Christians and Atheists Should Agree (JREF on Cracked)

[rebecca]

An article on Cracked.com: 10 Things Christians and Atheists Can (and Must) Agree On (http://www.cracked.com/article_15759_10-things-christians-atheists-can-must-agree-on.html).

I skimmed (the article is long and my morning is busy) and it all seems reasonable enough. Things like "Both sides really do believe what they're saying." Another is "both sides exaggerate about the other," which I agree with but disagree with some of the finer points. The author writes, "we only need to agree that rejecting science on one subject doesn't mean you reject all science on all subjects," which, sadly, is not really true. As Phil Plait has documented repeatedly, creationists have worked their wedge from evolutionary biology straight through physics and on to astronomy. Do they reject "all science on all subjects?" Well, I suppose they're still driving cars and flying in airplanes, but is anyone arguing otherwise? I think the author has actually violated his own rule and exaggerated the claims of the most vocal atheists.

Anyway, what immediately struck me, though, is the author is a poster (or lurker) here, since in his intro he mentions cruising his favorite forum and seeing TheAtheist's just-say-no-to-religion avatar. So, hello David Wong!

[D'rok]

One great big fundamental fallacy in that article: Atheism is not a belief system.

[FireGarden]

Meanwhile, the atheists are saying that Stalin was merely bloodthirsty, separate and apart from his disbelief in a higher power. Both believe, then, that it is a corruption of their belief system that allows unjust slaughter to happen.

Stalin violated nothing in the belief system of atheism. He was 100% atheist. His atheism failed to make him a saint. But beatification was never advertised.

Atheism will not make you a better person. It will not make you a worse person.

If Stalin had valued Human life more, he may have been a Humanist. But atheism does not lead inexorably to Humanism.

eta:
The exorcism caption after that segment of the article cracked me up. The thread has been worth it just for that.

[D'rok]

Stalin violated nothing in the belief system of atheism.

Which is...?

[Rasmus]

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

Sorry, no. Old strawman dealt with many times before. The Stalins and Maos may have been atheists but haven't done the terrible things they did in the name of atheism.

I suspect it might be possible for someone to kill in the name of atheism, but I haven't heard about it yet. I have heard about the crusades, though and I have read the scriptures that order or condone various forms of genocide in the name of god.

I do agree that war wouldn't just go away if religion did, though. (But Stalin didn't "corrupt" atheism. The only way you could corrupt atheism would be by putting a deity into it.)

I guess you could just call them crazy, but it's a little silly to use that word when believers are the norm in human population.

Appeal to majority. what logic dictates that the majority of people cannot be crazy? And may I point out that no majority has been found in any particular faith yet? So, whatever faith you may have, the majority if people thinks you're wrong. (Same holds true for atheists.)
3. In Everyday Life, You're Not That Different

The differences are subtle. I don't think that sex is "just meat slapping against meat", but spare me the religious connotations, please. It is not sacred. And most importantly: Just because it may one thing or another for me, I don't insist that it has to be the same thing for everyone else, too. So my g/f sleeping with more men than I could handle doesn't make her wrong. It might make her the wrong partner for me, but that shouldn't concern anyone else. 4. There Are Good People on Both Sides

Well, yeah.

5. Your Point of View is Legitimately Offensive to Them

No, I don't think anyone has reason to be offended if I only think they are wrong.

And I am not offended if someone believes I will end up in hell. I may be amused or annoyed. I may pitty whoever thinks so. I get offended if it is suggested that I, or anyone else, would deserve everlasting torture. More so, if I supposedly deserve it for being honest about my beliefs.

OTOH, if I tell a believer that they will not go to heaven, I do so only by implication. It's not personal in any way, because as far as I am concerned, nobody else will, either. Also, I am saying that they will not go to hell, which is a lot better than what some religious have in store for me.

just because some Christians reject the science on evolution, doesn't mean they reject all science.

Well, yes it does. They reject science. And you can't do that for just some of the time. If you reject science on one subject, you do so without reason, so whatever you may think about other subjects - you're not being scientific.

You might well believe that science has things wrong in just one field and not in others, but as far as i can make that out, you'd have to be pretty ignorant about a lot of things to suggest that science is wrong about evolution. And even if, you then still wouldn't support ID or creationism, because they are not science at all.

