1. Ghosts in the Machine

Comment #15319 by J. Ryan on December 30, 2006 at 10:45 am

This is a case of severe special pleading.

"Well, yes, ghosts are unlikely and this study shows that they are not necessary to explain these phenomena, but there is still a tiny chance they exist, and wouldn't you like them to exist?"

2. Christmas Present to Defenders of Darwinism

Comment #13292 by J. Ryan on December 16, 2006 at 8:57 pm

One question: is this satire? I'm serious; it's hard to tell with my intellect-challenged brain and the general state of religious idiocy going on.

3. Leaders back faith in public life

Comment #9473 by J. Ryan on November 24, 2006 at 9:41 pm

No, it need not be sectarian. In fact, it can include everyone but atheists!

4. Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris and E.O. Wilson on the gospel of science

Comment #8882 by J. Ryan on November 22, 2006 at 4:38 pm

Oof. This guy does not like Dawkins. The worst part of it is, though, that this doesn't appear to have been an editorial! It isn't proper to spout like that and infuse your own opinions into a non-editorial! Even so, it happens all the time when atheists are the subjects of the articles. An example: "It is his professed faith that the universe can be understood — and solely through empirical human inquiry. In proposing this doctrine, Dawkins is himself a fundamentalist, rejecting any compromise or accommodation. He argues for his materialist worldview in an imperious manner, revealing more about the struggle for hierarchy and authority than about the failure of spirituality or the elusive nature of the divine." Isn't that an opinion? Also, here's what appears to be a strawman: "He casts atheism in America as a civil rights issue — something like gay rights, save that instead of tolerance and equality under the law, he seeks elimination of other beliefs." Yes, he'd like religion gone, but he doens't want to make it illegal or to persecute religious people! This impoliteness and misrepresentation of subjects of articles rarely happens except when they are attacking religion! Anyway, here's one of my favorite Dawkins quotes: "The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully."

5. Dawkins's version of the deity does not exist

Comment #7573 by J. Ryan on November 18, 2006 at 8:37 pm

One of the things that annoyed me about this article was the author's claim that Dawkins needs to show where morality comes from to make the argument that it doesn't come from God. What a ridiculous claim. While this, as Dawkins admits, is a difficult problem, all that is needed is to show that it doesn't come from supernatural decree. He doesn't need to show where it comes from; "I don't know, but I have a hypothesis" is a good answer. Again, all he has to do is show that it doesn't come from the supernatural, which he does by showing that it doesn't exist, among other arguments.