10 Things Atheists and Christians Can and Must Agree On

[StillSearching]

I thought I would share this article from Cracked.com and see what everyone thinks. Enjoy.

10 Things Atheists and Christians Can and Must Agree On

[OzAnt]

I love that website. I wouldn't miss an article by David Wong or John Cheese.

Ant

[MESkeptic]

Hmm...

It's a good article, and it's important that people remember that we have more in common than we have differences...with almost any human being. I have to suspect, however, that most theists would say the entire article is beside the point, and that the author is just as (we'll say "misguided") as the atheists.

Here are the "10 Things That Theists Believe That Will Prevent Them From Agreeing on the Other 10 Things."

1. Any common qualities between atheists and theists only prove that all men are sinners who deserve hell;
2. Any "goodness" or morality atheists have left is a holdover from before they willingly gave themselves over to destruction;
3. It would actually be unkind to atheists to pretend they can be good people, because it would only encourage atheists to believe they have hope apart from (insert a god's name here);
4. It isn't theists from whom atheists are truly estranged: it is (insert a god's name here);
5. When a Christian does something wrong, he's either been deceived by Satan or is still struggling with his sin nature, whereas a bad atheist is just displaying his true nature;
6. It mocks (insert a god's name here) to suggest there is any kind of parity between (insert religion here) and atheism;
7. It doesn't matter if atheists sincerely believe what they're saying, because they've all been deceived by their father, Satan.
8. It's a lie to say that atheism has brought the world any good, because science is an invention of Christianity (I'm not exaggerating on this; I know plenty of Christians who insist it's the case)
9. It's a GOOD thing when an atheist is offended, because their anger only proves they need to hear MORE of a god's wisdom.
10. Theists may not be able to harrass atheists out of existence, but (insert god)'s gonna wipe them off the map with one fist.

Come on, Christians... prove me wrong here. Give us good evidence that my ten things don't better describe Christian thinking than the Other 10.

[Aaron]

science is an invention of Christianity (I'm not exaggerating on this; I know plenty of Christians who insist it's the case)

I can't see how anyone could say that. Science is merely using good sense when carrying out a procedure, that was not invented by Christianity. I do think however that the fields of science and mathematics and everything in between has benefited enormously from really smart people who were Christians. Here's a few names that mean something to me from my studies: John Napier, Blaise Pascal, Robert Boyle, Gottfried Leibniz, Isaac Newton, Colin Maclaurin, Thomas Bayes, Leonhard Euler, Augustin Louis Cauchy, Michael Faraday, James Clerk Maxwell, Louis Pasteur, George Stokes, Lord Kelvin and Max Planck. Mitch is really smart too, I might as well add him to the list.

[MESkeptic]

Aaron,

I was kind of hoping you'd prove me wrong on the other nine things, 'cause it often seems hopeless that there can be real peace between (American) Christians and anyone else.

Regarding Christianity and Science, I don't disagree that a lot of the greatest thinkers have been Christians or deists. I hear it said fairly often, however, that science only became possible in Christian countries, and that it was the Christian belief in "one right way" that made it possible. From what I've seen, adherents of this hypothesis set up a false dichotomy in which the belief in objective truth is possible in Christianity alone, and every other system of belief is essentially relativism.

On the other hand, I wouldn't have implied, as the article did, that rationalism necessarily came from atheism. Atheism isn't really synonymous with rationalism, because there are atheists who believe in things like astrology and crystals. There are also a minority of atheists who are essentially "backslidden" theists who've never really given much thought to religion, but who just don't like churches.

If there is a causal connection between rationalism and atheism for some atheists, it was probably rationalism which led to atheism, and not the other way around.

[Keep The Reason]

My take on this 10 things list. Some I agree with; others, not so much.

Re: Celebrating the death of somebody you disagreed with pretty much makes you a dick.

This isn't hard and fast a rule. I would have been celebratory to have heard Hitler died. I was not unhappy to see bin Laden go. I didn't go out and cheer (I wasn't around for Hitler), but I was glad they were gone.

