I Don't Believe There is a God

[Charlamane]

Enjoy this convo xD

Professor is the scientific athiest... student is unkowned till the end {but christian}

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 : Sure.

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.

P.S.

I believe you have enjoyed the conversation. And if so, you’ll probably want your friends / colleagues to enjoy the same, won’t you?

Forward this to increase their knowledge … or FAITH.

By the way, that student was EINSTEIN.

Magnificent.

 

[TosinAsLeader]

Evidence? There is no evidence, scientific or otherwise, to make any sort of claim when it comes to the origin of life. Science has been striving to prove their claim that all life came from some original single cell organism since they came up with that theory. Hey! So where's the evidence for that theory? They speculate their brains out but can prove nothing in that regard. You go searching down that rabbit trail and you'll never find the end of it. To find truth, you'll simply have to access a higher plane, search out a Higher Intelligence that actually does know. When you say you don't believe in Him, because there's no evidence of His existence, well? There you are again! Absolutely nowhere, sitting there with those scientists speculating your brains out for lack of evidence of which you will never find until you access that higher plane.

Woah woah woah,: RE-QUOTE:

Evidence? There is no evidence, scientific or otherwise, to make any sort of claim when it comes to the origin of life.

If that is so than are scientific evidence on G-d fails also.

 

[DannyC]

Enjoy this convo xD

Professor is the scientific athiest... student is unkowned till the end {but christian}

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 : Sure.

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.

P.S.

I believe you have enjoyed the conversation. And if so, you’ll probably want your friends / colleagues to enjoy the same, won’t you?

Forward this to increase their knowledge … or FAITH.

By the way, that student was EINSTEIN.

Well considering Einstein was not an actual Christian and used the word God metaphorically to summerise the unknown elements which govern the world, this is merely a fable erected by theists. I have problems with this story which I will deal with . Firstly, versions of this story are all over the internet, some with a professor and student, some with a teacher and a pupil, they throw this story around and there is little to no evidence to support Einstein actually said it.

I just want to deal with this duality, now firstly the 'premise' is not philosophical nor is it scientific, I have yet to see it anyway apart from this. Now 'cold' is a subjective term we use. Heat is the transfer of energy from one object to another, i.e From 'hot' to 'cold' I use those terms loosely.

That is fine though I don't mind it when it is referring to temperature gradients. It is when you start to apply it to biological effects. Let us take disease for example, let us look at cancer, is cancer the absence of health? or the absence of good? No in fact it is the rapid mitosis of cells in a body. In purely literal terms it is adding 'bad' to 'good'. But how could that happen in reference to loss of good? It is adding more to the substance and that addition affects existing cells and creating new ones.

The idea that absence can be applied into every area two describe polar opposites is an uneducated premise.

do you teach your students that they evolved from a monkey?

It appears Einstein had no knowledge of the theory of evolution? Well actually Einstein was a supporter of the Theory and had invested huge amounts of time into the study. No one who is educated in the theory would suggest that we 'evolved from monkeys'.

The brain comment is almost laughable, I doubt I need to explain and provide scientific evidence through the method to show you we have no reason to believe we have a brain?

 

[NateDaGrimes]

How can you believe their sources? besides They don't know as much about God because of their arrogance... ignorance.. and bigotry and they want another belief so they can feel that they are independent.

What makes you think you can Disprove God if you can't even Disprove yourself and them?
Can you disprove the events that was told in the bible? like moses and the jordan river? Noahs ark?
Sodom&Gomorrah?

go for it.. i dare you
All your sources are much more as lies they rather feed the public.

Go run to the end of the highway and you will come back with nothing useful

 

[DannyC]

How can you believe their sources? besides They don't know as much about God because of their arrogance... ignorance.. and bigotry and they want another belief so they can feel that they are independent.

What makes you think you can Disprove God if you can't even Disprove yourself and them?
Can you disprove the events that was told in the bible? like moses and the jordan river? Noahs ark?
Sodom&Gomorrah?

go for it.. i dare you
All your sources are much more as lies they rather feed the public.

