The Atheist Foundation of Australia has announced that the next Global Atheist Convention ‘A Celebration of Reason’ will be held at the Melbourne Convention and Exhibition Centre from 13 – 15 April 2012. The convention will feature headline speakers Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens. The convention “Is a great opportunity to bring forth new enlightenment in the face of growing irrationality, fundamentalism and superstitious thinking around the world. Atheism has provided the perfect foundation in which people can come together to celebrate science, reason and secular values in today’s society. With the planet in a state of organised chaos and the menace of religious extremism threatening everyone’s quality of life, this 2012 event will once again provide rational discussion and debate about what can be done to address the issues facing the globe. “Said Atheist Foundation President David Nicholls.
The 2010 Global Atheist Convention gave local, interstate and international attendees the opportunity to hear first-rate speakers from a range of fields including science, philosophy, politics and education, the 2012 convention promises to deliver the same.
The Atheist Foundation has succeeded in obtaining financial support from the Victorian Government for the convention.
It’s time we all cast off the superstitions of religion and move forward to bring justice and equality into this World. This can never happen while ever religions are allowed to poison the minds of people, inciting hate, fear and bigotry as they invariably do. We must learn from history and move forward into more enlightened times.

well well
it didnt take long to get govt funding

""The Atheist Foundation has succeeded in obtaining financial support from the Victorian Government for the convention.''

what next tax free status?

you lot got ya high priests/prophets
your holy texts..written by the new god heads

you sound just like a new religeon
i really dont see faithlessness as much more that the claytons religeon

the religeon you adopt
when you dont like the spirit of other beliefs

religous zealots
by any other name
you just gut out god

next you will be palmsinging and demanding alms

ps how much it cost?

OUG: according to the FAQ on http://atheistconvention.org.au :

Is the Victorian Government funding part of the Global Atheist Convention because of atheism?

No. The funding from the Victorian Government has nothing to do with religion or otherwise. It is a commercial arrangement, which benefits the AFA and the state of Victoria. If it were a science, basket weaving or toy manufacturer’s convention and fulfilled the necessary criteria for funding, it would also receive it.

Yes, I must admit to being a little skeptical about these sort of conferences, and wonder what the organisers of an Atheism conference expect to get out of it?

Is it a money making venture?

I am not a religious person, but I wouldn't go to such a conference because I believe commonsense will prevail in this world eventually, and religion will die a slow death.

Well I for one will be going to the Convention.
Why? because the speakers are impressive and
frankly I'd like to hear Richard Dawkins (and the
others) speak. I'd like to make up my own mind
about them. I expect brilliant arguments and I'll be
most disappointed if I don't get them. Dawkins, especially,
I imagine will come "roaring forth in the full vigour of
his poerful arguments," as he did in his book, "The God
Delusion." I'm not expecting to be converted - simply to
be entertained. And I know I will be!

Suzeonline: the AFA is a not for profit, the organisers are volunteers and the convention is aimed to cover costs. Putting on a convention of such a size costs a lot of money.

I'm looking forward to it. The last one was great, it was really good to hear some great speakers and this next years line up is awesome :) I met some wonderful people in an amazing atmosphere and can't wait for the next.

Truly a celebration of reason :)

NSW would arm wrestle Victoria for the Convention.
Its about tourists and hotel beds full not religion.
I would go if I was nearer.
Am however a nonbeliever but unimpressed with a group to stand in opposition to another group.
We in my view would be better to walk alone now we are grown, nothing however wrong with the rules past great humans put together as rules to live by.

Fair enough Lexi and woot. I see your point.

Unfortunately, I live in Perth, otherwise I might be tempted to come along and hear the arguments myself, as long as it wasn't a recruitment drive or something similar :).

I wouldn't be into joining an Atheist 'sect', and pounding the pavements outside Parliament with a banner emblazoned with the words:
"There are no Gods'!

Atheism is not a religion or aspiration to a higher order of consciousness.It is belief in disbelief.If you study physics and astronomy,the universe is a non ordinary reality.Space time,energy and matter are intergrated in a continium that links all that we are.

Theoretically via the study of physics,it is possible to travel through time,and that hints at immortality and a reality of a supreme consciousness, that us mere mortals have yet to realise.

The concept of god is a human invention to try and explain what we cannot understand.Religion is a perversion of spirituality since the elites use religion to dumb down and subvert the masses.

Life is about raising our levels of consciousness.It only happens when we have endeavour and a true heart that seeks the advancement of all humanity.

ok..so olo has become a vehicle for publicity

well i wish to disscuss opinion
[afterall athism..is just another OPINION
unless it becomes a faith system for the faithless]

so who is the focus...athiests hate god.or hate religeon
[i know from previous publicity blurb's that you deney there is any such thing as god]

so in that line of opinion
lets egsamin pauls blurb

""The convention “Is a great opportunity to bring forth new enlightenment""

great enlightenment[rather new age
but never the less enlightenment...in the 'new age relitivism's
generally implies spirit 'secret knowledge'

thus a clever spin word designed[cghosen].to decieve
pretending to inform[to wit eduucate..secret knowledge

""in the face of growing irrationality,""

ok so give me your 'rational'
[what does this clever buzz word ratrionalise>?

""fundamentalism and superstitious thinking""

great...like your going to inform us of the scam of global warming?

and expose the many faulse prophets..
espousing capital idealism..[bailing out the rich?]
by the bankers being bailed out..bia bying govt bonds?

""Atheism has provided the perfect foundation
in which people can come together to celebrate science""

religeon has no despute with true science
its only the fraud theories[like the gap theory in evolution
that i refute...mendelic inheritors are perfectly good science..trouble being evolution iS A THEORY[not a science

sellibrate..""reason and secular values in today’s society.""

hangon ...i inserted the celibrate
but your spin is saying values...[as in godless values]
so your going to preach the NEW ATHIEST values?

ie attack believers DARING to belief different from YOU?

""With the planet in a state of organised chaos"""

yes its organised all right
trouble being the same 'organisers'..organising YOUR NEW AGE WAY
are the same 'organisers'..what organised the same old way

your just putting on some new age spin

""and the menace of religious extremism"""

the extremists are those who blame a whole belief system
for inmdividual acts of extreemists FAINING belief

when wil;l the first nutter athiest
non believer..get his FAITH..blamed for his own outrage?

its not religeons that..""threatening everyone’s quality of life,""

its fools blaming systems
for individual insanity

thats our only true threat

faulse messengers

those forcing others
to question their own belief
only seek instant belief..[and then instant obediance]

""this 2012 event will once again provide rational discussion""

as ling as you sit passivly
while your prophets of doome brainwash your mind into unthinking agreement[it all sounds so new age...you got so many gurus

""and debate""

oh good
oh you mean listen to a one sided spin routeen
that passes for debate..but actually is just de bait..!

""about what can be done
to address the issues facing the globe""

ahhhh now i get it
the next new age al gore
gloom and doom

but if you buy permits[dispensation]
all will be fine..[as long as we shut up thinking
and just pay up..

and learn to parrot..back
your prophets blurb..verbitam

ps your creed books
are for sale in the lobby?

with vidios..that fully explain EVERYTHING

yeah yea
we heard all that before

lol

What is...in human terms......?

I think that's the only question.

Cactus:)

hahaha it doesn't take much for believers to get all angsty does it ;)

Should be a great time :) Meet up with good friends and like minded people without the baggage of wishful thinking and invisible friends that have to tell them how to be good. Yep good without god.

Looking forward to it! Should be a rip snorter of an event!

Rip snorter of an event? smiles. I have studies which most would welcomed. If look at the.....and Iam trying....:)...to be nice:)

The human peoples are evolving faster than I like. I can see where, and whats is coming. However, and its all ways...However....,I just have to go on my own works, which....cant be beaten.

EVO or Evolution.

Cactus

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WOoUVeyaY_8

Me! I like balanced people. If your fuc..wit, NO guns for you.

I love people that are not dickh..ds, I hope out like what vid shows, and the self control.

Have a nice day:)

Hey~ if you Australians are so trusting, why do your GOV not let what I call............The normal MAN!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b3AdM8I5TVg&feature=related

I follow this link.....cause I think the same as he does.

So if your a brain-fu.ked.....I can follow simple rules......maybe PlayStation is all your going to get:)

Me! Fully qualified:).....you....just a bitch:)

I dont like to think this is true......but how many of you hold a GUN..LIC?

We will see:)

Follow the best Russia.

Cant you be this balanced?

Let me and your laws....show diffident.

Cactus....plus.

Just acting for those good GUN people, your LIC,s are coming up soon.

Like always, have a good day:)

Sorry for that.....and you were saying?

cactus:)

Just for your safety....follow your counties regulations.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7d7liCgNb5E&feature=relmfu

Back to your thread.

And always, have a nice day.

LIC...number....you can find me, if your not a dickh..d.

Smile.

There was an atheist convention in Melbourne a couple of years ago; it was the theme to a thread on the Randy Skeptics Forum.

Personally I find atheism a senseless notion (at present) given the position is intractable. To proclaim yourself agnostic makes sense, to proclaim yourself atheist is a self satisfying cause, akin to I have a flag to wave but no basis for empirical discussion in exactly the same manner as the theists.

Until we know everything we know nothing, I will give just one example as to why contemplation of a “supreme being” should still be in play, Dark Matter.

Dark Matter has a gravitational pull, if we did not have Dark Matter our universe would not have evolved if it had to rely on the gravity available from the matter we can see and measure, planets and stars would not have formed. We have just dicovered by reason something we cannot detect other than the gravitational pull it exerts, and without it the big bang would simply be a dispersal of the components of matter, how can we rule out any scenario.

That some feel confident enough at this stage of our evolution to dismiss the concept of a creator is of itself a statement on their reasoning capacity.

As an atheist I don’t hate God(s). To hate one would firstly have to believe in the existence of God(s). Hatred of God as a being is no more possible than hatred of the Tooth Fairy. Then there are those that say, “It’s not God you hate, but what God represents.” My answer to that is what God represents. God is no more that the representation of mans imagination, and there are countless representations. The Roman Gods, the Hindu Gods of today are not the Christian God. Nor is the Christian God of today the same representation of their God of 1000 years ago.
Religions say they are ‘good’; to take that at face value is dangerous religions are not ‘good’ their historical record is testimony to that. Then there are those that say “That may have been true in the past but the ‘leopard has changed his spots’, we don’t burn people at the stake anymore, Nazi’s don’t gas people anymore but does that make Nazism okay. Children are still being indoctrinated without choice, woman are 2nd class in religions (religions are so macho).
I could say so much more about hatred, bigotry etc. Before someone jumps in to tell me, yes Vinnie’s and the Salvos do a good job

its true..that science has no clue re darkmatter[s]
and im sure the enlightenment at the meeting wont offer any real advances in knowledge[as such]..just more GUESSING/hope and name calling

there will no doudt be
much more of the same

ie the ARDENT hope[belief]..
that there is no god [ie delusion]

lets egsamin pauls initial quote..""It’s time we all cast off
the superstitions of religion""

ant tghinker can only agree with that generalisation
the time of superstition is long past

but those who call superstitions claims
fast held beliefs of the faithfull...are spinning deciete

no where does the bible say the earth id flat
or that the sun goes arround the earth
[thuis any raising such absurdities does so as an agenda]
[why?..to get you feeling clever enough to buy into the rest of the spin]

what superstitions can any athiest cast believers to hold
so they can subvert the suseptable.>""and move forward to bring justice and equality into this World."'

so now its justice and equality
[unless your obne of them ignorants that believe in 'fables']
as noted last time..we are going to get forced RE-educated][see the blurb from the last con-vent-ion

""This can never happen
while ever religions are allowed to poison the minds of people,""

hear?
know the real adgenda it to stop ANY
other than what..THEY hold as believable

ie

its us who hold true
to the promise inherant of love god
by loving neighbour..ie..US*..""..inciting hate,
fear and bigotry as they...[WE*]..invariably do.""'

are you..with 'they'
WHO ARE THEY?
am i THEY?

""We must learn from history
and move forward into more enlightened times.""

yes sane words in INSANE Times
so throw away all love of neighbour?

thats how we get to these EN=lightened mind/times
let them think for you..

but back to about the only intelligent thought..[glion esq/quote]

""Dark Matter has a gravitational pull,
if we did not have Dark Matter our universe would not have evolved""

so is dorkings going to explain that
no he only has some new holy text for the unholy
who's beginning involves destrying all that came bwefore his enlightend brain proved nothing

""We have just dicovered by reason
something we cannot detect other than the gravitational pull it exerts...""

the world is fll of unseen unknowns
to dismiss higher reason..higher cause
without good reason..is insane

again i agree with sonofglion..""That some feel confident enough
at this stage of our evolution to dismiss the concept of a creator is of itself a statement on their reasoning capacity.""

well spoken sonof

Sonofgoin what is the point? “Until we know everything we know nothing” “That some feel confident enough at this stage of our evolution to dismiss the concept of a creator is of itself a statement on their reasoning capacity.” This is blind acceptance, due to one’s ignorance one must accept, as there are greater minds than ours at work! Why isn’t Dark Matter mentioned in the bible?

@sonofgloin : Atheism is simply a lack of belief in a god or gods. It is not the claim there is not a god, tho some atheists may claim that.

Whereas atheism is lack of theism, agnosticism is lack of gnosticism, or the claim that one can know that a god exists.

One deals with knowledge, the other belief, so you have agnostic atheists, gnostic atheists, agnostic theists and gnostic theists.

Agnosticism is not a middle ground between belief and lack of belief, it is a different logical sphere. Either you believe the claim of a god is true, or you don't. If you do not hold or do not know if the claim of a god is true, you lack belief that it is, you are atheist.

This explains it well : http://freethinker.co.uk/2009/09/25/8419/

I do not have a belief in a god or gods, therefore I am atheist. And looking forward to the convention next year! :)

Woot, so atheism is a conceptual thing for you, there may be a god but I do not take it into consideration when I consider "why" sort of thing.

Paul, I am not validating the bible, I am stating that unless you know physics is all there is, you can not dismiss creation.

Well there is no reason to consider it no, there is absolutely no evidence for it, and indeed the claims of the religious of the properties of a god (omni-max stuff) is just logically impossible. There is absolutely no evidence at all for the supernatural so no I cannot believe in something like that. Hence atheist.

I am open to the possibility there is yet unexplained 'things' but this by definition would make them natural.

I find it a real stretch to try and equate physics with something that has absolutely no evidence, there is no comparison. Everything we observe or have observed is natural, there is no reason to make the leap to posit some supernatural super entity that 'caused creation' over anything like a simple force. 'god' could simply be an as yet identified simple force, rather than some complex super brain/god type structure.

I take the concept of a god the same way as there being a gang of super leprechauns that have always existed. For sure, I'm open to the possibility, but I think naturalistic explanations are a heck of a lot more likely ;)

Still, regardless of that, I don't believe in a god, therefore atheist.

I'm not going to leap in here in support of God - I believe in God, others don't and I'm content with that. Belief in itself does not make a person better or worse than another, though many people on both sides of the fence like to smile smugly and throw stones at people on the other.

I will say, though, that I disagree with your assertion (Paul) that 'religions are not "good" their historical record is testimony to that'. From my limited knowledge of the world's religions, at their core the bulk of them are inherently good. There's plenty of antiquated stuff about stoning people and casting them out, and I won't justify those with the usual comments about being 'perfectly acceptable for their time'. I will suggest that the essence of religion tends towards good, however in the hands of greedy, selfish and narcissistic people, its impact is often bad. When we broaden your historical record to include those societies that are directly opposed to religion, it's not unreasonable to argue that history is a disgrace of mankind, rather than simply one of religion.

Human beings are flawed but also capable of great good. Atheism won't necessarily change the premise of human nature and bigotry and injustice are revealed not only through religion but various other beliefs and values.

Religion has been used as an excuse for bad behaviour (past and present) including bigotry and the old class/caste system however wars and other bad deeds have also been done in the name of patriotism, land grabs, colonialism, economic interests, greed etc. Religion has often been used to prop up some of these interests from Jihad to the Crusades.

The way forward should be IMO a recognition of and acceptance of differing belief systems ie. a truly secular society. And a framework that ensures no one belief system has an overt influence on governments to restrict or deny freedoms to another (the only caveat being the no harm test and adherence to Common Law).

For example issues like same sex marriage are too influenced by the radical Christian lobbies who might dicate to others how they should live their lives, forcing their views on others. Same sex marriage only appeals to those who are homosexual so there is no risk to other sorts of marriages. Nobody is being forced to marry someone of the same gender. No harm done.

So the Atheist Conference now has government funding too. It continues to amaze me that revenue is wasted on these personal activities and choices - atheists and theists alike. While cultural and religious beliefs are part of society surely they should be self-funded and not the business of governments.

There are millions of dollars spent each year of religious buildings and restorations and on money handed out to religious groups even some who flaut the Law eg. denying parental access when a one parent has chosen to leave some of the more isolationist religious sects.

Why do we continue to fund what are ostensibly domestic and personal choices. There are so many other universally good programs that would benefit from this funding.

Otokonoko I agree with your statement “at their core the bulk of them (religions) are inherently good.” I’ll go along with the notion that the teachings of Christ are inherently good, as are the basics of most main stream religions. There would be no problem if the ‘believers’ would go into their churches, mosques temples etc and pray to their god(s), then emerged and put into practice this warm and fuzzy goodness. Unfortunately in the main this has never happened, instead of emerging filled with good, they espouse hatred and intolerance, instead of “love thy neighbor”, it’s “kill thy neighbor”.
Take just one recent religious demand, Australians should live under Sharia law. Is this Sharia law filled with goodness, I think not, but there are those that demand we must embrace it, or will it be “kill the infidels.” Put an end to the madness and consign all religions to the scrap heap of history

It must be the fear and loathing that causes people like you to invent stuff like this, Paul1405.

>>Take just one recent religious demand, Australians should live under Sharia law.<<

Who made such a "demand"?

There was a suggestion made recently that there are some civil issues related to their religion that Muslims felt appropriate should be considered by a Sharia-oriented tribunal.

Hardly earth-shattering, as there has been similar consideration afforded to UK Jews, through Beth Din since the early 18th Century.

http://www.socialcohesion.co.uk/files/1236789702_1.pdf

Since it wouldn't impact non-Muslims, and is subject always to the laws of the land, why should you get so upset about it? And don't give me that "thin end of the wedge" stuff, I don't see Beth Din has ripped apart the fabric of UK society, even after three hundred years.

It wouldn't be so bad if it was just plain ignorance that drives your views, but there is obviously an undercurrent of hatred involved too...

>>Is this Sharia law filled with goodness, I think not, but there are those that demand we must embrace it, or will it be “kill the infidels".<<

Yeah, right. Who are "those that demand we must embrace it", Paul1405? Who has said that they will “kill the infidels" if it isn't introduced?

Come on, name names. Or retract your somewhat feeble and transparent attempt at religious vilification.

Lexi,
Before accepting the arguments of Dawkins also read the counter arguments to Dawkins ther are many books available including Dawkins public Gaffs and admissions of possibilities God could exist.

"So the Atheist Conference now has government funding too. It continues to amaze me that revenue is wasted on these personal activities and choices - atheists and theists alike."

From :

http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/government-comes-to-atheist-party-20110514-1enkv.html

"Melbourne Convention and Visitors Bureau chief executive Sue Chipchase said the convention would deliver an economic boost to the state of $7.6 million."

Conventions like this bring money into the economy, the government would fund an accounting convention, a toy convention or any other convention that brings money into the state. The funding for the atheist convention is a standard funding any group bringing number into the state can get, to help support this influx of capital.

A 20-year-old man accused of whipping a Sydney man 40 times as part of an alleged sharia law punishment for drinking alcohol has been granted bail. ABC News.
ONE of the nation's top Muslim leaders, Sheik Mohamadu Nawas Saleem, has supported a plan to introduce sharia law in Australia, saying it could operate in the family law system through a new model of Islamic arbitration. But Attorney-General Robert McClelland yesterday killed off any calls for sharia law in Australia, saying there was no place for it in the Gillard government's debate about multicultural policy. ABC News.
I would be interested to hear the Sheik’s slant on the case of the 20-year-old.
However, harsh penal aspects of the law, including stoning and chopping off hands, will never work and aren't being called for, Islamic Friendship Association of Australia president Keysar Trad says.

What kind of law condones chopping off of hands and stonings in the first place. According to Keysar we just embrace the good bits

I guess that could conceivably count as a retraction Paul1405, albeit a pretty weak one.

>>ONE of the nation's top Muslim leaders, Sheik Mohamadu Nawas Saleem, has supported a plan to introduce sharia law in Australia, saying it could operate in the family law system through a new model of Islamic arbitration.<<

You don't seem to have completely embraced the idea, though, that there is a difference between the potential for Islamic arbitration and the "religious demand, Australians should live under Sharia law".

