Supernatural? Think Again, Seeing Isn’t Believing

But, but, but… You Don’t Understand, I have seen the supernatural…
Nice thought but think again, seeing isn’t always worth believing, why? Because, our eyes, even our minds, tend to always play tricks on us.
According to Jason Fischer, who conducted the study published in the journal Nature Neuroscience while he was a doctoral candidate at UC Berkeley, your brain expects whatever it is you’re looking at to remain pretty much the same from one second to the next, and so it mashes together the image of the object as you’re seeing it now with the images of the object as you’ve just seen it. ref

So, if you say you have seen magical things, beings or places, I say remember seeing isn’t believing.

No, science CAN NOT be with religion.

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.

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-engineering 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 largely 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 has already been reasonably disregarded as the wishful thinking fantasies it always was.

An Ignostic or Igtheist Usually holds that the god debate is relatively pointless.

But don’t get it confused it’s not apatheism, because what is being said by saying it’s pointless, is not saying that debates don’t give people a chance to change. It’s more like saying that the argument will not really progress if you allow an offered god to be presented as real without even a credible source definition; because they can keep making it up or posture as if what is being offered as god attributes or qualities incoherent to both the reason and evidence in reality are somehow real. Moreover, that the question if a god exists always presupposes too much, not just with too little but with nothing at all…

If you really want other people to believe your-god you can, just have your god show up. Challenge yourself first, ask your god to show itself to you proving existence; before you tell others it is true or exists. I promise to believe in your god, only when and if it declares itself existent, by showing up. If your god cannot provide its existence to you, why would you think anyone else should believe in your god’s possible existence. But even if your god proving its existence could be possible, I would never worship your god. No worries though, as your god surely doesn’t exist. How do I know? Simply our god is not real and thus will never show up nor prove existence, just like all imaginary friends.

“Why do people think Religion is much more than supernaturalism and superstitionism when faith is the main thing offered instead of anything close to facts?”

“Damien, What makes you think a) faith is necessarily blind and b) no religion offers evidence?” – Challenger

My response, so some Religion has provided exclusive Evidence for the magic claims that have been proven by science in reality?

“Science can’t prove the existence of the laws of logic, nor the foundation of morality, nor the principles of philosophy. Science is a great tool within its reach. Don’t stretch it beyond its area.” – Challenger

My response, so you again agree with me that it is not available for proof thus you confirm that it is blind faith to believe. Religion and Science are completely different epistemologies I agree but this must be explained fully to see why only science and not religions are valid. 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.
The basic outline of scientific epistemology:
Science: Hypotheses (Rationalism/Deductive, Inductive, or Abductive Reasoning etc.) + Testing (Empiricism/Systematic Observation) – Checking for errors (Skepticism/Fallibilism) + Interpret/Draw a Conclusion (Rationalism/Deductive, Inductive, or Abductive Reasoning etc.) *if valid* = Scientific Laws (describes observed phenomena) or Scientific Theory (substantiated and repeatedly tested explanation of phenomena) = Justified True Belief = Scientific Knowledge = Epistemic Certainty supportive of correctability
*being epistemic certainty is believing a truth has the highest epistemic status, often with warranted psychological certainty but it may not, neither is it a requirement*
The 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*

“No Damien, I absolutely did not agree with that. I do, however, agree that you are using philosophy, which cannot be scientifically tested, to claim that anything beyond science is blind belief. Which includes your claim about science. I also don’t agree with much of anything in your meme. I’m sure some people use those methods, but most, and most religions don’t. The meme is not realistic.” – Challenger

My response, 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. 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.

“That is what you believe religion is, yes, but that belief is beyond the reach of what science can do. Your entire comment, actually, cannot be justified by science.” – Challenger

My response, ok, prove me wrong am waiting for if you have evidence that is valid and reliable, please?

