The Art of Antagonism

[Gnug215]

There are a lot of issues in this that I'd like to talk about, but recently, I found an article that demonstrates a number of them quite excellently.

So I'll link to it here:
http://www.cracked.com/article_15759_10-things-christians-atheists-can-and-must-agree-on.html

Now, I'd like for you to read the article and tell me what you think about it.
If you disagree with some or ALL aspects of it, please tell me why.

When that's done, I'm thinking we could move the discussion to being about some of the mechanisms at play that the author talks about, such as exaggerating about the other side, focusing on negative examples, and well, then doing the standard stuff like confirmation bias and TMF.

So what do you say?

 

[Prolescum]

Just about to read your link, but this may or may not be relevant.

 

[borrofburi]

No, I can't agree that you can do terrible things in the name of atheism...

I can agree that some members of both sides believe what they're saying... But simply put, there are definitely christian scam artists and liars for jesus, neither of which actually believe what they're saying.

I can agree that for some (even most) members of both sides, everyday life isn't that much different. Except that when I stopped believing I lost most of my friends. Not because they were assholes who couldn't stand me, nor the other way around. We just didn't have anything in common anymore. I tried to hang out with them a few times, even saw a movie, but it was always the same deal: after talking about the event or whatever, it *always* turned to the most recent religious drama, the most recent awesome sermon from awesome pastor, the most recent heretical nonsense. These people talk about theology as their primary conversation...
Also, plenty of religious sects have killed children because they prayed that jesus would fix it, instead of taking it to a doctor. It wouldn't surprise me to learn that there ARE people whose Camaro's still don't work because they won't take it to a mechanic (because jesus will do the heavy lifting of fixing it, if they just pray better).

I'm not sure about recognizing my beliefs as legitimately offensive to christians.

I definitely recognize that we tend to exaggerate about the other guy. But I work so very hard not to, and so very hard to hope that they aren't as crazy as I suspect, and then they come up with flat earth societies, and other even crazier proposed laws...

"we only need to agree that rejecting science on one subject doesn't mean you reject all science on all subjects"... Err... No.

Focusing on negative examples has its purpose, namely disproofs. For instance "atheists are evil and immoral" is best defeated simply by the negative examples of prison population, which will result in the only options being left on the table is that atheists and christians are just as moral, or that atheists are more moral than christians (or that the justice system is totally wrong).

I can most definitely agree that religious people have done good. I will not agree with his implication that without religion there can be no morality or empathy and that therefore we should be grateful to the religious for that...

I'm not sure that I can agree about harassment... Or more precisely, mocking. I'm starting to wonder if mocking is very important...

 

[lrkun]

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

True because one only needs to invoke the name then do something terrible and it's easy to say in the name of atheism/theism, then do something bad.

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

True because one can't prove god exists and one can't prove god does not.

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

False because non atheist really do believe something else.

4. There Are Good People on Both Sides

True because both do charity

5. Your Point of View is Legitimately Offensive to Them

False because I don't have a point of view.

6. We Tend to Exaggerate About the Other Guy

False because I adhere to strict facts. So if a certain description says so, that is so.

7. We Tend to Exaggerate About Ourselves, Too

False because even though I judge and criticize others, I don't do as much as I do to myself.

8. Focusing on Negative Examples Makes You Stupid

False because a negative, like the positive, is part of the truth.

9. Both Sides Have Brought Good to the Table

False

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

True because I don't mind if there are theists or atheists.

 

[televator]

I've been finding "moderates" have been catching my attention a bit more lately and I got to say they still make me facepalm in similar fashion as the the wackos. I've suspected this for a while, that they're really all irrational along many of the same basic points, but the moderates just don't like going as far as admitting to some of the implications of their religion as the zealots.

I'm about halfway in reading his ideas and I find a lot to object to already.

Edit: I just got through it and I'm still "digesting" it, but here's what I gather so far...

I severely disagree on his first point. Atheism on it's own does not justify "statist" genocides. There are doctrines outside of atheism that do lead to this. So in an atheist world it would require other doctrinal dogma separate from atheism to lead to such atrocities. So what about a theist world? Well when you consider the very basic principal of accepting that something is true (that god exists) without evidence, you have a foot in the door for convincing people much more easily for doing all kinds of things without evidence as well. Sure, not everyone will be on board for every crazy idea, but acceptance of faith at any level as something substantive or factual does nothing to shut the door on the most violent or hateful faith based claims. In the end this whole claim of his, and many others he proceeds to make, are -- effectively -- false equivalencies.

