Is there such a thing as an atheist?

[mustaphadrink]

St Sebastian said : And yet, having faced death once and possibly twice now, I do not feel as though there is a god. I hear people talking rapturously about their relationship, but I think they are incorrect. I think they are scared and are willing to cling to something that promises them eternal life.

Another important comment...."I think they are incorrect about their relationship with God."

First "I think" proves and means nothing as it actually means "I don't know" so nothing can be deduced from it.

Second, as there are a million, billion or even more maybe that talk rapturously about their relationship can you tell me how you know this to be a fact that they are wrong?

FYI, I have been reading several books about Christians that have suffered at the hands of muslims, because they won't convert to islam. Despite the fact they have had to watch their wives and children hacked to death by muslims, they do not seek revenge and despite their loss they still rejoice in God.

So the question is, how do you know they are wrong?

 

[mustaphadrink]

As none of the atheist here could answer the question I asked about natural selection try this one for size....

How did new biochemical pathways, which involve multiple enzymes working together in sequence, originate?Every pathway and nano-machine requires multiple protein/enzyme components to work. How did lucky accidents create even one of the components, let alone 10 or 20 or 30 at the same time, often in a necessary programmed sequence. Evolutionary biochemist Franklin Harold wrote, “we must concede that there are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical or cellular system, only a variety of wishful speculations.”

Here is a tip. You won't be able to answer this one either.

 

[Cycel]

You may have been raised in Christian household, attended both church and Sunday school, even taking theological studies at a university; I can confirm that those things don't make a person any more than a lost sinner.

What they make me is knowledgeable, and that is what you were curious about.

It's too late now to respond to the rest of your post at the moment. I hope to get back to it later.

 

[Cycel]

Eisenman has been heavily involved in important developments in the study of early church history including the Dead Sea Scrolls, James ossuary, James the half-brother of Jesus, the Essenes as well as textual criticism of the NT canon. Cycel, thank you for the introduction and again advancing my education.

Eisenman's a knowledgeable and interesting speaker. I couldn't find part two of that lecture, but I know its on YouTube somewhere. I believe there is an Eisenman channel. I'll ask my son. He'll know.

 

[doseofreality]

As none of the atheist here could answer the question I asked about natural selection try this one for size....

How did new biochemical pathways, which involve multiple enzymes working together in sequence, originate?Every pathway and nano-machine requires multiple protein/enzyme components to work. How did lucky accidents create even one of the components, let alone 10 or 20 or 30 at the same time, often in a necessary programmed sequence. Evolutionary biochemist Franklin Harold wrote, “we must concede that there are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical or cellular system, only a variety of wishful speculations.”

Here is a tip. You won't be able to answer this one either.

The answer is obviously 'we dont know' .
What is your point exactly, pointing our things we don't know does not necessarily nullify things we do know. Neither does it support any other theory.

 

[deepthought]

As none of the atheist here could answer the question I asked about natural selection try this one for size....

How did new biochemical pathways, which involve multiple enzymes working together in sequence, originate?Every pathway and nano-machine requires multiple protein/enzyme components to work. How did lucky accidents create even one of the components, let alone 10 or 20 or 30 at the same time, often in a necessary programmed sequence. Evolutionary biochemist Franklin Harold wrote, “we must concede that there are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical or cellular system, only a variety of wishful speculations.”

Here is a tip. You won't be able to answer this one either.

[TABLE="class: cquote"]
[TR]
[TD]There is no reason to think that the life around today is comparable in complexity to the earliest life. All of the simplest life would almost certainly be extinct by now, outcompeted by more complex forms.
[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
and
[TABLE="class: cquote"]
[TR]
[TD]Self-replicators can be incredibly simple, as simple as a strand of six DNA nucleotides.[SUP][13][/SUP] This is simple enough to form via prebiotic chemistry. Self-replication sets the stage for evolution to begin, whether or not you call the molecules 'life.'[SUP][14][/SUP]
[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
Furthermore, looking at the biochemical processes in detail at a moment in time does not indicate the evolutionary history of an organism. Scaffolding is a means to develop a process. Furthermore, evolution is established on the macroscopic level through morphology as well as on the molecular level with genetics. As the understanding of biochemistry proceeds (as it is a much younger science), a better understanding will develop. Furthermore, as Michael Behe learned at the Dover trial, there is a lot known about the evolution of proteins, such as with the immune system. Finally, the Lenski experiment demonstrates that, with time and proper mutations, completely new pathways do in fact, provably, originate.

source: Question Evolution - RationalWiki
reference: http://myxo.css.msu.edu/lenski/pdf/2008, PNAS, Blount et al.pdf

Hope this help. The above site also has suggestions for answers to all other questions you may copy from that interview including references.

dP

 

[IntoTheVoid]

Mustapha, I don't know. Plain and simple.

