# Atheist Professor VS Muslim Student

Science Reason ...
Posts: 4
Joined: 2009-11-28
Offline
Atheist Professor VS Muslim Student

Hello Everyone,

A Muslim just send an email to me with a long story in it. Please read the below shortened and edited except of a probable made-up debate between an Atheist professor of philosophy and a supposedly intelligent Muslim student. This is a story being spread around the Muslim community to strengthen their faith. I did not paste the full story here because the rest of it are not relevant and are simply psychological manipulation. I think it's better to get straight to the point and address the issue at hand. So please do help in sharing your thoughts, points and ideas on what would be the best possible educative response that I could give in return. Most appreciated...

The Muslim looks around the room. "Some interesting points you are making, sir. Now I've got a question for you. Is there such thing as heat?"

"Yes," the professor replies. "There's heat."

Muslim: "Is there such a thing as cold?"

Atheist: "Yes, son, there's cold too."

Muslim: "No sir, there isn't. You can have lots of heat, even more heat, super-heat, 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, otherwise we would be able to go colder than 458 - - You see, sir, cold is only a word we use to describe the absence of heat. We cannot measure cold. Heat we can measure in thermal units because heat is energy. Cold is not the opposite of heat sir, just the absence of it. Is there such a thing as darkness, professor?"

Atheist: "That's a dumb question, son. What is night if it isn't darkness? What are you getting at...?"

Muslim: "So you say there is such a thing as darkness?"

Atheist: "Yes..."

Muslim: "You're wrong again, sir. Darkness is not something; it 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? That's the meaning we use to define the word. In reality, Darkness isn't. If it were, you would be able to make darkness darker and give me a jar of it. Can you... give me a jar of darker darkness, professor?" My point is, your philosophical premise is flawed to start with and so your conclusion must be in error... You are working on the premise of duality. That for example there is life and then there's death; a good God and a bad God. You are viewing the concept of God as something finite, something we can measure. Sir, science cannot even explain a thought. It uses electricity and magnetism but has never seen, much less fully understood them. 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, merely the absence of it."

The young man (Muslim) holds up a newspaper he takes from the desk of a neighbour who has been reading it.

Muslim: "Here is one of the most disgusting tabloids this country hosts, professor. Is there such a thing as immorality?"

Atheist: "Of course there is, now look..."

Muslim: "Wrong again, sir. You see, immorality is merely the absence of morality. Is there such thing as injustice? No. Injustice is the absence of justice. Is there such a thing as evil?" Isn't evil the absence of good?" If there is evil in the world, professor, and we all agree there is, then God if he exists, must be accomplishing a work through the agency of evil. What is that work God is accomplishing? Islam tells us it is to see if each one of us will, choose good over evil. I would have thought that the absence of God's moral code in this world is probably one of the most observable Phenomena going. Newspapers make billions of dollars reporting it every week!

Tell me, professor. Do you teach your students that they evolved from a monkey? Have you ever observed evolution with your own eyes, sir?" Professor. Since no-one has ever observed the process of evolution at work and cannot even prove that this process is an on-going endeavour, are you not teaching your opinion, sir? Are you now not a scientist, but a priest?"

Atheist: "I will overlook your impudence in the light of our philosophical discussion. Now, have you quite finished?"

Muslim: "So you don't accept God's moral code to do what is righteous?"

Atheist: "I believe in what is - that's science!"

Muslim: "Ahh! SCIENCE! Sir, you rightly state that science is the study of observed phenomena. Science too is a premise which is flawed... Is there anyone in the class who has ever seen air, oxygen, molecules, atoms, the professor's brain?"

The class breaks out in laughter. The Muslim points towards his elderly, crumbling tutor.

Muslim: "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.”

Muslim: "It appears no-one here has had any sensory perception of the professor's brain whatsoever. Well, according to the rules of empirical, stable, demonstrable protocol, science, I DECLARE that the professor has no brain."

"There is no compulsion in religion; truly the right way has become clearly distinct from error; And he who rejects false deities and believes in Allaah (The God) has grasped a firm handhold which will never break. and Allaah is ALL-Hearing, All-Knowing (256) Allah is the Protecting Guardian of those who believe. He brings them out of the darkness into the light; As for those who disbelieve, their guardians are false deities. They bring them out of light into darkness... (257)" Al-Qur'aan (Chapter # 2, Verses # 256-257)

The Muslim sits... because that is what a chair is for!!!

“We don’t want to be unkind, but we want to be factual. We don’t want to cause hurt feelings but we want to be epidemically correct on what we understand and know to be true..." ~ Jordon Maxwell

The Doomed Soul
Posts: 2148
Joined: 2007-08-31
Offline
The stories a fake, while

The stories a fake, while theres many reasons i COULD give, i will give this 1

Have you EVER known a proffessor, let alone a philosophy proffessor, to give brief poignant answers, with no real retorts at all? pah!

