Spiritual Woo Woo, Trying to Make Magic of Reality.

Art by Damien Marie AtHope

Art by Damien Marie AtHope

Art by Damien Marie AtHope

Art by Damien Marie AtHope

Spiritual Woo Woo, Trying to Make Magic of Reality.

I was asked what are my thoughts on Spirituality?

A person to me: “Damien, I’m with you in the science side and nature. But what are your thoughts on spirituality?”

My response: Personally I don’t know what that means. I use to call myself a spiritual atheist but the more I learned the less I saw that as anything meaningful and was just my placeholder carry over word from my religious past. What I meant by it was I say value and meandering in the world. Those things where connect in some way. I now have a nonreligious word that states this and is more substantive and beneficially descriptive. Axiology or Axiological. Which stands for value theory or value science. And I call myself an Axiological Atheist. But its more than just that value is also a morality and humanistic motivation for my atheism.

A person to me: “Pretty good. Maybe spirituality is just being conscious of morals and reality. Just wondered where you stood on it. I still pray. (learned behavior i guess). Thanks for the reply.”

My response: I believe in you and you should believe in you.

A person to me: “Right on, thanks.”

My response: I can send you a link about Axiological Atheism if you want.

A person to me: “Alright cool.”

My response: Link

Damien, What’s Worse Christians or Spiritual Non-religious?

Vague Theism or god Somethingism: just say NO

No, vague theism, somethingism or “ietsism” is not some Philosophers Stone of Theism removed from strong critique.

Religion is an Evolved Product

I am not spiritual and its because it does not refer to anything meaningful to me and really I don’t know how I could utilize the concept of spirituality as to me it’s trying to make woo-woo of reality and I am a realist so that would not interest me. a made-up word attaching animistic somthingism superstitions wrongly to a naturalistic feeling of emotions thus people must remember that phenomenology is not always connecting to a genuine reality, it involves the concept of to people places or things we are highly emotional beings, in fact, we are so much this way we actually are almost alway emotionalizing and why is being mislabeled as some kind of magic feeling or feelings that are misinterpreted thinking they mean something they don’t. Personally, I don’t even know what that means in relation to reality. I use to call myself a spiritual atheist but the more I learned the less I saw that as anything meaningful and was just my placeholder carry over word from my religious past. What I meant by it was I say value and meandering in the world. That, things, were connected in some way. I now have a nonreligious word that states this and is more substantive and beneficially descriptive. Axiology or Axiological. Which stands for value theory or value science. And I call myself an Axiological Atheist. But it’s more than just that value is also a morality and humanistic motivation for my atheism. Someone once said to me but Damien, maybe spirituality is just being conscious of morals and reality. Just wondered where you stood on it. I still pray. (learned behavior I guess). Axiological Atheism Explained

“Damien, I saw that in one of your Facebook posts that you said you’ve done almost every drug. I’m wondering, have you ever done lsd or psilocybin mushrooms. And why do you think so many people claim to have had religious or spiritual experiences through them? Also, in your opinion what is a logical explanation to the fact that many people claim to see the same unique hallucinations while on them?” – Questioner

My response, yes I did do mushrooms in my past, and why I think most religious people claim to have religious or spiritual experiences is they add make-believe to “reality”, and the general “WHY” to me is because we are emotional beings that while we can employ the thinking strategy of rationalism over faith or unreason/illogical beliefs that follow we still appeal to emotionalism, not the other way around as we are not rational beings that who can employ the thinking strategy of emotionalism over faith or unreason/illogical beliefs that follow.

“Yes, I’ve always thought that the reason people see all the “sacred geometry” is that they’ve both seen the same things in their life. Many people say they see Mayan calendar type patterns. But I wonder if you took someone say from the rainforest who had never learned about ancient civilization or seen any of these patterns if they would see the same thing.” – Questioner

My response, well we are both complects and simple being, we like patterns just look at art this goes back like 40,000 years it’s nothing new: Shamanistic rock art from central Aboriginal Siberians and Aboriginal drums in the Americas

“Damien, I saw that in one of your Facebook posts that you just when on a short vacation to nature to relax. While you were on the trip did you ever feel emotions like that? That people would call God or something?” – Questioner

My response, well I enjoy life no magic needed.

“Yes but I’m saying during the vacation to nature did you ever consider that? Or do you not remember?” – Questioner

My response, to me, we are all emotional and experience emotional wonder but that is just the joy of being alive it’s wholly cheapened to me by fantasy daydreaming delusions (supernatural) to this wonderful magic devoid reality.

