Richard Dawkins or Christopher Hitchens
Printed From: Progarchives.com
Category: Topics not related to music
Forum Name: General Polls
Forum Description: Create polls on topics not related to music
URL: http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=106664
Printed Date: July 19 2025 at 14:40
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 11.01 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Richard Dawkins or Christopher Hitchens
Posted By: Logan
Subject: Richard Dawkins or Christopher Hitchens
Date Posted: May 06 2016 at 17:13
|
This is very silly as a contest, and yes, you can quote me on that, but as ever, the poll is only intended as an accessory to discussion about these figures. I have been watching, and reading, a lot of late by both. I vote for Dawkins, by the way. ------------- Watching while most appreciating a sunset in the moment need not diminish all the glorious sunsets I have observed before. It can be much like that with music for me. |
Replies:
Posted By: TheLionOfPrague
Date Posted: May 06 2016 at 19:22
|
I'm more familiar with Dawkins so I vote for him (but I'd vote for Sam Harris maybe if he was included). ------------- I shook my head and smiled a whisper knowing all about the place |
Posted By: Logan
Date Posted: May 06 2016 at 19:44
|
I almost included Sam Harris, but opted to make it more Brit-centric (I also thought about including Stephen Fry, though not so much as Sam Harris). Although I know his significance and history (and about Project Reason), I'm not as familiar with Sam Harris. I've watched a number of debates which involve him, and various interviews. ------------- Watching while most appreciating a sunset in the moment need not diminish all the glorious sunsets I have observed before. It can be much like that with music for me. |
Posted By: dr wu23
Date Posted: May 06 2016 at 22:09
|
I've only read one book by Dawkins and some pieces by Hitchens...but I much prefer Hitchens in live interviews....he was very entertaining and witty. ------------- One does nothing yet nothing is left undone. Haquin |
Posted By: HackettFan
Date Posted: May 06 2016 at 22:40
|
I don't like Chrirtopher Hitchens for other reasons of politics surrounding the Iraq War, I voted for Dawkins. ------------- A curse upon the heads of those who seek their fortunes in a lie. The truth is always waiting when there's nothing left to try. - Colin Henson, Jade Warrior (Now) |
Posted By: JJLehto
Date Posted: May 06 2016 at 23:01
|
Well, I don't like either and it has nothing to do with their views on religion and god and etc since I agree. That said, Dawkins was at least a scientist and thus has some interest, I think!, in science opposed to just spouting atheism. So my vote goes to him. To be an arrogant American, I'll write in my vote for Lawrence Krauss as a pretty loud mouthed atheist who focuses more on science and universes coming from nothing
|
Posted By: Icarium
Date Posted: May 07 2016 at 09:44
|
Dawkins by fafafafar, also Dara O'Briaien and Bill Bailey are also fun athesit, and Bill Cox, Hitchens is good but is also a mumbler whitch is quite annoying when you are saying important stuff -------------  
|
Posted By: manofmystery
Date Posted: May 07 2016 at 15:42
|
If this is a famous atheist poll then I'm writing in Penn Jillette -------------  Time always wins. |
Posted By: Guldbamsen
Date Posted: May 07 2016 at 16:26
|
Dawkins but not because of his crusade against religion but rather for his book 'The Selfish Gene'. I do enjoy watching either of these completely destroy autodidact creationists and other such pseudo-scientists. ------------- “The Guide says there is an art to flying or rather a knack. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss.” - Douglas Adams |
Posted By: Equality 7-2521
Date Posted: May 08 2016 at 08:55
|
Dawkins is a great science popularizer and writes pretty well. Hitchens is allergic to properly sourcing his books.
------------- "One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. " |
Posted By: emigre80
Date Posted: May 08 2016 at 09:50
| I will take both (Dawkins being more sensible but Hitchens always good for provocation), but will choose Hitchens just to balance the voting. |
Posted By: micky
Date Posted: May 08 2016 at 10:38
huh...what.. thanks for reminding me Greg what a intellectual knuckledragger I am... never heard of either. Thought this might be a Richard Dawson v. Christopher Walken poll so that brought me in... Walken easily btw...  ------------- The Pedro and Micky Experience - When one no longer requires psychotropics to trip |
Logan wrote:Posted By: Cambus741
Date Posted: May 08 2016 at 12:39
Prefer Neil deGrasse Tyson |
Posted By: The T
Date Posted: May 10 2016 at 09:41
|
Both have ideas I agree with, both are (were) rather insufferable as persons from what can be seen. I'll take Dawkins because I've read more of his material. ------------- 
|
Posted By: JJLehto
Date Posted: May 10 2016 at 13:10
Yeah him too, he's even more into talking science and less on "haha atheism is best!" than Lawrence Krauss.
