Dawkins Vs. Hitchens

Improbable

With both Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens being staunch atheists, its interesting to note the differences in their approaches with regards to how they interact with people in regards to atheism and yet both of them are very impressive.

Being a scientist myself, I can relate much more to Dawkins than I can to Hitchens because of his more science oriented approach and partially because of Dawkins demeanor when debating with religious individuals. In fact, the only time I have ever seen Dawkins to get really confrontational and worked up was on the debate about faith schools on the Big Debate hosted by Jonathan Dimbleby.

Hitchens on the other hand has a much more aggresive demeanor and seems much more vociferous.

Anyone have any thoughts?

Zillah

I once saw Hitchens win a debate by literally breathing fire upon a room full of evangelicals, shortly before rising into the air in a corona of energy and rocketting off towards Rome.

Improbable

Having seen some of his public appearances, I wouldn't doubt that for a second.

Elliemental

I've onlly just started reading Christopher Hitchens recently. But, from what I have read so far, I admire both men greatly. I couldn't pick a favourite, as such.
Both display a sharp and rapier wit, which I didn't find particularly aggressive in either man.

bnt

I get a bit concerned when they are referred to as "staunch" or "committed" atheists. It carries the implication that they will hold on to their positions whatever comes their way, in defiance of evidence. That would be an irrational position, but that's not the impression I get from their writings.

As I understand it, Dawkins, Hitchens, Dennett et al would happily change their opinions in the light of new evidence, but they have standards for what constitutes evidence. Scriptures, for example, are testimony, not evidence for the truth of their contents. "Because I said so" is not evidence. And so on. Personally, I find it easy to resist such nonsense, and have done so for at least 30 years - but does that make me a "staunch" atheist? It's the wrong word, methinks - how about "veteran" atheist? :cool:

magicbastarder

dawkins suffers a bit from lacking slightly in charisma. hitchens suffers a bit from being a bit too forceful.

J C

Zillah wrote: »

I once saw Hitchens win a debate by literally breathing fire upon a room full of evangelicals, shortly before rising into the air in a corona of energy and rocketting off towards Rome.

This must have been an amazing spectacle ... where and when did it occur?

J C

magicbastarder wrote: »

dawkins suffers a bit from lacking slightly in charisma. hitchens suffers a bit from being a bit too forceful.

They are both quite likeable and personable men.
I think that they could both expand their knowledge base by talking to a Creation Scientist ... and if they were to share their considerable knowledge of evolution with such a Creation scientist this could be of considerable help to the progress of Creation Science as well.

It could be a 'win/win' situation for all concerned and it could provide a general increase in enlightment for all of Mankind. These 'culture wars' do (hopefully) have to end some time ... and like all wars, there is never a complete victory for one side or the other when they end.

Paparazzo

Hitchens is cool, Dawkins is a nerd*
There, I said it














*Although, I do like both of them

J C

bnt wrote: »

I get a bit concerned when they are referred to as "staunch" or "committed" atheists. It carries the implication that they will hold on to their positions whatever comes their way, in defiance of evidence. That would be an irrational position, but that's not the impression I get from their writings.

As I understand it, Dawkins, Hitchens, Dennett et al would happily change their opinions in the light of new evidence, but they have standards for what constitutes evidence. Scriptures, for example, are testimony, not evidence for the truth of their contents. "Because I said so" is not evidence. And so on. Personally, I find it easy to resist such nonsense, and have done so for at least 30 years - but does that make me a "staunch" atheist? It's the wrong word, methinks - how about "veteran" atheist? :cool:

I do think that you have a point there. There is more than a hint of open-midedness in some of their writings. You never know, they might even eventually follow in the footsteps of other 'veteran' atheists like Prof Sir Fred Hoyle and accept that life was intelligently designed or even follow Prof Anthony Flew's conversion to theism/deism because of the 'integrated complexity' of the living world:-

J C

Paparazzo wrote: »

Hitchens is cool, Dawkins is a nerd*
There, I said it



*Although, I do like both of them

Now ... now let's not be divisive!!!

