Religion is a very loosely defined concept, there's no really useful way to argue if someone is a "real" believer.
That's bullshit in the case of Catholicism though. I'm pretty sure that not believing in transubstantiation is heresy according to the Church. It makes you "not a catholic" by definition, no matter how hard you claim you are.
Only if you accept the Catholic Church as the final arbiter of the Catholic religion.
uh.....
I think I'm pretty much going to do that, yes. Not doing that would in fact also be heresy.
One could easily claim to be a Catholic and also hold that the church has been corrupted and no longer represents the true will of God, or that transubstantiation is "actually meant to be interpreted like this" etc. etc.
Yes and that would make you not a Catholic.
The whole point about being a Catholic is that you must accept that the pope and all those guys in Rome are the final arbiters. Aside from the fact that this whole transubstantiation-thing was settled around the time Martin Luther nailed some shit to a door you can not simply ignore that being a Catholic has always required firm belief that the Church is right. Catholicism (unlike Protestantism) is very clearly defined. One must believe such and such or else not be a Catholic.
Julius on
0
Options
TL DRNot at all confident in his reflexive opinions of thingsRegistered Userregular
You don't necessarily need to believe that the pope himself is the final arbiter. There have been arguments by various Catholics in the past that it is the Catholic Church as a whole that is the final arbiter. However, even then, the Catholic Church itself is still considered to be the final arbiter.
Judaism seems like the most OCD religion ever conceived by man.
No no, not a Catholic period. It's like not believing in the Immaculate Conception. The Church has ruled it as fact. The Church has also ruled that not believing them is heresy as fact. Not believing the Church makes you not a Catholic much like not believing Jesus was the son of God makes you not a Christian.
You simply don't get to have an opinion to the contrary.
(btw, that whole Immaculate Conception thing is also hilarious to bring up to Catholics.)
And yet I'm sure people who contradict the Vatican still call themselves Catholics. Of course you're right to call them non-Catholics (or idiots) but that doesn't stop them.
Kinda brings back my point about no two religious people actually believing in the same religion.
Judaism is as much about being Lawful Anal and ruleslawyering as it is on the actual content of the book.
Grey Paladin on
"All men dream, but not equally. Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds wake in the day to find that it was vanity; but the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act their dream with open eyes to make it possible." - T.E. Lawrence
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
No no, not a Catholic period. It's like not believing in the Immaculate Conception. The Church has ruled it as fact. The Church has also ruled that not believing them is heresy as fact. Not believing the Church makes you not a Catholic much like not believing Jesus was the son of God makes you not a Christian.
You simply don't get to have an opinion to the contrary.
(btw, that whole Immaculate Conception thing is also hilarious to bring up to Catholics.)
I've railed and railed on this point here in the past, but basically the argument in opposition just boils down to, "Well, Catholicism is more than religion, it's a culture and lifestyle, and not being adherent to the unwavering dogma doesn't make me less Catholic."
It's tantamount to someone telling you that they're Russian because they want to be Russian and all their friends want to be Russian, and while they don't speak Russian or know anything about Russian history, they occasionally eat borsht and potatoes from time to time. Plus, they're actually Cuban.
I found some condoms in my parents' room one time, and I only have two siblings... My parents must not be Catholic. I don't think they got the memo, they're in church every weekend. I should probably let them know.
I found some condoms in my parents' room one time, and I only have two siblings... My parents must not be Catholic. I don't think they got the memo, they're in church every weekend. I should probably let them know.
Well, as long as they confess their mortal sins (of which their condom use would be one) each week before receiving the Eucharist, they're a-ok.
I disagree that they (or anyone who's not in-line with Catholic doctrine, for that matter) are not Catholic. Out of communion with the Church, quite possibly (with the exception noted), but they're still Catholic. This is really because you're Catholic until they take you off the rolls, and it's possible to be a Catholic that's out of communion with the Church.
The most rogue-y rogues of priests, woman-ordaining, abortion-mongering Catholics just get excommunicated. But being excommunicated is not the same as being made un-Catholic.
sidhaethe on
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
But being excommunicated is not the same as being made un-Catholic.
