23 votes

"Ten things Christians and Atheists can and must agree on." An article that would serve this community well

Whether you're Christian, atheist, or anything else, please read and try to keep an open mind


Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
GoodSamaritan's picture

* Shakes head incredulously *

Again, I have no idea if Dahmer was forgiven or not. And it doesn't matter what kind of prayer he might or might not have said. Salvation is up to God. Period. I don't think I can't make that any clearer and the Bible is clear enough on that issue.

Let's see... Jesus said, "blasphemy against the Spirit shall not be forgiven", but you say that it can be. I think I'll stick with Jesus on this one. And, no, the other Gospels do not contradict this. Matthew, Mark and Luke are in absolute agreement here. John only refers to it indirectly in 1 John 5:16.

You also say that God can't stand insults but Jesus said, "Whoever speaks a word against the Son of Man, it shall be forgiven him". Since Jesus said numerous times that He is God, and was crucified precisely because He claimed to be God, again, I'll take Jesus' word over yours that God does tolerate - even forgives - insults, with the exception noted above about ascribing to Satan the works of the Holy Spirit.

As for providing the actual quote, I gave you the reference to do your own homework. Obviously it says nothing about sincerity and that was my point - sincerity of a prayer has nothing to do with gaining salvation. Asking for salvation doesn't bring salvation no matter how sincere the request. Salvation is a free gift that God grants according to His mercy, not according to anything we think, say, or do, however sincerely, because those things are "works".

Ron Paul - Honorary Founding Father

wolfe's picture


The entire new testament contradicts the "blaspheme" the holy ghost line.

Read Paul's complaints about thorns.

There is NO sincerity required period. Ask, and it shall be given. Period.

Do you know what that scripture is referring to you? It is basically saying that to call anything that "god" does evil, is to blaspheme against the holy spirit. But both god and man should be judged by their works, and the entire bible is a testament to how evil and death obsessed you deity is.

Further, Paul himself was a "living" example of why that wasn't an unforgivable sin. Paul was one of the most guilty of that act, and in talks with god, god made it clear that he loved and forgave him. Therefore, it is NOT an unforgivable sin.

I find it fascinating to watch you guys twist yourself into knots. For every scripture you quote, I can quote one that says the exact opposite.

The Philosophy Of Liberty -

GoodSamaritan's picture

Citations, please

Your saying there are contradictions doesn't make it so.

You've taken part of a verse, "Ask, and it shall be given", and applied your own out-of-context interpretation. That verse has nothing to do with explaining salvation. Jesus was instructing people who are already saved on how to approach their heavenly Father.

Accusing the Apostle Paul of blaspheming the Holy Spirit without a shred of evidence from Scripture just makes you look foolish. His blasphemes occurred before his salvation and were directed toward Jesus - not the Holy Spirit. Try to prove otherwise.

Ron Paul - Honorary Founding Father


The funniest comment under the article, written by mmmCatSoup:


Nothing brings people closer like a common foe. I say the atheists and Christians all get together and hate on agnostics. Those indecisive bastards.


Purrfect! Wish I had thought of that one....

(Sorry... just thought we could use a little humor here for a moment.)

What would the Founders do?

Reading the comments

A lot of Post-Modern thinking on here. What a shame. You have a bunch of Willing to Power going on. I feel sad for the Christians who are arguing with people who care not what you believe in. To me, they are just probably laughing at you as they type. I know it is hard to resist, but don't play into their name calling. Trust me, it does no good. Just sit back, proclaim the Gospel, type it if you must. Remember that before, your ancestors in the Faith had to put up with all the same mockery that you are having to go through. All of their allegations, slander, lies and deceit have been done since the earliest of times. Look up Alexandros worships an ass. See what that donkey is pinned too.

They hate Jesus, the real Jesus, not the fake hipster one they have constructed in their minds, the god in their minds. If he walked among us, boy they feel special 'following Ron Paul', only a few people in the lifetime of Jesus even had a glimmer of who he was. It was only after the resurrection that they realized who He was. (read the Gospel of Mark and how stupid the Disciples were) Well, we will just have to keep waiting until he comes again. Then, I wonder if they will just mock him. Who knows?

Jesus would also stand against them for their hypocrisy. They want to be judged on their merits alone, how great they are, look at how great 'I' am. They are great unto themselves. I mean they are all gods to me. Such wonderful intellects. We should just bow down and praise them for their magnanimous ways. They love their neighbor perfectly. They do not gossip, they do not steal, they do not lie and they are perfect in all abilities.

