8 atheist leaders actually worth listening to

[polar bear]

Being a new atheist, Dawkins is a great place to start.  He may not be on your level but he helps a lot of people understand the basics

[MattB]

Willing to listen to their positions. Not willing to call them leaders or necessarily agree. Same as with any other atheist.

I have the same position, but here's the thing - What you and I think is irrelevant because we can't control people's actions. Whether we like it or not, there are atheist organizations, associations and movements that bound atheists together for many causes (usually secularism and promoting atheism, coming out of the closet, and anti-theism) - Those organizations appoint leaders like any other, and are prone to dogma and groupthinking. If there's an atheist organization with a  leader, that person is an atheist leader - not a leader to all atheists, but to those who support or are part of the organization. Richard Dawkins is certainly a leader to some atheists and he is full of people on twitter telling him how much he is awesome and how his books rock and are perfect.

You also realize that religionists can have the same position, right? Any Christian can say they don't believe in the Pope, or that the pope is just a guy with some opinion, there isn't a legal or political obligation to obey the Pope.

If people want to stop hearing about atheist leaders (Some are self-appointed), atheist events, atheist conventions, etc, they can stop supporting those groups trough words or merely quoting famous atheists all the time. Seriously, there are arguments debunking theism since Epicurus, Dawkins and his legion of followers are not a special case.

Thanks for this. This is the kind of opinion I was looking for not the normal theist vs anti-theist flame wars I see so much of.

---

You're a fucking moron. I pegged you right the first time around. Tell what to Dawkins? He's first a scientist, second an educator and only then an atheist. You people who have something against the "New Atheists" forget to actually listen to them and fall into the propaganda of imbeciles from the atheist movements who want to make as much money as these ones. You're fucking disgusting and I think you probably deserve it. Go lead a bullshit life having pretentious and wrong ideas about the majority of things like that.

---

WHat's your problem with Dawkins and Harris anyway?

LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL - Dawkins is known most of all by being an atheist and writing books like The God Delusion, and only then as a scientist. He has a book called The God Delusion, he gets lectures to criticize religion, he has tweets criticizng religion. he is invited for debates to criticize religion - It seems obvious what makes him famous, am I right.

My problem - They promote groupthinking as much as any other person or group and some atheists seem them as being always right and that's a very dangerous idea. I listened to them, I have read The God Delusion - I don't get the big deal about it, I was expecting something more rational and intellectually sophisticated. It's terrible to think A+ is a bad group and suddenly Richard Dawkins' following cult is ok because Dawkins is different. I have no issue with any of them as people, and some points are good, but for the most part I was expecting more. Someone like Freud who actually studied religion and knew how to criticize it made more contributions against religion on a paper than Dawkins in a lifetime

I'm not going to criticize his book haven't read it. What I am seeing is some atheist act like fundamentalist Christians with their hate. Those people both fundies and atheist I reject as leaders or teachers, Go to the Newsgroup Alt.Atheism and you will see pure hate for the most part. Then any Christain group.

BTW is the book worth reading?

[brewer]

Willing to listen to their positions. Not willing to call them leaders or necessarily agree. Same as with any other atheist.

I have the same position, but here's the thing - What you and I think is irrelevant because we can't control people's actions. Whether we like it or not, there are atheist organizations, associations and movements that bound atheists together for many causes (usually secularism and promoting atheism, coming out of the closet, and anti-theism) - Those organizations appoint leaders like any other, and are prone to dogma and groupthinking. If there's an atheist organization with a  leader, that person is an atheist leader - not a leader to all atheists, but to those who support or are part of the organization. Richard Dawkins is certainly a leader to some atheists and he is full of people on twitter telling him how much he is awesome and how his books rock and are perfect.

You also realize that religionists can have the same position, right? Any Christian can say they don't believe in the Pope, or that the pope is just a guy with some opinion, there isn't a legal or political obligation to obey the Pope.

If people want to stop hearing about atheist leaders (Some are self-appointed), atheist events, atheist conventions, etc, they can stop supporting those groups trough words or merely quoting famous atheists all the time. Seriously, there are arguments debunking theism since Epicurus, Dawkins and his legion of followers are not a special case.

So what you think only has relevance if you control peoples actions? (easy, just poking a little). For me it isn't like or not like, it is care or not care , I chose not to care. If you have a problem with the organization(s) or Dawkins or others, you and other like minded persons can take up the cause.

[Dystopia]

I think "influential atheists" is a more accurate term than leaders.

There is no universal leader for atheists - Some atheists don't even know who Richard Dawkins is - But these people are all leaders to a certain organization and I think that's what the OP meant. I'm more concerned about people's actions than what they claim to be or stand for - If a group treats a person like a leader, listens to him/her like a leader, takes his/her word like a leader's, I will assume that person is a leader. Certainly not an atheist leader (literally), but a leader to some atheist organizations for those who want to follow it.

You're wrong. Dawkins is more famous for being an educator since he's been doing it for decades.He only wrote the God Delusion in 2006. He is famous for it too, and he is widely regarded as the most famous atheist in the world, but that is not a bad thing, nor does it say anything about him as an author. He should be praised for helping more people reject religion but not much more than that, in the "atheist" department - nor is anyone thinking otherwise, I don't think.

And? Arguably he is not an excellent over the top scientist, there are people in the world who have done more and people don't know their names - There are people who probably know who Dawkins is and can't name one or two less known nobel prize winners for X or Y field. I don't care that is an educator, he is never (or almost never) mentioned as such and his best selling book is The God Delusion. His followers on twitter treat him like a Messiah and they're always posting tweets on how awesome and right he is, to the extent they claim he never commits logical fallacies which is an irrational idea because we all do it.

