The Atheist Foundation of Australia Inc is to complain to the Tasmanian Anti-discrimination Commissioner following the refusal of Metro Tasmania, a State owned bus company, to display its advertisements.

President of the Foundation, David Nicholls said: “Following legal advice we have decided to lodge the complaint. It is unfortunate the AFA has to go down this path to achieve justice. However, there is no grudge involved here, just a simple matter of what is right.”

David Nicholls said atheists worldwide have an important message for humanity and one that is quite urgent. He said the denial of an opportunity to express that message on Public Transport had possibly resulted from unfounded concerns in executive decision making. Mr Nicholls said he expected a good outcome to the complaint and envisaged the slogan, “Atheism - Celebrate reason! Sleep in on Sunday mornings” to soon be on a bus near you.

Hobart lawyer James Crotty has been retained to advise on the complaint.

www.atheistfoundation.org.au

oh dear
you poor athiests
discriminated because you tried to discriminate thiests beliefs as being un-reaonable
of course you need lawyers
you got no case

please if your going to keep producing these puff pieces
put up some points that prove your athiesm,
at least try to make a point
put up some proof of your disbelief

law isnt proof
law judges facts
you got no facts

being refused seems be be your talking point
but athiesism is your belief
god is mine

lets debate who's be;lief has made who a better person
#
#because you got no real reason ,no fact ,only the ones you are trying yo push that your being disciminated against for not allowing your mess-age ,to call all believers 'unreasonable]

you do know the other athiest court case [about being allowed to point out error [gaps] in evolution was not tested by the gaps in this theory called a science[but ruled as a violation of the rules forbiding the teaching of religion in public schoold[evolution or creastionism wasnt'on trial' teaching about god in public schools was

and now its discrimination[when athiest would ban god all together [talk about descrima-tory]

the teachers didnt talk about god[only the gaps revealed in ya theory]

you guys 'seem to be' winning[yet still feel discriminated AGAINST?
LOL

Dear David,

Good Luck with your case.

It will be interesting to see whether
individual Australians are indeed free and
equal, and can enjoy basic freedoms -
such as belief, speech, or not to follow
a religion.

After all citizens are supposed to be equal
regardless of their beliefs.

Let's just wait and see whether this is in
fact the case...

Foxy,

Thanks for your support. I always appreciate your slant on the OLO forums. Unfortunately, all citizens are not equal, as this case demonstrates.

I thought ‘under one god’ stating that “you guys ‘seem to be’ winning” has missed the whole point. What is winning, if we have to use that language, is that with broad based education and decreasing amounts of religious indoctrination, children are ‘winning’ in that they mature into adults with the probability heightened of reaching their full and non-impeded potential in greater numbers than ever before in the history of humanity.

This can only be good for people and the planet.

David

It will be interesting to see the outcome David. I can't see how it wouldn't be supported under the current discrimination legislation but stranger things have happened.

Surely if all manner of religious banners are allowed then anyone else with a different viewpoint should be able to do likewise.

My guess would be the bus authority does not want to face the inevitable barrage of criticism from religious groups and there might be a perceived risk of legal action no matter how dubious the claims.

As much as I agree with the AFA'a position, I think the bus advert campaign is needlessly provocative and reeks of arrogance. People pursue religion out of fear, not reason. An aggressive advertising campaign will make even the agnostic worried that the AFA is out to rob them of their comforting beliefs. A subtler approach is needed.

Also, the AFA does itself no favours by engaging in arguments in forums like this one. Policy statements are one thing, but for the organisation to get involved in tit-for-tat s--tfights degrades its credibility.

quote>>The bus slogan campaign proposed by the AFA with the thought provoking sentiment,“Atheism-Celebrate reason!” has been refused for display by ‘APN Outdoors’. Various other phrases also deemed unacceptable.>>

funny how that'celiubrate reason ' implies theism is unreasonable
but you mention other'slogans'
what were they?

>>Following the lead of Humanist’s in London and Washington in the USA>>
AH so this is an international organised collusion to entrap
then sue ,local bus companies ,with international colusions and via foreign moneys to use law to ban religions

>>using buses to express the secular viewpoint.>>
Definitions of secular on the Web:

of or relating to the doctrine that rejects religion and religious considerations
worldly: characteristic of or devoted to the temporal world as opposed to the spiritual world;

"secular drama"; "secular architecture", "children being brought up in an entirely profane environment"
of or relating to clergy not bound by monastic vows; "the secular clergy"
;someone who is not a clergyman or a professional person
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

Secularity(adjective form secular)is the state of being separate from religion. For instance, eating and bathing may be regarded as examples of secular activities,because there is nothing inherently religious about them. ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular

not specifically religious; not bound by the vows of a monastic order; temporal; something that is worldly or otherwise

>>Richard Dawkins in supporting the London bus signs has stated that such a campaign“Will make people think”.>>a co con-spirit-or?

..President of the Atheist Foundation of Australia Inc,David Nicholls said:“I am flabbergasted...>>
who could have thunk it, being called unreasonable is deemed too risky to risk advertising
they should have let you
thus it would have been you lot that get sued[for thinking only your reasoning is reasonable]dont let lawyers think for you
dawkins is a fraud[he deletes debates he loses]

Am I the only one who can't understand a blind word of one under god's posts?

What does the >> >> surrounding the horrendous errors of grammar mean? Is it a quote? Is he emphasising a statement?

All I can get from it is that he thinks the AFA is trying to use litigation to ban religion.

I can only imagine this is what happens when schizophrenics get onto computers, rather than standing outside train stations screaming scripture at goth teenagers.

WEll if you win your case you will be taken to the discrimination body
because you advert does not allow for people to go to work instead
on Fridays !

Sancho and AFA
When you ridicule someone you disagree with, you are lower than that you’re trying to humiliate.

Sancho, you make a point the AFA are bulling and yet you then ridicule someone yourself. I don’t think a more subtle approach is needed but very different approach, as in a name change.

As a life long atheist I am deeply embarrassed and resentful that the word means something more than a lack of belief in an after life or a supernatural being. It has become a wagon for the abusive side of political correctness and god bashers. Remember there is no god to bash, I think your issues are more political/social than atheist.

I really wish you would find your own word more suited to your agenda. If anyone should be suing it is people like me who are being intensely misrepresented by you

As with spoilt little brats who won't take no for an answer I am sure the atheist will find some judge who will agree with them. Just wait until the secularist get their bill of wrongs and then we our laws will be as silly as Englands.

The only thing this whole sorry exercise proves to me, is that there is absolutely no benefit to be gained from presenting atheism as some kind of headline on a protest billboard.

If an association of atheists is to have any value at all, it should address real issues, such as the financial and political protectionism that flourishes under the mendacious umbrella of "religion".

Taking aim at the sheep themselves is pointless.

This whole saga is becoming more like a case study in how to shoot yourself in the foot.

As a lifelong atheist, the only thing I can do is dissociate myself from the ridiculous antics of a society that purports to represent me.

It doesn't.

Well that would be interesting :) David and his clan take legal action about discrimination... so.. they win and get their sign on the buses...

Then, my mob takes legal action in Victoria under the RRT for religious vilification, the implication that 'religious' people are unreasonale :)

and of course... it's not about a grudge or anything personal..it's just about what is 'RIGHT' :)

the campain has hit the abc; news radio [the lawyer suing a small bus company, will no doudt send them broke] but hey you got the publicity and it only cost some lawyer fees
#
[is this typical of athiest morality[pick on the little guy[knowing they will go broke defending themselves in court]just to get a'win',
just to make a point?

why not do a campain on a big player ?[like in sydney or melbourne?]
someone able to aford to play the 'game' ,why pick on a tiny player?in hobart,

what value of contract was offered ?[how much it going to cost this small transport company to fight this international conspiricy[have many donated to your 'fighting fund?, how much the lawyer cost you so far?HOW much you guys expect to rake in from this scam?

some of my best friends are athiest[but they play fair; picking only on those able to defend them selves?

anyhow it is heartening that many claiming athiesm ,yet,do see this attack on the little guy is unfair, regardless of the morality that discriminates on the basis of a persons [dis]belief

see how even in your first post to the topic[quoted in a previous post] you didnt explain the whole message ,

it finishes from memory ,with something like 'sleep in on sundays' [now many honour god on saterday ?

[so how come you didnt pick on them ?[can THEY claim discrimination too?[from your selectively [targetted] publicity piece]

wonder if those who paid for this,will be held as co conspiring to bring down this company'just trying to deliver their service' [why am i thinking yanki [brit?]go home] stir up trouble in your own back yard[you live in tassie i presume?]

Good People,

Isn’t it amazing how one little advertisement with the sentiment, “Atheism - Celebrate reason!”, can invoke such rancour from some of the religious and the non-religious alike.

I wonder what wording the AFA should have on advertisements or should we be disallowed from advertising altogether. Should we be quiet and keep out of sight and say nothing about anything.

