The Daily Paul has been archived. Please see the continuation of the Daily Paul at Popular

Thank you for a great ride, and for 8 years of support!
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.
Cyril's picture


Well, I can think of an ELEVENTH thing where they could, actually SHOULD agree on.

Instead of blaming each other for WHO - WITH or WITHOUT belief in a superior creator being - is responsible for the most horrible infamies against humanity throughout History ...

well, I hate to break it to BOTH sides, but it's neither :

1. the atheist who just "hasn't met" any God in his/her heart (yet?) and doesn't feel "the need" for


2. the believer who KNOWS his/her God - intimately, already

Nope. NEITHER of these, in fact, at the individual level.

For, THERE IS, indeed, dear atheists, and dear believers, a truly, utterly disgusting THING lending itself to praise, and worship, ALL IN DISGUISE AND COMPLETE DECEPTION behind its curtains of MORAL HAZARDS - that we ALL ought to fight with our SWEAT, BLOOD, and TEARS - throwing it up with ALL the force of our stomach and GUTS FOR LIBERTY :

11. THE




Oh, yes :


EVIDENCE, My Dear Brothers :

PRETTY PLEASE... Someone... Anyone... Just tell me :

WHERE THE HECK was it - EVER - about some polite, procrastinating, metaphysical debate (with or without passion) about One God or Not A God in those 260 MILLIONS slaughtered innocent CIVILIANS - by THEIR OWN governments ?

I kindly ask again ... WHERE ? WHEN ?

... *SILENT BLANK* ...


Was it not about "Fair Share Economics" or "Equality" or "Justice" (no kidding !) or "Racial Purity" or "Normalization" ... or etc... INSTEAD ?


"Normalization" : trademarked (tm) USSR

"Racial Purity" : trademarked (tm) Nazi Germany (and others)



Q . E . D .

Ohhh !!! History books ain't such a bad idea after all, huh ?!




THAT is what "IT" was all about.



Your theist beliefs OR absence thereof :


Ideas are IRRELEVANT to "IT".

"IT" NEVER has, OBSERVABLY ... and "IT" NEVER will.

Still willing to defame "atheists" ? Or "believers" ?


About **WHAT** really is THE UTTER EVIL.

And "deal" with it. Accordingly.


... And God Bless. :)

"Cyril" pronounced "see real". I code stuff.


"To study and not think is a waste. To think and not study is dangerous." -- Confucius

I don't agree...

I don't agree with much of what the author wrote. What I find objectionable in anyone expressing an idea is intellectual laziness. I was raised to believe in a supreme being etc. however upon intense study of the evidence, found that there is zero evidence to support such. When people believe in things absent evidence, it puts them in the same category as children believing in Santa because their parents told them to believe. Believing in a supernatural being, absent any evidence is not something an intelligent and mature person does. Making decisions based on blind faith leads people down the Jim Jones Jonestown or Heaven's Gate road which is not a good thing. Too many people blindly followed the GOP and voted for G.W. Bush because they were intellectually lazy. They "believed" that because he was the GOP standard bearer that he would be for smaller and less intrusive government. See how that turned out?

Think people, think.

'intense study' LOL

" firm is the ground on which these Gospels rest, the very heretics themselves bear witness to them." Bishop Irenaeus took the Gnostics to the woodshed in the 2nd Century AD. You might want to brush up on world events. (Not to mention the impossibility of making knowledge claims without overcoming the Problem of Induction. You need God for that.)

If your 'intense study' (still LOL) leads you to deny the crucifixion and resurrection of Christ, despite of the historicity of it, I don't know what knowledge claim you'd make would have credibility.

Fortunately, saving Faith is a gift from God and not something man has to create on his own. It's not an Aquinian contradiction against reason. I can use history and knowledge to find my way to the cross on Cavalry 2000 yrs ago, but the understanding the Christ died for my sins there is the gift from God.

Well if you want...

If you want to reject facts and believe made-up stories absent any evidence you are entitled to do so. I notice that you resort to ridicule rather than provide any evidence to support your position which is, for all intents and purposed an admission that you have nothing to offer other than "faith." That is fine, but stop pretending that your "beliefs" carry any weight and are capable of persuading intelligent educated mature humans.

I'm Atheist mainly because of science

But that being said; there's defiantly something spiritual out there that people across the globe connect too. So by saying this, if they're is a god, I'm defiantly going to hell :P for everything I've done

yes, atheists, you are on the path to hell. But...

