Update on what happening. We are going to be allowed to have events during faith week. Still negotiating on the role the society is going to play on the inter-faith council. Im hopeful though.

If the goal of an inter-faith society or community is to get along or to have meetings discussing whatever about faith, atheists should be included. It's not that we have faith, but it's relevant to the primary focus that we don't. I mean, what else is being "inter-faith" meaning? It maybe should be worded differently because it's exclusive by definition to those who have a religious belief, albeit non-denominationally under the assumption that people with a religious belief only would have a community to understand one another better, under the further assumption that there is a deity that we haven't quite agreed upon yet. It pre-emptively excludes people without a faith from the conversation on an even further assumption that we have already counted ourselves out and don't care what goes on at those meetings. While we may not actually, it just makes a lot of assumptions about atheists, among us, those who do care what the religious people are talking about, and to count ourselves in and raise awareness what we are and are not about, not to mention our mere existence and relevance.

In a way to sum it up, how many yahoos we get around here posting that if we don't believe in god, why are we talking so much? That to let believers believe, it doesn't concern us? Of course it concerns us and them and everyone. An inter-faith community should absolutely have willing atheist voices present. And they should probably come up with another term that inter-faith doesn't seem to cover. If you're losing an argument about why atheism should be represented in an inter-faith council because of how "faith" conveniently excludes the lack of faith, it should have a different name to reflect the reality of the situation.

Oddly enough, Santa Claus strikes me as rather less likely to exist than some form of creative intelligence. Both being on the 'very unlikely' end of the scale, but at different points on it.

@Ty, Ursa: do you have "complete trust or confidence" that there is no Santa Claus?

Yes, I am arguing semantics here.
While it is phrased in a way that is very absolute, that specific phrasing does not exclude a change of idea should supporting evidence arise.
Or it does? oO

Maybe I just don't like that definition of faith, it's not blind enough.

Indeed, there is a big difference between the working position "I have seen no evidence for deities, therefore I don't seriously entertain their existence" and the faith statement "I have seen no evidence for deities, therefore I believe/trust/have faith that they do not exist."

Tony, I actually disagree with this: ‘complete trust or confidence in someone or something’

I don't have complete trust or confidence in the non-existence of god/s. I have a lack of evidence to support a belief in them. There's a difference between that and a positive assertion.

@Tony: I don't think anyone is taking issue with your support. :) I think, rather, your comments on how atheists need not be included in matters of faith raised a commonly perpetuated misunderstanding, and this is what those of us who are arguing with you are attempting to address. Your last line implies that you are annoyed that people disagreed with you, which surprises me, given that much of the point of this forum is reasoned discussion and debate.

If I want to win an argument or get my point of view across in the best possible way. I will use semantics as a way to win. If an argument can be used, in this case using the word faith to bind them to a countries law. Use it.

Is not the point not that we should be offering good arguments to get what he wants .i.e. The opportunity to attend the meetings and possible gain funds for promoting atheism. Offering a range of points to use is always better than one. It would be arrogant to say we as atheists should be included because ‘we should’ and expect them to say. Oh your right come in, take some of the money and promote the opposite of what we believe. I think not.

But if I’m completely on the wrong track. It’s probably best for me not to offer support, just in case I’m wrong. Strange, because isn’t that what religion does

FO said it very nicely (and much more concisely than I would have :P). Regardless of the unfortunate nomenclature, these kinds of discussions include matters that atheists have very relevant input on. Ignoring that because of traditional wording is kind of like ignoring vegans at a "diet discussion" because they claim veganism is a "lifestyle choice" (not that all vegans claim this, I'm just using a hypothetical example).

@kholdom0790: The 17th I land in Melbourne, and I count at he very least for 10 atheists. =P
(And it isvery significant to me!)

