one under god,

The Global Atheist Convention will be discussing political, as well as social, financial and educational matters. It will also have entertainment with food and drink. We can confidently say that all who attend will have a fulfilling experience.

Let me absolutely assure you that forming a political party is not on the agenda. The AFA has never considered this nor will it ever.

I do think it about time you read what other people are saying. Government funding relates to an event bringing money into the Victoria from overseas and other states. A religious function, a football function or indeed an accountancy one, if they fit the criteria for doing that, can apply to the Victorian Government for assistance. These are economic decisions and not ideological ones.

We often hear from religious folk that they are very open minded, more so than Atheists. Here is a perfect opportunity for people to find out about Atheism from some extremely eloquent and well educated speakers. All are invited and none will be shunned at the Rise of Atheism Convention in Melbourne next year.

This is an opportunity of a lifetime where the quantity and quality of academic and intellectual brilliance is in one place. It is unlikely to be repeated on such a scale or in such a grand location for many decades.

For those who harbour qualms about Atheism this is a chance to see that your apprehensions are unwarranted. Atheists are just people and most are very nice to boot.

So, one under god, maybe we will see you next year in Melbourne.

David

I set out to agree with another poster's position that "to make atheism a movement in itself would appear to counteract the very nature of atheism."

Nothing you have said has persuaded me otherwise.

In fact, our conversation has clarified my views on the topic considerably.

What has become obvious to me is that athiesm is slowly but surely falling into the same trap as organized religion.

As you know, it is not sufficient for christians to believe in god, but they need also to belong to a particular sect that has its own rules and principles. This leads to the obvious differences between, say, the happy-clappies of Hillsong and the congregation of Peter Jensen.

It would appear that we are now witnessing the same power plays amongst atheists.

No longer is it sufficient to be an unaffiliated atheist.

It is necessary, apparently, to agree with the Atheist Foundation of Australia Inc., and believe in the goals and rituals of athiesm exactly the way they do.

Otherwise, as has become clear from this thread, a baying mob of hard-liners will spring out of the undergrowth, and spray contempt and ridicule.

I am clearly not permitted to have a voice in this, so I'll leave you and your acolytes to your own devices.

Have a great convention. I'm sure there will be some interesting speakers. And try not to bring atheism into too much disrepute while you're at it.

Pericles,

So, no response to my genuine question, just more of the same old, same old. Am I surprised? What do you think.

Here’s another one to ponder in line with one step at a time. There are more.

I stated:

>>a majority of Atheistic thought agrees with the positions outlined as do a majority of the population.<<

You responded.

“Thus, it has nothing to do with atheism. It is about choice - personal, ethical choices.”

I give you the following example:

A majority of accountants agree with the position outlined (That, say, accountancy should be regulated), as do a majority of the population.

Thus, it has nothing to do with accountancy. It is about choice – personal, ethical choices.

Does that un-fuddle your brain or shall I continue.

How long are you going to keep this charade going? I have found that most Atheists, when mistaken in reasoning, admit it and move on instead of digging a forever deeper hole.

Your self-removal from this thread statement was a wise choice.

David

david your going to have...speakers...presuming they will be on..the podium...presuming they are speaking...discussion is hardly on the adgenda...as discussion should be face to face...in small groups..where everyone has their say...dont pretend..thats how it will be..

its lectures/presentations...maybe a bit of book launching/promotion...a lot of back slapping..and delusions l;ike 6 creation days.6000 years ago..and other dorkanism's

and maybe some set-up questions..from the floor...

is there an open mike?...for the mainly listening...a means to ask questions..without being vetted...or we just by their book

the accountants parrable..is a lol...yeah acountants love rules,,to find loop holes in em..its political and at least be honest about that

HAVE YOU CHECKED THE LINK..if the athiest/case is so sure..devote some...lol discussion..on how to be claiming ALL..that CASH...but the evidence isnt in...the dorkins...dont know his genus from his species

im not against you...hopefully by getting others to egsamin the evidence[like we creationists have,,will reveal..the evidence simply isnt there...

naturally if its...nature/natural/automatic/etc.....science can have no claim of science,..as nature was before science was..and science claims science because...claimed method..is consistantly repeatable..if its chance..its not science

i hold there are believers in science...just as befuddled as in any religion...

but..whats the beef with god?...your real beef is with religion...and they are clearly..not god..

athiesm..needs a new word..to tackle its attack on/..religion..

same with many of your..other issues...that have nothing to do with god..only believers...claiming belief in texts/ritual..about god..

that sadly..they often put before god...is atheism about god or religion...it seems politiclly..pointedly...about religion...

..its as absurd..as attacking the athiest party..for what dorkins does/or dosnt do/say...or you for that matter...neither him..nor you are..the..party...

or maybe you are

one under god,

I’m not pretending anything. Speaker will speak on their topic and there will be a question time with a roving microphone. No set up, anyone can ask a question.

Yes, religion is very cocky about abiogenesis, but they shouldn’t be because a) it has nothing to do with evolution and b) science has been working on it and has reasonable hypotheses under investigation. I personally do not spend any time on such matters, as they have nothing to do with life as we live it.

One day, I am convinced, an experiment will show that non living matter can form into living but that will not prove the none existence of a god. Proving a negative, especially an invisible one, is impossible.

For me to be convinced there may be something in the 6,000 year old earth story, evolution would have to be debunked. But if that happened, then it would mean that science has everything wrong and we might as well all curl up and die, as nothing would be real.

The problem with creationism is that it has no indisputable studies written up in accredited scientific journals available to peer review. On the other hand, there are thousands and thousands of studies supporting evolution as how nature works recorded for all to see in such journals.

But if you want to believe in creationism, that is fine by me, but you have to do so on faith and not scientific method. And might I add, that scientific method is the best way so far that humans have developed to ascertain if any proposition is correct, incorrect or indeterminate.

To call science a faith shows a complete lack of understanding of very basic rational and logical thought processes.

David

By the way, one under god, I know of no Atheist who is against any god. How can one be against that which does not exist?

Most Atheists are opposed to those parts of religion harmful to individuals or humanity as a whole.

The name does indicate what you say is correct, but the common understanding doesn't. I like the name Atheist, it has the ring of a definitive mind-set about it.

Busy for the next few days, so forgive me for not getting back to you in that time.

Play nice :))

David