Don’t look for imaginary help!
What happens when you ask for help from an imaginary being? You get imaginary help. Lol
My correspondence with a believer in souls“
“Dead is Dead” no ghosts, spirits or souls…
“Damien, Hello! I went to University for biology and genetics, but it turns out the real research that I’m interested in is “how many people there are in the world” and “How many soul-existences there are in the world?” In my research, I’ve decided there cannot be more than 1 million people in the entire world who are a soul-existence, and that I am definitely one of them. For my question to you, I want to know how that I can prove that I am not an animal-human, and that I have a soul and existence that is supernatural and is protected by a God or a religion. How do I prove that I’m a soul-existence? Is there a medical test that can be done? How about a brain scan?” – Believer in Souls
My response, Hello back! I am an Ignostic Atheist: (Do you Have a Coherent Definition of god?) and don’t even acknowledge that the word soul, supernatural ever god has any real meaning outside of myths. Thus it’s like saying that you have a magical fairy living in you and you are just a meat machine it uses. It’s talking as if what is being claimed without evidence is involving real facts, when its just make believe. How do you know if, where, how, why the term soul entails and what valid method did you employ to establish such claimed knowledge, and is the method you have confirmed reliable in other non-magical claims? If it’s believed to be a justified method, how are you confirming that you are properly equipped to utilize it fully to trust what you think it could show?
“Damien, thanks for responding. As for the soul, I’ve been searching for the truth for many years now. I’m certain that the soul is real, as is immortality, but it’s not a christian thing and their whole religion isn’t really true. I have had about 3 supernatural experiences in my life, when something happened to me that couldn’t be explained by my scientific education. The most recent of which is a levitating leaf that was floating in my yard for over 2 minutes, and must have been levitated by something that was invisible, like a spirit or soul. I have pictures of that event and a youtube video I made of it. My understanding of a soul is that the existence of a person does not need to be tied down into a body, but could live forever in something much, much larger than a body, like a building or a habitat. It might even be that there are heavens on the Earth just for souls that have left the body, to live in an environment forever. However, despite all of my research on this over the past 6 years: I have to say that I have found very few other people talking about it, or proving it. It seems to me to be one of the most hushed-up topics in the world, and I can’t find similar minded people to discuss it with. *Ok I am going to break it down for you* “As for the soul, I’ve been searching for the truth for many years now. “ – Believer in Souls
My response, But the question is how are you looking a closed mind bent only on finding some proof to confirm what you have believed before the evidence gives you such warrant and rejecting anything that could discount your beliefs or a truly open mind willing to stay with the truth of the evidence even if it means you must stop believing? It sounds to me like you may be using confirmatory bias where new facts or information even reasonable ones, do not change thinking and only things that are acknowledged conform with one’s beliefs. And it sounds to me like you may be using correspondence bias where we unfairly or unjustly apply a double standard to the validity of a belief or piece of information, positively if we think supports our belief and negatively if not.
“I’m certain that the soul is real, as is immortality, but it’s not a christian thing and their whole religion isn’t really true.” – Believer in Souls
My response, Wait, you claim certainty but there are three types of certainty,
1. Psychological Certainty is deeply believing a thing to be true, however being psychologically certain believing a truth does not mean that something is not actually false.
2. Epistemic Certainty: 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.
3. Incorrectability/Incorrigibility: a belief can be certain in this sense without being incorrigible; this may happen, for example, when the subject receives a very compelling bit of counterevidence to the (previously) certain belief and gives it up for that reason.
*epistemic: relating to knowledge or to the degree of its validation* And, you do not have Epistemic Certainty of Souls…
“I have had about 3 supernatural experiences in my life, when something happened to me that couldn’t be explained by my scientific education.” – Believer in Souls
My response, Well, again, you don’t know they were supernatural you believe they were. 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
“The most recent of which is a levitating leaf that was floating in my yard for over 2 minutes, and must have been levitated by something that was invisible, like a spirit or soul.” – Believer in Souls
My response, So, the floating / levitating could be a demonstration of Bernoulli’s Principle. This principle explains how heavier than air objects like airplanes fly. Bernoulli discovered that the faster air flows over the surface of something, the less the air pushes on that surface. This in turn creates lower pressure. The air goes evenly around all sides of the outside of the object. Gravity tries to pull down while the pressure under from the moving air forces it up. All the forces acting on the object become balanced and things can levitate in mid air. Airplanes fly due to this principle. Air rushes over the tops of it’s wings. The fast moving air creates less pressure than the slow moving air under the wings. The greater air pressure beneath the wings generates upward force, or lift, that allows airplanes to fly. Now get out your leaf blower and do some flying toilet paper and floating leafs!
