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.