A Successful Humanist Community in Boston

There are no shortage of non-religious groups around, especially at a university. If you want to talk philosophy there is bound to a philosophical discussion group. If you are into music, I imagine every possible musical taste is catered for. Music not your thing, but sport is ? Again, no shortage of clubs.

Even outside of universities there is no shortage of non-religious groups. I live in West Wales, and the local councils maintain a list of local groups. They run into the hundreds.

Epstein is trying to solve a problem that does not exist.

I’m a member in St. Louis of a similar group – the Ethical Society of St. Louis. There’s a similar society up your way Hemant (the Ethical Humanist Society of Chicago, located in Skokie, if you’re familiar with them); it’s part of a larger movement historically called Ethical Culture (or the modern term, Ethical Humanism). Most of them are located in the Northeast (including one in Boston; I think they meet near Harvard, in fact) and Mid-Atlantic states.

I met Greg last year too when he spoke in St. Louis as part of a lecture series. Got his book too, “Good Without God.” Great read and a great guy!! As far as PZ goes, he’s entitled to his opinion; in this case, I disagree with it. I think gathering together is as important to atheists and non-theists; I know the folks at my Ethical Society have been a good sounding board when I’ve had my rough patches.

Just curious: Have you ever been to the Chicago society, and what are your own thoughts on the Ethical Humanism (or Culture) movement?

Semantics matters.  Self-conception matters.  Yes, the term “chaplaincy” is disturbing.   I would also never describe myself as a “Humanist”, a term that has no basically indefinite meaning.  The anti- New Atheist stance of the “New Humanists” at Harvard is also deeply divisive, and this Divinity-School style (let’s get into small groups and talk about our atheism) humanism is nauseating.  I don’t think it’s a coincidence that Epstein and his minions are in many cases ex-religious or ex-Divinity School people.  If people want to do it fine, but I take exception to is the claim that the rest of us atheists should be doing something like this.  I support efforts of groups like FFRF to secure the political rights of non-believers, but beyond that what is the point or organizing?  There are existing secular organizations (secular rather than Humanist or atheist) which do charity, discuss books, and give lectures.

I hate to be a stickler, but Harvard is in Cambridge, not Boston :-p  Normally, I’m fine with generalizing about Boston-area cities and schools, so maybe it’s because I actually go to school in Boston, and I’m feeling a bit competitive …

While I might not be as vociferous as Myers, I do agree with him and I think it’s for a very good reason. One of the old chestnut lies that the faithful always pull out (I got this from two friends recently, in fact) is “Oh, atheism is just another faith”. This give creationists, for example, the perfect weapon to ply their annoying and bankrupt trade with. If they can’t teach their faith, why can we teach ours? Of course, we know it’s not faith, but calling people “chaplains” plays right into this lie.

Because it’s just so *wrong* for him to express his opinion on what he thinks is and is not a good idea.

Curiously, this is precisely what’s wrong with Epstein himself: he makes a habit of complaining about others who dare to be critical of something. Now you’re doing it, too.

Epstein’s complaints are usually based upon misrepresenting others. Well, you’re doing that as well. Proof: PZ’s criticism isn’t dependent upon any idea of compulsion. He doesn’t claim there’s compulsion and doesn’t criticize compulsion. He criticizes other things. You don’t like that but don’t engage what he actually says directly; instead, you create a straw man and “engage” that. Rather like Epstein does.

Can we be sure Epstein didn’t write this blog post?

I didn’t take PZ’s comments to mean he thinks we shouldn’t have gatherings.  Perhaps you’re reading too much into them?  The way I understood it, PZ thinks it’s a bad idea to have all of the trappings of a religious event and organization, just without the god part.  I agree.  We don’t need the rituals, save for a few special occasions. We don’t need the people organizing the events to have some special title that elicits reverence or deference. 

Getting together with other non believers is a good thing in itself.  We don’t have to copy religious groups to make our meetings effective and meaningful.

It seems to me that some atheists are so upset with religion
that they are unwilling to see any of the good that can come from religion; especially
religion stripped of the supernatural and along with that the unquestioned loyalty
to the religious leaders.  It also seems
to me that atheism needs to spread beyond the non-conformists.  Atheists groups can be a great way to get
people that go to church not because they are strong believers in the
supernatural, but want to feel like they are part of a group.  I’d love to steal any number of things from
churches including Sunday school, expect instead of teaching about a magical
man in the sky you teach about the history of science, about how to think
critically and rationally, and even, dare I say it, religious studies.  (By religious studies I mean learning about
the evolution of the belief in god, the different world religions, their
beliefs and history).

