/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.17573861]

Which of these four do you respect the most?

[Anonymous No.17573875]

>>17573861
I don't respect people i've never met.

[Anonymous No.17573883]

i'm thinkin this guy right here

[Anonymous No.17573927]

>>17573861
I respect them all equally as I do all children of god

[Anonymous No.17573936]

The bottom right dude, he actually do some real hard science shit.

[Anonymous No.17573941]

Hitch is the only acceptable answer

[Anonymous No.17573950]

>>17573861
What the fuck is going on? Why are there so many christcucks posting bait threads?

[Anonymous No.17573970]

>>17573927
based

[Anonymous No.17573981]

>>17573861
Hitchens for being an excellent rhetorician and debater I guess. Sam Harris is completely talentless, Dennett doesn't even debate and his only contribution is his philosophically illiterate determinism, Dawkins is a real biologist I guess, but pretty much everything in evolutionary biology is speculative and probably false.

[Anonymous No.17574018]

>>17573861
Hitchens. He had the dignity to die first.

[Anonymous No.17574050]

>>17573875
Is this why you have insecurity issues since you never met your father? Is that why you hate women? You grew up with a single mother and she bosses you around by stop telling you to eat crayons?

[Anonymous No.17574197]

>>17573861
Dennett and then Hitchens and then Dawkins

[Anonymous No.17574460]

>>17573861
hitchens is comfy to listen to. dawkins actually does stuff. sam harris is yet another irrelevant philosopher trying to fit into a philosophical market gap. dennett either fundementally contradicts with empirical data or is a p-zombie.

[Anonymous No.17574487]

>>17573861

Dawkins without a doubt
He may be responsible for the cringy atheism movement of the 2000s but his work isn't without merit and his sheer influence is undeniable

[Anonymous No.17574506]

>>17573861
Hitch. Harris is hysterical, Dawkins spends too much time punching down, and Dennett I'm not sure about.

[Anonymous No.17574508]

The one who was actually a turbo-woo vajrayana Buddhist but didn't let that stop him from dunking on 'hamics.

[Anonymous No.17574589]

>>17573875
Hunny come downstairs. I hate to talk to you about this in front of your friends but i made your favorite meal - chicken, beans and the mashed potatoes you like with the garlic.
Give my boy time to eat, please everyone.

[Anonymous No.17574814]

>>17573861
none they are all arrogant midwits.

[Anonymous No.17574897]

>>17573861
Probably Dawkins, though his atheist rhetoric is cringe, his actual area of expertise is important and he is very knowledgeable in it. The way we use the word “meme” is greatly attributable to him. Also, people will decry evolution as being not that well understood when it’s in fact one of the few grand mechanisms of creation that we do understand quite well.
>inb4 muh Lamarck
University bio courses teach epigenetics and acknowledge Lamarck’s predictive work now, he’s in the process of vindication.
The others I know nothing about beyond their pseudery other than young Twink Hitchens being gay for Buckley
>>17573927
Based and kindhearted

[Anonymous No.17574911]

>Hitchens
Alcoholic boomer. Talks shit about God then gets cancer. Well done faggot.

>Harris
NPC personified.

>Dennett
Midwit personified

>Dawkins
Based Boomer who critiques religion in a fun, interesting and insightful manner. Is capable of civil debate with religious people on his level of intelligence. Tries hard to appeal to younger generation and falls flat but at least he doesn't consider himself above them like most entitled boomers with a self inflated ego. Produced 'Dear Muslima' which is one of the most important works of philosophical fiction of the 21st century.

[Anonymous No.17574916]

>>17573941
>>17573981
>>17574018
>>17574197
>>17574460
>>17574506
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=alyk2_9Lf0M
Ayo, whitey where my reparations at? You racist or some shit?

[Anonymous No.17574938]

>>17573861
None of them

[Anonymous No.17574959]

>>17574916
>Christianity bad and it's morals are bad!
>OH MY GOSH WE GOTTA HELP THOSE POOR WEAK MINORITIES
Why are so many atheists like this?

