"The first exception when compared to a Christian gathering was the lack of children."

Didn't you know, David? We eat them.

"Did the Atheist Convention address any of these issues?"

No, because they're YOUR issues. If you want to address them, mount your own damn convention.

I'm tempted to say that only a theist could achieve the necessary level of arrogance to attend a conference mounted by people he disagrees with, and then abuse them because they don't share his concerns. But that would be rude and discriminatory, wouldn't it?

Have you got your pound of flesh yet, David, or can we expect a report on the after-party as well?

Well done, David, on attending and writing so fully beforehand and so soon afterwards. You have addressed a number of issues in a thoughtful way, particularly your reflections about the issues raised by Ayaan Hersi Ali about Muslims leaving their religion and a need for support for that.

As far as the teaching atheism in schools by "atheist" volunteers - I would hope not. I would hope that religion and a lack-of-religion philosophy can one day be taught equally as sub-sets of philosophy about 'humans in society'.

It is significant generalisations to say "atheists are Not morally serious", and that they just "judge their goodness in terms of their support for human rights" based on a conference like that.

Many would strongly disagree that original sin really is a real concept that contaminates or is 'passed on'. Human nature is complex: a psychologist I know says we all individually have aspects of madness - they are serious about that.

The issues of philanthropic interests of atheists and charity warrant wider consideration; it is significant there has not been a long tradition in atheist circles due to a tradition of there being a lack of numbers and lack of collectively, as well as a lack fo financial resources. They would do well to get their act together, though.

Regards.

Sadly, so predictable.

A doctor goes to a legal convention, and complains they didn't address the spread of typhoid in Fiji. Mr Palmer goes to a meeting of atheists and complains they didn't bring their kids along, like they do at Hillsong.

Nevertheless, a very illuminating article about himself, and his own prejudice.

The observation that stuck out for me like the proverbial sore thumb, was this:

"What Ayaan did was she got the final panel discussion to focus exclusively on the issue of Islam."

This, of course, would be an impossible topic at the "Reason for Faith" meeting, would it not. No wonder it was a "breath of fresh air", it allowed Mr Palmer to rejoice in some personal Mozzie-bashing without the feeling of guilt that would accompany it in a standard "our religion is better than theirs" context.

"Ayaan offered the observation that Muslims leaving Islam are choosing to become Christians, exchanging 'a malign god for a benign god'”

An advertisement for Christianity in an Atheist convention? Classic.

But to be fair, the opening was made by the convention itself, in setting itself up as some form of alternate belief system. A point that Mr Palmer took great joy in exploiting.

"Note that I describe atheism, despite the claims of Atheists to the contrary, as a system of beliefs. What I observed occurring was not all that different from attending church. The speakers, in effect the leaders, the great ones, appeared one after another to teach the assembled congregation, dispensing their pearls of wisdom, reinforcing the central doctrinal tenets of their faith, exhorting for appropriate responses, deigning to answer a question or two."

An own goal, of mammoth proportions.

So it would appear, as I feared from the beginning, that the sum of the entire convention was an opportunity for a bunch of smug self-promoters to slag off religion. And to offer Christian apologists a free kick at their biggest fear, that atheists might just be right after all.

'We live in a society today with multiple broken relationships, failed marriages, children being fought over, boys without fathers modelling what it is to grow into manhood. We have unprecedented crime levels so that we lock doors, install alarm systems, drive children to and from school, install cameras on trains and in shopping malls, every public space covered in graffiti.'

David you know that the dogmas of the humanist fed the sinful nature creating these problems. Its no wonder they gave no answers because they have none. As can be seen by the first couple of posters secularist see no problem with breaking marriage vows, feeding on porn or perverted relationship. They are even proud they have created such a society.

I attended the Global Atheist Convention and found it intellectually stimulating.

The reason we have so many societal problems is that teaching people that God or their priest can and will forgive them sin has proved a failure.

Christopher Hitchens was not being treated at the conference as being a candidate for canonization. There was a talk by Geoffrey Robinson, another brilliant supporter of human rights, highlighting Christopher's efforts to bring common sense and justice to worldwide political and personal behaviour. There was also an excellent short video compilation of Hitch's recorded efforts.

Much was made of freeing young children from indoctrination and providing those children the means to develop their own ethical foundation for their future decision making in all aspects of their life.

As Hitchens wrote in 'Letters to a Young Contrarian',
"I find something repulsive in the idea of vicarious redemption.
I would not throw my numberless sins on to a scapegoat and expect them to pass from me; we rightly sneer at the barbaric societies that practice this unpleasantness in its literal form. There is no value in the vicarious gesture anyway.
As Thomas Paine pointed out, you may if you wish take on a debt, or even offer to take the debtor’s place in prison. That would be self-sacrificing. But you may not a assume his actual crimes as if they were your own; for one thing you didn't commit them and might have died rather than do so; for another this impossible action would rob him of individual responsibility.
The whole apparatus of absolution and forgiveness strikes me as positively immoral, while the concept of revealed truth degrades the whole concept of free intelligence by purportedly relieving us of the hard task of working out ethical principles for ourselves."

Great post. Good to see interaction between Christians and atheists on these issues.

Get on down to the Reason for Faith festival this week, people. Unlike the Global Atheist Convention, it's not purely a massive money spinning venture. Most of the events are free!

Last night I attended one of the first events, a panel discussion on Science and Faith. The turn out was dissappointing IMO, only 150 odd people for a panel that included luminaries such as Graham Oppy and John Pilbrow (who, interestingly had less to say than the younger panel members). It was a fascinating discussion- except for the contributions of Jonathan Meddings, who tried his best to ruin the night by bringing out ridiculous statements like the "We're all atheists" line and implying support for the Christ myth. But overall, a good night, and there's plenty more events coming over the next few days.