An Interesting Conversation Between A Student And Teacher

page: 10
72
<< 7  8  9    11  12 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 2 2010 @ 06:07 PM
link   
reply to post by ModernAcademia
 


What I find baffling is that a person can first, acknowledge that the concept or definition of god is unattainable and second, that they believe in it.

If you cannot fully know or understand what you believe in, then what exactly is it that you believe in?

I think it goes without saying that the idea of a personal god (one with "humanoid features, language, human emotions and so on, and who created life with "his hands" is the shakiest of all. And most people, even Christians, who believe in god grant that they aren't sure exactly what god really is, at least in terms one can put on paper. So their definition of god is one which does not include verbatim some of those humanoid biblical imagery. So far so good... but then this...

That leaves the notion of an undefinable or infinite god, which is harder to falsify, but is still at least in my opinion extremely hard, if not impossible to define.

So, I feel the only intellectually honest posture on god is that we do not know and cannot know, and no definitive statement can be made about it....

To make definitive statements about the existence of god, for or against is extremely arrogant and egotistical because it is beyond what is knowable, and serves only the purpose of assert oneself as distinct from others, in other words, emerges from the ego. Same motives behind the kind of posture that leasds people to be "liberal", "conservative" "skeptics" "believers", etc.

Seems that the only purpose of assuming a posture a-priori is to preempt the need to learn or acknowledge anything that may falsify it or enrich its definition in less than favorable ways.

As for the story about the professor, notice that the student successfully debates him (whether you accept his argument or not, that is the story) an the professor is humiliated in the end.

I wonder what kind of emotions the OP and writer of this story hopes to stir on those who are believers? it seems like the glee and vengeful satisfaction that arises from the humiliation of those who are against one's own beliefs is a guilty pleasure tolerated and even encouraged in religious circles.

That SHOULD NOT be the case for any religion that professes love, and it only serves to highlight that we are really all the same, selfish and eager to prove our points, and deeply harbor a desire to define ourselves as distinct from some others that we define our enemies. and we then go on to enjoy their humiliation.

The only difference is that, while the agnostic is fully aware of this flaw (and has a choice to do something about it) only the very most enlightened religious people realize this.


-rrr




posted on Feb, 2 2010 @ 06:08 PM
link   
reply to post by georgejetson
 


How does it matter? The conversation would be the same either way.

Those who believe can not prove God exists. Those who don't believe can not prove God does not exist.

We can take all kinds of circuitous routes in logic. We can argue the usual tripe like the Earths age as a diversion. We all know that the Earths age is an invention based on conjecture that somehow became accepted by a small part of the Christian Faith. Most Christians in the Western World accept science and their faith. Science simply describes natural law a product of God's handiwork.

We could have the false arguments about Carbon Dating ignoring the fact that most dating is done using other methods.

We could argue the fact that is created from the dust really any different than saying we evolved from the dust.

Both sides always drift off into the same illogical arguments. The fact remains that God could exist. The fact remains we could have evolved elsewhere and been transported here through any number of processes including genetic manipulation of an already present species. The entire process of evolution could have been by Intelligent Design.

Unless and until we have proof one way or the other, the argument will continue.



posted on Feb, 2 2010 @ 06:09 PM
link   
I read a few pages of this and ive not seen anyone mention it so i will come out with it...

The students process of presenting his case is completely flawed...if i wanted to i could cut the Professors head open and see his brains...scans can also show that his brain is in there...i dont need faith to tell me he has a brain...i know its there and that is Science my friends!



posted on Feb, 2 2010 @ 06:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Gordi The Drummer
 


Why? If it is real or not, the conversation will not change. This conversation comes up constantly and will continue to do so. If people want to discuss this topic, they will find another way to address it in a thread.

I'd think the only reason people would want this thread ended over that issue is that they personally are uncomfortable with this topic or object to it. What's the point?



posted on Feb, 2 2010 @ 06:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Blaine91555
reply to post by georgejetson
 


How does it matter? The conversation would be the same either way.

