Expelled: Intelligence or Whatever

[XaWN]

(I won't try to mince words here. I was born and raised Christian; I led an uneventful and spiritual life until I found Lee Strobel, Francis Collins, Richard Dawkins, and Christopher Hitchens. I was only after reading the best of what both had to offer that I decided I had to be willing to question my upbringing. My family accepted me, but I lost Christian friends, and extended relatives. I paid a lot, but I stand firm in my choice. My current position of atheism has lead to a more intellectually rigorous lifestyle, greater fulfillment in daily life, and has generally improved my life. now you know me.)

Does anyone else recognize this movie as a severely underhanded attack on Darwinism (not a defense of Creationism or I.D.)? Proponents of I.D. will tell you that it is not a religious suggestion, yet you will not find atheists behind the I.D. push. Why is there still a desire to have I.D. in classrooms? Isn't this a step in the wrong direction?

If we allow the supernatural into the biology classroom, aren't we inviting the supernatural into other classrooms? Isn't it easier for the physicist to simply say: "I don't know why these quarks cannot bond, it must be the will of God. Let us end our research," than to further explore.

What happened? Even in my Christian days I would not have called to a teach to explain Noah's Ark, or to explain the Flood, or anything of the sort.

If it wasn't enough, we have Ben Stein, a clearly intelligent man, backing this movement. I welcome criticism (I'm sure I'll get it), but I really don't see how creationism in the classroom can lead to a benefit. If nothing else, if creationism is correct, then Darwinism will lead us to it. Science doesn't ask for faith, only a set of eyes to look at the evidence. Papers on creationism are peer-reviewed and peer-rejected because they don't withstand a rigorous investigation. Where did we lose our way?

[cnorman18]

Tell you what: Let's make a pact that on the day that happens, we'll meet in Times Square at noon and watch the pigs go flying by.

I have many problems with this statement. Should it be discovered that the Sun revolves around the earth, I'll gladly meet in Times Square. However, I don't see the connection to flying pigs, much less the time of day. Were pigs to fly I'm not sure they would do so at noon, and I'm less convinced that they would fly over Times Square. I suspect they would be intercepted by the USAF in short order.

Oh, the absurdity...

Absurd, indeed. Glad you see the point.

Thank you for being a rational theist; you've restored by confidence in God-believers. The God you describe is safely outside the boundaries of the universe we share, and as such He does not effect the atheist.

I think that most non-Orthodox Jews are rationalists, and not a few Orthodox. That's why you see so many Jews involved in the sciences.

As for God being outside the boundaries of the Universe--well, I never said that. I think God is quite active in the Universe. I just think he acts through us, that is, humans. We Jews don't go in for miracles much; we pray for the sick at services, but we expect them to go see physicians and not faith healers.

I dare say you may be a better person with Him in your life. This should be the only argument in favor of a deity, and a reasonable atheist will not argue against it.

I don't agree with that either, but it's one acceptable reason, I suppose. As I've said elsewhere, I don't think the decision--if it even is a decision--of whether or not to believe in God can be made on logical grounds, or indeed that it ever really is. I think it's more a matter of upbringing, personal taste, and just inclination, and too often is made on the basis of the perceived behavior of others who believe or not. That ought to be irrelevant, but of course in practice it isn't. The question of what one believes is never as important as what kind of person one is, anyway.

It may sound very odd coming from a theist, but I really think the question of whether or not one believes in God is
Ultimately a trivial one--even to God. I think He is much more interested in how we behave than in what we think.

I might say: "I can be just a good without a God-belief as you can with one." But I will not tell a good person they can be better without their God, not without a decidedly good reason.

I know that my Grandmother (a good person) can be better without her God; but, alas, she is catholic and quite incapable of being anything else. If there is a catholic heaven, I imagine that she will be very lonely. If there is a catholic hell (I sometimes wonder which hell I will go to if indeed there is a hell) I'm sure I will be in good company. Well, shoot... if there's a catholic hell, I'll see you there CNorman.

Oh, theology! It's the only place where a disobedient servant (Lucifer) takes all the other disobedient servants (sinners) and tortures them for rejecting the same deity he originally rejected. Talk about a double standard! I suspect that if there is a hell it will be luxurious. Everything that Saint Thomas denied will be there. No shortage of alcohol, of course; plenty of sex (in any manner you choose); and copious amounts of friendly atheists. At the risk of sounding vulgar, I'm sure there will be no oral sex in heaven; you'll have to go to hell for that.