You might also care to acknowledge that being granted bail on an assault charge is not the same as being exonerated. And your speculation...

>>I would be interested to hear the Sheik’s slant on the case of the 20-year-old<<

...can be helped along by the knowledge that "Representatives of Sydney's Muslim community have condemned the alleged lashing attack.", as reported here:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-07-19/sharia-lashing-190711/2799862

Have another go at the apology, why don't you. It's quite simple, you just say "Sorry, I got it all wrong".

You can practice in front of the mirror a few times to get the hang of it if you like.

All the bravura over this liberal-rationalist brand of atheism Dawkins and his mates espouse hyperbolically obviates criticism that ought to be directed at itself.
It is simply not true that "the menace of religious extremism [is]threatening everyone’s quality of life". What bloody nonsense! This might be applicable to a tiny minority, whereas most religious people are both peaceful and either enjoy or aspire to the same kind of "quality of life" alluded to. The kind of "quality of life" Ditchkins and co enjoy and promote is also enjoyed or aspired to by their conservative (religious) allies.
Dawkins and co are not simply espousing "science, reason and secular values in today’s society", they are also implicitly supporting the status quo, that is Western hegemony and the capitalist juggernaut; the real menace is "positivist" extremism, which threatens everybody's very existence!
The "quality of life" supposedly threatened by religious extremism (on what front are these extremists in the ascendency?), that the rational optimists enjoy, is utterly unsustainable en masse and they know it!
Moreover their own religion, of objectivity, and faith in their facile conclusions and breathtaking arrogance, while no doubt a fetish they're all genuinely captivated by (literally captivated by their own populist charisma), is an empty world view for their legions of lay disciples, who are just carried away.
I am an atheist, but I'm also an ethicist, which means all world views are for me properly open to criticism. Dawkins and his mates hide within their empirical specialities and their fixated objectivity, their respectively habitual myopia on their "bit" of the jigsaw, condones them of the surely vital necessity of looking at the "whole picture". They embrace their unbelief as if it was the holy grail rather than a vacuum; one piece of humanity's disillusion.
The positivism, Liberal rationalism, preached by these ideologues is a far more dangerous delusion that is yet to fall!
We are not spiritual nor intellectual, but "material beings" living in a material and imperilled world, and the liberal rationalist constitute by far the greatest threat.

Squeers

It is so-called moderate Christians who have achieved tax payer funding of their schools, chaplains installed in secular schools, tax free ride at the expense of non-religious, patriarchal structures, knocking uninvited on the doors of people's private homes, discrimination against homosexuals, demanding that myth be taught along with science...

You don't have a problem with any of the above?

Ammonite,
I think you know I'm against all those things. My post above wasn't defending religious institutionalism, it was criticising another and even more dangerous ideology.
I believe in the separation of church and state, but that doesn't make the State disinterested or above reproach. Achieving a rigorous separation of church and state is small potatoes compared with the much larger ills that ail us.

Squeers

Of course I knew I was 'preaching to the choir', however, unlike you I believe the Atheist Convention is a significant event - people who are finding religion completely at odds with the reality of living on this planet, but not sure can listen to some very erudite, entertaining and intelligent speakers. I do not agree with everything Dawkins, Hitchens et al say, but they are much needed tonic compared to the grandstanding of the Pells and Niles.

And I do think that the current involvement of church in state is very serious indeed, leading as it has to the demonisation of refugees (they might be muslims, shock horror), tainting the minds of children with supernatural nonsense which has lead to a nadir of understanding of science. Religion is the ultimate creator of mushroom minds and eagerly used by conservatives to maintain the do-nothing approach we currently see in our political system.

If just one child starts to raise questions of whatever adults instruct (whether it be religion or other ideology) that is worthwhile. I have spent my life questioning the status quo and am far better off for so doing.

Squeers,

“My post above wasn't defending religious institutionalism, it was criticising another and even more dangerous ideology.”

What ideology is that? How is it manifest in society today? What are the dangers this ‘more dangerous ideology poses? What are the signs that there is a danger to society by present activity of this ‘ideology? How will this ‘ideology’, whatever it is to which you refer, become ‘even more dangerous’?

“Achieving a rigorous separation of church and state is small potatoes compared with the much larger ills that ail us.”

I agree that separation of church and state is necessary for a large part of the planet as well as in Australia. What are the ‘much larger ills that ail us’ that prevent looking at all problems facing humanity?

David

Separation of church and state won't help if people simply invest the state with the same irrational reverence with which the religious invest the church - and that's what's happening, including by Dawkins, whom I otherwise respect very much.

Today we have in statism the same characteristics of old-style religion:
- an irrational belief without any basis in science, grounded in metaphysics and mysticism, in an all-knowing, all-good, all capable superbeing - the state
- a belief that the problem of economic scarcity can be suspended by giving the problem of production to the state
- a belief that anything the state does automatically establishes that it satisfies human wants more urgent or important than whatever usage was sacrificed to state usage
- a belief that in the state we have found a way to create wealth out of nothing, by printing pieces of paper
- a belief that in the state we have a found a way to create wealth out of nothing, by passing laws
- a belief that moral problems are automatically solved by having the state make the decisions; got a problem with families? Pass a law. With agriculture? Pass a law? Baby-sitting? Pass a law. Rivers? Pass a law.

If children were compelled at a tender age to attend "education", being whatever a church wanted to teach them all through their formative years, and their parents threatened with fines or prison to force them to submit to the church having custody of their children and teaching whatever it wants, we would rightly suspect that of being biased in favour of that church. But the state does the same, and if we were being rational, we would rightly suspect such an arrangement of involving indoctrination biased in favour of the State.

The recent pious moral panic about global warming is just so much of a re-run in the mediaeval church that it’s not funny.

- There’s the belief in an ideal economic stasis in which all problems of scarcity are permanently solved, and resources are perfectly allocated to satisfy human wants (Paradise/sustainability);
- the belief that something is horribly wrong with the whole world and it’s all man’s moral fault (sin/consumerism);
- the belief that the end is nigh and there’s the time-frame – not close enough to be accurately predicted, but close enough to worry about
- there’s the reverencing of a corporation (church/state) as being morally superior to everyone else, and charged with showing us all the way to rightful conduct
- there’s the belief in a superbeing, all-good (selfless and cares about us all), omniscient (knows the ecological, climatic and economic quantities, benefits and costs of all human action for the whole world now and in the future) and all-capable (can manipulate these quantities at will to produce better outcomes)
- and now to cap it all off we have the selling of indulgences again – the carbon tax!

David,
I'm surprised that with your intimidating handle,"Atheist Foundation of Australia Inc" (sorry, it doesn't impress me. In fact it sounds Orwellian.) you didn't get my references: "Ditchkins", "liberal rationalism"... ?
Gawd isn't it about time you grew out of your binary thinking? As if once we all become secular it'll be a land of milk and honey!

<What ideology is that? How is it manifest in society today? What are the dangers this ‘more dangerous ideology poses? What are the signs that there is a danger to society by present activity of this ‘ideology? How will this ‘ideology’, whatever it is to which you refer, become ‘even more dangerous’>

Oh very posh! Speaking of Orwell, you ought to read his "Politics and the English language".

Your further questions are already signposted in my post: the danger of complacency and witch-hunting, "manifest" in Dawkin's drawlins. What did the witch-hunts of old accomplish beyond taking attention off the real villains, the hunters?
The philosophical <dangers this ‘more dangerous ideology poses> include the supposition that the universe and all its unknown dimensions (the ones we don't know we don't know as well as the ones we know we don't) accord with the naive intellectualisation Ditchkins has of it.
The practical dangers of this ideology accrue from its spin-off rationalisations: who are we to interfere with evolutionary processes? We can die-off with equanimity..
"What are the signs that there is a danger to society by present activity of this ‘ideology?"
"Society", as it stands, is properly not the raison d'etre of liberal rationalism, though curiously its objectivity proceeds from that singularity..
Why are you preoccupied with preserving "society"? And what is that? Is Western secularism its consummatum est? Is the taint of religion society's most pressing concern?
Hunting religion, the scapegoat, once a scapegrace, does condone Ditchkins of addressing the much greater ills that ail us. If you don't know what those greater ills are, then you validate my argument..

I still don't get what these people are talking about with regard 'ideology'

I lack a faith in a god or gods, simple as that. So do 1 in 5 other Australians.

The AFA is just one group out of many that speak for their members, over the many concerns where religions get rights and privilege above and beyond other Australians simply because they believe in a magic man.

.. but the arguments saying that people should not speak up are pretty lame. I mean, don't speak up about stuff because it is not the most pressing issue you can think of? oh come on, talk about a lame argument.

It's like saying women should not speak up about pay equality because some women in the middle east are forced to wear the veil.

I'm a non believer, and I am glad there are groups such as the AFA that voice concerns we have in regard the imposition of religious faith on equality. Pointing at worse problems doesn't magically make other problems not worthy of struggle.

Anway, I'm looking forward to the convention as it's useless trying to discuss with religionists their privilege, they are never going to accept that it affects others.

>> If you don't know what those greater ills are, then you validate my argument.. <<

OK. Consider my ignorance validation then.

Now. Humour me, what is worse than indoctrinating children, negating the validity of science, preventing informed debate, inciting hate against whatever group some religion has declared not acceptable, taking tax payers money without accountability, and is currently having profound influence and entwined with politics?

Woot

Looks to me like Squeers is taking the:

"if you don't already know, I'm not gonna tell you" lame stance.

Abysmal.

On a bright note, I will be able to attend the convention - missed out last time.

I'll wear a red carnation :)

Squeers,

You call that answering my questions. Ummmm. Maybe try not talking in riddles. Be better if you used the English language to explain rather than obfuscate. Of course, you cant do that because you haven’t got a rational case to put forward. Dawkins et al represent a view that is at odds with supernaturalism as that disadvantages proper government and peoples lives. In Australia, it is to an unacceptable level; on many parts of the planet, it is downright dangerous. Stop trying to make a big deal about people engaged in attempting to make change for the better.

For those who would like to actually hear what Dawkins et al are on about come along to the 2012 Global Atheist Convention. http://www.atheistconvention.org.au/ Not only will it be extremely interesting, you will have wonderful time with a huge and friendly Freethinking crowd. The alternative is to listen to the self-aggrandising Sqeers of the world prattling on in quasi-intellectual fashion as though they have it all worked out.

Here are some of the speakers that are going to bring humanity to its knees. :o)
http://www.atheistconvention.org.au/speakers/

See you next April in Melbourne

David

PS Ammonite, I’ll look out for the red carnation. Come up and say hello

Clearly you don't read poetry, Ammonite (not that I'm poetic, just cryptic, as all good poetry is); abysmal!
Well, cryptic to the likes of the rationalists anyway.
Not generally, but since Atheist Foundation seems appallingly poorly read in his putative area of expertise, one can't help but indulge a bit of persiflage. Hint: this is a pithy medium and one must pack signification in tightly--sometimes too tightly it seems.
But of course all's black and white to the liberal rationalist and grey's not to be tolerated.

David, secularism is a broad church, as a self-professed atheist, should you not be embracing moi?
I "have" answered your questions, yes, but no doubt 'tis a bit like Douglas Adams's computer answering "42", you don't have the ear for it.. Besides, you're (self)important and can't be seen to be paying lip-service to heretics, now can you?
BTW, can we have a more recent picture of Dawkins than the one in the link you provided? Since he's a specialist in fossils, why don't we get a more accurate (less charismatic) rendition of the old dinosaur? (Dennett's ageless with his Santa clause beard, as is Hitchens with his scowl).
I imagine at the conference their respective publications will be available in their thousands for purchase as the queue wends and winds interminably? The modern collection plate. Maybe even a book signing eh?
Just as well you don't get my nonsense? It'd be a shame to ruffle such charming naivety.

Sqeers, I got it in its overly effluent style but really, I don’ want it because it is mostly nonsense. A bit like holy books, you have to sift through piles of rubbish to get to anything meaningful. (If one is lucky) I’ve given up that worthless pastime yonks ago. I have no objection if others have a variant view about that.

Woot & Paul1405 and forgive me if I missed anyone else.

I also look forward to your presence at the 2012 Global Atheist Convention – ‘ A Celebration of Reason’.

Don’t forget, world-class catering is included in the price of a ticket.

I offer the same advice as I did to Ammonite, come up and say hello.

David

Dear Squeers

No, I don't read poetry. Except for the occasional haiku.

So shoot me.

I had held much respect for your opinion until now.

You are lecturing ME about shades of grey? Look in the mirror, you are blithely dismissing a significant part of the broad church that is non belief in deities.

Now, please, don't keep we knaves in suspenders any longer and tell us the name of the worst ideology of them all.

I don't think you can.

NIHILISM

Man! I was trying so hard to throw off this discussion....and since most think Iam communist and bat for the red corner, I thought my little rusky friend was quite appropriate:) Funny thou, well I thought so:)........well my distraction didn't work. Cant blame a comrade for not trying stop a con-vo from getting back into this sore, done!, tired out old thread, that's been beaten around ring more times than Rock Hudson.

Here it goes again....

Oh well:)

Cactus

Ooooh Philo

Next you'll be all existential. Tell me who has been killed, gaoled, excluded, re-educated, ostracised in the name of nihilism?

Is there a holy book of nihilism?

Places of worship?

Verily, welcome to the house of nihilism.... can't see it? Precisely.

noun
1.
total rejection of established laws and institutions.
2.
anarchy, terrorism, or other revolutionary activity.
3.
total and absolute destructiveness, especially toward the world at large and including oneself: the power-mad nihilism that marked Hitler's last years.
4.
Philosophy .
a.
an extreme form of skepticism: the denial of all real existence or the possibility of an objective basis for truth.
b.
nothingness or nonexistence.
5.
( sometimes initial capital letter ) the principles of a Russian revolutionary group, active in the latter half of the 19th century, holding that existing social and political institutions must be destroyed in order to clear the way for a new state of society and employing extreme measures, including terrorism and assassination.

See! I knew a Russian was coming into it sooner or later....lol

Cactus

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7d7liCgNb5E&feature=relmfu

They say its not appropriate to gloat:) But I just love the typing of the special education centre bit:) WOW...now you get it:) Thats ok.......I don't like the stuck up ( Iam better than you types, But
hey:) we all have to live together, its that right fossil:)

The way to win, is to keep a calm head.

Thats Australian. Wink:)

All the best.

cactus

so let us in on the joke ammonite
[i looked up the word once...it comes from when two daughters seduced their father]...that seems a strange name to chose

never the less lets take your questions seriously
because deespite the suggestion of inbreeding..clearly you have a mind

""It is so-called moderate Christians
who have achieved tax payer funding of their schools,"'

my dear dear
you must know...ALL SCHOOLS get govt cash
even the wealthy ones run for elites..so the point is mute

""chaplains installed in secular schools""
so you want an athiest,installed,,ok girl?...lobby for that
we live in a free cuntry...and govt loves buying favours..if its worth the extra votes[your complaining about govt largess mate...not god nor religeon

""tax free ride""
lets return to your earlier linkage
""It is so-called moderate Christians""

mate...christians muslims/buddists...even athiests
they all pay taxes...""It is so-called moderate Christians""
ARNT GETTING A FREE RIDE..thats only YOUR delusion/spin

""at the expense of non-religious,""
so start your own athiest SCHOOL luv
[that way davids THREAT>>>of forced RE_EDUCATION can at least sound believable/achievable..not just pissssinging in the wind

""patriarchal structures,""

what do you think hitchkids and dorkins are building luvie?

""knocking uninvited on the doors of people's private homes""

you must be a hoot...how come
ONLY them nasty patriarchal thiest types are ringing your bells?

""discrimination against homosexuals,""

ahhh now were getting at it
they knock at your door and insulted your girl fiend?

""demanding that myth be taught along with science...""

mate your loosing it...you refuse
to give your proof of evolution...as a science

[to wit HAVE NO IDEA of any faulsifyables
that...*EVERY SCIENCE NEEDS..TO BE A VALID SCIENCE]

its a theory love
PROPAGANDA..

taught to kids as fact..
BUT ONLY theory*

[child perverts KNOW..
you gotta train the kids under the age of 8
thats why the THEORY..is taught to them at that young tender age

then you get ATHIESTS..for life*

this science nutter..
with the fossils..ask him about the GAP theory

how come AT EVERY STAGE..there is huge gaps
NOT ONE half cold-blood/fish..half warmblood mammal
not one fish/man..not one bacteria/virus..not one snake/bird..its all THEORY..

DO TRY..learn to live in the reality
the science..is flawed..because its a theory
we have had mabny debates on evolution on these pages
BNOT once has any proof of evolution..OUT OF GENUS..ever been recorded nor proved

look at the tree of life project
it was dropped..cause no relationship COULD BE FOUND
no linial evolution...

in fact many mutations..that result in simular phenotype
but of divergent genotype...

[your ignorant of science..
thus ONLY TOO EASILLY DECIEVED..by frauds]..

what does dorkins..

[ie a fossil expert know about god?
know about biology/physiology]
nuthin

fossils are a dead end
looks like
dont mean it is geneticlly the same

we share 60% of our dna with a bannana
are you decended from a herb..[a bannana ISNT even a fruit]
but your so clever..you allready knew..you didnt know..eh luvie?

OUG:) We all love your world, we grew up on it all.......and many have studied out the likes of play-school. (No punt intended,) and I loved Bert....what a guy!..OH DEAR...and many more have had the types over and over in the 1000,s and the millions...that this who's who in the zoo......:)its nothing more than a human from ape and so on, then EVO! and the time extension, then people like me and others, just waited for you:) and this is why we waited for you.

OUG! Your a great member here, but the world does move on one thought......And like I said too runner many many times before, and Runner can quote this ( its in the words ) and I said.....We will wait for you.

And that's the evolution of our kind......we know it takes time....and

time waits for no-man.

And it wont wait for you.

If you can control time....

You tell me:)....The dino,s and all before them.....where here! and you cant stop that thinking. OUG! we know....alright. Times do and will change, but lets do it together.

Just one step at a time.....that's all its takes.

We mean NO harm to your thinking's and to show our IQ,s, we will wait for you.

All the best.

cactus

I find it funny when religionists try and chase the tail of evolution, as if thousands of scientists are going to wait for them to catch up :)

It's ironic how they ask for evidence, when their own position has absolutely none, nada, zilch. godidit lol. it's a conspiwacy hahaha

look mr woot...i de-test religeons
so dont be calling me a religeonist

they are just the same..as you lot
prepared to sellout..to get govt licence or govt cash

if you got proof of an ape
giving birth to human

or a cat giving birth to a dog
or a snake giving birth to a bird
BY ALL MEANS present it

we have expermented...[with deliberated mutagenes on top of their breedings]..with fruitflies...billions of generations..in the lab
[the result being ONLY fritflies]

animals breed ONLY after their own kind
yes we bred horses with near relitives and get sterile inbreeds
[hybreds]..but effectivly...no new evolutions..into new genus

most of you lot got no idea of genus as it relates to species
the past has taught me that to say...that no new genus EVER has been recorded/observed reported OR ACHIEVED...EVER*

your godheads will talk of ring species
and many other species limited evolutions
[heck even mr darwin wrote of evolution of SPECIES
he KNEW it wasnt evolution of genus[which is what evolution needs to be as you lot percieve it]

please note your own ignorance
thus you NEED to believe the lies and fairy tails..inherant in evolution

heck your other godhead..mr dorkings and i had a debate once
[remind him of his flatfish theory]...he actually says...some mutation 'evolved'..because an ancestors eye dragged in the mud
thus the eye migrated[evolved]..to the flat fish we see today

i reminded this fossil hunter
that the juvinile flatfish..LOOK just like every other fish

he then deleted the debate...[this poor excuse for a scientist
is closer to a geologist that a biologist]

if you are even able to tell the difference
between a THEOry..and a faulsifyable science fact

lol

why did god allow so many fools to evolve

trouble is god allows us a free choice
science IGNORANCE is such a choice

if its got some piece of paper..you think its true
IN IGNORANCE..

[think mate..if YOU CANT EXPLAIN it..
you have FAITH..in the theory..not science fact]

you can buy all the science books
and evolution of genus..is oNLY a theory

heck the local yokal inhouse athiest..[david]
couldnt prove a thing..the last time he posted notice here
about the same a/thiest..[sic] mal-born convention...

[he seems none the wiser for attending it]

but go for it mate
if you got science fact..present it

its not even worthwhile
trying to figure out what the cactus..is trying to say..

[he will..'wait for us'..
to figure it out?]

