The christian student Vs. The Professor

[SkepticBoyLee]

Im sure you guys have read the following. It has been around for a while. I was wondering if a skeptic rebuttal to this has been written??

If not maybe one of you guys can write one???

University Classroom Setting...

"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."

"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. "Ahh! 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."

"Why not say that? You would help a sick and maimed person if you could... in fact most of us would if we could... God doesn't." [No answer.]

"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?"


[No answer]

The elderly man is sympathetic. "No, you can't, can you?" He takes a sip of water from a glass on his desk to give the student time to relax. In philosophy, you have to go easy with the new ones. "Let's start again, son."

"Is God good?"

"Er... Yes."

"Is Satan good?"

"No."

"Where does Satan come from?"

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

"That's right. God made Satan, didn't he?" The elderly man runs his bony fingers through his thinning hair and turns to the smirking, student audience. "I think we're going to have a lot of fun this semester, ladies and gentlemen." He turns back to the Christian. "Tell me, son. Is there evil in this world?"

"Yes, sir."

"Evil's everywhere, isn't it? Did God make everything?"

"Yes."

"Who created evil?

[No answer]

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

The student squirms on his feet. "Yes."

"Who created them? "

[No answer]

The professor suddenly shouts at his student. "WHO CREATED THEM? TELL ME, PLEASE!"The professor closes in for the kill and climbs into the Christian's face. In a still small voice: "God created all evil, didn't He, son?"

[No answer]

The student tries to hold the steady, experienced gaze and fails. Suddenly the lecturer breaks away to pace the front of the classroom like an aging panther. The class is mesmerized.

"Tell me," he continues, "How is it that this God is good if He created all evil throughout all time?" The professor swishes his arms around to encompass the wickedness of the world. "All the hatred, the brutality, all the pain, all the torture, all the death and ugliness and all the suffering created by this good God is all over the world, isn't it, young man?"

[No answer]

"Don't you see it all over the place? Huh?" Pause.

"Don't you?" The professor leans into the student's face again and whispers, "Is God good?"

[No answer]

"Do you believe in Jesus Christ, son?"

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

The old man shakes his head sadly. "Science says you have five senses you use to identify and observe the world around you. Have you seen Him? "

"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 smelled your Jesus... in fact, do you have any sensory perception of your God whatsoever?"

[No answer]

"Answer me, please."

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

"You're AFRAID... you haven't?"

"No, sir."

"Yet you still believe in him?"

"...yes..."

"That takes FAITH!" The professor smiles sagely at the underling. "According to the rules of empirical, testable, demonstrable protocol, science says your God doesn't exist. What do you say to that, son? Where is your God now?"

[The student doesn't answer]

"Sit down, please."

The Christian sits...Defeated(?).

Another Christian raises his hand. "Professor, may I address the class?"

The professor turns and smiles. "Ah, another Christian in the vanguard! Come, come, young man. Speak some proper wisdom to the gathering."

The Christian looks around the room. "Some interesting points you are making, sir. Now I've got a question for you if that's okay. Is there such thing as heat?"

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

"Is there such a thing as cold?"

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

"No, sir, there isn't."

The professor's grin freezes.

The room suddenly goes very cold. The second Christian continues. "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 -- 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. A pin drops somewhere in the classroom.

"Is there such a thing as darkness, professor?" "That's a dumb question, son. What is night if it isn't darkness? What are you getting at...?"

"So you say there is such a thing as darkness?"

"Yes..."

"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 and give me a jar of it. Can you...give me a jar of darker darkness, professor?"

Despite himself, the professor smiles at the young effrontery before him. This will indeed be a good semester. "Would you mind telling us what your point is, young man?"

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

The professor goes toxic. "Flawed...? How dare you...!""

"Sir, may I explain what I mean?"

The class is all ears.

"Explain... oh, explain..." The professor makes an admirable effort to regain control. Suddenly he is affability itself. He waves his hand to silence the class, for the student to continue.

"You are working on the premise of duality," the Christian explains; "that for example 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 cannot even explain a thought. It uses electricity and magnetism but has never seen, much less fully understood them. 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, merely the absence of it."

The young man holds up a newspaper he takes from the desk of a neighbor who has been reading it. "Here is one of the most disgusting tabloids you can buy, professor. Is there such a thing as immorality?"

"Of course there is, now look..."

"Wrong again, sir. You see, immorality is merely the absence of morality. Is there such thing as injustice? No. Injustice is the absence of justice. Is there such a thing as evil?" The Christian pauses.

"Isn't evil the absence of good?"

The professor's face has turned an alarming color. He is so angry he is temporarily speechless.

The Christian continues. "If there is evil in the world, professor, and we all agree there is, then God, if he exists, must be accomplishing a work through the agency of evil. What is that work God is accomplishing?

The Bible tells us it is to see if each one of us will, of our own free will, choose good over evil."

The professor bridles. "As a philosophical scientist, I don't view this matter as having anything to do with any choice; as a realist, I absolutely do not recognize the concept of God or any other theological factor as being part of the world equation because God is not observable."

"I would have thought that the absence of God's moral code in this world is probably one of the most observable phenomena going," the Christian replies. "Newspapers make billions of dollars reporting it every week! Tell me, professor. Do you believethat we have 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 makes a sucking sound with his teeth and gives his student a silent, stony stare.

"Professor. All previous attempts to explain how the process works have failed. 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 priest?"

"I'll overlook your impudence in the light of our philosophical discussion. Now, have you quite finished?" the professor hisses.

"So you don't accept God's moral code to do what is righteous?"

"I believe in what is - that's observable science!"

"Ahh! SCIENCE!" the student's face splits into a grin. "Sir, you rightly state that science is the study of observed phenomena. What you call "science" too is a premise which is flawed..."

"SCIENCE IS FLAWED..?" the professor splutters. The class is in uproar.

The Christian remains standing until the commotion has subsided. "To continue the point you were making earlier to the other student, may I give you an example of what I mean?" The professor wisely keeps silent.

The Christian looks around the room.*Sir, the basic law of physics says matter can neither be created nor destroyed, and yet you in spite of that believe in "spontaneous generation" of the entire physical universe! Spontaneous generation of vermin was disproved centuries ago.

Talk about straining out the gnat and swallowing the camel! Sir, biogenesis is "observable science" as you say--life has only been observed to come from other life of like kind--and yet you apparently still believe that that is exactly what happened--in spite of science--that life somehow came from non-life.

Young man, the professor began tersely, I believe that science will eventually....

"That science will eventually prove that matter can be created, that life can come from non-life" interrupted the young Christian? Sir, that's not science--that's Faith! What you believe is the exact opposite of "observable science"!Your faith is in what you are calling "science", my faith is in God who created "science".

Make no mistake, Professor, we're both operating from faith."

There follows a long pause as the Professor stares the young Christian down without a word.

"Is there anyone in the class who has ever seen the professor's mind?" The class breaks out in laughter. The Christian points towards his elderly, crumbling tutor. "Is there anyone here who has ever heard the professor's mind... felt the professor's mind, touched or smelled the professor's mind?"

No one appears to have done so. The Christian shakes his head sadly. "It appears no-one here has had any sensory perception of the professor's mind whatsoever. Well, according to the rules of empirical, stable, demonstrable protocol and science, I DECLARE that the professor has no mind." The class is in chaos. The Christian sits... Because that is what a chair is for, and begins filling out a drop slip.

[The Bearded One]

There is a tremendous amount to address in that parable. I'm not up to the task of tackling it all, but I can make a modest start.

The 2nd Xian tries to counter the Good-Evil, Light-Dark, Heat-Cold binary systems with a Good-NonGood, Light-NonLight, Heat-NonHeat view. While this reframes the terminology, it doesn't help his case for the goodness of God.

If God is the source of all good, yet there is a lack of good in the universe, then God is still responsible for that lack. Also, if morality is in some way dependant on God, that brings up the Euthyphro dilemma.

Someone else can take over from here, I've got to get some shuteye.
-- The Bearded One

[SkepticBoyLee]

Thanks for the reply. I thought that prabbaly some one had already written a rebuttel to this. There is plenty there to disect. This should be interesting if any of you guys are up to it!

[Yahzi]

Originally posted by SkepticBoyLee
Make no mistake, Professor, we're both operating from faith."

Virtually all theological arguments depend on equivocation. First you define a word to mean X: then you demonstrate that Y is true: and then you declare that X has been proven.

Faith(Religion) = assurance of things hoped for, knowledge of things unseen

Faith(Science) = confidence of expectations based on past experience

The theist simply hopes you won't notice he's using one word in two ways. If he just used the correct words, such as "hope" and "confidence," then the argument is instantly revealed as incoherent.

[tensorproduct]

Argument from Atheist Stereotypes Straight out of a Chick Tract

It's so easy to prove a fictional character wrong when he's been created with the sole purpose of being proven wrong.

[Queen of Swords]

Originally posted by tensorproduct
It's so easy to prove a fictional character wrong when he's been created with the sole purpose of being proven wrong.

I'm adding that to my quote collection.

[tensorproduct]

Originally posted by QueenofSwords
Originally posted by tensorproduct
It's so easy to prove a fictional character wrong when he's been created with the sole purpose of being proven wrong.

I'm adding that to my quote collection.

I'm so proud.:D :D

Aww crap I think I'm gonna cry.

[Plognark]

There's so much logical error in that that I almost laughed out loud when I read it.

It's like lining up 137 straw men (give or take) to assault with a weed-eater. :rolleyes:

I'm not very good at this kind of stuff, but i'll take a stab at a few annoying parts.

The professor turns and smiles. "Ah, another Christian in the vanguard! Come, come, young man. Speak some proper wisdom to the gathering."

For starters they've painted the proffessor as a bitter, combative old codger itching to pick apart decent christian boys and girls. This is what we call BASELESS PROPOGANDA (or at least that's what I call it).


"Is there such a thing as cold?"

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

"No, sir, there isn't."