“Damien, what’s worse? Conservative Christians or won’t let their kid take sex ed or biology Or people who claim to be anti-religion, yet spiritual claiming a crystal can heal them?” – Questioner

My response, to me, your question is about the actual or possible harm and in this case, the harm of other out weights the issues of peoples possible self-harm so the most harm to me is easily the harm to others (the child) thus its the one where the kid cannot take sex ed or biology classes in school as that is direct educational/intellectual abuse. MEANING: Disrespect for another’s learning style, way of thinking or intellectual interests and educational needs for an advanced society to function and succeed in their future as an adult. This can involve ridiculing a child’s carefully thought-out ideas or devaluing a person’s educational/intellectual opinions/needs. Calling a child ‘stupid’ or ‘slow’ is another form of intellectual abuse.

“True. You ever think “This person might literally be incapable of logical, non-fallacious thoughts.” Because I’m trying to get someone to define what God is and it seems the only definition is synonyms or metaphors. I honestly feel spiritual hippy types are more stubborn than Christians.” – Questioner

My response, once in a while but not usually as I have a degree in psychology so I know it’s a choice they stay uninformed thus such people don’t know how to think and why I fight to teach people how to think. Well the so-called spiritual hippy types/whatever new age/new religious movement thinking they favor many seem to me from experience (doing atheist outreach at colleges) are more stubborn are somthingism (an unspecified belief in some higher force) believers and thus you have to address it differently than a regular theist.

“Somethingism I love that…” – Questioner

My response, well, Ietsism (Dutch: ietsisme (pronounced [itsˈɪsmə]) – “somethingism”) is an unspecified belief in an undetermined transcendent force. It is a Dutch term for a range of beliefs held by people who, on the one hand, inwardly suspect – or indeed believe – that “there must be something undefined beyond the material and that which can be known” than can be proven, but on the other hand do not necessarily accept or subscribe to the established belief system, dogma or view of the nature of a Deity offered by any particular religion. Some of the English language related terms are agnostic theism (though very many ietsists do not believe in one or more gods and are thus atheists), eclecticism, deism and spiritual but not religious. Ietsists might call themselves Christian or followers of an other religion based on cultural identification with that religion, without believing in the dogmas of that particular religion. In terms of statistics, this might influence outcomes when people are asked about their religion or beliefs without more in-depth interviewing. In some Eastern European censuses (Albanian, for example), those having ietsistic beliefs are counted as believers without religion. The name derives from the Dutch equivalent of the question: “Do you believe in the conventional ‘Christian‘ God?”, a typical ietsist answer being “No, but there must be something”, “something” being iets in Dutch. The atheist political columnist and molecular biologist Ronald Plasterk (who later served as the Dutch Minister of Education, Culture and Science and Minister of the Interior and Kingdom Relations) published a piece in 1997 in the magazine Intermediar in which he used the word. The term became widely known in the Netherlands after Plasterk used it in a feature for the television program Buitenhof. In October 2005, the word ietsisme was included in the 14th edition of the Dutch Language Dictionary Dikke Van Dale. Ietsism may roughly be described as a belief in an end-in-itself or similar concept, without further assumption as to exactly what object or objects have such a property, like intrinsic aliquidism without further specification. Other aliquidistic life stances include the acceptance of “there is something – that is, some meaning of life, something that is an end-in-itself or something more to existence – and it is…”, assuming various objects or truths, while ietsism, on the other hand simply accepts “there is something”, without further specification, detailing or assumption. In contrast to traditional agnostics who often hold a skeptical view about gods or other metaphysical entities (i.e. “We can’t or don’t know for sure that there is a God”), “ietsists” take a viewpoint along the lines of, “And yet it feels like there is something out there…” It is a form of religious liberalism or non-denominationalism. Ietsism may also be described as the minimal counterpart of nihilism, since it accepts that there is something, but yet, assumes as little further as possible without any more substantial evidence. Within ietsism beliefs are very diverse but all have in common that they are not classifiable under a traditional religion. Often concepts from different religions, folk beliefs, superstitions or ideologies are combined, but the ietsist does not feel he/she belongs to or believes in the dogmas of any particular religion. There is usually not a personal god who actively intervenes in the believer’s life and an ietsist can be an atheist at the same time. Some ietsists believe in an undetermined higher power or one of more specific theistic entities, others only in spiritual energies, souls or some form of afterlife. Ietsism often coincides with a belief in pseudoscience or paranormal phenomena such as acupuncture, angels, animistic deities and creatures, astrology, aura reading, chakras, clairvoyance, deities, elves, energy medicine, esoteric energy, ghosts, healing gemstones, homeopathy, karma or osteopathy. Ietsism also shares many attributes with similar viewpoints such as Deism and the so-called ‘God of the Gaps‘, whose origins lie more in questions about the nature and origin of the physical universe. It could be said that ietsism is ‘Deism for the spiritually-inclined’. As the ietsist will not have found any of the ‘pre-packaged’ gods offered by traditional religions satisfactory, each ietsist’s conception of spirituality will be different. This can range from the Judeo/Christian/Islamic concept of God as a force/intelligence that exists outside the world, to a position similar to the Buddhist “worldview”, with collective spiritual power existing within the world. Other ietsists will take a truly agnostic viewpoint – that the actual nature of God is totally unknown or unknowable. An opinion poll conducted by the Dutch daily newspaper Trouw in October 2004 indicated that some 40% of its readership felt broadly this way, and other Northern European countries would probably get similar rates. From a December 2014 survey by the VU University Amsterdam, it was concluded that the Dutch population has 27% ietsists, 31% agnostics, 25% atheists and 17% theists. As ietsists cannot be neatly classified as religious or nonreligious, ietsism is somewhat notorious for mucking up statistics on religious demographics. Hence labeling ietsists as either religious or nonreligious will tilt the demographic balance for those countries to either predominantly religious or predominantly nonreligious. ref

