Do atheists know more about religion than believers?

[Swatopluk]

This study has some interesting results.
Atheists and agnostics would, it seems, have the upper hand in religion based quizzes, followed by Mormons and Jews.
Well, at least in the US.
http://pewforum.org/Other-Beliefs-and-Practices/U-S-Religious-Knowledge-Survey.aspx

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

It makes perfect sense, most people is brought up as a believer therefore an atheist/agnostic would have to do some soul searching and learn something in the process. My suspicion about Jewish scores is that that is an overwhelmingly educated population. As for the mormons... perhaps most of the interviewed were converts?
---
They have a 15 question quiz and I scored 14/15 (guess which question I missed). 

[Swatopluk]

I guess the one about Jonathan Edwards (which I would have failed had I not read about the study).
There are some questionable things though. I'd think Calvin is on at least equal footing with Luther. Also nirvana is in Hinduism too iirc.

[Aggie]

I remember a reference in some book (fiction) I read way back about the town atheist knowing the Bible better than the preacher did.  Agnostics and atheists have generally taken something of a look at the options before throwing their hands up, I suspect.

Would have scored 13 on the quiz if I'd gone in blind - total blank on #15 (other than reading Swato's post).  I may well have messed up on Mother Teresa if I hadn't read about the study, although I know she is on the path to sainthood with the Vatican so I suppose I might have reasoned it out.

I screwed up on the Sabbath question, but that's because I trusted Fat Mike instead of my own recollection that it starts on Friday night: 

Friday night we'll be drinking Manishevitz
Going out to terrorize Goyem
Stomping shagitz, screwing shicksas
As long as we're home by Saturday morning

Cause hey, we're the 'Brews
Sporting anti-swastika tattoos
Oi Oi we're the boys
Orthodox, hesidic, O.G. Ois

Agree with Swato on having Hinduism as an option on the nirvana question being a bit trickish, as it is part of the system, albeit not as prominent as in Buddhism.

[Darlica]

14 of 15 but admit to guessing the answers to Q: 9, 10, 11, 15, guessing wrong on number 10.

That I had to guess about 10 and 11 isn't strange taken in consideration that I never been in contact with the American education system... I could however answer if it was the same question about Swedish public schools.
I'll happily admit that don't know much about Mormons either, I've had more close encounters with Witnesses than Mormons over the years...



And yes I do believe many people who label them self atheists are searchers more than anything, people who can't settle with "because" answers and therefore are religiously curious.

I had a long conversation with a Muslim colleague of mine some months ago at the beginning of Ramadan. It began with me noticing that he was fasting and said some thing like "right silly me, Ramadan started yesterday" we then talked about ramadan, Islam and Christianity for awhile and later on he asked me if I believed in God and I said "No". He asked me how come an atheist know so much about religion? I answered that I'm not an atheist I'm just not a believer and I tried to explain the difference from my POV.

I know I'll probably get a smack over the head from someone for this... But to me Atheism, can be as much of religion as any other path of faith. And there are even people bordering to extremism in their hate of religion.   
To me there is an important difference between "There Is No God" and "I Do Not Believe In God" I'm not into trying to convince others, or telling them that they are wrong or right. The only one I can ever answer for is me and only me.




I however belong to the curious kind, I find religions and religious history fascinating, mostly the old pre Christian ones.
I have Gods and Goddesses I'm especially fond of, like Skade and Njord of the Scandinavinan mythology* and Ishtar of Syrian and Babylonian culture.


*I refuse call it Norse mythology because 1. Norway didn't existed at the time and neither did Sweden, 2. the same religion was present in what later became Sweden, Denmark and Germany as well.

[Aggie]

I borrowed a bit from the Canadian education system and my knowledge of the American insistence on separating Church and State for those questions (we don't recite daily prayers to the latter, however).   

In one (secular public school) social studies class we studied the lives of both Gandhi and Jesus and wrote papers on both; I borrowed very heavily from the Gospels for the latter.   I'm not sure how kosher it was to put Jesus into the curriculum (or the religious orientation of the teacher, for that matter), but it was not presented as a matter of faith in any respect.

