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...
what this guy does is the same thing we see a lot of times religious people that think they are intelectuals do.
Replythey 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
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.
ReplyAdd 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."
ReplyThe 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.
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.
ReplyI 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 4 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.
If I went around telling everyone I believe in magneto, no one would respect that, they would think I was nuts. But for some reason, I am supposed to respect it because its "god", somethig there is no evidence for? Why?
ReplyWell, the problem with this example is that you don't believe in Magneto, isn't it? Even the you in the example, I mean. In fact, you probably picked a ridiculous thing to believe in because you find the thought of believing in something non-existant to be ridiculous. You didn't bother to put yourself into a religious mindset, is what I'm trying to say.
But if you *did* genuinely, honestly believe in Magneto - like, really, for serious - wouldn't you actually want people to respect that? Not *agree* with it, of course, but at least *respect* it.
personally i think that he is pretty much summing up what i am about to say. We all have our own opinions and beleifs even if that belief is in nothing at all.im an atheist and almost every single one of my friends is christian.only one time me and my friend got into an argument and i stopped it immediately by saying this:we both have our own opinions and im true to mine the same way your true to yours.telling me im going to hell would be as effective as telling a naked man you were going to rip his clothes off. he thought for a moment and apoligized and my point is that we all really need to learn that people are entitled to their own opinions and telling them that they are stupid to think oppisite of you is really just wrong in almost every way. anyone who thinks i should "burn in hell" or "get a life" or whatever, should state their opinions or just keep them to yourself.Is YOUR opinion that matters. And don't let anybody change it regardless of the insults or threats they throw at you.
ReplyI enjoy how the article can find middle-ground between Christians and Atheists. I enjoy the way they're both made like fools for Christianity's psychedelic anger and atheism's lack of abstract thinking. However, there are a few flaws. To avoid starting an epicly-huge religious flame-war, (as I have done 20 times too many) I will not list them...
Reply...Let's just say, there will always be fundamentalists. We just need a more pacifist approach to converting, like that passive "show them that you're good" idea at the end of your thesis. That would solve countless wars and conflicts, hopefully!
Oh this comment section depresses me to no end...
ReplyI appreciated this article. Thank you.
ReplyFirstly, I don't understand the agenda of the person who wrote this article. Clearly you couldn't have been aiming to reconcile the beliefs of the religious and non-religious by providing a number of trivial behaviours which we agree on. I'm not really sure what the point of this is because the debate will not end so long as either side believes that they have a more suitable moral compass for humanity, or so long as atheists hold integrity to be one of the greatest of virtues, and religious people - more often than if they're open-minded but plain ignorant - prefer faith and wishful-thinking over the logical answers to philosophical and scientific inquiry.
Reply Hide All See All 3 RepliesSecondly, it is nonsensical to propose that someone can do something in the name of their non-belief. A non-belief has no substance in which one could use to 'do things in the name of'. An atheist who slaughters a child and says 'I did this because I'm an atheist' certainly did not actually do it BECAUSE they are an atheist. An atheist who kills people who don't agree with his non-belief is not killing people BECAUSE of his non-belief. Religion, a positive belief, on the other hand, can be used as a device for many actions to be done in the name of it. Next criticism.
What a worthless attempt to negate any professed moral superiority on either side: Yes, Christian's can be nice. Yes, atheists can be nice. But if we're aspiring for a exponentially moral community for humanity then the question should be omitted and we should rather ask which structure of belief provides, or will provide, with a happier humanity.
"Both sides have brought good to the table". Again, this is irrelevant. A rapist can give money to charity and save a drowning infant. Reverting back to your agenda, it is clear that you've only attempted to neutralise the debate, but it hasn't worked. Agnosticism does not provide anything useful to this debate. The only people you're convincing are agnostics, which means you're increasing the amount of morally apathetic, redundant-bores there are in the world. You, sir, have been cracked.
His agenda is simple, he doesn't want people to be douchebags. simple, and it is something everyone can get behind, it's not like you want bad things to happen, because bad stuff is bad.
Rozzy, you are correct in every way.
@tristan7grunt
If it were an ideal world we lived in, that would be possible. But here's the issue at the heart of the matter that this article completely avoided.
"...there is a logical pathway leading from religion to the committing of atrocities." -Dawkins
Religion often justifies wickedness.
All it takes is for a bene\malevolent force to justify the enslaving of all people with, let's say, ear gauges. To those who worshipped that force as absolute morality and authority, they would be rationally justified in carrying out such a decree.
This is not a healthy mentality for society, not one worthy of respect, nor something to be overlooked.
He does address that where he talks about how both sides have commited atrocities. Religion isn't the reason people murder each other its just one of many justifications people use to kill each other.
Why are all the atheists in the comments such assholes.