And please don't come at me with the, "Christians hate Phelps because they know he's saying out loud what they're secretly thinking! They secretly hate homosexuals just as much!"

Straw man and broad generalization. If you're going to make an argument that chastises using broad strokes to paint the "other side" into a skewed position, don't turn around and do it yourself. It is my view, that most arguments I've heard other atheist make, is that the hatred/discrimination of homosexuals is held in the same religious text which is used as a source by every flavor of christianity or other religions regardless of what the individual does or does not personally believe. I, for one, do not make that criticism based on assumption of one's character. I do however criticize the actual common root of this particular problem, which is not a prejudicial generalization based on faith association.

"If atheism is wrong, it's only wrong in that it takes rationalism too far, beyond the edges of the universe."

Projection. It is religion that pretends to know things outside the KNOWN universe. Being "rational" demands admitting when you don't know something. Doing otherwise means being irrational.

 

[Aught3]

1. You Can Do Terrible Things in the Name of Either One
I don't agree with the grammar (you can't do anything in the name of atheism) but I agree with the justification given that even if religion disappeared tomorrow there would still be crime, and war, and genocide.

2. Both Sides Really Do Believe What They're Saying
I agree. While there are trolls, poes, and con artists the vast majority of people on both sides are going to believe what they say.

3. In Everyday Life, You're Not That Different
The claim that atheists don't believe in morality is only true for some (not me for instance) but this was a very good point: "Well, at the very worst, the Christians are just taking that same moral impulse and applying it to the God question. At the creation of the universe, they expect to find the same invisible hand that pushes us to be fair and loyal and kind. If they're wrong about God, they're only wrong in that they've taken that absolute morality and put a face on it, made an idol out of it. Taken it one step too far."

4. There Are Good People on Both Sides
Could not agree more.

5. Your Point of View is Legitimately Offensive to Them
Their point of view is offensive to me and I can understand how mine would be offensive to them.

6. We Tend to Exaggerate About the Other Guy
That's true, it is hard to draw endless distinctions and caveats though. But it is better to be accurate in your criticism than invent a false positions.

7. We Tend to Exaggerate About Ourselves, Too
This was a very good point. I do sometimes find myself in exaggeration spirals where the conversation is all but over. This is definitely something to keep in mind and try to avoid. Unfortunately the examples are really bad: love, justice, free will can all be accepted on a rationalist standpoint.

8. Focusing on Negative Examples Makes You Stupid
Somewhat correct. The Phelps' are some of the most Biblical Christians out there so it's hard to ignore them completely. But having a sole focus on such examples is probably not the best way to go, it comes back to the issue of having to make endless distinctions though.

9. Both Sides Have Brought Good to the Table
More bad arguments about atheist morality which is really starting to annoy me. His good point for atheism is the philosophy behind it. Doesn't that make rationalism rather than atheism the good thing? He does the same thing for religion, saying that the good thing about religion is the morality behind it. While I agree that there is a lot of moral thinking behind the mythology surely this makes morality rather than religion the good thing in this case?

10. You'll Never Harass the Other Side Out of Existence
I pretty much agree here, I don't see an end to religion at least over the short to medium term. And I totally agree that leading by example is the best way to approach things. I don't completely write off ridicule though, it is useful on occasion.

 

[Gnug215]

I'll do a quick response to the points about the article itself here, then in a second post I'll move on to what I wanted this thread to be about.
To discuss the points, I'll just use the last post commenting on them, which was Aught's.

1. You Can Do Terrible Things in the Name of Either One
I don't agree with the grammar (you can't do anything in the name of atheism) but I agree with the justification given that even if religion disappeared tomorrow there would still be crime, and war, and genocide.

This is the point most of you have disagreed with. I do too.
But this brings up a new and interesting point, which I also talked with Wark about yesterday: Theists, even moderate ones, (even some atheists and agnostics?) tend to believe that atheism ACTUALLY IS a worldview, a position.
And as I discussed with Wark yesterday, we can hardly blame them for thinking that. Basically, atheism is a negative position to one single question, but if you looked at atheists and the "atheism movement" today, I think you could be forgiven to mistake atheists and atheism for more than that. (The fact that one could say there is even a movement is even telling...)
Now, I don't want to make this a major point of this debate (maybe for another thread?), but even though you don't agree that atheism seems like more than just a position on one question, and more like a movement or such, then it is clear that MANY other people think so, and that this is very likely not going to change - and the worst part is probably that the more atheists defend or explain this fact, the more they're proving the other side right. Or seem to be.

