Romany,

I understand that which you are saying about mixing my views with that of the AFA. You correctly point out that Atheism does not have tenets or creeds and in fact is just a position that as there is no evidence for gods or supernatural realms, Atheists do not accept they exist.

That is the one and only point of agreement between the majorities of Atheists. I can go further and state that the majority of Atheists do not accept as real any paranormal proposition as being real for the same reason. Of course, there are exceptions to this (Not many by my experience) and some Atheists believe in all manner of spookiness outside of physically known laws.

But, 21st Century Atheism is not just about there being no god, it concerns itself with the problems that belief in deities and supernatural elements cause to individuals, humanity and the planet as a whole.

People who perceive this problematical side of religions come together in groups, in this case the AFA and attempt to inform society of them.

My part in the equation is to establish what members of the AFA and those not in the organisation wish to emphasise publicly. Now, of course, this will not cover all Atheists but I am reasonably sure I reflect the views of a very high proportion of Atheists. Atheism is not on a steep increase in at least Western Nations just because lots of people suddenly have recognised there is not god.

Its reasonably recent sudden rise in popularity is because there is a common recognition that indoctrination of children is wrong and it leads to poor political choices affecting everyone.

When I state someone should read about Atheism, I am saying more than read there is no god, but investigate the link between religion and dysfunctional governance.

I am open with my views and anything said on this Forum I have repeated organisationally. We do not have a mass exodus from the AFA as a result.

The tendency of detractor’s unreasonably and desperately nit-picking AFA posts provides a false view.

David

THREE CHEERS for Romany and Examinator who have *picked* David and the ATA like the proverbial nose :)

SPOT ON!

Of course..that Bronny would LEAP to David/ATA's defense was a foregone conclusion. (sorry Bron but ur so predictable)

I'm very glad that Exammy and Romany have the suffiiently objective perspective which enables them to see what they saw in David's posts.

I strongly encourage all to have a look at KMB's link comparing Jesus to Mohammad.

http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/mar/080305a.html

The loud voices in many streets in the world today are coming from violent people.. with Hijabs and Palestinian/Muslim scalves on.. and things like "Go back to the ovens Jews" being said by even young women.

Sadly.. many socialist voices (specially in Greece) are joining both the violence and the vilification.

At the source of them we have Marx and Mohammad.

Bronwyn, David,
Your point is well noted and accepted. In hind sight I may would raised my points differently. Although Romany did get what I was driving at.

I did not intend to attack David personally but to point out the out the logical flaws, incomplete reasoning (consequential) of the position of AFA (or any special interest group).

AFA has a right to debate PUBLIC policy for the reasons I gave but he/AFA doesn’t have the right to wade into PRIVATE choices that is proselytizing. Logically if it is inappropriate for other organized groups (including Religious) to delve into this area with misinformation etc and selling on emotion then it must be wrong for the alternative. This logically extends to the text of his bus ad i.e. is the ad trying to sell sleeping in on Sundays (Fridays Muslims, Saturday for Seven days and several other groups) or does AFA have an other agenda? Anti religion is the obvious choice.
[BTW me sheltered upbringing Not bloody likely? My mum is a seven day, my wife a Catholic & my eldest daughter a Jewish hippy, 2 are Secular and 1 Anti everything including religion. And you thought the Osborn house was “interesting” :-) ]

As I also said in a number of posts individuals have different abilities and different needs …some NEED the emotional security etc of a supernatural God, some have well defined discernment skills others don’t. The AFA aims as expressed by David don’t seem to take account of it.

I also Question why David feels the need to sign in as an organization in an individual chat room. I suspect it’s to increase his credibility (i.e. the view expressed are that of a number of people). As someone said to ‘Anti live exports and intensive farming’ site holder “having a web site doesn’t make you anymore right than anyone else.” As I said the truth is its own justification.
Organizations’ P&P are by definition not personal and as such open to criticism. Had David written as an individual I would have taken a different approach.
Continued....

http://www.hreoc.gov.au/racial_discrimination/isma/media/speeches/21may2004_reality.html

http://www.humanrights.gov.au/about/publications/annual_reports/2003_2004/index.html
Australias Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission have a duty of care to protect everybody - not just Muslims.
With the vast amount of funds poured into civil libbitys from Saudi we do need to be watchful.
Lets not have a country where only Muslims have a right not to be discrimated against lets include ALL Australians.

