Find the enemy...

[JGG]

"Let me explain the problem science has with Jesus Christ."
The atheist professor of philosophy pauses before his class and then asks one of his new students to stand.

"You're a Christian, aren't you, son?"

"Yes sir," the student says.

"So you believe in God?"

"Absolutely."

"Is God good?"

"Sure! God's good."

"Is God all-powerful? Can God do anything?"

"Yes."

"Are you good or evil?"

"The Bible says I'm evil."

The professor grins knowingly. "Aha! The Bible!" He considers for a moment. "Here's one for you. Let's say there's a sick person over here and you can cure him. You can do it. Would you help them? Would you try?"

"Yes sir, I would."

"So you're good...!"

"I wouldn't say that."

"But why not say that? You'd help a sick and maimed person if you could. Most of us would if we could. But God doesn't."

The student does not answer, so the professor continues. "He doesn't, does he? My brother was a Christian who died of cancer, even though he prayed to Jesus to heal him. How is this Jesus good? Hmmm? Can you answer that one?"

The student remains silent.

"No, you can't, can you?" the professor says. He takes a sip of water from a glass on his desk to give the student time to relax.

"Let's start again, young fella. Is God good?"

"Er... Yes," the student says.

"Is Satan good?"

The student doesn't hesitate on this one. "No."

"Then where does Satan come from?"

The student falters. "From... God..."

That's right. God made Satan, didn't he? Tell me, son. Is there evil in this world?"

"Yes, sir."

"Evil's everywhere, isn't it? And God did make everything correct?"

"Yes."

"So who created evil?"

Again, the student has no answer.

"Is there sickness? Immorality? Hatred? Ugliness. All these terrible things, do they exist in this world?"

The student squirms on his feet. "Yes."

"So who created them?"

The student does not answer again, so the professor repeats his question, "Who created them? "

There is still no answer. Suddenly the lecturer breaks away to pace in front of the classroom. The class is mesmerized.

"Tell me," he continues. "Do you believe in Jesus Christ, son?"

The student's voice betrays him and cracks. "Yes, professor. I do."

The old man stops pacing. "Science says you have five senses you use to identify and observe the world around you. Have you ever seen Jesus?"

"No sir. I've never seen Him."

"Then tell us if you've ever heard your Jesus?"

"No, sir. I have not."

"Have you ever felt your Jesus, tasted your Jesus or smelt your Jesus? Have you ever had any sensory perception of Jesus Christ, or God for that matter."

"No, sir, I'm afraid I haven't."

"Yet you still believe in him?"

"Yes."

"According to the rules of empirical, testable, demonstrable protocol, science says your God doesn't exist. What do you say to that son?"

"Nothing," the student replies. "I only have my faith."

"Yes, faith," the professor repeats. "And that is the problem science has with God. There is no evidence, only faith."

The student stands quietly for a moment, before asking a question of his own.

"Professor, is there such thing as heat?"

"Yes," the professor replies. "There's heat."

"And is there such a thing as cold?"

"Yes, son, there's cold too."

"No sir, there isn't."

The professor turns to face the student, obviously interested. The room suddenly becomes very quiet. The student begins to explain.

"You can have lots of heat, even more heat, super-heat, mega-heat, white heat, a little heat or no heat, but we don't have anything called 'cold'. We can hit 458 degrees below zero, which is no heat, but we can't go any further after that. There is no such thing as cold; otherwise we would be able to go colder than -458 degrees. You see, sir, cold is only a word we use to describe the absence of heat. We cannot measure cold. Heat we can measure in thermal units because heat is energy. Cold is not the opposite of heat, sir, just the absence of it."

Silence across the room. A pen drops somewhere in the classroom, sounding like a hammer.

"What about darkness, professor. Is there such a thing as darkness?"

"Yes," the professor replies without hesitation. "What is night if it isn't darkness?"

"You're wrong again, sir. Darkness is not something; it is the absence of something. You can have low light, normal light, bright light, flashing light... but if you have no light constantly you have nothing and it's called darkness, isn't it? That's the meaning we use to define the word. In reality, darkness isn't. If it were, you would be able to make darkness darker, wouldn't you?"

The professor begins to smile at the student in front of him. This will be a good semester.

"So what point are you making, young man?"

"Yes, professor. My point is, your philosophical premise is flawed to start with and so your conclusion must also be flawed."

The professor's face cannot hide his surprise this time. "Flawed? Can you explain how?"

"You are working on the premise of duality," the student explains. "You argue that there is life and then there's death; a good God and a bad God. You are viewing the concept of God as something finite, something we can measure. Sir, science can't even explain a thought. It uses electricity and magnetism, but has never seen, much less fully understood either one. To view death as the opposite of life is to be ignorant of the fact that death cannot exist as a substantive thing. Death is not the opposite of life, just the absence of it. Now tell me, professor. Do you teach your students that they evolved from a monkey?"

"If you are referring to the natural evolutionary process, young man, yes, of course I do."

