Are all atheists this ill-informed about religion?

[TheRocketSurgeon]

I'm now convinced that Delicate is the one that is ill-informed.

Willfully so.

The Taliban-esque "One concerns the worth of secularism in a world where Christianity is true" is what I would probably list as "clue #1" on that end.

[Wyrd of Gawd]

---

I must preface every post with the point that I can't respond to every single of the hundreds of posts begging for my attention. I have limited time, and prefer to respond to the most interesting and substantive posts. If I've missed one or two of those, feel free to bring them to my attention. This message is more to SnakeOilWarrior than to you, Chad.

But I agree with one thing you say, and disagree with the other. Where I agree: Christians don't wage war over core doctrines. In fact, they don't even wage war over peripheral doctrines. Rather, people who affirm Christianity often wage war for sociopolitical or economic reasons, and use the banner of Christendom as a convenient cultural icon. This says nothing about the militancy of Christian belief so much as about culture.

So where do I disagree? I disagree on the underlying assumption that "My parents ask me to live morally" is an adequate moral standard. We don't live up to such a standard infallibly, and this is a far bigger problem than it seems. We admit most crimes ought not to get a mulligan; you won't give the (hypothetical) murderer of your parent a second chance at life because people make mistakes. You want him to rot in prison! So you're unwittingly being a hypocrite when you so easily excuse yourself and expect punitive measures against others. Unless you do believe everybody deserves as much latitude as you give yourself. Do you?

But that's not the only problem. The other problem is "Your god demands that I dedicate my life to him, because anything less is evil." doesn't sound like Christianity at all. Rather it sounds like an amusing misrepresentation.

That's fine. I can see you're having a conversation with a number of people. That can be a little hectic sometimes.

The fact that people often tend to use religion for their own goals, and there doesn't seem to be much that god can do to stop it, helps lead me to believe that religion and god is a human invention. You'd think if I was an all powerful deity, and I saw people misusing my message for their own ends, and killing my loyal followers in the process, then my vengeance would be swift and brutal. That is, if I gave a crap about that kind of thing.

Morality is subjective. One of the biggest clues to that is the fact that people tend to treat their loved ones better than strangers. It's true. If a stranger killed another stranger, I would be upset, but I may not call for their head unless the killing was excessive or something. If someone ran up and punted my niece across the street, I'd put him in the hospital. That would be a bit hypocritical of me, but angry people are not always known for their objective reasoning skills.

The god of the old testament seemed to think those that don't worship him should die.

---

The god of the new testament sent his son, who may or may not be himself in the flesh, do die to save us from a place of punishment he set up for those who don't worship him.

---

This judgement is mostly dependent on what you say, instead of what you do, otherwise people wouldn't be trying to get deathbed conversions, or try to convert death row inmates. You seem to think your god just wants people to be good. Can you get into heaven by being good, whether you believe in Jesus or not? If not, why not? What is the other option if I don't get into heaven?

---

That's not biblical.  Jesus said in John 15:6 that people who don't stay stuck to him will get their butts roasted.  
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?se...CV;NET;CEV

See, that's the thing about all gods.  If you don't kiss their behinds 24/7/365 they'll kill you.  They are not your buddies.  They are spiteful, mean-spirited cold blooded killers who demand total devotion.  That's how you know they are gods.

[Crossless2.0]

Willfully so.

The Taliban-esque "One concerns the worth of secularism in a world where Christianity is true" is what I would probably list as "clue #1" on that end.

I'm so ill-informed that I remain unaware that Delicate or anyone else has persuasively made a case for Christianity actually being true, so perhaps I can be forgiven for giving less than a shit about his musings on the value of secularism "in a world where Christianity is true".

Not holding my breath.

[TheRocketSurgeon]

The Taliban-esque "One concerns the worth of secularism in a world where Christianity is true" is what I would probably list as "clue #1" on that end.

I'm so ill-informed that I remain unaware that Delicate or anyone else has persuasively made a case for Christianity actually being true, so perhaps I can be forgiven for giving less than a shit about his musings on the value of secularism "in a world where Christianity is true".

Not holding my breath.

I'm less concerned with whether  it is true and more concerned with those who think that it is acceptable, even a moral/ethical obligation, to impose their faith onto others in the event that it is true.

Edit to Add: Because, you know, I'm sure history is full of people who said, "My religion is not The Truth™, but I believe it anyway"... I'm sure... somewhere...

[Crossless2.0]

I share your concern, RS, but what else would you expect from them? They are authoritarians to the core.

