# "There is no God" is an opinion, not a fact. **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [January 9, 2005, 8:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/there-is-no-god-is-an-opinion-not-a-fact/283925 "2005-01-09T20:28:28Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 22
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2005, 10:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/there-is-no-god-is-an-opinion-not-a-fact/283925/421 "2005-01-11T22:06:15Z")
> [@FinnAgain](#): > > Is there a problem with quoting going on or something? šŸ˜› > I am not **Contrapuntal** (Double šŸ˜› ) Sorry, **Contrapuntal**. Canā€™t believe I mixed up attributions like that. > [@](#): > > But, suffice it to say, Wilson has described himself as a ā€œmodel agnosticā€ so Iā€™ll take his word on that . This is a semantic issue: the difference between ā€œagnosticā€ and ā€œsoft atheistā€ is pretty insignificant. If itā€™s important, Iā€™ll gladly revise my previous sentence to ā€œFamous agnostic Robert Anton Wilson.ā€ Daniel ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2005, 10:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/there-is-no-god-is-an-opinion-not-a-fact/283925/422 "2005-01-11T22:12:43Z")
> [@Loopydude](#): > > The terms connote nothing. They rather explicitly state something. Do you think words have **either** connotations **or** denotations, but not both? These two quoted sentences are very confusing. > [@](#): > > So, delusory is not a term a scientist could use? And lets see what science has to say about claims of the supernatural: > > _The Universe was created in six days_ - Falsified. > _Adam was made from the dust, and Eve from his rib_ - Falsified. > _The entire world was flooded, destroying all life, except for two of every living thing, kept on a wooden boat_ - Falsified > _The read sea was parted, and the Jews crossed into the Sinai_ - Falsified > _Joseph blew a horn, and the walls of Jericho fell_ - Falsified If you accept the parameters of science, then sure, these are falsified. Get rid of just one of themā€“e.g., Occamā€™s Razorā€“and your falsifications fly out the window. So unless you can prove Occamā€™s Razor using the scientific method and without using a circular argument, then you got nuthin. Although I do like the idea of the ā€œread seaā€ā€“I imagine an ocean of paragraphs, with scholars in boats peering down into the depths. Daniel ---
**Author:** ![Loopydude](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e56c9b/32.png) [@Loopydude](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Loopydude)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2005, 10:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/there-is-no-god-is-an-opinion-not-a-fact/283925/423 "2005-01-11T22:15:44Z")
> [@Left Hand of Dorkness](#): > > Yes, Iā€™m being rude Why? Why is it rude? And what does it matter if Iā€™m sharing the viewpoint with you or not? Itā€™s equally delusory whether Iā€™m private about it or public. In fact, if I wished to speak to you about the Robot Turtles, you would have no cause to state you find the notion delusory? Thatā€™s hate speech? Do you still assert that my claims of Robot Turtles, while not falsifiable by any known means, are not, in fact delusory? I can make any claim, and so long as you canā€™t falsify it, you must respect it? I can claim believe in leprhechauns, unicorns, The Great Pumpkin, faeries, sprites, pixies who hide my socks, and so forth, and thatā€™s my valid oppinion, and all are obliged to pass no judgement, because they havenā€™t scoured the Earth themselves at the atomic level and proven me wrong? ---
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2005, 10:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/there-is-no-god-is-an-opinion-not-a-fact/283925/424 "2005-01-11T22:18:18Z")
> [@faithfool](#): > > But I have another question, since Iā€™ve never believed in Pixies and am not a theistā€¦ Would you say that the love you feel for whoever (mother, son, significant other) is much more of a deeply held conviction, then say, the worldā€™s best roller coaster, who should be shot for making films or if the color purple makes everyone puke? Well, it would say that it differs in that I have access to my own nervous system and can evaluate claims of ā€˜loveā€™ against other data I might posses in memory and ideology. However, the Worldā€™s Best Coaster is only a matter of opinion. > [@faithfool](#): > > Ya see, I think I could silly-like spar with folks on the latter and gladly call them delusional. On the former, even if I could point out what I thought to be rational evidence to the contrary (hmmm, one son was lavished with a Mercedes while the other has been cut out of the will and not spoken to for 16 years), I see it as deserving more respect. Obviously, YMMV. Yes, I guess my milage does varyā€¦ I donā€™t see any