# What's with the entrenched anti-religion groupthink around here? **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [December 22, 2008, 9:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-with-the-entrenched-anti-religion-groupthink-around-here/478365 "2008-12-22T21:01:29Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 14
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [December 25, 2008, 4:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-with-the-entrenched-anti-religion-groupthink-around-here/478365/261 "2008-12-25T16:15:18Z")
> [@JThunder](#): > > You know what? If people are going to insist that religious belief is completely arbitrary, it’s up to them to prove that assertion. As things stand, you have religion bashers insisting that such belief is arbitrary and then challenging others to prove them wrong. > > I’ve cited the Papacy, an example of a difference in belief that is NOT simply arbitrary. I’m not going to defend either side of that debate, as that would be irrelevant to the topic at hand. Rather, the point is that the combatants in that debate do NOT simply take sides in an arbitrary fashion. Rather, they uphold their beliefs due to their respective understandings of history and what they consider to be the most accurate interpretation of the Scriptural texts. > > Ditto for the differences between Christians and Moslems, for example. Christian scholars typically believe that there is sufficient historical reason to believe that Jesus rose from the dead. Moslems believe otherwise. Obviously, they can’t both be right, but the point remains – they are arguing based on an actual empirical process, and not because they happened to pick beliefs that they liked. I think you’re not understanding the possibilities included in the word arbitrary. If I wake up in the morning and randomly select my green shirt to wear that’s arbitrary. If I select a green shirt with my company logo on it and wear it because it’s a required uniform at work, that’s a different \*reason \* but it’s still arbitrary because the companies selection of green for it’s shirts was arbitrary. Beliefs based an interpretation of certain writings may have taken time and been done by committee but it’s still someone’s interpretation and that makes it arbitrary. Even which books were selected for the Bible are technically arbitrary even though there were certain guidelines. It’s {depending on individual discretion (as of a judge) and not fixed by law} Why do certain doctrines and churches appeal to different people. It’s individual discretion. Personnel preference. We might argue semantics and say that when my company policy made it mandatory that I wear that green shirt to work it was no longer arbitrary for me even though the original choice for a green shirt and logo was arbitrary. Maybe that means that once a law or doctrine is well established then following it is not arbitrary but I’d say choosing a particular religion and it’s doctrine seems to be. btw I don’t believe any scholars Christian or otherwise have sufficient historical reason to believe Jesus rose from the dead. I really doubt there’s any empirical process involved. If you have a link to any such data I’d be interested in looking at it. So far my experiences have been that Christian scholars use what is often flawed logic on sparse data to support the belief they already held. That’s called faith and shouldn’t be confused with actual scholarship. ---
**Author:** ![JThunder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e95f7d/32.png) [@JThunder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JThunder)\ **Post date:** [December 25, 2008, 4:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-with-the-entrenched-anti-religion-groupthink-around-here/478365/262 "2008-12-25T16:18:34Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > Physicist are human, of course, and disinclined to discard their beliefs. Overall, though, we expect one theory to win over another because it _proves_ to be the better one. While that’s generally true, it’s irrelevant to the topic at hand. The point is that physicists do NOT disagree simply because they are being arbitrary. Rather, they have reasons for their disagreements, based on a variety of factors – which theory they consider to be most elegant for example, as well as the presuppositions that they bring into the discussion. To cite one obvious example, Einstein was famous for objection to quantum mechanics on the grounds that “God does not play dice with the universe.” Was his objection completely arbitrary? Absolutely not! His objection was misguided but it was not the logical equivalent of throwing darts (to borrow **Q.E.D.**'s phrase). Rather, he recognized that quantum mechanics would require a complete overturn of our way of thinking, and so he believed that there must be some other explanation instead. As I said, Einstein was wrong. He disagreed with Neils Bohr on how the data should be interpreted. Does this mean that Einstein and Bohr were completely arbitrary in their beliefs on this issue? Absolutely not. When someone is completely devoted to the unproven notion that religious believers only disagree arbitrarily – that they choose their beliefs in the same way that one might flip a coin or throw darts – one is forced to redefine the word “arbitrary” to justify that position. It’s a tactic that holds no water. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [December 25, 2008, 4:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-with-the-entrenched-anti-religion-groupthink-around-here/478365/263 "2008-12-25T16:24:05Z")
> [@Stratocaster](#): > > Right back at ya, brother. I’ve already conceded that God is probably not objectively provable, not relative to a scientific standard. If you’re back on that “arbitrary” nonsense, it’s arbitrary relative to your base premise, which is likewise unprovable. JThunder has done a great job showing how religious beliefs are not merely plucked from the air, and on cue someone responds by saying some form of, “Yeah, but prove to me that that any one set of religious beliefs is objectively the correct one, otherwise they are all completely arbitrary. You may as well flip a coin.” Then we all run around the same track one more time. > > Some things do not lend themselves to scientific, objective conclusions. Jury decisions are often in that category, as another example. Or countless philosophical schools of thought, including those that do not presuppose a God.That does not mean they are arbitrary, or that they are not valuable efforts, or that there is not a “right” answer, however difficult it is to discern one. I reject out of hand the notion that any decision or debate or discussion that cannot be supported by objective, scientific conclusions is valueless and arbitrary. To do so would be to reject as unworthy of discussion some of the greatest thought in human history! It is lazy and frankly incongruous on a board with our alleged mission to force everything to fit into such a narrow construct. Yes, it’s way harder to reach conclusions when we admit within the boundaries of discussion those debates that do not allow us to run a laboratory test to reach a conclusion. Too bad. > > The word “arbitrary” apparently has been whittled down to a very convenient definition in this thread, and I for one will not counter the straw man that it has become. Actually I think the word arbitrary has a broader meaning than you seem to give it. You might have looked it up before you posted about it several times but it’s not too late. [Here](http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/arbitrary) I’ll help. Note that { existing or coming about seemingly at random or by chance or as a capricious and unreasonable act of will} is only one possibility. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Tao\_s\_Revenge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/73ab20/32.png) [@The\_Tao\_s\_Revenge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Tao_s_Revenge)\ **Post date:** [December 25, 2008, 4:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-with-the-entrenched-anti-religion-groupthink-around-here/478365/264 "2008-12-25T16:34:42Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > What “different metric” ? “It’s OK to be an idiot” ? One of the things that shows how worthless religion is, is how it’s defenders feel obligated when pushed to literally deny the value of being RIGHT. Of depending on facts over faith, logic over illogic. > > Giving respect to foolishness is not an obligation. Nor are you doing the foolish people in question any favors. Nor are you doing YOURSELF any favors - someone who, by your own admission, doesn’t consider facts more important than faith or logic more important than illogic is going to have dangerously bad judgement. Respecting them is a good way to get hurt or killed. Regardless of your opinions, REALITY doesn’t care that you think that foolish beliefs deserve respect. They sell many drinks in decaf these days. You should check it out. I have been respectful to religious people and I haven’t been hurt or killed from it. The only dangers I see are from extremist groups who think they’re only ones who can be right, and everone else is some how less then them. This includes many religious groups I admit, but it includes many others too. > [@Discordia](#): > > I don’t understand, you want me to prove logic and science are worthwhile? > > If so, I already implied why. Their usage improves the quality of life of people, allowing us to create many lovely things that I’m sure I don’t need to list. > > This is so obvious though, I suspect I misunderstand what you are asking. No I agree they’re worth while. I want you to prove they’re the only things that are worth while. > [@SmartAleq](#): > > Dude, I can’t speak for Fuller but I’ve SEEN my MIL, and believe me you do NOT want to do this. Just trust me, please, for the love of all that is good and precious in this world! _shudder_😃 > > Can I get a vat of brain bleach please? Please? Yea I just said that cause I’m a little evil.😛 ---
**Author:** ![Kalhoun](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/3bc359/32.png) [@Kalhoun](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kalhoun)\ **Post date:** [December 25, 2008, 4:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-with-the-entrenched-anti-religion-groupthink-around-here/478365/265 "2008-12-25T16:35:47Z")
> [@cosmosdan](#): > > Actually I think the word arbitrary has a broader meaning than you seem to give it. You might have looked it up before you posted about it several times but it’s not too late. [Here](http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/arbitrary) I’ll help. Note that { existing or coming about seemingly at random or by chance or as a capricious and unreasonable act of will} is only one possibility. I don’t see how this definition helps your case: > [@](#): > > ar·bi·trary > Pronunciation: \ˈär-bə-ˌtrer-ē, -ˌtre-rē\ > Function: adjective > Date: 15th century > 1: depending on individual discretion (as of a judge) and not fixed by law \ > 2 a: not restrained or limited in the exercise of power : ruling by absolute authority \ b: marked by or resulting from the unrestrained and often tyrannical exercise of power \ > 3 a: based on or determined by individual preference or convenience rather than by necessity or the intrinsic nature of something \ \ \ b: existing or coming about seemingly at random or by chance or as a capricious and unreasonable act of will \ Can you point out which definition you’re referring to? ---
