"The Four Horsemen"

[Dystopia]

I prefer Freud.

Try Nietzsche, you amateur.

I've been thinking about reading more Nietzsche for a long time but his mustache is a huge turn off.

Seriously though, I've only read The God Delusion, I didn't find it as interesting or intellectually solid as many atheists - I like all of them, they make good points, but I disagree with many things, specifically on how some atheists see them as authorities and quote their arguments all the time. Here's me opinion on the best and worst of three authors (i've never read or watched Dennet so I can't comment on his reputation and skills)

Dawkins --> The best thing about this man is how he debunks the idea that religious belief and religion is special and deserves respect regardless of how rational or good it is. I think this is Dawkins strongest argument about religion and it has affected my way of thinking - Indeed, religion gets excessive respect for wrong or non-existent reasons. I fundamentally agree with him on that and I think he also makes good points on basic anti-theist arguments and debunking fallacies. I think he goes to far when he basically says that religion is equivalent to mental illness or that it is the predominant cause of evil around the world, or even that everything about religion is bad. He makes dumb statements on social issues as well, but that's not relevant right?

Hitchens - Makes excellent arguments for free speech V. religion and a good case on how religion has affected (even for non-believers) our culture and conditioned how we feel about many issues, even if we don't realize it ourselves. He also makes a good case for misotheism (Being against a god if he existed). His worst problem is the degree of anti-theism, but I guess it would be boring if he was super nice, right?

Harris - I love his arguments on religious morality and how there are evolutionary reasons for morality, I also think he makes good critiques on religious morality and interesting approaches on how theists' mind/brain work. He exaggerates when he promotes the idea that Islam is a unique special religion and that it is infinitely  worse than any other regardless of the circumstances. Islam is a religion with terrible things and good things, like any other, it causes harm and causes good.

[Excited Penguin]

Try Nietzsche, you amateur.

Try Hume, you amateur.

Arguably, Freud was greatly influenced by Nietzsche. He is considered by some as his heir, in certain ways. He[Freud] definitely admired the man and his thinking. This is why I brought him up.

Between Hume and Nietzsche, on the other hand, there is no such relationship to be found, though there are certain similarities between the two of them upon approaching some topics. At least some would have you believe so - I do not necessarily agree with this point of view.

Here's what Nietzsche makes of your prescious Hume and his kind of philosophy , in his Beyond Good And Evil[ as translated by Helen Zimmern and made available by The Project Guttenberg over at http://www.gutenberg.org/files/4363/4363-h/4363-h.htm]
:

---

252. They are not a philosophical race—the English: Bacon represents an ATTACK on the philosophical spirit generally, Hobbes, Hume, and Locke, an abasement, and a depreciation of the idea of a "philosopher" for more than a century. It was AGAINST Hume that Kant uprose and raised himself; it was Locke of whom Schelling RIGHTLY said, "JE MEPRISE LOCKE"; in the struggle against the English mechanical stultification of the world, Hegel and Schopenhauer (along with Goethe) were of one accord; the two hostile brother-geniuses in philosophy, who pushed in different directions towards the opposite poles of German thought, and thereby wronged each other as only brothers will do.—What is lacking in England, and has always been lacking, that half-actor and rhetorician knew well enough, the absurd muddle-head, Carlyle, who sought to conceal under passionate grimaces what he knew about himself: namely, what was LACKING in Carlyle—real POWER of intellect, real DEPTH of intellectual perception, in short, philosophy. It is characteristic of such an unphilosophical race to hold on firmly to Christianity—they NEED its discipline for "moralizing" and humanizing. The Englishman, more gloomy, sensual, headstrong, and brutal than the German—is for that very reason, as the baser of the two, also the most pious: he has all the MORE NEED of Christianity. To finer nostrils, this English Christianity itself has still a characteristic English taint of spleen and alcoholic excess, for which, owing to good reasons, it is used as an antidote—the finer poison to neutralize the coarser: a finer form of poisoning is in fact a step in advance with coarse-mannered people, a step towards spiritualization. The English coarseness and rustic demureness is still most satisfactorily disguised by Christian pantomime, and by praying and psalm-singing (or, more correctly, it is thereby explained and differently expressed); and for the herd of drunkards and rakes who formerly learned moral grunting under the influence of Methodism (and more recently as the "Salvation Army"), a penitential fit may really be the relatively highest manifestation of "humanity" to which they can be elevated: so much may reasonably be admitted. That, however, which offends even in the humanest Englishman is his lack of music, to speak figuratively (and also literally): he has neither rhythm nor dance in the movements of his soul and body; indeed, not even the desire for rhythm and dance, for "music." Listen to him speaking; look at the most beautiful Englishwoman WALKING—in no country on earth are there more beautiful doves and swans; finally, listen to them singing! But I ask too much...

---

[Neo-Scholastic]

All you need to know about Dennett is that he thinks he's a zombie.

[Dystopia]

All you need to know about Dennett is that he thinks he's a zombie.

