• Philosophy and Spirituality
    Welcome Guest
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
    Threads of Note Socialize
  • P&S Moderators: Xorkoth | Madness

The 2010 Global Atheist Convention Melbourne, Australia

I'm attending a panentheist convention right now. I didn't need to travel anywhere to attend it, it's happening in a big old famous convention hall called The Universe. All that's required to attend is realizing that you're always attending it, always have been, and always will be. The meeting never ends -- there's not much to discuss, but lots of awesome presentations.

CE&P mods, feel free to make use of the merge function to help this thread and its counterpart in P&S realize their essential oneness of being.
 
^ I can't merge threads in separate forums, but I could move this thread to your forum, or you could move your thread here. I'm fine with either one.

Is science really "under threat" from religion? The basis for the conference seems dubious.
 
Just because I am an Atheist it does not exclude me from having a deep spiritual relationship with the universe, it just means I don't think there is any conscious entity pulling the strings behind the scenes.

Try explaining that to Dawkins 8) Seriously do you think he would understand what you are saying. He dismises Einstien for holding similar views.

But yeah, I agree. There is no place for religion in politics, and I think that this needs to be said. But preferably by people who understand religion - and most importantly spirituality.
 
Gee, why don't all of us who don't believe in a flat earth gather and talk about it. Atheism is just a negative affirmation of the existence of God.

Atheists need to grow up and stop trying to force their disbelief on others. They are as annoying as Jehovah's Witnesses in my humble opinion.
 
Heuristic, I'll take it over in my place.

I think the claim that science is under threat from religion is a bit paranoid. I haven't seen very much scientific R&D successfully halted by religious agendas, at least in most of the countries where most R&D takes place. The watchdog groups for ethics in scientific research tend to take a fully secular, utilitarian approach, in my limited experience.

In terms of TECHNOLOGICAL APPLICATION of scientific findings, this will always bow to concerns of cultural comfort. If a technology (or idea for a new direction in societal engineering) tickles a cultural group's 'yuck' reflex, they will not accept and integrate it, no matter how scientifically revolutionary or brilliant it is. Nor should they be expected to. Science and technology are no different from any other human institution or construct -- they're there to ameliorate the human condition. They don't have a life or purpose of their own, despite what some people who are zealously passionate about the scientific endeavor might imply.

So, back to the convention: I do think it's reasonable for a group of people who don't share their culture's aversion to certain trends in science and technology (and philosophy, and anything really), to want a place where they can gather and share, unhindered. It's kind of like B&D/S&M clubs, or for that matter, drug forums :) . Many atheists have no political or cultural agenda -- they simply want a place to share their feelings and opinions without upsetting anyone. It's certainly not my cup o' joe. But all I have to do, then, is not attend.
 
Birth control/abortion laws and embryonic stem cell research laws in the US. NUFF SAID.


I wouldn't say there's a "huge" issue with religion stifling science, but I'd say there's a ridiculously, massive, gigantic, huge, enormous, MONSTROUS FUCKING ISSUE with religion affecting how science is utilized when it comes to politics as a result of religion. STAY THE FUCK OUT OF MY UTERUS.


(But yeah, as soon as I saw Richard Dawkins in that list, I stopped reading.)
 
Birth control/abortion laws and embryonic stem cell research laws in the US. NUFF SAID.


I wouldn't say there's a "huge" issue with religion stifling science, but I'd say there's a ridiculously, massive, gigantic, huge, enormous, MONSTROUS FUCKING ISSUE with religion affecting how science is utilized when it comes to politics as a result of religion. STAY THE FUCK OUT OF MY UTERUS.

Granted. Though I think with education, I think you're going to see vehemently anti-abortion people pushed to the lunatic fringe.

I think abortion and stem cell research will be quicker to be accepted in the US, the less the general public comes to associate them with atheism.
 
Atheists need to grow up and stop trying to force their disbelief on others.

Force our disbelief?

The most I as an atheist do is ask someone else to understand that my beliefs are based on simple ideas of logic and reason and ask them to try and use these tools when assessing extraordinary claims such as "a man in the sky controls us all from above" themselves.

Compared to religions methods of inducting children while their brains are still developing and brainwashing adults with unsubstantiated promises of eternal reward or punishment I think that us "Forcing our disbelief" seems overly aggressive.

They are as annoying as Jehovah's Witnesses in my humble opinion.

Really? When was the last time an atheist woke you up on a Sunday morning to tell you that abortion is murder, the only grounds for divorce is adultery (even abuse is not grounds) and that the end of times has already started?
 
Last edited:
- We don't know at all, but what any Atheist will usually say is "based on all available evidence it is improbable that there is a god" which seems like a more reasonable assumption than the religious "I definitely know there is a God"

No that view woud an agnosticism. An athiest believes that god does not exist (ie. "I deffinatly know there isn't a god).
 
I'm not an atheist; nonetheless, I think get-togethers like this are a good thing, if only because they play toward the social strengths that religion has always had over (didactic) secularism. However, I think as a goal they're spinning their wheels; when and if religion fades away, it will be because of a global, technologically-savvy society that's incompatible with piety, not because of Dawkins or Randi or Harris.

Just my two bits.
 
Last edited:
when and if religion fades away, it will be because of a global, technologically-savvy society that's incompatible with piety, not because of Dawkins or Randi or Miller.

That's an interesting idea, that's dawned on me a few times. What if our technology reaches the point of being essentially numinous, as in Kurtzweil's singularity? Reminds me of the old Buddhist saying about the religion being a boat that can be left behind once the shores of enlightenment have been reached.
 
Force our disbelief?

The most I as an atheist do is ask someone else to understand that my beliefs are based on simple ideas of logic and reason and ask them to try and use these tools when assessing extraordinary claims such as "a man in the sky controls us all from above" themselves.

