# Atheists, and Dawkins, vs. Xians **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [January 3, 2009, 5:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-and-dawkins-vs-xians/479679 "2009-01-03T05:44:14Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 10
**Author:** ![Cuckoorex](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ad7895/32.png) [@Cuckoorex](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cuckoorex)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2009, 6:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-and-dawkins-vs-xians/479679/181 "2009-01-10T06:53:54Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > Nope. > As long as you use the term “Christian”, It’ll always be up in the air as to what parts of the Bible you follow out of sincere belief, what parts you follow out of societal necessity, and what parts you might _start_ following if society relaxes its watch. So the correct response is to assume that anyone who calls themselves “Christian” may at any moment begin accusing their neighbors of heresy and hooking up the strappado? ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2009, 7:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-and-dawkins-vs-xians/479679/182 "2009-01-10T07:07:00Z")
> [@Cuckoorex](#): > > So the correct response is to assume that anyone who calls themselves “Christian” may at any moment begin accusing their neighbors of heresy and hooking up the strappado? Maybe, maybe not. I’m more concerned about which side the (currently)more passive Christians might take if the more active Christians get their way. ---
**Author:** ![Uzi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/91b2a8/32.png) [@Uzi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Uzi)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2009, 7:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-and-dawkins-vs-xians/479679/183 "2009-01-10T07:11:13Z")
> [@Cuckoorex](#): > > So the correct response is to assume that anyone who calls themselves “Christian” may at any moment begin accusing their neighbors of heresy and hooking up the strappado? Well, if **FinnAgain** is correct and there is a genetic link to non-rational thought then maybe they will because they can’t help themselves. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Second\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bbe5ce/32.png) [@The\_Second\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Second_Stone)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2009, 7:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-and-dawkins-vs-xians/479679/184 "2009-01-10T07:16:20Z")
Most human beings need and want and believe in the divine. It’s cruel to badger people about their religious beliefs. Aggressive atheism strikes me as unclear on the concept. But what do I know, I’m a theist who respects atheists and how they got there. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2009, 7:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-and-dawkins-vs-xians/479679/185 "2009-01-10T07:37:32Z")
> [@cosmosdan](#): > > The argument that mankind will be, or would have been, better off without religion is an opinion that really has no legs to stand on. Of course, I can only speculate on what history would been like without religion, but I feel confident in saying we’d be better without it _now_ (or at least with it firmly relegated to the background) simply by comparing modern societies where religion (or some comparably dogmatic political ideology) has a key political influence compared to societies where it is not. I figure two generations will be required before the Americans are as uncomfortable mixing politics and religion as they should be. > [@](#): > > Since we like to be accurate here and unsubstantiated beliefs are just opinions, that should apply to believers and non believers as well. My opinion is not entirely groundless, though. I see a lot of people trying to move to the liberal democracies - I don’t see a lot of people trying to move to Iran. > [@](#): > > **DT** is the fundamentalist of atheism in that his arguments have the same style and value as the arguments of fundie Christians. If you think “God said it so I believe it’s fact” is a stupid argument without any facts to support it then **DT** s “I said it so I believe it’s fact” without factual support is equally as stupid and empty. > > The fact that you prefer one argument over the other doesn’t change that. What evidence, if any, would cause you to reconsider the idea that atheism and theism are equally arbitrary? ---
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2009, 8:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-and-dawkins-vs-xians/479679/186 "2009-01-10T08:09:25Z")
> [@Grumman](#): > > I think you misunderstood his point, which I took to be that just because you can ape the sentence structure of a statement, does mean the two statements are still equally valid if you are changing _all_ of the particulars. You can change all the particulars (and between Liberalism and religion, very few are changed), and having a negative reaction to all the members of a group is still bigotry. And please, don’t give me the dodge about how it’s okay to be bigoted against people if they’re irrational/delusional/what have you. It’s not like atheists are Vulcans in any case. > [@Grumman](#): > > Hence, the difference between calling religious beliefs stupid and delusional because they value ancient myths over physical evidence Do you not know any religious people but fundamentalists? Serious question here. An agnostic theist wouldn’t value myth above fact or try to gainsay fact with belief. I’ve never met an agnostic theist who, for instance, resorted to a God of