Go run to the end of the highway and you will come back with nothing useful

What sources are you commenting on exactly? I looked on multiple Christian sites which all portray different versions of this story you copied and pasted, if you are implying that the Christian sites shouldn't be trusted, then I agree. I also know Einstein couldn't have written or said this for a few reasons. Who would have copied and written this entire extract in real time? Also Einstein's belief regarding God is clearly stated in his letters to Beatrice Frohlich, in which I quote directly from Einstein's own collection of letters 'The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses '.

I do not know who you are talking when you say these people display ' arrogance... ignorance.. and bigotry '.

I never attempted to disprove 'myself or them'.

I don't think you want me to disprove any of the claims you made because you then say straight after that, ' All your sources are much more as lies they rather feed the public. '.

 

[TosinAsLeader]

How can you believe their sources? besides They don't know as much about God because of their arrogance... ignorance.. and bigotry and they want another belief so they can feel that they are independent.

What makes you think you can Disprove God if you can't even Disprove yourself and them?
Can you disprove the events that was told in the bible? like moses and the jordan river? Noahs ark?
Sodom&Gomorrah?

go for it.. i dare you
All your sources are much more as lies they rather feed the public.

Go run to the end of the highway and you will come back with nothing useful

Please, do yourself a favor and rethink what you just wrote. He is not making any other this up.

Einstein was a non-observant Jew. He then later became an agnostic. He also did help in the evolution theory.
Albert Einstein - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


DannyC didn't try to disprove or say there is no G-d. So the rest of what you said makes you look really bad. Sorry bad reps for you.

 

[NateDaGrimes]

Please, do yourself a favor and rethink what you just wrote. He is not making any other this up.

Einstein was a non-observant Jew. He then later became an agnostic. He also did help in the evolution theory.
Albert Einstein - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia




DannyC didn't try to disprove or say there is no G-d. So the rest of what you said makes you look really bad. Sorry bad reps for you.

Cool story bro... -3


good luck

 

[Charlamane]

Well considering Einstein was not an actual Christian and used the word God metaphorically to summerise the unknown elements which govern the world, this is merely a fable erected by theists. I have problems with this story which I will deal with . Firstly, versions of this story are all over the internet, some with a professor and student, some with a teacher and a pupil, they throw this story around and there is little to no evidence to support Einstein actually said it.

I just want to deal with this duality, now firstly the 'premise' is not philosophical nor is it scientific, I have yet to see it anyway apart from this. Now 'cold' is a subjective term we use. Heat is the transfer of energy from one object to another, i.e From 'hot' to 'cold' I use those terms loosely.

That is fine though I don't mind it when it is referring to temperature gradients. It is when you start to apply it to biological effects. Let us take disease for example, let us look at cancer, is cancer the absence of health? or the absence of good? No in fact it is the rapid mitosis of cells in a body. In purely literal terms it is adding 'bad' to 'good'. But how could that happen in reference to loss of good? It is adding more to the substance and that addition affects existing cells and creating new ones.

The idea that absence can be applied into every area two describe polar opposites is an uneducated premise.

do you teach your students that they evolved from a monkey?

It appears Einstein had no knowledge of the theory of evolution? Well actually Einstein was a supporter of the Theory and had invested huge amounts of time into the study. No one who is educated in the theory would suggest that we 'evolved from monkeys'.

The brain comment is almost laughable, I doubt I need to explain and provide scientific evidence through the method to show you we have no reason to believe we have a brain?

