# Questions on Christianity (Again...) **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [August 30, 2010, 2:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952 "2010-08-30T02:13:22Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 28
**Author:** ![aigonz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4491bb/32.png) [@aigonz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aigonz)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2010, 1:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/541 "2010-09-07T01:17:41Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > > [@aigonz](#): > > > > The word atheism comes from the Greek word atheos which means “without gods”. > > I know the etymology. I actually know Greek. I’m guessing you don’t. The etymology is not the definition. > > > [@](#): > > > > The reason most ‘atheists’ have softended their position is because ‘hard atheism’ was demonstarted to be philosophically untenable by the ‘all places at all times’ argument. > > > > If you don’t hold to athiesm, pronounce yourself an agnostic. The rest is intellectual dishonesty. > > You don’t know what you’re talking about on any level, do you? > > Agnosticism is not a position on the existence of gods, but a position that the question cannot be answered with available evidence. > > The way the word atheism is used academically, by people who are trying to actually be precise with their language and terminology, is to refer to the entire set ofr people who lack theistic beliefs. This larger set has subsets, including “strong” and “weak” atheism. Weak atheism is what often gets erroneously called “agnosticism.” It’s a lack of belief in the existence of gods, but not a positive assertion of the existence of non-gods. > > The definitions were not “softened” because of any theistic counter-argument. That’s complete fantasy on your part. I don’t know where you get some of this crap. 1\> Etymology informs meaning. Otherwise meaning is lost by manipulations such as you are enagaging in. 2\> You state “Agnosticism is not a position on the existence of gods, but a position that the question cannot be answered with available evidence.” What sort of nonsense is this? ‘The question’ is about the existence of gods, so it is a position on the existence of gods. ---
**Author:** ![aigonz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4491bb/32.png) [@aigonz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aigonz)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2010, 1:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/542 "2010-09-07T01:20:54Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > > [@aigonz](#): > > > > And please read my post abut evolution again. My objection is not to ‘evolution’ at a micro level. However there is no empirical evidence whatsoever for the hypothesis of common descent. Of course you are wecome to provide some. You could use the whales, the horses, or various other previously discredited claims. Or do you have something new? > > I once more have to reiterate that you don’t have the slightest idea what you’re talking about. The evidence for common descent is voluminous and dispositive. Those retrogenes I was talking about are the absolute smoking gun. > > There is no difference between “micro” and “macro” evolution by the way. They are the same thing. Macro is just a whole bunch of micro. Don’t use words if you don’t know what they mean. Your comments about me simply relect a paucity of argument. I ask again. From the fruit fly experiments, where is the new species? ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2010, 1:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/543 "2010-09-07T01:26:06Z")
> [@aigonz](#): > > 1\> Etymology informs meaning. No it doesn’t. Etymology is just etymology. It may or may not have anything to do with an evolved definition. Lingusitics is apparently another area in which you don’t jknow what you’re talking about. > [@](#): > > 2\> You state “Agnosticism is not a position on the existence of gods, but a position that the question cannot be answered with available evidence.” What sort of nonsense is this? ‘The question’ is about the existence of gods, so it is a position on the existence of gods. No it isn’t. The word “agnostic” is not a position on the existence of gods. The word means what I said it means. You don’t know what you’re talking about. The definition of a word is not dependent on the question. What kind of nonsesne is THAT? ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2010, 1:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/544 "2010-09-07T01:31:00Z")
> [@aigonz](#): > > > [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > > > I once more have to reiterate that you don’t have the slightest idea what you’re talking about. The evidence for common descent is voluminous and dispositive. Those retrogenes I was talking about are the absolute smoking gun. > > > > There is no difference between “micro” and “macro” evolution by the way. They are the same thing. Macro is just a whole bunch of micro. Don’t use words if you don’t know what they mean. > > Your comments about me simply relect a paucity of argument. > > I ask again. From the fruit fly experiments, where is the new species? There are any number of observed speciation events I can show you. I don’t know anything specifically about fruit flies. Why does it have to be fruit flies? What kind of stupid ass criterion is that? You also haven’t acknowldged any of the other cites you’ve already been shown, so why should I believe you’d acknowledge this one? ---
