Atheism discussion

[Izzy]

Alrighty, so I'm way behind on this, but I've finally had some spare time to sit down and read God:The Failed Hypothesis. It had its good and interesting parts, (which I bookmarked with sticky notes ), but there was a lot of the author just citing other books, which was annoying.

Probably one of my favorite series of quotes of all time:

Evan Fales on the hiddenness of God: "Some apologists tell us that God remains hidden from us so as not to coerce worship. But God is not hiding out of solicitude for our freedom. We have not forgotten Job: therefore we understand that God is hiding out of cowardice. God is hiding because He has too much too hide. We do not seek burning bushes or a pillar of smoke. No - we wish to see God. Can God stand before us? Can god see the face of suffering humanity - and live?"

Victor Stenger in response to the above quote: "The existence of a God who hides himself from all but a selected elite cannot be totally ruled out. All I can say is that we have not one iota of evidence that he exists and, if he does exist, I personally want nothing to do with him. this is a possible god, but a hideous one."

[Izzy]

So... Chris Langan is a total twat. He would be much more use to the world providing empirical evidence for the nonexistence of god rather than publishing bull that he probably even believes to be false. I didn't read his thesis any further than the ID bit, because none of it's proved right, and none of it ever will be. Personally, I hate this guy. This may come off as a little... er.. wrong-sounding, but I don't see how someone that smart* could put his life at the hands of blind faith and believe in god.

What does everyone else think of him and his work on theism?

*By smart, I mean based solely on his IQ. As I said, I don't think any true "smart" person, making scientific claims, would believe in god and ignore the evidence completely. This guy isn't smart. He's ignorant and remarkably arrogant.

[Guest]

Language! There's kids reading this you know. Wow, I'm starting to think you don't like this guy. But shouldn't we respect his right to be a complete numpty if that's his inclination? Just cos he's got a high IQ doesn't mean he's got to use it for something worthwhile. That's the beauty of personal freedom.

Regarding his "scientific theories", you seem to imply that just because someone's clever (or at least got a high IQ), they should have a particular opinion. For all you know he could be right and you wrong. Ironically in the video he's talking about a world where there is no dissent since it's all based on his absolutely right opinions (2+2=4 -> everything else I think is right). So in a way you're singing from the same hymn sheet.

I'm being harsh. But it's important to show respect, even for fools. "Hate" may be a strong word, but it only makes you weaker.

[Izzy]

Heh, I can see how most people would say that you don't have to use all you have to do something constructive, but remember, this is the dude that wanted to making breeding a right, so the world's full of only the smartest. But yeah, he can stay there and rot for all I care at this point. I don't agree with it and think it's an insanely selfish/foolish thing for him to do, but his choice. I dislike him immensely 'cos he's so arrogant.

What I'm saying is, if this guy's the 'smartest man in the world' he should be able to realize what makes sense and what doesn't. At this point I'm not talking about blind faith anymore. That's all a matter of opinion whether it makes sense to you or not, arguing about it gets you no where. Since I haven't read his works any further than Intelligent Design, that's all I can fairly debate about. There are so many disproofs for it out there (Google them. They're out there. Not going to post 50 links), and no proofs that have stood up under scientific testing, so because 2+2=4, we can safely say that there is no, and was no, intelligent design. He clearly refuses to accept that. Which is annoying.

[andromeda]

Heh, I can see how most people would say that you don't have to use all you have to do something constructive, but remember, this is the dude that wanted to making breeding a right, so the world's full of only the smartest. But yeah, he can stay there and rot for all I care at this point. I don't agree with it and think it's an insanely selfish/foolish thing for him to do, but his choice. I dislike him immensely 'cos he's so arrogant.

What I'm saying is, if this guy's the 'smartest man in the world' he should be able to realize what makes sense and what doesn't. At this point I'm not talking about blind faith anymore. That's all a matter of opinion whether it makes sense to you or not, arguing about it gets you no where. Since I haven't read his works any further than Intelligent Design, that's all I can fairly debate about. There are so many disproofs for it out there (Google them. They're out there. Not going to post 50 links), and no proofs that have stood up under scientific testing, so because 2+2=4, we can safely say that there is no, and was no, intelligent design. He clearly refuses to accept that. Which is annoying.

