Ontological Atheism

Ontological atheism: ontological atheism asserts Ontological theism arguments aim too high. Just like logical calculus cannot ascertain a specific basic proposition is correct, existential calculus should not be able to conclude that some specific being exists. Logical calculus can show that if a bachelor exists then a man exists (since a bachelor is, specifically, a man), and existential calculus might be able to show that if certain things exist then a god something exists. But ontological arguments try to prove that something (god) exists without committing to the existence of any specific thing. They can therefore be roughly divided into several types:- (a) ones that assume that a god something exists from the get-go, but disguise it in some way; (b) ones that make an error in existential calculus, so are not sound; (c) ones that are correct but trivial, e.g. showing that the sum of all things exists in some sense. rethinks if one agrees that the existence of a god something has indeed been proven, you still really don’t know much about that god other than that it is infinite and perfect. These characteristics seem to be quite dangerous in light of the characteristics of a god something that have been posited by many organized religions. They posit someone who cares for us and who would simultaneously damn us to eternity in hell for our failure to believe in him thus we cannot and should not believe in a god something. Using rationality, one cannot conceive of a god something with infinite perfection, with anthropomorphic qualities (i.e. human motivation, characteristics, or behavior) or an infinite god holding...

Investigative Atheism

Investigative atheism: investigative atheism may take some interest in showing how the skeptical theistic way of reasoning, brought into the larger flow of total evidence skepticism, can be used to expose certain additional sources of doubt about theism sufficient to prevent overhasty migration to theism on the part of those left unconvinced by atheism. Moreover, and more positively, it can be used to inspire a greater openness to new religiously-relevant investigative results in the future. With these thoughts in mind, let’s add two more skeptical theses to our list: We have no good reason for thinking that the arguments from horrors or hiddenness against theism we know of are representative, relative to the property of (potentially) constituting a successful proof that theism is false, of the arguments from horrors or hiddenness against theism there are. And we have no good reason for thinking that the possible goods we know of are representative, relative to the property of consistency with a person being axiologically ultimate, of the possible goods there are but are always investigating and open. 1  Reasons for or Types of...

Experiential Atheism

Experiential atheism: The second type of argument commonly advanced against the doctrine of divine omniscience attributed to a god something, which is the problem of experiential knowledge. This is that there appear to be certain kinds of knowledge that can only be acquired by having certain kinds of experiences. The Problem of Experiential Knowledge: (1) There are some items of knowledge that can only be acquired through experience. (2) Some of the experiences through which items of knowledge that can only be acquired through experience are acquired are such that they cannot be had by a god something. (3) If some of the experiences through which items of knowledge that can only be acquired through experience are acquired are such that they cannot be had by a god something, then there are some items of knowledge that cannot be acquired by a god. Therefore: (4) There are some items of knowledge that cannot be acquired by a god something. (5) If there are some items of knowledge that cannot be acquired by a god something then it is not the case that a god something is omniscient. Therefore: (6) It is not the case that a god something is omniscient. 1  Reasons for or Types of...

Dog Domestication and Emerging Sacred Mortuary Rituals around 16,500 to 12,000 years ago

An interesting potential dog genetic lineage is connected to a group of ancient canids date to more than 47,000 years ago had separated from the other ancient canids including wolves. Genetic studies of modern dog and wolf populations show origins in East/South Asia and/or the Near East to multiple areas of domestication and/or hybridization with regional wolf breeds. A 33,000-year-old emerging dog from southern Siberia in the Altai Mountains seems to demonstrate an early domestication. The oldest similar emergence of this behavior seems to be demonstrated a pre-Natufian burial site in Jordan Uyun al-Hammam dated to around 16,500-year-old with elaborate human burials with grave goods as well as include evidence for unique human-animal relationships, seeming to show foxes where used similar to modern dogs demonstrating that the dog like domestication features were not unique to the later Natufians. Moreover, dog genetics is one way to further demonstrate human migration as well as its oven accompanying religious transfer. While most dogs buried at this time were individual others were placed back-to-back in pairs. Moreover, a general genetic analysis of modern dogs suggests a general origin in southern China approximately 16,000 years ago. The Natufian culture existed in the Levant roughly from 14,500 to 11,500 years. It seems two different human burials at the Ain Mallaha Natufian settlement and Hayonim cave sites include dogs which likely suggest dogs were domesticated by at least by around 12,000 years ago. In addition, at Ain Mallaha there is a widespread influence of the culture and as always, the presumed religious transfer can be estimated by the presence of obsidian from Turkey and shellfish from...