And if this is so, why is it so?

Now, I am not asking for iffy generalisations, but I really do want some concrete rationale supporting any of your answers to these questions. You never know, but the AFA may take notice and follow advice, if it is sound, irrefutable and has a basis in reason.

David

AFA Inc

Your lot still don't get it do you?
There is such a thing as bad publicity. Spiting in the eye of the public doesn’t bring them on side it incenses them. Do you really think if the ads go ahead your organization will get anything but hostility?
You really do need to get someone on board with a greater understanding of marketing and persuasion.

You don’t seem to understand that there is a difference between pseudo science being taught in school and people are entitled to be deluded if they want.
Dawkins and AFA Inc don’t seem to understand that their rights to scientifically pontificate end with secularization of education. It’s called tolerance of the individual.

Likewise neither can you take over the emotional/pastoral care of their children.
Your approach seems to be simply put “We’re right, we’re rational and your not”.
That is arrogance plain and simple. We condemn missionaries who ‘convert’ indigenous peoples to their life view. Perhaps you can explain logically the difference. Even good scientists acknowledge we still don’t know all the answers.

Meredith is right Extreme atheists have given the term a pejorative edge.

BTW I don’t believe in a supernatural god either and I support keeping religion out of where it doesn’t belong, government/education. But don’t call me an atheist I accept other’s rights to believe what ever gets them up in the morning.

PS when non believer take umbridge at your stance...perhaps it's time for reevaluation.

examinator,

Perhaps you did not read my last post, especially this paragraph:

“Now, I am not asking for iffy generalisations, but I really do want some concrete rationale supporting any of your answers to these questions. You never know, but the AFA may take notice and follow advice, if it is sound, irrefutable and has a basis in reason.”

David

'We condemn missionaries who ‘convert’ indigenous peoples to their life view.'

Yea lets leave them so uncles can have 11 year old girls and boys for sexual pleasure while treating older women like crap. Or better still give them grog so they can self destruct. Don't include me in the we. The most helpful people to the indigenous have been those who have brought them education. hygiene, medicine and the gospel message. Many of these people have been sacrificial humble servants unlike those who pick and choose parts of history in order to validate their warped views.

David is misusing the word atheist.

As an atheist I want any political/social/religious agenda kept away from my definition… Atheism is not a vehicle for this area of belief… it’s simply disbelief in god, supernatural and afterlife.

It’s not against/pro anything. It has no political/social/religious position. This misuse of the word for these positions assumes that actual atheists are in agreement with David’s views or, again, that atheism has a political/social/religious view. It doesn’t. Not even secularism is an atheist issue it is a religious and political concern for both atheist and theist alike.

Once again, this group needs to find a new name without *atheist* in it. Something like “People against Religion/God”, “Religion/God Free”.

meridith,

The word theism with the ‘a’ as a prefix, shows an opposite, opposition, against stance to theism. There could be no better word. The Atheists whom I meet are very happy with this ‘label’ as it expressly shows the philosophy held by them.

If one so denotes themselves as an Atheist then one automatically is against the excesses of religion. There is a world full of Atheists doing this and the AFA bus campaign is an expression of the desire of Atheists to stand up and be counted. No one is asking you to stand up, it is voluntary.

The mountain of mail we received in support about the rejection of our slogan, some from religious folk, places Atheists with some complaint or other with it, in a distinct and small minority. This is also the response on a world wide scale.

You can ‘hope’ we all get along and do nothing, but the AFA represents those who recognise the problems with religion and have put themselves out to do something about it.

David

David,

Best of luck with your case. [Technically, we should sleep in on Saturday. cite Dead Sea Scrolls]

Hope you win!

One under god,

Would you have objected if it was the fish synbol which was banned? Strange to you, I guess so would I. The churches and atheists live in a free society, with I would have thought avenues to free expression.

[Incidently, the fish symbol comes from the Baptism of Jewish sympathic Gentiles. Being a low grade of quasi-Jew,
these Gentiles were too unclean to be Baptised in fresh water as were orthodox Jews. Also, the cross symbol is something of a misnomer, to the extent that there is no way Jesus could have carried it, assembled: It would have weighed as much as two men. He would have carried the cross beam to the an already planted up-right pole.

You are wrong. You're vilifying atheists and they're asking you to stop As suggested a fitting name, is no skin of your nose.

1-David: “The word theism with the ‘a’ as a prefix, shows an opposite, opposition, against stance to theism.”

The Oxford Dictionary disagrees:
http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/atheism?view=uk
http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/theism?view=uk

2-David: “The Atheists whom I meet are very happy with this ‘label’ as it expressly shows the philosophy held by them.”

Not true, you met a few in this forum and they are deeply offended.

3-David: “ If one so denotes themselves as an Atheist then one automatically is against the excesses of religion.”

That is false, read the dictionary. It means disbelief in god.

4-David: “The mountain of mail we received in support about the rejection of our slogan…”

This is exaggeration. You’re receiving alot of unsupportive mail/responses here, from both theists and atheists.

5-David: “ the AFA represents those who recognise the problems with religion and have put themselves out to do something about it.”

They do, but that is not atheism.

6-David: “ examinator,
Perhaps you did not read my last post, especially this paragraph:
“Now, I am not asking for iffy generalisations, but I really do want some concrete rationale supporting any of your answers to these questions. You never know, but the AFA may take notice and follow advice, if it is sound, irrefutable and has a basis in reason.””

Perhaps you didn’t mean your last paragraph… You’re obviously not open to concrete rational (oxford dictionary definitions) advice (decent and fitting names) as you suggested, In fact seeing as this is your second post on your bus problem, I suggest you’re possibly after publicity for your court case.

Your assumptions all atheists believe as you do, even when we tell you we don’t are doing you or your cause no favours. As suggested already, if you’re receiving complaint from atheists you have a problem that needs addressing.

Are you now going to debate us on the meaning of “may take notice and follow advice” ? I bet you are. :)

I'm in two minds about this issue.

On the one hand, as another lifelong atheist I'm unenthusiastic about elaborating it as an ideology. I quite liked the bus slogans when David first raised them, and those that were rejected seemed nicely ideology-free, but they are apparently controversial enough to not only be denied public expression, but also attract quite passionate disapproval from our religionists/theists.

Which leads me to the other hand - which is the issue of freedom of speech. On what possible grounds can the innocuous slogans proposed by AFA be deemed unsuitable for public expression, albeit in the form of paid advertising? By what standards were they rejected? Would they be okay on a billboard?

I'm not a particularly militant atheist, but I think that AFA may have uncovered a freedom of speech issue with respect to religion that most of us didn't know existed. How insidious that they're not allowed to state their ideas, presumably on the basis that they might offend religious sensitivities.

Which is of course a good argument for the AFA to keep it up :)

hey oliver
i have no love [nor hate] for symbols

be it cross or fish or star they to me are just drawings [trade marks , like niki's tick]a visual sign that has whatyever meaning people wish them to have

to me they are all 'graven' images[ive even graved a few myself]

i debated the sat/sunday thing as well
TEQniclly the 'day' begins with the dark

going by 'let there be light' ,the first 'day' was preceeded by the 'first' night
then with the 2 de dark]he 2 de day began

[so for me sabbath begins on sat[night] till sun'day'
then sun night monday begins

im sorry about not re acting
and also sorry for putting this religious dicource before so many athiest

[i respect your right to believe as you chose ,i just cant respect a big group of people colluding to bring down a community bus service that serves everyone [regardless of our beliefs]

especially not to just get recruits
[or fame [or make some point, or get media attention, or insult others
for things they chose to believe ,or their right to believe whatever ,they freely chose to believe in [for me gods biggest upset is to take away any belief [as some have so little],

no one has the right to insult anyone regardless of wether we believe they been decieved or not
[be it in signs or slogans or symbols]

cheers to the lot of ya ,its good to see we seem to believe in common courtesy ,that by respecting others we respect ourselves[that we do to the least we do to him]

THE PROBLEM David and the AFA faces is this....they are seeking to use someone ELSE's space for their campaign.

A bus company has it's reputation to uphold..and I don't see why they cannot disciminate against ANYone who's slogans/Ads they don't like..including the likes of Benny Hinz "Miracle Crusade" would be on my 'don't show it' list bigtime.

But the "Atheism-Celebrate Reason" one is a total insult to all people of faith. That's a clear as the broad side of a barn.

This is probably what the bus company realizes and is sensitive to.

So... KEEP IT UP :).. I can't think of anything better for our own cause than such a slogan on a bus..or a billboard.

David,

Why an atheist symbol? A fish with a dash through it?

As you might recall my beliefs are probably very close to yours'. I tend to avoid the word "atheist" formyself as, to me, philsophically it could be said to suggest infallibility, if God "cannot" exist. I would hold based on all scientific and historical evidence known to humanit God doesn't exist as a tentative proposition requiring ongoing testing. (I keep testing the theists keep failing.)

