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".

As a "movement", it is nothing more than a vehicle for a bunch of self-promoting posers to broadcast their own fundamental misreadings of human nature, while pretending that they are doing the world a favour by drawing its attention to the hollowness of religious belief.

Critically, in order to do so they are forced to represent atheism as an alternative "belief system". Which it most definitely, categorically, is not.

The "Global Atheist Convention" has no more relevance to the world and its workings than Sexpo. Each turns a simple, everyday activity into an overblown, look-at-me circus, and in doing so parades a level of self-obsession that is embarrassing to all but themselves.

All of which is true…

"whatever else it is, atheism should not - must not - become a "movement"."

But as conventions go a, er, 'friend ' told me that Sexpo has better audience participation – even if you're doing it all by yourself.

Joe - you say that, “To be 'good', just so that some god won't punish you, not for good in itself, is surely immoral ?” As I have pointed out though, the problem for the atheist is that they have no means for establishing what being good is (beyond their own personal preferences). One atheist may say that one behaviour is good while another may say that it is not. Who can say who is right and on what basis?

McReal – I don’t dispute that ‘we have established "social norms and mores" via now long-standing traditions of ethics and morals’ but, so what? These are just the preferences of people in the past that happen to have been around for a long time now. That does not give them any real authority over anyone’s life. So, yes, atheists are completely free from all so-called moral restraints.

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.

The similarities are actually quite compelling, WmTrevor.

>>But as conventions go a, er, 'friend ' told me that Sexpo has better audience participation – even if you're doing it all by yourself.<<

There's a word for that, is there not?

I suspect there will be a great deal of similar activity - mostly of the mental variety, fortunately - at the Global Atheist Convention.

Speaking of Sexpo atheism as well as masturbation can be enjoyed alone or with suitable companions. I am going to the atheist convention and will meet suitable companions.

My wife and I will be accompanied to the convention by a woman who has three children. Two of the children have become fundamentalists. One of her fundamentalist children will probably drive us to the airport. He accepts our outlook, and we accept his outlook.

Difference is not the problem. Lack of acceptance of the difference is the problem.

G'day JP,
I have belatedly come to realise that in disagreeing with you I have broken my own injunction.
Please, by all means continue to do what is right, according to your God:

“Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?”
Jesus replied: “Love your God with all your heart and all your soul and with all your mind.”
And the second commandment is like unto the first:
“Love your neighbour as you love yourself” Matthew 22.

If you don't JP, you will surely burn in Hell.

“Who can say who is right and on what basis?”
For all the moral atheists out there, just treat others the way you would like to be treated.
You will surely NOT burn in Hell.
Why? Because if we are all equals, none of us has the right to harm another without according them the same right to harm us.
Not harming others works better.