![Richard+Dawkins+and+Sam+Harris+and+Christopher+Hitchens+and+New+Atheists+and+atheism[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/Rpvr7No.jpg "Richard+Dawkins+and+Sam+Harris+and+Christopher+Hitchens+and+New+Atheists+and+atheism[1].jpg")
In all honesty who is the better philosopher: Nietzche or Hitchens?
Harris > Freddy > Freud > Marx >>>>>> Hitchens >>>>>>> Dawkins
Objectively.
Marx >= Nietzsche > Freud >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dawkins >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hitchens
this thread is dogshit and you know it, OP.
>>7853524
you forgot Harris.
I take it he's so far in front as to not register on the scale as per his transcendental enlightenment.
Nice imagery anon
Without using memes, completely honestly:
Sam Harris > power gap > power gap > Dawkins >power gap > Marx > power gap > Freud > power gap > Hitchens > power gap > Nietzsche (was crazy)
>>7853516
OP here, if I might opine, I honestly think the 3 guys on the bottom are better, (maybe with the exception of freud) because they offer the same sort of wisdom but hitchens and harris really refined some of those older guys' talking points and made it more presentable; I'd rather read god is not great over thus spoke zarathustra any day of the week
>>7853521
>>7853530
Harris
The guy who said free will doesn't exist because the brain is controlled by le chemicals
The guy who said morality can be determined by science for no reason other than "a lot of people think similar things are bad and good therefor there must be a science behind it"
The guy who got his ass handed to him by Chomsky then instead of actually providing a good argument told Chomsky he was being mean
http://www.alternet.org/belief/sam-harris-made-himself-look-idiot-email-exchange-chomsky-and-has-shared-it-world
If you actually take Harris seriously you are everything wrong with modern intellectualism.
>>7853547
>he thinks Chomsky won that
Oh dear, anon. Oh dear.
>>7853552
Keep thinking Harris won, my man.
Not even going to argue with you about it. All Harris drones have their heads so far up his ass it's impossible to get through to them.
>>>/reddit/
>>7853556
>Ad hominem attack
How Chomskyian of you. Off you go, bud. This is done.
>>7853516
>Big Boys of English Speaking academia
>Singer
The philosophical equivalent of Judge Judy, Singer's self-contradictory pap ("abortion and infanticide are acceptable because these immature humans are incapable or rational preference" vs. "rationality is not a requirement for ethical conduct. Any irrational being will avoid pain, which is why cruelty to animals is unethical", which are flatly contradictory positions). Makes money by writing books that tell Liberals 'doing what you want is A-OK"
A buffoon.
>Chomsky
A decent linguist, his work in every other field is no more (or less) than self-serving rent seeking which he publicly admits that he, himself, does not believe.
Darn good at making a buck of gullible college students, but (unless you are speaking of linguistics, where he is very good) not a big academic.
>Dawkins
A mediocre-at-best scientist who will leave exactly zero mark on actual science, he became popular as a writer of PopSci books. When that income source dried up (because his theories were soundly thrashed by scientists) he switched to a series of popular books trashing what he thinks religious people might believe.
Never was a great thinker, never will be.
>Rorty
A man who counted on his readers having never heard of Gorgias, Rorty took facile rhetoric, relabeled it neopragmatism, and sold it like snake oil.
>Chalmers
About time an actual academic appeared. although, to be fair, while he does a fine job of reminding everyone of the hard problem, he has no answers. Which is no one's fault.
>Dennett
Refuses to use proper terms, mainly to hide that, deep down, he he knows any clear statement of his theories leads to eye-rolling
Not a serious academic.
.
This list is a list of "People that stupid people think are smart"
>>7853559
>Not even going to argue with you about it
>Ad hominem
You should probably work on your reading comprehension
>>7853567
>Ignores the sentence after which I was obviously referring to.
Noam m8, go to bed.
>>7853516
Even as a Christian I think it's a discredit to the 'old atheists' to make that comparison.
>>7853574
Once again. You should really work on your reading comprehension.
>>7853592
Tut, tut.
Bed time.
>>7853607
>Tut, tut.
Can you at least try to hide the fact that you just blew in from reddit?
