Skeptics I have immense respect for.

[Tiberius]

Ok, so this is a sister thread to Skeptics I no longer have any respect for. These are the skeptics for whom I have immense respect.

James Randi
Ben Radford
Penn & Teller
Michael Shermer
Derren Brown
Ben Goldacre
Brian Cox
Jamie Hyneman
Phil Plait
Adam Savage

and possibly many more that I've neglected to add. Feel free to add your own (I only included living skeptics, but dead ones are good too!)

[5thHorseman]

Christopher Hitchens
Bertrand Russell

[reverendjeremiah]

Richard dawkins

Seriously man, i dont know why you disrespect him for his God delusion book. When i picked up the book I realized it was a rehash of old arguments I have already studied. I didnt even finish the book.

I do respect that this book has gained new supporters for atheism, and that alone makes it worth it.

[thesummerqueen]

Phil Plait, to borrow Eld's term, rocks balls. Hard. That man is a machine. If you don't already follow him on every social site possible, you should.

I also have a fondness for Brian Dunning, who is also on the no-no list on Skepchick. He keeps a listserve for his podcast "Skeptoid" that's highly entertaining. Chadster, espressofrog and I all belong to it.

[Tiberius]

It doesn't make it worth it when those new atheists are coming to atheism for the wrong reasons. Dawkins' book wasn't so much a rehash of old arguments, it was a rehash of mostly invalid or deeply flawed arguments. Dawkins is a great biologist and scientist, and I respect him for that. I just don't think he knows what he is talking about when it comes to atheism / philosophy.

There are far more eloquent and philosophically minded atheists who can handle these kinds of things.

[reverendjeremiah]

It doesn't make it worth it when those new atheists are coming to atheism for the wrong reasons. Dawkins' book wasn't so much a rehash of old arguments, it was a rehash of mostly invalid or deeply flawed arguments. Dawkins is a great biologist and scientist, and I respect him for that. I just don't think he knows what he is talking about when it comes to atheism / philosophy.

There are far more eloquent and philosophically minded atheists who can handle these kinds of things.

Okay..granted...hes not a super atheist. Could he have done better? Sure.

most people who were drawn to Dawkins were also introduced to Hitchens as well, and THAT helped tremendously.

Dawkins is about science... his philosophy is a bit dry and frontal.

Tyson explains how I view Dawkins very descriptively....but Dawkins answer is classic.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-_2xGIwQfik

---

..so, Dawkins HAS changed since that book. He is a bit more careful in his approach as well.

[fr0d0]

Stephen Fry (even though he always sounds uninformed but I take that as my theistic tint)
Eddie Izzard
Ricky Gervais
^^ those two I have no problem with whatsoever. They rock

[Erinome]

Sam Harris, Neil Degrasse Tyson, Julia Sweeny, Bill Nye, Dan Dennett, Carl Sagan, Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, and Bertrand Russel... Joe Rogan, George Carlin, Bill Maher, and John Lennon.

Just off the top of my head.

[thesummerqueen]

My man.

I blame Ben Radford and Blake Smith for their Monster Talk podcast exposing me to the skeptic movement itself (though I had seen Ben on documentaries or read his articles before that) but it was Lew who gave voice to all the shit that was being shouted in my head. He's also the reason I curse so fluently.

Dr. Karen Stolznow, also on Monster Talk but also a host of Point of Inquiry, is the only Skepchick I like so far, and also a fine investigator in her own right.

Daniel Loxton is also a great dude. If any of you have kids, he does a lot of stuff catering to the younger crowd that you should check out. He also wrote a bit about the whole "Don't Be a Dick" debacle and its history that I found rather inspiring.

[TheDarkestOfAngels]

It doesn't make it worth it when those new atheists are coming to atheism for the wrong reasons. Dawkins' book wasn't so much a rehash of old arguments, it was a rehash of mostly invalid or deeply flawed arguments. Dawkins is a great biologist and scientist, and I respect him for that. I just don't think he knows what he is talking about when it comes to atheism / philosophy.

There are far more eloquent and philosophically minded atheists who can handle these kinds of things.

Could you elaborate on this a bit? I haven't read his book - I've just seen his pubilc discussions via youtube so pehraps there's something I've missed, but I don't really see his lack of philisophical understanding a flaw in his reasoning.
I myself am an atheist for entirely scientific reasons and in terms of becoming an atheist, understanding atheists, and arguing with theists, I see that as entirely superfluous.
At best, it can give someone a better understanding of the side you're arguing against but that doesn't really take a whole lot of reading.

On a seporate note, I have a great deal of respect for Aron Ra, Matt Dilihaunty (and everyone on the Atheist Experience), the Amazing Atheist (brash and blunt, but intelligent - a lot like minimalist actually), and Zomitscrisis (if I've spelled that correctly - she's a lot like the amazing atheist - intelligent and tells it like it is, except she's a girl, is hot, and has a hotter accent.)
Also - Stephan Hawking and.... pretty much every famous scientist there is.
If I remember correctly, I believe Bill Nye the Science guy is also an atheist or at least agnostic.

.... I wonder of Paul Zaloom is an atheist or agnostic. (Beakman from Beakman's world).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GI74P_TY4kg

They don't make science shows like this anymore.