Favourite "New Atheist"

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

?

[Lexii, harbinger of chaos and sexual anarchy]

Dennett

[Bismarck]

Dawkins

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Harris is the least objectionable of the four.

[All Along The Watchtower]

Hitch before he went completely mad.

He may have been an arrogant asshole like the others in this poll, but at least he had original thoughts and was a pretty fascinating character in general.

[rpryor03]

Dawkins has some good science songs.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Dawkins strikes me as a pretty accomplished biologist.  I just wish he'd stick to his field.

Same with Harris.  I'm sure he's very renowned in his field, but where he starts venturing into metaphysical concepts like free will is where I draw the line.

I don't know anything about Dennett.  Hitchens was an antitheist and a neocon, so no high marks from me on that point.

[dead0man]

Harris and Dawkins, went with Harris.

[Santander]

I suppose Harris is the least bad...

[°Leprechaun]

I would guess Sam Harris, because I don't know enough about Dennett.
Unfortunately, Sam Harris has made at least one faux pas.

The demonization of these people (like the demonization of Madalyn Murray O'Hair)
does us all a disservice.
The hatred of atheism and atheists in a so called free society is something for which I have no respect,
and when it is done by religious "liberals", it is all the more unfortunate.
The fear of atheists seems to indicate that one is insecure in their religion.

There is nothing "new" about the new atheists. There genre go back long before they were born
(i.e. Robert Ingersol and Bertrand Russel)

Religion represents a grave threat to our very existence, though not all "religious" people commit heinous acts. Sam Harris wrote his book, "The end of Faith" in a response to 9-11.

Perhaps religion is not always harmful, but it certainly can be.

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

From what I can tell, Dennett isn't a raving islamaphobe, so him.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

tmc, there's nothing that cannot be harmful, atheism included. I certainly don't fear or loathe atheism, but there are certain atheists that are as toxic as the worst theists and also those who are as saintly as any religious saint. On balance, I do believe that religion has been a force for good.

[°Leprechaun]

tmc, there's nothing that cannot be harmful, atheism included. I certainly don't fear or loathe atheism, but there are certain atheists that are as toxic as the worst theists and also those who are as saintly as any religious saint. On balance, I do believe that religion has been a force for good.

Atheism can't literally be harmful, although certainly people who are atheists can. Literally, atheism is "nothing", but ironically a nothing that is something in the sense that it is something that people use to define the lack of belief in religion. It is "nothing" in the sense that it is a lack of belief.
An atheist lacks a belief. Some atheists would say that there is no "Great Spirit" or whatever word for the Divine. A belief in "nothing" is only harmful if that person doesn't have a belief in something.
(eg good, or humanism, or something else that defines their ethics).

I tend to believe that religion has been historically divisive and leads to war, but since there are pacifists who are theists, that is certainly a good thing. Although I could say that in the same way atheism can't make a bad person good, religion can't either. Being ethical is a choice, and beliefs about religion seem irrelevant to that choice. part 1 of 2

[°Leprechaun]

part two
The way some atheist communists have treated "believers" is certainly unethical.
You can't force a person to be an atheist.
As far as the Divine or Great Spirit, I would say why do you believe what you believe (as I already have). If a person says that they believe because that's what their parents told them to believe, is that really a personal belief? I don't think that happens consciously, but upbringing certainly seems to influence many people's beliefs.

[jmsstnyng]

Dennett: He is the least "in your face" of the four, as I recall. It has been a while since I listened to that group.

Dawkins seems to look down on those with whom he disagrees more than Dennett. He, Hitchens and Harris can be easily labeled as the angry, aggressive atheists who hate Christianity, rather than simply providing an argument for their side and/or providing weaknesses to the Christian doctrine.

That said, however, I do like Dawkins' approach with "The Magic of Reality." He displayed a positive, awe-filling book to give kids a look at science in all its complexity and wonder, rather than calling Christians deluded which will only expand the rift with Christians rather than expanding a diplomatic dialogue.

[The Govanah Jake]

Christopher Hitchens out of all of them