Hitchens (God is not Great) with Sam Smith this weekend

Tim Robbins

Myksyk wrote:

I think your point is fair Tim ... as I said it was out of line. However, his intellectual arguments were strong and well articulated. He should have stuck to them.

Regarding the audience, it was hard to read but based on the 'clapometer' response, probably half and half.

Well I up to chapter 4 of "This book is not great" and I haven't read one intellectual argument that I haven't heard 1,000 times before.
Hitchens is no theologian, no philosopher, no Scientist. His academic background is a third class degree from Oxford. It annoys me these people get so much airtime simple for being sensationalist not intellectual.
Put it this way, name his best point you haven't heard before?

In Chapter 4 of "This book is not great" he gets confused between the Talmud and the Torah thinking the Talmud is the Old Testament for flips sake. At least that's how it reads.

Myksyk

Hmmm ... I'm not an apologist for Hitchens ... I don't know enough about the man. I said I was impressed with quite a bit of his presentation yesterday (notwithstanding his occasional arrogance). The quality of that presentation for me is not that he can come up with new intellectual arguments against the faith position or anti-science position but that he could iterate the existing arguments in a coherent, articulate fashion and rebut/respond to the counter-arguments put forward by the opposing side of the debate. I'm pretty sure you're not suggesting that the onslaught of fundamentalist, anti-intellectualist texts that flow out of every two-bit publishing house in the world should be met with the response - "We wrote a book answering all these questions and claims in 1984, please refer". Repetition of arguments from different sources is key it would seem to me in getting those ideas more widely known and read. You may be well read enough in the atheist position to make such repetitions tedious but I would contend that this is not generally the case.

Tim Robbins

Myksyk wrote:

Hmmm ... I'm not an apologist for Hitchens ... I don't know enough about the man. I said I was impressed with quite a bit of his presentation yesterday (notwithstanding his occasional arrogance). The quality of that presentation for me is not that he can come up with new intellectual arguments against the faith position or anti-science position but that he could iterate the existing arguments in a coherent, articulate fashion and rebut/respond to the counter-arguments put forward by the opposing side of the debate. I'm pretty sure you're not suggesting that the onslaught of fundamentalist, anti-intellectualist texts that flow out of every two-bit publishing house in the world should be met with the response - "We wrote a book answering all these questions and claims in 1984, please refer". Repetition of arguments from different sources are key it would seem to me in advancing the cause of any position. You may be well read enough in the atheist position to make such repetitions tedious but I would contend that this is not generally the case.

Yes that is what I figured, he reiterates other people's arguments. Perhaps a performer as opposed to an intellectual.
My point is it saddens me to see these peopel get the air time people like Colin McGinn or Daniel Dennett should get.

Myksyk

Well ... there are probably very few true intellectuals. By your definition, everyone on boards is a performer - I've certainly read no new arguments here but have enjoyed hearing old arguments put in different ways. The fact is that arguments against the faith position are fairly standard at this stage. New developments in science are generally only adding new examples of why the same arguments should prevail. And of course there is an ever changing audience to hear these ideas so repetition is not a bad thing.

Myksyk

At the risk over-egging the pudding I offer the example of creationist arguments against evolutionary theory. I believe the counter-arguments from biology are absolutely bog-standard and have been heard by those interested a million times at this stage. Nonetheless, I'm of the opinion that the arguments need to be published often and presented from various different angles so that they are not lost to the general public.

Tim Robbins

Myksyk wrote:

At the risk over-egging the pudding I offer the example of creationist arguments against evolutionary theory. I believe the counter-arguments from biology are absolutely bog-standard and have been heard by those interested a million times at this stage. Nonetheless, I'm of the opinion that the arguments need to be published often and presented from various different angles so that they are not lost to the general public.

Yes that is one way of looking at it. From my own perspective, it annoys me to see arrogant or miltant atheist representing athiesm. As when I say I am an atheist people think I hate religion. I do not hate religion, I see it's purpose and value and fully respect someones right to believe in an afterlife and God.
You can push the points you describe by not laughing at people.

Tim Robbins

Myksyk wrote:

Well ... there are probably very few true intellectuals. By your definition, everyone on boards is a performer - I've certainly read no new arguments here but have enjoyed hearing old arguments put in different ways. The fact is that arguments against the faith position are fairly standard at this stage. New developments in science are generally only adding new examples of why the same arguments should prevail. And of course there is an ever changing audience to hear these ideas so repetition is not a bad thing.

