Atheists, agnostics most knowledgeable about religion

[Southern_Man 0]

Quote

I'd love to see the actual questions asked and where they got their sample.

Random sample of ~3400 people. That's a large enough sample to make the results pretty darn reliable and filter out all that socio-economic disparities you listed. You can see the 15 questions in the sample test, not sure about the other 17.

"What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

[turtlespeed 212]

Quote

Quote

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

Now that's just funny.

Glad you caught that . . . it was intentional.

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

[Nightingale 0]

Quote

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

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

Yes, but research indicates that those people had a male in the line somewhere, and males don't pass along mitochondrial DNA. There's an image attached indicating how this happens. (stolen from wikipedia. I remember seeing something similar in a genetics text from college, though)

Also, the Bible is silent on the existence of other people at the time of Adam and Eve.

[turtlespeed 212]

Quote

Quote

I'd love to see the actual questions asked and where they got their sample.

Random sample of ~3400 people. That's a large enough sample to make the results pretty darn reliable and filter out all that socio-economic disparities you listed. You can see the 15 questions in the sample test, not sure about the other 17.

Not necessarily true -

Surveys are taken more by people that have the time to do them.

If you are busy working, there is less time to do surveys.

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

[Nightingale 0]

Quote

Quote

I'd love to see the actual questions asked and where they got their sample.

Random sample of ~3400 people. That's a large enough sample to make the results pretty darn reliable and filter out all that socio-economic disparities you listed. You can see the 15 questions in the sample test, not sure about the other 17.

Yes, but where did they get their random sample? If they stopped 3400 random people at Venice Beach in November (a known hangout for students from the local Catholic university), you would get different results than if you stopped people outside the Salt Lake Temple.

I'm wondering how much effort they went into to make their study "random"... did they just pick people in one location, or did they pick people from different areas across the nation, and if so, what was the selection criteria, and was it truly "random"?

[Southern_Man 0]

Quote

I'm wondering how much effort they went into to make their study "random"... did they just pick people in one location, or did they pick people from different areas across the nation, and if so, what was the selection criteria, and was it truly "random"?

FWIW, Pew has a very good reputation for unbiased sampling, but since you asked for details on the research methodology, here you go:


Results for this survey are based on telephone interviews conducted under the direction of Social Science Research Solutions (SSRS) among a national sample of 3,412 adults living in the continental United States, 18 years of age or older, from May 19-June 6, 2010 (2,393 respondents were interviewed on a landline telephone, and 1,019 were interviewed on a cell phone, including 444 who had no landline telephone). Interviews were conducted in English and Spanish.

In an attempt to maximize survey response, unless an interview was completed or a callback scheduled for a respondent at a phone number in the sample, each number was contacted approximately seven times at varied times of day and days of the week. Cell-phone respondents also were offered a reimbursement of $5 to cover any costs of taking the call on their mobile phones.

The survey of the full national population used “random digit dial” (RDD) methodology. Samples of landline and cell phone exchanges were generated by Marketing Systems Group, a sister company of SSRS. The landline sample was “list-assisted,” meaning numbers were sampled from active “blocks” (area code plus three-digit exchange plus two-digit block number) that contained at least three residential directory listings; this is intended to exclude blocks dedicated for business or other nonresidential purposes.
The cell sample was not list-assisted but was drawn from systematic sampling of blocks dedicated to wireless phones and shared-service blocks with no directory-listed landline numbers.

"What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

[Amazon 7]

Quote

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.

A Men to that

[Amazon 7]

Quote

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.

Oh come on... everyone knows that he as a priest.. and Katherine ( a nun)... just wanted to get jiggy with it. Can't have nuns and priests doing that sort of thing.. so start a new religion where the clergy can get married

[Nightingale 0]

Quote

Oh come on... everyone knows that he as a priest.. and Katherine ( a nun)... just wanted to get jiggy with it. Can't have nuns and priests doing that sort of thing.. so start a new religion where the clergy can get married

The interesting thing is that in the early church, clergy could marry and most early Christian leaders were married. Largely, the issue was about property, as the property of the Church was often all a priest had, and so he either had to give his children something that belonged to the church or give them nothing, and neither was socially acceptable.

