1. Trailer for Religulous

Comment #190666 by xdrive on June 9, 2008 at 10:55 am

I'm only cautiously optimistic about this movie. Bill Maher's not the most objective or intelligent person in the world to be making documentaries about something as big as religion. Expect no earth-shattering revelations or insights with this one.

Then again it doesn't seem to be trying to be anything other than a cheap "religion is stupid, lol!" movie, which I guess has a place. Maybe this will raise consciousness enough to make people look into more serious surveys of modern religion and its implications. I'll give Maher a chance at any rate.

2. Sexpelled: No Intercourse Allowed

Comment #162961 by xdrive on April 17, 2008 at 6:01 pm

Scientists are frightened of the truth; Irreducible Reproductivity, which PROVES that living organisms are too complex to come into existence as a result of two other organisms getting their freak on.

3. The books that inspire me

Comment #157315 by xdrive on April 8, 2008 at 10:34 pm

I'll be sure to pick these up, starting with The Demon Haunted World. The Sagan fanboy in me demands it!

4. Rep. Davis: The Worst Person in the World

Comment #157297 by xdrive on April 8, 2008 at 9:26 pm

Can someone please explain for me the following mantra:

"Freedom of religion does not mean freedom FROM religion! You don't have a right to NOT believe!"

I have no trouble understanding the words of their claim, it's how they arrive at this claim that I can't quite suspend my disbelief enough to grasp. I've heard my dad say this before and I pressed him to explain it. He tried to equivocate on the language of the clause and I called him on it. That's as far as we ever got.

So does anyone know the rationalization for this? Is it merely a half-assed effort to sound witty as one tries to defend the preposterous? I think so.

PS: I know Rep. Davis didn't say this, but this was clearly the spirit of her bullshit.

5. Discussion between Richard Dawkins and Paula Kirby

Comment #157264 by xdrive on April 8, 2008 at 7:38 pm

Paula, you're a fantastic interviewer. Excellent job. I watch these interviews by the shitton™ and your style and questions are great. Thanks a bunch.

Richard, thanks for doing this with a frog in your throat. It was worth it.

Regards.

6. Rep. Davis: The Worst Person in the World

Comment #157249 by xdrive on April 8, 2008 at 7:10 pm

I can't wait to see the backlash of the backlash. Davis will be immortalized in the bleeding hearts of the empty headed as a martyr for the cause of anti-separationism.

The next media cycle, boys and girls. The next media cycle. Get ready.

7. Hitchens vs. Hitchens

Comment #157222 by xdrive on April 8, 2008 at 6:07 pm

Wow! at the old questioner in the sweater who almost broke down to tears at how much he was terrified of Atheism. That guy has issues.

Hitchstopher was infinitely patient with him.

8. Richard Dawkins on The Big Questions

Comment #157071 by xdrive on April 8, 2008 at 2:34 pm

That was just painful to watch. But it's nice to see we're not the only ones with wacko lunatics on debate shows.

I went through four different bullshit meters by the time that was over. Three alone during the "Hitler = evidence for the devil" part.

Hats off to Richard for not spontaneously combusting in front of everyone.

9. Christopher Hitchens appears on the Hugh Hewitt Radio Show

Comment #128016 by xdrive on February 15, 2008 at 9:37 pm

In case anyone cares, at the halfway point of the interview you hear the beginning of the song "Bravado" by Canadian rock band Rush. The song transitions back to the interview from the break.

It's totally random and weird. I have to wonder if Hugh Hewitt got permission to use it for his show like that.

Carry on.

10. Richard Dawkins on The Big Debate

Comment #117770 by xdrive on January 29, 2008 at 3:11 pm

Video isn't working for me.

11. Sam Harris debate with Rabbi David Wolpe

Comment #107777 by xdrive on January 5, 2008 at 9:35 am

I really, really enjoyed this format of debate. When you have the classical point-counterpoint format it allows people like Dinesh to rattle off a hundred falsehoods each of which takes longer for the Atheist to refute than for the theist to make the claim, as any refutation will almost by definition take several times longer to properly dispose.

But this kind of format, with a more casual back and forth, allows for these claims to be challenged as they come and refuted as they come. When it comes down to it, Theists like Dinesh only do well in debates because of their shotgun tactics, and not because they are actually making good points in the least.

12. Mother Nature is Not Our Friend

Comment #105819 by xdrive on January 1, 2008 at 9:41 pm

Okay. So governments could use this technology with propaganda to coerce the population to confirm and not dissent. And for-profit interests could also use it with propaganda to change your mind about what values you should have, all to make more money. I think we can agree that these abuses CAN happen.

But couldn't you say (and indeed many did say) the same thing about other (potentially disruptive) system-changing technologies? I believe you could make the same case for every single major advancement we've seen in the last century. And to your credit, some of them have certainly been used for ill, though I still hold that those represent the exception to the rule in the grand scheme of things.

I think the point to take away from this is that we shouldn't stick our collective heads in the sand just because a discovery introduces potential negatives as well as positives, though we should always be aware of what may lie in Pandora's box at the same time. But I don't think a nihilistic attitude is very useful when considering these kinds of technologies.

EDIT: maybe nihilistic wasn't the best word for me to use. Maybe "timorous" or "overly-vigilant" would fit better.

13. Submission, 'Part 1'

Comment #105194 by xdrive on December 30, 2007 at 9:04 pm

Considering that wikipedia is not a Muslim organization, they don't have to follow the Muslim rule of no pictures of the prophet. Just like how it's illegal in Freemasonry for non-Freemasons to wear their ring. Well, if you're not a Freemason then the rules don't apply to you anyway. You can't create rules for people who aren't of your ilk.

14. The Stupidity of Fox News is Truly Beyond Belief

Comment #52188 by xdrive on June 26, 2007 at 12:50 pm

The mouthpiece said, "People like me, quite honestly, are buying these books to see what is it that makes these minds tick!" Then maybe he should go one step further and actually "read" them as well.

And I wonder what "incredible geological reality" Atheists are missing out on.

Fox News: It's not WHAT you say, but how LOUDLY you say it that makes the difference!