Dear OUG,

I have moved house internationally and returned to Australian so I have some books still in boxes. That said, I think the Dead Sea Scrools said that Jewish & Jewish style believers wound down their activities Friday evening before the full-day sabbath on the Saturday.

Symbolism is a difficult issue. I would like to see the Union Jack removed from the Aussie flag. But I do not hold the belief so strongly that I would lobby for its departure, given that many ex-military peole believe it should be there. The stange thing is that in the case of WWI, at the least, soldiers/armt fought under the red ensign, not the blue. Concurrently, it dies phase me that many are people are historical incorrect on the issue. Samw goes for religions and non-religious, except where it rubs against separation of Church and State.

There are several chronoligical errors in the Christian Bible because today we date backwards to the period, where, instead one should count the years forward using a Jewish calendar (there were at least four) four. Those having the solar advancing via Enoch have the Jewish Solar Year 4,000 around 60 CE. AD is incorrect, as Jesus was born earlier. Theiring suggests March 7 BCE. This revised date would have Jesus born in the reign of Herod the Great.

-Cont-

A personal obseration is that if Jesus, being born and crucified in March: He was born 6.75 years BCE and was crucified 33.25 CE. Forty years elasped. Forty years represents a (heaven's) generation on Earth according to OT religious dating and the number forty is significant in both OT and NT chrological epic dating: i.e., forty years & forty days. Forty years from birth would have been significant to die or feign a real death (to have a symbolic death.).

Jesus wasn't born in December. It was likely March, 7 BCE. Circa 51 CE the date 1 January was adopted, when Christianity took over Jewish priest-king roles from the Annas, and later adjusted to fit with the December solstice. Also, in line with the Pagani.

There is significant symbolism in the Bible itself, especially Revelations which an account of first century proto-Christianity. Under the surface of a Pesher, it appears there is an account of the Essene, Christian and Zealot history against the competing Herods and Annas dynasties under Roman domination.

Poly,

Would you have objected to Christian graffetti used in Roman times? Recall, the Christians were Atheists to the pantheistic pagani.

Would the symbolism of Jesus saying words to the effect, "the Sabbath is made for Man, not Man for the Sabboth", been an an affort to Pharisees? Deeping questioning the reasoning of their genuine core beliefs?

Regards,

O

A pair of pastors got in strife for doing something similar to Islam that the atheist foundation are doing to religion within a Christian Church. Ironically the bus company might have feared legal action. Just a thought.

I mean the pastors did it within their Church. The atheist foundation are obviously trying to do it on the side of a bus.

With the greatest respect, Mr Nicholls (and as you well know, that is code for "no respect at all") your track record is not particularly scintillating when it comes to listening.

>>You never know, but the AFA may take notice and follow advice, if it is sound, irrefutable and has a basis in reason<<

A somewhat remote possibility, I suspect.

From the start of this particular campaign, you have adopted but one stance, typified by your initial response.

>>The armchair reaction to the intended bus slogans is understandable, expected and frankly, dismissed as irrelevant<<

You are performing the same hands-over-the-ears trick here.

The conclusion I am rapidly forced towards is that this whole issue has been reduced to an opportunity for your personal self-aggrandizement.

I am sure that there are as many militant atheists as there are militant religionists out there, so you are guaranteed at least a baseline of membership for your society. However, I can assure you that you do not speak for me when you undertake such puerile publicity stunts as this.

By the way, has anyone ever told you that you come across as an arrogant, intolerant curmudgeon who cannot accept that he is ever wrong, about anything?

No?

Not to worry, I expect someone soon will.

AFA Inc.
The issue of freedom of speech is a given.
What you don’t seem to understand is that you are dealing with people not automatons. You demonstratively harm your cause through your lack of ‘understanding’ your market specifically how your message is perceived.

Your willingness to indulge in ad hominem attacks is indicative of what I call the zealot’s perspective. You want specifics?
• In this posing alone you’ve shown a decided lack of consideration for one poster. Consider asking for clarification.
• You have implied that my post was ‘iffy generalizations’.

From a scientific perspective you DON’T know what might be discovered tomorrow that will set science on its ear? Even Newtonian science fails under certain contexts. The only truthful qualification that can be made is that ‘current science understanding contains those principals that best fit the circumstances AS WE UDERSTAND THEM.’ Beyond that your assertions are overstated and borderline arrogance.
Therefore your ‘it must be sound, irrefutable’ statement is a condition that can’t be met with absolutism.
To expand on my opening paragraph your view scoffs at people’s need for emotional attachments to the comfort of dogma yet your views are every bit as dogmatic instead of a supernatural God(s) your God is your version of logic.

Your modus operandi seems to be based on a observable fallacy that all you need to do is tell people of their flaws. Frankly that is arrant nonsense, all philosophies that ignore (your own) reality that we are biological entities with drives and emotions more suited for caveman existence have and will continue to fail.

BTW I still object to religion being taught as science.
On a personal note I think that you have/had no intention of discussing anything rather your intention, as always, is/was to use ‘freedom of speech’ as a stalking horse to vent your dogma in order to gain converts.
This is clearly indicated by the manner in which your topics are phrased and the inclusion of AFA Inc.

Polycarp

^But the "Atheism-Celebrate Reason" one is a total insult to all people of faith. That's a clear as the broad side of a barn.^

Yes it is.
Wish I had thought of it.
I will now use it a every opportunity.

So many wimpy atheists on this thread.
Religion has held back scientific and medical developments by 1000 years.
Now they want the medical benefits AND to overpopulate the world.
Now that religion is in decline,on it's knees,(they do that don't they?)it should be kicked until it ends.
If it made sense then GOD would save it.
Where is he ?

meredith,

“Vilifying Atheists”? What unadulterated nonsense!

Yes, in the literal sense, you are correct that the ‘a’ in Atheism means ‘without’. I firstly stated “opposite” as it is ostensibly the same thing. But, if you accept, there is no god(s) and you see that belief in god(s) is damaging to peoples lives you should also be “against” or in “opposition” to those damaging aspects of religion. Maybe you are not.

The definition referred to says: “Atheism - The belief that a god does not exist”. I do not have a ‘belief’ that a god does not exist. I have a ‘belief’ that the sun will be on the Eastern horizon tomorrow morning as there are historical precedents. I do not have beliefs in god(s) as there are no precedents. I accept that gods do not exist because of that. The same as you possibly. Therefore, be wary of definitions for Atheism emanating from religious cultures.

A few various opinions from Atheists on the OLO forum is not representative of an Atheist consensus.

You can keep your Atheism hidden and a private matter and you are welcome to do that. I have to wonder though, why you are so opposed to others with a view that says; we must react to the religious interference in local and international politics and the minds of immature children. Are you the arbiter of what is acceptable for Atheists to do or not do? Why is that so?

I could say to you the opposite and suggest either you do not know the harm created by religions or you do not care as long as you are OK. I wonder if you have read any of the popular anti-religious books of late. If you have, why is there an apparent reluctance to accept the conclusions and attempt to do something about it?

But you will notice I have not said any of that. I disagree with your point of view and think you should be more responsive but I do not make a big deal about it as do you. Why is that so?

David

david QUOTE>>I wonder if you have read any of the popular anti-religious books<<

think of the absurdity here

we have books about something the readers admit to believing dosnt egsist?[how we know its not JUST about us buying books?]

funny
thiest's buy books seeking to know 'if' something egsists

>>the‘a’in Atheism means‘without’.I firstly stated “opposite” as it is ostensibly the same thing.>>

bro the oppisite to without is with

your just being oppisite to wannabe becomming the next dorkins?

>>Are you the arbiter of what is acceptable for Atheists to do or not do?>>

ARE YOU?
hey why dont you form an arbitor group for us?[lol]

as far as i can see athiests dont need an arbitor[nor feel any need for a mediator between god or men]WHY is that so?THEY believe as THEY choose for themselves[not /wanting/needing figure heads to be telling them what to do.]

god has great respect for many athiests[and great disdain for many calling themselves believers

[its not what they do[but their motivation[reason]by which it was done,[being xtian[or athiest]and abusing others is yet loving the abuse MORE than helping our others]
#
UNDIDLY>>If it made sense then GOD would save it.
Where is he ?<<

bro think of god as the ultimate TRUSTING father
he is letting us do as we chose[to love'good' or to love doing'evil']

he dont judge us [he trust us,even if one of'us'[any of us]dies,god knows our spirit cant die[because jesus died and was born again[to prove we all do]

the thing is he aint no santa[satan]clause
god DONT care if we been good or bad

his rule is more will be given

so IF you'love'murder you get to go to one of the fathers'many rooms'ie the one where the murderors murder each other only [24/7]

EACH 'love' has its own room

David,

How dare you call Meredith’s logical conclusions from her argument unadulterated nonsense when you have used a similar argument in previous threads. You have accused theists of doing damage and they have accused atheists of doing larger damage. You have conveniently taken Meredith’s approach to disown those atheist fundamentalists. You can’t have it both ways.

