1. Richard Dawkins' secular army must be stopped. God is behind some of our greatest art

Comment #163742 by ranman55 on April 19, 2008 at 12:25 am

Mr. Ravenhill is all over the place, bouncing from
"Christianity is a myth," and "I'm not sure that I
ever connected with the spiritual aspect of God,"
to "...this perpetual state of agnosticism must
surely be corrosive...," and "...we should stop the Dawkins army..." Just who is the agnostic here? Seems like a classic fence-sitter to me.

2. Belief in Belief

Comment #120542 by ranman55 on February 1, 2008 at 11:39 pm

Titan: So, atheists have a "warped interpretation
of reality?" And also have "an extremely limited
existence." What, precisely, is warped about my
interpretation of reality? And exactly how is my
existence extremely limited? Please explain.

3. Belief in Belief

Comment #117475 by ranman55 on January 28, 2008 at 11:05 pm

AtheistAspy: A Mormon friend of mine once invited
me to a service. When it came time for individuals
to testify, each person broke down sobbing, if not
outright crying, and it extended to the other
church members just sitting there. Half the church
was crying. This same thing happened at an evangelical service that I attended. It reminds me
of the kind of blubbering that takes place at an
AA meeting when people are telling their personal
histories. Just a lot of pent-up feelings, I guess.

4. It is possible to be moral without God

Comment #105011 by ranman55 on December 30, 2007 at 10:30 am

Bishop Harries may concede that one can be moral
without God, but a lot of good that's going to do you in the long run, he seems to be saying, if you
don't recognize "the need for...grace," as he points out following his W.H. Auden quote about
loving your crooked neighbor. So we still need the big guy anyway, the god with the "willingness to enter into the flux of history, to redeem the world from within." What a selfless supreme being we have in a god so courageous as to join in the
earthly fray in order to save our pitiful species from itself. Ah, grace and redemption. Shudder to
think where the world might be without those old
spiritual chestnuts.

5. Man and God

Comment #103497 by ranman55 on December 25, 2007 at 10:44 pm

Why are atheists mentioned in the article referred
to as "militant" atheists? What is "militant" atheism? Have atheists taken up arms against religious people somewhere? Just a way for the believers to further denigrate those whose views are in opposition to theirs, I'd guess. And being from the U.S., I've been totally unaware of the heretofore "tolerant debate between believers and unbelievers, respectful and accommodating of each other's views" that the piece mentioned as having been lost of late, presumably in the U.K., because in America, it's been a philosophical slug-fest for decades with no signs of letting up. In fact, it's getting worse. Oh, well. Happy Holidays!

6. The empty myths peddled by evangelists of unbelief

Comment #97353 by ranman55 on December 12, 2007 at 12:03 am

I am curious about the manner in which theologians
have "interrogated" their beliefs down through the
centuries. I'm willing to bet that most have invited god to sit in on the interrogation to offer advice during the really tough parts. More than likely, they prayed to Jesus for the strength to keep disbelief suspended throughout the tireless inquiry and beyond. Believing in something that can't be seen, heard, smelled, touched, tasted, measured, tested, indicated or recorded in any way, shape or form can wear you down.

7. Atheism's Wrong Turn

Comment #95452 by ranman55 on December 8, 2007 at 11:24 am

"However thoroughly evidence in favor of devine beings is scrutinized and dismissed, an unbeliever can never be sure that devine beings do not exist." And how can something that doesn't exist--in this case, evidence for devine beings--be scrutinized? There is absolutely no actual evidence of any kind anywhere to support the assumption of the existence of devine beings.
That fact is precisely why I finally became an atheist after years of fence-sitting as an agnostic. I simply don't believe in even a single religious tenet that is rooted in the supernatural. Where is the evidence, and how can I scrutinize it?

