The Four Horsemen - Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens
As some people are deriding Dawkins. Personally I think the man's brilliant. If you want to check out a total twunt, look to Hitchens. He comes out with some good points, but generally is incredibly patronising. And I think the fact that he wouldn't like to see a world without religion because he wouldn't have anyone to argue with is indicative of how much of a pillock he is.
(
Jorvic, Sun 11 Apr 2010, 15:46,
Reply)
My only experience of Hitchens was on the Intelligence Squared debate
www.youtube.com/watch?v=AloG_pu1zmc
Where he was palpably more calm and dispassionate than Stephen Fry,
perhaps for obvious reasons. But while I agree broadly with the points
they have to make, I don't have a lot of respect for the means by which
they attempt to make them. It's shabby, and on the whole, ironically,
irrational because far from getting the faithful to see reason, it
only puts them into a defensive and all the more pious stance.
(
Bela Lugosi's Dad, Sun 11 Apr 2010, 15:56,
Reply)
Yeah he wasn't as annoying as usual in that debate.
To be honest I enjoyed the debate, was nice to see the catholic church get such a drumming in such a public way. But yeah I think your right, it sort of boiled down to an emotional reaction to what the church has done and is doing and only having the black and white choice of "force for good" "force for bad" or what ever, a bit frustraiting. The same argument could be said of the UK, what we've done in the past, some of the things we are doing now, it could be very easy to brand the UK as a force for bad in the world, but its not as simple as that.
This is interesting, dunno whether you've seen it. "Atheism is the new fundamentalism" www.youtube.com/watch?v=VVppTZxFn3Q&feature=related
(
Jorvic, Sun 11 Apr 2010, 16:16,
Reply)
That debate was entirely around the question "is the Catholic Church a force for good". Of course they were going to piss people off. Irrational I think not.
On the other hand, if I was Catholic and cared about defending the Church, I would be deeply ashamed about the lazy and patronizing non-intelligent defense Widdecombe and the bishop put forward. A "defense" of a Church that claims the moral high-ground on many issues that especially concern the poor and down-trodden of this world - something that should have been easy if there was any truth to it
They got slammed out of the park, and rightly so.
(, Sun 11 Apr 2010, 17:57, Reply)
by the way, if you want to see some videos that are possibly more effective at "deconverting" the religious take a look at
The "Why I am no longer a Christian" series by former Fundamentalist Christian and youtube user Evid3nc3.
Highly recommended even if you're not a believer.
(, Sun 11 Apr 2010, 18:08, Reply)
They both make great points.
But who would I rather have a pint with? I suppose it would have to be Hitchens because of Dawkins being a homosexual.
(, Sun 11 Apr 2010, 15:58, Reply)
I'm glad you said that,
It makes it so much easier to see you're an idiot.
(
Bela Lugosi's Dad, Sun 11 Apr 2010, 16:12,
Reply)
This is by no means the first post of yours that's used gay as an insult.
Any reason?
(
Tab Hunter Make this useless process end and so, begin again, Sun 11 Apr 2010, 16:38,
Reply)
it's the other round - Dawkins is married to Romana from Doctor Who - whilst Hitchens was recently in the papers confessing gay affairs with Tory MPs
but maybe you were trolling - you can never tell on the internet, but I'd happily go for a drink with either of them simply so I could join in threads like this with exciting personal detail like, "I had a pint with Dawkins and he kept doing old man chat with the barstaff like '£5? I didn't ask to buy the bloody pub.'"
(
rob, Sun 11 Apr 2010, 16:43,
Reply)
You need to know his backlog.
He's a bit of a prick, one way or another.
I'd prove it, but I only have 7 days to work with.
(
Bela Lugosi's Dad, Sun 11 Apr 2010, 16:53,
Reply)