the gaps argument, ever. Why, then, your inability to recognize that some folks’ religious beliefs are neither stupid nor delusional, and the inability to recognize individual humans because you can’t see past a stereotype? > [@Grumman](#): > > For the same reasons, a belief in the Christian God, ignoring the complete lack of evidence for his existence and the evidence against the existence of a benevolent, interventionist deity overseeing a world plagued by violence and natural disasters, is irrational. Well, then hopefully you’ve got no problem with all the Christians (or any of the millions of other religious people) who don’t believe in an omnibenevolent interventionist deity at all, and you’ll admit that your statements about the inherent problems with religion simply don’t apply to those outside your narrow definition, and thus, you’ve committed the fallacy of composition to falsely ignore the variations in modern religious thought, and then the fallacy of division to ascribe that false gloss to all Christians? ---
**Author:** ![Nzinga\_Seated](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/b5ac83/32.png) [@Nzinga\_Seated](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nzinga_Seated)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2009, 8:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-and-dawkins-vs-xians/479679/187 "2009-01-10T08:13:22Z")
> [@FinnAgain](#): > > You can change all the particulars (and between Liberalism and religion, very few are changed), and having a negative reaction to all the members of a group is still bigotry. Ok! Now we are getting somewhere. I am definitely a bigot by this definition. ---
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2009, 8:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-and-dawkins-vs-xians/479679/188 "2009-01-10T08:24:11Z")
> [@Nzinga\_Seated](#): > > Ok! Now we are getting somewhere. I am definitely a bigot by this definition. Lots of people are. Part of the job of becoming a responsible citizen is dealing with and eliminating one’s bigotry, whether it’s against blacks or gays or people with different politics or what have you. A thorough training in logical fallacies actually helps if you can teach a child early enough. Of course, as pointed out above, it isn’t bigotry when one is dealing with morally reprehensible actions/crimes/what have you. Saying that you have a negative reaction to those who rape and murder isn’t bigotry, it’s a response to the crimes someone has committed. Saying that you have a negative reaction to those who do yoga, or pranayama, or meditate, or find Christian religious rituals to be soothing? That’s another kettle of fish. In general, tolerance does not mean one has to tolerate bigotry/racism/hatred/crime/etc… That’s a canard and a tired one, often advanced by those same racists. Or, I suppose, even worse to some of the posters on the Dope… [Michelle Malkin!](http://michellemalkin.com/2005/04/01/the-myth-of-liberal-tolerance/) 😉 ---
**Author:** ![Grumman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/43a26b/32.png) [@Grumman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grumman)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2009, 9:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-and-dawkins-vs-xians/479679/189 "2009-01-10T09:47:10Z")
> [@FinnAgain](#): > > You can change all the particulars (and between Liberalism and religion, very few are changed), and having a negative reaction to all the members of a group is still bigotry. Even if that negative reaction to all members of a group is because of a negative trait possessed by all members of that group? > [@](#): > > Do you not know any religious people but fundamentalists? Serious question here. An agnostic theist wouldn’t value myth above fact or try to gainsay fact with belief. I’ve never met an agnostic theist who, for instance, resorted to a God of the gaps argument, ever. Then why do they believe at all? What possible reason is there to believe that God exists, if they believe not only that there is no proof of His existence, but also that there _cannot_ be proof of His existence? > [@](#): > > Well, then hopefully you’ve got no problem with all the Christians (or any of the millions of other religious people) who don’t believe in an omnibenevolent interventionist deity at all, and you’ll admit that your statements about the inherent problems with religion simply don’t apply to those outside your narrow definition, and thus, you’ve committed the fallacy of composition to falsely ignore the variations in modern religious thought, and then the fallacy of division to ascribe that false gloss to all Christians? I’m sorry, I must have mistaken Christianity for some _other_ religion which was founded upon the concept of Divine Grace, and whose holy book says things like “Truly I say to you, whoever says to this mountain, ‘Be taken up and cast into the sea,’ and does not doubt in his heart, but believes that what he says is going to happen, it will be granted him. Therefore I say to you, all things for which you pray and ask, believe that you have received them, and they will be granted you.” Wait, no I didn’t. You also (deliberately?) ignored my other point, that even if there was no evidence directly opposing His supposed existence, that’s still no more reason to believe in Him than in Cthulhu. ---
