Think there is no objective morality?

Think there is no objective morality?   So, if I can show one simple objective morality fact then there is at least the possibility of objective morality right? Humans/feeling beings/life are to be protected over dirt/garbage/non-life, and to care for the harm of dirt/garbage/non-life over the harm of Humans/feeling beings/life is unethical and of course a possibility of objective morality right? Are there objective facts about or in the world? Yes, then we indeed can evaluate them objectively. So yes, then we can say what is a better or worse choice objectively in relation to the objective facts. “Morality Confusion” doesn’t start at the dilemma but the value judgments of the parts. Morality is not just the final conclusion reached or offered but all the parts that are involved and the most responsible and reasonable based on the assumption that there are a set of things not just one thing involved and this an assessment of the “value” of what’s involved and thus what would be a “most responsible and reasonable choice. So, are there objective facts? Is there such thing as objective methods? Can we objectively conclude the value of objective facts with objective methods to conclude objective conclusions of value of or in relation to objective facts? To me it is an answer of yes and thus morality is not a special thing it to can involve objective facts and objective methods and thus can involve objectively conclusions about the value of objective facts with the objective methods to conclude objective conclusions of value of or in relation to objective facts. To me, morality is a pro...

Antireligionist?

Antireligionist?   Very much so, I oppose anything even like religion, including atheist church, but that’s just me. Others have the right to do atheism their way. Not just Atheist, I am a proud anti-religionist. I can sum up what I do not like about religion in one idea, religions as a group are “Conspiracy Theories of Reality,” usually filled with Pseudoscience, Pseudohistory, along with Pseudomorality and other harmful aspects to people as well as reality and not just ancient mythology to be marveled and laughed at. And, I am an anti-accommodationist too.   No, I Do Not Value Accommodationism.   According to atheist philosopher Daniel Fincke Anti-Accommodationism Is Pro-Philosophy. Click the link to read more of his thoughts on this: Anti-Accommodationism Is Pro-Philosophy   To me, believers and even some atheists or other nonbelievers who are accommodationists feel nonaccommodationists firebrand atheists, antitheists, antireligionists, skeptics or rationalists like me should not attack the thinking of believers as they see this as disrespecting or attacking the one holding the belief thus the believer themselves.   I regard this as ridiculous, do they hold this as a universal belief or just a special belief towards religion believers. Such as I guess if universal I will never have to worry about you attacking my firebrand atheist beliefs either right or are you bigoted in how you apply your thinking about attacking thinking is attacking the person.   Attacking the thinking is not attacking the person, including religion and gods or any beliefs.   In case you are unfamiliar with the term accommodationism it is a term of modern rationalism or atheism refers to...

“I have no beliefs”, is a Confusion (about beliefs) I Hear Some Atheists Say

“Damien, For a writer and claimed atheist you really are not very logical.” – Challenger “I have no beliefs”, is a nonsense statement I hear some atheists say that is not just inaccurate, it is a harmful confusion hindering the value of accurate beliefs over inaccurate, misleading beliefs or false beliefs. So here is a conversation with an atheist that to me clearly demonstrates this thinking error that “I have no beliefs.” Challenger, “Believe” is not the correct word for showing support in evolution. Belief is a word that should be reserved for things that people hold to be true without evidence or despite evidence to the contrary. When debating creationists we must choose our words carefully so that they don’t say “you believe what you believe, and I believe what I believe” as if it’s on a scale with equal weights. My response, here are my blogs on this topic: “Critical or Analytical Thinking and Suspension of Judgment, Disbelief or Belief” http://damienmarieathope.com/2016/03/24/critical-or-analytical-thinking-and-suspension-of-judgment-disbelief-or-belief/ “Addressing The Ethics of Belief” http://damienmarieathope.com/2016/02/29/addressing-the-ethics-of-belief/ “Yes, We All Have Beliefs; But What Does That Mean” http://damienmarieathope.com/2015/12/23/yes-we-all-have-beliefs-but-what-does-that-mean/ Challenger, I hold NO beliefs. I have reasonable expectations based on evidence. My response, so you disagree with cognitive/neurological science, psychology and philosophy, ok… Challenger, I gave my own perspective. My response, yes and its empirically wrong Challenger, give me an example of a belief you think I hold and I’ll tell you why I don’t. My response, what is belief? (philosophy): “belief” to refer to the attitude we have, roughly, whenever we take something to be the case or regard it as true. To believe something, in this...

Naturalism and Logical Positivism?

Naturalism and Logical Positivism? *Questioner, Damien, what’s the difference between naturalism and Logical Positivism? My responce, Well, to try and explain it at the simplest; to me naturalism is “what is” in discernible reality and Logical Positivism can be thought as kind of about the “limit of what is believed as available” to be true in a naturalism world. It’s more complicated but that is kind of what is different to me. *Questioner, how do we respond to people who say that Logical Positivism is dead and therefore scientism is a self-refuting claim? Logical Positivism, Naturalistic Epistemology, and the Foundations of Psychology: “According to the standard account, logical positivism was the philosophical foundation of psychological neo-behaviorism. However, this interpretation has been questioned, suggesting that neo-behaviorism drew its philosophical inspiration from a different tradition, one more in keeping with naturalistic epistemology. Smith does not deny, however, the traditional interpretation of the philosophy of logical positivism, which sets it apart from naturalistic epistemology. Richard F. Kitchener suggests (following recent historical scholarship) that a more careful reading of the leading figure of logical positivism, Rudolph Carnap, shows an important naturalistic component in his philosophy. Hence, we must reevaluate our standard interpretation of the philosophy of logical positivism and its relation to psychological neo-behaviorism.” https://www.jstor.org/stable/27759470?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents “Neobehaviorism is a school of thought that posits that the study of learning and a focus on rigorous objective observational methods form the key to scientific psychology. Neobehaviorism is the second phase of behaviorism. In contrast to behaviorists, neobehaviorists tried to formalize behavioral laws and drew influence from positivists. These logical positivists believed that anything that could not...