One of the major reasons that I'm not a Christian is that I don't consider myself an evil and worthless wretch who has no ability to change himself or the world around him. I am not a Christian because I believe in hope and humanity.

The Atlantis worm suddenly appeared on the computers--some of which were not even connected to the Internet--of a carefully-selected group of individuals of interest to the agency, a pop-up window hawking an all-expense paid trip to the Atlantis Resort on Dead Man's Cay. The agency's top secret report describes the astonishing events which transpired for those who accepted the invitation. (Editor's note: Fiction. 11,000+ words.)

Rational people can "believe" in seemingly irrational propositions because they have made an economic decision--not one based upon the rationality of the proposition itself--and no amount of logical argument on your part will change the economics.

The next century will not belong to those who lead the scientific progress, the next harbingers of human progress will not be those who lead scientific progress but the philosophers who dare to go where only religions have gone before.

Jennings argues that there is no real morality in the story of Christ as presented in the Gospels, that the God-Man described in the Bible--if he really existed--would be a liar, a fraud and a sadomasochist.

Most modern Christians will tell you that the holiness of Halloween has been co-opted over the years by "evil influences." It's actually the other way around. It was the Catholic Church that tried to change what they saw as an "evil" festival into a good and holy Christian celebration. It didn't work.

For two years, it rode peacefully on my bumper. Then one day, somebody decided it had to go.

Both the Israelis and the Palestinians use religious arguments to justify their positions. What are the facts, and how should the secularist respond to this faith-driven conflict?

Fanciful repartee involving "Bruce" and "God" himself.

Can objective morality exist without a god? Would the existence of "God" necessarily lead to the existence of objective morality? Petersen contends that the connection between objective morality and a deity is based solely on a theistic paradigm which is fraught with problems.

The evolution vs. creationism debate has been one of the hot-button issues between liberals and conservatives for the last 150 years. Both sides want their viewpoint taught in the science classroom. Although he is an atheist, Strommen wants equal time for both--and more.

Does memetic selection favor fantastical explanations? Is there a connection between the acceptance of fantastical explanations for such phenomena as crop circles and the spread of religions such as Christianity? Milne conjectures that such might be the case, and tells us why.

Atheism, properly understood, makes the fewest unsubstantiated, unnecessary, knowledge claims and is thus more sensible than theism or agnosticism.

Since the absence of the Christian religion (or any religion) is mandated for public schools by virtue of the Establishment Clause, the Religious Right asserts that secularism or humanism is taught by default. Where is the secular humanism content? Is it in the books? Is it in the curriculum? Teaching methods? Administration? The answer is that it is nowhere to be found.

Most people, even many atheists and other otherwise nonbelievers, walk through life with some preconceptions that seem pretty "religious" or "supernatural." A majority of people admit to a feeling of superiority in relation to "mere animals." The notion that a human individual is somehow more precious than almost anything else in the world, seems to me to be utterly pretentious and, if considered objectively and scientifically, very close to what many religions try to teach us.

One of the biggest threats to secularism in the world today is something that, for lack of a better term can be called "the Cultural Left."

It is, in fact, the Political Right who have opened the door to Fundamentalism.--and not just opened it, but welcomed it and its campaign contributions with open arms.

J.B., a modern verse drama by Archibald MacLeish, offers an infidel's antidote to the relentless fideism of the Book of Job.

"The question of pacifism might be thought never so irrelevant as at a time in which the most powerful nation in history considers itself in a state of permanent war. Terrorism is the new face of evil, which has dutifully replaced communism. I do not suppose that the war on terrorism will ever be won, just as there will never be victories in the wars on drugs and on poverty. In each case there is at best a metaphorical war. But, of course, the question of pacifism is not irrelevant, given the near universal skepticism outside the U.S. regarding its so-called war on terror. Daniel G. Jennings' brief article, "A Few Moral Problems with Pacifism," provides the occasion for my discussion. Jennings' objections to pacifism do not seem to me particularly strong. I first define "pacifism" and then deal with each of his three objections in turn. Finally, I discuss some background issues, specifically WWII and political realism."

The practice of pacifism in the real world creates moral and ethical dilemmas that make the pacifist position a morally indefensible stand.

This is a tale of greed, misused religion and family power run amuck in the future.