# Respecting Religious Beliefs **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 25, 2009, 2:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/respecting-religious-beliefs/487367 "2009-02-25T14:56:36Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 7
**Author:** ![Locrian](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/locrian/32/14146_2.png) [@Locrian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Locrian)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2009, 10:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/respecting-religious-beliefs/487367/121 "2009-02-26T22:39:18Z")
> [@Malthus](#): > > Maybe you made him cry because he thought a heated, apparently raving lunatic was about to stab him with a steak knife? šŸ˜ƒ Ha! Possiblyā€¦ I was eating at the bar we talked for a while about sports, then he tries to sell me a religion. I think it was because I didnā€™t yell, I said it very quietly, bartender wasnā€™t around. Maybe he cried because he found someone he COULDNā€™T save. Still, doubt is the key. (To paraphrase Gekkoā€¦) Doubt is good. Doubt works. I doubt I can trust everyone in CA, so Iā€™ll lock my front door. I doubt Iā€™ll win a million $$$ by picking the right online balloon, so I wonā€™t click. I doubt there is an afterlife. I doubt religion is all itā€™s cracked up to be. I doubt I should walk around South Central at 3:00 am and be safe. I doubt Nadya Suleman can support her kids. Doubt = common sense, so throw doubt in the ring, let 'em box. ---
**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 26, 2009, 10:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/respecting-religious-beliefs/487367/122 "2009-02-26T22:58:35Z")
> [@astorian](#): > > After all, if he REALLY believes what heā€™s saying, one must ask, ā€œSo Dickieā€¦ what do you we propose we DO about those child abusing Christians?ā€ > > If Dawkins REALLY believed I was molesting my son, I trust heā€™d DO something about it. Call the police, report me to social workers, try to have the government take my son away, whatever. Why ? None of those people would do anything. > [@astorian](#): > > If he believes what he wrote, I defy him, ā€œWHATCHA GONNA DO ABOUT IT?ā€ Write a book and talk about it, since thatā€™s pretty much all he can do. > [@Malthus](#): > > Lots of relatively minor things are worse that ā€œyuckyā€ [the exact reaction of the little girl in his anecdote]. This does not, logically, mean that lots of relatively minor things are worse than being _molested by a priest_. The logical fallacy he uses is to put a low _subjective_ negative emotional value on an experience that we, as a society, find _objectively_ horrible, and then to claim that another, quite unrelated thing (being raised Catholic) has ā€œin many casesā€ an equal or greater _subjective_ negative emotional value, and thus ought to have an equal or greater _objective_ condemnation. Incorrect. The mistake here is yours; you are confusing damage with trauma. The person raised to be religious will most likely **suffer** less than the victim of molestation; but they will probably be much more twisted. They may in fact not suffer at all directly; that wonā€™t keep them from inflicting harm on themselves and others because of their delusions. How many people has Catholicism, for example, been responsible for inflicting suffering and death on over the years, as opposed to child molesters ? Iā€™m sure itā€™s crusade against condoms in Africa alone has killed more people than were molested by priests. ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2009, 11:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/respecting-religious-beliefs/487367/123 "2009-02-26T23:08:40Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > Incorrect. The mistake here is yours; you are confusing damage with trauma. The person raised to be religious will most likely **suffer** less than the victim of molestation; but they will probably be much more twisted. They may in fact not suffer at all directly; that wonā€™t keep them from inflicting harm on themselves and others because of their delusions. How many people has Catholicism, for example, been responsible for inflicting suffering and death on over the years, as opposed to child molesters ? Iā€™m sure itā€™s crusade against condoms in Africa alone has killed more people than were molested by priests. That has nothing whatsoever to do with what Dawkins was saying: he was expressly discusing individual _suffering_, not ā€œinflicting harm on themselves and othersā€ because of their beliefs. One can easily hold the opinion that Catholicism has overall been a baleful force for harm in the world and _still_ find Dawkinsā€™ argument full of hooey. ---
