# On the SDMB, why do atheists and theists have to be such utter dicks to each other? **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [July 12, 2008, 2:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-the-sdmb-why-do-atheists-and-theists-have-to-be-such-utter-dicks-to-each-other/456207 "2008-07-12T02:31:16Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 17
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2008, 1:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-the-sdmb-why-do-atheists-and-theists-have-to-be-such-utter-dicks-to-each-other/456207/321 "2008-07-14T13:52:59Z")
Here’s an idea: let’s split everyone into five pigeonholes based on their faith/lack thereof, and their feelings regarding whether or not to share. A continuum that looks like this: **Evangelical Believer \> Believer \> Agnostic \< Atheist \< Antitheist** If you stop lumping everyone to the left of “Agnostic” together, you’ll offend a lot less people and we won’t need threads like this. Same goes for lumping the right together; I’m a \*functional \* atheist (ie. a deist) but I don’t feel the need to poke fun at people of faith. I _do_ reserve the right to criticize organized religion(s) for policies, procedures and actions which have a negative impact- but not a right to criticize belief itself. ---
**Author:** ![Dangerosa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/22d042/32.png) [@Dangerosa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dangerosa)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2008, 2:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-the-sdmb-why-do-atheists-and-theists-have-to-be-such-utter-dicks-to-each-other/456207/322 "2008-07-14T14:06:15Z")
[QUOTE=Really Not All That Bright] I _do_ reserve the right to criticize organized religion(s) for policies, procedures and actions which have a negative impact- but not a right to criticize belief itself. [/QUOTE] I think we need to reserve the right to criticize organizations and people that have policies, procedures and actions which we perceive to have a negative impact - regardless of if they are religious. But what is going on here is a sort of “Scouting is bad” - why? “Well, the Boy Scouts discriminate against gays and atheists” - They do. And my son isn’t a boy scout. But Girl Scouts do not. (I’m uncertain about Bluebirds and Guides and the other scout programs in existence). And I happen to know a guy who is an atheist who has been leading inner city disadvantaged boy scout troops under the radar for twenty years. I don’t approve of the policies, procedures and actions of the BSA, but I do support his troops - because I believe that what he does for those boys is valuable - and because he and I believe what he can do within the BSA under the radar using their resources is more than he can do without it. And I buy girl scout cookies because girl scouts have nothing to do with BSA stupidity. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2008, 2:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-the-sdmb-why-do-atheists-and-theists-have-to-be-such-utter-dicks-to-each-other/456207/323 "2008-07-14T14:22:00Z")
[QUOTE=Malthus] I don’t agree. Such a definition makes many eastern religions “not religions”. For example - some forms of Buddhism and Taoism. Some forms (one must be careful here because there is a full spectrum in both cases) are quite uninterested in gods external to creation. While they are certainly not always religions _of the same nature_ as the big three monotheistic religions, I would argue that for the pupose of discussion they are certainly “religions” for the pupose of analysing their impact on society. They often have all the indicia of religions - a professional clergy, rituals, salvation of sorts, and most importantly, group self-identity. In fact they shed considerable light on the nature of religions. There also exists mysticism unrelated to any religious traditions - indeed, one could argue that _true_ mysticism, as in “the mystic experience”, is always a personal thing and is often considered as transcending religious traditions (for example, the Sufi poet Hafiz was famous for proclaiming that the true love of god makes one a Jew, a Christian and a Muslim, and presumably everything else as well). My thesis? That religion and the religious impulse are not necessarily the same - one can have a godly form of mysticism outside of religion (see Hafiz), and a formal religion without gods (see Buddhism). [/QUOTE] Excellent points. I think seeing God as a personal separate entity complicates things, however I also see it sometimes serves a purpose for the individual. I’ve been investigating the [Bahai Faith](http://info.bahai.org/article-1-4-0-2.html) . Although they have a more traditional view of God they also teach > [@](#): > > Bahá’u’lláh taught that God is too great and too subtle a Being for the finite human mind ever to understand Him adequately or to construct an accurate image of Him: > [@](#): > > Know that there are two kinds of knowledge: the knowledge of the essence of a thing and the knowledge of its