<p>Knowing the correct answers to several questions about the basic tenets of major religions has nothing to do with “reflectiveness” or “prioritizing reason and evidence”.</p>
<p>It merely shows that somewhere along the line you memorized those facts.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Evolution is not a mainstream belief. Nearly half of Americans reject it entirely, and the vast majority of the rest believe in some form of Theistic evolution.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Certainly. But if credible proof of the existence of Invisible Pink Unicorns did exist, then the fact that millions of people who were unaware of that evidence believed in Invisible Pink Unicorns anyway would not invalidate the belief of those who were aware of the evidence.</p>
<p>You continue to miss the fundamental point that atheists/agnostics/non-religious folks are, in general, more educated on religious matters not because of your shallow trivialization of the results (“they just memorized these facts somewhere”), but because they collectively take a greater active interest in theology – particularly that of comparative theology. Even those who are fairly comfortable within the fundamental tenets of their own faith are most likely quite illiterate in regard to those of other denominations and persuasions due to chronic, one-sided immersion. Overall, I can assure you that non-theists, overall, are more reflective of matters pertaining to existence, because they themselves were often liberated from childhood ideology, typically through doctrinal distaste with regard to scientific claims. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This doesn’t have the slightest bit of relevance to what I intended. If some level of knowledge of evolution was assessed among scientists and evolution-deniers, the latter are not going to be the slightest bit more knowledgable than the former. In fact, the split would be embarrassingly profound. Regarding your mention of “mainstream,” your particular cultish form of theology, nor that of anyone else, is not mainstream in American culture either. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>But there is no evidence and those who do have an iron-willed adherence to their own theological understanding are ordinarily resistant to opposition towards their own faith.</p>
<p>This may be true, but that survey does not prove it.</p>
<p>Fact: The survey shows that the average American Atheist knows more about the basic tenets of various world religions than the average American Theist.</p>
<p>Fiction: The survey shows that Atheists reject theism on the basis of evidence, while Theists accept it due to a lack of knowledge.</p>
<p>Further Fiction: Because the average Theist has less knowledge of world religions, all Theists are basing their belief on ignorance.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Once again, demonstrating that a person’s beliefs are based on ignorance only invalidates that person’s argument. It does not invalidate the belief.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Evidently you have an unusual definition of “cultish”.</p>
<p>But, actually, Christianity is mainstream in American culture, as the faith of about 3/4 of the population.</p>
<p>Now, most of those Christians disagree with me on at least some theological issues, so I suppose you could say that I’m not a “mainstream” Christian.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>How is this relevant to the argument here?</p>
<p>Sure, some people believe stuff, and refuse to listen to anything to the contrary. So what? People are that way. How is that relevant to someone like me, who does listen to the things to the contrary?</p>
<p>The way that you word this certainly isn’t my position and I hope you are not construing it as such. In such surveys, one is dealing with generalities so statements like “all theists are basing their belief on ignorance” clearly would be an erroneous abstraction and dismisses the complexity in the psychological origins of faith. </p>
<p>I’ll quote something from the article:</p>
<p>*So why would an atheist know more about religion than a Christian?</p>
<p>American atheists and agnostics tend to be people who grew up in a religious tradition and consciously gave it up, often after a great deal of reflection and study, said Alan Cooperman, associate director for research at the Pew Forum.</p>
<p>“These are people who thought a lot about religion,” he said. “They’re not indifferent. They care about it.”</p>
<p>Atheists and agnostics also tend to be relatively well educated, and the survey found, not surprisingly, that the most knowledgeable people were also the best educated. However, it said that atheists and agnostics also outperformed believers who had a similar level of education.*</p>
<p>Further:</p>
<p>*The Rev. Adam Hamilton, a Methodist minister from Leawood, Kan., and the author of “When Christians Get it Wrong,” said the survey’s results may reflect a reluctance by many people to dig deeply into their own beliefs and especially into those of others.</p>
