# The atheist double-standard

**URL:** <https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-atheist-double-standard/440973>\
**Category:** Great Debates\
**Created:** [March 11, 2008, 3:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-atheist-double-standard/440973 "2008-03-11T15:28:19Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 20\
**Page:** 10

<div class="post-metadata">

**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:** [March 13, 2008, 1:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-atheist-double-standard/440973/181 "2008-03-13T01:22:57Z")

</div>

[QUOTE=Ocelot1]  
Hitler can hardly be called atheist by his words and actual persecutions of atheists under his rule.  
[/QUOTE]  
Eh, i’m not entirely sure persecuting your own kind necessarily means you can’t be one of them too.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![ch4rl3s](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/c4cdca/32.png) [@ch4rl3s](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ch4rl3s)\
**Post date:** [March 13, 2008, 1:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-atheist-double-standard/440973/182 "2008-03-13T13:10:45Z")

</div>

[QUOTE=CurtC]  
No, there was no faith in Fermat’s ability - no one on Earth actually believed that Fermat had a proof. Everyone, AFAIK, thought he was mistaken.  
[/QUOTE]

Really? I didn’t get that impression. Where did you hear this?

[QUOTE=CurtC]  
The “evidence” that the theorem was true (pre-Wiles) was that a solution had been searched for extensively and none was found. The FLT said that there were no solutions, and we had a pretty good data set that indicated there probably were no solutions.  
[/QUOTE]

Yes, searched for to no avail. [http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/HistTopics/Fermat’s\_last\_theorem.html](http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/HistTopics/Fermat's_last_theorem.html)  
“It has the dubius distinction of being the theorem with the largest number of published false proofs. For example, over 1000 false proofs were published between 1908 and 1912.” How is that progress? (I have a wonderful proof that 4 is not divisible by 2. What? I’m wrong? But if enough people generate false proofs will you start to believe the proposition?)

Ok, the proposition is: x^n + y^n = z^n has no (non-zero) integer solutions when n\>2.

It was more than 100 years before anyone had proven it had no solutions when n=3. Just an infinite number to go… pretty good data set there… It was almost another hundred years before any major progress was made. (Sophie Germain showed that there were no solutions for n\<100 in the special case where none of x, y, and z are divisible by n. After this Dirichlet was finally able to prove it for n=5. And it wasn’t long before it was proven for n\<100.) And it’s only at this point that you can start thinking you have anywhere near a good data set.

Just to give you a small indication of the magnitude of the problem, you realize that the pythagorean theorem, (x^2 + y^2 = z^2,) had been studied for a couple thousand years. Even before pythagoras, a babylonian tablet exists with a set of solutions to this, the nature of which indicate the author had an algorithm for generating them, _and no one, to this day, has been able to recreate that algorithm._ We don’t even fully understand the case we know there are solutions to. How do we know what is going to be required for there to be solutions?

[QUOTE=Thudlow Boink]  
Whether Fermat had a valid proof is a different question from whether the theorem is true.

Now that Andrew Wiles has presented his proof, **I don’t know of any mathematician who disputes the latter**.  
[/QUOTE]

(emphasis mine)

even though, as I previously said:

> [@](#):
>
> (The proof is so complex, people are still debating that it may never be completely verified.)

How is that not faith?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**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:** [March 13, 2008, 1:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-atheist-double-standard/440973/183 "2008-03-13T13:30:06Z")

</div>

[QUOTE=ch4rl3s]  
How is that not faith?  
[/QUOTE]  
Because it’s not based on nothing; faith is. Because it is disprovable; faith ignores disproof. Faith is an empty assertion, and denies any disproof of those assertions. That’s why I called it a form of insanity earlier; it denies reality, and makes it’s own version up as the believer goes along.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\
**Post date:** [March 13, 2008, 1:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-atheist-double-standard/440973/184 "2008-03-13T13:35:15Z")

</div>

[QUOTE=ch4rl3s]  
How is that not faith?  
[/QUOTE]

Are you having trouble differenciating between faith based on past history and available evidence, and blind faith? You keep bringing up these matematical theories as if people are accepting them for no reason whatsoever, and it’s been shown repeatedly that this is not true. There is evidence of varying degrees to examine. As far as Fermat’s last theorem is concerned, there was _no_ blind faith involved-there were those never believed he had solved the problem, and those that believed, based on Fermat’s past history, that he probably had and went looking for it.  
Can you come up with one single example of blind faith in science? If not, then please stop using the word as if it means the same thing in the scientific community as it does in the religious community. It annoys me almost as much as people thinking that a scientific “theory” is nothing more than a guess or supposition.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![CurtC](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ce73a5/32.png) [@CurtC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CurtC)\
**Post date:** [March 13, 2008, 2:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-atheist-double-standard/440973/185 "2008-03-13T14:02:54Z")

</div>

[QUOTE=ch4rl3s]  
Really? I didn’t get that impression. Where did you hear this?  
[/quote]  
I got that impression from my reading of the problem pre-Wiles. Although looking into it now, I overstated it - I’m sure there were/are a few people out there who think that Fermat really did have an elegant proof. In my opinion, that’s very implausible.