Maybe next time they should try for a better cover story?

What Would Kharn Do?

Posts: 298
Joined: 2009-09-12
Offline
The Doomed Soul wrote:The

The Doomed Soul wrote:

The stories a fake, while theres many reasons i COULD give, i will give this 1

Have you EVER known a proffessor, let alone a philosophy proffessor, to give brief poignant answers, with no real retorts at all? pah!

Maybe next time they should try for a better cover story?

lol true

Science Reason ...
Posts: 4
Joined: 2009-11-28
Offline
I need suggestions on what

I need suggestions on what would be the best refute for the Muslim student's so-called intelligent arguments?

“We don’t want to be unkind, but we want to be factual. We don’t want to cause hurt feelings but we want to be epidemically correct on what we understand and know to be true..." ~ Jordon Maxwell

Posts: 298
Joined: 2009-09-12
Offline
Science Reason Rationality

Science Reason Rationality wrote:

I need suggestions on what would be the best refute for the Muslim student's so-called intelligent arguments?

Intelligence requires:
1. An external world
2. A body capable of translating events in the external world into "information"
3. Some device capable of processing this information in a nontrivial way and controlling the body.

For example, why are plants not intelligent but animals are? Because plants are rooted in place, but animals navigate an environment. Animals sensory apparatus input information about the external world, where it is processed by the brain and used to control the animal's movements. This is what intelligence is, it's the nontrivial processing of information coming from an external world for the purpose of navigating it.

As such God, and all things supernatural, are impossibilities. God was supposedly an intelligence floating around in nothingness. But intelligence is the nontrivial processing of information about an external world, what was the external world that corresponds to God? What was the information being processed by God's mind? How did God's body transfer information to his mind?

The real problem is that information requires matter. It doesn't matter if it's the molecule of DNA, nuerons in the brain, transistors in a computer chip,or patterns of ink on paper, all information requires a material representation. There is no such thing as information floating around in nothingness, in spirit form, or whatever. The concept of a mind outside of a brain, or information outside of matter is as meaningless as the concept of a 4 sided triangle or a flat sphere.

The sooner people realize this the sooner we can move on from humanity's superstitious roots.

If anyone thinks I've gone too far, feel free to give me an example of information not being stored in matter/energy/space/time or give me an example of intelligence not being the result of the nontrivial processing of information. If you can't give me an real example, try to come up with a thought experiment showing how it's possible to have information and/or intelligence not associated with matter/energy/space/time.

This apllies to a god outside of the universe

Wonderist
Posts: 2479
Joined: 2006-03-19
Offline
That story is plagiarized

That story is plagiarized from the same story with a Christian instead of a Muslim. Search google for the same words and phrases, but with Christian instead of Muslim, and I bet you'll find the original story which the Muslims have stolen from. Try: Christian student professor heat cold. Something like that, I bet you'll find it.

Funny that Muslims have to steal their apologetics from Christians. There are so many levels of ridiculousness there.

Wonderist on Facebook — Support the idea of wonderism by 'liking' the Wonderism page — or join the open Wonderism group to take part in the discussion!

Gnu Atheism Facebook group — All gnu-friendly RRS members welcome (including Luminon!) — Try something gnu!

KSMB
Posts: 702
Joined: 2006-08-03
Offline
Same old story, new religion

Same old story, new religion attached to it. The version with Einstein is deconstructed here:

Ctrl Y
Posts: 73
Joined: 2007-05-19
Offline
Even without todangst's

Even without todangst's excellent article, it should be obvious that there's something wrong here. An ice cube is cold. A room without windows is dark. Killing an innocent man is unjust. Cold, darkness, and injustice therefore exist in some sense. There's got to be some sort of fallacy in any argument that concludes that they don't.

Hambydammit
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
Offline
There are a couple of

There are a couple of possible snags in thinking here, and we have to be careful to think of the meaning of terms.  When I say, "Ooooh... it's cold outside," I really mean that relative to my own body temperature, the air outside is cold.  If I'm feverish, and it's really 70 degrees outside, but I caught a chill, then someone else might disagree with me that it's cold outside.  (Or, if I live in Alabama, and think 50 is cold, a native of Green Bay would disagree stringently.)

However, heat and cold refer to real things.  Very simply, heat is a measure of motion.  Regardless of our relative experience of heat and cold, it's objectively true that any object has "X" motion, making it "Y" hot.  Our measures are arbitrary -- Farenheit, Kelvin, etc, but regardless of where we put the dividing lines, there is an objective measure of heat that any scale can point to.

