Rabbi Gellman: Why are atheists so angry?

[slingblade]

Trying to Understand Angry Atheists
Why do nonbelievers seem to be threatened by the idea of God?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12498143/site/newsweek/

All religions must teach a way to discipline our animal urges, to overcome racism and materialism, selfishness and arrogance and the sinful oppression of the most vulnerable and the most innocent among us.

Yeah...let me know when they all plan to get on that, mmmkay?

I can humbly ask whether my atheist brothers and sisters really believe that their lives are better, richer and more hopeful by clinging to Camus's existential despair: “The purpose of life is that it ends."

Odd. I can't say I've even read that, much less that I cling to it.
I tend to cling to something more like: "The purpose of life is that it is now. Right now. What are you doing with it?"

I believe that the philosopher-rabbi Mordecai Kaplan was right when he said, “It is hell to live without hope, and religion saves people from hell.” I urge my atheist brothers and sisters to see things as Spinoza urged, sub specie aeternitatis—“under the perspective of eternity.”

I'm thinking that what I do during a period of 70-some-odd years should affect eternity in about the same proportion as an eye-dropper full of red dye should affect the Pacific Ocean. I'm also thinking this is a ridiculous standard for a God to maintain.

Okay, pithy comments of mine aside, I found all the Rabbi's assumptions, excluded middles, false dichotomies, and other fallacies and distortions quite interesting.

I have to laugh, however, as I find after reading this that I'm a little honked off at being so carelessly assumed to be an angry atheist by virtue of simply being an atheist. And isn't that ironic?

Hey, Rabbi: I think your commentary pretty much answered your own question, but I am positive you can't and won't see it.

[CFLarsen]

I have never encountered more anger than with people of supernatural beliefs.

[Humphreys]

Angry atheist?!

ANGRY ATHEIST?!?

I'll show him angry atheist!!! *shakes fist*

[Zep]

Mmmm.. So perhaps someone will write a quiet and reasoned rebuttal for the gentleman? And disabuse him of some of his misconceptions? And I don't think there's any need to rise to the bait about "anger" either.

[Humphreys]

Mmmm.. So perhaps someone will write a quiet and reasoned rebuttal for the gentleman? And disabuse him of some of his misconceptions? And I don't think there's any need to rise to the bait about "anger" either.

What's the point? It's just one big straw man, and I find it completely offensive.

He labels atheists angry by default, and states we all cling to "existential despair".

Why is it that these "vicious Jews" cling on to their Bibles to justify beating their wives?

[Zep]

All the more reason NOT to accede to THEIR stereotypes! :D

[Nettles]

Why is it that these "vicious Jews" cling on to their Bibles to justify beating their wives?

I hope somebody's going to rush to reassure me that this was a quote or irony or something.

[Humphreys]

I hope somebody's going to rush to reassure me that this was a quote or irony or something.

Yes.

I did the same as the Rabbi. Jews are no more vicious than atheists are angry.

[Rufo]

When people are arguing about something, everyone generally considers their opponents to be 'angry'. They're not necessarily lying to make themselves look better, it's simply that because you generally see more of the angry side of people you are in conflict with.

I have never encountered more anger than with people of supernatural beliefs.
Like this.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

I can humbly ask whether my atheist brothers and sisters really believe that their lives are better, richer and more hopeful by clinging to Camus's existential despair: “The purpose of life is that it ends."
Not that you're angry, dude, but why do you care?

~~ Paul

[aargh57]

Sounds a bit like our new friend Jeff Corken doesn't it? Just not as inflammatory. It seems like he's trying to take the high road while at the same time saying basically what Jeff says, namely, religion teaches to do "good" things for each other while atheism logically just "lets" you do whatever you want.


"I don't know many religious folk who wake up thinking of new ways to aggravate atheists"

Really? Perhaps he should get to know more "religious folk".

[wastepanel]

I have encountered many an angry atheist on this board.

I have encountered many an angry theist on this board.

It's a harsh generalization on both accounts here.

[Jorghnassen]

This is a classic example of extending one's perception of a small subset of a group to a large portion (or all elements) of that group. Everybody does that, but it is misguided...

[Mercutio]

Before I send this, I would appreciate any feedback and proofreading...

An open letter to Rabbi Gellman

Dear sir,

I read with some interest, and some amusement, your web commentary of April 26, about the “angry atheists”. As a long-time atheist myself, I have a very different perspective than you do on this issue. Indeed, I was surprised from the very beginning of your commentary, from the title itself: are these “angry atheists” people you know personally, or are they your projection of what you feel atheists must be like? If the latter, please understand that your argument is with a straw man; if the former, please allow me to tell you about an atheist I know fairly well. Me.

I am not angry. I think it would amuse anyone who knows me to think that such an adjective could ever be attached to me. I have debated with people, but civilly, thoughtfully, with respect for their views. When I search myself for the anger and the existential angst you say atheists cling to, I do not find it. What do I find instead?

I find love. Not some imitation of a god’s love, but real love for my friends, my family, my fellow human beings. I am thankful, not to a god for giving me these people, but to these people themselves for what they are to me, and what they allow me to be to them.

I find joy. I cherish life, knowing that this one life is all I get. The atheists I know (they must be very different people from the atheists you know) view life as precious, not as a waiting-ground for the real, eternal life to come. Camus’ “the purpose of life is that it ends” speaks only to one meaning of the word “purpose”. There is no higher purpose to which life is subsidiary; the purpose of life is to live. To make the world a better place, not because a god tells us to (and not all do), but because we care about our friends, our children, their children and theirs.

I find compassion. True, I did not pray for the victims of 9-11 or Katrina. I did not ask a god to do something that is my job to do. I donated money, I donated time, I donated blood. The name “anonymous” is not quite Camus, but the quote “two hands working do more than a thousand clasped in prayer” speaks every bit as much to an atheist’s world view.

I find sorrow. Those who have died have not gone on to a better place; they are simply gone. They live on only metaphorically, in our memories; for that reason, our memories of their lives are all the more precious. An acquaintance of mine believed that the murdered children of Andrea Yates were “better off now, with God.” To me, this only diminishes the very real tragedy, and allows us to distance ourselves from the overwhelming sadness that the senseless death of innocent children does, and should, elicit.