MrPudding

J C wrote: »

I think that they could both expand their knowledge base by talking to a Creation Scientist ...

There is no such thing. You have people that may have been scientists at one point in their lives, but have somehow, sadly, turned into delusional fools that spout idiotic nonsense. Having a massive stroke would be more useful for expanding their knowledge than talking to a delusional "creation scientist."

J C wrote: »

and if they were to share their considerable knowledge of evolution with such a Creation scientist this could be of considerable help to the progress of Creation Science as well.

Lies and you know it. Their knowledge does not conform with the creationist interpretation of the bible and is therefore deemed incorrect. How could their actual scientific knowledge possibly progress the utter tripe that is creationism when it is dismissed out of hand as it does not fit with your reading of the bible?

J C wrote: »

It could be a 'win/win' situation for all concerned and it could provide a general increase in enlightment for all of mankind.

No it would not. There is no benefit, as Dawkins as pointed out himself, in engaging with creationists. It will simply be another opportunity for them to take quotes out of context and make them appear to says something they don't, you know the normal creationist dishonesty, you know like you do in your sigs?

J C wrote: »

These 'culture wars' do (hopefully) have to end some time ... and like all wars, there is never a complete victory for one side or the other when they end.

Hopefully they will end and hopefully that end will be when people that believe the idiocy that you believe have either died off or came to their senses. Creationism leads to retardation and should be wiped from the face of the earth. YEC's are an insult and an embarrassment to the human race.

MrP

J C

MrPudding wrote: »

There is no such thing. You have people that may have been scientists at one point in their lives, but have somehow, sadly, turned into delusional fools that spout idiotic nonsense. Having a massive stroke would be more useful for expanding their knowledge than talking to a delusional "creation scientist."

... it would improve the quality of our discussion if you stuck with facts and avoided the unfounded ad hominem remarks about people with whom you disagree and don't know personally.

MrPudding wrote: »

Lies and you know it. Their knowledge does not conform with the creationist interpretation of the bible and is therefore deemed incorrect. How could their actual scientific knowledge possibly progress the utter tripe that is creationism when it is dismissed out of hand as it does not fit with your reading of the bible?

I have no wish to reopen the mega-thread over in the Chrisitanity Forum here, and I am sure that you don't want to either. I would just make the general point that everybody can learn something from everybody else if they listen to each other with respect.

MrPudding wrote: »

No it would not. There is no benefit, as Dawkins as pointed out himself, in engaging with creationists. It will simply be another opportunity for them to take quotes out of context and make them appear to says something they don't, you know the normal creationist dishonesty, you know like you do in your sigs?

... once again, I think that it would improve the quality of our discussion if you stuck with facts and avoided the unfounded ad hominem remarks about people with whom you disagree and don't know personally.
... and one never knows, Prof Dawkins and Dr Hitchins are both very nice people and they might learn something from the encounter.

MrPudding wrote: »

Hopefully they will end and hopefully that end will be when people that believe the idiocy that you believe have either died off or came to their senses. Creationism leads to retardation and should be wiped from the face of the earth. YEC's are an insult and an embarrassment to the human race.

MrP

... I did say that all wars tend to end without complete victory of one side over the other. The one exception would be where the victor completely wiped out the vanquished population from the face of the earth. However, history shows that when this is tried, it never really is completely successful ... there are always 'escapees' and 'sympathisers' ... and these are usually more determined than ever to continue with the faith of their anhialated relatives and friends.
It's also usually vary bad PR to start killing or grossly discriminating against a vanquished population just because of their beliefs ... although it can and has occurred.

Waking-Dreams

I would just make the general point that everybody can learn something from everybody else if they listen to each other with respect.

Should we listen to UFO abductees with respect, also?

