# Lobsang, what is it with you and atheism? **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [October 14, 2004, 8:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lobsang-what-is-it-with-you-and-atheism/269170 "2004-10-14T08:20:52Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![t-keela](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/a3d4f5/32.png) [@t-keela](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/t-keela)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2004, 12:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lobsang-what-is-it-with-you-and-atheism/269170/41 "2004-10-14T12:58:10Z")
> [@Meatros](#): > > Well, it didn’t appear that way to me… 😉 > > I read your statement as saying that atheism is a belief that science can be used to dispute some claims/evidence that God exists, which is why I disagreed. All it is, is a disbelief in God. If I misread what you were saying, my apologies. No sweat, I’m not always clear on everything either. > [@](#): > > Heh, I know at least one that disagrees with evolution, believes in vampires (that he _IS_ a vampire), and doesn’t believe in God. So I take it that holy water and a cruxifix wouldn’t bother him. He hasn’t exactly thought it through has he. No evolution either huh? 😃 Then what would he say to the idea that HE evolved to a vampire? > [@](#): > > Generally speaking you are probably correct, I guess I’m just being semantic about things. Perhaps this is because there is no common ground other then a disbelief in God among atheists. Well, I kinda thought that was a given. My own shortsightedness. I forget that I’m in the Pit sometimes. You know that place where the real debates go on. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![Metacom](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ecae2f/32.png) [@Metacom](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Metacom)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2004, 1:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lobsang-what-is-it-with-you-and-atheism/269170/42 "2004-10-14T13:00:13Z")
> [@Desmostylus](#): > > **Testy** didn’t introduce the topic in response to **Airman** , and it was only introduced as _background_ in response to **t-keela**. Your attempt at labelling it a “strawman”, or even an “argument” is itself a strawman. Dude, look at post #2 (that’s the post right after post #1, which is the OP). Note that **Testy** immediately starts arguing against creationism: > [@Testy in the second post in this thread](#): > > As far as creationism goes, that is a belief that should be dismissed and those that hold it should be viewed with alarm as being somewhat either unbalanced or at the least, very gullible. Creationism has no more or less a leg to stand on than elves, ghosts, healing with crystals, and other woo-woo nonsense that has gone on for millenia and allowed con men to fleece the more gullible of the population. Hmm… It appears that **Testy** is giving reasons why he believes that creationism isn’t a valid belief. I believe that makes it an argument, yes? And he posted that before **t-keela** had posted to the thread, and in a direct response to the OP, so it wasn’t being introduced as background evidence, nor was it a response to **t-keela** –unless you want to argue that it was a pre-emptive background argument (doh! I forgot! He’s not arguing, he’s merely stating reasons why he believes something! My bad!) that anticipated **t-keela** ’s future post, or something. ---
**Author:** ![Desmostylus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c57346/32.png) [@Desmostylus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Desmostylus)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2004, 1:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lobsang-what-is-it-with-you-and-atheism/269170/43 "2004-10-14T13:06:41Z")
> [@Metacom](#): > > Dude, look at post #2 (that’s the post right after post #1, which is the OP). > > Note that **Testy** immediately starts arguing against creationism: > > Hmm… It appears that **Testy** is giving reasons why he believes that creationism isn’t a valid belief. I believe that makes it an argument, yes? And he posted that before **t-keela** had posted to the thread, and in a direct response to the OP, so it wasn’t being introduced as background evidence, nor was it a response to **t-keela** –unless you want to argue that it was a pre-emptive background argument (doh! I forgot! He’s not arguing, he’s merely stating reasons why he believes something! My bad!) that anticipated **t-keela** ’s future post, or something. What sort of crap argument is this? I can’t see fundamentalism anywhere in post #2. It first comes up in post #19. You must be doing fundie code-word association. ---
