Defending a religious person...

[Lee M]

and you trying to troll me

 

[Lee M]

LOL... the mormons know more than you....

 

[Tomk80]

Well, let us be frank:

I think no one cares about a poll. It is literally, not even figuratively, a logical fallacy to appeal to some poll as some sign of truth.

Truth about what? Well, we do not even know of the legitimacy of the poll and it is only measuring a dynamic, minority group vs. a static majority group. The minority group always wins because a large amount of the minority group consciously opposes something.

For very similar reasons you will hear vegans & vegetarians be more informed on dietary issues because they give a crap.

The majority of Christians (and other 'theists') live in a very static bubble of their religion and hardly care to study it at length.

The poll essentially measures this.

But... Again...

We all know that this debate is not decided about who is more knowledgable (or arrogant) per capita. It is decided by what the truth is.

And you atheists have been continuously underwhelming and unimpressive since the 7th grade lunch table sessions but I will still hear you out.

I'd say you have basically conceded Lee M's original claim here. Remember, his original claim was that "the average atheist" is more knowledgeable about Christianity than the "average theist". Note that Lee M never claimed that certain subgroups might not be more knowledgeable.

The explanation you give is also the explanation given by the researchers, that atheists in the US come from a Christian culture, and therefore probably have to be more informed than the average "cultural Christian", because they are the ones to have their beliefs questioned.

Now, of course this does not show which side is correct or not. It at best shows that atheists are very much aware of the arguments in favor of God put forward by your average theist. You may find the arguments by the average atheist on message boards unconvincing, but that may just mean that the arguments by the average theist are even less convincing. Note that not very many people have an active interest of theology or philosophy, especially when it comes to the somewhat more complicated arguments for and against God. Even among those who know those arguments, there are quite a few who just regurgitate them without thinking.

Now, your contention about the arguments from atheists against God being underwhelming and unimpressive I'd say is at the least up to grabs. I personally am not convinced that by the answers to atheist arguments provided by Aquinas and Augustine. For example, while I definitely admire Aquinas for so deftly demonstrating the total poppycock that is the ontological argument, I find his arguments in favor of God very far from convincing. Philosophers have given detailed answers to these arguments in following centuries that show why these arguments fall flat. You are of course allowed to disagree, but it seems to me that the measure of this should be the arguments proposed in favor and against as explained at their best, not as explained on a forum.

 

[Verv]

Lee, you lost some composure there.

I'd say you have basically conceded Lee M's original claim here. Remember, his original claim was that "the average atheist" is more knowledgeable about Christianity than the "average theist". Note that Lee M never claimed that certain subgroups might not be more knowledgeable.

To some extent there was a concession but sometimes we have to have... integrity. Even in an internet debate.

The explanation you give is also the explanation given by the researchers, that atheists in the US come from a Christian culture, and therefore probably have to be more informed than the average "cultural Christian", because they are the ones to have their beliefs questioned.

Now, of course this does not show which side is correct or not. It at best shows that atheists are very much aware of the arguments in favor of God put forward by your average theist. You may find the arguments by the average atheist on message boards unconvincing, but that may just mean that the arguments by the average theist are even less convincing. Note that not very many people have an active interest of theology or philosophy, especially when it comes to the somewhat more complicated arguments for and against God. Even among those who know those arguments, there are quite a few who just regurgitate them without thinking.

Well, no, not really.

I think the average Christian puts forward no coherent responses and that the average atheist has a total misunderstanding of theology and science.

Basically, I think the average level of debate is so low it is not even worthy of commentary.

Let it be put on the record: I do not even have faith in democracy for very similar reasons.

Now, your contention about the arguments from atheists against God being underwhelming and unimpressive I'd say is at the least up to grabs. I personally am not convinced that by the answers to atheist arguments provided by Aquinas and Augustine. For example, while I definitely admire Aquinas for so deftly demonstrating the total poppycock that is the ontological argument, I find his arguments in favor of God very far from convincing. Philosophers have given detailed answers to these arguments in following centuries that show why these arguments fall flat. You are of course allowed to disagree, but it seems to me that the measure of this should be the arguments proposed in favor and against as explained at their best, not as explained on a forum.

None of the arguments are new. Our minds are already made up.

It is, frankly, half silly that we are even discussing it. But I get some amount of entertainment doing this.