qualities. The essence of a thing is known through its qualities; otherwise, it is unknown and hidden. > [@](#): > > Even if we say that God is the All-Powerful, the All-Loving, the Infinitely Just, such terms are derived from a very limited human experience of power, love, or justice. Indeed, our knowledge of anything is limited to our knowledge of those attributes or qualities perceptible to us: They readily admit they don’t know but they also believe they have a purpose, > [@](#): > > The principle of the unity of religion is at the center of Bahá’í teachings. Bahá’u’lláh states that humanity is engaged in a collective growth process quite similar to the growth process of an individual: just as a person begins life as a helpless infant and attains maturity in successive stages, so humankind began its collective social life in a primitive state, gradually attaining maturity. In the case of the individual, it is clear that his or her development takes place as a result of the education he or she receives from parents, teachers, and society in general. But what is the motive force in humankind’s collective evolution? > [@](#): > > In reality, there is only one religion, the religion of God. This one religion is continually evolving, and each particular religious system represents a stage in the evolution of the whole. Aside from their particular beliefs, overall they are taught to promote an independent investigation of the truth, personal and societal growth through equality and economic justice. While we may not share their religious beliefs about God, prophets and so forth, I think we can appreciate their teachings and see that overall they are likely to have a more positive influence on society in general. IMO they reflect the growth in religion they speak of. The very nature of religion is changing as mankind matures. Will it eventually fade completely? Not in the foreseeable future. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2008, 2:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-the-sdmb-why-do-atheists-and-theists-have-to-be-such-utter-dicks-to-each-other/456207/324 "2008-07-14T14:29:27Z")
[QUOTE=Dangerosa] I think we need to reserve the right to criticize organizations and people that have policies, procedures and actions which we perceive to have a negative impact - regardless of if they are religious. But what is going on here is a sort of “Scouting is bad” - why? “Well, the Boy Scouts discriminate against gays and atheists” - They do. And my son isn’t a boy scout. But Girl Scouts do not. (I’m uncertain about Bluebirds and Guides and the other scout programs in existence). And I happen to know a guy who is an atheist who has been leading inner city disadvantaged boy scout troops under the radar for twenty years. I don’t approve of the policies, procedures and actions of the BSA, but I do support his troops - because I believe that what he does for those boys is valuable - and because he and I believe what he can do within the BSA under the radar using their resources is more than he can do without it. And I buy girl scout cookies because girl scouts have nothing to do with BSA stupidity. [/QUOTE] I appreciate your post. Most people and things they’re involved in are a mix of good and bad. We don’t have to focus on the bad and reject the whole. We can address the specifics and remain appreciative of the positives. ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2008, 2:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-the-sdmb-why-do-atheists-and-theists-have-to-be-such-utter-dicks-to-each-other/456207/325 "2008-07-14T14:38:43Z")
[QUOTE=Really Not All That Bright] Here’s an idea: let’s split everyone into five pigeonholes based on their faith/lack thereof, and their feelings regarding whether or not to share. A continuum that looks like this: **Evangelical Believer \> Believer \> Agnostic \< Atheist \< Antitheist** If you stop lumping everyone to the left of “Agnostic” together, you’ll offend a lot less people and we won’t need threads like this. Same goes for lumping the right together; I’m a \*functional \* atheist (ie. a deist) but I don’t feel the need to poke fun at people of faith. I _do_ reserve the right to criticize organized religion(s) for policies, procedures and actions which have a negative impact- but not a right to criticize belief itself. [/QUOTE] I like this notion. My own reasons for not criticizing religious beliefs is that such an exercise tends to be pointless. Very often a religious belief is either based on an entirely subjective personal experience, or it is part of some sort of shared, corporate identity. Attacking a belief in the first case is pointless because there are literally no frames of reference - it is like criticizing someone for claiming to be in love. Who am I to say if their emotions or beliefs are valid or not? On the other hand - if the belief is part of a corporate identity, any criticism of that belief is likely to be seen as an attack on the identity, making people react defensively. It is for the same reason I do not approve of prostheletizing. Whatever your belief, there is only _one_ way of “prostheletizing” I approve of - to attempt to live your life in such an exemplary manner, with such joy and peace, that those who encounter you are drawn to inquire into what you believe in, because of your positive _example_. If all, believers or not, agreed to this, we may not all agree on beliefs but the world sure would be the better for it … 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2008, 3:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-the-sdmb-why-do-atheists-and-theists-have-to-be-such-utter-dicks-to-each-other/456207/326 "2008-07-14T15:33:01Z")
