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

8) 1. There has been no repeatable objective observation under
controlled circumstances of any God.
2. The hearsay evidence we get about Gods is contradictory those
believing in one God only (a majority of the god believers) claim all
the other to be false.
3. The sources of those believing in one God only are all founded on
the Jewish Thora
4. The Jewish Thora is by no way a reliable source of evidence. It
claims a God created the sun and the moon on the fourth day of the
existence of the earth which is doubtlessly untrue as without the sun,
day (and night) do not exist. One has only to read the first 18 verses
to realize that verse 2 was already false.

Without any reliable evidence there is no reason at all to supose any
God exists.

Moreover the God believers mostly claim that this God is allmighty
all-knowing and wants me to believe in him. Such a god I can dispriove:
1. If a God is truly allmighty and all-knowing and he truely wanted me
to believe in him, I would.
2. I don't
QED

By: Peter van Velzen
Nominated: Gail Futoran
Seconded: AZ Nomad

Here are the nominations for Atheist Quote of the Month for November
2006. Vote for your favorite by responding to this thread. Votes will be
accepted until midnight, Nov 30, 2006. See rules below. Questions?
Comments?
Email me.

* * * * *
1) Theists deliberately make word play based on the different meanings
of "belief". I use the word "believe" to mean that I think something is
true and "disbelieve" to mean that I think something is false. Thus it
makes sense to say that I believe that 2+2=4. That is an instance of
"justified true belief" aka "knowledge". I personally don't bristle at
the theists for saying correctly that I have beliefs. I just find them
to be epistemological morons who can't distinguish between having
beliefs that are justified by logic and evidence and having beliefs
unsubstantiated by evidence that are based on mere feelings and wishes.
I can't imagine the double-think necessary to believe in, say, the
divinity of Jesus on no better grounds that you get a warm, cuddly
feeling in your heart by believing that. This, of course, is confounded
by that fact that some people colloquially use the word belief
exclusively in the religious or mystical sense and can't understand that
people with reality-based epistemologies use the word differently. When
dealing with theists and/or pinheads in general, it is better to avoid
the word as much as possible and always say "I think that X" rather than
saying "I believe X".

By: Mike
Nominated: Gail Futoran
Seconded: Uncle Vic

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

2) Flat tell them Christianity was constructed from stolen material and
they metaphorically filed the serial numbers off.

By: stoney
Nominated: Michael Gray
Seconded: Kate

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

3) Ever listen to a REAL brain-damaged fundie, Les? If there were 25
hours in a day, 8 days in a week and humans didn't need sleep, they'd be
praising de Lawd 25/8. He eats it, sleeps it, craps it, breathes it.
He thanks him if he blinks. He thanks him if he trips and breaks a leg
because he saved him from breaking both legs. He thanks him if his wife
and kids are killed in a car accident because his Mom and Dad lived.
And if it's a REALLY bad thing, he thanks him for keeping Satan from
hurting him even more, and he redoubles his praying and praising effort.

I've seen ants who weren't that single-minded. But ants have more
working brain power.

By: Al Klein
Nominated: stoney
Seconded: John Hachmann

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

4) What's really rotten is realizing that that's the feeling you should
be getting when you watch a presidential news conference - respect and a
sense of satisfaction, instead of revulsion and a sense that something's
crawling all over you.

By: Al Klein
Nominated: stoney
Seconded: Michelle Malkin

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

5) Hovind is more like Al Capone. They couldn't get him for the really
evil stuff he did, but they got him for tax evasion. Putting Hovind in
jail for 4% of the age of the universe seems fair to me.

By: rupert.morrish
Nominated: Brian Westley
Seconded: Michael Gray

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

6) In response to :

And yet, as you've repeatedly demonstrated, someone says 'religion'
and all you seem to see is 'fundamentalist Christianity'.

Mention "atheist" to a Christian, and all they see is the devil.

By: Uncle Vic
Nominated: Olrik
Seconded: Lucifer

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

7) "I know how to think" is unbelievable to them, but "the devil
whispered it into my ear" sounds reasonable.

And they wonder why we consider them to be children in need of guidance.

