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. Well, 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...








TOP article, Mr Wong - plenty of food for thought there. I think you have done a magnificent job of presenting both sides of the story, and I appreciate the analogies you have used. You did a good job of explaining something that should really not even need explaining (but does with many people, and I am/was no different) without sounding arrogant.
Replyi know it's an old article, but I really enjoyed it.
This is one of the most sane things I've ever read.
ReplyI thought about it the other day... and if a Christian doesn't try and convert you, regardless of how you may enjoy not being annoyed by it, it's basically them saying, "Meh, I could care less if you go to hell."
ReplyI love this article. I hate it when people act like they're better than because of their belief system or lack of. Atheists aren't necessarily unholy heathens and theists aren't necessarily stupid apes. People should just learn to live together already.
ReplyGreat article, I think most people can agree with most points made here. I'd add a few tweaks but only a few, like definitions.
ReplyI think there is a percentage of people who call themselves atheists that are really anti-theists. It is not enough for these people to not believe in a deity, they must also militantly argue against other people's belief. I'd say they are a distinct group and not just a variety of atheist.
I can discuss other things with an atheist besides belief systems so why try to start a fight especially when the other person isn't interested in participating? I see nothing wrong with initially stating where you stand but if the other person doesn't want to continue, stop. Atheists, why take offense when someone is trying to do a good deed for you? So you don't believe, say so and ask the person to not continue. If they won't stop, okay then you have a valid reason to complain. Christians, if you have fulfilled your duty to spread the word, you have done enough, stop when asked. Your desire to help someone find their way to salvation is noble but you can't compel belief and you actually may drive off a potential convert if they witness you overreaching.
I know it's futile to add this comment but what can I say, I feel compelled to at least try to add to what David Wong started.
Nothing against Chrstians. Except the specific ones in my family who are constantly trying to convert me despite my bluntly telling them I have no interest in being a member of a religion.
ReplyAdmittedly the only reason I have a moral code is that it was beaten into me growing up by family and educational institutions. Plus the fact I've been a victim of harm caused by others and I'd prefer not to subject anyone else to that unless they are one of the ones who harmed me in the first place. As far as girlfriends, I just tell them that they are in my monkesphere and that is the reason I do not kill them and take their food.
Haha, the funniest thing in this article is how nearly all of its comments basically prove all the points he made. You people are living stereotypes. Classic.
ReplyI want that "Sure, everybody makes fun of the Catholics... until they need an EXORCISM" picture on a T-shirt.
ReplyI agree with the spirit of the article, yet I think David sometimes uses atheism as a synonym of rationalism or "scientificism" (if there is such a word, excuse me i'm fighting with my english).
ReplyWhat I'm trying to say is that being an atheist doesn't make you a vulcan, who tries to rule his entire life with logic and science. It just means you don't believe in God.
I've found many different reasons why people don't believe in a god, some of them because of almost poetic reasons, some of them philosophical, some scientific, some even spiritual.
Yes similarly to how he uses "christianity" as a synonym for "theism".
So many people arguing over something they can't prove for sure. f**k all of you, to living f*****g hell. Can't you just live in harmony? Is it that hard to accept another person for what they believe in? If people didn't argue over how they were different all the time, and strived for peace instead of saying they're right, half the social problems of today would be gone. f**k all of you. f**k you.
ReplyThat's not very nice. Maybe you should strive for peace, too.
How about... Ten reason why everyone should keep their own believes for themselves?
ReplyIn perfect world, this would be the only thing anyone would ever need to say:
"I'm not saying your religion is wrong, and you don't need to banish me to hell. In fact, why don't we just change the subject."
