1. Comment #98302 by bartvdo on December 13, 2007 at 12:59 pm

Family, sport clubs, hobby clubs, online communities (like this maybe).

The reply should be whether the asker has a so limited world view to think that the only communities are based on religion. He should get out more.

The need for a community is human, but it in no way needs to be based on religion (a personal hypotheses is that religion came into existence to support/create the common denominator for groups that exceeded the size of a family/tribes)

Other Comments by bartvdo

2. Comment #98304 by Diacanu on December 13, 2007 at 1:02 pm

Message boards, the face on my hand, and the spider people from Hell.

Other Comments by Diacanu

3. Comment #98311 by shmooth on December 13, 2007 at 1:11 pm

pickup soccer has always been big for me, but i've been injured for a while now, and i recently found out about The Humanist Community - a local Humanist group in my neighborhood. They're definitely about community, and I'd like to see the idea spread.

Find a local group near you (Google Map):
http://tinyurl.com/3csonb

You can also google for your national humanist org, and they'll usually have links to all the groups in your country.

Other Comments by shmooth

4. Comment #98316 by smos on December 13, 2007 at 1:15 pm

Is this debate point suggesting that religious groups hold a monopoly on gatherings of people?

Other Comments by smos

5. Comment #98326 by ronnieharper on December 13, 2007 at 1:27 pm

This is a really weird question - a 'sense of community' is entirely too relative a concept to pigeonhole as being derived solely from one set of values. I would just turn the question around and ask how early hominids or some society that doesn't embrace religiosity found its sense of community. This isn't a very good debate point because it loaded, and only exposes the narrow minded nature of people who lay claim to ultimate truths.

Other Comments by ronnieharper

6. Comment #98329 by Quetzalcoatl on December 13, 2007 at 1:34 pm

Er, I find my sense of community with my friends and family. What kind of question is that?

Other Comments by Quetzalcoatl

7. Comment #98333 by Goldy on December 13, 2007 at 1:36 pm

The pub. Where else?

Other Comments by Goldy

8. Comment #98489 by Spinoza on December 13, 2007 at 6:48 pm

Atheists are loners.

Other Comments by Spinoza

9. Comment #98492 by automath on December 13, 2007 at 6:56 pm

In the people around me!

Other Comments by automath

10. Comment #98746 by sidfaiwu on December 14, 2007 at 7:26 am

This is an important question. I think many atheists underestimate just how much most people value a sense of community. In the States, churches are the primary community-building institutions.

As Rational_G "Atheists are loners". Well, many of them are. This attitude may unwittingly be excluding much of the population from giving up their religion. We need to offer some kind of ready community to replace their churches.

For me, that is a Unitarian Universalist church. It's a dogma-free 'religion'.

Other Comments by sidfaiwu

11. Comment #98909 by prettygoodformonkeys on December 14, 2007 at 10:00 pm

This is just poking at a perceived weakness, striking from a position of strength, hoping we will falter.

What makes you think I don't have a sense of community: because I don't hang with the glassy-eyed throngs and drone Kum By Ya with them?

You call that a sense of community? How do cats get a sense of community? Lions? Birds?

We are animals, you stupid fuckwits, and we don't feel embarrassed about it. You think religion sets humans apart, and yet (so the poor 'design' doesn't kill you with your own urine) you get your prostates checked: you know, the ones right beside your vestigial prehensile tails.

"A world with a God would look quite different."

No shit.

Other Comments by prettygoodformonkeys

12. Comment #101667 by gtcc on December 20, 2007 at 5:47 pm

Atheism's biggest challenge is not proving the Bible wrong – That horse has been flogged to death! Most rational people know in their hearts, tacitly or otherwise, that it is a lot on nonsense.

The church provides something that people need and something which Atheism does not provide. The church satisfies many community needs, in many cases free of charge, or at minimal cost. Until Atheism can match churches in this respect, atheism is destined to attract very few followers.

Many people at times find themselves in unfortunate situations in life and frequently the church offers help at those times.

