Ask the Atheist

It is sad to think that many people who live selfishly will never be punished for it in their lifetimes, and then receive no punishment after death. That's why it's important to work to bring them to account while they're alive. The idea that it would be right, or just, for them to be judged when they die will not make it happen. It can be nicer to imagine, but that doesn't make it true. It's up to living people to uphold justice as we see it. Take it as motivation, not discouragement.

Generally our personal beliefs and values are passed on to us by our parents and friends, and reinforced by scoiety. Fair or not, that's how it is. You always have the option to go against those beliefs and values, but then you're going against your family, your friends, your society and often your own instincts. It is possible, and on rare occasions it's the best thing to do. It's what most religious people face when they want to leave their religions, for example.

There's no afterlife in an atheist's worldview. That's why I value life so much. Since there's no reward waiting for me, I work to have my rewards while I'm still here. That needn't mean living selfishly, as charity and altruism can be their own reward. If I believed in a heavenly afterlife I could reach, I might be satisfied with a less wonderful life because I'd think something better was coming. Again, the fact that it's a nice idea does not make it true. So I try to make my heaven right here.

- SmartLX

I hear this question all the time. In fact, my Rambo-Kitty avatar is partially inspired by the question. Anyway, today I was reading an article about the debate between Sam Harris and Rick Warren, and was struck by Warren's statement, "I've never met an atheist who wasn't angry."

My first reaction was denial. Many atheists, myself included, are happy most of the time. My atheist friends are great fun to hang out with. We laugh and joke and drink beer, and hardly ever mention religion.

My second reaction, I confess, was anger. How dishonest of him to try to discount atheism by labeling us all as angry malcontents! This is exactly why people like him make me angry!

That's when it hit me, square in the forehead. He's not being dishonest. I don't doubt that every atheist he's met has been angry. If I met him, he'd almost certainly make me angry, too. That's just it! HE makes atheists angry, so they're all angry around him. So, I forgive him for thinking that all atheists are angry. I understand how he made the mistake.

Anyway, I'd like to reflect on "Atheist Anger" for a few minutes, and ask a couple of questions.

First, why is it a bad thing to be angry? The suffragists were quite angry, and for good reason. New Zealand had granted women equal voting rights in 1893, and America, supposedly the land of equality, was violently opposed to the idea twenty years later. There are still plenty of women who are angry because women make less money doing the same jobs as men in many industries, and women are often not even considered for promotions when they're equally (or better) qualified for the position. Are they wrong for being angry? Should they just sit quietly and wait for men to realize the error of their ways? Some people think so. I've noticed that the majority of them are men.

Am I making a valid comparison? Is it reasonable to compare life as an atheist in America in 2007 to life as a woman in the early 20th century? Clearly there are significant differences. Atheists can vote. They can, in theory, hold public office. They can get married, sign contracts, work wherever they're qualified. So, do we atheists have a right to be angry in the same way suffragists had?

To answer that question, I'll recall some more history. In Mosaic law, as we all know, women were slightly better than slaves. They had no property rights. In Roman law, women were completely dependent on male relations for all legal matters, and when they were married, it was a matter of purchase between two families.

Here, we can ask a pointed question. Do women have the right to be angry that they're not making as much as men in the workplace? After all, they can vote, own property, divorce their husband, sue him for child support and alimony, and live quite happily on their own. This country is one of the best places in the world to be a woman! What right do women have to be angry?

If your skin prickled a little bit when you read the previous paragraph, good for you. You're halfway to understanding why atheists have a right to be mad. The reason women still have a right to be mad is that things are still not equal. They have no obligation to remain silent simply because they have it better than someone who lived a hundred, or a thousand years ago. The reason women have it better now is that people were angry all through history, and made small gains here and there over many generations. Without the fuel of anger, women would still be property, and wouldn't even have the opportunity to be mad about making less money in the workplace.

So, what about us atheists? Do we have a right to be mad? Actually, yes. Did you know we've had atheist presidents? We have. I'll let you do your own homework on this, but it might surprise you to learn that many of the leaders of the U.S. throughout history have been openly atheist. Is this possible today? One congressman in California recently admitted to being atheist, and it caused a nationwide stir! It remains to be seen whether he'll be reelected. To be sure, he'll be attacked for being godless and amoral when election time comes around.

