11 Ways Christians Are Like Atheists

Note: I have written an explanation of this post.

This question is usually posed the other way around, where someone expresses how atheists are like religious people. However, the framing of the question itself creates a bias, namely by insinuating that atheists are inferior and have the burden of proof to show that they are as worthy as Christians.

Just consider any time that someone from either camp has argued how atheists have morals too, or how atheists also have faith on some things, or how atheists also experience awe and wonder at the universe. The points are valid, but we shouldn’t have to argue them in the first place. So, this post will run the questions and arguments flipped. Why are Christians as worthy as atheists? Let’s sprinkle some religious arguments in here just for fun.

1. Christians also defer to science for *almost* everything (“Atheists also have faith”)

Given that Christians are reading this right now, they are using some electronic device. Perhaps it is the fringe case where they are somehow reading a hard copy of this, which in turn came from an electronic device. Nonetheless, I’m happy to congratulate them. Though they may not know the inner workings of electromagnetism or quantum mechanics—or even believe in them at all—they have managed to willingly use a computer, smartphone, or tablet, which all sprang from human reason.

In addition, most Christians wash their hands, are vaccinated, take their doctor’s suggestions seriously, and basically trust science more than anything else in dealing with their health. They probably move around using a car or motorized transport system, also created by science. When on the edge of a tall building, they don’t jump off, because they believe in gravity just like we do. For almost every aspect of their lives, they use science as the primary tool.

2. Christians secretly doubt the existence of God (“Atheists secretly believe in God”)

As shown above, despite their nominal objections to science, Christians obviously still believe in it. Skepticism is a tenet of science, and Christians who embrace science—specifically, all of them—show that they don’t really with absolutely certainty believe in God. They secretly doubt the existence of God, even though they are too afraid to say it, because they are afraid of being socially ostracized.

After all, isn’t even an evolution-doubter still using doubt?

3. Christians don’t believe in Zeus, Thor, or Vishnu either (“Atheists must believe in something“)

We all treat mythology as what it is—mythology. If asked to write a list of gods we don’t believe, we would both have lists that would span thousands of names. Christians just stop one god short. Here is an extremely abridged list of gods throughout human history (source):

other gods

4. Christians must secretly worship the devil (“Atheists must secretly worship the devil”)

Atheists don’t even believe the devil exists, so how could we worship it? Christians, on the other hand…

5. Christians can also be intelligent (“The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God.” Psalm 14:1)

While Christians comprise 73% of the total US population, only 7% of the elite National Academy of Sciences believes in a god. On the other hand, atheists/agnostics, at 5.7% of the total US population, comprise the other 93%. This means that, picked randomly from the population of the United States, an atheist/agnostic is 170 times more likely to be in the National Academy of Sciences than a Christian. And this is assuming the 7% is all Christian; adding Jews and/or Hindus into the mix causes the disparity to rise even higher.

Of course, atheists on average have higher IQs than religious people. Even regarding religious knowledge, atheists score highest, quite ironically (or quite expectedly, depending on how you look at it). But this does not mean all religious people are unintelligent. Some are indeed very intelligent, and indeed, even they can contribute positively to human knowledge.

6. Christians can have morals too (“Atheists can have morals too”)

While it’s easy for atheists to think in a situation and decide what is right or wrong, it’s much more difficult for Christians who have been trained to defer to a two-thousand year old book to decide what to do and are not allowed to think for themselves, though usually they do. For instance, an atheist might see a gay couple and say, “They are not interfering with my life, so I’ll let them be.” However, a Christian has to weigh the prescribed death sentence on one hand and secular thinking on the other. “Am I obligated to follow up Leviticus 20:13 with my own hands, or does it suffice to contact the authorities? Or, is Leviticus complete rubbish, despite Jesus’ saying that the Old Testament still applies?”

Since I have rarely observed a Christian actually calling for the death of a gay person, despite their divine imperative to do so, I can reasonably conclude that most Christians use reason, not faith, in making moral decisions, and thus have morals too.

Of course, this does not mean that Christians are automatically equally as moral as atheists. At 2.4% of the total US population (excluding self-described agnostics this time), atheists make up 0.07% of the US prison population. An atheist is thus 34 times less likely to be in prison than the average American.

