Student vs Teacher. this isn't to start a religious debate, i just thought some people might find it interesting. If you are atheist don't pay attention the the
Click to expand

Student vs Teacher

Student vs Teacher. this isn't to start a religious debate, i just thought some people might find it interesting. If you are atheist don't pay attention the the

this isn't to start a religious debate, i just thought some people might find it interesting. If you are atheist don't pay attention the the religious aspect, but to Einstein's wit. If you are Christian, look at the message. If your confused then read and decide whether you like it or not. I think everyone can enjoy this without it being a big religious hooplah.
Edit- It has been brought to my attention this wasn't Einstein, but it's still interesting. Thanks for first top 5 guys

Professor l You are a Christian, aren' t you, son ,
Student l Yes, sir.
Professor: So, you believe in can ,
Student l Absolutely, sir.
Professor: Is can good ,
Student l Sure.
Professor: Is can all powerful ,
Student l Yes.
Professor: My brother died of cancer even though he prayed to can to heal
him. Most of us would attempt to help others who are ill. But GOO didnt. How
is this can good then? Hmm?
student was silent.)
Professor: You cant answer, can you , Let' s start again, young fella. Is GOO
Student l Yes.
Professor: Is man good ,
Student l No.
Professor: Where does mun come from ,
Professor: That' s right. Tell me son, is there evil in this world?
Student l Yes.
Professor: Evil is everywhere, isn’ t it , And can 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, dont they?
Student l Yes, sir.
Professor: So, who created them ,
student had no answer.)
Professor: Science says you have , senses you use to identify and observe the
world around you. Tell me, son, have you ever seen con?
Student l No, sir.
Professor: Tell us ifyou have ever heard your GOD?
Student l No , sir.
Professor: Have you ever felt your GOD, tasted your GOD, smell your GOD?
Have you ever had any sensory perception of GOO for that matter?
Student l No, sir. I' m afraid I havent.
Professor: Yet you still believe in Him?
Student l Yes.
Professor :According to Empirical, Testable, Demonstrable Protocol, science
says your GOO doesn' t exist. What do you say to that, son?
Student l Nothing. I only have my huh.
Professor: Yes, faith. And that is the problem Science has.
Student l Professor, is there such a thing as heat?
Professor: Yes.
Student :And is there such a thing as cold?
Professor: Yes.
Student l No, sir. There tset.
The lecture theatre became very quiet with this turn of events.)
Student l Sir, you can have lots of heat, even more heat, superheat, mega heat,
white heat, a little heat or no heat. But we dont have anything called cold. We
can hit 495 degrees below zero which is no heat, but we cant go any further
after that. There is no such thing as cold. Cold is only a word we use to
describe the absence oftest. We cannot measure cold. Heat is energy. Cold is
not the opposite of heat, sir, iust the absence of it.
There was silence in the lecture theater.)
Student l What about darkness, Professor? Is there such a thing as darkness?
Professor: Yes. What is night inthere isn’ t darkness?
Student l You’ re wrong again, sir. Darkness is the absence orsomething. You
can have low light, normal light, bright light, flashing light. But ifyou have no
light constantly, you have nothing and its called darkness, isn’ t it? In reality,
darkness tset. If it is, were you would be able to make darkness darker,
wouldnt you?
Professor: So what is the point you are making, young man ,
Student l Sir, my point is your philosophical premise is flawed.
Professy . Flawed , can you explain how?
Student l Sir, you are working on the premise of duality. You argue there is life
and then there is death, a good can and a bad GOO. You are viewing the
concept of GOO as something tbbte, something we can measure. Sir, Science
cant 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.
Student: Death is not the opposite of life: iust 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 l 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 l since no one has ever observed the process of evolution at work and
cannot even prove that this process is an ongoing 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 Professors brain?
The class broke out into laughter. )
Student l Is there anyone here who has ever heard the Professors 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
Professor: I guess youll have to take them on him, son.
Student l That is it sir ... Exactly !The link between man & GOO is FAITH. That
is all that keeps things alive and moving.
P. S. that student was EINSTEIN.
  • Recommend tagsx
Views: 84109
Favorited: 1676
Submitted: 01/08/2012
Share On Facebook
Add to favorites Subscribe to CptZappBrannigan submit to reddit


What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
#293 - wierddude **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
#309 to #293 - maysonlee **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
#292 - lordkyzer ONLINE (01/09/2012) [-]
#147 - houmand (01/09/2012) [-]
Einstein never said anything like this. And the arguments are flawed. If you want me to extrapolate, reply.
User avatar #2726 to #147 - pottie (01/09/2012) [-]
I agree with some of the points you have said. However my physics lecturer from Bristol university has shown us this before and he stood behind it saying that he did have a debate with his teacher. However we will never know if it is really true or not :(
User avatar #3047 to #147 - dyslexicunicorn (01/16/2012) [-]
Truce. No argument here. I'm just curious if you've ever had a thought like this? Read #5. I was derping around and I read this, thought it was interesting.
#152 to #147 - anon (01/09/2012) [-]
In fact he did.. And the arguments are not flawed i just dont Think your tiny brain fully understand them..
#175 to #152 - houmand (01/09/2012) [-]
Oh, he "in fact" did? Then show me the facts prove to me that he did. Give me sources.
Oh, and your think my tiny brain doesn't understand it? Well, that's an ad hominem attack, not an argument. Bring it.
#735 to #175 - sambu (01/09/2012) [-]
go at him bro!
he will rip your faith of with science.
#1447 to #175 - faliceer (01/09/2012) [-]
It isn't Ad hominem unless he uses the actions that you portrayed at some point in time, it is a logical fallacy however and is incorrect, I agree with you on this argument but I see it fit to correct anything for no reason whatsoever.

Just like correcting this bitch.
User avatar #1478 to #1447 - houmand (01/09/2012) [-]
Really? I thought that it was simply claiming a negative attribute in the other person to reduce their credibility. Could you give me a source for this, explaining why it has to be an action?