"Have you ever observed evolution with your own eyes, sir?"

The professor begins to shake his head, still smiling, as he realizes where the argument is going. A very good semester indeed.

"Since no one has ever observed the process of evolution at work and cannot even prove that this process is an on-going endeavor, are you not teaching your opinion, sir? Are you now not a scientist, but a preacher?"

The class is in uproar. The student remains silent until the commotion has subsided.

"To continue the point you were making earlier, let me give you an example of what I mean?" The student looks around the room.

"Is there anyone in the class who has ever seen the professor's brain?"

The class breaks out into laughter.

"Is there anyone here who has ever heard the professor's brain, felt the professor's brain, touched or smelt the professor's brain? No one appears to have done so. So, according to the established rules of empirical, stable, demonstrable protocol, science says that you have no brain, with all due respect, sir."

So if science says you have no brain, how can we trust your lectures, sir?"

Now the room is silent. The professor just stares at the student, his face unreadable.

Finally, after what seems an eternity, the old man answers. "I guess you'll have to take them on faith."

Those who know me will undoubtedly see the many problems I have here.

 

[JGG]

Oh, and this...

Newt Gingrich Warns of America Turning Secular Atheist Radical Islamist

 

[drich0150]

"Is God good?"

"Sure! God's good."

Good IS God.

"Are you good or evil?"

"The Bible says I'm evil."

The Bible does not say this, We are told that we are sinful.

Sin is anything not in the Expressed will of God.
Evil is a malicious intent to commit sin.

Not all sin is Evil but all evil is sin.

The professor grins knowingly. "Aha! The Bible!" He considers for a moment. "Here's one for you. Let's say there's a sick person over here and you can cure him. You can do it. Would you help them? Would you try?"

"Yes sir, I would."

"So you're good...!"

"I wouldn't say that."

The student can not say that because we are told only God is Good. That is why I said Good is God. We are not God so therefore we can not be good.

"But why not say that? You'd help a sick and maimed person if you could. Most of us would if we could.

If you give a man a fish you feed Him for a day, if you teach a man to fish you feed him for life. You nor the professor do not know what is best for the spiritual well being of that person. Just because a man is made whole physically does not mean this ensures his spiritual well being. What is more important? Feed a man for a day, by giving him good heath for the rest of his life or teaching how to feed himself so that he may enjoy eternal life?

But God doesn't."

This is a short sited judgment by a small minded person. This man wishes to judge God according to what he think is "good."

The student does not answer, so the professor continues. "He doesn't, does he? My brother was a Christian who died of cancer, even though he prayed to Jesus to heal him. How is this Jesus good? Hmmm? Can you answer that one?"

Jesus is not a magical genie nor an alternative medicine, something one can turn to to have a wish granted or a last resort when your faith in science fails.

If his brother was saved then what would be better for him to continue to live in this fallen world or to return home?

"Is Satan good?"

The student doesn't hesitate on this one. "No."

"Then where does Satan come from?"

The student falters. "From... God..."

That's right. God made Satan, didn't he? Tell me, son. Is there evil in this world?"

"Yes, sir."

"Evils everywhere, isn't it? And God did make everything correct?"

"Yes."

"So who created evil?"

The professor in this story for all of his supposed education has but the most basic understanding of a medieval doctrine.

His definitions of Sin evil, good righteousness are all elementary Sunday school at best.

Now if we continue working on the biblical definition I provided of Sin and evil we can come to define "Free Will" Which is the ability to choose a will outside of the expressed will of God. In other words "free will" at it's core, is the ability to sin. As I have established earlier evil is the ultimate expression of sin or if you will evil is the true proof of free will.

So who allowed us the ability the ability for free will? God did, Why? So that we may spend this life in the effort to decide where or with Whom we wish to spend eternity.

"Is there sickness? Immorality? Hatred? Ugliness. All these terrible things, do they exist in this world?"

The student squirms on his feet. "Yes."

"So who created them?"

These are all a product of living in a fallen world or in a world with true choice.

"Tell me," he continues. "Do you believe in Jesus Christ, son?"

The student's voice betrays him and cracks. "Yes, professor. I do."

The old man stops pacing. "Science says you have five senses you use to identify and observe the world around you. Have you ever seen Jesus?"

"No sir. I've never seen Him."

"Then tell us if you've ever heard your Jesus?"

"No, sir. I have not."

"Have you ever felt your Jesus, tasted your Jesus or smelt your Jesus? Have you ever had any sensory perception of Jesus Christ, or God for that matter."

"No, sir, I'm afraid I haven't."

"Yet you still believe in him?"

"Yes."

By this logical fallacy all who died before we were born never existed either.

"According to the rules of empirical, testable, demonstrable protocol, science says your God doesn't exist. What do you say to that son?"

Science was created in such a way as to exclude the possibility of God. So why is it surprising that no God can be found in science?

"Nothing," the student replies. "I only have my faith."

