1. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #167278 by rar on April 23, 2008 at 8:10 pm

Lord Winston did more question asking than belief professing. And yet, the replies to his intellectual argument are, for the most part, angry and derogatory. A weird thing for enlightened, rational, unbiased people to do. For a group so certain in their beliefs, there seems to be a strong need for reassurance in the posts.

2. Mitt the Mormon

Comment #91244 by rar on November 27, 2007 at 6:29 pm

It looks like its working just fine...

3. Mitt the Mormon

Comment #91241 by rar on November 27, 2007 at 6:21 pm

This article is hypocritical to me. Hitchens, Bill Maher, and a variety of other prominent atheists lament the fact religion is tied into politics and strongly discourage America's tendency to vote for Protestant candidates. Romney, a protestant, wants to stick to the issues and doesn't believe his beliefs are a central topic in his campaign. It seems this is what Hitchens would want; keeping beliefs private and separating church from state. This is unless Hitchens just wants to argue both ways because he is angry and not solely on a campaign for rationality.

4. New Rules: A Religious Test

Comment #73032 by rar on September 23, 2007 at 9:54 pm

I don't understand Bill Maher's show. I don't find it funny, and quite honestly I'm not sure if it is suppose to be. Most religious people turn it off, and atheists laugh at him insulting the religious. So, who is he reaching with his message?

As far as this video goes, he has a poor legal premise. There is no religious test for any governmental position and the Constitution is more than upheld. Atheists aren't elected because people don't like them. In fact, Bill Maher is a perfect example of why.

So what is his end game? People shouldn't disclose their religion, only atheists should vote, or maybe a variety of religious and logic tests should be used to determine a suitable candidate...

Atheists aren't elected because they're generally unlikable. It's merely a correlation. An atheist could hold any position they want, but I haven't found one, atheists cannot agree on one, and there has not been a good candidate mentioned on this entire forum.

5. Supporters of abortion have no future in Church, Pope tells faithful

Comment #71746 by rar on September 19, 2007 at 3:02 pm

The Pope is doing his job. Catholic doctrine clearly acknowledges abortion as a moral sin. To support a moral sin (as defined by the Catechism) and be called a Catholic is hypocritical. That's what separates Catholicism from other fait hs; they have well defined beliefs and morality and require both in their members. Many more people call themselves Catholic than truly are, and the Pope is calling them out. Not a good political move, but the Pope doesn't seem to care.

6. Teresa, Bright and Dark

Comment #71052 by rar on September 17, 2007 at 5:09 pm

The woman's body is obviously involved. By writing "not just a woman's body", I'm saying more than one life is in question. If one kills a pregnant woman, they will be charged for killing two people. My point of contention is that rights are not extended to all human lives. It's not just a woman, but instead a woman and her child.

7. Must the US president believe in God?

Comment #70781 by rar on September 16, 2007 at 10:28 pm

Sorry to have to be the one to say it, but there is not discrimination against atheists. Its merely a correlation, which as we all know does not show cause and effect. The truth is that atheists tend to be arrogant, insulting, and unlikable. In fact, most Americans see denying the existence of a God to the point of describing it as a central belief fairly arrogant. There could be an atheist who could be president, but I haven't met him or her and have yet to see a good candidate mentioned on this entire forum.

8. Teresa, Bright and Dark

Comment #70780 by rar on September 16, 2007 at 10:19 pm

Atheists claim the religious are tuning out reason and science in favor of their comforting superstitions. They have a good point. Now, thanks to science we can see into the womb earlier than ever. We're finding that fetuses are not just cellular clumps but in fact more human than imagined. In fact, by the time most women realize they're pregnant, the child or fetus or whatever you want to call it has a heartbeat. Brainwaves are present within a few weeks thereafter and consciousness is apparent far before the third trimester. Interacting (music, reading, ect.) with these cell clumps improves IQ and demeanor, showing consciousness and learning to be in full effect.