The cover up continues. It’s only 14 years (due 1997) late but that religious organization headed by Mr Ratzinger in Rome, the Catholic Church claims it will release its report into the Vatican’s role in covering up child and other abuse cases committed by Catholic clergy. The Vaticans Archbishop Silvano Tomasi has now promised to release the report in September or October 2011, but it is unclear if this report will explain the Vatican’s role in the cover-up. In its 2011annual report Amnesty International criticized the Holy See for “not sufficiently complying with its international obligations relating to the protection of children.”
Knowing what we know about this church and widespread evidence of child sexual abuse by its clergy. Including its failures to remove perpetrators from posts pending investigations, its failure to co-operate with authorities in bring criminals to justice and its failure to ensure proper reparations to victims. How could any right thinking parent place their child in the hands of these ‘people’, yet million still are still trusting these ‘people’

Paul1405

>> Knowing what we know about this church and widespread evidence of child sexual abuse by its clergy. Including its failures to remove perpetrators from posts pending investigations, its failure to co-operate with authorities in bring criminals to justice and its failure to ensure proper reparations to victims. How could any right thinking parent place their child in the hands of these ‘people’, yet million still are still trusting these ‘people’ <<

Squeers would disagree with you, a self-proclaimed atheist who believes there is worse than parents trusting the care of their children to celibate priests.

He wants us to guess what it is. Maybe it is our current duopoly of a political system. That's really, really bad ATM. But even with children overboard, the mistreatment of refugees, our government has not been ordering how people should live for over 2000 years. Nor does it force Labor or Liberal Instruction in public schools. Well, not yet.

Paul1405,
If the theory af atheism is merely a Crusade against the hypocrisy of the church then it has failed as it cannot have self identity. It is based in a social negativity and not in a whole of life concept.

The teachings of Christ stand pure above the behaviour of people living without conscience and conviction. Such behaviour is not of Christ and to imagine that the Church is typified by such is mistaken. It is not unusual for the whole of society to have such behaviours. However the Catholic Church needs to endorce marriage of priests.

Ammonite,
I'm too busy to respond to some of the peurile nonsense on this thread, and especially yours and Atheist what's his name's admonishments.
I've already made my position clear above and it hasn't been understood or responded to by either of you.
Of course you're not interested in criticism any more than religious institutions are.
You've got your gurus and you just want adoring fans.
Well sorry, can't oblige.

Ammonite, Atheism is not just a crusade (like your choice of word) against the hypocrisy of religions, although that is important. Atheism is the application of science and reason as opposed to the application of superstition and fear. Nothing is all bad, not even religion, the basics of most main stream religions are good, love thy neighbor etc, who can argue against that. Unfortunate some where it all went wrong and what we now have from many within religions is hate thy neighbor etc that I can argue against. If religion was nothing more that basically good people going out and praying to their god of the magic bean, I would say poor misguided ‘souls’ but I can live with you, that would be that. I have a problem when they want to impose their beliefs onto me and tell me how I’m going to live my life.
Philo. “However the Catholic Church needs to endorce marriage of priests.” Can’t agree that the problem of pedophile priests would be fixed with the pleasures of a good woman, no more than a homosexual man would be turned into a heterosexual man by the same woman. It is interesting to know why Catholic Priests are made to be celibate; it was not always the case. About 1000 years ago priest had wives, but some pope found a problem, priests were dying and leaving property to widows, can’t have that so he brought in celibacy, no more church property going to widows.

Squeers

I don't have 'gurus' - earlier on this thread I stated quite unequivocally that I do not agree with ALL the Dawkins et al have to say. Guess you missed that.

Now, I am prepared to admit I how utterly ignorant and gauche I am - so quid pro quo. What is worse than any of the world religions?

Communism? Nasty but doesn't have the history, nor the universal influence.

Capitalism? Ditto with the history but even influences the behaviour of the Chinese (not that they'd admit it), but capitalism American style is hand in hand with religion - useful tool for control that it is.

OK, I have taken your insults on the chin, admitted that I am ignorant of poetry (except for Haiku), why can't you be as honest as I have been and explain.

Pretend I am a little child seeking understanding. Would you treat your children as you have treated myself and Atheist (why not woot, Paul1405? - they're not buying your "worse ideology than religion" either).

And don't claim you don't have time - if you were serious about this you would find the time.

Or leave a link.

There I have made every overture to you. I am completely open to your scorn.

Ball is in your court.

Paul1405,
Because atheism is based in a negative idea it has no positive culture, no creative art, no aspirational poetry, no defined morality.

the something from nothing brigade again promoting their bile in order to justify their corrupt lifestyles.

Runner:0 I thought your godly little fingers had dropped off, and in good form I see:)

Cactus

"or a cat giving birth to a dog
or a snake giving birth to a bird
BY ALL MEANS present it"

Lol you religionists crack me up :)

Says a lot for our education system tho :\

Runner: something from nothing?

Yep, we see this occur all the time at the quantum level. Particles pop in and out of existence. This has been shown via the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle and evidenced as the Casimir effect in the laboratory http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casimir_effect

Check out Lawrence Krauss (also appearing at the convention! w00t!! :)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo

Something from nothing? distinct possibility as evidenced via experiment
Evidence for god? crusty old fables slapped together in a book

personal corruption leads either to repentance or to fantasy like that of which Dawkins, Hitchens and the like sprout. No wonder they can't call killing unborn children children. The tradegy is that they call their fantasy science and try and bully others into accepting their dogmas. The Victorian Government should be ashamed at spending tax payers money on a religion that only ends in more abortions, more immorality, more corruption, more teen pregnancy and more animal like behaviour. Thankfully most of the world know how empty and hollow the philosphies of these fundamentalist atheist are. Our Creator must do nothing but laugh at such puny arrogrance.

lol, I find it really funny when religionists talk about lack of belief as if it was a religion :)

They use all the wording and all the problems atheists have with religion, and claim atheism, a lack of belief, is the same.

ie: they recognise the problem with religion atheists are talking about :) They see it as so effective a position, they try and use it in reverse :) lol

seriously entertaining to watch, the flapping of arms etc :) hehehe

Ammonite,
my innitial post on this thread was directed wholly at the initial post by Paul1405. I hadn't and still haven't read anything you had to say prior to your scorn aimed at me.
And I'm not making excuses, I'm earning my living and really don't have the time at present. Not that I intend to respond to your rude demands later either--pearls before swine and all that..
So vent you beligerence on someone else.
I've made my contribution here and it predictably failed to achieve any traction--which I find just as gratifying as when people do get it.
ta ta.

mr woot toot/toot woot...made the bold claim
of something..from nothing..put up a link..then ran away

itsc typical of the type of SPIN..
these athiests run up the flagpole..that proves nothing

do i go the long way arround..using quotes
or the short way..by saying..two plates ARNT nothing

that these two plates have the basic attractive force
but by virtue of being held so close together
find their attractive forces
RESISTING the fixings holding these NUTHINS..*nearly together
[less than a human hair appart]

SO dear woot toot..its not something from nothing
[to wit two plates..with a mass...plus attractive force
plus resistance due to being restrained]

then this is said to be a quantum level observation
and we all know at quantum/level..two particles
can...*appear to be..in different places

but mate we KNOW its only one particle being observed
so your again SELLING DELUSIONAL ..*theory

plus neatly avoided putting up ANY cat giving birth to a dog
to wit the actual topic under discussion!

this is so typical of the scientific illiterate
you say something from nothing

then reveal two plates..[something..!]
thus exposing your destraction..to be nuthin

to wit half wit
something from something

its about the level..of gullibility
i have grown to expect from you science illiterate athiest's

lol

bah on the lot of ya spin
only gullible ignorants could be taken in

lol OUG, all the casimir effect does is prove that there are virtual particles that flit in and out of existence. It does not require two plates be held together, that's just a real life experiment that shows they exist. This stuff has been shown via experiment for years, seems like you are living in the bronze age with your beliefs ... hang on ... wait ... lol :) you are! :)

Yet you have nothing for your claims except hot air and gusto, no evidence whatsoever, so you flap your arms all over the place, sweaty palms as you thump the keys trying to divert attention from your absent magical man.

You call for evidence yet offer absolutely none. Empty hypocritical talk, it's all you have isn't it?

pot, meet kettle, mote, meet beam :)

Squeers

OK, you don't want to elaborate. Could you at least tell a "belligerent, rude swine" like me the name of the poem to which you refer. Then this "belligerent, rude swine" can figure out your cryptic comments herself.

"Every atom in your body came from a star that exploded. And the atoms in your left hand probably came from a different star than your right hand. It really is the most poetic thing I know about physics.

You are all stardust.

You couldn't be here if stars hadn't exploded. Because the elements, the carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, iron, all the things that matter for evolution weren't created at the beginning of time. They were created in the nuclear furnaces of stars. And the only way they could get into your body is if the stars were kind enough to explode.

So forget Jesus. The stars died so you could be here today."

Can't wait to see Lawrence Krauss at the 2012 Global Atheist Convention :)

Wow. Emotions do tend to get heated don't they
when discussing issues like politics, religion,
and even possibly football. What difference does it make
what each and everyone of us personally believes as
long as we don't try to force our opinions onto others.
I am a believer in God. But I don't feel a
compulsion to convert anyone to my point of view.

And, I'm going to go to
the Convention because I like to hear rationalism, clarity,
and intelligence in a debate. And, how else will we continue
to grow, if we keep our minds closed?

Anyway, we're not obligated to go - it's a matter of personal
choice. I will go up and introduce myself to David if I get
the chance to do so. I won't say "Hello," instead -
I'll say, "Labas David," (which means "Hello," in Lithuanian).

Lexi,

And I will respond with labas dienas to you also :o)

David

woot:>> You are all stardust.
You couldn't be here if stars hadn't exploded. Because the elements, the carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, iron, all the things that matter for evolution weren't created at the beginning of time. They were created in the nuclear furnaces of stars. And the only way they could get into your body is if the stars were kind enough to explode.<<

Woot I agree with all of that, but "what" was before the big bang. We know that "time" did not exist as such before the big bang, nothing to measure it against, but the concept of time does exist always, even if nothing counts its passing, time exists for a void as it does for an evolving universe.

The consideration that we know the start point of all we see means that there was a before, and that before is so alien to what physics teaches us is enough to keep my options open to how we got here.

Harking back to my comment about Dark Matter.
Is Dark Matter the framework that the elements that spewed forth from the big bang clung to, or did the Dark Matter spew forth from the bang along with the elements, we need Dark Matter for the physics to work and given that our existence seems now to have depended on the interaction of Matter and a “thing” we have called Dark Matter just further erodes the penchant that some have for glibly knowing that all is physics, whereas it should be physics is all we know.

I may be dismissive of creation scripts written thousands of years ago, but the concept that we were produced like yoghurt is not off the eventuality list.

Firstly, regardless of having the answers to 'what was before the big bang' question (or what is more correctly the sudden expansion of space-time) I have to point out simply because someone says a magic man did it, doesn't make their position more tenable.

Time is a naming convention we have used to mark a sequence of events.

Yes, I keep my options open to how 'we got here' as in the universe, but there is no need to postulate an all seeing, all-knowing, all loving super intelligence to have created it. The problem comes about once proving that the universe had a start (which there is no evidence for at all, simply that it could have been created from nothing) that that force is not just a simple force. Why postulate a 'designer'? That's a heck of a leap, to throw in a supernatural _intelligent_ force. All the arguments with regard a universe having a start have no evidence at all that it requires an intelligent start, total, unfounded speculation. Might as well say super leprechauns created everything. Just as much evidence for that as the god of the bible.

Everything we observe comes from simple processes.

Dear David,

To which you'll get a great big Lithuanian -
"Aciu," (Thank You!).
As well as a smile and a big hug.

Ammonite,
there is no poem! I was merely conceding that my post was "apparently" poetically cryptic. I was justifiably critical of the hyperbole in that first post by Borg1408--which you then extended and defended: Ammonite, Monday, 5 September 2011 11:24:40 AM, putting words in my mouth.
Atheist Footings then did the Spanish Inquisition thing, demanding an explanation, ex cathedra--shaking the very rafters above my humble head. Being loath to repeat myself, or dumb it down for zealots, I withheld, loosing broadsides of my own.
My references to Ditchkins and liberal rationalism indicated I was taking the side of Terry Eagleton, who coined the terms, in seeing Ditchkins' liberal rationalism as kin to the current economic order, which is wreaking far more havoc than the silly fundamentalists out there (whom Eagleton is also critical of).
The point I was making painfully obvious was that while you lot are busy demonising a few fanatical fundies, as if they were the root of all evil, you cheerfully, if blindly, condone the most rapacious (materially and ideologically) system the world has ever known. Dawkins and his mates know very well that modern Western lifestyles are not the "end of history" (except perhaps literally), even Fukuyama now acknowledges it, and that they cannot be sustained. And yet they gleefully support it and its free-market "technology" in the fight (feint) against climate change, third world misery etc.
Their stance is neither politically indifferent (in their anti-Islamic rhetoric), which would be bad enough, nor objective. Rather, they've parasitised the funding stream they've grown fat on, and developed their own popular kudos (celebrity status) into a mock-up ideology they find utterly compelling: atheism--the consummatum est of the enlightenment. As if it was anything in itself! Or more than a negation!
"Atheism The Way Forward"!
In what sense? All's right with the world so long as we're all rational optimists--who are above criticism!
It's an ideology perfectly suited to neoliberalism, indeed it's evolved symbiotically so that there's no conflict at all!
Dawkins is victim to his own memes, like all megalomaniacs--who somehow always also manage to get a following!

Ahh yes, all I can think of is the Courtiers Reply with regard Eagleton.

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/12/the_courtiers_reply.php

woot,
The link you provide utilises an exhausted parable (thus requiring pedantic overtones while saying nothing) and fails to address my criticism. Perhaps you'll save me the labour of reading the longer link and spell out the relevant bits, in your own word preferably, as I have. Can you think on your feet, or are all your defences prepackaged?
My position is not utterly derivative, from Eagleton, and I'm happy to argue on my own account. Are you?

woot,
So we came from exploding stars.
1. Where did the stars come from before they exploded?
2. How did so much oxygen finish up on the Earth from the super heated mass of exploding stars?

Could someone fill this ignorant atheist in, just how many gods are there? Is there just the one god or are there hundreds of gods. Are the gods of the Egyptians, Greeks, Romans etc still in play or did they pass their use by date. I understand the Hindu has hundreds of gods. Are all these gods relevant or just make believe.
The truth is god(s) has been very useful to some men (not that important to woman, as they don’t get much of a say in things as far as god goes) right from the time the first caveman clubbed his main rival to death and then proclaimed his ‘divine right to rule’. The ruling elite have been using god(s) to subjugate the masses, keep themselves in power and justify their actions. The clergy have been most willing of partners in this perversion. The subjugation is still going on today, all in the name of god/religion. It’s no accident that religions find their warmest home in the poorest of places, as it is there that they can manipulate the fears of the mass of ignorance and naturally take control.

Paul1405,
1. Does the universe operate together as unity or a diversity of small self initiated independent happenings?

2. Is there a unity in the natural diversity we witness on the Earth?

3. Is there a single designed progressive development to more complex being?

This will establish how many deliberate design powers influence first causes.

Squeers

Thank you for taking the time in your oh-so-busy life to explain the basis for your claims vis a vis Dawkins & Co.

I fear you are making gross inferences regarding my opinions. Will try to be clear:

1. I repeat: I do not agree with ALL Dawkins et al have to say regarding religion. But do find their questioning of great value.

2. Fundamentalists be they religious, political or of any ideological stripe are a danger. One cannot reason or negotiate with a fundamentalist - that is their nature.

3. I do not agree with Eagleton that Dawkins & Co are "self appointed" leaders of atheism, nor that they lack sufficient intellect and study to comment on religion. Using that logic, there is not a single poster on OLO qualified to comment on anything.

4. Nor do I see atheism as another ideology - we just don't take religion as, ahem, gospel.

5. I will be attending the Atheist Convention as I am the type of person who questions everything - I have even had the temerity to question YOU.

6. I do enjoy learning, even if it is at my own expense - such as I have experienced in attempting to debate with you.

And I enjoy a laugh:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NWKDOikIgIs

Ammonite: <I fear you are making gross inferences regarding my opinions>
I haven't made any inferences; I told you, I didn't read your posts and was responding to the thread's host.
I'm a big fan of Dawkins myself and have read and been edified by much of his stuff.
Your point 3 is a simplification of Eagleton's position. I do agree with Eagleton that Dawkins constructs a straw man of theology--though that's not my main criticism. You may please yourself. Why isn't Dawkins outspoken about other evils of our society?
I didn't say atheism was an ideology and agree that it's properly not. However, Ditchkins' charismatic roadshow effectively sells it as an ideology; an empty one that is part of a new wave Western triumphalism that, in its eagerness to exorcise religious demons, is oblivious of its own dark side and the numerous practical evils it elides.
Your other facetious comments miss the crucial fact that you instigated the tone of our exchange, and certainly haven't debated me.
Enjoy the conference.

woot makes his own point moot
""all the casimir effect does is prove
that there are virtual particles..that flit in and out of existence.""

ahh so you are experiencing a "virtual reality"
by means of "virtual particles'
this explasins much

you gotta watch that
that is usually drug induced

anyhow you got no proof re evolution
if you do..name that first life
name what it..'evolved' into

and maybe name the scientist what done it[lol]

natural selection..
isnt selection by science

you grasp at straws..using the links of straw
more off topic destraction..that actual faulsiyable proof

[mate try talking about the subject
not only what you got links to

AND DO TRY
TO USE YOUR OWN WORDS..!

your links dont relate to what your saying
and at best refute nothing comming from nothing
[nothing real
in virtual reality son]

your virtually a genus in ya dreams
but in cold hard reality you got a belief system

faith in science..as the new god head
[add that to your list of gods paul]...lol

Philo: I’m sorry I didn’t get back to you earlier on your questions and what they are eluding too, creation and how all is done by the guiding hand of god. So I’ll cut to the chase. I’ve been down to my local and consulted with those two bar flies Wazza and Nev on this very subject. When I asked Wazza what his thought of Moses, he reckons he’d be better off playing second row he’s wasted in the backs, but that’s another story. Nev was on his 10th schooner so he couldn’t shed that much light on the subject, if you know what I mean. Armed with the knowledge from Wazza and Nev I then went home and fastidiously read the holy book ‘The Book of Cyril’ one of the missing books of the bible, fortunately I have a copy. I then done a bit more of which I won’t go into detail as you might think I’m quite mad. I have now changed my position and have come to the conclusion that the Earth was created in 1963 at a quarter past two in the afternoon and it was on a Tuesday, and we are all under the control of the Giant Sloth which done it all. My explanation is just as valid as any explanation that god created the universe and he is the all knowing, all seeing being that controls everything. No one has to accept my explanation for creation, just as I don’t have to accept the god explanation, one is as logical as the other.

paul..your use of sar-casm
in lue of fact..validates much [not]

your integrity is now at stake

you say this..""fastidiously read the holy book ‘The Book of Cyril’ one of the missing books of the bible, fortunately I have a copy""

ok sunshine
present it

did your pal dorkins write it
is it for sale in the 'lobby'

it sounds nonsensical..and clearly is

but thats all you got
eh mate!

mate try to seriously think
apply yourself for just a moment

you have your faith in evolution
so mate NAME NAMES..name this first life
name what mutation involved it into the next genus YOU claim EVOLVED..lol

so stick to one topic[for once]
give some simple fact
not some obsure link for kiddies

IN YOUR OWN WORDS
wat was the first life...!
what changed/mutated..evolved
into a next evolution..

what specific genus
became what specific next genus

how?

any other than naming names
is avoiding the question

lets hear it in your own words..[lol]

Squeers

You are right - of course there has been no debate - you have chosen not to read anything I have written. This is a shame, I have as much right to express a thought as you. And I do read your posts and enjoyed many.

I do not believe I have oversimplified Eagleton at all - rather HE has done so to Dawkins and Hitchens. Eagleton has started his critique from the premise that these prominent atheists are starting from a point of complete ignorance of Christianity. Dawkins himself writes in the God Delusion that he refers to Christianity more than others because this is the religion with which he has the most familiarity. Nor does Eagleton address the impact of denying scientific evidence on the majority of religious followers. There are many religious people who manage to understand science and feel a connection with the numinous - they are not the problem Dawkins is identifying.

The problem is as I and others have expounded upon - it is the massive hurt and damage that a fundamentalist religious belief has done to humanity and continues to do. The claims by fundamentalists that god is an interventionist god and has a physical action on the world is pulling the esoteric into the natural world and therefore into the gaze of science.

