# Religion vs. Non Religion: The Trilogy: The Rise of the Explanation **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 14, 2014, 6:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/religion-vs-non-religion-the-trilogy-the-rise-of-the-explanation/681353 "2014-02-14T18:42:23Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![PlaceboTarget](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/placebotarget/32/1073_2.png) [@PlaceboTarget](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PlaceboTarget)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2014, 8:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/religion-vs-non-religion-the-trilogy-the-rise-of-the-explanation/681353/21 "2014-02-18T20:19:10Z")
> [@Great\_Antibob](#): > > I’m still trying to work out why the OP thinks his Christian (presumably, maybe Muslim?) background should stand in for all religion. That was never addressed, nor the assumptions about tying non-religion to science. Before invoking **jmliny** ’s right to employ inductive reasoning or the fact that s/he mentions transreligious notions (i.e. supernatural, soul immortality), I would suggest that the OP author may be a US citizen describing a typical US experience. ---
**Author:** ![Blaster\_Master](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/cab0a1/32.png) [@Blaster\_Master](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blaster_Master)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2014, 8:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/religion-vs-non-religion-the-trilogy-the-rise-of-the-explanation/681353/22 "2014-02-18T20:35:59Z")
> [@jmliny](#): > > I was more of trying to get at the issue of how some people think they are smarter than other people because they think they possess a superior reasoning by having it grounded in what they believe is knock-on-wood reality. But never talk about the other aspects of reasoning. One being, never give up. If my post above misunderstood what you meant, then I don’t know how else to interpret what you’re saying. Can you give an example of what you mean by “never give up” aspect of reasoning? That said, I think you’re going to continue to have issues with your threads because you’re using a lot of words in ways that other people don’t understand without explaining them. For example, you had two other threads before this using “destructible vs. indestrucible” with an assumption that we understood how you were using them and everyone had different ideas of what you meant. Now you’re talking about different aspects of reason, but it’s not clear what you mean by “different aspects of reason” either. So, you want to talk about aspects of reason, it’s not helpful to talk about snakes, because they have nothing to do with reasoning. Maybe actually walk us through a process of reasoning that you think exemplifies this different type of thinking. Give us your premises, walk through the logic, and give us a conclusion. ---
**Author:** ![Great\_Antibob](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e47c2d/32.png) [@Great\_Antibob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Great_Antibob)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2014, 9:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/religion-vs-non-religion-the-trilogy-the-rise-of-the-explanation/681353/23 "2014-02-18T21:11:11Z")
> [@PlaceboTarget](#): > > I would suggest that the OP author may be a US citizen describing a typical US experience. Why would that matter in the slightest? That neither excuses nor explains the broad overgeneralizations, which aren’t even true for “typical” US experiences. ---
**Author:** ![PlaceboTarget](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/placebotarget/32/1073_2.png) [@PlaceboTarget](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PlaceboTarget)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2014, 9:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/religion-vs-non-religion-the-trilogy-the-rise-of-the-explanation/681353/24 "2014-02-18T21:14:07Z")
> [@Great\_Antibob](#): > > Why would that matter in the slightest? > > That neither excuses nor explains the broad overgeneralizations, which aren’t even true for “typical” US experiences. What broad overgeneralization? 😕 ---
**Author:** ![Great\_Antibob](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e47c2d/32.png) [@Great\_Antibob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Great_Antibob)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2014, 9:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/religion-vs-non-religion-the-trilogy-the-rise-of-the-explanation/681353/25 "2014-02-18T21:33:21Z")
> [@PlaceboTarget](#): > > What broad overgeneralization? 😕 The indestructibility of the soul being a generally religious vs specifically Christian concept, for one. It’s not a generally religious concept but a specifically religious one, i.e. one that only holds for certain religions. For another, the concept that non-religious people are devoted to science as religion and rational thinking. Neither is true generally for religious people or non-religious people, even in the US. Now, the _stereotype_ that all religious people share generally Christian values or that non-religious people are devoted to science is certainly true in the US. But one quality of stereotypes is that they’re not particularly accurate. Why should we reason based on stereotypes instead of facts? ---
