<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss" xmlns:geo="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#" xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Atheists and Unitarians</title>
	<atom:link href="http://friendlyhumanist.net/2009/10/01/atheists-and-unitarians/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://friendlyhumanist.net/2009/10/01/atheists-and-unitarians/</link>
	<description>Trying to live by compassion and reason - thoughts on the journey</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 22 May 2013 04:55:07 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.com/</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Timothy Mills</title>
		<link>http://friendlyhumanist.net/2009/10/01/atheists-and-unitarians/#comment-339</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Timothy Mills]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 13 Jan 2010 23:39:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://friendlyhumanist.net/2009/10/01/atheists-and-unitarians#comment-339</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The short answer is, &quot;Why not?&quot;  I don&#039;t see any problem with it.

However, since you ask the question, I&#039;ll give you the somewhat longer answer.

My wife and I attended &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.humanism-scotland.org.uk/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;HSS&lt;/a&gt; gatherings when we first got into humanism.  However, they are on Monday evenings.  We have two young children - a two-year-old and an infant - and there&#039;s no way we could make it to those meetings, or to the Skeptics in the Pub meetings.  At least, we couldn&#039;t do it as a family.

The Unitarians - whose general approach is at least compatible with humanism, though not identical - meet in the middle of the day on Sunday, which is much more manageable.  They even have a children&#039;s program, which means we get an hour of childfree relaxation every week while our 2-year-old daughter draws pictures and sings songs.  (Indoctrination-free, I assure you.)  We get much of the same benefit from Unitarian gatherings that we got from the HSS meetings (a sense of community, the company of rational and compassionate people, diversity of opinion, open-mindedness, etc), and none of the disadvantages of attending a more conventional church (having to tacitly accept beliefs that we find false and/or morally dubious).

So like I said, why not?]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The short answer is, &#8220;Why not?&#8221;  I don&#8217;t see any problem with it.</p>
<p>However, since you ask the question, I&#8217;ll give you the somewhat longer answer.</p>
<p>My wife and I attended <a href="http://www.humanism-scotland.org.uk/" rel="nofollow">HSS</a> gatherings when we first got into humanism.  However, they are on Monday evenings.  We have two young children &#8211; a two-year-old and an infant &#8211; and there&#8217;s no way we could make it to those meetings, or to the Skeptics in the Pub meetings.  At least, we couldn&#8217;t do it as a family.</p>
<p>The Unitarians &#8211; whose general approach is at least compatible with humanism, though not identical &#8211; meet in the middle of the day on Sunday, which is much more manageable.  They even have a children&#8217;s program, which means we get an hour of childfree relaxation every week while our 2-year-old daughter draws pictures and sings songs.  (Indoctrination-free, I assure you.)  We get much of the same benefit from Unitarian gatherings that we got from the HSS meetings (a sense of community, the company of rational and compassionate people, diversity of opinion, open-mindedness, etc), and none of the disadvantages of attending a more conventional church (having to tacitly accept beliefs that we find false and/or morally dubious).</p>
<p>So like I said, why not?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Timothy Mills</title>
		<link>http://friendlyhumanist.net/2009/10/01/atheists-and-unitarians/#comment-338</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Timothy Mills]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 13 Jan 2010 23:26:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://friendlyhumanist.net/2009/10/01/atheists-and-unitarians#comment-338</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[&lt;a href=&quot;http://rationaloutlet.blogspot.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Dominic S&lt;/a&gt; has left a comment on the old &lt;a href=&quot;http://friendlyhumanist.blogspot.com/2009/10/atheists-and-unitarians.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;blogspot version&lt;/a&gt; of this post.  I&#039;ll reproduce it here and then respond to it.

