David,

Is that "confirmation".....I...I'm....I'm somewhat overwhelmed to be acknowledged in such a manner. I mean, it's THE LIST after all.....

Should I have written a speech?

No, perhaps not. We atheists usually prefer not to bring attention to ourselves, content to go about our business not believing in a deity.

As if I could be bothered trawling through all your self-congratulatory guff to find further examples of "scorn". I have better things to do - because I have a conventional atheist life - not a life dedicated to having atheist conventions : )

David Nichols ought to be embarrassed about his performance here, though I was amused at the way he equates New Atheism with free thinking and freedom from ideology, and I'm touched by his hero-worship of the NA gurus--who as I've argued are steeped in ideology. I'm also amused at his Christ-like locks and deference to the holy father (Dawkins).
But at the end of the day my abiding impression of DN, once again, is of a rude, ignorant and supercilious git. I don't mention his intolerance because I can't imagine anyone should crave his insufferable sufferance.
I take no pleasure in ad hominem attacks and would rather discuss the issues apropos NA that I've raised in spades with Nichols and his motley crew. But they've given me no answers because, I'm sure, the questions have never occurred to them.
I think the New Atheists need a new front man--leave David in charge of marketing.

Not quite, Mr Nicholls.

>>Your pathetic interpretation of the 2012 GAC came out of your own self-obsessed little-mind.<<

It came from the article that you wrote about the event, as I think I may have mentioned before.

Which would tend to suggest that the "self-obsessed little-mind" that created that impression might not actually be mine. Anyhow, if you are not prepared to stand by your own words, that's not my problem.

But I think we probably understand each other quite well by now, don't you?

And that's an interesting proposal, Squeers.

>>I think the New Atheists need a new front man--leave David in charge of marketing.<<

But perhaps Public Relations would be a better home for his talents, eh?

I would have to agree that my article has done irreparable damage to atheism, me, maybe the planet and possible the universe. This is a serious matter folks deserving of an old fashion burning at the stake. Mobs are very good at that. They love the mindless part.

That should be obvious here.

Anyway, someone said to me the other day about forums in general although they did mention this one in particular, that a minority of faceless posters possibly live double lives. One life as a know-it-all smartarse in cyber-space, and another as an inadequate individual in real-time. It does seem to make sense as a hypothesis. Hiding behind pseudonyms making it impossible to identify the actual person does back this up somewhat.

My friend could be wrong but we will never know, will we. Cowardice can prevent such revelations.

Meanwhile, I’ll continue to enjoy the panic and its consequences. :))

David

I suspect David Nichols and I have the odd mutual acquaintance, and I can attest that reports on David's character are less than glowing.
As for my being inadequate, I'm a doctoral candidate and think I can lay claim to some accomplishments and a successful life--depending of course on how one measures success, I'm neither rich nor self-important.

This business of hiding behind pseudonyms is interesting and it's not the first time I've been accused of this kind of "cowardice". Since I haven't yet had occasion to write an article myself, why would I provide my identity? But if you despise the anonymity on OLO and elsewhere (your own cohort at your forum prefer anonymity, do they not?) why do you come here for an audience?
The simple truth is you cannot bear criticism and you dismiss legitimate criticism with the same "scorn" as you do ad hominem, which you in fact provoke and richly deserve.

There are definitely some screw-ups in atheism as there are with all sections of the community and their recommendations are generally only listened to by other screw-ups. Considering I have had dealings with many atheists in Australia and many more than most, it would be surprising if it was always a clash free zone.

It is interesting that those who cannot make an impact with atheism on the wider community themselves and harbour thoughts of jealousy towards the AFA and me because it and I are showing how it is done are generally those with a problem. They could try hard work instead of wasting energy in the sniping brigade.

People who have the full story know that this is true. Those who accept the words of ‘convincing’ story tellers (hint) and unconvincing ones (another hint) are just another variety of gullible humans. I expect this to happen and it causes neither the AFA nor me the slightest problem.

What may surprise some of the folk on this forum is that I do know the real identity of many of you. And I understand your bitterness. Beaten dogs can feel that way.

I use ‘beaten dogs’ metaphorically as dogs should not be beaten.

It always amazes me that the little band of the ‘get David Nicholls and the AFA’ don’t actually organise themselves into a bigger and better David Nicholls and the AFA. Start your own atheist ‘club’ and show us how it is done.

The excuse that atheists should not bring to the attention of society the harms of religion but just get on with their lives is nonsense.

Most thinking humans value making civilisation better. If you don’t, then you have a problem.

David