Also, I find where people resort to demeaning others such as you have done to me and Eagleton has done to the names of Dawkins and Hitchens; in other words, if you cannot argue from a position of respect for the other, then you probably do not have a valid argument at all.

I may well be playful and provocative - that you interpret this as facetious is your choice and your misfortune.

Ammonite,
Utter tosh from beginning to end! You're like a petulant child and I can't be bothered responding in detail, again.
I usually do read yours and most posts, bot on this occasion I never got past the first, nor had I the time--not that I'm obliged to.

I am a non-theist, not a celebrant of an ideology.

Please feel free to have the last word..
That's it for me here--spoilers aren't welcome.

The age old question. What came first. The chicken or the egg. I think we humans will never know. I believe the universe has always been here and its also a never ending story of create and destroy. Just take the god way out and save yourselves a headache. Just kidding. My thoughts on this are, when stars die or goes super-nova, black holes are formed. I believe that these black holes will all join up over a set time, growing larger as more as more matter gets pulled in and then, the dense gravity with-in starts to pull more matter back in again, and once its consumed all it can, the monster black-hole compresses everything its eaten until the laws of space and time etc....Then the singularity reaches a critical point, "THEN! *BANG*! and it all starts again.

Its been doing this for all time.

See! No GOD need for the cock-tail of everything and life its self.

Cactus:)

Squeers

For someone who claims not to read my posts, you have set very firm judgements about me and others who merely disagree with some of your points.

Interesting if a little disappointing.

Oh come on, I post a link to something that the discussion reminds me of and the religionists jump all up and down about evidence.

But what evidence do they have for their claims?

Nothing. Absolutely nothing. Total, unadulterated, hypocrites.

To be asked after pointing out the elements come from the furnaces of stars "How did so much oxygen finish up on the Earth from the super heated mass of exploding stars?" just shows the absolute ignorance of even what is being argued.

Look at them all flapping their arms 'Don't look here! don't look here! I will divert attention from my absent god by asking others to prove scientific claims!!'

Bait and switch, why? because they have nothing. Notice not one will present the evidence for their claims.

Well, why couldn't it have been super magical super leprechauns that created everything? It's just as sensical as the religionists claims! lol

Quite simple, woot.

>>Well, why couldn't it have been super magical super leprechauns that created everything?<<

They'd be far too out-of-it on Guinness and poteen to design anything as remotely logical, structured and predictable as our planet, let alone our universe.

Oh, wait...

lol Pericles :) I am weighing up the possibilities.

There is also Pikkiwoki the Papua New Guinea mud god, and he is offering a pig and all the coconuts I can carry. Pretty tempting. Now you have thrown Guinness in the pot (or is that pint?).

Anyway, should I go with the idea that there could be a naturalistic explanation for everything? That it could be a simplistic process rather than an even more complex thing that caused the universe?

Or do I go with the idea that it is a magic man that also loves each and every one of us, including the 35,000 children under 5 he lets starve to death every day, based on 2000 year old bronze age fable from desert nomads, that builds upon stone age myth?

Gee, tough decision. I'm interested in the evidence of this magical man, considering the claimed properties are logical paradoxes. To actually believe in this thing will take some sort of evidence that it is even possible. Till then I don't believe in it, I can't make myself believe, therefore atheist.

Quite simple really. I don't quite understand how religionists find that so confronting.

It is interesting that Paul1405 initially posted about the 2012 Global Atheist Convention – ‘A Celebration of Reason’ event to let others know who may be interested to attend.

I have no idea who Paul1405 is but I do thank him for his contribution.

Since then, ideological conspiracies and dangers, abortion, and an assortment of non-compos mentis posts and such like, and it is difficult to tell the difference in some instances, have dominated this page.

No one is forcing anybody to attend. It is a freewill choice.

This is going to be the largest gathering of Freethinkers the world has ever witnessed. Just having the Four Horsemen together at one time on a stage had taken considerable effort to arrange. It will most likely never happen again.

The convention is an amalgamation of atheistic thought in a very pleasant and friendly atmosphere accompanied by fine cuisine.

If you wish to find out about atheism in today’s world and have a great time in doing so, there would be no better place to be.

http://www.atheistconvention.org.au/

David

Atheist Foundation of Australia Inc:
<ideological conspiracies and dangers, abortion, and an assortment of non-compos mentis posts and such like, and it is difficult to tell the difference in some instances, have dominated this page>

So constructive criticism is deemed to be not of sound mind? You're either with us, or you're against us eh? In which case you must be crazy?
However I for one have alluded to no conspiracy theories, only to Ditchkins and their disciple's ideological blindness and institutionalism--sorry if it's interrupted the publicity drive and fanfare.

<This is going to be the largest gathering of Freethinkers (sic) the world has ever witnessed>

I dare say a few will turn up--they're rare beasts--but they'll be lost in the crowd.

Interesting use of the word "constructive".

Squeers,

Raining on harmless or even beneficial parades is generally the work of misanthropic individuals. If waffle and not clear reasoning supports such raining then conspiratorial tendency might be present.

Either spell-out clearly the actual dangers of this convention or our communication is over as it is with others who demonstrate an irrational streak on this and other forums.

It is also finished if you say you have already.

David

I have yet to hear of one single bit of constructive criticism about the convention.

All it's been is folk saying 'something can't come from nothing .. therefore you should believe in a magic man in the sky'

Good luck with getting any real response AFA. The best you will get is some sort of response over how atheists gathering is like religion. (which makes anyone gathering over anything 'like religion')

OUG: Are you Presbyterian? They can never see the funny side of things. ‘The Book of Cyril’ straight out of Monty Pythons ’Life of Brian’. You said “It sounds nonsensical and clearly is some obscure link for kiddies.” I know of a book which is nonsensical and must have been written for kiddies. It’s got stories like Noah and his Ark, Jonah in the Big Fish, Adam and Eve, The Tower of Babel and lots more.
As for your question about naming names. Let me put it this way. I don’t know all the ins and outs of a Jumbo Jet but that’s not to say I don’t know it can fly. As I don’t know all that is to be known about the universe, evolution and such like not to say it was all done by god(s).
A few simple questions for you:
Where are heaven, hell, purgatory and limbo?
When did god create the devil?
Did Christ have a wife, brothers, sisters, and children?
Do you believe every word Mr. Ratzinger has to say on ‘religious’ matters

we welcome all to this FORUM
ie todiss or cuss..if you got no facts
and to reveal facts if you got them..then prepare to hear opposing positions.

we had paul here 2 years ago
where i asked him if there would be some transcripts
of who says what...[authoritive holy texts for athiests if you will]

'religeonists'..have put their creed into words
and while i disagree with how they run things..carefull study of just one text..allows those who want to find the good[of god]..hidden in the words..[to wit seek and find]

so i will once again ask for transcripts
[why?]..because so much gets lost
in the selectivism..of athiestic collectivism's
[buy my latest book...lol]

on big idea [abc]..today i caught a debate on god
i noted the athiest[peter]..does much hand waving..and talks extensivly on religeon...there was an opposing side presented by someirish dude[john]

i lost my notes of the debate..
but peter..has it down to 3 points[i think]

that religeon depends on location
[though what that has to do with god..who knows?]
[as the bible reveals its god who is omnipresent[thus inside athiest etc as much as inside every living thing]

his other point was if god is so good
who does he allow bad things...[god dont..as the bible says
that we do to the least..we do TO GOD..sustaining them..their life as well]

i note catus point here..[re the egg/chicken thing'
the egg came first..chickencs come from eggs]
i like his big bang theory too

[god survives pre and post each big bang..
by virtue of not being material...and eternal

though of course with no matter
at the point of inversion..[by change of state]..
to carry the bang[noise]....

bang is materialistic terminology]
but what else to expect..from you lot of materialists

jesus talked EXCLUSIVLY of spirit matters
to apply huh/man logic to the eternal things is just childish

science has taught us that there is logic
[here again we can thank god]

and woven in the bibiphilic thesis collectivly
we get glimpses of the great good..

[god is one]..all good grace/mercyfull etc]

i note the moot woot
wont dare mention the first life
[how pathetic..

at least the bible gives a starting point]
and is talking about a process[in theory]..called evolution

although NOT one scientific mind..
has EVER observed it nor done it..thus those deneying god by it
are as foolish as those who think there is nothing in it..[religeon]

they are luckey god has grace and mercy etc
cause if it was me..i would simple abandon them
who deney the One LIFE GIVER...

[noting that science has *never made life..
and if the facts reveal one thing..
LIFE COMES ONLY FROM LIFE]

your fathers living sperm
with your mothers LIVING egg
CREATED YOU..so live with it..

and..at least...thank your parents
for YOUR CREATION

and thank god
that..he created theirs

AHHHH men
lol

Oh I love how OUG makes all these claims about this god, none of it supported outside of fable.

The hypocrisy doesn't end there, with christian writers the first to jump in to make some money if someone writes anything that goes against their cash cow, while OUG snipes because some atheists books are popular the religionists are raking it in.

roll up roll up, jesus the money spinner!

Look at Amazon, near a million books on religion .. and whats the largest group in there? Christianity by a mile.

roll up, roll up, the hypocrisy is astounding.

Cactus:
1. Where did the DNA come from for life on Earth?

2. Why is the Earth unique in its support for life?

3. Is your mind capable of an original thought or creation?

4. Is it possible it reflects a greater mind in the Universe?

woot,
You have all the science you like to argue your case. Dont make wild opinionated claims supposedly based in science.

Until you can demonstrate your Godless reality in real time, I'll continue to believe otherwise. There is purpose and design in the universe though you prefer to believe otherwise. Maybe your beliefs are to suit your random unintelligible actions.

See, the religionists point at questions and say 'If you do not have the answer to this, my claim for a super-magical-ouscalifragelistic space leprechaun is TRUE!'

Where is your evidence for your claims?

Come on, show us the evidence that :

1/ a naturalistic explanation is not possible

2/ a supernatural explanation is the only possible answer

3/ it is the god of the bible you claim.

In the meantime, flapping your arms in the air and trying to divert from your claims is ridiculous. Evolution could be wrong, people may have no idea what created DNA or life, but it does not make your claims true by default.

Show us the evidence for your claims, and stop the hypocritical diversions, the bait and switch from the emptiness of the vacant god you are claiming.

Stop being hypocritical and step up to the table and do what you are asking of others. Show us your evidence.

Philo, I am not claiming there is no god, I am simply claiming I am atheist, that I have no belief in one.

That's true.

I gave an interesting example in discussion of a scientist that states something can come from nothing, with evidential support.

Even if he is wrong, which he could very well be, it will not make me suddenly a believer in a god.

I have nothing to 'support' in atheism, atheism simply means I have no belief in YOUR claims of a god. I don't need to have answers to life, the universe or everything to state your lack of evidence does not convince me of your claims.

This vacant god is just that, and people like yourself present nothing to support your claims, whilst flapping your arms, typing out how everyone else doesn't have evidence that shows how life started, or the universe started, so therefore your fantasy must be true.

That is just hypocritical to the max, and shows a complete misunderstanding of what atheism is.

A lack of belief in your claims of a god. I don't believe you, convince me or stop whining.

woot,
Where can I see the something that came from a non existing reality?

Unlike religion, science does not claim to have all the answers. As a result it can continue to explore, research and add to its knowledge base.

Of one thing I am sure if the universe came into being by a sentient being rather than from some other process, there is no evidence that it was the god described by the Abrahamic religions during a period when humans believed the earth was the centre of the universe.

Quite simply the actions attributed to this god reveal a very flawed manipulative being not capable treating his so called highest creation with respect (mankind) let alone set a process of planets, stars, black holes, galaxies, dark matter and possible multiple universes into creation.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FeXUMKd-CjY&feature=relmfu

"Unlike religion, science does not claim to have all the answers. As a result it can continue to explore, research and add to its knowledge base........Now that's about the best advice "all" peoples need to hear.

Religion....all the findings are in one book. Not much room to expand, but that was not its true reason, why it was made:)

*You can keep monkeys at bay, by putting a stuffed lion at the water hole*:)

Religion is what it is, and nothing else.

It helps the weak, and its helps it self.

Their just in the people business.

With No tax.

How sweet do you want a business:)?

cactus:)

Philo : "Where can I see the something that came from a non existing reality?"

Hang on, that is what you are claiming. I'm not. I am saying there is no reason to say that naturalistic explanations are impossible. You are.

Why could not the nothing we know of as a quantum foam have always existed?

I put forward a video that explains this by one of the worlds leading physicists, what is meant by nothing and how we see things pop in and out of existence all the time. These particles have been shown to exist in the laboratory.

This is a lot more evidence than you are providing, it's not saying it has the answer, only that we can observe and test this phenomena. It occurs.

BTW where is your evidence a magical super entity created everything out of nothing? You claim something always existed, that this something is intelligent and controls everything, and is your god. Where is your evidence for ANY of this? At best you are saying something must always have existed, but you are not showing any evidence at all that it must be intelligent and not just a simple force.

Nada, zilch, and it continues, the only way you can deal with it is to divert attention from your claim. Show us the evidence for it.

I will happily change my position shown the evidence. Until then I cannot believe in something with none. I am atheist, just like 1 in 5 other Australians.

A startling revelation god isn’t god, rather he is a she, yes god is a goddess.
“ The Rig Veda describes this "arising" as a divine whim or play of the Supreme. The creation that occurs is Mother (maya), the divine whim (Shakti) is also Mother and the absolute formless ground of being is, again, Mother. We can grab hold of her skirt at any point along this timeless expression of the Divine and, if we hold on tightly, She will dispel our illusions and deliver us to the blissful and peaceful realization of Divine Truth.” Grad hold of her skirt, more like get a grip on reality;
Believers please answer one simple question for me. Is there one god or are there many gods? I won’t hold my breath waiting for an answer.

Atheist Foundation of Australia Inc,
your supercilious tone is hardly calculated to cajole me into further elaborations, so I shall desist, but thank you for the constructive criticism.
hMMM, "Misanthropic"...
..Well yes I suppose I am, to a point anyway---loved Hermann Hesse's Steppenwolf.
But don't you think philanthropy and humanism, like religion, are a tad obsessive? Even narcissistic? ...What would Diogenes say?
I don't understand all this obsessing over God--yes no, who cares? it's academic! It's so self-important! Especially since there are "real" problems in the here and now that need addressing--not window dressing.
But what would I know? And Ditchkins mercifully takes the "freethinker's" mind off of all of that.
...On to "what" exactly, I couldn't tell you. And I doubt you could tell me.
Diogenes'd know..
..But never mind all that.

...ON WITH THE SHOW THIS IT!!
Break a leg!

Ammonite/fossil:) I have totally underestimated you. Jane Goodall/any anthropologist, would recommend those brilliant brain cells of yours, be put in the archives for all time. The reason for the complement is, that I think the world just moved ever so slightly, one more tooth, in the cog of life. I might be a head of myself, but it wont be the first time:)

Funny old world.

They were fine words, and the link....believe it or not.....I just played it...then wrote this post.

Like I said to OUG, " Just one day at a time.

Thanks.

Cactus

I'll take up the challenge, Paul. There is one god.

Now that I've made the claim, I'll clarify. I have no evidence for this. I don't know it. It's merely a belief, backed up by personal experiences. I'm aware that, had I been brought up another way, I'd probably interpret those experiences differently. I might interpret them in a way that suggested many gods or none. And, while the real me would consider this hypothetical me to be wrong, that's fine. The hypothetical me might pity the real me's ignorance. I'm not sure if any of that makes sense at all.

The reality is that the existence of God is unprovable. Many have tried - perhaps most notably St Thomas Aquinas - but attempts to prove the existence of God inevitably rely on logical fallacies and easily combated assertions. They raise interesting discussions, and I give Aquinas an A for effort and another A for zeal, but his proofs in themselves don't convince me - and I believe in God.

Furthermore, questions like 'where did DNA come from?' are interesting, but neither prove the existence of God nor discredit the oppositional argument. Again, I applaud Philo for the effort, but I think these questions are counterproductive and unfair. If we find a clear answer to that question - e.g. 'event X gave rise to the molecule Y, which in conditions Z gave rise to DNA', the natural question that will emerge will be 'how did X, Y and Z come about?'. And we'll be in the same place we were before.

The thing is, I'm comfortable with my beliefs, and I have confidence in them. I'm also comfortable that other people disagree with me. I don't mean them any harm and they don't mean me any harm. If I had the means to get to the convention, and if my (Catholic) employer gave me time off, I would go. If it changed my outlook, that's fine. If it strengthened my current position, that's also fine. Life's all about new experiences and challenges - that's what makes it interesting, right?

I was wondering what the world would be like if suddenly everyone stopped believing in God/s.
(Dawkins would be out of a job for a start :)

But seriously, what differences would you envisage, and would they impact Western rapaciousness which seems to have zoomed along since the Enlightenment?

I've noted a fair amount of faux offence taken on this thread on the question of what atheism represents and its potential to address humanity's challenges. I think it's fair to assume that a convention celebrating atheism may have some clear ideas on the sort of difference that could be made in the material realm of human interaction with each other and the planet.

(I'm not religious, btw)

Otokonoko....you don't have to prove anything. Truth is, and you all remember the definition of truth:) right! its a finding thing, that humans do, like me, and humans like you....there is No difference.

Belief is what happened millions of years ago to what I understand. There was a transitional period, where we broke through the animal EVO lines, and it happens. Thing is, Humans will manipulate what ever gives them an advantage. Well clap, clap...............we are all human:) Thats a good thing really.

:) What I know, took me 30 years of non stop study:) But that makes a DE-fective DNA understanding, we all have it.

Humans:) your/we/All and I, are a funny bunch:)

Like Atheism, its just a human thought of why all is, and its a healthy thought process.

GOD? you can have one, but don't let it get to your heads....that's when its more than it is, and people Do die:) because of it.

I do go on sometimes:)

But after all the unreal and real is canceled out, what do you have left?

cactus

Otokomoko: I applaud your post. The difference between your position and mine is you say there is one god, I say there is no god. I have a greater problem with religious organizations, from my first hand experience, particularly the Catholic Church, and others. I don’t see them as benign do-gooders who cause no problem, but rather sinister and evil out to subjugate the people of this planet. Unlike others within religions I don’t have a dislike for one against the other, Christian, Islamic, Jewish, Hindu, Buddhist etc some at the moment are worse than others but my view is they should all be given the boot.
Poirot makes an interesting comment: “ I was wondering what the world would be like if suddenly everyone stopped believing in God/s.” I would say if structured religions were to disappear instantly then over time the belief in god(s) would decline, as one of the major functions of religions is to maintain that belief within society and they do this first through indoctrination of the young and by being highly visible and commenting on this that and the other thing. Mr Ratzinger would soon be forgotten if all he did was sit in his basilica in Rome and said nothing. Religions say, You can’t get rid of us, we bring order and stability to society, we give people purpose in life, without us you will have chaos and anarchy.” To that I say the Nazi’s could have said the same thing. I believe if we cut out the cancer of religion the patient won’t die, rather the patient will get better.

"I don't understand all this obsessing over God--yes no, who cares? it's academic!"

No it's not. For one it is not an obsession over god, but a response to the claims that religionists make that give them rights above and beyond others in our society based on those claims. Of course the privileged are getting all uppity over it, the masses of sheeple called on to 'defend the faith'.

From what I as a member know, the AFA believes all government laws and policies should benefit all members of society, not just those who adhere to a particular religious faith - even when that religion holds a majority position. As such, all government decisions should be based on empirical evidence rather than religious beliefs. Inquiry and doubt are essential checks against deception, self deception, and error.

Logic and proper empirical method is the only way the whole world can arrive at an agreement on the truth about anything.

This is the major goal that I see in approaching the issues of faith. Not to remove it, but to have it put in its proper place of simply a belief with no evidence.

Meanwhile religionists squark, pointing at Dawkins and saying such absurd things like he would be out of a job if there was no religion, (totally ridiculous considering his actual job) when he is just one of many many voices articulating the issues, approaching the foundational beliefs of the privileged so that we may move forward.

woot makes his own point moot

""I put forward a video that explains this by one of the worlds leading physicists,..what is meant by nothing..

