1. Comment #13740 by David A Robertson on December 19, 2006 at 8:58 am

Thanks Evolved and others for bringing my attention to this. And thanks for the e-mail address. I have just written to Channel 4 as you suggested and congratulated them on producing such a fair, thoughtful and balanced programme. I also warned them that the atheist fundamentalists who inhabit this particular area of cyberspace were being encouraged to write in and complain.

It's amusing to watch how you fundamentalist atheists react whenever your faith is attacked. You really should let me write your posts for you. It's the usual comments - Straw men - AD hominem - Hitler was not an atheist - and my personal favourite 'Communism is not atheistic' (a bit like arguing Christianity is not theistic). And I also love 'atheism is not a dogmatic belief system'. Yeah like this website just oozes non dogmatism, rationalism and tolerance.

This programme did however prove me wrong about one thing. Maybe Channel 4 is a bit more balanced than I gave them credit for.

Have fun....

Other Comments by David A Robertson

2. Comment #13744 by BillySands on December 19, 2006 at 9:14 am

Oh the retarded lying hypoctite is here. Dont we just love the superiour jesus like qualities of david.
We have no religion as you like to imply. Show me a fossil human with a T.rex and I will discard evolution. There is a big difference between us and you. We change with evidence. You are getting the intellectual shit kicked out of you on your own site and still you believe in your magic friend whom you have never seen or had a conversation with. I've foun the perfect church for you. It's not that far from you in a place called Twatt http://www.hootsmon.com/archive/060104.html.

May your family become atheists

Other Comments by BillySands

3. Comment #13747 by ukslim on December 19, 2006 at 9:16 am

David,

I've resisted hitting the "troll" button.

I can't speak for the other atheists here, but my atheism is not a faith -- it is the absence of a faith. To give you some credit, I think you probably knew that already.

The reason the same comments about strawmen, ad hominem attacks etc. come up time and again is that those kinds of logical fallacies come up time and again. It sounds like you don't know what they are, so I'll summarise (for more detail, Google).

- strawman argument: misrepresent the position you're argument against, the better to mock that position. "The anti-smoking lobby believe that one cigarette will kill you instantly. Look, I've just smoked one. Am I dead? Such fools!"

- ad hominem attack: instead of discussing the matter in hand, attack the messenger. "Rod Liddle believes in an all knowing God -- but Rod Liddle is a serial adulterer!"

As for the Hitler and Communism aspect, I agree the arguments you've quoted aren't constructive. I would, however, argue that Hitler and Stalin's atheism was unrelated to the evils they committed -- it wasn't the absence of a faith that killed all those Jews and Poles and Russians, it was the presence of a faith in a set of values just as poisonous as religion.

Let's not condemn Communism too quickly though. Pure Communism has lofty ideals, which I'm sure Jesus would have embraced. Alas mankind's natural ability to cock things up means every attempt at a Communist state has been corrupted into something else.

Other Comments by ukslim

4. Comment #13755 by Evolved on December 19, 2006 at 9:42 am

Thanks brianeyre, ukslim and billy sands, I read David A Robertsons post and assumed it was ironic... doh.

You (Billy) mention he has a website, could you give us the link? It sounds like a laugh.

and Mr Robertson if you're reading: show me some proof and then I'll believe - that's how fundamental I am. How about you?

Other Comments by Evolved

5. Comment #13757 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on December 19, 2006 at 9:51 am

It's amusing to watch how you fundamentalist atheists react whenever your faith is attacked.

Faith in what, David? The non-existence of God?

People are annoyed because they have been misrepresented, not because their "faith" has been "impugned". Get used to the atheist lobby, it looks like Dawkins has roused the dragon from it's slumber:-)

If someone where to say that christians eat human flesh, and drink human blood, a not unreasonable misunderstanding given various scriptures and distasteful dogma, I'd be the first to defend you guys. Why can't you be even handed enough to extend us the same courtesy?

Liddle misrepresents the position completely, chapter and verse has been cited where this is the case. Are you so unconvinced of your own position that you don't have the intellectual honesty to admit when something is clearly false?

Other Comments by briancoughlanworldcitizen

6. Comment #13758 by Jared on December 19, 2006 at 9:55 am

Hmm. Mr. Robertson is back. I thought I recalled him saying that he wasn't going to keep on coming 'round. Maybe I misread his statement.