**Author:** ![Meatros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b4bc9f/32.png) [@Meatros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Meatros)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2004, 1:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lobsang-what-is-it-with-you-and-atheism/269170/44 "2004-10-14T13:09:47Z")
> [@calm kiwi](#): > > My disbelief is just as strong as some elses belief in god. As such it is almost a belief. When I first realized I was an atheist, I could say the same. Then again, I am probably one of the people who could be accused of ‘prostylizing’ atheism, because I went on several message boards and got into countless discussions about it. I felt I had to _validate_ atheism to ensure I was correct. I still get into an occasional discussion about God/no God, but the frequency and my intensity has gone down (at least most of the time). Now though, I can’t really say that I’m strongly an atheist. To do so would mean that I had a conception of what “God” is and what it means, and to be frank I don’t. The concept is a mystery to me. So I can’t just firmly disbelieve in it, because I don’t know what ‘it’ is. I basically know a quasi-concept of a God and I can’t see being very firm about disbelieving in a quasi-concept. Maybe I’m being unclear, so I’ll use an example-and I truly do not mean to offend anyone: If I told you that Snardledinks existed, your first reaction would probably be ‘what’s a Snardledink?’ If I followed up by giving you a vague discription, such as: They live everywhere, can do lots of things, they are made of flizzjinkles, and are unlike anything you have ever known or _could_ know. You would probably say ‘well I don’t believe in them’. I don’t think you could firmly say “They can absolutely not exist” because of how vague and undefined Snardledink’s are. I hope this illustrates my point. ---
**Author:** ![gobear](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/8dc957/32.png) [@gobear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gobear)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2004, 1:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lobsang-what-is-it-with-you-and-atheism/269170/45 "2004-10-14T13:12:35Z")
Oh, puh-leeze, people, if atheism is a religion then bald is a hair color. This atheist does not crusade against faith in Jehovah, nor seek to persecute believers, nor spend one second thinking about the God of the Bible any more than I do with Thor, Osiris, or Quetzalcoatl. I don’t believe in Santa Claus either–is “anti-Santaism” a religion? Stop misusing the English language to prove a fallacious point. What young Mr. **Lobsang** fails to get is that atheism is not the automatic default of a reasonable person. One can be an intelligent person and be a theist at the same time. Certainly there is no compelling evidence against God’s existence any more than there is any compelling evidence for His existence–it’s not a testable proposition, so ultimately one’s stance toward the Supreme Being is a matter of faith, just as believing in reincarnation or supply-side economics are matters of faith. Now one can argue against secondary instances of religious faith, such as the Creationist denial of evolutionary biology. One can show that there was no Great Flood and that humans are descended from older species, but one cannot prove that a wise Creator didn’t use evolution as His divine tool to form humanity. As long as the theists do not attempt to force me to subscribe to their religion, then I will let them believe as they wish in peace. Go thou and do likewise, **Lobsang** (who really needs to re-read Pratchett because he clearly missed the messages of freedom and tolerance in his books). ---
**Author:** ![Testy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c37758/32.png) [@Testy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Testy)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2004, 1:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lobsang-what-is-it-with-you-and-atheism/269170/46 "2004-10-14T13:18:51Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > Actually, any firmly held belief can spawn zealots, so you should actually be condemning any system of belief undertaken by humans. This would include all political associations, of course, since they are all predicated upon a _belief_ that their ideas will bring the most benefit to humanity (and even the purpotedly “rational” systems tend to take on the attributes of belief systems once enough people have been recruited). You cannot even escape this situation by championing anarchy, for the anarchists tend to band together to make their point and become what they claim to oppose. I take your point about any belief system spawning zealots and agree with it. A quick look at the political threads in this forum makes your point quite easily. OTOH, I consider religion to be in a class of its own due to the multigenerational aspects of it and its ability to consume entire populations. An example would be political parties in the US. Regardless of the majority of one party, I can not see them making membership in the opposite party a death-penaly crime. I can’t even see any single party gaining such a huge majority. In Saudi, blasphemy is a real crime with real consequences and can get a man killed. > [@](#): > > In contrast, there are, in fact, examples of religious beliefs that have spawned fewer zealots than the ones at which we are fond of pointing fingers. Buddhism seems to have spawned fewer zealous movements