I'm not saying he is a bad scientist or person but he doesn't deserve the pedestal of influential atheist - What he does, and New Atheists do, is to criticize the Abrahamic god and Abrahamic religions (woooh, that's so hard to do, right?) and because of that they think they're superior. It's not a big deal, those religions are extremely easy to criticize.

I know Dawkins is a scientist and Hitchens was a journalist, etc, but their atheism and anti-theism is what made them more famous internationally. Dawkins gets mostly lectures to speak about atheism or instead to speak about evolution as an opposition to creationism and religion

Anyway, we don't measure people for what they're famous for, but for their actual contributions. Dawkins is a pretty smart man, he contributed some as a biologist and is a well established scientist. His opinion is not to be simply swept under the rug, just because you're going through a phase now.
I haven't read Dawkins much though(not at all, actually). I only know of him through second sources and through waching many videos with him either debating, talking, being interviewed or taking interviews, etc. So I wouldn't stick my hand in the fire for him. But your presumptions are still wrong - I'm fairly sure about that.

Why? You haven't even read his most famous book, so how do you know so much about my premises and conclusion? Do you have a crystal ball to guess if something is true or not? Yes, he is, and so are many other scientists, that's irrelevant considering the credits he gets from his fanclub. I respect people's contributions to science (why shouldn't I?) but that doesn't mean I think they should be treated as an absolute smart source.

As for Harris, I'm pretty fucking sure you're wrong there. Before telling us we should forget about him, maybe you should try refuting everything he ever said or wrote in print. Go ahead, I'll be waiting.

I have done that many times on this forum, so I'm not going to repeat myself. I never said Harris sucks, he makes good points like other people do - I just don't think he is as right as he thinks he is, not to mention he believes in the Eurabia conspiracy theory and thinks people who disagree are setting him up with political correctness.

[bennyboy]

I see the conflict here. As usual, it comes back to the etymology.

Those who look for "leaders" in atheism see it much as Margaret Atwood-- atheism is a doctrine, and atheists are those who follow or subscribe to that doctrine. Those here, who are mostly not of that type, see anything institutional as a threat to the soft atheism position-- they don't WANT to think of atheism as an institution, because it is largely the instiutional nature of religions, specifically the christian one, that they so much dislike.

[Pizza]

@bennyboy,
I personally dislike the idea of anyone being seen as the face of atheism, since often the general public sees things in black and white. If a David Silverman type goes on tv and claims, "agnostics are pissies and all religious people are literally mentally ill," then most people are going to think all atheists believe the same.

[Regina]

I think atheist speakers can be a good thing in popularising secularism and encouraging more people to come forward. It creates a solidarity among atheists and gives us food for thought. Having said that, I don't know if we need "leaders" who organise atheism and dictate what atheists should do, since that's just religion without a God.

If we're done playing semantics and are adding to the list of "atheists worth listening to", I'd add Maryam Namazie to that initial list. She doesn't say all that much about atheism in itself, but she's amazing in taking down the pro-Islamist left and for her commentary on Islamism. She's great for some arguments for when people cry "Islamophobia" and I guess she's good listening for ex-Muslims.

I don't think there's anything wrong with Dawkins, Harris or Hitchens, there's a place for them in the discussion. I do think it's good to get more variety though, especially when talking about Islam, get some ex-Muslims and/or Muslim secularists talking about it, they have the inside experience, it's raw and honest with them.

[Cephus]

Having atheist leaders declared is inevitable.

There will always be a more vocal and popular member of a group that "stands out" to people. If we as individuals choose not to give a crow to someone, I assure you that the media will.

The media has already declared people such as Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens as atheist leaders.

They can declare them anything they want, I have no obligation to listen to any of them and I don't.  I might read a book by Dawkins or Hitchens or whoever, but they don't speak for me.  I have no atheist leaders.  I am my own person.

[Dystopia]

Having atheist leaders declared is inevitable.

There will always be a more vocal and popular member of a group that "stands out" to people. If we as individuals choose not to give a crow to someone, I assure you that the media will.

The media has already declared people such as Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens as atheist leaders.

They can declare them anything they want, I have no obligation to listen to any of them and I don't.  I might read a book by Dawkins or Hitchens or whoever, but they don't speak for me.  I have no atheist leaders.  I am my own person.

This isn't so much about obligations to listen to anyone but how the social grouping of individuals leads to leaders being appointed and eventually atheists are no exception and they'll find causes to fight for.

[Spooky]

8 atheist leaders actually worth listening to

Forget Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins. The new atheists don't have the
final word on godlessness

http://www.salon.com/2015/06/18/8_atheis...o_partner/

1. Rebecca Hensler.   Hensler founded Grief Beyond Belief

2. Debbie Goddard.    Goddard is director of the campus and community
outreach department at Center for Inquiry

3. August E. Brunsman IV.     Brunsman is Executive Director of the
Secular Student Alliance,

4. Muhammad Syed.      Syed is President of Ex-Muslims of North
America

5. Sarah Morehead. Morehead is Executive Director of Recovering From
Religion

6. Mandisa Thomas. Thomas is founder and president of Black
Nonbelievers Inc.

7. Noelle George. George is the newly appointed Executive Director of
Foundation Beyond Belief,

8. Amanda Metskas. Metskas is Executive Director of Camp Quest

And more importantly, I’m writing this to alert any atheists, and
anyone questioning their religion, who might be reading this: There’s
a whole lot more to organized atheism than Dawkins and Harris. If
you’ve been interested in the burgeoning atheist movement — please
know that it’s a large, diverse, rapidly growing movement, with a huge
variety of ideas, goals, demographics, values, strategies, and vibes.

.......

Interesting article  Does anyone have anyone to add to this list?  That or comment on those in it?

Thank you for sharing