And again, thanks.
User avatar #230 to #152 - samzo (01/09/2012) [-]
Nice comeback anon.. srsly gtfo.
#174 to #147 - anon (01/09/2012) [-]
i woulkd like to know
User avatar #176 to #174 - houmand (01/09/2012) [-]
Your wish, my command. Check comment #173.
User avatar #1957 to #147 - mrbuu (01/09/2012) [-]
"I can mathematically prove God" - Einstein.
User avatar #1983 to #1957 - houmand (01/09/2012) [-]
Which he never did. Curious.
User avatar #2120 to #1983 - mrbuu (01/09/2012) [-]
The smartest men to walk this world believe in God. Charles Darwin in fact believed in God and not even in his own theory.
User avatar #2160 to #2120 - houmand (01/09/2012) [-]
The "Lady Hope Story", published in 1915, claimed that Darwin had reverted back to Christianity on his sickbed. The claims were repudiated by Darwin's children and have been dismissed as false by historians.[158] From

Now tell me Darwin was a Christian.
#2169 to #2160 - mrbuu has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #2181 to #2169 - houmand (01/09/2012) [-]
Did you even check the source I just sent? I have studied this before. His own children denied it.
#2206 to #2181 - mrbuu has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #2218 to #2206 - houmand (01/09/2012) [-]
Wiki has linked its sources, you haven't.
#2237 to #2218 - mrbuu has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #2247 to #2237 - houmand (01/09/2012) [-]
Best argument ever! I concede! You must be right! OMG this is amazing! You've convinced me of my wrong ways! Teach me, master!
User avatar #2254 to #2247 - mrbuu (01/09/2012) [-]
trolling is fun isn't it?
#2263 to #2254 - houmand (01/09/2012) [-]
<3 Marry me?
User avatar #2553 to #2120 - jadink (01/09/2012) [-]
Stephen Hawking is one of the smartest people alive and he does not believe in God. In fact, he proved God is not real.
User avatar #3008 to #2553 - jadink (01/10/2012) [-]
I shall go down in a fiery blaze of red pinkies. And to anyone who reads this, look at this link.
#188 to #147 - HellsSponge (01/09/2012) [-]
I agree, something tells me Einstein and a college professor wouldn't make arguments that could be refuted by a 12 year old
#274 to #188 - houmand (01/09/2012) [-]
True, brother, true. Put it there!
#2525 to #188 - anon (01/09/2012) [-]
[url deleted] <- my answer
#2973 to #147 - manofparody ONLINE (01/10/2012) [-]
MFW I see this entire page of text
User avatar #1999 to #147 - swiiftninja (01/09/2012) [-]
This reminds me of the time some missionarys came to my town and one sunday at mass they made a big speech about this kid whos friend killed himself and he locked himself in the room for a week.
When he came out he had a bible and had circled "Do not be afraid" 365 times
one for each day of the year
and guess who it was
Neil Armstrong
I'm christian and even i thought "What **** !"
#2900 to #147 - NOOBLY (01/10/2012) [-]
such an unorganized thread, I don't know where to post my comment so, I'll make do here.

Evolution can be considered as macro addition (1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1=x)
however it can also be observed as micro addition (1+1=2) in forms of procreation and **** like that. Another example would be that your feet's skin would toughen if you walked bare foot.

pic related, it's what I feel after reading this thread... The amount of ignorant fools is astonishing.
#2884 to #147 - togay (01/10/2012) [-]
hundreds and hundreds of years of the greatest scientists, greatest philosophers and chuck norris has yet to FULLY prove if god exists or if he doesnt.
so none of you people on funnyjunk are all of a sudden gonna work out lifes questions.
athiests who did not have the burden of gods punishment have allowed them to develop science and technology to the extent where living to 80 is now the norm...
but also religion has helped alot of people in their lives and to keep a moral path, aloooot could go wrong without religion in this world...
so either way you can never say another person is wrong or right...its opinion..and stop trying to change other peoples opinions...just chill the **** next.... find somthing funny...and move on with life...

p.s im muslim bitches!!
User avatar #2968 to #2884 - zevran (01/10/2012) [-]
Religion guiding moral? Are you kidding me? Religion is the biggest source of conflict in this world.
#2974 to #2968 - togay (01/10/2012) [-]
and its that sort of stupidity and ignorance that causes the conflict between like to dwell on the problem and conflict religion causes..and not the good...ever think what this world would be like if every single person on this planet didint beleive in god? punishment? no consequences? no life after death? sure alooot of people out there would do alot of bad things if they didint think they wouldnt be punished in some sort in the next sure your one of those douches that walk around shouting out that religion nuts are ignorant and stupid and they dont listen to facts and reason...yet here you are never taking in the pros of religion just to cons to make a half assed ****** my friend are just as bad as those religious people who say athiests are stupid and science cant prove idiot...
User avatar #2979 to #2974 - zevran (01/10/2012) [-]
Moral dosn't deliver from religion. It delivers from human beings natural feeling of empathy and simple logic.

I could present to you proof that Religion and morality has nothing to do with each other. But it would require a long text whitch I am not keen on writing as I am currently in the middle of a game of cards. I will only say that the West, the most non voilent region in the world, is secular. While the more voilent regions are largely religious.
#2993 to #2979 - togay (01/10/2012) [-]
you sir...are a moron....first of all...religion helps with morality...i didint say it is the cause of cannot prove it has nothing to do with cant prove everything..somthing athiests dont seem to understand..morality is not somthing that can measures only suck on that...but let me get to a better point...
the west is a non-violent region?...this is the problem with arguing with retards...they dont learn from their did the same biased approach again..
the reason the west seems so unviolent is that its not in their back see muslims blowing up the twin towers, suicide bombing, stoning and hanging of gay people...innocent people being killed by religion...but what about all the innocent people being killed by missiles bombs and predator drones..just so america can get oil to be even richer then the other the east kill for religion...for what they beleive is the gods will and eternal afterlife paradise(not up to you wether they are wrong or not)....and the west kill for more money...yet they do it alot you tell me which goal is more worthy of innocent peoples death? not defending them..but dont say the west is non-violent..since america was formed theyve spent most of their times at war with other THEIR countries...not U.S.A..thats why you think theyre not find you some facts and numbers...but im currently face palming myself so hard right now im tickiling my tonssils...i think you should stick to licking windows before you try and sound smart...
User avatar #2999 to #2993 - zevran (01/10/2012) [-]
I'm just comparing murder rates, which are lower in the west than in the east. You can also compare the secular laws to the religious laws and see which ones are the more brutal ones. Thing is, morality will exist with or without religion. Religon just creates another reason for conflict. You yourself is a good example as you are already down to insulting my person just because you do not agree with my opinion.
#3000 to #2999 - togay (01/10/2012) [-]
lol soo your saying your gonna choose the rates that make the west look good and not the other ones....i never said murder rates...i said death many the country has the level of deaths caused by america domestically and foreign to the ones in the east...and america would be much higher...and act as if someone says...hey i beleive in pretty sure all religions have rules on doing good onto others...if people followed their religions properly then they would be better people...laws put by goverment stop people from doing bad...but religious laws say for you to not only not do bad, but also do good...your an idiot...and im not attacking you because im muslim and your athiest..or the fact that your going against my views...i like a good argument...but the key word is good...this is not a good argument...becuase your a retard that isnt making any valid points...lyou keep trying to throw in words like secular and acting as if in the real world you would speak in that same tone of voice..."insulting my person" you dont speak like that...and thats why im insulting are an overal overlord award winning douce of the universe...
User avatar #3001 to #3000 - zevran (01/10/2012) [-]
I like to use propper grammer when I argue. If that makes me an arrogant douch then so be it.

Anyway, how many people a country has killed? Are you serious? There are no absolutely secular countries in this world, so that would be pointless. All I am doing is saying that voilence in the general populace is higher in religious societies than in secular ones. Which suggests that religion, or the lack of it does not affect morality.

