20) re: Linux

Take the plunge! It's almost as liberating as discovering that you
don't HAVE to believe in God, just because everyone else is doing it.

By: MarkA
Nominated: B. Corporel
Seconded: stoney

G'Day! Well, it's time to wrap up another year and start making a list
of breakable New Years' resolutions. I have a list of a dozen or so
candidates I intend to have whittled down to a few golden finalists by
Thuirsday. Here's hoping everyone had a great holiday!

Here are the nominations for Atheist Quote of the Month for December
2003. Vote for your favorite by responding to this thread. Votes will
be accepted until midnight, Dec. 31. See rules below. Questions?
Comments? Email me.
* * * * *

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

4) I know two Christians who have radically different interpretations
of the creation account in Genesis. One believes it is a literal
account of what happened over the period of a week approximately
10,000 years ago, including actually forming Adam from dirt, literally
removing one of his ribs to make Eve, putting them in an actual Eden
with real forbidden-fruit trees and actual talking serpents, and with
Noah building a physical ark which floated with real animals for a
year on an actual worldwide flood. The other regards Genesis as an
allegory; the "days" indicating stages of creation in a process that
took billions of years, the garden representing a state of innocence,
the fall representing man's choice to hide from God and do wrong after
gaining knowledge of right and wrong, the flood representing a warning
of the doom that will befall the wicked, the ark representing a seed
of hope preserving the best in humanity, and as a metaphor for the
narrow path to salvation, etc. The only thing these two Christians
agree upon about Genesis is that it speaks Truth. Both insist there
is no error in the Biblical account, but each utterly rejects the
interpretation of Genesis "truth" embraced by the other.

Perhaps your interpretation coincides with one of theirs, or maybe you
have yet another interpretation that agrees with neither, but none of
you can use the Bible to show that anyone else's interpretation is
mistaken. To say the Bible is without error is like saying a
Rorschach inkblot is without error. However true that may be, it is
only trivially so, and it does nothing to recommend the Bible, any
more than the inkblot, as a path to understanding or a guide to better
living.

By: Kronk
Nominated: John Popelish
Seconded: lizzard woman

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

12) Actually we in the non-Christian society believe in plenty, we
just don't need to invoke invisible spooks to justify any of it. And
I think we have a pretty good understanding of Islam, just as we have
a pretty good understanding of Christianity - both are mishmash
religious philosophies that essentially consist of untestable
assertions derived from texts that were written down
hundreds/thousands of years ago by cultural primitives, and that have
yet somehow achieved the status of infallible truths that people with
no rational ethical grounding for their behavior would gladly kill to
defend from real and perceived threats.

By: Michael Nash
Nominated: Wolf333
Seconded: Tink

3) Yes, he obviously prefers child molesters to be priests, not
prophets...

By: Julian D.
Nominated: towelie
Seconded: turk

7) In response to:

You say there is no God.

I do not. I say that I have never encountered a coherent,
non-circular, non-question-begging definition of "god" which conforms
to common usage, and therefore, that the question "Does God exist?" is
meaningless unless a working definition for the term is provided. As
such, I am a weak atheist: I can honestly reply "No" to the question
"Do you believe that a God or Gods exist?" because to me, the term
'god' has no referent.

By: Arturo Magidin
Nominated: Martin Crisp
Seconded: Ron Baker

Here are the nominations for Atheist Quote of the Month for December
2003. Vote for your favorite by responding to this thread. Votes will be
accepted until midnight, Dec. 31. See rules below. Questions? Comments?
Email me.

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

5) Christians... can't live with 'em, can't feed 'em to the lions
anymore.

By: Shaun Webb
Nominated: stoney
Seconded: Doc Smartass

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

G'Day! Well, it's time to wrap up another year and start making a list
of breakable New Years' resolutions. I have a list of a dozen or so
candidates I intend to have whittled down to a few golden finalists by
Thuirsday. Here's hoping everyone had a great holiday!

14) In response to:

Seen recently on a church sign.

ch__ch - What's missing?