But yes, as Aught says, if atheism isn't a thing to do anything in the name of, it is still true that if religion disappeared tomorrow, there would still be bad things.

2. Both Sides Really Do Believe What They're Saying
I agree. While there are trolls, poes, and con artists the vast majority of people on both sides are going to believe what they say.

This is a very important point, I think. Really let this one sink in. Keep the Typical Mind Fallacy in mind as well while letting it sink in. This also goes back to my "would you agree?" thread, where I try to make the point that people's minds are truly different on a fundamental level, and that, well, not everyone can be as smart as you!

3. In Everyday Life, You're Not That Different
The claim that atheists don't believe in morality is only true for some (not me for instance) but this was a very good point: "Well, at the very worst, the Christians are just taking that same moral impulse and applying it to the God question. At the creation of the universe, they expect to find the same invisible hand that pushes us to be fair and loyal and kind. If they're wrong about God, they're only wrong in that they've taken that absolute morality and put a face on it, made an idol out of it. Taken it one step too far."

I agree with Aught that the author made a very good point here, as shown in the quote.
Beyond that, I think one of the points is that most people have some things in common. I certainly have more in common with some believers than I have with some non-believers. But moreso, this plays into the "them vs us" thing, and we shouldn't demonize, but rather try to keep some of the commonalities in mind.

4. There Are Good People on Both Sides
Could not agree more.

This is a big point. This is true to the extreme, I think.
(Ironically, perhaps, I see this as kind of an argument AGAINST theism; if there is a God, one might assume that "following" him, believing in him, would engender some certain behaviors by way of, say, divine inspiration or whatever. But the fact that we have some examples of such enormous assholes on the theist side tells me that at the very least, supposedly having God in your heart does NOT work. But yeah, following through with such an argument quickly degenerates into a No-true-Scotsman deal, so...)

5. Your Point of View is Legitimately Offensive to Them
Their point of view is offensive to me and I can understand how mine would be offensive to them.

An important point, one that we really would do well to keep in mind. Points of view really, actually, truly do offend. Basically, this is why we even have this great debate, I'd say.

6. We Tend to Exaggerate About the Other Guy
That's true, it is hard to draw endless distinctions and caveats though. But it is better to be accurate in your criticism than invent a false positions.

Very good point, Aught; yes, it's hard not to generalize and exaggerate. But I think we have to be very careful and alert when using them. Uttering such exaggerations is often what makes the debate go sour and antagonizes people (there is that word, so we're getting closer to the main point!), so at the very least, we should not start out with this.

7. We Tend to Exaggerate About Ourselves, Too
This was a very good point. I do sometimes find myself in exaggeration spirals where the conversation is all but over. This is definitely something to keep in mind and try to avoid. Unfortunately the examples are really bad: love, justice, free will can all be accepted on a rationalist standpoint.

Same as above, really.

8. Focusing on Negative Examples Makes You Stupid
Somewhat correct. The Phelps' are some of the most Biblical Christians out there so it's hard to ignore them completely. But having a sole focus on such examples is probably not the best way to go, it comes back to the issue of having to make endless distinctions though.

I agree, it's about the sole focus. At best it detracts from the debate, at worst it antagonizes the other side to no end. (I suppose, from the theists perspective, this is similar to the atheists having Stalin thrown in their face?)

But well, this is an admitted, legitimage strategy for many atheists. As an example, just look at DonEx and his open admission about focusing on NephilimFree. He wanted to drag him out for ridicule. How is that going to make those theists that don't agree with Neph feel? They're at the very least going to feel a bit left out.
At worst, it's a freakshow of antagonization.

9. Both Sides Have Brought Good to the Table
More bad arguments about atheist morality which is really starting to annoy me. His good point for atheism is the philosophy behind it. Doesn't that make rationalism rather than atheism the good thing? He does the same thing for religion, saying that the good thing about religion is the morality behind it. While I agree that there is a lot of moral thinking behind the mythology surely this makes morality rather than religion the good thing in this case?

Yes, he seems to conflate atheism with rationalism, and this goes back to my previous point. I think the author honestly, and mistakenly, has this perception of things.

10. You'll Never Harass the Other Side Out of Existence
I pretty much agree here, I don't see an end to religion at least over the short to medium term. And I totally agree that leading by example is the best way to approach things. I don't completely write off ridicule though, it is useful on occasion.

