Conquer Club

I thought this was an excellent article:
10 Things Christians and Atheists Can (And Must) Agree On

Personally, I think it should be required reading for anyone that wants to participate in the next "Evidence for the existence of god" thread!

I have actually been looking at all these discussions from a point very similar to this guy's. Though one thing I have noticed, is that when an Atheist points out the Crusades or something, the Christian won't deny it but will say it was a different time period and that it was hardly the first time that there were invasions Eastwards. In turn though, when Christians point out what Mao and Stalin did, they get shouted down because what Mao and Stalin did was justified for some reason, or it is completely ignored.

muy_thaiguy wrote:they get shouted down because what Mao and Stalin did was justified for some reason, or it is completely ignored.

wat

muy_thaiguy wrote:I have actually been looking at all these discussions from a point very similar to this guy's. Though one thing I have noticed, is that when an Atheist points out the Crusades or something, the Christian won't deny it but will say it was a different time period and that it was hardly the first time that there were invasions Eastwards. In turn though, when Christians point out what Mao and Stalin did, they get shouted down because what Mao and Stalin did was justified for some reason, or it is completely ignored.

Oh come on, you need to look closer at those debates:

Wikipedia wrote:Since the Middle Ages, wars sanctioned by the Roman Catholic Church undertaken in pursuance of a vow, and directed against infidels, i.e. against Muslims, pagans, heretics, or those under the ban of excommunication, have been called Crusades.

Now, was what Stalin and Mao did sanctioned by the atheist grand poobah? Were atheists all over the world commending them for they actions? Did Stalin keep a stranglehold on the power because of his atheistic convictions? Was Mao commonly known to say: "I'm going to cause great famine and kill millions of people because my lack of belief in gods says that is the right think to do"?
In short, the fact that they were atheists is irrelevant, you might as well condemn the color of their hair for their actions.
Whereas religion was not irrelevant regarding the crusades.

P.S. Sorry don't want this to devolve into another religion thread, it's just that I've seen certain points(like the above) repeated so much that I'm actually considering copying them and having them on standby when entering the forum, might be more efficient. Anyway, I'm off to read that article now

An interesting read. However, it becomes less rational as it progresses, and seems to suffer from the basic assumption that there are only atheists amd christians.

Yeah, that was pretty disappointing.
1. is just wrong, he's stretching the definition of terms way beyond their breaking point
2. is just obvious, I'd hope most people don't actually think the other guy is pretending
3. is silly, being pissed because somebody doesn't respect the rules of the club doesn't mean you think those rules are absolute and given to the club by a magic fairy
4,5 again pretty obvious
6,7,8 are ok, those are probably just some cognitive biases and or debate tactics
9. is extremely silly. ANY ideology(that i can think of) has "brought good to the table". Take your pick nazis, whatever, ALL of them have done something good, this hardly means anything.
10. is good. Though i don't think "leading by example" is the only effective tactic, it probably is a important one


P.S. Of all the pictures i don't get the penguin one. Is he too cute to have evolved, or what?

muy_thaiguy wrote:I have actually been looking at all these discussions from a point very similar to this guy's. Though one thing I have noticed, is that when an Atheist points out the Crusades or something, the Christian won't deny it but will say it was a different time period and that it was hardly the first time that there were invasions Eastwards. In turn though, when Christians point out what Mao and Stalin did, they get shouted down because what Mao and Stalin did was justified for some reason, or it is completely ignored.

I've never heard anyone justify what Mao or Stalin did. You must run in some weird circles.

It should be noted that this article appears on a humorous site. It's good to see that Cracked is still around. I loved reading it about 30 years ago.

Woodruff wrote:

muy_thaiguy wrote:I have actually been looking at all these discussions from a point very similar to this guy's. Though one thing I have noticed, is that when an Atheist points out the Crusades or something, the Christian won't deny it but will say it was a different time period and that it was hardly the first time that there were invasions Eastwards. In turn though, when Christians point out what Mao and Stalin did, they get shouted down because what Mao and Stalin did was justified for some reason, or it is completely ignored.