Your bus slogans with the underlying assumption that other atheists share your belief system (and perhaps even the existence of your organization) are all very convenient for theists such as I and I wasn’t in a hurry to raise the issue. However in honesty I can’t be silent on the issue when you make such disparaging remarks about the logical conclusion from something you have argued yourself.

Meredith (and Pericles) would hold that a fundamentalist like yourself is doing what you do for something other than atheism. More importantly they believe that there is no such thing as an atheist philosophy. Meredith consistently argues the issue by considering that any political/social/religious agenda should be kept away from the definition of atheism.

The a in atheism means without. In a definitional sense it doesn’t have to mean opposition to anything. It could simply be an absence of belief in God without any beliefs about religion. Contrary to Meredith and Pericles I don’t believe such purity is possible in context but that is another story.

By all means be an atheist fundamentalist but don’t claim to fit Meredith’s definition in one thread when it is convenient and then call the resulting conclusion nonsense when that is convenient.

Given previous discussions I’ve had with Pericles I can understand why he is getting peeved. He doesn’t believe there is such a thing as an Atheist consensus other than a belief that God doesn’t exist (he’d argue a pure absence of belief rather than the way I expressed it).

As expected.

>>A few various opinions from Atheists on the OLO forum is not representative of an Atheist consensus<<

What exactly is an "Atheist consensus", David?

>>You can keep your Atheism hidden and a private matter and you are welcome to do that.<<

Straw man warning!

By definition, no-one here is hiding their atheist proclivities, so this can only be a set-up...

>>I have to wonder though, why you are so opposed to others with a view that says; we must react to the religious interference in local and international politics and the minds of immature children.<<

Yup, there it is.

The topic is advertisements on buses, Mr Nicholls. Please explain how you connect the dots of a trite - albeit mobile - slogan with "religious interference in local and international politics and the minds of immature children"

>>Are you the arbiter of what is acceptable for Atheists to do or not do? Why is that so?<<

Nope.

Are you?

Who says?

Forgive me for pointing out the bleedin' obvious, but there is only one person around here who appears to have set themselves up as "arbiter of what is acceptable for Atheists to do or not do".

Perhaps you should consider changing your Association's title to "Militant Atheists of Australia". It would certainly seem more in keeping with your level of belligerence, and lack of tolerance of dissenting views.

At what point are sensible yet brainwashed people going to give the conflicting religions the credit they deserve? They should be vredited as a great idea in times gone past, but a maturing society will only be limited by the restrictions created by religion. The various religions began as a way for the few to control the many, using an ideology based on fear of the unknown? The human race has now grown out of its infancy. All of the so called facts of the various bibles and dogmas were once not able to be disproved. This has changed with the advance of science. There is not one shred of proof that the stories in these ancient publications have any basis of fact. So many issues present a case for the abolition of religion, including Paedophile priests, the unequal distribution of wealth from the catholic church and all of the religious unrest throughout the world (think the Middle East, France, Africa, 9/11, Mumbai, bible belt USA etc). Isn't it about time the human race grew up and started to take responsibility for it's own actions instead of hiding behind the crumbling facade of religion?

Allow me to clear up a few points:

The intended advertising on buses is an international campaign to, as Richard Dawkins says, “Make people think”. . (This appears to be working – in some cases) The aim in a nutshell, is to demonstrate to civilisation that it is OK to reject the idea that a god exists and in doing so, you are not alone.

This is not a membership drive as the AFA is not a religion or political party; it is an education/philosophical organisation with an already strong membership, the largest of its type in the Southern hemisphere. People who join the AFA empathise with our aims and join as a free-will choice.

All persons in the AFA are none-paid volunteers. Those that know me and observant others do not consider I am on a personal ego-trip. To be frank, when someone else wishes to be president of the AFA, I will gladly hand it over to her or him. It is not an easy job but it is a task in need of doing.

Let us assume that a religious organisation (Or a pony club etc) approached the bus companies to place an advert on their vehicles. The message: “Celebrate reason!” (Most mainstream religious persons and those in pony clubs consider they are reasonable)

What would the reaction be and why is it different to an Atheist organisation stating this message.

‘Militancy’ or ‘fundamentalists’ and Atheism are oxymoron’s resulting from religious propaganda unbefitting of Atheist usage.

mjpb,

I do wish you would read my words. I was commenting on merediths phrase that I was “Vilifying Atheists”, not everything said.

Pericles,

Who is in a better position to understand the consensus of Atheists about the bus slogan, Meredith or I?

“Hiding”, meaning inactive and compliant with religious absurdity.

I think you should point out the reasons for the continuous vitriol and ad hominem comment in your posts. I would like some solid stuff here, not just weak-arsed interpretation of my words that you consider are so off the planet you need to act like a schoolyard bully.

David

david>>The intended advertising on buses is an international campaign to, as Richard Dawkins says,“Make people think”.>>

david to think about what?

how do you not think about god
when people possably wernt till your advert made them

it somehow seems a double negative

dont think about god
still makes one think about god[but your standard is he dont egsist]

so your message is think about something you think dont egsist[lol] bro what medication are you on?

>>Let us assume that a religious organisation(Or a pony club etc) approached the bus companies to place an advert<<

they would say have you thought of god today

or RE{this pony club had an addvert]
puting down drivers of cars

,ie like
''if your not riding a horse ,you.... a stinking car''

bro the point is you dont have concensus to upset others,with in the face advertising
[advising]people to think about a thing
they arnt thinking about till you made em.

adverts make us remember[how do we remember to forget?]

>>Who is in a better position to understand the consensus of Atheists about the bus slogan,Meredith or I?>>

bro what concenus?
we agree about what?

wether you[or meredith]have this consensus?
[please when will you re-define your meaning of concensus?]

>>Hiding”,meaning inactive and compliant with religious absurdity.>>

see your doing it all the time

now we are redefining'hiding'[lol]
it now means being inactive?

[IE doing nothing re a NON-egsistant god?]

and compliant?[one who does as you decree?]

tell me what does'unbefiting',mean[by your re definitions]
does it tie in to the god theory somehow?

im playing devils advocate
[meaning i know [believe to know]
god is real so thats what devils advocate means[right]?

are you patenting these new word definitions?

[who knows you may be exposing a new religion[that excludes god but got all the dogma and saint's][god knows you allready got the visions [read vidio] and the holy scriptures [all the writing deneying god]

[proving a negative]?

try to remain positive bro
they might crucuify you[you never know
[crucify means 'save'

[two can play the redefinition game

AFA Inc.
David,
You should retire gracefully you are not going to win on your current stance it is nit picking defensive and becoming even more shrill.

You are simply out of your depth and digging in deeper. You left logic behind some time back. I repeat being an athiest doesn't mean you have to be intollerant of peoples needs.
There is a decided difference between public policy and private rights. The problem with some religious fanatics is that they too have difficulty with the differentiation

one under god & examinator,

With all due respect, but if you cannot keep up with the debate it may be better if you refrain from making comment that is irrelevant, puerile and non consequential. You will not gain a detailed response with postings of this kind.

The discussion here is about whether discrimination is involved in Atheists placing slogans on buses.

It is not as simple as winning or losing the debate as what is at stake; that being, freedom of expression.

I genuinely ask you to read carefully the content of the posts presented, respond to the points made, and not follow predetermined ideas you may hold, no matter how fervently you may hold them.

Without this method, the discussion does no lead to a conclusion, only to confusion. You may feel you are making smart comment, but let me assure you, it is far from that.

It may be better if you stick to topics on which you have some knowledge and not deviate into areas where you are obviously floundering.

You need not take this advice as it is only a suggestion.

All the best,

David

Ok, seems we are, (including David) in agreement now that the Oxford Dictionary gives the correct definition. So fighting religion(atheist or not) is unconnected to atheism.

You are some kind of anti religion lobby group, you're not a representation of atheists. You actully do need a new name.

Have you considered a lot of atheists simply grow up free of religion and their atheist POV isn’t resentment or rebellion to god or the church. I’ve little problem with most religions, and when I do protest one it isn’t because I’m atheist, it will be policy or social effect. It's vital for you to remember theists protest religion too.

Can you comprehend what a mistake your blanket assumptions are. Ex: my neighbour is actually a well versed gay/queer activist, a believer in god and deeply opposed to the church over gay issues.

Your website dictates, (according to the Oxford Dictionary incorrectly), what *us* atheists think of abortion, euthanasia the USA and war… David is utterly wrong to assume authority on these issues on behalf of any group of people. It is outrageous.

Your cartoon view of atheists is deeply irresponsible and selfish.

Mjpb, Thanks for clarifying so clearly, I appreciated that. It’s interesting, I think we have theists, atheists, left and right wing here… all rightly annoyed at this and for pretty varied reasons too.