than Socialism or efforts to “spread Democracy.” You are right and I’ve never understood this. I’ve never met a Buddhist zealot. If you believe then fine. If not, that’s fine too. I used to blame just the religions of Middle Eastern origin but then met some **extremely** militant/fundamentalist Hindus and Sikhs of the “kill 'em all. let God sort 'em out” variety. Now I’m stuck with saying “all religions **except** Buddhism”, which is very unsatisfying. > [@](#): > > Short of finding a way to alter human DNA to short-circuit the ability to believe, we cannot remove belief simply by abandoning religion, and the prevalence of religions in history simply makes them a convenient scapegoat for people who do not look further into the human psyche to find the “real” (if insoluble) problem. Admittedly, other belief systems form zealots who commit as many atrocities as the religious but I don’t think GMO people is the solution. 😃 My own belief is that the fix for this is scepticism, taught early and in a way to increase the likelyhood of it being practically applied. Somehow get people to require sound evidence before simply accepting the unsupported word of their religious **and** political leaders. People would still be fooled so this would not be a panacea but it would cut down the number of zealots of all flavors. I realize there are critical-thinking couses in many schools but I was thinking of something that started earlier and was repeated more regularly. I do not believe this will ever happen as both the religious and the more politically inclined would be against it as soon as their own toes were trodden on. Best regards Testy ---
**Author:** ![Meatros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b4bc9f/32.png) [@Meatros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Meatros)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2004, 1:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lobsang-what-is-it-with-you-and-atheism/269170/47 "2004-10-14T13:18:55Z")
> [@t-keela](#): > > No sweat, I’m not always clear on everything either. Heh, neither am I. 🙂 > [@t-keela](#): > > So I take it that holy water and a cruxifix wouldn’t bother him. He hasn’t exactly thought it through has he. No evolution either huh? 😃 Then what would he say to the idea that HE evolved to a vampire? Discussing anything with him was a nightmare. Cruxifix’s and holy water didn’t harm him, those were ‘hollywoods bad creations’, as was ‘living forever’ and most of the stuff normally attributed to vampires. He was a _real_ vampire :rolleyes: and possessed an extra organ that apparently didn’t show up on X-Rays, yet helped him digest massive amounts of blood… Yeah, he didn’t ‘evolve’ into a vampire, he claimed that he was born that way. He used to get all upset when anyone on the board would claim that they had been bitten and transformed into a vampire. It was really weird. I wasn’t the only total skeptic there, but sometimes I felt as though I was… > [@t-keela](#): > > Well, I kinda thought that was a given. My own shortsightedness. I forget that I’m in the Pit sometimes. You know that place where the real debates go on. 😉 🙂 I suppose I’m just used to other boards a little too much. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![t-keela](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/a3d4f5/32.png) [@t-keela](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/t-keela)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2004, 1:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lobsang-what-is-it-with-you-and-atheism/269170/48 "2004-10-14T13:20:41Z")
> [@Desmostylus](#): > > What sort of crap argument is this? I can’t see fundamentalism anywhere in post #2. It first comes up in post #19. > > You must be doing fundie code-word association. Perhaps we have different views on what fundamentalism is **Des**. I’d say that the Creation is a fairly fundamental aspect in most religions. Wouldn’t you? Testy and I seem to have a good understanding of each other at this point. I respect his point of view and I think he has respect for my ideas stated in this thread. There is no reason we can’t be friends and I hope to meet him some day. I’d be happy to buy him a beer and talk some more. You too… 😉 better yet, how ‘bout I just get a couple o’ kegs and BBQ up some stuff. We can all get shitfaced and talk philosophy. or I could break out a few guitars and a keyboard…anybody here can play some Stevie Ray. ---
**Author:** ![Metacom](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ecae2f/32.png) [@Metacom](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Metacom)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2004, 1:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lobsang-what-is-it-with-you-and-atheism/269170/49 "2004-10-14T13:21:57Z")
> [@Desmostylus](#): > > What sort of crap argument is this? I can’t see fundamentalism anywhere in post #2. It first comes up in post #19. Actually, **Testy** started explicitly mentioning fundamentlism 10 posts prior to that, in post #9. Prior to that, he’d been arguing against creationism, and the use of the Bible to explain natural phenomena, both fundamentalist beliefs. Given that he’d been arguing against fundamentlist beliefs, and then started explicitly mentioning fundamentlism, I feel it’s perfectly justifiable to say that he’s arguing against fundamentalism. If you want to disagree, go ahead: I’m not about to get into a prolonged rhetorical circle jerk with you over this. ---
