Atheists and Anger: A Reply to the Hurricane

Woof.

Okay. There is absolutely no way I can reply individually to everyone who commented on the Atheists and Anger post. The size of this thing took me by surprise. It's still taking me by surprise. So please accept my apologies for this mass reply.

First, I want to say to everyone who sent the love: Thank you so much. You have no idea. I've spent the last two days either bouncing off the walls with joy... or sitting at my computer on the sofa with tears in my eyes. I'm sorry if that sounds sappy, but I'm feeling sappy, so suck it up. The fact that this piece touched so many people, inspired so many people... that is huge. That is why I became a writer. That is the meaning of my life. Thank you for letting me know.

And I've learned a lesson about commenting on blogs. I have a tendency to not bother commenting to a post when all I have to say is "Attaboy" or "You go, girl!" or "Thank you." Especially when there are already dozens or hundreds of comments in a thread, and other people have already said what I was going to say. But I've read every single one of these comments, and I was touched by every "Attaboy" I read. So now I know: Even if all I have to say is "Attaboy," I should say it anyway.

Now my replies to the critics. I suppose I shouldn't bother, I suppose I should just let it go and focus on the love. But I seem to be constitutionally incapable of letting unfair or inaccurate accusations just slide. So here are my replies to some of the critical comments' common themes.

You're censoring/deleting my comments.

No, I'm not.

The new, "improved" Typepad comment format is hard to navigate, and on behalf of Typepad I apologize for that -- but all the comments are there. As of this writing, I haven't deleted a single comment in this thread. Not one. Read this more detailed explanation; it has instructions on how to navigate the comments format.

(BTW: In the future, if you want to complain that a blogger is deleting your comments, you might want to provide an email address or a URL, or even email them off-blog, so they have the option of contacting you and letting you know if your "censored" comments are really just a technical glitch.)

Wow, you're an angry person. That's bad.

Um....

Actually, I'm not a very angry person. Not most of the time. Generally speaking, I'm a very happy person. Ask anyone I know. I'm usually good-tempered, cheerful, optimistic, easy to please, and inclined to give people the benefit of the doubt unless they prove that they don't deserve it. My life is full of joy and pleasure: I'm very conscious of how fortunate I am; and I make sure to savor my life... especially since I think it's the only one I've got.

And if you'll read more of my writing than just this one blog post, you'll see that. Try this, or this,or this.

There are, however, things I'm angry about. And I think my anger over those things is valid. I spent 4,650 words explaining why I think my anger is valid -- and why I think anger in general over injustice and mistreatment is not only valid but useful and necessary. I'm not going to explain it again here.

I basically wrote this piece because I got very, very tired of hearing believers ask atheists, "Why are you so angry?" when the answer seemed perfectly obvious to me. I wanted to answer that question once and for all, so I wouldn't have to answer it anymore. (And from the response I've gotten to the post -- the godless commenters who are saying things like, "I'm bookmarking this page so I can point to it when people ask me why we're so angry" -- I'm apparently not the only one.)

But it's not like I'm running around smashing plates and going "Rrrr! Rrrr! Rrrr!" all the time. It is possible, even healthy, to be a generally happy and upbeat person, and still sometimes gets angry about things. To assume that because I vented my anger in one blog post, I therefore must be spewing rage every second... that's a little bit silly, don't you think?

Your anger is just hurting yourself.

I must respectfully beg to differ. Anger, when it's directed at a real cause of mistreatment or injustice (towards yourself or towards others) is healthy, and it can be a useful, constructive motivator to change things.

Ask any therapist.

What hurts is repressing anger.

Anyway, see above re: me not being angry every second of every day. Really, I'm not. Thank you for your concern, but it's not necessary.

Your anger is just hurting your cause.

Again, I must respectfully beg to differ. The whole second section of my post was about why I think anger is valuable and necessary in any social movement. And I've written at greater length on that point elsewhere.

And as commenters in the rant have pointed out, even the social movement leaders who generally get tagged as the non-angry, peaceful, "good cops" -- Martin Luther King, Gandhi -- were very angry indeed. They just channeled their anger in constructive ways. Which I think is a grand idea. But acknowledging that anger and expressing it is an important part of that process.

Why didn't you write more about Muslims? Why did the post focus so much on Christianity?

This is actually a fair question, and I'm just sorry it got raised in such a troll-y way. So I'll answer it as if it hadn't.

Short answer:

(a) I was trying to focus on things that I had some personal experience with. I was writing emotionally, and the Christian theocracy is what I have a lot more personal experience with... and thus a lot more personal anger about.

(b) I was trying to keep it... well, not short, obviously, but less than novel-length. My piece could easily have been 100 times longer than it was. It barely scratched the surface. I knew when I hit Send that I would be missing stuff, important stuff even... but I had to cut if off somewhere.

But if I were writing the piece all over again now, I probably would include more references to non-Christian religious atrocities. Because I am angry about those things. I am angry about burqas, and clitoridectomies, and women being executed for adultery, and karma/ reincarnation being used as a justification for the caste system, and the horribleness -- on both sides -- in Palestine, and the destruction of the ancient Buddha statues in Afghanistan by the Taliban, and the atheist blogger in Iran who commented in my rant that he could be executed for his blogging. And more.

They just didn't happen to be in the 1% of things that anger me about religion that made it into my post. That was a mistake, and I acknowledge that.