..*and how we see things pop in and out of existence
all the time.""

this alone validates what religeonists
have been saying for 1000's of years

they also predicted the 'XY' chromosone
recall adam...male..thus 'Xy'...

god..cloned his future wife eve..[XX]
making for him his sister..[but the guy was too dumb to know it THEN]

god is NEITHER male nor female
not XX nor Xy...[also he is unseen..EXCEPT
that we may know 'him/her"..by his sign..[to wit the seen..]
like woof woof's moot point..

seeing,..""things pop in and out of existence
all the time.""

its well in the record..that genesis..PREDICTED much
that science has yet to refute..[and only seems to confirm]

to wit the let there be light moment..[BIG BANG]..
and behold god saw it was good

im noting that these Athiests..
dont got much answers

lol

THEY KNOW...society has been missled..by religeonists
but now seek the next form of belief[dissbelief]

and for this i have created
JUST for you david/paul and moot woot
a NEW WORD...[by devine inspiration]

recall the word...theogonia..[god beggetting]
my new word is atheo-gonia..[athiestic beggeting]

as opposed to theodicy
and theogeny

call it theodike
that theophainein
revealed to the theosophos
as the theogeny..for the athegonia

anyhow you crop of athiests...dont got much evi-dense
and all your revealing..is wasted effort..turning into nothing
and not even DARING to produce a transcript[ie putting it into writing]

faulse imagry
and faulse idols
to try to manifest a new age of rage

same as the old one
with a new head

[what does that remind me of]
three heads regrow?

Otokonoko

Thank you for your post. Like Paul1405, I have no problem with people believing in a god or gods for that matter - just the baggage of religion that distorts the ideal of a god and has resulted in the consequences we see around us.

I don't believe simply because there is no evidence - wouldn't take much, but would have to be something useful like world peace - not a burning bush - my magician cousin can do that.

Squeers your posts have reached a crescendo of hysteria. You are intelligent enough to know what this does to one's credibility.

Smiling Cactus, I accept your words with grace.

To woot, Paul1405, I'll be wearing a red carnation.

Ammonite,

"Squeers your posts have reached a crescendo of hysteria. You are intelligent enough to know what this does to one's credibiity."

Talking of credibity....I've been entertained by following the technique that you've perfected in prostrating yourself as the chastened victim while simultaneously baiting your opponent, who in this case was Squeers.
(It appears the first "demeaning" reference between the two of you was fired from you to him - 'lame" and "abysmal")

Now, to me, you usually make a hell of a lot of sense on this forum. I have a lot of time for the goodness of your heart. However, I think you were perfectly aware what Squeers was getting at, yet you chose to play games with him.

Do you believe that an atheist paradigm could make a positive contribution to the way humans interact with each other and the planet? What do you envisage coming into being in an atheist paradigm that would enhance humanity? (as opposed to just sweeping something else away)

If you are able to catch ABC's Big Ideas - Is There A God? - on IView, the debate between Peter Singer and John Lennox proved most interesting. Some excellent delivery from both in the debate.

http://www.abc.net.au/tv/bigideas/stories/2011/09/06/3310342.htm

The question to be asked is religion inherently more dangerous or more good in creating a values framework for some people. Like Ammonite, I don't have a problem with religious beliefs only overt proselytising and undue influence on governments.

There is room in society for a variety of beliefs. Indeed Christianity manages to accommodate 1000s of different versions.

One day I might make it to an Atheist Conference but I still find the concept bewildering, despite acknowledging a benefit in ensuring that religious agendas don't dictate government policy at the expense of a more tolerant secular society. As long as the Atheists also remain tolerant.

The Atheist 'movement' might be seen as a byproduct or reaction to the already strong influence of some religious lobby groups. The positioning of Chaplains into public schools is one such example.

As long as Atheism is not distorted or become oppressive in dictating what others should and should not believe other than through education and a growing profile, in the same way that theists have always sought to influence, I cannot see any harm. People can make their own choices.

Poirot,
A good point. Atheism is merely a negative view and contributes nothing to enhance culture and society.

Because the diversity of the Universe operates as a unit there is only one God.

Poirot

I took umbrage at Squeers depiction of Dawkins & Co - and responded. I do believe being told I should've understood his cryptic clues from the onset (with the implication that I am somehow gauche if I couldn't) as being deserving of comment and chose to be similarly obtuse. My choice. You don't approve. Fine. That is what this forum is all about.

I don't see atheism as the broom to sweep away religion - philosophy fills the role of establishing values. Atheism is not anti-theism, but just a non-belief in a deity (or deities). This gets lost, and I despair that the word itself has become distorted.

I am pleased to hear from the Federal government that now schools can choose between a chaplain or qualified counsellor and funding will provided for either. That is fair and reasonable and is what I strive to be - albeit unsuccessfully at times or merely not succinct enough and, therefore, open to misinterpretation. Good intentions, if not good outcomes.

But now you have Philo interpreting your comment as atheism being all about a negative world view. Do you agree? With him?

PS

Pelican - thank you for link.

Ah my champion, Poirot!
And they are the sorts of questions I've been driving at; what is the poltical/philosophical/ideological agenda of the Atheist front? Ditchkins's is the conservative establishment, if not downright reactionary..

"crescendo of hysteria" Ammonite?
Not a touch hyperbolic?

Just popping out to the local mad house--seriously--to meet a coleague though, and not to treat my hysteria : )

Ahh OUG, I see you look at scientific advances and attribute them to interpretations of your bibble. People do that with nostradamus too, with allah, with vishnu, and I must say with greater effect.

But again, you offer nothing but trying to divert to an attack on those that do not believe your vacuous claims. madly flapping your arms with cries of 'look look at the lack of evidence from the atheists to prove my god does not exist!' trying to hide the fact you have NONE yourself by pointing at others, trying to state they are making a claim.

Simply put, you have no evidence for your position and rather than face that it is much easier for you to try and make out atheism to have the same faults your absent god concept has. You throw your hands up in the air calling for evidence, while producing absolutely none for you claims. A hypocritical methodology if ever I saw one.

Yet atheism is not a stance on anything. It is simply a lack of a belief in a god. You work with sweaty palms thumping out on your keyboard to try and make it into the empty edifice of claims you yourself hold, because you know such a position is weak.

I do not have to accept any science to be atheist. I can say I don't know what created the world, the universe or life, I would still be atheist because I do not accept your claims of a god. The claims of science are not the claims of atheism, they simply threaten your lack of evidence.

That is something you just can't handle nor get your head around. lol Hey, you are only fooling yourself.

Ammonite,

I'm an atheist. I don't believe that it's a negative world view, and I agree that philosophy fills the role of establishing values (be nice if we could agree on which philosophy, though).
It seems, however, that Dawkins and Co. are taking on their own "bandwagon" persona.

I agree that atheism is just the non-belief in deities. Why then all the bells and whistles of a convention if there's no (as Squeers puts it)philosophical/political/ideological agenda?
If there's no other specific ideological agenda on the future course of atheism, what more can it be about than gathering together with an end to removing religion (as if it could) which, of course, is also an agenda...or is it really just a celebration of non-belief?

This planet and its human cargo has some pressing issues, yet no one seems to want to address the projected promise of an atheist paradigm and what it might mean for our future.

Poirot

I will give you a full report after the convention. Unlike Squeers I do not believe that a selection of science and philosophical speakers is an attempt to create a religion of atheism. As I am sure you are aware, atheists only agree on one thing.

As Dawkins said organising atheists is like trying to herd cats - I believe that independent thought is very much the hallmark of the atheist - as has been demonstrated here.

I was once subscribed to an atheist website where I got into furious argument with a male atheist who was against abortion - just about any form of abortion - he did concede that if the pregnant woman had been raped by her father, maybe that was acceptable. I found a great deal of misogyny and narrow mindedness there - also there were very few female atheist posters. I prefer forums where there is a more diverse range of people. On OLO at least for all the Runners and Philos we have people like Lexi and Otokonoko.

And I am aware that you are an atheist also - but we don't always have to agree. That is the point.

Philo

Religion means adhering to limited thought. You demonstrate that very well.

Poirot, I did answer, here it is again plus some more :

From what I as a member know, the AFA believes all government laws and policies should benefit all members of society, not just those who adhere to a particular religious faith - even when that religion holds a majority position. As such, all government decisions should be based on empirical evidence rather than religious beliefs. Inquiry and doubt are essential checks against deception, self deception, and error.

Logic and proper empirical method is the only way the whole world can arrive at an agreement on the truth about anything.

This is the major goal that I see in approaching the issues of faith. Not to remove it, but to have it put in its proper place of simply a belief with no evidence.

- If religion did not have the influence in politics, education and society as it did, the AFA would not exist. Non believers would not feel it necessary to confront its claims.

- The convention theme is a Celebration of Reason, this is what we are doing.

- The convention is raising the fact atheists exist, it is ok to be an atheist and you can be good without god. As non believers we are working toward strengthening secularism, which protects the religious and non religious alike. That takes confronting the beliefs and faith that are the basis for religious privilege and showing it to be nothing more than a belief.

pelican,

“As long as Atheism is not distorted or become oppressive in dictating what others should and should not believe other than through education and a growing profile, in the same way that theists have always sought to influence, I cannot see any harm. People can make their own choices.”

There is a massive amount of religious propaganda around concerning that very point. However if fails to take into account that people who are without a god are a very diverse bunch who have made the decision independently because of the lack of evidence for supernaturalism.

Attempting to have atheists conform to a mass movement ideal of say, gulags or forced re-education systems for religious folk would not be possible. Atheists do not want people to be atheists unless that is a freely chosen stance.

But atheists would like to give all citizens the right to an ideologically indoctrination-free upbringing so the adult can make its own choices as to whether it wants to be religious or not.

The irony here is that it is mainly the fear-mongers promoting the idea that atheism is some kind of an ideological threat, who are the very people supporting religious ideology in an unfair manner as though they have an inherent right to do so.

All ideas in society should be open to criticism and perceived unfairness corrected. Ideas that affect others must be based on empirical evidence not the beliefs of even a majority if those beliefs are not supported empirically.

So, have no fear about atheism getting out of hand when it is comprised of individuals from the bottom up. It is ideologies that are forced onto populations from the top down which present a danger to society.

That is why a secular nation, such as Australia, needs to protect its secular ideals and not buckle under to religious politicians or faith-driven lobby groups who do not have the interest of everyone at heart.

David

woot/...""atheism is not a stance on anything.""

yet at his next post

""This is the major goal that I see
in approaching the issues of faith.

Not to remove it, but to have it put
in its proper place..of simply a belief with no evidence.""

it would be futile to point out the holy yext
is an evidence..[even if you fail to see it as such]

but you continue
with these "major goals"
and.....""atheism is not a stance on anything.""

""-If religion did not have the influence in politics,
education and society as it did, the AFA would not exist.""

to wit goal one to eliminate
''the influence'

""Non believers would not feel it necessary
to confront its claims.""

yet as your ongoing posts indicate
you ""..feel it necessary
to confront its claims.""

""-The convention theme is a Celebration of Reason,"'

to wit goal 2 is to balance 'un-reason'

""this is what we are doing.""
to wit not ignoring nothing
cause your trying to limit 'something'

""-The convention is raising the fact atheists exist,""

gee..there is 'something'..we couldnt have guessed
a copnvenmtion to get together a group
who believe others are beliving...in 'nothing'

[adgenda 3..to get these believing in nothing
tio believe in something..based not on abolute fact
but by books..WHOLE BIG BOOKS on why something[my belief]..is a belief in 'nothing"

""is it is ok to be an atheist""

sure believe or dont believe
thats your choice

but dont forget..your first c-lame is
you dont believe in nothing..that that something i chose to believe in is nothing

SO MUCH SO..david threatens to re-educate me..
to believe in nothing

""and you can be good without god.""

do you got any evidense?

""..As non believers"'[believing in nothing
""we are working toward strengthening secularism""
ie nothing,

""which protects the religious
and non religious alike.""

except where david threatens to
re?..de-educate us?
till we believe nothing?

""That takes confronting the beliefs and faith
that are the basis for religious privilege..and showing it to be nothing more than a belief.""

in nothing

lol

continues

woot/.....""look at the lack of evidence from the atheists
to prove my god does not exist!'...trying to hide the fact you have NONE yourself..by pointing at others,

trying to state..they are making a claim""

lol
your so putting so much thought
into my belief in 'nothing'.

so much saying to reveal nothing

""Simply put,you have no evidence for your position""
and you have plenty of evidense
for nothing...lol

'"and rather than face that
it is much easier for you to try and make out..atheism to have the same faults..your absent god concept has.""

im agruing for something
your arguing you got nothing

we all know the proof you got
nothing

""You throw your hands up in the air
calling for evidence,while producing absolutely none..for you claims.""

my god has told our messengers..that what a man choses to believe or NOT believe..is HOLY...wholy sacred..i am willing to not give you proof that your in error

mate your a child[I was an athiest for most of my life
in my own time i sought info..to REFUTE the liars
instead i found proof
[god ALLOWS us to believe in him OR NOT}
till he realised i SOUGHT to know of him
he politely stayed away

""A hypocritical methodology if ever I saw one.""
try it someday

its not till you realise..YOUR not doing anything
that you seek to know him who does it all

""Yet atheism is not a stance on anything.
It is simply a lack of a belief in a god.""

says the child
immature in his faith
and trusting only his own omnipotance..lol

i listen to you..
yet hear the younger me..its sad and funny

both at the same time
i..but for time..was you

lol

OUG atheism is a lack of belief in the god or gods claims, that is all, it is the only thing atheists have in common. It's not a claim. (oh btw where is the evidence for your claim? sidestepped much? LOL)

Outside of that disbelief, there are many things some atheists have in common, and those that are concerned over similar things work together in that regard. So what. I know religious people working on the same things I do against the same religious structures I am. Muslims, jews, christians or non believers are involved in the FIRIS campaign as just one example.

By all means show me that your god could possibly exist and I will change my opinion, but in the meantime you have nothing. It's just empty air and all you can do is try to get a rise out of atheists that are pretty much laughing at the type of methodology you are using to deal with that lack of evidence you have. You missed the train, life, science and human intellect is moving ahead, there is no controversy ... there is just a few people like you that claim to speak for many :)

The mentality you have in asking for evidence that you can be good without a belief in a god just shows the bigotry some religious people have, that you cannot even accept that from your life experiences. I think the vast majority of religious people are not like you, and I love it when people such as yourself speak up the way you are as that reinforces why disbelievers have problems with religion. I'm not out to convince YOU, I just want to raise awareness of what non believers have to put up with. You are part of that mechanism.

So keep flapping your arms, writing stuff that is near impossible to discern what you are trying to say, you are doing an awesome job of putting forward the religious perspective :) hats off to you, and thank you :)

You work with sweaty palms
thumping out on your keyboard
to try and make it into..the empty athiest edifice of claims
about the NOTHING..

you yourself hold,

because you know
such a position is weak.

every action has a cause
energy cant be CREATED..nor destroyed

so where does the electrical image of you go
when you die?

""I do not have to accept..any science
to be atheist.""

yep i noted that
lol..only too easy to..*chose to be ignorant

""I can say I don't know what created the world,
the universe or life,..I would still be atheist
because I do not accept your claims of a god.""

im not claiming anything
only asking for explaining..

but clearly
you dont know what..you chose*..to not know of

im trying to help a child comprehend
about a thing/subject..so far..they chose to ignore

""The claims of science are not the claims of atheism""

we agree..!

"",they simply threaten your lack of evidence.""

i got my OWN proof
by my OWN chosing

you got your own..lACK of proof/belief
*by your own chosing

is That is something..you just can't handle
nor get your head around...lol

Hey, you are only fooling yourself.lol

great words
right back at ya
[me]..lol

David

The religious propaganda about atheism does verge on the hysterical at times and the reasons are obviously self-fulfilling. Religious leaders are flailing about to protect losing ground. The nonsense surrounding Ethics Clases and risks to Chaplains in schools are good examples.

While I agree the risk of 'threat' from atheists is small I did note:

"But atheists would like to give all citizens the right to an ideologically indoctrination-free upbringing so the adult can make its own choices as to whether it wants to be religious or not."

Many would argue this right belongs to parents. How would you impose this indoctrination-free upbringing? The reality is it is neither possible nor desirable to prevent parents from raising kids within their own ideological framework.

Every parent manipulates and guides their children to their base values. There are all sorts of indoctrinations from parents. I raised my kids to respect environment,to be respectful and egalitarian, and threw in some Centre/Left ideology in their somewhere. My children have managed to form their own very individual set of beliefs, some different to mine, when they entered adulthood. I experienced the same with my family.

I don't have a problem with an Atheist 'counterfoil' to religious influences. But Atheism like any other belief can be at risk of extremism. Why wouldn't it not be? Much depends on the players. It does not hurt to engage in some self-checking or self-examination even for atheists.

As you said atheists and theists are not homogenous groups.

Events like Atheists Conventions are fine and allow like-minded people to discuss ethics, philosophy, science and reason but I would hate to see it morph into something more. I don't think atheism is a 'threat' at all in Western democracies thanks to commonly accepted and cherished beliefs (many enshrined in Law) about freedom of speech, democracy, secularism and tolerance.

Pelican

Do you think that atheists could be coerced by similar power seeking types who have taken advantage of much in religion?

I tend to the optimistic, that atheists by their nature are not susceptible to too much authoritarian grandstanding. For example, I take some of what Christopher Hitchens has to say with a grain of salt - he has a rather traditional attitude to women and supported the war in Afghanistan.

And that's the point, atheists are just as likely to disagree with each other, let alone with religious people.

In conclusion, all the above makes the claims of atheism as a controlling ideology sound like faux warnings from people with vested interests in undermining atheism.

pelican,

I’ve said it so often I tend to take it for granted and sometimes don’t explain it properly. I am speaking of secular governments who would neither assist nor detract from religious adherents doing whatever they like as long as it is legal.

As for parents indoctrinating their children with their own world view, I am sure will become more of topical interest as we head into the future. Many parents don’t see such indoctrination as that at all, nor do they realise that is exactly what it can be. But as social knowledge grows such indoctrination will become more evident to a greater number of people. This is happening now. Many people are presently very aware that implanting messages in children could have life long effects and take care with what those messages are.

It would be unethical to force parents to take this into account and it would also be unworkable anyhow. Unless there is a government controlled camera in every room in every house such a law would be unworkable. Shades of 1984

Atheists would be the last group of people, if you can even call them a group, to vote for such an invasion of privacy.

The greatest political protection all of the population can benefit from it a secular democratic system. That is what atheism today is all about.

David

"every action has a cause
energy cant be CREATED..nor destroyed"

Exactly, yet you claim this of your super intelligent magical man that made everything.

Myself, I'll go with the evidence and science of the matter. ATM I think the most interesting, yet still not claim it as a truth, is that a quantum foam has always existed. Interesting eh? Tho it does lack the fire and brimstone of talking donkeys, snakes and burning bushes from the bronze age, I admit.

"so where does the electrical image of you go when you die?"

What electrical image of us are you talking about? There is no 'image of us', the workings of our brain are a result of the parts. The way you put it, everything would have an 'electrical image' that floated off into lala land after it died. A heaven of amoeba's and bacteria.

"lol..only too easy to..*chose to be ignorant"

Well yes it is and you chose the easy path, just throw a god into the gaps and claim your not ignorant because you have an answer!

There is nothing wrong with being open minded and realistic about the possibilities, there is no need to have to have the answers immediately .. unless of course you are religious. You claim to have the answer to life, the universe and everything! It's simply a magical man! And anyone who says they don't believe in your magical man, well, they are obviously out to undermine the magical man!

Well, show us the evidence for it. Otherwise it's just simply more hot air, stamping of feet, flapping of arms, sweating of palms staring into the screen with your nose right up against it, huffing and puffing ... empty, hot air.

Indoctrination comes in myriad forms. Children are indoctrinated most days of the year into a programmed pattern of behaviours and expectations just by going to school. This prepares them to join and participate in consumer culture. There was a time before such formalised educational indoctrination was the norm....we don't question it these days because it's almost beyond us to imagine an alternative model.

There is no indoctrination-free human paradigm.

"controlling ideology"...don't kid yourselves, you're imemrsed in it - and it doesn't necessarily involve religion.

Poirot

I am fully aware of being a product of late 20th and early 21st century western ideology. No argument there.

As for being an atheist - I just don't believe in a supreme deity - that's all. No hidden agendas, no fine print.

I have met atheists I utterly loathe and religious people who are among my dearest friends.

Atheism has no ideology to control anything.

I am running out of analogies, I'll try this; people claiming atheism is an ideology are like people claiming not collecting stamps is a hobby.

That’s it. I can’t keep quite anymore.

Sorry, but to gloss-over the indoctrination into something as mentally stifling, potentially harmful and just downright poisonous as religious belief, just because there are forms of “indoctrination” that we don't question these days due to the fact that it’s almost beyond us to imagine an alternative model, is absurd.

Religious indoctrination is done BECAUSE there is an imaginable alternative and it is done in spite of it; it is done deliberately to prevent a mind from accepting or even considering that clear-as-day alternative.

There is a big, big difference between teaching uncritically because we can no longer imagine an alternative to present as criticism of the status quo and deliberately teaching with the intent of discouraging others from even considering the alternatives.

To conflate the two is asinine.

