Christopher Hitchens VS Richard Dawkins

[I Will Not Be Wrong]

Shoot.

[ElectionsGuy]

Hitchens

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

Hitchens showed some signs of intelligence. Dawkins is just a militant atheist troll.

[Potatoe]

Dawkins as he's a bit closer to my political positions, but both are just awful people, they set a bad example for fellow Athiests.

[Goldwater]

Hitchens

[H. Ross Peron]

Hitchens as I know something of his political views.

[Mordecai]

I prefer Hitchens but I like both.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Hitchens might be very slightly preferable but I'd be tempted to just write in Bertrand Russell. Or emigrate from whichever country this was.

[afleitch]

Both have great strengths in other areas; Hitchens from the political, and Dawkins from the scientific. Both bit the dangling carrot offered out by the D'Souza/Lane Craig circle jerkers or from any two bit state bible college wanting a debate. It allowed them to have the same debate each time and get paid handsomely for it. Why not make money off talks and book sales? Every other blowhard does it.

[Deus Naturae]

Hitchens as I know something of his political views.

This, except that my knowledge of Hitchens's political views is my reason for voting for Dawkins.

[TNF]

The one who wasn't an apologist for the Iraq War

[Mordecai]

The one who wasn't an apologist for the Iraq War

What's your opinion of Hitchens, pre-9/11?

[politicallefty]

I've never cared for either. I've found them to be far too abrasive and condescending.

[DC Al Fine]

Hitchens because I'm a fan of his brother.

[Goldwater]

Hitchens because I'm a fan of his brother.

In that case, you should vote for Dawkins, because Hitchens and his brother are almost exact opposites.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Hitchens because I'm a fan of his brother.

In that case, you should vote for Dawkins, because Hitchens and his brother are almost exact opposites.

They have a weirdly similar style, even though they argue for such different points. Looking at the Hitchens' brothers debating styles and writing you can understand why both went Trotskyist - both more comfortable with firebrand ideology than Dawkins' floppy centrism.

I prefer Dawkins anyway, even if he is a dick. Liberal Biologist > Neo-con Journalist

[Phony Moderate]

Hitchens would most certainly make a better drinking buddy than Dawkins.

[Oswald Acted Alone, You Kook]

Dawkins is actually good at his job, so him.

[7,052,770]

Really surprised by the results here. Atheist left-winger who is a legitimate biologist vs. right-wing atheist troll...

[H. Ross Peron]

Hitchens was never a right-winger-he just agreed with neocon foreign policy views. He certainly wasn't a right-winger on social issues and not much of one on economic issues either.

[Deus Naturae]

Hitchens was never a right-winger-he just agreed with neocon foreign policy views. He certainly wasn't a right-winger on social issues and not much of one on economic issues either.

"Not much of one" is an understatement. The guy was a Trotskyist.

[7,052,770]

Hitchens was never a right-winger-he just agreed with neocon foreign policy views. He certainly wasn't a right-winger on social issues and not much of one on economic issues either.

"Not much of one" is an understatement. The guy was a Trotskyist.

I really don't understand how an atheist Trotskyist neocon could win a vote over anyone, at least not someone on the fringe of mainstream.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Really surprised by the results here. Atheist left-winger who is a legitimate biologist vs. right-wing atheist troll...

He's an excellent writer on political and historical issues, so it's not at all surprising on this site even for those who disagree with him much of the time.

[Mordecai]

Hitchens was never a right-winger-he just agreed with neocon foreign policy views. He certainly wasn't a right-winger on social issues and not much of one on economic issues either.

"Not much of one" is an understatement. The guy was a Trotskyist.

I really don't understand how an atheist Trotskyist neocon could win a vote over anyone, at least not someone on the fringe of mainstream.

His argumentative and contrarian demeanor made him a compelling person to listen to, every discussion he participated in was interesting.

Also it hasn't been mentioned in this thread but he gave up on being a socialist after the Cold War (saying that it hadn't done anything to innovate or reinvent itself), but he still considered himself a Marxist and held Trotsky in high regard.

I'm also not sure "neocon" is the best way to describe him because he hated Reagan (he also hated Bush 41 and Clinton but liked Bush 43 and Obama) even after he left socialism.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Really surprised by the results here. Atheist left-winger who is a legitimate biologist vs. right-wing atheist troll...

He's an excellent writer on political and historical issues, so it's not at all surprising on this site even for those who disagree with him much of the time.

Also (warning: I might sound a little like a True Leftist sage here) Dawkins isn't really left-wing; he's a bourgeois liberal between whose views on foreign policy and cultural policy and those of Hitchens there is probably less real daylight than one might hope.