By: Al Klein
Nominated: stoney
Seconded: Martin

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

8) 1. There has been no repeatable objective observation under
controlled circumstances of any God.
2. The hearsay evidence we get about Gods is contradictory those
believing in one God only (a majority of the god believers) claim all
the other to be false.
3. The sources of those believing in one God only are all founded on
the Jewish Thora
4. The Jewish Thora is by no way a reliable source of evidence. It
claims a God created the sun and the moon on the fourth day of the
existence of the earth which is doubtlessly untrue as without the sun,
day (and night) do not exist. One has only to read the first 18 verses
to realize that verse 2 was already false.

Without any reliable evidence there is no reason at all to supose any
God exists.

Moreover the God believers mostly claim that this God is allmighty
all-knowing and wants me to believe in him. Such a god I can dispriove:
1. If a God is truly allmighty and all-knowing and he truely wanted me
to believe in him, I would.
2. I don't
QED

By: Peter van Velzen
Nominated: Gail Futoran
Seconded: AZ Nomad

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

9) In response to:

If "God is love", then logic should tell you, that loving and caring
evidences God.

Analogy:
If "Superman is strong," then the existence of strength evidences
Superman.

By: Rev. Jones
Nominated: Neil Kelsey
Seconded: Chris Johnson

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

10) Listen up. I'll try to get it through to you one last time.
Your gods are not the problem. *You* are.

You morons who still believe that tripe and insist that you be allowed
to force everyone else to live the way *you* want them to. The way your
Great Exalted Teddy Bear In The Sky has "told" you to.

If you want to live that way, fine. Have fun. But if you think you're
going to convince me to do it, you've got quite a suprise in store for
you. And if you think you're going to force my government to enforce it
for you, I'll vote your asses out again. And if you think you're going
to use force to convince me, I'll kill you.

So if you learn nothing else from your idiot's sojourn into adultville,
make it this:

Your gods are not the problem. And if you would keep them to yourselves,
there'd be no problem.

By: Panama Floyd
Nominated: Robibnikoff
Seconded: Brian Westley

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

11) We need a term to describe all of reality, that excludes fantasy,
and Al's (and my) definition of ``universe'' above fits the bill quite
nicely.

We also need a definition for what it means to create something; I would
propose, ``Causing something that does not currently exist to come
into existence.''

So, if something already existed, you couldn't create it. And if your
actions don't cause it to come into existence -- whether your actions
had nothing to do with it or the thing never actually does come into
existence -- then you didn't create it.

Still with me?

Now, consider what it would mean for ``God'' to ``create the
universe.''

If God exists, then God is real and so is part of the universe (the
set of all things that are real). But, if that's the case, then the
universe already exists, so there's no way that he could create it --
it's already there. (It could be the case that God is the /only/ thing
in the universe...but we'll deal with that in a moment.)

So, if God is going to create the universe, he's got to be outside of
it. But the only way to be outside of the universe...is to be not
real, to simply not exist at all.

Therefore, the mere notion of /anybody/ or /anything/ ``creating'' the
universe is, when you come right down to it, purest *****.
It's meaningless tripe; there's simply no way for the phrase to make
sense. A child waxing poetic about Superman's X-ray vision has more
bearing on reality.

In fact, merely asking the question, ``Where did it all come
from?'' is meaningless. The /only/ thing that can be said about the
origins of the universe that makes any sense is, ``The universe
simply is. It exists.''

(If you're Catholic, recall the /Gloria Patri/ for a hint at the
sentiment involved.)

Oh -- that bit I mentioned about the possibility that ``God'' is the
/only/ thing in the universe? Well, the problem with that line of
thought is, if all there was was God before he ``created'' the rest of
the universe, then he didn't, in fact, create anything at all. He
merely segregated himself, divided himself up into bits and pieces.
The universe as a whole and God would remain synonymous even after
creation. God still wouldn't be outside the universe; God would /be/
the universe, in its entirety, and the universe would be God.

Now, all sorts of religious folk will wonder why I labeled that a
``problem,'' and think that I somehow ``get'' their religious line of
thought. The problem is that minor little detail, the identity
principle. If there's no difference between God and the universe, then
there aren't separate ``God'' and ``universe'' entities; there's
just the one. You could quite safely remove ``God'' from the mix, and
the result would be indistinguishable from the plain old, non-theistic
universe we already know exists.