"Yes, faith," the professor repeats. "And that is the problem science has with God. There is no evidence, only faith."

Not true there is much evidence to be had, but is will not lend itself to fit the molds that science has come to require.

Those who know me will undoubtedly see the many problems I have here.[/quote]
Since I do not know you I assume you only wanted the doubts presented in this argument answered.

 

[drich0150]

Oh, and this...

Newt Gingrich Warns of America Turning Secular Atheist Radical Islamist

He was saying the primary belief will be atheism. And the primary belief in God will be that of the Islamic faith..

So what?

 

[JGG]

Since I do not know you I assume you only wanted the doubts presented in this argument answered.

No, actually I don't particularly care about the "doubts."

Do you suppose this story is fact or fiction? What do you suppose it is supposed to achieve? How do you think most people walk away from it?

He was saying the primary belief will be atheism. And the primary belief in God will be that of the Islamic faith..

So what?

Well, for starters: Is it true? (hint: doesn't look like it).

 

[drich0150]

Do you suppose this story is fact or fiction?

This specific story I do not know. I do know that "believers" are often time signaled out and chastised for their faith in most of our "high learning" institutions. In fact there are sections of this web site where believers look for answers in response to some professors challenge..

What do you suppose it is supposed to achieve?

It's clearly outlined in the story itself. To show that personal perspective plays a large role in our understandings.

How do you think most people walk away from it?

It depends on how they approach it.

Well, for starters: Is it true? (hint: doesn't look like it).
This is not as a true or false statement even if it was presented that way.

Like the above story it is a simple matter of perspective. Newt like your professor is not the ultimate authority he believes himself to be.

 

[razeontherock]

Do you suppose this story is fact or fiction?

Perhaps I don't know you well enough to know what problems you have with this story, but let's get to know each other:

this story is clearly fictitious. The problem I have with it is it starts out with a Prof being abusive towards a student shaking in his boots and unable to address even the simplest of issues, and the Prof mercilessly rips him to shreds. After that, the same student very calmly makes a skillful address. That is, uh ... *rather unlikely.*

Further, all the vicious attacks the Prof makes are false, and easily answerable. And apparently based on his personal bitterness re: his dead Brother. No Prof like that will ever have a good semester! And then the same Prof passively allows this student to make a monkey out of him in front of the whole lecture hall?

 

[JGG]

Why do you suppose the antagonist in this story is a science/philosophy professor? Or an atheist? Afterall, a fellow student would have sufficed. He could have been Hindu, Buddhist, wiccan, or non-religious.

Tell you what, I'll help you out. Here's the first two lines:

"Let me explain the problem science has with Jesus Christ."
The atheist professor of philosophy pauses before his class and then asks one of his new students to stand.

1. Science doesn't have a problem with Jesus Christ. Science doesn't have a problem with anything. Science is not sentient (for the record, science was not designed either). While people may make reference to this casually, in a classroom it's a really bad habit of a really poor professor.

2. This philosophy professor does not concern himself with science. (a) he is a philosophy professor afterall, and (b) not a single argument he makes stems from scientific inquiry.

3. What scientific discipline posits Jesus Christ at all? Biology? Chemistry? Physics? Jesus Christ isn't even a scientific question, let alone a problem.

Why does the philosophy professor not know the difference between science and PHILOSOPHY!? Why is he a complete moron? How would this man have graduated from university much less become a professor of philosophy?

That's just the first two sentences. The rest of it is similarly ignorant.


So, read again, and I'll let's ask again: why was this fantasy written and spread around among Christians? What is this strawman meant to achieve? How does a Christian view atheists, or higher education after this is read?

 

[JGG]

This specific story I do not know. I do know that "believers" are often time signaled out and chastised for their faith in most of our "high learning" institutions. In fact there are sections of this web site where believers look for answers in response to some professors challenge..

No. I am a professor. If a professor actually shows discrimination among students like that, they aren't likely to teach classes much longer. A professor who cannot teach students doesn't stick around long, unless they have tenure.

However, in a science classroom if you challenge the professor on his lecture, you'd best be right. For instance, if you tell a biology professor that evolution is false, you're gonna get smacked down, because it stands to reason that the biology professor knows more about biology than you do. The same would be true if I went into a philosophy or theology class and said God doesn't exist. The philosophy professor, who presumably knows more about philosophy than I do, would likely smack me down.

It's clearly outlined in the story itself. To show that personal perspective plays a large role in our understandings.

Interesting. Why do you suppose the atheist professor is an antagonistic moron who doesn't know the first things about science or philosophy?

This is not as a true or false statement even if it was presented that way.

Like the above story it is a simple matter of perspective. Newt like your professor is not the ultimate authority he believes himself to be.

Honestly, do you think the prospect of an atheist/Muslim takeover of the government a credible threat?

 

[razeontherock]

Why does the philosophy professor not know the difference between science and PHILOSOPHY!?

