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

[DA]

You rule. That is all.

[James Sweet]

"Attaboy!"

To build on your points about the use of anger in social movements, I have a related challenge that I have issued on numerous blogs, and as yet nobody has met it (and only one person made a serious attempt):

Name one social movement, anywhere in the world and anytime in history, which was sabotaged because it's advocates were too outspoken.

You can't do it. And I think the absurdity of it should be clear when you think about what it would mean. "If only those Stridentarians had been a little quieter, then the world would have heard them." Yeeeaaahh.....

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.

FWIW, I agree the trope is classist and insulting, but I am not convinced we can asset it as definitely untrue at present. As you mention, places in Europe are still only a little over half-godless... it's entirely conceivable that we may find out in the future that some non-trivial percentage of people are just always going to have theistic or theism-like beliefs. It's also entirely conceivable that we'll find religion dwindling to nothing.

To assert that "Everybody needs religion" is stupid and demonstrably false.

To assert that "Some people need religion" is elitist, insulting, and condescending.

To assert that "Nobody needs religion" is perhaps overly optimistic and egalitarian.

We just don't know between the last two, yet. In any case, I basically agree with you: Even though I allow that it might be the case that some people need their comforting delusions, to assert that is the case without solid evidence is a really condescending and asshole-ish thing to do.

[Niru]

I'm going to post again.

My heart goes out to you for your pain and anger and all you've been through. But this is life's experience. You've expressed it well in your writing (of course) and don't need little old me to tell you that.

Mostly - I wanted to say: this is kind of new to me, because (I am a believer), I mostly notice angry religious people. . . and I actually don't think I've met any angry atheists before. Mostly angry Wiccans. Oh, those Wiccans are plenty pissed off! Usually, atheists are like; "sigh, whatever, superstitious turd." Which, as you point out, is no better than, "sigh, evil devil child, you're gonna burn in hell, and I guess I'm gonna righteously send ya there!"

We do life in a massively fucked up world full of dysfunctional people. I am 100% certain that without religion, we would still have dysfunctional people. I have no evidence to support that. :)

Anyway, keep doing what you're doing. If you're angry in this country, that means you're paying attention. We may not have the same beliefs, but if you're paying attention, that's a good thing.

[Jimmie in San Jose]

Years later this is still relevant. Thanks for writing this. Glad to know I am not the only angry person :)

[Dyz]

I found your writings through www.atheist.net.

I am a white heterosexual male atheist living in the Netherlands. My life is relatively easy compared to that of atheists like yourself.

You go, girl!

[Celestine]

Greta, loved your post and your reply.

Since I can't let things lie, I also wanted to comment on the whole "independent" as a political party thing. (I admit I didn't read all the comments, so I may be repeating something already said.

Here in Arizona, you are only allowed to register as either Dem, Rep, or Ind. Independent is not considered a political party, it is a catch-all for anyone who doesn't fit into the american two-party system. I know this because I tried to register as a socialist and my husband tried to register as a communist and neither party was accepted.

Bernie Sanders is listed on the congressional website as an independent. He is, in fact, a Socialist Democrat. Same song and dance. If you don't fit our extremely limited mold, too bad.

Sorry for continuing this sidetrack, but this is one of the things that makes ME angry. ;)

Greta, keep up the good work. I admire what you do.

[Dr. Stephen Uhl]

Greta, your 'anger rant' was THE BEST! I hope it helps thousands to fearlessly come OUT OF GOD'S CLOSET (q.v.) and join Richard Dawkins' great OUT Campaign (q.v.)

[Jesse]

Perhaps it is semantic, but I think there's an important distinction between 'anger' and 'hate'. The feeling of being incensed, enraged at injustice is a very different feeling to that of hatred.

Certainly anger can turn into hatred, but anger itself isn't a one-dimensional quality, it's multi-faceted.

I think that maybe the best indication of the distinction is that hatred creates more hatred, whilst anger at injustice eventually leads to the exact opposite of hatred and fear. It leads to justice and liberty.

[Matt]

The original post and this post were terrific, and I'm definitely going to go back and read posts you've made earlier. You make a lot of good points, and I strongly agree with them. However, there is one part of this piece I object to: St Anger was a horrible album, and bringing a picture of it into an otherwise wonderful blog post is also horrible. :)

Also, attagirl!

[jde]

Hey Greta,

It's clear you take reason and truth seriously. You may want to check out "Orthodoxy" by G.K. Chesterton, I think you'll really enjoy it. Besides, you said you've read a good part of the Bible and if you were open-minded enough to do that, then I'm confident you'll give Chesterton a try :).

P.S. For me, "you just have to accept Jesus Christ as your personal Lord and Savior" never really seemed like an argument to begin with--let alone a good one

[BaronessHeather]

I can see that I'm coming very late to this party, but I only just found this post and the one that preceded it. Combined, they did a lot to restore my sense of balance. I've been feeling like a girl without a country lately. I usually identify as agnostic, but by the definitions you gave above, atheist is just as apt a descriptor.

I was going to leave a longer reply, but as it grew in length, I realized I really should just write my own blog post. I'll link back to yours in my post.

I wish you well and thank you again for showing me that there are people - not only you, but so many who left comments on your post - left in America, outside my circle of friends, who would not vilify me for daring to be non-religious.

[Sarah]

Wow! annoDomini you really nailed it, thanks! I was sitting here considering commenting but wondering how I could phrase it but now I can stop.

Thanks for going to the time to write such a long and well thought out post.

[thelittlepecan]

I was told Friday night that someone felt pity for me for not believing...because I'm a fan of facts and blatantly corrected the post above me's misuse of history concerning the Pledge of Allegiance.

But, I guess that beats the time someone told me DFCS should take my son away.

Yah. I had to rant that day meself, too.

[Thelittlepecan.blogspot.com]

Bah. Wrong info. Blog info now correct. If anyone's interested.

[Scotty]

Have just read your original post, and this reply, just before going to bed. And now I'm so riled up I won't be able to sleep! I've spent the last fifteen minutes shouting "yes, yes, YESSS!!!" at my computer monitor. Beautifully written pieces full of passion and insight. Damn, you're a good writer!
Maintain the rage.

X

[Melissa Abercrombie]

Attagirl! If it weren't for blogs like yours it would be even harder to accept myself for the opinions I share with you. Thank you!

[missus webster]

Hello,

A friend of mine posted your Atheists and Anger blog post on Facebook, so I read it. You're right, it was hard to read. I don't think many of us go looking to deal with angry people, so I could see how people commenting on that one post alone would also react in anger.

That's why I'm glad you did this follow up piece. I'm also glad that I didn't comment on the original.

In this post, I admire how you graciously responded to people's comments. (even the troll-y ones) :)

I learned far more from this article, so I wanted to give you a "thumbs up". Thank you for expressing yourself so clearly and in such a helpful way.

I'm not an atheist. I'm a Christian, like the friend of mine who posted this on Facebook. Just thought I'd put that out there too. Thanks for your article.

[Veera]

Well, since other people have commented years after the fact, I shall do so too!

I come from a "blissful" country where people don't care about someone else's religion. Actually, I don't know if even my family believes in god, cause I don't really care. I know my twin sister believes in god, and that's her right. I don't. She doesn't try to convert me and I don't try to convert her. In Finland religion is a private matter. It can be discussed but rarely would someone ask "what's your religion". Maybe it's because we're still a relatively homogenous society, or maybe it's because generally we're pretty private people. Even our president is an atheist which didn't really come up until sometime after the election, and no one cares.

Most Finns still (I think about 75% now though the number is going down all the time) belong to the evangelic-lutheran church which is also considered the church of the state, but about 5% of those people go to church. About 5% of them actually have a religion. The rest just want to have a church wedding (as is traditional) and baptism (as is traditional). The desire for baptisms is fading among highly educated people though, because they want their children to be free to decide what religion, if any, they want to belong to. I think that's very good progress.

[David]

No matter how angry you are (justified or misplaced or not), if you are just as intolerant and extreme in the end than you are just as bad as any of the theists claiming to be the only right way.

[eric stone]

Why we are correct in ridiculing religion

Religious apologists like Alvin Plantinga who debated Daniel Dennett in “Science and Religion” Oxford Press, 2011, are incensed that we atheists have “sneering condescension” and “ridicule” to their preposterous ideas. He accuses Hitchens and Dawkins of having “hatred and contempt” toward religion and warns us that we threaten the welfare of both religion and science. By the way he does all this while attempting to badmouth us in the most sneeringly sarcastic and underhanded manner.

Well, I've got news for Mr. Plantinga and his religionist cohorts. First, it is entirely appropriate to ridicule absurd ideas rather than to treat them as serious and give them respect. Only serious ideas based on reason and evidence are worthy of intellectual respect. Second, the ideas that we critique and ridicule have historically led to or facilitated war, genocide, ethnic cleansing as well as have enslaved millions, impeded medical and scientific research and are now draining vast sums of taxpayer dollars to propagate more of these ridiculous ideas. These ideas have resulted in untold amounts of violence, death, torture, and suffering as well as the profound intimidation and physical molestation of our young. Ridicule and even sneering condescension are about the mildest critical reactions that we can have for the enormity of the mind-boggling injustices perpetrated in their name. I can readily empathize with those of us who consider the behaviors prompted by these dogma to be illegal and criminal.

[Bruce Gorton]

Posted by: David | April 04, 2011 at 07:02 AM

I could have gone into a whole long rant about why you are a complete asshole, but sufficeth to say, if you think commenting on a blog is as bad as say, shooting a politician because you don't like their pro-secularism politics (As happened in Pakistan) then frankly, its not worth the time you "white-man's-burden-loving" pissant.

[Sarah Bee Bee]

Great follow-up! I notice you're using Buddha in the same breath as the Judeo/Christian/Muslim god and I'm going to be one of those nit-pickers for a second:
Buddha is not considered divine in the Western sense of the word.
I'm not negating your point, I just think it's important to be accurate so that nay-sayers can't try to undermine the rest of your argument because of an error tertiary to your actual point.

[Dragonfly]

I'm glad you wrote this for all us atheists out there who have no voice. To add my two cents, it makes me angry when the more science confirms reason the more people seem to convert to a faith-based reality. Thanks for being a voice for us all.

[JT]

Thanks for writing this. I'm in college now, and have considered myself an atheist for several years. I still haven't been able to work up the nerve to tell my family, all of whom are devout Catholics. I think this will help with trying to explain to them why I feel the way I do. Again, thanks. Keep being awesome :-)

[Patrick]

Love. You.

[Christin]

Thank you for writing your original post, it is beautiful. Thank you for putting up with the tons of thoughtless, ignorant comments that are addressed in this post, in a reasonable, logical, and humorous fashion, even though they are infuriating, because it's obvious they didn't even read your post effectively. Thank you for being brave. Most of all, thank you for being an advocate for positive change. Keep it up!

[Kathryn Gislason]

I loved this post, and the previous one. Every part, I am also wicked angry about the items you stated. So angry that sometimes I can't breathe.
What is interesting in that is that I do have a general spirtual feeling, and I am sooo much angrier than my friends who do not have the same inclinations that I have about religon.
I have read your blog many, many times. You are obviusly much smarter and longer lived than me. But your post(s) on sexuality have really helped me find myself.

Please, never silence your beautiful voice, and when the anger that we all feel for this bull shit comes to a head, I will be there, screaming and chanting and hoping for change. I might even throw in a prayer when your not looking ;)

[Christina]

You ought to read Talal Asad's Genealogies of Religion and Formations of the Secular. I think it would be super enlightening/rewarding for you. I respect your anger. Now go write about sex and be happy that you've caused so many people to create thought bubbles in their heads. :)

[Matthew]

Hey, I appreciate your honesty. Something to consider that I don't believe you covered in the reply... You mentioned the usefulness of anger in social movements and while I agree with you, I would argue that those movements are relatively small compared to something like say, the Christian movement. And if I recall correctly, the Christian movement did not expand to its extremely large status by always being angry.

Arguably, there were the umm... dark ages. And there were large periods of time where Christianity was used (and as you pointed out is currently being used) in anger, but I believe Christianity in its origins expanded exponentially because of its ability to evoke the equally powerful, if not more powerful, emotion of hope.

As a Christian talking to an Atheist, I think you could do your cause more justice and open more people's eyes if you can inspire hope in them rather than anger. I personally believe you have every right to be angry btw. But if Jesus taught the world anything, it's that while anger may get millions of people to follow... Hope will bring you billions of followers for thousands of years. Obama became President because of that one word and no real substance to back it up. What you consider to be fairytales has billions of believers BECAUSE of that emotion. Maybe prominent atheists should begin to consider writing atheistic literature that inspires this positive emotion rather than a frustrating one. Just my 2 cents and it's probably worth less than that. :) Cheers!

[Manda]

Thank you for summing up (almost) all that I'm angry about in one handy-dandy, bookmarkable post. You're a fantastic writer, this is my first visit and I will be back!

Anger has its place and its purpose and as you've shown it is a creative force for change. I've also learned the value of fucking with door to door Christian salespeople's minds by not being angry when they ring my doorbell uninvited on Saturday morning, bibles open and ask if I'd like to discuss the bible with them. I just smile ever so sweetly, tell them that I am certainly not the best person to chat with them, cheerily wish them a wonderful day while I softly close and padlock the door. While watching their crushed expressions through the blinds. It feels even better than yelling at them to show them how polite and nice and happy the scary, scary atheist is.

Oh, and you rock, attaboy, you go girl and I hope the US comes to its senses like Canada did on same-sex marriage. Now there's a topic that really makes me angry :)

Cheers!

[Terri Rose]

It's socially unacceptable to be anger these days. It's also dishonest to pretend you're not angry when you are. Pick your poison.

[Tyro]

You speak to my heart.

[Raymond Griffith]

I am a Christian who is angry about much the same things you are. It has forced me to disassociate myself from fundamentalism altogether (what I was raised in). I now view myself as a liberal Christian. And I point out that I would not be convinced by the Fundamentalist or Conservative arguments for believing today, particularly in how they act.

I cannot adequately apologize for religion itself, or for Christians in particular. But for myself, I intend to channel my anger into working for change.

Those who cannot get angry about injustice or stay angry about it will not work to change what needs changed.

Thank you for your blog. I appreciated it.

[Amanda Kat Moore]

Let me start off with this: Anger is very useful in a social movement or change - I cannot disagree there. And the fact that our leaders are stating that non-religious people are not "people" is completely against everything our ancestors fled other countries to escaped - forced belief systems by their governments or kings - i.e. the right to believe what they wanted, and the freedom to practice that belief. Should that not extend to the right to NOT believe, for if we don't have the right to choose NO religion, how is that truly freedom?

Let me continue with this: Anger over things long since passed that had no bearing on your life, your LIFETIME, and you, does nothing, helps nothing, and can only result in making the impact your anger has less (or nothing at all) in the end. What is happening in other countries to other people due to religious beliefs is an atrocity, but do you plan on going over there and changing anything yourself? Do you think some social movement you create, help create, or help make happen here will affect them in any way? Your anger over what is happening outside of your own world only takes away from what is really happening in your own world - anger that is honest and justified, anger which you can mold and use to make a change that can honestly affect your life and the lives of those around you.

And then: While you speak about how you don’t think it’s fair for either side to have their cake and eat it too so speak – specifically to only point out the good or the bad that is done in the name of religion and brush off what doesn’t support their point as irrelevant – you rant about how Americans would not elect an Atheist President without addressing the social, political, educational, and other relevant views held by out-spoken atheists that the 55% of Americans know who wouldn’t vote in an Atheist President. Perhaps Atheists think just as clearly and rationally as the next guy – but how would anyone know it when all that the non-atheists hear are the rantings of the guy that is way off the deep end? Which is EXACTLY what most religious people say when an Atheist brings up the idiotic, brain-dead, retarded thing done in the “name” of religion – that is not what Religion stands for, that is not what your average Religious person is like … just like your average Atheist is not like the loud-mouthed, overly opinionated, might-as-well-be-preaching Atheist that every Religious person knowsandhates. But you completely failed to address that, as though it was completely irrelevant.

Atheists and Religious-folk are more like than either care to admit – they both have reason to be angry; and legitimate reason I think; but ONLY if they are honest, good folk, who are living their lives by the golden rule: Do unto others what you would have done unto you. If they aren’t, it doesn't matter what crap falls from their mouths when it is opened, it is not legitimate, and it is not a valid reason for anything, let alone to be angry. What I think it all comes down to is this: Everyone has a right to believe or not believe whatever they want. Those around me – they don’t know what I believe, and that’s the way it should be. Everyone knows where the nearest church of any particular religion is and how to get there and how to find out what time services are. They know they are welcome if they want to attend, whether that is “their” religion or not. Everyone knows how to “find God” if they want to suddenly start going to Church or switch religions. Everyone knows where to go to get preached at if they feel the needs to absorb some religion. What you choose to believe or not believe is your own choice, your own right, and your own business, and no one else’s – not your friend’s (unless you want to talk about it), not your neighbor’s, not your family’s, not your dog, and certainly not your internet buddies. If people choose to post Religion on their social page on the internet, that is their choice, and it is your choice if you read it or not; they are allowed to live their life the way they want, just as you are. America needs to open its eyes, clear its mind, and realize that if each and every person wants the FREEDOM to choose if they are CHRISTIAN – be it Baptist, or Catholic, or Presbyterian, or anything else – or NOT … or if they would like to CHOOSE another RELIGION, or NO RELIGION AT ALL … they need to CHOOSE to all EACH AND EVERY PERSON TO BE FREE TO CHOOSE, which means allowing your mother, your brother, your child, your neighbor, your ENEMY to be free to choose or not choose whatever ever religion he or she wants.

[M.Nieuweboer]

"100% convinced beyond any shadow of a doubt that there is no God."

Now you have met one. I am 100% convinced there is no god. Sure, I can't prove it beyond any doubt, but quantummechanics (especially Heisenberg's relation) and the theodicy are in my eyes evidence beyond reasonable doubt.
What's more, the idea that there is no god and that there will be no afterlife actually comforts me. No fear, nobody watching me the whole day, but enough people around me to help me avoiding or repairing my stupidities. When I die I think I'll have had enough anyway and I won't have to suffer from eternal boredom in heaven.
In the mean time I just have to try as hard as I can to make the best of it.
In some respects you are not angry enough. It contributes to the quality of your life if used properly.

[Nicole]

A bit late but only just randomly found the atheists and anger post... still relevant! Especially for where I am right now, trying to come to terms with my atheism in a very very religious setting... Anyway... Attaboy! ;)

[Evan]

Attaboy!
(hehe)

I loved your original article, and I enjoyed this response as well. I've been an atheist since.. well I don't think I ever believed in God. But who knows. I know that I never liked church, and never wanted to attend it. Thank god (another hehe) my parents weren't extremely faithful and didn't care much that I didn't want to attend.

I came to your blog from reddit (your article has a link in the r/atheism subreddit FAQs), and I'm very glad I did. Atheists need anger. People need anger. I'm Canadian, so I don't face quite the same level of religious dogma that the US seems to demonstrate. But it's there all the same.

This SHIT has GOT TO STOP. The world is at a crossroads now, with the atheist movement growing stronger, and it CANNOT lose momentum now. They hate our anger because they've gotten their way for.. who even knows how long. When did religious leaders first oppress their brothers? What time in human history do we NOT see religion being a threat to free thinking and human dignity?

[cell phone directory]

Great article and straight to the point. I am not sure if this is actually the best place to ask but do you guys have any ideea where to employ some professional writers Thanks

[Cee]

Thank you for both blog entries. Nice that the conversation is lasting over years...

Anger as a motivator is one thing. As a communication tool it sucks. Nothing is more counterproductive than two factions spewing angry venom at each other. We have enough of that in this world already. I'm glad you expressed your anger and are still the mostly mild person you say you are.

That said, I was already unhappy about so much of what you wrote about --- and am even more unhappy now that I've learned a few more things!

Seriously - thank you for opening my eyes to how discrimination is alive and kicking even more than I realized in this country. Imagine the backlash if a President said that Russians, or Hispanics, or pretty much any religion shouldn't be considered citizens of the US.

This may come across as classist or elitist but it strikes me that religion comes into being because it's a shortcut to becoming an ethical person. If we accept a pre-digested set of rules for behavior, we don't have to work out for ourselves that kindness works and makes us and other people feel good, and that selfishness doesn't. (Not to suggest that religious people are unselfish and kind, just that they're being coerced by fear of damnation to try to be that way.) Without a deity to fear, we have to become ethical, caring, socially responsible, generous, honest and honorable all on our own. That can be a tall order for some people - even in a society riddled with religion like ours or as religiously repressive as some others. In a subtle way, religion takes away our power to *choose* goodness and make it our own MO.

Of course religion is also a way to control a lot of people at once for the "good of society." But again - Indonesia is not crime-free and, as you point out so clearly in your first post, neither is the Catholic Church. If religion made people ethical, there'd be no Sharia law either. Guess that settles the "without religion no ethics" matter.

Glad a friend turned me on to your blog. Will be reading here again and again. Thank you!

[joel]

Wow! This website rocks. You have good articles here
and i really love reading them since my visit two days
ago. 5 thumbs up for this website!

http://happinessdirect.com