Atheists still tell their girlfriends they "love" them, and not that they simply feel a psychological artifact of a biochemical bond generated by the mating instinct.

That is what "love" means. It doesn't make it feel any less special, but I am fully aware of what's going on.

They still refer to their "mind" as if it's something more than chemical switches.

Yeah. So? I can still call it a "mind" because those chemical switches have a vastly different function from those that make me digest food.

And remember what we talked about with "justice" and "right" and "wrong." None of it is scientific.

That doesn't make it woo. It doesn't move it into the realm of craziness. I try to adhere to an internally consistent set of ethics; even harder than that, I try not to demand more of anyone else.

Oh yeah, regarding your professor: You may not have free will, but you can react to outward stimuli like the suggested punishment for being late. So the threat did make sense.

8. Focusing on Negative Examples Makes You Stupid

The problem is that Phelps and Co read the same scripture and just tend to adhere to it rather closely. So, as long as Christians hold up the bible they need to explain why their interpretation of it is better than Phelps'. (There is no dissagreement as to which one we all like better - but that's not the point, because the one I like most is that it is not divine to begin with.)

9. Both Sides Have Brought Good to the Table

Well, yes. So?

(And no, I disagree that religion is needed for any of the good that it brought.)

Oh, and: You cannot take rationalism too far. Please do me the favour and argue rationally that I should act irrational. You'd be the first to succeed.

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

I am not trying. I hope that one day religion will go away - but certainly not by harassing other people away from it. And I accept that not all religious people try to harass me into their religion, either. (Some of them think it's okay if their god does it, though...)

[FireGarden]

Which is...?

believing that not-collecting stamps is a hobby....!

I was thinking in the context of the article, which implied atheists would somehow demote Stalin to a substandard member of the club.

I do no such thing. Stalin was 100% atheist.
I don't consider myself to have the same system of beliefs as Stalin. We merely agree on atheism. Other atheists believe in homeopathy, UFOs and all sorts of things. They are all 100% atheist as long as they have no belief in god(s).

[Puppycow]

Gee, I wonder what forum he's talking about? :D
http://cdn-www.cracked.com/articleimages/wong/atheistav1.jpg

[ImaginalDisc]

believing that not-collecting stamps is a hobby....!

I was thinking in the context of the article, which implied atheists would somehow demote Stalin to a substandard member of the club.

I do no such thing. Stalin was 100% atheist.
I don't consider myself to have the same system of beliefs as Stalin. We merely agree on atheism. Other atheists believe in homeopathy, UFOs and all sorts of things. They are all 100% atheist as long as they have no belief in god(s).

The difference is that Christains claim that their belief system leads to morality, answered prayers, and whiter teeth (maybe I made that one up.) There's nothing inconsistent about Stalin's brutality with regards to his atheism because there is no belief system in atheism. By contrast, Christians need to account for abortion clinic bombers, mothers who drown their babies to save them from Hell, and Torquemada, because that sort of behavior is inconsistent with their claims. Since atheism makes no claims, atheists don't have to account for Stalin. If I were foolish enough to claim that atheism makes you a moral person, you'd be right to bring up Stalin.

[Mobyseven]

That article was, to put it bluntly, a bunch of bollocks. If ever I want a prime example of how to combine straw man arguments with the fallacy of the golden mean, I'll use that article as a prime example.

[H3LL]

A quick summary from the article:

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
Quick Comments IMHO on first read:

1. You Can Do Terrible Things in the Name of Either OneNo. This is just silly. What has been done "in the name of atheism", good or bad?
"He was bad because he didn't collect stamps!"
2. Both Sides Really Do Believe What They're SayingNo. One believes. Period. The other understands from available evidence. Belief and understanding are not the same.3. In Everyday Life, You're Not That DifferentNo. you all [atheists]still live as if the absolute morality of some magical lawgiver were true.Pul-eeeze. Total bollocks.4. There Are Good People on Both SidesNo. One decides on what is good by judging people and society around them. The other often cherry-picks a book they don't read or don't understand and/or listens to an imaginary friend. One is basically good...the other not so. Religion can make good people do evil things. 5. Your Point of View is Legitimately Offensive to ThemNo. A point of view is nothing. Just an opinion. Facts, backed by evidence, are not offensive in themselves. Just facts.6. We Tend to Exaggerate About the Other GuyNo. Slippery slope arguments are not valid on either side.7. We Tend to Exaggerate About Ourselves, TooNo. It's not exaggeration if it's a fact.8. Focusing on Negative Examples Makes You StupidNo. Focusing on negative examples shows that you focus on negative examples. It can be done in a stupid or an intelligent way. This list is an example of stupid.9. Both Sides Have Brought Good to the TableThe story of Christianity (or mythology, if you prefer) is bound to the moralityNo. Again the suggestion that atheists are good because of religious morals. Total bollocks.10. You'll Never Harass the Other Side Out of Existence??????The overall impression I got from a (not too detailed) read of his ten points was that if an atheist uses cherry-picking, logical fallacies, lies and weak arguments to support their position, they are just the same as theists.

