Theologians and sociologists, I would suspect.
|
*facepalm* Ok I was raised religious and even did quite a bit of self study as a teenager. I was one the few kids my age that had read the bible, the quran, the Talmud, Kaballah, and Bhavagard Ghita. But in the end I ended up atheist. I do have a large amount I would call trivia knowledge of religion but that was because I had searched so hard as a teenager.
Did you read the article or am just missing a joke due to this being text-based communication?
Yeah. You totally missed the joke.
So is an opinion piece subjective or objective reporting, the line blurs these days.
Is it possible to have completely objective reporting? What about the issue of the observer tainting the observed? If you can not prove objective reporting, how do you account for confirmation bias?
CJ, in the CRD thread, I recall you expressing that all of the atheists you knew had not given religion much thought. Does that remain your position, do you consider there could be something to this survey and/or do you have some other explanation?
Is it possible to have completely objective reporting?
Many times it is. I do not fell it is done much if at all. may well have never been done much.
What about the issue of the observer tainting the observed?
Happens all the time. Which is why we must, more often then not, take multiple different conclusions to form a more complete viewpoint. Something I fear many do not.
If you can not prove objective reporting, how do you account for confirmation bias?
I am not sure if you can.
CJ, in the CRD thread, I recall you expressing that all of the atheists you knew had not given religion much thought. Does that remain your position, do you consider there could be something to this survey and/or do you have some other explanation?
All that I know and have met personally and have discussed the matter with yes. Please understand that I do not include those such as yourself with whom I have merely "spoken" with online.
That being said I should also offer a story.
A couple of years ago my church started a program called "generations of faith" an attempt to bring many back together as a community instead of people just showing up for maybe an hour every weekend.
Starts fairly simple enough, a prayer, a hello, some snacks. Then father starts asking a few questions just to know who has some basic facts about things. Church teachings and why, what is in the Bible and what is just tradition.
I started to feel quite embarrassed after a bit. I was about the only person who could answer the questions. Even some of the simple ones. It was quite disconcerting. Especially with the obvious agitation from father.
We then watched the weekly video. Theologians and a couple of college professors discussing some historical issues of the Bible and how while some books can be used as a starting point for history, others are obviously a "story" designed to tell an allegorical tale of right from wrong and even in the old testament the Lords capacity of forgiveness.
Then we talked about it.
A couple of the older folks were caught up with one simple issue from the video. Prophets. The Theologians discussed that only a couple of them would make any prophecies. While the rest were there just to lead the people, the ancient Hebrews, back to the path that they left when they left it. Simple as that. No big miracles, very simple historical stuff. It was only because of Daniel that this is generally a misunderstanding that all of them did so.
So this one old guy, basically was getting whiter and whiter as time went by. It was as if this one issue was the straw that broke the camels back. No one else had an issue with it. A couple of people stated that it made them actually read some of their Bibles. Since the only bits they knew were the ones pointed out in readings over the course of the year. Father informed them that while Church on Sunday was a starting point it was only that, a starting point and that they should take the time to read, and study.
The old guy, I have not seen him back to church since then.
Atheists and agnostics, that's who!Thus explaining their decision to be atheist/agnostic.
maybe.
Many times it is. I do not fell it is done much if at all. may well have never been done much.
I am not so sure. Consider this, all of our news is reported based on a human perspective. Imagine how things would appear from, say, a dog's perspective.
Happens all the time. Which is why we must, more often then not, take multiple different conclusions to form a more complete viewpoint. Something I fear many do not.
Agreed. I would go further and say we must seek out conclusions from those who disagree with us.
I am not sure if you can.
Agreed again.
All that I know and have met personally and have discussed the matter with yes.
I wonder if there is some kind of 'process'. Step One - believe everything you were raised with. Step Two - increased knowledge causes rejection of previous beliefs. Step Three - further increased knowledge returns you to previous beliefs.
