Not that terrible things were funny, but well, anyway read it....

I don't like it. It promotes unity and compromise, instead of isolation and discord.

darn those satirists...

OK, now that I'm reading it, I do like it, but it was obviously written by a believer :P

Alright, answering as an Atheist...

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

Hmmm...

Well, I hate to start off as a contrarian right out of the gate but...oh, who am I kidding, I love it and I'll say it anyway--

I disagree with #1--on a matter of language, at least.

To explain--certainly the Theist (and I'll say "Theist" here and not just "Christianity," because really, the proper debate it Theism vs. Atheism, not just one religion vs. all the secular movement, so I'm going with "theist" here, if anyone thinks that's terribly unsporting of me, let me know, I know you will) can do terrible things in the name of their god--

The Old Testament is rife with this, and the Koran no better (if anything, Sharia law is perhaps even more atrocious and offensive.)

But recall the language--terrible things "in the NAME of either one."

Now, the Theists are often VERY quick to point to Stalinist Russia as an example of an atheistic ruler and state that went wrong...

But ask yourself--did Stalin kill in the name of Atheism...or for his own gain/the gain of the USSR?

Did Pol Pot have Year Zero in Cambodia in his own name...or in the name of the Flying Spaghetti Monster?

I think the answer to both is obvious--so I must reject #1.

Do Atheists and Theists alike do bad things?
Yes.
Atrocious things?
Of course.
But do Atheists kill in Atheism's Name, and are not merely Killers who are incidentally Atheist?

No.

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

Yes, agreed on (for the most part, I'm sure there are the disingenuous on both sides, but for the most part, yes.)

Next...

"3. In Everyday Life, You're Not That Different"

I'll again disagree, and I'll use the language of the article here:

"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."

Yeah...

No.

Sorry, but that statement assumes that everyone lives as if there's some sort of objective morality and, indeed, just from the diverse amount of people HERE who've been very vocal in saying that they don't believe in such hokum as an absolute, objective morality, and have agreed that morality is SUBJECTIVE and NOT OBJECTIVE...

Right off the bat, no.

I myself don't live like that.

So...no.

THEN we follow the incorrect with another insubstantial piece:

The charge that atheists and theists really do feel the same way about sex, with the example, paraphrased, being:

When Janet Jackson had her boob showing at the Super Bowl, theists were upset, citing how immoral that was, and atheists were not upset...
But if the girlfriend of an atheist were to sleep with another man, then, suddenly, the atheist becomes upset about sex,
Ergo,
both, in actuality, get upset about sex, and in the same way, at its core.

Again--NO.

First of all, to have a rare moment where I defend the theist, I think it's unfair to paint all Christians/theists with the same sexual brush--yeah, yeah, make your joke--and say they'd ALL be offended by cleavage showing like that...

Some may, some may not--people are different and, for that matter, as much as I think they're all wrong theologically, religious sects are different, too (and to think otherwise is to say the Protestants and Catholics in Ireland or the Sunni and Shiites in the Middle East could all get along peachy-keen...yeah...no, that's a short-sighted and stupid statement to make or position to assume to be anywhere near true.)

What's more, the scenarios are different--

In theory, the Theist (one that believes in this fashion and to this extent) would be upset over the cleavage showing at the Super Bowl because it's immoral, in some fashion...

Whereas the Atheist would be upset at the ACTUALITY of a girlfriend sleeping around and being unfaithful (again assuming that the atheist--or the theist, for that matter--cares.)

So, one's angry over the idea...
The other's angry over the actual event.
To put it another way--
One is angry about some constructed idea of morality possibly being violated...
The other is angry about some very real promise of trust actually being violated.

So, again--no, not the same.

And I can go on bashing #3, as I think it's a pretty damn poor point, but to proceed...

"4. There Are Good People on Both Sides"

Yep.

No argument there--

Plenty of good people on this site are Theist, and plenty are Atheist...
Plenty of good people I know are (of all things, given my Jewish background) Catholic...
Plenty of good writers on both sides (because, of course, writing is what it all comes down to!)

;)

Dickens and Dostoyevsky and Milton, hell, probably even Shakespeare, all Theist...

Adams and Asimov and Twain (at least agnostic) and Woolf (apparently), all Atheist...

Great thinkers such as Locke and Descartes and Kierkegaard were Christian,
Great thinkers such as Nietzsche and Hume and Hitchens were Atheist.

So yeah, no argument here--goodness and talent has come from both sides.

Next...

"5. Your Point of View is Legitimately Offensive to Them"

True enough, although I must admit I don't see that as a total negative in every situation...

