Atheists Know More About Religion than Religious People

[marmar]

from truthdig:



Atheists Know More About Religion than Religious People
Posted on Sep 28, 2010


Well this is awkward. The Pew Forum on Religion and Public life undertook a study for which non-believers correctly answered more religious knowledge questions than the devout. Mormons and Jews also scored well, and, like Atheists, know more about Christianity than Christians.

Here are some of Pew’s surprising findings:

More than four-in-ten Catholics in the United States (45%) do not know that their church teaches that the bread and wine used in Communion do not merely symbolize but actually become the body and blood of Christ. About half of Protestants (53%) cannot correctly identify Martin Luther as the person whose writings and actions inspired the Protestant Reformation, which made their religion a separate branch of Christianity. Roughly four-in-ten Jews (43%) do not recognize that Maimonides, one of the most venerated rabbis in history, was Jewish.

In addition, fewer than half of Americans (47%) know that the Dalai Lama is Buddhist. Fewer than four-in-ten (38%) correctly associate Vishnu and Shiva with Hinduism. And only about a quarter of all Americans (27%) correctly answer that most people in Indonesia – the country with the world’s largest Muslim population – are Muslims.

Read more

http://www.truthdig.com/eartotheground/item/atheists_know_more_about_religion_than_religious_people_20100928/

[saltpoint]

1. Recommended. Once somebody takes a bite from the

fruit of the tree of knowledge, well they can't eat just one.

I'd like to ask the people who think Barack Obama is "a secret Muslin" (sic) how in Indonesia they would be able to distinguish between commonly-known Muslins and secret Muslins.

[Deep13]

3. I think you misunderstand.

The secret muslin remark was really a metaphor for cotton products generally.

[saltpoint]

4. Ah. --smacks hand on forehead -- I'm such a

clod when it comes to fashion!

[rfranklin]

7. Blessed are the cheesemakers!

My favorite scene from The Life of Brian.

[ehrnst]

12. A blatant fabrication.... (nt)

[LeftishBrit]

14. Out of the whole cloth.

[MineralMan]

2. It's not surprising. Many atheists have studied religion carefully

before becoming atheists, and often afterwards,too.

[Atman]

5. No kidding. That's why we're atheists.

We've studied it carefully. Once you do that, you learn what a crock of shit organized religion is.

.

[gratuitous]

16. Yeah, "serve one another in love"!

What a crock of shit.

[Goblinmonger]

20. Do you really want to engage in a dueling quotations match?

Not to mention the examples of those that don't live up to your quotations.

Because I might be up for one of those games.

[wookie72]

30. Missing the point.

I imagine your quotations would be the standard litany of famous people decrying religion, in other words essentially an appeal to authority. WHereas the first quote is an example of a good idea that can be found in the Bible. OR else you'd cherrypick the Bible to find the nasty quotes, without offering anything positive to counter. either way, it's a fruitless pursuit.

[immoderate]

39. It's OK to be in the bible. But good ideas stand on their own.

There's no good idea in the bible that didn't exist outside the bible first.

--imm

[wookie72]

41. Actually there are a few

There was little in the way of sympathy to the poor. There was some, but it wasn't a popular idea, even in democracies like Greece.

[cleanhippie]

67. And things have changed how?

Even being one of the top tier tenets of christianity has not really made people care all that much about the poor. If you are claiming that as one idea that was not found outside the bible, then the idea has pretty much failed.

[ironbark]

51. Yea, the ancients were such looser klutzes

Pre Christian, pre Buddhist, pre Islam there was “no good idea” within any of these oncomming scriptures “that didn't first exist outside”...people just picked up these loopy fads/cults (often at risk of torture/death) to look cool. Not because they offered a better/new cosmology than that which prevailed.

It’s a good thing that the common sense intelligence to recognise a “good idea”- something better than that which prevails- was invented/discovered during the industrial revolution....because our ancestors couldn’t distinguish shit from sugar.

;-)

[PassingFair]

135. You think they INVENTED compassion?

Yes, it never occurred to people
to be compassionate until the BIBLE
told them so.

No one ever smiled or shared before
then, either.

:crazy:

[beam me up scottie]

140. Yeah, that one got me too. If there's ONE post that proves the op, that's it.

"It is one of the Christian delusions that Christianity brought charity into the world. It did no such thing."

~ H.L.Mencken

And it is indeed a delusion.

[OffWithTheirHeads]

50. religion is one of my favorite topics

I love studying it and am absolutely fascinated by how much the "true believers" don't know about their own religion. Most of the "Christians" have never heard of the Council of Trent or the Council of Nicea and have no idea how their religion came about.

Their whole premise is that the King James version of the bible is the "Unadulterated word of God" and we should all accept it as the word of God is soo stupid that I can't even get over it.

How do you have half a brain and subscribe to this crap?

You must be a Redneck

[wookie72]

29. Don't pat yourself on the back that much

It's a difference of 65% versus 50%. It's not like the atheists were acing the test either.

[Arkansas Granny]

6. I found this to be quite interesting and had just finished reading the article

when I saw your post. This is also from the article and makes perfect sense:

So why would an atheist know more about religion than a Christian?

American atheists and agnostics tend to be people who grew up in a religious tradition and consciously gave it up, often after a great deal of reflection and study, said Alan Cooperman, associate director for research at the Pew Forum.

[rfranklin]

8. I think they tend to be smarter and better informed on average...

Just a guess but I would wager money on it.

[wookie72]

31. Key word is "tend"

because I've met some who are pretty clueless about religion other than the negative parts.

[lapislzi]

9. 15/15 Know your enemy.

That's not in any religious text (but would be endorsed by Sun Tzu), but it's a good operating philosophy for most situations.

[txaslftist]

10. Sure they do.

They want to know more about what they are missing.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

26. And very glad we are to be missing that!

The more we know, the gladder we get.

[alfredo]

11. 10 for 10 in the CNN poll. Natural Atheist.

[W_HAMILTON]

13. I got 8/10.

I suppose its supposed to be common knowledge, but I did not know that Mother Theresa was Catholic -- I assumed she was Jewish. :blush:

I'm agnostic by the way.

[alfredo]

18. I had to think about a couple, but made the right guess.

[Tesha]

137. She probably wouldn't be so rabidly anti-abortion if she were (Jewish). (NT)

[otohara]

15. I Used to Help A Kid Attending Catholic School

write his "religion" class papers - I was shocked at how little this kid knew considering he's been in Catholic Schools since a wee tiny boy and now in HS. Me the Atheist helped him pass that class.

[gratuitous]

17. No kidding

I remember helping my atheist pal with his biology homework. I was shocked at how little this guy knew considering he's been a human being nearly all his life. Me, the Christian helped him pass that class.

Wait; that just sounds stupid. Never mind.

[Goblinmonger]

21. Fail

I'll give half a point because it's kind of funny, but on an analogy level it just doesn't even come close.

[otohara]

27. Feel Better?

The article was about religion - When you spend most of your life in a church and church school hearing Bible stories vs a person who has never, I was surprised!

Biology classes once per week vs daily Bible references, nuns, priests, six days per week??

I'm the one being sent to hell, the clueless Christians get heaven, that's just wrong!