Please understand that I do not include those such as yourself with whom I have merely "spoken" with online.
Oh I certainly did not assume that. The only reason I bring it up is that I found it very interesting that you had the opposite experience that I did. I think you and I are a lot alike and that certain key experiences have moved us in opposite directions. It makes me question the experiences I have had and how I interpret them.
I wonder if there is some kind of 'process'. Step One - believe everything you were raised with. Step Two - increased knowledge causes rejection of previous beliefs. Step Three - further increased knowledge returns you to previous beliefs.
That, along with a couple of key experiences, fits me to a tee.
I had a boss once, whom I am sure I had spoken of before. He was very much an atheist in the extreme. Knew very little about religion in general and Christianity in specific.
His beliefs were.
1) Most people were stupid.
2) Religion was bunk and he did not want to even bother learning anything even a historical perspective on it. Finance, economics, business practices, those were practical and needed.
3) Smart people were not religious. He was very confused that the top performers and smartest people in the office were both Catholic.
4) The only time an atheist did convert was when they got old. "Closer to death makes the weak willed look into this stuff."
He scared me almost as bad as our resident baptist who "wanted to make sure you have chosen the lord as your savior and are born again!"
My cube neighbor scares me. He is definitely a biblical literalist. His views on Luke 14:26-27 downright frighten me.
My cube neighbor scares me. He is definitely a biblical literalist. His views on Luke 14:26-27 downright frighten me.
Cube neighbor? What do you do?
Yeah many people can't get over the translation issue with that one.
The gentleman in the cube next to me. I do not do anything. Talking to him has helped me understand how cults can form. He is very charismatic and while I am listening to him, I can see how he sounds convincing. As soon as I walk away, I see all the holes in his logic.
He is a perfect example of how it is more important how you say something rather than what you say.
He is a perfect example of how it is more important how you say something rather than what you say.
So your saying he should go into politics with the Tea party then?
Some Christian organizations conducted surveys to determine how many American actually hold a "Biblical worldview", agreeing with the basic tenets associated with Christianity.
Only 4% of Americans held these views.
Only 9% of those who said they had been born again held those views.
Less than 1% of young adults (age 18-23) held those views.
The world is filled with people who barely understand the beliefs they claim to hold.
The questions:
•Do absolute moral truths exist?
•Is absolute truth defined by the Bible?
•Did Jesus Christ live a sinless life?
•Is God the all-powerful and all-knowing Creator of the universe, and does He still rule it today?
•Is salvation a gift from God that cannot be earned?
•Is Satan real?
•Does a Christian have a responsibility to share his or her faith in Christ with other people?
•Is the Bible accurate in all of its teachings?
So your saying he should go into politics with the Tea party then?
He is a perfect example of how it is more important how you say something rather than what you say.
I am not going to turn this into a political thread. Religion or politics. Both in the same thread = IBTL.
People who study religion or religious effects on societies and individuals. Mythologists, theologians, anthropologists, sociologists, and others.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
My cube neighbor scares me. He is definitely a biblical literalist. His views on Luke 14:26-27 downright frighten me.Cube neighbor? What do you do?
He's trapped in an enormous cube, where the rooms shift and boobytraps are everywhere. The guy next to him (most recently) is an angry rogue cop, who keeps abusing a cute girl and autistic man. It's really not a pretty picture, but there will be a twist before all is said and done.
A few weeks ago I was in church listening to the pastor talk about how the world is hurting and needs Jesus. It occurred to me that the world has been 'hurting' since…well…pretty much forever. If Jesus was the messiah who was suppose to bring peace, why does the world continue to hurt? Is it another case of god's concept of bringing peace is on a different temporal schedule than ours?
He's trapped in an enormous cube, where the rooms shift and boobytraps are everywhere. The guy next to him (most recently) is an angry rogue cop, who keeps abusing a cute girl and autistic man. It's really not a pretty picture, but there will be a twist before all is said and done.My cube neighbor scares me. He is definitely a biblical literalist. His views on Luke 14:26-27 downright frighten me.Cube neighbor? What do you do?
