I'm not talking about group membership. I've never talked about group membership. I don't know why you're talking about group membership.

You're saying things that are totally unrelated, so in that sense, yes.

I pointed out that they are the 2nd and 3rd results when googling the word "humanist" so that by this measure, they are the most relevant humanist organization. So their small size relative to the sizes of other general types of organizations is meaningless as they are apparently large relative to the size of other humanist organizations.

My point is that they're trying to do something, but are apparently failing at it.

Let me quote myself from this post:

I don't care if you're in the organization or not in the organization. The question is about the goals that the organization has set for itself and how their investment in this magazine either is or is not in alignment with those goals.

Clearly, the AHA sees it differently. Otherwise, I don't think they would exist as an organization.

Nope. But thanks for reaffirming your inability to comprehend the words you're reading.

This thread has nothing about what I'm wanting to see. It has everything to do with analyzing what I'm seeing from a particular magazine that is created by a particular humanist organization that has a particular goal (or set of goals) that they're trying to accomplish, and how I'm not seeing what I would expect to see from these things.

If all you're interested in is this specific website, fine. But you shouldn't be surprised that people think you're trying to make some larger comparative point about humanism. Why else would we care?

The group members are writing the articles. The main issue, as everyone has already brought up is that there isn't much of a humanist agenda. "We like people and reasoning!"

Anyway, I perused it a bit (the magazine and the website):

They have some rah-rah ones: http://thehumanist.com/news/all/rule...asily-offended

Some boo hiss ones: http://thehumanist.com/news/national...s-for-religion

Some discussion of ethics: http://thehumanist.com/news/all/the-...te-woody-allen

Some philosophy: http://thehumanist.com/magazine/nove...-mistaken-idea

Some discussion of the ethics of being an anti-religious jerk: http://thehumanist.com/magazine/marc...-the-religious

That should tell you a bit more about humanists being part of organizations with the name "humanist" in it than anything else.

You simply aren't going to get the equivalent of (you mentioning Christianity Today) "Christians of different backgrounds read it/link to it and debate the content. Non-Christians read it to gain insight into Christians' perspectives on certain issues" from a group that isn't representative. You certainly aren't going to get the same from a group (secular humanists) who don't have much of anything in common other than that they like people and reasoning.

Also, do you non-Christians read Christianity Today?

I'm not so sure. From my understanding secularism is growing and religiosity is falling.

They are permitted to have several goals. One of them is apparently to put out a magazine with articles of varying quality about current events.

And they are wrong. (There is a purpose for groups that support young atheists* and for groups that support separation of church and state)

Where would I find in Christianity Today the article on the ethical underpinnings of rudeness on the internet?

And I'm telling you that what you found was exactly what you should have expected. It isn't particularly complicated. They are a very small subset of secular humanists who are obsessed with obtaining things we already have, such as separation of church and state, science and western enlightenment (AKA, things that most religious people support). They are the small subset of individual thinkers who think they should unite. They are strange. Expecting strange people to not do strange and ineffectual things is, well, strange.

*I would actually like to see the Christian debate on that as an aside. I'm rather torn as to whether a Christian ought to believe that such support would be a net good or a net evil given that not everyone has or can have faith. I'd like to think that the strict Calvinists would come down on the side of it being a net good.

Thanks, OrP. I thought that my writing skills and Aaron's reading skills were sufficient for him to have realized that I wasn't supporting a random website that happens to have the word "humanist" on it.

If you were going to show Aaron where to go to read debates humanists (particularly secular humanists who would like more secular humanism) have so he can learn about what they think, where would you send him?

I'll requote my OP:

You don't have to care about the website. But that's what I'm asking about, and I've been very explicit and consistent that this is what I'm asking about.

Ah, well, what is your point then? We all agree that the website sucks ass full time and blows hobos part-time to make rent. You got that from everyone from the get go.

From the "About Us" page that you linked earlier:

http://thehumanist.com/about-us/

Either these prominent writers are group members, or you're wrong and your reading comprehension abilities remain on display.

There may not be. But the AHA seems to think otherwise.

That's fine. It would be consistent with all of the observations thus far.

This quote is hilarious, but I doubt you'll see why. The reason is that if you did see why, you'd realize that you're contradicting yourself, and I know you're not going to see that.

I quoted the thing that appears to be their mission statement. That's their stated goal.

I should expect humanists to be failures at the things they attempt to do?

My goal was to see whether my assessment was the same as others' assessments. I'm negatively inclined towards such a website because of basic disagreements, so it's not always clear whether my assessment is negative because of internal bias or whether it's an assessment that others hold. So I asked.

I got that from Uke and Turn Prophet. From you, I got what appeared to be a defense of their failure. They're a small group... Real humanists don't join humanist groups... Internal debate isn't appropriate for this group... You should expect humanists to fail...