Funny the Americans are less insufferable than the Brits   |
Posted By: Equality 7-2521
Date Posted: May 10 2016 at 13:52
|
I think Neil deGrasse Tyson and Bill Nye are buffoons so I guess maybe I'd disagree. Dunno Js. I think Krauss is actually milder than NGT. He's pretty big on just leaving religious people alone, like (most) religious scientists, who don't allow their beliefs to interfere with their everyday behavior. NGT is sometimes a bit hardline for no particular reason about belief in general. ------------- "One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. " |
Posted By: Man With Hat
Date Posted: May 10 2016 at 14:26
|
I guess Dawkins, but I'd prefer neither. ------------- Dig me...But don't...Bury me I'm running still, I shall until, one day, I hope that I'll arrive Warning: Listening to jazz excessively can cause a laxative effect. |
Posted By: Icarium
Date Posted: May 11 2016 at 01:07
-------------
|
Posted By: JJLehto
Date Posted: May 11 2016 at 01:11
Hmmmm, I guess my experience with Krauss isn't great, I've watched a couple of videos, (one lecture, one interview and maybe 1 or 2 shorts) and read his book and there were quite a few jabs sprinkled throughout, usually like "So we know the Universe is 13.8 billion years old, well except for in Alabama and Ohio" that I found a bit unnecessary and he seemed a bit prickish. Could be a skewed experience though. True NDT is certainly hardline sometimes.
|
Posted By: The T
Date Posted: May 11 2016 at 10:52
-------------
|
Posted By: Equality 7-2521
Date Posted: May 11 2016 at 12:02
|
I'm fine with that goal, but I think he does a poor job of it. I don't think his arrogance and disparaging of the humanities does science communication any good. And I don't think him acting like an expert and saying inane things in fields he has a less than cursory understanding of does similar harm. ------------- "One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. " |
Posted By: Icarium
Date Posted: May 11 2016 at 12:25
|
Doesnt help that he is a load mouth and 2 meters tall, and trained wrestler from youth -------------
|
Posted By: Icarium
Date Posted: May 11 2016 at 12:26
|
I reccomend the books of Kristen Gundersen, equality -------------
|
Posted By: The T
Date Posted: May 11 2016 at 12:44
 -------------
|
Posted By: JJLehto
Date Posted: May 23 2016 at 11:32
|
I actually applauded Nye for his recent "controversial" actions simply because I will forever remember him as the absolute dork and lame ass from his PBS show when I was a kid, so was a bit shocking to see him tackling creationists and discussing religion. While on the topic of atheist scientists....a somewhat less discussed one: Brian Greene. No idea how he is in lectures/interviews but in his docs and Ted talks he pretty much is all science and less religion bashing, and his one show on Quantum Mechanics actually got me seriously interested in the topic, enough so I wanted more info and ended up watching, (to the best I could ) the MIT online Quantum Mechanics lectures. Very explanatory, simple but gets the message across perfectly fine. While I am not so sure how I feel about these theories....Greene also had some of the simplest/best layman explanations for String Theory and multiverse theories.
|
Posted By: CosmicVibration
Date Posted: May 23 2016 at 12:42
|
Although I’m aware of who they are, I’ve heard very little
of their material so no vote from me. I remember watching Bill Maher one
day as he stated that the Bible is written in metaphors and shouldn’t be taken
literally. This is exactly right! It was only 2 minutes later into
the show when he quoted something from the Bible, took it literally and went
off on it. WTF Bill? I wonder if Mr. Dawkins and Mr.
Hitchens realize that all great religious books are highly masked in cryptic
writing using symbolisms, metaphors and the like. These 2 are as bad as the
preachers that scream, cry and holler about matters of which they are totally ignorant
about. |
Posted By: Logan
Date Posted: May 25 2016 at 23:22
|
They have both been aware of metaphor and symbolism in religious texts -- Hitchens died in 2011, by the way, and is probably not aware of anything now. Dawkins and Hitchens problem tended to be with the literalists as well as the religious doctrines, practices, and how they perceived it to interfere with rationality (Prof. Dawkins particular interest being science and Hitchens more cultural/social and poltical). Of course a great many people do take religious texts literally., and a great many, obviously, believe in an actual rather than a metaphorical God. ). ------------- Watching while most appreciating a sunset in the moment need not diminish all the glorious sunsets I have observed before. It can be much like that with music for me. |