|
I just wanted to post this here and get some thoughts on my introduction to an article I'm writing for a local online "paper" that deals with different aspects of society. They wanted a young Atheist to write about their perspective on religion and the world as it is right now. Keep in mind this is just the first page, in what could end up being a 4 - 5 page article. I was asked to write this because of a myspace blog I wrote awhile back about religion and politics. It was fairly vulgar and they didn't want to post it up on their site. They asked me if I could manage to get across the same sort of passion without the actual cursing, so I'm giving it a shot.
I'll just copy and paste it from my myspace blog so it will be a little rough. If you want to read it with the links from wiki involved and all that let me know and I'll throw you on my preferred list on myspace or something. I'm lazy and don't feel like redoing the links here.
My Take on Religion: This one will be more "reader friendly" perhaps. It seems using vulgar language in context with religion may offend some people. So I opted to delete my old Political / Religious rant and transform it into more of an essay-esque blog post. I can't promise that there won't be any "bad" words involved in this post, but I promise to keep them to a bare minimum.
(If there is a number by the word, that means there is a link to the wikipedia definition of the word. I will be quite obnoxious with these, try not to take it personally)
*************INCOMING LONG ESSAY************
We'll just start with where my religious beliefs fall or rather my lack of religious beliefs. I am an Atheist(1)<------Click on the number and it will link you to the definition like magic ---(continuing the sentence)---> and I pretty much find the idea of any type of deity(2) involved in the universe as, well quite honestly, a reach.
"They tricked me once with Santa Clause, I'm not going to let my heart get broken like that ever again" - Daniel Lykins
That should be the end of this whole post, since it should sum up everything, yet people misinterpret atheism. Atheists seem to be looked upon as the modern day devils of society. Religious followers point to historic leaders like Stalin as a prime example of what athiests become, seemingly forgetting all the massacres and mistreatment caused by religion of all shapes and sizes. They seem to think atheists can't have morals (3).
Most people who read this will assume I'm attacking the Christian faith. I have more animosity towards the Christian faith sure, but I'm really talking about all religion that are driven by the idea of god / gods having some part to play in our world. Let me make a list so I can make sure to cover most of them and people won't feel left out.
Abrahamic Religions : Babism (4); Baha'i (5); Christianity (6); Gnosticism (7); Islam (8); Sunni (9); Shi'a (10); Judaism (11); Rastafarianism (12); Sabians (13); Samaritanism (14); Mormonism (15)
Dharmic / Indian Religions : Ayyavazhi (16); Buddhism (17); Hinduism (18); Jainism (19); Sikhism (20)
Iranic Religions : Neo-Manichaeism (21); Zoroastrianism (22)
I'm going to conclude the list there, hoping that you got the idea of why I opted to list all of these religions. I didn't even touch African / Taoic / Far Eastern / East Asian / Indigenous / Native American Religions. Now I'd like someone to logically explain to me how they know their religion is the correct path to follow. Faith (23) is not a valid explaination either. You wouldn't accept me saying "I have faith there is no god.", so why should I accept you saying "I have faith in my God." ? Faith is such a vague word, it can be used in so many contexts that it loses value.
 
|
also this hasn't been spell checked or anything of that nature. so please don't point out every grammatical fuck up, i know they are there.
<3
ps - it also looks much cleaner in my other blog. different font size, underlines, boldness in places ect ect ect.
|
Well, I write some essays and articles too, and what I will mention about your article in terms of construction (going by the little you posted) is something I struggle with in my own writing, so don't think I'm condescending or anything like that. I think it seems like you are trying too hard to be academic or proper or... something along those lines. I think you would do better to be more organic about it. Be you, not an academic. Be real so that real people can relate to it. You probably aren't writing for a scientific journal. Sometimes it seems like being really proper and "distant" will give you more credibility, but I think you lose a lot of the spirit of what you are trying to say.
I think you could probably be a bit more concise with regard to the fact that you are critical of all religious thinking. I'm often told I could be way more concise, too.
