10 Things Christians and Atheists Can (And Must) Agree On
The war that's coming between the fundamentalist Christians and the hard-core Atheists probably won't be the most violent of the holy wars. But it has the potential to be the most annoying. We'll, I'm going to try to stop it.
So I'm running into this guy basically everywhere I go:
Not that exact guy. People like him. I recognize the type, I had to spend the whole first half of my life around the Christian version of those guys, people who worked it into every conversation. But now I'm running into these really aggressive, sort of evangelical atheists. Ever since 9/11/2001, in fact. The exact day a whole lot of atheists decided this religion thing had to go before it killed us all.
These things never end well.
But I think we've got more common ground than we admit. For instance, both my atheist and Christian friends (I seem to have an equal number of both these days) tell me they agree with the following statement:
Celebrating the death of somebody you disagreed with pretty much makes you a dick.
I doubt anybody reading this has ever waved a snarky sign at a funeral, so I think we're pretty much all in the same boat still. See? Common ground.
So how about this: I'm going to throw out a few of these statements - things I think we have to agree on if we want to avoid disaster - and you can read until you see something you disagree with. We'll see how long we can make it last.
Why? Because something's brewing. I wander around my local Barnes & Noble and they've got a whole special table set aside:
I go home, log into one of my favorite forums and one guy's got this as his avatar:
And another dude has this:
So I retreat to my own forums, and find out turbo evangelist Jerry Falwell had died that day. The reaction?
I mean, that thing I said I said earlier about not celebrating the death of somebody you disagree with... that still counts for a bitter, uncompromising old fart like Falwell, right? We're civilized people. We can celebrate him changing his mind, or even celebrate him being made to look like a fool in public.
But you start cheering his death, you've walked away from the one single baseline every remotely moral person has ever agreed on: the value of human life. And I know we all agree on that, because we can all think of people we could've otherwise stabbed and gotten away with it.
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; you'll wind up in a world where gangsta rappers and video game programmers and political commentators and novelists are considered worthy of death just because some fans claimed their work inspired them to kill. That's the sort of thing a nut from the other side would say. Right?
No, people got to have the right to express themselves, good, bad and ugly. Falwell had a family. Friends. He was a human being. You cheer over his corpse and you're just acting like a pecker.
And that's another thing both sides agree on, that we hate this modern trend toward peckerfication. So let's see what else we agree on...
(NOTE: Per international regulations governing all online religious debate, we are required to insert on each page humorous and inflammatory image macros such as the one below. To prove my objectivity, these have been carefully chosen as to be equally offensive to all belief systems. -MGMT )
1. You Can Do Terrible Things in the Name of Either One
We're putting aside the question of which belief system has killed more people by percentage of population, or whether a hypothetical world without religion would have seen fewer or more genocides than ours. We're not going to open a spreadsheet and try to count which belief system manufactures more murderous sociopaths per capita.
All I need from you is agreement that it's entirely possible for either an atheist or theist world to devolve into a screaming murder festival. The religious leader sends his people into battle because he thinks God commanded it, the Stalins and Maos of the world do the same because they see their people as nothing more than meaty fuel to be ground up to feed the machinery of The State. In both cases, the people are equally dead.
Yeah, yeah, I know the Christians are saying that the guy who fights an unjust or needless war is violating God's law, and thus isn't a good Christian. Meanwhile, the atheists are saying that Stalin was merely bloodthirsty, separate and apart from his disbelief in a higher power. Both believe, then, that it is a corruption of their belief system that allows unjust slaughter to happen.
But for this project, All we need to agree on is this: it happens in both cases. And if the opposing belief system vanished tomorrow, war and bloodshed and terror would still take place.
And can we further admit it's actually physically impossible to calculate whether, if your side had its way, the volume of terrible things happening would go up, or down, or stay the same? I know you have an opinion on that, and I can guess what it is. But we don't know, and can't state it like it's fact. Right?
Everybody still on board?
Good. Can we now also agree...
2. Both Sides Really Do Believe What They're Saying
Christians do this thing that drives atheists nuts, where they talk like God is patently obvious to all mankind, and that atheism is therefore just petty, intentional rebellion against Christians. In other words, that atheists don't honestly believe what they say, and just say it because they're jerks.
But atheists do something very similar, particularly when a Christian says:
"Only the saved go to Heaven!"
...and what the atheist hears is:
"I want everyone else to go to Hell!"
It's the same thing, thinking that deep down Christians don't really believe this is the law handed down by a creator, and therefore Christianity is just a petty, intentional rebellion against the non-Christians of the world. In other words, that Christians don't honestly believe what they say, and just say it because they're jerks.
But all that is just a way to make cartoon villains out of the people who disagree with us. And if we stop and think about it, we'll see it's asinine.
Atheists, you know that Christians have freaking died because they refused to walk away from what they believe. That goes beyond simple human stubbornness. I mean, I can tell you first hand. I was raised in a Pentecostal church (like the one they visited in the Borat movie).
I soured on the whole religion thing in my teens, as you can probably imagine, and then came back to it later kind of on my own terms. From that experience I can relay this fact: If there's no God, then there is something in the human brain that can and does present an amazingly realistic impression of one. A gland, an artifact of environmental pattern recognition, whatever you want to pin it on, the result is, at certain times and in certain moods, as tangible and real and distinct as the person sitting across from you on the subway.
You can say they're wrong. You can say it all day, you can etch "YOU'RE WRONG" into the surface of the moon with a giant laser. But you'll have a lot less angst if you remember that the thing they're wrong about is something they honestly believe, down to their roots. I guess you could just call them crazy, but it's a little silly to use that word when believers are the norm in human population.
But either way, it's not something they intentionally chose just to annoy you.
Christians, same deal. Every one of you have got friends and family who aren't believers. And I bet some of them are good people. Earnest people, thoughtful people. Charitable. Kind.
So... doesn't that kind of kill the premise that these people are avoiding God out of sinful rebellion or fear of having to live a godly life? After all, you've got people who are doing the hard part (self-sacrifice, patience, giving up all sorts of sinful pleasures) but are avoiding the easy part (praying and listening to a preacher talk for one hour a week). If God and the danger of Hell were that obvious, why wouldn't they just go all the way with it?
