Surprising lack of knowledge among theists.

[Scuba Pete]

It just seems to me

And precisely why it doesn't matter to someone who believes. I am not trying to be hostile here, but it really doesn't matter what we think is important when it comes to the beliefs of others.

If you or others can't comprehend this by now, I simply give up. It's time for me to move on to something infinitely more productive: mowing the lawn. Toodles y'all!

 

[Magic Man]

And precisely why it doesn't matter to someone who believes. I am not trying to be hostile here, but it really doesn't matter what we think is important when it comes to the beliefs of others.

If you or others can't comprehend this by now, I simply give up. It's time for me to move on to something infinitely more productive: mowing the lawn. Toodles y'all!

No, in the end, it doesn't. Just don't claim to know something you don't.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Picture the Spanish Inquisition, only a bit more violent. We will purge you of your sin of not rooting for the

unk: GATORS!!! unk:​

The difference between a Gator game and the Inquisition...the Gator fans look forward to it.unk:

 

[Scuba Pete]

How about this: If you follow the Bible and believe what it says, you are a Christian, right?

You could be Jewish.

If you follow and endorse evolution, you are not necessarily an atheist, right?

You are if you are following your personal preconceived notions of what being an evolutionist entails. Sorry, but I gots to go mow the lawn. If you don't get the idiocy of prescribing what is essential to know for someone else's belief, then I am surely at a loss to teach you any differently! It's one thing to be ignorant, but some people seem willing to fight to maintain their ignorance. This is true of theists and atheists alike.

 

[DallasApple]

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?

This actually wouldnt surprise me if it is true..

I've called myslef a Christian all my life..All be it I would have been able to answer those questions ...up untill about 2 years ago (and im 40 years old)..I could have given you no further details than to simply answer those question..Or at least very few. Moses I could have told you escaped death as a baby because his mother put him in a basket in the river and later was given the 10 commandments on a mountain by God...thats about all I knew about him. shamefully I wouldnt have been able to tell you he led the exodus to free the slaves or the parting of the red sea or any of that....I knew nothing about King David or Soloman(I dont even think I had ever even heard the name King Solomon in my life to be honest).I knew Paul was a disciple..but had like I said no idea of the details..I only learned about 2 years ago he wasnt one of the original 12..The progical son..the Pharasies?..Nothing ...blank ....if you had asked me about that I would have had no idea what you were talking about. The famous Proverbs 31 woman..nada..(or any of the proverbs in fact).But even now with learning a little more..Im still a baby..Im still very ignorant to much scripture in exposure and definately in understanding a lot of it..

I think some people believe Christ is the savior..and they may pray to God on occasion ....But they are not focussed on "religion" ..They may think they dont need to know any more than that..they might consider themselves "spritual" but not religious..They already have been taught morals in general..ya know..dont lie,dont steal, dont cheat on your spouse,try to help people when you can,try to be kind and loving ,resist beign violent if you have the impulse,dont get drunk al the time....apolgize if you hurt someones feelings or wrong them and any way...forgive people who ask ..they didnt need the Bible to instruct them on those things and many others..

In fact if you ask me..Biblical education for your "average" Christian lacking that knowledge may not necessarily even "enhance' their beleif or "make them" a better person..IMHO....Honestly?..I've spent more time getting upset and confused by reading scripture than I have feeling "enlightened"...And there are some things I can not or will not accept that are clearly in the teaching of the Bible...

Having said that I find the Bible intriguing and so full of stories and princibles that I could read it forever and never not have to pause and reflect..

I will say further and I've said this before..Some Christians(and I say some)..who have spent years and years reading the Bible daily?..Are the most intolerable to be around.There heads are so full of the "word' that they seem to be lacking what I call "Christianity 101"...Love,and forgiveness..Seems to have completey gone over their heads..not to mention they dont seem to understand the definition of hypocracy...

Love

Dallas

 

[DallasApple]

On a sort of funny and slightly pathetic note?..

