# 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:** 16\ **Page:** 22
**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 29, 2008, 3:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-with-the-entrenched-anti-religion-groupthink-around-here/478365/421 "2008-12-29T15:36:28Z")
> [@Kalhoun](#): > > I would say that _most_ believers choose a religion based on more than a “sudden or freakish” fancy, but that doesn’t mean that it isn’t arbitrary, and dropping “whim” from the process doesn’t make the process any more reasonable. I don’t know what percentage of believers arrived at their beliefs arbitrarily. The point is that religious beliefs are not, out of necessity, arbitrary. ---
**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 29, 2008, 4:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-with-the-entrenched-anti-religion-groupthink-around-here/478365/422 "2008-12-29T16:13:25Z")
> [@JThunder](#): > > And if I had claimed that this was some profound insight that’s difficult to grasp, your sarcasm might have a place here. I did not, though. Quite the contrary; I took great pains to point out that the nature of truth – that which corresponds to reality – is not difficult to grasp, which is why educated people do not need to be tutored on this vocabulary lesson in the course of debate. What is included in your vision of Truth? Why does it have a capital T? > [@](#): > > First of all, you’re confusing reality with its perception. I will heartily agree that humans can perceive reality differently and at times, inaccurately. This has no bearing on the question of whether truth (or Truth) exists or not. If you’re defining Truth as reality, then of course it exists. There is of course an objective reality that humans have to interpret through their senses. Why is that Truth with a capital T? What value is it to say that the nature of the universe is Truth? That Sol, our sun, is a star and is around 8.5 light minutes away from us, is that Truth? Does Truth have anything to do with the stupid notion of their being a god? > [@](#): > > Furthermore, are you honestly trying to disparage my viewpoint on the grounds that I am a flawed human being? What about you? Do you also view reality “through the lens of human frailty and not a little ignorance”? If so, does this mean that we cannot take any of your statements to be true? It means that we have to include perception error into how much credence we give claims. With quantum uncertainty can there be said to be Truth in the way you mean it? Are you suggesting that things like morality or religion are based on Truth? > [@](#): > > Does this include your claim that there is no absolute truth (or Truth, if you wish)? There is a universe. I don’t see why the universe is labeled as Truth to you. It sounds ignorant and the sort of semantic bullshit a religious person would flail about with trying to justify their religion. There are facts, why are facts different than Truth to you? As for the existence of god, the facts suggest there is none. Much as the facts suggest that there are no unicorns or space-ninjas. You can never know if it’s true, but you can examine the facts and derive a strong sense of confidence in them. You can’t know the Truth in the position of an electron. You can’t know the exact distance to the sun beyond measurement error. So beyond a level of resolution there is no Truth in a real, human sense. ---
**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 29, 2008, 4:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-with-the-entrenched-anti-religion-groupthink-around-here/478365/423 "2008-12-29T16:21:27Z")
> [@JThunder](#): > > Which once again reflects the double-standard that we’ve been complaining about in this thread. Theists and other religionists get challenged for their supposed lack of evidence, or they get persistent demands for “facts” – yet the absence of evidence or facts from the other side is simply glossed over. There is nothing in history that has ever happened that suggests that an afterlife or all powerful matter creating spirits exist. Nothing. We presume that since there is no evidence for anything like that existing, that it does not exist. There is also no evidence for the animation of the recently dead that shamble the Earth, hungry for the flesh of the living. We presume that since there is no evidence for anything like that, that it does not exist. The onus is on the people who want their invisible friend to grant them eternal life to prove he exists. Because they are the ones going against every bit of knowledge that humanity has uncovered about the natural world. Where are your facts that zombies don’t exist? Under your logic are zombies as reasonable a belief as a god? ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [December 29, 2008, 6:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-with-the-entrenched-anti-religion-groupthink-around-here/478365/424 "2008-12-29T18:40:38Z")
> [@Stratocaster](#): > > \ > Suppose another individual looks to see which religious belief systems are most internally logical. Or are based on the most honest, reasonable translations of scriptures. That person is attempting to discern the intrinsic nature of these belief systems–i.e., those attributes that distinguish them, that make a selection something other than “throwing a dart.” This discernment–like many other assessments made outside of the religious arena, examples previously provided–is rendered imperfect, to some extent subjective, because we are human. OK. It occurs to me that deciding which translations are honest and reasonable is fairly arbitrary since it is largely discretion and preference. Unless you’re talking about those who translate it from it’s original language. Do you mean, interpretation or literally translation? Let’s say someone has a spiritual experience and wants to select a church to attend. They might attend a bunch of churches and read their statement of belief or whatever. They select a church based on what they teach and the spirit they felt when they attended. Even though that’s a lot more complex than throwing a dart, it sure seems to me like it’s personnel preference which qualifies as arbitrary. Yes they had a certain something they were looking for but that was all personal