21078421_689605014569083_5274898863123040593_n-LAPTOP-KIB0FGT7

“Hammer of Truth” response outline to the question: “Do you Believe in god?”

With my “Hammer of Truth” Ontology (What), Epistemology (How) and Axiology (why) questions debate/challenge philosophy tools so people easily learn how to use Ontology, Epistemology and Axiology questions to remove errors and add accuracy.

-I want to teach people that when they are asked, “Do you Believe in god?” to ask What Do you Mean by god (an ontological question wanting a good ontology answer) then when they try and give an answer to explain or define the god term’s “thingness/attributes/qualities” which will likely fail, so we will have to explain that want is offered does not soundly explain or define a good Ontology answer of the term/idea of god, instead what is being offered is not a “good ontology answer” thus the god term being offered like all gods is not real or tangible, ie “they need to be proved by the materialistic empirical detection or logical necessity, I mean it needs tangible warranted evidence that is provable as real and not some empty made up definition that is not real.

-Then if they stand behind what they think is some valid evidence to explain or define the god term’s “thingness/attributes/qualities” we should ask “How Do You Know That” (an Epistemological question needing an Epistemology answer), Then when they try and give an answer to explain “how they know” which will likely fail, so we will have to explain that want is offered does not soundly establish and confirm knowledge, instead what is being offered is not a “good Epistemology answer”, thus the god term being offered like all god claims is speaking in unjustified or unsupported terms, rather the ideas offered is refer to nonreal or intangible-unknowable things.

-Then if they stand behind what they think is some good epistemology answer, we should ask “Why Do You think what you have offered is valuable/worthwhile/good evidence, especially if there is posable contradictory evidence or good reason/valid and reliable reasoning process” (an Axiological question needing a “good Axiology answer”). Then when they try and give an answer to explain why they think what is being offered is not a “good Axiology answer” thus is not real or tangible and not some empty made up definition that is not real offered is valuable/worthwhile/good evidence, especially if there is posable contradictory evidence or good reason/valid and reliable reasoning process, because without good Ontology and Epistemology answers that are valid as well as reliable reason and evidence to support the offered god term thinking, which they will not making the offered god claims invalid, disvalued, dis-worth, as well as un-good thus the god term being offered like all gods is not real or tangible, ie “they need to be proved by the materialistic empirical detection or logical necessity, I mean it needs tangible warranted evidence that is provable as real and not some empty made up definition that is not real.

Ontology, Epistemology, & Axiology OEA (The Hammer of Truth)

OEA “Hammer of Truth” Questions:

Ontology, Epistemology, & Axiology questioning tools in inquiry, disagreements, arguments, or debates.

*Ontology (thingness of things) questions to define or compare and contrast thingness.

*Epistemology (knowledge of things) questions to explode or establish and confirm knowledge.

*Axiology (value/worth/goodness of things) questions to valueize (value judge) or establish and confirm value or disvalue, worth or dis-worth, as well as goodness or un-good.

To understand my “Hammer of Truth” Ontology, Epistemology and Axiology questions debate/challenge philosophy tools gatherers: “Ontology”, inquisitors: “Epistemology”, & judgers: “Axiology.”

12963367_897087320399655_562771425622272312_n

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

No God: No evidence, No intelligence, and No goodness = Valid Atheism Conclusion

1. No evidence, To move past the Atheistic Null Hypothesis: There is no God/Gods (in inferential statistics, a Null Hypothesis generally assumed to be true until evidence indicates otherwise. Thus, a Null Hypothesis is a statistical hypothesis that there is no significant difference reached between the claim and the non-claim, as it is relatively provable/demonstratable in reality in some way. “The god question” Null Hypothesis is set at as always at the negative standard: Thus, holding that there is no God/Gods, and as god faith is an assumption of the non-evidentiary wishful thinking non-reality of “mystery thing” found in all god-talk, until it is demonstratable otherwise to change. Alternative hypothesis: There is a God (offered with no proof: what is a god and how can anyone say they know), therefore, results: Insufficient evidence to overturn the null hypothesis of no God/Gods.

