I used to be a humanitarian, until I gave up meat.
I agree with the second part of your post, but gladly make an exception in your case!
In addition to the network of likeminded people that a church provides, it also gives people a series of rituals to celebrate. Even though I’m no longer a believer, I still find the rituals–especially the hymns and the prayers–of the Presbyterian church very comforting. I like attending Christmas and Easter services and hearing the same music and readings that I’ve heard for years. I suspect I’m far from alone in this.
I’m guessing that the AHA lacks a similar series of rituals for its members. And it might seem a little strange if it did. As Dseid and others have pointed out, without a common set of beliefs or rituals to bind people, they don’t have much of an impetus to join.
That’s pretty much it. What’s there to do that one can’t do just as well, or better, somewhere else? It might be interesting to chat about how someone came to lack faith for about ten minutes, and then you’re done. If they’re going to spout philosophical arguments at me, I’d rather get that from a book, as there are really no more interesting and original ways to apply pure reason to that problem. A book I can put down if I’m tired of it, or the author’s attitude. If they’re going to tell me how much the world stinks, and hence no benevolent supernatural being can exist, well, if I want to be depressed, I’ll just watch the news, thanks.
Participation in capital Haich Humanism seems to me like it’d either be a terrific bore, a major drag, or both.
Put it in perspective: Mensa is an organization open to anybody whose IQ falls in the top 2% of the general population. By simple arithmetic, 6 million Americans are eligible to join, but the active membership of American Mensa is only about 50,000. It’s a marketing problem.
Stop it, I was drinking.
Count me in as an atheist and humanist who has no real reason to be a joiner.
I certainly don’t wish to convince anyone that Humanism is or is not for them. But I suggest it may be overly simplistic to suggest that their areas of interest are limited to “chatting about how someone came to lack faith.”
IME Humanism addresses the manner in which one can develop a personal moral code, or make moral and ethical analyses of countless matters, absent a supreme being. Humanism considers various elements of how to lead a “good life” here and now, absent supernatural direction and the potential for reward or punishment in a possible afterlife.
If such things come quickly and intuitively to you on your own, congratulations. But some folks may find such matters worth more than ten minutes’ chat. 
As far as “ritual and community” goes, in many respects the UU church has traditionally provided such for Humanists. But in recent years the influence of Humanism has progressively been on the decline in UU seminaries and congregations, with an accompanied rise in “sprirualism and faith.”
Unfortunately, I think the reflective agnostic or atheist realizes rather quickly there are no authoritative answers to those kinds of questions.
I am an agnostic and even if Eve was kidding, I would honestly give the same answer. I believe humans are self-serving enough about our role here on earth and it shouldn’t be promoted any further. I spend my energy on my family, myself, a few key friends and then it kind of skips over anonymous people to interest in the physical world and the universe. Everyone that is alive today will be dead in rather short order so there is no need to make a big fuss over especially since we are just one transient yet unusually invasive species. The laws of many different types of systems are always working against us on a hopeless scale. I am not saying people shouldn’t try to do the right thing or lack all compassion but you have to keep what we are dealing with here in perspective.
Ah, but Eve isn’t human. Rather, she is pure distillate of awesome.
Are you sure that it is in your best interests to have a group with which to identify?
You already suffer the problem of having various theists insist that you have a belief in no-god. How much more aggravation is it going to be when they can point to an organization and say, “Look! You people even get together to celebrate the non-existence of the gods in which you do not believe? How can you claim that you aren’t a religion or that you don’t have a shared belief?”
As I’ve said before: I could see the value of a support group. Otherwise, quite apart from P.R. issues, I don’t see many positive aspects to being a “humanist” for its own sake. First off, when we really get honest with ourselves, are people, in general, all that worthy of a reverent ism? Not from where I sit. Either way, I’ll treat people the way I want to be treated, but in no small part because I don’t like the idea of getting my ass kicked or shot off. Beyond that, my expectations are getting pretty low.
