You just don't give up, do you, woot.

>>Your ignorance over what the situation was pointed out with the facts<<

Repetition does not equal truth, I'm afraid.

There are no facts here of which to be ignorant. Just opinions.

David Nicholls gets very uncomfortable when people don't agree with his views, and you seem to have joined him on the bandwagon. Good for you, you make a good pair. One day you might both realize that there can be benefits from listening to those you disagree with, instead of simply shouting them down.

But my guess is that won't be particularly soon.

>>you have just been opening up and 'spraying' about stuff, throwing mud then trying to hone in on anything that could possibly be seen as stickin, with no real idea where things stand.<<

Where have I "thrown mud", except where provoked by an incoming insult?

You people have no concept of how to handle disagreement with your own tight little, right little worldview.

Which is, unfortunately, how you come to exactly resemble the people you purport to oppose.

This is precisely the original point I made.

That you are becoming too much like an organized religion for comfort. A view that Mr Nicholls wasn't particularly keen to hear, but instead of taking on board, decided to lash out against.

The exact same thing happened with the bus advertisements. Not the shred of a passing thought that the topic might be worth discussing. Just blinkered dismissiveness.

>>It's kinda sad. Now your trying to shore up your position ignoring these areas where you have been corrected by lame personal attacks like above, which is kinda childish to say the least.<<

Pure imagination.

I have not been "corrected", since we are dealing with opinions, not facts. But it it highly instructive, and very Nichollsian, to confuse the two. The idea being, I assume, that once I have been told what to think by the leader of the pack, I should just subside into acquiescence like all the rest of the toadies.

Yep. That was another childish insult. Just for you.

>> Repetition does not equal truth, I'm afraid.

Yet you keep repeating yourself.

>> There are no facts here of which to be ignorant. Just opinions.

Fair enough, my opinion is you hardly know anything, backed up by you proving that with your lack of information over any current status of anything, or the position of people, that regardless if you get told it's not one way, will keep arguing it is, and now just resort to personal attacks.

I gave a link to the information at Tourism Victoria regarding who can apply for grants, when you basically inferred accountants wouldn't be able too in your list. That's not opinion, that's fact.

There was other facts such as religion having exemptions to the equal opportunity laws, the current status of attempts to have our children taught something in class and a mmyriad of other things, that you are basically saying 'shutup and you can't organise against these things where religion has one over on you."

So you just resort to sitting there trying to state that therefore atheists are as bad as religious, because we are fighting for equality. Well I could say your doing the same thing as religion too. Your actively denying that people should claim equality by organising together in a democratic country.

I want my children no to be affected by religion in their school. I want them to not have to sit in the library and do nothing while classes that are structured for ethics are fought against by the religious. I want equal rights for non-believers, not more rights, and you are just part of the problem in denying that atheists should be able to organise together for their civil rights.

OUG,

My loose use of the term null hypothesis went to he idea that one should challenge posits currently held. I believe Christians whom hold themselves systematic thinkers should try to disprove said faith. Trying to prove one's truths false is a sound methodology to avoid ignorance. Likelwise, I considered the idea of God before rejecting the hypothesis.

It would also seem logical to me to demostrate the existence of divine entites before assign any particular entity to a class. Before we can classify a dog or whale as a mammal, we must know there are mammals. Sells, for example, would maintain Jesus is divine without establishing the existence of divinity: A similar raison d'etre to saying that class of entity called Santa Claus is rotund. Rotund is being assigned to an unproved class.

OUG, some short questions regarding God:

Was god (Zeus) justified by sending the the Titans to Tartarus, thus punishing them for opposing him at Titanomachy? Should Zeus have forgiven the Titans? Or, is Zeus always justified, because Zeus is god?

You are trying hard to ignore reality, woot. Let's hope, for your own peace of mind, that you are successful.

Your claim that "we gave you the facts" boils down to this.

>>a link to the information at Tourism Victoria regarding who can apply for grants<<

My question about accountants highlighted the irrelevance of using them as an example. So you didn't actually answer my question.