No, if there is a God, it appears that some good people honestly don't perceive him. For whatever reason. And there has to be some tolerance in God's rules for the Honest Mistake. Has to be. Otherwise we're all going to get screwed by that thing with the Sabbath being on Saturday instead of Sunday.
So, we've agreed that the other guy, no matter how irritating he or she is, is likely making an honest mistake. If we can agree on that, can we also agree that...
I know it seems like a reallllllly simply answer, but cant people just be cool with each others feelings?
Replyperson 1 "I believe in god"
person 2 "I do not"
person 1 "then I will not buy a crucifix for when you move in to a new house"
Person 2 "And I will try to be more understanding when you wish to pray before eating... just dont be offended when I dont"
This article is okay, but I feel like it continues to make the fallacious Christian assumption that atheists are essentially like Christians. I, at least, am not.
ReplyThe arguments presented here about morality are very, very bad. To say that there's no rational way to justify moral action is moral nihilism. If you honestly believe that morality is unjustifiable, but you follow it because God told you to, your moralistic beliefs are not ethical values, but practical values given the punishment/reward system God is prepared to enforce. It has nothing to do with ‘rightness’ or ‘wrongness’. If you think it's possible for morality to exist, for things to actually be right and wrong, rightness and wrongness must also be independent of God's will. To return to an example from this article: having a problem with the infidelity of a girlfriend is not motivated by the same things as being offended at a celebrity nipple slip. The reason I might be upset with a girlfriend for sleeping with some football team isn't because her sexuality is sacred, but that doing so would violate the terms of our relationship (provided that it's set in the same kind of terms as most of my other relationships). But I could imagine a relationship where such exclusivity is not a term, and in those cases, offense would not be taken.
In any case, I really ‘don't follow God's [moral] rules’, and my moral thinking is not Christian-like. The fact that I have morals doesn't make them absolute, and the fact that descriptive morality exists (viz., evolutionary explanations of moral feeling) doesn't put it in a position to replace or even cheapen normative ethics.
There's another serious problem with his claims about the equivalence or comparability of atrocities committed ‘in the name of religion’ and ‘in the name of atheism’. The thing isn't that both haven't been done, but that there is no atheist doctrine, and there is no atheist institution or institutional leadership. There have been Popes who ordered Crusades on the authority of their religious position. No secular dictator ever derived his authority *from* his atheism in the same way, because none ever could. The point is that there is no moral component to atheism; it's a totally separate module from morality, and atheists can't really make moral appeals to one another the way members of a particular faith can because there's no reason to assume that they have the same ethical positions as one another.
Points #2 (both sides really do believe what they're saying) and #5 (what each side says is legitimately offensive to the other) are very well taken, although I'd like to add that as an atheist I'm less offended by things like the threat of hell than the frequent implication and occasional explicit accusation that I'm an immoral psychopath.
And although I've never made the assertion that Christians ‘*want* me to go to hell’, I think you've again misinterpreted the atheist position. The claim wouldn't be that Christians don't sincerely believe that nonbelievers would go to hell, and instead are participating in wishful thinking (that's an insane accusation!), but an expression of astonishment that someone could be okay with any god who damns like that. The atheistic point there is that such a cruel god is not worthy of our veneration any more than a lesser, earthly bully would be (perhaps also legitimately offensive to Christians, but not an accusation of secret disbelief).
So the article was alright, and I enjoyed the Cracked style as usual, but I feel like the author doesn't really understand atheists except as variations on a Christian theme, and so he doesn't understand at least this atheist very well.
Jesus, dude, who did you think was going to read this? We come here for the articles, not the comments.
Someone below did exactly what he talked about in the article.... "Sure, an atheist can kill, but no one could EVER kill in the name of atheism." Does he realize that christians living in China still die at the hands of atheists because they refuse to convert to atheism? The article mentions stalin genius...he killed something like 50 million people... how are you missing this? I'm not sure what Nazis were (superstitious atheists?), but they definitely weren't christians, jews, or muslims. The atheist body count, at least in the last 200 years, sure looks a lot higher to me than the religious body count. Anyway, I've got nothing against atheists, but you sound just like christians who look at people like Eric Rudolph and go, "Well, he wasn't a REAL Christian" Bullshit. Of course he was. Communists don't kill in the name of atheism. Bullshit. Of course they do.
ReplyWow, this is one of the more insightful, and even profound articles I have ever read on the internet. Just a lot of great points packed into one article.
ReplyI think people have an evolutionary drive to become tribal. (Yes I'm a Christian who is citing evolution *gasp*) My belief is that, as we have integrated intellectualism into our global culture to a greater extent than ever before, the drive to progenerate our genes has morphed to a desire to progenerate our ideals. Therefore, we see people of different beliefs as outsiders who threaten our tribe. This drive leads to irrational hostility.
ReplyMy 2 cents.
Jesus actually says (to paraphrase) "The ignorant will not be judged, the knowing have no excuse". Again that was a paraphrase. Basically I think he means the 9 year old bushman kid that gets eaten by a lion won't be spending an eternatity in hell because he never heard of Jesus. The ones that have actively rejected Him however...
(whoops wrong reply button)
I'll admit, the thing that bothers me the most about the christian belief system is the whole "Whoops! didn't pick the right belief system eh? Have fun burning in hell for eternity. Say hi to Judas for me!" factor. I guess my beef with it is that it sounds unfair for such a loving god.
Reply Hide All See All 5 Repliesim a christian, and I still am not 100% satisfied on that one either. I guess the best way I can understand it is by believing that God attempts to reveal himself to everyone, but that some people let other things get in the way of them seeing him.
Actually, thats the normal reaction to ALL human beings. We all like to induce fear whenever we see the need for it
I'm one of those weirdo Christians who doesn't believe in hell. I just can't reconcile it, and tend to see it as an artifact of older times.
David has the right of it in the article. The book of Romans actually addresses this: 1:20For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. 21For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles. 24Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.
While this teaching focuses on the negative, it implies the positive - that those who are ignorant of God as he is revealed in the scripture have a path to him by being the best they know how to be. These would be the people who are raised in "ignorance" but listen to their conscience or morality gene, if you prefer.
