Welcome to Damien Marie AtHope's WebpageAtheist & Huminist: Author, Advocate & Activist
Here is some of my other external pages or content:
Facebook Witter Page, My YouTube, My Linkedin, Twitter: @AthopeMarie, Instagram: damienathope, Personal Facebook Page, Secondary Personal Facebook Page, Main Atheist Facebook Page, Secondary Atheist Facebook Page, Facebook Leftist Political Page, Facebook Group: Atheist for Non-monogamy, Facebook Group: HARP, Meetup Group: (HARP) Humanism, Atheism, Rationalism, & Philosophy and Meetup Group: Firebrand Atheism
The Tree of Lies and its Hidden Roots (not yet published)
“back cover writing”
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.
This book is a collection of researched information such as archaeology, history, linguistics, genetics, art, science, sociology, geography, psychology, philosophy, theology, biology, and zoology which will challenge you. It will make you question your beliefs with information, inquiries, and ideas to ponder and expand on. The two main goals are to expose the evolution of religion which loosely starts about 100,000 years ago as an estimate for the evolution of pseudo-religion and to offer thought provoking insights and challenges to remove the rationale of faith. The evolution of religion consists of the primal stage of organized religion which began around 13,500 years ago, the proto stage is around 10,000 years ago, the progressed stage is around 7,500 years ago with the forming of mythology, and about 5,000 years ago brings the prominence of gods. You will be guided through a providential intervention of belief in gods and goddesses myths that have plagued humankind for way too long. We often think we know what truth is nevertheless this can be but a vantage point away from losing credibility, if we are not willing to follow valid and reliable reason and evidence. The door of reason opens not once but many times. Come on a journey to free thought where the war is against ignorance and the victor is a rational mind.
Beginning Thoughts Excerpt from: “The Tree of Lies and Its Hidden Roots”
The Tree of Lies and Its Hidden Roots will attempt to offer lots of researched information along with challenges, questions, and ideas for others to ponder and expand on. This book’s aim is to expose the evolution of religion, which is loosely about 100,000 years old, and organized religion about 13,000 years old along with offering thought provoking insights and challenges to remove the rationale of faith. In addition, this book will offer ways to arrive at better thinking, instead of claiming some superior, better than thinking, or just pushing cornered beliefs and expecting others to agree or follow without choosing what they like themselves. I try to learn about belief and nonbelief to be informed in my choice of self-defined antireligionist path. I never hide what I think and do wish to inform others who wish to listen to what I think and have learned. I use archaeology, anthropology, history, linguistics, genetics, art, science, sociology, geography, psychology, philosophy, theology, biology, zoology, etc.
I undertook the research for this book as an amateur armchair archaeologist/historian. I do not claim I have all the perfect evidence and only that I do try to present my ideas, hypotheses, and conjectures with the links of their information that I strive to interpret and piece together. While I do find my thinking and conclusions personally reasonable when assessing the ancient past and all the different fields that I cover to expose what I see as a connected link of religion. I am not asserting I have formal training, experience, or education to deem my claims scholarly fact, just the facts as I see them. However, I have read a few college textbooks on archaeology, anthropology, and archaeology and history of religion. I do try to show the information to the things I am thinking and though many are not peer reviewed; I do not find them baseless. I admit I am making textual studies, which I try to blend and synthesize in a variety of ways to reach new insights into ancient religions.
I am writing a book of my ideas and not an archaeology dissertation or research grant but to expose what I think I have learned and how it relates to the how and why religions survive. I advise all who read this book to think for yourselves and if you question something, good, you should go look it up. I am not claiming infallible perfection and even if you think I am right, I implore you to go research for yourself if you want to be sure. There is no such thing as learning too much and I welcome being shown new incite or even that in some way I am wrong and for it allows me to improve if I need better facts. I hope to be forever willing to rethink what I think. We should never be so fixed in our thinking to believe everything we think is set in stone. I wish us all to have the enthusiasm and continued encouragement never to stop learning with an open mind. Yes, you heard it right; of course, I am open and can change the mind. I wish to forever listen to reason and/or evidence, something religionists and fideists should try sometime.
However, will address thinking, beliefs, facts and truths with others but I am not much into debates that go nowhere because I only want to talk facts in reality and no matter what good ideas may arise, when talking to a closed mind who are not willing to adhere their beliefs to reality the debate goes nowhere. I am willing to debate those who are reasonable to some extent or have an open mind because I am willing to go over what I know, even explain what and why I think the way I do or challenge or offer new thinking to others. However, trying to change someone’s mind is a waste of time and since I feel everyone has a self-right to think and believe as they wish, even if we disagree, I cannot see much value in trying to see who is right when we are not talking facts in reality. Nevertheless, I will fight against anyone who tells me to be quiet or wishes to remove my self-right to think and nonbelief as I wish.
