Login or register
Anonymous comments allowed.
User avatar #1686 - Aiwatcher
Reply +10 123456789123345869
(01/09/2012) [-]
I'm going to point out why the student is wrong.

We don't "believe" in cold. Cold is the layman's term for lack of heat. Heat is measurable.
We don't "believe" in darkness either.

We acknowledge that there is frequently an absence of light or heat. The point the scientist was making was that religious types tend to ignore the "absence" of god's grace. Saying that there is an absence of good in some places is very VERY different from saying there is an absence of heat. Heat isn't supposed to be every where. Under a faithful mans logic, a benevolent god SHOULD be applying his good to everywhere.

Arguing against evolution pisses me off beyond belief. If arguing that species don't change because of genetic sway, then its like arguing against the controlled breeding of dogs to produce different types. If genetics didn't change over time, selective breeding wouldn't work. Just because we don't physically see evolution take place, doesn't mean we don't know its happening.

We know that all humans are born with brains. We know that. Okay. The professor wouldn't be any different. We already know that not having a brain makes you dead, and since the prof. isn't dead, he must have a brain. It would be a horrendous stupidity to say that "Just because we can't see your brain, means you don't have one".
If you dare take that logic and place it as "Just because we haven't seen god doesn't mean we don't have a god", I may have to slap you. Because we have seen brains before. We know they are there. We've never seen god, so we don't know he's there.

Oh, and Einstein was a secular Jew. Not a christian. He didn't say this. He also wasn't this stupid.

Get off my front page with your preachy lying ********.
User avatar #1859 to #1686 - pandadiablo
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(01/09/2012) [-]
He wasn't arguing against evolution. He was saying that although the theory is sound, but no one has seen the evolution of life take place on Earth (although obviously we now have solid radiometric dating and dna as proof).
This is my own deist (and non religious) point of view. I think there's a problem with us applying good and evil to God. I don't see why a benevolent God has to interfere with the world he created to be good. I'm not completely arguing against the student but he is right in the sense that we can't expect God to do magic tricks for us to show his existence.
Science can't exclude the possibility of a creator as much as it can prove one.

I think we'll just have to wait until we die to find out what the hell's going on, but in the time being, enjoy life and be a good person.

#1802 to #1686 - japaricio
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(01/09/2012) [-]
well actually, scientifically speaking you cant PROVE there is no god. You can only prove that something exists, but it is impossible to prove that something does not exists. So basically we can choose to believe something we have no proof of or not. Some people choose to believe in a god because it gives them something to live for and I don't think that you (or me or anyone) has the right to call someone stupid just because they cant prove what they believe in (remember that you cant prove what you believe in either)
User avatar #2009 to #1802 - pandadiablo
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(01/09/2012) [-]
well said
User avatar #1830 to #1802 - Aiwatcher
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(01/09/2012) [-]
I'll PM you a message, I'd love to discuss. It doesn't really have anything to do with post though.
#1727 to #1686 - anon id: 1113c516
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(01/09/2012) [-]
something on the front page that isn't true? wow! this must be the first time that's ever happened!

(quit your bitching)
User avatar #1706 to #1686 - durkadurka
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(01/09/2012) [-]
How does this argue against evolution?
User avatar #1714 to #1706 - durkadurka
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(01/09/2012) [-]
Oh wait I see it, nvm.