Hi JP,

On your interpretation of what I was writing:

" .... it does nothing to answer the question of how do we know what is right to do. You make the assumption that doing little harm and making the world better is right – but it is just that, an unsupported assumption. Another atheist may say that having the easiest, most luxurious ride through life is the right thing to do and if that means stealing from others, including you, and ravaging the world’s resources then so be it."

Yes, that's about it, nothing is pre-ordained, so we are free to do as you say. Some will do as you say, I suppose, but I live in hope - there's not much else - that others will try to take the high moral road. I'll try to stick to my own assumptions and goals.

Then you write:

"If morality is something you just make up it is hard to understand what you mean when you say you are trying to improve it."

"Just make up" ? No, the quest for the most moral course is a constant project, it is never finished, if only because different problems and issues are constantly arising. So in this sense, one's morality, one's elaborations of right and wrong, can always be improved: they are constantly evolving, like so much else in the world.

What you write is very illuminating of how a religious person would view the world, and morality, if he or she did not believe, if he or she believed there were no supernatural constraints, no imminent punishment, no Hell if you like. And it's not really a pretty picture :)

Cheers,

Joe

@ Squeers

I want to be left alone. Getting involved in social justice causes may seem like I am failing in that ambition, but I see it as a short cut to my long term goal. If I just sit on my heels and wait, religious organisations will continue to get all up in my face and our government.

So, in order to get to a position where I will be left alone by religions and theists, I would like to see people treated equally regardless of gender, race or sexual orientation.

I would also like to see tax law reforms so religious charities are held to the same standards of scrutiny as other charities, as the four hundred year old exemptions they currently operate under mean that simply promoting the religion is enough to qualify for tax breaks which extend to business ventures which have nothing to do with charitable ends. From Buddhists to Scientologists, if you promote supernatural religion and have a building and regular meetings, you don't have to pay tax.

I would like to live to see section 116 of our constitution upheld as the barrier separating church and state it was intended to be. The 1986 decision in the Defence of Government Schools case in the High Court relies on a pretty weak interpretation of a single word, apparently because to interpret the section in the spirit in which it was written would have generated too much work for the courts. This leaves society with no legal recourse when religions begin interfering in the making of laws or the running of government bodies.

In short, I want my children to go to school without interference from preachers, to be able to marry whom they wish, and to have sovereignty over their reproductive biology.

So it will be, at base, a rant against religion and religious institutions, woot.

>>The convention is simply a reflection of the huge amount of people that are sick of religious influence and privilege, and (as we have seen in the previous posts) sick of the arrogant, misinformed and bigoted approaches those that hold faith positions present as soon as people organise that do not hold their convictions.<<

A bit like the Taliban having a meeting to discuss the Great Satan, I suppose. Or the Provisional IRA/Ulster Defence Association discussing how to address their "differences", and whose kneecaps would feature in their action plans.

Just a bunch of like-minded folk, in fact, having a bitch and a moan about people who don't agree with their views, and mulling over "what to do about it". With the only difference - at least, I hope it is a difference - being the level of violence proposed to "rectify" the situation.

Incidentally, JP, you missed the point entirely.

>>Pericles – in making pronouncements such as ‘atheism should not - must not - become a "movement’ you are surely overstepping the mark just like those you want to criticise. You have your opinion about this but your opinion is no more significant or meaningful than anyone else’s and so your demands are just as pompous and hollow as theirs<<

Read it again. I wrote:

>>Once again, with exquisite precision, Mr Nicholls has provided us with all the arguments necessary to demonstrate that whatever else it is, atheism should not - must not - become a "movement"<<

Where are the "demands"?

Context is everything.

From my reading of the history of religion there were sky-gods who did not prescribe morality. The religions of the Roman Empire had pantheons of sky gods. People made sacrifices to seek the favour of the Gods. However, morality was determined by philosophy in the case of the more educated or local custom in case of the less educated.

In Sumer religion was connected with morality, and much that was incorporated into Judaism followed Sumerian beliefs. The works of Samuel Noah Kramer who translated many of the cuneiform tablets contained descriptions of Sumerian beliefs. The connection of morality and religious belief was made after the invention of the sky gods. Christianity preserved the connection of morality and religion, but the connection is not inherent in religion as such.

Hilarious.. So you think 10-20 thousand was a big figure that "deserves media attention".. How about the March for Life which attracted about 400,000 in 2011? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/March_for_Life_(Washington,_D.C.)

So by your own logic you would have to agree that the March for Life deserves tons of media?

"Atheism will never use force or coercion on the religious" ... Haven't you ever heard of mass murderer Joseph Stalin who founded the "League of Militant Atheists," who'se goal was to "spread atheism and eradicate religion"?

It's atheists who insult and slander anyone of faith. You think you're being persecuted when people don't like you? Awwwwww... I bet the Jews from the Holocaust and the Christians who were fed the Lions in Rome feel really sorry for you! I bet they shed a tear every time you feel sorry for yourself.

Also, atheism is nothing new. Even the Bible addresses atheists, so they were obviously around at least 2,500 years ago (which is the age of the oldest Bible we have).

The fact is, theism will never die because it's true. You can't talk a person out of an actual experience they have had. Many people know your position is not logical. People know that a builder has a builder and they know this earth, our bodies and soul had a designer. People know that a universe cannot spawn out of nothing for no reason. It defies science.

You can try if you choose, but it's impossible to suppress Christianity as you seem to dream of doing- just ask your friend Joseph Stalin.

Oh and by the way, want to know what an Atheist Empire looks like? Just ask the recently deceased Kim Kong Il- in his country, North Korea, a person who recently escaped from there said that when they are born they are told by the government that "there is no god and you should worship your leader instead". It's every atheist's dream, a nation where the government persecutes the religious and tells everyone to worship itself instead of God.

Diver Matt: (I suspect we've met once or twice..)

<I want to be left alone>
There was a time when such a statement meant solitude and an ascetic sensibility (or a Steppenwolf); these days it's more likely narcissistically-antisocial. Perhaps 'twas ever thus.
Clearly, you're setting the scene, a rhetorical device; you desire freedom of conscience and religion keeps poking its nose in?

<Getting involved in social justice causes may seem like I am failing in that ambition, but I see it as a short cut to my long term goal. If I just sit on my heels [you mean hands?] and wait, religious organisations will continue to get all up in my face and our government.>

This is exactly my gripe against New Atheists. On the one hand, you suggest that religion is the root of all evil, but you're not that stupid. The truth is, you're not on a crusade, you're ordinary progressives; you've identified backward religious sensibilities and institutional cronyism as something you despise (with some justice) and would like to eradicate, so you demonise it in the hope that being over-the-top will prove more effective. And it does tend to be; people start believing their own rhetoric and the very weak-minded start making explosives. Meanwhile, you're just after tax-reform!
Sorry, you're also passionate about young minds and malign influences--at least that's what you tell yourselves.

cont..