**Author:** ![aigonz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4491bb/32.png) [@aigonz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aigonz)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2010, 1:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/545 "2010-09-07T01:33:12Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > > [@aigonz](#): > > > > 1\> Etymology informs meaning. > > No it doesn’t. Etymology is just etymology. It may or may not have anything to do with an evolved definition. Lingusitics is apparently another area in which you don’t jknow what you’re talking about. > > > [@](#): > > > > 2\> You state “Agnosticism is not a position on the existence of gods, but a position that the question cannot be answered with available evidence.” What sort of nonsense is this? ‘The question’ is about the existence of gods, so it is a position on the existence of gods. > > No it isn’t.,The word “agnostic” is not a position on the existence of gods. The woird means what I said it means. You don’t know what you’re talking about. 1\> The reason the word atheism means anything at all is because of it’s etymology. We have a word for soft atheism, agnosticism. The use of 'soft and ‘hard’ atheism is a cop out. 2\> When you say that agnosticism is a position that “the question cannot be answered with available evidence” what QUESTION are you referring to? The existence of god(s). Understand now? ---
**Author:** ![aigonz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4491bb/32.png) [@aigonz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aigonz)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2010, 1:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/546 "2010-09-07T01:52:34Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > > [@aigonz](#): > > > > Your comments about me simply relect a paucity of argument. > > > > I ask again. From the fruit fly experiments, where is the new species? > > There are any number of observed speciation events I can show you. I don’t know anything specifically about fruit flies. Why does it have to be fruit flies? What kind of stupid ass criterion is that? > > You also haven’t acknowldged any of the other cites you’ve already been shown, so why should I believe you’d acknowledge this one? The point is credibility. I actually have no difficulty particularly with some aspects of evolution, because I see it as no threat to the notion of an intelligent agent in creation. You will find the past head of the human genome project Dr Frances Collins is of a similar view. What I have a problem with is the exagerated and false claims of vindication from science. A case in point is the claim that was made here about the fruit fly experiments. Yet these are an abject failure for evolutionary biologists. I previously posted on the various hoaxes and outright deceit used to push evolution in the past. The scientific method is one to be preserved, not manipulated for ideological purposes. ---
**Author:** ![aigonz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4491bb/32.png) [@aigonz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aigonz)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2010, 2:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/547 "2010-09-07T02:00:21Z")
[quote=“aigonz, post:542, topic:551952”] > [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > I once more have to reiterate that you don’t have the slightest idea what you’re talking about. The evidence for common descent is voluminous and dispositive. Those retrogenes I was talking about are the absolute smoking gun. > > There is no difference between “micro” and “macro” evolution by the way. They are the same thing. Macro is just a whole bunch of micro. Don’t use words if you don’t know what they mean. You misunderstand ‘function’. Macroevolution implies the emergence of new complex functions. Microevolution, in its known examples (eg antibiotic resistance) is made of simple variations, which are selectable for the immediate advantage connected to them. A new functional protein cannot be built by simple selectable variations. Function just doesn’t work that way. Function comes from higher levels of order and connection, which can’t emerge from a random accumulation of micro-variations. ---
**Author:** ![aigonz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4491bb/32.png) [@aigonz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aigonz)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2010, 2:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/548 "2010-09-07T02:11:42Z")
> [@aigonz](#): > > > [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > > > There are any number of observed speciation events I can show you. I don’t know anything specifically about fruit flies. Why does it have to be fruit flies? What kind of stupid ass criterion is that? > > > > You also haven’t acknowldged any of the other cites you’ve already been shown, so why should I believe you’d acknowledge this one? > > The point is credibility. > > I actually have no difficulty particularly with some aspects of evolution, because I see it as no threat to the notion of an intelligent agent in creation. You will find the past head of the human genome project Dr Frances Collins is of a similar view. > > What I have