Trying to Reason with the Unreasonable takes Time and Consistency

My eclectic set of debate/discussion tools for my style which I call “Truth Navigation” (Techniques for Discussions or Debates) which involves:

*REMS: reason (rationalism), evidence (empiricism), and methodological “truth-seeking” skepticism (Methodic doubt) (the basic or general approach)
*The Hammer of Truth: ontology, epistemology, and axiology (methodological use of philosophy)
*Dialectical Rhetoric = truth persuasion: use of facts and reasoning (motivational teaching)
*Utilizing Dignity: strategic dignity attacks or dignity enrichments (only used if confusion happens or resistance is present)

Opposition to Imposed Hereditary Religion

When one states god belief what do you mean by god?

I am all ears? It is nothing that I have to know other than the term god is offered without justifying anything in the term deserves to be in the term. Is god, hod, fod, or nod, who knows its just letters put together, is this unknown whatever a woman, man, transgender, or intersex? Is god pink, black collarless? All claims to everything or anything and there is no such valid confirmation for anything wished to be added in the term god must be proven to intellectually claim to know them. No such thing has ever happened or could thus there is no justified thing called god, period. So, are an ignostic now and agree no one can justifiably claim to know anything about the term god but myth terms or descriptions? I don’t start with debunking the offered term god instead I wish to show the absurdity of claiming the term god has anything of value. I begin with an argument of presumptive value, prove the accurate values for anything you wish to define the term god I assert until this is done the term god and all connected ideas that appeal to the god terms meaning which had not even justifiably been defined. You can’t get any church to 100% agree on what a fod/god is or how they think or behave because there is no valid ontology, to begin with before everyone gets to do that, not even one of all the famous theistic apologetics nor any reported theist in history at all are the same no it’s a shit show with ideas all over the place, all are a little different you know like myths.

Art by Damien Marie AtHope

What’s the beginning of knowledge?

Asked (Mar 3, 2018)

Religious Believer responce, “Science points to God, and God points to science.” (a clear Tautology and Non sequitur)

“A non sequitur is a literary device that includes statements, sayings, and conclusions that do not follow the fundamental principles of logic and reason.” ref

“In literary criticism and rhetoric, a tautology is a statement which repeats the same idea, using near-synonymous morphemes, words, or phrases, that is, “saying the same thing twice” ref

My response, What is a god?

“A god is anything we (humans) place in front of – or takes the place of -the one true God. Could be; recreation, drugs, work, pleasure, atheism, etc.” – Religious Believer

My response, So you don’t know and yet you say it as anything real, just a catch all abstraction?

“Don’t know what? What is the question please?” – Religious Believer

My response, I first asked what was a god, then you seem to explain it as an abstract notion so I was asking why you make a nothing answer just an example of yet another claim, thus I was wondering if you are somehow not referring to the explaining of a real thing or being but rather you seem to talk about a feeling. So god is nothing real correct?

“I have no idea what that means. You can easily find out for yourself, however – if you have any doubts about God and His creation – including all of science. Simply look in to the complexity of a single cell and the complexity of the vast universe – this cannot be explained by mere random chance, or evoulition, or natural selection. Creation demands a Creator, intelligent design points to a Designer.” – Religious Believer

My response, I am asking what is a god? I have yet to hear from you more than answering my question with more abstraction claims not an answer. What is a god? Is it something real or just another nothing label used emotionally? Simply looking at a cell only shows you a cell. You are making it up as you go and have not explained the term god, rather only added more abstraction to the catch all term god. So what is a god beyond abstraction?

“Already answered for you. A ‘god’ is anything or anyone placed ahead of the one true God of the Bible. For example, sports, drugs, recreation, work, play, etc.” – Religious Believer

My response, If a thing takes faith to see that thing as real, one has already, without knowing it, admitted such a thing is not relatable in reality or one would just provide the valid evidence. Therefore, faith in questions of facts is simply a willful-ignorance placeholder for the lack of any real evidence or facts and thus equals the lack of a good argument.

“No, cannot make this stuff up. Examine the complexity of a single cell and examine the complexity of the vast universe. Neither can be explained by mere random chance, evolution nor ‘natural selection’. Evolution falls short of trying to describe things like; hemoglobin, flagellum cilia, any so many others. Please try and explain how nothing created everything in existence? That notion is preposterous and illogical.” – Religious Believer

My response, You seem fond of Tautologies, which in formal logic refers to a statement that must be true in every interpretation by its very construction. Redundancy is also a cousin of tautology, and boilerplate is a similar literary device used to reprint repetitive text.

“Tautology is either unnecessary elaboration (the Inland Revenue’s white-collarworkers), pointless repetition (pair of twins), superfluous description (Europe’s huge butter mountain), a needless appendage (weather conditions) or a self-cancelling proposition (He is either guilty or not guilty).” In rhetorical logic, it is an argument that utilizes circular reasoning, which means that the conclusion is also its own premise. Typically the premise is simply restated in the conclusion, without adding additional information or clarification.” ref, ref, ref

My response, What is a god? And I want a valid answer not a tautology.

“Science, archeology and philosophy all point to the God of the Bible. Hard to grasp or understand with all the preconceptions or ingrained biases. “ – Religious Believer

My response, So that explains nothing of what I asked you and so again, I will ask you, what is a god of any so-called holy book but all unjustified claims and more reality empty claims on the so-called God-something when they show nothing and even if it was true somehow, I am still asking what is it, then how is it you can claim to know this? And why do you believe in the unsupported claim of a god in the bible? Please explain what you mean by the statment, “god of the bible” as many people believe in the bible god differently? Explain but avoid the notion of abstraction surrounding empiricism (real facts of the world) and the problem of universals as if claims of god even the bible god are constant when they are not even in the bible. And actually, Archaeology Disproves the Bible

“Why do you believe the God of the Bible is an unsupported claim? Yes, people believe different things about the truth. For example, there are those who hold the flat earth notion. Does not make it true, however, does it? There is only one true God of the Bible, as opposed to the god of Islam, or the god of atheism. Lack of belief does not indicate truth or falsehood. Truth is independent of individual beliefs. You can believe, for example, that it will rain today. However, that belief does not affect the truth.” -Religious Believer

My response, And yet you have only provided unjustified claims I am waiting on some truth. God of the Bible??? So you also know the god of Islam? As if there is only one every bible believer believes, you are not adding your thought qualities you hold to about the god in the bible. Dating the BIBLE: naming names and telling times (written less than 3,000 years ago, provable to 2,200 years ago)

“Damien AtHope, I cannot help your willful blindness. The truth of God is readily visible…take your blinders off.” – Religious Believer

My response, Wrong, your willful avoidance of validating you claims is on you. Please provide a full description of god all bible god believers agree and then why that is accurate? You will not get by with empty claims upon empty clams and then act as if this is any kind of evidence. No, you sir hold the burden of proof and have as of yet only avoided doing so with intellectual honesty and rather use an employing of intellectually dishonest fallacies in logic and empty unjustified assumptions.

My response, The turbulent seas of denial are ever crashing like a tsunami of avoidance on your thinking shores. With minds of cognitive decadence and intellectual dishonesty, you seem to joyfully dive in swimming deep under denials dark waters to the safety of blind ignorance. Religions continuing in our modern world, full of science and facts, should be seen as little more than a set of irrational conspiracy theories of reality. Nothing more than a confused reality made up of unscientific echoes from man’s ancient past. Rational thinkers must ask themselves why continue to believe in religions’ stories. Religion myths which are nothing more than childlike stories and obsolete tales once used to explain how the world works, acting like magic was needed when it was always only nature. 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?

Art by Damien Marie AtHope

No God: No evidence, No intelligence, and No goodness = Valid Atheism Conclusion

No evidence, to move past the Atheistic Null Hypothesis: There is no God/Gods (in inferential statistics, a Null Hypothesis generally assumed to be true until evidence indicates otherwise. Thus, a Null Hypothesis is a statistical hypothesis that there is no significant difference reached between the claim and the non-claim, as it is relatively provable/demonstratable in reality some way. “The god question” Null Hypothesis is set at as always at the negative standard: Thus, holding that there is no God/Gods, and as god faith is an assumption of the non-evidentiary wishful thinking non-reality of “mystery thing” found in all god talk, until it is demonstratable otherwise to change. Alternative hypothesis: There is a God (offered with no proof: what is a god and how can anyone say they know), therefore, results: Insufficient evidence to overturn the null hypothesis of no God/Gods.
No intelligence, taking into account the reality of the world we do know with 99 Percent Of The Earth’s Species Are Extinct an intelligent design is ridiculous. Five Mass Extinctions Wiped out 99 Percent of Species that have ever existed on earth. Therefore like a child’s report card having an f they need to retake the class thus, profoundly unintelligent design.
No goodness, assessed through ethically challenging the good god assumptions as seen in the reality of pain and other harm of which there are many to demonstrates either a god is not sufficiently good, not real or as I would assert, god if responsible for this world, would make it a moral monster ripe for the problem of evil and suffering (Argument from Evil). God would be responsible for all pain as life could easily be less painful and yet there is mass suffering. In fact, to me, every child born with diseases from birth scream out against a caring or loving god with the power to do otherwise. It could be different as there is Congenital insensitivity to pain (CIP), also known as congenital analgesia, in which a person cannot feel (and has never felt) physical pain.[1]

My response, My friend, you now dishonor yous own character, please stop the intellectually dishonest empty rhetoric, when I have honorably, many times, asked for full details you now willfully avoid as all lairs or the uninformed do, which are you? Thus yet again, What is this god-something to which you refer and first be sure to be able to assess the validity of your claims?

“Theory of justification is a part of epistemology that attempts to understand the justification of propositions and beliefs. Epistemologists are concerned with various epistemic features of belief, which include the ideas of justification, warrant, rationality, and probability. Loosely speaking, justification is the reason that someone (properly) holds a belief. When a claim is in doubt, justification can be used to support the claim and reduce or remove the doubt. Justification can use empiricism (the evidence of the senses), authoritative testimony (the appeal to criteria and authority), or reason.” – Wikipedia

My response, 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? What is a 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.”

