Science, Evolution, and Evil

[slim]

Hello, Im new to this google group and google groups in general. I am
currently finishing up college and I will be graduating with an
Associates of Science degree in E-Commerce Web Design in December. I
like metal music, hard rock music, regular rock, worship, and some
orchestral music... (especially star wars themes). I also love God
with all my heart because he loved me first, and still loves me even
though I disobey him every day.

Now, to the meat! lol. The following is a bit of a dramatization of
the debate between Atheism and Christianity. It was given to me by my
pastor and I do not know who the author is. Please feel free to post
your thoughts.
-------------
Science, Evolution, and Evil
"Let me explain the problem science has with Jesus Christ." The
atheist professor of philosophy pauses before his class and then asks
one of his new students to stand.

"You're a Christian aren't you son?"

"Yes sir", the student says.

"So you believe in God?"

"Absolutely."

"Is God all-powerful? Can God do anything?"

"Yes."

"Are you good or evil?"

"The Bible says I'm evil."

The professor grins knowingly. "Aha! The Bible!" He considers for a
moment.

"Here's one for you. Let's say there's a sick person over here and you
can cure him. You can do it. Would you help him? Would you try?"

"Yes sir, I would."

"So you're good...!"

"I wouldn't say that."

"But why not say that? You'd help a sick and maimed person if you
could. Most of us would if we could. But God doesn't."

the student does not answer, so the professor continues. "He doesn't,
does he? My brother was a Christian who died of cancer, even though he
prayed to Jesus to heal him how is this Jesus good? Hmmm? Can you
answer that one?"

The student remains silent.

"No, you can't, can you? the professor says. He takes a sip of water
from a glass on his desk to give the student time to relax.

"Let's start again, young fella. Is God good?"

"Yes", the student says.

"Is Satan good?"

The student doesn't hesitate on this one. "No."

"Then where does Satan come from?"

"From... God..." Said the student.

"Thats right. God made Satan, didn't he? Tell me son. Is there evil in
this world?"

"Yes sir."

"Evil is 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. And since evil exists, and
according to the principle that our works define who we are, then God
is evil."

Without allowing the student to answer, the professor continues: "Is
there sickness? Immorality? Hatred? Ugliness? All these terrible
things, do the exist in this world?"

"Yes." said the student.

"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 on to another student. "Do you believe in
Jesus Christ son?"

The student's voice is confident. "Yes, professor I do."

The old man stops pacing. "Science says you have five senses you use
to identify and observe the world around you. Have you ever seen
Jesus?"

"No sir. I've never seen Him."

"Then tell us if you've ever heard your Jesus?"

"No, sir, I have not."

"Have you ever actually 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, demonstrateable
protocol, science says your God doesn't exist. What do you say to that
son?"

"Nothing," the student replies. "I only have my faith."

"Yes faith," the professor repeats. "And that is the problem science
has with God. There is no evidence, only faith."

The student stands quietly for a moment before asking a question of
his own. "Professor, is there such thing as heat?"

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

"And is there such a thing as cold?"

"Yes son, there's cold too."

"No sir, there isn't."

The professor turns to face the student, obviously interested. The
room suddenly becomes very quiet. the student begins to explain.

"You can have lots of heat, even more heat, super-heat, mega-heat,
unlimited heat, white heat, a little heat or no heat, but we don't
have anything called 'cold'. We can hit up to 458 degrees below zero,
which is no heat, but we can't go any further after that. there is no
such thing as cold; otherwise we would be able to go colder than the
lowest -458 degrees. Every body or object is susceptible to study when
it has or transmits energy. Absolute zero (-458 F) is the total
absence of heat. You see, 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, 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?"

"Your wrong again sir. Darkness is not something; it is the absence of
something. You can have low light, normal light, bright light,
flashing light, but if you have no light constantly you have nothing
and it's called darkness, isn't it? That's the meaning we use to
define the word. In reality, darkness isn't. If it were, you would be
able to make darkness darker, wouldn't you?"

The professor begins to smile at the student in front of him. "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 an the premise of duality," the student explains.
"You argue that 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 been seen, much less
fully understood. 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.

"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, felt the professor's brain, touched or smelled the
professor's brain? No one appears to have done so. So, according to
the established rules of empirical, stable, demonstrateable science,
you have no brain. With all due respect sir, if science says you have
no brain, how can we trust your lectures?

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 it on faith."

"Now you accept that there is faith, and, in fact, faith exists with
life." the student continues. "Now sir, is there such as 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
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."

All of a sudden the professor exclaimed, "I got it! If you were to
open my head and look inside, you'd see that i have a brain."

"With all due respect sir," the student replied respectfully. "If you
opened the Bible and read inside, you'd see that there's a God."

The professor sat down.

[sentientbiped]

Hey, Slim -

Is there such a thing as silence?

"Heck no, silence is only the absence of sound"

Is there such a thing as poverty?

"Heck no, poverty is only the absence of wealth!"

Any reasonably intelligent eight-year-old should be able to play this
game of semantics....

[rappoccio]

On Nov 29, 10:51 pm, slim <slim...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hello, Im new to this google group and google groups in general. I am
> currently finishing up college and I will be graduating with an
> Associates of Science degree in E-Commerce Web Design in December.

Welcome. I've finished college, finished graduate school, and am in a
postdoctoral fellowship after my PhD in particle physics, on track to
become an actual professor (not one made of straw like you post in
your story).

> I
> like metal music, hard rock music, regular rock, worship, and some
> orchestral music... (especially star wars themes).
> I also love God
> with all my heart because he loved me first, and still loves me even
> though I disobey him every day.
>
> Now, to the meat! lol. The following is a bit of a dramatization of
> the debate between Atheism and Christianity.

Or, in fact, it's a very asinine story chock-full of logical fallacies
that doesn't demonstrate anything but your lack of input. But that's
okay, we'll have a look.

> It was given to me by my
> pastor and I do not know who the author is. Please feel free to post
> your thoughts.

You post some thoughts first.

I'm snipping the wet-dream, usually posted about "atheist" professors
by people who have never actually met one so instead posit a straw
man, simply demonstrating this is one big semantic game since evil is
not, in fact, a measurable quantity and therefore is not the "lack" of
anything whatsoever.

But I'm going to hijack your thread and post something more
interesting:

http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/hell.htm

[quote]
The temperature of heaven can be rather accurately computed. Our
authority is the Bible, Isaiah 30:26 reads, Moreover, the light of
the moon shall be as the light of the sun and the light of the sun
shall be sevenfold as the light of seven days. Thus, heaven receives
from the moon as much radiation as the earth does from the sun, and in
addition seven times seven (forty nine) times as much as the earth
does from the sun, or fifty times in all. The light we receive from
the moon is one ten-thousandth of the light we receive from the sun,
so we can ignore that. With these data we can compute the temperature
of heaven: The radiation falling on heaven will heat it to the point
where the heat lost by radiation is just equal to the heat received by
radiation. In other words, heaven loses fifty times as much heat as
the earth by radiation. Using the Stefan-Boltzmann fourth power law
for radiation

(H/E)4 = 50

where E is the absolute temperature of the earth, 300°K (273+27). This
gives H the absolute temperature of heaven, as 798° absolute (525°C).

The exact temperature of hell cannot be computed but it must be less
than 444.6°C, the temperature at which brimstone or sulfur changes
from a liquid to a gas. Revelations 21:8: But the fearful and
unbelieving... shall have their part in the lake which burneth with
fire and brimstone." A lake of molten brimstone [sulfur] means that
its temperature must be at or below the boiling point, which is
444.6°C. (Above that point, it would be a vapor, not a lake.)

We have then, temperature of heaven, 525°C (977°F). Temperature of
hell, less than 445°F). Therefore heaven is hotter than hell.
[/quote]

[Simpleton]

It is rather contrived, and shows little thought on the part of your
pastor. I may be missing the punchline though, perhaps you can ask
your pastor to provide it.

[Dave]

On Nov 29, 8:51 pm, slim <slim...@gmail.com> wrote:

> ....The following is a bit of a dramatization of

> the debate between Atheism and Christianity. It was given to me by my
> pastor and I do not know who the author is. Please feel free to post
> your thoughts.

You are a fucking idiot if you believe one word of that giant
strawman. The professor sat down because there is no way to argue
against something so moronic. It's a waste of time.

[slim]

hmm... I do seem to remember saying something about 'dramatization'
but thats ok, I openly invited your comments.

[slim]

rappoccio, being that your on your way to a PhD in particle physics, I
was hoping maybe you could answer my question to a post in the 'Genhis
1 1-12' thread.