What is wrong about wanting to get together with other atheists
and bringing in speakers to talk about everything from morals to personal financial
planning?  This group can organize
picnics, hikes, and social outreach. 
These groups will have to be better than church since there is no
magical guy in the sky to get mad and send you to hell if you don’t go.  People will have to want to go. 

We need to remember that the atheist tent is a very big tent. Atheists range from far right (Ayn Rand) to the far left. It includes those who spent decades in churches or places of worship, and those who never stepped foot in one.

Some of us want to join secular clubs or attend skeptic conferences. Other want to join Humanist or Naturalist organizations. Still others enjoy the creedless Unitarian Univeralists which provides a great opportunity for children to meet and learn with other children without being taught want to believe.

I like P.Z. and if he doesn’t want to attend any meetings that’s fine. Just don’t disparage us atheists who enjoy UU or Humanist services and who don’t find it a waste of time.

Thanks for the supportive post – it has become somewhat tiring to correct people’s misunderstandings regarding our community and our new Project, so this was a breath of fresh air. PZ is entirely entitled to an opinion on the Project, but what he should not do is blatantly misrepresent our intentions with insinuation and innuendo.

Although I take strong issue with your disparaging and extreme language (you find our community practices “nauseating”?), you pose an interesting question when you ask what the point of organizing beyond political change. The short answers are: 1) our political efforts are currently foundering. We are consistently losing ground to a resurgent religious right. 2) cultural change is as important as political change. We make the judgment that real political and cultural change in favor of Humanist values requires living communities united by common beliefs. One of our great weaknesses as a movement is a lack of community spaces where we can build a constituency for change. We want to change that.

I hardly hide myself away from other people.  There are plenty of social opportunities (with friends and organized groups) out there that are thoroughly un-church-y.  You’re really buying into this religious mindset that if you think that people who don’t meet in quasi-church once a week are social hermits.  It’s complete baloney. 

I agree. I grew up in a secular family, so the idea of going to a weekly service is completely foreign to me. It does seem like this idea of wanting or needing a religious community comes entirely from society. Certain parts of the United States (not mine, luckily) have a very strong churchgoing culture, and if you’re not part of that, it’s possible that you might feel like you’re missing out on something important. 

Certainly we are making some ground in a rather basic sense, but the progress we are having is not the sort of progress I think we need to make. Look at the current political landscape: far from the rise of a powerful secular progressive lobby we have seen the complete reinvigoration of the worst aspects of the religious right, who have successfully tugged the Republican Party far to the right. At the same time, the supposedly progressive president is pandering increasingly to those who hate him and who will never support him anyway. The center of the political discourse is moving squarely rightward, with less and less respect for science and rationalism, less humane political policies, a generally less Humanistic outlook. The very fact that this is happening while our potential ranks are growing demonstrates our failure to take advantage of a promising social trend (one that has been going on for considerably longer than the existence of the New Atheists, although undoubtedly they’ve had some impact).

Sounds like you both have different needs, and are feeling that the other is criticizing those needs as irrational.

It is entirely normal for some people to desire a sense of community, and not because they are brainwashed by church attendance (I always hated going to the one I was raised in).  Some people need a group or place that gives them a sense of belonging.   A group where the people in it look out for each other in times of need.

The exact form such a group might take could vary.  Some people like
singing, some don’t.  Some like philosophical discussion, some prefer
science lectures.  I personally would not like to use religious language
(such as chaplain, church or service) to describe the people or events.

That said, there is, of course, nothing wrong with people who don’t feel this need, or who have it met through other means (family, friends).  But there’s no reason for people who don’t need it to belittle those who do.

I personally felt this need more after having children, though never found a good outlet for it.  Years ago we tried a UU church, but there was too much ‘woo’ and a slightly new age feel.  Plus it was pretty far away.  I have few non-religious friends, and those was are seem to accept woo in its place.  So for me, a group like this would be great.  I always listen to the announcements at the start of ‘The Atheist Experience’ show with envy (as they describe all the different types of events their group holds).

lol, you’re going after him for stating a negative opinion instead of just keeping quiet?

No offense, Hemant, but nothing you blog is “necessary” either. It’s just good reading. Which is the same thing people go to PZ for.

I am curious, for those that bring up a dislike about such groups being Church like, what aspects of Church is it that you fear such an organization would have that you dislike?  So far the only one I’ve heard articulated here is that if it is too church like this would allow the religious to claim that atheism is just like religion.  In some ways being able to point to how the atheist group is different (and the same) may make it easier to explain how atheism is different in a way that is more relatable to theists.  Anyway, I am curious as other answers to the question at the top.

No, see, Andy was talking about someplace that teaches critcal thinking and science.

