I think Dawkins has move me more now than anyone. At first I thought he was too negative and obsessive towards Religion. I find Dawkins experiments on spiritual is weak, yet on Religion most powerful.
Dawkins spiritual experiments were not good enough for sound conclusion or to draw my curiosity further. I based my life on good sense Not on being rub the wrong way. Because I am unattached when it comes to blue sky visions and knowing how they enhanced my life in practice.
My favorite is George Carlinh.
George Fuckin' Carlin, absolutely one of the best. Love it!
Noboby calls bs on Religion better than George Carlin. Although George states he is not an atheist.
@Castlepaloma I tried to clarify that he wasn’t but couldn’t do it. Some great quotes on this link, (not a source I’ve used before but good quotes):
[learnreligions.com]
And the last quote, albeit from a sketch, kind of indicates that he was atheist:
‘There is no god. None. Not one. Never was. No god.’
I heard Carlin say he not an Atheist twice on YouTube. Never once did I hear Carlin say he was atheist. Show me, just once that he did?
There is alot atheist that assume alot of famous people are Atheist.
I don't believe in God or Religion also, that doesn't make me an Atheist. Atheist takes a stronger commitments.
@Castlepaloma Carlin was anti organized religion, which is good enough for me.
For most part, I agree.
Now that I think about it, he was the first person that actually made me aware that religion did not make sense. I wouldn't be surprised if my choice towards atheism started with this special.
Being familiar with all, I resonate more with Christopher Hitchens. I like his charisma and his command of the English language. He was both well informed, stern and frank, as well as witty and nonchalant. If the Philosopher king is the ultimate ruler, the scientist with a heart is the ultimate advisor. To me, Hitchens is the scientist with a heart.
"Science does not care about your feelings" is a common saying these days. I am an avid proponent of science, but at times scientists tend to come off as arrogant, a sort of intellectual superiority meets moral superiority. A sort of we know best coupled with an ax to grind.
In Hitchens, I could not see it that much, if at all. He seems to be simply a man of reason, who was against authoritarianism, in its many forms and who valued the individual's freedom of expression. These principles guided his philosophy. This is why he resonated with me more than the other scientist.
I admire the work of all the other scientists as well: Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, and Daniel Dennett - listed in order of familiarity with their work. Harris and Dawkins are interchangeable in my second and third spots. They are both well informed, articulate polymaths like Hitchens, but lack his gravitas. This charm is important because it helps temper, the aforementioned indifference that often accompanies scientific discovery. Another example is Neil Degrasse Tyson, whose eruditeness and genial nature make him one of the most popular scientists.
Counter to this is evident in Harris' and Dawkins' assessment of Islam. They bring up very good points but articulate it in ways that can come across as harboring some sort of implicit bias towards Islam. This is a perfect example of the " intellectual superiority meets moral superiority" mentioned above. The meal is well prepared and hearty, but has a slightly unpleasant aftertaste. I enjoy listening to both and value their works, and would be remiss not to mention this analysis.
Daniel Dennett's work is a recent acquisition of mine and I need time to give him a proper assessment. I enjoy listening to his views on consciousness and will continue to do so in the coming months. I haven't sense that arrogance yet.............Fingers crossed
On Bass guitar, Sam Harris. On lead vocals, Christopher Hitchens, On drums, Dan Dennet and Richard Dawkins on lead guitar!
Christopher Hitchens was articulate and brilliant. He eviscerated theists with logic.
Hitch for sure. Harris is a close second, but can never have the presence, charisma and oratorical skills Hitch had. I often thought of Hitch as a blunt force weapon; obliterating the overall argument with his rhetorical wit. Harris reminds me of more of a scalpel; dissecting the argument and pulling each part out piece by piece.
Harris doesn't do religious debates that much, but when he does, it seems like he chooses exactly the right words to say to make his opponent argument seem absolutely ridiculous.
@Eazyduzzit And he does it without raising a sweat. That man is so calm......even when he had Batman screaming at him
Even though I have a greater admiration for Dennett and Harris and feel closer to their brand of atheism, i love the fiery take-no-prisoners approach of Dawkins and, of course, Hitchens.
Hitchens got my vote though. The man could eviscerate a flawed argument like no other.
I think we need a new list of our favourite atheists in a poll: add Matt Dillahunty and Stephen Fry to the above list. I fear that Dennett, for all his wisdom and knowledge, is one of the most boring speakers ever.
@maturin1919 Great idea, except 1. my response clearly showed that I knew that this poll was about the Four Horsemen, hence my use of the word "new" to distinguish another possible future poll and 2. I'm not here to take instructions from you.
@maturin1919 I feel your pain.
ahh stephen fry! Now he is a brilliant speaker. Hey @maturin1919 .......raspberries to you!
I’m not even familiar with the last two...Dawkins is becoming boring and like a mirror image of an evangelist. Hitch was in a class of his own in having the erudition and ability to eviscerate any theist’s argument.
yes Hitch had the advantage of dying while in his prime while Dawkins fades away in his dotage! lol
@MsDemeanour Sadly that is true, Dawkins suffered a mild stroke a year or two ago.
Dawkins for his work.