>>7853516
man, but atheism has regressed
>>7853516
This image perfectly exemplifies why atheism only leads to moral decay and degeneracy. With the exception of Hitchens, all the new atheists have a moral relativist moral view veiled as objectivity under the title of science.
The only way to stop this title-wave of tainted liberalism is to resurrect the great minds of our past. Walter Benjamin or G.K. Chesterton, these are the kind men that we need to follow. If we don't then we risk falling into the unbreakable arms of fascism and communism.
>>7853516
>top row
Where's Bertrand Russell?
>bottom row
Where's Stephen Pinker?
OP is being a faggot again
>>7853516
>Beyond rankings teir:
-Nietzsche
>Ripped of Hegel tier:
-Marx
>Original, albiet mostly wrong, thinker teir:
-Freud
>At least he had some style teir:
>Hitchens
>Dumb retard trying to ride what he considers a historical wave of scientific/sceptic thought teir:
-Hairass
>Shh grampa, take your medication, we know you have a biology PhD, good for you, okay, yeah okay, okay shh stop talking; teir:
-dawkins
>>7853738
>Walter Benjamin
So the solution to degenerate atheism is to turn to degenerate jewish mysticism? bruh
Hitchens is a sophist shit. Pure rhetoric
>>7853934
Just like Nietzsche.
I don't get how this is even a question.
>>7853516
Hitchens was a columnist for vanity fair. Don't get me wrong, I really enjoyed his stuff, but he was really nothing more than an entertainer.
The top three guys in your picture all began with the Greeks - Marx's dissertation was on Epicurean atomism, Nietzsche was a classics professor, and Freud was obsessed with Greco-Roman antiquity (closest thing he ever had to a mystical experience was visiting the parthenon).
The New Atheists are an impoverishment of a venerable intellectual tradition. They're the 4chan equivalent of modernism.
>>7853516
>harris
Oh god no, fuck off. Dawkins at least made educational stuff for kids. And Hitchens was entertaining.
Harris hasnt done shit other than purely acted as a pr guy for the right wing.
>>7854308
Might as well add some edgy youtuber.
>>7853547
Darwin and Harris are the only two respectable people in OP's pic.
These guys are all an embarrassment to atheism.
>>7853552
I don't know whether you read the entire debate between them, but one can only conclude that Sam did not understand Chomsky at all. He was too blind to even acknowledge the points Chomsky was raising, which was very embarrassing. It was like debating with a child. And apparently you didn't understand Chomsky's argument nor the debate as well.
There is no way Harris won that debate. You are probably a troll though, so fuck you.
>>7853800
Steven Pinker is a fucking idiot.
>>7853516
Nietzsche was not a atheist.
Poor bait on the question.
>>7853516
Let's face it, both are shit tier.
Marx = Freud >>>>> Nietzsche (edgy shit for angsts ridden teens going through a white supremacy phase) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dawkins > Hitchens >>>>>>> Harris
>>7854572
>Nietzsche (edgy shit for angst ridden teens going through a white supremacy phase)
Yes, but also for the people who are actually controlling parts of the world.
>>7853552
> Imagine that al-Qaeda is filled, not with God-intoxicated sociopaths intent upon creating a global caliphate, but genuine humanitarians. Based on their research, they believe that a deadly batch of vaccine has made it into the U.S. pharmaceutical supply. They have communicated their concerns to the FDA but were rebuffed. Acting rashly, with the intention of saving millions of lives, they unleash a computer virus, targeted to impede the release of this deadly vaccine. As it turns out, they are right about the vaccine but wrong about the consequences of their meddling—and they wind up destroying half the pharmaceuticals in the U.S.
>>7854572
I haven't read Nietzsche, but what was he? I know he was critical of the lack of the belief in God because it would lead to nihilism. But that's after doing some research after hearing too much about the God is dead quote.
>>7855038
He was still an avowed atheist, he thought Christianity is absolute dogshit and that it was destroying western civilization. He classes it alongside alcohol as a dangerous drug. He was not critical in the lack of belief in god. He said god was dead with a mix of hope and fear, he was hopeful that the west could come up with something better than a metaphysical framework for ethics and morality but he feared that if the west did not manage this, it would fall into nihilism and as such die.
