# Fundamentalist Atheists equivalent to Fundamentalist Theists **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [April 19, 2011, 9:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fundamentalist-atheists-equivalent-to-fundamentalist-theists/579001 "2011-04-19T21:35:05Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2011, 1:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fundamentalist-atheists-equivalent-to-fundamentalist-theists/579001/61 "2011-04-20T01:01:02Z")
> [@Skald\_the\_Rhymer](#): > > Or, as I mentioned, Melissa. She believes in a 6,000 year old earth, a seven-day creation, Christ’s blood sacrifice, and all that stuff. But she doesn’t decry atheists or people who want to teach evolution in schools; she doesn’t try to proseletize, because she says it’s pointless. Being saved, she says, is not about talk; it’s about God’s grace. Only someone who has received that grace is going to be open to conversion and salvation, so other than behaving properly (she’d call it letting her little light shine), she judges herself forbidden to push her beliefs on people. So she’s a _fundamentalist_ but not an _obnoxious_ one. And she’s not unique. You’re right, of course. My first post was poorly worded (and my second post was a joke). What I meant was that I didn’t have a problem with that etymology. The usage is somewhat problematical. ---
**Author:** ![Farmer\_Jane](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Farmer\_Jane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Farmer_Jane)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2011, 1:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fundamentalist-atheists-equivalent-to-fundamentalist-theists/579001/62 "2011-04-20T01:01:40Z")
Fundamentalists: Being strict with set of ideas. It’s a pejorative term to reference Christians (and later, Muslims) but it’s not necessarily _bad_ to be a fundamentalist. Fundamentalism has a certain air of superiority about it. I don’t believe in God, but that’s because I don’t\* care\*. (Sorry, Baloo, I hope you weren’t planning on printing this out. ;)) It’s not an issue. I don’t lose sleep over it. If someone tries to convert me to Christianity, it’s annoying. When atheists rage about theists, it’s more than annoying. It kind of makes you a jerk, since your ulterior motive is presumably “I’m better than you! Neener neener, stupid-head!” instead of just trying to save my soul. 😉 It is in human nature to want a god or to believe in a god. That’s not unreasonable at all. And since you can’t prove or disprove gods, well… ---
**Author:** ![Algher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Algher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Algher)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2011, 1:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fundamentalist-atheists-equivalent-to-fundamentalist-theists/579001/63 "2011-04-20T01:03:12Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > I think an Atheist Extremist would \*not \*blow up someone with a bomb. Would they set us up the bomb? ---
**Author:** ![Farmer\_Jane](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Farmer\_Jane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Farmer_Jane)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2011, 1:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fundamentalist-atheists-equivalent-to-fundamentalist-theists/579001/64 "2011-04-20T01:03:57Z")
Also…why is it that people who are atheists seem to be the ones that believe in the ‘possibility’ of aliens? That’s been my experience. ---
**Author:** ![Superfluous\_Parentheses](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/8edcca/32.png) [@Superfluous\_Parentheses](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Superfluous_Parentheses)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2011, 1:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fundamentalist-atheists-equivalent-to-fundamentalist-theists/579001/65 "2011-04-20T01:12:17Z")
> [@CitizenPained](#): > > Also…why is it that people who are atheists seem to be the ones that believe in the ‘possibility’ of aliens? That’s been my experience. Depends on your definition of “‘possibility’ of aliens”. I certainly expect (and I do admit outright that I could be completely wrong) that there are other planets out there with life on them in this ridiculously large universe. This is not exactly a large leap if you have no reason to believe the universe was created for us humans specifically. And I also think it’s likely that a fair percentage of those planets has intelligent life on them. As for aliens visiting earth in, say, the last million years? I don’t think there’s any reason to suppose they did. And aliens building pyramids and/or probing human anuses is just stupid. ETA: I wouldn’t rule out the possibility of panspermia, though right now I think it would be a disappointing discovery. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2011, 1:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fundamentalist-atheists-equivalent-to-fundamentalist-theists/579001/66 "2011-04-20T01:16:00Z")