This particular god is the Pantheist God, Spinoza's God, young
Einstein's God. And it's indistinguishable from Dr. Sagan's
Cosmos, or Al's and my universe. It does nothing whatsoever, has no
force of will, doesn't desire worship or anything else.

Worse, we already have a perfectly good word for such a god,
``universe.'' By attaching that particular polysyllable to the
concept, you instantly add on all that ancient baggage of hatred and
slavery and holy wars and bigotry and unquestioning obedience to
corrupt authority and all the rest. You add nothing of value; you
merely confuse the ***** out of people and drive lots to do truly
evil things they'd never even contemplate otherwise.

By: Ben Goren
Nominated: Al Klein
Seconded:

If not, then the presence of absence of religion is irrelevant.
Without religion, all that would change is the justification.

No. But saying not to condemn religion because there are other sources
of evil is to say that we should not fight malaria because yellow fever
is also unpleasant.

By: Lucifer
Nominated:

Here are the nominations for Atheist Quote of the Month for November
2006. Vote for your favorite by responding to this thread. Votes will be
accepted until midnight, Nov 30, 2006. See rules below. Questions?
Comments?
Email me.

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

12) Give 'em an inch and they'll take a mile. Give 'em the Pledge of
Allegiance, and they'll try to teach your kids Intelligent Design in the
public schools. Give 'em "In God We Trust" on our money, and they
refuse to recognize us as patriotic citizens of the USA. As a result of
our sleeping in the closet we are the most feared and mistrusted
minority in the USA. This country needs an education.

By: Uncle Vic
Nominated: skyeyes
Seconded: John Popelish

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

10) Listen up. I'll try to get it through to you one last time.
Your gods are not the problem. *You* are.

You morons who still believe that tripe and insist that you be allowed
to force everyone else to live the way *you* want them to. The way your
Great Exalted Teddy Bear In The Sky has "told" you to.

If you want to live that way, fine. Have fun. But if you think you're
going to convince me to do it, you've got quite a suprise in store for
you. And if you think you're going to force my government to enforce it
for you, I'll vote your asses out again. And if you think you're going
to use force to convince me, I'll kill you.

So if you learn nothing else from your idiot's sojourn into adultville,
make it this:

Your gods are not the problem. And if you would keep them to yourselves,
there'd be no problem.

By: Panama Floyd
Nominated: Robibnikoff
Seconded: Brian Westley

8) 1. There has been no repeatable objective observation under
controlled circumstances of any God.
2. The hearsay evidence we get about Gods is contradictory those
believing in one God only (a majority of the god believers) claim all
the other to be false.
3. The sources of those believing in one God only are all founded on
the Jewish Thora
4. The Jewish Thora is by no way a reliable source of evidence. It
claims a God created the sun and the moon on the fourth day of the
existence of the earth which is doubtlessly untrue as without the sun,
day (and night) do not exist. One has only to read the first 18 verses
to realize that verse 2 was already false.

Without any reliable evidence there is no reason at all to supose any
God exists.

Moreover the God believers mostly claim that this God is allmighty
all-knowing and wants me to believe in him. Such a god I can
dispriove:
1. If a God is truly allmighty and all-knowing and he truely wanted
me
to believe in him, I would.
2. I don't
QED

By: Peter van Velzen
Nominated: Gail Futoran
Seconded: AZ Nomad

3) Ever listen to a REAL brain-damaged fundie, Les? If there were 25
hours in a day, 8 days in a week and humans didn't need sleep, they'd

praising de Lawd 25/8. He eats it, sleeps it, craps it, breathes it.
He thanks him if he blinks. He thanks him if he trips and breaks a leg
because he saved him from breaking both legs. He thanks him if his

and kids are killed in a car accident because his Mom and Dad lived.
And if it's a REALLY bad thing, he thanks him for keeping Satan from
hurting him even more, and he redoubles his praying and praising

I've seen ants who weren't that single-minded. But ants have more
working brain power.

By: Al Klein
Nominated: stoney
Seconded: John Hachmann

9) In response to:

If "God is love", then logic should tell you, that loving and caring
evidences God.

Analogy:
If "Superman is strong," then the existence of strength evidences
Superman.