“I have pictures of that event and a youtube video I made of it.” – Believer in Souls
My response, Alright, here is a youtube video demonstration of Bernoulli’s Principle: https://vimeo.com/13647441 *just one of many natural explanations*
“My understanding of a soul.” – Believer in Souls
My response, Okay, where did you get this claimed understanding and what method did you use to validate or confirm it and why or how do you know the source is credible and not just wishful thinking.
“My understanding of a soul is that the existence of a person does not need to be tied down into a body.” – Believer in Souls
My response, Well, even if a soul was true for the sake of rational argument what proof do you have it can exist beyond the body? Not what you believe but what valid and reliable reason and evidence, as well as confirmed method, are you employing and what credible source is assisting you to say you know?
“but souls could live forever in something much, much larger than a body, like a building or a habitat.” – Believer in Souls
My response, And, you know this how? Moreover, even if a soul was true for the sake of rational argument what proof do you have it could live forever beyond the body? Not what you believe but what valid and reliable reason and evidence, as well as the confirmed method, are you employing and what credible source is assisting you to say you know?
“It might even be that there are heavens on the Earth just for souls that have left the body, to live in an environment forever. However, despite all of my research on this over the past 6 years: I have to say that I have found very few other people talking about it, or proving it. It seems to me to be one of the most hushed-up topics in the world, and I can’t find similar minded people to discuss it with.” – Believer in Souls
My response, I reject the idea of souls because Soul Theory = Unjustified Untrue Faith Belief = Magical Thinking Beliefs as Knowledge = Unwarranted Psychological Certainty supportive of incorrectability. (arbitrary and unjustified way of coming to ideas or Idealism). What Science Really Says About the Soul: http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/13-03-20/ Soul Theory and Skepticism, Science Versus Spirituality: http://www.humantruth.info/index_souls.html
- Religion vs. Science, Don’t Confuse Beliefs
- Hammer of Truth: Yes, you too, have lots of beliefs…
- Good Belief-Etiquette = Disciplined-Rationality (addressing The Ethics of Belief)
- Addressing The Ethics of Belief and Logical Fallacies
- I am a caring firebrand axiological atheist, wishing to be hard on ideas but kind to people.
- Caring Firebrand Axiological Atheist, Antitheist, and Antireligionist as a Valuized Ethical Duty.
- Addressing a Theistic Philosopher with Fallacious Thinking
Energy = god, spirits, and/or afterlife?
NO, and such thinking is misplaced animism magical thinking nonsense.
Which is more epistemically rational?
Believing that which by lack of evidence could be false or disbelieving that which by insufficient evidence could be true? Incapable of making a decision on if there is or not a god?
“Epistemic rationality is part of rationality involving, achieving accurate beliefs about the world. It involves updating on receiving new evidence, mitigating cognitive biases, and examining why you believe what you believe.” Ref
- Being Epistemically Rational
- Knowledge without Belief? Justified beliefs or disbeliefs worthy of Knowledge?
- Justifying Judgments: Possibility and Epistemic Utility theory
To me, the choice is to use the “Ethics of Belief” and thus the more rational approach one would be more motivated is to disbelieve, rather than “Believing that which by lack of evidence could be false”, otherwise you would accept any statement or claim as true no matter how at odds with other verified facts. The ethics of belief refers to a cluster of related issues that focus on standards of rational belief, intellectual excellence, and conscientious belief-formation as well as norms of some sort governing our habits of belief-formation, belief-maintenance, and belief-relinquishment. Contemporary discussions of the ethics of belief stem largely from a famous nineteenth-century exchange between the British mathematician and philosopher W. K. Clifford and the American philosopher William James. . In 1877 Clifford published an article titled “The Ethics of Belief” in a journal called Contemporary Review. There Clifford argued for a strict form of evidentialism that he summed up in a famous dictum: “It is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone to believe anything on insufficient evidence.” As Clifford saw it, people have intellectual as well as moral duties, and both are extremely demanding. People who base their beliefs on wishful thinking, self-interest, blind faith, or other such unreliable grounds are not merely intellectually slovenly; they are immoral. Such bad intellectual habits harm both themselves and society. We sin grievously against our moral and intellectual duty when we form beliefs on insufficient evidence, or ignore or dismiss evidence that is relevant to our beliefs. 1, 2
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.
