God Is Not Dead movie

Post Reply New Topic

Nor can we know with any certainty that J.R.R. Tolkien was not writing about real people and events. The Hobbit is still considered to be fiction, however.

I went in search of the source of this excellent parody and found a wiki on the whole atheist professor meme that the movie was based on.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Atheist_professor_myth



I haven't seen the movie because the entire premise of the movie just looked too boringly straw man for me. A non-straw man, entertaining way to present this is this classic joke:

"God is dead"- Nietzsche, 1883
"Nietzsche is dead"-God, 1900

Now that is the way to do it properly.

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]

It may be tasteless, it may be propaganda, and it may be using an unfair stereotype. However, there are absolutely some good reasons to commenting on well known fact (you have to be in serious denial to disagree with this) that religious people, especially Christians, have been marginalized, dehumanized, and stereotyped themselves in colleges all across Europe and America.

Now in America college institutions are even infringing on the right of Christians to organize their own groups, even though they don't do this to other religious groups. Apparently we must accept a double standard now, that depending on the discretion of the college, non-Christians must be allowed to run for president of a Christian group! This is absolutely ridiculous and there has to be enough publicity of this and public outcry that these colleges will finally be reticent and show some shame for this hubris. Especially because these aren't even private institutions and they are available for everyone who qualifies.

This isn't a victim complex that Christians have. We've been pointing this out in a matter of fact manner for some years now. The movie is just incredibly exaggerated and unfair to both atheists and Christians. There are just as many awful stereotypes of Christians and in my mind it is practically just making light of Christian Apologetics and making it sound purely like an appeal to emotion. Maybe it hadn't occurred to the authors that there is a rich tradition of Christian philosophy with well respected Apologists from many different fields today.

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.

I can't tell which is worse with that "rational" wiki article. The memes themselves that were quoted or the implied generalization of Christians that they all believe those memes are right on the mark. Well here's a news flash for you, "rational" wiki, why don't we welcome you to reality where there are recurring issues and Christians are being denigrated in universities all over America and Europe.

That we are pointing this out and undereducated Christians as well as atheists who would like to think Christians are this dumb have been buying into this drivel instead of taking the real situation seriously, of discrimination in universities (especially in physics departments, I have a number of friends who were denigrated and even actively discouraged from continuing with their major in physics because of religion), is quite frustrating. Do people think we're just making a joke when we mention these double standards and discriminatory behavior?

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o4MHDEjar-M[/youtube]But god is dead we killed him!

Of course we can.

Man made religion is 100% false when it's dealing with the supernatural. Anything supernatural can be seen as an embellishment, outright make-believe, or a metaphor, nothing else.

You can attempt to prove me wrong, but good luck with that. A simple experiment, like...turning water into wine (without any tricks), should suffice.

Well, yes, if it's man made. How do you know with any certainty all religion is NOT man made?

Also, depends on how a religion is defined?if a religion is constituted by a set of rules that govern how man is to relate to the divine, regardless of whether those rules are part of a divine will or not, then sure, all religions are man made. However, that puts some severe restrictions on what a religion is. A personal relationship with the Creator doesn't require a lot of rules or rituals necessarily. In that sense, what I do isn't even a religion.

Turning water into wine?good one. It's been done before. It didn't convince everyone. Why think it would work now? I don't worship a God who can be manipulated for man's pleasure.

You are not correct. Prohibiting Christians from proselytizing in classrooms, and social censure when Christians proselytize in public, is not "oppression." It's asking Christians to treat others as they themselves would like to be treated -ie, not preached at all day every day by members of religions that they do not adhere to. Equal treatment is neither special treatment nor discrimination.
Also:
http://www.owlnet.rice.edu/~ehe/doc/Eck ... s_54_2.pdf
Even in biology, the most atheistic of the scientists, the majority did not agree with the statement, "I do not believe in God." Christians are still a large majority on American campuses, including in the faculty. They just don't have the social dominance there that they enjoy in the rest of the country.



evidence, please? My (public) university had two or three Christian clubs, no secular club, and afaIk no clubs for other religions. It was also an extremely liberal campus.


yes. It is, and you have. Christians have been whining about the 'War on Christmas' when people get annoyed about the Christmas gear showing up in stores before Hallowe'en, or when they don't get to have the sole solstice display in public fora; they have been whining when people complain about their broadspeaker - cast proselytizing on campus; they whine when they can't coerce minor children into prayer or church services in public schools; they whine when they can't preach politics in their sermons. Let me repeat: this isn't discrimination. This is an attempt to reign in the extra privilege that Christians have had for the last 1500 years in the West.

Philosophers of which era? Agnosticism was invented in the late 19th century, which I'm sure you'll understand is a cause of concern when you mention "books from antiquity". I'd definitely like to know the sources of your definitions before even considering addressing them.



I cannot help but point out the (admittedly inconsequential) appeal to authority here, despite agreeing whole-heartedly that Dawkins is a rank amateur in the field of philosophy - which isn't to say his thinking is right or wrong. N.B. this is not a refutation of anything you posted, it was nothing more than a frolicsome indulgence.

It's funny that you put "oppression" in quotation marks because I didn't use the word myself. Also it's funny that you instantly jump to the issue of proselytizing because I was addressing the right to organize and the right to run your organization however you please if it isn't illegal. However, I am going to bring up a supreme court case that I personally think was pure fecal matter.



Certainly.

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.

http://www.thecollegefix.com/post/18118/

This is just what I was saying earlier. Now it's apparently an issue that colleges have pushed beyond Christian Legal Society v. Martinez, and Christian groups are not even allowed have Christian leadership. Pure hubris.



All I can see here is a litany of red herrings. 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.

