Surprising lack of knowledge among theists.

[gnostic]

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.

Which is why I have never read any of Dawkins' works nor seen any video with him in its.

The only time I hear or read about Dawkins is here, or at other similar forums.

 

[Sententia]

Which is why I have never read any of Dawkins' works nor seen any video with him in its.

The only time I hear or read about Dawkins is here, or at other similar forums.

I would point out that there were references, the references were valid and read in context its dawkins arguing for us to include in our education the bible as it is a great literary work.

Scuba is just wrong and inherently hates dawkins and leaps to always the worse conclusion regarding anything he says. Far for me to defend dawkins but the intolerance of dawkins shown by him is amusing if you consider what he accuses dawkins of.

Ultimately Dawkins is religious just not in the sense Scuba is. Staring at the intricacies of mitochondria and the heavens above can fill you with such a sense of overwhelming awe. I won't delve into Dawkins religion as he describes it but I believe it to be quite einsteinian in nature and Einstein was not an atheist.

As far as that feeling of awe... well Michael Persinger has some thoughts on that... hehe.

 

[Scuba Pete]

Scuba is just wrong and inherently hates dawkins

You are a liar. I do not hate ANYONE, including Dawkins. I do resent his bigotry, but I do not hate him.

Neither do I think that most atheists are arrogant or bigoted, though I have never hesitated to point out bigotry when I saw it. Much to the consternation of the staff here, I don't pull those types of punches.

Characterizing me as hating Dawkins (or even Shrub) is beyond the pale, and shows just how intolerant SOME of you are of a differing opinion. Sad that. Apparently, I am not the ONLY theist who sees him as biased to the point of bigotry. Assigning motives to me that are not there doesn't stop many of us from seeing Dawkin's bigotry for what it is: Meanness and intolerance towards theists.

So, why do you defend him so ardently? Are you seeing some of YOUR attitudes in him and my criticism is hitting a bit too close to home? If that is the case, then GOOD. Learn some tolerance.

 

[gnostic]

The thing is that I'd prefer to discover or investigate religion on my own.

I am agnostic, but I have not read a single work of Huxley or other agnostic authors about agnosticism. I know of Huxley's life (general knowledge) and his involvement in science, esp. with evolution, and in agnosticism, but not the actual writings he have written (except for quotes, here and there).

Hooray, I have passed the 200,000 frubals mark. :bounce

I have only just noticed it.

 

[Sententia]

You are a liar. I do not hate ANYONE, including Dawkins. I do resent his bigotry, but I do not hate him.

Neither do I think that most atheists are arrogant or bigoted, though I have never hesitated to point out bigotry when I saw it. Much to the consternation of the staff here, I don't pull those types of punches.

Characterizing me as hating Dawkins (or even Shrub) is beyond the pale, and shows just how intolerant SOME of you are of a differing opinion. Sad that. Apparently, I am not the ONLY theist who sees him as biased to the point of bigotry. Assigning motives to me that are not there doesn't stop many of us from seeing Dawkin's bigotry for what it is: Meanness and intolerance towards theists.

So, why do you defend him so ardently? Are you seeing some of YOUR attitudes in him and my criticism is hitting a bit too close to home? If that is the case, then GOOD. Learn some tolerance.

Heh... Scuba I don't defend him. But I have quoted you more then a few times in this thread attacking dawkins on a general level and this is the first time you have replied. Perhaps you don't hate him but you don't consider his opinion anyways, even when it supports your own.

 

[Scuba Pete]

But I have quoted you more then a few times in this thread attacking dawkins on a general level and this is the first time you have replied.

I can only respond to so many posts. There are many reasons why I might or might not reply to a thread or a post. In fact, I have tried to bow out of this thread, but I can't let such an egregious misrepresentation of my character pass without comment. I have said my piece and have nothing further to say on the topic.

 

[Sententia]

I can only respond to so many posts. There are many reasons why I might or might not reply to a thread or a post. In fact, I have tried to bow out of this thread, but I can't let such an egregious misrepresentation of my character pass without comment. I have said my piece and have nothing further to say on the topic.

The very first response to this thread is yours:

That Dawkin's deductions are full of crap

Really? Everything Dawkins can deduce is just outright false then? Seriously... you want to make that statement? I don't even have to defend Dawkins... you could say this about anyone and barring any serious psychological disorder you'd be wrong. In this instance your wrong and acting intolerant and biased in the same breath you accuse dawkins of such:

and full of bias. Did he provide a link to this study?

Aye mate he did. As pointed out several times in this thread by me and many other people.