I've never heard anyone justify what Mao or Stalin did. You must run in some weird circles.

What's his face, the guy with the outhouse as his avatar did awhile back and a couple people popped in from time to time to try and support him in it.

Quirk wrote:It should be noted that this article appears on a humorous site. It's good to see that Cracked is still around. I loved reading it about 30 years ago.

You were reading Cracked before the internet was established? Impressive.

muy_thaiguy wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

muy_thaiguy wrote:I have actually been looking at all these discussions from a point very similar to this guy's. Though one thing I have noticed, is that when an Atheist points out the Crusades or something, the Christian won't deny it but will say it was a different time period and that it was hardly the first time that there were invasions Eastwards. In turn though, when Christians point out what Mao and Stalin did, they get shouted down because what Mao and Stalin did was justified for some reason, or it is completely ignored.

I've never heard anyone justify what Mao or Stalin did. You must run in some weird circles.

What's his face, the guy with the outhouse as his avatar did awhile back and a couple people popped in from time to time to try and support him in it.

If you're referring to the troll who happens to be associated with this site that I believe you are, then I can only say...he was trolling, duh.

Woodruff wrote:

muy_thaiguy wrote:I have actually been looking at all these discussions from a point very similar to this guy's. Though one thing I have noticed, is that when an Atheist points out the Crusades or something, the Christian won't deny it but will say it was a different time period and that it was hardly the first time that there were invasions Eastwards. In turn though, when Christians point out what Mao and Stalin did, they get shouted down because what Mao and Stalin did was justified for some reason, or it is completely ignored.

I've never heard anyone justify what Mao or Stalin did. You must run in some weird circles.

He isnt saying its justified what Mao or Stalin did. Hes saying that its as justified as what the Crusades did, which was killing people in the name of some belief...or more precisely, that they thought it was justified. its written sloppily, but its still obvious that is the point he meant to make.

The fact that the beliefs were different is irrelevant. The point he was making was that they justified it to themselves, and felt that they had ample reason to do what they did, and that they may even have felt that it was for the good of their people, and perhaps even of mankind itself.

What he is saying is that its the same exact argument used by christians when they waged war, even though the specific reasons were different.

In fact, one could argue Hitler had the same justifications. His ultimate goal was to better the world for man kind. His goals were based on sacrificing human beings, in order to make the world better for other human beings. He justified killing and torture using a higher purpose, which is exactly what every single person who has ever started a war has done. They justify war for a higher purpose. There is no doubt hitler was insane and evil, and that his goal in no way justified his actions from any kind of human view, but there is also no doubt that he felt they were justified, as no doubt christians who killed people of other religions felt they were justified.

The important point here, is that going to war to slaughter other human beings, is very difficult to justify, and while some will agree its justify, those that are slaughtered will never feel its justified.

Well #1 is full of misleading statements.


It was Muslims not Christians who attacked on 911. Trying to use THAT as an example of why Christianity is bad is a stretch Gumby would not tolerate.

The Westboro Baptist Church is WAY WAY WAY outside mainstream Christianity. This is like saying because of Jeffery Dahmer, most homosexuals are cannibals.


and just so there is no confusion..... our war is not against flesh and blood, but against powers and principalities.

Woodruff wrote:

Quirk wrote:It should be noted that this article appears on a humorous site. It's good to see that Cracked is still around. I loved reading it about 30 years ago.

You were reading Cracked before the internet was established? Impressive.

It was a magazine, a rival to Mad.

jay_a2j wrote:Well #1 is full of misleading statements.


It was Muslims not Christians who attacked on 911. Trying to use THAT as an example of why Christianity is bad is a stretch Gumby would not tolerate.

Oh PLEAASE.

It was Christians, not Muslims who slaughtered the American Indians. It was Christians, not Muslims who enslaved south Americans.... etc.

jay_a2j wrote: and just so there is no confusion..... our war is not against flesh and blood, but against powers and principalities.

YOU are the one who is confused. You can talk ideas, but your actions are against real people.

