Is Atheism Irrational?

Animavore · **#961** by **Animavore** » Jun 12, 2023 6:53 pm

Johnny Blade wrote:
Spearthrower wrote:

No

Not only do I not believe that, the question is absolute nonsense: nothing existed? Eh? Can't be expected to answer a paradoxically borked question.

Do you agree with this timeline?

Don't mean to be pedantic, but, there's no part of this timeline that says nothing.

At best it simply doesn't show anything beyond a certain point.

Seabass · **#962** by **Seabass** » Jun 12, 2023 8:24 pm

Johnny Blade wrote:My God!

Johnny Blade · **#963** by **Johnny Blade** » Jun 13, 2023 7:56 am

Animavore wrote:

Don't mean to be pedantic, but, there's no part of this timeline that says nothing.

At best it simply doesn't show anything beyond a certain point.

I didn't say that there was. I believe spearthrowers point of contention is that he believes I'm being overly simplistic in me saying "...nothing existed except for rocks." and that there could be more to what I call "nothing" than I understand. That's fair enough I guess. Of course there would be gravity and laws of attraction and other forces that also existed during this time. Things that arent made of matter.

Spearthrower · **#964** by **Spearthrower** » Jun 13, 2023 9:54 am

What's confusing is that your original contention was that atheists believe that eyesight evolved in the absence of life - when there was nothing but rocks.

When that was queried, you then engaged in some pointless asshattery but eventually got round to redefining your contention as being a query about whether I believe there was ever a time when only rocks, or stars, or dust existed and nothing else. I clearly said 'no'.

You then followed up asking if I thought that the above picture was an accurate timeline.

What topic are we discussing here? That's a bunch of different topics, none of them minor or simple in themselves, across just 3 posts.

Assuming you're not a sock puppet from someone with baggage here (because you do really give off that vibe) then perhaps you might want to stop talking at us and telling us what atheists believe considering you don't seem to really know, and instead just engage in an honest, friendly conversation. An apposite quote from Carl Sagan:

If a human disagrees with you, let him live. In a hundred billion galaxies, you will not find another.

Assuming you believe in some traditional god concept - why does my disbelief in that god concept frustrate you so much? I am not worried that you believe in X - why are you so moved by the idea that some people don't believe in X that you'd engage them with such hostility?

My honest answer is that I have no opinion on your graphic - it's outside my area of specialty, and consequently my knowledge of the above amounts to little more than you'd find on a relevant Wikipedia page. In fact, my knowledge of it wholly amounts to received wisdom and I have no real means of interrogating the contentions other than trusting that scientific method will expose falsehoods via cumulative evidence.

Whether it turns out to be true or not though, I still won't believe in your preferred god, so why's it relevant? If the graphic turns out to be true according to all available evidence - would you stop believing in your preferred god? Do you see why it's essentially a red herring?

My non-belief in gods isn't a product of the timeline of the evolution of the universe, but of the fact that there is no empirical evidence for any god, yet human groups throughout history have confidently claimed to know all about their mutually contradictory deities, and often oblige others to conform to the supposed divine decrees of the posited entity. I just have no use for that conceit - it honestly seems like a children's story to me, like a tooth fairy tale. I no more feel the absence of belief in gods than you feel the absence of belief in Santa.

Rumraket · **#965** by **Rumraket** » Jun 13, 2023 9:39 pm

Johnny Blade wrote:Yes. Atheism can be seen to be irrational and when used as foundation to one's worldview it leads to the belief in other absurdities and possibly even mental illness.

Nobody uses atheism as a "foundation" to their "worldview". Not believing that a God exists, or believing that no Gods exist, isn't some sort of ontological metaphysical principle (ala naturalism, platonism, dualism, physicalism, materialism, or what have you) that makes any claims about the nature of reality or anything(other than not thinking there's a God in it.)

Johnny Blade wrote:
Here are just a few observations I believe show evidence of irrationality:

Atheists believe higher biological functions such as eye sight and consciousness arose naturally from a theoretical point in time where nothing existed except rocks.

