Ask an atheist anything

[redwards]

OS specific or stuff everyone can use?

Mostly java these days.

 

[redwards]

My path to faith led through C.S. Lewis and J.R.R. Tolkien, who first convinced me that the claims of Christianity deserved serious consideration. From there, I went to Christian apologetics. Without getting into a debate on it, which I'm not interested in, I investigated the historicity of the Gospels, the evidence for the resurrection of Christ, and the many OT prophecies he fulfilled, and found the evidence to be convincing. Not positive proof, not definitive, but probable by a preponderance of the evidence. That's as far as reason and empirical evidence could take me. From that point, the decision to take the 'leap of faith' was necessarily an act of will and intuition. It took me several years after concluding it was probably true to integrate enough pieces of the cosmic jigsaw puzzle to decide that was how they best fit together, and to decide to make the commitment.

Thanks for the story. I certainly won't challenge you on it here.

Ok, my turn for a question: You've told us what you don't believe in: any god or gods. That's all very well, but a lack of belief doesn't tell us much about you. Everybody has a philosophy, whether they know it or not, whether they'll admit it or not. What's yours? What do you believe in?

That's a pretty broad question, I'm not sure I could answer it with a lot of specifics. I suppose you could call me a materialist, to start (as opposed to a dualist), and a skeptic, in general. If you want more specific answers on a particular subject, I'm happy to go into it.

 

[razzelflabben]

Well, I was raised more or less agnostic, predominantly by one parent. My grandmother used to take us to church on occasion, but all I really remember is not being able to sit still. My mom never pushed us one way or the other, and religion just wasn't a particularly important topic when I was a kid.

I didn't really get interested in religion until I was about 13 and a friend of mine (an adult) started teaching me about Christianity while I helped him with yardwork. I really liked the guy, and I was interested in the subject for a while. I talked to him about it for probably a week or two; asking questions, hearing the stories, and so on.

I told my mom all about what he had been telling me, and, to her great credit, she said almost nothing, just nodded, smiled, and let me talk. She trusted me to make my own decisions. I believe that, at the time, she may have had an aversion to organized churches, but not to religion, in particular. Her parents were religious.

At any rate, I eventually got around to asking my friend about other religions, and why so many different people believed so many different things if his religion was so obviously correct. His answers didn't satisfy me. And that was pretty much that; I gave up trying to buy into Christianity.

I've learned a whole lot more since then, obviously. I considered myself agnostic for a long time, because I thought being an atheist meant being absolutely positive that god was impossible, which I wasn't. But being an atheist doesn't mean that, and I eventually adopted the term because it's the most appropriate for what I believe.

I run into all kinds of people, atheist, agnostic, christian, etc. who assume they know truth. Let me clarify, there is a difference between believing you have found truth and assuming you know truth. The difference lies in the willingness to listen to what others are saying and consider their words.

Maybe I can explain it this way even better. For me personally, I believe I have found truth. I believe I have found truth because of archeology, history, prophesy, and real life experiences that test what I believe and found it to consistently be evidenced. so I believe I have found truth. However, I will not claim to know all truth because there is much in this life I don't know. Much about God I don't yet know. I don't assume to know truth because if I assumed to know truth, I wouldn't open myself up to learning even more. I do not fear that exploration will change the truth I have found, so I explore so that I can learn even more truth, not less.

Now, hopefully that is clear, so my question for you personally, is where do you fall on the spectrum. In the case of religious belief (atheism) do you believe to know truth, or do you assume to know truth? Are you open to exploration, or closed as so many others of all walks of life are?

Getting to know one another question is all, please don't read an ulterior motive into it.

 

[redwards]

I run into all kinds of people, atheist, agnostic, christian, etc. who assume they know truth. Let me clarify, there is a difference between believing you have found truth and assuming you know truth. The difference lies in the willingness to listen to what others are saying and consider their words.

Maybe I can explain it this way even better. For me personally, I believe I have found truth. I believe I have found truth because of archeology, history, prophesy, and real life experiences that test what I believe and found it to consistently be evidenced. so I believe I have found truth. However, I will not claim to know all truth because there is much in this life I don't know. Much about God I don't yet know. I don't assume to know truth because if I assumed to know truth, I wouldn't open myself up to learning even more. I do not fear that exploration will change the truth I have found, so I explore so that I can learn even more truth, not less.

