1. Comic in US 'hate speech' row

Comment #44660 by Hylo on May 25, 2007 at 6:42 am

How the hell is an indicement against religion racist? What fucking nonsense. Unless the person who said that thinks Muslims only come in one race and race and religion is identical, there is reason to say that, and if he does think that then he is an unbelievably idiotic, ignorant muppet.

2. The Cyclic Universe: A Talk With Neil Turok

Comment #42309 by Hylo on May 18, 2007 at 3:58 am

No, forget all your science, it was all God! God did it so just stop thinking so much! Can't you see it's so much easier just to say God did it?

Seriously, that was facinating to read but talk about confusing. I love that there are people working on this problem and that possibly before I die somebody will figure it all out. I can't wait to find out.

3. Richard Dawkins on Canada AM

Comment #38438 by Hylo on May 8, 2007 at 5:20 am

I really liked that. It wasn't meant to be very serious or in depth (obviously) but Richard came across brilliantly and gave a pretty good account of what his book is about in the time allotted.

4. Richard Dawkins on Canada AM

Comment #38289 by Hylo on May 7, 2007 at 12:35 pm

D'oh! The video isn't working for me. Hopefully it'll show up on youtube.

5. The torture of the grave Islam and the afterlife

Comment #38183 by Hylo on May 7, 2007 at 7:25 am

Logicel, the deprogramming of cultists is exactly what I was thinking of and I too am against the idea of forced therapy for perfectly harmless cult/religious members. If somebody wants to be a part of some cult or be extremely religious that's their right and choice, een if they didn't come to those beliefs by choice, but I think it would be a good thing to have in place should someone be identified as a serious candidate for becoming a religious killer. It could also be "applied" to failed suicide bombers or fanatics caught in the act of serious crime.

6. The torture of the grave Islam and the afterlife

Comment #38130 by Hylo on May 7, 2007 at 4:37 am

CJ, I completely agree with what you wrote, and it was incredibley well written. I was intentionally being a bit facetious. I do think it's an interesting question however.

These beliefs are clearly and definitely false in the extreme. They are delusional. Now you're absolutely right that for the majority they have no say or choice in acquiring these beliefs, and probably a lot them (the fundamentalists at least) may never have been exposed to arguments and evidence to the contrary, but where they have, and they persist in their beliefs against all evidence to contrary, might they not be seen as delusional (isn't that the definition of delusion afterall), perhaps not in the same way as somebody who thinks his next door neighbour is plotting to kill him but in a way that their view of reality is so distorted that they need help to start viewing the world as it really is.

I don't for a second believe what these fundies are doing is irrational. It's perfectly rational behaviour and exactly what should be expected if somebody really believes what they say they believe. But regardless of how they acquired the beliefs, it doesn't change the fact that what they believe is so far beyond the pale that they could rightly be considered in need of psychological care, especially if the beliefs they hold can lead them to kill themselves and others.

7. The torture of the grave Islam and the afterlife

Comment #37976 by Hylo on May 6, 2007 at 2:38 pm

"Those who have lost a relative in a violent and shocking death - in the bombings in Baghdad, for instance - may find some consolation in this belief."

That may well be the sickest thing ever written. In what possible way could the relative of a loved one who had been killed by a suicide bomber kind comfort in the thought that while their loved one could be suffering the horrors of a Muslims afterlife the killer is lapping it up in paradise?

It's easily one of the stupidest things I've ever read and how exactly does somebody who believe such things not warrant an extended stay in a psychiatric unit?

8. God Exists. A Formula Proves it.

Comment #37643 by Hylo on May 5, 2007 at 12:17 pm

Eh, so what exactly was his proof?

Hopefully somebody like Neil DeGrasse Tyson or Victor Stenger will respond to his claims. I doubt they'll make the news though.

9. Lou Dobbs Interviews Christopher Hitchens

Comment #37422 by Hylo on May 4, 2007 at 12:20 pm

Thanks denoir for that explanation. I can tell you being Irish (from the Republic, not Nothern Ireland) that Richards writings on NI were spot on.

10. Republican candidates range from ignorant to dishonest

Comment #37417 by Hylo on May 4, 2007 at 12:15 pm

What a coward McCain was there. He couldn't just leave it at a yes, regardless of whether he actually believes what he said or not, it just reaked of cowardliness.

11. Lou Dobbs Interviews Christopher Hitchens

Comment #37403 by Hylo on May 4, 2007 at 11:42 am

Brilliant! How refreshing to see a news anchor in the US, or anywhere, not only giving such a glowing endorsement of such a book book but actually conversing with his guest in such a way as to allow him to give viewers a good idea of what is to be found within it.

