Study: D1bs and Cap'n Cats Most Knowledgeable About Religion

[Wedgebuster]

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld ... 5137.story

Heresy? Perhaps. But a survey that measured Americans' knowledge of religion found that atheists and agnostics knew more, on average, than followers of most major faiths. In fact, the gaps in knowledge among some of the faithful may give new meaning to the term "blind faith."

[D1B]

Joltin "Liar" Joe to attack the LA Times and Pew Research Foundation in 3....2....1....
*Then use em as a primary source in a month.....

[Cap'n Cat]

No religion - no problems.

[JoltinJoe]

Given the type of questions involved, this result was predictable. I think atheists may well know more about specific religious practices because they spend nearly all their productive time calling people foolish for believing in these things.

Still, atheists have a complete lack of grasp of more advanced, "grown up" theology and essentially deal with religion based on grammar school understandings of faith. This is why they mock believers for believing in "Santa Claus" in the sky. They've never advanced beyond that child-like understanding of God, or that God could be a far greater spiritual power which is utterly beyond human comprehension. They never bothered to study or read theology in college, because they fancied themselves "too smart."

Or as Cleets once said, God is simply "what is." This is exactly how God defines himself in the Bible: "Yahwah," or "I am," or "I am what is." I wonder how many atheists could tell you that, or even grasp both the subtle theological and philosophical awesomeness of such a claim?

[kalm]

Given the type of questions involved, this result was predictable. I think atheists may well know more about specific religious practices because they spend nearly all their productive time calling people foolish for believing in these things.

Still, atheists have a complete lack of grasp of more advanced, "grown up" theology and essentially deal with religion based on grammar school understandings of faith. This is why they mock believers for believing in "Santa Claus" in the sky. They've never advanced beyond that child-like understanding of God, or that God could be a far greater spiritual power which is utterly beyond human comprehension. They never bothered to study or read theology in college, because they fancied themselves "too smart."

Or as Cleets once said, God is simply "what is." This is exactly how God defines himself in the Bible: "Yahwah," or "I am," or "I am what is." I wonder how many atheists could tell you that, or even grasp both the subtle theological and philosophical awesomeness of such a claim?

Or perhaps that claim is what turns some people to atheism.

[Cap'n Cat]

See, Joe, that's where you CONSTANTLY fail in these arguments - "grown up theology". Doof. ALL theology is bunk!!!

You're kicked in the pills before you even get to the starting block!

Look, we've found empirical proof (I know that concept is foreign to you) that me and D are waaaay beyond your capacity to reason and debate these things. Now, go back in the vestibule, mix some myrrh and holy water and rub it all over your balls. Then, rub one out to a picture of Mary.


"Begone, knave, you annoy me."

[JoltinJoe]

See, Joe, that's where you CONSTANTLY fail in these arguments - "grown up theology". Doof. ALL theology is bunk!!!

You're kicked in the pills before you even get to the starting block!

Look, we've found empirical proof (I know that concept is foreign to you) that me and D are waaaay beyond your capacity to reason and debate these things. Now, go back in the vestibule, mix some myrrh and holy water and rub it all over your balls. Then, rub one out to a picture of Mary.


"Begone, knave, you annoy me."

Irony isn't your strong suit either.

Thank you for proving my point.

There is a reason why NO modern atheist has broken into current college philosophy curriculum. As Updike has stated, there is a complete lack of intellectual curiosity in the modern atheist in his or her vapid grasp of more sophisticated articulations of God. The best atheists existed over 100 years ago and these are still the writings used by college professors to discuss atheism as a philosophical outlook. Atheism is a dead movement intellectually.

[kalm]

"Ohhhhhh Friction!"

Colbert nails it here. Joltin Joe wins!

" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[JoltinJoe]

I've finished Hawking's book, kalm. Care to discuss it? What ramifications do you think Hawking's beliefs may have, let's say, on the criminal justice system?

[kalm]

I've finished Hawking's book, kalm. Care to discuss it? What ramifications do you think Hawking's beliefs may have, let's say, on the criminal justice system?

Lighten up you humorless nerd, I have not read Hawking's book but now you've got me interested. What do you think of the ramifications of Hawking's beliefs on the criminal justice system?

[JoltinJoe]

I've finished Hawking's book, kalm. Care to discuss it? What ramifications do you think Hawking's beliefs may have, let's say, on the criminal justice system?

Lighten up you humorless nerd, I have not read Hawking's book but now you've got me interested. What do you think of the ramifications of Hawking's beliefs on the criminal justice system?

In a nutshell, we'd have to re-think the justifications for penal sentencing if, as Hawking claims, we lack any free will and all our actions are based on determinism, i.e., unavoidable and caused by the laws of physics in a specific context.

