I find it a little sad, chrisdbarry, that you cannot grasp such a simple fact.

>>Pericles, you are mistaken in believing that the Global Atheist Convention, the Atheist Foundation of Australia (who ran it) or its attendees claim any sort of "one true atheist" position<<

I do not hold any such belief, and I'm pretty amazed that you continue to misread my posts here with such unerring consistency. In fact, I have stated on any number of occasions that I don't consider there to be any such category as "one true atheist".

What I do object to (how many more times do I have to say it, I wonder) is that other people set themselves up as spokespeople for "Atheism". They do not represent me. I don't particularly care whether as a group they are homogeneous, heterogeneous or simply out for a good time. By trumpeting themselves as the "Global Atheist Conference", they are presenting themselves as a Global movement, pushing the Atheist barrow.

>>You are claiming a strawman position<<

By attributing to me characteristics I do not possess, and then attacking those characteristics, I'd suggest you are a classic example of the strawman argument.

Pericles, you have simply come to the wrong conclusion when you state that "by trumpeting themselves as the "Global Atheist Conference", they are presenting themselves as a Global movement, pushing the Atheist barrow".

The "Global" bit is the fact that attendees and speakers came from around the globe, no more than that. There are "Global" conferences held around the world on all sorts of topics - health, technology, politics, education, climate... the list is virtually endless. They don't claim that the conference speaks on behalf of the attendees or even claim that the issue (or movement) is global. They simply set up a forum for discussion and information sharing, with speakers from around the world and from different areas of expertise.

Atheism, more than many other groups of topics of interest, is unstructured and has a "broad church" (to borrow the term) and no group could ever claim to speak on behalf of all atheists. That is left up to religions, the Catholic Church being the best example.

You didn't counter my example of your strawman except to claim I had done the same thing. I still contend you presented a strawman by attributing the classification "new atheist" to the conference, which was not used by the conference, then linking to an unassociated website and then attacking that premise. Some of the attendees may have self identified as "new atheists", but this is largely a term imposed to describe a position that has been around since the French Revolution. It is definitely not new.

I am not sure what characteristics I attributed to you, but would be happy to discuss further - I am always looking to improve my logic.

>>Tony, I am both an atheist AND against narrow minded dickery.

I cannot prove there is no god, but on the weight of evidence and my intellectual commitment to truth I believe there is no god, so I classify as an atheist. As an atheist, I live my life as if this is it<<

Chris, I am both a theist AND against narrow minded dickery.

I cannot prove there is a god, but on the weight of my intellectual commitment to truth I believe there is a god, so I classify as a theist. But not the sort who believes in an afterlife so I too live my life as if this is it. It seems you have rather a lot in common with us theists: maybe more than you'd care to admit? Maybe we're not such nasty bogey-men after all? Some of us anyway: I can only speak for myself and not the Cardinal Pells or the Archbishop Jensens or the Reverend Niles or the runners of this world. Maybe in time we could learn to be friends.

>>Theism on the other hand is at the top of my list. The reason it is at the top of my list is that religion plays politics. Religion intrudes into my life by a) claiming superior knowledge of how life should be lived and b) attempting to force me to live according to these standards.<<

Speaking of strawmen: your attack on religion and theism as a whole is based on an over-generalization from the dickish behaviour of SOME religions and theists. I take offence at the suggestion that all theists are dicks just because Fred Nile gives you the sh1ts. He gives me the sh1ts too. If it bothers you so much take it up with Fred Nile and stop insulting the rest of us.

If you do wish to continue attacking religion and theism as a whole then you'll need to tighten up your arguments and find a stronger platform than your weak generalizations because your current argument is a bit holey.

Cheers,

Tony

Personally I don't think that theism and also Christianity is a bad thing. I'm not a believer myself, but as long as the views are not too extreme and when it doesn't hurt anybody, then it's totally ok. Especially when you really do what christians should do: Help each other and support each other. This cannot be a bad thing! serenata flowers ( http://www.serenataflowers.com/flowers-by-post ) should be available for everybody. Maybe this would be a way to fight against poverty!

Tony, I think you may have confused my post with someone else's post.

If not, I am not sure where you get the idea that I think all theists and/or the religious are "bogey men". I've not said it and I don't think it.

If you go back and read my post, you will see I have clearly stated that my main issue is to keep personal belief removed from public affairs. I won't repeat myself, because you can go back and read it. It is you who is making generalisations - I was very specific in the issues I have - there's a list in my previous post. Speaking of strawmen - where have I mentioned Cardinal Pell, Archbishop Jensen (I don't even know who that is) or Reverend Nile?

My attack is not based on the dickish behaviour of some. It is based on very real and actual religious entitlement that I believe should not be present - please go back and read my post and respond to the specific issues that I detailed. I am interested in your response.

On the topic of personal beliefs, I am interested to know what theistic belief system excludes an afterlife?

poirot/quot...""Greene used the example""

the eg-sample..is not a sample
its an impossability..this teqnique is a constant in science
..it blows your mind..[genericly not specificly]
you then suck up..*the imposs-able..[like genus evolvinmg into new genus

reveal aliens
reveal the speed of gravity
gravity isnt a quality measurable in 'speed'/..

its an affect of mass
not going nowhere[outside its mass]
in fact at the micro level..its heavier smaler particles sinking..pushing up..[by displacement..not alien majic..]..lighter elements

to say that can switch of is criminal[not egsamplke]
cause a sample =the real thing..a lie is a lie..not a sample

""of aliens making off with the moon,""
is like cumming down a chimminy[7 billion times a hight]
it cant ever be an eg-sample..of nuthing[certainly no place in science

here i will explain the imposable
with a lie..a lie alone can make the impossable likely..lol..[get it now]

""not as part of a scientific theory""
of course not..alians is its own theory[lie],

and egsample..of mooning..""but as an absurd point of departure
to explain that gravity and light move at the same speed.""

they arnt
cravity like magnitism..[generally]..cant be switched 'on and off'
[gravity has no on/off..[unlike certain magnets][lol at self]

""He also employed..Bart Simpson""

bart simpson is a cartoon
its used to sell many lies..again its not science sample

""catch up to..the speed of light..for the same utility,""

im asuming catching a truck
will need go faster than the truck?

trucks dont travel over the speed limit
usually well below..the speed of light..

or a bored-scater..
but a scater faster..lol..only in the pictures of fantasy

WELL BELOW the
lol..speed of grrrav-ity..!