I also never suggested that being religious made you a bad person. I'm simply saying that religions often cause conflict and that the lack of it does not make for bad morality.

As for doing good, sure, religious people do go, and so does non-religious people. Only that non-religious people do so because they feel genuine empathy for the poor and unfortunate, while some religious people only do it because they think they'll go to paradise or heaven or whatever.

Besides, if people were to follow their religious to the letter then Christians (and muslims for that matter) would still be selling slaves, and killing in the name of their religions... oh, never mind, they still do that.
#3004 to #3001 - togay (01/10/2012) [-]
to your first line....atleast youve realised your trying to be an arrogane douce...
and all im saying is that your secular countries youre talking about have less violence because the violence they do cause are in other countries...
and to everything else you can say the exact same thing for the other side...thats what your not understanding...its the same for both sides...thats why its equal...and why everyone should make their own decisions...thats why you cant say one side is worse then the other...both sides have bad and just shut up...your boring me now...
User avatar #3007 to #3004 - zevran (01/10/2012) [-]
It's good that I'm not here to entertain you then.

How does the voilence and effects of individuals with a certain mindset have anything to do with what a nation's goverment does. It's not like somebody's going to go: "I'll not murder this person because we just bombed Libya."

Wether you like it or not religion is a major source of conflict and voilence, the lack of religion is not.
#3010 to #3007 - togay (01/10/2012) [-]
I...I...I dont even know how youve managed to survive to this age...seriously...your just so dumb...please dont tell me your britfat?
User avatar #3011 to #3010 - zevran (01/10/2012) [-]
The feeling is mutual... Anyhow, ahy would my nationality have any relevance to the argument. But I'll humour you. No, I am not britfat, I am Norwegian. And you're from?
#3014 to #3011 - togay (01/10/2012) [-]
because id be really embarassed if you was from england aswell...and if you was amerifat atleast youd have that as an excuse...but no...your just mother natures mistake...
User avatar #3016 to #3014 - zevran (01/10/2012) [-]
Yeah... keep up with the personal insults whenever someone disagrees with you, and you'll go far in this world.

Anyway, I've got some episodes of MLP I need to watch. Love and tolerance to you mate.
#3017 to #3016 - togay (01/10/2012) [-]
:O MLP your so original and amaze me!
User avatar #2945 to #147 - jellybob (01/10/2012) [-]
God may exist, he may not exist. Some people believe in him, some don't. There's no need for people on either side of the debate to attack each other over this when there are genocides in Africa, war in the middle east, corruption in leaders and morals are frowned upon. Both sides have made logical arguments against eachother but for what? We're all gonna die one way or another and it's not like if a Christian gets to heaven he can come back down and brag to the Atheist. The fact of the matter is we simply can't really know for sure. I choose to believe God exists and he has a plan for us. Do I think it makes sense? not particularly but I have faith it will all work out somehow.

tl;dr Lets all just put the bibles and science books down and try to get along regardless
#153 to #147 - anon (01/09/2012) [-]
i wanna hear how its flawed kind sir
#173 to #153 - houmand (01/09/2012) [-]
First of: the detail about coldness and darkness not existing is a mistake on the teacher's behalf, it is indeed lack of energy, not an opposite. But! the similé the student makes between "life and death" and is something the teacher never spoke of. The teacher was saying that no empirical evidence can support the existence of a god, and under the bible's own dogma, God would in fact be evil. The student speaks of death not being a finite substance, and then never makes a point that applies to what the teacher spoke of.

The student is genuinely not listening to the teacher and definitely not arguing his case. He hasn't proven any of the teacher's arguments wrong.

On top of this, the note about evolution not being observable is literally a lie. You can observe evolution in the breeding of dogs. The reason a dachshund and a rottweiler look different and have radically different attributes is because they've been bred, mutation upon mutation. Enhancing some features while almost erasing others. Oh, and if that one doesn't fit your taste: think of your appendix, tell me its purpose, for it has none.

Oh, and the worst of them: the brain bit. The teacher's brain is tangible, it's just inside of his cranium. He could show you his brain, but it would involve cutting his skull open or using an x-ray device or other imaging hardware. It's there, you can smell it, hear it, feel it, heck, you can even eat it. It exists.

Oh and just a tid-bit: if faith is all that is keeping man alive, then how do atheists even breathe? How do animals live, if they have no concept of god? How about bacteria? Plants? Utter and complete ******** .
User avatar #583 to #173 - iputsomeusername (01/09/2012) [-]
My kind fellow, while I agree with you almost indefinitely, I am compelled to point out an error in your otherwise fine evaluation of the comic: Your postulations with regard to the human appendix. It is commonly believed that it serves no purpose, but it simply isn't true, link:

If you, or others, do not wish to read, then I present the following quote:
"the function of the appendix appears to be to expose white blood cells to the wide variety of antigens, or foreign substances, present in the gastrointestinal tract."

I hope you do not mind me budding, and I hope you take my minor correction well.

User avatar #592 to #583 - houmand (01/09/2012) [-]
Thank you so much for this! Really! It's a conundrum that has confounded many for a long time. I am very grateful that you would share this with me!

User avatar #1931 to #592 - kratosity (01/09/2012) [-]
User avatar #2958 to #1931 - houmand (01/10/2012) [-]
Of course I am :D
User avatar #3012 to #2958 - kratosity (01/10/2012) [-]
#1935 to #592 - anon (01/09/2012) [-]
Christianity does not disprove evolution... In fact you can find many parts of the bible that support it. But there are two different kinds of evolution. Micro evolution and Macro evolution. Micro evolution is evolution at a small scale, for instance your example about the dogs. Macro evolution is completely different. Macro evolution teaches that say a dog eventually would evolve into a cat. Frankly, there is no evidence to support macro evolution. Another fact that disproves evolution being the origin of life is the fact that some species of animals require many specific parts that must all be present for the animals to function. So, if they would not have all been present at the same time(slowly evolving over billions of years), the animal would not be able to survive. Therefore this shows that all parts had to have always been there, showing evidence towards some kind of Creator.
#2507 to #1935 - BlindBoyBlues **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
#2335 to #1935 - hipnogoat (01/09/2012) [-]
#2154 to #173 - thaihooker (01/09/2012) [-]
Faith in humanity: restored
User avatar #2166 to #2154 - houmand (01/09/2012) [-]
Right back at ya!
#559 to #173 - mrsgttaters **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #586 to #559 - houmand (01/09/2012) [-]
Very good point. Thank you very much.

This is indeed a point where we don't have conclusive evidence, but most animals share most of the same basic structure, i.e. fetuses of different mammals are almost identical in the first stages of growth, and the same basic structure of limbs and number of appendages do seem very homogenous in all vertebrates. This is all indicative of common ancestry.

