10 Things Christians and Atheists Can (And Must) Agree On
|
3. In Everyday Life, You're Not That Different You Christians, if the transmission in your Camaro explodes, are you going to use prayer to reconstruct it? No, you'll call a mechanic. When your tooth hurts, you don't assume it's possessed by demons. You look for a cavity. Basic, everyday troubleshooting. Well, at the very worst, the atheists are just applying the same common sense, real-world troubleshooting to the God question. At the creation of the universe and in the heart of mankind, they expect to find the same physical, tangible answers they'd find inside a burnt transmission. If they're wrong about God, they're only wrong in that they've taken the tried-and-true troubleshooting we all practice one step too far. On the other hand... Atheists, even if you reject the idea of God completely and claim to live according only to the cold logic of the physical sciences, you all still live as if the absolute morality of some magical lawgiver were true. No, wait. Don't go away. When some guy hustles you out of eighty bucks in an ebay scam, you don't nod and say, "Interesting! This fellow lacks the genetic predisposition toward equitable dealing that generations of sexual selection in favor of social behavior has instilled in the rest of us! A fascinating difference!" No, you think what that guy did was wrong. You want justice. You think he should have acted differently. Even though there's no "wrong" molecule floating in the air and there's no "justice" element on the Periodic Table. You don't think of the swindler as just a fellow animal who happens to behave differently than you. You think he should have acted some other way, according to an invisible ideal that everybody is aware of and knows they should obey. When that "boob at the Super Bowl" incident happened a while back, I constantly heard atheists making fun of Christians and their puritan silliness over sex. "Come on! It's just meat! We're all just mammals! Sex is natural! What are you afraid of?!?!?" Yet, the moment you find out that while you were on vacation, your girl got drunk and slept with the entire Chicago Bears... 
Again there's this invisible rule that was supposed to be followed, that everybody was supposed to be aware of, that can't be proven by logic. Whatever it is, wherever you think it came from, you can't deny that it's there. Your own behavior would make you a liar. Well, at the very worst, the Christians are just taking that same moral impulse and applying it to the God question. At the creation of the universe, they expect to find the same invisible hand that pushes us to be fair and loyal and kind. If they're wrong about God, they're only wrong in that they've taken that absolute morality and put a face on it, made an idol out of it. Taken it one step too far. You think of it that way, and the amount of overlap between the two of us is actually pretty striking. Right? 
4. There Are Good People on Both Sides This is an easy one. I shouldn't lose anybody here. All you need is examples. Atheists, you can despise a Falwell or the gay funeral protesting guy, but you've known Christians who did it right. Famous ones like Martin Luther King Jr., or just common ones you've run across who seem to have an inexaustible well of generosity and good cheer. You know how many charities have crosses on their logo. Christians... look. The church loves to phrase it like: "The faithful will be joined with their father in Heaven, while the liars, the murderous, the treacherous will be cast down with Satan and his hordes." See the gap there, between the first part of the statement and the second? What about all the people in between? The atheists and Muslims and Buddhists and Scientologists who aren't murderous or treacherous or liars? I understand the concept, that all morality comes from God and thus those on the outside are vulnerable to temptation and the devil and all that. But you know good people who aren't believers. I know you do. You can't miss them. Therefore: If God alone can deliver us from temptation, And, Some people who don't believe in God are also able to resist temptation, Then, God must offer his protection against temptation even to some who don't believe in God. One could even say that God aids the atheist's honest desire to follow one of God's rules... even while he continues to deny God. 