**Author:** ![Desmostylus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c57346/32.png) [@Desmostylus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Desmostylus)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2004, 1:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lobsang-what-is-it-with-you-and-atheism/269170/50 "2004-10-14T13:27:13Z")
> [@t-keela](#): > > Perhaps we have different views on what fundamentalism is **Des**. I’d say that the Creation is a fairly fundamental aspect in most religions. Wouldn’t you? It’d be more accurate to say that creationism is the _chosen battle ground_ of some US fundies. ---
**Author:** ![calm\_kiwi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/9fc348/32.png) [@calm\_kiwi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/calm_kiwi)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2004, 1:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lobsang-what-is-it-with-you-and-atheism/269170/51 "2004-10-14T13:28:33Z")
> [@Meatros](#): > > When I first realized I was an atheist, I could say the same. > > Then again, I am probably one of the people who could be accused of ‘prostylizing’ atheism, because I went on several message boards and got into countless discussions about it. I felt I had to _validate_ atheism to ensure I was correct. > > I still get into an occasional discussion about God/no God, but the frequency and my intensity has gone down (at least most of the time). > > Now though, I can’t really say that I’m strongly an atheist. To do so would mean that I had a conception of what “God” is and what it means, and to be frank I don’t. The concept is a mystery to me. So I can’t just firmly disbelieve in it, because I don’t know what ‘it’ is. I basically know a quasi-concept of a God and I can’t see being very firm about disbelieving in a quasi-concept. > > Maybe I’m being unclear, so I’ll use an example-and I truly do not mean to offend anyone: > > If I told you that Snardledinks existed, your first reaction would probably be ‘what’s a Snardledink?’ If I followed up by giving you a vague discription, such as: > > They live everywhere, can do lots of things, they are made of flizzjinkles, and are unlike anything you have ever known or _could_ know. > > You would probably say ‘well I don’t believe in them’. > > I don’t think you could firmly say “They can absolutely not exist” because of how vague and undefined Snardledink’s are. > > I hope this illustrates my point. 🙂 Thank you for the thought. I am firmly atheist and have no need to test it on random snardles. I believe …no I WANT people to be kind and understanding of each other. It takes no belief in god, mickey mouse, ronald mdonald or any other deity for that matter. Just the simple belief that none of us are better then any other and we all deserve the respect of each other. To me that IS being an atheist. I’m no better because I believe when I’m dead, I’m just dead then someone who thinks they go to to some happy place in the sky or somoneone who believes they will become a bug/animal is. I can firmly say with my hand on my child’s heart that I believe god is a load of humbug. I feel no need “explore” my beliefs. I believe what I believe…we are all just worm fodder waiting to happen… ---
**Author:** ![Meatros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b4bc9f/32.png) [@Meatros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Meatros)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2004, 1:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lobsang-what-is-it-with-you-and-atheism/269170/52 "2004-10-14T13:34:41Z")
> [@calm kiwi](#): > > 🙂 Thank you for the thought. > > I am firmly atheist and have no need to test it on random snardles. I believe …no I WANT people to be kind and understanding of each other. It takes no belief in god, mickey mouse, ronald mdonald or any other deity for that matter. Just the simple belief that none of us are better then any other and we all deserve the respect of each other. I totally agree with you here. > [@calm kiwi](#): > > To me that IS being an atheist. I’m no better because I believe when I’m dead, I’m just dead then someone who thinks they go to to some happy place in the sky or somoneone who believes they will become a bug/animal is. No disagreement. > [@calm kiwi](#): > > I can firmly say with my hand on my child’s heart that I believe god is a load of humbug. I feel no need “explore” my beliefs. I believe what I believe…we are all just worm fodder waiting to happen… I can respect that. For the record, I’d say that I don’t believe in God either. I suppose where we disagree would be about how ‘firmly’ I don’t believe. In the end, there isn’t any difference between you and I (in this respect), as neither of us accept a God concept. ---