Because Einstein wasn't a Christian didn't mean he didn't believe in God nor does it make what was presented here something created by theists, nor does it made the points made irrelevant. I see the usual snobbery generally associated with the Christian world reflected here, which I hate to see, since I am a Christian. Besides, whoever wrote this piece made excellent points regardless of where it came from, who wrote it, or whether Einstein was really the student. Disease could well be looked at as a lack of health, especially since health is what a body naturally strives for. If heat transfers from one point to another, well then, it left the first point to go to the second. Right? Certainly, there's less heat left at the point where the heat transferred from? In the same way, darkness could well be considered a total lack of light, since darkness is not a ''thing'', and you throw a light on in a dark room and darkness dissipates. Additionally, the person representing Einstein did not suggest he personally knew nothing about the theory of evolution. He asked the professor if he did. Also, when I read it, I personally did not even care who wrote it; again, I thought the points made were excellent, and I imagine I've taken as many college science classes you have unless you're also some young Einstein (at your age of 19), and my learning tells me what I read here made good sense. But again, what bothers me most is how you immediately assert with apparent disdain that Einstein was not a Christian; and therefore, could not have believed in God; and hence, the piece must to be written by some theist with an agenda. You made TWO logical fallacies right there, though you hardly stopped at that point. Oh yes! To say that the student may not have been Einstein really had nothing to do with the points made either! Yet another logical fallacy! Or my goodness, where shall I stop?

One of my favorite sayings is this: It's only what you learn after you think you know everything that really counts.

 

[Elizabeth619]

Yet science explains a lot of phenomenal occurrences. Science is the study of G-d's creations basically. I believe He used science to create.

I don't see how it can not touch spirituality? That is more of an opinion. Degrees and titles such as psychology uses science to explain human behavior which is traced down to the spirit.

Psychology is the study of the human mind. Not the soul.

 

[Elizabeth619]

I think the two unbelievers in this thread need to understand that Christians are not the only people in the world who believe in God or accept the Creation as fact. Whether someone is Christian, Jew, Muslim or so on they all believe that the earth was created with a supernatural influence.

Furthermore, looking toward wikipedia for factual information is pretty laughable in itself considering they do admit to having unverified, and inconsistent information. Not all of it is considered false, but the information on that website is likely to change at any time.

Also, what I find to be pretty amusing is the argument of whether the article Nate posted was about Einstein or not. Whether Einstein or some insignificant stranger was the character in the story it still does not change the context of it. I you want to argue the story then discuss the content. Danny touched on it some, but the subject went right back to Einstein. Again, Einstein as the student is no more important than if it were some no body.

 

[Elizabeth619]

That is fine though I don't mind it when it is referring to temperature gradients. It is when you start to apply it to biological effects. Let us take disease for example, let us look at cancer, is cancer the absence of health? or the absence of good? No in fact it is the rapid mitosis of cells in a body. In purely literal terms it is adding 'bad' to 'good'. But how could that happen in reference to loss of good? It is adding more to the substance and that addition affects existing cells and creating new ones.

The idea that absence can be applied into every area two describe polar opposites is an uneducated premise.

So you're saying that cancer cells, and normal cells are not polar opposites?
Cancer cells do lack certain things normal cells have. That would be considered an absence. For one, normal cells mature. Cancer cells do not. They keep multiplying and spreading. They do start out as normal cells, but mutation happens which causes them to react opposite of what a normal cell would.
Normal cells die, cancer cells are actually called "immortal" by scientists.

Some doctors even believe the absence of oxygen respiration in the cells is the reason for cancer, but scientists are learning new things about this disease everyday. This could be proven or disproven at any time.

 

[lost1972]

You need to sit down somewhere quiet and honestly ask God to prove himself to your heart

 

[Batman007]

Psychology is the study of the human mind. Not the soul.

Is the soul separate from the mind?

 

[jonrambo]

i found God through science, history and a deep understanding of the world around me. All roads lead to Rome... eventually

 

[jonrambo]

one of the first scientists that discovered quantum mechanics necked himself. We still are only just grasping that God is holding this whole place together and spoke it into existance somehow using light and seporating it from black holes oh no Ive gone crosseyed

 

[DannyC]

