Here are the nominations for Atheist Quote of the Month for February
2007. Vote for your favorite by responding to this thread. Votes will
be
accepted until midnight, Feb 28, 2007. See rules below. Questions?
Comments?
Email me.

* * * * *

9) In response to:

All it takes is one $50 Telescope to dash this nut case.

You'll have to hit him quite hard with it, these rednecks have very
thick skulls.

By: Pastor Kutchie
Nominated: Tink
Seconded: Smiler

6) Now *why* would you assume that? If what you describe -- a real
'God' displaying himself for all the world to see -- is just that:
'real', then there you have it. We atheists would have to resign
ourselves to the fact that we were wrong. No 'problemo'.

But what about you theists? What would it take *you*, for example, to
finally accept the fact that there is no 'God'? That he's been nothing
more than wishful thinking; a product of man's imagination? If you say,
'Nothing!!', then you don't really have no business posting here, do
you? You are attempting to insinuate that we atheists are incapable of
admitting that -- given the 'proof' you've hypothetically provided --
we've been wrong; while *you* and your 'kind' are the 'real' ones
incapable of admitting you *could* be wrong. You guys won't even allow
for the *possibility' of that. This being the case: Why do you feel you
have a 'right' to post? If *you* can't admit to just the possibility of
being wrong, why should we look at even one sentence of your posts?

By: Greywolf
Nominated: Michael Gray
Seconded: MarkA

------------

6) Now *why* would you assume that? If what you describe -- a real
'God' displaying himself for all the world to see -- is just that:
'real', then there you have it. We atheists would have to resign
ourselves to the fact that we were wrong. No 'problemo'.

But what about you theists? What would it take *you*, for example, to
finally accept the fact that there is no 'God'? That he's been nothing
more than wishful thinking; a product of man's imagination? If you
say, 'Nothing!!', then you don't really have no business posting here,
do you? You are attempting to insinuate that we atheists are incapable
of admitting that -- given the 'proof' you've hypothetically provided
-- we've been wrong; while *you* and your 'kind' are the 'real' ones
incapable of admitting you *could* be wrong. You guys won't even allow
for the *possibility' of that. This being the case: Why do you feel
you have a 'right' to post? If *you* can't admit to just the
possibility of being wrong, why should we look at even one sentence of
your posts?

By: Greywolf
Nominated: Michael Gray
Seconded: MarkA

------------

6) Now *why* would you assume that? If what you describe -- a
real 'God' displaying himself for all the world to see -- is just
that: 'real', then there you have it. We atheists would have to
resign ourselves to the fact that we were wrong. No 'problemo'.

But what about you theists? What would it take *you*, for
example, to finally accept the fact that there is no 'God'? That
he's been nothing more than wishful thinking; a product of man's
imagination? If you say, 'Nothing!!', then you don't really have
no business posting here, do you? You are attempting to insinuate
that we atheists are incapable of admitting that -- given the
'proof' you've hypothetically provided -- we've been wrong; while
*you* and your 'kind' are the 'real' ones incapable of admitting
you *could* be wrong. You guys won't even allow for the
*possibility' of that. This being the case: Why do you feel you
have a 'right' to post? If *you* can't admit to just the
possibility of being wrong, why should we look at even one
sentence of your posts?

By: Greywolf
Nominated: Michael Gray
Seconded: MarkA

------------

7) In response to:

My ministry is to wayward Christians who have been deceived by the heresy of
creationism

So which heresy do you give the addicts to substitute for it? Surely
you don't ask them to go cold turkey and think for themselves?
By: Al Klein
Nominated: stoney
Seconded: Hannele

5) Lack of evidence may not be evidence of lack but it sure as hell
isn't evidence of existence.

By: Mark K. Bilbo
Nominated: Panama Floyd
Seconded: Kurt Nicklas

5) Lack of evidence may not be evidence of lack but it sure as hell
isn't evidence of existence.

By: Mark K. Bilbo
Nominated: Panama Floyd
Seconded: Kurt Nicklas

Here are the nominations for Atheist Quote of the Month for February
2007.

5) Lack of evidence may not be evidence of lack but it sure as hell
isn't evidence of existence.

By: Mark K. Bilbo
Nominated: Panama Floyd
Seconded: Kurt Nicklas

5) Lack of evidence may not be evidence of lack but it sure as hell
isn't evidence of existence.

