Philosophy to the Rescue: explaining Reason, Logic, Evidence, Truth, Certainty, Reality, and Science

My best Video talking about My thoughts on “Religion and Deity Evolution” with Questions and Answers

Believing in claims devoid of evidence (faith claims) are not the same as disbelieving in claims devoid of evidence (faith claims).

Faith in belief?

Faith is offered as the justification for belief. As seen in the statement I believe in god/gods because I have faith. The translation, “I am using faith (strong belief without or contrary to evidence) in place of facts.”

This “faith” instead of “facts” is a corner point of/in all magical, mystical, supernatural, and superstitious thinking or beliefs. Ones who are science-minded holding to objective methodologies such as the scientific method would be compiled by the ethics of belief to never put faith over facts, in fact, never use faith as a justification for belief at all, it’s safer.

What is labeled as personal religious belief never stays personal it becomes a mission to spread that same religious belief as an innate factor of the belief. And as rationalists, we often face a hard task to inspire others to change a belief due to reason and evidence against it, when they never required reason and evidence to get the belief in the first place.

Faith held as truth or reality is exhibiting a reason delusion, thus faith is a delusion of reason. Faith is being inspired to strong belief in that which by the lack of proof should inspire strong doubt. Faith creates a reason-blindness.

Here are some quotes exhibiting faith is a delusion of reason:

1.“Faith is to believe what you do not see; the reward of this faith is to see what you believe.” Saint Augustine 

(believing what you don’t have proof used to create a pseudo proof mirroring your believed wishful thinking is more like foolishness and exhibiting a reason delusion than a worthy style of belief verification)

2. “To one who has faith, no explanation is necessary. To one without faith, no explanation is possible.” Thomas Aquinas 

(having faith held as truth or reality not requiring any rational is confirming it’s not a rational derived belief or faith, and if lacking faith removes any valid explanation then the thing you have faith in is a wishful or delusion thinking a foolishness unworthy style of belief verification.)

3. “In faith there is enough light for those who want to believe and enough shadows to blind those who don’t.” Blaise Pascal 

(wanting to believe something is no measure of truth, such faith is the quality that creates cognitive biases, mistaken or delusional beliefs. There is no substance in faith but usually shadows pseudo assurance. Again want to believe wishful thinking over sound reason is more like foolishness than a worthy style of belief verification)

4. “Without faith a man can do nothing; with it all things are possible.” Sir William Osler 

(with faith you only gain emotionally invented certainty, pseudo assurance, irrational derived beliefs, and to say without faith’s inspired unreasoned strong belief one is lacking anything is a foolishness exhibiting a reason delusion of what is or can be truth and reality.)

5. “I would rather err on the side of faith than on the side of doubt.” Robert Schuller 

(Faith is a feeling so if you are trying to use faith as truth or reality what you have done is a reasoning error already, to doubt wishful thinking is a worthy attitude when belief verification has no substance.)

6. “Faith is daring the soul to go beyond what the eyes can see.” William Newton Clark 

(intellectual honesty should motivate the ethics of belief so you can only tell others or oneself how to see the reason in things that have reason, not motivate creating belief out of nothing or that which lacks all reason.)

7. “Faith is deliberate confidence in the character of God whose ways you may not understand at the time.” Oswald Chambers 

(to have which you admit is not understandable by reason is to have a delusion of reason.)

8. “Faith is a knowledge within the heart, beyond the reach of proof.” Khalil Gibran 

(to call faith a knowledge of anything more than knowing one has the emotion of faith is to promote a reasoning not just beyond the reach of proof but to exhibit a full reason delusion.)

9. “Faith is not belief without proof, but trust without reservation.” D. Elton Trueblood 

(if faith is trust without reservation one is confirming the emotion of faith is indeed beyond belief without proof, it can be a belief in spite of disproof, which is to have a delusion of reason.)

10. “Keep the faith, don’t lose your perseverance, and always trust your gut extinct.” Paula Abdul 

(faith at times maybe a wishful thinking gut extinct but that is not a way to validate properties in reality and certainly not a reliable methodology to know truth from falsehood. To think otherwise is a reason delusion.)

11. “Without faith, nothing is possible. With it, nothing is impossible.” Mary McLeod Bethune

(saying nothing is possible without faith or only with faith is exhibiting a reason delusion as faith is nothing but emotional thinking, unwarranted confidence or confidence built only on the desire to believe something not proven at all.)

12. “Faith is what someone knows to be true, whether they believe it or not.” Flannery O’Connor 

(to have faith in what you don’t even believe yourself is complete and profound unreason or at least a reason delusion.)

