An article about common ground between atheists and Christians.

Wacker

If this has been posted here before, apologies, and feel free to delete. It's definately worth reading:

http://www.cracked.com/article_15759_10-things-christians-atheists-can-must-agree-on.html


So, what are your thoughts? I have a little trouble with some of point 9, but other than that I think it is right on the money.

PDN

Makes a lot of sense.

pH

Wacker wrote: »

So, what are your thoughts? I have a little trouble with some of point 9, but other than that I think it is right on the money.

Seemed like all the usual theist arguments dressed up as some form of conciliation.

I'll take #1
1. You Can Do Terrible Things in the Name of Either One

Yes you can do terrible things in the name of either one, so bloody what?

I could go out tomorrow and blow up buildings in the name of atheism ... so what?

There is isn't an atheist doctrine, there's no book that I can get my atheist ideals and inspiration. If I go kill things, even in the name of atheism then that still has nothing per se to do with atheism.

The same could be true of religion, there are lots of evil things that a believer could do "in the name of religion" that are not that religion's fault. I could go and start killing babies in Buddha's name, but that's hardly Buddhism's fault is it?

However if a central core teaching of Buddhism was that certain babies were evil and needed to be killed (it's not!) then yes, I think that it would be entirely reasonable to lay that infanticide squarely at the Buddha's feet.

The issue and the evil laid at religion's feet is the evil that is done in it's name, conducted and overseen by its hierarchies, inspired and justified by its violent thousand year old texts written by desert nomads.

When millions say that "this book is the true word of God" and that book supports murder, torture, slavery, bigotry then I think it's reasonable to lay the consequences of people committing evil acts inspired by these texts at the feet of the religions who claim these books are God's work.

As far as I know very little killing has ever been done in the name of atheism. By atheists - surely, in the name of Communism and political ideologies - indeed, but a purely atheistic movement with its primary goal being the eradication of religion? I can't think of one.

And to re-iterate, even if they did, even if an armed group appeared (real militant atheists!) bent of destroying churches and killing believers, even then you still couldn't hold 'atheism' responsible. Atheism is a lack of belief in God, no more no less - any leap you make from that has nothing to do with atheism.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Ciaran500

daveirl wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Its not meant to

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Dades

So that's where my old username went...

Fanny Cradock

pH wrote: »

As far as I know very little killing has ever been done in the name of atheism. By atheists - surely, in the name of Communism and political ideologies - indeed, but a purely atheistic movement with its primary goal being the eradication of religion? I can't think of one.

Interesting. I wonder if Communism had yielded it's promise of a utopian society would you claim that the absence of religion wasn't a factor in this. Anyway, I think we are both missing the point of this blog.

daveirl wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I would suggest re-reading the title of the blog. There is a clue is in there somewhere.

Son Goku

The blog reminds me that the atheism and christianity debate has been converted into the " evangelical christianity and new atheism* " debate.

*New Atheism being the new super-ultra-rationalist stuff that occasionally goes as far as applying formal logic to morality.

pH

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Interesting. I wonder if Communism had yielded it's promise of a utopian society would you claim that the absence of religion wasn't a factor in this. Anyway, I think we are both missing the point of this blog.

Hypothetically (if communism had produced a utopia) I'd claim:

Based on this evidence you don't need to believe in a God or follow a set of rules laid down by him to have a free, tolerant, peaceful and fair society. I suppose you could also note that this peaceful utopia had not murdered, tortured or oppressed anyone on behalf on a God that doesn't exist. Yes I guess that if communism had of produced utopia then you could say those things about it with regard to its atheism.

I don't think that atheism brings happiness, it's not a set of rules or a philosophy, it's not good or evil - It's just something I'm sure is true - there is no God that matters.

Where you go next from there is up to you.

Zombrex

pH wrote: »

I don't think that atheism brings happiness, it's not a set of rules or a philosophy, it's not good or evil - It's just something I'm sure is true - there is no God that matters.

Exactly.

Its like saying that the theory of gravity starts wars.

Atheism != the conclusion that religion is bad or should be restricted.

PDN

Wicknight wrote: »

Exactly.

Its like saying that the theory of gravity starts wars.

Atheism != the conclusion that religion is bad or should be restricted.

Which, I think, is the point of the article.

Atheism != the conclusion that religion is bad or should be restricted

Equally Christianity != genocide, slavery, wars etc.

But no doubt bigots on both sides will argue differently.

Zillah

See, my problem with this is that its about how atheists and religious people can get along because we won't convince each other. I have two problems with this:

- I combat theists because I don't want their nonesense swaying naive middle-of-the-road people and those who don't know any better (read: Children and the traumatised). I have little hope I can argue a hard core theist out of his position, but thats not my goal. I want to combat his fallacies so they don't sway others. He can bite me for all I care.
- Both sides have gotten converts. Loads of them. I can't count the amount of times I've heard some born again nut job talking about how he was an atheist and has now embraced Gods love. Harris and Dawkins get letters all the time from former-theists saying that their books convinced them it was a load of hogwash.

