Thank you for this article. It is terrific to read an account of the ideas and content of the discussions.

Okay Nick, but what is the atheist take on the awful rape incident in the Congo?

The atheists gathered in Melbourne presumably regarded that event as being terribly wrong. The rapists in the Congo presumably do not regard their actions as being wrong. Who gets to decide who is right, and on what principled basis?

The rapists in the Congo may or may not have been atheists but there is no denying that avowed atheists under Stalin and Mao carried out equally monstrous actions. On what basis can you say that the beliefs of the atheists gathered in Melbourne are better or more “right” than the beliefs of fellow atheists who do horrendous things?

Obviously you have different standards but which standard is the “right” standard?

If we are all ultimately products that have been randomly thrown up from the slime why should one standard of behaviour be deemed better than the other? Rather than talking about one behaviour being “right” and another “wrong” would it not be more logical to talk simply about people having preferences?

Some people prefer to rape and pillage while others don’t. So the rapists don’t do anything wrong, they just do things that we may not like.

Surely it would be more honest for atheists to ditch the use of moral language altogether

JP you write
'Surely it would be more honest for atheists to ditch the use of moral language altogether'

In actual fact they redefine language due to lack of honesty. They refuse to call the unborn human beings and call fantasies that can't be observed science. But with their 'logic' who is to say they are wrong despite them claiming they are absolutely right. No wonder so many agnostics are sending their kids to private schools when you see the delusions that these guys preach so passionately. Surely the sinner who just enjoys adultery, porn fornication etc is far more honest then these snakes who claim to take the higher moral ground.

Beautifully expressed article. Thank you for putting atheism into perspective.

I was heartened by the sentiments that atheists should not think themselves superior and by the fact that many compassionate and human rights campaigns by people, who just happen to be atheists, is very much part of being human.

It is ironic that those who denigrate atheists as lacking a value system,themselves oblivious to the fact that religious belief systems are man-made.

I agree with Phillip Adams that atheists need do nothing - and why should they. I was initially concerned that a gathering of atheists in such a formal way may just end up in a religion-bashing exercise and become dogmatic in the same way as religion.

Thank goodness commonsense prevailed.

Religion will eventually have less significance particularly in Western democracies. In other parts of the developing world tribal and other religious dogmas may linger depending on social and educational improvements.

Thanks Nick. Informative and fun. Good to see some counter to the "wicked amoral atheist" tag.

JP, my view is that we can choose to act from love, or be driven by fear. I think much of the harm in the world is inflicted by people driven by fear. Our challenge is to mature enough to recognise our fear and choose not to act from it. In my observation this level of maturity doesn't have much to do with religiosity or atheism.

"In actual fact they redefine language due to lack of honesty. They refuse to call the unborn human beings and call fantasies that can't be observed science."

I normally don't respond to your mad ravings runner, but I have to challenge this nonsense. You allege that pro-choice atheists deny that a foetus is a human being. But this is specious and trivially wrong. In point of fact, nobody in the pro-choice camp denies that a foetus is made up of human genetic material. The disagreement is far deeper. What you fail to understand is that secular ethicists simply dismiss membership of homo sapiens as arbitrary basis for ethical concern. That is, any particular entity of human genetic material may or may not be alive in a relevant ethical sense. What counts is whether they have the inner capacities unique to human being - which collectively are known as 'personhood'. This is a consistent position, which unlike the religious view of life, can coherently explain why most people are pro-death for PVS Terri Schiavo, or cases of anencephaly, where a child is literally born without any brain. These cases show that a human being is not the same as a 'person'.

As someone who is constantly railing against secularism and abortion, you should at least know this stuff. It is basic secular moral philosophy 101. Indeed, Peter Singer, one of the Convention star speakers, is a famous Melbourne moral philosopher and bioethicist in this area.