**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 26, 2009, 11:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/respecting-religious-beliefs/487367/124 "2009-02-26T23:25:00Z")
> [@Malthus](#): > > That has nothing whatsoever to do with what Dawkins was saying: he was expressly discusing individual _suffering_, not ā€œinflicting harm on themselves and othersā€ because of their beliefs. He said ā€œdamageā€; being made more harmful to oneself and others qualifies as damage. And self inflicted suffering is still suffering. You are essentially defining away most of the harm caused by being raised religious as counting as harm, then pretending that means being raised religious is less harmful than it is. ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2009, 12:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/respecting-religious-beliefs/487367/125 "2009-02-27T00:29:07Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > He said ā€œdamageā€; being made more harmful to oneself and others qualifies as damage. And self inflicted suffering is still suffering. > > You are essentially defining away most of the harm caused by being raised religious as counting as harm, then pretending that means being raised religious is less harmful than it is. Read his essay. He isnā€™t using ā€œdamageā€ in the same way as you at all. He means ā€œsufferingā€ in the sense of actual mental suffering. Quote: > [@](#): > > Second (and this is the point with which I began) the mental abuse constituted by an unsubstantiated threat of violence and terrible pain, if sincerely believed by the child, could easily be more damaging than the physical actuality of sexual abuse. An extreme threat of violence and pain is precisely what the doctrine of hell is. And there is no doubt at all that many children sincerely believe it, often continuing right through adulthood and old age until death finally releases them. In short, you are talking apples and heā€™s talking oranges. ---
**Author:** ![Grumman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/43a26b/32.png) [@Grumman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grumman)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2009, 5:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/respecting-religious-beliefs/487367/126 "2009-02-27T05:38:49Z")
> [@astorian](#): > > If Dawkins REALLY believed I was molesting my son, I trust heā€™d DO something about it. Call the police, report me to social workers, try to have the government take my son away, whatever. No, that requires that he believes _two_ things: that you are molesting your son, and that the government is _willing to do anything about it_. ---
**Author:** ![astorian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ad7895/32.png) [@astorian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/astorian)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2009, 8:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/respecting-religious-beliefs/487367/127 "2009-02-27T20:46:46Z")
> [@Grumman](#): > > No, that requires that he believes _two_ things: that you are molesting your son, and that the government is _willing to do anything about it_. That begs the question. Okay, for NOW Dawkins is not taking any concrete action to stop me from raising my son in the Catholic Church, because he figures thereā€™s nothing he can do to stop me. Given his druthers, what WOULD he do about abusive parents like me? Hmmm? If dangerous loons like him ever had the secular power to implement their agenda, just what WOULD he like to do about those of us who teach our children religious values he disapproves of? If religion is as evil as he proclaims, he has a duty to do more than flail his arms. Let him spell out his plan: WHAT should be done to Christian parents who dare take their children to Church? ---
**Author:** ![Ensign\_Edison](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/7ab992/32.png) [@Ensign\_Edison](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ensign_Edison)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2009, 8:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/respecting-religious-beliefs/487367/128 "2009-02-27T20:56:36Z")
Heā€™s already doing exactly what he thinks should be done, given all the factors. Heā€™s trying to educate people on what he sees as the dangers of religion and the truths of science. Imagining that heā€™s just secretly waiting for the moment to agitate for laws restricting people from raising their kids in their faith is just that ā€“ imagination. If you have any evidence at all that he advocates such, then you might have a valid reason to worry. Otherwise, this whole discussion seems to have missed a crucial difference between child molesters and religious parents ā€“ intent. Dawkinsā€™ statement that religion can sometimes cause greater long-term damage than sexual abuse does not mean he thinks religious people are morally equal to child molesters ā€“ which is why he compared the effects rather than the people. He is capable, like most sane adults, of recognizing that reasonable people can disagree over firmly held convictions, so running around trying to hammer your convictions into law against the general moral sense is wrong. Itā€™s clear to me from his books and interviews and lectures that he views his job as convincing other people that heā€™s right, not enforcing his position on them regardless. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2009, 9:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/respecting-religious-beliefs/487367/129 "2009-02-27T21:13:00Z")