With our current data, the most plausible and widely accepted theory is evolution.
#617 to #586 - mrsgttaters **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #1235 to #586 - tokiopop (01/09/2012) [-]
Look up some research about Humans having 46 chromosomes and Apes having 48 (there's a lot more to it than that) and I think you'll see some pretty damn hard evidence. There's a Richard Dawkins video somewhere on youtube that explains it much better than I ever could.
User avatar #1302 to #1235 - houmand (01/09/2012) [-]
What I said was that we don't have conclusive evidence. Meaning it's not 100% provable. But it is almost 100% probable. I believe we agree on this, so forgive me if my frasing was inaccurate.
User avatar #1399 to #1302 - faliceer (01/09/2012) [-]
User avatar #1424 to #1399 - houmand (01/09/2012) [-]

I apologize, English isn't my first language.
User avatar #1485 to #559 - DivderOfZero (01/09/2012) [-]
The Theory of Evolution has nothing to do with monkeys turning into humans. Also "I.E." is only used when you are listing everything not when you are listing just one example..... dumb **** .

inb4 sea of red pinkies
#1658 to #1485 - mrsgttaters **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
#1814 to #1485 - mrsgttaters **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #1403 to #559 - exoh (01/09/2012) [-]
well the only thing i wish to add to the species change thing is wolves, foxes, domestic dogs, hyenas, etc. theyre all canines, they all came from somewhere very similar but theyre all different species.

the monkey to human thing is very extreme, if we came from apes then there wouldnt be apes, its just a common ancestor allowing the branch to evolve and change into different types of primates, chimps, monkeys and humans alike.
#1679 to #1403 - mrsgttaters **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
#2955 to #173 - xwilly (01/10/2012) [-]
It's people like this that still give me hope for society.
#2842 to #173 - butiloveu ONLINE (01/10/2012) [-]
My words on your keyboard. (maybe in a better version)
User avatar #1778 to #173 - chitalian (01/09/2012) [-]
Maybe it's like Schroedinger's Brain: It's both there and not there until you actually split open his head.
#234 to #173 - lateralcockdamage has deleted their comment [-]
#249 to #234 - crata (01/09/2012) [-]
dumbest reply ever read
#250 to #249 - crata (01/09/2012) [-]
as in 'ok einstien grew up jewish'
User avatar #1073 to #234 - wiredguy ONLINE (01/09/2012) [-]
So your proof of God is "There can't be no God because he is all knowing."
And, God is supposedly Omnipotent, as in capable of ******* anything. So why can't he make it so we all live forever. And if you so much as think that God punishes humans with all this stuff because of what Adam and Eve did, then you can **** right off. What kind of dickhead deity would punish an entire people just for what two of their ancestors did?
And in regards to "if you prove God he becomes science, not religion." So the gist of that is: Science has proof, religion does not, so if religion had proof it would become science.
I'm not saying this because of your faith, that I have no problem with, I'm saying it because you are an idiot: Go play in traffic.
User avatar #1985 to #1073 - Korosia (01/09/2012) [-]

Science and Religion are really two sides of the same coin. Both rely on the exploration and verification of ideas to explain the world around us. Both also rely on faith – the acceptance of a model that is supported by all the evidence available, despite the fact in has not been unambiguously verified. In fact many scientists, myself included, would argue that a scientific model can never be proven right. One current example is that of Einstein’s laws of special relativity. It has, thus far, stood up to all available evidence – the surface detection of Muon decay and time distortion of satellites, as well as the evidence from the Michelson-Morley interferometer, all support this theory. But the recent experiments at CERN and other places have revealed the possibility that it is, perhaps, not quite consistent. And yet, for the best part of a century it has been in standard use among the scientific community – we have, for want of a better term, had “faith” in this, because it has yet to be inconsistent with our observation of the universe.

Religion (ignoring the many people who call themselves religious and yet ignore its basic practices *cough*WBC*cough*) is much the same. The Bible presents a model of how the universe works. It is then up to us to weigh this against our observations of the world, and see whether or not it holds. I've been researching Christianity over the last few months, and when you understand what it is actually about (as oppose to what we think it's about, based from here say and gossip) it fits the world with an surprising degree of accuracy. If there is something that appears to not fit that model, then we are encouraged to research that piece, because chances are the ill-fit is borne from a misunderstanding of the model, not a flaw in that model. Were there to come a time when some evidence was completely contradictory, a large amount of (true) Christians would think very carefully about their beliefs.
User avatar #2325 to #1985 - wiredguy ONLINE (01/09/2012) [-]
I agree with you thoroughly, my biggest problem is not with the one or two people left who are still "proper" Christians but with the way others take the views from the Bible and use it to justify their actions or simply as a means to explain the universe around them without having to put any effort into working it out for themselves properly, it's just a cop out for most people :\
Though I do stand by the fact that "atheism" (as it is commonly thought of today, rasher than simply the lack of belief in a god) takes (at best) less faith than religion. All logic in religion came about because people wanted it to or from third parties (ie: a god, if there is one). I don't think it's ever a good idea to simply accept information, wherever it comes from. Think back to your childhood and think seriously about how many times your parents lied to you...
User avatar #2449 to #2325 - Korosia (01/09/2012) [-]
There are still a suprising number of "proper" Christians about - they are just quieter than the problem-causing ones. I completely agree that information should never be accepted without proper validity. In fact, I think the world would be a better place were more people to properly research the things they are told. It is also worth noting that Christianity, both in the bible and with its believe, actively encourage questions and really emphasise the idea of self-exploration, and finding out more than what you are simply told.
There are, of course, people who do not do this. But there are also people who think weight is measured in kilograms. It is a flaw of humanity, and one, unfortunately, we will struggle to fix.
User avatar #2536 to #2449 - wiredguy ONLINE (01/09/2012) [-]
I was like "weight not measured... Kilograms Oo WHAT!?"
And then I remembered Newtons.
But disregarding my momentary stupidity :P You make a valid point. My only other point to add is Leviticus 18:22 "‘Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable." And the punishment for this category of crime is stoning. So what do you think of all the parts of the original Bible text which are very controlling, unfair and demand violence?
I have always wanted to be one of those people who rips that page out of hotel Bibles and mails them to Ian McKellen, though I don't often stay in English hotels ^^
And then I thought of another possibility, going back to my earlier mention of people who use religion as a means to justify their actions, could this indeed
not_ be a part of the original Bible? Many people claim to have seen major differences between modern and antique Bibles. Hell in some pre-19th century French Bible they found, it claims that Jesus rose from his tomb as a giant and had with him his cross, which could now walk and speak.
So what if the Bible has been edited? What if all the people today who are religious and yet still hateful or stupid have not the religion itself to blame, but their greedy predecessors.
Food for thought :\
User avatar #2540 to #2536 - wiredguy ONLINE (01/09/2012) [-]
Ugh, sorry about the italics, it glitched out when I tried to write this smiley: O_o
User avatar #962 to #173 - dyslexicunicorn (01/09/2012) [-]
Evolution implies the development of a species over a period of time to better benefit that species in its natural habitat such as gills, fins, etc. which can't be proven to be evolved or disproven that that species has always been that way. Breeding is in no way relative to evolution; two different types of dogs breeding in no way evolves them to a superior race of dogs with extravagant advanced features that other dogs don't possess. That's the equivalent of claiming that when a black and white person have a child that said child is an evolved super human with features that no other human is evolved enough to possess. And as for the appendix, by mentioning that you have defeated your own argument. If evolution truly exists and causes all useless features to be removed while enhancing and growing others then why hasn't the appendix evolved out of humans? Surely there have been enough people with removed appendixes that have bred so that their children should be appendixless? AS for the student's argument... it is absolutely brilliant. He takes away all credibility from the professor which is exactly what the professor tried to do to the student. Whether your'e athiest, agnostic, Christian, or anything you CAN'T disprove that God exists... while the only main evidence that God does exist is the Bible and the faith of man, there is more proof that God does exist than that God doesn't exist. It is all based on faith. If you have none then I sympathize for you because faith is something that is so wonderful and so inexplicable that just having the motivation that faith gives you is enough proof that God exists that no person can tell you otherwise.

