Happy Atheist Forum

(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fsnsimages.tribune.com%2Fmedia%2Falternatethumbnails%2Fstory%2F2010-09%2F56399314-27213855.jpg&hash=3d204a573237fad933f32fbd27c44c7a1a32d7b7)

QuoteIf you want to know about God, you might want to talk to an atheist.

Heresy? Perhaps. But a survey that measured Americans' knowledge of religion found that atheists and agnostics knew more, on average, than followers of most major faiths. In fact, the gaps in knowledge among some of the faithful may give new meaning to the term "blind faith."

source (http://www.fox13now.com/news/nationworld/sns-religion-survey,0,7643984.story)

I doubt this will surprise many here, but it's nice to gave a bit of data to back up what many have intuitively concluded.

You know, i'm not surprised. Seems to make sense, I don't know a lot about religion but I do know more about Christianity than my average peer does, whenever I end up in an argument it's good to know more than they do about their own religion.

Quote from: "Ultima22689"You know, i'm not surprised. Seems to make sense, I don't know a lot about religion but I do know more about Christianity than my average peer does, whenever I end up in an argument it's good to know more than they do about their own religion.

Hell yeah. I bet that feels amazing.

the more you know about it, the more retarded it is.

and then you just have to do something else with your time.

It's good to finally see a study that proves what many of us have suspected all along.  Being religious and NOT knowing the bible is like someone going to a gun fight with a toothpick.

Catholic and Christian students here probably do not read the Bible. Many times in my class when I cite scriptures that undermine their beliefs but relevant to the topic being discussed kids ask me if it's really writen there I'd say 'Oh your god! No wonder you're stil Catholics and Christians.'

My niece told me that her priest actually told the parishioners not to read the bible because parts of it would confuse them.  He also told them that parts of the bible could not be read in Church.  I think he was most likely talking about Leviticus.

Study the bible and become an atheist!

The greatest resource that contributed to my deconversion is the Skeptic's Annotated Bible.  It's a treasure trove of commentary that your average preacher will be hesitant to deliver.  

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/

It's also invaluable when Mormons or Jehovah's Witnesses come knocking.

Quote from: "Tank"Study the bible and become an atheist!

I said something quite close to this to a friend of mine, who happened to be Christen. They did not quite want to understand what I meant and seemed to take no comfort in me explaining it.

The more you know about religion, the less likely you are to follow one unless brainwashed beyond belief. No surprise at all.

Take the mini survey on pew and found out how you stack against the rest of the US population.
Survey
http://features.pewforum.org/quiz/us-re ... knowledge/ (http://features.pewforum.org/quiz/us-religious-knowledge/)
My score.
http://features.pewforum.org/quiz/us-re ... ps-compare (http://features.pewforum.org/quiz/us-religious-knowledge/?q=16#religious-groups-compare)

I got all but one. Did not know that the Catholics actually think the bread and wine really becomes flesh and blood. That's creepy.

  100%

Quote from: "NearBr0ken"The greatest resource that contributed to my deconversion is the Skeptic's Annotated Bible.  It's a treasure trove of commentary that your average preacher will be hesitant to deliver.  

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/

It's also invaluable when Mormons or Jehovah's Witnesses come knocking.

SABs rocks.

Quote from: "Sophus"I got all but one. Did not know that the Catholics actually think the bread and wine really becomes flesh and blood. That's creepy.

It's called transubstantiation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transubstantiation). Person I know who is Catholic is gluten intolerant so can't eat the communion wafers, so she pockets them and gives them to her dog when she gets home  

Quote from: "Tank"

Quote from: "Sophus"I got all but one. Did not know that the Catholics actually think the bread and wine really becomes flesh and blood. That's creepy.

It's called transubstantiation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transubstantiation). Person I know who is Catholic is gluten intolerant so can't eat the communion wafers, so she pockets them and gives them to her dog when she gets home  

So she feeds Jesus to her dog?  It's pretty telling that she doesn't really believe it becomes flesh because her excuse isn't that she can't eat meat.

It's disappointing that with our knowledge of biochemistry and molecular chemistry, that a belief akin to alchemy can still survive scrutiny.

Quote from: "NearBr0ken"It's disappointing that with our knowledge of biochemistry and molecular chemistry, that a belief akin to alchemy can still survive scrutiny.

It's not akin to alchemy.  Alchemy is the transmutation of materials through physical, natural means.  Alchemy actually takes place in the real world, though very differently and by different means than the alchemists thought, in the form of chemical reactions that produce new compounds.  Transubstantiation of the host in catholicism is thought to be purely magical by means of god willing it to happen.

