Talk:Religion

From Wikiquote
Jump to navigation Jump to search

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Religion page.

Anti-religious?[edit]

I looked at 10 of these quotes. All 10 were critical of religion. And I don't just mean that they blasted the hypocrisy of SOME religious people: these quotes were ANTI-RELIGIOUS. --Uncle Ed 18:25, 7 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I had noted the imbalance as well, but feel that the tide will eventually turn, and have been preparing some quotations from various traditions that I intend to post within the week. I am still collecting and organizing them at this point. I certainly would not wish to remove any statements of cynicism that are skillfully expressed, even though I do not share the views expressed by them. I rather seek to provide an antidote to such bitterness, with well chosen expressions of charitable tolerence, and expressions of faith in the wisdom of adhering to ways of humility, courage, honesty and compassion that have arisen in many forms. Best of wishes to all fellow laborers in this endeavor. Kalki 22:43, 7 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I too agree that an imbalance is not appropriate, even though I am not religious myself, and the ones you have added recently are extremely good. Keep up the great work! Nanobug 17:44, 13 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Looking at this page over 2 months after the above comments were posted, i see that a tragic imbalance still exists. Somebody needs to fix it. --Mollison 5 Jan 2004

Is the imbalance due to a higher number of anti-religious quotes being made in our society over quotes supporting religion? Alan Liefting 23:48, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Mt apologies for my earlier edit. I see I should have read further. Please discard that and this. Oldironman 29 Dec 2006

I have read all the following quotations and have made the following observation. I would like to remind the readers of this page that the quotes presented are all taken out of their original context. In order to truly know the opinion of someone to whom a particular quote is attributed, one must make a separate study of that person. I have also made the following conclusion concerning this page. I have determined that of the quotes presented, approximately 49 percent appear to be biased against the institutions of religion. 47 percent appear to be unbiased and the remaining 5 percent are biased in support of religious institutions. The overwhelming percentage of quotes against religion could lead the uninformed reader to believe that religion is completely irrational. I would, first of all, caution those uninformed readers to not make their judgments of religion based solely on these quotes. I would implore them to seek out the actual arguments of both sides, then judge. Second, I would encourage editors to add more quotes in support of religious institutions in order to create a more unbiased page. Jake Bedsaul: July 5th, 2008, 21:45

  • Belief in Religion - by definition - is illogical and only supported by irrational people. It is thus no surprise that virtually all intelligent quotes about religion expose the stupidity of 'believers' in arcane ideas - those who reject rational scientific explanations of the world in favour of ancient, irrational myths. Thomas Paine is a good source for any person wanting to see reasoned discussion of why religion - especially Christianity, but also Judaism, Islam etc. - is bizarre. David Archbold.
  • I have a theory about the tendency of these quotes to appear to be anti-religion. I think quotes that are pro "religion" actually tend to address one particular belief system. In other words, a Christian will say positive things about Christianity as opposed to religion in general, because religion in general includes Islam and Hinduism and other things the Christian believes are not true and not praiseworthy. The same thing goes for a Muslim, who will say positive things about Islam instead of about all of religion, or for a Hindu who will praise Hinduism. Obviously a quote stating that one specific religion is great (or terrible) will appear on the page for that religion, for such quotes are not about religion generally. However, people who are opposed to religion generally are more likely to direct their disdain towards religion generally, and not towards any particular kind. BD2412 T 19:54, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree with this theory. Religious proponents are often sectarian (sometimes even opposing broad approbations that encompass the "wrong" faiths). Atheists tend to be more ecumenical with their disdain.

      Even so, I think some readers see a greater imbalance here than others. Some statements that criticize institutional errors may still be intended to uphold the faith, but the intention may not be acknowledged by those who disagree with the criticism or who regard the institution as the central object of faith. ~ Ningauble (talk) 14:11, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      • I guess I would point out that at least a third of the quotes now on this page were merged into it from the section on religion from the 1922 Hoyt's New Cyclopedia Of Practical Quotations, and most of those are in the same vein. By contrast, the quotes from the 1895 Dictionary of Burning Words of Brilliant Writers, which were also imported into this project, were very positive but the vast majority directed more specfically towards Christianity and Christian doctrines. BD2412 T 15:41, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • If I may I offer another way to view this subject: it appears as if religion in general treats women as possessions, not as equals to men. For example one the ten commendments (w:Thou shalt not covet) which says (according to enwiki):
"You shan't covet your neighbor's house. You shan't covet your neighbor's wife, or his male or female servant, his ox or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor. — Exodus 20:17"
appears to equate female humans with other possessions of human males such as houses, oxes and donkeys.
I have not checked to see if there are WQers who hold this opinion and have'nt had a chance to check Category:Women and religion . Anyone? Thanks in advance, Ottawahitech (talk) 20:52, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pages for various scriptures can and should be created:[edit]

Even better, pages for various religions. That would make this section more useful for more people. Religion is not a monolithic mass. Christian preachers looking for sermon material would appreciate having a Christian section to choose from, even if they also look at more general quotes. -- mdmcginn

I removed some Sikh scriptures because this page is not intended to provide large samples of the writings of any specific traditions. I also reverted an edit that removed a comment of cynical derision that can easily be perceived as either false or distasteful, because it is apparently a genuine quote of someone who seems notable.

I have thought of creating a page for sacred texts and other religious writings and on this page links to various scriptures could be made, The Shri Guru Granth Sahib JI being one of them. Extensive quotations, and links to entire translations could be made there. The following, which I moved out of the article, could be placed there:

  • First, the son was born, and then, his mother.

The guru falls at the feet of the disciple. ||1|| Listen to this wonderful thing, O Siblings of Destiny! I saw the lion herding the cows. ||1||Pause|| The fish of the water gives birth upon a tree. I saw a cat carrying away a dog. ||2|| The branches are below, and the roots are above. The trunk of that tree bears fruits and flowers. ||3|| Riding a horse, the buffalo takes him out to graze. The bull is away, while his load has come home. ||4|| Says Kabeer, one who understands this hymn, and chants the Lord's Name, comes to understand everything. ||5||9||22|| - Shri Guru Granth Sahib Ji - Bhagat Kabeer

  • Let self-control be the furnace, and patience the goldsmith.