Here is an example of an Ietsism/”Somethingism” thinking:.

“Vague Theism or god Somethingism generally involves unjustified false ideas involving a rather unspecified belief in some higher force/being they may term “god something”

“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, and then it also cannot be suitable for the needed qualities that could fit what is generally labeled as the term 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….

And here is a blog that addresses this as well: Vague Theism or god Somethingism: just say NO

“Where do you get the energy for this Damien?” – Questioner

My response, where do you get the energy for this is I wish human flourishing and it is that love of humanity (focuses on universal ethics, human rights, humanitarianism, and development in the modern world and it is that where I get the energy for this. No matter what name they use they are some grouping of basically either Animists, Totemists or both with a possible sprinkling of shamanism and/or paganism. I will give you a blog on those: Animism, Totemism, Shamanism, and Paganism

Here is roughly how an ietsist “vague-theist or god-somethingist” may explain their beliefs: “they profess a feeling that there is or has to be something beyond us or naturalism, but they may not know what it is or even feel anyone can explain it they just think that they know it is real or is likely to be real “even if no evidence supports their claims. Even if they doubt or are unsure they still will hold some beliefs as to them there must surely be something. They have a hard time accepting that there is nothing and likely reject that naturalism explains everything or may think that nature must have something else because to them they just feel it must by so, it has to be so, they think they just know it somehow or in some way. Something to them is there beyond science that science missed, can’t yet see or may never be able to see but still they can’t strong this need to believe in something. They may not even know what that something is, but too them that is no deterrent for faith in this that there is something, of this “vague-theist or god-somethingist” that they are sure even if they are unsure.” And assuming that such ietsists, vague-theists or god-somethingists even bother to discuss their beliefs beyond loosely claiming them, or try to support them, such fideists or “faith-ism-ists” will likely cause both atheists and theists (and possibly agnostics to facepalm over the ietsists, vague-theist or god-somethingist‘s cobbled-together belief/faith thought confused processes and indecisiveness, or their indecision to get more information or most reasonably discard such undefined beliefs. An ietsist can frequently just be the infamous spiritual but not religious with a smattering of agnosticism, or vague-theist. Some such ietsist, vague-theist or god-somethingist believers like to utilize the power of theistic equivocation and the ambiguity of the word god. They often champion the term god as if it means something but when pushed often fall back to vague theism or somethingism, ie. “I feel there must be something,” so out of blind belief, I call it god. However, you have not found some philosophers stone of theism you only are appealing to misunderstanding, logical fallacies and double talk similar to conman manipulation.

The word “god” either means something coherent and defined, or it doesn’t.

*If it does mean something coherent and defined, one cannot simply “assign” or “remove” elements at will. Neither can one arbitrarily claim things demonstrate the word “god” or connect to the word “god” without valid reasoning for doing so or you are admitting it has no reasoning to be validated and thus is little more than some desired empty belief, acin to liking whatever you wish to like just because you wish to like it.

*If the word “god” doesn’t mean something coherent and defined, then you employing the word “god” in a way that removes its substance and falls back to vague theism or somethingism, which is like belief in an empty gesture or a fool’s gold belief looking like something of value but worth nothing. And if you are pushed such a fool’s gold god as anything real you are only appealing to misunderstanding, logical fallacies and double talk similar to a con man lying.

But all god claims seem to be tethered to mental manipulation of one kind or another as well as logical fallacies or internal or external contradictions to make their belief as a whole a meaningless arbitrary nothing belief in relation to reality.

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, thus attaining to such a thinker as a deserved the title of some believed magic something of which there is no evidence of magic anything of any kind? Thus, to assert magic anythings by its nature an unjustified as certain 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.