Yeah, it's pretty much impossible to be made un-Catholoic. The Vatican even claims ardently non-religious people as "technically Catholic."
Their accountants must have worked for Enron.
But kneejerk defensiveness goosery, like in the post above yours, is exactly why civil conversation on this topic can rarely be had. It just turns into a wharblegarble where the defensive come up with conclusion that apparently religious affiliation is whatever they want it to be. Apparently, the only way to quantify denominational parameters is by ignoring them entirely.
Atomika on
0
Options
HachfaceNot the Minister Farrakhan you're thinking ofDammit, Shepard!Registered Userregular
edited September 2010
Atomic Ross, you are actively hostile to civil discourse.
But being excommunicated is not the same as being made un-Catholic.
Yeah, it's pretty much impossible to be made un-Catholoic. The Vatican even claims ardently non-religious people as "technically Catholic."
Their accountants must have worked for Enron.
But kneejerk defensiveness goosery, like in the post above yours, is exactly why civil conversation on this topic can rarely be had. It just turns into a wharblegarble where the defensive come up with conclusion that apparently religious affiliation is whatever they want it to be. Apparently, the only way to quantify denominational parameters is by ignoring them entirely.
Sure, my comment was flippant, but it is astonishing that you would deny people the chance to self-identify in order for you to be right about this. There is a vast gulf between religious doctrine and religious practice, as any anthropologist or sociologist or historian of religion could tell you. Or anyone with eyes. You can set the definitional parameters you want, but they're not going to be meaningful in any descriptive sense unless you account for the way people live. Prescriptively? Sure, go nuts. But don't be surprised when Catholics (or whoever) ignore you and keep identifying as they do.
Sure, my comment was flippant, but it is astonishing that you would deny people the chance to self-identify in order for you to be right about this.
It's not about me "being right," it's about people self-identifying with a belief system that has incredibly strict dogma, yet openly ignoring many of of its tenets. That's not an honest position. Buddhists can self-identify, because their dogma allows for it. Catholics, like a dozen other hardline orthodoxies, have qualifications that must be met.
Like, I can't call myself an Objectivist and promote progressive taxation. They're in direct conflict. I can explain that I have libertarian leanings but understand the need for the wealthier to pay more taxes, but I can't call myself an Objectivist.
There is a vast gulf between religious doctrine and religious practice, as any anthropologist or sociologist or historian of religion could tell you. Or anyone with eyes. You can set the definitional parameters you want, but they're not going to be meaningful in any descriptive sense unless you account for the way people live. Prescriptively? Sure, go nuts. But don't be surprised when Catholics (or whoever) ignore you and keep identifying as they do.
And you just explained why religion doesn't work under any logical scrutiny.
Atomika on
0
Options
HachfaceNot the Minister Farrakhan you're thinking ofDammit, Shepard!Registered Userregular
Sure, my comment was flippant, but it is astonishing that you would deny people the chance to self-identify in order for you to be right about this.
It's not about me "being right," it's about people self-identifying with a belief system that has incredibly strict dogma, yet openly ignoring many of of its tenets. That's not an honest position. Buddhists can self-identify, because their dogma allows for it. Catholics, like a dozen other hardline orthodoxies, have qualifications that must be met.
Like, I can't call myself an Objectivist and promote progressive taxation. They're in direct conflict. I can explain that I have libertarian leanings but understand the need for the wealthier to pay more taxes, but I can't call myself an Objectivist.
Actually, the Catholic Church's only requirement is confirmation. Once you're confirmed you can do what you want. Maybe you're sinning, but you're still Catholic.
Edit: And the question of whether religion "works" is a totally unrelated argument. We get it, Ross, you don't like religion. You can stop flogging that horse; it's not getting any deader.
Sure, my comment was flippant, but it is astonishing that you would deny people the chance to self-identify in order for you to be right about this.
It's not about me "being right," it's about people self-identifying with a belief system that has incredibly strict dogma, yet openly ignoring many of of its tenets. That's not an honest position. Buddhists can self-identify, because their dogma allows for it. Catholics, like a dozen other hardline orthodoxies, have qualifications that must be met.