preference. > [@](#): > > But if we categorize any decision that is TO ANY EXTENT subject to human bias as arbitrary, we have tortured the definition into meaninglessness. I believe that’s what you’ve done in ignoring the “rather than” qualifier (BTW, I think that definition provided is a needlessly imprecise one, not that you’re the editor of that dictionary). You’re concluding that anything not akin to a scientifically repeatable fact influencing the decision renders it arbitrary. That’s silly, and also not what your won definition said. I’m beginning to see your point. As I said before, I’m willing to accept that beliefs are not completely arbitrary but there sure seems to be a lot based on personal preference. I’m not trying to split hairs. This is part of how I clarify things to myself. I wonder how much tradition plays a role in beliefs and if that is arbitrary? Lot’s of beliefs are handed down from one to another and have the weight of generations of tradition. If someone adopts their beliefs in part due to that weight I suppose that’s not arbitrary. > [@](#): > > I did indeed notice. I hope you’re also noticing that you’ve seemed to overlook the “without restriction” and “solely” qualifiers. The distinction that renders something arbitrary is not that it is subject to any extent to individual will or judgement, or that it is contingent, to a certain degree, upon one’s discretion. The important distinction is that the decision is subject to individual will or judgement _without restriction_, that it is contingent _solely_ upon one’s discretion. Point taken. You’d have to admit that a loooooot of beliefs come down to individual will or discretion. Even if you prefer the word discernment it’s still personal discretion yes? You reject certain beliefs and interpretations because they don’t conform to your idea of God’s love or mercy, even though other Christians do think so. That seems to be arbitrary on both your parts. Can you acknowledge that the “without restriction” and “solely” qualifiers, which I accept, do not prevent beliefs that are a result of research and a serious thought process from being arbitrary. > [@](#): > > It may or may not be. I’d have to understand the reasoning behind it. Some “reasons” may be frivolous to a degree that it amounts to a whim, IMO; that’s certainly the assessment many in this thread have made regarding religious beliefs. Once more, whim and preference are not the same thing. I do agree that some posters were using the word to trivialize beliefs. Others were not and tried to explain themselves. > [@](#): > > But, again, I think common sense, standard understanding, and your own definition make clear that something is not arbitrary simply because it is influenced by personal bias–_all_ things are, including much in the realm of science. Agreed. > [@](#): > > When people say someone’s beliefs are arbitrary, are you really arguing that’s not dismissive, that they’re really just trying to refine a subset of what is also sound, logical, well-though-out? That’s how you read the use of the word in this thread? Some were dismissive and some weren’t. That doesn’t affect the actual meaning of the word or the concept of a word having several correct applications. No need to assume everyone was using it the same way, especially when some were trying to explain. My non dismissive point was that belief systems, religious and non religious, are personal discretion for the most part. That’s important because it reminds us that our beliefs are subject to input and change and hopefully we won’t confuse beliefs with facts. Thanks for your patient response. I think I understand where we were talking past each other and I get your point. ---
**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 29, 2008, 7:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-with-the-entrenched-anti-religion-groupthink-around-here/478365/425 "2008-12-29T19:46:51Z")
> [@cosmosdan](#): > > OK. It occurs to me that deciding which translations are honest and reasonable is fairly arbitrary since it is largely discretion and preference. Unless you’re talking about those who translate it from it’s original language. Do you mean, interpretation or literally translation? But is it solely discretion and preference? If I take a scholarly approach, studying the language, its nuances, how it is understood in context, to determine the best translation, that’s way different than picking the translation that “feels” right. > [@](#): > > Point taken. You’d have to admit that a loooooot of beliefs come down to individual will or discretion. Even if you prefer the word discernment it’s still personal discretion yes? You reject certain beliefs and interpretations because they don’t conform to your idea of God’s love or mercy, even though other Christians do think so. That seems to be arbitrary on both your parts. If that’s as far as the discernment went, I can see how it would seem arbitrary. > [@](#): > > Can you acknowledge that the “without restriction” and “solely” qualifiers, which I accept, do not prevent beliefs that are a result of research and a serious thought process from being arbitrary. I would think that would be something other than arbitrary, just as a quick reaction, unless the research and serious thought were somehow pretty aimless or ignored. > [@](#): > > Thanks for your patient response. I think I understand where we were talking past each other and I get your point. You’re welcome! It was nice batting it back and forth. ---
