Best Living Spokesman for Atheism

[Crossless2.0]

Since I have the fanciest chair, I decree that I am the Atheist Pope!

Be careful what you wish for. The job comes with a bunch of atheist pedophiles you will have to shield from legal action.

And you'll be required to wear a funny hat.

[vorlon13]

Recall the inherent danger of hats.

[Aroura]

I like Sam Harris's views on determinism and morality, but that has nothing to do with atheism.

Also, I don't hate Dawkins, I think he's rather patient all things considered. He may be a bit strident and outspoken, but really, when things like "Good without God" are seen as immoral and possibly damaging to children, I can see where he feels the need to become a "spokesman".

However, there is not person who defines atheism, nor speaks for it. There is no pope of atheism. Do we need people standing up for our rights? Absolutely. Do we need people pointing out the absurdity of religion? Perhaps. The religious themselves do it all the time. Yet without the early pioneers, and even more recent pioneers like Charles Bradlaugh, where would we be? Still in the dark ages, sitting quietly and not speaking our minds, that is where.

[TheRocketSurgeon]

You'll note that the person forming this poll recently said something in another thread that was akin to suggesting we (me, really) followed Dawkins (and someone else... was it Harris?) the way that Christians tend to follow apologists like McDowell, et al.

Of course, I immediately set the record straight, having read only one science book and one book on atheism by the former (and I only liked the science book) and not having read the latter at all, nor having had any interest in further reading of atheist "leaders", because I prefer to form my own ideas based on as broad a knowledge-base as possible.

I have no doubt this very concept is baffling to people who seek to attain truth from the Highest Authority™ via the Divinely Dictated Book Of Ultimate Truth™.

Rocket-

I have mentioned Dawkins here and here.

Would you be so kind as to explain how you have construed from these posts that I have asserted that you or anyone else here "followed Dawkins"?

Thanks.

You said, 

And as best I can tell, there are apologists on both sides of the divide...cranking out books to try to persuade people that their view is correct. Are Hitchens and Dawkins any different than Craig or McDowell? Haven't they banked a fair bit of money over the past few years? Are they simply "fooling" a different target market into handing over that cash?

This strongly implies that we would follow the beliefs of Hitchens or Dawkins, as churches formulate their creeds and use apologists to explain why that's the right way, effectively shaping doctrines for the church. It's how the Billy Grahams of the world get to the positions they attain, in their Christian fame. Except we have no such organization. I might find it interesting to go see Dawkins speak, as I respect him as a science-writer, but I'm not going to take anything he says as part of my doctrine with any more weight than I assign to any other source. We have no "pastors" telling us what to think.

You forget that many of us were former die-hard Christian fundamentalists/evangelicals, myself included. If you expect to slip implications of that nature into the conversations, do not expect us to miss them. I'm certain you'll cry foul now, and say that no such implication was intended, but I'm afraid I won't believe you. I spoke the language of the shibboleth, and I recognize it and its direction of tone, now.

Take your umbrage elsewhere.

[SofaKingHigh]

I vote me

[Kitty Galore]

The Amazing Randi.

[Aroura]

The Amazing Randi.

I love him!!

[Exian]

I'd go with Neil Carter of Godless in Dixie. Not that I think atheism needs a spokesman, but this guy needs to be a spokesman of something. Look how friendly he is! He could drop an N-bomb and I'd have to make an effort to be offended. Here he is highlighting the distinction between atheism and agnosticism in the simplest terms. Nothing groundbreaking for us, but it is interesting to hear it plainly spoken and to know that it will still be misunderstood.

[youtube]cUHOHzf5wX8[/youtube]

[Jackalope]

http://atheistforums.org/user-3164.html

Just sayin'.

[athrock]

Rocket-

I have mentioned Dawkins here and here.

Would you be so kind as to explain how you have construed from these posts that I have asserted that you or anyone else here "followed Dawkins"?

Thanks.

You said, 

And as best I can tell, there are apologists on both sides of the divide...cranking out books to try to persuade people that their view is correct. Are Hitchens and Dawkins any different than Craig or McDowell? Haven't they banked a fair bit of money over the past few years? Are they simply "fooling" a different target market into handing over that cash?

This strongly implies that we would follow the beliefs of Hitchens or Dawkins, as churches formulate their creeds and use apologists to explain why that's the right way, effectively shaping doctrines for the church. It's how the Billy Grahams of the world get to the positions they attain, in their Christian fame. Except we have no such organization. I might find it interesting to go see Dawkins speak, as I respect him as a science-writer, but I'm not going to take anything he says as part of my doctrine with any more weight than I assign to any other source. We have no "pastors" telling us what to think.

You forget that many of us were former die-hard Christian fundamentalists/evangelicals, myself included. If you expect to slip implications of that nature into the conversations, do not expect us to miss them. I'm certain you'll cry foul now, and say that no such implication was intended, but I'm afraid I won't believe you. I spoke the language of the shibboleth, and I recognize it and its direction of tone, now.

Take your umbrage elsewhere.

I said they (theists and atheists alike) are writing books to make money, and your take away is that I'm accusing you of being a follower?

I think you're waaaaaay overthinking this.

But putting your own experience aside, I think it is fair to say that there will be people who read a book by Dawkins or Hitchens or Carrier or Graham or Osteen or Craig and absorb a certain amount of his ideas and material and have their own thinking altered as a result.

Reading has that effect on us, doesn't it? Especially when we are reading something that we are pre-disposed to believe? But that's not quite the same as saying that someone is a follower or disciple of that author, is it?