If a god anything was real and good it would not be the harmful world we have. Therefore, no god is good but as gods are often claimed as good so no such gods exist. This is an axiological atheist argument also called the argument from evil.

Explaining Axiological theism, Axiological agnosticism, and Axiological atheism (Video)

I am going to roughly offer the understanding how axiological thinking interacts with differing theological beliefs.

Axiological theism: is the thinking a god(s) or goddess(es) are real as well as valuable and we are enriched (all value, truth, morality are deity involved) because there is such a being(s) and we should worship it and would be worse off if such a being(s) did not exist (life would have no meaning, worth or value and there would be no way to judge morality)

Axiological agnosticism: is the thinking I do not know if a such being as god(s) or goddess(es) exist neither can we evaluate the value and we thus lack the basis to value judge what benefits or harm they may encompass and such would probably not worship such a being(s) as we do not know if we should or should not. Likewise, we cannot form an opinion as to if we are better or worse if such a being(s) existed.

Axiological atheism: is the thinking that no god(s) or goddess(es) exist and they lack all worth and value to humans even if they existed. Such myth should be rejected in favor of believing in humanity, seeing secularism and humanism as a kind of “higher absolute” such as humanity, formal axiology, or naturalistic or universal ethical principles. My stating a kind of “higher absolute” is not stating a belief n some absolute morality instead it is meaning nothing but naturalistic human-centered morality is used or form of valued good is derived from a rational thinking by humanity  (Ie. humanity as the absolute source of ethics and values, and permits individuals to resolve moral problems without resorting to god myths or religious philosophies). Axiological atheism would tend to value Formal Axiology (Scientific Axiology/Scientific Value Theory) takes a realistic, or fact-based, view of the world when assessing or understanding value/good/worth. Formal axiology understands that people have and act upon values. Scientific axiologists will seek to understand what those values are, and to analyze their structure. That empirical orientation is why scientific axiology can serve as the formal side of the yet to be developed value sciences. To illustrate this value realism, suppose a theist states they love god(s). Since the science of value has an empirical orientation, a value scientist would see the theistic belief in god(s) not as some actual existing being, instead, understand it as a conception in the mind of theist, not anything realistic or fact-based. Ref

Moreover, an axiological atheist could be thought of as thinking no gods no masters and thus would never worship a god or any being especially if it was by threat, force or the act of coercing to any extent. An axiological atheist may even question if any being is worthy of the title god or be ignostic that every theological position assumes too much about the concept of god and see this as extending to other theological concepts; including (but not limited to) concepts of faith, spirituality, heaven, hell, afterlife, damnation, salvation, sin and the soul. Thus regarding that as ridiculous and not worthy at all and should be shown Ridicule and Disdain. Therefore as you can guess they would say we are better off that no god(s) or goddess(es) existed and it would be much worse if they did.

axiological attitudes toward God’s existence are axiological theism (thinking God’s existence to be a good thing), axiological atheism (thinking God’s existence to be a bad thing) and axiological agnosticism (indifference toward God’s existence). Issues in the Philosophy of Religion an axiological approach

Axiological Atheism Explained

Axiological/axiology (value theory/value science) atheism?

My quick definition of Axiology?

Axiology is a philosophy (value theory) and a social science (formal axiology) mainly involving the “what, why, and how” of “value” the way epistemology approaches “knowledge” as in what is of value/good/worth/beneficial/ or useful? Why is the thing in question of value/good/worth/beneficial/ or useful? How should the value/good/worth/beneficial/ or useful be interacted with?

