Faith is Not Evidence of Reality
Faith is not a substance with which to judge the truth or falsehood of a reality claim, faith is not evidence of reality things, it’s a mental attitude. So bringing up trust, faith (trust to you) when one is asserting a reality thing without evidence is to offer a lie. So faith or trust can be at 100% and yet 100% wrong. Think there are millions of people of different faiths all believing with the same assurity that they and only they are right do to faith. But then you see the trust/faith dilemma you can’t determine who is wrong or right by a proclamation of faith because faith is strong belief without evidence or contrary to evidence it is not a valid test of testing reality or making valid claims about it. Faith is not something one offers if they have evidence but in theism and religions, faith is set in glimmering lights some prised possession believed by some who are desperate to force and keep believing that they use faith this not real world feeling of trust (like religion believers the world over) without valid evidence other then feelings that are not derived from reality but do relly on as well as involves fideism (faith-ism), which is Theistic Reality Confusion that to have faith one has proof of reality and this magic deviod world s fiilled by magic run with magical intervention often including reality was creating by magic anfd to some others magc will one day destroy reality. All nothing but stories supported by Theistic Reality Confusion on the truth value of faith. A rationalist mind rejects the use of the “F” word, FAITH as anything but FEELINGS. We use feelings and emotions in every thought that enters or leaves our minds we never stop emoting but that is not the same as trying to actively claim to use feelings and emotions as if they are facts and evidence i.e. FAITH (an expression of Fideism “faith-ism”).
“Fideism (from the Latin “fides” or “faith”) is the view that religious belief depends on faith or revelation, rather than reason, intellect or natural theology. In this respect, it is in direct opposition to the doctrine of Deism. More accurately it objects to evidentialism, the notion that no belief should be held unless it is supported by evidence. As a result, it holds that theology may include logical contradictions without apology. It may or may not also involve active disparagement of the claims of reason. Fideism teaches that rational or scientific arguments for the existence of God (see the section on Philosophy of Religion) are fallacious and irrelevant, and have nothing to do with the truth of Christian theology because Christian theology teaches that people are saved by faith in the Christian God (i.e. trust in the empirically unprovable) and if the Christian God’s existence can be proven, either empirically or logically, then to that extent faith becomes unnecessary or irrelevant. Therefore, if Christian theology is true, no immediate proof of the Christian God’s existence is possible.” In religious faith beliefs, it is common to hear expressions like “believing with your heart” or “believe in faith alone no facts needed” is an expression of Fideism “faith-ism” and in the end Fideism (faith-ism) adding their chosen version of the “Theistic Reality Confusion.” 1
The god claim is a clown car in the magic big top of Fideism! The god claim is like a clown car rolling in from out of nowhere and it seems like it is only one or possibly a few bad ideas, but no. No, it is a dark festival that masquerades as truth but it is only an evil funhouse of mirrors that distorts reality. The term god is an empty meaningless term and if it was not for man-made myths or wild speculations which are usually the misinterpretations of nature, no one would claim to know what a god is or could be. Unless one falls back to the circus of fallacies in the magic big top of fideism and the faith fallacy that you do not need anything but faith to validate, justify, or prove any mystical belief you so desire.Theists like to confuse the understanding of atheism to lessen its obvious reason. So here’s a definition of atheism: all offered claims of god(s) are baseless and devoid of a shred of testable or provable evidence and the claims of or about gods either don’t represent in reality or claim to represent things contrary to reality requiring a conclusion of atheism (lack of belief or disbelief in theism). The god claim, is a clown car in the magic big top of Fideism (faith-ism)!
The god claim, is like a clown car rolling in from out of nowhere and it seems like it is only one or possibly a few bad ideas, but no. No, it is a dark festival that masquerades as truth but it is only an evil funhouse of mirrors that distorts reality. The term god is an empty meaningless term and if it was not for man-made myths or wild speculations which are usually the misinterpretations of nature, no one would claim to know what a god is or could be. Unless one falls back to the circus of fallacies in the magic big top of fideism and the faith fallacy that you do not need anything but faith to validate, justify, or prove any mystical belief you so desire.Theists like to confuse the understanding of atheism to lessen its obvious reason. So here’s a definition of atheism: all offered claims of god(s) are baseless and devoid of a shred of testable or provable evidence and the claims of or about gods either don’t represent in reality or claim to represent things contrary to reality requiring a conclusion of atheism (lack of belief or disbelief in theism). The god claim, is a clown car in the magic big top of Fideism (faith-ism)!
Presuppositional Apologetics is Just Fascist Fideism
Presuppositionalism to me is fascist Christian fideism: Christofascism was caused by the embracing of arrogant authoritarian theology by Christian thinkers. Fascism, in this case, is a form of radical authoritarianism theory about epistemology: the theory of knowledge, beliefs, truth etc. especially with regard to its methods, validity, and scope. The ideological roots of fascism have been traced back to the 1880s, and in particular to the fin de siècle theme of that time notably supporting emotionalism, irrationalism. The theme was based on a revolt against materialism, rationalism, and positivism. Fascism may seem a bit extreme a claim but it can start to sound like fundamental christianity in how it adopted policies such as promoting family values, banning literature on birth control and increased penalties for abortion. Presuppositionalism positions itself as Christian authoritarian fideism (all must accept their apologetic theology). It puts others under philosophic skepticism and places itself under fideism. Fideism is roughly a doctrine that faith is the basis of all knowledge. Presuppositionalism is a school of Christian apologetics that believes the Christian faith is the only basis for rational thought. It presupposes that the Bible is divine revelation and attempts to expose flaws in other worldviews. It claims that apart from presuppositions, one could not make sense of any human experience, and there can be no set of neutral assumptions from which to reason with a non-Christian.
The Doctrine of Fascism states, “The Fascist conception of the State is all-embracing; outside of it no human or spiritual values can exist, much less have value. Thus understood, Fascism is totalitarian, and the Fascist State—a synthesis and a unit inclusive of all values—interprets, develops, and potentiates the whole life of a people.”
Let’s see how well The Doctrine of Presuppositionalism
sounds in the place of The Doctrine of Fascism
“The Presuppositionalist conception of the Christian apologetics is all-embracing; outside of it no human or spiritual values can exist, much less have value. Thus understood, Presuppositionalism is totalitarian, and the Presuppositionalist Christian apologetics — a synthesis and a unit inclusive of all values—interprets, develops, and potentiates the whole life of a people.” Critics of presuppositional apologetics claim that it is logically invalid because it begs the question of the truth of Christianity and the non-truth of other worldviews. Fideism is an epistemological theory which maintains that faith is independent of reason, or that reason and faith are hostile to each other and faith is superior at arriving at particular truths (see natural theology). The word fideism comes from fides, the Latin word for faith, and literally means “faith-ism.” Fideism has received criticism from theologians who argue that fideism is not a proper way to worship God. According to this position, if one does not attempt to understand what one believes, one is not really believing. “Blind faith” is not true faith. Fideism can lead to relativism. The existence of other religions puts a fundamental question to fideists—if faith is the only way to know the truth of God, how are we to know which God to have faith in? Fideism alone is not considered an adequate guide to distinguish true or morally valuable revelations from false ones. An apparent consequence of fideism is that all religious thinking becomes equal. The major monotheistic religions become on par with obscure fringe religions, as neither can be advocated or disputed. As articulated by Friedrich Nietzsche, “A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything”.
