Welcome to My Blog

“Hammer of Truth” response to “Do you Believe in god?”

“Hammer of Truth” response outline to the question: “Do you Believe in god?”  With my “Hammer of Truth” Ontology (What), Epistemology (How) and Axiology (why) questions debate/challenge philosophy tools so people easily learn how to use Ontology, Epistemology and Axiology questions to remove errors and add accuracy. -I want to teach people that when they are asked, “Do you Believe in god?”  to ask What Do you Mean by god (an ontological question wanting a good ontology answer) then when they try and give an answer to explain or define the god term’s “thingness/attributes/qualities” which will likely fail, so we will have to explain that want is offered does not soundly explain or define a good Ontology answer of the term/idea of god, instead what is being offered is not a “good ontology answer” thus the god term being offered like all gods is not real or tangible,  ie “they need to be proved by the materialistic empirical detection or logical necessity, I mean it needs tangible warranted evidence that is provable as real and not some empty made up definition that is not real. -Then if they stand behind what they think is some valid evidence to explain or define the god term’s “thingness/attributes/qualities” we should ask “How Do You Know That” (an Epistemological question needing an Epistemology answer), Then when they try and give an answer to explain “how they know” which will likely fail, so we will have to explain that want is offered does not soundly establish and confirm knowledge, instead what is being offered is not a “good Epistemology answer”, thus the god term being...

Basics of my Methodological Rationalism Epistemology Approach

Basics of my Methodological Rationalism Epistemology Approach Epistemology: the theory of knowledge, especially with regard to its methods, validity, and scope. Epistemology is the investigation of what distinguishes justified belief from opinion. Ref   I generally follow the standard in philosophy JTB: Justified True Beliefs. 1. Knowledge as Justified True Belief 1.1 The Truth Condition 1.2 The Belief Condition 1.3 The Justification Condition   Justified / True / Beliefs   Justified?   To established justification I use the philosophy called Reliabilism.   “Reliabilism is a general approach to epistemology that emphasizes the truth-conduciveness of a belief-forming process, method, or other epistemologically relevant factor. The reliability theme appears both in theories of knowledge and theories of justification.” Ref   True?   For the true part I use the philosophy called The Correspondence Theory of Truth.   “The correspondence theory of truth 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.” Ref Beliefs?   For the beliefs part I use what philosophy calls The Ethics of Belief.   “The “ethics of belief” refers the intersection of epistemology, philosophy of mind, psychology, and ethics. The central is norms governing our habits of belief-formation, belief-maintenance, and belief-relinquishment. It morally wrong (or epistemically irrational, or imprudent) to hold a belief on insufficient evidence. It morally right (or epistemically rational, or prudent) to believe on the basis of sufficient evidence, or to withhold belief in the perceived absence of evidence. It always obligatory to seek out all available epistemic evidence for a belief.” Ref Knowledge without...

Why not Find Out if what you believe is True?

Why not Find Out if what you believe is True? What you were taught to believe, is it definable in reality, “i.e. does it correspond to something in reality” (an ontology question)? Is you were taught to believe, demonstrable to be true “i.e. does is it a justified, warranted. and fact rich belief” (an epistemology question)? Is what you were taught to believe moral “i.e. is it a Real Morality belief or a Pseudo Morality belief just cloaking unethical behavior “in moral wrappings”” (an axiological question)? Why not find out? Real Morality? Real Morality is referring to “ethics” we use in judging the behaviors in a social dynamic behavioral event or interaction and can only accrue in a social dynamic (social behavioral realm) as such all morality propositions removed from a social dynamic and which accrue only in a personal dynamic lack attachment to “Real Morality” referring to the social nature of “ethics.” In other words, if you are by yourself and do something only to yourself, it is neither ethical nor immorality; thus, doing a behavior that is only personal (a believed moral or otherwise) by yourself and only something to yourself, is amorality to everyone but that chosen person doing a behavior that is only personal. One can chouse to personally value some moral standard for themselves but because morals (the personal valued behaviors) as opposed to ethics (the interpersonal/socal valued behaviors; which there is business never business morals as ethics is about our social behaviors we can hold others to, whereas, morals are only something we can hold ourselves to). “The Hammer of Truth” Ontology, Epistemology,...

