whe wrote:From what I've read about conference it should more honestly be called, Anti-theist, rather than Atheist. Nothing wrong with that..Lots and lots of horrible stuff occurs due to theism.

But really once you've stated your position as 'someone who doesn't believe in woo', what more is there to say about 'atheism'? I can't quite imagine how you could fill a few days with lectures and get in speakers from all over the world, without it being about Anti-theism.

BTW Simon, thanks for taking the trouble to post the links.

I note you seem to be using 'anti-theist' and 'anti-theism' interchangeably?

I attended the convention and I did not get an 'anti-theist' message from it at all. Quite the contrary in fact. There may have been some 'anti-theism' messages but I don't recall hearing anything that I would describe as 'anti-theist'. Some speakers (eg Philip Adams) were actively arguing against being 'anti-theist' during their presentations.

The anti-theism aspects were very much about issues such as separation of church and state, the rights of women, the rights of the GLBT community etc. These were positive messages and discussions and were not just a bunch of atheists doing 'theism-bashing' for the sake of it.

I found the convention incredibly inspiring.

starr wrote:

whe wrote:From what I've read about conference it should more honestly be called, Anti-theist, rather than Atheist. Nothing wrong with that..Lots and lots of horrible stuff occurs due to theism.

But really once you've stated your position as 'someone who doesn't believe in woo', what more is there to say about 'atheism'? I can't quite imagine how you could fill a few days with lectures and get in speakers from all over the world, without it being about Anti-theism.

BTW Simon, thanks for taking the trouble to post the links.

I note you seem to be using 'anti-theist' and 'anti-theism' interchangeably?

I attended the convention and I did not get an 'anti-theist' message from it at all. Quite the contrary in fact. There may have been some 'anti-theism' messages but I don't recall hearing anything that I would describe as 'anti-theist'. Some speakers (eg Philip Adams) were actively arguing against being 'anti-theist' during their presentations.

The anti-theism aspects were very much about issues such as separation of church and state, the rights of women, the rights of the GLBT community etc. These were positive messages and discussions and were not just a bunch of atheists doing 'theism-bashing' for the sake of it.

I found the convention incredibly inspiring.

Well I think it's a shame it wasn't more anti-theist then. And I'm referring to Fundies. They are really vile in many ways. I'd have thought there'd have been a fair bit about bornagains and fundamentalist Islam. No I don't mind more liberal theists. Not that I agree with them..but I'm talking politics, and the disgusting things that go on in the name of fundamentalism.

I don't quite see what the battle is to do with separation of church and state, I don't find the state established church in England particularly oppressive..I actually think it helps keeps the bornagainds in check..though I agree that politics to do with women and GLBT is a fight worthwhile.

But I get back to, what is there more to say about being atheist, than not believing in woo.

I like it when Dawkins talks biology, I love it..but what has that to do with atheism? I thought I read he called the pope a Nazi..surely that's anti-theist? And he surely mentioned Creationists?

Anyway I didn't attend, so you probably know more. I'm just going on some I've read. And I also think it should have been live streamed.

What do you mean by using anti-theist and anti-theism interchangably? I'm just not genned up on all the correct terminology probably - sorry. But hopefully you get the gist of my points.

whe wrote:

What do you mean by using anti-theist and anti-theism interchangably? I'm just not genned up on all the correct terminology probably - sorry. But hopefully you get the gist of my points.

It's actually something that lots of people do and it's something that I personally don't like. To me, 'anti-theist' is attacking the person whereas 'anti-theism' is attacking the beliefs/behaviours.

I was a theist until I was 22. I wasn't a bad or a stupid person but I had some delusional and stupid beliefs.

I am anti-theism but I am not anti-theist.

There was definitely some anti-theism expressed at the convention (which I completely agree with) but I don't think there was very much expression of anti-theist opinions. It is about understanding why some people are theists and that it is often a result of childhood indoctrination and subsequent fear. It is about seeing people as fellow fallible human beings.

I am not against the people who hold theistic beliefs but I am against:
- their beliefs imposing on public policy;
- having to pay for the promotion of their beliefs through my taxes; and
- the aspects of their beliefs that result in discrimination against women, GLBT people, and racially based discrimination etc.

starr wrote:

whe wrote:

What do you mean by using anti-theist and anti-theism interchangably? I'm just not genned up on all the correct terminology probably - sorry. But hopefully you get the gist of my points.