Circularity of Presuppositional Apologetics
The goal of presuppositional apologetics is to argue that the assumptions and actions of non-Christians require them to believe certain things about God, man and the world which they claim they do not believe. This type of argument is technically called a reductio ad absurdum in that it attempts to reduce the opposition to holding an absurd, i.e. contradictory position; in this case, both believing in facts of Christian revelation (in practice) and denying them (in word). So in essence, presuppositional apologetics attempts to claim all facts for the Christian worldview as the only framework in which they are intelligible. The reasoning in such arguments is fallacious because simply presupposing the conclusion is true in the premises does not constitute evidence for that conclusion. Clearly, assuming a claim is true does not constitute evidence for that claim. (“X is true. The evidence for this claim is that X is true.”) They should be able to do this in a way that isn’t also equally valid for the truth claims of any other religion. If this can not be done, I can only assume that in their realm of thinking all religious scripture, from any religion is equally valid and equally true removing any special claim for christianity or they are using special pleading. Presuppositionalism is a form of fideism that is based on philosophical skepticism. Presuppositionalists generally believe that theological assumptions or presuppositions are loaded into the epistemological foundation of every ‘worldview’ [i.e. philosophy]. Since they also believe that every worldview built on false presuppositions is a false worldview and that Christianity is the only true religion, therefore, they conclude that only the worldview (i.e. philosophy) built on Christian presuppositions is true or reliable. The error is located in the very first premise, i.e. in the notion that theological assumptions or presuppositions lie behind every claim or position, theory, or philosophy. Why do they think that? Is Fascist Christian Fideism and the trinity of logical fallacies: begging the question, special pleading, and circular reasoning. If you point out the circularity in the thinking of Presuppositionalism they may say well under your worldview all positions are circular and under our worldview, we have the truth of Christian god so we are not bothered by such a claim of circularity in the thinking as god created all thinking.
“We can say that at their core all positions are circular,
however, this is not proof of the equalizations of all circular positions.”
I am stating this to address religion circular positions such as “are not equal to the problem of deduction (reason) and the problem of induction (evidence) underlining all problems in philosophy, especially epistemology. All deductive systems, logic in particular and philosophy in general, rely on the truth of its axioms or premises. So the problem of deduction is really that it is impossible to know the truth of axioms without assuming some a priori “fountain of truth” on which to rely. While rationalism claims access to the truth of innate ideas or revelation, skepticism rightfully points out that such fountain of truth is unattainable. The problem of induction is the philosophical question of whether inductive reasoning leads to knowledge, since it focuses on the alleged lack of justification for either: Generalizing or Presupposing.
1. Generalizing about the properties of a class of objects based on some number of observations of particular instances of that class (for example, the inference that “all swans we have seen are white, and, therefore, all swans are white”, before the discovery of black swans) or
2. Presupposing that a sequence of events in the future will occur as it always has in the past (for example, that the laws of physics will hold as they have always been observed to hold). Hume called this the principle of uniformity of nature.
Presuppositional apologetic fascist Christian fideism contrasts every non-Christian epistemology with Christian epistemology by saying that Christian epistemology believes in an ultimate rationalism while all other systems of epistemology believe in an ultimate irrationalism by the default of not being or starting with a Christian epistemology.
Certainly one of the most frequent characterizations of the presuppositional apologetic of Cornelius Van Til is that it is “fideistic.” Lewis, for example, is concerned that Van Til, despite serving forty-five years as a professor of apologetics, has constructed a system of theology, not a system of apologetics. In Lewis’s estimation, Van Til has not supplied a means of disputing with unbelievers concerning the truthfulness of Christianity. “In the name of defending the faith he has left the faith defenceless. Montgomery likewise warns against Van Til’s tendency to treat the unbeliever as a believer, working out systematic theology and its implications rather than verifying Christianity by “focusing upon their needs” and using as a “starting point” the “common rationality. Montgomery fears that Van Til has given the unbeliever “the impression that our gospel is as aprioristically, fideistically irrational as the presuppositional claims of its competitors.’” Pinnock also raises the same issue. While saluting the contribution that Van Til has made to “a virile twentieth century apologetic,” Pinnock contends that “a curious epistemology derived from a modern Calvinistic school of philosophy in Holland has led him to align his orthodox theology with a form of irrational fideism.”s Geisler, in his Christian Apologetics, includes Van Til in his chapter on fideism along with Pascal, Kierkegaard, and Barth. Geisler states that Van Til “speaks from a strong Reformed Biblical perspective theologically and yet in an absolute revelational presuppositionalism apologetically. “Methodological fideism” is Geisler’s term for this position.? Geisler notes five “central contentions” that are characteristic of fideism (including, apparently, that of Van Til): (1) faith alone is the way to God; (2) truth is not found in the purely rational or objective realm, if it is there at all; (3) evidence and reason do not point definitively in the direction of God; (4) the tests of truth are existential, not rational; and (5) not only God’s revelation but his grace is the source of all truth. Hanna has contended that “presuppositionalism” (as he terms it) is able, in response to inquiries as to the warrant for belief, to answer only “in terms of obscurantistic fideism. Hanna regularly uses presuppositionalism and fideism interchangeably in his book. More recently, Sproul, Gerstner, and Lindsley have argued that protestations to the contrary notwithstanding-Van Til’s apologetic has no place (or at least not warranted place) for reasoning with or giving evidence to unbelievers. In their judgment, fideism is the inevitable result of Van Til’s presuppositionalism. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
God, the Presuppositional Error
First, truly what is a god and how can you claim to know about it? Guessing is not evidence, neither is wild, unfounded assertions that are written in reality devoid documents such as holy books. Atheists do not have to prove that gods do not exist, as gods have never been proven to exist. Nor is there any good reason to think they could exist.
Vague Theism or god Somethingism: just say NO
“Damien sir, i am in a dilemma, can you help me???? i don’t believe in any particular god, but i believe in the god, i believe everything exist in this whole universe is part of god, am i an atheist????? each & everything made out of some mass & energy……” – Challenger
My response, you are a pantheist, a doctrine that identifies God with the universe, or regards the universe as a manifestation of god(s).
“Damien, as the conservation theory explain that the total mass & energy is constant, & we are made from these mass & energy, why we are not part of the god???” – Challenger
My response, to me to call a thing god is to say it’s a superpower with a mind or intelligent expressed will. I don’t see anything like that in nature.
“Damien, sorry sir, but to me it’s the entire mass & energy of the cosmos, which runs on some simple some physical rule……” – Challenger
My response, then it’s not a god.
“Damien, why sir????” – Challenger
My response, it’s like me calling love the expressed emotion god because all humans and most animals have this. But this is a logical fallacy of categorical error. A category mistake (or category error) is a logical fallacy that occurs when a speaker (knowingly or not) confuses the properties of the whole with the properties of a part. It contains the fallacy of composition (assuming the whole has the properties of the part) and the fallacy of division (assuming the part has the properties of the whole).
“Damien, i believe everything i can touch, see or feel, are part of god, even my toilet also is part of my god…… that’s why i never go to the temple (by the certificate i’m a hindu), or any kind of religious place…. my work is my religion…. & god (as I believe) never failed me….. i always get result as i worked…” – Challenger
My response, everything in the real world can fail and does so often. You sound like you have made your claim of god above failure. However, if there is no standard to fail by then there is also no standard to success. So, either your titled god does nothing or to you it does everything but then your label of god actually ends up meaning nothing….
Why are all gods unjustified?
Okay, so, anything you claim needs justification but no one has evidence of god claim attributes they are all unjustified. All god talk as if it is real acts as if one can claim magic is real by thinking it is so or by accepting someone’s claim of knowing the unjustifiably that they understand an unknowable, such as claims of gods being anything as no one has evidence to start such fact devoid things as all knowing (there is no evidence of an all-knowing anything). Or an all-powerful (there is no evidence of an all-powerful anything). Or the most ridiculous an all-loving (there is no evidence of an all-loving anything). But like all god claims, they are not just evidence lacking, the one claiming them has no justified reason to assume that they can even claim them as proof (it’s all the empty air of faith). Therefore, as the limit of all people, is to only be able to justify something from and that which corresponds to the real-world to be real and the last time I checked there is no magic of any kind in our real-world experiences. So, beyond the undefendable magical thinking not corresponding to the real-world how much more ridicules are some claimed supreme magical claimed being thus even more undefendable to the corresponding real-world, which the claimed god(s) thinking is a further and thus more extremely unjustified claim(s).