While it may look as I almost bashed on DonEx above, I do agree with him to some extent on his strategy, because his intent is to expose the extreme position as ridiculous, "scaring" people into moderate positions, or something to that end.

It can have an effect, sure, but it needs to be done in moderation. However, one thing is ridiculing the extremists; it's another thing to do it with the moderates. That's where the problems lie, and that's the main point of point #10, I think.


Ok, now that's done, I'll make a second post.

 

[Gnug215]

Ok, so this post is where I focus on the main point of this thread, which was not really discussing the 10 points of the linked article.

First this:

Just about to read your link, but this may or may not be relevant.

VERY relevant. I'm sorry I haven't seen that before. Your topic touches on some of the core points of this whole thing, and yes, very importantly: This goes way beyond "Atheists vs. Theists". This EVERYwhere.
We see it amongst ourselves on this board enough times to drive that point home.

I think one of the worst examples of this is the "Cons. vs. Libs" in the US. This is really poisoning the well, to such an extent that one might worry about things breaking down over there.

But so, what to do about it?

Well, that's why I whipped out that article. I wanted to point out some of "our" mistakes in this, because we're part of this shit, too!
We employ some of the same tactics, commit some of the same fallacies.

So what's the point of my thread? Awareness, pure and simple. That's the only thing I see as being helpful in all this.

Pointing out the fallacies and tactics used should be just as pervasive as pointing out the bad arguments from creationists.

What do you think?

How much do you this? (Commit these fallacies involved... like appealing to ridicule, generalizing, exaggerating, etc.)

What do you think can be done?

 

[Andiferous]

As often the case, I think I tend to agree with Gnug on a lot of stuff. Not sure I'll go point by point though.

Terrible things done in the name of anything. Is anyone identified by a name?

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

More or less. However, I'm not sure it's more admirable for a person to provide devils' advocate or proselytize their personal opinions. Actually, I'd rather the former.

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

In the end we're all subject to hypocrisy.

"If atheism is wrong, it's only wrong in that it takes rationalism too far, beyond the edges of the universe."

See three.

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

Need a better reason than that for doing this stuff.

That said, I've never made it a secret that I am annoyed by the use of 'fallacies' and phallicious terms in argument; I also don't discriminate between beliefs when critisizing in discussions.

Very interesting topic.

 

[ThePuppyTurtle]

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

Yes

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

On one level, I think people can Brainwash themselves very well

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

Yes

4. There Are Good People on Both Sides

There are no Good Atheists, Or Good Christians.

5. Your Point of View is Legitimately Offensive to Them

Yes

6. We Tend to Exaggerate About the Other Guy

Yes

7. We Tend to Exaggerate About Ourselves, Too

Yes

8. Focusing on Negative Examples Makes You Stupid

Yes

9. Both Sides Have Brought Good to the Table

No

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

Yes

 

[borrofburi]

4. There Are Good People on Both Sides

There are no Good Atheists, Or Good Christians.

9. Both Sides Have Brought Good to the Table

No

Hmmm... Please define good.

 

[Gnug215]

4. There Are Good People on Both Sides

There are no Good Atheists, Or Good Christians.

9. Both Sides Have Brought Good to the Table

No

Hmmm... Please define good.

I think it's fairly straight forward to define his notion of good based on his stance. This stance is fairly fundamental to religious thinking, I'd say.

Puppy's answers to the other question actually give cause to optimism, I'd say.

Kudos for that, Puppy.

 

[nemesiss]

1. You Can Do Terrible Things in the Name of Either One
i have YET heard anyone commit massmurder in the name of Atheism


2. Both Sides Really Do Believe What They're Saying
believing is not knowing


3. In Everyday Life, You're Not That Different
we are indeed all humans and behave similar, though you don't find me eating crackers and act like im a zombie. BRAAAAAAIIINNNZZZZZ!!!


4. There Are Good People on Both Sides
moot point, both sides also have assholes.


5. Your Point of View is Legitimately Offensive to Them
anything can be offensive to anyone, for no (good) reason.


6. We Tend to Exaggerate About the Other Guy
7. We Tend to Exaggerate About Ourselves, Too
i'm gonna combine these two and call it "exaggeration is done by both parties"
for which i argue, it depends on what exaggerations are made on.


8. Focusing on Negative Examples Makes You Stupid
no, its healthy because its part of the whole.
overly focusing on the negative can be bad, because you'll lose perspective of the whole, but not stupid.


