"Most attendees came away from the three days and three nights...with feelings varying from elation to euphoria...."

"...cat-herded into one place....The largest gathering...a harbinger of a changing manner in which humanity is viewing existence in ever growing numbers.."

"...People wanted to connect to other atheists and freethinkers, and hear from speakers whose clear thinking has filled many contemporary best-selling books..."

"...The atmosphere was filled by a powerfully exquisite joy..."

"Now that the event is over the afterglow still burns brightly in the thoughts of attendees..."

...................................................

Sounds exactly like an old-style revivalist meeting.

Oh Yay!

<Most attendees came away … with feelings varying from elation to euphoria.>
How does he know this—omniscience?

<involved in a part of making history>
What was the historical significance of the talk-fest? Doesn't something have to happen?

<Around 4,000 atheists cat-herded into one place>
Nothing compared with the gatherings of sheep before the Pope!

<"there is probably no god">
Shouldn’t it then be renamed the “Global Agnostic Convention”?

<People wanted to connect to other atheists and freethinkers…>
First “herding cats” and now turning these alienated beings into a community (whose common values are what?) quite a feat!

<the atmosphere was one filled by a powerfully exquisite joy inspired by camaraderie>
Sounds positively supernatural!

In our secular, tolerantish, society I doubt many see atheists as the “baby eaters” etc. Indeed there’s probably more demonising, such as this, from “some” atheists than from theists.

<world-class philosophical [sic], scientific and sociological professionals>
One would hope then that some of them talked about the “problems” of materialism, which are considerable, in etymological.

<criticisms overwhelmingly drowned in an ocean of accolades.>
Why then the desperately self-validating hyperbole?

I sympathise with the concern over children “losing their minds” to indoctrination, but do the atheists really think they’re unconditioned, “free” thinkers?

<Both of these groups are demonstrably blinkered by delusion in "knowing" their faith is right…>
The New Atheists appear blinkered by their own Western-centric delusions.

And if you don’t like paying for security and you stand for secularism and free thinking, why bait and insult and adopt this confrontational, take no prisoners, style?

<This is the only existence available and making it count for others, ourselves and the planet is of paramount importance. We have to make it on our own.>
This sounds vaguely like an agenda and I agree with the sentiment, but when will we get some detail?

Thanks for your report on GAC con and the range of feelings "from elation to euphoria"…

I now know what the sound of one hand clapping, no, applauding wildly sounds like.

I now know also, why the other hand was preoccupied.

The Atheists established beyond reasonable doubt the non-conclusion that there PROBABLY isn't a God. Sorry, I'm no wiser guys.

There is very little difference between extreme Christians on the one hand and prosletyzing Atheists on the other. Both are nutty and annoying as far as I'm concerned.

Neatly summarized, WmTrevor.

>>I now know also, why the other hand was preoccupied<<

The whole piece had the feel of a propaganda leaflet published by Party Central, full of self-congratulatory phrases praising the wisdom of the Great Leader. The thoroughly floral nature of the language itself spoke volumes to me.

Here are my favourites:

"... voluntarily entombed in the magnificent Melbourne Convention and Exhibition Centre"

Ummmm... anyone who finds a Convention Centre - any Convention Centre - "magnificent", provides an early demonstration of a total lack of perspective.

"...the atmosphere was one filled by a powerfully exquisite joy inspired by camaraderie brought about by a unique experience found nowhere else"

It would have been far more surprising - amazing, even - to have a unique experience that was freely available somewhere else. But the idea that atheism can generate a "powerfully exquisite joy" makes me feel somewhat nauseous.

Or perhaps envious, that there must have been some pretty righteous gak in circulation.

Hold on a minute... gak ... GAC...?

Coincidence? I don't think so.

"...the weekend built to a crescendo of intellectual significance"

Yep. That's what everyone thinks when they're high.

Somehow, though, I found the article an entirely appropriate summary the Convention, right from the idea that there is somehow a need for such a ceremony, right through to the...

"... the afterglow [that] still burns brightly in the thoughts of attendees"

Yeccchhh

Hi David, there are millions of Atheists in the world who feel they do not have to attend conventions or rallies to be an Atheist or spread the word of Atheism, these people come to a conclusion within their own minds and are very happy with that conclusion. To all the attendees who felt they were uplifted by the convention, does not mean that those who did not attend are not part of and belonging to Atheism as a whole.
A self thinking Atheist.

I am sure their faith was strenghtened by each others irrational beliefs. Oh well a natural outcome from those who believe that something from nothing is scientific. Just keep them away from the vulnerable kids.

runner,

Where did God come from?

Oh happy day,
The cat is probably away,
We can now screw around,
Unlikely to be found!

So we have four opinions so far:

1. I'm an atheist who attended the conference and loved it.

2. I'm a theist who attended the conference and loved it because it gave me a marvellous opportunity to snark.

3. I'm a theist who didn't attend the conference but that's not going to stop me snarking anyway.

4. I'm an atheist who didn't attend the conference but since everyone else is snarking I'm going to join in too.

Let me add a fifth: I'm an atheist who didn't go, but I'm glad it succeeded, I wish them well, and if they can raise this many hackles among the theists and accommodationists, then I will certainly go next time because they're clearly doing some good.

Now, do I hear six? Anyone?

It's good to know that God endowed his people with the wits to believe that he doesn't exist, it's probably the ultimate validation of our status as his finest creation, God means us to have free will and to think for ourselves, that's how it goes.

Poirot

'Where did God come from? '
Why don't you ask Him? I doubt whether you really want to know anyway.

A stupid attempt to widen the division between people who have different ways of trying to be good. The triumphialism reminds me, as others have noted, of a revivalist meeting in the deep south of the USA.

I wonder if anyone has heard of Johnathan Haidt or read his book; "The Righteous Mind: Why Good People do Bad Things". His blog can be read here
http://righteousmind.com/

A review of his book by that begins: "This book is is a fun read for conservatives because it pokes more holes in liberalism than it does in conservatism. In that sense, some parts of this book are quite delicious." can be found here

http://www.amazon.com/review/R3HPZ35RJ9D5ET/ref=cm_cr_rdp_perm?ie=UTF8&ASIN=0307377903&nodeID=&tag=&linkCode=

There are several pages of discussion and the going gets deep and meaningful. The ideas from both conservative and liberals are good and the discussion is evidence that people of different 'tribes' can talk and agree; but not if the tribes take a warlike approach and encourage the type of attitude that is apparent in this article.

We do not need to have a war between athiests and the religous; we can find common ground if we don't demonise the other side. Religion does 'have clothes'; it has provided much good for human beings but cultures change and for some of us there is something missing in religion; there has to be a better way is what I tell myself and I simply can't make that leap into the unknown that is called 'having faith'.

But religion is a truly wonderful story, and Jesus is a wonderful role model. However, it's been 2000 years since Jesus left us to our own devices and I think it's time we stopped waiting for him to come back and save us.

It's pretty clear we need a new story that works better and works for all of us, but religion is an essential part of any new story.

It was great to read about this gathering of sane people, one whose minds run on pure truth rather than a cocktail of divisive, ridiculous, religious fantasy.

On the other side of the world, groups of deranged believers from the U.S. and Israel are planning on nuking Iran.

It's a shame they couldn't grasp the simplicity of atheism, its truth, its connection with reality.

The is no doubt in my mind that the god-botherers will lead the world to nuclear extinction. Serves them right, I say, except that we atheists, sadly, will suffer their same mindless fate!

Yep. I got indoctrinated as a child. I am not a details person, and hence don't enter into many arguments. But there is one fact i have taken with me since highschool.
Can a fact be said to have been the source of indocrination? or does it by it's very nature have to be a falsehood?

This is not a falsehood. This is a mathematical truth, though I may not quote it correctly (school was a long time ago). It would seem that the probability for the process of evolution to have started.. i.e. the forming of the initial cell/ strand of DNA/ i am not sure what .. was way against probability, and indeed, way past any decent mathematical sense of POSSIBILITY! In every other sphere, one chance in 10 with 17 noughts, i.e., 1/100,000,000,000,000,000 is considered impossible. The probability of the first.... was way beyond that, i.e. impossible...and some. it was at least 1/ 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000. that us, 10 to the power of 33. it may have been 10 to the 243 power, not sure, school was a long time ago. Perhaps i will copy and paste to some amazing scientists who are not given much credibility in the scientific community and see if they can fill in the facts better than I

sorry, had to split the comments because of word limits. Graham won't let me post any more for 24 hours no doubt!! but here goes part three of my very verbose comments....

Any way, when i mentioned this FACT to a lovely woman who had attended your conference, and was indeed blown away and excited by it.. she had a great time.. her answer was that just because you don't know how something happened, you shouldn't make up a story to explain it. not a very good response. I admit, I was indoctrinated! this mathematical fact, and the pentadactyl limb, also taught to me by the same teacher bless his socks, was enough for me. Faith decision? yes. Based on pretty good reasons for the Faith. It takes heaps more faith to believe in evolution, imho. Are all atheists evolutionists? or do atheists have varying explanations of beginnings? or do they ignore the issues? or do they push them further away by attributing stuff to aliens? if so who invented the aliens? sorry if this is too simplistic... and not wholly on the atheist topic. i have a fairly naive view that most atheists are evolutionists. Re another point, there should be no atheists, only agnostics, otherwise people claim full and complete knowledge that there is no God, which means they have been everywhere and looked everywhere for Him. not possible... If they have complete knowledge, are they not claiming to be God??
Looking forward to some responses..

Dear David,

<<The is no doubt in my mind that the god-botherers will lead the world to nuclear extinction. Serves them right, I say, except that we atheists, sadly, will suffer their same mindless fate!>>

True statement: I absolutely agree!

(assuming you meant 'There' rather than 'The')

So in your mind, David, Iranians are nice atheists (not God-botherers, God-forbid) and atheist China, former U.S.S.R (now Russia) and North Korea have no nuclear weapons and pose no threat?

Anyway, I am sure that you know your mind better than anyone else!

Dear Sharan,

Some of both theists and atheists believe in evolution while others of both convictions do not. These views are therefore independent.

It is valid to be an atheist (not agnostic) because the idea that "God exists" leads to logical contradictions. OTOH, this doesn't imply that an atheist must stop loving and worshiping God: you must have heard about the difference between conditional and unconditional love - to love God only because He exists, is conditional, hence inferior than loving God unconditionally.

Dear Poirot,

Stating that God came from anywhere is a nonsensical contradiction.

But if your question is specifically about the Jewish god, then see Habakkuk 3,3: "God comes from Teman, And the Holy One from Mount Paran."

sharan,

A belief in God and an acceptance of the rationality of evolution are not mutually exclusive. It is just as rational to accept that God created a situation in which the origination of life would be possible, by 'natural means', opening the way for a flourishing of 'life' in multitudinous variety, as it is to suggest that God directly initiated original life. These two scenarios are also not mutually exclusive.

Given the reality of our magnificent universe, and our magnificent planet, what is irrational, however, is to contend that God must have played a direct part in the creation of all life, in all its multitudinous and magnificent variety, or that God created an 'old world' (on Earth) replete with 'falsified fossils'. What is irrational is to believe God played a trick on us by falsifying the passage of light from distant stars and galaxies to make it only appear that this light would have taken many thousands of years to reach the Earth, but at the same time providing 'evidence' (only in written form) that the Earth and the Universe was only 'created' a mere 6,000 years ago (our time). What is irrational is to believe that God falsified the Earth's geological record - by speeding up erosion and the movement of tectonic plates so that the formation of the Himalayas, the Grand Canyon, the Rocky Mountains, etc, would only 'appear' to have taken many, many thousands of years to 'evolve'.

Is one better to believe the realities of life and the natural universe, or some words penned by Man? Where the magnificence of the universe contradicts the word of Man I would rather place my faith in the evidence God has provided all around me. God is no 'trickster' in my book, but I cannot say the same of Man.

>>'Where did God come from? '
Why don't you ask Him?<<

I tried that. He wouldn't answer me. Maybe you could ask Him for us runner?

Cheers,

Tony

I'll give it a shot, Jon J.

>>Now, do I hear six? Anyone?<<

How about this?

"I'm an atheist, but that's irrelevant to my visceral reaction to pompous bloviation, which is that I feel compelled to snark."

I wish you unconfined joy - sorry, "powerfully exquisite joy" - when you attend the next Global Convention of Pretentious Tossers.

Dear Saltpetre,

If you are referring to the words of the Jewish scientist which I brought in http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=13535&page=25 ,
then he himself did not believe in the "old world creation" model, but rather he used it to prove that there is no logical contradiction between Genesis and science, and once it can be shown that there is no contradiction, then many other and better scientific models may be possible, whether we can think of any yet or otherwise.

Thus his conclusion was: "in my lab I do science and in synagogue I do religion. I may not understand how those two fit together, but it doesn't matter because somehow they do."

Yuyutsu,

I didn't state that God came from anywhere. I asked runner where did he think God came from. He appears to surmise that the physical universe requires a cause (arising from some action or entity) - that being "God".
I'm merely asking if God had a beginning, and if that beginning requires a cause. I'm happy to accept that God may not require a "beginning" - only an "always was" - although our minds have difficulty assimilating such a proposition.

What is God?

Dear Poirot,

<<What is God?>>

The question "What" can only be asked about a 'something', an object.
Since God is not an object, the question has no meaning and so are other questions such as whether God has a beginning or requires a cause.

You can, if you like, negatively say what God is not:
God is not _________ (fill in the blank with whatever you like).

Regarding the physical universe, isn't it meaningless to ask whether it has a cause without first establishing what it is?
Do tell me what it is, then I can tell you whether or not it requires a cause.

My answer to this question of "what is the physical world" is included in the general postulate - there is nothing but God!
If you accept my answer, then it becomes clear that the world requires no cause, for God doesn't.

It's ironic that an article about the GAC is classified as Religion and Spirituality.

Pericles: "I wish you unconfined joy - sorry, "powerfully exquisite joy" - when you attend the next Global Convention of Pretentious Tossers."

It's funny how many people calling themselves 'atheists' get all upset about the current power and popularity of the movement. It's almost as if they don't want to give up their minority position and the sense of persecution it gives them; rather like the hardcore feminists who are desperately trying to find ways to convince women that they're still oppressed.

I guess if your self-worth is tied up with being part of a neglected majority, it's hard to cope when that minority starts getting attention.

Jon J,

personally, the only reason I get "snarky" with the New Atheists is because they are shallow and conventional.
My position is not one of mere atheism, tokenism, but one of disenchantment and ideological critique which comprehends all the institutions that help to maintain the present order--including, apparently, the New Atheists.
Atheism has an honourable tradition of radicalism behind it, but you guys are trying to turn it into a bourgeois mode of sterilised thinking; that is, non-thinking--liberalism.
My atheism and your atheism are non sequitur. As far as I'm concerned the New Atheism is just another State Religion.

Yep, that's the problem, right there Jon J.

>>It's funny how many people calling themselves 'atheists' get all upset about the current power and popularity of the movement<<

I object to turning a perfectly respectable stance on the non-existence of a deity, into a friggin' "movement", together with figureheads, hierarchies, agendas, and the obligatory mass of fawning acolytes.

As for its "current power and popularity", I'll leave that for others to decide. But as with any endeavour, making the most noise is not a measure of anything, except the ability to make noise.

>>It's almost as if they don't want to give up their minority position and the sense of persecution it gives them; rather like the hardcore feminists who are desperately trying to find ways to convince women that they're still oppressed.<<

Now you are just being silly. What "minority position"? What "sense of persecution?" They're all in your imagination, fed by the same sense of self-importance that drives the David Nicholls Society.

>>I guess if your self-worth is tied up with being part of a neglected majority, it's hard to cope when that minority starts getting attention.<<

What neglected majority? What minority?

You're becoming incoherent.

I certainly don’t wish to interfere with the conversation but I was wondering if a closer look at the 2012 Global Atheist Convention – ‘A Celebration of Reason’ in retrospect would help those who seem to know all about it without having actually attended.

The AFA is beginning to upload presentations from the convention here: http://www.youtube.com/user/AtheistFoundation?feature=watch

We are all volunteers so putting together and uploading will happen over time. And no apologies to Pericles for me being first off the block. That is how is works. :)

There are hundreds of photos here:
http://atheistconvention.us4.list-manage.com/track/click?u=1d4ad3e74d189f2b08fda5bc1&id=da0fac5811&e=84392ce4d8

David

Ok kids, I know they aren't quite the same since they got popular, went mainstream and changed their name. And the lead guy who died was the best, better than the other guy. But I'm sure you can still enjoy some of their old stuff.

All these new teenybopper fans just don't understand their real depth do they?

David,

It was fascinating to read your latest article offering.

You couldn't have come across as more evangelical if you had tried.

Can't you see that your rhetoric describing the whole unfolding atheist circus sounds identical to the religious shenanigans over which you regularly delight in pouring scorn.

Funny really : )

David, thanks for the photographs. The Atheists look like folk who have some control over their lives instead of relinquishing it to a group of fraudsters who promise much but deliver nothing.

Poiret, the fact that you pour scorn on atheists suggests that you can't handle life without believing that a god of some kind sits on your shoulder. Of course, mankind has invented hundreds of gods for you to choose from.

Which one whispers to you? Perhaps they all do!

dangerouscreation.com

David G,

I'm an atheist who doesn't feel the need to seek artificially constructed "euphoric" experiences fashioned in the shape of quasi-religious beat-ups.

I haven't followed this debate here closely, but I would like to
point out that an atheist lobby group of some sort, would not be
such a bad thing. For good reasons. Govt takes notice of lobby
groups and its the squeaky wheel which gets the oil.

Sadly, the Catholic Church continues to promote its dogma and it
affects non Catholics in real ways. Let me give you an example.
The WA Govt is building a new multi million $ hospital to replace
the old Swan districts hospital. They have called for tenders
to operate the hospital and Catholic Health Care have put their
hand up. Now given that they pay no taxes and can sell you a ticket
to heaven at great profit, the Catholics have a distinct advantage.
I gather they are not cheap either. A friend tells me it cost him
850$ a night at St John of God Catholic hospital. Hardly charity.

Should the Govt be foolish enough to accept the Catholic offer, there
is a problem. Any woman who decides to have her tubes tied after
popping out yet another one, will be unable to do so at the new
hospital, for it goes against Catholic dogma. This is a huge
inconvenience to patients, as any woman wanting such a choice, will
have to rebook into yet another hospital for another stay, to get
her tubes tied. This in a hospital built with Govt funds. It stinks.

Some atheist lobby group should be screaming from the rooftops about
this kind of discrimination against non Catholics, bankrolled by
us taxpayers.

You have a good point, Yabby.

>>Some atheist lobby group should be screaming from the rooftops about
this kind of discrimination against non Catholics, bankrolled by
us taxpayers.<<

Unfortunately that isn't what these folks are about, they're far too busy congratulating themselves on their Atheist Evangelical Revival Meeting to actually bother about such issues.

Regrettably, you have to go back to June 19th 2010 for the last submission made by this groupuscule. A quick glance at their web site...

http://www.atheistfoundation.org.au/

...clearly demonstrates their natural bias towards self-promotion, with twenty "look-it-me" press releases since their last serious piece of fairness-for-all activism.

Out of interest though, does the WA Government not specify the treatments and services that must be provided from a hospital that wins the business? Every government tender that I have seen - admittedly in other industries - is nit-pickingly prescriptive, and would reject out of hand any tender response that omitted a single mandatory requirement.

That, surely, is up to the voters in Western Australia to sort out.

Pericles,

Maybe the last four years of putting on two of the largest atheist conventions that have happened on the planet with the enormous amount of hours involved with that has left website matters fall behind somewhat.

Your priorities might be submissions to government but there are other ways to inform the Australian population that they are being had by religion. The AFA is obviously very effective at doing that as is seen by some of the inanity and fear induced comments emanating from a number of quarters including those that are religious.

I wonder if you might explain what the self-promotion you prattle on about is and what are the gains in that to whom or what? A sensible answer is required.