Now my next thought is perhaps beyond the scope of what you are asking, but I'll bring it up anyway as it is something I think about a bit. I see a lot of young people (swear I'm not being condescending here) that are very critical of religion and very serious about their atheism. I was one such person until the last couple of years. I think that as atheists, we sometimes feel like a great minority, and like the majority is somehow oppressing us and greatly misrepresenting us. I think that this feeling is a distortion. Essentially, in America, we live in a society that labels itself Christian, but is anything but. The true religion of this country is consumerism. Many people will say they are Christian, but they give no thought to Christ, little thought to God, and essentially just don't seem to care much about anything other than their immediate lives: family, friends, work, consumption, etc (increasingly just work and consumption, I feel.)
So, what I'm saying is this debate between atheism and Christianity is essentially irrelevent (my opinion, of course.)
I still basically identify as an atheist, but I've realized that my values (and yours may differ - that is fine) are similar to the values of Ghandi and MLK and Thoreau and, of course, Jesus Christ (as laid out in Matthew during the sermon on the mount.) Rather than engage in what I believe to be an irrelevent debate with Christians, I would rather try to emphasize our common ground in promoting peaceful, loving, humane values.
As an example, Jesus spoke of not being greedy, never being violent, never judging others, loving everyone, including our enemies, and so on. Do you really think any Christian that really embraced these values would give you a hard time for being an atheist? Of course not! The world would be much better for all of us, and in that case, who cares if people believe in a non-existent sky deity?
Those are my long winded thoughts. Peace!
Nick
|
Well, I do recognize you specifically said you aren't picking on Christianity in particular, but I think what I'm saying is still pretty relevant, as many different religions teach very similar values. Some religions, particularly the more atheistic or polytheistic, are extremely accepting of differing view points.
|
United States24483 Posts
Well put, nA.Inky. I also found that there wasn't much of this "passion" in what you posted. Maybe it really does need the vulgar language. I think we'll need to read more than your introduction before we can really judge if you are doing what the publisher apparently selected you for. BTW why are you using wikipedia?
|
Yeah I probably should have posted my last blog that I took down to kind of round out where I was going with the article. I always start out very academic just to get the basis of my arguments out of the way. Then I'll transform it to my personal writing and more or less wing it without the use of links and so on and so forth. The link thing was just to kind of be cynical and assholish on purpose, so I'm hoping I overdid it a bit.
Basically the whole jist of the article is going to be a look at how religion doesn't absolutely need to be existent for there to be this great moral code. I'm from middle America where there is quite a bit more hate on other religions. I'm the only atheist in my immediate family, and also the one with probably the least amount of problems (socially, economically, legally) and so on and so forth. I don't damn religion for any reason other than to basically give perspective as to the thoughts in my heads (and obviously other atheists heads). I'm all for the morals that most religions set down, but when they proceed to track along the line of "If you don't have religion then you don't have a way to guide your life".
So I'm in agreement with you, but I wanted to come off kind of pompous / academic / scholarly at the beginning. I know it may seem like a strange tactic but it can be humorous if I change the pace and bring it back down to the real world level.
I'm also planning to lay down my thoughts on polytheism and monotheism. I know a lot of cultures religion more or less outline their government and help set up their society. I'll dive into quite a lot of topics and just kind of play around see what happens. They didn't limit me on pages since it's online. I don't plan on writing a book, but they did want at least 4 pages. I'll just see where it goes and try to keep it under 10  .
Thanks for the response though, and you don't come off as condescending at all, especially since that was kind of the thoughts I was looking to get.
|
On November 17 2007 06:58 micronesia wrote:
Well put, nA.Inky. I also found that there wasn't much of this "passion" in what you posted. Maybe it really does need the vulgar language. I think we'll need to read more than your introduction before we can really judge if you are doing what the publisher apparently selected you for. BTW why are you using wikipedia?