Giving all these nuts a platform to voice their views doesn't encourage them to expand their knowledge, or see how their thinking is wrong; it tends to only convince themselves even further and reinforce their position.

They just want validation for their ignorance. Well, sorry, but you're not getting mine.

J C

Waking-Dreams wrote: »

Should we listen to UFO abductees with respect, also?

Giving all these nuts a platform to voice their views doesn't encourage them to expand their knowledge, or see how their thinking is wrong; it tends to only convince themselves even further and reinforce their position.

They just want validation for their ignorance. Well, sorry, but you're not getting mine.

I'd have thought that an 'Alien Abductee' would be somebody you would wish to talk to ... given the fact that they might lend some credence to the Materialist case that life evolved throughout the Universe.

In any event, listening with respect to somebody, should be the normal courtesy within civil ... and you never know, you might learn something that you didn't know already.

It is much more difficult to learn something new from listening to yourself or other like-minded people.
That's one of the reasons that I am posting on the A & A.

Sam Vimes

MrPudding wrote: »

There is no such thing. You have people that may have been scientists at one point in their lives, but have somehow, sadly, turned into delusional fools that spout idiotic nonsense. Having a massive stroke would be more useful for expanding their knowledge than talking to a delusional "creation scientist."

Lies and you know it. Their knowledge does not conform with the creationist interpretation of the bible and is therefore deemed incorrect. How could their actual scientific knowledge possibly progress the utter tripe that is creationism when it is dismissed out of hand as it does not fit with your reading of the bible?

No it would not. There is no benefit, as Dawkins as pointed out himself, in engaging with creationists. It will simply be another opportunity for them to take quotes out of context and make them appear to says something they don't, you know the normal creationist dishonesty, you know like you do in your sigs?


Hopefully they will end and hopefully that end will be when people that believe the idiocy that you believe have either died off or came to their senses. Creationism leads to retardation and should be wiped from the face of the earth. YEC's are an insult and an embarrassment to the human race.

MrP

Seriously mate, don't encourage him.

Waking-Dreams

No, I'd imagine the main reason you're posting here is because you want some acknowledgement and validation from the 'skeptic' community whose outlook on things you too would agree with, but not some of the things you believe in and this upsets you a little.

UFO believers, cults, creationists, holocaust deniers - as much as they think they deserve a voice, have shown time and time again how their method of thinking is deeply flawed.

I'm just finishing off Michael Shermer's "Why People Believe Weird Things", and in chapter 3, he describes 25 ways in which thinking goes wrong. In one section, he gives a great insight into the tactics of creationists and holocaust deniers whose rejection of evidence that contradicts their own point paints a very interesting picture indeed. Often, they're asked "what would you consider worthy evidence?" The answer is a request for a much higher standard, that ironically doesn't apply to any evidence that supports their view. Hmmm...

Respect or no respect, there is nothing to gain from accomodating a Flat Earth believer. Creationists would agree they are not that deluded but convincing them is like a catch-22. How do you convince someone who is in self-denial that they are? If logic and reason was the answer, then surely, there'd be no more arguments. We'd be passed this. But it seems there is no end to the barrel of ignorance they drink from. The mind is a curious organ.

Seriously mate, don't encourage him.

I'm going to call it a day here too then.

MrPudding

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Seriously mate, don't encourage him.

Im sorry, I can't help it. They actually make me embarrased to call myself human.

MrP

MrPudding

J C wrote: »

... it would improve the quality of our discussion if you stuck with facts and avoided the unfounded ad hominem remarks about people with whom you disagree and don't know personally.

I may not know them personally, but I have seen their arguments. Really, how can the quality of the dicsuccion be improved? You have just spent year showing us that there is no talking to creationist. You have lied, misrepresented and ignored questions.

J C wrote: »

I have no wish to reopen the mega-thread over in the Chrisitanity Forum here,

Just as well, because something tells me the dishonestly you showed there along with your apparent inability to answer a direct question would not get quite the same treatment here.