Well....Ye-ees?

I agree.

.

[FireGarden]

The difference is that Christains claim that their belief system leads to morality, answered prayers, and whiter teeth (maybe I made that one up.) There's nothing inconsistent about Stalin's brutality with regards to his atheism because there is no belief system in atheism. By contrast, Christians need to account for abortion clinic bombers, mothers who drown their babies to save them from Hell, and Torquemada, because that sort of behavior is inconsistent with their claims. Since atheism makes no claims, atheists don't have to account for Stalin. If I were foolish enough to claim that atheism makes you a moral person, you'd be right to bring up Stalin.

I agree with everything you said (and made one of the points myself) except that I didn't bring up Stalin.

[ImaginalDisc]

I agree with everything you said (and made one of the points myself) except that I didn't bring up Stalin.

I was refering to the crap in the craptacular article by a generic "you", but I should have been more clear.

[tsg]

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

Yes, it is entirely possible to do terrible things in the name of anything. If anyone is arguing that it's impossible to do terrible things in the name of atheism, I would disagree with them as well. But that isn't the argument as far as I'm aware. Basically, you're trying to solve a heated debate betwen Porsche and BMW owners by having them agree that they are both cars. It's simplistic and doesn't address the argument.

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


I've encountered quite a bit of religious debates and I have no doubt that Christians believe what they are saying. So what? When some believe they are superior people because of their belief, I'm not going to tolerate it, "honest mistake" or not.

3. In Everyday Life, You're Not That Different
[...]
Atheists, even if you reject the idea of God completely and claim to live according only to the cold logic of the physical sciences, you all still live as if the absolute morality of some magical lawgiver were true.

In short, horse crap. I treat others the way I would like to be treated because I think it's good for society. Yes, yes, I am aware of "Do unto others..." as a teaching of Christianity. I can believe it's a good idea without also having to believe it was handed down by a magical man. Is the Christian who treats atheists as sub-human following that same philosophy?

4. There Are Good People on Both Sides

Duh. This is just an extension of #1. If there are atheists arguing that Christians are bad people by virtue of being Christian, I would disagree with them as vehemently as those Christians who argue that atheists are bad by virtue of being atheists. So what's your point?

5. Your Point of View is Legitimately Offensive to Them

No, it isn't. Their point of view is only offensive to me if their point of view is that I am less of a person because I don't hold their point of view. And, in that case, I don't particularly care whether they are Christian, Hindu, Muslim or, in fact, atheist. For my point of view to be offensive to them, it would require that they believe all people should hold their religious views to the same high regard they do. I find that offensive.

6. We Tend to Exaggerate About the Other Guy
[...]
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.

Strawman.

7. We Tend to Exaggerate About Ourselves, Too

What was that point about focusing on negative examples, again?

Oh, here it is.

8. Focusing on Negative Examples Makes You Stupid

Which is amazing, considering that the "church" is made up entirely of Phelps' family and a few friends. That's it. And they're world famous, mainly because atheists looooooove to hold them up as an example of what dicks Christians are. When you need an icon of intolerance, they're as useful to have around as Hitler.


Phelps is famous because he spends so much time doing ridiculously intolerant things and trying to get media attention. Are you seriously arguing that his value system isn't inspired by his Christian beliefs? No, I'm not saying all Christians behave the same way and would disagree with any atheist who claims they do. But I'm also not going to ignore his intolerance for fear that other Christians might think I'm accusing them of the same thing. If you assume that criticizing Phelps is also criticizing you, you may want to examine why.