Philosophic Axiology (value theory) and Scientific Axiology (formal axiology)

Formal Axiology: Another Victim in Religion’s War on Science

 *(axiology as philosophy) value theory/the theory of values, meta-ethics/morality or aesthetics:

“Value theory encompasses a range of approaches to understanding how, why, and to what degree persons value things; whether the object or subject of valuing is a person, idea, object, or anything else. Intuitively, theories of value must be important to ethics. This investigation began in ancient philosophy, where it is called axiology or ethics.” Ref

 *(axiology as science) formal axiology/the theory of values, meta-ethics/morality or aesthetics:

“Formal axiology is a branch of axiology in general. Axiology in general or “as such” is value theory in all its ramifications, ranging from meta-theory to ethics, aesthetics, logic, and any other dimension of human interest that involves questions of good and evil, right and wrong, correctness or incorrectness, beauty and ugliness, truth and falsity, and every other conceivable value issue, dimension, or interest. Formal axiology, focuses initially upon the most formal features of human values, then upon applications of these formalities to the concrete details of what we value (values) and how we value (valuations). Robert S. Hartman created a logically abstract (he would say “synthetic”) to features of all human values and valuations; the formal definition of “good” or “value,” which he regarded as the “axiom” of formal axiology — Good is concept (or standard) fulfilment, the three basic kinds of value, intrinsic, extrinsic, and systemic, the hierarchy of value, where the three basic kinds of value are themselves ranked with respect to their relative worth, an association of the three basic kinds of value with set theory and transfinite mathematics.” Ref

axiology/axiologist: noun, axiological: adjective, axiologically: adverb


Axiological atheism: (Ethical/Value theory Reasoned and Moral Argument driven) Atheism, Anti-theism, Anti-religionism, and Secular Humanism. Roughly understood axiological atheism = Strong Disbelief as well as Strong Secularism and Humanism.

I am an Axiological Atheist, which roughly can be understood as a value theory or value science Atheist. Axiology to Atheism is also meant to denote an atheistic rejection of the existence of gods or supreme beings in favor of a “higher absolute” such as humanity, formal axiology, or naturalistic or universal ethical principles. My stating a kind of “higher absolute” is not stating a belief in some absolute morality, instead it is meaning nothing but naturalistic human centered morality is used or forms of valued good is derived from a rational thinking by humanity  (Ie. humanity as the absolute source of ethics and values, and permits individuals to resolve moral problems without resorting to god myths or religious philosophies). Axiological Atheism can be thought to involve ethical/value theory reasoned and moral argument driven atheism, anti-theism, anti-religionism, ignosticism, apatheism, secularism, and humanism.  I am anthropocentric as an Axiological Atheist. I see humans value as above all other life’s value. Some say well, we are animals so they disagree with my destination. But how do the facts play out? So you don’t have any difference in value of life? So a bug is the same as a mouse, a mouse is the same as a dolphin, a dolphin is the same as a human, all to you have exactly the same value? You fight to protect the rights of each of them equally? And all killing of any of them is the same crime murder? I know I am an animal but you also know that we do have the term humans which no other animal is classified. And we don’t take other animals to court as only humans and not any other animals are like us. We are also genetically connected to plants and stars and that still doesn’t remove the special class humans removed from all other animals. A society where you can kill a human as easily as a mosquito would simply just not work ethically to me and it should not to any reasonable person either. Anthropocentrism (from Greek ánthrōpos, “human being”; and kéntron, “center”) the belief that considers human beings to be the most significant entity of the world and interprets or regards the world in terms of human values and experiences.

Formal Axiology (Scientific Axiology/Scientific Value Theory) takes a realistic, or fact-based, view of the world when assessing or understanding value/good/worth. Formal axiology understands that people have and act upon values. Scientific axiologists will seek to understand what those values are, and to analyze their structure. That empirical orientation is why scientific axiology can serve as the formal side of the yet to be developed value sciences. To illustrate this value realism, suppose a theist states they love god(s). Since the science of value has an empirical orientation, a value scientist would see the theistic belief in god(s) not as some actual existing being, instead understand it as a conception in the mind of theist not anything realistic or fact-based. Ref