J C wrote: »

and I am sure that you don't want to either.

Actually, it might be interesting. I would nto expect it to last quite as long.

J C wrote: »

I would just make the general point that everybody can learn something from everybody else if they listen to each other with respect.

I have no interested in learning how to become a deluded fool that ignores evidence and misrepresents people and continues to do so even after being shown how they are misrepresenting them. The only thing creationists can show us is the danger of delusion.

J C wrote: »

... once again, I think that it would improve the quality of our discussion if you stuck with facts and avoided the unfounded ad hominem remarks about people with whom you disagree and don't know personally.

Refer to previous.

J C wrote: »

... and one never knows, Prof Dawkins and Dr Hitchins are both very nice people and they might learn something from the encounter.

Seriously. What would they learn?

J C wrote: »

... I did say that all wars tend to end without complete victory of one side over the other. The one exception would be where the victor completely wiped out the vanquished population from the face of the earth. However, history shows that when this is tried, it never really is completely successful ... there are always 'escapees' and 'sympathisers' ... and these are usually more determined than ever to continue with the faith of their anhialated relatives and friends.
It's also usually vary bad PR to start killing or grossly discriminating against a vanquished population just because of their beliefs ... although it can and has occurred.

I think we both know I was not talking about killing creationists. As much as I think they are a danger to the human race, I would not advocate their killing. I was talking figuratively, and somewhat optimistically, hoping that they would disappear simply as people realised what a load of utter tripe it is.

MrP

particles

I've read a few of Dawkins books, including 'The God Delusion'... with regard to his take on atheism: i find his writing to be a little cowardly in that he seems to prefer veiled sneering rather than upfront analysis of the religion question. Being a somewhat unbelieving person myself I had hoped for an author widely listed as one of humanities forerunning intellectuals to produce arguments I could have solid respect for.

I also found it rather strange that a self-professed atheist would retain such an undercurrent of hatred towards Roman Catholicism. How atheist can this man really be if he hasn't risen above popularist feelings of hatred for opposing religions? Or, to be frank, how can he be viewed as a great intellectual? Religious hatred is quite simply childish from an enlightened point of view. How can a so-called intellectual really be so while holding on to childish views?

Mr Dawkins should stick to writing splendid books about life and evolution and make efforts to downplay his emergence as an intellectual until he has had a long look in the vanity mirror.

Ickle Magoo

particles wrote: »

I also found it rather strange that a self-professed atheist would retain such an undercurrent of hatred towards Roman Catholicism. How atheist can this man really be if he hasn't risen above popularist feelings of hatred for opposing religions?

There are millions of people, many of them roman catholic, who hate the catholic church at the mo...borne entirely of the actions of the RC church, I might add. I don't know why you think the legitimacy of his atheism or intellect should or would be affected by an abhorrence for an organised religion whose top representatives have been proven to partake in and cover up child abuse...

Zillah

I had forgotten just how bad J C is.

Improbable

I may have been a bit hasty in referring to the using terms like staunch but the reason behind it was that I was watching a conversation between Dawkins and Lawrence Krauss and in it, he states that the existence of a god is a possibility and that if such a being exists, then he must be within the realm of science, not some supernatural being that science has no place in trying to explain. But he does then go onto say that in no way does he believe that any such god would have the attributes that are credited to him by modern religions.

But you're definitely right, staunch is absolutely not the right word to use, seeing as one of the synonyms is faithful...

J C

Waking-Dreams wrote: »

No, I'd imagine the main reason you're posting here is because you want some acknowledgement and validation from the 'skeptic' community whose outlook on things you too would agree with, but not some of the things you believe in and this upsets you a little.

UFO believers, cults, creationists, holocaust deniers - as much as they think they deserve a voice, have shown time and time again how their method of thinking is deeply flawed.

