How I come across?
Here is how I was told I come across:
“you come across so strongly with your ideas that it feels like you don’t care about anyone else in the room. And if you ask about others’ ideas, it is to compare them to your own. You don’t seem genuinely curious about other people, just focused on axiology, your book, etc. If you are interested in other people for their own sakes, they respond better. If people get the idea that you’re just in the room to tell people about yourself, that’s a turn-off. You might see it differently, but that’s how it looks to others.”
Here is my response:
I do like hearing ideas other than my own but also like telling what I think. I left a local atheist event before it was over (because it was mainly geared for weak atheists, accommodationist atheists, and religious atheists) as I wanted to respect that others have the right to be different than me. I do have strong opinions and a strong personality, but do strive to respect the self-rights of others. This means I realize I am not a good fit for every type of group or type of people atheist or otherwise. I do say even if I do not agree with others style of atheism, I do not think there is a right style of atheism. neither others atheism style or mine, as the type that works for others is good for them, just as the one, I like works for me. I believe people own themselves and thus their right to self-define as they wish. I self-define as a strong anti-accommodationist firebrand axiological atheist, but do not expect anyone to feel the same. I do wish to be one who can respect people without respecting any religion and believe in people without believing in any god or religion.
*Weak 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.
*Atheist accommodationists maintain that those who have religious or magical ideas which are closer to scientific reality should not be subject to the same level of rational criticism as that which is leveled at believers in creationism and others who utterly reject scientific evidence. Accommodationists will usually favor discussion, engagement, and pragmatic unity with religious groups who appear to condemn or combat extremism, even if doing so requires the pragmatic suspension of criticism towards those groups for their faith-based beliefs.
*Religionist atheists can mean different things kind of like wanting to keep religion or add religion to one’s atheism even when god has been abandoned. It seems like religiosity or religious beliefs with the belief in god missing. Religionist atheism can range from a godless religion to simply those who speak atheism in the guise of language taken broadly from the religious traditions. These atheists though utilize religious traditions may not believe in a god as a being or creator but highly value religious thinking, goals, practices, ceremonies, and religious morality or religious figures, most notably jesus. Likewise, a religionist atheist could hold a positive disbelief or an unsure lack of belief. Religionist atheism could also entail a gentler, more diplomatic atheism that is somewhat pro-religion or not antireligious; they could have “Religion without God”. Religionist atheism would be very drawn to places like The Unitarian Universalist church or The Sunday Assembly, an “atheist church” this is not to say all who attend The Sunday Assembly are religionist atheists.

*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 by 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

I am an Atheist, Antitheist, Antireligionist, Humanist, Writer, Artist, Poet, Philosopher & Activist.

I wish more than simply inspiring doubt in gods and religion. I wish to expose the errors in believing that allows Belief to be maintained as reasonable, warranted, justified or supported. I wish to highlight the many errors in the thinking offered as well as the many faulty presuppositions used trying to maintain as reasonable, warranted, justified or supported; removing all of their credibility to believe in them or to keep believing. Just remember a simple rule all beliefs need something to support them or they are at best unsupported accepted assertions, arguments or ideas. At worst completely baseless, misinterpreted confusions, or outright falsehoods. See it’s like this, if one feels something requires faith (unsupported cognition of acceptance) to see the thing as real; without realizing it, one has affirmed that such a thing is not likely a true part of reality.

My atheism is a fell defended and philosophically rich nonbelief/disbelief position or style and its well supported thinking of axiological atheism. Axiological (value theory or value science; a social science) atheist. Or put it in an easier way think of it kind of like moral argument reasoned and ethical driven strong atheism (disbelief in god’s). Axiological atheism: (Ethical/Value theory Reasoned and Moral Argument driven) Atheism, Anti-theism, Anti-religionism, and Secular Humanism. Axiological atheism = Strong Disbelief as well as Strong Secularism and Humanism. To learn more check out: “Axiological Atheism Explained”

I am a rationalist, not a skeptic:

To me, a “Rationalist”, knowing it or not will be more prone to axiology, strong atheism and or ignosticism. And “Skeptic”, knowing it or not will be more prone to nihilism, weak atheism and or agnosticism. Don’t get me wrong, “I Am a Rationalist and Support Reasonable Skepticism”

I am about sick with mean people, every time, remembering the real need there is in the world to be kind. May I always want or feel a need to give others kindness May I always choose kindness over meanness when I interact with people.

Damien Marie AtHope: Axiological Atheist, Anti-theist, Anti-religionist, Secular Humanist. Rationalist, Writer, Artist, Poet, Philosopher, Advocate, Activist, with schooling in Psychology and Sociology as well as an Autodidact in Science, Archeology, Anthropology, and Philosophy. Damien Promotes Science, Realism, Axiology, Liberty, Justice, Ethics, Anarchism, Socialism, Progressivism, Liberalism, Philosophy, Psychology, Archaeology, and Anthropology; advocating for Sexual, Gender, Child, Secular, LGBTQIA+, Race, Class Rights, and Equality. 