Similarly, when one man kills another man, a specific, objective thing has occurred.  The biological processes of a living thing have stopped.  The thing is, this isn't really about scale.  Either the man is alive or he is dead.  Any scale that we use is entirely dependent on our value judgments.  The killing of this man was "good" because he killed children.  The killing of that man was "bad" because he was very good to all his friends and neighbors, and didn't intentionally hurt anyone.  They're both exactly the same objective phenomenon.  A man was alive.  Another man killed him.

So, heat/cold and morality are not quite comparable.

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

Stosis
Posts: 327
Joined: 2008-10-21
Offline
Hot and cold are just

Hot and cold are just subjective human experiences. To a human 1000 is deadly hot. But if a star could talk they would think that 1000 is an extreme cold. Same for light/dark and any other opposites.

Vastet
Posts: 11776
Joined: 2006-12-25
Offline
natural wrote:That story is

natural wrote:

That story is plagiarized from the same story with a Christian instead of a Muslim. Search google for the same words and phrases, but with Christian instead of Muslim, and I bet you'll find the original story which the Muslims have stolen from. Try: Christian student professor heat cold. Something like that, I bet you'll find it.

Funny that Muslims have to steal their apologetics from Christians. There are so many levels of ridiculousness there.

Indeed. I had to have first seen this ten years ago. There's a version on Snopes too if I remember correctly.

Once-Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.

Hambydammit
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
Offline
Stosis, a little wiki will

Stosis, a little wiki will solve this:

Wikipedia wrote:
The total amount of energy transferred through heat transfer is conventionally abbreviated as Q. The conventional sign convention is that when a body releases heat into its surroundings, Q < 0 (-); when a body absorbs heat from its surroundings, Q > 0 (+). Heat transfer rate, or heat flow per unit time, is denoted by:

$\dot{Q} = {dQ\over dt} \,\!$.

It is measured in wattsHeat flux is defined as rate of heat transfer per unit cross-sectional area, and is denoted q, resulting in units of watts per square metre, though slightly different notation conventions can be used.

Heat is a quantifiable, measurable, objective thing with formulas to describe it precisely.  That's what I just tried to explain.  We can subjectively talk about things being hot or cold relative to us, but outside of our perception, everything has a very specific and objective quality of heat.  (Well, except for things at absolute zero.)

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

Jormungander
Posts: 938
Joined: 2008-07-15
Offline
KSMB wrote:Same old story,

KSMB wrote:

Same old story, new religion attached to it. The version with Einstein is deconstructed here:

I was thinking about writing a lengthy deconstruction, but this link does a better job writing out what I was planning. That is an epic beat down of this fictional story.

"You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours."
British General Charles Napier while in India

Ian Kendall (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
Offline
Instances of Evolution

For examples of Evolution enter the following search:

"Observed Instances of Speciation"

Aleena (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
Offline
hmm

Why is where the story came from a refutation for you guys? Both Christianity and Islam believe in ONE God. That's all it comes down to. I think it' sad how far you all shoved your heads up your asses. I have a professor who's Atheist but he's not narrow-minded like you all are. I mean starting a discussion because you need a good "comeback" for a STUDENT.

And using a lot of big words won't make you look smart, I promise.

And ignoring the science/air/matter point won't either. If you don't have a point to make then don't pretend you do. Find omething else to discuss, thanks.

Apostate of Islam (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
Offline
asdf

"Why is where the story came from a refutation for you guys?"

It wasn't. But plagiarizing and not giving credit to where it belongs should be enough to know that you can't come up with credible arguments of your own, hence we don't refute your stolen argument but the origin.

"Both Christianity and Islam believe in ONE God. That's all it comes down to. I think it' sad how far you all shoved your heads up your asses."

Just admit you stole it and did not give credit where it lies. Christianity, or whatever came with the argument, will not agree with you. Christians don't believe in your God neither is Islam compatible with other Gods.

"I mean starting a discussion because you need a good "comeback" for a STUDENT."

It was not a real student. You seriously believe that? It was an ARGUMENT that was shown with narratives of a student (not a Muslim), and no real event of any sorts took place. It's all a myth, a legend.

"And using a lot of big words won't make you look smart, I promise."

Who said it will? Just because you don't understand doesn't mean we have to use baby language. Hey, if you can sound more smarter with your childish English, then why don't you go and refute our refutations with that.

"And ignoring the science/air/matter point won't either. If you don't have a point to make then don't pretend you do. Find omething else to discuss, thanks."

That point is even more ridiculous than the whole argument, it needs no refutation. Oxygen, air etc. etc. are understood by carrying out test that prove their existence. What tests can be carried out to prove the existence of God? Hey, according to your logic, pink unicorns must exist, after all just because we can't see them doesn't mean they don't exist.