He told me once that he thought I was an atheist. Granted, I haven’t been acting like a Christian as much as I should, but I do tend to mention it every time the topic comes up.
I think he’s just like a lot of folks: he doesn’t pay as much attention to the name in front of the post. I strive to do the same thing, so I won’t judge them.
While not 100 percent conclusive, I think it’s as close as we can get with regards to the subject matter. Dio’s position seems to be the most reasonable on the matter (again, addressing the Nativity). To use an analogy, it would be like arguing with moon landing deniers and trotting out the evidence that we landed on the moon. Yeah, it’s still possible that it didn’t happen, but it’s certainly not reasonable to hold that position.
Thinking about this a little more - I’m still learning about this stuff JThunder, so maybe I am not up to speed with all the rebuttals. It seems only reasonable that I ask if you had a more reasonable explanation for the Nativities before I take the stance above.
Frankly, I’m surprised his statements on a GD thread that basically said that religion (at least Christianity) was scientifically proven to be false (through proving that the soul - or was it the afterlife? It was one of the two; at the least something along those lines - doesn’t exist) wasn’t more controversial.
Not saying he was right or wrong; just saying that I’m surprised that that particular assertion got so little “play” considering what his “opposition” HAS jumped on.
Too many people on the board already think it is true. We’ve had the discussion before.
Anyways, I just popped in to say that the Mr. Mom thing does help me understand one thing about his posts: the bald assertions might be because he doesn’t have time to sit down and write out the actual reasoning. I’ll try to keep that in mind.
The thing is, I’d never heard that asserted before this board. And I’ve read stuff by atheists before, and I don’t see why it hasn’t been shouted from the rooftops before now (or at least why theists seem to know as little about it as I did).
I haven’t said that “Christianity is scientifically disproven” (whatever that means), but I have said that it is a scientifically demonstrable fact that individual human consciousness cannot survive the physical death of the brain (i.e there is no such thing as an “afterlife”). We had quite a long thread about this recently, and people have tried to are but it, but it’s kind of hard to argue with brute fact.
Yes, but the afterlife is a basic, vital tenet of Christianity. How can you disprove one of its basic, vital tenets and NOT disprove the religion? Or even any religion that deals with souls or afterlifes? And given that, why aren’t more atheists making a bigger deal out of the fact that religion (or at least those religions to be fair) is scientifically falsifiable?
Quite the conundrum, isn’t it? Guess you’ll have to think on that.
Huh? Diogenes was the one saying that disproving the afterlife isn’t disproving the religion.
He’s the one drawing a contrast between the two assertions, while I’m saying that they seem to me to be exactly equivalent.
Geocentricism was shown to be false centuries ago and it is a fundamental tenet of astrology.
Something between a quarter and half of the population still believes in it.
I didn’t realize geocentrism was a core part of how astrology works. How many others do?
If they did, you’d bet that this would be mentioned in every single argument about astrology. If we’ve scientifically proven the falsity of the majority of world religions, why isn’t it being mentioned a WHOLE lot more, especially by atheists? Why aren’t they marching doctors in front of the cameras, or at least mentioning this in articles and books? Or are they, and I haven’t heard of it? (Tho’ if so, the fact that I haven’t heard of it could be significant.) It seems to me that it should be part and parcel of the atheist argument as the very first thing mentioned, a key point in the debate brought up again and again and again.
ETA: A thought I just had: it’s possible that it could get drowned out over the even MORE core tenet of Christianity, the existence of God, which is NOT covered by the research Diogenes is talking about. But I still think my questions stand.
I can’t speak for Dio, but my guess would be that people don’t turn to religion because it’s been peer reviewed.
It’s in the Lancet! 
The religious, of course not. But we have atheists all over the world talking about it all the time. When they talk about crystal therapy, chiropractors, and anti-vaccine assertions, the first thing they turn to is science. But when it comes to religion, the thing that, y’know, defines their outlook on life, they start talking about the problem of evil and Biblical inconsistencies and other such things, and NOT leading off with the fact that they have rational solid proof that one of its key points is impossible. Hell, I’d ignore the Bible and all that and focus JUST on that, if I were inclined to have the debate. At the very least, I’d have expected folks like Dio and DT to do so.
Atheism doesn’t define my outlook on life.
Personally, I found that the PoE was an insurmountable obstacle to continued belief. I think it’s a winner.
If religion defines one’s outlook on life (and I think it does), I think atheism does as well, if only because it makes your approach “different” from a majority of people (assuming you live in the U.S.).
The PoE is philosophical. The studies Dio talk about, if accurately characterized, is cold, hard biology. Reality.
Good question - I don’t know. Didn’t know until a few years back. I think a Shermer book made me realize that it did.
Maybe they do… I’ve never seen a debate/argument involving astrology. Most of the articles I’ve read about it cover the predictions, not the fundamentals of astrology.
I think their is some wiggle room in people’s minds. There is the objective reality of how the world works (whatever that may mean) and how we perceive the world. I think most people perceive the world as dualistic. There is a physical reality and a non physical reality. If the physical dies, well, there’s still the non physical. The trouble with this is that there is no evidence of the non physical world - and it seems very difficult to test.
That said, what we have learned through science points squarely towards the physical and not to life after death. The “evidence” used to bolster life after death claims (white light, loss of weight, etc) has been shown to either be false or explainable.
Which is why it seems a good analogy to what I’m asking.
But Dio asserted that the non-existence of the non-physical (at least this aspect of it) was proven. So it should be prime fodder. (I don’t know about the studies he’s citing myself, which is why I’m using weasel words here.)
The religious implications are for believers to ponder, not me.
As to why atheists don’t make more noise about these kind of things, well historically it’s been rather socially unwise, and is still seen as impolite at best, but I would submit that some prominent atheists like Richard Dawkins actually have made a concerted effort to point out the scientific impossibility (actually, Dawkins would just call them extreme implausibilities) of such claims.