> [@](#):
>
> Yes, searched for to no avail. [http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/HistTopics/Fermat’s\_last\_theorem.html](http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/HistTopics/Fermat's_last_theorem.html)  
> “It has the dubius distinction of being the theorem with the largest number of published false proofs. For example, over 1000 false proofs were published between 1908 and 1912.” How is that progress?

Did you read what I wrote? I was saying that a set of numbers that would solve the equation in FLT, and thus _disprove_ it, had been searched for for centuries and not found, and that the inability to find a disproof, after a long time, is evidence that the conjecture is likely true.

> [@](#):
>
> (I have a wonderful proof that 4 is not divisible by 2. What? I’m wrong? But if enough people generate false proofs will you start to believe the proposition?)

The idea of false proofs doesn’t matter one whit. In fact, 1000 false proofs lend credibility to the idea that Fermat was simply mistaken.

> [@](#):
>
> After this Dirichlet was finally able to prove it for n=5. And it wasn’t long before it was proven for n\<100.) And it’s only at this point that you can start thinking you have anywhere near a good data set.

This is yet another good illustration of the difference between math and science. Proofs don’t exist in science; however, disproofs exist in both arenas. In science, if an idea withstands repeated attempts to disprove it, then it starts to be tentatively accepted as true. From this point of view, FLT was widely accepted as true because no one had been able to find an example that would falsify it. This is a very different concept from a mathematical proof. In science, everything we think is true is just like the pre-Wiles FLT (except without the hope of a formal proof ever coming).

> [@](#):
>
> How is that not faith?

There are two definitions of “faith,” and I think you’re not realizing that. One is like trust - it’s based on a past history of performance. I have faith that my wife will not kill me in my sleep. The other definition of faith is “belief without evidence,” and that’s the one used in a religious context. Religious faith is belief without evidence, and that’s what a believer means when he says, typically after having to admit that he has nothing, that “you just have to have faith.”

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Thudlow\_Boink](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/thudlow_boink/32/320_2.png) [@Thudlow\_Boink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Thudlow_Boink)\
**Post date:** [March 13, 2008, 4:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-atheist-double-standard/440973/186 "2008-03-13T16:45:04Z")

</div>

[QUOTE=ch4rl3s]  
Even before pythagoras, a babylonian tablet exists with a set of solutions to this, the nature of which indicate the author had an algorithm for generating them, _and no one, to this day, has been able to recreate that algorithm._  
[/QUOTE]  
I’m not sure what you’re refering to, but there are plenty of known algorithms for generating Pythagorean triples, including this one that goes back to Euclid:

a = m[sup]2[/sup] – n[sup]2[/sup], b = 2mn, c = m[sup]2[/sup] + n[sup]2[/sup] (m \> n \> 0 any two integers)

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\
**Post date:** [March 14, 2008, 2:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-atheist-double-standard/440973/187 "2008-03-14T14:21:43Z")

</div>

You don’t even need an algorithm:

[2n(n+1)][sup]2[/sup] + (2n+1)[sup]2[/sup] = [2n(n+1)+1][sup]2[/sup]

for n = any integer.

This generates:

0[sup]2[/sup] + 1[sup]2[/sup] = 1[sup]2[/sup]  
4[sup]2[/sup] + 3[sup]2[/sup] = 5[sup]2[/sup]  
12[sup]2[/sup] + 5[sup]2[/sup] = 13[sup]2[/sup]  
24[sup]2[/sup] + 7[sup]2[/sup] = 25[sup]2[/sup]  
40[sup]2[/sup] + 9[sup]2[/sup] = 41[sup]2[/sup] etc.

