Rant about the Humanist Conference

I"m just worried about those church photos.

One day, Rebecca or perhaps Showercomic will be running for presdent and someone will pull out those photos and say "SEE! You aren't a REAL ATHEIST!!" Not since Gary Hart patted his lap and said, "take a load off your feet baby" will a photo have cost an election that way that photo will!
 
Here are skeptics, demonstrating that they can read the Bible, without either them or the Bible bursting into flames.

165462ea9049619b.jpg

Ahem, that is actually a hymnal that I'm holding. I couldn't pose with the Bible without risk of losing my position as Treasurer of the Baby-Eating Satanist Society.
 
And maybe this isn't the place to do it, but I also wanted to mention that possibly my favorite part of the weekend was on Sunday morning. I was playing a football game at Harvard Stadium, and I looked up to see Glenn and Laura sitting in the shade watching. Yay! I've never had fans in the audience, and they totally skipped E. O. Wilson to see me play. I mean, I was definitely the #1 reason why the skipped E. O. Wilson. Definitely. Anyway, it was nice.
 
You can be a Deist.

A Deist believes in the existence of God, and that God created the universe.

I could be wrong, but I suspect there are some people who believe in a deity, participate in a pseudo-religious humanistic congregation, and yet do not claim to derive their morals from their deity - they derive them this secular groundwork. So, the "religion" they practice takes on more of a personal-comfort role.

Anyone like that around?

All of those churches would, more or less, go into the business of personal comfort, I guess. Perhaps something closely akin to the entertainment industry, but of a more personal and psychologically necessary (for some people) nature.

That won't be a CC anymore, then. And they'll kick and scream, before that happens.

Also, as a reminder, I did correct that part of my writing by pointing out that most Humanists probably are atheists, or at the very least agnostics.

Anyone got any numbers?

The Freedom of Speech applies to government intervention. As a collection of private, non-government organizations, the Humanist movement does have the right to say "we will not support any group that tries to make claims of fact that are clearly and demonstratably false", if it wants to.

But that is different than those groups trying to make false claims.

Not all people who believe in God believe theirs is the One True God. Many believers are willing to admit that there are many equally "legitimate" ways to praise the Lord.

And that's where I say that, in such a case, they can't really believe in God(s). A supreme deity has to be a supreme deity, also for those who don't believe in it.

There could be issues of diplomacy, here. It might be a better strategy to reverse the steps: Do not call them "stupid" right off the bat. Instead, just give them a little education, and let them try to discover for themselves that their ideas could be called stupid.

Or, if they can't discover it themselves, point it out.

That could well be true, but I think morality could best be "measured" in the actions one takes, not in where they claim those morals came from. If one acts like a very good, moral person, even if their beliefs are based on "stupid" ideals, I don't think you can generally call them immoral.

What about a psychic who has satisfied clients? He does good, but from a false premise.

Sure, it ended up acting as a bad side effect, in the end.

No, not in the end. From the very beginning, superstition has always been a bad side effect.

That does not diminish the importance of acknowledging that spirituality is integrated into our evolution, and it is simply not that easy to shed off completely.
...
Although is it not the goal of Humanism to get rid of all religion, in a way Humanism might be the best bet for accidentally having it got rid of. Here's an analogy to think about:
Most people who have successfully quit smoking, have done so by slowly weaning themselves away from the habit, rather than just up-and-quitting cold turkey.
...
Perhaps the best strategy for ridding the world of religion is to allow it to get weaned away, slowly, generation by generation.
If you attempt to up-and-rip-out religion from the people, cold turkey, you are going to get a lot of resistance, and it could backfire: Many people will cling to their beliefs even stronger, if they feel they are threatened.
I say let religion fade away, slowly, in an evolutionary process, much like how it got into our mentality, in the first place. Humanism could be a step in that process: It could end up functioning like a nicotine patch.

It most definitely isn't easy to shed off completely, but I don't think it will evolve itself to oblivion. Superstition seems to wax and wane over time, regardless of how scientifically enlightened people are.

See the responses in bpesta's link.

I don't see it. Could you quote the relevant parts?
 
A Deist believes in the existence of God, and that God created the universe.

But a Deist also believes that the creator God no longer has any influence in the Universe, and therefore that there will be no supernatural savior.

I don't see it. Could you quote the relevant parts?

My interpretation of "militant" here is someone who is "excessively confrontational." Do you know of any atheists who are excessively confrontational?

Who is more likely to bring secularized-but-recently-religious people into the fold of humanism, Julia Sweeney or Brian Flemming?
 
Last edited:
No, not in the end. From the very beginning, superstition has always been a bad side effect.

I'd disagree with that. It's usually safer to believe in something that's not true than to not believe in something that is true. Superstitions saved our ancestors' butts enough in the past for us to have evolved a tendency to be superstitious.
 
Alright here are links to my photo albums in facebook. There are 200+ pictures. 2nd, 3rd, and 4th albums have the juicier pictures.

Album 1: http://ucla.facebook.com/album.php?aid=2159783&l=0f08f&id=2505785
Album 2: http://ucla.facebook.com/album.php?aid=2159816&l=daea0&id=2505785
Album 3: http://ucla.facebook.com/album.php?aid=2159887&l=9b153&id=2505785
Album 4: http://ucla.facebook.com/album.php?aid=2159891&l=37aea&id=2505785
Album 5: http://ucla.facebook.com/album.php?aid=2159894&l=40d19&id=2505785

Enjoy!