[Anonymous No.17574971]

>>17574959
Because most atheists are humanists who without irony follow Christianity’s most retarded moral properties

[Anonymous No.17574996]

>>17574911
>Dear Muslima

[Anonymous No.17575022]

1. Dawkins, he's done real and important work in his field, is as critical of Islam as he is of Christianity which actually takes some backbone in this miserable world of ours
2. Hitchens, led a dissolute and unserious life, but at least he was entertaining
3. Dennett, intellectual coward who refuses to pursue his theories to their logical conclusions because it would be too pessimistic and sell fewer books
4. Sam Harris, this guy is a glorified Youtube personality, total nothing

[Anonymous No.17575091]

Richard "where does god come from" Dawkins

[Anonymous No.17575102]

>>17573861
Dennett is based af. Never read him, but someone that triggers /lit/ so hard must be based.

[Anonymous No.17575115]

Richard "no faith in my wife" Dawkins

[Anonymous No.17575264]

>>17574938
Based

[Anonymous No.17575393]

>>17573861
Hitchens is clearly the one with the education, the others are mostly making fools of themselves by talking outside of their expertise.

[Anonymous No.17575408]

Hitchens was rhetorically gifted but is an awful philosopher and historian, a misogynist and supported the Iraq war.

Harris is a downright moron.

Dawkins is a good evolutionary biologist I guess, but is retarded when it comes to philosophy. He coined the word meme, so that’s based I guess.

Idk anything about Dennet.

[Anonymous No.17575422]

>>17573861
Dawkins for actually making valuable contributions to biology. All of them are retarded when it comes to philosophy.

[Anonymous No.17575428]

>>17573861
Dawkins, because of his work as biologist, but it's been ages since he even tried to do anything but bask in his fame among the autists. Dennett is comically ignorant about philosophy, Hitchens is "just there", Harris is fucking insufferable, he has a textbook definition of a punchable face.

[Anonymous No.17575453]

>>17575393
Htchens got a PPE with third class honours. He'd be scarcely capable of debating a theologian proper like Plantinga or Hart. Even in his debate with WLC, who isn't really that great, all he could do was fall back on shit understandings of Aquinas and non-arguments.

[Anonymous No.17575525]

>>17575453
You misunderstand me, atheism is ridiculous. With Hitchens I'm mainly talking about politics, he was one of the five commies on the planet who had interesting things to say.

[Anonymous No.17575558]

>>17575525
My apologies then, anon. God bless

[Anonymous No.17575578]

All public Intelectuals are a total joke and have less influence than B tier celebrities.

For that reason Hitchen's, because he was entertaining and made me laugh.

[Anonymous No.17575729]

>>17573861
>>17573941
Hitchens for sure. Great literary critic and essay writer. War correspondent and journalist. Ignore his writings on religion and he's absolutely based.

[Anonymous No.17575827]

>>17573861
Dennett is the one interesting thinker of the bunch

[Anonymous No.17575842]

None. All are horrible and all come from the Anglosaxon world which explains their stupidity.

[Anonymous No.17576234]

>>17573861
maybe Dawkins but barely ...

i hate the rest, they're all cowards

[Anonymous No.17576239]

>>17575729
>War correspondent
which war? was he ever embedded with a platoon in action?

[Anonymous No.17576251]

>>17576239
He reported from several middle eastern and eastern european countries during wars.

[Anonymous No.17576254]

>>17576239
Apparently advocating for the Iraq War makes him a war correspondent.

[Anonymous No.17576260]

>>17576254
A *good* one anyway

[Anonymous No.17576278]

>>17573861
>respecting an atheist
lol

[Anonymous No.17576290]

>>17576251
hmm...if you can source that he actually saw action, then i will have genuine respect for Hitchens. Otherwise he's just a sophist and a wannabe Orwell.