 

[Lee M]

JEJEJEJEJEJEJEJEEEEEE so funny...

 

[Tomk80]

To some extent there was a concession but sometimes we have to have... integrity. Even in an internet debate.

Well, no, not really.

I think the average Christian puts forward no coherent responses and that the average atheist has a total misunderstanding of theology and science.

Basically, I think the average level of debate is so low it is not even worthy of commentary.

Let it be put on the record: I do not even have faith in democracy for very similar reasons.

Theology? Perhaps. Science, I disagree. At least on the forums I frequent. I'd say that on this forum (the physical sciences part) many atheists show a quite good understanding of science. In general on the internet, I would agree with you.

And I do agree to some extent on your faith in democracy. Pity I haven't come up with a better system yet

None of the arguments are new. Our minds are already made up.

It is, frankly, half silly that we are even discussing it. But I get some amount of entertainment doing this.

I agree to some extent. When I began discussing this I did come across a lot of new arguments and the learning curve was quite steep. That edged of after a year or so.

 

[Belk]

I find it humorous that a thread on defending people of faith has devolved into a general free for all.

 

[FrenchyBearpaw]

I know, right?


Well, let us be frank:

And you atheists have been continuously underwhelming and unimpressive since the 7th grade lunch table sessions but I will still hear you out.

Atheists, continuously underwhelmed and unimpressed with your evidence for a god/s since the 7th grade.

 

[Catherineanne]

Atheists, continuously underwhelmed and unimpressed with your evidence for a god/s since the 7th grade.

What kind of God do you think would provide easy evidence for his existence, at the same time as putting a premium on faith?

Once again, this is underestimating how big the Deity really is.

 

[FrenchyBearpaw]

What kind of God do you think would provide easy evidence for his existence, at the same time as putting a premium on faith?

Once again, this is underestimating how big the Deity really is.

The kind of god who wouldn't be so hard to find and puts a premium on easing pain and suffering.

What's so important about faith?

But then again, maybe he's just too big to really care.

 

[seeking Christ]

That comment is irrelevant to the discussion. The Nicene Creed is not negotiable in either Orthodoxy or Roman Catholicism; it most certainly falls into the category of salvation based doctrine. Same with Anglicanism, for that matter. I can compromise on many things, but the Nicene Creed is not one of them.

Your Inquisition did not revolve around said creed, and therefore the contents of your post here are irrelevant. I was talking about the same things you were - why move the goalposts?

The comment from the Church of the East is perfectly relevant because it says what you said they would never say, and corroborated my point you disagreed with. Non Salvific things can be forfeited for Unity, filioque included, because at the end of the day it just doesn't affect our daily life.

Perhaps faith and religion are not synonyms after all ...

 

[Verv]

Theology? Perhaps. Science, I disagree. At least on the forums I frequent. I'd say that on this forum (the physical sciences part) many atheists show a quite good understanding of science. In general on the internet, I would agree with you.

And I do agree to some extent on your faith in democracy. Pity I haven't come up with a better system yet

I have never seen a conflict between religion and science.

Some massive gross misunderstanding of theology committed by primarily Baptists in the American south is responsible for this giant debacle where we have STEM pinheads inserting themselves into what traditionally has always been a philosophical/theological discussion.

I have never contended that the Bible is a scientific book; nor have I ever consulted the Bible for answers on science.

But I am glad you are similarly laughing at democracy.

Atheists, continuously underwhelmed and unimpressed with your evidence for a god/s since the 7th grade.

I know. You can bring a horse to water but you can't make him drink.

The kind of god who wouldn't be so hard to find and puts a premium on easing pain and suffering.

What's so important about faith?

But then again, maybe he's just too big to really care.

I think you are misunderstanding a lot of basic Christian concepts...

First, part of our reason to be here would be the easing of pain and suffering as acts of charity and, second, suffering and pain are edifying.

Third, our temporary time in this physical form is irrelevant in the timespan of infinity.

Fourth, faith is important for the same reason that your teacher's do not give you the answer key when you take a test...

But, then again, you are probably just willfully ignorant of all of these points.

 

[FrenchyBearpaw]

I know. You can bring a horse to water but you can't make him drink.

As if you ever had any water.

As for your stupid comment regarding pain being edifying, I call BS. Tell that to the millions of children who will go to bed tonight without eating or clean drinking water. Mighty swell god you swoon over.