Why can't you accept that there are people with different perception of the world and reality?

I'm not saying that he is right, but I'm asking how do you know that you are??

I'm an agnostic, but I found his idea about God and how we are all tiny pieces of him interesting.

You only have three topics posted here. One of them in New Puzzles you started with

My first "puzzle". I'll say right now that I have no idea what the answer is or if it means anything whatsoever.

I think this would be a fair answer on all of the philosophical questions that they have asked Mr Langan!

He has his version of reality, his own version of truth so to speak... So instead of trying to debunk his version, go back to the thread that was originally posted for what you are trying to debate here and post your insights on some of the philosophical questions that he answered. I posted a link in that thread that you ignored.

If you have anything to add go to the "Smartest Man" thread or read his theory about God and then discus that.

[Izzy]

Why can't you accept that there are people with different perception of the world and reality?

*shrug* I just can't. I don't know why, it's probably phycological, I just can't. The truth behind this stuff can only point to one thing. There can only be one right way that explains perfectly how the world and reality really are. Being me, I'm convinced I'm right. Being him, I'm sure he's convinced he's right. Because there is only one right (Really. Either something's there or it isn't. It happens or it doesn't.), I'll remain convinced that I'm right and he's wrong.

I'm not saying that he is right, but I'm asking how do you know that you are??

Science supports me. I'll believe science over extraordinary claims that can't be proved to be trueany day.

I'm an agnostic, but I found his idea about God and how we are all tiny pieces of him interesting.

Things can be interesting without necessarily being true. I find Greek Mythology extraordinarily intriguing. They are stories. They are myths. They are make-believe. This isn't exactly the same thing as 'being tiny pieces of God', but in a way that in itself is a story. A story Langan made.

You only have three topics posted here. One of them in New Puzzles you started with "My first "puzzle". I'll say right now that I have no idea what the answer is or if it means anything whatsoever."

I think this would be a fair answer on all of the philosophical questions that they have asked Mr Langan!

That made me smile. It's true though.

He has his version of reality, his own version of truth so to speak... So instead of trying to debunk his version, go back to the thread that was originally posted for what you are trying to debate here and post your insights on some of the philosophical questions that he answered.

The only reason I moved to this thread is because I wanted to discuss specifically his views on God and Intelligent Design. I feared talking about it there would get the thread locked, as Martini tends to tell people to put things of this sort in the religious threads. I didn't want stray off-topic accidentally.

I posted a link in that thread that you ignored.

I didn't ignore it. I opened it, skimmed, and found I was uninterested. I'll bookmark it, read it all through by Sunday, and let you know my insight.

Edited November 27, 2008 by Izzy

[andromeda]

The only reason I moved to this thread is because I wanted to discuss specifically his views on God and Intelligent Design. I feared talking about it there would get the thread locked, as Martini tends to tell people to put things of this sort in the religious threads. I didn't want stray off-topic accidentally.

Well it's safe to say that calling, arguably the most intelligent person on this planet, names is straying off the topic

So... continue this in the proper thread

[Izzy]

Well it's safe to say that calling, arguably the most intelligent person on this planet, names is straying off the topic

So... continue this in the proper thread

Haha, just a tad bit off-topic.

Which one is the proper thread?

[unreality]

Well it's safe to say that calling, arguably the most intelligent person on this planet, names is straying off the topic

IQ tests mean nothing. There is no real way to express someone's intelligence.... there are tons of definitions, theories, tests, etc, we learned about them in Psychology recently, but no single one is correct.