"a" "ing" - i.e. the sign should say "cha-ching" which is what organized
religion is really about.

By: Fear gan dia
Nominated: Tink
Seconded: Bill, The Avender

9) In response to:

Most people, even those who almost become physically ill with the mental picture of
sexual activity between two men or two women,

I hope you're not being serious here. You really are a sad git if you
really believe this. Next you'll be telling us all that some tart called
Mary who was unfaithfull to Joseph was a virgin when she got pregnant.

By: martin
Nominated: Blast Femur
Seconded: Meteorite Debris

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

G'Day! Well, it's time to wrap up another year and start making a list
of breakable New Years' resolutions. I have a list of a dozen or so
candidates I intend to have whittled down to a few golden finalists by
Thuirsday. Here's hoping everyone had a great holiday!

Here are the nominations for Atheist Quote of the Month for December
2003. Vote for your favorite by responding to this thread. Votes will be
accepted until midnight, Dec. 31. See rules below. Questions? Comments?
Email me.
* * * * *

15) I'd rather do something now that will have real consequences to the
quality of human life rather than waiting around for a non-existent
savior to make everything better.

By: Liz
Nominated: Elroy Willis
Seconded: AngryJohn

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

4) I know two Christians who have radically different interpretations
of the creation account in Genesis. One believes it is a literal
account of what happened over the period of a week approximately 10,000
years ago, including actually forming Adam from dirt, literally removing
one of his ribs to make Eve, putting them in an actual Eden with real
forbidden-fruit trees and actual talking serpents, and with Noah
building a physical ark which floated with real animals for a year on an
actual worldwide flood. The other regards Genesis as an allegory; the
"days" indicating stages of creation in a process that took billions of
years, the garden representing a state of innocence, the fall
representing man's choice to hide from God and do wrong after gaining
knowledge of right and wrong, the flood representing a warning of the
doom that will befall the wicked, the ark representing a seed of hope
preserving the best in humanity, and as a metaphor for the narrow path
to salvation, etc. The only thing these two Christians agree upon about
Genesis is that it speaks Truth. Both insist there is no error in the
Biblical account, but each utterly rejects the interpretation of Genesis
"truth" embraced by the other.

Perhaps your interpretation coincides with one of theirs, or maybe you
have yet another interpretation that agrees with neither, but none of
you can use the Bible to show that anyone else's interpretation is
mistaken. To say the Bible is without error is like saying a Rorschach
inkblot is without error. However true that may be, it is only
trivially so, and it does nothing to recommend the Bible, any more than
the inkblot, as a path to understanding or a guide to better living.

By: Kronk
Nominated: John Popelish
Seconded: lizzard woman

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

12) Actually we in the non-Christian society believe in plenty, we just
don't need to invoke invisible spooks to justify any of it. And I think
we have a pretty good understanding of Islam, just as we have a pretty
good understanding of Christianity - both are mishmash religious
philosophies that essentially consist of untestable assertions derived
from texts that were written down hundreds/thousands of years ago by
cultural primitives, and that have yet somehow achieved the status of
infallible truths that people with no rational ethical grounding for
their behavior would gladly kill to defend from real and perceived
threats.

By: Michael Nash
Nominated: Wolf333
Seconded: Tink

16) In response to:

Did I ***** you off by my ignorance? Control yourself you cute little
pig!

I don't care that you're ignorant. I care that that ignorance is so
witless it thinks it is wise, and it spewed forth inane and unsupported
assertions as gospel®.

By: the cutest atheist
Nominated: Mekkala
Seconded: Rv Cloim

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

19) We don't have to have faith. What we have works well and we
understand why it works. We understand how to treat others in a way
that doesn't hurt them and how to have happy productive socially
acceptable lives. We contribute to the community and our nation and
derive great pleasure from doing so.

We aren't looking for your God. Why would we? We can easily see that
there is no difference between your god story and any other story that
is made up by people who are afraid of death.