AAFitz wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

muy_thaiguy wrote:I have actually been looking at all these discussions from a point very similar to this guy's. Though one thing I have noticed, is that when an Atheist points out the Crusades or something, the Christian won't deny it but will say it was a different time period and that it was hardly the first time that there were invasions Eastwards. In turn though, when Christians point out what Mao and Stalin did, they get shouted down because what Mao and Stalin did was justified for some reason, or it is completely ignored.

I've never heard anyone justify what Mao or Stalin did. You must run in some weird circles.

He isnt saying its justified what Mao or Stalin did. Hes saying that its as justified as what the Crusades did, which was killing people in the name of some belief...or more precisely, that they thought it was justified. its written sloppily, but its still obvious that is the point he meant to make.

No, I must state that you are incorrect. He is stating quite plainly that there are some who believe "what Mao and Stalin did was justified for some reason". Not only that, but his own words previous to your point agree with my statement.

jonesthecurl wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

Quirk wrote:It should be noted that this article appears on a humorous site. It's good to see that Cracked is still around. I loved reading it about 30 years ago.

You were reading Cracked before the internet was established? Impressive.

It was a magazine, a rival to Mad.

I did not know that. Thanks. (I loved Mad...)

Woodruff wrote:

jonesthecurl wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

Quirk wrote:It should be noted that this article appears on a humorous site. It's good to see that Cracked is still around. I loved reading it about 30 years ago.

You were reading Cracked before the internet was established? Impressive.

It was a magazine, a rival to Mad.

I did not know that. Thanks. (I loved Mad...)

Yes, but Cracked was hardly in the same realm, sorry, but it wasn't. Mad was true artistry, Cracked was... a copycat. Even so, I don't think this site has much resemblence to that magazine. The onion, perhaps...though the onion is more "sophisticated" (for lack of a better word) than Mad (or Cracked)

He brings up some good points, but I find his reasoning failing. Perhaps because of the nature of the site.
I also agree with jcurl above that this site loses something by pretending only Christianity and Atheism exist. However, most of these points apply universally. I speak of "religion", not simply "Christianity".
Anyway, here they are and how I see them:

His first (unnumbered) point is pretty good, and should have warranted a number of it's own.

Pre- 1. Celebrating the death of somebody you disagreed with pretty much makes you a dick.
Note, this is QUITE different from celebrating the death of someone who actually killed your loved ones. Still, while that is fully understandable and reasonable, I am not sure it is a "high ideal".
Pretty much self-explanatory. Anyone who disagrees, well, is a dick.

To get on to HIS numbers:
1. You Can Do Terrible Things in the Name of Either One.

Absolutely true. Atheists like to disclaim this, because they say "we are not one organized group". That is true, to a point, in many cases, but rather besides the point. People can and have been just as violant and terrible in knocking down religion as they are in promoting religion. In fact, to the point Atheists "escape" it is only that they can attribute those actions to other beliefs that are as compelling as recognized religions. (back to that "is Atheism religion", but also 'are political beliefs religion").

The bottom line is that it is not belief in God, a spirit or any set of rules/ideals that move some people to violance, it is the insistance that ONE (or one group of) religion , politics, rules, ideas is superior to others to such an extent that others just don't have a right to exist OR the insistance that those who disagree are a direct threat. There is nothing in that about a particular religion or belief or, as some like to claim, lack of. It can come from any, because it is not the ideas themselves that cause the violance, it is people's tendency to take things to extreme that is the cause.

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

True, essentially axiomatic. BUT, it is important to understand that you are not going to simply change someone's mind in a few words. Sorry, but too many on BOTH sides seem to be under that assumption. I have met plenty of Christians who think trotting around with T-shirts that Say "John 3:16" or talking about God's love will somehow convert the "unknowing". Similarly, I have met plenty of atheists who seem to think that just bringing in logic (MY ideas are logical, yours are simply not) will somehow comvince anyone. Both arguments truly show an utter lack of understanding of the other position (really, they do!).