Last edited by Lukecash12 on 08 Oct 2014, 6:57 pm, edited 3 times in total.

1. Actually, I was referring more to atheism and theism there because I am just as aware as yourself that fideism and agnosticism are relatively new, although it can be argued that you see individuals throughout history who might fit the bill for one of the two depending on the translation (e.g. Phyrronian skepticism and it's relationship to agnosticism). Of course epistemology hadn't really developed to the point that fideism and agnosticism were strong movements until the 19th century, although agnosticism certainly had it's early ups and downs and Kierkegaard was definitely a fideist (etymology aside for the moment with these two, of course).

But let's look at some word origins to start with here:

Originally, atheist in Koine Greek was atheos or "godless". By the 5th century it came to more literally mean "denying the gods" and asebes was a reference to impiously denying or disrespecting the gods. Cicero transliterated atheotes (the Greek noun of his day for an atheist) into Latin as atheos, and this term was often used as a pejorative in debates between early Christians and Hellenists.

Here's a 16th century english example of atheist-

I'd love to delve some more into the etymology of the others if you're still interested. My first priority was just to go over the etymology of "atheist" because clearly there are some differences between atheism in popular culture and atheism in philosophy (like I highlighted earlier), and that may be tripping people up in this thread. The term itself in every cognate, translation, and transliteration (in the case of Cicero) so far has related in a sizable majority (aside from the earliest meaning of atheos which isn't so clear) in the understanding that atheism is the active denial of god/gods. Atheists don't merely disbelieve, they actively deny. This is why it is a contradiction to call someone an agnostic atheist if you are thinking in strictly technical terms as opposed to popular terms.

2. Yes, I can recognize an appeal to authority and my mentioning that had more to do with combating an oft encountered attitude.

Last edited by Lukecash12 on 08 Oct 2014, 8:58 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Thank you for the clarification. I certainly appreciate where you're coming from, but I don't see the necessity of a positive argument for a denial or a lack of belief. Your definition of atheism seems to create a false dichotomy between agnosticism and atheism, whereas there's actually an overlap between agnosticism and belief or lack thereof. Agnosticism is a position based on knowledge, whereas atheism is a position based on belief - specifically a lack thereof.

Fideism is less the position that you can't positively argue either way, more the position that faith is superior to reason when seeks answers to questions. I don't believe it belongs in your list as it is essentially an inversion of agnosticism.

It would be remiss of me to suggest that classical philosophy has no value in the modern world. On the other hand, I am quite comfortable stating that its practical value is diminished by its lesser relevance to modern society. Philosophy survives as all disciplines do, through adaptation and evolution. To understand the modern positions regarding theistic philosophy, one need only consider the following chart:



The overwhelming majority of atheist debaters tend to favour refutation of evidence for gods over presentation of evidence that there are no gods - because such evidence is obviously impossible to provide. Those who make the 'gnostic atheist' argument are very much the minority.



Your response has been more than sufficient, thank you.



Indeed. To suggest it was anything but inconsequential would have been a far greater transgression.

This isn't supported by the etymology of atheism. For most of history philosophers have recognized atheism in the way I've described it, and this is why many philosophers still hold to that definition: it is more useful than the popular usage as it is easier to reference your ideas to familiar material like Aristotle, Zeno, Cicero, Aquinas, Kierkegaard, Kant, and so on. I'm not talking about public figures that have made a buzz talking about these subjects, I'm talking about atheist philosophers who are considered critical like Bertrand Russell (IMO an eminent philosopher who can intrigue many who disagree with him). I'm talking about the sort of material you would see published in a philosophy journal nowadays.



There is more variety in fideism than you've stated there. First let's note that fideism comes from the Latin fides and it means "faithism". But what exactly does fides mean?

Well let's take a look in this wonderful lexicon (just punch it in on the search bar):

http://latinlexicon.org/search_latin.php



Really, faith isn't necessarily mutually exclusive or antagonistic to a rational process and there are different opinions on this amongst fideists. In fact in the Latin sense it can even depend on a rational thought process as you can see in the lexicon.

As a side note more relative to Christianity if you look at the Greek word pistis (rational process of accepting an argument/persuasion) and the Hebrew word ahlam (familial trust as in a father/son relationship), one explicitly states rationality goes hand in hand with it and the Hebrew word certainly implies it (we trust our family for pre-established reasons). It is quite strange and frustrating to me that Christians today can be so far removed from their original movement in terms of their attitude towards rationality, philosophy, the sciences, and academia in general. I facepalm inside my head every time I hear one of them refer me to Paul talking about the vain philosophies of the Greeks because Paul himself practiced philosophy and any clear reading of the Greek would support that Paul wasn't against philosophy in general, mainly just the members of Plato's Second Academy.



Which atheist debaters are you referring to? Have you, for example, had the pleasure of reading Bertrand Russell's work? How about Hume? I'm sure you're familiar with Descartes. By and large I've found with professional philosophers that they hold to the standard definitions as opposed to the definitions you've provided here (which have admittedly been gaining traction). I understand your definitions and their utility but an unfortunate side effect is that they are not only revisionary but they obfuscate many important arguments by giants like Plato, Aristotle, Cicero, Kant, Aquinas, Nietsche, Descartes, etc. because these philosophers used different definitions.



And I appreciate your candor and civility. This has been pleasant thus far.

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.



One must accept the near-inevitability of ones face meeting ones palm in any discussion of faith with a modern Christian.



With respect to Descartes, Russell et al, my interest is in the living as far as debate is concerned. You claim revisionism, I argue evolution. The contributions of philosophers past are in no way diminished by the expansion and progression of ideas by those who follow.