**Author:** ![Malacandra](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Malacandra](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malacandra)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2009, 10:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-and-dawkins-vs-xians/479679/190 "2009-01-10T10:28:47Z")
> [@I\_Love\_Me\_Vol.I](#): > > Any Christian who doesn’t desire to smite/stone to death/burn etc. homosexuals isn’t doing it right. The Bible is pretty clear on this. Millions of “Christians” think they can choose which part of God’s Word to obey and which part not to. > > Sorry, you don’t get to make the rules, Yahweh does. I see these pretenders as having each developed their own, personal religion _based_ on Christianity (usually very loosely so) but sorely lacking in either their knowledge or acceptance of true Christianity. It’s funny you should speak of a sore lack of knowledge of true Christianity. The law of Moses said that adulteresses should be put to death. Remember Jesus saying something about this? The law of Moses said that no work should be done on the Sabbath. Remember Jesus saying something about this? Remember Jesus attracting criticism on numerous occasions for not following the law of Moses? Christians follow Jesus and stone neither adulteresses, nor homosexuals, nor people who do their fellow-man good on the Sabbath; and your No True Christian argument needs a little work. ---
**Author:** ![Cuckoorex](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ad7895/32.png) [@Cuckoorex](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cuckoorex)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2009, 10:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-and-dawkins-vs-xians/479679/191 "2009-01-10T10:31:18Z")
> [@Grumman](#): > > Then why do they believe at all? What possible reason is there to believe that God exists, if they believe not only that there is no proof of His existence, but also that there _cannot_ be proof of His existence? Maybe they’re fideists? ---
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2009, 11:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-and-dawkins-vs-xians/479679/192 "2009-01-10T11:03:07Z")
> [@Grumman](#): > > Even if that negative reaction to all members of a group is because of a negative trait possessed by all members of that group? Were it accurate, then yes. As you’re simply stereotyping religious people without any attention paid, at all, to their individual beliefs and quirks, then no. It’s actually a fairly simple situation. When you have membership in a group where that membership defines the group, you can make generalizations. All child molesters molest children. All Muslims follow the Islamic faith. All dogs are canines. However, when you try to ascribe specific theological beliefs to roughly two billion human beings, without paying the least bit of attention to the massive variation? No, not so accurate. > [@Grumman](#): > > Then why do they believe at all? Why do some people believe swiss is tastier than cheddar? You also didn’t answer the question, so I’ll take that as a “no, I only know religious fundamentalists and I’m generalizing from them far more than my sample size and data would allow.” > [@Grumman](#): > > What possible reason is there to believe that God exists, if they believe not only that there is no proof of His existence, but also that there _cannot_ be proof of His existence? You might have an interesting time asking an agnostic theist and getting at their motivations and aesthetic appreciation of the universe. You’d have a tough time if your mindset is that they’re stupid delusional weirdos, however. Suffice it to say, yes, there are people who believe that God exists, who freely admit that the claim exists beyond the realm of proof and falsification, and are happily okay with their faith and ask nothing of you, at all, other than you do what you yourself believe in. > [@Grumman](#): > > I’m sorry, I must have mistaken Christianity for some _other_ religion which was founded upon the concept of Divine Grace, and whose holy book says things like “Truly I say to you, whoever says to this mountain, ‘Be taken up and cast into the sea,’ and does not doubt in his heart, but believes that what he says is going to happen, it will be granted him. Therefore I say to you, all things for which you pray and ask, believe that you have received them, and they will be granted you.” I’m sorry, is it that No True Christian would eat his porridge with sugar? You do, I’m sure, also realize that this line of attack is the exact same as people who are bigoted against all Muslims? “I’m sorry, I must have mistaken Islam for some _other_ religion that was founded by someone whose concept of conversion was tied to violence and which says that Jews are the sons of apes and pigs.” All I can say is that I’d advise you to get out and talk to a bunch of actual Christians to see just how vast the spectrum of belief can be amongst them. If you don’t even know that “Grace” means different things to different Christians, and many Christians pick and choose which bits of the Bible they believe and how they interpret them… as just a starting point, you really need to dig much deeper before you make sweeping generalizations. > [@Grumman](#): > > You also (deliberately?) ignored my other point, that even if there was no evidence directly opposing His supposed existence, that’s still no more reason to believe in Him than in Cthulhu. I already specifically addressed that dynamic by pointing out that for many, it’s an issue of _aesthetics and not epistemology_. In fact, I did that _before_ your post, so _you ignored what I said_. (deliberately? 😛 ) Some people simply find the concept of a God more aesthetically appealing than a reality without a higher power. Just like some people inherently prefer an aesthetic worldview where there is a “limitless potential of mankind” or “true love that lasts past death”, or what have you. ---