Currently, the justifications for penal sentencing are understood to be: (i) specific deterrence (i.e., deterring the offender from future illegal conduct); (ii) rehabilitation and reform; (iii) general deterrence (deterring others from engaging int he same conduct); and sometimes (iv) retribution.

All assume some level of free will on the part of the individual. If free will is but an illusion, as Hawking argues, then we'd have to question the effectiveness of the current purposes of criminal sentencing. Perhaps, if Hawking is correct, we are left only with the assumption that incarceration of a criminal offender prevents an individual who is predisposed, because of the laws of physics, to engage in certain bad conduct under specific conditions, from finding himself in similar circumstances in the future and which may cause him to act in the same bad way.

It seems to me, if that is the case, we are essentially justifying incarceration and penalty based on utilitarian principles -- removing the offender from society creates the most benefit for the whole. I'd question, if this were our sentencing model, how we determine the length of sentences for various crimes.

Fortunately, Hawking is encountering stiff resistance from others in the intellectual community on his advocacy of determinism by reference to the laws of physics.

[andy7171]

Anyone ever wonder how he gets the computer to say the words he's thinking?

[GannonFan]

Anyone ever wonder how he gets the computer to say the words he's thinking?

I think he's like those cows in the Far Side comics - he's faking it. Once he's away from prying eyes, he probably stands up, walks around, maybe even dances a little bit. It's all a charade.

[andy7171]

Anyone ever wonder how he gets the computer to say the words he's thinking?

I think he's like those cows in the Far Side comics - he's faking it. Once he's away from prying eyes, he probably stands up, walks around, maybe even dances a little bit. It's all a charade.

CAR!!!

[native]

...As Updike has stated, there is a complete lack of intellectual curiosity in the modern atheist in his or her vapid grasp of more sophisticated articulations of God. ...

QFT!

[mebison]

Seems like this pretty much sums it up:

American atheists and agnostics tend to be people who grew up in a religious tradition and consciously gave it up, often after a great deal of reflection and study, said Alan Cooperman, associate director for research at the Pew Forum.

"These are people who thought a lot about religion," he said. "They're not indifferent. They care about it."

At the moment, in our society, it is passively easy to be religious, as most adults were brought up in nominally-religious households. To be openly atheist or openly agnostic is a departure that you wouldn't be likely to make without giving some level of serious thought or study to it.

I could easily foresee a generational swing to this. As new generations grow up in openly atheist or agnostic households or if atheist/agnostic becomes the majority, it will be easy not to put much thought into learning about religion. But the person who grows up in an outspoken a/a family but finds religion is likely to put more thought and learning into it.

I'm certain you'd find political corollaries as well: The outspoken conservative in a heavily liberal area is going to be better educated on politics than the average conservative in a purely conservative stronghold.

[89Hen]

At the moment, in our society, it is passively easy to be religious, as most adults were brought up in nominally-religious households. To be openly atheist or openly agnostic is a departure that you wouldn't be likely to make without giving some level of serious thought or study to it.

I don't agree with that at all, especially as it relates to being agnostic. Being agnostic is as passively easy as it gets. You get to say you believe in a God, but you just haven't figured out how much. Being atheist is also easy because you have no one to answer to but yourself.

At the moment, in our society, it is extremely difficult to stand up for your faith. Look at public figures that do and see how they're treated for it.

[mebison]

At the moment, in our society, it is passively easy to be religious, as most adults were brought up in nominally-religious households. To be openly atheist or openly agnostic is a departure that you wouldn't be likely to make without giving some level of serious thought or study to it.

I don't agree with that at all, especially as it relates to being agnostic. Being agnostic is as passively easy as it gets. You get to say you believe in a God, but you just haven't figured out how much. Being atheist is also easy because you have no one to answer to but yourself.

At the moment, in our society, it is extremely difficult to stand up for your faith. Look at public figures that do and see how they're treated for it.

Your perspective probably depends on where you grew up and where you live now. Having grown up on the rural mid-western plains, there would be significant social pressure to not be openly a/a. In fact, I actually remember the first time I heard someone say "well, I'm atheist"...I was a freshman in high school. In that context, which I suspect was true for many adults who are now a/a, it would be a lot easier to just keep your mouth shut, and keep your unbelief to yourself.

I agree that the theology of a/a seems a lot easier to learn. I was thinking that I'm not sure there is much of an inverse of this survey, asking religious people for the details of atheist/agnostic belief. Other than knowing what the difference between the two is, I suppose.

I disagree somewhat with your comment on public figures...while some our torn down over some belief or another, they don't have a chance if they are not religious. Hence why every presidential candidate makes a show of going to church or references their "strong Christian background" at some point. Romney is the furthest I think anyone has strayed from this line.