[skipbelt 0]

Quote

Quote

>Look up "Mitochondrial Eve" and "Y-Chromosomal Adam".
Yep. Of course they were just two people among millions at the time.

Yes, but research indicates that those people had a male in the line somewhere, and males don't pass along mitochondrial DNA. There's an image attached indicating how this happens. (stolen from wikipedia. I remember seeing something similar in a genetics text from college, though)
Also, the Bible is silent on the existence of other people at the time of Adam and Eve.

when cain and abel were old enough to marry there were !

[Remster 24]

Quote

Surveys are taken more by people that have the time to do them.

You dont know much about statistic and gathering surveys, dont you...

Remster

[billvon 2,400]

>Also, the Bible is silent on the existence of other people at the time of
>Adam and Eve.

Genesis 2:
=======
This is the history of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens, before any plant of the field was in the earth and before any herb of the field had grown. For the LORD God had not caused it to rain on the earth, and there was no man to till the ground; but a mist went up from the earth and watered the whole face of the ground. And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being . . .

And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall on Adam, and he slept; and He took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh in its place. Then the rib which the LORD God had taken from man He made into a woman, and He brought her to the man.
========

[turtlespeed 212]

Quote

Quote

Surveys are taken more by people that have the time to do them.

You dont know much about statistic and gathering surveys, dont you...

Sure.

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

[rhys 0]

Quote

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.......Tongue - whereas a fanatic in one faith would just need to study his area alone.

I disagree, an Athiest simply says there is no god, while an Agnostic will ponder the thought of how it all came together.

My beleifs are simple, that human beings are not the reason everything exists.

I am fortunate enough to live in a relatively untouched environment with ample evidence that 'other' Fauna and Flora has existed for millions of years before humans, and will do so for millions of years after. We have moraine walls everywhere from ancient ice ages, striations of solid rock classifying ancient times and flora and fauna that has remained relatively unchanged for millions of years. Those of faith have all this too, but are not directed to look for it.

Among this we have strong evidence for evolution. Plate techtonics are constantly shaping and changng our regons along with erosion and sediment.

As an agnostic I often wonder about the origins of life and existance, but it is quite simple and easy to dismiss the arrogant and ignorant beliefs of the most common faiths that human beings are the be all and end all, and the reason for existance in the forst place.

I don't feel the need to be so important that everything is here for me to use/abuse, but I can see the appeal in thinking that way.

Peer pressure seems to be the main catylist in determining ones beliefs. Like Nightingale being surrounded by catholics and different realms of christianity all her life, being is belonging. It is more difficult to be an outcast with opposing thoughts, and we as humans will usually just go with the flow.


Not I.

If God is so diving he would not hide behind fables and riddles, he would be in your face.

I don't like the term God, but I truly belive in a spiritual existance over and above carbon structures. We are one with nature, just the religous bigots refuse to acknowledge that.

We are animal and many will feel insulted by being considered and animal, I find it rewarding, It is my sence of belonging.we are one with nature but we do not seem to respect it enough to allow our future relatives to have the same pleasure we do. This comes back to arrogance

Fables and stories focused on human social structure are simply ludercrous, when explaing the origin of life.

Humans are so arrogant. Meanwhile we destroy more than we will ever be aware of.

"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix

[rhys 0]

Quote

Genesis 2:
=======
This is the history of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens, before any plant of the field was in the earth and before any herb of the field had grown. For the LORD God had not caused it to rain on the earth, and there was no man to till the ground; but a mist went up from the earth and watered the whole face of the ground. And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being . . .

And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall on Adam, and he slept; and He took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh in its place. Then the rib which the LORD God had taken from man He made into a woman, and He brought her to the man.
========

For fucks sake.

How can anybody seriously take that shit seriously???

So in the eyes of christians, fauna came before flora? And in the shape of Adam?