Replybecause normal atheists don't have strong enough opinions to comment, therefore, those who do are usually only the douches. Really, I could care less about beliefs, I believe in god AND evolution, but for some reason, these "zealot atheists" feel like they have to force their points, which is weird, because they don't have a belief to stand behind, because they believe in nothing. And no, I'm not dissing atheists, I'm dissing zealot atheists, and I guess I also dislike zealot religious people.
To me, it's not really about religion vs. Atheism. I think a person can be Atheist and still sort of think that there is a higher power (even though I unfortunately, do not. I want to though. I just don't see it when I see things like a child getting run over in my mother country and 5 men walk by and do absolutely nothing). What I have against religion (ie Christianity) is that the bible itself is just wrong, wrong, wrong on so many levels (stoning a woman to death for not being a virgin on her wedding day comes to mind). I don't have anything against people who want to believe in God and like to pray. But I do have a lot against people who believe in the bible and use it to justify hatred toward gays/abominations (bc the bible is right about SO many things, isn't it?). If being a Christian = believing in the Bible (and it does), then no matter what, I am simply against them. But only because the bible itself is flawed in so many ways (you can beat your slaves, just not to death), and no matter what, people will always use that crazy book to justify their actions.
ReplyI do not understand how people blame God (or any higher power), for sins that are committed by men who are too selfish to stop to help.
I guess I will answer the rest too. Yes there was stoning but it was not just women, it was any adulterers. Again, selfish men (not God) focused more on women. Christ said in response to the stoning "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone". I agree, it is unjustified to "Hate" anyone for their beliefs/lifestyle/ect. Many, Many things are sins, and all sin is equal from murder to lying to your mum about eating the last cookie. All sin leads too eternal death of your [/u]soul[/u]. I am a sinner because I looked at a woman/man/pony (one of those is a joke) with lust in my heart, by heavenly law I should be cast too hell, but because I repent, and believe that Jesus is my savor. I am shone mercy.
Will I sin tomorrow? I hope/pray not. I will do my best too represent the Lord my God in the best way possible. I might fail because I am human, Not because of God, but Because [u]I[/u] fail. Too many people blame God (or other deity) for humanities stupidity. I hate too say free-will but I can imagine a world without free-will and it would not give us the opportunity too explore and grow and become more like God.
Now I am starting to ramble, It is late here. I hope this answers some questions. I hope it raises more questions. The path to enlightenment starts with the question "Why is that?"
FLT
im atheist and im pissed off because my beliefs dont encroach on others freedoms! especially when the leaders of the church betray the children in their own charge! religion is the source of ALL hatred in the world PERIOD
Reply Hide All See All 3 RepliesNo,it's not.
Yep Stalin and Hitler never encroached on other's rights or killed anyone.
I'm a Christian and I'm pissed off because my beliefs don't encroach on others freedom. I've PERSONALLY never even hurt a fly. But I guess you're going to be as ignorant as to say that no atheist ever committed murder or rape or sexual molestation etc.
Some of these comments and their rationale seem quite bizarre to me. Apparently - to some - whether or *not* you *believe* in something has nothing to do with your *beliefs* unless you *believe*. So if I say, "I don't believe in God" that's not a belief, because I said "I don't". Just like if I say "I don't believe the moon landing was real" that's not a belief either, because I said "I don't" first...
ReplyA great article! You put into words how I've felt about this debate for a long, long time! (Also, can we agree that getting into heated debates over these things on the Internet is never going to change anyone's minds for the positive?)
ReplySee, this was much better than Gladstone's recent article about the same thing. Why? Because I honestly couldn't tell which side Wong was on. He was exactly in the middle, explaining with an honest point of view. He never went too far, and he simplified the points in a way that was easy to understand. Also, that last picture really hit the point home. Either intentionally or unintentionally it was the perfect note to end on.
ReplyCouldn't get through it. Too much acting like religion actually has a leg to stand on.
Reply Hide All See All 4 RepliesBy talking about religion as if it is a plausible and rational thing to believe in you are belittling science and proof and hard facts. Which is of course ridiculous.
Also celebrating the death of people that you disagree with is awesome.
And finally, I am going to tell you all the secret to a happy life. What you need to do is live like an atheist, believe that this is the only life you get, enjoy it, don't sweat the small things (after all, if you are nothing, an insignificant speck in the s**t of the cosmos then your problems are even less than nothing).
.... and THEN, when you die if it turns out that God is real then simply bargain with the bugger, he can't be that great or forgiving if he is going to send you to hell simply for living your life in exactly the way that he designed you to (eating, f*****g, coveting your neighbours wife....... eating and f*****g your neighbours wife etc).....and if he is going to send you to hell for doing those things then well... hell is gonna be full of party animals.... hopefully God is kind enough to put your name on the door before he sends you cos if he isn't then you're gonna be standing outside in the queue for a while..
