10 Things Christians and Atheists Can (And Must) Agree On

[moriah]

Old article but a good one..

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. Well, 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.

[cbayer]

1. Has this guy been reading DU's Religion forum?!?!

What a great article and really funny to boot.

A must read, imo. Thanks so much for posting it.

[Warpy]

2. No kidding

I'm an atheist (small a) and don't disagree with much of anything in that article, except that equivalent things have been done in the name of atheism that have been done in the name of religion. Closing churches and temples and making priests and monks clean toilets for 20 years doesn't compare with the Crusades or the Inquisition. Cultural vandalism doesn't equal genocide.

While monsters like Stalin were responsible for mass deaths, it was more because of politics: hamfisted five year plans that ideologues were incapable of admitting were counterproductive to the point of being deadly rather than atheism, itself.

Other than that, it's a great article.

[moriah]

3. The point of that was not to compare the amount of damage either viewpoint has done.

And part of the reason people hated on Communism was because they were "a bunch of Godless <insert name here>". They did lots of bad things and killed lots of people too. (Edit to add: the reason many felt that the Communist dictators were able to treat their people badly was that they did not value human life, since it didn't carry a sacred nature to them. Saying God created you gives some people more motivation to respect human life. It's not the only motivation, fortunately.)

People tend to be jerks no matter what their belief system is -- it's part of being human. Sadly.

[Humanist_Activist]

5. Atheism isn't a belief system, its a position on a single issue, most mass murderers didn't...

believe in unicorns either, are we to say that aunicornism was necessary for them to do terrible acts?

[humblebum]

31. "Atheism isn't a belief system", but organized atheism is. nt

[Humanist_Activist]

32. No it isn't.

[cbayer]

8. I don't think he says that equivalent things have been done.

He just says that making the argument that one has been worse than the other serves no purpose.

"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.

[edhopper]

9. False equivalency doesn't work for me

when they use it for Dems and Repubs and it doesn't work for me here.
Making the argument that one is far, far worse than the other serves a very useful purpose.

[cbayer]

10. What purpose is that?

[edhopper]

13. To point out the crimes and suffering that religion causes.

To not acknowledge this because some atheist somewhere did something bad and therefore it is out of bounds gives the a pass to atrocities that should not be ignored.

[cbayer]

15. I think most are aware of the fact that religion has at times caused great harm.

I guess if someone absolutely denies that, you may have a point.

The point of the article is that once that is acknowledged, what is the point of arguing further about it.

Horrible things have been done that haven't involved religion at all.

Whether there is or is not religion, bad people will continue to do really bad things.

[edhopper]

18. Because the reasons are important.

How else to address the harm. Do you suggest that we throw up our arms at all atrocities and say "oh well, bad thing happen."
If we see that Democracies have a greater beneficial effect on their people than Dictatorships, do we just say, " both do harm sometimes, let's ignore the type of government."
I find that the false equivalency cop out is just that. Let's ignore that the Republican Party is bought and paid for by the Corporations and do whatever they can to push the Fundamentalist Christian agenda, because some Dems are Christian too and get Corporate money.

Discussing that one is far worse is relevant.

[cbayer]

19. Did you read this article?

[edhopper]

20. Yes

I thought we were going off on a tangent.

[cbayer]

21. We are going off on a tangent.

I basically agree with the premise of this article and most of his points. I think we have a common enemy and should work together to defeat it. That means identifying our commonalities and stop bickering about who is right and who is wrong.

Basically, I have no interest in arguing with anyone who feels there is a winning or losing side here. It serves no purpose, imo, and just divides us.

[edhopper]

22. As I've stated before

I come to this forum just for this discussion. Where I do think it is about what people believe or don't, and why..
On other forums like GD. I do not think the religious beliefs of the other posters are relevant. (with rare exception, when the conversation is primarily about that.)