God: “antihumanism thinking”

God thinking is a superstitiously transmitted disease, that usually is accompanied with 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 of 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 make 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 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, ietsist, and vague-theists or god-somethingist believers?

I hear what all you make believe believers 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.

Overall, it should be understood that I don’t value the word spiritual.

It really means nothing to me. I went through a faze when I was working through understanding myself apart from religion I had lived my whole life.

So I use to say I was a spiritual atheist. That for me was lack of understanding how to use nonreligious words to explain how I felt. With the word spiritual, I wanted to say I saw meaning in the world, which people had value and I cared and wanted to live an ethical humanistic life. I now do not put value in the word spiritual as it has 20 meanings if you ask 10 people. Use of the word spiritual to me is just woo-woo trying to making magic of reality. I have a better word that is more accurate to my thinking “axiological/axiology especially formal or scientific axiology and this word does not have the religious baggage. I am an Axiological Atheist: Axiological to Atheist: is meant to denote an atheistic rejection of the existence of gods or supreme beings in favor of a “higher absolute”, such as humanity or universal ethical principles. Axiological reasoning as a form of atheism mindset favors humanity as the absolute source of holistic ethics and care values, and permits individuals to resolve moral problems without resorting to gOD. One value of holistic universal ethics being humanistic is mutual care and responsibility. In the absence of a supernatural caretaker, we know that the responsibility for improving this world rests where it always has – with the people who live, think, feel, and act in that world. Thus, no spiritual woo woo needed or wanted. If you think spiritual is true because you think that we have a soul or spirit check out: “My correspondence with a believer in souls”

And if you still think spiritual is true because you think that ghosts or spirits are true check out: “So are Ghosts Possible, Because Energy Does not Die? Well, NO!”

Moreover, if you can’t seem to stop believing spiritual is something true because you think developed a spirit in evolution check out:

If you think spiritual is true because you think humans have a spirit, because we may not be part of evolution check out: “Humans are Part of Evolution not a Special Creation” and Evolution is FACT!

To me, the term spiritual is a lingering connection to religious beliefs and Science Facts Should Make Religious Belief Impossible.

Wondering why I am so harsh on woo-woo ideas like spiritual and not just attack or challenge religion, well I Hate Religion Just as I Hate Pseudoscience.

Two Atheists philosophers: debate “spiritual”

To me, the term spiritual is a lingering connection to religious beliefs and woo-woo ideas like spiritual are not valid outside or myths. Extreme Religious Faith & Induced/Shared Delusional Disorder

Why we know, religions and gods are lies, is confirmed in my blog, “The Evolution of Religion and Removing the Rationale of Faith”, The Way of a Sound Thinker? or Battle For Evidence?

Stop Claiming to know god through intuition.

People who believe in a god, often do it because they claim to feel him or trust their inner knowing; which is claiming to have knowledge of god through intuition.

But think is intuitive thinking how you run the rest of your life or just the god question?

If just manly in the god question is that deserving of such a different way of being sure of things or is it just a way you have been told to affirm god is real when you have no evidence for that reality?

If you use intuitive navigation for determining things in life do you find this ridged as in never changing once you realize something with intuition it never changes?

Think if this is true intuitive thinking it is a thinking stemming from to main sources which are empathy and creativity both not fixed ways of thinking that seem would not fit a highly fixed religious mind set about god. So are you not then using a pseudo intuitive navigation system not from yourself but indoctrinated into you by others?

So does the tendency to think rationally which is also a internal way of knowing but not so highly effected by emotion a support for religious thinking and thus belief in god or a cause of religious doubt?

To find out, the researchers conducted a series of experiments with hundreds of people that triggered them to think analytically before answering faith-themed questions about things like their belief in god and the role that faith plays in their decision-making.

In an experiment, participants looked at artwork portraying either a thinker or a man throwing a discus. In another, in which people rearranged letters and words to form sentences, they saw either thinking-related words or neutral words. Yet another experiment asked people to read the religious-beliefs survey in a font that was either easy or hard to decipher.

No matter how the researchers primed the brain to think critically, people’s responses were less strongly religious compared to the responses of people who were not put in a rational frame of mind. The findings, suggest that the rational brain still an internal way of knowing is capable of undermining the intuitive brain in slight ways when it comes to faith. It’s important to note that across studies, participants ranged widely in their religious affiliation, gender, and race. None of these variables were found to significantly relate to people’s behavior in the studies. So it’s not reasonable to say intuitive god belief it is real intuitive navigation as a thinking style certain people are bound to or there would be vernation just like how not all people are highly creative or highly empathizing. An intuition only style about the god question is thus a chosen denial of rational thought (also an internal way of knowledge), it is a self-rejection of attaining all means of self-knowledge. Thus is a fraud pseudo intuition forced on you, not of self, it is an anti-self truth which can and should be rejected.