[Dave]

On Nov 29, 10:19 pm, slim <slim...@gmail.com> wrote:
> hmm... I do seem to remember saying something about 'dramatization'
> but thats ok, I openly invited your comments.

I was just returning the insult. If you don't like being insulted, you
shouldn't insult others. Your little story from the asinine preacher
was insulting to Atheists. Only a brain damaged half wit would fall
for the sophomoric arguments in that poorly contrived story. I doubt
that a preacher gave that story to you, it's been floating around the
Internet for years. Dunderheads love to post it as if it were brand
new.

Here's a study assignment for you: Go to this website and print it
out.
http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html

Then take that phony story and see how many logical fallacies it
contains.

[bonfly]

Hi Slim,

Ordinarily I'd have thrown a machete at you by now but I'm in a good
mood. I guess you mean well and are trying to be friends and all by
telling us you're into heavy metal. Good for you if you're having a
homosexual relationship with the ghost of some guy who wore a creamy
dress and would entice little kiddies to come spend time with him
(Mark 10:14).

Your story ... what can I say? It is so full of holes and
misrepresentations and the only reason it is interesting is because it
reminds of how stupid christians can be.. What your pastor gave you
is simply christian propaganda against real educaton.

Your pamphlet does not represent the intelligence of real life
professors of secular philosophy. I recommend you bin it straight
away so as not to make yourself appear foolish again in future. Your
pastor might think it was something atheists would find challenging.
Your pastor was wrong.

[Greenpebbles]

Dear slim,
hope you don't take it to heart what the atheists said in reply to the
parable you've quoted here.
let them rain their swords on us. I'm with you.

There are bound to be oppositions when two differing beliefs crashed
into each other. yes, atheists have their beliefs too...i was once a
strong atheist...'once' but will never be one again.

Dear atheists,

Please re-think about testing the Chrisitans' patience cos our
patience is limitless (but we can understand all yours' hatred and
wrath against us) and I hate to c anyone of you dwell in failure by
pitching yourselves against many invulnerable walls. Then again,
thanks for all your oppositions and all your atheist's beliefs.
Without you all, the prophecies in the Bible can't be fulfiled.

Lastly, I'm not being sarcastic here, what do I have to gain by being
nasty anyway?

[positivillusion@googlemail.com]

the whole quotation of the discussion between student and prof could
support every god in every religion, not especially christianity.

[Drafterman]

Heat and light (the absence of which is called cold and dark,
respectively) are not said to be omnipresent (everywhere at once),
they are not said to be omniscient, omnipotent, or omnibenevolent. In
short, they are simply forms of energy that mindlessly obey the laws
of physics.

God *is* said to be everywhere, all knowing, all powerful, all loving
and is not bound by any natural laws. Thus anything that comes from
such a God (such as good) would have the same attributes.

Point being, if God exists, if God is everywhere, if God is good, then
evil (as the absence of good) should not exist.

Evil exists so one of the following must be false: God exists, God is
everywhere, God is good.

I will give you the benefit of choosing which attribute of God you
wish to discard.

[Psycho Dave]

I've seen this same story a dozen times or so, and it does not reflect
any kind of conversation that ever goes on in real life. It's a
completely contrived conversation, and well, is a pretty lame one at
that (no offense to you, since you borrowed it from someone else).

Really, now, most of the anecdotes like that are made up, hypothetical
conversations, used to speak to people who are already believers.

[OldMan]

On Nov 29, 8:51 pm, slim <slim...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hello, Im new to this google group and google groups in general. I am
> currently finishing up college and I will be graduating with an
> Associates of Science degree in E-Commerce Web Design in December. I
> like metal music, hard rock music, regular rock, worship, and some
> orchestral music... (especially star wars themes). I also love God
> with all my heart because he loved me first, and still loves me even
> though I disobey him every day.

Welcome to AvC

> Now, to the meat! lol. The following is a bit of a dramatization of
> the debate between Atheism and Christianity. It was given to me by my
> pastor and I do not know who the author is. Please feel free to post
> your thoughts.

I read it years ago. Seems like it was in a Chick Track. Kind of
funny. But not of much value outside of your church.

[Allan C Cybulskie]

But dialogues ARE an effective rhetorical device to make a point,
which is why they are interesting and useful in such discussions
(right or wrong).

Personally, I think neither side gives their best arguments in that
conversation; if I get time, I may remedy that in some way.

[ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com]

On Nov 30, 6:57 am, Allan C Cybulskie <allan_c_cybuls...@yahoo.ca>
wrote:

> On Nov 30, 9:30 am, Psycho Dave <Priscus.Fo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I've seen this same story a dozen times or so, and it does not reflect
> > any kind of conversation that ever goes on in real life. It's a
> > completely contrived conversation, and well, is a pretty lame one at
> > that (no offense to you, since you borrowed it from someone else).

What might be an example of such a conversation in the Bible - a
conversation that seems completely contrived in order to advance a
Christian position?

> > Really, now, most of the anecdotes like that are made up, hypothetical
> > conversations, used to speak to people who are already believers.
>
> But dialogues ARE an effective rhetorical device to make a point,
> which is why they are interesting and useful in such discussions
> (right or wrong).

Synthetic dialogues would be more effective since opponents built of
straw would be easier to knock down.

[El Guapo]

Greenpebbles,

I enjoyed the holier than thou, thanks for fulfilling prophecy post.

> Please re-think about testing the Chrisitans' patience cos our
> patience is limitless

are you sure you don't mean patients?

> (but we can understand all yours' hatred and wrath against us)

2 Chron. 19:2 "Should you help the wicked and love those who hate the
LORD? Therefore the wrath of the LORD is upon you."

Psalm 139:21-22: "Do not I hate them, O Lord, that hate thee? . . . I
hate them with perfect hatred."

Lev 24:16 "He that blasphemeth the name of the Lord, he shall surely
be put to death, and all the congregation shall certainly stone him."

The prophet Hosea (9:15) quotes God: ". . . for there I hated them:
for the wickedness of their doings I will drive them out of mine
house, I will love them no more."

Witch hunts, crusades, gay bashing, inquisitions, stoning,
intolerance; christian hallmarks over centuries and centuries - but
its the atheists with the hate. A book with a god that forces people
to eat their kids, send bears to maul youths, forces people to eat
dung or orders armies to go in and slaughter women and children; but
its the atheist with wrath issues.

Perhaps the hatred is really of the continued propagation of
ridiculous stories about talking donkeys and talking snakes. Perhaps
it is an atheist wrath at the use of a book of vulgarities and
fallacies to lead political charges or shape culture? The christians
typically babble the love the sinner, hate the sin - though that
hasn't stopped centuries of killing, oppressing and otherwise maiming
the sinner. And lastly, perhaps its the atheist that loves the
dreamer, but hates the illogical dream...

>
> Lastly, I'm not being sarcastic here, what do I have to gain by being
> nasty anyway?
>

Ezekiel 32:5 "I will strew your flesh upon the mountains, and fill the
valleys with your carcass. I will drench the land even to the
mountains with your flowing blood..."

Psalm 137:9 "How blessed will be the one who seizes and dashes your
little ones against the rock."

Perhaps the nastiness is just a remnant of our judeo-christian
surroundings...

[Dave]

On Nov 30, 3:06 am, Greenpebbles <greenpebbles_...@yahoo.com.sg>
wrote:

> Dear slim,
> hope you don't take it to heart what the atheists said in reply to the
> parable you've quoted here.
> let them rain their swords on us. I'm with you.

Isn't that cute, christians love believing they're being persecuted
together.

> There are bound to be oppositions when two differing beliefs crashed
> into each other. yes, atheists have their beliefs too...i was once a
> strong atheist...'once' but will never be one again.

Oh, look, there's that lie again. It's amazing how many christians
trot out that bold faced lie that they were once an Atheist.

> Dear atheists,
>
> Please re-think about testing the Chrisitans' patience cos our
> patience is limitless

So is your arrogance and ignorance.

[Brock Organ]

On Nov 29, 11:51 pm, slim <slim...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hello, Im new to this google group and google groups in general. I am
> currently finishing up college and I will be graduating with an
> Associates of Science degree in E-Commerce Web Design in December.

Hi Slim,

Welcome to the group. The non-believers will presume (as
sentientbiped did below) to object to your dramatization as a "game
of semantics" ... but most of their arguments/objections to
Christianity rely on the same "semantic games" they criticize your
dramatization for.

So your dramatization really makes a rich and profound point, and
exposes most of the non-believer arguments raised on this forum for
the cheap semantic games they are. Nicely done! :)

Regards,

Brock

[sentientbiped]

Excellent post, El Guapo.

