The excerpt posted here is mostly okay, except for the weird lumping together of atheists, libertarians, and gay activists. I know plenty of vocal atheists who couldn't care less about libertarianism or gay rights. It's stupid to pretend they're united movements; atheism has its own arguments quite independent of one's position on political theory or sexual identity.

It's not a mistake, either; the article later goes further and say atheists "are traditionally aligned with libertarianism". No, not at all; most atheists I know have a broad spectrum of political alignments, and a vanishing minority would agree with libertarianism. Silly, sloppy reporting.

Then there's the unwarranted barb against Richard Dawkins ("the movement's supreme deity", bleargh), and referring to atheists as "the faithless" in full knowledge of the baggage that comes with that term.

All that said, though, it's a good collection of quotes from people involved with the convention, and does cover many of the issues that motivate vocal atheists, so I'm glad it's out there.

If you don't believe me go and look at http://richarddawkins.net/articles/5078.

They cut believers no slack, even if faith provides succour to some. They don't suffer fools, and their uncompromising reckoning of 'fool' does lead, regretably perhaps, to rudeness.

However, no way are they fundamentalists as theologian David Hohne asserts. For the whole point of the scientific project is that truth is ours to discover, and is not to be “bequeathed by a deity” to unquestioning masses, as Hohne evidently would prefer.

And what's this nonsense about new atheism being a hangover from the 19th century? Serious athiesm must have started in the Enlightenment. In the 19th century, deep thinkers were intoxicated to be sure on Darwin, for as Marx and Nietzsche rejoiced, natural selection is the "death knell" of teleology. And thus atheism became internally complete, such that all thoughtful Christians inevitably are at least deeply disturbed by Darwin.

But come on, how on earth does the petty label "hangover" even come close to describing the lasting effects of 'Darwin's dangerous idea'?

Is it any surprise there is a backlash?

I don't want my taxes funding religious organisations until the government provides funding to the AFA.

~Dan
PerthAtheists.org