Happy Atheist Forum

I am in the process of reading Christopher Hitchens' book God is not Great - How religion poisons everything and I was wondering how many of those on this forum have read it.  I find his writing style very differnt from Dawkins' almost refreshing in the way he seems to bring out more emotions against religion, where I find Dawkins to be more of the scientific argument against religon.

For those who have read both, how do you see the differences between Dawkins and Hitchens, and why?  If this has been discussed before, forgive my laziness for not doing my homework.  

I preferred GinG, for the exact reason you mentioned: it's written with more fire.  It is not a disproof of god as much as it is an unblinking eye turned upon the evils of religion.

For what it's worth, if any others have yet to read it,  do so, it's a damned good read.

I have read it. I have yet to read the God Delusion though.
I liked the book.

Quote from: "Martin TK"I am in the process of reading Christopher Hitchens' book God is not Great - How religion poisons everything and I was wondering how many of those on this forum have read it.  I find his writing style very differnt from Dawkins' almost refreshing in the way he seems to bring out more emotions against religion, where I find Dawkins to be more of the scientific argument against religon.

For those who have read both, how do you see the differences between Dawkins and Hitchens, and why?  If this has been discussed before, forgive my laziness for not doing my homework.  

Have you heard of Christopher's brother Peter?

Haven't read GinG but and I reading God Delusion right now, good book.

I have read God is Not Great. I am in the middle of The Greatest Show on Earth and if I had to compare the two stylistically, I would say that Dawkins relies very heavily on scientific fact. Hitchens, on the other hand, seems to rely more on philosophy, literature, and wit to add gravitas to his book. They both take very different approaches. If you watch them debate you will see what I mean. Dawkins tends to keep most of his points in line with science. His message tends to be like that of a stern but caring parent. He may give you a scowl because of your ignorance but he knows a good talking will eventually get you to come around. Hitchens, on the other hand, tends to be more charismatic and clever. His debates are often filled with long applause and laughter because he has a force of personality. Hitchens is much more willing to confront, in less than friendly terms. Dawkins tends to keep his cordial nature intact during a war of words. I have also noticed that there is a consistency to Dawkin's debates and writing that Hitchens does not have. Hitchens is brilliant but he can give some uneven commentary on similar questions sometimes. I envy you though. I almost wish I could read God is Not Great fresh again. It is a great book.

I will reread it this week.  As much as Hitchens annoys me at times, his wit is shining.