It's actually something that lots of people do and it's something that I personally don't like. To me, 'anti-theist' is attacking the person whereas 'anti-theism' is attacking the beliefs/behaviours.

I was a theist until I was 22. I wasn't a bad or a stupid person but I had some delusional and stupid beliefs.

I am anti-theism but I am not anti-theist.

There was definitely some anti-theism expressed at the convention (which I completely agree with) but I don't think there was very much expression of anti-theist opinions. It is about understanding why some people are theists and that it is often a result of childhood indoctrination and subsequent fear. It is about seeing people as fellow fallible human beings.

I am not against the people who hold theistic beliefs but I am against:
- their beliefs imposing on public policy;
- having to pay for the promotion of their beliefs through my taxes; and
- the aspects of their beliefs that result in discrimination against women, GLBT people, and racially based discrimination etc.

I was using 'anti-theist' as an adjective, eg to do with ant-theism..not against the person...at least I think I was..I'm still a bit muddled about it. But I see your point. I'll try to remember how to use it in future.

I suppose differences in what's important to us all are partly to do with different experiences. I grew up with the usual wish-washy Anglicanism..and it never bothered me or affected me much..there was actually quite a bit I liked, like singing carols and stuff like that. I was big into science from a young age, and I suppose I just compartmentalised things as most people do..and just very gradually lost my theist beliefs.

Only once in my life has religion affected me in a way that bothered me, to do with a load of bornagains behaving appallingly leading to the end of my lesbian relationship with another woman, and having a terrible effect on her child. I shall never get over it..and am happy to attack them as people, not just their beliefs. Some things just go too deep I'm afraid.

So yes for me the fight is very much to do with the literalist fundamentalist stuff. And if the state established church takes away some of the power of the fundies..bring it on.

I think the fight should be more concentrated, rather than just worrying about a bit of wishy washy stuff.

But its good to get different takes on things.

Simon_Gardner wrote:

Neil Ormerod wrote:The present pope was not a Nazi. He was conscripted into the Hitler Youth at the age of 14. To equate this with Nazism is not rational. I seriously doubt that Senator Fielding, whatever his failings, is less intelligent than an earthworm. Ridicule is a poor substitute for reason. And as a “sophisticated theologian”, I know of no colleagues who have sought testimony from doctors on miraculous cures. This is something the church undertakes and does not require the attention of theologians.

He may not have been a vociferous Nazi, be he and his family did fuck-all to counter it (my own great-grandfather spent many months in a KZ because he wouldn't keep his mouth shut). The inaction of many empowers the evil of a few.

about wrote:It’s curious that one of the lessons which Joseph Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI, draws from the experiences of German Catholics under the Nazis is that Catholics should become even more obedient to their ecclesiastical leaders rather than more free to adopt independent courses of action.

And the whole Mary Mackillop miracle of healing a woman just through prayers - all the harsh medical interventions and radiotherapy had zero to do with it? Talk about desperation to create an Aussie saint.

Kathleen Riley Pymble wrote:...He [Dawkins] continually picks off easy targets in the form of creationists and extremists.

Exactly the response he was addressing - the 'no true scottsman' variant. How ironic.

Andrew Dalton Annandale wrote:As an atheist, I am always perplexed by the amount of energy my fellow non-believers expend in pursuit of converting theists to our way of thinking. It has the ring of - dare I say it - proselytising.

In that case teaching evolution and Big Bang theory are also proselytising.

Rather than mere theist bashing (except for material by a couple of very funny stand up comedians), one of the main themes of the whole conference was tolerance and embracing people of various faiths to work together towards common causes.

It was repeatedly suggested than rather than pursue a purely atheist agenda and risk the continuing alienation of mild to moderate theists, we should attempt to involve them in secular issues such as preventing creationism being taught in schools, equal rights for everyone, supporting the High Court challenge about the school chaplaincy program, pursuing a senate enquiry into the practices of Scientology and other cults, improving our policies and treatment of refugees, and the separation of church and state in our governments and legislation.

There are many moderate theists who share our values of wanting to see quality education, freedom of speech, etc,etc and that by working with them, while acknowledging their right to hold whatever private religious belief they wish to, we are more likely to be an effective force for positive social change than if we stay isolated as a fringe group of militant anti-theists.