[wookie72]

32. You do realize that many Catholics don'c actually read the bible, right?

They learn from the Catechisms, but actually reading the Bible is not an important part of Catholicism.

[wookie72]

33. 14/15

Not sure which one I missed.

But it's mostly trivia anyway. I doubt atheists know as much as they think about the intricacies of theology.

[muriel_volestrangler]

38. Yeah, we're pretty slack on our demonology too

I mean, the basic beliefs of people in the world is just trivia, isn't it? The intricacies of evidence-free speculation on what 'God' would be like, when one just assumes such an entity exists, are much more important.

[wookie72]

42. Which shoes your knowledge is, well, shallow

"Evidence-free speculation" could just as easily apply to the majority of philosophy, literature and pretty much the entire humanities except for maybe anthropology and economics.

[muriel_volestrangler]

44. No

Philosophy is the study of knowledge; we have first hand experience of knowledge, being animals with knowledge ourselves. Thus philosophy has some evidence (it has speculation as well, of course). Literature can also be about real events, and is usually based on the situations and reactions of real people, even if fiction.

Theology, on the other hand, is about gods; many theologians will assume the existence of a god that others will deny even exists, and will start to expound on the desires and plans of this god without any kind of meaningful evidence, preferring instead to interpret the words of often unknown authors from centuries ago, or of groups of men trying to justify their positions of power, as a basis for 'knowing' what the hypothetical god has done or wants us to do.

You insult philosophy and literature gravely by comparing them to theology. The fantasy genre can, perhaps, be thought of as equivalent to theology, or the more speculative forms of science fiction. As for throwing "pretty much the entire humanities except for maybe anthropology and economics" in there, that's a horrible thing to say about a wide area of human study. Though I'd put economics nearer the 'fantasy and wishful thinking' end of the spectrum that theology occupies, at times.

[wookie72]

46. I don't insult philosophy and literature at all

I'm just pointing out that they are just as speculative as theology. And again, you show your lack of understanding of theology. Many theologians do not attribute specific qualities to what they call God. Some, like Paul Tillich, simply call God the Ground of All Being, and presume nothing along the lines of omniscience, omnipotence, etc. There is a whole school of thought called "Death Of God Theology," referring to having to give up the idea of an anthropocentric theistic God. And contrary to popular belief, many theologians study and have discussions with theologians of other religions.

Actually, epistemology, one small aspect of philosophy, is the study of knowledge. Nonetheless, philosophy is indeed entirely speculative. "Thought experiments" aside, there is little the way of real empirical evidence in philosophy, because it isn't about evidence, unless you're an extreme Logical Positivist.

"Literature can also be about real events, and is usually based on the situations and reactions of real people." So if a book is based entirely on stuff from one's imagination, or is simply a treatise on the wonders of language or ideas, it's not literature? There goes Calvino, Joyce and in fact a good thwack of modern and post-modern fiction.

I think you proved my point: you know the type of stuff that could be expressed in a 15-question quiz. But that only scratches the surface of what these religions are about.

[skepticscott]

47. And what percentage of theologians

would you say do not attribute ANY specific qualities to what they call "god"? And what percentage of rank and file believers worship gods anything like what those theologians write about in their little ivory offices?

[wookie72]

59. What percentage of physicists agree with Stephen hawking?

What percentage of philosophers agree with Foucault?

As for the "rank and file" believers, you might be surprised, if you bothered to look beyond the "fundie" stereotypes.

In any case, what's it to you? If it involves laws, fight for your cause, but insulting people in the name of reason is a lousy way of making your case.

[skepticscott]

79. And where was the insult?

You claimed "Many theologians do not attribute specific qualities to what they call God." and I asked you to provide numbers to back up the claim of "many" If having your views challenged is all it takes to insult you, I can understand why your back is up so often here. And I know a lot more rank and file believers than I do fundies, and almost without exception, they DO believe in a god with specific qualities, not the funky, ephemeral god that a few theologians in their ivory towers dream up to make themselves feel intellectually superior.

[wookie72]

89. "A few theologians in their ivory towers dream up to make themselves feel intellectually superior

I guess you meant that in the nice way. Sure sounds like an insult to me.

[Goblinmonger]

91. That was written after you said he had made an insult.

Nice try though.

[wookie72]

93. Not really, considering he used the exact same phrase

in his original post.

(addendum: not the exact same phrase, but "little ivory offices" is the same essential idea)

[trotsky]

98. So apart from the "same essential idea" that you view as a horrible insult...

do you have any response whatsoever to all the other content of the post? You're blowing off all the tough questions that you with your superior theological training should have no problems answering.

[wookie72]

100. What tough questions?

That people have different opinions on religion? Where am I denying that?
My main point is that theology is just as academically rigourous as any other discipline, and the claims people make about it (that it presupposes certain beliefs about God) is inaccurate.

As for transubstantiation, I admit I'm not an expert on it. I understand the basic argument, but I think that the passages people mention in the Bible are not conclusive. So sue me.

[trotsky]

103. I see your most important debating weapon is denial.

I can see why you need to use it, too.

[wookie72]

106. And yours is not providing a direct answer

Seriously, what tough question have I ducked?

[trotsky]

109. LOLOLOL

They are all over this thread! Use the scroll wheel on your mouse!

However one of the best examples is post #76 and your reply, #85. Too funny.

[wookie72]

116. TOugh question?

It was the equivalent of "when have you stopped beating your wife?"

[trotsky]

121. You rationalize your avoidance any way you want.

Doesn't change anything.

[skepticscott]

125. Here it is again

You claimed "Many theologians do not attribute specific qualities to what they call God." and I asked you to provide numbers to back up the claim of "many".

Apparently for you, that's the rhetorical equivalent of "when have you stopped beating your wife?" Sheesh.

[muriel_volestrangler]

53. No, you're wrong again

Philosophy is not 'entirely speculative'. Its areas include logic, theories of perception and mind, language, and ethics. These all relate to real beings (human, and sometimes other animals). There is evidence to be taken into account.

Theology, on the other hand, is about the existence of beings that have not been perceived. It has no real foundation. Tillich claimed he had an idea of 'the Ground of All Being', and yet he was a Christian who believed in revelation, and that Jesus was a special figure in the universe. His life's work still looks like an attempt to cling to the writings from 2000 years ago about Jesus, and to justify them however much they run counter to our own experience of life.

Yes, some do manage to give up their ties to a personal god. But they also end up in pure speculation; and you claimed that this speculation, confined to a small group, is far more important than knowing about the everyday beliefs of your fellow humans.

"Literature can also be about real events, and is usually based on the situations and reactions of real people." So if a book is based entirely on stuff from one's imagination, or is simply a treatise on the wonders of language or ideas, it's not literature? There goes Calvino, Joyce and in fact a good thwack of modern and post-modern fiction.

I said "literature can also be about real events, and is usually based on the situations and reactions of real people". Furthermore, characters in Joyce act in a similar fashion to real human beings, and exist in a world quite like our own. I have never read anything by Calvino, but I'll take a wild guess there are human beings in his work too, behaving in recognisable ways. Their stories are based on reality. You have constructed a pathetic strawman when you claim I am ruling out them out as 'not literature'.