I never had much interest in religion but I have "used" the church several times in my life. As a teenager the local church ran an auxiliary "guild" for teenagers that met every Friday night offering interesting entertainment, games, talks etc. Apart from a 1 or 2 minute prayer to start off the evening the rest was non-religious (and the prayer could easily be avoided by arriving 5 mins late.)

I found no better and easier place to meet girls. Spectator Sport never interested me, it seemed absurd to watch some tattooed fellow chase after and kick a ball. My preference was for the opposite sex, preferably donned in that marvellous invention of the '60's – the mini skirt! During the '60's, in spite of the mini skirt causing droughts, hell fire and damnation, young ladies still pitched up at the church guild in the fashion of the day, Thank god! (the following year when the long "maxi" skirt became fashionable the drought was followed by floods in South Africa – scientific proof that that rainfall is inversely proportional the hemline of the skirt!)

Then my attendance suddenly ceased when I met a girl not associated with this "guild" – whom I finally married (she looked more smashing in a pink Bikini) – we planned to honeymoon on a cruise ship which sailed to the Seychelles. While I thought that it would be a great idea to ask the Chinese captain to marry us on the high seas my mother-in-law would not have it so to keep the peace we married in the local Anglican church. I was obliged to attend church for 3 Sundays before that and give the preacher a hefty tip. Thereafter I have never attended another church service.

25 years later I went through a marriage break up which I found unbearably traumatic.
We had emigrated to New Zealand just prior to the break up. Being in a new country I had acquaintances but no long term friends, no family and a need to talk a need for comfort and a need for company.

It's easy to scoff and ridicule lonely people but loneliness is awful and those experiencing loneliness often don't know how to correct it.

The catholic church ran a group for widowed/divorced/separated people. I joined this group, the fees were minimal. A cross section of people attended this group with occupations ranging from school teachers to lawyers to accountants to truck drivers to the unemployed. A mid week meeting was held that commenced with a few seconds of prayer followed by a useful group discussion about coping with loneliness and depression and similar topics. Apart from the short prayer to start none of the discussions invoked religion and one was not required to be catholic to join the group.
Best of all, the group held social parties, barbeques, theatre visits and the like every Friday and Saturday evening at private homes plus week end social events. It was wonderful to be able to meet others socially. None of these events invoked religion in any way and I never met anyone there who even brought up the subject conversationally. During that traumatic time in my life, this group was, dare I say (strictly in the Einsteinian sense) a "godsend" to me.

I confess that I had twinges of guilt at making use of the church but was so in need of some kind of psychological distraction and comfort that I justify my actions by telling myself that the catholic church has got where it has over the past 1700 years by perpetrating some very horrible dastardly acts. The murder of the Hypatia, and the Arians, the crusades, Queen Mary's rule, the inquisition and the beatings and abuse dished out to my brother who attended a catholic school – so if one steals from a murderer or criminal – it's not a crime!

But in fairness to the church, Atheism offers nothing even remotely like this. Sure, the church does it for the same reasons that breakfast cereal manufacturers put plastic toys in corn flake packages – to sell more of their product. Nonetheless these are services which no one else offers.

As Ted Haggard said to RD – many Americans think of his church services as rock concerts – he was right! They are rock concerts! – where else can a young person get a great evenings entertainment and meet others all for small donation?

If similar inexpensive services such as companionship, comfort, succour, entertainment, were offered by some "god-unrelated" (I don't want to use the word Atheistic) organisation it would have the additional advantage that people would not have to bluff that they are "believers" – as I had to. Closet Atheists could "come out"
– it would be a winner!

Other Comments by gtcc

13. Comment #101778 by Jake Atkisson on December 21, 2007 at 1:05 am

Any sociology undergrad that's actually read their textbooks and thought about it for a while could likely arrive at the observable truism that where there are people, there is society.

Society is, of course, the interaction of peoples' cultures, beliefs, ideas, etcetera, so on, so forth; it's really quite simple, but very wordy stuff, so go look it up yourself if you want the long-winded versions.

