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
-
6 Natural Disasters That Were Caused by Human Stupidity
by: Ben Dennison869,915 views -
5 Self-Destructive Ways People Accidentally Cured Themselves
by: Wes Park830,363 views -
The 6 Creepiest Places on Earth
820,140 views -
17 More Images You Won't Believe Aren't Photoshopped
by: Joe Russo2,598,771 views
Deep down, I'm likely one of the many others who felt this was fair, insightful, and heartwarming, but unfortunately I disagreed with a few things. On the bright side, it's too damn late to pick through it all. I'd just like to say that it feels like this was written as a "Both sides aren't going away, so the best we can do is just get along right?" plea. Makes sense, and you did it in probably the best way possible. Fantastic article.
However, I think a necessary distinction should be made between the religious/spiritual/dualist impulse and the faith in doctrine. It's hard to generalize about religion, and why shouldn't it be? Nowadays everyone has their own "personal god," so think this distinction is important.
I'm completely fine with whatever metaphysical beliefs one has to make them feel consoled in times of grief, or like their life has some greater purpose, or like there is some intelligent order in the universe (I would however still disagree and debate about anthrocentrism and fate, but this argument is somewhat petty compared to the really important stuff... like federal policy). This kind of "religion," I'm more than okay with. A dualist mindset is innate, and has helped produce art and our sense of morality.
It's when you anthropomorphize your beliefs a little too much that it becomes a problem. Say you think this "intelligence" in the universe has intentions. Say you think it has doctrines and rules. Say you hear its voice in your head. It's here when we too easily drift from "vehicle for conscience" to "borderline schizophrenia." It's this anthrocentric projection we must avoid, because if we let the "faith impulse" take us TOO far, it can drive us AWAY from innate human rationality and morality (i.e. Abraham willing to slay his son Isaac for his faith) and to ... well, probably the Westboro Church.
Thank you. It's heartening to see the number of thoughtful comments, as well. Religions may promote things I don't like (like mysogyny, for instance) but a religion isn't a person. I have very dear friends who are quite devout, and a mother-in-law who I love that is incredibly religious. But none of them try to convert me; they just live their lives as best they can. They're great examples, not just of religious people, but of human beings in general. Whatever got my friends to be awesome people and helps keep them going, I'm all for it. And they seem to feel the same way about me and my beliefs.
This disagreement isn't going to be "won" by either extreme; they just polarize the other side's views and make it that much harder. Finding middle ground is the only solution I can see, and that has the best chance of happening if people can be honest with themselves. This article is a great way to do so.
Wow. I was just put in my place superhardcore. Lately I've been so frustrated by my why-don't-they-get-my-logic mindset, while still understanding that "they" have the same mindset, so what do I do? I loved the tolerance theory at the end. Calling someone a dick just makes you a dick. If everyone ignored the dicks, there would be LESS dicks in the world. If we could spend all our energy on something more productive than hate for the ignorant, everyone would generally be more tolerant and happy. This put my mind at peace. Now this article just needs to spread virally, please.
I've been questioning my religion lately and this article actually helped me with my faith, Thank You.
I think some people misunderstand the article. It was NOT "We're All Equally Wrong". The mentality of it was more within the "Hey, let's try not acting like dicks today" picture with the cat in the hat and... you get it.
Diamonte said:
"...one could say that an atheist making that claim is also impeding human advancement by being less accepting of his fellow man."
And so could a theist. I know you know that, I just felt like pointing that out. Neither side is justified in being intolerant. It's not one side or the other that causes world conflict. It's the general inability to simply allow other opinions to exist in your presence that causes our problems. And I'm sad for that.
I just found this one checking for old lists i haven't read in the 2 years i've been monitoring this site...
turned out to be the best one I ever read here. I guess this text just turned me from a radical to a moderate, compassionate atheist.
Thank you for this. Just... thank you. Entertaining, thoughtful, and an excellently concise treatise on living well -- whether or not you intended it to be so. There are a lot of things here I'll be thinking about as I move on through my life -- hopefully as a person other people can be proud to know. Heh.
is it at all possible for anyone to leave a comment here that isnt a huge block of text?
To say that the religious are impeding progress, is like saying all teenaged, African-American males tote guns around. It's simply not true. To say that those practitioners of any religion (or religion(s)) are impeding scientific progress is - if looked at in a psychological viewpoint - an attempt to further a personal vendetta based on opinion, and not solidly placed in the holds of statistical proof. Let's not forget the physicists, microbiologists, chemists, etc. that study in the fields of their respective scientific endeavors, then attend church - or any other religious gathering, depending on religion - on Sunday - or Saturday, whichever you are inclined. Broad generalization is another mistake that is universally synonymous with warfare as well. So, if taken in the context of a biased opinion, one could say that an atheist making that claim is also impeding human advancement by being less accepting of his fellow man.
I will have to agree on some things with Skepacabra, but I beg you to be more tolerant, as those who are religious, no matter how mind-numbingly stupid their beliefs are, no matter how much they have destroyed and set back humanity, believe they are doing the right thing. It is all a matter of education. They have to be taught that their beliefs are wrong and irrational, and are impeding progress. And Atheism has never stood in the way if morality. Except, we can accept that people have a sense of morality without having to have received it from god. We can actually believe in humans enough to realize that everyone has a sense of morality, just some choose not to do what they know to be right. Everyone knows what is right and wrong, they just have a hard time doing the right thing. Besides, I don't know why you make such a big fuss about morality and the rules of society when these are all simply human creations that can be changed or eliminated at the drop of a hat. Yesterday it may have been okay to alienate gays, tomorrow it is a crime to alienate gays. Rules and morality don't exist, they are molded to the convenience of the current world leaders. I have thought long and hard and have come to the conclusion that society, and human life in general, is pointless and therefore there is no need to respect it. The whole Earth is just a tiny chunk of rock floating around in an infinitely large expanse of other galaxies. We are tiny, ignorant organisms with unbelievably short lives and no purpose in the universe. The world was made out of gases and rock, has existed for 4.54 billion years, and in anywhere from 3 to 7.5 trillion years, our solar system will cease to exist, and absolutely nothing will have happened.