I think you have proved that you don't read other people's posts very well, and that you arrogantly remain convinced that other people's religious ideas aren't worth knowing about, but your own interests are far more important.

[wookie72]

61. Logic is *entirely* speculative!

It's entirely about the relation of concepts. there is no such thing as logic in the natural world. Mathematics is a purely human concept. I'm biased because my father is a pure mathematician, but numbers are abstractions, not neccessarily "true" but "useful."


"Theology, on the other hand, is about the existence of beings that have not been perceived."

Are all concepts in physics perceivable?


"It has no real foundation. Tillich claimed he had an idea of 'the Ground of All Being', and yet he was a Christian who believed in revelation, and that Jesus was a special figure in the universe. His life's work still looks like an attempt to cling to the writings from 2000 years ago about Jesus, and to justify them however much they run counter to our own experience of life.

Yes, some do manage to give up their ties to a personal god. But they also end up in pure speculation; and you claimed that this speculation, confined to a small group, is far more important than knowing about the everyday beliefs of your fellow humans."

Not what I meant at all. What I meant is that this poll is no more relevant than a poll of equally mundane facts about science (The fact that Earth revolves around the Sun, while important to know, is scratching the service of cosmology).
My point is that these facts are simply stuff that you can get from a Religion 101 class (I'd like a link to the answers; I'm wondering what I got wrong)

"I said "literature can also be about real events, and is usually based on the situations and reactions of real people". Furthermore, characters in Joyce act in a similar fashion to real human beings, and exist in a world quite like our own. I have never read anything by Calvino, but I'll take a wild guess there are human beings in his work too, behaving in recognisable ways. Their stories are based on reality. You have constructed a pathetic strawman when you claim I am ruling out them out as 'not literature'."

And you would be mostly right about Calvino, however he also wrote a novel about the particles in the Big Bang. Borges is another author whose work goes far beyond the bounds of reality. You're missing the point. Joyce, Calvino, etc are not important because they deal with real events and real people. They're important because of what they've done with language, plot and character, concepts that are entirely speculative and subjective. A literary professor can think that Joyce, Calvino and Borges are all pretentious crap and still be respected. Similarly, a philosopher can think that Foucault was an idiot and still be respected. This is the link that I make with theology.

But theology is simply another way to explain the world, and human behaviour. You can reject it personally based on its alleged supernatural aspects, but you go beyond to trivialize it as being about "make believe" stuff. Well, my point is that all art, and a good amount of philosophy, is a product of the imagination. A good deal of theology is not assuming anything about God and is more about how we should deal with ultimate reality, which many theologians concede we can never know


"their stories are based on reality. You have constructed a pathetic strawman when you claim I am ruling out them out as 'not literature'."

As opposed to your strawman about theology?

A lot of experimental fiction has *no* relation to reality.

[Goblinmonger]

56. Let's please put Joyce and the Bible on the same level.

Well, the Bible isn't as well written, but, YES, they are the same. They are works of fiction. The Bible is no more a moral guide than Ulysses. And I would argue that Ulysses gives you more to think about in regard to how you live your life than the Bible ever could. And I've read both multiple times.

[wookie72]

62. Really?

Love and forgive your enemies doesn't resonate with you? None of the Parables?

Not to mention the fact that religion (and Joyce's reaction to it) informs Ulysses?

And I hate the trope of Bible as fiction, but not for the reason you might imagine. It's because the Bible is not simply one book, and indeed parts of it are myth. But calling it fiction is to put a label on it that didn't really exist at the time, not to mention it ignores the fact that JC, whether son of God or not, was probably a real person with revolutionary ideas.

[Goblinmonger]

65. It is fiction.

There may be tiny elements of historical fact value in there but they are tiny.

"JC was probably a real person." Really? Other than the bible (and Josephus who has been shown to be a fraud) what evidence is there for a historical Jesus.

Just because the bible informs Ulysses doesn't mean it is of more value. Lots of fiction informs subsequent fiction. Whitman informs a great deal of modern poetry and prose--doesn't mean it is somehow now true and to be believed.

[wookie72]

70. What do you have against Whitman?

What it does mean is that the Bible still has relevance, if not truth.

AS for Jesus, of course there is not a lot of proof. However, the fact that they chose to venerate a failed messiah (from the point of view at the people at the time) from the backwaters of Palestine suggests that there is something there. A messiah created out of the blue would not be a political criminal born in one of the poorest parts of the world and executed.

[Goblinmonger]

75. I love Whitman. And relevance does not equal truth.

The Great Gatsby is still extremely relevant. Doesn't mean that there was a real guy named Jay Gatz. And if you are talking about truth in the moral sense, there is no reason why the bible has any more truth than Gatsby.

[wookie72]

84. But Gatsby was written as a novel.

That's my point. The Gospels, whether accurate or not, were written by people who thought that JC was real (barring conspiracy theories).

[Goblinmonger]

90. And you know that how?

There are pretty good analyses out there that argue that Mark, who wrote the first gospel that the other two synoptic gospels are patterned after, actually wrote this as a retelling of the story of Ulysses and that such copying was a genre very popular at that time.

But if I write something, as long as I believe it to be true regardless of the fact that there is no way it could be real, then we need to treat it NOT as fiction?

[wookie72]

95. Ulysses?

Um, I don't recall Jesus travelling to fight a war and then facing sea monsters to get back to his wife.

There are "some that argue" that JC fathered a line of kings in France, and yet it's not very likely. Many scholars - such as the creators of the Jesus Seminar - have differing opinions on the divinity of JC but believe that he was an actual person.

And yes, it isn't fiction. It may not be true, but as a genre, fiction is different from what most of the Bible is. (I am of the opinion, blasphemous as it is, that some of the Bible serves as "fan fiction," and some parts, such as the Jonah story, are considered fiction with a point by many scholars. But from what I've read from outside sources, I believe that JC was a person who said most of the things he is credited with.)

[Goblinmonger]

102. Do tell.

What have you "read from outside sources" that shows that there was a historical Jesus that said the things he is credited with in the gospels?

For your reading pleasure: Dennis R. MacDonald, The Homeric Epics and the Gospel of Mark. You will have a hard time convincing me that Dr. MacDonald is akin to the conspiracy nuts you describe in your French scenario. Here's his brief bio: Dennis Ronald MacDonald received his undergraduate degree from Bob Jones University, his Master of Divinity from McCormick Theological Seminary, and his Ph.D. from Harvard University (1978). From 1980-1998 he taught at the Iliff School of Theology in Denver, with stints as a visiting professor at the Harvard Divinity School (1985-1986) and the Union Theological Seminary of New York (spring 1991). Good news from looking for his full bio is that he has a follow up to the book I gave you above (Does the New Testament Imitate Homer? (Yale University Press, 2003)) that I haven't read yet.

[trotsky]

105. Dude. wookie's taken comparative religion classes.

He's a total expert. Just ask him.

[wookie72]

112. "my French scenario"

It's not mine, it was actualy the inspiration for a popular novel a few years ago.