Their holy book tells them that WE must be stoned to death.

And we're the agents of hatred.

Classic.

[Delusional?]

I think you need another hobby. That piece of fiction must have taken
you a long time and I lost interest very quickly.

On Nov 29, 11:51 pm, slim <slim...@gmail.com> wrote:

[Delusional?]

Actually there is a clear problem with academic freedom here and the
professor is clearly overstepping boundaries by using the personal
appropriation of belief of the student as a target.

The student should sue.

Same would apply if the professor was telling the class to vote for
Obama because he is a Christian.

It's a stupid scenario written by someone who knows nothing of how
classes operate in Higher Edu. and that alone is telling.

[bonfly]

Greenpebbles,

You announce that you are "with" slim in regard to the validity of his
extended chick tract (first post in thread). At least slim offered
this cute story before he was shown why it was wrongheaded. You are
not assisting slim at all except to encourage his use continued of
weak argument. Some reasons why this 'tract' is only christian
propaganda and why it misrepresents the real world are as follows.

(1) In this tract the secular professor employs notions of 'God' and
'evil' to argue for secular philosophy. (For example, "So who

created evil?" The professor continued, "If God created everything,

then God created evil.") Excuse me, but it is religionists who use
these religious terms to argue for a religious position. You'd be
hard pressed to find secular philosophers employing these terms except
in tea room asides.

(2) The professor in the story says "Tell me ... Do you believe in
Jesus Christ son?" For exactly the same reason as above this is a
wholly false misrepresentation of how a secular professor would
present a position. It is religionists who ask questions like these
of other people, not secular philosophers.

(3) The student is the one chastising the secular professor for his
supposed use of dualism. "You are working an the premise of duality,"
the student explains. What a joke! The greatest proponents of dualism
are those who propagate christian doctrine (eg good/evil; hell/heaven;
saved/unsaved; sinner/saint) which are religious concepts without
gradations.

(4) The last five paragraphs are the worst. Thet are presented so
that uneducated people may feel a real affinity with the student who
is supposedly annihilating the professor's arguments and the professor
is shown as caving in to the point where he gives up, says his
arguments are actually faith based and then sits down dutifully under
the tutelage of the young student. This is the kind of caricature
that Peter_W would die for in his quest to present himself as smarter
than rappoccio. I can see why it would appeal to christian
hillbillies but beyond that this tract is a pathetic and laughable
misrepresentation of secular academia.


On Nov 30, 9:06 pm, Greenpebbles <greenpebbles_...@yahoo.com.sg>
wrote:

> ...
>
> read more >>

[Simpleton]

On Nov 30, 6:57 am, Allan C Cybulskie <allan_c_cybuls...@yahoo.ca>
wrote:

> On Nov 30, 9:30 am, Psycho Dave <Priscus.Fo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I've seen this same story a dozen times or so, and it does not reflect
> > any kind of conversation that ever goes on in real life. It's a
> > completely contrived conversation, and well, is a pretty lame one at
> > that (no offense to you, since you borrowed it from someone else).
>
> > Really, now, most of the anecdotes like that are made up, hypothetical
> > conversations, used to speak to people who are already believers.
>
> But dialogues ARE an effective rhetorical device to make a point,
> which is why they are interesting and useful in such discussions
> (right or wrong).
>

Cool.

Pootie: "Hey Bubba, looks like dialogs ARE an effective rhetorical

device to make a point"

Bubba: "You sure?"
Pootie: "Damn sure! In fact, I'll make one up to illustrate the
point. Here's one between a Christian and a Hindu. The Christian is J
H Christopher, and the Hindu is R K Popatlal. It goes like this:
J H Christopher: 'Hello Popatlal, I am a Christian, Christianity is
the only true montheistic religion, unlike Hinduism'
R K Popatlal: 'But you have three gods, so Christianity is not
monotheistic'
J H Christopher: 'No, one God'
R K Popatlal: 'Name him'
J H Christopher: 'Jesus Christ'
R K Popatlal: 'So who is Yahweh?'
J H Christopher: 'Yahweh is God'
R K Popatlal: 'But you said Jesus Christ was God'
J H Christopher: 'I did, but they are the same'
R K Popatlal: 'If they are the same, why do they have two different
names, why is Jesus called the son of God?'
J H Christopher: 'I meant made of the same substance'
R K Popatlal: 'But two distinct entities, right?'
J H Christopher: 'Yes, three actually, when you include the Holy
Spirit'
R K Popatlal: 'So should we call everyone made of the same substance
the same thing?'
J H Christopher: 'Yes'
R K Popatlal: 'Then I shall call you R K Popatlal'
J H Christopher: <silence>
Bubba: "I get it, according to Christianity, everybody should be
called R K Popatlal, right, Pootie?"
Pootie: "Right Bubb...I mean R K Popatlal"
Bubba: "Good one. HA HA. You got me there Poo...I mean RK Popatlal.
HA HA".

The End.

> Personally, I think neither side gives their best arguments in that
> conversation; if I get time, I may remedy that in some way.

Hopefully with something less contrived, R K Popatlal.

[rappoccio]

The PhD is done, so thanks. I don't usually read posts that are
misspelled.

[rappoccio]

On Nov 30, 5:06 am, Greenpebbles <greenpebbles_...@yahoo.com.sg>
wrote:

> Dear slim,
> hope you don't take it to heart what the atheists said in reply to the
> parable you've quoted here.
> let them rain their swords on us. I'm with you.
>
> There are bound to be oppositions when two differing beliefs crashed
> into each other. yes, atheists have their beliefs too...i was once a
> strong atheist...'once' but will never be one again.
>
> Dear atheists,
>
> Please re-think about testing the Chrisitans' patience cos our
> patience is limitless

Dear Morons,

Please start using your brains.

The end.

[rappoccio]

I don't think it's even remotely funny, to be honest. A priest said
something like this at church once, so I bitched him out about being
an ignorant superstitious anti-intellectual bigot, and never went back
to that church again. Frankly I never found one worth bothering with
after that anyway, so I just stopped going altogether.

[rappoccio]

On Nov 30, 8:57 am, Allan C Cybulskie <allan_c_cybuls...@yahoo.ca>
wrote:

> On Nov 30, 9:30 am, Psycho Dave <Priscus.Fo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I've seen this same story a dozen times or so, and it does not reflect
> > any kind of conversation that ever goes on in real life. It's a
> > completely contrived conversation, and well, is a pretty lame one at
> > that (no offense to you, since you borrowed it from someone else).
>
> > Really, now, most of the anecdotes like that are made up, hypothetical
> > conversations, used to speak to people who are already believers.
>
> But dialogues ARE an effective rhetorical device to make a point,
> which is why they are interesting and useful in such discussions
> (right or wrong).

Would you find it insulting if I characterized every theist as an
ignorant redneck that couldn't spell and didn't know left from right,
and then the wonderfully intelligent professor shows them up on a
public street by exposing their drooling, idiotic bullshit as a
fantasy and lies?

[Simpleton]

On Nov 30, 3:06 am, Greenpebbles <greenpebbles_...@yahoo.com.sg>
wrote:

> Dear slim,
> hope you don't take it to heart what the atheists said in reply to the
> parable you've quoted here.
> let them rain their swords on us. I'm with you.
>
> There are bound to be oppositions when two differing beliefs crashed
> into each other. yes, atheists have their beliefs too...i was once a
> strong atheist...'once' but will never be one again.
>
> Dear atheists,
>
> Please re-think about testing the Chrisitans' patience cos our
> patience is limitless

Only for life.

> (but we can understand all yours' hatred and
> wrath against us) and I hate to c anyone of you dwell in failure by
> pitching yourselves against many invulnerable walls. Then again,
> thanks for all your oppositions and all your atheist's beliefs.
> Without you all, the prophecies in the Bible can't be fulfiled.
>

Neither are they with us, so that's quite a useless statement you made
there Green Lantern.

>
> Lastly, I'm not being sarcastic here, what do I have to gain by being
> nasty anyway?
>

You are a Christian who believes in a three-in-one god, born of a
virgin, who killed himself on the cross to spare his own creation from
his own wrath.

I have no idea what you have to gain from believing that, and likewise
I have no idea why you would be nasty either.

Actually I do, but I would not want to test your limitless patience.

[rappoccio]

No one knows how to post semantic games like you, Woofie! You'd be
sure to spot them out.

[rappoccio]

Exactly. This is why I refer to it as a wet dream. It's what the
morons WANT the intelligent to be like, but it never happens. Like
them marrying a supermodel, you know.... wet dream.