Because Einstein wasn't a Christian didn't mean he didn't believe in God nor does it make what was presented here something created by theists, nor does it made the points made irrelevant. I see the usual snobbery generally associated with the Christian world reflected here, which I hate to see, since I am a Christian. Besides, whoever wrote this piece made excellent points regardless of where it came from, who wrote it, or whether Einstein was really the student. Disease could well be looked at as a lack of health, especially since health is what a body naturally strives for. If heat transfers from one point to another, well then, it left the first point to go to the second. Right? Certainly, there's less heat left at the point where the heat transferred from? In the same way, darkness could well be considered a total lack of light, since darkness is not a ''thing'', and you throw a light on in a dark room and darkness dissipates. Additionally, the person representing Einstein did not suggest he personally knew nothing about the theory of evolution. He asked the professor if he did. Also, when I read it, I personally did not even care who wrote it; again, I thought the points made were excellent, and I imagine I've taken as many college science classes you have unless you're also some young Einstein (at your age of 19), and my learning tells me what I read here made good sense. But again, what bothers me most is how you immediately assert with apparent disdain that Einstein was not a Christian; and therefore, could not have believed in God; and hence, the piece must to be written by some theist with an agenda. You made TWO logical fallacies right there, though you hardly stopped at that point. Oh yes! To say that the student may not have been Einstein really had nothing to do with the points made either! Yet another logical fallacy! Or my goodness, where shall I stop?

One of my favorite sayings is this: It's only what you learn after you think you know everything that really counts.

Lets deal with defamation of a character in order to present a biased view of a point. The use of Einstein at the end of this speech is an attempt to give weight to otherwise unimportant information. Now if we look at this as a fabrication which it is, then there is no reason to believe it ever happened. I will deal with the claims made though.

Firstly Einstein may have been a deist or a pantheist, it is irrelevant, the point I made was this is a fabrication of an event, and we know this because Einstein displayed particular disdain for Christianity. So this is simply propaganda to support a view written by someone with an agenda, which I do have an issue with.

Also his attempt to disprove The theory of Evolution does not match up with any characteristics of Einstein, who fully supported the theory not to mention the attempts to disprove the Theory have yet to be successful.

Disease is not the lack of health it is the deterioration of health, if you play semantics you can build any flawed premise you want. Now claiming we 'evolved from monkeys' is a very uneducated view of The theory of Evolution if you want to claim that is accurate, then I would like to see a scientific journal explaining this.

The claim the brain scientifically cannot be proved to exist, is a straw man argument based on poor logic, if I need to explain the method used to evidence provided then I will but I doubt you will argue that.

My point regarding heat was not that I have a problem with this definition at all , I believe I actually said I was fine with this definition in terms of 'heat' and 'cold' because both terms are subjective uses of energy transfer, as we know energy can be divided up into its various potentiality. My point was this cannot be used in the above examples as it is subjectively trying to summerise quantities which cannot be quantified by 'lacking' and deal with different substances.

I think you misread what I wrote.

 

[DannyC]

So you're saying that cancer cells, and normal cells are not polar opposites?
Cancer cells do lack certain things normal cells have. That would be considered an absence. For one, normal cells mature. Cancer cells do not. They keep multiplying and spreading. They do start out as normal cells, but mutation happens which causes them to react opposite of what a normal cell would.
Normal cells die, cancer cells are actually called "immortal" by scientists.



Some doctors even believe the absence of oxygen respiration in the cells is the reason for cancer, but scientists are learning new things about this disease everyday. This could be proven or disproven at any time.

My point is regarding the attempt to use what he describes as a philosophical term called 'duality'. This for one is not a philosophical point at all.The attempt to use this 'duality' to describe ( heat,darkness and health ) is flawed based on the quantities and objects which are being quantified. The simplistic idea of loss of good or lack of good leads to bad, cannot be used to describe health, a point which I believe you just made by detailing a small portion of the process of cancer.

The attempt to use this uneducated system of measuring is a straw man argument, where the person attempts to find any area which they can stretch meanings and throw in the word loss. I am in no position to start describing biological process' as lack of good because that would be a claim of stupendous knowledge. I do not understand your meaning of mature?, nor are you trying to describe maligent.