I'm just finishing off Michael Shermer's "Why People Believe Weird Things", and in chapter 3, he describes 25 ways in which thinking goes wrong. In one section, he gives a great insight into the tactics of creationists and holocaust deniers whose rejection of evidence that contradicts their own point paints a very interesting picture indeed. Often, they're asked "what would you consider worthy evidence?" The answer is a request for a much higher standard, that ironically doesn't apply to any evidence that supports their view. Hmmm...

Respect or no respect, there is nothing to gain from accomodating a Flat Earth believer. Creationists would agree they are not that deluded but convincing them is like a catch-22. How do you convince someone who is in self-denial that they are? If logic and reason was the answer, then surely, there'd be no more arguments. We'd be passed this. But it seems there is no end to the barrel of ignorance they drink from. The mind is a curious organ.



I'm going to call it a day here too then.

... why do you talk of Creationists (a term that includes Orthodox Jews) as being the same as Holocaust Deniers?

... or am I misunderstanding what you are saying?

J C

MrPudding wrote: »

Im sorry, I can't help it. They actually make me embarrased to call myself human.

MrP

Why am I such an embarassment to you?

J C

MrPudding wrote: »

I may not know them personally, but I have seen their arguments. Really, how can the quality of the dicsuccion be improved? You have just spent year showing us that there is no talking to creationist. You have lied, misrepresented and ignored questions.

I can only say that I told the truth and I am sorry that you feel that way about me.

MrPudding wrote: »

Just as well, because something tells me the dishonestly you showed there along with your apparent inability to answer a direct question would not get quite the same treatment here.

... again I have no wish to re-open the Mega-thread and all I can say is that I have done my best to answer every question ... and if you are not happy with the answers there is nothing I can do about that.

MrPudding wrote: »

I have no interested in learning how to become a deluded fool that ignores evidence and misrepresents people and continues to do so even after being shown how they are misrepresenting them.

I would have no interest in doing that either.

MrPudding wrote: »

I think we both know I was not talking about killing creationists. As much as I think they are a danger to the human race, I would not advocate their killing. I was talking figuratively, and somewhat optimistically, hoping that they would disappear simply as people realised what a load of utter tripe it is.

You say that you were talking figuratively ... what does your phrase "Creationism leads to retardation and should be wiped from the face of the earth" figuratively mean?

Can you not 'live and let live' as far as Creationism is concerned?

Even from a cultural point of view, why would you want Creationism 'wiped from the face of the Earth?

Given that Creationists will be with us at least until the Rapture, how do you propose to go about wiping Creationism from the face of the Earth?

... or am I somehow misunderstanding what you are saying?

Why do you say that Creationism leads to retardation ... and do you have any evidence for such a statement?

Byron85

[QUOTE=J C;66744268

Given that Creationists will be with us at least until the Rapture, how do you propose to then wipe Creationism from the face of the Earth?[/QUOTE]


The rapture?? You mean that thing that was invented in the 1800's??

J C

Zillah wrote: »

I had forgotten just how bad J C is.

Bad in what way?

J C

T.W.H Byron wrote: »

The rapture?? You mean that thing that was invented in the 1800's??

In order to avoid a protracted diversion into Theology can I rephrase my question as follows:-
Creationists will be with us for the foreseeable future ... so how does Mr. P propose to wipe Creationism from the face of the Earth?

... or am I somehow misunderstnding what he is saying.

equivariant

J C wrote: »

It is much more difficult to learn something new from listening to yourself or other like-minded people.

That's pretty funny coming from someone who posted the same rubbish over and over for several thousand posts and refused to acknowledge the many errors and fallacies that were pointed out to him repeatedly over the course of several years

That's one of the reasons that I am posting on the A & A.

No. It's pretty clear that you are only posting here because you have had your toy taken away and are having some kind of reaction/hissy fit. You never seemed too bothered about posting in A&A when the megathread was open, but suddenly now you have gone all open minded and reasonable? I doubt it.