1. You Can Do Terrible Things in the Name of Either One

No, I don't agree you can do "terrible things in the NAME of atheism." Notice how this is fleshed out in the description:

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.

The problem there wasn't a rejection of theism, the problem was a replacing of a spiritual theism with a secular one. "The State" was the religious like model to be worshiped. As a rejeftion of theism, atheism leaves a vaccum to be filled byu some other ideology. What that ideology might be is a whole separate topic.

2. Both Sides Really Do Believe What They're Saying

Regarding this comment:

"Only the saved go to Heaven!"
...and what the atheist hears is:
"I want everyone else to go to Hell!"

I don't react that way. When someone says "only the saved can go to heaven" what I think is, "You're afraid to die and want to live forever." The only time I think about Hell in response to theism is when it's discussed to understand how a god could create a hell in the first place (a whole ethics conversation).

3. In Everyday Life, You're Not That Different

Though spot on with the Christian view of this, Wong errs in the materialist version. We're not simply logicians who think that morals or ethics must be a molecule in order to be effective (or real), we merely feel the ethics are quite easily grounded in materialist values.It is a contradiction for Christians to say "God answers every prayer" and then never use prayer to attain things that would otherwise cost effort. But just because an atheist rejects a god doesn't mean he is contradictory when demanding something intangible, like justice. This is grounded in a our natures as social animals, and it's completely in tune with how we should behave, be there a god or not.

4. There Are Good People on Both Sides

Yep, agreed to. Though, one quibble. Martin Luther King's use of non-violence was adopted from Gandhi, who in turn adopted it from the Jains.

5. Your Point of View is Legitimately Offensive to Them

What really bothers me about this one is that for the most part the Christian point of view isn't particularly offensive, it's the forcing it every where that is offensive. And I don't get why Christians would be offended at people who have a different point of view. Classically this has been an issue between thiests-- which is why they have historically killed one another. But I just don't get it; I don't really care if people agree with me or not over something, as long as they don't force it on anyone else. And that's the problem with theism -- the tenets of having to convert people for their own good.

I know that lately there's been some accusations of "Atheistic evangelists" but the thing is, you cannot effectively evangelize atheism to people who are grounded in their religious views. Theists will always see humans as the lesser to gods, and so if they believe a god exists, they are always going to pre-empt anything an athiest can say as "the mere words of men, not of god!". If my atheism is legitimately offensive to anyone, that's on them, not me so I really disagree with point 5.

6. We Tend to Exaggerate About the Other Guy

I agree with this one, but not something said later under #6:

I mean, give me a break. America has been full of Christians since the day we invaded it, and has been a scientific and technological freaking superpower. So please stop waving your arms and warning that if Christians get their way, we'll all be sacrificing virgins on altars and replacing surgeons with priests.

This is hard to believe when we see religious people negatively impacting our scientific progress all the time. The examples are numerous-- from the recent birth control issues to ongoing abortion arguments, including the use of stem cells, to teaching evolution --relentlessly under attack -- there is a clear desire for many to get back to a simple theocratic rule here in then states, which is why religion positively saturates our political process. I already know for a fact that stem cell research has been severely set back, which is a similie to the "priests as surgeons" comment. Yeah, it will happen if we let it.

7. We Tend to Exaggerate About Ourselves, Too

Ok, sure I can agree with that. But the examples in this one stink through and through for both sides. I imagine Christians have their moments of doubt (I just recently addressed this), and I suppose there are athiests who think they are "pure rational beings" -- but I think this mischaracterizes our differences. As a Reaosnist, I don't reject the emoitonal, I recognize that emotions are part of human make up and noithing to be afraid of (or claim doesn't exist.) I would caution to be very wary about making choices based purely on emotions, and I do champion critical thinking, but I don't champion cold logic about all issues all the time. Balance. I consider the exmaples in #7 to be strawmen on both sides, even if I agree with the premise that both sides tend to exagerrate about ourselves.