&quot;What&#039;s the point in being a member of a Unitarian congregation when you&#039;re an atheist?&quot;]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://rationaloutlet.blogspot.com/" rel="nofollow">Dominic S</a> has left a comment on the old <a href="http://friendlyhumanist.blogspot.com/2009/10/atheists-and-unitarians.html" rel="nofollow">blogspot version</a> of this post.  I&#8217;ll reproduce it here and then respond to it.</p>
<p>&#8220;What&#8217;s the point in being a member of a Unitarian congregation when you&#8217;re an atheist?&#8221;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Timothy Mills</title>
		<link>http://friendlyhumanist.net/2009/10/01/atheists-and-unitarians/#comment-322</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Timothy Mills]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 24 Nov 2009 09:54:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://friendlyhumanist.net/2009/10/01/atheists-and-unitarians#comment-322</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Mary, I partly agree with your quote.  In a world without religious belief, there would be little point in asserting one&#039;s particular lack of religious belief (though I&#039;ll bet some philosophers would do it anyway).Of course, all the atheists I know (including myself) already suspect that there is no god, and yet we remain atheists.  So it&#039;s unlikely that we&#039;re going to accept Chesterton&#039;s quip as true, no matter how snappy and clever it sounds.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Mary, I partly agree with your quote.  In a world without religious belief, there would be little point in asserting one&#39;s particular lack of religious belief (though I&#39;ll bet some philosophers would do it anyway).Of course, all the atheists I know (including myself) already suspect that there is no god, and yet we remain atheists.  So it&#39;s unlikely that we&#39;re going to accept Chesterton&#39;s quip as true, no matter how snappy and clever it sounds.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mary</title>
		<link>http://friendlyhumanist.net/2009/10/01/atheists-and-unitarians/#comment-319</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Mary]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 23 Nov 2009 21:15:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://friendlyhumanist.net/2009/10/01/atheists-and-unitarians#comment-319</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[If there were no God, there would be no atheists. -G.K. Chesterton Enough said?]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>If there were no God, there would be no atheists. -G.K. Chesterton Enough said?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Deena</title>
		<link>http://friendlyhumanist.net/2009/10/01/atheists-and-unitarians/#comment-283</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Deena]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 05 Oct 2009 16:54:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://friendlyhumanist.net/2009/10/01/atheists-and-unitarians#comment-283</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[One problem I&#039;ve observed among us atheists, freethinkers, secular humanists and skeptics is this tendency (as Annie Laurie Gaylor has so aptly demonstated) to hoot and fling feces when any irrationality in our own behaviour is pointed out.  My, my we get tetchy about this.  I guess it comes with taking pride in reason and rationality – so when someone (even a “Friendly Humanist”) points out that perhaps we&#039;ve behaved a tad irrationally (like by placing an ad that paints all religion as evil in a magazine that has a significant proportion of its readership who may consider themselves as members of a religion, though a non-dogmatic one) we blow our tops.  Out come the big phrases - “taboo on freethought” (wtf?), “our ad was not an attack” (who said anything about attack?), “infiltration of the UUA by new members who are not freethinking” (I&#039;m sensing a whole lot of crazy now...I mean seriously, “infiltration”, puh-leeze!).  HOOT HOOT HOOT!!!My own first reactions upon reading about the FFRF ad was 1.Most UUs I know wouldn&#039;t even bat an eyelash at this ad so how many people actually complained?  (I later found out that this was a mere 8)2.I do know some UUs from a liberal christian background who still consider faith a virtue (not blind belief, but more of an action like something akin to hope and working for a better future).  I bet that Mark Twain quote would irritate them.  But they would probably enjoy being challenged on this.In the end, I have to admit that the FFRF ad was PERFECT for the UUA magazine.  I mean – look at all the kerfuffle.  If FFRF had chosen to place some bland “let&#039;s keep church and state separate so we can get along” ad in there, it would have gone completely under the radar and none of this blogging and commenting would have happened.  So, perhaps the “Friendly Humanist” is totally wrong here and this move by the FFRF was indeed very well thought out and rational.Annie Laurie – there is no need to ask for your $4k back – with this kerffufle I think FFRF has probably been able to get more than its money&#039;s worth!  Best of luck with the membership drive but do try to calm yourself down a bit.  Just because a blogger criticises the FFRF&#039;s choice of quotes in an ad does not mean that they are against freethought or are out to get the FFRF or are ignorant of the UUAs creedless position or are some type of evil anti-freethought-psuedo-atheist who has “infiltrated” the UUA.  Afterall, open criticism is what freethought is all about.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>One problem I&#39;ve observed among us atheists, freethinkers, secular humanists and skeptics is this tendency (as Annie Laurie Gaylor has so aptly demonstated) to hoot and fling feces when any irrationality in our own behaviour is pointed out.  My, my we get tetchy about this.  I guess it comes with taking pride in reason and rationality – so when someone (even a “Friendly Humanist”) points out that perhaps we&#39;ve behaved a tad irrationally (like by placing an ad that paints all religion as evil in a magazine that has a significant proportion of its readership who may consider themselves as members of a religion, though a non-dogmatic one) we blow our tops.  Out come the big phrases &#8211; “taboo on freethought” (wtf?), “our ad was not an attack” (who said anything about attack?), “infiltration of the UUA by new members who are not freethinking” (I&#39;m sensing a whole lot of crazy now&#8230;I mean seriously, “infiltration”, puh-leeze!).  