reason to afford more respect to one delusion over another. Other than that itā€™s societally acceptable. There are far fewer Pixie worshipers than God worshipers. But both beliefs are equally valid. If there were more Pixie worshipers, it would probably be ā€˜rudeā€™ to call them on their bullshit too. > [@faithfool](#): > > ONE MORE TIME WITH FEELING! I do not think that anything (ever, in the history of the world, into infinity and beyond) should ever be ā€œ **hushed up and covered up and ignored** ā€!!! I can repeat that until the cows come home if Iā€™m still misunderstood. Maybe you are destined to be misunderstoodā€¦ I just donā€™t understand how not speaking the truth for fear of offending someone is, in any way shape or form, not covering up the truth for fear of offending someone. > [@faithfool](#): > > For this, Iā€™ll refer you to my last post. It depends on if my goal is to change behavior or not or if Iā€™m just wanting to vent/ridicule/whatever. Iā€™m not sure on that point. Fighting ignorance seems, at least to me, to be an end in and of itself. Sure, some people wonā€™t listen. And will cling to the idea that the Great Fairy made them and is going to make them **immortal** , and if they do, no ammount of proof of logic or reason will convince them. Believing in the irrational means that, at least in that area, youā€™ve jumped the track oā€™ rationality and gone into imaginary land. So, yeahā€¦ I guess what Iā€™m saying is that I donā€™t think most theists can be ā€˜convertedā€™, because theyā€™ve already chosen to discard reason and reality in favor of fantasy. But some are open to rational thought, and they can be shown that their beliefs are just that, beliefs, learned behaviors, and not true, at all. > [@faithfool](#): > > Agreed. _I_ just _believe_ that they can co-exist. Fair enough. > [@faithfool](#): > > Absolutely. On me. (That didnā€™t sound right either. :p) As long as the $3.99 is to your liking. Can you get a good chianti for 3.99? šŸ˜ƒ > [@Left Hand of Dorkness](#): > > Sorry, Contrapuntal. Canā€™t believe I mixed up attributions like that. I am going to bite you. :mad: šŸ˜ƒ > [@Left Hand of Dorkness](#): > > This is a semantic issue: the difference between ā€œagnosticā€ and ā€œsoft atheistā€ is pretty insignificant. If itā€™s important, Iā€™ll gladly revise my previous sentence to ā€œFamous agnostic Robert Anton Wilson.ā€ [Iā€™m a mystical agnostic, or an agnostic mystic](http://www.levity.com/mavericks/raw.htm) The man doesnā€™t claim heā€™s an atheist. Indeed, he goes out of his way to make his _agnosticism_ evident. As such, calling him an atheist is, as best, false to facts. ---
**Author:** ![yosemite](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/3ab097/32.png) [@yosemite](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yosemite)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2005, 10:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/there-is-no-god-is-an-opinion-not-a-fact/283925/425 "2005-01-11T22:21:16Z")
> [@Loopydude](#): > > Why? Why is it rude? Just keep gnashing your teeth over that one, why donā€™t you? Donā€™t stop using the word ā€œdelusional,ā€ I donā€™t care. People will continue to think you are rude and (yes), an asshole. Sorry if that bothers you. But arguing about it wonā€™t change anything. > [@](#): > > I can claim believe in leprhechauns, unicorns, The Great Pumpkin, faeries, sprites, pixies who hide my socks, and so forth, and thatā€™s my valid oppinion, and all are obliged to pass no judgement, because they havenā€™t scoured the Earth themselves at the atomic level and proven me wrong? You can pass judgement all you want. But if you use words that others consider to be assholish, _they_ will pass judgment on youā€”and think you are an asshole. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2005, 10:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/there-is-no-god-is-an-opinion-not-a-fact/283925/426 "2005-01-11T22:25:11Z")
> [@FinnAgain](#): > > I am going to bite you. :mad: šŸ˜ƒ > > The man doesnā€™t claim heā€™s an atheist. Indeed, he goes out of his way to make his _agnosticism_ evident. As such, calling him an atheist is, as best, false to facts. Heh. Sorry about the mixup. As for the Wilson=atheist/agnostic thing, there are multiple and conflicting definitions for atheist; I believe thatā€™s causing the confusion. > [@loopydude](#): > > In fact, if I wished to speak to you about the Robot Turtles, you would have no cause to state you find the notion delusory? Thatā€™s hate speech? Do you still assert that my claims of Robot Turtles, while not falsifiable by any known means, are not, in fact delusory? I can make any claim, and so long as you canā€™t falsify it, you must respect it? Iā€™ve got no idea what youā€™re talking about. Who said I respected the views of leprechaunists? **I donā€™t much care about them**. Iā€™ve got no cause to render any sort of judgment on them at all as long as they donā€™t impact me. Go ahead and believe in the Great Pumpkin if it makes you happy; itā€™s no skin off my back, and due to my pesky lack of omniscience, for all I know you might be right. Itā€™s different from how I think the cosmos works, but hey! Vive la difference! Daniel ---