[QUOTE=Really Not All That Bright] Here’s an idea: let’s split everyone into five pigeonholes based on their faith/lack thereof, and their feelings regarding whether or not to share. A continuum that looks like this: **Evangelical Believer \> Believer \> Agnostic \< Atheist \< Antitheist** If you stop lumping everyone to the left of “Agnostic” together, you’ll offend a lot less people and we won’t need threads like this. Same goes for lumping the right together; I’m a \*functional \* atheist (ie. a deist) but I don’t feel the need to poke fun at people of faith. [/QUOTE] I would amend this slightly as follows: **Asshole \> Evangelical Believer \> Believer \> Agnostic \< Atheist \< Antitheist \< Asshole** Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2008, 3:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-the-sdmb-why-do-atheists-and-theists-have-to-be-such-utter-dicks-to-each-other/456207/327 "2008-07-14T15:36:57Z")
[QUOTE=Shodan] I would amend this slightly as follows: **Asshole \> Evangelical Believer \> Believer \> Agnostic \< Atheist \< Antitheist \< Asshole** [/QUOTE] 😃 Amended even further… Ladies and Gentlemen, I submit for your review and consideration Really Not All That Bright’s _Spectrum of Religious Asshattery_. Latin title to follow as soon as I can figure out a good idiomatic translation for “asshattery”. **Shodan** , your royalty check will be in the mail whenever we publish. **Holier-than-thou Asshole \> Evangelical Believer \> Believer \> Agnostic \< Atheist \< Antitheist \< Smarter-than-thou Asshole** ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2008, 3:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-the-sdmb-why-do-atheists-and-theists-have-to-be-such-utter-dicks-to-each-other/456207/328 "2008-07-14T15:44:45Z")
[QUOTE=Kalhoun] Actually, the god-like power attributed to jesus is precisely why I don’t capitalize it. It’s not the name…it’s the power that’s been attached to it. The story says that he is god on Earth and that he possesses unearthly powers. Honestly…as Jillyvn pointed out…jews have been using theiir stylistic choice with the whole g\_d thing since forever. When have they been called out on it? It is much more of an annoying infraction than my style choice, but they get a pass because their deity is sooooooo awesome that we can’t even write his name? Get real. [/QUOTE] No. I’m not talking about Jesus as a deity. Your defense does not hold up for Jesus. For God maybe, but not Jesus. It goes to one simple question: do you believe that the MAN Jesus did not live? That he is a total fabrication? Yes or no? I find the “g\_d” thing off-putting, as well. But it is my understanding that it is done out of great respect for certain believers. It’s as off-putting to me is this “Og” nonsense. They’re both not helpful in discussion to me, but the _reason_ it is done does matter. ---
**Author:** ![Kalhoun](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/3bc359/32.png) [@Kalhoun](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kalhoun)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2008, 3:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-the-sdmb-why-do-atheists-and-theists-have-to-be-such-utter-dicks-to-each-other/456207/329 "2008-07-14T15:46:26Z")
[QUOTE=Malthus] I don’t agree. Such a definition makes many eastern religions “not religions”. For example - some forms of Buddhism and Taoism. Some forms (one must be careful here because there is a full spectrum in both cases) are quite uninterested in gods external to creation. While they are certainly not always religions _of the same nature_ as the big three monotheistic religions, I would argue that for the pupose of discussion they are certainly “religions” for the pupose of analysing their impact on society. They often have all the indicia of religions - a professional clergy, rituals, salvation of sorts, and most importantly, group self-identity. In fact they shed considerable light on the nature of religions. There also exists mysticism unrelated to any religious traditions - indeed, one could argue that _true_ mysticism, as in “the mystic experience”, is always a personal thing and is often considered as transcending religious traditions (for example, the Sufi poet Hafiz was famous for proclaiming that the true love of god makes one a Jew, a Christian and a Muslim, and presumably everything else as well). My thesis? That religion and the religious impulse are not necessarily the same - one can have a godly