What would prove you’re wrong?

How many times have you been to church or synagogue or mosque, and in the middle of a sermon someone raised their hand to challenge something the preacher said?  Anyone?  Of course not.  That doesn’t happen because churches are stupidity echo chambers and nothing else.  People go to church/synagogue/mosque to find people they can nod their head in agreement with, not to think.

Now, I always thought it would be fun to go to a service, and then just raise my hand after a particularly ridiculous thing was mentioned, and ask a question.  I chuckle at the thought, but I’m not in the habit of ruining people’s stupid beliefs in their own house or private place.  I only do it in public.  But if I were to do so, what question would I ask?  I would ask the most powerful of all questions.

There is one question that is very important in thinking through complex problems, in challenging ideas, and destroying poorly conceived beliefs.  This works for anything, by the way.  Ask yourself what it would take to prove yourself wrong.  If you can think of something that will, if demonstrated, change your way of thinking, then THAT is a powerful question.  You can usually tell a powerful question like that because it is considered blasphemy in most religions and actually illegal in some places.

So what would it take to prove I’m wrong?

Again, this question should be asked about everything.  I think the earth is round.  I could be proven wrong if a flat earth model was proposed that better explains airplane routes, for example.  Some flat earth models do seem consistent for northern hemisphere flights, for example, but are completely screwed for southern hemisphere flights.  But if such a thing was proposed, I would have to consider.

I accept evolution by natural selection is responsible for the diversification of the species.  I could be proven wrong if a more modern species was found in the fossil record with earlier species, for example.  I trust my partner is faithful to me, this could be proven wrong with pictures or incriminating text messages.  I believe my position at my job is secure, I could be proven wrong if I get fired or counseled by my superior.  I believe it is impossible to make a perpetual motion machine or generator.  I would have to believe if someone did it, tested it, and it really worked.  What would demonstrate that I’m wrong about atheism?  Demonstrate a god. Any god.

Now, scientists do this all the time.  They will make very precise predictions, and results outside those predictions indicate failure.  Darwin did this.  If you don’t believe me, how many religious people have quoted this one:

“To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree.”

This wasn’t Darwin saying his theory was wrong.  If you believe someone didn’t believe their own theory, then still published a book so they could be ridiculed by all their peers, then you’re an idiot or a religious person.  Oh, wait. I already said idiot.

No, Darwin was saying that he believes in his theory.  He felt very strong about it, actually.  But he did say that he had not worked everything out, and that if this particular problem couldn’t be resolved his theory has a huge hole.  He predicted the eye would be able to evolve from simple to complex, and if it weren’t possible, his theory was wrong.  Darwin, you see, was an honest fellow.  And of course, we all know what happened. (Unless you’re a fundamentalist, in which case you’ve been insulated from this next bit.)  The eye not only can evolve from the very simple to the very complex without any leaps of “technology”, but it has actually happened more than once, independently.  This is to say that sometime AFTER our “tree of life” split, eyes evolved on multiple branches with no common “ancestor eye.”

Further, there are species alive today with eyes in all the various stages of evolution, so we know that slightly less complex still functions down the whole line.  There are species with single light sensitive cells, light sensitive patches of skin, indented light patches, bowl shaped light sensitive pockets, bowl shaped pockets with mucus, bowl shaped pockets with mucus and some muscle control, etc, etc, etc.  There’s probably dozens of links I could use here, but this one seems pretty decent.  This one as well.  Darwin said “if this doesn’t work, my theory sucks”, but it turns out it works.  This is why we still accept evolution.  The thing that could have gone wrong didn’t, and in fact are totally awesome.

So religious folks, you propose a whole lot of weird stuff.  Ask yourself, what would it take to prove yourself wrong?  I can think of a bunch of things, depending on which version of god you prefer.

Obviously, evolution kills a lot of religions.  Ol’ Ken Ham and others wouldn’t spend so much time trying to prove evolution isn’t real if that wasn’t one of them.  Religious leaders in southern states wouldn’t be working so hard to make children dumber if that wasn’t the case.  But if evolution is true, then your religion’s version of creation is wrong.  Not to spoil the ending, but evolution is true (see above).  And on a side note, it’s really silly of Ken Ham, specifically, to fight evolution so much, as he specifically said that nothing would change his mind about creationism.  But while he has been corrected many times about his misunderstandings on evolution, he continues to spout the same lies.  He’s either very stupid, or a liar himself.  Or stupid and lying.  Or lying to himself.

