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

http://www.cracked.com/article_15759_10-things-christians-at...



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

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

A lot of good in that article

You don't have to agree with everything, but it does present good arguments for tolerance and understanding of both sides. And as the article says, both will always exist so we might as well get along.

With liberty and justice for all...who can afford it.

I admire

I admire this guy's attempt. But the thing is so insulting it's hard to read. Further, though I agree with him 90 percent of the time. The other 10 percent is so important that it's ridiculous. The bottom line, if naturalism is true and Atheists are right, we have no "rights" and there is no reason to even be mad about it, because "right" and "wrong" don't exist. Period.

But we don't have rights.

But we don't have rights. Show me any actual evidence that these rights exist that isn't you or Ron Paul or any other person just saying so. We create rights. If rights really rain down on us by "our creator", then our creator did a pretty poor job of actually letting them reach us. You only have rights to the point that YOU assert them. They don't exist outside of our assertion that they do.

Liberty|Death

Well said

Finally an atheist admits it! Yea!!! Quite right! I whole heatedly agree with you, IF there is no God there are no rights and this whole Liberty movement is just one group of fantasy nuts fighting for something they WANT but don't exist and there is no reason that anyone should give them to us or preserve them. The Republicans and Democrats are no more right or wrong to take our rights than we are to fight for them. It's all just lies. IF there is no God. I would assert that there is a God and that we have been given rights, or rather that God believes there are good ways and evil ways to treat other humans and in that law, lies the foundation of rights, but that is a post that I don't have time to write, but want to right a whole book on some day.

Thanks for admitting that, I appreciate your honesty!! I don't see it much in Atheists. Usually I see them bend over backwards to defend rights and good and evil as if they exist, it really drives me nuts.

gladly, Naturalism is false

Naturalism cannot account for laws of Logic, Mathematics, science, moral absolutes, let alone the fact that these concepts exist yet are entirely of immaterial things. They are universal and unchanging. If they were not, Naturalismists wouldn't be able to know or claim to know anything.

All of these "laws" you refer

All of these "laws" you refer to can only be proved with unproven assumptions. Unless you know everything, you don't know anything. The possibility of new knowledge always leaves the possibility that you current "knowledge" could be disproven.

Liberty|Death

We "MUST" agree on?

We "MUST" agree on?

Southern Agrarian

Meh....

Pretty much drivel. I suppose the author should have started differently - stating that Stalin and Mao were atheists and killed for it isn't exactly an honest way to begin. But, I did read through. A few points were well made, but a minority.

Somehow, this guy knows more atheists that I every will - and I'm an atheist. And yet....he still misrepresents myself and any other atheist I have ever known. Curious.....

"In the beginning of a change the patriot is a scarce man, and brave, and hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot."--Mark Twain

Atheisms is by the far the most dangerous worldview

Don't run away from the crimes of atheists; it's anti-intellectual. Atheisms is by the far the most dangerous worldview, as it must constantly use government coercion to perpetuate itself.

Demagogue.

You might as well be a democrat talking about capitalism.

No train to Stockholm.

Lol, speaking of arrogant jackassary

I can't see how any one world view could be said to need govt coercion more than the rest. We all think we are the closest to 'right', and the statists among us will try to force that righteousness on everyone else regardless of what their worldview is. Of course if your opinion is that to be a Christian is innate in humanity placed there by the Christian diety, and for one not to accept that diety requires coercion, the entire spanse of human history would seem to suggest you are wrong.

Christians are long...

Christians are long on "beliefs" and short on truth.

It is not so much all of the things Christians don't know that bothers me, it is all of the things that they do "know" that simply are not so.

Mark

Well the short truth is

Christ rose from the dead. So, in a sense, you are right, wait that is our belief too?

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

You would be right..

Except that atheism is NOT a world-view. Other than that complete ad hominem, you are correct. It is not a world-view, not a theory, not a religion, not a philosophy. You don't believe in hundreds of deities, I simply don't believe in one more than you.

