pelican,

If we lived in a country where politics had legislated it OK for religion to rip of the legs of living cats, a Convention by Atheists would highlight to the religion involved and the government of the day that there is a growing band of people opposed to such a barbaric practice and that we vote. If as it is now that only a minority of the population agreed with ‘cat-leg-ripping’, we would point out the inconsistency with democracy.

There are many examples analogous to this, which I have already enunciated. I did leave out a very important one though and that was voluntary euthanasia. Consistent surveys around 80% in favour of having a legal system for people in unremitting pain with a terminal illness are being ignored by religion and politics.

There is no Atheist movement as such. There are just a growing number of people concerned by the intrusion of religion in society. The Convention merely is intended to focus people’s attention on the matters described. And to reinforce with Atheists and religious folk that government policy is not reflecting majority consensus.

If you like, Atheism is a part of the wider human rights movement of concerned groups such as Amnesty International, Get Up and whole host of others. The only difference is, even thought we support the concerns of these groups; we concentrate on the problems created by religion. There are plenty of them and I am not going to go through it again.

In the end, voters affect policy, and Atheists are voters.

And let me make it very clear. If people wish to follow a religion then that is fine. Believe in fairies at the bottom of the garden for all Atheists care, after all it is your life. But soon as you impose of attempt to impose your own ideas onto the majority, which happens in all countries, then there will be people who will resist such interference.

David

maybe you will be getting a huge influx...sooner than you think..<<.,

Vatican Satanists Backs Obama’s Global Agenda
http://www.aim.org/aim-column/vatican-backs-obamas-global-agenda/

Barack Obama's Top 10 unfulfilled pledges
"Less than nine months into his four-year term of office,..President
Barack Obama's record is already one of abandoned promises,..sidelined
issues and lack of action." More at link:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/6310255/Barack-Obamas-Top-10-unfulfilled-pledges.html

Obama's Communist Antecedents
http://www.aim.org/aim-column/obamas-communist-mentor/

US Communism,..Food,..Healthcare

"conspiracy has been used by an elite few to reshape the U.S.
government..in which individual rights were honored,..into a regime of coercive State power..backed by corrupt communist monopolies..of power's..that have given themselves the ability/and right to.."take"..any of our private property./..and private wages from
individual owners..and redistribute the wealth elsewhere,..including to failing monopolies." http://www.rense.com/general88/uscom.htm

What Obama Isn’t Telling American Workers
"The “Great Recession” has caused tectonic shifts internationally,
with outcomes that will dramatically change the lives of millions of
people..he isn’t explaining how this adversely affects working-class Americans...The truth would be far too “controversial.”
http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=15656

Lisbon Treaty Gives Jews Greater Power
"Ireland,..pressured by EU..signed away the sovereignty..of all 27
member states to the EU authorities in Brussels who are controlled by
Zionist Jews in Frankfurt."
http://www.realzionistnews.com/?p=456

Is Canada More pro-Israel than the U.S.?
PM Harper said: “..North Korea,..Iran,..Sudan and Somalia..No other country in the world..has demonstrated..such full understanding of us.”
http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=15658

Jew-controlled Hollywood's Push to 'Normalize' Sex with Children
http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/jjmnolte/2009/10/08/the-polanski-culture-hollywoods-push-to-normalize-sex-with-children/#more-242242

Swine Flu Hoax/..the Genocidal Agenda.Behind Swine Flu Vaccinations.."Forced Vaccination..is the most important issue we now face"
http://educate-yourself.org/cn/swinefluindex.shtml

Global homicide:..murder rates around the world
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2009/oct/13/homicide-rates-country-murder-data

Pure tap-dancing, Mr Nicholls.

>>if you consider that standing up for human rights, is vanity<<

Of course standing up for human rights is not vanity.

But proposing that the only way that it is possible to stand up for human rights is a) to be an atheist and b) to attend an atheist convention, most certainly is.

>>How do you suggest there can be an advancement of human rights without political input?<<

Oh, please.

