Using Axiological Awareness to Assist in Argumentation.

Using Axiological Awareness to Assist in Argumentation.

Axiology “Goodness-for” questions/assertion: Judge assesses and value judges because of qualities in or lacking in the claim.

*Axiology (understanding what is good or valuable as well as what is evil or unvaluable like how the stories about theist theistic gods are often racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic intersexphobic, xenophobic, etc. Thus, they are directly against humanity and thus are evil and unvaluable. Unvaluable; as in the god concept you have is evil and demonstrably harmful and thus is highly unvaluable to humanity)

-Why are your objects of proposed value subjective psychological states or objective physiological external world states for your claim?

-Why do your purposed descriptive words fit qualities for valuation (such as “powerful”, “knowing”, and “present” in the Omnipotent: all-powerful, Omniscient: all-knowing, and Omnipresent: all-present god assertion) your claim?

-Why is your value-for, worth-for, and/or goodness-for claims different than other similar claims?

Take for instance how Religion supporters try the evaluation tactic of saying “there are peaceful Religions.”

I may respond, “what value do you think what you are saying has and to what level of proof do you feel truth needs as well as how do you ensure Accuracy” (asking to find the truth or as usual expose the lack of a good Axiology)

Let’s look at the “gOD claim” with the Hammer of Truth

To me god is a the Presuppositional Error it assumes unsupported oncology assumptions. First, truly what is a god and how can you claim to know about it? Guessing is not evidence, neither is wild, unfounded assertions that are written in reality devoid documents such as holy books. Atheists do not have to prove that gods do not exist, as gods have never been proven to exist. Nor is there any good reason to think they could exist! In the branch of linguistics known as pragmatics, a presupposition is an implicit assumption about the world or background belief relating to an utterance whose truth is taken for granted in discourse.

Let me explain why as an axiological atheist (value theory atheist) even the belief in the concept of god is ethically vile to me. God belief is inherently immoral to me it is the belief that supports an all-powerful being who willfully allows suffering, something that no ethical person would tolerate if they had the ability to do otherwise. Moreover, a common attribute of god belief is support of this claimed greater being of high intelligence and self will forcing its will and standards on other beings of high intelligence and self-will. This force is unethical and abusive to the rights of humanity. Furthermore, many who subscribe to this force abusive relationship god claim an even more revolting ethical atrocity called hell where eternal horror and suffering is dished out by direct will of the claimed stronger immoral god being against the defenseless undeserving subjugated humanity. Thus, being one, who values rights and ethics, it sickens me to even speak of such willful misconduct of justice. Your god concept is vile… (axiology value judgment).

The god claim is like a clown car rolling in from out of nowhere and it seems like it is only one or possibly a few bad ideas, but no. No, it is a dark festival that masquerades as truth but it is only an evil funhouse of mirrors that distorts reality. The term god is an empty meaningless term and if it was not for man-made myths or wild speculations which are usually the misinterpretations of nature, no one would claim to know what a god is or could be. Unless one falls back to the circus of fallacies in the magic big top of fideism and the faith fallacy that you do not need anything but faith to validate, justify, or prove any mystical belief you so desire.

The God Fallacy is that there is no epistemically warranted or justifiably reliable evidence for god(s) existence; most ideas offered are stretches of unreason promoting seemingly implausible knowledge or reality claims. Moreover, beyond this is the self-evident realization that there is no reliable and /or verifiable evidence that could be used to define what god term actually is or could be assured to involve. Because it is never good to just randomly conceptualize or fabricate from bias trying to force connections into existence. epistemically warranted or justifiably reliable evidence or even a preset of proofs that do not hold gaps a believer want to fill with an arbitrary beliefs things need a god explanation and yet again what does god even mean. One his furthered nothing with god talk until they offer clear links to understand what could rightly make up the empty term g. o. d. (Group Originated Delusion).