Difference between you and me is, because I don't know I won't automatically attribute something to a god.

 

[nl]

Eisenman's a knowledgeable and interesting speaker. I couldn't find part two of that lecture, but I know its on YouTube somewhere. I believe there is an Eisenman channel. I'll ask my son. He'll know.

More of the series can be viewed with these search terms in YouTube: robert eisenman christian origins. I watched part two last Saturday but couldn't find it just now.

There is also a Wikipedia page for Eisenman and a web site for Robert H. Eisenman.

Mention is not an endorsement but I am seeing that Eisenman is an important source for multiple topics in which I have had interest in the past. IMHO, similar to other college professors for religion courses, Eisenman is promoting skepticism and doubt more than faith and belief. However, he does also demonstrate significant experience and expertise.

Thank you again for the referral.

 

[kenexus]

Yes, there are people who do not believe in God. They are atheist.

 

[Spokenpassage]

Professor : You are a Christian, aren’t you, son?

Student : Yes, sir.

Professor: So, you believe in God?

Student : Absolutely, sir.

Professor : Is God good?

Student : Yes.

Professor: Is God all powerful?

Student : Yes.

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

(Student was silent.)

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

Student : Yes.

Professor: Is satan good?

Student : No.

Professor: Where does satan come from?

Student : From … God …

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

Student : Yes.

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

Student : Yes.

Professor: So who created evil?

(Student did not answer.)

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

Student : Yes, sir.

Professor: So, who created them?

(Student had no answer.)

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

Student : No, sir.

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

Student : No , sir.

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

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

Professor: Yet you still believe in Him?

Student : Yes.

Professor : According to Empirical, Testable, Demonstrable Protocol, Science says your God doesn’t exist. What do you say to that, son?

Student : Nothing. I only have my faith.

Professor: Yes, faith. And that is the problem Science has.

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

Professor: Yes.

Student : And is there such a thing as cold?

Professor: Yes.

Student : No, sir. There isn’t.

(The lecture theater became very quiet with this turn of events.)

Student : Sir, you can have lots of heat, even more heat, superheat, mega heat, white heat, a little heat or no heat. But we don’t have anything called cold. We can hit 458 degrees below zero which is no heat, but we can’t go any further after that. There is no such thing as cold. Cold is only a word we use to describe the absence of heat. We cannot measure cold. Heat is energy. Cold is not the opposite of heat, sir, just the absence of it.

(There was pin-drop silence in the lecture theater.)

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

Professor: Yes. What is night if there isn’t darkness?

Student : You’re wrong again, sir. Darkness is the absence of something. You can have low light, normal light, bright light, flashing light. But if you have no light constantly, you have nothing and its called darkness, isn’t it? In reality, darkness isn’t. If it is, well you would be able to make darkness darker, wouldn’t you?

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

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

Professor: Flawed ? Can you explain how?

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


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

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

(The Professor shook his head with a smile, beginning to realize where the argument was going.)

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

(The class was in uproar.)

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

(The class broke out into laughter. )

Student : Is there anyone here who has ever heard the Professor’s brain, felt it, touched or smelt it? No one appears to have done so. So, according to the established Rules of Empirical, Stable, Demonstrable Protocol, Science says that you have no brain, sir. With all due respect, sir, how do we then trust your lectures, sir?

(The room was silent. The Professor stared at the student, his face unfathomable.)

Professor: I guess you’ll have to take them on faith, son.

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

 

[deepthought]

