Biblical illiteracy

[Jacob(smooth)]

Sorry - but YOUR claim is wrong - and I was correct - IF YOU ACTUALLY read the study - which you could have found yourself rather than asking for a reference.

See burden of proof. If you make the claim its up to you to support it, not up to them to disprove it. Its usually christians who have to be told that.

Only Mormons and White Evangelical Xtians knew more about the bible than atheists and agnostics

However - those two group Do not represent the majority of Xtians -
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Chr...f_members)
Catholics are the majority of Xtians - and then come white mainline Xtians -and black and Hispanic Xtians - all of which the Atheists and Agnostics handily outscored

So - in fact Atheist DO know more about the bible than most xtians

Aw jeez, how picky do you want to get?!

I keep being told that Atheism is not a religion but rather the lack of one, in which case you'd have to include those who believe "nothing in particular". In which case the average for christians (in General) and A-theists changes back the other way. (6.0 to 5.2)

Or, of you count anyone who does not believe in god as an atheist, and those who self Identify as specific TYPES of atheist, then we get to what is probably the most accurate answer, some Christians know more than some atheists... and some atheists know more than some christians.

Actually, its quite interesting to note that they had separate answers for atheist as opposed to people who believe in nothing in particular. Wonder why that was. I thought believing in "nothing in particular" religion wise was the very dictionary definition of an atheist.

Or is perhaps an atheist different to an Atheist

[max-greece]

I'm not sure it is safe to include people who believe in "nothing in particular" with Atheists. I'd probably class them with Agnostics - but even there if they are of the "I think there is something up there" group then they would probably be class-able as non-specific theists.

If you are going to talk about Atheists then its probably safer to go with those that specifically identify themselves as such.

I'm sure that muddied the waters further - sorry.

[Jacob(smooth)]

So - where is the proof outside of the bible?

Silly question is silly.

Proof of what. The existence of Jesus Christ? I think that there is reasonable solid historical evidence from outside of the bible, I know tacticus mentioned him, that he was crucified by pontius pilate and that he was the focus of a religion (a source outside of the bible, with no vested interest which dovetails with scripture). This was somewhat after his death but still within living memory. There are other contemporary accounts which mention him as well. Spin forward a few hundred years and you have evidence for early christianity which is as strong as any we have for anything of the period (the edict of milan etc).

If you're talking about proof of the supernatural, that is both absent and impossible. The only means of recording anything was to write it down and anything written down is only as reliable as the person writing it.

If you're talking about proof of the events of the late Old testament, for the most part, so far as I know, there is not very much. For the early Old testament, none, and the events within contradict things we think we know to be true (like the age of the earth).

---

I'm not sure it is safe to include people who believe in "nothing in particular" with Atheists. I'd probably class them with Agnostics - but even there if they are of the "I think there is something up there" group then they would probably be class-able as non-specific theists.

If you are going to talk about Atheists then its probably safer to go with those that specifically identify themselves as such.

I'm sure that muddied the waters further - sorry.

Not at all. That's the problem with this sort of thing. Everyone has their own definition.

If we are trying to be objective, The oxford English (vis best ) defines atheist as

a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods

upon which bases I would argue that someone who believes in nothing in particular clearly "lacks belief in the existence of god". However words do take on additional and colloquial meaning as the mere existence of this website demonstrates. There are no forums made specifically for people who lack belief that I have a cat in my house. Hence to most people an Atheist (with an uppercase A) tends to be someone who identifies themselves by what they DON'T believe in. It makes perfect sense that someone who specifically identifies themselves as not believing in something would develop a better knowledge than someone who was merely unaware or indifferent to it.

[ThomM]

Sorry - but YOUR claim is wrong - and I was correct - IF YOU ACTUALLY read the study - which you could have found yourself rather than asking for a reference.

See burden of proof. If you make the claim its up to you to support it, not up to them to disprove it. Its usually christians who have to be told that.

Only Mormons and White Evangelical Xtians knew more about the bible than atheists and agnostics

However - those two group Do not represent the majority of Xtians -
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Chr...f_members)
Catholics are the majority of Xtians - and then come white mainline Xtians -and black and Hispanic Xtians - all of which the Atheists and Agnostics handily outscored

So - in fact Atheist DO know more about the bible than most xtians

Aw jeez, how picky do you want to get?!