The links are just kind of there for a joke... and if someone really needs to look stuff up for definitions then why not wikipedia?
|
United States24483 Posts
On November 17 2007 07:11 suresh0t wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2007 06:58 micronesia wrote:
Well put, nA.Inky. I also found that there wasn't much of this "passion" in what you posted. Maybe it really does need the vulgar language. I think we'll need to read more than your introduction before we can really judge if you are doing what the publisher apparently selected you for. BTW why are you using wikipedia? The links are just kind of there for a joke... and if someone really needs to look stuff up for definitions then why not wikipedia? Because the definitions on wikipedia are either invalid or just link to another source that you could have linked to in the first place? I realize you don't really care though.
|
Well, I'd be happy to read whatever you come out with, and it sounds like others would as well. Definitely agree with Micronesia that it is hard to say much based on your intro.
I also well know the frustration that comes from people saying you can only be moral with religion. Sometimes, rather than confronting them, I appeal to their own religious system. I might talk about how I respect Jesus and try to model some of his teachings with my own life (which is true - of course some atheists might not try to live that way at all!)
A big reason I aim to be down to Earth in my writing is that I don't like to overburden myself with sources and facts. Sometimes you can get lost in being too methodical and logical and, and get lost in your facts and sources, and then somehow the soul of the message is lacking. It's a double edged sword, to be sure... too down to Earth and people might not take you seriously as a thinker (hence my own struggle with style - but I prefer the down to Earth even if just for the fact that it is more simple and pleasurable to write that way.)
The best writers (from my perspective) can talk about difficult issues in a way that anyone can understand. A great example is Rachel Carson, who wrote Silent Spring - a serious book that really boosted the environmental movement. That book is very solid, in terms of the science, but it is also written in a way that is just a pleasure to read. It's not dry.. it's not difficult. Whereas Noam Chomsky, for example, is a total brain, full of powerful information, but he is a real pain in the ass to read. We are people before scientists or scholars, and so I try to write for people (like I said, sometimes it's a struggle.) So that is something of my thinking on style. Good luck to you, man!
Nick
|
Micronesia: Your critique of wikipedia is interesting. I've heard many professors and students criticize wikipedia as being an inadequate source. The thing is, your criticism of wikipedia is essentially a criticism that could be leveled against any source and any expert. Whatever your source, it is essentially pointing to something else. I can quote a book written by an expert, and that is my source, but then that expert has gathered information from other sources, and ultimately it comes down to a person's observation that may or may not be correct. One source points to another source points to another source, and ultimately we can either choose to believe or not believe that this chain leads to some absolute foundation of knowledge. But does it really? I'm not so sure.
Even words are this way: look up a word, any word. What happens? More words! Look up those words... more words! Where is the ultimate meaning? The ultimate truth?
Are some sources better than others? Probably! But my personal thinking is that we should be careful not to take sources too seriously. The ultimate foundation of knowledge has to be our own experience and careful judgement, which too can be flawed. Incidentally, this is one more reason why I am less in favor of academic writing. I would rather appeal to a person's good sense than to wow them with facts and figures that I never gathered for myself and can't even verify as truth.
Just my thoughts on that! Peace, dude!
Nick
|
Your ideas of religion are retarded at best. Go read a damn book and stop watching Dawkins lectures.
Read:
-Origin of the family, private property and the state. by Engel
then come back to discuss
Also, you come off as a religion hater. The Amish don't go around bombing mosques, the Buddhist don't go around bombing abortion clinics. Anyone should realize that Islam is far worse than christianity, all you need to do is read the Qur'an.
And how is that a long essay? i see 4 paragraphs filled with wikipedia rationale.
|
I must warn you that nobody is arguing that their faith is the right faith. Only fundamentalist argue that, most moderates accept that they could be completely wrong. Most of them are swinging between deism and agnosticism.
The real questions you should be asking are.
Is christianity good for the world?
Should religion be taught in school? <-- i support this
Should faith schools be required to teach darwin's theory of evolution?
Note that all these questions are highly controversial and further strengthens the stereotype of the intolerant atheist.
