Welcome back to "Doggerel," where I ramble on about words and phrases that are misused, abused, or just plain meaningless.
Well, this doesn't happen all that often, but my brother and I currently agree PZ messed up on a recent post. Should have put some of his comments in the main post for one. Anyway, for those who don't read the comments, the atheism of a lot of those figures is quite debatable. The underlying problem, though, is a bit more fundamental. A little ego-stroking preaching to the choir on occasion can do a little good in rallying the troops and insert other cliches...
But it doesn't matter how many famous people agree with you. What matters is why they agree with you: Are your arguments sound? Does the evidence support your stance? Does your theory make accurate predictions? If you're supporting a null hypothesis, are your opponents' arguments consistently flawed and/or unsupported by evidence?
Yeah, it fills me with pride when I find out some great guy from the history books had atheistic, scientific, or whatever leanings. Nothing wrong with that. Please whack me with a rolled-up newspaper if I start using that as a premise in an argument, though, because that's not how arguments are won. Yeah, you can bring it up once in a while to make us feel better, but don't do it too often, and don't bother using the same method as a counterattack to a woo/fundie counterpart.