Next... 5. Your Point of View is Legitimately Offensive to Them Now, this says nothing about whether or not it's true. For this, I only ask that you understand why they get offended. Everybody is aware that something can be both true and offensive, right? You see a friend holding a newborn baby and you say, "You know, there's a chance he'll die tomorrow." Or you stand over the casket at your uncle's funeral and say, "He'll definitely be consuming fewer of the world's natural resources now." Both statements completely, 100% factually correct, and can be defended to the end of time by cold, undeniable logic. And both are incredibly offensive. To say such things, and to be surprised when the hearers take offense, would show such a profound misunderstanding of human nature that everyone will assume you were raised by wolves. So Christians, knowing what we just said about how it is possible to be a true, honest atheist, that people walk around every day and truly see no evidence of God, can you understand why it's offensive to them to hear that they, and their family, and their children, and their friends, are going to burn for eternity for it? Especially if you, as most modern churches do, imply that people born into other cultures who honestly follow other faiths, are also going to burn? Because they were fooled by Satan?    From chick.com
Nobody hates the idea of a creator, or of there being some kind of ultimate justice in the universe. That's not what has these people in such a bad mood. They despise the clique-ish, militant exclusion of it. 
Atheists. Same deal. It's irritating to you when they say you and your friends aren't going to Heaven because of your beliefs. But it's just as irritating to them when you say they're not going to Heaven, because there is no Heaven. And the irritation happens on the same grounds, which is, injustice. You hate the idea of all non-Christians burning for eternity, but you're telling them that the mass murderer and kindly grandma will draw the same eternal reward (or lack of). Now, again, both of you are saying, "But I'm factually right in what I'm saying!" And that's fine. For this, all we're doing here is understanding why they're offended by what you say. That's it. Putting yourself in their shoes. Basic human empathy. That's all. 
|
Reddit
Facebook
StumbleUpon
Digg
Del.icio.us
FarkRecommended for Your Pleasure
-
5 Self-Destructive Ways People Accidentally Cured Themselves
by: Wes Park1,062,797 views -
6 Fake Foods You (Will Wish You Didn't) Have in Your Kitchen
by: Ian Fortey1,056,266 views -
6 Natural Disasters That Were Caused by Human Stupidity
by: Ben Dennison963,175 views -
17 More Images You Won't Believe Aren't Photoshopped
by: Joe Russo2,734,788 views
This is the magnum opus of Cracked.
Eshto, you are exactly who the article was written for, I think. Everyone, look: we found the militant atheist!
Just started reading, and number one is already wrong. Atheism is a lack of belief, it doesn't have any content of its own. You can't do something "in the name of" something that isn't anything. You don't even understand what atheism is.
Number two is also wrong. Most atheists do not claim to know for certain there is no God, because atheists tend to be better educated in matters such as science, philosophy and mathematics. We know it is logically impossible to prove a negative. Religious people are the ones who believe in things without evidence or humility.
I'm not going to bother reading the rest, it is sure to be just as uninformed. Needless to say, I don't have to agree with any of it. The burden of proof is on religious people to convince everyone else of their unfounded claims; and it's their obligation to learn about the world and form beliefs that conform to reality, not the other way around.
David Wong for president!
Bravo.
Concepts of morality (justice, guilt, right and wrong) can not be deemed non scientific. Science is the adaptable human sense-maker. It is the amorphous framework of reality as far as we know it.
The science of our morality is young, but not obsolete. Robert Wright's The Moral Animal comes to mind. Evolutionary psychology encompasses many well tested theories that explain the genetic influence on human morality.
If God exist, it does so outside the current realm of human comprehension and it is hence futile to personify God.
Though I do agree with the main gesture of your points, i disagree on the details:
1 and 4: Yes, believing that God(s) exist, or don't exist does not determine whether or not somebody is evil. Nobody ever killed somebody because of this belief or disbelief. Theists and Atheists are equal on this abstract level.
However, there are certain beliefs and ideologies, which do inspire murder, and certain religious beliefs are among them. Religion is more than the pure belief in the existance of gods, it includes dogmas, ideas of good, evil, guilt and virtue.
You can't blame theism or atheism for provoking crimes, but you CAN blame certain religions. Religion can make good people do evil things.
2: I dont think that there are any atheists, who think that most believers don't believe what they claim to believe. This suspicion only arises, when certain people (e.g. some televangelists, quacks, gurus) systematically abuse the beliefs of the people in their community.