Fortunately for you, science and knowledge rely entirely on the God of the Bible. Logic and reasoning rely entirely on the God of the Bible. Standards of morality rely entirely on the God of the Bible. You know this in your heart of hearts, and no man is without excuse.

But God sent His Son into this fallen world in order to take the blame for our sins, that "whosever believes in Him shall not perish, but have everlasting life."

Have you ever even read the Bible?

Have you ever even read the Bible? It is full of logical fallacies, contradictions, plagiarized stories from much older cultures and contains some of the most vial, nasty, wicked crap. Any god that is supposed to be all powerful but not only allows such rotten things to happen but promulgates them is not something I could ever hold in high esteem.

There is Z E R O evidence that Jesus Christ ever existed. He is no more real than Harry Potter or any other fictional character. At least Potter is mostly original while fictional Jesus is a conglomeration of many much older "sons of gods." Do some research and stop believing childish notions.

Happy Festivus ;^)

GoodSamaritan's picture

Repeating your assertion

that Jesus of Nazareth never existed does not make it true. Still waiting for you to show us the proof. Here are a few relevant citations from

In a 2011 review of the state of modern scholarship, Bart Ehrman (now a secular agnostic who was formerly Evangelical) wrote: "He certainly existed, as virtually every competent scholar of antiquity, Christian or non-Christian, agrees" B. Ehrman, 2011 Forged : writing in the name of God ISBN 978-0-06-207863-6. page 285

Robert M. Price (a Christian atheist who denies the existence of Jesus) agrees that this perspective runs against the views of the majority of scholars: Robert M. Price "Jesus at the Vanishing Point" in The Historical Jesus: Five Views edited by James K. Beilby & Paul Rhodes Eddy, 2009 InterVarsity, ISBN 028106329X page 61

Michael Grant (a classicist) states that "In recent years, 'no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non historicity of Jesus' or at any rate very few, and they have not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant, evidence to the contrary." in Jesus: An Historian's Review of the Gospels by Micjhael Grant 2004 ISBN 1898799881 page 200

Richard A. Burridge states: "There are those who argue that Jesus is a figment of the Church’s imagination, that there never was a Jesus at all. I have to say that I do not know any respectable critical scholar who says that any more." in Jesus Now and Then by Richard A. Burridge and Graham Gould (Apr 1, 2004) ISBN 0802809774 page 34

Robert E. Van Voorst Jesus Outside the New Testament: An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence Eerdmans Publishing, 2000. ISBN 0-8028-4368-9 page 16 states: "biblical scholars and classical historians regard theories of non-existence of Jesus as effectively refuted"

James D. G. Dunn "Paul's understanding of the death of Jesus" in Sacrifice and Redemption edited by S. W. Sykes (Dec 3, 2007) Cambridge University Press ISBN 052104460X pages 35-36 states that the theories of non-existence of Jesus are "a thoroughly dead thesis"

The Gospels and Jesus by Graham Stanton, 1989 ISBN 0192132415 Oxford University Press, page 145 states : "Today nearly all historians, whether Christians or not, accept that Jesus existed".

Ron Paul - Honorary Founding Father

wolfe's picture

That's ok...

If we are wrong, and go to hell, we will be having dinner with brilliant men and women like Socrates, Plato, and Nietzsche.

While you will enjoy your time with such esteemed "saved" souls as Hitler, Jeffrey Dahmer, Matthew Hale, etc etc.

I prefer the company where I would be... If in fact you are right that there is an invisible man in the sky who throws random temper tantrums, get's insanely jealous and somehow needs my worship to feel good about himself.

A person with as many mental disorders as your god would be locked away in a nuthouse for a very, very long time.

The Philosophy Of Liberty -

got news for you.. in hell

got news for you.. in hell you will be doing nothing that you described. Hell is nothing like what you have made it to be in your mind.

& you completely avoided addressing atheisms contradictions

Another atheist fail.

Name one

Name one "atheist fail."

that's odd

You describe nuttiness/tantrums without stating the standard for nuttiness. Arbitrariness is the failure of atheist morality.

Hell isn't "fine dining." It's eternal torment. Eternal separation from God. I wouldn't wish that on anyone, not Hitler, not Mao, not Stalin. It's not our *behavior* that merits Christ's redemption. We all born with sin. All of our works are like filthy menstrual rags (Isaiah 64:6), and we cannot by ourselves overcome this. Only Christ's atonement for our sins is satisfaction for it.

