Aha! Another non-scientific online poll that we can mob. This one asks: Are Dawkins and Hitchens good for humanism? Let's make the wheels on their poll-o-meter spin for a little while. Wheee!
More like this
Who else but Christopher Hitchens?
So I'm having a few niggling little health problems, but all is well and getting better; meanwhile, Christopher Hitchens mentions this:
Tonight, Tony Blair and Christopher Hitchens will debate on whether religion is a force for good. I'd love to hear Hitchens on that subject, but Blair?
Max Blumenthal reviews Christopher Hitchens and his latest book:
"Are Dawkins' and Hitchens' arguments logically and philosphically tenable?" would be a good poll question. I answered option 2, they enliven the debates, which is always a good thing.
We're supposed to pick option #1. You fail at flooding.
We're supposed to pick option #1. You fail at flooding.
I voted option #2 as well. See, we obviously aren't bots!
Don't tell olvlzl!
Hitchens supported the US invasion of Iraq. That's bad for humanism, and bad for rationalism. Dawkins, on the other hand, has done no such thing. Grouping them together is a fool's error.
"Are Dawkins' and Hitchens' arguments logically and philosphically tenable?"
Yes.
As you wish, betentacled master.
Oh, wait, did I write that out loud?
As you wish, betentacled master.
Oh, wait, did I write that out loud?
Wipe your chin.
The CephaloPod People have spoken.
The Spawn of Pharyngula.
Hitchens supported the US invasion of Iraq. That's bad for humanism, and bad for rationalism.
Baloney. What possible basis do you have for such a ridiculous statement?
Don't tell olvlzl!
Oh, fuck olvlzl sideways with a rusty chainsaw. I am so tired of that prat.
Go for it.
Well, as long as we're all enjoying polls, we've got one up at the Atheist Experience about the Kathy Griffin "Suck it Jesus!" flap.
Thanks PZ Myers for getting the word out. Vote Early, Vote Often ;)~
I voted. Not even close, is it? I still don't get how Dawkins and colleagues can be considered aggressive. I guess it is simply because they refuse to grant religious delusion the special protection from criticism it has enjoyed for so long. About damn time.
Very good. Much easier than framing, discussing, debating. Everybody just shows up and womp, the meter tips. Cool.
Can all you people please also come on Friday? I've been weakened by disease and PZ may have to carry more weight than he had already been planning. And he'll probably have been flying around alot so his arms are going to be tired. This could be tough if we don't have some excellent audience support. This is a home game, after all!!!
Baloney. What possible basis do you have for such a ridiculous statement?
Presumably because the Iraq War was premised on transparently false retread arguments from the previous war, and therefore the arguments for the Iraq War constituted an assault on rationalism, rather than support of it.
Furthermore, humanism as a moral philosophy seeks to uplift human lives, not bomb the shit out of them until hundreds of thousands are killed and the rest are desperate for even the minimal requirements for life, like clean drinking water.
Speaking of polls to storm... The daily poll at a local radio station asks "Do you agree with the Canadian Civil Liberties Association that pulling funding from Catholic schools would make the education system fair?"
head to http://www.680news.com/ if feel like voting on that one.
Nah, it's just part of good framing! Remember, compromise on one thing to get them to agree on another?
"Are Dawkins' and Hitchens' arguments logically and philosphically tenable?"
Absolutely Yes!