[Warpy]

12. I've pointed that out on the A&A forum when someone has asked what would happen

should religion simply disappear overnight. Nationalism, tribalism, and other isms would only strengthen to take its place and be at least as bad, if not worse, since few of them have any of the good stuff religion has about tolerance that some people even listen to.

[cbayer]

17. Completely agree.

Traveling through Mesa Verde a few years ago, I was introduced to some of the most horrific stories I had ever heard. These incidents of genocide, torture and enslavement had nothing to do with religion at all. It was all about territory, tribes and access to resources.

Made my hair stand on end.

[Warren Stupidity]

30. that seems to assume that religion is some sort of barrier or replacement for

nationalism, tribalism, and other 'isms'. You appear to be asserting that religion fills a space that would otherwise be occupied by these other sorts of belief systems. Offhand history seems to show no such thing. Religion co-exists and complements and frequently amplifies nationalism tribalism and other 'isms'.

[Warpy]

38. Actually, it does fill such a space

and only becomes intertwined with the other stuff in a monocultural society.

In other words, it's probably a good thing to keep around as long as it dilutes the other stuff a little bit because they can't agree whose god is gonna beat up whose god.

[Warren Stupidity]

39. I want actual data for your assertion as I disbelieve it.

My disbelief is based on examples such as these.

For example: the Roman Empire was a highly religious highly nationalist social structure that dominated Mediterranean civilization for nearly 1,000 years. One could hardly imagine a more nationalistic society. How religion, always a strong component of Roman society from its beginnings through its Christian phase, diluted that nationalism escapes me.

Or another example: the Spanish conquest of the Americas. Religion muted this how? How could it have been less brutally nationalistic than it was?

Onward Christian Soldiers.

Jihad.

Crusades.

I could go on.

[Humanist_Activist]

4. His post illustrates a problem and gulf between atheists and Christians and other religious...

believers. The worst he can come up with is this guy and books like the God delusion on the atheist side, which do not, repeat, do not attack people, and considers it equivalent to the Westboro Baptist Church, whose whole premise is on attacking(verbally) an entire segment of the population and everyone who supports them. There is no equivalency here, people are more valuable than gods, period, if religious people can't get that through their thick skulls, then they really have a problem.

[TreasonousBastard]

7. I thought he was saying that people who say what you just said...

just don't get it.

[TlalocW]

6. The worst people to get stuck in an elevator with, on a long trip with, etc. are

1. Fundamentalist Christians
2. Fundamentalist Atheists
3. 14-year-old "rockers" who have just discovered Led Zepplin and think they're the first ones to truly "hear" Stairway to Heaven.

TlalocW

[edhopper]

11. There are no

fundamentalist atheist. And I do know of a single atheist who would try to "save" a stranger in an elevator. I know several Christians who do it regularly.

[cbayer]

14. It's not about saving. It's about conversion.

You may have never met one, but they definitely exist.

[edhopper]

16. notice

I put "save" in quotes.

[TlalocW]

25. Fine, if you don' tlike the label, "fundamentalist,"

But there are plenty of atheists just as annoyingly chatty and in your face - especially right after they become one - as there are fundy Christians.

TlalocW

[mr blur]

26. I've never known an atheist who STARTED a conversation about god

We just react.

[cbayer]

28. Really? What about all the threads started here?

[edhopper]

33. We are taking about in public or social interaction,

the "elevator' scenario mentioned earlier.
Not a Forum where people explicitly expect us to talk about religion. I am surprised you confused the two.

[cleanhippie]

34. "I am surprised you confused the two"

You are? No one else is. Obfuscation is the tactic.

[cbayer]

35. I'm not clear on what the member I was responding to was saying.

He made a broad statement that atheists don't start conversations about god and I pointed out that they do.

And, despite the protestations here, I have been around a lot of people outside of here that wear their atheism on their sleeves and frequently bring it up.

Most of them just want to have a discussion. Some want to convert. And other want to ridicule.

Perhaps my experience is different than others because I live within the community of live aboard boaters - a very free thinking and independent group. But my experience remains valid, nonetheless.