I'm still quite exhausted from the last convention and am in no mood for petty idiocy.

David

http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-/newshome/13417612/doctor-barred-for-doing-male-snip/

Pericles, it sounds like the Catholics simply barr doctors who
perform the snip or any anti Catholic dogma operations like tieing
tubes, easy fixed. Us mugs just have to live with it.

That is my point really, Catholic dogma promotion, bankrolled
by the taxpayer.One would think that politicians, including
Catholic ones, would be called to account over this. It needs some
lobby group to do it.

To all religious people stop trying to convert your way of thinking onto those who do not want to join your viewpoint, nearly all religious people will do it in a sneaky way, as an example, he is looking down on you, you know or have you ever thought of praying to God, or your soul is with you,you know,these sayings they hope will lead you into their warped religious viewpoint.I do not under any circumstance try to convert any one to Atheism,but when these sayings. are said by the religious, one day I will say how about joining me in Atheism, it is the only way to go. I have my viewpoint and you have yours, so keep it to yourself.

I find it quite extraordinary that only Poirot and Pericles have taken exception to the language used in this article.
I am happy for all those who attended this convention, truly. I am glad they all feel better for having attended.
But if they are going to claim the moral high ground on the basis of reason, perhaps they could use more reasonable language, rather than -as Poirot has suggested- a speech more appropriate to a revivalist meeting?
Really David, you are starting to come across as a classic reformist; transferring one idiocy to another instead of just rejecting the idiocy.
I concede Yabby's point, but I hope he is wrong. A secular government should not need an Atheist lobby.

Ojnab,

If you scan the above I think you'll find the dissenting voices are atheist. Indeed despite David Nichols's (sorry, only Jesus and co gets the possessive apostrophe without the extra s) best efforts to provoke something quotable from the theists, to put on his website and twitter, they've wisely maintained their dignity and kept quite.

I wonder if Nichols and co realise that their much vaunted atheist convention is actually nothing more than a book launch for their gawd-awful stars?
Maybe he can get say 1% of the take for next year's publicity drive?
Seems only fair?

I wish I was wrong, Grim, but the last paragraph of the posted URL
kind of said it all, so I will snip it below:

*But a spokeswoman for the North Metropolitan Area Health Service said if a contract was reached with the health group, it was expected services such pregnancy terminations, sterilisation and contraception procedures would not be provided at the hospital.*

In other words, if a woman travels down from the country to have
her baby, as there is a shortage of obstetricians in the country,
if she wants her tubes tied whilst there, it will be tough titties.
She'll have to go for another stay at another hospital.

Some browsers possibly didn’t show my last sentence. Oh well, let’s push on.

I’m always intrigued by atheists whose main talent is knocking others who are actually achieving something worthwhile whilst they consider having all the answers themselves, one of which is doing sweet nothing to improve human happiness.

Nestled in forums where their quaint ideas are not seriously challenged fits perfectly with this false sense of superiority, a delusion of course, where they rabbit-on how goddam awful is anyone who questions the status quo in a manner they do not like. There possibly isn’t a manner which they would like because any success such as the AFA has makes them feel insecure and worthless as humans. Not our or my fault is all I can say about that.

We never see them or hear of them outside a forum situation and it must be assumed they are doing good anonymously in the ‘right’ fashion, whatever that may be.

And we never see them on the AFA Forums, or not for very long anyway, as they can’t sustain the nonsense in the face of intelligent appraisal.

But prove me wrong, how about hop on the AFA Forums and tell us all where atheism, the AFA or indeed, me, are going wrong. I can’t see it but you may have something intelligent to add to the ongoing discussions about benefiting human existence.

Meanwhile, the AFA will continue to promote the idea that the privileges afforded religions are unacceptable in a society whose ideal is democratic.

David

"I’m always intrigued by atheists whose main talent is knocking others who are actually achieving something worthwhile whilst they consider having all the answers themselves,** one of which is doing sweet nothing to improve human happiness**."

Well there's the rub, isn't it. I was under the impression that A-theism was about non belief in a putative deity. Improving human happiness is a completely different ball game.
What exactly 'worthwhile' was achieved? Did you manage world peace? Alleviate poverty? Direct all the royalties from Dawkins' books to feeding starving children?
Stop any wars?
Successfully adjudicate any religious confrontations?
I would suggest Atheists stick to what they're good at.
Not believing in God.

Grim,

Perhaps we shouldn't be so hard on David - constructing a bandwagon is not as easy as it looks.

Grim, there is no need to feel guilty about being an apatheist. What you do need to learn is that apathy towards religious intolerance in society should be equally balanced with apathy with what atheists are on about. Obviously you are not when it comes to atheists.

Most atheists who know they have to make some kind of noise or they and others will be swamped by the power religion holds in society don’t really care if apatheists don’t feel the same.

However, they and me, become quite agitated when apatheists attack their own when that effort should be put into protecting those who are negatively affected by religion or they should STFU. (Oh, heavens, isn't he rude!)

If thought out atheism doesn’t have with it the knowledge of the adversity experienced by individuals and groups through the concept of faith, then those apatheists should get off their high horses in criticizing those who know and who are attempting to do something about it.

I find this kind of apatheism very, very disturbing. I accept this is a part of the human spectrum but I still consider it pathetic.

If you expect me to lie down and have no strong opinion on this then you are wrong.

David

I must have been distracted by the hagiographical nature of your article, David, and overlooked the detail of how GAC con met your criterion "…that effort should be put into protecting those who are negatively affected by religion or they should STFU."

Should I reread it? Or will you tell us here?

There's no rush… as you've told us you're still quite exhausted from the last convention and I want you to have a lie down to get over it.

Grim - exactly!

But, Poirot is also right - David is a messenger, filled with enthusiasm, and he deserves due consideration of where his message may lead, and the chances of his 'movement' increasing human happiness.

Red Corner (the baddies): representatives of all world religions and belief systems, having faith in a deity or a variety of deities - and all looking to improve the lot and the happiness of their 'flock'.

Blue Corner (the goodies): David and Dawkins and Co, looking to demonstrate the folly of religious conviction, the harm religion does, and the inability of religious movements to agree on much of anything - and that they, the opposition, are not best placed to improve human happiness.

Round 1: Blue Corner holds talk-fest of 4,000, reaching agreement that 'there probably is no God', and with this knowledge they are going to improve human happiness and 'save the world';
Rebuttal: Red Corner: We all reckon there is a God and with quite a few helpers to boot, but anyhow, how're you gonna improve human happiness and save the world?
Response: Blue Corner: By freeing humanity of the burden of belief in and reliance on a deity, thereby forcing people to think for themselves - hail 'Rational Man'.

Round 2: Red Corner confers together and decides their best counter is to form a world faith alliance in the interest of improving the happiness and well-being of all of humanity irrespective of their private religious views - hailing 'there is one God with many helpers', and 'with this knowledge we will unite humanity in the cause of equity, tolerance and sustainable development!'

Blue Corner: 'We have success, we have found the way to improve human happiness!'

Sticks and stones, David. You start by assuring me I don't have to feel guilty (a great relief to me) and then use the rest of your diatribe to explain why I should.
Were you being sarcastic, David?
So it's no longer enough to not believe in God; now we must not do so loudly.
I have to say it seems like a cake and eat it too type of argument. On the one hand, the Atheists are arguing that religion is dying, and cite dramatic falls in church attendances, individual cults having to unite, selling off assets etc., on the other we have to be concerned about their 'power and influence'.
The truth probably is, we Aussies are an apathetic lot, in general. We must be, to allow the shenanigans in Canberra.
The vast majority just don't give a toss about religion, one way or the other.
Sometimes it's just as bad to give too much attention to an unruly child, as it too little.
Unless of course, there's a buck to be made from it.

David,

"...What we need to learn is that apathy towards religious intolerance in society should be equally balanced with apathy with what atheists are on about..."

But the vast majority of atheists aren't "on about" anything.

"apatheists"?

Might I suggest that New Atheists might in future refer to their "movement as "Pugnatheism".

"Crapathiesm"... Poirot?

I think "Pugnatheism" is a wonderful word, Poirot. I hope they like it; we know from prior experience how sensitive they are about such expressions as 'militant' or 'strident' or even 'new'.
After all, not believing in supernatural deities is very serious business.
You could go to hell over something like that.
On reflection, I think I could survive being called an apatheist.
I'm so tuff...

Priorities, Mr Nicholls?

>>Your priorities might be submissions to government<<

I have no such "priorities". I was simply suggesting that if indeed the AFA purports to be some kind of lobby group for a fair go for atheists, they might consider some such action. Obviously not, for reasons that you make amply clear:

>>...four years of putting on two of the largest atheist conventions that have happened on the planet with the enormous amount of hours involved...<<

Which is exactly what I pointed out.

>>The AFA is obviously very effective at doing that as is seen by some of the inanity and fear induced comments...<<

An interesting KPI. Your mission is to generate inanity and fear. I'll remember that.

>>I wonder if you might explain what the self-promotion you prattle on about is and what are the gains in that to whom or what? A sensible answer is required<<

I thought I was being quite clear.

Your entire motivation seems to be the promotion of your society as some kind of focal point for activism. Yet there is no such activism in evidence, as Yabby observed, and a quick visit to your site confirmed. There is on the other hand plentiful material there that denigrates religion in general, and excoriates the religious for being so stupid as to hold the beliefs that they do.

If you see your mission to convert the religious to atheism, I suggest that simply sneering at them will not achieve your objective. If on the other hand you see your role as addressing government agencies on the wealth of favours that they variously provide - financial and otherwise - to religious organizations, you are clearly open to a charge of sloth.

>>I'm still quite exhausted from the last convention and am in no mood for petty idiocy<<

So, what are you "in the mood" for, Mr Nicholls? 

Adulation?

>>I’m always intrigued by atheists whose main talent is knocking others who are actually achieving something<<

And you have achieved what, precisely?

A platform for self-congratulation and mutual backslapping.

Well done.

Grim,

I wasn’t being sarcastic and you have missed my point. I possibly did not explain it clearly enough.

The AFA is well aware there are apatheists in the population. It seems that apathy is a part of human nature.

The main reason the AFA does not directly tout for members is that to do so can create a false image of the atheist demographic. If apatheists do not want to react against the bad parts of religion then that is how it is.

All the AFA attempts to do is to put the information out there so people can have another point of view. That information does not have to be accepted.

If apatheists all over the planet decide to let religion ride-roughshod over them and in the process the world annihilates itself, then that also is how it is.

There are a growing number of atheists who are not apatheists for various reasons, maybe education, upbringing, genes, who knows or cares really. All I am saying is we exist and we are pointing out some basic errors in human thinking that create harm to other people and are threatening the planet.

Atheists are not better than others, whether they are religious or apatheist.

As a general statement the religious dislike the atheist message no matter how mild it is or how it is given. Which leads us to how some apatheists, who know the content of the message from atheism is reasonably spot-on, but who constantly whinge that atheists are actually stating it. This leads some to pick on the delivery method no matter how it is given or by whom.

To me this is counterproductive without good reason.

I feel doubly lucky in not being religious or worse, an apatheist without a cause. :)

David

Thank you, Pericles - great post.

"Self-congratulatheism" seems to fit nicely as well.

Pericles,

The way you might like to run the AFA and how it is done, are, thankfully, quite different. Putting phrases into existence that are not fully representative of the AFA and creating strawman argument are somewhat desperate measures.

A couple of examples:

Lobby for “a fair go for atheists?” Really, can you justify that thanks. Standing by for more obfuscation?

“Your mission is to generate inanity and fear. I'll remember that.” How stupid of you to say that when I clearly pointed out that seemed to be an outcome, not an intention.

Sorry to let you know but atheism is very successfully represented in the public arena by the AFA. Maybe you can name a group doing that better than us.

And this is mind-blowingly dumb and not supported by anything the AFA stands for. “If you see your mission to convert the religious to atheism”. Some evidence in support of that would be nice.

‘So, what are you "in the mood" for, Mr Nicholls?” Well, I’m glad you asked. Sensible and intelligent comment for one thing.

“And you have achieved what, precisely?” Most would consider that placing another view into the public arena, that is, atheism, on a scale that has not been accomplished before in Australia is a reasonable achievement.

“A platform for self-congratulation and mutual backslapping.”

Mmmmm…. What rubbish. Another dull generalisation. I reported on a wonderful weekend in a manner which attempted to bring the reader into it. Obviously, some are incapable of getting outside their own immature thoughts to entertain that others are creating good and having a great time doing it.

You certainly are sailing close to wind on being placed on the ‘not to be taken seriously’ list. You will be in like-minded company with other ‘notable’ obscurantists.

David

I congratulate those who organised and attended the Convention. I had no idea such Conventions were held! And I have been an atheist since a small child - the existence of a 'God' never made any sense to me. My God-mother was very disappointed in me!

But, let's get it straight here - the real enemy is the influence of religion upon the government and its policies; and the influence of religion upon the law and our everyday lives. The enemy is not those who believe (they are entitled to their beliefs). Nor is the enemy other atheists, whether organised or private. Let's just concentrate on a complete separation between Government and the Church!

>>Sorry to let you know but atheism is very successfully represented in the public arena by the AFA. Maybe you can name a group doing that better than us.<<

Hillsong and similar churches. Those happy-clapping retards are a better advertisement for atheism than any atheist convention no matter how successful it may be.

>>You certainly are sailing close to wind on being placed on the ‘not to be taken seriously’ list. You will be in like-minded company with other ‘notable’ obscurantists.<<

In other words: if Pericles doesn't stop questioning and criticizing the doctrines of the AFA you will excommunicate him. Nice.

This business of excommunicating people for heresy strikes me as very religious. Are you sure you've really got the hang of atheism David?

Cheers,

Tony

Well David, if you weren't being sarcastic, we have a problem.
Should I feel guilty, for being an “Apatheist”, or not?
“If apatheists do not want to react against the bad parts of religion then that is how it is.”
I find this bizarre. Surely 'Apatheism' and 'Pugnatheism' are both reactions against the 'bad parts of religion'?
I'm an Atheist (or Apatheist, if you will) because I find the organised religions illogical. That's a reaction. I don't feel any need to proselytise about it; I accept that others have different opinions, and as an egalitarian I have to accept that their opinions are just as valuable as my own.
I suggest you consider the words of Nietzsche:
“Whoever battles with monsters had better see that it does not turn him into a monster. And if you gaze long into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you.”
The point Poirot, Pericles, WmTrevor and others I think have been trying to make is that your language is strongly redolent of those 'monsters' you oppose.
I would suggest we humble Apatheists merely reject religion.
We don't seek to create a new (and just as virulent) anti-religion.
And do religions ride 'roughshod' over us in this country?
In 57 years of living, 40 years of drinking in Pubs and expressing (far too loudly) my opinions, of fighting and getting beaten up, I can't recall anyone giving a rat's backside about my religious beliefs.
NannaK has a valid point. Perhaps religion has no place in politics. Then again, perhaps...
Again, as an egalitarian, I can't say I'm right and everyone who believes is wrong.
I can only say I find their beliefs illogical.

Tony,

Intercession on behalf of others to save them from what is erroneously thought of as excommunication, when in fact the threat is just to be placed in the good old materialistic ‘sin-bin’, is a very priestly thing to do.

And I don’t mind if Pericles ‘questions and criticises’ the AFA when it is done so without the introduction of mud to cloud the waters. And using the word “doctrines” in regard to the AFA is another count against your secular credentials. What doctrines?

Is it your religious upbringing, if that was the case that keeps you fiddling with theological words? I mean, using “heresy”, when there is no orthodoxy with atheism or in fact, the AFA. Unless you would like to point that out of course, correct me.

Yes, I am nearly absolutely certain, as one can never be absolutely certain about anything, unless one is of a religious persuasion, that I really do have the hang of atheism.

But, Tony, thank you for asking anyway. :)

And I must return the question, and I mean it in the nicest way possible, have you?

Maybe you will come along to the next Global Atheist Convention and we can break bread together and have a glass of wine in remembrance of the demise of or severe injury to, secular values which the AFA is attempting to promote.

David

Grim,

Would you espouse the same nonchalant-ness about religious influence if you were a woman, a lesbian or gay, someone seeking voluntary euthanasia, a child being drilled with creationism, a person desperate to have stem cell research for a drastically debilitating illness, a young person threatened with hell, a women whose abortion rights are always in jeopardy etc. Is nuclear-war by religious nutters acceptable, or is 30 billion dollars of untaxed income

Still missing the point, Mr Nicholls.

>>The way you might like to run the AFA and how it is done, are, thankfully, quite different<<

Surely it's obvious to you by now, that I consider the existence of any organization that promotes atheism to be redundant. Why on earth would I want to run one?

>>Lobby for “a fair go for atheists?” Really, can you justify that<<

Errrm... if that is not your purpose, what is? After all, in your next post you provide a list of the oppressed...

>>Would you espouse the same nonchalant-ness about religious influence if you were a woman, a lesbian or gay, someone seeking voluntary euthanasia, a child being drilled with creationism etc.etc...<<

These are all atheists no?

Otherwise they would be completely happy with their religion's position on the topic. Hence, a "fair go for atheists" would seem to cover it nicely, don't you think?

>>“Your mission is to generate inanity and fear. I'll remember that.” How stupid of you to say that when I clearly pointed out that seemed to be an outcome, not an intention.<<

Don't be so modest. You were not so shy when you boasted how effective your tactics had been, in achieving this outcome.

>>The AFA is obviously very effective at doing that as is seen by some of the inanity and fear induced comments<<

And you're just nit-picking here.

>>“If you see your mission to convert the religious to atheism”. Some evidence in support of that would be nice.<<

"If" indicates a condition. If.. then... else. As I said, simply sneering at them won't do it, and it hasn't.

>>Most would consider that placing another view into the public arena, that is, atheism, on a scale that has not been accomplished before in Australia is a reasonable achievement.<<

"Most would consider that..." Mr Nicholls?

I rather think you mean "In my opinion..."

If not, tell us how you calculate "most".

>>“A platform for self-congratulation and mutual backslapping.”Mmmmm…. What rubbish. Another dull generalisation.<<

An observation, Mr Nicholls, not a generalization. And one that is not uniquely mine, I suggest.

Pericles,

Good news, you hit the list.

David

"Pericles,

Good news, you hit the list."

Would that be an "athelist"?

(Crushing blow, Pericles. However, I trust you'll hold up)

Nuclear war by religious nutters is as acceptable to me as nuclear war by irreligious nutters.

But setting that aside for the moment… Two recollections:

One – from William James, "…the pretension of non-mystical states to be the sole and ultimate dictators of what we may believe."

Two – Does anyone else remember woot's concerns? It was my clear impression he was attending the convention.

"Especially in the tourism sector, business would band together to support each other, but being a known non-believer? No one would refer business on your way, you were always made second class within the community, even within the local business groups.

I have seen 2 business running on shoestrings because of this very issue, and one woman so at the end of her tether she has spent evenings in tears speaking to me not knowing what to do because no business in the town (70km from where I lived) referred people on to her. She was even considering pretending to have a 'conversion' just to stay afloat. She ended up selling her accommodation because of it and has literally dropped from sight :("

I was just wondering if the GAC was able to come up with a solution? Or, taking it seriously, help in any way?

Is it even on one of the AFA lists?

<Nestled in forums where their quaint ideas are not seriously challenged … where they rabbit-on how goddam awful is anyone who questions the status quo in a manner they do not like.> etc.
<You certainly are sailing close to wind on being placed on the ‘not to be taken seriously’ list. You will be in like-minded company with other ‘notable’ obscurantists.>
Considering I’m on the list, Nichols seems desperate to get my attention.
Despite his being “exhausted”, he clearly has more leisure time than I do. I would love to join in debate with his mates at AFA, and will when time permits, and if anything thoughtful is debated. I might even get more traction with them there than I have here. Having written several thousand words just recently on this topic with several New Atheists—mostly over their heads—nothing has been offered in defence of my criticisms, which are now labelled “obscurantism”. Obscurantism is a useful label to attach to anything you don’t understand. And that’s the problem for me with the New Atheists; they don’t appear to understand their own position critically—from whence their atheism derives and why? And what it’s based on philosophically and politically? The Atheism/theism debate as it stands is equivalent to the debate between the Lilliputians/Blefescuans.