As I just said to a friend (well, a friend no longer, he left in a huff after another friend and I dared to say we didn't agree with his stance against gay rights on the basis of the Bible, but oh well, the friend I kept was and is a far greater friend, and one of the best people I've had the privilege to know, so no-brainer which I'd rather have as a friend anyway) in regards to his views on gay marriage--

I respect your right to your opinion...
But I DO NOT have to respect your opinion ITSELF--respect for the opinion itself must be EARNED (and, I'm sorry, but I can't respect an anti-gay rights viewpoint, as I told him, I find it bigoted and horribly cruel.)

In any case, he was extremely offended that I didn't respect his opinion and...well...

I don't see that as a bad thing on my part or a problem--

After all, I view an anti-gay rights stance as bigoted...and if any one of us proposed to deny blacks rights, and the rest of us (rightly) denounced the views of that person...

Would we really care if we'd offended him by not respecting his views?

And that's a possible position of the Theist vs. the Atheist--

They must respect each other's rights to an opinion...

But by no means should the Atheist feel morally obligated to respect the views of a Theist when they see theism as morally bankrupt and scientifically backward...and, for that matter, the Theist shouldn't have to respect the views of the Atheist, either, if they really and truly feel that such a view is sinful and evil.

They just have to respect the RIGHT to that opinion each side has.

(Which is why I don't go into a Church to debate people, or why, when asked, I've always turned down an invitation to a Bible Study, either with friends or from a group of people who've heard of me and want me to be their guest--for the same reason I think it'd be rude beyond reproach to walk into a meeting of my friends and I discussing our favorite authors and start spouting off how these words are tools of Satan or insisting that they be burned and pushing some agenda, I just think it'd be terribly callous of me to entreat on someone's hospitality and goodwill, in their own home or club/Church, where they gather in private to do their thing without bothering anyone, and just tear into their belief. That just seems rude beyond even my capacity for rudeness, someone would have to go pretty far in order to get me to do that sort of thing...because in public, its one thing, then it affects me--but if you really want to read your favorite leather-bound, gold-paged book in your own home with your own friends....hey, I like to do the same, mine's just Shakespeare or my new copy of Oscar Wilde's works, so as long as you leave me be, live and let live, so far as private life goes.)

:)

"6. We Tend to Exaggerate About the Other Guy"

...Define "other guy?" :/

If you mean the everyday Christian/Jew/Muslim vs. Atheist in America/UK...sure?

But if you mean the radicals...no.

When we discuss the WBC or other extreme Churches in America..
Or the Muslim jihadists in the Middle East...
Then...no.

It's NOT an exaggeration how inane and dangerous those people are.

I'm sure there are dangerous atheists too, I just don't think they kill in the name of atheism, and are just, again, killers who are incidentally atheists (see #1.)

"7. We Tend to Exaggerate About Ourselves, Too"

I was going to uphold this one and agree...but to quote the article:

"EVERY LETTER IN THIS BOOK IS ETCHED DIRECTLY FROM THE HAND OF THE ALMIGHTY AND ANY ONE SYLLABLE CAN REDUCE ALL OF THE WORK OF ALL THE WORLD'S SCIENTISTS TO RUBBLE!"

--Theist viewpoint

"YOUR BRAINWASHED DEVOTION TO A RIDICULOUS BOOK OF SUPERSTITIOUS LIES HAS DESTROYED CIVILIZATION AND KILLED BILLIONS!!!!"

--Atheist viewpoint

A. Extremists though they are, there ARE those who will uphold the Theist viewpoint here...
B. I myself would uphold the Atheist viewpoint here, with the caveat of making "Your" "Society's"...
C. YES, billions HAVE died in the name of religion...if not billions, then certainly tens if not hundreds of millions throughout the ages, given all the different books, and even if we were to stick to one book...well, yeah, even THEN the Christian has to concede--backing/backers of the Bible has led to the deaths of tens if not hundreds of millions over time...and as far as "destroying civilization" goes, the Dark Ages aren't all to blame on Christianity's power in that time, but it definitely played a factor in stunting our growth for 1000 years, when we'd just come out of the age of Greece and Rome...there are those in the US (and perhaps UK, I don't know your demographic of Christians as well, UKers) who would like to see civilization and the world end...listen to the Mega Churches and their congregations speak their hellfire and ask and pray and push for the End Times...

If praying for the End of the Physical World, just for the possibility of a dead Jew to come back and save a select group of people, isn't something that smacks of a group who would like to see civilization destroyed, at least to some degree, on some level...

