# Hey Der Trihs, over here **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [November 15, 2008, 11:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hey-der-trihs-over-here/472926 "2008-11-15T23:48:37Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 31
**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:** [November 20, 2008, 11:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hey-der-trihs-over-here/472926/601 "2008-11-20T23:57:03Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > The thing the people offended by this analogy don’t get is that in real life very few religious people would listen to dog or god when something they consider immoral is being said. Deep down they know better than to trust the word of god as it has been propagated. They retreat into the amorphous “god is spirit, god is the universe” stuff, which has the advantage of no holy books spouting evil nonsense. Isn’t that something that the people making the offensive analogy don’t get? ---
**Author:** ![wonky](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wonky/32/393_2.png) [@wonky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wonky)\ **Post date:** [November 21, 2008, 12:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hey-der-trihs-over-here/472926/602 "2008-11-21T00:07:47Z")
> [@Autolycus](#): > > I never said I was better than the Dog-ist, although I apologize if my somewhat condescending tone seemed to imply it. It’s hard to maintain civility when debating with a group of people who think you’re either nutso, or worse, scum of the earth. I never said you were either. > [@](#): > > My worldview differs from the Dog-ist in that its first principles are more fleshed out, go a longer way towards explaining how the world operates, have a longer tradition, and a stronger community. Yes, at the end of the day, faith is faith is faith, but again, I insist that there are some obvious differences between a Dog-ist and a Christian. And again, you don’t know what the Dog-ist believes. Sure, a stronger tradition and a stronger community, but that plays quite firmly into my position that religions as a whole are seen as different than woo because religions have been around longer and serious people have been believers. It’s not a reflection on the beliefs, but a reflection of my exposure to them. > [@](#): > > Imagine you went to a party. At the punch bowl, you meet a man who is Catholic. While waiting in line for the bathroom, you talk to a man who is a Dog-ist. Are you seriously claiming that all things considered equal, you would feel the same about both men? No, I’m not seriously claiming that. I would probably feel very different about them, based on my own experiences. I know where the Catholic guy is coming from and don’t know anything about the Dog-ist. So, I might be more comfortable chatting with the Catholic guy, since I’d be pretty sure what his touchy subjects (religiously) were likely to be. I’d simply act like he was my very rigidly Catholic brother until I learned otherwise. But my comfort and familiarity shouldn’t be mistaken for any sort of agreement or reverence. I wouldn’t think his beliefs are better, only more familiar. ---
**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:** [November 21, 2008, 12:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hey-der-trihs-over-here/472926/603 "2008-11-21T00:12:29Z")
> [@Autolycus](#): > > Now, to an atheist, this all probably sounds as absurd as fuck, but one thing Christianity has is an organized, compact theological worldview. In theory, all Catholic teachings can be dervied from the above 7 things (probably missed a few but you get the point). On top of that, there’s thousands of years of tradition and interpretation of these derived teachings. A person can say that Jesus tells them to burn their family to a crisp, but he will be corrected by his community hopefully. (and let’s not get into the whole Abraham thing ok? That’s a whole other bag of worms) I ferl no different about that as an atheist than I did when I was a Jewish God believer. > [@](#): > > So, let’s look at the guy who thinks his dog tells him to burn things. What are his first principles? I don’t really see any. Basically, whatever his dog says, goes. He has no real systemized worldview, and certainly no tradition or community. Well, I have better things to do than make up a dog religion (though this isn’t the case for some people 🙂 ) but ask yourself where did this stuff come from? Was it made up by prophets and others some thousands of years ago, or did it supposedly come directly from God? If the former, your faith is misplaced. If the latter, what evidence do you have that the communication with God is any realer than communication with the dog. Yes, you have your commendable faith, but then so does Tom Cruise and our dog worshiper. I have no doubt humans can build complex and internally consistent worldviews based on faith, but they are built on a foundation of sand unless tested against the real world. Before science there was a complex and secular view of the universe based on untested axioms, and a lot of it was totally wrong. > [@](#): > > As for the differences between Christianity, other religions, and other less established beliefs such as Wicca, the social argument does have a lot of merit. Christianity does get a free ride in many places where it shouldn’t. Still, that doesn’t mean that all religions are created