Lets play a game: How many logical flaws can you spot?

[Ninjaneer]

I was emailed this, thought we'd make a game of finding all the straw men and just pure BS. Sort of like a game of Where's Waldo...if waldo took up half the page :D

"An Atheist Professor of Philosophy was speaking to his Class on the problem Science has with God. He asked one of his new Christian students to stand.

Professor: You are a Christian, aren’t you, son?

Student: Yes, sir.

Professor: So, you believe in God?

Student: Absolutely, sir.

Professor: Is God good?

Student: Sure.

Professor: My brother died of cancer, even though he prayed to God to heal him. Most of us would attempt to help others who are ill. But God didn’t. How is God good, then? Hmm?

Professor: You can’t answer, can you? Let’s start again, young fella. Is God good?

Student: Yes.

Professor: Is Satan good?

Student: No.

Professor: Where does Satan come from?

Student: From.. God.

Professor: That’s right. Tell me son, is there evil in this world?

Student: Yes.

Professor: Evil is everywhere, isn’t it? And God did make everything. Correct?

Student: Yes.

Professor: So who created evil?
Professor: Is there sickness? Immortality? Hatred? Ugliness? All these terrible things exist in the world, don’t they?

Student: Yes, sir.

Professor: So, who created them?
Professor: Science says you have 5 senses you use to identify and observe the world around you. Tell me, son.. have you ever seen God?

Student: No, sir.

Professor: Tell us if you have ever heard your God.

Student: No, sir.

Professor: Have you ever felt your God, tasted your God, smelt your God? Have you ever had any sensory perception of God, for that matter?

Student: No, sir. I’m afraid I haven’t.

Professor: Yet you still believe in Him?

Student: Yes.

Professor: According to empirical, testable, demonstrable protocol, Science says your God doesn’t exist. What do you say to that, son?

Student: Nothing. I only have my Faith.

Professor: Yes, Faith. And that is the problem Science has.

Student: Professor, is there such a thing as Heat?

Professor: Yes.

Student: And is there such a thing as Cold?

Professor: Yes.

Student: No, sir, there isn’t.

Student: Sir, you can have lots of heat, even more heat, superheat, mega heat, white heat, a little heat or no heat. But we don’t have anything called cold. We can hit 458 Degrees below Zero which is no heat, but we can’t go any further after that. There is no such thing as cold. Cold is only a word we use to describe the absence of Heat. We cannot measure cold. Heat is energy. Cold is not the opposite of heat, sir, just the absence of it.
Student: What about darkness, Professor? Is there such a thing as darkness?

Professor: Yes. What is night if there isn’t darkness?

Student: You’re wrong again, sir. Darkness is the absence of something. You can have Low Light, Normal Light, Bright Light, Flashing Light… But if you have No Light constantly, you have nothing and it’s called Darkness, isn’t it? In reality, darkness isn’t. If it is, You would be able to make darkness darker, wouldn’t you?

Professor: So what is the point you are making, young man?

Student: Sir, my point is, your Philosophical Premise is flawed.

Professor: Flawed? Can you explain how?

Student: Sir, you are working on the Premise of Duality. You argue there is Life and then there is Death, a good God and a bad God. You are viewing the concept of God as something finite, something we can measure. Sir, Science can’t even explain a thought. It uses electricity and magnetism, but has never seen, much less fully understood either one. To view death as the opposite of life is to be ignorant of the fact that death cannot exist as a substantive thing. Death is not the opposite of life, just the absence of it. Now tell me, Professor, do you teach your students that they evolved from a monkey?

Professor: If you are referring to the Natural Evolutionary Process, yes of course, I do.

Student: Have you ever observed Evolution with your own eyes, sir?
Student: Since no one has ever observed the Process of Evolution at work and cannot even prove that this process is an on-going endeavor, are you not teaching your opinion, sir? Are you not a Scientist but a Preacher?
Student: Is there anyone in the class who has ever seen the Professor’s brain?
Student: Is there anyone here who has ever heard the Professor’s brain, felt it, touched or smelt it? .. No one appears to have done so. So, according to the established Rules of Empirical, Stable and Demonstrable Protocol, Science says that you have no brain, sir. With all due respect, sir, how do we then trust your lectures?

Professor: I guess you’ll have to take them on Faith, son.

Student: That is it, sir.. exactly! The link between man and God is Faith. That is all that keeps things alive and moving!"

[immoderate]

1. Science has a problem with god?

I took some sort of science every year I ever attended school and god didn't even make an appearance. No problem!

God has no business in a science class, unless of course, he coughs up some tuition.

--imm

[Deep13]

13. Everytime I heard that expression...

...that someone has "a problem" with something, I picture a Stallone-esque stereotypical thug belligerently asking, "what, you got a problem with that?" :-) Just struck me funny is all.

[laconicsax]

2. Wow! I'm not used to seeing that much straw in an academic setting.

The funny thing, is that in every philosophy class I've ever taken, the overtly Christian students did their best to hijack the discussion.

Discussing secular humanism? The professor can't even get through her lecture for the day because of Christian students interrupting to say that humanism is wrong because the Bible is right.

Comparative religion? Well what do you know? Only Christianity should be discussed because it is the only true religion.

Ethics? Bible, Bible, Bible, Jesus, Bible, Bible.

Existentialism? Just like the discussions of secular humanism, the Bible is trotted out as an infallible source and one good Christian starts shouting down the lecturer because "bad faith" is an attack on his sincere beliefs.

It doesn't just end there:

Music history? Not spending the entire course on sacred works is an anti-Christian!

Music theory? Pointing out that a tri-tone used to be called "the Devil's interval" is mocking Christians.