By: Mark K. Bilbo
Nominated: Panama Floyd
Seconded: Kurt Nicklas

------------

6) Now *why* would you assume that? If what you describe -- a real
'God' displaying himself for all the world to see -- is just that:
'real', then there you have it. We atheists would have to resign
ourselves to the fact that we were wrong. No 'problemo'.

But what about you theists? What would it take *you*, for example, to
finally accept the fact that there is no 'God'? That he's been nothing
more than wishful thinking; a product of man's imagination? If you say,
'Nothing!!', then you don't really have no business posting here, do
you? You are attempting to insinuate that we atheists are incapable of
admitting that -- given the 'proof' you've hypothetically provided --
we've been wrong; while *you* and your 'kind' are the 'real' ones
incapable of admitting you *could* be wrong. You guys won't even allow
for the *possibility' of that. This being the case: Why do you feel you
have a 'right' to post? If *you* can't admit to just the possibility of
being wrong, why should we look at even one sentence of your posts?

By: Greywolf
Nominated: Michael Gray
Seconded: MarkA

3) Free will is just a make-believe idea created to excuse the inaction
of some pretended god. In fact, a world without a god would be just the
same as one with a god who allowed total free will. There's no
difference.

By: Elroy Willis
Nominated: Uncle Vic
Seconded: Martin Phipps

4) Uh, yeah. Vaccinations will lead to sex. Maybe the needle turns them
on. Is there *ANYTHING* that won't make Christians want to have sex?

By: Mark K. Bilbo
Nominated: Tink
Seconded: nemo

9) In response to:

All it takes is one $50 Telescope to dash this nut case.

You'll have to hit him quite hard with it, these rednecks have very
thick skulls.

By: Pastor Kutchie
Nominated: Tink
Seconded: Smiler

3) Free will is just a make-believe idea created to excuse the inaction
of some pretended god. In fact, a world without a god would be just the
same as one with a god who allowed total free will. There's no
difference.

By: Elroy Willis
Nominated: Uncle Vic
Seconded: Martin Phipps

* * * * *
1) Even if there were some being who was powerful enough to create the
entire universe, human religions still don't make any sense . . .

. . . The universe is supposed to work the same way our
subconscious perception of reality works? Duh huh? again.

By: Luna
Nominated:

Here are the nominations for Atheist Quote of the Month for February
2007. Vote for your favorite by responding to this thread. Votes will be
accepted until midnight, Feb 28, 2007. See rules below. Questions?
Comments?
Email me.

* * * * *
1) Even if there were some being who was powerful enough to create the
entire universe, human religions still don't make any sense. A being
that creates the entire universe, ok? All the planets, all the stars,
all the space in between the stars, and that being some how cares about
one species on one planet of one star? Out of countless billions of
stars?

And not just cares about us like, say, the way a really sensitive person
might care if he accidentally stepped on a bug, but rather the way a
person might obsess over a colony of bugs to the point of punishing them
for eating the "wrong" things or having sex at the wrong time, and
rewarding them for worshipping and obeying him. Bugs, right? A person
who cared that much about bugs would be pretty whackadoo. And to a
being who could create the whole universe we humans would be even less
to it than bugs are to us. We'd be like, maybe the nucleus in the cell
of a parasite on a bug in relative importance. I don't think that
analogy even takes it far enough.

And something with that kind of power, how could you even hope to
understand it enough to know what it would it want anyway? I mean,
something before time, before existence itself, something that far
beyond our understanding would definitely be beyond words, which are
made up symbols we use to communicate with other humans. We can't even
use our words to communicate if the other humans don't speak the same
language, and we certainly can't use them very well to communicate with
bugs who evolved on the same planet as us! So how could we think those
words (in religious texts) could describe even the rudiments of a being
who created the whole universe? Yet people point to these religious
texts and cling to them as proof of their gods, or the words of their
gods, or the reasons others should worship their gods. Duh huh? You
can't describe a being that vast and far beyond us in mere words that
were created by us.

Some theists will acknowledge that, acknowledge that their religious
texts are imperfect and nothing created by humans could match the
perfection of their god, yet they still worship anyway. Worship? What
could our worship be to a being like that? What meaning or benefit
could it possibly have?

What arrogance to think our little species could be so important as to
matter to a being who created the whole universe. What arrogance to
think our actions could have any meaning to it, that it could care one
way or another about us, that it could possibly see it as worthwhile to
even deign to perceive us.

This is all moot anyway since there is no god, and the whole idea of a
creator of the universe is obviously anthropomorphic anyway. People
create things, so people assume all things must have a creator. Which
is again arrogance. The universe is supposed to work the same way our
subconscious perception of reality works? Duh huh? again.