equal. While to an atheist they are all obviously untrue, that doesn’t mean that different faith traditions differing first principles are all the same in their degrees of truth or untruth. Good. All religions are not created equal. How do you test them to see which is more truthful than others? We can count popularity, longevity, number of works of art inspired, but how do we test to see if your religion is more true than the one I used to believe in? > [@](#): > > It’s the same thing with crazy people. The man who believes his soap is caked with the ebola virus is much less insane than the woman who believes a tiny man lives in her nose. So, with regards to religion, while atheists might indeed think all faith is insane or at the very least highly irrational, I hope this post explained how many people can have differing opinions on the truthiness (;)) of Christians, Buddhists, Wiccans, aura healers, and talking dog worshippers. How about that eating a bit of cracker is somehow connected to the body of a guy who lived 2000 years ago? It’s the lord, liar or lunatic argument - the audience is supposed to rebel against the last two options, and thus choose the first. If I call religion irrational, I’m using that as a purely technical term, with no implication of rubber rooms. We choose our favorite artists and our mates irrationally. But we don’t have fits when people point this out. ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [November 21, 2008, 12:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hey-der-trihs-over-here/472926/604 "2008-11-21T00:13:51Z")
> [@FinnAgain](#): > > On the edit: honestly, it seems as if many of these analogies offered up are designed to be as insulting and as full of straw as possible. I don’t agree with religion. I have been an atheist since I was 12 years old. But I can understand that just as there can be agnostic a-theists, there can be agnostic theists. And most importantly that believing in various Ultimate Purposes behind reality is an aesthetic and not an epistemological issue. And, of course, that someone who has a different aesthetic than I do isn’t on the same level as a suicide bomber or the Son of Sam. I just wonder how those making these comparisons in all seriousness make it through their day, what with the little old churchgoing ladies out there likely to snap and kill them at the drop of a Bible and all. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![wonky](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wonky/32/393_2.png) [@wonky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wonky)\ **Post date:** [November 21, 2008, 12:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hey-der-trihs-over-here/472926/605 "2008-11-21T00:19:23Z")
> [@FinnAgain](#): > > To be fair, (and to account for the inevitable Doper Nitpickery 😉 ) I should have said that very few, if any, religious people conceive of their deity as someone who would, right at this moment, adopt corporeal form and sit down to a cup of tea with them. That even the Trinity conceives of Jesus as being an entity in the non-Universe realm of “heaven”, and not some actual figure who might sit in the room with you. My argument doesn’t require that God take corporeal form and come over to watch the Bengals lose. I’ll repeat it: > [@](#): > > No, it isn’t a false analogy to say that if you believe in the existence of a person who can’t be seen, believing that invisible person is talking to you is perhaps a degree weirder but not on an entirely different weirdness scale. I believe you are incorrect in your statement that few believers think of God as a person. “Person” doesn’t require a tea service. ---
**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:** [November 21, 2008, 12:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hey-der-trihs-over-here/472926/606 "2008-11-21T00:29:15Z")
> [@Malthus](#): > > Actually, Jews do care how non-Jews _behave_: see “Noahide laws”. What Jews don’t care about much is what non-Jews _believe_. I don’t think even the Orthodox are upset at goyim driving cars on the Sabbath. > [@](#): > > There are some religious people out there who challenge _everything_. Don’t assume that, just because someone is of enquiring and skeptical mind, they will always come to the same conclusions. True. And when their conclusions come out the wrong way, they tend to get booted from their religion. (Or burned in the old days.) There is indeed a sandbox where they can argue without worry (remember 2 Jews have three opinions) but there are places they are not allowed to go. When they fall over the edge, like I did, they become atheists. > [@](#): > > See, this is where we part ways. > > To many of you, evidently, this seems a perfectly reasonable question to ask. It is like you have never actually met any real life religious people - your parents, your friends, etc. Are you _really and sincerely_ of the opinion that all of these people are one step away from cracking and smashing your skull like an egg? > > Sometimes they disagree. In those cases, it isn’t obvious that a person will choose what their church (etc.) says on some issue over what they understand to be “right” from other sources. People can, and do, discriminate between these sources, and only the most fanatical accepts without question what their religious leadership tells them. If the church was suddenly to order its members to scoop out each other’s brains and feast on the goo