Kiosk

Here is a problem: On the one hand, human society cannot survive without an injunction against the wanton killing of fellow human beings. On the other hand, man is an aggressive animal. Dehumanization (i.e., the likening and equating of human beings with animals) is often used by religions to justify the killing of others. While one code says "an eye for an eye," another commands you to "love your enemies." Here you read "Thou shall not kill!"; there you find "Slay the idolaters wherever you find them."

"As a humanist psychotherapist my view is that to promote secular ethics and create a humanistic world, we need to respect human rights and associate sex with love and affection, rather than sin and guilt. To grow as a human species and evolve as sexual beings, we need to embrace advances in science and psychology rather than age-old scriptures that impose contradictory sexual morals and create fear in people."

Richard Smith had been a lifelong Christian until he underwent an unexpected deconversion in 2011 at the age of 54. "From the Outside" explains his reasoning. As one of our reviewers commented: "Comprehensive in its coverage, has emotional impact, and is meaningful in its intent. Welcome to the sane world of atheism."

"By most religious reckoning, history is and always has been a foregone conclusion. All wisdom, all grace, all law was bestowed upon human beings long before the arrival of any now present, and so there is nothing for the living to do but fulfill someone else's plan for them. We are relieved of the burden of free will and responsibility for our misdeeds by a simple act of repentance. In effect, God finished us, and long ago. When a human being rejects this conception of the universe, they simultaneously reject the hubris and vanity required to create it in favor of a universe where real choice reigns, along with real possibility, opportunity, discovery, maturity and the right to know."

Stephen Meyer tries to make the case for "teaching the controversy" between Darwinian evolution and intelligent design by arguing (1) there is, in fact, such a scientific controversy, (2) voters support the idea of teaching the controversy, (3) the Constitution allows for and encourages the idea of teaching the controversy, and (4) that it makes good pedagogical sense to teach the controversy. I show that each of these points is either false or irrelevant. Further, Meyer charges the scientific community with censorship in keeping intelligent design out of textbooks and the classroom. To show this charge is false, I consider the lengthy evolution of continental drift/plate tectonics from novel concept to scientific orthodoxy.

Could God, in effect, embrace some or many of the tenets of atheism? This entertaining short story seems to suggest that possibility.

Peter Kreeft and Ronald Tacelli advocate a version of the moral argument for god's existence that relies on the proposition that objective morality can have no objective basis for the physicalist. They argue that the physicalist must claim morality (if it exists) is based on matter and motion that is blind to all human striving. I argue that this mischaracterizes the options of the physicalist and that objective morality can be sustained by the physicalist. If this is the case, their argument fails.

Over the past three decades, Christian philosopher William Lane Craig has been appealing to the beginning of the universe in order to argue for the existence of God. This article quickly outlines a common objection (known as the quantum mechanics objection) to Craig's appeal and then examines Craig's typical rebuttal, concluding that Craig's rebuttal is not only irrelevant to the quantum mechanics objection--but comes with a whole host of other problems.

Is something good because it is pleasing to God, or is something pleasing to God because it is good? Is something good because God commands it, or is what is good inherently good regardless of what God or anyone else happens to think about it? If "the wages of sin is death," how does the death of an innocent satisfy such an obligation? How one answers these questions has profound implications.

A challenge often presented to Atheists by fundamentalist Christians and various Theists is that Atheists have no proof there is no God, therefore Atheism is just another faith. Although Atheists do not have the Burden of Proof, there are two main categories of evidence that can be used to provide philosophical justification for an atheistic worldview: evidential arguments and logical evidence against God's existence. I conclude that the mainstream concept of God is logically impossible; the problem of evil is proof positive for the nonexistence of an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent God; the demographics of Theism are better explained by Atheism; and Theism does not have a good explanation for the problems of suffering and the arguments for Atheism.

