1. Comment #34581 by Pentecost on April 24, 2007 at 3:08 pm

Smile for the camera? Latigra? Blue Steel? Anything but rational curmudgeon.

Other Comments by Pentecost

2. Comment #34583 by flyingscot on April 24, 2007 at 3:09 pm

Just cast my vote for Richard, do hope he wins.

Other Comments by flyingscot

3. Comment #34587 by LB on April 24, 2007 at 3:19 pm

Scrap Blue Steel, the prof should've worn a Magnum for an occasion such as this

Other Comments by LB

4. Comment #34588 by wilberforce.parry on April 24, 2007 at 3:26 pm

Come on Richard, work that camera for me baby! Yes! YES! I'm feelin' it! Show that Moss bird how it's done!

Other Comments by wilberforce.parry

5. Comment #34589 by Tony B. on April 24, 2007 at 3:27 pm

There is no doubt whatsoever that RD belongs in the Time 100. Even if we put aside what he has meant to atheists and rationality in general, his status as a preeminent man of science alone warrants inclusion. Carl Sagan would be proud of how RD has continued his work at making the beauty and majesty of the natural world/universe accessible to all. Even (and especially) to uneducated, blue-collar joes like me.

Other Comments by Tony B.

6. Comment #34591 by simplicio on April 24, 2007 at 3:31 pm

done. A 100 rating for inspiring atheists to be more bold and for getting a discussion going about religious faith that we need to have.

Other Comments by simplicio

7. Comment #34592 by rzza on April 24, 2007 at 3:34 pm

It's 'Le Tigre'. Ferrari would have been good too.. Magnum a bit too much.

I wouldn't hang that shot on Dawkins. This a photo editor's work. Undoutedly, the photographer's contact sheet had some friendlier expressions to choose from.

Other Comments by rzza

8. Comment #34596 by Russell Blackford on April 24, 2007 at 3:54 pm

Ugh, the comments above are correct. Smile, Professor Dawkins.

Other Comments by Russell Blackford

9. Comment #34597 by Devolution on April 24, 2007 at 4:00 pm

Love the Zoolander shouts :) I also agree on the photo, why not use the photo from TGD? Or hell even the cartoon version from South Park is an improvement.

Other Comments by Devolution

10. Comment #34598 by BillySands on April 24, 2007 at 4:04 pm

Interesting the pope is so far down the list and Gerry Adams and Ian Paisley appear as a couple (of fannies!)

Other Comments by BillySands

11. Comment #34600 by BMMcArdle on April 24, 2007 at 4:07 pm

Thinking of most portraits of serious people throughout history, there's not a lot of smiling or grinning.

Other Comments by BMMcArdle

12. Comment #34603 by MIND_REBEL on April 24, 2007 at 4:14 pm

Prof Dawkins will win.

Other Comments by MIND_REBEL

13. Comment #34605 by Pallinn on April 24, 2007 at 4:19 pm

I have to admit I much prefer Colbert winning than the Korean singer "Rain" who had a commanding lead yesterday =) But if Dawkins is to have a chance, this link needs to be spread to more atheist site methinks...

Other Comments by Pallinn

14. Comment #34607 by Bremas on April 24, 2007 at 4:42 pm

Colbert will take this. The Colbert nation will make sure that Rain (who?) doesn't.

Was going to make a comment about the picture, but those before me have done a much more poetic job.

My vote is in.

Other Comments by Bremas

15. Comment #34609 by Bremas on April 24, 2007 at 4:48 pm

Roughly 4000 votes. If we are all submitting 100s, that would mean about 1000 bible thumpers are throwing out 0s.

You would think the Colbert nation would throw some our way, but they don't seem to be helping Jon Stewart that much either.

Other Comments by Bremas

16. Comment #34614 by mmurray on April 24, 2007 at 5:26 pm

It would be hard to imagine Rowling having influenced anything more than bank accounts unless there's a "personal fantasy" category that is significant in the course of human development.

She must have done more to get kids reading books in the last ten years than anyone else. Before her the sight of a ten year old sitting reading a 400 page book would have been pretty unusual.