 

[DomainRider]

It is a modern parable in Socratic dialogue form, apparently intended to show the hard-of-thinking how a caricature of science can be hoist by its own smug petard.

The so-called arguments from both parties are so poor that I charitably presume it's actually intended as an example of the worst quality internet debate about science and religion.

 

[drich0150]

No. I am a professor. If a professor actually shows discrimination among students like that, they aren't likely to teach classes much longer. A professor who cannot teach students doesn't stick around long, unless they have tenure.

Then perhaps when (usually in the fall) we have brothers and sisters looking for advise about professors who bully, I can refer them to you. I personally have 15 or so PM's advising one brother who was ready to quit school because his science professor would single him out when ever his faith in science would conflict with this person's personal faith.

However, in a science classroom if you challenge the professor on his lecture, you'd best be right. For instance, if you tell a biology professor that evolution is false, you're gonna get smacked down, because it stands to reason that the biology professor knows more about biology than you do. The same would be true if I went into a philosophy or theology class and said God doesn't exist. The philosophy professor, who presumably knows more about philosophy than I do, would likely smack me down.

For a professor you tend to make large assumptions. In this story it was the professor who asked for an admission of faith. This is a long way from what you have taken the time to describe here.

Interesting. Why do you suppose the atheist professor is an antagonistic moron who doesn't know the first things about science or philosophy?

Again an another unfounded assumption. If you care to re read your story, you can plainly see that the "revelation" that the student gives is one that deals with perspective. This means I do not "suppose" anything. I am simple relaying the facts the author of this story is trying to communicate.

Truthfully what other purpose do you think there is in explaining the thermal principles of Heat or the lack there of when Speaking about God?

Honestly, do you think the prospect of an atheist/Muslim takeover of the government a credible threat?

I never represented that. I simply pointed out What Newt believed, and it's relationship to your original story.

 

[JGG]

Then perhaps when (usually in the fall) we have brothers and sisters looking for advise about professors who bully, I can refer them to you. I personally have 15 or so PM's advising one brother who was ready to quit school because his science professor would single him out when ever his faith in science would conflict with this person's personal faith.

I have to ask, if faith is a personal thing, how would the professor know when a student's faith conflicted with science? In all honesty, I teach roughly 700 students this semester. I only know the faith group of a few of them, and even then, only broadly. The only way I would know if their faith conflicted with something I've taught, is if a student made a point of telling me so. Even then, I doubt I would know from one case to the next.

And yes, you can refer them to me, or you can point them toward their campus ombudsman. That's why they're there.

For a professor you tend to make large assumptions. In this story it was the professor who asked for an admission of faith. This is a long way from what you have taken the time to describe here.

No, what I'm saying is that there is a big difference between being singled out for your faith, and singling yourself out for your faith. It is one thing to for a professor to single out an individual to ridicule their faith (I'm not sure how a professor would know what a single student's faith was) in order to belittle it, or even discuss it in a lecture.

However, if a person stands up when I talk about a scientific theory and tells me I'm wrong because his faith says otherwise, I am going to demand that he support his objection with something more concrete than faith. This is true for everyone who wants to hijack science with their political agenda. So are these people being singled out, or are they singling themselves out? This is why I asked how the professor was apparently accutely aware when his students' faith conflicted with science.

Again an another unfounded assumption. If you care to re read your story, you can plainly see that the "revelation" that the student gives is one that deals with perspective. This means I do not "suppose" anything. I am simple relaying the facts the author of this story is trying to communicate.

Let me rephrase my question: If you had to guess, why would the antagonist of the story be a moronic, atheist philosophy/science professor who doesn't know the first things about science or philosophy?

I might also point out, that there are no facts in this story. It is fictional fantasy, and gets more wrong than it gets right. The arguments made on both sides are laughable, and the characterization of the stupid, evil atheist is a standard Christian stereotype propogated by this very sort of "literature" (I might point out this was just one story among several on the site I borrowed it from).

So the question still stands: When someone writes a story like this, with these characters, what does such a person hope to achieve with it? Is it supposed to instill or reinforce this stereotype among it's Christian readers, or is it pandering to a pre-existing stereotype?

I never represented that. I simply pointed out What Newt believed, and it's relationship to your original story.

Okay. But, honestly, do you think the prospect of an atheist/Muslim takeover of the government a credible threat? In more precise terms: Do you suppose Newt was attempting to instill, or reinforce this fear of the atheist/Muslim takeover among Christians, or is he merely taking advantage of a pre-existing fear in order to benefit from it?

 

[razeontherock]

No, what I'm saying is that there is a big difference between being singled out for your faith, and singling yourself out for your faith. It is one thing to for a professor to single out an individual to ridicule their faith (I'm not sure how a professor would know what a single student's faith was) in order to belittle it, or even discuss it in a lecture.

However, if a person stands up when I talk about a scientific theory and tells me I'm wrong because his faith says otherwise, I am going to demand that he support his objection with something more concrete than faith. This is true for everyone who wants to hijack science with their political agenda. So are these people being singled out, or are they singling themselves out?