I suppose, when I think of cases like that, that I do find anger in myself as well. But it is anger directed toward the perpetrators of these acts, not directed at some god I do not even think exists. I can hold no more anger toward your god, Rabbi Gellman, than you would hold toward Zeus. The very idea of atheists being angry at a god is, on the face of it, ludicrous.

I would have hoped that your meeting with Dr. Watson would have prompted some changes in your essay. You consistently write about “atheists” rather than about “some atheists”, or “those atheists who are indeed angry”. You speak of atheists globally as “angry”, and yet the one concrete example you give proves this global statement wrong. I invite you to get to know more atheists; you will find that there are few, if any, adjectives that can be used to describe us all. Indeed, the one characteristic we hold in common is not so much a characteristic at all, but rather the lack of one. There is no one creed to atheism, no one set of values, no one set of beliefs. We are as varied as humanity itself. Get to know us…and then write another essay. About atheists as we are, not as you imagine us to be.

All the best,

M

[Mrs. Hmmphries]

I'll show you angry!!!

*beats Rabbi with stick*


There...I feel much better now.
Seriously, tho, I just think it's funny.
Funny in a, "hello, kettle? This is the Rabbi...you're black," sort of way.



ETA: Great letter, Mercutio.

[wastepanel]

Mercutio,

You come off sounding angry. You immediately fall to the "straw man" argument in the first paragraph. I would concentrate on showing the Rabbi that he is too broad in classification of theiests and atheists.

[Mrs. Hmmphries]

Mercutio,

You come off sounding angry. You immediately fall to the "straw man" argument in the first paragraph. I would concentrate on showing the Rabbi that he is too broad in classification of theiests and atheists.


Really?
I didn't think he came off as angry.

[Humphreys]

I don't think he came off in the least bit angry. I thought it was a really good job.

Maybe you could just add that for the atheist, it's irrelevant if their view causes "existential despair". We don't accept atheism because it's fun, or comforting, we accept it because that's where the evidence leads us (or lack of).

[Kopji]

Oooh, and am I angry at my fundie Christian neighbors? Well, not all the time anyway.

My fundie neighbors currently living on either side are very nice. One usually plows my sidewalk for me with his snowblower. Very friendly and I return the favor by helping with his garden.

The other fundy neighbor is rather quiet but a good neighbor. Much better than the previous fundy neighbor who was having drug parties and leaving used condoms in my yard - he moved away shortly after half the police force showed up one night to break up a party.

Two doors up is a stereotypical small town fundy paster with kids. He has heads of dead animals hanging from his walls and his kids hunt the birds and small animals that come to peacefully feed in other yards. His response to my kids saying they don't believe in God, is that it is ok if they come over to play as long as they are believers while in his house.

I finally had to have my dog that was killing his 'free ranging' chickens put to sleep so that source of friction is gone.

All in all, in my report back to the Rabbi I'd have to say that relations with my fundy neighbors are improving. They are not very demanding on my behavior, and actually seem to pretty much do what they want without any prompting on my part. I'll keep an eye on them though.

[ChristineR]

If atheists are any angrier than the rest of the world, it's because we take so much crap. Re: Jeff Corkern. I wasn't angry at his stories, but I felt a little like Alice down the Rabbit Hole listening to the Red Queen.

[Jimbo07]

I read with some interest, and some amusement, your web commentary of April 26, about the “angry atheists”.

Setting yourself up for conflict in the first line? Drop the 'amusement.' That doesn't signal that you've considered his points respectfully.

[Jeff Corey]

This is the same rabbi who, in his May 2005 Newsday "God Squad" column, said he "...eats atheists for breakfast". I assume only if they are slaughtered properly.

[Mercutio]

I was thinking that, too, Jimbo. And perhaps rephrasing the "straw man" bit; is is well understood here, but everywhere?

Humphreys--thanks. I don't want to add too much and seem scattershot, but I will see how it fits into the draft.

[Kopji]

I like Mercutio's letter.
Hopefully even religious people will note some of the flaws in the Rabbi's reasoning and respond. It would be kind of sad if only atheists responded.

[Mercutio]

Slightly revised:

An open letter to Rabbi Gellman

Dear sir,

I read with great interest your web commentary of April 26, about the “angry atheists”. As a long-time atheist myself, I have a very different perspective than you do on this issue. Indeed, I was surprised from the very beginning of your commentary, from the very title itself. I cannot recognize myself in your description of atheists; are these “angry atheists” people you know personally, or are they your projection of what you feel atheists must be like? If the latter, please consider that your argument may be with yourself and your stereotypes; if the former, please allow me to tell you about an atheist I know fairly well. Me.

I am not angry. I think it would amuse anyone who knows me to think that such an adjective could ever be attached to me. I have debated with people, but civilly, thoughtfully, with respect for their views. When I search myself for the anger and the existential angst you say atheists cling to, I do not find it. What do I find instead?

I find love. Not some imitation of a god’s love, but real love for my friends, my family, my fellow human beings. I am thankful, not to a god for giving me these people, but to these people themselves for what they are to me, and what they allow me to be to them.

I find joy. I cherish life, knowing that this one life is all I get. The atheists I know (they must be very different people from the atheists you know) view life as precious, not as a waiting-ground for the real, eternal life to come. Camus’ “the purpose of life is that it ends” speaks only to one meaning of the word “purpose”. There is no higher purpose to which life is subsidiary; the purpose of life is to live. To make the world a better place, not because a god tells us to (and not all do), but because we care about our friends, our children, their children and theirs.

I find compassion. True, I did not pray for the victims of 9-11 or Katrina. I did not ask a god to do something that is my job to do. I donated money, I donated time, I donated blood. The name “anonymous” is not quite Camus, but the quote “two hands working do more than a thousand clasped in prayer” speaks every bit as much to an atheist’s world view.

I find sorrow. Those who have died have not gone on to a better place; they are simply gone. They live on only metaphorically, in our memories; for that reason, our memories of their lives are all the more precious. An acquaintance of mine believed that the murdered children of Andrea Yates were “better off now, with God.” To me, this only diminishes the very real tragedy, and allows us to distance ourselves from the overwhelming sadness that the senseless death of innocent children does, and should, elicit. It would be wonderful to believe that these children are in a better place, but I cannot choose my beliefs based on what I want to be true.