And just basing by the reviews of this book, it really doesn't amount to that much. And even so, it would be the Gospel writers putting a Homeric spin on the Jesus story, which is nowhere near the same thing. The majority of what I've read (John Dominic Crossan, Marcus Borg) suggests that there were outside sources for the Bible, including the Greeks. However, to suggest that they borrowed the idea of Jesus from Homer makes very little sense, as the stories are very different. They might have common themes, but the story of Jesus has little resemblance to Homer except in the most basic Joseph Campbell sense.

If you really want to know my take, Jesus was a revolutionary figure who became an itinerant preacher who preached a very different form of Judaism and challenged Roman authority, leading to his execution. Around this figure a story of his divinity was created. I personally find his teachings inspiring. That's all.

[Goblinmonger]

114. The Campbellic resemblance of Jesus to Homer

is far from little.

Wasn't Homer Greek?

They clearly borrowed from Homer, and other myths, too. I, mean, come on, clearly you have been taught about Mithra, Dionysus, all the rest. Realizing that the gospels are so damn plagiarized from all these other sources, how can you possibly thing there is any chance of a historical Jesus given the fact that there are no contemporary historic documents that indicate he did exist.

Jesus MAY have been a conglomeration of many revolutionary figures that did nowhere near what Jesus did and was then buffed up, a la Joseph Campbell, to be the divine figure we see in Matthew and then others took off with that either thinking it was real or, probably, not. MAYBE.

[wookie72]

118. Mithra Dionyis, were not poor revolutionaries

Is there nothing of value in the fact that a person born of poverty led this movement?
This puts me in awkward position, though, because any historic documents I claim you will simply claim as forgeries.
I am not a believer in Jesus as the divine son of God in the literal sense. I simply find his teachings inspiring.

That said, there is very little resemblance between the Odyssey and the Gospels. For one thing, Jesus never went very far from his own hometown, whereas Ulysses went clear across the the known world.

[onager]

49. The word o'Gawd is "trivia?"

Anything else about this poll you'd like to denigrate/pontificate upon...obviously in a desperate attempt to minimize its findings?

:rofl:

Sorry to disappoint you, but as my fellow atheists keep pointing out, most of us know a buttload about theology.

Going by the posts in the A/A Group, just here on DU we have some atheists who attended seminaries. We have others who were raised - or razed - in the Catholic school system. We're a very diverse bunch with a lot of religious experiences. Contrary to popular belief among the religious, not all of those experiences were bad. From the posts in A/A, I'd guess most of them weren't.

Personally, I'm a former SoB - Southern Baptist. My job has taken me all over the world where I could see local religious rituals, and I've lived/worked in Muslim countries for nearly 6 years. 2 years in Saudi Arabia, almost 4 years in Egypt...where I lived in Alexandria, a city that knows a historical thing or two about Religion Gone Wild.

Finally, I don't see any "intricacies" in theology at all, assuming you mean Xian theology. That stuff is nothing but the same old game of mental Three-Card Monte, the same old flat, sour, wine long past its shelf life poured into new bottles. A Graven Turd that isn't looking any better despite 2,000 years of frantic human polishing.

That seems to hold true whether the polisher is C.S. Lewis and his childish "Trilemma," Pat Robertson spouting his idiocy, or post-modern theologians desperately searching for quantum cracks where their "ethereal, evanescent" god might be hiding.

[wookie72]

58. Can you post an argument without being insulting?

Robertson, Lewis, and quantum theorists are not exactly what I'm talking about. I'm talking about the people who have come to terms with the death of the anthropocentric, theistic God and realize that mere science and logic is not enough to feed the human spirit. Those who take the challenge of atheists like Camus and Sartre (as opposed to the childish namecallers that pass for atheists today) and say "well, what do we do now?"

[immoderate]

76. What does the human spirit eat?

Superstition? You are rationalizing that some entity exists which will satiate human drives like curiosity and anxiety. And you say that religion is the answer? And a watered down version at that. I think the study of psychology would be more rewarding here than the study of religion.

Religion really doesn't answer any of the existential questions, except with "because we say so." And accepting that extra layer of delusion doesn't solve anything. The people who "had to come to terms" with the nonsense of religious doctrine, now have to justify clinging to the practices it generated.

Are you insinuating that "childish namecallers" are not truly atheist? If not what are they? What's with this longing for those kinder gentler atheists of the good old days? The only rule to be an atheist is no god. To imply that atheists somehow self-selected for civility in the past is ludicrous.


What's the difference between namecallers and childish namecallers? Who is more likely to be shouting the truth? Is truth food for the spirit?

--imm

[wookie72]

85. No, I'm insinuating nothing about "true atheists"

I'm just reserving the right to call people out on their rude and insulting behavior.

The truth? How do you know what is the truth? It's just your version of the truth.

[wookie72]

115. Psychology still has to deal with the fear of death

And there is a lot that has nothing to do with "delusion."

[immoderate]

129. Bullshit maybe?

I will tell you some story, and then you will not fear death?

--imm

[trotsky]

54. Ah, the Courtier's Reply.

The last refuge of the frustrated theist.

[wookie72]

60. Why assume I'm a theist?

I'm closest to a Unitarian or Quaker with Buddhist leanings.

And I've noticed a tendency of frustrated atheists to simply reply with buzzwords they label as arguments: "True Scotsman!" "Courtier's Reply!" As if then it needs no more explanation.

My point is that this poll (which, as I said, atheists answered an average of four questions more than believers, nothing to write home about) is simply Religion 101 common knowledge. It's exactly on the level of 'who wrote Moby Dick?" which was one of the nonreligious questions asked before the poll.

the idea that somehow "there's no there there" ignores the vast body of work that sincere people have studied and written about the subject.

I admit that its bizarre that people don't know the basics of their own religion, but it's obviously not outside statistically possibility. But 65% vs. 50% isn't really that exciting.

[trotsky]

66. You're really confused, aren't you?

"True Scotsman" and "Courtier's Reply" aren't arguments at all, and aren't presented as such. They are pointing out logical fallacies. No counter-argument needs to be given to a logical fallacy. Identify the fallacy and that's it. Respond with another fallacy and I'll point it out again. We can play it all day until you can present something of substance.

And true it may be that the smaller 15-question poll on the website is religious "trivia" - however concepts like "Who is Job?" are pretty central to Christian theology and it's downright funny that fewer Christians than atheists are aware of these facts about their own theology.

[wookie72]

71. No, youre using it as an argument

As if pointing out an alleged fallacy without backing that up is somehow a stunning blow to our ideas. You're using it in such a way that it is the whole of your argument.

Actually, Job is not a central figure in Christianity. He's not mentioned in the NT at all. The Job story is used in Christian messages often, but Jesus never had any comment on it at all.

[trotsky]

77. I'm sorry that you are unable to see your own fallacies.

Of course, that's usually how they work, isn't it?

Regardless, I just enjoy the fact that it bothers you so much that atheists might know more about religion than the religion's followers.

[ironbark]

81. And all are sorry that you are unable to see

that "Who is Job?" isn't "pretty central to Christian theology".

[wookie72]

86. And I'm sorry that you miss the point.

The point is that simply calling something a fallacy doesn't make it a fallacy. You need to provide more than that.

