# 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:** 20
**Author:** ![intention](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e95f7d/32.png) [@intention](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/intention)\ **Post date:** [December 27, 2008, 3:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-with-the-entrenched-anti-religion-groupthink-around-here/478365/381 "2008-12-27T03:18:29Z")
> [@coffeecat](#): > > … > Do you really think that Wikipedia didn’t just screw up on a footnote, but pulled the denunciation statement out of the air, and _Jerry Falwell_ is a lone voice of tolerance crying in the wilderness? :rolleyes: Oh, ok; I have to go food shopping right now, but [http://www.dogchurch.org/](http://www.dogchurch.org/) may give you some leads. Please don’t put words in my mouth. I have no idea whether Wikipedia screwed up or not. I was just pointing out that you screwed up by not reading a citation given in Wikipedia before referring to it on the SDMB, a mistake I made myself … once. And I don’t know whether Jerry Falwell is a lone voice or not, my dear **coffeecat** , THATS THE TOPIC IN QUESTION. I was responding to JThunder’s claim that the Westboro Church\* “has been routinely and heavily criticized by other churches.” \* If that’s the case, I said, please give me some citations. Because if it’s both routine and heavy, it should be easy to find a bunch of citations, but I couldn’t find any, so I asked. At this point neither you nor JThunder have produced any citations either. So abuse me all you want for what you fantasize my thoughts are regarding Wikipedia and Jerry Falwell, give me the rolleyes … but the jury is still out on whether other churches have routinely and heavily criticized the WBC, and your abuse and rolleyes aren’t helping your side of the discussion at all. Your contribution to date has been one unsuccessful attempt at providing a citation, and you want to get on my case? Really? ---
**Author:** ![FoieGrasIsEvil](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foiegrasisevil/32/16638_2.png) [@FoieGrasIsEvil](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FoieGrasIsEvil)\ **Post date:** [December 27, 2008, 4:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-with-the-entrenched-anti-religion-groupthink-around-here/478365/382 "2008-12-27T04:17:46Z")
Why can’t people understand that the idea of faith in something unseen isn’t a provable tenet? It doesn’t make someone an idiot to believe so, no more than the cynic that tries as hard as possible to disprove said belief. Why do people get so worked up about this shit? The militant atheists on here would try to convince you that religion is some kind of disease and never does any good. The nutters would have you believe that religion (OK, I’m talking Christianity here) can do no wrong. Why can’t people see both sides of this? YES, religion has been a method of subjugating, torturing and killing people in the past (in America and elsewhere, but has also done countless good deeds)). NO, it is no longer like that (in America). What’s so hard to understand? Live and let live, I say. ---
**Author:** ![Brown\_Eyed\_Girl](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/brown_eyed_girl/32/3574_2.png) [@Brown\_Eyed\_Girl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Brown_Eyed_Girl)\ **Post date:** [December 27, 2008, 4:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-with-the-entrenched-anti-religion-groupthink-around-here/478365/383 "2008-12-27T04:39:47Z")
Because religion is still subjugating people? Really…why can’t we all live and let live? Not gonna happen, unfortunately. Ok, well that’s the cynic in me talking. ---
**Author:** ![SmartAleq](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/smartaleq/32/163_2.png) [@SmartAleq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SmartAleq)\ **Post date:** [December 27, 2008, 4:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-with-the-entrenched-anti-religion-groupthink-around-here/478365/384 "2008-12-27T04:51:55Z")
> [@FoieGrasIsEvil](#): > > YES, religion has been a method of subjugating, torturing and killing people in the past (in America and elsewhere, but has also done countless good deeds)). > > NO, it is no longer like that (in America). > > What’s so hard to understand? Live and let live, I say. Oh well then, we’d best pack up all our bits and bobs and just go on home then! Problem solved, nothing to see here, move along. We’ll just take our tacky Spinoza and our petty parietal lobe activity studies and our cites and just slink right out, now that we know the whole theist/atheist issue has been categorically settled and there’s no bigotry, prejudice or attempts to curtail civil liberties occurring in America any more. Whew, that was a real nail biter, that. Gee, patronize much? ---
**Author:** ![JThunder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e95f7d/32.png) [@JThunder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JThunder)\ **Post date:** [December 27, 2008, 6:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-with-the-entrenched-anti-religion-groupthink-around-here/478365/385 "2008-12-27T06:01:50Z")
> [@Kalhoun](#): > > You tell me. Wait a minute. You’re the one who’s making a claim here. Why are you foisting the burden of proof onto someone else? To recap: You say that there is no universal Truth. I’m asking you if it’s universally true (or if you wish, True) that there is no universal Truth. Is it? ---
