Are all atheists this ill-informed about religion?

[SteelCurtain]

I got a hunnert too. Although I admit I took a 50/50 on the Maimonides question, I forgot.

[Thumpalumpacus]

OP:

I see little point in answering unsubstantiated and fantastic claims.

Do you answer claims made by Buddhists about the Wheel of Life and karma? Do you debunk Santa Claus?

Of course not. Some things are too silly to consider much.

[TheRocketSurgeon]

Having just taken the quiz linked above and gotten 100% correct, I challenge Delicate to take the same quiz.

www.csmonitor.com/USA/2011/0105/Are-you-smarter-than-an-atheist-A-religious-quiz/When-does-the-Jewish-Sabbath-begin

32
Correct
0
Wrong
100%
You answered 32 of 32 questions correctly for a total score of 100%.

[GrandizerII]

Having just taken the quiz linked above and gotten 100% correct, I challenge Delicate to take the same quiz.

www.csmonitor.com/USA/2011/0105/Are-you-smarter-than-an-atheist-A-religious-quiz/When-does-the-Jewish-Sabbath-begin

32
Correct
0
Wrong
100%
You answered 32 of 32 questions correctly for a total score of 100%.

I got 1 wrong. Picked Billy Graham because I had no clue what the first great awakening referred to.

[RoadRunner79]

---

I'm most definitely curious to hear how atheists, in general, don't understand the Bible or religion, when study after study has shown that we tend to understand it better than the religious people know their own material. As has already been pointed out, what is usually happening when we get this complaint, "You don't understand Christianity at all!", is that the particular Christian making the complaint subscribes to a different version of Christian theology than the one we're describing... there are so many, after all. Rather than say, "No, that's what the Calvinists believe" (or whatever), they claim the reason we're wrong about their version  of theology is because we just don't understand Christianity at all.

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2...-religious

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Society/201...s-that-bad

The statement that atheists are typically bad at understanding Christianity reads to me as sheer prejudice and contempt.

Do people make bad arguments against religion here? Of course! There are people making bad arguments FOR religion on religious forums, all the time, and an honest Christian would acknowledge that there are at least as many bitter arguments among the faithful on basic points of doctrine as there are atheists who happen to guess wrong when discussing with a member of a particular denomination, here.

Also, as has been pointed out but bears repeating, many of us are ex-Christians who were quite devout for a number of years, and who have read the Bible while believers and after leaving the faith. To claim that we don't understand the faith we participated in for years is disingenuous, and is just a method of dismissing from your own minds the possibility that we read the same book you did, understood it clearly, and came to a different conclusion about it. Often, objections to our phrasing is based on how we talk about it, post-departure, when we see the ideas we used to cherish in a new light that is not as flattering... you expect us to speak about things in the same accepting and reverent way to which you have become accustomed in your own social/theological circles, and we don't do that, so you write it off as poor understanding. After all, goes the reasoning, if we understood it, we'd be more respectful! It's nonsense, and you should know better.

---

I'd agree, that these types of threads usually do not go very far. It's really just empty opinions, and there are always those on both sides who can be cited to show bad arguments. I know... I was kicked out of a Christian forum (which is a long story), but was largely because I would confront and challenge those who made bad arguments. It is actually difficult to show such generalized statements, because one can always show week arguments.

I do normally try to focus on stronger arguments, and ignore the B.S. But some things that I notice, and you (collective) can look for. I find many arguments that sound good on the surface, but do not hold up when analyzed further. Normally when this is occurring, you will see the following. They will try to deflect to another subject which they feel is stronger, when I give in and go along, to start to analyze those claims we switch again. Sometimes the deflection is basic and simply fairly tales or santa clause or other god's are brought up. Other times, when analyzing a theological position, I find that the weaker argument is focused on. Here we often see the many denominations brought up (which is yet another sidetrack tactic). Rather than proceed as the argument is presented, a weaker argument is discussed (usually sunday school theology). And then there is the sophism and distortions. I actually find it difficult to have a discussion, without having someone try to jump to the end, and presume my arguments for me. Similarly I normally find it difficult to discuss a topic through when dealing with atheist.

But this has been my experience, and may vary. I by no means claim my arguments are perfect, nor is my understanding exactly right. It is a result of many discussions, examining my positions, and making corrections. It is the result of study, and looking at the scriptures and commentary and teachers.

---

Yup.

"Why aren't you taking the tale of god sending himself down to earth to sacrifice himself to himself in order to save you from himself (thanks, Chad32) seriously?"