**Author:** ![ivan\_astikov](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/58f4c7/32.png) [@ivan\_astikov](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ivan_astikov)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2009, 12:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-and-dawkins-vs-xians/479679/193 "2009-01-10T12:06:16Z")
If you are equating “There is a god, and he is good.” with “limitless potential of mankind” or “true love that lasts past death”, as an example of positivistic beliefs, you have to explain why the latter 2 haven’t built up a complex system to validate their claims. Why does “There is a god, and he is good.” have to work so hard to convince us of its worth, if it is an undeniable truth just waiting for the honest seeker of knowledge to find? ---
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2009, 12:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-and-dawkins-vs-xians/479679/194 "2009-01-10T12:29:14Z")
I never claimed that any of those are undeniable truths just waiting to be found. In fact, I’ve made quite clear that this is an aesthetic and not an epistemological matter and for agnostic theists it’s not about convincing anybody of anything. But you already knew that. I might also belabor the point and note that “limitless” denotes infinity, and other than mathematical infinity, you cannot prove that infinity is not only possible but an existential reality. Yes, even at zombocom. ---
**Author:** ![LurkMeister](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/3da27b/32.png) [@LurkMeister](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LurkMeister)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2009, 2:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-and-dawkins-vs-xians/479679/195 "2009-01-10T14:36:26Z")
> [@I\_Love\_Me\_Vol.I](#): > > Any Christian who doesn’t desire to smite/stone to death/burn etc. homosexuals isn’t doing it right. The Bible is pretty clear on this. Millions of “Christians” think they can choose which part of God’s Word to obey and which part not to. > > Sorry, you don’t get to make the rules, Yahweh does. I see these pretenders as having each developed their own, personal religion _based_ on Christianity (usually very loosely so) but sorely lacking in either their knowledge or acceptance of true Christianity. Assuming you’re actually serious about this, then you must also follow _all_ the rules laid out in the Old Testament regarding such things as keeping kosher, not working on the Sabbath, etc, etc. I don’t have time now, or I’d dig out the list of all the rules you must live by. Or do you also just choose which portions of Yahweh’s rules you choose to follow? ---
**Author:** ![Malacandra](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Malacandra](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malacandra)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2009, 3:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-and-dawkins-vs-xians/479679/196 "2009-01-10T15:40:15Z")
> [@LurkMeister](#): > > Assuming you’re actually serious about this, then you must also follow _all_ the rules laid out in the Old Testament regarding such things as keeping kosher, not working on the Sabbath, etc, etc. I don’t have time now, or I’d dig out the list of all the rules you must live by. > > Or do you also just choose which portions of Yahweh’s rules you choose to follow? I believe you’ll find our palindromic friend is athier than thou, and merely mocks the pretence of actual Christians to keep God’s law - he doesn’t feel bound to follow any of it himself. ---
**Author:** ![LurkMeister](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/3da27b/32.png) [@LurkMeister](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LurkMeister)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2009, 3:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-and-dawkins-vs-xians/479679/197 "2009-01-10T15:47:57Z")
_looks overhead at the sound of the 747 which just flew overhead_ ---
**Author:** ![George\_Kaplin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/3e96dc/32.png) [@George\_Kaplin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/George_Kaplin)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2009, 3:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-and-dawkins-vs-xians/479679/198 "2009-01-10T15:57:29Z")
> [@Finnagain](#): > > Where to start, where to start… you’re ignorant of the fact that bigotry is still bigotry if it’s directed at the followers of a philosophy, like Liberalism or Christianity, or even a hobby like stamp collecting. The simple act of being able to choose membership in a group wouldn’t mean that bigotry is no longer bigotry. Hmm, I guess being a bigot isn’t so bad then. ---
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2009, 4:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-and-dawkins-vs-xians/479679/199 "2009-01-10T16:01:10Z")
Because I said that being able to opt in to a group doesn’t mean that you’re not a bigot if, without just cause, you hate and/or are intolerant of its members? That bigotry isn’t reserved only for those who are born into a certain group? ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2009, 4:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-and-dawkins-vs-xians/479679/200 "2009-01-10T16:21:09Z")
> [@George\_Kaplin](#): > > Hmm, I guess being a bigot isn’t so bad then. To me, that just raises the question of what the bigot label actually means, if anything. If it _isn’t_ bigotry when the target is “morally reprehensible” then what are the standards of reprehensibility? Are they written down somewhere? Can I get a link? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-and-dawkins-vs-xians/479679.md?page=9) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-and-dawkins-vs-xians/479679.md?page=11)