within, most church-goes would **not** immediately comply. > > In contrast, someone who hears orders directly from their dog is far, far more likely to be beyond such discrimination. They are much more likely to be not operating within the usual compass of having different sources of moral authority. They are, in short, more likely to be what is technically known as “nuts”. See above for more detail on this - but in short the reason we don’t have to worry is that our morality is basically atheistic, and we accept or reject religious morality based not on the Bible or the direct word of God but on their secular upbringing - including influence from religious leaders influenced by their secular upbringing. There are religious Dopers who are convinced that God and Jesus are fully accepting of unrepressed homosexuality - that is, not just being gay, but being a full person, like we heterosexuals are. Morally I’m 100% with them, but their Biblical justification is a bit shaky. I think they are far more moral than God as reflected by the Bible. if you believe in a God who hands down morality (and what use is a God who doesn’t) will you reject your moral sense for that supposedly of God, or reject God for your moral sense. Most religious people do the latter, of course, and that they do is a very good reason to reject god, and to reject religious morality that goes against what we’ve accepted as right. Some don’t, and they are the kooks who we pit often. Your rejection of dog really indicates that you reject God also - which was my point. ---
**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:** [November 21, 2008, 12:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hey-der-trihs-over-here/472926/607 "2008-11-21T00:29:33Z")
> [@jsgoddess](#): > > My argument doesn’t require that God take corporeal form and come over to watch the Bengals lose. Even those who believe in anthropomorphic deities (Jesus, Zeus, etc… ) do not believe that they are “persons” in the sense that word is used in for 99.99% of its uses: that of a flesh and blood human being whose hand you could shake. We even use the word “corpse” or the phrase “dead person” to delineate between people and ex-[del]parrots[/del] persons. The one partial exception, as Autolycus pointed out, would be Jesus… and his followers believe he _was_ a divine person but is _now_ a transcendent part of the Godhead. I think that at the point where we’re talking about entities which are said to exist beyond Reality itself, who cannot properly be said to have physical qualities or limitations, that referring to them (or comparing them to invisible) people is simply inaccurate. That’s the difference between someone believing that there exists a God or gods “_outside of_” reality, and someone who believes that there is an invisible person _in their living room_ and someone who believes that invisible person in their living room _is talking to them_. ---
**Author:** ![wonky](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wonky/32/393_2.png) [@wonky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wonky)\ **Post date:** [November 21, 2008, 12:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hey-der-trihs-over-here/472926/608 "2008-11-21T00:34:42Z")
> [@FinnAgain](#): > > Even those who believe in anthropomorphic deities (Jesus, Zeus, etc… ) do not believe that they are “persons” in the sense that word is used in for 99.99% of its uses I’m using it in the religious sense of person. I grew up RC. We referred to the three persons of the trinity. God as a person, a being who can hear your prayers, a being who exists, a being who exists everywhere, including my living room. You keep trying to put bodies in this and they are not required for any aspect of what I’m saying. ---
**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:** [November 21, 2008, 12:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hey-der-trihs-over-here/472926/609 "2008-11-21T00:38:53Z")
> [@Hilarity\_N.Suze](#): > > I think this whole thread must have been dogged by the Dog-ist. > > Hail to the puppygod. My dog is very religious. But his god (me) magically delivers food twice a day, so he gets to test his hypothesis all the time. The point of the dog analogy was not that anyone was claiming the dog was actually talking, but that people can act as they will using a claim of Inspiration from the unseen. We know this for dogs, but when we claim it for inspiration from gods it becomes a slap at religion. All we are saying is that there is no evidence that any sort of God ever spoke to or inspired anybody. ---
**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:** [November 21, 2008, 12:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hey-der-trihs-over-here/472926/610 "2008-11-21T00:45:51Z")
> [@FinnAgain](#): > > There is a kernel of truth behind the insulting comparison of religion with Son of Sam style lunacy, in that the worst of the worst religious folks really do have an attitude like “God said it, I believe it, that settles it. Now I’m going to go blow myself up in a crowded marketplace.” My first example was someone who was not a Son of Sam lunatic (and at least someone got that reference) but a person who was outwardly sane and nice in every way. > [@](#): > > The difference, in a nutshell, is that the dog-worshiper hears voices which don’t exist and acts on them pretty much unquestioningly while the vast majority of religious people read texts which do exist and listen to words from religious leaders who do exist, and then pick and choose amongst those as to what exactly they accept and what they do not. That’s very true, but the question is where did the authority for those texts and from those leaders come from? The authority of our government comes from the Constitution and from our elected leaders. But we fully understand that these are imperfect and can be changed. Using the Bible as an authority is like using a Constitution where we have piled on inconsistent amendments and mostly all agree that we’ll just ignore the passages from two centuries ago that make no sense now - and say that the Founding Fathers were perfect while ignoring their imperfect words. ---