The Bible States That If We Search For The Truth We Will Find It

Therefore if Scientists are merely searching for the truth, they are then off the hook.

This of course does not apply to scientists who are not objectively searching for the truth.

Both Science and Religion are systems of faith. The difference is that when Science is found to be wrong on something, it then seeks a new answer. When religious beliefs are found to be in error, too often rather than acknowledging the error there are creative attempts to rationalize, sometimes irrationally.

One good example of this is that there are two verses in the Bible which clearly indicate a belief that the world is flat as I have argued here:


and even more conclusively here:


This is why Christians really ought to be reading my article "Sowing The Seeds For A Peace Revolution" in its entirety:


which incidentally has received the following comments:

"Fascinating stuff!"

"I have to agree"

"cool read"

"thanks for spreading the word"

"I totally agree"


"Thank you, RicoCabeza, for your compelling associations between religious texts, significant influences, killing animals, and a culture of violence. For those of us who want a world of peace, this is all of worthy consideration."

- AMAZING PHOTO delineating where UNRESTRAINED CAPITALISM has taken us:
- "The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated."-- Mohandas Gandhi

only atheists think the Bible says the earth is flat

It's hard to discuss things when someone misstates the position of others. Job, one of the oldest written books in existence, plainly describes the earth of as a sphere suspended in space.

The canard of "the Bible teaches the earth is flat" was actually manufactured by anti-Biblical writers in the mid-1800's. #atheist_FAIL

Your Analysis Does Not Hold Water

"Most pre-modern cultures have had conceptions of a flat Earth, including ancient Greece until the classical period, the Bronze Age and Iron Age civilizations of the Ancient Near East until the Hellenistic period, Ancient India until the Gupta period (early centuries AD) and China until the 17th century."


"A number of young-earth creationists purport to find in Isa. 40:22 and Job 26:7 evidence that the Bible teaches that the earth is spherical. A detailed analysis of key Hebrew words and their translations in ancient and modern versions shows that there is no substantive evidence and thus no warrant for this claim. This analysis is framed in the context of teaching a course in religion and science, and addresses the fundamental question, also explored in the course, of how one should interpret the Bible in the light of scientific knowledge." [more info at website below]


- AMAZING PHOTO delineating where UNRESTRAINED CAPITALISM has taken us:
- "The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated."-- Mohandas Gandhi

What were the last words...

Q: According to the Bible, what were the last words of Jesus on the cross?

A: It depends upon which part of the bible you read.

In science, 1+1=2. It never equals 7 or 9 or 214. It is consistent and reliable.

On the other hand, the Bible is inconsistent and unreliable.

When I want to go to Hawaii quickly I board a jet airplane designed by engineers who used universal scientific knowledge to design and build the plane.

If you wanted to go to Hawaii quickly would you simply pray to your deity to take you there? If it was to be his will, wouldn't you be immediately transported there? If that is not the case then it must not have been his will and if you then boarded a plane and relied upon science to get you there, would you not be circumventing your god's will?

Study the history of the Bible and of other culture's superstitions. If you have even the tiniest bit of intellectual integrity, you have to conclude that nearly everything in the Bible is superstition, most of it plagiarized from much older cultures.

GoodSamaritan's picture

If you are referring to Matthew 7:7

then your statement, "Therefore if Scientists are merely searching for the truth, they are then off the hook" is true with respect to that verse only if it is taken out of context. Here it is with the rest...

"Ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you. For everyone who asks receives, and he who seeks finds, and to him who knocks it will be opened. Or what man is there among you who, when his son asks for a loaf, will give him a stone? Or if he asks for a fish, he will not give him a snake, will he? If you then, being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father who is in heaven give what is good to those who ask Him! In everything, therefore, treat people the same way you want them to treat you, for this is the Law and the Prophets." Matthew 7:7-12

The meaning becomes clear in context - Jesus is teaching His disciples that they should approach God as their Father, and that they should likewise treat others as they want to be treated.

Matthew 7:7 cannot be used to justify one's self to God simply by "searching for the truth".

As for there being verses that supposedly teach a flat earth, the writers of the Bible did not believe such Mesopotamian myths.

Ron Paul - Honorary Founding Father

Good Article

I've noticed that both the arrogant, dogmatic, atheists, and the arrogant, dogmatic, fundamentalists have already started downvoting your post.