Atheists and agnostics know more about religion than religious people

[ack44]

Actually, Jewish ppl scored higher than the atheists.



Also:
-Those who attend more religious services scored higher.
-Men scored higher than women.

[Adami]

Represent.

[rumborak]

Actually, Jewish ppl scored higher than the atheists.

That's true, but keep in mind that the statement is regarding atheists vs.  religious people.
When you fold the Jews into the religious pile, their higher score will no longer outweigh the lower scores of the other religious groups.

rumborak

[juice]

10/15  
but in my defense

the goal ought to be to know God/Scripture rather than human religious dogmas

Also the question about the bread and wine communion felt like it was a trick question… at least it tricked me.

[Adami]

this is another reason why religion is for the birds...

the goal ought to be to know God/Scripture rather than human religious dogmas

I'm confused, are you saying people should try to avoid learning about other religions than their own?

[ack44]

Why are Mormons on the list while some major religions like Islam, Buddhist and Hindu are left off? Did people of non-Western religions score less?

[rumborak]

I would think they were left out simply due to lack of participants.

rumborak

[pogoowner]

I got 12/15. Whether it's reasonable to do so or not, I always mix up the characteristics of Buddhism and Hinduism, because I'm really not that familiar with either one.

[yeshaberto]

this is another reason why religion is for the birds...

the goal ought to be to know God/Scripture rather than human religious dogmas

I'm confused, are you saying people should try to avoid learning about other religions than their own?

I'm saying that Christianity is not a religion but a relationship....

[Chino]

10/15  
but in my defense

the goal ought to be to know God/Scripture rather than human religious dogmas

Also the question about the bread and wine communion felt like it was a trick question… at least it tricked me.

I think it was actually referring to the last supper itself, when Jesus said "This is a cup of my blood, this is my body, etc..." I think during a mass it is more of a symbolic thing.

[GuineaPig]

Nope.  There's a reason Communion is held to be so sacred.

[yorost]

10/15 
but in my defense

the goal ought to be to know God/Scripture rather than human religious dogmas

Also the question about the bread and wine communion felt like it was a trick question… at least it tricked me.

I think it was actually referring to the last supper itself, when Jesus said "This is a cup of my blood, this is my body, etc..." I think during a mass it is more of a symbolic thing.

No, this is one of the core differences in theology between Christian divisions.  Transubstantiation vs Consubstantiation vs many others.  Put too simply, does the bread and wine become God in substance, in spirit, or is it simply a representation without God's presence?  I personally like some of the Orthodox approaches, something like "we don't really care about the details."

[rumborak]

Actually, from what I understand, Consubstantiation still attributes special things to the bread and wine, just not visible.

rumborak

[Adami]

this is another reason why religion is for the birds...

the goal ought to be to know God/Scripture rather than human religious dogmas

I'm confused, are you saying people should try to avoid learning about other religions than their own?

I'm saying that Christianity is not a religion but a relationship....

So are you saying christians should avoid learning about other religions? A simple yes or no would suffice.

[yorost]

Actually, from what I understand, Consubstantiation still attributes special things to the bread and wine, just not visible.

rumborak

That was why I listed "in spirit" to match up with Consubstantiation.  Literally, like Holy Spirit or it actually is God, just in the physical substance of the bread or wine.

[hefdaddy42]

I got a perfect score.  I decided not to take the quiz.

[yeshaberto]

this is another reason why religion is for the birds...

the goal ought to be to know God/Scripture rather than human religious dogmas

I'm confused, are you saying people should try to avoid learning about other religions than their own?

I'm saying that Christianity is not a religion but a relationship....

So are you saying christians should avoid learning about other religions? A simple yes or no would suffice.

No.  I believe Christians should constantly be learning about other religions, perspectives and theories.  They should not be afraid to challenge what they believe and contrast it in the view of other ideas.  This is one of the fundamental ways we learn.

[hefdaddy42]

^Listen to that man, he's a genius.^

[William Wallace]

this is another reason why religion is for the birds...

the goal ought to be to know God/Scripture rather than human religious dogmas

I'm confused, are you saying people should try to avoid learning about other religions than their own?

I'm saying that Christianity is not a religion but a relationship....

So are you saying christians should avoid learning about other religions? A simple yes or no would suffice.