7. Christians can also have humility (“Why are atheists so arrogant?”)

While atheists understand the relative significance of their roles in this enormous cosmos consisting of billions of galaxies, each with billions of stars, each with chances for planets that contain billions of individuals, Christians find humility much more difficult. They believe that out of all the billions of billions of possible worlds to choose from, an omnipotent, omniscient God chose them to share His love with, that the entire universe was designed for their temporary experience, that out of the stupefying vastness of the universe, they are special.

religion-location

(Source: imgur)

In addition, any Christian who has prayed to God for intervention must think that they know better than God in that instance regarding what to do. “I know you’re kinda the creator of the universe and are infallible and such, but I think you messed up by afflicting my mother with cancer. If you would kindly remove the cancer, that would be great.” Such arrogance to question God like that.

But anyways, some Christians, namely the ones who are least Christian and believe the least of all the nonsense, still do have humility.

8. Christians can also experience awe and wonder (“Atheists can also experience awe and wonder”)

Atheists look at nature and see wonder everywhere and experience awe in the fact that a set of rules with no inherent design could lead to such an amazing world. On the other hand, Christians believe there is a God that is omnipotent, capable of anything, thus everything they see is merely the result of an all-powerful being, so everything is supremely unimpressive. They wouldn’t experience much awe in watching a champion Olympic weightlifter lift a 1-pound weight.

Of course, this brings us to the issue of whether a Christian who claims to experience awe is a Christian in the first place. After all, if a Christian proclaims to be in awe, isn’t this Christian really an atheist, since only an atheist can truly be in awe? Of course, if one twists the definitions of awe and wonder, it might be possible that Christians can experience them too, only to a lesser degree.

9. Christians can also be happy (“Can atheists be happy?”)

Even though Christians have to always worry about burning in eternal fire, it’s entirely possible for them so believe so strongly that they will be saved that the thought will not trouble them for most of their conscious life. Hence, even Christians can also be happy, even if paralyzing fear is always in the back of their minds.

10. Christians can also love (“Atheists are incapable of love”)

Atheists get to experience genuine love without having to be told. Christians, on the other hand, love because they are commanded to by Jesus, and they desperately want to be on Jesus’ good side when judgment rolls around. It’s hard to call this fake display of affection “love,” but I guess we’ll let it slide.

11. Christians can be good people too (“Atheists can be good people too”)

Is it possible to be good with God? I think the answer is yes. Every year, dozens of Christians manage to survive without being racist, misogynistic, homophobic, judgmental, hypocritical, intolerant, superficial, proselytizing, antisemitic, islamophobic, anti-other-faiths, anti-atheist, closed minded, arrogant, or willfully ignorant. So yes, it’s certainly possible.

On the whole, Christians aren’t all that different from atheists, and as we can see from above, they’re not that inferior. Given time, they will see the error of their ways, and when they do, we should gladly welcome them into the ranks of the godless. We are all children of evolution, and we all walk the path we are given, and let those who are given more windy paths go on until they again reach the main path towards a better human society. We must meet one another doing good. “But I believe, I’m a Christian!” But do good: we will meet one another there.

The Use of Rhetoric to Obscure a Lack of Meaningful Content

The case under inspection, which, to a dramatically marked extent, has been thoroughly investigated by the most qualified experts in this obscure field, is now shown, by empirical, rational means, to be false.

First, the case lacks clarity. Even when the case was presented before the most intelligent, capable judge, who had solved many problems liked this one before, it confounded the judge upon first impression. So arcane was its topic that, even if the judge had the power of hindsight, which would normally solve problems in cases as convoluted as this one, the case would have appeared just as enigmatic, just as obscure, just as meaningless. Perhaps, to ground our own investigation of this case, we may start by asking ourselves the question, What are the origins of this case?

In this case, the origins are exceedingly difficult to find. They may lie anywhere, from the Arctic to the Antarctic, from the deserts to the rainforests, from Cambridge to Oxford. Was it, perhaps, discovered by a mountaineer? Or uncovered by an archeologist? Or simply invented by a time-traveler? Where did the elegantly transcribed manuscripts of this case come from? There is, at the moment, no way of finding the location of the case’s birth.

