[Venting] College teacher sent me religious email.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
20-12-2014, 09:27 PM
[Venting] College teacher sent me religious email.
So a few days ago my college teacher, who is directly in charge of one of my most important grades in the entire degree, found out I'm an atheist and sent me this email:

Quote:Kristen,

I found it interesting last night that an intelligent student such as yourself would be so adamant in their proclamation of atheism.

Please challenge yourself to go to Google and enter “ five proofs of God’s existence.”

This is the web address http://web.mnstate.edu/gracyk/courses/we...alysis.htm

It will take you to a treatise by Thomas Aquinas. The last of the five ‘proofs’ is the one that, for me, carries the most weight…the design begs a designer.

I think you will find it a persuasive essay.

Dr. [censored]

I was pissed. I really wanted to fire back and knock him down verbally, but he's in charge of my capstone grade, one of the most important grades I need for this degree. This teacher is the kind of guy who's very imposing and doesn't know when to back down or leave someone alone.

In an attempt to keep things civil yet get the point across, here was my response:

Quote:I'm a bit concerned that you would feel the need to use your facilitative authority to proselytize to a student without consent. I feel that this was an inappropriate topic for an instructor to press on a student without permission, and I feel that a line was crossed.

Though I would be more than happy to engage in such debate, I believe it would be better suited for another time, preferably after the semester is over and we are no longer in a student/teacher relationship.

I respectfully request that we maintain an air of professionalism. I also ask that we hold ourselves to a professional student/teacher relationship and the boundaries inherent in said relationship.

Sincerely;

Kristen R.

This teacher often speaks and proselytizes in class. He inserts religious questions into quizzes which have absolutely nothing to do in any way with the subject material (business development class). Even his response to my request seemed like he was trying to bait me into a "debate".

Quote:Kristen,

Fear not. The information provided was in no way meant to proselytize. In fact, it was designed to stimulate academic inquiry on a level of intelligent debate.

Although we have been in very few classes, it was my perception that you would welcome academics at that level. If my perception was inaccurate, it will be discussed no further.

The professor/student relationship was, and will continue to be, intact.

Dr. [censored]

Later on, he went on to discuss proof of god in class, not at me directly, but for the whole class in general. All the while, giving me a condescending sneer. It really ticked me off to the point I went to my program director. I taddle telled on him. This was her response:

Quote:Good morning:

As a fellow atheist, I hold strongly that any teacher or person in power should not be pushing a religion on another. I will absolutely follow through with this!


Dr. [censored]

Hopefully she'll put the fear of his god into him and make him think twice before proselytizing in the classroom again. That was Thursday and my next class with that teacher is on Monday. Fingers crossed.

Anyways, thanks for listening.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 25 users Like jojorumbles's post
20-12-2014, 09:50 PM
RE: [Venting] College teacher sent me religious email.
Good for you! Make sure you save anything he sent to you just in case.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like pablo's post
20-12-2014, 09:55 PM
RE: [Venting] College teacher sent me religious email.
there was another colkehe prof just called out on this, let me search the news, I just read it in the last couple of days.

what kind of course is it? biology? pholiosophy? english?


"Life is a daring adventure or it is nothing"--Helen Keller
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bows and Arrows's post
20-12-2014, 09:58 PM
RE: [Venting] College teacher sent me religious email.
(20-12-2014 09:50 PM)pablo Wrote:  Good for you! Make sure you save anything he sent to you just in case.

I think you handled that very well. As Pablo said keep all correspondence.

In this scenario entering into a "discussion" you have nothing to gain and everything to lose.

“I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man’s reasoning powers are not above the monkey’s.”~Mark Twain
“Ocean: A body of water occupying about two-thirds of a world made for man - who has no gills.”~ Ambrose Bierce
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Full Circle's post
20-12-2014, 09:58 PM
RE: [Venting] College teacher sent me religious email.
https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2014...tizing-his


"Life is a daring adventure or it is nothing"--Helen Keller
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-12-2014, 10:37 PM
RE: [Venting] College teacher sent me religious email.
Bowing bravo! I don't think that situation could have been handled any better.

I hope that the world turns, and things get better. But what I hope most of all is that you understand what I mean when I tell you that, even though I do not know you, and even though I may never meet you, laugh with you, cry with you, or kiss you, I love you. With all my heart, I love you. - V for Vendetta
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-12-2014, 10:44 PM
RE: [Venting] College teacher sent me religious email.
Sometimes you just have to speak up.