Linguistics? The professor is an asshole for not only covering Greek, Hebrew, Latin, and Aramaic and the Babel story is true.

Environmental studies? The Bible says the Earth is ours to do with as we please, end of discussion.

[Deep13]

15. The Bible: God's big book of bad ideas. nt

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

3. tl;dr

[laconicsax]

4. That's where you're wrong.

You've already read it before. Maybe not this exact version, but I'm sure you've read it before. In fact, it could have been assembled verbatim as from the replies of an unassuming vagrant who posts in R/T.

Like Pascal's Wager or the Courtier's Reply, you've read it before

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

6. Can't argue much with that. -nt

[onager]

5. Oh crap, THAT glurge again.

I've been e-mailed many variants of that POS. Just Google "the atheist professor" for a huge collection.

Here's one on Snopes, claiming that the student was...Albert Einstein!

http://www.snopes.com/religion/einstein.asp

[trotsky]

7. Oh yes, because every single science class I ever took...

DEFINITELY said that if you can't detect something with your 5 senses, it doesn't exist.

Where the fuck did someone get that messed up definition for materialism/naturalism, anyway?

It's funny, in this Jack Chick-esque version of Christianity, how very threatened they are by science and intellectualism and how very important it is in their silly little comic strips, plays, or Stalin-Tourette's posts on DU, to put intellectuals in their place.

[Ninjaneer]

9. The student seems pretty humble...

:hide:

[Goblinmonger]

11. Now I know I'm just a humble English teacher, but

wouldn't any science class that is dealing with the senses know that the "5 senses" is bullshit and that there are really many more than that?

[Evoman]

8. And then a marine comes out and beats the shit out of the professor.

Yeah, yeah...read it all before.

The only thing this glurge shit tells me, big surprise, is that the stupid christian fucks who write them have never been in a science class or met a science proffessor.

[Rozlee]

10. OMFSM. This kid needs to be argued with on simple scientific terms.

"Do you think the earth is flat, young man? Why not? Have you ever been to space and seen it?" As dumb as he is, he'd probably think the earth IS flat.

"No, I haven't seen the process of evolution unfolding under my own eyes. But, we do know that microbes mutate to strains that resist antibiotics pretty quick. We wouldn't have MRSA if they didn't." Duh, the little shit would say. What's MRSA?

"Evolution's only a theory," the little turd would say. Well, so is gravity. But, the kid probably thinks that when you throw a ball in the air, angels catch it and bring it back down.

The best way I can think to argue with theists of the three god religions is to use their own bible against them. Just throw out the worst of the twisted scripture out there, the rape, incest, genocide, infanticide, etc., and watch them scramble to find answers. How does he know the professor has a brain? Puh-leez. I'd have told him that particular question branded him a retard because without a brain, you can't stand, walk or perform any neuro functions and you don't need faith to know that. You should have learned it in grammar school. There's a difference between faith and knowledge. A dumbass might have faith that he can walk on water; someone with knowledge would know he can't. And that's another thing I'd tell the kid. Do you really have faith in your God? If he said yes, I'd tell him to walk on water, just like that preacher that drowned a few weeks ago.

[Deep13]

14. I just think gravity and intelligent falling should be treated as equal possible theories.

:hide:

[Deep13]

12. Alright, here's what I have.

1. No respectable professor would single out a student because of religion. I'm not saying it is impossible, but the vast majority would avoid doing so. Not really a logical flaw, but in point of fact it almost never happens.

2. In a related note, most professors would not address a student as "son."

3. Define "good." Define "evil." Is only deliberate harm evil or are impersonal acts of nature also evil?

4. Who created..." The question presumes that the answer is a something properly described as "who" rather than "what." That is, it presumes a sentient creator.

5. Science actually recognizes more that five senses. These include a sense of the passing of time, the position of ones own body or appendages in relation to the body, the sense of movement and there might be some others.

6. Faith. Circular reasoning. I believe because I have faith. I have faith because I believe.

7. Heat and cold. This is a semantic argument. Cold is simply a word that describes our perception of the lack of heat--energetic molecules--or the process of loosing heat. Since some things do have the properties we label as "cold," it does exist.

8. Darkness. By now the professor would have caught on. Darkness is an absence of light. Since some conditions have inadequate photons to allow us to see and that is our definition of "dark," darkness does exist.

9. Science can measure though, just not very well. Thought in principal can be measured since it has physical causes. At present it can be observed occurring on a PET scan as active areas of the brain.

10. Premise of duality. Again a semantic argument with no real basis in reality. Life and death are just useful labels. "Alive" just means that something has those properties that we describe as living. "Dead" is just something that was once alive and now is not.

11. Monkey. I doubt the prof. teaches students that they evolved from "a monkey." Species evolve, not individuals.

12. Evolution at work has been observed directly in the laboratory. One only needs a test subject with such a short life-cycle that evolutionary changes can be observed. Fruit flies are ideal. Besides, even without direct observation, the circumstantial case for evolution is conclusive.

13. Professor's brain. This truly is an idiotic argument. By hearing the prof talk and seeing him do other things, we have conclusive inferential evidence that he has a brain. We know the prof. exists because we can see him. We can find his birth certificate. We can find his college records, his address, his bills, his medical records. We can talk to his friends and family to confirm his existence. There are photos of him. We know for an absolute fact that humans cannot function without brains (despite the existence of creationists.) We know humans, of which the prof is one, exist. Nothing similar is available to establish the existence of god. So, this comes to the fallacy of equivocation. "Faith" means one thing regarding god--blind trust without any basis in reality, and something else when discussing the professor--trust that a person, whose existence is beyond question, functions the way all humans do based on prior knowledge and experience.