A Religious Retort I wish to Ridicule

Ok so I was sent this link by a friend. It is a story about some religious student basically proving an atheist professor wrong. There is a copy of the story below. I must say though that it made me angry and annoyed. So I wrote a reply which I have decided to show here as well, it follows on after the article itself.

Article: [http://shortyisactuallyreallytall.blogspot.com/]
Science Vs Religion
A science professor begins his school year with a lecture to the students, "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 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," 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, 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. "Flawed? Can you explain how?""You are working on the premise of duality," the student explains. "You argue that there is life and then there's death; a good God and a bad God. You are viewing the concept of God as something finite, something we can measure. Sir, science can't even explain a thought.""It uses electricity and magnetism, but has never seen, much less fully understood either one. To view death as the opposite of life is to be ignorant of the fact that death cannot exist as a substantive thing. Death is not the opposite of life, just the absence of it.""Now tell me, professor. Do you teach your students that they evolved from a monkey?""If you are referring to the natural evolutionary process, young man, yes, of course I do.""Have you ever observed evolution with your own eyes, sir?"The professor begins to shake his head, still smiling, as he realizes where the argument is going. A very good semester, indeed."Since no one has ever observed the process of evolution at work and cannot even prove that this process is an on-going endeavor, are you not teaching your opinion, sir? Are you now not a scientist, but a preacher?"The class is in uproar. The student remains silent until the commotion has subsided."To continue the point you were making earlier to the other student, let me give you an example of what I mean."The student looks around the room. "Is there anyone in the class who has ever seen the professor's brain?" The class breaks out into laughter."Is there anyone here who has ever heard the professor's brain, felt the professor's brain, touched or smelt the professor's brain? No one appears to have done so. So, according to the established rules of empirical, stable, demonstrable protocol, science says that you have no brain, with all due respect, sir.""So if science says you have no brain, how can we trust your lectures, sir?"Now the room is silent. The professor just stares at the student, his face unreadable.Finally, after what seems an eternity, the old man answers. "I guess you'll have to take them on faith.""Now, you accept that there is faith, and, in fact, faith exists with life," the 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.



My reply to this story:

I think you’ll find that this little story is somewhat, ok, incredibly flawed. It has a nice introduction by the professor, but the author has clearly written his dialogue in this piece to have any number of flaws to be exploited at a future point, which is evidently done.
Let us start with the point about cold, well done people, there is no such substance “cold” this is a well known fact, or at least it should be if you actually attended school. Once more I must congratulate you on the point that “cold” is simply a word used to describe the absence of heat. Truly amazing, you discover the point of the written word: to convey meaning of an event or experience. You must feel ever so smart. More to the point, it therefore does exist in terms of what it describes, further more may I make the point, the parallel to “heating” is “cooling” not “cold”, cooling is also a heat transfer issue, so does exist, i.e. we can cool things. You’ve mistakenly used “cold” as the parallel and stated it as not existing, where as its analogue is “hot” which doesn’t technically exist any more than “cold” does, it is merely a description.
As per usual these religious argument come down to ridiculous issues of semantics and the miss use and abuse of the English language, or any other language I should imagine. The same argument is used by the student in regards to “light” and “dark”. The problem here is that there is confusion in the use of the word “light”. The professor is saying it exist in the terms of electromagnetic radiation, the oscillations of discrete quantised particles know as photons, that is something physical and measurable. Also what is measurable is the intensity of the light present. This intensity is also measurable and can have ascribe to it different values and names. It is at this point that words of description come into play, and are again abused, it just so happens that two of these terms are “dark” and of course “light” though this time the word “light” is being used to describe a level of intensity, even if it is in the broadest form, not the actual physical element the photon or electromagnetic wave itself. Unfortunately in this piece of literature the terms are interchanged to mislead the reader.
So many holes exist in this piece of writing and the first topical point is barely covered. It is obvious to anyone who has any sort of critical analyse skill that this piece, while at first glance is amusing, is at best at a weak hearted attempt of retaliation against atheists and agnostics. But is fundamentally flawed and is mainly based on flawed assumption, abuse of language and semantics.
The next main point that is raised by the student is that science has in no way been able to explain a “thought”; this is of course to a very large extent true. We, at this stage have not progressed far enough to adequately describe the process. We understand though much more about how the human mind works on a chemical, psychological, medical and social level and are indeed progressing to a stage that one day we may indeed have obtain this understand. But what of religion, it has offered us nothing anywhere within the realms of a decent explanation, some philosophies have offered insight in thoughts and thought pattern, morals and behaviours, only observations, not explanations either, so what if science hasn’t completed the task yet, religion has done no better, at least we are making progress, not stagnating in mouldy thousand year old tombs of archaic outdate vile “moral” code. The argument is repeated again for the theories of electricity and magnetism, as if the author beliefs he has struck onto some type of winning streak. But it is flawed in the same way, science has observed, recorded and can now very well predict these phenomena and we can now use them to the great advantage of our society. So what if to-date we don’t yet know why it happen to the final degree, it is a work in progress, as is all science, being continuously updated and redesigned as more information is uncovered, interpreted and understood. Science itself is a continuously changing dynamic field always try to expand and improve itself, unlike the rotting stagnant stench that is religion. If it were up to most religion we wouldn’t have many of the wonders brought to us by science, we’d probably be living in caves, dying off at the age of thirty or so from various ailments that could have been cured by modern medicine, and blindly following the word of some priest imaginary friend.
Then the comment is made “Death is not the opposite of life, just the absence of it." Now this no longer has bearing on the argument. It is an irrelevant statement. It is a valid enough point. It is complete within itself and does not argue one way or another for either side. It simply is.
I am going to make a point of some type for every little abuse in this document, as it makes me angry to think that people read and believe this nonsense. Read it, have a good laugh, analyse it and see it for what its worth. And its total worth so far is about nothing.
The author of this piece now turns his attention to the famous religious target that is evolution. I am personally a great supporter of evolution and believe that is should be mandatorily taught in all schools. It should of course be taught for what it is, a current theory that helps to explain the evolution of live, not as a strict dogma. I admit that there are areas that are not fully explained by the theory and much evidence has come to light now that wasn’t available when the theory was first proposed, but never the less it does a remarkable job of explaining much of what we know. I fully expect that at some later date the theory will be remade or replaced, but this is the nature of scientific theories themselves. I am not going to go into a detailed debate on the redundant nature of the “gap” argument that is used widely by those who are opposed to this and many other scientific theories, you can do that yourself and if you have a analytical, inquisitive, skeptical and logical mind you will quickly understand why the “gap” argument is flawed.
The student asks now about wether the teacher believes in evolution and if people evolved from monkeys. Okay, let’s clear something up, we did not evolve from monkeys, we evolve from a common ancestor. There were other creatures of simular nature in the past with which we share ancestral lineage from which all other primates, people and monkeys included, descended. Then to ask if someone has seen the evolutionary process take place is a ridiculous question, rhetorical actually, as it occurs over thousands of years and no human has ever live that long. Idiots. Moving on, there is evidence for evolution though, one major point being the fossil records. Before anyone starts up with that “but there are giant holes in the fossil recorded”, I know this, we are extremely lucky that we have founds so much considering how rarely fossil form and are preserved. Once again the “gap” argument is employed here, which is redundant at best. There is though another way to see the gradual changes that occur in a species in today’s world, there is a specific type of bird in Russia that as you travel across the country around the globe, there are gradual changes, like wing span, beak colour or size. Nothing is seen that would really separate them as a different species. But when you travel the entire way around the globe and come back to where you started the last bird you see and the first look nothing alike at all. This is the result of multiple gradual changes, which is the premise for the evolutionary theory. Do I really have to bring up the similarities in DNA at this point, do some research of your own people, and pick up a book that isn’t the bible.
It is at this point that the student claims that professor is teaching is opinion. Wrong. Supported by evidence, accepted as valid scientific theory, peer reviewed etc. Then proceeds to shoot himself in the foot, by denouncing the teacher as a preacher and placing a negative connotation on preachers themselves which I happen to agree with, but really works against him in the long run, as he has just attacked the people he is trying to represent.
The next point, a good cheap laugh at the expense of the professor, a good way to win over the audience I do admit, though it is no more valid a point because of it. Does the professor have a brain? Okay so we ourselves have never actually seen, touched, smelt, tasted (weird) etc the brain, doesn’t mean in this case that it doesn’t exist. This is due to the fact that it is well established that the professor in indeed human and that medical autopsies and in-depth medical studies that are well documented, indicate that all people that are alive have brains, though this says nothing about some people ability to use them (cough!).
So faith is out the window as a load of… I restrain myself; it’s most likely wasted on religious people anyway.
Now, “good” and “evil”, sigh, these are just words used to describe a particular societies current set of socially acceptable actions. As it can be seen there are many changes throughout history where what was though to be evil by one era is acceptable to another. And this shows up between different cultures as well. There are undoubtedly a few such things that all people could happily designate as either “good” or “evil” but this has nothing to do with any type of “God” merely to do with human nature and how we are wired or raised within a society.
Long story short, this piece of writing was created with the express purpose to make it appear as if the atheist had lost, when really he wasn’t given the correct dialogue buy the author, who wanted him to lose. Any self respecting atheist would have analysed the student questions and remarks and pulled them apart and dismantled them for the flawed entities that they are. If he was really good at what he does he would have done it in such a way as to bring some form of enlightenment to the life of these students, enriching them with knowledge and removing them from the dark hole that is religion.