Waking-Dreams

I've read a few of Dawkins books, including 'The God Delusion'... with regard to his take on atheism: i find his writing to be a little cowardly in that he seems to prefer veiled sneering rather than upfront analysis of the religion question. Being a somewhat unbelieving person myself I had hoped for an author widely listed as one of humanities forerunning intellectuals to produce arguments I could have solid respect for.

I also found it rather strange that a self-professed atheist would retain such an undercurrent of hatred towards Roman Catholicism. How atheist can this man really be if he hasn't risen above popularist feelings of hatred for opposing religions? Or, to be frank, how can he be viewed as a great intellectual? Religious hatred is quite simply childish from an enlightened point of view. How can a so-called intellectual really be so while holding on to childish views?

Mr Dawkins should stick to writing splendid books about life and evolution and make efforts to downplay his emergence as an intellectual until he has had a long look in the vanity mirror.

'Why I Am Not A Christian' by Bertrand Russell might be the kind of book you're looking for then (if you haven't read already).

Zillah

J C wrote: »

Bad in what way?

There are many answers to this question, but the three that come to mind are:
- Understanding reality
- Being intellectually honest
- Not having an unctuous tone

You're bad at all three of those.

sponsoredwalk

J C wrote: »

They are both quite likeable and personable men.
I think that they could both expand their knowledge base by talking to a Creation Scientist ... and if they were to share their considerable knowledge of evolution with such a Creation scientist this could be of considerable help to the progress of Creation Science as well.

They do! Try find the extra interviews from The Genius of Charles Darwin on which there amounts to well over 10 hours and feature plenty of interesting conversations with creationists.

On google/youtube there are many debates Hitchens has done with them, as has Michael Shermer, or ...

Oh, and it isn't science and these people are not scientists

Anyway, my bet goes with Dawkins. I always really enjoy the stuff he writes but I'm reading him expecting more science than religion.
It's a neverending struggle to find discussions on Haldane etc...
Unweaving The Rainbow is fantastic.

ChocolateSauce

I prefer Dawkins hands down, although I do like Hitchens very much. I just think that Hitchens' greatest strength is how he says "it" as opposed to what he says.

I also think that Dawkins strikes the ideal balance between saying what needs to be said (The truth with a lower case t) and being polite and sensitive. Don't get me wrong, I'm thrilled when Hitchens sets people on fire and laughs as they lay screaming on the ground; really, it gets me going, but I think more people are likely to listen to Dawkins than to Hitchens, and ultimately I think this is more important when trying to deconvert people as opposed to winning a debate.

Tim Robbins

Improbable wrote: »

With both Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens being staunch atheists, its interesting to note the differences in their approaches with regards to how they interact with people in regards to atheism and yet both of them are very impressive.

Don't rate Hitchens one bit. He's embarrassing as he engages in too much flashy rhetoric. Dawkins is very good. He's a bright spark but just on a pure intellectual level, I don't he's as bright as someone like Stephen Pinker or Bertrand Russell. In fact there's a French dude, Andre Compte-Sponville who writes some pretty thought provoking stuff but unfortunately not as well known as Dawkins.

Julian Baggini is a superb writer but not a very good speaker.

magicbastarder

Waking-Dreams wrote: »

'Why I Am Not A Christian' by Bertrand Russell might be the kind of book you're looking for then (if you haven't read already).

i found this a bit of a let-down. it's a loose collection of essays, some with tenuous links to atheism.

Catsmokinpot

magicbastarder wrote: »

hitchens suffers a bit from being a bit too forceful.

and being very right wing in his other views

The Mad Hatter

Catsmokinpot wrote: »

and being very right wing in his other views

I don't think so. Yes, he supported the Iraq war, but as far as I know that's pretty much the only thing that statement can be applied to, and his justification for the Iraq war was very different from the early justifications of those who made it. To his credit he keeps a consistent position on it too - he's in favour of invading North Korea to remove Kim Jong Il.

mikhail

Zillah wrote: »

I once saw Hitchens win a debate by literally breathing fire upon a room full of evangelicals, shortly before rising into the air in a corona of energy and rocketting off towards Rome.