By: Luna
Nominated:

3) Free will is just a make-believe idea created to excuse the inaction
of some pretended god. In fact, a world without a god would be just the
same as one with a god who allowed total free will. There's no
difference.

By: Elroy Willis
Nominated: Uncle Vic
Seconded: Martin Phipps

8) Sure you can have a theory before you have evidence. However,
until
you have evidence to support it all theories are not so much equally
invalid, but equally ignorable. If they make logical sense, and are
testable..test them to seek knowledge. Lets put aside unicorns and
dragons for a moment since you seem to take particular umbrage at
that
analogy...even though it has merit IMO, and lets say someone has a
dream
that there is an adanced civilarizion(but not possessing FTL
technology)
on the fouth planet around a star that is 9670 light years from
earth.
They propose it is real, do you "accept this" theory as reasonable?
Or
would you ignore it as unsupported? Lets us say the 1200 years from
now
that we find out that there is actually an advanced civilization on
said
planet. Yes, the theory was valid, but it was...given the fact it
was
unsupported and untestable it was still reasonable to ignore it.
Certainly it would be unreasonable to change our behavior and expend
resources on a welcome center for these aliens in the present time.

By: Hatter
Nominated: Gail Futoran
Seconded: Brian Westley

------------

1) Even if there were some being who was powerful enough to create the
entire universe, human religions still don't make any sense. A being
that creates the entire universe, ok? All the planets, all the stars,
all the space in between the stars, and that being some how cares about
one species on one planet of one star? Out of countless billions of
stars?

By: Luna
Nominated:

* * * * *
1) Even if there were some being who was powerful enough to create the
entire universe, human religions still don't make any sense. A being
that creates the entire universe, ok? All the planets, all the stars,
all the space in between the stars, and that being some how cares about
one species on one planet of one star? Out of countless billions of
stars? And not just cares about us like, say, the way a really
sensitive person might care if he accidentally stepped on a bug, but
rather the way a person might obsess over a colony of bugs to the point
of punishing them for eating the "wrong" things or having sex at the
wrong time, and rewarding them for worshipping and obeying him. Bugs,
right? A person who cared that much about bugs would be pretty
whackadoo. And to a being who could create the whole universe we
humans would be even less to it than bugs are to us. We'd be like,
maybe the nucleus in the cell of a parasite on a bug in relative
importance. I don't think that analogy even takes it far enough.

And something with that kind of power, how could you even hope to
understand it enough to know what it would it want anyway? I mean,
something before time, before existence itself, something that far
beyond our understanding would definitely be beyond words, which are
made up symbols we use to communicate with other humans. We can't even
use our words to communicate if the other humans don't speak the same
language, and we certainly can't use them very well to communicate with
bugs who evolved on the same planet as us! So how could we think those
words (in religious texts) could describe even the rudiments of a being
who created the whole universe? Yet people point to these religious
texts and cling to them as proof of their gods, or the words of their
gods, or the reasons others should worship their gods. Duh huh? You
can't describe a being that vast and far beyond us in mere words that
were created by us.

Some theists will acknowledge that, acknowledge that their religious
texts are imperfect and nothing created by humans could match the
perfection of their god, yet they still worship anyway. Worship? What
could our worship be to a being like that? What meaning or benefit
could it possibly have? What arrogance to think our little species
could be so important as to matter to a being who created the whole
universe. What arrogance to think our actions could have any meaning
to it, that it could care one way or another about us, that it could
possibly see it as worthwhile to even deign to perceive us. This is
all moot anyway since there is no god, and the whole idea of a creator
of the universe is obviously anthropomorphic anyway. People create
things, so people assume all things must have a creator. Which is
again arrogance. The universe is supposed to work the same way our
subconscious perception of reality works? Duh huh? again.

By: Luna
Nominated:

9) In response to:

All it takes is one $50 Telescope to dash this nut case.

You'll have to hit him quite hard with it, these rednecks have very
thick skulls.

By: Pastor Kutchie
Nominated: Tink
Seconded: Smiler

Here are the nominations for Atheist Quote of the Month for February
2007. Vote for your favorite by responding to this thread. Votes will be
accepted until midnight, Feb 28, 2007. See rules below. Questions?
Comments?
Email me.

