Get to Know Your YouTube Atheists

by Luke Muehlhauser on March 18, 2010 in Resources,Video

Get to know your YouTube atheists!

Who am I missing that’s good?

Richard Dawkins

The official Richard Dawkins YouTube channel features short, well-produced videos on science and atheism featuring major figures in public atheism.

Mr. Deity

Very funny and well-produced video series starring God and other notables.

Pat Condell

Short, angry rants about the stupidity and devastation of religion.


This science journalist has produced brilliant series on what science says about the universe, why creationism fails, and why man-made global warming is real.


NonStampCollector animates hilarious animated sketches that make fun of Christian doctrine.

James Randi

The famous magician and woo-woo debunker has a channel of talks and other clips.

Edward Current

This atheist makes very funny videos in which he pretends to be a Christian – and plays it straight, so that many Christians mistake him for the real thing!


Very carefully made animated videos on critical thinking, religion, etc.


Thunderf00t is a science-focused video blogger known for Kent Hovind bashing, a debate with Ray Comfort, and his epic takedown of Creationist VenomFangX.


Okay, he’s actually a Christian, but he tends to fit in with the YouTube atheists because of his excellent explanations of evolutionary concepts and his takedowns of Creationism.


A member of the ‘old guard’ from Talk.Origins, Desertphile regularly posts on atheism and evolution.


A scientist known for excellent videos explaining evolution.


The author of well-made animated satires of religious dogma.


Laci Green is a young ex-Mormon known mostly for her killer combination of atheism and breasts.


This girl is known mostly for her killer combination of atheism and being blonde (but smart).


An up-and-coming atheist short video master.


Known mostly for his Foundational Falsehoods of Creationism.

A. Hughman

Known for My Spirituality as an Atheist and other videos.


Soap opera star Scott Clifton addresses philosophical arguments for and against the existence of God.


This guy uploads awesome videos on science and our place in the universe.


This dude makes videos on science and Creationism, including ‘CrAP Debunked’ and ‘Welcome to the Universe.’


The Amazing Atheist: Hairy, angry, and sarcastic. Rumors have it he is occasionally funny.


This professor makes funny and informative animated mini-lectures on religion and atheism.


This guy makes all kinds of videos about religion, Creationism, and atheism, and is highly interactive with Thunderf00t.


This guy makes videos on science, religion, evolution, and atheism.


Evidence‘ is a newcomer, known for his video deconversion story.


This atheist chick is feisty and ‘hawt’ (in the lingo of YouTubeLand).


Theologikos is a British architecture student with talking-head atheism videos.


Generally well-designed videos on atheism and other subjects.

Previous post:

Next post:

{ 57 comments… read them below or add one }

BJ Marshall March 18, 2010 at 7:16 am

DeistPaladin is pretty good, IMHO.


vision March 18, 2010 at 7:22 am

I subscribe to most of these great channels, I’ll check the ones I’m missing. I’m not sure if it counts, but what about mr.deity? :)

And I also really like this one:


Justfinethanks March 18, 2010 at 7:41 am

Well, you’re missing tooltime for one. He’s a philosophy student who makes videos that are sometimes rambling, sometimes insightful.

I’m also particularly fond of urbanelf. He makes some cool videos on Dembski’s arguments for ID and presuppositional apologetics.

Though he doesn’t post too frequently, the self described “secular humanist apologist” conradleviston has some good gems amongst his videos.

Even though he only has 137 subscribers at the moment, caseagainstfaith makes some really good “talking head” videos on arguments for atheism and against historical apologetics.

And I can’t believe that you neglected Desertphile. People might know him as a member of the old guard a the talkorigins forum, but he also posts great videos on atheism, evolution, and skepticism (particularly skepticism on “fuel savings devices”).
(be sure to also check out his classic “gravity” video)

One of the best and most neglected youtube atheists I think is Netwriter. His most recent video “Is Paul in Hell?” is a keeper.

DeistPaladin is a deist of the Thomas Paine variety, and makes awesome videos against Christian apologetics, especially those that attempt to harmonize contradictions in the bible. (Considering you’ve posted his videos on your blog before, I’m surprised you’ve skipped him)

If you are looking for something with a little more philosphical rigor, FatGermanBastard certainly seems to have put in some time reading higher level theistic literature. His video on Plantiga’s ontological argument is very insightful.

