The Rise of Atheism – Global Atheist Convention

[phobos]

Hi all, just a heads up that there will be a Global Atheist Convention held in Melbourne next year. It's a three day event and we have some fantastic presenters lined up including Richard Dawkins, PZ Myers, Dan Barker and Peter Singer.

http://www.atheistconvention.org.au

Interest is very high and tickets are selling fast.

Official media release here (http://www.atheistfoundation.org.au/media-releases/rise-atheism-%E2%80%93-global-atheist-convention-melbourne-%E2%80%93-12-14-march-2010).

[Omaroo]

Darnit - no Sydney event. :( Dawkins as a very interesting fellow.

[Saturnine]

Thanks for the heads up, Dawkins, Singer et al are some of the great thinkers of our time and it would be an experience to attend the convention, long live rationality and reason .

Jeff

ps Saw Singers interview on the ABC a few Sunday nights back and would love to hear more.

[Darth Wader]

Took the words right out of my mouth... a shame really as this really does look like an interesting event.

[JimmyH155]

I won't be in Melbourne that week - thank God:D

[astronut]

I don't believe in Atheists:lol::lol:

[Miaplacidus]

Enough already. Just give them a homeland in Palestine. That should keep the neighbours happy.

[Robh]

An atheist convention. Don't bother. God exists! :D

However, it is a democratic society so atheists can meet and air their beliefs just like any other group.

Regards, Rob

[Omaroo]

Thanks for your permission Rob. LOL! :D

[Waxing_Gibbous]

Personally, I'm with the God squad. I believe in creation, salvation etc etc. But only a half-wit would deny the evidence for evolution. And only half a half-wit would believe the Earth is 6000 years old.
I see no problem with a creator that sort of sets the rules and gets the ball rolling (makes as much sense as a "Quantum Fluctuation") and just gives it a nudge here and there. But ultimately we'll never know until its over.

Like Dawkins I have a strong aversion to organised religion. To me, the first priest was the first rogue who met the first fool, but Dawkins rather slavering attacks on beliefs smack of a Hezbollah-like attitude that leads down an equally bad road. Hyper-rationality has as many pitfalls religious zealotry.
My 2 cents.

[Omaroo]

A nicely rounded post Peter.

[barx1963]

[QUOTE=Waxing_Gibbous;501439]I see no problem with a creator that sort of sets the rules and gets the ball rolling (makes as much sense as a "Quantum Fluctuation") and just gives it a nudge here and there. But ultimately we'll never know until its over.

Sounds easy doesn't it? The problem with a God that just "sets the rules and gets the ball rolling" is that such a God has to be unbelieveably complex in the first place to be capable of being able to do such a thing and religion, whether organised or not, is incapable of answering the question of where did this God come from? To use a God as a creator simply puts off the questions of how or by whom was God created and so answers nothing.
Personally I prefer people who believe in the full on God rather than this rather wimpy version, if you are going to believe in fairy stories, at least believe in interesting ones!;)
Lastly, "hyper-rationality" is an interesting term. Rationality is attempting to understand events based on evidence, and refusing to invoke "unknowables" based on simple faith to explain away difficulties. As such you cannot be hyper rational, you are either rational or you are not. I cannot accept science can explain 99.9% of the universe and reserve the rest to God and still call myself a rationalist. Remembering of course that a rationalist should never say that science explains everything, only that everything is open to scientific rational enquiry. There may be some things that we cannot hope to explain, it doesn't mean we shouldn't try or worse, simply invoke "faith" and a God to avoid the question.
My 2 cents worth!

[GrahamL]

This'll end in tears like all the other threads .

whatever your beliefs are may they keep you happy .
That dark night sky has it all , where we are , have been ,and are going
so make of it what you will , nothing wrong with differant takes on the same plan

just enjoy the ride and leave chest thumping at the door guys imo

[PeterM]

Had to have a chuckle at this quote.