Of course you need political will to move human rights forward. But to suggest that a political motivation can derive solely from atheism is not just vanity, it is arrogance.

As is the suggestion that there could be one voice representing all atheists.

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?

Pah.

That is exactly the sort of arrogance that Christians display, on exactly the same topic. How many times have you heard them say stuff like "without a moral guide from God you are all making it up as you go"

And you are falling into precisely the same trap.

>>This is a Convention of likeminded people<<

Only in one dimension. That they disapprove of the impact that religion has on our society.

We have seen many times on OLO, Christians disapprove of such things as religious tribunals for Jews and Muslims. What makes you different?

Or are you happy to be branded "just another religion, trying to impose their views on the rest of us?"

We have in this country a legal system. We have a representative democracy. And we do have lobbyists, representing bodies of "likeminded people".

But in what way, except the anti-God-botherer stance, can you possibly suggest that you and I are "like-minded people"?

The chances are 100% that we would disagree in some area. And that others would disagree in other areas.

How does that constitute a viable political force?

Pericles,

Have you a point or do you just like reading the rubbish you write. You do not have to agree with the Convention and the Convention does not have to agree with you. No one cares if you don’t want to take responsibility as a citizen and act for the rights of others. We will do it for you. No one is going to force her or his view on you. And if you would bother reading, what I have actually written you will find Atheists are all about choice.

I am sure you and me are not likeminded because I am unsure as to what you are driving at. Whereas I have been absolutely clear.

Trying to equate Atheism with some kind of religion is pathetic and obfuscatory mud slinging.

Do us all a favour and make clear and simple statements at to what you find so objectionable about the Global Atheist Conversation.

You may think that big noting yourself is gaining you friends but I would suggest the quality of that friendship is dubious to say the least. (If anyone can actually understand what your point is)

Why not come along to the Rise of Atheism Convention or are you frightened to voice an opinion where you cannot hide behind a pseudonym.

David

It's simple, Mr Nicholls, and I'm surprised that you cannot grasp it.

>>Do us all a favour and make clear and simple statements at to what you find so objectionable about the Global Atheist Conversation<<

(I presume the use of Conversation instead of Convention was a slip of the keyboard, rather than a bit of sly sophistry. I'm only talking about the convention, not atheism per se.)

1. Atheists do not share a single world view, in the way that religious people identify with a particular God, and the rules that are drawn from that association.

2. At your convention, you will undoubtedly do one of two things. You will either issue a statement explaining what the delegates have agreed upon. Or you will issue a statement that says you are unable to come to any agreement.

3. If you announce positions that you agree upon, they then become positions publicly identified with "Atheism". Which will then be attacked by religious groups as being "atheist beliefs", synonymous with any other belief system.

4. More specifically, you will have tabled a definition of the policies and causes that you see as constituting atheism. In doing so, you have appropriated a label for your political activities that you do not own. Who gave you the right to speak on my behalf?

5. If you announce that the convention cannot agree on anything - despite the fact that this would be the most honest result - then you have signally failed to achieve the political clout that you seem so earnestly to desire. And made the Convention itself a laughing-stock.

It is a clear lose-lose situation.

Which part of that do you still not understand?

And leave the sarky sideswipes at home. You got into a similar self-indulgent froth last year over those stupid bus adverts.

Did they ever appear, by the way?

Pericles,

Then I assume you think Atheists should just shut up. Very intelligent comment from you.

You have not said one thing that I haven’t expressed. I ask again, what is the point of your posts. Don’t make me guess.

Please don’t accuse me of sophistry when that is all you can write.

What do you think Atheists should do, that is those who recognise there is a problem with religion, which excludes you?

Maybe just accept the status quo and lie down quietly. It is quite disturbing when Atheists not only have to confront issues but also the minority of Atheists who just don’t get it. Or is it that they refuse to get it. That’s one of my guesses with you.

Oh, you mention the buses. Keep your eyes open. How did you help with that? Working from memory, your contribution was about the same as you are helping with Atheism right now.

Minus zero.

David