10 Things Christians and Atheists Can (And Must) Agree On
|
3. In Everyday Life, You're Not That Different You Christians, if the transmission in your Camaro explodes, are you going to use prayer to reconstruct it? No, you'll call a mechanic. When your tooth hurts, you don't assume it's possessed by demons. You look for a cavity. Basic, everyday troubleshooting. Well, at the very worst, the atheists are just applying the same common sense, real-world troubleshooting to the God question. At the creation of the universe and in the heart of mankind, they expect to find the same physical, tangible answers they'd find inside a burnt transmission. If they're wrong about God, they're only wrong in that they've taken the tried-and-true troubleshooting we all practice one step too far. On the other hand... Atheists, even if you reject the idea of God completely and claim to live according only to the cold logic of the physical sciences, you all still live as if the absolute morality of some magical lawgiver were true. No, wait. Don't go away. When some guy hustles you out of eighty bucks in an ebay scam, you don't nod and say, "Interesting! This fellow lacks the genetic predisposition toward equitable dealing that generations of sexual selection in favor of social behavior has instilled in the rest of us! A fascinating difference!" No, you think what that guy did was wrong. You want justice. You think he should have acted differently. Even though there's no "wrong" molecule floating in the air and there's no "justice" element on the Periodic Table. You don't think of the swindler as just a fellow animal who happens to behave differently than you. You think he should have acted some other way, according to an invisible ideal that everybody is aware of and knows they should obey. When that "boob at the Super Bowl" incident happened a while back, I constantly heard atheists making fun of Christians and their puritan silliness over sex. "Come on! It's just meat! We're all just mammals! Sex is natural! What are you afraid of?!?!?" Yet, the moment you find out that while you were on vacation, your girl got drunk and slept with the entire Chicago Bears... 
Again there's this invisible rule that was supposed to be followed, that everybody was supposed to be aware of, that can't be proven by logic. Whatever it is, wherever you think it came from, you can't deny that it's there. Your own behavior would make you a liar. Well, at the very worst, the Christians are just taking that same moral impulse and applying it to the God question. At the creation of the universe, they expect to find the same invisible hand that pushes us to be fair and loyal and kind. If they're wrong about God, they're only wrong in that they've taken that absolute morality and put a face on it, made an idol out of it. Taken it one step too far. You think of it that way, and the amount of overlap between the two of us is actually pretty striking. Right? 
4. There Are Good People on Both Sides This is an easy one. I shouldn't lose anybody here. All you need is examples. Atheists, you can despise a Falwell or the gay funeral protesting guy, but you've known Christians who did it right. Famous ones like Martin Luther King Jr., or just common ones you've run across who seem to have an inexaustible well of generosity and good cheer. You know how many charities have crosses on their logo. Christians... look. The church loves to phrase it like: "The faithful will be joined with their father in Heaven, while the liars, the murderous, the treacherous will be cast down with Satan and his hordes." See the gap there, between the first part of the statement and the second? What about all the people in between? The atheists and Muslims and Buddhists and Scientologists who aren't murderous or treacherous or liars? I understand the concept, that all morality comes from God and thus those on the outside are vulnerable to temptation and the devil and all that. But you know good people who aren't believers. I know you do. You can't miss them. Therefore: If God alone can deliver us from temptation, And, Some people who don't believe in God are also able to resist temptation, Then, God must offer his protection against temptation even to some who don't believe in God. One could even say that God aids the atheist's honest desire to follow one of God's rules... even while he continues to deny God. 
Next... 5. Your Point of View is Legitimately Offensive to Them Now, this says nothing about whether or not it's true. For this, I only ask that you understand why they get offended. Everybody is aware that something can be both true and offensive, right? You see a friend holding a newborn baby and you say, "You know, there's a chance he'll die tomorrow." Or you stand over the casket at your uncle's funeral and say, "He'll definitely be consuming fewer of the world's natural resources now." Both statements completely, 100% factually correct, and can be defended to the end of time by cold, undeniable logic. And both are incredibly offensive. To say such things, and to be surprised when the hearers take offense, would show such a profound misunderstanding of human nature that everyone will assume you were raised by wolves. So Christians, knowing what we just said about how it is possible to be a true, honest atheist, that people walk around every day and truly see no evidence of God, can you understand why it's offensive to them to hear that they, and their family, and their children, and their friends, are going to burn for eternity for it? Especially if you, as most modern churches do, imply that people born into other cultures who honestly follow other faiths, are also going to burn? Because they were fooled by Satan?    From chick.com
Nobody hates the idea of a creator, or of there being some kind of ultimate justice in the universe. That's not what has these people in such a bad mood. They despise the clique-ish, militant exclusion of it. 
Atheists. Same deal. It's irritating to you when they say you and your friends aren't going to Heaven because of your beliefs. But it's just as irritating to them when you say they're not going to Heaven, because there is no Heaven. And the irritation happens on the same grounds, which is, injustice. You hate the idea of all non-Christians burning for eternity, but you're telling them that the mass murderer and kindly grandma will draw the same eternal reward (or lack of). Now, again, both of you are saying, "But I'm factually right in what I'm saying!" And that's fine. For this, all we're doing here is understanding why they're offended by what you say. That's it. Putting yourself in their shoes. Basic human empathy. That's all. 
|
Reddit
Facebook
StumbleUpon
Digg
Del.icio.us
FarkRecommended for Your Pleasure
-
15 Words You Won’t Believe They Added to the Dictionary
967,323 views -
The 10 Coolest Foreign Words The English Language Needs
by: Aston R.951,718 views -
6 Real Islands Way More Terrifying Than The One On 'Lost'
832,459 views -
10 Divorce Stories Too Strange to Make Up
802,851 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
1,441,933 views -
7 Clearly Fake News Stories That Fooled The Mainstream Media
1,031,491 views -
The 7 Most Bizarrely Unlucky People Who Ever Lived
1,012,610 views -
6 People With Amazing Abilities (That Are Totally Useless)
969,174 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 Camp25,934 views -
A Series of Poor Decisions: The Twitter Song
by: Cody Johnston25,386 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.