Ten things Christians and Atheists can and must agree on

Discussion in 'Off Topic Area' started by Mitlov, Dec 17, 2010.

  1. Mitlov

    Mitlov Shiny

  2. Hatamoto

    Hatamoto Beardy Man Kenobi Supporter

    Very admirable that somebody has taken the time to write all that and put so much thought to the topic. Good find, it's an encouraging read.
     
  3. Nojon

    Nojon Tha mo bhàta-foluaimein

    11. Beer is good
     
  4. aikiMac

    aikiMac aikido + boxing = very good Moderator Supporter

    Excellent points. Yep.
     
  5. CosmicFish

    CosmicFish Aleprechaunist

    12. Christmas is about drink, turkey, presents, time off work and seeing family. :cool:
     
  6. Timmy Boy

    Timmy Boy Man on a Mission

    The author of this article seems to assume that everyone agrees with his PC, fence-sitting analysis at every turn - "Everyone on board? Good!" blah blah. I'll take these points in turn:

    Celebrating the death of someone you disagreed with

    Yep, agreed there. Though to be honest, although some idiots on a forum somewhere might have celebrated the death of Jerry Falwell, I doubt they turned up in legions at his funeral brandishing hateful signs and started urinating on his grave in front of his family.

    You can do terrible things in the name of either one.

    I disagree completely. Just because Stalin happened to be an atheist doesn't mean that atheism was the cause for his crimes against humanity, and that's the critical point - otherwise you might as well say "gee, Stalin had a moustache, moustaches must be evil then". The article tries to counter this point by saying "well, bloodshed still happens in both cases" but that's a different point entirely - and one that atheists never denied as we never claimed that all evil deeds in the history of mankind were the result of religion. Further, Stalin's crimes were made possible because Stalinism withs its cult of the personality was too much like a religion. So I don't think this argument stands up.

    Both sides really do believe what they're saying

    This guy has never read anything by Sam Harris.

    Religious fundamentalists are dangerous precisely because they believe what they say they believe. This is why they're so impervious to secular reasoning. As they see it, religious moderates are just spineless politically-correct hypocrites.* I would only question the piety of religious moderates as they feel they can reject bits of the Bible or Qur'an that make them feel uncomfortable. So this point is a straw man.

    To be fair, the author does seem to recognise this later on, though he doesn't see how it relates to this point.

    In everyday life, you're not that different.

    This point is basically saying that atheists, like Christians, talk as if there is a higher power that handed down absolute morality. This is not the case. Without religion, common sense dictates our morality. There are some rules that are conducive to humans living together and getting along and some that are harmful to that endeavour.

    The usual counter to this point is that this approach to morality is too vague and subjective. I disagree. The fact is, religious people haven't exactly formed a consensus on what moral ruleset should triumph over the others, and the history of all the religious conflicts in the world proves this. So religion does nothing to make the process more objective - all it does is balkanise people by making them care passionately about irrelevant considerations that have nothing to do with real morality. Without religion, common sense prevails, and that's as objective as it's going to get.

    There are good people on both sides.

    Strawman. Old, tired strawman, in fact. Next.

    Your point of view is legitimately offensive to them.

    No it isn't. If you choose to believe, based on no evidence whatsoever, that you're going to a magical place after you die, and you make your whole world view revolve around this fantasy, then it's your fault if you get offended when this fantasy is demolished by logic. You can't play the "hurt feelings" card in order to place your opinions above debate - that's called being passive-aggressive.

    We tend to exaggerate about the other guy.

    The point supposedly being made here is that we atheists like to believe that Christians reject all science. Another strawman.

    We tend to exaggerate about ourselves, too.

    Another strawman. The fact that not all Christians are fundamentalist lunatics does not invalidate the argument against Christianity - see "both sides really do believe what they're saying" above. The author may like the idea that Christianity has "moved with the times" but really it's just been dragged kicking and screaming because of the enlightenment.

    Focusing on negative examples makes you stupid.

    No it doesn't. Just because I focus on the negatives doesn't mean I think all Christians are bad. Another strawman.

    Both sides have brought good to the table.

    Religion has had a monopoly on moral debate for a long time. As such there are people within it who have been a force for good in the world. But there is no reason why one would need to be religious in order to do good things, so religion is irrelevant.

    You'll never harass the other side out of existence

    This is a typical example of what many religious moderates do - they equate the criticism and sarcasm that atheists sometimes display with the express statements of intolerance and hatred that religious fundamentalists display. It's not the same and the criticism is thus a strawman. Disagreeing with you is not harassment. I've never had atheists knock on my door trying to convert me.