My point was that this is a superficial quiz of trivial facts and very little to do with what makes up religious education. (As well, I imagine atheists would be the first to complain if there was more religious education, including comparative relgions, other than to snort "it's all bullsh*t! )
I am surprised that anyone wouldn't know that Mother Theresa was Catholic, perhaps even a little alarmed. But my point was that knowing a few more questions on a quiz is not the same as understanding the material.

[Goblinmonger]

94. I am surprised that someone who has said several times

that they have studies comparative religion in several classes doesn't know jack shit about the Catholic reasoning for the belief in transubstantiation since that, along with the Pope and Mary and deeds vs beliefs, is one of the main points that distinguishes the dogma of Catholicism from the Protestant religions.

But, hey, surprises in life are a good thing!

[wookie72]

96. Not sure where you get that.

I see that something could be *interpreted* as transubstantiation in the Bible. But I don't. See the difference? The Bible does not say "the bread literally became the flesh."
And I am well aware of deeds vs. beliefs and Protestants problems with the veneration of Mary.

[Goblinmonger]

104. I bet the bible doesn't say a lot of things in exactly the manner that you believe it

but you are fine with those, I'm sure.

ETA: He says "This is my body." That's pretty clear.

[wookie72]

107. And there's no possible way to take that figuratively

Especially considering that John is filled with figurative language?

[Goblinmonger]

110. Are you telling me that Jesus only says "this is my body" in John?

Cause you know that's not the truth. See my answer I just posted elsewhere.

[wookie72]

97. Oh, also, I said it once.

I wouldn't make a big deal of it, except that you seem to be big on nitpicking.

[Goblinmonger]

111. Twice. Post 73 and 86.

And now my understanding of theology is "nitpicking"? Interesting.

[wookie72]

113. Nice try.

this is what I wrote
"(As well, I imagine atheists would be the first to complain if there was more religious education, including comparative relgions, other than to snort "it's all bullsh*t! )"


I was not talking about my own.
What's nitpicking is your claim that the passages in John could *only be taken* as literal.

[Goblinmonger]

117. First of all, he says the same thing in Matthew

so stop saying John all the time because it makes you feel better that it wasn't from a synoptic gospel because it's in them, too. "This is my body" ain't just John.

Second, maybe I read that wrong about your "comparative religion" statement the second time.

Third, I don't believe in transubstantiation because I don't believe in god much less a historical jesus. I'm giving you the RCC dogma. But what is your response to the Matthew explanation by Jesus when he says that he won't fuck around when talking to the disciples but give them the clear look into the kingdom of god. Why, given that attitude of Jesus to his devoted followers, would you think that he IS speaking figuratively when he promised he wouldn't.

[wookie72]

119. because he talks about himself being the bread of life and the true vine

I take that figuratively.
I believe you were the one who brought up John

[trotsky]

99. Oh, I didn't realize you needed such simplistic detail.

Here you go. You said: "I doubt atheists know as much as they think about the intricacies of theology."

Here is a link to a summary of the Courtier's Reply: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Courtier%27s_reply

(Bonus question for you: there's another fallacy in your quote. Can you name it before I do?)

[wookie72]

101. No, please enlighten me

Nonetheless, it would be like knowledge of literature reduced to "who wrote Moby Dick?" or "where does Hamlet take place?"

These tests are cute and make headlines, but they are utterly superficial.

[otohara]

34. Last Time I Was in A Catholic Church

it was in Latin - so no, I did not realize - but I'm wondering if that's the case, why did this kid have so much homework on Bible stuff?

[wookie72]

43. There is some more emphasis on the Bible

(which, BTW, does not include Transubstantiation) than before. But there's not the long tradition of reading the Bible and interpreting it on one's own (which has led to Biblical literalism, unfortunately) as in Protestant traditions.

[skepticscott]

48. Yes, much better to just sit in the pew

like a stump and let yourself be spoon-fed. Thought has no place in church, only obedience.

[wookie72]

57. i'm not a Catholic

But "thought has no place in church" is not my experience of how Catholics act at all.

[Goblinmonger]

55. Transubstantiation is in the bible.

Now I realize I'm just a lowly atheist without the knowledge of the intricacies of theology, but I'm falling back on my years in a Catholic seminary here so bear with me.

Jesus, at the last supper, tells his disciples when breaking the bread that "this is my body" and he tells them when pouring the wine that "this is my blood" and that they should do this in remembrance of him. The Catholic church is very firmly of the belief that that passage in the bible is not metaphoric but literal. That just as Christ turned water into wine, he was able to transubstantiate the bread into flesh and the wine into blood and that he charged them with the task (and the ability) to do the same in remembrance. So it's in there, just different interpretations by different sects.

But, again, I'm just a silly atheist without nuanced understanding of theology.

[wookie72]

63. The Eucharist is in the Bible

Transubstantiation is most definitely not, or else the Protestants wouldn't have a problem with it. YOu said it yourself "the Catholic Church is very firmly of the belief." It's not in the text itself but dates to about the 11th century.

I find Transubstantiation a little odd, I admit, but so what?

[Goblinmonger]

64. So you are basically saying that the Protestants have it right

because they view it as a metaphor and not literal? Can you tell me through your vast theological knowledge what the indicators are that Christ was speaking in parable or in figurative terms and tell me where that is apparent during the last supper (hint: it's not there. There are none of the normal indicators that what Christ was going to say was to be taken in a figurative fashion as there are in other areas of the gospels.]. Those indicators not being present, the Catholic church feels very firmly that they are correct in their interpretation of that passage as being literal. The Protestants may be very firm in their belief that that passage is figurative, but they have no more basis (and many would argue less basis given how Christ "normally" talked when being figurative) for their interpretation being correct.

[trotsky]

69. Multiple posts now would seem to indicate...

that the poster you are addressing has gotten his knowledge of Catholic theology (and opinions thereof) from Jack T. Chick.

[wookie72]

73. Not so much.

I took several courses in comparative religions.

Several members of my family are Catholic. I have not brought up Transubstantiation with them, and I don't see any reason to.

But I am curious... is Jack Chick's anti-Catholicism bad, but, say, Dawkins' or Hitchens' anti-Catholicism good?

[trotsky]

78. Naw, Chick's anti-Catholicism is very different.

It's much more similar to yours.

[wookie72]

87. How was I being anti-Catholic?

Because I simply disagree with the doctrine of transubstantiation?

You know nothing about my beliefs.

[wookie72]

72. There is nothing to assume that he was speaking literally

It was a passover meal, and the breaking of bread was the Jewish custom. The original Greek does not even indicate that he is talking about the bread. It's the same as him saying "I am the true vine" and "I am the light."

In any case, I realize that the Bible is a man-made book, not divinely dictated (whether divinely inspired is another matter). There are arguments by some scholars that the Last Supper is a combination of two or more meals from different times. Maybe he didn't even say it. WHo knows? It's not important to me. What's important is the ritual of remembrance of what he stood for.

[Goblinmonger]

74. For someone who touts to have done intensive comparative studies

it is odd that you have so little knowledge about one of the main dogmatic differences between the RCC and the Protestant religionis.

Read John chapter 6. Specifically in the verses 50-60 range. He is not doing the figurative stuff he does in the "I am the vine." He says explicitly that the bread IS HIS body. No figurative nature implied or stated.

