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.