And there are lots of other things as well!  C’mon religious people!  Predict the efficacy of prayer!  Religious people tell us all the time that they “know the power of prayer”, and why we need to pray to make the world better and whatnot.  So do a study.  If it demonstrates the desired effect for prayer, great.  But if it doesn’t, the idea should be abandoned.  Turns out, religious people with religious money and religious backers at a religious institution proposed and studied just this thing.  They were gonna stick it to the “evil atheists.”  The results?  Prayer doesn’t work.  Bummer for them…..

Hell, considering the number of times religion got it wrong,  it’s a wonder anyone still remains religious.  They don’t ask themselves that powerful question- “What would prove you’re wrong?”  If something is uncomfortable, they move on.  And on.  And on until they find something that feels good.  This is also called “lying to yourself.”

I don’t call religious people “liars” flippantly.  You lie to yourself, your children, your family, and your community.  Grow up.  Ask the hard questions.  Deal with the reality.

The Spartan Atheist

64 thoughts on “What would prove you’re wrong?

  1. I keep asking christians to come along and heal someone at a hospital or hospice and they keep refusing. that’s the question I keep asking to them in public. they keep on doing a great job with their excuses or dead silence.

    Liked by 3 people

    1. I ask them for my personal passcode. If they are in communication with a god who knows everything, then it should be a piece of cake for their god to tell them what it is. If they get it right, they will have my undivided attention. But somehow, every christian I ask goes into a huge tapdance of excuses, and doesn’t even try to get their god to tell them what it is.

      Liked by 3 people

      1. yep, that complete lack of trying is one of the funniest parts.

        Liked by 1 person

    2. LOL! Exactly. Nothing fails like prayer.

      Liked by 2 people

  2. Well, I’m unashamedly Christian and I know that I know that I know, I’m not living a lie, you are. But hey ho, you’ll disagree with me, ask me silly questions or just get plain mad and delete this reply. Let’s just agree to disagree, coz I aint gonna convince you and you certainly aint gonna sway me. One thing I love about WordPress is that on your own blog, you have the last say. So I’ll let you rant at me and I won’t retort, coz this is your blog, not mine. I wish you all the best with your life.

    Like

    1. LOL! Beatdepression, you just commented on my blog. Therefore, you are not agreeing to disagree. You’re either trying to make a point or trolling, or something. Just thought I’d note that up front.

      Otherwise, no. No rants, just one question. I think you know what it is.

      Liked by 1 person

    2. Beat, why bother commenting on a post if you’re not even open to considering that you may be wrong? As secure as you say you are in your faith, it displays a great deal of insecurity to do what you’ve done.
      To say you could never be swayed by anything and your unwillingness to subject your beliefs to other information displays a great lack of confidence that your faith could in fact stand up to such information. Trolling or not, you are not nearly as secure as you say you are. And your having commented only shouts that insecurity. I hope you use the opportunity to drop the bravado and actually investigate what you believe and why, and if it is actually true to reality.

      Liked by 2 people

  3. bd776 wrote I know that I know that I know, Wow! That’s definitely proof in a nutshell.

    Or something.

    Liked by 4 people

    1. She might wanna read my article on “evidence”.

      Liked by 1 person

  4. I’ve gotten up & walked out. More than once.

    Like

  5. I’m not sure many theists understand the difference between falsifiable and false. Evolution is falsifiable, for instance; some theists assume this is a weakness, and evolution must therefore be false.

    But faith based positions based around the existence of a god aren’t really falsifiable. Theists probably imagine this to be a strength (it is, in one way: we can’t “prove” it to be false). But it’s not a reliable way of knowing anything, not in an empirical sense.

    @beatdepression776’s “I know that I know blah blah blah…” is baby prattle, not requiring rebuttal but merely mockery. The capacity for self-doubt is probably a sign of intelligence, and an effective means to keep our natural tendency towards dogmatism in check.

    Liked by 1 person

  6. Humans are meat puppets. Primitive animals that have become possessed by entities from Heaven. All religions tell us we are spirits. Spirits incarnate inside human beings. This means spirits are not humans, but functional parasites. Logically, it means spirits are robots. The soul is immortal, and it incarnates in animals, therefore it can only be robotic. God is immortal, therefore, he is robotic, too. If god invented the human being, as an animal, it will evolve. Evolution disproves nothing, unless the missing link shall be found. Should it be discovered one day, it will not disprove the spirit, and therefore religions will prevail. Some religious zealots fuss about evolution, but this is due to a misunderstanding. The only thing that all religions claim in mutuality is that God invented the spirit––the soul. We are not humans, according to the implications of all religions; humans don’t go to Heaven; spirits go to Heaven; therefore, we are aliens––robots, no less. Your screed does not impress me.