The bus conversation/publicity lost the main conversation posts ago… The string is now mainly discussing your misuse of the atheist umbrella. Examinator and UOG are well up in the conversation…. You don’t own the conversation just because you started it, just as you don’t own atheism cuz you have a website on it.

A simple question someone may be able to answer - does Metro Tasmania run any religious advertising on their buses?

If the answer is no then any claims of discrimination are a nasty smear, if the answer is yes then as a state owned entity they deserve whatever they get for refusing the ad's regardless of how little I like the idea.

Personally I've found what I've seen of the Athiest Foundations about as representative of my views as the average thiest finds the views of fundies who set themeselves up as the voice of their faith. They appear to represent an extreme that those who care for the kind of world we live in should reject. The impression given on OLO is of being part of the problem rather than the solution.

Pericles, Meredith, examinator, mjpb well said.

R0bert

One under God displays his ignorance. Atheism isn't a belief mate. Its knowledge, unlike your "faith" or "beliefs", both words that say directly "I have doubts".

And yes, more and more people are seeing through the insanity of folowing beliefs suited to ancient mankind and irrelevant today. As well as being untrue of course.

Your mention of "winning" says it all really you foolish man. It's not a contest. It's a matter of proof, evidence and considering alternatives to an invisible, never seen deity who never reacts to all those prayers, allows all the violence in the world and does nothing while those of "faith" create more of that violence than any other cause.

If that stuff is "winning" then you've been "winning" far too long.

Time for reality to set in and realise we don't need some Big Daddy to look after us and tell us what to think. Get a grip buddy or back in the trenches for your imagined war. The rest of us just get on with life.

Interesting those people who claim atheism and defend the stupidity of the believers. Yes it's their right to believe what they want but if they choose to rant in a public forum they get the deserved responses.

As to advertising. Why the horror and shame Pericles? Religions do it all the time. Do you complain loud and long about that? Let's hear you do that now please.

As to Meredith. What a pompous, ignorant attitude you have. There is no rule book for how to be an atheist. The only shared issue is we know there is no God. Don't you get one of the key problems with religion? Conformity through others words. Exactly what you want to impose. Shame on you.

Otherwise people can behave as they see fit. Not how you see fit. Your attitude is the embarrassment dear. Sounds like you've read "atheism for Dummies" to me.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with trying to humiliate someone who writes total rubbish and throws in lies and worse. What would you suggest? Say nothing and let them think that's a good thing to do? You'd crack very quickly if those of us willing to be aggressive against those fools did nothing but smile and say "ignorance is wonderful but I won't say anything cos I'm smugly ignorant".

Such attitudes from atheists indeed. Aren't you people sick of labels demanding some sort of behaviour that you have in your head? You may know God doesn't exist but you apparently know nothing about people. Sad.

pegasus>>Atheism isn't a belief mate.Its knowledge,unlike your"faith"or"beliefs",both-words that-say directly"I have doubts".>>

ok so doudts are these FACTS
infured in your use of;knowledge'?what facts exsactly underpin your knowing oh pegasus?

what facts egsist to disproove something dosnt egsist[by your measure],any'fact'or'knowledge'based on what is not known is hardly knowledge[more like its oppisite ignore-ance]

we read a holy script to know the unkown[we preserved any god like'miracle'unusual occurance,that meet that unusuality
to suggest gods hand[your facts can only be factual;based on testing'their'reports,REBUTTINg the reported event,[to prove a negative dont egsist bro it wont be'knowledge']

cause they had the wrong concept[they saw a'god'inflamed lunitic that slaughtered at whim[sought a blood seeking'god'who somehow get satif-faction from suffering[or judging his creation[thats more wrong than athiesm,to missjudge the god who gave all of us to live

[to think the life GIVER,enjoys the TAKING of life is worse than athism[simply not believing in this wrong-headed image of god,is not the same as believing religion does much wrong in his name.

seems there are at least two camps[under the one name]we have those who deney ANY god egsists,and those who feel by looking at gods fruit[religion]that an allpowerfull god[MUST]condone what they do in his name,thus he cant egsist because he lets it go on [thus either reject this tyranical god[or the abuses done by some in his name]

rightfully you do say there is no rule book[as such]for many called athiest[but many follow satans bible all the same[just as religion has its pretenders[vile in sheeps clothing][so does athiest have its demons[leading the debate into a formal structure,so as to be able to speak for others]the followers[the sheep ]they shear and preach their holy scriptures TO[and visions[read vidio]

i hate ALL preachers

thus i debate,that the athiest rule book can ever egsist[for PURE Athiests]then you got the;'other'athiest-types[following their godlessness deliberatly]deliberatly drawing others FROM knowing the living loving god who sustains ALL LIFE their lives to live[as they[we]chose]

who dont judge men by man nor godly measure,who loves everyone[who gave even the most decieving of the athiest their lives to live too!]
cheers

even the in your face smuggly provocative

meredith,

No, the Oxford dictionary doesn’t supply a correct definition of Atheism. And no, I did not agree that it did. Please refrain from misrepresenting me.

If you cannot escape into the present age, where Atheism is against the bad aspects of religion, that is your choice. More and more Atheists consider it a bad choice.

It is not that unusual nowadays for Atheists to be raised in a religion free zone Many of those Atheists suddenly find their lives interfered with by religion and we then are their first port of call. Not reacting unless driven by a personal experience, making one have to think, is a human hallmark.

Atheist organisations exist throughout the world and are extremely comfortable having the name Atheist as their banner and to be opposed to the excess of religion at the same time. These organisations speak for their members and for what can be gathered as the opinion of the majority of Atheists in any given country. Of course, there will be Atheists who disagree with AFA policy but we have evolved over 40 years to be inclusive of most.

You may be opposed to some of the issues on the AFA web site but we have found that to be a minority affair. I’m reasonably sure you would not be in opposition to most of the content. If you are, then you would not join us but pick an organisation closer to your views. Which Atheist orientated one are you in?

I assume you are saying, and I think you have gotten yourself into a self-made trap and have to keep going, that Atheist organisations should not exist. Who then is going to represent people adversely affected by religion? Who is going to lobby governments when religion tries to impose its dogmatic will? Who is going to help stop civilisation sliding back into the dark ages?

No, meridith, the Atheist Foundation of Australia Inc will retain its name and will continue to fight on your behalf even if you do not want us to and on behalf of others that do.

David

Seems to me the atheist are more divided than the Christian church. Thank you Meredith for your honesty. Your views are a lot more reasoned than the fundamentalist dogmas of David.

runner,

Fundamentalism is “The interpretation of every word in the sacred texts as literal truth” (Word Web) Even you should be able to recognise that using the fundamentalist word in reference to Atheism is only an attempt to justify your own intransigent views.

You have however, pointed out one of the strong and good points about Atheism. As Madalyn Murray O’Hair stated, “Organising Atheists is like herding cats.”

This point of view was recently supported by an Atheist suggesting the bus slogan should read, “Atheists are free-thinkers. So we couldn't agree on a slogan” Both humorous and partly true.

Far from this being a bad point about Atheism, it is its strength and a safeguard for democracy. Atheists make up their own minds and vote accordingly, unlike religious folk in many instances, who just follow the leaders of their religion. When autonomous thinking process is not employed, it is very dangerous for democracy. Democracy means free choice, the opposite being tyranny where no choice is allowed.

Of course, when Atheists make a choice, even with their differences of opinion, they are very unlikely to vote for some proposition that forces others to follow that choice.

Examples such as some Atheists are opposed to abortion but they would never consider taking away the right of a female to have one. Or some Atheists are opposed to voluntary euthanasia but they are hardly likely to vote to stop others from making that decision if necessary. Or some Atheists may be uncomfortable with same-sex-orientation but would not vote in a way to produce discrimination on those grounds.

Now this is not all Atheists as some have just as hardline views as many religious folk. But I can confidently state that most Atheist do not vote to impinge on the rights of others.

I hope I have cleared this up for you and you now have a better understanding of why Atheism is important in protecting the rights of citizens, even yours, runner.

On the other hand, when religion has political power it tramples on the rights of those who disagree with it.

David

david>>Now this is not all Atheists as some have just as hardline views as many religious folk.But I can confidently state that most Atheist do not vote to impinge on the rights of others.

I hope I have cleared this up for you and you now have a better understanding of why Atheism is important in protecting the rights of citizens>>

ALL citizens bro?

or just those who dont believe in god?
your fun-demon-talism,was triald in soviet-union

it failed there too.

im not happy with your definition,from
http://web.archive.org/web/20060615010407/religiousmovements.lib.virginia.edu/nrms/fund.html

Defining Fundamentalism:Given the many disparate uses of the concept, it is not surprising that fundamentalism has not been easy to define. Several recent works are helpful in developing a conceptual understanding of the phenomenon...