Disregarding the silly idea that eye sight and consciousness "arose from rocks" instead of "emerged over the course of the evolutionary history of life on Earth", so do some theists. They think God acted at a hypothetical creation of the universe to set up the laws of physics such that these other things like life, the sense of sight, and consciousness, would eventually be produced by natural processes.

Whether one thinks God acted to create the laws of physics or not, shows nothing about it being absurd or irrational to think the sense of sight, or consciousness, evolved during the history of life.

Johnny Blade wrote:
Atheists who do not believe this are unable to articulate a theory of origins.

Not true at all. It is trivial to come up with alternative, non-divine explanations for the origin of eye sight and consciousness, than evolution.

Johnny Blade wrote:
Atheists believe a woman can have a penis.

Some do some don't. So do many theists. It is not an entailment of atheism, and you haven't shown that belief to be irrational anyway. It simply hinges on what you define to be a "woman" and a "penis." There is no objectively correct definition of words, they are literally just tools for communication created through emergent social interactions.

Johnny Blade wrote:
Atheists view themselves as being more "scientific".

That's often because atheists have no reason to dispute established scientific findings like the age of the Earth and the universe, the brain-dependent and physical basis of mind, and the evolutionary history of life. Compared to how many theists are in complete denial about these facts, atheists seem eminently rational in comparison.

Johnny Blade wrote:
Also I would encourage anyone who is interested to search for themselves the symptoms of anti-social and paranoid personality disorders.

So what?

Many historical "prophets" who claimed to have had visions and visitations of angelic and other divine beings are known to simply have suffered temporal lobe epilepsy, with halluscinations and delusions of a religious nature being a common symptom. Many religious people are convined invisible beings can possess and control their bodies and that a mind can exist in the absence of a physical brain and literally desire things into material existence out of thin air, that snakes can talk, that prayer works, that Donald Trump is an honest man chosen by God to purge the western world of "trannies", that amputees can re-grow missing limbs by the power of faith, etc. etc.

THWOTH · **#966** by **THWOTH** » Jun 13, 2023 10:55 pm

Johnny Blade wrote:...

Q1: Do you believe you believe there was a point in time where nothing existed in this universe except dust and rocks? (or nothing except stars..whatever you think came first, dust or stars)

Q2: Do you believe higher functions such as sight and conciousness arose naturally in the universe?

A1: Dust and rocks are not nothing. Dusk and rocks exist. As do the atoms from which they are formed and of which they are composed, as do the particles of which atoms are composed etc etc. Johnny Blade is also composed of these fundamental particles, and atoms, and more complex structures like molecules, proteins, lipids, keratin etc etc. To talk about 'nothing except dust, rocks and stars' is to miss a very important point, which is that everything in the universe is made of the same basic stuff, whether it's dust and rocks or the human-like eyed of octopuses - it's all composed from a very small number of fundamental particles that interact with each other in very specific and interesting ways. You don't have to believe this - it has simply been demonstrated empirically; it is observed.

Basically, you have far more in common with dust and rocks than you think.

A2: How would anything found in Nature arise unnaturally? A hierarchy of higher and lower function is not a meaningful or significant way of thinking about complexity and the interactions between and within complex systems. Ideas that try to explain complexity in Nature by reducing it all to a single attributable cause are always doomed to fall short. You don't have to believe this - it has simply been demonstrated empirically; it is observed.

Basically, you have far more in common with dust and rocks than you currently have the capacity to imagine. A good foundational education in science, math, history and literature can expand both you capacity for understanding and imagining how Nature actually works.

Spearthrower · **#967** by **Spearthrower** » Jun 14, 2023 3:43 am

Aye, like dusts and rocks are entities so simple as to be conceivably existent absent all the processes and forces that actually would be required to produce dust and rocks.

mindhack · **#968** by **mindhack** » Jun 14, 2023 1:39 pm

Cito di Pense · **#969** by **Cito di Pense** » Jun 14, 2023 7:05 pm

Spearthrower wrote:Aye, like dusts and rocks are entities so simple as to be conceivably existent absent all the processes and forces that actually would be required to produce dust and rocks.

