posted
I don't usually participate in the theist/atheist debates here, because I find I learn more just by lurking. Fair warning: I may not participate much in this thread, but I know that's kinda frowned upon, so I'll try.
Browsing cracked.com, amid the wacky Japanese Halloween costume and sex jokes, I found this article. It's an attempt to civilise the debate, because "we hate this modern trend toward peckerfication."
Every now and then I felt myself getting all self-righteous and trying to protest, but when I settled down, I had to admit the author was right. I can't disagree with any of his 10 points. I was surprised at how thoughtful the essay was - something I'd expect to see in one of my comparative religions classes, not Cracked. I much prefer the "talking to" rather than "yelling and mocking" variety of debate, so it was really appealing.
I haven't seen any posts about this article, so I thought I'd offer it up.
Posts: 2849 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I like it. I hate the ridiculous arguments and airs of pontifications that theists and atheists get into. Not that the discourse isn't purposeful- I definitely think it is, but once the condemnation comes in I just get disgusted.
Posts: 980 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:When some guy hustles you out of eighty bucks in an ebay scam, you don't nod and say, "Interesting! This fellow lacks the genetic predisposition toward equitable dealing that generations of sexual selection in favor of social behavior has instilled in the rest of us! A fascinating difference!"
posted
Hmmm. I wholeheartedly agree with 8/10 points. I somewhat disagree with 2. I'll let you guess which ones. Or not. It doesn't really matter to me. Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wow, I am impressed with that guy. I'm going to take a page out of his book, and try to facilitate and not degrade.
Posts: 278 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I read this awhile ago, I liked a lot of what he had to say, I never thought of posting it here.
I have to agree with erosomniac, I really can't stand how most places are with comments. I prefer Hatrack so much more.
Posts: 2489 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's one thing I notice. When I watch speeches or debates on Youtube trying to see what the nominees were saying it was either all like
"Obama is teh man" or more likely "you <expletive> idiots dont u know that <expletive> <candidate's name here> is a <wimp, pansy, homosexual, communist, french, atheist, homophobic, racist, fascist>"
posted
Augh. I had to stop reading because the animal pictures on that site were scaring the crap out of me. The wrinkly hairless cat was the last straw.
Good article, up to that point, though. Posts: 1321 | Registered: Sep 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Several of his statements aren't accurate, and I don't agree with the specifics of every point.
Particularly how he claims I live my life as though morality was given by some magical higher authority.
His examples? I don't dislike the things he mentions, like a girlfriend sleeping with the entirety of the Chicago bears, because it seems down right sacred.
I'd dislike it because, first and foremost, it harms me, in multiple ways. That's not invisible. STD's are a danger which sucks, betrayal, which would mean that I can't trust that person, is unpleasant and not for any magic reason, etc etc etc.
So, beyond quibbles like that, much of what he says is okay, I guess. I've read this in the past, anyway.
Posts: 1577 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think the girlfriend argument was more that if it's really all just meat, it shouldn't matter who we have safe sex with. However, getting cheated on still forces a gut reaction. No one sits down first thing to logically discuss the implications. We feel something.
I'm not sure I agree with the idea that atheists should be Vulcans because only God could create emotions. I don't believe my dog has a soul, but I've certainly seen her pout, act happy to see me, and hide in fear from the thunder.
Still, the idea that we all want similar things but justify it differently is a good point.
Posts: 2283 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:If there is nothing beyond the physical, then your ability to choose your actions vanishes along with God and Heaven and the angels. It was an atheist professor who told me that, in a class on ethics.
Two days later, he told me if I was ever late to class again, he'd knock 100 points off my grade.
To deter me from being late in the future.
As if I had the free will to be late or on time.
This is a really really weak example. Whether you have free will or not has no bearing on your ability to get your ass to class on time.
Posts: 5656 | Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by ketchupqueen: Hmmm. I wholeheartedly agree with 8/10 points. I somewhat disagree with 2. I'll let you guess which ones. Or not. It doesn't really matter to me.
Ok, I'll bite.
3 and 7?
Edit: Also, what on earth is a "worldy Luke warm?" - from the sign on p2.
Posts: 4393 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I may not agree on all of his points, but I agree with the gist of it.
Christians and atheists have to learn to get along and most of all they have to stop trying to get laws against each other.
