Your original point has been corrected several times, some by yourself, some by others. You say amending it to this now stands:
You’ll have to keep amending, what about hair samples or other skin, tissues or body parts without the skeleton? This was you responding to Der Trihs saying: God can be “documented as fictitious” just as much, given that there’s zero actual evidence for him being possible, much less existing. Everything about him it drawn from old writing, old stories, or people’s unsupported word; if that isn’t “fictitious”, what is?
And what about history prior to the 19th century of which we only have autobiographies, biographies of people that is supported and corroborated from many historical sources, some original works which are still with us and we have no bodily remains of any kind? That’s still far from “unsupported word” don’t you think?
McKown coined the phrase Fundagelicals in at least as early as ’93 when his book was published to pretty much include the Creationists, Fundamentalists, and Evangelicals to one word. He talks more about it in his book The Mythmaker’s Magic.
With all due respect, that claim is itself ignorant. I’ve been a churchgoer all my life, I’ve been involved with various Christian ministries for over twenty years, I’ve been a church elder for three years, and I’ve been a featured teacher and speaker at various churches and ministries in at least three states.
Don’t know a lot of theists? Hardly.
I agree that most people who call themselves Christians are nowhere near as well-informed as they should be. However, I think the claim that most atheists are better informed about the Bible and/or Christianity is utterly laughable. The confusion in this thread alone demonstrates that.
Are you of the opinion that you can take a sample of one or two atheists in this thread and extrapolate that to the overall level of knowledge possessed by all atheists, and then further extrapolate from your very limited experience with all theists and declare with any level of certainty that atheists are in general not knowledgeable? Impressive.
This is the sort of mushy thinking that theism causes by the way. In any case, atheists are in general more knowledgeable about religion than religious people. Or at least that’s what the polling suggests.
In addition, many atheists were former theists who actually examined their beliefs. This causes a brain-drain away from religion as many of the brighter religious people end up leaving because they come to realize how ignorant and delusional religions are.
That sounds profoundly unhelpful, as those are three very distinct (but overlapping) groups. Unless he meant to only include individuals who happened to fall into all three groups simultaneously, like if I coined a word to describe atheists, Democrats and environmentalists.
That’s probably more my bad than his. I should have also stated it was a word he invented for those that refer to themselves as “Scientific Creationists." And it was even a much longer list he included that includes anyone supporting such a notion. And he did abbreviate it to one word to keep from having to write all of the different groups each and every time.
No. Your objection would have merit if I had claimed that, based on this thread alone, one could conclude that atheists are not better informed than Christians. What I actually said is that the confusion in this thread demonstrates that atheists are not as well informed as they think they are. This is especially clear in a forum like the Straight Dope, where people tend to pride themselves on the alleged extent of their knowledge.
In other words, it’s an example of how a certain group tends to be misinformed, not an exhaustive proof thereof.
Again, if I had made the claim that you phrased above, your sarcasm would be appropriate. Since I did not though, I think you would be wise to avoid belaboring that point.
Y’know, in light of what I’ve just pointed out, I think you would also be wise to avoid accusing others of “mushy thinking.” This is especially true in light of your earlier inference that I “don’t know a lot of theists.”
I fail to see the relevance of your question. Lobohan claimed that I must not know a lot of theists. I pointed out that I’ve been going to church all my life, and that I’ve been active in leadership, teaching, and various Christian ministries. All of these activities – numerous activities that span decades – require contact with other believers, often in large groups. In other words, I know a HUGE number of theists.
Perhaps you can explain how your question is relevant. Perhaps it’s just my poor, defective Christian brain that’s at fault, but I just don’t see the connection.
You seemed very certain about your conclusion. And since you provided no additional information to back up your assertion, I naturally assumed this is all you had. And as it happens, your conclusion is wrong. See the cite in my previous post.
My sarcasm was based on the idea that you based your assessment on nothing but anecdote. Your experiences wasting years on the worthless pursuit of regimented delusion aren’t relevant to what you’re asserting. I assume you understand the concept of confirmation bias.
My earlier (joking) inference that you don’t know a lot of theists was based on your incorrect assertion that theists are more knowledgeable about religion in general than atheists. That’s wrong. You focusing on that is an example of your mushy thinking.