It's a question of honesty. If you've come up with a neat little story that encapsulates your argument then present it as such. Don't start lying about its origins, let it stand on its own merits.



posted on Feb, 2 2010 @ 06:15 PM
link   
reply to post by AusWade
 


Prove there is no God.

Prove God exists.

I think that was the main point.



posted on Feb, 2 2010 @ 06:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by AusWade
I read a few pages of this and ive not seen anyone mention it so i will come out with it...

The students process of presenting his case is completely flawed...if i wanted to i could cut the Professors head open and see his brains...scans can also show that his brain is in there...i dont need faith to tell me he has a brain...i know its there and that is Science my friends!


Yes that bit was a new addition to the original story, and it was pretty weak.



posted on Feb, 2 2010 @ 06:22 PM
link   
edit, wrong thread

[edit on 2-2-2010 by SuperSlovak]



posted on Feb, 2 2010 @ 06:24 PM
link   
reply to post by georgejetson
 


You are implying the OP knowingly posted something false then? If not, whats your point? I don't actually think that is what you are saying, but otherwise why would it be so important to move the thread?

This is far different than a fake video of a UFO or a somebody pretending to be somebody they are not.

Of course there are those who want any thread that does not openly condemn a belief in God to not occur here. They want this topic in the back of the bus where it belongs. In particular Academicians like the teacher in the OP, real or not, who are so afraid of the topic they don't even dare let discussion of it happen in schools. Or is it they think people are to dumb to consider all sides and decide on their own. Sometimes I wonder.

I continue to subscribe to the idea that these threads are like channels on the TV. They are here to view, but we choose what we view.



posted on Feb, 2 2010 @ 07:59 PM
link   
What I find amusing is that people think that God gives a damn about human beings.

If God did create us in his image, than he is sitting on 4chan, eating a burrito, trolling evangelists.



posted on Feb, 2 2010 @ 08:57 PM
link   
From my stand point, I don't believe in religions nor do I believe in atheism, cause atheist people seem to want to push much of their beliefs(about not believing lol) and makes them look bad abit, anyway, but I do respect other people's faiths and thoughts.

The student defended himself perfectly... props to him.

Stay frosty



posted on Feb, 2 2010 @ 09:32 PM
link   
Just a philosophical play on words. That's all it ever is.
These are probably the daydreams smug christians have whilst in class.

Bottom line:
Talking and metaphores does nothing to change reality and god.
Science does.

Perhaps they are two seperate matters which should not be brought together in debate.
In my eyes, science has a much better chance of getting close to god than religion does.

In fact, it already does a better job.



posted on Feb, 2 2010 @ 10:09 PM
link   
Why do people act like "Science" is a religion?

To me, science is the study of logic. Putting A and B together to obtain C.

You say science can not solve everything, but I believe science brought a man to the moon, pictures of distant galaxies, cures for diseases, the internet, and so forth.

No **** science can be wrong, because humans are not perfect and that is reflected by all of our actions.

The discussion between professor and student is dumb, especially the reference to heat/cold. Cold is just a word that means absence of heat.

So if cold = absence of heat, then there of course is "coldness" out there. All relative and depends on what perspective you put it in.

The difference between science and faith? We have instruments (such as space travel and previous ones stated) that are by products of science.