I worked this out in high school.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**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:** [March 14, 2008, 7:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-atheist-double-standard/440973/188 "2008-03-14T19:23:24Z")

</div>

[QUOTE=Revenant Threshold]  
If they knew so much about how it interacted with other trends and ways of thinking, I would imagine their work would have succeeded, no? And like I said, did they not themselves think Marxism would be successful? If they were wrong enough in understanding how widespread and accepted Marxism would become, and how it interacted with other trends and ways of thinking, then I see very good reason to doubt them. You seem to want to hold Marxism up as a dangerous and ultimately unsuccessful doctrine on one hand, and supporters of it being great understanders of the world and of people in the other.  
[/quote]

Marcuse et al do not have to be “great understanders of the world and people” to make the connection between Marxism and the collapse of Christianity; they only needed to have experience as proponents of Marxism, and they had that in spades. Think of it this way. Obviousy Bill Belichick did not accomplish as much with this year’s Patriots team as he hoped and expected, yet he’s certainly knows the team’s playbook better than anyone else. That’s because he has the most experience with it.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**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:** [March 14, 2008, 7:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-atheist-double-standard/440973/189 "2008-03-14T19:33:16Z")

</div>

[QUOTE=Voyager]  
That’s only true for positions considered absolute, not provisional.  
[/QUOTE]

Ok, let’s apply that definition to debates on this board. **Der Trihs** in the “God as Parent” thread claims that all people until quite recently and almost all people alive today were/are unhappy all the time. Thus, by your reasoning, virtually anyone who ever was happy was “attacking” **Ter Trihs** , and most people still are.

Or consider a recent thread by **Stoid** asserting that no one can control their own sexual desires. By your definition, anyone who does control their sexual desires is “attacking” **Stoid**. Indeed, as I argued in that thread, everyone controls their sexual desires at least somewhat, so **Stoid** is apparently attacking himself. ( **DerTrihs** , on the other hand, appears to obey his own command to be permanently unhappy, even if no one else does.)

The real problem here is that you’re not arguing against me. Your arguing against the English language, every dictionary, and everyone who speaks it. You cannot “attack” someone by thinking thoughts about them. Attacking is an action taken.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**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:** [March 14, 2008, 8:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-atheist-double-standard/440973/190 "2008-03-14T20:23:08Z")

</div>

[QUOTE=Cosmic Relief]  
And it seems obvious to everyone else in the thread that this is a huge strawman that you can’t let go. It’s been repeated to you time after time that the point isn’t that atheists can do better. The point is that although religion claims it can do better because of its moral superiority, it has demonstrated in numerous ways on numerous occasions that it is just a power-hungry empire like any other, god or no god.  
[/QUOTE]

Well then, if your case rests on that, let’s debate it. You claim that “religion is just a power-hungry empire”. What evidence do you offer to support that claim? And we can surely agree that the following are not acceptable evidence:

1. Insults directed at me, at other religious people, or at religion in general.

2. Claims made, which cannot be substantiated with fact.

3. Incidents of one religious person or a small number of people acting “power-hungry”.

So in short, you’ve claimed that all religions at all times were acting together to seize power. What evidence do you offer to suppor this claim? Keep in mind that you need to offer a proof which includes every single one.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\
**Post date:** [March 14, 2008, 8:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-atheist-double-standard/440973/191 "2008-03-14T20:27:39Z")

</div>

[QUOTE=ITR champion]  
So in short, you’ve claimed that all religions at all times were acting together to seize power. What evidence do you offer to suppor this claim? Keep in mind that you need to offer a proof which includes every single one.  
[/QUOTE]

He didn’t make that claim.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\
**Post date:** [March 14, 2008, 8:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-atheist-double-standard/440973/192 "2008-03-14T20:35:03Z")

</div>

[QUOTE=ITR champion]  
You claim that “religion is just a power-hungry empire”.

…

So in short, you’ve claimed that all religions at all times were acting together to seize power.  
[/QUOTE]

These statements are not equivalent.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**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:** [March 14, 2008, 8:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-atheist-double-standard/440973/193 "2008-03-14T20:42:50Z")

</div>

Eh?

He said that religion was _a_ power-hungry empire. If he wanted to say that it was many different power-hungry empires, he should have said so.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\
**Post date:** [March 14, 2008, 8:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-atheist-double-standard/440973/194 "2008-03-14T20:52:19Z")

</div>

[QUOTE=ITR champion]  
Eh?

He said that religion was _a_ power-hungry empire. If he wanted to say that it was many different power-hungry empires, he should have said so.  
[/QUOTE]  
And if you can’t argue against his point without using the term “in other words”, you are not arguing with _him_. Was there some reason you couldn’t use the words he posted?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**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:** [March 14, 2008, 8:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-atheist-double-standard/440973/195 "2008-03-14T20:53:20Z")

</div>

[QUOTE=ITR champion]  
Eh?