**Author:** ![PlaceboTarget](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/placebotarget/32/1073_2.png) [@PlaceboTarget](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PlaceboTarget)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2014, 10:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/religion-vs-non-religion-the-trilogy-the-rise-of-the-explanation/681353/26 "2014-02-18T22:32:41Z")
> [@Great\_Antibob](#): > > The indestructibility of the soul being a generally religious vs specifically Christian concept, for one. It’s not a generally religious concept but a specifically religious one, i.e. one that only holds for certain religions Why would this be regarded as broad overgeneralization, and not inductive reasoning? Soul immortality is a transreligious notion. Religions are believed to have evolved from an animist doctrine of souls. [Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soul): “The soul, in many religious, philosophical, psychological, and mythological traditions, is the incorporeal and, in many conceptions, immortal essence of a person, living thing, or object.” [Encyclopedia Britannica](http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/25819/animism): “Since the “great” religions of the world have all evolved in historic times, it may be assumed that animistic emphases dominated the globe in the prehistoric era.” ---
**Author:** ![Great\_Antibob](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e47c2d/32.png) [@Great\_Antibob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Great_Antibob)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2014, 10:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/religion-vs-non-religion-the-trilogy-the-rise-of-the-explanation/681353/27 "2014-02-18T22:42:39Z")
> [@PlaceboTarget](#): > > Why would this be regarded as broad overgeneralization, and not inductive reasoning? Because the OP has been repeatedly given examples it is not true. Inductive reasoning is fine - up to a point. But when you get additional data, you need to adjust your reasoning. The OP has not done so, despite this 3rd attempt at exactly the same thread. Besides, even in your quote, the soul exists and _in many conceptions_ it is immortal. Not ALL, but MANY. Even inductively, the OPs presumption of a specific sort of indestructible soul fails, unless beginning with a specifically Christian (again, possibly Muslim), rather than a generally religious, assumption. ---
**Author:** ![PlaceboTarget](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/placebotarget/32/1073_2.png) [@PlaceboTarget](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PlaceboTarget)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2014, 6:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/religion-vs-non-religion-the-trilogy-the-rise-of-the-explanation/681353/28 "2014-02-19T06:14:59Z")
> [@Great\_Antibob](#): > > Because the OP has been repeatedly given examples it is not true. > > Inductive reasoning is fine - up to a point. But when you get additional data, you need to adjust your reasoning. The OP has not done so, despite this 3rd attempt at exactly the same thread. > > Besides, even in your quote, the soul exists and _in many conceptions_ it is immortal. Not ALL, but MANY. Even inductively, the OPs presumption of a specific sort of indestructible soul fails, unless beginning with a specifically Christian (again, possibly Muslim), rather than a generally religious, assumption. Like I’ve already said. The OP author simply seems to start from a typical US experience of a believer. Most believers in the US belong to a Christian cult. The experience s/he describes, although subjective, is a believable one. Most believers in the world are either Muslim or Christian. Inductive reasoning in the matter the OP discusses is not far-fatched. The notion of soul immortality is a central one in most religions, especially because it is this notion that seems to have preceded the birth of coherent religious systems. A quasi universal notion, I would say, which specialists in the history of religion point out. The OP is right to regard this notion as the fundamental pylon of faith, and one that is really hard to counter. ---
**Author:** ![PlaceboTarget](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/placebotarget/32/1073_2.png) [@PlaceboTarget](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PlaceboTarget)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2014, 10:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/religion-vs-non-religion-the-trilogy-the-rise-of-the-explanation/681353/29 "2014-02-19T10:48:16Z")
> [@Great\_Antibob](#): > > So, a more interesting debate topic is “why do members of these religions presume to speak for all religions in ‘religion vs non-religion’ debates?” > > Certainly, the assumptions implicit in the OP are not universal to all religions, so it’s not especially meaningful to even consider the OP’s question without first addressing this fallacy. Namely, are the qualities the OP attributes to religion and non-religion universal to all religions and all non-religions? Well, clearly no. > > If not, how to proceed - limiting “religion” to mean Christianity, Islam, and possibly Judaism and likewise “non-religion” to a specific subset of non-believers? That makes some sense, but it’s a less grandiose debate than I imagine the OP had in mind. > > Because, surely, expanding the traits and qualities of religious and non-religious to encompass the entirety of those groups is otherwise meaningless. The only traits all religious people have in common is being religious. There are otherwise too many different creeds and beliefs to give them much of any other common beliefs - including indestructibility of souls. The OP presents things from the perspective of a religious person. It