I joined a Christian Forum desperate for help with my marriage.(I almost didnt join because it WAS a Christian forum and I felt intimidated and in fact like I didnt belong there(not worthy because of my ignorance and lack of "religion" in my life)...

Anyway but after I looked around it seemed to be the right place to ask about my marital difficulties..(it was a married only Christian enviroment dedicated to marriage related issues)..

Well after I had been there a few months..Finally this member said I was creeping him out..because I spelled Satan "Satin"...he said at first he thought it a type o...but I repeatedly spelled it that way never deviating..another member chimed in she was wondering about that too but was afraid to say anything...She said every time she saw it..she imagined a soft villowy fabric..LOL!!

I was so embarrassed..But at the same time I could laugh at myself..I said I told ya'll Im still reading "Bible for Dummies" LOL!! That I had probably rarely maybe only a few occasions even seen that word wriiten down..And posibly never actually wrote it down..Versus the word satin I had read and written down many times..I thought thats how Satan was spelled...

I got a lot of laughs out of that..I told them I was "wrestling with my bed sheets because they were Satin "

Anyhow ..I thought it was funny ...

Love

Dallas

 

[Valjean]

Good thing you weren't discussing Beelzebub....

 

[Magic Man]

You could be Jewish.

Really? Even if you follow the NT? That's a new one for me.

You are if you are following your personal preconceived notions of what being an evolutionist entails. Sorry, but I gots to go mow the lawn. If you don't get the idiocy of prescribing what is essential to know for someone else's belief, then I am surely at a loss to teach you any differently! It's one thing to be ignorant, but some people seem willing to fight to maintain their ignorance. This is true of theists and atheists alike.

No, you are never an atheist because you endorse and believe in evolution. I don't know where you're getting that idea, but it's astounding to me. You are, however, a Christian if you follow the Bible (The whole Bible), or even just the NT.

And again, you're missing the point. I never prescribed what is essential to know for someone else's belief. What I said was that the Bible is a very important part of Christianity. Some people consider themselves Christians, and consciously don't follow the Bible exactly, but they at least follow some part of it, mainly the part about Jesus. I have no problem with that, but that's not what we're talking about. What we're talking about is the people who have never put any thought into religion, just have gone along with Christianity because they grew up with it, or they fit in that way. It's the people who, without knowing anything about it, would claim that the Bible is a good book and should be followed and believed in. It's amusing when those people don't know much about the book they're promoting.

 

[Sententia]

Just FYI again for anyone that missed that the quote presented is completely out of context you can read the original here: Printer Friendly Version - Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science

A few other notes... (I'm not going to quote everyone just to keep this a bit shorter.)

Believing in evolution and excluding a creator from your belief system does not mean you must exclude god. Perhaps some gods... but there are many gods and god concepts one can believe in while holding to the teachings of darwin.

Being an atheist does not imply a belief system. e.g. Most of you do not believe in pink fairies. That does not imply a particular belief system.

Whether you believe Dawkins is a spawn of Satan (or satin as the case may be hehe, cute story) or the best thing since sliced bread he has made many points for and against theism. Some of his ideas are quite good and well thought out, some not so much. To declare all of them good or bad because they were uttered by Dawkins in just ignorant. Similiarly, so is judging something you haven't read. (For those that said it was horrible only to admit they hadn't read it).

But that aside the worse thing I saw was disregarding it because of what you personally thought of Dawkins. A great idea that could profoundly expand your consciousness is akin to me of you physically being on fire and in desperate need of water. A pool stands not far away you could easily jump into but because dawkins is swimming in it you would never jump in. Dawkins used the OPs quoted statement and a few others to suggest that we should not exclude the bible from our education but rather should study it as we would any other great literary work. All through this thread no one discusses that but the out of context presentation of it followed quickly by a superiority argument of theism or atheism. Hehe.

Theism is a beleif system.

Atheism COULD be a belief system but is usally not. It is normally a refusal to acknowledge a god based on lack of evidence.

There are atheistic beleif systems but being an atheist does not imply you follow an atheistic belief system.

Theists have shared traits in that they all follow a belief system based on the premise that there is both a god and usually some form of an afterlife or eternal survival. The details of which vary by religion.

