An atheist professor of philosophy speaks to his class on the problem science has with God, The Almighty. He asks one of his new students to stand and...

Prof: So you believe in God?

Student: Absolutely, sir.

Prof: Is God good?

Student: Sure.

Prof: Is God all-powerful?

Student: Yes.

Prof: My brother died of cancer even though he prayed to God to heal him. Most of us would attempt to help others who are ill. But God didn't. How is this God good then? Hmm?

Student: (Student is silent.)

Prof: You can't answer, can you? Let's start again, young fella. Is God good?

Student: Yes.

Prof: Is Satan good?

Student: No.

Prof: Where does Satan come from?

Student: From...God...

Prof: That's right. Tell me son, is there evil in this world?

Student: Yes.

Prof: Evil is everywhere, isn't it? And God did make everything. Correct?

Student: Yes.

Prof: So who created evil?

Student: (Student does not answer.)

Prof: Is there sickness? Immorality? Hatred? Ugliness? All these terrible things exist in the world, don't they?

Student: Yes, sir.

Prof: So, who created them?

Student: (Student has no answer.)

Prof: Science says you have 5 senses you use to identify and observe the world around you. Tell me, son...Have you ever seen God?

Student: No, sir.

Prof: Tell us if you have ever heard your God?

Student: No, sir.

Prof: Have you ever felt your God, tasted your God, smelt your God? Have you ever had any sensory perception of God for that matter?

Student: No, sir. I'm afraid I haven't.

Prof: Yet you still believe in Him?

Student: Yes.

Prof: According to empirical, testable, demonstrable protocol, science says your GOD doesn't exist. What do you say to that, son?

Student: Nothing. I only have my faith.

Prof: Yes. Faith. And that is the problem science has.

Student: Professor, is there such a thing as heat?

Prof: Yes.

Student: And is there such a thing as cold?

Prof: Yes.

Student: No sir. There isn't.

(The lecture theatre becomes very quiet with this turn of events.)

Student: Sir, you can have lots of heat, even more heat, superheat, 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. Cold is only a word we use to describe the absence of heat. We cannot measure cold. Heat is energy. Cold is not the opposite of heat, sir, just the absence of it. (There is pin-drop silence in the lecture theatre.)

Student: What about darkness, Professor? Is there such a thing as darkness?

Prof: Yes. What is night if there isn't darkness?

Student: You're wrong again, sir. Darkness 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? Darkness is not a reality. If it were, you would be able to make darkness darker, wouldn't you?

Prof: So what is the point you are making, young man?

Student: Sir, my point is your philosophical premise is flawed.

Prof: Flawed? Can you explain how?

Student: Sir, you are working on the premise of duality. You argue there is life and then there is 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?

Prof: If you are referring to the natural evolutionary process, yes, of course, I do.

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

Prof: (The Professor shakes his head with a smile, beginning to realize

where the argument is going.)

Student: Since no one has ever observed the process of evolution at work and cannot even prove that this process is an on-going endeavour, are you not teaching your opinion, sir?

Are you not a scientist but a preacher?

Prof: (The class is in uproar.)

Student: Is there anyone in the class who has ever seen the Professor's brain?

Prof: (The class breaks out into laughter.)

Student: Is there anyone here who has ever heard the Professor's brain, felt it, touched or smelt it? 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, sir. With all due respect, sir, how do we then trust your lectures, sir?

Prof: (The room is silent. The professor stares at the student, his face unfathomable.)

Prof: I guess you'll have to take them on faith, son.

Student: That is it sir. The link between man & God is FAITH. That is all that keeps things moving & alive.

***

Sorry forgot to add.. I found this on my friend's journal and thought it was interesting and decided to share it here.

[This message has been edited by aduelley (edited 04-29-2005).]

Wow, I never thought of it that way. http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif) The only thing we know for certan is that we are thinking.

Pretty silly work of fiction. Probably came from Chick.

old cheesey emotional propaganda garbage.

it demonstrates a real poor grasp of empiricism by positing a horrible strawman in the professor.

ironically, if you read carefully, the student has basically acquiesced that evolution is a valid theory from a theist's perspective, by equating its proponent to a faith preacher.

by this logic, the less rigorous demands of faith over empiricism only serves to give evolution and god equal footing.