Let understanding be the anvil, and spiritual wisdom the tools. With the Fear of God as the bellows, fan the flames of tapa, the body's inner heat. In the crucible of love, melt the Nectar of the Name, and mint the True Coin of the Shabad, the Word of God. Such is the karma of those upon whom He has cast His Glance of Grace. O Nanak, the Merciful Lord, by His Grace, uplifts and exalts them. ||38|| - Shri Guru Granth Sahib Ji - Guru Nanak Dev Ji

  • Kabeer, those mortals who consume marijuana, fish and wine

- no matter what pilgrimages, fasts and rituals they follow, they will all go to hell. ||233|| - Shri Guru Granth Sahib Ji - Bhagat Kabeer

  • O Lord, my thirst for the Water of Your Name will not go away.

The fire of my thirst burns even more brightly in that Water. ||1||Pause|| You are the Ocean of Water, and I am just a fish in that Water. In that Water, I remain; without that Water, I would perish. ||1|| You are the cage, and I am Your parrot. So what can the cat of death do to me? ||2|| You are the tree, and I am the bird. I am so unfortunate - I cannot see the Blessed Vision of Your Darshan! ||3|| You are the True Guru, and I am Your new disciple. Says Kabeer, O Lord, please meet me - this is my very last chance! ||4||2|| - Shri Guru Granth Sahib Ji - Bhagat Kabeer

I am hopeful that many expressions of many faiths, doubts, denials, understandings and misunderstandings can and will be made within Wikiquote, but neither the cynical who doubt or deny all manner of traditions, nor any particular group of those faithful to traditions should be given free reign to say all that they wish, or deny others the right to be heard. ~ Kalki 22:50, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Not only are most of them negative on religion, one of the few that are positive is from Adolf Hitler! I can't help but feel this is intentional. Oldironman

This is all anti-religion, seems its been over run by a loadof dicky dawkin types

Personal Comments on anything belong on Talk pages or User pages[edit]

  • "God Is Not All Powerful And Cannot Control Everything... Lucifer taught him that" - seems to have been a personal comment by IP 135.214.66.240 so I placed it here, until such time as a valid source can be cited. The only personal comments that are justifiable within the article space are short notes of explanation or introduction beneath quotes and headers, and these should definitely be as NPOV as possible. ~ Prot 23:38, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Removal of Hitler and Luther quotes, replacing an introductory comment[edit]

I am removing the disingenuous inclusion of Hitler and Luther quotes in the section "for religious traditions",and moving them to the pages for Hitler and Luther.

After a many months in which this article was overwhelmingly dominated with quotes against religion and religious traditons, I added a few some months ago which I felt helped to create a more appropriate balance.

These additions, and my division of the article into sections, were retained, but the following "Introductory Comment" was swiftly removed as "useless", POV, and "non-factual", and though I strongly disagreed with some of these assertions, and the total removal of it, I decided to let it stand, and did not openly object to it. I continue to feel that something is needed here to indicate and considerately accommodate a wide divergence of notions and ideas that people have about what religion is, and about how the religious devotions of others, or their conscientious rejection of those alien to their own ideas should be respected. I acknowledge that it originally was worded in a way that perhaps over-reacted to the months of primarily anti-religious mockery of faiths and religions that had dominated the article. It originally read:

It should be noted that the word Religion, like the words for God, Reality, Tao, Karma, Dharma, Virtue, Goodness and a good many other things can register with many different meanings to different people. Its root meaning is to Re-join, and usually implies a Re-joining with a divine source of being, but also has been used to emphasize a social rejoining with other mortal minds and wills… in ways that have often been polluted with various forms of prejudice and foulness as well as those that are purely rational, ethical, and fair.
There is no doubt that there have long been many forms of bigotry that disguised themselves as being religious, but now it seems many more feel bold enough to openly manifest anti-religious bigotries without any apologies or disguise nor even much effort at either lucidity or fairness.
All forms of bigotry are deplorable and ultimately anti-relgious in the purest sense, no matter what they might be labeled. All sincere attempts at religious cohesion and harmony are worthy of some respect, no matter how deficient or flawed they may be in many ways. All attempts at bigoted exclusions and condemnations are worthy of contempt, no matter how people might attempt to disguise them as religious or rational imperatives.

I originally had this in small type beneath a heading that created primarily so that a table of contents for easier navigation would appear; now a couple of external links that I am adding will do the same thing. I was perhaps a bit harsh to some who might not be familiar with the idea that a person can have strong objections to scornfulness towards either religious or nonreligious devotions without expressly advocatingany particular forms of either. I replace it here on the talk page now, and have attempted to put a revised portion of it back, as I add a few quotes, and remove a few that I feel are not appropriate in this section. I am NOT in any way acting as an advocate of any particular forms of religion, or of any devotions often thought of as non-religious. I am being an advocate of fairness. If people have a problem with attempts at being fair, considerate and honest about more than one side of an issue, that is indeed always a problem.

The original was removed with this comment:

Concerning my removal of the introduction placed by Moby: Removed the useless introduction though kept the rather handy categories. I realise this can be one of the more personal departments to many people, but there is no need for this page to be any diffrent than others on WikiQUOTE, a colletction of quotes about a certain topic. Again, I realise this is not the easiest of topics (religion will probably never be), but by putting these QUOTES (wich I assume have actually been said) does not mean we make Wikimedia Anti-Religious, nor does putting a disclmair on top change the nature of these quotes. That these -by no means NPOV- statements have been made is a FACT. Repeating them here in no way alters Wikimedias hopefully as NPOV as possible nature. (213.84.36.18)

My objections to these statements include these thoughts: Other articles did and do continue to have very useful notes of introduction on them, and I feel this is entirely appropriate; and, the statements were an attempt at providing thoughts upon the matters which might actually get people to think a bit, to pause and reflect before reacting to things either for OR against religious traditions. It is a comment that simply attempts to remind people to adopt a NPOV - a NEUTRAL point of view, that accomodates others, not to attempt to pretend that there can be any assertion made by anyone without a POV.

This person further added a statement some time ago, objecting to the bolding of some comments:

May I ask WHY the highlighting of some quotes? I can actually guess but, hey, I might be waaay off. Please explain why you need to deviate this page from the rest of wikiquote? (213.84.36.18)

This too is an available option here, and I believe should remain so. There can be conflicts of opinion over what is most significant and worthy of note, but that all statements are, or should be religiously treated as if they were of equal notability is an absurdity, and has been noted elsewhere it makes them all appear more "bland".