8. Focusing on Negative Examples Makes You Stupid

This one seems to think athiests point to Fred Phelps as the worst of imaginable Chrsitians. Wong completely leaves anything Christians do to stereotype atheists out of this one-- perhaps he couldn't think of any atheists who behave like Phelps?

But Phelps is not the problem-- he's a loon (or simply trying to make money via litigation). It's the rank and file Christians who stand between gays and freedom that I take issue with. The negative examples that are worth noting are taking our progress backwards rather than forward. The insistence that god needs to be in the classroom, and in politics, and everywhere in everyone's life, always, that is the segment that has far too much control over our social model.

Again-- strange that this one doesn't suggest what Christians should stop doing to focus on negative atheistic examples.

9. Both Sides Have Brought Good to the Table

Again, I agree with the premise but the examples blow, and again they blow on the atheist side of the equation.

Let's look at one for the Christians:

I'm talking about rationalism. I'm talking about the philosophy that started saying, centuries ago, that it's not demons that cause disease. It's microbes, and genetic defects, and chemistry. And that we can find those causes and we can find cures. Cures in the physical world, without consulting the priest, without going through a ceremony.

Think about what I said before. If atheism is wrong, it's only wrong in that it takes rationalism too far, beyond the edges of the universe. But you don't have a problem with the rationalism itself. There are people you love who would not be alive without it. You can pray that grandpa's heart holds out for another year, but rational thinking invented the pacemaker.

This is clearly a praise of what atheists havbe fought for and bring to the table, especially recently. But then when we come to what atheists don't "recognize" about Christians-- something different comes to the fore:

Religion - whether it was handed down by God or just invented by a bunch of guys- serves mainly to fight that (our animal natures). It makes humanity sacred, and the moral law moreso. You can hate the methods it uses, you can say that there are other ways, you can say that it only replaces one cancer with another. But most of what it's trying to get you to do - treat other humans as sacred and put morality above your own impulses - you already do. And you criticize religion mainly for not doing it.

Religion doesn't make humanity sacred-- it places humanity at the footstool of something larger and divine -- god. Christianity in particular doesn't nkow which way to go-- it's a constant battle between obsessive megalomania-- that we are each specially designed and loved by this eternal being who created a vast and complex universe for... us -- and a devastating inferiority complex, that we are all worm-like sinners fit only for the furnace of annhiliation, that are constantly warring for supremacy in theistic thought.

It assumes only theism has the upper hand to moral legitmacy, and theism has not got that by any stretch of the imagination. Nor have the Abrahamic religions gotten it right in any event, since its emphasis is on petty and frivolous things, like "do not covet" and "obey god", rather than "don't abuse children" and "don't enslave one another".

10. You'll Never Harass the Other Side Out of Existence

Probably true. I also agree that to Lead By Example is essential, but it's not about winning converts from Christinaity. I like and can get behind this:

Be tolerant. Lead by example.

Both of you.

And don't think of it as a tactic to win converts. Think of it as common courtesy.

But-- overall, the article suggests that atheists are as much in people's faces as theists are, and that simply ain't the case. While there are certainly examples of that, atheism is about rejecting theism, not about prosyletizing anything. If there is a supported ideology, then it's about prosyletizing that I suppose, but atheism itself hasn't got much to prosyletize over. Meanwhile, Christianity's driving social engine is conversion (as it is also with Islam).

Apples and oranges here.

[mitchellmckain]

I think it was a very cool website. Perhaps it gave away a tiny too much on the morality issue to the Christians, because I think that morality can stand on reason given the things that nearly every human being values.

Since we are not saying that anything goes, I think it is a matter of being a dick on the right battle line - and I think tolerance and principles of a free society is such a battle line on which to fight without compromise. We just have recognize that tolerance does not logically include a tolerance of intolerance, and since it just isn't reasonable to expect others to accept our claims without objective evidence, that the actions of secular government (which gards the liberties of the individual) must be restricted to what can be objectively established.

Here are the "10 Things That Theists Believe That Will Prevent Them From Agreeing on the Other 10 Things."

