>> 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