If you are a respector of science, please read . . . (hell, Jews, pray)

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Thomas R.

"With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil—that takes religion." The corollary being "And for bad people to do good things—that takes religion." And yes I can source that.

Huh? Did he say the last part? Because that's not a corollary -- it does not automatically follow from the first statement.

Not that the general gist of your message is necessarily incorrect (I wouldn't know).

[Dusty Rhodes]

Originally Posted by lifesigns64

The professor and the student
>
>
>
>
> "Let me explain the problem science has with
religion."
> The atheist professor of philosophy pauses before his class and then
> asks one of his new students to stand.
>
> "You're a Christian, aren't you, son?"
>
> "Yes sir," the student says.
>
> "So you believe in God?"
>
> "Absolutely!"
>
> "Is God good?"
>
> "Sure! God's good."
>
> "Is God all-powerful? Can God do anything?"
>
> "Yes."
>
> "Are you good or evil?"
>
> "The Bible says I'm evil."
>
> The professor grins knowingly. "Aha! The Bible!"
>
> He considers for a moment, "Here's one for you.
>
> Let's say there's a sick person over here and you can
cure
> him. You can do it. Would you help him? Would you try?"
>
> "Yes sir, I would."
>
> "So you're good!"
>
> "I wouldn't say that."
>
> "But why not say that? You'd help a sick and maimed
> person if you could. Most of us would if we could. But God
doesn't."
>
> The student does not answer, so the professor continues.
>
> "He doesn't, does he? My brother was a Christian who
died
> of cancer, even though he prayed to Jesus to heal him. How is this
> Jesus good? Hmmm? Can you answer that one?"
>
> The student remains silent.
>
> "No, you can't, can you?" the professor says. He
takes a
> sip of water from glass on his desk to give the student time to relax.
> "Let's start again, young fella. Is God good?"
>
> "Er...yes," the student says.
>
> "Is Satan good?"
>
> The student doesn't hesitate on this one,
>
> "No."
>
> "Then where does Satan come from?"
>
> The student falters, "From God."
>
> "That's right. God made Satan, didn't he? Tell
me, son.
> Is there evil in this world?"
>
> "Yes sir."
>
> "Evil's everywhere, isn't it? And God did make
> everything, correct?"
>
> "Yes."
>
> "So who created evil?" The professor continued,
"If God
> created everything, then God created evil, since evil exists and
> according to the principle that our works define who we are, then God
> is evil."
>
> Again, the student has no answer.
>
> "Is there sickness? Immorality? Hatred? Ugliness? All
> these terrible things, do they exist in this world?"
>
> The student squirms on his feet. "Yes."
>
> "So who created them?"
>
> The student does not answer again, so the professor
> repeats his question, "Who created them?"
>
> There is still no answer. Suddenly the lecturer breaks
> away to pace in front of the classroom. The class is mesmerized.
>
> "Tell me," he continues onto another student.
>
> "Do you believe in Jesus Christ, son?"
>
> The student's voice betrays him and cracks. "Yes,
professor, I
> do."
>
> The old man stops pacing, "Science says you have five (5)
> senses you use to identify and observe the world around you. Have you
> ever seen Jesus?"
>
> "No sir. I've never seen Him."
>
> "Have you ever felt your Jesus, tasted your Jesus or smelt
> your Jesus? Have you ever had any sensory perception of Jesus Christ,
> or God for that matter?"
>
> "No, sir, I'm afraid I haven't."
>
> "Yet you still believe in him?"
>
> "Yes."
>
> "According to the rules of empirical, testable,
> demonstrable protocol, science says your God doesn't exist. What do
> you say to that, son?"
>
> "Nothing," the student replies. "I only have my
faith."
>
> "Yes, faith," the professor repeats. "And that
is the
> problem science has with God. There is no evidence, only faith."
>
> The student stands quietly for a moment, before asking a
> question of his own. "Professor, is there such thing as heat?"
> "Yes," the professor replies. "There's
heat."
>
> "And is there such a thing as cold?"
>
> "Yes, son, there's cold too."
>
> "No sir, there isn't."
>
> The professor turns to face the student, obviously
> interested. The room suddenly becomes very quiet...
>
> The student begins to explain . . . "You can have lots of
> heat, even more heat, super-heat, mega-heat, unlimited heat, white
> heat, a little heat or no heat, but we don't have anything called
> 'cold.' We can hit up to 458 degrees below zero, which is no
heat,
> but we can't go any further after that. There is no such thing as
> cold; otherwise we would be able to go colder than the lowest-458