Faith is a noun, athiest is an adjective... Athiesm does not exist, it is not tangible, you can not feel it, taste it, touch it, smell it or hear it. Athiesm is simply the absence of Faith.
User avatar #1148 to #962 - wiredguy ONLINE (01/09/2012) [-]
1. If you remove your appendix, its information is still in your genome and thus your children will be born with them.

2. Look at the rest of the comments, the appendix is not useless, we just didn't know what it did for a while so some people simply assumed it didn't do anything.

3. (Assuming the appendix IS useless, just for the sake of argument). It takes millions of years to evolve, for all we know we were still using the appendix 2000 years ago, since no medical records of any kind were kept for a long time before that and they wouldn't know anyway. Had it occurred to you that we were in the process of evolving out of the appendix?

4. Atheist is a noun, atheistic is an adjective. Just as faithful is an adjective. I have no idea what the **** you were going on about in the last bit.

5. Breeding dogs and evolution are EXACTLY the same thing, evolution just happens on a much larger scale.

6. Evolution is NOT the idea that every time an animal is born it removes all the bad parts of its system and enhances the good ones. Evolution is the idea that when it is born it is different, not necessarily for the better or worse, then depending on how good/bad its mutations were it is more/less successful in passing on its genes. This way there end up being more animals with the new positive mutation and less with the negative.
Example: There are two islands, both with the same species of bird on them. On island A there are lots of insects and a few nuts, whereas on island B there are lots of nuts and few insects. The birds on both islands will often mutate thinner/thicker beaks. The birds with thin beaks thrive on island A as they can use the thin beaks to get into trees and the earth to catch insects, the thick beaked birds however, die. On island B, the opposite happens, the thick beaked birds thrive on the nuts (which they have to crack) and the thin ones die.
This is evolution on a... Medium scale. Give it longer and they will become completely different.
#2942 to #1148 - anon (01/10/2012) [-]
Actually, in response to part 3: Under evolution, we will not lose the appendix unless not having it provides an advantage. Given that at present, the number of appendix-related deaths is incredibly low, and there is no easy way (besides asking of course) to tell whether or not somebody has an appendix, there is no reason to believe that the appendix is going to be disappearing anytime soon, even using an evolutionary scale "soon".
User avatar #2996 to #2942 - wiredguy ONLINE (01/10/2012) [-]
Very good ^^
I'll add that to my list XD
#1890 to #1148 - Peirs (01/09/2012) [-]
I am Christian but also believe in evolution to a certain extent. I don't believe that we evolved from fish or some **** , But i do believe that we evolved from primative beings. I actually believe that different Homus species bred in order to create the different races we have now. For example i think Homo Sapiens bred with Homo floresiensis which resulted in a primative black person. Then they evolved to what they are now. But I'm mostly speaking outta me ass right now. I don't know whats going on around me most of the time.
User avatar #2058 to #1890 - hipnogoat (01/09/2012) [-]
How can you being a Christian and imply that we still evolved from primates? Or are you one of those Christians that tries to decide which part of the Bible is true and which you dont like and find false. The Bible clearly states that God created man in the Garden of Eden. If you are a Christian and believe the Bible is inspired, how much more evidence do you need, to know that we did not evolve from primates. This is the problem with most Christians. They take the parts of the Bible out that they are comfortable with and find the most appealing and leave the rest. Im not saying that I am not guilty of this either. But when something so obvious is in the Bible(the book you believe is inspired by claiming to be Christian) how can you possibly say things like "we evolved from primates"??

#2159 to #2058 - Peirs (01/09/2012) [-]
Nonono I don't believe we evolved from primates. I believe that God created homo sapiens indirectly. People take the bible too literally and seem to think that everything it says is EXACTLY how it happened when that is not the case. The bible is to promote speculation and research. And homo sapiens bred with other members of the homo genus to create a less perfect form of what was. I believe that the first homo sapiens were the perfect beings.
Nonono I don't believe we evolved from primates. I believe that God created homo sapiens indirectly. People take the bible too literally and seem to think that everything it says is EXACTLY how it happened when that is not the case. The bible is to promote speculation and research. And homo sapiens bred with other members of the homo genus to create a less perfect form of what was. I believe that the first homo sapiens were the perfect beings.
#2192 to #2159 - Peirs (01/09/2012) [-]
But in this day in age religion is counted as a form of weakness so no matter what i put I'll get pinkieed down and be told to *picture*.
User avatar #2269 to #2192 - hipnogoat (01/09/2012) [-]
People are ignorant and refuse to listen to other sides of the belief system. They just want to flame flame flame and when their time is up, they leave. They do not want to hear other peoples opinions that say they are wrong. And pinkies shouldnt matter. I'd be happy if at least one person got something from what i wrote. Besides when i see a post that has been pinkieed down 8 or 9 plus times, I want to see why? These idiots who pinkie down every theological post actually are helping to spread what they are desperately trying to hide.

User avatar #2226 to #2159 - hipnogoat (01/09/2012) [-]
The Bible is the inspired word of God. It should be taken literally. God inspired each person to write what he or she wrote. God created humans completely directly. He created them in His own image. God created Adam and Eve. They sinned and were kicked from the garden. Due to this decision that they made, sin was introduced to the world. And as the years have gone by sin slowly deteriorated on the human body hence why we are shorter and do not live as long. Homo sapiens did not breed with other quote Homo genus species. They bred with themselves.
#2266 to #2226 - Peirs (01/09/2012) [-]
Ok, first of all you cant say "quote" like that if you're online, you have to actually put it in quotes -_-. And that is depending on what branch of Christianity you believe in. And NO! The bible is meant to spark speculation... It is not to be taken literally. A lot of things in there are meant to be used as guidelines.
User avatar #2288 to #2266 - hipnogoat (01/09/2012) [-]
If it is not meant to be taken literally, are you saying that some parts of it are not true?