Like, I can't call myself an Objectivist and promote progressive taxation. They're in direct conflict. I can explain that I have libertarian leanings but understand the need for the wealthier to pay more taxes, but I can't call myself an Objectivist.
There is a vast gulf between religious doctrine and religious practice, as any anthropologist or sociologist or historian of religion could tell you. Or anyone with eyes. You can set the definitional parameters you want, but they're not going to be meaningful in any descriptive sense unless you account for the way people live. Prescriptively? Sure, go nuts. But don't be surprised when Catholics (or whoever) ignore you and keep identifying as they do.
And you just explained why religion doesn't work under any logical scrutiny.
Yours is a prescriptivist understanding rather than a descriptivist one. I do not find prescriptivism useful, because I personally have no vested interest in the number of Catholics (or whatever) worldwide, nor is it my concern whether individual religious people are behaving in a logically coherent or internally consistent way (most of the time they're not. Oh well). A descriptivist approach is more useful when talking about social surveys (like the one from the OP). Perhaps your approach would be more suited to a discussion of ethics, philosophy of religion, or theology than social science?
I can't self-identify as a Jew because I don't follow all of the Jewish Laws? Or is he arguing the "no true moderate" thing from a while ago?
or am I getting that wrong?
All I'm proposing is that if your philosophy of choice has unbreakable tenets that are requisite of continued membership, and you chose to ignore them, then it's intellectually dishonest to claim membership.
In your particular case, "Jew" is a more loaded term as culturally it's just as commonly used as a racial/cultural determinant as it is religious, so it would depend on the context of your usage. Are we talking about your continued ability to be of Semitic origin, or your affinity for pork and shellfish?
Atomika on
0
Options
KalTorakOne way or another, they all end up inthe Undercity.Registered Userregular
I can't self-identify as a Jew because I don't follow all of the Jewish Laws? Or is he arguing the "no true moderate" thing from a while ago?
or am I getting that wrong?
All I'm proposing is that if your philosophy of choice has unbreakable tenets that are requisite of continued membership, and you chose to ignore them, then it's intellectually dishonest to claim membership.
In your particular case, "Jew" is a more loaded term as culturally it's just as commonly used as a racial/cultural determinant as it is religious, so it would depend on the context of your usage. Are we talking about your continued ability to be of Semitic origin, or your affinity for pork and shellfish?
One person believes that God will not accept his believers eating pork and shellfish, and another person believes that God doesn't particularly care so long as His other commandments are followed.
Looking in from the outside, it seems clear that these two people do not believe in the same god. Say that though, and you're one of those atheists who denies the faith of all but the fundamentalists.
Even fundamentalists with clear scriptural guidelines that are truly identical (due to their being, literally, set in stone) don't really believe in the same god either though. They inevitably have (slightly) differing interpretations of the words, even if they do hold the same texts to be literally true.
nescientist on
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
Looking in from the outside, it seems clear that these two people do not believe in the same god. Say that though, and you're one of those atheists who denies the faith of all but the fundamentalists.
Even fundamentalists with clear scriptural guidelines that are truly identical (due to their being, literally, set in stone) don't really believe in the same god either though. They inevitably have (slightly) differing interpretations of the words, even if they do hold the same texts to be literally true.
True as that may be, I feel that there's a strong and important difference between inherent discrepancy and purposeful indiscretion. Two fundamentalists may and likely will practice slightly differently, but both will be striving for the same pragmatic purpose. The two of them will have far more in common than the Jew who doesn't think eating bacon is all that bad.
Oh, so am I. But man oh man it sure looks bad that it seems like we're finding common cause with fundamentalists. The reality is that we commend fundamentalists on the relative consistency of their insane ideas.
Oh, so am I. But man oh man it sure looks bad that it seems like we're finding common cause with fundamentalists. The reality is that we commend fundamentalists on the relative consistency of their insane ideas.
Fundies at least put their mouth, money, votes, and actions, to where their book preaches. They aren't full of shit.
nstf on
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
Oh, so am I. But man oh man it sure looks bad that it seems like we're finding common cause with fundamentalists. The reality is that we commend fundamentalists on the relative consistency of their insane ideas.