Damn you M. Night Leave CF Alone!!!
A few weeks ago I was in church listening to the pastor talk about how the world is hurting and needs Jesus. It occurred to me that the world has been 'hurting' since…well…pretty much forever. If Jesus was the messiah who was suppose to bring peace, why does the world continue to hurt? Is it another case of god's concept of bringing peace is on a different temporal schedule than ours?
Maybe.
Or maybe there are lessons to be learned.
Sometimes we are the teachers, other times the lesson. Quite often we are lessons of what not to do.
Or maybe there are lessons to be learned.
But if the Bible is not added to, how can we ensure those lessons get passed on correctly?
And, obviously coming from an atheistic perspective, the lesson seems to be things pretty much work out exactly the same regardless of which sect you belong to. How is that teaching that The Way?
|
Some Christian organizations conducted surveys to determine how many American actually hold a "Biblical worldview", agreeing with the basic tenets associated with Christianity.
Only 4% of Americans held these views.
Only 9% of those who said they had been born again held those views.
Less than 1% of young adults (age 18-23) held those views.
The world is filled with people who barely understand the beliefs they claim to hold.
The questions:** spoiler omitted **
Sir_wulf,
Your conclusion does not match your evidence, I'm afraid. Just because people do not conform to what a certain (apparently extremely literal, judging by their questions) group thinks is Christianity does not mean they 'barely understand the beleifs they claim to hold'. Not all Christians believe in Bliblical inerrancy, or that Jesus was totally without sin. Just because it does not match this group's definition of Christianity does not mean it is not Christianity.
Or maybe there are lessons to be learned.But if the Bible is not added to, how can we ensure those lessons get passed on correctly?
And, obviously coming from an atheistic perspective, the lesson seems to be things pretty much work out exactly the same regardless of which sect you belong to. How is that teaching that The Way?
I never mentioned the Bible in that quote.
Well if it is from a Mormon perspective it isn't which is why they have additional works.
From mine, it is study and understanding. or attempts there of.
If we choose to use the lessons as far as the literature is concerned of, said lessons. Well there may in fact be many roads that lead to the same destination.
On the assumption of a God or higher Moral authority do you think he/she/it would be upset about the road you took if you "arrived to the same destination and on time?"
I never mentioned the Bible in that quote.
No, you did not. I fully admit that was my addition. My point was that if there is a lesson to be learned, it should be passed down to future generations. If it does not come from the Bible, its authenticity can be challenged (from a Christian perspective) or even missed entirely given the emphasis given to the Bible as the primary source of knowledge.
On the assumption of a God or higher Moral authority do you think he/she/it would be upset about the road you took if you "arrived to the same destination and on time?"
This seems a very theistic or agnostic view. Certainly not Christianity. Did not Jesus say the only way to the father was through him? How do you get to the father through Hinduism them?
I never mentioned the Bible in that quote.No, you did not. I fully admit that was my addition. My point was that if there is a lesson to be learned, it should be passed down to future generations. If it does not come from the Bible, its authenticity can be challenged (from a Christian perspective) or even missed entirely given the emphasis given to the Bible as the primary source of knowledge.
Only for those of whom equate Sola Scriptura as there basis for evidence and only source of knowledge. Catholicism does not.
On the assumption of a God or higher Moral authority do you think he/she/it would be upset about the road you took if you "arrived to the same destination and on time?"This seems a very theistic or agnostic view. Certainly not Christianity. Did not Jesus say the only way to the father was through him? How do you get to the father through Hinduism them?
It very well can be. And yes he did.
1“Do not let your hearts be troubled. Trust in God; trust also in me. 2In my Father’s house are many rooms; if it were not so, I would have told you. I am going there to prepare a place for you. 3And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come back and take you to be with me that you also may be where I am. 4You know the way to the place where I am going.”