No.  I believe Christians should constantly be learning about other religions, perspectives and theories.  They should not be afraid to challenge what they believe and contrast it in the view of other ideas.  This is one of the fundamental ways we learn.

Great advice. Nothing has strengthened my faith more than challenging it.

[eric42434224]

Too bad the overwhelming majority dont REALLY challenge their own beliefs, but merely ask the questions with the sole intent of finding the answers that already fit within the framework of their beliefs.

[rumborak]

Yeah, that would be my criticism too. If it's just an exercise to show yourself what you're not believing in, then you might as well not do it in the first place.

rumborak

[yeshaberto]

true...but I don't think it is a religious problem as much as it is a human problem.  we all do it in regard to what we believe (or don't believe)

[William Wallace]

Too bad the overwhelming majority dont REALLY challenge their own beliefs, but merely ask the questions with the sole intent of finding the answers that already fit within the framework of their beliefs.

Most people don't even do that. But I think finding answers that you already accept is difficult if you actually search out the facts. The historical record is there for all. Nobody owns it.

[Vivace]

I would love to know what the questions were. Because from experience I have noticed that most non religious people tend to read the Bible and study it like a textbook but fail to understand the deeper and truer meaning the text they have read. Case in point that most atheists will always point to Leviticus and argue hypocracy when Leviticus is 1) Old Testament and 2) much much more than a set of rules which hardly ANYONE follows anymore. Non-educated religious tend not to delve deeply into a text and usually take a literal and not a pragmatic approach to the text either. When I read the Bible I usually have a commentary and we have a whole library with passages from saints and desert fathers who talk extensively about the passages and their meanings. Not one atheist save well educated ones who actually studied theology and philosophy and actually use it has ever been as profound or meaningful as these saints have been with the text. So I am skeptical about the legitimacy of this test and think it more on dogma which is fine, but that's not the foundational information I find to be the most important. Questions like what is consubstantiation is fine, but a question like what does the Eucharist mean or what does the washing of the feet mean I find to be FAR FAR more important.

One of my arguments against atheists who keep quoting leviticus is "Well back in the 19th century I could kill you if you dishonored me in some way. Does that law still exist? Why not? How is this similar to the Bible?" and the response, The Bible is written by God is not correct. Sorry. 

[sneakyblueberry]

this is another reason why religion is for the birds...

the goal ought to be to know God/Scripture rather than human religious dogmas

Exactly this.  Well said, Yesh.

[Odysseus]

The fact that non religious people know more about the religion is what probably makes them a non believer.

BTW, this too, definitely. I mean, while my initial opposition to religion (i.e. when I was 15 or something) was based rather on lack of "self-evidence" of a deity, these days with my somewhat-decent knowledge of the workings of Christianity there's an almost violent opposition to its tenets. As an example, to me proper Christianity ended about 50AD. What came after was a "reinvention" of it by the apostles.

rumborak

Yes, most of what today's Christianity is might better be termed Paulism.  If you accept the new testament accounts who who Jesus was supposed to be then he was a jewish teacher teaching the jewish law to his fellow jews, including the requirement to keep the jewish law. Paul directly contradicted Jesus teachings on this in Galatians.  In fairness to Paul, the chances are that Chritianity as such probably wouldn't exist today, were it not for him.  Whether this is a good or a bad thing is a moot point, obviously.  It is a shame that the old mysogynist had to bastardize it to suit his own theological bent along the way.

One of the problems with religion is that most people approach it purely from a devotional perspective rather than from a historical, critical or philosophical perspective, so they never learn anything othtr than what they are told to believe.  The clergy and the church as a whole can shoulder much of the blame for this - priests who attend theology departments of universities and seminaries are taught both old and new testament literary criticism and also such things as the failures of the classical arguments for the existence of god, but none of this ever gets passed on to the congregations.  I guess this is because religions in the US do contain a strong business element, so the churches are encouraged to give the population what they want rather than the knowledge they have accrued during their training.  I guess Chip and Betty are only interested in whether they're going to get to glad-hand Jeebus and sit on a cloud for eternity rather than the finer points of how the Epic of Gilgamesh was incorporated into Genesis or whatever.

The point about people needing to learn about other religions and such was very well made, too!