What is this god you seem to think you have any justification to claim?
Saying that some features of reality are not fully known is not proof of god myth claims. II’s not like every time we lack knowledge, we can just claim magic and if we do we are not being intellectually honest to the appraisal of reality that is devoted of anything magic. So what is a god, when no one has some special knowledge to say what it could be and shotgunning unjustifiable hypothetical claims that one thing or another that you like must gold some magic which there is no evidence of magic anything? Thus, to assert magic anythings by its nature an unjustified ascertain to even present. God claims are presupposition errors in how they are most often assumed to be a hypothetical explanation to the unknown or fear of something it’s not from facts in reality.
“Reason is my only master, whereas faith offered as reality is most defiantly not my friend.”
As ethical atheists, we are not ok with pretend. So we are not silent because sacred falsehoods must end, even if the truth may offend. What is Faith but an unjustified belief that is willfully supported in violation to The Ethics of Belief, as faith holds a burden of proof until justified so faith claiming to “know” anything by this means is intellectually dishonest, uninformed on good belief etiquette or confused thinking offered as pseudo-knowledge? Theists like to confuse the understanding of atheism to lessen its obvious reason. So, here’s a definition of atheism: all offered claims of god(s) are baseless and devoid of a shred of testable or provable evidence and the claims of or about gods either don’t represent in reality or claim to represent things contrary to reality as well as contradicts each other requiring a conclusion of atheism (lack of belief or disbelief in theism). The god claim, is like a clown car in the magic big top of Fideism “faith-ism”, and Presuppositional Apologetics is Just Fascist Fideism all of which demonstrates the Theistic Reality Confusion. Sure there are intelligent theists and that does not in any way make theism even reasonable as one can be brilliant and hold logical fallacies as their truth and that like any thinking errors like theism can happen to an otherwise sound thinker. I strive to be a sound thinker thus I am an axiological atheist and some may wonder what is that?
Axiological Atheism (“philosophic” value theory/value science “formal axiology” social science” atheism) is Classed Under Anthropocentric (human-centered) arguments: “Axiological atheism favors humanity as the absolute source of ethics and values, and permits individuals to resolve moral problems without resorting to God. Marx, Nietzsche, Sartre and Freud all used this argument to some extent to convey messages of liberation, full-development, and unfettered happiness.” – Link
“Damien, your Axiological Atheism sounds Highly interesting! One point, though. Have you considered that all of this philosophizing will mean nothing when you are dead? Human ideology on the concepts of mortality have been around since the dawn of mankind and will continue until every last human being is dead.” – Challenger
My response, philosophizing like all science will mean nothing after “we” are dead but I care about more than me I want universal betterment and true humanity flourishing so philosophizing like all science matter in this goal does it not? I am Not just Atheist, I am a proud Anti-religionist as well as Anti-theist. Those atheists who still like esoteric religions or religious philosophies, that is not me at all I oppose it all. Yes, you read that right, I reject it all, every religion or even pseudo-religion like. Just so I am not misunderstood, this includes buddhism, satanism, taoism, paganism, wicca, spiritualism, etc. Don’t get me wrong I am against ALL religion. What makes some believed Truth is actually True? To me, truth, in general, is a value judgment we place on what we think or believe is evidence or reason. Therefore, the rational imperative on us as intellectually honest thinkers to demonstrate that the proposed evidence or reasoned assumption is actually of a high epistemic standard with as much valid and reliable reason and evidence as possible from a credible source as possible which then makes some believed “Truth” actually worthy to be seen as Epistemologically True thus a “justified true belief”. Broadly, epistemic means “relating to knowledge (itself) or to the degree of its validation” and epistemological means ” critical study of knowledge validity, methods, as well as limits to knowledge and the study or theory of various aspects of or involved in knowledge”.
I have justification to claim to know what I claim to know, that is proof, not faith which is unproof “Unjustified Belief.” Do you have such Justification? By claiming to know something by faith is to act in a way mirroring a dishonest thinker, as intellectually honest thinkers don’t claim knowledge without justification.
As a general thinking in all my epistemology is Justificationism:(philosophy) is an approach that regards the justification of a claim as primary, while the claim itself is secondary; thus, criticism consists of trying to show that a claim cannot be reduced to the authority or criteria that it appeals to. In a general way, “Justificationism” to me, is the presupposition that claims to knowledge must be authenticated, certified, verified, validated, confirmed, proven, corroborated, back up, show to be accurate, confirmed or in some other way shown to be justified. In other words, if a belief is knowledge, then it is in some way justified, and if a belief is unjustified then it is not knowledge. Justificationism” is the presupposition that claims to knowledge are on trial and the desire is make sure or demonstrate that (something) is true, thus in a Justificationism presupposition inquiry any claim to knowledge can be analyzed, for value by asking for its justification, and failure to provide sufficient justification is enough to reject that claim to knowledge until adequate justification is provided. In this context, a rational ethical belief (Ethics of Belief), is one which is justified, and a rational person is one who provides a rational ethical belief, with good reasons or proof to justify what is believed. For a justificationist, the purpose of philosophical investigation is not a search for faith (unjustified) belief, but only a search for justified true belief. This difference is subtle but important: while a justified belief is always rationally justified as true, it still must be realized that an unjustified belief is not necessarily always false but indeed is not justified. Failure to provide sufficient justification is enough to reject an offered claim to knowledge as unjustified belief (faith: belief without evidence or belief even up against contradictory evidence). These presuppositions constitute a reinforced justificationism uses and defines the rules by which competing proposals are evaluated, it can ensure any attempt to introduce faith (unjustified) belief(s) can be dismissed as unjustified. “Theory of justification is a part of epistemology that attempts to understand the justification of propositions and beliefs. Epistemologists are concerned with various epistemic features of belief, which include the ideas of justification, warrant, rationality, and probability. Loosely speaking, justification is the reason that someone (properly) holds a belief. When a claim is in doubt, justification can be used to support the claim and reduce or remove the doubt. Justification can use empiricism (the evidence of the senses), authoritative testimony (the appeal to criteria and authority), or logical deduction.” Ref
I have to challenge your beliefs, because you won’t. To me, every religion was new at some point and had someone who made shit up, yes all of them, every religion. As an atheist, I am a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of god or gods. In my non-belief, I am also ignostic feeling that every theological position assumes too much about the concept of god(s). As an ignostic, I am a person who rational no idea of anything from reality whatever to label as “a concept of god” thus I can say I have no idea of anything that can connect to the term god and no reason to think anyone else can either. As an anti-theist, I am a person who is active in opposition to theism: both the concepts of god(s) as well as the religions that support them. This is because theistic concepts and theistic religions are harmful and that even if theistic beliefs were true, they would be undesirable. As an anti-religionist, I am a person who can look at religion on the whole and see it is detrimental to the progress of humanity thus am in opposition to all and every religion, not even just opposition to organized religion. In case you were wondering, I am anti-pseudoscience, anti-supernatural, and anti-superstition as well. Therefore, I am a proud anti-religionist, not just atheist or even anti-theist. Yes, I am an atheist, anti-theist, and an anti-religionist. I am against flawed superstitious magical beliefs like god(s) and/or religion. However, I am not against people. I have many strong opinions and beliefs as well as my challenge of others or I am against many types of beliefs especially if they involve supernatural or superstitious, or harm. However, I am not against people nor am I against their free right to believe as they wish. To me, everyone owns themselves and their beliefs are theirs as well, and will be held accountable for those beliefs. Thus, to me, not I or anyone has the right to force people on what to believe. I as others do have the right to voice our beliefs, just as I or others then have the right to challenge voiced beliefs. Long live mental freedom. Proudly, I am an atheist, anti-theist, and an anti-religionist.
