Seeing as the event is underway right now I thought I'd provide some opinions on this.
I was at the first Global Atheist Convention, but decided not to go to the current spectacle. This instalment lacks the shock value of the original, possibly because a lot of the fears or hopes (depending if you are believer or atheist) didn't come to fruition. Last time an atmosphere of uncertainty and expectation surrounded the event. Now there just seems to be internal enthusiasm for a weekend of specialty entertainment. I am not sure why a second event was deemed a good idea. I would've understood staging the event elsewhere (maybe Texas) but in the same country (Australia) and the same city (Melbourne)? The reason for my reticence to see this as the greatest show on Earth (so to speak) is that two years later where is the impact of the Global Atheist Convention? Without a legacy or tangible effects, what justifies another? Let's see what David Nicholls, "president" of the Atheist Foundation of Australia says on the topic. (quotes taken from 'Why Have a Global Atheist Convention?' on the official site)
Nicholls claims, "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." To justify this assertion he offers only approximate attendance numbers from the original Global Atheists Convention ("2,500") and the USA Reason Rally ("20 thousand"). So according to Nicholls the fact that several thousand people (in a global population of several billion) attend these events proves "taken-for-granted truths ... are being questioned like no other time in history"? Hardly evidence for the assertion he makes.
Quantity is not quality. Nor does mass involvement indicate originality. We should begin our critical evaluation of Nicholls' claim by duly noting that challenges to religious and supernaturally based "truths" have been in circulation since the time of the Ancient Greek philosophers. That more people are questioning a set of beliefs does not mean said beliefs are being subjected to a greater level of interrogation than ever before placed on them. Considering he is talking attendance, we can assume he is taking the participation of the public rather than the presenters (the most notable of which hold academic positions) as the main object of discussion. Yes, Nicholls and Co. are now on the bandwagon, taking armchair philosophy out of lounge rooms and into the streets and convention centres of the Western world but numbers signify nothing more than popularisation. What we really have is the general populace standing alongside academics and public intellectuals to pose salient questions. Still, it is the numbers that are growing, not the intensity of critique. Nicholls says nothing of the implications of this growth.
Following on from this, Nicholls forgoes substantiating his assertion and lists a number of gripes about "religion". I use inverted commas because Nicholls is justs saying "religion" without any concrete sense of what particular religions he is referring to or what constitutes a religion. Lack of a definitional scope is a problem as some may label his atheism a religion. In most of its forms I would argue atheism is not a religion but let's humour the claim and evaluate a little of what Nicholls says. At one point he states, "[religion] encourages a them and us mentality". But this is exactly what Nicholls does in the closing stages of his writing where he outlines a division between the "solution" (also called "us" by Nicholls implying his personal status therein), the spectators, and the "problem" (a by word for religious believers that may as well read 'them'). Personally, I am troubled that an individual who calls himself the "president" or an organisation that represents atheists nationally could be so flagrantly hypocritical.
My opinion is that Nicholls statement (he calls it an "essay" but I would refrain from applying that term if only on grounds of length) fails to answer the question of "Why Have a Global Atheist Convention?" Furthermore, it seems to me to be rife with hubris and self-aggrandisement. In a move reminiscent (in my eyes) of religious polemicists he is asserting with great satisfaction the privileged status of the atheists (the "solution" no less, but to what Nicholls gives us no insight). If so he is positioning atheists as a new chosen people (chosen by themselves in lieu of a deity or sense of fate). That comes a little too close to religion to sustain a division between believers and non-believers. Such stances are merely fodder for the religious and those who try to deride atheism.
Ineloquent expositions of this sort are one of the primary reasons I disassociate from "atheist" groups...as a general rule, one simply never knows if it was critical reasoning or ego that drives people to adopt the moniker of atheist, especially at a time when it has become a subcultural identity.
Just an opinion.