**Author:** ![Kalhoun](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/3bc359/32.png) [@Kalhoun](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kalhoun)\ **Post date:** [December 27, 2008, 10:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-with-the-entrenched-anti-religion-groupthink-around-here/478365/386 "2008-12-27T10:41:29Z")
> [@JThunder](#): > > Wait a minute. You’re the one who’s making a claim here. Why are you foisting the burden of proof onto someone else? > > To recap: You say that there is no universal Truth. I’m asking you if it’s universally true (or if you wish, True) that there is no universal Truth. Is it? And I said yes, it’s universally true and I explained the logic behind it. If you believe you can provide an instance where it’s not, feel free. It’s just like when I tell you there’s no god. You’re the one claiming one exists, so you’re the one who has to provide the proof. It’s not “whoever says it has to prove it.” I’m saying it doesn’t exist and you’re saying it does. If you feel it does, prove it. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [December 27, 2008, 12:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-with-the-entrenched-anti-religion-groupthink-around-here/478365/387 "2008-12-27T12:54:14Z")
> [@Skald\_the\_Rhymer](#): > > Don’t make me get all recursive on your ass. I got a copy of “The Mind’s I” right here, and you don’t want to start up with me! 😃 That does look interesting. ---
**Author:** ![JThunder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e95f7d/32.png) [@JThunder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JThunder)\ **Post date:** [December 27, 2008, 2:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-with-the-entrenched-anti-religion-groupthink-around-here/478365/388 "2008-12-27T14:12:42Z")
> [@Kalhoun](#): > > And I said yes, it’s universally true and I explained the logic behind it. Okay. So it’s universally true that there is no universal truth. Got it. ---
**Author:** ![Kalhoun](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/3bc359/32.png) [@Kalhoun](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kalhoun)\ **Post date:** [December 27, 2008, 2:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-with-the-entrenched-anti-religion-groupthink-around-here/478365/389 "2008-12-27T14:15:21Z")
> [@JThunder](#): > > Okay. So it’s universally true that there is no universal truth. Got it. Jeeeeez…you can do better than that, **JThunder**. Do you have an example that holds true to your belief that there is a universal Truth? Or are you going to play word games and pretend that you don’t know what I’m talking about? ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [December 27, 2008, 2:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-with-the-entrenched-anti-religion-groupthink-around-here/478365/390 "2008-12-27T14:28:02Z")
> [@Stratocaster](#): > > I think we’ve pounded the definition into a fine dust. Since we don’t seem to disagree on anything in this exchange except how to assign the word “arbitrary,” I’m not sure there’s much left to clarify. Your definition isn’t terribly troubling to me, though I have a semantical disagreement with it. Again, that’s not the sense of the word others have given it in this thread. I’m content to leave it alone as well. I’d note that regardless of what other posters have said, arbitrary has more than one meaning and we don’t have to reject the word as a whole to reject their implications. I’d point out once again, that I didn’t write the dictionary or those definitions. and that you never clarified what your take on the actual definition was. So be it. Moving on. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [December 27, 2008, 2:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-with-the-entrenched-anti-religion-groupthink-around-here/478365/391 "2008-12-27T14:30:21Z")
> [@SmartAleq](#): > > And here’s something pretty interesting–a possible scientific and provable basis for belief in religion. [Apparently those with decreased function of the right parietal lobe are more likely to experience spirituality](http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/12/081217124156.htm). > > From the article: > > So I guess my question on this would be–to those of you who follow religion, should it prove factual that your experience of spirituality is wholly or predominantly a matter of how a certain part of your brain functions, and that the function can be altered to remove the feeling of “transcendence” (which is a major reward component of religious experience) would that make you value your choice of belonging to a religion less? Or would you welcome a drug that depresses right parietal activity in order to deepen and strengthen that spiritual connection? Would the idea of “God In A Pill” offend or excite you? Taking it quite a bit further, how would you feel if your church found a way to saturate the air inside the church with right parietal suppressants in order to foster a more transcendent feeling in the congregation during the services? Would that seem fair to you? > > Yeah, it’s a bit of a hijack but it is new information that bridges the cognitive gap between theist and atheist rather handily… We already have God in a pill. It’s called LSD. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [December 27, 2008, 2:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-with-the-entrenched-anti-religion-groupthink-around-here/478365/392 "2008-12-27T14:54:16Z")
