any liberal science in the world.
 * John Adams
 * Quoted in BBC Four, Atheism: A Rough History of Disbelief, unidentified episode, unidentified 2005 date

As the actual quote is:
 * The Europeans are all deeply tainted with prejudices, both ecclesiastical and temporal, which they can never get rid of. They are all infected with episcopal and presbyterian creeds, and confessions of faith. They all believe that great Principle which has produced this boundless universe, Newton’s universe and Herschells’ universe, came down to this little ball, to be spit upon by Jews; And until this awful blasphemy is got rid of, there never will be any liberal science in the world. -- letter to Jefferson 22/1/1825

and is therefore, I think, not really saying what it is quoted for. MeltBanana 02:48, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

 * If the above version is widely quoted as the BBC presents it, it might be useful to include it here under "Misattributed" or "Misquoted", with the correct version underneath. However, we would need a cited reliable source (i.e., a specific publication that includes the letter or at least the quote), not just our own assertion that it comes from a particular letter, in order to confirm it as a misattribution. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 05:10, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

list of atheism quotes
There is a list of atheism quotes given here and they are all negative in tone in regards to atheism: Quotes that are critical of atheism Yellowdog 01:02, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Unsourced
Wikiquote no longer allows unsourced quotations, and they are in process of being removed from our pages (see Wikiquote:Limits on quotations); but if you can provide a reliable and precise source for any quote on this list please move it to.

 * The Seventh Judicial Circuit of the Court of Appeals of the United States held that atheism is a religion and therefore it cannot be promoted by a public school. Currently public schools are promoting atheism through a dogmatic and uncritical teaching of materialistic theories of origins. - John Calvert, Intelligent Design leader[228]
 * Atheism is a disease of the soul before it becomes an error of understanding. - Plato[229]
 * Earlist cite in Google Books is . This page also attributes to Plato "The only escape from evil is becoming holy." On page 99, Miller seems to put his interpretation of the in Plato's mouth: "God is truth and light His shadow." Miller seems quite unreliable. ~ Robin Lionheart (talk) 11:45, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

 * An atheist's most embarrassing moment is when he feels profoundly thankful for something, but can't think of anyone to thank for it. - Mary Anne Vincent[233]
 * You think you are too intelligent to believe in God. I am not like you. - Napoleon Bonaparte
 * 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. – Oswald Chambers
 * The truth of God's existence is the benchmark from which all landmark's are located. The truth of God's existence is the foundation on which all truth rests. God existed before evil existed, and God will exist after evil is annihilated. To deny the existence of God is an act of insanity so severe that God says that person is a fool (Psalm 14:1; 53:1). - Dr. Joseph Thomas Kennedy
 * The atheist risks everything for the present and the future, on the basis of a belief that we are uncaused by any intelligent being. We just happen to be here. That one is willing to live and die in that belief is a very high price to pay for conjecture. - Ravi Zacharias[238]
 * In his essay rebutting a work of atheist Jeffery Jay Lowder Christian apologist JP Holding wrote the following: "...I find that there is no such thing as "reasonable non belief." The litany of excuses, wild speculations, and other absurdities ground out by skeptics and critics doesn't deserve the adjective "reasonable"."[239]
 * How to trap an atheist: Serve him a fine meal, then ask him if he believes there is a cook. — Source Unknown[244]
 * I once wanted to become an atheist but I gave up . . . they have no holidays. - Henny Youngman[245]
 * A major problem in the Jewish world is that when an Orthodox Jew takes a look at me, he thinks 'Such wasted potential for a Jew'. And It does not help things, that when I see an Orthodox type, I think 'Such wasted potential for a Jew'. - Yuriy Bortnik
 * The invisible and the non-existent look very much alike. - Delos B. McKown
 * It ain't those parts of the Bible that I can't understand that bother me, it is the parts that I do understand.
 * quoted in The Wit and Wisdom of Mark Twain, Alex Ayres, p. 24, without source.
 * A man is accepted into a church for what he believes and he is turned out for what he knows.
 * quoted in The Wit and Wisdom of Mark Twain, Alex Ayres, p. 40, sourced only as "Attributed".
 * Atheism is a non-prophet organization. - George Carlin
 * When one person suffers from a delusion, it is called insanity. When many people suffer from a delusion, it is called Religion. - Robert Pirsig
 * Attributed to Pirsig by Richard Dawkins in preface to The God Delusion (2006). May be paraphrasing Lila: An Inquiry Into Morals (1992): "An insane delusion can't be held by a group at all. A person isn't considered insane if there are a number of people who believe the same way. Insanity isn't supposed to be a communicable disease. If one other person starts to believe him, or maybe two or three, then it's a religion." Exact quote not in Lila, nor Lila's Child, nor Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance. ~ Robin Lionheart (talk) 11:45, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Animals do not have gods, they are smarter than that. - Ronnie Snow
 * If I were not an atheist, I would believe in a God who would choose to save people on the basis of the totality of their lives and not the pattern of their words. I think he would prefer an honest and righteous atheist to a TV preacher whose every word is God, God, God, and whose every deed is foul, foul, foul. - Isaac Asimov