I especially loved his quote from the beginning: "Religion ends and philosophy begins, just as alchemy ends and chemistry begins and astrology ends and astronomy begins."

12. Richard Dawkins interviews the Bishop of Oxford

Comment #33410 by Hylo on April 20, 2007 at 3:34 am

I totally agree that this is a wonderful video. It's a pleasure to see a religious individual with the intelligence and humility to match Prof. Dawkins' engaging in such a debate.

If all Christian's and all religious types were equal to Bishop Harries the world would be a wonderful place and despite the fact that I would disagree with the regarding the true nature of the universe, I would have no problem whatsoever with religious people.

What shocked me as I was watching this video was the thought that if I lived in the parish of Bishop Harries I would probably attend his masses on a regular basis to hear his cermons. He seems like a truly wonderful, intelligent person.

13. Alan Colmes Interviews Richard Dawkins

Comment #2162 by Hylo on October 19, 2006 at 11:26 am

That interview is absolutely fantastic. It's quite rushed at times but the interviewer was excellent and some of the callers gave a good insight into the outdoor insane asylem that is religious America.

At times it was even funnier then the Stephen Colbert interview.

14. Stephen Colbert Interviews Richard Dawkins

Comment #1926 by Hylo on October 18, 2006 at 4:08 am

I love it! I've never seen Stephen Colbert before but he is very funny and Richard dealt extremely well with his question. It was great to see a different side of RD.

15. Richard Dawkins with Jeremy Vine

Comment #1256 by Hylo on October 11, 2006 at 3:38 am

That was superb. Good questions, excellent answers and a very well handeled interview. Unlike that Irish interview with David Quinn, I can imagine a religious person having to question their beliefs after hearing this. Good work Richard!

16. Ryan Tubridy interviews Richard Dawkins

Comment #1146 by Hylo on October 10, 2006 at 4:58 am

I got the impression that he meant in the context of that interview, as it pertained to the question of the existence of God, free will really is neither here nor there. He said himself when Quinn first raised the question that it was a very deep question and a philosophical one that has nothing to do with religion, and we are in no way run soley by our genes.

I think he certainly could've answered it better, it did seem that he cowered away from it as he couldn't answer it, not that I believe that's the case, but I imagine some people would've gotten that impression.

17. Huw Edwards Interviews Richard Dawkins

Comment #1145 by Hylo on October 10, 2006 at 4:51 am

That was excellent. Richard came across extremely well, and his arguments and answers were perfectly sensible and rational. It always amuses me when people like the first e-mailer, Muhammed, try to make out that Richard's beliefs about the universe are utterly absurd when he himself is shown to be completely ignorant about what it is he thinks Richard believes.

18. Ryan Tubridy interviews Richard Dawkins

Comment #1143 by Hylo on October 10, 2006 at 4:28 am

That was entertaining. That David Quinn guy was an arrogant, obnoxious *******, not to mention idiotic aswell but I think, and it saddens me to say it, that the majority of people who listen to that show would probably come away thinking David Quinn won the debate. His arguments were nonsensical but in the minds of a religious person they're sound and Richard really didn't get in and rip his arguments to shreds. He kinda evaded answering the question of free will and he didn't really push how idiotic it is to assume that just because the universe exists, God must have been the one to create it. Nor did he really do away with Quinn's "all atheists are evil, immoral wild animals because of Stalin and our genes" theory.

I would hope rational people listening to the show, whether religious or not, would easily see through David Quinn's arguments and see the logic in what Richard was saying but I can't imagine any religious person would be reconsidering their belief in God after hearing this. And as I said earlier, as depressing as it is to say, I think many of them will have had their faith shored up by David Quinn.

19. Fundamentalist Religion and Science

Comment #804 by Hylo on October 7, 2006 at 4:05 am

I really liked that interview. I thought it was better then the Freethought interview because that one, although it had alot of interesting things in it, was basically the two interviewers agreeing with everything Richard says. I always prefer these ones where the public call in with interesting questions and Richard either has to defend himself or he tries to convince someone else of the facts.

I'm still hoping for an interview where the interviewer completely disagrees with Richard and he can really open up with both barrels.

20. Collateral Damage 1: Embryos and Stem Cell Research.

Comment #312 by Hylo on September 25, 2006 at 12:26 pm

This has already been touched upon but I would like to develop it a little more as it's always been my main argument when debating this issue with someone who disagrees with SCR.

If we were to ban SCR because it prevents the potential for life to come into existence then forget making masturbation illegal, mustn't we also legalise rape? What woman would have the right to refuse a man if the end result is a life? How could a man be punished for rape if he argues that the woman was preventing him the potential to create life? Imagine how the feminists would react to such a law!