Robertson only sounds funny when he mocks that we regularly point out logical fallacies in opposing positions. Oh no, they're being rational! That'd be like me saying "I hate how bad my arguments are and how easily they get picked apart!"

It only ADDS to the irony when, immediately thereafter, he makes the straw man claim that we say Communism is not atheistic. We don't make that claim, because it is OBVIOUSLY not true and not supported by evidence (ie. the existence of atheist cathedrals). The Soviet Union WAS atheistic, in name. We only suggest that it was the Leninist COMMUNISM part, the ideologically driven devotion to the state and the leader, and NOT the ATHEISM part of the Soviet regime that made it a negative thing.

Frankly I don't care, for the purposes of this argument, whether the atheists are right or Mr. Robertson is right. It's the arguments that matter. The fact that Robertson can't even concede that many of the arguments made against our positions are flawed demonstrates a weakness in logic and an unwillingness to debate.

Instead he comes and makes inflammatory posts mocking us PERSONALLY instead of finding the same holes in our logic, holes which I'm willing to concede MAY exist. I'd honestly love for someone to show me where my posts are wrong or are based on faulty suppositions. It will only help me find out how to make a better argument in the end.

Until then, I will hold to the position that it's blind adherence to ideology, whether political, economical, social, or religious, that causes the trouble. Posting here has convinced me that there exists a wide range of thought underneath the atheist umbrella and that, far from being dogmatic, we all have different thoughts and opinions on matters. If Mr. Robertson wants to refer to this propensity towards disagreement and discussion as faith, dogmatism, and irrationality, I'll refer him to the dictionary.

Other Comments by Jared

7. Comment #13761 by Ole on December 19, 2006 at 10:09 am

David Robertson,

Don't you see that this Liddle guy is using what I tried to call a "media-istic" focus in his program? He was not doing a proper research. If he had, he may have paid the Nordic countries a visit (to look at how secular we are, etc.).

I doubt he ever will, but he may decide to have a look at your church in Scotland. If, would you like him to act like he did in this program?

Regards,

Ole

Other Comments by Ole

8. Comment #13783 by Paul Knowles on December 19, 2006 at 12:24 pm

Mr Robertson. Oh dear me, you really have hit rock bottom with your latest post. You are wrong on every count.

1. Atheists are NOT fundamentalists. Religious bigots are.

2. Atheism isn't a faith, far from it.

3. Communism, This is the big one. Stalin did what he did because of his political beliefs not because he was an Atheist. You might as well say he did what he did because he had a moustache.

4. Atheists are NOT dogmatic unlike your lot. You preach to all about how your faith is the right faith and all others are wrong.
Atheists simply (especially in the USA) employ the argument that religion is a bad thing for society.

You are probably one of those who think that without religion you cannot be a good person. Well I've got news for you minister. Here is an Atheist who is good at heart, has high moral standards and integrity. Honest and hard working. Brought up two good children. Taught them of the existence of religion but didn't force it upon them. They turned out to be Atheists of their own choosing.

All without the guidance of your god ( caps deliberately left of).

Having fun...

Other Comments by Paul Knowles

9. Comment #13862 by hopeful on December 19, 2006 at 8:20 pm

David Robertson said "It's amusing to watch how you fundamentalist atheists react whenever your faith is attacked."

His attempt to attach the labels "fundamentalist" and "faith" to atheists is transparent and predictable.

Liddle's attempt to characterise atheism as a religion was equally transparent.

It is interesting to note that theists seem to need to resort to devious methods (for example Liddle's suggestion that Darwin's writings are viewed as sacred text) to attempt to make their point.

I can't recall seeing or hearing any atheist needing to use word tricks or misleading statements to argue against religion.