If you're claiming that you believe in a god not because of faith, but because of evidence, I would be a bit incredulous. The preponderance of evidence does not suggest this. I won't challenge you any more than that here, because I don't want to be rude or derail the thread, but I'd happily take it up elsewhere if you want to.

As an aside: I hope no one gets offended with a simple, "well, I think you're wrong" in this thread. I would hope it's understood from the outset that we each think the other is wrong, and I promise not to be offended if you won't. I'm wary of coming into someone else's forum and starting an argument they don't want to have, so let me know if I'm being too stern.

Now, hopefully that is clear, so my question for you personally, is where do you fall on the spectrum. In the case of religious belief (atheism) do you believe to know truth, or do you assume to know truth? Are you open to exploration, or closed as so many others of all walks of life are?

Getting to know one another question is all, please don't read an ulterior motive into it.

It sounds to me like the root of your question goes back to something I've spent a lot of the thread discussing already. My answer would again be that I do not hold a faith position (of any kind, really). All of my positions about the natural world stem from a weighing of evidence, and all of them exist as relative probabilities. So yes, if you could supply sufficient evidence of a deity, I would adjust my position. Everything that I know so far suggests to me that the probability of that is extraordinarily low.

 

[razzelflabben]

If you're claiming that you believe in a god not because of faith, but because of evidence, I would be a bit incredulous. The preponderance of evidence does not suggest this. I won't challenge you any more than that here, because I don't want to be rude or derail the thread, but I'd happily take it up elsewhere if you want to.

As an aside: I hope no one gets offended with a simple, "well, I think you're wrong" in this thread. I would hope it's understood from the outset that we each think the other is wrong, and I promise not to be offended if you won't. I'm wary of coming into someone else's forum and starting an argument they don't want to have, so let me know if I'm being too stern.

I don't get easily offended but there are a few things I get offended by, like those who purpose to twist words and those who call me a liar just as an example.

As to the evidence, my question for you stemmed from the evidence I have collected and it would seem from this response that you are one who assumes to already know. You see, someone who believes to have found the truth would ask others to present what might have been missed. Whereas someone who assumes to know truth would say, something like, "doesn't exist" and move on. Thanks

It sounds to me like the root of your question goes back to something I've spent a lot of the thread discussing already. My answer would again be that I do not hold a faith position (of any kind, really). All of my positions about the natural world stem from a weighing of evidence, and all of them exist as relative probabilities. So yes, if you could supply sufficient evidence of a deity, I would adjust my position. Everything that I know so far suggests to me that the probability of that is extraordinarily low.

But then you come here, and change your tune, so I have to really wonder where you stand on the issue. Do you assume to know the answers or just believe you have found truth?

Your response to my post contridicts itself in your answer. Maybe I'm just missing something in your post.

 

[redwards]

I don't get easily offended but there are a few things I get offended by, like those who purpose to twist words and those who call me a liar just as an example.

Oh I'm certainly not accusing you of lying, and I hope you don't think I've twisted anything you've said. I'm just a bit stunned that someone could come to that conclusion from that route. I understand people who believe in god because of faith. I'm not sure I've met someone who believed strictly because of evidence. But perhaps I've mistaken your position.

As to the evidence, my question for you stemmed from the evidence I have collected and it would seem from this response that you are one who assumes to already know. You see, someone who believes to have found the truth would ask others to present what might have been missed. Whereas someone who assumes to know truth would say, something like, "doesn't exist" and move on. Thanks

But then you come here, and change your tune, so I have to really wonder where you stand on the issue. Do you assume to know the answers or just believe you have found truth?

I'm not sure I'm comfortable with your believe/assume dichotomy. I don't think the words fit the distinction you're drawing, which I would generally term faith vs. evidence. My position is that after a good deal of time studying the issue, I've arrived at a conclusion as to what is most likely the case. So, evidence. As I said in the previous post, I'd be happy to discuss the evidence with you, and we can compare our reasoning, though I'm not sure if this is the appropriate thread for it.

Your response to my post contridicts itself in your answer. Maybe I'm just missing something in your post.

How so?

 

[seashale76]

I notice the title of this forum includes the phrase, "Bridge Builders." That's an appropriate characterization of what I'd like to do. I know this forum has a number of atheists, but I suspect most of them stay in the ethics and science forums. I came to the forum to meet some people who wouldn't ordinarily ever talk to an atheist. I wanted to reach out.

