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.
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: 
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 )
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? 
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). 
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. 
|
Reddit
Facebook
StumbleUpon
Digg
Del.icio.us
FarkRecommended for Your Pleasure
-
15 Words You Won’t Believe They Added to the Dictionary
965,678 views -
The 10 Coolest Foreign Words The English Language Needs
by: Aston R.950,003 views -
6 Real Islands Way More Terrifying Than The One On 'Lost'
826,942 views -
10 Divorce Stories Too Strange to Make Up
801,248 views
The artical is refreshing, but unfortunately I think it's ultimately not going to have a great deal of effect. For most people, it's telling them nothing they don't already know, and vitriolic abuse-spewers aren't going to listen to it anyway.
Anyway, out of a perverse desire for argument in all its forms, I'll outline my points of disagreement with the article, even though nobody is likely to read them or actually care. I enjoy it.
I only got one step in before disagreeing, but it was mainly a matter of semantics. It is, technically, possible to do something in the name of atheism, but, to my knowledge, nobody ever has. Atheism, remember, is simply the condition of not having any belief in any form of deity. It carries no other viewpoint or philosophy with it. It is, certainly, possible to do things according to a philosophy which is dependent on your being an atheist, but doing something "in the name of atheism" is nonsensical, like doing something in the name of rabbits being fast or ham being tasty. It may seem like a small distinction, but the misidentification of atheism as a system of belief - as you yourself do in the same entry - leads to terminal misunderstandings between atheists and theists. It's not a system of belief. It's simply a lack of one specific belief.
I have a couple problems with the terminology of entry 3 - primarily that it implies moral objectivism on the part of all readers - but I agree with your point, if not exactly with the way that you get there. In 9,there's also that whole ethical argument regarding moral relativism that you just seem to assume everyone is in accord about.
The whole thing seemed to come off to me as somewhat condescending and unnecessary, but then it occured to me that things might actually be bad enough over in the States that this sort of writing is necessary. Where I come from, there isn't really any religious conflict at all, so for theists and atheists to be at each others' throats in unfamiliar to me. Obviously I'm not the target audience.
I loved reading the article and I think it was very thought out, well done.
What I feel as a human being is that I don't need to believe in something to know what is right and wrong. My morals and beliefs don't need to be shaped or guided by religion. I was raised to know what is humane and what is "crazy" or not right.
As an atheist, I am not one to go shove my opinions in other people's faces. I have many religious friends and they are all as decent a human being as me. What I dislike in religion and I guess in atheism as well is the fundamentalists. The extreme ends of each side. People should not take anything too seriously and need to lighten up; put on your fellow man's shoes for once.
I find it a little silly to justify morality, humanity and common sense from religion but I know that some people need religion and it is not my place to judge. I think people need something to make them secure in life or else they end up going crazy. The most insecure people in life happen to be the ones that cause the most problems. I am completely satisfied with my choice in life that I do not really care what other people think or what they believe in. Extremists are so insecure that they have to brush their egos and reaffirm their beliefs on others which cause conflicts because two insecure people with two different beliefs will always argue.
In contemplating this discussion what struck me as interesting is the omission of the "relationship" angle in Christianity. As morality in our western culture continues to crumble it seems fairly obvious that "genuine" Christians are few and far between. Regardless of what religion you believe in or if you are truly an atheist, it seems irrevelant when you consider the reality of a supposed modern culture. For instance, in our culture here in American, its seems painfully obvious that for the most part we worship people, places, and things all of which are unreliable and mortal. If you are a genuine Christian then you believe in Gods word and the teachings of Jesus. You believe without a doubt that God's promises are true and that Jesus' love for you is guaranteed and that you are not yoked by the slavery of people, places, and things. Phillipians 2:15 states, "That ye may be blameless and harmless, the sons of God, without rebuke,in the midst of a crooked and perverse nation, among whom ye shine as lights in the world". So regardless of how you may or not feel about an atheist beliefs, genuine Christians are called to be "harmless" and to be the shining light of Jesus Christ. If your atheist bretheren is exposed to your "light" then his/her choice to stay in the darkness is just another way of denying the truth and denying Jesus. I repsect their right to make that choice, but I weep for their salvation. Our war is a spiritual one, it is not of men, but of the souls on men and my belief is that the Holy Spirt of God is the only thing that can conquer the sinful desires of the souls of men. God bless all who read this and I pray that one day all will know Jesus. Please feel free to comment on my blogs at http://kurtsalfi-IFFY33.blogspot.com
A truly great article, really.
