Science vs Faith
It's fairly easy to show that any kind of mind-body dualism is incompatible with some of the best tested and most useful scientific theories;
I'm sure it's not easy to show any such thing, even though there is probably research to debunk some forms of mind-body dualism. But those forms can easily be replaced by others which are more sophisticated and cannot be debunked by science.
If it really is easy, someone here will show it. But even if it's "easy" in some sense, it will require extensive "Walls of Text" in order to show it. The only arguments or science tests to address this are ones which show a time lapse between a physical (body) stimulus and the later mind response to it, in a single observed act at one moment. But that is no tested verified theory at all, because it is just as provable that the particular physical or body stimulus itself, observed in the test, had been caused
by still earlier MIND impulses of some kind (way back there), and so it is not possible to disprove the division between the MIND and the BODY elements which were influenced by the prior MIND impulse.
Proving that the body impulse at the moment of action was prior to the mind impulse at that same moment is not enough to debunk the mind-body dualism idea which is popularly believed. Because there is more than only the immediate spontaneous body and mind impulses at the moment of the action. There are also the vast millions/billions of earlier impulses going back many years, and these too had an influence, i.e., on the future behavior or decisions or actions.
But if it's true that any such dualism has been disproved by some tested science research, someone here will provide the facts about it. Don't hold your breath. This is another example of something that will not be backed up with facts, because it's not science, but dogma. Those who insist on this (anti-dualism) dogma never give consideration to the EARLIER mind action which influenced the LATER body/physical action.
Either there's no afterlife, or Quantum Field Theory is not just wrong, but wildly and obviously wrong (it's not; we checked. Built a really huge hadron collider under Switzerland and everything).
This seems to come from
https://www.higgypop.com/news/scientists-say-there-is-no-life-after-death/ , which concludes:
If Dr. Carroll and Professor Cox are right, then all this means that there is no "life force" within us with its own distinct energy that can leave the body to live on as a ghost or spirit after the body has died.
Assuming all experts agree with the above, the most it disproves is certain particular afterlife theories -- i.e., those about "life force . . . with its own distinct energy . . . as a ghost or spirit" etc., whatever that means, while leaving open hundreds of other afterlife theories different than the 1 or 2 "life force" and "ghost or spirit" theories debunked in the particular research cited here. To claim these particular scientists have debunked ALL "afterlife" theories is like claiming there can't ever be such a thing as flying machines because 2 or 3 planes crashed, and so all belief that there are airplanes is debunked.
That fact alone falsifies most religions.
Rather than the "most religions" -- How about the "no afterlife" -- let's have the evidence, or facts, based on scientific research, showing there can't be any kind of afterlife or resurrection after death.
Probably there's none, though if there is, someone here will present it, in a Wall of Text several pages long, which is OK -- whatever it takes to say the truth about it. But no one here really has any such evidence or facts.
Obviously the above outburst,
Either there's no afterlife, or Quantum Field Theory is . . . wildly and obviously wrong . . .
is no argument for or against anything. Just regurgitating the jargon ("Quantum Field Theory"), however impressive it sounds, doesn't explain what was proved or disproved or say what is the legitimate science research or its findings that arrived at this conclusion.
Similar falsification is fairly easy to . . .
"similar" to what? All you can use the previous NON-falsification for is to discredit the still further NON-falsifications now to be paraded before us and mislabeled as falsifications.
. . . easy to show that no gods are routinely and regularly interacting with humans; Prayer cannot possibly work unless almost all of our modern technology doesn't work the way its designers think it works at all - so the implication is that if prayers are heard by the gods, then the only reason that your mom can hear you when you call her on your cellphone, and your GPS doesn't get wildly lost, is that the developers of these devices stumbled across designs that work despite all of physics being completely different from what they think it is. And they not only succeeded despite being wildly wrong; They did so without noticing anything unusual, strange, or inconsistent in the way reality operates.
