If you're athiest or agnostic, chances are you know more about religion

[ponderingnwandering]

Same here.......

i went and took the test on both the original link and the 10 question link...if those are the questions qualifying whether or not you know a religion.......that doesn't prove crap >=\

It's like saying i know all about surgery if you show me a scalpel, ask what it is, and i answer scalpel.

 

[scraparcs]

My first thought was "Of course."

My second thoughts were more along the lines of noting that correlation does not equal causation.

 

[white dove]

Having spent a lot of time in the old GA boards, this was made quite evident there... on a regular basis. Many Atheists and Agnostics know much more about say, the Bible, than many Christians. They've researched into it, questioned their faith (as many tend to have come from religious backgrounds themselves) and delved deeper into context and content. Many Christians stew over the same truths, feeding on milk. Many are name-only's. Maybe many are scared to delve deeper; maybe it's just laziness or stagnancy warned about in the Bible. In any case, this does not surprise me.

 

[scraparcs]

Having spent a lot of time in the old GA boards, this was made quite evident there... on a regular basis. Many Atheists and Agnostics know much more about say, the Bible, than many Christians. They've researched into it, questioned their faith (as many tend to have come from religious backgrounds themselves) and delved deeper into context and content. Many Christians stew over the same truths, feeding on milk. Many are name-only's. Maybe many are scared to delve deeper; maybe it's just laziness or stagnancy warned about in the Bible. In any case, this does not surprise me.

Exactly. Though I have met atheists who don't care about religion, most have made a conscious choice and seem to be knowledgeable about religions anyway.

 

[MacFall]

Atheists And Agnostics Know More About Religion Than Religious : The Two-Way : NPR

Your thoughts?

People tend to study that which they oppose in order to defend themselves against it when its proponents try to debate them.

I probably know more about Marxism than most Marxists do for that reason.

 

[Qyöt27]

I found this to be very interesting:

Those who believe the Bible is the literal word of God did slightly worse than average, while those who say it is not the word of God scored slightly better.
​

I don't really see it as surprising, though. Literalists tend to be of the Evangelical and Fundamentalist ilk, and said groups are often front and center when it comes to putting forth anti-intellectual sentiment. So it's more of a cultural issue, IMO, than a necessarily theological one.


As to the point of nominality, it's a natural by-product of age. Catholics are very often accused of it, and they've been culturally entrenched in Europe and soforth for almost 2000 years (the Eastern Orthodox do seem more generally devout to the Western eye, but that's probably just because of a relative lack of exposure rather than an accurate look at the entire Orthodox world). The old Protestant churches are likewise among the ones prone to have the charge leveled at them* - and said churches are largely in the same position that Catholicism is; they've been interwoven in the fabric of Europe and America for 400-500 years, and cultural expectations of faith start to apply more, although those churches still pull in the most members. This is also seen in some fashion with other large world religions - the older they are, the more adherents they have, the larger the geographical distribution, and the more culturally taken for granted they are, the higher the statistical chances and probability that the people that are part of it do so out of social obligation or out of family or national tradition. Just look at how Shinto is treated in Japan - treated largely as national heritage and tradition, but in reality the country is agnostic or apathetically secular.

*discounting some of the products of the Radical Reformation, like the Anabaptists - but most of their 'old Protestant' background is concentrated in groups like the Amish or Mennonites, who have other interesting quirks to them. But if you count, say, the American Baptist Church, then the same thing applies - American Baptists are Mainline and have the theological moderate-ness to back that up, unlike their Southern cousins.

 

[explodingboy]

U.S. Religious Knowledge Quiz

I got 15/15, though I confess the Spritual Revival was a 50-50 guess as I knew who it couldn't be.

Eitherway the test seemed alright, the graphs at the end were really interesting.

 

[HeavyMetalDude]

I think part of it has to do with the fact that a lot of people are closed minded when they have faith. Especially when they beleive that faith to be the truth which is understandable. If you beleive what you beleive then why do you need to look at others beleifs? What is not acceptable is when people of faith are intolerant and refuse to learn about others faiths when given the chance.

 

[Wren]

U.S. Religious Knowledge Quiz

You answered 15 out of 15 questions correctly
for a score of 100%.

The quiz seemed really easy, although I've taken classes either on a specific religion or had classes that touched on the subject at some point.

 

[MacFall]

I won

 

[Sketcher]

People tend to study that which they oppose in order to defend themselves against it when its proponents try to debate them.

I probably know more about Marxism than most Marxists do for that reason.

But they don't know as much about Christianity as Protestant Christians and Mormons do, and do you really think that they're spending all their time arguing with Hindus and Buddhists?

 

[callmeMurph]

Atheists And Agnostics Know More About Religion Than Religious : The Two-Way : NPR

Your thoughts?

