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 :)