8. Why Science Will Triumph Only When Theory Becomes Law

Comment #88724 by ranman55 on November 18, 2007 at 5:03 pm

I have to chuckle when people of faith disparage
evolution as "only a theory." Theories are born
out of evidence, and unlike the theory of evolution, for which there is voluminous evidence pointing to its reality, no evidence whatsoever--not one atom, not a single molecule--exists for creationism. There is absolutely nothing--repeat, nothing--that exists to show that creationism is anything but an elaborate fantasy.
But if all of the world's museums, laboratories and classrooms could somehow be deposited into a single pile, there would exist a small mountain of evidence pointing to the truth of evolution and other scientific theories. It irks me to no end that the religious community puts the scientific community constantly on the defensive by insisting that science "prove" its assertions--WHICH IT DOES!--but gives its own illusions a pass by not expecting the same scrutiny of itself. But how could it? No evidence at all exists as to the truth of even a single, supernatural claim by any religion, any time in history. And so the absurdly fantastical
theatre of the unseen plays on...

9. Holy communion

Comment #86991 by ranman55 on November 10, 2007 at 9:22 pm

I view religious faith as a utensil or device used by the faithful to accept emotionally what
they cannot accept intellectually. In this context, having to employ faith in order to accept unproveable ideas is a virtual admission of disbelief of those ideas. I'd like to ask those religious people who KNOW that there is a god, what role faith plays in their lives, and how they reconcile their "knowledge" with their
faith.

10. Pope's 'morning after pill' speech criticized

Comment #84676 by ranman55 on November 3, 2007 at 7:10 am

The Pope's exhortations to professionals to deny the dispensation of science to people in need of that science are anti-human, but, sadly, entirely in keeping with the fear-based illogic and boundless hypocrisy of the Church in its 2000 year history of attempts to impose its values on all people. The Church has operated from the start with a self-righteous sense of supposed superior morality. But what could be more immoral than withholding medical care from those who need it?

11. Fox News Attacks 'Godless' Free Thought Radio

Comment #79311 by ranman55 on October 16, 2007 at 9:37 pm

Wow! Due to this Fox News report, I'm aware of a new radio program for atheists. How cool is that? Can't wait to tune in. I'm a big fan of Dan and Annie, and I check out the Freedom From Religion Foundation occasionlly on the web, although it's been a while. I wasn't aware of the radio program. Thanks, Fox News!!

12. Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams criticizes popular atheist writers

Comment #79309 by ranman55 on October 16, 2007 at 8:58 pm

Just some random thoughts on this article--"Don't distract us from the real arguments by assuming that religion is an eccentric survival strategy..." says Williams. And what, pray tell,
are the REAL arguments, Archbishop? Williams says
that many Christians would not recognize their
religion the way it is described by the new critics. But what's not to recognize? Supreme
beings, demons, angels, virgin births, rising from
the dead, life after death. All of this is the
very stuff of their own religion. Perhaps what the faithful can't (or simply refuse) to see, is the downside of their fairytales: the bigotry, arrogance and hypocrisy that are the natural by-products of an unnatural mindset created by belief in an unseen, all-powerful creator. One that loves you precisely because you believe in his existence. Goodness, if only the religious themselves would better understand religion--contrary to Williams' lament that atheist writers don't understand it. About the Archbishop's revelation that "...religion cannot be accurately viewed in terms of science, as hypotheses...": Wow, no kidding! That's precisely why atheists don't believe it, sir. But the poor Archbishop then goes on to explain that the reason is because
"...belief in God comes with no conditions attached." Good grief!! Pre-supposing the existence of God is the strongest condition that
could be attached. As decent as the man seems, he managed to shoot himself in the foot numerous times in this article, and you can almost hear him reloading for his next rebuttal to Dawkins, Harris, et. al.. Hope he's wearing steel-toed
shoes!

13. Polygamist Leader Convicted in Utah

Comment #73955 by ranman55 on September 26, 2007 at 8:57 pm

The claim by Steed that the 14 year-old (at that time) girl initiated the sexual activity is absolutely preposterous and a cowardly cop-out as
well. What's even more astonishing--and sickening--is the defense lawyer's assertion that Jeffs is the victim. Hooray for the common sense
of the jury.