> [@Kalhoun](#): > > I don’t believe there is a “Truth.” There are truths and they are fluid. They are not universal (as evidenced by the multitude of religions and beliefs out there). I don’t believe there’s a “secret.” There are things we don’t know, and things that as individuals, we’ll never know. Will someone figure out some of it long after we’re dead? Possibly. But by virtue of the fact that we’re all different, with different experiences and influences, there cannot be a universal Truth. “Meaning” and “Truth” are not interchangeable words. I think most people search for meaning in their lives, whether they’re confined by churches and scriptures or if they just absorb and evaluate life as it comes at them. But it _cannot_ be the same answer for everyone. Human beings aren’t built that way. Thanks for explaining. I happen to believe there is a Truth and we humans are still making efforts to uncover it, in a messy imperfect way. Something that may relate. I agree about the incredible diversity of humans and what our gifts are and what we value. I like the analogy of the body. Different parts have their own function. The cells are different but their essence is the same. When the body is in harmony it functions better. In my own exploration I came upon my own theory. The way to this Truth is by being true to ourselves. As individuals we go forward acting on what we believe to be true. Knowing we have a lot left to learn we let our experiences and our seeking and being open to new information refine our belief system. So, while you being true to your own concept of what is true, and me to mine , and Jesse to hers, may on many levels seem far far apart, on one level it’s the same and might be considered the same path. It’s like various people having a GPS with the same destination. We may not know exactly what that destination is because it’s off screen, but we follow our GPS. Yours takes you through terrain that is very different from the terrain I travel so it appears we are on very different paths with different destinations. I know how goofy an idealistic this sounds. I just thought it related because of your comments about truth, vs Truth. I’m aware I may be whistling in the dark. It does seem to me that humanity as a whole is striving to make moral progress. Human rights has made progress overall even though we have plenty of work left to do. That can only happen when individuals make an effort as a group. ---
**Author:** ![Kalhoun](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/3bc359/32.png) [@Kalhoun](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kalhoun)\ **Post date:** [December 27, 2008, 2:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-with-the-entrenched-anti-religion-groupthink-around-here/478365/393 "2008-12-27T14:56:35Z")
> [@cosmosdan](#): > > We already have God in a pill. It’s called LSD. I thought the same thing the first time I dropped acid. Then I realized it was Eugene imitating the rain dance sequence in the Woodstock film.😃 ---
**Author:** ![Kalhoun](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/3bc359/32.png) [@Kalhoun](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kalhoun)\ **Post date:** [December 27, 2008, 3:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-with-the-entrenched-anti-religion-groupthink-around-here/478365/394 "2008-12-27T15:05:55Z")
> [@cosmosdan](#): > > Thanks for explaining. > I happen to believe there is a Truth and we humans are still making efforts to uncover it, in a messy imperfect way. > > Something that may relate. I agree about the incredible diversity of humans and what our gifts are and what we value. I like the analogy of the body. Different parts have their own function. The cells are different but their essence is the same. When the body is in harmony it functions better. > > In my own exploration I came upon my own theory. The way to this Truth is by being true to ourselves. As individuals we go forward acting on what we believe to be true. Knowing we have a lot left to learn we let our experiences and our seeking and being open to new information refine our belief system. > So, while you being true to your own concept of what is true, and me to mine , and Jesse to hers, may on many levels seem far far apart, on one level it’s the same and might be considered the same path. > > It’s like various people having a GPS with the same destination. We may not know exactly what that destination is because it’s off screen, but we follow our GPS. Yours takes you through terrain that is very different from the terrain I travel so it appears we are on very different paths with different destinations. > > I know how goofy an idealistic this sounds. I just thought it related because of your comments about truth, vs Truth. I’m aware I may be whistling in the dark. > > It does seem to me that humanity as a whole is striving to make moral progress. Human rights has made progress overall even though we have plenty of work left to do. That can