[89Hen]

I disagree somewhat with your comment on public figures...while some our torn down over some belief or another, they don't have a chance if they are not religious. Hence why every presidential candidate makes a show of going to church or references their "strong Christian background" at some point. Romney is the furthest I think anyone has strayed from this line.

You're really only talking about politicians there.

Woody Allen, Lance Armstrong, Isaac Asimov, Dave Barry, Ingmar Bergman, Warren Buffett, James Cameron, George Carlin, Adam Carolla, John Carpenter, Dick Cavett, Noam Chomsky, Rodney Dangerfield, Harvey Fierstein, Larry Flynt, Dave Foley, Jodie Foster, Janeane Garofalo, Bill Gates, Bob Geldof, Ricky Gervais, Katharine Hepburn, Penn Jillette, Billy Joel, Angelina Jolie, Diane Keaton, Bruce Lee, Bill Maher, John Malkovich, Barry Manilow, Sir Ian McKellen, Arthur Miller, Frank Miller, Julianne Moore, Randy Newman, Jack Nicholson, Bob Odenkirk, Paula Poundstone, Robin Quivers, Ron Reagan Jr., Keanu Reeves, Gene Roddenberry, Joe Rogan, Henry Rollins, Andy Rooney, Steven Soderbergh, Annika Sorenstam, George Soros, Howard Stern, Julia Sweeney, Eddie Vedder, Gore Vidal, Kurt Vonnegut Jr., Ted Williams

[JoltinJoe]

http://www.verumserum.com/?p=17560

Take a look at the poll results. Look how poorly those among the "unaffiliated" who identify themselves as "nothing in particular" performed. The "unaffiliated" is made up of those who call themselves "atheist" or "agnostic" and those who call themselves "nothing in particular."

Since D1B always rejects the fact that atheists are a mere 1.6% of the US population, and always insists that those who call themselves "agnostic" or "nothing in particular" be counted among the non-religious in the US, I'm sure he'll be happy to embrace them now.

[Cap'n Cat]

Joe,
D1B and I know more about religion than you will ever know. We lived the dark side for years in our youth. We have seen the light and it ain't eminatin' from 'round Jesus' noggin. It comes from the glory of freethought, not victimhood, as with you.

Deflect all you want, change the subject, but it will always be the same for you. Don't worry about ashes to ashes, dust to dust, we done turned you to dust four years ago.



No religion, no problems.

[JoltinJoe]

You know next-to-nothing about religion. You can't hold your own in intelligent discussions about theology because you still operate with a grammar-school understanding of faith. I know, I know, some seven-year-old knows all there is to know about religion. You continue to declare victory all the while exposing your ignorance in the process. It's funny that you are so blind you don't get it.

[D1B]

http://www.verumserum.com/?p=17560

Take a look at the poll results. Look how poorly those among the "unaffiliated" who identify themselves as "nothing in particular" performed. The "unaffiliated" is made up of those who call themselves "atheist" or "agnostic" and those who call themselves "nothing in particular."

Since D1B always rejects the fact that atheists are a mere 1.6% of the US population, and always insists that those who call themselves "agnostic" or "nothing in particular" be counted among the non-religious in the US, I'm sure he'll be happy to embrace them now.

Joe, I don't care what you think, do or say. You're in a cult, one of thousands that has existed since the dawn of man. You believe, great, but it aint based on fact, logic, critical inquiry or empirical proof. It's based on what home you were brought up in. Joe, if you were born in Iraq to Shiite parents you'd be a muslim, but still an asshole.

Dress it up all you want, defend pedophiles, seek refuge from the bible in eastern mysticism, defend your criminals, justify your atrocities....whatever... but that's religion Joe.

An accident of birth. Nothing more.

[D1B]

You know next-to-nothing about religion. You can't hold your own in intelligent discussions about theology because you still operate with a grammar-school understanding of faith. I know, I know, some seven-year-old knows all there is to know about religion. You continue to declare victory all the while exposing your ignorance in the process. It's funny that you are so blind you don't get it.

Joe, no one respects you here. Maybe cept Hen, but that aint saying much.

No one is impressed by your knowlege of religion.

Most though here are amazed at how little you know about god.

[D1B]

Or as Cleets once said, God is simply "what is." This is exactly how God defines himself in the Bible: "Yahwah," or "I am," or "I am what is." I wonder how many atheists could tell you that, or even grasp both the subtle theological and philosophical awesomeness of such a claim?

Joe, God didn't write the bible.

A thousand other gods said the exact same thing, before your god.

How do you get from "What is" to this?



Yeah, it's awesome, so why the catholic church?