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2005, 10:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/there-is-no-god-is-an-opinion-not-a-fact/283925/427 "2005-01-11T22:30:08Z")
> [@Left Hand of Dorkness](#): > > As for the Wilson=atheist/agnostic thing, there are multiple and conflicting definitions for atheist; I believe thatā€™s causing the confusion. I grok that. However, if a man defines his own philosophy, especilly if heā€™s written thousands of pages in support of it, I think it behoves us to take him at his word. If Wilson says heā€™s an agnostic, I think we should trust him on it. ---
**Author:** ![Loopydude](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e56c9b/32.png) [@Loopydude](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Loopydude)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2005, 10:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/there-is-no-god-is-an-opinion-not-a-fact/283925/428 "2005-01-11T22:33:28Z")
> [@Left Hand of Dorkness](#): > > If you accept the parameters of science, then sure, these are falsified. Get rid of just one of themā€“e.g., Occamā€™s Razorā€“and your falsifications fly out the window. So unless you can prove Occamā€™s Razor using the scientific method and without using a circular argument, then you got nuthin. Why does one have to prove or disprove Occamā€™s razor? Itā€™s not an axiom, theory, law, or any other such concept. Itā€™s simply a rule of thumb that can be used to guide interpretation of results. Itā€™s useless as a tool if knowledge of the system being observed is sufficiently incomplete, and hence its naĆÆve application often fails. Itā€™s quite possible to do science without ever appealing to Occamā€™s razor, though itā€™s entirely likely a lot of time will be wasted as a result. The reason the falsifications donā€™t fly out the window, Occamā€™s razor or no, is because there are observables that ought to be connected to the supernatural events I mentioned. You donā€™t need Occoamā€™s razor at all to falsify the idea that the Earth was completely flooded. We know about floods, weā€™ve observed thousands of them, we know what happens to the land when its inundated and covered with water. We can make educated guesses about the energies that would be involved in such a cloudburst, we can make reasonable predictions about what the impact on the planet would be. Absolutely nothing in the geological record gives the slightest hint of any such catastrophe ever in the history of the planet, much less during human history. If I accused you of shooting my friend, yet I had no evidence of the crime, you have ironclad alibis saying you werenā€™t at the crime scene when I say you were, and worse, no one can find a record that my friend ever existed, not only would it be wrong of me to continue to assert you are a murderer, it would quite fair to say I am deluded to continue to believe it. The miracles are on about the same evidential footing. Of course, a judicious application of Occamā€™s razor would guide you to the conclusion that I am very possibly cracked, you donā€™t need such a guiding principle to know something is wrong. Youā€™ve got a mountain of evidence refuting my claims, and I can provide nothing to convince you what I saw ever happened. This would be simple forensics. Occamā€™s razor is superfluous. ---
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2005, 10:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/there-is-no-god-is-an-opinion-not-a-fact/283925/429 "2005-01-11T22:44:19Z")
Just because Pope ā€œBobā€ is a favorite of mine, one more tidbit: [His doctorate dissertation dealt with how people adjust their perceptions to fit their belief systems. Strongly influenced by semanticist/ philosopher Alfred Korzybski, Sufism, and, fellow reality mapper and friend Timothy Leary, Wilson sees himself as a ā€œmodel agnosticā€. That is, while he plays with various models of reality he does not wholly subscribe to any of them. Many of his works flip back and forth from one paradigm or point of view to another, confounding the intellect in an effort to wean the reader from dependence on his own conditioned belief structures. Author Philip K. Dick once said of him, ā€œWilson managed to reverse every mental polarity in me, as if I had been pulled through infinity. I was astonished and delighted.ā€](http://www.nndb.com/people/473/000023404/) Now I shall stop šŸ™‚ ---