I got two wrong, and that still scored me as being in the 97th percentile.

Wow.

heh, so wait...eating his flesh and drinking his blood would make us zombies right?  So its like zombie cannibalism.

No, the Catholics eating Jesus' flesh make them cannibals. But since Jesus died and then walked around, he pretty closely fits the definition of zombie. So the Catholics are eating zombie flesh.

Bleah!

Quote from: "PoopShoot"

Quote from: "Tank"

Quote from: "Sophus"I got all but one. Did not know that the Catholics actually think the bread and wine really becomes flesh and blood. That's creepy.

It's called transubstantiation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transubstantiation). Person I know who is Catholic is gluten intolerant so can't eat the communion wafers, so she pockets them and gives them to her dog when she gets home  roflol This makes me want to take my dog to sunday mass.

Took the 32 question survey - 32/32.  Pretty basic info for the most part.

couldnt say i was suprised by this. i know a lot more about the bible than my christian friends do

Quote from: "LarryS"couldnt say i was suprised by this. i know a lot more about the bible than my christian friends do

It is a bit funny and sad when you can tell them things they don't know about their own holy book or doctrine/theology.

We don't pick and choose what to read. When I read the Bible or the Qur'an or whatever, I don't avoid reading about anything because it might test my faith or whatever. I don't avoid information about other 'faiths', either. I've read the Torah cover to cover, the Bible cover to cover (several versions, in fact), the Qur'an, the Book of Mormon, the Tao Te Ching, the Dhammapada, and the Bhagavad Gita, as well as writings on dead mythology. What Christian can claim the same?

Quote from: "Will"We don't pick and choose what to read. When I read the Bible or the Qur'an or whatever, I don't avoid reading about anything because it might test my faith or whatever. I don't avoid information about other 'faiths', either. I've read the Torah cover to cover, the Bible cover to cover (several versions, in fact), the Qur'an, the Book of Mormon, the Tao Te Ching, the Dhammapada, and the Bhagavad Gita, as well as writings on dead mythology. What Christian can claim the same?

Not very many, I'm sure.

Quote from: "Will"We don't pick and choose what to read. When I read the Bible or the Qur'an or whatever, I don't avoid reading about anything because it might test my faith or whatever. I don't avoid information about other 'faiths', either. I've read the Torah cover to cover, the Bible cover to cover (several versions, in fact), the Qur'an, the Book of Mormon, the Tao Te Ching, the Dhammapada, and the Bhagavad Gita, as well as writings on dead mythology. What Christian can claim the same?

How has your head not exploded?  I got about 1/4 into the Bible and then  

I read the Bible when I was 11-12 (NIV), then again when I lost my religion (NKJ). Fortunately, other religious texts seem to be much shorter than the Bible.

Quote from: "Will"I read the Bible when I was 11-12 (NIV), then again when I lost my religion (NKJ). Fortunately, other religious texts seem to be much shorter than the Bible.

The full Buddhist Canon is about the size of 5-6 bibles.  The Dhammapada is just a small section.

When I told my mother about this she replied that she'd rather actually know god personally than know "about" religion and the bible...

Quote from: "notself"

Quote from: "Will"I read the Bible when I was 11-12 (NIV), then again when I lost my religion (NKJ). Fortunately, other religious texts seem to be much shorter than the Bible.

The full Buddhist Canon is about the size of 5-6 bibles.  The Dhammapada is just a small section.

Yeah, I've not had a chance to read the whole thing yet. I asked a Buddhist what I should read to get an idea of what Buddhism is and he recommended the Dhammapada.

Quote from: "Will"Yeah, I've not had a chance to read the whole thing yet. I asked a Buddhist what I should read to get an idea of what Buddhism is and he recommended the Dhammapada.

I can barely LIFT the whole thing  

(No, not really, but I did acquire it and am contemplating starting on it)

It is really slow reading.  There is a tremendous amount of repetition because sections are often chanted.  When all of the repetitions are included, the canon is around 70 volumes.    I would recommend putting the books aside and using the index from Access to Insight.  One can look up a topic and read several suttas pertaining to the topic.  Under Author one can read essays by very well known monks on various topics.  The clearest are by Thanissaro Bhikkhu who is an American monk, abbot of a monastery in San Diego.  