In my opinion, when it comes to the god concept, an axiological atheist would start with ignosticism which is rejecting the concept of gods because the god concept and the term god has no meaning nor anything in reality to attach its meaning to. Thus, god is not any different than any other made up three word such as fod, which has no meaning as a real thing. If an axiological atheist were asked how important it is to disprove a god or even care about the god question, they would simply not care since the question is meaningless such as looking for an invisible pink unicorn or the jolly green giant. Thus, an axiological atheist could be seen as using apatheism, unless they are under serious challenge or feeling a need to challenge theists or religion believers. An axiological atheist would thus not believe in a god in anyway and likely, this would be called strong atheism. An axiological atheist is more than simply an atheist since axiological atheism sees the god concept as fake or not real and harmful to a free humanity. Thus, an axiological atheist takes an active opposition to theism and their fake gods and even if some god(s) are found to somehow be real then an axiological atheist would start hating that real god and until then, they will hate all manmade god concepts.

Furthermore, an axiological atheist would most likely hate religions for some of the same reasons it opposes god(s) and thus, will be an anti-religionist who sees that religions on the whole to be harmful to humanity. However, an axiological atheist is not against people whether they believe in god concept or religion, they center their hate on harmful ideas such as gods or religions. This hate towards harmful ideas is motivated from a deep ethical care for humanity and thus involves humanism. So, axiological atheism is a humanistic philosophical and ethical stance which emphasizes individually and collectively, the value and agency of human beings and prefers critical thinking and evidence (rationalism, empiricism) over any kind of established doctrines (holy books) or faith (fideism). Moreover, even with axiological atheism’s extremely strong opposition to gods and religion, it does value every persons self-right to define beliefs for themselves and thus, supports secularism (freedom for religion and freedom from religion), protects the religious and nonreligious as well as antireligious from governmental interference and protect the government from the religious, nonreligious as well as antireligious. That being said axiological atheism would like beliefs in gods or religions to be demoted to where they are seen as little more than fantasy or myths but are somewhat harmful and certainly not safe for children.

Axiological atheism: (is thinking that a god’s existence to be a bad thing)

Axiological atheism is the thinking that no god(s) or goddess(es) exist and they lack all worth and value to humans even if they existed. Such myth should be rejected in favor of believing in humanity, seeing secularism and humanism as a kind of “higher absolute” or form of valued good. (Ie. humanity as the absolute source of ethics and values, and permits individuals to resolve moral problems without resorting to god myths or religious philosophies).

An axiological atheist could be thought of as thinking no gods no masters and thus would never worship a god or any being especially if it was by threat, force or the act of coercing to any extent. An axiological atheist may even question if any being is worthy of the title god or be ignostic that every theological position assumes too much about the concept of god and see this as extending to other theological concepts; including (but not limited to) concepts of faith, spirituality, heaven, hell, afterlife, damnation, salvation, sin and the soul.

Thus regarding that as ridiculous and not worthy at all and should be shown Ridicule and Disdain. Therefore as you can guess they would say we are better off that no god(s) or goddess(es) existed and it would be much worse if they did.

Axiological Atheist, can be understood as a value theory or value science Atheist.

As such axiological atheism’s ethically reasoning is constructive and pro-humanity. We who believe we are thinking rational, leading to opposition or hate of religion may that be limited to the nonfactual or oppressive ideology and not the people. Beyond just not being something lets be something, rational thinking should challenge myths but also prove our love for humanity and care for all living beings. In most cases, Axiological atheism would assert the traditional concept of “Atheism” answers only a single question: Is there a creator god or not? That is an important question, but if your answer is “no”, it is only a starting point and not a way of life.

You may have reached that viewpoint based on your respect for logic, evidence, science,and personal experience which too are vital values. Yet, after you have reached that initial “no god” answer, all the other important questions in life, all the options for mental and emotional wholeness and social and environmental harmony, ethics and morality, personal fulfillment, social values, philosophy and psychology remain open. That is where “Axiological Atheism” holds a connection to both further challenging the god concept and devaluing religion and adding a value meaning and ethical axiological ideology to guide universally desirable secular ethical way of being or a value driven life lived in this reality.

What is Axiology, Formal Axiology & Axiological Profiling?