I do read Christianity Today occasionally, mostly when I am interested in a middle-brow mainstream evangelical Christian take on an issue. For instance, the recent article on Adam and Eve and genetics was good.

Also, it should be pointed out that the "liberal social values" referred to in that quotation by Aaron earlier is not the same thing as what we mean today (remember that was before the religious right, the pro-life movement, the anti-war stuff, etc). Rather it refers to some combination of anti-communism and anti-poverty concerns. However, Aaron is correct that the founders of CT wanted it to influence intellectual culture outside of evangelical confines (it was supposed to be a conservative version of liberal Christian magazine The Christian Century, which did have this impact). However, in part because of the intellectual failings of American evangelical culture, I think it mostly failed in this goal (the conservative Catholic magazine First Things is much better at this).

Did you read the stuff that those "prominent writers" wrote in the articles you picked to read?!?

Yes, but who cares?!? They are the atheists whose pussies are sore because the theists are mean to them.

I was making a joke at Christianity's expense via the wonderful works of Christianity Today and, by extension Christianity itself. I wouldn't normally do so (as I am normally quite nice), but you've been rude and I don't like that sort of thing.

I am guessing (I haven't bothered to read their mission statement, but I imagine it doesn't include making Christianity shrink) that Christianity Today is trying to grow the Christian religions. Why is it not succeeding?

Incompetence?!? Just being wrong?!?

Secular humanism is growing and religiosity is losing. They are winning despite "us" putting a bunch of half-witted people who should be capable of finding more important things to do with their lives on the field.

I will, quite easily, grant you that they are an unwelcome pep squad.

Use those reading skills. I was quite clear. You should expect silly ridiculous people to be failures. I didn't paint the entire lot of scientists and philosophers (most of which are humanists) with the same brush as I brush the silly people in the AHA. Other than when you Christians are particularly annoying, we are fine that you exist. Try not to be annoying. It will serve you well.

What you should have gotten is that I defend the weak. I wouldn't let an atheist yell at young children for singing "jesus loves me, this I know" either.

Stop being mean or I will feel the need to crush you. Keep in mind that I am not Christian and I am more than happy to crush you for the greater good.

The last bit you said had nothing at all to do with what I said, fwiw. Try using those reading skills. "You should expect an organization based on nothing more than wanting freedom from religion in a place where freedom from religion is already allowed and encouraged to be a bit strange and unpopular" would be more correct.

Feel free to do what you will.

Maybe reading sarcasm is above your pay grade?

Does it matter? Either they're members or they're not. If they're members, then you've characterized these notable figures as outsiders of a fringe group. If they're not members, then there are non-members who contribute as well.

Who cares who cares? That has nothing to do with the analysis of the goals and the content of the writings.

You remain humorous because of your lack of understanding. I won't explain yet. Maybe I'll never explain. For now, I'll just requote you to give you a chance to think about what you've said.

Sarcasm usually includes a component called humor. I haven't detected any.

Again, I didn't say anything approaching "you should expect humanists to fail." I said that they are busy doing other things (advancing the physical and social sciences and philosophy, working with humanitarian groups) instead of hanging around joining humanist associations.

There are other places that have greater interest in secular humanism itself, and you can find better authorship there. For instance:

http://humanistni.org/dynamic_content.php?id=105

http://www.humanistperspectives.org/issue187/index.html

http://aeu.org/wp-content/uploads/Di...Winter2014.pdf

I didn't see a prominent humanist among them. I saw a feminist, two very cranky atheists, a consumer advocate and a fiction author.

In particular, the two angry atheists don't appear to live up to:

We have already all come to the conclusion that the writing isn't particularly good, nor is it important, nor is it the best source of information on what humanists believe.

It is one of a bunch of secular humanist organizations that has dropped most of the emphasis of "humanist" from "secular humanist." Such a thing is called mission creep. They might have a mission statement, but they ought to change it to reflect the reality of what they are now; a group that complains about religious folk (particularly religious folk who attempt to blur the separation between church and state) and who lobbies and litigates and agitates for the rights of atheists.

There was no humor intended. Christianity Today is a publication of an Evangelical Christian group. Evangelical Christianity is in decline. It is in decline, particularly amongst young people.

I'm a rather results oriented sort of person, and "no religion" (read: secular humanist) is the fastest growing segment of the population by both numbers and percentages. Perhaps the AHA just doesn't get the excellent authors simply because the vast majority of secular humanists aren't concerned about spreading it (it is spreading quite fine all by itself), and the vast majority of us who would speak just don't like the implied directly stated religious intolerance of groups like the AHA.

What you are seeing is that our first string (Asimov, Vonnegut, Adams, Rogers, Leakey, Huxley, along those that espoused American Republicanism and the American Enlightenment) already did the work of setting things in motion. The only ones of us still on the field are the fourth string from the Jr. Varsity squad and some mean people like Dawkins and (up until recently) Hitchens.