AJPhilips,

Of course, we can "imagine" an alternative to mass education (indoctrination) and excessive consumerism, but any alternative would turn the system on its head - so we pretend it isn't indoctrination at all, or if it is, it's somehow exempt.

ammonium nitrate[as a reformed stamp collecter
i know stampcollecting isnt a hobby]..its a cut throat profession..

that sees everone doing an apprenticeship..bying the worthless common stamps..till they wake up to the search for the rare valuble ones[in hope not by hobby]

but lest we get into hair/splitting..annologies any further
analogy..;corrospondance or simularity
[a comparison between something*..and another[to wit nuthing]

anyhow..woot/quote..""you claim this of your super intelligent magical man..that made everything.""

again for lack of reading actually what is written
you got it wrong..gen 1;god created the heavens;;
[to wit mr half wit]..the unseen..and the earth

not everything
[2/..now the ear-th was formless AND VOID[empty]
darkness[hell]..was over the deep

[as opposed to now
where hell lies under the deep]..
and ..the spirit[of god]..was hovering over the waters

3/'and god said..let there be light'
yo/ye..and somehow..with a loud bang,[presumably]..
'there..was light'

4 god saw..the light was good

anyhow it goes on
and god SAID
and god SAID...etc

try to rstrict comment..to what was ACTUALLY,'said'
and dont take away from the true cause..that only he could create

[recall you can blasheme the...
oh heck why bother..


""Myself, I'll go with the evidence and science of the matter.""

great
lets hear it?

""I think the most interesting,
yet still not claim it as a truth,
is that a quantum foam has always existed.""

foam or form
its as you chose to believe

""Interesting eh?""

yes much like dorkins mud bubble theory
for the first cell...[lol]

""What electrical image of us are you talking about?""
mate..look deeply into your brain[not your mind]
your brain has electrical activity
as does your muscles and heart etc

now think of all them LIVING micro beasts
[trillions within YOUR own body
[think of their 'energy]
aura

your whole body..'works'..
because all this electicity..[energy]

that CANNOT BE DESTROYED..nor created

[living sperm/living egg
*remember?]

""There is no 'image of us',"'

ok present your evidence

""the workings of our brain
are a result of the parts.""

name the 'parts'

""The way you put it, e
verything would have an 'electrical image'""

WEVERY LIVING THING
yes...how does your finger type the word?

""A heaven of amoeba's and bacteria.""
are these the first living things
[that evolved?]
in your opinion?

""a god into the gaps""
no its fossils that got the gaps,,!

""there is no need to have to have the answers immediately""

so why bother evolving beyond the bacteria stage?
toom much life simply takes living for granted

but some spirits chose to evolve spiritually
[and thats why you got your god given spirit inside you right now

YOU CHOSE TO EVOLVE your spirit..!

""You claim to have the answer to life,""
no that is a thing..of spirit
no man is able to be trusted..with the REAL spirit secrets

i just believe that which
to 'me'..best explain
the data..that i have verified

by living here..in this material realm
wih materialists..that together help me
make sense via our various beliefs/life experiences

Ammonite,

There is a deeper problem underpinning this thought that atheism is an ideology. It is a religiously induced emotionally held idea that humans are bad to begin with and therefore if they don’t have a god to control them, they will create gulags and give religious people a hard time in general. It is an irrational fear.

Religions tend to force folk to feel they are unworthy ‘sinners’ and without the ‘grace’ of a god (whatever that is), the heathen, pagan, heretic, apostate and atheist will revert to a savage state where nothing matters except self gratification. That there is a shortage of examples of this doesn’t seem to bother the religious mindset.

These same people live in a country of atheists and don’t see the huge benefits that has brought them. I often ask such religious persons which other country would they rather live in? Still waiting for an answer on that one.

Religion has had thousands of years to perfect a safe society where all are treated equally but we still find that the more religious any community or county is, the more dysfunction exists. Talk about living in false hope.

Australia began dropping religion in the 19th century and in just a 100 years has created an egalitarian-like society no religion has come close to. As religion has declined so have, human rights increased.

The 2012 Global Atheist Convention is a celebration of the ‘reason’ that has helped create this.

David

AJ Phillips,

If I may come to Poirot's defence (quid pro quo), I don't think she's taking that middle road here in favour of religion and the status quo. I agree with Poirot that no system is free of indoctrinisation, and this is precisely my grumble with Ditchkins--their stance isn't critical enough! It's like a flea bomb that gets rid of undesirables but leaves the house in-tact for it's spoiled and fastidious occupants.
The house needs attention! And not just a makeover; it needs asbestos removed, its occupants educated, and some serious downscaling to sustainable and equitable proportions.
I'm delighted at your optimism(?) that <Religious indoctrination is done BECAUSE there is an imaginable alternative> but I don't see that Ditchkins are any more interested in alternatives than the pious are.
What is the atheist's movement's vision for a secular world? This one without the religion! Their like a minor political party that can evade the responsibility of serious policy; they're all ideology; as eclectic as the motley of mystics and religious nutters they want to displace. Which amounts to conservativ.! We all whistle a different tune, that's all, and nothing changes materially.
I don't think anyone who's considering the issues here, on their merits (there aren't many of us), is recommending the safe bet, the status quo.
For the record, as you would know, I'm fundamentally opposed to religious instruction and chaplains in school, and indeed to any inveigling to or corruption of the rule of law or secular government by religious interests. But that's not enough. The State has adapted to other reciprocal and cosy relationships too, and Ditchkins, despite the best of intentions, is one of them.

David of Atheist Foundation of Australia Inc writes

'Religions tend to force folk to feel they are unworthy ‘sinners’ and without the ‘grace’ of a god (whatever that is), the heathen, pagan, heretic, apostate and atheist will revert to a savage state where nothing matters except self gratification'

Exactly. The replacement of Christian values in society with godless values has led to mass increased in divorce, mass increase in pornography, promotion of perverted lifestles, teen suicide, lawless citizens, huge increase in drug usage etc etc.
Without God's grace these things are very evident.

Ammonite & David,

"Atheism has no ideology to control anything."

In its essence, atheism is merely the non-belief in a deity. However, any "movement" that operates under the banner of atheism (or any other "ism") does possess an ideology (or there would be no movement).

woot elaborated earlier in the thread that the AFA believes all government decisions should be based on empirical evidence rather than religious beliefs. I happen to agree with that stance - nevertheless, it "is" an ideology.

Atheism in itself may not be seen as an ideology, but attach it to a movement and it becomes conflated with the aims of that movement - fused to its ideology

Still going:) I think you all just love a good old tongue wag.

The way forward, either with Atheism or God are much the same thing. One believes it does and the other believes it doesn't:)

But still both believe.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aQjYm3niI2E

Cactus

my conscience forces me to feel regret
at the harshness of my words

but its so frustrating..that you lot
are so clearly..failing to see how great you are

you are little more than a worm
[ie your gut]..that has developed the ability to reason

think..food goes in one end
and the other stuff is supposed to
come forth..from the other end

you ALONE amoung the beasts..can think laterally
can find logic in the symbolism of the written word
YOU..alone ammoung ALL CREATION..are not like ALL THE OTHER beasts

you alone..[of all other living creation]..
can one day evolve..*your thinking
and realise the god spark within YOU..!

you dare to create..
just as god did create..[BUT..not everything]
for clearly..god didnt build computers..or build houses..
or t/shirts or these words or these thoughts..[etc]..

yet he does support your ability to live
supports your ability to survive
your ability to reason
[but so much more]

you ask such stupid questions
what cuntry you would you like to live in?
man made cuntries..god made ONE EARTH..for all to share
[like i told you twice before]

you ask for such absurdities such as china/russia korea
[athiest cuntries..that saw how the godless options work out]
russia alone killed MILLIONS..china millions..north korea who knows

you spout such absurdities such as religeon
has had thousands of years to 'work it out'

lol..ever heard of the sepperation
of church and state....david?

your bias and selective ignorance speaks volumes

to top the cake.""As religion has declined
so have, human rights increased.""

mate are you just hating god
or chosing to hate religeons failings

ie see the tree in my eye
but miss the forrest in thyne own

mate if god didnt have infinite grace
we would all be allwed to live in the godless hell
[ie give you what you want]...but god is better than we could possably concieve..

thank your luckey stars
he hold grace and mercy as SACRED*

he deserves
so much better..than the lip service
EVEN HIS OWN..give him..[and who is not living but by his grace]

If you are not a Christian then you can’t hold good honest values, somehow without Christianity in your life you become immoral, a perverted drug taking porn loving lawless citizen on the verge of suicide. Maybe we should all become David Koresh and join the Branch Davidians or get in with that other wonderful Christian Jim Jones and move to Jonestown. Please don't anyone mention pedophile clergy Can a Catholic tell me how many pedophiles there are in their church.

OUG....this attack on what is considered " core beliefs " is true, and absolute. I consider you a man of logic and faith, but I only see just the one side of you. Truth is my core beliefs, and over time, humans will do what they do by habit, and god allows this. All what you see today, God allows, everything. For sure, its not our play to question, but does allow it. One of Gods main Laws is, "MAN will not become me and the world as I layed out for all, you will not second guess me or question my ways, and never talk for me. For I am the LORD!"

OUG....be very careful my friend, your own actions may cost you more than you know.

Hear is a little passage from the old testament....

Enjoy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ujm9BLzaaBo&feature=related

cactus

Paul suddenly discovers he believes in absolutes. What a surprise even if it is totally illogical and unscientific for an athiest to do so.

Runner:) your forgetting the third element:) Dont worry, many don't see it. See, we have to go back in time a little, not six days and take the 7th off...noooo, this is in real time that cant be faked.

See, the third element, is what most cant see:) Let me give you all an example of the third element. All humans are basically made up of three important key hard drives that's in each and everyone of us.

The ME MYSELF and I's are always in control. No human-being can avoid it. This can cause what I call....the triangular affect.

1. The one way thinking types......you know them.

2. The two way thinking types......you know them.

3. The three way thinking types......you know them as the leader of the troop:)

Look:) cant we all share a box of bananas and be done with it:)

Look! the answer of what we are, is already been posted here on this site.

Whats the third element? Answer is....when you were born....your the only one of your kind.....and guess where your thinking comes from:)

When the world of all peoples thinks as one, then and only then, we are at the end of our evolution.

Atheism The Way Forward.

Well we know whats back:)

So forward we go! Thats what god would want.......don't you think?

cactus

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rBjY_6PRPe0&feature=related

There you go. The true/truth thoughts of man, told by man and the war lords of the dessert....were which seen as hatred between camel and moron.

This is why the many see you for what you are.

Times do, and will change.

So saith the writen hand of man.

cactus:)

"great
lets hear it?"
I gave it to you silly billy. Typical theist quote mining. It was in the very next sentence. "I think the most interesting, yet still not claim it as a truth, is that a quantum foam has always existed"

Now you seem to agree with this, but the difference is, I don't claim it as a truth. Science is a methodology. You claim that there is form, and that form is intelligent, and that form is your god. Well present your evidence! Behold, the religionist ducks and weaves.

The only thing the religionist OUG has, is to try and divert attention from supporting the claim, as their claim is vacuous.

"mate..look deeply into your brain[not your mind] your brain has electrical activity as does your muscles and heart etc"

Yes, but please show evidence for your claim that this electricity is an image.

"your whole body..'works'.. because all this electicity..[energy]"

Our whole body, and everything is energy. Electricity is just one form of energy. Our whole body works because of our bones too. It works because of our blood, everything.

"... that CANNOT BE DESTROYED..nor created"

Yet you claim it was. Where is your evidence??

good point runner

thanks catus:}..[i think]

moot quote..""Typical theist quote mining.""

mate i quoted in full
you selecyivly mined two quotes

so lets go with your 2 selective points
[oh did you hear the news today
they finally found adam..of the gaps]

the link betwixt man and beast
who was expelled from the garden..on his own two legs

""I think the most interesting,
yet still not claim it as a truth,
is that a quantum foam has always existed""

al*ways means..IT..MUST still be here
please show it to me

""You claim that there is form""

yes look at the shape of your hand

"",and that form is intelligent,""

no i say it is caused by inteligence
moved by thought

and that form is FORMED by your god.

""Well present your evidence!""

ok as my koranic brothers ask
''MAKE BUT ONE..just like it''

so my question my brother
is reveal mans[sciences best formed hand
*and make it function

it will be nothing like
the one god formed for all of us
[each with our own face..our own mind..our own thoughts]

i say god forms natural form
natural form then select's his own..according to his nature
[gods form of natural selection...as opposed to science selection

[tell me brrrother..what is 'natural
about science selection"

why use they GODS given 'natural selection'
..to validate 'science selection?]

""to try and divert attention
from supporting their SCIENCTIFIC alternate claim's,
as their claim of natural selection as a science..lol..is vacuous.

you quoting me..

"your brain[not your mind]
your brain has electrical activity..
as does your muscles and heart etc"

Aaaaand .. round and round the garden, the theist yet again makes the claim for an intelligent super entity, with no evidence, calling for evidence. flap flap flap.

You say it was moved by thought, please show the evidence.

The problem is OUG, you are making a claim with absolutely no evidence. You assume your god exists unless I can show that it could not. You are madly trying to get me to provide an answer and if I can't, you then just claim you win by default, hypocritically providing no evidence yourself.

You are ducking and weaving in the spotlight widdle wabbit.

You hold a position on a claim that the universe and everything cannot be due to naturalistic explanations, I hold that you have not shown how naturalistic explanations are impossible, until then you cannot discount them.

I am not claiming there is no god, simply that I do not have the belief in the claims that you have the answer that there is one. That's what an atheist is, a non believer.

So until you can show me any evidence for your claims and not just simply assert them, thinking you are oh so clever, the pride oozing off you and in your words, I'll just wait. I think the best methodology toward working towards facts is the scientific method. All you offer is the leap to a conclusion, with no evidence.

I'll be joining with thousands like me, from the millions all over the world that are happy, good and loving without your god, in a celebration of reason :) It's so much more fulfilling to talk to people that don't claim they know everything but are willing to investigate the possibilities based on sound logical reasoning, to discuss them without the massive leap of ego that makes the arrogant assumption that the whole of the universe was made just for them.

The burden of proof is on you OUG, and all flapping of arms isn't helping.

part/2..
part 3..@2pm

lets get it back to
the smallest visable..divisable

all 'matter'..is made/created
from atoms/electrons protons etc

to wit magnetic like attraction
or energy..*in form and FUN-ction

you replie.."Yes,but
please show evidence..for your claim
that this electricity..is an image.""

it has both form*..*and function..[*]

it is even materially/percievable..here...by heat imaging
and at cerns...and ibm..and electron microscopes..encecolographs

a russion dude..even claims
to be able to photograph aura'l immages

but regardless..its ALL energy..
in a collective stasis..that creates
its form and function..yet is basicly energy..in apparent stasis

[ie has mass...recall e=mc2?]

[ok i dis*agree..that e=mc2 is clever
but..its accepted science..lol

{energy equals mass
times the speed of light
times the speed of light..]..

scienctific gibberish..
BUT accepted science fact..
[by you and yer mates..indesputably]

[hence science rule one..
[energy can*t be created..NOR destroyed]

mate ITS A RULE/..a law of science..!

[you know..'true' science..ie not evolving theory]

[me].."your whole body..'works'..
because all this..*electicity..[energy/mass]"

you..""Our whole body,
and everything is energy."'

[in form/function]..

yes
basicly..we agree

""Electricity..is just one form of energy.""

form is a fuction..OF electicity like vibrating moving [cyclic]..attractions
[form*/affect...cause re-action..as mass and function]..

with set qualitive determinates..
many measurable by the tools of science
but with many more beyond materialistic control
or even materialistic observances..[yet in spirit form/function lives on]

..but..

yes i agree

but think this further my brrrrother

an atom...with its protons neutrons electrons etc
must*..have an electrical sig-nature..

to wit EVEN at the atomic level
the quadrillions of bits..of energy..as mass
IN YOUR FORM/function..have an elec-trick...definitive type sig-nature..[inherant constant qualities]..energy/function/form*

""""our bones too.""

are formed of..
atoms/electrons..protons etc
mater plus an organisative qualitie8..that defines its function

all acting
within their basic form/fun-ction..[definitive material bound's]

It works because..THE INDIVIDUAL BASIC BITS
that make up everything..bone/our blood,flesh..flowers meat..

*everything...has mass/form or function..thus is
potentially and primarilly..that definitivly inherant
as its true..form/function..energy*

...that base form/function/utility
*CANNOT BE DESTROYED..

nor created*..
its basis..*is energy..[spirit*]

cause its unseen AFFECT..result's
survives in its basics..cause*..

with resultant..[form and fuction]
as spiruitualised energy..[aether*]

from dirt..we came
to the dust..[and spirit/..
*energy]..doth..return*...&..2PM

I am very interested in the 10 commandments. Are they not the basis of the core beliefs of Christianity? The most contentious of these commandments is number 5 “Thou shalt not kill.” This commandment from God seems unequivocal no ifs or butts “Thou shalt not kill.” Other than a few minor Christian sects who practice pacifism the best known being “Quakers” the rest seem rather quick to rush off, and more often than not kill in the name of God. How do Christians justify mass killing for God, In the vast majority of cases it has been the killing of non Christians.
The notion that Christians could kill came about after the fall of Rome in 410AD Augustine formulated his notion of “Just War” as Christian pacifism had weakened the empire and many viewed Christians as not responsible citizens of the Roman state even though the Christian Church and Roman State had worked closely together since the time of the conversion of Constantine. Augustine felt it needed to be established that Christians could with a clear conscience assume their full obligations of citizenship and become willing participants in warfare.
Critics of Augustine pointed to the commandment and the teaching of Jesus with his message of love, humility and compassion claming “Just War” was incompatible with scripture. Augustine counted with a claim that there was no justification for literal obedience to scripture and concluded “The commandment forbidding killing was not broken by those who wage war on the authority of God, or those who have imposed the death-penalty on criminals when representing the authority of the state, the just and most reasonable source of power."
To this day there are those that still apply the “Augustinean Principle of Just War”, George Bush, John Howard and Tony Blair to name but three with the full blessing of millions of Christians.

>> Look:) cant we all share a box of bananas and be done with it:) <<

Oh I wish.

Apparently those who believe in religion are more entitled to bananas than others - to the point where their bananas are tax free, in fact if you don't get your bananas from them you will be damn to hell for eternity.

OUG, Phil, Runner will not be damned to hell for not attending the Atheist Convention, nor would they be damned if they did attend - it is about choice, the freedom to live and let live.

Poirot

I agree with your point about separation of church and state being a form of ideology - however it is a very loose form, so loose a lot of religion has leaked in to many aspects of politics, education, even equality of opportunity (such as abortion, female ordination, sex education), the right to facts about the world and so on.

Squeers

You could have presented your point of view in a civil, succinct and direct manner. You didn't. And you still refer to Dawkins, Hitchens et al as "Ditchkins" - and you call me childish (along various other terms of judgement).

David

Your last post which you addressed to me. If at any stage I indicated any ignorance regarding atheism, I apologise. I did believe I had been very clear about my views - perhaps you could try preaching to the unconverted (in a non-ideological manner).

With luck I have managed to offend everyone.

From Monty Pythens Life of Brian. When they can't hear what Jesus is saying:

Spectator I: I think it was "Blessed are the cheese makers".
Mrs. Gregory: Aha, what's so special about the cheese makers?
Mr Gregory: Well, obviously it's not meant to be taken literally; it refers to any manufacturers of dairy products.

Augustine may have have helped script the movie. His interpretation of scripture was much the same.

Ammonite,

You haven’t offended me. I was merely putting down thoughts knowing you had also considered them. I was really addressing others in whom such thoughts might produce a slight mental squirming. They did.

David

flap flap flap

"...that base form/function/utility
*CANNOT BE DESTROYED..

nor created*..

I note OUG, you put the emphasis on destroyed, yet there are two parts to the SCIENTIFIC basis of thermodynamics.

You claim one, whilst hopping around the other.

Energy cannot be created.

You claim it can, it was, and further that it was your intelligent supercalifragalistical magical man.

Until you can show some evidence for that, I'm quite happy to not throw in my lot on any claims of truth you put forward. That is not to say I don't find them interesting. Science is very interesting :)

That is what makes me atheist, and you so upset over people like myself gathering to celebrate reason :) It cuts you to the bone obviously.

Unfortunately you don't even have a methodology for working out what is fact nor fiction. On one hand you deride the scientific method, yet will use parts of it if you think it suits your claim. You claim an entity and use arguments like the above, that invalidate it!

flap flap flap.