> degrees." Everybody or object is susceptible to study when it has or
> transmits energy and heat is what makes a body or matter have or
> transmit energy. Absolute zero (-458 Fahrenheit) is the total absence
> of heat. You see, sir, cold is only a word we use to describe the
> absence of heat. We cannot measure cold. Heat we can measure in
> thermal units because heat is energy. Cold is not the opposite of
> heat, sir, just the absence of it."
>
> Silence across the room. A pen drops somewhere in the
> classroom, sounding like a hammer.
>
> "What about darkness, professor. Is there such a thing as
> darkness?"
>
> "Yes," the professor replies without hesitation.
What is
> night if it isn't darkness?"
>
> "You're wrong again, sir. Darkness is not something;
it
> is the absence of something. You can have low light, normal light,
> bright light, flashing light, but if you have no light constantly you
> have nothing and its called darkness, isn't it? That's the
meaning we
> use to define the word. In reality, darkness isn't. If it were, you
> would be able to make darkness darker, wouldn't you?"
>
> The professor begins to smile at the student in front of
> him. This will be a good semester. "So what point are you making,
> young man?"
>
> "Yes, professor. My point is, your philosophical premise
> is flawed to start with and so your conclusion must also be flawed."
>
> The professor's face cannot hide his surprise this time,
> "Flawed? Can you explain how?"
>
> "You are working on the premise of duality," the
student
> explains . . "You argue that there is life and then there's
death; a
> good God and a bad God. You are viewing the concept of God as
> something finite, something we can measure. Sir, science can't even
> explain a thought." It uses electricity and magnetism, but has never
> seen, much less fully understood either one. To view death as the
> opposite of life is to be ignorant of the fact that death cannot exist
> as a substantive thing. Death is not the opposite of life, just the
> absence of it." Now tell me, professor. Do you teach your students
> that they evolved from a monkey?"
>
> "If you are referring to the natural evolutionary process,
> young man, yes, of course I do."
> "Have you ever observed evolution with your own eyes,
sir?"
>
> The professor begins to shake his head, still smiling, as
> he realizes where the argument is going; a very good semester, indeed.
>
> "Since no one has ever observed the process of evolution
> at work and cannot even prove that this process is an on-going
> endeavor, are you not teaching your opinion, sir? Are you now not a
> scientist, but a preacher?"
>
> The class is in uproar. The student remains silent until
> the commotion has subsided.
>
> "To continue the point you were making earlier to the
> other student, let me give you an example of what I mean." The
> student looks around the room, "Is there anyone in the class who has
> ever seen the professor's brain?" The class breaks out into
laughter.
>
> "Is there anyone here who has ever heard the
professor's
> brain, felt the professor's brain, touched or smelt the
professor's
> brain? No one appears to have done so. So, according to the
> established rules of empirical, stable, demonstrable protocol, science
> says that you have no brain, with all due respect, sir."
>
> "So if science says you have no brain, how can we trust
> your lectures, sir?"
>
> Now the room is silent. The professor just stares at the
> student, his face unreadable... Finally, after what seems an
> eternity, the old man answers, "I guess you'll have to take them
on
> faith."
>
> "Now, you accept that there is faith, and, in fact, faith
> exists with life," the st udent continues, now, sir, is there such a
> thing as evil?"
>
> Now uncertain, the professor responds, "Of course, there
> is. We see it everyday. It is in the daily example of man's
> inhumanity to man. It is in the multitude of crime and violence
> everywhere in the world. These manifestations are nothing else but
> evil."
>
> To this the student replied, "Evil does not exist sir, or
> at least it does not exist unto itself. Evil is simply the absence of
> God. It is just like darkness and cold, a word that man has created
> to describe the absence of God. God did not create evil. Evil is the
> result of what happens when man does not have God's love present in
> his heart. It's like the cold that comes when there is no heat or the
> darkness that comes when there is no light."
>
> The professor sat down.
>
> If you read it all the way through and had a smile on your
> face when you finished, mail it to your friends and family.
>
> PS: The student was Albert Einstein.
>
>