SisyphusRedeemed is a professional philosopher who makes lots of cool videos on his self described “apatheism”, the history of philosophy, and morality.

Not that I spend an unseemly amount of time on youtube or anything…


Bill Maher March 18, 2010 at 7:41 am


Justfinethanks March 18, 2010 at 7:45 am

Whoops. Forgot the sisyphusredeemed link.


Bill Maher March 18, 2010 at 7:46 am

Nonstampcollector and QualiaSoup put out great content. But I think the best channel is Richard Dawkins. He just has amazing free content.


Tomas Wallin March 18, 2010 at 7:47 am

Didn’t DonExodus2 convert to agnosticism a few months ago?


Hemes March 18, 2010 at 8:23 am

The comment on his video … Common Misconceptions About Atheism … is “I’m agnostic. These are mindlessly repeated, and need addressed.” As such, I’d categorize him as an agnostic atheist. Pick either title or both as there’s no overlap.


Derrida March 18, 2010 at 10:09 am

Bit butter is quite good:

he’s pretty informative, and also contributes to this website:


Hermes March 18, 2010 at 10:12 am
Eric M. March 18, 2010 at 10:24 am

Great list. I’m subscribed to most of the YouTubers listed.

People should also check out NoelPlumb99:


Christof Jans March 18, 2010 at 12:19 pm

I once saw some videos by an atheist who talked in the style of an old-school radio preacher, including southern drawl. I quite liked his style.
Unfortunately, I forgot his youtube handle and cannot find him anymore.
If anyone knows who I am talking about, please be so kind as to post his link here.


MC March 18, 2010 at 12:26 pm

“…for her killer combination of atheism and breasts.”

“…her killer combination of atheism and being blonde (but smart).”

I’m sorry Luke, but I finally have to say something about comments like these.

I’m going to be censured for prudishnes here, but I’m sure you think comments like these are just innocent fun, but along with your “16 Sexiest Female Atheists (with pics, of course)” post, these comments really help to alienate what little female atheists there are out there, furthering the stereotype that atheists are a boys club for white males.

You’ve successfully sexualized nearly early every female atheist featured on this website, and its pretty shameful given the increasing prominence of “Common Sense Atheism”. Atheists like Christopher Hitchens and David Mills are both pretty sexist individuals, and I was hoping that the prominence of public atheists would help its image, but it seems that I’m pretty mistaken. Laci and Christina (ZOMGitsCriss) are constantly sexually harassed by people and made aware that their audience consists of people who objectify them; in the past, I recall that Laci has made rather emotional videos about the negative attention that people have made towards her and how sensitive it makes her. C’mon, man.

I mean, David Mills (a bigot on par with Madalyn Murray O’Hair) sold a lot of books in 2006 on the coat-tails of Dawkins, and during this time he had hardcore, pornographic pictures of himself and his girlfriend on a section of his heavily-promoted website. At the beginning of his presentation to a Ohio State freethought group, mentioned a Youtube video of his host in her underwear and said “those of you who might not be intellectually interested enough to go [to her Youtube page] for other reasons. The hundred and fifty times that I went there yesterday had nothing to do with that.” Under this video, he has another called “Laws of Physics and Bitchy Women”. In addition to being a total pervert, he is a real asshole.

The guys at Reasonable Doubts and others on various podcasts and Youtube videos sometimes make sexist, “facepalm”-inducing comments too, so this is a problem elsewhere. I’m a sex-positive, male feminist on par with Greta Christina who also rejects harmful, prudish, “Christian sexual morality”, and I think you and others have every right to do what you please with your websites. On the whole, atheists are more egalitarian than most, but surely stuff like this doesn’t help the image of atheists or their rational persuadability.

We can, and should, do better.



Scott March 18, 2010 at 1:11 pm

Qualia Soup & Theremin Trees are actually brothers.

Not 1 Delusion ( has a great series called “Lies Christians Tell”.


Kristinn March 18, 2010 at 2:15 pm

Come on MC,

Are you telling me Laci’s constant use of cleavage and downward camera angle isn’t a deliberate move to make her videos more popular?