To him, god not being literally real wasn't the issue, it was real enough as long as men believed in it because all truths men know are just lies so old we forget they are lies. God was a means to an end, he was a way for the west to dodge the question on nihilism, but in his death we are left without a panacea. Men killing god was to him almost an inevitable process, Platonism and Paulician Christianity were just bandaids we put over the nihilist problem and after 2,000 years they wore out.
The step that Nietzsche takes with his atheism is to not only deny God (which many had done before him), but to say not only is Christianity false in a literal sense, Christian ethics and morality are also false, and bad for us.
>>7854572
Nietzsche was not a white supremacist, lmao. He considered the Chinese, Jews and Frenchmen his favorite types of people. When he called Kant a chinaman, it was a smug compliment. He absolutely detested Germans and all things Volkisch.
Also Freud is highly, highly derivative of Nietzsche. Freud himself claimed that he never said anything Nietzsche didn't, Freud elaborates on a lot of Nietzsche's ideas. Particularly concerning dreams. There are 4 or 5 aphorisms in the first 40 pages of so of Human, all too Human which contain the foundation of Freud's work with dreams.
>>7855185
Quality post
>>7853521
>Dawkins at the bottom
>Not Marx
>>7853516
Nietzche. Hitchens is damn good, but Nietzche is great.
>>7855207
are you seriously implying that richard dawkins is better than karl marx
>>7855215
Yes. Marx, while notable, isn't good good. In fact he's an absolute shit tier philosopher, along with Ayn Rand and Niccolò Machiavelli.
>>7853516
>Nietzsche
>Atheist
Wew lad
>>7853562
I agree with everything here, except Chomsky's politics are good.
>>7855207
How is Hitchens good? At all? His arguments are awful. Just watch his debate against William Lane Craig
>>7855228
>actually debating the one point that ALL Nietzsche scholars agree on
Nietzsche described himself as an atheist. He spends a good deal of time writing about how Christianity sucks, metaphysics are bullshit, and literally writes a book called THE ANTICHRIST. Nietzsche is a protean figure but this is an area that is not up for debate. Nietzsche did not believe in god, he did not like Christianity and most definitely did not like the church.
He was an atheist.
>>7855251
Not a Christian =/= Atheist
>>7855196
>Quality post
Quality post
>>7855248
He's probably come up with the single greatest argument for atheism (and there's a lot of good ones), Hitchens Razor.
I mean, it's just the idea skepticism and not being gullible summed up into one sentence. Still, it sums it all up quite nicely.
>Christian apologists ever winning a debate
Kek.
>>7855262
He didn't even come up with Hitchen's Razor, it comes from Roman times. Also, any razor is basically the "I don't feel like arguing any more so I'll just quit" card
And the reason why Craig wins is because any time Hitchens was able to get words through his stuttering and mumbling it was the same tired garbage he always says
>>7855251
There are idiots out there that think Hitler was an atheist despite all the evidence that shows otherwise.
I mean, there's a lot of people who believe crazier shit than that lurking on this website.
>>7855255
Okay, let's be clear here: Nietzsche would hate the new atheists. He posited a challenge to the atheists of his time: Create a system of morality with Christianity exorcises from its heart.
None succeeded, and certainly none in our time succeed. All that aside, here is a quote from his last work. To nuance things. He did not like god and did not like metaphysical thinking.
>"God", "immortality of the soul", "redemption", "beyond" -- Without exception, concepts to which I have never devoted any attention, or time; not even as a child. Perhaps I have never been childlike enough for them?
>I do not by any means know atheism as a result; even less as an event: It is a matter of course with me, from instinct. I am too inquisitive, too questionable, too exuberant to stand for any gross answer. God is a gross answer, an indelicacy against us thinkers - at bottom merely a gross prohibition for us: you shall not think!
t. Fred Nietzsche, Ecce Homo, such a fedora lord that he never needed """god""" even when he was a babby.
>>7855267
>It's Roman
True, but he applied it to atheism.
>"I don't feel like arguing any more so I'll just quit"
That's not it. It just shows that it's justifiable to disbelieve unfalsifiable claims. In fact it's smarter to disbelieve in them than to believe in them.
>Craig won
Nope.
>>7855288
Hitchens from the very beginning had no arguments against the existence of god, you could say that point can not be argued, but then I would counter by saying if that were true he was an idiot for going in the first place
>>7853524
>calling for someone's death
typical communist
>>7855303
But that's the right way to do it Anon.