> [@Algher](#): > > Sure - take that series of citations and show them to be lies. Then show that these are regularly trotted out by people of faith. Now, that could be showing that they are regularly used in the pulpit, or are posted on a series of Church websites, or some other such way of showing that people are running around lying about deathbed conversions. > > Personally, with 40+ years in Christian churches (starting with Evangelical, and currently Presbyterian), I have never had this particular list read to me, shown to me, emailed to me, or even discussed from the pulpit or in a Bible study class. I’m surprised that no one has brought up the Lady Hope claim that Darwin converted. [Here](http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2009/03/31/darwins-deathbed-conversion-legend) is something about it from a Creationist site. It is such a prevalent lie that even they have to disavow it. I believe I’ve read that Isaac Asimov reported that as he was dying the religious people were trying to get him to convert. He basically told them to fuck off. [Here](http://clustering.speedblue.org/files/140.html) is a mention of some supposed conversions. ---
**Author:** ![Superfluous\_Parentheses](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/8edcca/32.png) [@Superfluous\_Parentheses](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Superfluous_Parentheses)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2011, 1:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fundamentalist-atheists-equivalent-to-fundamentalist-theists/579001/67 "2011-04-20T01:20:28Z")
> [@Algher](#): > > Sure - take that series of citations and show them to be lies. […] Can’t be done, for quite obvious reasons. Still, [here’s one cite refuting a well-known lie about Darwin from the hardly atheist answers in genesis website](http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2009/03/31/darwins-deathbed-conversion-legend) ---
**Author:** ![SSgtBaloo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ac91a4/32.png) [@SSgtBaloo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SSgtBaloo)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2011, 1:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fundamentalist-atheists-equivalent-to-fundamentalist-theists/579001/68 "2011-04-20T01:25:36Z")
> [@SenorBeef](#): > > I think you’re in the wrong place if this is your attitude towards fighting ignorance. I should have been more clear. What gives you the impression that referring to people you desire to persuade in derogatory terms is a valid means of persuasion? > [@](#): > > Ignorance and irrationality should be fought **where it’s practical**. Do you think those asshole fundamental atheists who show up at school boards to testify against people trying to put intelligent design in the curriculum are just smug, troublemaking assholes? [Emphasis added] Exactly! Where it isn’t, I’ll leave the convincing to those with a greater tolerance for immovable opinions. If you think I’m in favor of ignorance, you’re mistaken. I just know some folks are more than usually resistant to facts, and when it appears that I’m talking to one, I’ll move on to more profitable endeavors. > [@](#): > > Well, great for you. Some of us feel that it’s an obligation to fight ignorance where we can. Again, perhaps this board may not be for you. Some of us choose our battles. Unassailable logic works at a disadvantage to unassailable _illogic_ and I for one do not intend to waste time arguing with someone who’s main response is to (perhaps not literally) stick his fingers in his ears and say “LALALALALA! I CAN"T HEAR YOU!” It’s hardly worthwhile to attempt to dispel ignorance when the person you’re debating can’t or won’t recognize that you have anything of importance to say. I’m of the opinion that arguing with an idiot makes me look like one, too, so I doubt any onlookers who do not share my view in the first place are likely to be doing anything except trying to ignore the noise. > [@](#): > > Who does? **(believe they’re particularly irrational because of their own beliefs.)** [Parenthetical phrase added for clarity] Nobody. Other people feel free to believe all sorts of irrational things based upon one piece of “knowledge” about another person, however, so it’s reasonable to assume that anyone you choose to debate with will believe himself rational. The proof isn’t whether he will abandon his position in favor of yours, but whether he will have a sufficiently broad perspective to understand your position whether or not he subsequently decides to adopt it. > [@](#): > > Well, that’s good, if true. Gives you half a leg up on people who aren’t, but then, you still share the same core beliefs. What core beliefs are we talking about? Just because I brand myself “Christan” or “Theist” doesn’t mean I subscribe to any single doctrine that has ever marched under those flags. I don’t assume that other people of religion, or nonreligion, for that matter, will necessarily subscribe to any general belief other than ones they’ve delineated. I don’t care if you believe like I do, but it’s important that we can have civil discourse despite our differences., because you simply cannot project knowledge into another person’s brain by belittling them or treating them as somehow inferior, and if you believe you can then your interest lies not in dispelling ignorance, but in establishing your position in the pecking order. ---