For me, personally, I have no desire to be part of an organization that imitates a church. Songs, rituals, chaplains, ‘Sunday school,’ etc. I’m not knocking anyone else for wanting this, but I think it stems from society telling us that we need it. If you grow up in a churchgoing culture, maybe this seems natural to you. If you grow up in a more secular culture, maybe it seems unnecessary and bizarre. It’s all a matter of perspective. There’s nothing wrong with wanting a humanist community, but I don’t think it’s some innate desire that people are born with. I think it’s the result of the culture around us. I’d like to work to change that culture rather than feed into the notion that church communities are something that atheists need, too.

I wish PZ would just go away. His ego and self-aggradizing needs to go as he sets us ALL back by decades. The thing is, he doesn’t even come off as sincere, just a mouth.

PZ please, follow Hemant’s lead, and use some courtesy and discretion, otherwise, please just shut up.

i vote for “humanist.” all by itself, it still correctly expresses the secular, compassion-concerned, community building nature of the role. no need for “imam” or “chaplain” or “rabbi” to follow. when believers don’t understand, you respond, “you have priests, we have humanists. they’re atheists, you’re not.”

anecdote is not evidence, but i’ll tell you what it means in my sister’s family. sis is an atheist. BIL is a baptist. UU is the place sis can take the kids when it’s her turn to run Sunday morning, and the kids need to feel a degree of routine so that what dad does doesn’t feel too out of whack. UU gives the kids the language to ask the right questions when it’s baptist sunday with dad, and helps sharpen their understanding of cults and theology and mythology. it also helps the parents not fight, which is important in marriages. i’m glad the UU exists and i don’t disparage those who use it as a way to express their understanding of humanism or secularism, however lightly.

I would, obviously, disagree that this is purely cultural and something that needs to be “fixed”.  We are highly social creatures.  Many atheists don’t see the need, in part because up until now, and including now, atheism was only attractive to people that were if not anti-social, were at least, social neutral and were thus able to buck the social norms of our society.  (and this is a good thing)  We need to expand beyond that niche and get the people that want to be part of a larger social group.  I see two problems with doing so, one the resistance within the existing atheist community, and two, atheists are very diverse, I may not like how things are done at the group at Harvard, or they may be too far to the left (or right) for my taste.  They could be too much like a church in terms of ritual.  I don’t know.  What I do know is that I want something more than some 40 year old white guys meeting at a pizza place every month.  I am curious as to what people would like to see and not see beyond a simple, “this isn’t for me”.

There was a television documentary in the last year or two (sorry; don’t remember the source) about atheist ‘church-equivalents. ‘  They seemed largely by and for families with young children, though there were also older members (probably mostly former christians).   There was some singing of positively-themed songs, talk about ethics, activities for the kids, friendly talk among the attendees, a potluck lunch.  It’s not my thing, but that doesn’t mean it doesn’t serve a purpose for some people.  As long as it’s not run with church-type leadership and doesn’t tip over into nonsense, it does fill what for some people obviously is a hole that needed filling .  I’m very sensitive to use of terminology so as not to give the wrong impression or create cannon-fodder for the christians, but otherwise I’d rather put my activist energies toward the current and very real  serious religious threats we face. 

I don’t fear anything they might do.  I just left religion behind and have no desire to participate in any such rituals (discussions on Sunday morning with a group in a specific place IS church… period).  I’d love a humanist or atheist community locally (I live in the Northwest Bible Belt outside Portland) but I’d prefer meeting at a coffee shop or pub, having open discussion on a topic, on perhaps a weeknight or Saturday afternoon.  I grew up the daughter of the choir director and I was at the church all the time, observing the rituals and trying to fit in.  I want no part of anything that is named after that life or in any way mimics it.

It seems to me like you’re missing the point of the groups…there are of course plenty of groups that are by definition non-religious, where common interests or hobbies can be shared, or community improvement or charitable works can be performed.  But while these groups may be “non-religious” in the sense that anyone is welcome to participate, they generally do not cross over into areas of secular awareness and activism, or “community improvement” that might be of more interest to secularists.  If they lean toward any opinions at all in that area, it will likely be vaguely christian or “interfaith”, or maybe a soft, unspoken secularism…but never truly, openly secular, and never concerned with any of those issues.  Your local automotive hobbyists club may raise money for local homeless or cancer research or whatever, but they are never going to wade into separation of church and state issues or protest the people who denounce vaccines that prevent cancer on religious grounds.    The local philosophical club may have great debates, but will not likely be too involved in secular activism or charitable causes.    