Exactly.
My actual beef isn't with religion. It's insistence on special pleading to protect intellectual dishonesty.
If there was a religion that was consistent and logical, I'd be in line right now.
Oh, so am I. But man oh man it sure looks bad that it seems like we're finding common cause with fundamentalists. The reality is that we commend fundamentalists on the relative consistency of their insane ideas.
Exactly.
My actual beef isn't with religion. It's insistence on special pleading to protect intellectual dishonesty.
If there was a religion that was consistent and logical, I'd be in line right now.
You can totally construct a version of buddhism (and there are oh so many to choose from!) that won't cause your logic-circuits to fizzle, smoke, then burst into flame. It's basically just "this one guy figured it all out, while sitting under a tree, and became the best guy ever. What he learned, very basically, is that suffering is a natural part of existence and the typical flight from suffering to temporary pleasures is itself the source of suffering. Therefore, you ought to pursue right view, right intention, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness and right concentration, so that you might achieve enlightenment yourself and be as awesome as the dude under the tree."
No need to bring logic-fusing mysticism like reincarnation into this, even, though reincarnation seems like a relatively harmless unprovable idea as unprovable ideas go.
nescientist on
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
No need to bring logic-fusing mysticism like reincarnation into this, even, though reincarnation seems like a relatively harmless unprovable idea as unprovable ideas go.
Except when it gets commandeered to prop up caste systems, like in India.
No need to bring logic-fusing mysticism like reincarnation into this, even, though reincarnation seems like a relatively harmless unprovable idea as unprovable ideas go.
Except when it gets commandeered to prop up caste systems, like in India.
Yeah, my experience of people who earnestly believe in reincarnation has been less "privileged brahmin" and more "priviliged white male" so I've definitely got blinders on in this regard.
Oh, so am I. But man oh man it sure looks bad that it seems like we're finding common cause with fundamentalists. The reality is that we commend fundamentalists on the relative consistency of their insane ideas.
Fundies at least put their mouth, money, votes, and actions, to where their book preaches. They aren't full of shit.
Well . . . they put their money and votes in what they "believe". I see very few conservatives who walk the walk.
Witch_Hunter_84 on
If you can't beat them, arrange to have them beaten in your presence.
The study is very specific to North America, where Christanity is warped to all hell anyway. Of course fundies only learn the parts about Christianity their cult leaders want them to.
It doesn't (just) show that atheists know a lot about religion but rather that american christians don't know shit.
And that blacks and hispanics lack education. Which is no surprise either.
Ferrus on
I would like to pause for a moment, to talk about my penis.
My penis is like a toddler. A toddler—who is a perfectly normal size for his age—on a long road trip to what he thinks is Disney World. My penis is excited because he hasn’t been to Disney World in a long, long time, but remembers a time when he used to go every day. So now the penis toddler is constantly fidgeting, whining “Are we there yet? Are we there yet? How about now? Now? How about... now?”
And Disney World is nowhere in sight.
The study is very specific to North America, where Christanity is warped to all hell anyway. Of course fundies only learn the parts about Christianity their cult leaders want them to.
It doesn't (just) show that atheists know a lot about religion but rather that american christians don't know shit.
And that blacks and hispanics lack education. Which is no surprise either.
If you want to dodge being PC, the black church is pretty damn insane, didn't help that Bush bought them off.
nstf on
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
The study is very specific to North America, where Christanity is warped to all hell anyway. Of course fundies only learn the parts about Christianity their cult leaders want them to.
It doesn't (just) show that atheists know a lot about religion but rather that american christians don't know shit.
And that blacks and hispanics lack education. Which is no surprise either.
That's true, but it's beyond that.
The study seems to lend heavy credence to the idea that, at least in America, religion may in fact be a hindrance to being educated.
Which is something I've been saying for a long time, it's nice to have a study confirm it. While it's all well and good for people to show exceptions to the rule, the plain truth is that America has a large population of the willfully ignorant. And while in some instances people are somehow capable of reconciling an illogical philosophy and maintain a reasonable semblance of intelligence, this is not something we should expect of the population at large, or pretend doesn't exist.