It would be very dissapointing if this action were not made by the Minister for broadcasting to bring forums into line with Australian Laws.

At the moment the Federal Government claim they have no control over the net?

So if your a journo or a editor you can be sued for defamation if you write something that doesnt comply with Australian laws but NOT if its on the net.

Take OLO as just one example. Our organisation has been defamed by members of an extremist veggie groups but because they use false names its very difficult to police.

As it stands with forums the authors also have protection from proscution under the privacy act.

This leaves you and I in the difficult position of then having to sue the forum owner.

I agree especially forums must be brought into line with the rest of our laws.
I do NOT agree however it should be only regarding religious postings.
The law is the law and its time the Federal Government got their act together instead of leaving it to others.

Even If it was another election promise.

What about everybody else?

Bronwyn and David part two

Child rearing is clearly a personal issue and to comment as he did without any public policy facts his statement was way over stated, unsupported and most likely to be seen by others as personal criticism (I did)… Therefore biased personal opinionated attack as such it holds no factual or intrinsic weight except to the individual making the statement. As a reason to change public policy is a furphy an emotional trigger appearing to be designed to divide/alienate rather than discuss.

Keep in mind I might agree but there are a number practical issues that haven’t been thought through if AFA is aiming at changing public policy.
• Who, where and on what basis is the line to be drawn
• How are you going to legislate
• How are you going to enforce it.
These of course don’t even come close to dealing with the rights of the individual.
I still say to make the point he did then cover it with the flimsy if not fanciful notion that secularity of state schools would counter extremist families’ indoctrination.

When all is said and done special interest Organizations are usually primarily concerned about the organization and the interests’ of the individuals that make it up.

My ultimate point to AFA/him was that a lot more thought was needed before going down that route.
Hence I limit my comments to the impersonality of logic and public policy. If I do delve into personality/private it is mine as an example only or to offer positive intentions.

PS I lost sight of David’s proprietary emotional investment in AFA and hence his confusion between the two. Sorry.

Cheers examinator ant

People,

Allow me to make a few salient comments:

I speak as the head of an organisation as generally those comments are in relation to a Media Release by that organisation or a follow on from such.

I also do not use a pseudonym making me accountable for what I say.

Religious persons on this Forum express views of their particular slant on Christianity or other religion. The examples where they are not representative of the actual adherents of that religion are many. Contraception, same-sex orientation matters, voluntary euthanasia, abortion, sex education, science etc are some of note.

But this does not stop our religious friends from expounding the official religious viewpoint even though it may not be representative of adherents.

There is no other way to speak of the mental child abuse of children concerning religious indoctrination than what is plainly observable.

How many people would, as Dawkins points out in ‘The God Delusion’ say it was OK to ‘train’ young Aztec girls and boys to accept their own sacrificial deaths? Would those victims choose a different course if in another culture? How many on this Forum think it is OK for children to attend madrassas schools? How many think that indoctrination into creationism is also OK?

Would any of the above children choose having their minds distorted in such manners if given a choice when they could think as mature adults? Trouble is then it too late. Now, these are the extreme examples but AFA experience is that the threats and promises by religions, even ones considered mild, can stay with a child forever as a hindrance to rational thought. The old saying of, “Once a Catholic, always a Catholic” explains it nicely.

Instead of getting stuck into Atheist stating religious indoctrination being mental child abuse, what do religious and non religious people think of the above examples and why is their particular case an exception. ‘Because we have the true religion’, is not an answer as all religions say that.

Attacking me might make some feel good as opposed to answering, but it proves my point.

David