It looks to me like the people who join such groups are looking for a group in which, unlike a church or car club or Mason’s lodge, they can have the open debate of a philosophical club with no faith-based interference, discuss purely secular issues in society and politics (such as church & state abuses, spreading secularism, fighting theocracy, or raising the local profile, awareness of , or public opinion regarding non-religious people), and ALSO contribute to improving the community  through organized effort and/or raising money for charitible causes, as proud secularists and humanists, without having to quietly partner up under the umbrella of some religious or interfaith organization.  

Not everyone has the time to devote to several different groups, with different goals and procedures and schedules, for every last important interest in their lives.  You can’t rally the local kite-flyers club to protest  blatant church-state violations without looking like a zealous jerk and alienating people who just want to fly their kites in peace, and the university philosophical club will never get done debating and become an active force in the community.  It ‘s just not what they do.  It may not be my “thing” personally, but I think that the “good” parts of a church routine which can be salvaged for any purpose- like expressing shared community, social, or political  concerns(not just “music” or “hobbies”), organizing for secular activism,  or to improve the local community, or provide charity for those in need, and having a reasonably regular schedule of meetings to promote a little group cohesiveness and personal connections between group members, can be good things.  Especially when stripped of the evils of faith, dogma, and exclusivity that are the hallmarks of pretty much every religion and church.  Large, impersonal, national secular advocacy groups and occasional conferences just don’t have the sense of personal community involvement and day-to-day hands-on connection that some people appreciate.  I don’t see what’s so hard to understand. 

Schools should be teaching those things. A large reason for why schools fail at that is because of the religious

Well maybe it is because simply not believing in god does not seem to be enough to make me want to associate with others. It is not much to have on common, and given how some atheists behave (witness the sexism evidence in respect of Rebecca Watson) there are many I would want nothing to do with.

If you are so insular you can only get a sense of cohesiveness and personal connection when with other atheists I pity you. Your life seems rather impoverished.

“Anti-social?” “Able to buck the social norms?” That doesn’t describe me, or many of the other atheists I know. I grew up in a secular family. I have no Christian background, and my city does not have a churchgoing culture. I was not raised around church, expected to attend church, or taught that people who do not attend church are missing something. I’m not denying that human beings are social creatures, but I am denying that there is some innate desire for us to imitate religious rituals. Going to weekly humanist gatherings is, to me, mimicking Christianity.

The United States is unique among developed nations in having such a high percentage of churchgoers, especially in rural areas and in the South. This may be why people from the UK and other parts of Europe are confused about why American atheists want to create specific atheist communities instead of just joining a local sports team, knitting group, or volunteer organization. If people in more secular countries do not feel the need to create organizations that mimic church rituals, then I think it proves my point that these desires are not innate, but are influenced by a culture that tells us we should have them.

Agreed… the Kid came home yesterday saying that Darwin was mentioned and one kid yelled out, “Darwin was an idiot,” and heads nodding in agreement throughout the class.  We were in a rush, so I didn’t ask him what the teacher did but wow… nice.

Thanks for responding to absolutely nothing I wrote, and including unecessary and insulting assumptions about me as a bonus.  Thanks also for being completely ignorant about the pervasive influence of religious thought and attitudes on American society and political policies.  And thanks once more for making the assumption that people about whom you know nothing can’t possibly have any important secular issues, or social & community concerns in common besides lack of personal belief, or want a cohesive community that isn’t beholden to the religious by default as many American groups, clubs, and societies are.
And I loved the way you dragged in the flogged-to-death equine specter of  overdramatized non-issue gender politcs even though it was completely and totally irrelevant- a true Pharyngulite zombie  indeed!   Most of all, thanks for the generally smug, insulting, know-it-all attitude.  I’ve seen you display it often on Pharyngula, I don’t know why I might have hoped for anything better here. 

Maybe the reason you have so much totally irrational hostility toward pleasant, ethical, well-meaning  groups of people is that after thiry seconds of experience, not one of them wants anything to do with a smug, ignorant, crap-spewing a-hole like yourself.   The only thing is, they get over you, which you seem incapable of doing yourself.    

So why the concern about being “out” ?

If being “outed” is an issue then attending regular meetings of atheists is going to a bit of a give away. Whereas joining secular groups of people with shared interests is not, unless you tell people your religious views.

“use some courtesy and discretion, otherwise, please just shut up.”

???

I see you are eager to dismiss the problems of sexism within atheism.

What a nice person you are!

I would ask you to apologise, but to be honest, I doubt you could begin to understand what did wrong.

Mind you, you have made me change my mind about issue Mehta brought up. If the sexist arseholes like you group together then at least I will know who can be ignored.

