U.S. Atheists Know More About Religion Than U.S. Christians

[Holdasown]

I'm making statistical claims about religion in general. You can choose to defend religion in general or not. But I'm not attacking whatever your religion is specifically. Of course there are always exceptions, nothing is black and white.

In other words I'm saying "religion in general has these issues". If you're response is "my rare religion does not have those problems", well that's good news, but it's off topic.

And there it is. The final insult. Religion is religion. But I mean everyone's but yours. Bigotry, plain and simple.

 

[icehorse]

And there it is. The final insult. Religion is religion. But I mean everyone's but yours. Bigotry, plain and simple.

Is it fair for me to infer from this post that - in your opinion - there is nothing we can know about religion in general?

 

[Milton Platt]

.

​

Anyone surprised?

.​

Nah, old news.

 

[Skwim]

Nah, old news.

Might be, but interesting enough to generate 243 replies so far, including your own.

.

 

[Anthem]

Yeah, I didn't think you could come up with anything, but no one else seems to have either so you're not alone. So it appears that. . .

there is no good in religion that can't be achieved without it.
​

.

I think I already said this, but that cannot be proven.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I think I already said this, but that cannot be proven.

It can't be proven that it appears this way?

... but it does appear this way to me and to many other people.

 

[Windwalker]

The existence of a spiritual self.

There is a ridiculously simple answer. Experience.

 

[Anthem]

It can't be proven that it appears this way?

... but it does appear this way to me and to many other people.

Well it might be better for the sake of clear communication to put it that way then.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Well it might be better for the sake of clear communication to put it that way then.

That is how @Skwim put it.

And when I brought up a similar point, it was as a question ("what good is there in religion that can't be achieved without religion?")
and before that as a general impression ("I've never seen any good achieved through religion that actually required religion").

BTW: this is still an impression that you're free to correct... if you know of any good in religion that actually requires religion, of course.

If you don't have anything, by all means keep on focusing on tone policing.

 

[Skwim]

I think I already said this, but that cannot be proven.

But it isn't a matter of proof. How something appears to me is how something appears to me.

Back to the issue at hand: all you have to do is cite one (1) example and you will have answered 9-10ths_Penguin's question.

What good is there in religion that can't be achieved without religion?​

My question is, what's holding you up? Why is it you can't come up with a single example that shows there is a good in religion that can't be achieved without it?

.

.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

My experience with discussing my views with atheists is there not rational.

They always like to hijack rationality for themselves and say the religious are not rational.

I suppose it depends on the atheists. Much as discussing religion with a Christian depends on which sort of Christian you are talking to. I have had the worst luck in discussions with Evangelicals and fundamentalists. To me, they are the most closed minded when considered as a whole. But individual mileage varies.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

My experience with discussing my views with atheists is there not rational.

They always like to hijack rationality for themselves and say the religious are not rational.

There is a person on this very thread, whom I consider to be completely closed-minded and I was unable to have a rational discussion with them, so I no longer bother responding to their posts. I know only so much and when a person knows everything--and I do not mean that they really do know--there is no point in trying to talk with them.

My experience has always been better in discussions with atheists and agnostics in general. Not every case is the same and it also depends on how I approach the discussion.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

But it isn't a matter of proof. How something appears to me is how something appears to me.

Back to the issue at hand: all you have to do is cite one (1) example and you will have answered 9-10ths_Penguin's question.

What good is there in religion that can't be achieved without religion?​

My question is, what's holding you up? Why is it you can't come up with a single example that shows there is a good in religion that can't be achieved without it?

.

.

That is a great question. I wish I had an answer for you.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

But it isn't a matter of proof. How something appears to me is how something appears to me.

Back to the issue at hand: all you have to do is cite one (1) example and you will have answered 9-10ths_Penguin's question.

What good is there in religion that can't be achieved without religion?​

My question is, what's holding you up? Why is it you can't come up with a single example that shows there is a good in religion that can't be achieved without it?

.

.