1. Any common qualities between atheists and theists only prove that all men are sinners who deserve hell;

Incorrect. There is no limit to the common qualities (both good and bad) between atheists and theist. The differences are nearly all semantic -- i.e. the words that they use. And there is no way to prove that such a thing as you say here because that is a completely subjective judgement. I think that all men are sinners and I don't see how you can say that they do not deserve to get exactly what they most fervently desire, but God and those who seek something better for people by educating them to desire something better obviously think that people do deserve better. But it just does not work to cram these better things that you think they deserve down their throat. They have to want it.

2. Any "goodness" or morality atheists have left is a holdover from before they willingly gave themselves over to destruction;

That isn't even logically consistent with the first assertion nor is it consistent with scripture (See Romans 2:14-15). Not everyone is raised Christian and I can personally attest that they can do just fine figuring out why there are good reasons why some things are good and right and other things are bad and wrong.

3. It would actually be unkind to atheists to pretend they can be good people, because it would only encourage atheists to believe they have hope apart from (insert a god's name here);

LOL where are you getting this crap? You don't deserve a civilized response. You are getting your hypocrisy thrown back in your stinking face. Here are the 10 things that dick-headed atheists believe that keeps them from believing the 10 things on that website.

1. Any common qualities between atheists and theists only prove that they are primates scratching their ass and throwing poop at each other.
2. Any "goodness" or morality christians have left is a holdover from their evolution into social animals before they contracted this rabid mental disease that makes them hate everyone.
3. It would actually be unkind to theists to pretend they can be rational or good, because it would only encourage them to continue in their mental illness.
4. It isn't atheists from whom theists are truly estranged it is rationality and sanity.
5. When an atheist does soemthing wrong it is because they are still learning to be more rational, whereas christians are just doing what their god told them to do.
6. It mocks sanity and reason to suggest there is any kind of parity between atheism and Chrisitanity.
7. It doesn't matter if theists sincerely believe what they're saying, because they are all mentally ill.
8. It is a lie to say that Christianity has brought the world any good, because scientists are all atheists except when society gave them no other choice. (I'm not exaggering on this; I have known plenty of atheists who inist this is the case.)
9. It's a GOOD thing when a Christian is offended, because their anger only reveals their mental instability and the inherent violence of their religion.
10. Atheists may not be able to harrass theists out of existence, but it is clear that Christianity and religion in general is all dying because science just proves that they are all wrong.

I bet you are so far gone into your dunghill that you cannot even see what is wrong with these claims.

Come on, Christians... prove me wrong here. Give us good evidence that my ten things don't better describe Christian thinking than the Other 10.

You can put up strawmans and project whatever you like on those you want to demonize in order to justify being a dick -- no doubt about it. But the only proof required to establish what they believe is simply for them to say what they believe, in their OWN words!

[MESkeptic]

Mitch,

It could be argued that my original comment wasn't a productive approach to making a point, but I was not being sarcastic or being a dick. My goal wasn't to tick you off. It was to point out why I don't think most theists reading the 10 Things article would find any merit in it.

You ask where I "get all this crap?" From the mouths and keyboards of American Christians. I won't claim to remember past conversations verbatim, but all but #7 have been said to me in words very close to what I've written here. Seven is a paraphrase of an attitude I run across frequently, and while it may oversimplify that attitude, it doesn't exaggerate it.

Maybe it's unfair of me to list things that I can't immediately document; if you don't believe me, I can't really be insulted by that, but are you actually saying you haven't heard Christians say things very similar to those? Are you actually suggesting that someone has said your list of ten to you? The only one I've actually heard atheists say something similar to is your #10, and frankly, there's nothing inherently belittling in telling someone that they're wrong.

[mitchellmckain]

Maybe it's unfair of me to list things that I can't immediately document; if you don't believe me, I can't really be insulted by that, but are you actually saying you haven't heard Christians say things very similar to those? Are you actually suggesting that someone has said your list of ten to you? The only one I've actually heard atheists say something similar to is your #10, and frankly, there's nothing inherently belittling in telling someone that they're wrong.

