[LA Times] Atheists, agnostics most knowledgeable about religion, survey says

Why don't you lift your pudgy fingers and do this yourself?

http://www.google.com/search?q=la+t...&rls=com.microsoft:en-us:IE-SearchBox&ie=&oe=


There is only one remotely responsive result on the first page - and it appears that there was a story they retracted in 2008 about the murder of Tupac Shakur.

Why don't you explain how this rationally relates to the rotted carcass of a point you were attempting to poorly make.

 

I was less upset about the annoyance you feel regarding the assumption, than your attitude that it is somehow convenient and easy to come to that assumption. It's not easy. It's not convenient. And the idea that it is disrespectful only makes the idea of damnation for all unbelievers seem ludicrous in comparison.

Sure, there are plenty of knowledgeable and introspective christians, but I would be truly hard pressed to think that the case for a majority percentage. Is that an unfair assumption?

 

it's about what you love and what you have faith in, not love and faith itself.... i know i love a woman because i see and hear what i love about her....not the same thing as having faith in something or someone you can't hear or see...

also....you wrote earlier that your faith strengthened when you searched for proof or answers instead of going the route of atheism or agnosticism, but i think the key there is you looked for it within the bible. It's like trying to find out if the rockets are a good organization by looking at their media guide. I think what Space Ghost was refering to was going outside of the bible or your religion, comparing other religions, and trying to find proof that yours was the "truth". That's when you're very likely to stop believing in any of it or become unsure of it all.

 

What specific assumption are you talking about?

I'd say so. The problem is when you make generalizations and throw it out there....and then say, "oh, but not you, Max. you're different." like I'm the gay guy you work with who isn't like all those other gays. it just leads to pissing people off without really understanding them.

 

By the way...take the quiz here:

http://features.pewforum.org/quiz/us-religious-knowledge/index.php?q=1

Not a very good quiz for trying to accomplish what the article says it intends to accomplish. Two questions out of 15 total about Supreme Court decisions regarding religion in schools? Not sure what that has to do with it. I'd say more of the questions are historical questions than about the religions, themselves.

 

i knew it!

 

awesome!!!! :grin: don't let my wife know!!!

 

And I thought everyone said that you looked like Spiderman.

 

Coming to these assumptions is hardly 'convenient or easy". I'd argue, generally speaking, that it's painful.

It's hard to avoid generalizations in this regard. For what it's worth, I apologize for any such that I have made. I think what I would prefer for terminology is the "predominant" or "popular" christian viewpoint. I would like to think I have been consistent in that regard, but I am sure I have slipped many times into the realm of generalized statements.

To be fair, I think you generalized a lot of non-Christians in your original responses, and thus provoked me to respond. I find these conversations depressing as of late, and usually avoid them accordingly.

 

I agree. I doubt atheists/agnostics know more about the actual contents of the Bible than practicing Christians, on average.

"More knowledgeable about religion" is way too broad.

 

Fixed.

 

First, the Bible is the "playbook" that governs Christian and Jewish beliefs, regardless of the diversity of conclusions it engenders.

Now, as I said, with a woman you can physically touch, hear, see, smell and taste her. Can you do any of those things regarding the love -- the feeling -- you have for her? No, but you can feel the love inside you and you know the truth of it. That is what is real, and that is the "feeling" I am trying to explain that people of faith have.

 

I don't think it's particularly painful in this context, rhad. I think it's pretty easy to assume that if someone thinks something other than you, they're probably not real bright. That's lowest common denominator stuff.

How did I generalize non-Christians? Other than defending agnostics/atheists from similar assumptions, I don't recall mentioning it at all.

 

it won't let me rep you again.

 

If we can agree that most atheists or agnostics or whatever were not raised as such, than that would imply at some point they had to shed the social and religious ideologies they were raised in. This is hardly pleasant. If the above simplification you supply is accurate, that is hardly consolation, since it would mean that those you formally trusted in are now suspect.

Frankly Max, I think the lowest common denominator stuff from you above applies more to Christians than their detractors. I would have really, truly appreciated some debate and conversation on difficult matters of faith, and instead all I ever got was black-and-white judgment. It is virtually impossible to find a devout Christian willing to discuss or debate without it turning into a lecture. I don't mean that even remotely offensively, it's simply a product of the religion and it's history.

Certainly, this goes both ways to some extent. For every Spinoza you could counter with a Dawkins.

The implied attitude coinciding with the MadMax atheist "assumption" is that of arrogance or conceit. It is just as likely a simple statement of the facts. I'm not sure I could discuss the Augustine-Julian debate on free will with anyone from my parent's church congregation without first getting a raised eyebrow and then the standard protestant stump speech.

 

I'd say most people who don't follow any religion wold know the most. I, for instance, don't really subscribe to any particular creed or faith, because I haven't found the right one. SInce I 've been looking for a while, I've read about countless religions, learned about their beliefs and practices, etc.

 

1. you're absolutely right...and it frustrates me to no end that so many people have had that experience with the Church.

2. i didn't understand the last paragraph of your post at all. i have been pretty clear, i think, about seeking to avoid those assumptions, generally..it's why i said specifically that the generalizations go the other way, as well....and why none of that is a seeking to really understand but merely to label and generalize so we can all be part of "our group." in absolutely no way did i suggest that it was exclusive to atheists/agnostics...quite the opposite, i said it happened TO those folx.

 

interesting how this article broke down the study - not very well. I read an article on this study earlier that explained it much, much better.

This article makes it sound like Christians know less about Christianity than Athiests..or that the Jewish know less about Judaism than Agnostics..etc.

That is not the case.

Mormons & White Evangelicals scored higher on christianity questions than any other group (including athiests and agnostics). The reasons athiests and agnostics did so well overall, is because they know more about the other religions than the Christians do. Athiests did score higher on Christianity questions than Muslims or Jews did. But Jews scored higher on the Jewish questions than Athiests/Agnostics and Muslims scored higher on Islam questions than Athiest/Agnostics.etc..you get the picture.

here is the other article from yahoo - a much better synopsis.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_rel_religious_literacy_poll

 

true...and given that some of the questions weren't about any specific religions but were about Supreme Court decisions, i'd say the whole thing is a bit strange.

 

Fair enough.

Funny how we got so involved over such a stupid article/poll.