By: Kate
Nominated: Mark K. Bilbo
Seconded: Denis Loubet

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

19) We don't have to have faith. What we have works well and we
understand why it works. We understand how to treat others in a way
that doesn't hurt them and how to have happy productive socially
acceptable lives. We contribute to the community and our nation and
derive great pleasure from doing so.

We aren't looking for your God. Why would we? We can easily see that
there is no difference between your god story and any other story that
is made up by people who are afraid of death.

By: Kate
Nominated: Mark K. Bilbo
Seconded: Denis Loubet

4) I know two Christians who have radically different interpretations
of the creation account in Genesis. One believes it is a literal
account of what happened over the period of a week approximately
10,000 years ago, including actually forming Adam from dirt, literally
removing one of his ribs to make Eve, putting them in an actual Eden
with real forbidden-fruit trees and actual talking serpents, and with
Noah building a physical ark which floated with real animals for a
year on an actual worldwide flood. The other regards Genesis as an
allegory; the "days" indicating stages of creation in a process that
took billions of years, the garden representing a state of innocence,
the fall representing man's choice to hide from God and do wrong after
gaining knowledge of right and wrong, the flood representing a warning
of the doom that will befall the wicked, the ark representing a seed
of hope preserving the best in humanity, and as a metaphor for the
narrow path to salvation, etc. The only thing these two Christians
agree upon about Genesis is that it speaks Truth. Both insist there
is no error in the Biblical account, but each utterly rejects the
interpretation of Genesis "truth" embraced by the other.

Perhaps your interpretation coincides with one of theirs, or maybe you
have yet another interpretation that agrees with neither, but none of
you can use the Bible to show that anyone else's interpretation is
mistaken. To say the Bible is without error is like saying a
Rorschach inkblot is without error. However true that may be, it is
only trivially so, and it does nothing to recommend the Bible, any
more than the inkblot, as a path to understanding or a guide to better
living.

By: Kronk
Nominated: John Popelish
Seconded: lizzard woman

19) We don't have to have faith. What we have works well and we
understand why it works. We understand how to treat others in a way
that doesn't hurt them and how to have happy productive socially
acceptable lives. We contribute to the community and our nation and
derive great pleasure from doing so.

We aren't looking for your God. Why would we? We can easily see that
there is no difference between your god story and any other story that
is made up by people who are afraid of death.

By: Kate
Nominated: Mark K. Bilbo
Seconded: Denis Loubet

19) We don't have to have faith. What we have works well and we
understand why it works. We understand how to treat others in a way
that doesn't hurt them and how to have happy productive socially
acceptable lives. We contribute to the community and our nation and
derive great pleasure from doing so.

We aren't looking for your God. Why would we? We can easily see that
there is no difference between your god story and any other story that
is made up by people who are afraid of death.

By: Kate
Nominated: Mark K. Bilbo
Seconded: Denis Loubet

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

7) In response to:

You say there is no God.

I do not. I say that I have never encountered a coherent, non-circular,
non-question-begging definition of "god" which conforms to common usage,
and therefore, that the question "Does God exist?" is meaningless unless
a working definition for the term is provided. As such, I am a weak
atheist: I can honestly reply "No" to the question "Do you believe that
a God or Gods exist?" because to me, the term 'god' has no referent.

By: Arturo Magidin
Nominated: Martin Crisp
Seconded: Ron Baker

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

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

17) And as I have said since more or less my day one on usenet, no
Christian has any claim to morality: because when push comes to shove,
they're content that you should suffer eternally, provided they get
unending bliss. So much for that which makes us human: which is to say
empathy, or at least the capacity for it.

By: Therion Ware
Nominated: Mekkala
Seconded: Vic Sagerquist

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

4) I know two Christians who have radically different interpretations
of the creation account in Genesis. One believes it is a literal
account of what happened over the period of a week approximately 10,000
years ago, including actually forming Adam from dirt, literally removing
one of his ribs to make Eve, putting them in an actual Eden with real
forbidden-fruit trees and actual talking serpents, and with Noah
building a physical ark which floated with real animals for a year on an
actual worldwide flood. The other regards Genesis as an allegory; the
"days" indicating stages of creation in a process that took billions of
years, the garden representing a state of innocence, the fall
representing man's choice to hide from God and do wrong after gaining
knowledge of right and wrong, the flood representing a warning of the
doom that will befall the wicked, the ark representing a seed of hope
preserving the best in humanity, and as a metaphor for the narrow path
to salvation, etc. The only thing these two Christians agree upon about
Genesis is that it speaks Truth. Both insist there is no error in the
Biblical account, but each utterly rejects the interpretation of Genesis
"truth" embraced by the other.