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/index-subject.html (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/index-subject.html)

If you want to read the Dhammapada with traditional stories, here's a link.  http://www.vipassana.info/a.htm#Cakkhupala (http://www.vipassana.info/a.htm#Cakkhupala)

Quote from: "Asmodean"

Quote from: "Will"Yeah, I've not had a chance to read the whole thing yet. I asked a Buddhist what I should read to get an idea of what Buddhism is and he recommended the Dhammapada.

I can barely LIFT the whole thing  

(No, not really, but I did acquire it and am contemplating starting on it)

Well, you've got a leg up, from what I understand; Buddhism is all about comtemplation.

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"Buddhism is all about comtemplation.

And often about putting a mystical slant on mundane subjects.

Quote from: "Tank"It's called transubstantiation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transubstantiation). Person I know who is Catholic is gluten intolerant so can't eat the communion wafers, so she pockets them and gives them to her dog when she gets home  :P

On another note, I find it funny that both Mormons and Jews scored better on the test than the Catholics. The ones I know are always bragging about them being in the "one true church".  

So there was a nation wide survey in America, to gauge the level of Religious knowledge among Americans Apparently, atheists scored highest out of any demographic.

I thought this would be a nice place to preform a little social experiment.  Take this test, post your score, converse.  I'm just interested by the prospect that we know more about religion than the religious.

http://features.pewforum.org/quiz/us-religious-knowledge/index.php

I got an 87%, btw.

Quote from: "KebertX"So there was a nation wide survey in America, to gauge the level of Religious knowledge among Americans Apparently, atheists scored highest out of any demographic.

I thought this would be a nice place to preform a little social experiment.  Take this test, post your score, converse.  I'm just interested by the prospect that we know more about religion than the religious.

http://features.pewforum.org/quiz/us-religious-knowledge/index.php

I got an 87%, btw.

Think there's a thread about this already.

Anyway, I made 100%.

100%

Quote from: "PoopShoot"

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"Buddhism is all about comtemplation.

And often about putting a mystical slant on mundane subjects.

Yes. I consider that to be a good thing though  

Quote from: "KebertX"

Quote from: "PoopShoot"

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"Buddhism is all about comtemplation.

And often about putting a mystical slant on mundane subjects.

Yes. I consider that to be a good thing though  

That's an interesting comment. If you have the time and inclination I would like to try to understand my.

Quote from: "KebertX"

Quote from: "PoopShoot"

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"Buddhism is all about comtemplation.

And often about putting a mystical slant on mundane subjects.

Yes. I consider that to be a good thing though  :D

~

Completely unrelated note to the OP: "Survay?!?" Really?  I'm sorry, but I need to point out this spelling FAIL.  For future reference: S - U - R - V - E - Y!

"Why not" is not a decent reason for me to rearrange my neurons, thanks.  I'm looking for the world the way it is.  Because "why not" carries no burden of proof, it rarely satisfies my curiosity, because rather than "why not?", I ask "why?"

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus""Why not" is not a decent reason for me to rearrange my neurons, thanks.  I'm looking for the world the way it is.  Because "why not" carries no burden of proof, it rarely satisfies my curiosity, because rather than "why not?", I ask "why?"

Like I said, it's not a question of logic for me.  It's not just "Why not" either. I sincerely like Buddhism, and I agree with it's philosophy.  And it's tenets about how the universe works
a) cannot be proven one way or the other
b) actually make sense.  It's simple, not so far fetched, and never contradicts itself, or reality
and c) inconsequential. It really doesn't matter, there's no motivation to dispute it, because it's not contradictory to anything in the real world.  It's sort of off to the side, so you can just believe in it if it makes sense to you, and it doesn't effect your perception of reality.

Like I said, I just think it's nice.  I think (but would never make a scientific claim) that I observe Karma in my day to day life.  It appears to be a natural law governing the universe, from my perspective.  And Reincarnation simply makes sense to me: Your life is basically just energy. You die, the energy is spent up, it leaves your body.  That same energy is simply recycled, and life perpetuates itself.  Energy's never created or destroyed, it's just physics.

So for some unconfirmable mysticism that makes me feel optimistic, I'm willing to let Occam's Razor take a hit on this one.  I could care less if it's real, it just seems nice.  Detachment.  That's another thing I picked up from Buddhism.  So I always ask "Why?" when I want to learn something that I can know. But when it comes to the unknown and unknowable, where it really doesn't matter if it's true and doesn't impact on the rest of reality, I'm content to pick an appealing philosophy and stick to it.  And "Why Not?" is all the justification I need.

