1. Pat Robertson Says Giuliani Presidency Appears in Book of Revelation

Comment #86251 by mr harry on November 8, 2007 at 8:24 pm

Why Giuliani? He is the most socially progressive republican candidate, and quite possibly the least religion-friendly republican candidate.

2. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Alister McGrath

Comment #79265 by mr harry on October 16, 2007 at 3:54 pm

I very much wanted to attend this event, but it started at 5:15... what are those of us that work until 5 supposed to do?

3. Fox News Attacks 'Godless' Free Thought Radio

Comment #78436 by mr harry on October 12, 2007 at 9:44 pm

"Fair and Balanced"... as opposed to fair and unbalanced?

That reminds me of this excellent (and very funny) piece of satire.

http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=bill_oreilly

4. We need a more intelligent religion debate

Comment #68529 by mr harry on September 7, 2007 at 12:45 pm

We need more intelligent unicorn debate

Unicorns are extinct. The Hippogriffs ate them all.

God just hates freaks.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j3V9pI-6NSk (Funny)

5. Town Hall Seattle: God Is Not Great

Comment #57510 by mr harry on July 19, 2007 at 3:12 pm

In response to dgr8test97:

Hitchens is an arogant idiot. What is his degree in? One of those BS humanities degree? What expert is he to speak so far ranging? Compare his credentials to Sam Harris, a scientist who studied religion and philosophy academically and personally. Or compare him to Richard Dawkins, one of the greatest biologist alive. Or Dan Denette an sophisticated orator and philosopher who has spent his whole life studying human psyche.

One does not need a doctorate to be a respected academic; Hitchens' literary output speaks for itself. Also, is philosophy, the discipline of Dennet and Harris, not part of the humanities that you so despise? Perhaps I am mistaken, but last time I checked it was, along with anthropology, sociology, history, etc. In addition, although Dawkins is a biologist, The God Delusion is chiefly a work of philosophy. Is TGD BS? It was through the study of philosophy, sociology and history that I arrived at my atheism, while I found advanced study in the hard sciences both boring, and of little practical application. Both displines have their value, and their uses… So, you may attack Hitchens' positions, but attacks on the character and experience of one so great does not speak so well of you.

Hitchens fuk!N heroe,Jefferson, was a fuk!N slave owning rapist. Did he do a lot of good things, yes. Did he have good ideas? Yes. Was he a good man? No way.

Even if Jefferson was a rapist, an obscene charge which you have no evidence for, he was still one of the greatest minds of the enlightenment and a crucial agent for change: as author of the Declaration of Independence, author of the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom (which formed the basis for the First Amendment), founder of the University of Virginia, third President of the US, etc. BTW, maybe you need to crack open a few history books but not only did Jefferson try to abolish slavery in colonial America a few different times during his life, but as those who know anything about the early US, know than the Constitution never would have been ratified with a ban on slavery. You seem content to damn Jefferson for owning slaves, but historians don't judge historical figures on modern day values; they judge them on the morals of their times.

6. Republican candidates range from ignorant to dishonest

Comment #37507 by mr harry on May 4, 2007 at 4:51 pm

Although I said I was Libertarian minded, and have basic values that are in-tune with the libertarian philosophy, I would not vote for a Libertarian; they are just too radical. Libertarians like Ron Paul live in an idealized world, there have to be some compromises in the real world.

The Constitution is not a static document. It has to 'evolve' with the rest of us if it is to stay useful, and it has through interpretation and amendment (things that Ron Paul would be against).

7. Lou Dobbs Interviews Christopher Hitchens

Comment #37460 by mr harry on May 4, 2007 at 1:58 pm

Dobbs is a traditional, fiscal conservative, but socially liberal with a strong populist message. He criticizes both sides, and hates bush and the current administration, mostly for not dealing with the huge illegal immigration problem we have here. He is also very critical of the cronyism that seems to go on in the Bush Whitehouse.

I call his show "Mexican hour" because he covers illegal immigration about 80 percent of the time. He also spends a lot of time on globalization, china, and Middle-East trade policy.

8. Republican candidates range from ignorant to dishonest

Comment #37446 by mr harry on May 4, 2007 at 1:32 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 reeked of cowardliness.