You and I have fundamental disagreements. But it seems obvious that the best way for people with disagreements to understand each other better is for them to get to know each other. I recognize that atheists, as a group (if you can even call them that), are among the least trusted of all groups here in America. I think we could alleviate some of that if we got to know each other.

I'd like to get to know some of you. Hope you feel the same. But I'll understand if you simply ask me to move my thread elsewhere.

No need for me to ask you anything. I know plenty of 'out of the closet' atheists in real life (and I live in the so-called bible belt). I don't see how they're considered the least trusted of all groups, as the folks I know seem to not have any troubles and nobody bats an eye at their non-belief. They're quite numerous these days. Really, I think it is the atheists who purposely go out of their way to obsess about a God they don't believe in and make fun of their Christian friends, family, and acquaintances for believing that attract negative attention to themselves and other non-believers.

 

[razzelflabben]

Oh I'm certainly not accusing you of lying, and I hope you don't think I've twisted anything you've said. I'm just a bit stunned that someone could come to that conclusion from that route. I understand people who believe in god because of faith. I'm not sure I've met someone who believed strictly because of evidence. But perhaps I've mistaken your position.

I did not think you were twisting my words (purposeful) nor calling me a liar, just saying those are the two on the forum that get under my skin.

As to my position, I looked at the evidence, concluded that it was the most viable conclusion. Tested that conclusion and have repeatedly received the same results, that God is real and the God of the bible.

Now, that does not mean that the evidence would convince you, in fact, from my experience, most humans are skeptical enough as to not believe anything about God apart from what they experience with thier own being. In other words, man likes to justify their own beliefs against personal evidence not collective evidence.

Here's an example. I was involved in an accident that was a miracle i survived much less that I sustained injuries not worth mentioning. But the real miracle was in how the accident resulted in the salvation of a life from suicide. Now this incident was explored here on the forum by many people who were skeptics but none could find a reasonable explaination apart from God. In addition, the reason for the miracle, is right down the line what the bible says as far as God's intervention.

The point then is this, and why I asked you where you stood on the matter, because, man likes to justify more than evaluate evidence. I have no issue with scrutiny of the evidence, I have problems with those who justify to fit their own beliefs and call it open minded.

I'm not sure I'm comfortable with your believe/assume dichotomy. I don't think the words fit the distinction you're drawing, which I would generally term faith vs. evidence. My position is that after a good deal of time studying the issue, I've arrived at a conclusion as to what is most likely the case. So, evidence. As I said in the previous post, I'd be happy to discuss the evidence with you, and we can compare our reasoning, though I'm not sure if this is the appropriate thread for it.

How so?

My question was one that explored your openness to see what you may have missed before. I love to be questioned, challenged, I love to explore what I might have missed, what I find is that few people enjoy it as I do.

 

[redwards]

I did not think you were twisting my words (purposeful) nor calling me a liar, just saying those are the two on the forum that get under my skin.

As to my position, I looked at the evidence, concluded that it was the most viable conclusion. Tested that conclusion and have repeatedly received the same results, that God is real and the God of the bible.

Now, that does not mean that the evidence would convince you, in fact, from my experience, most humans are skeptical enough as to not believe anything about God apart from what they experience with thier own being. In other words, man likes to justify their own beliefs against personal evidence not collective evidence.

Here's an example. I was involved in an accident that was a miracle i survived much less that I sustained injuries not worth mentioning. But the real miracle was in how the accident resulted in the salvation of a life from suicide. Now this incident was explored here on the forum by many people who were skeptics but none could find a reasonable explaination apart from God. In addition, the reason for the miracle, is right down the line what the bible says as far as God's intervention.

You clearly have personal reasons for your beliefs. Again, I'm not going to argue about it with you unless you invite me to.

The point then is this, and why I asked you where you stood on the matter, because, man likes to justify more than evaluate evidence. I have no issue with scrutiny of the evidence, I have problems with those who justify to fit their own beliefs and call it open minded.

Most of our so-called reasoning consists in finding arguments for going on believing as we already do.
-James Harvey Robinson

I'm certainly familiar with the concept.

My question was one that explored your openness to see what you may have missed before. I love to be questioned, challenged, I love to explore what I might have missed, what I find is that few people enjoy it as I do.