By: Rev. Jones
Nominated: Neil Kelsey
Seconded: Chris Johnson

12) Give 'em an inch and they'll take a mile. Give 'em the Pledge of
Allegiance, and they'll try to teach your kids Intelligent Design in the
public schools. Give 'em "In God We Trust" on our money, and they
refuse to recognize us as patriotic citizens of the USA. As a result of
our sleeping in the closet we are the most feared and mistrusted
minority in the USA. This country needs an education.

By: Uncle Vic
Nominated: skyeyes
Seconded: John Popelish

14) You mean Christians don't believe in morality.

Morality is what you do when nobody is watching, nobody will know, and
there is neither "reward" nor "punishment" involved. Christians do not
have morality. They merely take orders.

By: Mark K. Bilbo
Nominated: Douglas Berry
Seconded: Lucifer

3) Ever listen to a REAL brain-damaged fundie, Les? If there were 25
hours in a day, 8 days in a week and humans didn't need sleep, they'd be
praising de Lawd 25/8. He eats it, sleeps it, craps it, breathes it.
He thanks him if he blinks. He thanks him if he trips and breaks a leg
because he saved him from breaking both legs. He thanks him if his wife
and kids are killed in a car accident because his Mom and Dad lived.
And if it's a REALLY bad thing, he thanks him for keeping Satan from
hurting him even more, and he redoubles his praying and praising effort.

I've seen ants who weren't that single-minded. But ants have more
working brain power.

By: Al Klein
Nominated: stoney
Seconded: John Hachmann

Here are the nominations for Atheist Quote of the Month for November
2006. Vote for your favorite by responding to this thread.

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

2) Flat tell them Christianity was constructed from stolen material and
they metaphorically filed the serial numbers off.

By: stoney
Nominated: Michael Gray
Seconded: Kate

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

Here are the nominations for Atheist Quote of the Month for November
2006. Vote for your favorite by responding to this thread. Votes will be
accepted until midnight, Nov 30, 2006. See rules below. Questions?

14) You mean Christians don't believe in morality.

Morality is what you do when nobody is watching, nobody will know, and
there is neither "reward" nor "punishment" involved. Christians do not
have morality. They merely take orders.

By: Mark K. Bilbo
Nominated: Douglas Berry
Seconded: Lucifer

Here are the nominations for Atheist Quote of the Month for November
2006. Vote for your favorite by responding to this thread. Votes will be
accepted until midnight, Nov 30, 2006. See rules below. Questions?
Comments?
Email me.

* * * * *
1) Theists deliberately make word play based on the different meanings
of "belief". I use the word "believe" to mean that I think something is
true and "disbelieve" to mean that I think something is false. Thus it
makes sense to say that I believe that 2+2=4. That is an instance of
"justified true belief" aka "knowledge". I personally don't bristle at
the theists for saying correctly that I have beliefs. I just find them
to be epistemological morons who can't distinguish between having
beliefs that are justified by logic and evidence and having beliefs
unsubstantiated by evidence that are based on mere feelings and wishes.
I can't imagine the double-think necessary to believe in, say, the
divinity of Jesus on no better grounds that you get a warm, cuddly
feeling in your heart by believing that. This, of course, is confounded
by that fact that some people colloquially use the word belief
exclusively in the religious or mystical sense and can't understand that
people with reality-based epistemologies use the word differently. When
dealing with theists and/or pinheads in general, it is better to avoid
the word as much as possible and always say "I think that X" rather than
saying "I believe X".

By: Mike
Nominated: Gail Futoran
Seconded: Uncle Vic

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

2) Flat tell them Christianity was constructed from stolen material and
they metaphorically filed the serial numbers off.

By: stoney
Nominated: Michael Gray
Seconded: Kate

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

3) Ever listen to a REAL brain-damaged fundie, Les? If there were 25
hours in a day, 8 days in a week and humans didn't need sleep, they'd be
praising de Lawd 25/8. He eats it, sleeps it, craps it, breathes it.
He thanks him if he blinks. He thanks him if he trips and breaks a leg
because he saved him from breaking both legs. He thanks him if his wife
and kids are killed in a car accident because his Mom and Dad lived.
And if it's a REALLY bad thing, he thanks him for keeping Satan from
hurting him even more, and he redoubles his praying and praising effort.

I've seen ants who weren't that single-minded. But ants have more
working brain power.

By: Al Klein
Nominated: stoney
Seconded: John Hachmann

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

4) What's really rotten is realizing that that's the feeling you should
be getting when you watch a presidential news conference - respect and a
sense of satisfaction, instead of revulsion and a sense that something's
crawling all over you.

