Surprising lack of knowledge among theists.

[Storm]

I don't think you understand Dawkins. His books aren't about theology, they are about science. "The God Delusion" is a scientific approach to the subject of god's existence. To say he is "ignorant" of theology misses the point entirely. HIs approach is scientific, which is why it stands alone and above all of the baised "we believe in belief" books on theology.

And Kent Hovind's arguments are a theological approach to the question of evolution. To say he is "ignorant of evolution" misses the point.

Science and theology should stop peeing on each other's territory.

 

[logician]

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?

Back to the thread topic, one can assume that these same people that know essentially nothing about their religion, also do not take the time to analyze why they believe it in the first place. They are essentially accepting on sheer blind faith what ever pablum is being spooned out to them.

 

[Scuba Pete]

actually kow about their religion.

The same can be said about atheists. Few ever seem to get beyond being angry at God about some injustice in their life.

That's not to say that atheism has to be any less thought out than theism or that EITHER is intellectually superior than the other. Just as there is a God delusion, there is an equal Atheist delusion. This concept angers a number of atheists, but that does not make it any less true.

It's time for theist and atheist alike to stop trying to paint the other as somehow logically, morally or intellectually inferior to the other. It's also important to learn to reject the bigots on either side of the aisle no matter how many points they score.

 

[Poisonshady313]

Back to the thread topic, one can assume that these same people that know essentially nothing about their religion, also do not take the time to analyze why they believe it in the first place. They are essentially accepting on sheer blind faith what ever pablum is being spooned out to them.

It is my assertion that this is the goal of the people who started Christianity.

1 Timothy 1

3As I urged you when I went into Macedonia, stay there in Ephesus so that you may command certain men not to teach false doctrines any longer 4nor to devote themselves to myths and endless genealogies. These promote controversies rather than God's work—which is by faith. 5The goal of this command is love, which comes from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith. 6Some have wandered away from these and turned to meaningless talk. 7They want to be teachers of the law, but they do not know what they are talking about or what they so confidently affirm. 8We know that the law is good if one uses it properly. 9We also know that law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious; for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, 10for adulterers and perverts, for slave traders and liars and perjurers—and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine 11that conforms to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which he entrusted to me.


Basically, what Paul is saying is "Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain."

Don't let the teachers of law fill your head with words of scriptures that you might actually learn something and ask questions... just accept with blind faith that which I'm telling you.

(and nobody can accuse me of taking the verse out of context. I posted the context.)

 

[Sunstone]

Back to the thread topic, one can assume that these same people that know essentially nothing about their religion, also do not take the time to analyze why they believe it in the first place. They are essentially accepting on sheer blind faith what ever pablum is being spooned out to them.

Why are you assuming that people who call themselves Christian know nothing about their religion when in fact all they know nothing about is the Bible? It seems to me you are defining "Christian" like a Christian might define it, and not like a scientist or scholar of comparative religious studies might define it. If you observed 83% of all Christians standing on their heads for an hour each Sunday, wouldn't you be inclined to say that was a Christian practice even though there's no support for it in the Bible? What, besides Protestant tradition, makes the Bible the blueprint for Christianity? That is a relatively modern concept.

 

[Scuba Pete]

They are essentially accepting on sheer blind faith what ever pablum is being spooned out to them.

Which describes a number of atheists that I have known. I am sure you have a point here, but it ain't much of one, and it certainly isn't valid.

 

[Apex]

The same can be said about atheists.

That's not to say that atheism has to be any less thought out than theism or that EITHER is intellectually superior than the other. Just as there is a God delusion, there is an equal Atheist delusion. This concept angers a number of atheists, but that does not make it any less true.

It's time for theist and atheist alike to stop trying to paint the other as somehow logically, morally or intellectually inferior to the other. It's also important to learn to reject the bigots on either side of the aisle no matter how many points they score.

Wow, I agree with Scuba for once. Frubals.

 

[Sunstone]

Few ever seem to get beyond being angry at God about some injustice in their life.

I know many atheists, but very few who are angry at God.

 

[Poisonshady313]

I know many atheists, but very few who are angry at God.

Hard to be angry at something you don't believe exists.

