Both as authors and as public intellectuals. I always found Christopher to be less interesting because the stuff he was saying in regards to religion was already then being echoed by so many fedoras.
>killing your son as a sacrifice like in this 4,000 year old story is actually bad u guise
Easy answer
Peter is better because he actually has consistent beliefs and is ironically far more considerate of perspectives outside his own.
Chris was probably a better speaker but that's about it
>Killing your son is bad
>tfw no suspensión teleológica de lo ético
He should an hero.
>but peter is less charming
>Lets invade Iraq and kill 300 000 women and children
No
>Damn you Morality Man, I would have goten away with it if it wasn't for your inexistent """""god"""" I dislike so much
Neither
>people actually believe this
>I usually find christopher less interesting because his phenomenal works have been co-opted by memeing faggots.
strikingly similar to
>I usually find Nietzsche less interesting because his phenomenal works have been co-opted by memeing faggots.
I wonder if...
>I usually find (anyone at all) to be (anything at all) because his phenomenal works have been co-opted by memeing faggots.
You know how I know you're a pseud? It's because you apparently constantly condition yourself with the whimsy of memeing faggots.
The BURN is real!!