[Anonymous No.17576307]

>>17575022
>is as critical of Islam as he is of Christianity which actually takes some backbone in this miserable world of ours
lol

[Anonymous No.17576606]

>>17573861
Dawkins and Dennett are the only ones with some pedigree in their respective fields. The other two haven’t contributed much and are just meme tier writers.

[Anonymous No.17576631]

>>17576307
>It's tempting to say all religions are bad, and I do say all religions are bad, but it's a worse temptation to say all religions are equally bad because they're not. If you look at the actual impact that different religions have on the world it's quite apparent that at present the most evil religion in the world has to be Islam
He also said at one point that Christianity may well be the best defence against Islam.

[Frater Asemlen !XS8vrClKs2 No.17576642]

Dennett’s the only one of interest

[Anonymous No.17576655]

>>17573861
Dennett is the only real academic among them.

[Anonymous No.17576777]

>>17573861
hitchens bc he hates religion and so do i religion is cringeee

[Anonymous No.17576902]

>>17573861
1. Dennett. Despite his silly ideas about consciousness he actually has done good and original work on the philosophy of biology
2. Hitchens. He was a clever witty fellow and I appreciated his takedown of Kissinger.
3. Dawkins. He should have kept to biology. His smug, crude and historically uninformed atheism is tiresome.
4. Harris. He's a smart guy, but I don't feel that his contributions really stand up.

[Anonymous No.17576906]

>>17576902
This but with Dennett below all of them.

[Anonymous No.17577151]

>>17573861
Hitchens didn't live long enough to eventually embarrass himself the way Harris and Dawkins did.
And I don't think Dennett is big enough to be on this list.

[Anonymous No.17577161]

>>17573941
Hitchens is nothing more than a cynic (insofar as he doesn't really care of think about what he says) rethorician.
Dennett is the only good answer, and even then, Dennett is absolutely terrible.

[Anonymous No.17577166]

>>17573861
Dawkins
Dennett
Hitch
Harris

in that order

[Anonymous No.17577185]

Dawkins is an actual genius, on par with Schrodinger and Hawking, and his concepts have been integrated into our lives so hard that you can completely fail to credit him for them because of how natural they feel due to being widely accepted.
You can cherry-pick some of the stupid stuff he said but nothing will change that.

[Anonymous No.17577879]

>>17574959
Not everyone is an incel like you

[Anonymous No.17579329]

>>17577185
and what exactly? memes?

[Anonymous No.17579587]

Richard Dawkins won't even study his own enemy's subject material.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yHoK6ohqNo4

[Anonymous No.17579723]

>>17576290
What has that to do with anything? You obviously don't like him and you're now fashioning some new standards by which to keep not liking him.

[Anonymous No.17579754]

>>17574959
are you retarded? we don't need a god to intervene in that part for it to be "right", that is the difference, troglodyte

[Anonymous No.17579849]

>>17579723
He "fashioned" a "fearless" persona all his life. It was his shtick. He earned his living that way. He pretended to be a "serious" war correspondent like that anon assumed but when you question his acolytes they shit their pants and start screeching like whales.

He had no sense of compassion and understanding of what religion actually is. Forget someone as sophisticated as Heidegger, even a Dostoevsky or even a fucking Montaigne would've respectfully tore him a new asshole. Religion = bad. Yeah whatever. Never read Kierkegaard, nor Dosto, nor Melville, not even Marx. Spouts vile nonsense after cherry picking on something that was written thousands of years ago and judges it by today's standards. Fuck off and die, you sophist. You call that intellectual integrity?

Also, his writings are terribly conceited and highfalutin garbage hiding his insecurities and frustrations at having to be a crowd pleaser. He almost as bad as DFW. If people like Bolano had read him, they'd have lacerated his personality to bits.

Yeah, i don't like him. I am happy you could tell that.

Also, he was the most gay person who denied it all his life. What a terrible bore! He was after the lowest hanging fruit when all he needed was some dick up his arse and some balls hanging from his mouth.