I think McGinn has come up with some interesting arguments why people believe. His cosmic lonliness argument is clever. He has also argued the difference between rationalism critism and just attacking people.

Dawkins has come up with a provoking argument about indoctrination. So there is room for looking at things.
Bruce Hood has some interesting thought on why people believe in the supernatural even atheists.
Some people on boards.ie have come up some very interesting thoughts both on Christian and Atheist side.
I don't think Science nullifies religion. Why are international class Scientists such as Robert Pollock and John Hughton still opting for both Science and Religion?

Zombrex

Tim Robbins wrote:

Yes that is one way of looking at it. From my own perspective, it annoys me to see arrogant or miltant atheist representing athiesm. As when I say I am an atheist people think I hate religion. I do not hate religion, I see it's purpose and value and fully respect someones right to believe in an afterlife and God.
You can push the points you describe by not laughing at people.

That is rather ridiculous, since "atheism" isn't a belief system and doesn't imply what someone does believe or think. You and someone like Dawkins can believe in completely different things, just because you are atheists doesn't mean anything. To complain that Dawkins or Hitchens is reflecting badly on you is really your problem.

Its ironic that you are facilitating the same ignorance towards what is atheism that you are complaining about.

Tim Robbins

Wicknight wrote:

That is rather ridiculous, since "atheism" isn't a belief system and doesn't imply what someone does believe or think. You and someone like Dawkins can believe in completely different things, just because you are atheists doesn't mean anything. To complain that Dawkins or Hitchens is reflecting badly on you is really your problem.

Its ironic that you are facilitating the same ignorance towards what is atheism that you are complaining about.

There are problems with the word atheism. It can be unspecific, to some people it is a belief system to some others it is not.
Robert Winston use Strong and Weak atheist in his book to differentiate. colin McGinn uses Post theist and Militant atheist to differentiate between different viewpoints with atheism.

Basically you are on a slippery slope once you start trying to argue someone doesn't understand the word atheism as well as you.

The second problem with the word atheism it has negative conatations.
Evidence to support this:
1. Jonathan Millar's Rough history to disbelief where he and many other intellectual are afraid to used the word atheist because of it negative conations.
2. Dawkins joke that he uses at many public speaking engagements about the girl who told her Mum her boyfriend didn't believe in God, her Mum didn't mind but when the girl told her he was atheist, she screamed "An Atheist!"

Now reverting back to your point about my point ridiculous. I don't follow you here. You say we can believe in completely different things but so can Christians. So if Christians can give out about the Pope or Ian Paisley Junior's comments about homosexuality surely I can take issue with Dawkins and Hitchens. In fact, surely I can take issue with Paisley and the Pope. I don't see your logic.

Zombrex

Tim Robbins wrote:

Basically you are on a slippery slope once you start trying to argue someone doesn't understand the word atheism as well as you.

Well to be honest I think you are on more of a slippery slope when you start arguing that other atheists should be more like Atheism X because they are misrepresenting you, an Atheists X.

Instead of arguing that I feel the energy should be put into the argument that atheism isn't a belief system at all and that two atheists can have completely different ideas about almost anything without that fact reflecting on each other.

Tim Robbins wrote:

The second problem with the word atheism it has negative conatations.

Yes but you only help to continue the negative connotations when you say that other atheists are giving "atheists" a bad name. It is playing by the stereotypes of the people who lump atheists together in the first place.

Tim Robbins wrote:

So if Christians can give out about the Pope or Ian Paisley Junior's comments about homosexuality surely I can take issue with Dawkins and Hitchens.

You can certainly take issue with Dawkins or Hitchens, but when you do you should take issue not as fellow atheists, as if that means you should be agreeing on what you are debating.

Dawkins or Hitchens are not straying from atheism, or what it means to be an atheists, as a Christian might argue the Pope is. There is no such thing as what it means to be an atheists in the first place. Dawkins isn't "representing athiesm", he is representing secular humanism and anti-religious belief.

For example (granted a rather extreme example), it would be ridiculous for a vegetarian to debate why they are or are not like Hitler, or to say that Hitler should have done a better job representing vegetarianism. No one would dream associate a person with Hitler just because they are both vegetarians, or expect them to have to distance themselves from Hitler.

The habit where we associate the beliefs of two people with each other just because they are both atheists is in my view ridiculous, and does in itself lead to the negative connotations associated with atheism.

Tim Robbins

Wicknight wrote:

Yes but you only help to continue the negative connotations when you say that other atheists are giving "atheists" a bad name. It is playing by the stereotypes of the people who lump atheists together in the first place.