“Damien, what’s your philosophical position? Are you a materialist who believes that everything is reducible to physical? Idealism, Neutral Monist, etc.?” – Questioner
My response, I am a metaphysical naturalist (basically everything is reducible to physical) because of the universal reliable truth of the application of the scientific methods reliable and only demonstration using methodological naturalism, no magic, not even simple supernatural found in any amount ever anywhere by anyone.
“Damien, regardless of fancy wording we can not prove something is true without evidence just the same as we can not prove something is not true without evidence. Do you not agree that is the real argument?” – Questioner
My response, No, I don’t agree, it is always so. If I say I have the Nile River in my pocket you can’t see in my pocket but if you are rational and assess just what is allowable in reality, you don’t have to even look I know as you such a claim is preposterous to the point it can defy reason thus anyone would rightly reject a claim that a very limited space of a pants pocket watch can only at most fit something about 10 inches long but the Nile River is 4,258 mi long and even if it could be moved, which it can’t, more issues, but all and all it is clear that you can with certainty say that the Nile River in my pocket does not exist. I will give you another. Or say I said I have a money in my front pocket and you look finding nothing where it would be if there thus you now have negative evidence of my pocket which is empty when reasonably searched and nothing, you rightly can confirm with certainty that the pocket is, in fact, empty and not filled with money as I had claimed. You are certain there is no money in my pocket exists. There are many more examples but I think you can see what I am saying. To me even your question, while a good one exposes how the approach to reason may be used differently depending on the thinker. I am a Methodological Rationalist, I rarely am pushed to doubt as a default, instead, I see reason as my default and at times it may be responsible to doubt, but I get to that conclusion because of reasoning. A common saying in pseudologic is “You can’t prove a negative.” This is, simply not true. This is clearly not true because any statement can be rewritten into the negation of its negation. Any provable statement can be written as a negative. For example, “X is true” can be rewritten as “X is not false”, a negative statement! If “X is true” can be proven true, then you have also proven a negative statement “X is not false”. Moreover, even if it is widely believed that you can’t prove a negative. Going so far as to have people thinking that it is a law of logic—you can’t prove that Santa Claus, unicorns, the Loch Ness Monster, God, pink elephants, WMD in Iraq and Bigfoot don’t exist. This widespread belief is flatly, 100% wrong.
In this little essay, I show precisely how one can prove a negative, to the same extent that one can prove anything at all. Evidence of absence is evidence of any kind that suggests something is missing or that it does not exist. Per the traditional aphorism, “absence of evidence is not evidence of absence”, positive evidence of this kind is distinct from a lack of evidence or ignorance of that which should have been found already, had it existed. In this regard Irving Copi writes: “In some circumstances, it can be safely assumed that if a certain event had occurred, evidence of it could be discovered by qualified investigators. In such circumstances, it is perfectly reasonable to take the absence of proof of its occurrence as positive proof of its non-occurrence.” — Copi, Introduction to Logic (1953), p. 95
Here are some links about proving a negative: Link, Link, Link, Link, Link, Link We fight IDEAS, not people, so while I wish to destroy harmful or false ideas I wish to uplift and empower people by inspiring their will to reason and know REASON is often the enemy of ignorance.
God: “antihumanism thinking”
God thinking is a superstitiously transmitted disease, that usually is accompanied by some kind of antihumanism thinking. Relatively all gods, in general, are said to have the will and power over humans. Likewise, such god claims often are attributed to be the ones who decide morality thus remove the true morality nature in humans that actually assist us in morality. So, adding a god is to welcome antihumanism burdens, because god concepts are often an expression. This is especially so when any so-called god somethingism are said to makes things like hells is an antihumanism thinking. A general humanism thinking to me is that everyone owns themselves, not some god and everyone is equal. Such humanism thinking to me, requires a shunning of coercion force that removes a human’s rights or the subjugation of oppression and threats for things like requiring belief or demanding faith in some other unjustified abstraction from others. Therefore, humanism thinking is not open to being in such a beliefs, position or situations that violate free expression of one’s human rights which are not just relinquished because some people believed right or their removal is at the whims of some claimed god (human rights removing/limiting/controlling = ANTIHUMANISM). Humanism to me, summed up as, humans solving human problems through human means. Thus, humanism thinking involves striving to do good without gods, and not welcoming the human rights removing/limiting/controlling, even if the myths could somehow come to be true.
Stop Promoting Errors in Thinking like gods
Theists seem to have very odd attempts as logic, as they most often start with some evidence devoid god myth they favor most often the hereditary favorite of the family or culture that they were born into so a continuous blind acceptance generation after generation of force indicated faith in that which on clear instinctually honest appraisal not only should inspire doubt but full disbelief until valid and reliable justification is offered.
I Hear Theists?
I hear what theists say and what I hear is that they make assertions with no justification discernable of or in reality just some book and your evidence lacking faith. I wish you were open to see but I know you have a wish to believe. I, however, wish to welcome reality as it is devoid of magic which all religions and gods thinkers believe. I want to be mentally free from misinformed ancient myths and free the minds of those confused in the realm of myths and the antihumanism views that they often attach to. So, I do have an agenda human liberation from fears of the uninformed conception of reality.
No god Claims have Justification, Challenge?
“Damien, (responding to me saying no god claims have justification) there are problems thinking everything you believe needs a justification.” – Challenger
My response, so, are you saying something can be claimed as real but have no warrant to justify why one should agree or even entertain it?
“The idea that Induction is reliable can be claimed and seems like an important assumption, but arguments for it are fallacious. There are similar issues with thinking an external world exists.” – Challenger
My response, ok, and how do we discern any of it, if nothing has a need for justification? Because to me, I see your saying something is fallacious as asserting a justification stance and thus, is similar to what I think, which is valid, that there is a rationalistic need for justification. You are telling me I am wrong and that needs a justification, just as me showing your thinking wrong took a justification. If not then tell me how I am wrong utilizing no justification at all. So, try to prove me wrong because even if you do you will have provided a justification so then further proving my assertion of the need for justification.
“Do you know god?”- Challenger
“Damien, God exists go to YouTube and type in Dr.Dino u will understand.”- Challenger
My response, What is a god and how do you know some claim about that concept is real?
“How can u believe that a spinning created life and I also wonder why we don’t see people evolve now days can u observe evolution”- Challenger
“You have no responce? Exactly.”- Challenger
My response, What do you think you did? You did nothing at all to demonstrate magic was, real, did you? NO. Again, what is a god?
Animistic superstition origins of bible god.
El-Shaddai is the claimed original name of bible god Exodus 6:2 it occurs 48 times in the bible 42 of which in the patriarchal period, but which animistic mountain superstition is this god attributed to? Here are a few mountains/hills of bible god: Mount Zion-Psalms 132:13; Mount Sinai-Exodus 19; Mount Horeb-1 Kings 19:8; Mount Paran- Habakkuk 3:3; Mount Hor- Numbers 20:22-29. More animistic superstition origins of bible god as an earthquake: Judges 5:5 – mountains quaked at the presence of Yahweh; Isaiah 64:1- mountains might quake at Your presence; The earth trembled and quaked, and the foundations of the mountains shook; Psalm 18:7 – The earth trembled and quaked, and the mountains shook trembled because god was angry; Nahum 1:5-6 – Mountains quake because of god and the hills dissolve, who can endure god’s anger; Isaiah 64:3 You did awesome things which we did not expect, You came down, the mountains quaked at Your presence; Habakkuk 3:10 the mountains saw god and quaked.
