# 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:** 7
**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 6, 2009, 12:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-and-dawkins-vs-xians/479679/121 "2009-01-06T12:32:17Z")
> [@Nzinga\_Seated](#): > > Yeah. One could say that, but once it is established that everyone in the race war is racist, what is the point of one of them calling the other one that 30 times. It becomes senseless. I suppose we’ll have to agree to disagree. I don’t believe that repetition of a fact is a bad thing, or that continually pointing out why people deserve moral condemnation lessens the blow. I can accept that others do. > [@Nzinga\_Seated](#): > > As for ‘Agree with me or suffer eternal torment’, I actually thought that was a viewpoint for which Christians didn’t even bother to apologize. Isn’t that what John 3:16 is all about? Even if we interpret ‘perish’ as death instead of eternal torment (which the Christians I know don’t do, but I am no Theologian), then you still have to admit that most Christians think that they are obligated to not be very tolerant of a world view that would deny a fellow man eternal happiness with the Lord in Heaven. To be honest, on that point, I’m just not sure. I’ve seen no statical data one way or the other, and I’d rather not guess. ---
**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 6, 2009, 12:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-and-dawkins-vs-xians/479679/122 "2009-01-06T12:44:02Z")
What bugs me about Christianity, is how it thinks it can cancel the sins of The Crusades and The Inquisition with weekly get-togethers and a few church jumble sales. I realise they’ve moved on a bit since those rough patches on their PR resume, but I reckon it’d take more than general “do-gooding” to be forgiven for those excesses, if there is a god. Why would anyone want to remain associated with such nasty forerunners? ---
**Author:** ![Dunderman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ecb155/32.png) [@Dunderman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dunderman)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2009, 12:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-and-dawkins-vs-xians/479679/123 "2009-01-06T12:48:40Z")
I’ve read this thread with great interest and would like to inject my views. On Dawkins: I read _The God Delusion_ and loved it to bits. As far as I remember, I agreed with pretty much all of it. I don’t remember a single part of it where I thought Dawkins was being an asshole or unnecessarily abrasive. Apparently, he has been an asshole elsewhere but I don’t know much about him outside of this book. I read the short article by Dawkins where he says being brought up Catholic is worse than being sexually abused, and I do not in general agree with that (“in general” because I don’t think he is lying about the Catholic lady who made the same claim, but that is one person out of millions), and while that is close to the line, I don’t think he’s being an asshole. I also agree that it is harmful to bring children up Catholic. Why am I not crusading to take children away from Catholic parents? Simple: practicality. There is zero chance of something like that succeeding, and the attempt would not in any way help my cause but rather harm it. Which brings me neatly to **Der Trihs**. I agree with most of the things he says on religion and many of the things he says on politics. The problem I have with him is that he is so unyieldingly hostile that it is virtually impossible to engage him in conversation, and I think that’s counterproductive to his cause, which is annoying to me as it is in part my cause too. Furthermore, and foremost, once he has posted to a thread it’s pretty pointless for someone like me to post to it. All the attention is going to be centered on him and any hope of a productive conversation is gone. **Liberal** : I think you know me well enough to know that I don’t want you incarcerated or exterminated. I don’t consider you sick, crazy, dangerous, or an idiot. But yeah, I do consider you delusional. I consider all religious people delusional. It would be intellectually dishonest of me not to, and it would be cowardly of me to say otherwise. I do have one concern. You have explained that you were an atheist until one day you had an epiphany or a revelation when suddenly you knew with all certainty that there was a God and Jesus Christ was his son. That makes me wonder what stops you from one day having an epiphany or revelation which makes you suddenly know something else with the same amount of certainty, something a whole lot more harmful. Do I believe this will happen? No. Do I believe it’s a possibility? Yes. It scares me. As for my general views on religion, I agree with Dawkins and others that it is harmful and destructive, with very few exceptions. The good things that allegedly come from religion can be had without it, and it is my contention that religion causes bad things that would not have happened without religion. ---