If not, this shit just goes on and on.

Standing ovation for taking a stand and following through. Clap

See here they are the bruises some were self-inflicted and some showed up along the way. - JF

We're all mad here. The Cheshire Cat
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Anjele's post
20-12-2014, 10:48 PM (This post was last modified: 20-12-2014 11:04 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: [Venting] College teacher sent me religious email.
It's harassment, and because of the power structure, it's abuse.
Go to the Academic Dean, and demand action. When you are there, demand a follow-up meeting at which time you expect you will be told what actions the school has taken to remedy the situation and to make sure it never happens again.

BTW, below are some ideas I wrote once, a while ago, (re the Aquinas stuff)

1. Unmoved mover.
* Assumes there actually is a state of absolute "motionlessness". In this universe, that is never observed, as absolute 0 temperature has a measure, (2.00 Kelvin).
Aquinas had no detection equipment.
* Assumes structure of rest / motion was already caused.
* Is argument for "proximate" mover, not ("first") Unmoved mover. The Unmoved moved, if he really is god, could have created a non-god, unmoved mover.
* Assumes linear time, and, that linear time is (already) in place.
* Assumes causality, and that causality is (already) in place. If the god "caused" causality, it assumes causality (already) in place. (Infinite Regression).
* Aquinas did not know about Relativity. ((There is no absolute (linear) time)).
(A cause, with a different direction/position/speed in space-time, ie in the future of the object moved, could be the cause of motion, in it's relative past), and vice-versa.
* Assumes the universe is intuitive. (we know from Einstein, Heisenberg, and Dirac, that it is not).
* Assumes ALL things in motion could not have always been in, or possessed, motion, without having established that that is not possible. States something with no proof.
What he really should have said is "acceleration requires energy". We know from physics it is acceleration which requires input of energy, not motion. Aquinas did not know about "increasing rate(s) of motion", (acceleration). Physics tells us "things in motion stay in motion". The input of energy into a system to initiate an increase in motion can arise from many sources, including the conversion of matter to energy, and chemical energy to motion, not just "motion". Thus motion's origin/transfer is not really the question here. (The question here is really the origins of energy. Since this question is not addressed in Aquinas' argument, I am not required to address it, either, as my purpose here is simply to show his arguments are fallacious.) Aquinas did not know matter and energy are interchangeable. (E=mc2).
* #5 is not the ONLY possible conclusion from 1-4. No proof.
* #7 stated, not proven
* #8 stated, not proven as the ONLY possible conclusion
* First and foremost, assumes an object which "appears" at rest, really IS (completely) at rest, and that we have the ability to determine that.
a. Particle Physics knows that is fundamentally false, (Aquinas did not know about atoms, their components, and their properties).
b. Uncertainty has shown us that there is no way to determine the absolute position of anything, thus absolute rest, cannot be proven, and in fact, from the particle/wave duality, we know it never will be.
c. A particle with absolutely no energy, (motion), has never been observed, or detected. Thus there is no way to test this proposition, and no reason to.
d. Assumes principle of transfer of energy of motion from one object to another object is, effective and efficient. Where did the principle come from ? If the transfer is not 100 % efficient, (which it is not, as some energy is dissipated as friction, and some as radiant energy), why did the god create a less than perfect transfer system ? What is a "perfect" transfer system. If there is one, who made the system ? Who set up the perfect standard ? (See perfection below).

2. First Cause
* Assumes linear time, and causality (already) in place. (Aquinas did not know about Relativity).

3. Contingent Being.
* No. Essentially god of the gaps. Also assumes linear time and causality, (already) in place.

4. Perfection.
* Perfection is a relative perception. What I perceive as perfect is not what you perceive as perfect.
* Perfection's definition is not established.
* Assumes there is only one "perfect standard". Has not established the standard. Has not established only one standard possible and/or necessary.
* States a creature is not as perfect as the idea of itself in mind of god. Not proven.
((Is actually a proof of NO god, and it makes her a non-perfect, (non-efficient, or less than perfect), creator)).
* A perfect, omnipotent god could/would translate a perfect idea, into a perfect creature.
* Assumes the god is subject to a structure of some sort, (already) in place, in the fabric of of the universe.

Did god have a reason for creating the universe ?
If god did not have a reason, god is not rational, and is capricious.
If not, god could either not do it, or create something else.
If god could not create something else, then there is a standard, apart from god, and god is not god.