As far as I see he just made science and then was dragged to the atheist discussion because of the negationist nature of religious fanatics.
The others are more philosophical and directly inserted in the religious discussion.
But Hitchens is the most funny to see, his answers and discussions on interviews, Q&A sessions and debates are priceless.
I admire Dawkins for his work in Evolutionary Biology and his viewpoint on religions. I vehemently oppose his support of elitism, the European Union and globalism.
none of them particularly means anything to me. i don't need convincing that there are no gods; i've been an atheist since i was 15 and i'm a lot older than 15 now. i have nothing against the named gentlemen, and don't even know who the last one is. they just hold no particular interest for me. the reference to horsemen, too, is a christian thing, and i've never been a christian. is their purpose really to bring about an apocalypse? gee. i would like to think better of them than that. my heroes of that general ilk include but are not limited to carl sagan, hypatia, richard feynman, neal de grasse tyson, isaac asimov, yeah i know, most of 'em are dead. it happens.
g
Good grief.
@Truthseeker1968 Was there something grievous in what I said? Your response did not specify.
g
@genessa I shouldn’t have responded that way genessa. I should have just kept my opinion to myself on this particular issue and moved on. My apologies. I just keep running into responses to posts on this forum that are unnecessary.
“I don’t need convincing that there are no gods”
No one in this community does. We are all unbelievers. That was not the purpose of the thread starter.
“The reference to horseman too is a Christian thing, and I’ve never been a Christian. Is their purpose really to bring about the apocalypse? Gee I would like to think better of them than that.”
genessa, I have read enough posts of yours on this forum in my short tenure here to know that you are worlds brighter than that comment. Even if none of the four “particularly mean anything” to you I know you know that their purpose is not to bring about the apocalypse. We all have our heros. Obviously these four are not amongst yours, which is perfectly fine. But to go to the length that you went to here to state your incredulous mindset about these four giants - an accurate description regardless of what anyone thinks about their views, right or wrong - in the atheist community is teetering in the realm of tomfoolery.
Again, I was too trigger happy in my “good grief” post. Normally I would have just moved on. Don’t know what overcame me to write that post. So I do apologize.
@Truthseeker1968 sorry, but "good grief" didn't actually express an opinion. that's why i asked.
as for your reading of the rest of my post, all i have to say is "good grief!" but i'll translate. "what are you smoking?"
g
@genessa let’s just leave it at that. No hard feelings. I do respect you.
I like ‘em all but Hitchens was the best.
None of the above. They are only in it for the money and notoriety. The know their stuff, to be sure; but isn't following them the same as following a preacher or televangelist?
No atheist is "following" like a flock follows a preacher. At least two of them (Dawkins and Hitchens) has/had successful careers doing other things.
I disagree, how could you possibly know their intentions? To show an interest in and have some knowledge of someone’s work hardly makes you a follower. They are spokespeople of our time, and allow us to sit in the background being glad that someone is speaking up against the status quo.
I don't "follow" any of them. I do appreciate the hell out of them. I appreciate Led Zeppelin but I don't follow them or give them 10 percent of my pay. The analogy doesn't fit at all. People do lots of things "for the money". There's nothing at all wrong with making a living.
Of he four in Terry Pratchett's universe (Death, War, Famine, and Pestilence) I like Death the best, followed closely by Chaos who replaced Pestilence.
Really, Death agreed, but famine with the fast food chains with no nutritional value in the food was brilliant famine takes my number 2 spot.
I liked Harris. His first book, The End of Faith, got me started, but I have lost interest sice his ast book and his "podcasts"! Dennett tries too hard trying to play the philosopher. Dawkins is good, but is pretty much stuck on the evolution argument. Hitchens is brilliant and covers the whole spectrum of opposition to the insanity of religion. His debates are masterful. For anyone here that doesn't know Hitchens, check out his debate with Tony Blair or the one with Stephen Fry v a lady from Parliament and an African Catholic bishop. GROG
Richard Dawkins is an evolutionary biologist, so it makes sense he would talk about evolution.
@Eazyduzzit I was going to say that!
I'm going to be shallow here and say Hitchens was sexy as all hell. (despite some dubious sexist "women aren't funny" comments). His quick wit got me going.
What is a horseman without the horse?
That would be a man
But what’s a fly without wings?
@girlwithsmiles A unicorn without the horn.... sure more interesting than following a Fake Horseman.
None not that familiar with their work.
Good God man, get an education
@glennlab My background is in being a human, and the philosophical questions which matter most, such as do we need nuclear weapons (sadly, it appears so, as the threat of blowing each other (and ourselves) to smithereens appears to be the only way to maintain a fragile "peace" ).
Having said that, the original comment was not in any way meant to be snarky at all, the "Good God" (from an atheist) should have been a clear pointer. The "education" I proposed was solely aimed at getting to know the likes of the Hitch and Sam Harris, as I think you will enjoy them tremendously.
I sucked at chemistry and maths and therefore I will rather leave the making of things that go boom to learned people such as yourself.
I agree with Corden. You'd enjoy them Glen. Hitchens would make you laugh.
What a tough one. But I would give the nod to Hitch.