To see an atheist's point of view, if anyone would ever care to do so, it is sometimes helpful to think of your argument concerning god in terms of pink fairies and then consider how you would react. Pink fairies are beutiful and eternally merciful. The bible is the word of pink fairies and as the word of the pink fairies should be the most powerful book in your life. When you and I stand before the Pink Fairy I will be there to pat you on the back and say I told you so.

 

[DallasApple]

Good thing you weren't discussing Beelzebub....

Well there ya go...I have absolutely no I idea what you are talking about..

Love

Dallas

 

[Storm]

Since you (understandably) didn't quote everyone, I'm assuming these parts were directed at me. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Similiarly, so is judging something you haven't read. (For those that said it was horrible only to admit they hadn't read it).

I TRIED to read the God Delusion. I couldn't get past the attempt to portray Einstein as an atheist.

But that aside the worse thing I saw was disregarding it because of what you personally thought of Dawkins.

1) Please see my posts in the Dawkins! thread, particularly # 20.

2) I don't dismiss his theological arguments due to my personal diappointment in the man. I dismiss them for two reasons:
a) the source of my disappointment, his proud ignorance of the topic
b) what little I have heard (and I repeat the invitation for those who have paid him more attention to relay one onf his better arguments) is so easily dismissed. For instance, the efficacy of prayer. This is not a brilliant argument. It is not a profound argument. It is not an original argument. It is, in fact, extremely basic, and easily dismissed regardless of whether or not one believes in the efficacy of prayer. Which, for the record, I don't.

A great idea that could profoundly expand your consciousness is akin to me of you physically being on fire and in desperate need of water.

I certainly hope this analogy isn't God-belief = being on fire.

All through this thread no one discusses that but the out of context presentation of it followed quickly by a superiority argument of theism or atheism. Hehe.

I have attempted actual discussion of the OP; it's gotten lost in the Dawkins debate. I direct you to post #33.

To see an atheist's point of view, if anyone would ever care to do so, it is sometimes helpful to think of your argument concerning god in terms of pink fairies and then consider how you would react. Pink fairies are beutiful and eternally merciful. The bible is the word of pink fairies and as the word of the pink fairies should be the most powerful book in your life. When you and I stand before the Pink Fairy I will be there to pat you on the back and say I told you so.

Parodies are rarely helpful, especially when used with condescension.

 

[robtex]

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?

Those stats are on page 383 of his book and are from a Gallup poll, which are good at taking samples but the poll he is referencing occurred in 1954 according to Dawkins. He quotes the stats from a book written in 1954 by Robert Hinde which means the poll is before 1954. He was trying to compare it to people that were from the previous generation to present the idea that religious ignorance isn't' a new thing in America. I guess we would need newer stats to really debate this OP. I mean the people in the poll are likely long passed away.

Beyond that the idea that knowledge is a driving force of faith doesn't seem accurate. I would put forth it is more an emotional, with the word synonym for emotional being spirtual.

 

[Sententia]

Storm,

Heh. I'm not being condescending or defending Dawkins. Some of his arguments, like the one in my post you quoted, point to arguments I agree with.

I must say I found your post fairly amusing. I presented a fairly neutral argument and you came back with just some outright false hoods. Dawkins cast Einstein as a deist or a pantheist similar to Spinoza. Einstein never accepted a personal god and made that abundantly clear. Einstein also made it abundantly clear he is not an atheist. Dawkins drew his Pantheistic and Deist classification of einstein both from his own studies on Einstein and other referenced material by other people not named Dawkins who came to the same conclusion.

I read your referenced Dawkins post. Am I putting Dawkin's on a pedastal? Are you implying your just annoyed with me and not him? Do you perhaps like that post in particular for some reason?

Regarding the fire analogy and a pool with dawkins in it... I think it is abundantly clear that I'm not inferring that a belief in god is equivalent to being on fire but thanks for lobbing that one at me. hehe. (Seriously... how could you come to that conclusion? Like Im going to reply, YES ITS EXACTLY LIKE THAT, EVER WONDER WHY IT SO HOT IN CHURCH? MADE OF STONE? Put it Together Man... LOL... amusing)

Ok post 33... We are here:

Leaving the question of Dawkins' credibility aside....