The class is in chaos. The Christian sits... Because that is what a chair is for.
The professor, amused at the student's antics, asks the student whether he's ever read anything about science.
"No," says the student. "I only know what I've heard in church."
"That explains your ignorance about what science is, young man," says the professor. "Empirical knowledge of something does not always entail direct observation. We can observe the effects of something and know that it must exist. Electrons have not been observed, but they can create an observable trail that can be observed, so we can know they exist."
"Oh," said the Christian.
"No one has observed my heart, but we can hear it beating. We also know from empirical knowledge of people that no one can live without a heart, real or manufactured, or at least not without being also hooked up to some medical equipment. So we can know that I have a heart even though we have not seen it."
"Oh, I see. That makes sense," said the Christian student.
"Similarly, we can know that I have a brain. I wouldn't be able to talk, walk, and so on unless I had one, would I?" said the professor.
"I guess not."
"In fact, if I had no brain I couldn't do anything at all. Except maybe become a televangelist!"
The class broke up with laughter. Even the Christian laughed.
"Evolution is known to be true because of evidence," continued the professor. "It is the best explanation for the fossil record. Even prominent creationists admit that the transition from reptiles to mammals is well documented in the fossil record. A creationist debate panel, including Michael Behe and Philip Johnson, conceded this on a televised debate on PBS. It was on Buckley's "Firing Line" show. Did you see it?"
The Christian student cleared his throat and said in a low voice, "My mom won't let me watch educational TV. She thinks it will weaken my faith."
The professor shook his head sadly. "Knowledge does have a way of doing that," he said. "But in any case, evolution is also the best explanation for phenomena that have been observed."
The Christian student sputters, "You--you mean we HAVE seen it?"
"Of course. Evolution has occured within recent times, and it continues to occur. Birds and insects not native to Hawaii were introduced just a couple of centuries ago and have evolved to take better advantage of the different flora. So this evolution has taken place within recorded history. Recent history. Did you know that?"
"Uh, no."
"Viruses other diseases evolve to become resistant to medicine. This is not only observed but it is a major problem that science must confront every day. Mosquitos in the tunnels of London's underground have evolved to become separate species because of their isolation from other groups of mosquitos. But enough about evolution. That doesn't have anything to do with our issue, evil, does it?"
"Well..."
"What does it have to do with our issue?" asked the professor.
"Well, if you don't believe in god, then you must believe we came from apes."
The professor laughed. "Evolutionists don't believe that people came from apes or even monkeys. They believe that humans and apes had a common ancestor."
"Wow!" said the Christian. "That's not what they told me at church."
"I'm sure. They can't refute evolution so they have to spread misinformation about it. But don't you know that many Christians believe that god made humans by evolution?"
"I didn't know that."
"In fact, of the four people who debated the evolution side on PBS, on William F. Buckley's 'Firing Line,' which I just mentioned, two of them were theists. One of them is a reverend, in fact."
"Really?"
"Really. Many denominations of Christianity embrace evolution. Catholicism, the largest denomination of Christianity, is compatible with evolution. So evolution is not relevant here, is it?"
"I guess not."
"Even if it were true that you have to be an atheist to believe evolution, which is not the case, and even if it were the case that evolution was unsupported by evidence, which is also not the case, this would not explain evil at all, would it. It is irrelevant."
"I see that now," said the Christian. "I don't even know why I brought it up. I guess I thought it was an example of how you believe something without evidence."
"Well," said the professor. "As you can see, it is not. There is plenty of evidence for evolution. And even if there were no evidence, this has no bearing on the issue of evil. As we proceed through the philosophy course, you will see how to use your reasoning ability to separate important issues from irrelevant ones."
"I'm guess learning already," said the student, looking at the floor.
"But back to the problem of evil," said the professor. "You stated that evil is the absence of good. How does that solve the problem of evil?"
The student said lifelessly: "If evil is the absence of good, then god did not create evil." It was evident that this was something the student had learned by rote and had often repeated.
The professor shrugged his shoulders. "Okay, let's suppose for the moment that this is true. This still does not explain evil. If a tidal wave wipes out a whole town, and 100,000 people die, is that evil?"
"There is the absence of good," said the student.
"But so what? The problem is why god did not prevent the disaster. If god is all-powerful he can prevent it, and if he is all-knowing he knows that it is about to happen. So whether he created the tidal wave is not relevant. What we want to know is why he did not do anything to stop it."
The student looked confused. "But why should he prevent it? It's not his fault."
"If a human being had the power to prevent a tidal wave wiping out a town, and this person intentionally failed to stop it, we would not say that the person is good. Even if the person said, 'It's not my fault,' we would be appalled that someone could stand by and do nothing as thousands die. So if god does not prevent natural disasters, and he is able to do so, we should not say that god is good by the same reasoning. In fact, we would probably say that god is evil."
The Christian student thought for a moment. "I guess I'd have to agree."
"So redefining evil as the absence of good does nothing to solve the problem of evil," said the professor. "At best it shows that god did not create it, but this does not explain why god does not prevent it."
The Christian student shook a finger at the professor. "But that's according to our human standards. What if god has a higher morality? We can't judge him by our standards."
The professor laughed. "Then you just lost your case. If you admit that god does not fit our definition of good, then we should not call him good. Case closed."
"I don't understand," said the student, wrinkling his brow.
"If I go outside and see a vehicle with four tires, a metal body, a steering wheel, a motor and so on, and it fits the definition of a car, is it a car?" "Of course it is," said the Christian student. "That's what a car is."
"But what if someone says that on some other definition it could be considered an airplane. Does that mean it's not a car?"
"No," said the student. "It still fits the definition of a car. That's what we mean by saying that it's a car. It doesn't fit the definition of an airplane, so we shouldn't call it that."
"Exactly," said the professor. "If it fits the definition, then that's what it is. If god fits the definition of good, then he is good. If he does not, then he is not. If you admit that he does not fit our definition of good, then he is not good. It does no good to say that he could be 'good' in some other definition. If we want to know whether he is good by our definition, you have answered that question. God is not good."
"I don't believe it!" said the Christian student. "A few minutes ago I would have laughed at the suggestion that god is not good, but now I actually agree. God doesn't fit the definition of good, so he's not good."
"There you go," said the professor.
"But wait a minute," said the student. "God could still be good in some other definition even if we don't call him good. Despite what we think, god could still have his own morality that says he's good. Even if we couldn't call him good, that doesn't mean that he isn't good on some definition. He could have his own definition anyway."
"Oh, you would not want to push the view that god might be good in some other definition," said the professor.
"Why not?" "Well, if he has definitions of things that are radically different from our own, he might have a different definition of lots of other things. He might have his own definitions of such things as eternal reward, or eternal life. Your supposed eternal life in heaven might just be a year, or it could be a thousand years of torture. God could just say he has a definition of reward that includes excruciating torture as part of the definition."
"That's right!" said the Christian, jumping up. His eyes were wide open. "If god can redefine any word, then anything goes. God could send all believers to what we call hell and say that it is heaven. He could give us ten days in heaven and say that that's his definition of eternity!"
"Now you're thinking!" said the professor, pointing a finger at the student. "This is what a philosophy class is supposed to do for students."
The Christian student continued. "God could promise us eternal life and then not give it to us and say that's his definition of keeping a promise!"
"Yes, yes," said the professor.
"I can't believe I used to fall for this Christianity stuff. It's so indefensible," said the student, shaking his head. "Just a few moment's thought and all the arguments that my church gave me in Sunday school just collapse."
"So it would seem," said the professor.
"I'm going to go to my church tonight and give the pastor a piece of my mind. They never tell me about important stuff like this. And they sure didn't tell me the truth about evolution!"
The student, who stood up as a Christian, now sat down as an atheist. And he started using his brain--because that's what it's for. The other students in the class sat there, stunned, for a few moments. They knew they had witnessed the changing of a person's life, the redirection of a young mind from falsehood and religious dogma to the honest pursuit of truth.
The students looked at each other and then began applauding. This soon gave way to cheering. The professor took a bow, laughing. When the students calmed down he continued his lecture, and class attendance was high for the rest of the semester.

