Hacker News Reader

Comment by lutusp | Hacker News Reader

A quote from the article: "In the last five years alone, the unaffiliated have increased from just over 15% to just under 20% of all U.S. adults."

I doubt that the true unaffiliated percentage has changed that much over such a short time period. I think these numbers actually reflect people's willingness to reveal that they're unaffiliated, in other words, to publicly "come out" as atheists or agnostics.

Don't get me wrong -- I see this as a good thing overall, I just think the reason for the change is not what it seems. The first step is to discover religion has nothing to offer an intelligent person. The second step is to be willing to let your neighbors know what you've decided, to "come out". The second step is often much harder.

But the big change is still a long way off -- the day an atheist can run for president without being laughed off the stage.

View on HN

While I think this "coming out" is an intelligent observation, I don't agree with your "first step", discovering what religion (not) has to offer to a person. With that comment I can't upvote the entire statement.

To start with, it probably offers a sense of community. It can also help bridge gaps between different parts of our society. I appreciate the charity work. However, I'm part of the 20%, so I'm standing at the sidelines on this one.

You can have all those things without religion.

Then why don't we? Or, rather, can you name some groupings that provide the impulse toward community which aren't religious or quasi-religious (such as freemasonry)? The only two I can think of offhand are RPG gaming groups and the Lions Club.

>> You can have all those things without religion.

> Then why don't we?

That's easy to answer -- religions hunt down and kill all members of communities other than their own. In "civilized" western societies, religions instead argue endlessly against any ideas or communities that differ from their own, eventually wearing down their opponents:

"Republican Congressman says evolution is 'lie from hell'":

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/republican-...

Another reason, less important, is that the glue of religion is stronger than the glue of simple human companionship, to the degree that one simply cannot escape.

I can think of many: gardening clubs, model railroad clubs, stamp collectors, bicycle racing clubs.

I go to many music jams that consist of religious and non-religious musicians to about equal proportions.

There are lots of them, if you take a moment to look. I would suggest looking for a local Humanist group.

e.g. http://www.stanford.edu/group/Humanists/, http://www.americanhumanist.org/

I don't personally partake in these communities, but they exist for people who have a need for the non-religious aspects of religion.

> To start with, it probably offers a sense of community.

With all respect, the religious aspect of a human community is a coincidence -- on can have a community without the religious context. I personally think it's an unfortunate accident of history that so many human communities are built on a scaffolding of religion.

> It can also help bridge gaps between different parts of our society.

It is here that you touch an important point, indeed a critical one. History shows us that, overall, religion creates gaps, it doesn't mend them. For each religious endeavor to reach across a chasm between people, there are ten religious endeavors to create the chasm in the first place.

First you say the religious aspect of communities is coincidental then you say that religion forms chasm-surrounded communities.

Which is it?

> First you say the religious aspect of communities is coincidental then you say that religion forms chasm-surrounded communities. Which is it?

The dichotomy you think you see doesn't exist. They're both true.

Let me spell it out for you:

* The fact that many human communities are religious is a coincidence, an accident of history.

* Those religions that do form, tend to isolate themselves from other communities, sometimes by trying to convert or kill everyone they meet. This doesn't prevent them from being a community, any more than a community of rattlesnakes is not a legitimate community solely on the ground that it's dangerous to surrounding communities.

Clear now?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com