What a good idea... Its a Gallup poll and has nothing to do with Dawkin's credibility. Its clearly referenced and you can even look it up for yourself. There is absoultely no need to question Dawkins whatsover on this particular matter. :yes:

Even if I accepted this at face value, which I don't, I wouldn't accept it as being reflective of actual Christians.

Well the stats are on Protestants and Catholics in particular and from a long time ago. 1954

That is to say, the majority of US "Christians" in my experience have never really given it much thought.

The poll may or may not be reflective of what is happening today and I don't think you have a clear experience of protestants and catholics from 1954 so its likely your personal experience is going to fail you here.

They're not really believers, they're just going with what they were taught, because they don't really care one way or another. They call themselves Christian more out of habit than conviction.

Ok yeah... I know a few people like that. Its sunday, time to go to church... lets go. And they go. They listen to the sermon, interact with people after church mass, go out for brunch and come home and mow their lawns and get laundry ready for work so on and so forth. Ok... some people dont even go to church they just call themselves by some religion. I agree with you here... where are we going with this?

Now, that could easily be taken the wrong way, so let me make it clear that it's not a value judgement. I'm not saying that they're "not True Christians" because they're theologically ignorant. I'm pointing out that most people, again imx, are apathetic. Not everyone has an interest in God, just we don't all have an interest in poetry, or music, or sports. And that's fine.

But unlike poetry, music, or sports, there is a cultural expectation of some theological label as part of one's identity. This leads the people who don't care to just accept the religious identity they were raised to, which is overwhelmingly Christian in the US.

Because most theologically apathetic people in the US accept the label of "Christian" polls such as the one cited will find disproportionate numbers of theologically ignorant "Christians."

Ahhh I see... Well when Gallup gave that poll the people being polled identified themselves as either Catholic or Protestant. Do you assume the majority of people gallup polled identified themselves as one of those particular religions were like those people you know today who just call themselves christians?

It also doesn't really address the OPs question. What conclusions can be drawn? Which is a pretty general question. You seem to want to test the validity of the poll and voice your opinion on Dawkins more then address such a broad and general question.

Dawkins brought up those stats as I have said for a particular reason and to draw one particular conclusion which was to support studying the bible as a great literary work.

The original post should had never mentioned Dawkins as it was never meant to discuss anything to do with the context Dawkins used it in. It should have read Robert Hinde or Gallup. There might had been a much different discussion.

Seriously look at Scuba's response to the OP:

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.

NOTHING to do with Dawkins. Futhermore not all of Dawkins deductions are biased or wrong, he and hinde did provide a link to the study and your cute comment on statistics does not discredit statistics as a useful tool. (But it would make a good poster or Signature)

Anyways... in light of all that I still stand by my post.

 

[Storm]

Storm,

Heh. I'm not being condescending or defending Dawkins. Some of his arguments, like the one in my post you quoted, point to arguments I agree with.

Is the pink fairy argument his?

I must say I found your post fairly amusing. I presented a fairly neutral argument and you came back with just some outright false hoods.

Aside from the Einstein misunderstanding, what "outright falsehoods" did I present?

Dawkins cast Einstein as a deist or a pantheist similar to Spinoza.

Well, I guess I didn't even make it that far. I'll take you at your word.

Einstein never accepted a personal god and made that abundantly clear. Einstein also made it abundantly clear he is not an atheist.

I'm well aware.

I read your referenced Dawkins post. Am I putting Dawkin's on a pedastal? Are you implying your just annoyed with me and not him? Do you perhaps like that post in particular for some reason?

No, you were not one of the particular atheists to whom I was referring. I wanted you to read that post to get the balanced version of my views. Most importantly that I do not hate Dawkins.