To me, I am a humble man, poor of spirit from who no good comes from. It is pretty obvious who are the better people here.

May the LORD bless you and keep you
May the LORD make His face shed light upon you and be gracious unto you
May the LORD lift up His face unto you and give you peace
Follow me on Twitter @ http://twitter.com/Burning_Sirius

Throwing my hat into this arena

I find that most Christianity today is just moralistic therapeutic deism. From 'Praise Bands' to tongues and other BS, what people think is 'Christianity' is hardly that. America is a bastion of Reformed Theology, and unfortunately, Americans think that is the one and only form of Christianity out there. Because of this, we have the fruits of the radical reformation coming up, that is well atheism or paganism. What do I mean about this?

John Calvin and other enlightenment thinkers promoted the idea that by using depraved human reason, we can then have religions according to how we think. This finally spun out into Deism. Relying on 'sola reason' is so silly to me given the fact that all systems are subject to decay, and that includes one's mental capabilities. Everyone must assume they have perfect brains able to crunch out perfect logic and even then logic will dictate that the Universe has a primal cause. Finally, no one lives by scientific determinism alone. One must one day, put faith in someone's words or actions. 'Honey I will be home at 1:00', and you have faith in that at face value like also when your parents tell you to not step out in front of a car. You have faith that they are telling you the truth.

On the flip side of this we have rampant emotionalism being surged into the youth of the Church. Once they lost the 'feeling of the Spirit' what will they do. More than likely fall away allowing the thorns to tear up their faith.

Lutheranism of course has all the answers to this. We neither rely on extensive reason, allowing paradoxes in Scripture to remain allowing our Faith to believe, and distrust of emotionalism (which is why our Church services are 'boring' lol).

If Christians just preached the Gospel, that all the bad you have done in your life has been paid for by Christ Jesus (unlimited atonement), who died a real death and rose from the dead, not as a 'zombie', but as a real flesh and blood person, most of the falling away would not happen. What I said about the Gospel is historically verifiable given the records of the Gospel accounts. Jesus is not a 'spaghetti monster', either. One day, I will have a sermon on the flying spaghetti monster. It will be really fun, and the Church sign will have a very awesome title to it.

I mean you can call bad things what you want to, you can call them 'sins' or 'mistakes', but out of man's heart does only evil flow out of. My heart, everyone's hearts, you cannot do any good, and the good you do is only self serving (the basis of libertarianism). Only with God can your works be good and selfless. This is why Christian rulers have a one up on secular rulers. A truly Christian governor or official can make selfless decisions that might hurt him, but help everyone around him, loving their neighbor as their self in service.


May the LORD bless you and keep you
May the LORD make His face shed light upon you and be gracious unto you
May the LORD lift up His face unto you and give you peace
Follow me on Twitter @ http://twitter.com/Burning_Sirius

A "religionist" CANNOT imagine a free-society

I say this because I've looked at all human history (which has always been religious-based, mythos-based, or superstitious-based) and that we've NEVER had a free-society.

Our "right-brain" has not evolved far enough out of the fear-based bogey man mode yet to conceive a consumer-sovereignty (as Mises defined) INTO reality.

I'm talking what has existed and what we have today -- since we've never had a free-society and the world has ALWAYS been 95% religious-animist-superstitious there you go.

The OTHER REASON is that a religious person is an absolution-seeker; they are an absolutist -- they believe without "rules" man will kill one another Mad-Max style; but there has never been a rule-free society post Industrial-Age.

Post Industrial-Age no longer requires "brute-force" and we can specialize now without coercion or caste system.

People simply have to allow their children to fail -- they have to allow their friends to fail -- and they have to be okay with failure themselves.

Lest we forget the point of

Lest we forget the point of the article is "stop being dicks about it". But apparently commenters just want to slay those "can't we all just get along" peeps out of "intellectual honesty" or "divine command".

Uggg. Self righteousness is such a deceiver of all beliefs and non-beliefs.

There is really only one thing they must agree on

agree to disagree and move on.
If the only people one takes for allies are those who think exactly the way we do, we will all have no allies. I do not reject anyone for being any religion, but I have been told straight to my face that if I am not a Christian then I am not a Patriot or a even good person. Told this by a candidate speaking at an event where I was a sponsor of the event, actually. And where the keynote speaker was an atheist. It was quite the afternoon. Ran into the guy months later at another gathering of freedom fighters that I had coordinated, he still sticks by that stance. What can I say? I think he is doing some really good things, but then he undoes them as fast as he does them.

