Atheists, agnostics most knowledgeable about religion

[kallend 1,623]

www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/wire/sns-religion-survey,0,7375137.story

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[scruffy 0]

This doesn't surprise me one bit.

The U.S. isn't a very religious nation, it's a religious-affiliated nation. On my recent attempts to go to church in the past few years I found them to be more being financial advice and a political speaker box than anything resembling a serious discussion of faith.

Peace, love and hoppiness

[Meso 38]

This study pleases me.

Though it's no secret that ignorance is key in religion. Follow that what you're told to, accept it as correct and ignore all the other possibilities.

[winsor 186]

Quote

This study pleases me.

Though it's no secret that ignorance is key in religion. Follow that what you're told to, accept it as correct and ignore all the other possibilities.

The bumper sticker summed it up nicely. "God said it, I believe it, that settles it."

I scored 100% on the test.

[rhaig 0]

the more you learn about a flawed system, the less likely you are to believe in it.

I also know plenty of atheists that started out that way and just learned about religion to argue with the christians. (kind of a dick move to do it just to argue, but I can't fault them for educating themselves about something that is such a large part of our culture)

--
Rob

[VTmotoMike08 0]

One of my favorite responses when someone asks me why I am an atheist is "18 years of Christian education will do that to any thinking person!"


>>a serious discussion of faith.
Isn't that kind of like debating the shape of the tooth fairy's wings?

[scruffy 0]

Quote

Isn't that kind of like debating the shape of the tooth fairy's wings?

It definitely is when you're denying science and reason to hold up your fortress of denial to protect your beliefs, but believe it or not there are actually people who believe in god who can transcend that.

Peace, love and hoppiness

[pirana 0]

Quote

Quote

Isn't that kind of like debating the shape of the tooth fairy's wings?

It definitely is when you're denying science and reason to hold up your fortress of denial to protect your beliefs, but believe it or not there are actually people who believe in god who can transcend that.

Transcedental obfuscation.

" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

[VTmotoMike08 0]

Quote

Quote

Isn't that kind of like debating the shape of the tooth fairy's wings?

It definitely is when you're denying science and reason to hold up your fortress of denial to protect your beliefs, but believe it or not there are actually people who believe in god who can transcend that.

I agree, there are plenty of people who never let the facts get in the way of their beliefs. Just like most Christians quietly ignore the whole talking snake thing and the other fairy tale parts of their favorite book because it makes them feel good.

[Nightingale 0]

I'd love to see the actual questions asked and where they got their sample. If they pulled their atheists and agnostics out of a graduate class in religious studies at UCLA and their religious people from rural Appalachia or inner city LA, you'd probably get very different answers than if you pulled the religious folks from a graduate class and the atheists from the inner city.

I'd venture to say that probably 95% of the Christians I hang out with (admittedly, I live behind the Orange Curtain) would know that Martin Luther began the protestant reformation, and probably 80% of those could add that current knowledge holds that he probably did it by nailing his 95 theses to the door of a church in Germany. Maybe 1-5% could tell you that it was probably Castle Church (a.k.a All Saints Church) in Wittenberg, that Martin Luther was a Catholic priest and got himself excommunicated for his efforts. That question isn't so much religious as it is basic high school world history and a lot of people remember the main ideas but lack the details.

I would also say that among the confirmed Catholics I know (and I know a lot...I was raised Catholic and went to Catholic schools most of my life), that 100% or close to that would say that the church teaches transubstantiation (and about 60% would remember the word for it). There are those who are part of the Catholic Church that believe that communion is symbolic and may have answered the survey question accordingly, but that is not the actual teaching of the church, and any Catholic who bothers to go through the sacraments (first communion, reconciliation, confirmation) knows it. I'm guessing that the group of Catholics interviewed also included "Christmas and Easter Catholics" and those that were baptized in the church but never bothered to learn more. My experience with the Catholic church was that the church really focused on teaching the congregation what it meant to be Catholic.

[Nightingale 0]

Quote

I agree, there are plenty of people who never let the facts get in the way of their beliefs. Just like most Christians quietly ignore the whole talking snake thing and the other fairy tale parts of their favorite book because it makes them feel good.

Not necessarily. They interpret the stories of Genesis as fables that are meant to teach about humanity's relationship to God, and God's hand in creation, whether it happened in seven days or millions of years. They're certainly not ignoring it, they believe it has value when interpreted in the context of the time period, and they're interpreting it in the way that many anthropologists believe it ought to be - an explanation about humanity's relationship to God, not a science book written by people without access to modern technology.

The Catholic church has officially accepted evolution as a viable option. From Catholic.org "Concerning biological evolution, the Church does not have an official position on whether various life forms developed over the course of time. However, it says that, if they did develop, then they did so under the impetus and guidance of God, and their ultimate creation must be ascribed to him." According to Pope Pius XII, "What is the literal sense of a passage is not always as obvious in the speeches and writings of the ancient authors of the East, as it is in the works of our own time. For what they wished to express is not to be determined by the rules of grammar and philology alone, nor solely by the context; the interpreter must, as it were, go back wholly in spirit to those remote centuries of the East and with the aid of history, archaeology, ethnology, and other sciences, accurately determine what modes of writing, so to speak, the authors of that ancient period would be likely to use, and in fact did use. For the ancient peoples of the East, in order to express their ideas, did not always employ those forms or kinds of speech which we use today; but rather those used by the men of their times and countries. What those exactly were the commentator cannot determine as it were in advance, but only after a careful examination of the ancient literature of the East" (Divino Afflante Spiritu 35–36)

Where religion runs into problems is when it tries to teach the Bible as a science book, when that was not what it was intended for.

