12,400 – 11,700 Years Ago – Kortik Tepe (Turkey) Pre/early-Agriculture Cultic Ritualism

12,400 – 11,700 Years Ago – Kortik Tepe (Turkey) found mound structures, tombs and grave goods as well as ritual art, demonstrating examples of the symbolic bee carved stone ritual objects possibly represents a mythic creature(s). Ritualistic behavior is also found on the bones of ten individuals who exhibit cut marks that seem to indicate deflating along with application of plaster and paint as part of the burial customs has been interpreted by some as corpse purification possibly to help the desist pass to the afterlife. Back to animal veneration, the specific bee idol motif appears early at Hallan Cemi, in southeastern Turkey. Each phase at Kortik Tepe which is also in southeastern Turkey, includes common religio-cultural features particularly true with the burial rites and grave goods. Similar structures are known at Hallan Çemi, Demirköy in northwest Turkey and the earliest layers of Çayonu in southeastern Turkey. Kortik Tepe is similar to Demirköy and other sites along the Batman River, which is a major tributary of the Tigris River, in southeast Turkey.  Kortik Tepe demonstrated changing mortuary practices as time progressed, going from barring people outside the village to inside the village or structures, showing difference but still holding a shared cultural transfer. Even more interesting is how Hallan Cemi, burials of the dead are not found in the site at all, so perhaps a they used a cemetery nearby, which is what happened with Zawi Chemi in northern Iraq, who used a cemetery nearby with 28 burials, 26 of which were associated with a stone platform and existed contemporary Levantine Natufian sites. The Zawi Chemi site had evidence...

Theism is delusion

To me the biggest delusion of theism is not that they believe god(s) are real but that an all powerful being(s) that can do all things in your life supposedly, at the same time requires its believers to tirelessly push belief or the belief will just fade...

Epistemically Rational with Beliefs?

Which is more epistemically rational? Believing that which by lack of evidence could be false or disbelieving that which by insufficient evidence could be true?  Incapable of making a decision on if there is or not a god? Bigfoots, Unicorns, and Gods? “Epistemic rationality is part of rationality involving, achieving accurate beliefs about the world. It involves updating on receiving new evidence, mitigating cognitive biases, and examining why you believe what you believe.” Ref Being Epistemically Rational Knowledge without Belief? Justified beliefs or disbeliefs worthy of Knowledge? Justifying Judgments: Possibility and Epistemic Utility theory To me the choice is to use the “Ethics of Belief” and thus the more rational approach one would be more motivated is to disbelieve, rather than “Believing that which by lack of evidence could be false”, otherwise you would accept any statement or claim as true no matter how at odds with other verified facts. The ethics of belief refers to a cluster of related issues that focus on standards of rational belief, intellectual excellence, and conscientious belief-formation as well as norms of some sort governing our habits of belief-formation, belief-maintenance, and belief-relinquishment. Contemporary discussions of the ethics of belief stem largely from a famous nineteenth-century exchange between the British mathematician and philosopher W. K. Clifford and the American philosopher William James. . In 1877 Clifford published an article titled “The Ethics of Belief” in a journal called Contemporary Review. There Clifford argued for a strict form of evidentialism that he summed up in a famous dictum: “It is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone to believe anything on insufficient evidence.” As Clifford saw it,...

You Can Prove a Negative BY STEVEN D. HALES

You Can Prove a Negative BY STEVEN D. HALES   Steven D. Hales is a Professorial Fellow at the University of London and the University of Edinburgh. He is a past winner of Bloomsburg University’s Outstanding Teaching Award, and has published numerous books and articles.   A PRINCIPLE OF FOLK LOGIC is that you can’t prove a negative. Skeptics and scientists routinely concede the point in debates about the possible existence of everything from Big Foot and Loch Ness to aliens and even God. In a recent television interview on Comedy Central’s The Colbert Report, for example, Skeptic publisher Michael Shermer admitted as much when Stephen Colbert pressed him on the point when discussing Weapons of Mass Destruction, the comedian adding that once it is admitted that scientists cannot prove the nonexistence of a thing, then belief in anything is possible. Even Richard Dawkins writes in The God Delusion that “you cannot prove God’s non-existence is accepted and trivial, if only in the sense that we can never absolutely prove the non-existence of anything.”   There is one big problem with this. Among professional logicians, guess how many think that you can’t prove a negative? That’s right, zero. Yes, Virginia, you can prove a negative, and it’s easy, too. For one thing, a real, actual law of logic is a negative, namely the law of non-contradiction. This law states that that a proposition cannot be both true and not true. Nothing is both true and false. Furthermore, you can prove this law. It can be formally derived from the empty set using provably valid rules of inference. (I’ll spare...