Love or fear? Choose again with every breath.

ok....I'll play....

Atheists wouldn't have a problem with Christians if....Christians would know as much about their purported faith as their "opponents", rejecting, hypocrite-exposing non-belivers do.

If an un-government-registered church would not only practice church discipline and shame their memberships dabbling in vices common to man, rebuke doctrinal error and unholy fellowships with compromisers, and encourage their membership to be patriotic and good servants by not only distrusting and questioning their sin-tainted civil leaders who profess to be Christians for popularity(vote-getting purposes), but rather RUN FOR OFFICE themselves to protect our God-given liberties....we might get somewhere....meaning, someone in a Christian church might say that educated, licensed, experienced, and degreed architects, engineers, pilots, and firefighters have LEGITIMATE QUESTIONS about what happened on September 11th, 2001 .... And .... Christian candidate Ron Paul has some excellent qualified positions about our parent government's role in both foreign and domestic affairs; as well as a very learned position about Just War Theory....again, we just might get somewhere.

(funny how they NOW all pay lip service to his positions on the Fed and debt 5 years too late!!!) - check out TODAY's broadcastwhen they post it(12/12/12) of http://www.worldviewweekend.com/radio - It was all Ron Paul's positions when he discussed our "fiscal cliff" problem...(I was the last caller on the program in the final 3 minutes - I don't think he liked my question!)

Guys, I'm trying!!!! Just don't throw the baby out with the bathwater....I have more to agree with non-believers than professing Christians these days, because I am concerned about LIBERTY for my children and our posterity, not a Christian theocracy!....I do not deny that we have differences about moral absolutes, or boundaries; but in the meantime I hope and expect to remain salt and light to them professing christian loudmouths who are in the dark about their counterfeit external religion(sold out to the establishment GOP), and irritating them about their hypocrisy, dismissal of legitimate questions, and love for the security of majority opinion by being mere cultural menpleasers serving MONEY, as Christ wasn't, because that won't "save" them!

"...LIBERTY for my children and our posterity,

not a Christian theocracy!"

"Christian theocracy" is an oxymoron. The teachings of Christ are directly antithetical to the idea of theocracy. Jesus Christ was likely the most influential and effective critic of arbitrary human authority in history. Those who claim to rule "in God's name" are charlatans! They wish to enhance their own worldly power, wealth, and egos. They are not acting in God's name. Interestingly enough, Islam was, at one time, anti-theocratic as well. What Islam now needs is its own version of Martin Luther, who challenges the ties between religion and state the same way Luther did in Europe.

That explains the horrors of

That explains the horrors of the Catholic Church's reign of terror, thousands of years of blood, torture & fear, as well as all the hate and division we have today.

Also, is heaven a representive republic based on individuality? Because im pretty sure God is a king, and you pretty much have no say in your fate. Obey or suffer. Here on earth, we call that tyranny.

Most religeons are a recipe for disaster. The reason every one of them turns into a blood bath is because they were all doomed to fail from the get-go. They are set up as top down absolute centralized power without any limitations to the exective, be he a Bishop here on earth, or the God ruling from on high.

"...the horrors of the Catholic Church's reign of terror..."

The crusades were not inspired by God the Father or Jesus Christ. Satan, as well as God, has a hand in all human hearts. Or would you accept me ascribing the horrors of Stalin to atheism? If someone says "I am a Christian" and then goes on a killing spree, does that mean his actions are consistent with Christ's teachings? Does Stalin saying "I am an atheist" and then murdering tens of millions, make his actions consistent with atheism?

Think about it.

deacon's picture

the crusades from the catholics

was to purge the Christians,so Catholicism
could replace Christianity with paganism

Leave an indelible mark on all of those that you meet.
OH... have fun day :)


came to be from the compromise of accepting paganism so they could come out of hiding.
A half truth is still a lie!

When Fascism goes to sleep, it checks under the bed for Ron Paul!

deacon's picture


the inquisitions was war against the true Christians
Catholicism was to replace Christianity with pagan worship
and beliefs
Catholicism is Babylonian worship of deities,this is not Christianity
the pope himself wears the wardrobe of the fish(right out of Babylonian Nineveh)
it is a false religion based upon false beliefs,and this is meant to enslave the ignorant masses of people
they even went so far as to build a church with sins,meaning
they offered the people the chance to buy bricks to build their church
and was given a get out of sin card to be used at a later date
their version of forgiveness
Catholicism has killed millions upon millions of true believers
it was not so they could come out of hiding,the Christians were hiding from them inquisitions, as they didn't want to convert or die
yes a half truth is still a lie,i agree wholeheartedly

Leave an indelible mark on all of those that you meet.
OH... have fun day :)

you are

preaching to the choir...
But according to my studies, the early Church of Rome was in hiding way before the inquisitions!