I do not respect faith or religious belief. However, I do try to respect people even ones of faith as fellow humans. I value the sanctity of “rights” owed to every person to self-define their beliefs freely and do not personally attack people because of what they believe. Even if I am challenged in my anti-beliefs, I say attack thinking and not people. I do however work to expose religion as a whole by desiring to help people to see it for what it is, largely evolved from fear and misunderstanding. As an antireligionist and not just an atheist, I will always openly address how I feel on religion and that it is valueless myths, legends, or folktales.
I discount all religious belief and see all religion as little more than fairytale traditions or parables. I liken religious belief to a tool some seem to use safely, even a few use constructively, while many others hurt themselves and others with it. However, it is always an oddity of human creation nothing more to me. Human interactions such as denial, lying, and violence are also tools that like religious myths I choose not to deliberately use in my value driven life. I have been asked why I say I “hate” the concept of god(s) or religion(s). I do hate injustice and harmful ideas that lead to injustice and the hate of injustice is often the positive motivation for justice. I hate cancer as well as religion and god concepts for just the same reason they kill people. I do not hate religion per say as an antireligionist any more than I hate a gun. However, a loaded gun, like religious belief is always dangerous, but not all guns are used to kill. Even though I do not hate religion’s nondestructive attributes, I do despise and hate its controlling, harmful, abusive, bigoted, or discriminatory teachings and ways which are destructive and do kill.
While reading this book, you may notice I am a different kind of atheist this is because I am an axiological atheist. Remember when someone announces that they are an atheist; listeners may assume there is only one type of atheist available, when really there are many different types or persuasions of atheist. An axiological atheist is a value theory atheist or a value science atheist. Axiology is a large motivator and it is a value theory which is a lens to view and valuize, value judge worth, or what is worthy as well as what is good or bad of greater or lesser value. To read more on value theory check it out online at Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (value theory). As an axiological atheist, I see intrinsic value in people and want them to see that value in themselves as well as others. Doing such would never allow for a god who devalues you and asks you to devalue others.
Similarly, to follow such a high standard, I too must value myself, value others, and strive to help other people value others. I strive to be as strong in devaluing myths and lies as I am in valuing the person who may hold them. Value to an axiologist has multiple realms, categories, and meanings going from internal value, external value, and systemic or global value. Likewise, there can be value distinctions differentiating, for example, between instrumental value (being good for some purpose) and technical value (being good at doing something) or between contributory value (being good as part of a whole) and final value (being good as a whole). To read more on axiology check it out online at Encyclopedia Britannica (axiology). To read more on the science of axiology check it out online at Robert S. Hartman Institute (applications of axiology).
Axiological atheism is a type of atheist philosophy that can be thought of as similar to existentialism and humanism. The following is a short explanation from Wikipedia on axiological atheism: axiological or constructive atheism rejects the existence of gods in favor of a “higher absolute,” such as humanity. This form of atheism favors humanity as the absolute source of ethics and values, and permits individuals to resolve moral problems without resorting to a god. Karl Marx (philosopher) and Sigmund Freud (psychologist) used this argument to convey messages of liberation, full-development, and unfettered happiness. One of the most common criticisms of atheism has been to the contrary that denying the existence of a god leads to moral relativism, leaving one with no moral or ethical foundation, or renders life meaningless and miserable. Blaise Pascal argued this view in his Pensées. To read more on atheist philosophies check it out online at Wikipedia on Atheism – Atheist philosophies.
Axiological atheism would affirm that rejecting gods does not have to lead to moral nihilism or moral relativism but can allow and axiological atheism supports a kind of atheistic objective morality foundation. In addition, axiological atheism supports that life has value and meaning as well as can be rich and meaningful. To read more on objective morality check it out online at Strong Atheism (case for objective morality). Some may not like what I am but your lack of agreement to my educated philosophical unbelief stance does little to diminish either its veracity or truth. Atheism and the no gods’ conclusion is just the beginning; now it is time to solve the harder questions. There are many different kinds of atheism but to offer a cleaner view, the following are a few organized common categories, seven sets will be offered, and some kinds of atheism can be combined in a person and some cannot.
