Atheistic Null Hypothesis: There is no God/Gods

Atheistic Null Hypothesis: There is no God/Gods   Theists lose socks all the time (events requiring a hypothesis: called an “Alternative Hypothesis” that has to overcome what is called the “Null hypothesis,” which holds that all “Alternative Hypothesis” are untrue in a sense). Therefore, theists who lose socks believe on faith that this loss is perceived as evidence of god acting in the world, which is to offer an “Alternative Hypothesis.” The “Alternative Hypothesis” is claimed to be true because the said believed god claim is suggested to have come to earth to take theists lost socks, and that is the “Alternative Hypothesis,” which theists think proves the truth of their god evidence claim as a result. But is it actually true, a claim of any “Alternative Hypothesis” can and should be tested against the “Null hypothesis” which is now demonstrated:   “Null hypothesis: Missing socks have another answer as there is no evidence to support the belief in the offered “Alternative Hypothesis.” Thus there is no evidence of god taking socks, so this claim rejected because it is not god evidence.   Atheist point of view belief, is for me at least, that with all the scientific instruments to ain in knowing the world and the universe we all reside we can conclude there is no creator, bo only nature devoid of magic /supernatural anything.   This feet of conclusions is often furthered by the scientific method type thinking, of which there is a presupposition of methodological naturalism. Furthermore, it is prudent, to say nature is devoid of magic /supernatural anything do to the fact that it has...

My Methodological Rationalism: investigate (ontology), expose (epistemology) and judge (axiology)

My “Methodological Rationalism” approach: investigate (ontology), expose (epistemology) and judge (axiology) Ontology: what is the nature of being or what can rightly even be claimed as existing as a being, thing, or a defined idea’s qualities including what potentially can be said to contain the qualities for truth, facts, or evidence to be seen a real, existing in reality, or even possibly real concepts (Ontology)? Epistemology: what is the nature of knowledge or what can rightly even be claimed as existing as truth, facts, or evidence including what potentially can be said to contain the conditions for truth, facts, or evidence to be seen a knowledge (Epistemology)? Axiology: And lastly, what is the nature of value, good, worth, or beneficialness or what can rightly even be claimed as existing as good, worth, or beneficial including what potentially can be said to contain the conditions as well as the qualities for truth, facts, or evidence to be seen a knowledge of value, good, worth, or beneficialness (Axiology). [Antireligionist] My blogs that address Religion: Archaeology, Anthropology, Philosophy and History I am putting forth a sound thinking debate or discussion persuasion style called methodological rationalism. I am trying to make an somewhat easy and thus a reproducible standardized argument template to follow, even for those not well versed in argumentation to utilize the force of critical thinking rationality in a position dismantling three-step method to ensure it’s effective use both with others but as well as with yourself as the first person a reasonable thinker challenge should be themselves and only after following epistemic rationality fixing in addition to the evidence (Empiricism)...

“Be Free, be Mental Dynamite.”

“Be Free, be Mental Dynamite.” Philosophy should not be your master my friend; it should be your slave. I will no longer bow to an abstract not fall victim to the confusion that misses the Ontology that we are the body fully alive with every breath a self-evident absolute truth so profound it is before reason it’s the existential awareness of self-emotional aware even before any other way of awareness it is at such a core beginning we simply forward to start there confused about it or not reason or anything else that is a thinking abstraction. Hear me; we are aware before the abstraction; we are a body feeling all that is around, fully realized when one understands that there is no aware undamaged human mind that is not emoting. This includes before, during, and after you believe you are doing reason. And this also brings up the ontological or qualities of reason. Reason is a high thinking primate mental style or process to add accuracy, we learn, well most of us try to learn how to further develop our reason, the thinking strategy to not simply have a goal of accuracy it can be so developed that its use, skilled mastery is not simply finding external truth to belief accuracy one is also achieving an inward self-mastery, not over emotion as if it was reason’s enemy. No, emotion is a vitality needed part proven in brain damage studies. Reason and emotion are friends, more accurately we are emotional feeling beings that with emotional intelligence construct thinking methodologies to improve our accuracy or we should. Some people think you...