Bible Believer Challenge
“Damien I am a Christian because the evidence supports the gospel (bible) as being objectively true.” – Challenger
My response, wait, are you saying there is evidence of magic or supernatural? I think not, so it’s still belief built of wishful thinking supported by the confusion of looking through an indoctrinated religious mind bent on belief not truth. And I must question your trust in worthy compared to unworthy evidence standard for your source like the gospels. Was it not this reality confused gospel, that said the sun stopped one as well as how there was light on the earth before the sun and the moon were claimed to have been created which was not until the fourth day if I remember right as well as referencing pillars of the earth also expressing that the World is Flat. And what really is a god?
*I hear all the time but did you read the bible?*
Read the bible, you mean the book of dogmatic propaganda. Yes, sadly I have. I read two versions of the bible, the King James and the NIV. I have read history, anthropology and archaeology of world religions and understood right thinking because of philosophy. I know a lot, I don’t claim to know everything but certainly enough to firmly know religion and gods are myths. I could list countless scriptures to contradict the bible’s credibility (it has none) as I have listed some but true believers will believe as they wish (blind faith). The male god (Single God Religions (Monotheism) = Man-o-theism) is an invented idea no more than 5,000 years the female goddess at least 12,000 (Sedentism and the Creation of goddesses as well as gods)but the first worship was and the world’s oldest ritual was of a large Stone Snake of South Africa: “first human worship” 70,000 years ago.
You say you believe in a possibility of your favored god-claim?
Okay, let’s think through what you claim to believe, if you think there is a possibility of your god-claim existing as something in reality, then there would also have be, to YOU, I am guessing, a possibility of every other god claim in recorded history being possible? I assume by your single-possibility-god-claim that you don’t think all god-claims are possible with the same level of equality in the amount of possibility, do you? That’s even ridiculous to you as a single-possibility-god believer, right? But hold on, wouldn’t that require YOU, I am guessing, as a single-possibility-god believer, to reject believing in any equal possibility of any possible gods, as that would be ridiculous, because they need evidence, right? But hold on, wouldn’t that require YOU, I am guessing, as a single-possibility-god believer, who also like the gods you reject out of hand, also lack any evidence but empty assertions, a single-possibility-god, right? But that is no different than the god-claim you favor belief in, which is a claimed-god-something seen as if it is possible, yet it too is a claim without any evidence. But hold on, wouldn’t not believing in things without evidence, be better? Well, not believing in things without evidence, is exactly why I don’t believe any gods, including one you may favor. Believing in things without evidence, like all god-claims, are like magical thinking child’s play, believing any of them is empty intellectual confusion, as to believe without evidence, is uncritical thinking, foolishness like hiding from imaginary shadows thinking they can hurt you.
You have to agree, there is a possibility of god?
No, possibility, my friend, is not a thing in isolation; as in one needs a frame of reference or there is no possibility to discern anything to attach a possibility to. Without a frame of reference, all you have is just an uncalculated and unknown communicated claim with no relevance or attributed properties to assert. We need to think deep and broad to see many things missed. This reality itself requires a belief, in many presuppositions like there is reality, I the thinker, am actually in control of my thinking, that this thinking is rational and that what I observe is real and corresponds to that real reality, I am an active agent awake and not dreaming this is mostly an internal awareness in confrontation in how I interact with it. We can bypass this and say we don’t believe it but we all actively relate in the world so it is valid to believe.
The Rationalist Desire for Epistemically Credible Thinking
As a rationalist when I debate or challenge a position or thinking I want the epistemically provable truth, as I am not only closed to my own ideas, rather, I am just as willing to adapt my position if given strong warrant or justification supported by valid and reliable reason and evidence with epistemic credibility.
“Incorporating a prediction into future planning and decision making is advisable only if we have judged the prediction’s credibility. This is notoriously difficult and controversial in the case of predictions of future climate. By reviewing epistemic arguments about climate model performance, we discuss how to make and justify judgments about the credibility of climate predictions. Possibly proposing arguments that justify basing some judgments on the past performance of possibly dissimilar prediction problems. This encourages a more explicit use of data in making quantitative judgments about the credibility of future climate predictions, and in training users of climate predictions to become better judges of value, goodness, credibility, accuracy, worth or usefulness.” Ref
Stop believing in supernatural and be honest in the wonderment of natural reality as it truly is.
Supernatural is our minds animating reality because it is beyond our understanding. That lack of grasping and accepting reality as it is does not change it into anything more than it should be. It only shows how profoundly human emotionalism can lead us to conceptual error when allowed to invade our method of knowledge acquisition. For us to finally grasp the amazing facts of reality (naturalism which is proven) we must stop the false beliefs (supernatural which is disproven) holding us back from doing so.
Stop the insecurity of wanting or needing to believe in the possibility of magic.
I see all magical thinking “religious belief” and doubting or rejecting the magical thinking “atheistic disbelief” and stating a possibility of magical thinking being real “agnostic belief”. Allowing that magical thinking or the possibility of magical thinking being real is clearly not supported by any facts in reality. Thus, it is just more a social engineering “indoctrinated belief” connected to learned magical thinking supernaturalism and/or superstitionism. When asked whether they believe in the existence of one or more Gods and/or Goddesses, Theists will answer in the affirmative; strong Atheists will say no. Agnostics often cannot give a straight “Yes” or “No” answer. Agnostics might respond with one of the following (Weak Theism or Weak Atheism):
Weak Atheism: I don’t know. (So, they don’t believe theism thus are atheists)
Weak Atheism: The Gods that various believers worship are like unicorns: they are obviously fictional creations of humanity. But, who knows. They might actually exist.
Weak Atheism: There is no way to know, but perhaps someone will find a proof or disproof in the future. (So, they don’t believe theism thus are atheists)
Weak Atheism: There will never be any way to know. (So, they don’t believe theism thus are atheists)
Weak Atheism: The question is meaningless. (So, they don’t believe theism thus are atheists)
Weak Atheism: I don’t know but will lead my life in the assumption that no God exists. (So they dont believe theism thus are atheists)
Weak Atheism: I cannot give an opinion because there is no way that we can prove the existence or non-existence of God given currently available knowledge. (So they dont believe theism thus are atheists)
Weak Atheism: I cannot give an opinion because there is no way to know, with certainty, anything about God, either now or in the future. (So they dont believe theism thus are atheists)
Weak Atheism: I will have to withhold my opinion until God, if he exists, decides to make his presence known. Rearranging, say, 10,000 stars in the sky to read “I AM” would be a great start. Even recreating an amputated leg would be a strong indicator. But, of course, neither has ever happened. (So they dont believe theism thus are atheists)
Weak Theism: I doubt it, but cannot be sure God doesn’t exist.
Weak Theism: I think so, but cannot be positive that God exists.
Weak Theism: I don’t know but will lead my life assuming that God does exist — perhaps because of the rewards I would receive if God does exist.
Weak Theism: I think that God exists, but have no proof.
Weak Theism: I worship a god (or a god and goddess, or a goddess, or some combination of god(s) and goddess(es) but cannot prove that they exist.
Weak Theism: Yes, God exists. But we do not know anything about God at this time.
Weak Theism: Yes, God exists. But we have no possibility of knowing anything about God, now or in the future.
The god “magic” is a Non-Sequitur
A hypothetical god(s) “magic” offered as a reason for a known aspect of naturalism such as saying, “there is so much beauty in nature, there must be a god” is a Non-Sequitur. Which is belter understood as “there is so much beauty in nature, there must be supernatural ‘magic’.” Hearing the god “magic” claim for what it is truly saying helps expose that it is a logical fallacy of Non-Sequitur. This term Non-Sequitur translates to “doesn’t follow”. This refers to an argument in which the conclusion does not necessarily follow from the premises. In other words, a logical connection is implied where none exists.