<Nuclear war by religious nutters is as acceptable to me as nuclear war by irreligious nutters.>
This is one of the more disturbing aspects of the New Atheism, not just its Western triumphalism, but its downright xenophobia. It’s only the yanks who have used nuclear weapons on civilian populations and they, and the other technocratic and atheist States are still the most likely to start a nuclear war, or to destroy the planet in the name of “progress”.

And WmTrevor, I’m afraid you’ve embarrassed yourself with your William James quote; he is actually defending religious experience and spiritual thought in general from the charge of redundancy levelled by those who think their rationalistic language game should “dictate what we may believe”.
Dawkins and co are the poodles of the State, and their followers are their poodles.

David, I have already answered that question; twice, in fact.
I find these views illogical.
But again, as an egalitarian I have to accept they may be right, and I may be wrong. I have no doubt there are people out there who honestly, sincerely and fervently believe in Heaven and Hell. To such people, obviously nothing could be more important than protecting their family and friends in the afterlife. They may even believe in a literal 'Stony Path', Pearly Gates and eternity sitting on a cloud playing a lyre (doesn't that sound like a hoot?).
And I can think of absolutely no way of proving them wrong. (In my case at least, even dying probably won't do it; just ask runner.)
But the question remains, how does your GAC change any of that?
Did all or any of the people attending agree with the woes you mentioned, then changed their minds after attending?
I would suggest all atheists, and a good many ap-theists will vote in favour of changing these issues, regardless of whether they have ever heard of Dawkins and co. or not.
I strongly suspect the only worldly changes resulting from your GAC will be to the bank balances of certain high profile speakers.
I would suggest, if you really wanted to talk about results, perhaps you should have issued a simple survey to all attendees:
“Since attending this convention, have your views changed concerning such things as:

(being ) a woman, a lesbian or gay, someone seeking voluntary euthanasia, a child being drilled with creationism, a person desperate to have stem cell research for a drastically debilitating illness, a young person threatened with hell, a women whose abortion rights are always in jeopardy etc. Is nuclear-war by religious nutters acceptable, or is 30 billion dollars of untaxed income”

And what pray, is this 'list'? Was that really a veiled threat? Should we invoke a new Schindler?
I for one, do not salivate over the thought of Pericles flambe.

Ah, that list. My apologies.

[Psst... Squeers, I knew exactly how selective I was being in my quoted extract and from your writings I know you don't confuse 'mysticism' and 'religion' as applied to atheism. But I'm conscious that 'some of my best friends' are quietly Christian and not responsible for the ills of the world. Don't spoil it… I'm trying to get myself put on a list.]

Goodness me! What a battle is going on in this Blog! I can't even work out what is the point of these arguments!

At the end of the day, all people are entitled to their views and 'faiths' - either religious or anti-religious. I am an atheist, but have no desire to 'convert' anyone else to atheism. If religion gives some people the strength to better handle their own problems, why would I want to deprive them of this (maybe misguided) comfort? It is all a matter of faith, really. I can't prove there is no god, any more than a religious person can prove there is a god!

The real problem is the use of any form of religion or faith in the formulation of government policies or laws. There should always be a complete separation between the State and the Church. Unfortunately, there is still a very pervasive influence of Christianity upon our laws and policies. This includes the saying of prayers in Parliament.

I very strongly object to the view perpetuated by Christians that all decency and goodness comes from Christian teachings, or worse still, the word of 'God'. This implies that atheists are vile, cruel, dishonest people lacking in compassion. These views fly in the face of a history of violent genocide, oppression and terrorism carried out by all religions (except maybe the Buddhists) over our recorded history.

I can only hope that any atheist organisation would be concentrating on these sorts of issues rather than fighting with each other and splitting hairs!

Appreciate the thought, Poirot.

>>Crushing blow, Pericles. However, I trust you'll hold up<<

I think I may just about struggle on without the approval of Mr Nicholls.

It is still a concern that a movement that purports to represent the concerns of atheists, turns out to be nothing but an excuse for a glee-fest. If it showed half as much enthusiasm for taking active and positive steps towards ending the discrimination in favour of religious bodies, as it does in promoting itself as providing "powerfully exquisite joy" to its followers, it might have some value. As it stands, Mr Nicholls' claim that they "are actually achieving something worthwhile" rings decidedly hollow.

Since I am now invisible to Mr Nicholls, I doubt there will be reason to discuss the issues any further. I will treasure this little throwaway line of his, though.

>>And I don’t mind if Pericles ‘questions and criticises’ the AFA<<

Frankly, though, I shouldn't have to do this. Mr Nicholls should share the heavy lifting on this task, surely.

in the middle of the topic are some replies re god..[theos]
god is the totality of everything that is..

think of god like the worldwideweb
each of us individually...computers..but in total the all
[the good fruit..of all the E is

[E=energy finite energy,..that continues infinitly..E being]..
changing form/state..but E none the less..

energy cant be created nor destroyed
be it photon..or electron..god is energy made into form

its easier to see in the next life
where e is made into form simply via logus..and by will [alone].all-one..

im stil waiting for a full transcript
i saw much of it on abc 24/big ideas etc
but need to have their official words..to refute the lies

[i dont got vidio upload..on dodo 25$ a year plan]
but would love to read your official texts

you are anti religion..[not anti theos]
refuting religion dont refute collective good..[god]
as much alpha as negative alpha...as much theos as atheost

what does gad..[gak]..gag mean
i missed the joke..[yet aint it all just grand

much like a drug induced high...
where you see all the answers
as adoration of a fixation..
which..numbs the mind

love sic*..

WmTrevor,

"...But I'm conscious that 'some of my best friends' are quietly Christian and are not responsible for the ills of the world..."

Precisely!

David,

It's a curious thing about man that he is overly susceptible to suggestion and hysteria when herded together under a collective ideological umbrella. It's possibly the greatest flaw in our species and exposes a predisposition toward collective insanity.

You write:

""It's unnervingly disquieting that many disregard evidence that the process of religious inculcation in itself can produce random mild and maniacal adherents..."

Inculcation of any kind can produce the same results.

When you write of "elation" and "euphoria" and "powerful exquisite joy", you'll forgive us if we deduce that you are employing exactly those techniques which you condemn.

(I presume I'm on the list so I'm not expecting a reply)

Talk about being invisible! Grim is the only blogger to even acknowledge my existence!

I can only assume the rest of you bloggers are young, probably at uni and possessed of that incredible self-absorption so typical of the young. You aren't really interested in atheism - only in one-upping each other. Oh well - I was probably like that once!

I now see this is a private little Blog - newcomers not really welcome.

I wish you all a wonderful, nit-picky sort of day!

Oh NannaK,

Actually I had planned to give you a welcome, but unfortunately got carried away with my own agenda...so...Welcome.

No this isn't a forum of uni students. We're all mature nitpickers here.

Stick around, you'll enjoy it : )

And you're very welcome… Really! Please don't tell us you live in the south – I like the idea of thinking of you as NannaK of the North.

"You aren't really interested in atheism…" On the contrary, you couldn't be more wrong. Just check out the many commentary threads. They are all archived and available.

"I can only assume the rest of you bloggers are young…" On the contrary, in our imaginations you couldn't be more right! It's just our mirrors that are wrinkled and our photo IDs that are mocking.

Maybe you've not encountered david f yet? At a self-professed 86, he has one of the youngest minds I've ever encountered – and I say that with a complete absence of irony.

As with others, Pericles on the other hand, is 'experienced'. So too is Poirot – but not in 'that' way as you've not doubt guessed.

Feeling less nit-picked? Regards,

Well, thank you for the welcome - both Poirot and WmTrevor.

I definitely am from 'the north' - just outside of Brisbane. And I am a wrinkly 'senior' but not yet 86!

Yes, this does look like a nice, lively Blog.

The National Seniors Australia Blog was a very lively Blog, too, but unfortunately one particular, very prolific blogger was so vicious that the Blog had to be closed down. But then again, the NSA was overly sensitive too. I certainly enjoyed that very robust Blog.

This Blog looks like a nice robust one, too. I will hang around for a while until I get the 'feel' of it.

Once again, thanks for the welcome.

NannaK,

Fear not, there really is no battle going on. Some folk are posturing for reasons only they know and others can guess at.

The interference of religion in politics starts at the school level where children are influenced to accept as a reasonable idea that the Christian religion, in Australia’s case, has legs. This is happening in state schools with many parents unaware that their children are exposed to repetitious retrograde religious fundamentalist concepts. They may also not understand the ramifications for the future of their child or the wider community.

The two methods employed are Religious education in the curriculum and Chaplains on school grounds.

Petitioning governments to alter this have not been very successful but as religion in general comes under the spotlight to a greater extent, more of the population will realise the wrong going on here.

Events such as the 2012 Global Atheist Convention, AFA billboards, the campaign by the AFA to mark ‘no religion’ on the Census form, the AFA appearing before the Senate and the High Court Challenge about chaplaincy all help in raising the level of awareness that there is an opposition to religious interference in politics. There is a whole range of other actions the AFA is involved with to assist with this.

Other secular groups and organisations are also contributing to this worthwhile cause. Separation of church and state was a constant theme at the GAC because of its importance to good and fair governance.

Eventually the penny will drop about the ethical blunder that is happening in Government schools concerning religion and change will be the result. Politicians tend to take the correct course of action when they recognise the electors are not happy or run the risk of losing their jobs.

David

Richard Dawkins’ and Lawrence Krauss’ tributes to Christopher Hitchens

http://www.youtube.com/user/AtheistFoundation/feed

They both spoke after the short video tribute to Christopher Hitchens which is the fourth entry from the top of that page.

David

If atheists want to distance themselves from the Christian religion, it was indeed odd that they chose the Easter weekend on which to hold the GAC .

If those attending had taken their atheism seriously, they would not have treated Good Friday and Easter Monday, days of particular Christian significance, as public holidays.

Raycom,

Maybe check your dates for Easter in the year 2012.

And I assume you have a point to make even though you missed by a week.

David

This thread is about the Post 2012 Global Atheist Convention and in that light here is the final forum on Sunday comprised of Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Sam Harris and Ayaan Hirsi Ali.

For those wishing to understand atheism today, it is well worth watching. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sOMjEJ3JO5Q&list=PL7C0CA45F60FD44C7&index=8&feature=plpp_video

Most of the presentation from the 2012 Global Atheist Convention will be released on Youtube soon and on a 4 disk DVD set later this year.

Another interesting component of the convention is the auctioning on eBay of 3 posters which have been signed by all speakers and presenters. These represent an important part of atheist history.

http://www.ebay.com.au/sch/atheistfoundationaustralia/m.html?_trkparms=65%253A12%257C66%253A1%257C39%253A1%257C72%253A5721&rt=nc&_ipg=50&_trksid=p3911.c0.m14.l1514

There is no compunction to watch any vid or bid on the posters.

David

so there wont be a 'transcript'
to point out the absurd throw away lines..used by so many of the new age messiah's..

[yes it looks patently absurd when we simply egsamin the words
and mixing of con with exceptional bias]

oh well
maybe next year
christianity also didnt start with a bang

see you back here again
next year

What an extraordinary concept, Mr Nicholls.

>>There is no compunction to watch any vid or bid on the posters.<<

compunction n: A feeling of guilt or moral scruple that follows the doing of something bad

Fascinating. You appear to be concerned that anyone watching your home movies might feel ashamed for doing so. One has to wonder what tortuous thought processes led you to that conclusion.

Or is there something you're not telling us?

It could be explicable depending on your point of view…

I would understand that from David's perspective, 'not' attending the GAC was doing something bad.

No doubt there will be interest in the poster auction – at least you'll be spared the charge of selling indulgences…

Hiya David,

3 signed and auctioned posters represent an important part of atheist history - how so?

And what do you mean by understanding "atheism today"? Is not believing in a deity different today than it was in the past?

Nice promo.

Pericles,

Yes, thanks, wrong word. I possibly had car-lag after a long day driving.

I meant it was not compulsory to watch the vid of bid on the posters.

David

Poirot,

Atheism today is more than just acknowledging the lack of evidence for a god or gods which is roughly the position that atheism started with. It is the realisation that there is a great deal of harm done in the name of religion (yes, I know the same can be said for other ideologies as well but the AFA is concerned with religion). And again, yes, some will argue that religion does good but the AFA concentrates on the bad as it needs altering.

For those who want to bring in Pol Pot, Stalin and Hitler etc, you have entirely missed the point of atheism today and are mixing it up with other dogmatic political systems. Some will argue that seeking equality and showing the emperor that is religion has no clothes, is an ideology. That is very poor thinking.

As for history, the gathering of 4,000 atheists at such a convention is remarkable as it is a first and therefore historically important. Along with the 20,000 who attended the Reason Rally in the USA shows a growing awareness that many atheists think it is time to stand up and be counted.

The posters represent a point in time of history.

I know there will be, “What about the numbers at Hillsong” etc, but those numbers are not new and that is the point.

Atheists really do have to drop these arguments originating from a desperately frightened religion.

David

Dear Lee & David,we send our best wishes for your successful conferrence in Melbourne,it must have been a lot of hard work to organise
David we still feel that to promote a conference to the public is akin to religious organisations doing the same thing, there are millions of Atheists in the world who really do not have to attend Atheist conventions to hold their non existence of a God belief
Having viewed a Max Harris video on death, which was taken at the conference'we were disappointed that a large percentaage seemed to us to centre around meditation or hypnotism, shut your eyes and come along with me on the journey in to Atheism, we really do not have to do that as our thoughts are our own thoughts and do not have to resort to this type of stage managed magnetism, his talk prior to this part was very good and what was said we agreed with, but next time please tell him no shut eyes or soon he will have all Atheists waving their hands in the air with a rollicking song in \the background. Still it was nice seeing you and Lee asleep in the front row

Ojnab,

Thanks for your kind words. It’s Sam Harris by the way. The Max Harris you are thinking of was a literary critic from South Australia if memory serves be right.

I personally thought Sam Harris’ presentation was very interesting. He explained what we all know in that we live in the now and not to put too much emphasis on the ‘not now’. This is a marked difference between atheism and theism. Theism concentrates on the ‘not now’ but rather some imagined future after death.

I actually said to Sam that I nearly went to sleep through sheer exhaustion of being one of the organisers of the convention and late nights on that weekend. He smiled and said the sleep part was quite a common thing.

By the way, that clip has had 60,000 views, 1,800 likes and 18 dislikes. So, by the empirical evidence so far, your opinion is not common. :)

Atheists are never going to be hand-clapping followers of anyone else’s ideas and that is what is so remarkable about the numbers who attended the 2012 GAC and the Reason Rally.

Atheism is really spearheading a change in perception by people where Freethinking in preference to rigid religious ideas is taking hold quite rapidly. It is a greater happening than many recognise and the AFA is quite happy to be a part of it.

It is very difficult to see how such a change could be to the detriment of humanity but if signs showed it was, the AFA would close shop in its present form and work against it.

David

its the circular logic like

""Atheism today is more
than just acknowledging the lack of evidence..for a god or gods
[which is roughly the position that atheism started with.]""

yes thats sems simple
no god/gods..simple..it ewas of course science that dun it[or chance or aliens]lol..no mention of how the alians or science dun it neither

oh sure..quote..""It is the realisation
that there is a great deal of harm done in the name of religion""

and cause no god is too easy[nuthing to explain..thus nutrhin to refute..so lets somehow link god to the godless...that put creed before god..[creed/ritual/holy blood/holy war/just war[you know all that hate murder mayhem..done in his name

""(yes,I know the same can be said..for other ideologies
as well but the AFA is concerned with religion)...""

clearly...anti believing is still believing
and worse your lot dishonour god..cause of the vuile evil veil of religious zealots..and the extreem who dont grasp the simplt concept of that we do to others being dun to god[religion bah]athist..is a thiest as bad as any religion

worse..cause their lack of belief in religion..is clearly attacking religion[the messAngers..not god[there is this non belief in a non egsisting figment..expressed as reviling religion[same same]

""And again,..yes,
some will argue that religion does good
but the AFA concentrates on the bad..as it needs altering.""

yes you talked about your FORCED re-education camps last year
your as insane[generally]..as the religions you revile

them chasing figments..
making judgments of a supreeem good..as judge/jury
judgmentday..lol/hell fire/gods flesh/blood..sin..

and you lot judging them

same same shame
PRESENT A TRANSCRIPT
open each of your topics as a topic here..[based on your saintly godheads messages]

Congratulations Pericles and Poirot, it seems you're not so well established on David Nichols's "not worth responding to" list as moi...
Or maybe I should take that as a compliment, and that's just his preferred tactic when dealing with challenges and criticism he either doesn't understand or prefers to evade...
It's very commendable that the New Atheist cohort wants to address the "great deal of harm done in the name of religion" but, and I'm horse from asking, what political/social reforms do they have in mind?
If the answer continues to be resounding silence we can only conclude they're about clearing away encumbrances to an utterly free market.
Certainly I can't see Dawkins going in to bat for the working classes, the Socialist/communist Party or the third world world.
What do the New Atheists stand for?
Nothing apparently.
They stand for the negation of something.
They are a moral vacuum.

Despite previous efforts, I don't know where I stand… So can I be on your list please, Squeers?

I'm fairly certain I can't be a moral vacuum, because people have told me I'm 'full of it'.

So you keep saying, Mr Nicholls

>>Atheism today is more than just acknowledging the lack of evidence for a god or gods which is roughly the position that atheism started with<<

But your justification for this position remains unconvincing.

Your arguments are perfectly circular. The only reason your organization exists is because you assert that your form of atheism is something new, and therefore, because it is new, your organization's existence is justified.

On examination, atheism itself has not changed at all - it remains the intellectual position that denies the existence of a supreme being or deity. At which point the need for "newness" evaporates.

So you need further justification:

>>It is the realisation that there is a great deal of harm done in the name of religion... [so] the AFA concentrates on the bad as it needs altering<<

So we can forget the atheism schtick. After all, you don't need to be a member of the Greens to object to chemical pollution in our rivers. In the same way, you don't need to be atheist to object to genital mutilation in Somalia, favourable tax treatment for Scientologists, the domination of school chaplaincy by the ACL etc.

And it would be reasonable to expect, would it not, that a group that identifies such harm as being the rationale for its own existence, would find it important to lobby against it. Yet you dismiss this approach, and by your own admission measure yourselves purely on how much you upset people.

You said:

>>Your priorities might be submissions to government but there are other ways to inform the Australian population that they are being had by religion. The AFA is obviously very effective at doing that as is seen by some of the inanity and fear induced comments emanating from a number of quarters including those that are religious<<

Yeah, right. Very effective.

Your organization seems to do nothing more than pontificate at great length, about how wonderful it is that we have an organization that, well... pontificates at great length.

A moment of self-awareness is, I suggest, long overdue.

I find it really interesting that I come onto a forum without a skerrick of worry where I know there will be the idiot self-serving factor for no good reason but the very same folk who express these traits have failed to take up my suggestion of going onto an atheist forum and expressing their uh hum, ‘ideas’ to an audience who may challenge them in detail.

I wonder is it insecurity, fear, stupidity, lack of self-confidence or some other factor at work? I guess we will never know but it is interesting watching the pointless shenanigans here. I’m sure there is an appreciative audience who would agree with me.

Pericles, having to explain something twice leaves me with no doubt you are incapable of honest thought.

David

WmTrevor,
I enjoyed your wit above and would be delighted to have you in my apparently exclusive camp. But one craves his lordship's indulgence withal; to paraphrase Wilde, the only thing worse than being patronised is not being patronised!