[wookie72]

92. I have enough knowledge to know that John is not a Synoptic Gospel

It was written for very different purposes than the other Gospels. Remember, the Bible isn't a single book. (I'm one of those crazy "postmodernists" in that regard.)
I'm not denying that Transubstantiation is a possible interpretation. It just isn't mine.

[Goblinmonger]

108. Oooh, look at you.

I thought you said that you read enough to prove to you that there was a real Jesus and that what is attributed to him is accurate?

Fine, I'll stick to the synoptics: go to Luke right about chapter 21 or 22 for the last supper description (or Matthew 26) where he says the lines "This is my body." Then go to Matthew 13 where Jesus tells his disciples (when asked why he talks in parables all the time) that he will be straight up with them and tell them the truth when talking just to them but not so much when talking to the others so that those that are hard of heart will not know the secrets of god-daddy. In case you don't get the connection, it was just them at the last supper. He had no reason to be speaking figuratively (there's one of the indicators--he wasn't in teaching mode to the unwashed masses) when he said "This is my body" but instead was revealing to them what is really up in the world.

And you said nothing about the "interpretation" of transubstantiation but that it "wasn't in the bible." No moving goal posts now just because you have met your first, apparently, atheist that knows about theology.

[ironbark]

82. Can you tell us what the "normal indicators" of reading in "figurative fashion" are?

"There are none of the normal indicators that what Christ was going to say was to be taken in a figurative fashion as there are in other areas of the gospels"

eg?

[Goblinmonger]

83. Can you? n/t

[ironbark]

126. It's your claim. Can you back it or not? nt.

[Goblinmonger]

127. I gave the discussion elsewhere on here.

Don't feel like doing it again. Main factor is that he only talked figuratively (in parables) to the masses and not to the apostles. I gave the chapter where he answers their question about why he talks talks in parables and he assures them he won't talk to him like that.

Word.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

28. Hmm.

Is there a study that concluded that Christians knew more about biology then atheists?

I kinda doubt it.

[Bragi]

19. I'm an atheist. Ask me anything. /nt

[BrklynLiberal]

24. THAT should be a bumper sticker!!!!!!!!

[BrklynLiberal]

22. Surprising findings? Not surprising to everyone.

Sad that religion and ignorance go together so much in this country.

Wasn't it true, at one time, that religious institutions were supposed to be the center of learning?????
Guess it has become more to the interest of entrenched religion, especially of the fundamentalist ilk, to keep their
followers ignorant...regarding just about everything.

[Dappleganger]

23. I took the test.

Missed one, but it is extremely basic and IMO not much of a test at all.

[laughingliberal]

25. The fundies have been pushing their bastardized Calvinism on steroids 'theology' for so long,

Christians in Amurka have no idea what the actual teachings of Christianity are.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

36. Actual teachings: "I come not in peace but with a sword".

They ignore all the mean and cruel things Jesus endorses.

Christianity is about 98% about being mean, arbitrary and cruel, just like that Old Testament god who is a psychotic mass murderer.


However, they don't throw away all the irrational and superstitious and mean stuff. They should keep The Sermon on the Mount and a few other bits and disown the rest of it.


The Bible is a crappy book to use for a moral guide, because it was edited for political reasons so Constantine could unify his empire. It is quite non-sensical.

Why anyone would look to a bunch of superstitious, anti-intellectual goat-fucking nomads for moral guidance is beyond me. :shrug: :wtf:


There are no moral teachings unique to Christianity. It is a syncretic religion made of parts from older pagan traditions.

[wookie72]

88. One quote is 98%?

[Manifestor_of_Light]

134. No there are LOTS and LOTS more violent and cruel quotes from jesus.

How many do you want? Read your bible lately???



MATTHEW

# Those who bear bad fruit will be cut down and burned "with unquenchable fire." 3:10, 12

# Jesus strongly approves of the law and the prophets. He hasn't the slightest objection to the cruelties of the Old Testament. 5:17

# Jesus recommends that to avoid sin we cut off our hands and pluck out our eyes. This advice is given immediately after he says that anyone who looks with lust at any women commits adultery. 5:29-30

# Jesus says that most people will go to hell. 7:13-14

# Those who fail to bear "good fruit" will be "hewn down, and cast into the fire." 7:19

# "The children of the kingdom shall be cast out into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth." 8:12

# Jesus tells a man who had just lost his father: "Let the dead bury the dead." 8:21

# Jesus sends some devils into a herd of pigs, causing them to run off a cliff and drown in the waters below. 8:32

# Cities that neither "receive" the disciples nor "hear" their words will be destroyed by God. It will be worse for them than for Sodom and Gomorrah. And you know what God supposedly did to those poor folks (see Gen.19:24). 10:14-15

# Families will be torn apart because of Jesus (this is one of the few "prophecies" in the Bible that has actually come true). "Brother shall deliver up the brother to death, and the father the child: and the children shall rise up against their parents, and cause them to be put to death." 10:21

# Jesus says that we should fear God who is willing and "able to destroy both soul and body in hell." 10:28

# Jesus says that he has come to destroy families by making family members hate each other. He has "come not to send peace, but a sword." 10:34-36

# Jesus condemns entire cities to dreadful deaths and to the eternal torment of hell because they didn't care for his preaching. 11:20-24

# Jesus will send his angels to gather up "all that offend" and they "shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth." 13:41-42, 50

# Jesus is criticized by the Pharisees for not washing his hands before eating. He defends himself by attacking them for not killing disobedient children according to the commandment: "He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death." (See Ex.21:15, Lev.20:9, Dt.21:18-21) So, does Jesus think that children who curse their parents should be killed? It sure sounds like it. 15:4-7

# Jesus advises his followers to mutilate themselves by cutting off their hands and plucking out their eyes. He says it's better to be "maimed" than to suffer "everlasting fire." 18:8-9

# In the parable of the unforgiving servant, the king threatens to enslave a man and his entire family to pay for a debt. This practice, which was common at the time, seems not to have bothered Jesus very much. The parable ends with this: "So likewise shall my heavenly Father do also unto you." If you are cruel to others, God will be cruel to you. 18:23-35

# "And his lord was wroth, and delivered him to the tormentors." 18:34

# In the parable of the marriage feast, the king sends his servants to gather everyone they can find, both bad and good, to come to the wedding feast. One guest didn't have on his wedding garment, so the king tied him up and "cast him into the outer darkness" where "there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth." 22:12-13

# Jesus had no problem with the idea of drowning everyone on earth in the flood. It'll be just like that when he returns. 24:37

# God will come when people least expect him and then he'll "cut them asunder." And "there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth." 24:50-51

# The servant who kept and returned his master's talent was cast into the "outer darkness" where there will be "weeping and gnashing of teeth." 25:30

# Jesus tells us what he has planned for those that he dislikes. They will be cast into an "everlasting fire." 25:41

# Jesus says the damned will be tormented forever. 25:46


MARK

# Jesus explains why he speaks in parables: to confuse people so they will go to hell. 4:11-12

# Jesus sends devils into 2000 pigs, causing them to jump off a cliff and be drowned in the sea. When the people hear about it, they beg Jesus to leave. 5:12-13