Nice try, but not true. Einstein was born a Jew, he eventually claimed no religious affiliation, he never claimed to be a christer!

[Thomas R.]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Huh? Did he say the last part? Because that's not a corollary -- it does not automatically follow from the first statement.

Not that the general gist of your message is necessarily incorrect (I wouldn't know).

You're probably right, I wasn't sure what to call it though. Addendum? Comment on?

Originally Posted by Dusty Rhodes

Nice try, but not true. Einstein was born a Jew, he eventually renounced his religion and considered himself an atheist, he never claimed to be a christer!

Einstein being an atheist is disputed. It's possible to disbelieve in a personal god, but believe in some other kind of god. He made several statements that indicate he was either an agnostic, pantheist, or deist. (Also his views may have evolved throughout his life) Although others could imply atheism and the matter is unclear. That said he was Humanistic and non-theistic.

http://www.adherents.com/people/pe/Albert_Einstein.html
http://www.skepticfiles.org/atheist/eindoc.htm
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/ar...607298,00.html

Even atheism.about states "it's not clear that Einstein disbelieved in all god concepts." (It makes a stronger statement that he must have when discussing his rejection of the afterlife, but it doesn't really follow that rejecting the afterlife has to mean atheism)

http://atheism.about.com/od/einstein...ionScience.htm

I certainly agree that he wasn't a Christian. (I'm not sure why atheist require these childish slur words like "christer" and "sky-fairy" and all that. I know the truism "the new atheists are perpetual ten-year-olds", but still it's a bit much) Making him one is more than a little dishonest, but not unique. I read a "Church of Christ, Scientist" group say he was a Christian Scientist. Or, considering what religion I mean, a Christian Scientist scientist. (Like Laurance Doyle)

[AREQUIPA]

" read a "Church of Christ, Scientist" group say he was a Christian Scientist."


"I believe in a Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the harmony of all that exists, but not in a God who concerns himself with the fate and actions of human beings."
"I can not accept any concept of God based on the fear of life or the fear of death or blind faith. I can not prove to you that there is no personal God, but if I were to speak of him I would be a liar."
"I cannot conceive of a God who rewards and punishes his creatures, or has a will of the kind that we experience in ourselves. Neither can I nor would I want to conceive of an individual that survives his physical death; let feeble souls, from fear or absurd egoism, cherish such thoughts. I am satisfied with the mystery of the eternity of life and with the awareness and a glimpse of the marvelous structure of the existing world, together with the devoted striving to comprehend a portion, be it ever so tiny, of the Reason that manifests itself in nature."
Was Einstein a christian? - Yahoo! Answers

Google other stuff on Einstein's religious beliefs. All I have ever read of his own views is that he believed in a sort of Intelligent nature which he called God. He did not subscribe to a personal god and was certainly not a believer in the Jesus-as-god idea.

Read snopes on Eintein and the atheist professor. This is an apochryphal anecdote and is long -refuted poor logic, in any case. But it gets trotted out again and again.

snopes.com: Einstein Humiliates Atheist

I'd just say that, though Einstein made a great contribution to science, what God-belief he did have did him no good whatsoever. by insisting that 'God does not play dice', he prevented himself from considering quantum physics, which could have crowned all his other work, and perhaps given him his 'theory of everything' for which he futilely searched for the remainder of his life.

[Mercury Cougar]

Originally Posted by Thomas R.

