Who are your favorite current Atheists?

[Delicate]

What about Dawkins makes you think he isn't interested in "Pushing the truth", whatever that means.

I just posted a link above. Did you read it?

[FatAndFaithless]

Meh I don't disagree completely, I strongly dislike the idea of having "representatives" of atheists like Dawkins or Hitchens - You see, we can say that atheists only share their lack of belief in god as a common denominator, but regardless atheist celebrities push interests in the name of skeptics, atheists, and free thinkers. I like Dawkins and Hitchens and Harris, but I don't put them on a pedestal, all of them are imperfect to an extent - And I think many atheists don't fully feel represented by them. I would go one step further and say that most atheists worldwide are probably middle class people who are interested in living life peacefully without religious people bothering them, anti-theists like Dawkins and Harris don't represent accurately what most atheists think.

Sam Harris may be a good skeptic and scientist, but he loses everything when he argues that we should racially profile Muslims, just like Dawkins tweets questionable arguments like "rape X is worse than rape Y and if you disagree you are emotional and not logical"

That's accurate, but there's a difference between saying "I don't like Dawkins" or "He doesn't represent my views or opinions" and "He's more interested in selling books than the truth".

---

What about Dawkins makes you think he isn't interested in "Pushing the truth", whatever that means.

I just posted a link above. Did you read it?

Yeah, that's an old article that I've already read a few times. Disliking someone's tone in a discussion of a topic doesn't give you the right to claim "they care more about selling books than about the truth". I don't know if you've read any of Dawkin's work, but it's pretty flatly scientific and dry in many places, not exactly super entertaining, and focused on the 'truth'.

[Dystopia]

To an extent I think it's true - Let's not be fools, Dawkins has millions of followers (Am I exaggerating?) and obviously he has to play his role - Sure, he is very anti-religion, but a part of it is just what atheists and skeptics want to hear (i.e. Bash religion even when it's not justified) and he made some cash with his best seller books. I'm not saying his books are full of lies, but the intent to specifically write against religion (using "The God Delusion" as an example") is also related to how much he can profit considering the percentage of atheists

I think he believes he is right and tells the truth, but to say there's no money involved it's foolish - I think if Dawkins had a more favourable opinion of religion that wouldn't be accepted by skeptics he wouldn't reveal it to not lose followers.

[FatAndFaithless]

To an extent I think it's true - Let's not be fools, Dawkins has millions of followers (Am I exaggerating?) and obviously he has to play his role - Sure, he is very anti-religion, but a part of it is just what atheists and skeptics want to hear (i.e. Bash religion even when it's not justified) and he made some cash with his best seller books. I'm not saying his books are full of lies, but the intent to specifically write against religion (using "The God Delusion" as an example") is also related to how much he can profit considering the percentage of atheists

I think he believes he is right and tells the truth, but to say there's no money involved it's foolish - I think if Dawkins had a more favourable opinion of religion that wouldn't be accepted by skeptics he wouldn't reveal it to not lose followers.

Oh I'm not saying that the financial factor isn't a factor, I'm simply reluctant to agree to the rather rash assertion that "he cares more about money than the truth" (which implies something about what's actually in his books).

[Delicate]

Meh I don't disagree completely, I strongly dislike the idea of having "representatives" of atheists like Dawkins or Hitchens - You see, we can say that atheists only share their lack of belief in god as a common denominator, but regardless atheist celebrities push interests in the name of skeptics, atheists, and free thinkers. I like Dawkins and Hitchens and Harris, but I don't put them on a pedestal, all of them are imperfect to an extent - And I think many atheists don't fully feel represented by them. I would go one step further and say that most atheists worldwide are probably middle class people who are interested in living life peacefully without religious people bothering them, anti-theists like Dawkins and Harris don't represent accurately what most atheists think.