No crimes have ever been done because of atheism. Some atheists have committed crimes, of course (Stalin, Mao, Hitler were not atheists). But, you cannot say the same for religion, crimes have absolutely been done because of a religious drive.

"In the beginning of a change the patriot is a scarce man, and brave, and hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot."--Mark Twain

One certainly cannot classify

One certainly cannot classify atheism (in a general sense) as a separately defined worldview. But all atheist have a worldview, and atheism (or lack of belief in a god, if you like) is an integral part of their various worldviews. And certain things follow from other things in any worldview. I'm not sure your statement "No crimes have ever been done because of atheism" can be proven. Though one would be hard pressed to find crimes done in the "name of atheism". In other words, in the mind of Stalin or Mao, perhaps certain behaviors followed from the presupposition that there is no god, however such behavior may have been effected by other traits each carried.

But I'm interested in this word 'crime' you use. What is the law these men violated? Who established this law, if anyone? Is there some authority involved?

A good question

But, epistemologicaly, this could take forever. I will first correct you in that Stalin and Mao were not atheists at all. Mao especially. Stalin wanted to restrict the power of "religion", but he often talked of divine intervention and that the rise of the workers was supported by "god" and the Bible. Mao claimed to be channeling the gods and declared himself a type of Christos or god-man. And, the lack of belief in a deity by itself does not cause any behavior, although it may effect behavior. For instance, I do not say the words "under God" in the pledge (added in 1954, but that is another story) - that is an effect on my behavior. But, I never, and can't even comprehend what it would mean, to "do" something purely because there is no god.

The lack of something cannot, by definition, be a cause or a motivation to act. Does that make sense?

When I used the word 'crime' I was merely carrying over something from another poster. I would say then that the crimes were murder. Anyone who orders murder, like Bush and Obama, are just as guilty as someone who pulls the trigger. Murder is wrong, as it has been for tens of thousands of years, because it deprives a person of their property, their liberty. We have learned as a species, and it is inherent in our social system, that it is detrimental. We also, being sentient beings and self-aware, have a drive to survive. So, any threat to that survival is shared among groups and tribes.

So, no, no authority is involved. It is not a "law" - it is common sense and intelligent to find murder to work against us. However, an authority is required, as in my previous referrence to the President and add in Evangelical preachers in recent years, for people to be "OK" with murder.

"In the beginning of a change the patriot is a scarce man, and brave, and hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot."--Mark Twain

A Brief Reply (perhaps more later when I have time)

"The lack of something cannot, by definition, be a cause or a motivation to act. Does that make sense?"

It makes sense in that I understand what you are saying, but it is not in accord with common experience. A lack of something can be a motivation to action, and thus a cause in personal behavior. It happens everyday, to both of us. I dare say to everyone.

I will do a little research on Stalin and Mao, as a refresher. I'm not yet prepared to accept your assertion, but willing to accept, depending on a deeper look. Let me simply state that my look at Mao in this regard is that his use of terms like 'gods' was wholly cultural, and meant to influence the Chinese in a general sense. His talk of his own divinity is largely the same matter. He oft times co-opted traits familiar in various Chinese cultures to advance his political ideals. Ancestor worship for example.

"We have learned as a species, and it is inherent in our social system, that it is detrimental."
Detrimental to whom? Certainly to the one being murdered, but perhaps the murderer fares better in his personal experience as a result. You make a blanket statement here. You can in nowise prove this proposition as a universal. As a matter of one situation to the next, one can perhaps judge the cost/benefits of murder, even if after the fact. But the really interesting thing is this... you say society has learned to call murder wrong because it just isn't helpful to society. It is detrimental, you say. But if society is the judge, what have we to say of societies that condone what you and I might label murder? Is murder okay in some societies and wrong in others?

"A lack of something can be a

"A lack of something can be a motivation to action, and thus a cause in personal behavior. It happens everyday, to both of us. I dare say to everyone." -- Well, that is a blanket statement of your own. I would love an example. You can't use lack of money, because that is 'something' - it is an emotional drive, whether it be wanting or greed. I can't think of anything else you could even try.

Detrimental to whom? -Everyone in the tribe. You either lose a hunter or a worker.