    Like

    1. Hi, Luke. I noticed that you have already abandoned the bible as any source of knowledge. So it doesn’t do any good for anyone to try and disprove the bible to you, you’ve done that work yourself.

      You believe that there is a spirit, and I’m not completely sure this is what you believe, but you believe there is a spirit that basically animates us, and without the spirit we would be just worthess piles of unthinking meat. Is that an accurate representation of what you believe?

      My question stands, what would it take to prove you are wrong?

      Also, we have “the missing link.” A better analogy is we have an entire section of chain.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. Oh, I do certainly believe in the spirit, guy. It’s the one item all religions profess in mutuality. It’s a universal belief. Every culture agrees. If you’re religious, and you don’t believe in the spirit, you probably don’t exist. Religions are nothing more than organized systems of belief in ghosts. God gets the credit, because spirits require a creator as they are not organic, but religions started because of Ghosts. So. Yes. I believe in the spirit.

        No––I don’t believe that humans would be disanimate meat piles without spirits. Without the spirit, the meat puppet becomes the meat master. He shall be sentient and free from possession by the spirit. He is not brainless, therefore he does not require the spirit in order to think. Could he not think, spirits would not wish to possess him, for there would be nothing to possess.

        As far as the semantics of the missing link, I prefer to be proverbial, but that’s fine if you wish to clarify that many links are still missing. Indeed they are.

        As to your question of obsession, you cannot convince me God does not exist, because it is impossible to prove he does not.

        Like

      2. Thank you for the clarification, Luke.

        I was going to note that humans have brains, and the brains clearly control our functions and personalities, but you believe that is true already. So, I guess I just really don’t understand what you think the spirit does?

        You see, you are completely correct in saying you can’t disprove the existence of god, as that is merely a fact of logic. You can’t prove a negative, after all. You can’t disprove God, you can’t disprove Santa Claus, etc. But you can disprove positive claims.

        Which brings us back to your ghosts. If you are merely asserting they exist, but have zero qualities, then our conversation has reached a logical conclusion already. But somehow, I think you believe these ghosts do something.

        Missing links: Every single generation is a link, just like every single day makes you older. So just because you “only” have pictures, even in the modern world, of people maybe half of the days of every year does not mean they didn’t get older in those other days. They got older every single day, and thousands upon thousands of photographs spread out in sequence would document the aging. You know how you look at a picture of someone when they were young, and it almost doesn’t look like the same person? Now line up a picture from about every 2-10 days their entire life. Each picture shows a slightly older person, but it’s very indistinguishable. The further apart the pictures, the greater the difference. And as I’ve noted already, the young and old pictures almost look like different people.

        This is an analogy of the “picture” we have of evolution of humans. When people USED to say there was a missing “link”, it was because we had fairly significant gaps that made it hard to tell if the one was actually the next, like having two pictures of someone 10 years apart. But over the last 50 years those gaps have been filled in, where we have a quite complete record. These gaps have gotten smaller and smaller and smaller.

        If your god is merely a placeholder for the next discovery, then I say your god is not a great god.

        Liked by 1 person

      3. I don’t deny evolution. Whether or not God made our meat puppets is irrelevant, though.

        According to religions, the soul is the creation. The soul is immortal; the meat puppet isn’t; the meat puppet is a disposable vessel. Without the soul we could not go to Heaven. Without the soul we could not come to earth. Without the soul we would not exist. Having said that, I believe in God because I believe in the soul––spirits––ghosts. All three items mean the same thing.

        Ghosts, like God, cannot be disproven. Ghosts might be unprovable, but they could be. One day proof might manifest. It’s possible. Should that happen, the world will wave atheism goodbye forever. For the sake of your hubris, you should pray it doesn’t happen. In any case, people see ghosts all the time and always have. If you see one someday, I assure you, you’ll rethink God pretty fast.

