Are all atheists this ill-informed about religion?

[robvalue]

I have no idea.

I'm not understanding the specifics of someone's interpretation of a made-up fairy tale properly? What does that matter? I'm not their therapist.

I understand the psychology behind it all pretty well.

[JesusHChrist]

Tl;dr version

Until you truly understand jedi-ism you can't criticize it! Stop! You're making yoda mad!

[Delicate]

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.

BUT NO ONE CAN AGREE WHAT THE "RELIGION ITSELF" ACTUALLY IS.

This point is important enough that I need to shout it.

In any other context, one would be embarrassed to make such a thoughtless objection. But here you are, a veritable Shouting Atheist Scholar among mere mortals, boldly putting forth your conclusions. Your post exemplifies the frankly embarrassing ignorance of atheists.

One only needs to see that it's strictly true of virtually every other major aspect of human civilization that we cannot agree on precisely what it is, let alone what it says.

For instance, take someone yelling the following: "BUT NO ONE CAN AGREE WHAT "THE SCIENCE ITSELF" ACTUALLY SAYS." Strictly speaking, this is true; a lot of areas of science, especially around our periphery, contains conflicting data.

And yet, there are many high school sophomores across the country who will gladly affirm the reliability of science, knowing this indeterminacy of the evidence doesn't necessarily represent our confidence in science as a whole. 

How can such sophistry as yours find a home here?

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.

If you want to talk about "vacuity", let's talk about the non-evidence of religious claims. Let's talk about the religious insistence of a belief in god in order to support morality. Let's talk about how religion makes people good, in the face of the Irish Troubles  and the murderous Middle Eastern wars.

One thing that's clear is atheists have their own mythology, and these folk tales are prime candidates.

None of these tales ring true in the real world outside the fishbowl. Especially not among the educated. 

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.

You're right. It's not easy being this good looking.

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.

Like I said elsewhere, this whole bugaboo of interpretation is far bigger an issue in the mythology of atheists than in the real world. In the real world, the vast majority of Christians agree on all the core doctrines. If there's any diversity, it's because of peripheral interpretive differences or cultural differences. 

It's just not as severe a problem in the real world as atheists imagine it to be.

But your basis for rejecting Christianity is very interesting. When you say you can't be completely devoted to him, do you mean you literally cannot, as in it's impossible, or do you mean you just don't want to be?

[TheRocketSurgeon]

As I said... "willful blindness".

[The Grand Nudger]

Just stop.  The differences are wide and important...to say that they aren't is to say that the message of salvation and the means of salvation and any differences any two sects have on that count are unimportant.  It trivializes the entire affair, and anyone who cares to delve into the issue will realize that you're bullshitting them the minute they hit the google button. 

It's clearly a severe enough problem for christians to have been killing each other the world over for their differing interpretations from the very moment we have a history of the cult, and up to the present day.  In your case, perhaps not...but have you ever wondered -why- "christianity" put on a monolith given it's long history of predation and oppression on the basis of doctrine and schism?

Because the numbers weren't looking good.  It became clear, in the past few decades, that they would have to fly the same banner if they wished to hold onto the social purchase they'd individually built, but which they had all been collectively eroding with their constant bickering and bigotry.

[GrandizerII]

In the real world, the vast majority of Christians agree on all the core doctrines.

Oh, yeah, because Catholics and various Protestants don't disagree on the means of salvation at all, or if they do, it's such a minor doctrine.

And Mary, mother of God or just the Lord, yeah, a minor doctrine, who cares about that?

[Thumpalumpacus]

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.

Yet when I did exactly that in your bible-interpretations thread, you tried to give a sarcastic reply and eventually stopped discussing at all.

You don't want intellectual critique. You want to pontificate your beliefs and not have them questioned.

[Thumpalumpacus]

One thing that's clear is atheists have their own mythology, and these folk tales are prime candidates.

None of these tales ring true in the real world outside the fishbowl. Especially not among the educated.

This is a non-answer. You clearly don't want to address the points I made, so you elected to go with the dodge instead.

I'm unsurprised.

[Faith No More]

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

[Thumpalumpacus]

It's just not as severe a problem in the real world as atheists imagine it to be.

Ireland, anyone? Christians very rarely engage in sectarian violence any more, but the differences in doctrine, orthodoxy, and practice between the thousands of Christian sects are real.

Waving away an objection is not the same as answering it. You claim to want intellectual challenge, but you shrink from even the most basic objections.