I suppose, when I think of cases like that, that I do find anger in myself as well. But it is anger directed toward the perpetrators of these acts, not directed at some god I do not even think exists. I can hold no more anger toward your god, Rabbi Gellman, than you would hold toward Zeus. The very idea of atheists being angry at a god is, on the face of it, ludicrous.

I would have hoped that your meeting with Dr. Watson would have prompted some changes in your essay. You consistently write about “atheists” rather than about “some atheists”, or “those atheists who are indeed angry”. You speak of atheists globally as “angry”, and yet the one concrete example you give proves this global statement wrong. I invite you to get to know more atheists; you will find that there are few, if any, adjectives that can be used to describe us all. Indeed, the one characteristic we hold in common is not so much a characteristic at all, but rather the lack of one. There is no one creed to atheism, no one set of values, no one set of beliefs. We are as varied as humanity itself. Get to know us…and then write another essay. About atheists as we are, not as you imagine us to be.

All the best,

M

[ImaginalDisc]

Really excellent letter, Merc. However this scentence, "Indeed, I was surprised from the very beginning of your commentary, from the very title itself." seems a bit clunky, considering it repeats the word "very". I'd suggest either cutting it into two scentences, or re-working the grammar.

Edit: It also seems clunky because it uses "very" with two different meanings.

[Mercutio]

quite right, ID--thanks, that was a part of a re-write that did not work.

[ImaginalDisc]

quite right, ID--thanks, that was a part of a re-write that did not work.

Don't get me wrong, that was the only thing I could possibly nitpick. Kudos!

[Upchurch]

Ironically, as I clicked on this thread, the one right above it was "If you could push a button and kill god, would you?"

I can certainly understand how someone could draw the conclusion that atheists are angry, but I imagine it would require a remarkably small sampling.

[Meffy]

Mercutio, your revised letter looks perfect to me, with the exception of the bit of phrasing that needs reworking. Doesn't sound angry to me, though the "amusement" did come off as a little... erm, superior. Now I think the tone is exactly right, reasoned, firm yet non-confrontational.

[alfaniner]

I only get angry when I read something like this:

"One of the great things about America is that we've been able to take people from all walks of life bound as one nation under God. And that's the challenge ahead of us."

Guess who said it...

[Kochanski]

Sounds to me like the rabbi is a bit bored.

Poor thing, he probably figured if he poked at a few atheists he could amuse himself for a bit and get lots of attention on tv. Strange way for a "man of god" to act as far as I can see.

I will not rise to his bait. It is the Sabbath rabbi, go to temple :p

[RSLancastr]

Trying to Understand Angry Atheists
Why do nonbelievers seem to be threatened by the idea of God?

Wow! Next up on MSNBC's Strawmen Stereotype series:

Trying to Understand Money-Hungry Jews
Why do they seem to be threatened by the idea of Goys with money?

Would the Rabbi find that an intelligent, thought-provoking title? Would he find a commentary written with that as a premise to be worthwhile?

I somehow doubt it.

[rdaneel]

It's really self fulfilling isn't it, take any minority and stereotype them as angry, and suprise, suprise, they'll get angry about it.

[Mercutio]

Current draft:

An open letter to Rabbi Gellman

Dear sir,

I read with great interest your web commentary of April 26, about the “angry atheists”. As a long-time atheist myself, I have a very different perspective than you do on this issue. Indeed, I was surprised by the very title itself. I cannot recognize myself in your description of atheists; are these “angry atheists” people you know personally, or are they your projection of what you feel atheists must be like? If the latter, please consider that your argument may be with yourself and your stereotypes; if the former, please allow me to tell you about an atheist I know fairly well. Me.

I am not angry. I think it would amuse anyone who knows me to think that such an adjective could ever be attached to me. I have debated with people, but civilly, thoughtfully, with respect for their views. When I search myself for the anger and the existential angst you say atheists cling to, I do not find it. What do I find instead?

I find love. Not some imitation of a god’s love, but real love for my friends, my family, my fellow human beings. I am thankful, not to a god for giving me these people, but to these people themselves for what they are to me, and what they allow me to be to them.

I find joy. I cherish life, knowing that this one life is all I get. The atheists I know (they must be very different people from the atheists you know) view life as precious, not as a waiting-ground for the real, eternal life to come. Camus’ “the purpose of life is that it ends” speaks only to one meaning of the word “purpose”. There is no higher purpose to which life is subsidiary; the purpose of life is to live. To make the world a better place, not because a god tells us to (and not all do), but because we care about our friends, our children, their children and theirs.

I find compassion. True, I did not pray for the victims of 9-11 or Katrina. I did not ask a god to do something that is my job to do. I donated money, I donated time, I donated blood. The name “anonymous” is not quite Camus, but the quote “two hands working do more than a thousand clasped in prayer” speaks every bit as much to an atheist’s world view.

I find sorrow. Those who have died have not gone on to a better place; they are simply gone. They live on only metaphorically, in our memories; for that reason, our memories of their lives are all the more precious. An acquaintance of mine believed that the murdered children of Andrea Yates were “better off now, with God.” To me, this only diminishes the very real tragedy, and allows us to distance ourselves from the overwhelming sadness that the senseless death of innocent children does, and should, elicit. It would be wonderful to believe that these children are in a better place, but I cannot choose my beliefs based on what I simply wish to be true.

I suppose, when I think of cases like that, that I do find anger in myself as well. But it is anger directed toward the perpetrators of these acts, not directed at some god I do not even think exists. I can hold no more anger toward your god, Rabbi Gellman, than you would hold toward Zeus. The very idea of atheists being angry at a god is, on the face of it, ludicrous.

I would have hoped that your meeting with Dr. Watson would have prompted some changes in your essay. You consistently write about “atheists” rather than about “some atheists”, or “those atheists who are indeed angry”. You speak of atheists globally as “angry”, and yet the one concrete example you give proves this global statement wrong. I invite you to get to know more atheists; you will find that there are few, if any, adjectives that can be used to describe us all. Indeed, the one characteristic we hold in common is not so much a characteristic at all, but rather the lack of one. There is no one creed to atheism, no one set of values, no one set of beliefs. We are as varied as humanity itself. Get to know us…and then write another essay. About atheists as we are, not as you imagine us to be.