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

Which, I think, is the point of the article.

Atheism != the conclusion that religion is bad or should be restricted

Equally Christianity != genocide, slavery, wars etc.

But no doubt bigots on both sides will argue differently.

Quite correct ... its more

Christianity = Faith in the promise of salvation in return for obedience = genocide, slavery, wars

You guys really seem to have a problem with that point.

Equally

Communism = Faith in the promise of better society in return for obedience = genocide, slavery, wars

The key point is the obedience

Atheism doesn't require obedience to anything. That doesn't mean atheists can't be obedient to some doctrine. But atheism itself isn't one

pH

PDN wrote: »

Which, I think, is the point of the article.

Atheism != the conclusion that religion is bad or should be restricted

No, but atheism is the conclusion that religion is wrong. You may find some atheists arguing that even though it's wrong (ie incorrect) that's not necessarily a bad thing. Not me, I think we'd be better off without it.

I don't think it should be banned, I don't think religious folks should be persecuted, killed, tortured or ostracised. I think that in a free and democratic society they have every right to believe in a God and worship him, and also to live their lives by any additional morals they believe their God has asked them to adhere to (not eating pork, sex before marriage - that sort of thing).

However most religious folks don't see their faith as a personal issue, and some seem to truly believe that *I* need to live my life according to what their God told some bronze age desert nomads thousands of years ago.

Equally Christianity != genocide, slavery, wars etc.

So why not start a process to refine what Christianity is about? It's openly admitted by Christians that the contents of the bible were edited and decided by a committee in the past, why not re open that process and remove all the text that supports these positions?

PDN

Wicknight wrote: »

Christianity = Faith in the promise of salvation in return for obedience = genocide, slavery, wars

You guys really seem to have a problem with that point.

Yes, I have a problem with it because it is untrue.

Christianity = Faith in the promise of salvation in return for obedience to the commands of Christ = feeding the hungry, turning the other cheek, blessing your enemies

Christendom = Oppression carried out for selfish reasons in the name of Christianity

Communism = Oppression carried out for selfish reasons in the name of atheism.

You guys really seem to have a problem with that point.

PDN

pH wrote: »

It's openly admitted by Christians that the contents of the bible were edited and decided by a committee in the past, why not re open that process and remove all the text that supports these positions?

You need to insert the word 'some' in between 'admitted by' and 'Christians'. I certainly do not believe that the Bible as we receive it today was edited, nor that it was decided by a committee (Church Councils ratified choices that had already occurred by a natural and sensible process among Christians in various congregations in recognising which books were Scriptural and which were spurious).

homah_7ft

Was there anything in that article about people who don't believe in unicorns getting along with christians?

homah_7ft

PDN wrote: »

You need to insert the word 'some' in between 'admitted by' and 'Christians'. I certainly do not believe that the Bible as we receive it today was edited, nor that it was decided by a committee (Church Councils ratified choices that had already occurred by a natural and sensible process among Christians in various congregations in recognising which books were Scriptural and which were spurious).

Haha you need to look up the meaning of a commitee.

PDN

homah_7ft wrote: »

Haha you need to look up the meaning of a commitee.

And you need to learn how to spell it.

Scofflaw

PDN wrote: »

And you need to learn how to spell it.

+1 for sig!

cordially,
Scofflaw

Son Goku

PDN wrote: »

Communism = Oppression carried out for selfish reasons in the name of atheism.

Wouldn't it be:
Communism = Theory of the distribution of wealth, which commonly has an athiest base.

Stalinistic Autocracy = Oppression carried out for selfish reasons in the name of Communism.

Christendom = Oppression carried out for selfish reasons in the name of Christianity

You seem to be using Christendom in an unusual way. What way are you using it? (This is a genuine question.)

Scofflaw

Son Goku wrote: »

Wouldn't it be:
Communism = Theory of the distribution of wealth, which commonly has an athiest base.

Stalinistic Autocracy = Oppression carried out for selfish reasons in the name of Communism.


You seem to be using Christendom in an unusual way. What way are you using it? (This is a genuine question.)

What you might call the Christian politico-religious complex, with established churches supporting the political status quo, and vice versa. Still fairly true here, but not as much as 20+ years ago.

cordially,
Scofflaw

homah_7ft

PDN wrote: »

And you need to learn how to spell it.

How unfortunate. I suppose it could be worse. Do you think what you described was a committee though?

PDN

homah_7ft wrote: »

How unfortunate. I suppose it could be worse. Do you think what you described was a committee though?

The Church Councils I mentioned were committees, but the natural & informal process by which books were accepted or rejected by congregations were not. A committee is a body which is formally elected or appointed and therefore has a responsibility or task 'committed' to them.

Son Goku

Scofflaw wrote: »

What you might call the Christian politico-religious complex, with established churches supporting the political status quo, and vice versa. Still fairly true here, but not as much as 20+ years ago.

cordially,
Scofflaw

That's interesting I thought it might be something like that. In it's original form the word was meant to evoke the vague pan-European feelings of disparate peoples in the middle ages.

homah_7ft

I suppose if we keep going on down this road we get back to the authority of a, "Holy" book.