What are the by products of religion? I guess that is where faith comes in.



posted on Feb, 2 2010 @ 11:21 PM
link   
The student believes that their are degrees of godliness. If god is absent, then what can be there but a lack of god and therefore we see that as evil.
God killed the prof's brother. We do not know if his brother was evil, we only know he's dead after having suffered and not getting apparently his 3 score and ten.
So in his brother's case an absence of god must have killed him. It would be evil to kill someone by lack of interest when it's so easy to do otherwise.
Now how can god be absent?
He can't unless it's at his own volition.
Therefore when god vacates the premises, he becomes evil by his deliberate act.
It's not hard to believe that those who accept a god, no matter what it may represent must deal with the willful nature of omnipotence and the fact it doesn't care beyond strictures imposed 15 billion years ago.
God let his toy go and is no more than a witness to his action and subsequent derivations.
Quit worrying about him. He's not worrying about you.
Go do something useful.
I've read this idiocy off the internet and it galled me then as it does now.



posted on Feb, 3 2010 @ 01:00 AM
link   
reply to post by downisreallyup
 


by this logic, it is impossible for anything to be created by man, as god has preset the rules of the universe, therefore, anything man does is by default, "tinkering".



posted on Feb, 3 2010 @ 02:18 AM
link   
reply to post by ModernAcademia
 


Suggestion that in the absence of God there is evil is faulty, because if there is God, it is everywhere.

Suggestion that that I can not observe evolution is faulty, because flu virus mutates and evolves every year into something different.

Suggestion that professor hasn't got a brain is faulty, because brain can be smelled, tasted and seen.

Thank you for reading.



posted on Feb, 3 2010 @ 05:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by Blaine91555
reply to post by Gordi The Drummer
 


Why? If it is real or not, the conversation will not change. This conversation comes up constantly and will continue to do so. If people want to discuss this topic, they will find another way to address it in a thread.

I'd think the only reason people would want this thread ended over that issue is that they personally are uncomfortable with this topic or object to it. What's the point?


Hi Blaine,
Do you mean "Why move the thread into HOAX?"

If so, I'm suggesting that it should be moved, because it is being presented as an actual conversation, one that took place between the Ex-President of India, and their atheist philosophy professor.

And I quote from the OP:

This student was none other than Dr. APJ Abdul Kalam, the Ex-President of India.


I have asked for clarification of the proof for such a conversation taking place, and haven't received any.

And, it has now been posted several times within the thread, that many other ATSers have already seen this same conversation being attributed to other individuals.

Therefore I am respectfully suggesting that the way this conversation has been presented as "real" is incorrect.
If it is being claimed to be a real event, and it isn't a real event, then it must by definition be a HOAX and moved accordingly.

I have absolutely no problem whatsoever with anyone and everyone discussing philosophy, religion, science or any other subject that does not breach the TOS or T&C here, but I do have a problem with ANY subject being presented as a REAL EVENT here, without any evidence, and a host of other sources who can confirm that it's not real.

By all means discuss it, present it as a "hypothetical conversation", but NOT as an actual one.

I hope that clarifies my position, and why I suggested moving the thread into the HOAX area?

kindest regards,
G



posted on Feb, 3 2010 @ 08:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by Blaine91555
reply to post by georgejetson
 


You are implying the OP knowingly posted something false then? If not, whats your point? I don't actually think that is what you are saying, but otherwise why would it be so important to move the thread?

Whether or not the OP knew this was a hoax is irrelevant. If I am deceived by a falsehood and repeat it to someone in good faith, it doesn't suddenly become the truth.

With the way the story is currently presented, people will read it and think it actually happened, when clearly it didn't.

I haven't asked for the thread to be moved, I'm just trying to inform people about the truth.



posted on Feb, 3 2010 @ 08:59 AM
link   
omg so much drama

Mods, can you please edit OP and where it states the origin please replace by "origins of discussions are being disputed or is unknown".

no more drama now PLEASE
we were having such an interesting debate, can we get back to it now?



posted on Feb, 3 2010 @ 10:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by ModernAcademia

Mods, can you please edit OP


Edited.

_________________________________________________
Opinion:

Whether the story "really happened that way" literally is completely irrelevant because Millions of similar conversations an stories happened in Millions of classrooms around the world.

The story is a Metaphor for the Atheism vs Spirituality Debate. I can only repeat my concern that many of you are taking everything literally.





new topics
top topics
 
72
<< 7  8  9    11  12 >>

log in

join