This is a GOOD point! While I don't mean to turn my back on compassion, I think this might serve as a good screening process for posters who complain of a Prof bullying them over their beliefs?

I also have new appreciation for why this story (and others like it) would get under your skin.

 

[drich0150]

I have to ask, if faith is a personal thing, how would the professor know when a student's faith conflicted with science? In all honesty, I teach roughly 700 students this semester. I only know the faith group of a few of them, and even then, only broadly. The only way I would know if their faith conflicted with something I've taught, is if a student made a point of telling me so. Even then, I doubt I would know from one case to the next.

Personal how? We all utilize a personal degree of faith no matter what we believe. Even so, their can be assumptions made on what that faith will look like. How else did the professor know which buttons to push in your story?

No, what I'm saying is that there is a big difference between being singled out for your faith, and singling yourself out for your faith. It is one thing to for a professor to single out an individual to ridicule their faith (I'm not sure how a professor would know what a single student's faith was) in order to belittle it, or even discuss it in a lecture.

Your story was one example, (he simply asked who was a believer) Some are singled out because of a medallion bearing a saint or crucifix, the last guy I help made the unforgivable error of bring a bible into his professors science class. Just because you choose to turn a blind eye to another's faith does not mean all of your colleagues will choose do the same.

However, if a person stands up when I talk about a scientific theory and tells me I'm wrong because his faith says otherwise, I am going to demand that he support his objection with something more concrete than faith.

Fair enough, after they are their to learn what you have to teach and not the other way around.

This is true for everyone who wants to hijack science with their political agenda. So are these people being singled out, or are they singling themselves out? This is why I asked how the professor was apparently accurately aware when his students' faith conflicted with science.

I'm sure it works both ways. The obnoxious are not isolated to one group or another. As I said earlier my guy simply was seen with a bible in a science class for a brief moment while shuffling through his bag.

Let me rephrase my question: If you had to guess, why would the antagonist of the story be a moronic, atheist philosophy/science professor who doesn't know the first things about science or philosophy?

I could not say other than to push the point that personal belief or belief in a particular arrangement of facts, is often times contingent on a persons perspective.

I believe that this story is less about making a professor look foolish than it is about choosing which arguments to engage in. For whatever reason the author could not answer the questions he had the professor present, but was wise enough to see that even if he did not have those answers to the questions being present by the professor. He could address the nature in which those questions were being asked, because they were completely contingent on the professors Sunday school understanding of a medieval doctrine. The Author knew that the professors "prospective" would make or break the argument even if the student could not directly answer the professors questions.

So I assume as a means to illustrate a greater point the author used any and all relevant data he had make this simple point. The author is wise to the methods of the art of conversation, but is weak in content. I say this because he could not properly illustrate or represent either side. Never the less he made a very solid point in the mechanics of a "faith" based argument.

I might also point out, that there are no facts in this story. It is fictional fantasy, and gets more wrong than it gets right.

I disagree, there were quite a few facts in this story being represented. Keep in mind not all facts are true, but never the less they are still indeed statements that can either be proved or disproved.

The arguments made on both sides are laughable, and the characterization of the stupid, evil atheist is a standard Christian stereotype propagated by this very sort of "literature" (I might point out this was just one story among several on the site I borrowed it from).

I do not think anyone except the author will disagree.

So the question still stands: When someone writes a story like this, with these characters, what does such a person hope to achieve with it? Is it supposed to instill or reinforce this stereotype among it's Christian readers, or is it pandering to a pre-existing stereotype?

I am sure for some yes, for others no. it all depends on who and where their level of faith is at.

Okay. But, honestly, do you think the prospect of an atheist/Muslim takeover of the government a credible threat?

If we live in a true democracy why would this be a threat?

In more precise terms: Do you suppose Newt was attempting to instill, or reinforce this fear of the atheist/Muslim takeover among Christians, or is he merely taking advantage of a pre-existing fear in order to benefit from it?

From what i read the biggest fear being promoted is the absence of any faith in God then followed by Faith in the god of Islam.

All this is, is a call to arms to those who want to be apart of the government our fathers had.

People fear change, and most Conservatives would look at this as a drastic shift that will change the face of the relationship our government has with Christianity. When in truth all that will have happened is that our country's dead faith will be more freely mirrored in future legislation. Right now, the best we can show is a luke warm intention toward enacting what it is we are supposed to believe. What newt and those who support that type of call to arms fail to see is that "we" are already there. Perhaps being subject to the faith of the faithless or those of another God will indeed do us some good, when and if all scraps of Christianity have been pushed out from this nations government.

 

[BleedingHeart]

JCG, did you hear the one about the atheist professor who stood up on his podium and challenged God to knock him down in the next fifteen minutes?
A veteran got out of his seat and smacked the dude to the ground.
The professor asked him why.
The veteran/assault&battery suspect says: "God was too busy protecting the soldiers fighting for you your right to say stupid things. So he sent me instead."
And the classroom abrupts in cheers.