**Author:** ![Slow\_Moving\_Vehicle](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slow_moving_vehicle/32/291_2.png) [@Slow\_Moving\_Vehicle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Slow_Moving_Vehicle)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2011, 1:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fundamentalist-atheists-equivalent-to-fundamentalist-theists/579001/69 "2011-04-20T01:32:17Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > No; logically, atheists on average are going to be less dishonest and delusional because they aren’t required to deny reality to hold their position. They might of course be dishonest or delusional about other things than religion, therefore “on average”; but believers are required to be one or both of those, or they couldn’t be believers. **The denial of reality is the core of all religion.** (My emphasis). Oy. This is why, although I am a fairly convinced humanist, I cannot call myself an atheist. Most of the atheists I’ve ever spoken to or read seem to hold the same ideas in regard to religion (a word that covers a huge complexity of behaviors and concepts); that is, religion is a matter of subscribing to a certain number of factual statements - checking off boxes on a creed. To be fair, that’s how a lot of evangelizers present it, though. And of course, a lot of these statements are nonsensical. A religion, however is _not just about holding certain beliefs_. It can also encompass a system of ethics, an edifice of ritual, and, yes, a nonquantifiable, nonlogical experience of the numinous. These are nonrational entities that feed a hunger that seems universal among human cultures. They are not parseable by the same logical tools that apply to, say, Newton’s Fourth Law of Motion. You can argue that “nonrational” is a weasel word for “illogical” and “nonexistent”, but just think a moment: can you quantify a joke? Or a story? An Internet meme? How about a concept like “patriotism” or “humor”, or even “concept”? These things exist, but cannot be analyzed by logic. (Which is not to say that they cannot be analyzed; they simply require different tools). Fact is, we are analog beings. There is a spectrum of human behaviors that is outside the purview of reason, and yet embedded in human nature - most aspects of religion fall into that domain. Which is no excuse for obnoxiousness, whether you’re a believer or an atheist. In fact, I’d say the difference between “asshole” and “nonasshole” comes down to the ability to say, “Well, that’s how it seems to me. But I might be wrong…” ---
**Author:** ![SSgtBaloo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ac91a4/32.png) [@SSgtBaloo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SSgtBaloo)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2011, 1:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fundamentalist-atheists-equivalent-to-fundamentalist-theists/579001/70 "2011-04-20T01:37:27Z")
> [@CitizenPained](#): > > When atheists rage about theists, it’s more than annoying. It kind of makes you a jerk, since your ulterior motive is presumably “I’m better than you! Neener neener, stupid-head!” instead of just trying to save my soul. 😉 > > It is in human nature to want a god or to believe in a god. That’s not unreasonable at all. And since you can’t prove or disprove gods, well… Well-put, and don’t worry, I don’t plan on printing all this out. 😛 > [@CitizenPained](#): > > Also…why is it that people who are atheists seem to be the ones that believe in the ‘possibility’ of aliens? That’s been my experience. I won’t just admit to the possibility, I’m hoping for it! Not because I believe the “Space Brothers” (anyone else remember seeing those ads?) will bring a new age and a new world order, but because it’d be cool having neighbors. > [@Superfluous\_Parentheses](#): > > As for aliens visiting earth in, say, the last million years? I don’t think there’s any reason to suppose they did. And aliens building pyramids and/or probing human anuses is just stupid. > > ETA: I wouldn’t rule out the possibility of panspermia, though right now I think it would be a disappointing discovery. Perhaps we’re being invaded by proctologists from space? ---
**Author:** ![Slow\_Moving\_Vehicle](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slow_moving_vehicle/32/291_2.png) [@Slow\_Moving\_Vehicle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Slow_Moving_Vehicle)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2011, 1:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fundamentalist-atheists-equivalent-to-fundamentalist-theists/579001/71 "2011-04-20T01:41:03Z")
> [@SSgtBaloo](#): > > Perhaps we’re being invaded by proctologists from space? Or maybe the aliens have seen so many episodes of Springer that they’ve figured that that’s where our heads are? ---