And Christians, before you start with the "No one comes to the Father except through Me" thing, Jesus' death makes salvation possible for the whole world. Are you going to tell me that a righteous Jew living in Gaul who died a month after Jesus was crucified is burning in Hell right now because he was unlucky to die in the interim between the old law and Christianity spreading to France? I call BS on that.
elmartino.... keep using your brain, you're getting there. valmont.... i'm almost with you.... actually somewhere in between the two of you. I HAVE to believe in a Christian God because I have seen several literal miracles in my life that seemed to have a lot to do with the faith and prayers of my very Christian family members. Anyway, I can see God creating hell for Satan and his demon followers.... after all, they mounted a rebellion against him and tried to overthrow him... if I were all powerful, and had given you everything you could have ever wanted, and you did that.... oh HELL yeah, that's where you're going! But then creating human beings knowing you were planning to send 75% of them to the same place for all eternity? Just doesn't fly. No way jose... not a LOVING God.
The church people actually liked Darwins Theory of Evolution, claiming that not only did god make the world, he made the world make its-self, or something like that.
ReplyFairly sure the Church of England said that ;)
That's just ridiculous, I don't understand how people don't realize the "church" is lying. That sounds just like a 5 year old lying. God created man 1000 years ago! Oh, wait, there's actually evidence that evolution is right? and you want to leave our church?. What I meant was God created evolution millions of years ago. Every religion that exists today is just an older religion that has changed because mankind learned new stuff. So whether or not God is real, I think everyone that actually looks at it has to agree that religion is man made bull crap. Because if God was all knowing and all powerful his word wouldn't change
lately i have been thinking that in the future there will be some atheist nazi who will want to kill anyone who belives in something, radical atheists or something ha ha ,pretty sure others have thought the same
Reply Hide All See All 4 Repliesp.s not saying atheists are evil
I'm an Atheist and I've thought the same thing :D
Read the Horus Herey series of Warhammer 40k books. The Emperor of Mankind basically eradicated religion and superstition from the Earth.
Well, he didn't really. He became the source of religion in the Imperium.
all of the comments that say this is one sided defend their belief...
ReplyI can't believe how many people are gushing over how great this article is, how it balances both sides brilliantly and all that stupid jazz. It's trying to make out that both sides are balanced overall, but they really aren't. Here, I'll go through a handful of the problems I had with it...
Reply Hide All See All 6 Replies1) You can't do evil IN THE NAME of atheism. You can do evil things and be atheist, but in the name of atheism. In the name of not believing in god? Honestly?
2) So what if people believe what they're saying? That's not the merit of how much we should respect that belief, it depends how much evidence they genuinely have, not how much evidence they think they have. Or should we respect racists on the grounds that they really believe their own claptrap.
3) So what if we're not THAT different. There are differences there, and that's where the conflict arises. I point you to my above argument about racists, yes they might be ordinary people too, but I don't see why I should accomodate their racism based on similarities we may have.
4) Good people on both sides, yes. You could say that about almost any two oppossing sides, really. Again, it reeks of this snivelling, middle-ground-seeking golden-mean-fallacy-esque nonsense. Also, not all the good religious people do comes from their religion, just saying.
5) Don't care how legitimately offended they are by my point of view. Once again, we should check their basis for these views. NOT ALL VIEWS ARE EQUALLY VALID. I can't stress that enough. Again, look at racists if you're struggling with this.
6) Yes, we can turn our foes into 2D characatures, but that's true with everything. I've been doing it with racists so far. However, that doesn't mean that it isn't sometimes justified; that certain people have certain mindests, regardless of how extremely it presents itself.
7) I don't know where to start with this. It shows the fundamental problem the writer is having with balancing these things. It shows one side, where it pretty much yanks out several underpinnings of christianity, and then goes on to point out that some atheists can be a rather irrational themselves at times. It seems to make no distinction between various levels of irrationality, seems to make out being a tad superstitious is as being a religious zealot.
8) Nope, actually, looking at the terrible things people do in the name of religion is a perfectly legitimate way of criticising religion. You've got a causation there "they believe this, therefore they do this dickish thing". See the first point for how this isn't applicable to atheism, though.
9) This is just ridiculous, and kinda offensive. It's also pretty much the same point as the one made earlier about there being good people on both sides. Basically, the counter-argument to this is that, the religious mindset does more harm than good. It's by nature backwards and conservative, whilst the atheist mindset is rational, open-minded and forward-thinking. This might seem harsh but, well, it's kinda true and i'm not gonna put any faux balance in here for the hell of it. There's a reason for the correlation between conservatives and the religiously devout.
10) Just because you won't succeed 100%, doesn't mean you should just give up. Yeah, I'm not into harassing people over religon, and see online arguments aa kinda stupid, but if it means that a handful of fundies tone it down, or some religious people become aware that certain things they believe are offensive or stupid, I'll support it.
Anyway, yeah, I just don't like this. It's trying to placate both sides, paint them as being as bad as each other, which is stupid, as well as offensive to atheists. Here's an institution (or collection of institutions) that have held back civilisation for centuries, has had hundreds of horrible things done in its names, and WE'RE as bad because we call them names online? Give me a break!
"the religious mindset does more harm than good. It's by nature backwards and conservative, whilst the atheist mindset is rational, open-minded and forward-thinking."
HAHAHA
I know that a statement like that is never going to lead to any kind of intelligent discussion but I just wanted to tell you personally how f*****g stupid you are.
The sad thing is, I'm an atheist too, and that means that I have to stand on your side of the argument, despite the fact that pricks like you make me reluctant to point out the fact that I am an atheist.
Exhibit A...
As a Christian, Gadjo, I feel pretty much the same way about some views.
Your response could not be any more predictable. You're literally doing the things that he calls out in the article.
And people weren't happy about Hitler being dead because of his religion or his viewpoints like Jerry Falwell. They were happy he was dead because he drug the whole damn world into WWII! So like the author said no you shouldn't feel happy someone dies just because he/she believed differently then you do. And racists (like everyone else) have the right to feel and believe however they choose. Its what they they do and say that is the problem!
I swear the comments section just killed a good number of my brain cells. It's like Youtube.
ReplyI am an athiest, and you bring up lots of very valid points, mostly that people need to realize that as individuals most people are not that different regardless of what they believe. And that you'll never change someone's mind about something by being a dick and trying to force your opinions on them. And you have even opened my eyes a little bit to the way the other guys think.