    The author of this article has a distinctly "why can't we all just get along?" vibe, and as commendable as this is I think he needs to learn to call a spade a spade and recognise that there are real problems to be overcome.
     
  7. Gary

    Gary Vs The Irresistible Farce Supporter

    I started off thinking this was going to be a great article. It's not pro or anti either side and it's on Cracked! How could it not be great?

    The point is driven home several times not to assume either atheists or theists have an ideal they stick to. Christians aren't all anti science and atheists aren't all immoral druggies. He then spends a lot of time telling both sides that they need to act a certain way, instead of sticking to the premise of accepting common ground. Then there's the blindingly misguided points. Morals aren't scientific? There's huge areas of study in biology and psychology concerning where we derive our morals from! Free will science has decreed as simple biology? Or one scientists opinion in a field with several competing hypothesis?

    Ultimately what annoyed me is the insistence on Us and Them as though the two sides are always competing, especially when Atheism is less of a 'side' and more of a 'I'm not playing so I'll be in the pub until you guys are done'.

    That said there were a lot of good points. Sure he seems to belief that both sides goal is to convert the opposition, at least he makes a good point about escalating your position away from the opposition only serving to separate you further.
     
  8. liero

    liero Valued Member

    Coma and Timmy Boy summed up most of my opinions regarding this article very well.

    There are some major generalisations made about anyone who is not a theist that I and most of my non-theist friends would likely disagree with.

    The author repeatedly states that they were educated in a christian school of thought...rebelled against it and "went athiest" and then assumes there are basic beliefs in humans that mean a higher power might almost certainly exist which brought them back to the best way of thinking.

    I must say that alot of the reasoning he/she uses to try and disuade people from an evolutionary/cognitive developmental understading of a higher power has been disproved by simple psycholgical study.

    I'm not sure what I wrote makes alot of sense...if there is someone who read the article and agree's with it, I would be more than happy to post a more in depth discussion about it.

    Although I'm not sure MAP hosts that type of people?
     
  9. Van Zandt

    Van Zandt Mr. High Kick

    How the list really should have gone:

    1. Beer is awesome.

    [​IMG]

    2. Gemma Arterton is fine.

    [​IMG]

    3. Taekwondo is way better than Krotty.

    [​IMG]

    4. Bill Wallace is the real Messiah.

    [​IMG]

    5. Beer is awesome.

    [​IMG]

    6. Boobs are God's bestest and most cleverest invention.

    [​IMG]

    7. Short people are awesome.

    [​IMG]

    8. Kyra Gracie makes Jiu Jitsu cool.

    [​IMG]

    9. Guns are fun.

    [​IMG]

    10. Taekwondo is way better than Krotty.

    [​IMG]
     
  10. aikiMac

    aikiMac aikido + boxing = very good Moderator Supporter

    What point did Timmy Boy make????
     
  11. AZeitung

    AZeitung The power of Grayskull

    I was going to add:
    #11 Timmy Boy has no friends in real life

    but then I thought that would be too mean.
     
  12. Timmy Boy

    Timmy Boy Man on a Mission

    Er, what? Did I miss some kind of joke?
     
  13. Timmy Boy

    Timmy Boy Man on a Mission

    Once again, I'm bowled over by your intellectual supremacy. :D
     
    Last edited: Dec 21, 2010
  14. aikiMac

    aikiMac aikido + boxing = very good Moderator Supporter

    As well you should be, because you have embarrassed yourself. The article gives a list of ten things that are either true or false. It’s a true/false list. Very simple.

    For example, point #1, “you can do terrible things in the name of either [atheism or a particular religion]” is a true/false claim. And it’s true. As the author stated, quote, “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.”

    Just possible. Done. Going one direction, we have examples in history of national leaders killing people and otherwise being cruel because, allegedly, their favored god told them too. This is too easy to demonstrate. Going the other direction we have national leaders doing the same sort of things for the express purpose of stamping out religion. It’s the same behavior. Stalin was one such atheist. Your objection that, “Just because Stalin happened to be an atheist doesn't mean that atheism was the cause for his crimes against humanity, and that's the critical point …” was directly addressed by the author: bad guys sometimes corrupt the true teaching of atheism or religion, as the case may be. Maybe Stalin corrupted atheism, and that’s why it doesn’t seem like a good example to you. Maybe the Crusaders corrupted Christianity, and that’s why Roman Catholics today don’t give the Crusaders much weight.

    If Stalin’s behaviors do reflect atheism then the author’s point is made. If they do not then maybe Stalin corrupted atheism, just as the Crusaders corrupted Christianity, in which case the author’s point is made. But we don’t even have to decide that today because it’s an historical fact that Stalin was acting to stamp out religion. We all learned that history in school. And that was the point of the author.