describes the belief and reaction of the author and in doing so it does generalize, without overgeneralizing though. But it would be misleading and irrelevant to discuss the extent to which all religions include the idea of soul mortality as long the OP discusses something else. The issue under debate is not religion, but religious people and their belief in soul mortality. “All religious people have in common is being religious.” It’s not all, but let’s focus on the phrase “being religious” and its meaning. The OP doesn’t discuss religion as an institution, or a system; instead, it describes a state of affair from the perspective of a religious person, whose position is generalized. A person’s religiosity doesn’t coincide with religion as an institution or a system. Indeed, there may be such systems (e.g. Confucianism) for which soul immortality is not an issue and which can still function institutionally and be embraced socially. Yet, this does not rule out the believers’ sentiment that there is more to life than this earthly experience. In fact, quite the contrary: cultural anthropologists and experts in the religious phenomenon attest pre-historic religiosity depending on the material manifestations of the belief in the idea of soul immortality. Being religious involves believing in soul immortality, regardless of time, space, cultural environment, denomination, and so on. It is a central belief, on which a person’s entire religiosity can ground and flourish, and once rooted in her/his heart, it will be virtually impossible to unroot. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_other_waldo_pepper/32/12370_2.png) [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Other_Waldo_Pepper)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2014, 11:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/religion-vs-non-religion-the-trilogy-the-rise-of-the-explanation/681353/30 "2014-02-19T11:16:04Z")
> [@PlaceboTarget](#): > > Being religious involves believing in soul immortality, regardless of time, space, cultural environment, denomination, and so on. I’m religious but don’t believe in soul immortality. Please tell me more about myself. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2014, 11:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/religion-vs-non-religion-the-trilogy-the-rise-of-the-explanation/681353/31 "2014-02-19T11:34:14Z")
IIRC, didn’t the Jews in the Old Testament era not believe in an afterlife? ---
**Author:** ![The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_other_waldo_pepper/32/12370_2.png) [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Other_Waldo_Pepper)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2014, 11:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/religion-vs-non-religion-the-trilogy-the-rise-of-the-explanation/681353/32 "2014-02-19T11:42:15Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > IIRC, didn’t the Jews in the Old Testament era not believe in an afterlife? Hence why, as a Jew in _this_ era, I likewise don’t bother with said belief. ---
**Author:** ![QuickSilver](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quicksilver/32/7832_2.png) [@QuickSilver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/QuickSilver)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2014, 12:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/religion-vs-non-religion-the-trilogy-the-rise-of-the-explanation/681353/33 "2014-02-19T12:15:25Z")
> [@PlaceboTarget](#): > > Being religious involves believing in soul immortality, regardless of time, space, cultural environment, denomination, and so on. It is a central belief, on which a person’s entire religiosity can ground and flourish, and once rooted in her/his heart, it will be virtually impossible to unroot. And yet, more and more people self identify as non-religious and atheism is growing around the world. ---
**Author:** ![Great\_Antibob](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e47c2d/32.png) [@Great\_Antibob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Great_Antibob)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2014, 3:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/religion-vs-non-religion-the-trilogy-the-rise-of-the-explanation/681353/34 "2014-02-19T15:52:35Z")
> [@PlaceboTarget](#): > > Most believers in the US belong to a Christian cult. The experience s/he describes, although subjective, is a believable one. And as I and other posters have noted, “So f\*\*\*ing what?” I can believe uneducated, ill-bred yokels believe the world is flat. That absolutely does NOT mean I have to reason based on the premise the world is flat. That makes no sense whatsoever. The OP was given facts contrary to this position (\*and to other premises in other threads, I might add). Repeatedly. So have you in this very thread. It is unreasonable to expect anybody else to play along with false premises. It IS reasonable to expect the OP to incorporate and synthesize new facts, especially those that contradict bad assumptions. Is it reasonable the OP believes as he does? Sure. I don’t argue that. Lots of people hold poor premises for a variety of understandable (though regrettable) reasons. Is it reasonable the OP **continues** to argue based on false premises? Absolutely not. And I have no idea why you contend it is reasonable that other people play along. There is no legitimate purposes served, nor do I or most other posters have any interest in doing so. ---
