Paul1405,
As Poirot alludes, you can't get more mainstream than the golden arches and ideology of liberal rationalism. Ditchkins stand for Mickey Mouse Imperialism. The rest are just cults that will never get anywhere.
Atheism's the way to go, but best to be unaffiliated and truly free-thinking.

Paul 1405,

Squeers is right...how many atheists are truly free thinkers?

"Liberal Rationalism" - (as the old commercial says) - "you're soaking in it" : )

Yes, without Richard Dawkins et al, the Atheist Foundation of Australia, numerous groups and thousands of unpaid volunteers all attempting to bring equality and fairness into a system beset by theocratic interference, atheism would eventually triumph.

The same can be said for the Arab nations who have been living under oppressive regimes for yonks. Why didn’t they just wait?

What wonderful thinking! Not.

Whilst the fence sitters spend endless hours, knocking those engaged with human struggles, gazing at their navels, others make positive moves to better humanity.

I am pleased to be on their side.

David

David,

The Arab nations that have recently agitated for a better deal are revolting against things other than oppressive religious regimes. The liberal rationalism of the IMF and the World Bank have partnered the corrupt ruling elite in places like Egypt and Tunisia (to name but two). It's the "structural adjustments" that have crueled the lives of ordinary Arabs more than anything oppressively religious.

You are quite adept at overlooking rationalist shortcomings.

http://guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/jun/07/egypt-imf-loan

http://anilnetto.com/corporate-led-globalisation/imfworld-bank/egypt-followed-imfworld-bank-ideas/

Poirot,

Who said anything about oppressive "religious" regimes.

David

Poirot

>> Squeers is right...how many atheists are truly free thinkers? <<

I don't know. As I have stated here previously, the only opinion that links atheists is a non belief in deities - which is of itself indicative of some independent thought.

In fact I'd go so far as to say that it is a moot point - atheism being the only aspect that atheists tend to have in common.

However, Squeers and apparently your good self are intent upon ascribing ideologies to people where few if any exist. To what end? To cast aspersions? Or even to claim that a non belief in gods is a religion also? Would love to know what your agenda is - at present I can only make assumptions.

If so, it is a religion without ritual, codes of behaviour, dress, hierarchy, 'special' days, or any other requirements. In fact there is no membership required. As a non stamp collector, I need do nothing as with atheism, all I need do is continue non belief in a god - no more difficult that not believing in the tooth fairy, not collecting Royal Doulton china, not collecting butterflies - surely you get the picture.

I will be attending the Atheist Conference because I am interested and find the speakers attending very intersting. 15 years ago, while holidaying in Tonga I attended a church sermon, simply because of the singing. It was a wonderful experience, but did not change my position on religion.

I also enjoy reading crime novels, but have no intention of becoming a P.I. or even a criminal.

Frankly, these persistent claims of atheism are without foundation. I have already expressed disenchantment with David and Paul1405. And Squeers who is behaving more and more like a troll than making an valid claims - like evidence of atheism as an ideology. In fact I believe that a definition of ideology and atheism is required.

Cont'd.