As mentioned in The Age:
http://www.theage.com.au/national/highpriest-of-atheism-is-on-his-way-20091005-gjgg.html

I notice that the list of speakers include On Line Opinion contributors Lyn Allison and Max Wallace.

Convention website:
http://www.atheistconvention.org.au/

So what do you want, a bunch of bananas or something.
Most people know how to read .

i thought..i would check out..the claim...[of rise...as in..'rise of a-theism'..and sadly..

figuring if in truwly/rising...as in athiests..'rising'..if truely...rising..athiests..they/show up in the leading/find/search..thus the search will reveal..if rising they be

..just what leads the search term's..for..'the rise of'..is thus able to make claim of rising...if not on the first or first few links..they not rising be

http://www.google.com.au/search?ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&sourceid=gd&q=The+Rise+of+&hl=en-GB&rls=MEDA,MEDA:2008-36,MEDA:en-GB

so there..at 8..we see..the athiests...after sex bombs..but then dorkins..is like viagra for the godless...theres a rise for you..

still i note..152 days..[lol..and minutes and seconds...lol...like the second comming...

there is clever marketing involved..big names..paid names?..no mention of price/cost..or any imdemnity..if they should be decieving people...mate its great..when the defacto state/and media is onside

its hard to fight..such clever marketing...no doudt the countdown counts down..to the huge payoff day...next year...

even the use of an age..link...confirms to the age..there is public intrest...via the web hit counter...lol

so thiests might not want to click the link too often..and you godless a thiest's..might just want to spend the next few hours..just clicking the link to make it look like someone gives a damm

get big fast...see the bigger you get..the more divergent you get...i note allready there are two distinct athiest sects...and the athiest prophetts..are fast gaining ground on the dorkins..who has the inside running..to became your newest messiah

freewill is a wonderous thing...are you fundimentalist athiest or reform athiest..informed..concentualised educted or traditional...or are you maybe apprenticed athiest..[or novice..meat for the gist

or high priest..because you plagerised the work of real scientists..or ,maybe just a novice..agnostic...anyhow..it will no doudt be great,...

how do you sleep at night..telling your kids//there is no god/no santa/no easter bunny...and them..not ever..reading fiction/fairytail's..or the swwill on tv

...oh..you dont go that far?...ohhh..only the god delusion...lol..till dorkins..makes his next move...vacinations/eugenics..see its a bigger plan..than kill god/good

mate cant weight..till you get the wait..in numbers..all for one...[dorkins/...with one,..more book..for you all..to buy..rebutting a negative,...

not validating the alternate..god free..religion...for the faithless..

all the flock...just one more mob..
..waiting to get fleeced

do the..right to life/athiests..get on with the abortionist/athiest?..

or is that another religion/sect/muddle/puddle you havnt crossed

NO doubt God will be laughing at these pathetic creatures of rebellion.

Good people,

Allow me to correct a few glaring, shall we say, misconceptions presented in a previous post.

There is no remuneration for any speaker at the Global Atheist Convention.

Any profits, if any, generated by The Global Atheist Convention are expected to be small.

We do not have access to the 4 million dollars or so the Federal Government and the Victorian Government have given to the Parliament of World’s religions.

All prices are here: www.atheistconvention.org.au

The marketing is truthful and is not promising invisible realms and deities.

Other observations are not worth commenting on, as many would understand and agree with.

It is impossible to rebel against that which does not exist.

The Rise of Atheism Convention is an exciting event for many Atheists and therefore the workload has increased for me enormously. I will look in later during the week.

David

hey man, anyone who thinks the state and the media are on side with atheism has been spending too long with their head in the bible. The state want control and they get that through religion. The media want money and there's more of that in the churches than outside..
Please attack atheism on a rational level by all means but lets leave out all the world conspiracy bulldust.

Seems one under God you laugh out load a lot, maybe roll on the floor laughing too.
And your self confidence is on display but not shared by me.
See you seem to fear honesty and truth, compared with 50 or even 10 years ago atheism is indeed growing.
On my way home from a charity job today I tuned in to ABC radio national.
The story was about the bigotry involved if a Catholic wed a non Catholic, dreadful stuff but bigotry within religion is not new nore is atheism.

Yes Belly, Atheism is on the rise. However I hate the idea that not believing in religious fairytales must have a name at all!
Atheism sounds like another religion to me.
I am a skeptic myself, and would rather not join any group at all.

My father was a protestant (non-practicing) who married my strict Catholic mother 50 years ago. In order for them to be married in a Catholic Church, my father had to agree (and sign a declaration)to actively ensure all children of the marriage would be brought up as Catholics.

My poor mother was made to feel inferior by being asked to stand in the small side chapel area of the church to get married, because she was not allowed to marry a non-Catholic man in the main church.

I always thought Christians all worshipped the same God? Why then should God be upset at one Christian marrying another sort of Christian, like my parents?
A load of crock really!

Dear JB,

Thank You for the two links.

I must say that the list of speakers is very impressive
and from their credentials it should be a very interesting
Convention.

I for one will be watching the media and waiting for the
promos to appear. I've already circled the dates on my
calendar for next year - and I think it will simply be
a matter of choosing which events to attend.

Well done David Nicholls!

I do have one question - has your organisation actually applied
for any Government funding for this event. Surely, there must
be some category out there - under which you'd be entitled to
apply and receive funding?

im never quite sure what came first your athiesm/or the flawed vtheory of evolution that underpins it...wondering how many decieved by both...would be so sure of their faithlessness...were evolution disproven

so rather that put this on the two current evolution theads...that again have the evolutionists stalled..for want of fact/science...lol

anyhow ask your dorkins..how he feels about the atlas of creation...specificlly the guy he refuses to debait...yet took the bait
http://tr1.harunyahya.com/Detail/T/EDCRFV/productId/17945/DAWKINS_HAS_TAKEN_THE_BAIT

refuted in 4 volumes..many of the so called proof's...lol

here are some links..fossils rebutted
http://www.fossil-museum.com/fossils/
its full of pictures

so even dumb athiest/evolutionists will''get it''
http://tr1.harunyahya.com/Detail/T/EDCRFV/productId/9601/RICHARD_DAWKINS__AND_DAILY_HURRIYET_S_IGNORANCE

complete rebuttal of ambiogensis...first life..by chance..
read/rebut this one
http://www.darwinism-watch.com/index.php?git=makale&makale_id=1859

missing link
http://tr1.harunyahya.com/Detail/T/EDCRFV/productId/18097/DARWINISTS,_FIRE_AT_WILL!_

index of other rebuttals
http://www.harunyahya.com/en.m_categorie_76.php

so where you athiest stand...without the evolving deception/theory

how about you ask the question

but its all about attracting the sheeple
into the god free belief/relief system...

based on deceptions and fraud...but whats the under-lying adgenda?..
http://www.harunyahya.com/en.m_categorie_76.php
http://tr1.harunyahya.com/Detail/T/EDCRFV/productId/658/FASCISM:THE_BLOODY_IDEOLOGY_OF_DARWINISM
http://tr1.harunyahya.com/Detail/T/EDCRFV/productId/3984/THE_SOCIAL_WEAPON:_DARWINISM

suzeonline in truth you highlight exactly how I feel.
I often duck threads started by this ones author, being as much against organized Atheism as Church's.
We all of us, fall for baits from Christians and other reildgions, even anti reildgions groups.
I suspect our indignation that the great good in humanity is so willingly given as evidence a God did it.
Yes men get it wrong, are often truly evil, but we have done great things too.
The story you told is one of a few I heard about yesterday, and many more I already knew about.
Just 50 years ago the church ruled us, in every thing including school life.
That same church, all Church's, was then, before, and now assaulting children in its care.
Putting the fear of death into people, tools used? as today threats promises fear bullying and lies.

suzeonline has expressed my feelings exactly.

If Atheism is going to become another group with a barrow to push we go down the same road of the religious zealots and missionary agendas.

To what purpose?

Atheism is on the rise for very good reasons. IMO to make atheism a movement in itself would appear to counteract the very nature of atheism.

My feelings exactly.

>>If Atheism is going to become another group with a barrow to push we go down the same road of the religious zealots and missionary agendas... to make atheism a movement in itself would appear to counteract the very nature of atheism.<<

Just don't expect David Nicholls to agree with you. He gets very sensitive indeed when you point out the contradiction.

Dear Suze and Pelly,

As you both know I was raised as a Catholic,
and I still consider myself one (- admittedly,
probably not a very good one ). I still need to know
the wonder of the Mass and the comfort of confession.
I cringe at the many experiences of exclusion
(like the example that Suze gave us),
that people have suffered
over the years. Yet, I don't blame religion for some
feeble men who serve it.

Anyway, I guess the only way to be able to judge
what this Convention is trying to achieve is to go
along and attend. The thought that most of the speakers
identify themselves as "Humanists," appeals to me.
Their credentials are certainly impressive.
The only way to learn anything - I guess, is to keep an open
mind. Who knows - it may, as David Nicholls (whom I
respect greatly) says - prove to be quite exciting.

Hello Foxy,

Thanks for your kind words. Yes, we have applied for a very small amount of government funding and it is still being considered.

David

We cannot be hypocritical about tax free benefits or government funding for religious groups if we don't also dissaprove of funding for atheist groups. Although one could argue that while all this money is being handed about why not the Atheists as well.

Foxy
My mother used to tell me stories of her Catholic Girls' School. Some nuns were quite sadistic and had a warped notion of what it meant to be a Christian but there were also some lovely nuns who made a positive impact. You get good and bad in all walks.

I have no problems with humanism but why dress it up with the moniker of atheism. Why not have a humanist conference with people from all different religious and non-religious groups contributing?

Atheists have a right to have a conference as much as anyone else but As an atheist, I just happen to think it a odd objective. A conference for people who don't believe in something that they think other people should not believe in.

Atheism is on the rise for many very good reasons.

To say that making a movement out of it will counteract the very nature of Atheism is a misnomer. How do you expect to tackle any of the various prickly religious issues without an organised response?

Unless there is an organised push from Atheists things will just on the same way forever.

Foxy, I respect your feelings about your religion, as I know it brings comfort to many people, especially the sick and dying I care for.

What I can't handle is the people who want to damn every non-believer to hell and damnation, and who blame all the world's woes on who they believe are the sinners!

Trikkerdee, I see your point in one way, but I feel that being an atheist is enough without being a 'member' of an atheist group.

If enough people in this world reject organised religions and merely follow a morally and ethically sound lifestyle then that will be a good start.

The proposition that an atheist convention may turn atheism into a religion is untenable. If a group of accountants attends a convention do we complain that accountancy is becoming a religion? At a medical convention surely debate and the expression of diverse views is essential? Why should our Convention be any different?

It is true that atheists are a diverse lot. But then, so are the members of most political parties. Do we assume that every single Labor member agrees with every single Labor policy? I actually believe there are many issues on which atheists *can* agree. Surely we agree that the passage of human rights, civil rights and social justice policies should be judged on their merits and not be stymied by religious dogma? Surely we agree that religious institutions should not be exempt from anti-discrimination laws? And does it really matter whether we call ourselves atheists or humanists? Do we want to split hairs or change policies?

If theists confined their beliefs to themselves, there may be no need for atheists to unite, convene and politicize. It is because religious lobbyists use *their* political influence to restrict *our* freedoms that organized opposition must be mounted. I am all for religious freedom. If you do not wish to have an abortion, marry someone of the same sex, or choose euthanasia then you should be absolutely free to make those decisions - just as I should be free to make different choices.

If theists have an inequitable influence on political policy, we have only ourselves to blame. The government courts religious fundamentalists because they are united, and can deliver a bloc of votes. The Convention provides an opportunity for atheists to show some unity and say, "We vote too!"

So, are we going to make a stand? Or do we just want to grizzle amongst ourselves on the internet and do nothing?

Trikkerdee and Chrys
I also see your points to an extent. Spiritualism or religion is a very personal thing. I am not comfortable with evangelism - the idea that everyone must convert others to their way of thinking.

People will and do tend to find their own path whether it be of a religious nature or not.

Atheists throwing their views into the evangelical mix just adds to the boiling pot. It is not that atheism will become another religion, that is not possible. However, atheists might certainly behave like some religious groups in their fervour to push the idea that their's is the only right way.

For me atheism is a choice, including mine, but I don't expect others to necessarily share my point of view. To some people their religion is very important.

Atheism is growing because we are evolving (IMO). For me we do atheism more harm if we go down the 'evangelical' road or adopt a conversion agenda.

That said, there is nothing wrong with an Atheist conference if the goal is to meet other atheists who are like-minded, just as a group of quilters or bonsai enthusiasts might. I just got the feeling that the Atheist movement was more than just for social events.

I do have some sympathy with the view that religions have had it their way for too long and have been until recent times, largely unchallenged. However, in secular Australia there is a greater separation between State and Church than in many other nations and unlike those nations, we have nothing to fear from religious intervention.

Yes, there have been times when our leaders have stuck their nose in various debates according to their religious principles, but as long as they are honest about their proclivities I think we are all capable of making up our own minds.

Of course there's nothing wrong with atheists having a conference. After all, fans of Star Trek get together too.

But Trekkies don't issue press releases that take aim at the folks who dress up for late night showings of The Rocky Horror Show.

I may be pleasantly surprised, and be proved totally wrong, but I strongly suspect that The Atheism Convention will issue press releases, of a similarly ingratiating and self-congratulatory nature as did Catholic Youth Day last year.

If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck...

>>The proposition that an atheist convention may turn atheism into a religion is untenable. If a group of accountants attends a convention do we complain that accountancy is becoming a religion?<<

But when was the last time an accountancy convention applied to the government for funding?

>>Hello Foxy, Thanks for your kind words. Yes, we have applied for a very small amount of government funding and it is still being considered.<<

If you don't want to be thought of as a religion, don't act like one. Last year we had the fun and games surrounding bus advertisements... why? To "counter" the advertisements for Christianity.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7681914.stm

"We see so many posters advertising salvation through Jesus or threatening us with eternal damnation, that I feel sure that a bus advert like this will be welcomed as a breath of fresh air."

There's a point at which the camouflage of "fighting fire with fire" turns into the realization that you have become the very embodiment of that which you are campaigning against.

Keep religion out of atheism, that's what I say.

Protest by all means against pro-religious favouritism.

But you don't need a government-funded quasi-religious convention to achieve that.

Because all you finish up with is...

<<The Convention provides an opportunity for atheists to show some unity and say, "We vote too!"<<

A bumper sticker.

"Honk if you don't believe in Jesus"

Funding for large conventions is provided by the Victorian Government on the basis that these events promote tourism and inject money into the Victorian economy - in no sense has the Victorian government been asked to fund the promotion of atheism. And yes, if there was a large gathering of accountants, they could certainly apply for funding.

I understand that the application that has been made is exceedingly modest given the millions of dollars applied for and given to religious events.

There is absolutely no agenda of 'evangelism' involved in the Convention. In general, atheists are happy for anyone to believe whatever they wish - providing they do not impose their views on the rest of us, use their religious dogma to justify anti-social, discriminatory or violent behaviour, or inflict psychological or physical harm upon children or other defenceless acolytes.

Political influence requires unity. A Convention is an efficient way to begin that process. It does not require that everyone agree on every issue - only that we agree on sufficient issues to make a stand on them. Australia, by the way, has no constitutional separation of church and state. Section 116 of the Constitution requires only that all religions be treated equally.

The Convention provides an amazing opportunity to hear the views of leading public intellectuals, scientists, feminists, human rights activists, academics, authors and former Christians - and to make up your *own* mind about their arguments. The Convention is about disseminating knowledge, finding out what we *do* agree on and calling for policies which provide equity and choice.

Atheism is on the rise - not only in Australia, but across the Western world. It is not unreasonable to draw our politicians' attention to this fact - and a Global Atheist Convention is a positive and effective means of doing so.

Chrys, thank you for such a cogent response. I could not have put it any better myself.

Coincidentally in the wake of the Atheist International Convention held recently in LA, Landon Ross has made a similar argument today in the Huffington Post. He says, in part:

"American atheists and agnostics outnumber all (American) Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, and Hindus combined, so how many lobbying firms do we have in Washington? You might imagine my surprise when Sean Faircloth, Executive Director of the Secular Coalition for America, gave me his sobering answer: one ... his own. That's right, in the face of the Christian lobby and the religious right - with more money than "god" in their coffers - we secularists are an insignificant speed-bump. That we have reason and the constitution on our side won't make enough of a difference, if we don't organize.

It's a (bad) joke we tell each other: organizing atheists is like herding cats (we're no flock of sheep). I can see the malformed logic behind this, and many repeat the meme, but the reality is that there's no reason this should be true. Heterogeneous groups are quite capable of organizing behind a cause, or a movement. Luckily, I felt a sense of growing urgency and frustration at this year's conference. No longer can we afford to play nice with those who refuse to be reasonable."

Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/landon-ross/the-god-crisis_b_316606.html

there are allways....ALLWAYS...more slaves than elites running/ruling it over them...se the elites are clever...while slaves think they are dumb

churches used to lord it over them because they had the smarts...well in time some slaves...realised...they wernt that smart...in short..the control mechanisms were failing...seems everyone was smart

but then they out smarted the serfs...bought in a god free theorum..based on clever[elites...that replace the state that was...serfs allowing others to be wiser...to the state where the science now undrpins the elites

you lot are too dumb to realise...its just the elite[clever...lording it over the ignorant/serf/wage slave...via a new belief system...that gives them believability

your to ignorant..about science to make any informed opinion...ditto the deception of global cooling/warming...ditto the govt spin...you simply havnt the smarts enough to test the evidence...for your lower/serf/wageslave/cashcow/selves..

your hypnotised by names/titles/lables...clever high priests are claiming ...'higher''...knowing..than you....the ignorant masses/slaves/uselesseaters

thus the neo elite..they lord it over the serfs like allways..via a new[neo]..dis-belief system...with its elite messengers/proffits/prophetts...and the docile sheep/herd doing as pavloves dogs...salivating on demand

Dear Suze and Pelly,

Thanks for your great responses (as always).
Organized religion has a lot to answer for -
and as I've written in other threads - in many
cases they've become as calcified as other institutions
that form the structure of our modern world.

However, having said that I've got to admit that
the Requiem Mass I attended recently (when my
step-father passed away) brought great comfort to me
and the family during this difficult time. I guess
rituals like these serve to bring people together,
to remind them of their common group memberships, to
re-affirm their traditional values; and to offer comfort
in times of crisis. Perhaps shared religious beliefs
and the rituals that go with them serve an important
function in society, perhaps we need a "religion," or
some form of belief system that serves the same functions.

Of course, I'm not interested in converting any one.
I've got enough problems staying on my own life's path.
For me, I'm still searching. I no longer believe deeply
in traditional religion as such, but I haven't found a
satisfying substitute.

As for the Atheism Convention - I would assume that it would
be on a far broader range of subjects - and simply for that
reason I'm interested in hearing what the speakers have to
say.

i see emerging a loose coalition of left wing/right wing athiests..

who seeing the bigger cause..get to-gether..to offer their alternative..god free religion..and more a political lobby..with numbers

...willing to forego..their moral standing..on specific issues...to allow one voice..to speak for them politiclly morally[all that religion gave]

just like any politico organisation...someone is seeking a seat at the table...on the promise of bulk votes...but there is the rub

you liberals/you labourites...

is your sameness in disbelief...STONGER than your party loyalties...?

this group's leadership..who wants to be heard...on the claim of delivering votes..are decieved...equally after a bit of power...by deception...your not going to sway...our party line..one jot

no one puts athiesm ahead of their party loyalty...
no doudt the next step is the..athiest party/lobby

imagine a future party..allready sucking the public purse
by their deeds..will they be revealed...lol

just the revealtion of the political adgenda..
reveals the whole scam....

your not going to get heard...running with the athiests...who will claim to be..politiclly speaking on your behalf..!

we have seen the humanitarians sucked in,,,next the agnostics...even the open minded who attend...your attendance will be claimed to be representing you,..politicly...

they are selling your numbers..as a bought/sold group/single..issue/vote...

to get their foot in the door...to the powers that be

its call about power...having the appearance of numbers...like all the farmers organisations...that join each others members lists..looking big..yet only minours networking..giving the impression..of many organisations its the same minority/elite...

looking bigger than they be..despite farmers being a minority...thier many//polical//farmer groups..makes it LOOK huge

the collective lobby has an..apparent..large base...but the foundational base of the athiests is more feeble...

you cant speak for all the godless..that this apparent/ single issue...has many a divergent voter/party/polical base..is undeniable

the bigger/numbers will also help..get more govt laregess

this is a neo[new] political group...with the sole aim...of removing god...mention of god...ritual of god...allready seeking govt gift

the confused mindnumb sheeple are led..into a science deception/god/replacement..for the godless by choice...made in complete ignorance of the full meaning..behind its replacement...a political movement

Suze, Pelican & Foxy

Right there with you vis a vis your thoughts regarding the Atheist Convention, both the positive aspects and the concerns that it should ever become evangelistic.

Foxy your thoughts on the ritual for grieving as you did for your stepfather have been similarly in mine as well - for the Samoans and Tongans with their losses due to the havoc wreaked upon their islands. As a visitor to Tonga, I was impressed by the shell encrusted burial mounds that sit along roadways among houses for all to pay their respects. While Tongans (like Samoans) have adopted Christianity, the family burial mounds are a legacy of earlier religious rituals. I believe (apart from the social aspect) that ritual surrounding the loss of loved ones is a wonderful way to work through grief. Ritual is common to all religions, atheism by its nature of independent thought is unlikely to provide the sense of community and support that religious rituals offer. I do not believe that by accepting ritual one should then blindly believe in a deity - especially the one as described in the bible, however, there is need basic human need for ritual in circumstances of loss.

Christians commandeered pagan rituals for their own use: Christmas, Easter etc. Perhaps we are ready to re-create religious rituals so that they become inclusive of all people instead of just the ones who believe in the supernatural.

For my family, Christmas is celebrated as a family day, the intent being a gathering and acknowledgment of all family and friends. Easter is celebrated similarly with hunting of chocolate eggs for children, being truer to the pagan celebration of fertility than to an execution that may or may not have occurred.

In conclusion, I believe that that idea of an atheist convention is not such an oxymoron as some think.

I find myself in the dismaying position of agreeing with Under One God. I do not support the idea of an 'atheist party'. I think the idea would be divisive and counter-productive. I do, however, support the idea of a secular lobby to counter the religious pressure brought to bear by groups such as the Australian Christian Lobby, the Catholic bishops and the Exclusive Brethren.

Oh, please.

>>if there was a large gathering of accountants, they could certainly apply for funding.<<

Let's stay in the real world.

By definition, atheism should not be harnessed for political ends.

The only possible common platform is anti-religion. which is untenable as a concept ("how dare you dictate to me what I may or may not believe in"), and politically dangerous, inviting comparisons with Stalin and Pol Pot.

Tired old cliches they may be, but they make great headlines.

It all sounds very highbrow, natch.

>>atheists are happy for anyone to believe whatever they wish - providing they do not impose their views on the rest of us, use their religious dogma to justify anti-social, discriminatory or violent behaviour, or inflict psychological or physical harm upon children or other defenceless acolytes<<

One man's "psychological harm" is, of course, another's "ethical guidance".

But the reality is that we already have a system in place through which atheists may express their - individual - views on abortion, same-sex marriages, "human rights, civil rights and social justice" etc., without leaving ourselves open to the same charges levelled against religious groups.

>>The Convention is about disseminating knowledge, finding out what we *do* agree on and calling for policies which provide equity and choice.<<

What "knowledge" is there to be disseminated?

What "agreement" could possibly be reached?

The entire force of atheism, surely, is to avoid having to bow to someone else's version of "the Truth", to retain the ability to think, decide and act for oneself, and to take the responsibility that goes with those actions.

Such a Convention is like painting a series of concentric circles on your bum and saying "shoot here". It is playing into the hands of smug religionists, who are looking forward to the opportunity to expose it for the sham that it is.

The only possible justification for the entire event is to push someone's individual lust for political power.

A sort of atheist version of Fred Nile, without the charm.

Good People,

The suggestion that individual Atheists are seeking power is incorrect. The only importance of the power word is that Atheism is attempting to empower those in society and the planet whose equal opportunity to have power over their lives which others take for granted has been limited by religion.

We seek to empower women to achieve a role equal to that of men.

We seek to empower women by making sure that safe and legal abortion is a choice of the individual.

We seek to empower lesbian, gay and transgender people with the same rights enjoyed by heterosexuals.

We seek to empower children by giving them all the information and not just a narrow geographically indoctrinated religious view, which is generally accompanied by dire threats and impossible promises.

We seek to empower children and adults with the latest in scientific understanding and not the musings of those with closed minds.

We seek to empower science as opposed to superstition in areas such as stem cell research.

We seek to empower the average taxpayer with the knowledge of the billions of dollars that annually goes untaxed because of religion.

We seek to empower the citizens on earth to make the best decisions using reason to draw conclusions as the best way forward for humanity.

