Why have a Global Atheist Convention?

[rug]

By David Nicholls
posted Tuesday, 3 April 2012

A humorous sub-title would be, '...and three days of silence'. Of course, in reality, that is not the case. There is a massive paradigm shift happening in all societies, especially in developed nations, where the taken-for-granted truths about supernatural origins are being critically questioned like no other time in history. As an example, the last Atheist Convention held in Melbourne in 2010 attracted over 2,500 people and the very recent Reason Rally in the USA gathered a crowd of around 20 thousand of the non-religious who stood in the rain to hear speakers expounding on what this shift in thinking means.

A demonstration of the fear this type of occurrence has implanted in the minds of conservatism is that media coverage in the USA was very dismal indeed. In Australia it was the same story. How many readers knew of it? A gathering of such numbers should have been headline news and it would have been even if it was the same number of basket-weavers. A greater reason for reporting such events is that in general, atheists and freethinkers tend to just get on with their lives and have not in the past, placed much value in mass demonstrations. Surely it is newsworthy that now, they do.

So why is this rise in atheism so dramatic, breaking the rule of live and let live, with it transforming into highly visible representations of the no-god mindset? A couple of decades ago this would have been unthinkable, and quite rude to boot. Those who put themselves out to be counted are the tip of a huge and ever growing iceberg of ordinary people to whom the penny has dropped that the existence of a god assertions just aren't true. This has produced a growing awareness that the many faults of religion are in need of exposing.

Atheism in itself is merely the recognition that there is no evidence for the supernatural claims of religions but there is a tendency to then follow the bouncing ball to discover that the many faiths negatively affect the lives of individuals, groups and nations. Even advanced societies afford privilege beyond representation to religion: in schools, in politics and in bedrooms. The idea that religion should not be criticised has until now worked very well in favour of keeping its coffers full and its adherents thick on the ground.

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=13457

[niyad]

1. response to headline alone (without reading article) is, "why the hell not?"

why shouldn't atheists have a convention, any more than nudists, or chess players, or barbie doll collectors?

[cbayer]

2. The author agrees with you

[immoderate]

3. I point out that while gatherings break the "live and let live rule..."

Atheists have long been on the wrong end of that rule. Religions broke it long ago.

--imm

[Warren Stupidity]

4. I'm still trying to understand the author's intent in that sentence.

How does a gathering of atheists break this 'live and let live' rule?

[Warren Stupidity]

5. Another odd statement in this odd article.

Atheism will never use force or coercion on the religious, as religion has done for centuries against atheists and still does in the more backward parts of the planet and, sadly, still in many modern parts of the planet.

Now I would like this to be true, however I can think of no reason why atheists would be immune to intolerant authoritarianism. What is the evidence for that assertion?