> [@Malthus](#): > > The ā€œabuseā€ comes, not solely from how the child views the situation, but from whether the situation is also _objectively_ an abusive one - if, for example, that teacher is _really_ shaming that kid out of some twisted sadism, to make him or her suffer (as opposed to the mental torture of being forced to learn oneā€™s times tables). Sigh. Iā€™m clearly talking about real abuse, not being made to do oneā€™s homework. Iā€™m also assuming the parents have at least investigated, to see if the issue was real, but that might be asking too much. > [@](#): > > Similarly the ā€œwrongā€ of sexual abuse of children does not derive from how the child views the matter - and it is impossible to know whether they will be ā€œscarredā€ by guilt or whatever (some are and some are not). It comes from the breach of trust, something that occurs even where the kid finds it nothing much (or even pleasurable). Any parent who has had to go back on a promise has gotten an accusation of abuse of trust. Yes, that is one of the issues in abuse, but not the only one. I doubt too many kids have been traumatized by missing a visit to the zoo. > [@](#): > > That, in a nutshell, is why Dawkins is absurdly wrong. Heā€™s comparing a situation in which there is a breach of trust to one in which there is not. By that measure, he trivializes it - eating oneā€™s beats, or learning oneā€™s times tables, may be to many children more ā€œyuckyā€ than being molested, but it does not thereby follow that they are in fact _worse_. Is there an expectation that an adult teaching or supervising a child will not say things to deeply upset the child? I would suspect the people in question here would say that traumatizing the child is worth it to keep her from hell. But even teaching about real risks does not have to be traumatic, not that young. When I took Driverā€™s Ed they showed us one of those films which graphically illustrated the kind of crispy critter you may become by being in a car wreck. I wouldnā€™t show that to an 8 year old, even to encourage her to put on her seatbelt. The fact that the teacher in the Catholic case is scaring the student about a fantasy makes it even worse. Putting aside the bullshit about times tables, how can we measure the impact of a situation except by looking at the response of the person it is done to? Say a person enjoys being insulted, because he likes to parry the insults, and another is deeply disturbed by them. Do you think it is right to treat those people the same? If the second person responds by withdrawing for a week, do you deny the impact on him because the first person isnā€™t affected at all, and comes back for more? Respect? Not treating people like individuals, with different sensitivities, is a gigantic lack of respect in my book. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2009, 9:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/respecting-religious-beliefs/487367/130 "2009-02-27T21:18:48Z")
> [@jayjay](#): > > Define ā€œabuseā€. Especially in the context of Elizabethan England. They did things to children that even the most recalcitrant advocates of spanking and ā€œspare the rod, spoil the childā€ would find appalling. And as for sexual abuse, if it was intrafamilial, it wasnā€™t even talked about in _this_ country until less than 50 years ago. I can only imagine that an Elizabethan father/stepfather (or mother/stepmother) would get away with far worse than an intrafamilial molester could possibly get today. Sadly, Iā€™m pretty sure you are right. Which ties in nicely to **Ensign Edison** ā€™s point. I think what Dawkins is trying to do is to sensitize people to the effects of religion on people. Hitting and demeaning children - and women - used to be considered normal or even amusing. Scaring the crap out of kids in church, traumatizing them, seems to be considered normal now. People get that the physical abuse is wrong, not the mental abuse. ---
**Author:** ![astorian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ad7895/32.png) [@astorian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/astorian)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2009, 9:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/respecting-religious-beliefs/487367/131 "2009-02-27T21:28:21Z")
> [@Ensign\_Edison](#): > > Heā€™s already doing exactly what he thinks should be done, given all the factors. Heā€™s trying to educate people on what he sees as the dangers of religion and the truths of science. Imagining that heā€™s just secretly waiting for the moment to agitate for laws restricting people from raising their kids in their faith is just that ā€“ imagination. If you have any evidence at all that he advocates such, then you might have a valid reason to worry. Otherwise, this whole discussion seems to have missed a crucial difference between child molesters and religious parents ā€“ intent. > > Dawkinsā€™ statement that religion can sometimes cause greater long-term damage than sexual abuse does not mean he thinks religious people are morally equal to child molesters ā€“ which is why he compared the effects rather than the people. He is capable, like most sane adults, of recognizing that reasonable people can disagree over firmly held convictions, so running around trying to hammer your convictions into law against the general moral sense is wrong. Itā€™s clear to me from his books and interviews and lectures that he views his job as convincing other people that heā€™s right, not enforcing his position on them regardless. Pssstā€¦ this was where you were supposed to say, "Dawkins was talking through his hat to sell books. Ann Coulter does it too. " ---
