I think you should give it another shot - wherever you live these days.

I agree that a community of non-believers is nice, but I'm afraid that groups will begin to take on the "trappings" of religon, at least to outsiders. I already hear, about a billion times a day, that "atheism is just another religion". It's really annoying.

so it seems like you agree that the 'trappings' and 'atheism is a reliion' stuff, however often repeated, is meaningless. i agree.

for me, i wouldn't mind being 'trapped' in a tight-knit community of people who care about me. been working at it for a while, now. can i get another helping of 'trappings', please?

i'm into Humanism not just because it is making me happier to be involved with a community of people who care about and do things for each other, but because i see it as my _responsibility_ to be part of a community of people. when regular people get together and look out for each other, good things happen. when regular people don't get together and don't have community, we get things like the current state of the world - where corporations run roughshod over individuals.

i'm not an atheism hater, but i'm not sure how well you'd be able to build community around just a belief in rational thinking - i've never attended an 'atheist get-together'.

That's where Humanism comes in. it's a life stance - it's written down, it's crystal clear, and part of that crystal clear message is to 'look out for your brothers and sisters' - and they are everyone in your community, and everyone in the world. that's very different from atheism - you can have ayn rand-type Republican atheists who are fine with poor people suffering, but you can't be a Humanist and be fine with human suffering. _That_ is something you can build community around.

Just my take. :)

Benefits of atheist vs. non-sectarian community: it can be nice to have a place to relax and snark, to make fun of the Pope, arrested pastors, and anything about religion which strikes you as, frankly, stupid, without worrying about offending someone else in the room.

Possibly not. On the other hand, think about some of the "best friends" you've had through life. How many of them have been people with whom you have only one common interest or only one activity which you like to do together? I'm sure there may be exceptions, but I think many people would not want to trade their best friend with whom they share everything for ten single-topic friends with whom they share one thing.

The attraction in the social aspect of a Chuch (compared to that of a sewing club) is that it encourages people to engage in diverse, unrelated activities with the same people, helping us to get richer (if not deeper) relationships with these people. Is it likely that a sewing club would hold a potluck supper, a softball game, a musical play, and a Saturday of light carpentry?

If as Atheists we feel it's best to get these different kinds of fulfilment from diverse places, it's only because we currently do not have a better option.

I certainly agree with you about needing refuge; no ship can sail forever in a storm. However -- and don't shoot me for writing this -- I find that I do share many values with many believers, no matter what they think those values are based on.

Also, I did qualify my comment: "...any time the topic arises." Personally, one-trick ponies bore me, and I wouldn't maintain much of a friendship with someone whose only spoken thoughts regarded religion. To my mind, depth of thinking and communication are directly proportional to the depth of the friendship thus nourished, and I find that this depth is greatly enhanced by differing viewpoints, on what ever topic. Of course, I don't believe in expressing my every thought the moment it occurs to me; I should be worse company than I am already. :P

It would seem that in my pursuit of brevity, I gave this background the short shrift. Sorry 'bout that.

True enough, Thumpalumpacus. But I don't really want the give-and-take of debate every second of every day for the rest of my life. I also want places where I can rest, and be strengthened and supported by people who share my values. If I don't get that, then the debate soon stops being enlightening and enlivening, and becomes exhausting instead.

"A place to sit quietly with other people, feeling both private and connected? I can get that at a library. Or even a good cafe. A place to ecstatically celebrate mind and body and the places where they connect? I get that from dancing -- not to mention sex. A sense of being a link in the chain of human history? Dancing again... and writing, and reading, and cooking, and singing, and almost every other basic human activity that's been done for hundreds or thousands of years. A place to celebrate nature and feel connected with it? I can go to the woods, or the mountains, or even just go outside and look at trees. A way of recognizing and reminding myself of how limited my understanding is, and how much I still have to learn? Reading about science is a great way to do that.

"And a place to join with others in a passionate, inspired pursuit of social justice?

"I get that from the atheist blogosphere."

That's not to say that we shouldn't be forming groups and societies and such. Living in the very tolerant, not very religious San Francisco means that I don't really know what it's like to come out as an atheist in, say, Dallas, where the folk dance groups and sewing circles and such are, in all lilelihood, NOT religiously neutral. I'm just saying that atheists don't necessarily have to find community and support and identity that's centered on our atheism.

1. Pollitt calls Sam Harris “ferocious.” That fits with the standard mainstream media line at present, whereby atheists who sometimes use frank or strong statements are classified as extremists. Later in her article, she uses the term “moderate” to refer to those apologists who explain away/ignore the explicit endorsements genocide, murder, terrorism, slavery, and torture in the so-called holy books. By this strange calculus, if you are a religious believer making excuses for why you think torture in eternal hell-fire is appropriate punishment for mere non-belief then you are classified as a “moderate,” whereas if you are an atheist criticizing such a policy you are classified as “ferocious.”

2. Contrary to Pollitt’s caricature, I don’t think anyone is claiming that Muslims or other believers are all going to wake up one day and abandon their faith due to criticisms. However, criticism of religion can have an effect over a longer period. The first step in solving the problems in religion is drawing attention to them. I think something analogous to the law of inertia (or Newton’s first law) applies to beliefs: They remain unchanged unless affected by some other “force”—in this case, criticism, social pressure, etc. .

3. Actually, the reasons that Pollitt cites above for leaving the religion—i.e., pertaining to dubious claims and unethical conduct of Islam’s founder--are among those cited by apostates of Islam. Another fairly common theme in the testimonials of former Muslims is that they had a serious problem accepting that disbelievers should be punished with eternal torture and hell-fire simply for disbelieving. By pointing these things out, critics draw attention to the problems, leading either to reform of those problems or else rejection of the religion.

4. Pollitt also fails to mention two of the major reasons why more Muslims don’t leave Islam: (a) There are usually harsh penalties, up to and including death, for leaving Islam; and (b) There are usually harsh penalties, up to and including death, for criticising Islam publicly. Even where there are not officially implemented penalties, there are still strong social taboos about leaving Islam or criticizing it. This of course is also true, to a lesser extent, in other religions today.

I suspect that large numbers of Muslims would reject their religion abruptly if there were no penalties or cost, whatsoever, for leaving Islam or criticizing it. Still many more who continued with a more modern, moderate interpretation would feel much more secure and confident in expressing their beliefs.

Pollitt:“But if all you can offer people is reasons to quit their religion--which also often means their community, their family, their support system and their identity--you're not going to have many takers. For every brilliant angry teenager you strengthen in doubt, there's a mosque- or churchful of people who'll choose the old-time religion if the only other choice is nothing.”

Ebonmuse has already addressed this. I will just add that leaving a religion, or criticising it openly, shouldn’t entail leaving a community or a family, if believers are tolerant and accepting of non-believers. If leaving the religion does entail those additional separations, then criticism, again, is justified. If believers do not make the appropriate rational and ethical adjustements to the religion, then those who are disaffected with it should leave it. These factors will pressure religions to improve and adapt, or fade away.