5Thomas said to him, “Lord, we don’t know where you are going, so how can we know the way?”
6Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. 7If you really knew me, you would know my Father as well. From now on, you do know him and have seen him.”
8Philip said, “Lord, show us the Father and that will be enough for us.”
9Jesus answered: “Don’t you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’? 10Don’t you believe that I am in the Father, and that the Father is in me? The words I say to you are not just my own. Rather, it is the Father, living in me, who is doing his work. 11Believe me when I say that I am in the Father and the Father is in me; or at least believe on the evidence of the miracles themselves. 12I tell you the truth, anyone who has faith in me will do what I have been doing. He will do even greater things than these, because I am going to the Father. 13And I will do whatever you ask in my name, so that the Son may bring glory to the Father. 14You may ask me for anything in my name, and I will do it."
I hate things being taken out of context.
One catholic view is that all religious voice is part of that perception, yes even atheism. Though it maybe hard to understand.
Sir Wulf,
Your conclusion does not match your evidence, I'm afraid. Just because people do not conform to what a certain (apparently extremely literal, judging by their questions) group thinks is Christianity does not mean they 'barely understand the beliefs they claim to hold'. Not all Christians believe in Biblical inerrancy, or that Jesus was totally without sin. Just because it does not match this group's definition of Christianity does not mean it is not Christianity.
Perhaps I would have been wiser to find better ways to illustrate my point.
My concern is that many people claim to be Christian, but show behavior no different from the rest of society. Christians may not agree about the definition of a Christian worldview, but some ideas are crucial parts of Christianity. Those who agree about these central tenets demonstrate different behavior from the general population. As an example, declared Christians have divorce rates no lower than the general population, while couples committed to daily bible study together have a divorce rate of less than 1%.
This survey cited at the beginning of this thread seemed deeply flawed, in part because numerous nominal Christians were lumped in with the devout. Where on earth would you find a place where 3 in 10 Christians haven't heard that Jesus was born in Bethlehem?
Is it possible to have completely objective reporting? What about the issue of the observer tainting the observed? If you can not prove objective reporting, how do you account for confirmation bias?
CJ, in the CRD thread, I recall you expressing that all of the atheists you knew had not given religion much thought. Does that remain your position, do you consider there could be something to this survey and/or do you have some other explanation?
It is possible to make a close study of a phenomenon without what I would call negative capability (Keats). That is to say, you can dismiss all doubt about the existence of God from your mind (perhaps because eliminating possibilities, coming down hard and decisively on one side of an issue is easier on the mind, even if it isn't justified (you can't prove that God doesn't exist, although many claim to be certain), than living with the cognitive tension of hesitancy and uncertainty) and still learn a great deal about religion.
One catholic view is that all religious voice is part of that perception, yes even atheism. Though it maybe hard to understand.
Are you suggesting atheism is a religion?
So, there is no incentive to adopt any particular path since they all lead to the same place?
It is possible to make a close study of a phenomenon without what I would call negative capability (Keats).
I am not sure I understand what you mean. I only quoted your first sentence because I do not want to re-quote walls of text. I do not understand your entire point, not just the quoted part.
Are you saying someone can learn from religion without believing in that religion? I agree with that. I have learned from Christianity, Buddhism and most recently, Taoism.
The argument that you can not prove god does not exists really irritates me. People easily dismiss Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny and the Flying Spaghetti Monster despite the fact no one can prove they do not exist.
Are you suggesting atheism is a religion?
Not in the least bit. Though, as I have pointed out before I do feel many adherents treat it as such. Just that the ways in which many make their personal journey to atheism is one in which a catholic viewpoint can and does understand. Or some feel that they can anyway. I myself find my thoughts confused with some statements of disbelief and must try very hard to "put myself in those shoes." to better understand it.