Is it especially rewarding to know that, in the end, I’m food for worms? Not particularly. I’d rather not think about it, to be honest. No meaning? No purpose? What’s so great about that? And who the Hell are you to tell me my life does have meaning and purpose if you’ve got no claim to The Answers?
One scary thought: What if Joe Sixpack really came to believe that if he kills me, takes all my stuff, and gets away with it in this world, there’s no Hellfire in the next to roast in? Do I really want the guy on the street that uninhibited? I honestly don’t know. I can’t tell if the fear of Divine Retribution offsets the trouble caused by people who think they’re God’s Instrument of Vengeance.
There is the problem of navigating the world of Believers, though, and for that there probably are good practical sources of advice, good real-world stories and examples to at least fly under the radar. I struggle with the desire to not make waves and protect myself vs. the cowardice and hypocrisy of doing so. Do I owe my fellow non-believers a coming-out? I’m inclined to say “fuck 'em, it’s my life”, but I suppose there may be some satisfaction in doing right by my fellows, even if they generally probably don’t give a shit about me. At the least they’re not violently hostile to my very existence, so they’re certainly better than the alternative if I want to make friends. Of course, there is the difficulty that some of the most virulently faithful individuals I’ve ever had the misfortune of coming into contact with happen to be related to my wife. That’s a fine little pickle right there. Stick up for myself and scandalize half my in-laws. Probably not a good plan. But maybe somebody else out there has experiences to share that could be informative. That sort of stuff I could get into. It’s hardly a celebratory exercise though.
I would like there to be an organized group that represented the opinions of non-believers. There certainly are enough groups and dollars pushing a faith-based agenda. The ACLU is a great organization. But one way in which they fall short in my opinion is that they strongly advocate freedom of religion - where I would prefer to have a voice dedicated to expressing my freedom from religion.
I guess it surprises me that there aren’t more than 7800 folks who are willing to pony up a few bucks to support such efforts. I mean - I always knew I was in the minority. I guess I simply didn’t know how small of a minority it truly was! Impressive!
Oh boy, I think you have found a way to unite all kinds of disparate groups that everyone said could ever be united. Unfortunately, they will be on the opposite side of you. I am not sure what “freedom from religion” means exactly. No one is required to have any religion at all in the U.S. If you are talking about forcing other people to modify their behavior so that you don’t accidentally get exposed to some second-hand religion then I think that NAMBLA is going to be laughing at how unpopular your organization is.
What does “freedom from religion” me to you exactly?
Frankly, one of the big appeals of atheism for me is that I don’t have to go to church on Sunday. I don’t want to just substitute, “my humanist club meeting” for “church” on Sunday. I’d rather be having fun.
It seems to me, that my observations of people around me point to there being NO “Humanist Agenda”, just people who live by humanistic values, the majority among whom are not particularly interested in having antagonizing religion be one of those values, but rather in being free to do their thing and let everyone else do theirs long as the other folks don’t try to turn their beliefs into government policy or school curriculum. And for that, there are plenty of other organizations; there are already a number of organized groups who advocate keeping religion out of public affairs, there even are specifically atheist organizations; and the above-mentioned AHA. So therefore no need for a large “Humanist Advocacy” organization. In fact, I’d *expect * freethinkers in general to have a problem forming large, mass organizations precisely because of the problem what happens when at the next general meeting the board approves policies A, B, C, and D, and actions 1, 2, 3 and 4; and it just so happens you absolutely reject C and 4 and are not too sure about 3…
One of my recent discoveries was that the word “religion” comes from the Latin “binding together.” Oh irony, eh? Nietzsche says that if there are no common human goals you cannot talk about “humanity”–ergo, ecumenicism uber alles.
If you want a top-notch ecumenical, try Shakespeare. Don’t believe the recent gabble about him being a Catholic. At most he was a fellow traveller.