9. Both Sides Have Brought Good to the Table

The same argument as #3: religion tries to get people to act with morality. I've already said that morality is possible, even preferable, without believing it was handed down by a magic man. What you are ignoring is that there are Christians arguing that morality is not possible without the punishment of hell or the reward of heaven to enforce it, and that people who don't believe in their magic man and his system of reward and punishment are not capable of acting in a moral manner. And the idea that I'm the one who is wrong for their inability to separate their morality from their belief in a god is just ridiculous.

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

I can't speak for other atheists, but I'm not trying to convert anyone. Ideally, I would like to see religion fall into disuse by its own accord, collapsing under its own weight. I am perfectly content to let others believe whatever the hell they want. However, if they are going to try to convince me they have rational and logical reasons for having that belief, then I am going to challenge them. If they are going to exhibit intolerance, then I'll be damned if I'm going to tolerate it. If their intolerance makes me angry, and it almost certainly will, I will exhibit anger. If they are offended by my intolerance of their intolerance, good. They should be.

[Bandersnatch]

You mean this guy? (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=82649&highlight=David+Wong)

[Wowbagger]

I agree, pretty much, with the 10 headings of things we should agree on. But, not much of the content under each. (For examples: I know athiests are moral for their own reasons, not because they "act" like there is a magical lawgiver. And, I know of very few people who reject evolution because of the science; they mostly reject it, because they lack understanding of science.)

But, nowhere in the article does it actually address science, which is pretty much the root of the difference between the two.

[JoeEllison]

It seems like a list of ridiculously obvious things, combined with the sort of "atheists are as bad as theists" nonsense that comes into play because theists have a fundamentally unsupportable position.

[Dogdoctor]

They forgot one more. Not all atheists are the same nor are all Chistians the same.

[El Greco]

Does he make anywhere the point that there are some hot babes in both sides ? Because I'd agree with that one.

[Silentknight]

You know, they really should have let an atheist or a liberal Christian write this. I did laugh at the excerpt he posted from the "Jerry Falwell Dead" thread on that other forum though. The rest is a clear indication that the author hasn't exactly considered either point of view.
1. You Can Do Terrible Things in the Name of Either One
You can't do things "in the name of" atheism, any more than you could create an album of stamps you haven't collected. Besides, this is just a fallacy of composition. Communism and Marxism are not parts of atheism, rather atheism is a part of communism or Marxism. Just as how one's body parts are a part of the whole, like facial hair for example, but you can hardly blame Hitler's mustache for the Holocaust. Regimes like the Soviet regime under Stalin practiced Communism as a religion, so if there is any common factor for atrocity, it's fanatical religiosity. Atheism was only officially instituted as an afterthought, because Stalin (and leaders like him) wished to keep other religions from competing with Communism.
2. Both Sides Really Do Believe What They're Saying
Wrong. Show me the evidence that proves me incorrect and I will gladly accept it into my understanding and correct my mistakes. I never claim to hold anything with absolute 100% certainty. Also, refer to the article about the difference between "belief" and other forms of thought (such as agreement, acceptance, information, and understanding) on nobeliefs.com.
3. In Everyday Life, You're Not That Different

...Atheists, even if you reject the idea of God completely and claim to live according only to the cold logic of the physical sciences, you all still live as if the absolute morality of some magical lawgiver were true.
I agree, we're not that different. Most people nowadays do in fact live as practical atheists. It's just that those who aren't honest with themselves about it will attach themselves to an artificially respirated theism.

Also, I would point out that morality and ethics evolved. Humans are social animals, and we devise systems of conduct in order to cooperate, survive, and function as a society. We keep what behaviors work and discard what doesn't. In other words, it's a natural result of our biological evolution. Why would one assume that this doesn't factor into our understanding of ethics? Atheists are not passive observers; we're human, and therefore active participants in society, just like everyone else.
4. There Are Good People on Both Sides
This is about as insightful as saying that we're all human, and we all eat, sleep, and carry out bodily functions. :rolleyes:
5. Your Point of View is Legitimately Offensive to Them
The only things that offend me are when a person states something incredibly stupid / ignorant as if it's absolute truth, or when a person lies to my face. So it's really stupidity, willful ignorance, dishonesty, and bigotry that offend me. Furthermore, there's no reason for anyone to take a disagreement of ideas as a personal affront. If they do then there is something wrong with them.
6. We Tend to Exaggerate About the Other Guy