She has also done her bit to annoy the fundies. Probably not deliberately.

Michael

Other Comments by mmurray

17. Comment #34615 by blods on April 24, 2007 at 5:33 pm

I was happily voting on the Times site - happy because the first 30 or so I clicked on had Dawkins in the lead by a good margin. But once I came across Angelina Jolie who was 85 to Dawkins 75 I lost all interest in this as a serious survey.

Other Comments by blods

18. Comment #34616 by js5535 on April 24, 2007 at 5:38 pm

It really is depressing to see an inconsequential hockey player at number 4. Well at least Paris Hilton is at the bottom!

All the best to Dawkins!

Other Comments by js5535

19. Comment #34625 by Russell Blackford on April 24, 2007 at 6:10 pm

^I dislike George W. Bush, but it's rather odd seeing him trailing behind various athletes and entertainers of little real consequence. Meh.

I also find the pros and cons rather odd. Often the "con" is a basis for possible criticism (from some viewpoint or other) but has nothing to do with how influential the person is. Take - as one that I randomly noticed - Phillip Rosedale. How does the fact that Second Life contains sex and gambling make him less influential, as opposed to more likely to annoy wowsers and puritans?

Other Comments by Russell Blackford

20. Comment #34628 by Bob Russell on April 24, 2007 at 6:16 pm

Comment #34616 by js5535 on April 24, 2007 at 5:38 pm

It really is depressing to see an inconsequential hockey player at number 4.

Must be the Canadian vote that puts a hockey player on the list! :-)

Other Comments by Bob Russell

21. Comment #34629 by Yorker on April 24, 2007 at 6:19 pm

18. Comment #34615 by blods

What is that creature Blods, a "horstrich"?

Other Comments by Yorker

22. Comment #34632 by Bremas on April 24, 2007 at 6:27 pm

Nice job, that's about 400 more votes in the last hour.

Like 6000 more for Colbert. I think someone has his automated.

Other Comments by Bremas

23. Comment #34633 by Canuck#1 on April 24, 2007 at 6:29 pm

HOW CAN IT POSSIBLY MATTER THAT RICHARD IS FIRST OR EVEN THAT HE IS ON THE LIST. IT CERTAINLY DOES NOT TO ME AND I WOULD THINK RICHARD MIGHT FEEL THE SAME WAY, BUT MAYBE NOT ..... TAKE A LOOK AT THE OTHER NAMES THERE. DO YOU REALLY WANT TO SAY YOU BEAT OUT BARRY BONDS et al... I know how Richard has affected me and I'll live with that. He is #1 for me.

Other Comments by Canuck#1

24. Comment #34636 by atheisticism on April 24, 2007 at 6:34 pm

Why is everyone acting like this is some kind of "good person" contest? George W Bush is by far the most influential person for the past 5 years. His decisions and policies have influenced almost every person in the world. Millions of people have been drastically influenced {negatively} by this dishonest, idiotic war criminal

Other Comments by atheisticism

25. Comment #34638 by Bremas on April 24, 2007 at 6:36 pm

Canuck#1 (24)
For my money it matters for publicity.
Most people in the US have never heard of him, and I mean most. I majored in geology and didn't know who he was until there was an article about him in Discover magazine a few years ago.

And yes, this time thing is a popularity contest.

Other Comments by Bremas

26. Comment #34641 by Zaphod on April 24, 2007 at 6:43 pm

People love the satire. Colbert has this sewn up.

Other Comments by Zaphod

27. Comment #34643 by amazeen on April 24, 2007 at 6:45 pm

ahh.. not a flattering picture

Other Comments by amazeen

28. Comment #34644 by James Carroll on April 24, 2007 at 6:49 pm

I'll sit here and vote 100 for Dawkins for hours if that's what it takes.

Other Comments by James Carroll

29. Comment #34645 by Bremas on April 24, 2007 at 6:52 pm

For shits and grins, I just voted 5 times in a row. It looks like they all took.

I say stuff the ballot. Yea, I know, it might seem a bit beneath us.....but

edit. James Carroll you beat me to it.