This theme really struck a chord in me, and I fully agree that there is plenty of room in the rational, secular camp to involve many more people of differing beliefs, cultures and backgrounds.



Durro

P.S. Loved your presentation Kylie and I will be following your podcast from now on.

Durro wrote:Rather than mere theist bashing (except for material by a couple of very funny stand up comedians), one of the main themes of the whole conference was tolerance and embracing people of various faiths to work together towards common causes.

It was repeatedly suggested than rather than pursue a purely atheist agenda and risk the continuing alienation of mild to moderate theists, we should attempt to involve them in secular issues such as preventing creationism being taught in schools, equal rights for everyone, supporting the High Court challenge about the school chaplaincy program, pursuing a senate enquiry into the practices of Scientology and other cults, improving our policies and treatment of refugees, and the separation of church and state in our governments and legislation.

There are many moderate theists who share our values of wanting to see quality education, freedom of speech, etc,etc and that by working with them, while acknowledging their right to hold whatever private religious belief they wish to, we are more likely to be an effective force for positive social change than if we stay isolated as a fringe group of militant anti-theists.

This theme really struck a chord in me, and I fully agree that there is plenty of room in the rational, secular camp to involve many more people of differing beliefs, cultures and backgrounds.



Durro

P.S. Loved your presentation Kylie and I will be following your podcast from now on.

Yes Durro, I agree with most of your post. I see things in terms of politics, rather than theist/atheist dichotomy. I think for political reasons it would be good to make alliance with moderates against the lunatic theism, for pragmatic reasons. I'm big into pragmatism.

I've been arguing that on another board for a while.

For me the whole issue is mostly political.

(Edit. Except I disagree with the separation of state and church in England..for reasons I posted above. But I would be for it, if the state church showed signs of becoming more extremist..so yeah I'm open on that issue..again for pragmatic reasons)

There was also an extremely interesting thread of conversation on Sunday that dealt with the need to and how to overcome the instinctual nature of our responses to things in an increasingly complex (human) world. From the view-point of evolution our instincts are light-years behind the kinds of risk & nauance that our interconnected world lump us with & if we are to make informed moral decisions as a species we have to acknowledge that. Ian Robinson, Peter Singer and Kylie Sturgess were illuminating on this point and each from a different direction. It tied in fascinatingly for me with the work of Nicholas Nassim Taleb on randomness in complex/inter-related societies.

I'm interested to know what you guys think about Dawkins approach. I have quite mixed views. I love his science stuff, as I mentioned earlier..and the Selfish Gene is superb in my opinion. But I get a bit fed up when then uses that in the context of atheism, essentially against the creationist aspect of theism. Though I'm forever changing my mind about that..I'm just not sure if I'm totally honest. It's true that creationism is part of the fundamentalism agenda..but I have a problem with thinking that is aspect of fundamentalism that should be concentrated on, because of what I said earlier. I can't quite put together in my mind the biology with the politics. I can see that it indicates how totally irrational and crazy fundamentalism actually is..and may help more people to stop believing the whole deal..but I wonder does it in reality?

Like I say though I'm forever changing my mind about that. And maybe it's just me..

Was that an issue brought up at the conference?

The Age wrote:Fielding goes to ground after being likened to a worm
Fielding was booked for an early-morning taped interview yesterday but, when Dawkins's field notes were front-page news, the Victorian senator went underground. ''His office rang to cancel,'' Jacobs said. ''No reason was offered.''

Fielding, normally loquacious to a fault, sought sanctuary in Parliament all day and so avoided being questioned about his backbone or lack of one.

podblack wrote:

starr wrote:Is that you Kylie????

If so...

Yes. Thank you! I was here earlier before everything started, to request that I could mention this site. I talked specifically about the former Dawkins forum and acknowledged how much it meant to people.

I appreciated that part of your opening comments as well. It was handled very well, tactfully acknowledging the problems and positively promoting alternative sites such as this one.

For that matter you did an exceptionally good job as co-MC.

On the downside from the con: I missed your talk! It was the only talk over the entire conference I missed. My excuse is that I was stuck in the incomprehensibly slow check-out book queue and for AC Grayling to sign one of his books for me.