**Author:** ![I\_Love\_Me\_Vol.I](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/i_love_me_vol.i/32/521_2.png) [@I\_Love\_Me\_Vol.I](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/I_Love_Me_Vol.I)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2005, 11:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/there-is-no-god-is-an-opinion-not-a-fact/283925/430 "2005-01-11T23:04:50Z")
from **Loopydude:** > [@](#): > > I point out this is a debate, not a tea party, and that the terminology, whether you like it or no, is a perfectly valid, even technically correct description. It is important to remember this. And please donā€™t mention that this is not Great Debates, because it IS the Pit. And that is certainly NOT a tea party. So Yosemite, we are not assholes, except to the insecure and thin-skinned. But feel free to toss that oh-so-clever-term around another couple hundred times or soā€¦ Hereā€¦ Iā€™ll help you start. Asshole, asshole, asshole, asshole, asshole, asshole, asshole, asshole, asshole, asshole, asshole, asshole, asshole, asshole, assholeā€¦ (and I still havenā€™t typed it as many times as you have) šŸ˜‰ ---
**Author:** ![Loopydude](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e56c9b/32.png) [@Loopydude](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Loopydude)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2005, 11:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/there-is-no-god-is-an-opinion-not-a-fact/283925/431 "2005-01-11T23:15:41Z")
Well, actually, some might call Occamā€™s razor an axiom, now that I think about it, but Iā€™m not sure it rises to that level of self-evidence, apparent or otherwise. At any rate, as a rule-of-thumb thatā€™s most useful when you have two or more candidate theories, each having roughly equivalent predictive and explicative power, and one of them is simpler than all the others. Using Occamā€™s razor, you would obviously favor the simplest theory, and usually this approach works well. But the only valid criterion for ruling out one-or-other theory conclusively is the evidence, whether the final choice is the simplest-seeming or no. To put the story of Noahā€™s Ark and, say, plate tectonics, on equal footing as theory would be more than a bit of a stretch. Iā€™m not even sure if application of Occamā€™s razor in such an instance would even be appropriate. ---
**Author:** ![yosemite](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/3ab097/32.png) [@yosemite](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yosemite)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2005, 11:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/there-is-no-god-is-an-opinion-not-a-fact/283925/432 "2005-01-11T23:22:13Z")
> [@I Love Me](#): > > So Yosemite, we are not assholes, except to the insecure and thin-skinned. But feel free to toss that oh-so-clever-term around another couple hundred times or soā€¦ Hereā€¦ Iā€™ll help you start. Asshole, asshole, asshole, asshole, asshole, asshole, asshole, asshole, asshole, asshole, asshole, asshole, asshole, asshole, assholeā€¦ (and I still havenā€™t typed it as many times as you have) šŸ˜‰ _Mwahahahaha!_ That was pretty funny. šŸ˜ƒ Hey, itā€™s cool. You keep on believing that you are not assholes. Thatā€™s just fine. But you _cannot_ expect other people to _not_ think you are assholes, because you have absolutely zero control over how other people judge your behavior. And no, despite your protestations, it _wonā€™t_ just be the ā€œthinned skinnedā€ who will vew you that way. But, you just keep complaining and rationalizing and being _thinned skinned_ about the fact that some people judge your actions as assholish. It wonā€™t change anything, of course. Sorry if that bothers you. šŸ˜‰ ---
**Author:** ![joyfool](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/df788c/32.png) [@joyfool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/joyfool)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2005, 11:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/there-is-no-god-is-an-opinion-not-a-fact/283925/433 "2005-01-11T23:27:18Z")
Ya know what Iā€™m thinking at this point (The Great Chasm of Impasse)? Is that we should choose up teams like they do for Red Rover, Red Rover. Iā€™ll go first and list my side, since _I_ am the one who thought of this Wonderful Idea ā„¢ and besides, _we_ are right. šŸ˜› **Side A:** [ul] [li]Left Hand of Dorkness[/li][li]yosemite[/li][li]me[/li][li](and if heā€™ll agree, weā€™ll happily take) Voyager (just to make it all even)[/li][/ul] **Side B:** [ul] [li]Loopydude[/li][li]FinnAgain[/li][li]Contrapuntual[/li][li]I Love Me, Vol. I[/li][/ul] See! I donā€™t call us The Angels of Goodness and Light or you guys The Evil Meanie Poopyheads. šŸ˜ƒ So, who wants to go first? However, if we canā€™t play like good little boys and girls with their toys, then Iā€™m taking my ball and going home. So there. ---