Other Comments by Bremas

30. Comment #34649 by Veronique on April 24, 2007 at 7:00 pm

Yorker

Thanks for asking Blods what that is. I find I cannot bear looking at it and scroll through quickly.

Please Blods, if it were a caricature, it would be better, but it looks so deformed and unhappy with only two legs and a fore-shortened body.:-)

I have voted. I cannot believe the list. I thought it was about influential. Give me a break, some of those on the list are total tossers (another one of those words, Yorker:-)

Cheers
V

Other Comments by Veronique

31. Comment #34650 by Norseman on April 24, 2007 at 7:06 pm

"It really is depressing to see an inconsequential hockey player at number 4."

Crosby is the youngest player and the only teenager ever to win a scoring title in any major sports league.

Not only a major sports league, but the hardest sport on earth!

I think that speaks for itself. Crosby is a phenomenon, he deserves to be on this list 10 times more than Colbert.

And I'm not Canadian but European.

Other Comments by Norseman

32. Comment #34655 by carlptr on April 24, 2007 at 7:58 pm

With Colbert that far in front this can't be taken seriously. Anyway, it's a good indication of where Americans get their information from.
God save the American Taliban.

Other Comments by carlptr

33. Comment #34658 by js5535 on April 24, 2007 at 8:10 pm

Comment #34628 by Bob Russell on April 24, 2007 at 6:16 pm

Yes I get sick of the rabid hockey fanaticism up here. Most people put hockey light-years ahead of any intellectual pursuit. The sterotypes of Canadians are sadly often correct.

32. Comment #34650 by Norseman on April 24, 2007 at 7:06 pm

In <15 years he will be retired and forgotten, without influence on anything significant.

Other Comments by js5535

34. Comment #34668 by PeterK on April 24, 2007 at 8:54 pm

I like Sid the Kid.

I like Richard Dawkins.

Somehow, I just didn't think anyone would compare
one to the other.

Kinda like comparing John Lennon with Neil Armstrong.

Other Comments by PeterK

35. Comment #34669 by Goodwithwood on April 24, 2007 at 9:06 pm

Rationalists seem to be out numbered by those that think this is a popularity survey. It is about the most influential people regardless of how negatively disgusting that person may be. This is why GW rates so low yet he has influenced the entire planet greatly. Just because it is a negative influence doesn't make it less so. The results are irrelevant to influence, but I'm glade to see Dawkins up there in a popularity survey.

GWW

Other Comments by Goodwithwood

36. Comment #34670 by Satanburiedfossils on April 24, 2007 at 9:09 pm

I'm puzzled as to why Jesus isn't on that list. Xtians have been telling us virtually every millisecond for the past 2,000 years that he's "returning soon". Perhaps if Jesus could manage to show up before the deadline, he might even make the cover! (Though I'm afraid he may fall behind Keifer Sutherland; he's performed more miracles in one day than Jesus ever did in his entire lifetime.)

Other Comments by Satanburiedfossils

37. Comment #34673 by DNAtheist on April 24, 2007 at 9:23 pm

You know if every person who voted 100 for Richard also voted 1 for all of the people ahead of him he would move up considerably faster in terms of average score.

Other Comments by DNAtheist

38. Comment #34674 by Satanburiedfossils on April 24, 2007 at 9:35 pm

The article forgot one thing:

HOBBIES: Tying hapless damsels to railroad tracks while twirling his handlebar mustache and tittering menacingly.

(For the humor-deficient, I'm being sarcastic: you see, religionists, being unable to dispute Dawkins' sound arguments against religious belief, turn to vilifying him instead. Suffice it to say, their only recourse is through the print media and the public airwaves, as nowadays using thumbscrews on people who disagree with you is considered very unsporting.)

Other Comments by Satanburiedfossils

39. Comment #34679 by atheist_peace on April 24, 2007 at 10:14 pm

How can Muhammad Yunus only have 550 votes? Where are American's priorities? Helping the poor or helping some asshole from American Idol (Sanjaya).

If everyone here gives Richard ten 100's, and everyone above him ten 0's, then we can probably bring him into the top 10.

Who the fuck is "Rain"?