"8. Focusing on Negative Examples Makes You Stupid"

(Well, a bit late for me, then, isn't it?) ;)

But in all seriousness--again, I disagree.

I actually like Stephen Fry's response to a similar point raised by Anne Widdecome in an Intelligence Squared debate here--

Ms. Widdecome, after Fry's having (rightly) denounced the Pontif for claiming that condoms actually increase the risk of AIDS rather than decrease them, stated something to the effect of "Oh, I knew they'd bring up condoms...and yet they ignore all the good work of Catholics."

Fry's response:

"That's a bit like a burglar saying 'Oh, I KNEW you'd bring up that burglary...you never mention that I always get my father a present for his birthday..."

The negatives can really block out the positives in some cases.

I'm sorry, but, to pick just one example, fair or not--

Given ALL the atrocities of the Catholic Church (including the Crusades, the forced conversion of those in Africa and South America, imprisoning Galileo for actually being correct and retarding science at every opportunity in his era, the Spanish Inquisition, its own admission of mistreatment towards women, and silence during Hitler's Final Solution, just to name a few)...and the fact that, for Jesus' famous "Rich man/Heaven/Eye of a Needle" comment in his Sermon on the Mount, the Catholic Church is one of if not the single richest organization on Earth...with Ratzinger--who I find to be a deplorable person--as the new Pope...

I'm sorry--mentioning the good work of some Catholic groups just doesn't quite tally up with all the NEGATIVES.

Hitler built roads and factories for his people--but who's REALLY going to say, "You're stupid for focusing on all the negatives, why don't you ever acknowledge all the 'good' Hitler did, too?"

None of us would be so foolish, because we know a few factories =/= 6 million burnt and gassed and shot corpses.

I'd uphold the same with the Catholic Church--sorry, for all the good that individuals of the group have admittedly done (again, I know some great friends who are Catholic and devote a lot of time to helping kids and volunteering) it doesn't warrant focusing on the positives as well as the negatives, not when the latter are so many and so atrocious.

And, to pose a challenge--

Again reminding everyone that I don't consider "Stalin/Mao/Pol Pot" a valid answer, as they didn't kill for Atheism but for themselves...

Can someone give an example of a great evil/"negative" perpetrated in the name of Atheism?

Maybe there is one and it's slipped my mind and I'll have egg on my face later, but for now...where is it?

"9. Both Sides Have Brought Good to the Table"

This seems redundant...didn't we have a question like this already, "There Are Good People On Both Sides?"

So, yes, I agree...but then, I already agreed...

And finally...

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

Harass?
No.
Drive the other side out?
...Well, at the rate the Atheist population is exploding, and with every new generation more kids accept evolution, and the cosmos being so telling as to the age of the universe NOT being 6,000 years, and so on and so forth...

Maybe not "drive out," but there's a possibility (indeed, I hope it comes true) that in a couple hundred years, perhaps Atheism could rival Christianity in states like the US, Canada and UK by a 50/50 margin...

The more Atheism gains, the more Theism loses.

And Atheism has done nothing intellectually BUT gain on Theism in the last 50, 60 years, especially.

So, harass the other side out of existence?
No--and it should never come to that, anyway.
But reason the other side out?
From my own end, I'd like to see Theism marginalized, or brought to a 50/50 population split, in a couple hundred years (hopefully sooner, but I'm a realist and a pessimist in addition to being an Atheist, Jew, and Rambler.)

And with that--

End of ramble, 10 questions, all answered on my part. :)

lol, not a bit surprised by this ^, really......

just saying, if morality is objective, then it is perfectly ok for me to put a virus onto this site/kill people like Hitler did

If morality is objective, there are NO good people on either side

you can't explain dark without light, you can't explain a twisted line without an idea of a straight one

I read a whole Obi post! Well said sir, and I had many of the same opinions while reading the article.

I thought that #1 was celebrating someone's death makes you a dick....

Did you agree on that one, Obi?

Had a chance to laugh at ourselves :-( ......

Let's see where this goes...

"just saying, if morality is objective, then it is perfectly ok for me to put a virus onto this site/kill people like Hitler did."

Nixie to me that is a somewhat flawed assertion. The idea being that if one is a moral relativist, "good" is whatever behavior advances yourself within the constraints of the good of society, while "evil" is otherwise.

Whether you believe in moral relativity or absolutism, there are behaviors condemned by virtually ALL people (murder, e.g.). No code of moral conduct that allowed murder would be allowed to advance in society, thus it is considered evil by virtually ALL moralities.

