I realized that interestingly enough there was no God category. No religion section of the site which I find interesting. Not to say I consider those two to be the same. I might have at one point, but probably not now. I don’t think I was consciously censoring myself, but maybe subconsciously.
Regardless, welcome to the first post of Things Above section of the site. Today brought to you by the Independant Florida Alligator, and Lin Baugher, my officemate.
Lin clipped out two pieces in the paper and pointed them out to me yesterday. He felt that while the first was well done, and he was ok with anyone disagreeing, he felt the second didn’t do it very well. Or something. Strange–I finally read them this morning and thought they both expressed their views fairly well. Interesting what our biases bring into the picture. Neither piece was flawless, but I thought they were both fairly good representations of each side. I’m not sure what Lin sees as the shortcomings of the second, but I’m sure I will when he next is in the office.
In the meantime, what do you think? Not only of the views expressed in each piece, but in the manner in which they were presented? Did they each do well in their attempts, or do you think one outshone the other, and if so, is that side more in-line with your personal beliefs, was the other, or neither?
Both were pretty even as far as arguments. Both made decent points but neither fleshed out those points very well. The 2nd probably made too many points in rhetorical question form instead of writing out arguments, that would be the major flaw that I saw. The big flaw in the first that hit my mindset was that it discounted religion as not coming from life experience, and from my own personal experiences I would have to disagree with that. Of course, if you have no personal experiences of your own, that point would be difficult. I would usually question why people know the difference between right and wrong without some higher moral code, but the atheist didn’t have a problem with common moral ground. Those are the main things that stood out in my quick reading.
Left by Evan on October 23rd, 2003
My main problem with the second article was that it’s very hard to follow. Instead of presenting solid arguments and reasoned out supporting reasoning, it presented a list of questions to think about. And, for me, each of these questions resulted in answers that did not result in the conclusion they were looking for. Instead of presenting solid arguments for the other side to understand, it presented questions that would elicit a standard response from Christian religious group-think.
Left by Eric on October 23rd, 2003
Perhaps it is the typo in the second one that set Lin against it, no? OK… no. Probably not.
Still, I think the first one has more reach. It is definately more readable, and an early adolescent could get all of it and even have a laugh. Shawn’s salesmanship is honed. His column has appeal. You might laugh; you might side with his haughty view about his time; you may nod at his invitation at the end; and you’ll certainly recognize the final slogan. Shawn plays with style. Shawn has the answer! Come, enjoy simple, moral pleasures.
The second column is stale… or devoid of style. It is heady too. Perhaps even difficult to follow. It is a challenging read. This is the Alligator; this is edutainment… Paul, you’ve interrupted my regular programming! Paul, you’re being heady! Paul, I’m annoyed and I am going to answer in defiant passive aggressiveness. Paul, I say no to you.
Yeah, that’s my opinon. I am a theist and I think Paul’s salesman ship lacks. The Alligator (and any other newsprint in which this might be reproduced) is a commercial medium. Know this and sell yourself better without selling out.
I agree with Eric’s comments as well. Paul would be well served if he thought outside of “Christian religious group-think,” put himself in the shoes of the athiest (or perhaps the agnostic because that is the only person either of these two people have any hope of reaching) and begin from there.
I’m glad that he has the heart to write something like that though, and I wish Shawn hadn’t played “I’ve got better things to do than continue writing this” at the end of his piece, when he obviously cares about this.
Left by David on October 24th, 2003
Carlin’s joke is funny. It also seems familiar because I think I’ve seen that story before.
I’ve seen a man living under the sky. He has a dog. He doesn’t watch everything it does, but he does have a special, unwritten list of things he doesn’t want his dog to do. If the dog does any of the things on this list he’s also got a special place that is completely unpleasant where he sends his dog, but he loves his dog. He’s his best friend after all.
I think his joke is funny because of the human elements in it. I think that it is foolish to anthropomorphize God, but I also think that mockery is the way of fools.
I am always annoyed with the fact that laughter can be used to win over an audience and/or make a point. Laughter somehow implies agreement, but often you are simply distracted long enough to buy into the jester’s point of view. Magic!
(I guess the “smart” thing to do here is to use this realization and learn to be funny when I need to manipulate an audience of one or more.)
Left by David on October 24th, 2003
The first article is certainly written better. As David said, it grabbed the reader, makes use of some simple but effective sylistic hooks and presents its points. I chuckled at the Garry Larson quip in the beginning and rolled, despite disagreeing with some of his points (though certainly not all). The second one preaches at me, and at this point in my life I have zero tolerance for being preached at.
I despise the second writer for the suggestion that those who do no believe as he does (presumably a brand of Protestantism) live a “hedonistic life” because they lack God to guide them. This jumps out at me as just tremendously ignorant, and really knocks his entire argument down a peg in my book. Of course some atheists are hedons, but then so are some Christians (and some Muslims and some Jews and some…). It’s this sort of presumed absolute moral superiority that has caused so much religious strife since the beginning of time, and has no place in rational religious discourse (IMHO, of course).