I certainly agree that he wasn't a Christian. (I'm not sure why atheist require these childish slur words like "christer" and "sky-fairy" and all that. I know the truism "the new atheists are perpetual ten-year-olds", but still it's a bit much)

For me, those terms are typically used specifically for believers who are obtrusive, rude, and aggressive about their religion. Or for those believers who, despite all evidence to the contrary, will wave their hand and say incredibly stupid things like "all evolution is a lie".

On the other hand, if you're polite and present your points with respect, and don't belittle us...then as far as I'm concerned, you're a Christian and I'll call you that rather than "christer".

It's your call, and it all depends on how you act.

[Thomas R.]

Originally Posted by Mercury Cougar

For me, those terms are typically used specifically for believers who are obtrusive, rude, and aggressive about their religion. Or for those believers who, despite all evidence to the contrary, will wave their hand and say incredibly stupid things like "all evolution is a lie".

On the other hand, if you're polite and present your points with respect, and don't belittle us...then as far as I'm concerned, you're a Christian and I'll call you that rather than "christer".

It's your call, and it all depends on how you act.

Hmm that makes more sense. I certainly don't think evolution is "a lie." I admit I have some "hang-ups" on the "beginning of life" and "origin of man" but I don't know if I'd say I precisely disagree even there. (Although on "beginning of life" I'm not entirely sure what I'd be disagreeing with as there's still debate on the matter or was until pretty recent times) I believe in a Universe billions of years old and that have atheists rights equal to other kinds of people.

[jojajn]

To this the student replied, "Evil does not exist sir, or
> at least it does not exist unto itself. Evil is simply the absence of
> God. It is just like darkness and cold, a word that man has created
> to describe the absence of God. God did not create evil. Evil is the
> result of what happens when man does not have God's love present in
> his heart. It's like the cold that comes when there is no heat or the
> darkness that comes when there is no light."

Did God actually create evil?

From the Christian bible:


Quote:
I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things. (Isaiah 45:7, KJV)
Shall a trumpet be blown in the city, and the people not be afraid? shall there be evil in a city, and the LORD hath not done it? (Amos 3:6, KJV)
Out of the mouth of the most High proceedeth not evil and good? (Lamentations 3:38)

[sanspeur]

Originally Posted by Thomas R.

Actually we don't really know who perpetrated Piltdown Man. Two of the names they list as possible culprits were scientists. (Martin Hinton and Arthur Keith)

Actually we do, as you would know if you had bothered to check my link, and he was no scientist...
In recognition of his many discoveries, Dawson was elected a fellow of the Society of Antiquaries London in 1895. At the age of 31, and without a university degree to his name, he was now Charles Dawson F.G.S., F.S.A. His most famous discovery was in 1912 with the discovery of the Piltdown man which was billed as the "missing link". Dawson died prematurely from septicaemia 1916.

In 2003, Dr Miles Russell of Bournemouth University published the results of his investigation into Dawson's antiquarian collection and concluded that at least 38 specimens were clear fakes. Russell has noted that Dawson’s whole academic career appears to have been "one built upon deceit, sleight of hand, fraud and deception, the ultimate gain being international recognition". Piltdown Man certainly generated media interest like no other discovery before or since.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Dawson

Bournemouth University | Centre for Archaeology, Anthropology & Heritage | Piltdown Man

[Thomas R.]

Withdrawn then, it wasn't known when I'd heard of it.

[Rafius]

Originally Posted by jojajn

Did God actually create evil?

From the Christian bible:


Quote:
I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things. (Isaiah 45:7, KJV)
Shall a trumpet be blown in the city, and the people not be afraid? shall there be evil in a city, and the LORD hath not done it? (Amos 3:6, KJV)
Out of the mouth of the most High proceedeth not evil and good? (Lamentations 3:38)

Yes, but Christianity has now decided that it doesn't like to think of their god being connected with 'evil' so you will find that in the majority of Bible versions today that they have changed the word evil to 'calamity' or 'disaster'.