Poirot,

So, I gather, you didn't take your own advice and stay away. You refer to a “movement”. Can you elaborate thanks?

You may be referring to the growing number of people leaving religion in droves but because someone leaves something can hardly be called a movement. You may be suggesting that the growing disparate group consisting of Atheists, Humanist, Agnostics, Rationalists etc. is a movement when in actual fact this is just a change in society. It could be classed as a rapid phenomenon but, a movement, that’s a poor descriptive word. Yes, I know, some dictionary definition will support the idea of a ‘movement’ but if it does and you are an atheist/agnostic, then you are a part of it. Welcome to the “movement”.

Oh, I see, atheist hold conventions and attract large crowds so that is the movement. But when religions hold conventions and attract large crowds (The Parliament of the World’s Religions as but one example) that is not a movement or when basket weavers hold large conventions that is not a movement.

Maybe you could explain what your mean.

Sniping at zealotry is a problem of yours, not mine. I am an atheist and I feel very lucky that happened to me. I therefore offer the reason why that is so which gives other people an idea to think about. Some atheists consider they are self-made, rubbish of course as circumstance and availability of knowledge are the main factors, and even knowing the advantages of holding that position, they are not prepared to share the luck.

When I was formulating a world view as a child I would have just loved there to have been a me and the Atheist Foundation of Australia. Many atheists make the same comment; somehow, you think supporting a very good idea, atheism, not necessary. Somehow, those suffering under the heal of religion are just not worth your effort. Good stuff.

David

No I decided not to stay away.....it occurred to me that although you initiated this thread, that it was open to any member to comment.

anyhooo, I considered my lack of respect in my second post here was a tad provocative, so I thought I'd try another tack.

I don't have a problem with your rational thought at all. I'm interested in the "phenomenon" as you put it. Your role appears to be a facilitator and representative of this "phenomenon". Conventions and foundations have to be orgainised, so there becomes an organised flavour to the phenomenon - which some of us would liken to a movement. You appear to be taking it up to those of religious bent - this thread title is a case in point. If you choose that path, it's not surprising that occasionally you will encounter comparisons with that which you oppose.

Btw, I wasn't singling out the AFA as a movement...I believe all religions are movements, as are any congregations espousing a world view...(do basket weavers espouse a world view?)

Dear David.,

You talk about the "indoctrination" of children into
religious beliefs. That's a rather sweeping statement
that doesn't allow for individual differences - such
as my own experience. I'm no Pollyanna about my Church.
I know all too well where it falls short. I know all too
well where it is unique in terms of reach into
individual lives and the impact it has on the needy parts
of the community.

It's been an interesting discussion.

All The Best.

Poirot,

“Your role appears to be a facilitator and representative of this "phenomenon".”

You haven’t heard of the numerous other ‘facilitators’ I presume. I do this because I can; the same as others. We are not representative of anything. Atheists don’t need telling what to do. Atheists, like all humans don’t gain benefit from being isolated by their societies. Therefore the AFA helps atheists know that others exist and they are not alone.

“it's not surprising that occasionally you will encounter comparisons with that which you oppose.”

Yes, of course it is not surprising. And it is even not surprising that some atheists resent their conscience being pricked also, just like religious folk don’t like it. It does come across as bitterness though.

“Btw, I wasn't singling out the AFA as a movement...I believe all religions are movements, as are any congregations espousing a world view...(do basket weavers espouse a world view?)”

That’s interesting about the AFA…. now. ‘Congregation’ generally means a group of people of faith. Do you mean atheists have a faith? Do you have a faith? ‘Congregation’ does have a more general meaning but the word is ambiguous. Why use. Shall I tell you? Let’s I shall.

You use the word ‘movement’ in a pejorative manner without answering whether you are a part of this movement. The way you get around this is to use the intentionally chosen word ‘congregation’ because you didn't go to the GAC and therefore were not a part of the ‘congregation’ and not in the movement. The GAC has happened twice in a lifetime by the way.

You haven’t thought about anything I have said and you are still trying to manipulate the language supported by your own linguistic gymnastics.

Why not ask yourself as to why you do this. Who do you think you are benefiting? Why are you giving support to woo because that is exactly what you are achieving?

'Worldview’ means a comprehensive view of life. Explain the athiests worldview? Why use the word at all in this context? Atheism is only a part of a worldview.

David

washed,

Let us simplify the muddle in this topic, starting with a few basic facts.

All historians of any worth consider Julius Caesar actually existed.

Not all historians of note consider the New Testament Jesus existed.

A consensus of historian has concluded that the Jesus of the New Testament existed. Most of those have a religious bent and there are many arguments for and against this proposition. But let’s accept it on face value for the exercise.

The reason for the controversy on this part of history is that the evidence for the existence of the NT Jesus is very scant. If the NT Jesus existed, the highest probability is that he was ineffectual as being an ‘anybody’ when alive. If the purported miracles and wonders were real and had actually happened, contemporary historians would have recorded them. They did not. There is not one iota of credible ex-biblical evidence suggesting that the NT Jesus was divine.

He was not known in his time because he was just one of the run of the mill 'messiahs'. Dime a dozen would be an adequate expression. There would be no way that he would have escaped the attention of the Roman authorities let alone the Jewish population. This is the biggest argument against the New Testament being a valid account of wonders and miracles.

Holy books cannot be trusted to be truthful or otherwise all holy books would have to be accepted.

Arguments for divinity or miraculous happenings based on the bible are as good as arguments base on the Koran or other holy books. They are not accepted by professional non-partisan historians.

David

David,

You seem to be overly sensitive.

I employed the word "congregation" as representative of people who "congregate".

We all use linguistic gymnastics (you included)- it's part of the attraction of debate.

I'd equate an atheist worldview as one that embraces a rejection of a deity and related metaphysical explanations in favour of a rational approach based on empirical evidence.