David Nichols,
clearly you're with the marketing department. If you're not organising book launches for your ideologues, it's Atheist Convention memorabilia, or it's trying to get the AFA on the social media register.
But if you're going to be successful in the marketing game you've got to learn to ingratiate yourself with the Hoi polloi of OLO.
I think it's a delicious irony that you haven't raised a murmur from the substantial theist camp here, but that you've made a great success of alienating atheists : )
Clearly you're a man of great charisma, but some atheists take their free-thinking seriously, and prefer to avoid personality cults.
Why do the New Atheists refuse to debate issues on OLO?
A few toothless attack-dogs were released recently but were quickly recalled and otherwise sent packing with their tails between their legs, unable to sustain any kind of defence of the New Atheist stand (which is what?), let alone offence.
I hope you're not intimidated debating the issues at OLO?
Do you really suggest dissenters would receive a fair hearing at your presumably stilted venue? OLO is at least eclectic.
Not that I'm intimidated, it might be amusing to sally forth, I just don't see why I need to repeat there what I've said already here.
OLO is neutral ground and by far the most suitable venue to ventilate your ethos.
But if the brethren are too timid, might I suggest you give notice, here on this thread, the next time something weighty is being thrashed out there?

Oh dear. I thought I was on the list. Never mind.

>>Pericles, having to explain something twice leaves me with no doubt you are incapable of honest thought.<<

Significantly, you harbour no doubts at all that it might be your explanation that was at fault.

Must be comforting for you, that feeling of infallibility.

>>...my suggestion of going onto an atheist forum and expressing their uh hum, ‘ideas’<<

There are such things? What can they possibly discuss? Presumably, they have already decided that gods don't exist, before they arrive there.

But by all means, recommend a couple, I'd love to take part.

Should I expect them to be inhabited by a whole lot of David Nicholls?

That would be fun.

I wonder, if Atheistic thoughts and principles could be quantified, anthropomorphised and miniaturised...
How many could dance on the head of a pin?
David, I honestly think the Abyss is having a long hard gecko at you.

Dear David, my goodness a lot must have happened in the last three or four years since we were members of your committee, Atheism has gone from old to new, funny we still feel the same, so are we old or new now? we are beginning to feel old but not due to atheism

It must be because we are the queen...

Thanks, Squeers… it is a much more interesting view of things being hoi oligoi.

For the life of me I can't lose the impression that in our role playing, New Atheism wants to be the Church of Rome – with Mr Nicholls taking the part of Cardinal de Vio (Gaetanus) to Pericles' Luther.

Of course, historically Luther suffered from constipation (I blame the Diet of Worms) but with this casting Gaetanus would have given him the…
solution to his problem.

Not sure about that, WmTrevor.

>>New Atheism wants to be the Church of Rome – with Mr Nicholls taking the part of Cardinal de Vio (Gaetanus)<<

Given the image of infallibility that he has taken upon himself, Mr Nicholls has more in common with the Pope at that time, Leo X.

Which would inevitably place my own role closer to that of Gaetanus...

"The theologian Tommaso Cardinal de Vio Gaetani Cajetan O.P. († 1534) declared: 'It is imperative to resist a pope who is openly destroying the Church.' (De Comparata Auctoritate Papae et Concilio). Such a pope must be resisted, his policies opposed and prevented and true Catholic Faith and practice maintained. Resistance must be established and advanced."

http://www.romancatholicism.org/duty-resist.htm

And don't forget, Leo X was a Medici, most famous for his predilection for granting indulgences.

Spooky, huh.

Forgive moi… selections are not closed and auditions are still open.

Even I didn't consider Mr Nicholls might regard his writings as the equivalent of Papal Bull.

My casting analogy for the New Atheism had Christopher Hitchens, Daniel Dennett and Sam Harris in walk-on roles as Popes Julius II, Clement VII and Adrian VI with a special appearance by Richard Dawkins as Leo X.

I even thought "Game of Drone's" would be a good working title for the miniseries – might even stretch to a four DVD set…

As a generalisation, it is so easy to touch a raw nerve with underachieving dysfunctional personalities and have it manifest defensively into a mob mentality. Some of you good people have no idea how wonderful you are for atheism and the AFA. Thanks. Even so, there is some very creepy behaviour going on here protected by pseudonyms. One thing I find quite amusing is the lack of embarrassment knowing with whom you are sharing the bed.

David

Looks like I'm back on the list again. Phew.

But this was a puzzle...

>>As a generalisation, it is so easy to touch a raw nerve with underachieving dysfunctional personalities and have it manifest defensively into a mob mentality<<

I would have thought that "more bluff and bluster" would be more accurate than "a mob mentality".

Although it is just possible Mr Nicholls might not have been referring to himself.

>>One thing I find quite amusing is the lack of embarrassment knowing with whom you are sharing the bed<<

An odd observation. Why would a lack of embarrassment in those circumstances be amusing, or even worth commenting upon? Folk are usually far more embarrassed when they find themselves sharing a bed with someone they don't know. At least, that's how I remember it.

Incidentally, Mr Nicholls, if you do happen to bypass your own list and read this, I thought you should know that I did make the effort to visit the AFA "forum".

What was instantly noticeable was the complete absence of any criticism of you, your operation, its objectives, its achievements etc. Just a whole lot of appreciation for the wonderful job you did setting up the Conventions, as if that is the sole purpose of the organization.

Oh, wait...

The rest was just an ocean of self-indulgent smugness.

Tell me, are you the moderator?

Oh, I forgot. You can't answer, because you're not listening.

at least im not listed
never the less..it may be said im hiding behind a pseudonumb..my full details are exposed on my other link..but im only replying to the demons haunting david..

its not as if he didnt..[or couldnt have known]
that no god means just that[nothing further to say nor prove/disproove]..

but wait
we gotta say something...

oh lets focus on the believers..who pray on the gullible sheep..
and refute anything..and ignore that we dont know either..no one KNOWS..how life 'begat' from nuthin..

ok science has theories
has faked it[putting a..MAN*made..20 bit string of dna
into a LIVING CELL..they didnt make..nor can even to this day replicate[but seriously claim is an evolved 'mud bubble'..[lol]

they cant name nor replicate the ';first life'
cant designate a genus..nor verify..*using dna[evolved dna]
what new genus evolved from the first..

in short at best ya hgot a theory
ya got gullible sheep[having doudts re religion]
;not god as much as their IDEA..of what they think god to be
[or have been deecieved to be]..but that satan clause fear/threat..control system..is on the wayne

so lets set up the godfree alternative
were athiests..we know whats best for you
we got just as many delusions as they..but heck
your too dumb to even begin questioning 'athiest science'

and so the gullible gather at the mighty rivers
[who said ya cant find new ways to skin sheeple]..

money
money
money

dispensation for compensation..
same ol con-stipation...lead me...i know you know
please lead us to the pro-mise lend..your credit to our discredit

and re-education
[mind control]..thats for free
[heck maybe with a tweak..we can pay you..a fee..]?

show us how to be free..
by being bound up in bowel..the new thiesm
neothiesm athism..i wish we could really talk..not just be made to listen..

Though respecting the views of many of the rational independent thinkers on this forum, I find the whole Atheist 'movement' as a lost cause and without 'bite'. In my view most people need something to believe in, not something Not to believe in, and all this religion 'bashing' is really getting quite boring.

Certainly religion needs to move to greater enlightenment and greater relevance to the modern world, with much watering-down of mysticism and of literal reliance on biblical and similar works, but humankind of all ilk and throughout the ages has relied on stories to transmit history and rules for correct conduct and social interaction, and it is the interpretation and implementation which count. We can work with religion of various persuasion to make a better and more inclusive world, but I cannot see pulling the rug out offering anything worthwhile in alternative.

Sectarian violence is certainly a bad look, but who really believes it is actually founded in religious differences rather than in envy, covetousness and a struggle for means and power? Not too dissimilar to political violence, in my view - so should we ban politics? (Or, all of the failings that flesh is heir to?)

Culture, society, religion and endeavour can and do comfortably cohabit, and what is really needed is equity, tolerance and greater equality of opportunity to overcome the real causes of conflict and violence. Perhaps religious teaching of respect for neighbours and for all life has an opportunity and the means to resolve differences and so make a better world, but I fail to see what atheism has to offer in this interest in our current world context. Perhaps in another reincarnation or in another long way off future context?

Rationalism and religion (or spiritual guidance) can and do comfortably coexist for the bulk of humanity, and for so many the one without the other offers only a lesser, and less reliable, less meaningful existence - and a lesser connection with 'community'.

Saltpetre,

That was an interesting post. However, I think the misrepresentation of atheism you are running with is a result of the negativity put onto it by the self-protection process that accompanies all religion.

If we take Australia as an example of a country with a stable political system, a sense of fairness driving politics to a large degree, a reasonably consistent education system although it has its flaws, a good health scheme, hunger and poverty existing on the peripherals but not the norm, we can see how that has been a big influence on at least 50% of the adult population not having a religion. We could argue about the percentage but that only about 7% regularly attend a church is indicative of a majority blasé attitude concerning faith.

These people live meaningful lives in embracing art, science, careers, sport, family, hobbies etc and have no need for religious ideas as such notions are not seen as important.

The percentage I have quoted may be wrong as no one really knows. But there is a percentage that eschews religion and live happy and productive lives.

Atheism is basically saying that all people should have the opportunity to do the same.

This requires the cessation of any particular religious indoctrination being forced onto the young especially by the state. Sure, teach children about religions and how they have played an important role in history.

But using adult authority that a particular religion has to be believed with the threat of eternal torture and promise of everlasting bliss as a way of gathering compliance is ethically unsupportable to anyone who is outside that method.

Atheism is asking that children be given an all-round education without such coercion and then let them choose one or no religion.

David

This is either a simple misunderstanding, Saltpetre, or a form of wilful blindness.

>>Sectarian violence is certainly a bad look, but who really believes it is actually founded in religious differences rather than in envy, covetousness and a struggle for means and power?<<

I can promise you that the folk of Belfast don't just believe, they know without a shadow of a doubt, that the violence on their streets over the past fifty years has been founded upon religious differences. The major complaint back in the fifties and sixties, that one sector of the population was being discriminated against in terms of jobs, housing etc., was even based upon religious beliefs. Protestants got work. Catholics didn't.

Of course, one underlying motivation is always the exercise of power. That is the human condition. But the dividing lines - Catholic vs. Protestant, Sunni vs. Shia, Nazi vs. Jew - are in so very many highly visible cases, based solely upon religion.

An old Irish joke might help.

Sean was walking down a dark street in Belfast when he heard rapid footsteps behind him. Before he could turn around, his arms were pinned and a voice in his ear rasped "So, and are ye Protestant or Catholic, now?" In a trembling voice Sean replied "Actually, I'm Jewish". There was a short pause before the voice said "Sure and y'are. But are you a Protestant Jew or a Catholic Jew?"

Religion has been, and will inevitably continue to be, a major source of violence in the world. And it doesn't matter how many times you attempt to rationalize it as "well, it's all about envy, covetousness and power" nothing will ever change this simple fact.

its good..when we can agree[quote]..""Atheism is asking..that children be given an all-round education..without such coercion""

ie..no god is asking...lol..round/education..""and then
let them choose..one*..or no religion.""

mate i chose..bits from them all
im not chosing one..prefering none

but NO GOD..redefines itself further

""If we take Australia../..a sense of fairness
driving politics..to a large degree""

lol
no..self intrest/first foremost..
[my prophet/text/creed/rite..;right or wrong],
alp is a religion/greens is a creed..lib/nat..thats just self intrest[greed]

..""a reasonably consistent[?]education system*
a good health scheme*,..,/hunger/poverty..we can see how that
has been a big influence..on at least 50%.of the adult population""

its like a new preacher/lalking in parrables
but essentially not seing the tre for trees

50%[min]""..not having a religion.""

sop how does that link to no god[fullstop][@thiest]

""We could argue about the percentage
but that only about 7% regularly attend a church..is indicative of a majority blasé attitude concerning faith.""

yeah take juliar
still got that moral hangover
dont do church..but still indoctrinated..by many divergent creeds


These[hungry/poor..no godders]..""live meaningful lives
in embracing art,..science,..careers,""

oh dear...thiests dont got that
lol

but wait..more..meaningless lives..
doing meaningfull things..""sport,family,hobbies etc

and//..''//thus david feels..
""have no need for religious ideas""

stop multitasking you lot
ya dont need that..
we gave you sport..sport[siort is ol speak for mutation]

but dig-on digger

""as such notions..*are not seen as important.""

says the blindman

addendumb..""The percentage I have quoted
may be wrong..as no one really knows.""

yet that wont stop you telling us..
even though..you got no clue either[not god]

""But there is a percentage
that eschews religion..and live happy..and productive lives.""

till that one day
eternity lies before them
and all they can concieve..[from lifes teachings],is lies/delusion

but heh..
lets redefine athism again..lol

but heh..
lets redefine athism again..lol

david..[quote]""Atheism
is basically saying..that all people
should have the opportunity..to do the same."""[as was done to them?[eye for eye?]

do the same[what ignore selective fact
be an athiest buddist?..why join athist..just be budda

lol
oops you are]

lol
a/thiest..by any other name


""This requires..*the cessation .""{OR WHAT?}

oh yeah..re-education camps[seizure of assets/fines fees

CEASE/desist..""of any particular religious indoctrination
being forced onto the young especially by the state.""

yeah let the godless
inpinge..theitr indoctrination

THERE IS NO GOD...be-cause..for the godless
life needs no 'cause..needs no science proof..just no god

david..can you even reason
i thank god i wasnt educated
but i kep forgetting you into RE-education

""Sure,..teach children about religions
and how they have played..an important role in history.""

yep the cause of all EVIL
its like reading a thriller...
when we allready KNOW..yep religion done it
[religions..DUN..all the bad things..the rest is just evolution..
acccident...[thats why there is no god...lol]

its all religion
and pay to know..

""But using adult authority''

IN LUE OF PROOF/inlue of fact
lol

""that a particular religion..
has to be believed with the threat of eternal torture""

oh good
I THOUGHT..you hated them all
name names ol sun...where did jesus say
know god..OR ELSE..we tortyure you into eetrnity

MATE...update..as religion updates
note recently..ALL can get to heaven
[by loving other..not lying to their kids]

but wait

more...lol..THREAT..""and promise of everlasting bliss""
so..here we go again..there aint no everlasting bliss
his [davidian]..proof of no god...lol

torture/bliss..""as a way of gathering compliance
is ethically unsupportable to anyone..who is outside that method.""

unless we cloak it
say no god..then attack the messengers..
[athiest ethic's 101,..;compliance

re wording their mess-age
$t-hiest/@thiest

Dear David , in my original post here I mentioned there are millions of Atheists out there in the world, these people do not care one iota about New Atheism , Old Atheism, or any other sort of Atheism, I myself am not interested In New Atheism like the other millions, who are not interested either, perhaps I have misinterpreted your original post to this new phenomenon which is taking place.
Perhaps the four thousand or so which attended the conference are possibly overjoyed they have found something new " New Atheism" I am still just a good old Atheist.

Ojnab,

There are as you say millions of atheists on the planet and there are still many more millions of people who do not describe themselves that way even though technically they are atheists. These all come under the umbrella of the non-religious or Freethinkers.

Some people use the term new atheists although I can’t remember having ever used it myself but I could have. To me it is just a variation in the fluidity of the English language. I have no objection to the term if others wish to use it.

It tends to be used by those who would wish to denigrate atheism that is against the bad parts of religion but not only by them. I think that possibly the term refers to not just having no god in one’s life but also being active against or at least consciously aware of the problems with religion.

The new phenomena taking place is that there is a shift away from just being godless to wanting to be a part of making society more fair for everyone. People who before did not class themselves as atheists are now more willing to do so in ever growing numbers. It is not just the four thousand at he 2012 GAC who think this way.

I’m not sure why you have a problem with the term. My advice is to get used to it as it is firmly ensconced in the popular lexicon. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Atheism

David

Pericles,

Perhaps you are right - more's the pity, in what is supposed to be a modern, civilised world. However, I still think the Loyalist vs Republican divide (and the associated age-old history involved) has had more than a little to do with the Belfast/Eire situation.

As for Sunni v Shia I am yet to be convinced that struggle for power and economic superiority is not a prime motivating factor. Also, in so many arenas it is difficult to differentiate religious difference from racial/ethnic difference as the prime motivator, or divine a relevant ratio.

As in Rwanda for example, or Bosnia (Czechoslovakia), how is one to know what is/was foremost in people's minds?

One thing appears certain - world and localised overpopulation is creating unacceptable pressures on a huge number of ordinary people, and current worries are only destined to increase as population increases and as desire for a better lifestyle attracts ever increasing numbers to the dog-eat-dog rat-race. As the dollar increasingly reigns supreme, ethics and care for others (other than immediate kin or power-group) descend increasingly down the drain.

Western powers have set the example through widespread colonialisation and/or pilfering of resources (and I doubt religious belief had much to do with the motivation), and the undeveloped and developing world is trying to catch up - by fighting amongst themselves. Blood diamonds, gold mines, ivory, rhino horn, bear bile, tiger penis - who are the real 'criminals' here?

Is there truly no limit to mankind's avarice and self-indulgence? And, any excuse will suffice? What chance atheism - the balm, or the cure?

"Perhaps religious teaching of respect for neighbours and for all life has an opportunity and the means to resolve differences and so make a better world, but I fail to see what atheism has to offer in this interest in our current world context."

Don't think me being simplistic, Saltpetre… but what atheism could offer is to suggest that your sentence only needs to read: "Teaching of respect for neighbours and for all life has an opportunity and (is) the means to resolve differences and so make a better world."

Where a religion proffers moral absolutism or authority and is so claimed by its acolytes (just keep thinking of the 'no true Scotsman fallacy') they demand at worst, or presume at least, the 'moral high ground' and require everyone else's adherence.

Good ideas for people and communities are good ideas – whether religiously or rationally motivated.

The hard part comes in convincing everyone else that mine (or yours) are the good ideas.

Saltpetre,
>>Bosnia (Czechoslovakia), how is one to know what is/was foremost in people's minds?<<
Probably nobody. However, I can tell you what most probably was NOT foremost in their minds: A country (Czechoslovakia) that used to exist a few hundred miles to the north of Bosnia. :-)))

Please do not take this as a criticism of your posts here. Au contraire, I enjoy reading them.

I think you are missing the point, Saltpetre.

>>I still think the Loyalist vs Republican divide (and the associated age-old history involved) has had more than a little to do with the Belfast/Eire situation.<<

That "age-old history" has its roots in the religious differences too. It goes back to the Battle of the Boyne in which William III whacked James II, on the sole basis that the latter was Catholic. Thereafter, northern Ireland was colonized by predominantly Scottish (Protestant) landowners, making the Catholics into second-class citizens in the process. Eventually, this caused the creation of Northern Ireland, separate from Eire, because the Protestant North feared oppression by the Catholic majority in a united Ireland.

What comes around, goes around, eh.

And it isn't necessarily about what is "foremost".

>>As in Rwanda for example, or Bosnia (Czechoslovakia), how is one to know what is/was foremost in people's minds?<<

It is all about a particular religious affiliation being a differentiation in itself. There would be no point, for example, in Paddy the Proddy, when cornered by Mick the Mick and his IRA mates, explaining that he was, as an individual, sympathetic to the Republican cause.

His kneecaps would be gone, whatever he said.

Pericles, WmTrevor, George,

All good ideas, but how? Such is the human condition, it appears, to grasp to any 'tribe' holding similar views/affiliations. Bullies or victims retaliating, all. We have not come far in 2 million years, hunters and gatherers still (albeit with abattoirs and broad-acre cropping), still fearful of 'outsiders'.

It is no wonder some turn to Buddhism - they who burn themselves to make a point, rather than turning the gun on their perceived 'enemy'. Radical, and completely dedicated to non-violence.

We take a narrow view when focusing primarily on Christianity, and its deficiencies. In the wider view, 'religion', of myriad persuasion, has the capacity to 'move' millions - and the question, in my (perhaps blinkered) view, is whether that power can be harnessed for the common good, and how?