An "IQ Test" is actually a test called the Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scale, which gives you a "mental age", then you divide by your "chronological age" to get your Intelligence Quotient, or IQ. The Stanford-Binet test is just another test. It is not comprehensive. You need would a test with an infinite number of questions to accurately measure intelligence

[Guest]

Well at this moment in time there are many positives to religion and not as many negatives as long ago. Long ago you were discriminated because of your religion in some areas people would hurt you and stuff like that. Today not many people do that along with the fact that the Bill of Rights protects you being apart of any religion. Although there are some bad things about some religions. Christianity for example, majority of the population is Christian (in the U.S. getting more diverse though) so some people who are extreme conformists may feel left out from the majority. Of course also now atheism is rising so it makes it harder to discuss the pros and cons. It also depends on your ethnic group and the religion you are in.

[Guest]

Well at this moment in time there are many positives to religion and not as many negatives as long ago.

Name three, hel start with one!

Long ago you were discriminated because of your religion in some areas people would hurt you and stuff like that. Today not many people do that along with the fact that the Bill of Rights protects you being apart of any religion.

Well if you only focus on your own single country (you are a Yank right?) then... Nah it's still false. Discrimination is still rife; much based on religious affiliation and assumptions, as it is on race, creed and gender. Might be laws against it in many places, but laws don't equate with how people think and act - If they did them we wouldn't need the laws once passed!

Although there are some bad things about some religions.

Like them being irrationally based on fairy tales.

Christianity for example, majority of the population is Christian (in the U.S. getting more diverse though) so some people who are extreme conformists may feel left out from the majority.

Only when Christians try to push their Faith based ideals onto everyone.

Of course also now atheism is rising so it makes it harder to discuss the pros and cons.

Sorry, didn't understand that at all. How does the rise of atheism (more of a coming out of the closet deal I think, but probably a bit of both) make it harder to discuss pros and cons (pros and cons of what exactly?)

On the contrary though; Atheism, not being based on ANY set of doctrines, is all about discussing "pros and cons" (no big sky daddy to make the hard decisions for us.)- Religions tell us that their religion (Magic book or whatever) says X so X it is, case closed, 'discussion' over. Atheism has no such dogma so is open to discussion, many atheists are all about discussion.

It also depends on your ethnic group and the religion you are in.

What does?

None of that matters though - Religion X could have all kinds of neat benefits, and no negative consequences; it would still be based on nothing, a simple imagination (not reason) born fairy tale. "Religion" is at it's foundation about the adherence to what were (and are) imaginative stories made up to explain away some not understood phenomenon. Philosophy and science replaced (or should have if not for emotional ties etc.) religion with the combination of imagination, and a new feature: Reason!

[Guest]

IQ tests mean nothing. There is no real way to express someone's intelligence.... there are tons of definitions, theories, tests, etc, we learned about them in Psychology recently, but no single one is correct.

An "IQ Test" is actually a test called the Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scale, which gives you a "mental age", then you divide by your "chronological age" to get your Intelligence Quotient, or IQ. The Stanford-Binet test is just another test. It is not comprehensive. You need would a test with an infinite number of questions to accurately measure intelligence

I agree 100%(just on this post )......for example, you could have college profesor over here with an IQ of 120, and a janitor over here with an IQ of 145. Does that make the janitor smarter? Absolutely not. BTW...you are way too smart for your own good...

[unreality]

thanks I think

ThingOfTheFuture: I get what you're saying, but unfortunately segregation still exists. Did you know that Boy Scouts are anti-atheists? That's right, you have to "pledge to God" to join them. The list goes on, I'm sure. It doesn't really affect me (since I hated the boy scouts anyway, we never actually did anything ;D), but I know it affects some people

~~

For the atheists, I have a question.... one of my good friends is going through some "religious self-examination" or something like that. Like a time where he's pondering philosophy. He doesn't say much about it openly but I can tell. His family is Christian, but like most people in my area, it's not a really big influence. I mean, he doesn't go to church or anything, and he's smart, and values reason I'm sure. The other day he said he wanted to talk with (or debate with, I can't remember) a priest about "philosophical matters", lol. Then the other day he said he liked to ponder "philosophical questions and evolution". I'm not exactly sure what he means since you can't really "ponder evolution", but I think it would be fair to say that he's grappling with religion. I kind of want to influence him, but at the same time I DON'T want to influence him. He's a cool guy and I think he would be able to break the vice that religion holds on America, but I don't know if he can do it alone. I don't want to bring the matter up either, that would just be kind of awkward. idk. Any suggestions?