Where any of the above caricature of believers is accurate, so there really is a conflict with science, believers have adjusted to it, when it was really necessary, though of course the adjusting happens in varying degrees of gradualism, and there's the severe resistance in some cases. It's simplistic to expect all "believers" everywhere to suddenly be "enlightened" and abandon everything, dropping it all in lockstep with a "Sieg H . . ." salute to the new College of Scientist Cardinals you've appointed in place of their former Priests and Pundits.
Where there really is a conflict with authentic science, the appropriate changes in belief do happen gradually.
The odds that, given our experience with modern technology, gods also exist, are so astronomically low that only the most extreme of pedants would bother to note that they aren't zero. It makes more sense to believe that you are going to win the lottery every week for the next century, than to believe that there's an after[life], or a god that can hear and answer prayers.
No, the latter has a higher probability, though maybe it's still very low. It's reasonable to say it's low, but not 1 in 10 billion etc. -- no, the probability of afterlife or a god etc. is much higher than that. Maybe higher than 50% in some cases. Or maybe only 10% or 5%.
There's virtually no zero probability for anything empirical. Maybe 0.000000001 or some such. And since "gods" are so subjective, non-defined, and the beliefs so vague and adjustable, you cannot pretend to calculate the percentage down to near-zero, even if it's true that the number is very low.
All the beliefs that matter and have any meaning at all are those in % range of 1-99 (maybe .5 - 99.5), and likely some are true even if most are false. And zero is meaningless. Very high or very low probability is all anyone needs -- both believers and non-believers. Those claiming zero or 100% probability (certainty) are only the demagogues and fanatics and nutcases.
Now, it's true that some fringe religious beliefs can not be falsified in this way. The Deist creator god, who made the universe and then buggered off to leave it's inhabitants to get on with it, is much less easy to falsify. But then, if such a god existed billions of years ago, but will never be seen again, the question becomes not "does he exist?", but "why should we care whether or not he exists?".
Science doesn't do proof. But it does falsification very well indeed.
OK, but this doesn't mean the extremes of 100% disproof or calculated zero probability of such beliefs. It can only mean calculating a very low probability, or near 100% probability, like 99.9% etc. -- maybe. So in some extreme cases, yes, maybe it's falsified, but not in other cases.
So in such cases the belief is very probably false, or was "falsified" by the science. But not in most other cases. In most cases there is much to doubt, but very little that's "falsified."
Sorry, theists, psychics, astrologers, and other woo mongers, but while you were busy exalting in the fact that it's impossible to prove atheism, science was busy disproving all the theism.
Not "all." It's legitimate to say SOME religious beliefs are calculated to have very low probability (maybe a good number, but "all" is dogmatic fire-breathing fanaticism).
I can't prove that no gods exist; But I can prove that all the gods people have so far described to me, don't exist.
This latter can be partly correct (only partly), in that some particular claims about gods can be disproved. But even in those cases (which are not the norm) it's possible to adjust the belief slightly in order to accommodate the verified science, so that most of the beliefs can be salvaged. And where a particular belief cannot be salvaged it can very easily be disconnected and set aside from the rest which still remains. All beliefs get adjusted, even including good science theories, so there's nothing wrong if believers too make this or that adjustment in order to accommodate verified facts. And you could make a debunking argument that some of the beliefs should have been scrapped earlier as a result of new knowledge, or research, or discoveries.
E.g., Christians and Jews should by now have abandoned the ancient animal sacrifice blood atonement superstitions which they borrowed from paganism. They are abandoning this very slowly, dragging their feet, and not admitting the change taking place, and still trying to preach that an "angry God" has to be pacified (or once had to be) by blood sacrifice atonement rituals (and even enjoys sniffing the "sweet savour" from the burnt carcass).
And actually it can be shown that many of the popular Jewish and Christian beliefs have been adjusted, while not debunking the entire belief system, and admittedly there are some believers who remain stubborn and won't give up their earlier belief. This is also true of many disbelievers and skeptics and debunkers and researchers and scholars. Probably most of them, if not all, have been stubborn in some cases and unwilling to change according to the more updated findings.
This fact goes a long way toward explaining why it's so difficult to get believers to say anything concrete about their gods.
