Surprising lack of knowledge among theists.

[crystalonyx]

In Dawkin's "The God Delusion", he quotes some statistics in studies about Christians in the U.S. as follows:

1. 75 percent of them could not name 1 old testament prophet.
2. 50 percent of them did not know who gave the Sermon on the Mount.
3. > 50 percent of them thought Moses was one of the disciples of Christ.

And this is in a religious country like the U.S. What conclusions can be drawn from such a woeful lack of knowledge about people's own religion?

 

[Scuba Pete]

And this is in a religious country like the U.S. What conclusions can be drawn from such a woeful lack of knowledge about people's own religion?

That Dawkin's deductions are full of crap and full of bias. Did he provide a link to this study? There was a study that %75 of all statistics are made up... including this one.

 

[crystalonyx]

That Dawkin's deductions are full of crap and full of bias. Did he provide a link to this study? There was a study that %75 of all statistics are made up... including this one.

Your usual attack the messenger.

 

[Scuba Pete]

Your usual attack the messenger.

I surely didn't attack YOU.

But when you bring us a "study" with absolutely no links to that study and no way for us to verify it, I am going to question it's veracity. When that study comes from a BIGOT, I will be glad to point that out as well. Dawkins cares very little about the truth: he has quite another agenda.

 

[Sententia]

That Dawkin's deductions are full of crap and full of bias. Did he provide a link to this study? There was a study that %75 of all statistics are made up... including this one.

Actually its just presented out of context.

[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]As long ago as 1954, according to Robert Hinde in his thoughtful book Why Gods Persist, a Gallup poll in the United States of America found the following. Three-quarters of Catholics and Protestants could not name a single Old Testament prophet. More than two-thirds didn't know who preached the Sermon on the Mount. A substantial number thought that Moses was one of Jesus's twelve apostles.[/FONT]

Its a Gallup poll from 1954... hehe... take that for it is. Its also not all theists... I believe Dawkins was using that statement amongst others to argue that we should study the bible and include it our education both for its literary value and because of its vast influence on culture.

Frankly I don't see that as biased or full of crap and agree with him. There are many beutiful passages in the bible and it is a major influence on not just america, but many parts of the world.

 

[Scuba Pete]

Frankly I don't see that as biased or full of crap and agree with him.

So, let's look at his MO. He has divorced himself from reality here.
ACCORDING to X in a STUDY. Again, did he actually cite the study or just refer to it's possible existence. As for Dawkins, his bias against religion and Christianity in particular has been well documented in his books and other quotes. He does back peddle quite a bit when his bigotry is shoved in his face, but the fact remains: he consistently portrays Christians as being stupid, lazy and intellectual frauds.

Now, you can agree with him all you want. I want no part in it, and am GLAD that I don't judge all atheists as bigots because of him. That too would be bigotry. However, I refuse to embrace bigots of any sort: religious, sexual, racial or gender.

There are many beutiful passages in the bible and it is a major influence on not just america, but many parts of the world.

So? Finding some nobility in these scriptures does not justify any amount of bigotry. Trying to portray the adherents of any religion (including atheism) as being stupid is just not needed. Now we have someone taking this bigot's claim and poll out of context? For what reason I wonder?

BTW, I went to Gallup.com and could find no reference to this poll. Perhaps it exists and perhaps it doesn't. I doubt that it is relevant in 2008.

 

[Tau]

I surely didn't attack YOU.

But when you bring us a "study" with absolutely no links to that study and no way for us to verify it, I am going to question it's veracity. When that study comes from a BIGOT, I will be glad to point that out as well. Dawkins cares very little about the truth: he has quite another agenda.

I dont think so....Dawkins is very interested in the truth, I do think however that he should not get involved with any creationist arguments, they cannot counter his logic but they do make him angry when they deliberately misquote his books and this is their mode of attack to portray him as irrational, goading him as it where.
He should simply ignore them, some of their ridiculous ideas are beneath scientific contempt.
He is no bigot, but even if he is, he is still right in most respects, lets face it.

But I understand your annoyance with Dawkins, he is contentious and deliberately so, a little jaded perhaps.
His recent book 'The Ancestors Tale' (good science content though) is riddled with thinly veiled attacks on Christians, not good really.

He annoys me sometimes when he laughs at us who believe in God or a God mind, but I understand that he has a position to maintain.

 

[Kungfuzed]

There's alot of people who call themselves Christian who have never read the bible and dont go to church. I'm an atheist and I've never read one of Dawkins, Dennets, or Hitchens books so I guess I'm in the same boat.

 

[crystalonyx]

I surely didn't attack YOU.

But when you bring us a "study" with absolutely no links to that study and no way for us to verify it, I am going to question it's veracity. When that study comes from a BIGOT, I will be glad to point that out as well. Dawkins cares very little about the truth: he has quite another agenda.