I keep being told that Atheism is not a religion but rather the lack of one, in which case you'd have to include those who believe "nothing in particular". In which case the average for christians (in General) and A-theists changes back the other way. (6.0 to 5.2)

Or, of you count anyone who does not believe in god as an atheist, and those who self Identify as specific TYPES of atheist, then we get to what is probably the most accurate answer, some Christians know more than some atheists... and some atheists know more than some christians.

Actually, its quite interesting to note that they had separate answers for atheist as opposed to people who believe in nothing in particular. Wonder why that was. I thought believing in "nothing in particular" religion wise was the very dictionary definition of an atheist.

Or is perhaps an atheist different to an Atheist

1 - It was YOUR claim that I was wrong - so it was YOUR burden of proof to cover your statement - THE actual study show that By far the Majority of Xtians sect members do not score as high as atheist in their knowledge of the bible - that is NOT being picky when the only Xtians who score higher than atheists are a VERY small minority.

As far as you attempting to change the categories = people who are atheists DO not accept the exitence of gods. THat is specific

People who believe in nothing in particular - may even believe in a creator - but not a religion. Since they are NOT atheists - and atheist would identify themselves as such - it is not surprising that they have a variety of beliefs or non-beliefs.

If I were to include theists other than xtians in the results of all theists - you would complain - so the categories stand as they are.

2 - Once you accept that the bible is NOT the inerrant word of an all knowing god (And it clearly is NOT that) - you now have to accept that the bible does not self - prove itself. If there is ONE error - it now is no more an absolute authority as any other religious MYTH book. And that means that the individual claims of the bible have to rest upon the independent proof outside of the bible. THere is Virtually NONE for most of the bible - and there is a lot against the claims of the bible.

So - now let us look at the story.

A - THe story of creation is obviously MYTH and LEGEND - and may as well be classified as nonsense. So is the story of Adam and EVE - the great flood - the passover - Moses - and lots of others.

However - if YOU look at the old testament - there are CLEAR prophecies of the Messiah - and the christ myth fails to fulfill all but a few minor ones. THere is NO reason for an all knowing god to change his mind - he supposedly had ALL the information already - and KNEW what would happen. To say otherwise admits that the god is not all knowing.

AS far as the story of "being saved" by the christ - because of original sin - the bible contradicts that claim. In Isiah - and elsewhere - the bible says that a man is not responsible for the sins of his father - and the father is not responsible for the sins of the son. SO - only Eve (and possibly adam - but 1 Timothy 2 - says otherwise) - needs to be saved.

So = Yes there are things in the bible that are morally good - but if you really look at them - they are certainly NOT original to the bible -
THe so called "Golden Rule" existed LONG before the time of the christ - was written in works of Plato - Aristotle - and lots of others long before that time. Stealing was against the law in most nations long before the supposed time of the christ as well (And the ten commandments - the only ones Named that way in the bible - are not the ones we learned in school)

It also seems incongruous to think that an all knowing god - knowing both the past - the present - and the future - would follow this line of story - without providing LASTING proof of any of it as well. Why is there NOT a single document that we have - that can be dated to the supposed time of the christ - that even mentions his name when we have results of Turtle races in Rome - from the Same period - know as the Golden Age of Rome?

IF there are some people who WILL NOT DIE before the christ returns - who are those people who are still alive from that time?

IF religion has been such a good thing - then why is their no proof that the people of any particular religion are more moral or ethical than others - or of non-believers. Why are they no protested from natural disasters more than others - or diseases more than others? Why is it that when using statistically significant samples - there is NO meaningful effect of prayer that has a significant effect - and it makes no difference who or what you pray to? (Studies of 30 people in a world of billions are worthless)


Getting back to bible literacy - why read the bible? - if we NOW know it is largely myth and legend - or UNPROVEN. IT is not a good read - it is impossible to follow in spots - it clearly contradicts itself in hundreds of places - and it is not proven to have any benefit as well.

[Minimalist]

I think that there is reasonable solid historical evidence from outside of the bible

Please feel free to present it....if you find any.

[Bad Writer]

Aliens, duh.

[Jacob(smooth)]

I think that there is reasonable solid historical evidence from outside of the bible

Please feel free to present it....if you find any.

Evidence of what specifically?