By: Al Klein
Nominated: stoney
Seconded: Michelle Malkin

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

5) Hovind is more like Al Capone. They couldn't get him for the really
evil stuff he did, but they got him for tax evasion. Putting Hovind in
jail for 4% of the age of the universe seems fair to me.

By: rupert.morrish
Nominated: Brian Westley
Seconded: Michael Gray

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

6) In response to :

And yet, as you've repeatedly demonstrated, someone says 'religion'
and all you seem to see is 'fundamentalist Christianity'.

Mention "atheist" to a Christian, and all they see is the devil.

By: Uncle Vic
Nominated: Olrik
Seconded: Lucifer

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

7) "I know how to think" is unbelievable to them, but "the devil
whispered it into my ear" sounds reasonable.

And they wonder why we consider them to be children in need of guidance.

By: Al Klein
Nominated: stoney
Seconded: Martin

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

8) 1. There has been no repeatable objective observation under
controlled circumstances of any God.
2. The hearsay evidence we get about Gods is contradictory those
believing in one God only (a majority of the god believers) claim all
the other to be false.
3. The sources of those believing in one God only are all founded on
the Jewish Thora
4. The Jewish Thora is by no way a reliable source of evidence. It
claims a God created the sun and the moon on the fourth day of the
existence of the earth which is doubtlessly untrue as without the sun,
day (and night) do not exist. One has only to read the first 18 verses
to realize that verse 2 was already false.

Without any reliable evidence there is no reason at all to supose any
God exists.

Moreover the God believers mostly claim that this God is allmighty
all-knowing and wants me to believe in him. Such a god I can dispriove:
1. If a God is truly allmighty and all-knowing and he truely wanted me
to believe in him, I would.
2. I don't
QED

By: Peter van Velzen
Nominated: Gail Futoran
Seconded: AZ Nomad

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

9) In response to:

If "God is love", then logic should tell you, that loving and caring
evidences God.

Analogy:
If "Superman is strong," then the existence of strength evidences
Superman.

By: Rev. Jones
Nominated: Neil Kelsey
Seconded: Chris Johnson

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

10) Listen up. I'll try to get it through to you one last time.
Your gods are not the problem. *You* are.

You morons who still believe that tripe and insist that you be allowed
to force everyone else to live the way *you* want them to. The way your
Great Exalted Teddy Bear In The Sky has "told" you to.

If you want to live that way, fine. Have fun. But if you think you're
going to convince me to do it, you've got quite a suprise in store for
you. And if you think you're going to force my government to enforce it
for you, I'll vote your asses out again. And if you think you're going
to use force to convince me, I'll kill you.

So if you learn nothing else from your idiot's sojourn into adultville,
make it this:

Your gods are not the problem. And if you would keep them to yourselves,
there'd be no problem.

By: Panama Floyd
Nominated: Robibnikoff
Seconded: Brian Westley

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

11) We need a term to describe all of reality, that excludes fantasy,
and Al's (and my) definition of ``universe'' above fits the bill quite
nicely.

We also need a definition for what it means to create something; I would
propose, ``Causing something that does not currently exist to come
into existence.''

So, if something already existed, you couldn't create it. And if your
actions don't cause it to come into existence -- whether your actions
had nothing to do with it or the thing never actually does come into
existence -- then you didn't create it.

Still with me?

Now, consider what it would mean for ``God'' to ``create the
universe.''

If God exists, then God is real and so is part of the universe (the
set of all things that are real). But, if that's the case, then the
universe already exists, so there's no way that he could create it --
it's already there. (It could be the case that God is the /only/ thing
in the universe...but we'll deal with that in a moment.)

So, if God is going to create the universe, he's got to be outside of
it. But the only way to be outside of the universe...is to be not
real, to simply not exist at all.

Therefore, the mere notion of /anybody/ or /anything/ ``creating'' the
universe is, when you come right down to it, purest *****.
It's meaningless tripe; there's simply no way for the phrase to make
sense. A child waxing poetic about Superman's X-ray vision has more
bearing on reality.

In fact, merely asking the question, ``Where did it all come
from?'' is meaningless. The /only/ thing that can be said about the
origins of the universe that makes any sense is, ``The universe
simply is. It exists.''