3:I strongly disagree with this statement: "...you all still live as if the absolute morality of some magical lawgiver were true"
I agree on the absolute morality part, but the lawgiver idea is inherently theistic. Most atheists think that the "randomly selected" laws of a lawgiver and absolute morality are comepletly independet concepts, even if they happen to be the same. Absolute morality is considered "absolute", because it is more than just the opinion of a powerful person.
5: This is typacally American. Americans are very easyly offended, even if somebody says something, that is not aimed at them. Here in central Europe opinions, statements and beliefs are not consided offensive, unless they are aimed at offending somebody.
Statements of theism or atheism should not offend anybody (thats my "european" opinion)
However, saying that somebody is evil because of his belief or disbelief is offensive!
Sure there may be some areas of agreement. As much as you would like the atheists to stop pointing out the Christian wrongs it's just not going to happen. Why? Because as you said, atheists think if we don't show the absurdities of religious dogmatic thinking the wrongs will just not stop. This is as simple as a parent teaching a child to look both ways before he crosses the street. By the way, it seems like parents don't do that very much. Should the parent make the child learn by his mistakes? This could be as deadly as blindly following religious dogma. Sure everyone should try and not hurt someones feelings needlessly. Sometimes it is needed to make an impression. Unfortunatly the brainwashed need a big dose of reality slapped into their brain. By the way, Christianity succeceded through the sword not by example. Not that I am advocating this barbaric techniqe to teach the truth.
As I'm reading this post I keep seeing how the author seems to think everything is just fine the way things are as long as atheist and Christians quit arguing. Yea, that's what's wrong with the world. Yes religion attempts to define morality. Problem is they think the philosophy in the bible is by a perfect all knowing god. Atheist don't usually claim to have a perfect moral philosophy. The profesor that claimed predetermined mechanical decisions is wrong. The thing about atheist is we look and find differient philosophies to follow. Some are good ones, some are bad. If society wasn't so he'll bent on the god theory we would probably tested and perfected more philosophies. We know some in the bible are bad. Problem is we can't get some people to believe they could possibly be bad. They will inevitably repeat the same mistakes forever. The author seems to think Adam and eve had no conotations of subugating women. Christianity holds this still fairly strong. Ever seen a female catholic preist? Didn't think so. The fact is the author thinks no problem exists still. It's like all in the dark ages or something. As was noted by other blogers, the Christian right is the main reason gay marraige is still illegal in most states. This is a huge problem of injustice. Yes I don't think Christians can easily rationalize morality. Their brain is extra clouded by dogma. Sorry if this offends you but sometimes the honest truth hurts and must be said. How can we atheist show this by example?
Yes moral
People should value human life. Did moses value the human 3,000 human men, women and children he ordered murdered the day some god supposedly engraved commandments for him that said don't murder! Did he value the people who occupied the 'holy land'? God supposedly gave this little piece of land to these 'chosen' people to fight over for all eternity. Yes I believe religious followers believe their god. That's the scary part. I've talked to so many Christians and never came across one that I doubted their dedication to believe in this god that works in mysterious ways. No they don't search for the truth though. They think they found it when they were born into their Christian family. How lucky for them. No true search nessesary. Follow the god that kills and hates and other barbaric rules. Good thing most Christians these days don't truly follow gods words.
Jerry Falwell said the fags in New York were the target for the terrorists. He said the same for the 'act of god' called katrina. His bible supports his theory. Let's get to the root of the problem. Stop trying to dance around it.
I wish Christian philosophy in it's foundation 'bible' followed the moderate philosophy of the author. He even said he made his own religion due to the fact that the 'normal' Christian religion is not moral enough. This fence sitting can be dangerious I also. Wrongly ligitimizes Christianity. As we see in the sign 'god hates fags'. Ligitimizing a religion that promotes hatred for a persons born sex preference is a huge problem. Some may say atheist and Christians are on the same page about this hate thing but I don't see it as the same at all. Atheist may hate how immoral one is being by choice. Christians hate due to gene selections. Someone may do wrong on either side yes but Christians do wrong thinking they are doing right. Atheists don't ussually make this mistake. Yes we would still have war without religion. I would bet they would be shorter. Who is going to fight until death unless one thinks he will live forever. This would slow wars fuel. By the way stalins wars were not fought on atheist theory. Most were orthodox christians. Hitler waged catholic against Jews!