I'm of that persuasion, yes. I would add, however, that it isn't unreasonable to place things at different levels of inquiry. That is to say, if you wanted to convince me of something way outside of what I consider rational, I would require very moving evidence. As Sagan would put it, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." (Or, as my friend occasionally rephrases it when he's arguing with people he finds ridiculous, "extraordinary claims require even more extraordinary claims.")

 

[redwards]

No need for me to ask you anything. I know plenty of 'out of the closet' atheists in real life (and I live in the so-called bible belt). I don't see how they're considered the least trusted of all groups, as the folks I know seem to not have any troubles and nobody bats an eye at their non-belief. They're quite numerous these days.

That's good to know. I moved from southern California to the south recently, and I can certainly attest to how drastically different the religious situation is.

As to the mistrust issue, I'm not sure why it's the case, but statistics seem to bear it out, year after year.

Really, I think it is the atheists who purposely go out of their way to obsess about a God they don't believe in and make fun of their Christian friends, family, and acquaintances for believing that attract negative attention to themselves and other non-believers.

Atheists have recently begun to draw a lot more attention to themselves. Some of it I approve of, some of it I don't. It's a mixed bag. I'm generally of the opinion that most secular causes are worth fighting for, but I don't always approve of the methods or messages people use.

That said, we take plenty of beating from the pulpit and other places (Bush, Sr. once declared that he didn't consider atheists citizens). I do get the impression that some people think we're being rude simply for speaking our minds in public.

 

[Zoness]

I'll grant you that, I just dislike the many arguments that stem from them. In particular, the notion that someone does or doesn't believe a thing because some people associate it with their label.

Almost all of the atheists I know have been accused many times of harboring a position which they don't actually hold, simply on account of the word 'atheist'. To be perfectly honest with you, I've never met nor heard of anyone who falls under the technical definition of a 'strong atheist'. Yet I hear that charge thrown around constantly.

Also understand what you are saying as well, depending on the theological debate I am in I get certain beliefs attached to me that I do not hold. I fight it to the best of my ability.

I, however, have met strong athiests (in fact I am talking to one on MSN right now he is my server administrator) and they usually get REALLY defensive on any spiritual or religious subject, not specifically Christianity.

 

[Ryft]

I wouldn't disagree that, if one were conducting a proper debate, defining terms beforehand would be a good idea. I just don't think it's necessary to first pigeonhole the belief system of every person on the planet in order to have a friendly conversation.

A bit reactionary, I think. Maybe you need extended experience with moderate or bridge-building Christians in order to 'calm down' a bit. (1) Neither myself nor anyone else here has, or even would, pigeon-hole the belief system of every person on the planet, for any purpose. Have you had that experience elsewhere? I think that's quite probable. But those experiences were precisely "elsewhere," i.e., not here. (2) And speaking to my own post—which again was a general rant, to get something off my chest—I was not pigeon-holing anyone at all. I did not talk about any specific person or group of persons. I was talking about a word, and how it has been complicated needlessly by obfuscating fetters. (3) Furthermore, even that word itself does not address anyone's belief system; that is, 'atheist' describes what a person does NOT believe but says nothing about what they do believe. Atheism is not a belief system; rather, belief systems can be atheistic.

So there are three good reasons to find your post a bit reactionary. Bridge Builders is populated almost entirely by people who are committed to the belief that you can debate an opponent without maligning him, that you can disagree with your opponent's belief system without censuring it, people who are committed to speaking the truth but doing so in love, treating an opponent with dignity. (Oh, speaking of which, we also don't recognize the word "opponent" as a pejorative; it's simply a practical term, describing one who presents an opposing point of view. It is not a negative term, here.)

I'm not sure I'm comfortable with your believe/assume dichotomy. I don't think the words fit the distinction you're drawing, which I would generally term faith vs. evidence.

See? It's not about being "too concerned with labels." It's about clarity and productive dialogue. Through this kind of exchange or sharing of ideas, two people can come away with a better understanding of what are the best words to use to communicate some particular idea.