Idiot. Purely scientifically speaking, sure there is no cold, but from the subjective view of human perception, there is "cold". If there wasn't we wouldn't have a f***ing word for it.


"Is there such a thing as darkness, professor?" "That's a dumb question, son. What is night if it isn't darkness? What are you getting at...?"

More combative painting of the professor for the propagandist agenda.


"Wrong again, sir. You see, immorality is merely the absence of morality. Is there such thing as injustice? No. Injustice is the absence of justice. Is there such a thing as evil?" The Christian pauses.

"Isn't evil the absence of good?"


Ahhhh....*twitch*.
Talk about boiling an incredibly complex topic down WAY to far. Morality is a subjective invention you fictitious little shit. The amount of heat or light can't even be compared to it.
*annoyed at self for getting angry at non-existant character*


The professor bridles. "As a philosophical scientist, I don't view this matter as having anything to do with any choice; as a realist, I absolutely do not recognize the concept of God or any other theological factor as being part of the world equation because God is not observable."

Hmmmm...here's one big, fat, over-stuffed, strawman for ya. It's not that he isn't observable (well, he isn't, but that's just the start) but also that all the available evidence we have points to other forces. Even worse, the christian dolts have come up with a WHOLE lot of historical events and world history that God supposedly had a direct hand in. Too bad all archeological and geological evidence points to other sources. I can't disprove god, but I can disprove many claims made by christians.


"Have you ever observed evolution with your own eyes, sir?" The professor makes a sucking sound with his teeth and gives his student a silent, stony stare.

"Professor. All previous attempts to explain how the process works have failed. 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 priest?"


Why, yes, I have observed the process of evolution/natural selection with my own eyes...as have many scientists with far better education than I. This is just an outright lie.


The Christian looks around the room.*Sir, the basic law of physics says matter can neither be created nor destroyed, and yet you in spite of that believe in "spontaneous generation" of the entire physical universe! Spontaneous generation of vermin was disproved centuries ago.

Talk about straining out the gnat and swallowing the camel! Sir, biogenesis is "observable science" as you say--life has only been observed to come from other life of like kind--and yet you apparently still believe that that is exactly what happened--in spite of science--that life somehow came from non-life.


Well then...apparently the author doesn't understand abiogenesis very well :rolleyes:
Strawman? Lie? Misinformation? Maybe all three?


"That science will eventually prove that matter can be created,

Strawman.


that life can come from non-life" interrupted the young Christian? Sir, that's not science--that's Faith! What you believe is the exact opposite of "observable science"!Your faith is in what you are calling "science", my faith is in God who created "science".

Um....no it isn't....it's a belief based on available evidence gathered by real-world observation you git. It's a theory that's being worked out that can be subject ot change and revision with the availability of better evidence.


"Is there anyone in the class who has ever seen the professor's mind?" The class breaks out in laughter. The Christian points towards his elderly, crumbling tutor. "Is there anyone here who has ever heard the professor's mind... felt the professor's mind, touched or smelled the professor's mind?"

Propaganda painting mixed with shitty logic based on a crappy strawman set up a few paragrapsh before. We have circumstantial evidence of the professors mind because he can carry out a conversation and actively control his body in a manner that resembles what we ourselves can do. There's ten trillion times more evidence for the professors mind than for God.


No one appears to have done so. The Christian shakes his head sadly. "It appears no-one here has had any sensory perception of the professor's mind whatsoever. Well, according to the rules of empirical, stable, demonstrable protocol and science, I DECLARE that the professor has no mind." The class is in chaos. The Christian sits... Because that is what a chair is for, and begins filling out a drop slip.

More crappy logic based on previously set-up strawmen to try and make the christian look clever and knowledgeable and brimming with common-sense-that-trumps-silly-scientists, with some smarmy arrogant digs at the end to make the good christian reader feel snug and secure. :mad:

[mightyjoemoon]

And here I thought this was going to be the one about the broken chalk...

I had never encountered this drawn out version of the Prof. vs. student scenario before...

[spurly]

Originally posted by SkepticBoyLee
Im sure you guys have read the following. It has been around for a while. I was wondering if a skeptic rebuttal to this has been written??

If not maybe one of you guys can write one???

University Classroom Setting...

"LET ME EXPLAIN THE problem science has with Jesus Christ," The . . (much text snipped) . .DECLARE that the professor has no mind." The class is in chaos. The Christian sits... Because that is what a chair is for, and begins filling out a drop slip.

The arguments that evil is the absence of good, cold the absence of heat, immorality the absence of morality, and darkness the absence of light are true.

I believe that this will be what is so bad about hell - God will be absent (see 1 Thessalonians). And when God withdraws his presence, everything good and right is withdrawn as well - and evil will reign unchecked.

I want to be in the presence of the light!

Kevin

(massive quoting of OP trimmed to enhance readability of the thread - Michael)

[Jade]

Originally posted by spurly
The arguments that evil is the absence of good, cold the absence of heat, immorality the absence of morality, and darkness the absence of light are true.

I guess this makes the moons of Jupiter evil and immoral....

[The Bearded One]

Ah, but you still have to answer the Euthyphro dilemma: What is the source of morality?
1) God is moral by an objective standard (in which case we can be moral even if we reject God); or
2) Morality exists only by virtue of being part of God (in which case selling your daughters into slavery is a perfectly moral thing to do because God says so).

Does Satan have free will? If so, why can't he choose to make hell into a paradise? Maybe hell isn't such a bad place after all.

-- The Bearded One

[ccolinh]

Originally posted by SkepticBoyLee
"SCIENCE IS FLAWED..?" the professor splutters. [/B]

This silly little anecdote was obviously, once again, written from ignorance of atheism. Of course science is flawed AND always willing to check and re-check and discover its flaws so as to correct them and continue to gain knowledge.

No such thing can be said of religion.

[gagster]

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

Of course this is simply untrue. Consider this argument:

P1: The Sun orbits the Earth.
P2: Pigs can fly.
C: Therefore, the sky is blue.

This is an example of a non-sequitur.

Another argument:

P: Joe has $1.6 million in the bank.
C: Therefore, Joe is a millionaire.

Suppose Joe really has $2.6 million in the bank.

In both of these arguments, the premise is false, but the conclusion is still correct.

Cold is not the opposite of heat, sir, just the absence of it.

...

Isn't evil the absence of good?

Nope. This analogy is flawed. Some scales go down to zero and no lower, others do go lower. He’s arguing that since heat vs. cold has an absolute zero, below which it cannot go, that good vs. evil also has an absolute zero below which it cannot go. This is wrong. Many scales have no absolute zero.

If you own $100,000 worth of assets and you owe $5,000, your net worth is $95,000. Suppose you then borrow an additional $95,000, go to Las Vegas and lose it all playing blackjack. Now you have $100,000 of assets and $100,000 of debt so your net worth is zero. If net worth could not go below zero, that would be the minimum possible amount you could go to. However, it can go below zero. If you borrow more money and lose that at blackjack, your net worth will go negative. In fact, no matter how far below zero your net worth goes, if you can just find someone foolish enough to keep lending you money, it can keep getting lower.

Good vs. evil works in that way. Evil is not merely the absence of good. Instead it is on the negative side of a good vs. evil continuum. Consider this example:

Case 1:
An old man is sitting on a bench for a few minutes and Joe walks by without stopping.

How much good is there in that example? Zero. How much evil is there? Again, zero.

Now think of this example:

Case 2:
An old man is sitting on a bench for a few minutes and Joe walks by, sees the old man, lays hands on him, and, thanks to his supernatural powers, cures the old man’s arthritis.

How much good is there in that example? Alot. How much evil is there? Zero.

Finally, consider this example:

Case 3:
An old man is sitting on a bench for a few minutes and Joe walks by, sees the old man, lays hands on him, and, thanks to his supernatural powers, inflicts arthritis on the old man.

How much good is there in that example? None. How much evil is there? Alot.

If the good vs. evil scale only went to zero, then cases one and three would both be the same amount of evil, wouldn’t they? But clearly they’re not. That old man would probably prefer to have nothing happen to him than to have someone give him arthritis. Further, bad as arthritis is, it can get worse. Joe could have inflicted AIDS or cancer.

So, evil is not simply the absence of good.

"If there is evil in the world, professor, and we all agree there is, then God, if he exists, must be accomplishing a work through the agency of evil. What is that work God is accomplishing?

The Bible tells us it is to see if each one of us will, of our own free will, choose good over evil."

This is just a rationalization of the problem of evil. There are several problems with it.

[list=1]
This story is about the christian god. That god is supposed to be all knowing. Consequently, there’s no point in testing us. God already knows the answer.

Also, christians supposedly believe in Satan. Well, even if god did need to test him, the results are in. He chose evil. Why continue to let him perform evil acts, if the test has already been failed?

The rationalization ignores evil that is not man made. Earthquakes, floods, tornadoes and other natural disasters happen. People suffer and die in those. If the only evil in the world is that which is caused by a person failing a divine test, who is causing the earthquakes?

Some evil is man made, but unintentional. This past Tuesday, I was driving home from the veterinarian’s office. Just as I was about to turn onto my street, I saw a small child lying on the side of the road. He had been hit by a car. If you live in Dallas and saw the news that night, you know that happened in Garland and the child died. The driver wasn’t charged with anything. It wasn’t his fault. The child had run out into the road and the sun was in the driver's eyes. No one wanted that to happen, but it did just the same.

If, despite god’s omniscience, a test must be made it could be done without hurting anyone. Potential criminals could be caught in the act, before hurting anyone; would be assasin's guns could misfire.

Some evil requires both opportunity and inclination. Suppose god decided to switch my birth with the birth of Adolf Hitler. The holocaust would never have happened then. Hitler would lack the opportunity and I lack the inclination.