ReplyI definitely think that people should feel free to believe in what they want as long as it's not hurting others. I am anti-organized religion, all of them, especially the big ones, because it stops that. It is a small group of people who want your money, and want to be able to control you, who tell you what to do, how to think, and how to act and they enforce it by fear. It has it's place, mostly is jail's and AA meetings, for people who have hit rock bottom and need someone to tell them every thought they should have in a day. This being said, your comment about religious people still go to a mechanic when their car breaks down says it all, most religious people go to church because they are told from childhood that they need to go to church and the second they step out of that building they live their lives like everyone else and aren't any different than most athiests walking down the street.
The only thing I didn't agree on, I had to have one :), is that love isn't an example of an athiest believing in something higher, love was an evolutionary response to ensure the survival of our species. Love is a chemical stimulation in the brain and it makes so that by choosing one mate and being committed to them and your offspring above all others you will do anything in your power to ensure their survival, thus promoting the survival of the species as a whole. Which with a species that can only have one child every 9 months is very important, vs. just procreating with anyone and not caring what happens to your pregnant lover or your young offspring and letting them die.
But regardless thanks for point out that both sides can be too hateful and forget that when they say all religious people/all athiests should die that those are people they are talking about.
Not only do I strongly disagree with your points, I also find that this is one-sided and offensive
Reply Hide All See All 6 Replies1. Celebrating the death of someone you disagree with, pretty much makes you a dick.
Why? does that make the entire freaking world a dick, for celebrating the death of Hitler? or if you think that example is too old to be valid, Should we rename the US, to the United States of giant Dicks for celebrating the death of Osama Bin Laden? I think not.
2. You can do terrible things in the name of either one.
Yes, it is possible, but no one has ever murdered in the name of the guy-we-dont-believe-in. Mao, Stalin, and Hitler were Atheist's but they didn't wage war or cause mayhem in the name of Atheism. However, Even though the crusades were created more or less for the sake of political power and ill-begotten wealth they were both backed by, supported, and encouraged by the church, and while it is true that those were ancient times and Christianity does not support such behavior anymore. Religious wars are still today fought, while we have yet to see one war fought in the name of Atheism, which you should stop relating to science, since it is the disbelief of God and not the the belief of science.
3. Both sides really do believe what they are saying.
True, yet I have yet to meet an Atheist that confuses the words "only the saved can go to heaven" with "i want everyone else to go to hell" We mostly just cant believe Christians cant hear how ridicules they sound, which is a viable though based on our perception on the world, just like Christians tend to shake their heads at non-believers, which is viable from their point of view.
And while yes, there are Christian' who have died for their faith, there is also a SHITELOAD of non-christians dying for theirs throughout history, it's not really that uncommon.
4. In everyday life, you're not that different.
Well seeing as how the history of the world, is but the biography of great men, I would say that there are some that are just different enough. and you really need to understand that the terms: right, wrong, justice, morals, and feelings in general are not copyrighted by God, they are natural, and if you really want the science to be present i assure you there are perfectly good evolutionary reasons for why they are there.
5. there are good people on both sides.
Firstly, do not make the argument to an Atheist that God protects him from temptation, it's offensive. why is that? because you fail to acknowledge my right to believe what i want to.
But yes, there is good people on both sides.
6. No, it's not offensive for me to hear that I will burn in hell, I do not believe in hell, I don' care, the thing about it that is offensive is the notion that Christianity automatically applies to everyone, thus making my right to believe what I want to invalid. From the other view point, I would never argue that someone isn't going to Heaven, do I believe it? No, but since I don't believe that a fiery pit of doom is awaiting me for lying, I'll do just that. (lying from my point of view)
7. We tend to exaggerate about our selves, FINALLY someone who gets it, i applaud you from the bottom of my heart for I too am tired of hearing the Christians are unintelligent, and hates, gays, science and women argument, it offends the f**k out of me, many of my friends are devote Christians, and I assure you, they are far from stupid.
However, America has not really been kicking any kind of scientific ass, and the boast of being a "scientific f*****g super power" can only stem from the Manhatten Project, well congrats, you've successfully devised a weapon that made it's creator quote Hinduism "I am become death, the destroyer of worlds" and effectively killed off over a 100.000 people, and fucked up the world so badly even to this day, countries are afraid to disarm their nuclear deterrents, but I am getting off topic.
8. we tend to exaggerate about ourselves too, Ah yes, the "too big to fail" plan, I think that every country in the world now has enough experience in this, that we can all take the ragged rabble of our collective economy by the had and agree to stop using this method permanently, but yet again you need to sever this link between science and Atheism, and if you cannot do that, then at least acknowledge that the terms "mind" and "love" are not coined by God, and we do not owe him our soul in exchange for the use of these common everyday terms, many are in fact 100 % on board,
9. Focusing on negative examples makes you look stupid.
But not learning from the collective bad examples makes you even dumber, and again i have to stop asking you to link Atheism will random stuff like Mao, Hitler and in this case: Columbine, seriously, yes they are Atheist's but no they did not do their vile deeds in the name of Atheism. Unrelated. But i do agree that no one should be compared ignorantly to the Phelp's
10. Both sides have brought good to the table, that i will not question, but do not assume that most people who are against Christianity are either "right for the wrong reasons or wrong for the right ones" I for instances do not believe that Christianity have brought "morals" into the world, sure it preaches a certain set of rules, but it does so with th threat of "eternal damnation" if do not follow. "if people are good only because they fear punishment, and hope for reward, then we are a sorry lot indeed" -Einstein
11. ? huh, you made one too many :/
I will say this again, your initial article offended me, you compared my belief system to the acts of Hitler, Stalin, Mao, and the Columbine shootings, and you repeatedly coined your phrasing, in order to make my belief system invalid. You also tried some sort of Christian Copyright Claim on: Love, Justice, Morality, Good, basically every feeling, except of course evil. You make wild assumptions about Atheist's one of them being that everything we do is "according to science" and I didn't like this, but you also had many valid points, and for this i applaud you.
The point about atheism is that people don't kill in the name of theism either. They may kill in the name of their religion, which also happens to be theistic, but that isn't an indictment of all theistic beliefs. Similarly Stalin and Mao killed in the name of Communism which also holds atheistic beliefs. Its not an indictment of atheism, just that theism isn't inherently evil either which some atheists seem to hold true.
I only read the first sentence, but you obviously need to read it again. You clearly didn't get it the first time.