 

[redwards]

A bit reactionary, I think. Maybe you need extended experience with moderate or bridge-building Christians in order to 'calm down' a bit. (1) Neither myself nor anyone else here has, or even would, pigeon-hole the belief system of every person on the planet, for any purpose. Have you had that experience elsewhere? I think that's quite probable. But those experiences were precisely "elsewhere," i.e., not here. (2) And speaking to my own post—which again was a general rant, to get something off my chest—I was not pigeon-holing anyone at all. I did not talk about any specific person or group of persons. I was talking about a word, and how it has been complicated needlessly by obfuscating fetters. (3) Furthermore, even that word itself does not address anyone's belief system; that is, 'atheist' describes what a person does NOT believe but says nothing about what they do believe. Atheism is not a belief system; rather, belief systems can be atheistic.

So there are three good reasons to find your post a bit reactionary. Bridge Builders is populated almost entirely by people who are committed to the belief that you can debate an opponent without maligning him, that you can disagree with your opponent's belief system without censuring it, people who are committed to speaking the truth but doing so in love, treating an opponent with dignity. (Oh, speaking of which, we also don't recognize the word "opponent" as a pejorative; it's simply a practical term, describing one who presents an opposing point of view. It is not a negative term, here.)

See? It's not about being "too concerned with labels." It's about clarity and productive dialogue. Through this kind of exchange or sharing of ideas, two people can come away with a better understanding of what are the best words to use to communicate some particular idea.

I'm don't intend to conduct a formal debate in this thread, and certainly I characterized your post as more overreaching than it was just to illustrate my aversion to trying to understand people through their labels, though I think calling it 'over-reacting' and imploring me to calm down is a tad patronizing. I tend to think putting labels on people is sometimes a good starting place for understanding someone, but rarely much more.

 

[Ryft]

. . . though I think calling it 'over-reacting' and imploring me to calm down is a tad patronizing.

Yeah, except you're once again inflating my response into something it wasn't. Bad form, sir. I described your post as a bit "reactionary" which, I hope everyone else understands, is not the same thing as "over-reacting." I don't know if it will mean anything to you, but I would really appreciate it if you dealt with my posts a little more honestly.

 

[redwards]

Yeah, except you're once again inflating my response into something it wasn't. Bad form, sir. I described your post as a bit "reactionary" which, I hope everyone else understands, is not the same thing as "over-reacting." I don't know if it will mean anything to you, but I would really appreciate it if you dealt with my posts a little more honestly.

You're either baiting me, or you've perfected the art of extraordinarily polite flaming. I disagree with you on something that I think is tertiary to the thread, so I'm going to stop discussing it.

 

[razzelflabben]

You clearly have personal reasons for your beliefs. Again, I'm not going to argue about it with you unless you invite me to.

Most of our so-called reasoning consists in finding arguments for going on believing as we already do.
-James Harvey Robinson

I'm certainly familiar with the concept.

I'm of that persuasion, yes. I would add, however, that it isn't unreasonable to place things at different levels of inquiry. That is to say, if you wanted to convince me of something way outside of what I consider rational, I would require very moving evidence. As Sagan would put it, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." (Or, as my friend occasionally rephrases it when he's arguing with people he finds ridiculous, "extraordinary claims require even more extraordinary claims.")

so your mind it made up and you won't really look at evidence objectively. You assume to know truth and justify all evidence to fit your beliefs. Thanks for clarifying. You might find "A Case for Christ" (I think that is the title of the book) interesting. It is about the evidence. You see, some of us "christians" do look at the evidence and where that isn't the sole basis of our beliefs, it certainly is the beginning. Unfortunately there are many people who refuse to accept that anyone who believes in God can have a rational or evidence based belief, which hurts the discussions considerably.

As to convincing someone, not this chick. My job, goal, desire, purpose, is not to convince anyone of anything. My job, goal, desire, purpose, (whatever you want to call it) is to speak the truth that I have witnessed and allow that to speak to whom it will. Whether that truth is how to survive a given situation or who God is, or even how to make brownies, my purpose is to speak that truth as best I can and allow the listener to do what he will with it, whether dismiss it, disagree with it, use it to make brownies, doesn't really matter to me as long as my words are understood and accepted as the truth as best as I can relate it.

 

[razzelflabben]

That's good to know. I moved from southern California to the south recently, and I can certainly attest to how drastically different the religious situation is.

As to the mistrust issue, I'm not sure why it's the case, but statistics seem to bear it out, year after year.