**Author:** ![PlaceboTarget](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/placebotarget/32/1073_2.png) [@PlaceboTarget](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PlaceboTarget)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2014, 9:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/religion-vs-non-religion-the-trilogy-the-rise-of-the-explanation/681353/35 "2014-02-19T21:54:16Z")
> [@Great\_Antibob](#): > > And as I and other posters have noted, “So f\*\*\*ing what?” > > I can believe uneducated, ill-bred yokels believe the world is flat. That absolutely does NOT mean I have to reason based on the premise the world is flat. That makes no sense whatsoever. > > The OP was given facts contrary to this position (\*and to other premises in other threads, I might add). Repeatedly. So have you in this very thread. > > It is unreasonable to expect anybody else to play along with false premises. It IS reasonable to expect the OP to incorporate and synthesize new facts, especially those that contradict bad assumptions. > > Is it reasonable the OP believes as he does? Sure. I don’t argue that. Lots of people hold poor premises for a variety of understandable (though regrettable) reasons. > > Is it reasonable the OP **continues** to argue based on false premises? Absolutely not. And I have no idea why you contend it is reasonable that other people play along. There is no legitimate purposes served, nor do I or most other posters have any interest in doing so. Basically you’re arguing, and if I’m wrong please let me know, the following: (1) making use of falsehood is unacceptable, and (2) holding falsehood is stupid. (1) From government or businesses to ordinary people, everybody lies, misrepresents and misleads on a daily basis. Utilitarians even claim falsehood is acceptable if it achieves good outcomes. William James maintains truth is depending on practical, personal interests. (2) holding falsehood in regard to the physical reality may be stupid, but holding falsehood in regard to the metaphysical one is not. And it would be stupid to approach metaphysical matters with the same tools we approach the physical one. ---
**Author:** ![simster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/simster/32/1047_2.png) [@simster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/simster)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2014, 10:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/religion-vs-non-religion-the-trilogy-the-rise-of-the-explanation/681353/36 "2014-02-19T22:05:31Z")
> [@PlaceboTarget](#): > > Basically you’re arguing, and if I’m wrong please let me know, the following: > (1) making use of falsehood is unacceptable, and > (2) holding falsehood is stupid. > > (1) > From government or businesses to ordinary people, everybody lies, misrepresents and misleads on a daily basis. Utilitarians even claim falsehood is acceptable if it achieves good outcomes. William James maintains truth is depending on practical, personal interests. > > (2) > holding falsehood in regard to the physical reality may be stupid, but holding falsehood in regard to the metaphysical one is not. And it would be stupid to approach metaphysical matters with the same tools we approach the physical one. Debating on false premises is the problem here - a) its a position no one really holds (strawman) b) its a waste of time If you’re doing hypothetical - its different - but arguing that “X is true, therefore” when X is demonstrably false - is a futile waste of time. I also like how you snuck in the term ‘cult’ - as in “Christian cult” - a nice, yet not so subtle slam - even if the language is _ **technically** _ true. I say this as an atheist tht agrees with the term - but its a way to immediately poison the well. Have a pleasant day. ---
**Author:** ![Great\_Antibob](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e47c2d/32.png) [@Great\_Antibob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Great_Antibob)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2014, 10:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/religion-vs-non-religion-the-trilogy-the-rise-of-the-explanation/681353/37 "2014-02-19T22:09:12Z")
> [@PlaceboTarget](#): > > Basically you’re arguing, and if I’m wrong please let me know, the following: > (1) making use of falsehood is unacceptable, and > (2) holding falsehood is stupid. Neither. My point is that once you have been made aware of new knowledge or facts, there is no longer a point in using your old premises, nor is there is there any obligation on anybody’s part to accept or use those premises. In mathematics, we often use proof by contradiction. It’s a technique of supposing a false statement is true and getting at the truth from there. It’s a useful technique. But only for determining the truth or falsity of the premise itself - not to make direct conclusions. But so what? That’s irrelevant to this thread. The premises of the OP are directly proven false. > [@PlaceboTarget](#): > > From government or businesses to ordinary people, everybody lies, misrepresents and misleads on a daily basis. So what? I’m not making value judgments. I’m approaching this from a practical standpoint. I don’t care if sometimes a false premise is a good thing. That makes absolutely no difference to THIS PARTICULAR THREAD. In the context of this thread, the OP wants to get at the truth about one aspect of humanity. And you aren’t going to get there by starting from something that isn’t true about humanity. > [@PlaceboTarget](#): > > holding falsehood in regard to the physical reality may be stupid, but holding falsehood in regard to the metaphysical one is not. So what? The OP wants to make definitely true statements about physically real people. Not pretend stereotype people. If you want to play little sandlot games with stereotypes, go right ahead. I’ve no problem with that. But if you want to get at true, factual things about people, those stereotypes are useless. ---