Intuitive abilities were quantitatively tested at Yale University. While studying nonverbal communication, researchers noted that some subjects were able to read nonverbal facial cues before reinforcement occurred. It was noted that highly intuitive subjects made decisions quickly but could not identify their rationale. Their level of accuracy, however, did not differ from that of nonintuitive subjects.

Intuition means different things to different people. To some, it refers to a sudden flash of insight or even the spiritual experience of discovering a previously hidden truth. In its more mundane form, intuition refers to a way of knowing and deciding that is distinct from and complements logical analysis.

The psychologist Daniel Kahneman nicely contrasts the two: “Intuitive thinking is perception-like, rapid, effortless. Deliberate thinking is reasoning-like, critical, and analytic; it is also slow, effortful, controlled, and rule-governed.” Real Intuition is not a bad thing for it can help us make good decisions without expending the time and effort needed to calculate the optimal decision, but shortcuts sometimes lead to dead ends. Kahneman received the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Science in 2002 for his work with the late Amos Tversky that showed how people often rely on intuitive heuristics (rules of thumb) rather than rational analysis, and how those mental shortcuts often lead us to make decisions that are systematically biased and suboptimal thus not truly a reliable means to claim knowledge.

Religion vs. Science
Don’t Confuse Beliefs

Science is a system where justified true beliefs that are derived from objective methodologies such as the scientific method and religion is a system of unjustified beliefs based on subjective faith or revelation. 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. Modern Science is not a thing, it’s a group of different specialties aiming to test (generally with the scientific method) and try to figure out the world as it presents itself in reality, which is devoid of supernatural magic.

We must not confuse beliefs, religion is beliefs from myths devoid of corroborating evidence or reason. Whereas, science uses as well as demands corroborating evidence and reason to establish what is true and that offers something worthy to believe in. Thus, we have a belief without valid and reliable warrant or justification, so it’s an issue involving religion believers violating the ethics of belief. Do you believe in god? What is a god? When someone asks me if I believe in gods I think, 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.e. the claims of gods. So, let’s recap, likely no religion follower is honestly going to stop belief because of lack of evidence or reason, or they would have already done so. Just as no science follower is honestly going to start believing something if it has a lack of evidence or reason. Remember, we honest thinkers need to adhere to beliefs in an ethical way, like exhibit good belief etiquette: reasoned belief-acquisitions, good belief-maintenance, and honest belief relinquishment. I can’t stand when people try to say that atheism and religion use faith. We atheists, have archaeology that proves religion is a lie, so no faith is needed. Moreover, We atheists, have science which shows that every mystery has ever turned out to be nature and not magic. There is nothing that the only explanation is magic or supernatural anything, so for religion it has no evidence at all. All religion has is faith without any proof and do not try to say that atheism is anything like that. Promoting religion as real is mentally harmful to a flourishing humanity. To me, promoting religion as real is too often promote a toxic mental substance that can divide a person from who they are shaming them for being human. In addition, religion is a toxic mental substance that can divide a person from real history, real science or real morality to pseudohistory, pseudoscience and pseudomorality. Moreover, religion is a toxic mental substance that can divide a person from rational thought, critical thinking, or logic. Likewise, religion is a toxic mental substance that can divide a person from justice, universal ethics, equality, and liberty. Yes, religion is a toxic mental substance that can divide a person from loved ones, and religion is a toxic mental substance that can divide a person from humanity. Therefore, to me, promoting religion as real is too often promote a toxic mental substance that should be rejected as not only false but harmful as well even if you believe it has some redeeming quality. To me, promoting religion as real is mentally harmful to a flourishing humanity. Religion may have once seemed great when all you had or needed was to believe. Science now seems great when we have facts and need to actually know. I proudly reject all gods and religions. It should be understood, that religion as well as its love of gods, must be seen 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. To me, a rational mind values humanity and rejects religion and gods as real until valid and reliable reason and evidence that passes scientific consensus that what is being offered is as it is claimed, so no belief without proof. A truly rational mind sees the need for humanity, as they too live in the world and see themselves as they actually are an alone body in the world seeking comfort and safety. Thus, see the value of everyone around them as they too are the same and therefore rationally as well a humanistically we should work for this humanity we are part of and can either dwell in or help its flourishing as we are all in the hands of each other. You are Free to think as you like but REALITY is unchanged. While you personally may react, or think differently about our shared reality (the natural world devoid of magic anything), We can play with how we use it but there is still only one communal reality (a natural non-supernatural one), which we all share like it or not and you can’t justifiably claim there is a different reality. This is valid as the only one of warrant is the non-mystical natural world around us all, existing in or caused by nature; not made or caused by superstitions like gods or other monsters to many sill fear irrationally.

