What are they doing now?
Posted on: November 23, 2009 - 4:55pm
Online
What are they doing now?
I haven't heard anything about former President of American Atheists Ellen Johnson. Nor have I been up on what Margaret Downey has been up to lately. I am sure they both are doing fine, but does anyone know what, if any activism they are currently involved in?
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
- Login to post comments
Ellen is now the executive director of: http://www.enlightenthevote.com
Margaret recently took the Presidency of the Freethought Society of Greater Philadelphia back, and enjoys doing work relating to increasing awareness about Thomas Paine. She's currently working
- Lori Lipman Brown was the lobbyist for The Secular Coalition of America, she now works a civilian job here: http://www.nesassociates.com
- Sam Harris lost street cred with atheists when he started talking about how we should scientifically investigate meditation and that we should call ourselves rationalists as opposed to atheists.
I personally still like all of them, especially Sam Harris. I just wanted to point out the last two names because I find it ironic that here are four people who have gone through transitions, much like I have, and yet I've got more rumors and lies told about the details of that transition than the other four combined.
Anyone else have any "what are the doing now" updates?
Please become a Patron of Brian Sapient
Support our activism efforts by making your Amazon purchases via this link.
Thanks Brian.
Harris DOES have a bee in my bonet about the Buddhist/meditation stuff, but I still like him just as much.
UPDATE, there is no truth to the rumor that the Redskins have "transitioned". And if this week is any indication your Eagles will hand us our asses again this Sunday.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
So, to paraphrase a famous expression, you will then be able to say "The Eagle(s) have (h)anded".
OK, a bit strained, but with the Lunar landings being commemorated recently, that came to mind...
Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality
"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris
The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me
From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology
I agree with you about Harris. If he were opposed to vaccinations, or something seriously reactionary like that, then that would warrant downgrading his cred.
I know this is a little off topic to this thread but the "rationalist" alternative label comment leads into the topic of the "Am I Atheist or Agnostic" article that defines a strong atheist as "active disbelief in the very possibility of a god". I rely on weight of the evidence defenses of my beliefs, I don't a-priori exclude the very possibility of anything that is unproven, so as someone who actively believes there are no gods I am still not a strong atheist under that definition. If we were to poll atheist professors of philosophy if any denied the very possibility of a god I doubt that any would go that far (do you know of any? I don't). That is why I am a little skeptical that that is a fair definition of a strong atheist. I prefer to call the people who are not comfortable saying they believe there are no gods "non-theists" and the people who also actively believe there are no gods "atheists". Alternatively, I prefer to use the adjectives implicit versus explicit to distinguish between non-believing and disbelieving non-theists. When discussing non-theism with theists I find that non-theists and atheists often part company in the arguments that they make so I think this is a useful distinction, more useful then the distinction that follows from your definition of strong atheist which seems to me to draw the dividing line along an extreme fringe rather than down a more central and easily distinguishable location. This is a quibble, I don't considering this labeling thing particularly important.
I'm curious as to where Deluded_God and much of his writing has gone. He was like a tactical nuke for use against theism, especially anything to do with biology.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.