Conquer Club

'Let me explain the problem science has with religion.' The
atheist professor of philosophy pauses before his class and
then asks one of his new students to stand.
'You're a Christian, aren't you, son?'
'Yes sir,' the student says.
'So you believe in God?'

'Absolutely. '

'Is God good?'

'Sure! God's good.'

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

'Yes'

'Are you good or evil?'

'The Bible says I'm evil.'

The professor grins knowingly. 'Aha! The Bible!' He considers
for a moment. 'Here's one for you. Let's say there's a sick
person over here and you can cure him. You can do it. Would
you help him? Would you try?'

'Yes sir, I would.'

'So you're good...!'

'I wouldn't say that.'

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

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

The student remains silent.

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

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

'Er..yes,' the student says.

'Is Satan good?'

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

'Then where does Satan come from?'

The student falters. 'From God'

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

'Yes, sir.'

'Evil's everywhere, isn't it? And God did make everything,
correct?'

'Yes'

'So who o created evil?' The professor continued, 'If God
created everything, then God created evil, since evil exists,
and according to the principle that our works define who we
are, then God is evil.'

Again, the student has no answer. 'Is there sickness?
Immorality? Hatred? Ugliness? All these terrible things, do
they exist in this world?'

The student squirms on his feet. 'Yes.'

'So who created them?'

The student does not answer again, so the professor repeats
his question. 'Who created them?' There is still no answer.
Suddenly the lecturer breaks away to pace in front of the
classroom. The class is mesmerized. 'Tell me,' he continues
onto another student. 'Do you believe in Jesus Christ, son?'

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

The old man stops pacing. 'Science says you have five 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 felt your Jesus, tasted your Jesus or smelt
your Jesus? Have you ever had any sensory perception of Jesus
Christ, or God for that matter?'

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

'Yet you still believe in him?'

'Yes'

'According to the rules of empirical, testable, demonstrable
protocol, science says your God doesn't exist. What do you say
to that, son?'

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

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

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

" yes.

'And is there such a thing as co ld?'

'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 th ing 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, and heat is what makes a body or matter have
or transmit energy. Absolute zero (-458 F) is the total
absence of heat. You see, sir, cold is only a word we use to
describe the absence of heat. We cannot measure cold. Heat we
can measure in thermal units because heat is energy. Cold is
not the opposite of heat, sir, just the absence of it.'

Silence across the room. A pen drops somewhere in the
classroom, sounding like a hammer.

'What about darkness, professor. Is there such a thing as
darkness?'

'Yes,' the professor replies without hesitation. 'What is
night if it isn't darkness?'

'You're wrong again, sir. Darkness is not something; it is the
absence of something. You can have low light, normal light,
bright light, flashing light, but if you have no light
constantly you have nothing and 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.
This will be a good semester. 'So what point are you making,
young man?'

'Yes, professor. My point is, your philosophical premise is
flawed to start with, and so your conclusion must also be
flawed.'

The professor's face cannot hide his surprise this time. 'Fl
awed? Can you explain how?'

'You are working on the premise of duality,' the student
explains. 'You argue that there is life and then there's
death; a good God and a bad God. You are viewing the concept
of God as something finite, something we can measure. Sir,
science can't even explain a thought.'

'It uses electricity and magnetism, but has never seen, much
less fully understood either one. To view death as the
opposite of life is to be ignorant of the fact that death
cannot exist as a substantive thing. Death is not the opposite
of life, just the absence of it.'

'Now tell me, professor. Do you teach your students that they
evolved from a monkey?'

'If you are referring to the natural evolutionary process,
young man, yes, of course I do.'

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

The professor begins to shake his head, still smiling, as he
realizes where the argument is going. A very good semester,
indeed.

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

The class is in uproar. The student remains silent until the
commotion has subsided.

'To continue the point you were making earlier to the other
student, let me give you an example of what I mean.'

The student looks around the room. 'Is there anyone in the
class who has ever seen the professor's brain?' The class
breaks out into laughter.

