Religion used to be a private thing. Or at least, it was something you didn't shout about in polite company unless you were looking for a fight. Then the early 2000s hit. Between the fallout of 9/11 and the rise of the digital age, a specific brand of unapologetic, "in-your-face" secularism caught fire. We started calling the leaders of this movement the 4 horsemen of atheism. It wasn't a name they gave themselves, actually. It was a play on the biblical Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse, coined by fans and critics alike after a legendary two-hour conversation they filmed together in 2007.
The group consisted of Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris, and Daniel Dennett. They weren't just guys who didn't believe in God. They were guys who thought your belief in God was actively harming the species.
Who were the 4 horsemen of atheism anyway?
It’s weird to think about now, but for a few years, these four authors were basically rock stars. They didn't agree on everything, but they shared a central thesis: religion shouldn't just be tolerated; it should be countered with reason, science, and a bit of sharp-tongued wit.
Richard Dawkins was the biologist of the group. His book, The God Delusion, sold millions of copies and turned the word "meme" (which he actually coined decades earlier in a different context) into a tool for dismantling religious dogma. He argued that the complexity of the universe doesn't require a creator—it requires an explanation. For Dawkins, the "God hypothesis" was just bad science.
Then you had Christopher Hitchens. "Hitch." Honestly, he was the heavy hitter. A journalist and a polemicist who could out-drink and out-debate anyone on the planet. His book God Is Not Great took a more political and moral stance. He famously argued that religion is "vicious" because it creates a celestial dictatorship that destroys human dignity. He didn't care about your feelings. He cared about the truth, or at least his version of it.
Sam Harris was the one who kicked the whole thing off with The End of Faith in 2004. He wrote it in a sort of "moral panic" after the September 11 attacks. Harris focused heavily on the idea that literal belief in scripture is inherently dangerous. Unlike the others, he eventually drifted into talking more about meditation and consciousness, but in the mid-2000s, he was the guy warning everyone that "moderation" in religion was just a cloak for extremism.
💡 You might also like: Bird Feeders on a Pole: What Most People Get Wrong About Backyard Setups
Finally, there was Daniel Dennett. He passed away recently, in 2024, leaving a massive hole in the world of philosophy. He was the "cautious" one, if you can call him that. In Breaking the Spell, he looked at religion as a biological phenomenon. He wanted to study it like a virus or a heartbeat—something that evolved because it served a purpose, even if that purpose was no longer useful.
The 2007 meeting that changed everything
The moment that solidified the "4 horsemen of atheism" label was a discussion held at Hitchens' apartment in Washington, D.C. They sat around a table with some booze and just talked. It was a rare moment where the different pillars of the movement—biology, journalism, neuroscience, and philosophy—all lined up.
They weren't just talking about why God doesn't exist. They were strategizing. They were discussing how to make it socially acceptable to be an atheist in America. At the time, being an atheist was statistically one of the least "trustworthy" traits a person could have in the eyes of the public. They wanted to change the vibe from "sad loner who hates Christmas" to "rational person who loves reality."
Why the movement eventually fractured
Nothing stays the same forever. The 4 horsemen of atheism were a product of a very specific time. By the 2010s, the "New Atheism" movement started to eat itself. Why? Because once you agree there is no God, you realize you don't agree on much else.
Politics got in the way. Hitchens supported the Iraq War, which alienated a lot of the left-leaning fans. Harris became embroiled in endless debates about Islam and profiling. Dawkins' Twitter (now X) presence became... well, a bit of a minefield, as he waded into cultural issues that many felt were outside his expertise as a biologist.
📖 Related: Barn Owl at Night: Why These Silent Hunters Are Creepier (and Cooler) Than You Think
There was also a growing sense that the movement was a "boys' club." Critics pointed out that the leadership was almost entirely white, male, and Western. This led to "Atheism Plus," an attempt to link secularism with social justice, which basically caused a civil war within the community. The "Horsemen" era sort of faded not because they lost the argument, but because the world moved on to different fights.
What did they actually get right?
If you look at the data today, the "Nones"—people with no religious affiliation—are the fastest-growing group in the West. You can't give all the credit to the 4 horsemen of atheism, but they certainly cleared the brush. They made it okay to say "I don't believe this" in public without feeling like a social pariah.
- They championed the scientific method as the best tool we have for understanding the world.
- They highlighted the dangers of religious exemptions in law and medicine.
- They encouraged a generation of people to read the holy books they claimed to follow, which, ironically, often leads to people leaving those faiths.
The "Hitchslap" and the art of the debate
We have to talk about the style of the 4 horsemen of atheism. It wasn't just about the "what," it was about the "how." Christopher Hitchens, in particular, turned the debate into a spectator sport. People still watch "Hitchslap" compilations on YouTube today.
There was a certain intellectual ruthlessness to it. They didn't use the "I respect your opinion" padding that we use today. If they thought an idea was stupid, they said it was stupid. While that turned a lot of people off, it was incredibly cathartic for people who felt stifled by religious environments. It was a "permission slip" to be blunt.
Misconceptions people still have
A lot of people think the 4 horsemen of atheism hated religious people. Some of them might have, sure, but for the most part, their beef was with the ideas. Dennett, for example, was actually quite fond of the community aspects of church; he just wanted the "supernatural" parts removed so we could focus on the "human" parts.
👉 See also: Baba au Rhum Recipe: Why Most Home Bakers Fail at This French Classic
Another big one: the idea that they were "militant." People used that word all the time. But as Dawkins famously pointed out, "militant" atheists carry signs and write books, while "militant" religious people... well, they sometimes do a lot worse. The scale was never the same.
The legacy in 2026
Where are we now? Hitchens is gone. Dennett is gone. Dawkins and Harris are still active, but they mostly occupy different corners of the "Intellectual Dark Web" or the podcasting world. The "4 horsemen of atheism" as a cohesive unit is a relic of history.
But the ripple effects are everywhere. You see it in the way we talk about science in policy. You see it in the decline of church attendance across Europe and North America. They didn't kill religion—not even close—but they stripped away its "untouchable" status. They proved that you could criticize a person's deepest beliefs and the world wouldn't end.
How to approach the "Horsemen" literature today
If you're just getting into this, don't start with the angry YouTube clips. Start with the books. But go in with a critical eye.
- Read Daniel Dennett's "Breaking the Spell" first. It’s the most intellectually "generous" of the bunch. He treats religion as a puzzle to be solved, not just an enemy to be destroyed.
- Watch the original 2007 "The Unbelievers" discussion. It’s on YouTube. It captures the chemistry of the group before the political infighting started.
- Compare their predictions to reality. Harris predicted a much more violent "clash of civilizations" than what actually manifested in some areas, while Dawkins perhaps underestimated how much people crave some form of "sacred" ritual, even if they aren't religious.
- Look at the "New" New Atheists. People like Stephen Fry or even some of the modern science communicators carry the torch now, but with a much softer, more inclusive tone.
The era of the 4 horsemen of atheism was a loud, brash, and necessary "shock to the system." Whether you think they were heroes of reason or arrogant trolls, you can't deny they changed the cultural conversation. They forced us to ask: what do we believe, and more importantly, why do we believe it?
If you're looking to dive deeper into secular philosophy, your next step should be exploring the "Secular Humanism" movement. It picks up where the Horsemen left off, focusing less on what's wrong with religion and more on how to build a meaningful, moral life without it. Read the Humanist Manifesto III for a glimpse into how these ideas translated into a positive framework for living.