On Saturday the 12th of July I gave a couple of talks at the Unbelievable conference in London – the following is an interesting summary of one of them. What is even more fascinating are the comments that follow – enjoy
The Blog of David Robertson
On Saturday the 12th of July I gave a couple of talks at the Unbelievable conference in London – the following is an interesting summary of one of them. What is even more fascinating are the comments that follow – enjoy
I see what you are doing David, in that inferred in your different categories is that everyone is an atheist in some respect. I can see how some may baulk at the suggestion that their position is that there “is no ‘god’ and you hate him”.
Interestingly is it not true that the bible only uses the word ‘god’ in the lower case to describe the “god of this world” i.e. Satan?
Hi David,
The ‘New Fundamental Atheist’ category as described in the article is one big strawman. But since they aren’t your actual words in the article, I’d be interested to hear your actual definition?
Did you actually use these terms? “This particular group have reacted to the ‘God is alive’ movement. This group are intellectually elitist i.e. that intelligent people progress to be atheist. They claim that science has disproved god and get angry when you challenge them.”
best wishes,
LinearC
Yes – its an accurate description – cue angry New Fundie atheists denying that they exist!
Thank you for the clarification, I would hate to misrepresent you.
I’m afraid these ‘new Fundie Athiests’ exist only in your imagination, alongside your own personal Jesus. After all, if there were good reason to believe either existed, you would surely provide it? But no.
Does it never cross your mind that the reason you get angry responses from atheists is because you persist in misrepresenting what atheism is? Or do you simply not care because you like the propaganda effect of being able to point at ‘nasty angry atheists’?
Your behaviour is more akin to a politician trying to win a vote, at any cost. It’s not the behaviour of someone who values truth.
I actually care about truth; sadly I don’t see many theists that can say the same.
best wishes,
LinearC
Of course Linear…there are no new Fundie Atheists, just like there is no God and the earth is flat!
Hi David,
We can easily show the that the earth is not flat, you can’t show at all that any gods actually exist, or that a ‘new fundie athiest’ is anything but a caricature conjured in your imagination.
I’m trying to have an honest discussion; we can never get to the truth if we persist on misrepresenting our opponents position. And in fact, to continue to do so even after repeated correction is nothing short of dishonest.
I care about the truth David, that’s why I am careful not to misrepresent you!
best wishes,
Linear C
If you don’t want to misrepresent my position then don’t accuse me of just making things up in my imagination….if you want to see NFA’s at work just visit any militant secular website (ie. the Scottish Secular Societys FB page and you will see plenty of it!).
Glad that you care about truth. I look forward to the day you meet Him!
Hi David,
So now you are saying that NFAs are just a couple of guys on a FB page? Hardly representative now is it? Or honest!
If you think there is a broad category of atheists that conform to your definition then yes, this is entirely in your imagination. You are making this up. See the OP for your definition.
If I am wrong, the rational response would be to provide evidence to back up your claim. But no, you just get upset and assert I am wrong!
It would be far simpler to point at the sources that demonstrate that Dawkins, Harris, Loftus et all conform to your definition, then I would have no case. This is what anyone who could actually show that their position was true would do. The fact that you are unable to do this suggests that I am right, and that your definition is a figment of your imagination.
best wishes,
Linear C
I have provided you with plenty evidence – not just a couple of guys on an FB page – try also Atheist TV, Matt Dillahunty, and the self-styled ‘reason rallies’. Sadly I suspect that no matter what evidence is provided you will just shut your eyes and say ‘its not there because I can’t see it’! A classic example of New Atheist Fundamentalism.
Hi David,
You keep saying you have provided plenty of evidence, but where is it? Not in any of your responses to me!
Now you are claiming that Matt Dillahunty fits your definition of a NFA! I am very familiar with Matts work and I can say categorically that you are wrong. If you are going to make these frankly ridiculous claims you need to back them up with evidence, i;e; quotes from the people in question. To do otherwise is simply dishonest.
See here’s the thing; if I was wrong, it would be the easiest thing in the world to show I was wrong. Show me the quotes from Matt that back up your case!! Dead easy!!
But you can’t do it can you? You just claim that I won’t see, but for goodness sake David, what on earth am I supposed to be looking at!!!
best wishes,
Linear C
You say ‘categorically’. Thats it then. All the evidence I need. I repent and bow before your categorical certainty! If you are interested in Matt I’m sure you are aware of the two debates I had with him on unbelievable. They were truly unbelievable! Check them out on this blog….a classic example of NFA fundamentalism.
Hi David,
Well fair enough. Every time you avoid answering, I will just have to assume that you cannot answer, and that you admit the NFA is a figment of you imagination.
I am fully aware of your debates with Matt, and have heard them and there is nothing in them to suggest that Matt conforms to your caticature of NFA.
I’m afraid you strike out again!
If it was me, I’d be pretty embarrassed to be shown again and again to be just making stuff up!
best wishes,
Linear C
If you were me you would not make stuff up! And you would open your eyes…..nothing I can do for someone who thinks Matt Dillahunty is not a fundie atheist….enjoy Atheist TV and all the enlightened and open-minded conversation there…
Hi David,
Nothing you can do? Nonsense – you could quote the parts where Matt behaves as per your definition of an NFA!
Has Matt ever said ‘there is no god and I hate him?
Has Matt ever even mentioned the ‘god is alive’ movement, let alone reacted to it?
Has Matt ever said that science has disproved god?
Has Matt ever said that intelligent people progress to be atheists?
The answer is no! He never has.
Clear evidence that you are just making things up……..
best wishes,
Linear C
PS I thoroughly enjoy The Atheist Experience. I would recommend it heartily to your readers. (clips easily found on YouTube) Intelligent conversation will make a refreshing change from the constant stream of Christian propaganda encountered on this site.
David
Truly I say unto you, there is not enough straw in all the wheat fields of Kansas for the number of men you try to construct!
An atheist is someone who does not accept theistic arguments for God(s). They cannot “know” nor “prove” there is no God.
However, whilst walking the dog this morning, I read on a park sign “there is no poo fairy – please pick it up”!
I cannot “know” nor “prove” that is false either!
So with regards to your classifications:
1. Not atheists.
2. Atheists (primarily made of straw)
3. Atheists
4. Not atheists