What Do YOU mean you don’t Trust SCIENCE?

What Do YOU mean you don’t Trust SCIENCE?   If you say you doubt science, I will likely address the problem you now are burdened with backup such an assumption or assertion first concerning that you have a valid and reliable method of organizing, theorizing, and knowing any proposition about or tied to something about or in the world accurately?   Because not until you do this can I trust what you are talking about? Never stop your thirst for reason and truth, I hope you are inspired to always think critically, ethically and emotively.   Religion and Science are Completely Different Epistemologies (Epistemology: from Greek epistēmē, meaning ‘knowledge’, and logos, meaning ‘logical discourse’) Some try to say that science and religion ear not that different saying they both use faith. This is utter nonsense, not only does science not use faith as a method for anything, religion and science are completely different epistemologies. Scientists reason differently than most nonscientists because of a standardized focus on scientific based reasoning and scientific epistemology. My basic outline of scientific epistemology: Science: Hypotheses (Rationalism/Deductive, Inductive, or Abductive Reasoning etc.) + Testing (Empiricism/Systematic Observation) – Checking for errors (Skepticism/Fallibilism) + Interpret/Draw a Conclusion (Rationalism/Deductive, Inductive, or Abductive Reasoning etc.) *if valid* = Scientific Laws (describes observed phenomena) or Scientific Theory (substantiated and repeatedly tested explanation of phenomena) = Justified True Belief = Scientific Knowledge = Epistemic Certainty supportive of correctability *being epistemic certainty is believing a truth has the highest epistemic status, often with warranted psychological certainty but it may not, neither is it a requirement* My basic outline of religious epistemology: Religion:...

Brave Thinker

A thinker who earnestly directs, analyses, and challenges their own beliefs is brave. For it is better to search not like one with a belief to prove, no, first one must drill down into the belief exposing any and all flaws and if there is be willing to address it and if needed remove it. And after doing so myself as a god believer, it was a difficult life choice leave Religion and all its thinking errors but I realized was more valuable. How would we act is the point, we where are different as Non-theistic and Non-magical beliefs is not unreasonable, rather it’s often an exhibition of intellectual honesty accepting the natural world as it presents itself, which is only natural, then why is that seen as so bad? Like, what if we leveled the full weight of reason in an intellectual honesty critique of our one”s own beliefs not leaving any free of rebuilding or...

Atheist, Antitheist, and Antireligionist

Atheist, Antitheist, and Antireligionist   I am an atheist (lack belief in or rejection of god$).   I am an anti-theist (rejection of or see theism as harmful, ie. belief in god$ or the concepts themselves as harmful).   I am an anti-religionist (rejection of or see religion as harmful, ie. all religion or religious philosophy is harmful including ones without gods).   This is not full definitions just quick...

Hell claims debunk gods?

Hell claims debunk gods?   This can be done once one applies the completion of critical thinking skills with an axiological atheist “argument from evil”, which are leveled as a way to expose how claims of hell debunk gods. This may be a kind of argument from evil but it is kind of applied backward so to say. As we know the creation of any hell would be evil, and any god that is attached to a hell belief, either debunks a good god, leaving only an evil god as that’s all one could be if hell is real. But this is also problematic as any evil god would not see any benefit is staying to all intents and purposes non-existent in the world we can know, or ever have direct access to find knowledge from. A malevolent god, I remind you would enjoy our full knowledge, as this would match the terrorist’s personality of a hell god creator which would be to Incite fear, as he would be better served in this only by demonstrating hell god existed. And thus, no hell god could exist, just as any similar sadistic planetary drowning god would see little value in creating any heavens either. Hell is a twisted idea, almost topping the moral monster god said to have created it Thank god they don’t exist. But all joking aside I would more rightly thank reason. As we no longer need stories about nature when we ourselves can do it by just going outside. Religion sells a fake product and the belief in gods is like a spiritually transferred...

FREEDOM in relation to group status

FREEDOM in relation to group status   To me, there is a confusion I see some make about the ontological nature of FREEDOM in relation to group status. They think it’s like being alone uninfringed by anything or anyone allowed to do anything. But how can you profess freedom, when you are alone and completely uninvolved with others when the freedom requested, is from the group, to begin with, whether or not one realizes it. So it is wrong to think that freedom is like being alone, rather a FREEDOM of this nature is found in the status of a group or in group dynamics where one individual still holds group sanctioned autonomy thus conceding some limit to one’s freedom rights where they interact with others freedoms. To me, freedom of the social engagement variety involves the reasonable acknowledgment of behavior bubbles of freedom restraint compared to the free flow of unhindered involvement with others freedoms. Social freedom in this way involves behaving in a group setting with freedom equally, which by nature has the internal limit to one’s free choice to do something such as violate the rights of another by something like hitting them just because that is how the puncher wanted to live their freedom rights. Which I am sure most agree is a violation of the social equity of respect of the freedom and dignity of others as fellow freedom holders. To conceive of social freedom as if it is like being alone one should stop and think this would mean everyone could do as they wished which would include violating the freedom of everyone...

Helping others can help develop YOU.

Helping others can help develop YOU. For instance, I am now quite informed on many subjects but this was not my original plan. I was very uninformed until 36 after I turned Atheist. My point is I don’t like science, including I don’t much like philosophy either ( I started learning about it in-depth around 5 years ago). I don’t like reading and I don’t like studying, I don’t like learning about Religion, I don’t like a lot of things that I have to do to fight theists and others think I do it because I wanted to. No, but I saw atheism needed me. So I decided to take on the challenge to help as much as I can, to me lives are on the line and also I wanted to make sure I helped to offer my best to make the world more humane if I can. And in doing so I myself have become more...