> ...
>
> read more >>

[Simpleton]

In which case, I must offer this to take the temperature up a notch:

++
One day a group of scientists got together and decided that man had
come a long way and no longer needed God. So they picked one scientist
to go and tell Him that they were done with Him.

The scientist walked up to God and said, "God, we've decided that we
no longer need you. We're to the point that we can clone people and do
many miraculous things, so why don't you just go on and get lost."

God listened very patiently and kindly to the man and after the
scientist was done talking, God said, "Very well, how about this,
let's say we have a man making contest." To which the scientist
replied, "OK, great!"

But God added, "Now, we're going to do this just like I did back in
the old days with Adam."

The scientist said, "Sure, no problem" and bent down and grabbed
himself a handful of dirt.

God just looked at him and said, "No, no, no. You go get your own
dirt!"
++


Allan C Cy...I mean R K Popatlal would probably find this hysterical!

[OldMan]

On Nov 30, 6:29 pm, rappoccio <rappoc...@gmail.com> wrote:

> after that anyway, so I just stopped going altogether.-

The first time I read it I though it was pretty good, and somewhat
funny. Obviously I have changed just a little in the past few years.
I have read quite a bit of what passes for Christians apologetics in
the past few years. And it all sounds good, until you actually try to
use it outside of a church setting or with someone who has any
experience countering the arguments. So much of Christian apologetics
today seems primarily for the benefit of the person making the
argument, helping them to feel better about themselves, and not of
real use in actually defending their faith. Many folks come here,
seeming after reading a book from Lee Strobel or Josh McDowell, and
can't seem to understand why their arguments are not devasting to the
opposition.

[OldMan]

I originally found this to be funny, and still do. ;-)

[Simpleton]

You are learning slow, but are learning how to taunt, OldMan. Let's
drive Rappoccio off a cliff before jeb does.

[OldMan]

> drive Rappoccio off a cliff before jeb does.-

Did you ever hear the one about a tornado assembling a 747 during a
pass through a junk yard?

[rappoccio]

That is precisely the one that the priest said that I bitched him out
about. He was just flabbergasted that someone was taking issue with
his sermon. He tried to tell me it was just a joke, but I asked him
the last time he made a joke that said all farmers on the earth were
stupid ignorant rednecks and he just stared blankly at me.

That's when I first started questioning whether the Catholic Church
was right for me. So I really should thank the guy, I'm happier now
that I don't bother going.

[rappoccio]

That's a great point, OldMan. Indeed, most of these things are to
formulate that "ingroup" mentality by showing straw men of the
"outgroup". I'm glad at least a portion of the theist population
realizes this, you and others like you are really the shining examples
it would be great if others followed.

[rappoccio]

Must..

not..

pull.

hair...

out...

[rappoccio]

At first I read that as "tomato".

That would just be silly. ;)

[ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com]

On Nov 30, 6:39 pm, Simpleton <hu...@whoever.com> wrote:

> ++
> One day a group of scientists got together and decided that man had
> come a long way and no longer needed God. So they picked one scientist
> to go and tell Him that they were done with Him.
>
> The scientist walked up to God and said, "God, we've decided that we
> no longer need you. We're to the point that we can clone people and do
> many miraculous things, so why don't you just go on and get lost."
>
> God listened very patiently and kindly to the man and after the
> scientist was done talking, God said, "Very well, how about this,
> let's say we have a man making contest." To which the scientist
> replied, "OK, great!"
>
> But God added, "Now, we're going to do this just like I did back in
> the old days with Adam."
>
> The scientist said, "Sure, no problem" and bent down and grabbed
> himself a handful of dirt.
>
> God just looked at him and said, "No, no, no. You go get your own
> dirt!"
> ++
>

I don't understand the punchline.

[OldMan]

> That would just be silly. ;)-

Yea. A tomato would probably be limited to a motorcycle.

[bonfly]

You're an oxy-moron OldMan ... a christian who is able to continue
learning.

[rappoccio]

But only a Honda, not a Harley :)

[Simpleton]

On Nov 30, 6:54 pm, OldMan <edjarr...@msn.com> wrote:

>

> The first time I read it I though it was pretty good, and somewhat
> funny. Obviously I have changed just a little in the past few years.
> I have read quite a bit of what passes for Christians apologetics in
> the past few years. And it all sounds good, until you actually try to
> use it outside of a church setting or with someone who has any
> experience countering the arguments. So much of Christian apologetics
> today seems primarily for the benefit of the person making the
> argument, helping them to feel better about themselves, and not of
> real use in actually defending their faith. Many folks come here,
> seeming after reading a book from Lee Strobel or Josh McDowell, and
> can't seem to understand why their arguments are not devasting to the
> opposition.

Interesting set of thoughts.

Take a look at the world today. Norway, China, N Korea, and maybe
Cuba are arguably the most atheistic societies around. Only N Korea
and Cuba of those are at odds with the US. We have healthy relations
with Norway and China, even if we are indifferent to the alleged human
rights abusers in China.

So what exactly are the 80% Christians in the US defending their faith
against?

There is no communistic USSR that poses a threat, and any threat to
the USA is from pissed off Muslims in Iraq/Afghanistan/al Qaeda.

Christians have a high divorce rate, much higher than it used to be
just a generation back, when there was, at least on paper some grounds
to claim "THE DAMN ATHEIST RUSKIES ARE OUT TO GET US".

Next year, it is expected that more households will be headed by
unmarried people than married ones. Also expected is a higher number
of single parent households than married ones

Given the Christians are a large majority of this phenomenon, what
exactly needs to be defended for Christians?

The Catholic Church has paid over 2.3 billion dollars in settling
sexual abuse claims against priests. That is 2,300,000,000
smackaroonies. You can only imagine how much aid that could provide
to the Christian homeless in the US.

And Billy D is more worried about how nascent atheism may be slipping
into a movie. A freakin' movie!!!!

"The Family" seems to be the cry. Well, banning gay marriage helps it
how?
"Abortion". Well, more Christians have abortions in this country than
all other combined several times over. Who are Christians defending
their faith here?

Christians in this country should be ashamed at wallowing in such
ignorance that they even feel the need to defend their Faith. This is
FAITH we are talking about, not your house.

Still the sad part is not that Christians come in trying to defend
their faith, but that they bring in debunked, irrelevant arguments
that they do not even understand.

With punchlines like "Did you know that Lee Strobel was *an
atheist*?!!!"

That is a sign of some cruel brain-washing practices. There is no
other way to explain this delusion.

[Lawrey]

Slim,

Hiya!

You may well be graduating in a:
Associates of Science degree in E-Commerce Web Design today
for which I am happy to congratulate you and wish you well in
all your future endeavours in that field.

You do however show a remakable ignorance with regard to your
secular history. Had you taken the trouble to acquaint yourself
even with the basics you would know by now that gods have
never been shown to exist. There is, nor has there been, a single
siting that has been verified since the earliest recordings of
history
going back to 3500 B.C.

This fact alone would make your effort here extremely ignorant, to
say the very least and demonstrates a personality often recognised
here that suffers lamentably with delusion, a mental condition, in
your case agrivated by a false belief in a false religious doctrine,
which relies on the existence of some supersticious entity that your
religion refers to as a god, and taught to millions mostly at an
early
age, when they are impressionable.

These stories they teach, are collected in a book of tales refered to
as the bible, (more locally refered to here by some, including
myself
as the "Buy-Bull!" for obvious reasons.) These stories have been
shown to be in the main false, although some are carefully and
(it has to be said), expertly spun around actual places of the time,
using names, events and dates of the times.

If you are a dilegent student you wil soon learn that these story-
tales were taken from ancient pagan tales from as far back in
history as we are able to travel at this time.
It is my hope that you will endeavour before too long, to redress
your present delusional condition, and equip yourself with actual
knowledge, rather than belief.

To this end may I humbly recommend that you avail yourself of the
"Philosophy of One on the Many. Which explains quite simply the
True history of the origins of gods and tells of the rise of
religion.
The link is: www.lawrenceeleyot.co.uk It is my sincere wish that
you make a complete and safe recovery from your delusion. ;))

Lawrey

On Nov 30, 4:51 am, slim <slim...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hello, Im new to this google group and google groups in general. I am
> currently finishing up college and I will be graduating with an
> Associates of Science degree in E-Commerce Web Design in December. I
> like metal music, hard rock music, regular rock, worship, and some
> orchestral music... (especially star wars themes). I also love God
> with all my heart because he loved me first, and still loves me even
> though I disobey him every day.
>

> Now, to the meat! lol. The following is a bit of a dramatization of
> the debate between Atheism and Christianity. It was given to me by my
> pastor and I do not know who the author is. Please feel free to post
> your thoughts.