 

[Spokenpassage]

Source: The UK's Leading Atheist Page

Font is too close, makes it hard to read. I'm guessing this is the atheist end version of the story I told?

 

[deepthought]

sorry, im on a bus and formatting is a pain on a smartphone

 

[deepthought]

sorry, im on a bus and formatting is a pain on a smartphone

The class is in chaos. The Christian sits... Because that is what a chair is for.


The professor, amused at the student's antics, asks the student whether he's ever read anything about science.


"No," says the student. "I only know what I've heard in church."


"That explains your ignorance about what science is, young man," says the professor. "Empirical knowledge of something does not always entail direct observation. We can observe the effects of something and know that it must exist. Electrons have not been observed, but they can create an observable trail that can be observed, so we can know they exist."


"Oh," said the Christian.


"No one has observed my heart, but we can hear it beating. We also know from empirical knowledge of people that no one can live without a heart, real or manufactured, or at least not without being also hooked up to some medical equipment. So we can know that I have a heart even though we have not seen it."


"Oh, I see. That makes sense," said the Christian student.


"Similarly, we can know that I have a brain. I wouldn't be able to talk, walk, and so on unless I had one, would I?" said the professor.


"I guess not."


"In fact, if I had no brain I couldn't do anything at all. Except maybe become a televangelist!"


The class broke up with laughter. Even the Christian laughed.


"Evolution is known to be true because of evidence," continued the professor. "It is the best explanation for the fossil record. Even prominent creationists admit that the transition from reptiles to mammals is well documented in the fossil record. A creationist debate panel, including Michael Behe and Philip Johnson, conceded this on a televised debate on PBS. It was on Buckley's "Firing Line" show. Did you see it?"


