God Is Not Dead movie

Post Reply New Topic

if anyone did not see it .. this condensed version highlights the depravity of atheists ...

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w-q-Llzww-8[/youtube]

http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2014 ... ation.html

For starters I would like to point out that I don't agree with not allowing LGBT people in a Christian group. What I do agree with is their right to do so. I've never heard of any other group getting their funding cut simply for having a policy of who they choose for their members and I'd be up in arms just as much if anyone had an example. So, are these people backwards and arguably fundamentally mistaken about the gospel? Affirmative. But do they have the right to choose who is in their own group? I wonder.

Why should the government or a public university fund a group that discriminates against minorities? If they do that they can go about finding funding elswhere.
In the Netherlands there was a political party that refused to allow women to be elected. When they were about to lose their subsidies they backpedalled and grudgingly allowed women in anyway. They could have refused to do so, that is their right as a political party. They just wouldn't have gotten the subsidies. You can't expect female or LGBT people to pay taxes to finance a group that excludes them.

lic_colleges_to_subsidize_their_anti_gay_discrimination.html

For starters I would like to point out that I don't agree with not allowing LGBT people in a Christian group. What I do agree with is their right to do so. I've never heard of any other group getting their funding cut simply for having a policy of who they choose for their members and I'd be up in arms just as much if anyone had an example. So, are these people backwards and arguably fundamentally mistaken about the gospel? Affirmative. But do they have the right to choose who is in their own group? I wonder.

Every group whines about stupid stuff. We all have to hear it and many of us roll our eyes just as quickly at this as we do at similar garbage spewed by any other group. I'm not interested in "nuh'uh, you guys are all stupid", "no, you guys are all stupid". What I'm more interested in is this particular issue of religion and higher learning.

Well?why not, though? I mean, if you're going to subsidize any special interest, why not subsidize all of them? Why should any one group get special treatment?

You could as well just say no one is getting subsidies and either self-fund or get their funds outside the institution. Frats/social clubs collect dues, hold campus wide fundraisers, and other activities in order to support themselves and their charitable causes. I don't see how LGBT groups or Christian groups are any different.

That's an argument against Frats, not for Christian clubs.

If you want tax breaks as a church or non-profit, you don't get to spend it electioneering. If you want school funding, you don't get to exclude people.

If, in other words, you want to feed from the public trough, you have to meet certain standards. It's not difficult to understand.

Except that religious organizations do spend their tax breaks electioneering, and they've been quite open about it.

My issue is if anyone is getting funds to promote an ideology, why pick and choose?

...say that we're open to anyone who wants to organize for whatever reason...

If the policy really is that all other organizations are welcome, Christians need not apply...

Why not spell out what the requirements are...?

Atheism isn't for or against any of that type of behavior. Atheism isn't an ethical philosophy. Atheism is a philosophical position in theology.

So for the sake of clarity let's go over the classical definitions of these four positions on theology:

1. Atheism: The position that you can positively argue that god doesn't exist. Remember that negative arguments are not acceptable for philosophers, so typically the type of positive argument an atheist philosopher makes goes along the lines that god is either self contradictory or incompatible with our universe/world (depends on the time period).

2. Theism: The position that you can positively argue for the existence of god/gods. I'm sure you are all well aware of arguments that appeal to fine-tuning, the supposed historicity of religious texts and miraculous events, subjective confirmation (prayer or other forms of euphoric experiences), geological arguments for the great flood, etc. Clearly some are haphazardly constructed and some deserve respect, amongst serious philosophers who actually contribute substantially to their fields (as opposed to just any old professor) there is a level of mutual respect that others arguments for different positions do have some merit and they are not merely irrational creatures for holding to a different position. Oftentimes I don't see this being appreciated and folks on all sides of the aisle disparage one another, IMO for ludicrous reasons and honestly indicating to me that they have confirmation bias.

3. Fideism: The position that you can't positively argue either way, but it is more rational to believe given the circumstance that you can't make a positive argument. Blaise Pascal was famous for Pascal's Wager, an argument that basically went along the lines that you have nothing to lose but everything to gain if you take the wager and have faith in the Christian god. Of course the obvious error there is that even if you take the wager of religion which god/gods do you choose, but it is a famous example of fideism nonetheless and there are a number of modern fideists who have constructed arguments at least more convincing than Pascal.

4. Agnosticism: The position that you can't positively argue either way, and based primarily on those grounds it is more rational to suspend judgment. Agnostics argue that fideists make contradictory arguments any time they argue for faith in one god because the same argument (the Wager and it's variants) could be used to support any other religion that has one or more deities, that basically be implying a round square because many religions with deities are mutually exclusive. There are a number of other arguments for agnosticism but you basically get the picture.

If you folks aren't confident of these definitions I'd be perfectly happy to cite a number of books from antiquity on that support the traditional definitions. I emphasize traditional here because I understand that atheists want to and I invite them to define themselves however they want. Traditional definitions such as these, as opposed to popular definitions, are used so that philosophers can debate these issues with as much clarity as they can manage.

For them (professional philosophers who have studied philosophy and it's history, not people from other fields like Dawkins, Hitchens, or Sagan who have/had opinions about philosophy which were widely read) the simple fact that one is an atheist has nothing whatsoever to do with ethics, epistemology, metaphysics or existentialism unless the argument itself that is being used to support that position makes an appeal to ideas in another category of philosophy. You can be an atheist and a flat-earther, a utilitarian atheist who thinks that euthanasia of mentally handicapped people is okay, or you could be an atheist who believes that the evolutionary model and the social nature of the human creature supports good faith between people, honesty, peacekeeping, and basic rights. Contrary to many opinions I've seen stated, you also do not have to be a hard or soft determinist in order to be an atheist.

Also, let's visit this stereotype of horrible, domineering Christian leaders, and the similar stereotype being used in the movie. Both are completely unfair, informed by heavily biased presentations of history. Try looking into benevolent Christian monarchies throughout history if you don't believe me. Maybe study more popes, cardinals, bishops, etc. than the worst examples you may have flocked to. Always remember that there may have been brutal religions like that of the Babylonians, Persians, arguably the OT Hebrews, Romans, Greeks, etc. but there have also been religious movements like Ashkenazi Judaism, altruistic orders like the Jesuits, and many other positive examples. Let's all not forget that the civil rights movement in the US during the 60's was a religious movement, or that there are other wonderful people like Dietrich Bonhoeffer.

The words atheism and atheist may have their roots in ancient Greece, but are more directly derived from the French "athéisme": there is nothing in the universe that suggests the existence of God, and "athée":either a person who denies the existence of God or a person who disbelieves the existence of God. Unlike your definition, this one does not exclude the 'negative' or 'weak' atheism position. More significantly, these most recent ancestors of the English words specifically apply to "God" rather than "the gods", which divorces them from their polytheistic Greek origin. Historical etymology of words is important, but it is of greater importance to recognise the adaptation of language and the redefining of the meanings of words in their historic or modern context. I agree with you from a technical perspective, but question the relevance of ancient etymology in 2014.

Well yes, but the same objection applies to the definitions you provided. My brevity was a direct consequence of my view that it doesn't belong with that grouping.

I'm finding it hard to decide whether the underlined section is opinion or interpretation. Fideism, at its inception, applied specifically to Catholic traditionalism and religious faith. One cannot substitute an alternate definition of fides as it would be contextually wrong. Modern fideism tends to be a quagmire of paradoxes, using reason to justify the position that faith is superior to reason. In my view, it is inherently self-defeating as a philosophical position as its premise prevents criticism via the means of its creation.