EDIT: If your writing for an online article, please for the love of GOD dont do the same tired out arguments in the defense of atheism. I think we have the same bullshit about Stalin, cant be moral withouth religion, atheism is cold, evolution is ONLY a theory, and what not. Try to at least go deep down into the implications of religion into politics and society. How about the separation of church and state? stem cell research? and try not to mention atheism. The argument is basically the same.
You might as well copy-paste from the thounsands of other articles about atheism.
"As an Atheist I think stem cell research should be legal"
"Based on the evidence I believe stem cell research should be legal"
take your pick.
|
On November 17 2007 07:39 Rev0lution wrote:
Your ideas of religion are retarded at best. Go read a damn book and stop watching Dawkins lectures.
Read:
-Origin of the family, private property and the state. by Engel
then come back to discuss
Also, you come off as a religion hater. The Amish don't go around bombing mosques, the Buddhist don't go around bombing abortion clinics. Anyone should realize that Islam is far worse than christianity, all you need to do is read the Qur'an.
And how is that a long essay? i see 4 paragraphs filled with wikipedia rationale.
Calm down...I said it was an intro. Maybe you should read a little more thoroughly before you start jumping around saying I'm all of these points? That statement you made about Islam being for worse than Christianity shows just how retarded you ideas on religion are. Maybe you forget about things like the Crusades? I've read the Qur'an, and I've read the bible. I also read many books on atheism (dawkins is included) and I enjoy Taoist philosophy.
If you read the first paragraph it said THIS IS JUST AN INTRO. If you skip down and read the constructive criticisms you would see that I was trying to make a point by being an asshole. After that I will step back and go into my thoughts on how religion affect the world .... negative and positive.
And on to your next post.
On November 17 2007 07:49 Rev0lution wrote:
I must warn you that nobody is arguing that their faith is the right faith. Only fundamentalist argue that, most moderates accept that they could be completely wrong. Most of them are swinging between deism and agnosticism.
The real questions you should be asking are.
Is christianity good for the world?
Should religion be taught in school? <-- i support this
Should faith schools be required to teach darwin's theory of evolution?
Note that all these questions are highly controversial and further strengthens the stereotype of the intolerant atheist.
EDIT: If your writing for an online article, please for the love of GOD dont do the same tired out arguments in the defense of atheism. I think we have the same bullshit about Stalin, cant be moral withouth religion, atheism is cold, evolution is ONLY a theory, and what not. Try to at least go deep down into the implications of religion into politics and society. How about the separation of church and state? stem cell research? and try not to mention atheism. The argument is basically the same.
You might as well copy-paste from the thounsands of other articles about atheism.
"As an Atheist I think stem cell research should be legal"
"Based on the evidence I believe stem cell research should be legal"
take your pick.
Do you want my opinions right now on the questions you asked....?
Is Christianity good for the world? - As mostly everything is, it's a double edged sword.
As I said in my intro that I'm starting to think you didn't even read, I stated that I'm not attacking any religion in general. However if you want me to focus mainly on Christianity then I will address it right here.
To say Christianity has never had a negative effect on the world is ridiculous. Just because they are currently without blood on their hands doesn't wipe away pass sins against the world. They wiped out just as many people in the name of Jesus as the Islamic world has for Allah. Please try to take your head out of the ass of your religion and look at the world. Christians are far from being perfect, and seeing as it's impossible to be such, I hold no ill feelings towards them. What I do resent is the attacks on every other faith from the fanatical Christians and Muslims, in hopes of converting all they can to their points of view.
Creationism in school - No
(Separation of Church and State is not a hard concept)
Religion belongs in religious settings. You know, those places people go on Sunday mornings. It's not fair to spew religion at a random group of people. Obviously you are going to end up infringing on other belief systems.
Do I believe evolution should be taught in religious schools? - No
It's your religion, believe what you want. It should be taught however in the public school district. Evolution is science, not religion. It belongs in a science class along with all the other scientific things that take place in the universe.