[Opsa]

I scored 80%. I missed Jonathan Edwards, Friday night sabbath (I said Saturday doggone it, I really flaked out there) and the one about the most popular Pakistani religion, which I assumed was Hindu. Still, not too bad, and apparently landing with only 7% of the general population scoring better.

I think that when people just accept the religion of their parents, they don't necessarily think about religion much, they just follow theirs.

Darlica wrote:
"I know I'll probably get a smack over the head from someone for this... But to me Atheism, can be as much of religion as any other path of faith. And there are even people bordering to extremism in their hate of religion. To me there is an important difference between "There Is No God" and "I Do Not Believe In God" I'm not into trying to convince others, or telling them that they are wrong or right. The only one I can ever answer for is me and only me."

I am with you there, Darlica. I also find it alarming when people of one religion call  one atheist because one doesn't follow their beliefs, as you mentioned with the Muslim, and also with that recent interview with the president of Iran. To me, that sort of talk smacks of intolerant propaganda. A lot of clashes could be peacefully avoided if we all understood that a thing can be seen from many different vantage points, and called by many different names in many different languages.

[Griffin NoName]

Got 80%

No idea what I answered incorrectly.

[Darlica]

I am with you there, Darlica. I also find it alarming when people of one religion call  one atheist because one doesn't follow their beliefs, as you mentioned with the Muslim, and also with that recent interview with the president of Iran. To me, that sort of talk smacks of intolerant propaganda. A lot of clashes could be peacefully avoided if we all understood that a thing can be seen from many different vantage points, and called by many different names in many different languages.

This was not quite the case with my colleague Z, he did not called me an atheist because I'm not a Muslim.
He just found just found it a bit weird that someone knew as much as I do about Christianity and differences and common bits between Christianity and Islam without being a religious scholar -which to him means that you are also a believer.
People that isn't very religious minded simply doesn't bother with theology in the cultural sphere he's from. I don't blame him for thinking that it's weird, so does most of my collogues of Swedish secularized decent too, the difference is, Z respect the fact that I have bothered to learn some about Islam even though I don't have too, most of my Swedish colleagues isn't interested at all and some even think I'm strange.




I work in a rather tight-knit group of 16 people of which 7 or 8 are practising Muslims, no problems what so ever, at least not faith or culture based ones.
A fun moment from some weeks ago: I have lunch in the office kitchen with 3 colleges, M who's a vegetarian almost on the level of believer, R who is from Northern Afrika (not sure which country) and L who's an secularised Swedish omnivore like I am.
Lindorm had made me a delicious lunch, rice and a thick sauce/stew and now the three are sniffing and wondering if they maybe could have a taste.
Me: Well one of you can, you go figure out who...
M: why?
R: beacuse it's a dead animal in it, duh! Can't you smell it?
L: -and the dead animal is a pig! I win!   (pushes his plate forward and  in the direction of the others).

 


I think the reason R couldn't smell the pork was that it the main meat ingredient was beef, he is the better cook of the three of them and usually bring rather mouthwatering lunch boxes with him to work himself. A lot of lamb/mutton and lentils.

[Scriblerus the Philosophe]

14/15. I'm an apatheist. I just don't care about the existence or lack there of higher powers. I'm interested in the details, the whys, and the history of religion, but ultimately whether or not there's a god or gods of some sort simply doesn't figure into anything I do.

[Opsa]

Apatheist?! I like that. Did you make it up?

[Bob in a quantum-state-of-faith]

There are two versions of that quiz on-line.

I got 9 of 10 on the 10 question one (guessed on one, guessed wrong)

And I got 15 of 15 on the 15 question one (guessed right on one)

[Aggie]

Apatheist?! I like that. Did you make it up?

I know it dates back to TOP days at least, but probably didn't originate there.