There is a strong correlation between religion and many social-crippling phenomena, which in my opinion far outweigh any potential benefit religion may have provided or will provide.
Much like a person is capable of doing cocaine without becoming a crack addict, the event of the former doesn't preclude the latter in any tangible way.
Even though I masturbate twice daily to WK Clifford, I think it might be going a little far to say that this study supports the idea of religion impeding education in general. It's pretty obvious though that religious belief can impede education as it relates to religion; that was obvious enough to me after watching a good quarter of my Phil101 class drop when The Ethics of Belief was assigned (across from William James' Will to Believe, of course, which the professor masturbated to twice daily so it's not like they would have been discriminated against for their theism).
nescientist on
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
Even though I masturbate twice daily to WK Clifford, I think it might be going a little far to say that this study supports the idea of religion impeding education in general. It's pretty obvious though that religious belief can impede education as it relates to religion; that was obvious enough to me after watching a good quarter of my Phil101 class dropp when The Ethics of Belief was assigned (across from William James' Will to Believe, of course, which the professor masturbated to twice daily so it's not like they would have been discriminated against for their theism).
Well, right. Religion on its own doesn't make people incapable of being intelligent, but it does very frequently shape their thinking or prevent them from thinking in ways that ordinarily they wouldn't.
In many cases, religion supplants education, which is woefully ironic given that being religious also appears to deter one from being educated in their own religion.
Atomika on
0
Options
Captain Ultralow resolution pictures of birdsRegistered Userregular
But the study says that a lot of people don't even know basic shit about Christianity.
That's what disturbs me about it. This isn't the kind of study that only people with theological doctorals know. This is layman common knowledge stuff. If it was questions like the problem of evil and free will, I might give a little more leway. But its questions like "Where was Jesus born?"
I went to Catholic School for 12 years and that one would probably trip me up a bit. I always get a little confused between Nazareth and Bethelham. :P
speaking personally, I know quite a bit about Catholic traditions and history, and I have at least a respectful non-believer's knowledge in Judaism and Islam, and then to a lesser extent, the eastern religions. I know actually very little about Protestantism. I would have gotten the Jonothon Edwards question wrong almost for sure, unless I was able to scrounge up reading him way back in AP English.
Is there a stat for how many non-Catholics answered the Eucharist question correctly, for example? Because I'd at least hope to see that Catholics did better than average than non-Catholics on it. I would imagine that people know their own little sphere of religion relatively well, and then know a little about the world around them. I doubt it would surprise anyone to find that there's a strong xenophobic element in America today, which would lower the number of people knowing the Pakistan question, for example.
The people I know that self-identify as Atheists/Agnostics as opposed to "low religious preference" or however Pew puts it, think a lot about religion, so I'm not surprised that they have a higher knowledge about religion. The same way that partisan Democrats know a lot more about what Republicans are doing in Washington than just a person with a generally liberal outlook on life.
Edit: Thread took a big turn from where I thought it was going a few pages ago. My own thoughts on the whole "Cafeteria Catholics" is that to be Catholic you have to accept the authority of the Pope in Rome when he makes statements ex cathedra. You can't be a Catholic and disagree with the Immaculate Conception. (Since the Pope has not made a statement on abortion ex cathedra, you could be Catholic and be pro-choice.)
I had a nun teacher back when I was going through 1st Communion who said something like "If you want to call yourself Catholic, you must take Communion at least twice a year, and go to Confession once a year" but I never heard anyone else repeat that, so she might have been a bit crazy. (Though, for a nun, she was pretty sweet.)
The study doesn't even say anything about the educational level of the people involved. So you can only come up with a few simple ad-hoc theses.
My guess is that a) hardcore christians are often times homeschooled and b) as I said, hispanics and blacks lack education in general. On the other hand atheists and jews are likely from somewhat better-off backgrounds (like the educated middle-class) and thus more knowledgable in general.
So it isn't education itself but rather the access to decent education.
Ferrus on
I would like to pause for a moment, to talk about my penis.