.. This article is too shallow a consideration of the matter to be taken seriously. It's just for fun. If you want to think seriously about it, then realize that all religion is mental illness: an addiction to being lied to and a psychosis... and people with addictions tend to hate anyone who doesn't share their particular addiction... that's where the religious war part comes from... religion is a mind control that gets others to follow you into those religious wars...
Atheism if anything is more of a blank-slate position on the matter, while being a Christian is a position that is full of sorts of things. So you comparing them as if it was democrats/republicans is completely stupid and immature. You made some of the dumbest generalizations, and I bet you think you're better because you walk on the fence. Well one day you're gonna slip and fall on your testicles.
Its obvious that this was written before the gay marriage controversy got into full swing. Boy, those were great times! Back when I thought only the crazy religious zealots like Phelps didn't like gays...
Sweet frosted Christcakes, I wrote a damned essay. That was NOT my intent.
Huh. I think I've figured it out. Clearly, David Wong (if we're looking at it as a spectrum of belief, and not just something you can opt out of) must fall SOMEWHERE on that spectrum, and yet here he is saying something useful to people on both sides. I do believe that if someone showed me a book that was entitled "How to be an Awesome Person" and below that it said, "By: David Wong", I'd be inclined to either buy it, or at least check it out from the library. But it wasn't until this article that I figured out what it was about these articles that rubs me the wrong way.
There seems to be a TON of relativism in there (though in this particular one, of course, there'd have to be - but in ALL David Wong articles, I mean). I agree, for instance, that we shouldn't be assholes to each other. I come from a religious family, and I was pants-shittingly amazed to find that when I told my mother I was an atheist that she wasn't overly bothered by it. We accept each other while still being absolutely unable to comprehend each others' points of view. If we were assholes to each other, that'd just be one more thing in life to suck. And who needs that? But while I do dislike religion, you have to understand that at no point have I ever thought (or known anyone to say) that Christians 'don't actually believe what they're saying'.
But since relativism is such a common point of view in Mr. Wong's articles, and since Christians pretend that atheism is just petty rebellion, then it must be mentioned in the opposing context as well. I'm certainly not going to say that it's never happened in reality. What I will say, though, is that in 33 years, I have never personally seen an example of it. Not in real life and not online.
Don't get me wrong; some things, like morality, could go both ways. "You're an atheist, so you have no morals!" OK, I can accept that people say that, and that that's a dick move. "You're a Christian, and therefore you only act morally when you fear punishment!" I KNOW I've heard that one, so I can accept the same thing. However, I've never heard a Christian call someone stupid for being an atheist. At least not intellectually stupid. Of course, it certainly does happen the other way around. And by that token, perhaps there are some things that religious people do rather commonly that we don't do back - and vice-versa. Perhaps not EVERYTHING is reflexive. Just throwing that idea out there.
This is the crux of my issues with David Wong's writing. To look as his writing, it appears that if 'b' feels a certain way about 'a', then it must work the other way as well. If that's not the specific argument being made, then it comes down to the idea that if 'b' feels a certain way about 'a', then 'b' MUST accept if 'c' feels that way about them. For examples of the former, see any of the above list. For examples of the latter, see David Wong's Paris Hilton->American Hobo->Nigerian Hut-Dweller argument, wherein a hobo complaining about the amount of money Paris Hilton has is then subject to ridicule for his foppish ways from a Nigerian hut-dweller who lives on 3 U.S. dollars a year (even though the Nigerian hut-dweller probably has more wealth relative to his nation's cost-of-living than the hobo does).