Bible-believers obstinately argue that the divinely sanctioned massacres in the Bible were morally justified--even an example of God's goodness and mercy! If, however, we begin with the assumption that God did, in fact, order those biblical massacres, then let us ask if God is truly good. If this is to be a reasoned inquiry, then we must begin with the possibility that God may or may not be morally perfect. All possibilities must be on the table at the start of an objective inquiry; the evidence must decide, not preconceived doctrine. Are these massacres more likely the work of a morally perfect god or are they more likely the work of a morally defective god?

Robin Collins argues for the existence of god based on the alleged fine tuning of the universe for life. To do so, he invokes the "Prime Principle of Confirmation." This principle is necessarily broad so that Collins may smuggle in supernatural agency as an explanation of the organized complexity of the universe, but it is so broad that all manner of completely implausible theories are deemed "supported by evidence." Further, the principle may be used to undercut parts of Collins' own argument.

As part of my coming out as an atheist, the pastor at my church challenged me to review the work of believer scientists, to look at how they had found Christianity compatible with their scientific work. What follows is my best shot, as a layman, at a difficult subject, based on careful thought and reflection. Its value, if any, is in showing how some well-known scientist-believers (John Polkinghorne, William Pollard, and Francis Collins) make the compatibility arguments in ways they would never accept in their scientific day jobs, and end up tangled up in, or in downright conflict with, the methods of science and the claims of theism.

Many believe Job is the most long-suffering human ever to have lived. If my theory of the Noah's Flood story is correct, that title may actually belong to Ham, Noah's youngest son. I discuss some of the problems with taking the Genesis 8 account literally and argue that confronting young-earth creationism is still an important activity.

The incredible story of a criminally convicted shyster convincing his parents and friends that he is a living prophet seems to be explained by Smith's well-documented charisma. People liked him as they like con men, trusted him as they trust tricksters, but more than that, and this is a key difference, Smith managed to con himself.

Job is the ultimate biblical hero. His long-suffering and unflinching faith is legendary and the stuff of great sermons and Sunday school lessons, and in the end Job is rewarded for his continued faith in the face of adversity. The standard interpretation of Job is that we should use him as a role model, accept adversity unquestionably, and never question God. But a critical interpretation reveals that God was the villain of the book, undeserving of Job's—or anyone's—devotion.

"Aquinas' Fourth Way of proving god's existence, the Argument from Degrees of Perfection (ADP), has a long history and dates back at least as far as Augustine of Hippo. It's crucial premise, that all sequences that may be ordered are embedded on a scale that has least and greatest elements, is called into question. I argue that this premise is stronger than is necessary for the ADP to carry the day, but even if one grants the truth of it, the ADP goes nowhere in showing that anything like a god as commonly conceived actually exists. Concentration is given to a modern form of the argument given by Peter Kreeft and Ronald Tacelli."

Once again a news magazine has published an article that "demands an answer." This time a disease-induced hallucination is being propped up on a frame labeled "Science" and sold to the credulous public. Under the guise of science, the article is a regression to the body-mind dualism that since antiquity has distorted humankind's understanding of itself and of the universe. Here, as usual, the chief incentive is the lust for persistence of one's precious ego after death, and the secondary motive is a wish for a gift of unending bliss—both selfish urges.

The Fine-Tuning Argument—the argument that it is so improbable that life in the Universe is just a lucky accident that it is much more reasonable to think that a supernatural being fine-tuned the universe to sustain life—not only does not and cannot, by itself, increase the credibility of a supernaturalistic explanation of the Universe, but is completely irrelevant when it comes to practical considerations.

Over the centuries, secular philosophers and humanist psychologists have been laying the foundations of secular ethics and humanist philosophy. In the 21st century, people have a choice: to follow the traditions of monotheistic religions or adopt the secular traditions of modern science and psychology, medicine and philosophy.