..Origin of the Concept:The term`fundamentalism'has its origin in a series of pamphlets published between 1910 and 1915.Entitled "The Fundamentals:A Testimony to the Truth,"these booklets were authored by leading evangelical churchmen and were circulated free of charge among clergymen and seminarians.

By and large,fundamentalism was a response to the loss of influence traditional revivalism experienced in America during the early years of the twentieth century..

..biblical criticism and the encroachment of Darwinian theories about the origin of the universe,prompted a response by conservative churchmen.The result was the pamphlets.

In 1920,a journalist and Baptist layman named Curtis Lee Laws appropriated the term`fundamentalist'as a designation for those who were ready"to do battle royal for the Fundamentals."

Jeffrey K. Hadden has identified four types offundamentalism.First, theological fundamentalism was the Christian theological movement concerned with defending traditional Christian doctrine against modern thinking.

Political fundamentalism is a combination of theological fundamentalism and the personal commitments of religious adherents to combat worldly vices..

..These two types of fundamentalism melded together to combine a caricature of culturally unenlightened individuals bent on preserving tradition at the expense of progress..

..The political activity engaged in by fundamentalists invited comparison to other religiously motivated groups around the world.

Accordingly,global fundamentalism as a phenomena denotes many religiously[or anti-religious];motivated politically active groups existing in a variety of religious[ly] held opinion/traditions and political,belief'or non belief-systems.

david quote>>Far from this being a bad point about Atheism,it is its strength and a safeguard for democracy. Atheists make up their own minds and vote accordingly,>>

a ha ,so we have 50/50 athiest/believer's voting like automotons[as they are told]

so if you can rally 51 percent of the party vote you can bring back lennonism/marxism communism[who knows with a bit of luck you can be in the same position as family first?]

>>unlike religious folk in many instances,
who just follow the leaders of their religion.>>

george busche is the only recent egsample who rallied neo cons extreemist xtians[i have not seen ANY sussie priest saying vote rudd[or cowhard]laOUR or liberal.

please confirm where this political interferance has been documented

you get sheeple [they follow the leader] your after sheep [but cats dont herd when i was athiest i was more like the goat[im still a goat ,just now my passion is correct my earlier ignorance

autonomous people [sheep]cant think,they are mindless party stooges]

but you say when
'it is NOT employed'?

so your planning of employing'autonomous thinking[sounds more like mind programing,[oops forgot you admitted that in the previous post [re education camps]how would you feel if it were done to you?

>>when autonomous thinking process is not employed]>><<it is very dangerous for democracy.>>

please explain how atonomous Democracy means free choice?

>>,the opposite being tyranny where no choice is allowed...<<

how is forced RE-education NOT Tyranny?

where is my choice to believe as i chose?
only in making sure you dont get voted into power?

you seem to have an 'evangelistic' like zeal on the topic

-1-David: “No, the Oxford dictionary doesn’t supply a correct definition of Atheism.”-

Yes it does. You don’t have more authority over words than the Oxford Dictionary. Surely you understand this?

-2-David “I’m reasonably sure you would not be in opposition to most of the content.” -

You can only be reasonably sure that we’re both atheist. Assuming my political/social/religious opinions are akin to yours cuz of this is arrogance.

Do all black people eat gumbo and boogie-woogie?
No.

-3- David: "Which Atheist orientated one are you in?" -

Do I need one to discuss the nature of existence? It’s ok to have theists in this conversation/debate too. Why segregate?

-4- David: "I assume you are saying, … Atheist organisations should not exist." -

No. Are you hinting I *must* be part of a *group?

-5-David: “Who then is going to represent people adversely affected by religion?” -

All sorts of people.

-6-Pegusus: “The only shared issue is we know there is no God.” -

So take the politics elsewhere.

-7-Pegasus: “Exactly what you want to impose. Shame on you.”-

I’m imposing the Oxford definition of Atheist.

I resent the hijacking and claiming as support of *Atheist* for these militant POV's re religion, abortion, euthanasia, war etc. These are highly contentious issues, which anyone can hold but not as atheists which has no stance on any issue but exist stance of god.

-7-Pegasus: "Such attitudes from atheists indeed." -

Do I need attitude adjustment, to fit your athiest doctrine? I bet that is what you hate about religion isn‘t it?



-8-David: "...will continue to fight on your behalf even if you do not want us to..." -

Would you like to vote for me too?

Examinator is right, you’re really slipping now. Do you think it’s a big conspiracy and evil lizard people made up the dictionary? Or maybe, until we are atheists as you dictate we won’t be freeeeeeeee? Talk about rightious and controlling.

Sorry to be sarcastic but you can’t be serious? Or is all just a big angry chaotic blur.

one under god,

I have been kind up to now but one can take so much.

Only stupid, ignorant, misinformed or wilfully mischievous people equate Stalinism with Atheism freely chosen in a democracy.

Aligning fundamentalism with an attitude that requires proof for propositions is beyond absurd.

Apparently you believe a whole lot of supernatural mythology without evidence for the premise or the baggage which follow it, i.e. that there is a god etc. It is your life and it is you’re right to do that.

But if you are not against the idea of indoctrinating such un-evidenced carrot and stick personal beliefs into the minds of children and imposing those beliefs via politics onto one and all, then I am your ideological enemy. You have no inherent right to do that.

My conjecture would be that someone has placed the fear of hell into you and this terror overrides any rationality you may posses. The AFA is attempting to stop this kind of child abuse. Those so abused go on to abuse others in like manner thus becoming a threat to people and planet.

Why not stop and think for a moment and entertain the thought that maybe what you are supporting is only culturally sustained arrogance in believing you have some kind of profound truth, which others, such as me, don’t.

As long as people like you peddle absurdity, there will be people like me pointing it out. Although going by the quality of and the rationale presented in your posts, this hardly seems necessary.

I wonder what you think about that it is your efforts and the machinations of your fellows, which has resulted in the very steep increase in an interest in Atheism. Kinda ironic, wouldn’t you say!

I think you should take my advice and retire from this thread if only because you are not winning anyone over to a religious point of view. In fact, religious fundamentalism is the greatest support for Atheism that Atheists could hope for. When your numbers decrease, as they will, ours will do likewise. Bring on that day!

David

David you are so right, Atheists do not vote to impinge on the rights of others, as an example, voluntary Euthansia is a right that we all should have,it is not being passed by Parliament because of the religious right, if any one wishes to die in extreme pain and loss of dignity then that is your decision, I am happy for you, but I do not wish to, and that should be my decision, no one elses.
Being an Atheist I do not fear death as was mentioned earlier, I do not need a minister of religion standing over my coffin telling everyone that I have now gone to a God and fairy tale Heaven, all of this is from a book that was written a long time ago by men, if religious people really believed in the Bible they would still be out stoning people to death on a regular basis, or killing insolent children, Gays, people who wear mixed clothing, who work on the Sabbath and so on, this is not relevant now, do we live by the rules of the Bible or do we reject them and substitute our own, the only heaven is rotting in the ground, or 900 degree heat from a furnace.
David is trying to bring the bus Avertising on Atheism to the attention of the people, the same as I am forever having Church signs selling their religious beliefs to me. Atheists should not be discriminated against, we are a very large group of people, more than most people think.
I look forward to seeing the bus Atheist sign soon

meredith,

I have just written a 350 word post in answer to your last missive that won’t be sent, as I figured we are not getting anywhere, so there is no point in continuing. I’m afraid we will have to live with disagreement on a number of issues. No hard feelings.

David

Ojnab,

If the AFA can get the signs on buses, it will. The point you make about voluntary euthanasia is not an Atheist issue only. as it has the potential to affect all people, even the religious. But fear not, a system to allow people to die with dignity will be introduced one day. All secular groups are fighting very hard for that to happen.

And you are very correct about the underestimation of the number of Atheists in Australia. That will also become better known one day. So, hang in there.

David

david[quote<< think you should take my advice and retire from this thread if only because you are not winning anyone over to a religious point of view....>>

[i dont care what you believe][or what any believe
[its up to them][not me,NOT YOU]

if im trying to convert anyone[thats your opinion]but to be clear which church am i pushing?[which religion?[your delusion knows no bounds]!

[bro believe as you chose[just dont be thinking you can re-educate me in one of your retraining-camps mate,you can jam your athistic oppression where the sun dont shine[makes no difference to me]

whatever the hell you chose[just dont try to speak for me]wake ya self up before you try to wake me[ya ignorant twit]

>> In fact,religious-fundamentalism is the greatest support for Atheism that Atheists could hope for.>>

im glad you think so[religious people for me are by and large mindless drones[but then so too are most athiest's]

AM I CONVERTING ANYONE YET retard?

>>When your numbers decrease,>>

my number is one[me]how much more you expect to decrease'my numbers'retard?

>>as they will,ours will do likewise.>>

your numbers will decrease likewise?bro you dont have any idea how clever your sounding.