Calm, expressive, funny and informative. I'm forwarding this to many friends of mine, not because they're ultra-atheists or ultra-christians, but because this is something that deserves a reading.
Mr. Wong, you have my praise.
sorry for the horrible grammar on my original post, tired :P
To mr wong, excellent job you have given atheist and Christans some serious things to consider, hopefully the majority of people will have learnt something from this article and take these lessons on board into their everyday lives.
I consider my self to be agnostic (unbiased/open to all concepts). This article helped me to expose and then remove some of my own bias, it alos opened me to some new methods of thought which, I will introduce to my everyday life
I would like to thank you for this article, it was real important
Dear bigots, both atheist and Christan who continue to miss the point; this article was intended to get you all to consider how your thinking affects others and that your belief is not necessarily 'true' or 'correct', it is only what you believe (this goes for both sides). please consider the difference between what you KNOW and what you BELIEVE and you will be much better off
This is a fantastic article! Well reasoned and calm, exactly the way I like my religious/atheistic debate. This is something a lot of people would benefit from, if they went into it in a similar calm manner, allowing themselves to hear another side's opinion rather than bullheadedly striving to take offence wherever possible (as if so often the case in real life).
Usually I like to read the comment sections on pages, but at a glance I can tell that this one is going to give me a headache, so might give it a miss.
To GreySphinx, Grimace, NeoValour, and everyone who is whining about how this article is ignorant and knows absolutely nothing, CONGRATULATIONS! You win the Completely Missed the Point Award!
But all sarcasm aside, please take a step back and read your posts before submitting them. And I don't mean check for spelling or grammar mistakes. I mean actually take the time to wonder "hey, I wonder if this post could possibly make me sound like a total douche?" I'd like to direct you guys to the part of the article that talks about understanding why the other side gets so offended.
No matter which side you're on, you're assuming you're right. There is no proof that God exists. There is no proof he doesn't exist.
And to GreySphinx in particular: faith is belief. It is impossible to believe in anything without faith. One of my favorite authors, Terry Pratchett, once wrote (this may be somewhat paraphrased): "You don't believe in things that exist. They just ARE."
There is no evidence for or against God. Therefore, people choose to believe. Yes, even if you just "reject belief" in God, you still believe there is no God. Ergo, Atheism is faith-based.
And Grimace, about your comment concerning how everything would be great if we all followed the Bible, I invite you to actual read that thing sometime. The Bible is an extremely violent book.
And now, to everyone, GreySphinx and Grimace included: stop twisting people's words. If I misinterpreted something you people said, then I apologize, but stop twisting people's posts to suit yourself and then acting all smug about it.
Theists: Your belief in God is totally irrational, therefore, it is OK for some people not to believe in it. But it's also OK for you to believe in it, because belief does not have to be rational. And don't act like you're in the right, because you're ignoring your own principles by rejecting others.
Atheists: Rejecting an idea out of hand, without any evidence for or against it, is unscientific and irrational. It's OK for some people to believe in God or the supernatural. It's also OK for you to not believe in any of that stuff. Just don't go acting like you're the enlightened group, because you're ignoring your own principles by rejecting God.
Alowishus: this article is not saying that both sides are right, it's saying that both sides are being dicks and that they should really stop.
awesome find!!! this is smart, informative, wise, and funny!! you my sir are a great dude!
tzaqaree, indeed you probably are a different kind of atheist than me... perhaps you're exactly the kind of "irrational crazy" atheist Wong talks about but my point still stands -- just because those kind of atheists exist doesn't mean we're all like that. We're not all hypocrites who deny the irrationality of others while embracing our own. There are plenty of us who are in no way offended that art, beauty, love, etc. all have complex scientific explanations that we can someday uncover and better understand.