That said, while it is highly unlikely that anyone will be converted to the other position through mere debate, when you realize that a big part of debate is not winning, but informing, of reaching understanding of the other's ideas... then discussion becomes not only valid, but absolutely critical.

3. In Everyday Life, You're Not That Different.
He should have stopped with the first few sentences. In any society, people of various religions pretty much live the same. We all eat, love our kids, wash our clothes. The music to which we listen, type of house in which we live, etc... all those vary far more based on ethnicity/location/culture than religion, per se. Religion absolutely influences culture in various complex ways, true. However, if you take someone from China, someone from India and someone from Europe, the Christians in those societies will have more in common with atheists, often times even value-wise, than with others of the same faith elsewhere.

Case in point. I can remember talking to an African friend about a child I once watched with cerebral palsy. She looked at me with shock as I talked, and exclaimed "how could such a thing happen?". I took it as a "medical" question and explained how "these things happen"..etc, etc. She interrupted me and said "No, I mean how could anyone let that happen, how could anyone let such a child live!"

Now, according to many of Jay's, other's arguments, a Christian must honor all life, no matter what. I assure you that this person has gone through far more for her faith than most of those putting up that position. Still, she lived in a world where even the healthiest of children were often doomed to die for lack of simple medicines and food. She lived in a world that, in this way, matched life here decades ago where a child who was "deformed" (using termonology of the day), would be condemned to a non-life. In such a world, the thought of keeping a child who could never even feed himself was simply unthinkable. To her, allowing that child to live was to torture that child.

Now, I am not debating this point here. I am merely saying that culture often impacts us as much or more than religion.

4. There Are Good People on Both Sides

As he says, this one is easy enough to agree upon.

5. Your Point of View is Legitimately Offensive to Them
On this, I disagree. I am not, I don't believe many others are, offended by people who disagree. We might be dismayed, simply not accept the beliefs, but only the radicals insist that other views are "offensive". In some cases, we definitely might be offended by actions that others consider OK. (homosexuality, polygamy, burkas, teaching evolution, etc.)

In truth, he is really just trying to restate his #2 (both sides believe what they are saying), but by making it a negative, he takes it to an extreme that is just untrue.

A better statement might be that Actions some feel are correct might be offensive to others

6. We Tend to Exaggerate About the Other Guy

True, but not universally. Instead, this is what the "spokespeople" of each side tend to do. The thing is these self-appointed "spokespeople" are often just seeking media, seeking power, are playing games to try and gain followers. Those doing this in the name of religion (including atheism) are no different from those doing it in the name of politics. Except.. we expect better from people claiming to be moral leaders.

The fault, then, is in the many who decide to listen to these leaders without seriously questioning and verifying what is said. It might be sad to say that you need to verify "facts" put forward by your Pastor or his representative "expert", but you do. They are no less human than anyone else.

I also believe he rather misstates a couple of points in his attempt at reconcilliation. For example, while the average Christian absolutely accepts science, there is a contingent, namely the young earth group, that (despite claims to the contrary) really is rejecting all science. That is not exaggeration, it is the truth. In fact, many of us have taken a long time to reject the young earth ideas, to see them for what they truly are because we tend to give the benefit of the doubt and tend to believe in freedom of religion except where it causes others harm. On the other side, while many atheists are fully moral, etc, there have absolutely been some on the extreme edges who use lack of God (or any kind of higher power/spirituality/etc.) as reason to do whatever they wish.

The issue here is that the MAJORITY of people, the sane middle do not bow to any extreme. AND, I would suggest it is up to each in the middle to ensure that that middle does not creep into the majority whilst we snooze.

7. We Tend to Exaggerate About Ourselves, Too

Here I agree with the statement, but absolutely disagree about his arguments. In particular, his claim that many Christians don't follow the Bible, with the example that women don't go hatted in church really shows a lack of understanding of the Bible.

Similarly, he takes concepts of free will and love and somewhat distorts the atheist position on those things.

THAT is the real issue here... We each fail to truly understand the other side and fail to look critically at ourselves. To a point, true objectivity is an impossible task. This is one reason why debate and analysis are critical. Sometimes it is only by listening to others that we can see the truth in ourselves.