13. “Talk unbelief, and you will have unbelief; but talk faith, and you will have faith.” Ellen G. White  

(if you admit that faith nods nothing more that talking about it demonstrates you agree it is baseless and if all it takes to remove faith is talking doubt then what one has faith in is substanceless, thus exhibiting a reason delusion.)

The Faith Fallacy vs. Critical Thinking

The faith fallacy: is an impairment in critical thinking starting and ending with circular reasoning assuming they are right, such as the act of faith validating faith (Begging the question fallacy); makes jumps in logic that don’t follow logic (Non sequitur fallacy); questionable cause like proposing false cause and effect (Post hoc fallacy); incomplete evidence, suppressing evidence, or selectively uses facts a propaganda technique (Cherry picking fallacy).

And makes false or misleading comparisons (False equivalence or False analogy fallacy); overgeneralizes (Hasty Generalization or Faulty generalization fallacy) asserts that lots of peoples agree (Bandwagon Fallacy) asks for special treatment or a double standard, attempting an exception for faith (Special pleading fallacy).

The different applications of faith fallacy employed by religious faithists’ make faith a magical catch-all term projected as ‘hope’, ‘trust’, ‘commitment’, ‘confidence’, ‘belief’, ‘justification’, and ‘knowledge.’ Nevertheless, just claiming a thing is so, does not make it so.

Should one not ask why put faith in faith? Is faith in every form rational? Is faith in any form a reliable method for knowing the valid aspects of anything? We who are even a little rational would, and should, say NO.

In the intellectually honest accusation of valid and reliable truth, knowledge, or confidence in belief, faith as a method is about the most unreasonable choice one could make for it is like a carnival of clowns, faith you see compared to reason must always play the fool.

Contrary to the faith fallacy tactics of using fallacious reasoning to try to persuade blind faith, critical thinkers would try to persuade by offering relevant evidence and valid reasoning, that a conclusion is true or likely to be true.

Two Kinds of Certainty: Psychological and Epistemic   

There are at least two kinds of certainty in philosophy:  

*One that is the most common is Psychological Certainty, which people can rank from 0% to 100%. However, this has little to nothing to say about the truth in question and only tells what one believes.  

*The other is Epistemic Certainty, which is not based on percentages, it is about the soundness of a claim or argument. As in do you have the valid and reliable reason and evidence to soundly justify a claim or argument?

“The Philosophy of science is a sub-field of philosophy concerned with the foundations, methods, and implications of science. The central questions of this study concern what qualifies as science, the reliability of scientific theories, and the ultimate purpose of science. This discipline overlaps with metaphysics, ontology, and epistemology, for example, when it explores the relationship between science and truth. Although it is often taken for granted, it is not at all clear how one can infer the validity of a general statement from a number of specific instances or infer the truth of a theory from a series of successful tests. Some argue that what scientists do is not inductive reasoning at all but rather abductive reasoning, or inference to the best explanation. In this account, science is not about generalizing specific instances but rather about hypothesizing explanations for what is observed. As discussed in the previous section, it is not always clear what is meant by the “best explanation.” ref

Evolution Of Science at least by 5,500 years ago

The first evidence of science was 5,500 years ago and was demonstrated by a body of empirical, theoretical, and practical knowledge about the natural world. This was produced by would be scientists who emphasize the observation, explanation, and prediction of real-world phenomena. These Mesopotamian peoples began to attempt to record some observations of the world with numerical data which seemed to be taken for purposes other than for true scientific laws. ref

Click here for the Timeline of scientific thought

To me, Science is a multidisciplinary methodological quest for truth.

As early as 3,800 years ago, a concrete instance of Pythagoras’ law was recorded on the Plimpton 322, a Mesopotamian cuneiform tablet, which was possibly created millennia before Pythagoras did it. In Babylonian astronomy/astrology and possibly for religious reasons rather than science, records of the movements of the stars, planets, and the moon are left on thousands of clay tablets. Even today, astronomical periods identified by Mesopotamian scientists are still widely used in Western calendars such as the solar year and the lunar month. ref

Babylonian astronomy was “the first and highly successful attempt at giving a refined mathematical description of astronomical phenomena.” Using this data, they developed arithmetical methods to compute the changing length of daylight in the course of the year and to predict the appearances and disappearances of the moon, planets, and eclipses of the sun and moon. Only a few astronomers are known such as that of Kidinnu, an astronomer and mathematician who created Kiddinu’s value for the solar year and it is used in today’s calendars. ref

