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 )

Can Christians and atheists both agree that...

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...

482 Comments

Lazer

I'm glad someone wrote something like this up, it's about time. I have Law on my horizons, and I fucking love debating, but something like this seems perfectly clear and conclusive. People here are arguing pointlessly, and as this article points out, neither side will win. Ever. One thing though. The "God Hates Gays" guy, besides being a total fucking douche, has probably changed thousands of lives in BOTH directions. Some will say "shit, what an asshole, let's run behind that tree and have gay sex to spite that schmuck", while others will have the reaction of "oh shit, maybe he's right. Most people are straight, after all, maybe I am doing something wrong? Maybe I should go with the flow? Maybe I should shut the fuck up and do what I'm told. And for that last part, the proof is in a list, on this very kickass website. http://www.cracked.com/article_16239_5-psychological-experiments-that-prove-humanity-doomed.html

Posted on 5/11/2008 10:51:04 PM

TestTube

I disagree on the below phrase.. Actually, this did lead a large amount of gay people to not be gay anymore. It is quite effective to tell people that they are bad and to not act that way. Sad but true. "Remember when I said that, when somebody comes on too strong, no matter what they're selling, we tend to run the other way? I mean, sure, the "God Hates Fags" guy has changed tens of thousands of minds. But not in the direction he intended. People are not convinced that way. The sarcasm, the disdain, the laughter. It makes you feel better, and rallies your friends, but it does exactly nothing to change minds on the other side. Conservatives may like to read Ann Coulter, but nobody else does."

Posted on 5/8/2008 8:38:30 PM

Gorzakk

"1. You Can Do Terrible Things in the Name of Either One no, you are missing the major difference here. people dont do horrible things in the NAME of athiesm." You are wrong Kam. That nutcase from Finland who shot a school up? Called himself a "social Darwinist" who said "I am prepared to fight and die for my cause. I, as a natural selector, will eliminate all who I see unfit, disgraces of human race and failures of natural selection." You can say "no, he was not an atheist. I completely distance my self from him and this is not what atheism stands for", but you are then missing the point. This is exactly what a theist would say about a suicide bomber who took out a train full of people, and you would then go on to point out it was because of religion. Bad people do bad things because they are bad people. Religion, or the lack of, have nothing to do with it.

Posted on 5/8/2008 3:07:04 PM

dna_geee

This is the most amazing thing i have ever read. Ever.

Posted on 5/1/2008 9:42:37 PM

Raynauld

I myself am a theist so for the sake playing fair i wont say things i came up with (except that giving Mr. Wong wrong your actually an example of this article) but a friend of mine is Agnost. Still even he sais, it was a one in a biljun triljun change that we are here to begin with, scientificly seen. Such a small change that you may call it a miracle. You could also call coincidense, but come on! That would be so coincidential that it would get ridiculous. Thats maybe the biggest reason why atheist are believers as well. And believing in a one in miljun triljun shot takes a lot more faith than believing in what else you can come up with.

Posted on 4/30/2008 4:51:26 AM

purplestar

I celebrate christmas because my family is Catholic and I don't mind them too much. I do not attend church services. Also, I like getting gifts. THis article hopes for too much. I never get angry at religious people I am simply curious, why they believe what they do. But they get angry. INdeed, they do.

Posted on 4/18/2008 2:23:52 PM

Craig

I didn't have to go very far before I disagreed. Quote: 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. I think there is empirical or at least behavioral evidence that human life holds little value for many people. Why have so many wars been fought over who's right and who's wrong? Why shoot the neighbor you have known for 20 years because the neighbor's sports team won and your's lost? Why are texts on mythology full of tales of war, genocide, and entreaties to kill non-believers? Some do encourage conversion first - but at the point of a sword. I don't believe that any life has an intrinsic value - ask the next dinosaur you see what it's life is worth. The universe doesn't seem to care if you are alive or dead. I feel that life is miraculous because of it's apparent rarity (I would still feel this way even if we discovered that all of the dark matter in the universe was alive - there'd still be plenty of non-living matter around). As a somewhat rational person I have NEVER thought that I could "get away with" destroying another member of my species. I feel that even if I wasn't caught, destroying someone else would ultimately destroy me. Read "The Tell-Tail Heart" by Edgar Allen Poe. If christians go on crusades, and muslims start jihads, what do worshipers of the Flying Spaghetti Monster do? Start food fights with pasta? Attend La Tomatina?

