(December 14, 2015 at 2:12 am)TheRocketSurgeon Wrote: I think it's far more important to the religious that atheism have some sort of identifiable "leader" who speaks for us, or group thereof.
If you read books like The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion by Jonathan Haidt, it explains that people who tend to be very conservative and/or religious value hierarchy far more than people of the "other" persuasion... namely, us. So to us, it's almost a silly question, to ask "who is your leader?" We are not herd animals; we tend to listen to all, and think for ourselves. This is baffling to someone who is accustomed to learning "the right answers" from someone above them in a clear hierarchy.
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™.
Let's call them atheist public intellectuals/authors. The notion that they are some kind of leaders is ridiculous. Leaders of what exactly? If Sam Harris said some stupid shit on twitter tomorrow, that I didn't agree with, I would lose a lot of respect for him instantly. To suggest I would do otherwise is insulting.
They are not any different than any other author you read and like for their ideas. Don't let stupid people infect your liking of some books.