"You can in nowise prove this proposition as a universal." -- I never use the term universal. That has semantics issues on its own - used to reference a divine morality.

"But if society is the judge, what have we to say of societies that condone what you and I might label murder?" -- Again, I never said society is a judge, it has nothing to do with society....or judging. But, using your assertion - then the United States is such a society. We are an immmoral nation. And, given we are the most religious nation on earth, and the most Christians by far -- what does that say?

"In the beginning of a change the patriot is a scarce man, and brave, and hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot."--Mark Twain

"Well, that is a blanket

"Well, that is a blanket statement of your own."

Yes, it is. No doubt about that. And after reading your thought provoking reply about money, I think I see more clearly your philosophical point. An absence cannot, in and of itself, cause a particular behavior. A lack of money may cause a need, which in turn causes an action. A lack of food may cause hunger, which in turn motivates actions. A lack of oxygen may make one gasp for air, but something else is at work in the interim. Good point and important. However, I would say that my original comment -"perhaps certain behaviors followed from the presupposition that there is no god, however such behavior may have been effected by other traits each carried" - still applies. As beliefs go in a person's outlook, they all connect and network with one another. And what one believes is not true may just as easily lead to other things that a person believes are true... and in that process, certain behaviors may logically follow.

"Detrimental to whom? -Everyone in the tribe. You either lose a hunter or a worker."

Everyone? Perhaps you lose an invalid who neither hunts nor works, but sucks resources from those who can and do. Perhaps you lose a lazy soul, unwilling to do either for themselves, preferring to steal from those who do. Perhaps the murderer, or other individual(s) gets to keep some resources from the victim, enriching himself, no matter the loss to the whole of the tribe.. meaning 'everyone in the tribe' loses in some measure, while one or more individuals get a net gain in the process.

"I never said society is a judge..."

Perhaps not in so many words. But you did say,

"We have learned as a species, and it is inherent in our social system, that it is detrimental."
Somebody must judge to make determinations about what has been learned and what is inherent to us. And if it is not society in general, then what or who is it?

"We also, being sentient beings and self-aware, have a drive to survive. So, any threat to that survival is shared among groups and tribes."
How is the fact that the murderer and his victim both have a drive to survive relevant?

"it has nothing to do with society....or judging."
Then what does crime (and specifically murder) have to do with, if not society and judging?

"But, using your assertion - then the United States is such a society. We are an immmoral nation. And, given we are the most religious nation on earth, and the most Christians by far -- what does that say?"

I made no such assertion. I was trying to understand your assertion. But I will play along.. Okay, we are an immoral nation. But are we a Christian nation? Highly debatable. But let us assume we are. It means nothing, since it is in the very dogma of Christianity that all men are corrupt, Christians included.

When

When you believe that we're all just animals and that human life has no special value or rather no human life other than your own because you're an atheist and that a few million dead animals don't matter, THEN your world view has just caused the death of those people. Atheism is the root of many evils. Christ has been the cause of none. I know you're going to want to blame him for some, but you can't lay them at HIS feet. His followers may mess up and do evil quite a lot, but they will always be breaking His law when they do and they darn well better repent.

Well....

That's about the largest, and most vile, strawman fallacy I've ever seen. Well done.

Given it is a gross fallacy, I won't even address it directly. But, after that, you toss out another ad hominem about atheism being the "root" of many evils. You have absolutely no evidence of that, nor will you find any.

And, in yet another fallacy, a non-sequitur this time, you make the claim that I "blamed" Christ. (I'm assuming you mean Jesus and not Krishna the first Christos or the Gnostic Christos that Paul taught) I did nothing of the sort. I don't even think he existed.

So, yes, his followers do, as you said, "do evil quite a lot". What you don't acknowledge is they are doing that evil for their religion, to please their deities and get to heaven. They may be wrong in your eyes as well, but that doesn't change the fact that they do evil for Christianity's sake.