User avatar #1504 to #962 - DivderOfZero (01/09/2012) [-]
Im a Christian but you? You're the type of Christian that makes the rest of us look like stupid assholes that have no clue what they're talking about.
User avatar #1662 to #1504 - dyslexicunicorn (01/09/2012) [-]
No my good sir, YOU are the type of Christian that gives Christians a bad name. You're clearly unwilling to defend your beliefs and you clearly have no strength in your faith. If me defending my beliefs makes me a "Bad Christian" then you must be the greatest Christian who ever lived for not defending yours. And as little as I know about evolution (because I really don't care to spend my time learning something that I don't agree with) I know exactly what I am talking about when It comes to my own faith.
#1798 to #1662 - houmand (01/09/2012) [-]
How are you supposed to argue anything concerning evolution if you don't care to learn it and understand it? You have to know what you're talking about to do critisize it.
User avatar #1848 to #1798 - dyslexicunicorn (01/09/2012) [-]
Same thing goes with religion and God. When you care to learn and understand God, then you can criticize it.
User avatar #1873 to #1848 - houmand (01/09/2012) [-]
What proof have you that I don't understand and know Christianity? I come from a Christian family and my grandfather is a priest. I've been taught the values of Christianity, I'm babtized and confirmed. I have the right to critisize Christianity, because I do know and understand it.
User avatar #2146 to #1873 - hipnogoat (01/09/2012) [-]
Christianity isnt just about the rules. This is where many "Christians" are wrong. God does not say do this, and do that, then do this, and then you are saved. No, he said develop a relationship with me, and by developing that relationship, you naturally follow His law. Ephesians 2:8 says "We are saved by grace through faith." God loves us and wants to have a relationship with us. This is the reason why many people are turned away from Christianity. Many Christians make it seem like the Bible is just a giant rule book. And as long as you follow the rules, you'll be fine. By forming a relationship with God FIRST, you will naturally follow his law through LOVE. For example, I do not beat my wife. Not because there is a rule that says not too. No, because I love my wife. The same goes for your relationship with God. You follow his rule because you love him, not the other way around.
User avatar #2956 to #2146 - houmand (01/10/2012) [-]
How is this relevant in a discussion of my knowledge of Christianity?
User avatar #2970 to #1848 - zevran (01/10/2012) [-]
I know enough about religion and the many ideas of God to argue properly against it. The same can't be said for you concerning evolution.
User avatar #1408 to #962 - houmand (01/09/2012) [-]
My dear Dyslexic Unicorn, your grasp on evolution is unimpressive. Breeding is evolution, though on a small scale. Look it up.

And on account of the appendix, I suggest you read the posts #1148 and #583. (You guys are awesome)

The professor and student matter is also a point in which you are terribly wrong. Undermining someone's credibility is not an argument. Just because you say undermine the integrity of another person, it does not negate their arguments. You need a counterargument to do so.

Oh, and as to your proof that God exists, show me some proper evidence. Problem is, you don't have to prove that it's NOT there, you have to prove that it's there. I could also claim that a magical toe nail clipping is the omnipotent creator of our universe and that he is undetectable, but that does not prove its existence. It's ******** .
(Yes, this is pretty much the Flying Spaghetti Monster argument, but it is genuinely valid).

And if there is indeed an omnipotent god, then it isn't a god worth believing in, 'cause there's absolutely no proof that this deity is benevolent.

Oh, and the difference between the two of us: Prove me wrong and I'll accept it and I'll even thank you. I prove you wrong, and you'll just stubbornly ignore me. Bring it.
User avatar #1606 to #1408 - dyslexicunicorn (01/09/2012) [-]
As much as I respect your intellect and your limitless arrogance, you clearly didn't read anything I said. As i clearly stated "you CAN'T disprove that God exists... while the only main evidence that God does exist is the Bible and the faith of man, there is more proof that God does exist than that God doesn't exist. It is all based on faith"... you didn't prove that wrong in any way. There is no way you could ever disprove the existence of God to me just like there is no way I could ever prove God's existence to you unless you had some new found faith. Like I previously stated, it is all based on faith. if your faith led you to believe that a magical toenail clipping is almighty and omnipotent then you have every right to believe that. That is the difference between you and I... I respect the beliefs of others, you attack the faith of others. I'm only defending my beliefs. There are two things in this world that can't be argued, Politics and Religion. This debate will never end and neither of us will ever change our mind. You can try your hardest to convince me that your beliefs are correct and that mine are wrong and I will always disagree, just like I could try my hardest to convince that my beliefs are correct and you will always disagree. As much as I disagree with you and as much of an asshole as you are being, I do respect you and the strength of your beliefs, as much as I may disagree.

User avatar #1762 to #1606 - houmand (01/09/2012) [-]
Considering that you did not note anything about my first two arguments, I have to assume that you have no counterargument. Is that so? If not, start arguing your case.

The faith of man is based on the bible, which means your only source is the bible and your personal emotional experience. This is not a source of proof.
As I stated before, you have to prove that God exists, before I can attempt to disprove it. There is no tangible evidence to the existence of a divine power, and so it cannot be proven.

And your claim concerning me "attacking" the belief of others is founded in nothing. I'm fine with people having faith, I am however not fine with them attempting to shoe-horn their faith into science and rational thinking, when it doesn't fit. The bible is not logical, it has several contradictions, and cannot be considered evidence of anything.
Give me one piece of evidence as to the existence of God. That shouldn't be a problem considering "There is more proof that God does exist than that God doesn't exist"

If I were to "attack" your faith or anyone's faith, I would be contacting you, telling you that you're wrong. This is not the case. You are entering the territory of science and logic, and are the invader. So that would make you the attacker, if such a term is applicable.

Now, please argue your case, and address all of my arguments, if you do not, you will have lost those arguments and then be unable to build further arguments upon it.

User avatar #1837 to #1762 - dyslexicunicorn (01/09/2012) [-]

I would think that you would give this a look so that you can see my argument
User avatar #1896 to #1837 - houmand (01/09/2012) [-]
This is a ******** web-page claiming that you don't need to prove God's existence, because it's "so obvious". Which in itself is not proof. Come again.

Oh, and as a side-note this means that I won the argument concerning evolution being a valid theory, the appendix being true to evolutions and that I am indeed not attacking your faith.

Get your **** together, because if not you'll have lost the entire argument.
User avatar #1938 to #1896 - dyslexicunicorn (01/09/2012) [-]
Define winning the argument? That you're right and I'm wrong? There is nothing to win. The only way I could see you winning would be to make me not believe in the existence of God? You can't win. Neither of us can. It's an argument that will never end and can never be won.
User avatar #1993 to #1938 - houmand (01/09/2012) [-]
If you were to abide by the rules you are trying to convince me with (logic), you would indeed be convinced, but you do not accept these premises, so no, this argument cannot be won, lost or resolved, because you are not abiding the rules. Your argumentation is not logical. You are not disproving anything.
User avatar #2081 to #1993 - dyslexicunicorn (01/09/2012) [-]
I am not trying to disprove anything.
User avatar #2129 to #2081 - houmand (01/09/2012) [-]
Alright, I'll bite. Then what were you trying to do in comment #962?
If you were not trying to disprove something, what was the purpose of that comment and all of your arguing? Was it not to prove me wrong? Was it just for ***** and giggles?

