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.