And yeah, I got confused, it was Hawkeye...Hawkeye and I had a discussion about the several Hawe---- people on the forum.
Sorry Hawkeye!
 
And maybe this isn't the place to do it, but I also wanted to mention that possibly my favorite part of the weekend was on Sunday morning. I was playing a football game at Harvard Stadium, and I looked up to see Glenn and Laura sitting in the shade watching. Yay! I've never had fans in the audience, and they totally skipped E. O. Wilson to see me play. I mean, I was definitely the #1 reason why the skipped E. O. Wilson. Definitely. Anyway, it was nice.


YOU PLAYED FOOTBALL...LUCKY!! I brought a nerf football and wanted to play with someone and and and...I'm saddish now.
Football would have been fun.
 
Ah damn, I just realized how stupid I am...on Friday night I left Memorial Church late after Rushdie's talk and didn't see anyone anywhere. So I walked alone around Harvard campus trying to find someone from the conference to hang out with. I forgot I had peoples' phone numbers in my cell phone! (like fasionmars') Jeez Louise...*shakes head in shame*
 
But a Deist also believes that the creator God no longer has any influence in the Universe, and therefore that there will be no supernatural savior.

Apart from those being not exclusive, you can't believe in an all-powerful, all-knowing god that stops being both, or either.

My interpretation of "militant" here is someone who is "excessively confrontational." Do you know of any atheists who are excessively confrontational?

No. But I can easily rattle off a lot of names of excessively confrontational believers. ;)

Who is more likely to bring secularized-but-recently-religious people into the fold of humanism, Julia Sweeney or Brian Flemming?

Time will tell. But one thing is certain: Dawkins sure has brought atheism on the map more than Julia.

I'd disagree with that. It's usually safer to believe in something that's not true than to not believe in something that is true.

How so?

Superstitions saved our ancestors' butts enough in the past for us to have evolved a tendency to be superstitious.

I have yet to see evidence of the superstitious gene(s).

Why can't it simply be our brains not fully understanding the world (how can we, without education and natural explanations?), so our brains invent supernatural causes for the things we don't understand?
 
This is getting way off the topic of the OP regarding our reactions to the New Humanist conference or religious humanism, but briefly:

Apart from those being not exclusive, you can't believe in an all-powerful, all-knowing god that stops being both, or either.
My understanding is that Deists believe that God does not intervene, whether or not he/she/it is omnipotent or omniscient.

Another example of a religion that does not believe in a supernatural savior is Buddhism.

I'm not sure I would call Dawkins a militant atheist. "Outspoken," for sure.

Regrettably, Spazeboy didn't record Sherwin Wine's speech during his
panel, but his points about working with religious humanists really struck a chord with me.


If I hear rustling in the bushes, and I believe that it's a tiger, even if it isn't, that's much safer than believing it's not a tiger, when it well could be.
 
oh and if anyone has a chance to have DV as a houseguest, do so!

He brings CHOCOLATES!!! Good chocolates.
 
Alright here are links to my photo albums in facebook. There are 200+ pictures. 2nd, 3rd, and 4th albums have the juicier pictures.

Album 1: http://ucla.facebook.com/album.php?aid=2159783&l=0f08f&id=2505785
Album 2: http://ucla.facebook.com/album.php?aid=2159816&l=daea0&id=2505785
Album 3: http://ucla.facebook.com/album.php?aid=2159887&l=9b153&id=2505785
Album 4: http://ucla.facebook.com/album.php?aid=2159891&l=37aea&id=2505785
Album 5: http://ucla.facebook.com/album.php?aid=2159894&l=40d19&id=2505785

Enjoy!


And yeah, I got confused, it was Hawkeye...Hawkeye and I had a discussion about the several Hawe---- people on the forum.
Sorry Hawkeye!

Cool album 2 has my HAIR (it's good hair people, I pay enough for it) and MR.RANDI in the back of my car! (His velcro is a little off so he's resting). You even got a shot of the gulag where you stayed! No shot of my agnostic car...hmmm...My car felt right at home at the conference.
 
You had to have breakfast with E. O. Wilson, the next day, if you wanted to fully understand what that video-conference stunt was all about. But, I still don't think it was worth interrupting Rushdie for.

I was at the E.O. Wilson breakfast and I still think the video conference was a pointless.

And Kittynh, I did take a pic of your car but didn't want to post it since it has your license plate on it and I'm an uber wary of privacy protection.
But why does you license plate say Damn Fine Ho?
 
Eh, we were just getting drunk in a pizza place in Harvard Square, I doubt you would have enjoyed that very much.

:)


Getting to know my fellow skeptics and JREFers would be more enjoyable than most things. Especially wandering alone around Harvard at night oggling the beautiful nubile people going to parties.
 
You had to have breakfast with E. O. Wilson, the next day, if you wanted to fully understand what that video-conference stunt was all about. But, I still don't think it was worth interrupting Rushdie for.


Are you going to enlighten us as to the reason for the stunt?
 
Maybe this "video conference" didn't actually happen. Maybe we were suffering from mass delusion? Maybe Rushdie did speak for 45minutes and enlightened us?
 

Back
Top Bottom