Some lessons to be learned from this story.
1. A professor can not teach class for 15 minutes without worry of being fired or punished.
2. God isn't good at multitasking, since he needs a soldier to punch a professor.
3. Hell, it can be argued that the Man isn't that good at single-tasking either, since thousands have died in the war on terror. So much for protection.
4. "That'll teach you to speak your mind!"

Hey...did you hear the one about the atheist professor and the pen? I've got a million of these!

 

[JGG]

Personal how? We all utilize a personal degree of faith no matter what we believe. Even so, their can be assumptions made on what that faith will look like. How else did the professor know which buttons to push in your story?

Seriously? It's Christian fiction/fantasy. The professor could have known the kid's middle name, debit card password, or reveal at the end that he had buried Jimmy Hoffa if the author decided it.

Your story was one example, (he simply asked who was a believer) Some are singled out because of a medallion bearing a saint or crucifix, the last guy I help made the unforgivable error of bring a bible into his professors science class. Just because you choose to turn a blind eye to another's faith does not mean all of your colleagues will choose do the same.

The story is fiction, so it is not an example any more than Star Trek is example of alien/human relations (and he didn't ask who was a believer he pointed to someone and said "You're a Christian aren't you son?"). And I wear a Chrisitan medalion that my mother gave to me before I die.

I'm sure it works both ways. The obnoxious are not isolated to one group or another. As I said earlier my guy simply was seen with a bible in a science class for a brief moment while shuffling through his bag.

So you're suggesting that if there's a Bible in someone's bookbag, I can assume what their attitude is toward science? All people with Bible's in their bookbags believe the same thing? If my professors had tried to derive my attitudes toward anything by looking in my university bookbag they'd have a hard time of it. Among other books at various times I had the Bible, the Baghavad Gita, the Koran, The Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter, books by the Dalai Lama, and Mein Kampf in there. One would think that my attitude toward science was best represented by the fact that I was enrolled in a university level science class.

However, we are talking about stereotypes here.

I could not say other than to push the point that personal belief or belief in a particular arrangement of facts, is often times contingent on a persons perspective.

Well one would say that a person's perspective is the arrangements of facts and personal belief. So, I'm not sure what you're getting at here.

I believe that this story is less about making a professor look foolish than it is about choosing which arguments to engage in.

But, the Professor's arguments are basic, rudimentary, high school education arguments. Those are the ones you should engage in? What about when they get more complex?

For whatever reason the author could not answer the questions he had the professor present, but was wise enough to see that even if he did not have those answers to the questions being present by the professor. He could address the nature in which those questions were being asked, because they were completely contingent on the professors Sunday school understanding of a medieval doctrine. The Author knew that the professors "prospective" would make or break the argument even if the student could not directly answer the professors questions.

But it's not even a real professor, it's the author's depiction of a professor, and the professor perspective. So again, what was achieved? Again, why a professor? Why an atheist professor? Why an antagonistic, atheist professor? Wouldn't the story be better served by a curious or doubting peer? Why the "us vs. them" scenario? I should point out that this basic stereotype of the bumbling, antagonistic, evil, atheist professor makes appearances in several other Christian fantasies that make the email rounds.

I disagree, there were quite a few facts in this story being represented. Keep in mind not all facts are true, but never the less they are still indeed statements that can either be proved or disproved.

No, facts are true, that's what makes them facts. Just making a statement that can be proved or disproved does not make it a fact.

I do not think anyone except the author will disagree.

I would say the many Christians who forward this along to their Christian friends would disagree.

I am sure for some yes, for others no. it all depends on who and where their level of faith is at.

Why level of faith? Do you think it's those with more faith who are likely to accept such a negative stereotype, or those with less faith?

If we live in a true democracy why would this be a threat?

That's sort of what I'm asking. And yet, Gingrich says this, and Christians become fearful of the evil atheist Muslims.

From what i read the biggest fear being promoted is the absence of any faith in God then followed by Faith in the god of Islam.

Yes, why?

All this is, is a call to arms to those who want to be apart of the government our fathers had.

Which was what?

People fear change, and most Conservatives would look at this as a drastic shift that will change the face of the relationship our government has with Christianity.

No. People don't. We had riots from people in the middle east because they wanted change. People in our society protest frequently because they want change. Conservatives fear change. That's the basis of conservatism.

When in truth all that will have happened is that our country's dead faith will be more freely mirrored in future legislation. Right now, the best we can show is a luke warm intention toward enacting what it is we are supposed to believe. What newt and those who support that type of call to arms fail to see is that "we" are already there. Perhaps being subject to the faith of the faithless or those of another God will indeed do us some good, when and if all scraps of Christianity have been pushed out from this nations government.

I don't even know what this says. You're calling for atheist muslims to take over the government, or that they already have?

 

[razeontherock]

I was with ya right up to here:

Conservatives fear change. That's the basis of conservatism.