“Illogical Damien. What you are doing is reversing the burden of proof: you are claiming that science and religion are at odds, but you have presented nothing but your opinion of how religion works. You claim that science is the only objective way to know anything, but you have offered zero scientific evidence to support that claim. I bear no burden at this time, other than to state your fallacies. Furthermore, you are going to need to define what evidence you think is valid and reliable. Note, if you try to claim empirical or material evidence only, I will require material evidence to justify that claim. I do my best to avoid blindly believing my own beliefs, please don’t ask me to blindly accept yours.” – Challenger

My response, the things I post prove my points in their thinking and believing behaviors all the time. Have you ever heard of “Fideism” religious always appeal to such thinking at some point, as they have no proof to offer only feelings about things they truly wish to be real but lack all proof, as if they have proof why have nonproof faith to offer? “Fideism – By Branch / Doctrine” is an epistemological theory which maintains that faith is independent of reason, or that reason and faith are hostile to each other and faith is superior at arriving at particular truths (see natural theology). The word fideism comes from fides, the Latin word for faith, and literally means “faith-ism.” You know the thing you appeal to when you don;t have justifiable facts but still want to believe like all religious claims of nonreality things as if they are real and then attack science and sound epistemic reasons for a given philosophy or thinking or its just blind belief built on nothing but faithism alone is it not? Think otherwise prove it, please? Here are two favorite logical fallacies of religionists and fideists and their Dogmatic-Propaganda:

Complex Question Fallacy and Appeal to Ignorance Fallacy, which is often used in tandem kind of like this, the universe had a beginning, and if god was not the power before the beginning of the universe you must explain what was. So if you cannot prove that god was not the power before the beginning or that god is not needed or does not exist, that means god was the needed power to create the universe and god must exist.

*The Complex question Fallacy is roughly when someone asks a question that presupposes something (often with loaded language or questions) that is not proven.

*The Argument from ignorance Fallacy is roughly acting that something must be true because it has not been, or cannot be, proven false even if it has not in any way ben demonstrated as true.

“Thank you for committing the avoiding the issue fallacy.” – Challenger

My response, religionists, and fideists promote Dogmatic-Propaganda whereas atheists and antireligionists mostly promote Disciplined-Rationality. Dogmatic–Propaganda commonly is a common motivator of flawed or irrational thinking but with over seventy belief biases identified in people, this is hardly limited to just the religious or faith inclined. Let me illustrate what I am saying, to me all theists are believing lies or irrationally in that aspect of their lives relating to god belief. So the fact of any other common intellectual indexers where there may be a right reason in beliefs cannot remove the flawed god belief corruption being committed. What I am saying is like this if you kill one person you are a killer. If you believe in one god you are a follower of Dogmatic-Propaganda and can not completely be a follower of Disciplined-Rationality. However, I am not proclaiming all atheists are always rational as irrationally is revolving door many people a believer or otherwise seem to stumble through. It’s just that god belief does this with intentionally. Disciplined-Rationality is motivated to principles of correct reasoning with emphasis on valid and reliable methods or theories leading to a range of rational standpoints or conclusions understanding that concepts and beliefs often have consequences thus hold an imperative for truth or at least as close to truth as can be acquired rejecting untruth. Disciplined-Rationality can be seen as an aid in understanding the fundamentals for knowledge, sound evidence, justified true belief and involves things like decision theory and the concern with identifying the value(s), reasonableness, verification, certainties, uncertainties and other relevant issues resulting in the most clear optimal decision/conclusion and/or belief/disbelief. Disciplined-Rationality attempts to understand the justification or lack thereof in propositions and beliefs concerning its self with various epistemic features of belief, truth, and/or knowledge, which include the ideas of justification, warrant, rationality, reliability, validity, and probability. Ref  Ref Religionists like to act as if it is they who are being persecuted when it is them forcing what and how they believe on others and asking stupid questions to atheists, such as, I do not understand why you cannot just let religion believers live and let live. I could say, I don’t understand why religious never has, nor ever will just live and let live. However, I already know why they are Dogmatic-Propaganda that wishes self-replication and oppression of those who don’t fall in line and thus every ethical rational thinker must see this as the enemy to a civil humanity that it is, has been and will continue to be if left unchallenged. Religion is Conspiracy Theories of Reality, Not Worth Believing In Religion is conspiracy theories of reality, not worth believing in. They are not harmless they are lies, full of pseudo-history and or pseudo-science. I know most know what pseudo-science is so I will just explain pseudo-history. Pseudo-history is a pejorative term applied to a type of historical revisionism. It purports to be history, and uses ostensibly-scholarly methods and techniques (which in fact depart from standard historiographical conventions), but is inconsistent with established facts or with common sense and often involves sensational claims whose acceptance would significantly require rewriting accepted history. Pseudo-historic will meet at least one of the following criteria:

  • The work uncritically accepts myths and anecdotal evidence without skepticism.
  • It has a political, religious, or other ideological agenda.
  • It is not published in an academic journal or is otherwise not adequately peer reviewed.
  • The evidence for key facts supporting the work’s thesis is: selective and ignores contrary evidence or explains it away; or speculative; or controversial; or not correctly or adequately sourced; or interpreted in an unjustifiable way; or given undue weight; or taken out of context; or distorted, either accidentally or fraudulently.
  • Competing (and perhaps simpler) explanations or interpretations for the same set of facts, which have been peer-reviewed and have been adequately sourced, are rejected or not addressed, contrary to the principle of Occam’s razor which favors a simpler and more prosaic explanation of the same facts. For example, the work may rely on one or more conspiracy theories or “hidden-hand” explanations.

Not only is Religion is conspiracy theories of reality, pseudohistory and or pseudoscience they also push pseudo-morality.

Real Morality vs. Pseudo Morality? Real Morality is behavioral and can only accrue in a social dynamic (social behavioral realm) as such all morality propositions removed from a social dynamic and which accrue only in a personal dynamic lack attachment to “Real Morality” in other words if you are by yourself and do something only to yourself it is neither moral or immoral. I hold the assumptions that to understand morality more fully we need to understand its synthesis and properties by emphasizing its relations to conceptual tools understanding motivation and behavior such as biopsychosocial model, Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs, Bronfenbrenner’s ecological systems theory, Kohlberg’s moral development theory and formal axiology interactions across multiple levels. Real Morality is an emergent aspect limited to a sphere of social dynamics (social) result in human progress and social evolution understood in mental processes of high cognitively developed beings (biological) with developed psychological quality of awareness (psychological) and the so-called moral facts and the values that support or motivate them is limited to the realm of possible harm psychological or physical (actual external world or experiential internal world). Pseudo Morality is seen when holy books or people “cognitively reconstruct” an inhumane idea or behavior to make it into something different from then it is, to something more moral than what it actually is. Or turn something highly immoral into something highly moral. One way to do that is to cloak the behavior “in moral wrappings” or “in divine authority” such as god hates gays, gays are evil, thus killing gays is doing good by destroying evil. This thinking is obviously pseudo morality as gays are not evil but killing them is evil and inhumane idea or behavior thus very immoral. The god justified immorality into what is then called moral is some of the most common pseudo-morality though political leaders and others in power tend to employ it as well. They all are using “pseudo-moral justifications” to describe something immoral as moral. True morality is not as simply as the golden rule… Yes, you heard that right as True morality is a valued behavior we do that interacts with others; it is not really related to what we do to ourselves. Which is why I do not agree with the so-called golden rule as it is what you don’t want do to others but this fails in that its focused on ourselves which is us focused and true morality needs to be other focused on what valued behavior we do that interacts with others. I say treat others the way they should be treated. People have self-ownership, self-rights, right to dignity, freedom, and equality. True morality is a valued behavior we do that interacts with others starting with the conception that people matter, they have worth and value, It is in this way they should be treated. First, I have heard it stated that Morality does not really exist. True, it does not exist in the way that it’s not a thing, so it does not in some tangible way exist any more than the feeling of fear or love exist, it’s an emotional intelligence awareness of the sensitivity to the appropriateness of actions and their potential outcomes.

“Thank you for attempting to push your dogma on me while avoiding the problem I already identified in your very foundation. I could list a number of other fallacies in your beliefs presented, such as begging the question, presuming the consequent, and hasty generalization, but I would prefer for you to stop proselytizing and to start engaging in rational discourse.” – Challenger

My response, you have not defended religion once with a fact of any kind but say I am the one wrong I accept reality as it presents itself and others are making the nonreality claimes but you feel I and not they is the one in error? lol

“Would you mind dealing with what I actually said, not what you invented?” – Challenger

My response, Here are just some of my facts you seem to ask for:

  1. Jews, Judaism, and the Origins of Some of its Ideas
  2. Ok, you seem confused so let’s talk about Buddhism.
  3. The Evolution of Religion and Removing the Rationale of Faith
  4. Did Neanderthals teach us “Primal Religion” 120,000 Years Ago?
  5. Stone Snake of South Africa: “first human worship” 70,000 years ago
  6. Prehistoric Egypt 40,000 years ago to The First Dynasty 5,150 years ago
  7. Fertile Crescent 12,500 – 9,500 Years Ago: fertility and death cult belief system?
  8. 12,400 – 11,700 Years Ago – Kortik Tepe (Turkey)
  9. Pre/early-Agriculture Cultic Ritualism
  10. 12,000 – 10,000 years old Shamanistic Art in a Remote Cave in Egypt
  11. 12,000 – 7,000 Years Ago – Paleo-Indian Culture (The Americas) 
  12. Sedentism and the Creation of goddesses as well as gods
  13. Gobekli Tepe: “first human-made temple”
  14. Catal Huyuk “first religious designed city”
  15. The Weakening of Ancient Trade and the Strengthening of Religions?
  16. Religion is an Evolved Product
  17. The Evolution of Fire Sacralizing and/or Worship
  18. Was the Value of Ancient Women Different?
  19. 9,000-8500 year old Female shaman Bad Dürrenberg Germany
  20. Kultepe? An archaeological site with a 4,000 years old women’s rights document.
  21. Connected “dolmen phenomenon” of above-ground stone burial structures?
  22. History of Drug Use with Religion or Sacred Rituals
  23. An Old Branch of Religion Still Giving Fruit: Sacred Trees
  24. Why do atheists spend so much time and energy on god and religion
  25. Religion is Unwarranted Faith and Belief
  26. Technological Advances in Evolution
  27. Animism, Totemism, Shamanism, and Paganism
  28. Paganism, Folk religion, & Ethnic/indigenous religion
  29. Canaanites and Israelites?
  30. Did a Volcano Inspire the bible god?

And you are still ignoring my asking for your proof, so I will give mine.

“Damien, this group isn’t for blind proselytizing. If you can’t talk with me about what I’ve actually said, then you need to find another group.” – Challenger

My response, you said science cannot disprove religion but archeology does so I am proving to you my statements are not unreasoned nor without evidence, I am still waiting on anything valid from you as If you are the one right I do want to know so if you have facts for religious magic claims I am eagerly waiting.

“False. That is not what I said. If you can’t get what I have said right, why would I think you got Kenneth Kitchen right? I already dealt with your blind reliance on Finkelstein on the other thread.” – Challenger

“That is his actual statement, if anywhere wondering and I will now more directly address all of the above with my disproving facts and more facts.”

