An Atheist's Critique of … some other current Atheists

[Silmarien]

I guess I should stop expecting authentic, substantive, intensive, and vital discussion--discussion that actually means something--from non-Christians. Instead, I get evasion and the typical "non-answers" delivered in Communist style from the supposed disenfranchised and the malcontent.

Hey, that's not fair to the Marxists! They'll usually have a substantive discussion with you!

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Hey, that's not fair to the Marxists! They'll usually have a substantive discussion with you!

I haven't met one yet! ...and I've bumped into a number of them in college.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Hey, that's not fair to the Marxists! They'll usually have a substantive discussion with you!

.....if he were alive, and I was in a place to talk to him, Pierre Bourdieu might have been an exception.

 

[Silmarien]

I haven't met one yet! ...and I've bumped into a number of them in college.

There was one around here a while ago!

Now, substantive doesn't necessarily mean friendly, but you can usually discuss Hegel with Marxists without them flipping out. And hey, dialectical materialism is more interesting than scientific materialism, at least.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

There was one around here a while ago!

Now, substantive doesn't necessarily mean friendly, but you can usually discuss Hegel with Marxists without them flipping out. And hey, dialectical materialism is more interesting than scientific materialism, at least.

With someone like Bourdieu, I would have been able to talk about a lot of important sociological and philosophical stuff, like the works of Marx and both Heidegger and Pascal, just to name a few. But....I know. That's a lot to ask for these days .......................................

 

[Silmarien]

With someone like Bourdieu, I would have been able to talk about a lot of important sociological and philosophical stuff, like the works of Marx and both Heidegger and Pascal, just to name a few. But....I know. That's a lot to ask for these days .......................................

Hey, you can always read Slavoj Zizek with me.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Hey, you can always read Slavoj Zizek with me.

That sounds interesting. I imagine he compares somewhat with Bourdieu--minus the sympathies for Christianity, that is.

 

[Silmarien]

That sounds interesting. I imagine he compares somewhat with Bourdieu--minus the sympathies for Christianity, that is.

Depends on what you consider sympathies. He's definitely a militant atheist, but he's strangely obsessed with Christianity. He just doesn't think it means what any Christian thinks it means, and is not so shy about pointing out where he thinks orthodox theology gets it wrong.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Depends on what you consider sympathies. He's definitely a militant atheist, but he's strangely obsessed with Christianity. He just doesn't think it means what any Christian thinks it means, and is not so shy about pointing out where he thinks orthodox theology gets it wrong.

I suppose we could read and deconstruct Slavoj Zizek ... Will this include a discussion of Zizek, maybe even one involving your priest?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Depends on what you consider sympathies. He's definitely a militant atheist, but he's strangely obsessed with Christianity. He just doesn't think it means what any Christian thinks it means, and is not so shy about pointing out where he thinks orthodox theology gets it wrong.

....by the way, that doesn't mean I want to deconstruct your priest. I'm confident he's a guy worthy of the cloth!

 

[Silmarien]

I suppose we could read and deconstruct Slavoj Zizek ... Will this include a discussion of Zizek, maybe even one involving your priest?

Oh, I think my priest is more interested in the Milbank section of the book than the Zizek section! Anglican theologian and all. (But hey, you never know.)

He just asked me if I'd read any Milbank, since he knows I'm interested in the wilder side of orthodox Anglicanism, and I mentioned having a copy of this book in particular. So now I have to read it, haha.

 

[razzelflabben]

Since I have yet again been goaded into responding to poor behaved posters, the question I asked was if everything someone posts tests out positive and then they say something that is untestable how would you view that...the poster who was asked the question said that not everything was tested...which was funny to begin with since the question assumes that it was...then the poster in question said that the thing that could not be tested would be tested and evidenced even though it could not be tested because every claim is tested on it's own merit even though the claim cannot be tested...lol...the poster then was told it was about reputation and that poster insisted that there was no such thing because every claim would have to be tested for it to have merit....which is quite funny given that the poster in question has a reputation for reinventing posts and trying to divert discussions he does not like which was further evidenced in his goading me into this response.
Just so the record is straight

 

[ToBeLoved]

...but then again, if the Bible was that clear (or perspicuous) then wouldn't all of us Christians have a much easier time agreeing on what the Bible actually means on a number of issues presented within it and not break ourselves into various factions and/or denominations?

Not really. Many people never read the Bible. And people love to follow what someone else says, usually someone they agree with.