**Author:** ![devilsknew](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/4da419/32.png) [@devilsknew](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/devilsknew)\ **Post date:** [December 25, 2008, 4:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-with-the-entrenched-anti-religion-groupthink-around-here/478365/266 "2008-12-25T16:41:02Z")
> [@cosmosdan](#): > > I think you’re not understanding the possibilities included in the word arbitrary. If I wake up in the morning and randomly select my green shirt to wear that’s arbitrary. If I select a green shirt with my company logo on it and wear it because it’s a required uniform at work, that’s a different \*reason \* but it’s still arbitrary because the companies selection of green for it’s shirts was arbitrary. > > Beliefs based an interpretation of certain writings may have taken time and been done by committee but it’s still someone’s interpretation and that makes it arbitrary. Even which books were selected for the Bible are technically arbitrary even though there were certain guidelines. > > It’s {depending on individual discretion (as of a judge) and not fixed by law} > > Why do certain doctrines and churches appeal to different people. It’s individual discretion. Personnel preference. > > We might argue semantics and say that when my company policy made it mandatory that I wear that green shirt to work it was no longer arbitrary for me even though the original choice for a green shirt and logo was arbitrary. Maybe that means that once a law or doctrine is well established then following it is not arbitrary but I’d say choosing a particular religion and it’s doctrine seems to be. > > btw I don’t believe any scholars Christian or otherwise have sufficient historical reason to believe Jesus rose from the dead. I really doubt there’s any empirical process involved. If you have a link to any such data I’d be interested in looking at it. So far my experiences have been that Christian scholars use what is often flawed logic on sparse data to support the belief they already held. That’s called faith and shouldn’t be confused with actual scholarship. That’s why law (jurisprudence) and religion are equally nebulous and errant. They are both based on flawed and arbitrary epistemologies. In most cases, law is the incestous sister of religion. ---
**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:** [December 25, 2008, 4:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-with-the-entrenched-anti-religion-groupthink-around-here/478365/267 "2008-12-25T16:43:31Z")
> [@JThunder](#): > > While that’s generally true, it’s irrelevant to the topic at hand. Then why’d you mention it? It’s relevant when _you_ discuss it but not when _I_ discuss it, or something? > [@](#): > > The point is that physicists do NOT disagree simply because they are being arbitrary. Rather, they have reasons for their disagreements, based on a variety of factors – which theory they consider to be most elegant for example, as well as the presuppositions that they bring into the discussion. Sure. And when there’s a battle between proponents of Theory A and proponents of Theory B, I wouldn’t expect either to back down. I’d expect one theory to gradually win out because new physicists entering the field have some non-preconceived reason for embracing it, while the other theory dies out because its proponents die out. Fifty years after the battle, one theory wins because it is better. It’s been over 400 years since Catholics and Protestants split. Who’s winning? Can anyone? > [@](#): > > To cite one obvious example, Einstein was famous for objection to quantum mechanics on the grounds that “God does not play dice with the universe.” Was his objection completely arbitrary? Absolutely not! His objection was misguided but it was not the logical equivalent of throwing darts (to borrow **Q.E.D.**'s phrase). Rather, he recognized that quantum mechanics would require a complete overturn of our way of thinking, and so he believed that there must be some other explanation instead. > > As I said, Einstein was wrong. He disagreed with Neils Bohr on how the data should be interpreted. Does this mean that Einstein and Bohr were completely arbitrary in their beliefs on this issue? Absolutely not. > > When someone is completely devoted to the unproven notion that religious believers only disagree arbitrarily – that they choose their beliefs in the same way that one might flip a coin or throw darts – one is forced to redefine the word “arbitrary” to justify that position. It’s a tactic that holds no water. You’re embracing one aspect of science because religion agrees with it, while ignoring another (more important) aspect of science because religion doesn’t agree with it. I can only fall back on my “eight day” hypothetical mentioned earlier. If I started producing and distributing bibles where God rests on the eighth day, I would be in conflict with the established seventh-day dogma. Let’s assume I’m an awesome and persuasive public speaker and I convert a few thousand people to my way of thinking. Fifty years from now when I’m gone (well, two hundred - I’m an optimist) will the “seven-day” or “eight-day” theory prevail, or will both continue indefinitely without resolution? ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [December 25, 2008, 5:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-with-the-entrenched-anti-religion-groupthink-around-here/478365/268 "2008-12-25T17:01:13Z")