My penis is like a toddler. A toddler—who is a perfectly normal size for his age—on a long road trip to what he thinks is Disney World. My penis is excited because he hasn’t been to Disney World in a long, long time, but remembers a time when he used to go every day. So now the penis toddler is constantly fidgeting, whining “Are we there yet? Are we there yet? How about now? Now? How about... now?”
And Disney World is nowhere in sight.
The study seems to lend heavy credence to the idea that, at least in America, religion may in fact be a hindrance to being educated.
I don't think it does. There could be a correlated effect, but I think it's as likely as anything that people lacking an education are going to find themselves in the position of adhering to a religion and knowing very little about it.
There's also the matter of the results of this survey finding the correlation holds true even after controlling for education.
Not really much about the bible. And after that people sitting around praying in toungues and eating doughnuts (I'm a fan of boston cream!) followed by a ton of talk about what can be done to restore christian values to American.
How the hell are they going to restore Christian Values when they themselves don't even know what those values are (because they don't actually understand their own religious affiliation)?
Posts
uh.....
I think I'm pretty much going to do that, yes. Not doing that would in fact also be heresy. Yes and that would make you not a Catholic.
The whole point about being a Catholic is that you must accept that the pope and all those guys in Rome are the final arbiters. Aside from the fact that this whole transubstantiation-thing was settled around the time Martin Luther nailed some shit to a door you can not simply ignore that being a Catholic has always required firm belief that the Church is right. Catholicism (unlike Protestantism) is very clearly defined. One must believe such and such or else not be a Catholic.
What do you expect from a religion that practically encourages rules lawyering.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shabbat
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eruv
It's like, natural. just like the inferiority complex. And the Guilt.
Edit:: also, there are 613 Commandments. You other guys got off light.
It's like Red Mage with a Tallis
Democrats Abroad! || Vote From Abroad
No no, not a Catholic period. It's like not believing in the Immaculate Conception. The Church has ruled it as fact. The Church has also ruled that not believing them is heresy as fact. Not believing the Church makes you not a Catholic much like not believing Jesus was the son of God makes you not a Christian.
You simply don't get to have an opinion to the contrary.
(btw, that whole Immaculate Conception thing is also hilarious to bring up to Catholics.)
Kinda brings back my point about no two religious people actually believing in the same religion.
I've railed and railed on this point here in the past, but basically the argument in opposition just boils down to, "Well, Catholicism is more than religion, it's a culture and lifestyle, and not being adherent to the unwavering dogma doesn't make me less Catholic."
It's tantamount to someone telling you that they're Russian because they want to be Russian and all their friends want to be Russian, and while they don't speak Russian or know anything about Russian history, they occasionally eat borsht and potatoes from time to time. Plus, they're actually Cuban.
Well, as long as they confess their mortal sins (of which their condom use would be one) each week before receiving the Eucharist, they're a-ok.
I disagree that they (or anyone who's not in-line with Catholic doctrine, for that matter) are not Catholic. Out of communion with the Church, quite possibly (with the exception noted), but they're still Catholic. This is really because you're Catholic until they take you off the rolls, and it's possible to be a Catholic that's out of communion with the Church.
The most rogue-y rogues of priests, woman-ordaining, abortion-mongering Catholics just get excommunicated. But being excommunicated is not the same as being made un-Catholic.
Yeah, it's pretty much impossible to be made un-Catholoic. The Vatican even claims ardently non-religious people as "technically Catholic."
Their accountants must have worked for Enron.
But kneejerk defensiveness goosery, like in the post above yours, is exactly why civil conversation on this topic can rarely be had. It just turns into a wharblegarble where the defensive come up with conclusion that apparently religious affiliation is whatever they want it to be. Apparently, the only way to quantify denominational parameters is by ignoring them entirely.
Sure, my comment was flippant, but it is astonishing that you would deny people the chance to self-identify in order for you to be right about this. There is a vast gulf between religious doctrine and religious practice, as any anthropologist or sociologist or historian of religion could tell you. Or anyone with eyes. You can set the definitional parameters you want, but they're not going to be meaningful in any descriptive sense unless you account for the way people live. Prescriptively? Sure, go nuts. But don't be surprised when Catholics (or whoever) ignore you and keep identifying as they do.