Axiology is the name for “value theory.” It is derived from the Greek word “axios” meaning “worth.” Formal axiology is the logic-based science of value anchored in a “hierarchy of meaning” from the most meaningful or richest value to the most destructive or greatest value loss. The logic specifies 18 different levels of richness. Hartman’s “hierarchy of value” is the mathematical measuring standard for human evaluative judgment and decision-making in life and in all social sectors of life in our culture.

When people make value judgments, they use both their mental and emotional capacities to arrive at their decision. Some people have very solid and reliable decision-making abilities – while others routinely make wrong or inaccurate choices. Axiological profiles measure the quality of the respondent’s judgment and decision-making by gauging both their mental clarity and their emotional orientation & conditioning.

Dr. Leon Pomeroy in his book, The New Science of Axiological Psychology (Pomeroy, 2005), has shown that formal axiology is also empirically valid. Thus, in our axiological assessment profiles we have the solid support of both scientific methods: the deductive logic-based axiomatic method and the inductive, empirical method. Dr. Pomeroy spent over 20 years collecting statistical data for his book cross-nationally, from numerous and diverse eastern and western countries and cultures, and proving that cultures all over the world make value judgments in the same way.

Neuro‐Axiology: merges Neuroscience understanding how the brain works with Axiology’s formal science that makes possible the objective measurement of value how humans make value judgments. (You will ALWAYS choose what you think adds the MOST value to your life.) Accepting the standard of neuroscientific model of consciousness means that everything we think, feel, remember, and do is a function of the brain. This includes the emotion of empathy. We are not empathic because it makes sense to be empathic – meaning that most humans don’t simply reason their way to empathy. Nor do we simply learn empathy (although brain development is an interactive process with the environment, so we can’t rule out environmental influences). For the most part, we have empathy because our brains are wired with empathy as a specific function.

Like every function of the body you can think of, if it is not essential for survival then some subset of the human population likely has a disorder or even absence of this function. We recognize the biological limits of empathy or absence of empathy as the disorder, psychopathy. It is estimated that about 1% of the general population are psychopaths, while about 20-30% of the US prison population. Dr. Robert S. Hartman discovered that people hold back a 40% latent reserve of cooperation and productivity until they have been valued as human beings.
Axiology is the science of how humans value and make value judgments as well as how they relate to ethics (not moral values often religious or culture relative).

The basics of Axiology are in its 3 Classes of Value and 6 “Advisors”. The following are the Classes of Value:
1. Systemic: plans, rules, best practices, procedures; ideas or expectations
2. Extrinsic: practical or situational; measurable, tracked; tasks (tangible)
3. Intrinsic: personal or transcendent; infinitely valuable; irreplaceable; human beings (intangibles)

The following are the 6 Advisors which consist of 2 views of one inward and one outward and one must remember people are neither their thoughts nor their advisors.
1. World View: Empathy-Intuition “people”, Practical Judgment “tasks, & Systems Thinking “plans & ideas”
2. Self View: Self-Esteem “who you are”, Role Awareness “what you do,” & Self Direction “where you go”.

The word “Axiological” (to the term “Axiological atheism” is meant to denote an atheistic “Value” rejection of the existence of gods or supreme beings and in favor of a “higher absolute” such as humanity or universal ethical principles. The perception of moral obligation removed from ethical sensitivity to universal justice [is] thus unintelligible as “higher absolute”. As a form of atheism, Axiological favors humanity as the absolute source of holistic ethics and care values which permits individuals to resolve moral problems without resorting to a god’s moral obligation which is anti-humanity and not needing to connect to equal justice. Axiological Atheism can be seen as ethically reasoned antitheism and antireligionism where it is all about axiology values that underlie the universal truths. A few examples of universal truths such as there is no such thing as just rape, no honorable thoughtful unwanted torture, and no just humanistic caring abuse of the innocent. You can offer excuses but the true values violations hold true. Axiologists are broadly concerned with all forms of value including aesthetic values, ethical values, and epistemic values. In a narrow sense, axiologists are concerned with what is intrinsically valuable or worthwhile—what is desirable for its own sake. All axiological issues are necessarily connected to ontological and epistemological assumptions.