**Author:** ![The\_Hamster\_King](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/8edcca/32.png) [@The\_Hamster\_King](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Hamster_King)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2011, 4:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fundamentalist-atheists-equivalent-to-fundamentalist-theists/579001/72 "2011-04-20T04:24:56Z")
> [@Slow\_Moving\_Vehicle](#): > > A religion, however is _not just about holding certain beliefs_. It can also encompass a system of ethics, an edifice of ritual, and, yes, a nonquantifiable, nonlogical experience of the numinous. But the _essential feature_ that separates religions from other belief systems are their claims of the supernatural. You can have a non-religious ethical system, or a non-religious ritual. You can even have a non-religious moment of inexplicable awe and wonder. What makes a religion a religion is yoking ethics, ritual, and wonder to a purported supernatural source. And most atheists have no problem with the non-supernatural parts of religion. My wife and I (both staunch atheists) just held a Passover Seder. We agree with the Seder’s timeless message of liberation from slavery, and we enjoy the pleasing resonance of saying familiar words and performing familiar actions, even if we know the references to God are purely fictional. ---
**Author:** ![Farmer\_Jane](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Farmer\_Jane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Farmer_Jane)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2011, 6:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fundamentalist-atheists-equivalent-to-fundamentalist-theists/579001/73 "2011-04-20T06:56:10Z")
> [@Slow\_Moving\_Vehicle](#): > > (My emphasis). > > Oy. This is why, although I am a fairly convinced humanist, I cannot call myself an atheist. > > Most of the atheists I’ve ever spoken to or read seem to hold the same ideas in regard to religion (a word that covers a huge complexity of behaviors and concepts); that is, religion is a matter of subscribing to a certain number of factual statements - checking off boxes on a creed. To be fair, that’s how a lot of evangelizers present it, though. And of course, a lot of these statements are nonsensical. > > A religion, however is _not just about holding certain beliefs_. It can also encompass a system of ethics, an edifice of ritual, and, yes, a nonquantifiable, nonlogical experience of the numinous. These are nonrational entities that feed a hunger that seems universal among human cultures. They are not parseable by the same logical tools that apply to, say, Newton’s Fourth Law of Motion. > > You can argue that “nonrational” is a weasel word for “illogical” and “nonexistent”, but just think a moment: can you quantify a joke? Or a story? An Internet meme? How about a concept like “patriotism” or “humor”, or even “concept”? These things exist, but cannot be analyzed by logic. (Which is not to say that they cannot be analyzed; they simply require different tools). Fact is, we are analog beings. There is a spectrum of human behaviors that is outside the purview of reason, and yet embedded in human nature - most aspects of religion fall into that domain. > > Which is no excuse for obnoxiousness, whether you’re a believer or an atheist. In fact, I’d say the difference between “asshole” and “nonasshole” comes down to the ability to say, “Well, that’s how it seems to me. But I might be wrong…” +1 Also, I’d encourage you guys to read (or at least look at the back cover of) [Seeking God in Science](http://www.amazon.com/Seeking-God-Science-Atheist-Intelligent/dp/1551118637)by my friend Bradley. His background is in physics (not shocking) and he’s a Philosophy prof. Even if you don’t agree with the ID in schools piece, it is extremely thought-provoking. I’ve pecked this out before and was attacked for it, but science is a branch of philosophy. So is religion. Let’s not get our panties in a bunch. eta: Why be a jerk to Ssgt? eta numero dos: Aliens is to Christians as God is to atheists. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2011, 7:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fundamentalist-atheists-equivalent-to-fundamentalist-theists/579001/74 "2011-04-20T07:14:45Z")
> [@CitizenPained](#): > > eta numero dos: Aliens is to Christians as God is to atheists. 😉 Where do you get this idea from? ---
**Author:** ![Farmer\_Jane](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Farmer\_Jane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Farmer_Jane)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2011, 9:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fundamentalist-atheists-equivalent-to-fundamentalist-theists/579001/75 "2011-04-20T09:01:43Z")
Not a strict analogy, but there’s a rather knee-jerk reaction for the fundies of both divisions. Okay, so when I was growing up, aliens were the stuff of potheads and Jesus haters…but some Google just wowwed me. [http://www.christiansymposium.com/](http://www.christiansymposium.com/) > **[What Christian Novel Should Be Made Film?](https://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2011/april/betweenheavenearth.html)** > > Observers discuss the next Christian novel that could be adapted for the screen. > **[Vatican admits alien life could exist](https://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/topic/126076-vatican-admits-alien-life-could-exist/)** > > Image credit: NASA The pope's chief astronomer says that life on Mars cannot be ruled out. Writing in the Vatican newspaper, the astronomer, Father Gabriel Funes, said intelligent beings created by God could exist in outer space. The search for forms... for Christians, angels aren’t aliens. aliens are metaphysical. or maybe they are aliens. either way, it’s all possible. for atheists, god isn’t logical. it’s metaphysical. aliens, on the other hand, could be seen as pretty logical. atheists can’t disprove god. Christians can’t prove god. maybe aliens could be the middle ground? an atheist & Christian alien forum? ---