9. Both Sides Have Brought Good to the Table
No, show me what religion have given us.


10. You'll Never Harass the Other Side Out of Existence
it worked with the romans, the greeks the ancient babylonians, ancient egypt, native americans are almost completely wiped of the earth.... do i need to go on?

 

[australopithecus]

There are no Good Atheists, Or Good Christians.

So glad I stopped listening being a Christian, my self esteem sky-rocketed. I don't have time for Biblically induced self doubt and guilt trips.

 

[)O( Hytegia )O(]

I think it's fairly straight forward to define his notion of good based on his stance. This stance is fairly fundamental to religious thinking, I'd say.

Puppy's answers to the other question actually give cause to optimism, I'd say.

Kudos for that, Puppy.

You read into that too much.

Based upon previous discussions with him, I do believe he means that only Christians have ever brought anything good to the table - because the statement "BOTH" is mutally inclusive of both party's participation.

 

[Case]

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

I disagree. Syntactically, yes, it's possible to make this claim, but when you think about it: You do things in the name of some teaching/guide of action (hence dogma); it's not possible to enslave in the name of freedom. You may produce propaganda that claims freedom was your prime motivation, but in the end if you enslave, you will be doing this for a very different dogma. Same with 'not believing'. Can you do things in the name of nonstampcollecting other than not collecting stamps? No, the teaching doesn't say anything about rape or murder, for instance. In fact it doesn't qualify as teaching at all, because it is only an indication of lack-of-particular-action, but that's irrelevant to the point I'm making.

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

Well, this is a false dichotomy, so there isn't just "two sides". To say that Atheists believe that they don't believe is a bit stupid, too. If the litmus test of believing in the Christian god is behaving according to his rules as stated in the bible, then I must say the evidence for Christians truly believing in god is fairly weak.

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

Conjecture. I may or may not be. If Christians aren't that different from me, they're very unchristian. No prayer, no god, no not coveting other people's wives... maybe the difference is that I feel good about all that? The examples the author coughs up are pretty weak, too. If my gf slept with other guys it's not about "our sexual bond" or "sacredness" thereof, it's that the (then) bitch would be cheating on me, that's abuse of trust.

4. There Are Good People on Both Sides

Again with the false dichotomy. Religiosity is much more likely to be a dimension rather than a set of categories. Second, "good people" is a fuzzy concept. Third, people aren't good people because they are Christians or Atheists, that much should be obvious.

5. Your Point of View is Legitimately Offensive to Them

A point of view is offensive? Since when? Actions can be offensive, I don't give a fuck about points of view as far as as "feeling offended" goes.
Also, notice how the author quietly slips in the hell story as "truth":

Everybody is aware that something can be both true and offensive, right?

You see a friend holding a newborn baby and you say, "You know, there's a chance he'll die tomorrow." Or you stand over the casket at your uncle's funeral and say, "He'll definitely be consuming fewer of the world's natural resources now." Both statements completely, 100% factually correct, and can be defended to the end of time by cold, undeniable logic. And both are incredibly offensive.

To say such things, and to be surprised when the hearers take offense, would show such a profound misunderstanding of human nature that everyone will assume you were raised by wolves.

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?

Atheists. Same deal. It's irritating to you when they say you and your friends aren't going to Heaven because of your beliefs.

Complete and utter bullshit. If someone told me that crap I'd be a bit sad that there's one more looney contaminating the gene pool, but offended? Really? Come on.

6. We Tend to Exaggerate About the Other Guy

Anybody can memorize facts. But you remain a clumsy, intellectual oaf of a person as long as you keep looking for sheer black and white in every situation.

The irony is palpable.

7. We Tend to Exaggerate About Ourselves, Too

I mean, give me a break. America has been full of Christians since the day we invaded it, and has been a scientific and technological freaking superpower. 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.

Non sequitur.

8. Focusing on Negative Examples Makes You Stupid

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.

Fair enough, then the answer to this question should be straightforward: what happens when "holybookreligious" people become less religious this way? Is it 'better' or 'worse' for the people around them?

9. Both Sides Have Brought Good to the Table

Again with the false dichotomy.

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

And again.

That said, this site has been discussed before.

 

[Gnug215]

Case, I don't necessarily disagree with your disection of the article, but I think you're kinda forcing your own (and sure, more correct) definition of "atheism" onto this guy, when it's pretty clear that he's using the fairly bastardized (let's face it; in America, the terms "atheist" and "atheism" have been lost) definition of it.

