Thread: Ten things Atheists and Christians can agree on

I disagree with the celebrating someone's death.



When Hitler died, I'm pretty sure I'd of cheered. Like the rest of the free world.

Hitler? I'm not sure he offed himself in that bunker.

12 things to agree on hmmm..

1. Freedom of speach.

2. Freedom of religion.

3. FREEDOM FROM HARASSMENT.

4. Freedom to be secure in our homes from unreasonable door knocking fundies from ANY mindset.

5. Freedom to disengage a conversation of ideology, politics, religion or ANYTHING that you don't want to listen to.

6. Freedom from un-solicited harassing phone calls from sales persons, political agendas, fund raisers and religious groups. If you don't know them or have business with them that THEY are interested in.

7. FREEDOM

I do not think people should be allowed to go door to door to preach their religion or political agenda. I don't think they should be allowed to APPROACH people on the street. I do feel they should be allowed to get a permit to use Street corners, Parks etc. for that purpose. Then any one interested can approach them.

Originally Posted by Quester

Hitler? I'm not sure he offed himself in that bunker.

Either way hes fucking dead.

I gloat at him.

The only point I disagree with is point 1.

You can't do terrible things in the 'name of atheism', just like you can't do terrible things in the name of 'not believing in unicorns'. Atheism isn't a thing, it's a lack of a thing ("Soft atheism", at least. Militant atheism is just stupid.)

Also, one of the points was that 'we aren't all that different in everyday life'. The only difference between non-believers and hardcore believers is that the fundies hate people. I don't hate anyone I know, not to mention those I don't. Any theist who shares this outlook can be counted a friend, as far as I'm concerned. The real trouble is those who hate. It's not a war, it's a rebellion against these few extreme people who hate.

Hitler was just trying to cleanse the lesser populations of the world, why do people always have to use him as an example of ultimate evil?

No but seriously in my particular belief system he wasn't evil, just a very ignorant soul, and so while it might have been very necessary to put him to rest along with Stalin, Mao and other pro-eugenics fascists but then once he's dead, his spirit has to be faced with all that BS he did and therefore all I feel I could do is mourn for his poor, ignorant soul that went through a particular upbringing that left him completely insane.

But for that you need to believe in a soul.

I think Hitler was a good man.

Originally Posted by Michael

I think Hitler was a good man.

More proof that 'good' and 'bad' are entirely subjective terms.

Originally Posted by Carôusoul

But for that you need to believe in a soul.

Granted, but I still don't think I'd cheer him being killed in itself. I might cheer that the age of brutality has ended but its still a dick move to say... tie his body to the back of a car and parade it through the streets or something because I still see him as simply a profoundly ignorant person caught up in the false logic of eugenics combined with being a product of his environment and frankly it all just got twisted. I may hate him as a living being because he would continue to commit atrocities but after he's dead, he deserves only pity.

I disagree with the last one. Atheists can harass theists out of existence. I hope. I'd be happy with out of the government.

Seriously, I think if the human race survives long enough, reason will prevail and god will be dead.

Originally Posted by Keeper

Ignore the pictures

Wow. I think this guy got to the heart of that matter ...

what do you guys think?

the pictures were the best part!

YOU ALL HATE ON CATHOLICS!

UNTIL YOU NEED AN EXORCISM!

Originally Posted by Moonbeam

I disagree with the last one. Atheists can harass theists out of existence. I hope. I'd be happy with out of the government.

Seriously, I think if the human race survives long enough, reason will prevail and god will be dead.

This reminds me of a conversation I once had. I was listening to an ex neo-nazi speak about tolerance and equality. A black girl sitting in front of me made a comment about how she wanted to get all white people out of the government and make it entirely black. I asked her how it would be any different; how trading one controlling race for another would be an improvement. The only thing she could say was it "would show you (and the other whiteys apparently) what it was like"

My response to her and to you are the same; your intolerance will never cure another's intolerance.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

My response to her and to you are the same; your intolerance will never cure another's intolerance.