All Christians/ believers aren't like that. It's just a few bad apples. You're painting us all with the same brush.

Actually, I'm not.

I was very, very careful in this post to say "I'm angry at people who do (X)," or, "I get angry when (Y) happens," or, "I'm angry about (Z)." I said that I was angry about specific aspects of religion, specific ways it plays out in the world, specific things people do because of their religion.

I never said that the things I was angry about were universal to all religious beliefs or religious believers. Not once. Read the piece carefully. You'll see.

But the stuff I'm angry about is not a case of a few bad apples. I'm sorry, but that's just flat-out wrong. Do you really think that 55% of Americans refusing to vote for an atheist is a few bad apples? A national public health and sex education policy that's based on what does and does not make baby Jesus cry? The Catholic Church's official policy of opposing condom distribution, in Africa and everywhere else? The fact that until the year I was born, it was the law in many states that atheists couldn't vote or hold office or testify in court?

Those are not bad apples. That is widespread, systematic religious oppression. The stuff I'm angry about isn't universal, but it is not an exception. It's depressingly common.

Perhaps you missed the part of my rant that said, "I get angry when believers act as if these offenses aren't important, because 'Not all believers act like that. I don't act like that.'" The stuff in my rant may not be true for you and your church or enclave or whatever. But it's still important, still widespread, and still worth being angry about. And I still think it's messed-up to dismiss it as a trivial aspect of religion simply because it isn't universal.

All Christians/ believers aren't like that. That's not the true faith.

You're trying to piss me off now, aren't you?

Did you read the part in my post about the whole "true faith" thing and how messed-up it is? Did you read the part about nobody having a pipeline to God, about how you have no more reason to think that you're practicing religion the way God wants you to than anybody else does?

Okay. Deep breaths. Calm blue ocean, calm blue ocean...

Look. The whole "Jesus was a cool guy who just gets misinterpreted by those organized religion fascists" thing is kind of ignoring the actual content of the Gospels. If you believe that the Gospels are a more or less accurate representation of what Jesus said, then you have to acknowledge that Jesus said some pretty fucked-up things. Including a whole lot of stuff about how people who didn't believe in him and follow him were going to burn in Hell for eternity.

And again: You don't have any more reason to think you have the true faith than any other believer does. I've written about this at greater length elsewhere, as it's a topic that particularly frosts my cookies. You can quote chapter and verse, but so can the people whose interpretation of the faith you disagree with. That's sort of the nature of chapter and verse; it can be used to support just about any interpretation you can come up with.

And besides, see above re: Even if the way you practice religion is reasonably cool, the fact remains that there are widespread, systematic practices of religion that aren't so cool -- and the fact that you don't agree with them doesn't make them not religion.

How can you be so hateful? You're speaking out against hatred... and yet you're so full of hate yourself.

I'm not.

In this entire 4,650-word rant, I used the word "hate" exactly three times... and it was all in one paragraph. It was the paragraph that said, "I'm angry that children get taught by religion to hate and fear their bodies and their sexuality. And I'm especially angry that female children get taught by religion to hate and fear their femaleness, and that queer children get taught by religion to hate and fear their queerness." In the entire rant, the only times that I used the word "hate" was to speak out against it.

I never once in the entire post said that I hated anyone. I said I was angry. There's an enormous difference.

People need religion. It's not going anywhere. You're crying for the moon.

That's possible. But I don't think we have any way of knowing that yet. Godlessness has only fairly recently become a remotely acceptable option in human society (and in much of the world, it still isn't).

But we do have one experimental petri dish. I offer as a counter example: Europe.

Many European nations are now more than half atheist/ agnostic. And those nations seem to do fine. Better than countries with a high number of believers, in fact. And while I think the cause and effect actually works the other way around (greater social health leads to more godlessness, not the other way around), the fact that there are flourishing countries with a godless majority puts the kibosh on the whole "religion is a basic human need" theory. These countries aren't perfect, they have their problems; but no more than we do in the U.S., and in many ways a whole lot less.

Besides, I think that the "We educated people don't need religion, but the great unwashed hoi polloi do" trope is not only untrue, but classist and insulting. Read this brilliant piece by Ebon Muse on Daylight Atheism about atheist janitors... and be sure to read the comments from the atheist janitors themselves.

Why do you care what other people believe?

Um... I spent 4,650 words explaining why I care. I care because people's beliefs lead them to do harm to other people, and to themselves. I care because far too many believers aren't living and letting live. I care because the whole "faith trumps evidence" aspect of religion makes it uniquely resistant to self-correction... and uniquely resistant to dissent.

Of course people are entitled to believe what they want. It's a right guaranteed in the Constitution, and it's a right that I treasure passionately. But nowhere in the Constitution does it say that the right to believe what you want means that nobody should ever argue with you, or point out why they think you're mistaken. Somehow, the very good concept of religious tolerance got turned into the very bad concept that nobody should say anything critical of any religion, ever.

Yes, people have a right to not vote for atheists. They also have a right to not vote for blacks and Jews. Does that make what they're doing okay? Does that mean that we shouldn't try to change their minds? Does that mean that we shouldn't be angry about it?

If you're so angry, what are you doing about it?

Mostly, I'm writing. I'm a writer. That's what I do.