My response, 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? To me, the idea of god is not simply a myth, it a mental parasite feeding off your life, is like a mental prison concept, disemboweling you, and any religion that supports the concept of god(s), becomes like a controlling jailer to the mind of the god believer. What is love, if it is so cheap, that it is for wholesale to myths?

My response, To me, it is truly a sad thing, when you have people offer more love to an unknown and at best unproven thing they call god; not even evident in this world, over real people, even loved ones, which are known in this world. Sadly, all too often a mind full of god(s) myths have no appetite for reason. Faith is Not Evidence of Reality! Only “theism prefers faith over facts,” atheism, does not use faith and is only hindered if faith was added which it’s not even needed as theism is baseless by default. This is so as its claims are devoid of any evidence thus atheism is true. And let me explain faith as there seems to be a confusion. Faith is strong-belief (emotional confidence or psychological certainty) without evidence or contrary to evidence. I see all available evidence and not even one bit of it is supernatural and everything once believed to be magic turned out to be just natural no magic at all. To think that the belief in magic and the rejection of magic are equal is misunderstanding the evidence available, thus, is uninformed, unthinking, irrational, confused or lying.

My response, What do you mean by god? So, even though You may say terms like god(s), as if that term universally means anything, without a connected myth people believe in (appeals to faith Fideism “FAITH-ISM”: faith is independent of reason, superior to reason, or reliance upon faith alone in some (generally religious) chosen beliefs and not others, even if reason is valued). But you don’t believe in a know-nothing theism “FAITH-ISM”, do you? You only value reason and evidence, right? Now, be honest when you think of god the influences of some god myth come in your head not an unknown and unknown possibly god somethingism, a vague unjustified theistic possibility thing. And, whatever, people can believe it’s a god but even if one could agree with you, honestly that would at best only get you the vague unjustified god nothing as your possibility.

My response, Again, I ask you to explain fully what you mean by god, not the factless statement of belief in some undefined bible god? Not all people who say they believe in “gOD” agree on any of what they choose to agree on starts or completes a chosen god belief. Which should offer new possible ideas concerning why disbelief actually beats belief in a god something but just like there is no exact definition of a god concept existence, some stuff will hold a never-ending problem. Therefore, in trying to define or analyze chosen god belief styles in this way any may find some aspects that definitely hold reason to challenge, the differences in god belief attribution and god belief make up of this thing called god even in members of the same religion. The utter confusion of and about what others think amounts to or demonstrates what god myth should lead a reasonable person to conclude they all have or are currently making it up.

My response, There are no gods nor supernatural anything, think otherwise prove it with valid and reliable reason and evidence. To simplify, the general idea of “god” is likely derived from a man-made animistic assumption that nature contains magic thus a magic designer or controller called gods. Some people who are atheists were never theists. Therefore, I will as before ask what do you mean by god? Are you just making stuff up or guessing/hoping or just promoting unjustified ideas you want to believe, what is a god? What makes you think this naturalistic reality contains unproven magic or supernatural anything and how do you know that you are not in error? Do you truly want what is true or want what you believe without concern for what may actually be true?

“Facts are part of the science which points to God. Atheism requires belief that nothing created everything. That misconception requires belief that borders on the magical, and not based in reality.” – Religious Believer

My response, You seem quite confused about sound critical thinking or logic so I will try to explain it to you as simple as possible, Sir, do you not get that you have to first state what a god hypothesis can or would possibly entail and how you validated this purposed speculation with reality connected evidence that only leads to your god qualities beliefs. How can we assess your empty assumption claims on gods with no provided details with which to test the truth or falsehood of your unproven ideas on god possibilities.

“Damien AtHope, you can easily confirm for yourself the presence and existence of God. The evidence is all around you, no one can make you understand, as this is something you must grasp for yourself.” – Religious Believer

My response, You are not an honest thinker or debater I have repeatedly ask for a detailed description of your claim and this bullshit excuse is all you say over and over again like the person wanting to show they can’t answer honestly. You waist not just my time but your own with such unethical belief interactions.

“You are not making sense. God exists and the evidence and proof is all around.” -Religious Believer

My response, Sir, it is you, that has not made sense as you just restate bland assertions with no details and then say they are something which you have not once explained. You hold the burden of proof and that would take you offering valid details and how you validate this. What is a god all around us so when one smells shit is that god? How could you prove to me that the dog-shit in my yard is not god then, do you not get you have only made foolish claims and don’t even feel you must support them? if not then you d not desire truth.

“The burden of proof is the obligation on a party in a dispute to provide sufficient warrant for their position. When two parties are in a discussion and one makes a claim that the other disputes, the one who makes the claim typically has a burden of proof to justify or substantiate that claim especially when it challenges a perceived status quo. This is also stated in Hitchens’s razor. Carl Sagan proposed a related criterion, the Sagan standard, “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence”. While certain kinds of arguments, such as logical syllogisms, require mathematical or strictly logical proofs, the standard for evidence to meet the burden of proof is usually determined by context and community standards and conventions.” ref

My response, You clearly demonstrate how religious beliefs often don’t stay in the “belief” category, as if it is something chosen temporarily if needed or changeable if required. No, what is most common is that religious beliefs are completely infused to the person’s identity, thus it’s not what they believe it is more a factor of who they are. What this means is if they are later challenged and given reason to let the belief go this is largely disrupted because they and the belief are mixed with the person’s identity making its loss, not just a possible belief loss but a perceived personal identity loss. Faith is being inspired to strong belief in that which, by the lack of proof, should inspire strong doubt. Faith is the self-indoctrination process of coming to believe in unjustified belief. Here are some real facts n religion with references supporting their burden of proof in the link: https://damienmarieathope.com/2018/08/an-archaeological-anthropological-understanding-of-the-understanding-religion-evolution/

“Damien AtHope, again the evidence and the proof is readily available, and easily observed. You just need to remove your blinders.”–ReligiousBeliever

My response, What is a god? Character is not something you get by accident but you can easily lose it that way thus inspiring my desire to think and behave carefully. Just like caring for humanity should not be something you only do if it is not to hard or support equality if it’s convenient. One makes a choice to champion what is right because it is clearly demonstrable as what is right, knowing that to do so will take hard work and one is proud to do so because they have character. I see caring for humanity as an honor for the direct part I play in it. Again, what do you mean by god and are you really “ok” with just pretend or do you seek to truly know, such as are you ethical in your process of forming, developing and maintaining beliefs?

That conversation died (Mar 3, 2018) then the same Challenger commented on a new post (Jan 7,2019) which stated, godless because I think, humanist because I feel and anarchist because shit needs to change: (from the blog) “Yes, I am Actually an Atheist Anarchist“

“Damien, there is truth of God all around, from the simple single cell to the vastness of the universe. None of this complexity can begin to be explained by mere random chance, nor evolution or natural selection. Take your blinders off, please.”–ReligiousBeliever

My response, What is a god so we can look around for this empty claim of yours. I will explain it to you. The truth of ??? is all around, from the simple cell. What is ??? That you are claiming. Stating that something is, must involve what that something is. Use your mind.

“Damien AtHope, yes and it shows the truth of God!”–ReligiousBeliever

My response, “Yes and it shows the truth of ??? (just empty claiming that a “God-something”, claimed without any demonstration or what that is first)! What is a god?

“This question is already answered for you more than once, suggest you re-read previous posts. Very simply, a ‘god’ is anything, anyone which takes the place of the one true God of the Bible. For example, some people revere; sports, drugs, work, leisure/pleasure, atheism, socialism, and the list goes on. If you still have questions in regard, reference the 1st commandment.” – Religious Believer

My response, You are like a claim generator not once explaining what I asked. You don’t even seem to understand your complete error in not answering your burden of proof.

“The proof of God is readily visible, and available to anyone who cares to find out. Simply study the complexity of a single cell, to the vast universe. There are innumerous and immeasureable bits of evidence. One (anyone) without the preconceived notion or bias that…’there is no God’ will have an easier time with this. Cannot explain this any more clearly.” – Religious Believer

My response, How could you know what a god-something could be when you can’t define what a god is to find or locate it. And what about the cell leads to think it involves your thoughts on a possible God-something? Please offer full details not your continued unsupported claim after claim that are not proof of anything. Moreover, what about the universe do you think involves your term god?

“Believe in God because I think and know. Believe God because my feelings change, whereas He does not. Believe and trust God more than humans; even myself, because of who He is.“ –Religious Believer

My response, Did you read my blog so you can address what you agree or disagree so we can have a real conversation that goes somewhere productive then just spouting your beliefs randomly.

“Damien AtHope, nope not yet. Just spouting beliefs, same as you have posted.” – ReligiousBeliever

My response, I know we argued before and he could not even answer my question, “what is a god”

“Damien AtHope, easy answer, and so I’ll repeat for your understanding. A ‘god’ is anything, or anyone placed above the one true God of the Bible, as an idol. For some folks it’s drugs, or fame, fortune, or sports, or work, or atheism; non-belief, selfishness. A common root of most of this is pride, plain and simple. Most atheists may not even acknowledge nor realize that they need God, even to argue His ‘non-existence’; to even make a claim against Him.” –Religious Believer

My response, 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.

My response, 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?