HOOT HOOT HOOT!!!My own first reactions upon reading about the FFRF ad was 1.Most UUs I know wouldn&#39;t even bat an eyelash at this ad so how many people actually complained?  (I later found out that this was a mere 8)2.I do know some UUs from a liberal christian background who still consider faith a virtue (not blind belief, but more of an action like something akin to hope and working for a better future).  I bet that Mark Twain quote would irritate them.  But they would probably enjoy being challenged on this.In the end, I have to admit that the FFRF ad was PERFECT for the UUA magazine.  I mean – look at all the kerfuffle.  If FFRF had chosen to place some bland “let&#39;s keep church and state separate so we can get along” ad in there, it would have gone completely under the radar and none of this blogging and commenting would have happened.  So, perhaps the “Friendly Humanist” is totally wrong here and this move by the FFRF was indeed very well thought out and rational.Annie Laurie – there is no need to ask for your $4k back – with this kerffufle I think FFRF has probably been able to get more than its money&#39;s worth!  Best of luck with the membership drive but do try to calm yourself down a bit.  Just because a blogger criticises the FFRF&#39;s choice of quotes in an ad does not mean that they are against freethought or are out to get the FFRF or are ignorant of the UUAs creedless position or are some type of evil anti-freethought-psuedo-atheist who has “infiltrated” the UUA.  Afterall, open criticism is what freethought is all about.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Annie Laurie Gaylor</title>
		<link>http://friendlyhumanist.net/2009/10/01/atheists-and-unitarians/#comment-281</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Annie Laurie Gaylor]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 02 Oct 2009 14:51:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://friendlyhumanist.net/2009/10/01/atheists-and-unitarians#comment-281</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[It is truly shocking that there is such a taboo on freethought and open debate on religion in our country that the Freedom From Religion Foundation&#039;s lovely bus ads featuring thought-provoking quotations by famous nonbelievers, would come under fire from this naive blogger. The UUA, whose congregations are full of members of the Freedom From Religion Foundation, atheists and agnostics, is creedless. We have been invited to speak at countless UU societies over the past 31 years. Our ad was not an attack on the UUA, it was an espousal of the views of most Unitarians! Perhaps the infiltration of the UUA by new members who are not freethinking, who do not really understand its creedless position, accounts for this mind-boggling reaction as a small number. Fortunately, reason seems to be prevail with many of the readers of The World, as the Foundation has gained many new members and supporters (too early for the final tally but it was a successful ad for us to reach out to new supporters). What I find unconscionable is the fact that The World was happy to accept over $4,000 from our tax-deductible charity for this ad, then publicly repudiated our ad after the fact. Talk about bad manners! Frankly, we think the UUA should refund our money. It&#039;s an even sadder day when an atheist blogger repudiates the wisdom of Mark Twain&#039;s &quot;Faith is believing what you know ain&#039;t so&quot; (could there be a more succinct definition of religious faith?) and actress Katherine Hepburn&#039;s observation, &quot;I&#039;m an atheist, and that&#039;s it. I believe that there&#039;s nothing we can know except that we should be kind to reach other and do what we can for other people.&quot;]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It is truly shocking that there is such a taboo on freethought and open debate on religion in our country that the Freedom From Religion Foundation&#39;s lovely bus ads featuring thought-provoking quotations by famous nonbelievers, would come under fire from this naive blogger. The UUA, whose congregations are full of members of the Freedom From Religion Foundation, atheists and agnostics, is creedless. We have been invited to speak at countless UU societies over the past 31 years. Our ad was not an attack on the UUA, it was an espousal of the views of most Unitarians! Perhaps the infiltration of the UUA by new members who are not freethinking, who do not really understand its creedless position, accounts for this mind-boggling reaction as a small number. Fortunately, reason seems to be prevail with many of the readers of The World, as the Foundation has gained many new members and supporters (too early for the final tally but it was a successful ad for us to reach out to new supporters). What I find unconscionable is the fact that The World was happy to accept over $4,000 from our tax-deductible charity for this ad, then publicly repudiated our ad after the fact. Talk about bad manners! Frankly, we think the UUA should refund our money. It&#39;s an even sadder day when an atheist blogger repudiates the wisdom of Mark Twain&#39;s &quot;Faith is believing what you know ain&#39;t so&quot; (could there be a more succinct definition of religious faith?) and actress Katherine Hepburn&#39;s observation, &quot;I&#39;m an atheist, and that&#39;s it. I believe that there&#39;s nothing we can know except that we should be kind to reach other and do what we can for other people.&quot;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Chris Brind</title>
		<link>http://friendlyhumanist.net/2009/10/01/atheists-and-unitarians/#comment-280</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Chris Brind]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 02 Oct 2009 07:34:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://friendlyhumanist.net/2009/10/01/atheists-and-unitarians#comment-280</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[OK, ignore my comment - I have just done some research and now understand Unitarian Universalists.  It still seems somewhat conflicted to me to be an Atheist and a member of this group.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>OK, ignore my comment &#8211; I have just done some research and now understand Unitarian Universalists.  It still seems somewhat conflicted to me to be an Atheist and a member of this group.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