# Any city that doesn't "receive" the followers of Jesus will be destroyed in a manner even more savage than that of Sodom and Gomorrah. 6:11

# Jesus criticizes the Jews for not killing their disobedient children as required by Old Testament law. (See Ex.21:15, Lev.20:9, Dt.21:18-21) 7:9-10

# If you're ashamed of Jesus, he'll be ashamed of you. (And you'll go straight to hell.) 8:38

# Jesus tells us to cut off our hands and feet, and pluck out our eyes to avoid going to hell. 9:43-49

# Jesus says that those that believe and are baptized will be saved, while those who don't will be damned. 16:16



LUKE

# God strikes Zacharias dumb for doubting the angel Gabriel's words. 1:20

# Those who fail to bear "good fruit" will be "hewn down, and cast into the fire." 3:9

# John the Baptist says that Christ will burn the damned "with fire unquenchable." 3:17

# Jesus heals a naked man who was possessed by many devils by sending the devils into a herd of pigs, causing them to run off a cliff and drown in the sea. This messy, cruel, and expensive (for the owners of the pigs) treatment did not favorably impress the local residents, and Jesus was asked to leave. 8:27-37

# Jesus says that entire cities will be violently destroyed and the inhabitants "thrust down to hell" for not "receiving" his disciples. 10:10-15

# Jesus says that we should fear God since he has the power to kill us and then torture us forever in hell. 12:5

# Jesus says that God is like a slave-owner who beats his slaves "with many stripes." 12:46-47

# "Except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish." 13:3, 5

# According to Jesus, only a few will be saved; the vast majority will suffer eternally in hell where "there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth." 13:23-30

# In the parable of the rich man and Lazarus, the rich man goes to hell, because as Abraham explains, he had a good life on earth and so now he will be tormented. Whereas Lazarus, who was miserable on earth, is now in heaven. This seems fair to Jesus. 16:19-31

# Jesus believed the story of Noah's ark. He thought it really happened and had no problem with the idea of God drowning everything and everybody. 17:26-27

# Jesus also believes the story about Sodom's destruction. He says, "even thus shall it be in the day the son of man is revealed ... Remember Lot's wife." This tells us about Jesus' knowledge of science and history, and his sense of justice. 17:29-32

# In the parable of the talents, Jesus says that God takes what is not rightly his, and reaps what he didn't sow. The parable ends with the words: "bring them hither, and slay them before me." 19:22-27


JOHN

# Jesus believed the stupid and vicious story from Numbers 21. (God sent snakes to bite the people for complaining about the lack of foood and water, and then God told Moses to make a brass snake to cure them from the bites.) 3:14

# As an example to parents everywhere and to save the world (from himself), God had his own son tortured and killed. 3:16

# People are damned or saved depending only on what they believe. 3:18, 36

# The "wrath of God" is on all unbelievers. 3:36

# Jesus believes people are crippled by God as a punishment for sin. He tells a crippled man, after healing him, to "sin no more, lest a worse thing come unto thee." 5:14

# Those who do not believe in Jesus will be cast into a fire to be burned. 15:6

# Jesus says we must eat his flesh and drink his blood if we want to have eternal life. This idea was just too gross for "many of his disciples" and "walked no more with him." 6:53-66


=============
FAMILY VALUES

MATTHEW
# Jesus warns us not to love our parents or children too much. We have to make sure that we always love him (who we don't even know existed) more than our family. 10:37

# When Jesus' mother and brothers want to see him, Jesus asks, "Who is my mother? Who are my brothers?" So much for Jesus' family values. 12:47-49

# Jesus is criticized by the Pharisees for not washing his hands before eating. He defends himself by attacking them for not killing disobedient children according to the commandment: "He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death." (See Ex.21:15, Lev.20:9, Dt.21:18-21) So, does Jesus think that children who curse their parents should be killed? It sure sounds like it. 15:4-7

# In the parable of the unforgiving servant, the king threatens to enslave a man and his entire family to pay for a debt. This practice, which was common at the time, seems not to have bothered Jesus very much. 18:25

# "It is not good to marry."
After Jesus denounces divorce, his disciples say that if divorce isn't allowed, then "it is good not to marry." Jesus agrees by saying that it is better to make yourself a eunuch "for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it." 19:10

# Abandon your wife and children for Jesus and he'll give you a big reward. 19:29

# Jesus tells us to "call no man your father upon the earth." Not even dear old dad? How can we "honor our father" if we refuse to call him our father? 23:9

# "Woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck in those days." Why? Does God especially hate pregnant and nursing women? 24:19

# Jesus compares the kingdom of heaven to ten virgins who went to meet their bridegroom. 25:1



MARK

# Jesus shows disrespect for his mother and family by asking, "Who is my mother, or my brethren?" when he is told that his family wants to speak with him. 3:31-34

# Jesus criticizes the Jews for not killing their disobedient children as required by Old Testament law. 7:9-10

# Jesus will reward men who abandon their wives and families. 10:29-30

# In the last days God will make things especially rough on pregnant women. 13:17


LUKE

# When Jesus' parents begin the long trip back to Nazareth, the twelve year old Jesus stays behind, without even asking for their permission. Mary and Joseph search for him for three days and when they finally find him, Jesus doesn't apologize. Rather, he blames them for not knowing that he was doing his real father's business. 2:43-49

# Peter and his partners (James and John) abandon their wives and children to follow Jesus. 5:11

# Jesus, when told that his mother and brothers want to see him, ignores and insults them by saying that his mother and brothers are those who hear the word of God and do it. 8:20-21

# Jesus won't even let his followers bury their dead parents or say farewell to their families before abandoning them. 9:59-62

# Jesus prophesies that families will be divided because of him and his teachings. Sadly, this is one prophecy that has been fulfilled. 12:52-53

# Jesus says that his disciples must hate their families (mothers, fathers, brothers, sisters, husbands, wives, children) and themselves. 14:26

# If you want to be a disciple of Jesus, you must abandon everything, including your family. 14:33

# Abandon your wife and family for Jesus and he'll give you a big reward. 18:29-30

# Jesus says that everyone in heaven is single. Does that mean that married people can't go there, that they must get a divorce once they arrive, or what? 20:35

# "Ye shall be betrayed both by parents, and brethren, and kinsfolks."
Families and friendships will be torn apart because of Jesus. 21:16


JOHN

# As an example to parents everywhere and to save the world (from himself), God had his own son tortured and killed. 3:16

# Jesus tells his family that he wasn't going to the feast, but later goes "in secret." 7:8-10

==========--------------============-----------==========----------========

Jesus is a role model? Not to me, he isn't.

:wtf:













Those are just the verses directly attributed to Jesus. There are lots more hateful and cruel verses if you want to go into Paul's letters and the rest of the NT.

[Jim__]

35. The 5 top and bottom groups also had the biggest sampling errors.

The groups are - top: Atheist/agnostic, Jewish, Mormon
bottom: Black protestant, Hispanic Catholic.

Their sampling errors were at least +/- 8.5. The sampling error for the whole test was +/- 2.5.