It is reasonably concluded that all subsequent varieties of scientific astronomy and if not to some extent, all subsequent endeavor in the exact sciences depend upon Babylonian astronomy in decisive and fundamental ways. Ancient Egypt made significant advances in astronomy, mathematics, and medicine. Their development of geometry was a necessary outgrowth of surveying to preserve the layout and ownership of farmland which was flooded annually by the Nile River. ref

The 3-4-5 right triangle and other rules of thumb were used to build rectilinear structures and the post and lintel architecture of Egypt. Egypt was also a center of alchemy research for much of the Mediterranean. In addition, the Edwin Smith papyrus is one of the first medical documents still existing and perhaps the earliest document that attempts to describe and analyze the brain: it might be seen as the very beginnings of modern neuroscience. ref

However, while Egyptian medicine had some effective practices, it was not without its ineffective and sometimes harmful practices. Medical historians believe that ancient Egyptian pharmacology, for example, was largely ineffective. Nevertheless, it applies the following components to the treatment of disease: examination, diagnosis, treatment, and prognosis which display strong parallels to the basic empirical method of science. Likewise, 3,550 years ago, the Ebers papyrus also contains evidence of traditional empiricism. ref

Three things are common in all religions: “pseudo-science,” “pseudo-history,” and “pseudo-morality.”

Religion has been a reason for violence and harm and at times a promoter of peace. Science does not need to fill the gap of religion. We need to remove it as it was always an abstraction not a realistic thing to being with. Not one thing religion offers that is thought of as good that cannot be done by persons not following any religion. 

Religion is Unwarranted Faith and Belief 

The problem with religion is unwarranted faith and belief. The problem of faith is as an invalid justification and the belief problem is holding unjustified false belief believing it is justified true belief. In epistemology, there is justified true belief, however, there is no justified true faith. Faith is what they try to use to skip the need for justification or to use faith as the justification for belief. So we must remove faith as it is not justified for the truth of anything and the problem left is belief. However, the belief we can solve for some willing to reason by teaching others what is and what is not a justified true belief.

Religious belief is Universal Acceptance, Surrender or Compliance

Religious belief although proclaimed as faith in something is more universal “acceptance”, “surrender” or “compliance” to something, such as one’s chosen religious-brand of Dogmatic-Propaganda, one’s culture/society, and/or one’s family. Religious beliefs often do not even try to hide universal “acceptance”, “surrender” or “compliance” to something they promote it as the ideal. In fact, religious faith is often suggested as a positive path of “acceptance”, “surrender” or “compliance” to achieve a virtuous life in which trusting is then defined as secure belief in god(s) or religion thus Dogmatic-Propaganda.

Fear strengthens religious belief as seen in a combat study.

“As combat was more frightening, the percentage of soldiers who reported praying rose from 42 to 72%.” ref

“In addition, another combat study reviewing combat veterans half a century later showed religion faith varied by their war experience and their positive or negative reactions to or about the war. As in ones who had a more negative experience and reactions to or about the war the more religious they were. Soldiers who faced heavy combat attended church around twenty percent more often if they claimed their war experience was negative, but those who claimed their experience was positive attended church over twenty-five percent less often. This highlights that those who try to say there are no atheists in foxholes are not forming an argument against atheism, but instead are forming an argument against foxholes (war) and how fear is a large motivator for creating religionists/fideists.” ref

Science is a system where justified true beliefs are derived from objective methodologies such as the scientific method and religion is a system of unjustified beliefs based on subjective faith or revelation. While scientists can agree upon the empirical nature of science, the steps from observations to law or theory are not without philosophical issues thus are beliefs.

But as I say they are justified true beliefs validated with reliability following reason and evidence to reach beliefs worthy to be called knowledge religion is not. The issue of word usage of belief is troubling for many science-minded thinkers who don’t get the epistemology consideration of words they mostly think of standard usage. 

In epistemology, knowledge is an epistemic property of belief, as in general when a belief is justified and true because of valid and/or reliable reason and evidence it is warranted to be called knowledge. Many people still think that ‘to believe’ has no connection with ‘to know’ believing this because it is thought ‘knowledge’ is derived from facts and ‘belief’ is derived without facts, so the verbs knowing and believing for many people, are, therefore, seen different.

Science, as we know it is not just an accumulation of facts or evidence from observation and experimentation it is also an interpretation which that can turn into scientific knowledge, scientific laws, and scientific theories. But it is this interpretation that reaches conclusions which are “accepted” as knowledge is saying epistemologically are a justified true belief which equals knowledge.

The most Base Presupposition begins in reason.