2. No intelligence, Taking into account the reality of the world we do know with 99 Percent Of The Earth’s Species Are Extinct an intelligent design is ridiculous. Five Mass Extinctions Wiped out 99 Percent of Species that have ever existed on earth. Therefore like a child’s report card having an f they need to retake the class thus, profoundly unintelligent design.

3. No goodness, Assessed through ethically challenging the good god assumptions as seen in the reality of pain and other harm of which there are many to demonstrates either a god is not sufficiently good, not real or as I would assert, god if responsible for this world, would make it a moral monster ripe for the problem of evil and suffering (Argument from Evil). God would be responsible for all pain as life could easily be less painful and yet there is mass suffering. In fact, to me, every child born with diseases from birth screams out against a caring or loving god with the power to do otherwise. It could be different as there is Congenital insensitivity to pain (CIP), also known as congenital analgesia, in which a person cannot feel (and has never felt) physical pain.

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

What is so special about Kindness anyway?

Once, I was so foolish, value blind, I added harm, and now, how different I see things, with a value consciousness. I am among the treetops they can’t touch me now for I fly free I love you all but I am just me. May we hear the cry of the silent suffer in oppression, free them now. Kindness my sturdy tower my breath of life in the final hour. Kindness is my favorite lover but let us not forget she is also my best friend. The smile of a life lived in love shines across my face as I smile I remember how far I have come. Kindness is king.

a-fire-breathing-person-at-an-act-173629959-57a8de9f3df78cf4593bf58b-LAPTOP-KIB0FGT7

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

There is nothing weak in me, rather I choose the honored-filled life of ones that are kind, my true heroes, I love you all. My humanity champions of the world’s hope, may we all be like you, brave enough to be kind. I am no one special, just a candle in the dark.

If you were taken to Court, would you be convicted of a life lived in love?

When I was young I was not shown the beauty of kindness. Now that I understand, I can’t imagine a beautiful life without it. How odd a world we live in, where I have been ridiculed and made fun of, simply because I want a kind world. Hard times can take a long time to heal and are no good to feel, but they have shown me the need to help and the importance of care. Even though the valiant have fallen and the darkness is all but closing in, may love, hope, and kindness always win. The world has many paths. These paths may be built with different levels of permanency — leveled, paved roads and built-up sidewalks will last centuries if we suddenly ceased to exist (which I hope we don’t), while paths through the forest or grasslands will grow over and disappear, if not used and maintained. What kind of trace will you leave? I, myself, plan on changing the world. I will be forever honored that my best friend is Damien Marie AtHope. I love people who can see the value of others. If you could change the world, wouldn’t YOU?

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

I am, the mighty, Hammer of Truth, crashing DOWN!

I love it when philosophers, say to me, I have to read, XYZ, whoever, or you don’t understand it is very confusing so if you are struggling it is understandable, everyone does. I first think, speak for yourself please, don’t tell me what I can’t do, especially if you have never even asked me. People simply see me often as some big freak and write me the hell off.

I never said philosophy was hard. Actually, it is to bring as it is just too easy if you really want to know. Deep thinking is like children play to me, and I am so sure about this, that I would challenge anyone on reason knowing not only will I hold my own I am as if a master artist painting his most highly acclaimed work.

So, I am sure you can imagine how I feel inside, when others think, “I must read someone or I will lack understanding,” yet, never even ask what I understand. I am rumbling, a volcano about to explode. Only to make me think, why, every time, do these people doubt me before even hearing me out, as if philosophers only are deep thinkers because of and dependent on other thinkers’ thinking.

So, if we regress that back was the first person, that first philosopher, the only free thinker? If you think this you are foolish, many deep thinkers have original ideas or reimagine others’ ideas, in a new way that is revolutionary, or at least different, creatively invented.

