Go Back   AFA Forums > Atheism > Global Atheist Convention Forum

Global Atheist Convention Forum All discussions regarding the AFA's Global Atheist Conventions

Thread Tools
Old 20th April 2012, 07:42 PM
Logic's Avatar
Logic Logic is offline
Up there for thinking...
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 2,079

BlueDevil said View Post
Here is one that skipped by me. Has possibly been posted elswhere?

Thanks, hadn't seen that. I did notice they misspelled atheism on one of their graphics *sigh*

i sent this from my iPad
“The only position that leaves me with no cognitive dissonance is atheism. It is not a creed. Death is certain, replacing both the siren-song of Paradise and the dread of Hell. Life on this earth, with all its mystery and beauty and pain, is then to be lived far more intensely: we stumble and get up, we are sad, confident, insecure, feel loneliness and joy and love. There is nothing more; but I want nothing more.” -Christopher Hitchens
Reply With Quote
Old 21st April 2012, 12:55 AM
the_gelf the_gelf is offline
Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Perth, Western Australia
Posts: 1,917
Default Re: GAC 2012 in the media

Logic said View Post
Thanks, hadn't seen that. I did notice they misspelled atheism on one of their graphics *sigh*

i sent this from my iPad
Well at least it was a nicely edited piece featuring our fearless leader.
Reply With Quote
Old 22nd April 2012, 12:54 PM
Darwinsbulldog's Avatar
Darwinsbulldog Darwinsbulldog is offline
AFA Member
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Perth
Posts: 19,054
Default Re: GAC 2012 in the media

The panel didn't have a clue about the difference between atheism and agnosticism. Agnosticism is the holding of judgement on whether there is a god or not, which is mainly a technical indecision based on the recognition of non-omniscience in humans, and hence the inability to absolutley rule out the possibility of gods, however remote. Atheism is simply a lack of belief in gods. Therefore a rational atheist is both an agnostic and an atheist and there is no incompatability in that.
Just stick to the idea that science tests falsifiable hypotheses to destruction.
Reply With Quote
Old 22nd April 2012, 05:23 PM
DanDare's Avatar
DanDare DanDare is offline
Religion or Reality, choose...
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Brisbane, Queensland, Australia
Posts: 7,485
Default Re: GAC 2012 in the media

Sieveboy said View Post
More than a few comments in those articles have been sticking it to Scott Stephens for the massive dump of crap articles, including some deriding the fact that none of these authors actually know much about atheists and that maybe an atheist would be able to make a position statement (or equivalent) far better.

I may have trolled (politely) a little myself.
Is Scott Stephens a mere zealot (all religion is better than none) or a dominionist (only my christianity, everyone else is stupid)? Why is he getting away with such overt bias at the ABC?
"History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government".
-Thomas Jefferson

Burden of proof is the obligation on somebody presenting a claim to provide evidence to support its truth (a warrant). Once evidence has been presented, it is up to any opposing "side" to show the evidence presented is not adequate. If claims were accepted without warrants, then every claim could simultaneously be claimed to be true.

History isn't written by the victors. It's written by the people with the time machines.
Reply With Quote
Old 22nd April 2012, 05:53 PM
Sieveboy's Avatar
Sieveboy Sieveboy is offline
Being a bigot makes me sick.
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Not in bible land, Perth
Posts: 5,654
Default Re: GAC 2012 in the media

DanDare said View Post
Is Scott Stephens a mere zealot (all religion is better than none) or a dominionist (only my christianity, everyone else is stupid)? Why is he getting away with such overt bias at the ABC?
Hmm, hard to say. Catholicism gets a lot of space and is often the editors choice. But other brands of xtianity get a look in and there is much love of Rowan Williams as well from Scott. Heck judaism and islam gets some good articles in as well, as do atheists, (including a lot more de botton et al than Dennett et al, if you get my drift ).

The beef I have and many other of the atheist/agnostic posters had is that the GAC got almost zero coverage from Scott. Only the Dawkins/Pell debate mentioned it specifically. Other articles involving the GAC were drawn from general news pieces and only included because they mentioned religion. What I am saying is Scott worked damn hard to act like the GAC wasn't happening. Compared to World Youth Day when Scott went nuts with the Catlick articles.

In summary, as ms Praxis mentioned somewhere, there is some strong bias in the ABC religion area agaist atheists and non-abrahmaic religions (especially the @ABCreligion twitter account, which is funny as Scott got his knickers all twisted up about the twitter feed during the Dawkins/Pell QandA when alot of messages were spanking Pell and the RCC).
I do not fear death, in view of the fact that I had been dead for billions and billions of years before I was born, and had not suffered the slightest inconvenience from it.
Mark Twain
Reply With Quote
Old 22nd April 2012, 06:40 PM
Goldenmane's Avatar
Goldenmane Goldenmane is online now
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Perth, Western Australia
Posts: 7,547
Default Re: GAC 2012 in the media

TimB said View Post
There is this from the SMH this morning by Chris Berg


I think the author completely gets things arse about. For example...

Yet virtually all the secular ideas that non-believers value have Christian origins. To pretend otherwise is to toss the substance of those ideas away. It was theologians and religiously minded philosophers who developed the concepts of individual and human rights. Same with progress, reason, and equality before the law: it is fantasy to suggest these values emerged out of thin air once people started questioning God.

Something people forget relating to this argument, too, is that for quite a long time there were really only the fucking rich and the filthy poor, and the closest thing there was to an educated class not autmatically devoted to the pursuit of wealth and power were the fucking clergy. They were really the only ones who were even in a position to have the time and energy to spend on considering such ideas.

The reason the Buddha story is seen as so outstanding is that the cunt was a prince, and princes aren';t supposed to give a fuck about anything other than their own pleasure - in the popular imagination, at least. There are elements of that in the Christ story too, with the whole 'God humbled himself to take on the life of a carpenter's son' crap... but I digress.

The average stonemason or farmer or fucking peon didn't have the time, energy, education, or other luxury to ponder anything other than how to deal with their shitty shitty lives. The fact that some motherfuckers who came up with some good ideas were members of the clergy or at least trained in such is nothing more than an accident of history, and says nothing at all about the value of the god-notion.
-Geoff Rogers


Reply With Quote


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

All times are GMT +11. The time now is 07:28 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Feedback Buttons provided by Advanced Post Thanks / Like (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2018 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.