Axiology in Axiological Atheism can be seen as applying science of morality, referring to its ethically naturalistic views basing morality on rational and empirical consideration of the natural world. The idea of a science of morality has been explored by writers like Joseph Daleiden in The Science of Morality: The Individual, Community, and Future Generations or more recently by neuroscientist Sam Harris in the 2010 book The Moral Landscape. Harris’ science of morality suggests that scientists using empirical knowledge, especially neuropsychology and metaphysical naturalism, in combination with axiomatic values as “first principles”, would be able to outline a universal basis for morality. Harris and Daleiden chiefly argue that society should consider normative ethics to be a domain of science whose purpose amounts to the pursuit of flourishing (well-being). “Science” should not be so narrowly defined as to exclude important roles for any academic disciplines which base their conclusions on the weight of empirical evidence. The term “science of morality” is also sometimes used for the description of moral systems in different cultures or species.

The axiological movement emerges from the phenomenological method. The axiologists sought to characterize the notion of value in general, of which moral value is only one species. They argue against Kant, that goodness does not exclusively derive from the will, but exists in objective hierarchies. They emphasize the extent to which it is through emotions and feelings that human beings discern values. The notion of right action is understood derivatively in terms of the values which emotions reveal. Evolutionary psychology seems to offer an account of the evolution of our “moral sense” (conscience) that dispenses with any reference to objective values. Its apparent elimination of objective values on the grounds of their being unneeded in explanation has led the skeptical writings of J.L. Mackie and Michael Ruse. By contrast, Robert Nozick has resisted this interpretation of evolution (1981) arguing that an evolutionary account of the moral sense can no more dispense with values than an evolutionary account of perception can dispense with perceptual objects objectively present in the world. Axiologists in contemporary ethics are Platonists such as Iris Murdoch and Neo-Kantian theorists such as John Rawls and Robert Nozick.

Tenets of Secular Ethics

Despite the width and diversity of their philosophical views, secular ethicists generally share one or more principles:
• Human beings, through their ability to empathize, are capable of determining ethical grounds.
• Human beings, through logic and reason, are capable of deriving normative principles of behavior.
• Human beings have the moral responsibility to ensure that societies and individuals act based on these ethical principles.
• Societies should, if at all possible, advance from a less ethical, less empathy, and unjust form to a more ethical, more empathy and just form.

Would It Be Bad or Good if God Exists? (an axiological question)
 
For example, it’s possible to be an theist, believing that, God’s existence would increase the net value in the world. Conversely, it’s also possible to be an theist believing that, God’s existence would decrease the net value in the world. Perhaps this is the difference between mere axiological theist and a theist who is an axiological atheist (anti-theistic).
 
Moreover, it’s possible to be an atheist, but wish that God existed because one believes that, on balance, God’s existence would increase the net value in the world. Conversely, it’s also possible to be an atheist and be quite happy that God doesn’t exist because one believes that, on balance, God’s existence would decrease the net value in the world. Perhaps this is the difference between an atheist who is an axiological theist and an atheist who is an axiological atheist (anti-theistic).

I Am An Axiological Atheist?

Explaining Axiological theism, Axiological agnosticism, and Axiological atheism

My Facebook Page: Axiological Atheist

Good without gods?
A common humanist slogan is: “Good Without God”
Some people are so confused they believe that there can be no morality without god(s). They express the idea that “If god(s) does not exist, then all things are permitted and that without the god(s) laws/instruction/help, all would be lost; people would not or could not be moral. On this view, there is no reason whatsoever to be moral without the promise of of rewards or the threat in the after/next-life.
“Humanism is a progressive philosophy of life that, without supernaturalism (i.e. no appeals to gods, supernatural agency such as “karma,” or religions), affirms our ability and responsibility to lead ethical lives of personal fulfillment that aspire to the greater good of humanity.”
– Humanist Manifesto III, 2003
According to British Humanist Association, “Humanist” is used today to mean those who seek to live good lives without religious or superstitious beliefs. A humanist may embrace all or most of the other approaches introduced here, and in addition humanists believe that moral values follow on from human nature and experience in some way. Humanists base their moral principles on reason (which leads them to reject the idea of any supernatural agency), on shared human values and respect for others. They believe that people should work together to improve the quality of life for all and make it more equitable. Humanism is a full philosophy, “life stance” or worldview, rather than being about one aspect of religion, knowledge, or politics. Ref

Knowledge of the world is derived by observation, experimentation, and rational analysis. Humanists find that science is the best method for determining this knowledge as well as for solving problems and developing beneficial technologies. We also recognize the value of new departures in thought, the arts, and inner experience—each subject to analysis by critical intelligence.

Humans are an integral part of nature, the result of unguided evolutionary change. Humanists recognize nature as self-existing. We accept our life as all and enough, distinguishing things as they are from things as we might wish or imagine them to be. We welcome the challenges of the future, and are drawn to and undaunted by the yet to be known.

Ethical values are derived from human need and interest as tested by experience. Humanists ground values in human welfare shaped by human circumstances, interests, and concerns and extended to the global ecosystem and beyond. We are committed to treating each person as having inherent worth and dignity, and to making informed choices in a context of freedom consonant with responsibility.

Life’s fulfillment emerges from individual participation in the service of humane ideals. We aim for our fullest possible development and animate our lives with a deep sense of purpose, finding wonder and awe in the joys and beauties of human existence, its challenges and tragedies, and even in the inevitability and finality of death. Humanists rely on the rich heritage of human culture and the lifestance of Humanism to provide comfort in times of want and encouragement in times of plenty.

Humans are social by nature and find meaning in relationships. Humanists long for and strive toward a world of mutual care and concern, free of cruelty and its consequences, where differences are resolved cooperatively without resorting to violence. The joining of individuality with interdependence enriches our lives, encourages us to enrich the lives of others, and inspires hope of attaining peace, justice, and opportunity for all.

Working to benefit society maximizes individual happiness. Progressive cultures have worked to free humanity from the brutalities of mere survival and to reduce suffering, improve society, and develop global community. We seek to minimize the inequities of circumstance and ability, and we support a just distribution of nature’s resources and the fruits of human effort so that as many as possible can enjoy a good life.

Humanists are concerned for the well being of all, are committed to diversity, and respect those of differing yet humane views. We work to uphold the equal enjoyment of human rights and civil liberties in an open, secular society and maintain it is a civic duty to participate in the democratic process and a planetary duty to protect nature’s integrity, diversity, and beauty in a secure, sustainable manner.

Thus engaged in the flow of life, we aspire to this vision with the informed conviction that humanity has the ability to progress toward its highest ideals. The responsibility for our lives and the kind of world in which we live is ours and ours alone.


Humanist Manifesto is a trademark of the American Humanist Association
© 2003 American Humanist Association

Axiological atheism: (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

Here’s What Being Good Without God Actually Means

The Pew Research Center took a look at what people without a religious affiliation think is essential to morality.