Fortunately, they usually run afoul of the courts when they try to ram their beliefs into the public sphere. Just because they are content to wipe their asses with the Constitution, it doesn't follow that the judiciary will roll over and allow it.

[robvalue]

Has it been addressed yet why I should care if it is true? I'm able to be aware things are real without toadying around them.

Why the concern? Are non-Christians able to screw up God's plan somehow for all the Christians?

Why does God need our cooperation exactly?

[Esquilax]

I think the reason many people here are atheists, or at least non-religious, is that they understand Christianity all too well.

And the reason we seem ill informed to Delicate and others who make this sort of argument is that we take the long view; we're outside, and have a perspective that takes in the entirety of the religion without condoning any specific portion of it. The trouble comes when people on the inside see us not committing to any one interpretation (they're all equally unjustified, after all) and in particular not committing to their interpretation, which to them is the only valid one. They're in so deep they can't see how their religion looks to one not predisposed to it; why can't we all see that Delicate's religious views are automatically true christianity, because if they weren't why would Delicate believe them? Why are we so ill informed that we don't automatically dismiss the things Delicate thinks are unimportant?

It's because we're outside of it all, looking in. We don't lend automatic credence to any one sect of christianity because none of them have earned any sort of credence at all, and rather than demonstrating why his particular form of christianity is right- the thing that would demonstrate that we're ill informed because it would actually show the flaw in our position- Delicate just wants to haughtily dismiss anyone who dares disagree within his own religion as holding insignificant beliefs, unlike the proper, true, definitely valuable beliefs that he holds.

He just wants to skip to the part where he's right, without doing any of the legwork, and hence everyone else must necessarily be wrong. Shit don't work that way.

[Delicate]

That there are apparent wide and important differences is not being denied. What is being denied is that these are differences of core doctrine. Rather they are differences in peripheral doctrine or practice. 

Deny all you like...and when you're done, what will have changed?  Will you have resolved sola scriptura?  Will you have a definitive christology?  Will you be able to comment upon the availability of redemption?  No, no, and no.  

That some like to worship God with ethnic instruments and others do so with electric guitars might appear to be a wide and important difference, but it's merely one of peripheral doctrine or practice. It's not a difference of core doctrine. Even the difference between "God wants us to be poor"-ism and prosperity preaching might appear to be a big difference, but it's not a difference in core doctrine. 

Instrument choice doesn't measure a blip on my radar.  I don't care, and you don't care...so why are we discussing it?  

And yes, this applies even to the wars of religion in Europe. For example the Catholic-Protestant conflict in Northern Ireland was not fought over religious doctrine, but over issues like home rule, where the division along sectarian lines was predicated on the fact that most Protestants feared Catholic-majority rule, and thus resisted Irish home rule. 

You betray your opening statement in the conclusion, but why should it matter - have either of us been discussing Ireland?  No. 

So what's the upshot? Two things: (a) Differences that appear to be important in terms of cultural behavior or preferences are not significant doctrinally, and (b) a lot of the conflict being pinned to Christianity in particular does not involve Christianity or Christian beliefs but rather cultural and historical associations, of which members who call themselves Catholic or Protestant have no idea what their religion teaches. Not to mention © your whole story about holding onto social purchase is total atheistic fiction for which no independent evidence exists.

Since it's a political history of campaign ideology in public elections, the information is freely available to anyone who wishes to view it.   Is there some requirement for you to waive away a political reality?  Should these groups fail to serve their collective interests, is there some shame in accomplishing that goal?   

 Is adherence to scripture unimportant?  Is christology unimportant?  Is redemption unimportant?

What does resolving sola scriptura have to do with anything in this discussion? Have you even looked into the issue? Are you assuming (wrongly, it should be pointed out), that sola scriptura is core doctrine?

To what extent is the indeterminacy of, say, experimental findings in a scientific subfield an indictment on science? If it's not, how in God's name does your brain convince you that indeterminacy in a particular area of theology an indictment on religion?

It's confused responses like these that ask to be ignored.

That there are apparent wide and important differences is not being denied. What is being denied is that these are differences of core doctrine. Rather they are differences in peripheral doctrine or practice. 

So... I just want to be clear here: the length and breadth of your argument is "atheists are ill informed about religion because it is my personal opinion that the differences they see aren't a big deal"? Really? 

Because, see, when I see different denominations arguing about what it takes to get into heaven, my first thought is not "this isn't a big part of christian theology." 