a problem with is the exagerated and false claims of vindication from science. > > A case in point is the claim that was made here about the fruit fly experiments. Yet these are an abject failure for evolutionary biologists. > > I previously posted on the various hoaxes and outright deceit used to push evolution in the past. The scientific method is one to be preserved, not manipulated for ideological purposes. On speciation…it would be worthwhile defining ‘speciation’ and ‘species’ for the purposes of this discussion. However let me state this. The use of Speciation to support macro evolution is similar to a ‘bait and switch’ argument. Speciation is not evidence for macroevolution. Variation within groups of organisms (however you wish to define those groups) only proves that creatures can adapt to their environments, not that these changes are without limitation. In other words, the step from what has been observed to what has been concluded (by evolutionary biologists) is speculation. ---
**Author:** ![CurtC](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ce73a5/32.png) [@CurtC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CurtC)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2010, 2:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/549 "2010-09-07T02:36:25Z")
> [@raindog](#): > > Fair enough, although that looks a heck of a lot more like agnosticism to me than even soft atheism. It’s exactly the meaning that pretty much everyone who self-identifies as an atheist uses. If you restricted the term “atheist” to mean only someone who asserts that there cannot be any gods, there would not be any atheists. > [@aigonz](#): > > I actually have no difficulty particularly with some aspects of evolution, because I see it as no threat to the notion of an intelligent agent in creation. You will find the past head of the human genome project Dr Frances Collins is of a similar view. Bullshit. Francis Collins does NOT share your view of evolution. Dr. Collins knows that all life on Earth evolved from a common ancestor. ETA: Frances? is that his sister? Is anyone keeping a list of the subjects you’ve demonstrated that you misunderstand them? So far I have quantum physics, the Theory of Evolution, and now famous scientists. How about cosmology? I’m sure if we crack open that subject we can find all sorts of misunderstandings spilling out. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2010, 3:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/550 "2010-09-07T03:00:57Z")
> [@aigonz](#): > > 1\> The reason the word atheism means anything at all is because of it’s etymology. We have a word for soft atheism, agnosticism. The use of 'soft and ‘hard’ atheism is a cop out. This is gibberish, and you’re flat wrong about the definition of “agnosticism.” Don’t use words if you don’t know what they mean. > [@](#): > > 2\> When you say that agnosticism is a position that “the question cannot be answered with available evidence” what QUESTION are you referring to? The existence of god(s). Understand now? Let me explain it very carefully to you, since you’ve obviously necer been educated on any of this before. The word “agonosticism” is not an answer to the question “do you believe that gods exist?” It is a non-sequitur with regards to that question. It is not an opinion or beliefe about whether gods exist. It is an opinion about whether their existence can be PROVEN. It is possible to be either an atheist or a theist and still be an agnostic, ok? ---
**Author:** ![Revenant\_Threshold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f1d935/32.png) [@Revenant\_Threshold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revenant_Threshold)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2010, 3:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/551 "2010-09-07T03:05:12Z")
> [@aigonz](#): > > I’m not sure I really see what you are arguing. Atheists hold meeting and conferences, write books and pamphlets, they debate their ideology with those who hold other beliefs. Systematic works on the ‘doctrine’ of atheism have bbeen written. I fail to see how athiesm can be considered anything other than an ideology, or for that matter why there is so much opposition when it is. Atheism is an idealogy; as is theism. As is Christianity, and so on. But that does not make them equivalent. Think of it like football. Comparing atheism to Christianity is like comparing football to an NFL game. Yes, they’re both sports. But one is a very general view, encompassing many possible rules, many possible games. There’s few rules or ideas about “football” - you can’t even say that it’s a game of playing the ball with the foot. Whereas when it comes to the NFL game, there’s lots to talk about; rules, plays, positions of players, tactical ideas, how to beat particular teams, and so on. In the same way, atheism is incredibly general. All being an athiest requires is nonbelief in gods. You can hold any number of varying doctrinal views, but none of them are guessable simply from “atheist”. Whereas being a Christian does tend to imply additional doctrinal ideas than simply “theist”. It’s not a simple answer to a simple question. Yes, both are idealogies. But that does not make them equivalent. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2010, 3:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/552 "2010-09-07T03:06:24Z")