I see the need for justification as part of the Burden of proof necessity and the rational requirement in the ethics of belief and these are Intellectual honest parts of good belief-etiquette
In my paper “Constructing a Comprehensively Anti-justificationist Position” I expound and endorse anti-justificationism and contrast it with justificationism. In that paper, on pp. 120–123, I summarise the key components of justificationism in seven theses; an overview of that account is included here.
| (1) | Knowledge is defined as justified true belief |
Bartley takes this standard analysis to be the unique determining feature of justificationism. Justificationists think this real definition of knowledge is important and many of them are seriously troubled by examples which show that it is flawed. (If you are unclear about the difference beween essentialist and abbreviatory definitions, look at my page on real and nominal definitions.)
| (2) | Knowledge is subjective |
The epistemological focus for justificationism is the knowledge that some individual or other has. There is, certainly, knowledge in this sense, but Popper has persuasively argued that it should not be the primary concern of epistemology; that should be objective knowledge.
| (3) | Knowledge is understood as being certain |
This has led many epistemologists to engage in what Popper, following Dewey, calls “the quest for certainty”. I write in my paper: “Anti-justificationists can have a lot of fun with any philosopher who claims that a particular class of statements or some specific proposition is certain and, therefore, immune from criticism, because, with a little effort, luck and creativity, it is possible to find a way of criticising any given statement.”
| (4) | Justificationists are much concerned by what counts as a justification |
In recent years the idea of justification has become increasingly important in analytical philosophy.
| (5) | Criticism is fused with justification |
Bartley was the first to realise this. He distinguished two ways in which such criticism can operate. In the first a theory is rejected if it cannot be justified from already justified statements and in the second a theory is rejected if it conflicts with justified statements.
| (6) | Some statements cannot be criticised |
A justification has to proceed from a collection of foundational statements that cannot themselves be justified logically. The collection of foundational statements, therefore, has to be thought of as being immune from criticism.
| (7) | Knowledge grows incrementally |
Knowledge is seen as growing in a non-evolutionary and non-revolutionary manner. This is because, if something is granted the status of knowledge, then, as it is certainly true, there is no way that it could turn out to be false. Once something is accepted as knowledge, it remains knowledge forever.
In my paper I also characterise anti-justificationism; if you click here this characterisation will open in a new browser window or tab, so that you can compare the two easily.
Reference
- Antoni Diller, “Constructing a Comprehensively Anti-justificationist Position”, in Ian Jarvie, Karl Milford and David Miller (eds.), Karl Popper: A Centenary Assessment, vol. II, Metaphysics, and Epistemology, [London, Ashgate, 2006, ISBN 0-7546-5376-5], pages 119–129. This paper was presented at the Karl Popper 2002 Centenary Congress; a PDF version of it is available on this website, as is the original abstract. Note that the title of the abstract is slightly different from that of the published paper.
Axiological Atheism not Nihilist Atheism
My quick definition of Axiology and Axiological Atheism?
Axiological Morality Critique of Pseudo-Morality/Pseudomorality?
As an Axiological Atheist, I wish for Human flourishing
Axiological Atheist “Damien” Live at 25 MeetUps: Atheist Reality TV
Explaining Axiological theism, Axiological agnosticism, and Axiological atheism
Axiological Dignity Being Theory
Interview of Formal Axiological Atheist Dr. William Kelleher
Axiological Atheism Morality Critique: of the bible god
Using Axiological Awareness to Assist in Argumentation.
Using a universal declaration of ethical principles to build a better world
I have questions for someone believing all morality is subjective
MORALITY: values, morals, and ethics
Quickly Grasping Naturalistic Morality
Think there is no objective morality?
Religions Promote Pseudo-Morality
Morality: all subjective or all objective?
True Morality Not the Golden Rule…
Real Morality vs. Pseudo Morality
“Theists, there has to be a god, as something can not come from nothing.”
Well, thus something (unknown) happened and then there was something. This does not tell us what the something that may have been involved with something coming from nothing. A supposed first cause, thus something (unknown) happened and then there was something is not an open invitation to claim it as known, neither is it justified to call or label such an unknown as anything, especially an unsubstantiated magical thinking belief born of mythology and religious storytelling.
While hallucinogens are associated with shamanism, it is alcohol that is associated with paganism.
