I went back to three of my past posts that I felt were a bit rushed and fixed them up a bit. Links and Images have been removed to keep things tidy, with the exception of the headings, which link to the corresponding original post
I intend for you to know little about me; without a
description of who I am, you are free to read, respond, and ponder outside the
narrow scope of a specific persona. Instead, I wish for you to paint your own
picture of who I may be through my stories. Some aspects of my character,
however, will be evident from the outset. So I will make it known that I am an
atheist, and a proud one at that. Most of my posts will be related to
philosophy and evolutionary psychology and how these fields are supportive of
atheism. Particularly, I enjoy discussing hindrance that religion poses on
complex thought and proper child rearing. I’m not trying to teach, though I do
write didactically at times. My ultimate goal is to inspire conversation where
there is usually silence. Too often today, in the age of relativism, we keep
quiet for fear someone will be offended. This in turn has created a population
which takes offense much too easily. We tend to accept all opinions as “good”
in their own way. This is a false notion fashioned by a society afraid to
insult. Insult, as well as praise, has a distinct purpose: to encourage
progress. Controversy is healthy. So let us be as controversial as the web will
allow. Let’s bring back Self Reliance and Civil Disobedience, as Emerson and
Thoreau called for. Let us express ourselves as fearlessly as Richard Dawkins
has, without the arrogance we’ve not yet earned. I hope to spark some ideas, I
hope to piss some people off, and I hope for some to be inspired. I encourage
comments; I will never attack an individual who posts thoughtful responses,
even if we drastically disagree.
I truly never thought I would enter the world of blogging:
the “blogosphere” as the Internet savvy may say. But my unanticipated entrance
into a new world has proven beneficial beyond my expectations. I expected to
find few sympathizers (or none at all), since the topic(s) I tackle aren’t
really intended for casual conversation. Atheism, agnosticism, skepticism,
criticism are all subjects people fear to discuss, and with good reason.
Persecution of the non-religious is perhaps the last bastion of true religious
injustice. Atheism is the last remaining belief system that is not acknowledged
by the government as a marginalized spiritual minority that deserves certain
protections. (Okay, maybe Satanism or Vonnegut’s Bokononism are behind Atheism
as far as government recognition goes).
Feeling utterly alone (and being okay with it), I continued
my rampage of the Internet and found something surprising. The
Atheist Blogroll has compiled a list of well over 1,000 blogs
in the realm of atheism/skepticism. I found a few I particularly like, one in
particular that I’d like to discuss: Deity Shmeity.
I enjoyed this blog in particular because of how quickly the
design caught my eye. Clearly the author (Grundy, as he is known on the web) is
much more graphically capable than I am.
And also much more humorous. I admit I
can be a bit dry and analytical in my delivery at times. As a life long
introvert, I’m afraid my formal style is here to stay. But Grundy is to Atheism
as Grumio is to Shakespeares’s Taming of the Shrew. Witty, intelligent,
sarcastic at times, and never fails to make the reader laugh even in the midst
of a serious situation. I am relieved that Grundy possesses such brilliance
even after his strict Catholic education and experiences with Christian Science
in his young life. While his career is based in Advertising, Grundy still finds
time to post two or three times per week. And his posts feature a great mix of lengthy, thought provoking essays, as well as shorter thoughts based around a funny image. And
his audience clearly enjoys his style, seeing as every post has at least a
couple comments. In many cases, discussion between readers breaks out, and
Grundy fuels the interactive environment by taking part in the conversation.
Deity Shmeity has instilled in me a good
feeling that atheists of all colors are out there and willing to speak up. Just
as there are good Christians and bad Christians, good Muslims and bad Muslims,
there will also be good and bad Atheists. But with blogs like my own, and Deity
Shmeity, hopefully we can create a diverse community of analytical
individuals who are willing to question, learn, and debate. My hope for my own
blog is to use logic so sound, that even the religious can’t deny the
foundations of my arguments. Grundy’s approach is different: though still very logical,
I worry his use of humor may immediately deter religious individuals from
reading further. They may feel personally attacked or mocked rather than
curious.
And I’ll admit that I can be hostile as well (my criticism
of Jesus Camp ensures that the Evangelicals will not be visiting this
page). But between Grundy, myself, and everyone in between, we have all the
bases covered. And hopefully, we’ll reach out to the doubtful and convert them
to logic and reason. (If that doesn’t work, we could always send our young men
on door-to-door conversion missions. That seems to work, right?)
I found two interesting bloggers around the same time that I
found Deity
Shmeity, both of which make the same (but opposite) analogies
between football and religion. The more interesting thing is that they're both
right. While Football V. Religion makes the claim that
football is superior to and unlike religion, Lady
Atheist comments in a post that they are one in the same.
The difference in the two perspectives is drastic, making
both bloggers appear correct in their respective opinions. The bloggers utilize
their unique voice to express their thoughts and support their seemingly
opposite analyses of football in comparison to religion. While it should be
noted that Lady Atheist refers to American football, while Football V. Religion discusses
European football, these differences are arbitrary in that the true focus of
the analogy can be boiled down to "team sport" vs. religion.