OK, but that's a good point IN FAVOR of those believers, who have learned from earlier changes that a previous belief had become dubious, no longer viable, and so they have become more careful about what to believe, and to make their beliefs more compatible with new facts. Maybe even their "hearts became hardened" to some beliefs that have become discredited.
For example, it's now a fact that most Christians or Christ-believers have yielded to evolution findings, and they reluctantly accept the natural selection and "old earth" theories, etc., or at least they don't want to argue about it any more, figuring maybe the facts don't help their belief. And the official doctrines of most mainline churches do make room for evolution, though still claiming that "God" is the source of it all in some way. But they no longer cling to the literal Genesis Creation tradition. And similar change has gradually happened in regard to other Christian and Jewish traditions held over many centuries.
Even the simplest claims render your god concepts falsifiable; And so far, that's been all that's been needed.
Some of those "god concepts" -- yes. Believers have been forced (reluctantly?) to give up some of it.
Again, there's tacit agreement with this, generally. Many religious beliefs have been scrapped, because of science, showing the unlikelihood or impossibility of some of the traditional beliefs. This really proves nothing, except that these religionists keep step with science, when they have to. It's true some of them are "dragged kicking and screaming," but not most. You're really beating a dead horse to say that some or most of the ancient beliefs have been discredited. Ho-hum, what else is new? You're putting most believers to sleep with such boring repetition of what they already know -- and again, it's true that many put up a fight at first, but mostly they have abandoned the unscientific parts you're so gleeful about while holding on to the major part of their belief which is not undermined by legitimate science.
Religion still exists because the sum of human knowledge regarding reality is a closed book to most humans - we know there are no gods, in the same way that we know how to put a man on the Moon - that is to say, most . . .
Maybe there are "no gods" -- in a sense, but not "in the same way" as the man on the Moon knowledge. Because some definite specific facts are known and verified about the Moon Landing, whereas the "gods" idea is too complicated to be compared to one single conspicuous event like this in science history. There have been too many "gods" of one kind or another to be able to generalize about "no gods" or "all gods" etc. Prehistoric humans had some experiences they knew, even if they did not understand them, and the experience was real -- those "gods" did exist in their experience, i.e., the real world, and just as later scientists know some of the modern experiences but don't totally understand them, so also the primitive humans knew their experiences but did not understand them.
So even saying "there are no gods" is incorrect. "Most of the gods were unreal" would be more correct.
Rather, the beliefs in those "gods" have to be revised, and even made compatible with science, without essentially being abandoned. Such revisionism has happened. Some legitimate ideas do undergo revisionism but still survive into the future.
What is the scientific disproof of afterlife?
But most importantly, what is the scientific evidence to disprove that there is any form of afterlife? No one here is going to answer this.
The only argument is that there's no evidence of humans living again after they died. (Or almost no evidence.) But all that proves is that we don't know. We have our one documented case of Resurrection after death 2000 years ago, which gives some hope that something after is possible. There's no evidence uncovered showing that in all previous universes which ever existed, there was never any afterlife, and so the same must be true in our universe. A true skeptic has to just say we don't know, rather than dogmatic pronouncements that "all gods" or all "afterlife" beliefs are debunked by science.
. . . that is to say, most people don't have a clue where to even begin, because most people don't know shit.
Ah! That explains everything.
Do they know the earth is round rather than flat?
There was a time, maybe 20,000 years ago, when
the evidence was that the earth was flat. People believed the evidence, even based on science, you could say -- the science of that time -- straightforward observation of the terrain in front of them. But they changed gradually as more evidence emerged.
So most people want to know the facts, rather than their earlier "facts" or "science" based on the earlier limited evidence. So it's not true that they reject knowledge or science in favor of superstition and that they "don't know shit." What they do is change slowly, gradually over centuries perhaps, yielding to science, when it's authentic and verifiable and not just preached to them by dogmatists, or by an aggressive science Establishment Priesthood like another religion they must bow down to, which is trying to replace the earlier dogmatism with the New Dogmatism which is more healthy for them.