Heck no. This discussion is situated specifically in the context of atheists who bring up doctrinal differences.

But since you brought it up, tell me, what are the different views on what it takes to get to heaven?

1) Nobody has explicitly invoked peripheral doctrines, at least from what I've seen. 
2) But in the real world, the vast majority of doctrinal diversity is, in fact, peripheral. 
C) So if these uneducated atheists are commenting about doctrinal differences, odds are, they are talking about peripheral differences. 

So where does this leave us? As I've said, most atheists here are too uninformed to draw the core/peripheral distinction. If they're talking about differences in general, they are likely going to be talking about peripheral differences. If you want to suggest they are talking about core differences, where's the evidence for it?

What part of the core doctrines do you think we either don't grasp, or don't address? For just a moment, we'll pretend that all Christian faiths agree with the Nicene Creed (here, I'm using the shorter Apostles' Creed; since you claim that the core beliefs are unchanging, you should have no problem with this), generally considered to enumerate all the core doctrines of belief, and see what you thin it is we don't know or discuss:

I believe in God the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth.

This would be, oh, every single discussion we have on cosmology and evolutionary biology, and the complete lack of evidence for divine influence on what is now clearly a very natural process, even if we're not 100% certain of how two of the major events in this chain happened, yet. But hard to argue that we don't discuss it.

And in Jesus Christ his only Son our Lord; who was conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary, 

Good grief, I can't even tell you how many discussions I've seen over the ridiculousness of the claim of a God that has a half-God child, that a woman got pregnant and gave birth as a virgin (and including the fact that the prophecy to which they were referring, in Isaiah, to establish Jesus' sovereign claim in their story, is a total mistranslation of the word alma, for young woman, when Isaiah uses betulah, the actual word for virgin, several times... but not there), and so on. 

suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, dead, and buried; 

Mountains of posts on this subject, particularly regarding the historical evidence of Jesus (or lack thereof), including the claims regarding Pilate in Tacitus et al, and the writings of the early church fathers on the evolving view of this event.

he descended into hell; the third day he rose again from the dead; 

This one we don't discuss, much, though I certainly have seen the "rose from the dead" issue discussed.

he ascended into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of God the Father Almighty; 

Not much to debate or discuss, here, other than the fact that none of the non-apostle "witnesses" to this ascension seem to have bothered to tell anyone, or write it down where it could become a testable early relic of the church prior to the 20-years-later crafting of the foundational documents of this religion.

from thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead. 

Again, not much to discuss here.

I believe in the Holy Ghost; the holy catholic Church; the communion of saints; the forgiveness of sins; the resurrection of the body; and the life everlasting.

Since I'm not sure if you do actually believe in the holy catholic Church, I'll leave this one alone as potentially doctrinaire, but will note that the concepts of life everlasting and the forgiveness of sins are among the most common topics, here.

In short, if you have a different idea of what constitutes these "core beliefs" you speak of, and why we would or should discuss them in some manner other than our current discussions on these points, we're all ears... but if you're just going to sit there and claim we don't talk about core beliefs, but only doctrine, then you are clearly delusional.

You're making me repeat myself here. 

The fact that most of the atheists here are (still!) too ignorant to even make a distinction between between core and peripheral doctrine, let alone have a clue on what might constitute core doctrine tells me they have no idea what they are talking about. Desperate for some basis to critique religion, they find something that looks like it might work, and mindlessly repeat it like a mantra.

To point out how confused this response is, keep in mind: The discussion is about doctrinal differences between Christians.

Now look at your critique of the Apostles' Creed: It's an atheistic critique of Christian claims!

Somehow, you seem to have made an inference that an atheistic critique of Christian claims as enumerated by the Apostles Creed says something about doctrinal differences between Christians...Do I need to say more about how absolutely confused atheistic critiques of religion are?

No? Good.

[robvalue]

I'm starting to think this guy is winding us up you know.

[Wyrd of Gawd]

---

Deny all you like...and when you're done, what will have changed?  Will you have resolved sola scriptura?  Will you have a definitive christology?  Will you be able to comment upon the availability of redemption?  No, no, and no.  

Instrument choice doesn't measure a blip on my radar.  I don't care, and you don't care...so why are we discussing it?  

You betray your opening statement in the conclusion, but why should it matter - have either of us been discussing Ireland?  No. 

Since it's a political history of campaign ideology in public elections, the information is freely available to anyone who wishes to view it.   Is there some requirement for you to waive away a political reality?  Should these groups fail to serve their collective interests, is there some shame in accomplishing that goal?   