Edited December 8, 2008 by unreality

[andromeda]

I agree Unreality is way too smart for his own good

To stay on the topic - I'm an AGNOSTIC - I don't discus religion - futile!

[Izzy]

Did you know that Boy Scouts are anti-atheists?

~~

And girls, and gays... I pretty much hate the boy scouts.

Regarding your question, I think it would be best to turn him on to some good books. This can be done very subtly if needed, and if he's really curious he'll probably want to read them on his own any way. DO NOT debate with him. Yet. I lost a few friends that way about a year ago, and it wasn't fun.

[Guest]

My feeling on being an aetheist is that some people who claim to be a "non-believer" are in fact theist not atheist. Using this logic:

If you ask someone if they believe in god? This is a positive statement, meaning that there is a god to believe or not to believe in. The statement itself can not be answered by a tru atheist.

YOu must choose your words carefully in your response's. Implying things without realizing it is how our "society" has been trained.

[unreality]

that's a good point, I've never thought of that before - "Do you believe in god?" is like asking "do you accept the truth that Zeus exists?" either they accept it or not, but either way it's staged to be true. Interesting! It's kind of like that joke where you ask someone "Are you going to admit that you're [insert derogatory term of your choice here]?", regardless of yes or no, they're screwed

[Guest]

that's a good point, I've never thought of that before - "Do you believe in god?" is like asking "do you accept the truth that Zeus exists?" either they accept it or not, but either way it's staged to be true. Interesting! It's kind of like that joke where you ask someone "Are you going to admit that you're [insert derogatory term of your choice here]?", regardless of yes or no, they're screwed

I told my mom that same thing, since she thinks she's aetheist and she didn't get it. I told her to stop being something she doesn't follow , and to stick with what she knows. SHe didn't find it as funny as i did. My mom is a bright lady, but not the brighest in the box. She's not a realist! She's a followist!

[unreality]

A followist - hehe nice term Just have a chat with her, show her your side of the argument, she should see it if she's bright (I'm sure she is, everyone is in their own ways).

On an unrelated note, did you know that the Salvation Army is actually a church, and that it restricts its members from marrying any non-Salvation-Army members? Just saw it on yahoo

[Guest]

A followist - hehe nice term Just have a chat with her, show her your side of the argument, she should see it if she's bright (I'm sure she is, everyone is in their own ways).

On an unrelated note, did you know that the Salvation Army is actually a church, and that it restricts its members from marrying any non-Salvation-Army members? Just saw it on yahoo

I have given up on that topic with my mom! religion, or lack there of, is perception based so ...she can believe/think/not-believe what she wants. As for the salvation army, isn't that an oxy moron? They are supposed to be (from my understanding) the salvation to all man kind, almost the religious people that truely don't care if your are religious or aren't and if so what kind. Everything to them was supposed to be black and white, ya know what i mean? So does that also mean that you HAVE TO WEAR a santa suit if your helping the salvation army....LOL or ring a stupid bell ( I think a horn would be much more appropriate!)

[Izzy]

"Are you going to admit that you're [insert derogatory term of your choice here]?", regardless of yes or no, they're screwed

Oh man, memories from the cafeteria from third grade! Good times!

/spam

[Guest]

This might be totally off topic, but it still fits the category of this athiest discussion...BTW I am a Christian, and I am not posting this to bash any of your beliefs at all, so delete this if you will, but you will regret it if you do. Just plead with me here and read the story in the spoiler, it looks long but it is actually pretty short once you start to get into it. It might change the way you think about life, or how science affects living things.

again, please read this....

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," the student relpies.

"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. Th ere 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 wh a t 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 sm iling, 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 process, 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 col d that comes when there is no heat or the darkness that comes when there is no light."

The professor sat down.

That young man's name - Albert Einstein.