The Christian student cleared his throat and said in a low voice, "My mom won't let me watch educational TV. She thinks it will weaken my faith."


The professor shook his head sadly. "Knowledge does have a way of doing that," he said. "But in any case, evolution is also the best explanation for phenomena that have been observed."


The Christian student sputters, "You--you mean we HAVE seen it?"


"Of course. Evolution has occured within recent times, and it continues to occur. Birds and insects not native to Hawaii were introduced just a couple of centuries ago and have evolved to take better advantage of the different flora. So this evolution has taken place within recorded history. Recent history. Did you know that?"


"Uh, no."


"Viruses other diseases evolve to become resistant to medicine. This is not only observed but it is a major problem that science must confront every day. Mosquitos in the tunnels of London's underground have evolved to become separate species because of their isolation from other groups of mosquitos. But enough about evolution. That doesn't have anything to do with our issue, evil, does it?"


"Well..."


"What does it have to do with our issue?" asked the professor.


"Well, if you don't believe in god, then you must believe we came from apes."


The professor laughed. "Evolutionists don't believe that people came from apes or even monkeys. They believe that humans and apes had a common ancestor."


"Wow!" said the Christian. "That's not what they told me at church."


"I'm sure. They can't refute evolution so they have to spread misinformation about it. But don't you know that many Christians believe that god made humans by evolution?"


"I didn't know that."


"In fact, of the four people who debated the evolution side on PBS, on William F. Buckley's 'Firing Line,' which I just mentioned, two of them were theists. One of them is a reverend, in fact."


"Really?"


"Really. Many denominations of Christianity embrace evolution. Catholicism, the largest denomination of Christianity, is compatible with evolution. So evolution is not relevant here, is it?"


"I guess not."


"Even if it were true that you have to be an atheist to believe evolution, which is not the case, and even if it were the case that evolution was unsupported by evidence, which is also not the case, this would not explain evil at all, would it. It is irrelevant."


"I see that now," said the Christian. "I don't even know why I brought it up. I guess I thought it was an example of how you believe something without evidence."


"Well," said the professor. "As you can see, it is not. There is plenty of evidence for evolution. And even if there were no evidence, this has no bearing on the issue of evil. As we proceed through the philosophy course, you will see how to use your reasoning ability to separate important issues from irrelevant ones."


"I'm guess learning already," said the student, looking at the floor.


"But back to the problem of evil," said the professor. "You stated that evil is the absence of good. How does that solve the problem of evil?"


The student said lifelessly: "If evil is the absence of good, then god did not create evil." It was evident that this was something the student had learned by rote and had often repeated.


The professor shrugged his shoulders. "Okay, let's suppose for the moment that this is true. This still does not explain evil. If a tidal wave wipes out a whole town, and 100,000 people die, is that evil?"


"There is the absence of good," said the student.


"But so what? The problem is why god did not prevent the disaster. If god is all-powerful he can prevent it, and if he is all-knowing he knows that it is about to happen. So whether he created the tidal wave is not relevant. What we want to know is why he did not do anything to stop it."


The student looked confused. "But why should he prevent it? It's not his fault."


"If a human being had the power to prevent a tidal wave wiping out a town, and this person intentionally failed to stop it, we would not say that the person is good. Even if the person said, 'It's not my fault,' we would be appalled that someone could stand by and do nothing as thousands die. So if god does not prevent natural disasters, and he is able to do so, we should not say that god is good by the same reasoning. In fact, we would probably say that god is evil."


The Christian student thought for a moment. "I guess I'd have to agree."


"So redefining evil as the absence of good does nothing to solve the problem of evil," said the professor. "At best it shows that god did not create it, but this does not explain why god does not prevent it."


The Christian student shook a finger at the professor. "But that's according to our human standards. What if god has a higher morality? We can't judge him by our standards."


The professor laughed. "Then you just lost your case. If you admit that god does not fit our definition of good, then we should not call him good. Case closed."


"I don't understand," said the student, wrinkling his brow.


"If I go outside and see a vehicle with four tires, a metal body, a steering wheel, a motor and so on, and it fits the definition of a car, is it a car?" ]


"Of course it is," said the Christian student. "That's what a car is."


"But what if someone says that on some other definition it could be considered an airplane. Does that mean it's not a car?"


"No," said the student. "It still fits the definition of a car. That's what we mean by saying that it's a car. It doesn't fit the definition of an airplane, so we shouldn't call it that."


