Some of the speakers at the convention take a pragmatic approach ('reason with opponents') while others take an idealistic approach ('alienate opponents'). The former approach, while substantially more difficult than the latter, is potentially far more productive.

But it's unclear whether the convention's overall aim is to reduce the intensity of religious belief or to crush religion altogether. Though Richard Dawkins and others may earnestly hope for the latter, attempting this will only pick off religious doubters while steeling firmer believers against compromise.

Failing to include debating panels with religious moderates is a missed opportunity. Excluding the religious, of course, probably seemed like an obvious move: after all, one wouldn't invite creationists to speak at a biology convention for balance's sake. But inviting representatives from major religions would have prevented the conference from becoming a mere exercise in polemic.

It may seem an unlikely choice, but I'm sure Father Bob Maguire - a Catholic Priest who often seems a whisker away from apostasy - would have relished some productive gung-ho scrapping.

Forging links with moderates against religious extremism should be the first goal of any atheist movement. Change cannot be achieved by eliminating religion, as people's personal beliefs cannot be forcefully harangued into shape. Only by respectfully forming alliances with the moderate religious community will atheists be able to preserve the elements of society that they value most, such as freedom of enquiry and the separation of Church and State. The ego-driven, take-no-prisoners approach dooms atheism to remain an exclusive and tiny club.

It is a falsehood that religion, which reaches so deeply into many people's everyday lives, will melt away when ambushed by the chill winds of detached reason. Rather than treating all dealings with people of faith as an opportunity to notch up a rhetorical victory, atheists need to listen respectfully to opposing views. They would be well-advised to forge alliances with religious people who share many of their core beliefs, rather than quibbling about, say, whether it was scientifically possible for Christ to have walked on water.

The inclusion of so much comedy on the conference program is therefore misguided. If atheists are concerned about countering fundamentalism's corrosive influence on politics, every hour of that weekend should be spent discussing how to counter religious-based intolerance. Comedians, while good for boosting ticket sales, are as inappropriate at an atheist conference as they would be at a science conference. The organisers' failure to recognise this basic point suggests that many take comfort from sneering at those who disagree with them. Comedians, who are paid to outrage rather than inform, are unhelpful when pragmatism is sorely needed.

To read more at Eureka Street, click view for more information