The on sovereign you can allow to rule you is reason,
Do what is right, remove religion.

Christopher Justin Maynard

Religion/Political Issues

So more free time to waste as it is far far to warm to go outside, hence I shall hide inside. While doing this I became bored and decided to follow up on the presidential race in America that I have been following. [I know, I said I was bored….how could this possible help???.....well that’s just how very bored I was!]

Anyway, annoyed at general American society at the moment and there religious ways. I was not aware of how incredibly religious America is. I though that, yes indeed it was and there is a strong following over there, but I had know idea it was as extreme as to have such a large effect on their government and schooling system.

For this reason I hope that the Democrats get in. As they seem to be slightly more in line with the idea of the separation of church and state. I think that we should all support any disestablishmentarian movement. It would seem that most of the Republican candidates want to appoint religiously bias Judges to their supreme court.
This would result in two things that I personally find appalling. This could result in the criminalisation of gay acts, which was only decriminalised in about 2003 in the USA. Not that I overly support gays or am entirely happy about some issue surrounding the matter, this is another topic altogether, but to sanction and/or imprison someone for it is outrageous to say the least. To lock someone away and deny them there personal freedoms based on their sexual orientation is absurd.
The next would be the overturning of a president that had been set which prevented the states from banning abortion. This means that any woman seeking her right to the option of an abortion would be deny and criminal prosecuted. Once again this entire topic could take up many more pages worth of debating and I may post something on it later. But I mean really do they think that it would actually stop abortions happening? Are people that ignorant? The most likely things that would occur from this is that thousands of lives would be destroyed, i.e. the mother that couldn’t care for the child, the abandoned child, the abused child. That’s for those who are born. The others cases will lead to “backyard abortions”, home “remedies” that will result in births that have none of the correct medical oversight, which is obviously very dangerous.

Another bill that was to be put forward for enactment was one that would effectively allow two things. First involves the way churches that receive and allocates money from the government. Many religious groups set up AA meetings or help the homeless or people receive counselling or psychological help through various programs subsidised by the government. At the moment the church and state funds must be kept completely separate and accounted for. This bill will change that, allowing the mingling of funds so that the money could get mixed up and “lost” along the way.
Secondly the hiring and firing in this area by the group committees based on religious belief. That is to say I can fire you because you’re a Muslim and hire you as a counsellor because you’re a Christian, no qualifications retired. So straight out the window with the whole freedom of religion thing there.

The last thing for this little rant: Not teaching evolution in school??? What the hell??? Intelligent design??? What an absolute load of crap! I can’t believe that some people actually believe this work of fiction. Ok, will write something on this later, just needed to state it……grrrrrrr…..

Thoughts on Society

Feel free to comment I would like to know what people think and open said debate.

So I was thinking....its a hobby I’ve taken up of late...... you know using ones brain...should try it some time....

Anyway.....thinking on ways to improve our society...which doesn’t seem to be doing so well in the long term scheme of things.....

The idea got into my head...[been there for a while really]...that so many people don’t understand some of the fundamental basics... i.e. the law, basic first aid, how to defend themselves, how to help others etc....

In other countries they have compulsory police service after high school or military service for two years...... would that be such a bad thing here....but broaden it to included ambulance paramedic work or clerk work at the courts and give people a choice between the four options, it would give people a good founding in basics of society....

And I don’t mean they should do it for free or anything... people should get paid.....and it maybe better for it to be part time or something of the like....it would increase the work force for areas that are lacking, give people not only career options but some basic skills and help the general population.

Also what’s more I think that school should be compulsory until year twelve.... and that Australia will slip behind further if we allow our general standards to slip lower than they already are....we should be encouraging people to learn more, not the opposite. I also believe that you should have to do one math, science and language based subject all the way through high school.
It would be a good idea I believe to allow students to count trade experience in apprenticeships towards or as subject point (ie SACE points in the SA system), for those people that want to work in a trade.

Also there is the issue of sport in schools, I believe that students should be expected to do a sport all through high school also.... I do agree that they need to make the selection more interesting to get this to work...i.e. had they had a martial arts running at my school I would have done it.

The other thing that I am always surprised at is peoples lack of water safety knowledge and of how to swim in general....I know that I and many other would have done VAC swim in the holidays and I really think it should be compulsory....considering the country we live in..... it teach basic first aid and safety around water... how to help someone in trouble and how to help yourself if you ever got into trouble in the water........ it should almost be a school subject....


Anyway if anyone reads this...tell me what you think.......