A few closing thoughts on some perspectives I agree with strongly:

The world is my country, all mankind are my brethren, and to do good is my religion. - This is a very famous statement of Thomas Paine, who was Deist and along with Thomas Jefferson, and George Washington one of history's greatest advocates of human liberty, and which uses one of the broadest notions of what religion is. These ideas may not be the majority views, but they are very ancient and greatly honored ones: Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this: To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world.(James 1:27)

I personally have a great admiration for many theists, atheists and agnostics of all types, and the integrity with which they seek truth, and seek to serve humanity.

As I was preparing this note, and searching for some other things, I came upon this on the internet:

"I am a very religious man. And I am an atheist." ~ Lee Daniel Crocker

This is a very profound statement, and I have little doubt that it is a sincere and accurate one, and bespeaks of something true not only of him, but similarly true of many atheists and agnostics. "Religious" devotions are not innately tied to a belief in God, or various notions about the supernatural, or any particular creeds, no matter how much many people, for or against various religions would like to believe them to be, or make them seem so. (I should note that I am NOT "Lee Daniel Crocker", and I do not believe that I ever encountered him or his site before today).

I'm an atheist, and that's it. I believe there's nothing we can know except that we should be kind to each other and do what we can for other people.~ Katharine Hepburn Ladies' Home Journal (October 1991)

I am also removing a recent flood of quotes by Adolf Hitler,and primarily non-religious or out of context quotes of Martin Luther On these: Yes, Hitler said on many occasions that he was for religion. He also said he was for honor, justice, and virtue against the host of ravenous oppressors of his notions of human "decency" and "fairness". That does not make his testimony or his perverse ideas on what constitutes virtue and human decency any more appropriate in those categories than his obscene claims of religious devotion do here, and especially not with the extremely disingenuous act of placing them in the category "for religion or religious traditions". It is perhaps appropriate to place them on the hypocritical liars own page, as I will now do, and not disseminate his nonsense here. They are plainly the words of a hypocrite and whoever placed them there is plainly attempting to pollute that section by association with one of the ultimate abominations of human history.

I do not advocate such polluting of any section on any theme. I would object in a similar manner if anyone attempted to flood the section "against religion or religious traditions" with all the statements that might be gathered of all manner of murderers, rapists, and other criminals who have quite often thought of their acts of depravity as "just" retribution against societies and individuals who did not favor indulging their every selfish whim, and have had little good to say of anyone or any religious tradition. There is actually far more of that attitude in Hitler's psychology than one of true piety and adherence to any traditional faith.

Luther might be a famous religious leader, but quoting some of his most absurd and foolish remarks, or taking others out of context, and placing them in the section "for Religious traditions" is also an act of disingenuous pollution of that section. I will place them on Luther's page as some indications of his character. But I must object to any attempt to place most of these comments here, and any of them without a bit more context.

Here are a few links to a few of the definitions that have been made of "Religion" and other relevant words that I have used in this note: religion, religious, hypocrisy, disingenuous

That is all for now. ~ Moby 14:16, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)



Quotes by Hitler and Luther were appropriate[edit]

I disagree. The quotes by Hitler and Luther were appropriate. What makes a quote for or against religion is not determinated by the likeability of the person who uttered them but whether the quote in itself attaches values that are held up high in general society to the adherents of religion, or religious ideals. I presume we share a disgust for Hitler and people like him. He did however play a big role in the past and because of that alone his views on religion warrants a place on this page. That goes for Stalin too for that matter. If you don’t agree with the points I’ve just brought up maybe you should write up a list of “good” and “bad” persons from your NPOV so that we humble dilatants would know better then place a quote from a “bad” person who upholds religion as something good among the nice, god fearing, people who upholds religion as something good.

response:[edit]

If you would actually examine what I have said a bit more carefully, you would find that I am neither saying, nor implying anything of the sort. I honor the integrity and worth of many who declare themselves atheists and agnostics far more than most who declare themselves theists, and it is not a matter of defining "good" and "bad" people. I do not attempt to do that, though I do accept that there are people mostly good and mostly bad in their inclinations and their actions; and declaring that is a matter of simply having the mental integrity of recognizing that there are acts and dispositions accepted as good and bad by nearly all sets of criteria of civil and honorable behaviour. By that criteria I will not retreat from the contentions that Hitler is a man most famous for the vile acts of extreme evil, injustice and hypocrisy that he committed, and to claim to be entirely naïve and indifferent about that fact, and that he should be treated as if his often deceitful and craftily disingenuous words made him an appropriate a spokesman for or against ANY idea, is itself an act of extreme disingenuousness. Most people would not accept quotes by him as a genuine spokesman for nearly any honorable idea, whether those of international peace or of virtue, and he is obviously most quoted by those who are most fanatically for his bigoted views or wish to make some policy he might have endorsed seem as contemptible as he is generally accepted to be, merely by association.

I might not have objected so strenuously, if at all, to some of these quotes if they more honestly had been placed within the moderative comments about religion, as many comments by those who embrace or rejected religious traditions have been. Some of Luther's comments might be appropriate there with some notes about their context, but at least one of them had little to do with religious advocacy in itself, and was just an exposure of one of his rants against people he had a low opinion of. If Mother Teresa ranted against some group or other, that might be appropriate quote for her page, but simply because she was a religious figure, incidentally citing a religious motive, does not make quoting it an appropriate comment here. Yet stretching criteria of validity to an extreme to accommodate those most hostile to religious paths, I could concede it too might conceivably be relevant in the moderative comments about religion, but not very much so.

In general I do not choose to accept how those who are extremely ignorant, foolish, or hypocritcal would like to define "religion" or "fairness" or "good" or "bad", whether they are for some particular political or religious creed or against all of them. I choose to accept those ways that the wisest minds of the ages have chosen to define it, with the outpourings of their hearts and their lives, and their acts of love in determined opposition to the ways of scorn, malicious deceitfulness and bigotry.

I did not delete the quotes from Wikiquote as they clearly may be genuine, and I think it likely that they are, but simply moved them to a less controversial placement in the articles of those who said them. They had all been placed very prominently at the start of the section on "for religion or religious traditions" as if they belonged there as much as the pronouncements of anyone, or even more so.

