Hate Mail Replies - Part I

Now to respond to some of the comments from my angry religious readers...These are all in reply to my post THANK YOU, National Geographic!, in praise of the issue with the cover asking "Was Darwin Wrong?" and the first page answering "NO!"

Anonymous said, "All you have to do to understand what life without God would be like is to look at the animal world, when a male cat comes upon a litter of kittens that are not his he kills them...We only strive for civility because of our knowledge of God. If there were no God I would just kill you for your food."

If this statement is true, then Anonymous should be institutionalized. No one can use God or the lack of God to justify murder or sociopathic behavior. The millions of ethical atheists around the world who are leading perfectly functional lives, knowing that there is no God, are proof that we do not need one. And while I'm at it, to the atheists who believe that some people would be forever lost without their misguided faith: don't you think that this view is a bit pompous?

I happen to hold everyone to the same moral standard that I hold myself to. I refuse to coddle other people as if they are inferior to me. Adults are capable of treating each other with civility, with or without a belief in a god. In response to the statement about male cats killing kittens that are not their own: assuming that a person was raised by humans rather than by feral cats, they have no excuse to do intentional harm to anyone.

That being said, I've always thought it was more commendable to see an atheist do something charitable than it is to see a believer do so. As atheists, we can be honest, caring people, not because we are afraid of divine punishment or we seek some reward in the afterlife. We are good people because we have advanced beyond the toddler stage and we can feel empathy for others. We do not have to do the right thing, but we do it because it is rewarding in itself. I would argue that for this reason, the ethical code of the atheist is more admirable than that of the religious person. If you had a young child and he decided to help you clean the dishes without being asked to do so, wouldn't you be more impressed than if the child only did his chores after you threatened some form of punishment, or enticed him with the reward of dessert? More on the origins and reasons for an atheist ethic to come. For now, on to the next comment...

Anonymous said, "Don't forget to mention to the public that evolution is completely homophobic as there is no way that two organisms of the same sex would be attracted to each other because they can't reproduce and would completely fall outside the evolutionary model of survival of species."

Who said that the meaning of life was solely to reproduce via childbirth? And who said that the meaning of sex was solely to reproduce? I certainly didn't. And how can you be so certain that homosexuality falls outside of the evolutionary model of "survival of the species," anyways? Has it occurred to anyone that in a time in which overpopulation and diminishing resources are a threat to the survival of every species including our own, the evolutionary biological (or, more likely, cultural) basis for homosexuality may start to make an awful lot of sense when we look back on it? Did I mention that studies show increased homosexual behavior in certain animals when food is scarce? Of course, now it's possible for two women to have a child together, but this is obviously something that has to be prepared for and planned in advance. Imagine if all heterosexual couples had to put that much thought into having children...

That's all the time I have tonight. More hate mail responses to come later...