Except for items #2 and #4. That is, when 1) both sides earnestly believe that they know the truth, and 2) both sides at the very least intend to do good, they cannot minimize the significance of this truth to others. If you believed that a friend's cancer would kill him/her if (s)he did not receive treatment (as a religious person believes that his/her friends/family will go to hell if they don't receive salvation), you would feel morally compelled to make the best case you could to convince that person to undergo chemotherapy or radiation. Likewise, if you believed that a friend's abusive boyfriend/girlfriend would make him/her terribly unhappy for the rest of his/her life if (s)he decided to marry the person (as an atheist believes that his/her friends/family will suffer painful manipulation at the hands of their religion), you would feel morally compelled to make the best case you could to convince that person to break up with the abuser. This does not always mean that the case the person makes is the best one; how many teens have run away from well-meaning parents specifically because they felt pressured not to do the thing that would destroy them? But for the parents to stand idly by while their child does drugs, engages in unprotected sex, stays with someone manipulative, etc.--that would be wrong too. To the Christian, the dangers of hell are as real as the dangers of cancer, and to the atheist, the dangers of bondage to a totalitarian belief system are as real as the dangers of enslavement under the thumb of a controlling significant other. Clearly, one side is wrong in his/her *beliefs*, because theism and atheism are opposites, but neither is wrong in the desire to share those beliefs. Does this lead to confrontation? Hell yeah. Should we look for ways to resolve these conflicts peacefully? Of course! But are people wrong for bringing the subject up, or even for being reluctant to change it too quickly? I would assert that they are not. Ill-advised, possibly, depending on scenario, but not wrong.
There is a very big difference between people of different beliefs respecting one another and living in peace, and people refusing to discuss issues which they are passionate about because they could potentially start an argument. If you honestly believe propagating your belief system would benefit society, it's okay to rock the boat as long as you speak calmly and rationally. What's wrong is being contemptuous and rude, demonizing and dehumanizing people who don't agree with you.
Atheist "belief system"? How does that work?
ReplyI learned a long time ago that exact opposites cancel themselves out. -1+1=0 If you don't understand what I mean, then I suppose you probably wouldn't be one to read this article.
ReplySo, so many things wrong with this article when it came to the atheist viewpoint.
ReplyHow did it take me so long to find this article?!?! I think David Wong is my personal Jesus!
ReplyI have read this article, and I will share it with everyone I know. I wish more people in the world thought like this, we would have a happier world. I am not talking "hippie crap" either, I don't think the world could ever be peace and love, however; this "Christian Vs Atheist" crap is getting annoying on so many levels.
ReplyYou are so blinded by your Jesus goggles that you don't realize how plainly apologetic this article actually is. Every point boils down to the following:
"Christians - Those Christians who make us look bad are s**t Christians."
"Atheists - Just admit (neutered version of apologists' argument #x)."
So much angry and mad because someone wrote three pages of "stop acting like dicks"
Reply Hide All See All 3 RepliesLet me give you a more apt summary.
#1: "CHRISTIANS - Every evil that's been done in the name of Christianity stemmed from a corruption of Christianity.
ATHEISTS - Every evil that's been done by an atheist stemmed from, in the same manner, a corruption of atheism."
#2: "CHRISTIANS - It's okay you worship a God who sends nearly everyone who's ever lived to be tortured forever, including many of your loved ones, as long as you feel bad about it! (But not too bad, or you burn, too.)
ATHEISTS - Have you never felt the presence of God? DID THE APOSTLES DIE FOR A LIE?!"
#3: "CHRISTIANS - Let's face it, you can't really tell the difference between a Christian and an atheist in day-to-day life.
ATHEISTS - Don't you realize that your morals come from the Almighty?"
#4: "CHRISTIANS - Now, I know this idea goes against every fiber of your being, but there really are a few good atheists!
ATHEISTS - And of course we can take it as read most Christians are good."
#5: "CHRISTIANS - Maybe once in a while think about the fact that you're cheering on a weekly basis for the being who plans to torture most everyone who's ever lived forever.
ATHEISTS - But if you make people think the event in which they win out and you get tortured forever might not happen, you'll break their little hearts!"
The last five aren't as bad, but I will point out that he gets back into the "EMOSHUNZ IZ CHRISTIAN!" thing in #7 - yes, free will is a product of neurochemistry, but if humans are neurochemistry, how is that anything but free will? Why should love be anything other than love to an atheist, other than the absurd Christian idea that no one felt anything but raw carnality and enlightened self-interest in all the millennia from the Scorpion King to Jesus Christ.