The humor is that there are dots that you aren't connecting. You did it again, and it's right in front of you.

I might even call it a form blindness caused by evangelistic zeal. I'll quote your statements one more time, and leave it to you to figure out why you've set yourself up for failure. Good luck.

For someone who knows what mission creep is, your inability to figure this out carries with it a level of irony.

Ah, I got what you are assuming I am doing. I can assure you that I am not. I'm not at all anti-religious. When I do my volunteering it is at the YMCA and Catholic Charities. I very much hope neither goes away.

What I am doing is asking you whether you are applying the same standards of effectiveness to both sides and pointing out that the only measure of effectiveness would actually measure effectiveness.

Nope. That's not what I'm getting at.

The bear patrol must be working like a charm.

Well, that is all I can pick up from it.

Edit: Unless you are still whining that I changed the subject from the quite boring and completely meaningless* "that magazine isn't particularly good" that we all agree on.

I'll ask again. How are you measuring effectiveness?

*in terms of understanding humanism and what humanists think.

I look at the level of the impact that the organization has with respect to its stated goals.

You went with an obscure Simpson's reference to demonstrate your communication skills and my reading skills? Really?!? To demonstrate where you went wrong in your reading skills, I will requote the relevant bit:

"I'm not so sure." Any half-wit with average third-grade reading comprehension* would read that as "I am not sure. The correlation is pointing in the correct direction" not "I am sure that the correlation implies causation."

Of course, the important bit is that the publication you brought up as an excellent example of the state of Christian literature has a correlation that points in the opposite direction. Is this proof that the tiger-repellent rock of Christianity Today actually attracts tigers? No, but it definitely indicates lack of excellence in tiger-proofing.

Anyway, I've been quite clear that I don't think that the AHA itself is particularly effective (it might be, I can't really tell) and also that its stated goals are off from what its real goals have morphed into over the years. That should have been immediately apparent without me saying anything at all once you noticed Hitchens and Dawkins were mentioned on the website.

If I were going to exaggerate, I'd say that what you found in the AHA is the Westboro Baptist Church version of humanism. Probably closer to the truth would be to say that you found the 700 Club version of humanism.

I know that you are obsessed with the AHA organization itself, but that isn't interesting. It would be like me being obsessed with the Westboro Baptist Church or the 700 Club for being ineffectual after it was pointed out to me that they aren't representative of Christianity by an actual Christian.

*I'm not implying that you are a half-wit or have less than a third-grade reading level. I am implying that you are either being purposefully dense or just enjoy being a jerk. I can't tell which.

I did it to throw you a bone. You clearly had no clue, and you weren't going to get there on your own.

The honest thing to say is that you realized your error. The dishonest thing to say is that you were hedging on that comment. You agree on the point that the magazine is a flop. You've basically called the organization an irrelevant fringe group. And you want to pretend like maybe the group is responsible for the (inter)national demographic shifts in the religious/irreligious balance?

That's like saying that your company is losing $10,000 a month, but because the US economy is improving that you're successful.

Yup. You *clearly* understand this whole correlation-causation thing. (I feel the need to point out the sarcasm in that sentence for you.)

Yet you also say

The goals are way off, the magazine is terrible, you don't think it's effective, but you want to hedge that maybe they're successful because of the overall demographic shift? I'm hoping that your job doesn't rely upon your ability to analyze information.

Calling it an obsession is silly. I believe this is the ONLY thread that I've started that involved the AHA. I'm not even sure if I've ever referred to that organization outside of this thread. And I've repeatedly kept the conversation precisely on them, their articles, their publications, and have made NO general remarks about humanism. I haven't even claimed that they are representative of broader movements in humanism.

Has there never been a thread about Westboro in this forum? How many other times has Westboro been brought up inside of other conversations? Did you see the Christians trying to "defend the weak" at Westboro by trying to pretend that what they were doing was a good thing or that they were being successful in some way?

I'm being a jerk to you because despite being absolutely clear about the scope and intention of this thread, you've continued to try to act as if I'm making some broader criticism of humanism. And now you've proceeded to make what I view to be an absolutely dishonest hedging of your words to avoid admitting error. And your analogy with Westboro, especially after declaring that you like to defend the weak, is horrendous. You've just thrown them under the bus.

This is the more important bit:

You made a post. People responded to it. Sorry, but opening a discussion does not, in any way, imply that you control the direction or scope of the discussion. It isn't like I've gone so far off topic that you aren't capable of keeping up.* It is the way conversations go. No gnashing of teeth, nor rending of clothes, not temper tantrums can change that. OrP could, but I'm guessing that he doesn't mind if we have an interesting conversation about an interesting topic despite your wishes to the contrary.**

The quite simple explanation as to why the conversation moved away from your intended conversation is because your intended conversation was almost, but not quite, completely outside the realm of being worthy of discussion.