Atheists have no master plan to dominate the planet. This is just the paranoid ramblings of those desperately attempting to protect their own minds from exposure. Atheists are just people who see that the emperor of religion has no clothes and that many of the faiths, along with the good, bring enormous harm.

When religion cures the harm side of that equation, then Atheists will have no need for Conventions. Bring on that day.

For all the Atheists out there who feel no need to be reactive to the politics of the day, and to all the open minded religious folk who are unsure about Atheism, why not come along to the Global Atheist Convention.

Surely, exposure to some of the world’s greatest intellectual and academic minds is a learning experience in itself.

David

Pericles <"Honk if you don't believe in Jesus"
Lol !

However, I can just see me pulling up at the lights (with my sticker on the back window) and a carload of Christian Fundamentalists pulls up behind me.
They all jump out of their car and start screaming at me about being on the highway to hell!
Hmmm, maybe not a good idea.

David <"Surely, exposure to some of the world’s greatest intellectual and academic minds is a learning experience in itself."

Yes, you may have peeked my wary interest when you explained all the goals you seek to achieve through this atheist convention.

Maybe I will join Foxy in keeping an open mind and read about the speeches at this convention.

I can always do with a new learning experience!

suzeonline,

You have misread my post. I did not say the Global Atheist Convention would achieve these goals but they will get a hearing. The goals outlined are some to which Atheists worldwide aspire. As do many other people who do not class themselves as Atheists.

Are you amongst them?

David

Dear Fractelle,

I can really identify with pagan rituals -
coming from a Lithuanian ancestry. Lithuanians
as I wrote on another thread were a "tribe"
of nature worshippers, pantheists, believers
in faeries, forest sprites, and wood nymphs...

Lithuanians were the last Europeans to embrace
Christianity in 1386-87, and the transition from
their previous animistic faith took several further
centuries to permeate the folk culture.

Any wonder that I tend to look for relevance
and meaning in my life today - perhaps it's in
the genes?

I want to Thank You for the two words you gave
me on the "Racial Prejudice," thread. The words
were - "My Friend." It was like I'd been given
a mystical helmet, and all of a sudden I felt I
could fly!

I love the irony there Pericles:

"There's a point at which the camouflage of "fighting fire with fire" turns into the realization that you have become the very embodiment of that which you are campaigning against."

I think Jesus could have said that.
In fact, I think he did.
Keep religion out of atheism, that's what I say.
Personally, I think the Convention sounds like fun, and I wish the participants all the best.
Was that a blessing?

I for one will be attending this conference and basking in the glow of being surrounded for the first time by a huge group of like minded free thinkers and feeling the potential for good works amongst them. Seeing David's list above really brings it home how much there is to be done, or maybe I should say undone! I'm open to an amazing learning experience, are you?

Religion will always be a part of our history, there is no denying that it has played a big role. The rituals will no doubt remain for a long time, just look at the endurance of the major lies we force feed our poor children - santa, the easter bunny and the tooth fairy. Why cant they be honest and joyful celebrations of family, fertility and growth instead?

But myths are just that, myths, and rational debate must take the place of religious dogmatic arguments to enable us to collectively find the road towards a positive and peaceful future for one and all.

Sorry, I remain unconvinced.

>>Atheism is attempting to empower those in society and the planet whose equal opportunity to have power over their lives which others take for granted has been limited by religion.<<

If you take a moment to disassemble this piece of rhetoric of yours, Mr Nicholls, it will become crystal clear that it is empty of everything except vanity.

Atheism attempts to empower people? Seriously?

What empowerment can atheism provide, at an individual level? What form does it take? How is "equal opportunity" limited by religion?

We are empowered in Australia by our democratic system, not by a convention of mutual back-slappers.

That entire list of "empowerments" that you propose the convention strives for has absolutely nothing to do with atheism, and everything to do with politics.

And this is pure guff:

>>Surely, exposure to some of the world’s greatest intellectual and academic minds is a learning experience in itself.<<

Well, of course it is. What a dumb question.

But why bring these intellectuals and academics together under the totally unnecessary - and imaginary - umbrella of atheism? You cannot rally behind a negative, such as "there is no god". Or an absence, as in "I have no belief in a supreme Creator".

The common theme can only possibly be a negative - "get religion out" - which makes it closer to a protest rally, than a think-tank.

Which is why I come to the conclusion that the event, which is clearly attempting to turn atheism into a "movement", is far more likely to bring it into disrepute.

What happens, for example, if I disagree with every speaker? Or maybe just a few of them?

What happens if you go ahead and brand atheism in the public's eyes in a manner that is contrary to my own thoughts?

I can't disown atheism.

I can't simply invent another non-religion.

You're treading on dangerous ground, in my view.

I'm with Pericles. How can you make a cohesive group of out of Atheists. The religious folk have failed at it which is reflected in the continual cyle of "mine is better than yours" rhetoric. The only thing that unites atheists is the common disbelief in a supernatural deity. What if an atheist should be against abortion? Will you represent them and if not how can such a group claim to represent all atheists.

David your list has some worthy goals but why dress it up in the cloak of atheism? Have not these goals been advocated for through many and various community and lobby groups?

A group that ensures that the pressures from the religious lobby do not interfere in the private lives of individuals such as in gay marriage, is not a bad idea in principle. But I think even those sorts of issues can be argued and fought for under the banner of discrimination and equal opportunity law. And just by the fact that we are all becoming more accepting as we are educated and exposed to others different from ourselves.

Even on Q&A the other night both the Catholic Priest, Father Frank Brennan and Waleed Aly would not openly say their religion cast homosexuality as a sin. Times are a changing.

Foxy
I can perfectly understand how you religion would provide comfort and solace in times of grief. We each find our own way of dealing with the good and bad in our lives, and for some that is through religion.

Pericles,

OK, if you consider that standing up for human rights, is vanity then it is obvious as to why we need a Convention. Vanity by anyone has nought to do with it.

And who is denying this is not to do with politics. How do you suggest there can be an advancement of human rights without political input? By fairy power or something, I presume.

Yes, a part of the Convention is protesting against those things in religion that are against human rights. No news here nor is there any apology. The only strange thing about it is that you think it is strange.

“Treading on dangerous ground” is in you mind only. This is a Convention of likeminded people and if you can see something sinister about it or think others will, it is you who is misreading what is essentially a gathering of Atheists.

Explain what is sinister.

pelican,

Of course, you are correct, the only commonality with Atheists is they don’t accept a god or supernatural realms exist. But the obvious follow on is that most Atheists therefore can see the dangers that belief in invisible supermen in the sky brings with it. Obviously then there is a distinct leaning towards being sensitive to social justice issues where religion is interfering negatively with the live of citizens. It’s a bit like if there was a religion where ripping the legs of living cats was acceptable to those on that religion. Normal humans unhampered by that religion would see it as wrong. The question here is, would you?

Father Frank Brennan and Waleed Aly both fudged the question about homosexuality. It is a mortal sin according to the Catholics faith and those engaging in it bound for hell. That shows no sign of changing.

Homosexual activity is a means to the death sentence in many countries where Islam has power in politics. That shows no sign of changing.

Foxy, thanks for your kinds words. If all religious folk and their dogma imitated your thoughts, then a Convention would not be necessary. Unfortunately, that ain’t so.

Davi

Dear Pericles and Pelly,

Why don't the two of you go along to the Convention
and find out for yourselves what they are trying
to achieve - then judge. At present, it seems that
all you're really doing is "shadow boxing."
Keep an open mind - find out what it's all about -
then decide.

Some here do not find that a collective voice within non-believers in Australia worthy of anything but derision. This is nothing new. It is just bigotry.

This is just an example of WHY non-believers are organising, globally. This is blatant discrimination, the attitudes of people here in responding to posts by atheists and non believers is an example of the shear weight that stands upon us in trying to be heard.

You can 'believe' all you like, all we are asking for is for a collective body amongst the wider 1/5 of Australian non-believers to be recognised.

I have read through the discussions here, and it is just an example of the effort that believers go to deride those of us who are secular.

We have religion pushing for laws to be absolved of anti-discrimination laws, one law for them, one law for others.

We have religious bodies refusing to allow ethics being taught to our children whilst theirs learn scripture in school. Our children are forced to do nothing, learn nothing in this time.

There are tax breaks and closed books within the religious institutions, whilst they use over a hundred million of our tax payers dollars for 'World Youth Day' for example.

The Atheist Foundation of Australia, our collective body and representative for many of us, whether you like that or not, that has stood for atheist thought, applied to the government for consideration of funding, and have not yet been answered as per a previous post I read here.

This needs addressing, whether the religious don't understand us is beside the point.

lol....its just bigotry...oh poor poor you..that about sums up the athiest majority..you poor oppressed athiests...and them horrible xtians/muslims burning you at the stake,..for your blasphamous disbelief....all them speakers...and they got no voice...lol

look ....im starting the anti santa party...

i feel we should stop filling our kids minds...with this god free solution...that neatly covers over the birth of the saviour/messiah..and is based von a pedophile in a fake beard..who gets off on kids lap dancing...mate see its out there..with the pixies

and also im hereby setting up the anti-easterbunny party...for simular excuse..in that this is a destraction..from the day our messiah was hung on a cross BY HIS OWN..just as the poor athiest have their cross to bear..

in making god political....stop and think..havnt you nutters allready sepperated church and state...how can we fight you..ecept/politiclly..but there our hands are tied...clever stuff

you been getting the one way running..for too long...you might be a majority...but your deciples..have been far from silent...

poor blooming you..[ewe's..led by the nose like badly crutched sheep...because liars filled your mind with fear[of god]...who is really..all loving living grace/mercyfull

and decieved into thinking evolution..is remotely based on real/true science...evolution is a scam...now we are seeing the fruit of the scam...it were political...all along...

you lot are the first step to..restore the church/state?

...the first step..is make religion political...go for it..from what i see here your humantarians...and should have formed a humanties party...

but now your under-lying..god/free/athiest adgenda ..is revealed and reviled...now claiming humanitist..you need to refute the a-thiest[quasi religious root]..

its so funny watching the blind decieve the blind...you who never sought to know your own creator/god/good..decry in ignorance..and in your ignorance..have been decieved

The Biggest Atheist group in the world are the believers in Confucism
Confucism is not a religion it is a way of life
Confucism does not believe in gods as such it believes in the following of a healthy lifestyle and way of life
Thanks have a good life
From Dave

Religious groups have rights above and beyond those of non-believers. We pay our taxes, we want equality, and all the puts downs and mockery that people of belief throw our way is not going to stop us.

This is just another example of the hypocrisy that we are seeing manifest. The attitudes of many of the people on this board is an example of what our community is dealing with, whether you understand or like that is beside the point.

You may mock us for collectively having humanistic evolutionary social morals and standards, this is a reflection of the inherent good that is within us all as social beings. We will not let religious bigotry take that away from us.

'one under god' you may mock and ridicule, claim a stronger moral compass, may not understand what atheism is, but you are kinda proving a point here. I am not mocking your belief, but you are mocking us for not having yours. This is no different that you mocking Islam, mocking the Jewish faith, mocking buddhism etc. Indeed the issue is inherently entwined because of your attitude.

I just have belief in one less god than you do.

We are people of logic, reason and humanistic ideals, and we want a voice and to be heard.

We are a community, a growing and large community made up of many, with vocal groups such as the AFA just part of that.

What about the Parliament of World Religion? They are being funded millions of dollars.

Not only do these groups get tax breaks, but they are also allowed funding from those of us that do pay taxes, while we are denied.

All we want is equality.

David
I agree they did fudge the answers on Q&A but the fact they were not honest in stating the Church view of homesexuality as a sin does imply change even if only a tiny step.

Yes I would be against ripping off cat legs - shock horror. :)

What will the rise of Atheism do to achieve religious groups breaking the laws (animal cruelty in this instance) that the law won't already provide?

Yes in some countries people can be killed for being homosexual or for committing adultery, but again, what will an atheism movement achieve that a human rights movement wouldn't without any of the dogma, one way or the other?

Achieve? here's just a number of things that need confronting :

http://www.smh.com.au/national/almighty-row-over-ethics-class-in-schools-20090925-g6a0.html

Religions are actively stopping our children from learning ANYTHING in our public schools, doesn't matter than we have structured ethics classes ready to go. Religion is fighting this from happening.

Victoria has proposed a new law granting religious groups an exemption from certain sorts of anti-discrimination measures, they would be allowed to exclude candidates for jobs or services on the basis of religious faith, gender, and sexuality. Why? one law for them and another for us?

Federal exemptions or concessions apply to religions for income tax, fringe benefits tax and the GST. In state government, concessions apply to payroll tax, land tax, stamp duties and car registration fees. Local government bodies give exemptions from municipal rates to religious bodies. Concessions apply to some water and power charges, as well. Section 57 of the Fringe Benefits Tax Assessment Act 1986 gives total exemption to fringe benefits given to employees who are religious practitioners.

One law for them, another for us. We are citizens, we are tax-payers.

These things and more are why the voices of non-believers are asking for equality, our current laws only support religion, above and beyond the rights of Australians that do not have their 'faith'.

thanks woot...<<we are different only in that of one god>>

it dosnt seem much...but just/by believing...no..its more than belief...just in knowing..god is a/the reality..that one small difference..allows me instant symatry..with others..believing in god

in time..you athiests..will have your own churches...were you can simply find..those like you..see..i visit their alters...and feel at home..with my own...our fathers/children

you would not have this..with other than..athiests...who vary from the most loving..to the most...well not ..so loving...but i can happliy sit with athiest/or..thiest alike...for i know..we are all one

god so loves us...so loves you...all

..has given..your life/..egsactly what you need..and you know it not...have you thanked your parentals..for raising you...it just makes me sad..people are so ea-silly taken in..by those feared/ignorant of good/god

i might seem to give..athiests..a hard-time...but i know im a retard...only channeling on mind/imagry....light and light..is..of god

all suns..radiate/channel.. the fathers light..[love]
light/..is the logic/..that sustains life/...

that life realise love,..shoot..its like pointing..and peoople replying..i cant hear it...

well of course you cant hear..your hearing with your ear..not your mind...nor your heart

im really sorry..for trying to tell the deaf and blind..to listen with their heart...

what is the end fruit..of this topic?...there is a certain timming...its going to be at..or near..election time...finalises on the last-day..of the old moon

has many celibrities...that NORMALLY/nominally..charge appearance fees...even if..for free..they would still need courtesies..pickups/hotel/resterant...etc..add in hall hire..promotion/organisation..

someone..has put up some serious cash...to explode on the scene quickly/..unthinklingly quickly...IN THE MIDDLE OF AN ELECTION CAMPAIN

in politics timming is everything...seems a lot of cash behind the athiest movement...they even co-sponcer our postings..ability to post and the..[this]..forum...

so i wont say more than

dont give up on god
if he gave up on us
we would simply cease to be

..the logic/logus...would return to dream time
and those without love in their heart...

somehow..must be..given/the key...prayer...from/heart

before..heading..into the darkness...

god is within...the natural..of nature/nurture...

love that good/living/loving..of..nature.....simply by loving others...when/then..if..one day..in the far_distant_futur...you should awake..in darkness...remember the logic of god..living..in..your heart...know he-is within...send prayer..to the light..without

dont forget that..
then try to do love...to all..and too..all...

believe..if..you have it..and..if you dont
have a good night

From all the literature and statements I have read from the AFA, the Convention is being funded by the tickets themselves. This has been repeated here from what I read that David posted. I do not believe this will be easy to even cover, and the costs you mention are one of the reasons for this. The point is, we are organising anyway, regardless of the difficulty of our struggle against concepts such as yours.

I am not going to confront your somewhat incoherent post, nor ridicule you, I think you speak for yourself with disproving that morals and a sense of right and wrong come only from religion.

Whether you understand it or not, non-believers have a lot of specific issues that need addressing. There are specific inequalities that I gave examples of, there are plenty more, and what appears to be happening to the Atheist Foundation is that they are still waiting on a response.

As a tax-payer, and a citizen, whether you like it or not, whether you cannot conceive that atheists and non-believers have found any common consensus on morals and equality that we want to address, is beside the point. It is beside the point that you cannot accept that non-believers have a moral compass, anymore than if you said it of muslims.

I for one am attending the convention and so thankful that in some way I can join with others in a community of similar minds, to address common interest that pertains to us, without having to trudge through bigotry against us, for not sharing beliefs.

pelican,

If we lived in a country where politics had legislated it OK for religion to rip of the legs of living cats, a Convention by Atheists would highlight to the religion involved and the government of the day that there is a growing band of people opposed to such a barbaric practice and that we vote. If as it is now that only a minority of the population agreed with ‘cat-leg-ripping’, we would point out the inconsistency with democracy.

There are many examples analogous to this, which I have already enunciated. I did leave out a very important one though and that was voluntary euthanasia. Consistent surveys around 80% in favour of having a legal system for people in unremitting pain with a terminal illness are being ignored by religion and politics.

There is no Atheist movement as such. There are just a growing number of people concerned by the intrusion of religion in society. The Convention merely is intended to focus people’s attention on the matters described. And to reinforce with Atheists and religious folk that government policy is not reflecting majority consensus.

If you like, Atheism is a part of the wider human rights movement of concerned groups such as Amnesty International, Get Up and whole host of others. The only difference is, even thought we support the concerns of these groups; we concentrate on the problems created by religion. There are plenty of them and I am not going to go through it again.

In the end, voters affect policy, and Atheists are voters.

And let me make it very clear. If people wish to follow a religion then that is fine. Believe in fairies at the bottom of the garden for all Atheists care, after all it is your life. But soon as you impose of attempt to impose your own ideas onto the majority, which happens in all countries, then there will be people who will resist such interference.

David

maybe you will be getting a huge influx...sooner than you think..<<.,

Vatican Satanists Backs Obama’s Global Agenda
http://www.aim.org/aim-column/vatican-backs-obamas-global-agenda/

Barack Obama's Top 10 unfulfilled pledges
"Less than nine months into his four-year term of office,..President
Barack Obama's record is already one of abandoned promises,..sidelined
issues and lack of action." More at link:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/6310255/Barack-Obamas-Top-10-unfulfilled-pledges.html

Obama's Communist Antecedents
http://www.aim.org/aim-column/obamas-communist-mentor/

US Communism,..Food,..Healthcare

"conspiracy has been used by an elite few to reshape the U.S.
government..in which individual rights were honored,..into a regime of coercive State power..backed by corrupt communist monopolies..of power's..that have given themselves the ability/and right to.."take"..any of our private property./..and private wages from
individual owners..and redistribute the wealth elsewhere,..including to failing monopolies." http://www.rense.com/general88/uscom.htm

What Obama Isn’t Telling American Workers
"The “Great Recession” has caused tectonic shifts internationally,
with outcomes that will dramatically change the lives of millions of
people..he isn’t explaining how this adversely affects working-class Americans...The truth would be far too “controversial.”
http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=15656

Lisbon Treaty Gives Jews Greater Power
"Ireland,..pressured by EU..signed away the sovereignty..of all 27
member states to the EU authorities in Brussels who are controlled by
Zionist Jews in Frankfurt."
http://www.realzionistnews.com/?p=456

Is Canada More pro-Israel than the U.S.?
PM Harper said: “..North Korea,..Iran,..Sudan and Somalia..No other country in the world..has demonstrated..such full understanding of us.”
http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=15658

Jew-controlled Hollywood's Push to 'Normalize' Sex with Children
http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/jjmnolte/2009/10/08/the-polanski-culture-hollywoods-push-to-normalize-sex-with-children/#more-242242

Swine Flu Hoax/..the Genocidal Agenda.Behind Swine Flu Vaccinations.."Forced Vaccination..is the most important issue we now face"
http://educate-yourself.org/cn/swinefluindex.shtml

Global homicide:..murder rates around the world
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2009/oct/13/homicide-rates-country-murder-data

Pure tap-dancing, Mr Nicholls.

>>if you consider that standing up for human rights, is vanity<<

Of course standing up for human rights is not vanity.

But proposing that the only way that it is possible to stand up for human rights is a) to be an atheist and b) to attend an atheist convention, most certainly is.

>>How do you suggest there can be an advancement of human rights without political input?<<

Oh, please.

Of course you need political will to move human rights forward. But to suggest that a political motivation can derive solely from atheism is not just vanity, it is arrogance.

As is the suggestion that there could be one voice representing all atheists.

What about atheists with ethical objections to stem cell research, or genetic modification, or abortion? Do you somehow insist that they conform to your own views on the subject?

And if they don't, they can't be atheists any longer?

Pah.

That is exactly the sort of arrogance that Christians display, on exactly the same topic. How many times have you heard them say stuff like "without a moral guide from God you are all making it up as you go"

And you are falling into precisely the same trap.

>>This is a Convention of likeminded people<<

Only in one dimension. That they disapprove of the impact that religion has on our society.

We have seen many times on OLO, Christians disapprove of such things as religious tribunals for Jews and Muslims. What makes you different?

Or are you happy to be branded "just another religion, trying to impose their views on the rest of us?"

We have in this country a legal system. We have a representative democracy. And we do have lobbyists, representing bodies of "likeminded people".

But in what way, except the anti-God-botherer stance, can you possibly suggest that you and I are "like-minded people"?

The chances are 100% that we would disagree in some area. And that others would disagree in other areas.

How does that constitute a viable political force?

Pericles,

Have you a point or do you just like reading the rubbish you write. You do not have to agree with the Convention and the Convention does not have to agree with you. No one cares if you don’t want to take responsibility as a citizen and act for the rights of others. We will do it for you. No one is going to force her or his view on you. And if you would bother reading, what I have actually written you will find Atheists are all about choice.

I am sure you and me are not likeminded because I am unsure as to what you are driving at. Whereas I have been absolutely clear.

Trying to equate Atheism with some kind of religion is pathetic and obfuscatory mud slinging.

Do us all a favour and make clear and simple statements at to what you find so objectionable about the Global Atheist Conversation.

You may think that big noting yourself is gaining you friends but I would suggest the quality of that friendship is dubious to say the least. (If anyone can actually understand what your point is)

Why not come along to the Rise of Atheism Convention or are you frightened to voice an opinion where you cannot hide behind a pseudonym.

David

It's simple, Mr Nicholls, and I'm surprised that you cannot grasp it.

>>Do us all a favour and make clear and simple statements at to what you find so objectionable about the Global Atheist Conversation<<

(I presume the use of Conversation instead of Convention was a slip of the keyboard, rather than a bit of sly sophistry. I'm only talking about the convention, not atheism per se.)

1. Atheists do not share a single world view, in the way that religious people identify with a particular God, and the rules that are drawn from that association.

2. At your convention, you will undoubtedly do one of two things. You will either issue a statement explaining what the delegates have agreed upon. Or you will issue a statement that says you are unable to come to any agreement.

3. If you announce positions that you agree upon, they then become positions publicly identified with "Atheism". Which will then be attacked by religious groups as being "atheist beliefs", synonymous with any other belief system.

4. More specifically, you will have tabled a definition of the policies and causes that you see as constituting atheism. In doing so, you have appropriated a label for your political activities that you do not own. Who gave you the right to speak on my behalf?

5. If you announce that the convention cannot agree on anything - despite the fact that this would be the most honest result - then you have signally failed to achieve the political clout that you seem so earnestly to desire. And made the Convention itself a laughing-stock.

It is a clear lose-lose situation.

Which part of that do you still not understand?

And leave the sarky sideswipes at home. You got into a similar self-indulgent froth last year over those stupid bus adverts.

Did they ever appear, by the way?

Pericles,

Then I assume you think Atheists should just shut up. Very intelligent comment from you.

You have not said one thing that I haven’t expressed. I ask again, what is the point of your posts. Don’t make me guess.

Please don’t accuse me of sophistry when that is all you can write.

What do you think Atheists should do, that is those who recognise there is a problem with religion, which excludes you?

Maybe just accept the status quo and lie down quietly. It is quite disturbing when Atheists not only have to confront issues but also the minority of Atheists who just don’t get it. Or is it that they refuse to get it. That’s one of my guesses with you.

Oh, you mention the buses. Keep your eyes open. How did you help with that? Working from memory, your contribution was about the same as you are helping with Atheism right now.

Minus zero.

David

I'm glad the AFA exists, but I agree with Pericles on this one.

David, I said in a previous thread that you demean the Foundation by enaging in forum mud-slinging in your official capacity. I remind you of that again.

As a supporter of the AFA I feel I need emphasise several very important points that I think have gotten lost in what is clearly starting to become a mud-slinging match.

No one is going to have to start a new non-religion. The mere structure of the word “A-theism” ensures that.

All the AFA does is campaign on issues from an Atheistic perspective. If a member of the AFA is against abortion and the AFA does something for the Pro-choice movement, then that AFA member can simply sit that one out. No one in the AFA is going to kick them out or force them to partake.

As far as I’m concerned, there is but one tenet and one tenet only of Atheism, and that is that there are no tenets to Atheism other than the lack of belief in gods. If the AFA were to start requiring that members hold certain views, then I suspect it would dissolve faster than you could say “quasi-religion”, or at the very least, become a small underground group that no one paid any attention to.