Other Comments by hopeful

10. Comment #13864 by Cholmonedeley on December 19, 2006 at 8:41 pm

David A Robertson said:
"It's amusing to watch how you fundamentalist atheists react whenever your faith is attacked. You really should let me write your posts for you. It's the usual comments - Straw men - AD hominem - Hitler was not an atheist - and my personal favourite 'Communism is not atheistic' (a bit like arguing Christianity is not theistic). And I also love 'atheism is not a dogmatic belief system'. Yeah like this website just oozes non dogmatism, rationalism and tolerance. "

Anything to say about the comments made-- are they logically or factually correct or incorrect? Or were you just making an observation? Here are my questions for you:

"Communism essentially atheistic": I don't see the connection. Marx himself called religion "The heart in a heartless world...it is the opiate of the masses." I have also read that Soviet Russia in fact supported the church during the second world war, the rationale of the government involving the words "unity" and "patriotism" as was their wont. The relationship between Communist governments and organized religion is that of any country, including religious ones, seeking totalitarian dominance over their subjects: they demand absolute obedience, and the degree to which organized religions try to hog the loyalty of the people, the two institutions will clash. That religions tend to oppose the totalitarianism of governments is to their credit, but then again they have often behaved in the same manner as those tyrannies. Furthermore, I myself am a libertarian anarcho-capitalist, the exact opposite of a communist, and I am atheist as well (and know many others who share those two labels), so if you want to draw a direct line between atheism and communism, it is looking increasingly difficult to do so.

No, Hitler wasn't an atheist: http://www.secularhumanism.org/index.php?section=library&page=murphy_19_2
Now quit whining about the predictability of the claim, and rebut it!
A few facts of note concerning the religious habits of tyrants: Both Stalin and Pol Pot attended Catholic school--Stalin almost became a priest and Pol Pot was raised Catholic.

"Yeah like this website just oozes non dogmatism, rationalism and tolerance."—First, I'm not sure how good tolerance in the face of irrationality is. Also, people here tend not to like irrational arguments against things like I.D. or God, etcetera. They find plenty of holes in articles that present weak arguments for their positions. You'll also notice that this website has posted countless negative reviews of The God Delusion and attacks on atheism in general. I would love to see freechurch.org publish a chapter of T.G.D. or articles from infidels.org challenging the rationality of the triune god or the substitutive sacrifice that is the basis of your whole religion. You do have a point, though: people can be self-righteous and emotionally fervent about just about anything, regardless of whether it's rational or not. Just look at how Ayn Rand got towards the end of her life. The key to turning these feelings into a "crusade," however, is a unifying philosophy that atheism in and of itself cannot provide. The God Delusion was written as a criticism of religion, not of the glories of atheism, after all. The people of the Soviet Union let Stalin starve millions for the sake of Communism and totalitarianism (the tool by which Communism must usually be implemented), not for their lack of belief in god, and the German people let their government march into Poland because they believed in National Socialism, not for atheism. Atheists are so varied in their other philosophies, most of which (Communism, itself an economic religion for all its faulty premises, anarchism, socialism, laissez-faire-ists, what-have-you) do not necessitate atheism to begin with, that I think it is inappropriate to give "atheism" a capital letter, something which many, including Mr. Liddle, feel very eager to do.

Other Comments by Cholmonedeley

11. Comment #13867 by alovrin on December 19, 2006 at 9:23 pm

OK people keep bringing up the USSR and PDRC as examples of atheistic genocides worse than any religion. Well no they are not.
If you want to examine closely both those events. You will find central to the mass murders, a despotic leader with a raging paranoia. What ever cover they and their minions used, it was a power grab plain and simple. If they had been religious it would have been in the cause of their god.

Other Comments by alovrin

12. Comment #14058 by David A Robertson on December 21, 2006 at 2:29 am

Wow. I've never been called a Troll before. What is it? A character from Lord of the Rings or the Brothers Grimm?


I have no desire to start another thread - I waste enough time on the one I am already involved in. But I do find it amusing that when one persons posts a single post on a thread of over a hundred which disagrees with the atheist zeitgeist, they are classed as a troublemaker and a troll. I like the fact that different articles from different perspectives are posted here but it would save a lot of time if the same responses were just reposted on every one (pro Dakwins - good; anti-Dakwins, bad, ignorant etc). It would be quicker although I accept it would not help the therapy aspect of this website...

Perhaps the only comment I want to respond to is "First, I'm not sure how good tolerance in the face of irrationality is." That's kind of what I expected. In the name of 'rationality' you will end up banning those who don't have the sense to agree with you, and then you will call it 'freedom of speech' and 'clear thinking'!

Must get back to my fellow trolls....

