Are all atheists this ill-informed about religion?

[Thumpalumpacus]

Not only that, RS -- the doctor has no claim for praise when it was he who inflicted the disease.

[The Grand Nudger]

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.

It says, as you've clearly laid out here, that christianity does not provide an adequate moral standard.  It says this even as you attempted to craft an excuse that ignores reality.  That says something as well.

Now, back to reality;

-Fact: Schisms are schismatic, they don't call them schisms on account of their conformity.   

They exist, their differences are important -if not to you, to them-.  That you would diminish the convictions of their faith and how they act upon that faith is a further example of precisely -how- this situation is sparked to begin with.  You are dismissive and intolerant of their schisms, first denying that they existed, then the importance of their differences if they did exist, and now denying their clear history of action, rejecting their self declared and well documented convictions and justifications.  You've invented ulterior motives to question the character of those convictions, effectively, a test of religiosity in absentia.  

Congratulations, it's schismatics such as yourself who've left other schismatics so frustrated and marginalized throughout history that violence appeals to them as a method of recourse, as a way of being heard and effecting change.  I might get cranky if people told me I didn't exist, that the convictions of my faith were unimportant, or that I was simply using that faith to aggrandize myself, or pursue a "baser" goal........

[Chad32]

My parents ask me to live morally, and not be a jerk. Your god demands that I dedicate my life to him, because anything less is evil. If it was just about being a good person, then I have that covered without professing christianity or reading through the bible. Or following any particular religion at all.

I suppose the core doctrine is Jesus and his death/resurrection. If it's just wars over that, I suppose christians don't wage war with each other over it. They will wage war against jews and muslims over it, despite all three groups following the god of Abraham.

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?

[abaris]

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.

First, I've never seen this kind of argument. Anything even remotely close would be in response to those christians claiming that without god you got no base for morality. Who can't wrap their heads around the fact that, if you don't believe, you still don't go out to axe your neighbour, rape his wife and take his stuff. Well, unless you're a psycho, but they're playing both fields.

Yes, it is a misrepresentation. On your side. If you happen to know differently, please provide the quotes of anyone having said the above.

[Esquilax]

On the matter of peripheral doctrines, nobody who I've seen moan about the diversity of doctrine even knows enough to draw a distinction between peripheral and core doctrines. Most atheists here, even the self-proclaimed "ex-Christians" are oblivious to the difference, some even after I've pointed it out. So what's my argument?

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?

Okay, I'm going to need you to stop the self serving bullshit please.

Aside from the glaring fact that you haven't defined how one can determine a peripheral doctrine from a core one, making this entire argument of yours nothing more than you attempting to define your way out of a problem by inventing a distinction and expanding and contracting it to fit every issue into a category you've asserted by fiat to be "not a problem," there's the simple fact that so many of the doctrinal differences we point out- or could point out, come to that- are so integral to christian theology that for you to wave them off as peripheral robs both of those (made up for convenience) distinctions of all meaning.

Seriously, I cannot believe that you're actually saying all this with a straight face, unless you truly consider the one and only "core doctrine," of christianity to be "there's a god." Just within my own family, there's christians who tell me I can get to heaven on the back of the good life I lead, and christians who tell me that no, I can't possibly get to heaven because I haven't accepted Jesus. Some of those christians disagree with the Ray Comfort style "if you've ever lusted, you're an adulterer to god," belief thing, whether or not there's demons, whether Satan legit acts in the real world, etc etc, and if you're going to stand there and actually tell me that the criteria that gets one into the afterlife, what god thinks, and what Satan does are piffling, no big deal, peripheral beliefs to christianity, then there's no other way to say it: you are a bigger dismissive, dishonest, passive aggressive debater than I've given you credit for.

So: Are you going to seriously tell us that the criteria for heaven and hell, and god's opinions on sin, are unimportant beliefs to christianity? Or can we just shut down this shitty argument of convenience you've cooked up to impugn those who dare disagree with you right here?

[Faith No More]

Who knew that how you get into heaven is just a "peripheral" difference?

I'm on pins and needles waiting to hear the explanation for that.

[Esquilax]

Who knew that how you get into heaven is just a "peripheral" difference?  

I'm on pins and needles waiting to hear the explanation for that.

We actually already have it, from page 23 of Delicate's other thread, on biblical interpretations:

Second, if Christianity is true, then it must be true that there is an afterlife, so to speak. And one's well-being in the afterlife and relationship with God is of utmost importance. Someone who concedes that Christianity is true (even for the sake of argument), will have to concede (once again, for the sake of argument) that the latter two theological notions follow. In fact, one might make the claim that it is an ethical obligation to care for one's afterlife and relationship with God.

So on the one hand, the afterlife and how one fares in it is of the "utmost importance," but on the other, whenever christians differ on their beliefs on that issue, those are just "peripheral beliefs," that don't really matter at all. Right.

[Faith No More]

Now, I may just be an ill-informed atheist, but that right there is inconsistent.

Color me shocked that the complaint of the atheist misunderstanding of religion turns out to be total garbage.

[robvalue]

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

[Minimalist]

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

Willfully so.