 Is adherence to scripture unimportant?  Is christology unimportant?  Is redemption unimportant?

What does resolving sola scriptura have to do with anything in this discussion? Have you even looked into the issue? Are you assuming (wrongly, it should be pointed out), that sola scriptura is core doctrine?

To what extent is the indeterminacy of, say, experimental findings in a scientific subfield an indictment on science? If it's not, how in God's name does your brain convince you that indeterminacy in a particular area of theology an indictment on religion?

It's confused responses like these that ask to be ignored.

So... I just want to be clear here: the length and breadth of your argument is "atheists are ill informed about religion because it is my personal opinion that the differences they see aren't a big deal"? Really? 

Because, see, when I see different denominations arguing about what it takes to get into heaven, my first thought is not "this isn't a big part of christian theology." 

Heck no. This discussion is situated specifically in the context of atheists who bring up doctrinal differences.

But since you brought it up, tell me, what are the different views on what it takes to get to heaven?

What part of the core doctrines do you think we either don't grasp, or don't address? For just a moment, we'll pretend that all Christian faiths agree with the Nicene Creed (here, I'm using the shorter Apostles' Creed; since you claim that the core beliefs are unchanging, you should have no problem with this), generally considered to enumerate all the core doctrines of belief, and see what you thin it is we don't know or discuss:

I believe in God the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth.

This would be, oh, every single discussion we have on cosmology and evolutionary biology, and the complete lack of evidence for divine influence on what is now clearly a very natural process, even if we're not 100% certain of how two of the major events in this chain happened, yet. But hard to argue that we don't discuss it.

And in Jesus Christ his only Son our Lord; who was conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary, 

Good grief, I can't even tell you how many discussions I've seen over the ridiculousness of the claim of a God that has a half-God child, that a woman got pregnant and gave birth as a virgin (and including the fact that the prophecy to which they were referring, in Isaiah, to establish Jesus' sovereign claim in their story, is a total mistranslation of the word alma, for young woman, when Isaiah uses betulah, the actual word for virgin, several times... but not there), and so on. 

suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, dead, and buried; 

Mountains of posts on this subject, particularly regarding the historical evidence of Jesus (or lack thereof), including the claims regarding Pilate in Tacitus et al, and the writings of the early church fathers on the evolving view of this event.

he descended into hell; the third day he rose again from the dead; 

This one we don't discuss, much, though I certainly have seen the "rose from the dead" issue discussed.

he ascended into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of God the Father Almighty; 

Not much to debate or discuss, here, other than the fact that none of the non-apostle "witnesses" to this ascension seem to have bothered to tell anyone, or write it down where it could become a testable early relic of the church prior to the 20-years-later crafting of the foundational documents of this religion.

from thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead. 

Again, not much to discuss here.

I believe in the Holy Ghost; the holy catholic Church; the communion of saints; the forgiveness of sins; the resurrection of the body; and the life everlasting.

Since I'm not sure if you do actually believe in the holy catholic Church, I'll leave this one alone as potentially doctrinaire, but will note that the concepts of life everlasting and the forgiveness of sins are among the most common topics, here.

In short, if you have a different idea of what constitutes these "core beliefs" you speak of, and why we would or should discuss them in some manner other than our current discussions on these points, we're all ears... but if you're just going to sit there and claim we don't talk about core beliefs, but only doctrine, then you are clearly delusional.

You're making me repeat myself here. 

The fact that most of the atheists here are (still!) too ignorant to even make a distinction between between core and peripheral doctrine, let alone have a clue on what might constitute core doctrine tells me they have no idea what they are talking about. Desperate for some basis to critique religion, they find something that looks like it might work, and mindlessly repeat it like a mantra.

To point out how confused this response is, keep in mind: The discussion is about doctrinal differences between Christians.

Now look at your critique of the Apostles' Creed: It's an atheistic critique of Christian claims!

---

Somehow, you seem to have made an inference that an atheistic critique of Christian claims as enumerated by the Apostles Creed says something about doctrinal differences between Christians...Do I need to say more about how absolutely confused atheistic critiques of religion are?

---

No? Good.

---

If religious nitwits actually thought that it was good for people to be religious they wouldn't fight and kill people who have different religions than theirs.  All religious nitwits want everyone to be in the same cult that they are in.  But some religious nitwits are such  bigots that they hate other people who are in their cult because they are of a different race.
http://www.thebricktestament.com/the_law...3_03a.html