<p>“I think that what happens for many Christians is, they accept their particular faith, they accept it to be true and they stop examining it. Consequently, because it’s already accepted to be true, they don’t examine other people’s faiths. … That, I think, is not healthy for a person of any faith,” he said.*</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>There are so many different flavors of Christianity that the faith itself is difficult to characterize, aside from basic belief in Jesus as a savior, with various incompatibilities in interdenominational theologies and guiding principles. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>See the above quotes.</p>
<p>Also, if you happen to be interested, below is a simple religion quiz formed upon a selective sample of questions similar to those in the survey. Even with a rudimentary knowledge, it should be an easy six points:</p>
<p>And then you say this here. Are you not trying to imply that Christianity is the result of ignorance, while Atheism is the result of knowledge?</p>
<p>Maybe I’m just misunderstanding you. What are you trying to imply by posting this survey?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The vast majority of Christian denominations are in basic agreement. None of them are perfect, even the best make mistakes. Some have differing opinions on superficial issues, and some are (in my opinion) more corrupt than others, but the “basic belief in Christ as a savior” is really the thing that defines Christianity.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I already did the one on the pew forum site.</p>
<p>There’s no need to read between the lines. This survey dispels the typical charge that the non-religious are often unknowledgeable or indifferent on religious matters (a petty argument that was surfaced earlier in this discussion), which, collectively, is largely untrue. Why is this the case? Because the non-religious (mostly composed of those who were once immersed in a certain theological upbringing) were most likely to analyze faith through the lens of skepticism, favor evidence and close assessment over blind compliance, and determine the correctness of a course of action.</p>
<p>Ok, great. I would tend to agree. Atheists who did not have some knowledge of religious matters would either bend to group pressure and become Theists again or would list themselves as “no preference” in this kind of survey.</p>
<p>But if that is all you are trying to say, what is your reason for posting these?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It’s hard for me to see how to construe this if not that you are claiming that Theists base their belief in ignorance.</p>
<p>I would say: Most ignorant people are Theists, because that is the belief held by most other people and they know no reasons not to believe it. Since there are more ignorant people than otherwise, most Theists are ignorant people.</p>
<p>You would say: Most Theists are ignorant people, because Theism is a belief based on “blind faith” and “indoctrination” rather than understanding.</p>
<p>If this isn’t what you meant please explain, I’d be happy to understand otherwise.</p>
<p>Quote A: As I stated months ago, the real reason people adhere to religion typically does not have the slightest extent of relevance to reason or argumentation. They accept it on emotional pretext. It’s so emotively persuasive to believe that there is kindred, benevolent spirit watching their every move, monitoring their every thought, and remaining enduringly vigilant for their well-being in a world full of uncertainty. We are still very much guided by Paleolithic thought processes and instinct rather than the honest evaluation of the accompanying facts, which is truly what separates religion so far apart from science. Many theists will concede that they don’t have any evidence for the credibility of the existence of their deity, but rather wish for it to be true (i.e., Pascal’s Wager sentiment or a derivative thereof), or else construe their wishful appetency or spineless bet-hedging as legitimate evidence to believe.</p>
<p>Quote B: Very, very few individuals have any interest in comparative theology and exceedingly few are exposed to a pluralistic view of various historical and contemporary theologies, particularly during the formative years when ideologies and outlooks are far more apt to become incorrigibly entrenched. This reduces to culture. Why are those in Mexico primarily Catholic? Why are those in the Deep South (of the United States) predominantly Protestant? Why are those in India largely Hindu? Why is Iran mainly Islamic? Why do those in Israel primarily follow Judaism? Because that is the religion that is so pervasively ingrained into the larger culture. Religious upbringing and consequent adherence is very much a one-way – and often irreversible – path.</p>
<p>Quote C: You didn’t include the context of this, but this was pertaining to the offshoot into invisible, pink unicorns. You’ve already agreed that this is largely the case so there’s not much of a purpose in perpetually reiterating my point.</p>