You attacked Dawkin's. He is the messenger, not me. And the studies were statistically accurate.

 

[crystalonyx]

I
He annoys me sometimes when he laughs at us who believe in God or a God mind, but I understand that he has a position to maintain.

This simply is not a true statement.

 

[crystalonyx]

So, let's look at his MO. He has divorced himself from reality here.
ACCORDING to X in a STUDY. Again, did he actually cite the study or just refer to it's possible existence. As for Dawkins, his bias against religion and Christianity in particular has been well documented in his books and other quotes. He does back peddle quite a bit when his bigotry is shoved in his face, but the fact remains: he consistently portrays Christians as being stupid, lazy and intellectual frauds.

Now, you can agree with him all you want. I want no part in it, and am GLAD that I don't judge all atheists as bigots because of him. That too would be bigotry. However, I refuse to embrace bigots of any sort: religious, sexual, racial or gender. So? Finding some nobility in these scriptures does not justify any amount of bigotry. Trying to portray the adherents of any religion (including atheism) as being stupid is just not needed. Now we have someone taking this bigot's claim and poll out of context? For what reason I wonder?

BTW, I went to Gallup.com and could find no reference to this poll. Perhaps it exists and perhaps it doesn't. I doubt that it is relevant in 2008.

Your strong bias against atheists is noted.

 

[Smoke]

That Dawkin's deductions are full of crap and full of bias. Did he provide a link to this study? There was a study that %75 of all statistics are made up... including this one.

But when you bring us a "study" with absolutely no links to that study and no way for us to verify it, I am going to question it's veracity.

Dude, The God Delusion is a book. The book is a primitive means of communication in which ink is used to print words on paper. Regrettably, the technology does not allow for hyperlinks.

When that study comes from a BIGOT, I will be glad to point that out as well. Dawkins cares very little about the truth: he has quite another agenda.

1) Ad hominem is ad hominem no matter how much you hate the person.
2) He wasn't saying what you think he was saying.
3) I wish it were possible to mention the name of Dawkins without believers' turning into blithering idiots and foaming at the mouth. Honestly, this is getting pretty old. It's impossible to mention the man's name without some believer or other turning the thread into an attack thread against Dawkins.

 

[Yerda]

Honestly, this is getting pretty old. It's impossible to mention the man's name without some believer or other turning the thread into an attack thread against Dawkins.

Oddly enough he raises the point that scrutinising religion is taboo and causes angry reactions.

As to the OP, it's not entirely that surprising.

 

[Mister Emu]

I wish it were possible to mention the name of Dawkins without believers' turning into blithering idiots and foaming at the mouth.

And I wish people would just stop mentioning him... Perhaps if pretty much every quote of his weren't an attack on theists, of some sort, this reaction wouldn't exist.

 

[crystalonyx]

And I wish people would just stop mentioning him... Perhaps if pretty much every quote of his weren't an attack on theists, of some sort, this reaction wouldn't exist.

Actually, his entire thrust is a defense of atheism.

 

[Mister Emu]

Actually, his entire thrust is a defense of atheism.

"The God Delusion", that is an attack not a defense(unless you go by the best defence is a good offense, in which case it is both)...

 

[Smoke]

And I wish people would just stop mentioning him...

Tough ****. His name is bound to come up in discussions about religion.

 

[Mister Emu]

Tough ****. His name is bound to come up in discussions about religion.

Then expect the response and don't complain about it.

 

[Smoke]

Then expect the response and don't complain about it.

I have learned to expect the response, but it reflects pretty badly on believers.

 

[Sententia]

So, let's look at his MO. He has divorced himself from reality here.
ACCORDING to X in a STUDY. Again, did he actually cite the study or just refer to it's possible existence. As for Dawkins, his bias against religion and Christianity in particular has been well documented in his books and other quotes. He does back peddle quite a bit when his bigotry is shoved in his face, but the fact remains: he consistently portrays Christians as being stupid, lazy and intellectual frauds.

Now, you can agree with him all you want. I want no part in it, and am GLAD that I don't judge all atheists as bigots because of him. That too would be bigotry. However, I refuse to embrace bigots of any sort: religious, sexual, racial or gender. So? Finding some nobility in these scriptures does not justify any amount of bigotry. Trying to portray the adherents of any religion (including atheism) as being stupid is just not needed. Now we have someone taking this bigot's claim and poll out of context? For what reason I wonder?

BTW, I went to Gallup.com and could find no reference to this poll. Perhaps it exists and perhaps it doesn't. I doubt that it is relevant in 2008.

I think you have extremely strong feelings towards Dawkins. Let me reiterate so we'r clear, I agree with Dawkins that as atheists we have no justification for cutting the bible or any other sacred text out of our education. It is a great literary work. Do you not agree?

I invite you and anyone who sees this out of context reference as an attack to read at least this small portion in context here: Printer Friendly Version - Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science