...7. We Tend to Exaggerate About Ourselves, Too
If this is meant to be a criticism of a forum full of skeptics, what makes you think that there won't be anyone to challenge strawman claims, regardless of who makes them? These examples of exaggerations are exaggerations themselves.
8. Focusing on Negative Examples Makes You Stupid
Okay, how about this? Figures like Pat Robertson and the late Jerry Falwell ("Yippie!" I might add) hold beliefs not too far off from many mainstream churches, and in fact many Christians have even argued that they do in fact represent mainstream Christianity. Now look at some examples of the rhetoric coming from just these two men, and compare it with the things Osama bin Laden has said.
http://www.ethicalatheist.com/docs/robertson_bin_laden.html
http://www.ethicalatheist.com/docs/falwell_bin_laden.html
9. Both Sides Have Brought Good to the Table
Yeah, so what? Neither Christianity nor atheism was necessary, in either case. Religion is not necessary for morality, and atheism hardly counts as a system of beliefs, so I would not credit either.
10. You'll Never Harass the Other Side Out of Existence
That's a good one. I don't want religion destroyed or abolished, I want it reformed and changed. After all, beliefs have always evolved over time, and reform within a framework of belief is certainly possible (even if it does come about slowly if left on its own). I can think of a certain rabbi from a couple thousand years ago who had similar sentiments, just as people like Sam Harris have today.

[UserGoogol]

[/INDENT][/INDENT]2. Both Sides Really Do Believe What They're SayingNo. One believes. Period. The other understands from available evidence. Belief and understanding are not the same.

Yes they are. I have no idea why so many atheists seem to interpret the word "believe" to mean something that nobody else uses the word to mean. The word believe means that a person has the conviction that a certain proposition is true. It can hold connotations of belief without suitably rigorous justification, (which the dictionary considers important enough to list as a seperate definition (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=belief)) but belief is merely a state of mind. How a person attains that state of mind, be it through careful rational discourse or through some vague fallacious methodology is irrelevant.

[rebecca]

You mean this guy? (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=82649&highlight=David+Wong)

Whoops! Sorry, I swear I did a search first. And, didn't realize it was so old -- it was just picked up on Fark today.

[brodski]

Anyway, what immediately struck me, though, is the author is a poster (or lurker) here, since in his intro he mentions cruising his favorite forum and seeing TheAtheist's just-say-no-to-religion avatar. So, hello David Wong!
[/SIZE]
He mainly hangs out over in CT.

[Mobyseven]

I think the part that bugged me the most (and there was a lot) was the whole, "You act as though there is a magical lawgiver even though you don't believe in god," bit.

Someone hasn't paid any attention to moral philosophy since 1651 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leviathan_(book)) it seems.

[H3LL]

Yes they are. I have no idea why so many atheists seem to interpret the word "believe" to mean something that nobody else uses the word to mean.

My bold. From your link:

Believe - a degree of conviction of the truth of something esp. based on a consideration or examination of the evidence


The word believe means that a person has the conviction that a certain proposition is true. It can hold connotations of belief without suitably rigorous justification, (which the dictionary considers important enough to list as a seperate definition (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=belief)) but belief is merely a state of mind. How a person attains that state of mind, be it through careful rational discourse or through some vague fallacious methodology is irrelevant.

I do not understand the use of belief and believe in the context of the article to have that meaning...

Out of context you are right...
In context I think you are wrong.

In context of the article it is plainly meant as a religious tenet or tenets; religious creed or faith.

"I believe in God" is clearly different from "I believe this chair will not collapse when I sit on it."

Now you know why this nobody makes the distinction.

.

[Beerina]

And the number one Top Ten Things Christians and Athiests Agree On:

1) God is an ass.

[ponderingturtle]

The article lost me when it condemned everyone who was happy at the death of someone who they are profoundly opposed to.

with this
But you start cheering his death, you've walked away from the one single baseline every remotely moral person has ever agreed on: the value of human life. And I know we all agree on that, because we can all think of people we could've otherwise stabbed and gotten away with it.



I would say that that is not the single base line every remotely moral person can agree with. It also compares them with the Westboro Baptist Church, while failing to understand the difference between the total lack of respect for the feelings that they show by protesting funerals, and the being happy that an enemy is no longer there.