I’ve had a read of the Rise of Atheism website and I see no mention of the need for agreements to be reached. Do any agreements actually have to be reached? Why can’t the purpose of the convention simply be to convene? That in itself would be all that was needed to make the political statement that Atheists do exist and that they do vote.

Politicians are eager to announce their religious beliefs to woo votes, but none of them ever try to woo votes by declaring their lack of belief and that to me says something.

If the convention results in the religious falsely attacking certain beliefs as being “Atheist beliefs” (which they do anyway), then I think that’s a small price to pay for sending a message to politicians, and giving those who are trying to pull themselves out of their childhood indoctrination - while surrounded by religious friends and family - a sense of community and solidarity that most of us luckily never needed.

David you said: "No one cares if you don’t want to take responsibility as a citizen and act for the rights of others. We will do it for you."

This is unfair. Just because a person chooses not to take responsibility as a citizen via the Atheist Foundation does not mean they are not responsible or are not involved in other ways.

Regarding the cat ripping scenario - if such a religion influenced policy to that extent then it could be fought on legal and animal rights grounds. It would have more impact than arguing from a purely athiestic perspective.

We seem to have reached an impasse. The biggest fear is that Atheists become just another group with an unclear agenda. A group that claims to represent all Atheists in a common cause for rights and freedoms not to be influenced by religious bigotry or prejudice has a nice ring to it. But as Pericles rightly said Atheists are not a cohesive group in their belief systems and values.

Look I am an Atheist and I know what you are trying to do. For me it is not the right approach. We just lump ourselves with the same dogma bandwagons as those who would influence policy on unsubstantiated religious teachings.

Dear Pelly,

What alternative then, do you and/or Pericles
suggest Atheists do, instead of having a
Convention?

Be constructive and give us a list - I'm curious
what positive outcomes you've got on offer, instead
of just knocking their attempts at trying to achieve
something. Anyone can criticize, that's easy.
But how about a solution to the problem as you see it?

I think some semantics have come into play. Unwarranted concern for some. Fear and confusion tied up in the word Atheism for some clouds meaning and purpose, like blinkers on racehorses.

The convention will be a collection of brilliant minds for an audience of interested people. Atheists are the target audience by default, it is not exclusive to Atheists. I guess it can be said that you use your discretion to decide if it is something you would want to attend, or something some may find too challenging if it conflicts with personal belief systems. Just like going to watch a movie at a cinema. Certainly don't be offended or threatened in any way, as there is no need.

There are varying degrees of Atheism as is with any other group of people. Some feel this convention is unnecessary, or too political (which it isn't). I think it is important to accept that most will be going to experience a wealth of knowledge from well respected idenities. Like a great book you will never likely be able to read again.

Like it or not Atheists are out there... we don't sneak about in the night performing rituals and breaking laws. We are just like everyone else, living our lives, but in our own way. It would be hypocritical of anyone to say that this convention is wrong or unethical in any way. We (as Atheists) deserve to be heard and understood just like everyone else. Many don't take the time to understand what Atheism is all about and what it really stands for, but rely on second hand whispers and stories which tend to cause more harm than understanding.

Try to understand Atheism for what it is trying not to judge just because a group of like-minded people like to share the same interests and views.

Thanks for reading. I am sure the convention will be a fantastic learning opportunity. I trust and hope all who attend enjoy the labours of much volunteered time and efforts in bringing this event to life.

Cheers

Wow - what a lot of fuss. I'm going to the atheist convention, I think it's a great idea.

The opportunity for people of a rationalist/humanist/secular bent to discuss issues in public or in a conference context should be encouraged. The modern society is a mega society made up of people of many cultural and religious and non-religious back grounds. The idea that people who don't believe in a God shouldn't discuss their ideas is ridiculus - opposition by religious persons to this kind of event just demonstrates a personal insecurity and bigotry more than anything.

Pericles whether you like it or not, the views David put across is the common consensus of those he represents, being atheists that are organising in Australia for equality of non-believers.

What exactly in the listing of stuff he posted, that is the combined ethics of those he represents do you personally oppose? or is this just an excercise in possibilities?

There are 380,000+ christian sects, yet they organise as a 'political force' .. go tell them they don't speak for all christians as some use condoms, or are ok with someone having an abortion, and also tell the government not to listen to them.

We are a large, voting group with ethics based on us intrinsically being social creatures. We use reason and logic to come to general consensus on issues, and have a voice in the AFA to put it forward.

Sancho,

I appreciate your concern for what I might say or have said in my official capacity. You do not need to remind me of that. I am not just mouthing off at indiscriminate rubbishing of an idea; I am protecting those who have extended huge effort in bringing the Global Atheist Convention to fruition and the whole notion of the Conventio itself. This is a good idea, with good people extending themselves to the limit to make it a historical moment for secular Australia.

People on the Rise of Atheism Convention committee have worked tirelessly without financial reward, having as well occupations and life to deal with. Others not on the Committee have volunteered time and exertion in making this a success. The efforts they have freely given to make the occasion one of significance, is something, which makes me proud to be an Atheist. I personally spend at least 14 hours a day in orchestrating the jigsaw of complexity so it may come to reality. This I have done for some months and expect it to continue until March next year.

Trying to make the budget keep afloat with no government assistance so far has been extremely difficult. We have speakers from all over the planet from different time zones; with conflicting commitments and requirements, which is a logistical nightmare to organise. All are appearing and not charging the huge amounts their qualifications could demand.

The Atheist Global Convention is a mammoth task we are all working on

On the other side of the coin, we have people trying to undermine this tremendous effort for the sake of being obtuse. For Zeus’ sake, it’s a gathering of people. Does the right of association somehow not apply to us?

Will I apologise for being a little truthful. No.

David

just a quick note to welcome a new member
and their fist/only.. post
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/user.asp?id=56528

so welcome
brownchicken, Thursday, 15 October 2009 9:29:05 AM

nothing much else..to see here
enjoy your party...lol

athiest convention for the party not a party
for those with belief in dis-belief

the religious use of politics..that is religiously free of god
but not free of the preaching/order/powers/perswasions/words/passions/peers as if of..religion

athiesm..[yet another extreemist sect..wronging/ignoring/preaching about... god...by ignoring him

yet..another/.. systemised belief system..in a class of its own..yet still a systemised belief...in disbelief..lol

'One under god'

Atheism (i after e) is not having a belief in a god or gods.

It is as much a belief as not stamp collecting is a hobby.

Those that are atheist, are asking that those with religion, not have rights above and beyond them, hence are organising.

Groups of atheists do have common ethical stances, grounded in being social beings with empathy.

Do you really have difficulty with these simple concepts?

More importantly, why should religion have rights above and beyong others in our society? Why are they so priviledged, and some stand as you do in judgment mocking us for saying so?

I’ve just read through each of your posts pericles, and its blatantly obvious that you have some serious problems with identifying yourself as an Atheist.

Seeing you using words like “ingratiating” and “self-congratulatory” when referring to other atheists, or that old chestnut “quacks and ducks”, and another “don’t act like a religion”, or “keep religion out of atheism” and “quasi religious convention” shows you to be some kind of loner who is possibly ashamed to be an atheist.

Fortunately, there are now millions of atheists around the world, and as is their right, they are proud to tell the world they have no belief in the supernatural, they are organising themselves, they are blogging, having meetings, meet ups, conferences and telling the world their thoughts, and delving into history, finding lots of evidence to refute lots of things, oh and yes we vote too!

As an Atheist, I’ll take your insults in the manner to which they were intended, and just say ‘water off a ducks back mate’ we are up and running and giving religion a run for its money, we want equality, shouldn’t be that hard. Should it?

What have you got against people organising themselves and standing up for their increasingly eroded rights in a democratic society?

Gathering together in groups is actually what humans do naturally, must be lonely in your little corner.

Why thank you, trikkerdee, for your analysis.

>>I’ve just read through each of your posts pericles, and its blatantly obvious that you have some serious problems with identifying yourself as an Atheist...some kind of loner who is possibly ashamed to be an atheist. <<

Just don't attempt to make a living from psychology, will you.

But I know perfectly well that it wasn't a serious assessment.Just your idea of an insult.

If you did indeed read through each of my posts, which I somehow doubt, you will notice a couple of things.

One is that my comments were either i) entirely civil or ii) responding to gratuitous snide comments.

Also, I have no problem whatsoever in identifying myself as an atheist. If you were to look back through other posts of mine. you will possibly be able to connect the dots.

But I do have a problem identifying with the kind of flatulent windbaggery that passes for "organized atheism" in Australia.

To me, it is still, and will always be, a contradiction in terms.

Pericles, what is contradictory about a large group of atheists that are actively engaged with many other atheist, humanist and secular groups in the country and widely across the globe, all with the same ethical consensus, fighting for equality with those that are religious?

How is that a contradiction in terms? That's how people fight for equality ... based on their common ethics or social situation.

It appears you are a minority that does not seem to care about there being rules for one group of people in society and a set of rules for others, regardless of your atheism. Indeed you bring it down to exactly the same arguments religion does. Fair enough, however it appears you don't agree in people fighting for equality, only because you choose not too. So you ridicule them.

By your standards, The Wildlife Society is a contradiction in terms too, as many environmentally aware people aren't actively fighting for it, and some environmentalists disagree with their positions on certain topics.

You are failing to see what people are saying regard this, and really your just part of the problem by attacking those that raise their voices collectively in opposition to something that they can clearly define.

If you disagree, fine, but please, stop degrading those that are just organising against a social inequality, just because you don't understand them. It does not suddenly make their position irrelevant, and makes you appear quite arrogant to do so.

of course...those of you...NOT athiest enough...will be reducated in the reducation camps...see davids/previous..[bus poster posting]

allready..we got the die hard blacker than black/..athiests..telling the other athiests..they arnt black enough...lol

its like watching a train wreck..

..you just know eventually..only the purist athiests..will be admitted to the party ...anyhow its good to see...the formation of the scisms..so early

now the combination..union/..of religions..can unite against something tangable...your just about to do the impossable...rally religion..

..into a form of united resistance/though i prefer they focus more on assistance...and forget resisting this...ignoring sounds their plan

personally i hope thjey turn the other cheek

and a prediction...

those vile religionists..that will appear on the media..because of some thing or other happening...at or near the athiest party con-ferance..is only happening in the minds of those building..up the publicity prophile...for their new party...its sort of standard stuff...but the media laps it up...its only politics after all

i see it as inevitable...that..after athiest are political...then religion....can go political...fairs is fair...you guys heralded in the end of the sepperation..of chuirch and state

your pretending we have some equality that you dont
but its only the priest/church...if any...that have these presumptions of power/advbantage..your presuming...the rest of the sheeple/flock..are..as disempowered..as you appear to be..

your confuse religion's....with believers...reigions cannot be;lieve anything...attack the wrong one...[religion and you look dumb...attack belief..and all hell will be let loose...

yep its win/win...all this effort for nothing..resisting a fiction..yes stamp collecting is a hobby...not a belief..now you dont believe in stamps?...or stamp collectors..arnt atheist enough..for you

send em..to the reducation-camp
off with their heads

pericles

"flatulent windbaggery"

Pot, kettle.

I think it is wonderful that thousands of atheists in Australia are proud to have a common set of principles, are willing to stand up and be counted and strive for change. A desire for equality in our society is something that no one should be denied, nor pigeon holed for standing up for it.

This is threatening to those with faith, those that wish to see themselves as the only people with ethical standards, as displayed in the attempts do denigrate others in their struggle to achieve that we see in many places; our workplaces, our schools and our taxation system to name a few.

I'm realistic that we have a huge struggle before us, this is nothing new. I'm not attacking religion, I am standing up for rights for myself, my children and fellow Australians to be treated as equals even though we do not have a faith. Those that have privilege will fight to retain it by denigrating those the collectively work together for equality.

So back to the real issues, David has the government yet replied regarding the state of funding for the convention? What are the reasons they are giving for such a long delay?

woot,

The AFA is still negotiating with the appropriate people in the Victorian government. I must admit response has been less than adequate but such matters do take time. No reason as to why it is taking so long has been forthcoming as of yet.

When I know more, I will post here.

By the way, your words are very good as are those of others concerning the upcoming Global Atheist Convention and the reasons why it is being held.

I wouldn’t worry about the slight and sometimes irrational opposition to the Convention, it is to be expected. Just think, slavery, same-sex orientation, women’s rights, voluntary euthanasia, racial prejudice, scientific discovery etc etc.

When status quo opinion changes, it does frighten some folk.

David

David,

Good luck with your Conference. I would like to see Richard Darwkins work with other area specialists to produce a cross-discipinary anthology. I have seen the History of Science Society work effectively to triangualate several disciplines on a single topic.

It would be interesting to invite some religionists to debate issues, such as the 6,000 year old Earth or why we share DNA with primates or Genesis observations verses COBE observations.

Don't forget to put the good bits on U-Tube and advise sister organizations to link.

Suzieonline,

Your parents' unfortunate experience is surely common, especially a few decades ago. I guess if the Christians were true followers of Jesus the Teacher first and denominations next, the Churches would co-op their services in a multiplex, sell of their much of their Church properties and give the money to the poor.

In th US, the above model is sometimes used, wherein several brands of petrol are sold from the same service station. Likewise, our Banks once looked at sharing branches as they do access via ATMs.

Of course, this will never happen, whilst Christians are more into Gold than Sandals.

Pericles,

I see where you are coming from. You are warning about the danger of being religious about being non-religious. That is a big risk. I know of a group of Atheists in the US who are building for want of a better word a church.

The above said, Conferences generally can end with disagreements and shoot-off in various directions. Regarding, the latter special interest groups are often channeled into tracks.

Academic stuff aside,I have sat on a WTO panel and much of the behaviour of the twelve or so present was very much like you outline. The panel included University Deans and Commerce Secretaries. People with very different agenda. I suspect the Atheist Conference is not special in this regard. People attending will bring their own baggage, just like most other Conferences.

Cheers,

O.

Thank you, Mr Nicholls, that's a perfect illustration of what I am talking about.

>>I wouldn’t worry about the slight and sometimes irrational opposition to the Convention, it is to be expected. Just think, slavery, same-sex orientation, women’s rights, voluntary euthanasia, racial prejudice, scientific discovery etc etc.<<

The insinuation here is that "atheism has the answer".

You sound exactly - and I mean exactly - like a Christian.

woot provides another clue when he claims that when this bunch of atheists meet, they are "all with the same ethical consensus".

How does he know, in advance? Is there perhaps an atheists bible, that I am unaware of, that tells us how to think?

Once again, the Trekkie argument surfaces.

>>By your standards, The Wildlife Society is a contradiction in terms too<<

Not at all.

A group of like-minded people banding together under the banner of saving wildlife (if that's what they do), can sit together and make simple, consensus decisions on saving wildlife. Their guideline is "does this save wildlife, or does it not?

The extent to which atheists can achieve the same goal is limited by the fact that the only thing they agree on, is that religious groups should not have financial assistance from the government via tax breaks etc. simply by virtue of their being a religious group..

Instead of simply ridiculing this stance - which you are not even very good at, by the way - how about providing one single exception to that rule.

Pericles,

I am amazed how you get things so wrong. My reference to the aforementioned groups was that the status quo opposed every one of those socially progressive steps forward, the same as do you with the case at hand. I didn’t say Atheism was responsible for them, although none were achieved with any help from fundamentalist religion.

You have also refused to see the link, which does place Atheistic thought on a common path. The absurdities in religion is that link and many have stated it but you cannot see it, so you say. Yeah right!

As an Atheist, so you claim, do you agree with the goals of most other Atheists, which have been outlined in this thread? This is a very simple question and I expect a non obfuscatory answer to it.

If I were you, I would drop the sophistry in your posts, as it is clearly visible.

And I suppose you understand you have me at a disadvantage in that I cannot really say what I would like to. I have to leave that to others and they are dong fine with it, as you well knowl

David

For those interested in what issues atheist may have in common, I refer you to the "Freedom of Religion and Belief in the 21st Century" submission compiled in consultation with the Australian members of Atheist Nexus.

http://api.ning.com/files/JlxXGwK19SL08EjuQagojReVMawZItDgqv*ZJEGJuzo2pkHW3yXopfNtBkUeSjFQ4o81VvJUFkMIfLfWHEIIQJEL5U*D7OxE/SubmissionAtheistNexus.pdf

This document outlines many issues of concern to atheists and, far from being dogmatic, acknowledges those areas in which there are differing opinions or disputes within the atheist community. We took great care not to be dogmatic and to acknowledge a diversity of views.

Before it was sent to the Australian Human Rights Commission, each section was released to the Australian members of Atheist Nexus and all comments were taken in to account in the final draft. If there was debate over any particular issue, this is acknowledged in the text. I must say, there were few issues on which our members differed.

Of course there will also be someone in any group who chooses to disagree with the majority view. There is nothing wrong with that. No political party, group or organization - and certainly no church - can claim to fairly represent the views of every single member. I think that most atheists would be hard-pressed, however, to disagree with most of the main points of the submission.

It is a big read, but, we hope, an easy one. As this kind of thing had not been done before, we felt it was necessary to provide as much evidence, documentation and reference material as possible.

Anybody interested in reading the submission - or simply perusing what it has to say about particular issues, e.g. homosexuality, gender, education, etc - need only to a 'find' search on those key words, or consult the index.

I imagine that many of the issues discussed in this submission will be those which preoccupy delegates and speakers at the Global Atheist Convention.

Gudday all! Rocking to hang out with you at this event! I'll be down in Melbourne for a good week with a few of my mates, some from US and UK as well, looking forward to checking out the town and living it up with fellow freethinkers. We are getting together as many as we can to come visit your fair city! Let's party! :)

Well I have to give it to ya Mr Pericles, you sure do sidestep and just attack eh :) Interesting thread going thru this. You sure sound like a theist to me as you consistently associate atheism to 'doctrine', rather than the acceptance we are moral and ethical beings without a god. Just like the religious, this concept just blows your mind so much, all you have is associating it back to 'faith' LOL :)

I've been on the net since early 90's, atheist and active for over 30 years, and must say every organised atheist group I have ever come across the world over hold those ethical standards Mr Nicholls puts forward and I can say I have met only one ever disagreeing, and that was against abortion. Whether you disagree that atheists or anyone can come to social agreement without religion or not, you are more than vastly outnumbered, your just someone that isn't doing anything else except for keeping the 'non-religious in their place'.

In fact, it's kinda in yours and the religious face re your comment to woot about atheists not being able to agree on broader elements that religion currently strangleholds. Atheists know what atheists want because we have been organising across the globe for YEARS, and your here telling us that literally millions in our organisations, don't have a collective voice. How quaint.

it's fine you disagree, really, I find it odd your so vehement over atheists organising, but hey the concept of thousands of atheists living it up in Melbourne is pretty full on, that's a lot of people expected :) I am so seriously stoked, we gonna talk some serious science, do some serious networking, and drink some serious beer :) oh on that point, where are we all going after the dinner sat night? :) a few thousand atheists roaming melbournes streets looking for clubs is gonna be a blast :) :) hahaha

rocking on besides the point some people here are actively fighting those struggling for civil rights, but I have to ask this pericles something he's been asked a few times now :

As an 'atheist' (now your actually spelling it properly lol), what particular ethical stances out of the list David Nicholls gave that is very much the general consensus of millions of atheists in organised groups across the globe, let alone out of them (like your youtube lot, and 80% of most atheist forums), are you opposed too and why?

btw it's ok to be different :)

Are many people going to hang around longer? I was thinking of turning it into a bit of a holiday .. would be great to hook up with others going to the event whilst down there that would be keen on hanging around for a week or two ..

Hi Gus

Thanks for your support of the Convention. You will find the Global Atheist Convention chat forum here:

http://www.atheistfoundation.org.au/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=18

You can access it directly from the link above, from the Atheist Foundation of Australia forums, or from the Convention website: http://www.atheistconvention.org.au - look for the Information heading in the sidebar and click 'Forum'.

This is probably the best way of linking up with others who plan to go.

You could also join Atheist Nexus - http://www.atheistnexus.org and become part of the Aussie, Kiwi and South Pacific Atheists Group - http://www.atheistnexus.org/group/aussiekiwisouthpacificatheists

Many AN members are planning to go to the Convention and the group forum would be a good place to ask about meeting up with other delegates.

Hope this helps.

welcome jesus...new member[3 posts]User Details..Gee Suss's website
http://www.jesusallaboutlife.com/

Comment History
» 16/10/2009 2:45:40
» 16/10/2009 2:34:27 AM it's fine you disagree, really, I find it odd your so vehement over atheists organising,
» 16/10/2009 2:17:34

quote from link<<Study finds mainstream religious are 99.9% atheist
Posted on October 15th, 2009 Gee Suss

The Golden Rule

After doing a little math,..we’ve found that most mainstream religious people are in fact, at least 99.9% atheist

A, Adad, Adapa, Adrammelech, Aeon, Agasaya, Aglibol, Ahriman, Ahura Mazda, Ahurani, Ai-ada, Al-Lat, Aja, Aka, Alalu, Al-Lat, Amm, Al-Uzza (El-’Ozza or Han-Uzzai), An, Anahita, Anath (Anat), Anatu, Anbay, Anshar, Anu, Anunitu, An-Zu, Apsu,>>>extensive alpha-bet-ical list continues

but the poor unrepresented athiests?...lol...quote<<..Comments by IntenseDebate

Links
Atheist Nexus
Australian Atheists
Infidels on Atheism
NZ Rationalists and Humanists

Visit Atheist Nexus

Recent Posts

Study finds mainstream religious are 99.9% atheist>>>clearly insane../selective use of definition..

<<Griffith chemist Trevor Dal Broi and catholic dogma that restricts choice

Postcards to say something: 015

Godless and Free

Where is the funding for the Atheist Convention Melbourne 2010?
Categories....>>>llooll

i would point out other in-consist-ancies above..[..in this topic...but feel;..they are self evidenturay...lol

its still so much like a train wreck
or a puffer fish...looking much bigger...than it is

A welcome addition to the discussion, Gee Suss.

As I have said before, there is nothing wrong with a Trekkie convention, or a convention of trainspotting anoraks.

>>Rocking to hang out with you at this event! I'll be down in Melbourne for a good week with a few of my mates, some from US and UK as well, looking forward to checking out the town and living it up with fellow freethinkers. We are getting together as many as we can to come visit your fair city! Let's party! :)<<

That is by a very long way the healthiest approach to the event that I have yet seen.

But you may park your amateur analysis where the sun don't shine.

>>You sure sound like a theist to me as you consistently associate atheism to 'doctrine',<<

My concern is that the convention will inevitably draw this accusation. The precise opposite of what you are attempting to imply.

>>Atheists know what atheists want because we have been organising across the globe for YEARS, and your here telling us that literally millions in our organisations, don't have a collective voice. How quaint.<<

As I said earlier, if the objective of your millions is simply to "do some serious networking, and drink some serious beer", you are in anorak territory, which is not a problem at all. Unfortunately, that is not the part that will be publicized.

And perhaps you should avoid throwing stones from your glass house.

>>As an 'atheist' (now your actually spelling it properly lol)<<

My spelling of atheist has been consistent throughout. You, on the other hand, need to understand the difference between "your" and "you're".

>>...what particular ethical stances out of the list David Nicholls gave ... are you opposed too and why?

Which list was that?

You mean the "we seek to empower" stuff?

How exactly is that list unique to atheists? It's just a laundry-list of feelgood words.

And the problem is not with the list, which is as good as any other.

It's what it is used to justify.

My thanks, Chrys Stevenson, for - at last - a substantial contribution to the debate.

I was previously unaware of the Atheist Nexus, and of the submission to HREOC. It makes interesting reading.

What you have done is to turn the "tall grey words" of Mr Nicholls' grab-bag of pious hope into a concrete format.

I have only read through it once, so far. And my initial impression is that the major evidence of the adverse impact of the religious on the rest of us lies in the following extract:

"Australian atheists are fortunate to live in a highly secular society. In general, we are spared the most outrageous and direct forms of discrimination experienced by non-believers in America and other highly religious countries. We are, however, subject to various forms of institutional bias, including:
- tax exemptions for religious institutions;
- government funding for religious schools;
- governments’ refusal to allow non-theistic ethics classes as an alternative to religious instruction in State schools, and;
- the practice of politicians reciting the Lord’s Prayer in Parliament"

I fully endorse the removal of tax-exemptions for religious groups. It is insulting, as well as a cost.

I am less comfortable with your approach to funding of schools.

If you support the concept of choice in education, then there should be no interference in the curriculum. Your document states that "school curriculums must be strictly secular" and that "restrictive religious schooling must be discouraged"

That seems inconsistent with the "right of theistic Australians to practice the religion of their choice".

Which, admittedly, you immediately qualify with "certain provisions"

This seems highly contradictory.

You either support the concept of choice in society, or you disapprove of it. Do you support choice, or do you wish to suppress it?

As with the Convention, the problem is moving from the motherhood statement that atheists should not be disadvantaged financially by the long history of government support to religion, into areas of practical policy.

I find it a little sad that Mr Nicholls continues to misunderstand this simple point.