**Author:** ![mac\_bolan00](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b3f665/32.png) [@mac\_bolan00](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mac_bolan00)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2011, 9:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fundamentalist-atheists-equivalent-to-fundamentalist-theists/579001/76 "2011-04-20T09:48:11Z")
it’s incorrect to say that atheists (or anyone) find God illogical. it cannot be proven. the god question lies in several arguments, the stickest one of which is the cosmological. ---
**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:** [April 20, 2011, 9:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fundamentalist-atheists-equivalent-to-fundamentalist-theists/579001/77 "2011-04-20T09:49:57Z")
> [@Slow\_Moving\_Vehicle](#): > > Most of the atheists I’ve ever spoken to or read seem to hold the same ideas in regard to religion (a word that covers a huge complexity of behaviors and concepts); that is, religion is a matter of subscribing to a certain number of factual statements - checking off boxes on a creed. To be fair, that’s how a lot of evangelizers present it, though. And of course, a lot of these statements are nonsensical. Religion is all about asserting that false and illogical beliefs are true; that is what they all have in common. That’s why they call it “faith”; if a belief is true, then it is highly unlikely to be labeled religious in the first place. Religion is for asserting lies, not truth. Truth can stand on its own, without religion. > [@Slow\_Moving\_Vehicle](#): > > A religion, however is _not just about holding certain beliefs_. It can also encompass a system of ethics, an edifice of ritual, and, yes, a nonquantifiable, nonlogical experience of the numinous. These are nonrational entities that feed a hunger that seems universal among human cultures. They are not parseable by the same logical tools that apply to, say, Newton’s Fourth Law of Motion. Because they do not exist. The only reason that believers insist that science and logic can’t handle religion is because they believe nonsense. The fact is, science can handle religion just fine, it’s just that the believers don’t like the answers. “It’s impossible”, “it violates physical law”, “there’s no evidence”, “we can point out where the hallucination is coming from”, “archaeology shows it didn’t happen” are not the answers they want to hear. So they try to pretend that a denial of facts and logic is something profound, instead of just delusional stupidity. > [@Slow\_Moving\_Vehicle](#): > > You can argue that “nonrational” is a weasel word for “illogical” and “nonexistent”, but just think a moment: can you quantify a joke? Or a story? An Internet meme? How about a concept like “patriotism” or “humor”, or even “concept”? These things exist, but cannot be analyzed by logic. What makes you think that? > [@Slow\_Moving\_Vehicle](#): > > There is a spectrum of human behaviors that is outside the purview of reason, and yet embedded in human nature - most aspects of religion fall into that domain. Because religion is a defect. A psychological disease. It doesn’t follow logic, because it is wrong. > [@Slow\_Moving\_Vehicle](#): > > Which is no excuse for obnoxiousness, whether you’re a believer or an atheist. In fact, I’d say the difference between “asshole” and “nonasshole” comes down to the ability to say, “Well, that’s how it seems to me. But I might be wrong…” In other words, lie. Pretend that something that is nothing but stupid gibberish deserves to be taken seriously. Bend over backwards to pretend a false equivalence between religion and science. ---
**Author:** ![Farmer\_Jane](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Farmer\_Jane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Farmer_Jane)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2011, 10:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fundamentalist-atheists-equivalent-to-fundamentalist-theists/579001/78 "2011-04-20T10:23:56Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > Because religion is a defect. A psychological disease. It doesn’t follow logic, because it is wrong. What’s with your language? ---
**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:** [April 20, 2011, 10:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fundamentalist-atheists-equivalent-to-fundamentalist-theists/579001/79 "2011-04-20T10:31:03Z")
I think it might have been kinda funny if the author had said “I’ll pray for you”, and T.J. had replied “Thanks, and when you’re beseeching Apollo on my behalf, can you do it during the daytime? I understand he likes the sun.” ---
**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:** [April 20, 2011, 10:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fundamentalist-atheists-equivalent-to-fundamentalist-theists/579001/80 "2011-04-20T10:34:23Z")
> [@CitizenPained](#): > > What’s with your language? It’s called English. An obscure but useful tongue. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fundamentalist-atheists-equivalent-to-fundamentalist-theists/579001.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fundamentalist-atheists-equivalent-to-fundamentalist-theists/579001.md?page=5)