What about the claim made by many Christian theologians that God created the world or the universe ex nihilo—out of nothing? As it turns out, this claim presents a considerable difficulty for the theologian. To understand the problem, we must turn to the great David Hume, who famously argued that any proposition that is neither analytic nor synthetic is nonsense.

"There is a pervasive and somewhat lopsided tendency in our society to separate fellow humans into the categories of being either 'believers' or 'nonbelievers.' The not-so-subtle implication is usually that there is something wrong with you if you are a 'nonbeliever.' Let's play a little game; I'll take the position that there really is something wrong with nonbelievers. But first, let's swap the traditional idea of who is a believer and who is a nonbeliever..."

Peter will be the last pope. Born saintly, and a bit odd, the child, the adolescent, the teen, the young man, and the mature adult experience things that eventually infallible people rarely do: kills a nun, hangs out naked with the other kids, pretends to say mass, deals with, you know, gay people, and deconstructs a two-thousand year-old institution. This mockumentary is enhanced by factual historical details as well as occasional avoidance of current events. The riveting narrative includes answers to questions that non-Catholics have pestered Catholics about for centuries: "What's up with The Trinity?" "What's up with the rosary?" and "What's up with the Body & Blood of Christ thing?" For the many unwitting readers who will wonder, "Is Peter's Out controversial?" there is only one answer: is the pope a Catholic?

The April 9, 2012 issue of Newsweek International contains a refreshingly honest jeremiad about the degenerate state of American Christianity ("The forgotten Jesus") written by Andrew Sullivan, a confessed Christian. Mr. Sullivan does not ascribe his and other persons' "thirst for God" to indoctrination. Instead, he attributes it to three questions, which he calls "the profoundest human questions" and describes as "pressing and mysterious": What happens to us after death? How did humanity come to be on this remote blue speck of a planet? Why does the universe exist rather than nothing? The purpose of this essay is to answer, or provide sources of answers to, these questions.

"This is what I know. God is man-made. The Bible is composite literature composed by superstitious men. Religion is a human construct. This does not mean that I do not understand mankind's need to invent God or god(s) and religion. I can comprehend the human psychology of spirituality and the need for an ultimate reality. In Wittgenstein's words the concept of God and religion is a language game."

"Peter Kreeft defends the Argument for Common Consent by claiming it is not an illicit appeal to the masses. While it is true that some appeals to the majority are legitimate, Kreeft fails to show that the Argument from Common Consent falls into this category. Given this, I argue that the argument carries no weight and adds nothing in the way of establishing god's existence."

What sense does it make that the resurrection of Jesus, the momentous event of the Christian faith, should take place without any witnesses? Why was the risen Jesus not seen by anyone other than his own followers? Why did the apostles "doubt" in the presence of the risen Jesus or go so far as not recognizing him? Since it is the most important event of the Christian faith, how can we explain the remarkable differences that exist among the various evangelists regarding what transpired on the resurrection day? How can we understand that certain passages should present the risen Jesus as a spiritual being who would go through walls, appear and disappear at will and who had the appearance of "a spirit," etc., whereas others state that he was flesh and blood?

Ambrose Bierce takes faith to be "belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks without knowledge, of things without parallel." Richard Dawkins terms 'faith' "belief that isn't based on evidence." Sam Harris says "Where we have reasons for what we believe, we have no need of faith." The word 'faith' is badly in need of rehabilitation.

If you're feeling like a pimp, go on and brush your shoulders off. If, alternatively, you're feeling like a moderate Christian, you have a tricky tightrope to walk.

According to centrist religious supernaturalists whether Jewish, Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu or whatever, not only are they not the ones not responsible for the ills of modern societies, they are part of the levelheaded solution. In their opinion it seems eminently logical that the proposition that middle of the road moderate as well as liberal religion is more beneficial than either of the contentious extremes of fundamentalist theism on the one hand or assertive atheism on the other. Surely it is the common sense center that best understands how to run the societal show, not those extremist zealots on either side. Right? Wrong!