Calilasseia · **#970** by **Calilasseia** » Jun 15, 2023 8:38 am

Oh look. It's a chew toy. Haven't had one of these for a while.

Johnny Blade wrote:Yes. Atheism can be seen to be irrational and when used as foundation to one's worldview it leads to the belief in other absurdities and possibly even mental illness. Here are just a few observations I believe show evidence of irrationality:

Oh do go on, this will be hilarious.

Johnny Blade wrote:
Atheists believe higher biological functions such as eye sight and consciousness arose naturally from a theoretical point in time where nothing existed except rocks.

Oh dear. And already, you're making a spectacle of yourself before a global public audience.

First of all, we have evidence from the peer reviewed scientific literature, that these entities have a basis in testable natural processes.

With respect to the origin of life, over 100,000 peer reviewed scientific papers from the prebiotic chemistry literature, document in exquisite detail the laboratory experiments establishing that every chemical reaction implicated in the origin of life works. That research has now moved on to experiments with synthetic model protocells, and a suitably comprehensive list of recent papers in the relevant research field can be found here by the diligent. See also this collection, and this collection.

Indeed, life IS chemistry writ large. Millions of chemical reactions are taking place in your body right now, and if some of those reactions stop, then you die.

If this wasn't the case, then the entire pharmaceutical industry as we know it wouldn't exist. Scientists have synthesised a vast range of molecules that successfully treat a plethora of human diseases. If life wasnt based on chemistry, this would not be possible.

For that matter, I recently updated my exposition on the origin of life, and made it available as a Google Docs document here. Note that I provide explicit citations to no less than eighty two peer reviewed scientific papers covering relevant details, from the synthesis of the simplest organic precursor molecules, through to the synthesis of sugars, lipids and nucleotides, through the experiments supporting the "RNA world" proposition, through to recent experiments by a team of Japanese scientists, who established in their laboratory experiments that their bare RNA strands not only underwent self-replication, but generated a molecular ecosystem via Darwinian evolution.

Oh, and there's nothing "theoretical" about deep time. Radionuclide decay tells us that the Earth is 4.6 billion years old. I refer you to this thread covering this topic in detail.

Meanwhile, you do realise that the literature covering the evolution of the eye is voluminous? Indeed, I cover some of that literature in this thread, and that's only a tiny fraction of the available literature.

As for consciousness, I was recently introduced to a very interesting scientific paper, namely this one:

The Neuronal Gene Arc Encodes A Repurposed Retrotransposon Gag Protein That Mediates Intercellular RNA Transfer by Elissa D. Pastuzyn, Cameron E. Day, Rachel B. Kearns, Madeleine Kyrke-Smith, Andrew V. Taibi, John McCormick, Nathan Yoder, David M. Belnap, Simon Erlendsson, Dustin R. Morado, John A.G. Briggs, Cédric Feschotte, and Jason D. Shepherd, Cell, 172: 275-288 (11th January 2018) [Full paper downloadable from here]

For those who want to gain some background before I delve into this paper, a non-technical account can be read here.

From that paper:

Pastuzyn et al (2018) wrote:
SUMMARY

The neuronal gene Arc is essential for long-lasting information storage in the mammalian brain, mediates various forms of synaptic plasticity, and has been implicated in neurodevelopmental disorders. However, little is known about Arc’s molecular function and evolutionary origins. Here, we show that Arc self-assembles into virus-like capsids that encapsulate RNA. Endogenous Arc protein is released from neurons in extracellular vesicles that mediate the transfer of Arc mRNA into new target cells, where it can undergo activity-dependent translation. Purified Arc capsids are endocytosed and are able to transfer Arc mRNA into the cytoplasm of neurons. These results show that Arc exhibits similar molecular properties to retroviral Gag proteins. Evolutionary analysis indicates that Arc is derived from a vertebrate lineage of Ty3/gypsy retrotransposons, which are also ancestors to retroviruses. These findings suggest that Gag retroelements have been repurposed during evolution to mediate intercellular communication in the nervous system.