Atheists have recently begun to draw a lot more attention to themselves. Some of it I approve of, some of it I don't. It's a mixed bag. I'm generally of the opinion that most secular causes are worth fighting for, but I don't always approve of the methods or messages people use.

That said, we take plenty of beating from the pulpit and other places (Bush, Sr. once declared that he didn't consider atheists citizens). I do get the impression that some people think we're being rude simply for speaking our minds in public.

I don't know, I don't see many people who think atheists are to be mistrusted, though I have heard this argument. I have seen a host of atheists who judge others thus implying that they cannot be trusted.

I also live in the bible belt and to add to my experience, we have an x atheist in our current congregation, a believer, in our midst.

 

[redwards]

so your mind it made up and you won't really look at evidence objectively. You assume to know truth and justify all evidence to fit your beliefs. Thanks for clarifying.

No. Exactly the opposite. I'm not sure where you got this impression.

You might find "A Case for Christ" (I think that is the title of the book) interesting. It is about the evidence. You see, some of us "christians" do look at the evidence and where that isn't the sole basis of our beliefs, it certainly is the beginning. Unfortunately there are many people who refuse to accept that anyone who believes in God can have a rational or evidence based belief, which hurts the discussions considerably.

I probably would find it interesting.

As to convincing someone, not this chick. My job, goal, desire, purpose, is not to convince anyone of anything. My job, goal, desire, purpose, (whatever you want to call it) is to speak the truth that I have witnessed and allow that to speak to whom it will. Whether that truth is how to survive a given situation or who God is, or even how to make brownies, my purpose is to speak that truth as best I can and allow the listener to do what he will with it, whether dismiss it, disagree with it, use it to make brownies, doesn't really matter to me as long as my words are understood and accepted as the truth as best as I can relate it.

That's certainly fair enough. I hope you haven't gotten the impression that I'm challenging you to convince me.

 

[redwards]

I don't know, I don't see many people who think atheists are to be mistrusted, though I have heard this argument. I have seen a host of atheists who judge others thus implying that they cannot be trusted.

It's simple polling data. The polling data always suggests that atheists are heavily mistrusted. It's been consistent for decades.

I can't link you to this study yet, so I'll quote a portion of it:

Given the increasing religiosity of American culture, it's perhaps not too surprising that a new study out this month finds that Americans are not fond of atheists and trust them less than they do other groups. The depth of this distrust is a bit astonishing nonetheless.

More than 2,000 randomly selected people were interviewed by researchers from the University of Minnesota.

Asked whether they would disapprove of a child's wish to marry an atheist, 47.6 percent of those interviewed said yes. Asked the same question about Muslims and African-Americans, the yes responses fell to 33.5 percent and 27.2 percent, respectively. The yes responses for Asian-Americans, Hispanics, Jews and conservative Christians were 18.5 percent, 18.5 percent, 11.8 percent and 6.9 percent, respectively.

When asked which groups did not share their vision of American society, 39.5 percent of those interviewed mentioned atheists. Asked the same question about Muslims and homosexuals, the figures dropped to a slightly less depressing 26.3 percent and 22.6 percent, respectively. For Hispanics, Jews, Asian-Americans and African-Americans, they fell further to 7.6 percent, 7.4 percent, 7.0 percent and 4.6 percent, respectively.

The study contains other results, but these are sufficient to underline its gist: Atheists are seen by many Americans (especially conservative Christians) as alien and are, in the words of sociologist Penny Edgell, the study's lead researcher, "a glaring exception to the rule of increasing tolerance over the last 30 years."

This kind of thing is pretty much the reason that I'm here, by the way. Hope you guys don't think I'm alien, yet.

I also live in the bible belt and to add to my experience, we have an x atheist in our current congregation, a believer, in our midst.

I live in the south, too. "Are you an atheist?" isn't a question that comes up all that often, though.

 

[Izdaari Eristikon]

It's simple polling data. The polling data always suggests that atheists are heavily mistrusted. It's been consistent for decades.

I can't link you to this study yet, so I'll quote a portion of it:



This kind of thing is pretty much the reason that I'm here, by the way. Hope you guys don't think I'm alien, yet.

Nope, you're ok.

It goes both ways you know: You might be outnumbered, but atheists often don't have the best impressions of believers either. A lot of times, they don't seem to think we have brains. That's not true of course: I know many Christ-followers who are MENSA-qualified, even if (like me) totally not interested.