That would make sense if they both entered the room at the same time.

Frank (who entered earlier) knows that John (who entered after) doesn't know. John could never be 100% certain that John had not seen it as well unless there was some sort of one time open type of box.

I believe in god. I'd also like to consider myself rather sciency. They aren't diametrically opposed. I'm not religious at all, but I believe that it's not unlikely that a god could exist. Hell, science doesn't even explain away intelligent design. Who knows, maybe god directed evolution.

It's also just as probable that what most people see as gods could really be aliens. No one really knows. I suppose we'll have to wait til 2012 to find out

There you have it. It can't be disproved, thus is possible. (Agnostic speaking here)
And believing gives them hope and (hopefully) drives them to the better. "Faith can move mountains."

Except as t is now, there is no way we can prove it. Also, even with meteorology, which you made as an example way before, we still cannot predict every weather pattern. For example: snow. We still cannot say exactly whether or not it will snow. Maybe by me doing a snow dance it influences a god somewhere to give it a higher chance of snowing. Meteorology can't predict everything down to the exact detail.

Religion is man made and cannot be very accurate at all. I think if you beleive in santa claus, the toothfairy or the fuckin easter bunny.. Then you might as well beleive in Jesus Christ. I don't beleive in any religion worldwide I think it's all just something to give faith to humanity that when you die life isn't over.

If your interested in this topic, you should really look into the religious conspiracy theories of David Ike. He makes very intellectual points that include the most proven points from the bible, torah and other religious textbooks. "We were created in the image of God", meaning if God himself was to walk by you on the street you wouldn't immediately recognize him or even recognize him at all.

David does not beleive in any religion, however, he does beleive that there is a higher power that did in fact create this universe and everything in it. This may sound a bit odd but, Aliens and God are much more alike then you might think. He beleives this higher power created the Earth to sustain life and after the creation process was complete we have been monitored these passed 1,000,000,000,000 years and ever since the dawn of time it was a race for evolution to see which species will rise to the top of the food chain. In our case, if you beleive in the theory of evolution then it was the monkeys that prospered.

My point is, nobody knows what "God" is.. However, what I beleive is that whatever created the human race and the Earth itself is still somewhere out there watching us and is just as much alive as we are.

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Dec 4 2009, 6:12 pm by Kenshin21.

How do you know that religion is manmade? Scientology is, certainly, but what about Hinduism, Christianity, Islam etc.?

If religion wasn't man made, there wouldn't be 200 religions worldwide and we would have the right answers we need. We as humans have come such a long way these passed 2000 years. We understand alot more about the world around us and the universe itself. 2000 years ago, the earth was flat.. the stars were angels watching down on us and God lived in the clouds. If you did ANYTHING god didn't want you to, he would cast you into the fiery depths of hell to burn for all time... but he loves you!

Anyone of you who haven't seen this... You might enjoy it stays on topic and very comical
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MeSSwKffj9o&feature=PlayList&p=32632A2A1A3B4F15&index=0

I'll ignore the 'history' there for a moment.

There's a whole bunch of religions. Check. Some of those religions are manmade, because you can't have all these omnipotent and omniscient gods at once. Check(actually we don't know for sure, but w/e)
But what if only ONE omnipotent and omniscient god exists? Then you can say all the religions are spinoffs, and there is one true, non-man-made religion. Or the Hindu or Greek gods could be the true gods, as AFAIK none are omniscient or omnipotent. What I'm saying here is there is no way to prove or disprove that a religion is a true religion, except for in the case of scientology, where the guy confessed to making it up.

I get what your saying Zany, but my answer to that is still if there is a God I don't beleive any religion on Earth is "right" and if we do ever find proof of this "one" God, then a new Religion will form proving to be the right one. I doubt very much any one religion is correct. I took a course in college about World Religions and learned alot about many different beleifs. Which makes me feel the way I do about the subject

Are you agreeing with me? I can't make sense of what you're saying.
I actually find this is more stimulating than yelling about god.

Speaking of which, George Carlin is an overplayed dead horse. If I need a comedian to do my talking for me, I go with Adam Corolla
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L3kge0NOl80
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DiEvAM_pyz0&NR=1

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Dec 4 2009, 8:36 pm by ClansAreForGays.

I was under the impression that there's very little dispute of the existence of Jesus of Nazareth.

My suggestion is to explore the realm of Deism, and if it fits your beliefs, adopt it. I have a strong feeling that it will because your arguments here in disproof of a god are all directed at religion, rather than at a god. They are not one and the same. Assuming you haven't already made known your atheism, I doubt your girlfriend's parents would have qualms with that belief. Atheism pretty much just says "you're wrong" rather than "I don't see any reason that you could be right." Big difference in terms of how offensive you come off.

@ Kow: Don't cite Christian sources please. They never direct you to anything except other Christian sources for additional reading, and though the article makes several secular references I have zero idea how to find them or if he's even drawing correct conclusions from the source.