Christians think a jewish zombie magically rose from the dead and will save them for all eternity as long as they believe in him. What's worse?

[Mudhammam]

All you need to know about Dennett is that he thinks he's a zombie.

All you need to know about ChadWooters is that he hasn't read, or understood, Dennett.

When philosophers claim that zombies are conceivable, they invariably underestimate the task of conception (or imagination), and end up imagining something that violates their own definition. - Consciousness Explained

How would I evaluate the "Four Horsemen"?
In terms of oratory, greatest to least: Hitchens, Harris, Dawkins, Dennett.
Literary skill: Dawkins, Dennett, Hitchens, Harris.
Level of obnoxiousness: Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens, Dennett*

*Had to switch Hitchens and Dennett due to Hitchens utterly idiotic support of Bush-Cheney -Obama's "War on Terror"

[Excited Penguin]

In terms of originality of thought, wit and style and importance and contribution to the secular cause: Harris. Nobody else is even in the same league. And reprising the roles of his aides-de-camp are, de facto, a merry biologist, a contrarian journalist and a rugged philosopher who all showed up late to the party.
There, fixed it for you.

[Mudhammam]

In terms of originality of thought, wit and style and importance and contribution to the secular cause: Harris. Nobody else is even in the same league. And reprising the roles of his aides-de-camp are, de facto, a merry biologist, a contrarian journalist and a rugged philosopher who all showed up late to the party.
There, fixed it for you.

Hahaha. I wouldn't attribute prominence to Harris in any of those categories, except maybe credit him with ushering in the neo-atheist "movement." But nobody in the same league? What, are you a Harris fanboy or something? Dawkins and Hitches are/were far more witty, though I suppose it partially boils down to taste... but originality of thought? What original contribution has Harris made?

[Pizza]

Try Hume, you amateur.

Arguably, Freud was greatly influenced by Nietzsche. He is considered by some as his heir, in certain ways. He[Freud] definitely admired the man and his thinking. This is why I brought him up.

Between Hume and Nietzsche, on the other hand, there is no such relationship to be found, though there are certain similarities between the two of them upon approaching some topics. At least some would have you believe so - I do not necessarily agree with this point of view.

Here's what Nietzsche makes of your prescious Hume and his kind of philosophy , in his Beyond Good And Evil[ as translated by Helen Zimmern and made available by The Project Guttenberg over at http://www.gutenberg.org/files/4363/4363-h/4363-h.htm]
:

---

252. They are not a philosophical race—the English: Bacon represents an ATTACK on the philosophical spirit generally, Hobbes, Hume, and Locke, an abasement, and a depreciation of the idea of a "philosopher" for more than a century. It was AGAINST Hume that Kant uprose and raised himself; it was Locke of whom Schelling RIGHTLY said, "JE MEPRISE LOCKE"; in the struggle against the English mechanical stultification of the world, Hegel and Schopenhauer (along with Goethe) were of one accord; the two hostile brother-geniuses in philosophy, who pushed in different directions towards the opposite poles of German thought, and thereby wronged each other as only brothers will do.—What is lacking in England, and has always been lacking, that half-actor and rhetorician knew well enough, the absurd muddle-head, Carlyle, who sought to conceal under passionate grimaces what he knew about himself: namely, what was LACKING in Carlyle—real POWER of intellect, real DEPTH of intellectual perception, in short, philosophy. It is characteristic of such an unphilosophical race to hold on firmly to Christianity—they NEED its discipline for "moralizing" and humanizing. The Englishman, more gloomy, sensual, headstrong, and brutal than the German—is for that very reason, as the baser of the two, also the most pious: he has all the MORE NEED of Christianity. To finer nostrils, this English Christianity itself has still a characteristic English taint of spleen and alcoholic excess, for which, owing to good reasons, it is used as an antidote—the finer poison to neutralize the coarser: a finer form of poisoning is in fact a step in advance with coarse-mannered people, a step towards spiritualization. The English coarseness and rustic demureness is still most satisfactorily disguised by Christian pantomime, and by praying and psalm-singing (or, more correctly, it is thereby explained and differently expressed); and for the herd of drunkards and rakes who formerly learned moral grunting under the influence of Methodism (and more recently as the "Salvation Army"), a penitential fit may really be the relatively highest manifestation of "humanity" to which they can be elevated: so much may reasonably be admitted. That, however, which offends even in the humanest Englishman is his lack of music, to speak figuratively (and also literally): he has neither rhythm nor dance in the movements of his soul and body; indeed, not even the desire for rhythm and dance, for "music." Listen to him speaking; look at the most beautiful Englishwoman WALKING—in no country on earth are there more beautiful doves and swans; finally, listen to them singing! But I ask too much...

---

Hume actually makes arguments as where Nietzsche just rants and insults people he doesn't like.

[Excited Penguin]

Typical of mediocre minds. What else can I say?

[Mudhammam]

I've been thinking about reading more Nietzsche for a long time but his mustache is a huge turn off.

You must read The Anti-Christ. It is probably my favorite polemic.