'Is there anyone here who has ever heard the professor's
brain, felt the professor's brain, touched or smelt the
professor's brain? No one appears to have done so. So,
according to the established rules of empirical, stable,
demonstrable protocol, science says that you have no brain,
with all due respect, sir.'
'So if science says you have no brain, how can we trust your
lecture s, sir?'

Now the room is silent. The professor just stares at the
student, his face unreadable.

Finally, after what seems an eternity, the old man answers. 'I
guess you'll have to take them on faith.'

'Now, you accept that there is faith, and, in fact, faith
exists with life,' the student continues. 'Now, sir, is there
such a thing as evil?'

Now uncertain, the professor responds, 'Of course, there is.
We see it everyday It is in the daily example of man's
inhumanity to man. It is in the multitude of crime and
violence everywhere in the world. These manifestations are
nothing else but evil.'

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

The professor sat down.

Your argument is that there is faith.

Can one of us prove that the professor has a brain? yes, we can smash his head open or put him under some types of scans and it will show that he has a brain 100% of the time you check.

Can we prove that there is a god? No, we can't even check. We can pray and see if our prayers will come true, but for some reason that only works part of the time.

That is the difference between science and religion.

It would be really cool if you could somehow merge your Walter Payton sig and make it look like he was running with the bulls through Pamplona, Frigidus

We already did this one in another thread.
Jay gave a (mercifully briefer) version.

Very nice post.

the professor sat down because his job was already done. You know the definition of absolute zero, and the definition of light, which were made possible by science. He knew he had taught you everything he needed to already. Whether you believed in RA, santa, bilbo baggins, or God, he was satisfied that you understood the basic scientific principles of thermodynamics, and light, and that if most of the people that only believed in god had their way...this would never have been possible.

It was a good day for the professor.

Oh hey, a (Christian/atheist) newcomer to the Off-Topic Forum. Looks like he's trying to (convert/insult) us. He's way too (gullible/closed-minded), if you ask me. He probably thinks he has something to say that will (save our souls/make us feel stupid). I'm sure he'll realize soon enough that we aren't all (assholes/idiots).

P.S. I've heard that story before. It works if you believe God to be the source of all good, but otherwise the professor & kid both don't know what they're talking about.

luns101 wrote:It would be really cool if you could somehow merge your Walter Payton sig and make it look like he was running with the bulls through Pamplona, Frigidus

That would be a truly excellent picture...however I'm incompetent with photoshop and the like.

john9blue wrote:Oh hey, a (Christian/atheist) newcomer to the Off-Topic Forum. Looks like he's trying to (convert/insult) us. He's way too (gullible/closed-minded), if you ask me. He probably thinks he has something to say that will (save our souls/make us feel stupid). I'm sure he'll realize soon enough that we aren't all (assholes/idiots).

P.S. I've heard that story before. It works if you believe God to be the source of all good, but otherwise the professor & kid both don't know what they're talking about.

Also, I am in awe of the fact that creationists always win the arguments with characters that they invent...

Ill take your philosophy a little further for you. And this time you can argue me, and not your imaginary professor. You do like your imaginary characters dont you?

The philosophy is the same, but in no way so basic. God is Good. He is pure good. He is the abscence of evil.

The bible suggests we cannot worship any other gods beside him. This is not possible. No good god would be capable of caring whether you worshiped another god. It would be pure ego.

The bible suggests one must accept God to get into heaven. Many do, and they will be saved. However, many people do not believe in god, simply because of where they were born. You may argue that it is their fault, but logically, there is no way for a child, who was taught since birth, that there is a different god, and that they should worship him. Therefore, it is simply not fair for this person to be rejected from heaven, simply because he never once had any real chance of believing in God. He was told his god was the real one, and therefore worshiped him religiously. There is no possible way for him to know he is wrong. So, if God allows the person that happened to believe in him, and rejects the other, than he has set up a system that is unfair on a basic level. It could even be seen as evil. We as humans recognize that such systems are wrong, and have laws against such discrimination.