[Allan C Cybulskie]

On Nov 30, 7:56 pm, bonfly <anub...@aapt.net.au> wrote:
> Greenpebbles,
>
> You announce that you are "with" slim in regard to the validity of his
> extended chick tract (first post in thread). At least slim offered
> this cute story before he was shown why it was wrongheaded. You are
> not assisting slim at all except to encourage his use continued of
> weak argument. Some reasons why this 'tract' is only christian
> propaganda and why it misrepresents the real world are as follows.
>
> (1) In this tract the secular professor employs notions of 'God' and
> 'evil' to argue for secular philosophy. (For example, "So who
> created evil?" The professor continued, "If God created everything,
> then God created evil.") Excuse me, but it is religionists who use
> these religious terms to argue for a religious position. You'd be
> hard pressed to find secular philosophers employing these terms except
> in tea room asides.

Um, except that those terms are GENERALLY employed in philosophical
discussions OF religion. And there's an entire philosophical branch
called "Philosophy of Religion". Which is generally where such a
discussion might come up: in an introductory course in the "Philosophy
of Religion" section. So you wouldn't be that hard pressed to find
that, no.

>
> (2) The professor in the story says "Tell me ... Do you believe in
> Jesus Christ son?" For exactly the same reason as above this is a
> wholly false misrepresentation of how a secular professor would
> present a position. It is religionists who ask questions like these
> of other people, not secular philosophers.

Again, it is not an unreasonable comment to make in discussion
religion, particularly Christianity.

>
> (3) The student is the one chastising the secular professor for his
> supposed use of dualism. "You are working an the premise of duality,"
> the student explains. What a joke! The greatest proponents of dualism
> are those who propagate christian doctrine (eg good/evil; hell/heaven;
> saved/unsaved; sinner/saint) which are religious concepts without
> gradations.

Which may be one objection, in that the professor could have replied
this very point. That being said, in the context of the conversation
only an idiotic professor would rely on the "You're worse that me!"
argument; it would be much better to actually refute the comment.

>
> (4) The last five paragraphs are the worst. Thet are presented so
> that uneducated people may feel a real affinity with the student who
> is supposedly annihilating the professor's arguments and the professor
> is shown as caving in to the point where he gives up, says his
> arguments are actually faith based and then sits down dutifully under
> the tutelage of the young student. This is the kind of caricature
> that Peter_W would die for in his quest to present himself as smarter
> than rappoccio. I can see why it would appeal to christian
> hillbillies but beyond that this tract is a pathetic and laughable
> misrepresentation of secular academia.

I agree ... the argument at the end is very easily refuted and seems
to miss the point entirely. No philosopher with any knowledge on the
subject would stop there.

[Allan C Cybulskie]

As promised, I'm going to fill in some comments here. I invite anyone
who dislikes my fill ins to show either counter-arguments or how they
misrepresent the arguments or positions. Most of them will be fill
ins for the theist side because -- despite the rants of the atheists
in this board -- the theist side actually comes off worse, in my
opinion (except right at the end).

I'll be hopping into the middle of some points, but I'll try to steer
it back to the original text without TOO much discontinuity [grin].

On Nov 29, 11:51 pm, slim <slim...@gmail.com> wrote:

> -------------
> Science, Evolution, and Evil
> "Let me explain the problem science has with Jesus Christ." The
> atheist professor of philosophy pauses before his class and then asks
> one of his new students to stand.
>
> "You're a Christian aren't you son?"
>
> "Yes sir", the student says.
>
> "So you believe in God?"
>
> "Absolutely."
>
> "Is God all-powerful? Can God do anything?"
>
> "Yes."
>
> "Are you good or evil?"
>
> "The Bible says I'm evil."

A: "Wait, why do you think that the Bible says that you're evil?
Surely the whole notion of the New Testament is that you are not
necessarily evil. You may sin, but being a sinner is not necessarily
evil. We all sin. Only Jesus never sinned. How would that make you
evil?"

Student: "But surely I'm not ... wholly good?"

A: "Who says that one is either good or evil, necessarily? I'm
probably neither; sometimes good, sometimes evil. Why can't that be
the case?"

Professor: "Perhaps we should examine, then, whether or not you or our
student are good, evil, or indifferent?"

> "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.

A: "Imagine this scenario: I know that that sick and maimed person
will die from their illness, and I also know that if they survive
they'll discover that their wife has been cheating on them. Based on
what I know about that person, I hypothesize that this will lead them
to a huge mental collapse that will cause them to end up as an
alcoholic, homeless, on the street. Whereas if I left it alone they'd
have a short, blissful life (since that person's wife would be loving
until the end). And I want them to feel that extra suffering. Is
that action good?"

Professor: "Is this related to the comments about whether it would be
better to live in ignorance and be happy or have accurate knowledge
and be less happy?"

A: "It's a similar situation, but a different point. In this point,
it is irrelevant which THEY would prefer; I believe that they will
suffer more if I help them than if I don't, and so I help them because
I want them to suffer more. Is that good?"

Professor: "It's hard to see how that could be considered good."

A: "So then an action -- or lack of it -- in and of itself is not good
or evil. Motivation -- why I do something -- matters a lot to
goodness."

Professor: "But if you thought it would help them and would make them
suffer less, you'd do it.

> Most of us would if we could. But God doesn't."

A: "But, again, we have to think about motivation. Perhaps God has a
reason for thinking that intervening is worse than not."

Professor: "But what basis could that be? Let's take another
example:"

> "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?"

A: "It is a false conclusion to say that God will answer all prayers,
even those for healing. Most Christians do indeed believe that God
will only answer prayers if it is His will to do so. So this returns
it to motivations again."

Professor: "But what motivation can God have for not curing cancer in
a person, especially a faithful one?"

A: "Well, can you claim that no good can come from someone with a
fatal illness? You've seen people -- even children -- who have
cancer, no? Have you seen the reaction those people cause in other
people? Many other people -- particularly those who ARE good -- do
things like comfort them, help them, and try to cure them. In these
circumstances, they set wonderful examples for how people should act.
And this occurs generally regardless of the religious beliefs of the
helpers or the observers. Many actions of good and self-sacrifice
come from such illnesses; could such actions occur if those illnesses
never happened?"

Professor: "No, probably not."

A: "There's more. Would so many people be motivated to spend time
researching cancer if it WASN'T a fatal disease? Would we have a
polio vaccine, or have eliminated small pox, if they weren't fatal?
Would we have any of the technology and science we have today if we
never suffered, and if God simply fixed up every single little thing
that went wrong -- even if it was of our making? What reason would we
have to investigate things and learn and discover if we weren't trying
to make our lives better ... to alleviate our suffering?"

Professor: "Seems like we might have some small reason, but you're
right that it wouldn't be as ... pronounced .. as it is now."

A: "So it seems reasonable that WITHOUT suffering, intellect would at
least the stunted. Do you think that a world where our intellect is
stunted is better than a world where it is basically forced to churn
forward at its highest level?"

Professor: "It would seem that Christians would believe so, since that
seems to be a precise description of the Garden of Eden."

A: "True, but I disagree with them; in order for us humans to fully
develop as intellectual and moral beings we HAVE to be removed from
the Garden of Eden ... and we have to suffer in at least some sense."

Professor: "And yet heaven seems to be a precise reproduction of that
'sufferingless' world."

A: "Once we HAVE developed, THEN we can free ourselves from
suffering. But no before."

Professor: "So what happens to children, then, who die before
developing? Like infants?"

A: "That is a VERY tough question. My personal belief would be that
they would get a 'second chance' to develop. But they could be
granted the 'reward' on the basis of their role as the scapegoat to
bring out goodness in others. But it's hard to say for certain."

Professor: "So can we rule out your notion on that basis, that that
question isn't answered?"

A [shrugging]: "The point that without suffering we stagnate stands
with or without an explanation for that one issue, so my reply would
be no."

> "Let's start again, young fella. Is God good?"
>
> "Yes", the student says.
>
> "Is Satan good?"
>
> The student doesn't hesitate on this one. "No."
>
> "Then where does Satan come from?"
>
> "From... God..." Said the student.
>
> "Thats right. God made Satan, didn't he? Tell me son. Is there evil in
> this world?"
>
> "Yes sir."
>
> "Evil is 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. And since evil exists, and
> according to the principle that our works define who we are, then God
> is evil."

A: "Again, the comment is about motivation. WHY did God create Evil?
Can no good come from evil? And then the standard reply comes in:
could you have good without evil? And here's a slightly different
twist: how can _I_ -- as a human -- be good if I could never be evil?
If there were no consequences to performing evil acts, or if God
simply struck me down if I ever did anything evil, could I be good?"

