Professor : You are a Christian, aren’t you, son ?
Student : Yes, sir.
Professor: So, you believe in GOD ?
Student : Absolutely, sir.
Professor : Is GOD good ?
Student : Sure.
Professor: Is GOD all powerful ?
Student : Yes.
Professor: My brother died of cancer even though he prayed to GOD to heal him. Most of us would attempt to help others who are ill. But GOD didn’t. How is this GOD good then? Hmm?
(Student was silent.)
Professor: You can’t answer, can you ? Let’s start again, young fella. Is GOD good?
Student : Yes.
Professor: Is satan good ?
Student : No.
Professor: Where does satan come from ?
Student : From … GOD …
Professor: That’s right. Tell me son, is there evil in this world?
Student : Yes.
Professor: Evil is everywhere, isn’t it ? And GOD did make everything. Correct?
Student : Yes.
Professor: So who created evil ?
(Student did not answer.)
Professor: Is there sickness? Immorality? Hatred? Ugliness? All these terrible things exist in the world, don’t they?
Student : Yes, sir.
Professor: So, who created them ?
(Student had no answer.)
Professor: Science says you have 5 Senses you use to identify and observe the world around you. Tell me, son, have you ever seen GOD?
Student : No, sir.
Professor: Tell us if you have ever heard your GOD?
Student : No , sir.
Professor: Have you ever felt your GOD, tasted your GOD, smelt your GOD? Have you ever had any sensory perception of GOD for that matter?
Student : No, sir. I’m afraid I haven’t.
Professor: Yet you still believe in Him?
Student : Yes.
Professor : According to Empirical, Testable, Demonstrable Protocol, Science says your GOD doesn’t exist. What do you say to that, son?
Student : Nothing. I only have my faith.
Professor: Yes, faith. And that is the problem Science has.
Student : Professor, is there such a thing as heat?
Student : And is there such a thing as cold?
Student : No, sir. There isn’t.
(The lecture theater became very quiet with this turn of events.)
Student : Sir, you can have lots of heat, even more heat, superheat, mega heat, white heat, a little heat or no heat. But we don’t have anything called cold. We can hit 458 degrees below zero which is no heat, but we can’t go any further after that. There is no such thing as cold. Cold is only a word we use to describe the absence of heat. We cannot measure cold. Heat is energy. Cold is not the opposite of heat, sir, just the absence of it.
(There was pin-drop silence in the lecture theater.)
Student : What about darkness, Professor? Is there such a thing as darkness?
Professor: Yes. What is night if there isn’t darkness?
Student : You’re wrong again, sir. Darkness is the absence of something. You can have low light, normal light, bright light, flashing light. But if you have no light constantly, you have nothing and its called darkness, isn’t it? In reality, darkness isn’t. If it is, well you would be able to make darkness darker, wouldn’t you?
Professor: So what is the point you are making, young man ?
Student : Sir, my point is your philosophical premise is flawed.
Professor: Flawed ? Can you explain how?
Student : Sir, you are working on the premise of duality. You argue there is life and then there is death, a good GOD and a bad GOD. You are viewing the concept of GOD as something finite, something we can measure. Sir, Science can’t even explain a thought. It uses electricity and magnetism, but has never seen, much less fully understood either one. To view death as the opposite of life is to be ignorant of the fact that death cannot exist as a substantive thing.
Death is not the opposite of life: just the absence of it. Now tell me, Professor, do you teach your students that they evolved from a monkey?
Professor: If you are referring to the natural evolutionary process, yes, of course, I do.
Student : Have you ever observed evolution with your own eyes, sir?
(The Professor shook his head with a smile, beginning to realize where the argument was going.)
Student : Since no one has ever observed the process of evolution at work and cannot even prove that this process is an on-going endeavor. Are you not teaching your opinion, sir? Are you not a scientist but a preacher?
(The class was in uproar.)
Student : Is there anyone in the class who has ever seen the Professor’s brain?
(The class broke out into laughter. )
Student : Is there anyone here who has ever heard the Professor’s brain, felt it, touched or smelt it? No one appears to have done so. So, according to the established Rules of Empirical, Stable, Demonstrable Protocol, Science says that you have no brain, sir. With all due respect, sir, how do we then trust your lectures, sir?
(The room was silent. The Professor stared at the student, his face unfathomable.)
Professor: I guess you’ll have to take them on faith, son.
Student : That is it sir … Exactly ! The link between man & GOD is FAITH. That is all that keeps things alive and moving.
I believe you have enjoyed the conversation. And if so, you’ll probably want your friends / colleagues to enjoy the same, won’t you?
Forward this to increase their knowledge … or FAITH.
By the way, that student was EINSTEIN.
Thoughts on this
awesome share going around?
Whether or not the story is true is of no importance really. The whole argument is flawed to the bone. And the professor in question would really have had no trouble arguing that.