Thank you Pericles

As you can see, the submission was an even-handed document which did not make shrill demands for the abolition of religious schools or the removal of funding for them. While we have members who may support that stance, we had those who did not, and so we adopted the middle ground in order to be as representative as possible.

The point regarding religious schools is that there is a difference between informing children about the tenets of the religion to which their parents subscribe and indoctrinating children by infusing the academic programme with religious references, skewing science classes to 'disprove' evolution, and actively isolating children from alternative perspectives.

Of course parents should have the right to choose their children's education, but children should also have the right to freedom of religion. These two 'rights' have to be balanced against each other.

Personally (and I can't speak for all atheists here) I have no problem with parents sending their child to a 'church' school. I am a graduate of a church school myself - as are most of the members of my local atheists' group. My problem is when the idea of 'exposure' to religion becomes indoctrination - and when schooling becomes less an exercise in exposing children to knowledge and different perspectives and more about isolating them.

Gee Suss,

You have the right idea about the Global Atheist Convention. Funny how some can’t see historical significance when it is staring them in the face. Many folk live though important steps in humanity don’t get involved with them and miss the opportunity to tell their grandchildren that they were in the frontlines when it was necessary.

Let’s look at the reality for a moment.

The Rise of Atheism Convention has gathered world class international and national academics and intellectuals all in one place.

They are doing it at no charge to promote an idea they consider whose time has arrived.

Most do not need the public exposure as there identity in the broader mind is already firmly established.

Atheists who only know each other by email will at last be able to meet fact to face and converse with a variety of speakers and performers.

There will be classy entertainment acts on Saturday night.

Food is included in the deal.

The government will receive a message that Atheists vote.

Then we have a minority of Pericle type posters, who refuse to answer even the simplest of questions, cannot recognise the supreme positives in the above and just love hearing them-selves rabbit on incoherently.

I would really urge all rational people to consider coming to the Global Atheist Convention because it is chance to do something about the inequality and varying degrees of oppression existing because of the faith content in all societies on earth.

Be there and make history.

David

QUOTE

<<..We...are,...however,subject to..various forms of institutional bias,..including:
- tax exemptions for religious institutions;
- government funding for religious schools;
- governments’ refusal to allow non-theistic ethics classes as an alternative to religious instruction in State schools, and;
- the practice of politicians reciting the Lord’s Prayer in Parliament">>>

how are we subject to..things...WE...dont recieve
it seems its about money/power

athiest will soon have their own..govt funding...for their own schools...govt/funding for your..own institutions...funding for athiest classes/teachers...govt may even pay for a new party...talk about obvious-ality

...and be statuted/formed..to make your own...prayer...lol

there are so many holes
its hard to know the holes from the sub-stance

keep revealing the..your/athiest adgenda
its getting ever more clear

your the new krudd...the neo johnHOW-hard
the new athiest anti-chist..

omnipotant..potentate..over the decieved and confounded part faithefull/fate-full

who..in seeking a voice...get the party line...lol
he..who controls the line..that runs the party line..makes the parties line...pole-icey

all hail ..the anti-thiest/..neo christ..

..to reign or rein in

people get.. the lead-er's....
we... de-serve

Pericles, I think whatever atheists do, religious will be bigoted against, and try and state it's a belief, with a doctrine, pretty much like you are doing. The way they fight back ironically is to try and claim it a belief thus putting it on the shakey ground their own faith lies.

Doctrine is a rigid stance. Atheism as put forward too you, although consensus, is not rigid. I think you have missed the point that these things have been stated, as they are the common ground at the moment that is the freedoms that atheists are asking against the privilege that religion claims over others.

It's exactly like science. Do you disagree that scientists should make collective statements on things the consensus of their groups find extremely important? Or is that just establishing doctrine as you say? There is consensus over what needs to be done in atheist groups. Religion, dogma, doctrine is just justifying a set of beliefs, with faith, regardless. There is no doctrine of atheism, and if the issues that were presented didn't exist, they would not be issues. If knowledge changes of the situations, atheist consensus could change. It is not a dogmatic stance as you are continually trying to put forward just like the religious fellow here. So I am finding it hard to understand you are so vehemently opposed to people collectively tackling issues that effect them.

That list is not unique to atheists, you are right. But what is it being used to justify? A call for EQUALITY. These are issues currently standing that atheists want addressed. You, however, are vehemently trying to make that 'doctrine' and actively opposing it, only based on a verbal construct you have created yourself in that regard.

Look at this one under god fellow, your approaches are so similar it's not funny. We are not asking for more rights, we are asking that religious people do not have more rights than everyone else, just because they believe in a god.

lol..quote<<..It's exactly like science...Do you disagree that scientists should make collective statements on things the consensus of their groups find extremely important?>>>nope thats undeniable..their doctrin is creation by god is nmot allowed even be considered

also in the doctrin..[of lol science...is the fact it is supposed to have fact/faulsifiable facts...that if disproven...invalidate the THEORY..state faulsifyables...or simply it aint science

<<There is consensus..over what needs to be done..in..atheist groups.>>>very revealing..do tell what athiests been doing...in these religious groupings//ps declare the concent-suss

next we have a loose generalisation...aberant..<<..Religion,dogma, doctrine..is just/justifying..a set of beliefs,>>no it limits belief.within narrow confines...not specific/..generalities..

<<There is no doctrine of atheism,>>>beyond that god believers need re-education...as david apptly described in the bus/advert/post

<<and if the issues that were presented didn't exist,..they would not be issues>>>are we talking about the concenus..or going the broad/brusg generalisations/specificlly

<<If knowledge changes of the situations,..atheist consensus...could change.>>>that would need the dropping off of the a...exposing the theist

<<It is not a dogmatic stance..lol..as you are continually trying to put forward>>...i dont think it a stance at all..it sounds like a stand..but your building on infirm foundaTIONS...SHIFTTING SANDS..SPEAKING FOR OTHERS...IMPLIES YOUR THINKING/speaking.. FOR THEM

<<So I am finding it hard to understand...>>>me too...<<you are so vehemently opposed to people..collectively tackling issues that effect them.>>>so how does some xtian school affect you?

and dont be saying they are taking your grant money...lol...or your tax...all your..'tax money'..was spent processing your application for funds..for your parties party

one under god, you are so incoherent it would be great if you actually took some time to write clearly, as I can't really understand what your saying. Most all of it makes no sense?

Might I also point out that you are also epitomizing the elitist bigotry that many atheists and non-believers suffer from those of faith every day. To me, this is exactly the social issues religion creates.

Religious schools : I am concerned at the amount of money being thrown at them at the expense of public education and the fact I have no choice in funding the propogation of religion in this way to children. Indeed whilst these faiths actively run faith classes in public schools, where my children are not allowed to learn anything at all when they opt out let alone ethics classes that have been structured all ready to go, I find that the requirement that I contribute funds to religion in my taxes to be unwarranted and an imposition that directly affects their education.

Also for me personally, these schools are part of the problem of lack of social cohesion, they are divisive and propagate the 'us vs them' mentality, misunderstandings and inability through unfamiliarity to work together. This affects me, my kids, and the society and world I live in. This is also being supported by sociologists, (eg: http://www.theage.com.au/national/education/religious-schools-undermine-cohesion-20090712-dheb.html )

Anyway, looking forward to the conference, as Gee Suss, I'm also pumped about it, and hoping that together we can find some resolution to the problems many of us face in the barrage of misunderstanding that abounds.

one under god,

People might take more notice of you if you did not write in a such a fragmented manner. This is just a suggestion and you don’t have to follow it.

I wonder why you keep implying I want to do something sinister to people with faith who belong to one of the 34,000 religions. You keep making statements as follows:

<<There is no doctrine of atheism,>>>beyond that god believers need re-education...as david apptly described in the bus/advert/post

Could you supply the direct quotes where I intend to place religious folk in gulags or whatever? (As you have mentioned before)

I am giving you a chance to bring forth the evidence where it is unambiguous and clearly stated.

If you do not comply, this will be my last communication with you.

David

part one...to/be continued...900 words/total
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2369&page=0#52463
the post above...is where i first stated it..you didnt correct it..then...why now...the 4 th time i mention it

thing is..its well hinted at..even if i dont have..your first quote
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2369&page=0

<<No,meridith..the Atheist Foundation of Australia Inc..will continue to fight on your behalf..even if you do not want us to...Saturday,..13/December..2008 9:35:26..>>

<<with broad based education/..and decreasing amounts of religious indoctrination,..children..non-impeded potential in greater numbers..than ever before..in the history of humanity...11 December>>

<<religious fundamentalism..When your numbers decrease,..as they will,..ours will do likewise.>>>what fundimentalism's..<<13 December 2008>>

<<..the AFA represents those who recognise the problems with religion..and have put themselves out..to do something about it...Thursday,..11 December>

<<Are you the arbiter..of what is acceptable for Atheists..to do or not do?..Why is that so?..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..Friday,..12 December

<<This is not..a religion or political party;..it is an education/philosophical organisation....People who join the AFA empathise..with our aims...It is not an easy job..but it is a task in need of doing

“Hiding”.. meaning inactive and compliant with religious absurdity...by Atheist Foundation of Australia Inc, Friday,..12 December>>

<<These organisations speak for their members..there will be Atheists..who disagree with AFA policy..but we have evolved over 40 years to be inclusive of most...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?..Who is going to lobby governments..Who is going to help stop civilisation sliding back into the dark ages?

No, meridith, the Atheist Foundation of Australia Inc..will continue to fight on your behalf..even if you do not want us to..and on behalf of others that do.>>>Saturday,/13 December 2008

<<If religious folk want to play in the game of life..then they have do so by a common set of rules,..If those calling themselves Atheists wish to continue that dispensation>>..LOL..<< then my advice would be to get a wider education because you are unhelpful>>..<<this special protection,..

more to come

Under One God, not one word of that last post is comprehensible to me. I would like to address your arguments but as long as you keep posting long, rambling posts where it's not clear who said what, I simply can't respond.

You are failing to make any points that people can respond to. That must be as frustrating for you as it is for us trying to work out what you mean.

The convention centre is HUGE. I was looking here :

http://www.atheistconvention.org.au/venue

Cant wait either for the saturday night dinner ..

Is there anything planned the friday night? I presume things still being worked on?

(I know I am jumping the gun quite a bit here, I am so impatient .. and there's still near 150 days to go! harder to hang out for than xmas :)

Chrys Stevenson,

I don’t find one under god frustrating although I can understand anyone who might. The posts that OUG presents are incomprehensible and I am sure religious folk would rather they didn’t appear more than do Atheists. After all, she/he is on their side, not ours.

I asked a very simple question of OUG and that was to support the claims made by her/him that Atheists in general or I have intentions to inter the faithful in camps or gulags and re-educate them.

As is clearly shown by OUG in her/his last post, or any post, no such evidence exists. Therefore, the slander directed at me is unjustified. I would remind one under god that the alleged Yahweh/Jesus takes a dim view of such falsification. So much so, that the alleged Yahweh/Jesus included it as one of the Ten Commandments.

Allow me to quote The King James version of the ninth Commandment from Deuteronomy 5:20 “Neither shalt thou bear false witness against thy neighbour.”

OUG better hope Atheists are right and there is no god. :))

Woot,

Friday night will begin with ‘finger food’, drinks, introduction and getting to know each other followed by Catherine Deveny and Sue-Anne Post to kick the Global Atheist Convention off to a good start.

Many people share your excitement about The Rise of Atheism Convention and just can’t wait for it to happen. I am amongst them and I look forward to meeting the many hundreds of people I know only by email or phone.

In other words, woot, this is going to be a hoot! :- )))

David

You really don't feel comfortable discussing these issues rationally, do you Mr Nicholls.

>>Then we have a minority of Pericle type posters, who refuse to answer even the simplest of questions, cannot recognise the supreme positives in the above and just love hearing them-selves rabbit on incoherently.<<

There is not one single question you have put to me, that I have not answered. Why do you feel it necessary to suggest otherwise?

Sadly, but unsurprisingly, you have not done me the same courtesy.

You have pretended not to understand ("incoherent rabitting"), in order to avoid answering direct and simple questions.

You have tried every form of insult and denigration in response to my posts here. If my doubts as to the justification for your claims of "historical significance" distress you to the extent that you can only respond with scorn, you have not thought through your position very clearly.

If you only want to hear nice things about yourself, I'd suggest talking to a mirror.

OK Pericles,

You wish to play games. There are many issues Atheists find a common purpose for, which coincidently tie up with surveys of the population. I therefore ask of you what are your views on the following. All you have to do is agree or not agree or state no comment.

This is what Atheism is all about and this is what the Global Atheist Convention is all about.

Humour me by answering either yes, no or no comment.

Voluntary euthanasia should be legal for people in unremitting pain with a terminal illness.
Agree…….Disagree……..No Comment…….

Lesbian, Gay and transgender people should have the same rights as heterosexual people.
Agree…….Disagree…….. No Comment…….

Women should have equal rights to men throughout the world.
Agree…….Disagree……. No Comment…….

Children should not be indoctrinated into a particular religion to the exclusion of other religions and ideas about existence.
Agree……Disagree……. No Comment…….

The average taxpayer has little knowledge of the billions of dollars that annually goes untaxed by religion and it would be better if they were fully aware of the extent.
Agree……Disagree……. No Comment…….

Children and adults would fare better with the latest in scientific understanding and not the musings of those with closed minds.
Agree…….Disagree…… No Comment…….

Science should not be hindered by religion with such things as stem cell research.
Agree…….Disagree……. No Comment…….

Women should have the choice of an abortion as their decision and not one imposed by the state.
Agree…….Disagree…….. No Comment…….

Children should not be taught that ‘creationism’ is a valid alternative to the theory of evolution.
Agree…….Disagree……. No Comment…….

Nations controlled by religious ideals should not have nuclear weapons.
Agree…….Disagree…… No Comment…….

Atheists have the same rights as other to associate by way of a Convention or any other way as does everyone else.
Agree…….Disagree…… No Comment…….

Now, all you have to do is copy and past it in word and answer the questions. Of course you wont as they are too simplistic for a mind such as yours. Apatheism can cause this response.

Maybe others would like to attempt it, first denoting her/his life’s stance.

David

>> But you may park your amateur analysis where the sun don't shine.

You have to put me down better than that, you've been doing so well attacking Mr Nicholls for stating what his members have put him in the position to represent, using .. what was the word? 'sophistry' yes that's it.

(Yes I had to look it up, but my word, Mr Nicholls did hit the nail on the head there ;)

Do you also think the IAP Chair had an agenda, a doctine, when 68 world Academy of Sciences collectively released the IAP's statement on the teaching of evolution? Shouldn't you be attacking them for claiming they speak for all scientists because they are representing their members?

My observations seem to be quite accurate, I think you really should be approaching the Atheist Alliance International, and tell them their global membership of organisations have it all wrong. They don't speak for atheists! sheesh my amateur analysis is just getting the better of me.

>> My concern is that the convention will inevitably draw this accusation. The precise opposite of what you are attempting to imply.

what are you talking about, religion has always said this, and here you are parrotting the same ignorance. Atheists aren't trying to imply anything. It was quite clearly stated the collective issues that atheists wish to see approached. These issues exist because of the over-arching dominance of religion in our laws.

>> And the problem is not with the list, which is as good as any other. It's what it is used to justify.

what? equality?

Can you more clearly state what your issue is with a huge network of independant collectives that have come to a global consensus on issues they see as directly effecting them? Why it is wrong of people that are organising together to approach the issue that others in society have rights above and beyond others, simply based on a belief on a god?

Is it simply the fact that they can state some of them? Or do you reckon they just should have consulted you first?

I can't help wondering why you are being so defensive, Mr Nicholls.

But I'll do a deal. I'll answer yours, if you'll answer mine.

I bet you'll chicken out, though.

Voluntary euthanasia should be legal for people in unremitting pain with a terminal illness.Agree

Lesbian, Gay and transgender people should have the same rights as heterosexual people.Agree

Women should have equal rights to men throughout the world.Agree

Children should not be indoctrinated into a particular religion to the exclusion of other religions and ideas about existence.Agree

The average taxpayer has little knowledge of the billions of dollars that annually goes untaxed by religion and it would be better if they were fully aware of the extent.The average taxpayer has no idea where any of their taxes go.

Children and adults would fare better with the latest in scientific understanding...naturally
...and not the musings of those with closed minds.Closed in whose view?Yours?

Science should not be hindered by religion with such things as stem cell research.Not a proper statement. Science cannot be hindered "by religion with stem cell research".

Women should have the choice of an abortion as their decision and not one imposed by the state.Agree

Children should not be taught that ‘creationism’ is a valid alternative to the theory of evolution.Agree

Nations controlled by religious ideals should not have nuclear weapons.Disagree. Their religion, and defence, is their citizens' business

Atheists have the same rights as other to associate by way of a Convention or any other way as does everyone else.Agree

Your turn.

Here are just a few that you ignored.

- when was the last time an accountancy convention applied to the government for funding?

- What empowerment can atheism provide, at an individual level? What form does it take? How is "equal opportunity" limited by religion?

- What about atheists with ethical objections to stem cell research, or genetic modification, or abortion? Do you somehow insist that they conform to your own views on the subject?

And if they don't, they can't be atheists any longer?

Once you've answered those, we can move on to the rest.

Pericles, I can't understand why you are unable to grasp that no-one, least of all David, is compelling any atheist to accept any particular 'dogma'.

There are issues, such as euthanasia, for which the only real objection is religious. There are obviously some ethical concerns regarding euthanasia - in particular making sure that the sick and elderly are not coerced - but there are safeguards to avoid this and they have been shown to work effectively in those countries/states where euthanasia is already legal.

Gay marriage is another issue for which the only real objection is religious.

Neither euthanasia (if enacted with appropriate safeguards) nor gay marriage have any material effect upon those who object to them. If you don't want to be euthanased, fine - that's your choice. If gay people get married, you (and I don't mean 'you' personally) may think it's 'icky' but really, it does not effect the 'sanctity' or security of your own marriage one iota.

I realize that you agree with these issues - I assume for the very reason that there is simply no rational argument against them that can't be managed, and the only remaining arguments against them are rooted in religious prejudice.

So, these tend to be the kind of issues upon which we, as atheists, all agree. Issues like abortion and nuclear disarmament are more complex. I would imagine that the majority of atheists are 'pro-choice', but I am well aware that there is a significant minority that oppose abortion - ostensibly on grounds other than religious. I have generally found, however, that the differences between pro-choice and 'pro-life' atheists are not as great as they seem. After all, who among us is not pro-life given the alternative - who is 'pro-death'? What the pro-lifers want emphasised is other options for women - better education, better support for single mothers, etc - with abortion as an absolutely last resort. (continued next post)

>> when was the last time an accountancy convention applied to the government for funding?

Just a sec, do you know what the funding is FOR? It's tourism not funding for 'religion'. ANY group can apply for funding, so long as they fit the requirements. The convention is going to bring thousands of people spending their money in victoria.

http://www.tourism.vic.gov.au/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=220&Itemid=2135

- What empowerment can atheism provide, at an individual level? What form does it take?

oh sheeesh you haven't been listening. numerous people have given you numerous examples.

- How is "equal opportunity" limited by religion?

Religion has exemptions to the equal opportunity laws .. didn't you know? Recent changes in Vic have limited them, but they can still discriminate on such things as single mothers and homosexuality.

- What about atheists with ethical objections to stem cell research, or genetic modification, or abortion? Do you somehow insist that they conform to your own views on the subject?

Huh?? How? what?? genetic modification?? no one is being coerced into anything, a group of people are putting forward their concepts and have a delegate to do that get it?? The Atheist Foundation members and all other groups have consensus agreement, like any other democratic organisations, on top of that. You have been told this repeatedly.

By all means, start a group to confront issues that you deem important, I wouldn't treat you the way your treating us. Considering all these atheists that are being thrown out of the big atheist cabal for not toeing the party line you'll have heaps of people rushing to join your breakaway from the 'state atheists' coercion *rolls eyes*

Your just basically stating a group of non-believing people cannot collectively put forward a voice and say they are atheist. Your as bad as religion in that regard. I don't understand you, or religion for that matter. Mostly from what I have explained above, it's just plain ignorance on you side of things over what is actually going on, and your just going off without even looking into it. Try being civil and not just attacking people.

... I think most of us would agree with this, whether we are 'pro-choice' or 'pro-life'. So, on that issue, there are differing perspectives and that a view on abortion could be put forward in a way that would satisfy both sides.

I think it is just fine for atheists to say, "Many atheists believe x, although some are not convinced and tend to support y." In the submission, this was the case with regard to a human rights charter. The majority supported the charter, so we advocated that, but, at the same time, we acknowledged that it was not a unanimous view and support for the charter included a proviso that the concerns raised by its opponents could be adequately addressed.

In David's defence, his list of issues that atheists might agree upon was restricted by the 350 word limit of this forum. The submission allowed me (and my colleagues) 200 pages in which to provide a far more nuanced argument.

Pericles, you have shown that you share the majority of David's views. Certainly there are points of difference, and, if any 'group statement' was to be made, these would need to be negotiated into a something that satisfied most (if not all) or be abandoned as an issue of group consensus.

My objection to an atheist political party is based on the same misgivings that you have. Not all atheists are going to share the same views on issues which do not have a largely religious component. I would absolutely oppose atheists (as a group) making a stand on, say economics, or other issues which are not substantially influenced by religious dogma.

Further, I agree that religious views should not be excluded from political discourse. My view (and I assume David's as well) is that if religious institutions are going to make arguments effecting public policy, those arguments must be based on evidence, not their own particular dogmas. In other words, their 'evidence' must be of a kind acceptable to those outside of their particular belief system.

Pericles,

“Here are just a few that you ignored”

They have’t been ignored at all. They were implicit or actual in the body of my posts.

I notice you are in general agreement against the religious positions in your answers. That is good, now we are getting somewhere, painfully. But why you are opposed to reacting against them is the unknown.

“- when was the last time an accountancy convention applied to the government for funding?”

The criterion for Convention funding is not, or should not be occupation or ideologically based. If accountants were having an international convention and subsequently showed promise of increasing overseas and interstate tourism expenditure, they would be entitled to funding from at least the Vic Government. Federal government sponsoring can be any large occasion from football to visits by popes.

“- What empowerment can atheism provide, at an individual level?”

The power of their vote; the power of their recognised presence in the community; the power of their directed protest at injustice.

“What form does it take?”

As above.

“How is "equal opportunity" limited by religion?”

After you have just answered my questions, you ask that! Are you reading responses?

“- What about atheists with ethical objections to stem cell research, or genetic modification, or abortion?
Do you somehow insist that they conform to your own views on the subject?”

If you can point out where I have stated all Atheists should conform to anything; that would be nice. How many times do I have to say, a majority of Atheistic thought agrees with the positions outlined as do a majority of the population.

“And if they don't, they can't be atheists any longer?”

Can you quote me somewhere on that also?

“Once you've answered those, we can move on to the rest.”

Yes, let’s move on.

Pericles, do you really know what you are on about, because I am sure I don’t and if anyone else does I would be pleased if they would tell me.

Anyhow, more questions please and make them not so obviously an exercise in covering your tracks.

David

all..the previous quotes..<<quoted>>..were..made by..david

here..is a few more

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2369&page=0#52390

..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.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2325#51351
The AFA..is a philosophical/educational organisation.
The AFA..does not receive any government grants.

as to the rest..of my post...lol..god felt it best..to keep it simple...it disapeared over night...

so call me..on the re-ducation thing..again...
i need new motivation..to wade through your muck again

..so accepting it as gods will...[with gace]..cause i cant be bothered reading all davids posts again..there is this..[seeing as how athiests...quote..'does not recieve govt grants'..lol..despite applying for them?

but hey...here is one million...
here is some church money
how sweet is that?

why havnt you..simply claimed..THE PRIZE?
i told you about..a year ago...
when you were only educating us

again..why not..CLAIM THIS PRIZE

http://www.us.net/life/
The annuity consists of $50,000.00..(U.S.)..per year for twenty consecutive years,..

..totalling one million dollars in payments
that means you got 50.000 each year..[from religionists]..

to subsidise your gathering...and be-cause its not govt funds...you can go political..[ie use..non govt funds..to formulate..your party line]

anyhow im finished with you...untill you motivate me...lol...

so will use your own words..this is not a...QUOTE..[from david..UN_like all the others..]...this is just explaining that..because some of you lot dont understand<<<<<<means quote

..damm im trying to educate smartarssesss now lol..
getting as bad as you dave

david..[lol the beloved...QUOTE..<<...<<..It is invariably..so that those going beyond..what is necessarily..to explain a given idea..are actually hiding that they do..>>..lol

well you claimed..no govt funding..
and not polical...lol...thats revesaled as a lie

WHY NOT ..get your dorkins..to CLAIM THE PRIZE..

or maybe you..

..who claim to know the science...even science dosnt claim

lol...your trying to suck from the public trough...your clearly politcal...seeking govt largess...so as to lobby politicly..

its all a joke...your certaimnly about education,..not eludication

i will add..that those..not knowing science is capable of deceptive/fraud..will follow any belief system faithfully...

even scientificly

the sheeple herd into flocks..flocks are like democracies...

a democracy is like two wolves and a sheep...voting about who to eat...