I added a CS Lewis quote I put it at the very end of the first section ( I wasn't sure where to put it)Gideon.judges7 16:05, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Atheists express their rage against God although in their view He does not exist.
 * C. S. Lewis, In The Problem of Pain (1940)

What's the difference between atheism and scientific discoveries which prove the earth to be older or younger than a religion says it is?
There are no clerics of atheism, what makes one an official expert if not the weight of their arguments and personal notability? Why is this quote notable on atheism when it's clearly talking about science and not atheism.

 * I would, like any other scientist, willingly change my mind if the evidence led me to do so. So I care about what's true, I care about evidence, I care about evidence as the reason for knowing what is true. It is true that I come across rather passionate sometimes — and that's because I am passionate about the truth. … I do get very impatient with humbug, with cant, with fakery, with charlatans.
 * Richard Dawkins, BBC interview, April 2004.

Richard Dawkins is quoted no less than 4 times on the page for atheism, equal to the amount of quotes I would like to attribute to Trey Parker, who has written more on the notoriously difficult to define subject of atheism, and is better known. Evolutionary biology and zoology are only some of several fields that provide evidence against a young age creation, why not quote Alfred Wegner or Willard Libbey? Should Darwins thoughts on the non existence of god be included more than Richard Dawkins, if there's sufficient quotes? Evidence against a recent creation Rationalwiki CensoredScribe (talk) 18:55, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, that quote has nothing to do with atheism. It doesn't even seem particularly notable. ~ Robin Lionheart (talk) 07:00, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Inadequately sourced

 * Certainly you don't believe in the gods? What's your argument? Where's your proof?
 * Aristophanes
 * Quoted in BBC Four, Atheism: A Rough History of Disbelief, unidentified episode, unidentified 2005 date.

 * A tyrant must put on the appearance of uncommon devotion to religion. Subjects are less apprehensive of illegal treatment from a ruler whom they consider god-fearing and pious. On the other hand, they less easily move against him, believing that he has the gods on his side.
 * Aristotle
 * Quoted in BBC Four, Atheism: A Rough History of Disbelief, unidentified episode, unidentified 2005 date.

 * I do not believe in God, but as I sat there in the damaged [balloon] capsule, hopelessly vulnerable to the slightest shift in weather or mechanical fault, I could not believe my eyes.
 * Richard Branson, Losing My Virginity, unidentified ISBN/edition, p. 239.

 * I have seldom met an intelligent person whose views were not narrowed and distorted by religion.
 * James Buchanan
 * Quoted in BBC Four, Atheism: A Rough History of Disbelief, unidentified episode, unidentified 2005 date.

 * By simple common sense I don't believe in God.
 * Charlie Chaplin
 * Quoted in BBC Four, Atheism: A Rough History of Disbelief, unidentified episode, unidentified 2005 date.

 * In this subject of the nature of the gods, the first question is, do the gods exist or do they not? It is difficult, you will say, to deny that they exist. I would agree if we were arguing the matter in a public assembly. But in a private discussion of this kind, it is perfectly easy to do so.
 * Cicero
 * Quoted in BBC Four, Atheism: A Rough History of Disbelief, unidentified episode, unidentified 2005 date.

 * I want you to have courage to declare yourself to be an atheist, or to serve your god with all your might and power in perfect consecration, whatever or whoever that god may be — whether it be the crocodile of the Nile or our Jehovah, "God over all blessed for evermore."
 * Charles F. Deems, reported in Josiah Hotchkiss Gilbert, Dictionary of Burning Words of Brilliant Writers (1895), p. 20.

 * The whole religious complexion of the modern world is due to the absence, from Jerusalem, of a lunatic asylum.
 * Havelock Ellis
 * Quoted in BBC Four, Atheism: A Rough History of Disbelief, unidentified episode, unidentified 2005 date.

 * Morals — all correct moral laws — derive from the instinct to survive. Moral behavior is survival behavior above the individual level.
 * Robert A. Heinlein, Starship Troopers (1959), unidentified ISBN/edition, unidentified chapter/page.

