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.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.
To some extent there was a concession but sometimes we have to have... integrity. Even in an internet debate.
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.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.
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.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 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.
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.
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.
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
Atheists, continuously underwhelmed and unimpressed with your evidence for a god/s since the 7th grade.
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 know. You can bring a horse to water but you can't make him drink.