Best Living Spokesman for Atheism

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Jennifer Michael Hecht.  Look her up - if I tell you about her, you won't believe me.  She's that amazing.

Boru

I just did.  She is impressive.  Is there any one of her books you would recommend above others?

'Doubt: A History'. She kind of fucked her publisher on this one, as they thought her original title 'A History Of Atheism' wouldn't sell. She wrote a history of atheism and called it 'Doubt: A History'. Gotta love that.

Boru

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Unfortunate to see no women whatsoever on this list. Or do you mean spokesman literally?

Yes, you forgot Madalyn Murray-O'Hair.  She literally died to make her point.

The thread title specified 'living'. Otherwise I might have picked Victor Stenger.

Boru

[paulpablo]

You've read their books and seen their debates with Christian apologists on YouTube. Now is your chance to vote for your favorite!

Who is the best living spokesman for atheism?

If I overlooked your favorites in my poll, please add their names to the thread.

Thanks.

There's no single person who I can say I agree with all the time about things.  Richard Dawkins is definitely up there as one of my favourites, but I tend to like listening to comedians talk about atheism more than scientists. 
Ricky Gervais, Steve Merchant and Karl Pilkington make fun of religion loads of times in their podcasts and Ricky Gervais definitely identifies himself as being atheist so he will definitely be up there.
 David Mitchell does some really good comedy about religion but I don't know if he strictly identifies as being an atheist.
I've been getting more into Stephan Molyneux who's an atheist philosopher but there's many points I disagree with about what he says.

Overall probably Ricky Gervais or Richard Dawkins.

[CapnAwesome]

I am the best! Give me all your money and I will be the spokesman!

[Natachan]

I'd say that those who are writers or actors or whatever who happen to be atheists probably do the best job. See Morgan Freeman, Bill Gates, Seth MacFarlane, etc.

[Mr.wizard]

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.

This is why there are no spokesman for atheism, the only thing required to be an atheist is to not believe in god, intelligence has nothing to do with it. I will defend dawkins on this one though, the Brights movement was not about atheism it was about having a naturalistic worldview.

[Clueless Morgan]

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?

That wasn't Dawkins as far as I was aware.

The Bright Stuff by Daniel Dennett
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/12/opinio...stuff.html

"The term ''bright'' is a recent coinage by two brights in Sacramento, Calif., who thought our social group -- which has a history stretching back to the Enlightenment, if not before -- could stand an image-buffing and that a fresh name might help."

[Edwardo Piet]

You're correct CM.

[Clueless Morgan]

Granted, a lot of people poo-poo Dawkins for a lot of stupid stuff, but the stupidity of the term "brights" cannot rightly be laid at his feet

[Crossless2.0]

Granted, a lot of people poo-poo Dawkins for a lot of stupid stuff, but the stupidity of the term "brights" cannot rightly be laid at his feet

Regardless of its origin, I first encountered it from Dawkins (a TV interview? Not sure now) and cringed. It's childish and tactically stupid.