**Author:** ![LurkMeister](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/3da27b/32.png) [@LurkMeister](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LurkMeister)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2009, 1:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-and-dawkins-vs-xians/479679/124 "2009-01-06T13:33:29Z")
> [@LurkMeister](#): > > you point to evil things that some people have done in the name of religion and claim that it was their belief in God that caused them to do them. [QUOTE=Der Trihs] Because it DOES. Because their religion demands it, and they follow those demands. Do you have any reason to believe otherwise, beyond an insistence that it just can’t work that way ? That if they do bad things, it MUST have some other cause than their religion ? When people SAY they do things because of their religion, when their religion says that they SHOULD do those things, and especially when they have no other reason to do so - why SHOULDN’T I take them at their word ? Why should I assume that they are lying ? You, of course want to assume they are lying, because that’s the only way you can shift the blame off of religion. [/quote] Do _you_ have any reason to keep insisting that it is religion that demands that people do evil things? Can you provide any evidence that religion, by it’s very nature, requires that people do evil things to support it? Listing evil things that religious organizations have done does not prove that it is the religious belief that made them do it. That’s like saying that money is, by it’s very nature, evil because people have done evil things to acquire it. People can _say_ that they are doing things in the name of religion when they are really doing it for personal power, or to line their pockets. Why do you refuse to accept the idea that they may be using religion as an excuse? After all, if they’re evil enough to oppress and kill, wouldn’t lying be a relatively minor transgression? > [@LurkMeister](#): > > Has it ever occurred to you that it may be the hatemongers, killers, and oppressors who have abandoned the core values of Christianity, or that they may be fanatics who would do these things regardless of their “religious” beliefs, and only use religion as an excuse? > [@Der Trihs](#): > > No, because it’s nonsense. As I just said, hatred and killing and tyranny are HOW Christianity got where it is today. And in many cases, their fanaticism wouldn’t motivate them to “do those things anyway”, because without their religion they wouldn’t have any motivation to do so. > > My comparison to Nazism wasn’t accidental; Christianity is much like a **successful** version of Nazism, one that succeeded in massacring it’s enemies and converting others by force, and then a thousand or two years latter mellowed. And at that point, people like you would emerge, and try to claim that the people who wanted to oppress and kill in the name of Nazism were perverting it, that Nazism was really all about love and peace. And you’d completely ignore history in the process. > > Christianity is, and always has been, at heart about hatred and oppression. You can pretend otherwise all you like, but that won’t change reality. Again, I would like a cite for your statement that “Christianity is, and always has been, at heart about hatred and oppression”. You have used this argument repeated whenever you discuss religion, but outside of listing all the evil things that people have done _in the name of religion_ you never explain how belief in God _requires_ that they do these evil things. And for the record, I do agree that religion has caused people to do evil things. So has the desire for money and possessions. But I don’t condemn money and possessions because of it. ---
**Author:** ![raindrop](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/74df32/32.png) [@raindrop](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/raindrop)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2009, 6:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-and-dawkins-vs-xians/479679/125 "2009-01-06T18:34:08Z")
> [@Heffalump\_and\_Roo](#): > > 😃 Hilarious! > Well yeah, I’ve often wondered that myself when people think I’m a guy. What guy would name themselves a cutesy name like mine. And I guess they just don’t notice or they’re left wondering. > But I don’t have that problem–the reason I named myself that was because I think it’s cute, I was watching the movie just before I registered and because I’m 100% female. I know I don’t debate like a girl, but I do most other things like one. 🆒 Ohhh, you’re a girl? Sorry, I had it wrong. Except now I wonder why I think it’s okay for a girl to be named **Heffalump and Roo** but not a guy? So what if a guy really did want a cutesy name? Shouldn’t be a big deal, right? Of course that’s a topic for another thread, but it’s an interesting question to contemplate. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2009, 8:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-and-dawkins-vs-xians/479679/126 "2009-01-06T20:50:16Z")