I was actually joking, since it seems like we (atheists) are trying to do that here at DV; I know that can't happen as a matter of force, just education, adn I wouldn't want it any other way. I don't think religion should be outlawed or anything, I would never advocate something like that; that is totally wrong, impossible, etc.

I do think that religion as people practice it is kind of like other things that have died out as people have become more advanced and scientific-minded. The more extreme parts of religion (sacrificing people, etc.) are gone; I would assume that it's only a matter of time, if people continue to advance and don't degenerate or something, til the rest is gone too. For example, very few people anymore think that praying for rain is actually going to help, except maybe for a few people and a governor in the south-east U.S.

As much as I believe in free speech, I really don't see what's wrong with limiting it under very specific circumstances; those circumstances concerning anyone who is advocating that others' rights be restricted (for example, neonazis, etc.)

I am not being intolerant to the point that I think people should have their rights taken away. I don't think me saying what I think is being intolerant. Do you? Do you think disagreeing with people and saying that you do is being intolerant? Because that's all I've ever done, including the remark above about "harrassment". I would hope that you would join in the "intolerance" of, for example, religious people who wanted to sacrifice children, or something equally crazy. Or would you support their right to practice their beliefs as they see fit, without interference from non-believers?

Yeah you can see what happens when one controlling race gets replaced by another in Darfur and Rwanda.

that site has some really interesting pictures

Eww... I've had communion wafers... I didn't know they meant the literal body of christ...

Originally Posted by metcalfracing

Eww... I've had communion wafers... I didn't know they meant the literal body of christ...

Nah, communion wafers are not convincing at all... they didn't even get the food group right.

Imagine how creepy it'd be if you were eating some type of meat in Communion.

Originally Posted by Moonbeam

I was actually joking, since it seems like we (atheists) are trying to do that here at DV; I know that can't happen as a matter of force, just education, adn I wouldn't want it any other way. I don't think religion should be outlawed or anything, I would never advocate something like that; that is totally wrong, impossible, etc.

I do think that religion as people practice it is kind of like other things that have died out as people have become more advanced and scientific-minded. The more extreme parts of religion (sacrificing people, etc.) are gone; I would assume that it's only a matter of time, if people continue to advance and don't degenerate or something, til the rest is gone too. For example, very few people anymore think that praying for rain is actually going to help, except maybe for a few people and a governor in the south-east U.S.

As much as I believe in free speech, I really don't see what's wrong with limiting it under very specific circumstances; those circumstances concerning anyone who is advocating that others' rights be restricted (for example, neonazis, etc.)

I am not being intolerant to the point that I think people should have their rights taken away. I don't think me saying what I think is being intolerant. Do you? Do you think disagreeing with people and saying that you do is being intolerant? Because that's all I've ever done, including the remark above about "harrassment". I would hope that you would join in the "intolerance" of, for example, religious people who wanted to sacrifice children, or something equally crazy. Or would you support their right to practice their beliefs as they see fit, without interference from non-believers?

Must you resort to silly straw men tactics to vilify people you don't agree with? I obviously don't have to worry about whether or not I would be tolerant of people sacrificing children; they aren't around.

Where is your moral relativism? Its my understanding that its supposed to go hand in hand with atheism. Where does the universal rightness that you are implying come from?

As much as I believe in free speech, I really don't see what's wrong with limiting it under very specific circumstances; those circumstances concerning anyone who is advocating that others' rights be restricted (for example, neonazis, etc.)

Do realize how completely ridiculously contradictory this statement is? You essentially just said that you advocate restricting the freedom of speech for those that advocate the restricting of freedom. You do realize that your own statements would fall under your restrictions, right?

There are several problems with limiting rights based on another's beliefs. In the example of attempting to silence neo-nazis, it would effectively open the door to silence others who oppose the moral majority, like homosexuals, pro-choice advocates, and atheists to name a few. It would also give the government free reign to take anything you say out of context and accuse you of a crime.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

Must you resort to silly straw men tactics to vilify people you don't agree with? I obviously don't have to worry about whether or not I would be tolerant of people sacrificing children; they aren't around.