Point in case, religion is just one potential vehicle for manifest society, and it is society (particularly social interaction) that people, in a sense, seek.

Honestly though, we could have perfectly functional societies based on any sort of mutually shared platform. I'd go into the particulars, but again, long-winded versions are elsewhere, go find them, enrich thy mind, better thy reading habits and a bunch of other important-sounding crap.

Toodles, and have a lovely day!

-Jake

Other Comments by Jake Atkisson

14. Comment #105743 by notsobad on January 1, 2008 at 6:28 pm

family, school, work, interests

Other Comments by notsobad

15. Comment #108086 by manolo007 on January 6, 2008 at 2:42 am

Tricky question. Why do they think that the 'sense of community' is derived from religion in the first place?
Humans are 'social animals', that's why we developed language, to communicate and as a result early societies were born.
Religion doesn't hold monopoly on community sense.

Other Comments by manolo007

16. Comment #119976 by ghost of numf-el on February 1, 2008 at 4:13 am

"You need to get out more!"

Other Comments by ghost of numf-el

17. Comment #124361 by g czobel on February 9, 2008 at 7:52 am

Anyone involved in debating the religious should resolutely steer the dialog away from arguments such as this and toward arguments that deal strictly with the existence of God, however defined. The reason is that, without some clear evidence for the existence of God, or some supernatural agency, religion of any sort is eviscerated, dead in the water. It loses its power basis and a great deal of its instrumentation. It becomes just another philosophy, no better than countless others. This applies to Buddhism and Jainism as well; although not strictly theistic religions, they are based on supernatural beliefs in personal karma and an immaterial personal essence that suffers cycles of transmigration and rebirth.

All arguments that don't pertain to the existence of God or supernatural agency, such as most that are found in the various debate points here, boil down to the attempt to nudge the argument toward the logical fallacy of affirming the consequent (i.e. if A then B; B is true therefore A is true) In essence, the logical fallacy that such points want to lead to or tacitly imply is that demonstrating that the religious are better, happier, more moral, better members of communities, have purpose in life, in comparison to atheists, and so on ad nauseam, lead to the deduction that therefore God exists. Such a fallacious "deduction" is based on incorrectly reasoning from the valid assertion, "If God exists then the religious would have a more moral, satisfying, purposeful, happier, etc. life in comparison to atheists". The logical error here is that finding the consequent true necessarily makes the antecedent true. This is not to say that the various consequents have even been successfully shown to be true, but why bother to defend against such arguments if it will only lead to an attempt at a logical fallacy, even if only implicitly? Allowing arguments to drift off in such irrelevant directions simply expends mental effort in defending against claims that need not be defended from a logical point of view. Worse yet, one inevitably gets entangled by all sorts of sophistry in entering into such arguments and this is completely needless.

Most of the other debate points in this set, unless directly concerned with the existence of God or pertaining to methods of reasoning and standards of conviction, are thus a waste of effort and serve only to cloud the basic issue - is there enough evidence of the existence of God, over other competing explanations, to convince a rational person to devote considerable effort and time to follow God's edicts and make crucial decisions based on such convictions?

Other Comments by g czobel

18. Comment #134909 by MuNky82 on February 28, 2008 at 10:06 am

Does communities need God? Isn't God a excuse for some communities? Would there be more atheists if it wasn't for the sense of community that churches provide? - I think, yes.

The God meme is a virus that sucked on to culture and community.

Other Comments by MuNky82

19. Comment #138399 by 4horsefins on March 4, 2008 at 9:07 am

There is this sight called Richarddawkins.net...I highly recommend it.

Other Comments by 4horsefins

20. Comment #141941 by prospero811 on March 11, 2008 at 12:42 pm

Mr. Dawkins,

Well, aside from the obvious answer being that having a sense of community has nothing to do with the truth or falsity of the God proposition, this is a simple question to answer. I get my sense of community by participating in other social organizations besides religious ones. Like a high school as academic clubs, social clubs, and other student organizations, one can find a sense of communal belonging through many different interactions with other people.