He had to say that to get keep the moderate religious vote. It was not cowardice, for it took a lot of courage to say that he believed in evolution, and therefore basically ruling out the fundie vote. I am actually pleasantly surprised that more of them didn't deny evolution (weather they believed it or not, because the fundie lobby is very powerful).

This is easy. Just don't vote for any Republican. Spend your time weeding through the Democrats.

Believe it or not, not everyone here is a liberal. I am Libertarian minded (small government, low taxes, no deficit spending, personal freedom...) Giuliani is the closest to me ideologically, and at this point I will be happy to vote for him. Moreover, no one can deny how he turned NY completely around.

9. How multiculturalism is betraying women

Comment #36828 by mr harry on May 2, 2007 at 1:11 pm

Why is a judge looking to the Koran for guidance in making this decision? Why is she not looking to the laws of this liberal democracy instead?

If the husband were claiming such, I would argue that he has to obey the law in the country where he seeks residence, but for the Judge, of all people, to ignore the law and look to the Koran does not make any sense to me.

I am beginning to be swayed further towards Mr. Hitchens' view. Religion poisons everything.

10. Bill Maher - APATHEIST

Comment #35263 by mr harry on April 26, 2007 at 6:30 pm

Whoa... Scarborough makes O'Reilley look intelligent. He misunderstood (or misrepresented) every single one of Maher's statements.

11. New Planet Could Be Earthlike, Scientists Say

Comment #35215 by mr harry on April 26, 2007 at 3:26 pm

Tides come in... tides go out.

12. Study: Religion is Good for Kids

Comment #34861 by mr harry on April 25, 2007 at 1:18 pm

While the findings may be correct, they haven't really demonstrated a causal relationship between behavior and religion. Moreover, I would also be wary of the study's use of the self-reporting data by parents on their children's activities; the religious parents may be as delusional when it comes to their kids as they are with their religion.

13. Dinesh D'Souza says I don't exist: an atheist at Virginia Tech

Comment #33559 by mr harry on April 20, 2007 at 3:18 pm

I am a student at Virginia Tech, and an atheist. I can confirm that there are many atheists at my university, and I proudly echo the message of Mapantsula. I do exist, but I very nearly ceased to do so on Monday, as did many of my fellow classmates and professors.

I find it telling that D'Souza would use this, our tragedy, to advance his own poisonous agenda, and in a most distasteful manner. Although I worry about churches using the massacre to convert or otherwise abuse my fellow students in their time of need, I do not find religious overtones in the ceremonies offensive, for I know very well that this is what most people believe in, and find comfort in. I even found the Christian minister's speech at Tuesday's convocation to be one of the most moving, not because of the religious content, but because of his genuine and heartfelt message. This horrible tragedy is not the time to challenge people's faith.

I am so proud that one of my professors wrote such a wonderful piece.

14. Panel discussion on atheism where no atheists are included

Comment #20851 by mr harry on February 6, 2007 at 7:24 pm

Please send in your comments if you find the report lacking, as I did:

I am responding to the Paula Zahn Now report on Atheism. The report itself was not bad, but the following panel discussion was, frankly, a disgrace to CNN and the American news-media. It's a sad state of affairs when a sports columnist is defending the ideals of freedom while two professional journalists display such a sickening degree of bigotry and intolerance. I, as an atheist, was extremely offended. Ms. Zahn did nothing to moderate the discussion, or offer any differing point of view in the absence of one on the panel. It is obvious that the panelists had no conceivable idea about what atheists are all about. At the very least there should have been an atheist on the panel to offer a contrasting point of view, and to challenge such inane comments, as: "[atheists] need to shut up," "atheists don't have any beliefs," and "freedom of religion doesn't mean freedom from religion." I am sure there are plenty of atheists who would be glad to have a panel discussion on national TV. You should contact author Sam Harris, who has appeared many times on cable news.

The US as a Christian nation, prayer in schools, religious discrimination, and the First Amendment are all relevant issues which can be debated rationally, but this panel discussion was nothing more than an anti-atheist bash-fest. What I just witnessed was akin to having a panel discussion on black civil rights with two Klansmen and a Nazi.

Why do atheists inspire such hatred? I would look at the faith-heads if you're trying to solve that problem. Ironically, the attitudes of bigotry and intolerance that was displayed by both panelists (Hunter and Schlussel) essentially proved the reports premise true…

I am extremely disappointed with CNN.