Seriously Dawkins was quoting another author and to the end of an actual argument you yourself would agree with. You and Dawkins agree... many, many, many times.... You disagree on a few points as well but there is no need to be blind, hateful and intolerant of him. Not everything he says has bias... in the case of the poll you quoted as biased its a gallup poll. So go yell at gallup.

Pete... I can't believe your response to dawkins. After your tolerance of folks like me you just have this pent up frustration towards him I can't even classify. You dislike him is enough for me... but you agree with him as well. And you are very similar. You might even be the same blood type...

In short... relax. I also will apologize for thinking that you hated him. Maybe you dont. It was just how I percieved your reaction. I can think you don't like him and make baseless and biased accuasations against him and thats not my opinion, its just fact. (As quoted in this post if you want to debate it).

 

[logician]

Love....Its absurd..?

Love

Dallas

No, the idea that Christianity has some kind of universal claim on love is absurd.

ALso, considering the millions tortured and murdered in the name of Xianity over the last 2k years, the presumption that XIanity is about "love" is false, it is about gaining believers, and thus money and power.

 

[lilithu]

No, the idea that Christianity has some kind of universal claim on love is absurd.

Are you just determined to misunderstand other people's posts or is it that you can't help it?

No one said that Christianity has some kind of universal claim on love. To say that Christianity is based on love does not in any way say that other belief systems have no claim on love.

Some religions, like Judaism and Islam, are more based on rules and rituals. Some religions, like Buddhism, are more based on empiricism. And some religions, like Christianity, are more based on emotion. That is why it means very little that many Christians do not know the factoids contained in the bible. Christianity is not based on knowing those factoids. It is based on accepting Christ as one's savior, being in relationship with Him. It is based on love.

 

[lilithu]

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

If this thread is about what Dawkins says that Christians don't know, please explain why you titled the thread "theists." :sarcastic

 

[Scuba Pete]

Are you just determined to misunderstand other people's posts or is it that you can't help it?

No one said that Christianity has some kind of universal claim on love. To say that Christianity is based on love does not in any way say that other belief systems have no claim on love.

Some religions, like Judaism and Islam, are more based on rules and rituals. Some religions, like Buddhism, are more based on empiricism. And some religions, like Christianity, are more based on emotion. That is why it means very little that many Christians do not know the factoids contained in the bible. Christianity is not based on knowing those factoids. It is based on accepting Christ as one's savior, being in relationship with Him. It is based on love.

I nominate this to be the most lucid post in this thread. I would frubal you if I hadn't just done so. Simply amazing insight here.

 

[DallasApple]

I nominate this to be the most lucid post in this thread. I would frubal you if I hadn't just done so. Simply amazing insight here.

I fruballed her for both of us Scuba!

Love

Dallas

 

[Autodidact]

I wouldn't call Dawkins' analysis "honest" so much as "ignorant". Unsurprising, given that he celebrates his ignorance of theology as a virtue.

Are we talking about the same man, the holder of the Charles Simonyi Chair for the popular understanding of science at Oxford University? Author of nine books, from The Selfish Gene to The God Delusion? The same guy who was awarded a Doctor of Science by the University of Oxford in 1989. He holds honorary doctorates in science from the University of Westminster, Durham University,[110] and the University of Hull, and an honorary doctorate from the Open University and from the Vrije Universiteit Brussel.[12] He also holds honorary doctorates of letters from the University of St Andrews and the Australian National University, and was elected Fellow of the Royal Society of Literature in 1997 and the Royal Society in 2001.[12] In 1987, Dawkins received a Royal Society of Literature award, and a Los Angeles Times Literary Prize for his book, The Blind Watchmaker. In the same year, he received a Sci. Tech Prize for Best Television Documentary Science Programme of the Year, for the BBC Horizon episode entitled The Blind Watchmaker.[12]
His other awards have included the Zoological Society of London Silver Medal (1989), the Michael Faraday Award (1990), the Nakayama Prize (1994), the Humanist of the Year Award (1996), the fifth International Cosmos Prize (1997), the Kistler Prize (2001), the Medal of the Presidency of the Italian Republic (2001), and the Bicentennial Kelvin Medal of The Royal Philosophical Society of Glasgow (2002).[12] [wiki] You're calling him ignorant? Of what? Just what is it that you think Dr. Dawkins needs to know that he doesn't?