Perhaps I can, indirectly, show you what you did: I've perused Christianity Today and was hoping to find an internal debate on the major issues of Christianity but what I found was: http://www.christianitytoday.com/gle...t-madness.html or this http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/...r-soldier.html that quite entertainingly reminds me of "I thought the article on the Noah movie came across as being whiny and arrogant at the same time, which I suppose is a feat of some type." and this http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/...nk-robber.html.

I couldn't even find a debate between these American Evangelical Christians on the site. Perhaps you can point one out to me. Maybe one that includes the mainstream Christian position, and not just one that only encompasses American Evangelical Christians.

Extremely entertaining was this find: http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/...t-culture.html

So, where is the effectiveness here? I read each and every one of the above and (save for the last one) could actually feel my IQ dropping and my atheism strengthened as I forced myself to read on.*** I felt no new understanding of what Christians believe (possibly because I have the lesser and greater Catechisms memorized already) and found nothing that even resembled a coherent thought.

Just to make sure I am clear, I don't have to pay attention to the last article because I am not a Christian. I assume that you have a life's mission statement. Are you effectively following that mission statement?

*I'm making some broad and kind assumptions about you.

**OrP owns the microphone here. If I were so off topic as to deserve public censure, he would do so. He is pretty good at it.

***a rare feat.

Right. If the conversation goes in a direction, it can go in that direction. If you want to talk about the AHA's irrelevance, go for it. But what you can't do is then proceed to successfully accuse me of making broader claims about humanism when, in fact, I've never made such claims. Furthermore, it's absurd for you to come into the conversation and keep asking "Why should I care about this conversation?"

OrP's comment in that direction stands as a clarification. Your stands as inane defiance. If you don't really care about the AHA, why defend them? And then why say that you're not defending them? It makes little sense and basically serves to demonstrate the level of mental processing that you've engaged in throughout the thread.

The quite simple explanation is that you've made claims about what I've stated in this thread that are false.

I'll quote you from earlier this thread:

I never once claimed that you were "supporting" the website, nor did I ever respond to your comments in a way that would suggest that. But you did defend it (albeit, in perhaps the crappiest way possible), and you even said that you were defending it because you "defend the weak" (your explicit words on how I should interpret your posting).

What I see is a continual failure of basic reading comprehension and a lack of honesty in the conversation from you.

LOL -- You suck at analogies, too!

Pretending as if OrP's silence is a defense of your posting is laughable. Maybe you should go into comedy. You certainly aren't capable of being an analyst of any sort.

This is the less important bit:

I did not "hedge" on the comment. I mentioned that the correlation was pointing in the correct direction. I really have no idea of how effective they are. Their magazine isn't of any particular use to me (and I'd not point someone like you or a budding atheist to read it for a greater understanding of humanism), but does seem that there is a market for angry atheist polemic (idk, maybe look around RTG) and there is some need for continuing to fight to keep church and state separate.*

I also have no idea how effective they are in their other work. The rest of their websites seems fairly reasonable. There is a nice description of humanism, for instance.

That we share the opinion that their magazine isn't exactly great reading material might be important. I've read a bit of Christianity Today and couldn't find much to stimulate the intellect and nothing that would convince others to join them.

That it has been pointed out to you by Uke, myself and others that the matter re: AHA magazine v. expanding humanism is moot.

I have no idea whether they are doing ok as a non-profit. I didn't peruse their financials, nor did I check up on their membership. Also, as I've mentioned quite a few times, I don't care about that particular non-profit. It is only relevant

No. I understand it quite clearly. I

The Spanish Inquisition was quite successful. Our opinions on the quality of the magazine are unimportant.

You are obsessing over the conversation not moving on to more interesting things. I was hopeful that when you expressed concern that it was just your inherent biases that were causing you to find fault with the unimportant magazine that you'd be interested in a broader conversation.

I didn't see you come together to slaughter them. That was sufficient to damn you in my eyes. That statement could possibly lead to an interesting discussion, but since you don't seem to like that sort of thing...

*there is probably some use for the round earth society as well.

You read far too quickly to be attempting comprehension. I am writing what amounts to AHA apologetics on their behalf.

AHA apologetics. You are Christian. I am assuming that you understand the phraseology.

Really?!? I said their website sucks ass for fun and most definitely doesn't blow hobos for money. Argue otherwise, please.

The analogy is apt. I really can't find anything worth reading on the website. Some personal stories, some current event things that I'd rather read on The Atlantic and nothing that approaches a debate.

I didn't imply that OrP's silence = defense. I was saying that I have experience with him and that he is more than happy to step in and be quite rude to me if I get out of line.

Are you this annoying and cranky in real life? You certainly aren't capable of being a Christian of any sort.