Are all atheists this ill-informed about religion?

[Thumpalumpacus]

I can't wait for this guy to discover syncretism. That will be one epic meltdown.

[robvalue]

I'd like to point out that the claim "Christianity is true" is next to meaningless unless you describe it using very specific terms.

If it involves, "The bible is accurate" then that's game over right away.

[TheRocketSurgeon]

Why has no one asked what, exactly, ARE these "core doctrines" I keep seeing hinted about?

Let's have a full list of what is considered "core doctrines", so we can stop seeing you say we don't know what they are?

I keep seeing people listing what I would have considered the core doctrines of the faith, not the practice, when I was a Christian...and yet he keeps saying we don't know what they are.

So, enough of this. List all of the Core Principles that we don't know, and stop using the phrase as a rhetorical shield.

[Hmmm?]

I suppose any theist who has read this part of the forum has to chuckle at how terrible atheist critiques of theism are.

But when the laughter dies down, you're left with a troubling realization: There actually is a huge pool of people on this planet who call themselves atheists and post on the internet, but are less familiar with theism than toddlers with the inside of a quantum mechanics textbook.

Where does one go for actually informed atheistic critiques of religion? I'm feeling my brain atrophy after reading some of the threads here.

Growing up in an atheist house my dad taught me to love my neighbor as myself. He always said, "If you don't have something nice to say, don't say anything at all." He taught me that people put others down to make themselves look better, then reminded me that it never makes them look better.

After becoming a believer I realized I was going to have to put his atheist teachings to the side if I was going to take my new religion seriously. 16 years later I have come to the realization that we are all ill-informed. (bitter and sweet from the same fountain) Sometimes it becomes hard to see the truth after being indoctrinated for so many years.

I just love my dad :•)

[Losty]

Well   that's  the lazy way out of not proving a god exists. It's either you have proof or you don't  in this case you don't and all you can say is
god only reveals himself don't you find the irony of that only god reveled himself to primitive man and not anyone in the modern era.

Hardly.  I'm not trying to make any proof at all.  Just inquiring about those saying it shouldn't be hard for God to reveal himself.  My point is, in this modern world what would it take for God to meaningfully reveal himself that the modern scientific skeptic couldn't simply explain away?

If god popped his face into the sky and turned everything on earth a bright purple and said "I'm god and now everything is purple just because I can" I might believe that....maybe.

You have a good point kp. The only problem is that if there was a god it could have revealed itself in a meaningful way ages ago. If every human society in history all had the same description of the same god, across time and across every continent...everyone would believe that. If there was a god back then I'd think it'd be smart enough to figure that out.

[Mudhammam]

I'm pretty sure the Bible is filled with acts of power, of which any single one would cause even the most radical sceptic to seriously reevaluate the principles of a particular religion (assuming both that the sceptic comes to "belief in belief," i.e. that one's views about otherworldly beings are of any significance in this life, for which I can't see how it should be, and that the miracles of contrary religions are of such inferior quality that they don't mutually exclude yours) - unfortunately, doubtfulness, the usual offspring of diverse culture and education, appears to frighten such divine powers away.

[vorlon13]

Here's a core principle:

faith, and such faith that deadly poison and dangerous serpents are rendered impotent upon the believer

[Rhondazvous]

It's all part of God's Clever Plan to make a book that can A) please multiple groups of adherents holding mutually-exclusive beliefs that they claim are based solidly on teachings in the book, and B) allow you to claim that anyone who opposes your faith-culture "just doesn't understand" the scriptures, when they point out the contrasting verses, or theological concepts of others.

What I can't understand is how they can do something so fundamentally (no pun intended) dishonest, and then have the gall to claim it is atheists who are the dishonest ones.

"Oh, I'm sorry Sister Christian, I didn't mean to read that verse you'd prefer we ignore in discovering The Core Doctrines™ of your religion."

Tu quoque!
What I don't understand is why we keep thinking that reason and sound arguments will have the slightest effect on these people. Really, I don't post for them at all but for those who are watching. I used to be a Christian and there's really nothing these Christians here have said that I have not at one time said. I know how they think and I know that if they keep talking, they can do nothing but betray their ignorance and disingenuousness to those who are really looking for honesty.

[Losty]

I pointed to the Creed as a way of showing you that 1) we do know what the core beliefs are, contrary to your claim, and 2) we do discuss them routinely, contrary to your claim.

This other issue of whether Christians argue over core doctrines is a separate issue, but one which has also been answered in numerous threads, including this one.

As I said before, name a "core doctrine" on which Christians agree 100%, in your mind, and we will show you that your claim isn't true.

Even what one might think is a core doctrine, salvation through Jesus is not universally agreed upon. Catholics believe you have to have good works as well as faith. That is why protestants and evangelicals, particularly Calvinists, believe Catholics are not real Christians and are on their way to hell.

How can it be otherwise when in the Bible itself, Jesus says, Why do you call me Lord but don't do what I say? Everyone who calls me Lord will not enter my kingdom. But Paul tells us we are saved through faith without works. Christians make a wreck of logic and language trying to reconcile Paul with James.

How can you teach in agreement with a book that doesn’t even agree with itself?

According to the pope good works without faith is enough to get you into heaven.

[Kingpin]

I pointed to the Creed as a way of showing you that 1) we do know what the core beliefs are, contrary to your claim, and 2) we do discuss them routinely, contrary to your claim.

This other issue of whether Christians argue over core doctrines is a separate issue, but one which has also been answered in numerous threads, including this one.

As I said before, name a "core doctrine" on which Christians agree 100%, in your mind, and we will show you that your claim isn't true.

Help me understand here.  Are you saying that because Christians don't 100% agree on even basic tenets of "core beliefs" then it negates its validity?  I don't want to assume thats what you mean, but I have seen that premise espoused here by others.  

Since when does unity necessitate uniformity?  Even in the sciences, there is a diversion on topics.  Politics, name a policy/belief that 100% of Democrats agree on.  I just don't think you can state that because there is not 100% uniformity it automatically negates validity.  Talk about the validity of the claim that's being made (how its defined), not negate because it has multiple definitions/interpretations.