Thank you Plato, for Euthyphro's Dilemma, (written for "morality", but works here) :
* If the god made something perfect, did it have a reason ? If it was not perfect, how could it be a product of a perfect god ?
If the god had no reason, for the state (of perfection and/or imperfection) of the creature, then it could have made something else, and there is no standard of perfection, (in the mind of the god).
If it could NOT have made something else, and still be god, then a standard exists, apart from god.
If there is a good reason, that reason exists, apart from god.
Could he have made something else ?
If he could not create something else, then perfection exists apart from god.
Is something not perfect, because god says it's not perfect, or is it not perfect, because it's objectively not perfect , and god had to say that ?
Would something imperfect, be perfect, if god says it's perfect ?
Conclusions:
If god could not have made something which is imperferct, and still be god, then the source of the perfection is not god.
If it would still be perfect , even if god says it's not perfect, then the source of perfection is not god.
If the source of perfection is not god, then we must look elsewhere for guidance, on what is perfect.

(BTW, this proof, is also valid for "causality", ie debunking "First Cause", and is also proof of god's non-existence, and non-contingent nature.)

5. Anthropic Principle.
* Refuted so many times, not worth discussion. (see my links)
http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...m+debunked

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 7 users Like Bucky Ball's post
20-12-2014, 11:04 PM (This post was last modified: 20-12-2014 11:17 PM by Full Circle.)
RE: [Venting] College teacher sent me religious email.
(20-12-2014 10:48 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  It's harassment, and because of the power structure, it's abuse.
Go to the Academic Dean, and demand action. When you are there, demand a follow-up meeting at which time you expect you will be told what actions the school has taken to remedy the situation and to make sure it never happens again.

BTW, below are some ideas I wrote once, a while ago.

1. Unmoved mover.
* Assumes there actually is a state of absolute "motionlessness". In this universe, that is never observed, as absolute 0 temperature has a measure, (2.00 Kelvin).
Aquinas had no detection equipment
* Assumes structure of rest / motion was already caused.
* Is argument for "proximate" mover, not ("first") Unmoved mover. The Unmoved moved, if he really is god, could have created a non-god, unmoved mover.
* Assumes linear time, and, that linear time is (already) in place.
* Assumes causality, and that causality is (already) in place. If the god "caused" causality, it assumes causality (already) in place. (Infinite Regression).
* Aquinas did not know about Relativity. ((There is no absolute (linnear) time)).
(A cause, with a different direction/position/speed in space-time, ie in the future of the object moved, could be the cause of motion, in it's relative past), and vice versa.
* Assumes the universe is intuitive. (we know from Einstein, Heisenberg, and Dirac, that it is not).
* Assumes ALL things in motion could not have always been in, or possessed, motion, without having established that that is not possible. States something with no proof.
What he really should have said is "acceleration requires energy". We know from physics it is acceleration which requires input of energy, not motion. Aquinas did not know about "increasing rate(s) of motion", (acceleration). Physics tells us "things in motion stay in motion". The input of energy into a system to initiate an increase in motion can arise from many sources, including the conversion of matter to energy, and chemical energy to motion, not just "motion". Thus motion's origin/transfer is not really the question here. (The question here is really the origins of energy. Since this question is not addressed in Aquinas' argument, I am not required to address it, either, as my purpose here is simply to show his arguments are fallacious.) Aquinas did not know matter and energy are interchangeable. (E=mc2).
* #5 is not the ONLY possible conclusion from 1-4. No proof.
* #7 stated, not proven
* #8 stated, not proven as the ONLY possible conclusion
* First and foremost, assumes an object which "appears" at rest, really IS (completely) at rest, and that we have the ability to determine that.
a. Particle Physics knows that is fundamentally false, (Aquinas did not know about atoms, their components, and their properties).
b. Uncertainty has shown us that there is no way to determine the absolute position of anything, thus absolute rest, cannnot be proven, and in fact, from the particle/wave duality, we know it never will be.
c. A particle with absolutley no energy, (motion), has never been observed, or detected. Thus there is no way to test this proposition, and no reason to.
d. Assumes principle of transfer of energy of motion from one object to another object is, effective and efficient. Where did the principle come from ? If the transfer is not 100 % efficient, (which it is not, as some energy is dissipated as friction, and some as radiant energy), why did the god create a less than perfect transfer system ? What is a "perfect" transfer system. If there is one, who made the system ? Who set up the perfect standard ? (See perfection below).