But what about the time? Certainly, if we do not know the spacial origins of the case, we may attempt to ascertain to a degree, if you will, its temporal signature. After a painstaking, technological method that took process over two days, analyzing the concentrations of various particles found within the lofty confines of the case, three experts gathered that this case was made some time in the last two-thousand years, with a percentage error of about give or take thirty-two-point-three-three, repeating of course, percent. As broad as this conclusion may sound, it does eliminate a vast group of historical figures from consideration, including Homer, if we assume the conservative side of the time estimate. Perhaps the most well-known, and perhaps the most likely, of all the figures remaining to choose from is Oscar Wilde. This man once passed customs at an international boundary saying, “I have nothing to declare but my genius.” If, on the other hand, he had some manuscript of non-genius quality, he must, of course, have left it the customs office. This could promptly explain why the case was found where it was, in a highly obscure place, and why its quality level was remarkably non-genius.

Now, the purpose of the case is, at the moment, still indeterminate. Regarding the topic of the main manuscript found inside, did the author intend to make an argument, clarify a previous stance, describe an ironic situation? It would not seem easy for one to find the purposes without first knowing its origins. However, as for another entirely separate point, the impreciseness of the written manuscript marks its source as possibly an immature writer, an amateur writer lacking in the wit and style of English grammar. Thus, the list of possible authors may be narrowed down dramatically by the elimination of all graduates from Harvard University, for in that idealized society, there is one required course quite concisely named Expository Writing, and it is most clearly evident that the writer of the manuscript had not taken, or at least had not had passed, such a course.

What does this expose about the purpose of the manuscript? Simply, the only revelation is that the manuscript was not meant for submission in the Harvard Review of Rhetoric, for if it was, then it must have been the most cursed, abominable, loathsome, bloody treatise ever submitted to any any somewhat reputable institution whose age exceeds three-hundred years but falls short of four-hundred.

A final point of investigation is that the values and limitations in this case are to be taken into consideration.  After carefully examination of the manuscript, I have deemed it of no value, especially if considered as a piece of dejectable rhetoric to whoever would suppose of it that way. However, it really has no limitations. It is, the magnificently crafted work, a true masterpiece of visual art, for there is nothing degrading, lacking, nauseating, deteriorating, harming, sickening, outrageous, lowering, humbling, offending, breaking, or otherwise false in it. Thus, while the manuscript is certainly regarded with a questionable value, it possesses, for sure, as demonstrated by its pure genius of composition, no limitations.

So, as the reader may ask, The case is incomprehensible, but so what? There are a number of ways of rendering this question an irrelevant one, but due to laziness, I will not, and will instead make an honest effort to answer it. You see, the case itself is quite irrelevant. Would it matter whether the manuscript was written by Oscar Wilde, or Ernest Hemingway, or Albert Einstein, or worse yet, someone who had gone to Harvard University and passed Expository Writing? Well, that does, I suppose, cause one importance in the otherwise insignificance of the case. Suppose Ernest Hemingway did compose this wonderful manuscript. Then he would have demonstrated, as Oscar Wilde put it, “The Importance of Being Earnest.” But, in the somewhat more likely case that the writer was not Earnest, then the case would be rendered quite irrelevant.

Even better yet, would the meaningful content, if ever uncovered despite in the perceived lack thereof, have any impact, however profound? Probably not, for it seems to have already made its sharpest contact with the world when it caused the minds of many experts to muddle around in its winding sentences, and thus it had already exerted more influence on a human scale that it ever likely will again. That said, if the content, if any, is suddenly realized, as if by eventual epiphany, and it has a sufficiently shocking message, then it is at least probable that some persuasion will be made.

Finally, any knowledge of the true purpose of the manuscript seems equally as unintelligible a quality. In the case of this manuscript, any data that could be found has probably already made some impact upon the world, despite what the perceived purpose is, even if the purpose is as urgent as a call to save the lives of millions of ants in a dying dirt pile close to you, not two blocks away from your home. For whatever purpose, the case has already been made.

The only glaring problem with the case is that it, by ordinary perception, appears too artificial, almost as if it were crafted by an insane mind, and not something of natural or divine origin. It is so unnecessarily complex that the only possible explanation, however unrealistic it may be, is that the case must be composed of both real and imaginary components. In all, experts and myself have thus concluded: The case is a lie.