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