I love ***** and giggles, so that'd be a fine answer for me :D
User avatar #2428 to #2129 - dyslexicunicorn (01/09/2012) [-]
You were trying to disprove the original picture and I was trying to defend it
User avatar #2957 to #2428 - houmand (01/10/2012) [-]
And for you to defend it, you need to prove that I am wrong. Meaning you have to disprove me. Really? You seriously don't know how this **** works?

Faith in humanity: Somewhat diminished.
User avatar #2898 to #962 - graknab (01/10/2012) [-]
User avatar #2933 to #2898 - smrtash (01/10/2012) [-]
Da fuq?
User avatar #2969 to #2898 - zevran (01/10/2012) [-]
Sarcasm or serious?
User avatar #3029 to #2969 - graknab (01/10/2012) [-]
User avatar #2959 to #962 - borntowrite (01/10/2012) [-]
Everyone pinkieed you down, but man I am 100% with you. The argument was a counter against the professor and was brilliant. thank you!
User avatar #2892 to #173 - jehova (01/10/2012) [-]
This text, is manipulated of course.
As you, Einstein have agreed in all these points, and had never talked about the life and death. Just about the criminality, and that The Evil is the absence of God on our hearts.
These theatrical final argument was manipulated, and the commentary of the professor's brain too.
He said all that about the light and darkness, heat and cold, of course, but in an University, against a titulated professor, and of course, every one in the class applauded him. Just Genious.
I hope someone posts the real speech of Einstein. It's kind interesting.
User avatar #2921 to #147 - Holddownn (01/10/2012) [-]
If god doesn't exist how does BLIP BOP BOOPIDY LAMBO CHOPS?

Christians - 0
Atheists - 0
Bill Cosby - 1
#2502 to #147 - anon (01/09/2012) [-]
[url deleted]
#2183 to #147 - anon (01/09/2012) [-]
[url deleted] /religion/einstein.asp
found the proff that this is fake
User avatar #2949 to #147 - killersnipes (01/10/2012) [-]
"Anyone can quote something and say it's from someone else on the internet, and chances are, people will believe them" - James Woods
#744 to #147 - sambu (01/09/2012) [-]
yeah right, 'evolution'
can your science explain my fishorse?

#773 to #744 - houmand (01/09/2012) [-]
Oh noes! Ur logix iz superiorz!!!

Now I must do as frenchies:

User avatar #2152 to #773 - harasai (01/09/2012) [-]
i don't get the french jokes , the french where a large world power and still remain it today
after world war 1 the biggest part of western europe was shocked by the horrors of world war 1 , the french AND the brtitish didn't want to repeat what happened in 1914-18 and decided not to attack deeper in to germany in the first year of the war after the germans defeated poland they attacked the anglo french forces who were overcome by the new way of warfare and the luftwaffe if england had a borther with germany and france was the island i'm shure it would have been the other way around that being said the free french forces under general de gaulle kept fighting with the allies in africa against rommel

so could we please stop making these stupid jokes
it doesn not honour the french soldiers who died in WWII
and i'm shure no one who was involved in the conflict axis or allied deserve this
i'm a dutchspeaking belgiumRon Paul hater incase you think i'm a frenchie
User avatar #2165 to #2152 - harasai (01/09/2012) [-]
#2301 to #2165 - anon (01/09/2012) [-]
That wasn't the only mistake...
#2695 to #2301 - iamthebestinthewar has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #2954 to #2152 - jesusismysavior (01/10/2012) [-]
It's mostly the amerifats that make fun of them for not winning any wars because amerifats think that they are some sort of superpower/worldpolice who are better than everyone else. ********* inbound.
#2852 to #744 - anon (01/10/2012) [-]
i second that bro. i mean how the **** does charmander become charmeleon and then finally charizard. ******* EVOLUTION IS THE ANSWER
#311 - philythemaster (01/09/2012) [-]
The claim that cold "doesn't exist" because according to the laws of physics it's merely "the absence of heat" amounts to semantic game-playing. Heat is a noun, the name of a physical phenomenon. Cold is an adjective, a description. To say that something is cold, or that we feel cold, or even that we're going out in "the cold," is not to assert that cold "exists." It's simply a way of describing the relative temperature of things.

The same applies to light (in this context a noun), and dark (an adjective). It's true that when we say, "It's dark outside," the phenomenon we're actually describing is a relative absence of light, but that doesn't mean that by speaking of "the dark" we mistake it for a thing that "exists." We're simply describing the degree of illumination we perceive.

So it's a philosophical parlor trick to posit heat and cold (or light and dark) as a pair of opposite entities only to "reveal" that the second term doesn't really refer to an entity at all, but merely the absence of the first.

The young Einstein would have known better, and so would his professor.

Even if we allow those false dichotomies to stand, the argument would still founder on the conclusion that evil "doesn't exist" because, we're told, evil is simply a term we use to describe "the absence of God's presence in our hearts."

It doesn't follow. The case, such as it is, has been built on the unpacking of purported opposites — heat vs. cold, light vs. dark. But what's the opposite of evil? Good. To keep the argument consistent, the conclusion therefore ought to be: evil doesn't exist because it's only a term we use to describe the absence of good.

You may argue that good is the presence of God in men's hearts, but in that case you'd be assuming what you originally set out to prove: that God exists in the first place.

This a retarded version of Augustine's argument.

TL; DR: It's wrong, Einstein was fighting Abraham Lincoln during the time of the argument.
#336 to #311 - wacemindu (01/09/2012) [-]
You put in to words every perfect thought I've ever contemplated ever... teach me oh wise one.
#350 to #336 - philythemaster (01/09/2012) [-]
It's a touchy subject to a lot of people. You just have to keep a cool head and remember that it isn't your place to solve religion or expose it. It isn't anyone's place to convert people, individuals make up their own minds based on whatever they find solace in. Just expose the post as being rather shallow and pedantic.
#334 to #311 - thepenname (01/09/2012) [-]
Wasn't Augustine's argument also based on the assumption that God existed, and from there he went on to develop a rationale to prove it, rather than creating the rationale first and then moving to either prove or deny whether God existed? I've only taken one philosophy course and I'll admit it wasn't my favorite class, but I think that's what I gleaned from his section.

Also, I disagree that some misinformed people don't consider dark and cold existing entities. The semantic premise to that point, that dark and cold are adjectives, is plainly false, considering that each word is both a noun and an adjective as defined by our English dictionaries. So it seems assumptive to say its use as a noun is acknowledged by all as the "absence of (light or heat)," when I'm quite certain many people are ignorant to that scientific accuracy.
#346 to #334 - philythemaster (01/09/2012) [-]
As for Augustine's argument, it does work on the definitive proof that God exists, and works on how to solidify that belief. It is pretty fascinating because it makes God a tangible object. So, very good job buddy, although I've never taken any philosophy classes in my life.