>> Bring on that day!<<

as i say
you have no idea what ignorant ravings your putting down in words

[belive as you chose]
but dont be telling me i dont have the right to believe as i chose,

your not big enough to begin to make me change what i chose to believe[dont you realise how your one post has set back athiesm[and how much more]against those you seek to rule OVER;

as others have said i hope you get your advert[just make sure you got your phone number on it][and as its a political spin dont forget to write written and autherised by YOU on it too]

so they will know who to sue[you are the dumbest athiest i ever come across]try to put it on a bus in sydney[or better melbourne[they will chew you to pieces]

being nice just dont work for some,
i tried to be nice,clearly with you its futile

The Sunday Sermon is as follows, taken from the King James Version of the Bible:

Matt 18: 21-22 “Then came Peter to him, and said , Lord, how oft shall my brother sin against me, and I forgive him? till seven times? Jesus saith unto him, I say not unto thee, Until seven times: but, Until seventy times seven.”

For the mathematically challenged, the advice by Jesus is that forgiveness for transgression should happen 490 times.

1 Peter 3:33 “Who, when he was reviled , reviled not again…”

Matt 5:39 “But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.”

And let us not forget the very pertinent one liner by Matthew:

Matt 7:20 “Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.”

Here endeth the lesson.

David

HOLLY ssshit
i seen it all
a bible thumping ATHIEST

i seen it all now
LOL

may god be with you in your endeavours
[your holyness]

may you tend your sheep[flock]
as the neo [new] age mosus

of [over?]the athiest-icly challengd sheeple
[needing leaders to bleat for them]

AFA Inc.
David,
You have painted yourself in to the same corner most exuberant enthusiasts do.
That of the seed issue being agreed. The issue is now about YOUR version of Atheism. (I and other have suggested that your current stance isn't helping your cause...Atheism or their respect for your reasoning)

What every one is trying to tell you that either your expression of your views are inadequate and/or your understanding of what constitutes a belief is naive.

No one has attacked you personally (ad hominem) but rather the import of your words. Yet your taking the contradictions personally you have attack others as people (I gave you two examples) disputing their reasoning abilities without giving reason.

Your expression is now leaning towards non existent conspiracy and a bogus semantical argument several dictionaries’ definitions are wrong.

While I have most of Dawkins’ books and understand and support his attacking religiosity in public policy he does when looking at private rights express his views in absolutism (demonstateble unprovable belief i.e. no one has absolute knowledge of the future ).

To be absolutely fair he has his right to a personal belief but not the right to impose that on someone else private views. Think of it like this two people arguing about which AFL is the greatest team…St Kilda or Collingwood. Ultimately logic has little or nothing to do with the determination it all depends on your criteria.
But to impose allegiance to Collingwood because it has more premierships is dubious reasoning/logic. Likewise is both ludicrous and unacceptable on many levels to allow either side to impose their views onto public policy i.e. education etc.
In absolute terms the analogy is sound.

End

Sancho: << Am I the only one who can't understand a blind word of one under god's posts?

[...]

I can only imagine this is what happens when schizophrenics get onto computers, rather than standing outside train stations screaming scripture at goth teenagers. >>

No Sancho, you're not the only one.

Thin-skinned, too, eh? Must feel good to get this off your chest, though.

>>I think you should point out the reasons for the continuous vitriol and ad hominem comment in your posts. I would like some solid stuff here, not just weak-arsed interpretation of my words that you consider are so off the planet you need to act like a schoolyard bully.<<

Consider for a moment.

Right from the outset, faced with legitimate criticism, you lash out blindly, and with insult aforethought.

>>The armchair reaction to the intended bus slogans is understandable, expected and frankly, dismissed as irrelevant<<

Now you complain of "vitriol", and "ad hominem attacks".

It has probably escaped your notice, Mr Nicholls, that compared with your "vitriol", and "ad hominem attacks", I am a mere beginner.

As for "interpretation of your words", I'll leave that for others to judge. I don't seem to be entirely alone in thinking that you are pursuing a highly personal agenda here.

>>Those that know me and observant others do not consider I am on a personal ego-trip<<

Yep. Sure.

>>To be frank, when someone else wishes to be president of the AFA, I will gladly hand it over to her or him.<<

The phrase "poisoned chalice" springs to mind.

Can't think why.

You buckle quickly for such a determined man, not digging yourself any deeper for now, eh? As much as I pity your distress or weariness, I genuinely do agree you needed a break, but we both know you can’t make these grandiose stands with out being at least able to tread water in their debate. That would be irresponsible. I mean you're the leader of a group suing an Australian state.

As an atheist unwillingly represented you and your group ( at your righteous insistence), I can expect sane standards and actual amendments (when needed) over vague apologies or mere mute back-downs. As you or your group would if I were representing you as in the wrong light, you are only having asked of you what you ask of theists…

Looking at you recite the bible with UOG, It becomes more clear, first most, you are a person deeply against religion. (maybe you have been hurt too) No one is saying you can't hold religious veiws or fight for social or political issues.

I hope you realise I am not attacking your position, and I too apologize for the sarcasm sneaking into my observations on your mental state in my last post.

UoG,
I think, has English as a second language, I can understand him/her, it's not hard.

examinator,

Where and how am I imposing personal ‘beliefs’ onto anyone? Are you writing for the sake of it, as that is the appearance you give?

Pericles,

Guess the ‘armchair’ statement has upset you even though it is from another thread. Too close to the bone, I would suggest. If you take that as ad hominem then maybe you don’t understand the expression.

What is the highly personal agenda I am pursuing? What a silly statement.

mererdith,

‘Buckle’ is not the right word. If someone cannot follow simple logic, I become bored with having to repeat it.

I am no more against religion than is necessary. Some see the necessity, some hide from it. I actually am pleased I had a religious upbringing. It taught me a lot about how humans can be swayed by emotion and cultural norms rather than evidence. Yes, I am very glad of it.

No need for an apology. I expect inconsequential nit-picking in place of real comment. That is a part of my job and of those in similar positions. Par for the course as we say.

David

AFA Inc.
You are no more against religion than necessary?
Your repeated and repeated answer is reducible to the same biased belief based rhetoric.
Prove to me that your logic is irrefutable i.e. that there is absolutely no possibility that you could be wrong now or in the future. To assume that without absolute knowledge of the future is a belief/ faith by definition.

As for writing for the sake of was not my intention but it would appear that no amount of logic is going to demonstrate to you that there must be an element of unknown given man's somewhat limited scientific and intellectual abilities.

To hold the opening statement you logically MUST think your personal beliefs are superior than others. To then specifically use the words ‘than necessary’ can only indicates a pejorative judgement further enforcing the perception of both arrogance/brittleness in your argument.
It also forms the basis of my original point that you don’t seem to understand the difference between public policy and personal rights. One is an aggregated issue design(hopefully logically) for the good of everyone and the other the right to believe what they want without loaded put downs from individual who believe they have a ‘better’ view of what is good for others. People don’t need your approval for their beliefs to even question them on a personal level denying them their Personal Human Rights. PHR should be irreducible and not conditional on anyone else’s approval.
The point of the ad was to challenge others personal beliefs in order to gain converts. Otherwise is it would simple be pontificating on steroids.
This time I’m gone.

QUOTE david>>TheSundaySermon..follows<<[in the spirit of,i turn the other cheek]you have read the bible[plus taken some time to study its revelation[thus as far as aithiest go you are at least one who has done the study]let me speculate: the words of the bible didnt ring true[for you]you saw xtians doing un-xtian things[but bro let me intercede on their belhalf[they had the wrong-reasoning about jesus]

[other cheek[again]please]jesus didnt do miracles[he made definative statements that prove this['it is not yet my time'[when.NOT WATER;BUT[HAND_washing_water was made into wine][yet the next story sees him feeding 4000/5000 WITH NO HAND_WASHING jars

any jew WILL REFUSE TO EAT[sans these handwash-jars[thus feeding 100.000 judeans'all they wanted'was easy[no hand_wash;they didnt wantto eat[#the parrable is about our belief#[how EVEN with the messiah eating;THEIR belief wouldnt allow them to join him

next parrable[re/handwash]was when the deciples eat the SHEW-bread[WITHOUT WASHING'their'hands[to which jesus replies''IT IS NOT WHAT A MAN PUTS INTO his mouth that makes him unclean[but that which issues FORTH FROM IT']

but the big clue is jesus was born EMANUEL[meaning GOD_WITHin]_US[all]

meaning when we see jesus LOVE EVERYONE[except the money-changers]he is revealing the''SEE ME;SEE MY FATHER][ie god is love,love god;love neighbour]

thing is my dear david,you because of that ACCURSED bible know what im trying to say[shouldnt everyone at least KNOW their own holy texts[better than the murder of the shakspeare[shaking-spear][with his blood/filled vile-imagry]

see that god[or rather the writings revealing god]have focused on the wrong image of god[god dont judge[if you love neighbour then in heaven the neighbours WILL LOVE YOU[if you LOVE evil[you get to go to''one of myne fathers houses MANY ROOMS[each love has its own room['more shall be given']

thieves have their hell[room];murderors theirs[rapists have theirs[athiest even have their own rooms[when we die we are ALL born-again, then we go to our LOVE room]sorting the sheep from the goats[the wheat from the chaff[but i fear im throwing my seed on stoney ground[throwing pearl before wine]

anyhow;you been sold THE lie about god[there is NO JUDGMENT-DAy[there is no judgment[evil has its own cost[and redemption]

NO RELIGION[ALONE]TAUGHT ME THIS[all of them made this me;i am being]

examinator,

That post confirms my suspicions that you are writing for the sake of it. You think by big noting yourself it gains you some kind of importance.