All the best,

M

[hgc]

All atheists are fat and dumpy. My evidence is Madelyn Murray O'Hare.

[Mercutio]

It's really self fulfilling isn't it, take any minority and stereotype them as angry, and suprise, suprise, they'll get angry about it.
There is another letter here, begging to be written. If the good Rabbi has indeed claimed to "eat atheists for breakfast", a letter based on Shylock's "hath not a Jew eyes?" speech cries out for publication. He meets angry atheists because he angers atheists. If you prick us, do we not bleed?

(Anyone wants to send that one, I'd help write it...)

[Kochanski]

Mercutio, your letter is excellent. Your idea for another one based on Shylock's speech is also excellent, but I am afraid it won't matter at all.

The dear rabbi has found a way to get attention. Has found a way to be in newspapers and on tv. He has found his way to fame, he is unlikely to give it up. He is trolling on a large scale. Pity the poor man who thinks himself so small he has to bolster his self-esteem by acting a fool ;) You would think a "man of god" would not need this.

[bjb]

I didn't know atheists were angry until I read what some religious people had to say about atheists. I also discovered atheists were sad all of the time and had no morality, and should go around killing and raping since that was the rational thing to do.

As for the rabbi's commentary, it is based upon very weak arguements. He asserts that atheists reject god because of some traumatic experience. In other words, atheists were driven away from god because of their *anger*, hence the term 'angry atheist'. He will not consider that atheism can (and should) be accepted after a long and thoughtful process, because he does not want to write a commentary denouncing 'thoughtful atheists'. One of the first atheists I encountered said he would believe in god as soon as he saw some evidence for his/her existance. He expressed no anger, only a desire for evidence, and he even was willing to believe. I wonder how the rabbi would argue against this sort of perspective.

He also talks about making peace with atheists, but the atheists I know just want religious people to leave them alone. When religion gets into politics, that's when atheists get angry. The idea that freedom of religion means freedom *from* religion is very appealing to me, and many theists as well, but this idea is something that makes the fundamentalists angry.

I did like the end of his commentary. I was surprised, though, because it contradicts his earlier statement where he believes atheists expect too little from life. This is the only life we have so this is our only chance to experience whatever we're going to experience. I wonder how much anger he gets from Dr. James Watson? Probably more now than before he wrote this crappy commentary.

By the way, I noticed his article was rated two stars out of five, with over 1700 votes. Apparently, a lot of other people aren't going along with his ideas. Remember to vote - early and often!

[rdaneel]

By the way, I noticed his article was rated two stars out of five, with over 1700 votes. Apparently, a lot of other people aren't going along with his ideas. Remember to vote - early and often!

Thanks for mentioning it, I didn't notice the voting option at the bottom.

[Spidey13]

I gave it half a star. :D

[Mercutio]

Well, it is sent. To the "feedback" area... We shall see if it ever sees the light of day.

[Angus McPresley]

From the article:


This must sound condescending and a large generalization, and I don't mean it that way, but I am tempted to believe that behind atheist anger there are oftentimes uncomfortable personal histories. Perhaps their atheism was the result of the tragic death of a loved one, or an angry degrading sermon, or an insensitive eulogy, or an unfeeling castigation of lifestyle choices or perhaps something even worse.



The rabbi may have his own particular issues, but this point is a common one I hear a lot from theists. Not only do I find that it is rarely the case, but also that people who arrive at atheism through some personal tragedy almost always end up reverting to theism at some point. Maybe this is why so many theists think this; the only atheists they ever encounter are the ones that leave the church in this way, and those that come back.

[Dogdoctor]

So are atheists angry? I think they are. Just using JREF atheists as a sample population there are much more angrier individuals by far than the population of my real life religious friends. Perhaps I just don't like to hang out with grumpy complaining loudmouths in real life. That certainly could explain a lot.

[supercorgi]

Thanks for mentioning it, I didn't notice the voting option at the bottom.
I gave it half a star -- I don't think you could vote and actually award it no stars.

[Pauliesonne]

I haven't been overly angry for a while but neither have I been overly happy.

I'd say...I've been content with my life for a while now.

[jimlintott]

Liked the letter Merc. It really quite describes myself and most of the atheists I know.

[RSLancastr]

From the article:

This must sound condescending and a large generalization, and I don't mean it that way, but I am tempted to believe that behind atheist anger there are oftentimes uncomfortable personal histories. Perhaps their atheism was the result of the tragic death of a loved one, or an angry degrading sermon, or an insensitive eulogy, or an unfeeling castigation of lifestyle choices or perhaps something even worse.

Yes, there are probably atheists who became atheists in this way.

Funny thing is, the paragraph works just as well if you substitute "theist" for "atheist":

This must sound condescending and a large generalization, and I don't mean it that way, but I am tempted to believe that behind theist anger there are oftentimes uncomfortable personal histories. Perhaps their theism was the result of the tragic death of a loved one, or an angry degrading sermon, or an insensitive eulogy, or an unfeeling castigation of lifestyle choices or perhaps something even worse.

[fishbob]

Mercutio,

You come off sounding angry. You immediately fall to the "straw man" argument in the first paragraph. I would concentrate on showing the Rabbi that he is too broad in classification of theiests and atheists.
What makes me angry is being lied to.

[senorpogo]

"This must sound condescending and a large generalization, and I don't mean it that way, but I am tempted to believe that behind atheist anger there are oftentimes uncomfortable personal histories. Perhaps their atheism was the result of the tragic death of a loved one, or an angry degrading sermon, or an insensitive eulogy, or an unfeeling castigation of lifestyle choices or perhaps something even worse."

Yeah. It's got nothing to do with the magic bread turning into flesh or the talking, burning bush (non-Dubya) killing innocent first born sons or the billion virgins guaranteed to suicide bombers (and all the rest).

Are atheist's generally angry?

[senorpogo]

Funny thing is, the paragraph works just as well if you substitute "theist" for "atheist":

True. Tough times usually make people religious.
I've never heard about "jail-house atheism".