**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 27, 2009, 9:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/respecting-religious-beliefs/487367/132 "2009-02-27T21:32:16Z")
> [@astorian](#): > > Pssstā€¦ this was where you were supposed to say, "Dawkins was talking through his hat to sell books. Ann Coulter does it too. " Why ? So he can confirm your opinion ? ---
**Author:** ![astorian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ad7895/32.png) [@astorian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/astorian)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2009, 10:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/respecting-religious-beliefs/487367/133 "2009-02-27T22:20:08Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > Why ? So he can confirm your opinion ? Malthus already posted this link, but Iā€™ll post it again. > **[Edge: THE NEW HUMANISTS](https://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/humphrey/amnesty.html)** Richard Dawkins endorsed this piece by Nicholas Humphrey. Read it and tell me it is NOT a call for censorship of parents, for restricting what parents may or may not teach their children. There are only two possibilities here: 1- That Richard Dawkins, like Humphrey, really IS a fascist who wants to take children away from their parents and reprogram them the ā€œrightā€ way. 2- That Dawkins is full of beans, doesnā€™t really mean a word heā€™s saying, and spouts off such rubbish only to sell books or to get a round of cheap appluasue from an audience that already thinks his way. Which is it, Der Trihs? Thereā€™s not third option. ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2009, 11:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/respecting-religious-beliefs/487367/134 "2009-02-27T23:43:50Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > I donā€™t really care if you respect my views or not. However, most atheists make pretty sound logical arguments for our positions, and not taking these seriously makes it seem that you either donā€™t understand them or donā€™t have a response. That doesnā€™t mean that you have to agree with them. In the Aquinas thread, most of the responses took the argument quite seriously. I hope you realize I was being facetious. I mean bottom line the only reason we respect anyone elseā€™s beliefs is so that people donā€™t kill each other over them, as seems to be the norm rather than the exception throughout history. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2009, 12:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/respecting-religious-beliefs/487367/135 "2009-02-28T00:21:34Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > I hope you realize I was being facetious. > > I mean bottom line the only reason we respect anyone elseā€™s beliefs is so that people donā€™t kill each other over them, as seems to be the norm rather than the exception throughout history. :smack: My apologies. ---
**Author:** ![ITR\_champion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/c67d28/32.png) [@ITR\_champion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ITR_champion)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2009, 12:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/respecting-religious-beliefs/487367/136 "2009-02-28T00:39:28Z")
> [@Illuminatiprimus](#): > > Are you being deliberately thick? Fine, Iā€™ll go slower. > > You quote Dawkins as saying that - I wonā€™t argue whether he did or not, youā€™ve said he did and youā€™re using it to support your argument. If that quote is as presented, Dawkins is saying that religious people kill and murder others. After that you say this is a lie - but it isnā€™t. Religiously motivated murder (either within or without the formal context of war) happens all the time, now and throughout history. By all means argue with this if you want but Iā€™m going to have a hard time keeping a straight face if you do as itā€™s such a patently incorrect thing to say. Please note that in your quote Dawkins doesnā€™t say that \*all \*people who believe in god do these things Yes, he does say that _all_ people who believe in God commit murder and other unspecified evil things. To say ā€œ[Group of people A] does \*\*ā€ means that all people in group A do B, according to correct English usage. Hence if I say ā€œMy children went to the mallā€ that means all of children went to the mall, not just one or a few of them. If someone says ā€œblack people are stupidā€ then thatā€™s a lie, even though there are a few stupid black people. So Dawkins does, indeed, say that all religious people commit murder. > [@](#): > > So here youā€™re trying to say that if you replace the concept of religion in that quote with some other group that such a statement wouldnā€™t be acceptable. Well, letā€™s try it: Youā€™re right, this would be a massively incendiary thing to say, but at the same time itā€™s pretty obviously false and I could only imagine it coming out of the mouth of a raving nutjob. Where is the evidence that homosexuals, as a group, murder others? And, as I said in my post earlier, if they did can you demonstrate they have done so because they are homosexuals? Letā€™s try it again: Is it true some black people kill other people? Yes, no question of that. Is being black a mental disease? Iā€™m struggling a bit with that one. Have black people been motivated to kill other people as a result of the fact that they are black? Itā€™s conceivable I guess, but I canā€™t see how in reality your skin colour