Rationalist through and through

Rationalist through and through I am so much a rationalist requiring valid and reliable reason and evidence that even if somehow a god was proven to exist that doesn’t mean all the unsubstantiated claims about it are to be believed without proof. As we all should reasonably follow the ethics of belief, thus, even a somehow proven god something, must prove everything they are saying. The rationale is not skepticism of beliefs it’s a rationalist call for accuracy and truth reached by justifiable beliefs supported by facts. Belief that is not justifiable is reckless, because unjustifiable beliefs are agreeing with unsubstantiated and/or unreasonable/ridiculous claims that are not supported by facts. Don’t forget taking a position “To Believe” without knowledge, proof, or even investigating and questioning is a violation to rationalism as well as the ethics of belief and it is almost guaranteed to lead to limitations or errors in thinking. What if an entity claiming to be a god was supernatural but not a god at all and only claiming to be a god? Or if they can prove they are a god that still would not be proof in and of itself that it was not just claiming to be a god that created the universe, a god like anyone would need to prove those claims before it would be warranted to believe. Faith is not a reasoned, be a rationalist willing to look and be a truth seeker. If I never look, I will always find only what I am looking for, which is, simply, nothing. However, if I truly seek truth, I may find more than...

Sexism in Islam? Face Covering: Religious Freedom or Religious Oppression

Face Covering: Religious Freedom or Religious Oppression?  First let me address that No one has “ABSOLUTE FREEDOM.” This is a common misconception surrounding the right to freedoms, that some right to freedom is never a “ABSOLUTE FREEDOM”, in fact, it’s a very important feature of freedom which seems to be little understood. The point is, THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS ABSOLUTE FREEDOM. Self-chosen modesty, I agree with and not some forced or coerced modesty even if it’s the head covering Shayla, Hijab, Al-Amira, Khimar, or Chador. Why do some Muslim women wear burkas? The Koran does not explicitly say you have to cover yourself in this manner. However, some islamic scholars argue that it is a religious obligation, particularly the more conservative factions within the muslim world. But even then there are many variations and interpretations. Though, some women may wear it because they strongly believe it is their religious obligation and some muslim husbands would tell their wives ‘please/you must wear the niqab, as I don’t want any other men to see you’ which is extremely possessive as well as, because of or in favor of Religious Oppression. ref “Damien, you can’t tell someone how to express their faith because women have a right to religious freedom including to use a face covering if they so choose.” – Questioner My response, “we can state our opinion and the facts of its oppression. Covering women’s faces especially under force is oppression. I have not told anyone what to do but will tell everyone what I think. The debate about the veil covering ones face in public involves the public, as in I don’t think any person should be...

The Disproof Atheism Society: EMPIRICAL, CONCEPTUAL, and DISPROOFS of gOD

The Disproof Atheism Society Disproof atheism is disbelief in the existence of God based on a comprehensive critique of proofs of God’s existence and a growing web of empirical and conceptual disproofs of God’s existence. This growing web of disproofs: addresses a variety of concepts of God held by major religions and leading theologians, demonstrates that each of these concepts of God not only contradicts empirical facts and scientific theories but is self-contradictory, and provides an ever more formidable cumulative case against the existence of God.   The Disproof Atheism Society, founded in 1994: — is an independent, Boston-based, worldwide network of people interested in logic, science, and analytic philosophy who support the development of disproof atheism. — holds monthly talks, discussions, and other events (with a safe zone  policy), usually at Boston University and often with a featured speaker. — hosted in 2010 the first-ever Disproof Atheism Conference, an all-day  academic conference focused on conceptual disproofs of God. — provides resources and references on disproof atheism. For additional information on the The Disproof Atheism Society, please contact  info@disproofatheism.org. “The more we consider the theological God,  the more impossible and contradictory will he appear.”          — Paul Thiry d’Holbach, The System of Nature, vol. 2 (1770) EMPIRICAL DISPROOFS OF GOD 1. COSMOLOGICAL DISPROOFS 2. TELEOLOGICAL DISPROOFS 3. EVIDENTIAL EVIL DISPROOFS 4. NONBELIEF DISPROOFS      ============================ 1. COSMOLOGICAL DISPROOFS Disproof from the contingency of the universe  Nicholas Everitt, “The Argument from Imperfection: A New Proof of the Nonexistence of God,” Philo 9, no. 2 (2006): 113-30 www.pdcnet.org/collection/show?id=philo_2006_0009_0002_0113_0130&file_type=pdf Disproof from relativistic cosmology Quentin Smith, “Atheism, Theism, and Big Bang Cosmology,” Australasian Journal of Philosophy 69 (1991): 48-65 Reprinted in M.Martin & R.Monnier (eds.), The Improbabillity of God (2006),...