Regarding the fire analogy and a pool with dawkins in it... I think it is abundantly clear that I'm not inferring that a belief in god is equivalent to being on fire but thanks for lobbing that one at me. hehe. (Seriously... how could you come to that conclusion? Like Im going to reply, YES ITS EXACTLY LIKE THAT, EVER WONDER WHY IT SO HOT IN CHURCH? MADE OF STONE? Put it Together Man... LOL... amusing)

Obviously, it was not abundantly clear. Perhaps you should take a moment to clarify, rather than simply ridiculing me for your poor communication.

Well the stats are on Protestants and Catholics in particular and from a long time ago. 1954

The poll may or may not be reflective of what is happening today and I don't think you have a clear experience of protestants and catholics from 1954 so its likely your personal experience is going to fail you here.

Which raises a whole 'nother set of issues. Why even bring up such an outdated poll?

Ok yeah... I know a few people like that. Its sunday, time to go to church... lets go. And they go. They listen to the sermon, interact with people after church mass, go out for brunch and come home and mow their lawns and get laundry ready for work so on and so forth. Ok... some people dont even go to church they just call themselves by some religion. I agree with you here... where are we going with this?

I thought you wanted to discuss the implications of the poll. I raised one explanation. Did I give you too much credit in assuming you wanted discussion?

Ahhh I see... Well when Gallup gave that poll the people being polled identified themselves as either Catholic or Protestant. Do you assume the majority of people gallup polled identified themselves as one of those particular religions were like those people you know today who just call themselves christians?

Yes. Although, I'd characterize "a lot of people go with the flow" more an observation than assumption.

It also doesn't really address the OPs question. What conclusions can be drawn?

Um, that's the conclusion I drew.

You seem to want to test the validity of the poll and voice your opinion on Dawkins more then address such a broad and general question.

I'll thank you not to speculate on my motives. Try addressing my points, instead.

Dawkins brought up those stats as I have said for a particular reason and to draw one particular conclusion which was to support studying the bible as a great literary work.

Well, I agree with him on that.

The original post should had never mentioned Dawkins as it was never meant to discuss anything to do with the context Dawkins used it in. It should have read Robert Hinde or Gallup. There might had been a much different discussion.

I was thinking the same thing.

Seriously look at Scuba's response to the OP:

What does Pete's opinion of Dawkins have to do with any of my points, aside from highlighting the necessity of my pointing out that I don't hate Dawkins?

your cute comment on statistics does not discredit statistics as a useful tool. (But it would make a good poster or Signature)

What cute comment on statistics? I honestly have no idea what you're referring to.

P.S.: "The bible is the word of pink fairies and as the word of the pink fairies should be the most powerful book in your life. When you and I stand before the Pink Fairy I will be there to pat you on the back and say I told you so." is condescending, and I think you know it.

 

[DallasApple]

P.S.: "The bible is the word of pink fairies and as the word of the pink fairies should be the most powerful book in your life. When you and I stand before the Pink Fairy I will be there to pat you on the back and say I told you so." is condescending, and I think you know it.

Someone said that?..Thats mean..Why do people have to be so hate filled??

Well the stats are on Protestants and Catholics in particular and from a long time ago. 1954

I agree...a "gallup poll" on such claims should be revised after over a half a century..

Love

Dallas

 

[Sententia]

Is the pink fairy argument his?

No... his argument for everyone to study the bible as a literary work... the reason he quoted thost stats... He does like to mention fairys too... He was just recently on Maher... and I believe he mentioned fairys too.

Obviously, it was not abundantly clear. Perhaps you should take a moment to clarify, rather than simply ridiculing me for your poor communication.

Probably. I do not mean to ridicule but it did seem like an attempt to purposefully misunderstand. A belief in god is clearly not like being on fire. I was trying to show that when dawkins makes a statement some people just disregard it. It could be a great statement or something that literally could inspire a new level of understanding on some matter. But they can't hear it because it was Dawkins that said it. (And I wasn't directing it at you in particular... You claim not to hate to Dawkins and I take you at your word. You could say you hate him as well and It wouldnt really matter to me though, I would still listen to what you have to say.)