Personally I think one can certainly have a moral code in the absence of a supernatural power (Confucianism is an excellent example of this, though the moral code it sets down is not particularly nice), though I also think that a moral common ground is possible. If you look at most major religions the basic moral beliefs are the same, they are just called different things. I think that these are less “order from [God|Allah|Buddha]” and more just basic human sensibilities that have been melded into world religions.
But then I’ve been listening to Nelly and Snoop the entire afternoon, and so I’m not sure how much I should be talking about moral uprightness and such
Left by John on October 24th, 2003
Hm, maybe it is because I grew up in the church, but the 2nd article didn’t seem that preachy to me. Yes, as I mentioned before it has too many rhetorical questions instead of making real points, but I don’t think he meant to say that there aren’t morals outside of the theist viewpoint. I think the question is where do morals come from if religion is only an imaginary pursuit. If after all we have no reason to be nice, why should we be more than intelligent animals. Or maybe that is just my point of view imposing itself on the article. The idea is theoretical for me anyway since I do believe in God, and there are morals.
Left by Evan on October 24th, 2003
I’ve always felt that atheists have even more reason to be nice than theists… after all, this is their only shot at existence. Morals are just a compromise between doing what we want and providing everyone a comfortable, peaceful life.
Left by John on October 24th, 2003
I didn’t realize this website had categories.
Left by Matt on October 25th, 2003
Check the archives link.
Left by Jordan on October 25th, 2003
I went to a ‘does god exist?’ debate at UF a few years ago. The whole thing was poorly thought out and childish. The atheist used religion to disprove religion. The theist used science to disprove atheism. Neither side had anything useful to say about either side. That debate closely parallels this debate. Both sides are retarded.
For some reason, the people who zealously argue the theism vs atheism thing seem to grasp onto the same load of idiotic ‘facts’. These ideas are almost constant in any argument I’ve seen of this kind. I could list them, but that’d make your screen really messy.
Have you noticed that more often than not the ‘religion is bad’ people lump all religions together in the ‘religion starts wars’ argument? Have you also noticed that the ‘lack of religion is bad’ people talk about Christianity and lump together the other religions with atheism? I have a feeling that western society’s complete misunderstanding of anything Muslim (or other ‘wacky’ faiths from Africa and Asia) fuels debates over God in general since non-Christian religions fill in the extra space in what I like to call the ‘Venn Diagram of Idiotic Disagreement’.
Anyway, I think that many people tend to be a little excessive when arguing for their particular cause. You know, calling religious people mindless lemming zealots or calling atheists closed-minded lazy hedonists. I have a feeling that lots of the people who argue like this do so because they have serious doubts about their own side and feel that if they can convince others, they’ll feel better themselves about probably having chosen the right path. I think this because I’ve argued for both sides in that way, for that reason.
How do I feel about these letters being published in the Alligator? I think any discussion of religion is good. But I hope neither letter has been successful by itself in changing anybody’s opinion. If someone decides that God does or doesn’t exist because they read something in The Alligator, that’d just be a tragedy.
Left by Errr on October 26th, 2003
Heheh, you said “I agree with Eric.” Sorry, i still find that funny.
Anyway, I think the thread as strayed beyond the scope of the question posed. The question wasn’t about whether god exists or doesn’t exists. Whether all non-christians are hedonists or murderers or whatever. But I’m going to answer anyway.
Regarding Evan’s comment about needing god to have a reason to be good. I’ve always felt the ‘fear of god’ argument for doing good rather weak. If the main reason for you to follow a moral code and do good unto others, etc, is because if you didn’t you’d spend an eternity in hell, then you’re not actually a good person, you’re just a fearful one.
Having a set of rules and guidelines to live by exists in all cultures, be it through religion, philosophical movements, or forced upon people by totalitarian rulers. I think this is because this is necessary for the survival of humanity.
If everyone raped, murdered, and pillaged all of the time, soon everyone would be dead. As a necessary part of survival, people would have to band together, to work together against the disorganized barbarian masses. For these groups to survive without killing eachother, they’de necessarily have to follow a set of rules. These rules are for everyone’s benefit and by following these rules you’re helping both yourself and everyone around you. From this, a basic idea of right and wrong could be born. If you do the wrong thing, you hurt yourself and those around you. As such, you are more than likely punished for your actions.
If you look at the core laws, moral, or commandments, they basically cover the same fundamental set of rules and guidelines to ensure the survival of the group. Rules, whether they’re learned, forced upon us, or etched on stone tablets, are necessary for the survival of any group, without them we wouldn’t be here today.
So back to the question at hand. A quick tally of the commets above:
arguing is stupid: 1
didn’t really say either way: 1
second is less well argued: 3
you have topics?: 2
Left by Eric on October 27th, 2003
I didn’t mean doing the right thing because you have to for fear of God, I meant that God as the inventer of all things also contributed moral standing, but I suppose it leads the same direction. Good people in religions still do those good things not because they have to but because they want what is best (and no, no one human is always that good, no matter what they believe). Granted the view of what is best is coming from God’s will because the belief would be that God knows best.
Left by Evan on October 28th, 2003