> [@JThunder](#): > > When someone is completely devoted to the unproven notion that religious believers only disagree arbitrarily – that they choose their beliefs in the same way that one might flip a coin or throw darts – one is forced to redefine the word “arbitrary” to justify that position. It’s a tactic that holds no water. No, personnel discretion and preference are already part of the definition of arbitrary. Scientists have personnel preference so there can be a certain arbitrary factor to scientific theory. What we hope is that the search for truth eventually negates the arbitrary factor. I have spiritual beliefs based on a personnel interpretations of specific experiences and my own studies. I have \*reasons \* and a thought process behind my beliefs but that doesn’t mean they are not arbitrary. IMHO it’s people as a whole, within religion and without, continuing to seek the truth that will eventually sift our arbitrary notions from things more substantial and lasting. ---
**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:** [December 25, 2008, 5:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-with-the-entrenched-anti-religion-groupthink-around-here/478365/269 "2008-12-25T17:02:03Z")
On further musing, consider this wacky hypothetical: Relativity is forgotten. Every book written about it since 1905 (as well as whatever precursor books were leaning in that direction, everything as far back as Galilean invariance) vanishes along with all human memory of it. Every technological advance stemming from relativity vanishes. Question: could relativity be rediscovered in the same form? Wacky hypothetical two: Christianity is forgotten. All texts related to it vanish. All technological advances stemming from it vanish. Could Christianity be rediscovered in the same form? ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [December 25, 2008, 5:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-with-the-entrenched-anti-religion-groupthink-around-here/478365/270 "2008-12-25T17:05:57Z")
> [@Kalhoun](#): > > I don’t see how this definition helps your case: > > Can you point out which definition you’re referring to? 1 and 3a personnel discretion and preference. While there are other factors involved it seems most religious beliefs and the traditions that evolve from them are based on these two. Are they not? ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [December 25, 2008, 5:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-with-the-entrenched-anti-religion-groupthink-around-here/478365/271 "2008-12-25T17:08:35Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > On further musing, consider this wacky hypothetical: Relativity is forgotten. Every book written about it since 1905 (as well as whatever precursor books were leaning in that direction, everything as far back as Galilean invariance) vanishes along with all human memory of it. Every technological advance stemming from relativity vanishes. > > Question: could relativity be rediscovered in the same form? > > Wacky hypothetical two: Christianity is forgotten. All texts related to it vanish. All technological advances stemming from it vanish. Could Christianity be rediscovered in the same form? Wouldn’t God see to that? 😉 ---
**Author:** ![Kalhoun](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/3bc359/32.png) [@Kalhoun](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kalhoun)\ **Post date:** [December 25, 2008, 5:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-with-the-entrenched-anti-religion-groupthink-around-here/478365/272 "2008-12-25T17:12:36Z")
> [@cosmosdan](#): > > 1 and 3a > > personnel discretion and preference. While there are other factors involved it seems most religious beliefs and the traditions that evolve from them are based on these two. > > Are they not? Well, maybe I’m missing something, but I think those definitions are precisely what everyone has been pointing to in this thread. It’s personal preference, based on nothing but what sounds good to the chooser. You don’t like the jew thing with the baths and separate dishes (maybe it just doesn’t fit into your daily schedule) so you go with something less demanding of your personal time and energy. Arbitrary. It has nothing to do with the rightness or wrongness of a set of religious beliefs. It’s what you personally can pencil into your daytimer. ---
**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:** [December 25, 2008, 5:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-with-the-entrenched-anti-religion-groupthink-around-here/478365/273 "2008-12-25T17:13:17Z")
> [@cosmosdan](#): > > Wouldn’t God see to that? 😉 I suppose he’d have to. All relativity would need for rediscovery would be a series of bright people building on each other’s work. Christianity, though… that calls for the big guns. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [December 25, 2008, 5:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-with-the-entrenched-anti-religion-groupthink-around-here/478365/274 "2008-12-25T17:13:53Z")