**Author:** ![PlaceboTarget](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/placebotarget/32/1073_2.png) [@PlaceboTarget](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PlaceboTarget)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2014, 10:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/religion-vs-non-religion-the-trilogy-the-rise-of-the-explanation/681353/38 "2014-02-19T22:39:56Z")
> [@Great\_Antibob](#): > > The OP wants to make definitely true statements about physically real people. Not pretend stereotype people. Well, that’s the reason I’ve been pointing out the fact that the OP author may be a US citizen describing a typical US situation. If s/he is a believer who has been mocked every time s/he has posted her/his position on a board like this, s/he is entitled to apply inductive reasoning and conclude that non-believers are arrogant or intolerant. Of course it can be argued that there are a lot of tolerant and benevolent non-religious people as well, but isn’t it curious that no such US tolerant or benevolent atheist ever shows up to friendly explain the OP author where and why s/he is wrong? Please let me know what “stereotype people” in the OP you are talking about. Best regards. ---
**Author:** ![Great\_Antibob](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e47c2d/32.png) [@Great\_Antibob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Great_Antibob)\ **Post date:** [February 20, 2014, 5:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/religion-vs-non-religion-the-trilogy-the-rise-of-the-explanation/681353/39 "2014-02-20T05:35:50Z")
> [@PlaceboTarget](#): > > Well, that’s the reason I’ve been pointing out the fact that the OP author may be a US citizen describing a typical US situation 1. Again, so what? There’s been no mockery of the poster’s beliefs so far. There’s been some (justified, in my opinion) light jabs at the opaque and nearly incomprehensible posts he’s made. 1. “Typical” is in the eye of the beholder. If you review the posters who have been responding, it’s not all been non-believers who have been doing so. In the last few posts in this thread alone, I and **TOWP** are among the religious members of the board, and we say not only that he’s wrong but that he hasn’t been paying much attention. There’s a difference between believing and accepting, at face value, all ridiculous things other people of belief spout. What stereotypes? Seriously? That atheists are primarily focused on reason and science, for one. And that of the religious as being aligned with belief over science, for another. One you yourself exhibit here is the stereotype of atheists as mocking those of belief. Yes, that’s true for some. It’s also true some people of faith mock others of faith. Logical reasoning isn’t the sole province of atheists and should be upheld by people of faith, no matter what you or the OP believe. ---
**Author:** ![PlaceboTarget](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/placebotarget/32/1073_2.png) [@PlaceboTarget](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PlaceboTarget)\ **Post date:** [February 20, 2014, 7:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/religion-vs-non-religion-the-trilogy-the-rise-of-the-explanation/681353/40 "2014-02-20T19:35:19Z")
> [@Great\_Antibob](#): > > 1. Again, so what? > > There’s been no mockery of the poster’s beliefs so far. There’s been some (justified, in my opinion) light jabs at the opaque and nearly incomprehensible posts he’s made. > > 1. “Typical” is in the eye of the beholder. > > If you review the posters who have been responding, it’s not all been non-believers who have been doing so. In the last few posts in this thread alone, I and **TOWP** are among the religious members of the board, and we say not only that he’s wrong but that he hasn’t been paying much attention. > > There’s a difference between believing and accepting, at face value, all ridiculous things other people of belief spout. > > What stereotypes? Seriously? That atheists are primarily focused on reason and science, for one. And that of the religious as being aligned with belief over science, for another. > > One you yourself exhibit here is the stereotype of atheists as mocking those of belief. Yes, that’s true for some. It’s also true some people of faith mock others of faith. Logical reasoning isn’t the sole province of atheists and should be upheld by people of faith, no matter what you or the OP believe. I appreciate your confession, but please refrain yourself from discussing my person. I accept your criticism as long as it refers to my posts or my ideas. Your post claims I exhibit the stereotype of atheists as mocking those of belief but shows no evidence for it. I know I’ve said the following: > [@](#): > > If s/he is a believer who has been mocked every time s/he has posted her/his position on a board like this, s/he is entitled to apply inductive reasoning and conclude that non-believers are arrogant or intolerant. Of course it can be argued that there are a lot of tolerant and benevolent non-religious people as well, but isn’t it curious that no such US tolerant or benevolent atheist ever shows up to friendly explain the OP author where and why s/he is wrong? There is no stereotype here. I don’t enjoy discussing with people who judge before they know. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/religion-vs-non-religion-the-trilogy-the-rise-of-the-explanation/681353.md?page=1)