UOG, I see your point, but you are wrong.

The Atheist Foundation of Australia is apolitical and does not receive government funding.

The AFA supports no particular political party. However, any organization may take a political stance based on the interests of its members. For example, a fishing club is clearly not a political organization but, if the government decides to restrict public fishing licences, then the members may well combine to fight against this political decision.

As for funding - the funding the AFA has applied for is not to go towards the day to day operating costs of the AFA. The funding is to assist with running a convention which is being organized jointly by the AFA and the American Atheist Alliance International.

From a government standpoint, the funding is an investment in tourism - not in atheism.

If the Convention happens to run at a profit, the funds will not go to the AFA, but to Atheist Alliance International to help run other Conventions elsewhere in the world.

So, there is no sense in which the AFA is profiting from government funding.

Religious groups routinely draw on government funds to assist their events. We share an opposing viewpoint, which is our right in a democratic society. We also pay taxes. So if the government is going to financially assist religious conventions, it must also assist atheist conventions in order to be equitable.

Do you consider that the government funding the Parliament of the World's Religion's convention necessarily makes that event political?

We want nothing that isn't due to us. We only ask for equity. The AFA is not about to pre-select David Nicholls to run for parliament. However, as a representative of the largest group of atheists in the Southern Hemisphere, we may well ask him to represent us on issues upon which there is a majority consensus. Most other clubs, political or otherwise, do the same.

True to form, Mr Nicholls.

>>why you are opposed to reacting against them is the unknown.<<

You insist on mis-reading my position.

I am not opposed to "reacting against" religious bias in our laws. I have said that on so many occasions, it is simply staggering that you cannot grasp this simple fact.

You avoided the accountancy convention question. Why didn't you simply say "I don't know of any accountancy convention that received government funding”. That would have been honest.

Meanwhile, Chrys Stevenson gave us the real answer:

>>Religious groups routinely draw on government funds to assist their events. We share an opposing viewpoint, which is our right in a democratic society. <<

Which was my point from the start: you are using the same arguments as religious groups. If they get funds, so should we.

Where does that leave you on the question of government funding for other religious events?

Somewhat exposed, since you are now “one of them”.

On the question, what empowerment can atheism provide, you didn't actually read the words.

You answered "The power of their vote; the power of their recognised presence in the community; the power of their directed protest at injustice."

Everyone has the power to vote, so that's irrelevant.

The question was "atheism", not a communal atheist voice, so your "recognized presence" is a furphy. Every politician, and every adult in Australia, knows what an atheist is.

In the same way, everyone can "protest at injustice". That's hardly a trait unique to atheism. So you must mean this body you have established to speak on my behalf.

You totally sidestepped "How is "equal opportunity" limited by religion?"

The law of the land either recognizes equal opportunity, or it doesn't. You don't have to be either religious or atheist to pursue that goal.

>>a majority of Atheistic thought agrees with the positions outlined as do a majority of the population.<<

Thus, it has nothing to do with atheism. It is about choice - personal, ethical choices.

Call the convention rationalist, or logical positivist, or whatever. Just don't drag religion into it.

Pericles,

I assume you are aware I was not the first to mention accountants. This is a straw man argument you have created to cover your arse. The accountancy statement though, has been covered and is understood by everyone except you.

You are opposed to the Global Atheist Convention merely to big-note yourself. Pretty poor show really.

The rest of your post is empty rhetoric and not worth answering in this post. You are hoping that if you create a quagmire of thought, your inadequacy in argument will go unnoticed. The only way to deal with big-noters is to ask one question at a time. So here is one.

Considering you asked someone else a stupid question about accountancy and not me, why are you now asking me to answer it?

David

Oh Pericles, the others are right, it is sophistry you are using.

I answered, to which you ignored, (and ignored Chrys reply and took something else out of her post to skew the argument) :

"Just a sec, do you know what the funding is FOR? It's tourism not funding for 'religion'. ANY group can apply for funding, so long as they fit the requirements. The convention is going to bring thousands of people spending their money in victoria."

The issue as has been stated by many, that you are attempting to twist, is that anyone can apply for funding, accountants also. Atheists are just pointing out, that whereas the religious groups have got millions of dollars funding, and are out of interest holding the event at the same place, the atheists have not even been replied too.

If it was an accountancy convention, they would have got a reply by now, months after making it. The only thing that the casual atheists observing can see is that the government does not want to be seen 'promoting' an atheist event.

The convention meets all the guidelines for funding. Why haven't they even got an answer?

The fact that a religious convention has not only got a reply, but millions of dollars funding, is just a slap in the face over a lack of reply. If the government states it does not want to fund an atheist convention so as not to support a philosophical stance, the equitable approach would be not to fund a religious one too.

sheesh, you don't read or are choosing to ignore. To the casual observer you appear to have an agenda in your posts, being to misrepresent and muddy the positions of a large group of Australians over their stance with this. Why?

there is a clear difference between religious meetings getting funding to get together to talk

its quite another when its political...forming a party

nimbin mardi grass [1 st weekend in may]..dosnt get nothing from govt
despite us being locked up in jail..and being procicuted simply for growing a damm plant...

we dont get govt/money either

learn to live with it

funny..how govt wont give money..to play poli-tricks..
golly gosh how you athiest's whine...suck it up like a man..

pay your own way,..fleece your flock...like the religious nutters do...so clever..and you cant even find a way...to fund your own folly...lol

one under god,

The Global Atheist Convention will be discussing political, as well as social, financial and educational matters. It will also have entertainment with food and drink. We can confidently say that all who attend will have a fulfilling experience.

Let me absolutely assure you that forming a political party is not on the agenda. The AFA has never considered this nor will it ever.

I do think it about time you read what other people are saying. Government funding relates to an event bringing money into the Victoria from overseas and other states. A religious function, a football function or indeed an accountancy one, if they fit the criteria for doing that, can apply to the Victorian Government for assistance. These are economic decisions and not ideological ones.

We often hear from religious folk that they are very open minded, more so than Atheists. Here is a perfect opportunity for people to find out about Atheism from some extremely eloquent and well educated speakers. All are invited and none will be shunned at the Rise of Atheism Convention in Melbourne next year.

This is an opportunity of a lifetime where the quantity and quality of academic and intellectual brilliance is in one place. It is unlikely to be repeated on such a scale or in such a grand location for many decades.

For those who harbour qualms about Atheism this is a chance to see that your apprehensions are unwarranted. Atheists are just people and most are very nice to boot.

So, one under god, maybe we will see you next year in Melbourne.

David

I set out to agree with another poster's position that "to make atheism a movement in itself would appear to counteract the very nature of atheism."

Nothing you have said has persuaded me otherwise.

In fact, our conversation has clarified my views on the topic considerably.

What has become obvious to me is that athiesm is slowly but surely falling into the same trap as organized religion.

As you know, it is not sufficient for christians to believe in god, but they need also to belong to a particular sect that has its own rules and principles. This leads to the obvious differences between, say, the happy-clappies of Hillsong and the congregation of Peter Jensen.

It would appear that we are now witnessing the same power plays amongst atheists.

No longer is it sufficient to be an unaffiliated atheist.

It is necessary, apparently, to agree with the Atheist Foundation of Australia Inc., and believe in the goals and rituals of athiesm exactly the way they do.

Otherwise, as has become clear from this thread, a baying mob of hard-liners will spring out of the undergrowth, and spray contempt and ridicule.

I am clearly not permitted to have a voice in this, so I'll leave you and your acolytes to your own devices.

Have a great convention. I'm sure there will be some interesting speakers. And try not to bring atheism into too much disrepute while you're at it.

Pericles,

So, no response to my genuine question, just more of the same old, same old. Am I surprised? What do you think.

Here’s another one to ponder in line with one step at a time. There are more.

I stated:

>>a majority of Atheistic thought agrees with the positions outlined as do a majority of the population.<<

You responded.

“Thus, it has nothing to do with atheism. It is about choice - personal, ethical choices.”

I give you the following example:

A majority of accountants agree with the position outlined (That, say, accountancy should be regulated), as do a majority of the population.

Thus, it has nothing to do with accountancy. It is about choice – personal, ethical choices.

Does that un-fuddle your brain or shall I continue.

How long are you going to keep this charade going? I have found that most Atheists, when mistaken in reasoning, admit it and move on instead of digging a forever deeper hole.

Your self-removal from this thread statement was a wise choice.

David

david your going to have...speakers...presuming they will be on..the podium...presuming they are speaking...discussion is hardly on the adgenda...as discussion should be face to face...in small groups..where everyone has their say...dont pretend..thats how it will be..

its lectures/presentations...maybe a bit of book launching/promotion...a lot of back slapping..and delusions l;ike 6 creation days.6000 years ago..and other dorkanism's

and maybe some set-up questions..from the floor...

is there an open mike?...for the mainly listening...a means to ask questions..without being vetted...or we just by their book

the accountants parrable..is a lol...yeah acountants love rules,,to find loop holes in em..its political and at least be honest about that

HAVE YOU CHECKED THE LINK..if the athiest/case is so sure..devote some...lol discussion..on how to be claiming ALL..that CASH...but the evidence isnt in...the dorkins...dont know his genus from his species

im not against you...hopefully by getting others to egsamin the evidence[like we creationists have,,will reveal..the evidence simply isnt there...

naturally if its...nature/natural/automatic/etc.....science can have no claim of science,..as nature was before science was..and science claims science because...claimed method..is consistantly repeatable..if its chance..its not science

i hold there are believers in science...just as befuddled as in any religion...

but..whats the beef with god?...your real beef is with religion...and they are clearly..not god..

athiesm..needs a new word..to tackle its attack on/..religion..

same with many of your..other issues...that have nothing to do with god..only believers...claiming belief in texts/ritual..about god..

that sadly..they often put before god...is atheism about god or religion...it seems politiclly..pointedly...about religion...

..its as absurd..as attacking the athiest party..for what dorkins does/or dosnt do/say...or you for that matter...neither him..nor you are..the..party...

or maybe you are

one under god,

I’m not pretending anything. Speaker will speak on their topic and there will be a question time with a roving microphone. No set up, anyone can ask a question.

Yes, religion is very cocky about abiogenesis, but they shouldn’t be because a) it has nothing to do with evolution and b) science has been working on it and has reasonable hypotheses under investigation. I personally do not spend any time on such matters, as they have nothing to do with life as we live it.

One day, I am convinced, an experiment will show that non living matter can form into living but that will not prove the none existence of a god. Proving a negative, especially an invisible one, is impossible.

For me to be convinced there may be something in the 6,000 year old earth story, evolution would have to be debunked. But if that happened, then it would mean that science has everything wrong and we might as well all curl up and die, as nothing would be real.

The problem with creationism is that it has no indisputable studies written up in accredited scientific journals available to peer review. On the other hand, there are thousands and thousands of studies supporting evolution as how nature works recorded for all to see in such journals.

But if you want to believe in creationism, that is fine by me, but you have to do so on faith and not scientific method. And might I add, that scientific method is the best way so far that humans have developed to ascertain if any proposition is correct, incorrect or indeterminate.

To call science a faith shows a complete lack of understanding of very basic rational and logical thought processes.

David

By the way, one under god, I know of no Atheist who is against any god. How can one be against that which does not exist?

Most Atheists are opposed to those parts of religion harmful to individuals or humanity as a whole.

The name does indicate what you say is correct, but the common understanding doesn't. I like the name Atheist, it has the ring of a definitive mind-set about it.

Busy for the next few days, so forgive me for not getting back to you in that time.

Play nice :))

David

I know this may come as a shock, David Nichiolls, but Online Opinion is about opinions, not your unbounded ego.

Your attitude on this thread can only be described as impolite and deceitful.

You have consistently avoided the underlying question - is the convention likely to assist the efforts of atheists to counter the inroads of religious groups, or to damage them.

As the great panjandrum you feel the need to defend your event, which is as it should be. But your tactics, which have ranged from deliberately misrepresenting and re-branding my position, to outright claims that I cannot actually be an atheist at all, have been utterly shameful.

Every post has been a constant, unedifying sneer, as you attempt to sidetrack the issue into an argumentational cul-de-sac.

You keep protesting that I haven't answered any of your questions, when you know full well that the boot is firmly on the other foot - your dissembling has been both blatant and shameless.

With you at its head, your organization will repel far more than it attracts - which, sadly, also provides religious groups more ammunition with which to continue to sideline the rest of us.

But never mind. You still have the likes of Gee Suss to sustain your intellectual advances against the forces of organized religion.

>>I am so seriously stoked, we gonna talk some serious science, do some serious networking, and drink some serious beer :) oh on that point, where are we all going after the dinner sat night? :) a few thousand atheists roaming melbournes streets looking for clubs is gonna be a blast :) :) hahaha<<

Congratulations.

>> I set out to agree with another poster's position that "to make atheism a movement in itself would appear to counteract the very nature of atheism."

Oh this is just word play.

Effectively if atheists stand up and say 'We want equality, we want choice and do not want our laws controlled by the religious based on scripture and belief, it should be on good science' you have a fit and start saying it's a 'movement', trying to assert everything under the sun.

It's a joke, you were pulled out on all your claims and assertions without any evidence that you were using just to try to disparage people standing up for what they see is right. You were called on it, pointed out your fallacy in your argument, and just keep switching tack to try and maintain a position.

Where in the 'big book of Atheism' you have does it say an atheist cannot fight for what is right? Where does it say they cannot join collectively to do so? apatheist isn't quite right, as your actively fighting against atheism, and for the religious status quo.

Religion maintains rights based on unfounded belief. That's something ourselves as atheists are fighting against. How you can compare scientifically backed information as equal to 'belief based laws and rights', I dunno, but only makes sense in your head, and the religionists.

>> With you at its head, your organization will repel far more than it attracts - which, sadly, also provides religious groups more ammunition with which to continue to sideline the rest of us.

Oh this is just rich, coming from some one that says if we do anything about it we are forming a 'movement'! (which is bad mm'kay)

While folk don't do anything about it, the religious are actively fighting and getting laws that give them more rights than others. You have been given a few examples and we are going over trodden ground.

I don't see there being any way to fight against for instance the taxation status of religion without collectively organising our voices. Standing alone, no ones got anywhere.

It's all academic, anyway, Woot - the jury has spoken. In just a few weeks 1000 tickets have been sold for the Global Atheist Convention. Atheists across Australia and beyond are voting for atheist collectivism with their wallets. There seems no doubt now that the MCEC, one of Australia's largest convention venues, will be filled.

No cause ever gets 100% support, nor should they expect it.

The important thing is, the AFA put out the call and Australian atheists have answered in droves.

WOOO_OOO WOO WOOOT WOOT QUOTE<<..this is just word play.

Effectively..if atheists stand up>>..like they are all/..sitting arround scratching their boils...except you..lol..how presumptious/demeaning..to your..'own'

<<and say..'We want equality,>>>..as if you dont have equally that other..'people'..have...

what individually differes..you from me...i dont get govt grants to form my party/either...political/people..[individuals dont..in the way your expecting]

<<we want choice>>>..you got choice..y
ou CHOSE to be athiest..poor you got no choice..lol

<<and..do not want our laws controlled/by the religious based on scripture and belief,>>..govt make laws...courts judge them...

in fact court..used to..be church...but then/..via sepperation of church and state......mate..your 300 years..too late

any decisions..we..make..should be informed/based on fact..<<..it should be on good science'>>>...

thats what im saying...the science dosnt say what your claiming..isnt fact that validates/genus evolution..[and definitivly has no first life cause...let alone science replication/via faulsifyable method

<<you have a fit and start..saying it's a..'movement',>>yeah..i know i was being nice..its not a movement...its spin/..like the spin..that swirls away a bowel movement

<<It's a joke,>>>it certainly apears so

<<Where in the..'big book of Atheism'>>>..dorkins books...for 1 eg..[the god delusion]

<<Religion maintains rights based on unfounded belief>>>..no we actually got books/trust individual priests/teachers.

<<How you can compare/..scientifically backed..information>>with the science...yeah...how about revealing some science..info does not equal fact

<<the religious are..getting laws..that give them more rights..than others.>>>..name names..what laws..oh retarded other..laws of belief protect..even your right..to dis-belief

<<we are going over trodden ground>>>..i thought more building on weak foundations....entering a cesspool/quicksand/laststand

<<I don't see there being..any way to fight/..the taxation status of religion>>>simply speaking..they dont got..any..tax status...

see the key is..not applying for tax..in the first place....simply via applying..you fall under/subject..to..laws obligating tax payment...but..your too dumb to fill in the gaps

you pay tax..because its volenteerd..via..your own declarations..no tax file/..no declaration...no tax

woot woot
woot woot /woot..
toot toot

OUG you make no sense. I can't work out what your saying, except your obviously having your position of priviledge feeling threatened. The bits I can understand, are just kinda weak namecalling.

Why not be open-minded and come along to the Atheist Convention and see what it's about?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T69TOuqaqXI

woot, if you are hoping to score a few more points, you can forget it. The sound of yapping lapdogs is never particularly informative.

>>It's a joke, you were pulled out on all your claims and assertions without any evidence that you were using just to try to disparage people standing up for what they see is right. You were called on it, pointed out your fallacy in your argument, and just keep switching tack to try and maintain a position.<<

Unfortunately, you cannot change the facts, as much as you seem to want to try.

The evidence is here, recorded sequentially from the first post to this one. And it tells a story far different from that which you claim.

Disparaging people standing up for what they see is right?

Hardly.

Questioning the intent, objectives and positioning of the convention shouldn't constitute any real threat to you self-appointed guardians of atheistic righteousness.

But from your collective reactions, it certainly seems to have exposed a nerve somewhere, doesn't it?

I wonder why.

"For me to be convinced there may be something in the 6,000 year old earth story, evolution would have to be debunked. But if that happened, then it would mean that science has everything wrong and we might as well all curl up and die, as nothing would be real." - David

No. Science could accommodate a 6,000 year old Earth, given adequate evidence. Here, the current model would have been disproved, not science (methodology). In this way, the Solid State universe is now just a memory.

Good science should hold posits tentatively and in this sense be willing to test to see if "everything is wrong".

Alternatively, continued belief in Creationism is obstinate, in the face of contradictory evidence.

Good scientists will cut away cherished beliefs in the face of good evidence to do so. Albert Einstein and Stephen Hawkins and others, admitted when they are wrong. Religionists are more relunctant to come clean about err, especially, when so much falls under -human churches advocated- doctrines, like "infallibility".

Because science is so accommodating, science sits in the present. In constrast, religionism requires archarism to sustain itself.

Oliver,

I think you missed my point. If the world were to proven to be 6,000 years) old (Meaning also the universe is that age) it would mean that the speed of light was not constant throughout time or was started midstream to fool earthlings, that therefore dating methods would be wrong, that the moon was placed in situ and its history as we know it, false, That ice cores and tree rings were a trick, that plate tectonics also began at a predetermined arbitrary time, that fossilised remains were planted, that erosion and deposit would not tie up with the facts, that the deeper into strata the more simpler organisms would have no explanation, that dinosaur fossils strata without the presence of human and modern animal fossils had no reason, that the universal fact that there are no human fossils below dinosaur fossil strata was luck, that multiple strata layers were the result of chance occurrences (On a large scale) etc.

Science as it is could not accommodate a 6,000 year old earth at all. The only thing that could is if magic was involved to make it look like the earth and the universe were old. Or, if you like, a magician has lied to us. If this is the case, nothing is real except in the mind of the magician.

Thinking like this is a sure road to delusion and/or madness.

Are you trying to be contrary for the sake of it, dear Oliver? If you are, in doing so, you give dummy ammunition to those who would use it to bring down actual scientific inquiry.

I know you continue with a better explanation of science but creationism depends on selective facts and one must be careful in not helping them out in fooling themselves and their followers in this regard.

David

Dear David,

Of course, I do recognize that a 6,000 year old Earth would turn science, the sciences, in fact, upside down. But revolutions have occurred in the past, from Copernicus to Quantum Mechanics. I was not seriously advocating Creationism. I think you know that. Rather, I was underlining the objectivity and rigour of Science vis-à-vis Creationism.

What if the universe is five septillion years old and our measurement of the Big Bang and the inflating universe merely local phenomena, within our light horizon of 4-D space-time? I realize such a finding would unlikely unseat geophysics pertaining to ageing the Earth and how light transverses the universe, yet science might need change its thinking along scales of magnitude, between BB and the larger universe, greater than that between the Bible account and the BB.
Were this speculation to be realized (difficult because communication cannot travel faster than light in a vacuum and there would need to be isolated zones of inflation), science would take it on the chin. Science is a process in continuously play and that is its strength.

Actually, I suspect, when we better understand the dimension of time, concepts of creation will become moot, because other physics will exist independent of our common experience of cause-and-effect.
I engage religionists better understand their reasoning and to test my null hypothesis.

What intrigues me about Christian posters is their readiness to assume Elohim-Jehovah-Jesus as god, without first testing the construct “god” or assessing other gods. They sort of just “fall-in” into it.

I think the behavioural sciences and perhaps neurology might be better placed as explaining religionism. A concept different to cosmology competing with myths.

O.

Oliver,

I knew we were in agreement but I had to make the point for others who might not have recognised that.

I also agree that the beauty of science is that it does adapt to new knowledge whilst not necessarily discarding the old. Your example of an extremely ancient universe is a very good one in that regard.

Religion too ‘adapts’ to new knowledge…eventually, but causes havoc until it does. It is forever playing catch-up.

At the moment abiogenesis has many religionists road-blocked but when that is overcome, and I am sure it will be, our faithful friends will then play on the fact that, “Where did the non living matter which created living matter come from?” God of course.

Meanwhile children are indoctrinated with the impossibility of abiogenesis to support other cranky ideas. And politics are skewed as well. It’s the same as killing those who supported a heliocentric view of reality.

Religion has to wake up to itself and try to grasp the reality that their wild guesses create social, political and planetary havoc.

Talking of havoc, the Atheist Foundation of Australia Inc and the Global Atheist Convention web site are under Cyber attack. This has been ongoing for just under a day and both sites can no longer be accessed. So be patient, folks, if you cannot log on to them.

My heavy workload will disallow me answering for a day or two.

David

While the AFA site is down, updates on the DDoS attack are available here:

http://www.atheistnexus.org/group/aussiekiwisouthpacificatheists/forum/topics/afa-under-attack

my lordy/lord..how the athiests are in panic...one saying..we sold thousands of tickets..the other saying..the site is down..join/the two together..we see a pathetic shoe-string/low volume-server..not able to cope with demand...

but blaming conspiricy..gives some type of excuse..for not replying..questions..while others..hold the fort

avowed athiest/ally..Oliver..QUOTE<<Were this speculation to be realized>>yes mate thats two of you drifting off topic/with bullshhhhhit...to distract...

point 6000 years..being said in the bible...its a strawman/..evil-ution-ist ccc-rap

<<Science is a process..in continuously play..>>>..lol..thats code..for their theory...keeps changing/..evolving...it dont know/state..the first.

it dont have any evolution..of genus...it has no ambiogensis...not/got replicat-ablility...thus is theory...changable opinion..indoctrinated..from birth..into children

<<and that is its strength.

<<when we better understand..the dimension of time,..concepts of creation..will become moot,>>

dream on sunshine...very little time left..judgement day is built in..expect the earth to move...25..dec..2012...as the next earth expantion/cycle begins..with a poleshift..that wipes..all electric memory..into obsolete

<<because other physics will exist..independent..of our common experience..of cause-and-effect.>>>you got that one..son

<<I engage religionists..TO..better understand..their reasoning..and to test my null../lol/..hypothesis..>>great im one of them..

state your hypothemeus...
while david is delusioning.

<<their..readiness to assume..Elohim-Jehovah-Jesus..as god>>>

yep me too...but realise mate...people like you lot...need ways to control...the sheeple...

religion is fast losing its hold..they need a neo/god free religion/alians..if dorkinsd is believed..so feed its sheep..pap..spin..sold as fact..till..the faulse messiah..alian...lol..arrives/

god is one

sustaining to living..all life...jesus if living..was god...but so are you...thats why i cant hate your igno-rants...your as important as jesus...but you got no idea..

your entertaining..better than angels..unaware,lol

but..<<without first testing..the constructIVE..“GOOD?god”..or assessing other..>>possably more/faulse/decieving or fraudulent..<<god HEAD's...They sort of just “fall-in” into it.>>

yes we have...all of us..been decieved...

but..knew you..gods voice..is exclusivly//.good...your not hearing the living/loving.life one-ness..we all are reveasling of...

sadly you see..things...i see god..watch that get quoted out of context..



<<<I think the behavioural sciences...and perhaps neurology..might be better placed..as explaining religionism>>>

I COMPLETLY AGREE...except im seeing..the same FAITH..in..believing athiest...[principles..is too strong a word]...lol...beliefs

<<A concept different to cosmology competing with myths>>>wow thats so cosmic....man

cause.[mic]=cos
cause..im...taking..the
[cos=]...mic key.