**Author:** ![Loopydude](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e56c9b/32.png) [@Loopydude](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Loopydude)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2005, 11:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/there-is-no-god-is-an-opinion-not-a-fact/283925/434 "2005-01-11T23:27:58Z")
> [@Left Hand of Dorkness](#): > > Iā€™ve got no cause to render any sort of judgment on them at all as long as they donā€™t impact me. Well guess what? Theists do impact me. They impact you, too. If you donā€™t think thatā€™s true, then Iā€™d suggest we start another thread where we can hash out that little misconception. So, I do have cause, great cause, to render a judgement. Iā€™ve little choice in the matter, actually, as I am confronted by theism on a daily basis. An very large and influential number of theists _donā€™t_ see to it that they in no way impact our lives in a manner I might find disagreable (with good cause, I think), and unfortunately _all_ religious faithful share delusory beliefs. I canā€™t help commenting on the ones who bother me, and lumping all of them who believe in a delusory manner together, because thatā€™s the nature of the beast. Simply because they are deluded is not bothersome. Itā€™s when their delusions impact others (which, letā€™s not kid ourselves, is pretty often), I feel there is good reason for concern. If youā€™re that inured, more power to you, but I am not. Not being able to express myself appropriately would be even more of an imposition. Iā€™d feel ill used, perhaps rudely treated. As I have been. ---
**Author:** ![yosemite](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/3ab097/32.png) [@yosemite](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yosemite)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2005, 11:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/there-is-no-god-is-an-opinion-not-a-fact/283925/435 "2005-01-11T23:35:20Z")
> [@Loopydude](#): > > Not being able to express myself appropriately would be even more of an imposition. Iā€™d feel ill used, perhaps rudely treated. As I have been. Who is telling you that you are **NOT ABLE** to express yourself ā€œappropriatelyā€? You can say whatever you want. You wonā€™t be banned. No one is trying to muzzle you. No one (at least that I can see) is _forbidding_ you. All weā€™re telling you is that you wonā€™t be universally loved or popular for doing so. Do you think you have some (pardon me) God-given right to have your words be popular or respected, no matter what those words are? You kind of remind me of a kid who is whining because they want to touch the hot stove, but are upset because the stove burns their hand. They act as if they are ill-used because they canā€™t touch a hot stove and not be burnedā€”like the stove has a lot of nerve being hot. And poor little them, theyā€™ve _got_ to be able to touch that stove, and by damn, why is it hot? Because it _is_. Get over it. If you are so adamant that you _must_ touch it, get used to being burned. Stop whining about how ill-used you are. ---
**Author:** ![Loopydude](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e56c9b/32.png) [@Loopydude](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Loopydude)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2005, 11:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/there-is-no-god-is-an-opinion-not-a-fact/283925/436 "2005-01-11T23:44:52Z")
> [@yosemite](#): > > You wonā€™t be banned. No one is trying to muzzle you. No one (at least that I can see) is _forbidding_ you. Oh? According to every post taking a contrary position to my own here, saying religious belief is delusory is, at best, rude, and at worst, makes me a total asshole. Itā€™s that insulting. If thatā€™s the consensus position, I could well be banned if I said the same thing in Great Debates. Itā€™s not simply an oppinion; itā€™s an affront. Such things are verboten in other fora. So either Iā€™m an asshole and should watch what I say, lest I commit a bannable offense, or maybe Iā€™m making a valid point that should be protected as free speech (because it is not intrinsically insulting or a form of hate speech). If you are right, I have ever cause to be concerned, even at the SDMB. I have a feeling, given the nature of the world at large beyond this space, and especially in some other parts of the country than the one I live, such a frank and honest exchange of views could not only illicit censure, it might provoke violence. Why should I fear any of the above? ---
