So we are told that non-belief in God is the same as non-belief in the tooth fairy. So when do we welcome Richard Dawkins et al to the Melbourne tooth fairy conference? Come on guys, let's get serious. Atheism today - whatever it might have been in the past - has become a faith, with Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens and the others as its active, proselytizing prophets.

@Grey: But hey...never let reality get in the way of good propaganda.

Good advice Grey. You should try taking it some time.

Ever since Gates rich enough to make the question "what are you going to do with your wealth" an interesting one, "give it away" was his answer. It does appear he, like Warren Buffet, had planned to spend more time building up his wealth before starting giving it away, and yes the death of his mother-in-law is what sparked the establishment of the foundation earlier rather than later. However the intent was always there, and religion had nothing to do with it. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/bill-gates-where-are-his-billions-going-405626.html

@Grey: Gates and Buffet are self-proclaimed agnostics.

Neither are self-proclaimed, as far as I can tell. I can not find any direct statement from Buffet on his religious beliefs. All we have is quotes from his work colleges, and statements from biographers like this: http://atheism.about.com/b/2006/07/07/warren-buffet-atheist-philanthropist.htm

For Gates we have this exchange:

Isaacson: "Isn’t there something special, perhaps even divine, about the human soul?"
Gates: "I don’t have any evidence on that."

http://www.theamericanview.com/index.php?id=649

I concede I was using the wrong definition of atheist. I thought it was a person who doesn't use a moral framework handed down from the heavens, but the formal definition is some who emphatically denies the existence of any god. An agnostic is "One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God". http://www.thefreedictionary.com/agnostic Thus Richard Dawkins is an agnostic. As am I. As are most people who aren't theists.

Back to to the argument Rowan Forster is making, which is that people who say they get their ethics from religion are more likely to be charitable. Clearly neither agnostics not atheists get their ethics from religion, yet they give on at least the same level as theists. Forster is ill informed or lying. Worse, he is then using that falsehood to say his mob (the theists) are somehow morally better than us agnostics and atheists.

I hope you see the irony in this.

I agree it doesn't make much sense to look for atheistic charities in an essentially Christian country. You may find some, but there won't be a lot of them.

However, China, Russia, Cuba and a number of other countries have in recent times been ideologically atheistic, so it should be possible to do a comparison between them and Christian countries of the activities and existence of civil society organisations at those times. And we should also look at Buddhists, Hindus and Muslims. In fact, there would probably be some interesting variances between the religious as well as potentially with atheists.

It would also be interesting to do a study to see whether atheists were any less represented in charitable work than Christians,Muslims, Buddhists and Hindus.

Seems that religion and Christianity in particular, needs to make a lot of noise about how "moral", "compassionate" and "charitable" it is. I believe that actions speak louder than words and all the proselytising in the world will not change good people doing good things irrespective of their beliefs or lack thereof.

And continuing to question the morality of people simply because they don't follow formal religion is only likely to lead to, well, things like the Atheist Convention.

Whichever group of people who found themselves marginalised have taken action, be it women, blacks, homosexuals. If Christianity wants to vilify atheists/agnostics - then bring it on! The majority of the best minds in the world do not subscribe to orthodox religion. So remember, Rowan Forster and others, you reap what you sow.

The Dawkins delusion is simply this: in order to categorically deny the existence of God, one must be all-knowing, therefore, one must be God who alone can be all-knowing.
Atheism just doesn't cut it as a worldview- it is inherently self-contradictory and illogical.
There is no such thing as truth we are told by atheists. Pontius Pilate, arch-atheist and world's first postmodern man, while looking Truth in the face (literally) asked Christ: "what is truth?". There is no such thing as truth, except the statement that there is no such thing as truth. Secular atheism is logical? Give me a break.
An example not given of an atheistic organisation would surely be compulsory secular education which is of a predominantly left wing disposition complete with its very own trinity of race, gender, class; a view of the world that dominates the landscape of school curriculums these days. Am I expected to believe this represents a balanced education?
Christianity is very largely responsible for Western civilisation's greatest cultural achievements. Even more obviously, how can anyone look at a glorious sunset and not see the design and intent of a Creator behind it all?
Atheism is far too small-minded and limited, hardly even able recognise the wonders of creation, and the amazing creativity of man created in God's image (see Genesis chapter one and two).
A man without God is hardly a man at all.

Dear Rohan, As a devout practicing atheist I forgive you for being a Christian. However I can't forgive you for inferring that Christians (or any other religous people) are morally superior to me.
On balance I think that ALL religions have done more harm than good. Certainly some groups do great social work. However considerable damage has been done by zealous missionaries.
On a wider issue I am astonished that the leader af a major Christian organsation, can, in 2010, proclaim that Mary McKillop actually performed miracles. And that schools do teach creation theory. I reckon they should be required to teach the stork theory for human reproduction.
My thoughts have developed to a point where now I realise I am a geriatric man with no invisible means of support. Peace and Love, Alexs