A Question for Atheists concerning ignorance

[ambushed]

[QUOTE=Mangetout]
Firstly, Is there any particular reason to frame your responses in such hostile terms?
[/quote]
This is a discussion about whether most believers can be considered ignorant. I answered in the affirmative and have thus used the word to apply to most believers as a direct consequence of the OP’s reference to ignorance.

[QUOTE=Mangetout]
But OK, you’ve surveyed a sample consisting of three individuals. Surely you’re aware of the dangers of generalising from such a small set of data.
[/quote]
Please don’t insult me. I did not claim to have collected and polled a representative sample. I only reported what I reported, from all the devout Christians available to me at this moment.

[QUOTE=Mangetout]
And finally - maybe you’re even right - all I can say is that most, if not all, of the Christians I know would answer by quoting or paraphrasing that passage in Mark 12, if asked to sum up the commandments.
[/QUOTE]
I’m afraid that I must consider the probability of your statement to be extremely low, especially given that the majority of Christians cannot even name the four Gospels, let alone regurgitate the contents of a relatively obscure passage!

Nope, statistics show that most Christians are rather ignorant of their faith. Thus we have books titled “Religious Illiteracy” that makes my point and so forth.

[Mangetout]

[QUOTE=ambushed]
This is a discussion about whether most believers can be considered ignorant. I answered in the affirmative and have thus used the word to apply to most believers as a direct consequence of the OP’s reference to ignorance.
[/quote]
I’m not talking about that, I’m talking about this:

@ambushed

In other words, they’re ignorant.

I don’t accept your absurd argument for a second. I have just asked three devout Christians to “sum up the Law or the Ten Commandments”, and none of them came anywhere near what you so ridiculously asserted they would know.

They are most clearly ignorant of the Ten Commandments AND your ostensibly well-known summary.

[Cervaise]

As an atheist, I reject the idea that religious people are, simply by the fact of being religious, by definition ignorant. In fact, in this thread, I specifically addressed my experience that the faithful will misinterpret (or sometimes, if there’s an agenda, deliberately misrepresent) the position of the typical atheist as an implicit accusation of ignorance, where no such accusation exists.

Now, that being said, there is a casual misuse of vocabulary in this thread that I believe is causing the discussion to be sidetracked into swelling hostility. To simply say, in a blanket sense, that “somebody is ignorant,” without any other qualifiers, is a very strong statement. It connotes total ignorance, top to bottom, about everything that matters. As has been discussed above, everybody’s ignorant about something; for example, the only thing I know about European soccer is that its fans roll their eyes when they hear Americans refer to it as “soccer” instead of “football.” The fact that I am ignorant about that, and no doubt about dozens of other things besides, does not, by itself, make me ignorant. The difference between common ignorance, and a larger Capital-I Ignorance, is being blithely dismissed by some posters above, and I think that’s a mistake.

Now, that being said:

@Brain Wreck

But specifically when [religious folk] go putting forth strong opinions and contrarian claims about science when all they have is their dusty Jesus book and a dim understanding of obsolete biology concepts, within that context they can be dismissed as ignorant. You simply cannot have a conversation on biology with someone who not merely ignorant of the facts of biology but hostile to learning any knowledge that might undermine their dusty book. In that context ‘ignorant’ refers not so much to the person as to a justification of why it’s hopeless to converse with that person.

This is a distinction I can get behind. I would be comfortable labeling as Ignorant somebody for whom any curiosity, any interest in learning, and any acknowledgement that one’s knowledge is not perfect and that one’s beliefs may be wrong are regarded as poisonous… and this goes for militant atheists as well as religious zealots. I reserve use of the term Ignorant (as in “you are ignorant,” full stop) for those who are not just uninformed but who are deliberately so, and who effectively wallow in their close-mindedness.

It is, for me, a specific descriptor, and to generalize beyond that is to remove any usefulness from the term, as it becomes a weapon instead of an adjective. And that doesn’t help anybody.

[Mangetout]

[QUOTE=ambushed]
I’m afraid that I must consider the probability of your statement to be extremely low, especially given that the majority of Christians cannot even name the four Gospels
[/QUOTE]
Can I see a citation supporting that please?