(If you're Catholic, recall the /Gloria Patri/ for a hint at the
sentiment involved.)

Oh -- that bit I mentioned about the possibility that ``God'' is the
/only/ thing in the universe? Well, the problem with that line of
thought is, if all there was was God before he ``created'' the rest of
the universe, then he didn't, in fact, create anything at all. He
merely segregated himself, divided himself up into bits and pieces.
The universe as a whole and God would remain synonymous even after
creation. God still wouldn't be outside the universe; God would /be/
the universe, in its entirety, and the universe would be God.

Now, all sorts of religious folk will wonder why I labeled that a
``problem,'' and think that I somehow ``get'' their religious line of
thought. The problem is that minor little detail, the identity
principle. If there's no difference between God and the universe, then
there aren't separate ``God'' and ``universe'' entities; there's
just the one. You could quite safely remove ``God'' from the mix, and
the result would be indistinguishable from the plain old, non-theistic
universe we already know exists.

This particular god is the Pantheist God, Spinoza's God, young
Einstein's God. And it's indistinguishable from Dr. Sagan's
Cosmos, or Al's and my universe. It does nothing whatsoever, has no
force of will, doesn't desire worship or anything else.

Worse, we already have a perfectly good word for such a god,
``universe.'' By attaching that particular polysyllable to the
concept, you instantly add on all that ancient baggage of hatred and
slavery and holy wars and bigotry and unquestioning obedience to
corrupt authority and all the rest. You add nothing of value; you
merely confuse the ***** out of people and drive lots to do truly
evil things they'd never even contemplate otherwise.

By: Ben Goren
Nominated: Al Klein
Seconded:

If not, then the presence of absence of religion is irrelevant.
Without religion, all that would change is the justification.

No. But saying not to condemn religion because there are other sources
of evil is to say that we should not fight malaria because yellow fever
is also unpleasant.

By: Lucifer
Nominated:

11) We need a term to describe all of reality, that excludes fantasy,
and Al's (and my) definition of ``universe'' above fits the bill quite
nicely.

We also need a definition for what it means to create something; I would
propose, ``Causing something that does not currently exist to come
into existence.''

So, if something already existed, you couldn't create it. And if your
actions don't cause it to come into existence -- whether your actions
had nothing to do with it or the thing never actually does come into
existence -- then you didn't create it.

Still with me?

Now, consider what it would mean for ``God'' to ``create the
universe.''

If God exists, then God is real and so is part of the universe (the
set of all things that are real). But, if that's the case, then the
universe already exists, so there's no way that he could create it --
it's already there. (It could be the case that God is the /only/ thing
in the universe...but we'll deal with that in a moment.)

So, if God is going to create the universe, he's got to be outside of
it. But the only way to be outside of the universe...is to be not
real, to simply not exist at all.

Therefore, the mere notion of /anybody/ or /anything/ ``creating'' the
universe is, when you come right down to it, purest *****.
It's meaningless tripe; there's simply no way for the phrase to make
sense. A child waxing poetic about Superman's X-ray vision has more
bearing on reality.

In fact, merely asking the question, ``Where did it all come
from?'' is meaningless. The /only/ thing that can be said about the
origins of the universe that makes any sense is, ``The universe
simply is. It exists.''

(If you're Catholic, recall the /Gloria Patri/ for a hint at the
sentiment involved.)

Oh -- that bit I mentioned about the possibility that ``God'' is the
/only/ thing in the universe? Well, the problem with that line of
thought is, if all there was was God before he ``created'' the rest of
the universe, then he didn't, in fact, create anything at all. He
merely segregated himself, divided himself up into bits and pieces.
The universe as a whole and God would remain synonymous even after
creation. God still wouldn't be outside the universe; God would /be/
the universe, in its entirety, and the universe would be God.

Now, all sorts of religious folk will wonder why I labeled that a
``problem,'' and think that I somehow ``get'' their religious line of
thought. The problem is that minor little detail, the identity
principle. If there's no difference between God and the universe, then
there aren't separate ``God'' and ``universe'' entities; there's
just the one. You could quite safely remove ``God'' from the mix, and
the result would be indistinguishable from the plain old, non-theistic
universe we already know exists.