Some evil is the result of god’s failure to communicate, or, worse, his success. Before the U.S. Civil War, slave owners quite rightly pointed out that the bible endorsed slavery. (Presumably,) these people didn’t want to do anything evil, they just read the bible and saw that it was described as good. People have burned others, who they suspected were witches. People have tortured and killed others to get them to convert. These people thought that what they were doing was good. They chose to do good, and only failed to do so because they weren’t able to distinguish it from evil. Why didn’t god help them out a little here?
[/list=1]

I’ll try to continue with more in a while.


Greg

[gagster]

Spurly,

Was it really necessary to quote the whole damn thing?

Actually, I see this was your six hundred sixty-sixth post, so I guess the devil made you do it.


Greg

[spurly]

Originally posted by gagster
Spurly,

Was it really necessary to quote the whole damn thing?

Actually, I see this was your six hundred sixty-sixth post, so I guess the devil made you do it.


Greg

:D

[Mentalepsy]

Darkness is the absence of light.
Cold is the absence of heat.
Evil is the absence of good.
And God is the absence of reality.

[Yahzi]

Originally posted by Mentalepsy
And God is the absence of reality. :D :D :D

[Queen of Swords]

Originally posted by spurly
And when God withdraws his presence, everything good and right is withdrawn as well

I like cats. I like feeding them, stroking them and playing with them.

When I am in hell, will I suddenly turn into the kind of person who skins cats alive? If so, how? Do I have cat-skinning urges that God is currently suppressing? If not, why not, when you just said that everything good is withdrawn?

- and evil will reign unchecked.

Anyone who would drown the near-entire population of the world, order the Israelites to kill babies, and send his non-groupies to eternal torment is evil. In other words, I think the place where evil will rein unchecked is heaven.

[Grumsh]

You have too many points to talk about..

Originally posted by gagster
Nope. This analogy is flawed. Some scales go down to zero and no lower, others do go lower. He’s arguing that since heat vs. cold has an absolute zero, below which it cannot go, that good vs. evil also has an absolute zero below which it cannot go. This is wrong. Many scales have no absolute zero.

Just to help you out -273C is absloute Zero.

Hope that helps you, just FYI

Good vs. evil works in that way. Evil is not merely the absence of good. Instead it is on the negative side of a good vs. evil continuum. Consider this example:

Umm IF that was true, which, as it was stated, in the above parable, it is NOT, this is a moot point, however, that would be a good discussion.

The rationalization ignores evil that is not man made. Earthquakes, floods, tornadoes and other natural disasters happen. People suffer and die in those. If the only evil in the world is that which is caused by a person failing a divine test, who is causing the earthquakes?

Wow, so that's like, if I build a sand castle on the beach, and the water comes up on the beach, and washes away the sand castle, the water is EVIL?

Lets be real, natural desasters, are just that, "Natural" they are neither good nor evil. To even imply that there could be good or evil, would imply that the "Earth" can choose what happens, which this is not the case.

What happens when these desasters hit, can be explained, inside and out, and there was no "Choice" involved in it.
(Edit) I ment to say "Inside and Out by Scientific means" Sorry.

There is no "Intention" behind them, so the idea that they are good or evil is moot.

Some evil is man made, but unintentional. This past Tuesday, I was driving home from the veterinarian’s office. Just as I was about to turn onto my street, I saw a small child lying on the side of the road. He had been hit by a car. If you live in Dallas and saw the news that night, you know that happened in Garland and the child died. The driver wasn’t charged with anything. It wasn’t his fault. The child had run out into the road and the sun was in the driver's eyes. No one wanted that to happen, but it did just the same.

and now "Accidents" are evil as well?

The very idea that there is a good or Evil, requires "Intent" not action. That is like saying "I hit a patch of ice, and my car slid into your house" this is EVIL!

No, it's sad, it's painfull, but it's not evil.

If, despite god’s omniscience, a test must be made it could be done without hurting anyone. Potential criminals could be caught in the act, before hurting anyone; would be assasin's guns could misfire.

that's all well and good, but to imply that God would need to stop these things from happening is a bit odd, because is he then not doing evil to the person that wants to blow your head off, by stopping them?

Better yet, is that not an infringment on "Free will" if God stopped us from doing these "Evil" things to each other?

after all, it IS our CHOICE!

Some evil requires both opportunity and inclination. Suppose god decided to switch my birth with the birth of Adolf Hitler. The holocaust would never have happened then. Hitler would lack the opportunity and I lack the inclination.

Once again, would that not make for Infringment on our "Free Will"

or better yet, our ability to choose what we want, to shape our life, and deal with the things "We" have brought upon ourselves. or even, develop an understadning of what we do and do not like?

If god did things like that, would it not cripple us, more then help us, making us dependent on him for "Safety" because we had never known "Suffering"?

Some evil is the result of god’s failure to communicate, or, worse, his success. Before the U.S. Civil War, slave owners quite rightly pointed out that the bible endorsed slavery. (Presumably,) these people didn’t want to do anything evil, they just read the bible and saw that it was described as good. People have burned others, who they suspected were witches. People have tortured and killed others to get them to convert. These people thought that what they were doing was good. They chose to do good, and only failed to do so because they weren’t able to distinguish it from evil. Why didn’t god help them out a little here?

Wow, ok that's like way off base.

Lets see, this falls under "A little knowledge is a dangerous thing" area.

the "Salem Witch Trials" were not about doing 'Good' they were about mass hystria, and greed, lets not be desulisional about that now. Just because they "SAID" they were doing good (or God Work), does not mean squat.

Every day, there is some loon out there claiming to do "Gods Work" while killing people (Some even claim God spoke to them). So, I don't put too much into that whole "they THOUGHT they were doing good" Sorry.

No idea on the slaves, I'll get back to you on that.

Grumsh.

[Mentalepsy]

Originally posted by Grumsh
Umm IF that was true, which, as it was stated, in the above parable, it is NOT, this is a moot point, however, that would be a good discussion.
How is it a moot point? How is it not true? How is the Parable of Joe (gagster 1:12) flawed?

Wow, so that's like, if I build a sand castle on the beach, and the water comes up on the beach, and washes away the sand castle, the water is EVIL?
"Evil" has been used in this context to mean unjust suffering. Shall we try again with the ebola virus?

Lets be real, natural desasters, are just that, "Natural" they are neither good nor evil. To even imply that there could be good or evil, would imply that the "Earth" can choose what happens, which this is not the case.
So God is both not responsible for natural disasters, and is powerless to stop them. Right?

If that is not the case, then does God have a darn good reason for drowning entire villages in lava or inflicting horrible agonizing diseases on us, or at least sitting back and watching while these things occur? Or is he merely evil?

What happens when these desasters hit, can be explained, inside and out, and there was no "Choice" involved in it. There is no "Intention" behind them, so the idea that they are good or evil is moot.
Why a pot of water on the stove boils can be explained scientifically as well. That doesn't mean there was no intention or reason for the pot to be there. Why does God allow the ebola virus to exist?

and now "Accidents" are evil as well?

The very idea that there is a good or Evil, requires "Intent" not action. That is like saying "I hit a patch of ice, and my car slid into your house" this is EVIL!

No, it's sad, it's painfull, but it's not evil.
Again, we're talking about suffering, not evil intent. The "evil intent" shows up when we get to intentional acts. Unfortunately, we do have to talk about evil intent if we bring an all-powerful, all-knowing creator-god into the picture, because everything that happens on Earth was an intentional act of such a god.


that's all well and good, but to imply that God would need to stop these things from happening is a bit odd, because is he then not doing evil to the person that wants to blow your head off, by stopping them?
Boo-hoo. Can you possibly put together an argument to show that God is doing more evil by stopping a murder than by allowing it to occur?


Better yet, is that not an infringment on "Free will" if God stopped us from doing these "Evil" things to each other?

after all, it IS our CHOICE!
It is a choice to murder someone. It is NOT a choice to be murdered. How is our hypothetical victim not having their free will compromised?



Once again, would that not make for Infringment on our "Free Will"
No more than it already is. Suppose gagster did want to run a dictatorship and kill millions of people (although I'm sure he certainly does not). In his current situation, he lacks the opportunity or ability to do so. If depriving Hitler of this opportunity is a violation of free will, how is depriving gagster of it not the same?

Further, what of the millions of Jews and others who would be spared? Has their free will to live their lives not been restored? Or is God cruelly violating their free will to be slaughtered in concentration camps?


or better yet, our ability to choose what we want, to shape our life, and deal with the things "We" have brought upon ourselves. or even, develop an understadning of what we do and do not like?
How does that follow from the example?


If god did things like that, would it not cripple us, more then help us, making us dependent on him for "Safety" because we had never known "Suffering"?
I don't know what you're talking about here.



the "Salem Witch Trials" were not about doing 'Good' they were about mass hystria, and greed, lets not be desulisional about that now. Just because they "SAID" they were doing good (or God Work), does not mean squat.

Every day, there is some loon out there claiming to do "Gods Work" while killing people (Some even claim God spoke to them). So, I don't put too much into that whole "they THOUGHT they were doing good" Sorry.
Again, evil came about because of God's failure to communicate. If God didn't want us to kill witches, why does the Bible tell us to do so?


Doctor X, paging Doctor X...

[gagster]

Well, it looks like Mentalepsy beat me to making most of the points I was going to make, so this post will probably be fairly short. :(

You have too many points to talk about..

Sorry. I only responded to about half of what was in the original post. I hope to respond to the rest before long.

Evil is not merely the absence of good. Instead it is on the negative side of a good vs. evil continuum.

Umm IF that was true, which, as it was stated, in the above parable, it is NOT

The claim made in the parable was that evil is the absence of good. My point (which I supported) is that it was wrong. The author of that story is not infallible, so just telling me that my position is wrong because it disagrees with him is not convincing. You need to tell me why I'm wrong.

If you had a choice between Joe walking by you without stopping or Joe walking by you, stopping, and inflicting arthritis on you, would you really have no preference? If you do have a preference, then the arthritis must be on the negative side of the continuum. The case where he just walks by has no good in it, so if evil is merely the absence of good, it's the same as the arthritis inflicting case.