The Two Babylons is a good read for more info. ISBN 978-0-9379-5857-5

When Fascism goes to sleep, it checks under the bed for Ron Paul!

deacon's picture


i was under the impression you thought i had misspoke
or was telling lies,
Constantine had a hand in why some were in hiding
he was the one who told everyone that they will no longer
celebrate the jewish holidays(gods days set apart for him)
he helped usher in paganism,some say the cross came about from him
staring(squinting) into the morning sun(worship of the sun)
thanks for the info about more reading,i can always broaden
my horizons with more truth
this statement here i don't use that often,it seems to offend in a hurry"Catholicism being pagan in origin,and seeing they took vast amounts of books out of the bible,and seeing most major religions
spawned off of from that,how true can they be then?
thank you

Leave an indelible mark on all of those that you meet.
OH... have fun day :)

GoodSamaritan's picture

Is a home full of love a "tyrrany"?

I think you misunderstand the relationship between God and His people. He is King, but he is also our Father:

"Because you are sons, God has sent forth the Spirit of His Son into our hearts, crying, 'Abba! Father!'" Galatians 4:6

Jesus is Savior and Lord, but He is also our Brother:

"For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brethren;" Romans 8:29

Ron Paul - Honorary Founding Father

The closest Religionists came to creating a Free-Society was

in 1790.

I loop Deists into this category.

These men's "thoughts" on liberty had (owing to the previous 2-4K years of history) been molded by Hierarchic Thinking.

In 1790 the voters were 99% Wealth WASP men.

If you are a WASP man today, most likely your family was NOT voting in 1790 because they were too poor.

When state-rule was the order of the day there were many states where catholics, or jews, or wasps could not vote.

It took a centralized gov't to give all of us the "right" to vote -- did gov't get smaller or larger when we all had the right to vote? Was everyone free to consume as they liked when only a few had the right to vote?

Therefore a free-society CANNOT have only a few who can vote nor can it exist when all can vote -- a free-society exists when no-one can vote or lobby outside of the POS (point of sale - Consumer Rule).

UNLESS -- You create a very limited gov't. Click one of the links (I forget which one) below my post to see a rough draft idea.

Does voting make us free?

Was the country any more free after women, blacks and non-property owners gained the right to to vote? Certainly more people were "free to vote," but the main thing that expanding the franchise accomplishes is to give more people the power to legally initiate coercion. That's not a power I want anyone to have.

Recommended reading: The Most Dangerous Superstition by Larken Rose

Well said!

I agree with you.

If you want a limited gov't you must have limited voting -- the only way to get that is too make sure that "no votes" effect any market, no market what-so-ever (including self-defense).

The only role for gov't (in my world view) is either to "simulate a free-market" or to ONLY focus on protecting our waters, escorting our ships and cruise liners, protecting our borders and ports.

During a transitional "limited gov't" we might need roads and bridges to fall under "some" gov't control. Also we'd need a GAO to pay off foreign debt and collect a minimal sales-tax to pay for the Naval and Army-Air-Guard Meritocracies.

In such a limited gov't, with no control over the market place, people would be willing to have an "expert" voting panel that operates in an open-source environment and said meritocracies can only have one-term in office.

The article is generally fine, just one thing

Atheism is not a belief, as the article purports, rather, it is a

    lack of belief.

Actually, one more thing...
The author is a collectivist and conflates, "Some atheists/theists do X" with "All atheists/theists must do X"

I'm an atheist and I don't celebrate when evangelists die or care that others want to believe while I'm personally incapable. It makes no difference to me whether or not you choose to believe in what I consider a fantasy. Why would that affect me at all?

Everyone believes something...

If you as an atheist believe that nature is all that exists...then that is a belief.


But it is a believe based upon evidence, not on some ignorant, illiterate uneducated drugged-out shepherd's plagiarized writings from thousands of years ago.

Why should I assign any more veracity to the Christian Bible than to the teachings of Scientology or of the Flying Spaghetti Monster?