        Like

      4. Luke, thanks for the additional information in what you believe. But you haven’t actually said what these ghosts do. You did say humans can think and function without them, though, so what is additionally provided by the ghost being in us? Do I have one in me, or am I a thinking, rational human with no ghost? Please explain that.

        Like

      5. Nothing is added by the ghost. The ghost exploits the brain for what its worth. At most the incarnated ghost is the optimal sum of the meat puppet. A ghostless human should be able do anything that a ghost can do with a human in its possession if both the humans are on par.

        Like

      6. So it’s just a sort of other world copy? It has no bearing on this world?

        Like

      7. It possess the mind. It reprograms fate. It has huge bearing on this world. Complete control of humanity.

        Like

      8. I don’t know what that means- reprograms fate. Fate to me means the opposite of programming, like nature is the opposite of human planning. You can’t re-zone nature, it does what it wants.

        So please explain that, because it just sounds like gibberish to me so far.

        Like

      9. Without a ghost, the human will commit to a different course of action than with the ghost.

        Like

      10. It would be its own person. If you’re suggesting the brain is not hackable, please tell me why.

        Like

      11. I’m not saying it isn’t. I’m just trying to figure out what you believe.

        So you say a person is hacked by a ghost, and that changes how they act, right?

        Who controls the ghost?

        Like

      12. the ghost is autonomous. It is its own entity: one popular theory. Another theory: the ghosts are a singular consciousness divided into brains; in this scenario, we all return to God’s mind when we die; the short answer being, God controls the ghosts. It could be either scenario. Nobody knows. It’s either God or the ghost.

        Like

      13. So you basically just pulled this out of your ass.

        Liked by 1 person

      14. nope. you’re just ignorant of the diversity of religious beliefs in this world. Perhaps you over fixate on christianity, and that is why my knowledge seems strange, but theory number one is what christianity claims, so that can’t be true. As for theory number 2 it’s a part of new age, which is valid religion––as all religions are. I’ve read occultists mention it, too. As for all religious ideas though, self-fashioned theories about the grand slam drawn from inference indicates clean baseball in my book.

        Like

      15. Okay, someone else pulled it out of their ass, then.

        Liked by 1 person

      16. the counterpoint is, conjecture is fine because God is vague, yet his implications are salient. So, if you posit God you must entertain big ideas. The question just becomes, can the condition be satisfied. God is a robot is a logical deduction conditioned to be by account for his qualities. Considering he’s a robot, and souls are robots, the consciousness must be one of thee two and that’s clean baseball.

        Like

      17. Counterpoint to everything you have said is god is so imperceptible as to be useless. God is so weak as to be consistent with random. And if there is no way to verify any existence, then you can not logically conclude anything. “I don’t know if leprechauns exist, therefore they must mine gold” is not logical in the same way. You can only make things up, or repeat things other people have made up.

        And since you have defined your god as weak, imperceptible, and useless, we are back where we started. I can’t prove it is not true, logically, so we are done.

        Come on back if your god ever does anything useful, okay?

        Liked by 1 person

      18. Closing statement… God is not a leprechaun; a leprechaun is intentional mythology: not intended to be believed in. God is exists is 100% of the theory in faith. God is probable. The world has always believed in him. The probability that a leprechaun became a God is highly doubtful. But that is what you say.

        Like

      19. Lol! God is intentional mythology. That’s kinda the point of my blog. Thousands and thousands of mythical creatures have been proposed in history across cultures. I’m assuming you don’t believe in all of them.

        Yet you believe in this one myth, but also believe that the character is basically worthless.

        Dude, I cant stress this enough. VERY unconvincing.

        Like

      20. if you say so, brother. Pleasure chatting with you. Good night.

        Like

      21. Later. Rethink this. You have a lot of poor arguments, and wild assertions. Good luck.

        Like

      22. Your conclusion is wrong. Mythologies exist because the religious like to celebrate God. They wish to solve his mystique. His mystery. His story. People ascribe great meaning to his name. Mythologies are inspired by the supernatural. They fit the shoes of God and Heaven and so, people tend to believe in them BECAUSE they believe in God. Without God, mythologies would not exist. What do you think about that?

        Like

      23. Luke, you keep SAYING things, but you have basically zero to back it up. And the one time you offered any actual information, it was not at all what you said.

        All I have to do to prove your idea about witch doctors wrong is find one of the thousands of things we have in the developed world that aren’t in the developing world is linked to schizophrenia. That’s it. One good piece of evidence and your made up stuff is wrong. I have thousands of options. Taking those odds are what we call a “suckers bet.”

