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.