Professor: "Isn't that last point similar to people who only act good
because they are afraid of going to Hell? Can they be good if they
are only doing good to avoid going to Hell?"

A: "My view -- which, you'll note, does indeed somewhat different than
traditional dogma -- is that if you only do good to avoid going to
hell, you aren't being good. You should be good BECAUSE it is good,
not because of a reward you will receive if you are, or a punishment
that you will receive if you aren't. So the teachings should be 'Do
what is RIGHT, and then you will get your reward' as opposed to 'Be
good and follow these rules and you'll go to heaven'."

Professor: "But isn't that the heart of the Christian tradition;
follow the rules, believe in God, go to heaven?"

A: "The Old Testament, yes. But that was a harsher time, and humans
hadn't had the opportunity to develop their intellects to the point
where they could consider morals at the broader level. The New
Testament is clear that there is really only one rule for behaviour:
Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. We humans have
reason; we should use it."

Professor: "But does this answer the question of whether or not God is
evil? This sidetrack on rules is interesting, but doesn't seem to
address the question."

> Without allowing the student to answer, the professor continues: "Is
> there sickness? Immorality? Hatred? Ugliness? All these terrible
> things, do the exist in this world?"

A: "Yes, they do. But Immorality and Hatred are human ... and I have
shown that without the ability to do evil, I cannot do good. And
sickness can bring out the best in people. Thus, while we can claim
that they are evil, we cannot say that it is necessarily evil TO ALLOW
THEM. And that's all we need to avoid the claim that God is
necessarily evil. Granted, it wouldn't prove He's good EITHER, since
he might just like to see us suffer. That's the trick with judging
motivations; there's usually more than one reasonable answer. "


> "Tell me," he continues on to another student. "Do you believe in
> Jesus Christ son?"
>

> The student's voice is confident. "Yes, professor I do."
>
> The old man stops pacing. "Science says you have five senses you use
> to identify and observe the world around you. Have you ever seen
> Jesus?"
>
> "No sir. I've never seen Him."
>
> "Then tell us if you've ever heard your Jesus?"
>
> "No, sir, I have not."
>
> "Have you ever actually 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, demonstrateable
> protocol, science says your God doesn't exist.

A: "With all due respect, it says no such thing. All that science can
say -- if you simply haven't seen something, as you assert here -- is
either that there is insufficient evidence to demonstrate its
existence scientifically (which doesn't mean it doesn't exist; key
difference there) or that the thing cannot be studied by science.
Neither these are saying that 'God doesn't exist'. Science cannot say
THAT, at least not based on your comments here. If it could, then
science would have disproved God. But I don't think anyone will make
that claim."

Professor: "We could likely debate all day over evolution and why it
may well do this, but let's put that aside for now. Suffice it to
say, though, that he still believes in something that he has not
experienced with the senses. "

A: "Well, so do you."

Professor: "Explain."

A: "Well, you've never been to Egypt, right? So you've never seen the
pyramids?"

Professor: "I've seen pictures of them, and movies."

A: "Ah, pictures and movies. Have you seen the movie 'Transformers'?"

Professor: "Yes ... I took my grandkids to see it."

A: "The robots looked pretty real, didn't they?"

Professor: "Yes."

A: "So you've seen pictures and movies of the Transformers. Do you
think THEY exist, too?"

Professor [chuckling]: "No, of course not. So you are correct that
pictures alone may not count as 'seeing'. But I have all sorts of
other reasons for thinking that the pyramids exist."

A: "I agree ... mostly much documentation and the testimony of people
who HAVE seen it. But do you believe Julius Caesar existed, without
having seen him?"

Professor: "Yes, but the historical texts are quite well confirmed.
We do not have that for Jesus."

A: "True, completely in agreement. Do you believe that Socrates
existed, and said what he said?"

Professor: "Of course!"

A: "And yet most of our sources about him and his works are
fictional. So the question is not 'If you can't sense something, you
must disbelieve it', but to what degree something must be 'unreliable'
before we disbelieve it."

Professor: "The supernatural claims in the Bible make it more dubious
than those in the stories about Socrates, which doesn't have those
claims."

A: "[cough]Oracle[cough]"

Professor: "Could be explained as a totally natural person spreading
rumours. But this will get us into another long discussion, so we
should move on."

> "You are working an the premise of duality," the student explains.

> "You argue that 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.

A: "I fail to see why this advances your point. Even if there is no
'good God, bad God', the questions of evil need to be addressed; you
have failed to do so."

Sir, science can't even explain a thought.
> It uses electricity and magnetism, but has never been seen, much less
> fully understood. 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.
>
> "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?"

A: "The issue is that the claim is not based on his seeing it
directly, but instead of things that HAVE been observed leading to
that conclusion ... which you have not yet bothered to advance for
God."

Student: "The complexity of the universe is such that it REQUIRES a
God."

A: "Untrue. It doesn't even unambiguously suggest it. You may choose
to believe that it does, since so far we still have things that seem
to work better with a designer, but you cannot assert that one is
required. Science tomorrow could refute most of those, and then where
would your claim be?"

A: "So God did not create evil ... that thing that has to be in some
sense in order to make good exist. Sure. Then God didn't create at
least meaningful good either, since you can't have good that has
meaning without evil. Look, good and evil are indeed general
abstractions, and so talking about 'creating' them doesn't make much
sense. But creating the conditions for them and that allow them is
the same thing as creating them, and this simply dodges that point."

> All of a sudden the professor exclaimed, "I got it! If you were to
> open my head and look inside, you'd see that i have a brain."
>
> "With all due respect sir," the student replied respectfully. "If you
> opened the Bible and read inside, you'd see that there's a God."

A: "Your point is not valid. His claim is that he has a brain, and
then shows that he could empirically show you his brain, thus refuting
your point. Reading the Bible will not make you have a similar
experience of God, proving its existence. If you wanted to make this
claim, you should have started with 'mind'. Opening up the head does
not show you mind; only faith in the materialist theory of mind gets
you from that to mind."

Professor: "But what other explanation is there?"

A: "Any theory of interactionist dualism has the same properties as
materialism. Materialism may be preferred, but it has issues. At any
rate, this would be another long discussion, and I see class is
ending."

[Allan C Cybulskie]

On Nov 30, 10:03 am, "ranjit_math...@yahoo.com"
<ranjit_math...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Nov 30, 6:57 am, Allan C Cybulskie <allan_c_cybuls...@yahoo.ca>

> wrote:

> > But dialogues ARE an effective rhetorical device to make a point,
> > which is why they are interesting and useful in such discussions
> > (right or wrong).
>

> Synthetic dialogues would be more effective since opponents built of
> straw would be easier to knock down.

Formal papers are just as prone to such difficulties.

[Allan C Cybulskie]

On Nov 30, 9:30 pm, rappoccio <rappoc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 30, 8:57 am, Allan C Cybulskie <allan_c_cybuls...@yahoo.ca>
> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 30, 9:30 am, Psycho Dave <Priscus.Fo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > I've seen this same story a dozen times or so, and it does not reflect
> > > any kind of conversation that ever goes on in real life. It's a
> > > completely contrived conversation, and well, is a pretty lame one at
> > > that (no offense to you, since you borrowed it from someone else).
>
> > > Really, now, most of the anecdotes like that are made up, hypothetical
> > > conversations, used to speak to people who are already believers.
>
> > But dialogues ARE an effective rhetorical device to make a point,
> > which is why they are interesting and useful in such discussions
> > (right or wrong).
>
> Would you find it insulting if I characterized every theist as an
> ignorant redneck that couldn't spell and didn't know left from right,
> and then the wonderfully intelligent professor shows them up on a
> public street by exposing their drooling, idiotic bullshit as a
> fantasy and lies?

What does this have to do with the use of dialogues, which were used
by such luminaries as Plato and Gallileo (that's actually what got him
in trouble; if you want to keep the Pope leaning towards your side,
don't insult him in a dialogue).

That being said, other than the end (where the Professor makes two
glaring mistakes) the atheist professor seems to be giving generally
reasonable and standard arguments.

[Allan C Cybulskie]

Why not? It's a funny joke.

Here's one that a priest told in his sermon when he was a kid:

Three men show up at the Gates of Heaven, and St. Peter asks the
first: "Have you been faithful to your wife?"

The man replies: "Always."

St. Peter replies: "Since you've been so faithful, you'll get a
Cadillac to drive around in in Heaven."

He turns to the next and asks the same question. That person replies:
"Well, not always, but I managed it most of the time and really
tried."

St Peter replies: "Well, since you tried and were mostly successful,
you'll get a Ford to drive around in in Heaven."