“The meaning of the word ‘faith’ is often twisted to make it mean things it does not. In Christianity, faith is logical, being defined in Hebrews 11:1 as “being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see.” This is not blindly believing the impossible (which is how many Atheists define faith), but rather trusting the promises of God, whose past promises have all been fulfilled. I would classify Christian faith as part of the doctrinal dimension rather than experiential. On the other hand, Atheism requires ‘faith’ (using their own definition) that the laws of chemistry, physics and biology were once violated and life arose from non-life via chemical evolution.” -Religious Believer

My response, What is a god as it relates to your claims of a god itself? Rational thinkers must examine the facts instead of blindly following beliefs or faith. And, I understand faith more then you think. lol

Art by Damien Marie AtHope

FAITH is a mind splinted by reality confusion

My response, Why was faith so alluring from the start instead of just accepting the world as it is only natural? The understanding comes by seeing how primitive humankind were motivated by fear and misunderstanding which provides the impetus making them feel they just “had to believe” in some higher entity or beneficial type rituals to controlled things in their world and the unseen spirit universe they thought was all around them.

Extreme Religious Faith & Induced/Shared Delusional Disorder

Battle over Faith?

Fighting Faith

Faith is a Fool’s Errand

Truth Navigation and the fallacy of Fideism “faith-ism”

Faith Drunk thinking: Divine fallacy, Argument from Incredulity, and Argument from ignorance

Faith is Not Evidence of Reality

Dealing with Presuppositionalism, a school of Christian apologetics (Fascistic Fideism or “faith-ism”)

Fideism/Faith-ism (“faith-drunk-thinkers”)

Religious Faith as Evidence, is an Intellectual Reasoning Error

Faith is not Reason

The word FAITH?

Sound Thinkers don’t value FAITH

Fideism (faith-ism) is Theistic Reality Confusion

The Religious Faith Problem?

Scientific Thinking not Faith Thinking

The Evolution of Religion and Removing the Rationale of Faith

Faith? No, I Use Reason: Conjecture, Inference or Direct Evidence

My response, The bible and faith: Proverbs 1:7, promotes fear of god as the way to faith knowledge. Proverbs 3:5 promotes faith without understanding. Romans 10:10, promotes faith as justification. 1 Corinthians 2:5, promotes faith without human reason. 2 Corinthians 5:7, promotes faith without proof. And Hebrews 11:1, promotes faith as substance and evidence even if lacking both in reality.

Art by Damien Marie AtHope

Faith is delusional mind echoes

My response, Faith is a reason removed, nontangible, emotionally driven substance, stemming from a state of self-solace control born in the face of fear or knowledge egocentrism, as when one lacks understanding yet is claiming to understand. As 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?

“The term “Fideism” itself derives from fides, the Latin word for faith, and can be rendered literally as faith-ism.” Ref

My response, Saying I have faith in such a way as you do, sound like I hope not I know a fact and thus not making a valid truth claim. If you use faith as a truth support this is an error in thinking. As faith is not worth believing in as it is an option about a claim not any support for it.

“Damien, I do no have enough faith to be an atheist. The fool in his heart says there is no God. The fear (awe, reverence) of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom. Please, do not persist in your foolishness about God any longer.” –Religious Believer

My response, Wrong, a fool talks about beliefs and can’t reasonably demonstrate their truth and to ignore evidence that challenges your beliefs. 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. When two parties are in a discussion and one makes a claim that the other disputes, the one who makes the claim typically has a burden of proof to justify or substantiate that claim. 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.

My response, Theists like to claim I cannot see the truth of theism because I don’t have faith. This just sounds like a fideist, they think faith is better than reason or possibly even evidence. But faith is strong belief either without evidence or contrary to reason or evidence. Thus, in the acquisition of knowledge faith is not worth believing in and furthermore, if it takes faith to see a thing as real you’re admitting such a thing has nothing to do with reality. I believe in the power of reason, though it seems the religious chalanger cares little for supporting his empty assuming. Faith is an Empty Box with Nothing to Offer but Feelings.

“Damien AtHope, where do you suppose our (mankind) reasoning ability comes from? What element of evolution enable(s), or enabled self-conciousness and rational thought?“ –Religious Believer

My response, Well, to me, it’s survival adaptation like social bonding and it aids in survival benefit. We reasoned beginning to aid in social interaction, food gathering and safety behavior. We have a neuron–called a mirror neuron–could help explain how we learn through mimicry and why we empathize with others. So again, I answered your question now answer mine, what is a god?

“Already has been answered for you 4x, please go back and re-read the previous posts.” –Religious Believer

My response, No, actually, you have not ever fully explained what your god-something is, stating you believe a bible god tells me nothing as I want what you believe about that thing you think the bible god is and you have only stated with no justification that this or that relates to the term god you choose to believe. You know there is no universally accepted conception of what a bible god is, could be or what attributes and thinking this supposed god-something could be. I mean seriously, people don’t even hold universal ideas about lots of things claimed or stated in the bible and why there is over 100 English translations of the bible and around 40,000 worldwide different sects or denationalization of christains, so don’t act as if just stating something is in the bible as if the thoughts on that vary wildly. How we know evolution is true is many but let me just address DNA which is especially important in the study of evolution. The amount of difference in DNA is a test of the difference between one species and another – and thus how closely or distantly related they are.

“Damien AtHope, yes, already explained the difference to you 4x. Please go back and re-read.” – Religious Believer

Art by Damien Marie AtHope

My response, SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN “15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense. Opponents of evolution want to make a place for creationism by tearing down real science, but their arguments don’t hold up.” A fact, is a truth known by “actual” experience or observation; such as something known to be true, containing the ontological qualities needed. A fact something said to be true or supposed to have happened. To me “truth” is a value judgment we place as a label on what we believe is evidence. Thus, we should be compelled to validate the warrant to believe value judgment we label as “truth” is actually supported with valid and reliable reason and evidence. I am not just an Atheist (disbelieving claims of gods), an Antitheist (seeing theism as harmful) and an Antireligionist (seeing religion as untrue and/or harmful). I am also a Rationalist, valuing and requiring reason and evidence to support beliefs or propositions as well as am against all pseudohistory, pseudoscience, and pseudomorality. Faith is an invalid method to know the reality qualities of the world. Thus, every theory proposed from or with faith is equally invalid and since all gods and religions require faith at some point in the belief ownership process as or in place of evidence and/or valid reasoning about reality. Therefore, they are all automatically invalid due to the limitation of faith not being able to produce things into reality.

“This question of what a god is was already answered for you more than once, suggest you re-read previous posts. Very simply, a ‘god’ is anything, anyone which takes the place of the one true God of the Bible. For example, some people revere; sports, drugs, work, leisure/pleasure, atheism, socialism, and the list goes on. If you still have questions in regard, reference the 1st commandment.” – Religious Believer

My response, You are like a claim generator, not once have you rightly addressed you concept of the thing you call your concept of the bible god explaining is its attributes and qualities and other needed data to validate anything as a reality true thing which is what I asked. You don’t even seem to understand your complete error in not answering your burden of proof.

“Damien AtHope, the proof of God is readily visible, and available to anyone who cares to find out. Simply study the complexity of a single cell, to the vast universe. There are innumerous and immeasureable bits of evidence. One (anyone) without the preconceived notion or bias that…’there is no God’ will have an easier time with this. Cannot explain this any more clearly.” – Religious Believer

My response, How could you know what a god-something could be when you can’t define what a god is to find or locate it. And what about the cell leads to think it involves your thoughts on a possible God-something? Please offer full details not your continued unsupported claim after claim that are not proof of anything. So I am interested, please tell me what about the universe do you think involves your term god?

“The single cell must be constructed in a particular order to function. How does evolution, or random chance / natural selectiin explain this? With a complex design, requires a designer = God.” – Religious Believer

My response, No, that is not how logic works you can’t say look something I don’t understand, or think is amazing therefore god. Irreducible complexity (IC) is the idea that certain biological systems cannot evolve by successive small modifications to pre-existing functional systems through natural selection. Irreducible complexity is central to the creationist concept of intelligent design, but it is rejected by the scientific community, which regards intelligent design as pseudoscience. Irreducible complexity is one of two main arguments used by intelligent design proponents, the other being specified complexity and it’s not even reasonable.

“Which scientific community rejects irreducible complexity? Would this be the evolution-theory believing scientific community? Gee, no wonder.” – Religious Believer

My response, What you don’t get is evolution which is true could be completely wrong and that is not one bit of proof of your claims of gods. Evolution is about the facts we see everywhere in every thing. Your claim of a god first must establish what a god is to establish that any piece of evidence you want to claim connects to it. You have failed in doing this. You say ??? did ??? Because ??? You need to provide a sound rationale.

Creationism (pseudoscience)

Creationism is a Debunked Religious Conspiracy Theory.

My review of “Foundational Falsehoods of Creationism” by Aron Ra

Stop Putting Faith in Faith

Losing My Religion and MY Faith Addiction

Faith and the Three Stooges: bhagavad-gita, bible & quran

An End to Faith

“Damien AtHope, you are way off reality. Evolutionary theory is untrue, and unproven.” –Religious Believer

My response, No “real” philosophy or science respects the confused claims of believed complexity to a god. You are uninformed obviously as Evolution in proven in many sciences and your creationist nonsense was proven wrong in court. You don’t know this??? Teaching creationism in public schools is unconstitutional because it attempts to advance a particular religion. “Edwards v. Aguillard, 482 U.S. 578 (1987), was a United States Supreme Court case concerning the constitutionality of teaching creationism. Edwards v. Aguillard.” – Wikipedia

Ten Major Court Cases about Evolution and Creationism

How courts ruled on creationism and intelligent design

My response, Again what is your detailed “beingness” dimensions of the god-something you reportedly believe?

“That is most unfortunate. Maybe one day soon, the US public school system can begin to understand truth, in regard.” – Religious Believer

My response, As if you and your nonsense can even explain what evolution involves. You can not even explain the god you like to endlessly assuming yet never explain because you know you don’t know.

“Damien AtHope, evolutionary theory is already proven wrong.“ – Religious Believer

My response, Wow, not, you could not be more wrong as well as uninformed on the facts. It’s like 30 years and then some that creationist nonsense was rejected as it always should be. It’s unscientific myths.