Reason is needed for logic (logic is realized by the aid of reason enriching its axioms). Logic is needed for axiology/value theory (axiology is realized by the aid of logic). Axiology is needed for epistemology (epistemology is realized by the aid of axiology value judge and enrich its value assumptions as valid or not). Epistemology is needed for a good ontology (ontology is realized with the aid of epistemology justified assumptions/realizations/conclusions). Then when one possesses a good ontology (fortified with valid and reliable reason and evidence) they can then say they know the ontology of that thing. Thinking is good and one claiming otherwise is indeed a person erroring in reason. Which may I remind you is terrible since the most Base Presupposition in our understanding of everything begins in reason.

So, I think, right (sound) thinking is reason. Right (sound) reason is logic. Right (sound) logic, can be used for mathematics, and from there we can get to science. And, by this methodological approach, we get one of the best ways of knowing the scientific method. Activating experience/event occurs, eliciting our feelings/scenes. Then naive thoughts occur, eliciting emotions as a response. Then it is our emotional intelligence over emotional hijacking, which entrance us but are unavoidable, and that it is the navigating this successfully in a methodological way we call critical thinking or as In just call right thinking. So, to me, could be termed “Right” thinking, that is referring to a kind of methodological thinking.

Reason is at the base of everything and it builds up from pragmatic approaches. And, to me, there are three main approaches to truth (ontology of truth) from the very subjective (Pragmatic theory of truth), to subjective (Coherence theory of truth), then onto objective (Correspondence theory of truth) but remember that this process as limited as it can be, is the best we have and we build one truth ontop another like blocks to a wall of truth.

Pragmatic theory of truth, Coherence theory of truth, and Correspondence theory of truth

In a general way, all reality, in a philosophic sense, is an emergent property of reason, and knowing how reason accrues does not remove its warrant. Feelings are experienced then perceived, leading to thinking, right thinking is reason, right reason is logic, right logic is mathematics, right mathematics is physics and from there all science.

Science is not common sense?

Science is quite the opposite of just common sense. To me, common sense is experience-related interpretation, relatively, as it generally relates to the reality of things in the world, which involves “naive realism” as well as possible psychological certainty and low epistemic certainty. Whereas, most of those who are scientific thinkers, hold typically more to scientific realism or other stances far removed from the limited common sense of naive realism. Science is a multidisciplinary methodological quest for truth. Science understands what is, while religion is wishing on what is not. Scientific realism sees external reality as described by science is what is REAL and thus TRUE with the highest epistemic certainty regardless of possible psychological certainty.

Getting Real with Logic

Logic is the result of rationalism, as what do you think gets you to logic if not starting at reason? I want to hear your justification for your claims, all the presuppositions you are evading to explain the links in your claims of truth. As it is invalid to just claim this without a justification for your professed claims and the presupposing you do to get there, that is not trying to use rationalism to refuse rationalist thinking. How are you making the statement and not appearing to what is the rationale behind it? If not, you must want to think “Logic is self-generating as valid” and this understood value is to you not reducible to reason? You are devoid of an offer of your burden of proof, first just try to keep up with the thinker’s responsibility to provide more than unjustified claims.

Logic is derived by axioms and thus using rationalism to validate them, think otherwise provide your proof. My Rationalism: is two things externalistic “scientific rationalism” a belief or theory that opinions and actions should be based on reason and knowledge rather than on religious belief or emotional response. And internalistic “philosophic rationalism” the theory that reason is the most base presupposition before all others, rather than simply trying to rely on experience is the foundation of certainty in knowledge. Activating experience occurs we then have thinking, right (methodological) thinking (critical thinking) is reason, right reason is logic, right logic can be used for math, right math in response to the natural world is physics, and from there all other Sciences, physics is the foundation for chemistry and chemistry is the foundation of biology. May reason be your only master and may you also master reason.

Religion vs. Science, Don’t Confuse Beliefs

A 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 epistemically certain, is believing a truth has the highest epistemic status, often with warranted psychological certainty but it may not, neither is it a requirement*

When you say “GOD,” what do you mean by god?

When you say “Proof of GOD,” Are you really asking me, What happened before the big bang?“What do you mean by god?”

What is really being asked is, what happened before the universe of naturalism we do know exists; hoping you don’t know so it leaves open the possibility for their gOD myth of choice. What is before the big bang, “I don’t know” but I am waiting for science to one day tell us all. But, much more humble is the acknowledgment that we currently don’t know. However, it’s only reasonable to consider that all the things before are natural as that is what the big bang produced, only naturalism. With the amazing world of science facts, all one after another disproving the faulty claims of gods and religions; we need to stop asking whether believing in gods or religion is rational, and instead start asking how strongly holding onto religious belief is even cognitively possible.