[I am God]

events within contradict things we think we know to be true (like the age of the earth).

Can you elaborate on that a bit? Man's knowledge is certainly not perfect... but we can be 100% certain that the Earth is not as young as the bible would seem to indicate. Even allowing for 1,000 year lifespans and 1,000 year creation days (the whole a day is a 1,000 years to God nonsense)... we know the Earth is FAR older than 10 to 20,000 years.

If we are trying to be objective, The oxford English (vis best ) defines atheist as

a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods

A definition probably written by a Christian based on their own perception of what it means to be an Atheist. Does the word Asymmetry mean to disbelieve in symmetry? The prefix (A) tends to mean without. Which is generally what Atheism is. It is to be without a belief. That's not the same thing as disbelieving. My belief in a God is the same as my belief in magical moon elves. I simply do not have one period. I do not give the concept any credence since there is zero evidence to support such.

It makes perfect sense that someone who specifically identifies themselves as not believing in something would develop a better knowledge than someone who was merely unaware or indifferent to it.

Not really. Religion effects our lives. This is why even though we are without a belief... we must still engage those who do have one. And the best tool for such is to dismantle the supports upon which that belief is built. We cannot in good conscience allow people to make policy that effects our lives do so based on absurd and archaic ramblings of bronze age savages. People are of course free to believe whatever fiction they like, but we must not allow it to dictate our course as a people, and certainly not our progress as a species.

[Jacob(smooth)]

events within contradict things we think we know to be true (like the age of the earth).

Can you elaborate on that a bit? Man's knowledge is certainly not perfect... but we can be 100% certain that the Earth is not as young as the bible would seem to indicate. Even allowing for 1,000 year lifespans and 1,000 year creation days (the whole a day is a 1,000 years to God nonsense)... we know the Earth is FAR older than 10 to 20,000 years.

Hence what we know (that the earth is older than 6000) contradicts what the bible says (that its younger). This is me agreeing with you.

If we are trying to be objective, The oxford English (vis best ) defines atheist as

a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods

A definition probably written by a Christian based on their own perception of what it means to be an Atheist. Does the word Asymmetry mean to disbelieve in symmetry? The prefix (A) tends to mean without. Which is generally what Atheism is. It is to be without a belief. That's not the same thing as disbelieving. My belief in a God is the same as my belief in magical moon elves. I simply do not have one period. I do not give the concept any credence since there is zero evidence to support such.

Its the dictionary. You can opine that the word should mean something different but unfortunately that's what it means. Take it up with the good people at miriam webster, i;m sure they'll take your view very seriously. Many words have meanings which are more than the sum of their parts. Agnostic for example means something quite different to the opposite of gnostic.

It makes perfect sense that someone who specifically identifies themselves as not believing in something would develop a better knowledge than someone who was merely unaware or indifferent to it.

Not really. Religion effects our lives. This is why even though we are without a belief... we must still engage those who do have one. And the best tool for such is to dismantle the supports upon which that belief is built. We cannot in good conscience allow people to make policy that effects our lives do so based on absurd and archaic ramblings of bronze age savages. People are of course free to believe whatever fiction they like, but we must not allow it to dictate our course as a people, and certainly not our progress as a species.

Again, this is me agreeing with you. Did you think I was being facetious?

[I am God]

Its the dictionary. You can opine that the word should mean something different but unfortunately that's what it means. Take it up with the good people at miriam webster, i;m sure they'll take your view very seriously. Many words have meanings which are more than the sum of their parts. Agnostic for example means something quite different to the opposite of gnostic.

Are you suggesting that because it's in the dictionary that the definition is infallible? It was written by people. People can and do make errors. There are text books from 50 years ago that have information that is outdated and incorrect. As we become more educated it is important to update our sources of information. The dictionary is one that could use a little attention in places. There are certainly people who disbelieve in God. They have an active position that a God cannot or does not exist. But that's really more of an Anti-Theist... isn't it? However that is different than someone that simply rejects the notion of God based on a lack of evidence. The state of simply having no belief, which isn't, in and of itself, an act.

I personally feel the definition is antiquated. And reality sort of substantiates that. Much like the bible, saying "It's there so it must be true." doesn't really hold a lot of water.

Again, this is me agreeing with you. Did you think I was being facetious?

Just expressing my point of view.