Skykid wrote:njiska wrote:
I believe the expression here is, "Two wrongs don't make a right". While Hitchens was by no means a loud mouthed asshole like Dawkins, I still found his works to be quite preachy and in the case of his writings, such as god is not Great, often unfocused and poorly constructed.
I think you could criticise the writing of being over wordy and occasionally losing focus, but the depth of knowledge is a clincher for me. Someone with that vastness of education and with such ability to form bulletproof arguments deserves to be heard, even if you don't agree with the approach or the opinion.
Dawkins is a scientist and resolute in his opinions, which I don't have a problem with, I just think people tend to find him irritating as a character. He was good on South Park.
Make no mistake, I'm not arguing our the legitimacy of their opinions, merely that Dawkins tends to take the, "Fuck you, believe what I believe" approach, which is no better than the very people he is rallying against. It's his lack of tolerance for people not wanting to even have the discussion that so offends me. With Hitchens this sentiment is less forward, but it's still there. And his arguements surrounding the affects of religion on society are far from bulletproof, often focusing on the extremes, rather than on the subtle influences inherent in any organised group (relgious or not).
Make no mistake, I am an atheist and not at all a fan of organized religions and their affects on parts of society. But I'm also sick and tired of the atheist crowd thinking everything would be better if we shelved the whole system and wanting to force that view on others. Religion is stupid, that's always been my opinion, but if you want to follow your beliefs I'm not going to stop you unless they directly impact me.
Look at our friendly members:
MX7 wrote:I'm not a fan of a racist, gun nut brony puking his odious and uninformed arguments over every thread that comes up.
Drum wrote:He's also a pederast. Presumably.