Next time try to work on your reading skills before jumping to conclusions based on very brief intro.
|
Calm down...I said it was an intro. Maybe you should read a little more thoroughly before you start jumping around saying I'm all of these points? That statement you made about Islam being for worse than Christianity shows just how retarded you ideas on religion are. Maybe you forget about things like the Crusades? I've read the Qur'an, and I've read the bible. I also read many books on atheism (dawkins is included) and I enjoy Taoist philosophy.
If you read the first paragraph it said THIS IS JUST AN INTRO. If you skip down and read the constructive criticisms you would see that I was trying to make a point by being an asshole. After that I will step back and go into my thoughts on how religion affect the world .... negative and positive.
I read your entire post, thank you.
Do you want my opinions right now on the questions you asked....?
Is Christianity good for the world? - As mostly everything is, it's a double edged sword.
As I said in my intro that I'm starting to think you didn't even read, I stated that I'm not attacking any religion in general. However if you want me to focus mainly on Christianity then I will address it right here.
Oh so your not attacking christianity in general? your simply going at all religions at once?
Is buddhism also in your agenda? are the amish a threat to society? fuck no just admit you hate the 3 abrahamic religions. All atheist do, including myself.
But then you go on to be a cynical hypocrit with this
To say Christianity has never had a negative effect on the world is ridiculous. [b]Just because they are currently without blood on their hands doesn't wipe away pass sins against the world.[b] They wiped out just as many people in the name of Jesus as the Islamic world has for Allah. Please try to take your head out of the ass of your religion and look at the world. Christians are far from being perfect, and seeing as it's impossible to be such, I hold no ill feelings towards them. What I do resent is the attacks on every other faith from the fanatical Christians and Muslims, in hopes of converting all they can to their points of view.
According to your rationale Germans should be held accountable for the crimes of the Nazis.
So we should make the new generation pay for the crimes of their ancestors? if i convert to christianity I instantly take responsibility for the crimes of other christians?
You say you dont attacking christianity but then you admit that christians have "wiped out just as many people in the name of Jesus as the Islamic world has for Allah"
You instantly assume that I am a religious person just for trying to defend all religions and point our your stupidity, your as dogmatic as the fundamentalist.
When I meant religion taught in school, I meant it as a history class. All people should be taught religion as part of history and all people should be taught of the different creation stories.
Stop contradicting yourself, read a damn book and stop jumping on the atheist bandwagon. How about educating yourself before saying that xtianity is better than Islam or arguing that xtians are somehow accountable for the crimes of european men in the 1500's.
|
On November 17 2007 08:14 suresh0t wrote:
Do I believe evolution should be taught in religious schools? - No
It's your religion, believe what you want. It should be taught however in the public school district. Evolution is science, not religion. It belongs in a science class along with all the other scientific things that take place in the universe.
That's an interesting point of view, because by definition public schools are those funded by the State, i.e. the taxpayers (religious and non-religious people included). Why then should only those who believe in evolution have a say in what should be taught in education?
If you really agree with the statement: "It's your religion, believe what you want", then religious people ought to either -
a) be exempt from funding the State school system;
b) have an equal say in how their taxes are spent.
To take the opposite example, it would be the equivalent of you as an atheist being forced to pay tithes to the Church, then having no say in how the Church gives it sermons. Alternatively, because you don't support Church, then you shouldn't be forced to pay tithes. Why then should Christians have to pay for the State school system?
Sorry I'm from New Zealand so I don't know how the US system works... Are people exempt from paying taxes for education if they send their children to private schools? They aren't here in NZ.
|
Revolution I'm not even going to waste my time responding to you. I answered your questions and commented on Christianity after you brought it up. Nowhere in my intro do I directly attack Christianity though I point out animosity towards them yes. Amish is a form of Christianity (I'm using the word vaguely) this would include Catholics, Protestants, Baptists and so forth. Buddhism is mentioned in the list of religions as well. I would like you to link the part of my intro that shows me attacking Christianity please.