[Anonymous No.17580186]

>>17579329
Unironically, yes. And also behavioral evolution.

>>17579849
You just spat out a bunch of ad hominems and appealed to the authority of a bunch of authors without actually presenting a single argument.

[Anonymous No.17580193]

>>17579587
>Richard Dawkins won't even study his own enemy's subject material.
Yea I wouldn't waste my time with 'theology' either. It goes in the same bin with liberal arts and women's studies.

[Anonymous No.17580203]

>>17579849
Way to completely admit your argument is trash and that you're unfamiliar with the vast majority of his writing.

[Anonymous No.17580278]

>>17579587
Dawkins isn't the 'debate me bro' type, and in fact has done quite poorly against even lightweight theologians. It is clear that he isn't trying to work within a system to debunk it, he's poking holes into the system from the outside and appealing to the average person with basic faculties of logic and nothing more. And I don't fault him, why would anyone reallocate time from doing what they're principally interested into doing what they wouldn't do otherwise, all in an effort to 'one up' someone else in a formal debate setting? Would you stop what you're doing and study Islam and all its subject material for 4 years in an attempt to convince muslims against their dogmatic views? At least Dawkins acknowledges that someone studying theology to destroy theology (an assumption which itself is problematic) is a fair point which he says in the video, but its clearly not going to be him and he isn't pretending it is.

[Anonymous No.17580286]

>>17579587
>>17579849
Books and even entire science fields are not worth shit when they are based on epistemologically bankrupt and outdated presuppositions. You do not read to read thousands of pages of Dostoyevsky trying to conflate moral behavior with religion in a reality where all quantifiable metrics show that it is either not the case or leads to the exact opposite outcome.

[Anonymous No.17580311]

>>17579849
>hurrr read Kierkegaard and Dosto bro they will surely validate religion
Ok Jordan Peterson, we get it.

[Anonymous No.17580312]

>>17580278
I think the issue is that he's certainly not acting like a person who is unwilling to pick fights. It doesn't make his arguments wrong but the smugness certainly rubs people the wrong way.

[Anonymous No.17580453]

>>17580312
The fact that he's willing to pick fights he knows he won't win is commendable to say the least. But he probably sees those 'losses' as victories, as minds are not changed on the outcome of a formal debate stage. If I may elaborate the point earlier, a person like him probably feels that theology as is (not the anthropological one he envisions) seems like a stacked game and that simply adopting its conventions, while an interesting strategy, is like trying to disprove God with a dice that has 'God exists' on all its sides.

[Anonymous No.17580469]

>>17573861
Dawkins was spot-on in many ideas from "The Selfish Gene" but his autistic atheism accidentally created a religion outta it.

[Anonymous No.17580490]

>>17580469
His book The Extended Phenotype borders on genius. Too bad he then dedicated all his energies to the waste of time question of God's putative existence.

[Anonymous No.17580516]

>>17580490
Yeah that book is brilliant.

[Anonymous No.17580610]

>>17580186
yeah ad hominem my ass
you either have 0 comprehension skills or i am a bad writer, but there is no ad hominem in there...and if there is i hope it insults Hitchens even more

you should read more instead of learning buzzwords like ad incognito hominem est

[Anonymous No.17580644]

>>17576777
I have to say anon, I agree with your opinion.

[Anonymous No.17580678]

>>17580453
I think he does it because he knows that there's actually a rather limited amount of arguments that can be used to try and "prove" god's existence and he did a good job addressing all of them.
That's kind of the point behind The God Delusion. To provide everyone with an extremely simple set of tools designed to kill God, and those fights are just him trying to advertise this toolset, not unlike the guy who shoots himself to prove that his bulletproof vests are good.

This is also why we had to suffer through years of those euphoric fedoras. Because he made it all too easy for them to win arguments which lead to them aggressively scouring the internet for theological arguments to refute and feel that dopamine rush of being right.