2. First Cause
* Assumes linnear time, and causality (already) in place. (Aquinas did not know about Relativity).

3. Contingent Being.
* No. Essentially god of the gaps. Also assumes linnear time and causality, (already) in place.

4. Perfection.
* Perfection is a relative perception. What I perceive as perfect is not what you perceive as perfect.
* Perfection's definition is not established.
* Assumes there is only one "perfect standard". Has not established the standard. Has not established only one standard possible and/or necessary.
* States a creature is not as perfect as the idea of itself in mind of god. Not proven.
((Is actually a proof of NO god, and it makes her a non-perfect, (non-efficient, or less than perfect), creator)).
* A perfect, omnipotent god could/would translate a perfect idea, into a perfect creature.
* Assumes the god is subject to a structure of some sort, (already) in place, in the fabric of of the universe.

Did god have a reason for creating the universe ?
If god did not have a reason, god is not rational, and is capricious.
If not, god could either not do it, or create something else.
If god could not create something else, then there is a standard, apart from god, and god is not god.

Thank you Plato, for Euthyphro's Dillema, (written for "morality", but works here) :
* If the god made something perfect, did it have a reason ? If it was not perfect, how could it be a product of a perfect god ?
If the god had no reason, for the state (of perfection and/or imperfection) of the creature, then it could have made something else, and there is no standard of perfection, (in the mind of the god).
If it could NOT have made something else, and still be god, then a standard exists, apart from god.
If there is a good reason, that reason exists, apart from god.
Could he have made something else ?
If he could not create something else, then perfection exists apart from god.
Is something not perfect, because god says it's not perfect, or is it not perfect, because it's objectively not perfect , and god had to say that ?
Would something imperfect, be perfect, if god says it's perfect ?
Conclusions:
If god could not have made something which is imperferct, and still be god, then the source of the perfection is not god.
If it would still be perfect , even if god says it's not perfect, then the source of perfection is not god.
If the source of perfection is not god, then we must look elsewhere for guidance, on what is perfect.

(BTW, this proof, is also valid for "causality", ie debubking "First Cause", and is also proof of god's non-existence, and non-contingent nature.)

5. Anthropic Principle.
* Refuted so many times, not worth discussion. (see my links)
http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...m+debunked

Glad you posted that, very interesting reading.

So why would a perfect god make an imperfect creation? Consider

Edit: Can a perfect god make an imperfect creation?

“I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man’s reasoning powers are not above the monkey’s.”~Mark Twain
“Ocean: A body of water occupying about two-thirds of a world made for man - who has no gills.”~ Ambrose Bierce
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-12-2014, 11:39 PM
RE: [Venting] College teacher sent me religious email.
(20-12-2014 11:04 PM)Full Circle Wrote:  
(20-12-2014 10:48 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  It's harassment, and because of the power structure, it's abuse.
Go to the Academic Dean, and demand action. When you are there, demand a follow-up meeting at which time you expect you will be told what actions the school has taken to remedy the situation and to make sure it never happens again.

BTW, below are some ideas I wrote once, a while ago.