I agree with most of what you wrote except the nuclear bomb being a horrific invention. When was the last world war? 70 some years ago? Why hasn't there been another war between two nuclear states since WWII? Arguably the nuclear bomb. With that argument you can extrapolate to the nuclear bomb has ushered in an age of peace unheard of in human history...
I think some of your points are a little confused.
Firstly, by "celebrating the death of someone you disagree with", I think the writer meant disagree as in disagree that they existed (i.e. Jesus). I think his point might have been that Christians don't celebrate Diwali, so why do Atheists derive such pleasure out of Christmas? In one breath they're saying they don't believe in Jesus, in the next they're hip-hip-hooraying at his birthday. I'm not saying I don't think Atheists have a right to celebrate, I'm just backing what I think the authors point was.
Secondly, I agree with you that "shiteloads" of non-Christians have died for their faith too; but you're confusing non-Christians with Atheists. Atheists surely haven't died for their faith, because isn't the whole premise of being an Atheist that you don't have faith? Non-Christians include Muslims, Islam, Jews, Buddhists, Hindus, the list goes on... but they all have faith which they can, and have, died for. Atheists are not the same as non-Christians.
Thirdly, I may be wrong, but I don't think there's actually any solid evidence on what religion Hitler was. Apparently he was born into a Catholic family, though judging by his later actions he probably didn't stick too close to that belief system :P He clearly wasn't too fond of Jewish people either. But outside of that, I don't think anybody's ever been 100% able to say "Hitler was an Atheist", so as far as I can see, that was a bad example by the writer, and also by you recycling it.
You don't believe Christians have brought any morals into the world? Interesting. I'm not even sure what to say in response to that, except that you've clearly never picked up a bible in your life. Which I'm not judging you for, but if you're going to make blind accusations like that, you should probably do a little background reading first. Ever heard of the 10 Commandments?
Finally, I think you're taking this whole article a little personally without actually reading it properly. Nobody's stereotyping all Atheists as the Mao's and the Stalin's of the modern world, that would be ridiculous. Especially since the writer's taken such measures to emphasize his point that there are good people and bad people on both "sides". This Christian Copyright Claim... why on earth would the writer have included "evil" in it? Are you suggesting that all Christians are evil? Because if you are, doesn't that make you just as bad as you've accused the writer of being for his stereotyping? Sounds like you're the one throwing around wild assumptions, to be honest.
The point he was making was that your belief system does not facilitate or discourage being an asshat. I see his point there, I mean, look at you. I may be on your side of the debate, but that doesn't stop you from being king of the dick pistons
Read my reply to the other idiot that thinks his belief system is the only valid one and thinks people that believe differently somehow delude the human race. I guess no person of religion ever amounted to anything or did anything worthwhile huh?
The bible does teach some important morals, which I do think influence morality.
Reply Hide All See All 4 RepliesAnd I don't think that religion has never had apart in wars, look at the crusades. Not sure aout Atheism having a part in a war, though,
(To clarify, I'm an Atheist)
I'm not disagreeing with you but the crusades were a lot less about religion than they were about race and politics. Ironically race and politics were less valid reasons to go to war than religion in the middle ages.
Middle Age politics meant land, which was all the rage in feudal Europe.
The crusades started out about religion. ( i.e; Reclaiming the Holy land from Muslims.)
The popes called for the Crusades because Europe was in a relative state of peace and there were a lot of unemployed soldiers raiding villages and generally being assholes. They used religion as an excuse to put the soldiers under one banner and send them to fight outside of Europe. They used religion to justify their own ends but it really wasn't about religion, it just makes it an easier sell when the people you want to fight are different from those around you.
Number one is wrong. Atheism has never influenced murder, I'd bet my life on it. Maybe Darwinism, nihilism or naturalism could be twisted to make people kill but atheism isn't a philosophy. It is one single idea. Just like I wouldn't say theism has led to a single murder. Because "I believe there is a god so stabby time" makes no sense. It takes an organised belief system. You have to believe at least one thing beyond "I believe in a creator" for it to lead to murder, such as "I believe in an all loving creator who wants me to kill faggots". Or like Darwinism being used to justify eugenics, atheism is just one idea. You can't go from "I don't believe there is a god" to "so, yeah, master race..."
ReplyI believe the confusion here is in misuse of words. Atheism is the disbelief of a deity, but it is often referred to here as rational thinking.
What about communism? You know the Great Purge that was led by Stalin, an advocate for nationwide atheism? Atheism in this article's argument is too loose of a term, like theism would be.
what this guy does is the same thing we see a lot of times religious people that think they are intelectuals do.
Reply Hide All See All 3 Repliesthey will point a few of the things religion caused and then try to diminish them by saying atheists do it too.
all i can say is that its not true and if you think religion doesnt change everyday life then tell me how many modern day presidents said they dont have a religion?
The point is that atheists always say that religion is the cause of all the wars in history, and thats simply not true. The point is that even without religion people will kill each other for bullshit reasons. The three most evil men of the 20th century were all atheist (Hitler, Mao, Stalin). The point about everyday life is that most of are values are the same, however we came to hold them doesn't matter. There are very few subjects outside religion that atheists and believers don't agree upon. There are plenty of atheist republicans and religious democrats.
*don't agree upon
I agree with Thor. People do not need outside influence to be dicks. We are quite skilled at that without assistance
Even though this is probably my social genes talking, Religon did sorta set up the moral laws, but it wasn't necessary, minds are mostly chemical, but free will exists with sapience, which we have. Free will is the ability to make a choice, so even bacteria have free will, even if its governed by their genes. WE are mere vehicles for our genetics to pass on and replicate for no real reason other that what the hell.
Reply Hide All See All 3 RepliesI don't believe that last part. We're so much more than that.
I think we'd have moral codes without religion buddy. We set up religion and then we set up moral codes. It's not a Chicken/Egg Dilemma.
Still, there would much more of an "opposing minority" than there is today. Worst part, they would be even worse. Imagine a group of people who want to dismantle your civil morality not for the belief that you are wrong, but because they see life as bleak and want to do whatever they want? I'm not for that.