And I don't think that's trivial. If my writing, and other godless writing, can change people's minds, or inspire people to speak out and come out of the closet, then that's not trivial.

I do other things as well. I donate money. I write my Congresspeople. I pay attention to these issues when I vote. But I totally suck at joining and organizing and anything that involves interacting in person with more than six other people at a time. I don't even like parties unless I know half the people there. I'm a loner. I'm a rebel. Don't try to change me, baby.

So mostly, I'm writing. I'm a writer. That's what I do.

Atheism is just another religion. And you're just as close-minded/ faith-based as the believers you criticize.

No, it isn't. And no, I'm not.

It simply isn't the case that atheists are 100% convinced beyond any shadow of a doubt that there is no God. I've never once met an atheist who thought that way. Contrary to popular belief, atheism isn't a faith in the non-existence of God. Atheism is... well, it's somewhat different for different people. But for most atheists I know, it's more or less the position that God is an extremely unlikely hypothesis, not supported by evidence or reason; and that in the absence of any convincing evidence, it's reasonable to discard it as a hypothesis. It's the position that the Christian/ Judaic/ Muslim God is about as probable as Zeus or Thor… and that if you're a non-believer in those gods, it makes sense to be a non-believer in Jehovah/ Yahweh/ Allah, too. And Buddha, and the Hindu gods, and the Wicca Goddess. Just while we're at it.

And it's simply not the case that I don't offer any reasons why I don't believe in God, and that I just take my disbelief on faith. I've written extensively about the reasons I don't believe in God, or a soul, or an afterlife. You're welcome to read them if you like; they're here, and here and here and here (that's a three-part piece), and here, and here, and here, and here, and here and here (a two-parter). And just generally sprinkled throughout my posts and comments on the blog.

As have other writers. If you want a really good source of "why I think religion is a mistaken and harmful idea about the world" arguments, I suggest you visit the brilliant Ebon Musings website (sibling site to the equally brilliant Daylight Atheism blog). He has the most thorough, best-argued, most solidly supported collection of arguments against religion that I've seen, and when people ask me why I don't believe in God, half the time I just point them to his site.

But give us some good, hard evidence that we're wrong, and we'll change our minds. (Please, though, for the love of all that is beautiful in this world, read Ebon Muse's Theist's Guide to Converting Atheists and How Not to Convert an Atheist before you do. And please remember that Scripture and your personal experience do not count as evidence.)

In other words, I have given reasons why I don't believe.

I just didn't do it in this post.

Again, I have to say: If you're basing your conclusions about my entire life philosophy on one ranty blog post, then isn't that just a little bit silly?

You wouldn't be so angry if you just accepted Jesus Christ as your personal savior.

Now you're definitely trying to piss me off.

Okay. First of all, see above re: me not being angry all the time. And re: occasional anger being a healthy part of life.

Second: Do you honestly think I've never heard this before? Do you think that, in my 45+ years on this planet, and my 2+ years of being an atheist blogger, that nobody before has ever said to me, "Everything in your life would improve if you just accepted Jesus Christ as your person savior"? Yes, I've read the Bible (much of it, anyway). I was a religion major in college, for goodness' sake. I've considered the possibility that Jesus might be my personal savior. And I've rejected it. Please. Come up with something new.

And third... do you really think there are no angry Christians in the world? I see angry Christians everywhere. America is full of Christians who are full of anger -- hatred, even -- for homosexuals, feminists, liberals, sex educators, pornographers, and so on. (In other words... for me.)

Look at the comments in this blog post. Look at the person who said I shouldn't be allowed to vote or serve on juries; the people who said I was angry because I was a lesbo bulldyke; the person who said they wished my mother had had an abortion and I should burn in hell. Christianity is clearly no cure for anger. Christianity often serves to fan anger's flame.

Oh, and P.S.: I'm not a man. Hence the "being angry about not being able to marry my girlfriend" part. I'm just sayin', is all.

Tonight: a nice sex post. I promise. I wrote this damn rant to get it out of my system and move on, and instead it's completely taken over my life. It's wacky.

Comments

[Steven Alleyn]

Sounds like you've been having fun. =) I'm very happy when I see people making a splash with their blogs - even when people disagree with you, if they make a stink about it it's because you're getting to them.

That's why I took up blogging, because writing is pretty much the best way there is to reach people; you do it very well.

[Leon]

Wow. I have to say: you kick ass, Greta. I loved your rant, and just now enjoyed reading your follow-up almost as much. You coherently expressed a bunch of things that I could never quite put my finger on or put into words.

Also, my favorite response to the "atheism is just another religion" nonsense is: atheism is a religion just as much as Independent is a political party.

I have to spend more time on your site. I think I'm going to like it here.

[Colin M]

I love this post, as well as the original. Very well-written. Huzzah!

[Jenna Medaris]

I didn't reply yesterday, because I was still thinking and wasn't sure yet what to say. I'm still thinking (and hopefully won't stop soon, given the consequences), but my thoughts are at least slightly more resolved now.

I'm a newcomer to your blog and poked around your archives quite a bit yesterday, and I'm very impressed so far. I am one of the people who frequently wonder why many of my atheist friends are so angry, and your post gave some excellent answers to that. I'm angry about many of those things myself, so it makes sense. And you also have at least partially convinced me of the value of anger when it comes to social change.