Going to a church is a fine idea. One great one is Unitarian Universalist meeting houses, wherein one may choose to be a Christian, Jew, Muslim, pagan, pantheist, deist, agnostic, atheist or whatever. In that sense, a church can be used for communal purposes, educational purposes, and social purposes. Whether one believes in one or another ludicrous idea is wholly beside the point.

Other Comments by prospero811

21. Comment #156394 by legionlabs on April 7, 2008 at 12:55 pm

Family and friends are important to me, however I find that the hacker subculture is an excellent extended community. No matter where I am in the world I am not alone, having access to effectively instantaneous communication with a large group of interesting and rational people. Many of them are fellow scientists or self-educated to an equivalent or higher level.

As a community that exists over a text-only medium, racism is a non-issue. There is a distinct lack of authority figures, and the anonymity of the internet combined with a high level of technical expertise empowers us to decide for ourselves what is right in the modern world. It is my opinion that most hackers freely choose to labour towards rather noble goals. It's almost utopian.

Unfortunately, poor news reporting has labelled us all after a few criminals that abuse the freedoms they have (fateless cowards!). Now you may be viewed with moderate suspicion for having technical interests outside of your field of expertise. Images of "mad science" are often invoked.

Overall my experience has at its centre a hilarious irony: As a scientist/hacker I feel I'm met with unfair suspicion for the knowledge I hold... and as an atheist for that which I do not.

Other Comments by legionlabs

22. Comment #174560 by tba93968 on May 2, 2008 at 4:47 pm

There can be no doubt that the church provides significant assistance and solice to many in the community. The sick, the greiving, the lonely and down and outs. This is not being addressed particularly well by the secular community. Other facets of 'community' are provided well by non religious organistions. However whatever aspect of community is provided it does not require a God to be involved in any way to make it work.

Other Comments by tba93968

23. Comment #226857 by planeswalker321 on August 8, 2008 at 7:10 pm

Communities are becoming meaningless; the globalization thanks to the internet creates digital communities called "forums." Needless to say, flaming the occasional n00b is far less hazardous to his health than burning someone at the stake, circa that time when religion gave people a sense of "community."

Other Comments by planeswalker321

24. Comment #233498 by DOD on August 20, 2008 at 1:56 am

Yes, a lot of religious organisations do work for communities, but no community can be sustained purely by religion. What is behind communities are the people and they are the ones who must work for communities. The problem today is that in some cases community is being exploited by conservatives and the religious.

Other Comments by DOD

25. Comment #238253 by Jacquelyn on August 27, 2008 at 9:01 pm

Growing up my mother was very strict about who I was allowed to associate with, and this led her to join a religion with very strict social codes - namely the Jehovah's Witnesses. In fairness, my nephews seem to be allowed much more freedom than I was when I was a kid, but for me the situation was intolerable. Sure, I enjoyed it when I first started going, probably around the age of 8, and throughout middle school when my sheltered upbringing made me an outcast at my school. But by high school, I was sick of being told who I could be friends with, that I had to wait until I was older to date, etc. And to add insult to injury, the majority of the kids within the religion (whose parents were generally less strict than mine) were caught up in drugs, teen pregnancies, and run-ins with the law. The few that remained I have since lost touch with, as I never "came out" to them about my disbelief and had no intention of keeping in touch when I moved away. The only friend I still have from those days is one who I recently got back in touch with, one who many regarded as a "bad influence" when we were growing up and who has also left the religion behind.

In short, the sense of "community" was the worst part of that religion! I could deal with all the rules about what to do and what not to do, but the constant judging of who was good or bad, what was acceptable to pursue as a hobby, and having to be at meetings three times a week - that was the burden that DROVE me from the church. If you can't speak your mind and be yourself, than this so-called sense of community is much more a curse than a "blessing."

Other Comments by Jacquelyn