Add New CommentThis article, while written with good intention, has fallen into the irritating and ultimately false belief that everyone's opinion is just as good as the next and deserves equivalent respect. Opinions are not created equal. Advocates of reason and humanity must reject the theistic worldview, because it neither born of reason nor beneficial to our species. If you agree with that, then there should be no fear or evil to be found in stating clearly and with the conviction of scientific method: There is no god except what is created within the human mind. The relaying of fact and denunciation of myth has become treated as a "respect" issue. Mind your words, less they tread upon the carefully constructed, comfortable worldview of the theist. That does not mean that atheists should fall into the tiresome method of proselytizing. It does mean that when theism becomes the light and fuel for civil wars, when it threatens government system, when it impedes our scientific progress, it must be rejected vocally and without apology. There need be no yelling, no violence, no ad hominem attacks. We do not need to resort to such tactics any more than we do to demonstrate Pythagora's Theorem. And if the person to which we reveal a certain truth rebuffs or refuses to believe the classroom lesson, that is their choice. Freedom of thought and speech is to be respected. (Observe that it is the *freedom* that is deserving of respect: beautifully crafted by man that it is). To the blasphemer of reason, I say, "As you wish. You may have my ear, but you will never have my respect. That, at least, is still mine to choose to give."
Reply Hide All See All 15 RepliesThe scientific method cannot be applied to God because He is by definition beyond the scope of the universe and no laws of science or reasoning apply to Him. Second you can't use the scientific method to prove a negative. If you say God doesn't exist you can't say science backs that up, all you could say is that science hasn't proved his existence. It seems like splitting hairs, I know, but its an important distinction if your trying to use science to disprove God.
Second why should someones deeply held religious beliefs be set aside when conflict may arise. Should we also set aside politics, or someone's personal experiences to prevent conflict. Many people hold their religion as important as their nation, why is religion a less valid excuse to kill then politics? They're both human constructs, at least thats the atheist view. Without a God morality is purely subjective, thus any reason one would kill another is not inherently more valid than any other reason one would kill.
If your taking an atheist stance then every opinion is inherently equal, some maybe more widely held, but ultimately they're just views held by people. And since all people are inherently equal (in that one person has the ability to kill another) all views are equal.
Of course there's not way to prove something doesn't exist. But just because you can't doesn't mean it does. Like bigfoot or dragons. I know I know, some of you actually believe those exist too :). But you can absolutely prove that any modern day "God", christian, mormon, scientologist, muslim, jewish, baptist, jehovah's witness, catholic and so on is man made. History does this for us. If you look at ANY story in the bible or whatever book it is you look at as the word of god, you can find the exact same story in a greek or egyptian or sumerian religion with a few changes to appease the changing ideals and beliefs of the general public at the time the religion came about. I mean look at Jesus, even IF he was a real person, not one story of his is original, not the virgin birth, not the resurection. The only reason he was followed was because people were getting fed up with the Roman tryanny so a few people who probably became very wealthy invented Christianity and the story of Jesus Christ in order to convert those people to their religion and their business and gain control over tons of people and their coin purses. So IF there is a god, and yes, you can't prove there isn't, it's not your god or any organized, modern day, religions version of god
First off Jesus existed. There are no credible sources anywhere that dispute his existence or things like his baptism and crucifiction. Obviously his divinity is up for debate but his existence really isn't. Second it isn't valid to compare God to other mystical creatures. You can say you haven't seen a unicorn because you know what a unicorn looks like. You don't know what a manifestation of God would be so you wouldn't know whether you saw one or not (nor does anyone). I'll agree that there are a lot of inconsistencies within most organized religions. Part of the problem is that passages are mistranslated or taken as literal when they aren't meant to be. The use of "day" in Genisis is attributed as a 24 hour period by us, when in the original texts it is meant to mean just a period of time. Similar to the 72 virgins the "72" was meant to be just a large random number like saying "I have a million friends". Its not literal just literary license.
1. "advocates of reason and humanity must reject the theistic worldview". Survey says: BULLSHIT, you don't have to choose.
2. "Opinions are not created equal." Except for the offensive, oppressive, sadistic, and the extreme...yes they are.
3. "'To the blasphemer of reason, I say, "As you wish.You may have my ear, but you will never have my respect.'" I say the same to the jerks, the trolls, the bullies, and the close-minded. You fall under at least one or two of those.
I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours
- Stephen Roberts
Actually, there is No evidence besides the bible and other holy writing to suggest that Jesus ever existed. So when you throw those out as man made fairytales, then yes, his existence is absolutely up for debate. Oh and I think it's funny your username is Thors hammer when I'd bet anything you discount the millions of nordic people who used to believe whole heartedly that thor was a real god and really existed, but that's just crazy isn't it? And isn't it kind of blasphemas to have your user name the idol of another god?
And yeah you kind of can compare god to other mythical creatures...The chinese, and most of Europe used to really believe that dragons existed. Just because I haven't seen one doesn't mean they don't. And as another point to that Let's say for instance, right now, I'm not going to create a mythical creature called a wabbajack. Now I'm not going to tell you what it looks like, because I'm the only person that can see him. Oh and he just gave me power over your soul... do ya see how easy it is to make up a story? I mean look at scientology, made up by a guy that wrote science fiction for a living, and yet people believe that's absolutely true... just saying it's not hard for man to make stuff up, especially when it's gets him soooo much power.
Right you not seeing one doesn't prove they don't exist, but you know what one would look like so you'd know it when you saw it. You don't know what a manifestation of God would be or even if it exists. You can't claim to know a being which by its very definition is too great to understand, thats why there are a lot of theists who don't ascribe to any organized religion.
As far as Jesus's existence. Josephus and Tacitus, First century Roman historians mention Jesus similar to how he is portrayed in the Bible. The Gnostic gospels. The fact that no one has offered a plausible beginning for the myth of Jesus if Jesus was just a myth.
"the idea of the non-historicity of the existence of Jesus has always been controversial, and has consistently failed to convince scholars of many disciplines, and that classical historians, as well as biblical scholars now regard it as effectively refuted" Robert E. Van Voorst (Professor of New Testament Studies at Western Theological Seminary)
Can you find one reputable scholar who believes Jesus didn't exist? Not his divinity his existence as a historical figure.
Also I never said I was a Christian. NIce job putting everyone in neat little boxes. Being an atheist doesn't make you magically "enlightened" no matter how much you think it does.
xxx no evidence other than holy writings
Tacitus, Suetonius, and Pliny the Younger are all pagans from the first century that write about Jesus. They were not affiliated with Christianity in any way but still mention his existence. Josephus, Mara bar Sarapion, the Talmud are Jewish sources that discuss Jesus. The Gnostic gospels (better known as the Dead Sea Scrolls) were writings of a first century Jewish sect that also chronicled parts of Jesus's existence. Its strange that unrelated sources with consistent stories and dates would be talking about a mythical person only a few years after thats mythical person's existence. Unless it was an actual person with a real following.