The Atheist-Humanist-Leftist Revolutionaries Shows in the prehistory series:
Show two: Pre-animism 300,000 years old and animism 100,000 years old: related to “Anarchism and Socialism”
Show tree: Totemism 50,000 years old: related to “Anarchism and Socialism”
Show four: Shamanism 30,000 years old: related to “Anarchism and Socialism”
Show five: Paganism 12,000 years old: related to “Anarchism and Socialism”
Show six: Emergence of hierarchy, sexism, slavery, and the new male god dominance: Paganism 7,000-5,000 years old: related to “Anarchism and Socialism” (Capitalism) (World War 0) Elite and their slaves!
Prehistory: related to “Anarchism and Socialism” the division of labor, power, rights, and recourses: VIDEO
Pre-animism 300,000 years old and animism 100,000 years old: related to “Anarchism and Socialism”: VIDEO
Totemism 50,000 years old: related to “Anarchism and Socialism”: VIDEO
Shamanism 30,000 years old: related to “Anarchism and Socialism”: VIDEO
Paganism 12,000 years old: related to “Anarchism and Socialism” (Pre-Capitalism): VIDEO
Paganism 7,000-5,000 years old: related to “Anarchism and Socialism” (Capitalism) (World War 0) Elite and their slaves: VIEDO
Paganism 5,000 years old: progressed organized religion and the state: related to “Anarchism and Socialism” (Kings and the Rise of the State): VIEDO
Paganism 4,000 years old: related to “Anarchism and Socialism” (First Moralistic gods, then the Origin time of Monotheism): VIEDO
I do not hate simply because I challenge and expose myths or lies any more than others being thought of as loving simply because of the protection and hiding from challenge their favored myths or lies.
The truth is best championed in the sunlight of challenge.
An archaeologist once said to me “Damien religion and culture are very different”
My response, So are you saying that was always that way, such as would you say Native Americans’ cultures are separate from their religions? And do you think it always was the way you believe?
I had said that religion was a cultural product. That is still how I see it and there are other archaeologists that think close to me as well. Gods too are the myths of cultures that did not understand science or the world around them, seeing magic/supernatural everywhere.
I personally think there is a goddess and not enough evidence to support a male god at Çatalhöyük but if there was both a male and female god and goddess then I know the kind of gods they were like Proto-Indo-European mythology.
This series idea was addressed in, Anarchist Teaching as Free Public Education or Free Education in the Public: VIDEO
Our 12 video series: Organized Oppression: Mesopotamian State Force and the Politics of power (9,000-4,000 years ago), is adapted from: The Complete and Concise History of the Sumerians and Early Bronze Age Mesopotamia (7000-2000 BC): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=szFjxmY7jQA by “History with Cy“
Show #1: Mesopotamian State Force and the Politics of Power (Samarra, Halaf, Ubaid)
Show #2: Mesopotamian State Force and the Politics of Power
Show #3: Mesopotamian State Force and the Politics of Power (Uruk and the First Cities)
Show #4: Mesopotamian State Force and the Politics of Power (First Kings)
Show #5: Mesopotamian State Force and the Politics of Power (Early Dynastic Period)
Show #6: Mesopotamian State Force and the Politics of Power
Show #7: Mesopotamian State Force and the Politics of Power (Sargon and Akkadian Rule)
Show #9: Mesopotamian State Force and the Politics of Power (Gudea of Lagash and Utu-hegal)
Show #12: Mesopotamian State Force and the Politics of Power (Aftermath and Legacy of Sumer)
The “Atheist-Humanist-Leftist Revolutionaries”
Cory Johnston ☭ Ⓐ Atheist Leftist @Skepticallefty & I (Damien Marie AtHope) @AthopeMarie (my YouTube & related blog) are working jointly in atheist, antitheist, antireligionist, antifascist, anarchist, socialist, and humanist endeavors in our videos together, generally, every other Saturday.
Why Does Power Bring Responsibility?
Think, how often is it the powerless that start wars, oppress others, or commit genocide? So, I guess the question is to us all, to ask, how can power not carry responsibility in a humanity concept? I know I see the deep ethical responsibility that if there is power their must be a humanistic responsibility of ethical and empathic stewardship of that power. Will I be brave enough to be kind? Will I possess enough courage to be compassionate? Will my valor reach its height of empathy? I as everyone, earns our justified respect by our actions, that are good, ethical, just, protecting, and kind. Do I have enough self-respect to put my love for humanity’s flushing, over being brought down by some of its bad actors? May we all be the ones doing good actions in the world, to help human flourishing.