Sadly, in 4000 A.D., this humorous internet post will be interpreted literally as a divine miracle and proof that Hitchens had magical powers.

MrPudding

J C wrote: »

Why am I such an embarassment to you?

We have seen mankind develop and improve. We have seen technological advances which improve our lives, we have seen advanced in technology that make things not even dreamed about scant decades ago a reality. And then we have YEC's with their idiotic beliefs. YEC's and their beliefs are an embarassment to mankind. What embarasses me is that other people of the same species as me can believe such rubbish. Seriously, imagine an alien race turned up and started looking at the human race. if the first people they met were YEC's they would likely turn around and leave, I know I would.

J C wrote: »

I can only say that I told the truth and I am sorry that you feel that way about me.

The truth? I suppose there is always the possibility that you actually believe you have told the truth and simply did not understand what peopel were telling you when they pointed out your dishonesty.

J C wrote: »

... again I have no wish to re-open the Mega-thread and all I can say is that I have done my best to answer every question ... and if you are not happy with the answers there is nothing I can do about that.

Utter rubbish. I have no interest in reopening that thread, but there are loads of questions you did not answer. Other poster posted them again and again and you simply ignored them.

J C wrote: »

You say that you were talking figuratively ... what does your phrase "Creationism leads to retardation and should be wiped from the face of the earth" figuratively mean?

With hindsight, it was a poor choice of words. I do believe that creationism leads to retardation with respect to being wiped of the face of the earth, I am optimistic that people will wise up and realise that it is a load of rubbish and simply choose not to believe it, or realise what it is. I most certainly would not advocate taking action to wipe them off the face of the earth.

J C wrote: »

Can you not 'live and let live' as far as Creationism is concerned?

No. YEC's is harmful to the human race. it promotes a belief in the rediculous and lessens the value of science and evidence.

J C wrote: »

Even from a cultural point of view, why would you want Creationism 'wiped from the face of the Earth?

I simply don't believe it has any value to society at all, whatsoever.

J C wrote: »

Given that Creationists will be with us at least until the Rapture, how do you propose to go about wiping Creationism from the face of the Earth?

Yes, of course, the rapture.

J C wrote: »

Why do you say that Creationism leads to retardation ... and do you have any evidence for such a statement?

I have no evidence, but surely anything which promotes the beliefs that it does must lead to retardation, or at least have its roots there? No?

MrP

Mark Hamill

MrPudding wrote: »

J C wrote:

Why do you say that Creationism leads to retardation ... and do you have any evidence for such a statement?

I have no evidence, but surely anything which promotes the beliefs that it does must lead to retardation, or at least have its roots there? No?

MrP

I have evidence. Here is a scan from a Christian science textbook published by Bob Jones University (sorry about the size:o):

(Source)

And then there is this video of a bible belt classroom discussion on evolution:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L640vc_XBjk

(Source), where a student actually says "How can like an African-American person evolve from a white person? We're different skin."

ColmDawson

Mark Hamill wrote: »

And then there is this video of a bible belt classroom discussion on evolution:

Source), where a student actually says "How can like an African-American person evolve from a white person? We're different skin."

Arghgsserghsljhsvunsr!

Why do I keep clicking on those things?:(

amacachi

AGHHHH! **** THAT VIDEO!

TBH when you see so many people so far from reality it is child abuse.

Paparazzo

After listening to God is not Great and The God Delusion, both read by their authors, both are interesting but Dawkins is a far better reader than Hitchens.
Dawkins sounds like he's talking to you, Hitchens sounds like he's just reading as fast as possible.

MrPudding

amacachi wrote: »

AGHHHH! **** THAT VIDEO!

TBH when you see so many people so far from reality it is child abuse.

Like I said, retardation of the human race.

MrP