Great upload. I hope your association grows and prospers...

Thanks so much!

I suggest reading the article "Norway gives a dignified lesson in how to deal with horror" in the Telegraph online. And bear in mind this is a whole country we're talking about - they seem to be pretty settled in their sense of community, and more importantly, in their sense of what is important and what should be protected. No religion required.

Agreed. Like I say, I am not religious, however I do believe that moral standards in society tend to mimic its levels of religious influence. Therefore 'religion' per-say isn't necessarily bad. What is crucial however is the particular characteristics of the religion and how it deals with 'sinners' and non-believers. It should be a personal thing, and people should be free to express their beliefs however they so wish, so long as they do not impinge the freedoms of others.

What a winning team!

Oh I do love the term "Accredited celebrants", that's a wonderful title.

If I want already a member this video would make me want to joint. Well done to all those involved in its production.

Ah, the key question is then whether they need to share a religious belief in order to enjoy mutual respect and a strong sense of community. I would say, looking at the Scandinavian countries, and particularly the Norwegian response to the Breivik atrocity, that the answer to that is a resounding "no".

Good well made video with intelligent comments.

There is information on the BHA website.

Phillip Pullman sounds just like David Attenborough. Also great video!

APPLAUSES TO BHA FROM ARGENTINA !!!

The response was of course directly provoked by the atrocity. The ability to MAKE that response had to already exist. I'm saying that the response is indicative of how a society can function perfectly well, with low levels of crime and high levels of social engagement, without recourse to a religion, and that when attacked it can demonstrate extreme robustness - no slide towards extremism, merely a reaffirmation of and stronger commitment to the values of democracy and social justice.

i have just one question. where do i sign?

Well that escalated quickly

I can't compare with Scandinavian countries, as I have never been there, bar a long weekend in Helsinki, which I highly recommend by the way (take out a second mortgage first though!). I don't know whether people necessarily need a religion to live harmoniously, but surely any common entity that binds people together as tightly as a common religion does, has to affect the overall strength of a community? I'm not sure what could replace religion to have an as equal affect?

"More religion-more crime"; interesting if true. Do you have a link to your source for this?

Do you not think that was due to a situation of huge shock, emotion, and grief throughout a whole country? An extraordinary one-off event. Can that be compared to a cradle to grave religion?

brill

This is strange to me... I wish someone like Slavoj zizek could explain this to me.

Logic, reason, love and common sense is a beautiful thing. Sorry for the gushy shite ? Just came back from the pub:-) Need some beans on toast. Fuck yeah! Who needs god when you've got beans on toast?

I hear Jim Al-Khalili is the new BHA president. I wonder if any mere civilian could be as good as that GREAT ex-Hospital Porter Polly Toynbee.

Nican Tlaca is phrase used by the people of Tenochtitlan to describe their indigenous belonging to the land before European colonialism. Do you-BHA know if the Nican Tlaca were humanist? The indigenous people of what you British consider America, do you-BHA know if they were humanist?

Watch Fracis Schaeffers YT series how should we then live?

Sign me up...........

Not to the degree you expressed. The only exceptions I can think of are select groups usually found in the major cities. On the most part the UK has a strong culture regardless of religion. The Church of England is only 500 years old. As religion's influence has waned trade's influence has gained bringing in an influx of new items and customs that have been changed (arguably corrupted) to fit into our customs allowing our culture to grow and not belong to just one ethnicity.

If you want a reality check, type in pat condell

textbook :)

I think you've missed the point of both videos

Thanks. If I had the time I would love to read 'Society Without God', “Faith No More”, or any other of Phil Zuckerman's extensive titles on the subject. Anyway, my statement that societies appear to work better when its people share a common belief, is simply based on my personal experiences having spent time in counties such as Armenia and Uzbekistan, where, not withstanding organised crime, people who are relatively uneducated and poor, enjoy mutual respect and a strong sense of community.

Military education.

But this is the BRITISH Humanist Association. Not the U.S.

The problem is that many children are forced into religious school by dint of a postcode lottery... Their family may not even be religious. But, as religious schools are the only one in their area, they are forced into the indoctrination of that given faith. It's absolutely reasonable to expect ALL schools to be non-religious, with a strong pan-theistic class on philosophy and religion. In fact, such a system would be to the benefit of all people, and would promote the melting pot.

I disagree, there was a slide towards extremism, the reaction of the people was extreme, but in a positive way, that's my point. It was an extreme event which pulled people together in an extreme way. The events were in some way balanced. The absence or existence of a common religion wasn't a factor. Basic human nature dictated what happened in the immediate aftermath of Breivik.

Butt we also want all pay-phole, of all beliefs.

Look up "Misinformation and facts about secularism and religion" in psychologytodaydotcom, which summarises and links to Zuckerman on Atheism at pitzerdotedu

Being agnostic tells people nothing of whether you are theist or atheist. So, you accept that you cannot presently know whether a god exists (agnostic)... Do, you believe a god/higher-power exists anyway (agnostic theist) or do you recognise that because you cannot presently know whether a god exists, there is no reason to believe in one (agnostic atheist). Being agnostic is only half of the story.

"...I do believe that moral standards in society tend to mimic its levels of religious influence..." FAIL. Levels of religiosity are positively correlated with levels of serious crime - i.e. more religious, more crime. This is not to say that religion causes crime, but it absolutely doesn't diminish it. Conversely an argument could be made that secularity does diminish crime, although that is unproven. At the moment the two are known to be correlated, but no causal link has been demonstrated.

You've totally missed the point. Humanism is not a religion. It's a collection of viewpoints, which have literally nothing to do with religion, of any sort. And, there absolutely is a need for freethinkers to have an advocacy group out there speaking for their interests.

Now you're just redefining extremism to suit yourself. Also, basic human nature could easily have seen some very ugly responses, but that didn't happen. And if you think basic human nature DID dictate the response, then you've reached the opposite of your opening position, where you said you thought religion was required for solidarity etc. but now you're arguing that it's human nature. Make your mind up!

and the slavery, and the focus on shame, and the authoritarian power structures, and the bigotry, and the tribalism, and all the other insanity.

You redefined extremism when you said that the Norwegian reaction was extreme and therefore extremism. The idea that the Norwegian reaction fits the label "extremism" is utterly bizarre. Basic human nature does include increased solidarity when threatened, but it also includes lashing out and retaliation, neither of which happened to any significant extent. As to me not wanting to reason, you're the one who made an assertion without evidence, and I'm the one who provided evidence refuting you.

Aaron, I will decline to reply because you clearly haven't taken your tablets today.

"I find it brilliant that the British Humanist Association will jump in the bandwagon to condemn all the perceived atrocities they blame Christians for" Where do they make assumptions of christian causalities? The only example of christian causality provided in these videos were of political advocates standing for a non-secular cause, which is a perfectly reasonable claim to make as many of those advocates make it distinctly clear why they are attempting said cause.

I'm very sorry you are devoutly religious,.........."get well soon" x

Yadda yadda yadda. I see no point in answering or even considering any of your questions, or jumping into one or the other of the sharply delineated geometric boxes you draw in the sand. I don't accept or believe, or reject or disbelieve, any of the above, because it has no use to me in real life. Whether I dress up the laws of reality as God or as some cosmic force does not change their nature and effect on me, so why bother? Definitions are only useful to serve ideological ends.