Besides the answer of "I don't know". To me, religion and faith are personal. It is what I get out of it that is important. Hopefully, that carries over to my compassion, love and altruism, but I know atheists with those qualities as well and, obviously, no religion.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Might be, but interesting enough to generate 243 replies so far, including your own.

.

I think it is a good thing to post something like this. Nobody likes to hear that their favorite group might be wanting, but if you are honest and can accept critical data without getting all emotive, it is an important step to improving. I myself, have read the Bible, but not in years. The other day, I reread the Book of Revelation. It is still incomprehensible symbolism, highly subject to interpretation, but I think I understand the written verse better now than I ever have. My one question regarding that book has been, and remains, "Why was this book included in the Bible when it was collated?".

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Oh, they did make the switch based on ignorence. They could have learned from the adam and eve story. They trusted the lie by switching.

Nomater what your view is, theres always gonna be some element of trust in it.

I do not consider the story of Adam and Eve to be a literal depiction of actual people, but rather an allegory. That said, there is still much that can be learned from it. Whether it is real--there is a large body of evidence to cast doubt on its literal authenticity--or not, shouldn't matter in my opinion. It doesn't alter the Bible as the basis of Christian theology or change my faith in any way.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I do not consider the story of Adam and Eve to be a literal depiction of actual people, but rather an allegory. That said, there is still much that can be learned from it. Whether it is real--there is a large body of evidence to cast doubt on its literal authenticity--or not, shouldn't matter in my opinion. It doesn't alter the Bible as the basis of Christian theology or change my faith in any way.

Bible literalists do not appear to be able to think that way. Most of them seem to be incapable of nuanced thought. For them it is all of nothing. And that shows up in their arguments on evolution. Who has not heard the argument:

"If we evolved from apes how come there are still monkies?

Their approach to the sciences is the same as their approach to the Bible, guaranteeing that they will be wrong in both realms.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Bible literalists do not appear to be able to think that way. Most of them seem to be incapable of nuanced thought. For them it is all of nothing. And that shows up in their arguments on evolution. Who has not heard the argument:

"If we evolved from apes how come there are still monkies?

Their approach to the sciences is the same as their approach to the Bible, guaranteeing that they will be wrong in both realms.

Sadly, I often find this to be true. God gave me a mind and the ability to learn. I do not think that gift was given to be squandered. That is a statement of faith and not fact, but the fact remains, I still have the mind and the thirst for knowledge. I can accept that and continue on without divesting myself of my core faith.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Sadly, I often find this to be true. God gave me a mind and the ability to learn. I do not think that gift was given to be squandered. That is a statement of faith and not fact, but the fact remains, I still have the mind and the thirst for knowledge. I can accept that and continue on without divesting myself of my core faith.

I often argue that it is the weak in faith that are literalists. The strong in faith keep believing regardless of the flaws in the Bible.

 

[Jollybear]

I suppose it depends on the atheists. Much as discussing religion with a Christian depends on which sort of Christian you are talking to. I have had the worst luck in discussions with Evangelicals and fundamentalists. To me, they are the most closed minded when considered as a whole. But individual mileage varies.

Yes, and i also have had discussions with christian pastors who wer not rational. That said, i yet claim to believe the bible.

But heres my thing, everytime i discuss with atheists it always happens, they say stuff like this:

"Your not honest

Your stupid

Your ignorant

Your biased

You dont research"

Just a bunch of nonsense. It gets old and very annoying.

But, let me tell you why its annoying. Its not annoying because i want them to percieve me as smart, honest, and well informed, no, thats not why. Its also not because i somehow start doubting that im honest, smart or well informed. Thats not why either because i in fact KNOW im being honest, smart, rational and do my research.

Heres why its so darn annoying. Because THERE the ones who are trully the dishonest, unrational and biased and ignorant ones, yet i wont even spit that out my mouth at them, they will be always the first to toute it at me. They are these things, yet project it on me, which ANGERS ME and it WASTES a bunch of time. It distracts from the content of the subjects. And through that process, i learn crap all from them.

Thats why its so dang annoying.