I value anger myself, as it is powerful, and it does lend itself to action, all important things. Most importantly for me personally, it helps stamp down fear, which is a big part of my resistance to accepting the atheist label for myself. I am afraid - not of renouncing God or going to hell, but afraid of death, and giving up on God (my version of God, the Christian one lost me long ago) feels like giving up on the possibility of an afterlife.

I want to believe these things are separate, but they're not for me yet. I hope they will become so. And that's not really what I wanted to say. This is turning into a novel, but bear with me. :)

What I'm really confused about, or maybe not confused so much as angry myself, is the prejudice that seems to come from general atheist anger. Many of my friends dismiss people out of hand as soon as they find out they're Christian. The insults go far beyond general mockery (and I agree with you that mockery is part of the price of being part of the marketplace of ideas) to a place of hate and judging and intolerance. This to me seems like the height of hypocrisy, and things I read sometimes about Christians being certifiably insane or all the same in some way prove nothing to me except that Christians don't have a lock on hypocrisy.

My concern about atheism and anger is not that you're angry - you should be. My concern is that anger unchecked can easily become hate, and then we're back where we started. I'm not suggesting that you are spreading hate, far from it, I just feel compelled to offer my thoughts as a caution, because if there's anything I'm certain of, it's that an "us v. them" dynamic is not going to fix this. It doesn't fix anything. It's what causes the problems that require revolution to solve.

And that's not all I have to say either but I'm shutting up until I've reached further coherence. :)

[Kagehi]

Actually, "Independent" **is** a political party:

http://www.aipca.org/

A lot of people get a tad confused over that, which I think was partly intentional when it was formed. Its also focused on some of the more asinine things like pro-life, anti-any immigration, anti-globalization (in the form of erasing not just the broken, but "any" trade treaties), and **support** for the idiotic idea that Christianity belongs in the government and in things like the pledge. In other words, they are Repuglican Lite.

The more common statement I have heard is, "If atheism is a religion, then not collecting stamps is a hobby."

[Mikael Gustavsson]

I hope you'll read most if not all comments even though you won't be able to respond to all of them.

[Leon]

>> Actually, "Independent" **is** a political party:

No, that's the American Independent Party. That's a party like any other; it just has "Independent" in its name. Being an Independent (e.g. Bernie Sanders (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernie_Sanders ) means being independent of any party--by definition.

[Leon]

Jenna, I think I speak for others here in saying that open-minded theists like yourself are welcome here.

What you're seeing in your atheist friends might be not-entirely-serious sarcastic comments about people who follow a religious belief they think is stupid. It might also be flat-out religious bigotry; that's certainly not limited to any religious group.

I can say that hatred doesn't dominate us as a group, not as far as I can tell. By and large we atheists seem to be a pretty tolerant bunch (I'll be honest here--that may be PARTLY because we're an oppressed group; oppressed groups tend to be on best behavior), though there are always exceptions. I have friends and family who are Christians. I even have family members who are devout Christians and I choose to hang out with them anyway because I enjoy their company (I could easily stay away from those get-togethers if I wanted to).

I try to take a live and let live with religious people, and I don't think it's too much to say that that's more the rule among us than the exception.

[PC]

Well-played! I am curious as to how many of these things (from your original post) are you are "angry" at and how many of them do you "disagree" with? I am only curious because, as a Christian, I find that I am also quite angry at most of those things as well. I am also not referring to apologetics here (as you were not referring to those things either in THIS post). Nearly all the things you posted are piss poor examples of humanity done in the name of "love" and "Christianity". THAT angers me!

I am forced to apologize on behalf of Christians for the ridiculous things hat may have done TO you in the name of Christianity. Of course you would not likely agree that I can individually apologize for the whole, but from our own Christian belief, whether I like it or not, I am a part of "the body of Christ"; so i must associate myself with the whole.

All that to say: I am sure you do not accept my individual apology for the whole, and you have no reason to. I do, though, need to say, as a Christian, I am also angry about the majority of the same things.

Have a great day!

[Ian W. Hill]

Okay, I started a response to the original post that just started going on and on and on and I wound up feeling then that I was just saying "Attaboy" and "You go girl" and "Thank you" so I stopped and didn't post it. So, reading what you say above now --

Attaboy! You go, girl! Thank you.

And the same again for this one.

Best to you and all in your world.

[Casey]

I just wanted to say thanks, I've never seen so many of my thoughts and feelings so perfectly expressed before. Thanks for putting yourself out there.

[Ezekiel David]

I'm quite sad. Because I too wrote a "you rock, thanks for making this post" post, and looking back at the comments i think it went missing forever.... so
You rock, thanks for making that post.

[Robert Madewell]

I have been asked why I'm so angry many times. I am not very articulate, so I often flounder at such questions. I know why I'm angry, I just have a hard time putting it into words. Reading your rants has allowed me to organize those thoughts a bit better. Thank You for giving me some ammunition.

[Anna]

This (and the original) was a wonderful blog that not only put perfectly into words the reason I am atheist but also opened my eyes to reasons I had never thought of or been aware of. Thank you for being a writer.

[Pi Guy]

Wow. It's so brave of those commenters of the religious persuasion to have entered a battle of wits against a master so completely unarmed.

For the record, I found you here after reading Daylight Atheism. You guys are both really good at this. I have learned so much.

