Why do atheists know religion better?

Post Reply New Topic

My impression is that Catholics tend to be much less hostile to science than evangelicals.

History explains this, too. The Catholic church has always been involved in education and ironically played an important role in the Renaissance, not only by the preservation of Classical knowledge, but by disseminating it widely and creating a critical mass of (secular) individuals educated in it.

Last edited by edgewaters on 29 May 2012, 6:45 pm, edited 1 time in total.

I call that "catholic on paper". It's very common over there.

Today, yes...but...



I am going to have to disagree with you here. Thomas More used to burn people at the stake for owning a Bible in English, and it would not have taken them so long to discard Latin during the Mass if they really wanted people to participate in it. Giordano Bruno and Galileo have something to say about that as well. Sure, the Church might be involved in science now since they worship the Devil unlike other evangelical branches, but it was more because they were forced to than anything else. If anything, the Church tried to suppress it for the longest time possible until it could not deny it anymore.

Also, this treatment tends to be more towards upper-class individuals, but I don't remember the actual treatment of the lower-class during history, I might be wrong. The high school I went to was $10,000 USD a year.

Well it's not really an either-or thing ... the Church vacillated quite a bit and it was never monolithic in its approaches. They oppressed on the one hand ... disseminated on the other ... the great universities were either first established by the Church itself, or by students from ecclesiastical schools who sought to discuss some of the material outside of the confines of the ecclesiastical institutions. It's no accident that humanism and the Renaissance first flower around the great ecclesiastical centers in Europe, particularly in Italy.

When the consequences to their power became apparent, the Church began to intervene with oppression. For them it was a dilemma. They wanted to spur education but confine it, and they could not succesfully do the latter. Violence resulted.

But, it's a history they have adapted to.

I think almost all atheists/agnostics are curious as children and want to know about all sorts of things, including more about religion. They actually read the Bible,then they realize the Bible is full of contradictions and fantastic events as well as violence, condoning (even commanding) slavery and ethnic cleansing, weird sex etc.
Morality and or common sense wins over faith and they become atheists/agnostics.

Who did they get to willingly participate in this study? Was it completely voluntary, was it online, was it door-to-door? It's not clear to from the article. I wouldn't ask but it makes a big difference.

I can tell you I know jack about Christianity and I am proud of it. Here is my analogy - if an abuser hurts you once, do you go back to him over and over and over again trying to keep an open mind toward him? No, you cut him off, nip him in the bud. At least, that is my hardened view on the world at the moment.

So I would do badly on Christianity. I would get the questions about Dalai Lama and Vishnu though. I like to read about Middle Eastern philosophies and religions occasionally.

You probably know more than you think, even if it's just a bunch of negative facts
like the various Christian Churches persecuted and murdered innocents and each other, prosecuted Galileo etc... which is a lot more than many Christians know or admit to knowing

My point was not about Catholicism specifically. It was about all religions. I was just responding to a previous post which happened to mention Catholicism.

This.

If you decide that you require evidence to shape your world view, you are willing to go and explore a topic to find evidence for or against it, which means that you have to put some work in and study it before you make a judgement about the topic.

Too many people just regurgitate 'absorbed knowledge' that they have picked up from parents or the press.

I remember reading someone say that they were very religious and strongly Catholic (explicitly as opposed to Protestant), but also vehemently against papal authority. I was stunned.

I think another difference would be that atheists focus on the dogmatic aspects of religion, in order to find out what is false, whereas, probably, religious people would find the liturgic and ritual aspects more important. Though I also talk as a history student here, I would probably be capable of giving a relatively decent amount of detail in doctrinal nuances between a number Churches, extinct or extant, orthodox or dissident; but as for what actually happens in church during a service, I must admit I don't know a single thing, with the exception of what is related to doctrinal problems (such as the eucharist).

(Sorry for double-posting)

I think that it's because in many contexts, you aren't "supposed" to be an atheist, or at least you're not supposed to say so. So, whenever the topic of religion comes up, and an atheist is honest about their views, people won't leave it alone. The atheist is therefore compelled to learn about the topic so that they have ammunition for when the topic comes up.

Here is an example of how this works:

"What's your religion?"
"I'm a Christian."
"Oh, okay."

"What's your religion?"
"I'm an atheist."
"Don't you think that's sort of arrogant? I mean, how can you know that there's no God?"
"Well, I don't actually claim that. Rather, I..." blahblahblah

There you are then. Mitt is one smart guy.

My theory also explains why Mormons know a lot about religion.

It's because mainstream Christians are unsure about precisely what Mormons believe, and are unsure about whether they ought to be classified as "Christians". Therefore, whenever the topic comes up, and a Mormon is honest about their views, people won't leave it alone. The Mormon is therefore compelled to learn about the topic so that they have ammunition for when the topic comes up.

You're right! All of them, even such people as Jawaharlal Nehru, first (Atheistic) Prime Minister of independent India. And Diagoras of Melos (Lived 500 BC) amongst one of the earliest known atheistic Greek Philosophers, clearly subscribed to the Christian dogma in secret!

Seriously, I could make just as absurd a claim that all Christian apologists drink themselves silly every night trying to keep up their pious facade.
Edit: Of course, I won't.

Well, in general atheists know about everything better