> [@aigonz](#): > > > [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > > > There are any number of observed speciation events I can show you. I don’t know anything specifically about fruit flies. Why does it have to be fruit flies? What kind of stupid ass criterion is that? > > > > You also haven’t acknowldged any of the other cites you’ve already been shown, so why should I believe you’d acknowledge this one? > > The point is credibility. > > I actually have no difficulty particularly with some aspects of evolution, because I see it as no threat to the notion of an intelligent agent in creation. You realize that a contradiction of a magic wizard hypothesis is not a “problem,” do you not? You have no reason to presume a wizard in the first place, so any contradiction just shows a flaw in your assumptions, not in the actual facts of evolution. > [@](#): > > You will find the past head of the human genome project Dr Frances Collins is of a similar view. > > What I have a problem with is the exagerated and false claims of vindication from science. > > A case in point is the claim that was made here about the fruit fly experiments. Yet these are an abject failure for evolutionary biologists. > > I previously posted on the various hoaxes and outright deceit used to push evolution in the past. The scientific method is one to be preserved, not manipulated for ideological purposes. All of this is handwaving garbage. Guess who exposed the occasional hoaxes. Go on, guess. It was scientists, that’s who.the notion that if someone trie to perpetrate a hoax on scientists, that this makes all scientific methdology and accumulated knowledge invalidated is asinine beyond words. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2010, 3:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/553 "2010-09-07T03:12:10Z")
[quote=“aigonz, post:547, topic:551952”] > [@aigonz](#): > > You misunderstand ‘function’. > > Macroevolution implies the emergence of new complex functions. No it doesn’t. Macroevolution refers to speciation. Don’t use words if you don’t know what they mean. > [@](#): > > Microevolution, in its known examples (eg antibiotic resistance) is made of simple variations, which are selectable for the immediate advantage connected to them. This is also totally incorrect. You don’t have the slightest idea what you’re talking about, and you’re arguing with people who do. You should be aware of that. ---
**Author:** ![Revenant\_Threshold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f1d935/32.png) [@Revenant\_Threshold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revenant_Threshold)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2010, 3:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/554 "2010-09-07T03:15:32Z")
It’s illogical, if nothing else. You can have new complex functions as a result of simple variations. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2010, 3:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/555 "2010-09-07T03:17:46Z")
> [@aigonz](#): > > On speciation…it would be worthwhile defining ‘speciation’ and ‘species’ for the purposes of this discussion. However let me state this. The use of Speciation to support macro evolution is similar to a ‘bait and switch’ argument. Speciation is not evidence for macroevolution. Speciation IS macroevolution, son. That’s what the word means. You don’t know what you’re talking about. macroveloution does not mean “forming a new function.” Evolutionary theory does not claim or predict that species form completely new organs or limbs or anything like that. Existing “functions” change and adapt very gradually over a long period of time. You are demonstrating a great deal of ignorance on this subject. You should be aware of that if you really want to evangelize people who do understand this material. > [@](#): > > In other words, the step from what has been observed to what has been concluded (by evolutionary biologists) is speculation. I don’t even know what you think you’re talking about with this. This sentence makes no sense. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2010, 3:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/556 "2010-09-07T03:23:42Z")
> [@Revenant\_Threshold](#): > > It’s illogical, if nothing else. You can have new complex functions as a result of simple variations. Yes, but I think **Aigonz** (whose user name means “God,” by the way. A humble kid, this one) is one of those creationists who believes that evolutionary theory claims that fish spontaneously grow legs or that lizards sprout wings and tuirn into birds. He thinks that’s what “macroevolution” means. I didn’t think even AIG bothered with those kinds of strawmen anymore. ---
**Author:** ![aigonz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4491bb/32.png) [@aigonz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aigonz)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2010, 4:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/557 "2010-09-07T04:28:29Z")
> [@aigonz](#): > > I actually have no difficulty particularly with some aspects of evolution, because I see it as no threat to the notion of an intelligent agent in creation. You will find the past head of the human genome project Dr Frances Collins is of a similar view. Bullshit. Francis Collins does NOT share your view of evolution. Dr. Collins knows that all life on Earth evolved from a common ancestor. ETA: Frances? is that his sister? Is anyone keeping a list of the subjects you’ve demonstrated that you misunderstand them? So far I have quantum physics, the Theory of Evolution, and now famous scientists. How about cosmology? I’m sure if we crack open that subject we can find all sorts of misunderstandings spilling out. [/QUOTE] Perhaps if you took the time to read what I write, you would be less confused. The view I stated I share with Collins is that evolution is no threat to the notion of an intelligent designer. As to Quantum physics, to what do you refer? The claim was made that there are uncaused quantum events. I have asked for an example and evidence. No-one has responded. It seems when someone challenges your preciously held beliefs you get a bit twitchy. Never mind. ---