He said that religion was _a_ power-hungry empire. If he wanted to say that it was many different power-hungry empires, he should have said so.  
[/QUOTE]  
Actually he _said_ “it has demonstrated in numerous ways on numerous occasions that it is just a power-hungry empire like any other, god or no god.”

Which can be read as “(it has demonstrated in numerous ways on numerous occasions) (that it is just a power-hungry empire like any other, god or no god).”, or it can be read "(it has demonstrated (in numerous ways on numerous occasions that it is just a power-hungry empire like any other, god or no god)).

The second reading does not support your translations.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**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:** [March 14, 2008, 8:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-atheist-double-standard/440973/196 "2008-03-14T20:58:04Z")

</div>

[QUOTE=Czarcasm]  
And if you can’t argue against his point without using the term “in other words”, you are not arguing with _him_. Was there some reason you couldn’t use the words he posted?  
[/QUOTE]

Well then, since I didn’t use term “in other words”, what do you have to complain about? As you can see, in post 190 I quoted the exact words of **CosmicRelief** , which were “a power-hungry empire”. I then asked him to defend his words. So to answer your questions, I am arguing with him as directly as possible, and I did use the words he posted. (Assuming that he is a male. If he is actually a she, I apologize.)

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**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:** [March 14, 2008, 9:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-atheist-double-standard/440973/197 "2008-03-14T21:02:30Z")

</div>

[QUOTE=begbert2]  
Actually he _said_ “it has demonstrated in numerous ways on numerous occasions that it is just a power-hungry empire like any other, god or no god.”

Which can be read as “(it has demonstrated in numerous ways on numerous occasions) (that it is just a power-hungry empire like any other, god or no god).”, or it can be read "(it has demonstrated (in numerous ways on numerous occasions that it is just a power-hungry empire like any other, god or no god)).

The second reading does not support your translations.  
[/QUOTE]

If he intended the second interpretation then the modifier “in numerous ways on numerous occasions” was misplaced. He should have written “It has demonstrated that in numerous ways on numerous occasions it is just a power-hungry empire like any other, god or no god,” or “it has demonstrated that it is just a power-hungry empire like any other in numerous ways on numerous occasions.”

And that’s our grammar lesson for today.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\
**Post date:** [March 14, 2008, 9:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-atheist-double-standard/440973/198 "2008-03-14T21:04:59Z")

</div>

[QUOTE=ITR champion]  
Well then, since I didn’t use term “in other words”, what do you have to complain about? As you can see, in post 190 I quoted the exact words of **CosmicRelief** , which were “a power-hungry empire”. I then asked him to defend his words. So to answer your questions, I am arguing with him as directly as possible, and I did use the words he posted. (Assuming that he is a male. If he is actually a she, I apologize.)  
[/QUOTE]

You’re right. You didn’t say “in other words”-you said “so in short” which means exactly the same thing in the context you used. You rephrased what he said to make it a more extreme statement, and then you argued against the extreme statement that _you_ created in the first place.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**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:** [March 14, 2008, 9:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-atheist-double-standard/440973/199 "2008-03-14T21:06:42Z")

</div>

[QUOTE=ITR champion]  
If he intended the second interpretation then the modifier “in numerous ways on numerous occasions” was misplaced. He should have written “It has demonstrated that in numerous ways on numerous occasions it is just a power-hungry empire like any other, god or no god,” or “it has demonstrated that it is just a power-hungry empire like any other in numerous ways on numerous occasions.”

And that’s our grammar lesson for today.  
[/QUOTE]  
And while I’ll freely admit that he could have probably phrased the sentence better, it’s still was a pretty weak point for you to argue about, _ignoring the entire rest of his post, including the obvious main argument of it_.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\
**Post date:** [March 14, 2008, 9:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-atheist-double-standard/440973/200 "2008-03-14T21:12:01Z")

</div>

Sorry, but rephrasing someone’s statement to make it something you have a ready-made argument for really ticks me off. This happened in another thread to me, where I said that I was against physical violence, and that I wouldn’t want someone to engage in it on my behalf. Almost immediately, someone declared that I must be against all law enforcement, because jail was a type of violence, and I was called a hypocrite. Taking someone’s points, carrying them to extremes, then arguing against those extremes is dishonest, in my opinion.

[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-atheist-double-standard/440973.md?page=9)

[Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-atheist-double-standard/440973.md?page=11)