So you concede in saying their logic is correct in this comparison?  I beg to differ.  What is correct in the statement that atheism is a faith? Nothing.  But you are afraid of the religious using that argument against atheists because of Epstein’s approach?  Come on!  I have a suspicion that the only argument you are using is the “if it looks like a duck” approach, which is based on one’s limited perception.  You have to admit that is weak logic!  It’s gonna look like religion because they’ve been the only game in the business, so to speak.

Someone tell me you aren’t scared of the religious using whatever slippery argument to attempt to make you look like a hypocrite!  

“Why do we have to use the time and words that the religious folks use?”

Because some atheists don’t have such an aversion to these words?  

What does this mean?  Please explain

That never happened. If you think those comments about the incident that shall not be mentioned apply to all men then you are the one tarring all men with the same brush.

Of course, there is already an experiment taking place with regards what, if anything, church attendance should be replaced with. The experiment is taking place in North West Europe, where church attendence is in marked decline. For example, in the UK only around 6% of people regularly attend church. There is no notable demand for an atheist or humanist replacement.

Wow, I don’t remeber seeing anybody claim they were all alike.  Once again, (even after others have helpfully tried to explain) you completely fail to understand that atheists can in fact have many different connections that have to do directly or indirectly with their lack of belief, without alienating themselves from society like a religious cult.  In the U.S., the political and social realities for humanists are often not pretty, and the options are not many.  If you are  politically liberal (or even a moderate, sane, compassionate conservative) and a non-believer or freethinker, there are quite a few perks of being part of a community that you will not have access to unless you build your own with people who are like-minded enough to get along.  Non-religious charitable services,  newcomers easily getting to know others in the neighborhood, finding other non-religious families in the area, potenitally like-minded political allies, babysitters who won’t talk about Jesus to your kids behind your back…you know…PEOPLE. 

 They can also have connections that have nothing to do with their lack of belief.  They can also have wonderful connections with religious people, but still not want to be part of the religious culture- but maybe have something similar of their own.  It doesn’t mean that they are “mimicking religion”, and it doesn’t mean that they have no friends with differing beliefs.  It doesn’t mean that they are capable of having a sense of connection with only other atheists…or liberals, or feminists, or straights, or gays, any other single category of person, personality, belief or opinion.

Quit pigeonholing things you don’t (or refuse to)understand in order to make them fit your own opinions and biases.  For the record, I am not a ritual observer of any kind.  I hated church the few times I ever went.  I dislike rallies, I don’t like cheering for sports teams, I despise groupthink, loyalty oaths, jingoism, overblown patriotism, pledges, graduations or “coming of age” b.s., ceremonies of all kinds…I don’t even like weddings or funerals, really.  I won’t join any social or political organization, no matter how much I have in common, unless there is an open, unambiguous mission with which I agree completely.  What social needs I have, are fully filled by my significant other, my friends, and my family.  When I connect with the greater community, it is usually as a polical activist or concerned citizen, or in the arts- not in social groupings that exist as social groupings alone.  

But I have no problem accepting that some people might see some value in some of these things.  Some people might want their kids to be exposed to more freethinkers than are found at their local school or sports club.   Some people might want to be more public with their personal ceremonies.  Some people might not have a life already full of friends and family.  Some people might have emotional needs that I do not.  Yet for some reason, I feel no need to diagnose this like some kind of illness, or look down on them as “stalled atheists”. 

In fact, I have several friends and acquantances who go to a U.U. church.  They are all liberal freethinkers, some atheists, some with vague beliefs.  As a benefit, they have a larger, more connected circle of friends and acquantances than I do, they do more good in the community than I do in some ways, and they have  a sense of connectedness and stability that seems to serve them well.  It seems to work for them and it hurts no one, and I believe even benefits society at large by bringing open-minded and compassionate people together as a community with no real dogma or faith or political requirements.  If some atheist or humanist groups see the benefits as well, why should they deny themselves that simply because you, Matt Penfold, supreme perfect example of a self-fulfilled atheist, deem it unnecessary?   

Exactly! Instead of copying Christian church culture, I would love to see American atheists look to secular countries and consider how community works there. The lack of religiosity is even more pronounced in places like Sweden and Denmark, yet people aren’t flocking to atheist organizations for their social needs.

What decent people would want to spend any time with you or HughinAz ?

Shut up, you rapist.

Well.  I’m glad to provide you with an example of someone of my beliefs that isn’t an asocial, hermit then.  Maybe you need to get out more.  I’m glad that there are atheists like yourself around to tell me to STFU.  You make good bedfellows of the majority of theists who do the same. 

…Interact with other human beings?  You wouldn’t rather wax pretentious on atheist blogs about words and semantics
and other inconsequential bullshit nobody cares about?

Accommodationist!