only happen when individuals make an effort as a group. I’m with you with regard to being true to ourselves, but I disagree that it leads to a universal Truth. I don’t think we’re _supposed_ to have a universal Truth, nor do I think it would be beneficial to mankind as a whole. The fact that we’re as diverse as we are helps us work together for the common good. However, this is simply a benefit of being human; there is no “greater purpose” in it. If there were a common Truth, there’d be no reason for us to be diverse to begin with. We would have been created the same, with the same goals, same values, etc. Our diversity is (to me) clear proof that this is all there is. To quote National Lampoon’s _Radio Dinner,_ _We are a fluke of the universe. We have no right to be here. Whether you can hear it or not, the universe is laughing behind your baaaaaaack._ ---
**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 27, 2008, 3:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-with-the-entrenched-anti-religion-groupthink-around-here/478365/395 "2008-12-27T15:13:36Z")
> [@cosmosdan](#): > > I’d point out once again, that I didn’t write the dictionary or those definitions. and that you never clarified what your take on the actual definition was. So be it. Moving on. I thought I did. Here, I’ll try one more time. The dictionary definition provided two versions you thought applied. One is a specific legal term (typically) that characterizes a judicial decision as “arbitrary” when something is not mandated by statute. I don’t believe that’s how the word was being used in this thread. And, I’m guessing most people would agree, this sense of the word is not truly “arbitrary” as it’s typically understood; the average judge does not pull decisions out of his ass, even if the law permits him to. 3a described something as arbitrary that is, “based on or determined by individual preference or convenience rather than by necessity or the intrinsic nature of something \ \ \.” _Anything_ is arbitrary in the sense you seem to be applying it, if it involves individual preference at all, to any extent. This is not a terribly helpful definition or distinction–it applies to virtually everything. It also (ISTM) ignores the “rather than” qualifier. Something is not arbitrary if it has an element of individual preference in it. It is arbitrary if it is SOLELY based on individual preference or convenience. So, the illustrations provided–someone who studies and evaluates different belief systems for their internal logic, for example–are NOT arbitrary according to this definition either, not unless we torture “individual preference” into something so broad as to be meaningless. My individual preference to accept the theory of evolution (and, yes, I understand what the term “theory” means) is not arbitrary if I have evaluated and assessed it thoroughly. Or my belief that O.J. Simpson murdered his ex-wife. Or that Roe v Wade was a poorly reasoned SC decision. Each of these (currently) defy conclusive proof, and there are people that disagree with me on each determination. That needn’t mean these assessments are arbitrary–i.e., again, unless we force the word into a definition so broad that it includes virtually everything, in which case “arbitrary” becomes meaningless. And, FWIW, 1 and mainly 4 in [this definition](http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/arbitrary) are the way people typically use the word, and I believe it’s the way it’s been used in this thread, all our parsing aside. If someone rushes in to say, “No, I meant it in the sense of number 5, that a religious belief system is simply not assigned a specific value,” I’ll roll my eyes. Yes, it is a sub-definition. But “arbitrary” was clearly being used in a dismissive manner in this thread (#4)–no other way to interpret it, IMO. ---
**Author:** ![JThunder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e95f7d/32.png) [@JThunder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JThunder)\ **Post date:** [December 27, 2008, 5:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-with-the-entrenched-anti-religion-groupthink-around-here/478365/396 "2008-12-27T17:49:32Z")
> [@Kalhoun](#): > > Jeeeeez…you can do better than that, **JThunder**. Do you have an example that holds true to your belief that there is a universal Truth? Or are you going to play word games and pretend that you don’t know what I’m talking about? This isn’t a word game, **Kalhoun** , and you obviously know it. You claimed that there is no absolute truth, and then asserted that this is absolutely true. Do you honestly not see a problem with that? Besides, you’re the one making the claim. It’s up to you to defend it. It’s not up to me to disprove it. And even if it were, the mere fact that it’s self-contradictory constitutes a sufficient rebuttal. Since you apparently want to dodge the issue and foist the burden of proof onto someone else, I’ll take the bait for once. I propose the following absolute truth: “The claim that there is no absolute truth is self-refuting. After all, by its own internal logic, such a statement cannot be absolutely true.” Now I’m sure that you’re going to try to dance around that, or perhaps challenge me to produce some other absolute truth. I daresay that the vast majority of fair-minded individuals can see the problem quite clearly though. In fact, if there truly were no absolute truth, then you would have no business aruging with me on this matter. After all, you cannot claim to be absolutely right, nor can you claim that I am absolutely wrong. And if you say, “That’s not true!” then I can fairly respond by asking “Is it absolutely true that my statement was incorrect?” ---