This particular god is the Pantheist God, Spinoza's God, young
Einstein's God. And it's indistinguishable from Dr. Sagan's
Cosmos, or Al's and my universe. It does nothing whatsoever, has no
force of will, doesn't desire worship or anything else.

Worse, we already have a perfectly good word for such a god,
``universe.'' By attaching that particular polysyllable to the
concept, you instantly add on all that ancient baggage of hatred and
slavery and holy wars and bigotry and unquestioning obedience to
corrupt authority and all the rest. You add nothing of value; you
merely confuse the ***** out of people and drive lots to do truly
evil things they'd never even contemplate otherwise.

By: Ben Goren
Nominated: Al Klein
Seconded:

14) You mean Christians don't believe in morality.

Morality is what you do when nobody is watching, nobody will know, and
there is neither "reward" nor "punishment" involved. Christians do not
have morality. They merely take orders.

By: Mark K. Bilbo
Nominated: Douglas Berry
Seconded: Lucifer

13) In response to:

If not, then the presence of absence of religion is irrelevant.
Without religion, all that would change is the justification.

No. But saying not to condemn religion because there are other sources
of evil is to say that we should not fight malaria because yellow fever
is also unpleasant.

By: Lucifer
Nominated:

14) You mean Christians don't believe in morality.

Morality is what you do when nobody is watching, nobody will know, and
there is neither "reward" nor "punishment" involved. Christians do not
have morality. They merely take orders.

By: Mark K. Bilbo
Nominated: Douglas Berry
Seconded: Lucifer

12) Give 'em an inch and they'll take a mile. Give 'em the Pledge of
Allegiance, and they'll try to teach your kids Intelligent Design in the
public schools. Give 'em "In God We Trust" on our money, and they
refuse to recognize us as patriotic citizens of the USA. As a result of
our sleeping in the closet we are the most feared and mistrusted
minority in the USA. This country needs an education.

By: Uncle Vic
Nominated: skyeyes
Seconded: John Popelish

Here are the nominations for Atheist Quote of the Month for November
2006. Vote for your favorite by responding to this thread. Votes will be
accepted until midnight, Nov 30, 2006. See rules below. Questions?
Comments?
Email me.

14) You mean Christians don't believe in morality.

Morality is what you do when nobody is watching, nobody will know, and
there is neither "reward" nor "punishment" involved. Christians do not
have morality. They merely take orders.

By: Mark K. Bilbo
Nominated: Douglas Berry
Seconded: Lucifer

Here are the nominations for Atheist Quote of the Month for November
2006. Vote for your favorite by responding to this thread. Votes will be
accepted until midnight, Nov 30, 2006. See rules below. Questions?
Comments?
Email me.

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

11) We need a term to describe all of reality, that excludes fantasy,
and Al's (and my) definition of ``universe'' above fits the bill quite
nicely.

We also need a definition for what it means to create something; I would
propose, ``Causing something that does not currently exist to come
into existence.''

So, if something already existed, you couldn't create it. And if your
actions don't cause it to come into existence -- whether your actions
had nothing to do with it or the thing never actually does come into
existence -- then you didn't create it.

Still with me?

Now, consider what it would mean for ``God'' to ``create the
universe.''

If God exists, then God is real and so is part of the universe (the
set of all things that are real). But, if that's the case, then the
universe already exists, so there's no way that he could create it --
it's already there. (It could be the case that God is the /only/ thing
in the universe...but we'll deal with that in a moment.)

So, if God is going to create the universe, he's got to be outside of
it. But the only way to be outside of the universe...is to be not
real, to simply not exist at all.

Therefore, the mere notion of /anybody/ or /anything/ ``creating'' the
universe is, when you come right down to it, purest *****.
It's meaningless tripe; there's simply no way for the phrase to make
sense. A child waxing poetic about Superman's X-ray vision has more
bearing on reality.

In fact, merely asking the question, ``Where did it all come
from?'' is meaningless. The /only/ thing that can be said about the
origins of the universe that makes any sense is, ``The universe
simply is. It exists.''

(If you're Catholic, recall the /Gloria Patri/ for a hint at the
sentiment involved.)