Other Comments by atheist_peace

40. Comment #34682 by atheist_peace on April 24, 2007 at 10:25 pm

Also, see Richard on The O'Reilly Factor:

http://www.atheistnation.net/video/?video/00351

Other Comments by atheist_peace

41. Comment #34683 by Roy_H on April 24, 2007 at 10:29 pm

Can I vote for the above been the worst picture of Richard Dawkins ever published?

Other Comments by Roy_H

42. Comment #34694 by Corylus on April 25, 2007 at 12:18 am

Interesting list. I was feeling a bit ashamed of myself for not knowing some of them, but maybe that's a good thing.

At the moment I see RD is squeezed in between Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt. Smile, RD! There are lots of people that would pay a great deal of money for that ;)

Sorry... lowering the tone!

Other Comments by Corylus

43. Comment #34700 by Robert Maynard on April 25, 2007 at 12:36 am

Although I can't be sure if stuffing the ballot won't work, it would be fairly easy to filter it out at the SQL level by logging IP addresses, right?
Also, the average rating thing is more than likely weighted to give less power to extreme votes like "100" or "1".
Again, I can't say for sure, but you'd think they'd do that..

Then again, you'd also think they'd have a less awkward system than asking voters to quantify influence on more than a 5-point or 7-point scale..

I hope they use a happier photo.

Other Comments by Robert Maynard

44. Comment #34721 by Holy Roller on April 25, 2007 at 2:02 am

It's hard to believe that Bill Maher is not on this list. He is light years ahead of most and his humour is a joy.

Other Comments by Holy Roller

45. Comment #34728 by Sargeist on April 25, 2007 at 2:35 am

Weeeelllll,

Much as I really love Richard's books and agree to the highest degree with his godlessness and his scorn for all goddist things... I gave Al Gore a higher rating of 80 compared to my rating of 75 for the Prof. Yes, sorry sorry, but I just felt that the influence Al Gore has had on world opinion is higher than that of our man the Prof.

I agree with Goodwithgood in this respect (although he may well disagree with my interpretation) - there was once a list put together of the most influential military leaders, and a lot of noise was generated by the inclusion of Hitler. Simply because when many people read the word "influential" they imagined it meant "did lots of good stuff". What? They've never heard of "he's a bad influence"?

I don't know who the most influential on that list of 200 is, but I like Dawkins and Gore, so I voted for them.

Did anyone else look at the Prof's picture and think "For relaxing times, make it Santori time"?

Other Comments by Sargeist

46. Comment #34738 by kwhitefoot on April 25, 2007 at 3:23 am

Don't vote it only encourages specious comparisons. Besides I'm pretty sure that most will vote not for the most influential but instead either for the one they want to be most influential or the one whose music or 'acting' they like most.

Other Comments by kwhitefoot

47. Comment #34741 by Mikado on April 25, 2007 at 3:41 am

I shall certainly not vote for anyone in Time Magazines silliest feature of the year. Sorry RD.

Other Comments by Mikado

48. Comment #34742 by Rtambree on April 25, 2007 at 4:14 am

Paris Hilton and Richard Dawkins on the same list? 'nuff said.

Other Comments by Rtambree

49. Comment #34747 by konquererz on April 25, 2007 at 5:22 am

Well, even if you don't care for the list, like I don't, you should still vote. Imagine what kind of people would look into Richard Dawkins and what he has written and said if he were on the cover of time magazine? Its the opportunity to get a huge exposure, just like the O'Reilly Factor.

Other Comments by konquererz

50. Comment #34751 by Mark R on April 25, 2007 at 5:40 am

I must say that seeing Hilton and RD on the same list is weird BUT this is a chance for more coverage in the mainstream. The whole purpose is to break down some walls and make people realize this is another opportunity. Awareness is just as important. We need more people to say "who's this Dawkins guy?" There still a lot of people in america benefit in life from finding out more about RDF and this unfotunately is a way of getting to a lot of them. Dawkins on the front page of time would be a good thing for Atheisism no matter who is on the list below. #11 at the moment it says at the top of this page......not bad i say. I have a feeling some Atheists make this a personal battle and not a united one. Are we not all in this together?

Other Comments by Mark R