[Swatopluk]

I always say that believers and atheists 'know' while agnostics and indifferents don't.
Believer: I know there is god(s)
Atheist: I know there is/are no god(s)
Agnostic: I don't know whether there is (but care about it to some degree)
Inddifferent: I don't know and I don't care

[Bob in a quantum-state-of-faith]

I always say that believers and atheists 'know' while agnostics and indifferents don't.
Believer: I know there is god(s)
Atheist: I know there is/are no god(s)
Agnostic: I don't know whether there is (but care about it to some degree)
Inddifferent: I don't know and I don't care

One reason why I deny being an atheist-- I do not know there is no god.

However, using the definition for 'atheist' as defined by most people who self-identify as one, "do not have faith there is a god", then I qualify:  I have no such faith.

A very different thing than, believing there is no god.  Subtle, but very different.

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

Well, apatheism seems to be mature enough to have it's own wikipedia article...

Apatheism (a portmanteau of apathy and theism/atheism), also known as pragmatic  atheism or (critically) as practical atheism, is acting with apathy, disregard, or lack of interest towards belief, or lack of belief in a deity. Apatheism describes the manner of acting towards a belief or lack of a belief in a deity; so applies to both theism and atheism. An apatheist is also someone who is not interested in accepting or denying any claims that gods  exist or do not exist. In other words, an apatheist is someone who considers the question of the existence of gods as neither meaningful nor relevant to his or her life.

Apathetic agnosticism (also called pragmatic agnosticism) is the view that thousands of years of debate have neither proven, nor dis-proven, the existence of one or more deities (gods). This view concludes that even if one or more deities exist, they do not appear to be concerned about the fate of humans. Therefore, their existence has little impact on personal human affairs and should be of little theological interest.

As for Swato's definitions I know there are distinctions between each level:

Theism: the belief that at least one deity exists.
Deism: god exists but doesn't bother (interfere) with us
Agnosticism: which in turn is split in
   Soft: I can't tell if there is or not a got
   Hard: I don't know and neither do you
and Atheism:
   Soft: I don't believe there is a god
   Hard: I'm certain there is no god

Plus the distinctions for apatheism mentioned above.

[Swatopluk]

I think atheism has to have an active component to qualify as such. Otherwise it is a variant of the joke: 'Can you play the piano?' 'I don't know. I never tried.' That is, in order to qualify as an atheist, someone has to have thought about the 'god problem' in the first place.
Of course it is possible to have an opinion about something you don't know anything about A classic joke is a street poll (in Germany) where people were asked what they think of heterosexuals. Many obviously did not know the word but had very strong opinions about what should be done with these perverts (up to demands to send them to the gas chamber immediately).

[Aggie]

^Reminds me of my term CPC - Canadian Presumed Christian.  There are many people here (and elsewhere) that have a cultural root in the traditions of a dominant religion (Christmas, Easter for example) but haven't really thought about it enough to actually be (insert faith-term here).  They don't reject the ideas of the religion, but haven't thought them through and applied them in their own life.

(My sister plans to ask for forgiveness on her deathbed and not worry about it until then.  I told her she should get some Mormon friends just in case of an accident - they baptize by proxy after death if necessary)

Swato's qualification of an atheist is the flip-side of this attitude; American Presumed Atheist perhaps?

[Opsa]

A soft spot in any argument about religion is also the belief vs. know factor.

I believe in the great spirit, but I do not know there is a great spirit. I think that only the entirety of the great spirit would be able to know for sure whether or not it exists.

I sense, or feel a unity of all things. Connecting to all things is a method of coping with life. I believe that when I connect with you, I connect with another part of the great spirit. I cannot say for sure that the great spirit is anything more than what exists in this world, because I am only a tiny part of the whole. I cannot speak for you, or any other part of everything.

I may be somewhere between believer and agnostic on Swato's scale. A lot of people would consider me atheist too, I suppose.

Does "confused" count as a religion? 

[Aggie]

I believe in the great spirit, but I do not know there is a great spirit. I think that only the entirety of the great spirit would be able to know for sure whether or not it exists.