I do not choose to accept Hitler as a genuine spokesman for anything so much as for bigotry and hypocrisy, and I do not accept citations of the pronouncements of his hypocritical mind as if they were genuinely the full equivalent of comments for or against religion by such persons of honesty and integrity as Mikhail Bakunin, Voltaire, Mark Twain, Thomas Paine, or George Washington. That there are fools, hypocrites, cowards and "trolls" who would like to pretend to themselves or to anyone, that his words are just as worthy of inclusion as a genuine advocate of anything honorable, that they belong here, or would like them to be used as if they did, I will cite a quote that I used before in an argument against a person presenting neo-nazi views. As I stated before in using it against him, I concede that the writers go a bit overboard with their rhetoric, because I cannot accept the declaration that all words from anyone's mouth are a lie, but they bespeak a passionate revulsion towards his ideas and his hypocrisy that is entirely appropriate for all people who are opposed to the most vile forms of bigotry, and those who wrote them were executed during Hitler's reign for having written them:

Every word that comes from Hitler's mouth is a lie. When he says peace, he means war, and when he blasphemously uses the name of the Almighty, he means the power of evil, the fallen angel, Satan. His mouth is the foul-smelling maw of Hell, and his might is at bottom accursed. ~ The White Rose

The placement of quotations by Hitler on his own pages are for the most part appropriate, the placement of his pronouncements and ideas on most other pages, I am inclined to believe, are generally done in mockery of what ever stance Hitler might have found convenient or desirable to endorse. It is probable that many more times than he discussed any sympathies for religion, he discussed his desires for peace, and his hostility for all those minions who were "forcing" acts of war, and policies of oppression upon him, yet I do not expect many peace activists or human rights advocates would accept citations of any of his declarations of desire for peace and human rights as anything but contemptible hypocrisy, and I do not believe anyone who is fair and honest would accept most of his pronouncements about religion to be anything but the same. ~ Moby 22:11, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I don’t know what reasons you have for not believing Hitler was a religious, possibly that he didn’t agree with you? Calling him a hypocrite for not sharing all attributes with more likable religious figures seems strange to me. Most people hold religious beliefs in stark contrast to each other as they most often mirror god’s opinions with their own. You very seldom find a religious man who disagrees with the god he beliefs in. Whether he is an appropriate spokesman or not seems to me irrelevant since the page wasn’t supposed to be a battle of opinions but a mere record of opinions held through the history.

If you feel that only the eloquence inherent in a quote justifies its inclusion on this page I’m perfectly fine with that, but a casual look at the quotes still left more suggest that there are two attributes that can justify a inclusion: eloquence or whether the person cited is famous or not. If fame is not a factor a lot of quotes should be deleted but no matter what criterion is used a NPOV will be very hard to achieve with the current grouping of “for” and “against”.

There is an inherent problem in grouping the quotes as they now since we don’t seem to be agree of whether the person who said them influence the meaning of the words or not? To say Hitler was a bad man is an euphemism but to say that he was a hypocrite when praising the values of faith is convenient for some but utterly false. Since Hitler is often spoken of as an atheist I especially think it got a place here. It’s a common thread through history that “bad” religious persons later were considered not really religious and hypocrites of noble ideals for their own gains. Seldom are bad atheists claimed to be closet theists however. Are we to bring that thinking in here?

I believe that I can agree with you on some of the things that you point out, and I also thought that maybe a couple more categories might be needed, but balked at the thought of suggesting 5 categories that I was not sure how to name. But a few other compromises that might be made have occurred to me now, that I will think upon a bit more, and try to present here within the next day or two. I would like to point out that I don't believe that I made the mistake of saying Hitler was always insincere or always hypocritical, deceitful, or irreligious; I simply indicated my strong belief that in the ultimate analysis he was predominantly so. I don't believe in labeling any person "absolutely evil", not even him, nor anyone "absolutely good", not even the greatest and noblest of individuals, but I assert that there are absolutely evil acts of oppression and injustice… and he committed a vast multitude of them, and was to a very great extent responsible for far more. I am against the total censorship of anyone or anything, but I do not hide the fact that I abhor the spreading of any of his largely hypocritical and vile remarks beyond the extent to which it is necessary that people become sufficiently acquainted with his character and the vileness of his crimes, to know that evil, beyond all dispute, does exist in acts of both malicious will, and those of extreme indifference to the sufferings and harm that is done to others. ~ Moby 22:34, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I’m a nihilist so I’m bound to disagree with you whether good and evil exists outside the subjective roam of a mind trying to derive rules from an inheritably complex world. As interesting as such quandaries are I’m failing to see how those weigh in to this discussion since neutrality is what we are striving for and hence don’t have to classify things according to good or bad, just according to true or false.

How about sections less prone to cause conflicts such as, religious quotes about morality, logic, happiness etc. That way quotes critical or praising of religion can peacefully coexist under the same heading. A problem of classification then emerges since many quotes touch many subjects at once. It’s less then desirable that a quote is placed at several places at once so how to form headlines that minimise such conflicts I don’t know but I’ll better leave that to you since English is not my first language. Anyway In conclusion: if me placing those quotes among the “for religion” was disingenuous it was not done in a conscious manner. For a theists you seem open minded so I’ll apologize anyway for the disturbances I might have caused so not to further the common theist notions of atheists that exist.

- David the dogmatic nihilist

Use of Bold in Quotes in the Article[edit]

I've noticed that a number of quotes are bolded. Since they are limited to quotes in the "For Religion or Religious Traditions" category they are likely NPOV as they are apparently intended to place an undue emphasis on that particular POV.

I'd like to hear any justifications for their placement and retention before I remove them. ----FeloniousMonk 17:41, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)FeloniousMonk