[This message has been edited by Eil (edited 04-30-2005).]

That's so old.

Cheers,

Lost

People can see evolution, silly. Microevolution takes place on a small scale such as Darwin's finches. Maybe if you paid attention in biology instead of bitching about how god created the earth 6000 years ago you might have learned something.

No real piltdown man yet.

quote:Originally posted by LostCause:

That's so old.

Cheers,

Lost

And untrue.

quote:Originally posted by Eil:

ironically, if you read carefully, the student has basically acquiesced that evolution is a valid theory from a theist's perspective, by equating its propenent to a faith preacher.

Have you ever head of a theistic evolutionist? God created the universe and permits it to evolve. Perfectly sensible and common. Believing in God and evolution aren't mutually exclusive.

for all intents and purposes, you may consider me a theistic evolutionist.

that original post seems almost vehemently anti-science, instead of anti-atheist, as it paints empiricism in a dim light.

and it reeks of creationist propaganda. that's why i emphasized that evolution thing.

[This message has been edited by Eil (edited 04-30-2005).]

quote:Originally posted by asthesunsets:

People can see evolution, silly. Microevolution takes place on a small scale such as Darwin's finches. Maybe if you paid attention in biology instead of bitching about how god created the earth 6000 years ago you might have learned something.

Maybe if you knew something about the Theory of Evolution, you would know that Christians contest MACROevolution, not MICROevolution.

you mean, 'maybe if he knew something about creationism'.

Gaaaaaaaay.

If I wanted to read stories....

.....

..... (wait for it)

.....

..... (wait for it)

.....

..... I'd read the bible!

ZING!

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

Maybe if you knew something about the Theory of Evolution, you would know that Christians contest MACROevolution, not MICROevolution.

Maybe if you knew something about evolution, you would know that "MACROevolution", is simply lots of "MICROevolutions" put together.

If you believe "MICROevolution" can happen then you believe "MACROevolution" can as well... unless of course, you can prove there is a magical barrier that stops "MICROevolution" from occuring so many times. Can you?

Yeah but the proffeser can talk, think, ect, therefor one can deduct he has a brain. I havent seen god going around helping people, or at least seen the effects of some magical being saving a bunch of people. No fucking proffesser would just stand there and take that. Every single one of those arguments could have easily been rebuttled.

What fucking idiot would it have taken to realize until he "smiled an shook his head at the evolution question" to realize where the argument was headed.

Yes you fucking idiot, darkness is the absense of light. Your point? That still doesnt have anything to do with god existing or not when you get down to it. All it does is sound nifty and clever, so when some fucking idiot reads it it will seem like the student is all knowing and smart.

"His face unfathomable" What the fuck?

quote:Originally posted by Skiracer:

Yeah but the proffeser can talk, think, ect, therefor one can deduct he has a brain. I havent seen god going around helping people, or at least seen the effects of some magical being saving a bunch of people. No fucking proffesser would just stand there and take that. Every single one of those arguments could have easily been rebuttled.

To be fair, the subjective observation of someone talking and thinking is really no more or less valid proof for the existance of the professors brain; than when people say that the observation of the beauty of nature is proof for the existance of God.



What fucking idiot would it have taken to realize until he "smiled an shook his head at the evolution question" to realize where the argument was headed.

Yes you fucking idiot, darkness is the absense of light. Your point? That still doesnt have anything to do with god existing or not when you get down to it. All it does is sound nifty and clever, so when some fucking idiot reads it it will seem like the student is all knowing and smart.

"His face unfathomable" What the fuck?

The story was weak as hell. But you aren't even criticizing it correctly. There was a point to the stress put on western precepts of duality. Which in turn is tied into the inherent flaws that arise when we try to personify God or fit God into our spacial-temporal and logical parameters.

It may sound like a cop-out, but it's true. Just think about the way a 16 year old tibetan goat herder sees the world and explains phenomena. It's seriously worlds different than what our society has adopted as inherent fact. It's just hard for us to realize that more often than not when we think something impossible, it's usually just impossible relative to our social expectations.

