The Mean Teacher!

[the worthy one]

Originally posted by unworthyone
LOL. Huh? Are you talking to yourself again Worthy? Geesh!

Not unless you or Lewis are me???

 

[seebs]

Originally posted by D. Scarlatti


Sorry, I just don't see the point of the "joke." Can you explain it? Maybe it will be funny then.

The point is presumably that things not obvious to casual examination may nonetheless exist.

 

[seebs]

Originally posted by Ray K

This is one of those "jokes" whose real intent is to mischaracterize non-believers and then make fun of them.

You can't honestly tell me you've never met non-believers just like that. Remember the cosmonauts?

 

[alexgb00]

Originally posted by D. Scarlatti
... we can see brains with magnetic resonance imaging, among other things. Or, post-mortem, we can hold them in our hands and even slice them into sections.

D. Scarlatti, we can see God in actions and miracles that happen. It's very common, too.

God bless!

Your brother in Christ,
Alex

 

[Brimshack]

I have yet to see an account of a miracle that is comparable to the scientific procedures that Scarlotti mentions. Most accounts of miracles present an absence of a a natural explanation as evidence for the miracle. But absence of a naturalistic explanation is just that, it hardly counts as evidence of anything. And if you wish to use faith to fill in the gap, then we still don't have comparable phenomena here.

I have to admit I am ambivalent about Jokes like the one that started this thread. I'd like to be a good sport about it, but there's a part of me that thinks; "if anyone actually thinks this is how atheists really think, then I gotta answer it." Since my own sense of humor is fairly rough, I think it's only fair to accept a ribbing from the other side every now and then, but to the extent that such jokes are thought to provide any insight on my views, I would have to say 'no, it doesn't'

 

[alexgb00]

Brimshack,

If faith destroys the concept of "science," with which i agree to a certain point, then the theory of evolution is, by definition, not a science. You still have to take it by faith, just as you have to take God by faith.

If you don't believe me, then explain scientifically how space, time, energy and matter appeared. See, it's all a belief; an ideology. Except some say that darwinism is better than Creation, and others state the opposite.

In Christ,
Alex

 

[Brimshack]

Alex. I have already commented extensively on the equivocal uses of faith in comparing various aspects of athiesm and naturalism to Christianity. My latest comments on that subject are in the Atheism is a religion thread in Apologetics. Also, I am not a natural scientist, so I can't claim to know the most advanced theories in physics. If my acceptance of such theories as tentaively true counts as faith to you, then so be it. They are in principle studyable (even if I am not the one doing the stydying), whereas faith arguments in relation to miracles are not. When faith plays a key role in the inference structure of a theory in it's most advanced form that is a flaw in the theory. This is not the same as the faith one has in others under the academic division of labor.

Finally. You offer your argument as a comment on evolution, then ask me to explain the origins of the universe. Two problems.

1) Since I don't actually claim to know how the universe started, I cannot answer your question, but that hardly proves that I am acting on faith. Rather it shows that I have an absence of an opinion on the subject, to wit, nothing to have faith in.

2) Evolution is a theory which is intended to explain speciation, not the origins of the universe. If you do not see that these are two different subjects, then I am disinclined to continue the discussion. I'm sorry, but that is really frustrating.

 

[LouisBooth]

"And if you wish to use faith to fill in the gap, then we still don't have comparable phenomena here. "

What's really funny is when you actually look at what a mircle is. Its a mathematical impossiblity, ie an event that is highly improbable. So I think if you are an evolutionist you would love miricles, because evolution is one.

 

[DrLao]

Originally posted by LouisBooth
Its a mathematical impossiblity, ie an event that is highly improbable.

These statements are not equivalent at all. In fact, they are exact opposites. A highly improbable event is not impossible by definition.

 

[LouisBooth]

"A highly improbable event is not impossible by definition."

Yes it is by current standards I see. If there is a 1/10000000000000000 chance of something I would say it is a virtual mathematically impossibility, maybe I should have added that word "virtual". Nothing is impossible. Its possible that you could morph into a bunny right now, but its a virtual mathematical impossiblity..see my point?