His statements are true

[Guest]

My feeling on being an aetheist is that some people who claim to be a "non-believer" are in fact theist not atheist. Using this logic:

If you ask someone if they believe in god? This is a positive statement, meaning that there is a god to believe or not to believe in. The statement itself can not be answered by a tru atheist.

YOu must choose your words carefully in your response's. Implying things without realizing it is how our "society" has been trained.

So being a non-believer means you think there's a god that you don't believe in? That's absurd. Though with the addled thinking that religion promotes, perhaps not uncommon . Religions generally give you the impression that God wants your belief, so if God doesn't seem to be holding up her end of the bargain you can get your own back by not believing in her. Nonsensical as that is, it supports religion because if you have an attack of reason and start doubting your faith, there's still that underlying feeling like it's just a lovers' tiff, and that you and God will kiss and make up in the end. Religion provides the mental framework within which you are viewing what goes on, and you have to break the whole framework in order to reach a position of genuine disbelief.

Which brings me to Unreality's friend. I think Izzy's right, tread carefully, and avoid debate. Conversation's fine but verbal debate is an ineffective way to transfer ideas. If you want to do something positive, maybe leave a copy of The God Delusion lying around his place (old religious trick ). He can take it or leave it.

Back to the non-believer bit, I have to say I disagree that the phrase "Do you believe in God?" implies God's existence any more than "Do you believe in fairies?" does for fairies. It's a pretty open question. Though Christians often prefer to go with something like "Have you accepted God?", which isn't. But I totally agree with the more general point that our language and culture intrinsically undermines our ability to think independently because of the religious influences which have shaped it over the centuries. A good example being the already-much-discussed ambiguity of the word "faith" and the positive associations it carries (those positive associations cannot be thrown away completely since showing faith in other people can be a very good idea, but that's because other people actually exist).

We should raise awareness of surreptitiously faith-promoting cultural elements. So let's have a good rant, and name a few! I'd like to see what people have noticed.

[Guest]

I completely disagree with your opinion of it my statement being "absurd", its out there.....no doubt but absurd, i think now. Its just stating the obvious, like Descarte, I think..therefore i am. Is he absurd?

As for the God Delusion, GREAT FRIGGIN BOOK!, granted its not a sit down and tear through it kind of book Dawkins does bring up some very interesting points. He has written many books on social evolusion... that some directly and some not so directly, tear APART the bible and the "logic" that is may follow.

I use the word LOGIC, very loosely here.

[unreality]

octopuppy: seward wasn't saying that's what his belief was, but that some people that think they are atheist and are actually theist

about my friend, yeah, noted I wasn't planning on starting any debates (I think he's more our side of the fence than the other)

Jrod: I've seen that story, and it's utter BS. Einstein was an atheist his whole life. He said the quote "God doesn't play dice with the universe", and it's often twisted out of context by theist, but for him, 'god' was another term for nature basically. Einstein was in all aspects an atheist.

The thing is, the claims in the story are actually false. It's true that there is no such existing, tangible concept as cold or darkness (they are words representing the absence of heat or light), the professor should have known this. But it's used to lay the groundwork for "good and evil", of which NEITHER are existing, tangible concepts. So one could be the absence of the other or they could be anything you want to be. While heat exists and light exists, and cold & darkness their absences, neither good nor evil actually exist as a tangible concept, so they are relative to each other in any way you want. The professor in the story is obviously shaped to be an idiot, so don't think that represents all atheists. Since I read your story, you should read something like the God Delusion and tell us what you think

edit: another thing was that they couldn't see the professor's brain so according to his own thing they couldn't accept the brain's existence. The thing is, there is heaps of evidence for the existence of brains, and brains within all human beings, and for a brain within the professor himself (maybe he got an MRI done at one time, or just that the professor exhibits mental activity, which is controlled by his brain, so by inference)... while there is NO evidence for the student's (who is not einstein) god. Evidence is more than the 5 senses, in fact the 5 senses themselves, without much helping them, can be unreliable

Edited December 8, 2008 by unreality