"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix

[wmw999 2,122]

The actual questions are here

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[quade 3]

Quote

I disagree, an Athiest simply says there is no god, while an Agnostic will ponder the thought of how it all came together.

You're suggesting it's an all or nothing process when in fact the way it typically works is; a person is raised in a religion, at some point they begin to question it, then they question the existence of god, then they decide he doesn't.

Religious person becomes Agnostic then becomes Atheist.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[Southern_Man 0]

Thanks for that. I would have gotten 32/32 on the longer questionnaire, too.

"What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

[rhys 0]

Quote

You're suggesting it's an all or nothing process when in fact the way it typically works is; a person is raised in a religion, at some point they begin to question it, then they question the existence of god, then they decide he doesn't.

Religious person becomes Agnostic then becomes Atheist.

I cannot speak for the whole world but I was raised as athiest, I did some religous studies at school, and thorugh observation have decided that to be athiest is as blind and closed minded as it is to beleive in the presented religons.

Both athiests and those of 'Faith' are as arrogant as each other to assume that all is known that could be, and that humans are capable of understanding everything, we are not.

There is much more to existance than humans, earth, our solar system and our galaxy.

Extending beyond our universe is unknown and delving into spirituality, the extent of sprituality and what makes us 'tick' will likely never be known. Other than that we are simply structures of carbon.

The unknown dwarfs the known infinantly.

To ignore the unkown is simple arrogance.

"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix

[turtlespeed 212]

Quote

Quote

You're suggesting it's an all or nothing process when in fact the way it typically works is; a person is raised in a religion, at some point they begin to question it, then they question the existence of god, then they decide he doesn't.

Religious person becomes Agnostic then becomes Atheist.

I cannot speak for the whole world but I was raised as athiest, I did some religous studies at school, and thorugh observation have decided that to be athiest is as blind and closed minded as it is to beleive in the presented religons.

Both athiests and those of 'Faith' are as arrogant as each other to assume that all is known that could be, and that humans are capable of understanding everything, we are not.

There is much more to existance than humans, earth, our solar system and our galaxy.

Extendind beyond our universe and is unknown and will likely never be known.

The unknown dwarfs the known infinantly.

To ignore the unkown is simple arrogance.

How do you do, or refrain from doing, something to, or about, what, by your own words, you don't know exists, or have any way of knowing if it even will??

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

[Nightingale 0]

Quote

>Also, the Bible is silent on the existence of other people at the time of
>Adam and Eve.

Genesis 2:
=======
This is the history of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens, before any plant of the field was in the earth and before any herb of the field had grown. For the LORD God had not caused it to rain on the earth, and there was no man to till the ground; but a mist went up from the earth and watered the whole face of the ground. And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being . . .

And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall on Adam, and he slept; and He took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh in its place. Then the rib which the LORD God had taken from man He made into a woman, and He brought her to the man.
========

This speaks only to Adam and Eve and that they were the first. It doesn't say the only.

[billvon 2,400]

>Both athiests and those of 'Faith' are as arrogant as each other to assume
>that all is known that could be . . .

(attached)

[maadmax 0]

Quote

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

No surprise, atheists and agnostics are knowledgeable about insignificant facts. But when it comes to the important facts concerning the existence of God and His plan for a fulfilled temporal and eternal life, they are ignorant.

[rhys 0]

Quote

>Both athiests and those of 'Faith' are as arrogant as each other to assume
>that all is known that could be . . .

(attached)

If you are trying to say that I believe I have found a way to be superior to both. then I think you are wrong. I beleive we are all equal.

Both Christians and Atheists say they know that there was or was not an origin origin to life respectively. I say I don't know, this is putting myself in an inferior, but honest position.

"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix

[jakee 1,255]

Quote

If you are trying to say that I believe I have found a way to be superior to both. then I think you are wrong. I beleive we are all equal.

So you're equally as arrogant as both. Good

Quote

Both Christians and Atheists say they know that there was or was not an origin origin to life respectively.

I'm pretty sure that just about everyone thinks that life has an origin. There may be some small group that thinks it's been going on forever but if there is I haven't heard of them.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?