The four atheist horsemen - your favourites?

[I Keep Unicorns]

Richard Dawkins.
Daniel Dennett.
Sam Harris.
Christopher Hitchens.

Whose arguments do you find more often agreeing with or being compelled by?
Are there any of the above you dislike for any reason?

 

[doppelganger]

Dennett is the only one who makes a genuine effort to try to understand what belief does for people and acknowledges why it's not going away. He also is better equipped because of his work in philosophy of mind and consciousness to see the workings of belief in arenas other than those traditionally regarded as "religion." Harris's dedication to violence in pursuit of nationalism, for instance, shows a peculiar lack of self-reflection on his part. The other two make a point of not trying to understand why and how people come to believe in things and what that does for them.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

My favorites aren't listed.

 

[Revoltingest]

Douglas Adams

 

[Willamena]

Carl Sagan

The ones listed, haven't read them.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Epicurus.

 

[LuisDantas]

Dawkins is perhaps the one most needed, for much the same reasons why he is also possibly the less inspired and less inspiring of the four. Sometimes it takes brute force to make oneself clear, or in this case, to expose the shabbiness of Creationism in a proper manner.

Christopher Hitchens seems slightly misguided to me, or at least a bit naive about the role of religion in people's lives.

Sam Harris is a bit too combative for his own good, but he has good insights, a bit like Peter Singer even.

Not surprisingly, I must agree with Doppelganger in that Daniel Dennett is the best, most insightful of those four.

 

[Caladan]

Richard Dawkins.
Daniel Dennett.
Sam Harris.
Christopher Hitchens.

Whose arguments do you find more often agreeing with or being compelled by?
Are there any of the above you dislike for any reason?

I follow mostly Dawkins and Hitchens, reading Dawkins material about biology and evolution, and Hitchens' take on politics.
but as for their arguments about atheism, I can't say I find them attractive, I enjoyed Dawkins much better when he explained in 'The Blind Watchmaker' why there is no need for an intelligent God behind life, but some of his arguments and debates against superstitions I can't say I find them fascinating or too sophisticated. so when they discuss biology or politics they might get me interested, but their battle for atheism, is not always what I'd call exciting intellectual stuff.

 

[Darkness]

I follow mostly Dawkins and Hitchens, reading Dawkins material about biology and evolution, and Hitchens' take on politics.
but as for their arguments about atheism, I can't say I find them attractive, I enjoyed Dawkins much better when he explained in 'The Blind Watchmaker' why there is no need for an intelligent God behind life, but some of his arguments and debates against superstitions I can't say I find them fascinating or too sophisticated. so when they discuss biology or politics they might get me interested, but their battle for atheism, is not always what I'd call exciting intellectual stuff.

That is not surprising since Dawkins is a biologist and Hitchens is a political journalist. Atheist preacher is more of a hobby they have picked up along the way.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Of the four, the only one whose "atheist Bible" I've read has been Harris. I've read some of the evolution stuff by Dawkins, and I've heard all four of them speak thanks to TV and the net.

I wasn't impressed at all with the argument that Harris put forward in the End of Faith. I think that much of what Dennett has presented in lectures that I've seen has been very compelling.

I think it's too bad that the media has such a short memory. IMO, anyone who remembers Bertrand Russell or Robert Ingersoll (okay, I know they were agnostics and maybe not strictly atheists, but both were quite anti-religious) wouldn't call any of these modern figures "horsemen" as if they were supposed to figure into some sort of apocalypse.

 

[YmirGF]

Dawkins by a nose over Hitchens. I've read Sam Harris, but just don't like his style all that much. Dennet leaves me cold.

 

[ChristineES]

My favorite atheist is Carl Sagan. My least favorite atheist was Madeline Murray O'Hair (spelling?). Both of those above are dead, but...
O'Hair was vile. She makes Dawkins look like a sweetheart.

 

[Requia]

Given that Harris proposed nuking Muslim countries, he's best qualified for the title 'horseman of the apocalypse'.

 

[Wannabe Yogi]

Since Christopher Hitchens is dying of cancer he's my fav.

This is his comment on his own death.

In whatever kind of a “race” life may be, I have very abruptly become a finalist.

http://www.vanityfair.com/culture/features/2010/09/hitchens-201009

This has made me very sad.

It's funny how importent these Atheist Men are to me (a believer) Its great to have there ideas attacking mine.It is so importen to read folks who disagree with you. I have always found Hitchens to be well spoken. I loved his book on Thomas Paine.

 

[LuisDantas]

Given that Harris proposed nuking Muslim countries, he's best qualified for the title 'horseman of the apocalypse'.

Wait, what? So much for supporting him, I guess.

 

[Wannabe Yogi]

Wait, what? So much for supporting him, I guess.

Both him and Christopher Hitchens supported Bush's war in Iraq. I find it interesting that both men kind of view it as fighting religious fundamentalism.

 

[Sunstone]

I like Harris because, despite his faults, his comments on mysticism were very helpful.

 

[doppelganger]

Setting aside this list, one of my favorite "atheists" is Clarence Darrow.

Why I Am An Agnostic

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]I am an agnostic as to the question of God. I think that it is impossible for the human mind to believe in an object or thing unless it can form a mental picture of such object or thing. Since man ceased to worship openly an anthropomorphic God and talked vaguely and not intelligently about some force in the universe, higher than man, that is responsible for the existence of man and the universe, he cannot be said to believe in God. One cannot believe in a force excepting as a force that pervades matter and is not an individual entity. To believe in a thing, an image of the thing must be stamped on the mind. If one is asked if he believes in such an animal as a camel, there immediately arises in his mind an image of the camel. This image has come from experience or knowledge of the animal gathered in some way or other. No such image comes, or can come, with the idea of a God who is described as a force. [/FONT]

 

[Gunfingers]

The only one i'd ever heard of was Dawkins, and while he's a great biologist i find him rather crass and asinine.

Dennet, however, has a truly epic beard. Therefore he is my favorite.

 

[evolved yet?]

I've heard of Dawkins and Hitchens and only have read dawkins, so he is the only logical choice for me.