        And now, I want you to tell me. What would prove you wrong? Ive given you the answer 3 times. Are you an honest person? Answer the question.

        Like

      24. schizophrenia only has causal elements if you posit that spirit attachments are a form of mental illness. If you’re wrong about schizophrenia being a mental illness, you are wrong about your theory that causal elements exist––in the west or anywhere.

        You cannot prove God wrong, I’m afraid. Not in my opinion.

        Like

      25. Luke, we are right back where we started. Your god is insignificant, undetectable, useless. I already agreed that was impossible, logically, to disprove.

        Like

      26. Oh, fun fact Luke. Leprechauns were not always just a fun story you could know was made up. The Catholic Church published actual theological decisions on leprechauns and their ability to get into heaven.

        Liked by 1 person

      27. that means leprechauns are spirits

        Like

      28. No, not at all. Not even close. Not even in the same realm of close. Now YOU are the one making shit up. You. Nobody else.

        Like

      29. If the church though leprechauns could go to heaven, they must be spirits. Only spirits can go to heaven.

        Like

      30. The Catholic Church officially said leprechauns can not go to heaven. Official doctrine.

        Like

      31. oh. then they must not be spirits. that’s fine. Did they believe in them?

        Like

      32. See, you are making shit up on the spot. Goodnight.

        Like

  7. @LukeM:
    “…people see ghosts all the time…”

    No, we hear of some people claiming to see ghosts “all the time”, but these claims remain still baseless, and unverified. Do you believe everything people tell you, or only when it suits you?

    “…the world will wave atheism goodbye forever.”

    For someone positing the existence of immaterial, unverifiable things, you sure write in grandiose, absolutist terms.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Ghosts are reported all the time, both chronically by some, and otherwise by others.

      Should ghosts be proven to exist, the world will wave atheism goodbye forever. Why wouldn’t it? Conspiracy theorists might emerge, and in that capacity, atheism could survive. SOME people might contend that the proven ghost was a stunt by some alien or something, and therefore not proof of God. But most of the world would reflect what most of the world believes already, which is that God exists. Atheism would take a tremendous hit; most atheists would concede to God. Definitely.

      Like

      1. Atheism would take a tremendous hit; most atheists would concede to God. Definitely.

        Don’t bet on it.

        Liked by 1 person

      2. Why not? What would you say created the proven ghost? Not God? I thought atheists were supposed to be reasonable. What would you personally determine to be the source of the proven ghost? I would like to know.

        Like

  8. Luke, you’re dealing in imponderables; abstractions; mere hypotheticals. So your questions are largely immaterial as to how atheists may or may not behave under those scenarios.

    “Ghosts are reported all the time…”

    Is that like Chronic Ghost Syndrome? That can probably be cured, but not by mediums or anyone else professing alleged powers with the spirit world.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Witch doctors according to western research generate greater outcomes for schizophrenics than doctors with MDs: fact. I surmise from this fact more evidence to believe that ghosts are real.

      Like

      1. I’m gonna need a link or something for that.

        Like

    1. Plain english? Dude, that is a huge leap in logic.

      There are hundreds or thousands of things we have that the developing world does not have.

      I’ll answer the original question for you. If anything we have in the modern world that is not found or very rare in the developing world is linked to schitzophrenia, you are wrong.

      Fair?

      Liked by 1 person

      1. It says the schizophrenics in the developing world fair better––and that matters to me.

        West may have better some things but east appears to have edge here.

        The point: in the developing world schizophrenia is considered a spirit attachment––not a mental illness. Because of this, shamans and witch doctors know how to treat it better; they themselves talk to spirits. Schizophrenia is a spiritual crisis, and in the west, doctors don’t don’t see it that way, and since docs aren’t clairvoyant, that is why their patients fair worse.

        Liked by 1 person

      2. So, I already gave you the answer, but what would prove you are wrong?

        Like

  9. Luke, can you be more specific. I went to some of the links. I didn’t see anything about witchdoctors.

    I’m not sure I’m following your train of thought here. Are you suggesting schizophrenics are more attuned to reality, and can therefore see ghosts?
    Or that witch doctors and their treatment of schizophrenics are more reliable than Western medical methods of efficacy?

    Liked by 1 person

    1. refer to my comments above

      Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this:
search previous next tag category expand menu location phone mail time cart zoom edit close