Nightstalker, you have foreseen and phrophesised something that will indeed happen and probably soon.
I wonder if the building will survive the lightning strike and tidal wave?
PeterM.

[jjjnettie]

:lol: I thought it would be locked by 8pm.
Religion... Atheism....:shrug:
What ever get's you through the night.

[Fossil]

I find religion to be the highest form of hypocrisy. They all go around preaching love, peace, goodwill, tolerance etc. and then go to war to kill anyone who doesn't believe them or their version.
Why should Man, to the exclusion of all other forms of life, and in all the vastness of the universe, be the only ones to have a 'God'?
Religions are continually being proved wrong in their beliefs, and are continually scrambling to align their beliefs with fact; i.e. when it was proven that the Earth is not the centre of the universe, when it was proven that the Earth is not flat, when it was proven that the Sun does not revolve around the Earth, etc.
Religion is a crutch for the feeble-minded to explain everything they don't understand. It is too easy to give God credit for anything that is not fully understood, rather than just admit that it is not yet understood.
When the time arrives for me to turn up my toes, I will do it with the belief that there is no heaven or hell, no afterlife or re-incarnation, no God or Devil, or any of the other fairy tales used by religious leaders to try and control us. We don't have a soul or spirit or any of that nonsense, and when the lights go out that is it, the end, finished.
My wish is for my carcass to be disposed of in the most environmentally friendly way possible (maybe even something useful like being turned into fertiliser) as monuments and graveyards are an obscene waste of space and just another leftover from a superstitious past.
Life is not a rehearsal, and we only get one crack at it, make the most of it
so that when your time comes you can go knowing that you did your best and spent your life chasing science fact and not science fiction.

[[1ponders]]

Regardless of belief systems lets keep it polite, civil and respectful of others beliefs.

This far :confused: from being locked.

[FredSnerd]

Most liberating experience I ever had was the day I decided I didn’t believe in God anymore. That was many many years ago now and I haven’t looked back. I recommend it to anyone

[jjjnettie]

Onwards and upwards hey Claude?

[Rhino1980]

I wouldn't say I'm a Nihlist or an Aethiest. I beleive in a grand design, but also believe religions and churches are as corrupt as governments and oil companies.

One of my favourite songs:

I have no consideration
Zero mutual respect
For billions who suffer from rational thought neglect
I don’t wanna waste a sentence
I don’t want a conversation
That’s gonna end in disdain disbelief and aggravation

And I find it’s getting harder to hang out
With grown adults who actually believe
In Santa Clause and Noah’s Ark, and Their god is the best
My distaste has turned into detest

Who would read a 2000-year-old medical journal?
Techniques for blood-letting
Advice on trichinosis
Would you navigate the globe
With a map of a flat Earth?
Without DNA testing would you believe virgin birth?

And I find it’s getting painful to put up
With grown adults who actually believe
In unicorns and creation and god always takes their side
That’s when my innocent jabbing turns snide

Thank god for the Grammy
Thank god for the touchdown
Thank god for blowing up the enemy’s sacred ground
So how am I supposed to take anything you say seriously
When you swap free will for faith, hope and pre-destiny?

And it’s getting agonizing to hang out
With grown adults who actually believe
Mythology and history trump physics and science
My aversion has turned to aberrance

[Darth Wader]

I agree 100% Claude. I still remember the day it happened to me. I was a practising Catholic since I was a kid. One day not long after my son was born I sat with him in the rocking chair, contemplating the world and all of the horrible things that we humans do to each other. I decided then and there that I simply could not believe that this supposedly benevolent god would allow these atrocities to happen. I shed a few tears, then I gathered myself and stuck with my decision to embrace atheism and free-thinking. On the whole it has made me a much better person and I've found a sense of wonder in the world that I haven't had since I was a child. "Break the chains and set yourself free!":thumbsup:

[FredSnerd]

Hey Jeanette,

Yeah something like that.