The reason religion and atheism need to be given the same level of respect is that neither side can be completely disproven, and neither side will budge regardless of evidence or lack thereof. Unless eternal arguments sound like a good time to you, you may have to fall upon the old saying and agree to disagree.
Sorry I actually replied with a website of a college professor who specifically addresses Josephus and Tacitus' writings and how they were altered hundreds of years after their deaths. But whether or not you believe that, the point stands that you can and will find very reliable and very knowledgable sources that will debate the existence of Jesus Christ. Now even with that argument they strayed really far from the point in my original post. My point was even if Jesus was real, the stories in the Bible are clearly man made and clearly just adaptions of stories from previous religions that people now account as nonsense
Sorry I actually posted a reply with a website of the head of the physics college in Canada that directly addresses the Josephus and Tacitus writings. and how they were altered hundreds of years after each of them died. And I think since I put a web address it didn't post. So the "xxx nothing but religions sources" was a mistake a wrote while writing that. But either way the point was that you can and will find credible and very knowledgable sources to despute the actual existence of Jesus. Now whether or not you believe that it did stray from the point of my original post, which was that even if you believe Jesus is true, it is very clear that the stories in the bible are man mad and are just adapations of stories from previous religions that people now account and nonsense.
Sorry I actually posted a reply with a website of the head of the physics department of a college in Canada that directly addressed the Josephus and Tacitus writings. and how they were altered hundreds of years after each of them died. And I think since I put a web address it didn't post. So the "xxx nothing but religions sources" was a mistake I wrote while writing that. But either way the point was that you can and will find credible and very knowledgable sources to despute the actual existence of Jesus. Now whether or not you believe that, it did stray from the point of my original post, which was that even if you believe Jesus was real, it is very clear that the stories in the bible are man mad and are just adapations of stories from previous religions that people now account as nonsense.
Nice article. I'm a Baptist Christian and one of my best friends is an atheist and we both can't stand the people on both sides that want to yell and argue all the time.
Reply1 John 4:20. That is why I never say that people are damned outright.
I don't have any overwhelming problems with people who try to convert others, regardless of which direction it be in. After going to church every week for my entire childhood, the one thought that stuck in my head was "I don't know why these people believe this.", and so I was technically an atheist back then, as a child, even though I went to church. One day when I was look at the world and thinking about divine influences working their ways into the everyday life of humanity, I formulated a creed I cannot escape from: An all powerful, all loving, all knowing being does not deserve worship if he creates creatures capable of doing horrible atrocities such as humans do, but decides to allow innocent people to come to harm who wish to leave a positive impact on the world. A deity who does this is irresponsible, and I would feel horrible giving it any sort of praise. It is immoral to abandon people who need help, and it is immoral to deliver asymmetrical punishments. The very fact that bad people harm and take advantage of good people in this world is the reason I lack belief. If there is something divine to believe in, it is in my opinion that it does not deserve praise and worship.
Reply Hide All See All 16 RepliesThat's the wrong way to see it. If a creator were to step in and change things every time a bad person made the bad decision to hurt someone, there would be no fear, no value of life by comparison to death, no motivation to develop moral philosophy, and no separation of people who do and do not have moral turpitude. More importantly, there would be no free choice. You look at a few simple actions and consequences in a mortal realm of existence with the mortal feeling of indignation and thereby say you have reasoned a higher understanding about the nature of a divine creator? That is a shallow and immediate philosophy. It's like saying "My girlfriend broke up with me so there's no such thing as love."
I'm sorry, but I find your "The Ends Justify The Means" philosophy to be lacking. Anybody who tries to convince you that "The Ends Justify The Means" is somebody who isn't being efficient in their means. There is no excuse for giving and all powerful entity a pass when it comes to failing to protect the innocent. I'd just like to point out that I've never known anybody who's died, but that doesn't automatically mean I value life less. As to your free will argument, God could have simply made humans differently, so that we just naturally did good things 100% of the time by choice, out of our own free will. Tell me what would stop an all-powerful God from creating a strictly gentle and benevolent humankind in his image? Why would an all-knowing God allow the Snake in Eden in the first place, knowing full well that he was cursing humanity and every unborn child to a life born into sin and suffering? Why would an all-loving God allow Satan to have the power to manipulate human minds and actions in the first place? If goodness is the proof of God's presence, and God is all present, then how is it that bad things come to pass? A God which allows these things is not thinking outside the box. But first and foremost, it is the innocents, those who strive for good, those who would help others and engage in self-sacrificing - I cannot forgive a creator who allows them to suffer. We have to hold Him to a higher standard. Unless of course you believe that He who is capable of doing anything is not capable of teaching us to value such things as life, honesty, and morality, without having to injure anybody in the process?
@Stineral thats the point of faith. God as he is seen by most religions is by definition benevolent. So any actions he takes, or allows are right and if you don't like them then you would be in the wrong. It sounds like a cop out answer I know, but thats what faith is. As humans we don't know what his plan is nor could we comprehend it. So you take faith that there is an ultimate good that is playing out, though you don't understand it.
If you think that this life is the only existence, then you would conclude that God isn't protecting the innocent. But children and parents don't see eye to eye on this either. "I want a pony, now! I want cake for every meal everyday. My parents make me do things I don't like. They must be evil." Parents could take away much of the pain children experience by giving them everything they want right away, and the ones that do... turns out they are the evil ones. Because that child will never grow into an adult.
Stineral wants to decry "the Ends Justify the Means." But that is all atheists have. They keep telling me that there is no purpose to existence; that everyone gets to choose his own purpose. Well, then the right thing to do is what fulfills your purpose. It's the same for everyone, but deists tend to think there is an existence beyond this one and a universal purpose for mankind.
"God could have simply made humans differently," to do good 100% of the time. Except that isn't free will. If you set their will to good, then their will is not free. God could either create beings to do good all the time, OR, he could give them free will. By His choice he constrained himself. So, you want God to create humans perfect? That's the lesson of Satan. He was created perfect, with free will, and choose evil. The only way to make a free being that will choose good all the time is not to start them perfect, but to teach them to strive for it always. Anyone can choose good when it's easy, the test of character is when it's hard. Without suffering, it's never hard.