I am among those who use bolding to emphasize quotes that I feel are especially notable on pages, and encourage others to do the same. I realize this creates potentials for disagreement as to what should be put in bold and what should not, but genuinely believe that in most cases it enhances the visual and informational impact of the pages. For the sake of balance, and to neutralize the issue a bit, I have just put into bold format some of the quotes among those in the "Against religion or religious traditions" section that I find interesting or amusing in an intelligent way. That does not mean that I entirely agree with all that they say or imply, but that I do find them above average in worth and notability. No one is obligated to bold qoutes that they do not feel are interesting or that they do not agree with, merely for balance, and people can bold quotes that they in no way can agree with, and yet find notable. Thus far there have only been a few disputes about whether particular quotes should be put in bold or not. I expect that there will be more with time, but I do feel most can probably be resolved amicably and that the process of resolving them can often shed new insight on various perspectives about things. May all disputes that occur here be approached with patience and a willingness to honor what sincerity and intelligence others exhibit, even when we must disagree with them. ~ Kalki 18:40, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Further expositions of my personal views on the subject of bolding are at Wikiquote:Village pump#Emphasis. ~ Kalki 18:49, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed someone added some quotes in bold in the other categories in the last few hours. Still, this leaves us with the issue that emphasizing selected quotes being POV, despite attempts at balancing across the spectrum of quotes. By selecting and emphasizing quotes that you find interesting or of note means it's worse than arbitrary-- it's personal and subjective. That is hardly NPOV, but the very definition of POV. Whether you agree with me or any of the quotes you've emphasized is a non sequitur, adding emphasis for what you find interesting goes against Jimbo's injunction to follow the conventions Wikiquote:Policies_and_guidelines. Since the Wikiquote Wikiquote:Manual_of_style neither supports nor precludes your use of emphasis for personal favorite quotes, we must rely on convention and history, and both Jimbo and I tend to be structuralists and sticklers for NPOV. That there is some discord and ambiguity on the topic of bolding certain quotes should have told you to err on the side of caution when it comes to adding any emphasis.

I don't intend to start an editing war, but clearly any added emphasis to quotes or how they are presented is POV. After checking a few more sources, I'll likely be removing any emphasis on this page as POV. --FeloniousMonk 22:20, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

As I have stated in my for the use of arguments bolding, the very act of SELECTING a quote of NECESSITY involves a POV. To insist otherwise is ABSURD. IF that can be conceded, the use of bolding is but a relatively minor act, and one that I believe should be allowed, even as the selection of quotes is allowed. One does not randomly select a sentence from a work, and declare that since using one's own awareness and assessments is an act of POV, actually looking for meaning, significance, and appreciable worth should be rejected, nor that emphasizing one that you hold to have such should be taboo. ~ Kalki 22:45, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)


Well, to take the logic in your first sentence to its logical conclusion, all quotes here should be in bold. I'd accept that as a fair compromise, please feel free to implement it. And from what I've read, the response to your arguments supporting the adding of emphasis in the form of bold to quotes individuals subjectively deem significant is less than compelling. Indeed, there was so little response that claiming any type of consensus is unjustified.

Regardless, you are adding your own personal emphasis to quotes you find significant based on your POV. As I said it is beyond arbitrary -- your personal and subjective opinion of what constitutes a significant quote should not be forced on all. Because that's exactly what you are doing by adding emphasis to quotes you deem worthy. You are attempting to decide for all here what quotes are worthy of emphasis and which are not. It's is a clear NPOV violation. I mean think about it, you are defining what is significant for all. Based on purely on your opinion.

I've checked, and adding emphasis in the form of bolding certain quotes is not part of the Wiki convention, violates both the NPOV and the Follow The Conventions injunctions, and is not in wide use. The use of bold for emphasis here for your personal favorites needs to go. Please remove it, or I will. --FeloniousMonk 06:06, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I was in the process of leaving home when I noticed your previous comments, and only had time to type a very quick response and leave. I just corrected a grammatical error that was obvious in what I had typed yesterday, and do not have the time right now to respond to all of your points. I am too busy with many things right now to deal with this matter as fully as I would like, and if you insist on removing the formatting, I am not going to enter into an edit war about it. Within the next week I might have more time for dialog here, and explain more of my reasons why I think bolding should be permitted as a presentation and editing option.
Quotations that express all manner of opinions from all manner of people with all manner of ideas are welcome here, as far as I am concerned, and I do not believe that the bolding of comments by anyone, of quotes that they honestly find of greater notability, is an intolerable imposition of their own views upon anyone. Others can and have deleted such formatting, if for some reason they find it inappropriate. It is certainly a far lesser level of endorsing or promoting any particular POVs, than that manifest in selecting the quotes that one chooses to present on a page.
I never made any pretense that a consensus had been reached upon the matter, simply that conflicts thus far about the issue have been very few. I am willing that a consensus be sought, arguments presented, and votes taken, so that perhaps an official policy can be determined by the end of next month, if you desire to press the issue. It is obvious that we disagree on this, but I do hope you will find the Wikiquote project one where most people can accomodate, and properly respect, a wide range of views, and that there is not a need to insist on too many rules that would impose any absolute uniformity on the presentation of them. ~ Kalki 15:35, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)


I'm heartened to see that you are amenable to my seeking an official policy determining the use bold for emphasis of personally significant quotes. Until then I have removed the bold formatting you added to selected quotes as being non-wiki convention and non-NPOV (you more-or-less state your pro-religion position at the top of this page, and your edits bear this out). --FeloniousMonk 21:03, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Intro[edit]

The intro as it stands is (i) overlong, and (ii) POV. It must be possible to explain why certain quotes don't qualify in a couple of lucid sentences, rather than three paragraphs of ranting. Bonalaw 11:55, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I reduced the intro a bit. I aggree it was too POV for an introductory note, and had too much of a rant to it. I reduced it to:
It should be noted that the word Religion, like the various words for God, Reality, Tao, Karma, Dharma, Virtue, Goodness and a good many other things can register with many different meanings to different people. The root meaning of the word in Latin is to Re-join, and usually implies a Re-joining with a divine source of being, but also has been used to emphasize the social rejoining with other people in devotion to common beliefs and purposes.
Many people would assert that even though many forms of bigotry and hypocrisy have been disguised by being declared the dictates of religion, all forms of bigotry and hypocrisy are deplorable and ultimately irreligious or anti-religious in the purest sense of the word, no matter what they might be labeled.
This was how it originally had stood:
It should be noted that the word Religion, like the various words for God, Reality, Tao, Karma, Dharma, Virtue, Goodness and a good many other things can register with many different meanings to different people. The root meaning of the word in Latin is to Re-join, and usually implies a Re-joining with a divine source of being, but also has been used to emphasize a social rejoining with other mortal minds and wills… sometimes in ways that have often been polluted with various forms of prejudice and foulness as well as those that are purely rational, ethical, and fair.
There is no doubt that there have long been many forms of bigotry that disguised themselves as being religious, but after ages of hypocrites declaring themselves religious, very many people now are so bold as to openly manifest anti-religious bigotries and even think it fairness. There have been many devoutly religious people, and sincerely atheistic people who were not hypocrites, nor fools.
All forms of bigotry are deplorable and ultimately irreligious or anti-religious in the purest sense of the word, no matter what they might be labeled. Throughout the ages, despite many forms of bigotry, great religious and social leaders have asserted that all sincere attempts at religious cohesion and harmony are worthy of some respect, no matter how deficient or flawed they may be in many ways. All attempts at bigoted exclusions and condemnations of any group of people or their religious or anti-religious beliefs as if they were totally worthless and unworthy of any respect have themselves been asserted to be deserving of extreme contempt, no matter how people might attempt to disguise them as "religious" or "rational" imperatives.
I believe that a person can agree with any or all of the ideas expressed and yet also agree that it was not entirely appropriate for an introduction. ~ Rumour 14:10, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