The new 'golden calf' of Capitalism is providing an irresistible drive and motivation to succeed at all costs for millions. As 'religious strictures' take an increasingly declining role in moderating human behaviour I can only see this fight for survival escalating - perhaps to totally intolerable levels.

Religious and cultural reform, focusing on the ethical and philosophical objectives embraced and espoused, and explaining mysticism and parables as essentially 'vehicles' (mostly relevant to former times) for reinforcing the underlying 'message' and ethic, could provide a 'bridge' to human 'reform'. (And possibly pave the way for philosophy/ethics as the new world 'religion'.) But, shelving of all religion does not appear a viable or constructive option.

salty/quote..""still fearful..of 'outsiders'.""

no i feel the issue..is a elite minority
oppressing a down trodden minority

basic colonialism[like the 100's..of indonesia islanders
being dominated by the three from java[who took over from the yanks
who took over from the japs..who took over..from..[YOU GET THE IDEA?]

its the same middle east
here sunies oppresing arabs,,[like south arabia,..king minority oppressing an other mob..ditto all ther outcast tribes..oppressed by british awarded statehood..

its time these were ALL dismantled...and all borders dropped
that people chose which governance system [party]gets their tax..to spend[leverage into representation

not united nations
but united nation
sovereign united nations [sun]

""In the wider view,..'religion',of myriad persuasion, has the capacity to 'move' millions""

so lets declare
sans creed..that we disavow oppression of any[for all is our brother]
we unite as one tribe..to serve alltribes..to pay them to preserve their uniqness..as being a glory of god

god is in our difference
not our sameness

do we not all bleed
do we not all claim the messengers 'one god'
lets get it together for god[thus get it together for all nations

but how to pay for that[read my wikiseed/wikigeld
sun declarations...moneybased on a seed[the seed of revelations 22[for the healing of nations

"" - and the question,
in my (perhaps blinkered) view,..is whether that power can be harnessed for the common good,..and how?""

the seed of the tree of life is our god given legal inheritance
but its controled by mens and womans birth rights[as enjoined mortal heirs of the immoertal good[god]

our inheritance
claim it

johannine
of the horn of plenty:
god made it..now we make it shine
pay to restore every bit of gods material glory

Saltpetre,

“But, shelving of all religion does not appear a viable or constructive option.”

No one is trying to do this. Giving all people proper choice without indoctrination of any ideology by repetition, threats and promises is how humanity should proceed to be fair to everyone. It is unethical to do this where it leads to narrow and divisive opinion controlling politics and it is elitist to not do anything about it where this is seen to be happening.

There will always be religion and other views not backed by evidence that do harm and have the potential to do harm to individuals and society. If these notions are chosen without coercion they should be supported by humanity as long as they are not imposed upon others.

“Shelving” religion is not even the point. If people do away with religion as many have, I fail to see how that is not “viable” or a “constructive option”. The polity changes continually over time and humans cause and adapt to these variations with Western democratic systems benefiting by them.

David

Peter Singer has just been uploaded to Youtube number 10 here.

http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL7C0CA45F60FD44C7&feature=plcp

Incidentally he is the focus of an article in The Punch here.

http://www.thepunch.com.au/articles/peter-singer-doesnt-deserve-an-order-of-australia/

David

singing from the same ol song sheet

religions..formed arround 'a' message
nuthing they present refutes or concerns the reality..of god..[its all about religion..getting a free lunch..].,.or piests doing ungodly things

or about how if you believe ...in THE THEOry..of evolution
your basing it on science..even if you got no idea of how 'science'..or 'evolution'..dun it..

i extensivly studied science..by the book
searched out the text it was bassed on..[from the actual science text punlications...read darwins revealations extensivly[asdore his science mind]..but watch as fools..never read any text..say god didnt do it[evolution did]

if you recall the feeling[when others grab the credit]
how that feels..knowing the actual person what CLAIMS they KNOW how it was dun BUT CANT REPEAT IT..they got a theory[a faith/hope fear]..but not a proof

if you cant do it
dont claim others did it
unless you can prove EGSACTLY HOW THEY DID IT[ie if you can sing sing]
if you think \singing did it..sing and make it happen

or like that king that orded the tide to stop
yua [they got a faith belief or fear
but no god replacement

till a man does what he says is how it really happend
his proof of how its done..is not proof..thus its theorry[wind]

david realises ..science cant prove evolution[out of genus]
as do the other prophets of evolution..spies level evolution cannot leave its genus[and if you dont grasp that statement..PRESENT PROOF ITS FAULSE

its not
science proves genus cant be evolved out of
proves living genus bbreds other living genus
of the same genus as its parents..

there is NOT ONE PROOF
OF A NEW GENUS..[lol..evolving..
exta;..out of..an old genus]...*ever*

life from same life
this is what science CAN prove
the rest is theory[unable to be proven]..thus taken on hope fear or faith..by thgose who dont dare learn limits of science facts..

science[evolution etc]..isnt that scientific
it has the same high priest authority..peers re-vieuw..[own singers]

just like the high priests of athiestic sic belief..
re-vieuw tha athiest[sic*]vidio..[they got their christ on tape]

Another video on Youtube from the 2012 Global Atheist Convention - A Celebration of Reason.

PZ Myers - Sacking The City Of God!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2-CJojL4ZfA

Enjoy

David

You have some way to go yet, Mr Nicholls:

http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/no-room-at-the-inn-20120616-20gmj.html

30,000 people, for five days of happy-clappy.

I have no doubt whatsoever that attendees will say that the "atmosphere was filled by a powerfully exquisite joy", and that afterwards they will claim that "the afterglow still burns brightly in the thoughts of attendees".

Side note: when I retrieved this article, Google served up an advertisement to accompany it that read "SYDNEY BEST PEST CONTROL. Guaranteed Pest Control Sydney 24/7. Control All Pests Now."

Context-sensitive advertising. Gotta love it.

Pericles,

No one imagines it is going to be an easy task. But if we consider the 147,000 people that attended the Billy Graham crusades in Australia 50 years ago, there is some reason for optimism. The population then was minuscule compared to today.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w0GMGmZJPgs

And if we consider the words of Shelby Spong that there is about eight to ten year retention amongst happy clappers, (this is a guess from memory as it is not important enough to research but seems to be about right) then things really do look bright.

On the other hand, although reverting to religion by atheists is oft touted as frequent, it is very rare.

Extremely amusing about the accompanying advert. :)

David

That's an interesting comparison, Mr Nicholls.

>>But if we consider the 147,000 people that attended the Billy Graham crusades in Australia 50 years ago, there is some reason for optimism<<

True, the numbers were staggeringly large. But the environment was also considerably different. I think that ABC's Compass covered it particularly well.

http://www.abc.net.au/compass/s2484481.htm

"Well over three million Australian’s flocked to hear the charismatic Christian preacher"

That was about half the total population. Remarkable.

So, what was it all about? The following are quotes from the Compass programme:

"It was exciting, it really was. And it felt very American, it did"

"I remember the seductive nature of the way he spoke"

"Our hearts were fluttering for Billy Graham. Like he was such a sexy looking man. And most of the ministers that we’d had were just very plain everyday, often a lot older men. And here was this young man, a beautiful man telling us all these wonderful things. And it was a revelation, it was just a revelation"

"He had that lovely golden brown curly hair those beautiful sparkling blue eyes lovely white teeth. You could imagine people swooning over him in the aisles in the picture theatre if he were on screen."

"We went in the bus and because it was for church we all dressed up. We all put our best dresses on. We all had gloves, stockings, high heel shoes, hats, the whole bit."

I suspect that with the competing attractions available today, from movies/theatre, to good restaurants, to TV, to computer games, to the Internet, that 30,000 is not a bad turnout. Especially as there is no charismatic with sparkling hair and curly brown teeth to entice them in.

>>... there is about eight to ten year retention amongst happy clappers<<

You are right, they shouldn't be taken too seriously. But the question is surely whether trying to compete with them on the same turf is at all productive. Especially where the activism of Hillsong, in the shape of the many save-the-world activities they get up to, is in such marked contrast to your own event.

Pericles,

Atheism is not actually trying to compete with the happy-clappers. That is only coincidental that the format is similar. Humans express themselves with this kind of presentation in many areas of life. Science events, music gigs, Football, cricket, horse racing flower shows so forth and so on ad infinitum.

The positive effect on numbers of attendees should be judged on a variety of criteria and not just the more people make for a ‘winning’ outcome. The expansion of critical and scientific thinking has the power within it to alter societies for good more than any other way. History shows this to be true on many fronts.

Religiosity is falling dramatically in Australia and other western nations, even in the USA with young people, and the AFA is but a part of helping this happen. There is no force involved, just getting the idea out there that the religious view is not the only way to see reality.

I’m extremely pleased I am on the side that recognises this and feel obliged to give others the chance at doing the same. I’d rather be doing anything but this.

Religion in general is frightened by this seemingly unstoppable change in human perception and I think it has good reason for that. Such privilege previously enjoyed is something those with a stake in keeping it that way will not surrender easily. Atheists should realise what is going on and not hamper nonviolent efforts in making life fair and equal for everyone.

It is unfortunate and very sad to me that this is not always the case. But, I do understand.

What I have just written is not a legal document but it will be viewed that way; such is the fear produced in some by anyone questioning the status quo.

David

david..the powewrs that be love athiest/movement
because thats the same harmless listening
involved..with the priestly class..peers

its the numbers doing nuthing
going no where..the powers that be love

anything to entertaint the masses
and keep them of the streets...some love faulse goheads[infalible godheads]..now athiests got thiers..same same..

leaders leading..teaching the party line
in this case by claiming no god
then presenting reliion

its completly different issues
only lumped together in vision..not transcripted word..cause its just tooo biased[they are too clever to put their bias into words..so along comes another hero

you
tell us david
what must we do

set to ignore..explain how theo
isnt what new age athism denies..but amplifies..

David,

Thanks you for the link to
http://www.thepunch.com.au/articles/peter-singer-doesnt-deserve-an-order-of-australia/.

It brought me - via a link to the article on George Pell - to an interesting article that you probably knew of, (I did not). Maybe others will find it interesting and relevant as well:

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/secular-world-has-a-christian-foundation-20120414-1wzyg.html#ixzz1srojSWAS.

great link george
i posted it here
http://forum.worldfreemansociety.org/viewtopic.php?f=198&t=13731&p=105078#p105078

got a great response
[a mate of davids]..except this guy knows his stuff

dont hide and run

explained theo=god
athiests got their name wrong

not athiest
but atheo

George,

There is no doubt that the follow-on from a hegemonic Christian culture is the democratically oriented system we now live under. Many of the personalities in Christian history mentioned in that article produced thoughts that not only had a basis in Catholicism but also more importantly they emanated from a refined idea of humanity. After all, they were mostly, the educated elite.

However, for the sake of using a timeline for convenience, for two thousand years the powerful figures in the Church of Rome in bed with the state kept democracy at bay. The natural rights of people were suppressed by religion until a groundswell of opposition brought about the so called enlightenment.

That is a simplistic view of history, I know, as such notable events as the English Nobles wanting more say in affairs of state leading to the Magna Carta, the French revolution, the American war of Independence, various schisms, religious wars etc finally had the Declaration of Independence, a most important document and one which we have all benefited from, bringing about a greater freedom of expression that beforehand had not been.

So, it can be said we have evolved from a Christian culture but not because of a Christian culture. Two thousand years of religious oppression where dissent more often than not meant personal discomfort to say the least and death at the worst does not support the hypothesis that Christianity is the cause of democracy. Humans would have eventually overcome religious intimidation no matter what that faith was. As past and especially recent history demonstrates, it appears that all dictatorial systems eventually fail.

When Islam finally comes to its senses and has its own enlightenment there will be Muslims saying exactly the same thing. That is, Islam led to democracy. Go figure!

David

its funny david
how what the guy says here
http://forum.worldfreemansociety.org/viewtopic.php?f=198&t=13733

is egsactly what athiests are doing
[forcing them to unite against a common foe[you]

so i rekon your one of them
by pretending nothing cause you arnt using the right word

a/theo-ist
the bigger you get..the more united they must get

go
grow and proper
in time your presure washes away creed
and will force us to get back to basic

god
theo..
so crow [grow and prosper my other..
you serve god will...regardless...

saint david
your name is heraled into the heavens
why fail you to see your greatness..comes from his greatness within?

,

David,

Thank you for your comments. I know, there is no point in arguing with you about these old (I have known them for 60+ years) clichés. Neither did I expect you to share the views of the author, your fellow-atheist. I just found his views worth reading since they show an ability on the side of an atheist to coexist - culturally, intellectually - with people with Christian world-views, rather than an urge to seek argument and confrontations at any level. And thought that perhaps others - atheists or not - might find these views interesting as well.

George,

The perpetuation of myth, especially the myth that Christianity created democracy, needs challenging as it is a powerful weapon used by religious folk, accepted by some atheists, and is plainly wrong.

It is the bad parts of Christianity that needs addressing, not necessarily Christians.

There have been good people throughout history despite religion. Most people are good.

David

David,
>>The perpetuation of myth, especially the myth that Christianity created democracy, needs challenging as it is a powerful weapon used by religious folk, accepted by some atheists, and is plainly wrong.<<
Christian fundamentalists (runner?) will also tell you what is “plainly wrong” without being able to look at the facts from another perspective. (Besides, I never heard anybody claiming that democracy, that formally originated in Ancient Greece, was “created by Christians”.)

>>It is the bad parts of Christianity that needs addressing, not necessarily Christians.<<
Agree, also that it is the bad parts of atheism that needs addressing, not necessarily atheists.

>>There have been good people throughout history despite religion. Most people are good.<<
Again agree, and that there have been good people also throughout recent history despite atheism.

George,

Ancient Greece first brought forth a very imperfect and basic idea of democracy but it is touted endlessly that we are a Christian nation, surely you have heard that. We are also a country that has respect for the democratic ideal. The assumption is that Christianity brought that about. By the way, this is hardly worth talking about.

Can you point out the bad parts of atheism and not the dictatorial ideologies that come in all shapes and forms for reasons which are not relevant today? If you are intending to go down the Hitler/Stalin road, then do it with someone who can’t think for themselves.

Atheism is the lack of having a god in one’s life. This is not an ideology and if you think it is, then again, speak with someone whose mind has been removed by others to suit an argument ad desperatum.

What are the bad parts of atheism? Can you spell them out thanks?

David

David,

Sorry, I did not want to enter into argument with you, but I apparently managed to. As to the questions you ask, I have answered them in detail many times, see e.g. http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=10176#165874 and the sequel.

I had to accept that my personal testimony was not acceptable to some atheists here, and neither was that of the thousands and more who suffered and perished on the hands of those who called themselves atheists; nevetheless, they testify … the same as others who suffered and perished throughout history on the hands of those who called themselves Christians.

Whether you or I think that the persecutors should not have called themselves atheists or Christians (or that they were actually acting not as atheists but as ideologists, not as Christians but as fanatics or what) respectively, is irrelevant.

So please leave it at that and accept that there is a variety of atheist views - interpretations of history, understandings of science, etc - as there is a variety of Christian views, and than one is allowed to prefer one over the other without having to enter into tit-for-tat arguments.

George,

Do you not notice that atheism today of the kind that has hit the popular mindset in the west has no ideological baggage with it and it is not a part of other ideological baggage?

That is why I asked, “What are the bad parts of atheism? Can you spell them out thanks?”

I honestly don’t expect you to answer but surely it is worth thinking about.

I also do not want to argue with you about this.

Peace

David

David,
>>That is why I asked, “What are the bad parts of atheism? Can you spell them out thanks?”<<
Atheism is not a a replacement for religion but rather the absence of traditional religion. If you want a replacement, perhaps secular humanism would be a name for it on the social level, or scientism on the personal level.

You cannot speak of “bad parts” of the absence of something, only of its bad or good effects on the “organism”, i.e. society as a whole.

One such effect in Europe would be the religious vacuum being gradually filled by Islam. Whether this replacement in Europe of Christianity by Islam, as a partner of secular humanism will last, and whether it is good or bad for the whole of society, only time will tell. I shall certainly not live to see the final outcome of this.

The Communist version of atheism, as a would-be viable replacement of Christianity, collapsed in 72 years. Probably even more so with this “ideology-free” version of atheism: We are talking about time spans that go beyond the life of one individual before one would be able to evaluate the aftereffects of attempts, successful or not, to suppress - or even eradicate - Christianity in the West.

So you see, in spite of not wanting to argue, I tried to answer your question.

George,

Of course atheism is not a replacement for religion and who is asking for one? Atheism is the lack of a god in one’s life. Which makes your statement about Islam filling a void a mistaken idea? Islam is on the increase not because of atheism or the lack of Christianity but migration and fecundity.

There is no evidence that atheism will increase Islam. All atheism will do is increase atheists. The increase of Islam in the west is also because a dying Christianity exists but still props up the idea of the supernatural. To Muslims and their children from countries of strict Islamic culture it bolsters the supernatural idea and is just seen as the wrong idea. If Australia was exclusively atheist, Islam would lose any effect real or imagined very quickly as there would be no support for its ideas.

I asked about the bad parts of atheism because it is an idea. Ideas can be bad or good. Afairyism is an idea. A Stupid idea but it is still an idea. It is an anti-idea and I would postulate that anyone who took their time to identify with such a name should possibly be wearing a tight white coat. It would be a bad effect on the person and possibly society.

Communism was not a replacement for Christianity, it was an ideology that offered but did not deliver that we could be a fairer society. It went pear shaped through lack of overall representativeness and not taking into account the benefits of a free market system.

It would be better not using words such as ‘eradicate’ or ‘suppress’ Christianity. People are choosing atheism and freethinking in ever growing numbers. If you could demonstrate where it is eradicating or suppressing Christianity - that would help.

David

George, you spoiled a good punch combination by leaving your jaw horribly exposed.

>>Atheism is not a a replacement for religion but rather the absence of traditional religion.<<

This is something I have been trying to explain to Mr Nicholls for some considerable time. There is simply no need to create a cult around atheism, complete with its calls to the faithful, feel-good assemblies (I still can't get past that "the atmosphere was filled by a powerfully exquisite joy" description of the Convention) and insistence upon conformity.

But I have to take issue with this casual barb.

>>The Communist version of atheism, as a would-be viable replacement of Christianity, collapsed in 72 years. Probably even more so with this “ideology-free” version of atheism<<

Communism was absolutely not a "version of atheism". Communism was a system of centralized control over a people and an economy, based on the notion of collectivism.

(Although much of its - admittedly theoretical - abhorrence of the accumulation of personal wealth does have a distinctively Jesus-like ring to it, does it not?)

But the absence of religion within the system was simply a means to reinforce the centralization of power, having particular regard to the global power wielded by the Roman Catholic church. Or, in the case of the Soviet Union, the Russian Orthodox church. Henry VIII had similar concerns about the Pope's influence on his people, although his response was slightly different.

You also contradict yourself a little by describing Mr Nicholls' version of atheism as "ideology-free". Atheism is at base an ideology, given the generally accepted definition of an ideology as "a manner or the content of thinking, characteristic of an individual, group, or culture". Its common "thinking characteristic" is the acceptance that God does not exist. While I personally object to Mr Nicholls taking this characteristic and turning it into a "powerfully exquisite joy", it is stretching the language too far to label atheism in general as lacking ideology.

Pericles,

You are definitely good chuckling material. “…cult around atheism…” You mean that if atheists get together and enjoy religion-free company and hear from some of the best critical-thinkers that humanity has produced then that is cultish. Yeah, of course it is? I know of a sceptics group which does the same thing and yes, they are a cult as well. Please spare me such babble.

The general meaning of ideology that is accepted by most errrr rational people is somewhat more than one consistent thought, in this case the lack of a god in one’s life. This again, is a rational conclusion and not an ideology plucked out of the many in existence.

By your ‘logic’, all people who are sceptics in preference to being non-sceptics follow an ideology. Most of them have the common thought that woo is stupid.