form of mysticism outside of religion (see Hafiz), and a formal religion without gods (see Buddhism). [/QUOTE] Yeah, I run into this problem a lot. I don’t see how two completely different concepts can use the same word to describe them, but evidently this is how it is. For purposes of clarity, religion, to me, has to include a deity that is conscious, that cares, and that can control the universe. The looser version, those people who don’t have deities but have a world view…I don’t see how they can be discussed in the same conversation. I’m not saying they can’t…I just need someone to show me why this\* isn’t \* apples and oranges. One has gods, magic and worship; both have an element of group think, but one attributes nothing to the supernatural. How can they be called the same thing? THey have some overlap, but are decidedly different concepts at their core. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2008, 3:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-the-sdmb-why-do-atheists-and-theists-have-to-be-such-utter-dicks-to-each-other/456207/330 "2008-07-14T15:51:52Z")
[QUOTE=Really Not All That Bright] **Shodan** , your royalty check will be in the mail whenever we publish. **Holier-than-thou Asshole \> Evangelical Believer \> Believer \> Agnostic \< Atheist \< Antitheist \< Smarter-than-thou Asshole** [/QUOTE] Nice. I like that, with one small addition: Holier-than-thou Asshole \> Evangelical Believer \> Believer \> **Theist** \> Agnostic \< Atheist \< Antitheist \< Smarter-than-thou Asshole. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2008, 3:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-the-sdmb-why-do-atheists-and-theists-have-to-be-such-utter-dicks-to-each-other/456207/331 "2008-07-14T15:56:06Z")
[QUOTE=magellan01] Nice. I like that, with one small addition: Holier-than-thou Asshole \> Evangelical Believer \> Believer \> **Theist** \> Agnostic \< Atheist \< Antitheist \< Smarter-than-thou Asshole. [/QUOTE] What’s the difference between a theist and a believer? Organization? ---
**Author:** ![Dangerosa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/22d042/32.png) [@Dangerosa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dangerosa)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2008, 3:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-the-sdmb-why-do-atheists-and-theists-have-to-be-such-utter-dicks-to-each-other/456207/332 "2008-07-14T15:56:50Z")
Language is inexact. That’s why we add adjectives to our nouns and adjectives or use more specific and less general words, so that people understand we are talking about “Christian Fundamentalists” and not “the Dali Lama” when we are ranting about religious people. (Or that we are ranting about the Dali Lama and not snake handlers). This problem exists with all sorts of words other than religion - telling you I bought a blue dress is nearly meaningless when there are dozens of hues of blue. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2008, 4:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-the-sdmb-why-do-atheists-and-theists-have-to-be-such-utter-dicks-to-each-other/456207/333 "2008-07-14T16:03:16Z")
[QUOTE=Really Not All That Bright] What’s the difference between a theist and a believer? Organization? [/QUOTE] Religion. One can believe in a Creator, but not ascribe to any religion. ---
**Author:** ![Dangerosa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/22d042/32.png) [@Dangerosa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dangerosa)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2008, 4:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-the-sdmb-why-do-atheists-and-theists-have-to-be-such-utter-dicks-to-each-other/456207/334 "2008-07-14T16:17:13Z")
[QUOTE=magellan01] Religion. One can believe in a Creator, but not ascribe to any religion. [/QUOTE] Religion is separate from the continuum of belief. One can likewise ascribe to (or participate in) a religion (Unitarianism, Humanism, some forms of Buddhism, some secular Jews, hell, some Christians participate and self identify, but don’t believe) and not believe in a creator. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2008, 4:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-the-sdmb-why-do-atheists-and-theists-have-to-be-such-utter-dicks-to-each-other/456207/335 "2008-07-14T16:20:23Z")
[QUOTE=Dangerosa] Religion is separate from the continuum of belief. One can likewise ascribe to (or participate in) a religion (Unitarianism, Humanism, some forms of Buddhism, some secular Jews, hell, some Christians participate and self identify, but don’t believe) and not believe in a creator. [/QUOTE] One must first believe in a higher power before they can adhere to a particular flavor of it. ---