Yeah, I love my family -- does this "love" have a complex chemical/ materialist basis? Absolutely, as I suspect everything does. So what? Does this mean my love is any less real than yours just because you think there's something fundamentally mystical about it? I challenge you to tell me so. For that matter, I'm confident that all I am is the classic "bunch of chemical reactions in a bag" -- does this make me any less of a human being than you? I challenge you to tell me so also.
And btw, atheism isn't "faith-based" any more than the denial of unicorns' existence is faith-based. You can't simply "disprove" the existence of something. But what you can do is reject baseless assertions. That's what atheism is -- a rejection. No "disproval" necessary.
--------
By the way Wong, I just remembered another one of your goofs: Comparing an exposed breast at the Super Bowl to your girlfriend/wife betraying your mutual understanding of intimate exclusivity is really stupid. The first is a matter of people getting offended by seeing someone else's natural body part. The latter is a violation of personal trust and committment. There are, in fact, plenty of swinger couples (atheists AND theists) who wouldn't care if the other banged a bunch of strangers. Why? Because they have an understanding that there is no exclusivity, thus there's no betrayal of trust or violation of commitment. It's simple stuff, really... and there's plenty of rational logic behind all this if you think deeper. But as long as your understanding of the matter doesn't go any farther than "it's either all just meat or we're all truly irrational folks", then you're going to continue missing the point and frankly, contributing to the very problem of misunderstanding that you're ironically trying to solve with this blog entry.
GreySphinx, maybe you're a different kind of atheist than me but when I tell my wife and child that I love them, I am not just using layman's terms. I love them. It is more than just my evolutionary instinct to protect my DNA. There is something more to it than just science and logic. And yes, it could make us "a little bit of irrational crazy." I do not act in a rational, sane manner a lot of the time. Even now I am arguing on the internet.
Grimace, it is unfair to single out atheist countries as the only ones that are domineering. Before reading further understand that my definition of faith is believing something without physical evidence. As it is impossible to disprove God's existence, Atheism is faith based. However, it is not a religion because there is no mass consensus on a belief structure. Almost any government with an official faith, including atheism, is prone to violence. This is more because the government must remove contrasting ideological thought which is sadly often carried out by force. Otherwise it would not be a purist religious state and a state religion is meaningless. It is possible that the fact that the government is communist and fully denies other faiths as the cause for violence rather than the atheist element.
I appreciate the effort but you're off on a lot, Wong.
1. Celebrating the totally natural death of someone like Falwell isn't a bad thing. The guy lived a long and prosperously wealthy life scapegoating innocent people and died of natural causes. Maybe if someone came into his house and shot him to death, there'd be a lot less celebrations around but I for one felt better on the day I knew I'd never have to hear him pin 9/11 on the gays again. If you saw atheist groups picketing his funeral, maybe then you could start comparing it to the "God Hates Fags" crowd. Until then, please spare me the "Tears for Jerry" appeal.
2. To atheists, "justice" and "love" are simply layman's terms. It's like saying "sunrise"... yes, there technically is no sun actually rising anywhere, but what am I supposed to say, "the Earth's rotation that reveals the Sun"? They're simple words and symbols for more complex, natural processes and atheists who use these words don't necessarily mean them literally... and it doesn't mean that therefore we have "a little bit of irrational crazy" in our lives. And guess what? "Love" being shorthand for a complex natural process in no way makes it any less wonderful and emotional.
3. Speaking of justice and people stealing our stuff on the train. The reason that this would be "wrong" (also a shorthand layman's term) is because it goes against the implicit and explicit codes of ethics we in civilized society agree on. Stealing property in any society that recognizes private ownership of anything is inherently offensive... and you don't need a leap of faith to a higher power to be able to understand that very simple concept.
There's a few others, but these were your biggest goofs.
Dear Mr Wong, please forgive me but I think your are...well...wong.