My main issue with lack of good, is in specific biological processes like the production MIC-A and MIC-B to detect and combat the cancerous cells, this is where the simplistic idea comes into trouble, has the quantity of good been increased by the creation of say more good or neutral cells even?

Is the existing bad now minoritised by new good being created?

but we just used this principle with references to light and dark and heat and cold, but energy cannot be created or destroyed but energy was the quantity we were just using as a first premise . So now we have good being created but separate to the previous examples given. I hope you see that my problem was the premise of duality and the idea everything can be summerised into that.

 

[TosinAsLeader]

I think the two unbelievers in this thread need to understand that Christians are not the only people in the world who believe in God or accept the Creation as fact. Whether someone is Christian, Jew, Muslim or so on they all believe that the earth was created with a supernatural influence.

Doesn't mean if someone believes in G-d or a god means there a Christian. Also, who said the "two unbelievers," don't understand this? How do you know (who ever your referring to) isn't a believer?

Furthermore, looking toward wikipedia for factual information is pretty laughable in itself considering they do admit to having unverified, and inconsistent information. Not all of it is considered false, but the information on that website is likely to change at any time.

Doesn't change the fact that Einstein wasn't a christian. Anyone who actual read his theories and discoveries would know that. I would be glad to quote his work next time if that is anymore satisfying?

Also, what I find to be pretty amusing is the argument of whether the article Nate posted was about Einstein or not. Whether Einstein or some insignificant stranger was the character in the story it still does not change the context of it. I you want to argue the story then discuss the content. Danny touched on it some, but the subject went rightback to Einstein. Again, Einstein as the student is no more important than if it were some no body.

It is actually. It gives the impression to actual check this source and see what was really said. Sure all the scientific facts were correct to a point, but saying Einstein did this doesn't look good for the author or the sharer.

 

[hlambach]

Wow, I read the first replies to this, and I was disgusted... Strong language, offensive, immature, and plain mean... This is why most people think all Christians are idiots who stuff our "religion" up their noses... And that is pretty much exactly what I saw. The exact meaning of "Christian" is "little Christ," and I'm 100% sure that that is not how Christ would respond to this. If you are trying to evangelize someone, you act in kindness and wait for them to ask where your joy and peace comes from, and this is not what is happening, but instead the exact opposite... Be examples...

 

[Elizabeth619]

Lets deal with defamation of a character in order to present a biased view of a point. The use of Einstein at the end of this speech is an attempt to give weight to otherwise unimportant information. Now if we look at this as a fabrication which it is, then there is no reason to believe it ever happened. I will deal with the claims made though.

Firstly Einstein may have been a deist or a pantheist, it is irrelevant, the point I made was this is a fabrication of an event, and we know this because Einstein displayed particular disdain for Christianity. So this is simply propaganda to support a view written by someone with an agenda, which I do have an issue with.

Also his attempt to disprove The theory of Evolution does not match up with any characteristics of Einstein, who fully supported the theory not to mention the attempts to disprove the Theory have yet to be successful.

Disease is not the lack of health it is the deterioration of health, if you play semantics you can build any flawed premise you want. Now claiming we 'evolved from monkeys' is a very uneducated view of The theory of Evolution if you want to claim that is accurate, then I would like to see a scientific journal explaining this.

The claim the brain scientifically cannot be proved to exist, is a straw man argument based on poor logic, if I need to explain the method used to evidence provided then I will but I doubt you will argue that.

My point regarding heat was not that I have a problem with this definition at all , I believe I actually said I was fine with this definition in terms of 'heat' and 'cold' because both terms are subjective uses of energy transfer, as we know energy can be divided up into its various potentiality. My point was this cannot be used in the above examples as it is subjectively trying to summerise quantities which cannot be quantified by 'lacking' and deal with different substances.

I think you misread what I wrote.

Defamation of character? HA! You wouldn't succeed in being a lawyer would you?
1. Christians are not the only people who believe in God.
2. It would rather hard to prove defamation in court when only a last name was mentioned. The article only said Einstein. It gives no first name.