Also look at the background in ZOMGitsCriss youtube site, it is obviously her flaunting her being an attractive girl.

If these lovely women don’t want this kind of attention, then why don’t they choose to portray a less sensual image of themselves?

Luke is just telling it like it is.

I have no problem with them being both, intelligent and sexy by the way ;)


Rhys Wilkins March 18, 2010 at 2:30 pm

Coughlan666 is a hilarious atheist comedian. Visit his channel for the lulz.


MC March 18, 2010 at 2:41 pm


Horseshit. Your “Blame-The-Victim” response is as morally suspect as those who typically claim that “women invite men to rape them, and therefore are to blame for being raped because of the provocative way that they dress and act.”

Replace ‘rape’ with ‘sexually harass’ and your comment is identically vacuous.


Kristinn March 18, 2010 at 3:01 pm


lol easy boy!

Luke was stating what these girls are famous for. I think he did so correctly.

I think it is a fallacy to pretend that making people somewhat responsible for other people’s reaction to them is the same or equal to making them responsible for being raped.

If I wear nothing and walk down the street, people will react to that, but them raping me would still be their criminal action and not my fault.

We have a choice in how we engage with others, if we do so by using our sexuality, that will effect how we are perceived. That has nothing to do with your “Blame-The-Victim” response.

If Luke’s blog had a background picture of him pumping iron and looking mighty fit, people would define him as the philosophical fitness freak. He does not try to make this site about his looks, and therefore this is not a “problem” for him.

Do you agree?


Justfinethanks March 18, 2010 at 3:12 pm

Oh, get the politically correct stick out of your ass, MC.

How about this:

Man, that prettyboy TheoreticalBullshit is a hot piece of ass. You know, if he wasn’t already a soap actor I bet he could make a good living as some old rich woman’s kept man.

And I defy you to watch this video by Andromeda’s Wake and not get lost in those dark, mediterranean eyes. If his schlong is as long as his knowledge of astronomy is deep, he might mark the ideal nexus of scientific literacy and raw sexuality.

There, now everyone’s even. Now find something worthwhile to get outraged over.


Jeff H March 18, 2010 at 4:02 pm

Perhaps MC is overreacting a bit, but I do agree that comments like that don’t exactly help to bring female atheists into the “group”. Considering that it’s a common concern that is mentioned (the drastic underrepresentation of women in the atheism movement, that is), perhaps it’s something important to keep in mind. So don’t do it for the goal of political correctness – do it as an intentional attempt to bring women into the conversation. When a woman is trying to say something intelligent, pointing out that she has nice tits may not be the best strategy for making her feel welcome.


John D March 18, 2010 at 4:29 pm

Jeff H: When a woman is trying to say something intelligent, pointing out that she has nice tits may not be the best strategy for making her feel welcome.  

I concur. Well put.


Leon March 18, 2010 at 4:44 pm

This is from the DonExodus link you supplied:

I am an evolutionist, a cellularist, an atomist, a gravitationalist, a flying spaghetti monsterist, and a spherical Earthist.

I think Tomas Wallin is right.


Gimpness March 18, 2010 at 4:53 pm

AnticitizenX has a number of videos using known psychological phenomenon to explain religious belief

Christof Jans: I once saw some videos by an atheist who talked in the style of an old-school radio preacher, including southern drawl. I quite liked his style.

Unfortunately, I forgot his youtube handle and cannot find him anymore.
If anyone knows who I am talking about, please be so kind as to post his link here.

I think that might be King Heathen


Hermes March 18, 2010 at 5:22 pm

MC, I’ll agree with this one point; for consistency TheoreticalBullshit should have a similarly gushing description to what Luke gave Laci and ZOMGitsCriss. All three are good looking people.

All three of them are sharp, knowledgeable, and know how to present themselves for maximum effect. They are charming, and part of that charm is showing their own sexual power. What guy wouldn’t want to look as good as TBS? Given the right circumstances, who wouldn’t want either of the ladies around them?

To ignore the charm part of their presentation, or to intentionally mute it when giving commentary, discounts some of what makes them so effective.


lukeprog March 18, 2010 at 5:37 pm


I did a whole post on Clifton’s shiny mug a while back.