Other Comments by David A Robertson

13. Comment #14062 by Cholmonedeley on December 21, 2006 at 2:52 am

RE: David A. Robertson

A "troll" is one who starts meaningless conflicts on message boards, chatrooms, or any other medium involving internet communication. Given the contentless and adversarial nature of your first post on this thread, you were labeled a troll.

You're right to call me down on this:
"First, I'm not sure how good tolerance in the face of irrationality is."
We should take great care to avoid dogmatism: the example I give of Ayn Rand in her later years is just the danger you cite. Humility with respect to the truth tends to have very good effects, and the opposite attitude bad effects.

However, what I think I meant earlier is that I see no innate value in tolerance, per se: we don't have to be tolerant of misrepresentations of ourselves, or intolerance in general.

I did make a few other points in my response, however, and I note that you only deigned to descend from your mentally healthy ivory tower to attack the very weakest of my arguments. Given that you took issue with a statement halfway through my post, I'm assuming you saw the link to the article concerning Hitler's religiosity. Anything to say about that? Since this is so often a point of note in debates over the value of religion, and indeed you cite his purported atheism in your own articles, I would like to know if there are any conclusive proofs (by induction or evidence, I'm not terribly picky) one way or the other concerning his beliefs.

Other Comments by Cholmonedeley

14. Comment #14198 by BillySands on December 21, 2006 at 1:05 pm

I've just returned the trolls, post to his site with modifications. Let's see if the get angered by it http://www.fcosonline.org/index.php?topic=1797.0

"It's amusing to watch how you fundamentalist christians react whenever your faith is attacked. You really should let me write your posts for you. It's the usual comments - Straw men - AD hominem - Hitler was an atheist - and my personal favourite 'Communism is atheistic' (a bit like arguing christianity is not theistic). And I also love 'christianity is not a dogmatic belief system'. Yeah like this website just oozes non dogmatism, rationalism and tolerance.
I have just written to Richard Dawkins and congratulated him on producing such a thoughtful and balanced book. I also warned him that the atheist fundamentalists who inhabit this particular area of cyberspace were being indoctrinated against atheists
"

Do I win a prize?

Other Comments by BillySands

15. Comment #14199 by BillySands on December 21, 2006 at 1:08 pm

Damm, that shoild have been christian fundamentalists!
Can is still get a prize?

Other Comments by BillySands

16. Comment #14225 by Lionel A on December 21, 2006 at 2:22 pm

The Free Church of Scotland website has much by David A Robertson.

In his 'column' on

http://www.freechurch.org/issues/issues.htm
he writes

'My fear is that postmodernism will result in a significant dumbing down of our society...', quite what this has to do with atheist debate is unclear. Perhaps he misunderstand postmodernism, not having read 'Post Modernism Disrobed' in one of Richard's books.

Robertson goes on:
'...the old teachings of atheistic secularism (which have so largely been defeated at least at an intellectual level) will make some kind of come back...'.

What planet is this man on! Atheist secularism arguments 'defeated'? He clearly is light in his study and grasp of the huge knowledge base to which many scientific disciplines have contributed, which form the basis of the true understanding that underpins our atheist stance.
Robertson, and others of his ilk, thus cannot grasp the fact that atheist understanding is quite a different concept to that of the belief in supernatural entities that form the core of religious belief.

Knowledge verses belief, note the difference Mr Robertson.

When, Mr Robertson, will you achieve sufficient powers of rational thought to realise that the tack of all your articles on:

http://www.freechurch.org/issues/2006/issues06.htm

is based on falacious, unproven, writings of an old text which cannot stand up to scientific examination and testing? Please read some more of Richard's books and books by other authors who explain how the scientific knowns of today have been arrived at, that is by peer reviewed, and repeatable, scientific procedures.

We atheists do NOT have a faith position.

We atheists do NOT have gurus or sacred texts for atheism is not a religion.

Religion is by definition based upon blind faith, whereas atheism is based upon proven facts.

Other Comments by Lionel A

17. Comment #14235 by BillySands on December 21, 2006 at 3:18 pm

It appears that David keeps removing my post from his website. That is just typical of fundies! They expect privilages that they are not prepared to give. We dont censor him (and neither we should)
3rd time lucky? Maybe I should point this out to a news paper if it continues?

Other Comments by BillySands