Any reasonable thinker should conclude that clear links to any knowledge are required to comprehend what to ask, where to look, or what to state is involved. This would seem especially important since what is on the line is the actual truth or falsehood of the great believed “IT” of somethingism. Do you wish to just assemble or make up your god thinking as you go, greedily forcing anything that seems slow enough to not get away or is the actual truth in reality you seek even if godless as finding the truth is the main pursuit, as your aim is what true right, taken with the deepest integrity? One should desire such intellectual rigor in order to even distinguish if we need to inquire or have a way to question a possibility of existence, as this empty termed “it” god of nothingism is unknown in every way even in its “it” status outside of faith superstitions, Dogmatic–Propaganda, delusion, myths and lies.

Religion is just Dogmatic–Propaganda, such as how it is wrong to start with full belief built only upon faith: then search and anything unknown, claiming it somehow justifies or is evidence for their specific God Fallacy.

Another attribute of the God Fallacy is that believers seem to insinuate, if they can in anyway demonstrate (even the possibility of a thing that could seem to be a something attributed to a god) then they have proved that the god they believe in is true. And yet is it not true that man will always fail to prove a specific god? Religion is big on claims but small on reasoning. Take the Abrahamic faiths; they propose a very specific, well-defined god, but in reality, they advocate a very unspecified god; a naturalistic, inferred-theistic-creationism or the god of intelligent design. In other words, when pressed to demonstrate god in the world, or as the reason for the big bang, they can at best only try to surmise a magical power or unknown and unknowable possible something as the “creator.” But the question needs to asked, how does that prove any specific god? So even if we were to concede, for the sake of argument, that some god, phantom-menace started things, they still have to show that this god is the very same as the god in which they believe.

The truth is, for all the appeals they make to nature in order to justify their god, not one appeal is valid in any way to confirm that their god (and only their god) is true, they must always leave the facts and return to faith. Thus, these haughty theists always fail to show any naturalistic reasons for believing in their special-needs god. What they show instead is a belief, not in the god of some myth or scriptures, but belief in a projected somethingism-god attributed to nature, which is indistinguishable from a nothingism, godless reality attributed by nature. However, the issues don’t stop there, as they also would have to prove, or give warrant, as well as justification for every attribute and claimed character trait attached to their specific god using only natural arguments, not some Holy Book or otherworldly revelation.

---

Coherent Definition of god?

I am an Ignostic atheist and not only do not believe in the term gods I reject that even the term or concept of god has any real thing or true reality connected definition. To me there is no one coherent definition of god even if they think articulation proves real meaning, this proves little more that me saying someone believes in a “Triangle-Square-Circle”. To the term god I thus, regard it as empty of real meaning and or real definition constancy, so I see it as something that is not really known or knowable or coherently definable as a real object even if it can add arbitrary words to articulate it is still not something outside man-made arbitration.

One may say no the god definition is real one cannot say it is not, as most people generally know what the term god means thus that cannot be rejected. Really?? I could be misunderstanding this reasoning put against Ignostic Atheist thinking but to me it seems to hold the opinion, saying I must accept the god concept as something definable in reality because ad populum? In argumentation theory, an argumentum ad populum (Latin for “appeal to the people”) is a fallacious argument that concludes that a proposition is true because many or most people believe it: “If many believe so, it is so.”

Bigfoot’s, Unicorns, and Gods the rational conclusion using Axiology

So how do we form rational conclusions? More importantly, how do we differentiate between the levels involved to establish a conclusions rational viability.

It takes axiology or the value judgment the worthiness or lack thereof in relation to the available reason and evidence.

So let’s start with the axiological viability of Bigfoots

There is no available evidence for Bigfoots.

But is their proposition outside of reason?

Always start in reality from the evidence we do know, such as a primate/nonhuman hominid close to that of both humans and other nonhuman primates is not entirely outside all possibility of reason even though lacking all evidence. Therefore, belief is not warrant and the axiological worthiness of possibility is low enough to motivate disbelief.

Next The axiological viability of Unicorns (ie. a horse with a single horn on its head)

There is no evidence for Unicorns.

But is their proposition outside of reason?

As always start in reality from the evidence we do know, such as by looking at the evolution of the horse not once was there a horn on any of the several stages of animals to the horse we know today. So it is relatively outside of possibility though as it is still only claiming non-fantastic attributes it is only somewhat ridiculous. Therefore, belief is not in any way warranted and the axiological worthiness is so low to highly support disbelief.

Now the axiological validity of Gods

There is no evidence for Gods.

But is their proposition outside of reason?

As always start in reality from the evidence we do know, such as never in the history of scientific research or investigation has any supernatural claims shown to be true. So it is completely outside of possibility and is utterly ridiculous. Therefore, belief should be rejected as there are no warrants at all and it is axiologically unworthy to such a preponderance to demand disbelief.

The following are some evidence against a caring god working in the world. A recent study of the current living conditions throughout Africa shows that more than one billion people do not have enough clean water to provide for their basic human needs. As a result, more than 2,500 children are dying each day. I guess it is that god gives us free will by keeping children from clean water in an unproportioned amount to the civilized science filled world. I ask you, does your god not hear their prayers? According to Missionaries of Africa (2008), there is a water crisis and diseases that are living in dirty water are wiping out entire villages and communities. Does god exist? Does the magic chanting of prayer seem to work? Suppose for a minute with the understanding of religious believe, if there was a loving god and it answered even some prayers, would not the most deserving be the non-sinning? Moreover, what living human could be said to be less sinning than a baby and thus the most deserving. In addition, babies or children are likely the one’s religionists/fideists pray most often, for when they are in trouble. Belief changes nothing. Whatever circumstances you are in or not, has nothing to do with belief. If you are poor, belief does not make you not poor. If you are rich, you do not stay rich because of belief. You would think that poor people would have the benefit of the heavenly means and have god on their side, if anyone would, right? Overall, in 186 countries, first-day child death rates for babies are 6.9%. Where was god? In Angola, 8% of the babies die and 95% of the population is christian. In Congo, 7.5% of the babies die and 95.8 % of the population is christian. Whereas in Guinea-Bissau, 9% of the babies die and 10 % of the population is christian and in Niger 8.7% of the babies die and 5% of the population is christian. Therefore, being a christian and begging for an all-powerful all-loving god myth to do something that any half-decent human being would hardly even need to be asked to help an innocent child, shows that belief seems to make no difference in the world because the world is godless and sadly babies die. Isaiah 45:7 “I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I god do all these things.” Ref

Just think, the bible god “could” have banned slavery or shellfish and he chose to ban shellfish (Leviticus 11:12) and actually support slavery (Leviticus 25:44-46) even in the new testament (Ephesians 6:5; 1 Timothy 6:1-2) and Jesus clearly approves of beating slaves even if they didn’t know they were doing anything wrong (Luke 12:47-48) how crazy and immoral is that for a man-made fairy tales. I will openly say faith is foolish lacking credibility and it is stupid to hold on to beliefs that are disproved by science fact. However, I don’t usually call people names even ones saying things I believe are ridiculous nor do I belittle them instead I strive to and support attacking the thinking and not the person.

What is a god? Just a Empty Label.

Doubt god(s)? No, I stopped believing Fairytales.

“Normative generally means relating to an evaluative standard. Normativity is the phenomenon in human societies of designating some actions or outcomes as good or desirable or permissible and others as bad or undesirable or impermissible. A norm in this normative sense means a standard for evaluating or making judgments about behavior or outcomes. Normative is sometimes also used, somewhat confusingly, to mean relating to a descriptive standard: doing what is normally done or what most others are expected to do in practice. In this sense a norm is not evaluative, a basis for judging behavior or outcomes; it is simply a fact or observation about behavior or outcomes, without judgment. Many researchers in this field try to restrict the use of the term normative to the evaluative sense and refer to the description of behavior and outcomes as positive, descriptive, predictive, or empirical. In philosophy, normative statements make claims about how things should or ought to be, how to value them, which things are good or bad, and which actions are right or wrong. Normative claims are usually contrasted with positive (i.e. descriptive, explanatory, or constative) claims when describing types of theories, beliefs, or propositions. Positive statements are (purportedly) factual statements that attempt to describe reality. Normative statements and norms, as well as their meanings, are an integral part of human life. They are fundamental for prioritizing goals and organizing and planning. Thought, belief, emotion, and action are the basis of much ethical and political discourse; indeed, normativity is arguably the key feature distinguishing ethical and political discourse from other discourses (such as natural science). Much modern moral/ethical philosophy takes as its starting point the apparent variance between peoples and cultures regarding the ways they define what is considered to be appropriate/desirable/praiseworthy/valuable/good etc. (In other words, variance in how individuals, groups, and societies define what is in accordance with their normative standards.) This has led philosophers such as A.J. Ayer and J.L. Mackie (for different reasons and in different ways) to cast doubt on the meaningfulness of normative statements. Philosophers, such as Christine Korsgaard, have argued for a source of normative value which is independent of individuals’ subjective morality and which consequently attains (a lesser or greater degree of) objectivity. In the social sciences, the term “normative” has broadly the same meaning as its usage in philosophy, but may also relate, in a sociological context, to the role of cultural ‘norms‘; the shared values or institutions that structural functionalists regard as constitutive of the social structure and social cohesion. These values and units of socialization thus act to encourage or enforce social activity and outcomes that ought to (with respect to the norms implicit in those structures) occur, while discouraging or preventing social activity that ought not to occur. That is, they promote social activity that is socially valued. While there are always anomalies in social activity (typically described as “crime” or anti-social behavior, see also normality (behavior)) the normative effects of popularly endorsed beliefs (such as “family values” or “common sense“) push most social activity towards a generally homogeneous set.”  – Wikipedia

---

Theoretical philosophy? – Wikipedia

“The division of philosophy into a practical and a theoretical discipline has its origin in Aristotle‘s moral philosophy and natural philosophy categories. Theoretical philosophy is sometimes confused with Analytic philosophy, but the latter is a philosophical movement, embracing certain ideas and methods but dealing with all philosophical subject matters, while the former is a way of sorting philosophical questions into two different categories in the context of a curriculum. – Wikipedia

Here are examples of theoretical philosophy subjects I delve into:

• Ontology
• Epistemology
• Axiology
• Ignosticism
• Atheism
• Rationalism
• Antitheism
• Antireligion
• Anarchism
• Secularism
• Secular humanism
• Humanism
• Theories of truth
• Questions on knowledge 
• Practical philosophy
• Logic
• Questions on  Morality
• Feminist philosophy
• Philosophy of science
• Philosophy of language
• Philosophy of mind
• Metaphysics

---

Compare ideas not people, attack thinking and not people. In this way, we have a higher chance to promote change because it’s the thinking we can help change if we address the thinking and don’t attack them.

My eclectic set of tools for my style I call “Truth Navigation” (Techniques for Discussions or Debates) which involves:

*REMS: reason (rationalism), evidence (empiricism), and methodological “truth-seeking” skepticism (Methodic doubt) (the basic or general approach)

*The Hammer of Truth: ontology, epistemology, and axiology (methodological use of philosophy)

*Dialectical Rhetoric = truth persuasion: use of facts and reasoning (motivational teaching)

*Utilizing Dignity: strategic dignity attacks or dignity enrichments (only used if confusion happens or resistance is present)

Asking the right questions at the right time with the right info can also change minds, you can’t just use facts all on their own. Denial likes consistency, the pattern of thinking cannot vary from a fixed standard of thinking, or the risk of truth could slip in. Helping people alter skewed thinking is indeed a large task but most definitely a worthy endeavor.

---