You said that "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." This is would only be true if both belief systems were equal. However they are not. In the case of the murdering “Christian” it is indeed a corruption of the true beliefs of Christianity. However in the case of the murdering Atheist they are only being true to their philosophy; as every communist / atheistic state has been an oppressive one. As a Christian I certainly cannot agree that if all held to true Biblical principles there would be conflict and strife on this earth; they are the result of not following true Biblical principles. If what you say is true that would negate the Biblical message and prove Atheists are right.
I didnt find this funny. But it was possibly the most intelligent thing I've ever read
"I really had to join this site just to argue this point. This is far to close a statement to what a lot of fundies believe, that atheists can't be moral without god.
We don't believe morality has anything to do with any creator or magical lawgiver. We think that morality is a cause of evolution and came about due to living as a social group. Large social groups could not evolve without rules and a form of punishment for those who break them."
However, those large social groups are comprised of many different individuals with many different backgrounds. You're not living only with atheists following only your rules. That evolution you're talking about coudl't have happened without that interaction, without the discussion about what's right or wrong, and without people trying to find the shades of grey beneath such extremes, precisely because we can't live alone. We're social animals.
Seriously, It's surprising how many people missed entirely the point of this, being offended by an article which was basically a giant white flag in text form.
The only thing that needs to be said is, "Mind your f*****g own." All this article amounts to is, "Now, now, you're both right, alright? Play nice." It's a silly appeasement so both sides can walk away smugly thinking that they'll just let the other idiot be wrong.
I realise this is cliche'd, but I actually just made an account so I could tell you you're awesome Mr. David Wong.
Eat healthy, because the world needs you.
I loved this. As an atheist, I must say that I can hardly hang around with most other atheists because they are so bitter and narrow minded; worse than most Christians I know. I wish everyone could read this.
Now if only we could get everyone in the world to read this. I propose a mass Facebook posting.
Brilliant article.
More on Weird World
-
17 More Images You Won't Believe Aren't Photoshopped
1,440,447 views -
7 Clearly Fake News Stories That Fooled The Mainstream Media
1,030,628 views -
The 7 Most Bizarrely Unlucky People Who Ever Lived
1,011,423 views -
6 People With Amazing Abilities (That Are Totally Useless)
968,296 views
- Zombies
- Celebrity Baby Names
- Boobs - New
- Japan
- Bacon - New
- Star Trek - New
- Christopher Walken
- Beer - New
- David Caruso
- Vampires
-
Stuff Talks: The Most Terrifying Comedy Premise Ever
by: Genius Camp24,502 views -
A Series of Poor Decisions: The Twitter Song
by: Cody Johnston24,541 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.
mr. wong,
There are a - to me, surprising - number of comments claiming that this was a great article, very "refreshing," etc. Having read, among others, your "Unleash the Horror" article (or whatever it was titled), I just wanted to let you know that I found this article annoying.
Since I'm commenting to provide my personal criticism so that you can possibly adjust articles in the future, rather than just call you a cuntwagon and leave it at that, I suppose I should say that the main reason I disliked this article was because the entire thing felt incredibly half-assed. The "Horror" article was much more pointed, and while segments will still leave me wondering as to whether or not you believed most of it, the argument itself was very convincing and presented quite well, if not to my tastes.
Here, though, you present the kind of argument that I would expect at bonnaroo. Although you have some interesting points, it basically boils down, for me, to a reflection on how people don't understand each other, and how they could just get along if they realized they had a lot in common. I will agree with you that both sides have a lot in common, and probably a lot more than they realize, but to say that a future war can be avoided through these observations is not only foolhardy, but also dangerous. My point is that these people are disagreeing on the very nature of their existence, as well as whether their very existence even has a nature. I apologize for the awkward wording so as to create some feeble dramatic effect, but I think I'm reasonably clear. If there is anything else on Earth that should have a greater effect on an introspective society, I have yet to come across it. It's human nature (and, I would argue somewhere else, the nature of the universe) to draw a line in the sand, and for an issue such as this I'm surprised that you would see opportunity for reconciliation.
Once again, I really think most of your articles are great, but this one struck me the wrong way, mostly because I have a lot of respect for your writing.
Cuntwagon.