Maybe you should explain what other parts of the ‘atheist ideology’ is a common factor. And to bring up the reasonably shared objections to the bad parts of religion, well that just rationality and nothing to do with ideology.

Using the word ideology in regard to atheism is done in the pejorative and maybe you could explain why you do that.

It is about time you dropped your antagonism to people with a good idea. It has always shown a poor side of your character but persistence continuing erroneously with it demonstrates that being right is all that matters to you. Not a good look.

On the brighter side, hopefully, the High Court Challenge decision will be out today at 10:15 AM EST. And another interesting happening is the release (Thursday) of some of the Census data re the No-Religion demographic stance and whether it has changed substantially from 2006.

We live in exciting, albeit busy, times.

David

I just lurrve the way you go around wagging your finger at me, Mr Nicholls. It is positively heart-warming and life-affirming to be scolded by someone of your stature.

Now, where were we. Ah, yes.

>>It is about time you dropped your antagonism to people with a good idea. It has always shown a poor side of your character but persistence continuing erroneously with it demonstrates that being right is all that matters to you. Not a good look.<<

The assumptions you make are classic Nicholls-isms.

You assume I have antagonism to people with a good idea, which I most certainly do not. I am all in favour of them, wherever I find them.

The second that yours is a "good idea". We differ on that point, obviously.

And finally, that my criticism of you is erroneous, and somehow demonstrates a lack of character on my part.

An interesting assessment. What sort of criticism of you would you not regard as erroneous, do you think?

You see what I mean by "classic Nicholls-isms"?

Oh.

Perhaps you don't. Never mind.

As far as labelling your acolytes a "cult" is concerned, it's all down to that duck. Any gathering that describes its impact on its attendees as generating "powerfully exquisite joy", quacks like a duck to me. Any meeting that creates in its audience "feelings varying from elation to euphoria" is powerfully, exquisitely duck-like in my book.

But that's not really the point, is it. You are clearly extremely sensitive to any suggestion that your ideas may be challenged, and that your vision of what "real atheists" may not be the one we should all strive for.

And I'm sure that you have some very good friends, who are not at all of poor character, who tell you - frequently - that you are absolutely wonderful.

May your afterglow forever burn brightly.

David,

You asked a question and I tried to answer it in the sense that I don’t know what the outcome will be, good or bad, because it will take decades before we could tell. If you know better, that’s fair enough, I do not want to contradict you since I only know arguments for and against. Especially, please do not expect me to counter your self-assuredness with a runner-like self-assuredness.

If Dawkins does not want to suppress something that, according to his words, is worse than sexual abuse of minors, then what did he mean by that? (c.f. “Regarding the accusations of sexual abuse of children … they are not so harmful to the children as the grievous mental harm in bringing up the child Catholic in the first place” in http://www.irishsalem.com/individuals/writers-and-journalists/richard-dawkins/CatholicismDubliner.php).

Pericles,
>>Communism was absolutely not a "version of atheism”<<
In spite of your quotation marks, I never said that. Using the expression “King James version of the Bible” is not the same as claiming that the poor King James WAS a version of the Bible. He is used as an adjective just to distinguish the particular translations from other translations, the same as I used the adjective “Communist” to distinguish a version of atheism from another one, that David prefers.

>>You also contradict yourself a little by describing Mr Nicholls' version of atheism as "ideology-free". Atheism is at base an ideology<<
Again, I used the "ideology-free" adjective to refer to David’s version mentioned above, since he himself wrote

“… atheism today … has no ideological baggage with it and it is not a part of other ideological baggage”

So it is you and David who contradict each other, not I. I replied to David, so I took his understanding of atheism.

David and Pericles,
Thank you for lecturing me about what Communist praxis (in distinction to the corresponding utopia) - that I had to live through for twenty plus years - was alike.

I think I shall just keep on following (I almost wrote “enjoying”) the dispute between you two.

Pericles,

No finger waving this end. It’s hardly necessary.

I’m sure you think you are making intelligent comment and I’m certain your assessment of me and my acolytes *he he he* is accurate and most assuredly you consider your words are all dripping with pure gold but unfortunately, I can’t see any of that. I’ve tried, I really tried; I really have.

You do seem incapable of handling a cogent conversation without trying to show you are a superior being with a lot of balls & penis waving but you ain’t much good at that either.

Normally I’d put you back on the list but amusing self-aggrandising witlessness without a purpose somehow traps me every time. Not sure if that’s just me. Some would venture to say I’m easily amused. Could be true as I quite like the three stooges and have even been known to appreciate just one at a time. Oh, oops - now I see… It’s the nonsensical repetition of my harmless words that gets me in. :)

Possibly better to let you have your little hissy-spits about nothing and I’ll just enjoy the entertainment. Replying to you is a time waster but reading your stuff doesn’t take long at all. And it makes me think that I do so fervently wish there was a god though. I have a lot to thank her/him/it for.

Nearly forgot, I don’t think you’re striving for anything beyond satisfying your ego except maybe trying to enhance your abysmal duck recognition skills. They certainly need a lot of work.

And it would be a very good idea to answer germane comment I make. But, of course, you can’t. I do understand the predicament. It’s all about resumes, isn’t it and what looks good on yours.

There…there. (Sheldonishly said :))

David

George,

I suppose you realise that you have admitted you cannot find any worrisome faults with those proposing atheism as a way of looking at reality. You say ten years may show signs not wanted by society but it has already been going on in its present form for at least that long and many decades before that similarly.

I’m sorry but the connection between the statement by Richard Dawkins and anything dangerous or even indicating a problem for others is not jumping out and grabbing me. If you went further down the page you would have read why Dawkins said that. I’m not justifying what he said or condemning it. There is a whole lot of truth in there if it is as it is stated.

I know you want me to be like runner, but you realise that I am not.

I see no productive reason for us to continue nor do I wish upon you anymore stress than you have already been through. Let’s leave it as it is - are my thoughts.

David

David,

*>it makes me think that I do so fervently wish there was a god though. I have a lot to thank her/him/it for.<*

Now you're starting to get it! (It's not a matter of thinking, it's a matter of feeling. Huurrah.)

well david
you showed him

perry exposed at last
laughs out loud
lol

but

im more laughing ..at from now on
religion in schools.. is assurd funding

and any FUTURE*fed funding [including aithiest fundings][dings]
must have a law passed..or no fun...dsss..you shot ya own foot..

your so clever
too clever

Hello again, Mr Nicholls. Let's see what you've got for me this time.

>>You do seem incapable of handling a cogent conversation without trying to show you are a superior being with a lot of balls & penis waving but you ain’t much good at that either.<<

Huzzah! Go straight for the manhood, that'll show 'im you mean business. It did make me wonder for a moment what your idea of a "cogent conversation" might be, though, since you spend so much of your time here slagging off anyone who disagrees with you. Any thoughts?

>>...self-aggrandising witlessness without a purpose<<

No, sorry. That was far too slack.

You know as well as I do that however self-aggrandizingly witless you may view my commentary, it most certainly has a purpose. Which is to open your eyes to the damage you are causing by turning atheism into a form of travelling circus, complete with its own minstrels, clowns and performing animals.

>>Possibly better to let you have your little hissy-spits about nothing and I’ll just enjoy the entertainment.<<

Even slacker.

If these "hissy-spits" were indeed about nothing, then you wouldn't need to touch that keyboard. But the very fact you are still here and swatting away indicates that somewhere, just possibly, the message is taking hold.

>>Nearly forgot, I don’t think you’re striving for anything beyond satisfying your ego<<

That's just space-filler. Possibly you exhausted your venom in the earlier attack on my machismo, but you felt it necessary to bulk up on the insults. The reality is that I do, in fact, consider your posturing on behalf of atheism to be somewhat offensive, and will continue to take the opportunity, when it arises, to tell you so.

So, only a four out of ten for this effort, Mr Nicholls. Takes me back to 1978, when Denis Healy observed that being attacked by Geoffrey Howe was like being savaged by a dead sheep.

By all means, put me back on your list, being ignored doesn't faze me. But don't for one moment kid yourself that this is about me.

Ah, Pericles,

A bit touchy on the balls & penis part…interesting :)

I see I finally got through to you. Didn’t your mother ever tell you not to put your fingers into the fire or you will get burnt.

“Which is to open your eyes to the damage you are causing by turning atheism into a form of travelling circus, complete with its own minstrels, clowns and performing animals.”

That sentence is like quickly pulling your fingers out of the fire without thinking. Best you explain the damage I’m doing and to whom.

“But the very fact you are still here and swatting away indicates that somewhere, just possibly, the message is taking hold.”

You wish and there is no real message - only words. Swatting is an overstatement. Passing the time in my spare moments is more accurate. Sometimes I play Spider Solitaire and at others my amusement is you.

“The reality is that I do, in fact, consider your posturing on behalf of atheism to be somewhat offensive, and will continue to take the opportunity, when it arises, to tell you so.”

Really…offensive. Hell! I have got you into a fluster, haven’t I? Or should I say you have only yourself to blame for these ridiculous outbursts. Flame-burn, remember that?

You are not acting as though you have been “savaged by a dead sheep”. More like running from a pack of wolves.

I don’t need you to tell me when you go back on the list. I’m quite capable of working that out for myself.

Not all about you, Pericles? Well, sorry, but you must be reading a script that written for you and not the audience. Try looking at the one the whole cast is using. And I don’t mean the predatory fawning cast either.

David

Still tap-dancing, I see.

>>...there is no real message - only words<<

If it were possible to use other means to get the point across, I'd be sure to give it a try. But right now, words are the only tools at my disposal.

The message is, however hard you may try to dodge it, that your Atheist Convention was a perfect own-goal, created by your turning it into a hyped-up, pseudo-religious happy-clappy event. You disagree with this point of view. Of course you do. You take it personally - as indeed you should - and lash out like a kiddie whose toys have been taken away.

This is clear from the way you have tried to move the discussion away from the Convention, and the somewhat sickly claims you then made about its effect on people, and try to deflect me with a few petty insults.

Suit yourself. If you cannot see how ridiculous your position is, then that is a problem you will have to sort out on your own. But just to underline that this is not about me, I'll sign off with a quote from Poirot, earlier in this thread.

"Can't you see that your rhetoric describing the whole unfolding atheist circus sounds identical to the religious shenanigans over which you regularly delight in pouring scorn."

Pericles,

I never realises how effective I was at bringing out the goose in others. Seems I have a previously unknown talent in that. Thanks for being the goose that showed me.

Have to agree that words are your only tool. My suggestion is to use the appropriate tool for the correct job. Your difficultly with that is obvious.

I would have assumed, but it looks like I was wrong, that you understood that hyperbolic prattle without substance is the identifier of some kind of prejudice. This fits your words and style like a glove.

As you did not attend the 2012 Global Atheist Convention and have made no comment on the videos from it up on Youtube here: http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL7C0CA45F60FD44C7&feature=plcp
one can only assume you are talking out of your arse if you conclude that it was a “hyped-up, pseudo-religious happy-clappy event”. To draw that conclusion is more than inaccurate, it is well beyond preposterous.

Have you viewed the videos? What did you think? Which part of them fits your immature evaluation of the GAC? Which part was “hyped-up?”

Now is a chance to use your word “tools” in answering those questions. They are simple enough.

You might consider you are an operator par excellence in disguising that it really is all about you, but if you have fooled anyone else into thinking that it is not, well, you have fooled them.

The use a quote from Piorot is very convincing…Not!

That I pour scorn over religion is rubbish. If one of you fine gentlemen would like to give examples of that scorn, I would appreciate it.

Please look up the word scorn in the dictionary first. Criticism of what is wrong with religion is not scorn.

David

Actually, it was you, Mr Nicholls, who put the idea into my head.

>>...one can only assume you are talking out of your arse if you conclude that it was a “hyped-up, pseudo-religious happy-clappy event”. To draw that conclusion is more than inaccurate, it is well beyond preposterous.<<

I know how you dislike being quoted - "the nonsensical repetition of my harmless words" as you described it earlier. But these words are, after all, your own.

"...an overall sense of being involved in a part of making history"

"...the crowd of smiling faces...

"...attendees came away from the three days and three nights...with feelings varying from elation to euphoria...."

"...cat-herded into one place....The largest gathering...a harbinger of a changing manner in which humanity is viewing existence in ever growing numbers.."

"...the atmosphere was one filled by a powerfully exquisite joy inspired by camaraderie brought about by a unique experience found nowhere else."

"Now that the event is over the afterglow still burns brightly in the thoughts of attendees..."

"...criticisms overwhelmingly drowned in an ocean of accolades"

"..the weekend built to a crescendo of intellectual significance..."

Yep. The very epitome of a hyped-up, pseudo-religious happy-clappy event.

David,

"...If one of you fine gentlemen would like to give examples of that scorn, I would appreciate it."

Mmmm....let's see. This from the article for starters:

"The lesson, that the organisers of the convention had to go to extraordinary and expensive lengths with security arrangements to thwart any acts of religious idiocy...."

and...

"It is unnervingly disquieting that many disregard evidence that the process of religious inculcation in itself can produce random mild or maniacal adherents. Those in support must bear some responsibility for the harm and atrocities created by it."

That, David, is known as "pouring scorn".

oh dear david..its funny how so many athiest..[genuine atheo-ists]
cant grasp..getting together to ridicule a thing/concept
the belief in which..to them in and of itself
dont egsist

to them its much like tall-king.in fairy tales[delusions]
what inteligent being..who is sure there is no 'god'..wants to get together with others riddle/cueing..someone else..

over a thing that do'nt egsist[lol]

but you are blind..to the fact most here are athiest
[disliking the messengers]..of who they think is delivering a lie

its as exciting to them...NOT*>>.to waste any time on fictions

look ya really want to find the real name
for what your trying to do

cat herder..is only just
a bit..away from sheppard..:<L}

if you can see the yoke
but you cant
lol

i dont like religions neither!
but...*fighting them only forces them to join together[get stronger]

i think thats just dandy

get strong..force them away from creed..
back to basics..[loving neighbour..thus loving good..[god]

its the creed you lot really are fighting
thats the lies..thats where there 'forgiven'
yet from there..compound the sin..by sinning again

anyhow im not hearing much..about..*that law change*
you lot brought..to the rules?

[notice how rersisting them..only made them stronger}

this place is hell
to tempt and to temper
your attempts to make the world safer
how did that work out?

[you were so exited yesterday]

ohh congratulate-ions again david
census reported atheoists came in second
great work cat herder's...

they named/labled..themselves
hating a living good god
cause of lies

rejecting the all living love
sustaining them each..their very lives

and still god..sustains us to live
thats l;ove mate..thats what you take from people
ditto the mongal religionists ..miss-leading the fathers own..away from grace,mercy love etc

children..to sure
to question..ongoing ignorance
or even begin looking for the true cause..of everything

light sustaining logic to live..that life lift the vile veil
and see love lives..within us all[allways has allways will]

know your greatness..

your mortal heirs
of the immortal father
all he asks is to love other

how hard is that
thats a basic...charity..to other
that we did for the least..we did to god[good]..

Pericles,

I Initially said, "..the weekend built to a crescendo of intellectual significance..."

Well, yes, it did. It had Sam Harris, Daniel Dennett, Richard Dawkins and Ayaan Hirsi Ali on stage together as the closing part of the GAC. Having these brilliant minds together is historically significant. It has not happened before and possibly won’t happen again. How more intellectually significant could it have been?

To which you replied, “Yep. The very epitome of a hyped-up, pseudo-religious happy-clappy event.”

You said this with no knowledge of it at all. I found that somewhat weird to say the least.

Your disingenuousness is outstanding. You responded to my words by stating *the convention was typical* of a religious event. It was not my words you were referring to, it was the event. Such deliberate squirming is unbelievable and unbecoming. (From you, expected)

My article was based on actually being present at the 2012 Global Atheist Convention, experiencing it and the reactions by the attendees, from the hundreds of emails expressing the views I stated, and from a post event survey answered by over a thousand attendees. Various forums also expressed how the 2012 GAC was an outstanding moment in time.

I see you still have not viewed or are not willing to admit you have looked at the presentations here. http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL7C0CA45F60FD44C7&feature=plcp

Your pathetic interpretation of the 2012 GAC came out of your own self-obsessed little-mind. You know nothing of it, won’t even comment about it, don’t see that it was harmless and indeed it was a good thing for society but rabbit-on endlessly how it and I are destroying atheism. Yeah right! :)

You spaded the first hole and you keep digging it deeper and deeper…

I’m sorry your ego has taken a beating but it is not my fault.

David

Poirot,

Well, dag nab it, you caught me out there. Thomas Henry Huxley was Darwin’s Bulldog but you, being nothing but a diminished Pericle’s puppy, missed the boat considerably. You really think those few sentences are “pouring scorn”.

Advice - get a life in the real world.

Bugger, didn’t mean to write to you, you are definitely on the list.

David

David,

Is that "confirmation".....I...I'm....I'm somewhat overwhelmed to be acknowledged in such a manner. I mean, it's THE LIST after all.....

Should I have written a speech?

No, perhaps not. We atheists usually prefer not to bring attention to ourselves, content to go about our business not believing in a deity.

As if I could be bothered trawling through all your self-congratulatory guff to find further examples of "scorn". I have better things to do - because I have a conventional atheist life - not a life dedicated to having atheist conventions : )

David Nichols ought to be embarrassed about his performance here, though I was amused at the way he equates New Atheism with free thinking and freedom from ideology, and I'm touched by his hero-worship of the NA gurus--who as I've argued are steeped in ideology. I'm also amused at his Christ-like locks and deference to the holy father (Dawkins).
But at the end of the day my abiding impression of DN, once again, is of a rude, ignorant and supercilious git. I don't mention his intolerance because I can't imagine anyone should crave his insufferable sufferance.
I take no pleasure in ad hominem attacks and would rather discuss the issues apropos NA that I've raised in spades with Nichols and his motley crew. But they've given me no answers because, I'm sure, the questions have never occurred to them.
I think the New Atheists need a new front man--leave David in charge of marketing.

Not quite, Mr Nicholls.

>>Your pathetic interpretation of the 2012 GAC came out of your own self-obsessed little-mind.<<

It came from the article that you wrote about the event, as I think I may have mentioned before.

Which would tend to suggest that the "self-obsessed little-mind" that created that impression might not actually be mine. Anyhow, if you are not prepared to stand by your own words, that's not my problem.

But I think we probably understand each other quite well by now, don't you?

And that's an interesting proposal, Squeers.

>>I think the New Atheists need a new front man--leave David in charge of marketing.<<

But perhaps Public Relations would be a better home for his talents, eh?

I would have to agree that my article has done irreparable damage to atheism, me, maybe the planet and possible the universe. This is a serious matter folks deserving of an old fashion burning at the stake. Mobs are very good at that. They love the mindless part.

That should be obvious here.

Anyway, someone said to me the other day about forums in general although they did mention this one in particular, that a minority of faceless posters possibly live double lives. One life as a know-it-all smartarse in cyber-space, and another as an inadequate individual in real-time. It does seem to make sense as a hypothesis. Hiding behind pseudonyms making it impossible to identify the actual person does back this up somewhat.

My friend could be wrong but we will never know, will we. Cowardice can prevent such revelations.

Meanwhile, I’ll continue to enjoy the panic and its consequences. :))

David

I suspect David Nichols and I have the odd mutual acquaintance, and I can attest that reports on David's character are less than glowing.
As for my being inadequate, I'm a doctoral candidate and think I can lay claim to some accomplishments and a successful life--depending of course on how one measures success, I'm neither rich nor self-important.

This business of hiding behind pseudonyms is interesting and it's not the first time I've been accused of this kind of "cowardice". Since I haven't yet had occasion to write an article myself, why would I provide my identity? But if you despise the anonymity on OLO and elsewhere (your own cohort at your forum prefer anonymity, do they not?) why do you come here for an audience?
The simple truth is you cannot bear criticism and you dismiss legitimate criticism with the same "scorn" as you do ad hominem, which you in fact provoke and richly deserve.