Fact is nobody has seen god, nor heard, felt, tasted or smelt him.
Fact is that the brain of the professor can be seen, if you open up his skull there it is. That the students didn't see for themselves does not count. Same goes for the fact that there has been evolution. Nobody can see gravity but since an apple falls when you let go of it proves that it's there. There is no such proof of the existence of god. Quite the opposite: anything that would prove the existence of god is factually not there, non-existent. Anything that would prove the influence of god is factually not there. Some people pray when they are sick and die anyways while there are sick people that don't pray at all but don't die. Some people pray for a new car and get one, others pray for a safe life and die in a war. Getting your prayer fulfilled therefor is not to be attributed to god. Saying that we can not know gods plan is a lame excuse to hide the flaws in the faith in god. That's about as valid as saying Because I said so.
Bullsh*t. When I see this on fb I'm marking it as offensive, just for the lulz.
Not to mention that it's offensive.
I'm hardly ever on FB. If it's managed to make it my way I haven't seen it yet.
I do remember seeing a story that was circulating a few years back of a similar nature (this was before FB - a neighbor had printed off an email). This one had an astronaut in space explaining where errors in astronomical time calculations came from using Bible stories. Supposedly NASA took these tales as satisfactory sources of scientific data and used them to re-calculate their equations. The holes in that story were even worse. I kept my mouth shut at the time for social reasons, but it was one of those lies that get spread that makes me want to throw up. I won't be so kind next time I see it.
well Einstein labelled himself as a Spinoza believer, which, God to him is a collective term for all the physical, chemical, biological and other reachable, or perceivable laws of the university, the admiration and appreciation towards the beauty of nature and the cosmos, and of course rejects the idea of an 'anthropomorphic deity'......
in my opinion, it is more of a vocabulary game than an actual classification of religious views.... before you look into controversial definition for pantheism or agnotisim, let's first look at the conventional definition of 'GOD', got it?! There's no way can the conventional definition of the word 'god' fits into the sphere of pantheism or Spinoza's faith.
in other words, the 'thing' that pantheism or Spinoza's believers believe can no way be labelled as 'god', it is no more than the admiration of magnificance of nature and the wonders on the universe in a very humble human perspective.... or who don't adore these? in comparison they're more sentimental and awared than an narrow-sense of atheism (however i personally feel the modern definition of atheism is more towards the agnostic side than the absolute rejection of anything beyond perception, well, fundamental idealism it's what i meant, though i identified myself as realist or materialist.)
actually i feel this is more correlated to the theoritical spirit of logics, reasoning and humility. take any facts as provisional and anything as possible till they're proven otherwise (the ever existing systemic religious concepts through out human history are of course all have been already proven 'otherwise' without any effort.)
Religion is based on psychological need. That is why the religious will lie, cheat, steal, kill, etc to support their agenda, mainly to establish a theocracy, and of course, with them in control. This is why we, the sane and undeluded, must constantly oppose the dangerous nonsense in the above post. As wise people once said, the price for liberty is eternal vigilance, and silence is complicity.
Also, rather than dignify the above garbage post with any further replies, I would suggest efforts in the following:
1. Establish critical thinking classes at all levels of education.
2. Get qualified atheists running for local, state, and federal government offices elected when they might otherwise not be elected because of their atheism even though they are the best candidates for the office.
3. Oust young earthers and creationists from school boards.
4. Ensure that creationism in all of its forms is not taught in science classes.
@ Jack - sounds like a well-conceived plan. Clearly 1 and 4 are dependent on 3, which seems like a good place to start.
Oh yes, as further evidence that the photo is a staged classroom, and not any real class, please explain how that rather short professor wrote the oh so impressive equations at the top of the board. LOL.
"Inspector Gadget" arms --
Christians are pathological liars, period. Anytime their faith comes up, they immediately reach for the handiest lie to make their point. I used to say that sometimes it was just ignorance, because often times they didn't realize the point they were making was based on a lie - but they've been told over and over and over that every single defense that they use is false and they continue to use them - so they are pathological liars. I trap them endlessly, pointing out the fact behind their fallacy, or demanding a citation of in what classroom was a freshman 'Einstein' speaking English to his professor - but they are, so far, completely incapable of dealing in truths. Christianity is not a path to truth, it is a fire that drives devotees to flee from the truth.
Selection bias is a common problem for them, including their own commandment about not "bearing false witness"
Don't these Christian's understand that lying is unethical?
@ Ian - No. Neither do they think it was unethical for their god to torture horses, so why should they?
JOSHUA SCRIPTURE 11:6 Horse torture. And the LORD said unto Joshua, Be not afraid because of them: for tomorrow about this time will I deliver them up all slain before Israel: thou shalt hough their horses, and burn their chariots with fire.