Perhaps your interpretation coincides with one of theirs, or maybe you
have yet another interpretation that agrees with neither, but none of
you can use the Bible to show that anyone else's interpretation is
mistaken. To say the Bible is without error is like saying a Rorschach
inkblot is without error. However true that may be, it is only
trivially so, and it does nothing to recommend the Bible, any more than
the inkblot, as a path to understanding or a guide to better living.

By: Kronk
Nominated: John Popelish
Seconded: lizzard woman

15) I'd rather do something now that will have real consequences to the
quality of human life rather than waiting around for a non-existent
savior to make everything better.

By: Liz
Nominated: Elroy Willis
Seconded: AngryJohn

17) And as I have said since more or less my day one on usenet, no
Christian has any claim to morality: because when push comes to shove,
they're content that you should suffer eternally, provided they get
unending bliss. So much for that which makes us human: which is to say
empathy, or at least the capacity for it.

By: Therion Ware
Nominated: Mekkala
Seconded: Vic Sagerquist

19) We don't have to have faith. What we have works well and we
understand why it works. We understand how to treat others in a way
that doesn't hurt them and how to have happy productive socially
acceptable lives. We contribute to the community and our nation and
derive great pleasure from doing so.

We aren't looking for your God. Why would we? We can easily see that
there is no difference between your god story and any other story that
is made up by people who are afraid of death.

By: Kate
Nominated: Mark K. Bilbo
Seconded: Denis Loubet

18) In response to:

God speaks to the heart, not the brain.

You may as well speak to the foot as to the heart.

By: Mike Smith
Nominated: Michelle Malkin
Seconded: Harry Leopold

G'Day! Well, it's time to wrap up another year and start making a list
of breakable New Years' resolutions. I have a list of a dozen or so
candidates I intend to have whittled down to a few golden finalists by
Thuirsday. Here's hoping everyone had a great holiday!

Here are the nominations for Atheist Quote of the Month for December
2003. Vote for your favorite by responding to this thread. Votes will be
accepted until midnight, Dec. 31. See rules below. Questions? Comments?
Email me.
------------

8) Oh, and Jason... you know what I've noticed about you apologetics?

"Safe to conclude" -- why is it safe? Because there's any reason to
believe that this is true? No, because you've *already decided the
Bible is true*. Since you've decided that, you use that as your primary
constraint on finding a solution -- any rationalization, no matter how
convoluted and unlikely, is "safe to conclude" as long as it preserves
the "inerrancy" of your masturbation companion, the Bible.

By: Mekkala
Nominated: towelie
Seconded: Roy Sinnamond

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

5) Christians... can't live with 'em, can't feed 'em to the lions
anymore.

By: Shaun Webb
Nominated: stoney
Seconded: Doc Smartass

2) All human progress of the past 200 years has been in spite of, not
because of, religion. Having battled that progress for centuries, the
Christians now show up to take credit for it. *****.

By: Sean C
Nominated: towelie
Seconded: Doc Smartass

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

17) And as I have said since more or less my day one on usenet, no
Christian has any claim to morality: because when push comes to shove,
they're content that you should suffer eternally, provided they get
unending bliss. So much for that which makes us human: which is to say
empathy, or at least the capacity for it.

By: Therion Ware
Nominated: Mekkala
Seconded: Vic Sagerquist

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

Here are the nominations for Atheist Quote of the Month for December
2003. Vote for your favorite by responding to this thread. Votes will be
accepted until midnight, Dec. 31. See rules below. Questions? Comments?
Email me.
* * * * *

You say there is no God.