Oh -- that bit I mentioned about the possibility that ``God'' is the
/only/ thing in the universe? Well, the problem with that line of
thought is, if all there was was God before he ``created'' the rest of
the universe, then he didn't, in fact, create anything at all. He
merely segregated himself, divided himself up into bits and pieces.
The universe as a whole and God would remain synonymous even after
creation. God still wouldn't be outside the universe; God would /be/
the universe, in its entirety, and the universe would be God.

Now, all sorts of religious folk will wonder why I labeled that a
``problem,'' and think that I somehow ``get'' their religious line of
thought. The problem is that minor little detail, the identity
principle. If there's no difference between God and the universe, then
there aren't separate ``God'' and ``universe'' entities; there's
just the one. You could quite safely remove ``God'' from the mix, and
the result would be indistinguishable from the plain old, non-theistic
universe we already know exists.

This particular god is the Pantheist God, Spinoza's God, young
Einstein's God. And it's indistinguishable from Dr. Sagan's
Cosmos, or Al's and my universe. It does nothing whatsoever, has no
force of will, doesn't desire worship or anything else.

Worse, we already have a perfectly good word for such a god,
``universe.'' By attaching that particular polysyllable to the
concept, you instantly add on all that ancient baggage of hatred and
slavery and holy wars and bigotry and unquestioning obedience to
corrupt authority and all the rest. You add nothing of value; you
merely confuse the ***** out of people and drive lots to do truly
evil things they'd never even contemplate otherwise.

By: Ben Goren
Nominated: Al Klein
Seconded:

10) Listen up. I'll try to get it through to you one last time.
Your gods are not the problem. *You* are.

You morons who still believe that tripe and insist that you be allowed
to force everyone else to live the way *you* want them to. The way your
Great Exalted Teddy Bear In The Sky has "told" you to.

If you want to live that way, fine. Have fun. But if you think you're
going to convince me to do it, you've got quite a suprise in store for
you. And if you think you're going to force my government to enforce it
for you, I'll vote your asses out again. And if you think you're going
to use force to convince me, I'll kill you.

So if you learn nothing else from your idiot's sojourn into adultville,
make it this:

Your gods are not the problem. And if you would keep them to yourselves,
there'd be no problem.

By: Panama Floyd
Nominated: Robibnikoff
Seconded: Brian Westley

14) You mean Christians don't believe in morality.

Morality is what you do when nobody is watching, nobody will know, and
there is neither "reward" nor "punishment" involved. Christians do not
have morality. They merely take orders.

By: Mark K. Bilbo
Nominated: Douglas Berry
Seconded: Lucifer

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

14) You mean Christians don't believe in morality.

Morality is what you do when nobody is watching, nobody will know, and
there is neither "reward" nor "punishment" involved. Christians do not
have morality. They merely take orders.

By: Mark K. Bilbo
Nominated: Douglas Berry
Seconded: Lucifer

14) You mean Christians don't believe in morality.

Morality is what you do when nobody is watching, nobody will know, and there
is neither "reward" nor "punishment" involved. Christians do not have
morality. They merely take orders.

By: Mark K. Bilbo

2) Flat tell them Christianity was constructed from stolen material and
they metaphorically filed the serial numbers off.

By: stoney
Nominated: Michael Gray
Seconded: Kate

10) Listen up. I'll try to get it through to you one last time.
Your gods are not the problem. *You* are.

You morons who still believe that tripe and insist that you be allowed
to force everyone else to live the way *you* want them to. The way your
Great Exalted Teddy Bear In The Sky has "told" you to.

If you want to live that way, fine. Have fun. But if you think you're
going to convince me to do it, you've got quite a suprise in store for
you. And if you think you're going to force my government to enforce it
for you, I'll vote your asses out again. And if you think you're going
to use force to convince me, I'll kill you.

So if you learn nothing else from your idiot's sojourn into adultville,
make it this:

Your gods are not the problem. And if you would keep them to yourselves,
there'd be no problem.

By: Panama Floyd
Nominated: Robibnikoff
Seconded: Brian Westley

12) Give 'em an inch and they'll take a mile. Give 'em the Pledge of
Allegiance, and they'll try to teach your kids Intelligent Design in the
public schools. Give 'em "In God We Trust" on our money, and they
refuse to recognize us as patriotic citizens of the USA. As a result of
our sleeping in the closet we are the most feared and mistrusted
minority in the USA. This country needs an education.

By: Uncle Vic
Nominated: skyeyes
Seconded: John Popelish