"In the beginning of a change the patriot is a scarce man, and brave, and hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot."--Mark Twain

you

You give thinking a bad name. So bright a mind wasted on such lies. It's ridiculous. In Atheism, there is neither right or wrong, so don't try to convict anyone of doing wrong or you're a liar. Maybe that doesn't bother you.

sorry

There is no such thing as "in atheism" (not capitalized by the way), there are no edicts or positions. Nor was I trying to "convict" anyone of doing wrong.

I have morals and ethics and my positions on "right or wrong". For instance, I think it is wrong for the Christians in this country to kill little brown children because their parents have a different religion. That is my morality, I understand it is not yours.

I'm sorry you are either mentally challenged or too thick to understand written language.

"In the beginning of a change the patriot is a scarce man, and brave, and hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot."--Mark Twain

just

Tell me why it's wrong to kill them and how you obtained that information.

You are too far gone

If you think killing little brown kids for no reason is right and just - then I can't help you. I am not here to get into a discussion of semantics and linguistics.

But, OK.

It is wrong to kill them because it violates their liberty, their property (their body/life). And, it violates the non-aggression principle of libertarian philosophy. It is also the same as capital punishment without a trial or due-process, violating the Constitution - The rights in the Bill of Rights apply to everyone, not just Americans. Murder of an innocent has been considered wrong for thousands of years, but obviously we can only go as far back as the first cuniform tablets. The Code of Hammurabi is the earliest written law and accounts for murder. So, even prior to written language it can be reasonably assumed the idea existed.

Aside from the Code of Hammurabi, I got that information from my brain, because I have one.

If you want to make the argument that murder is only wrong to me personally and not universally through most cultures, that might be possible. But, highly unlikely. But, no doubt you will make up some malarky about a bearded man swimming in stars that puts murder right up there with the supreme wrong of eating shellfish, but thinks ripping open women's abdomens and smashing the fetuses on rocks is OK.

"In the beginning of a change the patriot is a scarce man, and brave, and hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot."--Mark Twain

I didn't

I didn't say I thought it was right. I asked why you believed it was wrong. None of the rights you listed are real except in print, unless A God of some sort is real. You may want them to be real, but that doesn't make them actually real. There is no moral wrong in an animal killing another animal. You, in a naturalist perspective are an evolved amoeba. How many cells did you have to have before your life mattered? Before you had property rights? Ha. Come on, you give nothing concrete and then fall into insult. The Constitution is there to "protect" our rights. Without God, it is just a piece of paper and filled with worthless human philosophy, you can see how well that has lasted by how it is treated. You might want to convict God of wrong, but you can't because ethics simply can't be TRUE without him. If God gives all life, how could he be wrong to take it, no matter how it is done? He gave you your life, because he is the source of all things. That is my argument. I will say no more here. You're far to angry and I don't believe you're interested in doing anything but freaking out on someone you already hate, I'm embarrassed how rude I've been to you and I apologize. But your tone is infuriating and condescending and we should both have done a better job of this.

OK

I am not angry (that's the old stand-by excuse for realizing disrespect to atheists). I am frustrated by your lack of thinking ability and equality, but that is all. I am not "convicting" your god of wrong, he doesn't exist.

And....the most important thing is I absolutely do not hate you at all. If we were just hanging out we would probably get along and have fun. I think you are wrong, but I don't hate you. Thank you for acknowledging your rudeness, that shows you are not lost.

"In the beginning of a change the patriot is a scarce man, and brave, and hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot."--Mark Twain

You are partially correct

You are partially correct when you wrote:
"Christ has been the cause of none."

That is because there never was a Jesus Christ. The evils have been performed by the delusional humans who are too lazy to do their homework and study history.

BTW, "Christ" is a title meaning "anointed." There have been many Christs. I assumed you meant Jesus Christ.

No

No real historian believes there wasn't a historical jesus christ. I take it you're not even an amateur.

Crimes

Non-believers comprise perhaps 20 percent of the general population in the US, but far under 1 percent of the prison population.

Ĵīɣȩ Ɖåđşŏń

"Fully half the quotations found on the internet are either mis-attributed, or outright fabrications." - Abraham Lincoln