When he is making those supposedly false dichotomies, it is clear that he is... dichotomizing and generalizing for practical purposes.

I think we have to cut him some slack and understand his intent with the article, rather than scrutinize the specifics of some of his terms.

As for the thing about causing offense, well, I basically agree that things said shouldn't really cause offense, but I don't think that's a pragmatic position to hold at all. And yes, in this case, pragmatics are more important than principles - as so often is the case.

Why do I think it's not pragmatic? Well, among other because of the article in this thread:
http://www.leagueofreason.org.uk/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=7445

 

[Case]

I'm surprised to read that. Have you actually read the article (rhetorical question, my point being that the author's own antagonisms are quite easy to detect)?

First he complains about some guy wearing a t-shirt, then he complains about the fact that there's books in the bookstore, he goes on to notice that there's (behold!) Atheists on his forum, then he complains that there are people on there expressing their relief that an evangelical racist misogynist anti-choice homophobic bigot isn't able to spew any more hate by inciting his nutcase fundamentalist audience. "Death of somebody you disagree with" doesn't quite capture the case of Jerry Falwell. I might add that nobody in his story called for Jerry Falwell's execution or murder - but after his natural death, these people seem to express exactly what I said - relief. There's nothing wrong with that as far as I'm concerned. I wouldn't give a shit about some guy who just hates women/black people/atheists, but I do worry if there's a guy (with an audience) who calls for action against (the well-being of) said groups of people and I assume that the guys on his forum would agree with me here. He goes on to speculate that atheists may have wished him dead for reason blablabla, but he doesn't cite even one guy who did. And wishing him dead is totally unnecessary (even before his death), first of all it doesn't help (should be about as effective as prayer) and secondly, he may be a valuable member of society as long as he shuts the fuck up. That's all you need to hope for if you want to hope for something in that matter.

He goes on to claim that Atheism was a motivator, which it is not. It's not a set of teachings from which actions can be derived. If he *had* said "both Atheists and Christians can do bad things", I would totally agree with him. Equating belief and non-belief is just nonsense. But Mr. Wrong goes even further;

We're putting aside the question of which belief system has killed more people by percentage of population

so he claims Atheism already HAD led to the death of anyone, which is grossly inaccurate. He chews on his "Non-belief is a belief, too!" bullshit some more, after which he concludes his "You're both stupid" paragraph with the idea that nobody can know if crime committed by people from the "other side" would cease if the "belief system" ceased to exist. As a matter of fact, if nobody believed in gods, crimes committed by people motivated by the idea that what they're doing is commanded by (or approved of) their god(s) would definitely drop to zero by definition. Whether other crimes go up is not part of the hypothesis.

Atheists, you know that Christians have freaking died because they refused to walk away from what they believe. That goes beyond simple human stubbornness.

How so? A lot of humans have died while trying to achieve some goal or another, I doubt that Christians deserve any special credit for that.

But you'll have a lot less angst if you remember that

There's a lot of snide comments like this one in the article.

Okay no more time, and I'm only at #2 anyway so just re-read the article yourself and you'll find that there's a LOT of antagonisms in his article, which "side" gets the worse of it I'll leave to your judgement.

That, together with the fact that he interspersed his story with irritating, supposedly funny pictures leads me to conclude that he can go fuck himself.

 

[Case]

Oh noes, I quoted myself instead of editing.

So here's a picture of a cute sheep instead:

 

[Welshidiot]

I think Case may be suffering from an overarching need to take things too seriously.

I find the article disappointing, because it seems to be written from an exclusively American viewpoint, and as a consequence the language and message are somewhat skewed and diluted.

The best example of that IMO is the title itself: "10 Things Christians and Atheists Can (And Must) Agree On".

The antonym of "atheist" is "theist", not "Christian".

If you're wondering why I call that an American viewpoint, it's because I've heard or read many US citizens (atheist and theist) framing the whole "atheist Vs. theist" shamozzle, as though the only form of theism is Christianity. Sometimes they seem able to squeeze Judaism and Islam into their worldview, but usually only grudgingly and with deep ignorance.

I suppose it's a natural tendency when a country has one predominating religion, to refer to that one specific religion as though it is all religions.
There's probably a similar tendency with Hinduism in India, or Islam in Pakistan, but atheism and theism are not regional issues per se, and therefore when they're discussed on the world-wide-web it behoves people to take a more cosmopolitan attitude towards them.