Yes I most absolutely certainly have actually heard all 10 repeatedly from many atheists. Your absurd one sided characterature of Christianity suggested to me that you would be just like them and saying the same things. I FULLY expected you to say that you agreed with all of them, and try making some kind of hypocritical argument that they were different and not like your 10 things at all (frankly putting you in very very awkwardly unjustifiable position).

Did you actually READ the website? The fact that we can make such absurd characteratures was the WHOLE POINT!!! And you seemed to have completely missed it! Your response to my list however suggest that you don't agree with these 10 statements, and I am quite happy to add you to the list of atheists I have known who do understand that these are wrong. Now since I agree that your list of 10 are also wrong, there is hope if you can stop making your list of 10 your picture of Christianity and we will be back to the point of website, which is that we stop measuring all Christians/atheist by their least rational/reasonable and see that we do have much that we can agree upon.

Thus INSTEAD of characteratures serving the purpose of condemnation of a whole group of people these two lists can simply become a list of unjustifiable beliefs/assertions/claims that we both agree isn't acceptable in tolerant people who want to live in a free society. Sound good?

The only one I've actually heard atheists say something similar to is your #10, and frankly, there's nothing inherently belittling in telling someone that they're wrong.

Oh I quite agree. And so you can quite understand when I have to tell you that you are quite wrong to imply that science proves that atheism is correct. These are issues on which there is no objective evidence one way or another and I utterly reject attempts by either side to claim that theirs is some kind of default position and that the burden of proof has to be on the other side. The burden of proof lies with ANYONE who tries to impose their ideas and beliefs on other people, and so if there is no proof one way or the other then people are free to believe as they choose or reason or experience or whatever. Got it?

[MESkeptic]

Mitch,

I certainly don't agree with the ten things you've listed as atheist comments. I did read the website on the original "10 Things," but I couldn't help thinking how Evangelicals I've known would dismiss the whole article.

Would some atheists also dismiss it? Certainly, and you're right, it was one-sided of me not to say that. I do know atheists who are insufficiently skeptical about the merits of atheism itself. "The problem," they say, is religion, and when religion has lost its influence, the world will automatically be a better place. I think that's naive in the extreme. Human beings are always going to have prejudices and superstitions, and we have a proven "herd instinct" that can make things better when it is guided by empathy and much worse when it is controlled by fear. I believe religion is used by conservatives to bring out the worst in Americans, but it's the fear and greed that are the core problems.


"And so you can quite understand when I have to tell you that you are quite wrong to imply that science proves that atheism is correct."

Let me be clear: science does not prove atheism correct. I can see why you'd think I was implying that, but that's not what I believe.

What I was saying was that scientific reasoning has made atheism a more likely conclusion for many people. Science is a discipline that only works when scientists are willing to submit even their most fundamental assumptions and sacred cow ideas to testing against the evidence. Once we start doing that regularly, we find out how often our assumptions are wrong. Eventually, we get around to asking if our faith-based beliefs make any sense against the evidence. Some people conclude that the seeming problems with their religion are unimportant. Others pursue those questions and doubts further, and that often results in deconversion.


"The burden of proof lies with ANYONE who tries to impose their ideas and beliefs on other people, and so if there is no proof one way or the other then people are free to believe as they choose or reason or experience or whatever. Got it?"

I have no problem with that statement, but I don't think it accurately explains the source of the theist/non-theist conflict. The real conflict is over the question of how to construct government so that it represents and protects people of all faiths and no faith.

[mitchellmckain]

"The burden of proof lies with ANYONE who tries to impose their ideas and beliefs on other people, and so if there is no proof one way or the other then people are free to believe as they choose or reason or experience or whatever. Got it?"

I have no problem with that statement, but I don't think it accurately explains the source of the theist/non-theist conflict. The real conflict is over the question of how to construct government so that it represents and protects people of all faiths and no faith.

