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