As Christianity shrinks it will become more extreme, more insular, and more weird.  The Republican Party is now essentially the party of that insular Christian rump.  I fail to see how that indicates that our society is getting more Right-Wing or showing less respect for science and rationalism though.  Do you have any polling data or are you just making sh*t up?  In 2000, barely 30% of Americans supported marriage equality.  Now it’s over 50%.  Belief in naturalistic evolution has increased from 9% in 2000 to 16% in 2010.  I know that sky is falling is a good way to drum up publicity, but this is a golden era to be an non-believer in America. 

The objective is SOCIAL progress.  Political progress will inevitably follow when the thoughts and values of the public aren’t as hostile toward atheism and humanism as they are now.

A thought has stuck me.

I find that unbelievable.  Evidence or GTFO.

A quick slap across the face and a crash course in manners would fix that mighty quickly.

Gasp!

Um, I believe the appropriate response to that last question is. Is!
No.

Oh yeah, that’s right. 

Citation Needed. NEEDED!

NO!

Says someone from pharyngula . . . Rich.

No one, but you, is claiming we all are like-minded. But a group of like, what? Somewhere around 10 people in that picture are.

Fucking sheeple man – look at them getting together and doing stuff ONLY because everyone else is doing it. They’re way different than we are here at pharyngula. Isn’t that right, guys?

Seems they do charity work. Apparently, they do something slightly more than sit around and sing “we don’t believe in god / doo dah / we don’t believe zeus / doo dah / we don’t believe in PeeZus / doo dah.”

They have atheism in common, and a small group where they get together to talk about other things they have in common: helping the poor, climate change, energy conservation . . .

They’re real losers, those bad atheists they are.  You sure do love giving advice to people who seem slightly happier about life than you are. =P

Again, no substance at all, nothing to add, no thought given, no possibility of understanding before blanket condemnation.  Just name calling and silly insults.  The burning desire to set the whole world right by being a complete and total ass to everyone you meet.  How cute.

Go away?  From you?  Your wish is my command, let me get my running shoes!

Clearly, it is inevitable that these things will crop up. Notice how often they have over the last couple thousand years?

They are having a community without religion. Or did I miss part of the story where they’re praying, dousing one another with water and blessing crackers?

Polite, one notes, isn’t in exaggerating the state of affairs (flocking?). Polite isn’t telling people that it’s cool they don’t believe in god, but that they should really go not believing in god the way you want them not to believe in god.

They’re atheists. They get together on Sundays and have conversations, do community work. I think it’s a bit silly having a chaplain. But being able to piss off religious people (hijacking their words, yo!) and Miss Manners her PeeZus kind of makes it sound like a deliciously brilliant move.

Plus, and this is trivial I know since people are all about whipping all those wrong kind of atheists in line, it hurts precisely no one.

Incidentally, they want to help a strong, non religious community too. Notice how they’ve even started a group for that? Like groovy. So, they’re doing that whole thing . . . but apparently they’re just not doing it good enough to suit you.

So, here’s what you do: don’t join their group.

“A thought has stuck me”

Where? Your bum? crotch? eyes?

With a pin? A finger?

come now, show us on the doll where the thought stuck you.

Okay, I really have no idea why you are being so hostile. Why don’t you go back and read my original comment? I said that people in secular countries like Sweden and Denmark are not flocking to atheist communities for their social needs. This is true. They are not doing that because they have alternatives. They have built strong, vibrant secular communities without making them specifically atheist. For example, a stay-at-home mom in Sweden can join a Mother’s Club without having to worry about religion. Unlike in the Bible Belt, the Swedish mother doesn’t have to fear that she and her children will be ostracized because they don’t believe in a god. I want to help make it like that for people in all parts of America, too. I want to make it so that atheist-only communities aren’t necessary.

Again, I have repeatedly said that I don’t think humanist communities are wrong. If people want them, that’s fine. But I disagree that church-like communities are something that atheists need. I think that perception exists because of the heavily religious culture we have in many parts of the United States. If it exists here, and it doesn’t exist in other countries, then the issue is not that people inherently need community groups with songs and rituals, but that our culture promotes those things (in some areas) with a ferocity that makes people feel like they are missing out if they don’t experience them in a church-like setting. I hope that clears up what I was trying to say.

I think the right comparison is with the percent attending houses of worship on high holidays, for life milestones etc.  and who are nominally Christian despite a lack of personal belief.
This article on Scandinavia talks about how many people are non-believers, yet describe themselves as Christians, were baptized and married in church etc.

In my personal life, I’ve seen plenty of non-believing and educated immigrants start going to houses of worship once they have kids because those are the only institutions that offer kid-friendly “ethnic” socialization. 