 * Don't you see that the appalling history of sectarianism, persecution, heresy hunting, shows you that this way of thinking about the world is intrinsically unsound?
 * Thomas Hobbes, cited in

 * If we go back to the beginning, we shall find that ignorance and fear created the gods; that fancy, enthusiasm, or deceit adorned them; that weakness worships them; that credulity preserves them and that custom, respect and tyranny support them in order to make the blindness of men serve their own interests. If the ignorance of nature gave birth to gods, the knowledge of nature is calculated to destroy them.
 * Baron d'Holbach, The System of Nature, cited in
 * This is perhaps a summary of ideas expressed in Part II, Chapter 1: The Origin of Man's Ideas upon the Divinity. Below are a couple actual quotes. I’m still not sure if d’Holbach wrote the above quote but these show that it very much represents his ideas.
 * “It was in the lap of ignorance, in the season of alarm, in the bosom of calamity, that mankind ever formed his first notions of the Divinity.” https://books.google.com/books?id=PRpMAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA90#v=onepage&q&f=false.
 * “If the ignorance of nature gave birth to such a variety of gods, the knowledge of this nature is calculated to destroy them.” https://books.google.com/books?id=PRpMAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA115#v=onepage&q&f=false. Silver&Gold (talk) 18:39, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

 * The clergy believe that any power confided in me will be exerted in opposition to their schemes, and they believe rightly.
 * Thomas Jefferson
 * Quoted in BBC Four, Atheism: A Rough History of Disbelief, unidentified episode, unidentified 2005 date.
 * This is Jefferson but it is slightly out of context. He wrote it in a letter to Benjamin Rush on September 23, 1800 (available at https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Jefferson/01-32-02-0102). Here is the full context, which includes the famous quote engraved below the dome of the Jefferson Memorial:
 * “I promised you a letter on Christianity, which I have not forgotten. on the contrary it is because I have reflected on it, that I find much more time necessary for it than I can at present dispose of. I have a view of the subject which ought to displease neither the rational Christian or Deist; & would reconcile many to a character they have too hastily rejected. I do not know however that it would reconcile the genus irritabile vatum, who are all in arms against me. their hostility is on too interesting ground to be softened. the delusions into which the XYZ plot shewed it possible to push the people, the successful experiment made under the prevalence of that delusion, on the clause of the constitution which while it secured the freedom of the press, covered also the freedom of religion, had given to the clergy a very favorite hope of obtaining an establishment of a particular form of Christianity thro’ the US. and as every sect believes it’s own form the true one, every one perhaps hoped for it’s own: but especially the Episcopalians & Congregationalists. the returning good sense of our country threatens abortion to their hopes, & they believe that any position of power confided to me will be exerted in opposition to their schemes. and they believe truly. for I have sworn upon the altar of god eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man. but this is all they have to fear from me: & enough too in their opinion; & this is the cause of their printing lying pamphlets against me, forging conversations for me with Mazzei, Bishop Madison &c which are absolute falshoods without a circumstance of truth to rest on; falshoods too of which I acquit Mazzei & Bishop Madison for they are men of truth.” Silver&Gold (talk) 19:06, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
 * My earlier views on the unsoundness of the Christian scheme of salvation have become clearer and stronger with advancing years.
 * Abraham Lincoln
 * Quoted in BBC Four, Atheism: A Rough History of Disbelief, unidentified episode, unidentified 2005 date.

 * The moths & atheists are doubly divine.
 * Jim Morrison, An American Prayer, unidentified ISBN/edition, unidentified chapter/page.

 * I never believed. I thought all the services at school were ludicrous. Loved the hymns, but the content of the hymns were so absurd. Dense theology, weird stuff.
 * Polly Toynbee
 * Quoted in BBC Four, Atheism: A Rough History of Disbelief, unidentified episode, unidentified 2005 date.

 * "If you don't worship me you will burn forever." I always thought that was ugly.
 * Gore Vidal
 * Quoted in BBC Four, Atheism: A Rough History of Disbelief, unidentified episode, unidentified 2005 date.

 * Crush the infamy! (Écrasez l'infâme!)
 * Common signature of Voltaire in his letters and pamphlets.

 * They felt that science would be corrosive to religious belief and they were worried about it. Damn it, I think they were right. It is corrosive to religious belief and it's a good thing.
 * Steven Weinberg
 * Quoted in BBC Four, Atheism: A Rough History of Disbelief, unidentified episode, unidentified 2005 date.

 * This is one of the great social functions of science—to free people from superstition.
 * Steven Weinberg, unidentified article/page, Freethought Today, April 2000.

 * Science should be taught not in order to support religion and not in order to destroy religion. Science should be taught simply ignoring religion.
 * Steven Weinberg, unidentified article/page, Freethought Today, April 2000.

 * La civilisation humaine ne progressera point à moins que la dernière pierre de la dernière église ne tombe sur la tête du dernier prêtre
 * Translation: Civilization will not attain perfection until the last stone, from the last church, falls on the last priest.
 * Émile Zola, cited in.
 * This quote appeared in soviet popular-scientific work "Satellite atheist" (Sputnik ateista) (1959), p. 491.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Talk:Atheism