You take what was meant to be a flippant statement and challenge it factually. And then you strut around as if you actually are making points. But really, what’s happening is that you are ignoring the factual cite I provided that utterly undercuts your assertion.
Not only do you not admit you are wrong, you actually point at a fake issue (that I said you must not know a lot of theists) and claim victory. As I said, religion teaches you to think mushy.
My fault for failing to delete the first part of the quoted text, I quoted you as:
… when I should been more selective with:
I wasn’t intending to comment on Lobohan’s claim because, seriously, what difference does it make how many theists (or, for that matter, atheists) you’ve known in your life? Rather, I was attempting a comment on the implicit claim of authority you are making when citing the time and effort you’ve dedicated in the study and promulgation of something that is effectively indistinguishable from fiction. Heck, you could have been a guest lecturer at a church, or a guest speaker at a Star Trek convention. The effective difference escapes me.
The problem with the question in the OP is that it takes a vaguely defined group which literally contains tens of millions of people, and offers a single (and pejorative) word to describe them all. Yes, there are ignorant evangelicals. There are ignorant Jews, atheists, Americans, steelworkers and Freemasons too. But it’s a huge mistake to go from “some, or many, of group X have this characteristic, so are they anything but that?”
It only takes one counterexample. Posters in this thread have pointed to evangelical scientists, so obviously all evangelicals are not ignorant about science. On what subject does the OP suggest we can completely ignore the ignorant ramblings of any individual who fits the definition of Evangelical?
Perhaps it might be useful, instead, to judge them on a case by case basis and determine whether or not you are dealing with an ignorant individual rather than lazily dismissing such a huge population en masse with whom you are already apparently unfamiliar.
You should learn to avoid that kind of (ahem) “mushy thinking” then, especially when it comes to brief responses.
Knowlegeable people know full well that the methodology one uses can make all the difference in how those studies are performed. Now, I am not saying that the study in question
No, your statement went far beyond that. You specifically said that it was based on “a sample of one or two atheists in this thread” – a reckless and unfounded conclusion on your part. As I’ve already pointed out, I said that the statements in this thread were an example of atheistic ignorance, rather than any sort of exhaustive proof.
Please bear that in mind before you accuse other people of “mushy thinking.”
They are COMPLETELY relevant to the claim that I was addressing – namely, your conclusion that I must not know a lot of theists. You know full well that this is the statement I was addressing, so why do you insist on moving the goalposts?
Yes, I do. I also know that it’s irrelevant to the point I was addressing. You claimed that I must not know a lot of theists. The reality is that I know a HUGE number of theists, thanks to a lifetime of involvement in church and ministry activities. Your objection of “confirmation bias” is completely irrelevant.
Look, you jumped to various hasty conclusions. We all do that on occasion. Accept it and move on.
Care to bring more evidence in then? Or would you rather admit that you were wrong?
I’m assuming you intended to put more into there, so I’ll just leave that be until you clarify.
Yet you have no exhaustive proof (as if such a thing were possible). You are bringing nothing to your assertion other than your years delusional thinking and this thread. I’d like to see the evidence you think you have.
I’m not moving the goalposts. I said, and I already clarified this, that you must not know a lot of theists because you claimed theists were knowledgeable about religion. They aren’t. As per my cite.
But this is the only victory you can make out of this, because your assertion is wrong, so you fixate on it without regard to the actual debate.
The confirmation bias refers to your incorrect assertion that theists are more knowledgeable about religion than atheists. You see other equally deluded people and are prone to assume they are bright bulbs.
I think I’ll keep on pointing out how utterly you fail to make your point.
Nonsense. Old writings, stories etc may not be hard evidence for the things they claim exist; but they certainly are evidence for the people who wrote them. And unlike religious claims they can be evaluated and compared to produce a consistent view of the past (as opposed to the wild contradictions between religions), and they can be compared to all sorts of physical evidence to corroborate (or not) their claims. And of course, if there hadn’t been any people in the 19th century, there wouldn’t be any people now; whereas there’s nothing that “God” is required to explain.
In other words, it isn’t the equivalent of George Lucas claiming that Darth Vader is real because the Force gave him a vision; it’s more like him claiming Darth Vader was real and producing a buried Star Destroyer as evidence with Vader’s video diary on board.