**Author:** ![Mapache](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/58956e/32.png) [@Mapache](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mapache)\ **Post date:** [December 29, 2008, 11:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-with-the-entrenched-anti-religion-groupthink-around-here/478365/426 "2008-12-29T23:41:51Z")
[quote=“JThunder, post:415, topic:478365”] FTR, I’ve repeatedly pointed out that your statement is self-contradictory and thus, self-refuting. That’s a fact. You’re trying to dance around this by declaring that “Truth” can only be known in the afterlife, that there is no God, and that there is no “Truth.” Those are statements of fiat, not established facts. Finally, the point remains that – by your own declaration – “Truth” is absolute whereas “truths” are not. For the sake of argument, let us grant this distinction on which you insist. If there is no “Truth,” then such a statement cannot be absolute, so you cannot absolutely declare it to be true. [UNQUOTE] I´m not all that surprised to see this ancient chestnut brought out again. I first heard it refuted in a Phil101 class fifty years ago, thus: 1. From a pragmatic point of view, no one has ever been able to demonstrate a “Truth”, outside of mathematics, that is absolutely true, and lots of intelligent people have tried, so probably there isn´t such an animal. 2. A semi-formal logic proposition looks like this: a. It is asserted that no absolute Truth exists. (Ie all “absolute Truths” must have an exception.) b. If this is true, then the statement “No absolute Truth exists” must have at least one exception. c. The exception to the assertion that no absolute Truths exist is the statement “No absolute Truths exist.” which statement doesn´t have exceptions. Sounds somewhat counterintuitive, but I´ve never seen a logical objection. ---
**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 30, 2008, 1:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-with-the-entrenched-anti-religion-groupthink-around-here/478365/427 "2008-12-30T01:02:16Z")
Heck, seems to me that if God was a universal truth one-thousandth as verifiable as gravity, we could observe it daily, even if we couldn’t fully understand it. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [December 30, 2008, 1:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-with-the-entrenched-anti-religion-groupthink-around-here/478365/428 "2008-12-30T01:24:55Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > Heck, seems to me that if God was a universal truth one-thousandth as verifiable as gravity, we could observe it daily, even if we couldn’t fully understand it. well, if we didn’t understand it how could we be sure we were observing it or not? ---
**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 30, 2008, 1:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-with-the-entrenched-anti-religion-groupthink-around-here/478365/429 "2008-12-30T01:27:23Z")
Well, we design an experiment that identifies and isolates other elements and if we consistently get some result we cannot otherwise explain, that might be God. Then we try to disprove it. ---
**Author:** ![Zoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/a4c791/32.png) [@Zoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zoe)\ **Post date:** [December 30, 2008, 7:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-with-the-entrenched-anti-religion-groupthink-around-here/478365/430 "2008-12-30T07:54:31Z")
Maybe God is too big to be observed. ---
**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 30, 2008, 8:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-with-the-entrenched-anti-religion-groupthink-around-here/478365/431 "2008-12-30T08:09:46Z")
Even after he created all the animals, including the ameoba? That’s gotta take some precision work. He must have small hands or something. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [December 30, 2008, 1:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-with-the-entrenched-anti-religion-groupthink-around-here/478365/432 "2008-12-30T13:20:39Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > Well, we design an experiment that identifies and isolates other elements and if we consistently get some result we cannot otherwise explain, that might be God. Then we try to disprove it. great idea. Go ahead! ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [December 30, 2008, 1:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-with-the-entrenched-anti-religion-groupthink-around-here/478365/433 "2008-12-30T13:24:52Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > Even after he created all the animals, including the ameoba? That’s gotta take some precision work. He must have small hands or something. My guess is he has precision tools and one heck of a magnifying light, or, like Henry Pym or Ray Palmer, he can change sizes. ---
**Author:** ![Westrogothia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/3ab097/32.png) [@Westrogothia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Westrogothia)\ **Post date:** [December 30, 2008, 4:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-with-the-entrenched-anti-religion-groupthink-around-here/478365/434 "2008-12-30T16:23:37Z")
I gotta ask. how do you prove the abscence of God? opening random cupboards and shouting AH-HA! Anyway I think the somewhat vocal atheism here on the forums is due to atheism being outside the social norm of USA. In a more secular country (like say sweden) theres not much debate about God at all. Mostly because overtly religious people are seen as slightly daft. ---
**Author:** ![Kalhoun](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/3bc359/32.png) [@Kalhoun](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kalhoun)\ **Post date:** [December 30, 2008, 5:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-with-the-entrenched-anti-religion-groupthink-around-here/478365/435 "2008-12-30T17:13:19Z")
> [@Westrogothia](#): > > I gotta ask. how do you prove the abscence of God? > opening random cupboards and shouting AH-HA! > > Anyway I think the somewhat vocal atheism here on the forums is due to atheism being outside the social norm of USA. > In a more secular country (like say sweden) theres not much debate about God at all. > > Mostly because overtly religious people are seen as slightly daft. When we grow up, we wanna be like YOU!🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Bosstone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/22d042/32.png) [@Bosstone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bosstone)\ **Post date:** [December 30, 2008, 5:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-with-the-entrenched-anti-religion-groupthink-around-here/478365/436 "2008-12-30T17:14:06Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > Even after he created all the animals, including the ameoba? That’s gotta take some precision work. He must have small hands or something. He’s a carnie? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-with-the-entrenched-anti-religion-groupthink-around-here/478365.md?page=21)