Hey Wade

Yeah my experiance was very similar to how you describe it. You might say we saw the light.

[FredSnerd]

I should say I will start believeing in God again if i get my telescope for Christmas. Now I have been dropping alot of hints so you know, this is make or break time.

[jjjnettie]

You should read "Stranger in a Strange Land" by Robert A Heinlein.
He has the funniest take on organised religion.

[mick pinner]

l find it hard to accept that if there is a god he feels the need to accept and therefore allow so much suffering in a world that frankly in my opinion should be torn down and started again. maybe Tom Waites got it right when he said there is no devil it's only god when he's drunk.

[FredSnerd]

Thanks Jeanette, I'll keep an eye out for it. I read a novel by Frank Yerby many years ago called "Judas My Brother". I think its quite different to your recommedation but as far as a novel goes it was a good hoot (and i touch irreverant).

[Waxing_Gibbous]

[/QUOTE]Sounds easy doesn't it? The problem with a God that just "sets the rules and gets the ball rolling" is that such a God has to be unbelieveably complex in the first place to be capable of being able to do such a thing and religion, whether organised or not, is incapable of answering the question of where did this God come from? To use a God as a creator simply puts off the questions of how or by whom was God created and so answers nothing.
Personally I prefer people who believe in the full on God rather than this rather wimpy version, if you are going to believe in fairy stories, at least believe in interesting ones!;)
Lastly, "hyper-rationality" is an interesting term. Rationality is attempting to understand events based on evidence, and refusing to invoke "unknowables" based on simple faith to explain away difficulties. As such you cannot be hyper rational, you are either rational or you are not. I cannot accept science can explain 99.9% of the universe and reserve the rest to God and still call myself a rationalist. Remembering of course that a rationalist should never say that science explains everything, only that everything is open to scientific rational enquiry. There may be some things that we cannot hope to explain, it doesn't mean we shouldn't try or worse, simply invoke "faith" and a God to avoid the question.
My 2 cents worth![/QUOTE]

Ooh Angry.
We live in an unbelievably complex universe "by what or whom was God created" rather ignores the question of by what or whom was the substance of space-time created? Something from nothing? Your preference for people who believe in the full-on version of God is deeply irrational, as you have no proof of Gods existence it makes no sense to prefer one lot over the other.
"You are a rationalist or you are not" sounds like something George Bush would say. Of course you can be a rationalist and have faith. To be a rationailst and NOT accept the possibility of devine intervention is to be irrational
I don't recall saying that scientific enquiry should be limited or that we should stop trying to examine and explain the universe around us by rational enquiry. I propose merely that there is as much evidence for devine intervention in the substance of the universe as there is for sponataneous generation.

[mswhin63]

No matter whay happens it is here to stay, as ape evolved eventually into humans their brains became more complex and imginative.

The theory the bible more than likely was created to set moral standards that was primarily lacking possibly in the days of old as our brain realised there was something better that clubbin' people over the head.

Science though the years give to more complexity of the human race and we started to distort things out of proportion.We also understand and question what it is that we understand from the past.

I mean there cannot be any truth to the new testimate anyway because that can't even have the right name. Jesus Christ is a Greek name not Hebrew so they ain't got that right for starters.

There has been a place for religion to a degree which I believe gave us some morality.

[mswhin63]

Thinking back in history many people that discover astronomy were religiously inspired. They have given us the opportunity to lok at the star in a more deeper and meaningful way.

We have only started to uestion it that is all.