Funny how Christian hell is more tolerant than Christian heaven (or Christians themselves, for that matter).

I'm almost disappointed that I don't believe in hell.

I know Jews do not believe in hell. I recognize your exemption.

.

Some Jews, I am told, believe in Hell. I am not even sure I believe in Heaven. What I do believe is that nothing of much importance happens in either place. This world is where the action is, so to speak.

An analogy I have used elsewhere and in other contexts: Theology is an interesting intellectual chess game. Ethics is a fist fight, with blood and bone and real consequences. One is theoretical; the other is real.

[XaWN]

As for God being outside the boundaries of the Universe--well, I never said that. I think God is quite active in the Universe. I just think he acts through us, that is, humans.

Well, I apologize for misinterpreting you, then. I suppose I used overly generalized words which gave the impression of a "black and white" interpretation on my end. I recognized previously that you are a theist, not a deist. I misspoke.

I dare say you may be a better person with Him in your life. This should be the only argument in favor of a deity, and a reasonable atheist will not argue against it.

I don't agree with that either, but it's one acceptable reason, I suppose. As I've said elsewhere, I don't think the decision--if it even is a decision--of whether or not to believe in God can be made on logical grounds, or indeed that it ever really is. I think it's more a matter of upbringing, personal taste, and just inclination, and too often is made on the basis of the perceived behavior of others who believe or not. That ought to be irrelevant, but of course in practice it isn't. The question of what one believes is never as important as what kind of person one is, anyway.

Ever the rational arguer, you are. I concede the point. What I was trying to convey was my opinion that: "My religion is the truth, you must follow it" is not a reasonable argument. As such, most argument that stem from that point are not reasonable either.

[cnorman18]

As for God being outside the boundaries of the Universe--well, I never said that. I think God is quite active in the Universe. I just think he acts through us, that is, humans.

Well, I apologize for misinterpreting you, then. I suppose I used overly generalized words which gave the impression of a "black and white" interpretation on my end. I recognized previously that you are a theist, not a deist. I misspoke.

There's certainly no apology necessary. I don't believe that God routinely jumps in to fiddle with the natural order of things--especially at the command of guys with ostentatiously expensive haircuts and $4000 suits. .

I dare say you may be a better person with Him in your life. This should be the only argument in favor of a deity, and a reasonable atheist will not argue against it.

I don't agree with that either, but it's one acceptable reason, I suppose. As I've said elsewhere, I don't think the decision--if it even is a decision--of whether or not to believe in God can be made on logical grounds, or indeed that it ever really is. I think it's more a matter of upbringing, personal taste, and just inclination, and too often is made on the basis of the perceived behavior of others who believe or not. That ought to be irrelevant, but of course in practice it isn't. The question of what one believes is never as important as what kind of person one is, anyway.

Ever the rational arguer, you are. I concede the point. What I was trying to convey was my opinion that: "My religion is the truth, you must follow it" is not a reasonable argument. As such, most argument that stem from that point are not reasonable either.

I totally agree. There's quite a lot of that around here, too.

As for religion making one a better person--IMHO, certain varieties of religion seem to have a tendency toward making a person a good deal worse, particularly in the areas of pride, arrogance, self-righteousness and obstinacy.

For the record, every atheist I have ever personally met has been rigorously honest; comes with the territory, I suppose. Honesty starts with being honest with oneself.

I hasten to add that some atheists can be arrogant pains in the butt, too, but it doesn't seem to be a requirement as it does for some flavors of Christianity.

[XaWN]

I never use smiley faces, but there's something about reasonable theists that just give you that warm fuzzy feeling.



I'm insanely used to being berated by theists. I find that literature, public opinion, or casual conversation all tend to label the atheist as uncaring, amoral, and dishonest. The problem I have is that I can recognize that feeling as I used to feel the same way when I was an apologetics-touting Christian.

When I finally visited a member of clergy at my church and said, face to face: "I believe that I am an atheist, is there anything that I may not have considered?" This member of the clergy closed the door to his office and berated me for even dreaming of abandoning my morals, for committing this crime against society, and for openly giving myself to a life of crime and materialism.

