Comments by cybercoma

1. Cult leader sparks Sikh riots with 'guru' stunt

Comment #43650 by cybercoma on May 22, 2007 at 7:32 am

Veronique,

Out of about 30,000,000 Canadians approximately 278,000 declared themselves as Sikhs in the 2001 census.

BTW: More on the case can be found on CBC's website.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2006/03/02/kirpan-scoc060302.html

2. Cult leader sparks Sikh riots with 'guru' stunt

Comment #43629 by cybercoma on May 22, 2007 at 6:33 am

The Supreme Court of Canada made a ruling allowing Sikh children to carry these daggers in school. No other child is allowed to carry a weapon and no one is allowed to carry a concealed weapon on the street, unless of course you're a Sikh. The argument was that it is ceremonial and not a weapon. I believe this article smashes that argument to pieces nicely. Canadians need to get the SCC to revoke their decision for public safety and the safety of our children.

3. Hitchens on Falwell, Part 2

Comment #43620 by cybercoma on May 22, 2007 at 6:09 am

I don't remember any moment of peace or respect for Hamas Leaders when they died and they too gave to charity, as Hitchens said.

This interview could've used a lot less personal attacks and more facts. Hitchens made his points as to why Falwell was a dangerous man, Rex made his points as to why Falwell was a good man and that should've been all that was debated. Instead, Hannity goes on to call Hitchens a pseudointellectual and a jackass, then goes on to tell him that his opinion is wrong.

How can you tell someone their opinion is wrong, without countering any of their points. All he said is that Falwell apologized for his 9/11 comments. Well isn't that special? I doubt if David Duke apologized for being a horrible bigot Hannity would expect any sort of respect for his death.

Hannity ccmes off as all the things he pegged Hitchens with in this interview. He looked like nothing more than a pseudointellectual jackass and what's even sadder is that there are people out there who would agree with him.

4. Hitchens vs. Hannity on Religion and God

Comment #40936 by cybercoma on May 15, 2007 at 8:15 am

"I believe that deep down every believer knows that there deceiving themselves but can't or won't admit it, even to themselves. It would require admitting that they were wrong and, in their mind, take a great amount of work to adjust. Simply put, I think that they're just lazy."

Pi Guy, I think you're almost spot on with this statement. I don't think it's EVERY believer; however, when someone comes back with "it takes great faith to be an atheist," I believe those people are the ones who are reluctant to admit to themselves that they're wrong.

It obviously doesn't take faith to be an atheist, anymore than it takes faith not to believe in the tooth fairy, it's just too bad they don't see it this way. They don't understand that since their infancy, faith has been driven into them and instead of having faith in atheism, they simply need to stop having faith in superstition.

5. Does God Exist? The Nightline Face-Off (more info)

Comment #40900 by cybercoma on May 15, 2007 at 7:20 am

I'd like to see Richard Dawkins (for the science and factual questions) and Christopher Hitchens (for the social and historical questions) take on these two. The beat down would be humourous.

6. Against All Gods, by A C Grayling

Comment #36084 by cybercoma on April 30, 2007 at 6:34 am

Brian,

About your end of religion video. Make a compilation of some of the most horrific things that have occurred in the name of religion shown against some of the most humanitarian scientific discoveries and other types of secular generosity. All played to the tune of Imagine by John Lennon.

Just an idea for 3 mins of impact.

7. Against All Gods, by A C Grayling

Comment #36083 by cybercoma on April 30, 2007 at 6:30 am

Jellyfish look like the flying spaghetti monster, coincidence? Maybe, but chances are they were made in His noodly image as a hint to His existence. The FSM works in strange ways and although He has worked tirelessly to throw us of his trail, He also left just enough hints for us to find Him if we so choose.

Garden Gnomes look like midgets and we all know the FSM has a special place in His meatballs for midgets. This is all a testament to His power.

I'm with the first poster!

Touched by his noodly appendage!
RAmen!

8. Two idiots get a forum

Comment #35667 by cybercoma on April 28, 2007 at 6:51 am

What's next, the peanut butter argument?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FZFG5PKw504

9. We aim to misbehave

Comment #35105 by cybercoma on April 26, 2007 at 8:08 am

When people on this board say Atheists are not being oppressed, they obviously haven't seen this article from the Humanist Association of Canada's website:

http://www.humanists.ca/news/?p=21

March 31, 2007
Atheist suffers Violent Hate Crime
Filed under: Press Releases — admin @ 9:55 pm

Toronto - In what appears to be the first violent hate crime against an atheist, Justin Trottier of Toronto was attacked earlier this week on the campus of Ryerson University.

According to Mr. Trottier he was putting up posters advertising an upcoming event titled "God: The Failed Hypothesis" when, according to Mr. Trottier, "The first individual then smacked me in the face twice with his left hand, and said 'watch your smart mouth.' I said 'don't touch me' at which point he head butted me hard in the face, causing my nose to bleed profusely." The attack was apparently provoked because the attacker did not like the title of the poster.

Toronto police are apparently treating this as a hate crime.

According to Humanist Association of Canada spokesperson Pat O'Brien, "Atheists have never been accorded the same respect as those with religious beliefs even though our position comes from a position of logic and reason, not myth and superstition. This escalation of a systemic, although till now hidden, discrimination is very troubling"

I must say, I'm happy to hear the Toronto Police Department is treating this as a hate crime. Although the idea of "hate crime" laws is debateable, I'm glad they're upholding the law as it is written and not just using it to create racial divide.