So, either, God truly is good, and people will not be judged upon their worship, thanks, or what they beleive, and only based on the lives that they lead, and how they help their fellow man....which is the only thing a God of pure Good would ever truly be capable of rewarding, or wishing for that matter, or your god is not pure Good, and has an ego, and simply does not care about what is fair and only wants things his way. Myself, I could never beleive such a being could ever be the God of true Good. A god perhaps, but one with flaws, which is not the god you are describing. The very idea of worshiping him, or thanking him is pointless. For if one imagines what a truly good God would want, it is clear, as it is clear what any good parent would want...and that is for you to help his other children. For the god you try compare to light and heat, and as being pure good, incapable of any evil or anything less than PURE GOOD AND PERFECTION...simply can not be such, and care or reward anything but. For I agree that life on earth can be unfair, full of misery, and evil, and still allow for the existence of this god...however, it is impossible for such a god to exist, without making up for this in the afterlife, in a way that is infinitely fair.

Further, people would necessarily need to be rewarded on an infinitely fair system. In other words, there can be no heaven or hell per-se. All bad people do some good, and all good people do some bad. There is no fair or Good way to simply say guilty or not guilty. Again man, for all his failings know this, and has set up a legal system which tries to fit the punishment to the crime. Further, if someone simply worships the judge, and asks forgiveness, while their sentence may be reduced..the will not be given a free ride in a fair system. So, from a pure logic stand point. One can only expect a truly Good God, to provide an infinitely fair system of reward/punishment...for if this is not true, and there is ever any favor or inequity in the afterlife, then while God may very well exist, He cannot possibly be pure good, and absent of evil. The two are mutually exclusive.

AAFitz wrote:The bible suggests we cannot worship any other gods beside him. This is not possible. No good god would be capable of caring whether you worshiped another god. It would be pure ego.

God's not egotistical... he's just awesome and he knows it. Wouldn't you want credit for creating the universe?

AAFitz wrote:The bible suggests one must accept God to get into heaven. Many do, and they will be saved. However, many people do not believe in god, simply because of where they were born. You may argue that it is their fault, but logically, there is no way for a child, who was taught since birth, that there is a different god, and that they should worship him. Therefore, it is simply not fair for this person to be rejected from heaven, simply because he never once had any real chance of believeing in God. He was told his god was the real one, and therefore worshiped him religiously. There is no possible way for him to know he is wrong. So, if God allows the person that happened to believe in him, and rejects the other, than he has set up a system that is unfair on a basic level. It could even be seen as evil. We as humans recognize that such systems are wrong, and have laws against such discrimination.

It does seem really unfair that God would do that, doesn't it? But some would argue that God has an incomprehensible reason for putting those people in the situation they are in... a reason us humans wouldn't be aware of. Others might say that the search for God itself is what gets you into heaven, no matter what God it might be.

john9blue wrote:It does seem really unfair that God would do that, doesn't it? But some would argue that God has an incomprehensible reason for putting those people in the situation they are in... a reason us humans wouldn't be aware of. Others might say that the search for God itself is what gets you into heaven, no matter what God it might be.

This is the reason creationists can never be swayed:

Evolutionist: _______ ?
Creationist: (if he can't find reasonable answer) God did it, and meant it to be that way.
Evolutionist: Why?
Creationist: Only God knows that.

In the end it always ends up like this.

The Neon Peon wrote:(if he can't find reasonable answer)

This is the reason anti-Creationists can never be swayed. They're so convinced that God is an excuse, and not an explanation.

john9blue wrote:

The Neon Peon wrote:(if he can't find reasonable answer)

This is the reason anti-Creationists can never be swayed. They're so convinced that God is an excuse, and not an explanation.

Not at all true.

MOST of the people who accept Evolution (I don't say believe, because it is a matter of proof, not faith), ALSO believe in God. In fact, the largest percentage are Christians, Jews and Moslems who, despite our differances all read the same Genesis.

To believe (and it IS a matter of belief, not proof), you have to believe that the overwhelming majority of scientists and most church officials from the past 100 years are all in one giant conspiracy.

and THAT is why it upsets so many people.

Ideas, plausible theories are ALWAYS welcome in science, but to deny truth is neither Christian nor science.

PLAYER57832 wrote:Not at all true.