[edhopper]

36. Yes it is.

But I would say you do live in a very different community from most. I live in a large urban area. I could count on one hand the number of times I have heard an atheist bring up the subject in a public setting. I do not have enough appendages to count the times I have had Christians do so.

[cbayer]

37. I can't disagree with this.

I really don't object to discussion from either side. I really do object to attempts to convert, dismiss, belittle, judge or marginalize from either side.

But you are correct. Religious people are more likely to openly do all of those things.

Also, people may bring it up with me because my father is a minister. This comes up early in conversations often because we moved around a lot.

It goes like this:

Where did you grow up?

All over the place.

Military?

No, clergy.

[edhopper]

27. I doubt that.

I have not seen the hordes of atheist going door to door and traveling to far flung places just to proselytize. Most atheist I know, almost to a person, keep it to themselves unless asked.
I think you are very mistaken. But you can keep believing your false equivalency. It won't be the first time on these boards. It's not even the first time today.

[jeff47]

23. #1: no.

#1: No. Stalin and Mao were atheists, but they were butchers because of their quest for power, not because they were atheists. They didn't kill for atheism, they killed to consolidate their power. On the other hand, there's lots of people who killed for their religion.

#2 makes no sense at all.

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.

No, we're well aware that the devout believe the rules were handed down from God. We're don't think they're faking it. We understand that a whole lot of truly devout people are looking forward to atheists burning in hell. We also know a larger portion hope we are saved from that.

#3: The "talking to atheists" section is another spin on morality can only come from religion/God.

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.

Um, no. Society can't function if there's complete anarchy. As a member of a society, we expect people to behave ethically most of the time, or be ostracized from that society. No "justice gene" required.

#4: Pretty much just pandering

#5: Atheists are well aware of this. So why are you preaching to them about it?

#6: Well, he refutes his own #3 here:

You take a country like Japan, where just 12% of the people say religion is important to their lives and yet have some of the lowest crime rates in the world.

As for his main point about exageration:

So please, please, please, when we get into these atheist vs. Christian arguments, can the atheists stop acting like Christians want to abolish all science and live in grass huts? Just because some Christians reject the science on evolution, doesn't mean they reject all science.

I don't see too many religious folks trying to reign in the antiscience zealots. An awful lot of Catholics go to Catholic church, and then claim to not believe what Opus Dei preaches, for example.

#7:

Remember, to a neuroscientist, free will is every bit as real as the Tooth Fairy. They can watch your neurons light up at the moment you make moral decisions, can trace the exact electrochemical pathways.

What was that part where you were claiming believers weren't antiscience? And that we shouldn't exaggerate what others believe?

Yeah, neuroscientists don't have anywhere near this understanding of the brain.

Also, how is it an exaggeration to talk about laws that the evangelicals are actually proposing? They wrote down their demand to rape women with an ultrasound transducer before they get an abortion.

#8: We're gonna focus on the negative of the theists, because the theists are an actual danger to me. The guy who goes to church and doesn't try to inflict his religion on me isn't going to hurt me. The best neighbors I've ever had were devout Catholics. They also didn't try to make me Catholic.

The guy who goes to church and then demands I follow his religion is a threat to me.

This point is a little like telling MLK "You should stop focusing on the mean white people. Spend more time talking about the good white people."

#9 The "talking to atheists" part is another rehash of "religion creates morality".

#10: Not the goal of atheists. And he's violating #6.

[cbayer]

24. These are the ten things in a list.

While I know that not everyone will agree, I think most of the people who participate here actually already do agree on these things.

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

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

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

4. There Are Good People on Both Sides

5. Your Point of View is Legitimately Offensive to Them

6. We Tend to Exaggerate About the Other Guy

7. We Tend to Exaggerate About Ourselves, Too

8. Focusing on Negative Examples Makes You Stupid

9. Both Sides Have Brought Good to the Table

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

[Warren Stupidity]

29. 11. Both sides practice evidence based reasoning.