There are definitely some screw-ups in atheism as there are with all sections of the community and their recommendations are generally only listened to by other screw-ups. Considering I have had dealings with many atheists in Australia and many more than most, it would be surprising if it was always a clash free zone.

It is interesting that those who cannot make an impact with atheism on the wider community themselves and harbour thoughts of jealousy towards the AFA and me because it and I are showing how it is done are generally those with a problem. They could try hard work instead of wasting energy in the sniping brigade.

People who have the full story know that this is true. Those who accept the words of ‘convincing’ story tellers (hint) and unconvincing ones (another hint) are just another variety of gullible humans. I expect this to happen and it causes neither the AFA nor me the slightest problem.

What may surprise some of the folk on this forum is that I do know the real identity of many of you. And I understand your bitterness. Beaten dogs can feel that way.

I use ‘beaten dogs’ metaphorically as dogs should not be beaten.

It always amazes me that the little band of the ‘get David Nicholls and the AFA’ don’t actually organise themselves into a bigger and better David Nicholls and the AFA. Start your own atheist ‘club’ and show us how it is done.

The excuse that atheists should not bring to the attention of society the harms of religion but just get on with their lives is nonsense.

Most thinking humans value making civilisation better. If you don’t, then you have a problem.

David

its easy to sumise..that we are annon
but grayham well knows my address/name
my other website reveal more
as revealed at olo many times

so that leaves pericules or other
that davidian barb is aimed at

i like how he gets joan or arched,,[at the stake]
in his own mind..

mate we all agree..religions the problem
the god thing is neither here nor there
[its within..no one can be without]

think david..jesus birth[an angel says call him emmanuel
[god with...[in]..us [all]...somewhere in all that creed is a truth

but till you kill the creed
the peer revieuwed creed
is a faulse god..[its that people reject]..

[if they would but only egsamin
their miss conceptions of what god is/does..]
they could be...as they claim claim to be @thiest..

cause in the end
no one is really willing to risk being a @theo-ist

so the lie [a/thiest]..covers many sins
god knows whats in our hearts[thats his throne]

Don't be so hard on yourself Mr Nicholls.

>>I would have to agree that my article has done irreparable damage to atheism, me, maybe the planet and possible the universe<<

It would take far more than an overly self-congratulatory article like yours to do irreparable damage to anything, bar your own credibility. It certainly won't affect the future of the universe or the planet, or even dent your own sense of righteous self-importance.

So, that's all right then.

>>One life as a know-it-all smartarse in cyber-space, and another as an inadequate individual in real-time<<

Hmmm. I wonder whether that is better or worse than being a know-it-all smartarse in real life, and an ineffectual blowhard on the internet?

Purely hypothetically, of course.

I think I've been very patient waiting a whole month in case there might be an answer to a real world problem unlikely to be remedied by Mr Nicholls' "ocean of accolades": "Does anyone else remember woot's concerns?"

I'm still wondering if the GAC was able to come up with solutions or to help in any way?

The plight of a fellow athiest/conventioneer touched me when woot told us, "Especially in the tourism sector, business would band together to support each other, but being a known non-believer? No one would refer business on your way, you were always made second class within the community, even within the local business groups.

I have seen 2 business running on shoestrings because of this very issue, and one woman so at the end of her tether she has spent evenings in tears speaking to me not knowing what to do because no business in the town (70km from where I lived) referred people on to her. She was even considering pretending to have a 'conversion' just to stay afloat. She ended up selling her accommodation because of it and has literally dropped from sight :("

My ISP doesn't give me enough bandwidth to look at all the videos - being directed to the parts that help woot would be a start.

Or should I assume that 'get a life in the real world' represents a crescendo of intellectual significance?

“It always amazes me that the little band of the ‘get David Nicholls and the AFA’ don’t actually organise themselves into a bigger and better David Nicholls and the AFA. Start your own atheist ‘club’ and show us how it is done.”
Incredible. It really is exactly like arguing with a God Botherer. After 28 pages of suggesting that the simple business of not believing in something shouldn't need, want or logically require a 'Club', he still can't accept it.
OK, you've caught me with my pants down. It's not that -as an 'apatheist'- I don't believe in God; what it's really all about is I need a better God...
… to not, believe in.
Why not start a new club, David?
How about the “I don't believe in the Flat Earth theory” Club?
G'day WmTrevor,
I have not responded to the plight of Woot simply because it is totally beyond my experience. While I would certainly not stoop to calling the good Woot a dissembler, I find his story literally unbelievable. I have lived and worked in many parts of Australia, and I have never encountered this particular form of prejudice.
I can only count myself fortunate to have never experienced this particular part of...
Ah, well, Victoria. I've always wondered...

David,

"What may surprise some of the folk on this forum is that I do know the real identity of many of you..."

I understand exactly where you're coming from. They're all a bunch of cowards, don't you think?

I decided right away to that I would use my real identity. Then everyone would know they're addressing a retired Belgian detective with a mincing gait, an egg-shaped head, a magnificent moustache and a penchant for exercising his little grey cells....

I think it's much more satisfying to picture the person you're addressing : )

AFA:
<What may surprise some of the folk on this forum is that I do know the real identity of many of you>

That is surprising. I wonder how DN comes by this information. Omniscience?

Grim, I'd be disappointed if it was a fairytale… as I recall it was woot's example of prejudice against atheists and the reason for his attending the conference was to find a solution. Maybe exquisite joy and afterglowing was sufficient?

Should I be talking to an apatheist? 'Splitters'

It risks being like a rewritten amphitheatre scene from The Life of Brian…

Brian: ...I hate the religious already.
Dave: Listen. If you really wanted to join the AFA, you'd have to really hate the religious.
Brian: I do.
Dave: Oh yeah? How much?
Brian: A lot!
Dave: Right. You're in. Listen. The only people we hate more than the religious are the funking Australian Apatheist Front.

Whatever happened to the popular front?

Sincere apologies,
I forgot to demonstrate the enormous size of my -rather tight- codpiece.
Peter Grimley,
Most Exalted Lord High Mufti,
Society Of Apatheists Profoundly -Yet Serenely- Opposed To Theism'S.

Next meeting will be held in the basement of the Society's headquarters,
Tattoine, in the Dagobar system, on:
27 October, 1984
Failure to attend will result in instant expulsion.

Pericles,

“Hmmm. I wonder whether that is better or worse than being a know-it-all smartarse in real life, and an ineffectual blowhard on the internet?

Purely hypothetically, of course.”

Well, I suppose you would have to look into your hypothetical mirror for an answer to that one. My thoughts purely from observation and a tad amount of reasonable guessing are yes, you are probably a know-it-all smartarse in real life, and definitely an ineffectual blowhard on the internet?

Anyone who can’t actually comment on pertinent statements, as is your modus-operandi, certainly fits the above description. Repetitious sniping at self-made shadowy strawmen and the over-emphasis on unimportant minutia is very Don Quixote-ish. I would be exceedingly embarrassed if I were you but possibly your relentless bitterness blinds you to that but I doubt it.

Deep down this insecurity is what keeps you fearful about appearing on the AFA Forums. IMHO that is one of your better decisions. :))

Stand by for nervous bravado 'proving' me wrong.

David

WM Trevor, fear not about your poor internet-connection, there will be a DVD available within a couple of months. Specific cures for absurd parts of religion are not going to be brought about by a magic wand.

Grim, there’s no compulsion to join an atheist ‘club’. But social change can happen when people band together. Arse-sitting has never been a very effective method.

Squeers, I don’t need omniscience, gossiping is a favourite pastime. I know lots of humans willing to betray confidences, as you could imagine. ;)

Interestingly enough, some of the ‘mutual acquaintances’ alluded to recently have tried starting various forums and even secular-clubs, on a number of occasions as you know, with poor results. But I’m not a gossip in specifics.

NB: The list was temporarily disengaged for these comments

david/quote..""I don’t need omniscience,
gossiping is a favourite pastime...I know lots of humans willing to betray confidences,..as you could imagine...;)""

i imagine something much like a confessional
instead of a light..you set a topic?..how will we know confessional is in..

but really...try to aviois rules[creed]
if its about nuthing..at leasst have the inteligence..to feel nuthing too[getting angry..re nuthin..thats a sign of madness..not that im saying anyone is mad

but why you trying so hard..to get even
equal time?..for what..to diss cuss nuthin

morality without creed
creed withhout thought?
no...creed without thinking

all the benfits
none of the overseeing obligato?

it must delight the ego
your accuse has made it into a topic
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=5216

the best thing you achieved so far?

David,

"...I don't need omniscience, gossiping is a favourite pastime. I know lots of humans willing to betray confidences..."

Not a particularly good look for someone who's out to expose all the 'nasties" of religion. It seems that these nasties are a purely "human" phenomenon and that atheists are just as likely to display them as religious folk - especially if they band together in "clubs".

(if we did make a bigger and better atheist club and we still disagreed - could be then have a "schism"...sounds like fun)

Your rants just get better and better, don't they Mr Nicholls.

>>...you are probably a know-it-all smartarse in real life, and definitely an ineffectual blowhard on the internet... I would be exceedingly embarrassed if I were you but possibly your relentless bitterness blinds you to that... Deep down this insecurity is what keeps you fearful about appearing on the AFA Forums<<

My shrink was highly impressed with your claim to be able to remotely diagnose my "issues" (as he calls them), and entirely unsurprised at the tears in my eyes when I showed him your latest salvo.

"Stop laughing" he said, "I think he may be serious".

Not at all, I told him. It's just the knee-jerk reaction of someone having their foibles exposed to a chuckling audience. I suspect that in his embarrassment, he simply grabs the nearest Roget, and off he goes.

"Well, please be gentle with him" he continued, "He is obviously deeply hurt. But what's that about the AFA Forums? What point is he making there?"

It's just part of his game, I explained. On his own forum, he not only knows exactly who you are and where you live, but more importantly he can exert complete control over what gets published. And, from the look of it, that's precisely what he does. There isn't a skerrick of criticism, on any of the threads, either of him or his organization. I expect he will tell us that this is because everybody thinks that both he and the Association are perfect. Anyone who says anything different must be a smartarse and a blowhard, who by definition hasn't earned the right to share their opinions with genuinely intelligent folk.

"I can buy that" says my shrink. "That fits the profile neatly. But please..."

It's ok, I reassure him. I'll be kind.

Poirot,

Tut…tut! Your namesake would be horrified. ;)

Why do you always get the wrong end of the stick? If your case is that weak that you lose control of rationality, then you should keep quiet.

All people gossip. There are a few people in all demographics who consider their ego as an important first and whatever cause they may be fighting, that second. This makes them prime targets to be gossiped about. That is natural. That gossip often reaches me.

I have been an atheist for 50 years, in the AFA for 30, on the Committee for many of those years and the president for 8 and I know an extraordinarily huge number of atheists. It would be odd, considering all of this, if lots of gossip didn’t reach me.

Gossip is a healthy part of humanity and it means and infers nothing but I learn heaps from it.

Pericles,

It is wonderful news that you are getting ongoing psychological help. God knows, you need it. We know what you are going through with the paranoia about me controlling what goes up on the AFA forums. In actual fact, I have no control over that. Have you heard of delegating responsibility?

The AFA is a very big organisation and I couldn’t possibly control every little bit of it even if I wanted to. The AFA Committee would throw me out if I tried by the way. We are a democratic organisation.

David

David,

Gossip is one thing, but to rub your hands with glee in the knowledge that you "...know lots of humans willing to betray confidences..." is hardly an honourable virtue.

However I'll say one thing. You appear to have one of the healthiest (biggest) egos I think I've come across. I'm still somewhat puzzled, however, as to why you sprinkled the "euphoric" rhetoric so liberally through your article. It's so laden with religious-style jargon that it would pass handsomely as a satire.

Bonne nuit

David,
I found your article interesting and your subsequent debate of a high standard.

If debates were judged on the same standards as boxing matches.
The referee should have stepped in and stopped the match by now.
Since your opponents are clearly showing severe symptoms of delirium.

And if their handlers had any real concern for their chargers welfare both Pericles and Poirots corners would have thrown in the white towels by now and be ushering them off to the nearest CAT scan.

KarlX,

That's rich! You wouldn't be one of Nichols's toadies would you?

I can't be bothered debating the silly bugger, besides he wisely chooses to ignore me.
I've debated him before on substantial issues of critique, for which he had no answers and I have a mental picture of him clenching his whitened fists and shaking his locks furiously.
All he's done here is what he always does: self-promotion and supercilious ridicule.
In the unlikely event that he or other New Atheists provide a manifesto, reflect politically or have anything noteworthy to say, I'll engage with them, and positiviely.
But unless such a blue moon occurs, Nichols is on my list of dimwits not worth talking to.

I beg to differ, KarlX.
I think Poirot and Pericles have more than substantiated their arguments, and I don't believe the essential criticism (by Poirot and myself, at least), that the language used in this article would be far more appropriate for a revivalist meeting than a 'rational' review, has been addressed at all.
After all the jokes about 'Apatheism' and 'Pugnatheism', the essential question remains:
Is Atheism (disbelief in a God or Gods), non-religious or anti-religious?
The 'New Atheists' are quite clearly the latter.
As a 'de facto' Atheist (Apatheist, A-theist, whatever), I consider the question of God to be unprovable and irrelevant to the human condition.
Yes, individuals and groups espousing one religion or another have done enormous harm over the centuries, and in certain instances, continue to do so.
However, individuals and groups espousing Atheism have also done their share, and more than a few individuals in history with no apparent interest in religion one way or the other have done just as much harm.
To blame religion for all or even some of the world's ills is just plain silly.
Genuine rat bags will use any excuse to do what they want.
If you really want an enemy to hate, I would suggest the inadequacy of language, and the dexterity of lawyers and clerics. Look at all the straight forward rules and statements just in the Christian faith that are completely ignored:
Thou shalt not kill -there's an end to war, capital punishment and murder.
It would be harder for a rich man to enter the Gates of Heaven... The world is chocka block with rich christians, starting with the Pope.
Vengeance is mine... (But GW Bush is God's instrument...)
Love your enemies...
Do unto others...
Turn the other cheek...
Is religion the problem, or is it people just claiming to be something, while doing exactly as they please?

KarlX,

Thanks for your kind words. I thought your analogy fitting. I hope you hang around and enjoy the child-boxers at play. :)

People who vituperatively and unrelentingly attack others protected by the cloak of anonymity certainly don’t understand that such actions are those of the coward. Anonymity is a good idea on the net but when used in such a manner, especially as a mob, it is a spineless abuse of a helpful protection device.

Another sign of a deeper purpose in such attacks is the selective quote-mining with an overemphasis on non-important matters. A good way of spotting this kind of behaviour is that the substance under discussion is never positively referenced or given any credit.

The trouble is, those using this method know if they don’t ‘win’ the discussion, they will be seen by others in their true and tattered clothing. Therefore, escalation happens. It’s a bit like trapped rats.

As I say, I am unaffected by this but it is interesting to watch the shenanigans of a warped humanity.

Oh, and by the way Poirot, the proper spelling is, "Bonne nuit!"

Sqeers, KarlX is not here at my request and I do not know him (Karl is the clue for gender).

David

From my observations of Richard Dawkins, I would say he seems quite intelligent, but not particularly muscular or physically prepossessing. Nor does he strike me as being particularly charismatic (no criticism meant; how many of us are?).
This makes it very easy to imagine a scene 5 or 10,000 years ago:
Dick the Dawk: “Boss, I think we should roll up the tents and start moving south.”
Arnie the Conan: “Hmm. Why we do that, little Dawk?”
Dick: “I think bad things are coming. I think it's gonna start snowing in a week or 2.”
Arnie: “Hmmp. How you know that?”
Dick: “Ah, well, God told me.”
Arnie: “Who God?”
Dick: “umm, remember that lightning bolt that struck that tree yesterday? That was God.”
Arnie: “Hmm, this God pretty tough fella. How come he talk to little runt like you, and not chief, like me?”
Dick: “Ah, well, to be worthy, first I have to wash myself all over, stay away from women for a week, then kneel in front of this cross... I bet if you washed all over and stayed-”
Arnie: “Just made decision; we pack up tents.”
Dick: “whatever you say, O great and wise one.”

I reckon all the theists who claim we have replaced worship of religion with worship of science have got it exactly wrong.
We always worshipped greater knowledge. Religion just stopped delivering.

Dearest David,

While we're analysing tactics, I see you've pulled out your secret weapon. Strangely enough, I had occasion recently to comment on just such a tactic in another thread.

[Quote:]

"....some article authors who when defending their stance tend to use the 'you're a coward because you're hiding behind a pseudonym tactic'. It takes the substance of their argument nowhere, but it's an oft used tactic when they find themselves stymied."

Gawd! - I! omitted! the! exclamation! mark! - Mon Dieu!

Yep, You float like a butterfly and sting like a pedantic French grammarian. : )

Squeers,

Come now you don't really buy the line that Pericles is carry on the way he is because he is committed to principle,do you.

Its all about ego.

KarlX,
pray excuse my impertinence, but it was surely understandable I took you and David Nichols as acquainted; the latter's article is hyperbolical from beginning to end and your praise of it seemed therefore to strain credulity.
I have no comment to make against Pericles or anyone else here. I take no pride in my own contributions but I do aver the article and the author's comments set and maintained the tone throughout. Bear in mind too that this is only the latest of Nichols's efforts and tone was long-since established.

I look forward to more edifying debate elsewhere.

the grim/quote..""Religion just stopped delivering.""

interesting point..i agree its gone
for names/creeds..over good works of charity to other

nothing is more clear[ditto unions]

so who can give us hero's
dick dorkins is hardly a saint
and richard dawkins is a physisyst

who's that wheel chair guy[cause hes in a chair..KNOWS there is no god]
little knowing his great spirit..was built from that chair
many fail to see the underlying greatness that accepts these bit part[in lifes full revealing]

life is like watching a flower bloom
boom and bust[key material life conceps are gravity osmosis]
key spirit immaterial essence..is about like liking like[clumping]goats with goats[those loving the same sins being in the same place

so those who deney..a supreems good
live in that godless realm..til they get smarter[not more religious][not by creed]..but by meeting need[by ozmosis].

Principle, KarlX? Moi?

>>Come now you don't really buy the line that Pericles is carry on the way he is because he is committed to principle,do you. Its all about ego<<

No "principles" involved here. It's simply an attempt to point out to a pompous old goat who really fancies himself, that he is a pompous old goat who really fancies himself. And that in doing so, he conveniently gives the religious cabal the impression that all atheists are pompous old goats who really fancy themselves.

A fairly futile exercise, it has to be admitted, given the size of the man's ego.

Because you don't really buy the line that Mr Nicholls is carrying on the way he is because he is committed to principle, do you? Its all about ego.

But someone has to do it, however distasteful it may be. Consider it a selfless public duty.

Seems I’ve found the weak spots in a number of posters and they are resonating quite strongly with them. No one could be that much of an idiot as to not see their reputations are going further down the tube with each word written.

Well, I guess, idiots will still follow them, but I’m not sure if that is something to be proud of.

I can’t think of anyone I have ever met deserving of such personal attack as demonstrated here. I am deeply honoured to be the target.

Bad article, bad words, crucify!

David

David,

There you go again - "crucify"! (got a bit of thing for exclamation marks at the moment!)

Contrary to what you may think, I don't harbour any antipathy toward you at all. In fact, I kind of like your lighthearted style of jousting.

I'm still puzzled, however, as to why you're so blind to the similarities between your brand of organised atheism and
the many brands of organised religion.

!

Poirot,

Stop worrying about nonsense. Who cares if I use crucify. It is in the lexicon. I am not advocating anyone crucify anybody. Get a grip.

Yes, I do generally respond in a light hearted manner but my light-heartedness brings out the stupid in some people wouldn’t you agree. :)

The conclusion that the AFA or indeed liddle ol’ me is like a religion is only based on the fact that you consider there should not be organised opposition to religion. There are a least four thousand people who attended a convention who would disagree. How many of like-mind is an unknown but getting four thousands atheists to do anything together probably means there are heaps.