would in and of itself make you want to murder someone. Do people live in a culture where violence/murder/crime is prevalent and that is correlated to being black? Of course, again no argument there. But are those murders being committed by someone solely because their (that is the perpetratorā€™s) skin is a particular colour? If you have evidence that this happens please share it. > > So my point (because you didnā€™t get it the first time around clearly) is that Dawkinā€™s statement isnā€™t a lie and that heā€™s got a point - religious people, because of their religious beliefs, do kill other people. Furthermore, your contention that if you replaced religion in it with some other group it would suddenly be an unacceptable thing to say is technically true, but thatā€™s because such a statement would be utterly ridiculous and demonstrably false. You appeared to be arguing that Dawkins is unfairly maligning religion - I contend that heā€™s simply stating a fact. Itā€™s my lack of respect for religion that makes me quite willing to point to the things that religious people seem to want to gloss over when complaining against the ā€œunfair accusationsā€ against them. > > Can you now see the relevance between what Iā€™m saying and this threads? In answer to your last question, no. Your basic logic goes like this. You argue itā€™s wrong to associate all of any other group for murders committed by members, by right do so with religious believers, because non-believers donā€™t commit murder ā€œas a groupā€, while religious believers do. That claim is utterly preposterous even by atheist standards. It is not true that all the worldā€™s religious believers congregate and make common plans to commit murder. If youā€™d like to present evidence of such a thing happening, Iā€™d like to see it. If youā€™d like to present evidence that all religious people, by dint of being religious, commit murder either directly or indirectly, youā€™re welcome to present it. But to classify Christians as murderers because of the actions of Islamic extremists is nonsense because there has never been any joint action between the two. (Indeed, to state the obvious, without Christians to stand up and freedom and democracy, Muslims would rule much more of the planet, if not the entire thing.) ---
**Author:** ![vison](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/e47774/32.png) [@vison](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/vison)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2009, 12:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/respecting-religious-beliefs/487367/137 "2009-02-28T00:46:27Z")
Incest is a behavior, not an orientation. ---
**Author:** ![Fantome](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/e9c0ed/32.png) [@Fantome](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fantome)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2009, 12:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/respecting-religious-beliefs/487367/138 "2009-02-28T00:46:29Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > So Dawkins does, indeed, say that all religious people commit murder. And your only evidence is heresay from one web page, so no, he didnā€™t _indeed_ say what youā€™re claiming. And as is you usual MO around here, you ignore requests for a backing up of claims. Are you ever going to tell us where Sam Harris spreads ā€œhatred or lies towards religious people?ā€ ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2009, 12:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/respecting-religious-beliefs/487367/139 "2009-02-28T00:53:50Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > Yes, he does say that _all_ people who believe in God commit murder and other unspecified evil things. To say ā€œ[Group of people A] does \*\*ā€ means that all people in group A do B, according to correct English usage. Hence if I say ā€œMy children went to the mallā€ that means all of children went to the mall, not just one or a few of them. If someone says ā€œblack people are stupidā€ then thatā€™s a lie, even though there are a few stupid black people. > > So Dawkins does, indeed, say that all religious people commit murder. In _my_ english language, this is not correct. People will say ā€œmy children went to the mallā€, even if one of the kids didnā€™t. People will say ā€œyoung people shop in my storeā€, even if a few billion youngsters havenā€™t been. And people will say ā€œFat people get diabetesā€, when there are in fact a couple of fat people who have dropped from heart attacks instead. Welcome to the language! ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2009, 3:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/respecting-religious-beliefs/487367/140 "2009-02-28T03:45:18Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > Yes, he does say that _all_ people who believe in God commit murder and other unspecified evil things. To say ā€œ[Group of people A] does \*\*ā€ means that all people in group A do B, according to correct English usage. Hence if I say ā€œMy children went to the mallā€ that means all of children went to the mall, not just one or a few of them. People go to the beach in the summer. True or false? Americans eat cold cereal with milk for breakfast. True or false? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/respecting-religious-beliefs/487367.md?page=6)