Religion: Communion Toast Crunch

[Kepler]

Daniel Dennett (scientist) and Christopher Hitchens (polemicist) each were far, far subtler and more interesting than Richard Dawkins (scientist) and Sam Harris (polemicist). I always bridled at the four being placed as peers. I understood that the Thumper boobs would do it, but lazy secularists did it too. There was a huge difference in quality.

 

[WisconsinWildcard]

Daniel Dennett (scientist) and Christopher Hitchens (polemicist) each were far, far subtler and more interesting than Richard Dawkins (scientist) and Sam Harris (polemicist). I always bridled at the four being placed as peers. I understood that the Thumper boobs would do it, but lazy secularists did it too. There was a huge difference in quality.

I enjoyed each of Dennett's books that I have read, although some are quite dense. I can watch Hitchen's debate any day and feel in pure rhetoric he is one of the best (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitchens's_razor) if not only repackaging other's quips as he was so well read. I feel he really missed the mark (although had a personal bias) with his strong support of the Iraq war.

Dawkins was good when he stuck to science. Harris seemed to get a degree in neuroscience to have false authority as he really did nothing scientific.

 

[Kepler]

Dennett is interesting when debating because he is so kind. The derps are screeching he's the anti-Christ and he very gently examines their argument and takes it seriously. He had the confidence of a mind that did not take shortcuts and was genuinely looking for knowledge, not just to be right.