Sort of answers your own question about why "this basic stereotype of the bumbling, antagonistic, evil, atheist professor makes appearances in several other Christian fantasies that make the email rounds." You just gave us THE quintessential Prof stereotype - except now it isn't funny.

 

[drich0150]

Seriously? It's Christian fiction/fantasy. The professor could have known the kid's middle name, debit card password, or reveal at the end that he had buried Jimmy Hoffa if the author decided it.

Very astute observation, but in the end the author took the direction represented in your opening post. and your question was based on what was written in the author's story recorded in your opening post, and my response was based on the story that was recorded in your OP, not any nor all of the possibile directions he could have taken the story, as you are now suggesting.

The story is fiction, so it is not an example any more than Star Trek is example of alien/human relations (and he didn't ask who was a believer he pointed to someone and said "You're a Christian aren't you son?"). And I wear a Christan medallion that my mother gave to me before I die.

so what are you saying your mother pick out a Christian medallion for you because she thought it was pretty? or thought you looked cute wearing it? Obviously if you go back far enough that medallion meant something to someone. if not you then to the one who presented it to you, and all of the stuff assumed about your reasons for wearing that medallion can just as easily be transfered to the next person in that chain.

So you're suggesting that if there's a Bible in someone's book bag, I can assume what their attitude is toward science?

Again you assume too much. I simply stated the reason my guy was singled out in his class. He did not confront his professor like you suggested, the only thing that happened that even pointed to his faith, was that the professor saw a bible in his book bag. Once the professor confirmed this kids faith, like in the story he was subjected to much ridicule and questions that he could not answer. This is why He originally posted for help on this site.

All people with Bible's in their book bags believe the same thing?

You are wanting to paint my words using a broad brush, when in fact I used a very specific instance where one of your self righteous colleagues saw a bible and assumed all of the things you are pointing out.

If my professors had tried to derive my attitudes toward anything by looking in my university book bag they'd have a hard time of it.

Apparently we are not all the enigma you would make yourself out to be. Stereotypes are present in societies for a reason.

Among other books at various times I had the Bible, the Baghavad Gita, the Koran, The Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter, books by the Dalai Lama, and Mein Kampf in there. One would think that my attitude toward science was best represented by the fact that I was enrolled in a university level science class.

However, we are talking about stereotypes here.

If we were speaking of stereotypes and I saw this list of books in any one person's possession all at once I would think that that person was a Jack of many literary trades so to speak, and the master of none. Someone who knows enough to pull and quote the surface principles of any given topic, but under heavy scrutiny would simply defer to another source of material (and continue to do so) as to regain supremacy in an argument rather than explore or extensively exhaust anyone complete avenue of thought to it's complete conclusion.

But again that to me, is the stereotypical reason one man would study some many different books, or rather have a need to have so many opposing views in his posesion at any given time. However i am willing to concede to the fact that you being the enigma that you have presented yourself to be, that none of these stereotypical reason for being "so well read" could apply to you.

Well one would say that a person's perspective is the arrangements of facts and personal belief. So, I'm not sure what you're getting at here.

In the story the professor's questions all derived from his knowledge of God. Which by any standard of study outside of a most basic Sunday school understanding was incomplete at best. This is the perspective in which the professor formulated his "God/Good" questions.

So rather than tell a proud educated man that he has a child's grasp of what he believes he has a complete understanding of, (By Directly answering his questions and providing proper context and correct his definitions) One should endeavor to show a contrast in perspective and work with and build upon what that person is willing to yield to.

But, the Professor's arguments are basic, rudimentary, high school education arguments. Those are the ones you should engage in? What about when they get more complex?

Avoid arguments that are based in a persons pride, and address the ones he or she is willing to work with. (In the most ideal situation)

But it's not even a real professor, it's the author's depiction of a professor, and the professor perspective. So again, what was achieved?

The goal was to point out the mechanics behind this particular conversation.

Again, why a professor? Why an atheist professor? Why an antagonistic, atheist professor?

It sounds as if the author had an issue with a professor and this was his way of evening up the score a bit. Or perhaps it was based on a David and Goliath story line, where good triumphs over evil, or the story could be loosely based on true events. If you want to know the truth you will have to ask the person who originally wrote the story.

Wouldn't the story be better served by a curious or doubting peer? Why the "us vs. them" scenario?

It truly depends on what the true intent of the story would be.

I should point out that this basic stereotype of the bumbling, antagonistic, evil, atheist professor makes appearances in several other Christian fantasies that make the email rounds.

You are correct, we do indeed use those who appose our thoughts and beliefs as a modern day Goliath of sorts. We build you all up, just to tear you all down. But if you will turn your attention to the "believer in this story you will notice that he knows more of what the professor believes, than what it is he as a christian is supposed to believe. I personally see both parties as being misrepersented here, because both of these men are not in anyway what they should be. This fact in turn point to a bigger meaning to this story, in that both roles of the believer and the professor were overly simplified, so that a greater point could be learned.