Basically, what this paper is telling us, is that [b]a central part of brain chemistry responsible for the connectivity of neurons, and transmission of persistent memory data between neurons, began life as a retrovial insertion in the deep evolutionary past of vertebrates.

The authors open with:

Pastuzyn et al (2018) wrote:
INTRODUCTION

Brains have evolved to process and store information from the outside world through synaptic connections between interconnected networks of neurons. Despite the fundamental importance of information storage in the brain, we still lack a detailed molecular and cellular understanding of the processes involved and their evolutionary origins. Eukaryotic genomes are littered with DNA of viral or transposon origin, which compose about half of most mammalian genomes (Smit, 1999). A growing body of evidence indicates the sequences encoded by these elements can provide raw material for the emergence of new functions and regulatory elements (Chuong et al., 2017). In vertebrates, these include dozens of protein-coding genes derived from sequences previously encoded by transposons (Feschotte and Pritham, 2007) or retroviruses (Kaneko-Ishino and Ishino, 2012). Interestingly, many of these transposon-derived genes are expressed in the brain, but their molecular functions remain to be elucidated.

The neuronal gene Arc contains structural elements foundwithin viral Group-specific antigen (Gag) polyproteins that may have originated from the Ty3/gypsy retrotransposon family (Campillos et al., 2006; Shepherd, 2017; Zhang et al., 2015), although the role these Gag elements play in Arc function has not been explored. Arc is a master regulator of synaptic plasticity in mammals and is required for protein synthesis-dependent forms of long-term potentiation (LTP) and depression (LTD) (Bramham et al., 2010; Shepherd and Bear, 2011). Arc can regulate synaptic plasticity through the trafficking of AMPA-type glutamate receptors (AMPARs) via the endocytic machinery (Chowdhury et al., 2006). This endocytic pathway maintains levels of surface AMPARs in response to chronic changes in neuronal activity through synaptic scaling, thus contributing to neuronal homeostasis (Shepherd et al., 2006). Arc’s expression in the brain is highly dynamic; its transcription is tightly coupled to encoding of information in neuronal circuits in vivo (Guzowski et al., 1999). Arc mRNA is transported to dendrites and becomes enriched at sites of local synaptic activity where it is locally translated into protein (Steward et al., 1998; Waung et al., 2008). Intriguingly, aspects of Arc mRNA regulation resemble some viral RNAs, as Arc contains an internal ribosomal entry site (IRES) that allows cap-independent translation (Pinkstaff et al., 2001). Arc is required in vivo to transduce experience into long-lasting changes in visual cortex plasticity (McCurry et al., 2010) and for long-term memory (Guzowski et al., 2000; Plath et al., 2006). In addition, Arc has been implicated in various neurological disorders that include Alzheimer’s disease (AD) (Wu et al., 2011), neurodevelopmental disorders, such as Angelman (Greer et al., 2010; Pastuzyn and Shepherd, 2017) and Fragile X syndrome (Park et al., 2008), and schizophrenia (Fromer et al., 2014; Manago` et al., 2016; Purcell et al., 2014). Thus, precise regulation of Arc expression and activity in the nervous system seems essential for normal cognition.

Despite its importance, little is known about Arc protein biochemistry and molecular function. Here, we uncover a potential role for Arc in mediating intercellular communication via extracellular vesicles (EVs). Synaptic communication is modulated by many other communication pathways that include glia-neuron interactions, and emerging evidence suggests that EVs mediate intercellular signaling in the nervous system (Budnik et al., 2016; Zappulli et al., 2016). EVs can be broadly divided into two groups, microvesicles and exosomes, which are defined both by size and subcellular origin. Microvesicles pinch off from the plasma membrane directly and are usually 100– 300 nm in diameter, whereas exosomes are derived from intraluminal vesicles that originate from multivesicular bodies (MVBs) and are usually <100 nm in size. EVs can transport cargo that do not readily cross the plasma membrane, such as membrane proteins and various forms of RNA. The observation that EVs can function in the intercellular transport of these molecules within the nervous system opens an entirely new perspective on intercellular communication in the brain.