You can certainly take issue with Dawkins or Hitchens, but when you do you should take issue not as fellow atheists, as if that means you should be agreeing on what you are debating.

Dawkins or Hitchens are not straying from atheism, or what it means to be an atheists, as a Christian might argue the Pope is. There is no such thing as what it means to be an atheists in the first place. Dawkins isn't "representing athiesm", he is representing secular humanism and anti-religious belief.

For example (granted a rather extreme example), it would be ridiculous for a vegetarian to debate why they are or are not like Hitler, or to say that Hitler should have done a better job representing vegetarianism. No one would dream associate a person with Hitler just because they are both vegetarians, or expect them to have to distance themselves from Hitler.

The habit where we associate the beliefs of two people with each other just because they are both atheists is in my view ridiculous, and does in itself lead to the negative connotations associated with atheism.

Put it this way, are my allowed get annoyed that Dawkins and Hitchens get a lot of airtime on radio on tv when there are clearly better and more intellectual atheists who could do a better job explaining atheism and not having to laugh at people who believe in God?

bonkey

Tim Robbins wrote:

Put it this way, are my allowed get annoyed that Dawkins and Hitchens get a lot of airtime on radio on tv when there are clearly better and more intellectual atheists who could do a better job explaining atheism and not having to laugh at people who believe in God?

Sure you are...but I hope you're not labouring under the misconception that they get airtime because someone thinks they explain atheism well?

Tim Robbins

bonkey wrote:

Sure you are...but I hope you're not labouring under the misconception that they get airtime because someone thinks they explain atheism well?

No I argue they get airtime because they are just sensationalist. I am now on about Chapter 8 of Hitchens "This book is not great" it just reminds me Michael Moore a sensationalist polemic.

radiospan

Today FM: http://audio.todayfm.com/audio/SS17_06_07.mp3
Newstalk: http://www.newstalk106.ie/podcasts/library/wangle/1706Hitchens.mp3

Zombrex

Tim Robbins wrote:

Put it this way, are my allowed get annoyed that Dawkins and Hitchens get a lot of airtime on radio on tv when there are clearly better and more intellectual atheists who could do a better job explaining atheism and not having to laugh at people who believe in God?

Well again you are missing the point. When Dawkins and Hitchens rant about how bad religion is they aren't attempting to "explain atheism", because ranting about how bad religion is has little to do with atheism. It is anti-religious secularism or humanism. There are plenty of atheists who think religion is perfectly fine and who wouldn't share anything in common with Dawkins. Arguing over which of these groups represents the true meaning of atheism is pointless, since neither do because there is no true meaning of atheism. Atheism is simply not believing in deities. It is not a belief system in itself. Knowing someone is an atheists doesn't tell you anything about what they actually believe in.

Instead of thinking that Dawkins, or someone better than him, should be representing atheism in a different way, people need to realise that they aren't representing atheism in the first place.

Tim Robbins

Wicknight wrote:

Well again you are missing the point. When Dawkins and Hitchens rant about how bad religion is they aren't attempting to "explain atheism", because ranting about how bad religion is has little to do with atheism. It is anti-religious secularism or humanism. There are plenty of atheists who think religion is perfectly fine and who wouldn't share anything in common with Dawkins. Arguing over which of these groups represents the true meaning of atheism is pointless, since neither do because there is no true meaning of atheism. Atheism is simply not believing in deities. It is not a belief system in itself. Knowing someone is an atheists doesn't tell you anything about what they actually believe in.

Instead of thinking that Dawkins, or someone better than him, should be representing atheism in a different way, people need to realise that they aren't representing atheism in the first place.

I think you are missing a few points. Humanism is not anti Religion per se. Have you read through any Humanist documentation? It is more a liberal philosophy of being able to provide choice, fairness and equity.

You are also straw manning me. I am not calling for "true meaning" of atheism. In a previous post I outlined the problems with the ambiguous nature of the word so how can I be arguing for the true meaning.
I am simple calling for a more intellectual discourse.
Some people prefer Chomsky some people prefer Michael Moore when it comes to discourse attacking American foreign policy it is the same with nearly every popular subject matter you will get a intellectual version and you will get a sensationalist version.

Now while Dawkins isn't quite Michael Moore (that would be gorssly unfair) he certainly gets flashes of the Michael Moores.
Have you read "This book is not great?" yet?

Zombrex

Tim Robbins wrote:

I think you are missing a few points. Humanism is not anti Religion per se.

