All theory of modernity in sociology suggests that the more modernity there is, the less religion. In my theory we can realize that this is wrong: atheism is only one belief system among many.

And the terror itself is an example of the world's uncontrollability.

All theory of modernity in sociology suggests that the more modernity there is, the less religion. In my theory we can realize that this is wrong: atheism is only one belief system among many.

And it also became clear that these conditions of inequality and historical injustice have given rise to a feeling of hate in the world - a deeply felt hate that cannot easily be overcome with a few good words.

The basic assumption of the secular society is that modernity overcomes religion.

Initially, the horrific images of September 11th triggered an enormous wave of solidarity.

We are living in a world that is beyond controllability.

You could say that we are living in an internally globalized country.

Europe itself is an embodiment of this diversity.

The world has become so complex that the idea of a power in which everything comes together and can be controlled in a centralized way is now erroneous.

But it then very soon became clear that the response of a war against terrorism, initially conceived of in a metaphorical sense, began to be taken increasingly seriously and came to entail waging a real war.

Global conditions are far too complex to be able to imagine that they could ever be really controlled by one power.

Nonetheless, we continue to be obsessed with finding or inventing a European nation which, as in the nation state, guarantees homogeneity and thus an appropriate form of democracy and centralized government.

That was the first major social sciences conference at which social scientists from all cultures wanted to reach a consensus on whether we can continue to pursue a national course in the social sciences or whether we need a cosmopolitan path that also connects us in a new way.

Western countries in particular can today no longer be separated from Muslim societies, because they have them within themselves. They are themselves internally globalized.

We do not yet have the solutions to these questions, but the awareness that we live in an endangered world is present in more and more life situations.

I forced myself to think what is the new concept and it became clear to me that it was risk, not only in technology and ecology, but in life and employment, too.

In the first instance, therefore, global terrorism created a kind of global community sharing a common fate, something we had previously considered impossible.

When they come to Europe, they are confronted by still closed borders. Thus, the concept of open borders is a very selective concept, one that is not taken seriously at all in the experience of non-Europeans.

Relinquishing apparent national sovereignty does not have to entail a loss of national sovereignty, but can actually be a benefit.

Neither science, nor the politics in power, nor the mass media, nor business, nor the law nor even the military are in a position to define or control risks rationally.

In the final analysis, terror is also another proof of the fact that the superpower is not really a superpower. It was vulnerable.

The idea that you surrender your identity when you relinquish national powers is unhelpful. No, indeed, precisely the opposite is the case: if done in an intelligent way, you attain the sovereignty to better solve national problems in cooperation with others.

Accordingly, globalization is not only something that will concern and threaten us in the future, but something that is taking place in the present and to which we must first open our eyes.

And therefore we must seek dialogue in this networked world. We must ask which voice was actually attempting to make itself heard and saw no other possibility of gaining a hearing. To that extent, for a while this also represented a forced opening of a cosmopolitan view.

I held a conference in Harvard where Americans said they didn't believe in risk. They thought it was just European hysteria. Then the terrorist attacks happened and there was a complete conversion. Suddenly terrorism was the central risk.

You need education. You need subsistence protection. We need jobs and social security. These are preconditions under which it will perhaps be possible to deal with these complex circumstances.

You cannot make peace with terrorists. The normal dividing lines between war and peace do not apply.

This experience actually means the very opposite: the largest military power was unable to stop such a sensitive attack and will be unable to rule out such a possibility in the future. Precisely this is the background to the United States' military interventions.

Accordingly globalization is not only something that will concern and threaten us in the future but something that is taking place in the present and to which we must first open our eyes.

We aim in the domain of politics at republicanism; in the domain of economics at socialism; in the domain of what is today called religion, at atheism.

Selfishness is the only real atheism; unselfishness the only real religion.

If there is a God, atheism must seem to Him as less of an insult than religion.

Atheism is a non-prophet organization.

All theory of modernity in sociology suggests that the more modernity there is, the less religion. In my theory we can realize that this is wrong: atheism is only one belief system among many.

Selfishness is the only real atheism; aspiration, unselfishness, the only real religion.

The only theism worthy of our respect believes in God not because of the way the world is made but in spite of that. The only theism that is no less profound than the Buddha's atheism is that represented in the Bible by Job and Jeremiah.

If atheism is to be used to express the state of mind in which God is identified with the unknowable, and theology is pronounced to be a collection of meaningless words about unintelligible chimeras, then I have no doubt, and I think few people doubt.

The devil divides the world between atheism and superstition.

No philosophy, no religion, has ever brought so glad a message to the world as this good news of Atheism.

Small amounts of philosophy lead to atheism, but larger amounts bring us back to God.

To be an atheist requires an indefinitely greater measure of faith than to recieve all the great truths which atheism would deny.

There is no being eloquent for atheism. In that exhausted receiver the mind cannot use its wings, - the clearest proof that it is out of its element.

The very idea of carrying my memory into eternity devastated me, and I took refuge in atheism.

The more thoroughly I conduct scientific research, the more I believe that science excludes atheism.

But after he was pleased to reveal himself to me I did presently, like Abraham, run to Hagar. And after that he did let me see the atheism of my own heart, for which I begged of the Lord that it might not remain in my heart.

Atheism is the last word of theism.

Atheism is aristocratic; the idea of a great Being that watches over oppressed innocence and punishes triumphant crime is altogether popular.

I have a great love and respect for religion, great love and respect for atheism. What I hate is agnosticism, people who do not choose.