 

[Sunstone]

Just as there is a God delusion, there is an equal Atheist delusion.

Sure there is. And what might it be?

 

[logician]

Why are you assuming that people who call themselves Christian know nothing about their religion when in fact all they know nothing about is the Bible? It seems to me you are defining "Christian" like a Christian might define it, and not like a scientist or scholar of comparative religious studies might define it. If you observed 83% of all Christians standing on their heads for an hour each Sunday, wouldn't you be inclined to say that was a Christian practice even though there's no support for it in the Bible? What, besides Protestant tradition, makes the Bible the blueprint for Christianity? That is a relatively modern concept.

I don't really understand this post, since most Christian churches do have Sunday school and for that matter weekly sermons where a good deal of scripture is quoted and analyzed to some extent. For a Christian to have no knowledge of the bible either means they don't attend church, are asleep when they do, or don't care. In any of these cases, my post still stands.

 

[fantome profane]

I don't think you understand Dawkins. His books aren't about theology, they are about science. "The God Delusion" is a scientific approach to the subject of god's existence. To say he is "ignorant" of theology misses the point entirely. HIs approach is scientific, which is why it stands alone and above all of the baised "we believe in belief" books on theology.

But it is not till about half way through the book that Dawkins even begins to bring a scientific approach to religion. The first half is clearly a philosophical response to philosophical arguments. And personally I find his refutations adequate at best, I have seen others do a much better job at arguing against those classical arguments for “God”

And as for the scientific approach, have you read Breaking the Spell by Daniel Dennett? He does a much more detailed analysis of religion from a scientific evolutionary perspective. Dennett was clearly influenced by Dawkins, but he went much further and did a much better job. Dennett wrote the book that Dawkins should have written.

Honestly I don’t think you understand Dawkins.

 

[Quiddity]

I know many atheists, but very few who are angry at God.

Angry at what others perceive to be God?

 

[Scuba Pete]

I know many atheists, but very few who are angry at God.

Few or many... it's a matter of perception, n'est pas? Still we agree that there are BOTH atheists and theists who really have not thought out why they believe what they do. It's based mostly on emotion, and this can include some who claim to rely on "logic" as the foundation of their beliefs/non-beliefs.

 

[Apex]

Angry at what others perceive to be God?

I have seen that.

 

[madhatter85]

While i don't agree with Dawkins, i know for a fact that most christians in this country don't know anythign about thier religion except what thier pastor or preacher tells them.

they have no mind of thier own. I would suggest watching the documentary Jesus Camp.

 

[Scuba Pete]

Sure there is. And what might it be?

That God doesn't exist based on whatever fallacious reasoning they might enjoin.

 

[Quiddity]

For logician:

Why Richard Dawkins is Wrong about Religion:
Skeptic: eSkeptic: Wednesday, July 4th, 2007

From a skeptical atheist and a man that shares his field in biology.

 

[Sunstone]

I don't really understand this post, since most Christian churches do have Sunday school and for that matter weekly sermons where a good deal of scripture is quoted and analyzed to some extent. For a Christian to have no knowledge of the bible either means they don't attend church, are asleep when they do, or don't care. In any of these cases, my post still stands.

No, your post doesn't still stand, my friend. You're missing the whole point because you're not thinking like a scientist. Simply observe how people who call themselves Christian actually behave, instead of, in effect, telling them how they should behave in order to be "Good Christians". After all, who are you or I to tell Christians whether they are "Good" Christians or not?

 

[logician]

But it is not till about half way through the book that Dawkins even begins to bring a scientific approach to religion. The first half is clearly a philosophical response to philosophical arguments. And personally I find his refutations adequate at best, I have seen others do a much better job at arguing against those classical arguments for “God”

And as for the scientific approach, have you read Breaking the Spell by Daniel Dennett? He does a much more detailed analysis of religion from a scientific evolutionary perspective. Dennett was clearly influenced by Dawkins, but he went much further and did a much better job. Dennett wrote the book that Dawkins should have written.

Honestly I don’t think you understand Dawkins.

Your beef is that Dawkins, unlike Dennett, does not coddle belief in belief. That's where I agree with Dawkins, and disagree with writers like Dennett.