“Sounds just like the theory of evolution.” – Religious Believer

My response, Evolution is change in the heritable characteristics of biological populations over successive generations. These characteristics are the expressions of genes that are passed on from parent to offspring during reproduction. Different characteristics tend to exist within any given population as a result of mutation, genetic recombination and other sources of genetic variation. Evolution occurs when evolutionary processes such as natural selection (including sexual selection) and genetic drift act on this variation, resulting in certain characteristics becoming more common or rare within a population. It is this process of evolution that has given rise to biodiversity at every level of biological organisation, including the levels of species, individual organisms and molecules. ref

“Sure…all someone has to do is present facts. Evolution, natural selection, and random chance that created everything from nothing is nonsense.” – Religious Believer

My response, Well speaking of facts the idea of what created everything from nothing is not part of the theory of evolution that is “Abiogenesis”, or informally the origin of life, is the natural process by which life arises from non-living matter, such as simple organic compounds. The transition from non-living to living entities was not a single event, but a gradual process of increasing complexity that involved molecular self-replication, self-assembly, autocatalysis and cell membranes. Although the occurrence of abiogenesis is uncontroversial among scientists, there is no single, generally accepted model for the origin of life, and this article presents several principles and hypotheses for how abiogenesis could have occurred. The classic 1952 Miller–Urey experiment and similar research demonstrated that most amino acids, the chemical constituents of the proteins used in all living organisms, can be synthesized from inorganic compounds under conditions intended to replicate those of the early Earth. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis

“There is truth of God all around, from the simple single cell to the vastness of the universe. None of this complexity can begin to be explained by mere random chance, nor evolution or natural selection. Take your blinders off, please. Damien AtHope, I have no desire to do a recorded video. Cannot see the purpose. No worries of looking foolish, especially not when discussing the truth of God. The fool in his heart says there is no God oh, and I’m not the fool here.” – Religious Believer

My response, You have not thought once in this conversation and never did you even explain what the god-something you believed in with reality necessary details to understand not you are am unjustified claim repeater, without ever being a true thinker. I only wish you to actually think for yourself and address with intellectual honesty what the god-think was to which you believe to convince anyone who was not a blind believer as you demonstrate yourself to be.

“Intellectual honesty is an applied method of problem solving, characterized by an unbiased, honest attitude, which can be demonstrated in a number of different ways:

One’s personal faith does not interfere with the pursuit of truth;

*Relevant facts and information are not purposefully omitted even when such things may contradict one’s hypothesis;

*Facts are presented in an unbiased manner, and not twisted to give misleading impressions or to support one view over another;

*References, or earlier work, are acknowledged where possible, and plagiarism is avoided.

*Harvard ethicist Louis M. Guenin describes the “kernel” of intellectual honesty to be “a virtuous disposition to eschew deception when given an incentive for deception”. Intentionally committed fallacies in debates and reasoning are called intellectual dishonesty.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_honesty

“Damien AtHope wrong, everyone as a measure of faith. The real question is what is your faith grounded in? The truth of God is the most secure foundation there is.“–ReligiousBeliever

Myresponse, Again? You are quite good at being wrong, I don’t use faith (the lack of evidence as if it is evidence) and you are wrong about that as some valued thinking strategy to validate beliefs like you and not everyone proclaims things they believe without facts or faith you champion this intellectually lazy type of thinking as if it adds to your beliefs so they like believing magic come true. So to state it once more, Wrong, wrong, wrong faith, is strong belief without evidence or contrary to evidence. I use reason: conjecture, inference or direct evidence no need for faith.

“Faith: firm belief in something for which there is no proof or strong religious feelings or beliefs.” http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/faith

My response, To me, faith is strong belief without evidence or contrary to evidence.

Conjecture: an opinion or idea formed without proof or sufficient evidence or a conclusion deduced by surmise or guesswok. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/conjecture

Inference: the act or process of reaching a conclusion about something from known facts or evidence. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/inferenceCaring Firebrand Atheist Activism

Caring Firebrand Atheist Activism

Art by Damien Marie AtHope

Protest theocratic theism and its Impacting oppression on atheist Human Rights

Religion Blinders?

Religious ideas, “even ones full of HATE,” while you are a Religious Believer, seem “not that bad at all”, actually, you often feel “righteous and honorable” in that hate, even may demonstrate glee at the horrific thought of others burning in hell reportedly forever.

Think about that, when “Religious Believers” say, I hope you suffer in hell where you belong, for the supposed “thinking clime” of not believing n the unsupported claim of a so-called all loving god, who I remind you is claim to will unethically that said supposed “thinking clime” of not believing demands torture usually without end; an obviously unjust and inhuman punish even for murder, let alone a non-crime of lacking belief, something without proof and claimed without reason.

Such beliefs are not just wrong they are like dirty underwear, they are comfortable when you are wearing them. But when you take them off and examine them, you realize how dirty they were and can’t imagine how you were so comfortable wearing them the way they were or ever wearing them again.

“There has been criticizing of in the field of adult education as a process that is overly dependent on critical reflection, such that it minimizes the role of feelings and overlooks transformation through the unconscious development of thoughts and actions. This paper further substantiates these concerns by exploring the emotional nature of rationality and unconscious ways of knowing (implicit memory) from the field of neurobiology and psychology and offers a physiological explanation of the interdependent relationship of emotion and reason and the role of implicit memory in transformative learning theory. Recent research not only provides support that emotions can affect the processes of reason, but more importantly, emotions have been found to be indispensable for rationality to occur. Furthermore, brain research brings to light new insights about a form of long-term memory that has long been overlooked, that of implicit memory, which receives, stores, and recovers outside the conscious awareness of the individual. From implicit memory emerges habits, attitudes, and preferences inaccessible to conscious recollection but these are nonetheless shapes by former events, influence our present behavior, and are an essential part of who we are. Finally, based on these new insights for fostering transformative learning is discussed, revealing the need to include practices inclusive of ‘other ways of knowing,’ and more specifically, from the study of emotional literacy and multiple intelligences.” – Transformative learning theory: a neurobiological perspective of the role of emotions and unconscious ways of knowing, by Edward W. Taylor, published in International Journal of Lifelong Education: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/02601370110036064

Religious beliefs often don’t stay in the “belief” category, as if it is something chosen temporarily if needed or changeable if required. No, what is most common is that religious beliefs are completely infused to the person’s identity, thus it’s not what they believe it is more a factor of who they are. What this means is if they are later challenged and given reason to let the belief go this is largely disrupted because they and the belief are mixed with the person’s identity making its loss, not just a possible belief loss but a perceived personal identity loss. Faith is being inspired to strong belief in that which, by the lack of proof, should inspire strong doubt. Faith is the self-indoctrination process of coming to believe in unjustified belief.

The turbulent seas of denial are ever crashing like a tsunami of avoidance on religion’s shores. With minds of cognitive decadence and intellectual dishonesty, they welcome this eroding of the religion-believers perceived need to change belief in the face of facts when they want to keep belief regardless. Thus, they joyfully dive in swimming deep under denials dark waters to the safety of blind ignorance.

Religions continuing in our modern world, full of science and facts, should be seen as little more than a set of irrational conspiracy theories of reality. Nothing more than a confused reality made up of unscientific echoes from man’s ancient past. Rational thinkers must ask themselves why continue to believe in religions’ stories. Religion myths which are nothing more than childlike stories and obsolete tales once used to explain how the world works, acting like magic was needed when it was always only nature.

These childlike religious stories should not even be taken seriously, but sadly too often they are. Often without realizing it, we accumulate beliefs that we allow to negatively influence our lives. In order to bring about awareness, we need to be willing to alter skewed beliefs. Rational thinkers must examine the facts instead of blindly following beliefs or faith.

Art by Damien Marie AtHope

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

Understanding Religion Evolution:

Pre-Animism (at least 300,000 years ago)
Animism (Africa: 100,000 years ago)
Totemism (Europe: 50,000 years ago)
Shamanism (Siberia: 30,000 years ago)
Paganism (Turkey: 12,000 years ago)
Progressed organized religion (Egypt: 5,000 years ago), (Egypt, the First Dynasty 5,150 years ago)
CURRENT “World” RELIGIONS (after 4,000 years ago)
Early Atheistic Doubting (at least by 2,600 years ago)

“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?

“An Archaeological/Anthropological Understanding of Religion Evolution”

Art by Damien Marie AtHope

Here is why “Reason is my only master”

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

So, I think, right thinking is reason. Right reason is logic. Right logic, can be used for mathematics and from there we can get to science. And, by this methodological approach, we get one of the best ways of knowing the scientific method. Activating experience/event occurs, eliciting our feelings/scenes. Then naive thoughts occur, eliciting emotions as a response. Then it is our emotional intelligence over emotional hijacking, which entrance us but are unavoidable and that it is the navigating this successfully in a methodological way we call critical thinking or as In just call right thinking. So, to me, could be termed “Right” thinking, that is referring to a kind of methodological thinking. Reason is at the base of everything and it builds up from pragmatic approaches. And, to me, there are three main approaches to truth (ontology of truth) from the very subjective (Pragmatic theory of truth), to subjective (Coherence theory of truth), then onto objective (Correspondence theory of truth) but remember that this process as limited as it can be, is the best we have and we build one truth ontop another like blocks to a wall of truth.

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

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

Science is not common sense?