**Author:** ![aigonz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4491bb/32.png) [@aigonz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aigonz)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2010, 4:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/558 "2010-09-07T04:30:45Z")
> [@CurtC](#): > > > [@raindog](#): > > > > Fair enough, although that looks a heck of a lot more like agnosticism to me than even soft atheism. > > It’s exactly the meaning that pretty much everyone who self-identifies as an atheist uses. If you restricted the term “atheist” to mean only someone who asserts that there cannot be any gods, there would not be any atheists. Yes, but that was not always the case, was it? And you know why? Because the claim of atheism, that there “is no God”, is self defeating. And once that was demonstrated, atheists started changing the terminology. ---
**Author:** ![aigonz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4491bb/32.png) [@aigonz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aigonz)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2010, 4:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/559 "2010-09-07T04:37:43Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > > [@aigonz](#): > > > > 1\> The reason the word atheism means anything at all is because of it’s etymology. We have a word for soft atheism, agnosticism. The use of 'soft and ‘hard’ atheism is a cop out. > > This is gibberish, and you’re flat wrong about the definition of “agnosticism.” Don’t use words if you don’t know what they mean. > > > [@](#): > > > > 2\> When you say that agnosticism is a position that “the question cannot be answered with available evidence” what QUESTION are you referring to? The existence of god(s). Understand now? > > Let me explain it very carefully to you, since you’ve obviously necer been educated on any of this before. The word “agonosticism” is not an answer to the question “do you believe that gods exist?” It is a non-sequitur with regards to that question. It is not an opinion or beliefe about whether gods exist. It is an opinion about whether their existence can be PROVEN. It is possible to be either an atheist or a theist and still be an agnostic, ok? Your comments have been as follows: “Agnosticism is not a position on the existence of gods, but a position that the question cannot be answered with available evidence.” Then ““agnostic” is not a position on the existence of gods.”. Then “The word “agonosticism” is not an answer to the question “do you believe that gods exist?”” Atheism, agnosticism, theism are all positions on the existence of gods. One says ‘no’. One says ‘yes’. One says ‘don’t know’. You’ve been caught out and are trying to run. ---
**Author:** ![aigonz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4491bb/32.png) [@aigonz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aigonz)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2010, 4:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/560 "2010-09-07T04:39:16Z")
> [@Revenant\_Threshold](#): > > > [@aigonz](#): > > > > I’m not sure I really see what you are arguing. Atheists hold meeting and conferences, write books and pamphlets, they debate their ideology with those who hold other beliefs. Systematic works on the ‘doctrine’ of atheism have bbeen written. I fail to see how athiesm can be considered anything other than an ideology, or for that matter why there is so much opposition when it is. > > Atheism is an idealogy; as is theism. As is Christianity, and so on. But that does not make them equivalent. > > Think of it like football. Comparing atheism to Christianity is like comparing football to an NFL game. Yes, they’re both sports. But one is a very general view, encompassing many possible rules, many possible games. There’s few rules or ideas about “football” - you can’t even say that it’s a game of playing the ball with the foot. Whereas when it comes to the NFL game, there’s lots to talk about; rules, plays, positions of players, tactical ideas, how to beat particular teams, and so on. > > In the same way, atheism is incredibly general. All being an athiest requires is nonbelief in gods. You can hold any number of varying doctrinal views, but none of them are guessable simply from “atheist”. Whereas being a Christian does tend to imply additional doctrinal ideas than simply “theist”. It’s not a simple answer to a simple question. Yes, both are idealogies. But that does not make them equivalent. The moment you stated atheism is an ideology you agreed with me. I never claimed equivalency. Atheism is an ideology. We agree. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952.md?page=27) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952.md?page=29)