Sure, you can say to yourself, "My morality says its OK, so I'ma kill a bunch of people," but society will cast you down, and squash the meme before it is allowed to develop.

figured....

I'd like to note that so far the Christians are not taking themselves too seriously here. And I'm not holding that opinion just to annoy you, lol.

It's OK, they will when Mutejus gets here.

Perhaps.....perhaps not. We shall see.

You made the point that no atheist has ever killed in the name of atheism. This point, I agree with, but not because atheists are benevolent when compared to theists. The reason why no atheist has ever killed in the name of atheism is because there is no real need to. The person can not say that he is conducting the will of God, or a higher power, because that is not what they must justify there actions for.

In contrast, consider an eccentric revolutionary, who wished to bring war upon western civilization:

Would he not gain more supporters if he said he was conducting the will of God, rather than admitting that he is a bit of a nutter? Alas, this is the case on what is going on in the middle east- people using religion, and twisting it to suit there own goals.

As a so called 'theist' I do believe in a higher powed (God), however I also accept evolution. For me, science explains the 'how' of our existence, whereas religion explains the 'why'.

As a person, I do implore you to research the religions you criticize so heavily, and not listen to the minority of wackos out there who wish to suit there own purposes, which the media like to dwell on to provoke fear in unsuspecting citizens. I know very well that a simple post put together on a Diplomacy forum probably isn't going to shift anyone's beliefs, but I know that I can only encourage to seek more knowledge.

^ That was in reply to obiwanobiwan's monstrously large comment, but anyone is welcome to share their opinion

1 is... weak. "We're putting aside the question of which belief system has killed more people by percentage of population, or whether a hypothetical world without religion would have seen fewer or more genocides than ours."

Can't let you do that, Star Fox. Atheism doesn't whip people into murderous mob-frenzies. Religion HAS and DOES.

"...the Stalins and Maos of the world do the same because they see their people as nothing more than meaty fuel to be ground up to feed the machinery of The State."

That's what happens when you've got a state religion, which is what Stalinist Marxism was.

2. "You can say they're wrong. You can say it all day, you can etch "YOU'RE WRONG" into the surface of the moon with a giant laser. But you'll have a lot less angst if you remember that the thing they're wrong about is something they honestly believe, down to their roots."

Which doesn't make them any less wrong. And if I'm going to burn a message intended for Christians into the moon, it's going to be the Third Commandment. Hopefully that will shut them up, but probably not.

3. "You Christians, if the transmission in your Camaro explodes, are you going to use prayer to reconstruct it? No, you'll call a mechanic. When your tooth hurts, you don't assume it's possessed by demons. You look for a cavity. Basic, everyday troubleshooting."

Unless you're a Christian Scientist. Or unless you meet someone who has different sexual mores than you. Or unless you happen to be voting at the time. Then shit starts having an effect.

4. "Atheists, you can despise a Falwell or the gay funeral protesting guy, but you've known Christians who did it right. Famous ones like Martin Luther King Jr., or just common ones you've run across who seem to have an inexaustible well of generosity and good cheer. You know how many charities have crosses on their logo."

The Klan uses them too.

5. "So Christians, knowing what we just said about how it is possible to be a true, honest atheist, that people walk around every day and truly see no evidence of God, can you understand why it's offensive to them to hear that they, and their family, and their children, and their friends, are going to burn for eternity for it?"

And if you actually need to be fucking TOLD this, then you're probably somewhere on the psychopath spectrum.

6. "So please stop waving your arms and warning that if Christians get their way, we'll all be sacrificing virgins on altars and replacing surgeons with priests."

We'll get used to buying birth control from the same people who sell heroin. We'll get used to sodomy laws again. We'll get used to lynchings. We'll get used to "she was asking for it" working in court again.

7. "In reality, there are very few Christians who do or even try to follow the Bible exactly, including all the obscure rules about church women staying silent and hatted. Word of God or not, the faith changes, adapts with the times. That is, in fact, the entire point of Christianity. Jesus was a reformer, and set that precedent. It continues to this day, it's what I like about it."

Anyone seen the picture of the guy with Lev. 18:22 tattooed on his arm and the ironic mention of 19:28? It's not what the Bible says that's the problem. It's people believing that their imaginary father-figure lawgiver agrees with their interpretation and everyone else is a sinner. Having a psychotic, murderous, nationalistic projection of everything you fear being THE SOURCE OF ALL MORAL AUTHORITY is a FUCKING PROBLEM.

8. "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."