Who knows what a “god-claim” really is?

Who knows a god rather they simply believe in a god claim they think they know on faith as if that is proof of anything but feelings. Be honest, who knows a what a god claim really is outside reality offered as an empty claim, as it’s all make-believe. I mean come on, you don’t know a god anything as you only remember the myths don’t you or you make up your own that are no better right? All I have ever hear are evidence lacking claims or misinterpreted nature claimed as being god or evidence of god but not one god claim ever is any truer than any others as they are all reality confused claims, yes most are quite dumb outright as not once has magic ever been proven, not even in small ways. So claims of super magic gods are thus even more ridiculous claims to believe right? I know what all god claims are, which is they are flawed conspiracy theories of reality.

You will always fail to prove a specific god?

Religion is big on claims but small of real reasoning. Take the Abrahamic faiths they propose a very specific well-defined god but are fond of a very unspecified god of naturalistic inferred theistic creationism or intelligent design. In other words when pressed to demonstrate god in the world or as the reason for the big bang they can only at best try and surmise a magical power or unknown and unknowable possible something as the “creator” but how does that do a thing to prove any specific anything. So even if we were to concede for the sake of argument that some god phantom menace started things they still have to show it’s their very specific claimed god. But the issues don’t stop there, as they also would have to prove or give warrant as well as justification for every attribute and claimed character trait attached to their specific god using only nature arguments, not some holy book or otherworldly revelation. The truth is for all the appeals to nature for god they do, and not one is valid in any way to confirm that their god and only their god is true, they must always leave the facts and return to faith. Thus they always will fail to show any naturalistic reasons for believing their special needs god. What they show instead is a belief not in the god of some myth or scriptures but belief in a projected somethingism god attributed to nature which is indistinguishable from a nothingism godless reality attributed by nature.

Do Beliefs Need justification?

Yes, it all requires a justification and if you think otherwise you should explain why but then you are still trying to employ a justification to challenge justification. So, I still say yes it all needs a justification and I know everything is reducible to feeling the substation of existence. I feel my body and thus I can start my justificationism standard right there and then build all logic inferences from that justified point and I don’t know a more core presupposition to start from. A presupposition is a core thinking stream that like how a tree of beliefs always has a set of assumed sets of presuppositions or a presupposition is relatively a thing/thinking assumed beforehand at the beginning of a line of thinking point, belief projection, argument or course of action. And that, as well as everything, needs justification to be concluded as reasonable. Sure, you can believe all kinds of things with no justification at all but we can’t claim them as true, nor wish others to actually agree unless something is somehow and or in some way justified. When is something true that has no justification? If you still think so then offer an example, you know a justification. Sure, there can be many things that may be true but actually receiving rational agreement that they are intact true needs justification. Remembering my past, it all goes back to such troubles, which were so dark as was my mind, it was like being dead while alive. I had made my life unclean with excessive or even exclusive concern, for myself, my own advantage, and relatively my own pleasure regardless of the welfare of others or with little concern for them. Limited in caring I looked only for me, me, me getting what I could take from life not what I could give and was almost drowning in selfishness and pain. Trying to have fun no matter the cost. I was left feeling worthless. I needed something for my insides felt empty. I was like a screen smeared with the darkness of selfness. My hearts tongueless words sang of my despair. My dark mind felt lost in a crowd. I needed to do something. It is as if my log lost empathy start to feel a call. Yes, I started to see past the mountain of me that strong and selfish tree. Something is changing. It’s as if my inner being has a mind of its own or it cries out for change. Bright life seems at hand by caring, to feel the connection not just with others but indeed a new and welcoming empathetic new me. I now seek that sweet day of caring connection and stop this night only selfishness bent on care of only me. My frozen shell shatters. It is hard to trust, but I must and seek others to help. I cried out, and listened to my need for change for the first time! I want to be more than my dark mind and self-limited life. I want to be my bright emotional wellbeing! Then joy springs forth in my every fiber mind and inner being. It’s as if I am on fire. Hope touch like a flame is was a soft breath that sets me free. I feel it, my bright inner thinking of love and care I now live in me adding to the freedom in the world. I may still have at times have a dark mind but have now created a bright life full of concern for the welfare of myself and others. I wish you to a bright life especially if you to suffer with a dark mind. However, when I was young I raged at the world, for abuse I received from my religious parents. Then I developed some, so I held my parents accountable, raging at them and the world; as so much was out there, like them. Then I fully developed and became an atheist, thus I started to see my parents were two different versions of christofascism (christian and fascism), as well as I saw that relatively all religions in some way are part of religiofascism (religion and fascism) especially how they often force hereditary religion of children by cursive force or oppression and I became an antireligionist atheist raging against religion as well as the lies of gods.