8. Focusing on Negative Examples Makes You Stupid
Blame the media for this one... and the rest of us who seem to think that a sensational negative is somehow more powerful, more worthy of attention than the regular, normal, middle. Its OK to a point, when we actually realize that is what we are doing. Sadly, I have seen LACK of aware ness of this result in our society moving so far to the right that I see many, many 20 somethings and even a few 30 somethings who have no clue as to what true liberalism really entails, have no idea of any valid arguments for socialism (this is NOT an endorsement of socialism, but you have to understand what you reject... too many here really do not), etc. This is because they get their ideas of "the other side" from signs, blogs and 1 minute news blurbs.... BUT think they get the full picture.

ANSWER.. all of us need to spend real and true time actually investigating even those ideas (maybe particularly those ideas) with which we disagree. That is education. Learning only one side is indoctrination.

9. Both Sides Have Brought Good to the Table
True, more or less another side of his #4 (there are good people on both sides).

10. You'll Never Harass the Other Side Out of Existence
Absolutely and fundamentally true. In fact, the opposite is often true. The more you tell someone they CANNOT believe or do "xyz", the more likely it is that many will go underground to seek it out.

THAT, more than anything else, is why freedom of ideas and even freedom of action, except where it directly causes other's harm, is critical.

Also, while holding up signs and massing people might serve to show sheer numbers of support, valid in some circumstances, they are NOT the way to truly inform. Education takes time and slow, patient talk. Too often those who bombard us with signs are the ones doing the most harm to their own cause. Because they make it plain how idiotic they truly are.


I would delete a couple of repeats above, and add instead:
We ALL can benefit by learning a bit more about those with whom we disagree.
This is the big point that distinguishes the fanatic, those who cause harm, from those who simply share different ideas. When you think you know all about, or "know enough" about the other side, you begin to err. You also close yourself off. If you need to fear other ideas, then you don't have a very good grounding in your own thinking. Kids, too, need to be brought up with not just an understanding of what they believe, but also a real and true understanding of what others believe (and therefore reach a better understanding of why they believe what they do believe).

Woodruff wrote:

jonesthecurl wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

Quirk wrote:It should be noted that this article appears on a humorous site. It's good to see that Cracked is still around. I loved reading it about 30 years ago.

You were reading Cracked before the internet was established? Impressive.

It was a magazine, a rival to Mad.

I did not know that. Thanks. (I loved Mad...)

... but it was nowhere near as funny as Mad.

Mad = George Carlin

Cracked = Bill Mahr

That may be a good analogy... unless you think Bill Mahr is really extremely funny.

This is just more proof that modern atheism is a cult. The true freethinkers have already realized that.

john9blue wrote:This is just more proof that modern atheism is a cult. The true freethinkers have already realized that.

uhm what?

A cult is a zealous group of followers of a belief. Militant atheists fit this definition. If you don't think atheism is a belief, then you need to tell me what pure agnostics believe, because they are not atheists and I hold that they are the ones who have no beliefs.

john9blue wrote:A cult is a zealous group of followers of a belief. Militant atheists fit this definition. If you don't think atheism is a belief, then you need to tell me what pure agnostics believe, because they are not atheists and I hold that they are the ones who have no beliefs.

Except cults involve some form of worship, Atheists don't worship anything. Atheism is certainly a belief it consists entirely of the lack of belief in the supernatural. That's it, anything more is simply the addition of that particular atheist.

Baron Von PWN wrote:

john9blue wrote:A cult is a zealous group of followers of a belief. Militant atheists fit this definition. If you don't think atheism is a belief, then you need to tell me what pure agnostics believe, because they are not atheists and I hold that they are the ones who have no beliefs.

Except cults involve some form of worship, Atheists don't worship anything. Atheism is certainly a belief it consists entirely of the lack of belief in the supernatural. That's it, anything more is simply the addition of that particular atheist.

Maybe they can 'worship' a LACK of an supernatural being(s)?

I think John's point is that they a fervent in their "belief" that this is NO God/god.