    More importantly, the possibility is true even if the Stalin example fails. That really is the author’s point, and he’s right.


    Point #2, “both sides really do believe what they’re saying,” is self-evident, and your objection to it is gobbly-gook. Your objection doesn’t even make sense. You affirm it while denying it. It’s as if you went back to edit your post but then got interrupted half way through the revision. It’s all twisted.

    But anyway, this one sentence from you is good enough to make the point: “Religious fundamentalists are dangerous precisely because they believe what they say they believe.” There, the point is proven one direction. The other direction is you affirming that you and Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins all actually believe what you three preach.


    For example, point #3, “in everyday life you’re not that different,” is facially true. I'm baffled that you missed it. In your workplace do Anglicans and Methodists and Roman Catholics and Moslems run around robbing and raping and maiming and killing? Do they habitually lie? Or is it that atheists do those things? What? Can you really tell people's religious preference from their behavior in grocery stores and and shopping malls and by the way they drive their cars? One side or the other has to be way off base in behavior for you to deny the author’s claim.


    For example, point #4, “there are good people on both sides,” is a corollary to the last point, and it is self-evident. You objected that it was a strawman argument. Strawman? Huh? That doesn’t even make sense. How could you say that? It doesn’t fit. The list is a list of true/false points. The statement is either true, or it is false. “Strawman” is not an option.

    I think it was Sam Harris who used his own humanitarian record as evidence, in his book, that one doesn’t need God for morality. Whether it was him or another atheist writer is not important. The point is well made: there are very good atheists in the world. But there are good theists too. Martin Luther King Jr. was the author’s example of a good theist. Nobody can deny that example with a straight face.

    For example, point #5, “your point of view is legitimately offensive to them,” is demonstrated by your own posts. Going one direction, you are plainly, blatantly, obviously offended by people who proclaim a god -- particularly Christians. It comes out regularly in this subforum. It's as plain as day. Going the other way, your own characterization of “religious fundamentalists” is an example of the other guy being offended by you. And you asserted the point yourself. Mostly, though, you wrote gobbly-gook again here: your conclusion is opposite your own argument. I don't know what you were saying.

    The next half of the list is equally as simple so I'll skip it.
     
    Last edited: Dec 21, 2010
  15. Cuong Nhu

    Cuong Nhu Valued Member

    I'll be back tomorrow. I didn't necessarily agree with it, but some it's criticisms are inappropriate or down right wrong. Just to tired right now.
     
  16. liero

    liero Valued Member

    That pretty much sums up how I feel about the article even up to the tiredness.

    There be alot of generalisations and falsehoods. No evidence outside of hearsay and personal experience is used to reach the conclusions.


    My main issue is that I found it to be a boring read...
     
  17. Infrazael

    Infrazael Banned Banned

    I don't like this list, but mainly because morality is questionable as well.

    Getting too wrapped up in philosophy, the entire world just seems like one screwed up place where nothing is absolute and reality is rather... distorted.
     
  18. Mitlov

    Mitlov Shiny

    The Stalin example was bad. What they should have used was Mao Zedong and the Cultural Revolution.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_Revolution

    Same with the Khmer Rouge's oppression of the religious:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khmer_Rouge

    Yes, atheists can do bad acts in the name of atheism too. (I'm saying this as an atheist myself, not an atheist-hater).

    EDIT: I haven't yet taken the time to go through Timmy's complaints point-by-point. But I do have this to say: regardless if there are flawed details in it, I agreed with the overall spirit and point of the article. Because you know what? Getting along with our fellow human beings is far, far, far more important than forcing them to understand that you (the collective you) are right about what happens when we die. If someone is wrong about what happens when they die, and they go through the rest of their life without being enlightened, it's okay. But when the desire to make everyone believe The Truth overwhelms our respect for our fellow human beings, people get killed. Countless scores of people have been killed in the name of religion, and yes, countless scores have been killed (at least in Asia) simply for being religious. This is so backward I can't even put it into words, and no side's hands are clean. People need to remember that treating each other with respect is more important than winning the debate over religion.

    And yes, I find the statement "religious moderates are just spineless politically-correct hypocrites" to be just as offensive as the derision hurled at atheists by intolerant religious people.
     
    Last edited: Dec 21, 2010
  19. slipthejab

    slipthejab Hark, a vagrant! Supporter

    Interesting you used those two examples back to back as much of the Khmer rouge attrocities were lent a helping hand by influence from China.
     
  20. Mitlov

    Mitlov Shiny

    I take this comment back.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Stalin#Religion

    Being religious was certainly not the ONLY thing that got you on Stalin's bad list. But prior to WWII, Stalin most definitely did persecute religious people solely for being religious.
     

Share This Page