About myself and how to go about being an atheist in a culture that so overtly religious. About how to deal with people - especially family - who insist on telling me how blessed they are for this or that and that I could be too.

Thank you.

[Angie]

Greta, you are so my heroine.

I just want to comment about anger. You're absolutely right to say (I think in the original post) that anger can be useful and that you shouldn't allow anyone to take your anger away. It is a desire to disempower you. Oh - my - you have no idea. I was raised to believe that, as the child in the family, I had no right to the emotion of anger. Getting angry was cause for punishment. All that lead to was 36 years of of being repressed and frustrated. Anger, when constructively channeled, is vital to the health of the individual and society as a whole.

[Stu Savory]

I usually point out to the Xians that their belief in everything Jesus said includes Luke 19:27.

[efrique]

Your anger piece meant a lot to me. I am sorry you copped some flak for it (much of it apparently ignorant of what you actually wrote), but I really appreciate that you wrote it. And this one, too!

You seem to find such a clear, insightful way of expressing so many of the things I have wanted to say.

Since I first came here (originally via a link from Pharyngula a good while ago), I have read so many wonderful, valuable posts.

Thank you.

[Ginevra]

"I usually point out to the Xians that their belief in everything Jesus said includes Luke 19:27."

I was curious about what this said and I read it and it said:
"But those mine enemies which would not that I should reign over then, bring hither, and slay them before me."

And it's in red, and Jesus said it. But wait, and read back a bit. He's telling a story of a nobleman. He's telling them what the nobleman said.

I'm an athiest and I'm not saying that there are or aren't place in which the bible has Jesus saying horrible things, but that's not one of them.

Also, I am on the authors side of this and agree that there are reasons to be angry, and kudos on the post. ^ ^

[Ginevra]

"I usually point out to the Xians that their belief in everything Jesus said includes Luke 19:27."

I was curious about what this said and I read it and it said:
"But those mine enemies which would not that I should reign over then, bring hither, and slay them before me."

And it's in red, and Jesus said it. But wait, and read back a bit. He's telling a story of a nobleman. He's telling them what the nobleman said.

I'm an athiest and I'm not saying that there are or aren't place in which the bible has Jesus saying horrible things, but that's not one of them.

Also, I am on the authors side of this and agree that there are reasons to be angry, and kudos on the post. ^ ^

[sabrina]

Thank you for you logical and well constructed arguments for an atheists anger. I feel these things but could never write them with the sensitivity you do. Its sad that religious people are allowed to get angry and people admire that as a sign of great faith, but an atheist getting angry means that they just need religion. Ugh..sometimes western Europe sounds so wonderful..:)

[Vic]

First - Thanks Greta, for the original post and this one.

Ginevra - I've heard many theists try to decry Luke 19:27 by saying it's just a parable. But that does nothing to repair the damage.

In the parable, the noble is a standin for god, who gives people talents and expects those people he gives talents to to put them to good use for god. "Look, I took the 10 talents you gave me and made 10 more to give back to you." Since the nobleman is, by analogy, god, then god IS condemning those who don't submit to his will. Maybe he didn't literally mean 'kill unbelievers', but it's right in line with the 'throw 'em in hell' mentality that jeebus DOES express elsewhere. And is just as reprehensible.

[Greg]

Just wanted to say that I really enjoyed these posts. You're an excellent writer.

I wanted to respond to an above post by PC. "Nearly all the things you posted are piss poor examples of humanity done in the name of "love" and "Christianity". THAT angers me!"
And it should, and that's part of the point. Reasonable theists should agree with most of the examples, and should be standing side by side with atheists trying to change them. Unfortunately, all to often that's not the case. But I commend and appreciate the many who do.

[lance]

Thank you!

[Mike]

Great entries! You've gained a new RSS subscriber.

[Shawn]

Thank you for speaking out! You said at the very beginning of the anger post that you can only speak for yourself. However, I can assure you that you spoke eloquently for many of us. Myself included. I agree with every word you wrote and I thank you for doing it so well.

I don't know you at all, but I am proud of you.

[Linus' helpermonkey]

Fantastic.

[Kagehi]

Yes, PC. Lets put things in perspective. Speaking in terms of the US. Evengelicals are like 40 million people. Atheists are sometimes quoted as about 5% of the population or 150,000,000 people. If we accept the idea that 90% of the US is Christian, then the other 5%, or 150,000,000 people are Jews, agnostics, Buddhists, Pagan, etc. At a guess, I would say that there are less than half the number of Fundamentalists that there are evangelicals. That means that the wackos, or those that push the idea of a Christian nation *for* the wackos are only about 60 million people, non-Christians are 300 million people, and the rest are moderate Christians, who basically think **both** sides are a bit nuts. We atheists, if the numbers are to be believed out number these nuts 2.5:1, but they have us convinced that *they* are the majority.

I'll tell you a secret though. The Evangelicals are currently more worried about stupid wars we shouldn't be in and the economy right now then the insane BS (from the news yesterday, where they talked about this), the Fundies are harping on. That means, for now, they are marginally on the side of the moderates, and the moderates dislike Fundies as much as the Fundies dislike (nay in their case despise) moderates. What that means is that while we are not going to convince the Fundigelicals to go whole sale to the side of rationality, the extreme fundamentalists are finding themselves with 2,960,000,000 people against them, a large number of which they have to convince that not only are they right about "everything" they claim Christianity means, but also confuse, lie to, and bamboozle, as a means to do that convincing. And their entire message is, "Christianity is only Christianity of you subscribe to *our* definitions of love, truth and justice, and not only will you burn in hell for not following it, we are going to do everything in our power to force it down your throat, rewrite history and replace the laws, to make sure you **do** follow it, even if you don't want to."