The sad thing in all of this is you muddy the waters about Atheism and don’t seem to care as long as you are the one, or so you think, who put the president of the AFA in his place.

Your arguments are like a fish struggling out of water, useless, in reaching any conclusion from the confused words and phrases you supply.

I make no claim of absolute knowledge, nor have I ever; I leave that to religious folk. I work on the available evidence not on mythology that has no evidence in support.

You have failed to answer a very basic question I have asked and skirted around it with self protecting rhetoric. I’ll ask one more time:

“Where and how am I imposing personal ‘beliefs’ onto anyone?”

You must realise that such an accusation is serious and even more so, as it is, total rubbish emanating only from your mind. I say that with confidence as nothing in my writings would lead one to suggest this is a remote possibility of what I am trying to achieve.

I expect a decent, non flowery response to this. Drop the posturing act; you are not impressing anyone who has a basic level of comprehension and reading ability.

Here is an example of your over burdened waffle with little meaning or none at all:

“To then specifically use the words ‘than necessary’ can only indicates a pejorative judgement further enforcing the perception of both arrogance/brittleness in your argument.”

This is by no means a Robinson Crusoe sentence from your keyboard but it will suffice.

The English language is so designed that complicated concepts can be explained using simple words and phrases. It is invariably so that those going beyond what is necessarily to explain a given idea are actually hiding that they do not have a case to put forward or it is self-aggrandisement. You do this excessively.

I am waiting.

David

All,

Be Ye Theist or Be Ye Atheist, it logical to triangulate knowledge sources to confirm or refute a claims and develop a tentative (to be continuous tested)posi.

From an Historical perspective, I suggest Christians should not look backwards from Nicaea to the crucifixion nor have the OT as the only BCE link.

One needs to look at the relationship forward from the second and first centuries BCE (Heli, Joseph & Jesus of the House of David) and the missions to the gentiles into the early common era.

Under Augustus, the Annas took the place of the Hedorians (who were not even Jewish) (under Julius). The House of David via the Gentiles ultimately provided Roman religion to replace pantheism, but it didn't really start to become unified until Constantine to try and save Rome from collapse.

Dear Theists, if you haven't reviewed these matters, forget science and the big bang and Noah and the vegetarian lions; you need to confront veriable histographies.

Moreover, it is logical at coming the age of twelve a Jewish boy would be mentioned in scripture. Also, if an Essene, he might not have been fully celibate. Dynastic priest-kigs did have sex, but rarely, to propagate their lines.

Reasoning (David) involves looking at both sides of the argument. I see many atheists with a knowledge of the Bible but few theists looking belief as an alernative hypothesis rather than non-tested posit.

O.

Good People,

If religious folk want to play in the game of life then they have do so by a common set of rules, not by ones set up in antiquity to afford them special privilege. If those calling themselves Atheists wish to continue that dispensation then my advice would be to get a wider education because you are unhelpful to religion or Atheism.

The ad hominem accusations directed at me by a few posters results from this special protection, which deems any criticism of religion a heinous crime. My posts do not fit the category of ad hominem shots at posters; they are responses to the words and concepts presented.

It is called, lively debate and the days where one may not mention anything about religion in the negative are on the way out for good. If you cannot sustain propositions on which you depend for psychological support, then it is best to modify those preconceptions or not be involved in discussion about them with others unhampered by those views.

Religion does not have the answers to the dilemmas facing the planet and its peoples; in fact, they are a large part of the problem, which is creating them. The driving force behind the global and societal consequences of constant growth, endless borrowing and spending and consumption doesn’t cross the consciousness of most people, especially those of faith whom consider that ‘every sperm is sacred’. Unlimited population results.

The Atheist bus advertising campaign is an attempt to make people think about these things before we are not in a position to do so. I find it interesting that in these times where reason is the most important attribute in finding our way though the mire of problems, there is still a reliance on an invisible superman in the sky to solve the immense troubles faced.

There is every chance that this hold on us by human evolutionary history will be our undoing but that does not mean not attempting to make a paradigm change in viewing existence.

The international bus slogan campaign is a part of such transformation.

David

David et al.,

The point on applying reason (to history) and staying in bed on Sunday is arguably apt, even to the Theist.

Circa the change to the Common Era, the House of Levi were born priests and did not require intercession to be "righteous". Part of Jesus' mission was to achieve the same all, via an extended House of David, including the Gentles. Therefore, the Christian-Jews, did not require incession to be achieve, in their belief system, righteousness (Theiring). Although, these early Christian-Jews did meet small groups (Fox), any clerical presence and rites would have been peripheral.

Else put, the Churches are unnecessary and the Theists can stay in bed on Sundays, as can the Atheists.

Are Atheists bashing all religions or just Christianity??

Too scared to post advertisement directly criticising Islam, I bet.

What about publishing some humorous anti-Islam cartoons?? I dare you !!

Go ahead, weaken Christianity and indirectly strengthen Islam. One day Islam will deal with all you infidels, the way only Islam knows.

Take my advice, for a free society not to be overrun by Islam, you need the following 3 approaches (Excerpts from the thread: "What's wrong with 'Islamophobia'")...

Approach (1)...Directly weaken the force of Islam
This is very important.
Actively expose Islam as a religion based on Mohammed's lies. This is one way to weaken the Islamic force-- By challenging Islam's credibility and legitimacy.

Approach (2)...Maintain and Extend forces that oppose Islam
The force of Atheism and secularism, in fact.

Approach (3)...Avoid diminishing forces that directly / indirectly oppose Islam
Christianity/Judaism are very important anti-Islamic forces in the West. Especially Christianity is a viable option for Muslims who leave Islam.

What you're doing with your anti-Christianity campaign is diminishing Christianity and this is dangerous for western freedom and democracy.

Know who your true friends are. Think about your actions !!

DAVID>>slogan'campaign'is a part of such'transformation'.

transformation;The act or'an'instance of'transforming;The state of being transformed.

A marked change,as in appearance or character,..Replacement of the variables in an algebraic expression by their values in terms of another set of variables.>>LOL}A mapping of one space onto another or onto itself.

Linguistics...A rule that systematically converts one'syntactic-form' or form of a sentence into another;..A construction or'sentence'derived by such a rule;a transform.

Genetics...The change undergone by an animal cell upon infection by a cancer-causing virus;..The alteration of a bacterial cell caused by the transfer of DNA from another bacterial cell,especially a pathogen.

CZ>>Are Atheists bashing all religions or just Christianity??

Too scared to post advertisement directly criticising Islam,What about publishing some humorous anti-Islam cartoons>>

oh dear;cz i can see the burning buses now[but it is important to note we all are capable of'extreem'goodness as well as extreem'badness[be we buddist,baptist,jew or athiest[regardless of our beliefs]

its not the religion or non-religion that makes good[people]do bad things[but its human fears,usually'delusional-fears'that make the good contemplate doing a'baD'THING

ITS GOOD THAT GOD HAS GRACE AND MERCY[for none of us could enter the higher heavens were we judged by our'good'works alone]

it sadens me that people read xtian works,and yet be incapable of other cheek turning;same with the prophet[may peace be upon them all] both have much wisdom[for an open heart[but also that'old hat'called vengence[like the xtian/torah;old test-i-meant]

that reveals gods'wrath'filled stage[long-ago past by[thanks be to jesus,mahamoud,george fox,mary-baker-eddie,swedenberg et-al,

yet we see the mouldy god of times past
being played out still in the minds of those calling themselves'gods'own today in palistein[now renamed is-real?]in the wholly god's[holy_lands]they cant blame'thiests'for a'thiest's completly

[a lack of'god/good'is simply ignorance,founding blindness and deafness in those who think basiclly the followers of god dont do the good[an omnipotant god should[in their minds]be doing

GODginen'freewill'[for them]is something their'version'of god allowing is simply[for them]unthinkable[thus they reject god by their mistaken belief of what they believe this got to be['or not be]

hell i cant even concieve'not god'[yet they can;because they never sought to know of him[avoided knowing it as a deliberate choice,then created their science replacement]LOL