I am of the conviction that one can come to know a great deal about God - but then again I don't think that 'exist' is a word that can be applied to God (or The Great Whatever).   I also am of the conviction that this can only be done on a personal level and that trying to prove evidence of whether or not TGW 'exists' is futile. 

I suppose I'm agnostic in that I don't differentiate on whether the ability to know TGW on a personal level is due to something inherent to the universe or something inherent to humankind specifically.  I think there is sufficient evidence to conclude that at least a subset of humanity has the ability, through rigorous personal practice, to experience that which is shorthanded as 'God' directly, but to restate, I make no distinction on an intellectual level as to whether the basis of this experience is extrinsic or intrinsic to Homo sapiens. 


So yeah, put a checkmark under 'confused' for me too. Or at the least, 'confusing'.

[Opsa]

  Trying to be reasonable can get pretty confusing.

[Bob in a quantum-state-of-faith]

After more than 5 years of thinking about what it means to be a believer vis a vis a non-believer, I've come to some conclusions.

1) the claim or idea of god is pretty remarkable-- extra-ordinary even.  As such, it requires extreme proof, else it may safely be discarded as myth without anything else.

2) whereas it is impossible to prove all gods in the universe myth, that is rarely if ever necessary.   People who believe in The Great Nebulosity typically do not advocate passing laws based solely on their belief, nor on some ancient 'magic' book.  I have no problem in the least with these sorts, and in a way, am a teensy bit jealous that they have what I do not; i.e. faith in the Great Nebulosity.   But I cannot make myself do what I am not capable of doing (faith) so there you go.

3) in the case of someone who is bent on passing laws, and therefore forcing everyone else to conform to his particular notions of belief?  I don't need a general disproof of god.  All I need to do, is prove his particular brand of god is myth.  This is almost always very easy to do; too easy, in fact.   Especially when this person makes specific claims about his particular god (i.e. ultimate good, super-just, ethical, moral, etc).  Or if the person uses an ancient 'magic' book as his proof.

In the first case, all we need do, is prove that his god is not good, or is immoral, or is not just, or is unethical and so forth-- this is often so very easy to do, that is all you need do, to prove his god is not real. 

In the second case, (magic book-god) what we do here, is discredit his 'magic' book.  Once you've proven the book is false, then anything it says about [a] god is false as well.

These proofs can be quite certain-- as certain as anything in this universe is, in fact.

So it is possible to prove certain, specific gods are myth, i.e. the special case.

Many times, that is all that is required.

[Opsa]

Good points, Bob O'Q.

I'm beginning to think that perhaps believers and disbelievers are similar in the fact that they both want absolutes. Not everyone wants absolutes. Some of us just want inspiration.

Inspiration is a personal thing. If I want to get inspiration from watching a flower grow from between the cracks in a sidewalk, who's to say that's hooey? The flower exists, but what I get from it is only intangible thought. The spirituality is the thought, not the concrete fact.

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

I positively hate the concept of the absolute, so you can say we are in complete (absolute) agreement on that.

[Griffin NoName]

I'd like to be around when the real G-d comes along and smites all people who think they know G-d according to current religions

[Bob in a quantum-state-of-faith]

I'd like to be around when the real G-d comes along and smites all people who think they know G-d according to current religions

Indeed, I'd pay good money to see that myself.

Of course, the smiting will not be in the usual forms-- this is the ultimate being, correct?

As such, I would imagine it is ultimately rational? 

Thus the 'smiting' would likely take a form that is fitting to whomever is on the receiving end.   That is to say, it would take a form that they would immediately and without ambiguity recognize as chastisement for promoting a false god.   Otherwise, it's just be gratuitous punishment, possibly causing them to press forward with their false-god premise, all the harder.

Hmmm.... such smiting is beyond my pay grade.... but I'd still like to see it anyhow.

[Swatopluk]

The Western monotheist religions seem to have a on-size-fits-all eternal punishment system while in the East there is personalized service.
The ancient Greek reserved that for just a few that really urinated them off.