Best Living Spokesman for Atheism

[Excited Penguin]

then how does this automatically make someone "bright"

Are you sure you want to hear the answer to that?

[Cyberman]

Stephen Fry, by a country mile.

[Edwardo Piet]

Sam Harris because Sam Harris because Sam Harris because Sam Harris.

P.S. Sam Harris.

P.P.S. Sam.

P.P.P.S. Harris.

[Excited Penguin]

Sam Harris because Sam Harris because Sam Harris because Sam Harris.

P.S. Sam Harris.

P.P.S. Sam.

P.P.P.S. Harris.

Sam Harris is the best!!!
I'm drooling right now.


On a more serious note, I don't care if some consider Atheism more like a thing to organise around. Hell, they can even call it a religion if they like, as long as it's about science, rational thought and anti-stupidity I'd be ok with that kind of "religion" =D.
I rarely ever found an atheist I didn't like or agree with on a huge amount of topics. On a more intellectual level, sure, there's nothing to talk about when you're talking about atheists beyond a lack of belief in deities, but it's more than that practically, and we all know it. Case in point, this is the most amazing forum on the internet.

[Reforged]

Atheism doesn't have a spokesman, Its just not believing in the god claim, nothing else.

That's all it is supposed to be, but I have noticed it becomes more than that to some people sometimes. Though not so much in this forum.  

Wasn't it Richard Dawkins who said atheists should have a name and call themselves "Brights?" If atheism just means not believing in God, then how does this automatically make someone "bright" unless there's more to it than that? But then again, not very many people here like him so perhaps he's not all too popular among long time atheists.

"Many, but not all, brights also identify as atheist, antitheist, humanist (specifically secular humanist), freethinker, Objectivist, irreligionist, naturalist, materialist orphysicalist, agnostic, ignostic, skeptic, apatheist, or even naturalistic pantheist, pandeist or classical Deist.[6] Even so, the "movement is not associated with any defined beliefs". The website Brights' Net says its goal is to include the umbrella term bright in the vocabulary of this existing "community of reason"."

From wikipedia. Don't worry, I wasn't particularly sure till I checked. Easy mistake to make. 

[TheRocketSurgeon]

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™.

[Heat]

The question is flawed from the start.

Everyone who is non-religious is the best living spokesman for atheism simply by not believing, in that respect.

Who's accomplished the most on behalf of it? Even that would need further specification, accomplishing something on behalf of it can be any accomplishment.

I think you're implying more along the lines of "Who is the most accomplished on the grounds of refuting the ideological claim of god, and has pointed out new flaws in theistic claims that weren't previously known"

[Excited Penguin]

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.

[Edwardo Piet]

The question is flawed from the start.

It is. But it's also an excuse for me to tell everyone that I think SH is the greatest.

[Cyberman]

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.

It's the same reason they often need to lump us all together as a religion; as a group we're pretty nebulous, with no centralised focus - therefore no clear target to attack. Nor is there any single direction from which a perceived attack might come. To an institution built around a central authority figure, that's a really scary concept.