I create the world I want to live in, striving for flourishing. Which is not a place but a positive potential involvement and promotion; a life of humanist goal precision. To master oneself, also means mastering positive prosocial behaviors needed for human flourishing. I may have lost a god myth as an atheist, but I am happy to tell you, my friend, it is exactly because of that, leaving the mental terrorizer, god belief, that I truly regained my connected ethical as well as kind humanity.
Cory and I will talk about prehistory and theism, addressing the relevance to atheism, anarchism, and socialism.
At the same time as the rise of the male god, 7,000 years ago, there was also the very time there was the rise of violence, war, and clans to kingdoms, then empires, then states. It is all connected back to 7,000 years ago, and it moved across the world.
Cory Johnston: https://damienmarieathope.com/2021/04/cory-johnston-mind-of-a-skeptical-leftist/?v=32aec8db952d
The Mind of a Skeptical Leftist (YouTube)
Cory Johnston: Mind of a Skeptical Leftist @Skepticallefty
The Mind of a Skeptical Leftist By Cory Johnston: “Promoting critical thinking, social justice, and left-wing politics by covering current events and talking to a variety of people. Cory Johnston has been thoughtfully talking to people and attempting to promote critical thinking, social justice, and left-wing politics.” http://anchor.fm/skepticalleft
Cory needs our support. We rise by helping each other.
Cory Johnston ☭ Ⓐ @Skepticallefty Evidence-based atheist leftist (he/him) Producer, host, and co-host of 4 podcasts @skeptarchy @skpoliticspod and @AthopeMarie
Damien Marie AtHope (“At Hope”) Axiological Atheist, Anti-theist, Anti-religionist, Secular Humanist. Rationalist, Writer, Artist, Poet, Philosopher, Advocate, Activist, Psychology, and Armchair Archaeology/Anthropology/Historian.
Damien is interested in: Freedom, Liberty, Justice, Equality, Ethics, Humanism, Science, Atheism, Antiteism, Antireligionism, Ignosticism, Left-Libertarianism, Anarchism, Socialism, Mutualism, Axiology, Metaphysics, LGBTQI, Philosophy, Advocacy, Activism, Mental Health, Psychology, Archaeology, Social Work, Sexual Rights, Marriage Rights, Woman’s Rights, Gender Rights, Child Rights, Secular Rights, Race Equality, Ageism/Disability Equality, Etc. And a far-leftist, “Anarcho-Humanist.”
I am not a good fit in the atheist movement that is mostly pro-capitalist, I am anti-capitalist. Mostly pro-skeptic, I am a rationalist not valuing skepticism. Mostly pro-agnostic, I am anti-agnostic. Mostly limited to anti-Abrahamic religions, I am an anti-religionist.
To me, the “male god” seems to have either emerged or become prominent around 7,000 years ago, whereas the now favored monotheism “male god” is more like 4,000 years ago or so. To me, the “female goddess” seems to have either emerged or become prominent around 11,000-10,000 years ago or so, losing the majority of its once prominence around 2,000 years ago due largely to the now favored monotheism “male god” that grow in prominence after 4,000 years ago or so.
My Thought on the Evolution of Gods?
Animal protector deities from old totems/spirit animal beliefs come first to me, 13,000/12,000 years ago, then women as deities 11,000/10,000 years ago, then male gods around 7,000/8,000 years ago. Moralistic gods around 5,000/4,000 years ago, and monotheistic gods around 4,000/3,000 years ago.
To me, animal gods were likely first related to totemism animals around 13,000 to 12,000 years ago or older. Female as goddesses was next to me, 11,000 to 10,000 years ago or so with the emergence of agriculture. Then male gods come about 8,000 to 7,000 years ago with clan wars. Many monotheism-themed religions started in henotheism, emerging out of polytheism/paganism.
Damien Marie AtHope (Said as “At” “Hope”)/(Autodidact Polymath but not good at math):
Axiological Atheist, Anti-theist, Anti-religionist, Secular Humanist, Rationalist, Writer, Artist, Jeweler, Poet, “autodidact” Philosopher, schooled in Psychology, and “autodidact” Armchair Archaeology/Anthropology/Pre-Historian (Knowledgeable in the range of: 1 million to 5,000/4,000 years ago). I am an anarchist socialist politically. Reasons for or Types of Atheism
My Website, My Blog, & Short-writing or Quotes, My YouTube, Twitter: @AthopeMarie, and My Email: damien.marie.athope@gmail.com