MOST of the people who accept Evolution (I don't say believe, because it is a matter of proof, not faith), ALSO believe in God. In fact, the largest percentage are Christians, Jews and Moslems who, despite our differances all read the same Genesis.

To believe (and it IS a matter of belief, not proof), you have to believe that the overwhelming majority of scientists and most church officials from the past 100 years are all in one giant conspiracy.

and THAT is why it upsets so many people.

Ideas, plausible theories are ALWAYS welcome in science, but to deny truth is neither Christian nor science.

Sure, it's possible to be a creationist and believe in evolution, at least how I think of the terms. That's why I said "anti-Creationist".

john9blue wrote:

The Neon Peon wrote:(if he can't find reasonable answer)

This is the reason anti-Creationists can never be swayed. They're so convinced that God is an excuse, and not an explanation.

Alright, then it comes down to the following:
Our explanation vs Your Explanation
We just don't know that yet vs. This is the act of God

The Neon Peon wrote:Alright, then it comes down to the following:
Our explanation vs Your Explanation
We just don't know that yet vs. This is the act of God

I talked about this somewhere else, I think: the phrase "We just don't know that yet" requires faith. There must be an answer, so you are believing that either humans will someday find an answer that doesn't involve God, or will not find an answer and keep on believing that God didn't do it.

Sorry for being douchey earlier, but you shouldn't think of Creationists and Evolutionists/scientists/thinkers as mutually exclusive.

john9blue wrote:

The Neon Peon wrote:Alright, then it comes down to the following:
Our explanation vs Your Explanation
We just don't know that yet vs. This is the act of God

I talked about this somewhere else, I think: the phrase "We just don't know that yet" requires faith. There must be an answer, so you are believing that either humans will someday find an answer that doesn't involve God, or will not find an answer and keep on believing that God didn't do it.

Sorry for being douchey earlier, but you shouldn't think of Creationists and Evolutionists/scientists/thinkers as mutually exclusive.

If you are talking about the young Earth theory, the idea that all the dinosaurs disappeared with Noah, which is what is being taught as Creationism or Intelligent Design,

They are mutually exclusive.

The idea that God created the universes and science has done a decent job of explaining how, which is what the overwhelming majority of Christians who are believers think, that idea is very much consistant with science.

BUT... there are now 3 active threads on this subject here on this very page.

god does not believe in atheists therefore atheists do not exist

The Neon Peon wrote:
We just don't know that yet vs. This is the act of God

And can you prove that God didn't do it?

Call it a theory, if you like ...

Perhaps god is scared of what his creations would do to him had he revealed him self. Scared of what he's unleashed onto the universe. That fear wouldn't be unbounded as we've done things that shouldn't even be thought about much less done to another living being.

He created us with good intent and a heart of pureness but that did not fall into the creation(us) and so evil spread, but god wiped the evil off the earth and saved only his most pure and kindhearted subjects but once again we veered from the chosen course and divulged our wickedest desires.

So the question is not whether or not god is real or if he created us but if we should kill, maim, destroy, and hate another man because of what he thinks or believes in.

naxus wrote:
So the question is not whether or not god is real or if he created us but if we should kill, maim, destroy, and hate another man because of what he thinks or believes in.

Good point!

Though I have to say a good many ills have been done through well-intentioned "love & kindness" that was highly misguided.

More chuckling.

First off we might not want to throw around words or at least define them better before using them. Christian. What is it? We can differ on what the meaning is but lets look at it.

My belief is that going to church does not make you a Christian. Nor does being a member of a "church". I firmly believe that a Christian, believes that Jesus is the Son of God (in fact is God) and believes that the Bible is the absolute Word of God, infallible. If this is true, which I believe it is, then there is a big problem with Evolutionist Christians. The Bible does not back it. It in fact contradicts it. Now I know that there are Christians that succumb to the belief in evolution, it doesn't make them non-christian it just makes them wrong. Save the "proof" of evolution for someone else, it does not exist. It can not be observed or replicated which is required for it to be a LAW. Hence it is merely just a theory.... which by the way, is laughable at best.


Carry on....