Hmm..

[Equinox]

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 him? 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?' The professor continued, 'If God created
everything, then God created evil, since evil exists, and according to the
principle that our works define who we are, then God is 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 onto another student. '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,
unlimited heat, white heat, a little heat or no heat, but we don't have
anything called 'cold'. We can hit up to 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 the lowest -458
degrees. Every body or object is susceptible to study when it has or
transmits energy, and heat is what makes a body or matter have or transmit
energy. Absolute zero (-458 F) is the total absence of heat. 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 Endeavour, 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 to the other student,
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.'

'Now, you accept that there is faith, and, in fact, faith exists with
life,' the student continues. 'Now, sir, is there such a thing as evil?'

Now uncertain, the professor responds, 'Of course, there is. We see it
everyday. It is in the daily example of man's inhumanity to man. It is
in the multitude of crime and violence everywhere in the world. These
manifestations are nothing else but evil.'

To this the student replied, 'Evil does not exist sir, or at least it
does not exist unto itself. Evil is simply the absence of God. It is
just like darkness and cold, a word that man has created to describe the
absence of God.

God did not create evil. Evil is the result of what happens when man
does not have God's love present in his heart. It's like the cold that
comes when there is no heat or the darkness that comes when there is no
light.'

The professor sat down.


Thoughts on it?

[Mantikore]

Thoughts on it?

owned.

[LiquidIce]

OP owned.

Fixed.

Seen this one a hundred times already. It is flawed in many places. Apes will save their young or want revenge. You can check out someones brain in many ways.

Nah, don't have the time, gotta write my quantum eraser+diffraction grating constant+inclination friction lab reports.

*waits for someone with the spare time to type up another reply to OP*

[Kamuy]

To this the student replied, 'Evil does not exist sir, or at least it
does not exist unto itself. Evil is simply the absence of God. It is
just like darkness and cold, a word that man has created to describe the
absence of God.

God did not create evil. Evil is the result of what happens when man
does not have God's love present in his heart. It's like the cold that
comes when there is no heat or the darkness that comes when there is no
light.'
Thoughts on it?

Was finding that a good read but this bit ^^here^^ is dribble, diminishes the power of the students response.
Though the student is trying to defend the notion of god, wouldn’t it be brighter step around the idea and make the audience draw their conclusion instead of coming across arrogant and preaching his own viewpoint.

Also any intelligent professor of philosophy wouldn’t impose the idea that good/evil having relevance as it’s a matter or viewpoint/perspective/opinion.

[Kamuy]

lol I thought OP wrote that, my bad

[Rust]

Thoughts on it?


It's awful.

Not only is it not believable, but the arguments made are atrocious.

[Cathy McGee]

i liked it, but then again i like everything

[Equinox]

Just confirming what was said earlier: No, I didn't write it. I saw it on someone's blog and wondered what you guys would make of it. Thanks for the replies anyway, I agree with most of them.

[VVeathers]

There's no tangible link between the absence of god and evil. Remove light you get dark etc, it's a based on repeatable evidence. Until you show me that ALL atheists are evil, much as ALL absences of light create darkness, then you got a big bucket of bullshit.

I'd expell the imaginery student for being retarded.

[BatCountry]

'You can have lots of heat, even more heat, super-heat, mega-heat,
unlimited heat, white heat, a little heat or no heat, but we don't have
anything called 'cold'. We can hit up to 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 the lowest -458
degrees. Every body or object is susceptible to study when it has or
transmits energy, and heat is what makes a body or matter have or transmit
energy. Absolute zero (-458 F) is the total absence of heat. 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.'


Counter Argument:
By your definition of heat: Heat = temperature.
HOT a high temperature
and COLD is low temperature

COLD is the opposite of HOT, not heat. -_-



'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?'


Counter argument:

You said it yourself Darkness is having NO light, so how do you conclude darkness doesn't exist because you can't make it darker?
By trying to make darkness anything but the lack of light, you are creating an abstraction and something that isn't EVEN darkness


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.'


Uh huh. Death is BOTH the opposite of life, and the absence of it. -_-


'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 now not a scientist, but a
preacher?'


Just because you or I haven't SEEN the process doesn't mean that it is a theory based on faith.
Evolution HAS plenty of OBSERVABLE evidence



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?


If I were to cut my head open right now you could see my brain, touch it, smell it, EVEN taste it if you like.