**Author:** ![Testy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c37758/32.png) [@Testy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Testy)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2004, 1:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lobsang-what-is-it-with-you-and-atheism/269170/53 "2004-10-14T13:36:31Z")
> [@t-keela](#): > > **Testy** I can understand your fear completely when expressed in this context. I’m sorry that you and your family have to be subjected to this un-Godly behavior. Many people use the preface of religious sacrament in order to usurp power and wealth. They hide behind robes and tradition and claim to be God’s representatives in order to scare the masses into submission. This is nothing new. When corruption consumes any system of power it is an evil thing. This is not the fault of religion. It is the fault of men. If we could all live by the basic ideals found in every religion, we would not the terrible history that we have. > But make no mistake…these men who are responsible for the corruption and war throughout the ages would and could NOT be stopped if religion had not been available. > Greed, hate, lust, deceit, revenge, etc. these are qualities found in the human race and religion has been for the most part an attempt at controlling these things. No buddy…it’s men who are bad. They just use GOD to control their masses. There have been societies in which religion didn’t exist. They had the same problems…perhaps worse. > In any event, I wish you luck. take care… t/k 🙂 t-keela. Thank you for your kind wishes. See what I said about some of the religious being the nicest of people? 😃 We could leave if it weren’t for some serious medical issues with my wife but in truth it isn’t all \*that[/] bad, despite the time I spend complaining about it. I have a belief that morality and social standards are great things but have an intense dislike of _enforced_ morality and standards. My own thoughts are that the misuse of religion is inevitable, people being what they are, and that religion is not in the same class as other belief systems due to its lifespan and its “contagiousness” for lack of a better word. I’d be interested in the societies without religion. The only example I can think of would be the Soviet Union but my belief was that they had a religion, it was simply suppressed. Regards Testy ---
**Author:** ![t-keela](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/a3d4f5/32.png) [@t-keela](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/t-keela)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2004, 1:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lobsang-what-is-it-with-you-and-atheism/269170/54 "2004-10-14T13:37:55Z")
> [@Desmostylus](#): > > It’d be more accurate to say that creationism is the _chosen battle ground_ of some US fundies. 😃 okay, so who brought the fundies to the party? I gotta admit, I’ve been up all night and mighta missed something. So if you would, get me back on track. I’ve just enjoyed the thread so far and want to not get whooshed too many times if I can help it. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![Desmostylus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c57346/32.png) [@Desmostylus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Desmostylus)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2004, 1:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lobsang-what-is-it-with-you-and-atheism/269170/55 "2004-10-14T13:41:02Z")
> [@Metacom](#): > > Actually, **Testy** started explicitly mentioning fundamentlism 10 posts prior to that, in post #9. Missed that one, but again, it’s in response to **t-keela** :rolleyes: > [@](#): > > Prior to that, he’d been arguing against creationism, and the use of the Bible to explain natural phenomena, both fundamentalist beliefs. And beliefs of non-fundies, too, I expect. > [@Metacom](#): > > Given that he’d been arguing against fundamentlist beliefs, and then started explicitly mentioning fundamentlism, I feel it’s perfectly justifiable to say that he’s arguing against fundamentalism. If you want to disagree, go ahead: I’m not about to get into a prolonged rhetorical circle jerk with you over this. Yes, it’s prefectly obvious that he’s arguing against fundamentalism. What the fuck, then, was the point of your first post to this thread? Why did you try to call an argument against fundamentalism a straw man? What the fuck are you talking about? ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2004, 1:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lobsang-what-is-it-with-you-and-atheism/269170/56 "2004-10-14T13:41:40Z")
> [@](#): > > An example would be political parties in the US. Regardless of the majority of one party, I can not see them making membership in the opposite party a death-penaly crime. I can’t even see any single party gaining such a huge majority. This is true in the United States _to date_. Similarly, in the US. _to date_ we have generally not outlawed religious beliefs and have only moderately imposed restrections on religious practices. However, a quick browse through, say, the Amnesty International website will provide a whole list of countries where being a member of the “wrong” political party invokes the death penalty and some of those countries are on their second or third generation in that format. The fact that one nation at one moment in history has (somewhat) embraced pluralism does not provide a refutation of my point. I can find places at particular moments in history where religions have demonstrated amazing tolerance. The question is not whether one can establish such an environment, but how long one can maintain it. ---