So, the saying there must be a non-natural god hypnosis because nature is beautiful, is demonstrating a logical conflict why would anyone have to think because nature is beautiful god “magic” must exist? If nature wasn’t beautiful would they say this was evidence a devil existed? Since they say both a god and devil exist should nature be less beautiful? Is nature as a whole truly beautiful? Think of all death and harm from earthquakes, tidal waves, floods, rip currents, coastal erosion, avalanches, mud slides, lightning, wildfires, erupting volcanoes, drought, hurricanes, tornados, disease, decay, and extreme weather freezing cold or sweltering heat. The world is cruel, pitiless and has a harmful ugly side so maybe nature is not so beautiful after all and you just only want to see the good side just like you only want to see a possibility for your magical god. Supersessionism is the Mother of Supernaturalism, thus Religion is its child.
How does superstitious and magical thinking conform or limit how faith introduces religious and sacralizing thinking particularly on the concept of gods?
Faith hurts itself as it desires to build on its self which only serve to topple the stack of cards it invents to shore it up trying to create more faith. Thus, faith will always involve a willingness to not understand and offer this as a kind of evidence. True believers are utilizing faith as a product to conceive the true concept of gods are then left saying “faith is beyond reason thus with such reasonless faith in god nothing is impossible”, “you must trust in faith and believe even if it contradicts reason in order that you may understand”, Or the believer will say something like “I believe in faith in order that I might understand and make sense of god.”
Let’s look how that plays out in the bible: 1 Corinthians 2:5 your faith might not rest on human wisdom; Proverbs 3:5 don’t lean not on your own understanding; Hebrews 11:1 faith is the substance of things hoped for, evidence of things not seen; Proverbs 1:7 fear of god is the beginning of knowledge.
Gods need to be well defined to be understood however the more they are defined the more problematic abilities come into thoughtful challenge because their unattainable complexities comes into play defying reason. Yet on the other end if gods are simply left undefined they are meaningless or cease as being able to hold reason as be usable as god concepts. I surmise that gods are supernatural agents which are early humans created that started as spirits forces whom where wholly lacking developed formal structure and the substance in beingness. It is this unconfirmed or limiting spirits forces concept of gods that comprise this emerging container unit which the mysterious elements of nature could be put in. But as increasingly higher thinking beings evolve who likewise kept gaining more awareness of the discernable patterns of the mysterious elements of nature attributed as involving spirits forces then to be used managed and understood to keep faith needed to be defined more. So early humans made their spirits forces which had before been undefined lacking beingness or contained no full unit of beingness into which the needed knowable source or like us anthropomorphic spirits forces details could involve reason. But the more this container unit comprising spirits forces which lack understanding morphed into more complex concepts of goddesses then gods it the less the reason it entails.
Thus, superstitious and magical thinking commonly evolves from unorganized conceptions and then overtime grouped together turning into organized forms often denoting some amount of anthropomorphism. This, anthropomorphism though unrealized are what faith needs to create concepts found in what we refer to as religious thinking and the existence of supernatural agents like gods which require anthropomorphic to be thought as even being real. Some may try to challenge whether in “their” conceptions of religion and their creator deity is anthropomorphic (i.e. exhibits human characteristics; such as seen in in the phrase god is a jealous god Exodus 20:5). Moreover, this fact of an undeniable anthropomorphic connection found in all creator deities even in their most ethereal forms can be easily addressed, for instance if you say the “unknown/unknowable” origins of the universe involves an “it” something with a beingness or “I-ness” (like an actual being) in some form which then reasonably can be seen as denoting some amount of anthropomorphism. A problematic reason involved issue this beingness god with anthropomorphic attributes entails is how it evokes a limited realm of personality in which is fixed in time, space, and place. But to do so then makes the anthropomorphic god becomes in some way corporeal (that is, material and natural not supernatural) within its association with beingness.
However, if we try to sidestep this problem and think in terms of a non-beingness god or non-anthropomorphic concept of god such a creator deity becomes a blind power present in uncountable ways. Thus undefinable and an “unknown/unknowable” thing which possibly could be labelled a force which lacks all beingness but where would that leave us? Even if we then buy this creator deity concept of a force which can somehow lacking all beingness thus is a non-being of anti-anthropomorphic blind power we would seem to be left accepting a creator deity who entailed an expression of nothingness or “unknown/unknowable” presence. How then could this still be attributed as being a thing with somethingness?
Does such a nothing or non-defined entity such as this simply through logic ceases to exist as a reasonable conception that is allowed to be referred to as god? Can thoughts about the direction of a creator force with purpose be any more demonstrable or ascertainably different than our notions of purposeless direction (i.e. I say the wind is a purposeless natural force whereas gods are often attributed as being the force of purpose in wind; such as the phrases god made a wind blow and the waters subsided Genesis 8:1; god brought an east wind and with it came the locusts Exodus 10:13; god drove the sea back by a strong east wind all night, and made the sea dry land Exodus 14:21-22)? Let us assume that a deity is ultimately an indirect reference to anthropomorphism which is found in the proposal of god which involves the absolute infinite beingness; thus, the quality of omnipotence (i.e. it can do everything it wants to).
Omnipotence would logically be needed for a being or force of creation in that to be an all-powerful designer of the said universe a power beyond any another would reasonably be required. But if this designer of the universe is an all-powerful and infinite thing is thus is being attributed to an unbound possibility of actions which creates an omnipotence paradox. Such as could a said infinite creator being or force be able to destroy itself or deny its own existence? If the deity or force is omnipotent it can destroy itself, or deny its own existence but an infinite being cannot be eliminated by definition which creates a contradiction.
gOD Believer, Pease Think Critically
If you are a believer think critically, it is not the one deity you see as possible without evidence but to notice how many gods or goddesses you reject as impossible without evidence. What kind of thinker can believe that rationally? There are literally thousands of religions being practiced today and many others once were once thought true in history just to be reworked or rejected.
The world’s 20 largest religions and their number of believers are:
Christianity (2.1 billion)
Islam (1.3 billion)
Nonreligious (Secular/Agnostic/Atheist) (1.1 billion)
Hinduism (900 million)
Chinese traditional religion (394 million)
Buddhism 376 million
Primal-indigenous (300 million)
African traditional and Diasporic (100 million)
Sikhism (23 million)
Juche (19 million)
Spiritism (15 million)
Judaism (14 million)
Bahai (7 million)
Jainism (4.2 million)
Shinto (4 million)
Cao Dai (4 million)
Zoroastrianism (2.6 million)
Tenrikyo (2 million)
Neo-Paganism (1 million)
Unitarian-Universalism (800,000) [Ref]
If you can believe only in a possible God of Christianity, you have chosen to reject Allah, Vishnu, Lord Buddha, Waheguru, Ngame, Isis, Kali, Brigid, Kuan Yin, Europa, Aphrodite, Amaterasu, Aurora, Chicomecoatl, Ishtar, Antares, and all of the thousands of other gods or goddess that other people worship today or once held faith in. It is quite likely that you rejected these other gods or goddesses without ever looking into their history, religions, reading or even learning about them. You may not even know some of the names listed or have heard much about them or the thousands of other deities and mythical beings people now or through time have put faith in. Most people believer or agnostic are singly indoctrinated all their life and simply have absorbed the dominant faith in your home or in the society you grew up in, thus you now see only it as the only possible truth. In the same way, the followers of all these other religions have chosen to reject god or goddesses without reading or even learning about them as well and as many believers put faith over scientific facts. If you are a believer or agnostic only your possibility is true and you think their gods are imaginary, similarly they think you’re god or goddess is imaginary. In other words, each religious person on earth today arbitrarily rejects thousands of gods or goddesses as imaginary. A rational person armed with history, science, psychology, sociology, biology, and archeology rejects all human gods or goddess myths equally, because all of them are equally human inventions. How do we know that they are human inventions? Show me a claimed god that is not limited to having to be promoted by people, only transferred by people who were told about this brand of god or it stays unknown or stops being known when it stops being talked about.