"Exactly," said the professor. "If it fits the definition, then that's what it is. If god fits the definition of good, then he is good. If he does not, then he is not. If you admit that he does not fit our definition of good, then he is not good. It does no good to say that he could be 'good' in some other definition. If we want to know whether he is good by our definition, you have answered that question. God is not good."


"I don't believe it!" said the Christian student. "A few minutes ago I would have laughed at the suggestion that god is not good, but now I actually agree. God doesn't fit the definition of good, so he's not good."


"There you go," said the professor.


"But wait a minute," said the student. "God could still be good in some other definition even if we don't call him good. Despite what we think, god could still have his own morality that says he's good. Even if we couldn't call him good, that doesn't mean that he isn't good on some definition. He could have his own definition anyway."


"Oh, you would not want to push the view that god might be good in some other definition," said the professor.


"Why not?" "Well, if he has definitions of things that are radically different from our own, he might have a different definition of lots of other things. He might have his own definitions of such things as eternal reward, or eternal life. Your supposed eternal life in heaven might just be a year, or it could be a thousand years of torture. God could just say he has a definition of reward that includes excruciating torture as part of the definition."


"That's right!" said the Christian, jumping up. His eyes were wide open. "If god can redefine any word, then anything goes. God could send all believers to what we call hell and say that it is heaven. He could give us ten days in heaven and say that that's his definition of eternity!"


"Now you're thinking!" said the professor, pointing a finger at the student. "This is what a philosophy class is supposed to do for students."


The Christian student continued. "God could promise us eternal life and then not give it to us and say that's his definition of keeping a promise!"


"Yes, yes," said the professor.


"I can't believe I used to fall for this Christianity stuff. It's so indefensible," said the student, shaking his head. "Just a few moment's thought and all the arguments that my church gave me in Sunday school just collapse."


"So it would seem," said the professor.


"I'm going to go to my church tonight and give the pastor a piece of my mind. They never tell me about important stuff like this. And they sure didn't tell me the truth about evolution!"


The student, who stood up as a Christian, now sat down as an atheist. And he started using his brain--because that's what it's for. The other students in the class sat there, stunned, for a few moments. They knew they had witnessed the changing of a person's life, the redirection of a young mind from falsehood and religious dogma to the honest pursuit of truth.


The students looked at each other and then began applauding. This soon gave way to cheering. The professor took a bow, laughing. When the students calmed down he continued his lecture, and class attendance was high for the rest of the semester.

 

[IntoTheVoid]

sorry, im on a bus and formatting is a pain on a smartphone

Get an iphone lol

 

[Simona25]

"Now you're thinking!" said the professor, pointing a finger at the student. "This is what a philosophy class is supposed to do for students."

A philosophy professor with a prescholar level of understanding... not really funny...

"The students looked at each other and then began applauding. This soon gave way to cheering. The professor took a bow, laughing. When the students calmed down he continued his lecture, and class attendance was high for the rest of the semester.

...but this was funny!

 

[deepthought]

A philosophy professor with a prescholar level of understanding... not really funny...



...but this was funny!

Irony not your strong point I take it?

As a lecturer myself I can assure you that I have a similar ethos to this man. Not afraid to debate, to be proved wrong should the opportunity arise. The still waters hold no life and I as an educator, am always learning as much as my students.

 

[Cycel]

Why is natural selection, a principle recognized by creationists, taught as ‘evolution’, as if it explains the origin of the diversity of life? By definition it is a selective process (selecting from already existing information), so is not a creative process. It might explain the survival of the fittest (why certain genes benefit creatures more in certain environments), but not the arrival of the fittest (where the genes and creatures came from in the first place). The death of individuals not adapted to an environment and the survival of those that are suited does not explain the origin of the traits that make an organism adapted to an environment. E.g., how do minor back-and-forth variations in finch beaks explain the origin of beaks or finches? How does natural selection explain goo-to-you evolution?

Mustaphadrink, how many of these words did you cut and paste? You have lifted many, if not all, of these words from a website called Creation Ministries. I was going to respond when I realized I would not be debating with you, but with some unknown individual. My question is do you understand the questions that are being asked here? I am not sure from the way things have be phrased whether the questioner understands evolution. Would you mind rephrasing in your own words?

 

[78jon]

An athiest told me that they do not believe in a "higher power", meaning a god or diety. There is a difference though in believeing IN something and believing something, then denying the existance of something.

 

[Fingydingy]

I am an atheist and I can assure everyone that there is such a thing as me.