I'm actively hostile toward dishonest discourse. Which religious debate very often is.
It's not about me "being right," it's about people self-identifying with a belief system that has incredibly strict dogma, yet openly ignoring many of of its tenets. That's not an honest position. Buddhists can self-identify, because their dogma allows for it. Catholics, like a dozen other hardline orthodoxies, have qualifications that must be met.
Like, I can't call myself an Objectivist and promote progressive taxation. They're in direct conflict. I can explain that I have libertarian leanings but understand the need for the wealthier to pay more taxes, but I can't call myself an Objectivist.
And you just explained why religion doesn't work under any logical scrutiny.
Actually, the Catholic Church's only requirement is confirmation. Once you're confirmed you can do what you want. Maybe you're sinning, but you're still Catholic.
Edit: And the question of whether religion "works" is a totally unrelated argument. We get it, Ross, you don't like religion. You can stop flogging that horse; it's not getting any deader.
Yours is a prescriptivist understanding rather than a descriptivist one. I do not find prescriptivism useful, because I personally have no vested interest in the number of Catholics (or whatever) worldwide, nor is it my concern whether individual religious people are behaving in a logically coherent or internally consistent way (most of the time they're not. Oh well). A descriptivist approach is more useful when talking about social surveys (like the one from the OP). Perhaps your approach would be more suited to a discussion of ethics, philosophy of religion, or theology than social science?
I can't self-identify as a Jew because I don't follow all of the Jewish Laws? Or is he arguing the "no true moderate" thing from a while ago?
or am I getting that wrong?
Democrats Abroad! || Vote From Abroad
All I'm proposing is that if your philosophy of choice has unbreakable tenets that are requisite of continued membership, and you chose to ignore them, then it's intellectually dishonest to claim membership.
In your particular case, "Jew" is a more loaded term as culturally it's just as commonly used as a racial/cultural determinant as it is religious, so it would depend on the context of your usage. Are we talking about your continued ability to be of Semitic origin, or your affinity for pork and shellfish?
Jainism. They walk with a broom sweeping ahead of them to brush innocent bugs out of harm's way.
One person believes that God will not accept his believers eating pork and shellfish, and another person believes that God doesn't particularly care so long as His other commandments are followed.
Looking in from the outside, it seems clear that these two people do not believe in the same god. Say that though, and you're one of those atheists who denies the faith of all but the fundamentalists.
Even fundamentalists with clear scriptural guidelines that are truly identical (due to their being, literally, set in stone) don't really believe in the same god either though. They inevitably have (slightly) differing interpretations of the words, even if they do hold the same texts to be literally true.
True as that may be, I feel that there's a strong and important difference between inherent discrepancy and purposeful indiscretion. Two fundamentalists may and likely will practice slightly differently, but both will be striving for the same pragmatic purpose. The two of them will have far more in common than the Jew who doesn't think eating bacon is all that bad.
But then again, I'm one of those atheists.
Oh, so am I. But man oh man it sure looks bad that it seems like we're finding common cause with fundamentalists. The reality is that we commend fundamentalists on the relative consistency of their insane ideas.
Fundies at least put their mouth, money, votes, and actions, to where their book preaches. They aren't full of shit.
Exactly.
My actual beef isn't with religion. It's insistence on special pleading to protect intellectual dishonesty.
If there was a religion that was consistent and logical, I'd be in line right now.
You can totally construct a version of buddhism (and there are oh so many to choose from!) that won't cause your logic-circuits to fizzle, smoke, then burst into flame. It's basically just "this one guy figured it all out, while sitting under a tree, and became the best guy ever. What he learned, very basically, is that suffering is a natural part of existence and the typical flight from suffering to temporary pleasures is itself the source of suffering. Therefore, you ought to pursue right view, right intention, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness and right concentration, so that you might achieve enlightenment yourself and be as awesome as the dude under the tree."
No need to bring logic-fusing mysticism like reincarnation into this, even, though reincarnation seems like a relatively harmless unprovable idea as unprovable ideas go.