“Sounds like these claimed all-powerful gods are not any power at all, instead they are universally limited and as fragile as any lie, you know just stop telling a gOD lie and it stops existing.”
These gOD myths like all myths not only must be told and retold by humans to other humans they suffer another weakness all myths share in that they tend to be changed or altered as they are retold. Some say not my god (let’s say Christians) but this is a pure delusion and undeserved self-confidence as the over 40,000 sects and denominations as well as the many different translations of one book the bible which easily has over 100 versions in English alone. And even using the same translation people differ how they view or believe the myth of the bible god, you can see why now right because it is only a myth that is limited to being believed and being told. Still not convinced all gods are lies even the one god myth you may like or believe you choose or chose “more likely where raised in and forced to believe” then stop telling people about it and see if it keeps going as always gods have no more power than the believer gives them. God myths are weak and fragile simply stop believing in them and stop talking about them and they stop existing. Just think what claimed god if real requires you to talk about it or it stops being known. What real features of the world stop existing just because we stop talking about them or stop believing in them? Simply imagine that one of these god myths was actually real it would automatically be real not limited to being expressed to stay seen as real. We know that all gods are myths, as if one of these thousands of mythic gods were actually real, then its believers would be experiencing real, undeniable benefits. These undeniable benefits would not only be obvious to everyone they could be testable and demonstrable limited only to some the believers in the one claimed real god. But spoiler alert no such evidence exists, not that it’s a real shocker as all gods are myths. That right there is no special anything followers of a claimed one true god have others don’t have but an odd belief in a God myth as true when there is no proof of such claims not even in the lives of the ones doing the claiming. Because if some myth god was real couldn’t we at least see actual proof in the lives of the ones believing that only occurred in the lives of the believers and was testable and demonstrable like have fewer diseases, or more so-called blessings like more money, etc. In fact, is a belief in a god meant anything at all there would be and I say must be, testable and demonstrable proofs directly connected to or special attributions only surrounding the lives followers of some claimed true god or it’s just not anything true. I know if you are a believer in some claimed god you may defensibly say well even if there is not any testable or demonstrable proofs you still should believe as you don’t want to go to hell if you are wrong, to which we all should say and that works for you? As in what a bunch of nonsense and simple reasoning supported only by fear. Stop this unjustified fear and live life free.
“Stop believing in supernatural or the possibility of magic or other supernaturalism nonsense, stop belief in gOD!”
Yes, I proudly reject gods and religions
It should be understood, that religion as well as its love of gods, must be seem for what they are, which beyond their pomp and circumstance are exposed as little more than indoctrinated cultural products, the conspiracy theories of reality no one should believe today in our world of science. Simply, religion and its gods are the leftovers of an ignorant age trying to explain and control a fearful world which seems now favored by the uninformed, misinformed, emotional/physical/social support seekers and conmen.
Dealing with theists?
When dealing with theists we atheists should ask “What is our goal,” as this very important to me and beyond a call for truth over lies I wish positive kindness over a negative hatred already too prevalent in the world. So, what happens if theists don’t ever change? What is more important, what they believe in made up magic or how they behave? If behavior is “true” which is real, unlike myths that are not, are we atheists more situated to demonstrate ethical and kind behavior? I strive all the time to re-guide my behavior so it better matches what is worthy.
I have been asked before, “Well, Damien, what is your idea of truth?”
So Here you go, I hold a general persuasion that claims with valid justification or proof are true. My general standard for truth is the correspondence theory of truth. “our ideas are true if they accurately correspond to reality and its facts” A common thinking states that the truth or falsity of a statement is determined only by how it relates to the world and whether it accurately describes (i.e., corresponds with) that world. There is a sense in which that which is truth depends on the world it can be demonstrated in, similar to the scientific methods presupposition of methodological naturalism. Methodological naturalism is not a “doctrine” but an essential aspect of the methodology of science, the study of the natural universe. If one believes that natural laws and theories based on them will not suffice to solve the problems attacked by scientists – that supernatural and thus nonscientific principles must be invoked from time to time – then one cannot have the confidence in scientific methodology that is a prerequisite to doing science. The spectacular successes over four centuries of science based on methodological naturalism cannot be denied. Correspondence theories claim that true beliefs and true statements correspond to the actual state of affairs. Bertrand Russell theorized that a statement, to be true, must have a structural isomorphism with the state of affairs in the world that makes it true.The truth predicate of interest in a typical correspondence theory of truth tells of a relation between representations and objective states of affairs, and is therefore expressed, for the most part, by a dyadic predicate. In general terms, one says that a representation is true of an objective situation, more briefly, that a sign is true of an object. The nature of the correspondence may vary from theory to theory in this family. The correspondence can be fairly arbitrary or it can take on the character of an analogy, an icon, or a morphism, whereby a representation is rendered true of its object by the existence of corresponding elements and a similar structure. Historically, most advocates of correspondence theories have been ontological realists; that is, they believe that there is a world external to the minds of all humans.
When you ask me, “Do you believe in god?”
I ask, “What is a god? Are you asking me if magic exists?”
Well, my answer as an ignostic atheist is,
first prove the actuality of simple magic before
you try to ask anyone about the possibility of some supreme magic.
I am so out about my disbelief as I support reality and not because I feel better than a believer in supernatural things, gods or religions. Actually, I too once was the same until somewhat late in my life. In fact, I did not stop being this way until I was 36. I am so open now with good belief etiquette focusing on reasoned belief acquisitions, good belief maintenance, as well as honest belief relinquishment and challenging not out of hate or loathing, but out of deep compassion and understanding. This care wishes to save the indoctrinated victims of magical thinking falsehoods. I wish then self-esteem, self-ownership, self-leadership, self-efficiency, self-empowerment, self-love and self-mastery all of which can and in some way, are undermined by God’s and Religions; which either directly attack/challenge or subvert in some lesser realized way.
Science is an intellectual endeavor to search for that which is accurate to the way the world is while religion is still desperately relying on fantasy stories and about what the world is not full of many inconsistencies as well as glaring inaccuracies in relation to true reality, thus religion is an unintellectual endeavor forcing a non-accurate/non-truth “faith” over “valid and reliable reason and evidence” so a blind searching to not understand the accurate to the way the world actually is in reality. This is likely because religions are not “real truth” searching endeavors and beyond all the other negative things, on the whole religions and their make-believe are but conspiracies theories of reality not worth believing in. Did you know Moses write nor asked for the writing of the Torah, the first five books Jewish holy book (the old testament)? Well, Moses didn’t, and neither did Jesus write nor asked for the writing of anything not one word in the Bible, just like how Mohammed did not write nor asked for the writing of the Quran: holy book of Islam. Do you see a theme? Well, here you go, because neither did Lao-Tzu write nor asked for the writing of the Tao Te Ching, the holy book of Taoism, and guess what neither did Gautama Buddha (the first Buddha) write nor asked for the writing of a book in Buddhism. And what do you know just like all the rest neither did nor guru Nanak write nor asked for the writing of Guru Gobind Singh the holy book in Sikhism?
Funny isn’t it how almost all of the world’s religions share the same facts that the claimed holy teacher never wrote their holy book and for that matter are not even sure if they are historical or made up. But please don’t say they were not fake or that we don’t know the truth about them. Ha, ha, ha, please, I feel safe in my anti-religionism, thank you very much. I am a reality revolutionary fighting hard to defend reality as it actually is in a world working hard to do the opposite. To offer that which is not true to reality is to offer a conspiracy theory about it, including the beliefs of ghosts, gods, and religions. Believe me wrong prove it with valid and reliable reason and evidence or I don’t believe you nor would anyone have good reason to either including your self if you are an honest thinker. I don’t really have trust it is just from experience I know many beliefs people like holding are not worth believing in and full of shit. Why do most religious people claim to have religious or spiritual experiences is they add make-believe to “reality.” And the general “WHY” people profess to have religious or spiritual experiences is because we are emotional beings, that while we can employ the thinking strategy of rationalism over faith or unreason/illogical beliefs, we still often seem to prefer to follow emotional driven thinking or simply learn to appeal to emotionalism. Things are not the other way around as we are not rational beings who understand the world accurately by employing the logical thinking strategies and not thinking clouded emotionalism needed to replace faith or unreason/illogical beliefs that follow such thinking, right? We are all emotional and thus will experience emotional wonder.