Looks like you failed at ignoring him, moron.

I agree with PZ on this. Epstein’s group sounds way too much like a church to me. Atheists can meet up and hang out together in groups without modeling their groups after churches or other religious organizations, which is what Epstein seems to be doing.

 What you fail to understand is that some “religious” practices are beneficial and desirable.  There’s a reason why non-believers attend church.  It fulfills an emotional need.  Moreover, most homeless shelters and food kitchens in the U.S. are church-run.  It would benefit society greatly if secular groups provided such services as well.

PZ Meyers is right. One of the many things about religion that turns my stomach is its hierarchy and its mindless ritual meant reinforce its influence in peoples lives. This smells of a “chaplain” administering to his flock, be it a Humanist one or otherwise, in a weekly ritual. Why have a “chaplain”? Also, why on Sunday? Why not a meeting a couple of times a month. Epstein is obviously trying to mimic religion. It seems pathetic and frankly as an atheist myself it’s embarrassing.

I dunno, I’m being sarcastic.  I don’t feel vengeful, I’m making a claim that many atheists do feel that way and that dominates their motivations.  I hear from some atheists that they’re tired of all the righteousness and moralizing that the religious do.  I chose to use the pronoun “we” to highlight the group-think that these people get into once their own righteousness gets going

In many counties they do. That is the point Anna is trying to get across. 

right. so long as they do it in a way you approve of it’s all good. As soon as they do things some other way, then it’s bad.

To paraphrase PZ “Epstein group is too churchy for me but some people seem to want it”.  That’s a perfectly non shrill, mean, or nasty summation of what MANY atheists feel about Epstein’s plans. Maybe Mehta got Epstein and PZ mixed up since the article has Epstein as the one “prepared to TELL people what they should build..”

oh now you’re just being logical.

Then I expect that you are equally offended by: anniversaries, birthday parties, all holidays, working a standard week at standard hours, Renaissance fairs, not taking the last piece of bread at the table . . . all this symbolic shit we do for no real purpose other than, you know, somehow or another we’ve agreed among ourselves that many, many, many (almost all!) people enjoy partaking of some social activities, even if the thing at issue is only a symbolic thing.

After all, having a yearly ritual of bringing presents and social gatherings to people for not dying? Sheesh, if they really meant it, if it truly were worthwhile, why we should do that every day.

Hey kids! I was going to get you a car when you turned 16, but I’m a freethinker, so when you turn 32, then I will! That additional 16 years is how I’m showing my independence from god and the car-archy.

And Friday nights are meant to celebrate biology; in particular, fermenting and the effect of ETOH on C-based lifeforms.

Saturday is taken up reviewing the previous night’s data collection efforts.

From you it seems. I did not mention the word.

What a vile piece of shit you are.

Oh you really are something.

I do not recognise your name, but most of the others with the same sexist attitude as you have come from ERV. Not company most people would want to keep.

I guess your standards are lower.

How unfortunate for you i’ve never called myself a feminist. That’s a flag for those such as you to wrap yourself in, a title to claim so you can feel superior. 

You’re rather like those hyper-patriots who wrap themselves in the flag and claim some special “Extra-american” standing, yet never get around to actually serving your country, whilst those of us who did have no need for titles.

By all means, wrap yourself in as many titles as you like, I hope they keep you as warm as their substance allows.

Also, dude, seriously, start actually typing ALL the words in the sentence. For example:

“Since Pharyngula is a place where your sexist ravings, and those of the likes of your fellow moron Justicar, it is not surprising you take exception. ”

That’s not actually a complete sentence. It’s not even a fragment. I THINK you meant:

“Since Pharyngula is a place where your sexist ravings, and those of the likes of your fellow moron Justicar are not welcome, it is not surprising you take exception to those who are.” 

You see how the addition of those last few words really make all the difference? If you’re going to use “stupid” and “moron” as your primary weapons against all who disagree with you, it is rather incumbent upon you to actually type ALL the words in the sentence. Otherwise, when you call someone stupid, and/or a moron, well, you’re the one who looks stupid. Try it out, you’ll get better results.

And lest you forget in the United States, Saturdays are of major importance to universities in the area of team sports, particularly football, and general other tomfoolery. Sunday has always been more of a “proper” day for calmer, more serious discussion and action.

You all know that you don’t have to read PZ’s blog or tweets, right?
All of your whining about him imposing his will and opinions on you is completely asinine and far more of a waste of time and effort than you accuse him of being.

That’s so funny coming from yourself, the very definition of a fundamentalist.

It is controversial if you ask at PZ’s; see the conversation involving geneticist donkane when he asked about the genetic influence in the phenotype about this very issue.