1. Difference in Knowledge
2. Difference in Affirmation
3. Difference in Scope
4. Difference in the Assessed Rationality of Theism
5. Difference in Openness
6. Difference in Action
7. Difference in Bent on Religiosity
To read more on this topic check it out online at Commonsense Atheism (17 Kinds of Atheism).
Some may say it is all atheism and why complicate the issue by adding axiology or anything else. This thinking is paramount to saying, Why be educated at all in your unbelief?”, “Why defend it with reason, evidence, and reliability?”, or “Why strive to be more informed on the untruth of religion or gods?” These ideas built on non-thinking cannot be something, we who are critical thinkers, really support to champion an uninformed atheist position just because it is simpler.
I support nonbelievers just calling themselves atheist. I am not saying my way of being an axiological atheist is the only or even the best way for all other nonbelievers. In fact, I only mentioned my philosophical atheist stance and wanted to explain how, why, and in what way I disbelieve. I am not the thought police nor would I ever support that or let others be thought police to me. As they say, atheism is not a group movement or a cult as religion so there is no one correct labels that all should or must follow. Just like how some atheists prefer bright, freethinker, skeptic, rationalist, secular humanist, whatever xyz, etc. We who value critical thinking must hold reason above opinions. So I say be you, I value people being authentic in whatever way they see right to define their personal disbelief. Atheists come in a variety of shapes, colors, beliefs, convictions, and backgrounds. To read more on this check it out online at American Atheists (What is Atheism?).
Atheists, as a whole, are not a unified group, so accusations that “atheists” are doing x, y, and z hold little merit. In fact, dissatisfaction with organized religion, and the potential for groupthink, is what causes many believers to abandon faith and come out as atheists. Usually, it does not follow that such individuals would happily join another organized group. Debate within the atheistic community is robust and debates even about whether there is even an “atheistic community” at all, for instance, and the fact that this debate exists presupposes no dogmatic mandate from an organized group. It does follow from this lack of organization that there is no atheist equivalent of the bible, koran, or other holy text. There are, of course, atheist writings, but one does not need to adhere to opinions held by Friedrich Nietzsche, Richard Dawkins, or Christopher Hitchens to be considered an atheist. Some atheists will actively oppose what these kinds of authors do and say. To read more on this check it out online at rational wiki, Atheism.
Some argue that strong atheists are a threat and try to say that some dictators such as Stalin and Polpot who were claimed to be atheists and killed people, we should not have hard atheist stances. I reject this as flawed thinking because most claimed atheist killers did not kill for atheism but were killers who may have rejected the concept of gods. Likewise, in two other ways, I will reject this reasoning; first, my hard stance is humanitarian and as such, the hate of injustice is the motivation for justice. The other being, even if atheists had killed, it means little, as it would be only the people involved. In a sense, all atheists are an island of personal persuasion, belief, and accountability. As such, atheism is not an actual group or sect like a religion and so we have no affiliations to the action or philosophical thinking of any other nonbelievers. As an axiological atheist, I proclaim all god myths are moral monsters, if nothing more than they are claimed to create all or have a supreme power. Thus, the sensation of pain experienced by almost every living being is their crime and all suffering is their direct responsibility or guilt. Life could have been different with a just and caring god. Insects and other invertebrates do not experience pain and people with the condition known as “Congenital Analgesia” or “Congenital Insensitivity to Pain” also does not experience pain as we do and thus your god myth is a moral evil! Therefore, good riddance to the entire silly god delusions, not only is the myth of “god dead” but that evil myth deserved to die, so good riddance to bad rubbish!
If the topic of axiological atheism interests you, I am pleased to tell you that this will be one of my next books; however, the next three books will be Religion? Hell no, I am an Atheist, Firebrand Atheism, and Axiological Atheism. I always try and am a POSITIVE representative of the atheist community. For many folks, you might possibly be the first atheist they have ever met. Leave them with a smile on their face and the impression that you are just like them. The word will spread that “those atheists are not nearly as bad as we were told they are.” Believers, do not take it personally, I hate and reject all concepts of god(s) as well as all religion(s) and not just yours. I equally devalue all superstition, supernatural, mystic, pseudo-scientific, pseudo-morality, pseudo-history, or illogical thinking, etc.
What I do value and I wish all others to value is critical thinking, which should not be seen or confused as common sense. Instead it involves thoughtful intentionality of reasoning, applied in a intellectualized meaningful way, skillfully conceptualizing, applying, analyzing, and/or evaluating information gathered from or generated by observation, experience, reflection, reasoning, or communication as a guide to any or all beliefs or actions.