@Tony: we can argue semantics all we want.
To point is: what are they going to talk about?
Do atheists have any bearing in that? (most likely yes)

Unless the Oxford Dictionary is going to redefine the word faith. We as atheists have by default, ‘complete trust or confidence in someone or something’. I have complete trust that there is no god, making my belief, ‘something’. Someone who believes in god, believes in ‘something’, making it their belief. Both views are described by the same word, ‘faith’. It’s only because religion uses the world faith to describe a god related thought that we expect the meaning to only belong to religion. I, on the other hand. Use words as set out by the dictionary to be used in any context I choose.

You could argue the fact that as there is nothing to believe, we cannot have faith in nothing. But to support thrutch and his attempt to ensure that Usyd is included in the Inter-Faith week. He can argue that, as the weeks event is ‘faith’ based, by default the atheist society has to be represented. If they are not, they are discriminating and so fall under Australian law. The law being a place where ‘faith’ is a word not wholly attached to the belief in god.

FO: How come? What's happening on the 17th? lol.

The argument that atheists don't need to be included in discussions of spiritual life has always rung a bit hollow to me, but I never sorted out entirely why until recently. While if one takes the topic of "spirituality" at face value it would seem that atheists wouldn't need (or want) to be included, it's a bit more complicated than that. It's kind of like the chaplain situation in the U.S. military. If I understand correctly, there has been a bit of luck recently in getting humanist chaplains appointed. The reason for this is that nonbelievers still need mental care and support. Similarly, the issues normally addressed by "faith" - how one handles certain aspects of life and culture - are of import to atheists as well. When people of varying beliefs gather at "inter-faith" conferences, why should nonbelievers be excluded due to semantics? No, we don't have faith, but we do hold beliefs regarding certain aspects of life that they will be addressing. While it's true that these may often be more lack of belief than formulated belief (i.e., no afterlife rather than an afterlife), these beliefs or lack thereof greatly affect how atheists live and deal with life. For this reason, inter-faith discussions, analysis of American (or other, I just use America because that's what I happen to be familiar with) spiritual tendencies and demographics, etc., definitely should include nonbelievers.

@kholdom0790: yeah, but if they are growing in the US, they (we!) are growing in Oz too.
Plus, in exactly one week the Australian figure is bound to increase significantly.

FO, this sounds like an Australian thing actually - what % do 'nones' come in at here? We just had a census actually, so the stats should be up to date!

Anyway, I think it's very important that the atheist society is promoted. You may not be religious, but the group's foundations are religious - i.e. there would be no need to form an atheist society if religion didn't exist. It's important that you're visible, to show people that another choice exists - that some people do not believe in a god and live perfectly functional lives. Also, it's necessary to include you for diversity's sake. I would lean heavily on the discrimination card in this debate - if you have societies all representing different kinds of faith, you must also include those representing no faith. Cover all the bases.

Why should Atheist’s being included in religious discussion? They shouldn’t! Why, because your not religious. It’s like a man going to a ‘what it’s going to feel like having a baby’. You can go a long and listen, but your never going to experience it.

The Usyd Atheist Society should be included because the discussion evolves how best money should be spent to promote faith. So, it stands to reason that money should also be spent on the right to have faith in not believing. As the Oxford dictionary states: ‘complete trust or confidence in someone or something’. I have complete confidence that there is nothing. So by default I have faith.

The stance I would make, would be to state that ‘my’, ‘our’ rights as free thinking individuals are being persecuted and that they are deliberately ignoring the rights or minorities to state opinions. Would they be allowed to make judgements based on the colour of skin or sexual preference? No, of course not. They would be in court the same day. But persecute a human being for not believing at least one of the religions on offer and it’s ok. I think not.

Because "nones" are the fastest growing slice of the pie and amount to some 10% in the US.

Then again, we reject the notion of faith, so we are cut out by definition. oO

Im in a discussion on why the Usyd Athiest society should be included in the Inter-Faith week as well as have a voice on campus not the inter-faith council. There are significant amounts of money involved for the faith societies and free publicity. I would like the atheist society to get a slice of the pie. I'm losing the debate, so help on why atheists should be included in religious campus discussions would be helpful.