Compared to religions methods of inducting children while their brains are still developing and brainwashing adults with unsubstantiated promises of eternal reward or punishment I think that us "Forcing our disbelief" seems overly aggressive.

actually, the very definition of an atheist is the assertion that a higher power or spirit does not exist. this is as offensive as those who assert that is does. what you describe, as mentioned, is agnosticism.

personally, i see more concessions coming from the theist side than the other. when in the long run what is more important is that we live in harmony, this display of compassion needs to reciprocated.

i wish more atheists were like you, punktuality. the one thing that has put me off this forum, over the years of P&S (and previously T&A), is the viciousness displayed by atheists.

Really? When was the last time an atheist woke you up on a Sunday morning to tell you that abortion is murder, the only grounds for divorce is adultery (even abuse is not grounds) and that the end of times has already started?
now that's just silly.
 
It is not agnosticism...

If GOD came down and looked me in the face and showed me the secrets of the universe of course I am going to change my mind, but until then I have decided that there is no evidence whatsoever to even suggest that there might be a god. That does not make me agnostic.

Agnosticism by definition is a lack of knowledge, As an atheist I have looked at all available knowledge and made a decision. Future knowledge may change that but until then my decision is made.

The problem with agnosticism is that I could find a person who calls themselves a christian yet still admits they don't have the full knowledge to be able to prove gods existence. I can also find a non believer who admits they don't have the knowledge to prove gods non-existence. Both are technically "agnostic" as they are "without knowledge" and all of a sudden the word agnostic becomes meaningless.

The very concept of 'faith' means 'to believe without evidence/knowledge' so if I am an agnostic then so are all religious people.

Hence I choose the word 'Atheist' to describe myself as it most accurately reflects my beliefs.

Someone who doesn't believe in Santa Clause is not a Santa-agnostic just because they can never rule out the slight possibility he might be real.
 
then i take that back.

the simple tools to which you refer require just as much of a leap of faith to determine that lack of a spiritual source as it does to determine one as evident. as i've said many times before, it's like measuring radiation with a ruler.
 
For me, atheism is not about science versus religion, or logic versus faith, or whether or not there exists some supreme being who has control over the universe.

It's more or less about how right and wrong are not defined by some allegorical book written 2 thousand years ago. It's about how incredibly absurd and scarily insane it is when a mother tells me that it's OK to spank her children not because she believes it's an effective disciplinary tool, but because an influential member of her church explained how there are ways to intrepret the bible to see within it the advocacy of corporal punishment.

I remember when a couple of those door-to-door religion salesmen appeared on my front doorstep, and we had a long, yet respectful convsersation about this subject. Their argument boiled down to, "If everyone followed the 10 commandments, the world wouldn't have any problems."

And I couldn't help but agree. I said, "Sure, that's absolutely true." But since when are the 10 commandments about "God's" wishes? Aren't they more or less common sense?

Was anyone really surprised when they read those commandments? It is just some kind of coincidence that they happened to be rules by which most of us kind of live by anyway whether or not there exists the threat of eternal damnation?

How hard is it to see that a couple of thousand years ago, some really bright people who saw a need for more order in society devised a way to convince people why it is absolutely necessary to have some common decency? Why does it have to be something of a "divine" origin?

I know the difference between right and wrong. I am quite capable of feeling the pain of others, thank you. I have never harbored the desire to murder, or to violate the personal rights of my fellow human beings.

I didn't need to be scared of the wrath of a supreme being to be this way. It's something that comes naturally with being a human being who grew up in an environment with loving parents, and who was taught to respect all things living regardless of their backgrounds or beliefs.

And when I all too often hear the mantra that atheists "don't know love without god's love" or that we're "morally deprived," I can't help but shake my head in pity for people who really, honestly believe that they need to follow divine commandments to become familiar with either of those concepts. I guess they will never know what it's like to accept their own sense of humanity as being perfectly valid without the approval of the "almighty."

If more and more people are turning away from religion, then society is progressing. People are beginning to understand that compassion and reason are not copyrighted by the church.

I've had this conversation many, many times with people on both sides of the fence in person and via the web. And I'd have to say the argument that most impressed me was one where the person said, "I have faith in god because it's hopeless to have faith in mankind."

At least that person understood what atheism truly is: the reliance on human wisdom and understanding to pull us forward. And, frankly, I couldn't blame the guy for having that opinion. It's hard to look at mankind as a whole and be convinced we're headed in the right direction.

But, as an atheist, my "belief" is that if we can't rely on ourselves to get us through this mess called societal evolution, then we're fucked. We have to take off the training wheels (e.g. religion) and each find our own balance. It's there; it just doesn't come easily. It takes a lot of thinking and plenty of trial and error.
 
Last edited:
But, as an atheist, my "belief" is that if we can't rely on ourselves to get us through this mess called societal evolution, then we're fucked. We have to take off the training wheels (e.g. religion) and each find our own balance. It's there; it just doesn't come easily. It takes a lot of thinking and plenty of trial and error.

Bravo. Well said. I couldn't agree more.

Atheism doesn't claim to have the answers, but it knows where there are not any answers and via a conference like this we can open a dialogue about what the future may hold and get some of this "thinking" and "trial and error" going.
 
I'm gonna start putting money away so I can be there.

Sounds awesome. (claps hands)

sponger - awesome post, totally what I've had to deal with since I come from a Catholic upbringing but am an atheist and always have been. A lot of my friends are religious but luckily my SO is an atheist also, not by accident of course.

The whole religion thing never made sense to me ever since I developed reason in grammar school and had to attend religion classes. I was always the kid that asked annoying questions and got written up for it.
 
Last edited:
Top