(And, to be fair, the idea that science is inherently liked with atheism in #9 is kind of BS, too.)
Someone didn't get the point of the article.
I think I got it more than David Wong did.
For the record, this:
Reply"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!"
would exactly be my reaction to that example if you changed the words "interesting" and "fascinating" to "fuck" and "regrettable" (respectively). If I use words like "justice", I'm doing it because they are convenient rhetoric for supporting laws I am emotionally invested in. It's a political move, not an intellectual statement.
Empathy is all anyone needs to keep from going from the premise "morality is relative" to the conclusion "I will support any moral conclusion"*. Logic and rationality doesn't preclude the consideration of emotions in decision making. Humans are not Vulcans.
*Although that's clearly a non-sequitur too, but whatever.
[edit: the enter key is not doing it's job for me, sorry for the ugly block of text].
#3 - What kind of apologetic bullshit is this? You think atheists don't believe in human emotion? That was wrong. You want justice. And this comes from your culture, which evolved by selection among genes and memes, through self-interest, family ties, and reciprocal altruism among both individuals and societies. It does not come from some god or gods arbitrarily deciding it, nor an absolute ethical calculus channeled through him or it or them, nor anything else pious young Euthyphro can come up with. Morality is not absolute (as your great-great-grandfather will gladly tell you up in Heaven), nor is it a somehow Christian, or even theistic, institution, whatever Vanka will tell you; if there is no God, we and we alone decide what is impermissible.
ReplyThis article is about things both sides can agree with. Both sides have Morality, which was the point he was trying to make here. And it's also not true EVER that God MAKES you or I do anything. As well if you read the article, he never said Atheists don't believe in human emotion, but, moreover that you cannot prove where it comes from.
Whatever point he was trying to make, what he said was that when you're offended by someone's trespass against you, you're acting like there's an immortal lawgiver, and explicitly uses this as an example of "acting like a theist," and that's bullshit. If you're saying that having Grand Important "Morality" is "acting like a theist," you're full of it. Sure, small-m morality is something that Christians and atheists have in common, but atheists know where it comes from, and Christians delude themselves, whereas what he says, in this article that allegedly speaks of things Christians and atheists have in common, is that when an atheist takes personal offense rather than acting like a dispassionate anthropologist, that person is "acting like a theist," and he's wrong, and you're more more wrong than he was to defend him on the basis that he was saying something he patently wasn't.
And who says atheists can't "prove where human emotion comes from"? Sure, in the sense that one can't "prove" anything, but to the degree anything can be called a scientific fact, it is a fact, accepted even by the devout, that neurochemistry drives emotion. If that weren't true, all those shiny pills would be useless!
(And "God MAKES you or I do anything"? What the hell are you on about? When did I say that?)
Also shame them with tolerance? That's a fairly oriental approach to a discussion mr. Wong was it ? Why should weakness be protected? The physically unfit and those that lack the mental acuity to provide for themselves are simply a drain on resources. Humans are overpopulated because of this rediculous idea that we are somehow important, that any human alone is more important than the survival of well anything else, what happens there are ten billion of us and no jobs as all service, industrial, and many tertiary business' are functioning on robotics? It will be cheaper and easier than humans. As humans have no natural predators, and one of the only species that potentiates the idea of warfare. Perhaps then warfare is in fact a population control? Regardless all religion was created to serve a purpose a purpose no longer relavent notice how all the commandments have morale ideas like don't sleep with your neighbours wife? Because your neighbours would not appreciate it. It was all created so humans could have better functioning societies based upon personal morality, rather than arbitrary laws impersonal rules
Reply Hide All See All 3 RepliesMy point being nothing exisits without purpose, humans included, if belief in god helps you feel your life has purpose you will function that much more effectively. Perhaps an atheists belief that there is no higher power gives
them a sense of purpose, believe what you want it's all irrelavent anyways humanity has no true purpose other than to continue the species, we are but threads woven into the tapestry of our history
Are you trying to be a nihilist? Because you're failing at it.
Humans aren't important, huh? You know, everyone who whines about "over-population" should just kill themselves. It's the only way not to be a hypocrite, and it would probably solve the "problem".