Here, we find that Arc protein self-assembles into oligomers that resemble virus capsids and exhibit several other biochemical properties seen in retroviral Gag proteins such as RNA binding. Moreover, Arc is released from neurons in EVs and is able to transfer its own mRNA into neurons. The Drosophila Arc homolog, dArc1, also forms capsids and mediates intercellular transfer of its own mRNA at the fly neuromuscular junction (Ashley et al., 2018, this issue of Cell), despite originating from a distinct retrotransposon lineage. These data suggest that co-option of retroviral-like Gag elements may have provided an evolutionary pathway for novel mechanisms that mediate intercellular signaling and have been intricately involved in the evolution of synaptic plasticity and animal cognition.

I'll let everyone read the rest of the paper, as it's fascinating enough not to let me spoil the juicy parts for you, but the practical upshot of the above work is:

Pastuzyn et al (2018) wrote:
DISCUSSION

Here, we show that mammalian Arc protein exhibits many hallmarks of Gag proteins encoded by retroviruses and retrotransposons: self-assembly into capsids, RNA encapsulation, release in EVs, and intercellular transmission of RNA. These data suggest that Arc can mediate intercellular trafficking of mRNA via Arc EVs (which we term ‘‘ACBARs’’ for ‘‘Arc Capsids Bearing Any RNA’’), revealing a novel molecular mechanism by which genetic information may be transferred between neurons.

Arc Functions as a Repurposed Gag Protein

Our data show a remarkable conservation of viral Gag properties in Arc. Since Arc shows structural homology to the Gag CA domain (Zhang et al., 2015), the capability of self-assembly into oligomeric capsids is perhaps not too surprising. However, Arc seems to retain other important biochemical properties of Gag that are not intuitive from its sequence. Despite lacking clear zinc-finger RNA binding domains such as in HIV Gag, Arc encapsulates RNA, and RNA binding seems critical for capsid formation. This is reminiscent of Foamy Virus Gags, which have evolved different RNA-binding motifs to HIV Gag (Hamann and Lindemann, 2016) and also structurally resemble Arc (Taylor et al., 2017). HIV Gag-RNA interactions are complex and involve multiple components of Gag, including the MA domain, and are regulated by host cellular factors (Mailler et al., 2016). Gag MARNA interactions are also critical for virus particle formation at membranes (Kutluay et al., 2014). Moreover, if viral RNA is not present, Gag encapsulates host RNA, and any single-stranded nucleic acid longer than ~20–30 nt can support capsid assembly (Campbell and Rein, 1999), indicating a general propensity to bind abundant RNA. Indeed, precisely how viral RNA is preferentially packaged into Gag capsids in cells remains an intensive area of investigation (Comas-Garcia et al., 2016).

After a few paragraphs covering that Arc reveals a new and hitherto unsuspected signalling pathway in neurons at the molecular level, the authors continue with:

Pastuzyn et al (2018) wrote:
Evolution of Synaptic Plasticity and Cognition

Ty3/gypsy retrotransposons are ancient mobile elements that are widely distributed and often abundant in eukaryotic genomes and are considered ancestral to modern retroviruses (Malik et al., 2000). There is evidence that coding sequences derived from Ty3/gypsy and other retroviral-like elements have been repurposed for cellular functions repeatedly during evolution (Feschotte and Gilbert, 2012). For instance, multiple envelope genes of retroviral origins have been co-opted during mammalian evolution to promote cell-cell fusion and syncytiotrophoblast formation in the developing placenta (Cornelis et al., 2015). There are more than one hundred Gag-derived genes in the human genome alone (Campillos et al., 2006), and genetic KOs of their murine orthologs have revealed that some, like Arc, are essential for cognition (Irie et al., 2015). However, the molecular function of these Gag-derived proteins has been poorly characterized, and whether they were co-opted to serve similar cellular processes remains an open question. This study and the accompanying article from Ashley et al. (2018) now reveal that two distantly related Gag-derived genes have been independently co-opted in fly and tetrapod ancestors to participate in a similar process of EV-dependent intercellular trafficking of RNA in the nervous system. Given the plethora of retroelements populating eukaryotic genomes, we speculate that many other Gag proteins have been repurposed for cellular processes that await discovery in a variety of organisms.