A bit of restoration and clean up[edit]

I JUST REMOVED:

The Nation of Islam wants to kill all the white people, and regular Islam just wants to kill everyone else. Reno 911 (posted by IP 68.221.185.9)

I took this out of the section "For religious traditions" as only the most absurdly stupid of hypocrites or other fools could claim it actually belongs there, and I do not know of any "Reno 911" being famous or noteworthy enough to be quoted here, even if it wasn't sheer bigoted nonsense. The adversaries of human decency and fairness are bigots of all sorts, whether they be Muslim, Christian, Jew, Buddhist, Hindu, Pagan, Gnostic, agnostic, atheist or any other thing that they would like to declare themselves. The ultimate enemy of human progress in the fields of justice, security, and liberty is ultimately to be found in the ignorance and stupidity that embraces any form of bigotry. All people have biases, but not all people are so ignorant and confused as to become bigots. I am very biased for awareness against ignorance, life, against death; for liberty, against unjust oppression, for wisdom against stupidity, and for lucidity against the insane confusions that many fools like to promote, and are often compelled to promote, being barely capable of seeing beyond them themselves. Bigots are those who often refuse to see beyond what they would like to see, who will often embrace all manner of absurdities if they seem to flatter their vain pretensions to superiority and wisdom, and will seek reasons to count other people "worthless" or worse, that they may be excused in doing them harm, and in hating them, as indeed many bigots of all manner of creeds are doing even to this day. To have passionate bias for or against certain political or religious creeds is no sin, but to have passionate bigotry against any is among the worst of human errors. It is among the ultimate causes of so many contentions, crimes and wars.

I also removed something that was placed at the start of the article that I don't see belonging anywhere, for, against or moderative, does it have a point at all?

I asked myself which day we have -- so I went into a church and I realized it was empty -- so I knew we have Sunday! ~ "Kelly Bundy" - Married with Children"

Also after looking at the history of edits, I just restored a section of the introduction that had been deleted. Religion and politics are certainly both fields where stupidities often seem to play a far greater role than wisdom, no matter what factions people are most inclined to side with. ~ Achilles 21:45, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)


The restoration I made of an introductory comment was almost immediately erased, and such extreme edits should have some reason provided. An absurdity sat at the head of the article for weeks it seems, without anyone paying it any mind, but the restoration of an extraordinary bit of lucidity is immediately reverted, by those apparently offended by the honest observation that there can be a vast difference between bigotries that pretend to be religious and anything that genuinely deserves the label of religion.
Even though many forms of hatred certainly produce a seemingly religious coherence, and many hate-filled and presumptuous bigots declare themselves to be religious does not make them the ultimate or fair representatives of human religious capacities, nor even the ultimate hypocrites. I would say that people who are irreligiously bigoted against any form of social coherence that is declared a religion to be at least as great a set of fools, as those who declare their particular bigotries to be among the ultimate dictates of religion.
The passage in contention is the one that was mentioned in the above sections, which I restored as it was. On further reflection I would modify it thus:
It should be noted that the word Religion, like various words for God, Reality, Tao, Karma, Dharma, Virtue, Goodness and a good many other things can register with many different meanings to different people. The root meaning of the word in Latin has been stated to mean to Re-join, and it usually implies a Re-joining with a divine source of being, but has also been used to emphasize the social rejoining with other people in devotion to common beliefs and purposes, without any specific mystical beliefs.
Many people would assert that even though many forms of bigotry and hypocrisy have been disguised by being declared the dictates of religion, all forms of bigotry and hypocrisy are deplorable and ultimately irreligious or anti-religious in the purest sense of the word, no matter what they might be labeled.
I believe that many members of groups such as Ethical Culturists or Unitarian-Universalists would agree with this, entirely. There is no part of this statement that I can perceive to be in error, though I am sure that many people invested in contending against people of divergent opinions would like to see all things labeled religious treated as if they were synonymous with bigotry, and their own bigotries as if they were synonymous with rationality. I make no contentions about mystical doctrines here, I am asserting that the statement is entirely fair, rational and clarifying. I am going to add this revision, and if any one has any objections I would like them to have the courtesy to state them as clearly as they can, before making edits, as I am doing now. ~ Achilles 22:48, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I’ve changed it.

The introduction is strikingly ludicrous and clearly biased. To paint religion is brighter colours you’ve decided to redefine the word “religion” by looking at etymology. The problem with that is that the history and origin of the word is entirely unimportant since it’s the meaning the word holds in people mind that is interesting. Since the phenomenon of religion is very wide spread and it is by no means an uncommon word there is little reason to explain what it “actually” means, in your “superior” opinion, for people. It’s faulty reasoning in the same way a guy who goes around calling people nigger just to correct them when they are insulted telling them it originally just meant “member of a black-skinned race of Africa” would be guilty of. Further to say bigotry is fundamentally anti-religious is clearly biased. I would disagree with that and so would many others but I feel no need to include that opinion since that too would be a personal point of view. If I can exercise restraint in that effect so should you. Let the quotes speak for themselves. Trust people enough to make up their own opinion. It’s quite striking of how you try to force your opinion on the introduction by first stating that the word holds different meaning with different people then directly dismiss that by telling people what the right definition is and what conclusion that definition entails.

Defending the Bible quote[edit]

Shouldn't the "Defend the Bible? I'd sooner defend a roaring lion!" quote be put under the "For Religion" category instead of "Against Religion?" I'm not familiar with the quote, but it seems to me to say that the Bible, like a roaring lion, is by its own nature capable of defending itself just fine.