When I became an atheist, I didn't stop giving to charity. In fact, my recognition that we all have one life to live caused me to volunteer for causes that I thought were beneficial. I adopted a family at Christmas time (again, this year) to buy gifts and food for. When I stopped saying: "At least they'll go to heaven" I became a better person.

I don't claim to have some sort of magical instant-improvement device, I'm the same person as before. But I know that I'm a better person without religion in my life. It's fantastic to hear someone else (especially a theist) recognize that. I expected to come to this forum to debate issues with people, to try to convince theists that a life of atheism may be, on the whole, better for the human condition.

Rather, I find that in a short time, a theist (yes, you, CNorman) has convinced me that theism is not the prison I've so frequently observed. I don't think it has changed my position on my personal view of atheism. That is to say, a respectable theist does not, for me, provide sufficient evidence of God. But this experience has changed my "mission." There is such a thing as a rational acceptance of God. Religion doesn't need to be wiped out; merely the superstition associated with it.

Well, I suppose I'm rambling. Really, I'm supposed to be working. So that's two strikes against me. Over and out.

[cnorman18]

I never use smiley faces, but there's something about reasonable theists that just give you that warm fuzzy feeling.

Well, there are more of us than one might think, and many are even Christians. I get the impression that forums tend to be heavily weighted toward fundamentalists, probably because they regard them as an ideal venue for evangelism. More liberal Christians, and, apparently, Jews, probably tend to regard this activity as trivial.

Which, of course, it ultimately is. I'm here because I find it interesting and stimulating, but honestly also because of the nature of my job and living situation; I don't have much else to do (I'm a caregiver for a 98-year-old friend; I stay with him literally 24-7. If I'm gone for more than my daily 45-minute break when his daughter comes to visit, he tends to get agitated and fearful. It's more a labor of love than anything else; he can't afford professional care to this extent, and I chose to put my life "on hold" for a while so he can live out his remaining days with dignity. Anyway, most of my time is just being here while he sleeps. Thank God, you'll pardon the expression, for my BlackBerry. I also read a lot when I'm not involved in a good debate.)

I'm insanely used to being berated by theists. I find that literature, public opinion, or casual conversation all tend to label the atheist as uncaring, amoral, and dishonest. The problem I have is that I can recognize that feeling as I used to feel the same way when I was an apologetics-touting Christian.

I know the feeling. I had a fundamentalist fit in the late 70s when I was a total PITA.

When I finally visited a member of clergy at my church and said, face to face: "I believe that I am an atheist, is there anything that I may not have considered?" This member of the clergy closed the door to his office and berated me for even dreaming of abandoning my morals, for committing this crime against society, and for openly giving myself to a life of crime and materialism.

That's really tragic. When I visited my pastor to withdraw from my church before I began the process of conversion to Judaism, he was very supportive and wished me well with no argument. Of course, I was a Methodist, and they're pretty laid-back as Christians go. I think the choir director was more annoyed than the pastor, but then I was her only bass.

When I became an atheist, I didn't stop giving to charity. In fact, my recognition that we all have one life to live caused me to volunteer for causes that I thought were beneficial. I adopted a family at Christmas time (again, this year) to buy gifts and food for. When I stopped saying: "At least they'll go to heaven" I became a better person.

As I recall, the letter of James in the NT has rather a lot to say about concern for people's souls while ignoring the needs of their bodies.

In my synagogue, it's traditional for Jews to volunteer to take the place of Christians at their jobs--at no pay, of course--so they can spend Christmas with their families.

I don't claim to have some sort of magical instant-improvement device, I'm the same person as before. But I know that I'm a better person without religion in my life. It's fantastic to hear someone else (especially a theist) recognize that. I expected to come to this forum to debate issues with people, to try to convince theists that a life of atheism may be, on the whole, better for the human condition.

For many people I have known, the first step toward a real understanding of morality, the Universe, and their own place in it has been to step away from an unreflective and doctrinaire religion. For some, that has led to a more liberal and humanistic faith; for others, atheism. I consider it a positive improvement either way.

Rather, I find that in a short time, a theist (yes, you, CNorman) has convinced me that theism is not the prison I've so frequently observed. I don't think it has changed my position on my personal view of atheism. That is to say, a respectable theist does not, for me, provide sufficient evidence of God. But this experience has changed my "mission." There is such a thing as a rational acceptance of God. Religion doesn't need to be wiped out; merely the superstition associated with it.