Oh shit, my bad. I just read the url: gotquestions, so I figured it was a wiki-how type of site. Lemme search for another citation xD

Edit: Jesus, this is harder than I thought. I can't find a single neutral source. It's all religious crap saying 'of course he did! why wouldnt he?' and the athiests saying 'of course he didn't, why would he?'.

Edit2: Even wikianswers is biased. Actually pretty lulzy. Almost 3000 words saying he was real without a single citation. Damn you truthiness!

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Dec 5 2009, 1:42 am by Kow.

That does make sense, however, if John claims to know what is in the box, then Frank cannot know whether or not that claim is true without knowing what is inside the box (unless the claim isn't reasonable). Maybe John is correct upon intuition, is or came to a logical conclusion about what was in the box. Frank can't know that John's claim is or isn't true, and he can't know if John's being convinced that he knows what is in the box is true or false.

However, I did not directly claim to know what was "in the box", I just said I knew what explanation of "What God made us for" I would accept.

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Dec 5 2009, 1:58 am by CecilSunkure. Reason: Really wierd typo with is and or.

A wise man once put my views of religion very succinctly. That man was Paul Dirac, the founder of quantum physics.

"I cannot understand why we idle discussing religion. If we are honest—and scientists have to be—we must admit that religion is a jumble of false assertions, with no basis in reality. The very idea of God is a product of the human imagination. It is quite understandable why primitive people, who were so much more exposed to the overpowering forces of nature than we are today, should have personified these forces in fear and trembling. But nowadays, when we understand so many natural processes, we have no need for such solutions. I can't for the life of me see how the postulate of an Almighty God helps us in any way. What I do see is that this assumption leads to such unproductive questions as why God allows so much misery and injustice, the exploitation of the poor by the rich and all the other horrors He might have prevented. If religion is still being taught, it is by no means because its ideas still convince us, but simply because some of us want to keep the lower classes quiet. Quiet people are much easier to govern than clamorous and dissatisfied ones. They are also much easier to exploit. Religion is a kind of opium that allows a nation to lull itself into wishful dreams and so forget the injustices that are being perpetrated against the people. Hence the close alliance between those two great political forces, the State and the Church. Both need the illusion that a kindly God rewards—in heaven if not on earth—all those who have not risen up against injustice, who have done their duty quietly and uncomplainingly. That is precisely why the honest assertion that God is a mere product of the human imagination is branded as the worst of all mortal sins."

If, you insist on arguing with your girlfriend bible thumper mother, the easiest thing to do is know more about her bible than she does; but don't come off as arrogant. This is the only way to make a believer upset in their believes.

She mentions that God instructed Noah to load 2 of every animal onto the ark? Pipe in with, "Well actually, He also instructed Noah to carry on 14 of clean Jewish animals, such as cows, in 7 pairs." Mentions how the water rose for 40 days and nights? "Well, actually, water also flowed from the deep, and rose for at least 150 days."

Behemoth and Leviathan? Mention Ziz.

Mentions that there's only one God? "Well, actually, Canaanism, one of the first forerunners to Judaism, and later, Christianity and Islam, identifies at least 25 gods, though they only worshiped the God of modern Semitic religions, Yahweh. In fact, the Book of Jeremiah, mentions the wife of Yahweh, Asherah, as the "Queen of Heaven", in chapters 7 and 44."

If you learn _everything_ about Christianty's history, and consistently enough are able to provide her with Biblical references contrary to her claims, she'll eventually doubt what she "knows". This will either have the effect of her eventually saying, "How do you know so much about Christianity?", at which point, you introduce the topic of atheism, and state why, from your learned perspective, you do not believe in a god. Or, destroying her mentally.

Either way, and no matter the outcome of the first, she'll respect you. No matter the outcome of the second, she'll stop bugging you about it.

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Dec 5 2009, 2:01 am by Syphon.

While your interpretation is technically correct, I hardly think it's what Kenshin meant. The major dispute is not over the existence as a human of Jesus Christ, but whether or not he is the son of God.

I also see no reason to rule out citing christian sources. You can always attack the credibility of the site. For example, if someone were to cite urbandictionary.com to me for a definition of something, I can still make the argument that urbandictionary.com is a joke website, and may not be accurate with respect to its content. Or you could argue against the material that the citation itself provides. If "Citation A" says "this and this and this" you can still argue "that's not true because x, y, and z."

Let me modify the situation then, so that we can deal with the spirit of the issue and not the letter.