 

[Storm]

Are we talking about the same man, the holder of the Charles Simonyi Chair for the popular understanding of science at Oxford University? Author of nine books, from The Selfish Gene to The God Delusion? The same guy who was awarded a Doctor of Science by the University of Oxford in 1989. He holds honorary doctorates in science from the University of Westminster, Durham University,[110] and the University of Hull, and an honorary doctorate from the Open University and from the Vrije Universiteit Brussel.[12] He also holds honorary doctorates of letters from the University of St Andrews and the Australian National University, and was elected Fellow of the Royal Society of Literature in 1997 and the Royal Society in 2001.[12] In 1987, Dawkins received a Royal Society of Literature award, and a Los Angeles Times Literary Prize for his book, The Blind Watchmaker. In the same year, he received a Sci. Tech Prize for Best Television Documentary Science Programme of the Year, for the BBC Horizon episode entitled The Blind Watchmaker.[12]
His other awards have included the Zoological Society of London Silver Medal (1989), the Michael Faraday Award (1990), the Nakayama Prize (1994), the Humanist of the Year Award (1996), the fifth International Cosmos Prize (1997), the Kistler Prize (2001), the Medal of the Presidency of the Italian Republic (2001), and the Bicentennial Kelvin Medal of The Royal Philosophical Society of Glasgow (2002).[12] [wiki] You're calling him ignorant? Of what? Just what is it that you think Dr. Dawkins needs to know that he doesn't?

Auto, I've spoken my piece, and your question has been answered. Why rehash the same old thing? I think I made it quite clear that I was not calling him ignorant in his own field.

 

[Scuba Pete]

Auto, I've spoken my piece, and your question has been answered. Why rehash the same old thing? I think I made it quite clear that I was not calling him ignorant in his own field.

This is part and parcel of the "Dawkins Inquisition", which is just about as intolerant of us heretics who do not embrace his form of religious bigotry, as was the Spanish Inquisition. Once you explain yourself, they try to bludgeon you over and over into re-explaining yourself. I guess they are hoping we will soon tire and convert to "Dawkinarianism?.

 

[Autodidact]

Auto, I've spoken my piece, and your question has been answered. Why rehash the same old thing? I think I made it quite clear that I was not calling him ignorant in his own field.

I admit I haven't reviewed the entire thread. Exactly what is it you think he's ignorant of? My guess is that he, like most atheists, knows more about Christianity than the average Christian.

 

[Storm]

I admit I haven't reviewed the entire thread. Exactly what is it you think he's ignorant of? My guess is that he, like most atheists, knows more about Christianity than the average Christian.

Theology. By his own admission, he hasn't bothered to study the field he criticizes. He also implied that he had no plans to do so because he doesn't consider it worth studying.

Now, ignorance is unavoidable in this day and age. There's simply too much knowledge for anyone to be an expert of anything. However, it is my belief that if you're going to attack a field of study, you should know what you're talking about first.

 

[Scuba Pete]

My guess is that he, like most atheists, knows more about Christianity than the average Christian.

No, you only THINK they do. Contrary to popular beliefs, just because we don't fit in YOUR box, does not make us any less of a Christian.

 

[Autodidact]

Theology. By his own admission, he hasn't bothered to study the field he criticizes. He also implied that he had no plans to do so because he doesn't consider it worth studying.

Now, ignorance is unavoidable in this day and age. There's simply too much knowledge for anyone to be an expert of anything. However, it is my belief that if you're going to attack a field of study, you should know what you're talking about first.

1. So you can't criticize astrology without studying theology?
2. I completely agree with him. If God doesn't exist, why would you study theology? btw, are you familiar with Muslim theology? If not, why not?

He doesn't attack theology; he attacks the existence of God.

Finally, because God does not exist and therefore cannot be studied, "theology" is an incoherent inconsistent tissue of contradictions. No two theologists agree on anything. There are theologists out there who deny the existence of God and divinity of Jesus. Why would you study that?

 

[Autodidact]

No, you only THINK they do. Contrary to popular beliefs, just because we don't fit in YOUR box, does not make us any less of a Christian.

Well, it's been my experience. Both on the net and IRL, I have informed devout Christians that the NT was not written by eye-witnesses during Jesus' lifetime, (which I think would be pretty basic) that God commanded the Israelites to commit genocide, that the OT explicitly and in great detail commands animal sacrifice, that Jesus never said a word about homosexuality, that remarriage after divorce is prohibited by their religion, but polygamy is not, and other basic theological points of which they were completely ignorant. My general experience is that atheist's knowledge of the Bible is greater than Christians. I have met many atheists who deconverted because they read and studied the Bible. The average Christian has never read it and doesn't know what's in it. I beleive that's the subject of this thread.