[trotsky]

40. OK, so decrease the atheists' score by 8.5%...

and increase the highest-scoring Christian group (white evangelical protestant) by 5.0%. Atheists still come out on top.

[DeSwiss]

37. K&R

- But then anyone who has ever spent much time talking to a religionist already knew this. Faith stops one from asking uncomfortable questions......

"If you lived two or three millennia ago, there was no shame in holding that the universe was made for us. It was an appealing thesis consistent with everything we knew. It was what the most learned among us taught without qualification. But we found out much since then. Defending such a position today, amounts to willful disregard for the evidence and a flight from self-knowledge. We long to be here for a purpose. Even though despite much self-deception, none is evident. Our time is burdened under the cumulative weight of successive debunkings of our conceits." ~ Carl Sagan

[rug]

45. A cynic is a man who knows the price of everything but the value of nothing. Oscar Wilde

[ironbark]

52. The funny and not so funny thing is....

Researching terrorism since 2006 for the movie ‘Four Lions’ Director Chris Morris came to the same conclusion that many ‘Terrorist Specialists’ had- That the majority of terrorists depicted as ‘religious fundamentalists/ religious fanatics’ actually had only a tenuous link to or understanding of the faith they claimed to profess.
Case in point was an interview with 9/11 ‘mastermind’ Khalid Sheikh Mohammed who clearly didn’t have a clue about what was in the Quran, was constantly corrected by the interviewer and in the end had his own men snickering at his ignorance and ineptitude.
This and other such displays of religious ignorance and commonplace stupidity served as inspiration for the ‘Four Lions’

'Four Lions' trailer-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yszKc4m-W9U&NR=1

Chris Morris on Four Lions
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZZUibQl7B7E&feature=fvst

Terrorist Comedy 'Four Lions' Causes Major Controversy in UK
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZZUibQl7B7E&feature=fvst

[cleanhippie]

68. So the lesson learned is...

that the more ignorant one is about one's religion means a higher chance of being a zealot who may murder and kill?

[ironbark]

80. Quite possibly the less the claimed adherent knows

bbout “Thou shalt not kill” and “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you” the “a higher chance of being a zealot who may murder and kill”

But even that potential “lesson” is an over determined simplification.
The best research and across the board conclusion into the causes of terrorism indicate that the primary cause is foreign troops/bases on someone else’s turf- IRA, English in Ireland, Tamil Tigers, Indian in Sri Lanka ect....

US in Saudi Arabia
“Ever since the 1991 Gulf war, the US has had about 5,000 troops stationed in Saudi Arabia - a figure that rose to 10,000 during the recent conflict in Iraq.
........ US troops have become a potent symbol of Washington's role in the region, and many Saudis see them as proof of the country's subservience to America. Saudi Arabia is home to some of Islam's holiest sites and the deployment of US forces there was seen as a historic betrayal by many Islamists, notably Osama Bin Laden. It is one of the main reasons given by the Saudi-born dissident - blamed by Washington for the 11 September attacks - to justify violence against the United States and its allies.”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2984547.stm

Some "lessons" of history are never "learned".

[struggle4progress]

120. More accurate to say: atheists/agnostics generally earned slightly higher scores

on a 30-question battery covering some general knowledge about several world religions

I scored 15/15 on the half-test at the Pew website: in particular, I answered the questions about Hinduism. Mormonism, and the so-called "First Great Awakening" correctly -- although, in fact, I know essentially nothing about Hinduism. Mormonism, and the "First Great Awakening"

[trotsky]

(dupe)

...

[trotsky]

122. I've loved the threads on this story...

for the simple fact that it upsets many believers greatly to have to simultaneously confront the facts that A) atheists aren't ignorant on religious matters, and B) the typical believer is NOWHERE near as sophisticated and informed as they think.

So the people whom it bothers have to chime in with, "Meh, it's just trivia" or "I got a perfect score too!"

Lovin' it. :rofl:

[struggle4progress]

123. Consider ditching your stereotypes

I pointed out that I could answer the questions correctly with hardly any knowledge of the actual beliefs associated with various religions: I assume that's true for other folk with a good general education as well

I made no remarks such as "atheists <are> ignorant on religious matters" or concerning who is or is not "sophisticated and informed"

[trotsky]

124. You first! n/t

[trotsky]

128. Here you go, s4p.

A kindred spirit you can bond with, who simultaneously bashes non-believers as being an insignificant minority but also a powerful secular elite.
http://onfaith.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/panelists/john_mark_reynolds/2010/09/trivia_kings_but_bad_thinkers_understanding_over_facts.html

He almost lost his job due to the powerful evil secular elite atheists he rails against... oh wait, no, it was other religionists who were concerned he wasn't following the "trivia" of their faith correctly. :rofl:

[struggle4progress]

130. I can't say I got much from your link: I've never heard of Mr. Reynolds,

but he's rambling and uninformative there: he utters vague cultural generalities with almost nothing specific to say

If I'd ever heard of Biola University before, I mercifully forgot it --I pay no attention to schools where being a "Bible-believing Christian" is required of the faculty. Wandering googleland, I also see Reynolds has been a so-called fellow at the "Discovery Institute" -- which invariably signifies to me that he doesn't know squat about science and also that he really has nothing interesting or important to say about religion

Why post links to this junk?

[muriel_volestrangler]

131. It is junk, but it's Washington Post junk

A major newspaper thinks it's worth going to this guy for commentary on religion. So, for that matter, does the First Things website: http://firstthings.com/blogs/evangel/author/john-mark-reynolds/ , which has been known to be linked to on DU ;) .

So this is an example of what is held to be a worthwhile Christian response to the survey. It tells us something about the standard to which Christian argument is held by the media, perhaps.

[trotsky]

132. "Why post links to this junk?"

Because he shares your opinions on the topic of this thread. Thought you might want to read from one of your allies in the fight against us stupid atheists.

[skepticscott]

133. Because this is what passes for

mainstream, upstanding, middle-of-the-road Christian thought in this country. Totally without intellectual and factual foundation, and not only immune from criticism in the MSM, but touted and applauded by it. Would the WP have posted such idiotic commentary on any other subject?

[cleanhippie]

136. .

[backscatter712]

138. Atheists are dangerous debaters!

A few weeks ago, on my campus, we had the pleasure of seeing campus preacher Tom Short (aka "Brother Tom") come and try to convert us to his particular brand of fundie Christianity.

The atheists found him to be great sport! Ask some logical questions about the nature of the Deity, and watch him twist himself into a pretzel, before changing the subject... :rofl:

[demwing]

139. Unfair titlle - should say "Atheists Know More About Religion than Christians"

Some Christians clearly need to stop waving their Bibles and start reading them.

Also, Christians do not hold a lock on religion. One estimate shows that if you were to take ALL the Christians in the world, and add all the Atheists, Agnostics, Secular, and Non-Religious, and you still get only 49% of the population.

This means that 51% of the human race is both religious, and NOT Christian.

http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html

[Nihil]

141. "Unfair title" is true enough: it should say "Some X ... some Y" ...

... i.e., "Some Atheists Know More About Religion than Some Religious People"
but if they'd have done that, it wouldn't have provoked the pointless wanna-be
controversy would it? It would have merely been true.

:shrug: