No Magic No gODs

There is no thing to prove magic, that thinking must be understood. That the world on every level of every test in every science throughout the entire time of scientific investigation shows no magic. Thus, no superstition or supernatural ever, so no way to justify the bullshit concepts of supernatural beings like gods. Therefore, such things have already been disproved and there is nothing, not even a shred of evidence or even a hint of evidence to validate such...

Let’s Discuss Humanism

Humanism According to  Fred Edwords at the American Humanist Association The sort of answer you get to the question “What is humanism?” depends on the sort of humanist you ask! The word “humanism” has a number of meanings. And because authors and speakers often don’t clarify which meaning they intend, those trying to explain humanism can easily become a source of confusion. Fortunately, each meaning of the word constitutes a different type of humanism—the different types being easily separated and defined by the use of appropriate adjectives. So it is relatively easy to summarize the varieties of humanism in this way.  Fred Edwords, born 1948, in San Diego, California, is a longtime agnostic or ignostic humanist leader in Washington DC. Read more at: http://americanhumanist.org/humanism/what_is_humanism Roughly a general classification of humanism and how I see humanism is a philosophical and ethical stance that emphasizes the value and agency of human beings, individually and collectively, and generally prefers critical thinking and evidence (rationalism, empiricism) over established doctrine or faith (fideism). The meaning of the term humanism has fluctuated, according to the successive intellectual movements which have identified with it. Generally, however, humanism refers to a perspective that affirms some notion of human freedom and progress. In modern times, humanist movements are typically aligned with secularism, and today “Humanism” typically refers to a non-theistic life stance centred on human agency, and looking to science instead of religious dogma in order to understand the world. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanism Humanism’s Origins There was a time when the term “Humanism” was first adopted in thinking is somewhat unknown. 6th-century BCE pre-Socratic Greek philosophers Thales of Miletus and Xenophanes of Colophon were the...

Reasons for or Types of Atheism

A.T.H.E.I.S.T.= Against Theological Heresy Endangering Intelligent Sensible Thinking By me referring to “Theological Heresy” I am saying theology is “Heresy” to reality. I will now offer helpful but simplistic definitions of why a position of atheism could be chosen it is of course just an over generalization but it will highlight the main idea though it always will be more substantive in reality and who is applying it. Here is my list of non-theistic and theistic assumptions Nonbelief: Weakest implicit Nontheistic/Atheism “negative” / “weak” / “soft” nonbelief similar to Non-Theism Strong implicit Atheism “negative” / “weak” / “soft” nonbelief similar to Apatheist Atheism. Weak Explicit Atheism “negative” / “weak” / “soft” atheists similar to Agnostic Atheism. Strong Explicit Atheism “negative” / “weak” / “soft” atheists similar to Ignostic Atheism. Strongest Explicit Atheism “positive” / “strong” / “hard” atheists similar to Antitheist Atheism. Belief: Weakest implicit Theistic thinking/Theism “negative” / “weak” / “soft” belief similar to Vague Theism Weak implicit Theism “negative” / “weak” / “soft” belief similar to apatheist theists. Weak Explicit Theism “negative” / “weak” / “soft” theists similar to agnostic theism. Strong Explicit Theism “positive” / “strong” / “hard” theists similar to standard theism. Strongest Explicit Theism “positive” / “strong” / “hard” theists similar to gnostic theism. Adeist atheism: as you can see, we are dealing with a negative definition, an antonym, just like the words a-theist and a-symmetric. Deism is the belief that a supreme being created the universe and is no longer interfering, intervening or interacting with the universe or laws of nature (no miracles, revelations etc.) and an a-deist, rejects deism or does not...

Bigfoots, Unicorns, and Gods?

Bigfoots, Unicorns, and Gods the rational conclusion using axiology So how do we form rational conclusions? More importantly how do we differentiate between the levels involved to establish a conclusions rational viability. It takes axiology or the value judgment the worthiness or lack thereof in relation to the available reason and evidence. So let’s start with the axiological viability of Bigfoots There is no available evidence for Bigfoots. But is their proposition outside of reason? Always start in reality from the evidence we do know, such as a primate/nonhuman hominid close to that of both humans and other nonhuman primates is not entirely outside all possibility of reason even though lacking all evidence. Therefore, belief is not warrant and the axiological worthiness of possibility is low enough to motivate disbelief. The axiological viability of Unicorns (ie. a horse with a single horn on its head) There is no evidence for Unicorns. But is their proposition outside of reason? As always start in reality from the evidence we do know, such as by looking at the evolution of the horse not once was there a horn on any of the several stages of animals to the horse we know today. So it is relatively outside of possibility though as it is still only claiming non fantastic attributes it is only somewhat ridiculous. Therefore, belief is not in any way warranted and the axiological worthiness is so low to highly support disbelief. Now the axiological validity of Gods There is no evidence for Gods. But is their proposition outside of reason? As always start in reality from the evidence we do...

I am Anti Spanking

Five Decades of Research Confirms: Spanking Produces Similar Outcomes in Children as Physical Abuse. I am anti spanking as I value the nonaggression principle which basically states that it is immoral to initiate the use of aggressive force which is not directly for self or other defense against another human being. Spanking is use of aggressive force a clear violation of the non-aggression principle, and thus an immoral action. Psychologytoday.com Taking Non-Aggressive Approach Towards Discipline Spanking Yiolates Non-Aggression Children need to have the same right as adults to protection from abuse from either public or private sources. • Hitting your wife is called ‘domestic violence’ and is a crime; • Hitting another adult is called ‘assault’ and is a crime; • Hitting a child is called ‘discipline’ and is not a crime? WTF Some will say with deep conviction but I still believe that spanking works … Terrorism always works but what it produces is terror and fear. Your beliefs that support spanking you are putting over the facts of science do you think that truly is a valid way to live life? You can have deep conviction and all that is proof of is deep conviction, nothing more just like religion beliefs without evidence and keeping belief that contradicts the evidence. I hear it said if you don’t spank your child you can’t raise them right. This is not empirically proven in fact it is demonstrable to the opposite. But that aside I feel such a statement is on par with saying one cannot have morality without religion an equally false statement. Furthermore, I am taken back when...