Rhys Wilkins March 18, 2010 at 6:56 pm

Yeah DonExodus2 is an agnostic. I remember on his channel seeing one of his comments which said something like “No I am not a Christian anymore but that doesn’t mean I don’t think god could be behind the curtains in some way”.

He has also released a video entitled “Misconceptions of Atheism”, implying he may be a non-believer.

Plus he is doing a debate pretty soon in North Carolina against a Christian apologist duo, I think the topic is “can there be physical evidence for the existence of God?”


SirKibbles March 18, 2010 at 6:57 pm


And then two lesser youtube atheists, who deserve a lot more recognition.




ildi March 18, 2010 at 6:58 pm

lukeprog: Hermes,I did a whole post on Clifton’s shiny mug a while back.  

So, why didn’t you mention it again here? The boy atheists in your list are funny, sharp-witted, awesome (ok, I did count one hairy); the girl atheists are blonde, have breasts and are hawt. The automatic commenting on a woman’s looks in addition to whatever other qualities she has is so 50s, dude. The new millennium metrosexual would comment on everybody’s package.


MC March 18, 2010 at 8:08 pm


Here we go…

*grabs soapbox again*

Jeff H:
When a woman is trying to say something intelligent, pointing out that she has nice tits may not be the best strategy for making her feel welcome.  

John and Jeff: Thank you. I’m sure Luke wouldn’t introduce a female philosopher on his Conversations On The Pale Blue Dot with the mention that“…she is known for her work in religious epistemology, and also is well regarded for her fantastic ass.”

We’d be shocked if he said this to, say, Louise Antony or Linda Zagzebski, so, why does he and others do this to other female intelligentsia? Would others defend him doing so from the “politically correct fun-police” against “telling it like it is”? Nobody would say “c’mon, look at that picture Christine Korsgaard puts on her faculty webpage; clearly, she just wants others to cite her research more with that alluring picture on her website!” That’s “victim blaming”.

A fortiori, declaring it as “just telling it like it is” that someone is famous for, or known as, an object of objectification, is symptomatic of this solipsism: you’re just citing yourself and your (rather revealing) attitude towards someone as an excuse to make perverted and sexist comments.

Deriding the emphatic concern for equality in discourse and treatment as “political correctness” is a common modus operatndi of many white social conservatives, too, who wish to maintain their social affluence, prejudice, and stereotyping. I’ve met many people who are wont to excuse their use of the words ‘nigger’, ‘beaner’, and ‘spic’ in the suggestion that anybody who wants to point out that they’re incredibly uncultured and rude is just “being overly sensitive” on their “high horses” and “ruining everybody’s harmless fun” with their “political correctness.”

Molehills and mountains are made of the same thing; with enough of the former, one can build the latter. The same kind of blindness that creationists exhibit in the failure to understand that a large number of small, seemingly insignificant accumulations, can, over time, yield drastic changes in a population of species is the same kind of blindness that prejudiced people exhibit in failing to see that social injustices and inequalities have as their strength their invisibility: small accumulations of “descriptive claims” about the character and uses of women or minorities (or atheists!) can, over time, yeild large edifices of socially-constructed “normative claims” which are internalized by both the recipients and deliverers of bigotry and inequality. (Case in point: many professional academics don’t realize that they talk to their female colleagues with demeaning, high-pitched baby-talk. See the blogs “Feminist Philosophers” or “Sociological Images” for examples of this kind of stuff).

Change blindness is a psychological phenomena where someone fails to observe significant changes in a visual scene. If the changes are subtle, slow, and incremental enough, the vast differences in a scene, video, or painting that people in a psychological experiment can fail to observe is astounding. The same kind of change blindness occurs in orders of magnitude over generations with regards to social inequalities. People will ask “what is the harm of throwing away just one styrofoam cup?” and then be somehow shocked at how something like the Great Pacific Garbage Patch came into existence. Similarly: “what harm could merely pointing out that [someone's] breasts are smokin’?”, and yet become astounded at the bizarre, disturbing prevalence of 9-year olds wanting only to “be sexy [read: wanted and accepted] like Britney Spears”. It signifies a real failure to adapt the same critical thinking that motivates sound critiques of, say, creationist “mereological myopia” about change over time, and yet not apply them to the development of social inequality, stigma, and injustice. (If you’re still reading thus far, congratulations).