Science Facts Should Make Religious Belief Impossible 

What do you mean by god? 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”. 

What do you mean by god? 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 rule 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 to 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 that 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 a 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 use and define 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

Axiology is a philosophy (value theory) and a social (value science) science (formal axiology) mainly involving the “what, why, and how” of “value” the way epistemology approaches “knowledge” as in what is of value/good/worth/beneficial/ or useful? Why is the thing in question is of value/good/worth/beneficial/ or useful? How should the value/good/worth/beneficial/ or useful thing be interacted with?

“Damien, how do I know that I’m not in error?” – Questioner

My response, Have a valid standard; I value a good belief etiquette such as a reasoned belief acquisition, good belief maintenance, and honest belief relinquishment.

“Damien, you said science is searching for truth but most scientists would object to the word “truth”, btw.” – Commenter

My response, And I would explain why it is involving truth. Like evolution. Many scientists and philosophers of science have described evolution as fact and theory. A fact is a piece of evidence evaluated as truth. I am a rationalist, so, I am happy to correct the errors in thinking many atheists, agnostics, and skeptics may have, mainly because of the overconfidence in skepticism and the lack of a respect for the supremacy reason needed for logic which is needed to standardize validity.

Let the truth destroy all lies… 

It is said, that which can be destroyed by the truth should be, and being that religions are clearly full of lies, destroying the truth, that I joyfully look forward to the truth destroying these full of lies religions as soon as possible. Thankfully, I and others, are willing to help this worthy endeavor with an honest revolutionary gusto worthy of all valiant champions of truth, justice, and the way of reason. 

We, Truth Seekers Battle more than just god Beliefs 

One of the universal hallmarks of religion is a superstitious belief in supernatural beings or things and/or forces (AKA: animism-influenced beliefs). They can take a variety forms, importance, or application, which will differ but in some way are clearly found in basically every religion and are equally invalid and evidenceless as all magical thinking claims or beliefs. However, though the belief in gods (AKA: paganism influenced beliefs) needs the belief in such superstitions (AKA: animism influenced beliefs) to exist, alternatively the belief in such superstitions (AKA: animism influenced beliefs) does not need the belief in gods (AKA: paganism influenced beliefs) to exist. Therefore, we must fight more than god beliefs to remove the infectious belief, in such superstitions (AKA: animism influenced beliefs), one of the universal hallmarks of religion, in general. We must do so if we are to ever hope to attack religions at their core and if we ever hope to eradicate them fully.

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?

What do you mean by god? 

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 yourself 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. 

Quit Trying to Invent Your God From the Scraps of Science.

What religious in most of their arguments try to do, is to act as if they reverse engineer facts of reality, trying to prove a god something or other has to be the only way it could be the way it is. Of course, as an atheist but more importantly a supporter of science and the valid and reliable reason and evidence they work from I know religion is false. I know, the work of reverse engineering facts of reality has mostly been done and is being done by science which is why we know about the truth of evolution over creationism in the first place as well as the truth of reality that contradicts or completely challenges any argument the supporters of religion can offer.

I realize they are trying to reoffer thinking that is already reasonably been disregarded as the wishful thinking fantasies it always was. Science in an abstract sense replaces old ideas for new. Whereas, religion suppresses new ideas for old. Religion is not about truth; it’s about indoctrinated faith. Do you really believe that even if clear documents demonstrate that Jesus had said he was not god, that they would stop all Belief, not hardly as it’s not about truth?

Just like if clear documents proved Mohammed had said he was not really a prophet of Allah but only made it up, that they would stop all Belief, not hardly. So, again, I state it’s all about indoctrinated faith, not truth. If you are a religious believer, may I remind you that faith in the acquisition of knowledge is not a valid method worth believing in? Because, what proof is “faith,” of anything religion claims by faith, as many people have different faith even in the same religion? 

No, science CAN NOT be with religion as in religion needs science or appeals to the things of science as if they require their child-like myths and fantasy beliefs, whereas, science does not need or appeals to the things of religion. In fact, never was the answer religion was the answer rather it has been science removing the power of such religious inaccuracies. Science is a method to understand the world as it is, which is naturalistic only, not one shred of magic.

In fact, the scientific method assumes Methodological naturalism, because that is all that has ever been found and is the most likely thing that ever will be found. As religion is not intended to represent the world as it is but instead what it is not the stupid supernatural, which is the thing of fantasy, wishful thinking, and delusion. We must not confuse beliefs, religion is beliefs built from myths devoid of corroborating evidence. Science uses corroborating evidence to establish what is true and that offers something worthy to believe.

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

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