There is zero known written record of Jesus Christ that was recorded when he allegedly lived. The earliest known writings about this character were written about 300 years after his supposed life.

Q: How much would we know about the Pilgrims of Plymouth if nothing had been written about them?

A: Almost nothing.

Oral histories are notoriously inaccurate and unreliable and for the first 300 years, that is all that exists and even that is incongruous.

I have listened to many "debates" by Christian "scholars" and atheists and the educated atheists ALWAYS eat the lunch of the Christians. It is not even close.

In a free society, people are allowed to believe in the Easter Bunny, Paul Bunyan, Jesus Christ and the Tooth Fairy. However smart people realize that "believing" in something that is imaginary and not true cannot make it real and true. If that were not the case, I would bet there would be a very good chance that Santa would become real.

Okay, sure

But I never claimed that nature is all that exists and neither does the brand of atheist.

Let me be clear. There are two working definitions for the use of atheist; one of these is more appropriately named anti-theist.

1: An atheist is a person who does not affirm a belief in any god(s).
In other words, they have no belief in god(s).

2: An atheist is also a person who affirms a belief that there are no god(s).
In other words, they believe there aren't any god(s).

The second term is popularized by anti-theistic activism. Anti-theists are people who believe there are no gods; and also, in some capacity, they regard theism as destructive or negative.
They are prone to activism because the anti-theist position is reactionary and functionally useless without interaction.
These people usually do not call themselves anti-theists, they call themselves atheists, and they are.

However, another sort of atheist exists, and it's one that does not affirm any beliefs regarding the god question.
Frankly, to us, belief in this regard is useless, affirmative or positive.

I agree those are...

...two separate views, but I'd call the former agnosticism and the latter atheism.


You may call it whatever you wish, but it's accurately described as both agnostic and atheist. I do not know if there is any god, and I don't believe in any god. Both terms apply.

The word atheist has a stigma, and I understand that some people would rather not use it. Just so you know, the word agnostic was invented by an atheist in order to make atheists more culturally acceptable in a religion dominated society, and it's clearly worked because theists everywhere love the word agnostic and are eager to say, "No, you're agnostic, not an atheist!"

It's kinda like I'm saying a basketball is spherical and inflated, and you're saying, "Well, I don't like the word inflated, so I'm only going to acknowledge that it's spherical." It's still both.

thats not true. An Athiest

thats not true. An Athiest does not believe in gods, but makes no pretense at saying what is out there. He/she may have theories, even ones he favors as "more likley," however if you ask an athiest where we all come from, the most typical answer would probably be:

"I don't know, but im hopeful that if humans can quit selling out their reason for easy answers, we may find out one day."

That is not a "belief." Its an assertion of observation given one's current level of information which also happens to be an objective fact. The person does NOT know what's out there. This thinking requires no faith. Not claiming to have an answer is not the same as simply believing something because you want to or because some people have convinced you its true without proof.

Lets be real, if Christians truly believed... why would they have to constantly remind themselves that they believe in and love God. You hear it all the time from Christians: "I KNOW there's a God." Oh really, well how come you keep saying that then? Is it maybe because you don't want your divine overlord to know that in reality, you're a frightened pile of doubts and questions and that some part of you, even subconciously, holds the nagging suspicion that its all bullshit? That nagging voice deep inside is your natural reason trying to break free from the collectivist peasant control you've been trapped in your entire life. Trying to break through the wall and taste what it is to be free from lies so it can flex its potential and start seeking for answers rather than being spoon-fed lies.

How many people need to get together once a week and hear about how real their kids are, and constantly repeat as if a mantra that they love their kids. No one... because you don't need to "believe" you love your kids... its an objective personal fact which requires no reassurance, bolstering or revisiting. It requires no sermons, prayer groups or inspiring stories. You don't need to tell yourself and your friends how much you love them, and you certainly don't have to "want" to believe you love them. It goes without saying (unless you have deep issues).

Watching people day after day trying to convince themselves and those around them that they buy into and "love" (translation: are afraid and/or filled with guilt) this Orwelleon bullshit is like watching a North Korean worship their Supreme Leader in front of TV cameras. The level of fear people have of the all-seeing eye of God and the fires of hell that await non-believers or questioners... of the death camps of their glorious leader... and the sheer length of time people have been repressed beneath these things has probably broken most people's minds until they really are convinced in all but their deeply buried subconcious that they actually "do" love their God/Supreme Leader. It's very sad and reflects poorly on the human race as a whole.

Of course not all Christians are of that sort.