"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.