I notice how you don't answer the question. I guess you don't think the answer would sound very good.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

Where is your moral relativism? Its my understanding that its supposed to go hand in hand with atheism. Where does the universal rightness that you are implying come from?

We've already had this argument, remember? You understand wrong. You're the relativist, not me. The "rightness" is the from the fact that we all know that sentient beings want to avoid suffering. I don't need a god to tell me that, and at the same time tell me to ignore it in a lot of cases.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

Do realize how completely ridiculously contradictory this statement is? You essentially just said that you advocate restricting the freedom of speech for those that advocate the restricting of freedom. You do realize that your own statements would fall under your restrictions, right?

Yes, I know it contradictory. It's just something I threw out there, I'm not saying it should be done or anything. I know in Germany they have strict laws about what you can say about the holocaust, but otherwise in most ways it is a free society, so I guess it's sort of being done somewhere. It seems to me that would be possible to have the right to free speech--with one major exception: you cannot advocate taking rights away from any particular group of people. Probably wouldn't work, you're right about that.

I don't know where you live, but on interstate highways there are groups that will "adopt" a stretch of them. That means they will pick up the trash and keep that part clean. Where I used to live, the KKK "adopted" the highway. I can't remember the details, but people tried to stop them and failed, and ultimately they got the right to put up their sign. Of course they get dumploads of trash thrown on their part of the highway, and their sign always gets stolen, so they got what they deserved anyway. That's an example of how I think the freedoms of those that advocate limiting the freedoms of others should not always be respected. The KKK shouldn't get to put a sign on an interstate highway. In that extreme case we can count on the general public breaking the law to attack them, but in other cases it is more subtle.

I wonder what stops the KKK from putting up billboards--those are cheap. Maybe there is something else, I don't know. Could be the vandalism, but you'd think they'd try.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

There are several problems with limiting rights based on another's beliefs. In the example of attempting to silence neo-nazis, it would effectively open the door to silence others who oppose the moral majority, like homosexuals, pro-choice advocates, and atheists to name a few. It would also give the government free reign to take anything you say out of context and accuse you of a crime.

I'm sure it would be abused by the government so that's why I don't really think it should be done. I agree with the last sentence, but the first part you are missing the point. The "majority" wouldn't be the ones deciding--the whole object would be to protect the minority. It seems like if it was kept very simple--say what you want, but don't advocate taking the rights of others away, it might be possible. I meant more for groups like the KKK, etc. than individuals, altho in some instances if the person was a politician or something it might apply.

There are some limis to free speech now, so it's not like it would be the first one. You can say what you like, as long as you are not lying about someone, right?

Originally posted by metcalfracing:
Eww... I've had communion wafers... I didn't know they meant the literal body of christ...

Wow....talk about sheeple....yea, stick it in my mouth, I don't know what it is, but that's OK!

Originally Posted by Moonbeam

Wow....talk about sheeple....yea, stick it in my mouth, I don't know what it is, but that's OK!

i have not been to church in years but i always liked communion wafers. I’ve been pitching the idea of making a breakfast cereal out of them

Originally Posted by Matt5678

i have not been to church in years but i always liked communion wafers. I’ve been pitching the idea of making a breakfast cereal out of them

Woudn't that be just a little greedy? What is Christ gonna say, you eating up so much of his body every morning? I don't think you should complain if they get soggy either.

Are they that good? Maybe I've been missing something. Probably too many carbs anyway tho.

It all depends on what type of church you go to. Catholics have the recipe down for flat bread.

Originally Posted by Matt5678

i have not been to church in years but i always liked communion wafers. I’ve been pitching the idea of making a breakfast cereal out of them

Don't take your queues from Dane Cook. Christ Chex anyone?