Until the McCarthy Era, the pledge of allegiance didn't have the word "God." Money didn't have "In God We Trust." Until the 70s, Christians were not actively involved in politics for the purpose of legislating religious values. Clearly, America is more theist than it used to be, at least politically. So, are things getting better for atheists? I dare say they're not. Unlike women, our situation is not improving. We are not being afforded more respect. Rather, we are being legislatively pushed farther into the margins where we have been quietly lurking for sixty years since the Red Scare.

To bring things back around, recall my comment about my atheist friends and I sitting around having beers and laughs. This is a good picture for you to hold in your mind's eye when you think of me, or any other atheist. This is what we want. We don't like being angry any more than women who'd like to be paid more. I'm sure all the angry feminists would rather things were better for women so they wouldn't have to be angry anymore. It's the same with atheists. If we were a bit less hated, vilified, and marginalized, it would be a lot easier for us to be in the presence of theists and not get angry.

Why are atheists so angry? Because things could be better, and we don't like being marginalized.

Hambydammit
Rational Response Squad
My article on this was originally posted here.

Your question is asked in good ole theistic backwards style. The questions you ask have very obvious answers, the type that almost don't warrant answering. But in the spirit of AskTheAtheist, I'll play along. Truly the only reason I jumped in was so I could get another stab at linking to Jake's morality video. Jake is the creator of this site, if you're just joining the party.

Here are the answers to your questions (I'll answer them in a very basic style, k ?)...

How can you justify morality based on a guide that cant be proved?

How's this for a guide that can be proved... one person shoots another person, everyone who loved the victim is crying. Do you think the people crying are hurt and upset, maybe even devastated? Do you feel good when you are hurt and devastated? If you are like me, you don't feel good when you are hurt, therefore you try not to devastate and hurt other people.

I understand how a social contract is constucted, but what purpose does it serve in the end?

It keeps us alive as a society, otherwise we'd most likely all be dead.

And if there is no purpose to existence, why are we alive?

What book told you there was no purpose? The Bible? I've never known anyone in my life without a purpose, that's just some retarded bullshit nonsense that Christian terrorists pull on you to scare you into believing their bat-shit stupidity. Avoid them, they're con artists.

- Brian Sapient
Rational Response Squad

Something which was very nearly a man (or woman), but was technically an ape according to our modern classification system.

The offspring was very slightly mutated; it was just different enough from its ape parents to get across our arbitrary line and be properly human. Whatever was different, it was probably something beneficial like longer legs, stronger hands or a bigger brain.

Of course, the first human didn't care about classifications and it didn't know it was human. We just think about it this way in retrospect.

- SmartLX

I think the universe is way too big for Earth to be the only planet with life, but the universe is so big that other life might never find us, and vice versa.

I don't think aliens left their mark on ancient civilisations. We recognise the pictures you refer to as spaceships or whatever because we see a lot of spaceships in fiction and real life. The original artists were probably trying for something very different.

I don't think any of the more recent evidence of UFOs is terribly conclusive proof of aliens, but a lot of them are certainly unidentified flying objects as far as the people with the cameras are concerned.

- SmartLX

Miracles, until proven to have been impossible and yet to have happened, are just interesting stuff that might have happened.

I can't explain how the world was created, not least because I don't know whether it was created. God is one hypothesis for its origin, and a very unlikely one at that; there are many others. The universe might even be eternal, and have no origin at all.

Humans were not created, they evolved over millions of years from increasingly human-like animals. The male and female sexes evolved too, much earlier in the piece.

- SmartLX

Simple belief in a god does no harm by itself, but it is rarely simple and it rarely comes without company.

Imagine someone who really believes that God watches over them at all times, and judges their human failings harshly. This person might be absolutely convinced that they're going to Hell. They'd be depressed, they'd have low self-esteem and they might even try something drastic to redeem themselves, like going to Burma to fight with the Karen. Even if they don't, it's a miserable life.

Imagine someone who believes in the Buddhist concept of reincarnation. This person might look at an infant who is horribly deformed because of some genetic disorder, and rather than pitying the poor child, think, "I don't like her. She must have done something really terrible in a past life to be reborn like that."

Imagine someone who believes that if you martyr yourself for Allah, you will wake up in heaven where 72 virgins...well, you know where this is going.

There is often a logical path from simple beliefs to harmful thoughts, and tragic actions. Not everyone takes this path, but it's always there for the taking. It's a matter for debate whether the benefits of religion are unique to religion, but it's a lot more believable that religion is a critical part of such exotic and dangerous reasoning.

- SmartLX