Finally, he turns to the last and asks the same question. That man
replies: "No, I'm afraid I failed at that."

St Peter replies: "Well, then you get a skateboard to travel around
Heaven with?"

Soon after, the last man comes across the first man sitting in his
Cadillac crying. "Why are you crying?" he asks.

"I just saw my wife go by on a skateboard."

[Allan C Cybulskie]

Wait, wait, wait ... you found that story OFFENSIVE?!?

Perhaps my perspective isn't the same, but I don't see how that story
is offensive. Perhaps you could enlighten me as to your perspective?

Would you have liked it better if it had ended with the scientist
saying "Just give me a minute ... it's baking now"?

[Greenpebbles]

haha, what you've posted in reply to my post is cute and frankly I'm
amused. But a pity I still can't revert back to being an aethist. I'm
branded with the Chrisitanity "mark". Like a bag branded with Gucci?

Anyway, thanks for withholding your rather usual use of strong
opposing words.

[bonfly]

On Dec 1, 9:19 pm, Allan C Cybulskie <allan_c_cybuls...@yahoo.ca>
wrote:

> On Nov 30, 7:56 pm, bonfly <anub...@aapt.net.au> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Greenpebbles,
>
> > You announce that you are "with" slim in regard to the validity of his
> > extended chick tract (first post in thread). At least slim offered
> > this cute story before he was shown why it was wrongheaded. You are
> > not assisting slim at all except to encourage his use continued of
> > weak argument. Some reasons why this 'tract' is only christian
> > propaganda and why it misrepresents the real world are as follows.
>
> > (1) In this tract the secular professor employs notions of 'God' and
> > 'evil' to argue for secular philosophy. (For example, "So who
> > created evil?" The professor continued, "If God created everything,
> > then God created evil.") Excuse me, but it is religionists who use
> > these religious terms to argue for a religious position. You'd be
> > hard pressed to find secular philosophers employing these terms except
> > in tea room asides.
>
> Um, except that those terms are GENERALLY employed in philosophical
> discussions OF religion. And there's an entire philosophical branch
> called "Philosophy of Religion". Which is generally where such a
> discussion might come up: in an introductory course in the "Philosophy
> of Religion" section. So you wouldn't be that hard pressed to find
> that, no.

The original post referred to "atheist professor of philosophy." Fel
free to capitalise the word 'generally' but in terms of philosophy, if
this is your point, you should have capitalised 'religion.' In which
case, you have no point. Nonetheless, great all caps shout. If you
take lessons from Peter_W we can probably get you up to two lines per
post of all caps at a time.

>
> > (2) The professor in the story says "Tell me ... Do you believe in
> > Jesus Christ son?" For exactly the same reason as above this is a
> > wholly false misrepresentation of how a secular professor would
> > present a position. It is religionists who ask questions like these
> > of other people, not secular philosophers.
>
> Again, it is not an unreasonable comment to make in discussion
> religion, particularly Christianity.
>

Which is utter bullshit unless you happen to be receiving your
education at Liberty College or similar religious institution of
dogmatism ... although if that were the case the professor would not
be an atheist in the first place. So, no, your retort here is
baseless.

>
>
> > (3) The student is the one chastising the secular professor for his
> > supposed use of dualism. "You are working an the premise of duality,"
> > the student explains. What a joke! The greatest proponents of dualism
> > are those who propagate christian doctrine (eg good/evil; hell/heaven;
> > saved/unsaved; sinner/saint) which are religious concepts without
> > gradations.
>
> Which may be one objection, in that the professor could have replied
> this very point. That being said, in the context of the conversation
> only an idiotic professor would rely on the "You're worse that me!"
> argument; it would be much better to actually refute the comment.
>
> > (4) The last five paragraphs are the worst. Thet are presented so
> > that uneducated people may feel a real affinity with the student who
> > is supposedly annihilating the professor's arguments and the professor
> > is shown as caving in to the point where he gives up, says his
> > arguments are actually faith based and then sits down dutifully under
> > the tutelage of the young student. This is the kind of caricature
> > that Peter_W would die for in his quest to present himself as smarter
> > than rappoccio. I can see why it would appeal to christian
> > hillbillies but beyond that this tract is a pathetic and laughable
> > misrepresentation of secular academia.
>
> I agree ... the argument at the end is very easily refuted and seems
> to miss the point entirely. No philosopher with any knowledge on the
> subject would stop there.

At least we can agree on something.

[bonfly]

... more like an old bag imprinted with "do not resuscitate."

On Dec 1, 10:50 pm, Greenpebbles <greenpebbles_...@yahoo.com.sg>
wrote:

[Dave]

On Dec 1, 4:41 am, Allan C Cybulskie <allan_c_cybuls...@yahoo.ca>
wrote:

> On Nov 30, 10:45 pm, rappoccio <rappoc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 30, 8:39 pm, Simpleton <hu...@whoever.com> wrote:
> > That is precisely the one that the priest said that I bitched him out
> > about. He was just flabbergasted that someone was taking issue with
> > his sermon. He tried to tell me it was just a joke, but I asked him
> > the last time he made a joke that said all farmers on the earth were
> > stupid ignorant rednecks and he just stared blankly at me.
>
> Wait, wait, wait ... you found that story OFFENSIVE?!?

It was meant to be offensive and dismissive.

> Perhaps my perspective isn't the same, but I don't see how that story
> is offensive. Perhaps you could enlighten me as to your perspective?

Offensive to one's intelligence.

> Would you have liked it better if it had ended with the scientist
> saying "Just give me a minute ... it's baking now"?

No.

[OldMan]

> But only a Honda, not a Harley :)-

LOL. OK!

[OldMan]

On Nov 30, 9:06 pm, bonfly <anub...@aapt.net.au> wrote:
> You're an oxy-moron OldMan ... a christian who is able to continue
> learning.

Actually, all Christians are -able- to continue learning. But many do
erect mental barriers to what they perceive as a threat. But then,
that does not seem to be a unique characteristic just for Christians.

[OldMan]

On Nov 30, 10:29 pm, Simpleton <hu...@whoever.com> wrote:
> On Nov 30, 6:54 pm, OldMan <edjarr...@msn.com> wrote:
> > The first time I read it I though it was pretty good, and somewhat
> > funny. Obviously I have changed just a little in the past few years.
> > I have read quite a bit of what passes for Christians apologetics in
> > the past few years. And it all sounds good, until you actually try to
> > use it outside of a church setting or with someone who has any
> > experience countering the arguments. So much of Christian apologetics
> > today seems primarily for the benefit of the person making the
> > argument, helping them to feel better about themselves, and not of
> > real use in actually defending their faith. Many folks come here,
> > seeming after reading a book from Lee Strobel or Josh McDowell, and
> > can't seem to understand why their arguments are not devasting to the
> > opposition.
>
> Interesting set of thoughts.
>
> Take a look at the world today. Norway, China, N Korea, and maybe
> Cuba are arguably the most atheistic societies around. Only N Korea
> and Cuba of those are at odds with the US. We have healthy relations
> with Norway and China, even if we are indifferent to the alleged human
> rights abusers in China.
>
> So what exactly are the 80% Christians in the US defending their faith
> against?

Historically, giving defense of the faith consisted in answering the
questions that others had about Christianity and responding to charges
that people make concerning the practice of our faith. Today it does
seem more and more like we are withdrawing from the world around and
developing a bunker mentality. We seem to confuse Christianity with
'the American way of life', and any change to that 'way of life' is an
attack on Christianity. It is unfortunate, and I am afraid we will
not be who and what we should be until that way of thinking is
overcome.

[Simpleton]

On Dec 1, 4:50 am, Greenpebbles <greenpebbles_...@yahoo.com.sg> wrote:
> haha, what you've posted in reply to my post is cute and frankly I'm
> amused. But a pity I still can't revert back to being an aethist.

Good thing. Aethists probably would not be able to handle the slime.

> I'm
> branded with the Chrisitanity "mark". Like a bag branded with Gucci?
>

Or a cow at Hoss's dude ranch.

> Anyway, thanks for withholding your rather usual use of strong
> opposing words.
>

Not to mention my ability to withhold my bladder.

[Allan C Cybulskie]

And Philosophy of Religion is taught in the philosophy departments of
non-religious schools. So what's your point?

> > > (2) The professor in the story says "Tell me ... Do you believe in
> > > Jesus Christ son?" For exactly the same reason as above this is a
> > > wholly false misrepresentation of how a secular professor would
> > > present a position. It is religionists who ask questions like these
> > > of other people, not secular philosophers.
>
> > Again, it is not an unreasonable comment to make in discussion
> > religion, particularly Christianity.
>
> Which is utter bullshit unless you happen to be receiving your
> education at Liberty College or similar religious institution of
> dogmatism ... although if that were the case the professor would not
> be an atheist in the first place. So, no, your retort here is
> baseless.