Crux
You make a valid point. I personally don't think that if you are paying for your child to attend private school that you should have to pay taxes for the school district. I'm not completely aware of the inner workings of the private school and if they do or don't receive some sort of money from the state government. If they don't receive any funding then I don't believe they should pay taxes, but that wasn't the question I got.
As far as the other argument, it has no bearing in this conversation. I don't believe any religion should be taught in school. I'm not completely sure what you are trying to say with that, but if it has to do with being taught evolution in school, then my response is the same. Evolution is science not religion. I'm fairly sure you have to pay taxes no matter what your religion is, so yes I expect Christians to pay those taxes as well?
|
Revolution: you make some good points in your criticism, but you are really out of line. There is no need to be harsh and unfriendly in your criticism. The harshness seems completely uncalled for, and makes your good points a lot harder to take seriously! It makes the environment here unfriendly, and that makes good conversation impossible. Do you want to talk at somebody, or talk with somebody? You risk starting a kind of argument that has no chance of being resolved, and as far as that goes, there is a good quote: "arguing on the internet is like participating in the special olympics. You may win, but you are still f*cking retarded!" Calm down dude! Let's be peaceful.
Jesus: You're getting into some heavy stuff. My personal feeling is that state funded compulsory schooling is a bad idea all around (as well as the State itself - perhaps we agree?). But given that we have it (hopefully not forever.. but for now...), I think the idea is that religion should not be taught as science. Don't take me wrong, even as an atheist, I am highly critical of science and so called "rationality." Still, science is science, not Christianity (is it a religion? is it full of mythical thinking? Perhaps!) No point in teaching Christianity as science, just like there is no point in teaching potty training as Christianity, right? Where you and I MIGHT agree is that perhaps schools should offer religion classes, including classes on Christianity. It also seems wise to teach something like a "World Religions" class, similarly to a college setting. This might increase tolerance for many view points, which is really needed.
But yeah, compulsory ed is highly problematic. And any curriculum that is chosen is not going to fit everyone, and it will offend some. We live in a machine society and the children recieve machine education. It's sad whether you are an atheist or a Christian fundamentalist.
Nick
|
I'm fine with criticism stated in the way nick has done them. Jesuskrux you were fine as well. I wish I had more time to go over the points but I'm heading out to dinner right now.
I'm not trying to start arguments on religion...it's futile and will end up in the same spot.
<3<3
Also JesusKrux that wasn't me posting on your last blog, hence why I edited those posts. I'm not going to tell you who it was, he is on TL.Net, but yeah sorry about that. You banned me so I couldn't say it on there haha.
|
Sureshot: I'd be happy to read more of your article if you choose to post it up here. Peace, dude.
|
United States24483 Posts
On November 17 2007 07:33 nA.Inky wrote:
Micronesia: Your critique of wikipedia is interesting. I've heard many professors and students criticize wikipedia as being an inadequate source. The thing is, your criticism of wikipedia is essentially a criticism that could be leveled against any source and any expert. Whatever your source, it is essentially pointing to something else. I can quote a book written by an expert, and that is my source, but then that expert has gathered information from other sources, and ultimately it comes down to a person's observation that may or may not be correct. One source points to another source points to another source, and ultimately we can either choose to believe or not believe that this chain leads to some absolute foundation of knowledge. But does it really? I'm not so sure.
Even words are this way: look up a word, any word. What happens? More words! Look up those words... more words! Where is the ultimate meaning? The ultimate truth?
Are some sources better than others? Probably! But my personal thinking is that we should be careful not to take sources too seriously. The ultimate foundation of knowledge has to be our own experience and careful judgement, which too can be flawed. Incidentally, this is one more reason why I am less in favor of academic writing. I would rather appeal to a person's good sense than to wow them with facts and figures that I never gathered for myself and can't even verify as truth.
Just my thoughts on that! Peace, dude!
Nick Yeah well that's where the concept of publishing comes in, as you know. The issue isn't just whether or not a source has been edited and peer reviewed, but whether or not there is a system in place to professionally assure that the reference being cited by the other reference is indeed valid to reference.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
