Okay, this is going to be a slightly unusual post, but I’ve just started a new job, and as people learn about my academic research, I keep getting pulled into conversations ‘about religion’.  Now, don’t get me wrong – I love talking about religions.  Religions are social constructs with histories and cultures and art and stories and participants.  But talking ‘about religion’ is really only fun if you’re an 18-year-old freshman philosophy major who’s just stocked up on herbal refreshment.

Otherwise, these conversations always go the same way, and since I have a secret addiction to the list posts on Buzzfeed (in particular the DIY ones – so many pallets!), I figured what better way to compile this information.

Thus – six things not to say about religions!

1.) “But isn’t the religion really about …”

So here’s the thing – religions don’t have kernels, or hearts, or centers.  There’s…

View original post 2,538 more words


The religious experience generally such pain that they cannot overcome their superstition. Dr.Tarico knows how.


Religion in Decline - Please come backIn what looks to be a declining market, the guardians of traditional religion are ramping up efforts to keep their flocks—or, in crass economic terms, to retain market share. Some Christians have turned to soul searching while others have turned to marketing. Last fall, the LDS church spent millions on billboards, bus banners, and Facebook ads touting “I’m a Mormon.” In Canada, the Catholic Church has launched a “Come Home” marketing campaign. The Southern Baptists Convention voted to rebrand themselves. A hipster mega-church in Seattle combines smart advertising with sales force training for members and a strategy the Catholics have emphasized for centuries: competitive breeding.

In October of 2012 the Pew Research Center announced that for the first time ever Protestant Christians had fallen below 50 percent of the American population. Atheists cheered and evangelicals beat their breasts and lamented the end of the world as we…

View original post 1,789 more words

The religious are all essentially animists, who partake of the same superstitious milieu, emit similar “heroic” figures, and all are unique so that being unique does not aid the Christian cause against legendary element added to the mere man Yeshua. Christians thus special plead that he is above the others by being unique.Why would rational people find that his being some kind of savior means a gargantuan matter, as that salvation from Hell , no rational and-moral being would require!
Leucippus would find that any religious experience of any form of animism carries no aspect of necessity as they all lack supernatural intent whilst necessity is that by which mechanism rules.
We naturalists favor necessity, as Lamberth’s argument from inherency finds all chaos, order, regularity and the descriptons -laws- of Nature inhere in Nature, and to add that animistic intent would not complement but instead contradict science. As Lamberth’s telenomic argument notes, science finds no divine intent, and without that intent, He cannot be Himself and thus, cannot exist as such. Thus, He would be so incoherent that He could not function as any kind of explanation or primary force! Indeed, He’d be a secondary cause, depending on those natural ones, just as morals are independent of Him per Plato’s Euthyphro, and He could only enunciate what objectively already is there!
The [Alexander] Smoltzyk argument that He is neither a principle nor a person nor an entity cannot instantiate Him as not being a person nor an entity ,He could not instantiate Himself as that ultimate explanation or else, He is the pantheistic God!
Apologists go from one bit of quicksand to another, ever trying to overcome the vacuity of their God!
The Aquinas- Shelley superfluity argument is that why add Him as that ultimate explanation when as Percy Bysshe Shelley queries:” To suppose that some existence beyond, or above them [ those descriptions,S.K.] is to invent a second and superfluous hypothesis to account for what already is accounted for.” For theists then to aver that no, that would be a metaphysical mistaken category, but no, they would then beg the question thereof!
It floored me to find out that ultimately all theists are doing amounts to word play about this.I already has noted the Ockham blasting Him as requiring convoluted, ad hoc assumptions , thus, He would not be simpler than naturalism as the ultimate explanation. And the Flew- Lamberth presumption of naturalism argues that all natural causes and explanations are efficient, necessary,primary and sufficient: they are the sufficient cause and the ultimate explanation.
Again, by assuming that divine intent- teleology instead of relying on mechanism and patterns, they do practice that superstition of animism!
They merely assume that He and science cannot conflict, and that He uses evolution as His method of creation. NO!
Science finds no supernatural intent, just mechanism-causalism- teleonomy at work. Theists thus, in effect, carry out Lamberth’s new Omphalos argument that instead of finding Him as Philip Gosse’s original argument that He deceives us with apparent ancient ages of things, here He does so by letting us perceive mechanism as the ruler!
No spirit bosses lie behind natural phenomena and no God directs outcomes for all Nature, thus, again, theism = reduced animism!
Furthermore, as Primary Cause, for the sake of argument not depending on the real primary ones, then Lamberth’s the Malebranche Reductio reduces theism to absurdity in that his occasionalism claims that when we strike a ball, He does the actual striking!
Thus, why pick Him as that Primary Cause when He no more explains matters than do gremlins or – demons, that aspect of the supernatural!
Necessity, including randomness thus rules!
I just figured out that whilst theism is reduced animism, it is alsothe greater one, as He would be greater than those spirits or the gods of polytheism.
Necessity rules, instead of God, because as [Hans] Reichenbahh’s argument from Existence claims, as it is all, no transcendent beings can possibly exist! Furthermore, as transcendence contradicts omnipresence, He couldn’t be transcendent anyway.
[Peter Adam] Angeles’ infinite regress argument notes that cause event and time presuppose previous ones, in line with most physicists claiming that the Multiverse is eternal.
How then might rational persons have a relationship with a superfluity, that is the Ultimate Mystery, ostensibly the Ultimate Explanation but really is only a supreme obscurantism!
In the name of that superfluity, that obscurantism, that animistic superstition , people murder others!
Since ,I combine and permute arguments, these will appear again!
What is your take on that essay and this one? What do you think about the similarities of those supernatural beings/ What do you say about their having no intent? Epicurus and the Buddhists find gods as playing no role in the Cosmos. That transcends animism but also lacks evidence!
Mere people just has revelations from their inner experiences that cannot be inter-subjective, so as to be objective knowledge! They vary so widely, and despite what inclucivists/universalist claim that no evidence exists otherwise for that Ultimate Reality to which they supposedly end up as.

Please, not only post here, but also @ myatheistlife!


The Born-Again Experience

“. . . I prayed harder and just then I felt like everything I was saying was being sucked into a vacuum.  When I stood up, I felt like thin air; I had to brace myself.  I felt this energy, it was a kind of an ecstasy.” –Cathy  “Something began to flow in me—a kind of energy . . . Then came the strange sensation that water was not only running down my cheeks, but surging through my body as well, cleansing and cooling as it went.” –Colson   “It was a beautiful feeling of well-being, warmth and loving . . . I went home and all night long these warm feelings kept coming up in my body.” –Jean    “I felt something real warm overwhelming me.  It was in just a moment, yet it was like an eternity. . . . a joy, such a joy hit me…

View original post 1,535 more words

Religious nonsense!


         All religious experience stems from people’s own minds, and as that can be so varied, it lacks inter-subjectivity, so, it cannot be objective. To however, claim that the supernatural gives input, would beg the question.

         So, revelations have no supernatural input, and so, cannot carry the supernatural imprimatur. So, the Tanakh, the Testament, the Qur’an and other revealed  writings are just anthropogenic-manmade. And we see the internal and external contradictions and egregious morality  of the first three to affirm that.

         Near death and outside experiences carry natural causes. The brain’s chemistry explains the natural causes for them.

         Personal experiences and revelations do vary from  religion to religion. Some, inclusivists, claim  that they all carry the imprimatur of metaphysical reality, but no. That, too, remains subjective anyway.