>Person A: "Invisible leprechauns live on the moon."
>Person B: "I don't believe that's true."
>Person A: "Well, prove it isn't true."
>Person B "No, I don't need prove anything to disbelieve in something unproven."
Person B won the debate. That's just how person B SHOULD debate. Of course moon leprechaun fanboys will still suck person A's dick and pretend like he won anyway.
>>7855326
But that's not what he did. He said that he couldn't argue then proceeded to try and argue it anyway, making himself look like an idiot in the process
>>7853516
>>7853521
>>7854572
Correct answer:
Freud>Nietzsche>>Hitchens>>>>Marx>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Dawkins> Harris
>>7855330
It's not hard to win a debate when your right Anon. That's why Christian apologists always lose.
>>7855346
And that's also why he ended up also looking like an idiot?
>>7855352
Not really, I've seen parts of it long ago, and I don't recall him looking stupid.
>>7855389
You need to rewatch it then. He mumbles and stutters and is awful at speaking in general. He also refuses to answer anything that Craig says. Even my die hard atheist friends find it cringy.
>>7853562
>Dawkins will leave zero mark on actual science
lmao wrong. The Selfish Gene is actually one of the most important books in evolutionary biology since The Origin of Species.
>>7855449
i dont even understand that sentiment. University Sociology classes literally teach his concept of memes in first year classes across America
>>7855449
found the sole guy in the Darwin circle
>>7855401
Was this late period Hitchens? By then he was kind of a drunken, drugged out mess.
>>7853556
>Not even going to argue with you about it.
But then puts this in
>All Harris drones have their heads so far up his ass it's impossible to get through to them.
So someone calls him out on it and he replies with;
>You should probably work on your reading comprehension
Like it was old-mates fault.
No, he was right. What you said was ad hominem, whether you are going to argue about it or not, you've made an inflammatory statement that has no backing to this conversation. Unless that is your argument; Harris drones (not sure if you mean actual drones that Harris has, or if you're referring to Harris fanboys actually sticking their heads up his arse), but I doubt that to be physically possible.
Just because you put the precursor;
>Not even going to argue with you about it<
doesn't change the fact that your very next sentence was ad hominem to the central point you're trying to make. If you didn't want to argue about it why even make a statement in the first place? You could of just skipped this thread.
I don't even have a dog in this fight, don't really care who comes out as /lit/'s exultant leader of reason and philosophy.
But don't be a cunt when you get called out for being a cunt. That's what cunts do, and cunts get fucked hard for being cunts.
>>7855326
EHHHHH
WRONG
atheists fall for this trap all the time
what should have happened logically is
>Person A: "Invisible leprechauns live on the moon."
>Person B: "I don't know if that's true or untrue."
>>7855749
I'm not the guy you're responding to, but please watch this
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DPBVUT1NlKA
Pretty sure Hitch is sweating nervously pretty badly, and even attempts to "accidentally" pull his earpiece out at one point
>>7855449
This is correct - Dawkins' book made group selection look outdated, most modern evolutionary biology is based on Dawkins' selfish genes/selection on the individual level (not group level).
Unless your name is E.O. Wilson, but then you're going to die soon anyway.
>>7855326
Alternatively:
>Person A: "Under modal logic, invisible leprechauns might or might not live on the moon."
>Person B: "I don't believe that's true."
>Person A: "Well, prove that it isn't true."
>Person B: "No, I don't need prove anything to disbelieve in something unproven."
Neither person won the debate.
>>7853738
>great minds of the past
>G.K. Chesterton
man, I know he's older than C. S. Lewis, but you could have tried to reach a LITTLE further back than that
>>7853552
The exchange between Harris and Chomsky was Harris trying to argue about points he thought Chomsky had that appear to be entirely gleaned from second-hand discussions about his work (not even specific ones). The entire thing was fucking stupid and on such shaky footing to begin with I don't even know how you can declare a winner or a loser.
Harris: you're wrong
Chomsky: about what
Harris: this secondhand shit i've never actually read any of your work
Chomsky: pls go
There - the entire email chain summed up for everyone.
>>7853942
keep telling yourself that
>>7855737
hitchens was a charlatan, drunk, and traitorous pig
he also was not a philosopher