Splitting and NPOV[edit]

I am not pleased this article was splitted without any discussion. Also in my humble opinion two newly created articles are not in NPOV as are. Each article should be written from NPOV - supportive and negative ideas should be listed on a page, not on separate pages as far as I understand. --Aphaia 10:26, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I split the original Religion article into the seperate pages since it was getting too large. The fact that I have placed a prominent reference to the other POV's makes it NPOV in my opinion. There is no other logical way of getting page sizes down below the recommended 35kb. Alan Liefting 21:52, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You misunderstand the recommendation. There is no recommendation to keep the page under 35Kb. It is rather to divide each section under 35KB, with section editing option which is available for each logged on users there is no problem so you have no reason to divide this page. --Aphaia 19:13, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I read the recommendation incorrectly. I understood it to be that each page (or article) is best to be less than 35kb rather than each section of an article. I cannot find any guideline in Wikiquote or Wikipedia on maximum article size so I have to take your word for it. Alan Liefting 06:26, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I have come across this: Wikipedia:Article size. There was a recommendation for a maximum article size as 32kb. This no long must be strictly adhered to but is recommended. Alan Liefting 20:06, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It is an old recommendation and we don't need to stick it. Moreover it is not necessary for us to apply all wikipedia policies and guideline, though sometimes we borrow them from our sibling. --Aphaia 08:09, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Limiting an article size is part of the WP Manual of Style. Alan Liefting 05:08, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I said to you already "it is not necessary for us to apply all wikipedia policies and guideline"? "It should be since it should be on Wikipedia" is not a good logic. --Aphaia 10:07, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The splitting that occured was not needed and not even useful, and I don't know that there are many quotes, if any, that are entirely "neutral" on Religion. Plainly pro and con quotes remain here, and continue to be placed here. I intend to examine these pages, and attempt a re-merger of them back into sections of this page in the next week or so. ~ Rumour 10:33, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alphabetical[edit]

Was the idea to alphabetize these or just throw them in the general section they belong in? Anyone? For now I've moved some of Mr. Emerson's(Ralph Waldo) to the A to L section. Sveden 21:04, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ummm... yeah kinda embarrassed now. Just figured out that the system is to alphabetize by first letter of the quote. Not sure what kinda sense that makes but ok... I'm changing back the errors I just made. Sveden 22:42, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Alphabetizing helps avoid dups. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 00:05, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oh duh. That makes total sense. (still embarrassed) Thanks Moshe Sveden 14:46, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Inadequately identified quotes[edit]

All quotes in Wikiquote articles should be sourced; i.e., a specific published work with a specific quotee (even if it's attributed in the publication to "Anonymous" or "Unknown") must be cited. Very few theme articles have any sources for any of their quotes. This makes it virtually impossible to maintain any semblance of accuracy or quality in these articles.

In order to encourage better sourcing, I have been bold and have just removed all quotes that were attributed to unidentified people (i.e., their wiki links went to non-existent articles). While it may be possible to track down these people and/or works, find the quotes in a publication, and then cite them, no one person (or even 20 people) can be expected to do this for over 10,000 articles. Wikiquote's articles are clearer suffering from this deficiency of unsourced material with inadequate attributions. The only solution I see is to get ruthless about eliminating any quotes that have not even a minimum level of identification — some easily accessed data about who the quotee is and why they should be considered notable enough for inclusion. At the very least, editors adding such quotes should provide a link to an existing Wikiquote or Wikipedia article, or explicitly explain who the person is in the standard source line (see Wikiquote:Templates/Themes for formatting). This doesn't eliminate the need to cite a specific published source for the quote itself, but it gives other editors a fighting chance to determine notability and find such a source.

If anyone has questions about this practice, please contact me on my talk page. Thank you. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 11:57, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Translation needed[edit]

Understood and removed. Great words are only for/from great people
Wikiquote's purpose is to collect quotes that have been previously published by reliable sources. I'm afraid that chat-room posts, however interesting, are not in this domain. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 11:34, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Start Again?[edit]

I would like to propose that we scrap this page and completely rebuild it. The quotes are biased. I can understand how there is a lot of negative opinions about religion, but we should be able to create a balanced page, especially considering that theists are currently in the majority, and thus there should be some material there. If we could get some balance, 90% of my qualms would go away. The organization is terrible. Most of the things that are sourced are under the unsourced section, some things are not alphabetical, etc... Peter

I've imported about 100 quotes from Hoyt's Cyclopedia of Quotations, and something close to that from the Dictionary of Burning Words of Brilliant Writers, both of which are generally positive towards religion (and the latter of which is nothing but), so that should assuage some balance concerns. BD2412 T 19:22, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Organized, but still many need sources[edit]

I organized what had been a largely random mess, and did some sourcing on a few quotes, but there still remain many which are unsourced. ~ HE 08:58, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced quotes[edit]

Unsourced[edit]

These quotes may be returned to the article page when sourced have been provided. BD2412 T 19:12, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A-K[edit]