Except when it gets commandeered to prop up caste systems, like in India.
Yeah, my experience of people who earnestly believe in reincarnation has been less "privileged brahmin" and more "priviliged white male" so I've definitely got blinders on in this regard.
Well . . . they put their money and votes in what they "believe". I see very few conservatives who walk the walk.
It doesn't (just) show that atheists know a lot about religion but rather that american christians don't know shit.
And that blacks and hispanics lack education. Which is no surprise either.
And Disney World is nowhere in sight.
If you want to dodge being PC, the black church is pretty damn insane, didn't help that Bush bought them off.
That's true, but it's beyond that.
The study seems to lend heavy credence to the idea that, at least in America, religion may in fact be a hindrance to being educated.
Which is something I've been saying for a long time, it's nice to have a study confirm it. While it's all well and good for people to show exceptions to the rule, the plain truth is that America has a large population of the willfully ignorant. And while in some instances people are somehow capable of reconciling an illogical philosophy and maintain a reasonable semblance of intelligence, this is not something we should expect of the population at large, or pretend doesn't exist.
There is a strong correlation between religion and many social-crippling phenomena, which in my opinion far outweigh any potential benefit religion may have provided or will provide.
Much like a person is capable of doing cocaine without becoming a crack addict, the event of the former doesn't preclude the latter in any tangible way.
Well, right. Religion on its own doesn't make people incapable of being intelligent, but it does very frequently shape their thinking or prevent them from thinking in ways that ordinarily they wouldn't.
In many cases, religion supplants education, which is woefully ironic given that being religious also appears to deter one from being educated in their own religion.
I went to Catholic School for 12 years and that one would probably trip me up a bit. I always get a little confused between Nazareth and Bethelham. :P
speaking personally, I know quite a bit about Catholic traditions and history, and I have at least a respectful non-believer's knowledge in Judaism and Islam, and then to a lesser extent, the eastern religions. I know actually very little about Protestantism. I would have gotten the Jonothon Edwards question wrong almost for sure, unless I was able to scrounge up reading him way back in AP English.
Is there a stat for how many non-Catholics answered the Eucharist question correctly, for example? Because I'd at least hope to see that Catholics did better than average than non-Catholics on it. I would imagine that people know their own little sphere of religion relatively well, and then know a little about the world around them. I doubt it would surprise anyone to find that there's a strong xenophobic element in America today, which would lower the number of people knowing the Pakistan question, for example.
The people I know that self-identify as Atheists/Agnostics as opposed to "low religious preference" or however Pew puts it, think a lot about religion, so I'm not surprised that they have a higher knowledge about religion. The same way that partisan Democrats know a lot more about what Republicans are doing in Washington than just a person with a generally liberal outlook on life.
Edit: Thread took a big turn from where I thought it was going a few pages ago. My own thoughts on the whole "Cafeteria Catholics" is that to be Catholic you have to accept the authority of the Pope in Rome when he makes statements ex cathedra. You can't be a Catholic and disagree with the Immaculate Conception. (Since the Pope has not made a statement on abortion ex cathedra, you could be Catholic and be pro-choice.)
I had a nun teacher back when I was going through 1st Communion who said something like "If you want to call yourself Catholic, you must take Communion at least twice a year, and go to Confession once a year" but I never heard anyone else repeat that, so she might have been a bit crazy. (Though, for a nun, she was pretty sweet.)
My guess is that a) hardcore christians are often times homeschooled and b) as I said, hispanics and blacks lack education in general. On the other hand atheists and jews are likely from somewhat better-off backgrounds (like the educated middle-class) and thus more knowledgable in general.
So it isn't education itself but rather the access to decent education.
And Disney World is nowhere in sight.
I don't think it does. There could be a correlated effect, but I think it's as likely as anything that people lacking an education are going to find themselves in the position of adhering to a religion and knowing very little about it.
There's also the matter of the results of this survey finding the correlation holds true even after controlling for education.
How the hell are they going to restore Christian Values when they themselves don't even know what those values are (because they don't actually understand their own religious affiliation)?