Religion and Science are Completely Different Epistemologies

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.

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

A basic outline of religious epistemology:

Religion: Culture/Testimony/ Myths/Scriptures/Revelation/Prophecies (arbitrary and unjustified way of coming to ideas or Idealism) + Mysticism, Supernaturalism, Spirtualism, or Theology (arbitrary and unjustified to form explanations, Idealism or misuse of Rationalism; often self-justified or even believe they are beyond a need for justification) – Denial of Relevant Alternatives and Basis (Fideism/Dogmatic Foundationalism/Pseudo-Skepticism/Anti-Rationalism/Anti-Empiricism or Anti-Skepticism) + Superstition, Falsehood, Misconception, Fantasy, or Delusion (unsubstantiated ideas and unjustified way of coming to ideas or Idealism) = Religion Reality Theory = Unjustified Untrue Faith Belief = Religion Faith or Beliefs as Knowledge = Unwarranted Psychological Certainty supportive of incorrectability

*being psychologically certain believing a truth does not mean that something is not actually false*

The Earth is approximately 4.6 billion years old, an estimate is that a terrestrial biosphere emerged as early as 4.1 billion years ago. Ref The earliest evidence for life on Earth is 3.7 billion years old from Greenland and 3.48 billion years old from Australia. Ref The earliest evidence for sexual reproduction first appears 1200 million years ago and may have increased the rate of evolution and kick-started or probably contributed to the evolution of sexual dimorphism (two sexes), where organisms within a species adopted different strategies of parental investment and what would later involve a reliance on caregiver compassion. Most plants, unlike most animals, are hermaphroditic (both male and female sexes) but approximately 6% of plants have separate males and females or have what amounts to serial sexual dimorphism. Most animals, unlike plants, are not hermaphroditic but approximately 5% are as well as some are sequential hermaphrodites in which the individual is born as one sex, but can later change into the opposite sex. Ref Ref Ref

Forget Survival of the Fittest: It Is Kindness That Counts

Moreover, we may never completely know when and why caregiver compassion in general or familial compassion specifically. However, the fossil record can, in principle, provide a glimpse and what we see is altruism and even levels of compassion are seen in a variety of species and Kin Selection (genetic), Familial (upbringing) or Familiars (chance) Compassion are the primary evolutionary mechanism. Ref The fossil record shows the arthropod “Kunmingella douvillei” 515 million years ago, arthropod “Waptia fieldensis” 508 million years ago, and arthropod “Ostracods” 450 million years ago to exhibit changes that played a key role in the early evolution of parental care. Ref 1.9 million years ago Homo habilis, the first of our genus Homo who appeared, with modest expansion of a language part of the brain and 1.8 million years ago Homo erectus appeared and had a larger expansion of brain beginning to be regulated as an emotion integrated with rational thought and seem to demonstrate forms of compassion such as caring of sick which represents an extensive compassionate investment. By 500,000 years ago Homo heidelbergensis developed language skills and intelligence and what seems to have been an upward march in the commitments to the welfare of others. And evidence from 120,000 years ago demonstrates modern humans were involved in compassion which was extended to strangers, animals, objects and abstract concepts. Thus we cannot think of survival of the fittest without realizing that the aspects of altruism, compassion, empathy, and kindness are part of what assists in that survival. Ref Ref

In general, all social animals (which includes humans and their evolutionary ancestors) have had to modify or restrain their behaviors for group living which involves interacting highly with other animals, usually of their own species. Social animals are cooperative animals adding to their evolutionary fitness in this solidarity and can roughly be said to exhibit one or more of these behaviors: cooperative sustenance, cooperative upbringing, cooperative generational living, cooperative defense, and cooperative learning. Ref

The Evolution of Empathy by Frans de Waal We tend to think of empathy as a uniquely human trait. But it’s something apes and other animals demonstrate as well, says primatologist Frans de Waal. He shows how our evolutionary history suggests a deep-rooted propensity for feeling the emotions of others. Ref

Compassion: An Evolutionary Analysis: What is compassion? And how did it evolve? In this review, we integrate three evolutionary arguments that converge on the hypothesis that compassion evolved as a distinct affective experience whose primary function is to facilitate cooperation and protection of the weak and those who suffer. Our empirical review reveals compassion to have distinct appraisal processes attuned to undeserved suffering, distinct signaling behavior related to caregiving patterns of touch, posture, and vocalization, and a phenomenological experience and physiological response that orients the individual to social approach. This response profile of compassion differs from those of distress, sadness, and love, suggesting that compassion is indeed a distinct emotion. We conclude by considering how compassion shapes moral judgment and action, how it varies across different cultures, and how it may engage specific patterns of neural activation, as well as emerging directions of research. Ref Human inclinations are not primarily selfish: kindness and altruism have been evolutionarily valued in mates, and even the youngest children often try to be helpful. Ref