[barx1963]

My point about being a rationalist or not is that the term "hyper-rationalist implies that there are degrees of rationalism. I simply contend that that makes no sense. Can I be a rationalist in relation to say plate techtonics and accept that earthquakes are caused by movements in the earths crust rather than Gods wrath, and yet be willing to accept (without evidence) that the universe was created by a higher being. To me, that is simply being inconsistent. Hence I think one must be either a rationalist (or hyper-rationalist or or ultra-rationalist) or not.
As regards accepting the possibility of divine intervention, I believe that a true rationalist will accept it when evidence is produced. The whole point of science is that it is self correcting. If firm evidence of Gods intervention in the creation of the universe is forthcoming, I will happily accept it, that is a rational thing to do. However that has not yet happened.
The problem with using faith to explain the origin of the Universe is that it requires just that...faith, which is the opposite of enquiry. Enquiry requires an open mind and a willingness to accept evidence that is contradictory to existing ideas. Faith requires well..faith! As such it says here's the answer, stop looking!
Spontaneous generation is an idea about the birth of the universe that is an idea, it is not yet fully accepted in science as I understand it and may or may not stand the test of time and evidence, and that is the whole point. I don't have to "believe" in it I only have to say I will support as long as the evidence does.
I hope I haven't offended anyone, that is never my intention. I do feel that is a forum member posts their ideas about the universe, it is reasonable to challenge them politely and rationally (there's that word again!)
Peter, hope to meet up with you some day and discuss more fully over a glass of something!

[fringe_dweller]

ahh memories ... wot no agnostics convention? they couldnt fit all those fence rails in a theatre? :P

good to see the rabble of non-believers possibly have an organised collective voice/lobby with clout (forming) for a change .. much like the other team has had for the longest time

altho on same team, dawkins does give me the willies sometimes tho - cant put my finger on it hmmm thank gawd for richard dawkins :lol:

[joe_smith]

Thats wrong and half the trouble with the evolution debate, Humans did not evolve from Apes. Humans and Apes share a distant ancestor in the past. BTW we are more closer to pigs than apes, and our love of junk food proves it :P

[Omaroo]

Idiot! LOL! :lol: :thumbsup:

[CoombellKid]

Man picks up stone, learns weight, man picks up two stones and
bangs them together, now man can make sound thats not his own.
Man picks up stone and whacks other man on head, man now has
food. That evolution.

Now unless I was born praising the lord. I would not know about it.
That's manipulation. And fits well with creationism :P

Cheers,CS

[jjjnettie]

It's all too medieval for me.
To believe that if someone has a mental illness they're possessed by the devil.
Cancer is god's way of punishing you because you've been a bad girl.
That's just stupid and very very hurtful.

Oh, and then they want to convert you so you can go to heaven when you die. Heaven sounds like some kind of hell to me.
Spending eternity singing praises to a god who allows all this pain and hurt? get real.

I knew I should have stayed away from this thread. Once I get started.......

[rider]

As a member of the Lesser Orthodox Obsequious Orthodontic Surgeon Assembly (blessed are the teeth makers) We LOOOSA’s are offended by your free speech and independent thinking.
Or alternatively, Perhaps I just don’t think that this is a constructive thread for an Astronomy Web site which should probably avoid alienating members who hold strong views about 2000 year old carpenters , chubby stone statues or or upside down pyramids, BUT still enjoy the same hobby as ourselves.
There aren't enough astronomers out there people, don't loose them because of a different subject.

[FredSnerd]

The assumption that religion gave us moral standards has always perplexed me. Man is a gregarious animal and as such has always had to devise rules for living together. Religion is what comes next when a religious fervour develops around the rules and simply does not tolerate any other way of doing things or looking at the world (that’s when people are burnt to the steak and Galileo is made to recant). Religion did not give is morals, it just gave us the intolerance that often goes with morals. Its like marriage. Religion tries to trick us into believing that it invented that too.

Are you saying "no matter what happens religion is here to stay". If by “here to stay” you mean there will always be a hand full of followers, then OK. But its had its day I’m happy to say and I do envisage the time (soon I hope) when the Christians and Muslims etc will be competing with the Order of Jedi Knights for the religion with the most followers. Its done so much harm.

[mojo]

...a topic best continued at the aforementioned convention.