I believe God himself would like me to ask this question:

What do you call the science of disproving God? If you don't believe He exists, what kind of study can you possibly concoct to disprove his existence?

Tags: Disproving, Faith, God

Views: 345

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

I think females are genetically superior in the context of modern times, plain and simple.

Superior at what? You know we're all the same species, right?
Yeah, that was a blatantly underexplained "plain and simple", alright.

I need to start that discussion as its own topic someday. Without getting deeply into it here, women live longer, are better mothers, and are (comparatively) rarely responsible for the worst human atrocities like spousal abuse, rape, murder, genocide, inventing patriarchal (well, or matriarchal) religion, etc.

I like to say that testosterone fueled our evolution, but now it hinders it. Now please don't take me TOO seriously. It is after all just a thought experiment at this point.

Btw if any male has "feminine characteristics", that helps offset the evil parts.

Seriously. Stop me here. I think I could fuel a whole 'nuther discussion.
Actually, it's the male ego that determined the teachings.
Patriarchy. It's still THE WAY in most of the middle east, Asia, and some parts of Europe. It is religion-derived. In their eyes, men rule and dominate women.
Take a look at islam; women have to outnumber men 5 to 1 in a court hearing to even get recognition! (not to mention numerous other demeaning practices which are acceptable there)

Yeah, why isn't God like Aphrodite or Persephone so I can masturbate to her??? LOL
Bumper sticker:

Creationism: Evidence of
Man's Ability to Create God
Well but this is part of the point that folks like Dawkins, Sam Harris, and myself make. Yes, it is true that you can't disprove some generic undefined "god", but you can disprove any specific claims about gods, especially the traditional claims about traditional gods.

Its part of the claims of religionists that "science" can't prove or disprove religion, but indeed we can. The traditional Christian world view is composed of a series of very specific claims about how the world works. Now what has happened is that over the past 300 years as each one of those claims can fallen and crumbled under the weight of scientific evidence Christians have continued to change their views about those claims, but the problem for a religion like Christianity is that Christian theology is firmly based on the validity of the prior claims, all of which have since been disproven.

So now what most Christians do is they believe in some vague notions about "god" that are completely unconnected to the theology that brought about the concept of said god in the first place.

The entirety of the Christian belief system is based on the concept of "original sin", which based on the idea of a defined creation story as described in the book of Genesis AND interpreted by early Christian fathers. If you don't believe in in that creation story, then the concept of "original sin" makes no sense. If you don't accept original sin, then the concept of needed redemption makes no sense. If you don't believe in the need for redemption of the whole of mankind, then the concept of Jesus the savior makes no sense.

The whole thing is a house of cards.

Christian theology is fundamentally founded on the premise that materialism is false. The early Christian fathers all explicitly stated that if materialism were true, then Christianity were false. As such, they explicitly declared the atomic theory (developed around 400 BCE) heresy, they declared the concept of evolution (actually about 2,300 years old) heresy, they declared the idea of people living on the other side of the earth heresy, they declared the idea of life on other planets (Greeks philosophers proposed this over 2,500 years ago) heresy, etc., etc.

So they made a number of specific claims, which can and have been tested, and thus far they have been wrong about every single claim they ever made about how the world worked.

They've gotten by by disconnecting the religion from its claims about the world, and expect people to believe that a theology that was wrong about every single testable claim, is right about all of its untestable ones.

http://www.rationalrevolution.net/articles/understanding_evolution.htm
The JW's still think that evolution is untrue because it would invalidate the saviour myth. I see that "truth" printed every three or four issues of Watchtower. I guess if they say it enough times it will turn out to be true. Sad.
I'm pretty sure that RR does not trust the bible. I'm not even really sure how you would infer that from what they wrote.
Look around you. Everything disproves god.

it's called the science of reality. It's just science itself.
What do you call the science of disproving God?

At present? A waste of time. Some science seems to incidentally disprove specific god-claims, but I highly doubt that was the actual goal of the research. Science has more important things to address.
You can not positively disprove the existence of A God or Gods.
That would require full knowledge of the universe.
He might be hiding in some far off Galaxy. On vacation, or took a leave of absence,
or just fed up with it all.
How can anyone be certain?

Their work should speak for itself. The researcher behind the work is irrelevant.

RSS

  

Blog Posts

People

Posted by ɐuɐz ǝllǝıuɐp on July 28, 2014 at 10:27pm 4 Comments

Services we love

We are in love with our Amazon

Book Store!

Gadget Nerd? Check out Giz Gad!

Advertise with ThinkAtheist.com

In need a of a professional web site? Check out the good folks at Clear Space Media

© 2014   Created by Dan.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service