Do they have that right - that is to demonstrate their unhappiness with the status quo?

Because it looks like a duck it is certainly not quacking like a duck, then it might possibly not be a duck.

The Pericles and Squeers of the world can’t see past their own egos and really don’t want to help a struggling humanity. They are acting shamefully in my opinion. I think you could be different.

I have possibly gone over my post limit but that does not mean I accept sitting down the stupidity I am reading with some posters.

David

This has been an interesting ride (though getting way too personal at times), and in the end result Grim gets my vote as the voice of reason - but I must say there have been many other valuable contributions along the way.

Ultimately I cannot see the Atheist 'Good Book' of commandments offering too much different to the rules for a virtuous life that one might find in Confucianism or as espoused by most of the mainstream religions - but without the mysticism and ripping yarns to cloud the 'message'.

It seems clear that the really valuable rules are there, but these are all too often ignored. Would the rules carry more weight without the ripping yarns, or are we due for some better and more contemporary 'ripping yarns'? Without a good plot and story line, surely it would be a pretty hard sell?
But then, these days, how many would really be interested in buying?

Of course, I'm biased - I try to do the right thing, even when no-one is looking.

David,

I think this could be my limit for a while too.

Just wanted to say that I think Squeers is very interested in what the AFA proposes to do for "struggling humanity"...and I believe he's posed that question your way a few times. For instance, are there any notions that address the "greed is good" paradigm of Western conduct and thought?

Poirot,

Can you start thinking for yourself? Who cares what Squeers wants the Atheist Foundation of Australia to do. The AFA is trying to promote the idea that parts of religion need addressing in society. We are not an organisation that covers every wrong. This is a Squeers stupidity and he should own up to it. Let him start a ‘Greed is Bad’ club and do something himself instead of pontificating (word intended) about what we should do. He is acting like an idiot and those who don’t recognise this are not worth talking to in my opinion and the opinion of those who can still think for themselves.

Squeers does nothing but yabber the same as Pericles. They are both self-inflated wastes of space. That the AFA or I are so bad for society is so ludicrous that it follows the dictum that if a lie is big enough it will be believed.

No doubt either one or both of them will come back on the Forum to justify themselves by attempting to manipulate the viewer. Good luck with that. Of course, the wonderful thing here is, they do not know if that will work. Unfortunately there are stupid people willing to believe idiots. That is the main wrong with the world.

David

David,

You are getting way too abusive.
It is not a good look, and is totally detrimental to your 'cause'.

Quite so, Saltpetre.
A most belligerent post by the exalted convener of GAC. Lighthearted jousting is obviously only phase one of his stratagem. I feel rather silly for falling for his little act. It's blatantly clear to me after his latest effort that Pericles and Squeers had him well and truly pegged from the outset.

David,

"Can you start thinking for yourself?"

Well, yes I can, starting with the fact that I don't need to affirm my atheism by joining a club.

The crux of the matter as I see it is that the AFA doesn't actually stand for anything above your self-aggrandisement, its own self-promotion and the obligatory endorsement of associated merchandise.

"Suffering humanity" doesn't get a look in!

before i stick the foot in further
i wish david to suceed[putting presure on the fathers divided houses]
forcing religion to get back to basics[sic*]

daved rote/quote..""four thousands atheists
to do anything together probably means there are heaps.""

piles came to mind..[but its your word choices!..that really concern
its allmost like you set things up..[then cry fowl]

plies/heaps of atheoists..""Do they have that right""
everything has freewill[begin with that basic right

a question[do atheoists have right][inl;ue of right correctness..""that is to demonstrate their unhappiness with the status quo?""

plenty of other general headings cover this
you said yournot a catch al[so narrow down the defintion]
as business knows..its not sales as much as those who return

see next year if the ghist of ya yeast is rising[atheioists stocks]
or bringing low the relious creed freaks

""Because it looks like a duck""lol
""it is certainly not quacking like a duck,""lol

""then it might possibly..not be a duck.}}

lol
YOUR CORRECT
it sounds like a goose
no one wants to take a gander at..(*!*)

ok 4000..checked it out
did you find goose or duck

duck[in comming][yeah right]wurds cut
but some wurds are just fatherless..[busturds?]
bustturdery?..its that your careless word use confuses/confounds..

it dont enlighten*.

The extent of Mr Nicholls' self-delusion is becoming more evident each time he posts.

>>The conclusion that the AFA or indeed liddle ol’ me is like a religion is only based on the fact that you consider there should not be organised opposition to religion.<<

Being "opposed to religion" does not, by itself, justify the existence of AFA. Actually doing something constructive should surely be the objective of any organization, otherwise it will lay itself wide open to the charge that it is just a pointless confection, designed and conducted for the personal gratification of its Führer.

This was a pretty good indicator too.

>>Repetitious sniping at self-made shadowy strawmen and the over-emphasis on unimportant minutia is very Don Quixote-ish.<<

The "strawman" in question was, presumably, his florid happy-clappy description of the Convention. That he still considers this to be "unimportant minutia" is significant.

But I think I have said all that I need to.

Until the next time, Mr Nicholls.

Review:
“Meet the New Boss...”
Far from dismantling, destroying or simply rejecting the religious paradigm, Dawkins et al. And, more pertinently, their accolytes, appear to have embraced it.
In a move highly reminiscent of Billy Graham and other, even more notoriously 'Fire and Brimstone' preachers, Dawkins is not content to merely disbelieve in a god or gods, but must, in the very best of religious traditions, consign his enemy to Hell, Perdition and the bad boys corner of scorn, ridicule and shame.
We are asked to believe that not believing in anything is the road to peace, prosperity and happiness; that the world would be a far better place if religion had never been invented. This of course ignores the historical truth that the very earliest priests and priestesses, Shamans, witches and witch doctors were the scientists of their day; achieving credibility with results achieved through acute observation and experimentation. No doubt the very earliest religio's worshipped the same Gods we tend to worship today; CAUSE, and EFFECT. In a mysterious and little understood world, violent events such as lightning strikes, storms, floods, droughts and plagues could hardly be seen as anything but the work of a vengeful deity.
And no doubt other religio's were motivated by politics, and the need for greater credibility than they could claim simply in themselves.
No where is it more evident that Dawkins et al. Excite quasi-religious fervor in their accolytes than in the article in question by David Nicholl, proud President of the Atheists Foundation of Australia. (Herein lies a hint; credibility lies not in well constructed argument, but rather in one's credentials.)
No attendee to any Billy Graham event, or indeed any revivalist tent could be more effusive in their language, more fervent in their adulation.
A new paradigm? Hardly.
“...Same as the Old Boss.”
Let's not be fooled again.
Peter Grimley. Individual.

Pericles,

That is a very poor attempt at trying to look like a reasonable person.

“The extent of Mr Nicholls' self-delusion is becoming more evident each time he posts.”

And previously.

“Global Convention of Pretentious Tossers.”

Here is a good example of real delusion for you.

Opposition to the idea of an atheist convention leading to attacking it and anyone involved with it relentlessly. Not seeing that is what is happening.

“Being "opposed to religion" does not, by itself, justify the existence of AFA. Actually doing something constructive should surely be the objective of any organization, otherwise it will lay itself wide open to the charge that it is just a pointless confection, designed and conducted for the personal gratification of its Führer.”

Well, yes it does. The same as people join all kinds of organisations to be against particular injustices. And yes, the AFA is very constructive in helping people have a focal-point, in donating money to charities in trying to bring equality to those without it. How much more positive can we be?

The Hitler-ism is just another example of manipulation of language. If I were you, I would be thinking why I do that.

“The "strawman" in question was, presumably, his florid happy-clappy description of the Convention. That he still considers this to be "unimportant minutia" is significant.”

Yes, that is one of them and you calling it significant is a word and not a proof. It wouldn’t matter what I wrote about the convention or how I wrote it, your prejudice as mentioned above, would have you reacting the same way.

“But I think I have said all that I need to.”

Yes, I agree even though you have engaged mainly in jingoistic repetition. Still, I have found it most interesting :))

David

ohhh good
its finally over
[my hands are sore from clapping]

life has taught me..to fight evil if futile[to david]
you note the vile in religion...presume that others have made the same judgments

but rejecting a concept..isnt the same
as activly fighting against followers..of the [to thyne eyes]..not even concieve-able good [god]

how to say that lovers of fighting
love to fight[dogs have fleas[god has religious lice]

nevertheless..there is a huge difference
between saying there is no dog..[to hating/fighting/riddiculing us knowing not only a dog..

but able to concieve infinite DOGS..
so ye with no dog in the race..resist the concepts of the dogs fleas..YOUR PROOF OF NO DOG..says look at..the act's...lol..*of fleas]

where there is a flea fighter
is a likelyhood of fleas
fleas often mean dogs

but dogs dont need fleas..the fleas need the dog..[or equ-vilent the @dog]..every action has its re-action..[some say every*action..is a re-action]

no dog gone host
no fleas.

The Atheist Foundation of Australia has just released onto Youtube, Professor Richard Dawkins speaking at the 2012 Global Atheist Convention – A Celebration of Reason.

The video is Number 12 on this page: http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL7C0CA45F60FD44C7&feature=plcp

David

how come you dont talk about memes david
you know the so called packets genes
underpinning the selfish gene theory

just watched '\did darwin kill god'[bbc]
and its clear that no the selfish gene theory is refuted

so called packet memes...[includes religion]
or any other concept[meam..[like @theo-ism]
dic dorkings thunk it apparently[how come you lot dont talk about it?]

thats why your diss/belief system dont present transcripts
the absurdities that flow..isnt designed to inform the main thesis]..no theo..

just to shroud the mystery
from the prophets proffit..
who's wholy holy texts are for sale ..in the lobby..

OUG,

"....from the prophets proffit..
Whose wholy holy texts are for sale ..in the lobby.."

Amen to that.

The Atheist Foundation of Australia has just released onto Youtube, Stella Young, comedian at the 2012 Global Atheist Convention – A Celebration of Reason.

The video is Number 13 on this page: http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL7C0CA45F60FD44C7&feature=plcp

More videos will follow.

If you want to view them, keep an eye out on that URL.

David

The next two presenters are of some note.

Eugenie Scott; for her knowledge of evolution and Jason Ball for his youthful enthusiasm.

Eugenie Scott is number 14 on the presenters list. Her bio is here: http://www.atheistconvention.org.au/eugenie-scott/

A younger face of atheism is Jason Ball, number 15. His bio is here. http://www.atheistconvention.org.au/jason-ball/

David

By the way, these productions, especially experienced by an audience first hand, might not appeal to persons who purposefully confuse euphoric feelings resulting from high-quality presentations of intellectual stimulation, are not comparable in any way with another variety produced by well-understood hypnotic methods.

One would hope it is purposeful confusion. At least that is a though-out position, albeit obviously contrived for mischievous reasons known only to the perpetrator(s) :)

And Saltpetre, please check the origin and number of insults delivered by whom, before casting stones at those who disagree with your own stance. Your bias is showing.

David

Whatever you reckon, David. You'll have the last word in any event, and you're not the least bit biased of course.

I still contend your tyrannical tirades in response to some earlier criticisms and observations by other posters was quite over the top, and not the least bit helpful to your cause.

Be that as it may, I have no interest in being critical of people for appealing to whatever God(s) they feel may help them to survive or give them joy in their lives - as long as such appeals are not for superiority over a rival in any conflict situation. (God does not take sides in our squabbles, and it is greatly detrimental on many levels for anyone to believe - or to pretend - otherwise.)

Rationalise or Reason as much as you like, but there are millions of people far worse off than you are in this world, and what you have to offer is not going to improve their lives one iota.

As for all the religion bashing (mostly aimed at Christianity) there has been many a long bow drawn on this thread. The only civilisation I am aware of that has not done its fair share of killing and/or persecuting was the Etruscan - and even they probably dabbled.

Humankind is a beast, and if a belief in "Hell" can cause people to stay on the straight and narrow then that is a good thing, as far as I am concerned. What do you offer? Be good, or else?

As for an infinity of "Virgins", the sooner that idea gets the boot the better for all concerned.

In the end result, all 'fundamentalism' is evil and a con. Live and let live, and be kind.

For Yabby, yes, birth control and family planning should be available to all, and your criticisms of Catholicism in this regard are well founded. As for euthanasia, I'm not that keen, but in dire cases I can see no fault in this being available as a well reasoned choice - as long as it is without coercion.

Saltpetre,

I really don’t have or need a bias in influencing me to bite when bitten. Turning the other cheek is not necessarily my style unless called upon for reasons to protect an aggressor not in full control of their senses. The cases in this thread do not call for that.

Saying I am over the top is an opinion and not a proof as is you stating I am harming the ‘cause’. What cause, would be my first question? Do you mean the common desire of atheists not to allow religious privilege to harm others or society? Calling that a cause demeans the intention, which is basically about equality, fairness and justice for all.

The religion bashing you speak of is not from me. Exposing the bad parts of religion, then yes, that is what the AFA is about in part.

I find it elitist and a dangerous notion that you would have people believe in a “hell” in an attempt to keep them on the “straight and narrow”. Apart from the lack of ethics in that, it does not work.

Humans don’t need supernatural threats and promises to be good. Being good for the sake of being good is all that is needed. The bad parts of religion depending on the “hell” concept are creating dysfunction in most societies. You agree with this in your comments to Bugsy.

Fundamentalism springs from mainstream religion. It is not a stand-alone part of religion. That religious people and some atheists deny this is very disappointing but excuses in religion for wrongdoing are par for the course. Pointing this out is not “bashing”.

You might be surprised to learn that many religious folk agree with the AFA’s position on many things, including Jefferson’s wall of separation between church and state.

David

David,

>You might be surprised to learn that many religious folk agree with the AFA’s position on many things<

I don't necessarily disagree with the AFA's position on 'many things' either, but I have to take you to task over some of your suppositions:

>The bad parts of religion depending on the “hell” concept are creating dysfunction in most societies.<

I suppose you have some proof for this bold statement?

You offer: Be good, for its own sake. You mean to say people don't use threats of limitation or removal of privileges when disciplining their children? Ever heard "that's a bitey", or "a burney" or "a no-no", so "Don't touch!" "Hell" is just a construct on a bigger scale. I would of course prefer if positive encouragement and motivation could do the trick, but it just doesn't work in all instances. 'Reasoning' with children (and even a swag of teens these days) has limitations - but "Hell" is for adult discipline, and should never be used to frighten children.

>Fundamentalism springs from mainstream religion. It is not a stand-alone part of religion. That religious people and some atheists deny this is very disappointing<

Try telling all moderate Australian Muslims they are just "latent" fundamentalists, and see how you get on. You might keep your hair, if you're lucky.

>but excuses in religion for wrongdoing are par for the course.<

Oh, no, so your intimated allusion to pedophilia by priests and lay Christians motivates you to suggest that normal ordinary 'good' Christians condone such behaviour? Another one of those very disappointing and totally outlandishly incorrect assertions we have become so used to seeing from those who will sling any rubbish without the least justification - just to bolster a mean and paltry failing argument. My response - Balderdash! (Let's please stick with the 'real' world, and not go raking up the Crusades, Witches and Jack and the Beanstalk.)

Atheism is a Western concept, and there is a place for it - amongst the Western intelligentsia. Don't want to believe in God, any God, good for you. Nuff said.

its sad that we need make threats
when christ called for love of other..as the way to give back to god

god..the inner good[sustaining all life]
emmanuel;..god with{in} us {all]...

but the morality..we seek..
is far from the christain call to charity to other
or by idol threat..or eternal dammnation in hell/limbo and the other man made threats

god has grace/is most mercyfull[see as you saw your saviour doing]
to see his 'doing' was to see that the father does give[even unto the least]..

so whats hell?
heaven is light
rejecting the love logic light/logus
only allows one other option[rejecting the LL.LL]
thus chosing the darkness of hell

CHOICE*..no good person can go to hell
no vile person can escape it

think of it like it really is
in heaven...minds are open for all to see
and of dark delusion..gets instant feedback..of their own sillyness

finds his/her own place[where like loves the same vile lives
DOING its vile[more {of the same}..shall be a given]

those loving murder..keep loving to do murder
but only upon other lovers of murder

ditto all the hurtfull/injurous..'sins'
pigs will CHOSE to lie with pigs[wheat must get sorted from the chaff]
the sheep have their hell[as do the goat]..yes athiest has its own hell as well

but think where else can you feel at home
BUT WITH OTHERS THE SAME AS YOU*

yet others chose hell[cause they can't forgive others sin upon them]
thus they bind their soul..to the one they blame..thus cause they didnt give grace..refuse to accept it..

its all about freewill
god KNOWS*..we all grow out of loving sin
from then its as simple as helping other..to see the light

and your off to the next hell or heaven
it depends how much bad..YOUR works did fruit into

and leading gods children from their gracefull living loving father
thats huge[but dont judge tare from wheat...[let their harvest decide]

dont judge others
we wil be forced to judge ourselves by the same unreasonable measure

i feel in the end atheoist fruit..may be sweeter than first thought
or fruits most bitter[but bitter herbs..is a rite of pass-age]

what will the next incarnation of the atheoist be
just no god..or a neo[new] path..[all paths lead to god]

god loves our passions
rejoices in our difference
sees both sides of everything

knows the true inner you*
was beside us[inside us]..knows whats in our heart[and lives only to help us get to that we love doing WITH PASSION*..[use his life gifts/in service of all life]..

just like dad does..for even those
loving the dark damp spaces/voids
swamps/forrests/chasums of hell

beware you become that you yearn to become
but in hell there are far better at being worse that we can even imagine

[yo there is better and more vile..than any of us could concieve]
but judge it not..for in judging it..you get bound into where it comes from and goes back to...l

hell is not threat
its a promise[and im looking forward to it]
the atheoist in me will seek out the david in thee.

Saltpetre,

Calling a statement “bold” is erroneous when common knowledge in following local and world events is backed up by a study by Gregory S Paul on the matter of dysfunction created by religion. The study is not necessary as common knowledge is very clear.

http://www.epjournal.net/wp-content/uploads/EP08617657.pdf

You may consider yourself a child in need of discipline but most adults in humanity don’t need this. Why you are confusing adults with children is beyond me. The fear of hell is instilled in vast numbers of children by religion and many retain that fear for life. Check the above posts by OUG for a taste.

Please read what I have said and stop putting your own spin on everything. I have not said that all Muslims are “latent” fundamentalists. I’ll repeat using different words. The pool that is mainstream religion is where fundamentalists come from. That is, without mainstream religion, fundamentalism would be so isolated as to not exist. Therefore, the conclusion to that is that mainstream religion must share some of the blame for their existence.

No, mistaken. Even though sexual abuse by priests is not being handled correctly, and most people agree with that, I wasn’t even thinking of that part of religion when stating, “…excuses in religion for wrongdoing are par for the course.”

It is wrong except in the eyes of religion to promote women as chattels, to deny same-sex oriented people equal rights, to deny voluntary euthanasia, to have access to taxpayer money for the promotion of religion, to be opposed to science etc. It is wrong for religion to influence politicians on these and other matters against the wishes of the electorate. Religious excuses do not make this right.

Atheism is only a ‘Western Intelligentsia’ concept? I am wasting my time with you.

David

david..i think this is the way to go
the root of creed

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=13841

put that into court
its about circumsizion being asult on a child
german courts just ruled on it[ok a local court]
but its insanity

what...god made a misstake?
that men need to chop it off causwe it looks pretty

the shock and awe
wakes a demon[thus this types love of war]
inability to forgive others/wanting to hurt others like they got hurt in their most sensative bit[heck the rite was netrayed with the slaughter of that innocent tribe cause one rapist wanted to marry his victim]

anyhow mate
pick at the foundations
get the creed...ask is jesus really god
then how weak a god that can die..its not god

god is love
god is all good
if its not good not all love..its not of god

jesus was man..he said see me do as i see my father do
love other/heal other/let others gain the karma of charity

attack the greed/creed
and they might return to informing us about the good[only good]

kill the root david
cheers brrr-other