Thanks; it seems I have become some sort of spokesman myself. I didn't come here to speak for rational religion, but that's where I am, so that's the way it seems to be working out. I'm OK with that.

For the record; I have run into militant atheists who exhibit the same annoying characteristics as militant fundamentalists; who demean and patronize all those who disagree with them--not as benighted, doomed sinners, but as benighted, childish morons. I see little difference, ethically speaking. From my point of view, as I've so often said, what one believes is of little moment; how one behaves is much more important, and treating others with respect is perhaps the first item on the required reading list.

Well, I suppose I'm rambling. Really, I'm supposed to be working. So that's two strikes against me. Over and out.

Well, you're obviously going to Hell then.

[Assent]

I know the feeling. I had a fundamentalist fit in the late 70s when I was a total PITA.

You're going to have to explain this one, because all I thought of when I read it was a delicious bread pocket.

For the record; I have run into militant atheists who exhibit the same annoying characteristics as militant fundamentalists; who demean and patronize all those who disagree with them--not as benighted, doomed sinners, but as benighted, childish morons. I see little difference, ethically speaking. From my point of view, as I've so often said, what one believes is of little moment; how one behaves is much more important, and treating others with respect is perhaps the first item on the required reading list.

I too have said that morals/ethics and metaphysical beliefs are quite independent. There is a good deal of overlap where metaphysical beliefs are held by a community, and are thus shared along with that community's moral/ethical standards, but the two can and have been held independantly.

There are two places that I do take issue: first, when people believe that their standards of morals are as exclusive as their metaphysical beliefs; and second, when these metaphysical beliefs are used to justify or replace the exercise of science. Atheists have been guilty of the latter as well as Christians, though usually not to the same extent.

And to XaWN, I say, welcome. Have you done much exploring of eastern religions? I find that surprisingly few atheists seem to have even realized that they have options beyond Christianity.

[Goat]

I know the feeling. I had a fundamentalist fit in the late 70s when I was a total PITA.

You're going to have to explain this one, because all I thought of when I read it was a delicious bread pocket.

P I T A .. Pain In The Assets.

[XaWN]

And to XaWN, I say, welcome. Have you done much exploring of eastern religions? I find that surprisingly few atheists seem to have even realized that they have options beyond Christianity.

Thanks for the welcome. After talking to some, I feel that I've already been here too long.

Assent, I can't say I've taken any more than a college course in Eastern religion. I "fall" to atheism, though, started an open rejection of organized religion. I realize that eastern religions, in general, are less organized, but the concept is still somewhat officious.

I'm quite happy where I sit. I don't have to check my thoughts or feelings against a book or set of teachings. I know that I'm a better person now than I was and that I'm a better person than some of those I left behind in Christianity.

Atheism is what I really understand of the universe. If something better comes along, I'll be the first to read it and get on board.

[Assent]

Thanks for the welcome. After talking to some, I feel that I've already been here too long.

Assent, I can't say I've taken any more than a college course in Eastern religion. I "fall" to atheism, though, started an open rejection of organized religion. I realize that eastern religions, in general, are less organized, but the concept is still somewhat officious.

I'm quite happy where I sit. I don't have to check my thoughts or feelings against a book or set of teachings. I know that I'm a better person now than I was and that I'm a better person than some of those I left behind in Christianity.

Atheism is what I really understand of the universe. If something better comes along, I'll be the first to read it and get on board.

That's fine. I just encourage everyone to explore all possibilities, and not simply jump from one boat to the next most obvious boat. Anyway, the real reason I ask if you've considered eastern ideas is because there are several atheists on this board who refer to "all religion," or "all organized religion," but actually mean "Christianity and its denominations...oh, and Islam sometimes...and Judaism, based on the Christian interpretation of the Old Testament." I have to translate it in my head in order to understand what they really mean.

[XaWN]

Anyway, the real reason I ask if you've considered eastern ideas is because there are several atheists on this board who refer to "all religion," or "all organized religion," but actually mean "Christianity and its denominations...oh, and Islam sometimes...and Judaism, based on the Christian interpretation of the Old Testament." I have to translate it in my head in order to understand what they really mean.

Ahh, a perfectly reasonable objection. I'll be more careful in my wording. In my defense, I am posting in a Christian Apologetics sub-forum of the Debating Christianity Forum. Still, your objection is perfectly reasonable, and I will be more careful with my wording in the future.