OUG you make no sense whatsoever, you seem to jump from one point to another in some crazy fashion, with no coherance. It's not really worth replying to you due to that fact, your saying enough about where your at without anyone poking jibes back at you. lol

Is this what is called 'glossolalia'? ;)

"woot, if you are hoping to score a few more points, you can forget it. The sound of yapping lapdogs is never particularly informative."

lol, who's trying to score points here? :)

Your ignorance over what the situation was pointed out with the facts, you have just been opening up and 'spraying' about stuff, throwing mud then trying to hone in on anything that could possibly be seen as stickin, with no real idea where things stand. It's kinda sad.

Now your trying to shore up your position ignoring these areas where you have been corrected by lame personal attacks like above, which is kinda childish to say the least.

wootwoot having no thesis reveals his igno-rants

he is the measure of the average athiest
as is oliverr...yes you too david...and your dorkins

not a working thesis between the lot of you

go ask the dorkins about the flat fish debatye he lost to me then errased from his blog..on the qt...he is full of fluff and wind

enjoy his fluffy emoting

if fact presennt fact
if thesis present thesis
dont claim incoheance...others are following the debate

its clear you lol dolts are avoiding exposing your thesis
instead keep pointing your dorkins
but your dorkins has les idea than you lot

present facts
present thesis
present science

or
get real...see between you

you lol/not got enough science...to blow the wax from your ears
but then real nobel prize..explosive..has no thought...just wind..and presures that is beyond your containment or comprehention..

present your thesis
windbags

OUG what thesis are you talking about?

Even if evolution was proved to be untrue, it would not prove your god existed. Atheism existed before Darwin put his theory of evolution forward. So I don't give two hoots what you think about it. Nothing in biology,

Anyway, the reason people probably don't want to debate with creationists is because they have no understanding of what evolution is, the reason they probably don't want to debate with you is your just a namecaller, abusive and judgemental. I'm sure your jesus is proud of you for that.

As to thesis, how one is supposed to get in a discussion here in 350 words I don't know, but to cut a long story short, there is plenty of evidence for evolution, and none for creationism. It's a pseudo-science that does not stand up to peer review.

Explain why we have mountains of evidence that contradict your creationists claims, why the mass of evidence in radioactivity, tree rings, ice cores, corals, supernovas – from astronomy, biology, physics, geology, chemistry and archeology all combine and go against your faiths concepts of an earth ~6000 years old and made by a fairy.

OUG said:
"go ask the dorkins about the flat fish debatye he lost to me then errased from his blog..on the qt...he is full of fluff and wind"

Sure, and you've got some proof to back up your statement hmmm?

HaHa! Best laugh I've had all day oug, you are so full of it!

OUG, LOL god of OLO knows all, sees all!

Respect.....not!

You just don't give up, do you, woot.

>>Your ignorance over what the situation was pointed out with the facts<<

Repetition does not equal truth, I'm afraid.

There are no facts here of which to be ignorant. Just opinions.

David Nicholls gets very uncomfortable when people don't agree with his views, and you seem to have joined him on the bandwagon. Good for you, you make a good pair. One day you might both realize that there can be benefits from listening to those you disagree with, instead of simply shouting them down.

But my guess is that won't be particularly soon.

>>you have just been opening up and 'spraying' about stuff, throwing mud then trying to hone in on anything that could possibly be seen as stickin, with no real idea where things stand.<<

Where have I "thrown mud", except where provoked by an incoming insult?

You people have no concept of how to handle disagreement with your own tight little, right little worldview.

Which is, unfortunately, how you come to exactly resemble the people you purport to oppose.

This is precisely the original point I made.

That you are becoming too much like an organized religion for comfort. A view that Mr Nicholls wasn't particularly keen to hear, but instead of taking on board, decided to lash out against.

The exact same thing happened with the bus advertisements. Not the shred of a passing thought that the topic might be worth discussing. Just blinkered dismissiveness.

>>It's kinda sad. Now your trying to shore up your position ignoring these areas where you have been corrected by lame personal attacks like above, which is kinda childish to say the least.<<

Pure imagination.

I have not been "corrected", since we are dealing with opinions, not facts. But it it highly instructive, and very Nichollsian, to confuse the two. The idea being, I assume, that once I have been told what to think by the leader of the pack, I should just subside into acquiescence like all the rest of the toadies.

Yep. That was another childish insult. Just for you.

>> Repetition does not equal truth, I'm afraid.

Yet you keep repeating yourself.

>> There are no facts here of which to be ignorant. Just opinions.

Fair enough, my opinion is you hardly know anything, backed up by you proving that with your lack of information over any current status of anything, or the position of people, that regardless if you get told it's not one way, will keep arguing it is, and now just resort to personal attacks.

I gave a link to the information at Tourism Victoria regarding who can apply for grants, when you basically inferred accountants wouldn't be able too in your list. That's not opinion, that's fact.

There was other facts such as religion having exemptions to the equal opportunity laws, the current status of attempts to have our children taught something in class and a mmyriad of other things, that you are basically saying 'shutup and you can't organise against these things where religion has one over on you."

So you just resort to sitting there trying to state that therefore atheists are as bad as religious, because we are fighting for equality. Well I could say your doing the same thing as religion too. Your actively denying that people should claim equality by organising together in a democratic country.

I want my children no to be affected by religion in their school. I want them to not have to sit in the library and do nothing while classes that are structured for ethics are fought against by the religious. I want equal rights for non-believers, not more rights, and you are just part of the problem in denying that atheists should be able to organise together for their civil rights.

OUG,

My loose use of the term null hypothesis went to he idea that one should challenge posits currently held. I believe Christians whom hold themselves systematic thinkers should try to disprove said faith. Trying to prove one's truths false is a sound methodology to avoid ignorance. Likelwise, I considered the idea of God before rejecting the hypothesis.

It would also seem logical to me to demostrate the existence of divine entites before assign any particular entity to a class. Before we can classify a dog or whale as a mammal, we must know there are mammals. Sells, for example, would maintain Jesus is divine without establishing the existence of divinity: A similar raison d'etre to saying that class of entity called Santa Claus is rotund. Rotund is being assigned to an unproved class.

OUG, some short questions regarding God:

Was god (Zeus) justified by sending the the Titans to Tartarus, thus punishing them for opposing him at Titanomachy? Should Zeus have forgiven the Titans? Or, is Zeus always justified, because Zeus is god?

You are trying hard to ignore reality, woot. Let's hope, for your own peace of mind, that you are successful.

Your claim that "we gave you the facts" boils down to this.

>>a link to the information at Tourism Victoria regarding who can apply for grants<<

My question about accountants highlighted the irrelevance of using them as an example. So you didn't actually answer my question.

>>There was other facts such as religion having exemptions to the equal opportunity laws, the current status of attempts to have our children taught something in class and a mmyriad of other things<<

I see you are struggling to find examples.

None of these "facts" has anything to do with staging a quasi-religious extravaganza.

And the "fact" about exemptions to equal opportunity laws, by the way, was the proposal of such, not their existence.

You still insist on missing the point.

Let's look at the growing similarities between your organization - not atheism itself - and organized religion.

Just your organization.

You don't like people disagreeing with your orthodoxy. You'd prefer them to shut up - ex-communicate them, if you like

>>you are just part of the problem in denying that atheists should be able to organise together for their civil rights.<<

You parade a list of ethical issues upon which your mind is made up, and expect people to bow down to them. Dissent is strongly discouraged, to the point where your acolytes cast doubt on their allegiance to your cause

>>its blatantly obvious that you have some serious problems with identifying yourself as an Atheist.<<

You now want to hold a meeting of the true believers, with the objective of publicizing your beliefs to the world. You also invite those who don't agree with your views, in the hope of converting them

>>Why not be open-minded and come along to the Atheist Convention and see what it's about?<<

That sounds exactly like an organized religion to me.

If you can't see the dichotomy, that's fine.

Enjoy your day.

Pericles, you've picked out one thing woot has stated, out of many issues that have been clearly stated the whole way along as fact about inequality, and your reply about 'pointing out irrelevance' does not make any sense.

>> None of these "facts" has anything to do with staging a quasi-religious extravaganza

Now that's just plain false. The discussions by speakers DO cover issues such as this, I don't know where you are getting you misinformation, or why you are spreading it with such vehemence, then pointing at people for getting upset at you, and going 'see! see!'. It IS childish.

>> And the "fact" about exemptions to equal opportunity laws, by the way, was the proposal of such, not their existence.

WRONG. Religions have had general exemptions, they are now being tightened for instance in Victoria, but they still exist. This is why people are upset : http://www.theage.com.au/national/government-bows-to-religious-right-20090926-g76u.html note the word 'continue'

Other than that, you go on and on just like religion tries to, in trying to associate atheism to a belief.

Simple fact is Pericles you are wrong and daemonising people for standing up for equality, you are spreading false information and won't admit you are wrong when pointed out this.
Your being childish, and to any observer you appear to have an agenda along those lines. Why?

oh;liver did ask the hart...oliver quote<<<..Was god (Zeus) justified by sending the the Titans to Tartarus, thus punishing them for opposing him at Titanomachy?>>>

that needs many presumptions..that are without standing..[even under law]..how am i to judge any event after the fact...via 2 de/third...1000 th person saying it is so...

the only valid witnes..is first hand...like the testimony in the new testiments..by deciples who seen/heard experienced the messiah in persomun/in person.of fact

..if you havnt seen heard or smelt..'it'..its not evidence...only an athiest..[or a fool]..would judge...such a stpidly futile event..on so little evidence...or rather lack of first hand..evidence based on all available facts...or under oath

<<Should Zeus have forgiven the Titans?>>>..god did forgive..because he never did that..he is accused of doing..so far as..that..your post evidences

<<Or,..is Zeus always justified,..because Zeus is god?>>>any good parent gives their children every advantage to learn to be self sufficient...what use a god who lives your life for you?

only retarded athiests dare to judge the judge..on little evidence...most having not read even the witness statements...making the idiotic statements we have seen as recently as on this topic

it is written..by the same measure will be recieve as was given...and i got more than a little baggage..enough not to be casting stones..let alone judging the judge...by the vague interpritations of transcribed facts/fables if the mindless athiest elites be believed

you lot can judge god...but your judging a true innocent...one who casts not one...[NOT ONE stone...stones being of the dusts...if you recall other stories of angels fighting battles...but not god

you need first..give me evidence of just what god did,...that couldnt just be explainable via dutch courage/..placibo affect...if god is withus..who can stand against us/affect...

ye go the gipper/...taking one for the scream team
really i thought..your intelect..a bit above average
but it seems..your passions have blinded you to reason

Let me get this right OUG, your saying the bible is true, because the bible says it was true. ROTFLMAO :) hows that for circular reasoning!

All you have is your book OUG and faith in the men that wrote it, from a collection of stone age and bronze age fairytales by goat herders and the like, and you claim it is evidence.

LOL :) but seriously, trying to read what you write, it wouldn't be much of a discussion as you just have faith, nothing else. Not enough room in these posts to get in a discussion, but I have pointed out to others why even the bibles legitimacy in what it writes, let alone 'divinity' is hardly at all 'evidence', in just approaching one common claim, let alone the MYRIAD of others.

http://www.jesusallaboutlife.com/2009/10/09/christians-parroting-the-party-line

seriously, you crack me up :) kinda like some insane babbler. 'dose dweaded dweaded afweists! dose afweistss! theys will learnzes! learnzes I say!'

LOL

GEE what a SUSS..quote<<..Let me get this right OUG,>>>that would be a first

<<your saying the bible is true,>>>the bible is true..go read the scroll's...its true to that it copied from...in the main its attributable to those who's names or noted in their texts

it may supprise you that the bible[meaning the two books..is a collection..ammalgum of may other books/stories parrables...loosly tied chronologiclly...under the main them of god

in truth it should be inclusive of many other holy text...but there it is as is...just like your books on evoplving species..is what that is proof of species...NOT GENUS evolution...but you despiratly point at science...then sat thius means that...but worse you got no clue about the facts of science

i have studied the bible and thousands of other science/religious texts...you clearly are out of your depth..you might know how to spell 4 thousand words...where as i know what the 15,000 words i use mean...you clearly got no idea

i too could use spellcheck...any retard can...but i am as i am..what i right i wrote...knowing the facts im using are tried tested measured

just because you lot are ignorant..and dont understand my words/concepts..only further reveals your igno-rants...containing so little fact...let alone any science

you lot..
keep redirecting..away from the point*.. of.......

....produce/present... your thesis..*...here/now

in your own words...

but you got nothing but fearmongering..feeding upon the ignorant's... such as yourselves..the blind blinding the sheeple

from your link

<<<I have studied the bible for over 30 years,>>>prove it...

<<Do any of you actually search for the information you present as fact or research it?>>> my tghoughts EGSACTLY

<<Do you just dogmatically accept it>>because some dorkins says so



<<Is your faith...>>>in an evolving..theory..of evolution>>..that blind?>>>do you fear the living/loving good..so much?

<<<if only I studied the bible I would understand.>>>saying you did for 30 years...mate..its clear you never even read it..with open heart//knowing the wheat/from the tares..KNOWING..that of man/../from that of god/good

LOL :) seriously mate, I don't need to prove anything to you re: time studying the bible, the Qu'ran or many mythologies from the region, I'd go 'toe to toe' with you like I have with theology professors and maintain that there is no evidence for your claims of divinity of the bible at all. It's just pure faith.

Indeed I find it funny that your god according to you, divinely inspired a book that takes intense study and interpretation to understand 'properly' :P

As stated, this has nothing to do with science, your just threatened by the MASSIVE amount of knowledge that contradicts your religious claims is all. Atheism has existed since before man could conceive of gods, and will exist long after the fairytales are gone. As already stated, if evolution was proved to be false, despite the masses of evidence, it would not in any way prove the existence of your magic man in the sky.

You still have not explained away the mountains of evidence that contradict your creationists claims, why the mass of evidence in radioactivity, tree rings, ice cores, corals, supernovas – from astronomy, biology, physics, geology, chemistry and archeology all combine and go against your faiths concepts of an earth ~6000 years old and made by a fairy.

So excuse me while I laugh :)

Pericles,

You certainly live in you own little world.

What do you consider is the best method for Atheists who are aware that religion is restricting human rights in society, to advance that knowledge to other Atheists and to the wider public?

Your own words demonstrate you know that religion does restrict human rights so please do not try to double-talk your way around this.

David

Maybe there could be a convention for zealots of all descriptions on a island somewhere far away. One way travel tickets and the remainder of us could live in peace thereafter.

What difference is there between fundies anyhow, they are all as intolerant and boring as one another.

In the interim a gigantic concrete ear should be built in all cities so that the fundamentalist nags can go there to 'diss' and whinge and leave everyone else alone. I suspect that the intolerance of zealots generalises and no doubt they are a far smaller group in total than most think. If so, yay, that could be the good news for today.

Update:

http://www.theage.com.au/technology/security/atheist-websites-smitten-by-cyber-attack-20091021-h7ul.html?autostart=1

Thanks for the publicity, Christians!

Tickets can still be purchased online via http://atheistconvention2010.eventbrite.com

Oddly enough, it's the same one you live in, Mr Nichols.

>>Pericles, You certainly live in you own little world.<<

To understand the degree to which your evangelizing of atheism has succeeded, here's a comment referring to the Ddos attack, following the Age's article.

"This is religious persecution, and should be prosecuted as such"

Whether you like it or not, that is the effect you are having. And I for one do not regard it as healthy. Even if I am a minority of one, you will not change my opinion on the way you promote the public face of atheism through your organization.

>>What do you consider is the best method for Atheists who are aware that religion is restricting human rights in society, to advance that knowledge to other Atheists and to the wider public?<<

You see, that's where we have a problem, right there.

Everybody in this country, of whatever religion or none, has identical voting rights. The relevance of atheism to this objective is therefore moot.

Your objection, fundamentally, is to preferential treatment for organized religion.

All avenues of redress are open to you, including using your Association to lobby the appropriate politicians.

But the religions did not get their preferential treatment from either i) advertising on the sides of buses or ii) holding seminars.

You believe that you can have a greater impact by using the label capital-A-Atheism to justify your political stances. My own view is that it has the exact opposite effect.

It is possible to make a perfectly reasonable case for the scrapping of tax breaks, or the revision of school curricila. By identifying yourself up front as an atheist, you allow your enemies to take free shots - not at the proposal itself, but at the "belief system" behind it.

Look, it is clear we are never going to agree on this, so I will now leave you with a clear field - you and your disciples have "won", Mr Nicholls, and I hope the "victory" makes you feel very good inside.

Although I will continue to respond to insults.

Oh Pericles, poor thing being victimised for standing up for what you think is right are you? But Pericles! You are being political doing so! Can't have that now can we? It's people responding to your ignorance regarding the facts and pointing at exactly where your conclusions are based on false information, with links and specifics. Most of all of it has not been opinion, but documented fact with opinion about it, pointed out over and over again to yourself. Your in denial.

But, as you say, the vast majority appear to not side with your opinion on the matter, and thus the call for equality grows.

Any stance on any topic is political Pericles, by the very nature of it. Unless you define political only within the tiny scope of party politics.

The fact is, atheists are having a large impact, and folk such as yourself and the theists find this very confronting, it shakes up their world views as they don't really think to deeply about their convictions. They aren't prepared to change their position on things given enough evidence, and fall back to denying it, and name calling.

So your approach is very religious in this regard I must say, hence you continue sticking to your point that 'atheism is turning religious'

lol :) sigh, your not alone unfortunately .. read any fundie site for the same view.

Pericles,

I hope you realise my position does not allow me to insult you in a manner you deserve.

Atheism is doing OK without your negativity about nothing. Tilting at windmills seems to overtaken you psyche to the point of obsession.

You really should read your own stuff; it’s quite embarrassing. I am reasonably sure that not many Atheists or religious folk would think your style of Atheism is one of your more attractive attributes.

Something that is nothing is always hard to define or classify.

David

Thanks for your entirely fatuous contribution, Gee Suss, which matches perfectly your entirely fatuous pseudonym.

I don't feel at all victimized, thank you for your concern.

I feel sorry for people who cannot see how they are driving a perfectly serviceable bus over a cliff. But that's just me.

>>It's people responding to your ignorance regarding the facts and pointing at exactly where your conclusions are based on false information, with links and specifics.<<

As I said before, without contradiction, the "facts" here are not at issue. I certainly haven't taken issue with any facts. Only the opinions of some people on the relevance of those facts.

>>atheists are having a large impact, and folk such as yourself and the theists find this very confronting<<

You see, that's just illogical, as well as inaccurate.

It stems from your assumption - and that of Mr Nicholls - that anything you do or say in the name of atheism must by definition be right.

I do not find the "impact of atheism" as you describe it at all confronting. It does cause dome people to do and say stupid things sometimes, but that's not confronting. Merely deserving of sympathy.

>>So your approach is very religious in this regard I must say, hence you continue sticking to your point that 'atheism is turning religious<<

Well of course you must say that.

Your default position is that if I don't agree with you, I must be a closet christian, by definition, eh? Did you think of that one all on your own?

And Mr Nicholls himself is back. Hi.

>>I hope you realise my position does not allow me to insult you in a manner you deserve<<

That's really funny, given your previous remarks on this thread.

Insults, combined with a somewhat clumsy line in personal denigration, seem to be your primary defence against dissent.

No Pericles,

Against stupidity!

David

Update on the convention, websites have been attacked and taken offline:

http://www.theage.com.au/technology/security/cyber-attacks-smite-atheist-websites-20091021-h7ul.html?autostart=1

In your opinion, Mr Nicholls.

>>No Pericles, Against stupidity!<<

In my opinion, against dissent.

We shall yet again have to agree that we have different opinions.

Or are you going to claim that your own views are by definition fact, while others by definition cannot be?

That wouldn't entirely surprise me.

OUG,

You say: We should not judge Zeus and Zeus is forgiving. Yet, if Zeus is forgiving, why did he condemn the Titans? Why not pardon the Titans? Why not be merciful? If Zeus is not merciful; how can we claim god is merciful? Is Zeus always right, because Zeus is god? Seems to me, morals must bend to autocracy or should I say godocracy?

Also,

"the only valid witnes..is first hand...like the testimony in the new testiments..by deciples who seen/heard experienced the messiah in persomun/in person.of fact" - OUG

How do you know the histories about Zeus were first hand accounts? Could it be the disciples of Zeus wrote about events over a generation after events, as was the case that other god, Jesus?

Pericles,

That is just silly but if you can support that by quoting me, directly or by inference, that would be nice.

But, of course you can't.

David

to quote...WORD FOR WORD..suss-gee..who repeats...moot-toot-moot-hoot...<<..You still have not explained away..the mountains..lol..of evidence..that contradict...lol..your creationists claims,>>

please define..the evidence more closely..to the topic

i have repeatedly..stated....present your thesis...but..no one dares..

you mindless..lot..dont have an origonal thought/..theory...and certainly..dont have the science...saying../..underpinning..a simgle thing..YOU CLAIM

<<why..the mass of evidence..in radioactivity>>>..please present..your lol..radio-activity/evidence..is evidencing..just what..egsactly../..specificly

<<tree rings,>>..wow..tree rings..

..this is your thesis...or is it your proof..?

it certainly dosnt disprove god nor religion...again..please[either/suss...or moot-woot...davidian..or-liver..[or you other a-thiests]..state the relivance..of these sciences..to evolution/god/or religion/or athiesm..or this../discussion/debate.....lol

<<ice cores>>ice-cores..proving just what..egsactly..i think your mixing global-warning..data..with evolution..or your anti/quasi/..not-religion..complex..or..your disbelief..in god,

<<corals,..supernovas>>>..corals are proving just what egsactly...relitive to the debate../god/evolution/..or religions getting lucre

<<from astronomy,..biology,>>>..ahh yes..the dorkins believes we come from alians...lol...where these alians come from...other alian's/infinitum?...or...god maybe?...your clutching at strawmen...like all your fellow..ignorants/faithless/...athiest'ss

<<physics,>>..yes physics...but again..how does this relate to that..

<<gravity>>...the gravity theory..of evolution?

<<geology>>>lol gee-l0gy,..your..dumb distractions..know no bounds...lol

<<chemistry and archeology>>you have an extensive list...lol..of the sciences...

you left out..the few..CLAIMED to underpin...your theory..or at least are claimed SPURIOUSLY...to prove your athiestic..disbeliefs...that are science..but mate...you got nothing

naming the sciences..what...thats your proof?...lol

<<I don't need to prove anything..to you>>>..just because you take the lie..with your faithlessness...dosnt mean we all swallow..the spin

<<I'd go 'toe to toe' with you>>>...mate were doing that...here/now

present...YOUR THESIS..

present...HOW your laundry list..of sciences..proves or validatyes your disbelief.or invalidates god...or says ANYTHING about religion...

im not one of your mindnumb sheeple

PRESENT YOUR PROOF..you got none...live with it

DANCING/...toe to toe<<...like I have with theology professors>>...

go for it..im not judging..your dancing/style...

its your utter and complete lack of the science-proofs..you repeatedly..claim..liver-spotted davidians..woot woot...gee...how-SUSS..is that..

oh-liver..davidians

*£!..<<<As stated,..this has nothing to do..with science,...>>>never a truer word spoken...lol..as sir joe-bjp..so aptly said...

''you got..one foot..each side..of..the..barb wire../fence...

thats why..lol..you cant step forward..nor back...

watch you dont lose..your one third..of a foot...lol...or those nutters..he/you..nestle upon

MASSIVE AMMOUNTS OF KNOWLEDGE...lol..certainly not from the lot of you..here at this post...LOL

<<<So excuse me while I laugh :)>>

...ha ha oh-liver.../mootmoot/woottoot...gee-how-suss...lol..dorkins-inco../..davidians..lol

australia's..weaker/fondational../athiests...inc...party..lol

any of you...PRESENT your/..THESIS...

third call...@..[this topic]

OUG,

I don't understand the connection between my above questions regarding God (Zeus) and "davidians" (your reply). Zeus was an Olympian. Accordng to Scripture the Olympians were in ascent after the Titians. The House of David to whom both Joseph and Mary traditionally belonged (along with thousands of others no doubt)fostered mendicants whom ministered Judaism to the Gentiles around the turn of the Common Era. Julius Casear sponsored the Herodians (who were not true Jews)to oversee the the House of David. In Jesus' last days, under Augustus the Octavian, the Herodians were out of favour and the Annas were taking over.

While some (e.g. Theiring) would have Jesus leveraging the House of David to gain political power to establish a Kingdom of God with Jesus (and later Jesus II) as leader, Zeus would have established His heavenly kingdom centuries beforehand. Moreover, Zeus does not seem to acknowledge the OT Kingdom of the House of David in his scriptures and not even when Zeus sent his messanger Hermes to meet Priam.

Please revisit my questions.

Also,

Zeus had foreknowledge that Prometheus would hide the best cuts of meet from Him at the first BBQ, one can assume that Zeus also knew of Jesus' fate, before Jesus was born. Afterall, the Scriptures say Zeus is God.