>>There was other facts such as religion having exemptions to the equal opportunity laws, the current status of attempts to have our children taught something in class and a mmyriad of other things<<

I see you are struggling to find examples.

None of these "facts" has anything to do with staging a quasi-religious extravaganza.

And the "fact" about exemptions to equal opportunity laws, by the way, was the proposal of such, not their existence.

You still insist on missing the point.

Let's look at the growing similarities between your organization - not atheism itself - and organized religion.

Just your organization.

You don't like people disagreeing with your orthodoxy. You'd prefer them to shut up - ex-communicate them, if you like

>>you are just part of the problem in denying that atheists should be able to organise together for their civil rights.<<

You parade a list of ethical issues upon which your mind is made up, and expect people to bow down to them. Dissent is strongly discouraged, to the point where your acolytes cast doubt on their allegiance to your cause

>>its blatantly obvious that you have some serious problems with identifying yourself as an Atheist.<<

You now want to hold a meeting of the true believers, with the objective of publicizing your beliefs to the world. You also invite those who don't agree with your views, in the hope of converting them

>>Why not be open-minded and come along to the Atheist Convention and see what it's about?<<

That sounds exactly like an organized religion to me.

If you can't see the dichotomy, that's fine.

Enjoy your day.

Pericles, you've picked out one thing woot has stated, out of many issues that have been clearly stated the whole way along as fact about inequality, and your reply about 'pointing out irrelevance' does not make any sense.

>> None of these "facts" has anything to do with staging a quasi-religious extravaganza

Now that's just plain false. The discussions by speakers DO cover issues such as this, I don't know where you are getting you misinformation, or why you are spreading it with such vehemence, then pointing at people for getting upset at you, and going 'see! see!'. It IS childish.

>> And the "fact" about exemptions to equal opportunity laws, by the way, was the proposal of such, not their existence.

WRONG. Religions have had general exemptions, they are now being tightened for instance in Victoria, but they still exist. This is why people are upset : http://www.theage.com.au/national/government-bows-to-religious-right-20090926-g76u.html note the word 'continue'

Other than that, you go on and on just like religion tries to, in trying to associate atheism to a belief.

Simple fact is Pericles you are wrong and daemonising people for standing up for equality, you are spreading false information and won't admit you are wrong when pointed out this.
Your being childish, and to any observer you appear to have an agenda along those lines. Why?

oh;liver did ask the hart...oliver quote<<<..Was god (Zeus) justified by sending the the Titans to Tartarus, thus punishing them for opposing him at Titanomachy?>>>

that needs many presumptions..that are without standing..[even under law]..how am i to judge any event after the fact...via 2 de/third...1000 th person saying it is so...

the only valid witnes..is first hand...like the testimony in the new testiments..by deciples who seen/heard experienced the messiah in persomun/in person.of fact

..if you havnt seen heard or smelt..'it'..its not evidence...only an athiest..[or a fool]..would judge...such a stpidly futile event..on so little evidence...or rather lack of first hand..evidence based on all available facts...or under oath

<<Should Zeus have forgiven the Titans?>>>..god did forgive..because he never did that..he is accused of doing..so far as..that..your post evidences

<<Or,..is Zeus always justified,..because Zeus is god?>>>any good parent gives their children every advantage to learn to be self sufficient...what use a god who lives your life for you?

only retarded athiests dare to judge the judge..on little evidence...most having not read even the witness statements...making the idiotic statements we have seen as recently as on this topic

it is written..by the same measure will be recieve as was given...and i got more than a little baggage..enough not to be casting stones..let alone judging the judge...by the vague interpritations of transcribed facts/fables if the mindless athiest elites be believed

you lot can judge god...but your judging a true innocent...one who casts not one...[NOT ONE stone...stones being of the dusts...if you recall other stories of angels fighting battles...but not god

you need first..give me evidence of just what god did,...that couldnt just be explainable via dutch courage/..placibo affect...if god is withus..who can stand against us/affect...

ye go the gipper/...taking one for the scream team
really i thought..your intelect..a bit above average
but it seems..your passions have blinded you to reason