Neither is atheism. What humanism is is a belief system. Atheism isn't a belief system. If you want to group people like Dawkins or Hitchens you should be focusing on what they believe in, not what they don't believe in.

Tim Robbins wrote:

Have you read through any Humanist documentation? It is more a liberal philosophy of being able to provide choice, fairness and equity.

It is but it is also a rejection of the dependence on supernatural faith based religious for moral teaching and guidance. Which is pretty much what both Dawkins and Hitchens (as far as I can tell, I've yet to read his book) are calling for.

Tim Robbins wrote:

I am simple calling for a more intellectual discourse.

Well no offense Tim but in your call for more intellectual discourse you are dismissing the points raised by people like Dawkins as sensationalist head line grabbers without proper discussion as to whether they actually have a valid points or not (the example being the idea of teaching religion to children as being a bad idea).

Now I haven't read Hitchen's book, and I'm not a fan of his. But if he has valid points to make then that is irrelevant. A valid point is a valid point, no matter who is making it.

You are calling for intellectual discourse but by that you seem to mean that the discourse should take a softly softly approach as to not offend the religious. The two are not linked. Intellectual discourse can often be brutal in how it deals with a subject. A valid point has no requirement to apologise for itself

Tim Robbins wrote:

Have you read "This book is not great?" yet?

I have, but without having read his book it didn't mean much to me

Tim Robbins

Wicknight wrote:

Neither is atheism. What humanism is is a belief system. Atheism isn't a belief system. If you want to group people like Dawkins or Hitchens you should be focusing on what they believe in, not what they don't believe in.

I group them because they are intolerant and almost totalitarian in the abject rejection of religion. I group them because they got a lot of media as if they are the spokepersons for atheism. This is something we both dispute for different reasons.

It is but it is also a rejection of the dependence on supernatural faith based religious for moral teaching and guidance. Which is pretty much what both Dawkins and Hitchens (as far as I can tell, I've yet to read his book) are calling for.

But they are telling Religious people to f*ck off or infering they are child abusers.

Well no offense Tim but in your call for more intellectual discourse you are dismissing the points raised by people like Dawkins as sensationalist head line grabbers without proper discussion as to whether they actually have a valid points or not (the example being the idea of teaching religion to children as being a bad idea).

No I have discussed many times in this forums and threads the problems with their arguments. I have discussing the child abuse one right now in another thread.

Now I haven't read Hitchen's book, and I'm not a fan of his. But if he has valid points to make then that is irrelevant. A valid point is a valid point, no matter who is making it.

Well then, why not elaborate on why you dismiss Hitchens yourself and not just ask me to elaborate into proper discussion about it?

You are calling for intellectual discourse but by that you seem to mean that the discourse should take a softly softly approach as to not offend the religious. The two are not linked. Intellectual discourse can often be brutal in how it deals with a subject. A valid point has no requirement to apologise for itself

Oscar Wilde said a sign of a good debater is someone who can argue his opponents side better than him. I would agree.
Dawkins seems to have no concept of the human condition and need for religion and why people turn to it. He appears incapable of seeing any good in it, except for the chapter in his book where he says he likes some of the literature in the KJV Bible.

I would just expect better than this, from an Oxford academic, a softy softy approach isn't what I am looking for. Better put arguments and a bit more respect is what I am suggesting.

The biggest problem with any Religion is when it refuses to give any respect to another Religion, this is when the biggotry, sectarianism starts.

Atheism should be above that.

Zombrex

Tim Robbins wrote:

I group them because they are intolerant and almost totalitarian in the abject rejection of religion.

Well you are wrong about that (if you think Dawkins is totalitarian you need to read his interviews about democracy and freedom of choice) but I've no problem with you doing that, grouping them on what at least you think they believe.

Tim Robbins wrote:

I group them because they got a lot of media as if they are the spokepersons for atheism.

I do have a problem with that, since they aren't (and I don't think claim to be) spokespersons for atheism.

Your issue should not be at Dawkins or Hitchens, your issue should be with the people who say they "speak for atheism"

Tim Robbins wrote:

But they are telling Religious people to f*ck off or infering they are child abusers.

I haven't read Hitchens book, but I assure you Dawkins never says "f*ck off" to any religious person in his writing, at least the ones I've read. Dawkins knows a large number of religious people who is frequently interviews for writings or documentaries and as far as I can tell he is polite and friendly to them.

What Dawkins can't stand is nonsense arguments, or arguments from a state of ignorance. This does seem to get him rather annoyed. But that comes across in his public debates rather than his writing.