Atheists need to stop trying to keep christians from praying in public. And the need to stop trying to take God out of public view. If a mostly christian town wants to put up a freaking nativity scene, let 'em. "Under God?" "In God We Trust?" What does any of that really matter?
Christians need to stop trying to pass laws that push aspects of their religion onto the public. You can be a christian. You can even flaunt it, I don't care. But don't use the force of law to make other people follow your faith.
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I dunno, I kind of like the article except I think it sometimes devolves into a kind of "smug moderate" attitude. That is, the same attitude that many of us take regarding a "Could a Star Destroyer blow up the Enterprise" debate. The problem is that I think there are genuine people of passion on both sides of the debate that are arguing in good faith that get caught up in some of these generalizations.
That said, the article is written for humour, a more accurate article woud very likely have been less funny.
Aside from the objections previously noted:
quote: And sure, there may be a few of my atheists out there saying that what Falwell was spewing was so hateful, that it surely inspired some murders (of homosexuals or abortion doctors or whatever) and that he thus deserved death on those grounds.
But you don't want to live by that rule...
While I agree with the general thought and I see bad examples on both sides, I have to point out that there is a fine line between "Hurrah, X is dead" and "Well, at least the world is a better place now that X is dead, let's hope his kind does not come around again."
This parallels the line between passing around cellphone camera videos of Saddam Hussein's execution and being moderately relieved that Hussein had finally left this world (while still being a little disgusted about how it was done). One is disturbing, the other is only human.
quote: Both believe, then, that it is a corruption of their belief system that allows unjust slaughter to happen.
I'm not sure this is universally true on either side. Atheism is not a belief system. It is really just a belief *attribute* which can be incorporated into various diverse belief systems such as rational humanism or Buddhism.
To say that Stalinism is a corruption of atheism is as useless a statement as to say that Aztec human sacrifice is a corruption of theism. Both theism and atheism are philosophical stances that are not detailed enough to permit one to identify whether their descendants are "corrupted" versions.
That said, I kind of like the article. I just think it oversimplifies for the sake of brevity and humour.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
There really need to be more people like that author in the world. Sure, some of the arguments might not have used the best examples, and the animal pictures may have been somewhat disturbing but the underlying point is still valid. Atheists and Christians are fully capable of living in the same society and following the same rules in a generally peaceful way. People just don't want to do that, because having an us-vs-them mentality allows everyone to feel superior and blame the other side when things go wrong.
Posts: 3420 | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Puffy showed this to me a while back. I liked it. I also agree with Pixiest's sentiments. Me being a theist, at that Posts: 3936 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Atheists need to stop trying to keep christians from praying in public.
When has this ever happened?
I have had this happen to me, people will tell me I'm not allowed to pray in public places "because of separation of church and state".
Posts: 2489 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MEC: I have had this happen to me, people will tell me I'm not allowed to pray in public places "because of separation of church and state".
That's horrifying. I've lived in pretty much nothing but liberal places and I've never seen or even heard of something like that happening.
Posts: 4313 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by 0Megabyte: I don't dislike the things he mentions, like a girlfriend sleeping with the entirety of the Chicago bears, because it seems down right sacred.
I'd dislike it because, first and foremost, it harms me, in multiple ways. That's not invisible. STD's are a danger which sucks, betrayal, which would mean that I can't trust that person, is unpleasant and not for any magic reason, etc etc etc.
I think his point is that your general assumption that she won't cheat on you indicates a sense that there is some kind of moral truth. If we're all just animals controlled by our physical selves, then OF COURSE she's going to sleep with anyone who looks willing and seems to have good DNA, so, yes, you can be bummed out, but why would you feel outrage if she's just following her biological imperative?
Posts: 368 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's actually not true from an evolutionary perspective Hank. There is no genetic imperative for a female to sleep with as many men as possible. Quite the reverse. And further a female would not only look for strong genetic stock, but also look for a male who would provide resources and protection.
Posts: 8741 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Atheists need to stop trying to keep christians from praying in public.
When has this ever happened?
I have had this happen to me, people will tell me I'm not allowed to pray in public places "because of separation of church and state".
Unless you're blocking traffic or somehow causing a disturbance, then those people are completely in the wrong.
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
If one person is allowed to pray in a public space, isn't another person allowed to tell them not to pray?
They aren't allowed to MAKE them not pray, but they're allowed to say it.
(I think people should be allowed to pray wherever they like, as long as they're not being obnoxious or breaking any rules doing so)
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