Ammonite: you say "OUG, Phil, Runner will not be damned to hell for not attending the Atheist Convention, nor would they be damned if they did attend - it is about choice, the freedom to live and let live."
When I was in 3rd class Sister Mary said I was going to Purgatory for 20,000 years and that was just for talking in class. Later on in high school Brother Francis (found out he was a pedophile) said I would burn in hell for eternity for reading Bertrand Russell's "Why I Am Not A Christian". Going to the Atheist Convention don't know what Sister Mary and Brother Francis would have in store for such attendees, could be a rather hot time in Hell!

David,

I detect a whiff of patronisation in your demeanour.

I'm wondering what those sleeping in cardboard boxes and in the backs of cars or on friends couches think about our egalitarian society?
Yes, we've advanced in our version of secular social democracy, but it's far from an even playing field....such is life n'all that.

Does the AFA have any views on the unsustainability of our present system? Let's face it, "the age of reason" has also been the catalyst for a massive increase in excessive consumption (in the "reasonable" West)...or do you reckon that's all just a coincidence?

Poirot,

The AFA addresses religion’s mistakes. What individual atheists think about consumerism etc is not the direct concern of the AFA.

Maybe you could point to a previous time in which to be alive would have been a far more rewarding experience for those examples you mention.

And what would that ‘better’ time be if you were, say, a woman, lesbian or gay, poor, diseased or even a horse?

Utopian dreams are a long way off and possibly not achievable but that doesn’t mean we should live by rules invented by goat herders and interpreted by the deluded.

You might say that is a bit harsh and condescending and I would retort with the question, were the folk who adhered to the 34,000 other than your religion, deluded. The Romans, the Aztecs, American Indians, Indians, Aboriginals, The Norse etc etc.

An answer saying it is all the one and same god is far more condescending to billions of people than something I could ever achieve.

David

but our form function organised
[causal ..qualitive/quantitive,*energy lIVES on

just as the good of god
is the only constant in truth
by how you chose to expend your energy
predetermines thy form/function

gods natural forming qualities..[life]
natural form..[energy]..

cant be CREATED
nor destroyed*

you claim it does*

Yet i claim it dont...you cant

Where is *your evidence?

its all by..happenstance
or chance?

lol

that mass..dont mean the visable..[seen],potential
of the causal energy..[unseen]

that form..dont determine function?

you built your faith/lessness..on shakey ground

but mate we..were all children...weak in our faithlessness

frail thus making teaching based on nuthing..
[materialistic huH-man frailty]
calling inherant truths..
laws of..lol science

or worse speculative tHEO-ry

till we got enough real facts
to sort the spin from the lies and distill essential TRUTHS

the truth..lies somewhere
in between form and function

[more shall be given]..

all that smoke and flame
bluster and namecalling

form/function you are
that form and fuction..is basic energy..
[spirit..life essence]..[cause]..and the cause is inherantly GOOD..[god]

that is the only known known..in the end

only you..and that you chose to do
with the gifts..god gave you

with no obligation or duty
but to have fun with it all
love god..by loving neighbour

[changing that you can change
accepting and trying to have love/grace/mercy
for that you cant change..[ie to love neighbour..thus loving good/god
sustaining them their lives tOO*

and who is not thy neighbour,
love the one your with

for god is even in there..TOO
you just gotta try to live..in love
[its easy if you try]

forget blame shame
god is one..[that we do/did for the least

we do done did..
for to or with..god spark..within us all]

once you know god is love..
you can commune with love..[good]/god..one to one

knowing*..your only angry
at yourself..

all you can hurt is you

lord
if only
you knew...how great thou art

isnt it time we all knew it?

ohhh goody..david speaks

but paul was first

the 10 commandments..[great stuff]
like the law reads thou shalt not MURDER*
[not thou shalt not kill]

but the biggest law is....[drum roll]
do not adulterate gods word
[to wit the law against adultery]

its a shame you athiests cant read what was written
and im over trying to explain[read the darn books yourselfs]

that good and true[gracefull and mercyfull...
comes from god via angels

[the evil vile bad stuff..
comes from the jinn[demons]
who feed off your love of evil

thats the key to scripture
[and just about..*every thought you have]

the law reads..'more of the same*..shall be given'..
so be carefull..what you CHOSE to think..into you soul*

next[oh ammonium night-rate]
there is plenty of bannas for all
but its more fun to share the love..
of a good woman or man.

paul/back again?
yes life of brian is great
[mate find the brian...within you]

ohh good here is the woot hoot
talking about thermo=dynamics
[the fires of hell are fueled by hate..[passion that burns]

i get my energy direct
from doing good

do you feel drained of energy?
[thats demons sucking up bad vibes..

to remove them from your aura..think thoughts of love
its like garlick is supoposed to be for vampires]..evil cant come near

think of it like the smallest light
drives away the darkest night

[but one bad thought[leaven..yeast].
..leaven's the whole batch]

[one bad thought lets the vile in..
then your door is open to thieves]

im not allowed to get upset mate

i got plenty of demons waiting for the oppertuinity
my getting upset would offer them

[heck where ya think
my nasty streak comes from?]

mate one day one of you lot will covince me
that there is no god...i dread that day mate
[not for me..[or you]..to worry though..i KNOW he is]

so be gratefull for small mercies
heck a cluster of athiest..
all in the same room

mate
i dont want the temptation
but knowing god dont judge no-one
[nope still not tempted..anyhow keep the love]

where love is
evil has no chance

I wonder what makes some religious folk not see that by their words and actions they do nothing but drive people away from the very god idea proposed in such ridiculous manners.

Is this strange methodology just arrogance in the thought of possessing special knowledge that others do not have?

Is it a cry of pain from a human being that it exists and is important when the desired importance is an evasive illusion?

Could it be loneliness, which brings on the look-at-me antics with total disregard to the reactions by others?

Is the anguish of life only resolvable by the imagined thought, if held strongly enough, that it will be repealed in another life?

I don’t wish to add to the burden of such people but I see many cases where help is needed but maybe that is the problem, help has been tried but was ineffective.

Very sad.

David

lol OUG.

I haven't 'built my faithlessness', I just don't believe the claims of you and your ilk.

Other than that, hot air, flapping of arms, assumptions of your god, madly trying to turn the spotlight away from your lack of evidence.

Simple really, the hypocrisy burns. You have no evidence at all, yet hold up like a graven image your requirement that if anyone is to question your claim, they must have answers themselves.

How's it look from your pedestal? :)

Meanwhile, I'm looking forward to an awesome time, with awesome realistic people that want to work toward maintaining our secular nation so that all of us, yes even you OUG, can live together in equality.

Unfortunately it takes pointing out that the beliefs that give your ilk the privilege in society is based upon naught, zilch, nothing. It breeds folk like yourself that cannot see the good in people unless they believe your claims, that spout absolute nonsense in the vain effort to detract from their obviously absent super leprechaun.

Keep flapping those arms OUG, you are one of the best adverts for atheism I have seen in a while :)

paul..sister mary..listend to demon's

heck mate..even if you going to hell
[with ya mates..all there..how bad can that be]

think mate hell is relitive
you wouldnt be happy in heaven anyhow
all them pslam singing hypocrites..
[heck even i would think that to be hell]

in truth mate..this place is for you to find that you love
[to sort the sheep from the goats..the insest child perverts from the aithiest vivasectionists][and mate the vivsectionist hell mate...is just non-stop..with vivsectionists..LOVING..cutting into EACH OTHER]

just like the murders hell is JUST those WHO love muder
mudering ONLY each other[for eterrnity]

god acceopts this because he knows in time we repent that 'love'
and evolve up [or down]..to the next 'love'[recall the holy messenger/christ..saying''mine fathers house has many rooms''

so athiest hell is full of those in denial
[those saying im dead..i KNOW im dead
im only dreaming..[or whatever the heck athiest's think
when the truth FINALLY hits them in the ego of reality..in the eternal afterlife]

anyhow paul..that seems about that..[till after 6pm]
it will comfort you to know more of the xtian hell
[it lies just into the darkzone]..of hell
but im assured that there is a much darker hell where many get into

those who dont got good works
or are faux xtians are on the cusp of hell
where only a little light comes..the better xtians emerge into gradually more light[and as for the darkness..the worse they love to be..the darker the hell zone they dwell in]

its all rather simple
a good athiest..will emerge into the light
a bad..will emerge into the dark...its all relitive

each creed..has its own levels of heaven and hell
till finally we get into the higher/brighter levels
where childish/creed..has fallen by the wayside

spirit has the bigger concerns..with those
INDOCTRINATED into WAITING,..for a judgnment
or a reserction day..[that darn freewill law]

..means..if you CHOSE to sleep
till a day..that CAN NEVER COME..thats your choice

we dont judge
one can only..*CHOSE to condem oneself

so forget creed
try..to love one and other
[ie..love god..by loving other]

I have to wonder how and why faith can trump reason for many people. No amount of patient reason will change the religious fundamentalist. Perhaps it would be cruel if they don't have a god on which to prop their lives then they have nothing at all.

The following is an extract from an interesting article discussing Psychology’s Treacherous Trio: Confirmation Bias, Cognitive Dissonance, and Motivated Reasoning

"In 2009, a nine year-old Brazilian girl became pregnant with twins after being raped by her stepfather. With advice from doctors, her mother opted for her to have an abortion. After pleading with Brazil, which outlaws abortions except when the mother’s life is in danger or when she has been raped, her daughter was granted one. Then things got really ugly. When the Archbishop of the city of Recife heard the news he invoked Canon law and excommunicated the mother and daughter and the members of the medical team who performed the abortion; the stepfather, meanwhile, remained a loyal and accepted member of the church.

Was it right for the girl to have an abortion? Was the Archbishop correct to condone her, the mother, and the medical team? And what of Brazil’s stance on the matter?

We’ve heard these debates fleshed out countless times, and almost always to no avail. Far more interesting (and quantifiable) are the psychological forces that fuel these conversations. While many like to believe that they have a special access to the truth, the reality is that we all see the world not as it is, but as we want it to be: Republicans watch Fox while Democrats watch MSNBC; creationists see fossils as evidence of God, evolutionary biologists see fossils as evidence of evolution; a mother sees abortion as the best thing for her daughter, and the church sees it as unholy and sinful. You get the point – our beliefs dictate what we see and how we see."

Cont'd

Cont'd

"The question is: why do humans remain so steadfast to their beliefs, sometimes even in the face of overwhelming opposing evidence?

The answer rests in a few psychological tendencies that when mixed together form a potent recipe for ignorance. The first is confirmation bias, which I wrote about last month over at Scientificamerican.com. Confirmation bias is exactly what it sounds like – the propensity for people to look for what confirms their beliefs and ignore what contradicts their beliefs while not being concerned for the truth.

The classic confirmation bias study comes from Stanford back in the late 1970s. Researchers brought in two groups of participants, one that supported capital punishment and one that opposed capital punishment. Both groups read two studies, “one seemingly confirming and one seemingly disconfirming their existing beliefs about the deterrent efficacy of the death penalty.” After reading the studies and other commentary, all of which were fake, researchers found that the proponents and opponents of capital punishment rated the studies that confirmed their point of view as higher than the studies that disconfirmed their point of view. Sadly, as the authors conclude, “people of opposing views can each find support for those views in the same body of evidence.”

Then there’s cognitive dissonance, which describes a “state of tension that occurs whenever a person holds two cognitions that are psychologically inconsistent.” Leon Festinger introduced it in 1957 after he infiltrated and studied a UFO cult convinced the world would end at midnight on December 21st, 1954. In his book When Prophecy Fails, Festinger recounts how after midnight came and went, cult members began to look for reasons for why the end of the world had not come. Eventually the leader of the cult, Marian Keech, explained to her members that she received a message from automatic writing, which told her that the God of Earth decided to spare the planet from destruction. Relieved, the cult members continued to spread their doomsday ideology to non-believers. "

http://tinyurl.com/3ecflzo

Oh gawd, hasn't this been settled?

Hands up all those who've met God or have some contact details

Anyone?

Anyone at all?

Next subject...

woot,

“Meanwhile, I'm looking forward to an awesome time, with awesome realistic people that want to work toward maintaining our secular nation…”

And to give your anticipation a wee boost, go to this link and watch the video :o)

http://www.atheistconvention.org.au/

See you next April

David

Well if most of the atheists posting here are any guide, the movement's as pompously self-righteous as any religious institution--minus the theology, or any content whatever bar a slavish and credulous adherence to "reason", whatever that is. As if it has ever been anything untinctured or reasonable per se. No one can deny the accomplishments of empirical science, but to hoist it aloft as something we may huddle round, to witlessly try to take warmth from its cold light, while simultaneously denying and denigrating those other capacities of the mind (sorry, brain; the mind doesn't exist either does it?) that beguile us, that facilitate aesthetic and altruistic and sundry numinous experience that confounds the rationalising purge, is to deny a fascinating aspect of human nature--this mysterious and persistent desire for meaning--purely because we don't understand it in "rational" terms; and, ironically, on the fatuous grounds that we do! That we rationally see through it all, that we've solved the enigma of our existence once and for all and may discard everything extraneous to the dictates of reason--that is extraneous ultimately to a clumsily-calculating and credulous faith in the physical senses. I'm not sure whether to condemn it as arrogant, artless, or the height of folly!
I hasten to add that I have no hope in a God or an afterlife. Nevertheless the riddle of life remains a riddle for me. I think Ditchkins's positivism is as credulous as Christianity.

P.S.
Ammonite, my posts have been perfectly clear from the start, just not what the faithful want to hear. I'm just spinning my wheels.

It's really sad that you see science as something cold Squeers :(

The riddle of life may be a riddle to you, but it is also to science. Without it, there would be no science. You look at the riddle and appear to want to close your eyes and cover your ears, whilst putting down those that investigate it, take it all on board and adventure into it's depths. You see no enjoyment in it, no sense of wonder and delight. To you it seems to be that it is a cold, harsh thing.

What a wonderful, enlightening, beautiful thing is reality, yet many people see it as not enough and want more :( how terribly sad :(

The scientific method is our best method for investigation of it. I don't see why you think as you do of it. That you cannot see beauty in understanding.

Great sermon, Woot!
But alas like most sermons the rhetoric's a dead give-away--though I did find the sad faces pathetic. No evidence and precious little reliance on argument or "reason", ergo the rhetoric, yet what wonderful surmise!. But beneath it just another straw man : (

<You look at the riddle and appear to want to close your eyes and cover your ears, whilst putting down those that investigate it, take it all on board and adventure into it's depths. You see no enjoyment in it, no sense of wonder and delight. To you it seems to be that it is a cold, harsh thing>

To quote Prufrock, "That is not what I meant at all; That is not it, at all". It's just what you've conjured-up, and I'm blowed if I know how you got that from what I said (you must be a modernist?)?
..Ah, but "reason" is a wonderful thing! isn't it?

I'll stand toe to toe with anyone here on my appreciation of science; I've enjoyed dozens of books and hundreds of essays on a raft of the sciences and been captivated by them.
<I don't see why you think as you do of it. That you cannot see beauty in understanding>
How can you know "what" I think of it--based on my scribblings that you've been conditioned to conjure meaning from?
But you give me hope! What is this "beauty in the understanding" you speak of that I cannot see? Do tell!

OUG its okay to kill as many as you like in the name of God but just don't murder them. You justify the slaughter of millions of innocent people by reference to your book of dribble Exodus 20-13 "You shall not murder." King James version of the book of dribble, it doesn't say anything about killing OUG they are still dead! But you Christians can sleep easy at night knowing no one is getting murdered in the name of god, Tell that to the Afghan father who's 4 year old child was killed by US troops last week. But then again the boy wasn't Christian was he a Western White Christian child's life is so much more valuable than some child in Afghanistan.

Squeers, it is only you that are claiming there is a reliance on reason, not me. I also celebrate birthdays, it does not mean I think only of birthdays.

You refer to those that put science forward as our best method of working out truth, as to 'witlessly try to take warmth from its cold light,' .. the association being dank and dismal. If I took you incorrectly I apologise but please explain yourself without such analogies then so that your diatribe is better understood as more than one sided, without the reliance on straw men simply because people wish to celebrate reason.

How do you describe the beauty in something to the person that cannot see it? I am not skilled enough to recognise the path in that regard, I am sorry, and yes sad if that is your question :(

"while simultaneously denying and denigrating those other capacities of the mind (sorry, brain; the mind doesn't exist either does it?)"

Denying what? I am denying the fact I believe in a god or gods, that I lack the belief of people here that call for me to provide evidence of the start of the universe and if I cannot, they claim their magic man wins out by default. Of course such a position is worth of denigration.

Of course the mind exists, as a result of the construct and reliant on it as any brain damage can show.

I am not denying belief, I am putting it in it's place as simply a belief. I have many, one of which is that St Kilda is the best football team. Argue and denigrate away, we all have the right to be offended.

Serge Molchanoff has just come back from Russia and has an amazing story of how God used him in youth camps and churches...After 70 years of preaching 'there is no God' it is amazing how people have a hunger for God in Russia!

paul...your at least a thinker
[regardless of what other lables you place upon yourself]

unlike mr woot who is such a hoot
here is his latest ;joke'[no doudt said in full seriousness]

""you cannot see beauty in understanding.""

he addressed that at squeers
one of the more intelectual enlightend athiest[like yourself]
heck if there were more like you and squeers i might even convert

but to douse that one quickly
sadly most i have met are like woot and david
[just about as disapointing
as the few believers..who,..live by creed rather than reason]

anyhow to reply your 'point'
""OUG its okay to kill as many
as you like in the name of God..but just don't murder them.""

think my fellow thinker
god SUSTAINS all live to live
how pleasing is death to the lifeGIVER?

not in the least
god sustains life...living..logic
death..or nonsense..offends the spirit..of good

the difference between accidental death
and deliberate intent..to murder

the difference..to kill by nessisity..[say for food/survival]
or to kill for some other excuse is huge

to explain it somewhat more clear
see a seed of wheat/corn...[heck any seed]
has the possability and probability..to live
[if we hadnt murded it for our daily bread...

[i guess thats why holy people
pray over their food....that even
if 'only' a vegatable..DIED*..so we can live

""You justify the slaughter of millions of innocent people""

i do not justify ANY murder
in fact walk carefully..to try not to mindlessly kill

from you
who has..*a mind..this hurts..

[i would expect such absurdity
from [mw]..moot woot or moot david]..

but you?

continues

anyhow this topic wearies me

continue

""by reference to your book of dribble Exodus 20-13
"You shall not murder.""

see you check info
that indicates you are able to dicern/think
unlike david and moot

""it doesn't say anything
about killing OUG they are still dead!""

they are energy
their inherant identity..lives on
i know this is hard for many non believers to grasp
but its hard science fact..i tried to explain..i really tried

""But you Christians""

im not a christian..not a muslim..
not a jew/buddist nor of ANY CREED

i KNOW god is real[energy]
i know the afterlife is real

and thats it

i can sleep easy at night
knowing no one is getting murdered
by me or my words or my causation

i live by the grace of god,
as do we all..but i am prepared to GIVE BACK to god
the root of all that good true and holy[life/light/logic/love]

""the Afghan father who's 4 year old child was killed""
is now with the true life giver[to wit not the fathers sperm
but the breath of the holy father who breathed life into his fathers sperm...long long ago

the child
is where it can not be hurt
ever again

unless it *choses
to hurt others first*

[by the law of freewill]
only then can satan claim his own

johan
nine

One cannot deny religion as clearly it exists and there is much in the psychology of religious belief or faith which is relevant to human beings. I am an atheist and don't see the need but I understand why it is important for some, I only wish there was enough confidence and faith in each faith (so to speak) without the need for denigration or one-upmanship.

It is not belief systems (theist or non-theist) I have issue with but the undue influences on government to bend to one over the other. Most societies are not mono-themed and those that fit closest to that are generally undemocratic, despotic and involve persecution.

Secularism is not a threat to any belief system other than those who are used to having everything their own way. Power is shared in secular states and ensures no-one is persecuted for their beliefs. Freedom of speech allows all views to get an airing as long as we can put them back in the cupboard and resist the temptation to denigrate others for holding a different worldview.

In this contex the Atheist Convention is equally as valid any Catholic, Islamic, Evangelical or Anglican group meets.

Lets hope the Atheists don't add any more evangelism to the mix though there is enough of that to stomach already

pelican,

Live and let live with no undue advantage to any.

That is the core policy of the AFA.

Well said.