Hitchens seems to be a bit of a dick, at least anytime I've seen him on TV, so I can imagine him saying "f*ck off" to a religious person. But again that is rather irrelevant. What is relevant is how valid his points are.

Tim Robbins wrote:

Well then, why not elaborate on why you dismiss Hitchens yourself and not just ask me to elaborate into proper discussion about it?

I don't dismiss Hitchens. Dismissing someone because you don't like them without listening to what they say is part of the problem. I'm not a fan of his because of his writings on the Iraq war.

Tim Robbins wrote:

Dawkins seems to have no concept of the human condition and need for religion and why people turn to it.

That's not true, Dawkins has written at length on the subject of why people turn to religion, despite the fact that that is ultimately irrelevant to the issue of if the religion is actually true or not.

Tim Robbins wrote:

He appears incapable of seeing any good in it

Again, not true. Dawkins has written at length at the good elements of religion, often exasperated that the so called "followers" of the religion don't actually hold to the good teachings in it. He is often seen wearing a "Atheists for Jesus" T-Shirt (http://richarddawkins.net/article,20,Atheists-for-Jesus,Richard-Dawkins)

Dawkins sees religious as unnecessary supernatural mumbo-jumbo baggage wrapped around often pretty good moral teachings. And ultimately that is the point. Humans can be good or bad, and religion as a reflection of humanity can be good or bad. But it is unnecessary. That is Dawkins ultimate point.

Tim Robbins wrote:

I would just expect better than this, from an Oxford academic, a softy softy approach isn't what I am looking for.

Well maybe if you expanded out your reading of Dawkins you might be pleasantly surprised.

Tim Robbins wrote:

The biggest problem with any Religion is when it refuses to give any respect to another Religion, this is when the biggotry, sectarianism starts.

Well you need to define what you mean by "respect"

Tim Robbins

Wicknight wrote:

Well you are wrong about that (if you think Dawkins is totalitarian you need to read his interviews about democracy and freedom of choice) but I've no problem with you doing that, grouping them on what at least you think they believe.

I said almost totalitarian. I argue he is totalitarian in his view that all religion his bad. He has no flexibility in his argument. For example he doesn't say Religion + X = bad, Religion + Y = ok, Religion + Z = irrelevant.
He just says
Religion + anything = bad because Religion = bad always.
that is totalitarianism.

I do have a problem with that, since they aren't (and I don't think claim to be) spokespersons for atheism.

Your issue should not be at Dawkins or Hitchens, your issue should be with the people who say they "speak for atheism"

I've loads of issues.

I haven't read Hitchens book, but I assure you Dawkins never says "f*ck off" to any religious person in his writing, at least the ones I've read.

I was referring to the Hitches in his recent debate. I think you know that.
In Dawkins when asked in a recent beyond belief why he was so antagonistic he said he may be harsh but he is not as harsh as a former editor of the New Scientist who when pressed as to why he did what he did said "We like Science and if you don't like it, you can f*ck off". It was actually hillarious. Youtube it.

What Dawkins can't stand is nonsense arguments, or arguments from a state of ignorance. This does seem to get him rather annoyed. But that comes across in his public debates rather than his writing.

Agree his writing is better than his debating.

Hitchens seems to be a bit of a dick, at least anytime I've seen him on TV, so I can imagine him saying "f*ck off" to a religious person. But again that is rather irrelevant. What is relevant is how valid his points are.

Yes and F*ck off ain't a point.

I don't dismiss Hitchens. Dismissing someone because you don't like them without listening to what they say is part of the problem. I'm not a fan of his because of his writings on the Iraq war.

Well I would agree with you there. But, I am reading his book and so far it's cr*p.

That's not true, Dawkins has written at length on the subject of why people turn to religion, despite the fact that that is ultimately irrelevant to the issue of if the religion is actually true or not.

Well I disagree on that. Very little of it, if any at all, was in "The God Delusion".

Well maybe if you expanded out your reading of Dawkins you might be pleasantly surprised.

I have read four of his books, and I have watched or listened to him at least 20 times in the media. That should be enough to form an informed opinion.