The Bio of Damien Marie AtHope

Out Atheist?
I am so out about my disbelief as I support reality and not because I feel better than a believer in supernatural things, gods or religions. Actually, I too once was the same until somewhat late in my life. In fact, I did not stop being this way until I was 36. I am so open now with good belief etiquette focusing on reasoned belief acquisitions, good belief maintenance, as well as honest belief relinquishment and challenging not out of hate or loathing, but out of deep compassion and understanding. This care wishes to save the indoctrinated victims of magical thinking falsehoods. I wish then self-esteem, self-ownership, self-leadership, self-efficiency, self-empowerment, self-love and self-mastery all of which can and in some way, are undermined by God’s and Religions; which either directly attack/challenge or subvert in some lesser realized way. Science is an intellectual endeavor to search for that which is accurate to the way the world is while religion is still desperately relying on fantasy stories and about what the world is not full of many inconsistencies as well as glaring inaccuracies in relation to true reality, thus religion is an unintellectual endeavor forcing a non-accurate/non-truth “faith” over “valid and reliable reason and evidence” so a blind searching to not understand the accurate to the way the world actually is in reality. This is likely because religions are not “real truth” searching endeavors and beyond all the other negative things, on the whole religions and their make-believe are but conspiracies theories of reality not worth believing in. Did you know Moses write nor asked for the writing of the Torah, the first five books Jewish holy book (the old testament)? Well, Moses didn’t, and neither did Jesus write nor asked for the writing of anything not one word in the Bible, just like how Mohammed did not write nor asked for the writing of the Quran: holy book of Islam. Do you see a theme? Well, here you go, because neither did Lao-Tzu write nor asked for the writing of the Tao Te Ching, the holy book of Taoism, and guess what neither did Gautama Buddha (the first Buddha) write nor asked for the writing of a book in Buddhism. And what do you know just like all the rest neither did nor guru Nanak write nor asked for the writing of Guru Gobind Singh the holy book in Sikhism? Funny isn’t it how almost all of the world’s religions share the same facts that the claimed holy teacher never wrote their holy book and for that matter are not even sure if they are historical or made up. But please don’t say they were not fake or that we don’t know the truth about them. Ha, ha, ha, please, I feel safe in my anti-religionism, thank you very much. I am a reality revolutionary fighting hard to defend reality as it actually is in a world working hard to do the opposite. To offer that which is not true to reality is to offer a conspiracy theory about it, including the beliefs of ghosts, gods, and religions. Believe me wrong prove it with valid and reliable reason and evidence or I don’t believe you nor would anyone have good reason to either including your self if you are an honest thinker. I don’t really have trust it is just from experience I know many beliefs people like holding are not worth believing in and full of shit. Why do most religious people claim to have religious or spiritual experiences is they add make-believe to “reality.” And the general “WHY” people profess to have religious or spiritual experiences is because we are emotional beings, that while we can employ the thinking strategy of rationalism over faith or unreason/illogical beliefs, we still often seem to prefer to follow emotional driven thinking or simply learn to appeal to emotionalism. Things are not the other way around as we are not rational beings who understand the world accurately by employing the logical thinking strategies and not thinking clouded emotionalism needed to replace faith or unreason/illogical beliefs that follow such thinking, right? We are all emotional and thus will experience emotional wonder. This common experience of things like emotional wonder or awe is just a positive emotional hijacking, as the experience of joy, but that is just the joy of being alive, it’s wholly cheapened to me by fantasy daydreaming delusions (supernatural) to this beautiful magic devoid reality. To me, rationalistic thinkers of intellectual character engaging in a thoughtful critical challenge, and thus should strive to disagree, debate, dispute, debunk, and degrade harmful unjustified beliefs (such as pseudo-science, pseudo-history, and or pseudo-morality the stuff religions love to promote) and not the swindled or reality deluded believer. However, I understand how we treat others matters even as an atheist dealing with theists. When I get angry or frustrated, I strive to have understanding and patience. When I get to where I think I will say something hurtful, so I strive, to say it a better way if possible, as I want to help not hurt. So, I wish to something not often offered to me; I wish to be kind, compassionate, and thoughtful as much as I can, as often as I can because how we treat others matters. Therefore, even as an out firebrand atheist I do respect people, I do not respect religion. I believe in people; I do not believe in religion. Tolerance has its limits for it will not stand for blind ignorance and the intolerance of bigotry, and it’s connected injustice cross that line first. I will NOT tolerate the unjust intolerance of oppression and harm. Because I want to live a value-driven life to promote kindness and human flourishing as an axiological atheist not just the call for reason in thinking but also thinking in behaviors as well. Simply how we treat others reflects on us just like how we make others feel about themselves tells a lot about our chosen character. Thus how we choose to treat others, respond or react to others, will often identify the kind of person we are striving to be. I wish to be a person of value.

Theists like to confuse the understanding of atheism to lessen its obvious reason. So, here’s a definition of atheism: all offered claims of god(s) are baseless and devoid of a shred of testable or provable evidence and the claims of or about gods either don’t represent in reality or claim to represent things contrary to reality as well as contradicts each other requiring a conclusion of atheism (lack of belief or disbelief in theism). I am an axiological atheist and some may wonder what is that? Axiological Atheism (“philosophic” value theory/value science “formal axiology” social science” atheism) is Classed Under Anthropocentric (human-centered) arguments: “Axiological atheism favors humanity as the absolute source of ethics and values, and permits individuals to resolve moral problems without resorting to God. Marx, Nietzsche, Sartre and Freud all used this argument to some extent to convey messages of liberation, full-development, and unfettered happiness.” “Damien, your Axiological Atheism sounds Highly interesting! One point, though. Have you considered that all of this philosophizing will mean nothing when you are dead? Human ideology on the concepts of mortality have been around since the dawn of mankind and will continue until every last human being is dead.” – Challenger My response, philosophizing like all science will mean nothing after “we” are dead but I care about more than me I want universal betterment and true humanity flourishing so philosophizing like all science matter in this goal does it not?

“Here is a video of a meetup were I talk with and argue with other atheists”