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.