[Anonymous No.17580703]

>>17580610
kek
>He pretended to be a "serious" war correspondent like that anon assumed but when you question his acolytes they shit their pants and start screeching like whales.
Ad hominem
>He had no sense of compassion and understanding of what religion actually is.
Ad hominem
>Never read Kierkegaard, nor Dosto, nor Melville, not even Marx.
Not ad hominem, just a lie.
>Fuck off and die, you sophist.
Ad hominem
>Also, his writings are terribly conceited and highfalutin garbage hiding his insecurities and frustrations at having to be a crowd pleaser.
Ad hominem
>He almost as bad as DFW.
Ad hominem
>Also, he was the most gay person who denied it all his life.
Ad hominem
>What a terrible bore! He was after the lowest hanging fruit when all he needed was some dick up his arse and some balls hanging from his mouth.
Ad hominem

[Anonymous No.17580775]

>>17580703
and how is that bad, you idiot? i am presenting my opinion about him

should i talk about your mom instead? i dgaf about your rules...stick em up your cunt

[Anonymous No.17580789]

worst thread on /lit/ rn btw...

you people are sick sycophants...god help my generation

[Anonymous No.17580811]

>>17580789
Yeah the amount of science denying schizos and Nazis ITT is worrying

[Anonymous No.17580820]

>>17573861
I don't respect any of them. I know of the top 2, I don't know the bottom 2.

[Anonymous No.17580828]

>>17580775
You used ad hominem, dude says, "You just used ad hominem." You say "No I didn't." I prove very simply that you did. You admit that you did.
And here we are.

[Anonymous No.17580852]

>>17577166
this is correct.

[Anonymous No.17580996]

>>17573861
literally none of them

[Anonymous No.17581018]

>>17574911
>Talks shit about God then gets cancer.
lol

[Anonymous No.17581052]

>>17574911
>>Dawkins
>Based Boomer who critiques religion in a fun, interesting and insightful manner.

>criticizes christians for not knowing the bible in excruciating detail
>fails miserably when the reverend he expects to destroy in a debate asks him to name the full title of his hero's masterpiece, the origin of species
he's a pathetic loser

[Anonymous No.17581066]

Hawkins and Dennett. The trotskyist and podcaster aren't even worth serious discussion.

[Anonymous No.17581115]

>>17579849
I like that he nearly got beaten to death by a group of Syriac Nationalists in Beirut. Thankfully god let him live to die a much more painful and pitiful death.

[Anonymous No.17581163]

>>17573861
Dawkins, then Hitchens, then Rennet, then Harris. Dawkins is actually a fairly important biologist (not to mention he invented the term meme), Hitchens was a good journalist and literary critic, Dennet has done nothing of note afaik but Harris is a scammer so he's worse.

[Anonymous No.17581206]

I think people grew to hate Harris because he can't help but go full NPC whenever he's talking about Trump, but I still can't help but respect him for his meditation stuff because it really helped me out. Easily the best way to get into it without having to deal with all the new-age trash that tends to come with the package.

[Anonymous No.17581399]

>>17574911
>>17581018
He even joked about this himself:
>I got cancer in the very organ I used most for blaspheming.

[Anonymous No.17581522]

Hitchens actually did good work in journalism before his fedora tipping career, Dawkins and Harris can hop in a ditch.

[Anonymous No.17581550]

>>17581206
>I think people grew to hate Harris because he can't help but go full NPC whenever he's talking about Trump
Doesn't it have to do with the fact that he's a pro-war moron, that also wrote that dreadful book - The Moral Landscape?

[Anonymous No.17581683]

In order.
1. Dawkins
2. Hitchens
......
.......
...........
..................
9999. Dennet
.......
..............
.....................
...............................
9.999..*10^(10^10). Harris

[Anonymous No.17581697]

>>17581550
Well, you know how it is these days. Your opinion on Trump transcends everything else about you.
And I personally find his arguments against ever letting Islamic states that preach Valhallesque garbage to own nukes, even it requires war, pretty compelling.