> [@LurkMeister](#): > > Do _you_ have any reason to keep insisting that it is religion that demands that people do evil things? Can you provide any evidence that religion, by it’s very nature, requires that people do evil things to support it? Listing evil things that religious organizations have done does not prove that it is the religious belief that made them do it. That’s like saying that money is, by it’s very nature, evil because people have done evil things to acquire it. Religion isn’t generic like money. It’s like racism. It’s premises are at best irrational and typically outright malignant. When a religion calls homosexuals evil, or demands that women submit to men, and that religion’s followers abuse or kill homosexuals and oppress women, why is it unfair to blame the religion that demands they do just that ? What would you say to someone who said that it was unfair to blame Nazism for the Holocaust, that it was all the fault of the people who actually carried it out and you shouldn’t judge Nazism as a whole over what they did ? > [@LurkMeister](#): > > People can _say_ that they are doing things in the name of religion when they are really doing it for personal power, or to line their pockets. Why do you refuse to accept the idea that they may be using religion as an excuse? Many of them are. Many of them aren’t. What you ignore that in many cases they have NO OTHER REASON than religion to do what they do. That what they do doesn’t give them profit, or power, or may even be outright self destructive. Why do YOU insist that religion isn’t to blame ? Is there anything - anything at all - that could get you to blame religion for something ? > [@LurkMeister](#): > > Again, I would like a cite for your statement that “Christianity is, and always has been, at heart about hatred and oppression”. You have used this argument repeated whenever you discuss religion, but outside of listing all the evil things that people have done _in the name of religion_ you never explain how belief in God _requires_ that they do these evil things. Because Christianity as a whole, specifically, is evil. An overwhelmingly aggressive, ruthless, tyrannical belief system, with a worldview that fundamentally lends itself to such behaviors, and a history of indulging in them. Belief in God is stupid, but not necessarily evil. And the occasional non-evil Christian does NOT let the religion as a whole off the hook; as I said, you can be a good person and a Christian, but that’s being a bad Christian. Like being a Nazi who shows mercy to Jews; good person, bad Nazi. And “listing all the evil things that people have done _in the name of religion_” is an excellent indictment in itself. Facts trump theory and ideology. > [@LurkMeister](#): > > And for the record, I do agree that religion has caused people to do evil things. So has the desire for money and possessions. But I don’t condemn money and possessions because of it. Money and possessions don’t demand that you commit evil. Nor are they delusional. ---
**Author:** ![LonesomePolecat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/a88e57/32.png) [@LonesomePolecat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LonesomePolecat)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2009, 9:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-and-dawkins-vs-xians/479679/127 "2009-01-06T21:32:16Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > Religion isn’t generic like money. It’s like racism. It’s premises are at best irrational and typically outright malignant. When a religion calls homosexuals evil, or demands that women submit to men, and that religion’s followers abuse or kill homosexuals and oppress women, why is it unfair to blame the religion that demands they do just that ? What would you say to someone who said that it was unfair to blame Nazism for the Holocaust, that it was all the fault of the people who actually carried it out and you shouldn’t judge Nazism as a whole over what they did ? > > Many of them are. Many of them aren’t. What you ignore that in many cases they have NO OTHER REASON than religion to do what they do. That what they do doesn’t give them profit, or power, or may even be outright self destructive. Why do YOU insist that religion isn’t to blame ? Is there anything - anything at all - that could get you to blame religion for something ? > > Because Christianity as a whole, specifically, is evil. An overwhelmingly aggressive, ruthless, tyrannical belief system, with a worldview that fundamentally lends itself to such behaviors, and a history of indulging in them. Belief in God is stupid, but not necessarily evil. And the occasional non-evil Christian does NOT let the religion as a whole off the hook; as I said, you can be a good person and a Christian, but that’s being a bad Christian. Like being a Nazi who shows mercy to Jews; good person, bad Nazi. > > And “listing all the evil things that people have done _in the name of religion_” is an excellent indictment in itself. Facts trump theory and ideology. > > Money and possessions don’t demand that you commit evil. Nor are they delusional. Ah, you gibbering loony, you! See your shrink about upping your meds. ---
**Author:** ![LurkMeister](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/3da27b/32.png) [@LurkMeister](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LurkMeister)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2009, 11:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-and-dawkins-vs-xians/479679/128 "2009-01-06T23:22:11Z")
> [@Der Trihs](#): > > When **a religion** calls homosexuals evil, or demands that women submit to men, and **that religion’s followers** abuse or kill homosexuals and oppress women, why is it unfair to blame the religion that demands they do just that ? What would you say to someone who said that it was unfair to blame Nazism for the Holocaust, that it was all the fault of the people who actually carried it out and you shouldn’t judge Nazism as a whole over what they did ? (bolding mine) Try reading what I asked, and attempt comprehension this time: > [@](#): > > Can you provide any evidence that religion, by it’s very nature, requires that people do evil things to support it? > [@Dictionary.com](#): > > Religion -"a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs. You insist on ascribing the actions of a **religious organization** to the **concept of religion** itself. If I were to found an organization dedicated to the preservation of the red-footed squirrel and then, in the name of that organization, advocate the destruction of everyone who lives in a given area in order to provide a habitat for red-footed squirrels, does that mean that _every_ organization dedicated to the preservation of red-footed squirrels is evil? I give up. You argue against religion the same way that some people argue for theism. You have decided, speaking (in the words of that great philosopher, Jubal Harshaw) _ex cathedra_ from your belly button, that religion is inherently evil, and respond to any requests for evidence of this by saying, “Because it is!” just like some theists cite the Bible as proof of God’s existence. ---
**Author:** ![Nancarrow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/c37758/32.png) [@Nancarrow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nancarrow)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2009, 11:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-and-dawkins-vs-xians/479679/129 "2009-01-06T23:25:03Z")
> [@LonesomePolecat](#): > > Ah, you gibbering loony, you! See your shrink about upping your meds. Bringing nothing to the table then? There’s a word for that on the intarwebz. ---
**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 6, 2009, 11:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-and-dawkins-vs-xians/479679/130 "2009-01-06T23:29:58Z")
I thought **Der Trihs** was only passionately opposed to Organised Religion? Has he shown any disdain for personal spirituality elsewhere, and I’ve missed it? ---
**Author:** ![Lord\_Ashtar](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7ea924/32.png) [@Lord\_Ashtar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lord_Ashtar)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2009, 11:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-and-dawkins-vs-xians/479679/131 "2009-01-06T23:37:21Z")
If you are a theist of any form, **Der Trihs** considers you an evil, hateful bigot and wishes death upon you. He wishes even more death upon you if you happen to be a member of the U.S. Armed Forces, particularly if you’re stationed in Iraq. ---
**Author:** ![Heffalump\_and\_Roo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/heffalump_and_roo/32/7691_2.png) [@Heffalump\_and\_Roo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Heffalump_and_Roo)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2009, 11:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-and-dawkins-vs-xians/479679/132 "2009-01-06T23:45:27Z")
> [@Nancarrow](#): > > Bringing nothing to the table then? There’s a word for that on the intarwebz. Seriously? You want us to keep arguing with him? Regardless of what he says? I guess we could since this thread is already hijacked beyond comprehension, but what would be the point? ---
**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 6, 2009, 11:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-and-dawkins-vs-xians/479679/133 "2009-01-06T23:52:17Z")
I’m sure he can’t have anything against a person who merely believes there might be a force beyond our current comprehension that somehow benefits from us trying to be nice to each other, or is that verbotten as well? ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2009, 12:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-and-dawkins-vs-xians/479679/134 "2009-01-07T00:34:28Z")