**Author:** ![Kalhoun](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/3bc359/32.png) [@Kalhoun](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kalhoun)\ **Post date:** [December 27, 2008, 6:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-with-the-entrenched-anti-religion-groupthink-around-here/478365/397 "2008-12-27T18:33:54Z")
> [@JThunder](#): > > This isn’t a word game, **Kalhoun** , and you obviously know it. You claimed that there is no absolute truth, and then asserted that this is absolutely true. Do you honestly not see a problem with that? > > Besides, you’re the one making the claim. It’s up to you to defend it. It’s not up to me to disprove it. And even if it were, the mere fact that it’s self-contradictory constitutes a sufficient rebuttal. > > Since you apparently want to dodge the issue and foist the burden of proof onto someone else, I’ll take the bait for once. I propose the following absolute truth: “The claim that there is no absolute truth is self-refuting. After all, by its own internal logic, such a statement cannot be absolutely true.” > > Now I’m sure that you’re going to try to dance around that, or perhaps challenge me to produce some other absolute truth. I daresay that the vast majority of fair-minded individuals can see the problem quite clearly though. > > In fact, if there truly were no absolute truth, then you would have no business aruging with me on this matter. After all, you cannot claim to be absolutely right, nor can you claim that I am absolutely wrong. And if you say, “That’s not true!” then I can fairly respond by asking “Is it absolutely true that my statement was incorrect?” I don’t believe there’s a god and other people do. There. No absolute Truth (you realize we’re talking about universal Truth in the “spiritual” sense, right??). Unless you can prove that there’s a creator that is conscious and somehow cares what goes on here on Earth, and could also somehow make us all accept that we all have exactly the same end in our future, then I think there’s no choice but to accept that we’re each here living our lives as we see fit, based on our life experiences, which are all interpreted differently. You can’t have a universal Truth without a universal god. ---
**Author:** ![JThunder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e95f7d/32.png) [@JThunder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JThunder)\ **Post date:** [December 27, 2008, 6:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-with-the-entrenched-anti-religion-groupthink-around-here/478365/398 "2008-12-27T18:44:07Z")
> [@Kalhoun](#): > > I don’t believe there’s a god and other people do. There. No absolute Truth (you realize we’re talking about universal Truth in the “spiritual” sense, right??). Okay. So because you don’t believe in a god, there is no absolute Truth? I assume that you don’t see a problem with that logic. I also see that you’re now imposing a “spiritual” clarifier. Fine. Let’s play that game. Is it absolutely True that there is no God? For that matter, is it absolutely True that there is no spiritual Truth? ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [December 27, 2008, 6:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-with-the-entrenched-anti-religion-groupthink-around-here/478365/399 "2008-12-27T18:51:25Z")
> [@JThunder](#): > > Okay. So because you don’t believe in a god, there is no absolute Truth? I assume that you don’t see a problem with that logic. > > I also see that you’re now imposing a “spiritual” clarifier. Fine. Let’s play that game. Is it absolutely True that there is no God? For that matter, is it absolutely True that there is no spiritual Truth? Please define truth in the way you mean it. Do you mean facts? Because the concept of _Truth!™_ is the sort of thing a stupid person would come up with. ---
**Author:** ![Kalhoun](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/3bc359/32.png) [@Kalhoun](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kalhoun)\ **Post date:** [December 27, 2008, 6:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-with-the-entrenched-anti-religion-groupthink-around-here/478365/400 "2008-12-27T18:59:35Z")
> [@JThunder](#): > > Okay. So because you don’t believe in a god, there is no absolute Truth? I assume that you don’t see a problem with that logic. > > I also see that you’re now imposing a “spiritual” clarifier. Fine. Let’s play that game. Is it absolutely True that there is no God? For that matter, is it absolutely True that there is no spiritual Truth? I clarified that way up-thread. It is absolutely true that there is no god in my life, therefore, it’s absolutely True that there’s no spiritual Truth. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-with-the-entrenched-anti-religion-groupthink-around-here/478365.md?page=19) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-with-the-entrenched-anti-religion-groupthink-around-here/478365.md?page=21)