Odd how that message, pounded on over and over and over, at the exclusion of all else, is actually "losing" them their biggest and *only* support, the next generation of Evangelicals. lol

Anyway. Even if the numbers are not 100% right, its still far worse for them, and far better for us than they really have a clue about, or allow us to believe. After all, there are people that call themselves "Atheist Jews", who get lumped into the "Jewish" category when counted, some religions like Buddhism are basically some class of atheism/secularism with a lot of woo woo added, and the only reason we don't hear about "Atheist Christians" is because they don't call themselves that. You can however find people that, "Follow the gospel and teachings, but believe that Jesus was just a man, and strongly suspect their isn't any actual god." Its just not politically correct to say that last bit, since pretending you do believe it means you get invited to all the "believer only" parties. lol

If you managed to get people to fess up to the later, and admit that they are the same sort of Christian as some Jews are Jewish.. I suspect we would have like 10-15% of the population firmly on our side. That ought to really scare these nuts. And I am also willing to bet that the total number of people in those categories in prison is **still** lower than the percentage of the actual general population they represent.

Its just not something "Christians" of any stripe do though, admit that they suspect they are following some nice cherry picked rules, but that the rest of it is BS.

[Scott]

Wow! I happily was linked to this amazing post by our friends at onegoodmove. You hit so many home runs on things that truly tick me off but did so in a thoughtful almost friendly manner that I doubt I could muster. Sure it was tough love -- but you can tell it's because you *care!*

[Jason]

I came upon this blog via Tangled Up in Blue Guy and I've been spending the last half hour reading this post and the Atheists and Anger post. What can I say but WOW! You have managed to sum up so much of what I think and feel in a better way than I can ever manage to get out of my brain through my keyboard. I'll definitely be reading more of this blog.

[TheAtheistSpy]

I too was linked here from OneGoodMove.

As I get more into blogging (and writing in general) about atheism, your Atheists And Anger post is one I will be referring to, and linking to, often. Thanks for summarizing so much so concisely, and for coalescing so many things so clearly. I'm definitely a "Good Cop" "Can't we all get along?" Michael-Shermer-wannabe kinda guy, but (in large part thanks to your reflections about this) I definitely appreciate the importance of the Bad Cops. Keep it up! Seriously.

[Keilexandra]

The Buddha is not worshiped as a higher deity.

Just an FYI; I am atheist and totally agree with everything, but I'm also nitpicky.

Which reminds me, in regards to your original post: Thank you. A thousand times over.

[Michael G.R.]

Attaboy!

[Jorn Poulsen]

Just a quick comment on:

> Atheism is just another religion. And you're just as close-minded/ faith-based as the believers you criticize.

Common consensus (evidence- rather than faith-based):

1. Humans/predecessors scoured about, more or less at random.
2. Humans/predecessors learned how to use fire, and started using tools.
3. Humans/predecessors started embracing nature religions.
4. Humans/predecessors started embracing monotheistic religions.
5. Along the way, humans/predecessors introduced selective genetic manipulation by killing/suppressing those that disagreed with these new ideas (and with fair success at that).
6. Today (well, say, within the last 1 or 2000 years) evidence has emerged that some of these, now old, ideas are fundamentally, logically flawed.

Given this sequence of events, item 4 is about the place where the God claims came about.
Personally, before I buy into that, I would like to see some evidence.
Yet you brand me a believer, whose faith is atheism?

These days, I wouldn't go quite as far as calling the God claims delusional, myself.
On the other hand, I suspect some future generation might.

I'm not an atheist; an agnostic perhaps, of sorts anyway, if you must entertain these brandnames.

As for item 5, I've liberally borrowed some of Jared Diamond's terminology (title: "Guns, Germs and Steel" - a good read by the way).

Please keep it up Greta!

Thanks
Jorn

[Dale McGowan]

I'm floored by people who communicate that well -- especially when they're talking such sense at the same time. Well done.

[Tattooed & Atheist]

Once again bravo! Amazing how dense some believers can be isn't it?

[KC]

Great follow-up to a perfect 'rant'.

[Terra]

Cool posts. I didn't have time to read all the comments, but I did want to add an "Attagirl! You stick it to 'em!" :D

I really really enjoyed the original post and read the entire thing and the follow up. I will keep it in mind next time someone accuses me of being too angry.

Thanks!

[Donna Gore]

Greta, there ARE atheists in foxholes! I've met them here..

http://www.ffrf.org/foxholes/

[Nicki]

I just stumbled on your original rant which lead me to your comments. I don't have time to rummage through your other articles just yet, but I hope you do write a book about the anger. Your writing style is so much more captivating and riveting than a lot of the more snarky and canonical texts of other authors. It's also nice to have someone who can relate the anger to other movements as well. You have an abundance of experience which has lead to perspective that makes you even more qualified to keep doing what you are doing.

I rarely, if ever, go all 'fangirl' over a blog or author; but you really have inspired me to stand up to the fanaticals. (Even that only means sending them here.) :)

Cheers

[Jenny]

you said to say it, so..

attaboy!