**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:** [November 21, 2008, 12:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hey-der-trihs-over-here/472926/611 "2008-11-21T00:49:54Z")
> [@jsgoddess](#): > > You keep trying to put bodies in this and they are not required for any aspect of what I’m saying. Because there’s a distinct difference between believing that there’s something that exists everywhere but is localized nowhere, and believing that there’s an invisible person in your living room. The first is a faith-based claim which is not falsifiable. The second is a delusion that _is_ falsifiable. I will happily admit, however, that I was incorrect and ignorant of the fact that at least RC’s use the term “person” to applies to the three facets of the trinity. But I’d still argue that the usage is significantly different from what most people mean (or even RC’s mean when they talk about any other person) as to not qualify. Voyager: sorry, missed your posts on preview and I am going to sit down to watch a few episodes of the Sopranos now. I’ll do my best to answer you fully later on this evening. Fair enough? ---
**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:** [November 21, 2008, 12:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hey-der-trihs-over-here/472926/612 "2008-11-21T00:58:45Z")
> [@Autolycus](#): > > Indeed there are similarities. It’s folks who claim that they are identical in all respects that put a bee in my bonnet. Of course they are not identical, but the dog analogy gets at the gist of the problem, which is that religions are based on communications from some sort of supreme power, and that these communications are not supposed to be tested, but just believed in. In fact our common sense and general knowledge do test these communications. The standard response is to removed falsified communications from the supposed list of authentic ones, and not to doubt the communications in general. That’s basically like having a hypothesis, doing an experiment, and throwing away all the results that don’t support it. I can (and have) said this until I was blue in my fingers, so sometimes I need something to catch people’s attention. ---
**Author:** ![wonky](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wonky/32/393_2.png) [@wonky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wonky)\ **Post date:** [November 21, 2008, 1:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hey-der-trihs-over-here/472926/613 "2008-11-21T01:05:52Z")
> [@FinnAgain](#): > > Because there’s a distinct difference between believing that there’s something that exists everywhere but is localized nowhere, and believing that there’s an invisible person in your living room. If you believe in God, and you believe God is a person, and you believe God is invisible, and you believe God is everywhere, you believe in an invisible person in your living room (and your den, and your kitchen, and your car, and your post office). If you believe that when you talk to God there is a being who hears you and who can respond to you and act on what you’re saying and who cares about what you’re saying, then it’s a very very small additional step to claim that God can answer you. In fact, many religious people feel that God does answer them, some with visions and signs, some with dreams, some with miracles, some with thoughts, some with passages from the Bible, and some with very plain words. So, this idea that hearing God = lunacy while talking to God = normal religion is false. The definitions for “hearing” God are going to be varied, but receiving communication from God is not an extremist position, at least within Christianity. ---
**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:** [November 21, 2008, 1:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hey-der-trihs-over-here/472926/614 "2008-11-21T01:07:21Z")
> [@FinnAgain](#): > > Isn’t that something that the people making the offensive analogy don’t get? I made it, and I get it fine. Nowhere did I say religious people are forced by the Bible or religion to do evil. Clearly the guy who shot up the mall in my analogy didn’t actually get ordered to do it by the dog. The Fred Phelps of the world are fanatics because they are fanatics, and just use the Bible as a handy excuse. But good people are good people, and some may use the Bible as a handy excuse for being good. People don’t do things because dogs tell them to, they do things and justify it as ordered by the dog. People don’t do things because god tells them to - they do things and find the right part of the bible or theology to justify their actions. Maybe Bush really thought Jesus told him to invade Iraq - I’m sure you don’t think so. ---