[skipbelt 0]

obuma slipping into the grip of atheism
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/75843[url]

[faulknerwn 36]

http://features.pewforum.org/quiz/us-religious-knowledge/

I got 13/15. Grew up Christian, became an atheist as an adult..

[VTmotoMike08 0]

Believe me, I've heard it all. Things like the seven literal days of creation, the "four corners" or "ends" of the Earth (depending on translation)... these are all up for interpretation. Fair enough. But I think you need to be consistent, otherwise you are just picking the parts that suit you and you have no credibility. If you admit that "four corners" of the earth might actually mean N,S,E,W and not the flat earth theory that it seems to imply, then you must acknowledge that the whole virgin birth thing might not have been accurate, maybe the dead guy just came out of a coma... and the whole thing just goes out the window. Funny how miracles stopped being performed before video cameras were invented, huh?

I'm more concerned with the flat out impossibilities such as talking snakes, surviving in the belly of a whale, virgin birth- there is no doubt that some of these ludicrus claims are ignored by otherwise rational people because they just WANT TO BELIEVE. Hence, they never let the facts get in the way of their beliefs.

[skipbelt 0]

for believers miracles explain all you question !
you should really believe snakes talk though , we have a couple on here !

[turtlespeed 212]

Quote

Believe me, I've heard it all. Things like the seven literal days of creation, the "four corners" or "ends" of the Earth (depending on translation)... these are all up for interpretation. Fair enough. But I think you need to be consistent, otherwise you are just picking the parts that suit you and you have no credibility. If you admit that "four corners" of the earth might actually mean N,S,E,W and not the flat earth theory that it seems to imply, then you must acknowledge that the whole virgin birth thing might not have been accurate, maybe the dead guy just came out of a coma... and the whole thing just goes out the window. Funny how miracles stopped being performed before video cameras were invented, huh?

I'm more concerned with the flat out impossibilities such as talking snakes, surviving in the belly of a whale, virgin birth- there is no doubt that some of these ludicrus claims are ignored by otherwise rational people because they just WANT TO BELIEVE. Hence, they never let the facts get in the way of their beliefs.

Or they could be metephors and analogies, as well as a skewed time line - do you really think the year they had back then was chonologically detailed?

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[VTmotoMike08 0]

I call bullshit. Just like skydiving- if it's not on video, it didn't happen.
Faith is not a virtue. Its called being gullible.

[skipbelt 0]

seeing isn't believing !

[VTmotoMike08 0]

Funny how which ones are metaphors/ analogies keep changing as the wealth of human knowledge keeps expanding, huh?

Once we figured out that the entire human knowledge of geology stacks up against a 6,000 year old Earth, they had to come up with the whole non-literal days of creation thing.

Anyone want to take some bets on the next story that we are told to take non-literally? I'm thinking its gonna be the "all humanity descended from Adam and Eve" story. I bet in another couple decades we have convincing genetic evidence to the contrary that can be put in lay man's terms.

Besides, how the fuck do you think things like "all the animals currently on the earth lived with a couple miles and fit into this boat" is an analogy

[rehmwa 2]

Interesting - I find that the most fanatical are usually the most informed on a subject (even if it's just the one side they agree with). So "most knowlegeable" likely means informed on multiple faiths rather than just one. So it makes sense for at least atheists.

an agnostic likely doesn't care much as religion isn't a big deal to them - so I'd really doubt they know much one way or the other - in general YMMV

but an atheist is more active in his faith - so he'd need to know about multiple religions in order to argue his sermons....... - whereas a fanatic in one faith would just need to study his area alone.

anecdotally - most really religious types I know don't really understand their own beliefs as well as I even recall the little indoctrination I escaped as a youngster.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[Nightingale 0]

Quote

Anyone want to take some bets on the next story that we are told to take non-literally? I'm thinking its gonna be the "all humanity descended from Adam and Eve" story. I bet in another couple decades we have convincing genetic evidence to the contrary that can be put in lay man's terms.

Actually, science seems to back that one up. Look up "Mitochondrial Eve" and "Y-Chromosomal Adam".

[turtlespeed 212]

Quote

Quote

Anyone want to take some bets on the next story that we are told to take non-literally? I'm thinking its gonna be the "all humanity descended from Adam and Eve" story. I bet in another couple decades we have convincing genetic evidence to the contrary that can be put in lay man's terms.

Actually, science seems to back that one up. Look up "Mitochondrial Eve" and "Y-Chromosomal Adam".

Don't insert logic and science - it confuses them.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[billvon 2,400]

>Look up "Mitochondrial Eve" and "Y-Chromosomal Adam".

Yep. Of course they were just two people among millions at the time.

[DanG 1]

Quote

Don't insert logic and science - it confuses them.

Now that's just funny.

- Dan G

[Southern_Man 0]

Blah, that's a really, really easy quiz. You can take it yourself here:

http://features.pewforum.org/quiz/us-religious-knowledge/

That's a 15 question version, I think the full version was 32? Anyway, I can't find the full version on-line. 15/15 on the questions asked, though.

"What if there were no hypothetical questions?"