A Different Kind of Atheist

Some people may notice I am kind of a different kind of atheist this is because I am an axiological atheist (value theory or value science atheist). Remember when someone announces that they are an atheist; listeners may assume there is only one type of atheist available, when really she is a different type of atheist. As an axiological atheist Axiology is a large motivation and it is value theory which is a lens to view and valuize or 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) http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/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...

Contradictions and god cannot logically co-exist.

Can thoughts about the direction of a creator force with purpose be anymore perceptible or ascertainably different from our notions of purposeless non direction? For example, deities exhibits natural characteristics, the wind as science knows is a purposeless natural force, whereas gods are often attributed as being the force of purpose in wind such as seen in in the phrases, bhagavad-gita 10.21 commentary by Sri Sridhara Swami “Krishna is a lead wind”, bible: Exodus 10:13, “god brought wind”, and quran: Surat Al-Jāthiyah 45:5-6 mentions, “allah changing winds.” Likewise, deities exhibits human characteristics such as seen in in the phrase, “Krishna is  jealous” Holi festival Hinduism, “god is jealous” Exodus 20:5, and  “allah is jealous” Jami` at-Tirmidhi – Book 12, Hadith 1201. This fact of an undeniable anthropomorphic connection found in all creator deities, even in their most ethereal forms, can be easily addressed. For instance, if you say the “unknown/unknowable” origins of the universe involves an “it,” something with a beingness and humanness, can, in some form, then reasonably be seen as denoting some amount of anthropomorphism. The problem with this beingness god concept is with anthropomorphic reasoning that entails humans’ styled thinking, behavior, and beingness, which evokes a limited realm of personality, which is fixed in time, space, and place. So it can be assume from these references as well as many more that a reasonable conception of “deities” are ultimately an indirect beingness reference to anthropomorphism and an argument from analogy. Argument from analogy involves perceived similarities; such as an all-powerful designer being, a power attributed as infinite thing with somethingness as well as to unlimited possibilities (wind: nonbeingness; and thing with human...

The Trap of Intellectual Honesty and the Freedom from Moral Theism

The Trap of Intellectual Honesty and the Freedom from Moral Theism A common flawed belief of theists is “You can’t have morals without god” or “You can’t have morality without religion.” It would seem to be a belief of theists to conclude that for one to care about morality it can only be because a god exists, believing that a god/religion is and knows all good, and atheists or nonreligious cannot know good. You cannot appeal to our morality and then say we do not have morality. Likewise, you cannot appeal to your morality superiority and then demonstrate errors in following intellectual honesty thus a sound morality. Most theists like to act as if only they have morality and then presuppose atheist intellectual honesty or try to inspire atheist intellectual honesty thus believing atheists either have or can easily know good/morality. This is clearly evident in how theists/religionists question atheists about naturalism, the limits of science knowledge or epistemology knowledge. In general, believing they can conquer us atheists by getting us to agree we can’t be 100% sure of all things. However, in doing so they know they can appeal to our atheist intellectual honesty thus godless knowledge of good, but by doing so they have conceded to atheist morality even without realizing it. In addition, atheists often wrongly assume and presuppose theists will use intellectual honesty, such as that the believer is intellectually honest, when relatively all theists must in fact be somewhat intellectually dishonest and use faith as knowledge, justification, and certainty. This is a two pronged part of the faith fallacy which requires atheists to be...