So, there is no incentive to adopt any particular path since they all lead to the same place?
Does one take the smooth well made freeway to the big city,or rather take the slow back country road with its potholes. They both go to the city. One is faster and more sure, the other will still get you there, you just have to avoid more road hazards.
So yes there is incentives. At times you can find your destination and not realize you were on the journey.
EDIT: St. Nicholas of Myra was a real person. Santa Claus on the other hand can be traced back and determined to be a fictional character.
just saying.
Though, as I have pointed out before I do feel many adherents treat it as such.
I would label that zealotry and not confine it to religion/non-religion (I'm looking at you 3.5 grognards).
Just that the ways in which many make their personal journey to atheism is one in which a catholic viewpoint can and does understand.
That is not the Catholicism I was exposed to. Do you have some examples? I would be curious to see a Catholicism like that.
I myself find my thoughts confused with some statements of disbelief and must try very hard to "put myself in those shoes." to better understand it.
Well, if ever I can help.
Does one take the smooth well made freeway to the big city,or rather take the slow back country road with its potholes. They both go to the city. One is faster and more sure, the other will still get you there, you just have to avoid more road hazards.
Except, from my perspective, Christianity appears to be the one with the potholes.
Though, as I have pointed out before I do feel many adherents treat it as such.I would label that zealotry and not confine it to religion/non-religion (I'm looking at you 3.5 grognards).
As would I.
Just that the ways in which many make their personal journey to atheism is one in which a catholic viewpoint can and does understand.That is not the Catholicism I was exposed to. Do you have some examples? I would be curious to see a Catholicism like that.
I would point out that there is a difference between catholic and Catholic and it is more then the capitalization.
I myself find my thoughts confused with some statements of disbelief and must try very hard to "put myself in those shoes." to better understand it.Well, if ever I can help.
At times you have. Other times, yeah....
Does one take the smooth well made freeway to the big city,or rather take the slow back country road with its potholes. They both go to the city. One is faster and more sure, the other will still get you there, you just have to avoid more road hazards.Except, from my perspective, Christianity appears to be the one with the potholes.
I never said which one was which. What is that old saying about the path least traveled. Sometimes you have to also take the time to smell the flowers, you can rarely do that from a highway.
According to this poll, atheists/agnostics know the most about religion.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/28/us/28religion.html?_r=1
|
According to this poll, atheists/agnostics know the most about religion.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/28/us/28religion.html?_r=1
That must be because every religious person is an inbred deranged moron, I mean that's what some of the folks around here believe anyway. Did we really need another "Ur Stoopid cause u think gawd is reel" threads?
y'all have fun with that, CJ has a helluva lot more tolerance for these things than I do.
|
|
According to this poll, atheists/agnostics know the most about religion.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/28/us/28religion.html?_r=1
That must be because every religious person is an inbred deranged moron, I mean that's what some of the folks around here believe anyway. Did we really need another "Ur Stoopid cause u think gawd is reel" threads?
y'all have fun with that, CJ has a helluva lot more tolerance for these things than I do.
Wow, defensive much?
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
According to this poll, atheists/agnostics know the most about religion.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/28/us/28religion.html?_r=1
Programs! Get your programs here! Can't follow the thread without a program!
The OP had a link to that survey, and it was the inspiration for this thread. ;-)
I wonder if there is some kind of 'process'. Step One - believe everything you were raised with. Step Two - increased knowledge causes rejection of previous beliefs. Step Three - further increased knowledge returns you to previous beliefs.
Or as some call it childhood, adolescence, adulthood.
As an example, declared Christians have divorce rates no lower than the general population, while couples committed to daily bible study together have a divorce rate of less than 1%.
That's interesting... and not at all surprising. I do wonder, though, if the results would be similar when comparing declared TV watchers, vs. couples committed to daily TV viewing and discussion together. In other words, I'm wondering if the daily commitment to doing things together isn't a stronger predictor than the bible study.