Nahmsayin?

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

Maybe if you knew something about the Theory of Evolution, you would know that Christians contest MACROevolution, not MICROevolution.

Only the conservative ones. Most Christains around here (mostly catholics) accept evolution.

quote:Originally posted by sellout_10:

Only the conservative ones. Most Christains around here (mostly catholics) accept evolution.



I've never meet a catholic that doesn't accept evolution.

YHVH/Aliens/whatever+neandethals=humans?

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

Prof: (The Professor shakes his head with a smile, beginning to realize

where the argument is going.)

Student: Since no one has ever observed the process of evolution at work and cannot even prove that this process is an on-going endeavour, are you not teaching your opinion, sir?

Are you not a scientist but a preacher?"

My prior statement about evolution, DS, was contesting this part of the post. Please don't assume that throughout your extensive research of evolution you stumbled across something that wasn't common knowledge.

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

Maybe if you knew something about evolution, you would know that "MACROevolution", is simply lots of "MICROevolutions" put together.

If you believe "MICROevolution" can happen then you believe "MACROevolution" can as well... unless of course, you can prove there is a magical barrier that stops "MICROevolution" from occuring so many times. Can you?

MACROEVOLUTION: Large-scale evolution occurring over geologic time that results in the formation of new taxonomic groups.

MICROEVOLUTION: Evolution resulting from a succession of relatively small genetic variations that often cause the formation of new subspecies.

I stand correct in my statement that Creationist's agree that microevolution is observable, and therefore believable.

Macroevolution hasn't got a shred of evidence supporting it...no matter how hard you try to twist the evidence.

quote:Originally posted by sellout_10:

Only the conservative ones. Most Christains around here (mostly catholics) accept evolution.

Then they are true to your namesake: sellouts.

I have known a lot of Christians in my lifetime, and I have never heard it said that this was a popular concept.

Combining the theory of evolution and creationism is an act of futility...and utter contradiction in beliefs.

quote:Originally posted by asthesunsets:

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

Prof: (The Professor shakes his head with a smile, beginning to realize

where the argument is going.)

Student: Since no one has ever observed the process of evolution at work and cannot even prove that this process is an on-going endeavour, are you not teaching your opinion, sir?

Are you not a scientist but a preacher?"

My prior statement about evolution, DS, was contesting this part of the post. Please don't assume that throughout your extensive research of evolution you stumbled across something that wasn't common knowledge.

Actually, I was more keen on honing in on your ranting and criticizing, than what your point really was.

You didn't need to attack him, and assume that he is "bitching" about a young earth.

Unless you know something I don't know...

There is another story almost exactly like that where the prof makes the student a beleiver in evolution. He also proves he has a brain.

Taxanomic groups mean nothing - they're just things humans use to classify things. Keep that in mind, k?

But what I was going to say was, I find this a more ammusing prod at how idiotic philosophy professors are.

I mean, anyone who so much as Glanced at year 12 physics or Chemistry would know of Absolute Temperature.

But we have these stupid fucks freeloading off the rest of us, just bitching, contributing nothing real, and pretending they're smart.

Similar to Psychologists.

That's one field of Science that needs some hitler style "solution" before I'm ever going to take it seriously.

quote:Originally posted by MasterPython:

There is another story almost exactly like that where the prof makes the student a beleiver in evolution. He also proves he has a brain.

I have seen the derivative of this where the student ends up being Einstein.

http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif)

Actually, here it is !

http://www.snopes.com/religion/einstein.asp

Snopes is awesome.

Digital_Savior:

MACROEVOLUTION: Large-scale evolution occurring over geologic time that results in the formation of new taxonomic groups.

MICROEVOLUTION: Evolution resulting from a succession of relatively small genetic variations that often cause the formation of new subspecies.

Macroevolution (change to a new species or to another taxonomic division) doesn't always occur on long time scales. It's been known that bacteria often can mutate into a new species within a short period of time.

I stand correct in my statement that Creationist's agree that microevolution is observable, and therefore believable.

