To disprove Christianity? Im asking if anyone thinks its even within the realm of possibility... say perhaps mathematically. I do think its possible. If the human race survives long enough I believe science will eventually figure out a way to disprove most of the major religions. Most atheists think that a disproof is impossible I've noticed but I just think those atheists lack imagination.

Views: 435

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

I think I heard about that actually. I forget who told me but I heard that an amateur anthropologist had contacted Daniel Dennett's office about some new evidence. All I remember was that the researcher was a Christian and found something and became an atheist and apparently he showed some friends who became atheists. I can't verify that though and I don't know who the kid was.
ya, I saw something about that posted in another forum.
what was the forum?
I heard something about that on another website.
For the same reason I claim to be a 'teapot-agnostic' instead of an atheist (though atheist much more accurately describes my position): an antithetical cannot be proven. It can never be proven that something certainly does not exist, or certainly isn't true. But what can be done is a review of the evidence available that permits one to conclude that any number of other answers to the query are more accurate. There is of course the statement "Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence" and it's corollary "A claim made without evidence is a claim dismissed without evidence", but the crux of what we're discussing here is people who don't need evidence to believe something. The corollary to this position is, since evidence played no part in instilling this belief, it would likely play no role in removal.

It's a mindset I've never been well adapted to.
I'm with Sam Harris and Dan Dennett on this one...*I THINK* (big disclaimer) religion is a by-product of other natural faculties developed in human beings. Various suggestions, most involving hyper-active agency detection and detachable theory of mind, have been made as to the mechanisms involved.

Should this prove true, religion - or some placebo that replaces it - will always be a part of our collective much as language and child-rearing. Obviously some of us don't have...whatever it be of faith, but without offensive eugenics, we won't out-breed the believers....unless we can find our own planet and let them blow themselves up (digression).
This may be a personal note, but I have to disagree that 'we all have the capability to be faithful' my experience, this is like saying 'we all have the capability to be straight/gay'. Surely, we all have what it takes to engage in the acts common to that particular group, but the difference is sincerity.

All gay people I've spoken with (with exception of those who've been 'saved' from their 'abomination') say that they've always known. In thinking about it (yesterday and today, actually...don't know why i didn't hit upon this earlier), the reason why I abandoned 'Catholicism' for a 'purer' form of Christianity was that something in the justification was missing. When I saw how little 'pure' christianity went to bridge this chasm, I began looking for a 'purer' spirituality, which eventually led me to humanism/naturalism.

What I think this is an illustration of is that, like the gays that 'just know' (who don't know instantly what it is they're feeling, just that it's different than what others are seem to feel), I 'just knew' that something was wrong with religion, and I wanted to figure out what was right.

As for your TV commentary, I agree, by and large. Though, I would contend that TV really just sets up a 'norm' reinforces the status quo. This, of course, is expected, and I don't necessarily blame them for it. The fact is, life for most Americans involves religion...since art must imitate life, religiosity will be a part of that art (if you can call TV art). There's no doubt that religiosity is more prevalent in 'black-oriented' television, but this is (of course) because a higher percentage of the black community in the US is religious than the same percentage in the white community. On the same note, new-agism and some of the more 'white' Western spiritual practices have made their appearance in 'Bones', 'NCIS', and (of course) Dharma and Greg (which is actually a play on the Dharma's effect in mainstream corporate America....Dharma [the character] is an anthropomorphism of the 'Dharma' concept in Hinduism). What you're supposing is that 'life imitates art', which certainly does happen, but not on the scale you're proposing, I don't think.

I think what TV does more than actually influence belief is influence your concept of the status quo in such a way as to make your feelings of disbelief less tenable.

As for science fiction, spirituality FREQUENTLY makes an appearance in SciFi, but usually in the form of philosophy. SciFi also generally pokes fun at fanatical spiritual beliefs. But much of this is because those with a mind for SciFi can envision a 'more perfect world', and that world *CAN* include a 'more perfect religion' - at least one that reflects reality. Some folks practice humanism as a religion...but that doesn't make it right.
Christianity is constantly being disproved. That's why there are so many variations (over a thousand denominations) and it's why Christianity today is nothing like the beliefs of the past. Every time science makes a discovery that contradicts Christianity, Christianity changes to accommodate the new information.

The problem is that the meme itself mutates to evolve a stronger strain. But a comparison of today's Christianity vs. a thousand years ago will verify many belief changes. (Is heaven still in the firmament above the clouds? In fact, a firmament doesn't exist! Never did. So Christians now say its an "accommodation" to the understanding of the cultural times, or it's a parable, or it's not to be taken as a scientific explanation, etc.. anything but the fact that it was simply wrong, and therefore could not have come from a god.)
It is really impossible to prove something isn't there. I could tell you I was positive that I had been to planet Xorco which had mineral riches to share with the earth and all we had to do was worship their king. As Carl Sagan said,"absence of evidence, is not evidence of absence." But people making some incredible
claim should be required to submit some incredible, OBJECTIVE evidence.
I often can't help but take issue with the mantra going "proving a negative is impossible." If I state that there are no flamingoes in my backyard, proving my negative assertion is really no trouble. I'll just have to show you my backyard and the definite lack of flamingoes will be self-evident. The only problem with a negative statement like "gods don't exist" is not its being a negative but its scope. Saying "gods don't exist" is really like saying "gods don't exist in the universe." Now, the problem with that is not the don't but the universe. The universe is far larger than my backyard, hence the problem with proving that no such thing as a deity exists in each and every corner of it. Fortunately believers really help us out there, by claiming their deity is ubiquitous. Once that claim is made, disproving the local existence of a deity effectively equates disproving it universally. Bottom line, proving a negative is actually possible. It is complex, I'll give you that, but not impossible.
The funny thing is that all the evidence necessary is already out there. I don't think many of us would really call themselves atheists if that weren't the case. Regardless, scientists have far more useful things to do than actively endeavouring to disprove every single superstitious set of beliefs out there.
'the onus of proof is on the believer' - end of story.

We don't have to disprove Christianity....*THEY* need to prove it.




Update Your Membership :



Nexus on Social Media:

© 2019   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: The Nexus Group.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service