05.30.07
Amber Heard
Pretty girl.
She’s on some soon-to-be-canceled show on the CW network called Hidden Palms.
If only she’d be our spokesperson…
Brent has a plea for Amber to do just that. Check it out.
Technorati Tags: atheist, atheism, Amber Heard, Hidden Palms, CW
Popularity: 10% [?]
Bjorn Watland said,
May 30, 2007 at 4:16 pm
I was thinking to myself, are there politically conservative atheists? I would guess if you were a strict Ayn Randian, it wouldn’t be hard to be atheist and conservative.
Vincent said,
May 30, 2007 at 4:47 pm
I was recently listening to an interview with Julia Sweeney on The Skeptics Guide to the Uinverse, and they commented that she was basically the poster girl for atheists.
The reason behind it was basically that hardly anyone in Hollywood who is in front of the camera is an atheist.
She noted that most writers are (and all the Simpsons writers), but actors tend to go for weird religions and spirituality.
It’s nice to see more atheists in front of the camera, though I’ve never actually seen this person before.
Miko said,
May 30, 2007 at 5:17 pm
According to one of the DVD commentaries for the Simpsons, they have (or had at that time) a fair number of religious writers as well as a fair number of nonreligious.
Jonathan Blake said,
May 30, 2007 at 5:46 pm
Julia Sweeney definitely has that non-threatening, motherly thing going for her. That might be exactly what we need to counteract all those negative stereotypes. Or perhaps someone a little more attention-grabbing might not hurt either.
Eliza said,
May 30, 2007 at 6:16 pm
Is she glaring in the photo, or is that a sexy pose? (It looks more like a glare to me.)
Or maybe it’s both?
I don’t think we need a spokesperson who glares….
Intergalactic Hussy said,
May 30, 2007 at 7:15 pm
Yeah, more publicly out atheists…And another woman (I’ve been noticing less female atheists than male). Woohoo!
Richard Wade said,
May 30, 2007 at 7:54 pm
There was one, once. He was last seen walking into the woods at a Young Republicans Leadership Building Retreat. No trace has ever been found.
Oh it’s so sexy when they glare. Yes, yes glare at me; I love it. She doesn’t have to be our spokesperson, she can be our spokesmodel.
(Pinching the space between my eyes and shaking my head.)
Anatoly said,
May 30, 2007 at 9:13 pm
Now if you’d seen her on CNN, FOX, and ABC when a major news topic concerning non-religion popped out, instead of Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris, you’d get throngs backing the secular movement!
Zeolite said,
May 30, 2007 at 10:46 pm
This post makes me want to vomit. Seeing this group of smart, articulate, critical thinkers fall into the infuriating and demoralizing trap of objectification is more than this lurker can handle. Where’s my bucket?
Jen said,
May 31, 2007 at 1:36 am
Those were some creepy comments over on that link. To wit: “Boy, looking at her makes my penis hard, what about yours? And, oh, atheism or something.
Richard Wade said,
May 31, 2007 at 2:23 am
Zeolite, I had a similar reaction when this happened here about two months ago over another pretty atheist, but nobody even responded to my objection. So I decided that maybe smart, articulate, critical thinkers have to be stupid adolescent dopes once in a while, just to let off steam. At least the males. We’ll get over it and grow up again.
Interesting blog you have, by the way.
Hugo said,
May 31, 2007 at 3:40 am
Just read an interview with Natalie Portman (you know Star Wars I.. but also V)
She’d be a superb spokesperson, intelligent, beautiful, non-believer.
What I read from her latest film “Goya’s Ghosts” I think it will be a must see.
HappyNat said,
May 31, 2007 at 7:34 am
Zeolite and Richard,
Lighten up boys.
Hemant notes, that she is a pretty girl and she is, is she not? Like it or not, people are judged by how they look and she shares a viewpoint of many on the people who read this blog. This is exciting to some in more ways than one. Just because we are atheist doesn’t mean we don’t notice beauty in another person. We can’t fuddie duddie scientific brains all the time, or at least most of us can’t. If this post and the comments so far make you need a bucket, it may be best if you don’t look around the rest of the internets.
Darwin's Dagger said,
May 31, 2007 at 8:43 am
Sex sells everything else in our society. Why not atheism? I’d rather look at that face than Dawkins.
stogoe said,
May 31, 2007 at 10:58 am
I agree with HappyNat. Stay away from teh Tubes if you need a chuck-bucket for this thread.
On another note, Woo hoo! Another drop of water in our Unavoidable, Genderful(that is, full of all genders) Tsunami of Atheism!
Nick said,
May 31, 2007 at 2:25 pm
That’s not a subtle joke? The name of her show Really is Hidden Palms?
AhhhhhhhHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Richard Wade said,
May 31, 2007 at 3:51 pm
HappyNat, I agree with your points, and the point of my comment was that I have lightened up. I can indulge myself in a brief moment of healthy lust without adopting a systematic attitude of degrading or objectifying women. It gets a little old if postings like this go on and on. Hey, I wish I looked that good, and people would lust after me. But I’ve been around the sun several more times so I’m going for the salt-and-pepper, weathered wise man look. Might as well choose what I have anyway.
Zeolite said,
May 31, 2007 at 6:53 pm
Feminism and atheism have a lot in common.
The same way that we are all familiar with common religious objections to atheism feminists are familiar with their own set of tired objections from detractors.
One of the most common ways a feminist objection is dismissed is to accuse a person of of being “too sensitive” or “uptight.”
Is that what is happening to me here?
monkeymind said,
May 31, 2007 at 7:55 pm
That’s definitely true.
Zeolite said,
May 31, 2007 at 9:53 pm
BTW Richard, thanks for checking out my blog!
HappyNat said,
June 1, 2007 at 9:23 am
Depends on how you take it.
The hyperbole you used is what prompted my response.
I just don’t see a problem with calling a pretty person a pretty person. Hemant and other weren’t giving her the construction worker treatment, in fact most of the post had to do with her beliefs. There are times when calling out sexism/racism are warrented, no doubt. However, making that claim with no basis can cause more harm than good, in that legitimate objections are ignored in the future. You can’t cry wolf every time you think the moon is full.
Lee said,
June 1, 2007 at 9:59 am
Being a middle-aged, boobs-facing-south, past-my-prime female, I think atheism needs all the favorable boost it can get - considering that we are the most hated minority group in the US. If a pretty package softens the way we are viewed, then let’s utilize that.
Zeolite said,
June 1, 2007 at 6:10 pm
HappyNat,
I also don’t see a problem with calling a pretty person a pretty person.
However, what Hemant and Brent did was suggest that Amber should be the atheist spokesperson based on her sex appeal and attractiveness and not based on her abilities, skills, experience, or knowledge. That’s objectification.
I suggest you read the wikipedia page on sexual objectification, it’s a good introduction.
Friendly Atheist » Why You Should Watch High School Musical 2 said,
August 26, 2007 at 2:08 am
[…] of them match the outright atheism of Amber Heard, but they do have more star power. And it’s good to know not every person in Hollywood […]
Friendly Atheist » Why You Should Watch High School Musical 2 said,
August 26, 2007 at 2:08 am
[…] of them match the outright atheism of Amber Heard, but they do have more star power. And it’s good to know not every person in Hollywood […]
Ed said,
March 8, 2008 at 4:40 am
She’s not an atheists my friends. I used to pray with her all the time.
Friendly Atheist » Is Amber Heard an Atheist? Not Quite… said,
April 23, 2008 at 12:27 am
[…] And she becomes even hotter when you find out she’s an atheist. […]