Yet ‘Kristinn’ and others seem to only appropriate the critical thinking that motivates sound critiques of homeopathy: apparently, legitimate calls for the correction of misogyny and prejudice are like equal to claims that “very little amount of x, though claimed to be powerful in a solution, are actually very ineffective.”But appeals for social equality aren’t like claims by homeopaths.

If we keep being insensitive to the seemingly innocuous (and rarely implicit) assumptions and claims that women (or minorities or the disenfranchised, generally), in addition to whatever positive intellectual traits they have, are also reminded that they are also an appropriate target of sexual objectification and exploitation, apart from the merits of their minds, then we are a sad lot indeed.

‘Kristinn’ and others who seek to defend their use of derogatory, sexist remarks exhibit a real illiteracy about social psychology: like a reversed “Exotic Becomes Erotic theory”, but with regards to social classes, over time, “seemingly innocuous” claims about a social group that are prima facie innocent in their status as a mere descriptive claim (“that chick with with big tits is hawt”, or “the blacks down the street are lazy welfarists”), over time will often become very egregious and normative for a whole group: it becomes acceptable for some to assume that a woman who was raped “deserved it, like a whore” or to presume that a shooting on the 10:00 News was most likely done by one of those “unrestrained, ghetto blacks”.

I wish there was something like Harvard’s “Project Implicit” that tested sexism rather than racism.

I think there’s nothing wrong with sexuality or attractiveness (or the admiration thereof; we’re humans!), but I just think that we, as a community of mostly white males , need to knock it off with the comments about “feisty and ‘hawt’” women whose merits we are trying to highlight are intellectual, not sexual.


lukeprog March 18, 2010 at 8:39 pm


If I happen to interview a gorgeous female philosopher, I could easily see myself saying something like “I thought philosophers weren’t supposed to be cute. Isn’t that a law of nature?”

But I don’t think that’s sexist. When I write about soap opera star and prominent YouTube atheist Scott Clifton, I don’t shy away from noting that he’s a damn fine-looking man. I also don’t think I’m objectifying and exploiting Scott Clifton in making such remarks.

I certainly did not indicate that I was only trying to highlight people’s intellectual merits. When there are sexual merits to be praised, I reserve my rights* to praise them.

* Though naturally, as a consequentialist, I don’t believe in rights! :)


Justfinethanks March 18, 2010 at 9:06 pm

MC: Here we go…
*grabs soapbox again*

*and in a fit of white male liberal guilt makes an attempt to defend women from deragatory remarks that winds up being more patronizing than anything the people he accuses commits*

Out of curiosity, back in 2006 when Rolling Stone dubbed Sam Harris a “hot atheist,” did you have conniptions about the sexualiztion of the New Atheists that were unrelated to their arguments? Did you complain about the slippery slope that would lead to the dehumanization of Sam Harris? Did you attempt to make an outrageous and dimwitted parallel between racism, rape, and commenting on the fact that Sam Harris is a good looking dude?

If no, then your self-righteous and fantastically dumb anger and use it for a slightly less hypocritical end.


MC March 18, 2010 at 9:44 pm


Alright, then. As I said, it’s your website! (Thanks for your patience and tolerance here, by the way).


It was out of a bit of self-mockery that I mentioned the soapbox thing. Sarcasm is poorly conveyed online, and I wasn’t trying to be patronizing to anybody.

Your example of the “objectification” of Sam Harris is as predictable as the racist who, upon being shown to be prejudiced, points out the hypocrisy of the accuser in their failure to direct outrage at a few token examples of what they deem “reverse racism” against whites. Or, the “masculinist” who argues that justice-thirsty feminists fail to fight for “affirmative action” for the employment of males in nursing or primary education. This stuff is the equivalent of the “then why are there still monkeys!?” retort from creationists.