**Author:** ![Dangerosa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/22d042/32.png) [@Dangerosa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dangerosa)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2008, 4:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-the-sdmb-why-do-atheists-and-theists-have-to-be-such-utter-dicks-to-each-other/456207/336 "2008-07-14T16:44:18Z")
[QUOTE=magellan01] One must first believe in a higher power before they can adhere to a particular flavor of it. [/QUOTE] Not all religions have that requirement for participation. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2008, 4:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-the-sdmb-why-do-atheists-and-theists-have-to-be-such-utter-dicks-to-each-other/456207/337 "2008-07-14T16:51:12Z")
[QUOTE=Dangerosa] Not all religions have that requirement for participation. [/QUOTE] Sure they do, to some degree. Otherwise, it’s the religion of pure rationality. But, if this helps, I didn’t mean that higher power had to be a deity. But I’d rather not turn this into a hijack, so I’ll just leave it there and give you the last word. ---
**Author:** ![Giraffe](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/giraffe/32/129_2.png) [@Giraffe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Giraffe)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2008, 5:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-the-sdmb-why-do-atheists-and-theists-have-to-be-such-utter-dicks-to-each-other/456207/338 "2008-07-14T17:06:46Z")
[QUOTE=Carol Stream] She said she does it annoy people. How is that not TROLLING? by your own definition? [/QUOTE] This has already been answered, but I’ll throw in my own Pit-mod spin: 1. The rule on trolling is meant to describe posting behavior that, _when taken as a whole_, reveals a primary motivation of trying to piss people off and cause a reaction. Assessing said motivation is of course highly subjective, which is why we have mods to make judgement calls. We wrote the forum rules to give you guys a general idea of how those calls are made, not to provide weapons for rules literalists to use against those they disagree with. 2. In the Pit, many posts are written specifically to piss people off. Calling someone a douchebag has no other purpose, really. So pointing out that someone’s Pit post was intended to annoy as proof of trolling is, well, retarded. 3. If you find yourself constantly trying to get the mods to rule against people in the Pit, maybe you should consider posting in another forum. ---
**Author:** ![Kalhoun](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/3bc359/32.png) [@Kalhoun](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kalhoun)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2008, 5:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-the-sdmb-why-do-atheists-and-theists-have-to-be-such-utter-dicks-to-each-other/456207/339 "2008-07-14T17:08:47Z")
[QUOTE=magellan01] No. I’m not talking about Jesus as a deity. Your defense does not hold up for Jesus. For God maybe, but not Jesus. It goes to one simple question: do you believe that the MAN Jesus did not live? That he is a total fabrication? Yes or no? I find the “g\_d” thing off-putting, as well. But it is my understanding that it is done out of great respect for certain believers. It’s as off-putting to me is this “Og” nonsense. They’re both not helpful in discussion to me, but the _reason_ it is done does matter. [/QUOTE] But he’s not considered to be just a man – his entire identity has to do with him being the son of god, which means he’s not a man. I’m not confused about when to capitalize a proper name and when not to; from an atheist standpoint, not capitalizing his name fits perfectly with my little mini-protest. Regarding the “great respect for certain believers”, that’s not only irrelevant to an atheist, but is also not my understanding of the reason for the practice of omitting the “o”. According to Judaism 101: > [@](#): > > Judaism does not prohibit writing the Name of God per se; it prohibits only erasing or defacing a Name of God. However, observant Jews avoid writing any Name of God casually because of the risk that the written Name might later be defaced, obliterated or destroyed accidentally or by one who does not know better. :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2008, 5:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-the-sdmb-why-do-atheists-and-theists-have-to-be-such-utter-dicks-to-each-other/456207/340 "2008-07-14T17:13:30Z")
[QUOTE=Kalhoun] But he’s not considered to be just a man – his entire identity has to do with him being the son of god, which means he’s not a man. I’m not confused about when to capitalize a proper name and when not to; from an atheist standpoint, not capitalizing his name fits perfectly with my little mini-protest. [/QUOTE] No. Everyone agrees that he was a man. Some people _also_ believe that he was the Son of God. Those that do not believe that—the majority of the world, by the way—STILL agree that he was a man. A man with a name. A name, like any other, that should be capitalized. It’s really that simple. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-the-sdmb-why-do-atheists-and-theists-have-to-be-such-utter-dicks-to-each-other/456207.md?page=16) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-the-sdmb-why-do-atheists-and-theists-have-to-be-such-utter-dicks-to-each-other/456207.md?page=18)