I always think that the problem lies in the fact some of the times the person in the atheist corner is often a scientist or specialist in some way and is usually (not in a bad way) a bit of a geek, and not always very good in expressing their opinions in a crowd pleasing way.
Where as the christians and muslims seem to have guys who their ONLY talent is being crowd pleasing.
Take for example Hamza tzortzis he takes on Richard Dawkins (a biologist) in an argument on biology and loses, PZ myers in an argument on embyology and loses, he debates Lawrence Kraus (this guy is so geeky he actually looks like a grown up version of Millhouse from the simpsons) and I don't know if he loses or wins the argument was so complicated. But in every instance the opinion of Muslims and probably of a few neutral people will be that Hamza won just because he was relaxed and told a few jokes, gelled his hair back to look like the fonz and did an impressive smile.
The situation is basically you get a guy who's been locked in a room all his life studying fossils and animals vs a guy who trains everyday studying his body language and tone and how to please crowds and the timing of his jokes, and the people who get to decide who wins the argument are a crowd of a few builders and people who work in mcdonals or whatever (basically laymen like me).
You can always tell by Richards tone he doesn't give a shit if he impresses the crowd, a lot of the time he looks as if he hates the crowd, which is actually one of the reasons I like Richard Dawkins.
I liked it when he quoted the editor of the new scientist magazine and said “Science is interesting, and if you don't agree you can fuck off."
Where as the christians and muslims seem to have guys who their ONLY talent is being crowd pleasing.
Take for example Hamza tzortzis he takes on Richard Dawkins (a biologist) in an argument on biology and loses, PZ myers in an argument on embyology and loses, he debates Lawrence Kraus (this guy is so geeky he actually looks like a grown up version of Millhouse from the simpsons) and I don't know if he loses or wins the argument was so complicated. But in every instance the opinion of Muslims and probably of a few neutral people will be that Hamza won just because he was relaxed and told a few jokes, gelled his hair back to look like the fonz and did an impressive smile.
The situation is basically you get a guy who's been locked in a room all his life studying fossils and animals vs a guy who trains everyday studying his body language and tone and how to please crowds and the timing of his jokes, and the people who get to decide who wins the argument are a crowd of a few builders and people who work in mcdonals or whatever (basically laymen like me).
You can always tell by Richards tone he doesn't give a shit if he impresses the crowd, a lot of the time he looks as if he hates the crowd, which is actually one of the reasons I like Richard Dawkins.
I liked it when he quoted the editor of the new scientist magazine and said “Science is interesting, and if you don't agree you can fuck off."
Are you ready for the fire? We are firemen. WE ARE FIREMEN! The heat doesn’t bother us. We live in the heat. We train in the heat. It tells us that we’re ready, we’re at home, we’re where we’re supposed to be. Flames don’t intimidate us. What do we do? We control the flame. We control them. We move the flames where we want to. And then we extinguish them.
Impersonation is treason.