[l0rca]

Drop the "great interest," and just go with "interest".

And for your grammatical style...

"...if the former, please allow me to tell you about an atheist I know fairly well: myself."

...Goes better than a single-sentence "me," if for nothing more than it follows better with your formal rhetoric.

There are some other outstretched sentences here and there, maybe due to the fact that you had two writing styles sort of clashing together in this essay; a formal voice and a artfully attacking one, which tend to make your argument less educational and more confronting (don't get me wrong, it should come off as educational if we're dealing with a neutral party, but he may jump at the slightest innuendo).

[Mercutio]

Drop the "great interest," and just go with "interest".
[snip]
Where were you before I submitted it?

Seriously, thanks...I think I made one or two changes before I submitted it, but I don't know if they were the things you mentioned. I'll live with it. Next time, though, I will have more patience, and wait for the hard-ass editors to have a go with it.

M

[delphi_ote]

From the article:




The rabbi may have his own particular issues, but this point is a common one I hear a lot from theists. Not only do I find that it is rarely the case, but also that people who arrive at atheism through some personal tragedy almost always end up reverting to theism at some point. Maybe this is why so many theists think this; the only atheists they ever encounter are the ones that leave the church in this way, and those that come back.
I had a traumatic experience that shook me out of my belief. But I wouldn't say it made me angry, it just made me realize how silly it is to expect a loving God to create a reality that can be so cruel. Matching the existence fundamentalists preach about to my experiences just doesn't work.

[Dunstan]

I already wrote and sent my response before I found this thread, so I'm not really looking for editing advice here. I liked Mercutio's letter; I took a different tack. Yes, I realize I risk being called "angry" here, but I think a little "righteous" indignation is appropriate, and that is one of the points I make. Anyway, here it is:

Dear Rabbi Gellman,

Responding to a "why are you so angry" column is a little like answering the question "have you stopped beating your wife," but I'll give it a try. Your column didn't anger me, but it strikes me as a seriously flawed straw man argument. However, I will take you at your word that you are genuinely interested in a dialogue with atheists, and will do my best to provide some non-angry insight into this side of the spiritual aisle.

First, you implicitly assume that atheists are angry. This is like asking "Why are feminists so angry? Every time I hear about them, they're protesting something!"

Most of us are not angry, at least not most of the time. You ought to consider the context in which you encounter atheists. I expect that your experience with atheists consists mainly of (1) reading about lawsuits or protests by atheists like Michael Newdow; and (2) receiving criticism from atheists in response to your writings and God Squad appearances.

I'm sure that Ann Coulter and Al Franken get horrible, angry emails from liberals and conservatives, respectively, but that hardly justifies any generalizations about whether liberals or conservatives are angry people by nature.

Most of us atheists go about our daily lives with no more or less anger than theists, but you wouldn't know this because we're a pretty invisible minority. We don't look any different than anyone else, and we don't even wear crosses or yarmulkes by which we can be identified. For all you know, the barista who served you coffee this morning, the accountant who just did your taxes, and that nice old man who always says hello to you when he's out walking his dog are all atheists.

I suppose I'm part of the "silent majority" of atheists. I don't go looking to pick fights with theists, I attend weddings in church if that's where my friends choose to wed, and I maintain a respectful silence if someone wants to say grace before a meal. Most of my acquaintances don't know I'm an atheist, not because I hide it or that it would shock them; it simply doesn't come up that often.

Second, in the context in which you encounter angry atheists, there's some justification for the anger. Your Newsweek column states that "I don't think they need to be religious to be good, kind and charitable people," but you're not very consistent on that point. On Aug. 26, 2002, the God Squad wrote "If there is no God, there would be no reason to do good." You also state in the Newsweek column that "I have no desire to debate or convert them", yet on Dec. 19, 2005, the God Squad wrote: "When someone says there is no God, it should represent the beginning of a discussion, rather than the end.."

But I don't need to quote-mine your archives. From your Newsweek article: "This must sound condescending and a large generalization, and I don't mean it that way, but I am tempted to believe that behind atheist anger there are oftentimes uncomfortable personal histories."

I'm ok with generalizing (there's no way to talk about atheists or any other group _as a group_ without making some generalizations), but as you had the grace to acknowledge, it does sound condescending. Telling people that their views on important issues are some kind of psychological flaw or is offensive. Try telling an environmentalist that he just craves attention and doesn't really care about saving the Earth. Try telling an animal rights activist that she's only passionate about protecting animals because she can't form good relationships with people. Try telling a pro-life activist that he only opposes abortion because he had a bad relationship with his mother and secretly hates woman. All of those things may be true in particular cases, or even (though I doubt it) as a general matter, but it's hardly a way to start a healthy, non-angry dialogue.

If an atheist told you that he thinks theists only believe in God because they're too stupid to think critically about the beliefs they were spoon-fed as a child, or because they're too cowardly and immature to face up to reality and want a big Sky Daddy to protect them, you would probably find that an offensive argument. You've probably heard it enough times that it wouldn't be shocking, but I doubt you would regard it as conducive to a mature discussion.

The reality is, atheists hear these kinds of arguments all the time. We're told that:

(1) we can't be moral people. It's hard to think of anything more offensive than being told that you're incapable of being moral.

(2) we can't be true Americans. George H.W. Bush said he didn't think atheists should be considered citizens, and in the Pledge of Allegiance, In God We Trust, and Ten Commandments debates we are frequently told that America is a Christian Nation. (Actually, as a Canadian this one doesn't bother me personally.)

(3) we don't really believe what we say we do -- either we're lying or in denial. Many theists actually can't wrap their heads around the concept of atheism, and think that we're all just folks who know God exists but have decided to spite him, presumably because we think hell sounds like a wonderful place to spend eternity. Others -- like you -- just claim that we're angry at God over some personal tragedy.

(4) if we voice any objection to (1) to (3), we're angry, unpleasant people.

You conclude by writing: "I can humbly ask whether my atheist brothers and sisters really believe that their lives are better, richer and more hopeful by clinging to Camus's existential despair: 'The purpose of life is that it ends.' I can agree to make peace with atheists whom I believe ask too little of life here on planet earth if they will agree to make peace with me and with other religious folk who perhaps have asked too much."