Note the lack of atheist counterexamples. Well, Stalin, if you assume that he did what he did because he was an atheist and not because he was a batfuck-paranoid dictator in a place and time when you won elections by killing everyone who was running against you. Atheist intolerance versus Christian intolerance isn't even apples and oranges; it's apples and freight trains full of apples.

9. "In the middle of a religious debate, you may say that religion and superstition are the prime evil in human society. But you look behind it, and you'll find that other monster is bigger. Humans doing the opposite, acting like animals. Treating other humans as nothing but engines for their own pleasure."

Religion legitimizes letting the beast off his leash. Self-righteous anger is the most addictive and destructive emotion there is. In hoc signo vinces.

10. "So if you want to criticize the Christians' intolerance, then be tolerant. Show them how it's done. Shame them with your tolerance. You won't have to say they're awful. They'll look awful by sheer comparison to you."

And then they'll vote their intolerance into law and the rest of us get to live with the consequences. Praise Jesus!

Lol, here we go. But Obi, you have to at least admit that there is some validity to the statement that the other side gets pushed into a more hardline position when you make statements like this:
“Harass?
No.
Drive the other side out?
...Well, at the rate the Atheist population is exploding, and with every new generation more kids accept evolution, and the cosmos being so telling as to the age of the universe NOT being 6,000 years, and so on and so forth...

Maybe not "drive out," but there's a possibility (indeed, I hope it comes true) that in a couple hundred years, perhaps Atheism could rival Christianity in states like the US, Canada and UK by a 50/50 margin...

The more Atheism gains, the more Theism loses.”

I mean really. Lots of Christians (or theists in general) couldn’t give a rip about YEC and have no problem with evolution, etc. That was the point of the article. Not pointing out the worst in the opposition merely because they are the easiest target? Any of this ring a bell?

Wow we have some true believers here....



and it wasn't the ones we thought it would be.


lol

I waz bored.

I know, it's tempting to argue, but I think it's better to watch. There are things being said that absolutely beg to be refuted. I'm curious as to where this love fest goes though.

# 4, There are good people on both sides... Nope. Jesus said that no one is good except God. To paraphrase another verse, our goodness is like filthy rags compared to God's goodness.
# 6, Both sides are offended by the other. Nope again. Atheism might be offensive to a religionist, but to a Christian who knows that neither religion nor goodness can restore us to a relationship with God, atheism is no worse than misguided religion. Tursting in *anything* besides Jesus is worse than futile.

#4 so we're either equally good or equally not-good. We're still equal, right? I think that was the idea from the article.

#6 I think I'll still sit by a see what transpires with regard to this one.

Huh, yeah I was going to respond point by point but obi and AWB beat me to it. Well said guys, I think that's my first +1 for either of you.

Just a general comment on the article...uhhhh Fallacy of the Golden Mean FTW! The author seems to imply that obviously the best solution lies somewhere in the middle because obviously when you have a debate between two disparate points of view, neither one can be correct. Except that's not how it works. Turns out sometimes there is such a thing as one side of a debate just straight up being wrong, and the other side just straight up being right. I'm not saying I know that to be the case here, I'm just saying, you can't enter a debate assuming that that's never going to be the case.

@ Mujus, really? So Christians aren't offended at atheism? Reality begs to differ.

Also, I'm sorry, God has the MO of an especially abusive spouse. He threatens us, he denigrates us, he undermines our self worth and attacks our self esteem, isolates us, and makes us believe he's the only person or thing we can trust; all so that we remain completely beholden to him. Honestly? All powerful, all knowing, benevolent being or no, that's really not the kind of relationship I need in my life thank you very much.

I have to admit I'm finding this to be an interesting conversation. On one hand there aren't moral absolutes, but we can be dead right and dead wrong so we can't compromise?

Oh and of course I forgot to mention he spends a large portion of time meting out absurdly disproportionate punishments against us, for the ordinary everyday trespasses that are just a normal part of being fallible humans (ie The Old Testament), and then when he needs to win us back over, makes a really big show of suffering and martyrdom in the course of forgiving us for these same mundane sins, so that we'll feel guilty and remain completely emotionally dependent on him all over again (ie. The New Testament).

Seriously, it reads EXACTLY like the typical case history of a terribly abusive relationship. It maps so well it's almost scary.

I didn't say that CA! All I said was that the writer clearly started out with the assumption that neither side could possibly be actually correct. I was simply pointing out what it is that makes The Fallacy of the Golden Mean a fallacy.

There are things to say that will almost certainly get an angry response from the opposition aren't there?

I think he was starting out with the fact that neither of us is likely to know that we're correct. But that's my interpretation.