**Author:** ![I\_Love\_Me\_Vol.I](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/i_love_me_vol.i/32/521_2.png) [@I\_Love\_Me\_Vol.I](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/I_Love_Me_Vol.I)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2005, 11:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/there-is-no-god-is-an-opinion-not-a-fact/283925/437 "2005-01-11T23:54:26Z")
> [@yosemite](#): > > You kind of remind me of a kid who is whining because they want to touch the hot stove, but are upset because the stove burns their hand. They act as if they are ill-used because they canā€™t touch a hot stove and not be burnedā€”like the stove has a lot of nerve being hot. And poor little them, theyā€™ve _got_ to be able to touch that stove, and by damn, why is it hot? > > Because it _is_. Get over it. If you are so adamant that you _must_ touch it, get used to being burned. Stop whining about how ill-used you are. I think that **Loopy** knows that the stove is hot (Boy is it ever). Unlike the kid, though, \*\*Loopy \*\* has not removed his hand. And I greatly admire him (her) for this. That the stove is hot is not debatable. It is a fact. It is also a fact that peopleā€™s feelings about their sacred cows are easily hurt. But why are the cows sacred? Why do the cows not have to pass the same scrutiny as everything else? Why is someone an ā€œassholeā€ for questioning if the cows are actually sacred? Should they just take your word for it? Will you take my word for it that the Robot Turtles created the Universe? ---
**Author:** ![Loopydude](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e56c9b/32.png) [@Loopydude](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Loopydude)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2005, 12:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/there-is-no-god-is-an-opinion-not-a-fact/283925/438 "2005-01-12T00:00:18Z")
The stove is the world, to no small extentā€¦ ---
**Author:** ![yosemite](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/3ab097/32.png) [@yosemite](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yosemite)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2005, 12:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/there-is-no-god-is-an-opinion-not-a-fact/283925/439 "2005-01-12T00:00:20Z")
> [@Loopydude](#): > > Oh? According to every post taking a contrary position to my own here, saying religious belief is delusory is, at best, rude, and at worst, makes me a total asshole. Calling you an asshole (or more accurately, saying that you are _behaving_ like an asshole) is also insulting, but Iā€™m not worried about being banned. People are insulting to each other all the damned time here on the Pit, and they arenā€™t worried about being banned. > [@](#): > > So either Iā€™m an asshole and should watch what I say, lest I commit a bannable offense, or maybe Iā€™m making a valid point that should be protected as free speech (because it is not intrinsically insulting or a form of hate speech). Overdramatic much? Good grief. Who here has accused you of hate speech? Who here has suggested that you should be banned? You are whining because people donā€™t like being insulted, and you _want_ to insult them without them disliking you for it. But you donā€™t get to have that. Get used to it. Nobody likes to be insulted. You obviously donā€™tā€”you donā€™t like being called an asshole. We donā€™t like being called ā€œdeluded.ā€ We wonā€™t call you an asshole if you donā€™t call us deluded. You are whining because you _canā€™t_ call us deluded without _us_ calling you an asshole. (i.e. You canā€™t insult us without us reacting negatively.) Poor pitiful you. > [@I Love Me](#): > > But why are the cows sacred? Why do the cows not have to pass the same scrutiny as everything else? Why is someone an ā€œassholeā€ for questioning if the cows are actually sacred? Should they just take your word for it? You can question _anything_ you want, but if you use words or have an attitude that people consider gratuitously assholish, they will think you are an asshole. This is really quite simple. Weā€™re not trying to squelch the message, weā€™re just saying that the _manner_ in which the message is presented has impact, and may have consequences for the person presenting the message. Present your message in an assholish way (that youā€™ve been _told_ā€”repeatedlyā€”is assholish) and youā€™ll be called an asshole. Why is that so difficult to grasp? ---
**Author:** ![joyfool](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/df788c/32.png) [@joyfool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/joyfool)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2005, 12:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/there-is-no-god-is-an-opinion-not-a-fact/283925/440 "2005-01-12T00:05:09Z")
Not sure if youā€™re still paying any attention to me, but if not, thatā€™s ok. This must be what one would assume opium we be like. Addictive. > [@Loopydude](#): > > Well guess what? Theists do impact me. They impact you, too. If you donā€™t think thatā€™s true, then Iā€™d suggest we start another thread where we can hash out that little misconception. I think they do to. Certain ones. And Iā€™m able