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