I am in a debate on another forum with somebody who is being a bit of a jerk. I am an evangelical Christian, but I am not fervent, per se, although I am 100% dedicated, and inflexible, BUT, I say I am not fervent in that I don’t care what others believe, and am hardly one to bother them if they disagree with me. A long story, so, I’ll leave that off. However, we disagreed on another point, and he is sarcastically calling my (dispassionate) argument one that was created in ‘righteous fervor,’ meaning, of course, some kind of psychotic, hypocritical, pimp hiding behind a pulpit. Now, I am going to try and counter this by saying his ‘X’ stance is hardly the blow to Christendom that he thinks, and even less of a blow to me, because it is old, tepid, and boring. But, I can’t think of who X might be. Also, does “Beloved Infidel” have the same meaning as “professional naysayer?” Can you give me a good X, and also a better word for professional naysayer, that would fit in the context? Ooops. forgot, X needs to be witty, also, not just belligerent.
I put this in GQ because I thought that woud be the best place to find the X who is (OP title).
Just from the title, the first person I thought of was Richard Dawkins. Reading your OP, I’m not quite sure if that’s the kind of person you’re looking for.
Uh, can’t say. Don’t know of RD. And if I haven’t heard of him, I know *this *hayseed hasn’t. I’m usually the last to know of anybody/anything in most circles. Kinda looking for a G. Bernard Shaw, Kafka, kind of name. Somebody whose name a HS graduate would know of, but not their works, particularly.
Thanks,
hh:)
Bill Maher maybe? Though he’s in that more agnosticish area who more doesn’t like organized religion than a skeptic like you’re looking for.
Dawkins really is the best bet. Randi could also… sort of work. Maybe. Though he’s more known on the psychic powers circuit for his challenge (even those would realistically extend to one who can prove acts of God as well).
I know this isn’t what you asked but you would be debating more solidly if you didn’t descend into this sort of debate from authority anyway. A good argument is a good argument even if it was invented by a complete loon.
Your OP is a bit opaque but if I’m reading it correctly he has suggested your supposedly “dispassionate” argument was created by someone questionable. I’d just respond “so what, it’s a good argument”.
Of course, if your argument isn’t very good, this won’t help. But that’s your problem.
I’m surprised that you haven’t learned, as long as you’ve been on the SDMB, that you can find a list of about anything in Wikipedia. Here’s the main article with links to more specific lists of atheists:
Although, come to think of it, if neither you nor the person that you’re debating with has heard of Richard Dawkins, I’m not sure that anyone we could name would be appropriate for your debate. If you’d don’t know any of the obvious atheists, there’s no one that this person you’re debating with would ever recognize.
I’ve been trying, without success, to find what the origin of the term “beloved infidel” is. It appears to me that it’s usually used to mean “someone who disagrees with me but who I respect.”
Christopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett
Any of those 3 would suffice for what you are looking for.
Arguably you could include the early communists, who felt religion was a tool of social control. Karl Marx would suffice for that (I think he was an atheist).
Seems to me most of the people mentioned in this thread were already well known for unrelated reasons before they became “famous atheists”, so I don’t know if it’s fair to say they are famous for being famous atheists.
So, it looks like he wants someone who is (1) universally famous (2) also an atheist and (3) their atheism is well-known. That’s why I went with Freud, who famously derided religion for being an infantile delusion and pure wish-fulfillment.