Are you arguing that you can exist and think without a brain? Let's remove yours and test this theory?



To this the student replied, 'Evil does not exist sir, or at least it
does not exist unto itself. Evil is simply the absence of God. It is
just like darkness and cold, a word that man has created to describe the
absence of God.

God did not create evil. Evil is the result of what happens when man
does not have God's love present in his heart. It's like the cold that
comes when there is no heat or the darkness that comes when there is no
light.'



So there can be an absence of god? This means that god ISNT everything, but doesn't that make him not god?


that's what it breaks down to for me atleast folks. :P

[ArmsMerchant]

Too long, and tedious didn't finish.

BTW, OP--in the future, please try to come up with a more informative thread title than "Hmmm."

[PirateJoe]

There's another version of this floating around on the tubes where the Prof comes back and completely destroys the theist's argument. I'll see if I can find it.

EDIT: It's here in the comments section if anyone wants to read it :http://malaysianatheist.blogspot.com/2006/11/atheist-professor-vs-christian-student.html

[Please insert username]

pretty sweet:cool:

[Built To Last]

I don't like fast talkers be they atheist or christian.

[Steal_Everything]

Shit college is shit. If the professor can't argue against that, he's so fail. I could argue against that, yet I consider all a biblefags a waste of my time. So I don't bother.

[Ambient]

There's another version of this floating around on the tubes where the Prof comes back and completely destroys the theist's argument. I'll see if I can find it.

EDIT: It's here in the comments section if anyone wants to read it :http://malaysianatheist.blogspot.com/2006/11/atheist-professor-vs-christian-student.html

That second edition does make a good clarification; but

You can see from statements like "he looked like a dog moving his head in confusion" "he looked like a 3 year old" "the look on his face as his corrupted world view was dismantled" lack a scientific attitude.

Science is more than scientific method it is also scientific attitude.

Disinterest, Honesty, Objectivity in particular in the over-dramatic "re-action" descriptions.

The writers bias is evidant; something that is inherantly unscientific.

[LiquidIce]

That second edition does make a good clarification; but

You can see from statements like "he looked like a dog moving his head in confusion" "he looked like a 3 year old" "the look on his face as his corrupted world view was dismantled" lack a scientific attitude.

Science is more than scientific method it is also scientific attitude.

Disinterest, Honesty, Objectivity in particular in the over-dramatic "re-action" descriptions.

The writers bias is evidant; something that is inherantly unscientific.

Uh, the second edition doesn't need to have a scientific attitude. It's not a science paper or something, it just aims to refute the terrifyingly stupid arguments of the student.

[Ambient]

Uh, the second edition doesn't need to have a scientific attitude. It's not a science paper or something, it just aims to refute the terrifyingly stupid arguments of the student.

If you are using science you need to use the scientific attitude.

Science is not science without the scientific attitude.

At the very least; ethnographic bias is present- that is for sure and that is most definitly unscientific (natural science mostly) because it is not neccacarily based on evidence.

The posters desciptions in the second edition were undoubtably malicous.

Without scientific attitude there is not science.

I think this argument that scientific attitude is only applicable at "higher" levels of science is a cop-out.

Perhaps only those with a Doctorate of Philosphy in natural science should be using the scientific method?

"Regular" people need not; for we are not writing an authoratative peer reviewed science paper!

[Steal_Everything]

If you are using science you need to use the scientific attitude.

Science is not science without the scientific attitude.

At the very least; ethnographic bias is present- that is for sure and that is most definitly unscientific (natural science mostly) because it is not neccacarily based on evidence.

The posters desciptions in the second edition were undoubtably malicous.

Without scientific attitude there is not science.

I think this argument that scientific attitude is only applicable at "higher" levels of science is a cop-out.

Perhaps only those with a Doctorate of Philosphy in natural science should be using the scientific method?

"Regular" people need not; for we are not writing an authoratative peer reviewed science paper!

Get butthurt a little more? Take off the TRYHARD hat, and realize that the reply was simply there to show the obvious rebuttals to the stupid arguments. It was meant for humor, not for a super formal scientific paper. :facepalm:

[PirateJoe]

If you are using science you need to use the scientific attitude.

Science is not science without the scientific attitude.



Not true. At all. Why should the method of delivery have any bearing on whether it is logical or not? Granted, its not professional, but no one is going to submit this piece to an academic journal.

And the piece isn't even about "science", only about exposing the flaws in christian student's arguments.

[LiquidIce]

If you are using science you need to use the scientific attitude.

Science is not science without the scientific attitude.

At the very least; ethnographic bias is present- that is for sure and that is most definitly unscientific (natural science mostly) because it is not neccacarily based on evidence.

The posters desciptions in the second edition were undoubtably malicous.

Without scientific attitude there is not science.

I think this argument that scientific attitude is only applicable at "higher" levels of science is a cop-out.

Perhaps only those with a Doctorate of Philosphy in natural science should be using the scientific method?

"Regular" people need not; for we are not writing an authoratative peer reviewed science paper!

So yeah, when I put on my white lab coat *puff* I'm a pipe smoking, glass wearing scientist and when I take it off I'm *puff* a normal human. The guy didn't want to responds scientifically, he created a good piece of entertainment for the people who are tired of that religion bullshit and that witty and superb student.

Science no humor? What aboout up, down, charm, strange etc.? :p

[Ambient]

Well your right that its not science; its philosphy so its done on a premise/conclusion framework.

Nevertheless i hold true to my previous statements.

The author has corrected that which needs to be corrected; the obvious flaws in the students argument.

However the authorship is not only unproffesional (not that it is obliged to be) but it is also disrespectful and ontop of that DISINGENIUS the most falicous human quality.

So in essense a good piece of writing was ruined by the authors ethnographic bias and hatred for those who disagree with him i.e. Thiests.

I absolutly stand by that analysys (sp).

[Cytosine]

However the authorship is not only unproffesional (not that it is obliged to be)

You're right, it's not obligated to be professional. The author's not a scientist, nor are they claiming to be a professor. They're someone ON THE INTERNET.

but it is also disrespectful

And the original wasn't?

and ontop of that DISINGENIUS the most falicous human quality.

Do you mean disingenuous? Or do you actually mean disingenius? Because that's not a word. Really. Look it up. I can't fucking find it. The only hit I get is for a "fake word of the day" site.

If you mean, by the fake definition for your fake word, that this piece is "giving the false impression or appearance of being highly intelligent"? I would have to disagree. The first piece is, in fact, "disingenius".

Alternatively, if you mean "disingenuous" ("lacking in frankness, candor, or sincerity")... Well, what can I say? Both authors seem pretty sincere. Not like I was there when they wrote it, though.

So in essense a good piece of writing was ruined by the authors ethnographic bias and hatred for those who disagree with him i.e. Thiests

:facepalm:

Where is the hatred? If the prof had the student shot, I'd see it. But all he did was make reasonable rebuttals straight from a logic textbook. The reply was remarkably civil compared to the original piece's snottiness. To expect the author to be completely objective is a product of this white-washed, PC asylum we wake up in day-in, day-out. There are no objective authors. If there are, they have no opinion. This piece is clearly ABOUT an opinion, so you can't expect them to be objective.

Also, "ethnographic bias"? People using words like this piss me off. They're not two people arguing from different cultures. The arguments the professor is using are formulated by other philosophers living in the same type of society as the student's. If you wanted to say "bias", you should have. The added "ethnographic" proves you have no clue what you're saying. Using large words does not make you automatically right.

tl;dr - Be less butthurt. 'Disingenius' is not a word. Critiquing papers all night makes me an asshole.

[Ambient]

^^

I suck at spelling.

this is the word im going for.
"disingenuous"- illusionary or fake.

I wasnt talking of intellect, foolishness or idiocy; only truth- being true to yourself.

If people are willing to embrace the fact that this blog comment that has been written is junk science and has not been written by a scientific authority then i would not worry about its discrepancies.

Premise and conclusion are very much scientific phonomenon- remember philsosophy is a social science so the scientific method and attitude apply.

If all people are willing to accept this as hearsay and gutter science then i will losen up on the descrepancies.

But i know that some people will act foolishly.

[Mankonaut X]

Pure pedantry. Not to mention that Professor's a dumbshit.

[ArmsMerchant]

Just confirming what was said earlier: No, I didn't write it. I saw it on someone's blog and wondered what you guys would make of it. Thanks for the replies anyway, I agree with most of them.

So you are, finally, admitting to plaigerism? That may be infractable.

I will let that slide, but I think the thread should be closed.