As much as Christians like to dance around it, that's the story they want us to treat with respect, if not reverence.  It's laughable.

Do you mean that Jesus lowered Himself, to become like us, so that He could be a substitution for us and pay for our sins.   He was sent by God the Father, and submitted of His own will.  That Jesus suffered and died, to save us from the judgement (yes by God) and the punishment that follows. 

Is your issue that you do not understand the trinity, and that God is three persons in one God.  Or is it, that you do not believe in justice for evil?

[TheRocketSurgeon]

I see your point. However, I'd point out that in an internet forum, we're often being asked to rehash something we've personally gone over many, many times, yet the argument is "fresh" to the new person tossing the argument our way. It's not worth getting into the nitty-gritty of the argument unless we seriously believe that the person is interested in real discussion, and not simply throwing a machinegun belt of bullet-points our way, most of which turn out to be total bunkum (e.g. "it's true because it says so", or "well we have a more-or-less single narrative by 20 years after the Jesus events, so we can thus rely on how much the gospels that followed agree with Q/Mark, and call that evidence for the accuracy of the events being described", or "I feel it so it must be the way I feel", or worst of all, "there's no evidence for evolution so the Bible must be right"), only to ignore what we say when we explain why those are bunkum.

That's not to say there are not good arguments to be made in favor of theological positions; it's only to say that typically, in an internet discussion, the theists who come to an atheist board are more interested in preaching their preconceptions at us than they are in listening to our replies... after a lot of this, occurring again and again, it shouldn't surprise you that we don't bother with serious replies and simply explain to theists that we can't tell a difference between most of their claims and that of someone telling us that aliens talk to them, or that Santa Claus is real, etc. It's not mere mockery, but an attempt to explain why we don't want to get into the level of detail that's being asked of us.

I appreciate your candor, and your willingness to acknowledge that it's not unique to atheist boards. I, too, make corrections; for instance, I used to be a Jesus Mythicist (or minimalist), and I have since revised my position on that matter, having found the preponderance of the evidence to be that there likely was a Rabbi Yeshua who preached a Messianic message and was summarily crucified by Pilate (or by his men... I pretty strongly doubt the whole Sanhedrin/public trial thing, since that's not how the Romans usually handled rebellious criminals, and it strikes me as far more likely that someone might have simply mentioned it to one of Pilate's lower-level administrative officers, who said "Who? Yeah nail him up."), and given the extraordinary claims of the story (darkness, earthquake, zombies) that the other historians in Jerusalem at the time somehow failed to notice, it strikes me as an ad hoc explanation put together by the followers of the rabbi after he was killed, to explain why they hadn't just been idiots following a false Messiah. In the next 20 years, they cobbled together a fairly coherent story that began to be accepted by enough new adherents that it was finally written down in a coherent form.

And yet, I hear arguments straight out of the Gospels, claiming we can know what happened based on what the claims made are... it simply does not follow, logically, and requires that we overlook too many other factors. But I've never gotten a Christian to admit this. The deflection I see is that they want to talk about only the stuff that looks probable (e.g. the crucifixion) while ignoring all the stuff that's clearly not plausible yet is part of the same claim. After a while, I kinda give up trying to do so. I'm less inclined to simply insult people who make the same arguments I've seen, over and over, repeating apologist literature I've long since read, but it's tempting.

[Jenny A]

I got a hunnert too. Although I admit I took a 50/50 on the Maimonides question, I forgot.

The same quiz showed up about six months ago and I missed Maimonides.  I remember what I get wrong.

[TheRocketSurgeon]

I didn't know who Maimonides was; I simply extrapolated from the fact that it's a Greek-influenced name, and I knew that the Jewish diaspora resulted in several communities in among the Greeks, especially in Asia Minor. From there it was a simple deduction.

Growing up Southern Baptist, the question about the Great Awakening was easy because it's central to the development of SBC doctrine, today. Whitefield and Edwards are "household names" among evangelicals. Edwards' "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God" sermon, which is considered to have kicked it off, is still the essential framework for most revivalist/evangelist sermons today.

[MTL]

I didn't know who Maimonides was; I simply extrapolated from the fact that it's a Greek-influenced name, and I knew that the Jewish diaspora resulted in several communities in among the Greeks, especially in Asia Minor. From there it was a simple deduction.

yeah, I guessed Maimonides for the same reason, more or less.

[Minimalist]

Me, too.

Your score
Average reader score 32
Correct
0
Wrong
100%
You answered 32 of 32 questions correctly for a total score of 100%.

Way too easy.  I would expect even a theist to score at least a 65.