Let me encapsulate that for you succinctly. An ancient retroviral insertion into early vertebrate genomes 400 million years ago, was co-opted by those vertebrates for signal transmission between neurons, and as a corollary, forms part of the molecular basis for our cognition.

Our ability to think and reason comes not from a cartoon magic man from a goat herder mythology, but from a 400 million year old viral incursion into Sarcopterygian genomes. Which we inherited after lots of rounds of evolutionary modulation and transformation.

Looks like your pathetic strawman caricatures of scientific postulates are busted.

Johnny Blade wrote:
Atheists who do not believe this are unable to articulate a theory of origins.

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha.

I've already done this above for the origin of life.

Oh, you want the origin of the universe as well? Scroll down to the middle of this post, where I cover braneworld cosmology in some detail.

Johnny Blade wrote:
Atheists believe a woman can have a penis.

This piece of fulminating bigotry on your part is beneath deserving of a point of view.

Johnny Blade wrote:
Atheists view themselves as being more "scientific".

I notice you never brought any scientific backing for your assertions. See above for how it's done.

Johnny Blade wrote:
Also I would encourage anyone who is interested to search for themselves the symptoms of anti-social and paranoid personality disorders.

Funny how these are far more prevalent among mythology fanboys. Along with a host of other nasty little aspects of the mythology fanboy aetiology.

pfrankinstein · **#971** by **pfrankinstein** » Aug 15, 2023 4:48 pm

Most intllgent atheists are really agnostic.

Paul.

Spearthrower · **#972** by **Spearthrower** » Aug 15, 2023 5:04 pm

And this declaration is based upon what data? Survey/poll results link?

I wonder how they created a survey that not only delved into the philosophical reasoning for a person's rejection of theism, but also quantified their intelligence at the same time.

Also, false dilemma - it's entirely reasonable to be both agnostic (i.e. don't believe there's any way to gain knowledge of alleged gods) and atheist (not believe in gods).

pfrankinstein · **#973** by **pfrankinstein** » Aug 15, 2023 6:13 pm

Spearthrower wrote:And this declaration is based upon what data? Survey/poll results link?

I wonder how they created a survey that not only delved into the philosophical reasoning for a person's rejection of theism, but also quantified their intelligence at the same time.

Also, false dilemma - it's entirely reasonable to be both agnostic (i.e. don't believe there's any way to gain knowledge of alleged gods) and atheist (not believe in gods).

Most intelligent atheists are really agnostic,; they just don't realise it.

With venom the athiest.

Paul.

romansh · **#974** by **romansh** » Aug 15, 2023 7:22 pm

Bertrand Russell wrote:As a philosopher, if I were speaking to a purely philosophic audience I should say that I ought to describe myself as an Agnostic, because I do not think that there is a conclusive argument by which one can prove that there is not a God. On the other hand, if I am to convey the right impression to the ordinary man in the street I think that I ought to say that I am an Atheist, because, when I say that I cannot prove that there is not a God, I ought to add equally that I cannot prove that there are not the Homeric gods.

http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/russell8.htm

Fenrir · **#975** by **Fenrir** » Aug 15, 2023 9:31 pm

Awwww. They so cute when they pretend to philosophy.

THWOTH · **#976** by **THWOTH** » Aug 15, 2023 9:34 pm

Spearthrower · **#977** by **Spearthrower** » Aug 16, 2023 3:29 am

pfrankinstein wrote:
Spearthrower wrote:And this declaration is based upon what data? Survey/poll results link?

I wonder how they created a survey that not only delved into the philosophical reasoning for a person's rejection of theism, but also quantified their intelligence at the same time.

Also, false dilemma - it's entirely reasonable to be both agnostic (i.e. don't believe there's any way to gain knowledge of alleged gods) and atheist (not believe in gods).