How could he not know I have invented several different normative as well as theoretical types of very sound philosophy of my own, DON’T you, dare, talk down to me about my ability to reason!

I fall from the treetops like a summer rain of new things that invigorates the mind to thought as if reaching out for a phantom to see what is really true. We light a candle in our mind when we let reason be our master because reason requires its user to change to what is reasoned over what may be preferred.

I am a reason-driven “I dare you, to think” kind of philosopher. Simple but when the philosophy thinking is so inarticulate, or such monumental architecture of mental gymnastics erected on top of “reason”, that to most people, not in philosophy, it is just like bla, bla, bla. Lol

You ask me, “What if you are wrong”

Here is info on how I would consider that: My own type of fallibilism

“Fallibilism applies that assessment even to science’s best-entrenched claims and to people’s best-loved commonsense views. Some epistemologists have taken fallibilism to imply skepticism, though, it is fallibilist epistemologists (which is to say, the majority of epistemologists) who tend not to be skeptics about the existence of knowledge or justified belief. Generally, those fallibilist epistemologists see themselves as thinking about knowledge and justification in a comparatively realistic way — by recognizing the fallibilist realities of human cognitive capacities, even while accommodating those fallibilities within a theory that allows perpetually fallible people to have knowledge and justified beliefs. Epistemologists generally seek to understand knowledge and justification in a way that permits fallibilism to describe a benign truth about how we can gain knowledge and justified beliefs. The difference between fallibilism and skepticism lies in their beliefs about what constitutes knowledge. Fallibilists and skeptics both believe that we can never establish the truth of a proposition with 100% certainty. However, skeptics believe that we don’t know what we cannot confirm with 100% certainty, while fallibilists have a more moderate view where 100% certainty is not required for knowledge. When I state “fallibilists and skeptics both believe that we can never establish the truth of a proposition with 100% certainty.””, what I as a thinker using Fallibilism, believe that we can never establish the truth of a proposition with 100% certainty is referring to how it could be later found to be in error and may need adapting to the increase in epistemic accuracy tempered with Epistemic Humility. We are 100% certain all the time (certainty is a belief state), what most who doubt 100% certainty, likely are referring to is our ability to validate a kind of certainty or level of certainty as there is not one universal thinking on certainty with the two main types being psychological certainty or Epistemic Certainty. Certainty is connected to a belief state or level of sureness, so we can be 100% psychologically certain of things we state normatively. As in If I or you take a piece of text and know things about it as in is it written in a language legible to the general group of English only speakers to know it is written in English, as well as many other things with 100% logically certain belief. But I am open to new information to prove some thinking could be found in error in some way need updating to a more accurate view as a general epistemic persuasion.”
https://iep.utm.edu/fallibil/
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/certainty/

Rationalist, I am and I am will to power.

I am a rationalist, please respect me by never calling me a skeptic.

Rationalism and the Enlightenment

Rationalist thinkers vs Skeptic thinkers

If I made the statement that the following proposition was 100% true and certain today and for all time that,

“There is a chance that Damien AtHope will either reply or not reply to his posts on FB”

I think people like to only talk as if there is one type of certainty as a universal true class. When I hold that there are different kinds of certainty such as first needing to know what type of certainty that I am referring, as in what is expressed in this statement:

“There is a chance that Damien AtHope will either reply or not reply to his posts on FB”

This is a kind of normative statement so to me normative thinking standards apply. As such, we can know that I proposed an “hedge one’s bets trying to keep from being wrong by saying you believe two contrary propositions at the same time which could be an unintentional oddity but just as likely is used as a form of intellectual dishonesty involving a rhetoric claim used as a red herring evasion.”

Moreover, with further understanding, we can also know that by accepting such an openness to all possibilities, what it is telling us, beyond its not making an open strong opinion on one side in its options, other than the thinking logically certain that accepting all possible outcomes of a being’s behavior is also maybe unwittingly confirming a stance to all, the possible presuppositions hidden in that, or that it seems “hedge one’s bets” possibly trying to avoid the possibility of making a claim that offers a thinking that is outside of challenge may not work that well unless you accept the belief in the reality of a world with free agents or even unthinking agents doing the choosing.