So, a conscious, human looking, thinking, learning, clump of cells; doesn't that describe a person? If everyone in America deserves rights and even Sadam gets a trial, don't these ambiguous cells deserve some representation?

For once, science and reason is on the side of the value voter (even if they don't realize it). To call a fetus a just a clump of cells is like calling thunder Thor's rage. Both were popular theories but have been disproved. Now, anyone who claims to crusade for reason cannot deny the facts of the issue. Be champions of science, but don't judge people for their superstitions and look blindly on the dreadfulness of abortion. This is a civil rights issue, but not just for the mother.

So where is the justification for abortion? Scientifically speaking, it's not just a woman's body anymore.

9. Teresa, Bright and Dark

Comment #67072 by rar on September 1, 2007 at 5:05 pm

Curious reply d'arcy and walk. Apparently by stating what Mother Theresa believed, I have not only "blackmailed the non-believers" but also managed to describe my belief system as a God of limited choices.


If there is no God, there is no point to life. You could live a happy life, a sad life, or pursue a passion, but the result would be the same. Mother Theresa believed that, as most people do.


I'd first like to say choosing obedience or burning (which is not how hell is Biblically described) are not my beliefs, nor did I make any mention of eternal life, but thank you for your pity Walk. Furthermore, if God were so demanding and involved, why is there a debate over His existence?

If one would like to hear my personal tenants they could form a thread or ask. However, to tell me of my own positions and throw in a couple Mid-Evil catch phrases was surprising to read and ignorant to write.

It's disheartening to see my insight into Mother Theresa's inner struggle turned into an attempted blackmail of all who don't share my beliefs. Then, to take my statement regarding one's struggle with God or no God and turn the argument to "blindly follow" or burn is dumbfounding. Mother Theresa changed the condition of her work, sought out the poorest of poor, and thought constantly about her beliefs -- Blind Following?

Thats all I have to say about Hitchen's article or its posters.

10. Teresa, Bright and Dark

Comment #67054 by rar on September 1, 2007 at 3:23 pm

If there is no God, there is no point to life. You could live a happy life, a sad life, or pursue a passion, but the result would be the same. Mother Theresa believed that, as most people do. If she convinced herself there was no God (which she didn't) she would be in more agony over living a wasted life. She wanted to help people; her doubts caused her agony because she worried that even if she could save lives it would be in vain. Pretending she didn't believe could only intensify her inner struggle.

11. Teresa, Bright and Dark

Comment #67037 by rar on September 1, 2007 at 12:45 pm

If equality means a woman cannot be forced to "waste" her life caring for an unwanted child, than a man should not have to "waste" his money paying for a child he did not want to be born. As disgusting as this hypothetical argument is, it exposes the astounding hypocrisy in the pro-abortion equals equality argument. Women do have control of their bodies; they can decide if and when they want to get pregnant.

Now as for Mother Theresa, she is perhaps the greatest role model since Jesus Himself. She understood, as many educated Christians do, that belief in God is a choice, not an emotion. She had great subjective feelings of His presence and could see His influence in her life. Unfortunately, as she aged this childlike wonder left her, her undying faith did not. Doubt set in when the flurry of heavenly feelings left her, but as many believers can attest to, doubt is not a loss of faith. Mother Theresa had reasons for belief and she truly believed in what she did, but her doubts took away her assurance. She continued her charity, saved thousands of lives, and even more souls. However, she never felt any inner peace from her accomplishments. In her letters Mother Theresa wrote that she prayed daily for a sign or revelation from God. When her prayers were not answered she lived her life as if they had been, and continued to live the best life she could. She repeated this process for over 50 years.

Mother Theresa was not forced to continue her work by old Catholic bishops, nor was she an atheist who was too "simple" to rebel against her beliefs. She was an intelligent, skeptical Christian who realized life is meaningless without God, but could never feel His presence around her.