**Author:** ![Exgineer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/a88e4f/32.png) [@Exgineer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Exgineer)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2004, 1:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lobsang-what-is-it-with-you-and-atheism/269170/57 "2004-10-14T13:44:46Z")
> [@gobear](#): > > Oh, puh-leeze, people, if atheism is a religion then bald is a hair color. This atheist does not crusade against faith in Jehovah, nor seek to persecute believers, nor spend one second thinking about the God of the Bible any more than I do with Thor, Osiris, or Quetzalcoatl. There’s religious proselytizing and then there’s anti-religious proselytizing. You don’t do it, but you have to admit that others do. The last time I bothered to give it any serious consideration my religious faith had devolved into a sort of benign-neglect deism, and I don’t care enough to give it any more thought, so I don’t really have a dog in the fight. Theist or atheist, I don’t care what you are as long as you keep it to yourself, because I don’t care to waste my time listening to anybody blather on about the subject. This is why militant atheists piss me off as much as the aggressively religious do. I don’t care if “In God We Trust” is printed on our currency, and I’m not going to stiff a waitress on her tip because she wrote “God bless you” on the back of my recipt. They’re just words on pieces of paper, and have no practical impact on my life. Some people, though, seem to get positively enraged at the mere thought that other people might hold religious beliefs, as if it were some sort of egregious personal affront. Not just an understandable distaste for witnessers bothering them at suppertime, but an all consuming visceral hatred for religion in general, even when they’re _not_ personally inconvenienced. I can’t understand that mindset at all. ---
**Author:** ![Desmostylus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c57346/32.png) [@Desmostylus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Desmostylus)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2004, 1:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lobsang-what-is-it-with-you-and-atheism/269170/58 "2004-10-14T13:47:55Z")
> [@t-keela](#): > > I’ve just enjoyed the thread so far and want to not get whooshed too many times if I can help it. 😉 No wooshing going on. The stuff you and **Testy** have been saying is perfectly reasonable. As is most of the rest of the stuff in this thread. The Pit works much better than GD for some topics. ---
**Author:** ![Metacom](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ecae2f/32.png) [@Metacom](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Metacom)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2004, 1:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lobsang-what-is-it-with-you-and-atheism/269170/59 "2004-10-14T13:49:15Z")
> [@Desmostylus](#): > > Yes, it’s prefectly obvious that he’s arguing against fundamentalism. What the fuck, then, was the point of your first post to this thread? Why did you try to call an argument against fundamentalism a straw man? Because the OP, and therefore this thread, are about religious belief in general. Fundamentalist beliefs are a subset of religious beliefs that are easier to discredit then religious belief in general. Arguing against a position (fundamentalist religious beliefs) that differs from the position **Airman** was taking (religious belief in general) is a fallacious tactic, and one that bothers me (a non-fundamentlist Christian) greatly, because I’m incredibly fucking sick of people thinking it’s OK to equate “religious” with “fundamentalist.” ---
**Author:** ![calm\_kiwi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/9fc348/32.png) [@calm\_kiwi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/calm_kiwi)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2004, 1:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lobsang-what-is-it-with-you-and-atheism/269170/60 "2004-10-14T13:49:37Z")
After watching the debate this afternoon, well after the faith question, it struck me that I do not know what religion my PM is. I don’t know if she has a religion or not. It has never come up. She leads the country pretty well though. Why is it an important aspect? I found that question laughable. ( **Rune** will still call her the Prime Twat though) [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lobsang-what-is-it-with-you-and-atheism/269170.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lobsang-what-is-it-with-you-and-atheism/269170.md?page=4)