*Strong atheists include agnostics who do not believe in the existence of any deities but do not explicitly assert that there are none, or do not assert it is true that no deity exists.
*Anti-accommodationist atheists maintain that all people should be subject to a high level of rational criticism requiring all beliefs to be supported with valid and reliable reason and evidence. Anti-accommodationists are loud and proud and enjoy being highly and openly critical of faith-based beliefs.
*Firebrand atheists can mean different things as unapologetically arguing that religion is false and harmful, including elements of polemic and ridicule, even if it causes some believers to take offense. Or being brave enough to publicly express the truth about religion, with the emphasis on the telling its harm and falsehood, usually attacking the faith beliefs, not the person.
*Axiological atheists hold (Ethical/Value theory Reasoned and Moral Argument driven) Atheism, Anti-theism, Anti-religionism, and Secular Humanism. Roughly then axiological atheism = Strong Disbelief as well as Strong Secularism and Humanism.
I hear some people say I have too many labels or have defined and broken down my thinking too much and I think it’s odd, since when is clarity or accuracy unwanted or distasteful?
I don’t tell others to define like me if one thing covers everything in your life great that’s not how it is for me. I like people knowing exactly what, where, and how I stand on issues. If I am loved for who I am I want, you to know what that is. If I am hated for who I am I want, you to know what that is. Why do so many think it’s better to limit yourself to only one label because it’s easier. An intellectual thinker desires clarity and accuracy. An intellectual is a person who engages in critical study, thought, and reflection about the reality of society, proposes solutions for the normative problems of society, and by such discourse in the public sphere gains standing in public opinion.
It is okay to not know, in fact it is epidemiological honesty or a responsibility of a rational thinker to say I don’t know, when one does not know.
I was asked, “But then how do you differentiate “woo” from “stuff that is too strange to comprehend? And isn’t it a little depressing for a rationalist don’t you think to not know or be able to comprehend something?
I am a rationalist and I enjoy wonder and it is okay to not know. Woo is epidemiological dishonesty or irresponsibility, claiming to know things either you don’t know or beyond what is reasonable to infer from what is available to know or saying this that contradict want is reasonably known or reasonably inferred. As a rationalist where or when “stuff is too strange to comprehend” you should employ epidemiological honesty or responsibility and say I don’t know but will strive to find out.
Damien, everyone is different and everyone needs different things. Spiritually, emotionally, mentally, and physically. There is no right or wrong answer. Just be good to one another.
You have violated your thinking with an internal contradiction, by violating the law of noncontradiction. “There is no right or wrong answer.” And yet this is an argument under its own delusion as it is claiming this statement a truth.
“In classical logic, the law of non-contradiction (LNC) (or the law of contradiction (PM) or the principle of non-contradiction (PNC), or the principle of contradiction) is the second of the three classic laws of thought. It states that contradictory statements cannot both be true in the same sense at the same time, e.g. the two propositions “A is B” and “A is not B” are mutually exclusive.” Ref
By Damien Marie AtHope
“Here is a video of a meetup were I talk with and argue with other atheists”