I care more about Jesus than religion. Atheists and agnostics only see religion so that is the only thing that can really look at.

 

[MacFall]

But they don't know as much about Christianity as Protestant Christians and Mormons do, and do you really think that they're spending all their time arguing with Hindus and Buddhists?

No. Good point.

I actually made that post without having read the article, so it wasn't a very informed statement. More of a guess.

 

[BranwenUerchLlyr]

As it has already been stated in the thread by others, it probably has a lot to do with SES & the knowledge outlets (e.g. higher education) available to those in the "higher rungs"--rungs which comprise more atheists/agnostics/nonreligious than then lower.

Also, from my experience in churches, religious history and the more "academic" forms of religious teaching were topics that congregations and even church leaders simply had very little interest in studying. My professor in an ancient Hebrew studies class confirmed this--he was a pastor for many years but in recent years, was turned away by many churches because congregations had little interest in the unique skills he had to offer. You know, such trivial things as being able to actually read ancient Hebrew and Greek, and having studied the history of the cultures from which the scriptures came at the graduate level. As he would say--people aren't interested in what the books actually meant to the people who wrote them--they just want to invent a new meaning for themselves.

 

[Keri]

I care more about Jesus than religion. Atheists and agnostics only see religion so that is the only thing that can really look at.

Good point.

 

[MacFall]

As it has already been stated in the thread by others, it probably has a lot to do with SES & the knowledge outlets (e.g. higher education) available to those in the "higher rungs"--rungs which comprise more atheists/agnostics/nonreligious than then lower.

Also, from my experience in churches, religious history and the more "academic" forms of religious teaching were topics that congregations and even church leaders simply had very little interest in studying. My professor in an ancient Hebrew studies class confirmed this--he was a pastor for many years but in recent years, was turned away by many churches because congregations had little interest in the unique skills he had to offer. You know, such trivial things as being able to actually read ancient Hebrew and Greek, and having studied the history of the cultures from which the scriptures came at the graduate level.

As he would say--people aren't interested in what the books actually meant to the people who wrote them--they just want to invent a new meaning for themselves.

This. And I've heard too many times the Proverb "knowledge puffeth up" in reference to anyone who even thinks about going to seminary. Whoever began the trend in Christian doctrine of regarding pious ignorance as a virtue is going to have a lot to answer for.

 

[Sketcher]

This. And I've heard too many times the Proverb "knowledge puffeth up" in reference to anyone who even thinks about going to seminary. Whoever began the trend in Christian doctrine of regarding pious ignorance as a virtue is going to have a lot to answer for.

Yes, but at the same time, you don't want to go the other way with that. You can have impressive academic titles and not be teaching according to the Spirit of God. I suppose that rumors of his poor speaking skills aside, every church would want someone like Paul to be their pastor.

 

[MacFall]

Yes, but at the same time, you don't want to go the other way with that. You can have impressive academic titles and not be teaching according to the Spirit of God.

Of course. The problem is that in recognizing that, the baby often gets thrown out with the poopy diaper. It seems to be an issue that runs through many subjects in the Christian faith. Some people are know-it-alls who don't teach by the Spirit? Knowledge must be BAD! Some people abuse alcohol? Drinking alcohol must be a SIN! Some people read too much? Fiction must be EVIL! Etc.

 

[Tamara224]

Yes, but at the same time, you don't want to go the other way with that. You can have impressive academic titles and not be teaching according to the Spirit of God. I suppose that rumors of his poor speaking skills aside, every church would want someone like Paul to be their pastor.

Of course. The problem is that in recognizing that, the baby often gets thrown out with the poopy diaper. It seems to be an issue that runs through many subjects in the Christian faith. Some people are know-it-alls who don't teach by the Spirit? Knowledge must be BAD! Some people abuse alcohol? Drinking alcohol must be a SIN! Some people read too much? Fiction must be EVIL! Etc.

In my experience, I've run across many more people with an impressive lack of academic titles and education who are not teaching according to the Spirit of God.

IOW, lack of education is no more a guarantee of teaching according to the Spirit than education is.

 

[Sketcher]

Of course. The problem is that in recognizing that, the baby often gets thrown out with the poopy diaper. It seems to be an issue that runs through many subjects in the Christian faith. Some people are know-it-alls who don't teach by the Spirit? Knowledge must be BAD! Some people abuse alcohol? Drinking alcohol must be a SIN! Some people read too much? Fiction must be EVIL! Etc.

I really think that most Christians are more balanced than that. Even the teetotalers I've been around have rational and practical reasons for their beliefs. Yeah, it's happened in church history (look at what Catholics did with sex in the middle ages) but I really think that American Protestant churches mostly are more balanced than that, and this sort of thinking when it does come up is more easily correctable.