<p>Quote D: That wasn’t a statement of my own. It was a quote from the article from a reverend examining the underlying basis of the findings.</p>
<p>Science is more important. You can see it. Its not like true just cause some old people wrote about it in the bible it is true. And they can prove alot of stuff that happened back then, but i think some of the stories are exagerated.</p>
<p>Actually, one only sees the stereotypical charge of “attacking beliefs” when the discussion is focused exclusively on religious quibbles. If this were a debate between Mac and Windows supporters, would you still lament that Mac users are “attacking the beliefs” of others that PCs are superior (and vice versa)? Moreover, if this were a debate between Republicans and Democrats, one party wouldn’t accuse the other of illiberal assault since rigorous discourse is a fundamental part of the political process. However, when religion is involved, irrespective of it’s attempt at sensitivity, argument is “vitriolic,” “vindictive,” “venomous,” among other bitter adjectives. It’s only an “attack” because somewhere, at some unspecified point, religion has acquired this bizarre immunity where we aren’t supposed to criticize it no matter how ethically corrosive, corrupt, or socially backwards it might be. Why aren’t we supposed to criticize it? We just aren’t. The notion that certain ideas should be absolutely insulated from assessment is never a sensible attitude. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This is an odd comment. You find science inadequate in some respects yet consider yourself an atheist? Also, the “science doesn’t have the ability explain why” comment (typically with respect to cosmo- and abiogenesis) is an ancient, tenacious, and vacuously propagated conceit that doesn’t hold under actual assessment.</p>
<p>You have made this statement many times, but you have never provided support for it. When asked to do so, you have simply stated it again and been incredulous that I did not accept it.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I agree with this statement. The vast majority of people do not properly examine their beliefs. However, this is irrelevant to the actual truth of those beliefs.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It’s the statement “there’s no evidence” that I take issue with.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Alright then. As long as you aren’t attempting to use the fact that some Christians lack support for their faith to argue that Christianity as a whole lacks support.</p>
<p>Can you agree with these statements?</p>
<p>1: Many people do not examine ideas with proper vigor.</p>
<p>2: The existence of these people does not invalidate the things they believe.</p>
<p>As an example, it would be irrational for you to believe that I am currently wearing a clown nose. However, it could be true. And the likelihood of it’s being true would not change just because you and 100,000 other people started tenaciously advocating the MosbyMarion Clown Nose. It would be unreasonable to say “100,000 people irrationally believe that MosbyMarion is wearing a clown nose, therefore he is not wearing one”.</p>
<p>Actually, I previously have supported it. Aside from that, are you honestly resolutely skeptical that religion has little to nothing to do with the emotional pleasure centers in the brain?</p>
<p>The very act of asserting that something exists or some related truth-claim doesn’t mean that it is fundamentally incorrect, per se, which is the point at which I agree with the above statements, but the burden of proof lies on the individual who endorses the belief. It violates basic argumentative procedure to demand negative proof for something that hasn’t already been proven. Those who believe in Yahweh, Allah, Quetzalcoatl, The Flying Spaghetti Monster, or invisible pink unicorns ought to substantiate that belief. Invisible Pink Unicornists (those who believe that invisible pink unicorns inhabit and effect change upon the cosmos) could potentially argue that they have seen horses, birds, the color pink, and a picture of a [url=<a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narwhal]narwhal[/url”>Narwhal - Wikipedia]narwhal[/url</a>] (along with passages from the Book of the Holy Unicorn), but that doesn’t serve as anything remotely near objective, empirically corroborated proof. As such, it isn’t up to you or I, as non-believers in this conviction, to disprove it.</p>
<p>I agree with the above, with one qualifier. The burden of proof is on the believer** if they wish to force others to join in their belief**.</p>
<p>If it is us who want to prohibit the Pink Unicorn believers from declaring their belief, or who want to make defamatory claims about them, then the burden of negative proof lies on us.</p>
![http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/purity.png[/url]](http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/purity.png%5B/url%5D){kind=link}