Posted on 4/12/2008 9:18:49 AM

ThorGoLucky

Excellent article. I'd like to add to some of the author's points: 1. I'll paraphrase Nobel laureate Steven Weinberg: without dogma, good people will do good things and bad people will do bad things; with dogma, good people can do bad things. That dogma can be religion or an ideal like communism or whateverism. Us atheists wouldn't be so upset if our precious secular constitutional democracy wasn't being turned into a theocracy, including that unconstitutional "In God We Trust" shoved into our faces on our money, and having our tax dollars go to Faith-Based proselytizers. 2. I'm not denying that people have experiences and feel the presence of what they interpret as the gods or space aliens, but it can be shown that it's highly improbable that such things exist. Also, scripture is proven to be contradictory, edited by church officials, and sometimes outright wrong. Dogma is believing that scripture is God's rules; funny how God tells different cultures different rules. 3. Magic invisible rules? Feelings of unjustness, right and wrong are evolutionary and cultural. Radio lab at wnyc.org has an excellent podcast about this. 4. No comment 5. I'm not offended by people telling me that I'm going to a nonexistent Hell (unless it's my employer or government), but I am offended when they scare children with it. In some cases, like children being forced to attend a Hell House, it's tantamount to child abuse. By the way, there's no such thing as a Christian child or a Muslim child, only the child of Christian parents or Muslim parents. And regarding that cute picture of the baby penguin, yes biological evolution did that over a very long period of time as the continent of Antarctica drifted South. 6. The watering down of science education and outright insertion of one religion one religion over another are a very real threats. See the Dover Pennsylvania case regarding public schools. And there are private schools that don't expose children to the cornerstone of modern biology, evolution. 7. I'm a human mammal, so definitely not always rational. And regarding our sense of right and wrong, yes it can be studied scientifically. The author was probably making a misstatement and not a strawman argument when he basically wrote that "right and wrong isn't scientific"; it's a meaningless statement. Regarding free will, deterrence (outside influence) can change your decision making whether or not there's free will. If we have free will, it seems rather subtle. 8. No comment 9. Explaining the humble animal origins of humans does not sanction us to be unethical (though in the bedroom, it can be fun to behave like an animal, haha). When it comes to the sacred, I extend that beyond humans and to our planet as a whole, whose ecosystems life depends on and is being trashed by overpopulation of humans. If we want to value human life more, we need to stop breeding so much of it. 10. Many years from now, if humanity survives, there will be atheists, yet the mainstream Christianity we know of today will evolve into something else or be displaced by some other religion(s). Consider that the Christianity of today is nothing like the early American Puritans who were Calvinists and did not believe in free will. Good thing that our founding fathers didn't establish a Church of America. Good idea to lead by example. The first rule in my online gaming clan is to be ethical (honest, fair, responsible, compassionate/empathetic, respectful), and I try to lead my life that way too. I have an imperfectly-evolved human brain so I sometimes fail, but that's no excuse to not do the right thing.

Posted on 4/12/2008 6:42:07 AM

emorich

this is hands down the number one article on this site. it is a contender for the best article on the internet. well done

Posted on 4/2/2008 4:20:51 PM

Wojoe

Amazing article! I think this should be a required text for the whole world to read..at least once, i think it would achieve world understanding and we would be one step closer to world peace Just like youtube

Posted on 3/31/2008 9:19:31 PM

brownfieldj

This is all very silly. And say.

Posted on 3/31/2008 7:53:01 PM

lurker2288

Agamemnon, maybe you disagree with my interpretation of the article, but I see passages like this: "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," or, "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" it seems to me like the author is suggesting that there are these 'higher' concepts out there that require some degree of religious faith to grasp, and I disagree with that. Maybe I just "missed the point" but I find that even the most accomodating of the faithful tend to treat nonbelievers as though they were mildly retarded children: okay to talk to, as long as you go slow and keep it simple. Don't confuse us with elevated concepts like love or justice, or we might make in our pants.

Posted on 3/26/2008 9:24:45 PM

AgamemnonJones

I absolutely love how people miss the point of articles like this, despite how obvious it is. Nick, the point was that you don't NEED a belief system to have a sense of right and wrong. Go reread the article. You might be enlightened.

Posted on 3/26/2008 6:26:52 PM

Nick

Whether or not the principle is correct or not, some of these examples as you've written them just don't bear out. For example, if someone cons me out of $50, you might argue that I'm angry because some divine or transcendent creator has imbued me with a sense of right and wrong...or it might simply be because someone has stolen from me. And because I recognize that other people probably have the same kinds of feelings I do, I recognize that stealing, in general, isn't cool. So, insofar as I prefer not to get robbed, I choose to behave in a way that doesn't condone theft as okay. That doesn't require some holy writ, just a little healthy self interest and the ability to consider the behavior of others.