[Staggerlee]

[QUOTE=coffeecat]
Religion also has libraries full of erudite analysis of its “superstitions,” and people who’ve had perceptions of God which, although not reproducible at will (unless maybe you’re a Buddhist ), are none the less convincing to them. Neither of these are scientific evidence, but I defy anyone to prove scientifically that it’s wrong to murder or that Shakespeare was a good writer, either. Truth is not the same thing as fact, and people who occupy themselves with non-scientific things are not necessarily toothless men named Cletus waiting to dance on the altar with a rattlesnake.
[/QUOTE]
I don’t think any sensible person would feel the need to try to cobble together a scientific proof for beauty, great penmanship or morality. These are all matters of cultural taste. The basis of morality has been explained in terms of evolutionary biology by people such as Matt Ridley in his great book ‘The Origins of Virtue’ in terms of group survival, nurturing instincts, empathy etc. But many subjective matters aren’t best served by science which attempts at least to be objective.

Also, Mangetout, do you think that the argument you appear to be having might be somewhat down to differences between UK and US Christians? Just that I have tended to like CofE Christians I’ve met because they have not been as strict and dogmatic as they could have been - instead being rather pleasant and liberal. Are CofE worshippers generally less orthodox and less concerned with the fire and brimstone of the OT? Just a thought.

[ambushed]

[QUOTE=Mangetout]
I’m not talking about that, I’m talking about this:
[/QUOTE]
I see. Please accept my apology.

[kifler]

[QUOTE=ambushed]
If nothing can come into existence from nothing, then God cannot come into existence from nothing.

Theologians thousands of times seemingly less ignorant than you may be have asked: “Why does anything exist? Why not nothing?”

We atheists have at least two replies: (1) If “nothing” is the default, then whence God? Why God instead of nothing?" and (2) “Nothing” is physically unstable.
[/QUOTE]

Because we all know that science has told us that something cannot come from nothing.

[ambushed]

[QUOTE=Mangetout]
Can I see a citation supporting that please?
[/QUOTE]

From Stephen Prothero’s Religious Literacy, I quote verbatim:

"According to recent polls, most American adults cannot name one of the four Gospels, and many high school seniors think that Sodom and Gomorrah were husband and wife. "

[Malacandra]

I must admit, I might struggle to rattle off the Decalogue by heart… I’d take a wild stab at the following.

[ol]Have no God but God[li]Do not practise idolatry[]Do not blaspheme[]Keep the Sabbath[]Honour your parents[]Do not murder[]Do not steal[]Do not commit adultery[]Do not bear false witness[]Do not covet your neighbour’s possessions[/ol][/li]
As for the Summary (attributed to Jesus but, of course, neither original nor claimed by him as such), perhaps the Christians that ambushed knows don’t go to church very often - it’s recited as part of the service in most churches I’ve been to.

[ambushed]

[QUOTE=Mangetout]
Can I see a citation supporting that please?
[/QUOTE]

Also from that text: Echoing Gallup and Castelli, researcher George Barna concludes that “the Christian body in America is immersed in a crisis of biblical illiteracy”

[kifler]

“According to the widely accepted scientific account, the universe erupted 15 billion years ago in an explosion called the ‘Big Bang’ and has been expanding and cooling ever since. Later there gradually emerged the conditions necessary for the formation of atoms, still later the condensation of galaxies and stars, and about 10 billion years later the formation of planets. In our own solar system and on earth (formed about 4.5 billion years ago), the conditions have been favorable to the emergence of life. While there is little consensus among scientists about how the origin of this first microscopic life is to be explained, there is general agreement among them that the first organism dwelt on this planet about 3.5 - 4 billion years ago. Since it has been demonstrated that all living organisms on earth are genetically related, it is virtually certain that all living organisms have descended from this first organism. Converging evidence from many studies in the physical and biological sciences furnishes mounting support for some theory of evolution to account for the development and diversification of life on earth, while controversy continues over the pace and mechanisms of evolution.” (paragraph 63, from “Communion and Stewardship: Human Persons Created in the Image of God,” plenary sessions held in Rome 2000-2002, published July 2004)

I never got why people always think that Christians are always doubting certain processes.

