Kiosk

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.

It was the year of our Lord 2069, and the early morning was peaceful and serene, with the sun rising and gently drifting in and out of the small fluffy clouds that dotted the turquoise sky. It was glorious to be alive. Rebecca thought of Genesis 1:3-5. She marveled at how true the scripture was for this day, for it was truly good. Yet night would bring terror that she had never known. The day which had begun so peacefully would end in a way so horrible that Rebecca could not have believed it possible. (Editor's note: Fiction. ~10,000 words.)

Capitalism has certainly been kind to fundamentalist Christianity in America. Profits from Christian product sales have run well into the billions of dollars, yet Jesus is said to have taught that one cannot serve both God and Mammon. Should Jesus take a cue from FOX News and their attempt to sue Al Franken? Perhaps he should.

President Bush's domestic agenda of promoting "faith" could be jeopardizing our strategy and chances of victory in the war on terror. By mindlessly backing "faith-based groups," Bush and his advisors might be playing right into the hands of Islamic fanatics and their sympathizers.

Could a materialist believe in a Heaven and a Hell? Greenblatt argues that an infinity of unspeakable torment and an infinity of amazing happiness can be deduced strictly from materialist cosmology.

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?

He does not believe in any of the supernatural events depicted in the Bible, yet John Shelby Spong will not be labeled "an atheist." He considers himself a Christian through and through, a Christian who sees a need for a new Reformation and whose church is leading the way into the future--even at the risk of alienating half its members. Spong believes that Christianity must change or die. Braverman believes that if the Christians are to be brought into the twenty-first century, it can only be done by an insider like Bishop Spong.

The relatively recent anti-French sentiment in the United States far outweighs the anti-Christian prejudice that the Religious Right complains about.

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.

The author presents the view that the Church of England--far from being a defender of faith--acts as a necessary and effective protective against the more virulent forms of faith.

Fine-tuning arguments in favor of the existence of creator-gods garner a certain amount of respect, even beyond the theological circles where you would expect them to be influential. In this essay I show how testing the assumptions of the fine-tuning argument can cause it to produce unsatisfying or bizarre conclusions, and how a reevaluation of the probabilities at its heart negates the argument entirely.

Is the Satan character believable? Could he really exist? I don't think so, and here is why.

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.

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

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.

Defending the Fine-Tuning Argument against a few very common objections, Wardman demonstrates that the reasoning that underpins this variation of the Design Argument is far more robust than it is usually given credit for. Nevertheless, there is a very good reason that we need not postulate a Designer for the universe after all.

"For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the whale; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth" (Jesus, Matthew 12:40). But if Jesus died on Friday and rose on Sunday morning, how is this three days AND three nights? Internet apologist Glenn Miller explains, but is his "explanation" really that--or is it just typical apologetic smoke and mirrors?