My comment was not intended to be a deep analysis, rather a casual observation. Dawkins and Hitchens attack religion from a position of ignorance of the real issues, are thus incredibly shallow. Harris has at least studied meditation, and argues in a less shallow fashion, not always impressively, however.

This is obviously merely my subjective impression, based on a reading of The God Delusion, God Is Not Great, and The End of Faith.

Dennett's weakness, so it seems to me, is that he starts with certain preconceptions, which I understand is a philosophical fault - the truth of atheism and Darwinism – and then philosophises accordingly. He then concludes that he has, for example, solved the problem of consciousness, when all he has done come up with an explanation which fits his (I would argue false) preconceptions.