1. Unmoved mover.
* Assumes there actually is a state of absolute "motionlessness". In this universe, that is never observed, as absolute 0 temperature has a measure, (2.00 Kelvin).
Aquinas had no detection equipment
* Assumes structure of rest / motion was already caused.
* Is argument for "proximate" mover, not ("first") Unmoved mover. The Unmoved moved, if he really is god, could have created a non-god, unmoved mover.
* Assumes linear time, and, that linear time is (already) in place.
* Assumes causality, and that causality is (already) in place. If the god "caused" causality, it assumes causality (already) in place. (Infinite Regression).
* Aquinas did not know about Relativity. ((There is no absolute (linnear) time)).
(A cause, with a different direction/position/speed in space-time, ie in the future of the object moved, could be the cause of motion, in it's relative past), and vice versa.
* Assumes the universe is intuitive. (we know from Einstein, Heisenberg, and Dirac, that it is not).
* Assumes ALL things in motion could not have always been in, or possessed, motion, without having established that that is not possible. States something with no proof.
What he really should have said is "acceleration requires energy". We know from physics it is acceleration which requires input of energy, not motion. Aquinas did not know about "increasing rate(s) of motion", (acceleration). Physics tells us "things in motion stay in motion". The input of energy into a system to initiate an increase in motion can arise from many sources, including the conversion of matter to energy, and chemical energy to motion, not just "motion". Thus motion's origin/transfer is not really the question here. (The question here is really the origins of energy. Since this question is not addressed in Aquinas' argument, I am not required to address it, either, as my purpose here is simply to show his arguments are fallacious.) Aquinas did not know matter and energy are interchangeable. (E=mc2).
* #5 is not the ONLY possible conclusion from 1-4. No proof.
* #7 stated, not proven
* #8 stated, not proven as the ONLY possible conclusion
* First and foremost, assumes an object which "appears" at rest, really IS (completely) at rest, and that we have the ability to determine that.
a. Particle Physics knows that is fundamentally false, (Aquinas did not know about atoms, their components, and their properties).
b. Uncertainty has shown us that there is no way to determine the absolute position of anything, thus absolute rest, cannnot be proven, and in fact, from the particle/wave duality, we know it never will be.
c. A particle with absolutley no energy, (motion), has never been observed, or detected. Thus there is no way to test this proposition, and no reason to.
d. Assumes principle of transfer of energy of motion from one object to another object is, effective and efficient. Where did the principle come from ? If the transfer is not 100 % efficient, (which it is not, as some energy is dissipated as friction, and some as radiant energy), why did the god create a less than perfect transfer system ? What is a "perfect" transfer system. If there is one, who made the system ? Who set up the perfect standard ? (See perfection below).

2. First Cause
* Assumes linnear time, and causality (already) in place. (Aquinas did not know about Relativity).

3. Contingent Being.
* No. Essentially god of the gaps. Also assumes linnear time and causality, (already) in place.

4. Perfection.
* Perfection is a relative perception. What I perceive as perfect is not what you perceive as perfect.
* Perfection's definition is not established.
* Assumes there is only one "perfect standard". Has not established the standard. Has not established only one standard possible and/or necessary.
* States a creature is not as perfect as the idea of itself in mind of god. Not proven.
((Is actually a proof of NO god, and it makes her a non-perfect, (non-efficient, or less than perfect), creator)).
* A perfect, omnipotent god could/would translate a perfect idea, into a perfect creature.
* Assumes the god is subject to a structure of some sort, (already) in place, in the fabric of of the universe.

Did god have a reason for creating the universe ?
If god did not have a reason, god is not rational, and is capricious.
If not, god could either not do it, or create something else.
If god could not create something else, then there is a standard, apart from god, and god is not god.

Thank you Plato, for Euthyphro's Dillema, (written for "morality", but works here) :
* If the god made something perfect, did it have a reason ? If it was not perfect, how could it be a product of a perfect god ?
If the god had no reason, for the state (of perfection and/or imperfection) of the creature, then it could have made something else, and there is no standard of perfection, (in the mind of the god).
If it could NOT have made something else, and still be god, then a standard exists, apart from god.
If there is a good reason, that reason exists, apart from god.
Could he have made something else ?
If he could not create something else, then perfection exists apart from god.
Is something not perfect, because god says it's not perfect, or is it not perfect, because it's objectively not perfect , and god had to say that ?
Would something imperfect, be perfect, if god says it's perfect ?
Conclusions:
If god could not have made something which is imperferct, and still be god, then the source of the perfection is not god.
If it would still be perfect , even if god says it's not perfect, then the source of perfection is not god.
If the source of perfection is not god, then we must look elsewhere for guidance, on what is perfect.

(BTW, this proof, is also valid for "causality", ie debubking "First Cause", and is also proof of god's non-existence, and non-contingent nature.)

5. Anthropic Principle.
* Refuted so many times, not worth discussion. (see my links)
http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...m+debunked

Glad you posted that, very interesting reading.

So why would a perfect god make an imperfect creation? Consider

Edit: Can a perfect god make an imperfect creation?

The entire exercise is flawed, IMO. "Perfection" would have to exist as a standard apart from the deity. A real (omnipotent) deity *could* do whatever it wanted. The Thomistic deal that only the (original) creator would be perfect, and no creature could possess it's perfection implies that the deity is operating as somehow "embedded" (of necessity) is an already or pre-existent Reality. Reality in all this nonsense remains unexplained and unaccounted for. There is no (absolute) definition of "perfection".

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: