Are all atheists this ill-informed about religion?

[Foxaèr]

The fact is, however, that most atheists resort to distorted caricatures of religion rather than dealing with the thing in itself.

Hardly, for what you have misconstrued as fact from your distorted view is in fact closer to reality than you are comfortable in accepting.

[Angrboda]

Have you considered the possibility that what you perceive as lack of substance in the criticism is actually lack of substance of the ideas which are being criticised?
You would like for there to be a more profound criticism of your religion, but maybe it just makes too little sense to lend itself to more meaningful comments.

This would be the go-to-defense for atheistic mediocrity, wouldn't it?

The fact is, however, that most atheists resort to distorted caricatures of religion rather than dealing with the thing in itself. So the question arises: Are these claims of the vacuity of religion a fact about religion, or a fact about the fictional caricatures of religion that atheists construct to keep their beliefs about religion on life-support?

The first step to an intellectually-honest critique of religion would involve dealing with the religion itself, as opposed to misrepresentations of the religion. Only once you go that route will you see that there's a lot more to the world than the atheist fishbowl.

You produce absolutely vacuous posts. I think you're nothing but a poseur who likes trying on various styles of criticism without ever coming face to face with the substance of them. The first step to intellectually honest anything is to drop the pretension.

[robvalue]

Hint: if your method can also prove Santa or Lord of the Rings are real, you need a new method.

Things to remember:

1) Arguments are not evidence. When we think about reality, we often apply simplifying assumptions. It's generally unavoidable. We must use evidence to make sure that our assumptions have not simplified or mischaracterised reality to the point where our conclusion no longer applies to it. This is why scientific hypotheses must make predictions which can be tested and are falsifiable.

2) The more extraordinary the claim, the stronger the supporting evidence should be in order to be considered credible.

3) Textual or verbal accounts will never be sufficient evidence for fantastical events that have never been demonstrated to even be possible before. When assessing the likelihood, the person being mistaken, deluded or just plain making it up is always vastly more probable than "this account just happens to be true". To have some way to decide which of the sea of bullshit claims just happen to be true, supporting evidence is needed. For a fantastical claim, it needs to be really strong; or else you're just believing what you want to be true, or what matches your own unsupported claims.

4) Establishing the reliability of the author in other matters is not sufficient to make their testimony on extraordinary matters likely to be true.

[Bob Kelso]

Have you considered the possibility that what you perceive as lack of substance in the criticism is actually lack of substance of the ideas which are being criticised?
You would like for there to be a more profound criticism of your religion, but maybe it just makes too little sense to lend itself to more meaningful comments.

This would be the go-to-defense for atheistic mediocrity, wouldn't it?

The fact is, however, that most atheists resort to distorted caricatures of religion rather than dealing with the thing in itself. So the question arises: Are these claims of the vacuity of religion a fact about religion, or a fact about the fictional caricatures of religion that atheists construct to keep their beliefs about religion on life-support?

The first step to an intellectually-honest critique of religion would involve dealing with the religion itself, as opposed to misrepresentations of the religion. Only once you go that route will you see that there's a lot more to the world than the atheist fishbowl.

[Fidel_Castronaut]

Not all atheists are former christians, or have much information about religion. Some just don't take religion seriously, and remain atheists. We're a varied bunch with varying amounts of information on a subject we often don't take seriously.

I realize atheists like to claim they were former theists, but for all the claims, I'm seeing an almost-embarrassing level of ignorance about their theism.

How many atheists here can talk about actually learning about what their religion claims beyond a sixth-grade level? 

I get the feeling being dragged to church by mummy and daddy isn't enough to make you a Christian any more than eating cereal makes you a vegan.

There's more to it than that.

Actually you present a very solid and workable case for why being a theist stymies your intellectual and social development. Are you are a great representation of everything wrong with your belief system.

Nobody with any sense of self would wish to be like the character you are presenting on this forum.

[Chad32]

Not all atheists are former christians, or have much information about religion. Some just don't take religion seriously, and remain atheists. We're a varied bunch with varying amounts of information on a subject we often don't take seriously.

I realize atheists like to claim they were former theists, but for all the claims, I'm seeing an almost-embarrassing level of ignorance about their theism.

How many atheists here can talk about actually learning about what their religion claims beyond a sixth-grade level? 

I get the feeling being dragged to church by mummy and daddy isn't enough to make you a Christian any more than eating cereal makes you a vegan.

There's more to it than that.

I'll admit I was never really all that devout. My parents weren't religious. It was just my grandmother, telling me stories about how Jesus loved me, and did miracles, and how if I was a good boy I'd get to be with him in heaven, It was more about being a good person than strictly following the tenants of the religion.

Now regarding knowledge of the religion, you have the problem of a lot of it requiring interpretation, and some people feeling certain parts are more important than other parts. this is why there are so many denominatons, some of which will argue back and forth on who the "real" christians are. So it's hard to judge which group is the correct group when they can usually find something in there that justifies what they do.

Your religion likes to paint a black and white view of the world. you're either with god, or you're not. If you're luke warm in his mouth, he'll spit you out. I can't be completely devoted to him, so I'm not going to bother. That's his decision. Not mine.

[TheRocketSurgeon]

It's willful blindness, on the part of Christians who don't want to accept that we ONCE UPON A TIME saw their religion in the way that they do, and now see it very differently, with the addition of new information that they refuse to consider.

Much easier to try to claim we "never understood" their beliefs than to even admit to the possibility that they, too, could gain new information which would paint their beliefs in a very different light.

So instead of actually addressing the issues raised against Christian theology, from the broader perspective, you simply cling more tightly to the narrow perspective, and claim that these atheists "just don't understand". It would be easy to have real conversations about theology on a detailed level, and in doing so you'd find that most of us who are ex-Christian were "groomed" by our churches to absorb that "deeper knowledge" for the purpose of making us into apologists (I know I was), and in doing so learn that atheists of this sort actually have a solid grasp of what you believe, and why. All you have to do is present the detailed argument you think we cannot grasp, and see if we can. But that's just unpalatable to you.

Better for you to just present bullshit strawman versions of atheists, while claiming that it's we who present strawman versions of Christianity if we can't get your exact version of theology (out of the thousands of options, among Christian theological claims that we encounter) right.

[TheRocketSurgeon]

Addendum: For atheists who were never Christian, the oddball versions you're hearing of Christianity are what happens when someone who was not coached from early childhood to accept the story as real encounters your insane religious claims. The fact that you think it doesn't comport to what you really believe, in that case, has more to do with how the story sounds sans indoctrination than it does with their "inability" to understand, and it's dishonest to pretend otherwise.

[vorlon13]

Have you considered the possibility that what you perceive as lack of substance in the criticism is actually lack of substance of the ideas which are being criticised?
You would like for there to be a more profound criticism of your religion, but maybe it just makes too little sense to lend itself to more meaningful comments.

This would be the go-to-defense for atheistic mediocrity, wouldn't it?

The fact is, however, that most atheists resort to distorted caricatures of religion rather than dealing with the thing in itself. So the question arises: Are these claims of the vacuity of religion a fact about religion, or a fact about the fictional caricatures of religion that atheists construct to keep their beliefs about religion on life-support?

The first step to an intellectually-honest critique of religion would involve dealing with the religion itself, as opposed to misrepresentations of the religion. Only once you go that route will you see that there's a lot more to the world than the atheist fishbowl.

Whew !!

Where to start with that mess?

Scripture cherry pickers constitute 99.9+% of all US Christians, and the atheists have a distorted caricature of their faith ???


Damn, that is just breathtaking in it's totality of fuck-ed-up-ness.


That's a hall of fame post there, that is !!

[downbeatplumb]

Not all atheists are former christians, or have much information about religion. Some just don't take religion seriously, and remain atheists. We're a varied bunch with varying amounts of information on a subject we often don't take seriously.

I realize atheists like to claim they were former theists, but for all the claims, I'm seeing an almost-embarrassing level of ignorance about their theism.

How many atheists here can talk about actually learning about what their religion claims beyond a sixth-grade level? 

I get the feeling being dragged to church by mummy and daddy isn't enough to make you a Christian any more than eating cereal makes you a vegan.

There's more to it than that.

Well I think the important thing here is you get to feel superior.
Anyway, what is there to know about your religion that I don't get?
Do you think it is a mystery to me and one day I may see the light and go "oh that's what they see!".
So come on what am I missing?