* * * * *

1) Even if there were some being who was powerful enough to create the entire
universe, human religions still don't make any sense. A being that creates
the entire universe, ok? All the planets, all the stars, all the space in
between the stars, and that being some how cares about one species on one
planet of one star? Out of countless billions of stars?

And not just cares about us like, say, the way a really sensitive person
might care if he accidentally stepped on a bug, but rather the way a person
might obsess over a colony of bugs to the point of punishing them for eating
the "wrong" things or having sex at the wrong time, and rewarding them for
worshipping and obeying him. Bugs, right? A person who cared that much about
bugs would be pretty whackadoo. And to a being who could create the whole
universe we humans would be even less to it than bugs are to us. We'd be
like, maybe the nucleus in the cell of a parasite on a bug in relative
importance. I don't think that analogy even takes it far enough.

And something with that kind of power, how could you even hope to understand
it enough to know what it would it want anyway? I mean, something before
time, before existence itself, something that far beyond our understanding
would definitely be beyond words, which are made up symbols we use to
communicate with other humans. We can't even use our words to communicate if
the other humans don't speak the same language, and we certainly can't use
them very well to communicate with bugs who evolved on the same planet as us!
So how could we think those words (in religious texts) could describe even
the rudiments of a being who created the whole universe? Yet people point to
these religious texts and cling to them as proof of their gods, or the words
of their gods, or the reasons others should worship their gods. Duh huh?
You can't describe a being that vast and far beyond us in mere words that
were created by us.

Some theists will acknowledge that, acknowledge that their religious texts
are imperfect and nothing created by humans could match the perfection of
their god, yet they still worship anyway. Worship? What could our worship
be to a being like that? What meaning or benefit could it possibly have?

What arrogance to think our little species could be so important as to matter
to a being who created the whole universe. What arrogance to think our
actions could have any meaning to it, that it could care one way or another
about us, that it could possibly see it as worthwhile to even deign to
perceive us.

This is all moot anyway since there is no god, and the whole idea of a
creator of the universe is obviously anthropomorphic anyway. People create
things, so people assume all things must have a creator. Which is again
arrogance. The universe is supposed to work the same way our subconscious
perception of reality works? Duh huh? again.

By: Luna

3) Free will is just a make-believe idea created to excuse the inaction
of some pretended god. In fact, a world without a god would be just the
same as one with a god who allowed total free will. There's no
difference.

By: Elroy Willis
Nominated: Uncle Vic
Seconded: Martin Phipps

5) Lack of evidence may not be evidence of lack but it sure as hell
isn't evidence of existence.

By: Mark K. Bilbo
Nominated: Panama Floyd
Seconded: Kurt Nicklas

3) Free will is just a make-believe idea created to excuse the inaction
of some pretended god. In fact, a world without a god would be just the
same as one with a god who allowed total free will. There's no
difference.

By: Elroy Willis
Nominated: Uncle Vic
Seconded: Martin Phipps

Here are the nominations for Atheist Quote of the Month for February
2007.

5) Lack of evidence may not be evidence of lack but it sure as hell
isn't evidence of existence.

By: Mark K. Bilbo
Nominated: Panama Floyd
Seconded: Kurt Nicklas

3) Free will is just a make-believe idea created to excuse the inaction
of some pretended god. In fact, a world without a god would be just the
same as one with a god who allowed total free will. There's no
difference.

By: Elroy Willis
Nominated: Uncle Vic
Seconded: Martin Phipps

------------

6) Now *why* would you assume that? If what you describe -- a real
'God' displaying himself for all the world to see -- is just that:
'real', then there you have it. We atheists would have to resign
ourselves to the fact that we were wrong. No 'problemo'.

But what about you theists? What would it take *you*, for example, to
finally accept the fact that there is no 'God'? That he's been nothing
more than wishful thinking; a product of man's imagination? If you say,
'Nothing!!', then you don't really have no business posting here, do
you? You are attempting to insinuate that we atheists are incapable of
admitting that -- given the 'proof' you've hypothetically provided --
we've been wrong; while *you* and your 'kind' are the 'real' ones
incapable of admitting you *could* be wrong. You guys won't even allow
for the *possibility' of that. This being the case: Why do you feel you
have a 'right' to post? If *you* can't admit to just the possibility of
being wrong, why should we look at even one sentence of your posts?

By: Greywolf
Nominated: Michael Gray
Seconded: MarkA

------------

5) Lack of evidence may not be evidence of lack but it sure as hell
isn't evidence of existence.

By: Mark K. Bilbo
Nominated: Panama Floyd
Seconded: Kurt Nicklas