Perhaps for Bill Craig, but the following words and phrases–’fit’, ‘attempt’(x2), ‘patronizing’, ‘accusatory’, ‘conniptions’, ‘unrelated’, ‘complain’, ‘outrageous’, ‘dimwitted’, ‘self-righteous’, “fantastically dumb”, ‘hypocritical’, and “white male liberal guilt” and “stick out of [my] ass”–do not a counter-argument make and serve only for rhetoric and derogation.

I’m eager for correction, and I’m sure I’m “overreacting” a bit (comparatively), but if the equivalent of “fuck you!” is your response to my suggestions of how (and why) we should be more mindful of our (sometimes sexist) comments towards women, then I’m rather unmoved. You’re a smart person and I count you as an ally, but you’re better than this (and perhaps I am, too).


oliver March 19, 2010 at 12:32 am

I’m definitely a Theoretical Bullshit fan!

@ Luke

TBS posted a video critique of the Kalam Cosmological Argument that I thought was brilliant and powerful. You even had it as a “News Bits” item a short while ago.

I’ve been hoping that one day you will critique it. Do you ever intend to? I would really like to know what you think about the rebuttal he presented in that video.



Haukur March 19, 2010 at 1:41 am

This stuff is the equivalent of the “then why are there still monkeys!?” retort from creationists.

It sounded Edward-Current-like to me. “Checkmate, feminists!”

I don’t particularly care whether the atheist movement shoots itself in the foot or not but, yeah, I think MC is basically right.


Kristinn March 19, 2010 at 1:48 am


I think your commendable motives are misplaced.

I agree that we should not scare away the few outspoken female atheists. But you are indeed overreacting.

When I opened Laci’s channel my wife asked me what I was looking at and told me “that girl is trying to hard”.

She is not that charming or smart, she is fun though. But cleavage and glossy lips go a long way.

I don’t think we should dehumanise ourselves to the point that you seem to be suggesting.


Hermes March 19, 2010 at 2:22 am

When I opened Laci’s channel my wife asked me what I was looking at and told me “that girl is trying to hard”.

She is not that charming or smart, she is fun though. But cleavage and glossy lips go a long way.

*Honest honey!* I didn’t even see you standing there — I mean … I’ll make it up, let me be critical now! :-)

Her playfulness and assertiveness is definitely a dominate trait, but then again she’s a late teen and is just being herself as she should. She’s plenty smart and charming and I’ve referenced and recommended her videos many times because of that. There are quite a few cute atheists that I haven’t and can’t even remember.

As a side note, she tends to experiment with the medium as video not as an academic presentation and as such does not produce a formal, polished, slide show.

Then again, most of this nonsense doesn’t require a premise numbered syllogism. Her opponents believe in magic and a ghost kingdom after all and deserve less respect for it not more respectful or thoughtful consideration for their positions while they don’t accord the same to others with or without other magical beliefs.


Kristinn March 19, 2010 at 2:38 am



But, yes, you are right. I only meant to imply that Laci uses these elements, not that she is lacking in others.


lukeprog March 19, 2010 at 6:38 am


Could you link to the specific videos by TBS you’d like me to respond to?


nate March 19, 2010 at 8:02 am


lukeprog March 19, 2010 at 8:18 am

Oh yeah. Isn’t Albert the Coffee Atheist or something? For some reason that’s in my head…


oliver March 19, 2010 at 9:35 am


Could you link to the specific videos by TBS you’d like me to respond to?

Sure. The TBS video I’m most keen to have you comment on is called “I Kalam Like I See’em”


I thought TBS pretty much demolished the Kalam argument in that video, and so I wanted to know your thoughts on it, seeing as the Kalam argument is something you’ve invested considerable time analyzing.


BathTub March 19, 2010 at 1:21 pm

Yeah DonExodus is a relatively recent deconvert. He still has his ‘Why I believe in God’ video series up.

Don’t forget Potholer54′s sister channel
Home of the Golden Crocoduck! is a good aggregate channel. Along with sister channels Best0fScience & BestOfAtheism

Andrew Skegg is good, he’s an aussie, but don’t hold it against him.

David John Wellman The Apologist Antidote (a rebuttal to Brock Lawly’s The Atheist Antidote)

Secular Students Alliance
MST3K style.


BathTub March 19, 2010 at 1:30 pm

Erk did my post get eaten?