I know that Mr. Wong didn't think that all 10 of those examples would pertain to everyone, or even that any one of them would pertain to a measurable number of people on one side or the other. Hell, despite the sound of it, I'm not complaining about the content of this article at all. Heavens, if there IS one atheist out there who says, "Christians are just saying they believe for some weird reason!" then by all means, have at them! I'm just saying (and maybe I'm in the minority, here, I'm just throwing my point of view out there) that some of those things maybe didn't really apply to atheists, so much as theists, and vice-versa. That perhaps the attempt to force examples for each one going both ways was a little . . . over-the-top.
Actually, there was one little thing that bothered me - the notion that for some reason I need to abandon the English language because I believe in logic ("Oh, can't say 'love' without believing in a soul!" What? I think that I can still use words that describe emotions when I feel them without believing in an invisible floating spirit) or that literally billions of neurological reactions in a boiling brain stew are somehow 'totally deterministic and the exact opposite of free will'. Both of those are just a little forced. Examples like those really did detract from the points that were being made, for me. If a word has spiritual connotations for someone else, that doesn't suddenly mean that I can't use it, and instead must throw out the whole wordy definition of it instead, like suddenly I'm no longer allowed to describe emotions with single words just because I think of them as chemical reactions. As for the second example, there's not even any point to arguing against the silliness of it. There is no serious person who thinks that we currently understand biology, biochemistry, physics, psychology and quantum mechanics well enough to actually call human behavior 'deterministic' to the point that it can be predicted, thus the difference between that and 'free will' is pretty much nil.
But then again, that's just simple common sense. And I don't think that Mr. Wong is an unintelligent man (quite the contrary), so perhaps those points weren't FOR me, or people who think like me. Maybe those were meant to create examples for more religious people, based on how they might believe atheists think. Likewise, maybe there are points in there that a religious person would say, "s**t, that's a complete parody of my beliefs! I don't think THAT at all, and no one I know does!" but they got brought up and I accepted them without question because they were playing off my own beliefs of what a religious person would think. I suppose the author would know best.
So in that case, there you have it. Mr. Wong! If ever you read this: great article. But sometimes your attempts to equate one side of an argument to the other side (or to create equivalent arguments) come off as forced - unless that's what you were intending, in which case: fine work!
A f*****g amazing article.
There aren't many things that can change my mind about much, if anything, at all. Fortunately for my peace of mind, logic is one of the things that can do it every time, and leave me aching for more. Here I find a great deal of said scanty commodity. I won't find it impossible to leap in elation at the announced death of anyone ever again, just a tad more difficult. And by the way, "If you want people to live their life in a certain way, based on a certain fact, you can't substitute a threat for evidence." is as putting as simply as one can, yet the words seem to escape me every time someone tells me I will burn for my beliefs. I usually just say I can't just decide to believe, like its a choice as simple as picking between my red striped and green checkered boxers. Belief doesn't work that way. Either you do or you don't. And I, for one, don't.
You know, David. Sometimes I think that Cracked is just a fairly entertaining, somewhat educational, and often hilarious humour website, but then you publish something like this and I have to re-evaluate.
Well done, chap, well done.
More on Weird World
-
7 Secrets Only Two Living People Know (For Some Reason)
1,486,268 views -
The 15 Most Shameless Fake Photos Ever Passed Off as Real
1,173,078 views -
6 Creepy Urban Legends That Happen to be True (Part 3!)
1,070,424 views -
The 6 Creepiest Places on Earth
1,067,041 views
-
The Men Who Stare At Goats: New Trailer
by: CRACKED21,599 views -
Curse of the Duck Hunt Dog
by: Tremendosaur68,196 views
-
Articles
-
Videos
-
Columnists
-
More Cracked
-
About
Copyright © 2005 - 2009 Cracked Entertainment, Inc. All rights reserved. CRACKED, CRACKED.COM and the "CRACKED" logo are trademarks owned by Cracked Entertainment, Inc. All rights reserved.
Eshto: Yes, you can do something in the name of something that isn't anything, if you persecute the people who believe otherwise. Yes, people do confuse atheism with the denial of a Supreme Being's existence rather than the lack of belief in one, but if you go around punishing people who DO believe in a Supreme Being (as they did in Communist Russia), then you're doing something awful out of a lack of belief. Get it?