Well you need to define what you mean by "respect"

From the dictionary:

1. a particular, detail, or point (usually prec. by in): to differ in some respect.
2. relation or reference: inquiries with respect to a route.
3. esteem for or a sense of the worth or excellence of a person, a personal quality or ability, or something considered as a manifestation of a personal quality or ability: I have great respect for her judgment.
4. deference to a right, privilege, privileged position, or someone or something considered to have certain rights or privileges; proper acceptance or courtesy; acknowledgment: respect for a suspect's right to counsel; to show respect for the flag; respect for the elderly.
5. the condition of being esteemed or honored: to be held in respect.
6. respects, a formal expression or gesture of greeting, esteem, or friendship: Give my respects to your parents.
7. favor or partiality.
8. Archaic. a consideration.
–verb (used with object) 9. to hold in esteem or honor: I cannot respect a cheat.
10. to show regard or consideration for: to respect someone's rights.
11. to refrain from intruding upon or interfering with: to respect a person's privacy.
12. to relate or have reference to.
—Idioms13. in respect of, in reference to; in regard to; concerning.
14. in respect that, Archaic. because of; since.
15. pay one's respects, a. to visit in order to welcome, greet, etc.: We paid our respects to the new neighbors.
b. to express one's sympathy, esp. to survivors following a death: We paid our respects to the family.

16. with respect to, referring to; concerning: with respect to your latest request.


I a referring to 10.

Zombrex

Tim Robbins wrote:

I said almost totalitarian. I argue he is totalitarian in his view that all religion his bad.

Well firstly that isn't what totalitarian means. Totalitarianism is a system of governance where the ruling authority has total control over peoples lives. With relation to religion an example would be communist Russia, where religion was out right banned by the government.

Secondly "all religion is bad" is a rather over simplification of Dawkins' arguments.

Tim Robbins wrote:

I was referring to the Hitches in his recent debate.

Well then you probably shouldn't have said,

"But they are telling Religious people to f*ck off or infering they are child abusers."

as Hitches also make the point about religious fear as a form of child abuse.

Tim Robbins wrote:

Well I disagree on that. Very little of it, if any at all, was in "The God Delusion".

Well then I would suggest you don't form your entire opinion on Richard Dawkins based on what he doesn't say in one of his books.

Tim Robbins wrote:

I have read four of his books, and I have watched or listened to him at least 20 times in the media. That should be enough to form an informed opinion.

Apparently not

Tim Robbins wrote:

10. to show regard or consideration for: to respect someone's rights.

I a referring to 10.

Yes but their "right" to do what?

Someone has a right to believe what they wish, and Dawkins would no doubt agree with that -

"Well, I wouldn't want to have the thought police going to people's homes, dictating what they teach their children. I don't want to be Big Brotherish. I would hate that." He's talking faster and faster. "So I don't want to legislate about this, I keep coming back to this consciousness-raising thing. All I can do is write books and write articles."

Does some have the right to have their beliefs protected against critical assault by others? Of course not, that would nonsense. Christians have the right to think and write and say that Muslims are going to hell, and atheists have the right to think and write and say that God doesn't exist and Christians are being silly for thinking that Muslim are going to hell.

Tim Robbins

Wicknight wrote:

Well firstly that isn't what totalitarian means. Totalitarianism is a system of governance where the ruling authority has total control over peoples lives. With relation to religion an example would be communist Russia, where religion was out right banned by the government.

Well that's not a bad point. I mean totalitarian in that Dawkins is very inflexible is his abject dismissal of religion. You must accept the totality of his argument or you are wrong. I used "totalitarian" as figure of speech and should have used a better work, ok I accept that.

Secondly "all religion is bad" is a rather over simplification of Dawkins' arguments.

It's not an over simplification, it's part of his ultimate hypotheisis and philosophy of militant atheism.

Well then you probably shouldn't have said,

"But they are telling Religious people to f*ck off or infering they are child abusers."

as Hitches also make the point about religious fear as a form of child abuse.

No that's grammatically correct regardless of whether Hitches does one or both.

Well then I would suggest you don't form your entire opinion on Richard Dawkins based on what he doesn't say in one of his books.

I have read four of them and watched at least 20 of his media interviews.

Does some have the right to have their beliefs protected against critical assault by others? Of course not, that would nonsense. Christians have the right to think and write and say that Muslims are going to hell, and atheists have the right to think and write and say that God doesn't exist and Christians are being silly for thinking that Muslim are going to hell.

Let's just wrap this up. It's getting boring,
I believe Chrisitans, Muslims, Atheists whoever should all get some respect and any critism should be rational and fair. I believe the Dalia Lama gives far more respect to Christians the Dawkins does. I am now starting to think the Pope gives more respect to Muslims than Dawkins.

I don't like some Dawkins style and arguments you have no problem with them. I think he is driven by motive to sell books which really only preach to the choir, you don't.

Can we leave it there?