Descender said:Well I respectfully disagree. I find Dawkins to be the best of them all. His arguments might be repetitive, but that is because their opponents' arguments are repetitive too. And Hitchens is also repetitive himself.
Hitchens is witty and funny, he is an actor and a master of the crowds. If he can't be erect, then at least he can be upright. But I have seen him fare astonishingly poorly in some debates, notably the first one with Craig.
McGrath challenging Dawkins's book? Please... McGrath is a bad farce. In every single Dawkins debate I've seen, he ends up not only winning, but flat-out destroying his opponents. It is really something to see.
Harris is very articulate and is versed on neurological matters, and it shows. I fully recommend his latest book, The Moral Landscape.
Hitchens has debated Craig many many times. They did a debating tour together. Either way, whichever one you saw, i am sure he still won.
And yes Hitchens does repeat himself, all the time. Bits from 2 or 3 of his debates can be identical. But what I meant is that Dawkins will repeat himself several times in 1 debate.
Dawkins arguments are the ones everyone knows and everyone uses. The Betrand Russel Spagheti Monster argument. He opens his book with the - if you were born in Alabama chances are you are a Chrstian and if you are born in Afghanistan, chances are you are a Muslim argument.
Not that you need to go past those arguments to be convinced
I agree that Dawkins wins his debates (not that he does many) but thats because he is right, not because he knows how to debate which he doesnt.
Its not just that he comes from a different profesiion but also that he has lived most of his life in Oxford devoting his life to becoming one of the best of all time in his very important and very difficult profession. He hasnt read as much, he hasnt lived in foreign countries, he has less experience.
As a result on simple religion vs atheism debates he is not that great, though he is still worth watching.
Perhaps most importantly, Dawkins tends to debate far easier opposition. He tends to argue with evangelical christians, creationists, extremist jews extremist muslims. A lot of the people he debates with do not believe in evolution. Hitchens of course debates a lot of evangelicals too. Desposes with them better too I would propose http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EZB0lLIcXIA
But he does also debate aginst more advanced believers. People who know what they are talking about.
Dont get me wrong, Dawkins is a hero but its when people try to challenge him on science that it gets gold.
Dawkins is known as Darwins poodle. When someone tells him they dont believe in God because of morality or because of Pascals wager, Dawkins says the party line, just adds "science" and "scientists" a few times in every sentence
His heart isnt in it and he doesnt have the total expertise on the subject needed to answer it differently every time it comes up, nor to add comedy, nor to smack down his opponents.
But when someone tries to challenge him on science, say suggests that evolution is just a theory, or that dinos are 6000 years old, or that miracles are more effective than medicine, THAT is where Dawkin's inner Hitch comes out
Then he delivers the Smack down.
But on the other stuff, Dawkins is like Cav trying to climb. Better than 99% of the world, but not what he specialises in
It's extremely invigorating to watch debates from these four, with Dennett bringing in the philosophical perspective. They are so different, come from such different backgrounds, and yet have so much in common
They are all rich white toffs as would be called in this country. And the thing they have in common - atheism, is something they share with a lot of people.
If you want someone who comes from a totaly different background and ends up in the same place, Hitchens and Harris have said that the 5th member of this "4 horsemen" is Ayyan Hirsi Ali.