**Author:** ![wonky](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wonky/32/393_2.png) [@wonky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wonky)\ **Post date:** [November 21, 2008, 1:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hey-der-trihs-over-here/472926/615 "2008-11-21T01:13:18Z")
I started a thread in GD about the personhood of God and communication with him. I’m done in this thread. ---
**Author:** ![Autolycus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/22d042/32.png) [@Autolycus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Autolycus)\ **Post date:** [November 21, 2008, 5:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hey-der-trihs-over-here/472926/616 "2008-11-21T05:55:50Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > How do you test them to see which is more truthful than others? We can count popularity, longevity, number of works of art inspired, but how do we test to see if your religion is more true than the one I used to believe in? Good question. I’m not really sure. Personally, I judge on a few factors. First, how the religion affects that person’s life. Does it make them well-integrated, happy, and successful? Does it make them better people? Second, do the religion’s faith-based principles match most people’s experience with the world. Third, does the religion have internal consistency. See, I’m a Christian mainly because at its core, it’s a religion that preaches agape. Agape makes me a better person, and despite all the fucked-up shit in the world, I find it matches the universe’s basic essence better than anything else. ---
**Author:** ![Zoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/a4c791/32.png) [@Zoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zoe)\ **Post date:** [November 21, 2008, 5:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hey-der-trihs-over-here/472926/617 "2008-11-21T05:57:19Z")
**PRR** asks for a privilege which is already his: to deride, mock and show contempt for Christians. Yet he says he feels oppressed. Let me check the textbook from Shrink Stuff 101. > [@](#): > > **Voyager** : If I call religion irrational, I’m using that as a purely technical term, with no implication of rubber rooms. And logic will tell you that the word _irrational_ is not a good choice because of its connotations. You may not intend to imply those rubber rooms, but for the sake of clear communication, you don’t want your reader of listener to perceive that meaning. Even _non-rational_ would be better. I’m wondering how some of our more hostile atheists explain the combination that crops us now and then: the scientist who is a theist. (I am aware that most atheists by far are not particularly hostile.) ---
**Author:** ![Autolycus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/22d042/32.png) [@Autolycus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Autolycus)\ **Post date:** [November 21, 2008, 6:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hey-der-trihs-over-here/472926/618 "2008-11-21T06:03:39Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > Of course they are not identical, but the dog analogy gets at the gist of the problem, which is that religions are based on communications from some sort of supreme power, and that these communications are not supposed to be tested, but just believed in. If I went to a Catholic priest and told him God spoke to me, you bet your ass he would test my claim in some form. Look, I’m done debating. There’s lots more to talk about, and I’m not angry. I’m just tired of what this thread has become. ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [November 21, 2008, 11:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hey-der-trihs-over-here/472926/619 "2008-11-21T11:49:18Z")
> [@Zoe](#): > > I’m wondering how some of our more hostile atheists explain the combination that crops us now and then: the scientist who is a theist. I put it down to people with a high tolerance for cognitive dissonance - people better able to compartmentalise their beliefs. ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [November 21, 2008, 11:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hey-der-trihs-over-here/472926/620 "2008-11-21T11:56:44Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > And this of course sums up all taht you have to say on any religious subject. Just pure derision. I think others might disagree with you. For instance, while **Lib** ’s MOP threads did get quite heated, I never accused him of just making shit up. Because he doesn’t. > [@mswas](#): > > Yet people like you and **Der Trihs** continue to post in religious threads. That is why you are threadshitting trolls. If you received anything similar in reverse you’d be howling at the moon and the person you are arguing with would likely get banned. We do get the same thing in reverse - have you met lekatt **yet**? How about **kanicbird** and his demons? Yet I’ve managed to be in threads with these people and not completely lose it. Mostly because they don’t make shit up out of whole cloth and then lie about it afterwards, or post incorrect, half-remembered “facts” they then refuse to acknowledge are wrong. They may be deluded, but they’re not Sewer Synergist Guy. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hey-der-trihs-over-here/472926.md?page=30) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hey-der-trihs-over-here/472926.md?page=32)