David

What makes an atheist? In my case the short answer is the Catholic Church. I was not always an atheist, in fact I have recollection of going to mass for 40 days straight during lent as a 7 or 8 year old, not so much to show God my goodness, but rather to earn a bright shiny holy medal from sister. I recall drinking ‘holy water’ in the belief it would give me magic powers, alas the church failed me there as well, no magic. That’s what little boys in the 1960’s did. The strange thing about me was I was questioning things from an early age, not well received by low ranking functionaries of the church i.e. ‘sisters’ and ‘brothers’. I recall asking ‘sister’ the questions: What is Limbo like? What happened to Jesus’ father St Joseph, did he die? Nor was it the liberal doses of corporal punishment metered out by these low ranking functionaries to one small boy. By my mid teens disillusionment with the church was growing, my pacifist views were not well received by the ‘brothers’. In my 2nd year of high school I refused to ‘volunteer’ to join the school cadet unit this prompted one ‘brother’ to ask “Are you one of them?”” what brother”, “you know…a fancy boy!” My involvement in anti Vietnam War protests (I had an older brother attending Sydney Uni at the time) and my opposition to the Church’s support for the war was the straw that broke the camel’s back. The Catholic Church supported the Vietnam War,
(my post on ‘just war’), we were killing communists and that was a good thing, even if these communists were Vietnamese peasant children, the view of many within the church was a communist is a communist regardless of age, and the only good communist was a dead communist. When I reached an age where I could freely leave the Catholic school system I did and enrolled in a State school to complete my secondary education. (continued).

(continued) Parting words from one ‘brother’ who incidentally I had some respect for, was “Paul1405, I always thought you would make a good Catholic or a good Communist,” my answer to him was “I don’t want to be either brother, just a good person.” All organisations have their rejects, even the Catholic Church

Woot

Saints fan too. What other team would an atheist follow?

And I am consistent, when living in USA followed New Orleans Saints (favourite city in USA). No, haven't been back since Katrina - but is something I must do.

Pelican

>> Secularism is not a threat to any belief system other than those who are used to having everything their own way. <<

Well said.

paul[before ptting my offering upon the alter of public opinion
i will thank our brother woot[but for his persistance...much i put forth wouldnt have gotten said..so woot...your proding made me act..so thankyou

i might as well thank david as well
for the prodding he did last time

anyhow paul..you said..
"" What is Limbo like?""

limbo as many would know
is SUUPPOSED to be the place...decreed by creed
where the unbaptised innocents go..[the church has since decreed there is no such place]

never the less..there is such a place
limbo meand definitivly..the border zone
[the place between heaven and hell]

this is again due to the first law
freewill..[allowing those who have awakend from childhood..to CHOSE..which of the fathers many rooms they CHOSE]

that being said..innocent children
dont go to limbo..they are raised in the highest heavens

in fact..this level of childhood is many fold..from spontanious aborted fetus...being nurtured into babes..to babes develoing into children

as they ask questions..
they are taught the ways of the child
then..if such is their chosing..they MAY decend
to the border zone[limbo]..

to from there
chose to love the light[good]..
or reject the light..and decend..
[as low or as high..as they CHOSE to go]

nothing is fore ordained

to ask is to recieve
not only answer
but proof

you either THEN..chose*..to believe in 'it'
by living it..testing it
or not

either way
its your FREE chosing

""What happened to Jesus’ father St Joseph,
did he die?"'

the energy of the father joseph
lives on..just like all those wishing to live live on
[just as those who se no hope in the personality they were..can chose..or be forced to get are reborn

this rebirth is via the lowest level of hell
the so called pits..who's description so matches that an egg would describe a woumb...[so as to be definitive linkage]..via what science would call a worm hole[lol]

of course the seers..avoided such base revealations
thus chose other words...[such like mosus not being ABLE to look upon gods face]..but this info i have previously posted

you continue..""Nor was it the liberal doses of corporal punishment metered out..by these low ranking functionaries..to one small boy."'

mate..if you ask people questions
that threaten what they believe..be they athiest or fallen
human nature is to strike out at that which causes them pain

you threatend the core of their belief
and their faith was too weak to explain it to you

forgive them
they knew not WHY..they did
[ie listend to the inner voice of demons
and chose to bring their vile...into their soul]

we are what we allow
from thought into deed
wether we CHOSE..to obey
the inner voicing of demons..

or angels
it is..*Yours..*to chose

[1 st law]

Woot:
<How do you describe the beauty in something to the person that cannot see it? I am not skilled enough to recognise the path in that regard, I am sorry, and yes sad if that is your question :(>
..The art of answering a difficult question with a rhetorically stupid one!

<Live and let live with no undue advantage to any>
Beautiful!

But I don't want this thread to close without observing that we've seen almost nothing but "intolerance" from the atheists here, which is why they're so eager, abruptly, to remember the pc spin at the death and latch on to Pelican's ameliorative voice as though it was their own all along.
Does the ridicule and demonising we've seen here from beginning to end indicate tolerance? or a genuine stance of live and let live?
No, they're no more tolerant than the institution they seek to displace, though they're just as agile.
The undue advantage now lies, has long been, with the liberal rationalists.
I've never been a friend of the church, especially since it modernised and tried to seduce me (us) with its public relations wing, but I'm not going to sit idly by while the rationalists go on building momentum and proselytising the swinging spiritualists into their bleak Weltanschauung, whereby they may eventually dispense with equivocation altogether in favour of their binary logic--which is dangerous as well as tedious.
I wish I could take sides in this, but each is too stark and all that's on offer, finally, is a changing of the guard--delusion for delusion.
Of course it's not up to me--except where "I'm" concerned.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Xqg6Sjnmeg&feature=related

The old testament. The old old desert war sounds, hence why they made the new testament:)

Cactus

I say again, what an interesting thread. It’s reported that a bunch of atheists are gathering in Melbourne for a convention and somehow that demonstrates that atheists are intolerant or this is a part of the alleged intolerance they possess.

Meanwhile back in reality, something some atheists should visit now and then, religion goes about its business of privileged status. Dare anyone point this out because it is intolerant to do so? Yeah….Right!

Thirty billion dollars of untaxed income goes to religion and they still demand to discriminate against those who upset their precious sensibilities.

Voluntary euthanasia is denied because only a certain god can give and take life.

Women are not equal because of biblical proclamation.

Lesbians and gays must not have equality in the eyes of religion because of some twisted idea of a god’s perfect plan, only included heterosexuals.

Abortion is nearly an evil as great as homosexuality. Or, it could be the other way around, depending on which part of religion one is proclaiming from.

Stem cell research, which could make the lives of millions of people a whole lot better, is denied because a lump of cells is more important than a live suffering human being.

Effective sex-education is not allowed because it could lead to promiscuity and people could have sex before marriage. God help me the with inanity of that one.

Nuclear/biological weapons are in the hands of religious nations, and others are trying to get them. The end-of-times, being a common bond.

And against all of this, there are atheists trying to point out these very same problems. Not all atheists, some are so far up themselves that their importance outweighs reality. They really don’t give a toss for anything but their own delusion of self importance.

David

Hatred knows to shout
wisdom's silence will win out
now peace reigns, no doubt

First they came for the communists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew.

Then they came for me
and there was no one left to speak out for me.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ArdYLv4Ouj4&feature=related

Ship fairing:) more like pirates of the Caribbean:) The way forward? Well is easier than you think. But how will lead such a 7 billion strong troop)

Last post......a box of bananas anyone:)

Mankind has gotten here by the good luck, of the roll of the dice.

But now man has the power to destroy everything....and he will...so saith the lord.

Beam me up Scotty:)

cactus:)

The atheist Pope's spin:
<what an interesting thread. It’s reported that a bunch of atheists are gathering in Melbourne for a convention and somehow that demonstrates that atheists are intolerant or this is a part of the alleged intolerance they possess>

Is that all that was reported? What about:

<new enlightenment ... growing irrationality, fundamentalism and superstitious thinking around the world. ... and the menace of religious extremism threatening everyone’s quality of life, [and] what can be done to address the issues facing the globe....[and] It’s time we all cast off the superstitions of religion and move forward to bring justice and equality into this World. This can never happen while ever religions are allowed to poison the minds of people, inciting hate, fear and bigotry as they invariably do. We must learn from history and move forward into more enlightened times>

and that was just the kick off!
But it's not just the fundamentalists we need to fear; some atheists "are so far up themselves that their importance outweighs reality. They really don’t give a toss for anything but their own delusion of self importance".
And this after my "diatribe" (dissenting voice) has been simultaneously ignored (qualitatively) and roundly abused.
I ask again, and have asked repeatedly, what is your philosophy and what "specifically" do you propose to do "to address the issues facing the globe"?

In the penultimate post from his Lordship I am rhetorically condemned in the train of a villainous litany including tax havens, denial of dignified and merciful euthanasia, sexism, homophobia, denial of sex education, support for nuclear/biological proliferation, and "The end of times being a common bond"; as if all religious types and groups are necessarily intent upon such an agenda and the government is helplessly prey to them!
If this isn't intolerance--indeed rounding them up since they're all the same--I'd like to know what is!
For myself, I can only plead my innocence apropos the list of mortal sins recounted, and protest that my stated concerns here have been and are "patently" legitimate.
And now he invokes the Nazis. How apt!

Apparently, clear thinking is not for all. The “globe” is beset by many problems. There is no news in that.

Maybe I should uppercase this but I won’t. Atheism is not the answer to all things on the planet that need altering and no one is saying that, but that doesn’t mean that the problems it is trying to alleviate are not important.

Those looking for the E=MC squared of social ills could try and be a part of the solution of lesser equations rather than being a part of none. This only aligns themselves with being a part of the problems.

To keep banging away at this is frustrating, possibly beyond the comprehension or egotistical personalities who have lost or never had the ability to emphasise with their fellow humans.

Posting on generic type sites is good but I wonder if those I address would be so forthright in taking on atheists on an atheist site. My prediction is gutlessness would win.

If not, try this one. http://www.atheistfoundation.org.au/forums/index.php

David

You're a true leader, David--not a blush or hesitation, concession or backward step eh?
And now I'm a remote individual and your enlightened views are "possibly beyond the comprehension or egotistical personalities who have lost or never had the ability to emphasise with their fellow humans".

Wow, you see right through me, amazing! But have you considered the possibility of "psychological projection"?

Well I'm not too proud (or gutless) to hesitate and reflect on, or even regret taking a stand against an agenda I broadly support. But If I'm going to support or be represented by such a cohort I want to know they stand for something more than rhetoric and less than ideology.

Time permitting, I'll look in at your forum some time and hope to find some sympathy there.
In the meantime, I regret I can't go to the convention and I'm sure there will be some inspiring presentations, I only urge that all sides maintain a critical distance.

Psychological projection is only a valid assumption if the evidence can’t be produced for the claims of those allegedly using such a mechanism if they can’t be substantiated by empirical evidence.

In everything I have said, they can.

I mean no person any harm in my defence of reasoned thinking and take no joy in having to defend a position with firm words and concepts not generally discussed. This can lead to accusations of ‘intolerance’ and I understand that.

Nevertheless, I will persist with expressing a view that is growing in acceptance with the wider community as the alternative includes some very dismal predictions.

I would hope that anyone who wishes to expand upon the thoughts they hold dear to examine them with a wider audience and I applaud anyone willing to do that.

Pax

David

Bureau of Statistics figures show that in 2001 barely 10% (of Australians) named a Christian religion to which they adhered. Between 1996 and 2001 (a mere five years), the number of adherents dropped by 7%. The biggest denomination, Catholic was a mere 764,800 in 2001, amounting to a dismaying drop (for the church) of 13%. Anglican/Protestant, the next biggest denomination at 759,000, was steady.

These statistics are a bit old, does anyone have any later one's for church attendance in Australia. In Australia it's my understanding that of all persons who profess to being Christian only 2% attend church every Sunday. Most Australian 'Christians' are a bit like the 'golfer' who professes to loving the game but can never be bothered to play.

I said just one more:) However, religion is all in the human head.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y4mWiqkGy-Y&feature=related

Or this one:)

There,s an old way of thinking, and there's a new way. Sorry David, your convention should be commended in the name of truth:) but you ask any religious people with the small-minded nits that claims other wise, you have the human right to say what you want, with in the currant laws.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EPG3-1gogXU&feature=related

And the currant Laws gives you and the religions people equal standing ground on what right for whats been played out here and on other sites.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yjO4duhMRZk&feature=related

Christan's and all that think other wise, are fully invited to what David has put out here for all to make there choices.

Good luck:)

cactus

Correct me if I'm wrong. It is my understanding for those baptised a Catholic they must attend mass every Sunday. For any Catholic who does not attend mass on Sunday and has no legitimate excuse for being absent, such a catholic is guilty of committing a mortal sin and if that catholic fails to confess their sin and obtain absolution and so dies with the stain of mortal sin on their soul they will burn in hell for eternity. Has Mr Ratzinger changed the rules? If not all I can say, given the stats, there must be a lot of Catholics in hell. I might be wrong as Mr Ratzinger may have dependenced with hell as it no longer fits with todays view of things.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OSmTPThWD_c

Its makes one wonder what brain matter some people use, doesn't it:)

cactus:)

Just one more, then Iam off the bed:) let the old die as it should.

Have nice day:)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KRLR9jhP_DM

cactus.

after attacking the religeons..and those dumb enough
to follow religeous creed..[which few could dispute]

after delivering the 'coup de grass'..
lol..to religeon

poor david [a/thiest]..
posted this

""Then they came for me
and there was no one left to speak out for me.""

poor you david...who is they?

you claim the right*..to speak for others
so can speak for yourself..but have avoided much..in this debate

but lets get one thing straight
in your long rave..

you failed to address
the core athiest creed

""there is no such thing as god""

remember that mate?

we can clearly attack
and destroy the messenger's OF GOD
as being all that..*you say they are..

BUT FAULSE MESSENGERS..
do NOT invalidate god

except in your purile mind

so many words
so little proof..of no god

if you got an issue with faulse religeons
and who dont..that dosnt reflect anymore or less..*on god

that athism reflects
on the ravings of a davidian athiest god head
establishing..*his new faulse religeon...dont reflect on athiesm

and the herd of athiest diss believers
that buy into his religeon spin rave..
as proof there isnt god..lol

you exceed your brief
exposing your true adgenda
founding your neo [new]..religeon

they arnt comming after you
poor you

its so sad they ignore you
who has grown his flock..to but a few thousands

I want to let it go here but Atheist Foundation keeps forcing me to respond.
Clearly by psychological projection I meant the stream of demonising I've copped, such as misanthropic, egotistical, lacking ability to empathise, self-important, up myself etc.
I was of course suggesting David was projecting these attributes of "his" on to me.
He responds with <Psychological projection is only a valid assumption if the evidence can’t be produced for the claims of those allegedly using such a mechanism if they can’t be substantiated by empirical evidence>
Precisely. He doesn't know me from Adam, so what is his empirical evidence for any of those attributions?
He has none--thus I inferred he was projecting upon me.
Of course the much more plausible explanation is that he had nothing to offer in response to my criticism but abuse.
And then we get, <I mean no person any harm [I remain unscathed in this debate?] in my defence of reasoned thinking [as if any has been presented and I've attacked it!] and take no joy in having to defend a position with firm words and concepts not generally discussed["concepts", I must have missed those, all I've registered is hyperbole and abuse]. This can lead to accusations of ‘intolerance’ and I understand that [my accusations of intolerance were based entirely on evidence out of his own mouth].
Thank you, however, for pointing out my single error here, a spelling mistake, 'intollerance'. --and after I graciously overlooked some of your howlers!

And now, hopefully, I'll have done.

Ammonite, I accept your apology.

paul..thoughtfull as allways
but i got this in my paste box

from david..""Posting on generic type sites is good""

yep mate i agree
if you got truth..then open forum's like olo
[who dont censor the disscussion..are good

""but I wonder
if those I address would be so forthright
in taking on atheists on an atheist site.""

mate...you mean like the one i had with dorkins
THAT WAS DELETED AFTER HE LOST?

mate send your godhead here
tell him to put up his topic HERE

lets have it out on open forum..!

but back to 'forthrightness on the athiest forum...lol..""My prediction is gutlessness would win."""..thats my thought as well

its great we can agree..on one thing

paul..you ask re catholics..i got no idea
i tried to follow their creed..but much like the davidian athiest creed..i cant make head nor tails of the ill-logic*..but will try

""It is my understanding
for those baptised a Catholic
they must attend mass every Sunday.""

no idea
but i understand by confessing..they are welcomed back
like the long lost son parrable[presumably]

""for being absent,
such a catholic is guilty of committing a mortal sin
and if that catholic fails to confess their sin and obtain absolution and so dies with the stain of mortal sin on their soul they will burn in hell for eternity.""

mate creed is a funny thing
[creed is regarded as absolute[i think]
like how david holds sacred..the athiest creed..rule 1..[to wit no god]

""Has Mr Ratzinger changed the rules?""

i understand john paul did some revision...and the new pope has made some recent moves on condom's..but mate ANY CREED has great danger
demanding blind obediance..in lue of verifyable fact..is frought with danger

thats why god works in real time
lives now..not in creed or the dead words of any text

the living loving god of life
not the god of words..or book or creed

for these are dead instruments of satan...the living good
is reflected in LIFE..not dead creed

but we forget
in time

BUT*
[de-ja/vous*]

some remember bits
hence mankinds many prophets..

""If not all I can say, given the stats,
there must be a lot of Catholics in hell.""

well yes actually you got it right
that pope that did all that murder...he is actually in a protective cage..to protect himself from the good people gone bad..

who wish eternal suffering upon him..[thus by nessisity
..*VICTIM..condem THEMSELVES
to share the hell of thier procicuter]

its insane..but so too
is allowing freewill

BUT..

hate is a free choice
[the other rule 1]

'"I might be wrong as Mr Ratzinger
may have dependenced with hell""

you mean dispenced with hell?
no...see those of the light..cannot deem what those who reject the light CHOSE to do in the darkness of hell[ref rule 1.:freewill]

""as it no longer fits
with todays view of things.""

thats not for us of the light
to force upon the creatures of the dark
[time brings all back to the light]..and we have eternity..till everyone figures it out..then we draw closer..ever closer

time and space collapses in..within itself
till in time..we again begin the cosmic expantion..

[with a bigbang],
and time and space
begins all over again..

and we begin the next cycle

''in the beginning...'

its funny how the despised creed..
makes this material realm...*work...lol
our devision the only reason..we can reason..

within this materialist/realm

Projecting a false view about the Global Atheist Convention and indeed, atheism in the manner some do, is a psychological ploy whereas the attributes instead of belonging to the GAC and atheism, belong to the projector without their knowledge.

I know it’s difficult when only text is involved to ascertain the correctness of this but it becomes a matter of best guess. That is par for the course with internet forums.

Now, I could be wrong and the 2012 Global Atheist Conventions, atheists and atheism contain hidden dangers of a dastardly kind.

If these dangers were spelled out with clear and concise ideas, which they haven’t been, but rather hidden in a mixture of quasi-intellectual nonsense and the hurt-fawn response, then maybe I would be wrong about this.

Allow me to help. Here are three questions:

Mentioning twentieth century despots automatically disqualifies responses, as that does not have anything to do with freely chosen atheism by individuals living in a democracy. Please supply evidence supporting claims. Religious opinion is not evidence.

!) The 2012 Global Atheist Convention is dastardly because…………..(Please use concise language and ideas common to most folk on this forum)

2) Atheism is dastardly because………….. (Please use concise language and ideas common to most folk on this forum)

3) Atheists are dastardly because…………..(Please use concise language and ideas common to most folk on this forum)

David

David

While I agree there is a time to speak out, I think you missed the point of my haiku completely. There is a time when there is no use in trying to reason with someone who can only respond with increasing hate filled rants and deliberately false assumptions.

BTW

While I am not religious, do not believe in a deity as described in the bible, I do consider myself spiritual in nature - as Pat Condell has described (Thanks Laughing Succulent). I do not feel the need to preach my spirituality at anyone and rarely mention it at all, believing, as I do in reasoned debate and evidence. However I live in a beautiful part of the Yarra Ranges, meditate and do yoga and am grateful to simply be.

Ammonite,

I understood the haiku perfectly but I disagree that silence is necessary and that is why I posted Martin Niemöller’s famous poem, which contains a different view. I also accept you are pointing to a circumstance where the good of speaking out is somewhat drowned out by nonsense. I always work on the principle that others also view these forums and may come across ideas never thought of before. If you like, the ‘nonsense makers’ can be an enlightening enabling vehicle.

Your personal habitat circumstance sounds wonderful and mine is of a similar nature but not so grandiose in the eyes of all but I wouldn’t trade it for all the tea………..

My nature allows for this kind of endeavour and others find it too troubling. We are all different. When it becomes too much, I stop.

I wasn’t having a shot at your haiku but only supplying another view. That is all.

I’m personally not comfortable with connotations surrounding the word ‘spiritual’. It is too otherworldly for me. That doesn’t mean I am not in awe of many parts, if not all parts of nature.

David