Never read anything from him, but watched a few panels /debates he was in. I can’t speak to the depth of the man, but he was a talented force to reckon with...

@SeaGreenEyez I disagree. He was far more than "just a prolific writer".
I've also not heard anyone refer to him as a "visionary".

Like I said, I didn't agree with him on everything. He was very anti-choice, and I definitely thought he was wrong about that.

Agreed. I well remember him being on TV here in Australia early in 2000s in interviews from the UK slagging the Left viciously, calling anyone who criticised the Iraq War (Crime ) all kinds of derogatory names, most arrogantly, and I grew to dislike him. His later efforts against religion with Dawkins et.al were at times very effective, but I cannot forget his strident support for the war criminals behind the Iraq criminal war, for which he never apologised.

He was a supporter of the Kurdish people and I think the fact that Saddam was committing genocide against them coloured his views.

@Moravian Agree with your analysis. But Saddam was committing atrocities, not genocide.

@Krish55 [theguardian.com]

I don't know if he was ever tried for acts of genocide but it was certainly being considered

@Moravian Those are atrocities, not genocide. By that standard, Israel is also committing genocide against Palestinians.

@Krish55 True and Erdogan would be on a charge as well.

I have never read any of his books but have watch several or more videos in which he was engaged in debates with various people. I have heard some people say that whilst he appeared confident he also can across as being an arrogant man. It seems that he was divisive and thrived on it. Scoring points and the annihilation of your opponent are not traits that I would wish to emulate and I consider them to be essentially no different from religious people who demonize those who do not agree with them.

I watched Dennet in a video with Hitchens and Dawkins and Harris and I have to say that I agree with your views as expressed above.

Unsurpringly, many of those who advocate war are seldom to be found on the frontline, however, they do not seem to mind others being sacrified.

I agree except on Harris. I think he is unfairly maligned and often people don't appreciate the nuance of this views and truncate them down to simple statements. Moreover, he is without doubt the most effective debater against religious people I have ever seen. He is forensically good and devastating, and I have learnt a lot from watching him dismantle religious nonsense and false assumptions.

@David1955
Harris is mostly good. I like him. Agree with him most of the time. The reason I call him a mixed bag is he, like Hitch and Dawkins, most often presents the impression that all religion is all bad all the time, and there is nothing else to say about the matter. But “religion” is much more complex and diverse than that, as Dennett often acknowledges.

They treat their atheism and anti-theism as a religion of its' own. That is - if you include humanistic approaches like nonduality and secular beliefs in your definition of religion. Since religion is just a concept (as an amalgam of different ideas) then if their treatment of their views meets that same amalgam it would also be a religion. And from a sociological perspective that is exactly what they are doing. They develop their own dogma that prevents them from examining the true deficiencies in their "proof" arguments due to their own preconceived bias. Ive tried and tried to beat evidentiary and philosophical ideas into them pointing out the faults with using static measurement concepts in a dynamic reality. They can never account for the lack of an objective viewpoint to observe the observer not can they explain the true nature of matter. This is why quantum physics baffles them and they have delusional problems with biocentrism et al. You must assume that ALL views have some merit and discover what they have to learn from.

@SeaGreenEyez
I am what I am. They may be a stranger, but I am just strange.

@SeaGreenEyez Originality ?

@SeaGreenEyez So pleased to know that I brightened your day.

Hitler? Trump after he dies?

@Krish55 Yeah. I'm okay with insulting the dead. They don't know and most of them had problems.

@Krish55 are you comparing an intellectual journalist who never harmed anyone to genocidal dictators?

@Krish55, @rainmanjr And it is still crass, classless and of absolutely poor taste.

Yep far,far easier to lay the blame, etc, on the shoulders of the dead than it is to find the REAL truth.

Atheists may not always be logical, but believing of fairy tales is always illogical. Fairy tales abound in holy books.

@SeaGreenEyez I was trying to study his last week’s show to figure out if he was being serious or what? But something was way off the rails!