OUG et al,

1. Above, should be "meat" not "meet", of course.

2. Tree rings can be dated by counting them. You should know that. There are trees over 6,000 years old and clonal root systems 80,000 years old.

But, first things first. Please answer my Zeus questions.

Oh OUG, what's this about thesis? You want a thesis on what? in 350 words?

My answer is basically : the scientific method.

If you have any evidence that stands up to peer review please put it forward, but to cry 'GIVEZ ME DA THESIS!' is just lame, when all the information is out there.

I have heaps of posts and also comments I have made on http://jesusallaboutlife.com that puts forward discussions on evolution and science, and your bronze age book of babble if interested.

I don't know why you are trying to focus on Dawkins, I am putting forward the whole of science silly, that you are stating is wrong with regards evolution and the age of the earth. You have all the 'thesis' you wish in the international academies of science consensus.

You have to show how your wild claims go against the majority of all scientific study to date. Is your god 'tricking us'? is that it?

http://www.icsu.org/Gestion/img/ICSU_DOC_DOWNLOAD/1017_DD_FILE_IAP_Evolution.pdf

No wonder people don't reply to you, your 'way out there'.

btw .. OUG meet Pericles, Pericles, meet OUG. I'm sure you both will get on just fine.

i have '...read your site...if thats the thesis...little wonder your only geting tweeter-half/witts replying

a synopsis..a thing you clearly have not heard can be sumised in the manby 350 wards posts you have posted

your only fooling yourself..thinking..that uou have any idea..claiming all the sciences..does nothing to validate evoluion/..nor athiesm...nor rebut religion...

clearly your delusioning...QUOTE..<<..Oh OUG,..what's this about thesis?>>>and trying to be the dorkins

<<..You want a thesis on what?>>>lets begin with athiesm...you call on your science...im callin you on presenting it

<<in 350 words?>>>in one day you can post...4 posts towards it...1400 words for each topic...but thats more words than you claim to know...lol

<<My answer is basically..:..the scientific method>>that science [what meth-god/meth-od?]...method in which..PARTICUL:AR/specific science.

If you have any evidence..please put it forward,

but to cry 'SCIENCE>>>METHOD>>!'..is just lame,,,when all the information out there..rebuts the strawman your building...just mendelism refutes your mutation..incra-mental evolution.

<<I have heaps of posts and also comments I have made on http://jesusallaboutlife.com>>>yeah///more posts than replies...justy your average fluff...cheersquad...and some very good rebuttals...of your bulllcccrap..theory..on theisms

<<that puts forward discussions on evolution and science>>in lue of prresenting/or explaining the science facts,

your own feeble/..bronzeed new-age book of babble../bloged to the feeble minded.

<<I don't know why you are trying to focus on Dawkins>>you dont know soo much

i focus on dorkins.because at lerast he know something..wheras your just a wannabe,

<<..I am putting forward the whole of science silly,>>>yeah silly ids right...the arrrrsehole of faux science,...as spouted by a fool upon the brain dead

<<that you are stating is wrong with regards evolution>>>please quote the wrong back...i will explain it too you

but i know you got no clue because its all over your head...present proof...think sunshine...your the only one still yapping your dumb fool head off..the others know they got no thesis

and by your own lack of presenting ..lol..yours..your revealing the same ignorance

<<the age of the earth>>>reveal..where in the bible..it says 6000 years ya retard

No wonder people don't reply to you,..your a mindless par-rot

one under god,

I am extremely disappointed. I gave you a chance to be rational, to construct sentences that made sense, to interact with other humans using the norms we all accept, but you disregarded that reasonable and timely advice, returning instead to using non-comprehensible psycho-babble.

Stop asking those who know there is no evidence for your god or anyone else’s, for evidence supporting that stance and start using your brain in supplying evidence for your claims of the existence of the Yahweh/Jesus god. That is the way it is done. That is the only way we can make sense of existence. That is what keeps us out asylums.

You have supplied no evidence. All you do is panic-speak short phrases comprised of delusional irrelevancies none of which anyone can understand. Are you so individualistic and clever that you consider that the rest of us cannot think for ourselves? Do you really believe that this god delusion you suffer is unique to yourself and no one else is capable of comprehending such thoughts as being fantasy?

No mate, you have lost it completely and your words say it all. The god you so fervently hold dear is a figment of your imagination and you are desperately attempting to keep the notion alive by exaggerating your case, or should I say lack of your case.

Stop treating other people on this forum as though they haven’t a brain between them and start looking in the mirror at your own very evident inadequacies.

We have all at various times, tried to be supportive of your nonsensical outpourings but enough is enough. You are acting like a robot to religion and one that is totally out of control.

Get a grip on reality before there is no reality left for you.

Your continuous disruptive behaviour to important topics is unacceptable.

David

What have you got against retarded people? is this what your jesus teaches you? To use 'retard' in a derogatory manner as a weapon? I have higher morals than putting people down like that, using an unfortunate situation as a method of being derogatory. I think your attitude in that regard is disgusting.

Your from the states aren't you? Apparently 40% of people in the states, believe in the young earth, and creationism.

Scientific evidence is all out there, you claim that evolution does not exist, prove it.

The three main mechanisms that produce evolution in the Theory of Evolution (the mechanism of evolution as compared to the fact of evolution, as the Theory of Gravity is the mechanics of gravity compared to the fact of gravity), are natural selection, genetic drift, and gene flow. Natural selection favors genes that improve capacity for survival and reproduction. Genetic drift is random change in the frequency of alleles, caused by the random sampling of a generation’s genes during reproduction. Gene flow is the transfer of genes within and between populations.

Now you say this is false. Prove it with your 'thesis'. science provides objective criteria to assess the viability of truth-claims, whereas you have not provided any objective criteria that stands up to peer review at all. If it did, science would take it on by it's very nature of the scientific method, rather than laugh at people like you.

G'Day people
I just thought this might be worth a little read for some
With the "Legal" Profession tied to "God" and the sh!t that has gone on with me and my son

http://au.news.yahoo.com/a/-/mp/6289679/nobel-winner-slams-bible-as-handbook-of-bad-morals/

Anyway all have a good life
from Dave

That's harsh, Gee Suss.

>>What have you got against retarded people? is this what your jesus teaches you? To use 'retard' in a derogatory manner as a weapon?<<

In oug-speak, "retard" is far from derogatory.

It is shorthand for a very particular, and special, type of person. As you can see from this extract from one of his recent posts:

>>i might seem to give..athiests..a hard-time...but i know im a retard...only channeling on mind/imagry....light and light..is..of god<<

As you can see, he sees "a retard" as being someone, like himself, who deals in a somewhat challenging form of free imagery, and would therefore by definition be a substantial compliment.

Mind you, if you ever find any sense at all in what he says, do let us know. I stopped reading his burble a while back.

Pericles, he stated :

<<the age of the earth>>>reveal..where in the bible..it says 6000 years ya retard

In that sense, it was used as a derogatory word. Call me harsh if you will.

http://www.theage.com.au/news/film/mental-disability-groups-in-uproar/2008/08/13/1218306943095.html

"When I heard about it, I felt really hurt inside," said Special Olympics global messenger Dustin Plunkett.

"I cannot believe a writer could write something like that. It's the not the way that we want to be portrayed. We have feelings. We don't like the word retard. We are people. We're just like any other people out there. We want to be ourselves and not be discriminated against."

Personally, when I see more than one ellipses in the first sentence, I stop reading...
I wonder if the ellipses are used to mark a pause, as the writer stops for another drag on the bong?

as usual david says little worhy of reply

hey gee-sussy..you forgot to attribute..the quote..you plagerised
http://www.jesusallaboutlife.com/2009/02/27/the-theory-of-evolution-what-a-scientific-theory-actually-means/

i studied genetics...mate...the science of genetics..is a valid science..evolution is a theory...get it?>

anybody..can read the gibberish,..you posted...little suprrise you used kims quote...also plagerised...but..a lot more informative than your inane half arrrsedd/ramble..that solicited the reply...you stole..which..you refused to accredit to kim

weak as sunshine...
only confirming you know cut and paste
and will steaL...as well as preen your..self sufficient ego's

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_drift..is explained here..using marbles...in lue of actual breeding egsamples...so simple people who have lost their marbles..can line up their dux

to quote the wiki.<<..Genetic drift..is a change in the allele frequency..within the population..due to random chance:>>...but even this is contradicting..'natural'..selectors..

conciously selecting..longer feathers/brighter colours..via the mating displays...hardly random..lol selection...mr thick-head...see you cant think three steps ahead..you and your mindnumb herd..can play your delusions on the sheep..

.you got nothing but a plagerised..half thought...stolen from genetics...quoting a theory of genetics...not evolution..a theory found..by some nutter playing with marbles

dawg..quote..from ya link...<<Speaking at the launch of his new book.."Cain",..Jose Saramago,..who won the 1998 Nobel Prize for Literature,>>>LOL

<<said society would..probably..be better off without the Bible>>>and presumably better off..buying his book about cain...lol.

so nobel price for writing...what qualification is this to under pin your thesis of evolution/..thesus of evil/religion...thesis of no god...lol..straw grasping..you lot are so mind numb..its barely worth reading your ccc-rap

percules..seems able to quote me...
despite claiming not to read me...lol
amasing...lol

anyhow nothing to...further..rebutt here...it should be self evidenbt to any who can think...there is no origonal thesis..to be heard..from the athiest herd

What are you talking about OUG? The commenter Kim is a good friend of mine, and offered a rewording of the text in the post you nong. Exactly what have I stolen from whom? You are judging me now? A thief is that what you are here standing in judgment of me? I am getting a clearer idea from your actions just what your 'jesus' teaches.

For someone that says they studied genetics, your sure seem confused, and ignorant, and unable to read what was said clearly. Do you even know how something becomes a theory? via the scientific method. Where have I said evolution was a science? I haven't, but I will say this now, Evolutionary Biology is a science.

You obviously don't understand the theory of evolution 'mr genetics' LOL you are attributing one of the factors in it, to another. You are attributing genetic drift to natural selection. The Theory Of Evolution is not completely darwins contribution, natural selection. DNA wasn't even known then! You do understand Darwins initial findings just started a whole chain of scientific method that has added and expanded on the Theory of Evolution don't you?

LOL! c'mon some geneticist! :) haha
Come on OUG show us the evidence for creation that outmatches the evidence of evolution :) hehehe you crack me up you creationists, and to think 40% of USA think the way you do! wonder what the percentage is in Australia .. don't think it's anywhere near that, I would hope for educations sake.

highpriest suss geee quote..<<..getting a clearer idea..just what your..'jesus'..teaches.>>>,..clearly your..lol..15 years of study..of the bible...was wasted.....how ignorant..your..'study'...was

<<your sure seem confused/ignorant,..and unable..to read..what was said clearly.>>>...you voice this complaint/..so frequently...it has become..completlly meaningless

<<know how something..becomes a theory?>>>..do you?

<<the scientific method.>>..those who have no clue..by far outnumber those who do..and you..clearly..have no clue

<<Where I said evolution..was..a science?>>>.....im not rereading your gibberish,..to prove bukiss to you..as you claim..all the..''science method''...under the banner of athiest..by rote..

under the evolving..'theory of evolution..of genus...as...implied by retards..via..''the evolution of species'

i know..that as much as you say..<<..I haven't,>>..this much is clear to all...but clearly you have..

in disclaiming it..you appear the babbling/retard...[ressesive throw back/cull]

<<,.You obviously..don't understand..the theory of evolution>>>lol skipping from biology...a science,...back to the theory of genus evolving..lol..how droll..

if..you dont comprehend the meaning of...under/stand..

..your correct...i dont understand to..the theory of genus evolving...

but those..not knowing under/stand means stand's under...you dont realise..species evolving..dont validate genus..evolving genus

to re-quote you lol

'LOL you are attributing one of the factors..in it,..to another based not in it...LOL

<<You are attributing genetic drift..to natural selection.>>>..your saying..dosnt quote what i said..strawboy..clearly your con-prehention skills are lacking..now deciet too...lol

<<The Theory Of Evolution..is not completely darwins contribution,>>.USE the full title..oh head/.retarded one...'evolution OF THE SPECIES'...not genus...

darwin was the only auther..of the''evolution of species''...but your too thick..to noticve the divergent qualifications..inherant between his facts..of species..and your delusions on genus

<<understand Darwins..just started a whole chain of scientific method>>>..lol...do you now claim..darwin invented science method ?

...he used it...as millions of others do/did/will...all except you know its roots..extend way back before darwin

rewrites..of your own words

LOL!..c'mon some highpriest of athism..you are:) haha

sussgee..show us the evidence for first life..by chance/fluke...that first living...mate name it's genus at least...it evolved into..which new genus...replicate/mate

present the evidence..even science..daRES NOT GIVE/name..that names/REPLICATES..THE LOL...<<evidence of evolution>>as you clearly dont have a clue...i cant be bothered trying to comprehend your insane rambling...but not thinking..is an athiest trait...

as the wheat..drifts ever further from the tares..you call a black thread white

You're still taking it far too seriously, Gee Suss.

>>In that sense, it was used as a derogatory word. Call me harsh if you will.<<

oug uses the word in the same fashion that the Irish are allowed to tell Irish jokes without it being deemed derogatory, Jews tell jokes against themselves, and only black dudes are allowed to call themselves niggaz.

As I pointed out, he sees himself in this light, so it must be ok.

On much the same topic.

>>I wonder if the ellipses are used to mark a pause, as the writer stops for another drag on the bong?<<

Sadly, far more prosaic.

It is a device oug has become accustomed to adopt over the years in order to bypass the 350 word limit.

For one post I recall he managed an extra 100 words using this method, but I think it is now just a nervous tic.

I have to say, though, I really like your theory.

pericules its my way..of speaking slow...so even simpltons..can comprehend...the complex issues under discusion

but its clear..the athiest/elites.. have no science proof of.''not god'..

so i present some proof..of reality of the faulse prince of peace..and colusions of demons..in the demon-mocracy..other vidio's reveal..the why of athism

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jQWDhA5ZLkg

if..you lot...had any proof...you would present it..
you havnt science...thus have only your faithlesssness...
these are your faulse godheads...that will form..the neo religion

atheism..the belief...for those with no belief

...for clarity...present your evidences..present proof
put up...
or....

realise...

..you
been
conned...

again

OUG,

Pls return to: Oliver, Thursday, 22 October 2009 9:58:19 AM

You haven't fully addressed my original questions regarding Zeus and the "davidians" (you introduced). Please do so, when you next have space to reply.

OUg what a crack up.

You gave that video link as proof of your assertions of the 'why of atheism'?

BWAHAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

Alex Jones is the biggest con man conspiracy theorist in the US.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alex_Jones_(radio_host)

This is part of his scam as well, the Genesis Community Network.
http://www.gcnlive.com/

You may be able to fool a very tiny minority of other religionists by spreading this cr*p around, but i dont think you're having much luck here pal.

OUG, you have no proof of the Invisible Pink Unicorn, it doesn't mean because I claim it exists, you have to prove me wrong. That's absurd, and that's the thinking you are putting forward in your posts.

What you are doing is a logical fallacy called the Burden of Proof. The burden of proof lies with the claimant.

You are the one making a claim that there is a god, back it up. Show us that evolution is false, and the collective knowledge of mankind as disclosed in the IAP document on evolution and the age of the earth, using the scientific method. physical, testable, falsifiable evidence.

evolution which you are denying, has more evidence that the total lack of ANY evidence your creation has, so excuse me while I yet again laugh at creationists :)

Your video has nothing to do with the discussion. How's that evidence? Your pointing at something totally explainable as being attributed to demons. How totally stupid sorry. But really it is. That's not evidence, that's just your assumption.

Show us your evidence for a god, and stop acting like some lunatic.

oh-liver in lue of any valid thesis..persists with his zeus re-direction...in lue of his thesis...[on athiest-isms...anti religion-isms..and or evoution of genus..without..the specious..specie-ism's

all i will say further/..about it..is..re davidians,,,that was a poke at our david..of the athiest reforist party...i was refering to his followers

but the woo-wootoothoot...gee-suss..bays some more blathering...quote<<..no proof of..the-Invisible-Pink-Unicorn,..it doesn't mean..because..I claim it exists,>>>lol..you cant even say your idiocracy logficlly

<<you have to prove me wrong...That's absurd,..and that's the thinking..you are putting forward in your posts>>>at least im still capable of thinking..your inanity knoweth no bound.

<<What you are doing is..a logical fallacy..called the Burden of Proof...The burden of proof..lies with the claimant>>ok this explains why..you feel..your not needing to be proving anything...

..because you dis-believe...thus feel..you need not prove..your negative averment.

<<You..claim that there is a god,..back it up>>>how can one inform a closed mind.show your mind is open..and i will validate.

but note your redirecting the topic...in lue of presenting any the-suss

<<Show us that evolution is false>>>put up the facts you feel true,..thgis you seem unable to do...i have repeatedly posted..micro evolution[AT THE SPECIES level..is totally valid...BUT evolution at the intra GENUS LEVEL IS FRAUD...not one single genus.into new genus EVER observed

<<and the collective knowledge of mankind..as disclosed in the IAP document on evolution>>>who the fuc hides behinf the initials i-ape[iap]means what/who?

then some atypical..rambling nonsensical..rave<<....and the age of the earth,..using the scientific

........continued

seriously OUG, this is about the topic of being open minded :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T69TOuqaqXI

Your not open minded at all.

Other than that, you just ramble and most all your comments your only come back is to use name calling. You can't confront what was put forward to you, and just turn around and say 'inane' or 'blathering' etc etc. Your approach is argumentum ad hominem. pure and simple.

You can't confront and deal with whats presented at all, that is very clear. You've shown that your approach to the topics is one of trying to degrade those your discussing with. Obviously this is what you get from your jesus.

lame. Put simply, its the Dunning-Kruger Effect.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect

OUG,

So you were referring to our OLO friend, David, not the House of David. What does David have to do the Zeus condemning the Titans? Please go back and refer to recent questions from me to you about god (Zeus)and frame a new reply.

Please see:

- Oliver, Tuesday, 20 October 2009 3:17:00 PM (last paragraph), and
- Oliver, Wednesday, 21 October 2009 5:39:27 PM

Gee Suss makes a sound point. We should all avoid argumentum ad hominem.

O.

nothing new...so continue...lol..suss..quote<<<....method...physical,..testable,..falsifiable evidence.>>>your dribbling your phyco-babble again..time to take your meds..gee..{how}...suss R U

sussQUOTE..<<evolution which you are denying,>>>...I only deney../ macro/evolution[of genus]....which has..not one scrap of evidence/proof...nuthing

...as repeatedly said.../
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2305

micro/..within the specie/..micro evolution..is perfectly valid..

MACRO....old genus..into neo..[new]..genus..is pure delusional ...speculation/..theory

claiming..''micro evolution''..validates 'macro/evolution'..is insane

claiming that evolution..into new genus...<<<..has more evidence..>>is insane...IF FACT..PRESENT YOUR FACT

not one..of the many attempts..to validate..macro evolution..mean's bukkiss.....species..as applied to macro/..evolution,[of genus]...is fraud..!

evolution/..within the species..is valid...but,..
OUTSIDE THE SPECIES...genus/neo/genus...
genus..into new genus..IS A LIE

.....get your proof..
and present it..!

if you dont present..your macro-evolution/genus thesis..
it means..you got nothing..
not one idea of..even..a../the concepts..

..inherant in the topic..is fish..![coldblood/fins/scales/gills...evolving into warm/blood..fur..feet/legs/hipjoint..etc..mannals!

mate..see its hundereds..of steps..from water to land...you got one fish..[still a fish]..thats the only...lol..'evidence'..

see..that..while staying a fish...lol..somehow,..it/fish..needs to evolve legs..and a hip joint.../collar bones..arms/feet..lung's..fur...etc etc..

see a fish..walking/crawling..from the ocean/sea..
is a kids fairy tale..if you going to lie..make it huge...lol



<<..lack of ANY evidence..your creation has>>>..mate..im here because two humans had sex..while your parents..clearly relate to the missing link/apeman...

i say i come from humans..you say you come fromn ape...lol..i note..you do have..the 1000th..monkey thing/..down pat...thank god for word spell check...eh,,gee,SUSS_..cheeta?

so excuse me..while..I yet again..
use your own quote..to laugh at..athiest/davidian/oliver-tarian's

Show your evidence...of evolution
<<and stop acting..like some lunatic>>...#

research how complex...lol...a SINGLE cell is..!
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=cell+biology&search_type=&aq=f

pleae note..science cant even..make..a cell membrane...see the joke...
yet..they dare speculate..on how it evolved...lol

i put up the alex/jones link..to test..
if your reading the links....so...now we know...explain how this happend...by chance
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zufaN_aetZI&feature=channel

we still have procariot cells...ie..if they were going to evolve...and the fittest survive/..they turn into eucariate cells...but...where did the nuclius evolve from..explain

even biology...a valid science..
yet the origins..are all still..in the realm of theory

...then we have procloroplasts...
did these come before procariot cells or after eucariate

make a mitrochondia...i dare ya...
or make a single cell membrane

..or explain the ameba...rebutt this

http://www.present-truth.org/3-Nature/Creation/creation-not-evolution-4.htm

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2411&page=15
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2305#50521

yet..via your ongoing and persistant/..ignorant/snide..remarks and..by your..retarded council...
it all...lol..happend by chance...lol

You accept micro-evolution do you? Mutation, recombination and all processes operating within species?

'Microevolution' describes subpopulations of species becoming isolated and diverging, and this directly results in speciation (when they can no longer breed with others in that species) .. that's macroevolution. To argue that microevolution occurs, is to argue for what directly causes macroevolution to occur.

here's a reference of evidence of speciation occuring, that you are denying http://www.holysmoke.org/cretins/speci.htm yet you can accept micro-evolution?

What is the 'barrier' on micro-evolution that stops macro-evolution OUG?

Nowhere within the mechanisms of evolution is it implied that eukaryotes must have evolved from prokaryotes, your getting your material from the Discovery Institute! ROTFLMAO! there was a hypothesis in the 70's over this, but now it is agreed they split from a common ancestor further down the tree of life.

The metaphor of the tree of life, that for the most part accurately describes the way evolutionary relationships occur over time is not something Scientists have to have every part of the tree laid out right away. The base of the tree, where the three main branches of Bacteria, Eukarya and Archaea split off, was hypothesised then to look a certain way, with the Eukarya branch splitting off directly from the Bacteria branch. This was a proposed relationship, but not a 'dogma' of evolution.

Hypotheses about certain of the aspects of phylogeny, when found to be false, doesn't falsify evolution itself THATS THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD AT WORK:) derr, that's how science works! It's healthy adjusting facets of a theory and improving it. If there was no mystery, there would be no science at all! :P

The discovery institute, and yourself try and put it across as fact is nearly 40 year old hypothesis! ROTFLMAO hahahahaha...things are way ahead http://www.physorg.com/news169907476.html

Evolution doesn't say we come from apes, we share a common ancestor, as we do with all life on the planet.

Just because science can't explain something yet, does not mean your magic man exists.

To disprove evolution and my argument, you have to state what barrier exists that stops speciation, go on.

Gee Suss,

The micro/macro argument is only in the mind of those who have been taught to think and believe the Genesis story is factual.

It is difficult to state accurately when closely related species are actually classified as distinct. There are a variety of definitions but I think most agree that being unable psychologically or physiologically to breed is a separation of species.

For instance, I’m reasonably sure that some species of Kangaroos are physically capable of breeding together but are habitually not able

A very good example is Herring gulls who encircle the earth near the equator. As distance separates them, they can no longer breed with those in locations too far before or after them.

And of course, if we are discussing species, it is estimated that 90% of species have gone extinct throughout the history of life on the planet. Those alive today, depending on the definition of species, number in the many millions and up to 100 million or so.

Adam would have had a dickens of a time just counting, let alone naming them, and Noah, well, with a minimum of 20 and up to 900 million species of their ‘kind’, it would have been a handful to say the least, even if they were represented on the impossible boat as the young and eggs.

David

OUG is stating that evolution only happens within types or kinds of creatures. This is what he, and other creationists call 'micro-evolution'.

There are literally millions of scientific papers and examples of evolution of this type happening all around us. This combination, change and mutation within species directly cause speciation, or .. the origin of new species.

My question to OUG is, what process is he claiming is in place that stops speciation, and further divergence in the higher taxa.