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

Getting Real with Logic

Logic is the result of rationalism, as what do you think gets you to logic if not starting at reason? I want to hear your justification for your claims, all the presuppositions you are evading to explain the links in your claims of truth. As it is invalid to just claim this without a justification for your professed claims and the presupposing you do to get there, that is not trying to use rationalism to refuse rationalist thinking. How are you making the statement and not appearing to what is the rationale behind it? If not, you must want to think “Logic is self-generating as valid” and this understood value is to you not reducible to reason? You are devoid of an offer of your burden of proof, first just try to keep up with the thinker’s responsibility to provide more than unjustified claims. Logic is derived by axioms and thus using rationalism to validate them, think otherwise provide your proof. My Rationalism: is two things externalistic “scientific rationalism” a belief or theory that opinions and actions should be based on reason and knowledge rather than on religious belief or emotional response. And internalistic “philosophic rationalism” the theory that reason is the most base presupposition before all others, rather than simply trying to rely on experience is the foundation of certainty in knowledge. Activating experience occurs we then have thinking, right (methodological) thinking (critical thinking) is reason, right reason is logic, right logic can be used for math, right math in response to the natural world is physics, and from there all other Sciences, physics is the foundation for chemistry and chemistry is the foundation of biology. May reason be your only master and may you also master reason.

Pre-Animism (at least 300,000 years ago)

Around a million years ago, I surmise that Pre-Animism, “animistic superstitionism”, began, Around 400,000 Years ago shows Sociocultural Evolution, and then led to the animistic somethingism or animistic supernaturalism, which is at least 300,000 years old and about 100,00 years ago, it evolves to a representation of general Animism, which is present in today’s religions. There is also Homo Naledi and an Intentional Cemetery “Pre-Animism” dating to around 250,000 years ago. And, Neanderthals “Primal Religion (Pre-Animism/Animism?)” Mystery Cave Rings 175,000 Years Ago. Neanderthals were the first humans to intentionally bury the dead, around 130,000 years ago at sites such as Krapina in Croatia.

Pre-animism ideas can be seen in rock art such as that expressed in portable anthropomorphic art, which may be related to some kind of ancestor veneration. This magical thinking may stem from a social or non-religious function of ancestor veneration, which cultivates kinship values such as filial piety, family loyalty, and continuity of the family lineage. Ancestor veneration occurs in societies with every degree of social, political, and technological complexity and it remains an important component of various religious practices in modern times.

Humans are not the only species, which bury their dead. The practice has been observed in chimpanzees, elephants, and possibly dogs. Intentional burial, particularly with grave goods, signify a “concern for the dead” and Neanderthals were the first human species to practice burial behavior and intentionally bury their dead, doing so in shallow graves along with stone tools and animal bones. Exemplary sites include Shanidar in Iraq, Kebara Cave in Israel and Krapina in Croatia. The earliest undisputed human burial dates back 100,000 years ago with remains stained with red ochre, which show ritual intentionality similar to the Neanderthals before them. ref, ref

Animism (such as that seen in Africa: 100,000 years ago)

Did Neanderthals teach us “Primal Religion (Pre-Animism/Animism?)” 120,000 Years Ago? Homo sapiens – is known to have reached the Levant between 120,000 and 90,000 years ago, but that exit from Africa evidently went extinct. 100,000 years ago, in Qafzeh, Israel, the oldest intentional burial had 15 African individuals covered in red ocher was from a group who visited and returned back to Africa. 100,000 to 74,000 years ago, at Border Cave in Africa, an intentional burial of an infant with red ochre and a shell ornament, which may have possible connections to the Africans buried in Qafzeh.

Animism is approximately a 100,000-year-old belief system and believe in spirit-filled life and/or afterlife. If you believe like this, regardless of your faith, you are a hidden animist.

The following is evidence of Animism: 100,000 years ago, in Qafzeh, Israel, the oldest intentional burial had 15 African individuals covered in red ocher was from a group who visited and returned back to Africa. 100,000 to 74,000 years ago, at Border Cave in Africa, an intentional burial of an infant with red ochre and a shell ornament, which may have possible connections to the Africans buried in Qafzeh, Israel. 120,000 years ago, did Neanderthals teach us Primal Religion (Pre-Animism/Animism) as they too used red ocher and burials? ref, ref

It seems to me, it may be the Neanderthals who may have transmitted a “Primal Religion (Animism)” or at least burial and thoughts of an afterlife. The Neanderthals seem to express what could be perceived as a Primal “type of” Religion, which could have come first and is supported in how 250,000 years ago, the Neanderthals used red ochre and 230,000 years ago shows evidence of Neanderthal burial with grave goods and possibly a belief in the afterlife. ref

Do you think it is crazy that the Neanderthals may have transmitted a “Primal Religion”? Consider this, it appears that 175,000 years ago, the Neanderthals built mysterious underground circles with broken off stalactites. This evidence suggests that the Neanderthals were the first humans to intentionally bury the dead, doing so in shallow graves along with stone tools and animal bones. Exemplary sites include Shanidar in Iraq, Kebara Cave in Israel and Krapina in Croatia. Other evidence may suggest the Neanderthals had it transmitted to them by Homo heidelbergensis, 350,000 years ago, by their earliest burial in a shaft pit grave in a cave that had a pink stone axe on the top of 27 Homo heidelbergensis individuals and 250,000 years ago, Homo naledi had an intentional cemetery in South Africa cave. ref, ref, ref, ref, ref

Totemism (Europe: 50,000 years ago)

Did Neanderthals Help Inspire Totemism? Because there is Art Dating to Around 65,000 Years Ago in Spain? Totemism as seen in Europe: 50,000 years ago, mainly the Aurignacian culture. Pre-Aurignacian “Châtelperronian” (Western Europe, mainly Spain and France, possible transitional/cultural diffusion between Neanderthals and Humans around 50,000-40,000 years ago). Archaic–Aurignacian/Proto-Aurignacian Humans (Europe around 46,000-35,000). And Aurignacian “classical/early to late” Humans (Europe and other areas around 38,000 – 26,000 years ago).

Totemism is approximately a 50,000-year-old belief system and believe in spirit-filled life and/or afterlife that can be attached to or be expressed in things or objects. If you believe like this, regardless of your faith, you are a hidden totemist.

Toetmism may be older as there is evidence of what looks like a Stone Snake in South Africa, which may be the “first human worship” dating to around 70,000 years ago. Many archaeologists propose that societies from 70,000 to 50,000 years ago such as that of the Neanderthals may also have practiced the earliest form of totemism or animal worship in addition to their presumably religious burial of the dead. Did Neanderthals help inspire Totemism? There is Neanderthals art dating to around 65,000 years ago in Spain. ref, ref

Shamanism (beginning around 30,000 years ago)

Shamanism (such as that seen in Siberia Gravettian culture: 30,000 years ago). Gravettian culture (34,000–24,000 years ago; Western Gravettian, mainly France, Spain, and Britain, as well as Eastern Gravettian in Central Europe and Russia. The eastern Gravettians, which include the Pavlovian culture). And, the Pavlovian culture (31,000 – 25,000 years ago such as in Austria and Poland). 31,000 – 20,000 years ago Oldest Shaman was Female, Buried with the Oldest Portrait Carving.

Shamanism is approximately a 30,000-year-old belief system and believe in spirit-filled life and/or afterlife that can be attached to or be expressed in things or objects and these objects can be used by special persons or in special rituals that can connect to spirit-filled life and/or afterlife. If you believe like this, regardless of your faith, you are a hidden shamanist.

Around 29,000 to 25,000 years ago in Dolní Vestonice, Czech Republic, the oldest human face representation is a carved ivory female head that was found nearby a female burial and belong to the Pavlovian culture, a variant of the Gravettian culture. The left side of the figure’s face was a distorted image and is believed to be a portrait of an elder female, who was around 40 years old. She was ritualistically placed beneath a pair of mammoth scapulae, one leaning against the other. Surprisingly, the left side of the skull was disfigured in the same manner as the aforementioned carved ivory figure, indicating that the figure was an intentional depiction of this specific individual. The bones and the earth surrounding the body contained traces of red ocher, a flint spearhead had been placed near the skull, and one hand held the body of a fox. This evidence suggests that this was the burial site of a shaman. This is the oldest site not only of ceramic figurines and artistic portraiture but also of evidence of early female shamans. Before 5,500 years ago, women were much more prominent in religion.

Archaeologists usually describe two regional variants: the western Gravettian, known namely from cave sites in France, Spain, and Britain, and the eastern Gravettian in Central Europe and Russia. The eastern Gravettians include the Pavlovian culture, which were specialized mammoth hunters and whose remains are usually found not in caves but in open air sites. The origins of the Gravettian people are not clear, they seem to appear simultaneously all over Europe. Though they carried distinct genetic signatures, the Gravettians and Aurignacians before them were descended from the same ancient founder population. According to genetic data, 37,000 years ago, all Europeans can be traced back to a single ‘founding population’ that made it through the last ice age. Furthermore, the so-called founding fathers were part of the Aurignacian culture, which was displaced by another group of early humans members of the Gravettian culture. Between 37,000 years ago and 14,000 years ago, different groups of Europeans were descended from a single founder population. To a greater extent than their Aurignacian predecessors, they are known for their Venus figurines. ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, & ref

Paganism (beginning around 12,000 years ago)

Paganism (such as that seen in Turkey: 12,000 years ago). Gobekli Tepe: “first human-made temple” around 12,000 years ago. Sedentism and the Creation of goddesses around 12,000 years ago as well as male gods after 7,000 years ago. Pagan-Shaman burial in Israel 12,000 years ago and 12,000 – 10,000 years old Paganistic-Shamanistic Art in a Remote Cave in Egypt. Skull Cult around 11,500 to 8,400 Years Ago and Catal Huyuk “first religious designed city” around 10,000 years ago.

Paganism is approximately a 12,000-year-old belief system and believe in spirit-filled life and/or afterlife that can be attached to or be expressed in things or objects and these objects can be used by special persons or in special rituals that can connect to spirit-filled life and/or afterlife and who are guided/supported by a goddess/god, goddesses/gods, magical beings, or supreme spirits. If you believe like this, regardless of your faith, you are a hidden paganist.

