Here is a very level-headed, insightful article by David Wong called “10 Things Christians and Atheists Can (And Must) Agree On.” (It contains some PG-13 language and images.) At a time when there is increasing animosity between those groups, I find this attitude of “Can’t we all get along?” very refreshing.
Naturally, since the article is about finding common ground and respecting one another, most of the comments that people have posted in response to it are full of hostility and anger — merely proving one of Wong’s points, which is that there are a-holes in both camps who simply don’t want to understand how other people think.
Thanks for the link. The article is good and well thought out, and it has the best pictures ever.
I really liked that. Thanks.
Thanks for the link. That was a great article. I didn’t have the heart to read the comments, though.
Thanks for pointing that out. Wonderfully awesome. It got me thinking though, that even if the entire country read the article, people would still not be swayed and like you pointed out, Eric, many of the comments are still bashing the other side no matter what was said. That puzzles me, as does anything like this where people simply eat, drink, breathe, smoke and excrete the ignorance logical fallacy and refuse to give the other side half an empathetic or understanding thought. Then I think that perhaps the problem is the a-holes in both camps are maybe (this is just my diagnosis) educated beyond their intelligence, that they just listen to anyone in authority in their lives and if it hits them early and hard enough, they are parrots ever after, completely unwilling to ever second-think their early-instilled convictions, be they Buddhist or Jewish or Muslim or Christian or atheist or Hindu or Shinto or whatever they are.
That picture that attacked the Jews got me steaming mad, though. You just…don’t do that. garg. I better stop now.
“That picture that attacked the Jews got me steaming mad, though. You just…don’t do that. garg. I better stop now.”
I can’t imagine why. It was tongue in cheek just like all of the other pictures.
He does make some unsupported assertions that I strongly disagree with. But I like what he’s at least trying to do.
He doesn’t seem very well versed in modern rationalist ethics, which are not based on the idea of an absolute moral arbiter and can be defended with logic. Also, some of his comparisons are forced–such as comparing the the Crusades, jihads, etc., which done in the name of God or Allah, to Stalin and Mao’s purges . . . which were NOT done in the name of atheism, whatever that would mean.
Anyway. Rapprochement is necessary, and if this helps someone learn a little tolerance, I suppose I can live with that.
Hehe I never get tired of those pictures. Good article, though of course can’t agree on EVERY detail, but hey that’s life 😉
And I think by comparing the holy wars to Stalin and Mao’s purges he’s not trying to prove that the purges were done in the ‘name’ of atheism (though people have been killed because of their religion, or lack *of* atheism in those same systems) but rather that you don’t have to have a religious conviction to do something terrible like that- mankind’s selfish will is plenty.
I’m also amused by the evolution vs. non-evolution crowds. As a Christian evolutionist, I stand on my old geology notes and laugh :p
pizzocalabro, I noticed that too. As one with a philosophy degree, I can confidently say that ethics have been based on rationality for a long, long time. I just figured, since I know so little about atheism, he most know something I didn’t know. I think his point (as I understand it, anyway) still stands–that you don’t have to be religious to be moral, and that even atheists believe in something higher than themselves (the sacredness of humanity), though they don’t use divinity to get them there.
Hmmm…
I don’t think ‘sacredness’ is the right word to use.
This was a good article… Although some points weren’t quite as well put together as they could have been, overall it was pretty good. 🙂
Slash: Yeah, I know, but I couldn’t come up with a better one off the cuff. Intrinsic value?
I wasn’t so concerned about the facts. Obviously his representations of religious people vs non-religious people weren’t going to represent everyone. I thought that was the whole point. Whatever our views are, we can agree on basic moral principles and be kind to each other.
Good effort on his part, certainly. But did he really think atheists wouldn’t be able to explain their senses of morality?
I don’t see why the Jew one was offensive, either. Jews aren’t typically blamed for ALL of those things; humor based upon hyperbole and all that. The whole point is to make fun of all religions/atheists equally so no one is left out. That picture alone doesn’t make him an anti-Semite, if that’s what your beef is.
That picture was great, but the “Jesus is a lion” one made me laugh out loud for a good long time. Man, that was funny. Does that mean I’m going to hell?