Prominent Atheists and Freethinkers

[Michael]

This forum is intended for discussion about prominent atheists and freethinkers, including the popular atheists of today, and the prominent freethinkers throughout history.

This forum was formerly called the "New Atheists", but that term isn't very satisfactory, and is a bit of a misnomer. "Prominent" is perhaps a better description, encompassing atheists and freethinkers of today and yesterday.

This new forum, currently called the "New Atheists" (I'll change that if anyone can suggest a better name), is intended for discussion about our celebrity atheists (*snort*), and atheism in the media. The media has (or did) dub folks like Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Christopher Hitchens and Sam Harris as the "New Atheists". It's a funny term, and I'm not exactly sure what it means. I guess the "new" refers to the fact that atheism is getting more attention in the media, and that these folks are the new face of atheism.

In addition to these four, who dubbed themselves The Four Horsemen, I would add A.C. Grayling, PZ Myers, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Stephen Law, and ...

[Cathy]

How about including:

James Randi, magician?

Ann Druyen, author (Carl Sagan, her late husband, would've been my FIRST suggestion if he weren't gone!)

Phil Plait, the BadAstronomy guy?

D.J.Groethe, the host of Point of Inquiry?

Penn & Teller, the magicians?

Neil deGrasse Tyson, the astronomer?

Joe Nickell, magician and debunker?

Steven Pinker, cognitive scientist?

I'd also love to suggest Isaac Asimov, Douglas Adams, and Arthur C. Clarke, if they weren't all gone, too! (I'm not positive all these people are actually atheists, just some of the people who seem to come from a rationalist and freethinking stance.)

[Michael]

Fer sure Cathy!

Did you hear Phil Plait is the new president of the James Randi Educational Foundation?

I miss Douglas Adams. I recently read his non-fiction book, Last Chance to See, which I picked up at a library book sale for $1 and it was excellent (and funny of course). Ah well...

At some point, I'd love to hear people's thoughts about PZ and the cracker controversy.

[Cathy]

I think it's very exciting that Phil Plait is the JREF president, and told him so...

Ah...Crackergate....

Deliberately and openly "defiling" what to others are "sacred" objects is not something I'm at all inclined to do, and I have to admit that PZ's first posting on the topic made me feel a little bit uncomfortable. However, I was, even then, totally aware that:
1) everyone has his or her own style (i.e., different strokes for different folks),
and (2) the actions and OVER-reactions of various Catholics in the particular case, BEFORE PZ posted, called for some sort of thumping complaint.

When I saw how people responded to PZ's post, I was definitely reminded of the Muslim world's reactions to the Danish cartoon. I saw that some people were deliberately creating a furor over the matter, that some of the deliberately-inflamed people seemed inclined to violence (thank goodness, as far as know, it was all bark, no bite), and most importantly, that Catholics seemed to want other people, not of their religion, to somehow follow THEIR rules about their religious rites and objects.

Basically, I feel that the only thing a Catholic should be able to do, or that should even occur to a Catholic to do, when someone has, in his or her eyes, defiled a sacred ritual or ritual object, is kick that person out of the particular congregation/church/meeting/whatever in which the "sacrilege" happened, and, possibly, to complain to higher-ups for ejection from the faith altogether. There should be no possible way that so-called blasphemy should be thought to be punishable by anyone other than the church, by secular groups such as police or university presidents.

As the over-reaction to PZ's reaction to the original over-reaction of Catholics to the student's action (pant, pant!) built up and up to crazy heights, I felt more and more inclined to agree with PZ that SOMETHING had to be done to show that WE don't have to view a cracker (even one that has been blessed) as a chunk of holy flesh. I was glad that, when the public defilement finally occurred, it wasn't too terribly tasteless.

What does everyone else think of Crackergate? Michael?

[Cathy]

Did you see on RDnet, Crazy4Blues said:

"I nominate Bill Maher, Penn Jillete, Lewis Black, and George Carlin (in absentia, of course) as The Four Horsemen of Comedy!"

[Michael]

I agree that the overreaction of Catholics necessitated some sort of response from secular folk. The way it played out initially, with the public statements from Bill Donohue and others, and the death threats, was just so over-the-top. At first I wondered whether PZ stepped over a line here:

So, what to do. I have an idea. Can anyone out there score me some consecrated communion wafers? There's no way I can personally get them — my local churches have stakes prepared for me, I'm sure — but if any of you would be willing to do what it takes to get me some, or even one, and mail it to me, I'll show you sacrilege, gladly, and with much fanfare.

On reflection I thought it was totally justified, as Bill Donohue certainly crossed a line by saying the student's actions were "beyond hate speech" and in calling for the student's expulsion from the university. This encroachment of religion into the public sphere is something we need to guard against.

It is fine, I suppose, for religious folk to have their symbols and sacred objects, and in the normal course I would say "defiling" such objects is in poor taste and unnecessary. Given the circumstances and the hullabaloo, PZ's public relations exercise was a good thing. I admire him for having the courage to go through with it. I guess PZ just called their bluff.

[KathyO]

I wonder what changes DJ Grothe will make now that he's head of the JREF.

Have they already ended their million dollar challenge? I know they were going to stop offering the challenge. It never worked out the way they'd hoped. They wanted prominent people to step forward to be tested and proven to be frauds. Shockingly, those people seem to know better than to allow fair testing of their abilities. Instead, the testers were almost all deluded people who honestly thought they had a gift because, 'Sometimes I get this funny feeling and then something bad happens.'