Around 12,000 years ago, in Turkey, the first evidence of paganism is Gobekli Tepe: “first human-made temple” and around 9,500 years ago, in Turkey, the second evidence of paganism is Catal Huyuk “first religious designed city”. In addition, early paganism is connected to Proto-Indo-European language and religion. Proto-Indo-European religion can be reconstructed with confidence that the gods and goddesses, myths, festivals, and form of rituals with invocations, prayers, and songs of praise make up the spoken element of religion. Much of this activity is connected to the natural and agricultural year or at least those are the easiest elements to reconstruct because nature does not change and because farmers are the most conservative members of society and are best able to keep the old ways.

The reconstruction of goddesses/gods characteristics may be different than what we think of and only evolved later to the characteristics we know of today. One such characteristic is how a deity’s gender may not be fixed, since they are often deified forces of nature, which tend to not have genders. There are at least 40 deities and the Goddesses that have been reconstructed are: *Pria, *Pleto, *Devi, *Perkunos, *Aeusos, and *Yama.

The reconstruction of myths can be connected to Proto-Indo-European culture/language and by additional research, many of these myths have since been confirmed including some areas that were not accessible to the early writers such as Latvian folk songs and Hittite hieroglyphic tablets. There are at least 28 myths and one of the most widely recognized myths of the Indo-Europeans is the myth, “Yama is killed by his brother Manu” and “the world is made from his body”. Some of the forms of this myth in various Indo-European languages are about the Creation Myth of the Indo-Europeans.

The reconstruction of rituals can be connected to Proto-Indo-European culture/language and is estimated to have been spoken as a single language from around 6,500 years ago. One of the earliest ritual is the construction of kurgans or mound graves as a part of a death ritual. kurgans were inspired by common ritual-mythological ideas. Kurgans are complex structures with internal chambers. Within the burial chamber at the heart of the kurgan, elite individuals were buried with grave goods and sacrificial offerings, sometimes including horses and chariots.

The speakers of Pre-Proto-Indo-European lived in Turkey and it associates the distribution of historical Indo-European languages with the expansion around 9,000 years ago, with a proposed homeland of Proto-Indo-European proper in the Balkans around 7,000 years ago. The Proto-Indo-European Religion seemingly stretches at least back around 6,000 years ago or likely much further back and I believe Paganism is possibly an approximately 12,000-year-old belief system.

The earliest kurgans date to 6,000 years ago and are connected to the Proto-Indo-European in the Caucasus. In fact, around 7,000 years ago, there appears to be pre-kurgan in Siberia. Around 7,000 to 2,500 years ago and beyond, kurgans were built with ancient traditions still active in Southern Siberia and Central Asia, which display the continuity of the archaic forming methods. Kurgan cultures are divided archaeologically into different sub-cultures such as Timber Grave, Pit Grave, Scythian, Sarmatian, Hunnish, and Kuman–Kipchak. Kurgans have been found from the Altay Mountains to the Caucasus, Ukraine, Romania, and Bulgaria. Around 5,000 years ago, kurgans were used in the Ukrainian and Russian flat unforested grasslands and their use spread with migration into eastern, central, northern Europe, Turkey, and beyond. ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, & ref

Progressed organized religion (around 5,000 years ago)

Progressed organized religion (such as that seen in Egypt: 5,000 years ago “The First Dynasty dates to 5,150 years ago”). This was a time of astonishing religion development and organization with a new state power to control. Around the time of 5,000 to 4,000 years ago, saw the growth of these riches, both intellectually and physically, became a source of contention on a political stage, and rulers sought the accumulation of more wealth and more power.

*The First Dynasty*

Date: 3,150 B.C.E. (5,150 years ago)

The Beginning Rise of the Unequal State Government Hierarchies, Religions and Cultures Merger

The Pharaoh in ancient Egypt was the political and religious leader holding the titles ‘Lord of the Two Lands’ Upper and Lower Egypt and ‘High Priest of Every Temple’. In 5,150 years ago the First Dynasty appeared in Egypt and this reign was thought to be in accordance with the will of the gods; but the office of the king itself was not associated with the divine until later.

Around 4,890 years ago during the Second Dynasty, the King was linked with the divine and reign with the will of the gods. Following this, rulers of the later dynasties were equated with the gods and with the duties and obligations due to those gods. As supreme ruler of the people, the pharaoh was considered a god on earth, the intermediary between the gods and the people, and when he died, he was thought to become Osiris, the god of the dead. As such, in his role of ‘High Priest of Every Temple’, it was the pharaoh’s duty to build great temples and monuments celebrating his own achievements and paying homage to the gods of the land. Among the earliest civilizations that exhibit the phenomenon of divinized kings are early Mesopotamia and ancient Egypt.

In 5,150 years ago the First Dynasty appeared in Egypt with the unification of Upper and Lower Egypt by the king Menes (now believed to be Narmer). Menes/Narmer is depicted on inscriptions wearing the two crowns of Egypt, signifying unification, and his reign was thought to be in accordance with the will of the gods; but the office of the king itself was not associated with the divine until later. During the Second Dynasty of Egypt 4,890-4,670 years ago King Raneb (also known as Nebra) linked his name with the divine and his reign with the will of the gods. Following Raneb, the rulers of the later dynasties were equated with the gods and with the duties and obligations due to those gods. As supreme ruler of the people, the pharaoh was considered a god on earth.

The honorific title of `pharaoh’ for a ruler did not appear until the period known as the New Kingdom 3,570-3,069 years ago. Monarchs of the dynasties before the title of `pharaoh’ from the New Kingdom were addressed as `your majesty’ by foreign dignitaries and members of the court and as `brother’ by foreign rulers; both practices would continue after the king of Egypt came to be known as a pharaoh. Ref Ref

CURRENT “World” RELIGIONS (after 4,000 years ago)

Hinduism around 3,700 to 3,500 years old. Judaism around 3,450 or 3,250 years old. (The first writing in the bible was “Paleo-Hebrew” dated to around 3,000 years ago). Jainism around 2,599 – 2,527 years old. Confucianism around 2,600 – 2,551 years old. Buddhism around 2,563/2,480 – 2,483/2,400 years old. Christianity around 2,000 years old. Shinto around 1,305 years old. Islam around 1407–1385 years old. Sikhism around 548–478 years old. Bahá’í around 200–125 years old.

Early Atheistic Doubting (at least by around 2,600 Years Ago)

Around 2,600 Years Ago, there is a confirmation of atheistic doubting as well as atheistic thinking, mainly by Greek philosophers. However, doubting gods is likely as old as the invention of gods and should destroy the thinking that belief in god(s) is the “default belief”. The Greek word is apistos (a “not” and pistos “faithful,”), thus not faithful or faithless because one is unpersuaded and unconvinced by a god(s) claim. Short Definition: unbelieving, unbeliever, or unbelief.

Here is the response from a fan, about my explanations of the understanding of religion evolution:

“Wow, that’s very thorough research! I would like to buy your book when it is complete, please. I am a cultural anthropologist and have touched on the subject, but I have never seen such an in-depth work! I look forward to reading the finished product!”

“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.

I am an Out Atheist, Antitheist, and Antireligionist as a Valuized Ethical Duty.

How can we silently watch as yet another generation is indoctrinated with religious faith, fear, and foolishness? 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. What proof is “faith,” of anything religion claims by faith, as many people have different faith even in the same religion?

When you start thinking your “out, atheism, antitheism or antireligionism is not vitally needed just remember all the millions of children being indoctrinated and need our help badly. Ones who desperately need our help with the truth. Three things are common in all religions: “pseudo-science,” “pseudo-history,” and “pseudo-morality.”

And my biggest thing of all is the widespread forced indoctrination of children, violating their free choice of what to not believe or believe, I hate forced hereditary religion. But sometimes a heart of kindness is all I have, my only weapon to fight for the humanity in a world which is seemly intent on harm.

“Damien, how can you be so nice and kind?” – Atheist Questioner

My response, It is very hard indeed but it also shows high character and is to me, an act of courage to be kind in an unkind world. But I am not this world, I aspire to much greater higher-heights. I reject this worlds unkindness. I fight for what is true, helpful, good and right. All themes needed for universal betterment and human flourishing. I fight for people not against them. I wish to be a friend to the world, as you can better persuade people with an open hand then angry words. I try to appeal to their reason as a helpful counselor, mentor, or teacher that would see their possible frustration as a thing in them, not truly a thing meant for me. I know we cannot change things with more of the same. Rather, we must be the hope and changes so profound that t is like we are no longer holding a reality position of the strife before us. This is because we have the skill to aid others, the gift of human kindness as with that we are the most effective. And to me, kindness is invaluable. I just never stop seeing others as equal dignity beings. We rise by helping each other.

“Damien, in My atheist videos, I can’t do the kind thing I watch you do in every video, which is, I never see anger from you. How can you do it?” – Questioner

My Response, I think of my goal which to help others and doing that I can better control my feelings. I do get angry often but I strive to not express that in my behavior. I wish to be a friend to the world. It has been a life’s work, years of counseling and self-improvement. I now see the value of kindness. And as an axiological atheist, I understand and utilize value or actually “Value Consciousness” to both give a strong moral “axiological” argument (the problem of evil) as well as use it to fortify my humanism and positive ethical persuasion of human helping and care. Value-blindness gives rise to sociopathic evil.

Don’t get me wrong I am a firebrand atheist just a caring one who strives to be kind to people while I am hard on beliefs.

I am so out about my disbelief, as I support reality and not because I feel better than a believer in supernatural things, gods or religions. Actually, I too once was the same until somewhat late in my life. In fact, I did not stop being this way until I was 36. I am so open now with good belief etiquette focusing on reasoned belief acquisitions, good belief maintenance, as well as honest belief relinquishment and challenging not out of hate or loathing, but out of deep compassion and understanding. This care wishes to save the indoctrinated victims of magical thinking falsehoods. I wish then self-esteem, self-ownership, self-leadership, self-efficiency, self-empowerment, self-love and self-mastery all of which can and in some way, are undermined by God’s and Religions; which either directly attack/challenge or subvert in some lesser realized way.

