Atheist, Antitheist, and Antireligionist

Religion is just a Tree of Lies with many branches and its long evolution is explained in this link: Evolution of Superstition to Religion My trifecta of disbelief, I am a atheist, antitheist, and antireligionist supported by science, archaeology, and philosophy. I am a Axiological Atheist to be specific. Axiological atheism: (Ethical/Value theory Reasoned and Moral Argument driven) Atheism, Anti-theism, Anti-religionism, and Secular Humanism. Or simpler axiological atheism = Strong Disbelief as well as Strong Secularism and Humanism. For more on this click Axiological Atheism Explained I am a strong atheist meaning: either as the general position that denies the existence of any gods or the limited position that denies the existence of some specific god (but not necessarily others). The first definition is the most common and what most people understand as the definition of strong atheism. The second definition is used is specific contexts when trying to explain atheists’ varying approaches to the question of the existence of gods. Strong atheism is also sometimes defined as claiming to know that no god or gods exists. This goes a step beyond simply believing that it is false that any gods exist because you can believe something is false without also claiming to know for sure that it is false. This definition is the one typically used to criticize strong atheism by arguing that it’s impossible to know that no gods can or do exist, ergo strong atheism must be illogical, contradictory, or at least as much a religious faith as theism. The general definition of strong atheism is sometimes treated as the definition of atheism itself, without qualifications applied. This is incorrect. The general...

Forget Religions’ Unfounded Myths, I Have Substantiated “Archaeology Facts.”

I Believe Archaeology not Myths The value (axiology) of archaeology (empirical evidence) is knowledge (epistemology) of the past adding to our intellectual (rational) reality of actual events. On the other hand, myths (collection of stories) inaccurate accounts of the past or tails to establish thinking or behaviors, supporting faith (nonrationality) in some unreal belief, behavior or creative fiction of non events or actual events. All religion and the theorized deities or supernatural elements they support are but a spectrum of compiled and accepted unfounded myths. These compiled and accepted myths often try to give made-up answers or arbitrary methods to many questions humanity has about the WHO, WHAT, HOW of life or death acting if only they know the WHY. Archaeology involves a wide range of rational or partial methods and can be considered both a science and a humanity striving to accurately answer the WHO, WHAT, HOW of prehistoric and historic life only the WHY is not always known or only partly understandable. Religionists/fideists truly believe their myths and religions are highly important and are the only thing that can give answers to our many questions believed necessary to humankind. However, is it necessary to humankind to believe their myths? If your beliefs were built on prehistorical or historical reality and not myth, it would be able to be substantiated by archaeology and only then hold warrant to justify the belief as true and not require faith. If its myth and can be debunked by archaeology why would you still believe it as true rather than symbolic or metaphorical even if you still value it? What is in the term “religion?”...

I Believe Archaeology not Myths

The value (axiology) of archaeology (empirical evidence) is knowledge (epistemology) of the past adding to our intellectual (rational) reality of actual events. On the other hand, myths (collection of stories) inaccurate accounts of the past or tails to establish thinking or behaviors, supporting faith (nonrationality) in some unreal belief, behavior or creative fiction of nonevents or actual events. By Damien Marie...