Can we at least agree that it wasn't Einstein that said this. Seriously, can you honestly tell me that one of the greatest scientists and thinkers, who was to a degree an atheist, had such a shallow argument?

Not to mention this exact same story has been retoasted with the ending saying "That student was Gary ************ Oak"

The problem I have is that cold isn't an absence of heat, it is a relative term. Like heat or light have definitive values, so when you compare something you use a relative term like cold. Such as Earth's core is cold, in comparison to the sun. The Earth is definitely colder (adj.) than the sun which has a higher heat (noun.) value.

Is that any clearer? My argument isn't to prove or disprove God, that isn't my place. Also it isn't my place to try to convert anyone either to Atheism or to Theism. I'm just trying to say this post was a big ball of garbage.
#354 to #346 - thepenname (01/09/2012) [-]
Yeah, it probably wasn't Einstein. While I think there might be more credit in using those dichotomies, especially as they reach back into some of the earliest philosophies of antiquity, after all these years they do come off as exponentially shallow.

Yes, that point is clearer now.
User avatar #355 to #354 - philythemaster (01/09/2012) [-]
If one is smart enough to defend and back up their argument, like you have done, the use of those dichotomies are perfect. But if someone isn't that well rounded in arguing, they are going to get ripped to shreds. I will probably use them in the future, but probably not for this topic since I don't like to argue religion, since it's impolite and never has any positive outcomes.
User avatar #379 to #354 - wacemindu (01/09/2012) [-]
Also just a) in addition to phily's point and b) because I'm interested my self, isn't the point that

Heat is a noun because it is a form of energy and cold the adjective because it doesn't actually exist? i.e you can't have cold energy? where as heat does exist in an energy form (point put very badly, I hope you get what I mean)
#275 - anon (01/09/2012) [-]
"yeah bro, that student was EINSTEIN. LEGIT."
User avatar #1564 - Aiwatcher (01/09/2012) [-]

Einstein was agnostic. He accepted the possibility of god but didn't not view it as probable. He certainly wasn't christian either, he was raised Jewish.
#1020 - neeess (01/09/2012) [-]
"The greatest thing about the internet is that you can say anything, and attribute it to any historical figure"
- Abraham Lincoln
#1066 to #1020 - manueldomingues (01/09/2012) [-]

because i saw so many names on that student....

it´s like, that isn´t even an argument to the existence of God
#2990 to #1066 - neeess has deleted their comment [-]
#243 - maxpiston (01/09/2012) [-]
Too bad that never happened.
#1645 - swagadile (01/09/2012) [-]
Comment Picture

#306 - Addon (01/09/2012) [-]
wtf that was not from einstein.
wtf that was not from einstein.
User avatar #2307 - helgrind (01/09/2012) [-]
"The problem with quotes on the internet is that you can't prove their authenticity" - Abraham Lincoln
#1414 - hotgog (01/09/2012) [-]
Reads first sentence. Posts comment. Next.
#746 - DarkCrow (01/09/2012) [-]
In fact:
1) Cold is when heat is absorbed faster than emitted
2) Darkness is the absence of light - We are just naming a situation like we named DAY and NIGHT. That doesn't mean there is no darkness.
3) Electricity and magnetism CAN be seen. Eg. Tesla coils and magnetic tomography
4) Death is the absence of life; again a situation in which we can be in
5) Darwinian evolution IS proved through speciments like fossilised skeletons
6) The professor's brain CAN infact be seen smelled and touched, if we operate on his body and open his skull

Just saying...
#793 to #746 - shmick (01/09/2012) [-]
In response to number 2. that is a poor response to try to debunk that argument. DAY and NIGHT are two times based on lunar position. Day is not the presence of the sun and night a lack of it like the student is making a point of. and you can see the physical brain, but you cannot see the mind of any person. you can see how the brain reacts to something, but you cannot see the specific thoughts a person has. JUST SAYIN
User avatar #824 to #793 - DarkCrow (01/09/2012) [-]
I didn't say day and night is a presence or absence. I said that day and night are names for situations. You just explained further. And yes you can't see the specific thoughts of a person but this doesn't mean that the person has no brain (which is the argument that the "student" raised)
User avatar #841 to #824 - DarkCrow (01/09/2012) [-]
I didn't say day and night is a presence or absence *of something*. I just pointed out my mistake so that noone can complain about it.

Inb4: A wild user named noone appears!
User avatar #774 to #746 - garrettjacobsen (01/09/2012) [-]
hooray! sense has been made!
cough* (GOD IS A LIE) *cough*
User avatar #790 to #774 - DarkCrow (01/09/2012) [-]
I call myself an atheist but there is no evidence that he doesn't exist. There is just no proof that he exists. He can be a lazy etherial bastard that is too busy, ******* other etherial beings, to bother with us at all :P
User avatar #807 to #790 - garrettjacobsen (01/09/2012) [-]
Honestly, we're gonna die before we figure it out so who gives a flying **** ?
User avatar #828 to #807 - DarkCrow (01/09/2012) [-]
That's exactly my point of view xD
#842 to #828 - shmick (01/09/2012) [-]
see, logically, what do you have to lose to believe in God then?
If you are right, you don't gain **** . But if you are wrong, you're ****** . Logically speaking (although i have a great amount of faith on top of it) you have more to lose by not having religion than to have it.

That is all.
User avatar #858 to #842 - DarkCrow (01/09/2012) [-]
So you think that God, if he exists, will judge you by whether or not you believe in him? I thought that you go to heaven if you are good and in hell if you are bad, not if you believe in God or not. And since I have a relatively clean conscience even if God exist I will go to heaven. That is all.
#877 to #858 - shmick (01/09/2012) [-]
See you have what I would call a pluralist view on religions. That there are multiple paths to heaven and that good works get you to heaven. But Christianity is about more than just works. You need to have faith and belief in God above all else, and you do good works in response to already being saved by Him, not in order to gain eternal life. Technically, once you accept that God saved you, 'you are in' but that is a different debate. What I am saying is that you need both faith and works, but you do good works in response to what God has already done for you, not just as a means to an end.
Hope this makes sense.
User avatar #1570 to #877 - DarkCrow (01/09/2012) [-]
I do great works because that makes me feel good, I like seeing smiles in the faces of other people because that makes me smile too... I don't feel that I have a need to believe in God... It's enough for me to believe in myself... But if believing in God makes you happy, go ahead! Everyone has the right to do whatever he wants, as long as it doesn't intrude the rights of others... that's why I will not, ever, insist on someone that believes to not believe... but I expect to receive the same treatment from these people... I hope you know what I mean ;)
User avatar #3024 to #1570 - garrettjacobsen (01/10/2012) [-]
I cant hold all these feels... :') Bravo sir.
#320 - mangazombie **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
Leave a comment
 Friends (0)