Science is an intellectual endeavor to search for that which is accurate to the way the world is while religion is still desperately relying on fantasy stories and about what the world is not full of many inconsistencies as well as glaring inaccuracies in relation to true reality, thus religion is an unintellectual endeavor forcing a non-accurate/non-truth “faith” over “valid and reliable reason and evidence” so a blind searching to not understand the accurate to the way the world actually is in reality. This is likely because religions are not “real truth” searching endeavors and beyond all the other negative things, on the whole religions and their make-believe are but conspiracies theories of reality not worth believing in.

Did you know Moses write nor asked for the writing of the Torah, the first five books Jewish holy book (the old testament)? Well, Moses didn’t, and neither did Jesus write nor asked for the writing of anything not one word in the Bible, just like how Mohammed did not write nor asked for the writing of the Quran: holy book of Islam. Do you see a theme? Well, here you go, because neither did Lao-Tzu write nor asked for the writing of the Tao Te Ching, the holy book of Taoism, and guess what neither did Gautama Buddha (the first Buddha) write nor asked for the writing of a book in Buddhism. And what do you know just like all the rest neither did nor guru Nanak write nor asked for the writing of Guru Gobind Singh the holy book in Sikhism?

What do you mean by god not some “quality empty notions” randomly claimed but your actual belief with detailed quality so others can assess if belief is even warranted?

Funny isn’t it how almost all of the world’s religions share the same facts that the claimed holy teacher never wrote their holy book and for that matter are not even sure if they are historical or made up. But please don’t say they were not fake or that we don’t know the truth about them. Ha, ha, ha, please, I feel safe in my anti-religionism, thank you very much. I am a reality revolutionary fighting hard to defend reality as it actually is in a world working hard to do the opposite. To offer that which is not true to reality is to offer a conspiracy theory about it, including the beliefs of ghosts, gods, and religions. Believe me wrong prove it with valid and reliable reason and evidence or I don’t believe you nor would anyone have good reason to either including your self if you are an honest thinker. I don’t really have trust it is just from experience I know many beliefs people like holding are not worth believing in and full of shit. Why do most religious people claim to have religious or spiritual experiences is they add make-believe to “reality.”

And the general “WHY” people profess to have religious or spiritual experiences is because we are emotional beings, that while we can employ the thinking strategy of rationalism over faith or unreason/illogical beliefs, we still often seem to prefer to follow emotional driven thinking or simply learn to appeal to emotionalism. Things are not the other way around as we are not rational beings who understand the world accurately by employing the logical thinking strategies and not thinking clouded emotionalism needed to replace faith or unreason/illogical beliefs that follow such thinking, right? We are all emotional and thus will experience emotional wonder.

This common experience of things like emotional wonder or awe is just a positive emotional hijacking, as the experience of joy, but that is just the joy of being alive, it’s wholly cheapened to me by fantasy daydreaming delusions (supernatural) to this beautiful magic devoid reality. To me, rationalistic thinkers of intellectual character engaging in a thoughtful critical challenge, and thus should strive to disagree, debate, dispute, debunk, and degrade harmful unjustified beliefs (such as pseudo-science, pseudo-history, and or pseudo-morality the stuff religions love to promote) and not the swindled or reality deluded believer.

However, I understand how we treat others matters even as an atheist dealing with theists. When I get angry or frustrated, I strive to have understanding and patience. When I get to where I think I will say something hurtful, so I strive, to say it a better way if possible, as I want to help not hurt. So, I wish to something not often offered to me; I wish to be kind, compassionate, and thoughtful as much as I can, as often as I can because how we treat others matters. Therefore, even as an out firebrand atheist I do respect people, I do not respect religion. I believe in people; I do not believe in religion. Tolerance has its limits for it will not stand for blind ignorance and the intolerance of bigotry, and it’s connected injustice cross that line first. I will NOT tolerate the unjust intolerance of oppression and harm.

Because I want to live a value-driven life to promote kindness and human flourishing as an axiological atheist not just the call for reason in thinking but also thinking in behaviors as well. Simply how we treat others reflects on us just like how we make others feel about themselves tells a lot about our chosen character. Thus how we choose to treat others, respond or react to others, will often identify the kind of person we are striving to be. I wish to be a person of value. I am 100 % sure not you nor anyone can honestly justify their claim of knowing even the concept of gods, if one like me simply demands a valid and reliable ontology of the term god. I see no honesty is saying that god anything as not one person can truly even say what it is and defiantly can offer no valid justification for the thinking either the concept of gods is a thinking error period. You have no ontology of god as you have not validated the term to mean anything but myths or confusions.

Provide a support to even claim what a god could or could not be then validated hoe you know this and why it is valid and reasonable or as I already know, no one honestly can they must intellectually lie or be so under confusion they can’t think clear to do so. What is this god whatever you are supposedly agnostic about? if you don’t know then you don’t have something to doubt rather you are holding open a thinking error possibility from some myth others invented without reason as if it was reason.

What do you mean by god?

The concept of gods begins with a faulty presupposition of an unsound thinker who has failed to demand justification an simply accepts the absurd. May the actions of my life be written deep with the poetry of my humanity. I have one big goal in life, I just want to make the world kinder. I am intelligent enough that I see I must be open to learning from everyone around me. I don’t try to compare people, Instead, I compare ideas. I am willing to have anyone teach me something and I hope I am always so wise. Some wish for empirical proof of some god. I say no start at what is god and how is it that you are claiming to know anything about it with a sound justification. I say empirical proof of what, when you cannot justify what the term god should contain? Start by justifying there is anything in the term god other than simply a three letter noise. Theists love their faith so much they unjustifiably appealed to the term god as if its attributes were a given, well they are not and to claim they are is uninformed, intellectually dishonest or confused.

Actually, I know there is no theist that has done anything but start with something unjustified “the god claim” empty of worth to begin with, then take said unjustified claim to add something to this unjustifiably defined god term and then assert this willful theist with its myth and superstition driven attributes that not one of them are justified to be packed into the term god seems a kind of mental masturbation inventing unjustified attributes drunk on some wishful thinking hijacking, may simply be confused/uninformed, not truly thinking just willfully believing or outright intellectually dishonest.

What do you mean by god?

God talk is unjustified until you can demonstrate that you can know anything even belongs in the term with valid and reliable reason and justification. What is a god is the first burden of proof that is required? Some wish for empirical proof of some god. I say no start at what is god and how is it that you are claiming to know anything about it with a sound justification. I say empirical proof of what, when you cannot justify what the term god should contain? Start by justifying there is anything in the term god other than simply a three letter noise. Theists love their faith so much they unjustifiably appealed to the term god as if its attributes were a given, well they are not and to claim they are is uninformed, intellectually dishonest or confused.

Moreover, I know there is no theist that has done anything but start with something unjustified “the god claim” empty of worth to begin with, then take said unjustified claim to add something to this unjustifiably defined god term and then assert this willful theist with its myth and superstition driven attributes that not one of them are justified to be packed into the term god seems a kind of mental masturbation inventing unjustified attributes drunk on some wishful thinking hijacking, may simply be confused/uninformed, not truly thinking just willfully believing or outright intellectually dishonest. God talk is unjustified until you can demonstrate that you can know anything even belongs in the term with valid and reliable reason and justification.

What do you mean by god?

What is a god is the first burden of proof, that is required? You say some wish for empirical proof. I say no start at what is god and how is it that you are claiming to know anything about it with a sound justification. I say empirical proof of what, when you cannot justify what the term god should contain? Start by justifying there is anything in the term god other than simply a three letter noise. Theists love their faith so much they unjustifiably appealed to the term god as if its attributes were a given, well they are not and to claim they are is uninformed, intellectually dishonest or confused. It is not intellectually honest to support that that lacks a sound justification.

We, Truth Seekers Battle more than just god Beliefs

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

Do you believe in god?

What is a god? And 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.

Truth mixed with lies is still lies

Some truth is married to untruth, thus it is hidden in lies. But some may think the truth is just to hard to take for some people so they seem to welcome lies, even if its laid before our eyes. It is this truth we fear that often becomes the fear that may motivate us to only wish to take that which requires no change, no need to reason and understand or emotionally adept. We too often seem to like easy truth or comfortable lies that become like a mental trap. So then, we often end up marrying our desired truth with some untruth to not see that which is real but unpleasant so to us it stays a lie.

When do we start lying? Studies show that at around 2 years of age 30% will lie. At 3 years of age 50% will lie. And by 7-8 years of age 100% will lie. – (Through the Wormhole TV show)

“And still the world runs on the shoulder of truth…..at least we are all pretending very well every day like cowards and liars…..there’s no truth!” – Challenger

My response, you should rethink what you said about truth. You don’t seem to get if there was no truth, that includes your statement that there is no truth. Because if it were then there would be some truth exposing your statement’s internal contradiction. I use Pragmatic theory of truth, Coherence theory of truth, and Correspondence theory of truth. To me, there are three main approaches to truth (ontology of truth) from the very subjective (Pragmatic theory of truth), subjective (Coherence theory of truth), or to the objective (Correspondence theory of truth).