Posted on 3/26/2008 2:03:48 PM

Steve

Great article. The replies show themselves pretty clearly as to which failed on various steps ;) Perhaps, instead of looking at all the places where you feel the author is "wrong" you can look introspectively at your own life and see which ways he was right about you. Because I can garantee it, you (everyone) are a dick at times :) Athiests ackowledge this as an inherent flaw in humanity and seek to overcome it so they can make their lives better (in whichever ways, be it pleasure, social, moral, business, etc). Theists acknowledge this as an inherent flaw of humanity and seek to overcome it because their god tells them to be better people (according to the specifics of each religion). And Kam, if you think evil has never been done in the Name of Atheism, you need to read up on Communist Russia. They specifically committed attrocities against religions because they believed religions were evil. Mr Wong is right; both parties are equal in this matter, they just don't see eye to eye because they're too busy seeing how their side's way of viewing the situation is supposedly so amazing. Thankfully, that stereotype isn't true of everyone, just the loud ones ;)

Posted on 3/22/2008 9:31:16 PM

Jarik

Very good article. I don't agree with everything, but the gist of it I agree with and I'm glad to finally see someone sitting-on-the-fence who can see both sides of the argument and see that both parties are just as annoying and intolerant of each other. To the guy who said "no Vecksthrey, agnostism is fence sitting" - So you're saying making a decision when recognizing there's insubstantial evidence on EITHER side is stupid? I'd argue being agnostic is the most rational side - because it recognizes we cannot prove what happens after death. It is impossible. Cheers, ~Jarik

Posted on 3/22/2008 8:23:42 PM

ע˰ʦ

סլ`ѡסլ`ͱʵý/չʾסլ`ҵ/סլ`󶥼ƽ̨סլ`סլ`Ƶṩסլ`󾰵㣬人סլ`󾰵㣬ṩ人סլ`˾人סլ`·Ҫṩסլ`Ϣסլ`񣬰סլ`۸סլ`šṩעṫ˾עṫ˾˾ൺעṫ˾˾עṫ˾˾ɽעṫ˾˾̨עṫ˾˾עṫ˾˾עʦչ ֣עʦչ עʦעʦҵעʦ ֣Ļý˾ע˰ʦע˰ʦݵע˰ʦʽʽǰ5ύע˰ʦйע˰ʦṩгע˰ʦƴ⡣811107792@eustar.com

Posted on 3/22/2008 7:38:16 AM

סլ`ϸִסլ`л񹲺͹סլ`󷨡סլ`йܲŹסլ`סլ`סլ`󷢲סլ`ḻסլ`ýԱ׼ȷסլ`Ͷϵͳסլ`Ϊסլ`ͻȫסլ`סլ`޸סլ`Ħ¥סլ`󡤵סլ`Ϻעṫ˾˾Ϻרҵעṫ˾˾.ӭϵϺעṫ˾˾עṫ˾,ΪϺ֪עṫ˾˾֮һעʦ,עʦ,ϻעʦ,עʦ˾עʦ߻,עʦɷ,עʦע˰ʦչ-ע˰ʦչϢ,չ֪ʶ,չ᳡,չ˾,ע˰ʦ,ע˰ʦ,ע˰ʦ811107792@eustar.com

Posted on 3/22/2008 7:38:00 AM

סլ`סլ`סլ`ýۿסլ`󱨼гסլ`סլ`סլ`Ʒסլ`ӡˢסլ` סլ`˾-óͶסլ`˾-סլ`˾-רסլ`˾-רҵסլ`˾סլ`԰סլ`˾סլ`˲߻. ... йסլ`ҵҵ.עṫ˾,עṫ˾,עṫ˾,עṫ˾׬Ǯ,עṫ˾,עṫ˾,עṫ˾ѡϺעʦ˾֪ƷϺעʦ˾,Ŭעʦ˾ѳΪ͹˾ѡϺעʦ˾ѡΪһרҵע˰ʦվ°ע˰ʦŶӽ佨ϵע˰ʦ˾ע˰ʦע˰ʦ˴ԴȪ811107792@eustar.com

Posted on 3/22/2008 7:37:37 AM

kam

no Vecksthrey, agnostism is fence sitting. refusal to make a decision. and its pathetic. if anyone applied rationality and logic they would choose athiesm. i even hate there is a word "athiesm", it makes it seem like a certain group. it is not. it is simply a description we have appplied to someone who doesnt believe in any gods. only because we need words to describe everything. i mean, should wa also call ourselves "acrickiters" because we dont like playing cricket? not really.

Posted on 3/20/2008 7:59:00 PM

See all 482 comments

Categories

10 Things Christians and Atheists Can (And Must) Agree On

482 Comments

More Funny Stuff

Popular stuff

The Official Cracked Blog