Again, Philosophy of Religion is taught in non-religious
universities.

[rappoccio]

Brilliant post, Simp :)

[rappoccio]

On Dec 1, 6:33 am, Allan C Cybulskie <allan_c_cybuls...@yahoo.ca>

wrote:
> On Nov 30, 9:30 pm, rappoccio <rappoc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Nov 30, 8:57 am, Allan C Cybulskie <allan_c_cybuls...@yahoo.ca>
> > wrote:
>
> > > On Nov 30, 9:30 am, Psycho Dave <Priscus.Fo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > I've seen this same story a dozen times or so, and it does not reflect
> > > > any kind of conversation that ever goes on in real life. It's a
> > > > completely contrived conversation, and well, is a pretty lame one at
> > > > that (no offense to you, since you borrowed it from someone else).
>
> > > > Really, now, most of the anecdotes like that are made up, hypothetical
> > > > conversations, used to speak to people who are already believers.
>
> > > But dialogues ARE an effective rhetorical device to make a point,
> > > which is why they are interesting and useful in such discussions
> > > (right or wrong).
>
> > Would you find it insulting if I characterized every theist as an
> > ignorant redneck that couldn't spell and didn't know left from right,
> > and then the wonderfully intelligent professor shows them up on a
> > public street by exposing their drooling, idiotic bullshit as a
> > fantasy and lies?
>
> What does this have to do with the use of dialogues, which were used
> by such luminaries as Plato and Gallileo (that's actually what got him
> in trouble; if you want to keep the Pope leaning towards your side,
> don't insult him in a dialogue).

Do I have to explain this to you as I would a child? Apparently.

Slim here has posted what he thinks is some clever story that
champions theism over a nonsensical straw man professor that doesn't
actually exist. This is an insult, regardless of whether you call it
"dialog" or whatever. What this has to do with my story is that my
story would be as equally demeaning and fallacious, conjecturing a
similar straw man for the theist, but you seemed to have missed the
point because your absurd blinders are in the way. Open your eyes and
learn something, Allan, maybe someday you'll start to think for
yourself.

> That being said, other than the end (where the Professor makes two
> glaring mistakes) the atheist professor seems to be giving generally
> reasonable and standard arguments.

At the end of the day, the professor is not giving any arguments
whatsoever. She/he starts off with a few standard questions and then
can't answer a question that should be obvious to a clever seven year
old. So Slim here is positing his wet dream, not anything he, or
anyone else he knows, has actually experienced. Therefore, he is
positing a straw man that he would merely LIKE to see.

[rappoccio]

On Dec 1, 6:41 am, Allan C Cybulskie <allan_c_cybuls...@yahoo.ca>
wrote:

> On Nov 30, 10:45 pm, rappoccio <rappoc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 30, 8:39 pm, Simpleton <hu...@whoever.com> wrote:
> > That is precisely the one that the priest said that I bitched him out
> > about. He was just flabbergasted that someone was taking issue with
> > his sermon. He tried to tell me it was just a joke, but I asked him
> > the last time he made a joke that said all farmers on the earth were
> > stupid ignorant rednecks and he just stared blankly at me.
>
> Wait, wait, wait ... you found that story OFFENSIVE?!?

Absolutely. You're surprised, which means you are unaware of what the
story actually implies.

> Perhaps my perspective isn't the same, but I don't see how that story
> is offensive. Perhaps you could enlighten me as to your perspective?

I'm actually a scientist. I don't know what you do for a living,
however let's assume that you are an accountant for a moment. Would
you like me to concoct a story about how all accountants sit around
making cost-benefit analyses to screw old ladies out of their
pensions, and that is what the job "accountant" entails? Would that be
an accurate portrayal of the profession of accounting? Would you find
it degrading and demeaning to the field of accounting if someone
characterized it as such, even in jest?

The fact that you are unaware of why I would be insulted by this
simply means you demonstrate that you do not, in fact, understand what
scientists actually do.

> Would you have liked it better if it had ended with the scientist
> saying "Just give me a minute ... it's baking now"?

The entire premise is another theist straw man wet dream. Scientists
do not sit around claiming that they are God. In fact, most don't even
consider it a relevant part of their research (whether they believe
god exists or not). Instead, scientists answer questions. That's it.
You are personally uninterested in those questions, but you're
perfectly happy to reap the benefits of what they give you. You're
happy to get vaccines, watch TV, browse the internet, have surgery,
drive a car, and fly a plane, but you insult and demean those that
create them.

Any clearer now?

[rappoccio]

;)

[rappoccio]

On Dec 1, 6:41 am, Allan C Cybulskie <allan_c_cybuls...@yahoo.ca>
wrote:

One further thought I forgot to mention. The story claims (implicitly)
that life comes from dirt, which is a reference to the fairy tale of
Adam and Eve, so the fact that the scientist in the story reaches down
for dirt to create life is simply ridiculous and insulting to
someone's intelligence. The fairy tale of Adam and Eve is a debunked
nonsensical piece of neolithic superstition.

[Keith MacNevins]

Both of you are just plain old morons.

--
Keith A. MacNevins
Ambassador From Hell
Copyright

[bonfly]

Yes, Philosophy of Religion is taught in secular universities, but I
maintain that to depict an atheist lecturer (even in the Philosophy of
Religion) in a secular university would not employ a phrase like "Tell
me ... Do you believe in Jesus Christ son" during a lecture. I do
however concede that a minister of religion might use words like these
on a secular campus with a bullhorn in his hand.

On Dec 2, 4:43 am, Allan C Cybulskie <allan_c_cybuls...@yahoo.ca>

[Rupee]

Haha. That Christopher tied himself up in knots [naughts too]. It
happens everytime Christophers care debate with Popats.

On Dec 1, 6:14 am, Simpleton <hu...@whoever.com> wrote:
> On Nov 30, 6:57 am, Allan C Cybulskie <allan_c_cybuls...@yahoo.ca>

> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 30, 9:30 am, Psycho Dave <Priscus.Fo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > I've seen this same story a dozen times or so, and it does not reflect
> > > any kind of conversation that ever goes on in real life. It's a
> > > completely contrived conversation, and well, is a pretty lame one at
> > > that (no offense to you, since you borrowed it from someone else).
>
> > > Really, now, most of the anecdotes like that are made up, hypothetical
> > > conversations, used to speak to people who are already believers.
>
> > But dialogues ARE an effective rhetorical device to make a point,
> > which is why they are interesting and useful in such discussions
> > (right or wrong).
>

> Cool.
>
> Pootie: "Hey Bubba, looks like dialogs ARE an effective rhetorical

> device to make a point"

> Bubba: "You sure?"
> Pootie: "Damn sure! In fact, I'll make one up to illustrate the
> point. Here's one between a Christian and aHindu. The Christian is J
> H Christopher, and theHinduis R K Popatlal. It goes like this:
> J H Christopher: 'Hello Popatlal, I am a Christian, Christianity is
> the only true montheistic religion, unlike Hinduism'
> R K Popatlal: 'But you have three gods, so Christianity is not
> monotheistic'
> J H Christopher: 'No, one God'
> R K Popatlal: 'Name him'
> J H Christopher: 'Jesus Christ'
> R K Popatlal: 'So who is Yahweh?'
> J H Christopher: 'Yahweh is God'
> R K Popatlal: 'But you said Jesus Christ was God'
> J H Christopher: 'I did, but they are the same'
> R K Popatlal: 'If they are the same, why do they have two different
> names, why is Jesus called the son of God?'
> J H Christopher: 'I meant made of the same substance'
> R K Popatlal: 'But two distinct entities, right?'
> J H Christopher: 'Yes, three actually, when you include the Holy
> Spirit'
> R K Popatlal: 'So should we call everyone made of the same substance
> the same thing?'
> J H Christopher: 'Yes'
> R K Popatlal: 'Then I shall call you R K Popatlal'
> J H Christopher: <silence>
> Bubba: "I get it, according to Christianity, everybody should be
> called R K Popatlal, right, Pootie?"
> Pootie: "Right Bubb...I mean R K Popatlal"
> Bubba: "Good one. HA HA. You got me there Poo...I mean RK Popatlal.
> HA HA".
>
> The End.
>
> > Personally, I think neither side gives their best arguments in that
> > conversation; if I get time, I may remedy that in some way.
>
> Hopefully with something less contrived, R K Popatlal.