*Pragmatic theory of truth: very subjective “our ideas are true if they work to solve problems, are useful” A common feature is a reliance on the pragmatic maxim as a means of clarifying the meanings of difficult concepts such as truth; and an emphasis on the fact that belief, certainty, knowledge, or truth is the result of an inquiry. The pragmatic maxim is a normative recommendation or a regulative principle in the normative science of logic, its function is to guide the conduct of thought toward the achievement of its purpose, advising on an optimal way of “attaining clearness of apprehension”. Ref Ref

*Coherence theory of truth: subjective/objective “our ideas are true if they are internally consistent not contradictory” A common thinking is to regard truth as coherence within some specified set of sentences, propositions or beliefs. There is no single set of such “logical universes”, but rather an assortment of perspectives that are commonly discussed under this title. A positive tenet is the idea that truth is a property of whole systems of propositions and can be ascribed to individual propositions only derivatively according to their coherence with the whole. While modern coherence theorists hold that there are many possible systems to which the determination of truth may be based upon coherence, others, particularly those with strong religious beliefs hold that the such truth only applies to a single absolute system. In general, then, truth requires a proper fit of elements within the whole system. Very often, though, coherence is taken to imply something more than simple formal coherence. Ref

*Correspondence theory of truth: objective “our ideas are true if they accurately correspond to reality and its facts” A common thinking states that the truth or falsity of a statement is determined only by how it relates to the world and whether it accurately describes (i.e., corresponds with) that world. There is a sense in which that which is truth depends on the world it can be demonstrated in, similar to the scientific methods presupposition of methodological naturalism. Methodological naturalism is not a “doctrine” but an essential aspect of the methodology of science, the study of the natural universe. If one believes that natural laws and theories based on them will not suffice to solve the problems attacked by scientists – that supernatural and thus nonscientific principles must be invoked from time to time – then one cannot have the confidence in scientific methodology that is prerequisite to doing science. The spectacular successes over four centuries of science based on methodological naturalism cannot be denied. Correspondence theories claim that true beliefs and true statements correspond to the actual state of affairs. Bertrand Russell theorized that a statement, to be true, must have a structural isomorphism with the state of affairs in the world that makes it true.The truth predicate of interest in a typical correspondence theory of truth tells of a relation between representations and objective states of affairs, and is therefore expressed, for the most part, by a dyadic predicate. In general terms, one says that a representation is true of an objective situation, more briefly, that a sign is true of an object. The nature of the correspondence may vary from theory to theory in this family. The correspondence can be fairly arbitrary or it can take on the character of an analogy, an icon, or a morphism, whereby a representation is rendered true of its object by the existence of corresponding elements and a similar structure. Historically, most advocates of correspondence theories have been ontological realists; that is, they believe that there is a world external to the minds of all humans. Ref Ref Ref

Actually, I think the difference between them is not either or but which one is applicable to the amount or qualities of valid and reliable reason and or evidence. One theory the pragmatic theory of truth where you don’t have much or almost no evidence but it seems the most reasonable to assume something like “I am typing on a Facebook post and I am not in a matrix simulation, then I increase the perceived truth if what is being communicated is what most likely is true because the expression of what it could be is at least coherent to what is said and how it’s said not holding an internal inconsistency, which is the coherence theory of truth. And most trusted of all and the main one science is pretty much using most often is the correspondence theory of truth.ps. In my opinion, people don’t realize their presuppositions, the truth is one of the big ones, as already we likely believed a certain persuasion of viewing the thing truth can be (ontology thinking) about the ontology status of truth (often not fully realized or actualized either. When we often have confusion around or about truth is because we often just jump to the epistemology of truth, but how can we establish truth characteristics (epistemology thinking).

“Ontology and epistemology are both important elements of the philosophy of knowledge. If they often overlap, they have a clear distinction: epistemology is about the way we know things when the ontology is about what things are. Ontology is the study of what there is. Epistemology is the study of what you know and how you know it. The two are intimately related. Any statement of ontology (e.g. “Bees are a kind of insect”) is intended to be a statement of “truth”, and epistemology is trying to figure out what it means to be “true”. But the notion of “truth” is inherently grounded in our idea that there’s some kind of world out there for which the distinction between “truth” and “not-truth” is relevant.” Ref

What I am saying is one cannot say “truth is…” (epistemology thinking) until they have the (ontology thinking) of the “thingness” of truth (ontology: the nature of being, becoming, existence or reality as well as the basic categories of being and their relations). The part “truth is…” wishes to explain (epistemology thinking) nature of a “thing” or its “thingness” (ontology thinking). So, the “is” part (epistemology thinking) means the attached characteristics of the “thing” called truth (ontology) when the epistemological question is offered without acknowledging or establishing the thing being called truth (ontology thinking). So, ontology is about what is this thing true or what truth is and epistemology then is about methods of figuring out those truths. Ref

Become a protector of truths not a supporter of lies.

Truth Use:

Descriptive
Normative
Prescriptive
Theoretical

Just because it can be hard to almost impossible to prove some negatives, does not mean that all things ought to be taken as true, or possibly true even in the absence of evidence. Of course, it’s wrong to say “just because we lack 100% proof doesn’t mean it can’t be true or real.I can get too fond of words, as they both build castles of thought and are used to fight mental dragons that hide in the thoughts of the day but what else can one say. lol

The Mental Parasite Called God

God is not simply a myth, it a mental parasite feeding off your life, is like a mental prison concept, disemboweling you, and any religion that supports the concept of god(s), becomes like a controlling jailer to the mind of the god believer. What is love, if it is so cheap, that it is for wholesale to myths? To me, it is truly a sad thing, when you have people offer more love to an unknown and at best unproven thing they call god; not even evident in this world, over real people, even loved ones, which are known in this world. Sadly, all too often a mind full of god(s) myths have no appetite for reason.

Faith is the thinking error of assuming feelings demonstrate external evidence for made-up-magic of all kinds, the pseudoscience hopes of the indoctrinated, confused, or deluded. Faith is not reasoned thinking in the genuine prosses of trying to know things. Faith as processed though is the unthinking the faith drunk tend to do, rather, be a rationalist instead and reject thinking pathways to falsehood, like faith, which is literally like the glory hole of bad beliefs, so be willing to look and be a real truth seeker instead.

From a scientific perspective — if you want to validate or invalidate a theory, you have to put the explicit-and-unique predictions arising from that hypothesis to the test. It seems that there are two main types of philosophers: Thinkers and Specialists, I have always thought of myself as a thinker. Be thoughtful in what you do as to not is to leave one open to making a bad investment today that may follow you for a lifetime. We should all wish to be champions of kindness for We rise by helping each other. Spread kindness everywhere you can, as often as you can, because we all flourish in kindness.

At the very beginning of knowledge, you have straightforward facts about our reality. If I set up a system in a particular way, make a certain measurement using a specific method and/or set of tools, I will get a result. If I repeat that experiment many times, I’ll get a set of results. And if I look at the results of similar phenomena, experiments and/or natural occurrences as they’ve occurred many times, I’ll have an even more valuable set of data. Freedom is the best when we share it in kindness; likewise, kindness is the best when we share it in freedom.

I like when people say they value science observation proof as the highest proof even possibly adding they either have a low regard or as far as say they do not believe in philosophy. But then when I state we can know external science observation proof reality with certainty they say no we cannot because the philosophy of skepticism tells us otherwise. So, wait which is it then, philosophy trumps science observation proof of reality but I thought you did not think philosophy was better than science? Lol

Science Facts Should Make Religious Belief Impossible

With the amazing world of science facts, all one after another disproving gods and religions; we need to stop asking whether believing in gods or religion is rational, and instead start asking how strongly holding onto religious belief is even cognitively possible.

What makes some believed Truth actually True?

To me truth is a value judgment we place on what we think or believe is is evidence. Therefore, the rational imperative on us is to demonstrate that the proposed evidence or reasoned assumption is actually of a high epistemic standard with as much valid and reliable reason and evidence as possible from a credible source as possible which then makes some believed “Truth” actually worthy to be seen as Epistemologically True thus a “justified true belief”.

Broadly, epistemic means “relating to knowledge (itself) or to the degree of its validation” and epistemological means ” critical study of knowledge, validity, methods, as well as limits to knowledge and the study or theory of various aspects of or involved in knowledge”.

There is much philosophical debate about knowledge. However, for the sake of most arguments, I’m fine working from the definition of “justified true beliefs”. But I always do so tentatively as problems could come up (the Gettier problem, etc.).

Therefore, I follow the standard in philosophy Justified True Beliefs = knowledge and when such knowledge reaches a high or the highest epistemic standard it can be dubbed epistemically certain. I am a positive kind person and work to improve myself as we;; as my grasp of available knowledge and try to assist others if I can. As I have schooling in psychology as well as I am an atheist/humanist writer.

I am virtuous to the vulnerable and champion justice, so valiantly, as I have experienced the hateful lash of unkindness and wish to champion its opposite, radical kindness in an unkind world, a sigh of true bravery. It seems that there are two main types of philosophers: Thinkers and Specialists, and I have always thought of myself as a thinker. May the actions of my life be written deep with the poetry of my humanity. Some people fight for people and some seem to just like to fight with people. We are our best when we are showing thoughtful regard, not thoughtless indifference. I say, be Virtuous to the Vulnerable and a Terror to Tyrants. Yes, be an Honorable Human.

I am an activist and teaching in public is part of that endeavor. I wish to be “Servant Leader,” it really resonated with me and is a similar desire I have as a leader hoping to add other leaders and to be a student as well wanting to be a life learner open to expand and learn as well as put forth efforts to teach. I dig good people who are kind and want to help others, like me; together we will aid in building a flourishing humanity, we rise by helping each other. I like that kind of people as contacts they are helping make the world better as I try to do.

I create art, memes, quotes, writings, blogs, Facebook pages & groups, Youtube videos, and Public speaking events and/or activism events. Also, I create video chats with Intelligent/thoughtful people who are kind and are doing good things in the world as well as video chats with atheists or nontheists of course; to share ideas, debate/dialog or for empowerment. And I create videos with theists or agnostics to share ideas, debate/dialog or provide a place for learning/teaching.

Damien Marie AtHope, is an Atheist, Antitheist, Antireligionist, Humanist, Writer, Artist, Poet, Philosopher & Activist.

My Writer Facebook Page: https://www.facebook.com/DamienMarieAtHope/

Personal Facebook Pages:
1. https://www.facebook.com/damien.athope
2. https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100009518569917
3. https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100012093571404

YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCLVQU-FGzbPBFsnfRm5b-hQ

Linkedin: https://www.linkedin.com/pub/damien-athope/91/9a8/b01