Nobody ever contested this. No need to repeat the obvious.

Macroevolution hasn't got a shred of evidence supporting it...no matter how hard you try to twist the evidence.

You had better use another term other than macroevolution if you want to get your point across, because macroevolution as scientists define it DOES occur.

Furthermore, you completely ignored Rust's point. If you say that microevolution can occur, then it would also be possible for microevolution to happen enough times for the animal to be classified as a different species, given enough time.

In other words, substantial macroevolution would/will inevidably happen, given time.

for anything to exist, it has to have an equal and distinct counter-part.

good/evil

i doubt "god" created evil, or itself. good and evil, "god" and "satan" always existed. you cant have one without the other.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

Then they are true to your namesake: sellouts.

I have known a lot of Christians in my lifetime, and I have never heard it said that this was a popular concept.

Combining the theory of evolution and creationism is an act of futility...and utter contradiction in beliefs.



They're called theistic evolutionists: God created the universe and permits it to evolve. It's not a contradiction in the least bit.

quote:Originally posted by inappropriate comedy tree:

for anything to exist, it has to have an equal and distinct counter-part.



Automobile???

Brain???

Thoughts???

What is the equal and distinct counter-part to the three things above?

I'd also love to see the logic that you used to arrive at this conclusion.

Comedy Tree; duality is the biggest load of bullshit.

Well that was adorable.

And I actually like that story. Just because I hate philosophy teachers so much.

quote:Originally posted by sellout_10:



They're called theistic evolutionists: God created the universe and permits it to evolve. It's not a contradiction in the least bit.

I wasn't implying that I don't know "who" they are, and that they are in fact out there.

I am saying it is not as common as you would think.

I also maintain that it is a contradiction in beliefs. If you read the Bible and believe in it, you can't believe in the Theory of Evolution. They completely contradict each other.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

I am saying it is not as common as you would think.

...and I'm saying it is. I've gone to a Catholic school my entire life. It's the belief of every single teacher in the building. It's the belief of every priest (or person of similar stature) I've ever talked with. I've ever talked to. In fact, I've never met anybody who didn't believe it.

The two are not contradictory beliefs. Give me biblical examples, and maybe I'll agree with your view, but keep in mind the bible is a faith book, not a history book. It is not meant to be taken literally but contextually.

Not at all denominations take the Bible as the literal word of God, DS, I'm sure your not so daft as to forget that.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

MACROEVOLUTION: Large-scale evolution occurring over geologic time that results in the formation of new taxonomic groups.

MICROEVOLUTION: Evolution resulting from a succession of relatively small genetic variations that often cause the formation of new subspecies.

I stand correct in my statement that Creationist's agree that microevolution is observable, and therefore believable.

Macroevolution hasn't got a shred of evidence supporting it...no matter how hard you try to twist the evidence.

You did not have to define the terms, because I know them. Again, macroevolution is simply many microevolution put together. Hence, if you believe that microevolution can happen, then you must believe that macroevolution can as well, unless of course you prove some magical barrier that stops X amounts of microevolution from happening... which you have not.

" Microevolution has been observed and is taken for granted even by creationists. And because there is no known barrier to large change and because we can expect small changes to accumulate into large changes, microevolution implies macroevolution. Small changes to developmental genes or their regulation can cause relatively large changes in the adult organism (Shapiro et al. 2004). "

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB901.html

quote:Originally posted by napoleon_complex:

Automobile???

Brain???

Thoughts???

What is the equal and distinct counter-part to the three things above?

I'd also love to see the logic that you used to arrive at this conclusion.

Counterparts for your examples:

Automobile --> (!/NOT) Automobile

Brain --> (!/NOT) Brain

Thoughts --> (!/NOT) Thoughts

Look how clever I am.

Duality is completely wrong, though. Hex got it right. The heat/cold example is even stupider, because all lay measures of heat and lack thereof are completely quantitative, when it comes down to it; if we chose to invert our temperature system so higher numbers were colder, it would be just as valid.

Well, even if the professor is basing his premise off a state of duality, the professor could still argue that God still is not 'good'.