  • Religious teachings are like a course of treatment having for its purpose the cure and healing of mankind. If the only outcome of a course of treatment should be mere diagnosis and fruitless discussion of symptoms, it would be better to abandon and abolish.
  • I prefer rationalism to atheism. The question of God and other objects-of-faith are outside reason and play no part in rationalism, thus you don't have to waste your time in either attacking or defending.
  • Live a good life. If there are gods and they are just, then they will not care how devout you have been, but will welcome you based on the virtues you have lived by. If there are gods, but unjust, then you should not want to worship them. If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones.
  • O ye people of the world! The religion of God is for the sake of love and union; make it not the cause of enmity and conflict.
  • All religions are cruel, all founded on blood; for all rest principally on the idea of sacrifice-that is, on the perpetual immolation of humanity to the insatiable vengeance of divinity.
  • When a woman gets too old to be attractive to Man, she turns to God.
  • What gods are there, what gods have there ever been, that were not from man's imagination?
  • Religion easily—has the best bullshit story of all time. Think about it. Religion has convinced people that there's an invisible man...living in the sky. Who watches everything you do every minute of every day. And the invisible man has a list of ten specific things he doesn't want you to do. And if you do any of these things, he will send you to a special place, of burning and fire and smoke and torture and anguish for you to live forever, and suffer, and burn, and scream, until the end of time. But he loves you. He loves you. He loves you and he needs money.
  • When it comes to bullshit you have to stand in awe of the all time champion of false promises and exaggerated claims: religion, no contest
  • The only good thing ever to come out of religion was the music.
  • When people stop believing in God, they don't believe in nothing—they believe in anything.
  • We do not destroy religion by destroying superstition.
  • Science can destroy religion by ignoring it as well as by disproving its tenets. No one ever demonstrated, so far as I am aware, the non-existence of Zeus or Thor — but they have few followers now.
  • Some of you say religion makes people happy. So does laughing gas.
  • Incurably religious, that is the best way to describe the mental condition of so many people.
  • So far as religion of the day is concerned, it is a damned fake... Religion is all bunk.
  • Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.
  • A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death.
  • All religions, arts and sciences are branches of the same tree.
  • In the matter of religion, people eagerly fasten their eyes on the difference between their own creed and yours; whilst the charm of the study is in finding the agreements and identities in all the religions of humanity.
  • The progress of religion is steadily to its identity with morals. Strength enters just as much as the moral element prevails.
  • The god of the cannibals will be a cannibal, of the crusaders a crusader, and of the merchants a merchant.
  • In the long run, nothing can withstand reason and experience, and the contradiction religion offers to both is palpable.
  • Religion... comprises a system of wishful illusions together with a disavowal of reality, such as we find in an isolated form nowhere else but in amentia, in a state of blissful hallucinatory confusion.
  • Religion either makes men wise and virtuous, or it makes them set up false pretenses to both.
  • La couronne vaut bien une messe (Paris vaut bien une messe.
    • The crown, (or Paris), is well worth a mass.
    • Attributed to Henry IV.
  • Religion is an attempt to explain a subject by men who do not understand it. The intent is not to tell the truth but to satisfy the questioner.
  • If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion, or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein.
  • It is in our lives and not our words that our religion must be read.
  • The beauty of religious mania is that it has the power to explain everything. Once God (or Satan) is accepted as the first cause of everything which happens in the mortal world, nothing is left to chance... logic can be happily tossed out the window.
  • It takes a great deal of Christianity to wipe out our uncivilized Eastern instincts, such as falling in love at first sight.

L through Z[edit]

  • Religion, like poetry, is simply a concerted effort to deny the most obvious realities.
  • Religion deserves no more respect than a pile of garbage.
  • Theology: an effort to explain the unknowable by putting it into the terms of the not worth knowing.
  • I believe that religion, generally speaking, has been a curse to mankind — that its modest and greatly overestimated services on the ethical side have been more than overcome by the damage it has done to clear and honest thinking.
  • We must respect the other fellow's religion, but only in the sense and to the extent that we respect his theory that his wife is beautiful and his children smart.
  • Some people just can't understand that they can't understand what they can't understand.
    • Brandon Miller
  • Born again? No, I am not. Excuse me for getting it right the first time.
  • My theology, briefly, is that the universe was dictated but not signed.
  • Making fun of born-again Christians is like hunting dairy cows with a high powered rifle and scope.
  • It were better to be of no Church, than to be bitter for any.
  • It is a severe Rebuke upon us, that God makes us so many Allowances, and we make so few to our Neighbor: As if Charity had nothing to do with Religion; Or Love with Faith, that ought to work by it.
  • When I was a kid I used to pray every night for a new bicycle. Then I realised God doesn’t work that way, so I stole one and prayed for forgiveness.
  • Religion is something left over from the infancy of our intelligence; it will fade away as we adopt reason and science as our guidelines.
  • I am as firmly convinced that religions do harm as I am that they are untrue.
  • For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
  • The God to whom depth in philosophy bring back men’s minds is far from being the same from whom a little philosophy estranges them.
  • Each religion, so dear to those whose life it sanctifies, and fulfilling so necessary a function in the society that has adopted it, necessarily contradicts every other religion, and probably contradicts itself.
  • Forgive him, for he believes that the customs of his tribe are the laws of nature!
  • The fact that the believer is happier than the skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunk man is happier than a sober one.
  • Religions are founded on the fear of the many and the cleverness of the few.
  • Let us overthrow the totems, break the taboos. Or better, let us consider them cancelled.
  • Man is the religious animal. He is the only religious animal. He is the only animal that has the True Religion -— several of them. He is the only animal that loves his neighbor as himself and cuts his throat, if his theology isn't straight. He has made a graveyard of the globe in trying his honest best to smooth his brother's path to happiness and heaven.
  • Religion consists in a set of things which the average man thinks he believes and wishes he was certain of.
  • Religion began when the first scoundrel met the first fool.
  • If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him.
  • Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it, you'd have good people doing good things and evil people doing bad things, but for good people to do bad things, it takes religion.
  • Morality is simply the attitude we adopt to people we personally dislike.
  • I believe that traditional religious belief and scientific knowledge depict the universe in radically different ways. At the bedrock they are incompatible and mutually exclusive.


  • Poetry aside, a religion is really a moral code that is expressed through legends, myths, or any type of literary device in order to establish a system of beliefs, values, and rules with which to regulate a culture or a society.
    • Carlos Ruiz Zafón (1964- )
  • He who sows the ground with care and diligence acquires a greater stock of religious merit than he could gain by the repetition of ten thousand prayers.
    • Zoroaster (c.1000 BC)
  • Peace of mind can only be attained by one who does good. One can only do good if one thinks good. One can teach good if one thinks and acts good. And only one who acts good and serves others is really living the Right Way.
    • Zoroaster (c.1000 BC)
  • America has freedom of religion, although I'm not sure which religion is free.
  • I am no longer religious; I have decided that God is bigger than the box we put Him in labelled "religion"

Narrowing the scope of this page.[edit]

Part of the reason this page is so long is that it gives a very narrow meaning to "religion". Specifically, many quotes on this page are about particular religions rather than religion generally, or are about God of other topics that fall under the general rubric of "religion". I propose to limit this page to quotes that are about religion generally and are equally applicable to all religions, and move quotes about specific religions, doctrines, personages, and so forth to pages focused on those topics. Cheers! BD2412 T 17:42, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

== Hello! It's a very awesome post. If you don't mind I'll bookmark it to my Digg bookmarks. 

==

Just to let you know... your website looks very strange in Mozilla on a Mac

Unsourced Miles Bateman quotes[edit]

Google gets no hits on these quotes. Can anyone verify them, and tell me who Miles Bateman is? ~ Robin Lionheart (talk) 01:10, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Quantum physics is the science of religion and the religion of science.
    • Miles Bateman, Christian Commentary (2012)
  • Quantum physics and quantum mechanics shatter determinism and materialism, the basis of atheism.
    • Miles Bateman, Christian Commentary (2012)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikiquote.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Religion&oldid=3046080"