Don't look to atheist conventions, they are stuck in Atheism 1.0. They are still consumed with the narrow focus of beliefs/knowledge, rather than morality/values/culture/community. For Atheism 2.0, look to:

For a church-like approach ...
Alain de Botton - Atheism 2.0:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Oe6HUgrRlQ

For a complete approach to morality, beyond fashionable liberalism ...
Jonathan Haidt: What is morality and where does it come from?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vs41JrnGaxc#t=282s

Regarding the "the big questions" ...
Richard Carrier: Is happiness the Goal of Morality?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ctfh3O7ofl0

Rehab for former Christians ...
Valerie Tarico: My Ten Commandments
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rsvVwnjL68s#t=102s

For community building ...
The Harvard Humanist Community Project
http://harvardhumanist.org/about-hcp/

Regarding the decline of the Western World, Jonathan Haidt refers to this in his book The Happiness Hypothesis. From memory, he criticises the nonjudgemental liberal approach to ethics in the West, encouraging us to rediscover a more complete morality of virtues, emotion, and respect for group-norms.

So, while David Palmer has justified criticism of the atheist movement, the seeds of a deeper movement are there for those who look hard enough. Will humanism/atheism actually flower into healthy and moral communities that rival the power of religion? I don't know. But I do know that it will take a different breed of leader than the combative Dawkins types. It will take community organisers, teachers and sages i.e. old-fashioned leaders who speak to the heart as well as the head. It will take humanist preachers.

But don't expect humanism to be a homogeneous movement. Hopefully there will be both conservative and liberal groups. And in the contest of ideas, hopefully the best movement will rise to the top. Did I say "best"? Sorry, I meant "most fulfilling". That is, after all, the purpose of life: to maximise happiness/wellbeing.

Anywhere where people come together with a common interest or wanting a sense of 'belonging' to a group, they could be accused of being part of a 'faith' or new type of 'religion'. This would be wrong, but it doesn't matter.

Honestly, who really gives a rats anus what these religious guys think about atheism? It's not like explaining it in a careful, reasonable and considered manner is going to convince anyone who doesn't want to be convinced. Pericles efforts are a great example of that.

Haven't we all got better things to do than talk to brick walls?

Trav, Hillsong receives 10% of Gloria Jeans profits, and the boss of Gloria Jeans is also the boss of Hillsong!

mralstoner,

I didn’t follow your links and I certainly did not try to translate your flowery translation of whatever point it was you were trying to make, I equally accept that it may have been either supportive or non-supportive.

The problem is that if you are so smart, why don’t you translate whatever your links provide, into some sort of cogent analysis? Instead you persist in link wars, fighting by proxy, rather like the medieval jousting by nominating your “champion’ to fight your battles for you.

Is your case so weak that you need someone else to be placed in the firing line? Why bother?

If you have a case, make it. If you don’t, go back to whatever non-prescription drugs you are on and try again. I’m mindful of the fact that much of what you provide is from u-tube and could be intended as a form “humor” however, so obtuse is your “drift” that the average OLOer might be skeptical. Over to you and stop being so bl**dy lazy, some original thought would be appropriate.

*None of which changes the fact that the festival was costly to attend, and in comparison, people have less barriers to attending the RFF festival.*

That might well be true, Trav, for the Athiests Association shindig
would have had to be self funding. The religious have a true
advantage when it comes to money. They can sell people the promised
ticket to heaven and cash in on the many bequests and legacies, as
those childless couples leave their real estate to the churches.
The Catholic Church did not become the world's largest owner of
real estate for no reason.

@mralstoner - do you make the affirmation that 'atheist conventions are stuck in Atheism 1.0' from personal knowledge (i.e. did you attend the convention in Melbourne?) If not, perhaps you would do better by simply stating your position without feeling the need to undermine an opposing position (some might suggest a strawman) as your starting point. It undermines what otherwise would have been an interesting and informative comment. Your position is also wrong - if you examined the program for the Global Atheist Convention, you would find a diversity of speakers and topics, many of which touched on the issues of morality/values/culture/community.

One issue with atheism is the lack of consistent philosophy, ideology or defined outcomes, making it easy to attack as incoherent. The first link you provide to the Alain de Botton TED talk is an example of an atheist approach that has divided the atheist community. This is not evidence of a problem with atheism, but evidence of diversity and (hopefully) evidence of the critical thinking applied to each idea on its merit. Of course atheists are not immune to the same weaknesses that plague all humanity, so it could equally be said that some atheists just don't like Alain de Botton. I don't claim to speak on behalf of all atheists.

I enjoyed Allain de Botton's talk immensely and would argue that Sam Harris delivered a similar idea in his lecture at the Global Atheist Convention on Sunday. Harris suggested that we can use some rituals of religion - in this instance meditation instead of prayer. He led 4,000 people in group meditation. I know that many at the convention would disagree with me on this point and the debate will be enlightening.

I think that atheism addresses so many levels (personal, political, moral, cultural...) that diversity of opinion is not only expected, but necessary. Another of de Botton's arguments is that atheism needs to collaborate and brand. I think this consistency would be difficult, but his argument is undeniable, it would advance the cause (whatever that turned out to be). Again, the debate will be enlightening.