Which raises a whole 'nother set of issues. Why even bring up such an outdated poll?

Umm, for this thread... yeah... I dont get it either. We could find a much better poll. I wont speculate on why...

I thought you wanted to discuss the implications of the poll. I raised one explanation. Did I give you too much credit in assuming you wanted discussion?

Nah... I mean we could address the OP's question. I think the poll is just kinda pointless though in terms of that discussion. Einstein was once asked by a reporter what the speed of sound was and he did not know. He readily admitted he didn't carry such facts around with him. Does it truly matter if a christian can name an old testament prophet? I think if its a personal belief then its a personal choice for them as to consider if it matters or not. I personally don't care.

What does Pete's opinion of Dawkins have to do with any of my points, aside from highlighting the necessity of my pointing out that I don't hate Dawkins?

It doesn't it has to do with one of my points. The original post should had never mentioned Dawkins for the purposes of this discussion.

What cute comment on statistics? I honestly have no idea what you're referring to.

Pete's post, not you.

P.S.: "The bible is the word of pink fairies and as the word of the pink fairies should be the most powerful book in your life. When you and I stand before the Pink Fairy I will be there to pat you on the back and say I told you so." is condescending, and I think you know it.

I just took statements commonly made and changed the word God to Pink Fairy. Seriously though its not meant to be condescending... it does help in understanding an atheist view point. It obviously doesn't have to pink fairys just something you clearly and seriously dont believe in.

Atheist do not believe in God in much the same way you do not believe in unicorns, leprechauns and fairys. When you talk to atheists about god and justify your reponses with references to god it would be as if an atheist was justifying things to you by making references to something you do not believe in. If Pink Fairy is condescending to you then pick something else... Unicorn, Leprechaun... or whatever.

 

[DallasApple]

Atheist do not believe in God in much the same way you do not believe in unicorns, leprechauns and fairys. When you talk to atheists about god and justify your reponses with references to god it would be as if an atheist was justifying things to you by making references to something you do not believe in. If Pink Fairy is condescending to you then pick something else... Unicorn, Leprechaun... or whatever.

Im starting not to believe in decent humans ..they certaintly "exist"..but at what cost..?

Love

Dallas

 

[Storm]

Probably. I do not mean to ridicule but it did seem like an attempt to purposefully misunderstand. A belief in god is clearly not like being on fire. I was trying to show that when dawkins makes a statement some people just disregard it. It could be a great statement or something that literally could inspire a new level of understanding on some matter. But they can't hear it because it was Dawkins that said it. (And I wasn't directing it at you in particular... You claim not to hate to Dawkins and I take you at your word. You could say you hate him as well and It wouldnt really matter to me though, I would still listen to what you have to say.)

We're cool.

I just took statements commonly made and changed the word God to Pink Fairy. Seriously though its not meant to be condescending... it does help in understanding an atheist view point. It obviously doesn't have to pink fairys just something you clearly and seriously dont believe in.

While parodies have their place, they should be carefully used. I wasn't offended, but I could see how others would be, and I have to point out that Dallas was.

Atheist do not believe in God in much the same way you do not believe in unicorns, leprechauns and fairys. When you talk to atheists about god and justify your reponses with references to god it would be as if an atheist was justifying things to you by making references to something you do not believe in. If Pink Fairy is condescending to you then pick something else... Unicorn, Leprechaun... or whatever.

1) I never use God as a justification.
2) There are only two reasons I talk to atheists about God at all: to challenge their reasoning thereby helping them to improve it (and I welcome the same in turn), and to explain my own beliefs when curiosity is expressed.

 

[Sententia]

Im starting not to believe in decent humans ..they certaintly "exist"..but at what cost..?

Love

Dallas

I fail to see such a parody and defined as a parody and explained as a parody would call into question my decency as a human being? Could you elaborate? Thanks.

 

[Storm]

While I don't question your basic decency, imo, you left the bounds of good taste with "when you and I stand before the Pink Fairy, I'll be there to pat you on the back and say I told you so."

I know that sometimes CHristians do it, but that doesn't make it any less condescending.