My response, folk Logic: YOU CAN’T PROVE A NEGATIVE because you can PROVE A NEGATIVE. but from the link:  THINKING TOOLS: YOU CAN PROVE A NEGATIVE By Steven D. Hales (Professor and Chair Department of Philosophy Bloomsburg University Bloomsburg, PA) states that it is widely believed that you can’t prove a negative. Some people even think that it is a law of logic—you can’t prove that Santa Claus, unicorns, the Loch Ness Monster, God, pink elephants, WMD in Iraq and Bigfoot don’t exist. This widespread belief is flatly, 100% wrong. In this little essay, I show precisely how one can prove a negative, to the same extent that one can prove anything at all. There is also axiological/axiology (value theory/value science), a social science that does aid in morality. So science can add depth in or to the conceptions, understanding, and application of morality. Moreover, the Origin of Logics is Naturalistic Observation (like in the sciences). Prehistory of Logic? Valid reasoning has been employed in all periods of human history. However, logic studies the principles of valid reasoning, inference, and demonstration. It is probable that the idea of demonstrating a conclusion first arose in connection with geometry, which originally meant the same as “land measurement”. In particular, the ancient Egyptians had empirically discovered some truths of geometry, such as the formula for the volume of a truncated pyramid. Another origin can be seen in Babylonia. Esagil-kin-apli’s medical Diagnostic Handbook in the 11th century BC was based on a logical set of axioms and assumptions, while Babylonian astronomers in the 8th and 7th centuries BC employed an internal logic within their predictive planetary systems, an important contribution to the philosophy of science. So we have real-world origins such as sky observation in Babylonian astrology and land observation in Egyptian Geometry (from the Ancient Greek: geo- “earth”, -metron “measurement”). The field of astronomy, especially as it relates to mapping the positions of stars and planets on the celestial sphere and describing the relationship between movements of celestial bodies, served as an important source of geometric problems during the next one and a half millennia. In the classical world, both geometry and astronomy were considered to be part of the Quadrivium, a subset of the seven liberal arts considered essential for a free citizen to master. While the ancient Egyptians empirically discovered some truths of geometry, the great achievement of the ancient Greeks was to replace empirical methods by demonstrative science. The systematic study of this seems to have begun with the school of Pythagoras in the late sixth century BC. The three basic principles of geometry are as follows: Certain propositions must be accepted as true without demonstration; such a proposition is known as an axiom of geometry. Every proposition that is not an axiom of geometry must be demonstrated as following from the axioms of geometry; such a demonstration is known as a proof or a “derivation” of the proposition. The proof must be formal; that is, the derivation of the proposition must be independent of the particular subject matter in question. Fragments of early proofs are preserved in the works of Plato and Aristotle. Where do these laws of logic come from? If we want to get a causal explanation of the origin of logical laws (apart from posting them as fundamental to the universe), the proper way to understand their origin IS as derivative on rationality as developed by non-rational evolutionary means. Thus, in a way we could say laws of logic didn’t come from anywhere; these just are the rules of rationality as they can be articulated by explicitly rational beings. When rational beings came into existence by purely non-rational evolutionary processes, they came into being as following these rules. And then, at some later point in time, they became aware of themselves following these rules, and able to represent them explicitly. When we see there as being implicitly logically-governed behavior in nature, we interpret nature in accordance with the way we understand ourselves as explicitly logical. We think of the behavior of entities of nature as if they represented their rational behavior like we do, it is our way of explicitly representing the norms of rationality. These non-rational entities of nature don’t have the slightest clue what the laws of logic are. But they behave as we do, and that’s how “we” see them. We can only make explanatory sense of how “we” have become explicitly aware of logical laws by showing how we are the result of beings that evolved an implicit awareness of these laws. And yet, we can only understand our natural ancestors as having an implicit grasp of logic once we’ve garnered an explicit grasp of logic. That’s the only way we can make sense of them as actually following the laws of logic. The reason it is unproblematic for an explanation to conceptually (but not causally) presuppose that laws of logic are that we cannot hope to get out of these laws conceptually since they just are, the bounds of sense. When sense-makers like us naturally evolve this just is the way in which we must make sense of things. It’s is the essential structure of sense-making, so to speak. And since the explanation is a sense-making enterprise, and any coherent explanation will conform to sense’s bounds—the things we’ve come to describe as the laws of logic. RefRefRef

Here you go: An Archaeological/Anthropological Understanding of Religion Evolution

By the way, I do wish to thank you for this discussion it is fun. 🙂

Thoughts on Death: Christian turned Atheist

When I was a christian I was always wondering if my life was good enough to go to heaven and was always fearful of failure that I had not repented enough not to go to hell. There was always a terrorizing dread of the afterlife. Now as an atheist seeing all that afterlife talk as nonsense indoctrination control tactics by means of fear mongering and carrot waving. It’s no longer scary for me to think of death as you just stop being. It’s peace and while its the end for you, it’s not always the end in the minds of others for there we often live on. I am not worried about even that if I don’t live on in memory as I am trying to live on in dead. I want to live my life in a way that I strive to make a difference in the world for the better as much as I can. That is how I wish to live on, by the difference I can make. 🙂
If you say you doubt science, I will likely address the problem you now are burdened with backup such an assumption or assertion first concerning that you have a valid and reliable method of organizing, theorizing, and knowing any proposition about or tied to something about or in the world accurately?
Because not until you do this can I trust what you are talking about? Never stop your thirst for reason and truth, I hope you are inspired to always think critically, ethically and emotively.


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:  

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

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.”

Art by Damien Marie AtHope

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, My (free accesses) Patreon, My (free accesses) Patreon Blog & Short-writing or Quotes  My YouTube, Twitter: @AthopeMarie, and My Email:

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This