Well written, Messrs. L.*
Why is it that we almost never see the noun “atheist” without some pejorative adjective like “dyspeptic,” which Judith Shulevitz shoehorns into her review of “The Faith Instinct” (Dec. 27)? Are the great majority of atheists really sour and sulky, angry and indignant?
Some unbelievers, uneasy at being the only group known by what it does not believe, have started the Brights, an organization that declares its faith in a natural world, without supernatural intervention. The atheist Einstein professed awe and wonder at this earthly home of ours, and I have not read a word of grump in anything he — or William Butler Yeats, or Matthew Arnold, or a number of other nonbelievers, have said. C’mon, play fair.
*RICHARD LETTIS
Ramsey, N.J.
(Re “Atheists’ Ad Campaign” (letter, Dec. 10), about the American Humanist Association’s ads:) Rather than continuing to remain publicly invisible, the association has recently been fulfilling its mission to raise the visibility and respectability of humanism through ads and other activities. Members of A.H.A. identify themselves in various ways — humanist, agnostic, atheist, freethinker and so on. Our ads reach out to kindred spirits to let them know that they are not alone in their nontheism.
Some people are “embarrassed” by the public acknowledgment that we are humanists. People of good will are not offended simply because others assert differing beliefs. I am not offended by those who say they are good because of God. Similarly, they should not object to others saying they are good without God. As long as we are all good, we can be united in our good works. And this unity is what A.H.A.’s ad campaign can accomplish.
*Mel Lipman
Las Vegas, Dec. 10, 2009
The writer is immediate past president of the American Humanist Association.
(published in the Times)
Ramsey, N.J.
(Re “Atheists’ Ad Campaign” (letter, Dec. 10), about the American Humanist Association’s ads:) Rather than continuing to remain publicly invisible, the association has recently been fulfilling its mission to raise the visibility and respectability of humanism through ads and other activities. Members of A.H.A. identify themselves in various ways — humanist, agnostic, atheist, freethinker and so on. Our ads reach out to kindred spirits to let them know that they are not alone in their nontheism.
Some people are “embarrassed” by the public acknowledgment that we are humanists. People of good will are not offended simply because others assert differing beliefs. I am not offended by those who say they are good because of God. Similarly, they should not object to others saying they are good without God. As long as we are all good, we can be united in our good works. And this unity is what A.H.A.’s ad campaign can accomplish.
*Mel Lipman
Las Vegas, Dec. 10, 2009
The writer is immediate past president of the American Humanist Association.
(published in the Times)
Charles Darwin (
Posts
1 comment:
Unfortunately Einstein, Yeats et al are not representative of the atheists posting on the Net, or writing books at present. The rantings of Dawkins et al, where the very idea of belief (not just religion: belief) is sneered at as 'delusional', hardly suggest happiness or empathy. Nor does the endless stream of juvenile insults - FSM, fairy stories, and so on - that too many atheists throw at anyone who happens to disagree with them. They may be perfectly happy people in their everyday lives, off the Net, but once they're on that hobbyhorse, they seem to have nothing positive to say. Religions are never allowed to have done any good, whether on a broad level or individually in people's lives. Any sort of worldview that goes beyond materialism is attacked as a combination of mental illness and a sort of fifth-column-for-the-fundamentalists. I've seen deists and agnostics repeatedly attacked for not being atheists. That sort of thing definitely leaves the impression of a sour and hostile mindset. And the whole Brights thing was laughable - talk about ivory tower stuff. "We didn't mean it to suggest that non-atheists are dim!" Yeah, right. Either the coiners of that term were extremely naive, or very arrogant. It comes across in too many atheist postings in general, too: we're so smart, we don't need to be told anything about morality or ethics (never mind that these human concepts have been much influenced and shaped by religious societies and we've inherited them). It's a case of closed minds and assuming they know what's best for everyone, or worse, that they understand someone else's experiences better than that person does. Just like the uglier versions of institutional religion, in fact. And just as joyless.
Post a Comment