For example. consider he is the creator of Satan, all the suffering, hate, and so.

This does not say that God is evil according to the student, however, it does say that God lacks goodness.

Why didn't the professor see this and use it as a counter example?

So if God lacks good, he can be called evil. Just like if something lacks light, it can be called dark, if something lacks heat, it can be described as cold.

The professor still has a stronger arguement.

Then what would the student say?



[This message has been edited by Aeon (edited 05-02-2005).]

Yay for Jesus!

Anyhow, this is pretty old, inaccurate, and a rumor/hoax. So in this case, Digi wins for busting out the Snopes.

quote:Originally posted by sellout_10:

but keep in mind the bible is a faith book, not a history book. It is not meant to be taken literally but contextually.

Fundies don't believe that. It makes it kind of hard to argue with them.

quote:Originally posted by sellout_10:

...and I'm saying it is. I've gone to a Catholic school my entire life. It's the belief of every single teacher in the building. It's the belief of every priest (or person of similar stature) I've ever talked with. I've ever talked to. In fact, I've never met anybody who didn't believe it.

The two are not contradictory beliefs. Give me biblical examples, and maybe I'll agree with your view, but keep in mind the bible is a faith book, not a history book. It is not meant to be taken literally but contextually.

They are Catholics, not Christians.

A Christian is a Christian.

A Catholic can BE a Christian, as it is certainly a part of Catholic dogma, but simply being a Catholic does not make you a Christian.

Catholics have been reading what they choose out of the Bible for centuries. Why would they stop now ?

The Bible is exactly what God wrote it to be: His word.

I will do some research, and get some verses together, but I have to disagree that the Bible is not to be taken literally...since most of it is literal.

quote:Originally posted by asthesunsets:

Not at all denominations take the Bible as the literal word of God, DS, I'm sure your not so daft as to forget that.

Why do I have to be daft to believe that ?

Actually, I am very aware of what other religions do to the Bible, and it isn't BIBLICAL.

If the Bible is the inspired word of God, how ELSE should we take it, other than literally ?

Other religions that change the Bible, and interpret from it what they like, AREN'T Christian, though they like to hide behind the label.

Surely you're not so daft to see that.

If I build a car and sell it, and the buyer hits a child on a bike and kills him, is it MY FAULT that the child died, or the person driving the car ?

You cannot link sin to God in this way, since it was Lucifer that perpetuates it.

Lucifer is the creation, and what he does with his creation is his choice.

Just as it is ours.

quote:Originally posted by Aeon:

Why didn't the professor see this and use it as a counter example?

Because this is a fictional story and one side has to give up way to quickly in any version of it so someone gets a nice warm tingly feeling.

http://www.bowness.demon.co.uk/brain.htm

Here is the professor wins version, it end with the line "The student, who stood up as a Christian, now sat down as an atheist. And he started using his brain--because that's what it's for.". It is suposed to give Athiests a warm tingly feeling, or at least the ones who have not tried and failed at this same debate and know that you can't break anyone that fast.

If I build a car and sell it, and the buyer hits a child on a bike and kills him, is it MY FAULT that the child died, or the person driving the car ?

You cannot link sin to God, since it was Lucifer that perpetuates it.

Lucifer is the creation, and what he does with his creation is his choice.

Just as it is ours.

test

If I build a car and sell it, and the buyer hits a child on a bike and kills him, is it MY FAULT that the child died, or the person driving the car ?

You cannot link sin to God, since it was Lucifer that perpetuates it.

Lucifer is the creation, and what he does with his creation is his choice.

Just as it is ours.

God can't be absent you dickfeeds. That nigga is everywhere.

Religious people believe God is inside our asses. Religious people aren't human.

God can't be absent you dickfeeds. That nigga is everywhere.

Religious people believe God is inside our asses. Religious people aren't human.

v

neat bug

I'm retarded because Snoopy made me retarded.

quote:Originally posted by NightVision:

No real piltdown man yet.

No, we have the Taung child instead.

quote:Originally posted by NightVision:

No real piltdown man yet.

No, we have the taung child instead.