The first post I want to discuss is entitled Unacceptable Behavior: Football v. Religion. The
author quickly and effortlessly reveals through his diction and syntax that he
is a devout and well-versed follower of football. His style flows in a way
similar to a sports announcer: quick, poignant, staccato. Sprinkled with commas
and packing punches with standalone fragments such as this one:
“WHAT UTTER BOLLOCKS”
But allow me to delve deeper into the
content that precedes this exclamation. After relating the life and times of
football star Joey Barton, the author compares Barton's anecdote of crime and
punishment to the apparently more forgiving rules of Catholic morality. Sin and
repent, sin and repent, die and ascend into heaven.
"Apart from the obvious 10 Commandments as rules of
life, it seems odd to me that the Church and Christianity is content that the
worst amongst us can be saved by repenting our sins. So what exactly is the
fucking point of having a moral code if an evil and immoral life can be saved
in 'injury time' by 'repenting'. Surely this is a get-out-of-jail-card for the
worst in society."
His tone is casual, but his point is bold and profound.
Though one pondered often by skeptics, this author phrases the argument in a
new light, letting his unique voice as a blogger be heard. He utilizes profanity,
but scarcely and well placed. The tone of the paragraph above is colloquial; it
conveys frustration and a willingness to seriously address the issue at hand
with those of like mind. I get this feeling from his use of "us" and
other terms that imply he is addressing a larger body of individuals, which he
also belongs to. His quotes over 'injury time' and 'repenting' mock the
practices of the Catholic Church subtly, without being offensive. And those
Catholics (or others) who would take offense could likely not muster a sound
and logical retort.
"The Catholic Church has lost it's way, they have
gotten too big, it is all about the brand and the message is lost, similar to
what happened to Irish rock band U2. The church is now all about the church and
only interested in the church.... What about the people ? What about the
children ?"
This paragraph comes a bit later, after
the author has explained that Catholicism lacks a moral compass, and should
mimic the sanction system used by football. Maintaining his
sports-announcer-esque style, he uses a hilariously placed allusion to U2 to
again mock the Church in a way so playful that it can't possibly offend. But
the point still packs a punch when he asks the rhetorical question "What about
the children?". Any mention of children is an obvious attempt at the
strongest of all rhetorical appeals, pathos. But he uses pathos while keeping
his reputation as a masculine sports-fan intact. His voice is obvious, and
consistent throughout this post and others. This author is somewhat headstrong,
but remains logical and approachable. His goal is to make his point heard even
if someone has to be offended in the process.
The Lady Atheist writes in a similar way, but she makes
sure her readers distinguish her writing as a woman's point of view. This
especially makes her voice stand out since women are significantly less likely
to be Atheist. (This is a widely supported fact, which I find strange seeing as
various religions and the books that correspond to these religions tend to do
horrible things to females).
Lady Atheist asks her readers the question Is Charlie Brown a Christian? The
post is not very long, so I encourage a thorough reading of the whole thing.
She is very intelligent, and doesn't always make her point (or the transitions
between points) obvious to the reader, but instead allows the reader to force
their way into her thought processes. In other words, Lady Atheist says it like
it is succinctly, and let's the readers fill in the gaps. (Unlike me, I feel
the need to explain in full detail every thought I think. It's a blessing and a
curse).
But the part of this post I really want to discuss is as
follows:
"As a woman, I say, "Go ahead
and kick her in the crotch!" Yes, getting kicked in the crotch is painful
for women too. We won't barf but we will double over, and this Lucy bitch
deserves a taste of her own medicine."
While this passage isn't central to
conveying the intended message, it is key to establishing Lady Atheist's unique
voice. The reason I find it intriguing is because Lady Atheist addressed her
audience as primarily male (And she's probably right in doing so). She explains
the sensation that women feel when "kicked in the crotch" as if her
audience would not already know, because they probably don't. This passage is
also interesting, because despite Lady Atheist's pride in her feminism, her
intelligence and moral code transcend her desire to protect a fellow woman.
This establishes her voice as a blogger immensely; she values logic above all
else and is respected accordingly.
"Would an atheist version of
Charlie Brown be such a sucker? He'd say "fool me once, shame on you. Fool
me twice..." and he'd turn to the side and kick Lucy in whatever body part
happened to be within range."
Lady Atheist is completely comfortable
with a young man using violence on a young woman if said young woman needs some
attitude readjustment. For this reason, I believe Lady Atheist is absolutely
brilliant. She favors de facto equality of the sexes, and doesn't simply
support her own sex blindly.
But the real kicker of this post (no
pun intended) is when Lady Atheist, contrary to the author of Football V.
Religion, asserts that football and religion are one in the same.
"It's us vs. them, break the rules for a good cause,
drop everything on the appointed day, and make pilgrimmages to partake of
ritual foods. There are heroes and villains. And after hours of
"play" nothing has really changed except a few numbers that will be
erased in a few months.
...and quite a few people will have new scars and
debilitating injuries.
Yep, football is just like religion."
Her reasoning, just like his, is
accurate. The reason they are both right is because the voices they have
established respectively, utilize different facts about the same sport in order
to convey the intended religious message that corresponds to the aspect of the
sport that they discuss. More simply, it seems that the male author's
interpretation of football is more characteristic of his voice as a male
author. He compares the lack of a fair system of sanctioning in religion to the
well-designed penalty system in football. Meanwhile, the female author assesses
her knowledge of football as a violent and meaningless game and relates this to
the equally pointless "sport" that is religion. Of course, both
of these authors possess a more unique voice that extends far beyond the
methods they use to analyze football.