Sam Harris may be a good skeptic and scientist, but he loses everything when he argues that we should racially profile Muslims, just like Dawkins tweets questionable arguments like "rape X is worse than rape Y and if you disagree you are emotional and not logical"

That's accurate, but there's a difference between saying "I don't like Dawkins" or "He doesn't represent my views or opinions" and "He's more interested in selling books than the truth".

---

I just posted a link above. Did you read it?

Yeah, that's an old article that I've already read a few times. Disliking someone's tone in a discussion of a topic doesn't give you the right to claim "they care more about selling books than about the truth". I don't know if you've read any of Dawkin's work, but it's pretty flatly scientific and dry in many places, not exactly super entertaining, and focused on the 'truth'.

I didn't say that merely disliking someone's tone justifies the belief that they care more about money and fame than the truth.

There's a bit more than tone. And neither do I slight him on his scientific work, which is actually very good.

Do you think it's reasonable for someone to read that article and become disgusted with Dawkins and the hypocritical greed he represents?

[FatAndFaithless]

I'm not sure what "hypocritical greed" you're alluding to. They guy sells books and gets paid for lectures and meetings, none of which has any implications on the 'truth' of his arguments (which the article never touches upon, by the way). It's true that many atheists don't like him as a person, or his approach, or his methods, or some of his political or moral ideas on certain subjects, nobody is denying that much at least. When it comes to the discussion of atheism itself, however, I'm not sure where you can point out in his arguments or ideas a place where his "fame and money" have taken precedence over the truth.

---

That being said, fine, you don't like Richard Dawkins because you think he cares about money more than truth. Anyone else?

[Cyberman]

You don't think that they portray what they view as the truth in the books they sell?

No, because their books are written to entertain, not to teach. As such they are entertainers and moneymakers, much like Christian televangelists.

Well, to quote another popular atheist: "At least you've found a way to feel superior to both, that's the main thing."

[Cyberman]

What about Dawkins makes you think he isn't interested in "Pushing the truth", whatever that means.

I just posted a link above. Did you read it?

Yes, we did. You were asked your opinion, not that of some article. Posting links without commentary attracts the attention of the Staff, especially from a newcomer.

[Delicate]

I'm not sure what "hypocritical greed" you're alluding to. They guy sells books and gets paid for lectures and meetings, none of which has any implications on the 'truth' of his arguments (which the article never touches upon, by the way). It's true that many atheists don't like him as a person, or his approach, or his methods, or some of his political or moral ideas on certain subjects, nobody is denying that much at least. When it comes to the discussion of atheism itself, however, I'm not sure where you can point out in his arguments or ideas a place where his "fame and money" have taken precedence over the truth.

---

That being said, fine, you don't like Richard Dawkins because you think he cares about money more than truth. Anyone else?

Atheism is an attempt to save civilization from the impending disaster of religion. The pursuit of fame and fortune inherently impedes this process.

Imagine a firefighter choosing to pursue fame and fortune instead of putting out fires.

To my mind, that's what it is.

---

I just posted a link above. Did you read it?

Yes, we did. You were asked your opinion, not that of some article. Posting links without commentary attracts the attention of the Staff, especially from a newcomer.

I provided my opinion earlier in the thread. The link served as evidence for the justification for my opinion.

---

No, because their books are written to entertain, not to teach. As such they are entertainers and moneymakers, much like Christian televangelists.

Well, to quote another popular atheist: "At least you've found a way to feel superior to both, that's the main thing."

As have you, apparently.

[FatAndFaithless]

Atheism is an attempt to save civilization from the impending disaster of religion.

Woah there, no it ain't. If you're trying to create a "cause" of atheism, then go ahead, but don't presume to include us all in your aims.

The pursuit of fame and fortune inherently impedes this process.

Non sequitur...no idea how someone making money impedes "saving civilization", especially when the ideas off of which he's making money are still true and useful.

Imagine a firefighter choosing to pursue fame and fortune instead of putting out fires.

To my mind, that's what it is.

Uh..if he doesn't put out fires, he's not a fire fighter. To think that Dawkins isn't increasing the awareness and discussion of atheism is insane.