> [@devilsknew](#): > > That’s why law (jurisprudence) and religion are equally nebulous and errant. They are both based on flawed and arbitrary epistemologies. In most cases, law is the incestous sister of religion. That’s an interesting fruedian way of putting it. :eek: Jokes aside, it’s an interesting point. While mankind searches for lasting principles the law remains malleable to the preference of those in power. Religious beliefs are similar. ---
**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:** [December 25, 2008, 5:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-with-the-entrenched-anti-religion-groupthink-around-here/478365/275 "2008-12-25T17:16:53Z")
> [@cosmosdan](#): > > Jokes aside, it’s an interesting point. While mankind searches for lasting principles the law remains malleable to the preference of those in power. Religious beliefs are similar. Thank God for the Second Amendment, then. ---
**Author:** ![Stratocaster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stratocaster/32/16393_2.png) [@Stratocaster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stratocaster)\ **Post date:** [December 25, 2008, 5:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-with-the-entrenched-anti-religion-groupthink-around-here/478365/276 "2008-12-25T17:19:22Z")
> [@cosmosdan](#): > > Actually I think the word arbitrary has a broader meaning than you seem to give it. You might have looked it up before you posted about it several times but it’s not too late. [Here](http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/arbitrary) I’ll help. Note that { existing or coming about seemingly at random or by chance or as a capricious and unreasonable act of will} is only one possibility. No, I’ll leave it to the discerning reader to determine for himself how it was used in an obviously dismissive manner in this thread. Your clarification for Kalhoun makes my point, though interestingly you think otherwise. ---
**Author:** ![Stratocaster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stratocaster/32/16393_2.png) [@Stratocaster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stratocaster)\ **Post date:** [December 25, 2008, 5:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-with-the-entrenched-anti-religion-groupthink-around-here/478365/277 "2008-12-25T17:25:02Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > Feel free to explain the process, even if it is unscientific. Also, please be so kind as to answer my questions regarding Christianity/Scientology. No, I am not going to play that game. I’m not interested in arguing Christianity versus Scientology. I am merely pointing out the self-evident observation that one could do so, whatever position one happened to hold, and that argument need not be arbitrary. You are asserting otherwise, which is silly on its face, unless we accept the unprovable base assertion of many in this thread (which I won’t repeat yet again). ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [December 25, 2008, 5:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-with-the-entrenched-anti-religion-groupthink-around-here/478365/278 "2008-12-25T17:27:29Z")
> [@Kalhoun](#): > > Well, maybe I’m missing something, but I think those definitions are precisely what everyone has been pointing to in this thread. It’s personal preference, based on nothing but what sounds good to the chooser. You don’t like the jew thing with the baths and separate dishes (maybe it just doesn’t fit into your daily schedule) so you go with something less demanding of your personal time and energy. Arbitrary. It has nothing to do with the rightness or wrongness of a set of religious beliefs. It’s what you personally can pencil into your daytimer. I think you missed the part where I agree that beliefs are arbitrary. Including my own. Including your own as well. It seemed that those objecting to the term were thinking of only one definition of the word that alluded to a momentary whim off no real significance. Arbitrary has a broader meaning. People have reasons for certain beliefs and religions have criteria and traditions. It’s not all momentary shallow whim, but it is arbitrary nonetheless. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [December 25, 2008, 5:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-with-the-entrenched-anti-religion-groupthink-around-here/478365/279 "2008-12-25T17:28:49Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > Thank God for the Second Amendment, then. OOOOOOOOOO that’s some good irony there. ---
**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:** [December 25, 2008, 5:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-with-the-entrenched-anti-religion-groupthink-around-here/478365/280 "2008-12-25T17:36:17Z")
> [@Stratocaster](#): > > No, I am not going to play that game. I’m not interested in arguing Christianity versus Scientology. If the particular choices are unacceptable, feel free to compare Christianity/Buddhism, Judaism/Scientology, or any other set. If not, the implication will just have to stand unchallenged. > [@](#): > > I am merely pointing out the self-evident observation that one could do so, whatever position one happened to hold, and that argument need not be arbitrary. You are asserting otherwise, which is silly on its face How is it silly on its face? What obvious counter-explanation am I missing? > [@](#): > > unless we accept the unprovable base assertion of many in this thread (which I won’t repeat yet again). As you wish. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-with-the-entrenched-anti-religion-groupthink-around-here/478365.md?page=13) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-with-the-entrenched-anti-religion-groupthink-around-here/478365.md?page=15)