(Digression: the only two criticisms I have of the conference from an organisational POV is that the book selling could have been more efficient (more space, more people processing orders) and the silly red lanyard/blue lanyard seating division which made no sense to anybody I've spoken to.)

I'll be picking up a copy of the DVD, so I'll be able to check it out then.

whe wrote:I'm interested to know what you guys think about Dawkins approach. I have quite mixed views. I love his science stuff, as I mentioned earlier..and the Selfish Gene is superb in my opinion. But I get a bit fed up when then uses that in the context of atheism, essentially against the creationist aspect of theism. Though I'm forever changing my mind about that..I'm just not sure if I'm totally honest. It's true that creationism is part of the fundamentalism agenda..but I have a problem with thinking that is aspect of fundamentalism that should be concentrated on, because of what I said earlier. I can't quite put together in my mind the biology with the politics. I can see that it indicates how totally irrational and crazy fundamentalism actually is..and may help more people to stop believing the whole deal..but I wonder does it in reality?

Like I say though I'm forever changing my mind about that. And maybe it's just me..

Was that an issue brought up at the conference?

Considering Dawkins is an evolutionary biologist the evolution vs creationism angle is pretty much what launched him into the debate. Science is his area of expertise, and it's his application of the scientific method that informs his views on the existence of God - or, more accurately, the probable non-existence of God.

He went further afield with The God Delusion, and while it's a good read from a generalist perspective it can be nit-picked by philosophers and theologians. Most of the critiques are inconsequential or pointless, but they do expose him to criticism that he is not a specialist in those areas. However in the area of evolutionary biology he can speak with a high degree of authority.

Furthemore creationism is one of the key areas fundies use to dirve a wedge into the classroom, trying to convert science classes into religious instruction. If they kept their science-denying views to themselves it would be one thing, but they are trying to thrust them into the schools for the sole purpose of using creationism as a tool for evangelism.

So I'd suggest that keeping the argument focused on the science, particularly evolutionary biology, is the most useful angle Dawkins can take.

RichardPrins wrote:Bestselling books from the 2010 Global Atheist Convention

I picked up #2, 50 Voices of Disbelief: Why We Are Atheists (ed Blackford & Schuklenk), and #4, Thinking Of Answers (Grayling). I've only glanced at Grayling's book, and not enough to comment, but having read a few sections of 50 Voices I can highly recommend it.

A lot of the books sold out - the rankings might have looked different if some key ones hadn't disappeared early.

RichardPrins wrote:Bestselling books from the 2010 Global Atheist Convention

Don't forget Max Wallace's The Purple Economy: Supernatural Charities, Tax and the State - that one sold out within 20 minutes of Wallace's talk ending (and my pointing out its unavailability in Bookstores, LOL!) - and then when more copies came in on Sunday they sold out again!

Just popping in to say Oh Hai!

It was great catching up with all youse wonderful peeps!

Hi Witt!

All the best to Mrs Witt too. (goes looking for non-alcoholic smilie...)

Antipotheosis wrote:

RichardPrins wrote:Bestselling books from the 2010 Global Atheist Convention

Don't forget Max Wallace's The Purple Economy: Supernatural Charities, Tax and the State - that one sold out within 20 minutes of Wallace's talk ending (and my pointing out its unavailability in Bookstores, LOL!) - and then when more copies came in on Sunday they sold out again!

Ah that explains why we couldn't find it - 20 minutes, eh - wow!!!

I bought Cath Deveny's book and had it signed, and my darling husband bought me Sue-Ann Post's book, also signed!

ginckgo wrote::mrgreen:

The Age wrote:Fielding goes to ground after being likened to a worm
Fielding was booked for an early-morning taped interview yesterday but, when Dawkins's field notes were front-page news, the Victorian senator went underground. ''His office rang to cancel,'' Jacobs said. ''No reason was offered.''

Fielding, normally loquacious to a fault, sought sanctuary in Parliament all day and so avoided being questioned about his backbone or lack of one.

Just saw this comment (referring to Richard comparing Fielding to a worm):

Not a big fan of stupidity personally, but I greatly prefer it to misplaced intellectual arrogance.

Seriously? He'd preference an idiot over someone who is intelligent, but who he thinks talks down at him? Tall poppy syndrome on steroids. Fuck, I hate the anti-intellectual undercurrents in this country.