> [@LurkMeister](#): > > Try reading what I asked, and attempt comprehension this time I did read what you said; you are demanding that I defend a position I haven’t taken. > [@LurkMeister](#): > > You insist on ascribing the actions of a **religious organization** to the **concept of religion** itself. No, I’m not. I quite clearly made a distinction between religion in general and Christianity specifically. You ( of course ) are ignoring this. > [@LurkMeister](#): > > I give up. You argue against religion the same way that some people argue for theism. You have decided, speaking (in the words of that great philosopher, Jubal Harshaw) _ex cathedra_ from your belly button, that religion is inherently evil, and respond to any requests for evidence of this by saying, “Because it is!” just like some theists cite the Bible as proof of God’s existence. Actually no. You have made it clear that evidence for the evil behavior of religions, any religion DOESN’T count in your eyes. Why should I take the trouble to list out various evils and stupidities that everyone has heard before, and you would just handwave away as not counting ? Like all those who defend religion, you are obviously either dishonest, delusional, or both. An honest discussion is apparently beyond you. You don’t even try to argue against anything I say. > [@Lord\_Ashtar](#): > > If you are a theist of any form, **Der Trihs** considers you an evil, hateful bigot and wishes death upon you. No, I don’t wish death upon them. That’s a lie, not that I expect honesty from a defender of religion. ---
**Author:** ![Lord\_Ashtar](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7ea924/32.png) [@Lord\_Ashtar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lord_Ashtar)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2009, 1:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-and-dawkins-vs-xians/479679/135 "2009-01-07T01:19:49Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > No, I don’t wish death upon them. That’s a lie, not that I expect honesty from a defender of religion. How did you read anything I wrote in that post as a defense of religion? ---
**Author:** ![Nancarrow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/c37758/32.png) [@Nancarrow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nancarrow)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2009, 1:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-and-dawkins-vs-xians/479679/136 "2009-01-07T01:26:22Z")
> [@Heffalump\_and\_Roo](#): > > Seriously? You want us to keep arguing with him? Regardless of what he says? I guess we could since this thread is already hijacked beyond comprehension, but what would be the point? The post of **Der Trihs** that **Lonesome Polecat** dismissed with ‘up your meds you loony’ contained verifiable negative statements about religions, that LP didn’t care to refute. It contained pointed questions, that LP didn’t care to answer. I called him on it. You, for your part, could have either (a) also called LP on it (b) discussed DT’s statements or attempted to answer his questions or (c) started having a go at _me_ for pointing out the difference between the contentful DT post and the contentless LP reply. You chose (c). Why? What need did this fulfil? Go back and read that DT post. ---
**Author:** ![Nancarrow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/c37758/32.png) [@Nancarrow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nancarrow)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2009, 1:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-and-dawkins-vs-xians/479679/137 "2009-01-07T01:35:42Z")
> [@Lord\_Ashtar](#): > > How did you read anything I wrote in that post as a defense of religion? This is fair comment. You haven’t posted anything defending religion in this thread (though I’ve no idea about elsewhere). Unless **Der Trihs** can find instances of your defending religion, he shouldn’t mischaracterise you like that. Having said that… you’ve dealt with the subclause in his sentence. Now what about the main clause? _Were_ you in fact lying [defender-of-religion-or-not-let’s-stick-to-the-point], or can you offer a cite for your assertion of what DT thinks? ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2009, 2:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-and-dawkins-vs-xians/479679/138 "2009-01-07T02:18:26Z")
> [@George\_Kaplin](#): > > See, this is what I’m talking about. I’d be genuinely interested to know what Dawkins has said or done that has pissed off so many people who should be getting behind him. This may help to explain it. [http://richarddawkins.net/article,118,Religions-Real-Child-Abuse,Richard-Dawkins](http://richarddawkins.net/article,118,Religions-Real-Child-Abuse,Richard-Dawkins) > [@](#): > > Odious as the physical abuse of children by priests undoubtedly is, I suspect that it may do them less lasting damage than the mental abuse of bringing them up Catholic in the first place. He cites with approval this fellow in the same article: > [@](#): > > ‘What shall we tell the children?’ is a superb polemic on how religions abuse the minds of children, by the distinguished psychologist Nicholas Humphrey. It was originally delivered as a lecture in aid of Amnesty International, and has now been reissued as a chapter of his book, The Mind Made Flesh, just published by Oxford University Press. It is also available on the worldwide web and I strongly recommend it. The article in question is reprinted here: > **[What Shall We Tell the Children?](http://keithhotten.blogspot.com/2008/05/what-shall-we-tell-children.html)** > > Amnesty Lecture, Oxford, 21st February 1997 By Nicholas Humphrey Department of Psychology New School for Social Research 65 Fifth Avenue New... And contains these statements: > [@](#): > > And, since I am so sure of this in general, and since I’d expect most of you to be so too, I shall probably shock you when I say it is the purpose of my lecture today to argue in one particular area just the opposite. To argue, in short, in favour of censorship, against freedom of expression, and to do so moreover in an area of life that has traditionally been regarded as sacrosanct. I am talking about moral and religious education. And especially the education a child receives at home, where parents are allowed – even expected – to determine for their children what counts as truth and falsehood, right and wrong. > > Children, I’ll argue, have a human right not to have their minds crippled by exposure to other people’s bad ideas – no matter who these other people are. Parents, correspondingly, have no god-given licence to enculturate their children in whatever ways they personally choose: no right to limit the horizons of their children’s knowledge, to bring them up in an atmosphere of dogma and superstition, or to insist they follow the straight and narrow paths of their own faith. To my mind, this paints a rather depressing picture of these people’s tolerance for the beliefs of others … and I’m not a theist. ---
**Author:** ![LurkMeister](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/3da27b/32.png) [@LurkMeister](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LurkMeister)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2009, 2:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-and-dawkins-vs-xians/479679/139 "2009-01-07T02:25:41Z")
> [@LurkMeister](#): > > You insist on ascribing the actions of a religious organization to the concept of religion itself. > [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > No, I’m not. I quite clearly made a distinction between religion in general and Christianity specifically. You ( of course ) are ignoring this. Then please point out in the following quotes from this thread where you are making a distinction between religion in general and Christianity specifically: > [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > Correct, and I’m both. I’d oppose religion even if I thought it was true, because I find it predatory and destructive, and most of it’s “moral” assertions disgusting. > [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > Pretty much. When religion asserts something to be good that IS good, it’s just agreeing with secular morality. When it starts to make specifically religion based moral assertions, they tend to be destructive or foolish. Religion has little useful to say on ANY subject, because it’s based on lies and fantasies and illogic. Instead, it steals the credit for the efforts of other aspects of human culture, and pretends that without it we’d all be ignorant barbarians. And I’m sure if I dug through other threads where you have railed about the evils of religion I would find many similar statements where you make no distinction between religion and Christianity. But I don’t have the time, or the stomach, to wade through all that muck now. ---
**Author:** ![MaxTheVool](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9fc29f/32.png) [@MaxTheVool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MaxTheVool)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2009, 5:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-and-dawkins-vs-xians/479679/140 "2009-01-07T05:02:08Z")
> [@Evil\_Captor](#): > > The OP is saying that **some posters on the Dope** who are religious adherents are using a rhetorical trick called a false equivalence to make it seem that there is some kind of balance between religious adherents in the US and atheists in terms of offensiveness and bigotry, when there clearly is no such balance – religious adherents are much more offensive and bigoted, in general, than atheists. Frex, Fred Phelps is an extreme and hateful bigot, while Dawkins, generally presented as an example of an extreme atheist, is clearly not hateful nor a bigot. Aha! Someone actually read my OP! My mission is complete! > [@](#): > > The proper way to settle the argument would be to examine some of the posts that make this claim. The OP chickened out and said they did not want to debate particular posters’ points: I find this disingenuous in the extreme. There shoulda been some cites. That’s a reasonable criticism. But honestly, I was more venting about a general style of posting than I was disagreeing with a specific claim. People point out that there are (at least some) bad (for some versions of bad) people on both sides, which is obviously true, and, having tossed that out there, stride away briskly, their work done. At least, that’s how it comes across to me. But honestly, that might just be my knee jerk response to something that was meant entirely differently. Which is partly why I started this thread… to vent, but also to see if other people have noticed the same thing, had the same reaction, etc. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-and-dawkins-vs-xians/479679.md?page=6) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-and-dawkins-vs-xians/479679.md?page=8)