This common experience of things like emotional wonder or awe is just a positive emotional hijacking, as the experience of joy, but that is just the joy of being alive, it’s wholly cheapened to me by fantasy daydreaming delusions (supernatural) to this beautiful magic devoid reality. To me, rationalistic thinkers of intellectual character engaging in a thoughtful critical challenge, and thus should strive to disagree, debate, dispute, debunk, and degrade harmful unjustified beliefs (such as pseudo-science, pseudo-history, and or pseudo-morality the stuff religions love to promote) and not the swindled or reality deluded believer. However, I understand how we treat others matters even as an atheist dealing with theists. When I get angry or frustrated, I strive to have understanding and patience. When I get to where I think I will say something hurtful, so I strive, to say it a better way if possible, as I want to help not hurt. So, I wish to something not often offered to me; I wish to be kind, compassionate, and thoughtful as much as I can, as often as I can because how we treat others matters. Therefore, even as an out firebrand atheist I do respect people, I do not respect religion. I believe in people; I do not believe in religion. Tolerance has its limits for it will not stand for blind ignorance and the intolerance of bigotry, and it’s connected injustice cross that line first. I will NOT tolerate the unjust intolerance of oppression and harm.
Because I want to live a value-driven life to promote kindness and human flourishing as an axiological atheist not just the call for reason in thinking but also thinking in behaviors as well. Simply how we treat others reflects on us just like how we make others feel about themselves tells a lot about our chosen character. Thus how we choose to treat others, respond or react to others, will often identify the kind of person we are striving to be. I wish to be a person of value. I am 100 % sure not you nor anyone can honestly justify their claim of knowing even the concept of gods, if one like me simply demands a valid and reliable ontology of the term god. I see no honesty is saying that god anything as not one person can truly even say what it is and defiantly can offer no valid justification for the thinking either the concept of gods is a thinking error period. You have no ontology of god as you have not validated the term to mean anything but myths or confusions. Provide a support to even claim what a god could or could not be then validated hoe you know this and why it is valid and reasonable or as I already know, no one honestly can they must intellectually lie or be so under confusion they can’t think clear to do so. What is this god whatever you are supposedly agnostic about? if you don’t know then you don’t have something to doubt rather you are holding open a thinking error possibility from some myth others invented without reason as if it was reason.
The concept of gods begins with a faulty presupposition of an unsound thinker who has failed to demand justification an simply accepts the absurd. May the actions of my life be written deep with the poetry of my humanity. I have one big goal in life, I just want to make the world kinder. I am intelligent enough that I see I must be open to learn from everyone around me. I don’t try to compare people, Instead, I compare ideas. I am willing to have anyone teach me something and I hope I am always so wise. Some wish for empirical proof of some god. I say no start at what is god and how is it that you are claiming to know anything about it with a sound justification. I say empirical proof of what, when you cannot justify what the term god should contain? Start by justifying there is anything in the term god other than simply a three letter noise. Theists love their faith so much they unjustifiably appealed to the term god as if its attributes were a given, well they are not and to claim they are is uninformed, intellectually dishonest or confused. Actually, I know there is no theist that has done anything but start with something unjustified “the god claim” empty of worth to begin with, then take said unjustified claim to add something to this unjustifiably defined god term and then assert this willful theist with its myth and superstition driven attributes that not one of them are justified to be packed into the term god seems a kind of mental masturbation inventing unjustified attributes drunk on some wishful thinking hijacking, may simply be confused/uninformed, not truly thinking just willfully believing or outright intellectually dishonest.
God talk is unjustified until you can demonstrate that you can know anything even belongs in the term with valid and reliable reason and justification. What is a god is the first burden of proof that is required. Some wish for empirical proof of some god. I say no start at what is god and how is it that you are claiming to know anything about it with a sound justification. I say empirical proof of what, when you cannot justify what the term god should contain? Start by justifying there is anything in the term god other than simply a three letter noise. Theists love their faith so much they unjustifiably appealed to the term god as if its attributes were a given, well they are not and to claim they are is uninformed, intellectually dishonest or confused. Actually, I know there is no theist that has done anything but start with something unjustified “the god claim” empty of worth to begin with, then take said unjustified claim to add something to this unjustifiably defined god term and then assert this willful theist with its myth and superstition driven attributes that not one of them are justified to be packed into the term god seems a kind of mental masturbation inventing unjustified attributes drunk on some wishful thinking hijacking, may simply be confused/uninformed, not truly thinking just willfully believing or outright intellectually dishonest. God talk is unjustified until you can demonstrate that you can know anything even belongs in the term with valid and reliable reason and justification.
What is a god is the first burden of proof that is required. You say some wish for empirical proof. I say no start at what is god and how is it that you are claiming to know anything about it with a sound justification. I say empirical proof of what, when you cannot justify what the term god should contain? Start by justifying there is anything in the term god other than simply a three letter noise. Theists love their faith so much they unjustifiably appealed to the term god as if its attributes were a given, well they are not and to claim they are is uninformed, intellectually dishonest or confused. It is not intellectually honest to support that that lacks a sound justification. So there is no way a theist or agnostic can honestly assess to know, it’s like you saying you without looking can affirm what is in box A compared to box B. You nor anyone can honestly know anything get it the god term (asserted unknown box you have not looked inside, nor an you: thus you cannot claim anything is inside the hypothetical available posable attributes) you and others see as something is an unjustified list of things added without justification thus you don’t know nor can anyone justify claim knowing what should be added removed fro a possible god term, not one, one attribute, nothing… and each peace anyone wishes to add must be justified. All terms are empty of reality anything unless justified, there is nothing to add to justify the term god after doing so I will create a justifiably offered concept of a god something. What else do you have as a justification if you are a theist or an agnostic available something to assert?
I am all ears? It is nothing that I have to know other than the term god is offered without justifying anything in the term deserves to be in the term. Is god, hod fod, nod, who knows its just letters put together, is this unknown whatever a woman, man, tansgender, or intersex? Is god pink, black collarless? All claims to everything or anything and there is no such valid confirmation for anything wished to be added in the term god must be proven to intellectually claim to know them. No such thing has ever happened or could thus there is no justified thing called god, period. So, are an ignostic now and agree no one can justifiably claim to know anything about the term god but myth terms or descriptions? I don’t start with debunking the offered term god instead I wish to show the absurdity of claiming the term god has anything of value. I begin with an argument of presumptive value, prove the accurate values for anything you wish to define the term god I assert until this is done the term god and all connected ideas that appeal to the god terms meaning which had not even justifiably been defined. You can’t get any church to 100% agree on what a fod/god is or how they think or behave because there is no valid ontology to begin with before everyone gets to do that, not even one of all the famous theistic apologetics nor any reported theist in history at all are the same no it’s a shit show with ideas all over the place, all are a little different you know like myths.
By Damien Marie AtHope
Here is my external pages or content: Facebook Witter Page, My YouTube, My Linkedin, Twitter: @AthopeMarie, Instagram: damienathope, Personal Facebook Page, Secondary Personal Facebook Page, Main Atheist Facebook Page, Secondary Atheist Facebook Page, Facebook Leftist Political Page, Facebook Group: Atheist for Non-monogamy, Facebook Group: (HARP) Humanism, Atheism, Rationalism, & Philosophy and My Email: email@example.com