I spend quite a bit of time debating religion, and all too often no-one RELLY wants to listen to the other side and give way. It's more often about trying to hone debating kills or stubbornly refusing to give way. I'm as guilty as any, I suppose.

I had an upbringing of extremely slight religious expectation, so my 'coming out' as an atheist was greeting with no real scandal, surprise, or anything really which would merit the term 'coming out'. It's so easy to forget that deconverting from religion is not so easy for everyone.

So hats off to you Caiphen. You've made a brave step, but I am confident you'll find it a rewarding one.

There's no real great loss on my part. I haven't really believed in years. But, to be honest, I just was keeping up appearances. Thankyou to mother goose that I no longer have to!

Some of what I debated with you guys, I didn't really believe. I wanted to see what your responses would be. The responses were informative and taught me a whole lot. Your arguments are by far the most impressive.

I'm planning to go to the US next year, I may time it so I can attend the next convention you guys have.

Take care.

These came up on Google; I hope they help.

http://www.atheistfoundation.org.au/
http://home.vicnet.net.au/~atheist/
http://www.atheistdirectory.net/countries/or_aus.html

And you need not thank me; our interchanges made me think, and that's always a gift.

I am a member of the SDA church and another non denominational church, which both generally believe in a literal 6 day creation. I'm a reasonable person and I can't keep this going anymore. I haven't believed in years, and in speight of my wife's beliefs, I can't perpetuate the nonsense anymore.

I thought biblical prophecy could keep my faith going. It simply isn't. Like the creationist movement, I was clutching at straws.

I was once also quite homophobic at the height of my belief. For all you homosexuals out there, I'm so sorry.

Daylight atheism is doing a fantastic job. For guys like, Thumpalumpacus, OMGF, Ebon, Steve Bowen and Modusoperandi, thankyou for your patience.

Q) Does anybody out there have any knowledge about a good atheist/ humanist organisation in Queensland Australia? I'd love to meet up with like minded people.

I think there are people who can argue a point well regardless of if they believe in it.

About the blog.... I wouldn't be shocked to come across one encouraging Christians to become Muslims or vice versa, ditto for political parties and so on.

There is a point I noted, and generally agree with but for one thing.:

I'm sorry to hear about your father, Steve. That comment by Scotlyn was wonderful, and I certainly think it would be a fitting part of a humanist memorial service.
Also, I have a note on this whole "militancy" thing:
Back in January, I wrote an essay titled "Enemy of Faith". In that post, I said, as I've always maintained, that I am in favor of freedom of conscience. I completely support the right of people to live their lives however they choose, so long as those choices cause no harm to others. If your faith meets that criteria, then I'm not your enemy.
However, respecting people's choices is not incompatible with speaking your mind and trying to persuade others. Just because I respect your right to live your life as you wish, that doesn't mean I can't express my own views, or even that I can't point out ways in which I feel my worldview is superior. If that alone is "militant," then the definition of "militant" is stretched beyond plausibility.
I've said it countless times, but it bears repeating: At this very moment, there are millions of religious believers who want to kill those who believe differently, who want to conquer civil government and use it to enforce their faith, who are willing to bomb, maim, oppress and torture in the service of God. The most "militant" thing that any atheist has done is write books. No rational person can believe for a moment that there's any kind of moral equivalency here.
Comment #70 by: Ebonmuse | July 5, 2009, 2:56 pm

I agree that people should be free to choose what they believe.

I do this as a religious person and one who abhors when other religious people kill to enforce their beliefs on others.

But Ebonmuse missed that atheists (some but not all), perhaps the real "militant" ones have killed, tortured, discriminated against and all the other bad and nasty things people can do to others of a different group.

If it was Russian Communists (atheists with a strong streak of class warfare theory), French military units (around the time of "the Terror"), or Pol Pot's followers there are atheists who have used deadly means to punish believers. This is part of intolerance and cruelty-something humans (Atheists, Christian, or whatever) are not immune to in our history.

Saying only one group (often regardless of if you are talking about religious/non groups, ethnic groups, and so on) did _____ is often "selective history"-and I don't know if I would use the word "militant" with that. But I would say it is inaccurate and shouldn't be embraced.

Thumpalumpacus, it's militant to insist that your way must be the right way even though a vigorous debate is still going on. You can't just strut around saying "I won!" That's why I find both sides of the religious debate unsatisfactory.

Chet stole a bit o' my thunder in pointing out that fact that I am on the atheist side of this debate because I am convinced it is true. This ain't, after all, a forensics class, and speaking out for atheists everywhere is Ebon's choice -- not his teacher's assignment.

Furthermore, given that no one here is saying "we won!", your claim in that regard would seem ill-founded. Have you any quotes?

And as Hank above pointed out, the onus is on the claimant to produce evidence of a claim. The only claim I make is this: I see no evidence for any god or gods; therefore I do not believe god exists.

Of course you realize that in choosing agnosticism, you have automatically asserted that you have no faith in god; in the words of Neil Peart, "If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice."

Hrm, I think you'd be hard-pressed to find any example of a vigorous debate where the participants didn't believe themselves to be clearly in the right. A debate between people who aren't at all sure about their position is never vigorous and usually isn't even a debate. It's usually a mutual confusion session.

Leaning against atheism because atheists seem to think they're right to be so is pretty stupid, IMO. What do you want, atheists to say that atheism is wrong? I notice you're making a pretty strong claim for agnosticism; should I take your advocacy as evidence that you're wrong?

That's quite a bit of definition-creep if the new meaning of the word "militant" means "wanting to talk about it."

But, frankly, Kalto, we all know how this works: Ebon is an atheist, and his lips are moving; ergo, he's a "militant." The only non-militant atheists to people like you are the invisible, silent ones.