1) When the believers become a sizeable enough group and try to impose their beliefs on the rest of their communities against the wills, laws and rights of those who don’t believe, there is nothing unusual about banding together to push back in force.  Believers in the majority have used their power throughout human history to rig the system in favor of those who think as they do at the expense of the minority.  And seriously, there are loads of groups dedicated to debunking Bigfoot and UFO claims.  This isn’t unusual.

2) “God” is an answer to some very large questions humanity has asked for thousands of years.  People who are unsatisfied with “God/gods” as the answer still continue to ponder their existence and place in the universe, and doing so while discussing ideas and philosophies with one another often broadens one’s horizons and exposes one to new ideas.  Science works because  it’s constantly tested and exposed to new hypotheses, and leaves room for change when proven wrong.  Same idea here.  Isn’t that why a lot of us read Hemant and PZ’s blogs–to interact with other atheists and hear their thoughts and perspectives?  Reducing it simply to “I don’t believe” with none of the nuances  taken into account isn’t accurate.  This blog would have been finished by its first post if that were the case.

3) You’re being disingenous in claiming that people grouping together (especially when doing so to discuss, among other things, logic, empirical evidence and the problem with mindless groupthink) will blindly, automatically follow a leader’s every whim.  Come on.  If you’re going to throw these assertions out there, please back them up.  Otherwise, you’re just insulting us.

I’ve never been to P.Z.’s blog, but I would question why, if people supposedly have an innate desire for church-like communities, does religiosity vary so widely? In places where churchgoing is not encouraged and where there are plenty of secular alternatives, people seem not to have this need to attend weekly gatherings that resemble religious services.

I’m going to need to get you a collar and register you, aren’t I?

No, you just need to stop talking crap. That’s all anyone wants really, a bit of a debate without hypocrisy and lies would do me.

nicely said

That was one of the best, “get drunk, deal with hangover” statements I have ever read.

Your definition of evidence appears to center around anecdotes. Perhaps you have links to you know, valid , proper studies. That would then be “evidence” for your position. 

I know, I’m agreeing with you in a roundabout way.  To qualify though, I know there are some legit problems and that there is a lot of progress to be made socially, but actual victimization seems pretty uncommon.

That you think you have the right insult people without provocation and ruin the discussion for everyone else, that’s what makes you a cocksucker.

I have to throw my support behind PZ on this one. The whole thing  just reeks of trying to turn non-belief into a religion. Peace out.

I can agree with that Anna.  I just think that to pull more people in we have to try a variety of approaches and learn to treat each other with respect, different opinions and all.  If we want a secular society, we need to offer people something positive.  And right now, I’m just not seeing very much of that.  While  the Boston group isn’t my cup of tea, it does no harm, presents a positive face for atheism, and provides the sense of community many crave.  That’s a much more appealing scenario than the fighting I’m constantly seeing online.  Most people go to church because it fulfills an emotional need.  I’d like to find a way to fulfill that need without the harm that the belief in lies and magic entails.  But you can’t fight intolerance with more intolerance; it doesn’t work.

See Pharyngula, any thread.  Mind you, I actually like both PZ and his writing, but the comments leave much to be desired, and he certainly does enjoy the power he wields.  That’s no crime, of course, most people do.  But lately, a lot of people are getting hurt because of it. Or maybe it’s been that way all along, but we don’t notice  until we become the targets.

PZ Myers does not publish and peer reviewed science papers…in fact he is not even about science anymore.  That is one reason he left Science Blogs.

And he is still just an Associate Professor at a third rate school.

I don’t know why he gets so much attention, except maybe for his big mouth and hate mongering.

On the other hand, the good thing is that he insures atheism will remain a fringe movement.

True, but consider how long it took for Scandinavia to get to that point. Maybe these alternatives need to be considered in the US, since  it doesn’t look like a strong social safety network that would help reduce the influence of religion will emerge any time soon.

Why do the PZ’ers and ERVist have to carry their battle though every atheist discussion, seriously keep your parochial pathetic little splat between your relevant blogs. The rest of the atheist world is simply not interested.

As posters like Anna have pointed out such groups are not needed in Europe and it is probably better to ween people away from such activities. Though I accept America with a large church going population this might by problematic. If/when the USA becomes more like Europe in regards to religion then this might just need to be a temporary solution.

I am interest in the discussion on the blog (see my second paragraph.) I can smell agenda driven posts a mile away and the ones above smack me square in the nose.

canada goose jackets
canada goose parka
canada goose coats

 Absolutely – one can be a believer in a god without being a member of a religion, or even being “religious”.  However, to state that atheism is “just another religion” makes absolutely no sense.