1). Frank and John were waiting in a closed room with no windows.
2). They have been blindfolded and had their ears stuffed with cotton until they couldn't hear anything.
3). Then Bob went to his secret safety deposit box in switzerland, and takes out a coin that his great-great-grandfather left for him a hundred years ago, long before Frank or John were born.
4). None of Frank or John's ancestors ever communicated with Bob's ancestors, or have any idea what was in Bob's great-great-grandfather's safety deposit box.
5). Neither Frank or John has x-ray vision.
6). Neither Frank or John is carrying any sensory equipment other than their normal human ones.
7). Bob returns from switzerland and puts his coin in a closed, windowless box in the next room.
8). Bob then opens the door and goes to the next room, where he unblindfolds and un-ear-clogs Frank and John.
9). The trio proceeds back into the original room.
10). Frank knows premises 1,2,4,5,6,8,9.
=> Frank knows that John is not capable of knowing what is in the box.
=> Frank knows that John does not know what is in the box.

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Dec 5 2009, 2:10 am by Vrael.

Ugh lost my post.

@Syphon
How does Paul know that God is a product of human imagination?

For all that we know now, we still can't live forever. We still don't know what happens after death. UNLESS you believe in a religion, and said religion is true.

Another way to look at the bad stuff in the world is, Why didn't God make things as bad as they could be? Things are bad, but could be much worse. As to why God allows the bad stuff, I don't know all the reasons, but I'm sure that an omnipotent and omniscient God will have good reasons, better than any human could come up with.

As for keeping the lower classes satisfied? A) most governments don't support religion. Some go out of their way to put a stop to it. Why? Becuse many religions show any unjustness the government does, and religious people don't just sit around and take it.

Zany, there comes a point where simply asking another question and another question becomes unreasonable. From this point on you will have to provide some substance in your posts else I will delete them because your style of posting is becoming unreasonable.
A few people continually questioning others without any new evidence or argumentation is not debate either.

He has two main points here: religion can be used to control people; religion isn't necessary.

His first point is completely true, but it simply implies guilt by association upon religion in general. I could use the bible to justify mistreating women, but that doesn't make the bible itself condescending to women. Just because religion can be abused, doesn't necessarily make religion a bad thing. The color grey isn't good or bad, and neither is the swastika symbol; they are simply there.

His second point is purely an unsupported opinion of his. He claims that religion was used to account for what science can now do, just as lightning was once explained via Zeus. But, in my opinion, I don't think science can ever answer the question of "why". Science can answer the questions of "what", "when", "where", but doesn't ever give purpose to its answers; science has no emotion. Science can not tell the purpose for why humans exist, and can not tell if there even is a purpose, or why humans can even ask the question of "Do we have a purpose?". I'm not saying his opinion is invalid, or true, I'm just saying it's an opinion; nothing more and nothing less. Just because we can gain an informational knowledge of the way things work, like never before possible, doesn't mean we know why they work, or if there is even an answer to this "why".

He never provides scientific proof of how or why religion is just a jumble of false assertions. Just because an assertion isn't based off of reality does not make it inherently false (not to say religion isn't based off of reality). If I claimed that it were true that all black holes have a candy filled core, I can be right and I can be wrong. The point is, nobody can know if I am right or wrong in my claim if they themselves don't know the truth of the matter. If this man claims that all religion is false, and is so heavily believing in science, I would love to see his scientific explanations for their falsity.

I feel it is impossible to prove the existence of a God with science alone, or disprove the existence of such. This man's quote only solidifies my belief.

Well then, using your own logic, I know that Zany would not have similar premises that Bob had. Zany was not there when God created humans, and has had no information gathered from God in order to know whether or not my claim is true or false. We simply know that each cannot know; Zany and I are Frank and John in this scenario, assuming Frank and John knew that what happened to themselves also happened to the other. [Edit] Although, if either Frank or John made a claim to what they think was inside the box, neither would know whether or not that claim were true or not; I never claimed to know "what was in the box" anyways. Although, I did confuse that with not knowing about others' knowledge as well, as shown here:
The above claim isn't necessarily true

Post has been edited 2 time(s), last time on Dec 5 2009, 2:43 am by CecilSunkure.

Because there's no evidence of Him, direct or indirect. Therefore, He is a product of human imagination. Just as the believe that the Earth was the center of the Universe, or that rain was brought about by sacrifices to the gods were.


Firstly, the Bible is condescending towards women. This is a fact, one you cannot argue. The swastika symbol and religion are not "just there", they are invented by humans as a means to an end. The swastika symbols, and religion, were both created with that ends being good. Nowadays, more often than not, that ends in evil.

Make one counter point that religion is necessary, based on evidential support. Science does not care about your opinion. He bases his observation that religion is unnecessary unbiasedly, and unemotionally (Dirac was autistic, he was incapable of "believeing" things of which he saw no evidence." Science has no emotion, and that's a good thing.

It does, however, give reason to human emotion. We now know the physiological processes between fear, and other primal emotions. His scientific proof as to why religion is a jumble of false assertions is that they are made up without evidence. Religion runs counter to the method through which all modern technology, theories, and treatise are derived, therefore, religion is a false assertion.