I could well ask you if you believe that your life is richer for believing that "God hates fags" as the Rev. Phelps so succinctly puts it. I trust he does not speak for you, just as Camus does not speak for me. Atheism is not nihilism. Yes, I believe that when we die, we're wormfood. That doesn't fill me with despair; it reminds me that there is no second act, so we should enjoy life to the fullest and appreciate our time with those we care about. I suggest to you that it is theists who "ask too little of life here on planet earth" by treating it as a qualifying heat rather than the main event.

But by all means, let us have peace, as long as peace does not require me to sit silently while my morals and honesty are impugned.

I apologize for the length of this email, but I wanted to give you a thorough and thoughtful response rather than a glib one.

Regards,

[Dunstan]

[Mrs. Hmmphries]

Now, I didn't think you sounded angry either.
Another good letter of response.

[Dunstan]

Thanks, madmonk. I should add that the "God Squad" I referenced is a spiritual advice column co-written by Rabbi Gellman. The Raving Atheist blog at www.ravingatheist.com regularly skewers their frequently contradictory and mealy-mouthed advice; check out RA's God Squad Review archives for examples.

[Mercutio]

Very nice, Dunstan.

[ruach1]

I have encountered many an angry atheist on this board.

I have encountered many an angry theist on this board.

It's a harsh generalization on both accounts here.
:clap:

[cyborg]

I await the news of responses eagerly. Hopefully the Rabbi will give your words the consideration they deserve.

[ruach1]

Slightly revised:

An open letter to Rabbi Gellman

Dear sir,

I read with great interest your web commentary of April 26, about the “angry atheists”. As a long-time atheist myself, I have a very different perspective than you do on this issue. Indeed, I was surprised from the very beginning of your commentary, from the very title itself. I cannot recognize myself in your description of atheists; are these “angry atheists” people you know personally, or are they your projection of what you feel atheists must be like? If the latter, please consider that your argument may be with yourself and your stereotypes; if the former, please allow me to tell you about an atheist I know fairly well. Me.

I am not angry. I think it would amuse anyone who knows me to think that such an adjective could ever be attached to me. I have debated with people, but civilly, thoughtfully, with respect for their views. When I search myself for the anger and the existential angst you say atheists cling to, I do not find it. What do I find instead?

I find love. Not some imitation of a god’s love, but real love for my friends, my family, my fellow human beings. I am thankful, not to a god for giving me these people, but to these people themselves for what they are to me, and what they allow me to be to them.

I find joy. I cherish life, knowing that this one life is all I get. The atheists I know (they must be very different people from the atheists you know) view life as precious, not as a waiting-ground for the real, eternal life to come. Camus’ “the purpose of life is that it ends” speaks only to one meaning of the word “purpose”. There is no higher purpose to which life is subsidiary; the purpose of life is to live. To make the world a better place, not because a god tells us to (and not all do), but because we care about our friends, our children, their children and theirs.

I find compassion. True, I did not pray for the victims of 9-11 or Katrina. I did not ask a god to do something that is my job to do. I donated money, I donated time, I donated blood. The name “anonymous” is not quite Camus, but the quote “two hands working do more than a thousand clasped in prayer” speaks every bit as much to an atheist’s world view.

I find sorrow. Those who have died have not gone on to a better place; they are simply gone. They live on only metaphorically, in our memories; for that reason, our memories of their lives are all the more precious. An acquaintance of mine believed that the murdered children of Andrea Yates were “better off now, with God.” To me, this only diminishes the very real tragedy, and allows us to distance ourselves from the overwhelming sadness that the senseless death of innocent children does, and should, elicit. It would be wonderful to believe that these children are in a better place, but I cannot choose my beliefs based on what I want to be true.

I suppose, when I think of cases like that, that I do find anger in myself as well. But it is anger directed toward the perpetrators of these acts, not directed at some god I do not even think exists. I can hold no more anger toward your god, Rabbi Gellman, than you would hold toward Zeus. The very idea of atheists being angry at a god is, on the face of it, ludicrous.

I would have hoped that your meeting with Dr. Watson would have prompted some changes in your essay. You consistently write about “atheists” rather than about “some atheists”, or “those atheists who are indeed angry”. You speak of atheists globally as “angry”, and yet the one concrete example you give proves this global statement wrong. I invite you to get to know more atheists; you will find that there are few, if any, adjectives that can be used to describe us all. Indeed, the one characteristic we hold in common is not so much a characteristic at all, but rather the lack of one. There is no one creed to atheism, no one set of values, no one set of beliefs. We are as varied as humanity itself. Get to know us…and then write another essay. About atheists as we are, not as you imagine us to be.

All the best,

M
That's probably what the Rabbi is going to see, and he just may respond accordingly.

[Mrs. Hmmphries]

Thanks, madmonk. I should add that the "God Squad" I referenced is a spiritual advice column co-written by Rabbi Gellman. The Raving Atheist blog at www.ravingatheist.com regularly skewers their frequently contradictory and mealy-mouthed advice; check out RA's God Squad Review archives for examples.


Sweet!
Thanks for the link.

[Mercutio]

That's probably what the Rabbi is going to see, and he just may respond accordingly.You may be right, ruach1; if he sees that accurately (ha!), he may see that we are individuals, not some monolithic group. But...he has seen Dr. Watson, without changing his views. If we are lucky, he may realize that some may see his own writing the same way.

eta: too bad, I suppose, but part of my point is that I could not possibly have written this with "we" as the pronoun.

[Dunstan]

Damn, my previous reply was eaten by the server.

I agree with Merc; it's important to personalize this issue. We need to take this from the abstract level of "atheists" -- an anonymous, impersonal bunch -- and down to the level of real people who love and care, try to do right, and are hurt when they're called liars or immoral. I think Merc's letter does a great job of presenting the positive side of atheism on a personal level.

[shecky]

From the article:

This must sound condescending and a large generalization, and I don't mean it that way, but I am tempted to believe that behind atheist anger there are oftentimes uncomfortable personal histories. Perhaps their atheism was the result of the tragic death of a loved one, or an angry degrading sermon, or an insensitive eulogy, or an unfeeling castigation of lifestyle choices or perhaps something even worse.


The rabbi may have his own particular issues, but this point is a common one I hear a lot from theists. Not only do I find that it is rarely the case, but also that people who arrive at atheism through some personal tragedy almost always end up reverting to theism at some point. Maybe this is why so many theists think this; the only atheists they ever encounter are the ones that leave the church in this way, and those that come back.

I've known a couple "atheists" whom I thought were mostly just angry with God for the tragic events in their lives.

I, on the other hand, always had in the back of my mind for as far back as I can remember, that my religious faith could always be wrong. It was faith, after all. I believed in God because I needed to. At some point, I came to realize I didn't need to believe in God any longer. So I stopped. No anger. No regrets. It was more like casting off a old pair of pants that no longer fit.

I wonder where i fit in the Rabbi's world view?

[Meffy]

Good point, Dunstan, about when and where the rabbi encounters atheists. And all the rest too. I hope he's honest about dialog and open to correcting his misconceptions (and projections?).

[senorpogo]

My open letter to the Rabbi...

Dear Rabbi,

uh, shut up.

Sincerely,
Angry Atheist

[Beerina]

What's the point? It's just one big straw man, and I find it completely offensive.

He labels atheists angry by default, and states we all cling to "existential despair".

Why is it that these "vicious Jews" cling on to their Bibles to justify beating their wives?

So this guy would prefer I went back to being a Christian, wherein Jews are all going to Hell?

Ok, then. Let's shall.

How can he cling to his Jewish "existential despair", knowing he is actually going to Hell? For the love of his soul, we should torture him until he sees the light. Think about it. It actually is the logical, kind thing to do.

And that's why religions are idiotic.

[Jekyll]

Despite the way he name checks Camus, I can't help but wonder if the good rabi has actually read any of his works.

From An Absurd Reasoning in The Myth of Sisyphus.

.... To a man devoid of blinders, there is no finer sight than that of the intelligence at grips with a reality that transcends it. The sight of human pride is unequaled. No disparagement is of any use. That discipline that the mind imposes on itself, that will conjured up out of nothing, that face-to-face struggle have something exceptional about them. To impoverish that reality whose inhumanity constitutes man's majesty is tantamount to impoverishing him himself. I understand then why the doctrines that explain everything to me also debilitate me at the same time. They relieve me of the weight of my own life, and yet I must carry it alone. At this juncture, I cannot conceive that a skeptical metaphysics can be joined to an ethics of renunciation[of life].
http://www.anselm.edu/homepage/dbanach/absurd%20reasoning.htm#section4a

Frankly, this is one of the best, and most uplifting, justifications for a rejection of dogma in favour of scepticism I have read.

Having a quick google, I can't actually find the quote “The purpose of life is that it ends." except in Rabbi Gellman's essay. Does anyone know what it's from?

[Cynric]

The dear rabbi has found a way to get attention. Has found a way to be in newspapers and on tv. He has found his way to fame, he is unlikely to give it up. He is trolling on a large scale. Pity the poor man who thinks himself so small he has to bolster his self-esteem by acting a fool ;) You would think a "man of god" would not need this.

That's a little harsh, surely? I personally found the Rabbi's column quite genial. I mean, he obviously has no notion why atheists do not believe in god (personal trauma? Really? I've seen that drive a lot of people to faith myself), but then I find it equally mind-boggling that anyone does believe in god.
I've never, even from my first memory of bible lessons at school (~4-5 years old), found the idea remotely credible. I spent my time at a Church of England school wondering why the teachers were pretending to believe in fairy stories. I imagine the Rabbi wonders why the atheists pretend not to believe in them.

He just seems confused, and incapable of extrapolating beyond his own world view; not particularly provocative or troll-like.

[Jeff Corey]

Merc,
Did you get any acknowledgement of your e-mail? I sent one in early Friday A.M. and got no response.

[Beerina]

Trying to Understand Angry Atheists
Why do nonbelievers seem to be threatened by the idea of God?

Given the vast majority are going to Hell, according to the Bible, even if you believe, who wouldn't feel threatened?

There's this hideous ogre-thingie in the sky that's going to reconstruct my body as indestructible (but not incapable of feeling pain), who will heave me into a lake of lava because, get this, even though I am fairly good, I didn't believe in him without proof, and sundry lesser and equally fantastic things.

[Mercutio]

Merc,
Did you get any acknowledgement of your e-mail? I sent one in early Friday A.M. and got no response.
Nothing so far.

[Mrs. Hmmphries]

Despite the way he name checks Camus, I can't help but wonder if the good rabi has actually read any of his works.

From An Absurd Reasoning in The Myth of Sisyphus.

http://www.anselm.edu/homepage/dbanach/absurd%20reasoning.htm#section4a

Frankly, this is one of the best, and most uplifting, justifications for a rejection of dogma in favour of scepticism I have read.

Having a quick google, I can't actually find the quote “The purpose of life is that it ends." except in Rabbi Gellman's essay. Does anyone know what it's from?


I haven't read it in ages, but I'm quite sure he says it. It's in passing, on the way to a point. It's taken out of context, but, if memory serves, the statement is in there.

[Dunstan]

Merc,
Did you get any acknowledgement of your e-mail? I sent one in early Friday A.M. and got no response.

Me neither. But that's not a big surprise since (1) the address I sent it to (the one on the "email the author" link) appears to go to a Newsweek editor rather than directly to the Rabbi; and (2) today is the Sabbath, so even if the Rabbi received our emails we probably couldn't expect a response until Sunday at the very very earliest.

[bjb]

The rabbi hasn't responded, but some reader's responses are here:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12537782/site/newsweek/?page=2

[l0rca]

I didn't notice there was a second page, or my browser didn't show it. Whoops.

[Euromutt]

Having a quick google, I can't actually find the quote “The purpose of life is that it ends." except in Rabbi Gellman's essay. Does anyone know what it's from?It might be from The Stranger, but it's been well over fifteen years since I read that (and I only read it in French), so don't take my word for it. If it is, though, we have the common error of attributing a character's thoughts to the author, and to paraphrase Stephen Fry, one might as well ask whether Mr. Shakespeare truly thinks it's permissible to strangle one's wife on the basis of a few whispered insinuations and a dropped hankie.