to differentiate with no harm, no self-restriction, no great annoyance to me. If you canā€™t, Iā€™ll echo **yosemite** ā€¦ Iā€™m sorry you feel that way. [QUOTE] So, I do have cause, great cause, to render a judgement. **Iā€™ve little choice in the matter** , actually, as I am confronted by theism on a daily basis. (All bolding mine.) I think it would be a great idea, and I just might do it, to start a thread in GD about whether or not we have choices in the matters that control our lives. I know when I encounter a factual incorrect person on whatever issue, _I_ can still let them know wherever I stand without being, IMHO, anything but polite. Again, obviously YMMV. > [@](#): > > **An [sic] very large and influential number of theists _donā€™t_ see to it that they in no way impact our lives in a manner I might find disagreable** [sic] (with good cause, I think), and unfortunately _all_ religious faithful share delusory beliefs. Boy, are we on the same page with that first part! I disagree, vehemently even (kinda like Iā€™m doing here), with those people. I still donā€™t change the standard though, that I have for myself. Perhaps thatā€™s part of the problem. We have different sets we use for our conduct. Sounds good to me. > [@](#): > > I canā€™t help commenting on the ones who bother meā€¦ Again with the ā€œI canā€™t help.ā€ Wow! I thought as adults that we could _all_ ā€œhelpā€ how we behave. But, I might need to rethink that. I am still considering that GD thread. > [@](#): > > ā€¦ and lumping all of them who believe in a delusory manner together, because thatā€™s the nature of the beast. Oooh! What beast? That guy at the end of that story with those three identical numbers someone on his, probably, leathery red skin? If not, who said that the aforementioned grown-ups canā€™t stop from ā€œlumping all of themā€ up together? I know that not all Latinos are the same, cars run differently and that one brand of jeans might last longer or fit better than another. And at least the last two can be VERIFIABLE facts. I do feel that once stated though, they come across to me (at least) as opinions and I will treat all of them equally. If you do not for whatever reason, then I suppose you are willing to deal with those consequences. Again, if any of that upsets you, Iā€™m sorry you feel that way. > [@](#): > > Simply because they are deluded is not bothersome. Itā€™s when their delusions impact others (which, letā€™s not kid ourselves, is pretty often), I feel there is good reason for concern. Yep, jump on them and weā€™ll be right there with you. Does anyone have the time that rally starts? With us both still on the same page (for once), letā€™s see where else weā€™re goingā€¦ > [@](#): > > If youā€™re that inured, more power to you, but I am not. Hey, thatā€™s the way to do it. Good for you and thanks! > [@](#): > > Not being able to express myself appropriately would be even more of an imposition. Iā€™d feel ill used, perhaps rudely treated. As I have been. Hrmph. I guess hereā€™s where weā€™ve got our backs to the wall again. Iā€™m always (albeit muddled :D) able to ā€œexpress myself appropriately.ā€ Never felt it was an imposition either. So, as the re-played CD says, Iā€™m sorry you feel that way. Because it truly must be an unfortunate place to find yourself in. As for it being an ā€œimpositionā€ on you, there we have another problem. I always _prefer_ me having to go the extra mile than someone else, but Iā€™m just like that. ::: shrug ::: Another dose of; Iā€™m sorry you feel that way (too) and I guess weā€™ll just be agreeing (maybe) to disagree. Lastly, regardless of your stance versus mine, I donā€™t feel ā€œill-used.ā€ The only time that happens is when someone lumps me in where I donā€™t belong, ignores me when Iā€™ve apologized or completely, then uses me as an example or etc. Just to take examples from this thread. Now rudely would be definitive. On the other hand, I wouldnā€™t expect someone else to alter their opinion/behavior/reaction/you-name-it just _because_ I felt that way. Only, and I stress ONLY, if they felt they needed to change. For themselves, othersā€™ perception of them and/or it simply being a good thing overall. If theyā€™re not swayed by the outside view, then again, more power to ya, enjoy the trip and have a nice day. Thatā€™s all I got for ya. And Iā€™m sorry you feel that way. Except for **FinnAgain**. Heā€™s allowed us to work everything out over a cheap drunk. ::: hick! ::: Itā€™s all good, right? Or at least from the perspective of AtD. (Thatā€™s my ever-present ā€œagreeing to disagreeā€ clause, for those laughing hysterically along (at us) at home.) [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/there-is-no-god-is-an-opinion-not-a-fact/283925.md?page=21) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/there-is-no-god-is-an-opinion-not-a-fact/283925.md?page=23)