“Understanding Religion Evolution: Animism, Totemism, Shamanism, Paganism & Progressed organized religion”

Understanding Religion Evolution:

Animism (Africa: 100,000 years ago), (Animism | Britannica.com)
Totemism (Europe: 50,000 years ago), (Totemism – Anthropology)
Shamanism (Siberia: 30,000 years ago), (Shamanism | Britannica.com)
Paganism (Turkey: 12,000 years ago), (BBC – Religion: Paganism)
Progressed organized religion (Egypt: 5,000 years ago), (Prehistoric Egypt 40,000 years ago to The First Dynasty 5,150 years ago)

“Religion is an Evolved Product”

What we don’t understand we can come to fear. That which we fear we often learn to hate. Things we hate we usually seek to destroy. It is thus upon us to try and understand the unknown or unfamiliar not letting fear drive us into the unreasonable arms of hate and harm.

What is a god?

If you think you believe in a god, “what do you mean by god,” saying a name tells me not one thing about the thing I am asking to know “its” beingness/thingness/attributes/qualities. Thus, what is the thing “god” to which you are talking about and I want you to explain its beingness/thingness/attributes/qualities? Religious/theistic people with supernatural beliefs often seem as though they haven’t thought much about and that is something we can help using ontology questions about the beingness/thingness/attributes/qualities they are trying to refer too. What do you mean by god, when you use the term god? And, I am not asking you for the name you attach to the thing you label as a god. I don’t need to know what the god you believe is known “by.” I am asking, what is the thing you are naming as a god and what that thing is, its qualities in every detail like all things have if they are real. Are you just making stuff up or guessing/hoping or just promoting unjustified ideas you want to believe, what is a god?

Do you want what is true or want what you believe without concern for what may actually be true?

I am not the thing abuse made, I am a shooting star blazing bright, shining far pass my past.

Religion and it’s god myths are like a spiritually transmitted disease of the mind. This infection even once cured holds mental disruption which can linger on for a lifetime.

“An Archaeological/Anthropological Understanding of Religion Evolution”

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?

As an atheist how can you claim human rights, Damien?

“If other human beings don’t ‘give’ you your ‘rights’ then where do they come from? If you mean the ‘rights’ enshrined in the Constitution then they are said to come from God (at least according to the Declaration of Independence). But you assert ‘rights’ that ‘all people deserve’ – according to who, and on what basis? Can we all simply assert ‘rights’ to which we claim entitlement for no other reason than we believe we ‘deserve’ them? Perhaps you could enumerate the ‘rights’ to which you think ‘all people’ are entitled and see whether ‘all people’ agree that ‘all people’ are indeed ‘entitled’ to (deserve) those ‘rights’? ‘Rights’ are a nebulous concept – see my book Freedom v A Tyranny of Rights. It may be helpful in understanding the hype surrounding these things called ‘rights’.” – Challenger

My response, You must have never read The Universal Declaration of Human Rights. “Article 1. “All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.” ref Moreover, human rights, to me, involve a proclamation/social-emotional awareness such as emotional/social intelligence (likely empathy motivated, whether cognitive and/or emotionally derived will generally be involved in such moral/social reasoning) to the self ownership due all people as a way to honor the dignity being they are and it is an eventual aspect in pro-social exchange in a social dynamic which is needed to positively navigate social actions with others in social groups. And What is a god? Stop claiming to know things you don’t know nor can rightly claim to know.

Art by Damien Marie AtHope

Art by Damien Marie AtHope

10478231_563991313709259_1355822719308044717_n

Art by Damien Marie AtHope

Art by Damien Marie AtHope

Art by Damien Marie AtHope

50626195_2231791236887767_8408273929398910976_n

Art by Damien Marie AtHope

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 one: Prehistory: related to “Anarchism and Socialism” the division of labor, power, rights, and recourses.

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!

Show seven: Paganism 5,000 years old: progressed organized religion and the state: related to “Anarchism and Socialism” (Kings and the Rise of the State)

Show eight: Paganism 4,000 years old: Moralistic gods after the rise of Statism and often support Statism/Kings: related to “Anarchism and Socialism” (First Moralistic gods, then the Origin time of Monotheism)

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.

Art by Damien Marie AtHope

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 reached 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 of the rise of the male god 7,000 years ago 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 mover 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 @Skepticalcory

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.”

Cory Johnston ☭ Ⓐ @Skepticallefty Evidence-based atheist leftist (he/him) Producer, host, and co-host of 4 podcasts @skeptarchy @skpoliticspod and @AthopeMarie

http://anchor.fm/skepticalleft

He needs our support. We rise by helping each other.

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.”