<<You accept micro-evolution...within species>>..of course

<<'Microevolution'..describes subpopulations..of species>>..your mindlesness..on claiming dogs beeed cats..is insane..

yes dog..genus cannis...breed species../within cannus..genus...

but as usual you mindlessly/..,mix..that the bible says..each producing..after THEIR OWN/kind...into somehow...a genus/..isolated..in some/..unexplainable way..mutating out of genus..your insane

<<becoming isolated..and diverging,..and this..directly..results in speciation>>...we took wild goats/..wild cattle/..wild fowl/many wild species...domesticated them..but they are all..still WITHIN their self/same genus...get it..genious?

dogs..breed dogs....cats..breed cat....chickens..breed chickens..ducks..breed ducks...isolation...lol..hasnt changed their genus..[get it...dumb..and dumber?

you finally revealed..your complete igno-rant's

<<(when they..can no longer breed..in that..species) .. that's macroevolution.>>>

lol..IF ITS BREEDING..DOGS WITH DOGS..ITs ALL INTRA GENUS..[to wit..to..the half wit...ie..within the genus cannus..if isolated dog..

genus/canus..includes all species..of dogs

<<To argue that microevolution occurs>>..is to say..;..dogs breed different dog/specie's

is not..saying..<<..to argue..for what directly causes>>>fish to breed dogs

for macroevolution..to occur...you need to present that..one...not dog...not cannus..yet from cannus[not dog to dog..or dog into not dog...

your falling for the typical evolution/davidian lie...that fish breed dogs..they dont

your...lol..<<..reference of evidence..of speciation..occuring>>..is all about species...same making..near the same,...but all..WITHIN..the same genus...

MAKING..lol..the same genus

<<What is the 'barrier'..on micro-evolution..that stops macro-evolution..>>>..

simple your ape sperm/..wont fertilise a sheep...no matter how often you do it..together..or however hard..you try...your sperm is wasted in it..however much you both..might wish it to be so...

mate within your species..gee your/..so suss

learn the difference
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_classification

<<Nowhere..within the mechanisms of evolution..is it implied that eukaryotes..must have evolved from prokaryotes>>>your own link rebuts you

pro.,.means before...GET IT..

something that preceeds karyotes...lol..if nothing preceeds...then evolution is fraud...get it...if nothing..evolved...you got nothing...

thanks for confirming..you got nothing..lol

<<there was a hypothesis..in the 70's over this,>>>..but as usual you present no evidence...your word..holds no weight...you speak with a fork for a tongue

<<they split from a common ancestor...further down the tree of life>>>..ah..finally a definitive statement..please provide some some evidence...on this and your other..insane claims.

<<This was a..proposed relationship,..but not a..'dogma'..of evolution...>>>...lol..so much for fact based theories...lol


<<Hypotheses..when found to be false,..doesn't falsify evolution>>...lol..i noticed that...

all the mindless theories,...are simply re-directions...the fact is..its theories/..upon rebutted theory

<<THATS..THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD..AT WORK:)>>>...lol

....<<It's healthy adjusting facets of a theory and improving it>>>
yet..the conclusion..that fish/breed mammals...is fantasy/theory

<<If there was no mystery,..there would be..no science at all>>>lol

science claims known knowns.../claims repeatability..
but now..it has mystery...lol..in lue of answers

<<things..are way ahead>>..quote from your link...<<In our field,..we have enormous amounts of data..but cannot make sense of it..all.>>lol

suss quote..<<science can't explain>>>..lol..i know

<<<state what barrier exists..that stops speciation,>>>
within the genus...within the species..
they are two divergent levels...

poor/..retarded suss



the davidian wannabe..god head..<<It is difficult to state accurately..lol..when closely related species...lol..are actually classified as distinct.>>>[new genus...lol

you lot..got a blind-spot...

see species..evolving within genus...
isnt macro evolution..of genus...ie..[genus/fish...into genus/sheeple..you

<<most agree..lol..that being unable psychologically....wtf..or physiologically..to breed...is a separation of species>>>..lol..species..NOT GENUS..so..tell suss/gee..to stop shaking his bacon,..at his sheep


<<Kangaroos..are physically capable of..breeding together..but are habitually not able>>>...but if it did..the fruit would be..some form of kangeroo....not an ecidna

<<<Herring gulls>>>..oh yeah the ring...species...where gulls/..genus...lol...breed..genus/gulls/...lol..micro/within species..not macro/..exta/genus

how/..suss..<<if..we are discussing..species>>>

..no..the topic/..implication..behind evolution..
is making..a new genus...but you lot..are re-directing..using species

<<90%..of species have gone extinct..>>>yes...the genus dinsaur...

Criteria for designating..dinosaur genera..has many species..[within it]...but see..those missing links are different genus...
http://home.online.no/~padron/cladograms.htm

For Species names..look at the Genera list
http://home.online.no/~padron/generalist.htm

read the link...learn the difference
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_classification

you dont know..
the difference..between genus/..species/..genera...
they are..not..the same thing

<<In our field,>>>lol..atheism

<<we have enormous amounts of data..>>lol
<<..but cannot make sense of it all...>>>lol




<<OUG is stating...>>>..evolution happens..in species..within its genus...and has never been confirmed..to mutate..away from its genus

susss says<<..'micro-evolution'....There are literally..millions of scientific papers..and examples of evolution..of this MICRO/type happening..all around us.>>>yes..all within their genus genotype

then reveals..he dont know his genus/..from his species...lol..

<<This combination,..change and mutation/..within species..directly cause speciation,..or..the origin of new species...>>>..note species making secies...ALL WITHIN THE GENUS..OF ITS KIND...=micro

MACRO_evolution..says..like..does not make..like...
ie..a fish..became a..not fish....lol

<<what process..is he claiming..is in place..that stops speciation>>>...divergent genus...learn the difference
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_classification

please..provide proof...of new genus...from other genus

<<<and..further divergence..in the higher taxa>>lol..abouve species...lol....what process?...use the right terms....your miss-directed/delusions...ignora-rants..know's no bounds

One under god,

I think we have to revert to the one question at a time with sub questions for you.

You stated clumsily:

“<<90%..of species have gone extinct..>>>yes...the genus dinsaur...”

I know there are various stories in creationist religious circles as to what happened to the dinosaur with some saying they didn’t go on the imaginary Ark, some that they were young and still others they were in egg form. Which particular fantasy is yours in all of this?

Is it that Yahweh/Jesus saw it was too much of a problem to confine dinosaurs and left them out of the impossible boat to drown, or that Mr, Mrs Noah and selected rellies looked after young dinosaurs for many months, or was it that this small group of people sat on the eggs and hatched them after the subsidence of the waters whilst sitting on a cold and wet mountain top devoid of food. (If it’s the egg story, how long do dinosaur eggs remain viable and what evidence do you have for that)

So this leads to my question and sub question:

What is your particular fantasy about this and what evidence do you have to support it?

And how many different ‘kinds’ of dinosaurs does your particular delusion include?

Of course, you will not address these fundamental issues but continue to attack evolution.

That is an answer in itself.

Davi

OUG
Re; Thursday 22/10/09 8.50.30pm
The Term DAWG is that just a type error
Further I am not an Athiest but I do have an open mind to them
I am not an outright God peddler and have little time for those that are but have the decency to allow them thier belief and faith as long as it does not interfere with my own
As far as God believers the Legal profession is supposed to be tied to it and what I have experienced with that side of life in regards my son's case and now my own if they are an example of the belief in God no wonder more are declaring Athietism and your lot are losing ground
Thanks
Dave

PS the one that asked about the link between David and Zeus contact graysond49@yahoo.com I will send a photo

oh the poor da-da-vid..is livid...he really cant keep up..with the debate..but..noting the deafening silence..now the baying pack has gone mindnumb..we must humour..the lead re-tard..er..a..[thiest]

who seems..hung up on/obsessing..dinosaures..that were clearly extinct..by the times of noah..

but clearly..in his lol..15 years study...lol...of the bible,..still is hung up on..his peoples beliefs..in the je-wish fables...that result in them decieving themselves..to be only 6000...or so years old...

despite repeatedly..refusing to point out
...where..in the books..he delusioned..this..manifest ERROR..from

but leave..the hippy dropout..his delusions...

in lue of..real questions..lets play with the wee..mouse...david..futily flapping his gums..in his goliath/big topic...beyond his ken..

and accept...like all athiests..who/..can-not collectively..nor individually..CANT..validate their delusions..into..egsistant/..extensive...science fact

the head athiest/davidian..ofF..the anti-christ...quote<<<..I think>>>..very little...thinking...but..yes you think...lol

..[just so we..can get on..to real questions...but mate..know we all can think...even that dolt...gee..how..suss

<<we have to..revert to the one question..at a time>>>..i presume your speaking..for..your fellow retards...with no questions/nor thesis..of their own,...

..so i will humour..thee...even though..where you say one..you clearly take licence..after making the point..to ask more...lol..

not all..of the low standard..i hope..[in vain...lol

<<with sub/questions>>>..wow..all them words..to ask nothing

mate reads more like yet another STATEMENT
..IN LUE OF..PRESENTING YA THEORY..
OR YOUR..LOL..SCIENCE

to quote..the mindless dolt...quoting me..,quoting gee...haw.seesaw...suss/puss

who davi/..claims stated clumsily:

“<<90%..of species have gone extinct..>>>

to which i replied....yes...the genus dinsaur...”dinosaur genera..has many species..[within it]...but see..those missing links..are different genus...see

http://home.online.no/~padron/cladograms.htm

For Species names..look at the Genera list
http://home.online.no/~padron/generalist.htm

read the link...learn the difference
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_classification

but that..clearly..was beyond..the simpleton/davidion's comprehention..

seems..[ignorance goes with the job...chief/davidian/head/athiest...lol

he then blathers on
with two parragraphs of delusion..then some one liners

<<So this>>>delusion<<..leads to my question../sub question>>>
...noting the deleted delusions..must/thus..have been his thesis

<<What is your particular fantasy>>.
your a sick puppy..like ya under dawg

<<what evidence do you have>>>..its
your delusion...present...
YOUR ..thesis

<<many different ‘kinds’ of dinosaurs>>..no bull/shirlock
..read the links

<<you will not address..these fun=da-mental issues>>
>explain your thesis...
you claim...FUNDA_mental..issues..
...ex-pound..ya theory..not ya meat

<<<continue to attack evolution>>>
no sweat there..even retards..can read the writing on the wall...lol

<<<That is an answer in itself>>>>

i guess it has to be..
...because your too ignorant..
to frame better questions.

One under god,

Now we are getting somewhere. So, between the time of the alleged Eve and Adam and Noah, dinosaurs were on earth. And interestingly enough, no fossils of humans are in the same strata as dinosaurs and no humans below the dinosaur strata.

Another very easy question needed here. Try to answer it intelligently and not in your normal jumbled fashion. I’m not expecting an answer as you still haven't answered the last one.

Do you accept the earth is around 4 billion years old, around 6,000 years old or have you another figure? Don’t point me to a previous nonsensical post of yours.

BTW. I don’t read your posts, much like everyone else on this Forum, I just skim through the rubbish to find the sense.

So far, zero results. :))

David

OUG, you have not answered my question.

You have circled around it with trying to state dogs breed cats, which is missing the whole point that the 'tree of life' is a spreading out and diversification over millions of years. Either you do not understand evolution, or you are deliberately trying to misrepresent it.

Diversification in evolution over millions of years, has whats led to the tree of life. You misrepresent when you try and state that evolution claims a jump from one outward branch to another. Which seems to be the basis of your whole argument.

What are you claiming is in place, that stops speciation, and further diversification in evolution? If you cannot provide that, you cannot disprove evolution.

At it again, oug.

That last post of yours, stripped of the dots that join the words (ellipses have three full stops, by the way, not two. Or four) weighs in at 486 words.

Still, counting the words makes far more sense than reading them.

If one remembers the time when all of society lived under the rule of religion, witches were burnt at the stake, people were demons & goblins or what ever else they believed, besides the world being flat, were out to get any one who didn't believe in God. Then came the rule of law & societies changed for the better & morality was inserted to an extent that it addressed the major crimes. The difference between a world being of one belief under religion, is that we have to believe in make belief & under Atheism it would be under the rule of factual scientific evidence but the law's will still be the governing system to which we live our moral & ethical life's standards by.

Religion states we should go fourth & multiply & we did, so now that mother earths tit's are running out of milk, we should (a) do what the religious order once again tells us? or (b) start to initiate scientific resolutions?

Gee Suss,

You are not alone. Unless I've missed them, OUG hasn't answered my Zeus questions either, except for a reference to "davidids", being followers of David, presumably.

OUG,

My questions on God (Zeus): Will you please address them? Was god justified in punishing the Titans? We know Zeus did this, because Scripture tells us he did and, Scripture being the Word of God is infallible.

Gee Suss
Contact graysond49@yahoo.com I will send you a photo of the connections between David and Zeus the only one that I know

Thanks
Dave

Sorry Gee Suss
The message was for Oliver
Dave

Gee Suss,

It’s easy to see how folk believe that evolution is not a valid description of how things work. We only live for 70 or so years and therefore cannot imagine the immensity of time evolution requires for change.

Take for instance the fact that the dinosaurs died out 60 or so million years ago. Sixty million years into the future will have very few traces of humanity left even with the huge changes we have made to the environment. That we find any information about dinosaurs and humans is remarkable in itself, that we can’t get full information is to be expected.

Those who play on the incomplete fossil record are trapped by being unable to overcome an intuitive understanding of nature. Examples of this are that the earth was once considered flat, the sun revolved around it and that demons caused disease.

When religion supports and promotes intuitive knowledge, some find it impossible to look further. Religion has been wrong so many times about intuition one would think it would create a suspicion in most people that religion may be wrong about creationism also.

Mistakes of this nature are not just a thing of the past, they are also happening now with the ramifications if left unchecked, quite frightening.

The Global Atheist Convention will have speakers who have overcome intuitive thought process with the help of science. Those rubbishing the greatest discovery of all, scientific method, are committing that which is tantamount to planetary treachery whether this is recognised or not.

David

David Nichols, it was nice of you to support my comment above but as a member of the Atheist Foundation, I have to point out your ambition to 'support religion' for the purpose of supporting the business of the 'Atheist Foundation' & the receipt of my membership & donation each year.

"When religion supports and promotes intuitive knowledge, some find it impossible to look further. Religion has been wrong so many times about intuition one would think it would create a suspicion in most people that religion may be wrong about creationism also."

This is a your perspective about another persons thought's & does not always capture the whole reason behind why one would deny the religious reasoning about a certain subject, as there may be a more specific issue relating to the religious political directive of the subject in question. It is as you state, "intuitive knowledge" & I can only presume it is therefore not based on the fact's of science.

Hello Atheistno1,

Not sure what you mean about ambition to support religion. You will have to be clearer. The day that religion is removed from children’s education as indoctrination and faith decisions not supported by evidence are no longer made in parliaments, is the day you won’t be a member of the Atheist Foundation of Australia Inc as it will no longer exist.

Your subscription pays its way and nothing more. No one benefits financially from it or from the donations, people make. There are no paid positions in the AFA and all personnel are volunteers.

Maybe you can clarify what you are implying.

Why not drop me a line at head office so I know to whom I am talking.

David

David Nichols, I think you understand the statement I made very clearly. What is preached amongst the congregation is not always the view behind the politics of the administration, or the direction the administration needs to take in order to obtain certain political goals. As a true Atheist but not a new Atheist, or any other new sales catch phrase I can be tagged with, there is no such thing as God & religion is therefore irrelevant. This brings me to the point that, faith decisions are not supported by evidential fact & although they are supported by governments, I won't be buying another years membership from your organization. Besides, I've read the repetitive rhetoric in every issue of the Atheist news but the fact remains that, I am an Atheist with the views of an Atheist & it's your position to make that a viable business. I do not have a problem with that because it is a capitalist approach but I would rather put my money into the Humanist Association, as it supports the law for human right's & not self centered capitalist ideology in my opinion. Science is an obtainable knowledge so is Atheism.

Kind regards, Matthew Meurer.

Atheistno1,

Sorry, I’m still at a loss as to what you are on about. And you haven’t written to me to identify yourself.

I find that more than strange.

If you have some kind of problem with the AFA or me, then you should be writing to the AFA Committee instead of writing through a public forum.

Proof of membership in the AFA would help.

David

Oh David, how pretentious, have a look at the signature & refer to my account. Besides, it still seems to be a common practice for you to pretend you don't know someone & that they don't exist & I thought that was just a cowardly political ploy by the Rudd mafia.

My mistake, Matthew, now I know who you are, missed your name. I tend to speed read irrational posts. Yes, good luck with finding another group that suits your personality.

David

"I am an Atheist with the views of an Atheist & it's your position to make that a viable business. I do not have a problem with that because it is a capitalist approach but I would rather put my money into the Humanist Association, as it supports the law for human right's & not self centered capitalist ideology in my opinion. Science is an obtainable knowledge so is Atheism."

Huh? viable business? capitalist? huh?

'Capitalist ideology' is the ownership of means of production and the surplus of labour. Your analogy doesn't make sense?

The AFA put in a submission to the human rights commission, as did Atheist Nexus btw, there was a lot of work done on both by volunteers that are members of the AFA.

http://www.humanrights.gov.au/frb/submissions/Sub032.Atheist_Foundation.doc

http://www.atheistnexus.org/about/member-articles-research

*shrug* everything you said you could say about the humanist association. Whatever fits you best I suppose :) maybe I am just missing what your trying to say?

Good excuse David but I know your character & there's nothing you can sell me.

Woot,
Note that the AFA made that submission to the 'Human Rights Commission'.
The AFA "put in a submission to the human rights commission, as did Atheist Nexus btw, there was a lot of work done on both by volunteers that are members of the AFA."

" 'Capitalist Ideology' " the analogy does make sense, the ownership of the production has become the AFA and the surplus of labour is it's
tax exempt volunteer work force.

Thanks
From Dave

" 'Capitalist Ideology' the analogy does make sense, the ownership of the production has become the AFA and the surplus of labour is it's
tax exempt volunteer work force."

No it doesn't. The means of production are the only way to do something. The AFA do not own the means of production, they are a combination of people working together. Those same things can be done outside the AFA, such as the Atheist Nexus submission I linked too.

What ARE you talking about with tax exempt workforce? WE are the AFA. The AFA is not 'them', and us working for them.

Surplus is what is left over after the labourers are 'paid' for using what is owned by the capitalist, and is then owned by the capitalist.

The analogy does not in any way make sense.

lol...<<<Kind regards, Matthew Meurer.
Posted by Atheistno1,..Sunday,..25 October..2009..10:36:57/PM


Atheistno1,

./..I’m still at a loss as to what you are on about.

And you haven’t written to me
to identify yourself.>>>>lol

<<Posted by Atheist Foundation of Australia Inc/Sunday/25 October>>

dont sweat on it...david/head..dorkinesque/athiest in waiting..is as think as a plank

susswoosgee/quote..<<What..stops speciation>>darwin said general populations remain in stacis...but as usual you ask the incorrect question

see speciation is..The formation of new biological species..by the development or branching of..one species into two...or more genetically distinct ones...

but mate..they are yet within their same genus...

like i repeatedly..need to..explain to you
...speciation means nothing...
it happens intra genus...

a new spcies of finch...or seagull..or whatever...is still
...in...its own genus...get it yet..

stop counting words...and read...the words...for a change

evolution means..fish genus..mutated into mannal genus...

in ways science cannot prove...lol..only theorise's about ...via endelessly quoting micro..evolution/...of..species..to validate...lol...macro...new/..genus

but you lot/imbisile athiest's..are so ignorant..
you admit to not even...reading my replies...
so keep falling into the same...err..a/..thiest..err..a/...holes

<<and further diversification in evolution>>...mate any retard can confirm change..within the species..

but NO-ONE has EVER validated/recorded/observed...any change of genus...but you retards..refuse to read...im over writing

its self evident..this a/thiest/foundation..is about self agrandisenent..not offering any evidence..certainly not about educating ...

its like as not..a political ploy..to get some seats in the senet...to play thier games/

likely..as a sttooge/or front party..like family first..or just a new way..to get a govt pension

your futile childish demands...lol..<<..If you cannot provide that,..you cannot disprove evolution..>>...reveals the extent of..the mindless dolts..running their athiest scam...speciation is your con-cept...

when it gets ignored you presume a win/..when ya all just ignorant/loosers

they/you..stand revealed..
..by your own recorded words...
enjoy that you didst sow...

i write..knowing...even the simplest things..
are too difficult...even for the high/priests..

for the..latest athiest..cult

ROFLMAO :) I see your keeping up just using ad hominem attacks :) all you really have isn't it?

Umm OUG you sure don't understand evolution and the tree of life, or you are deliberately trying to misrepresent aspects of it.

This argument is a standard creationist one built totally on ignorance of how taxonomy works and that it is most importantly a dynamic nomenclature built to describe expanding groups from our most recent position in time. any new species will remain part of whatever Order/Phylum its ancestors are in, because of its heritage. It's a nameing convention OUG.

Creating an entire new genus, to say nothing of new family, or order, or class, takes thousands if not millions of generations. It is not linear, it is a tree, an expanding tree, a nested hierarchy, and in itself is a powerful indication that macroevolution is true. This is also why humans are apes. Humans aren't evolved from apes; they are apes, in the same way that they are primates, mammals, amniotes, vertebrates, deuterostomes, and eukaryotes.

If some mammals were protostomes, if some birds were arthropods, life would not be organized into nested hierarchies, common descent would be impossible, and macroevolution could not have occurred. It would only take one to do destroy evolution. There is not one.

29 evidences for common descent : http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

So, can you answer my question. What barrier is in place that stops speciation and further divergence in the higher taxa that you are claiming exists?

You state that diversification exists below the genus level. What is in place that stops continued diversification, such that all the evidence for common descent is false OUG? What is in place that is going to stop diversification to such an extent, that creatures will look, and be, radically different in all aspects, that is confirmed by scientific evidence?

Where is all your evidence to compare, for creationism? Or is that something you don't want to focus on? ;)

One big conspiracy this science is it? Just out to destroy religion is it? lol

sigh

Gee Suss is right OUG, the naming system has become a real problem due to it's limits. It was imposed as a view from our current perspective on the associations between life. It is only an arbitrary view, as a way of classification. You trying to say 'no knew genus come about' is ridiculous to anyone with a basic knowledge of evolution and the taxonomic system. Speciation has occured all thru the 'levels' of the taxonomic tree, and all it does is refer to segments of historical speciation.

It started with only 3 kingdoms, but now it's at 6-7 .. plus there is now moved from 7 ranks, to around 21 (with sub species etc etc). The classifications change all the time, as one genus or such is split into two, etc etc

The method of describing relationship has become unwieldy, due to the diversification Gee Suss is talking about... other systems are taking over as they better desribe relationships. look as Cladistics

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cladistics

Your trying to say a new genus is not created is kinda lame considering it's a descriptive class of a historical section of the evolutionary tree, based on looking at it from our small fragment of time.

Add another 3.8 billion years to this diversification, and I too am interested in what you are saying exists that stops this diversification thru speciation (when species can no longer breed and thus create yet another branch on the expanding tree), otherwise known as 'the origin of species'.

GEEhawSUSS..quote<<..any new species...will remain part of whatever Order/Phylum,,its ancestors are in,..It's a nameing convention>>

<<they are primates,..mammals, amniotes, vertebrates, deuterostomes, and eukaryotes.

If some mammals were protostomes, if some birds were arthropods, life would not be organized into nested hierarchies, common descent would be impossible, and macroevolution could not have occurred. It would only take one to do destroy evolution. There is not one.

29 evidences for common descent : http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

<<What barrier is in place that stops speciation>>..Prezygotic barriers

http://everything2.com/title/reproductive+barrier

specificlly 5. Gametic Isolation.

If for some reason foreign sperm is introduced into a female.there are several preventative measures..to insure that there is no union between the sperm and egg...Internal environmental conditions may cause the sperm to die. Gamete recognition sites..on the sperm..do not fit with the intended egg.

If the two species differ in the type of fertilization..(external and internal.. there is no chance of the sperm ever contacting the egg.

Postzygotic Barriers:..If prezygotic barriers are crossed..and a hybrid zygote forms,..one of several barriers will prevent development of a viable,..fertile hybrid.

1. Reduced Hybrid Viability...Genetic incompatibilities between the species..may abort the development of the hybrid..during some stage of development.

Difference in chromosome number..may cause abnormal cell division...Since the chromosomes align to insure equal distribution upon cytokinesis,..abnormal chromosome counts could occur..based on this numerical difference.



<<You state that diversification..exists below the genus level...
What is in place that stops continued diversification>>the fitest surviving and the may other<<Pre..and post-zygotic barriers>>
http://www.dwm.ks.edu.tw/bio/activelearner/19/ch19c2.html

http://www.google.com.au/interstitial?url=http://www.worldofteaching.com/powerpoints/biology/darwin.ppt

<<such that..all the evidence for..common descent is false.?>>mate look at the gaps/see previous evolution debates

<<What is in place that is going to stop diversification>>see previous evolution debate

<<to such an extent,..that creatures will look,>>see pheno-typical
<<and be,..>>>see geno-typical

<<radically different in all aspects>>..means its a new branch,..simply speaking
..fill in the gaps...they are huge...not one joined

you say<<that is confirmed by scientific evidence>>
how about presenting just one...
filling in..just one gap?

say cold-blood/gilled/finned/scaled-fish..to airbreathing/..warmblood/limbed..mammel

or how about joining..plants to animals
[needing plants to eat/..make oxigen]...

just present..one clean evolution..genus into new genus
that fills one of the hundreds of gap's...in ya THEORY