"You" Are Not What The Religious Say You Are

Click on the link below for a 15-minute video that shatters the concept of a supernatural soul as the base of our consciousness:

Another Failed Refutation of Atheism

The experiments and treatments splitting the brain's corpus callosum
falsify the supernatural human soul.

Free Will: A Definitive Debate

"Two titans of neuroscience and philosophy come together to debate the existence of free will – a question with profound implications for identity, justice, and the very meaning of life itself. 

"Do human beings have free will? 

"For Stanford neurobiologist Robert Sapolsky, science clearly demonstrates that free will is a powerful and dangerous illusion. Without free will, it makes no more sense to punish people for antisocial behaviour than it does to scold a car for breaking down. It is no one's fault they are poor or overweight or unsuccessful, nor do people deserve praise for their talent or hard work; 'grit' is a myth.­ 

"But for philosopher and cognitive scientist Daniel Dennett, free will is not only compatible with our current scientific knowledge but justified by it. Free will underwrites our moral and artistic responsibility – and reason and self-control are both real and desirable. 

"Coming together to debate this question for the first time, these two intellectual giants will delve deep into the science and philosophy of the mind and get to the heart of this ancient and vitally important question."

- - - - - - - - -

Click on the link below for an hour-long video debate that clarifies the science and science-based philosophy of Free Will. Two points from me: 1) Both reject any supernatural/spiritual elements and agree that the phenomenon is deterministic. 2) It was close, but I think the scientist (Sapolsky) won over the philosopher (Dennett), surprise, surprise.

Do We Have Freewill?

The Supernatural And Reality

"What would you do if we found something to confirm the supernatural? Jon in CA wants to know if science and the supernatural are compatible "

Click on the link below for a concise answer to this common question from science-based thinkers:

What If There Is Evidence For The Supernatural?

Naturalism, Supernaturalism, And Presuppositions

Theists challenge atheists with the claim that all people have presuppositions, which are assumptions made in advance and taken for granted. Is this true? Let's take a look at the actions of religious apologists: they assume that there is a supernatural, a God, spiritual beings, and miracles. Unfortunately for them, there is no objective evidence for any of it. In comparison, science and its methods make NO assumptions and only accept claims with sufficient supporting objective evidence. Most atheists with whom I have been in contact are science-based thinkers like myself. Click on the link below for clarity regarding how science works:

" - - - Science, at least ideally, is committed to the pursuit of truth about the nature of reality, whatever it may be, and hence cannot exclude the existence of the supernatural a priori, be it on methodological or metaphysical grounds, without artificially limiting its scope and power. Hypotheses referring to the supernatural or paranormal should be rejected not because they violate alleged a priori methodological or metaphysical presuppositions of the scientific enterprise, but rather because they fail to satisfy basic explanatory criteria, such as explanatory power and parsimony, which are routinely considered when evaluating claims in science and everyday life. Implications of our view for science education are discussed."

Does Science Presuppose Naturalism (or Anything at All)?

Scientific Consensus

Religious apologists frequently will point to religious scientists, either in the past or present, and use the fallacy of numbers to support the notion that science and religion are compatible. However, they ignore the fact that members of the ELITE scientific organizations in the USA (National Academy of Sciences) and the UK (the Royal Society) overwhelmingly reject the claims for the supernatural and a God because of the lack of evidence. The fact that some scientists personally accept these unsupported claims is much different than science as a discipline accepting them: it doesn't (full-stop).

These religious people misunderstand the concept of Scientific Consensus, which is nicely and concisely presented in this link, some of which is below:

"I like to imagine the scientific method as resembling the solar system. The planets, traveling in perfect orbits, represent the pillars of the scientific method: Observations, hypotheses, predictions/experiments, and continuous refinements.

"What holds all of this together -- the inward tug of gravity in this analogy -- is consensus. We often call it "theory," but that's just a different word for consensus. Every scientific field has a unifying theory: for biology, it is evolution; for chemistry, atomic theory; and for physics, quantum mechanics and general relativity. We could replace the word "theory" with "consensus," and the meaning would essentially be the same."

THE Question That The Religious Need To Answer

Religious apologists talk about the supernatural as if it is real. They compare it to the natural. However, they use different criteria in evaluating them:

• Supernatural: understood through subjective experience and authority (dogma, preaching, and writings).
• Natural: understood by observation and experimentation (science)

 Because these ways of looking at reality are evaluated for authenticity through different criteria, conversation tends to break down. I propose a challenge to the religious in the form of this question:

Instead of comparing the natural with the supernatural, why not compare the supernatural with the unknown? To a science-based thinker, the reality of a supernatural realm is unknown.

Naturalism 101

"Wishes and hopes are one thing, the ways things are is another. So if you want to know how things actually work and what actually exists, as opposed to getting stuck in what might be wishful thinking or delusion, you should be scientific and empirical. You should seek good, objective evidence about what exists and how things work."

The Psychological Need For Certainty

"Agnosticism is something that doesn’t come easy to us. In fact, this is compounded by research that shows that people with more adamant and certain beliefs – think fundamentalist Christians and militant atheists – appear to be happier than those with more wavering beliefs. Certainty does make us happier."

Note that atheists AND the religious with firmly held beliefs are the happiest.  To clarify, I, and most atheists I know, realize that absolute certainty is elusive.  We are just certain that it is most probable that there is no interventionist god.

An Honest Way for Christians to Separate Fact From Fiction

"What objective procedure can Christians have that will show Christianity as the only valid religion? I can imagine none."

The goal should be finding the truth, not supporting a predefined conclusion.

How History Views Claims Of The Supernatural And The Paranormal

Many criticize atheists for calling the Bible a work of fiction.  History functions like science:  nothing can be accepted as history that violates known reality.  Thus, if a significant part of a book (The Bible) contains significant portrayals of supernatural and paranormal events, isn't it reasonable to classify it as fiction?  It does not qualify as non-fiction, thus, - - -

History and the paranormal

Supernatural: What Is It And How Do You Know It Is Real?

I, and many other atheists, have said that all arguments for a god or the supernatural are arguments from ignorance.  Why do we say this?  Because, all we really know is within what most people call nature.  The concept of supernatural is a vestige of humanity's ignorant and superstitious pre-scientific past.  There is no method to test for it or to verify that there is such a thing.  At the bottom, there is reality:  there is the reality we know through scientific methods and there is the reality that is presently unknown.  Nothing is added to knowledge by believing in any supernatural force or being.