According to, Carol Kuruvilla  Associate Religion Editor stated, In recent years, researchers have begun to study the moral practices of a relatively new and growing group within America’s religious landscape — the “nones.” Nones are people who, when asked to describe their religious affiliation, respond that they are atheist, agnostic, or “nothing in particular.” As of 2014, the nones, also known as the “unaffiliated,” are the second largest religious grouping in America, coming in just under evangelical Christians. As a whole, the unaffiliated tend to be less religious by the standards that surveyors have traditionally used to measure religiosity — attendance at worship services, for example, or daily prayer. But if they’re not religious by these standards, how exactly are the nones approaching the question of what it means to be a moral person? Thanks to the Pew Research Center, we now have some data on this. In a recent report on religion in everyday life, the organization asked unaffiliated people whether 16 pre-selected beliefs and behaviors were essential, important but not essential, or not important to what they think it means to be a “moral person.” For the unaffiliated, honesty tops the list, with about 58 percent of the nones saying that “being honest at all times” was essential to being a moral person. When Harvard chaplain Greg Epstein heard that honesty came out on top, it made a lot of sense to him. As author of “Good Without God: What a Billion Nonreligious People Do Believe,” Epstein has spent a considerable amount of time thinking about what nonbelievers actually hold to be true about tolerance, community, and morality. “Of course these are people who are interested in honesty and integrity,” Epstein told The Huffington Post. “[Because if you’re coming out as non-religious], then you probably feel a very strong pull to tell the truth and to be honest with yourself and others about who you are.” Epstein suggested that the act of coming out as a nonbeliever requires a good deal of soul searching and introspection. In a country like America, where the overwhelming majority of people belong to some sort of religion, and where statistics show most of the public has negative feelings towards people who don’t believe in God, Epstein said that there really isn’t any incentive or social pressure to come out as non-religious, or atheist, or agnostic. Some other essentials that the unaffiliated believe make a moral person are being grateful for what you have (53 percent), committing to spend time with family (47 percent), forgiving those who have wronged you (39 percent), and working to protect the environment (35 percent). Beliefs and practices that have been traditionally used to measure religiosity fell near the bottom of the list. About 10 percent of the unaffiliated believe praying regularly is essential to being moral. Two percent believe attending religious services is part of a moral life. In an open-ended question, about a quarter (23 percent) of nones wrote that the “Golden Rule,” a behavior cited by Jesus in the Bible, was essential to morality. For Epstein, the results of the Pew survey are evidence that the religiously unaffiliated community values action over belief in the supernatural. “[Humanist and nonreligious people] respect completely the fact that our religious neighbors also feel the need to pray, but our view is that action is irreplaceable,” Epstein said. “Actions ultimately make the difference between living a good life and not living a good life.”

Humanism and Axiological Atheism
 
The thesis of the ‘enlightened’ or modern, axiological humanism which often engenders an axiological atheism. In order to safeguard human dignity and freedom, this atheism radically rejects all theological and religious views that stand in the way of human emancipation and unfolding. Axiological atheism denies god(s) in order to promote the human, the affirmation of the irreducible value and dignity of the human leads to a total negation of god(s). Page #113 “Debating Levinas’ Legacy” by Andris Breitling & Chris Bremmers Ref
 
One axiological challenge facing the secular movement in America today relates to ethics and social value. Detractors often respond to ontological positions such as atheism and agnosticism with expostulation, and even impertinence. This said, there is plenty of evidence to support that secular movements can provide socially responsible and ethical structures, and the Council for Secular Humanism is one such organization which encourages dialogue and ethical responsibility beyond the boundaries of traditional religious ideologies. – Tom Flynn on ‘Secular Humanism’ Ref
  
But Why do I Hate Religion?
 
I was asked why I openly and publicly am so passionate in my hate of religion. further asking what specifically in your life contributed to this outcome.
 
I hate harm, oppression, bigotry, and love equality, self-ownership, self-empowerment, self-actualization and self-mastery, as well as truth and not only does religion lie, it is a conspiracy theory of reality. Moreover, not only is religion a conspiracy theories of reality, it is a proud supporter of pseudohistory and or pseudoscience they also push pseudomorality. Religion on the whole to me deserves and earns hate, or at least disfavor when you really analyze it. Not to mention the corruption it has on politics or laws. As well as how destructive this unworthy political influence has and creates because of these false beliefs and the harm to the life of free adults but to the lives of innocent children as well (often robbed of the right to choose and must suffer indoctrination) as the disruption of educated even in public schools. Etc…
 
I as others do have the right to voice our beliefs, just as I or others then have the right to challenge voiced beliefs.
 
Long live mental freedom…