[Patience]

Kaleigh--what? What the hell?

"Speaking in terms of the US. Evengelicals are like 40 million people. Atheists are sometimes quoted as about 5% of the population or 150,000,000 people. If we accept the idea that 90% of the US is Christian, then the other 5%, or 150,000,000 people are Jews, agnostics, Buddhists, Pagan, etc. At a guess, I would say that there are less than half the number of Fundamentalists that there are evangelicals. That means that the wackos, or those that push the idea of a Christian nation *for* the wackos are only about 60 million people, non-Christians are 300 million people, and the rest are moderate Christians, who basically think **both** sides are a bit nuts. We atheists, if the numbers are to be believed out number these nuts 2.5:1, but they have us convinced that *they* are the majority."

That math and logic was so bad it pains me. It was so bad I couldn't stomach the rest of your comment to see if it contained the same flaws.

First, there are about 300 million people in the US. Not 300 million non-Christians, 300 million TOTAL. 5% /= 150,000,000. If 90% of those are Christians, 5% atheist, and 5% other religions (where'd you get these made up stats, by the way? I'll use them to prove you wrong, but know that they are innately wrong), and half of the Christians are fundamentalists, then 45% of the US is Fundamentalist Christian, 45% mainline Christian, 5% atheist, and 5% other. Surely you are not so ignorant as to doubt that 45% > 5%, but I'll do the hard math for you anyway. That'd be a theoretical 135 million fundies and 15 million athesits. Using your craptastic numbers, the fundamentalists outnumber atheists 9:1.

Please. The argument, it is weak. The math, it is shitty. Try again with actual stats (Gallup or Pew or even the US Census should have an accurate count of percentages or even hard numbers of different religious and non-religious groups) and some math that doesn't seem to throw on a couple extra 0s for shits and giggles.

Oh, and Greta? This, and the previous post, were excellent.

[Dennis]

You said that they said: Atheism is just another religion. And you're just as close-minded/ faith-based as the believers you criticize.

One of my favorite quotes about this is, "If Atheism is a religion, then health is a disease!" by Clark Adams.

[sharpshinyclaws]

I figured I would comment on this post, since the other post filled up faster than Cracker Barrel on Sunday morning.

I'll tell you what I am angry about. I am angry about being a human being and having to classify myself into one category or the other. I'm angry that if I don't believe in god, then I must also agree with all aetheists. I'm angry that if I don't agree with all aetheists, then people want to label me a pessimist.

I'm mostly angry as a defense mechanism against being so sad that people can't appreciate the great depth and beauty that comes from not believing in some higher source of power, but rather exacting coincidence. I think any person of "faith" is missing out on an extreme sense of value and luck and meaning.

That's all. At least your post moved me enough to comment :)

[Susanna Hill]

Well, I just spent many a work minute reading your post and your follow up. And all I have to say is........

Well done!

I, myself, am a UU Pagan, which means that I attend a Unitarian Universalist church and identify my spiritual path as Pagan. I've only been attending my church for a year and a half and in that time I've met many an atheist. From my observances, they are some of the most compassionate, just and fair people that I've ever had the priviledge of meeting. I've enjoyed listening to them and learning from them. They have enriched my life greatly.

You should relax your anus. You'll be happier, plus softer stools.

[annoDomini]

Hi, Greta,

I had hoped that if you read my comment on your previous post you would appreciate that the dangers inherent in the kind of "group-think" that you accuse non-atheists of accepting are found to a lesser or greater extent in nearly all groups, whether the group collects itself by religion or not. While my comment made the point subtlely, other comments were more direct. While you have tried to respond to the argument that "All religious people are not like that.", you have not responded to the proposition that in the history of humanity, we are ALL to some degree "like that" and there are MANY examples of the nominally religious AND the nominally non-religious that are very much "like that". The problem is that in your previous post, it seems that your central thesis is that "religion" is the instigator or proponent that causes people to do specific acts that you are angry about. You can argue that I am reading that into your post, but, if you are honest with yourself, you will acknowledge that the sentiment is clearly there. It also seems that you are suggesting that "atheism" is the solution to the problem you've identified. You have laid out the evidence by showing that some nominally "religious" people have acted with depravity and malice, but you have not even attempted to present evidence that nominally "atheist" people have not acted with depravity and malice. I submit that it is not religion or atheism that causes human depravity, but rather that humanity at large show a wide variety of behavior including greed, arrogance, and depravity and some people show such characteristics in spades. One comment to your original post made almost exactly the point that I am raising here.

In this post, you did respond to one argument made in a comment suggesting that "people need religion" by suggesting that Europe be viewed as an experiment where atheism is the norm and then stating that the European nations "seem to do fine". I may be wrong about this, but I suspect that your response misses the intention of the comment. The statement that "people need religion" is probably not saying that states or governments need religion to be "successful", but that each person needs religion individually. That seems to be clear in the part of this post where you have written "If you believe that the Gospels are a more or less accurate representation of what Jesus said, then you have to acknowledge that Jesus said some pretty fucked-up things. Including a whole lot of stuff about how people who didn't believe in him and follow him were going to burn in Hell for eternity." Therein lies the crux of the "people need religion" statement: the Gospels seem to testify to Jesus making the audacious claim that each of us individually must be willing to put ourselves under the rule of God or be condemned. (I do understand that you do not accept the Gospels as true; I am merely pointing out the disconnect between what was probably the intention of the comment and your response to it.)