I believe that the author is wanting us (Christians) to approach an opponent not so much on our own knowledge ability or merit but one terms that are more negotiable for him to accept.

-OR-

What you seem to fail to see, through all of your hurt by proxy pride is that this "Christian" had fewer answers about his faith than he did about what the professor believed in.

In truth both men being represented here are a shell of who they should be.

You do not hear or read any complaints on the shell game of faith this weak brother presents from me do you? Why because this story is not about a professor or a weak in the faith brother. If you can look beyond your own hurt pride you will begin to see a larger picture.

In that this story is not about neither the student or the professor, but about how a believer should address a non believer.

The first example is one that more closly follows the "moral" of the story you posted. The second more closely represents a view that simply states "facts" as I see them.
In the first example I am trying to work with your objection, and help you broaden your perspective to include all of the lacking characters in this story, not just to the one that shares your job title. Hopefully this will allow to Identify the simplfied parable nature of this story, and help you transition into searching for a deeper meaning. (Which i am currently illustrating)

In the second I am simply forcing facts as I see them.

No, facts are true, that's what makes them facts. Just making a statement that can be proved or disproved does not make it a fact.

Then by this logic all guilty men who are tried in a court of law that present facts arealways convicted, and in turn all innocent men who have been through their due process will receive an acquittal.

Not to mention the "fact" was Pluto was labeled a planet, we had a hole in the Ozone caused by our usage of CFC's, in the 70's we were all warned of a coming Ice age by 2000, due to our co2 emmissions in 2000 we were warned about Global warming,(Again cause by our Co2 output) now it is Global climate change because apparently we are no longer warming at the same rate.(but again somehow all due to Co2 output) All of these sky is falling cries were based on "facts." Do you still contend that all facts are true?

If all facts are true then would we not all come to the same conclusions when presented with these same facts? Then why so moany different theories if all facts are the unchanging truth?

(Truth is not relitive, it is foundational. Truth is, always was, and will be the same.)

I would say the many Christians who forward this along to their Christian friends would disagree.

Again I would say it heavily depends on the faith of the person reading it.

Why level of faith? Do you think it's those with more faith who are likely to accept such a negative stereotype, or those with less faith?

Faith is not a negative word. Those with mature faith will see the short comings of both parties. Those with immature faiths will simply see a retelling of David and Goliath. Depending on whether or not you fancy your self a Philistine or Jew will depend if the person of immature faith will take offense or pride in the story.

That's sort of what I'm asking. And yet, Gingrich says this, and Christians become fearful of the evil atheist Muslims.
Yes, why?

asked and answered (it was rhetorical)

Which was what?

The idea of a Christian faith based government

No. People don't.

I disagree. If for some reason Obama and the majority of the senate and the Judaical branch all deemed it necessary and constitutional to shift our government to adopt biblically based rules and law, you would not fear that change? What if we stoned unbelievers?

People fear change when it does not align itself with their perceived values.

People fear change when it changes or will not allow them to live the lives they want to live.

We had riots from people in the middle east because they wanted change. People in our society protest frequently because they want change. Conservatives fear change. That's the basis of conservatism.

But to any of the proposed changes conflict with established values of those seeking change? This is the change I speak of. You are defining changes as merely something different perhaps even agreeable. When I speak of change I am speaking of a complete paradigm shift. Change that has one completely reorganizing their lives. Not Obama Change, Mao Change, Kim Il Sung Change.

I don't even know what this says. You're calling for atheist Muslims to take over the government, or that they already have?

In short we are not the Christian government newt and those who think along those lines think we are.

We are already the government that He fears. Because the "Christians" in government are powerless to effect and real legislation that truly promotes Christian values. at best all we can offer is a stale mate, and in order to even do that "we" have to sell our votes on minor issues to stop the big ones, thus rendering those with Christian values impotent in government.

I am saying that perhaps that it would be better for us if the Godless and those who worship the Muslim God were in power, that way even the blind could see who and exactly what we have become, perhaps igniting a true revival of the church in America.

 

[JGG]

I was with ya right up to here:



Sort of answers your own question about why "this basic stereotype of the bumbling, antagonistic, evil, atheist professor makes appearances in several other Christian fantasies that make the email rounds." You just gave us THE quintessential Prof stereotype - except now it isn't funny.

But it is the basis of conservatism:

con·ser·va·tism (kn-sûrv-tzm)
n.
1. The inclination, especially in politics, to maintain the existing or traditional order.
2. A political philosophy or attitude emphasizing respect for traditional institutions, distrust of government activism, and opposition to sudden change in the established order.

It's not meant to be a stereotype. Resistance to change is the very thing conservatism is based on. It's the root of conservatism. It is the core concern of conservatism. It is literally the definition of conservatism. "Fear" may have been too strong a word, but it was the word that was fed to me. It seems to me this is the basic understanding that most people, including conservatives, have of conservatism.

What did you think conservatism was based on?