[kifler]

[QUOTE=ambushed]
From Stephen Prothero’s Religious Literacy, I quote verbatim:

"According to recent polls, most **American adults ** cannot name one of the four Gospels, and many high school seniors think that Sodom and Gomorrah were husband and wife. "
[/QUOTE]

Of course we all know that American adults are ALL Christian.

Any link to the actual study?

[Mangetout]

[QUOTE=ambushed]
From Stephen Prothero’s Religious Literacy, I quote verbatim:

"According to recent polls, most American adults cannot name one of the four Gospels, and many high school seniors think that Sodom and Gomorrah were husband and wife. "
[/QUOTE]

That’s not what you first said it was.

[ambushed]

[QUOTE=Malacandra]
As for the Summary (attributed to Jesus but, of course, neither original nor claimed by him as such), perhaps the Christians that ambushed knows don’t go to church very often - it’s recited as part of the service in most churches I’ve been to.
[/QUOTE]

Nonsense. I do not buy that. These are devout, church-going Christians who were unable to come up with that so-called “summary” (which is no summary of the Ten Commandments at all in my view). I attended church every Sunday for 20 years and I’ve read the New Testament many times and I couldn’t have cited that non-summary “summary” either.

I call baloney on that.

[Staggerlee]

[QUOTE=kifler]
Because we all know that science has told us that something cannot come from nothing.
[/QUOTE]
The physical laws concerning the universe suggest that something can’t come from nothing, but when you’re talking about the universe itself, the rules may be different. There are various theories like that of the ‘multiverse’ or an endless cycle of Big Bang-expansion-contraction-Big Crunch-ad infinitum which I’m not well-versed enough in to pass judgment on. But just because there is no obvious answer does not mean we should stop wondering and looking, and pin it all on an omnipotent patriarch. As someone above said - how does a god explain away the first cause? We would still need something, philosophically, to ‘cause’ god.

[ambushed]

[QUOTE=Mangetout]
That’s not what you first said it was.
[/QUOTE]

Please elaborate.

[Mangetout]

[QUOTE=ambushed]
Please elaborate.
[/QUOTE]

You said you had a statistic about the majority of Christians, but you provided one about the majority of American adults.

[Malacandra]

[QUOTE=ambushed]
Nonsense. I do not buy that. These are devout, church-going Christians who were unable to come up with that so-called “summary” (which is no summary of the Ten Commandments at all in my view). I attended church every Sunday for 20 years and I’ve read the New Testament many times and I couldn’t have cited that non-summary “summary” either.

I call baloney on that.
[/QUOTE]

Call baloney on what exactly?

If you have read the New Testament many times and could not cite “Love the Lord your God with all your heart… and love your neighbour as yourself”, then you’re in the position of the Shakespeare scholar who has read Hamlet many times and is unaware there is a famous monologue beginning “To be or not to be, that is the question.” No exaggeration.

Your opinion on whether it is a summary is duly noted, and compared to the author of the Book of Common Prayer who subtitles it “Our Lord’s Summary of the Law” and appoints it optionally to be read in place of the Ten Commandments, and also to what Jesus himself says: “there is none other commandment greater than these; on these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets”.

Whatever kind of a church did you go to for twenty years?

[ambushed]

[QUOTE=kifler]
Of course we all know that American adults are ALL Christian.
[/quote]
Stop wasting our time with such nonsense. All but a tiny percentage of Americans are believers “of the book”, including Jews, Christians, and Muslims. Again, stop wasting our time.

[QUOTE=kifler]
Any link to the actual study?
[/QUOTE]

Internet links provide the least reliable references. Go to the library and read the reference I already provided and George Gallup Jr. and Jim Castelli’s, The People’s Faith

[ambushed]

[QUOTE=Malacandra]
Call baloney on what exactly?

If you have read the New Testament many times and could not cite “Love the Lord your God with all your heart… and love your neighbour as yourself”, then you’re in the position of the Shakespeare scholar who has read Hamlet many times and is unaware there is a famous monologue beginning “To be or not to be, that is the question.” No exaggeration.
[/quote]
Stop insulting me! And stop misrepresenting me. What I said is that I could not regurgitate that passage as a valid “summary” of the Ten Commandments.

Your claim about this allegedly being wide-spread knowledge is baloney. As I said, most American Christians cannot even name ONE of the four Gospels, let alone provide that non-summary “summary” of the Ten Commandments.