And yet in spite of the fact that the majority are Christians the US is run according to the principles of secularism, that the government acts only based on what can be objectively established. This is because it is the only thing that is consistent with the principles of religious freedom. It is because Christians themselves wanted the liberty from the imposition of the religious dogma of others that this came about -- though to be sure atheism in the form of British secular societies certainly played crucial roles in fighting for various liberties also. I myself am a secularist in spite of being an evangelical Christian. (And don't even bother whining about prayer and references to God, these are just words refering to our historical roots, and the atheist agenda to wipe such things out are just plain intolerance.)

Yes there are a lot of evangelicals and fundies that whine about secular humanism taking over the world and even push arguments that tolerance isn't possible. But the fact is that they themselves only exist (in all their idiocy) because our government operates on such principles. They lost such battles as prohibition of alcohol and abortion because the majority (despite being Christian) found that they just don't work - i.e. they do more harm than good.

[MESkeptic]

"They lost such battles as prohibition of alcohol and abortion because the majority (despite being Christian) found that they just don't work - i.e. they do more harm than good."

We're not that far apart in our views, Mitch, and I don't disagree with the original "10 Things" article that started the discussion. I don't think they'd welcome you at most Evangelical churches these days if they knew you thought secularism was okay. And I don't think most Evangelicals would find any value in the original "10 things" Christians and atheists need to agree upon.

[Moonwood the Hare]

"The burden of proof lies with ANYONE who tries to impose their ideas and beliefs on other people, and so if there is no proof one way or the other then people are free to believe as they choose or reason or experience or whatever. Got it?"

I have no problem with that statement, but I don't think it accurately explains the source of the theist/non-theist conflict. The real conflict is over the question of how to construct government so that it represents and protects people of all faiths and no faith.

And yet in spite of the fact that the majority are Christians the US is run according to the principles of secularism, that the government acts only based on what can be objectively established. This is because it is the only thing that is consistent with the principles of religious freedom. It is because Christians themselves wanted the liberty from the imposition of the religious dogma of others that this came about -- though to be sure atheism in the form of British secular societies certainly played crucial roles in fighting for various liberties also. I myself am a secularist in spite of being an evangelical Christian. (And don't even bother whining about prayer and references to God, these are just words refering to our historical roots, and the atheist agenda to wipe such things out are just plain intolerance.)

Yes there are a lot of evangelicals and fundies that whine about secular humanism taking over the world and even push arguments that tolerance isn't possible. But the fact is that they themselves only exist (in all their idiocy) because our government operates on such principles. They lost such battles as prohibition of alcohol and abortion because the majority (despite being Christian) found that they just don't work - i.e. they do more harm than good.

I'd largely agree with this although I'd say with Tom Paine

Toleration is not the opposite of intoleration, but it is the counterfeit of it. Both are despotisms. The one assumes to itself the right of withholding liberty of conscience, and the other of granting it.

and would prefer to go for a right to free exercise of concience rather than tolerance. Furthermore I don't think government can be based on what can be objectively established which as Feyerabend has pointed out is another depostism, the despotism of reason. I'd follow Mill and go for what can be established by consensus dangerous though that is in that it can establish a tyrany of the majority (as Mill himself points out). I believe in things like rights and justice for all and these cannot be established objectively. As Terry Pratchett puts it

THEN TAKE THE UNIVERSE AND GRIND IT DOWN TO THE FINEST POWDER AND SIEVE IT THROUGH THE FINEST SIEVE AND THEN SHOW ME ONE ATOM OF JUSTICE, ONE MOLECULE OF MERCY. AND YET—Death waved a hand. AND YET YOU ACT AS IF THERE IS SOME IDEAL ORDER IN THE WORLD, AS IF THERE IS SOME... SOME RIGHTNESS IN THE UNIVERSE BY WHICH IT MAY BE JUDGED.

[mitchellmckain]

Much more interesting than the one about 4 things Chrisitans and Atheists should stop saying.

[gary_s]

Well, I read the list and my only response is, so what? Those are all really common sense things. Extremists are likely to reject them, but they shouldn't be a stretch for the average person. I could think of a few others that would actually test the limits of people not on the extreme edges, but would be a good start for common ground.