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.