This is just a classic example of false balance. Pretending all sides of a disagreement are equally wrong when they're obviously not in a token gesture to bring unity is absurd. The author doesn't get it at all. I consider myself an extremely rational person and I celebrated Falwell's death just like I celebrated Saddam's death. I didn't picket any funerals. The man was an enemy and a detriment to society. So I'm happy he's not around anymore. That's not "devaluing life." Nor is it overly romanticizing the value of life, regardless of how repulsive that life was lived. Some people's deaths should be celebrated because they were simply miserable people.
And while no one would argue that atheists are just as capable of doing terrible things, I invite you to present a single case of someone ever doing terrible things "in the name of atheism." Nobody died because people were too rational. And it's ironic that you brought up exorcism in your picture because exorcisms have killed many people.
I also take issue with the notion that atheism is "legitimately offensive" to theists. Atheists have every reason to find religion repulsive. It motivates female oppression, homophobia, wars, child rape, and countless other evils in the world. But merely doubting the claims of the religious is not a legitimate reason to be found offensive. Not even close.
Next, we're not exaggerating about the religious. Nearly every major scientific breakthrough for thousands of years has been met with dogmatic resistance from the religious. They even destroyed the Library of Alexandria, setting back the human race for a thousand years. There's Galileo, Darwin, Einstein, Hawking. More than half the nation rejects evolution and the big bang because they've been fed misinformation about it and it directly challenges their worldview. And tens of thousands of kids each year join Ron Luce's "Battle Cry" Movement, which is a lot like that Jesus Camp movie. And the vast majority of the county is looking forward to the end of the world and praying it happens in their lifetimes. There's little doubt that if atomic weapons do get into the hands of the deeply religious, they will unmake our world.
And finally the WBC comparison, which you falsely label as particularly radical. They preach the exact same message as Pat Robertson, only Robertson has a television show with an audience of millions and they just picket a few funerals. Yet Robertson's mainstream and they're just fringe nuts? Um, no. Wake up!
good article
i love this article...SO MUCH.
haha. i dont care how old it is; it has a lot of good points. im a Christian, but I'm not a Bible-bashing on the head kind of Christian. i have quite a few friends who are atheist, and although sometimes im saddened by it, i don't try to make them think any further of it. everyone is entitled to their own beliefs and every side of religion or belief has those who are so close-minded that they feel like forcing it on others. :/
Technique: Not that I don't get how irritating and patronizing it usually is, but witnessing (or, you know, harrassing non-Christians, depending who's doing it) is the expression of one of the most morally justifying, and consequently easily abused, pilars of Christianity: if you go to hell, I, as a Christian, am responsible. Meaning those of us who aren't Fred Phelps feel compelled to make up for his s**t.
What I'm wondering is, why the compulsion to tear down someone's beliefs, as you put it? It doesn't hurt anyone else if I believe in God, and it may profit me a great deal (Socrates)--anything that systematically deals with and disposes of fear of death, frees me up for the business of living.
I love this article. It's not comedy, but it is great. All the arguements you make are correct. And people often forget the shades of gray. When people say 'Christan', sometimes they think extremists or of one sect. However, I'm a sect of Christianity that doesn't do a lot of things in general. Great point.
I *love* this train of tolerance :D
I like the way this guy neutralizes the usual thousand-times-heard arguments for both sides.
Damn, I don't know whether I believe or not now xD
[tl;dr sentimentality deleted]
Thank you.
It seems rare to me to find an article so balanced and impartial as this. I grew up religious (as hell), then lurched over to atheism and now pride myself as Agnostic, but I still find myself doing most of the s**t in here that you argue against.
Awesome article. High five.
Just commenting because I had a conversation pertaining to this a few minutes ago... I'm Catholic (still practicing because I'm not very good at it yet)and I'm engaged to a dude who was raised Pentecostal but is now agnostic. In our six years together, we've had many "discussions" about religion, spirituality, etc. (mostly "discussions" about premarital sex, nach). I had one non-denom Christian piss me off by telling me "thou shalt not be yoked with an unbeliever" and tonight a Methodist preacher friend encouraged me by telling me that our marriage will be hard, but only because all marriages are hard. On one hand, I wish my fiancee could understand my beliefs, and on the other hand, I worry that my unscientific faith makes me too stupid for him.
I dunno, I guess it's sad that the person I love the most will never agree with me on something that is so important to me, but all human relationships are like that. When we keep things rational, we learn a lot, and it's almost a relief to know that I'll always have someone close to me who can keep me legit just in case I'm wrong about this God thing.
More on Weird World
-
7 Secrets Only Two Living People Know (For Some Reason)
1,439,548 views -
The 15 Most Shameless Fake Photos Ever Passed Off as Real
1,120,938 views -
6 Fake Foods You (Will Wish You Didn't) Have in Your Kitchen
1,009,584 views -
6 Creepy Urban Legends That Happen to be True (Part 3!)
919,731 views
-
Curse of the Duck Hunt Dog
by: Tremendosaur59,916 views -
6 Types Of Youtube Videos There Are Waaay Too Many Of
by: Michael Swaim234,558 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.
It's all point of view. Just remember that. Great article.