If, despite god’s omniscience, a test must be made it could be done without hurting anyone. Potential criminals could be caught in the act, before hurting anyone; would be assasin's guns could misfire.

...to imply that God would need to stop these things from happening is a bit odd, because is he then not doing evil to the person that wants to blow your head off, by stopping them?

Really? So, if 20% of all attempted murders fail, does that mean that god is doing evil 20% of the time? If not, then why can god not increase that percentage? If he can, why can he not increase it all the way to 100%? Is there some magic point at which it becomes evil to thwart attempted murders that is equal to or greater than the point we're at now?

If god did things like that, would it not cripple us, more then help us, making us dependent on him for "Safety" because we had never known "Suffering"?

Who gives a damn? If you lead a long happy life, are you really going to look back on it and be disappointed because you never knew suffering? I sure wouldn't.

the "Salem Witch Trials" were not about doing 'Good' they were about mass hystria, and greed, lets not be desulisional about that now. Just because they "SAID" they were doing good (or God Work), does not mean squat.

Every day, there is some loon out there claiming to do "Gods Work" while killing people (Some even claim God spoke to them). So, I don't put too much into that whole "they THOUGHT they were doing good" Sorry.

Apparently we agree that these people want to do what god wants, right? So, either:

[list=1]
god cannot tell them what he wants without violating their free will (and violating their free will is more evil than allowing them to act as they intend),
god wants them to do as they did,
god is unaware of their intentions, or
god is unable to communicate with them.
[/list=1]

Is there another possibility? Item #1 above is absurd. The others all conflict with an all knowing, all powerful, all good god.

I’m sorry if your god beliefs are important to you, but they just don’t hold up to scrutiny.


Greg

[gagster]

"Have you ever observed evolution with your own eyes, sir?" The professor makes a sucking sound with his teeth and gives his student a silent, stony stare.

I’ve observed evolution on many occasions. Evolution is merely the change in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool. Every time a baby is born, that happens to a small degree.

Of course, if minor changes were all that happened, this wouldn’t be a very interesting field of study. Fortunately, these minor changes add up. Over time, the sum total of the changes can result in an entirely new species. This has also been observed, happening in laboratories.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

Sir, the basic law of physics says matter can neither be created nor destroyed, and yet you in spite of that believe in "spontaneous generation" of the entire physical universe! Spontaneous generation of vermin was disproved centuries ago.

The big bang and spontaneous generation are two completely different things.

Spontaneous generation refers to the belief that people used to hold, that if you let some meat rot, maggots would spontaneously appear in it. Through scientific experiments, it was shown that the maggots were actually baby flies. If flies were unable to reach the meat to lay eggs in it, no maggots appeared. How this disproves the big bang theory is beyond me.

…and yet you apparently still believe that that is exactly what happened--in spite of science--that life somehow came from non-life.

There are only two possibilities. Either life always existed or, at some point, life came from non-life. We have evidence that the first possibility is not the case, so I’d say the second is pretty likely.

Make no mistake, Professor, we're both operating from faith.

This is a common claim that fundys make. It’s kind of interesting, really. What they are, in effect saying, is that they realize that faith is a lousy way to learn things. It doesn’t work very well. However, their beliefs are more important to them than the truth, so when another methodology does work, and the truth doesn’t match their beliefs, they feel they have to knock down that methodology. That’s why they say science boils down to faith. It’s like they’re saying “It’s okay that I’m stupid, because you are too!�

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

…

Well, according to the rules of empirical, stable, demonstrable protocol and science, I DECLARE that the professor has no mind.

This is just dumb. Fundys don’t seem to understand how evidence works. They are trying to make an analogy between these two statements:

[list=1]
I can see no evidence for god, therefore I don’t believe in him.
I cannot see the professor’s brain, therefore I don’t believe he has one.
[/list=1]

Since the second line of reasoning leads to an erroneous conclusion, they are trying to say the first one does as well. The problem is that we have a considerable amount of evidence that any person who could possible be a university professor has a brain. Here’s a short list:

[list=1]
Autopsies show that every human (with the possible exception of a few deformed babies that die before or shortly after birth) has a brain.
The brain is where thinking is done. The mere fact that the professor is capable of thinking shows he has a brain.
[/list=1]

What evidence do we have for god?


Greg

[Queen of Swords]

If god did things like that, would it not cripple us, more then help us, making us dependent on him for "Safety" because we had never known "Suffering"?

If you believe that god takes embryos, fetuses and babies to heaven, do you think that he allows pain to be inflicted on them there? If not, doesn't this mean that according to the above reasoning, they grow up crippled, dependent on him for "safety" because they have never known "suffering"?

[The Other Michael]

I find it interesting that the people who feel the need for suffering are usually not volunteering to be the ones suffering. It's as though other people suffering is OK, and serves the purpose of establishing the point of comparison.

cheers,
Michael

[Rhea]

The thing that bothers me MOST about this is the mean-spirited propaganda: "No atheist is a Niceâ„¢ person"


That whole Lying For Jesusâ„¢ thing again. They have no shame at all. Bearing false witness (which, according to the bible is just as bad a beastiality) just doesn't bother them a bit.


Weird, I just can't imagine living that way, spewing hate and feeling good about it.


So bizarre it makes me shivver.

[Yahzi]

Originally posted by Grumsh
that's all well and good, but to imply that God would need to stop these things from happening is a bit odd, because is he then not doing evil to the person that wants to blow your head off, by stopping them?
So then, isn't a cop doing evil to the person that wants to blow your head off, by stopping them?

And doesn't the Bible say we should be good, like Jesus and God?

Which means doing no evil?

So, in other words, you're saying we should fire all the cops, open the jails, and stand by passively while people do whatever they want.

Yet another Christian telling us it is against God's will for us to oppose evil.

[Yahzi]

Originally posted by The Other Michael
I find it interesting that the people who feel the need for suffering are usually not volunteering to be the ones suffering. It's as though other people suffering is OK, and serves the purpose of establishing the point of comparison.

cheers,
Michael :notworthy

[Rhea]

Originally posted by Yahzi
So, in other words, you're saying we should fire all the cops, open the jails, and stand by passively while people do whatever they want.

Yet another Christian telling us it is against God's will for us to oppose evil.


Actually, this comes straight from Jesus, doesn't it? He let the adulteress go. The LAW clearly stated her punishment, she was caught in the act. And Jesus fired the cops and opened the jail and stood by passively after telling her to "cut it out". Add that to turning the other cheek and giving up your cloak to match your tunic, and...

The bible EXPLICITLY instructs Christians to not carry out any law.
Fire the cops.
Open the Jails
Stand by passively while people do whatever they want.


hard to claim to be Christian and behave otherwise...
(contrary to the unChristian American conservative Right who wants to pass laws coercing people to behave like Christians...)

[Rhea]

Originally posted by The Other Michael
I find it interesting that the people who feel the need for suffering are usually not volunteering to be the ones suffering. It's as though other people suffering is OK, and serves the purpose of establishing the point of comparison.

cheers,
Michael


heh, heh. Yeah, kind of like God/Jesus himself/theirself, eh? Other people spend eternity in hell. Jesus is done after two days, that's enough for the comparison.

[xxthe_leewitxx]

Originally posted by gagster
...If the only evil in the world is that which is caused by a person failing a divine test, who is causing the earthquakes? Sorry, that was me... I do really bad on tests like that. :D

[the fonz]

Well, commenting on the whole article would just be a waste.

Something that hit me as a skimmed through it though:

"Isn't evil the absence of good?"

Regarding this point, it is simply arbitrary. One could very easily say the opposite. "Good is just simply the absence of evil. Good does not exist. Evil does."

There is an arbitary distinction drawn to save God. Pure and simple.

[SkepticBoyLee]

How is evil "simply the absense of good"??


Take "Satans fall" for example. Satan decided to rebel against God while fully and totally in his presence. In his direct presance as a matter of fact. He was close enough to slap five with the big G-O-D.

IF evil is simply the absense of good then evil cant happen when Gods around. First that makes God not omnipresent.

Also somehting IVe never understood. Adam and Eve were created "in the image if God". So in SOME way they were made of some of the same "stuff" that God was. Now I know they werent as great and they werent just like God BUT....they were created with some Gods goodness in em.


Isntt God great enough that one tiny mili-spec of Gods goodness in someone is more powerful than ALL of Satans evil power??Even if given free choice, Adam and Eve, if made in the image of God should have had enough "goodness" to thwart the devils attempt at deciet. As it tunrs out they failed there very first test. How much WERE they created in the "image" of God and what does this say about being created in Gods image??:rolleyes:

For example if I make a humanoid and give him great math powers and also give him free will he has the FREE WILL to choose to say 2+2=5. But hes not GOING TO becuase he was created good enough to where he knows better.

IF adam and Eve were created in the image of GOD, called GOOD by God but then failed on their first attempt by the serpent what does that say??

I dont see how the ability for fault wasnt preprogrammed into them in this story. If they were made "Good" and "in the image of God" like the story says then they would have rejected the serpents tempt.........or at the VERY LEAST they wouldnt have failed in their very FIRST attempt!

[Nismo97se]

Originally posted by spurly
The arguments that evil is the absence of good, cold the absence of heat, immorality the absence of morality, and darkness the absence of light are true.

I believe that this will be what is so bad about hell - God will be absent (see 1 Thessalonians). And when God withdraws his presence, everything good and right is withdrawn as well - and evil will reign unchecked.

I want to be in the presence of the light!

Kevin


I think those arguments are flawed.. first of all, if cold is the absense of heat, then cold is defined as -273C.. i dont think so..
in my mind, cold is the opposite of warmth, and cant really be compared to "heat."

Take the terms mass.. heavy, and light.. Thats like saying something thats light has no mass(or is the absence of mass).. and all things that have mass are heavy.. obviously a bunch of crap


in respect do darkness being the absence of light, again, its relative.. you can say its dark, and yet there is still a very minute amount of light around.

And i think someone has aready shown why immorality is not the absense of morality.

[the fonz]

Originally posted by spurly
The arguments that evil is the absence of good, cold the absence of heat, immorality the absence of morality, and darkness the absence of light are true.

However, none of these points prove evil to be the absence of good. Why doesn't it prove the opposite claim? That good is simply the absence of evil and good does not exist.

To simply point to the "darkness is the absence of light" example, and say, "Oh well the good is the light and the bad is the darkness." would be to beg the question.

[gagster]

...If the only evil in the world is that which is caused by a person failing a divine test, who is causing the earthquakes?

Sorry, that was me... I do really bad on tests like that.

Well at least you could study a little next time, couldn't you?

I'm just glad that I'm safe. I have no faults.


:)

Greg

[Family Man]

Here's my rewrite of part of the diatribe, one that fits a little better with reality, in my opinion.

"The topic today is the problem of evil," 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."

"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. "Ahh! 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."

"Why not say that? You would help a sick and maimed person if you could... in fact most of us would if we could... God doesn't." [No answer.]

"He doesn't, does he? My brother was a Christian who died of cancer even though he prayed to Jesus to heal him. Doesn't that suggest that perhaps there was no God to answer him?" [No answer].

The elderly man is sympathetic. "No, you can't think that, can you?" He takes a sip of water from a glass on his desk to give the student time to relax. In philosophy, you have to go easy with the new ones. "Let's start again, son."

"Is God good?"

"Er... Yes."

"Is Satan good?"

"No."

"Where does Satan come from?"

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

"That's right. According to Christian doctrine, God made Satan, didn't he?" The elderly man runs his fingers through his thinning hair and turns to the students. "Tell me, son. Is there evil in this world?"

Yes, sir."

"Evil's everywhere, isn't it? Did God make everything?"

"Yes."

"Who created evil?

[No answer]

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

The student squirms on his feet. "Yes."

"Who created them? "

[No answer]

"If Christian theology is correct, then we have to conclude that God created all evil, isn't that true," the professor pressed.

"Yes," the student answered, "that does follow."

Another Christian raises his hand. "Professor, may I address the class?"

The professor turns and smiles. "Of course."

The Christian looks around the room. "Some interesting points you are making, sir. Now I've got a question for you if that's okay. Is there such thing as heat?"

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

"Is there such a thing as cold?"

The professor smiled. "That depends on how you look at it, doesn't it? Scientifically, cold is simply the absence of heat. But, on the other hand, cold is certainly a concept that humans understand."

The student froze, clearly not expecting such an answer. The professor couldn't repress a chuckle. "Son, I've been teaching this class for 26 years. You think that hoary old chestnut would cause a problem for me? If I'm not mistaken, we will now agree that darkness is the absence of light, immorality is the absence of morality (not strictly true, but let's not split hairs here), and that evil is the absence of good. Do I have it right so far?

The student nodded.

"Well, then, this is a bit of an oversimplification of the problem, but let's run with it anyway. You heard your fellow student say that the human race, on the whole, is evil."

"Well, yeah."

"And God is good?"

"Yeah."

"Then if evil is the absence of good, doesn't the presence of evil in the world imply that God is absent?"

The young man stood there, horror-struck.

"I think you put your finger on the nub of the problem right there. Fortunately for you, a lot better philosophers than the one you got that bad argument from has written about this topic. So I think it's time we put away these childish arguments and look at more serious arguments both for and against. Shall we?"

The class murmured as they settled in to take notes.

[Family Man]

Let's tackle the bad science argument next.

Tell me, professor. Do you believe that we have evolved from a monkey?"

"Actually, no, I don't think we evolved from a monkey. That's a common mistake. Monkeys and humans evolved from a common ancestor."

"Whatever." The Christian rolled his eyes. "Have you ever observed evolution with your own eyes, sir?"

"Me, personally, no. But Professor Johnson, a good friend of mine, has. Evolution has been observed many times."

"But aren't you taking it on faith. He could be lying to you."

"Yes, I suppose that's possible. But thousands of other scientists have observed the same thing my friend has. Do you think they are all lying?"

"Yes, well, isn't that just microevolution? Has anyone ever observed macroevolution?"

The professor smiled. "Are you saying that we must directly observe processes before concluding they actually occurred?"

"Of course. Isn't that how science is done?"

"No, not always. There are direct observations, but there are also indirect observations. Tell me, do I have a brain?"

"Yes, of course. That's a stupid question."

"Well, then, how do you come to that remarkable conclusion. Have you ever seen my brain?"

The student stood silent.

"You've probably never observed anyone's brain directly at all. But you know that many people -- doctors and scientists -- have seen it directly. And in all cases, all functioning humans have brains. You're willing to trust scientists and make proper inferences with one thing you can't observe. Why do you hesitate to trust scientists about evolution? Could it be your real objection is religious, not scientific?"

"No, I just think that all previous attempts to explain how the process works have failed."

"Well, you're entitled to your opinion. But there are thousands of biologists that would disagree with you. I'm not sure why I should trust your judgement over those of scientists."

"Ahh! SCIENCE! Sir, you rightly state that science is the study of observed phenomena. What you call "science" too is a premise which is flawed..."

"SCIENCE IS FLAWED..?" the professor splutters. The class is in uproar. They sense the desperation of their classmate.

The Christian remains standing until the commotion has subsided. "To continue the point you were making earlier to the other student, may I give you an example of what I mean?"

"Of course."

The Christian looks around the room.*Sir, the basic law of physics says matter can neither be created nor destroyed, and yet you in spite of that believe in "spontaneous generation" of the entire physical universe! Spontaneous generation of vermin was disproved centuries ago."

"My, there are so many false statement in that claim I hardly know where to begin. Are you saying that the theory of spontaneous generation of insects is equivalent to theory of the formation of the universe?"

"Aren't they?"

"Of course not. The best evidence at the moment is that the universe, as we know it, started with the Big Bang. The spontaneous generation of vermin held that such insects were created by rotting corpses. That's hardly the same thing, much less equally supported, so I'm at a loss at what you're driving at."

"Well, then, what about biogenesis? Is that "observable science" as you say--life has only been observed to come from other life of like kind--and yet you apparently still believe that that is exactly what happened--in spite of science--that life somehow came from non-life?

"First, it isn't biogenesis, it is abiogenesis. And, no, it has not been observed, but that's not necessarily a problem. No one observed the splitting of the atom until it occurred, yet no one failed to call that science. Your conception of science is far too limited, young man. But I bet I know where you're going with this."

"And what's that?"

"You'd like us to think that, because we haven't observed abiogenesis, that we can conclude that it didn't occur and we must conclude that God is what caused life. There is a big flaw in that argument."

"And what's that?"

"Even if your premise was true, the absence of proof for abiogenesis doesn't automatically mean that it proves God did it. To make that conclusion, you have to produce evidence that God created life. Outside of your religious beliefs, there is no such evidence, is there?"

[SILENCE]

"But science can tell us how the earth was formed and no God is needed. It can tell us how the atmosphere was formed, and no God was needed. It can tell us how water was formed, and no God was needed. It can tell us how life evolved, and no God was needed. Why can't we infer that life began from non-life?"

[SILENCE]

"Science isn't flawed, young man. It may not give us all the answers we'd like, but the ones it does give us are pretty much trustworthy. Your religion, however, I have no such trust in."

[Rhea]

Seemlessly mended! Downright artistic.

[Mullibok]

There's an atheist continuance to this story somewhere, I don't know where to find it though.

Edit: Found one version

http://atheist.8k.com/apbredux.html

The class again had a mixed reaction. Some of the students were in chaos, jumping up and down, celebrating. Others were pounding their desks in triumph. But some were silent, and as Tom looked around, their eyes met. Not a word was spoken, but Tom knew that they knew. This class had been a circus from the very beginning.


* * * *
Suddenly, Patricia stood up and faced Phil. Tom wasn't sure what to expect. Was she going to pour more hot coals on the professor's head?

"Phil," she said softly, "Your whole line of argumentation has been flawed from the very beginning."

Phil was startled. He had not expected to be challenged so soon after destroying the professor. He know Patricia, but he never had a clue that she was an atheist, so why would she be challenging him? Maybe she was a believer and in the spirit of love was going to point out some flaws in his reasoning. But why would she do that now, in front of all the other students, in his moment of victory?

He gulped, and waited for her to present him with where he went astray with his argumentation -- although he would never admit this, he had a gnawing sense of dread that it would be the same flaws that Tom had pointed out to him in a earlier debate.

Patricia, known for her quiet demeanor and gentle spirit, had caught the attention of the entire class.

"Phil, she said, you claimed that there is no such thing as cold because we could not measure it. You stated further that it was merely the absence of heat. What you don't seem to understand is there is nothing in the definition of 'cold' that states there can be an infinite amount of it. You are correct in saying it is simply the absence of heat, but the fact that cold does not extend to infinity does not indicate 'cold' does not exist."

Phil started to reply, but Patricia waved him off and said, "Let me finish. You had your say. When I am done and you wish to reply by all means do.

"You stated further that there was no such thing as darkness. You made a . . . I'll be charitable, a rather odd challenge to Professor Jones to present you with a jar of darkness. Your question was whether there was such a thing as darkness. There most certainly is; it is characterized by the absence of light. Just because you cannot have an infinite amount of it does not mean that darkness is a meaningless concept. If a container is completely empty, then we say it is empty. It cannot get any emptier, but it does not thereby cease to be empty.

"You said that death was simply the absence of life. That is hardly the case. A rock is absent of life, yet we would hardly call it dead, would we?"

There were a few snickers from the class. A young man slapped his knee. Patricia continued.

"That word 'dead' carries with it the assumption that whatever is dead was once alive. You continued to persist in such questions, using the bait-and-switch routine, and succeeded in making yourself look silly to those who know better."

Phil was slack-jawed. He was speechless.

Patricia looked around. She had the full attention of the class. Even the professor was watching her closely, yielding the floor as it were, watching the lioness devour her prey.

"Let me explain the problems with your argumentation and your good-evil analogy," she said calmly, with a sense of authority and assurance that can only come with experience,

"First, most of the analogies you attempt to use deal with quantitative states rather than qualitative. Light, for instance, can be measured in photons and wave-lengths; heat in calories and degrees. There is no scale for measuring good and evil.

"Second, evil is not simply the absence of good; it is by definition more than simply a neutral state. A rock is not inherently good; yet we do not say it is evil. There is much substance in evil as there is in good, just as there are equal amounts of substance in the concept of left and right; right is not simply the absence of left."

Tom looked admiringly on Patricia. She was really laying it on the Christian.

Patricia was not finished. "You made a statement to the effect that the Bible tells us God must be accomplishing a work through the agency of evil and it is for the purpose to see if each one of us will, of our own free will, choose good over evil . . . now, could you tell me where in the Bible it says that?"

Some students nodded their heads in approval. Tom just smiled. This was going to be good.

"Uh," Phil stammered, "it would take me a minute to look it up . . ."

Patricia nodded "I'll give you a minute. In fact, if Mr. Jones has no objection, I'll give you--" she glanced at the clock "--forty-eight minutes before the class ends." She looked at the professor, who only nodded in concession. She turned back to Phil. "We will wait."

Phil stammered, "Well, uh . . . I am really not sure where in the Bible it says that . . ."

"Could it be," ventured Patricia, "that it does not say that God values what you say he values anywhere in the Bible?"

Phil was silent.

"I am well studied in Christianity, Phil, and I can tell you for a fact that it does not state anywhere in the Bible that God wishes people to choose good of their own free will. In fact, in many places in both the Old and New Testaments, God is portrayed as actually interfering with people's free wills in order to cause them to choose certain things.

"Also," continued Patricia, "there are natural evils which claim millions of lives every year, which are by no means the result of mankind’s decisions. Did crime and immorality cause the big earthquake last year? Of course not -- yet many, many lives were lost as a result of it. The free will theodicy leaves natural evils unexplained."

Phil seemed to be shrinking with each passing minute. Tom was smiling. This was getting really good.

Patricia took a sip out of her water bottle then continued, "You said that the absence of God's moral code in this world is the most observable phenomena going. I find that funny. Haven't you heard of the Inquisition? What about the Crusades, the witch hunts, the dungeons for those that spoke contrary to Christianity during the dark ages, the persecution of those who went against the church's geocentric and flat-earth world views?"

Phil was already defeated. He knew he had met his match. It annoyed him it was a woman that was doing this to him. She'll burn one day in hell, he thought to himself, and she'll regret every word she ever said to me this day. And I'll look down from Heaven and tell her 'I told you so!'

Patricia caught on to his look. "I know what you're thinking, Phil," she said. "You're thinking that I'm going to burn in hell for my heresy. And you actually look pleased with the thought. What does it say about God's moral code that he would allow me to be physically tortured for anything? And what does it say about your own that you apparently like that idea?

Tom couldn't help it -- he gave a loud chuckle. Patricia glanced at him with a slight grin on her face, before turning back to Phil and continuing:

"Your question about whether man evolved from a monkey just shows your ignorance. Any scientist worth his salt, especially one in the field of biology, would never make that claim. And anyone who has studied one semester in biology -- in fact, one week --would be knowledgeable enough not to ask such a question. I would recommend a course in biology while you are here. It might do you some good. You'll learn, among other things, that monkeys and man both descended from something else entirely -- a common ancestor.

"You also asked Mr. Jones if he didn't accept God's moral code to do what is righteous. I can't speak for him but I do accept many tenents of what Jesus taught, but I do not acknowledge them as being the result of Jesus and the Christian God. The so-called Golden-rule, for instance, predates Christianity by centuries; it is found in Buddhist and Confusianism texts. I also use reason to determine which rules of the Bible I will follow and which ones I will not follow. If it benefits me, my family, and my country, I will use it. If using one of those codes brings pain to me, one of my family members, weakens my country, and even the human race, I will reject it."

"But . . ." Phil finally managed to produce noises from his throat. "You cannot judge God. You cannot just pick and choose which rules you will follow and which ones you will not. God has not left that choice open to us."

"Before I accept any book as God's word," said Patricia, "I must have an external criteria with which I will judge the book before me. I will not just blindly accept any book as infallible and authoritative without subjecting it to reason. If it were valid to accept a book totally on faith without being permitted to judge the author, we could not rightly condemn those who hold the Koran in high esteem, for they use the same approach that you do. And if reason ultimately fails, then it fails. Until I am shown something better than reason, I will stick with it."

Phil started to say something, thought better of it, and let Patricia continue.

"You asked whether the professor had a brain?" Patricia phrased it like a question, wanting to draw an affirmative answer from Phil.

"Yes," Phil said. "I said since we could not feel, smell, or see his brain then he must not have one."

"Well then," said Patricia, "if you had just proven the professor did not have a brain, then why were you talking to him? Did you think you were talking to an inanimate object, perhaps? Would an inanimate object be empowered to give you course credit for this class?"

"That wasn't my point," Phil protested. "I'm not saying that the professor doesn't have a brain; only that science can't prove that he does!"

"And what is a brain?" asked Patricia.

"The brain . . . well, its the thinking center of the body---"

"Well then, " Patricia said with a smile, "I'm afraid you yourself have proven that he does, in fact, have a brain."

"What . . . !" It was the Christian's turn to sputter.

"By talking to him, by attending his class. You assume that he has a thinking center, which is a brain."

"But no one has seen his brain!" Phil protested.

"Nobody has ever seen your brain either, Phil . . . but I'm sure we'll all give you the benefit of the doubt."

The class roared with laughter. Tom laughed so hard he was coughing. This was something to behold.

"You see," she said, "you cannot sense his or my brain with the unaided senses, but the physics department has a device which will, if you'd like, give you a photographic picture of his brain as he speaks to you. This device was constructed through man's reasoning, and, ultimately, from his unaided senses. In other words, science."

A long silence.

Finally, Phil sat . . . because that is what a chair is for.

And the chair collapsed under him.

Phil looked around, startled, as the class started laughing at him. Tom was doubled over. He was laughing so hard it was beginning to hurt. Patricia only smiled and shook her head, a little sadly.

Before she sat down, she turned to Phil and said, "You see what happens when you try to attack science -- you cut your own throat. You affirm the fact that science works every time you sit in a chair, every time you type on a computer, every time you put in your contacts -- every second of every day, your actions betray your words."

The Christian was silent, red-faced among the debris of his chair.

"Let me ask you something Phil," Patricia said quietly. "Do you really think you had scored a big one against the atheists? Do you really think you know more than we do? Your effort was valiant, but it was dead in the water thousands of years before either of us were born.

"You have every right to believe in your deity, and I believe in freedom of religion as strongly as the next person. But when you try to excuse that belief in the name of reason and moral necessity, then you simply insult us, and you insult your own intelligence. You ruin any testimony you may have -- any credibility you have earned goes down the drain.

"The fact is, Phil, there is no God. And if you choose to believe that there is, you do not do so because of Truth, but in spite of Truth."

The class erupted in applause. Some stood, including Tom.

It was going to be a good day.

[Grumsh]

Post Deleted..


Grumsh.

[MagicBrowser]

Beautiful job Family Man :notworthy

Yeah, the argument is stupid anyways because even if we assume that everything the student says is true, it's still not evidence that evolution didn't occur, just evidence that it may not have occured.

[Grumsh]

Ohh well..

since family guy.. decided to do that.. let see..

[/b]University Classroom Setting...

"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."

"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. "Ahh! 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."

"Why not say that? You would help a sick and maimed person if you could... in fact most of us would if we could... God doesn't." [No answer.]

"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?"

"Sure can, if God or Jesus HAD to heal your bother, simply because he asked, would that not infringe on Gods all powerfull nature to be required to do something?"

[Teacher goes Speachless]
[Vanguard stutend starts to clap]
[Class Joins in]

This semester is going to suck for that teacher...


Grumsh.

[Rhea]

originally by grumsh, although deleted by the time I finished this
(quotes several posts with comments that one assumes he considers "not nice")
So, with the above data, one could assume Atheists are spiteful people, and be correct.


That might be interesting, if it was rebutting anything anybody had said.
Only it isn't, so it's not.


I said that I find what bothers me most is the claim that ALL atheists are not nice. You have not addressed my point at all.

Did you have a point about SOME atheists being not nice? Perhaps a comment about how it happens in about the same frequency as not-nice Christians? I'm going to guess that we are in complete agreement.

If you had a different point and I missed it, please elaborate.

[Valdemar]

Originally posted by Grumsh


"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?"

"Sure can, if God or Jesus HAD to heal your bother, simply because he asked, would that not infringe on Gods all powerfull nature to be required to do something?"

And the professor replies,

"And here's what YOUR bible says about that:"

Luk 11:9 And I say unto you, Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you.
Luk 11:10 For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened.

[Valdemar]

and the professor continues:

"AND your bible says:"

Zec 10:1 Ask ye of the LORD rain in the time of the latter rain; [so] the LORD shall make bright clouds, and give them showers of rain, to every one grass in the field.

[ccolinh]

...ask and it shall be given unto you....

UNLESS its inconvenient and doesnt fit into the Divine Plan - but feel free to give it whirl anyway

the goofy country singer says "sometimes I thank god for unanswered prayers" but I bet those whose sufferings were NOT assuaged by prayer do not share that sentiment

[Valdemar]

and just to show the student that he knows his bible, the professor says:

Jhn 14:12 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater [works] than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father.
Jhn 14:13 And whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son.
Jhn 14:14 If ye shall ask any thing in my name, I will do [it].

"So, son, now WHY did my brother die of cancer?"

Stunned, the christian student sits down as the class erupts in laughter and applause.

[Valdemar]

and the laughter drowns out the Christian student's protest:

"But, professor, you've taken those verses out of context!"

[Grumsh]

Originally posted by Valdemar
and the laughter drowns out the Christian student's protest:

[Students laughs with the class]

"I am sorry sir, I mean no disrespect, but I always find it funny, when non-christians quote the bible, but have no idea what they are saying"

[Dead slience]

Grumsh

[Krosis]

Ok..

the last 7 posts from various people have been split, locked and sent to Elsewhere to die an ignonimous death..

Reason? Users sniping back and forth from all sides derailing the thread..

This will stop.

thanks. ;)

-Krosis GRD moderator.

PS.. nice one Family Man... ;)

[Family Man]

"Sure can, if God or Jesus HAD to heal your bother, simply because he asked, would that not infringe on Gods all powerfull nature to be required to do something?"


Actually, Grumsh, one of the points I was making is that the whole issue is horribly oversimplified in the original post. Of course theists can always define their god to get out of any situation that seems to imply he can't exist. But that suggests to me that God is simply a invention. A common position is that God helps people who believe in him out, except when he doesn't. Which means that a world with God appears to be exactly the same as a world without him. So why should anyone believe it?

[Family Man]

For all the compliments, thank you.

[Valdemar]

Originally posted by Grumsh
[Students laughs with the class]

"I am sorry sir, I mean no disrespect, but I always find it funny, when non-christians quote the bible, but have no idea what they are saying"

[Dead slience]

Grumsh

and the professor replies:

"And I was an evengelical Christian pastor for twenty-five years."

and the class erupts in applause once more!

[gagster]

Grumsh wrote:

"Sure can, if God or Jesus HAD to heal your bother, simply because he asked, would that not infringe on Gods all powerfull nature to be required to do something?"

No, god does not HAVE to heal the brother. If he absolutely had to, you're right, that would mean he's not all powerfull.

Of course, by not healing him, he shows he's not all good.


Greg

[Grumsh]

Originally posted by Valdemar
and the professor replies:

"And I was an evengelical Christian pastor for twenty-five years."

and the class erupts in applause once more!

"then professor, lets look at what you said, start with the first quote, from Luke. Well professor, in your 25 years, no one, not a single person told you, that it relates to how a man is suppsoed to treat another man, I find it funny, with all your years of expirence, having done and read the words of god before I even was born, to not catch that simple part of the bible, well, this is not looking good for you professor, would you like for me to address your other quotes, or have you come to realize the fault in your thinking already?"

[The Professor stands there stunnded at the idea that he could have overlooked that, and maybe, it was time for him to put down the bible (which he never really had any faith in anyway, as all he ever did in his 25 years was regurtate what others had told him), before he truly did embarrass himself]

Grumsh.

[ccolinh]

Originally posted by Valdemar

Jhn 14:12 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater [works] than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father.
[

Grumsh

How exactly does this quote from John - posted by Valdemar - have anything to do with how a man should treat another man??

[Grumsh]

Damn, that was suppsoed to be Luke, I typed John by mistake.

Fixed Post to make sence.

if you really want, I'll explain the John too..

Grumsh

[Grumsh]

Moving along to the Professor's class, on a diffrent note:

Originally posted by Mullibok
[B]"Let me ask you something Phil," Patricia said quietly. "Do you really think you had scored a big one against the atheists? Do you really think you know more than we do? Your effort was valiant, but it was dead in the water thousands of years before either of us were born.

"You have every right to believe in your deity, and I believe in freedom of religion as strongly as the next person. But when you try to excuse that belief in the name of reason and moral necessity, then you simply insult us, and you insult your own intelligence. You ruin any testimony you may have -- any credibility you have earned goes down the drain.

"The fact is, Phil, there is no God. And if you choose to believe that there is, you do not do so because of Truth, but in spite of Truth." [B]

Phill stood up, a tad embarrassed, that his seat collapsed.

With a soft words, Phil says to Patricia �Ahh yes, Patricia, my argument was dead, thousands of years ago, I'll agree with you there, but I still have a point to make"

[stands up in spite of everything, and walks to the front of the class, and flips the light switch, which makes the classroom go "Devoid of light" and then turns it back on]

Science my dear Professor, pure, simple, observable science! If the light switch did not work, we would all agree that there was an explanation for it, even I a devout believer in God would not drop to my knees and pray for it to come back on, the explanation can be anything from corroded connections, to a break in the power line, to the power supply from the transformer was interrupted, but, it can be explained, we all agree on this I assume.�

[The class murmurs in agreement, even the professor and Patricia nod their heads]

“This science says: God does not Exist, we all agree with that too, if I am correct�

[Professor and Patricia both nod their heads, that is really what they have been trying to say all along, thought this whole class, Phil finally understands]

“So, Observable Science says, a that for something to exist, it needs to be able to be gauged, and tested, to be detectable with at the very least, one of our five senses, am I mistaken?�

“No, that is correct son, that is the point I have been trying to make all along� the professor replies, [almost beaming that he has made a convert.]

“Good, so tell me Patricia, you speak of “Natural Evils� can we go to the site of an earthquake, and pick up the dirt and debris and refine out of it this evil, then bring it back to a laboratory and test it, to see what it is composed of? Can you feel evil with your hands Patricia? Can you smell it, taste it, touch it, hear it, see it, can you hold and test this thing called evil? No. you can’t, can you supply me a beaker full of evil so I can see it for myself? No you can’t. there for, by science, if does not exist, just like God, better yet, you claim it’s everywhere, that is natural and man made, can we MAKE evil Patricia?

[His eyes staring at her]

[Patricia sits motionless and silent]

I’ll go one step further, there is no thought, and no such thing as imagination, love, or even hate, because, you can’t bring into a science lab, and test it, shall I go further�

“No, you have made your point� [Patricia quietly says, a broken shadow of what she was before, when she believed science was on her side, how silly was she to believe that, because science does not take sides, it only displays facts]

“Ooh But have I? Do you really see where I am going with this?

“Well, yes, and I don’t like it�

“Why not? Does your science not agree with you all of a sudden? Does your technology not become one with the way you like to view the world, why is it, that when it comes down to nuts and bolts, the very basic science, the very foundation of the scientific institution, that people become shaky. Because, we know we have emotions, but, we can not test them, we can’t see an emotion itself, we can only see the result of one, thus, emotion is a myth, right up there with unicorns and fairies, be we know better we can ‘feel’ the emotions, with something other then our five exterior senses, we know we can feel hate, we know we can feel love, but, there is no explanation for it. No way to gage it, measure it, find out what it is made of, we can not put emotion in a jar and give it to someone, now can we?

“That will be enough Phil, you have made your point, please sit down�

“Ohh professor, you wrong me, my chair is broken and I can not sit in it any more till it is fixed thought real means, or would you expect me to pray to my god to repair it?

[small chuckles and snickers erupt around the class]

‘That was uncalled for Phil�

"That is true, but so are Toms tears and the emotional pain you have inflicted on him. Anyway the end result is that maybe not everything we know exists, or accepts exists, can be put into little jars and tested. Have I made my point, or do we need to go on?

‘No, your point is made, class, dismissed, I will see you all in two days, and we will go over the works of Plato�

[Phill walks out of the class, holding his drop slip, maybe he will stay here, after all, he loved the works of Plato, I just hope my chair is fixed by then]

[As Phill walks out of the class, the Professor smiles to himself thinking, “this is going to be a great year for this class]

Grumsh.

[Mentalepsy]

Originally posted by Grumsh
“So, Observable Science says, a that for something to exist, it needs to be able to be gauged, and tested, to be detectable with at the very least, one of our five senses, am I mistaken?�

...

“Good, so tell me Patricia, you speak of “Natural Evils� can we go to the site of an earthquake, and pick up the dirt and debris and refine out of it this evil, then bring it back to a laboratory and test it, to see what it is composed of? Can you feel evil with your hands Patricia? Can you smell it, taste it, touch it, hear it, see it, can you hold and test this thing called evil? No. you can’t, can you supply me a beaker full of evil so I can see it for myself? No you can’t. there for, by science, if does not exist, just like God, better yet, you claim it’s everywhere, that is natural and man made, can we MAKE evil Patricia?
You sure torched that strawman. "Good" and "evil" are value judgments made by humans, not objective qualities. It's like asking a scientist to produce a quantitative measurement of how good a baked potato tastes: in other words, nonsense.

I’ll go one step further, there is no thought, and no such thing as imagination, love, or even hate, because, you can’t bring into a science lab, and test it, shall I go further�
Wrong. Humans can experience love, they can experience hate, and they can experience the effects of the love and hate of other humans. Further, such things can be the subject of scientific study. God cannot.

Because, we know we have emotions, but, we can not test them, we can’t see an emotion itself, we can only see the result of one
And experience the emotion itself.

thus, emotion is a myth, right up there with unicorns and fairies
And by your own argument, God.

be we know better we can ‘feel’ the emotions, with something other then our five exterior senses
What's your point with all of this?

If you're trying to draw an analogy between emotions and God, then we can conclude that God is merely a construct of the mind, with no actual existence outside of said mind. Somehow I don't think that's what you want.

If you're trying to draw an analogy between God and the concept of good and evil, you're saying that God is a subjective value judgement like beauty or tastiness, which is nonsense.

If you're trying to say that science cannot measure value judgments like "good" and "evil," you're right, but considering that science isn't supposed to do that, I don't see what your point is.

If you're trying to say that science cannot study emotions, well, you're wrong.

[ccolinh]

Luke 11:1
And it came to pass, that, as he was praying in a certain place, when he ceased, one of his disciples said unto him, Lord, teach us to pray, as John also taught his disciples.

11:2
And he said unto them, When ye pray, say, Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done, as in heaven, so in earth.

11:3
Give us day by day our daily bread.

11:4
And forgive us our sins; for we also forgive every one that is indebted to us. And lead us not into temptation; but deliver us from evil.

11:5
And he said unto them, Which of you shall have a friend, and shall go unto him at midnight, and say unto him, Friend, lend me three loaves;

11:6
For a friend of mine in his journey is come to me, and I have nothing to set before him?

11:7
And he from within shall answer and say, Trouble me not: the door is now shut, and my children are with me in bed; I cannot rise and give thee.

11:8
I say unto you, Though he will not rise and give him, because he is his friend, yet because of his importunity he will rise and give him as many as he needeth.

11:9
And I say unto you, Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you.

11:10
For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened.

11:11
If a son shall ask bread of any of you that is a father, will he give him a stone? or if he ask a fish, will he for a fish give him a serpent?

11:12
Or if he shall ask an egg, will he offer him a scorpion?

11:13
If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children: how much more shall your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him?


It seems pretty clear that Luke 11:5-8 and 11:11-12 are mini parables illustrating the points being made in 11:9-10 and 11:13, let me paraphrase

:ahem:


...God answers prayers...

Yes?

[Grumsh]

Originally posted by Mentalepsy
You sure torched that strawman. "Good" and "evil" are value judgments made by humans, not objective qualities. It's like asking a scientist to produce a quantitative measurement of how good a baked potato tastes: in other words, nonsense.

explain how this is a strawman argument, or is this one of those, "We can't answer that question", so there for it's strawman?


Wrong. Humans can experience love, they can experience hate, and they can experience the effects of the love and hate of other humans. Further, such things can be the subject of scientific study. God cannot.

Really, are you so sure about that? do you have any proof of this?

we can, study something that is intangable? Somthing that does not really exist, except thought concept?

Think about this, your saying "We can study emotion" as if it is a tangable thing, but we all know it is not, there for, it does not exist.

We can, by Science, gauge Emotion, we can refine it, or even see pure or real emotion? No, because, there is no such thing.

But you "Feel" them, don't you, aren't you just lieing to yourself, to explain these chemical reaction and electronic impulses that happen thoughout that lump of organic matter you call a brain.

Emotion, is a lie, because, it does not really exist, it is a thing of fantasy, a made up phenomon, that we have put a name on.

Sorry, but your entire argument is strawman, at the very best, your saying we "CAN" test something as intangable emotion, when we don't even know exactly what it is.

If you're trying to draw an analogy between emotions and God, then we can conclude that God is merely a construct of the mind

So, what your saying, with your above line, is that a 'Construct of the Mind" can be tested?

that we can test, something that ONLY exist, in a made up place called a "Mind" like we can test Emotion, even tho, emotion is an intangabe thing, secluded in an intangable place called a "Mind" and we can test?

That such a thing is Real?

But that leaves us with the problem, of, what exactly is a "Mind" can we test this as well?

If you're trying to draw an analogy between God and the concept of good and evil, you're saying that God is a subjective value judgement like beauty or tastiness, which is nonsense.

You wrong me!

I never said, I was supporting the existance of God, I just said, science does not support many of your current accepted things, that you just take for granted that are real, when they are nothing more then made up stories, and "Whimsical explanations" that can not be fully tested.

By the standard of Science, IT is a LIE, you believe in it despite the truth, that it really does not exist, because, it can not be "Reconized" by any of the 5 sences we have.

If that is the requirment for REAL, there are a lot of things, that are NOT as real as we might *Think* they are.

If that is not the Requirment for Real, then what is?

Where is the line drawn?

Where do we place the marker between REAL and Fantasy?

If you're trying to say that science cannot measure value judgments like "good" and "evil," you're right, but considering that science isn't supposed to do that, I don't see what your point is.

But by your opnion, (Being Opnion is not a real thing either by science standard) you can test this, It can be tested the same way 'Emotion" can be.

If that is the case, why can we not test religious things by the same yard stick.

Or is it, that Science, has a small problem all of a sudden?

The line "Science can not porve the existance of something that is not tangable, like God, there for, God can not Exist"

Is True,

I have accepted this.

But in that of the above statment.

I must accept that anything that is NOT tangable, is does not exist.

so Emotion, is a false belief, there is no Thought, No Inventivness, nothing beyond tangable things.

If you're trying to say that science cannot study emotions, well, you're wrong.

Provide me a beaker of Emotion then, and PROVE me wrong
(I'll settle for a beaker of any ONE emotion as well)

We have understood that Opnion,

is not real, Emotion is Not real,

God is Not real,

and neither is Good or Evil.

because, they are not tangable, now are they?

When you can find me the "Emotion-o-Meter" that has a purly scientific explination, to gage emotion, then, you might have a leg to stand on, till then, your strawman argument is worthless.

You will need to supply PROOF, because, that is what Science Demands, PROOF,

not circemstance,

not "Guess work"

but

ROCK SOLID PROOF.

which you can not provide, to suppor this theory of emotion, or any other "Thought" pattern, now can you?

Grumsh.

[Valdemar]

Originally posted by Grumsh

You will need to supply PROOF, because, that is what Science Demands, PROOF,

not circemstance,

not "Guess work"

but

ROCK SOLID PROOF.

which you can not provide, to suppor this theory of emotion, or any other "Thought" pattern, now can you?

Grumsh.

I think you need to study a little bit before you make the above statements. Maybe you're mixing mathematics which deals in "proofs" and science which deals in explanations.

Here's a link you should check out, then get back to us:

Science (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/SciLit.html)

This is one element of science that most people have a hard time appreciating. Common sense tells us that we need absolute truths independent of individual judgement, because tentative truths are risky, not worth the effort, somehow “not really true,� and individuals are biased, fallible and limited in their abilities. Indeed, many conclude that if there are no absolute truths, then there is no knowledge, that if we can’t know something for certain, we don’t know it at all. Indeed, some critics of science have outright said that science is to be disgarded because it is always changing. Others even say that since all truth comes from individuals, all truth is subjective and therefore equivalent in merit. But these are absurd conclusions. History has shown that tentative knowledge is extremely useful if it turns out correct with a very high frequency. That frequency does not have to be 100% for it to be useful or “correct� in a practical sense. A gambler doesn’t need a sure thing to see a really good bet.

[Grumsh]

Originally posted by Valdemar
I think you need to study a little bit before you make the above statements. Maybe you're mixing mathematics which deals in "proofs" and science which deals in explanations.

do you even have a shread of evidence that supports Emotion?

any little thing, any little micron of evidence?

Sorry, all those things are not real, they have no foundation, and nothing supports their existance, out side this "Mind Theory"

that's not Science, that's philosphy.

Grumsh.

[Valdemar]

Originally posted by Grumsh
do you even have a shread of evidence that supports Emotion?

any little thing, any little micron of evidence?

Sorry, all those things are not real, they have no foundation, and nothing supports their existance, out side this "Mind Theory"

that's not Science, that's philosphy.

Grumsh.

I know you quoted me in your response, but I think you're mixing me up with someone else with whom you're having the "emotion" discussion.

However, I'll answer your question when you get done reading over the "science" link I placed above. Maybe if we're on the same page with definitions, your emotions won't rule your responses and we can have a more fruitful dialogue.

Again, here's the link:


Science (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/SciLit.html)

[Mentalepsy]

Originally posted by Grumsh
explain how this is a strawman argument, or is this one of those, "We can't answer that question", so there for it's strawman?
It's a straw man because nobody is claiming that things like good and evil, which can't be objectively quantified, have no meaning.


Really, are you so sure about that? do you have any proof of this?
Do you experience emotions? I do. Other people also report experiencing emotions. Even better, they report the same emotions as I would likely experience under the same circumstances, making me more inclined to believe them. It seems probable that "people experience emotions" is a true statement.

we can, study something that is intangable? Somthing that does not really exist, except thought concept?

Think about this, your saying "We can study emotion" as if it is a tangable thing, but we all know it is not, there for, it does not exist.
Emotions cannot be manipulated directly in the same way a vial of acid can. That doesn't mean we can't tell others that we are experiencing emotions, or that we can't see their effect on people.

Would you say that psychology is a science, or no?

We can, by Science, gauge Emotion, we can refine it, or even see pure or real emotion? No, because, there is no such thing.
So?

But you "Feel" them, don't you, aren't you just lieing to yourself, to explain these chemical reaction and electronic impulses that happen thoughout that lump of organic matter you call a brain.
Wait, chemical reactions and electric impulses? How does that equate to nonexistence?

Emotion, is a lie, because, it does not really exist, it is a thing of fantasy, a made up phenomon, that we have put a name on.
Well, if you wish to believe that someone who shouts "I am absolutely furious at you" is merely playing make-believe and is experiencing no such thing, you can, but why?

Sorry, but your entire argument is strawman, at the very best, your saying we "CAN" test something as intangable emotion, when we don't even know exactly what it is.
Er... what am I making a straw man out of?

And I still don't see why emotions are beyond our scope of inquiry.

So, what your saying, with your above line, is that a 'Construct of the Mind" can be tested?

that we can test, something that ONLY exist, in a made up place called a "Mind" like we can test Emotion, even tho, emotion is an intangabe thing, secluded in an intangable place called a "Mind" and we can test?

That such a thing is Real?

But that leaves us with the problem, of, what exactly is a "Mind" can we test this as well?

...huh?


You wrong me!
Well, I wasn't sure what you were trying to do with the good-evil thing, so I just threw that in there with the rest of them.


I never said, I was supporting the existance of God, I just said, science does not support many of your current accepted things, that you just take for granted that are real, when they are nothing more then made up stories, and "Whimsical explanations" that can not be fully tested.
And as I said, science doesn't deal with value judgments like good and evil, or delicious and revolting, or beautiful and ugly. There's nothing to do science on, because there's no inherent deliciousness in my steak. So what?


By the standard of Science, IT is a LIE, you believe in it despite the truth, that it really does not exist
So, I am mistaken in believing that I make subjective value judgments about various things? That's an awfully hard thing to be mistaken about, isn't it?

because, it can not be "Reconized" by any of the 5 sences we have.
What do the five senses