Many people including Buddhists think rebirth is a continuation of the self.  Yet according to many suttas and the commentaries this is not the case.  The Buddha never specifically says what will be reborn although in some suttas to laypeople and new monks he uses the pronoun "you".  The commentaries contain this poem.  Only empty (of self) phenomenon is reborn.  The phenomena could be the actions we have taken in this life which have yet to have a result.  This poem wraps up anatta (not self), kamma (action), co-dependent origination and the atheistic nature of Buddhist teachings in a nice little package.

"Mere suffering is, not any sufferer is found
The deeds exist, but no performer of the deeds:
Nibbana is, but not the man that enters it,
The path is, but no wanderer is to be seen.

No doer of the deeds is found,
No one who ever reaps their fruits,
Empty phenomena roll on,
This view alone is right and true.

No god, no Brahma, may be called,
The maker of this wheel of life,
Empty phenomena roll on,
Dependent on conditions all."

- Visuddhimagga XVI 90

A surprising number of Buddhists don't like this poem.  I guess like many theists, they want to believe they will actually be reincarnated.

I just noticed my rank on this board is "the believer who wasn't there".  How very appropriate.  

Quote from: "KebertX"

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus""Why not" is not a decent reason for me to rearrange my neurons, thanks.  I'm looking for the world the way it is.  Because "why not" carries no burden of proof, it rarely satisfies my curiosity, because rather than "why not?", I ask "why?"

Like I said, it's not a question of logic for me.  It's not just "Why not" either. I sincerely like Buddhism, and I agree with it's philosophy.  And it's tenets about how the universe works
a) cannot be proven one way or the other
b) actually make sense.  It's simple, not so far fetched, and never contradicts itself, or reality
and c) inconsequential. It really doesn't matter, there's no motivation to dispute it, because it's not contradictory to anything in the real world.  It's sort of off to the side, so you can just believe in it if it makes sense to you, and it doesn't effect your perception of reality.

Like I said, I just think it's nice.  I think (but would never make a scientific claim) that I observe Karma in my day to day life.  It appears to be a natural law governing the universe, from my perspective.  And Reincarnation simply makes sense to me: Your life is basically just energy. You die, the energy is spent up, it leaves your body.  That same energy is simply recycled, and life perpetuates itself.  Energy's never created or destroyed, it's just physics.

So for some unconfirmable mysticism that makes me feel optimistic, I'm willing to let Occam's Razor take a hit on this one.  I could care less if it's real, it just seems nice.  Detachment.  That's another thing I picked up from Buddhism.  So I always ask "Why?" when I want to learn something that I can know. But when it comes to the unknown and unknowable, where it really doesn't matter if it's true and doesn't impact on the rest of reality, I'm content to pick an appealing philosophy and stick to it.  And "Why Not?" is all the justification I need.

I don't have a problem with this, because you are not making didactic statements about how reality operates.  It's one reason I find Buddhism, if personally unsatisfying, tolerable.  Although I'd argue that your point about reincarnation is really a redefinition of the word, rather than an example of its colloquial meaning.

I simply prefer having a reason behind my beliefs, because I have no faith.

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"

Quote from: "KebertX"

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"And Reincarnation simply makes sense to me: Your life is basically just energy. You die, the energy is spent up, it leaves your body.  That same energy is simply recycled, and life perpetuates itself.  Energy's never created or destroyed, it's just physics.

I don't have a problem with this, because you are not making didactic statements about how reality operates.  It's one reason I find Buddhism, if personally unsatisfying, tolerable.  Although I'd argue that your point about reincarnation is really a redefinition of the word, rather than an example of its colloquial meaning.

I simply prefer having a reason behind my beliefs, because I have no faith.

KervertX definition is similar to the "rebirth" that Buddha described in some suttas and in the poem I posted.  Phenomena of the poem can be defined as energy as well as action.  The reincarnation of Hindus and some New Age religions is a different definition based on a concept of an eternal self or soul.  This concept of unchanging eternalism is negated in Buddhist teachings.  

The problem with Buddhist teachings is the shear volume and frequently the lack of clear indications as to the audience for the teachings.  Where there are indicators of the audience one can see how the teachings were tailored to the understanding level of that audience.  In many teachings Gotama uses the phrase "you will be reborn" and in others he talks about not self, no independent "you" exists.  In my opinion, one can see two types of teachings. The first is very close to the Vedic religions that were practiced at the time, but eliminating the need for ritual, priests and gods while empowering men and women to be their own salvation, i.e. end or reduce suffering/stress.  The second is the teachings about impermanence, not self, and co-dependant origination.  The intellectual realization of these things as they apply to oneself, is what I think the goal is really about.