Dammit I will retype it up again later.


lukeprog March 19, 2010 at 2:51 pm


It was grabbed by the spam filter. I have now approved it to be posted.


BathTub March 19, 2010 at 2:56 pm

Oh cheers, too many links I guess.


lukeprog March 19, 2010 at 6:23 pm

Your links don’t work for me Oliver. Here is what you’re talking about, I think:


lukeprog March 19, 2010 at 8:45 pm

I’ve drafted the first part of my analysis of Theoretical Bullshit’s argument. You should see it on the site in the next month or so.


oliver March 20, 2010 at 12:40 am

Great! Thanks Luke. I really look forward to it.


Tina St. Sebastian March 20, 2010 at 4:08 am

MC: As a female atheist, I have to disagree with you. Laci shows cleavage, possibly because she knows that cleavage sells. We as a species like looking a pretty things and pretty people and I see nothing wrong with ‘exploiting’ your own attractiveness like she does in order to further the “atheist cause”.

I do think that if you don’t want people focusing on your breasts, maybe you shouldn’t point the camera directly at your (ample and quite lovely) cleavage, but as Kristinn said, even if he walked naked down the street, that shouldn’t be anyone’s excuse for rape. It would be stupid (or very naive) of him to complain that people only stare at his wang.

Rape is always a crime, always wrong, always an assault. Looking at someone’s tits isn’t.

I’m also a bit tired of this old feminist dualism. “Women want to be noticed for their brains, not their boobs!” Why can’t they be noticed for both (or all three, if you will)? Why do we consider it demeaning to compliment a girl on her looks as well as her brains and charm?



Thanks for all the links, Luke. I see I have a lot of catching up to do.


ildi March 20, 2010 at 10:53 am

I’m also a bit tired of this old feminist dualism. “Women want to be noticed for their brains, not their boobs!” Why can’t they be noticed for both (or all three, if you will)? Why do we consider it demeaning to compliment a girl on her looks as well as her brains and charm?

As a feminist who deeply admires the male form, especially one with masses of hair on top… Steven Pinker, anyone? – but I digress… (and the female, too, but less viscerally), I agree with you. Hey, the image is part of the package in selling a message.

I think it does come across as a tad bit juvenile, though, that Luke feels the need to point out the hawtitude of the lasses every single time he posts about one. However, his blog, his style. I’m personally more bothered by his apparent admiration of Craig’s sophistry than Laci’s bodacious ta tas.


JJR March 21, 2010 at 6:23 am

You’re thinking of Sam Singleton, Atheist Evangelist.

He has his own website, in addition to his YouTube channel.

Sam’s great, especially the 19th century garb he wears.


I once saw some videos by an atheist who talked in the style of an old-school radio preacher, including southern drawl. I quite liked his style.
Unfortunately, I forgot his youtube handle and cannot find him anymore.
If anyone knows who I am talking about, please be so kind as to post his link here.


kosmofilo March 25, 2010 at 10:07 pm

QualiaSoup, obviously. :)


Karen July 19, 2010 at 5:51 am

If I happen to interview a gorgeous female philosopher, I could easily see myself saying something like “I thought philosophers weren’t supposed to be cute. Isn’t that a law of nature?”

But I don’t think that’s sexist.

Actually it is sexist, because it says, basically:
“I thought philosophers weren’t supposed to be female”.

Or perhaps “female and sexually desireable”. The corollary being that female people (especially those that are sexually desirable) aren’t supposed to do something intellectually serious.



Kyle August 9, 2011 at 7:29 am

No one mentions Philhellenes? Really?


ian November 8, 2011 at 4:58 pm
Jeanne November 8, 2011 at 6:09 pm

Has anyone checked out wildwoodclaire1′s channel? She’s a real hoot, smart as hell and usually has a new video out each Sunday “Coffee with Claire.” She does a “Dim Bulb of the Week” segment and is mercilessly funny. Do check her out!

Channel description: Geology, paleontology, art, art history, music, European history, English football, University of North Carolina athletics. Also, drinking beer and yelling at the tely while watching sports.


edwin north November 9, 2011 at 1:23 am

youbes CultofDusty, the raging Texan with an attitude as big as the state


Leave a Comment