PDN may I ask what religion you belong to?

PDN

homah_7ft wrote: »

I suppose if we keep going on down this road we get back to the authority of a, "Holy" book.

PDN may I ask what religion you belong to?

And, of course, we have had the 'holy book' argument on these fora many times.

I am a Christian - more specifically a Pentecostal.

Gegerty

Totally disagree with every point. An atheist is someone who doesn't beleive in God, period. Apart from that, anything an Atheist says is his own beliefs and cannot be judged as the beliefs of all Atheist. I even hate the term Atheist, why does there have to be a label? Aren't we all just free thinking individuals?

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

Yes, I have a problem with it because it is untrue.

Christianity = Faith in the promise of salvation in return for obedience to the commands of Christ = feeding the hungry, turning the other cheek, blessing your enemies

Well I suppose this is the point we keep coming back to.

You think religious faith is ok, so long as religious faith is producing things that you view as being moral and good.

And naturally you think that religious faith that produces blown up buildings and sucide bombers is immoral and bad.

But that could be said about Communism, or dictatorships, or fascism. Often dictators get a lot of good things done due to the side lining of the inefficiency of democracies. Mussolini got the trains running after all.

The point is that the system itself is dangerous, not just when it is doing bad things, but at all times even when doing good things, because it is a system that facilitates bad things. A dictatorship removes the safe guards of a system like a democracy and replaces them with simply the luck that the dictator will do good things. That is bad even if the dictator is actually doing good things.

A similar principle applies to religion.

You see religious faith as good so long as it is producing good things. That "so long" is an unacceptable requirement, in the same way as the statement

Dictatorships are good so long as they produce good things

has an unacceptable requirement of the "so long" bit.

The system itself is flawed and dangerous, even if it is producing good things, because it removes the safe guards of rationality, discussion, reason etc. One cannot rely on the "so long" to stop the system from turning bad, in the same way as a dictatorship.

It leads to people blowing themselves up in school buses as much as it leads to Church homeless collections.

It is not simply a question of the bad results being bad, the system itself is flawed and dangerous even if it produces "good" things.

PDN wrote: »

Christendom = Oppression carried out for selfish reasons in the name of Christianity

Communism = Oppression carried out for selfish reasons in the name of atheism.

You guys really seem to have a problem with that point.

Please define what "the name of atheism" is :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

PDN

Wicknight wrote: »

Well I suppose this is the point we keep coming back to.

You think religious faith is ok, so long as religious faith is producing things that you view as being moral and good.

And naturally you think that religious faith that produces blown up buildings and sucide bombers is immoral and bad.

But that could be said about Communism, or dictatorships, or fascism. Often dictators get a lot of good things done due to the side lining of the inefficiency of democracies. Mussolini got the trains running after all.

The point is that the system itself is dangerous, not just when it is doing bad things, but at all times even when doing good things, because it is a system that facilitates bad things. A dictatorship removes the safe guards of a system like a democracy and replaces them with simply the luck that the dictator will do good things. That is bad even if the dictator is actually doing good things.

A similar principle applies to religion.

You see religious faith as good so long as it is producing good things. That "so long" is an unacceptable requirement, in the same way as the statement

Dictatorships are good so long as they produce good things

has an unacceptable requirement of the "so long" bit.

The system itself is flawed and dangerous, even if it is producing good things, because it removes the safe guards of rationality, discussion, reason etc. One cannot rely on the "so long" to stop the system from turning bad, in the same way as a dictatorship.

It leads to people blowing themselves up in school buses as much as it leads to Church homeless collections.

It is not simply a question of the bad results being bad, the system itself is flawed and dangerous even if it produces "good" things.

Not so. Religious faith is like many aspects of humanity - including logic, science, education and politics. These can all be used by bad people to produce horrific results - or they can be used to produce beneficial results. This is because they are not "good" or "bad" in themselves. The same applies to religious faith. I do not argue that religious faith is necessarily good or bad - in fact I think that those who insist it is necessarily good or bad are fatheads.

Please define what "the name of atheism" is

I have a friend, his Christian name is Joseph, who lives in China. Joseph was a member of the Communist Party and actually served as a judge. When the authorities discovered that Joseph had been attending an illegal underground church they interrogated him. They pulled his fingernails and toenails out one by one. After each extraction they asked him to make one simple declaration - namely that God did not exist. That was all they wanted from him. A simple denial of God's existence would have stopped the torture immediately.

Now, Joseph was not tortured in the name of Communism. His torturers agreed that he was a loyal party member and had never expressed any disloyalty to the Party or State. He was tortured for one reason alone - his refusal to verbally commit to atheism. You can post as many rolling eyes as you wish - but it is clear that Joseph was tortured in the name of atheism.

Do I therefore use this as an argument that atheism is therefore evil? No, because I am not that stupid or bigoted. There are plenty of nice and rational atheists. Atheism, like religion, can be used as a reason to oppress.