Also, many denominations disagree with one or two points with another demonimation.

I think it is more that people want to be led and do not bother to study for themselves and be led by that.

 

[HitchSlap]

Not really. Many people never read the Bible.

I agree with you on this.

U.S. Religious Knowledge Survey

 

[bhsmte]

I agree with you on this.

U.S. Religious Knowledge Survey

Yes, I always found the above interesting.

The thing is, some folks tend to roll over more rocks in the process of determining the credibility of something. Other folks, tend to latch onto what is appeasing and then work to protect it.

 

[Silmarien]

Yes, I always found the above interesting.

The thing is, some folks tend to roll over more rocks in the process of determining the credibility of something. Other folks, tend to latch onto what is appeasing and then work to protect it.

Ehh, unless you're going to say that white Catholics are rolling over more rocks than Latinos, the survey seems to be reflecting the racial and social aspects of educational inequalities. It's no wonder that Jews score more highly when they're one of the more highly educated religious groups, and the same thing goes for secularists. I'm not sure why Mainline folk aren't doing better with world religion on that survey, though.

Though seriously, if about half of Catholics don't even know about transubstantiation, the problem isn't that they're working to protect what it appeasing to them. They literally do not know their own religion.

Honestly, these scores are terrible for everyone, including atheists and agnostics. 21/32 is still only 66%, and if half of Americans don't know who the Dalai Lama is, we have a problem.

 

[bhsmte]

Ehh, unless you're going to say that white Catholics are rolling over more rocks than Latinos, the survey seems to be reflecting the racial and social aspects of educational inequalities. It's no wonder that Jews score more highly when they're one of the more highly educated religious groups, and the same thing goes for secularists.

Though seriously, if about half of Catholics don't even know about transubstantiation, the problem isn't that they're working to protect what it appeasing to them. They literally do not know their own religion.

Honestly, these scores are terrible for everyone, including atheists and agnostics. 21/32 is still only 66%, and if half of Americans don't know who the Dalai Lama is, we have a problem.

IMO, the information demonstrates that non believers are motivated to learn about religions and in some cases, do more reading then those who follow the religion. I think that likely speaks to, how certain folks, are willing to evaluate information.

 

[HitchSlap]

Factors in Religious Knowledge

What factors seem to contribute to religious knowledge? Data from the survey indicate that educational attainment – how much schooling an individual has completed – is the single best predictor of religious knowledge. College graduates get nearly eight more questions right on average than do people with a high school education or less. Having taken a religion course in college is also strongly associated with higher religious knowledge.

 

[Silmarien]

IMO, the information demonstrates that non believers are motivated to learn about religions and in some cases, do more reading then those who follow the religion. I think that likely speaks to, how certain folks, are willing to evaluate information.

How would you explain Jews outscoring atheists and agnostics in everything except Christianity? Is there something about Judaism that makes them more motivated to learn about world religions?

In any case, you're assuming that everyone is on equal ground as far as educational opportunities are concerned, and I'm not sure why that would be the case. Christians are the majority in this country, and are diverse enough that many are simply not going to have the resources to study even their own religion, much less others. Again, unless you think that white Catholics are more motivated to study religion than Latino Catholics, and white Protestants than black Protestants.

Honestly, as far as I'm concerned, the survey demonstrates that nobody, religious or otherwise, is doing much in the way of learning about religions. If less than 40% of Americans know who Vishnu and Shiva are, that's really bad. This isn't a matter of evaluating information--the issue is not knowing anything in the first place.

 

[bhsmte]

How would you explain Jews outscoring atheists and agnostics in everything except Christianity? Is there something about Judaism that makes them more motivated to learn about world religions?

In any case, you're assuming that everyone is on equal ground as far as educational opportunities are concerned, and I'm not sure why that would be the case. Christians are the majority in this country, and are diverse enough that many are simply not going to have the resources to study even their own religion, much less others. Again, unless you think that white Catholics are more motivated to study religion than Latino Catholics, and white Protestants than black Protestants.

Honestly, as far as I'm concerned, the survey demonstrates that nobody, religious or otherwise, is doing much in the way of learning about religions. If less than 40% of Americans know who Vishnu and Shiva are, that's really bad. This isn't a matter of evaluating information--the issue is not knowing anything in the first place.

You are going off on a tangent from my original point.

Some folks are more prone to more thoroughly examine information than others and especially information that they may not agree with, but are willing to explore.