>> "What is the origin of the universe?"
* There are a number of theories that centre around
1. the sum of all matter - Matter, Dark matter and anti-Matter - is near zero; and
2. the quantum mechanics concept of quarks.

It is likely there have been, or are, other universes.

>> "Why is there something and not nothing?"
* There's both. That's reality.

>> What is the origin of life? >>How do you get life from non-life?
* Biological life is a function of organic chemistry and the flexibility of the 6 key atoms and their ability to form complex functional molecules. Biological life is self-perpetuating through evolved physiology and evolved biochemistry.

Amino acids - the basic units of life, particularly DNA - have been found in meteorites, such as Australia's Murchison meteorite, and have been shown to be extra-terrestrial by isotope testing

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=murchison-meteorite

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murchison_meteorite

>> What is the origin of mind?
* Neurophysiology evolving and re-evolving over millions of years

>> How does a living being become a self conscious being?
* Neurochemistry & neurophysiology developing post-partum.

>> And is there any purpose in life?
* Life is what one makes it, individually & collectively.
* The chances of an afterLife are minimal. The brain dies too.

Good article. Covered a lot of ground in a short space, so no doubt every atheist will see one thing (or many!) that raises their ire.

Like the author, the thing that really interests me, almost from a sociological perspective, is the idea that religion and religious belief is a force for evil in the world overall. That argument appears to be the distinguishing mark of the "New Atheists", and indeed the distinguishing mark of the secular modern world's attitude to religion. Witness, for example, the poll results on Monday Night's Q and A between Pell and Dawkins.

The confidence that the New Atheists have in this modern idea goes far beyond any evidence that they can assemble to support it. This in itself is good proof that atheists aren't always the rational creatures that they think they are.

I can understand thoughtful non-believers. People who appear to be well-meaning (as far as I can tell) but who just do not believe in God. There are plenty of people like that, especially in a place like Australia. I disagree with them but I don't think they're always irrational, or "bad people" or anything. But the second horn of the New Atheist bull- all the stuff about religious belief being bad for the world- this is what really makes them lose any credibility in my eyes.

>> "".. the thing that really interests me, almost from a sociological perspective, is the idea that religion and religious belief is a force for evil in the world overall. That argument appears to be the distinguishing mark of the "New Atheists", and indeed the distinguishing mark of the secular modern world's attitude to religion.

" ... the second horn of the New Atheist bull- all the stuff about religious belief being bad for the world- this is what really makes them lose any credibility in my eyes."" <<
Posted by Trav, Friday, 13 April 2012 9:25:45 AM

I generally agree with that, Trav, though feel the religious need to take some responsibility for adversary, too. Especially when it comes to aspects of logical philosophy and science.

The discourse is undermined by unnecessary generalisations such as these - "This in itself is good proof that atheists aren't always the rational creatures that they think they are."

"I can understand thoughtful non-believers. People who appear to be well-meaning (as far as I can tell) but who just do not believe in God." The "as far as I can tell" is 'faint praise'.

I'm afraid that you are in for a bitter disappointment, Mr Palmer.

If what you say is accurate, you are attending for all the wrong reasons.

"I'm attending to see whether the giants of New Atheism... can wean me away from 50 years of faith."

You need to ask yourself, why you feel the need to be "weaned away" in the first place.

Are you dissatisfied with your faith? Does it not meet the requirements that you place upon it? From the tenor of the bulk of your article, it would seem that you are most contented with your choice.

"Christianity has solid answers to these questions that have satisfied its adherents for more than two millennia."

So, be honest with yourself. You are not attending for the purpose you describe, are you?

You are simply spending some spare change on the opportunity to sneer and jeer at these simpletons, who believe that they can get by without the faith in the supernatural that you have.

"...to believe in such matters is clearly a faith position but it is not a faith without evidence"

That is a fairly rickety platform from which to throw stones, I'm afraid. Especially as you immediately qualify it with...

"No, not evidence that we can investigate today with our own eyes, hands and ears..."

...which is a fairly self-serving definition of evidence, I'm sure you agree.

But the fact that you can write this at all is actually a problem. You have happily followed the path that has been laid out for you by the Convention, which is the self-classification of atheism as "Atheism - the Movement".

By setting themselves up as some sort of alternate belief system, these silly people have turned a perfectly respectable moral stance - "I don't believe there is a God" - into some form of anti-religious roadshow.

Which, in my view, is an own-goal of the most monumental kind.

"Will I see evidence during the Convention of social concern finding practical outcomes? Christians start schools, hospitals, aged-care facilities, run soup kitchens..... Will I be hearing about similar initiatives run by atheists......"

Not if the Christian-run executive of this charity has its way. It's excluding secular partner organisations from participating because they are not Christian.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-04-12/rift-threatens-to-tear-africa-charity-apart/3947072

I'm not sure I follow what you're saying there about the religious taking responsibility, McReal. Are you saying that because some Christians teach illogical scientific things (6 day creation) and that this makes the world a worse place?

I'm not trying to undermine any discourse either, McReal. I respect atheists who are thoughtful, respectful people.

I do not respect atheists who claim the high ground- "We are rational! Look how rational we are! You need to be rational like me!" and then go forth arguing positions that are complete nonsense by going way beyond the evidence, and completely ignoring evidence in the other direction!

On this topic, check out the Reason for Faith festival www.reasonforfaith.org.au in Melbourne next week.