God, Heat, Cold and darkness?

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?"

This whole thing is ridiculous, but lost all legitimacy here, if not earlier.

Looks like a general e-mail forward, but still makes some decent points.

When you think about it, God being real or not, people better their lives by living in his faith, and that alone is good enough not to debate it amongst anyone but yourself.

It does make some valid point I think... the brain thing is pushing it though.

When you think about it, God being real or not, people better their lives by living in his faith

I disagree.

and that alone is good enough not to debate it amongst anyone but yourself.

Once again, disagreed. Whether or not people better their lives through faith is debatable. However, even if it could somehow be proven that belief in god is a necessity for life to exist, it says nothing about the truth behind the claim. I think the truth is very important, despite what implications discovering that truth may have on society.

I disagree.

Honestly, how can you disagree that millions of people have bettered their lives after converting to some sort of faith, that's just being ignorant on your part. Look at Convicts that go into the prision system for so long and they finally want to change, what do they do? They turn to Faith/Religion, and come out better as a whole.

Once again, disagreed. Whether or not people better their lives through faith is debatable. However, even if it could somehow be proven that belief in god is a necessity for life to exist, it says nothing about the truth behind the claim. I think the truth is very important, despite what implications discovering that truth may have on society.

You are in fact reading too deep into it, you can't debate God with science, didn't you read the entire story? This is a whole entirely different argument, and you're taking a completely false spin on it.

Honestly, how can you disagree that millions of people have bettered their lives after converting to some sort of faith, that's just being ignorant on your part. Look at Convicts that go into the prision system for so long and they finally want to change, what do they do? They turn to Faith/Religion, and come out better as a whole.

Why is it you call people ignorant before hearing the argument. I would argue that's ignorance on your part. I think I can make one hell of an argument that religion, all in all, has been not just somewhere in the middle, but egregious to humanity, and the ecosystem as a whole. But when I have time.

You are in fact reading too deep into it, you can't debate God with science, didn't you read the entire story? This is a whole entirely different argument, and you're taking a completely false spin on it.

Reread and come again. Honestly, that doesn't seem to be your strong point with my posts lately. Neither of my posts (this one, the rape one) that went completely over your head were even that long. I didn't disagree with the OP in that quote, it was you I disagreed with, specifically "and that alone is good enough not to debate it amongst anyone but yourself." I presented the reason why it should be debated, namely because it contravenes and imposes itself onto the realm of science. And I'm putting the spin on things?

D3v is just honestly incapable of holding an intelligent unemotional conversation, much less a debate. For a long time I've thought of people's capabilities in terms of a series of tunnels (or tubes). Each tunnel allows for a particular thought process. Some people have many tunnels, and thus have the ability to consider many particulars at a time, as well as more quickly since there is more throughput. Think of it as mental multitasking. However, other (stupid) people may have only one tunnel, and are just physically limited by it. These people cannot usually be reasoned with, as they are simply incapable of it. As silly as it is, I take solace in it.

D3v is just honestly incapable of holding an intelligent unemotional conversation, much less a debate.

MJ did the exact same thing

The professor is an idiot. I'll expand, probably Saturday. Or if I'm not deathly tired from being up all week, perhaps Friday.

It's not worth the time or effort to even try sifting through MJ's replies searching for an actual response behind all of the backward-ass logistically placed comments that aren't even relevant to the argument itself.

Why is it you call people ignorant before hearing the argument. I would argue that's ignorance on your part. I think I can make one hell of an argument that religion, all in all, has been not just somewhere in the middle, but egregious to humanity, and the ecosystem as a whole. But when I have time.

You did basically the same thing, scroll up a few lines, calling the professor an idiot is the same presumption giving you have heard his side, and we've all heard your opinion on things on numerous occasions.

Reread and come again. Honestly, that doesn't seem to be your strong point with my posts lately. Neither of my posts (this one, the rape one) that went completely over your head were even that long. I didn't disagree with the OP in that quote, it was you I disagreed with, specifically "and that alone is good enough not to debate it amongst anyone but yourself." I presented the reason why it should be debated, namely because it contravenes and imposes itself onto the realm of science. And I'm putting the spin on things?

I don't think you're getting my point, you are breaking this down too much, the simple fact that you are trying to turn this into an argument about an argument is idiocracy.