Just going to say that Christians also believe that you only get one shot in this life, so you might as well make the most of it. :) ("Hell" is something completely un-enjoyable, not party central....but that's a conversation for another time and place. :) Just keep in mind that you've probably never said "I'm in Hell" in reference to having a GOOD time. ;) Plus, more to faith than just doing the right things, but also a conversation for another time.)
It's almost like you think christians and atheists are different, we both believe in creators, (Atheists believe in big bang, religious people believe in God) we both have points, we aren't all bad, and we have the same primal virtues. Religion is good, atheism is good. P.S. please don't generalize, it usually turns these things into flame wars.
tristan7grunt, you forgot a few things about atheist "creator":
1.- It had no purpose, it just happened, just because. It could not have happened, or in the process, create an entirely different reality.
2.- If science finds a better explanation, it WILL drop the "Big Bang" theory, and accept the new one, specially since the Big Bang is still a theory, that is, it's not proven to be true, just accepted until it's proved or discarded.
3.- The Big Bang couldn't care less about our beliefs and morals. It didn´t create Heaven nor Hell, if those exist at all, and its only influence over our present Earth is residual radiation that is still left.
I am not trying to say science is better, only that Big Bang and God only have in common the "creation" part, absolutely nothing else. And even then, the Big Bang, thougth effimeral, did not create Earth in six days, but in millions of millions of years (dunno the exact estimated number, so sorry if I went overboard here).
Oh that's so sad you view life this way. If every human did what they wanted without considering consequences or did something wrong that they felt was wrong but did it anyway - because in order for God to be a good God he HAS to forgive every person on the planet - what would this world look like???
Even more sad than it already is.
I enjoyed this article quite a bit. However, the point D.W. makes throughout, that you can only get people to listen if they're willing to listen, unfortunately applies to this entire piece.
ReplyThere may well be CRACKED readers who read this, ladled up the puddled fragments of their blown minds, and said, "You know what? F*ck all this 'being a d*ck' stuff, I'm going to be just a really good guy from now on." However, I don't think it's going to be a huge number of people.
Readership of this article is self-selecting; that is, we're only reading this article because we saw the link and had a strong enough reaction to compel us to read through three pages of internet. As D.W. also points out, we only had that reaction because it's a subject we ALREADY feel strongly about. So we can reasonably assume that the people who waded through this article fit neatly into four camps: committed atheists, committed Christians, committed neither, and uncommitted. Even if those four groups are equal in size (and actually I would guess that the uncommitted group is probably the smallest by quite a ways), that still means that only 1/4 of the readers of this article (the uncommitted) are even CAPABLE of having their minds changed. Everyone else has pretty much made up their minds as to whether they agree with this article or not.
No. 6 - I think there is some general truth to this
Reply Hide All See All 3 RepliesThat said though, the case you make here is, to an extent a demonstration of what's fundamentally wrong about the way some Christians, to a greater or lesser extent, form their beliefs about the world.
"Just because some Christians reject the science on evolution, doesn't mean they reject all science."
Well, sorry, but yes it does.
What is science? Basically it's people looking at things they can't explain and watching them very closely for clues, measuring things like temperature, physical dimensions, coming up with ideas about what might be going on and then setting up tests to see if you are right - over and over and over until you are as certain as you can be that your idea is right. Then you get the lights coming on, the car starting, the voice on the phone etc.
If you accept any of "science" you accept that this method works for finding out about how things work - and if you accept that then you have little choice but to accept the theory of evolution since it is one of the most successful examples of this process. Evolution is almost as well established in scientific circles as Newton's law of Gravity. Saying you reject it is like saying "Oh... well... I don't really accept that electricity travels along wires and you can control it with the switch - I think that's just coincidence that the light always comes on ..." You would have to have a very good reason or people would think you a simpleton or raging attention seeker.
Again it comes back to the ability to distinguish between what you think or believe about things based on myths or superstitions, and what can actually be verified independently.
Oh btw - there is no "atheist lifestyle".
One can reject a scientific conclusion without rejecting all of science.
The problem with the evolution thing is that atheists are usually referring to the general theory, while most Christians are referring *specifically* to the "man came from apes" theory.
Believing that God created Adam and Eve rather than in the primordial soup doesn't mean a person can't be a great electrician. One doesn't exclude the other..
I would like to think a religious scientist keeps both separated, accepting scientific findings as "the true way God did it". Not that I believe in God, but, if he exists, he is a scientist.
Also, why would you keep human separated from the evolution of the rest of species? Not only are we animals, but it's a fact that roughly 99% of our DNA is exactly like that of a chimp. How can religion explain that, if not by thougthlessly rejecting the whole theory?