I have to say as an athiest, I hear this argument ALL the time, and it's one of the main reasons I don't believe in a god, at least the god you believe in . If god is all powerful and can make anything the way he wants it, why test us, why give us the option of evil, why not make man kind perfect (after all he made us in his image right). Why the secrecy, if he is omnipoteny why not show himself, if all he wants( and he apparently bases eternal peace or enternam damnation on it) is some people to worship the ground he walks on, would that not be easier if he revealed himself to us? I mean it just doesn't make sense. It's like believe that a rabbit runs through your house once a year to hide eggs or a fat man flies to every house in the world in one night just to bring you a present, you should only believe it until you are old enough to think for yourself. Oh sorry did I ruin some secrets for you?
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God? - Epicurus
Asking why God does anything won't get you anywhere. Hes God you're not. Simple as that believe or don't believe, no one is capable of fully understanding his plan even if he were to lay it out. The problem with comparing God to other mystical creatures is that they have testable characteristics. You know you haven't seen a unicorn because you know what a unicorn looks like and you haven't seen one. You don't know what a manifestation of God would be so you can't say you haven't seen one, just that you believe you've never seen a manifestation of God. As far as the "Problem of Evil" this is where every religion inserts free will. God didn't want perfect servants cause he would have created us that way if he wanted to. So evil maifests itself when one chooses to turn away from God, and varies in how much evil is present by how far from God an act is. Thus God allows evil otherwise we wouldn't have free will.
Thors Hammer, Okay, let's stop and just think about a hypothetical answer. I'm not going to say they are, but what if... What if, on the off chance, the very highest people in whatever religion you belong to, are corrupt. Just what if. What if there is a chance that they know it's not real and all they want is to have thousands of people, or more depeneding on your religion, that they can control to do almost anything and to give them weekly tithings. Would it not suite their purpose to tell you that they, and only they, can speak to an omnipotent being that is so much higher than you that to even question his will is blasphemy and you will burn in a giant lava pit for the rest of eternity if you do? I mean I'm just saying history has proven that men are easily corrupted, especially when they have lots of power. And what could give you more power than someone believing your imaginary friend could send everyone on the planet to an endless eternirty of pain. Just something to think about before you blindly follow whatever it is your church leader is telling you to do. And you'll probably reply with something like we can't understand god's will. But I'm not asking you to doubt anything that God has come directly to you and told you, just to think about what the easily corruptable human who says he can speak to god has told you.
And as far as the evil thing, so you are telling me that the being that you devote your life to willingly allows people to do the most heinous kind of evil. Evil worse than you or I could probably ever think could happen. And he has the power to stop it but he chooses not to, because he wants people to be able to choose for themselves whether that is what they would like to do. And you follow this person??? why?
Also, last post I promise, I just want to say that the pope has his own city state, lives in a giant castle, wears gold robes, has a golden staff..... I mean he's pretty much flashing it in peoples faces that he is stealing their money and living a life of luxury with it. And I can guarantee, GUARANTEE that whatever church you belong to, your elders, at the very least live in a nice house and wear thousand dollar suits to work every day. Which if I'm not mistaken is kind of directly against every ideal that the story of Jesus tries to teach. I'm mean they don't even try to hide the fact that they know they are coning you out of your money, and yet people don't seem to see it.
Okay I never said there wasn't corruption within organized religion. A lot of theists reject all organized religion. You're assuming that everyone who believes in God blindly follows their church leaders and that isn't true. Most question their church whatever it is, and are willing to go against a churches teachings if they disagree. As far as my church the pastor lives in an apartment within the church itself and definetly does not have a lot of money. Your criticisms of Christianity only apply to the Catholic church and the large evangelical mega churches. Those are hardly representative of Christianity as a whole. Further any abuse committed by someone claiming to do something in the name of God means that person's an a*****e, not that God doesn't exist.
As far as the question of evil, your asking me to explain God's reasoning. I can't I'm not God. Thats the point of faith. If you can't except that fine don't, but others do and no ones been proven right so its a matter of personal choice, with really no answer being inherently more valid.
As for the arguments about whether God should have created humans without the ability to do bad or to only choose to do good things I ask this: Which relationship is more fulfilling? Your relationship with your dog who will do basically whatever you ask as long as you don't starve it or your relationship with your girlfriend who could cheat and lie and hurt you if she wanted to but chooses not to? You could technically have sex with both if you wanted to, and you don't really need a long term relationship to reproduce. Why not just knock up some random chick at a bar and use your dog for everything else?
Not to say that any deity exists, but the "Why didn't they just make humans perfect?" argument doesn't hold water if you actually consider the reason why the potential for betrayal is so vital for healthy relationships.
So you're saying that a god allows a mom to beat her 2 year old baby girl to death and throw it in a river or a Hitler to mass murder millions of Jews, because it makes his relationship better with them, or even other people. I don't know from the way religious people talk about god, all good, all knowing, omnipotent, you can't question him, or any of his disciples, you can't know his will.... he doesn't seem like the type to take a gamble on if he's going to get a good friendly person or a homicidal maniac. So the argument is valid, unless this god really does exist and just doesn't know everything and can't control everything, in which case why are people worshipping him. Or it's just all random and no one really knows everything which kind of solves all of those questions
And as far as just knocking up a girl and keeping your dog for a companion, love is probably the only reason our species has survived and thrived the way it has, because we reproduce and love both who we reproduce with and our offspring which ensures that the healthy male helps the pregnant female and then the weak offspring live as long as possible
But I think most people would agree, that if they could have a girlfriend that they knew wasn't going to cheat on them, or one that they had a 50/50 chance of getting cheated on, they would, if they have the power, such as god does, they'd go with the one where they knew
And the reason we don't just knock girls up and find companionship with a pet, is because love, is probably the strongest evolutionary reasons our species survived and thrived as it did. When we fall in love with our lover and the off spring, it ensures that the male doesn't leave the pregnant female nor the weak off spring which ensures there survival and the survival of our species. That's why we find more joy from a girl friend that could potentially cheat on us a dog because loving a dog more than a woman and leaving her to tend for herself and her new born child would kill off our species really fast