 

[D. Scarlatti]

Originally posted by LouisBooth
It's possible that you could morph into a bunny right now, but its a virtual mathematical impossiblity..see my point?

No.

 

[LouisBooth]

well then put on your glasses!

 

[D. Scarlatti]

Originally posted by LouisBooth
well then put on your glasses!

You or anyone "morphing into a bunny" is a phenotypic impossibility, not a mathematical anything.

 

[LouisBooth]

"phenotypic impossibility, not a mathematical anything."

ahh..I see you misunderstand. In the realm of exsistance, everything is "possible" but somethings have a less probable outcome then others. for example I could levitate right now, but in order for that to happen a strong wind or some other force (localized decrese in gravity) must occur. These events have low "chance" of happening. Thus the mathmatical probablity of the action of it happening. Its not JUST a phenotypic impossibility. Your DNA might rearrange itself in a way to be a bunnies DNA. Its just not very likely to happen. thus a mathematical impossiblity.

 

[D. Scarlatti]

Originally posted by LouisBooth
"phenotypic impossibility, not a mathematical anything."

ahh..I see you misunderstand. In the realm of exsistance, everything is "possible" but somethings have a less probable outcome then others.

What are you talking about, "in the realm of existence"? How about the "realm of logic." How probable is a married bachelor?

for example I could levitate right now, but in order for that to happen a strong wind or some other force (localized decrese in gravity) must occur.

Given those circumstances you wouldn't be "levitating" by definition.

These events have low "chance" of happening.

Strong winds are not uncommon. As for "localized decrease in gravity" I have to assume you're making a joke.

Thus the mathmatical probablity of the action of it happening.

Thus what?

Its not JUST a phenotypic impossibility.

Yes it's "just" a phenotypic impossibility.

Your DNA might rearrange itself in a way to be a bunnies DNA.

Which is why I said it was a phenotypic impossibility, not a genotypic impossibility.

Its just not very likely to happen. thus a mathematical impossiblity.

As pointed out previously an improbable event is not an impossible event. That's why one is called "improbable" and the other "impossible." See, they're even different words. That should be your first clue.

 

[D. Scarlatti]

<double post>

 

[LouisBooth]

*sigh* its pretty obvious you're not going to understand even if I talk and explain until I'm blue in the face. You just don't get it. *sigh*

 

[D. Scarlatti]

Originally posted by LouisBooth
*sigh* its pretty obvious you're not going to understand even if I talk and explain until I'm blue in the face. You just don't get it. *sigh*

Is it improbable or impossible that I will understand?

 

[AV1611VET]

Here is a joke I go this morning. Hopefully it will make you laugh.

One day a 6 year old girl was sitting in a classroom.
The teacher was going to explain evolution to the
children. The teacher asked a little boy:

TEACHER: Tommy do you see the tree outside?
TOMMY: Yes.
TEACHER: Tommy, do you see the grass outside?
TOMMY: Yes.
TEACHER: Go outside and look up and see if you can see
the sky.
TOMMY: Okay. (He returned a few minutes later) Yes, I
saw the sky.
TEACHER: Did you see God?
TOMMY: No.
TEACHER: That's my point. We can't see God because he
isn't there. He doesn't exist.

A little girl spoke up and wanted to ask the boy some
questions. The teacher agreed and the little girl
asked the boy:

LITTLE GIRL: Tommy, do you see the tree outside?
TOMMY: Yes.
LITTLE GIRL: Tommy do you see the grass outside?
TOMMY: Yessssss (getting tired of the questions by
this time).
LITTLE GIRL: Did you see the sky?
TOMMY: Yessssss
LITTLE GIRL: Tommy, do you see the teacher?
TOMMY: Yes
LITTLE GIRL: Do you see her brain?
TOMMY: No
LITTLE GIRL: Then according to what we were taught
today in school, she must not have one!

LOL!

 

[driewerf]

LOL!

As said so eloquantly earlier in this thread:

This is one of those "jokes" whose real intent is to mischaracterize non-believers and then make fun of them.

And if you take a moment to point that out, then you are a humorless person who can't take a little joke.