Most intelligent atheists are really agnostic,; they just don't realise it.

With venom the athiest.

Paul.

So it's an assertion you pulled from your rectum. Well fancy that!

Yeah, see the thing about rationality that you somehow still don't grasp after all these years is that your ability to construct a coherent sentence (congratulations on that, btw) does not provide any validity to the meaning of that sentence.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_skepticism

Scientific skepticism or rational skepticism (also spelled scepticism), sometimes referred to as skeptical inquiry,[1] is a position in which one questions the veracity of claims lacking empirical evidence.

To make truthful inferential claims about the world, you must draw on evidence from the world not just state opinions as fact.

For example, I could write: most intelligent theists are secretly atheist.

Sounds nice. Mmm, wouldn't it be good if that were true. I feel smart just for saying it.

Sadly, it's pulled from my arsehole absent a single iota of real world evidence, and thus would indicate only the content of my hope, a projection of my biases, or a failing of my reasoning.

Of course, we all know that you are incapable of acknowledging anything you don't want to hear, and are too certain of your own brilliance to comprehend that you may not be the font of all wisdom, so your response is not going to acknowledge these real world factors but instead float the fuck off into the land of fuckwittery as usual.

Radicalthought0000 · **#978** by **Radicalthought0000** » Aug 27, 2023 11:01 pm

Atheism irrational, no. It is just... incomplete, have any of you practiced "empirical" spirituality? You need to if you want to be totally sure that there isn't anything spiritual and all is matter, no?

Spearthrower · **#979** by **Spearthrower** » Aug 28, 2023 4:15 am

Radicalthought0000 wrote:Atheism irrational, no. It is just... incomplete, have any of you practiced "empirical" spirituality? You need to if you want to be totally sure that there isn't anything spiritual and all is matter, no?

Go ahead and outline the practice of 'empirical spirituality', otherwise how can anyone know whether they've done it or not?

How does 'empirical spirituality' provide any certainty about the existence of spirituality without circularity?

What does the term 'empirical' mean of something other than matter?

Radicalthought0000 · **#980** by **Radicalthought0000** » Aug 28, 2023 5:27 am

Go ahead and outline the practice of 'empirical spirituality', otherwise how can anyone know whether they've done it or not?

How does 'empirical spirituality' provide any certainty about the existence of spirituality without circularity?

What does the term 'empirical' mean of something other than matter?

Empirical can be about mental experiences and mystic experiences as well. I can make you clear path to follow.
First meditation to get yourself the ability to focus
Then you need to understand the "signatures" of your body, it means that you sensations coincide with a mental "image" or "sigil" of it.
Then after that you need to practice altered states of consciousness, and one very special called "gnosis" in which your mind becomes "one" the sigil or the signature ( magick can be done with a lot less focus, but anyways this are the basics)
Then you can try contacting spirits and other beings from anywhere really, but if you do it, try to read about binding rituals, banishing rituals and the like, if not, nastythings can happen to your mind, and your perception of the world.
Gnosis and sigils can be used to create servitors, or spells for manifestation, or other things like emotional manipulation.
and thats it, all the steps for "empirical spirituality" you just need to keep a diary of results, negative and positive to refine the process though and to be honest with yourself about it.

Is Atheism Irrational?

Re: Is Atheism Irrational?

Re: Is Atheism Irrational?

Re: Is Atheism Irrational?

Re: Is Atheism Irrational?

Re: Is Atheism Irrational?

Re: Is Atheism Irrational?

Re: Is Atheism Irrational?

Re: Is Atheism Irrational?

Re: Is Atheism Irrational?

Re: Is Atheism Irrational?

Re: Is Atheism Irrational?

Re: Is Atheism Irrational?

Re: Is Atheism Irrational?

Re: Is Atheism Irrational?

Re: Is Atheism Irrational?

Re: Is Atheism Irrational?

Re: Is Atheism Irrational?

Re: Is Atheism Irrational?

Re: Is Atheism Irrational?

Re: Is Atheism Irrational?

Who is online