In your response from which I extracted the quote about Jesus, you made another statement that I find interesting: "You can quote chapter and verse, but so can the people whose interpretation of the faith you disagree with. That's sort of the nature of chapter and verse; it can be used to support just about any interpretation you can come up with." I am quite dubious about that claim, particularly because in another part of this post, you say "I was a religion major in college, for goodness' sake." Having studied religion, it is difficult to understand how you can conclude that the Bible supports "just about any interpretation" except in the most deconstructionist view of literature whereby Proust means just what I want it to mean to me: nothing more, nothing less. (with apologies to Lewis Carroll) If we are truly in that realm of discussing morality, there is nothing to discuss.

That brings us to the line of reasoning whereby you claim "You don't have any more reason to think you have the true faith than any other believer does." - and I would add, than any other non-believer does. While I can't quite embrace that statement, we are together at least this far: we are both confident that no individual can be sure that his or her understanding of God (or not God) is accurate. Some have claimed that "atheism is just another religion" and I agree with you that atheism is NOT a religion in the strict sense. (It defies the very definition of religion.) But if you are honest with yourself, you will agree that atheism is an understanding or belief about what "God" is; specifically, the belief that God is not. If I were to hold you to the defense you made in your post, I would say that you must admit that you don't really have any more reason to think you have the truth than any other person does. But I won't do that because I know that it is not tenable. Most people that I know DO believe that they have MORE REASON to think they have the truth than anyone that disagrees with them. It almost has to be so, because if any person REALLY thought that there was MORE REASON to believe that a different understanding was true, presumably that person would change their belief. Indeed, that is almost the definition of belief.

My favorite part of this post is the section where you write "It simply isn't the case that atheists are 100% convinced beyond any shadow of a doubt that there is no God." as if it were different for believers. I would submit that most theists are not 100% convinced beyond any shadow of a doubt that there is a God. Indeed, doubt is a profound and frequent topic in religious circles. You followed that with "I've never once met an atheist who thought that way." I cannot say that I know the thoughts of anyone but myself, but I have met both atheists AND theists who make the claim of 100% surety. You go on to write "Atheism is... well, it's somewhat different for different people." That could be said almost word for word about theism! Getting at the heart of the matter though, you write "for most atheists I know, [atheism is] more or less the position that God is an extremely unlikely hypothesis, not supported by evidence or reason; and that in the absence of any convincing evidence, it's reasonable to discard it as a hypothesis". That speaks loudly to me, because for most Christians I know, God is a hypothesis supported by experience and intellect and, with the support of that evidence, it is reasonable to accept the hypothesis.

I understand that you have rejected the God hypothesis. I am not here to convert you. Yet you may still recognize how similar you are to those who have made a different choice about that, but still see the world with the same anger and compassion regarding human failings.

[Sarah]

I unfortunately have not browsed the other comments, so I'm not sure if you've gotten a comment like this yet. However, judging from the beginning of this addendum, you read your all your comments regardless (I love that by the way!!!) so here it goes:

First of all, I should tell you that I am, by every Biblical definition, a Christian. No! Please don't stop reading! You'll like this I promise :)

More importantly than that, and probably more important because of that...I agree with nearly EVERY word you have written.

Many of the very same things you have expressed make me blind with anger. All the bullshit circling around not only makes atheists look equal with demons (if you believe in those, if not, I'm sure you understand my comparison), but also makes Christians look bad as well.

I'm not here to preach the gospel message to you. I am by no means a preacher. I am a sinner in every sense of the word. I don't know if I ever considered myself an atheist, but there was a time in my life I didn't believe in Jesus and science gave all the answers. It's been a long journey to get over that in order to embrace the Bible as truth.

I guess my purpose for posting on this this morning is simply to let you know that atheists aren't the only ones who are fed up with this. Christians, like myself and my friends who run the website I linked to this, are fed up with the very same things.

The Catholic church is fucked. The Christians/Catholics (or any sect of the two) are fucked when they think they have authority over God. The president (current and all previous) are fucked (except for maybe JFK...). The U.S. armed forced are fucked. Schools are fucked. It would be quite a long post and take quite a bit of time for me to express all my feelings on this.

Moral of the story here: this world is fucked up. I'm pretty sure we each have reasons for admitting that fact that are as different as night and day. Just know that there are SOME Christians out there that feel the same way you do. It can be just as hard being a Christian as it is to be an atheist.

Take care of yourself. And never stop speaking out. Anger is never bad...even God was angry.

[Shane]

Great Stuff. The original, and the reply. I am equally angry, and frustrated by everything you mentioned, and add to that list, the fact that even though you present 100 reasons why atheists are angry, and the first thing the religious people do, is act like you are behaving strangely, or without justification. It is as if they simply never pay attention.

[Dan]

Right on, sister! Your original post was wonderful, and this follow up was great, too. Although I'm a plain ol' straight white guy, as a non-believer I still feel very outcast and discriminated against in this country sometimes. While I tend to be very happy, optimistic, and joyous overall, I am also angered by the same things that anger you, and I am very grateful that you have given those feelings structure. And thanks for the comraderie. Its nice to not have to go it alone in this "Christian nation." Keep up the good work!