Best Living Spokesman for Atheism

[Simon Moon]

I have said I am unconvinced by your presented arguments, this is not a dodge but a rather easy to follow answer to your question.
Are you saying that the arguments DO convince me and I just refuse to believe? This would be a bizarre thing for you to claim, you cannot possibly know what I find convincing better than I do!
You confuse me, what exactly are you claiming?

What arguments do you take me to have presented, exactly?

Maybe that is part of the problem, you wouldn't know a what a reasoned, evidenced, logical argument is if it flew out of your ass.

Maybe it is time for you to put up, or shut up. Time for you to present your arguments for the god you believe exists.

As we've stated in response to you many times, all we require to believe a god exists is demonstrable, verifiable, falsifiable evidence, reasoned argument and valid and sound logic to support your god claims.

Which makes us wonder, why do you continue to fail to present it?

If the existence of your god is so obvious, you should be jumping at the chance to convince us.

[Delicate]

What arguments do you take me to have presented, exactly?

Maybe that is part of the problem, you wouldn't know a what a reasoned, evidenced, logical argument is if it flew out of your ass.

Maybe it is time for you to put up, or shut up. Time for you to present your arguments for the god you believe exists.

As we've stated in response to you many times, all we require to believe a god exists is demonstrable, verifiable, falsifiable evidence, reasoned argument and valid and sound logic to support your god claims.

Which makes us wonder, why do you continue to fail to present it?

If the existence of your god is so obvious, you should be jumping at the chance to convince us.

Let's assume you're right. I have no idea what a good argument is.

In my naivete, I believe a good argument, minimally has true premises (or at least plausibly true premises) and valid reasoning.

What have I gotten wrong?

[drfuzzy]

I have said I am unconvinced by your presented arguments, this is not a dodge but a rather easy to follow answer to your question.
Are you saying that the arguments DO convince me and I just refuse to believe? This would be a bizarre thing for you to claim, you cannot possibly know what I find convincing better than I do!
You confuse me, what exactly are you claiming?

What arguments do you take me to have presented, exactly?

You haven't presented any arguments, troll, because you're probably just bright enough to realize that we don't accept word salad.  Only scientific facts.  And because we hold an opinion different from yours, you're spending many hours of your Christmas insulting people you've never met and never will meet.  That's absurdly pathetic.  Maybe you could take a tip from Jesus, and do what some of the atheists did for the holidays:  pass out food and toys to people in need.  Maybe you won't have this desperate need to trash on atheists after that.

[Delicate]

Downbeatplumb certainly disagrees with you fuzzy

[mralstoner]

On the one hand, I'd vote for Matt Dillahunty, as easily the leading spokesman of atheism. But, on the other hand, I'm old enough to remember life before Richard Dawkins became hugely influential. So, while he's still alive, Dawkins will always be our leading spokesman.

[Edwardo Piet]

Matt Dillahunty borrows a lot from others. When he speaks of objective morality, for instance, he is just borrowing that from Sam Harris. And when he speaks of Belief in Belief, he is just borrowing that from Daniel Dennett.

[mralstoner]

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.

That's ironic. You are espousing a liberal position, whereas Haidt's work is aimed at bridging the gap between liberals and conservatives. Haidt's position is that liberalism is a very dangerous "unconstrained vision" (i.e. radical individualism without leadership and direction). And conservatism is the opposite i.e. hugely oppressive. Haidt's point is that both liberals and conservatives have valid viewpoints, but the place we want to be is somewhere in the middle, not at either extreme. Liberals and conservatives are symbiotic, yin and yang, we need each other to avoid extremes.

[thesummerqueen]

Well, well, well. I waded through 16 pages of bullshit just to come to this.

This was a ridiculous question to begin with, so while we're being ridiculous, I nominate myself. I'm the forum queen, I have experience leading a large group of snarky, immature individuals, I look fantastic in a tight skirt, red lipstick, and kitten heels, and I'm good at speaking to crowds. Oh, and I don't mind confrontation.

Unless I missed it in my scan, I am seriously disappointed that no one mentioned Seth Andrews. I don't think atheism needs a "spokesperson", but if we had to choose one, I'd pick him. I think he has the right mix of compassion, empathy, and determined spirit.

But we don't need no stinkin' spokesperson.

[Edwardo Piet]

Hawt.

Hawt post.

[abaris]

Matt Dillahunty borrows a lot from others. When he speaks of objective morality, for instance, he is just borrowing that from Sam Harris. And when he speaks of Belief in Belief, he is just borrowing that from Daniel Dennett.

And you actually think, these were original thoughts by Harris or Dennett? As usual, Harris presents the obvious as if it was a great revelation. And the Dennett quote fails to impress out of the same reasons.

Truth is, these are obvious conclusions.