[JLam]

Ahhh, Google.

The rabbi is a member of the clergy at Temple Beth Torah in New York. There's no direct email link for the rabbi, but there is a general email addy.

info@tbtny.com

There's probably a better chance of the rabbi seeing the letters written by Merc and Dunstan if you fellas send them to this address.

Please don't spam the email address. I put it there so people can write thoughtful responses to the rabbi.

[NSXDavid]

Certainly there are a couple nice letters here, but I think they miss the point. The Rabbi generalized for narrative effect. We should not get so precise about critiquing his article that we lose sight of the important point he makes, and how to address it.

Let's be general for a bit. Atheists, and I count myself one of them, are angry. We should be angry anyway. And the trick is to help the Rabbi, in this general sense, understand what it is we are upset about.

In his world view, there is no harm if a theist believes in God. But in the Atheist world view, that's a stunning statement! One has to look no further than current events to find evidence to the contrary. An innocent, private belief in a Heavenly Father does not represent the scope of what evils Faith levies upon humanity.

And it is this that the Rabbi needs some help understanding.

My good friend Tracy and I are carefully drafting just such a response. We'll post it here soon for some help and insight.

-- David

[a_unique_person]

What makes me angry is being lied to.

Ditto. I have heard similar platitiudes from other religious figures. I have only one life to lead, I would prefer it if they did not make me waste a large part of it on fairy tales about how to live that life.

[a_unique_person]

I haven't read it in ages, but I'm quite sure he says it. It's in passing, on the way to a point. It's taken out of context, but, if memory serves, the statement is in there.

I don't like the philosophy expressed by these atheists, but at least I know it is just a persons opinion, and can reject it on logical ground, rather than think I have to believe an opinion based on supernatural authority.

[Dunstan]

According to the Newsweek mail page that was linked upthread, more than 1,000 replies were received. I think it's safe to say that Newsweek isn't passing them all along to the Rabbi. They've probably been read, at best, by some intern or sub-editor, with a handful passed upstream for printing on the letters page.

So, in other words, Merc's words and mine probably fell on deaf ears. But at least some people here appreciated them, and at least the three responses Newsweek has on the website are pretty decent.

[Dr Adequate]

I urge my atheist brothers and sisters to see things as Spinoza urged, sub specie aeternitatis —“under the perspective of eternity.” Oh really, Rabbi?

Spinoza's intellectual reorientation, however, came at a cost . His increasingly unorthodox views and, perhaps, laxity in his observance of the Jewish law strained his relations with the community. Tensions became so great that, in 1656, the elders of the synagogue undertook proceedings to excommunicate him. Without providing details, the writ of excommunication accuses him of 'abominable heresies' and ‘monstrous deeds’. It then levels a series of curses against him and prohibits others from communicating with him, doing business with him, reading anything he might write, or even coming into close proximity with him. Spinoza may still have been a Jew, but he was now an outcast. * (http://www.iep.utm.edu/s/spinoza.htm)I wonder why the Jews were so angry?

Spinoza associated himself with freethinkers in his youth and would eventually be expelled from the Jewish community in Amsterdam for his "abominable heresies" and "monstrous acts."

The reasons for such a reaction seem to include denying the laws of Moses and even the immortality of the soul. Spinoza also argued that God is simply the mechanism of the universe and that the Bible is nothing more than a metaphorical and allegorical work, not a divine revelation. This was all part of his development of a system which would become known as naturalistic or scientific pantheism.

Spinoza's pantheism, unlike some other forms, was very impersonal in how God was conceived. As a result, many people considered him an atheist and some even labeled him the "Greatest Atheist". * (http://atheism.about.com/library/glossary/general/bldef_spinozabaruch.htm)

[Dunstan]

I just received the following form response from Newsweek:


Dear Newsweek.com reader,

Thank you for contacting WebEditors at Newsweek.com. Since we receive hundreds of e-mail messages every week, we can't answer each one personally. We do, however, read and consider all e-mail we receive. We appreciate your comments and consider your feedback vital as Newsweek.com evolves to meet the needs of our readers.

The Webeditors@Newsweek.com e-mail address is for comments or questions relating to Web exclusive articles found on Newsweek.com or Newsweek.com in general. If you are sending comments or questions meant for another department, writers for the magazine or the editors of the print edition, your e-mail will be forwarded to the appropriate location for consideration.

Thank you for visiting Newsweek.com. Please come back soon.

Sincerely,
The Editors of Newsweek.com

PS---A quick reminder about our Web Exclusive Alert. Each week, our Web site produces dozens of original stories, audio, video clips and animations that you won't see in the pages of the magazine. Sometimes it's breaking news, other times insightful on-the-spot analysis by writers such as Jonathan Alter, Howard Fineman or Steven Levy, or it may be a video interview in which one of our writers tells the story behind the story. In short, we'd like to let you know when the editors think something of particular interest is on the site. Sign up at http://letters.newsweek.com/newsweekinteractive/regprofile.epl and you'll receive the Newsweek Web Exclusive Alert about two times a week, depending on the news. You can unsubscribe at any time. At the same time you can sign up for our Live Talk Alert, and World Update. Live Talk Alert lets you know when our interactive discussions with writers and newsmakers happen, and once a week, World Update brings you all of the Newsweek International stories you can't buy on US newsstands.

[Mercutio]

Me, too.

[c4ts]

Well when you make long speeches attacking someone, of course they're going to get angry. And when you misinterpret Camus's existentialist criticism as a direct representation of existentialism, they're going to be riled up! I mean, he has a point but the least you could do is make it clear that he is not arguing for existentialism. How many of Camus's portrayals of existentialism weren't deliberately absurd, anyway?

[Belz...]

Before I send this, I would appreciate any feedback and proofreading...

An open letter to Rabbi Gellman

Beautiful, man!

<sob>

[Jeff Corey]

I got the same form letter from Newsweak.

[Almo]

Good going, Mercutio! :)

ETA:
Apparently the Rabbi refers to "rap music." :D Nobody who listens to Rap calls it "rap music." You can always tell when someone doesn't like Rap if they call it that. What was REALLY funny was a Christian pop song a while back called "I Love Rap Music." Wow, that was some stupid --.