But believing in as well as epistemically certain about the reality of a world, is not doing anything that strange assuming a lot we all do all the time. But that’s the only thing we can do in a sense is unwittingly confirm a stance for the possible presuppositions hidden in much that we think or say as it seems we often express a belief in the reality of a world presupposition (which I believe we have extensive epistemic certainty, thus deserves 100% psychological certainty until shown otherwise.

Stop this foolishness Empiricism-Denier

No, you not only don’t have evidence of god, not one human alive has established, what is a god? when II ask them. Don’t get me wrong some try only to get mired in my world of reason, leaving al saying, well there is n answer but I believe anyway because I have faith. I know, I know, mister religious thinker, I think of you sadly as the faith drunk. Please don’t think like the faith drunk.

What do you mean by god Evidence?

Atheistic Null Hypothesis: There is no God/Gods!

Sorry, You Have No Evidence?

Folk Logic: YOU CAN’T PROVE A NEGATIVE because you can PROVE A NEGATIVE!

“Scientific knowledge,” to me?

Who am I, right? Take a look in me, I think you will be quite surprised!

To be scientific the knowledge must be:

*communicable: It is something which is discussed.

*general: generalized vs. separate fragments of knowledge

*conceptual: represented by concepts vs. intuitive ideas (i.e. explicit and propositional knowledge)

*true or provable argument: It can be proved or demonstrated.

The scientific methods should also fill some criteria, which try to guarantee the quality of scientific knowledge. (These are important and quite permanent part of the general paradigm of science):

*progressive: knowledge base is expanded by using this method

*self-correcting: the errors get corrected by this method

*publicity: arguments are public for anyone

*justifiable: the arguments are satisfactory as scientific

My Thoughts on Science vs. Faithism

Science, unlike faith, uses more Critically Open-Minded Reasoning (open assessment and reflective correctability) the effort to overcome all of those issues common with Induced Delusional Disorder or “faith brainwashed” thinking. With science, unlike faith thinking, all facts are welcomed, even if they contradict a treasured theory or model, which must then be rejected immediately.

A true scientist will be delighted at having found a new aspect of science, especially if it changes a scientific view, whereas a true religionist/fideist motivated by faith or Induced Delusional Disorder will deny it and try to explain it away. Admittedly science is not a single category, approach, or thinking, however, nobody who is reasonable and informed can or should reject or deny the truths it produces.

Religion too is not a single category, approach, or thinking, however, nobody who is reasonable and informed can accept its deluded or reality devoid beliefs, as any kind of truths. The scientific method assumes a priori of methodological naturalism about the nature of reality that is devoid of considering supernatural causes, it is not agnostic about this.

The scientific method is using a form of philosophical rationalism to establish this view about the nature of reality along with the commonly held philosophy of empiricism, because looking for proof or truth devoid of considering supernatural causes by using a priori assumptions is employing rationalism.

You don’t think you need, my invented philosophy?

Keep Your Ivory tower “Academic bias,” the bias of some philosophy scholars allowing the error of bias-philosophy of their beliefs, too often squandered on glorifying one’s wealth or ego. Do you remember how much he charged to share his philosophy? Nothing, right? Where did he do his philosophy, in college? of out in the streets?

If I remember correctly again, he only did it with the public. So, I too made my philosophy free for the public good. So, I don’t get where you can look down on me simply due to my not teaching in college. But in this, we now see your internal contradiction. You would have to devalue Socrates as well, right?

Or else what? You are going to have to change, how you see me. I am actually embarrassed for Socrates at how you too his anarchist gift, he wanted to glorify others not himself, which just like my he offered for free to empower the youth, remember, the reason they killed him? the trial claimed he corrupted the youth, funny as many think I do the same things as him.

And yet you think it is me who lacks a grasp of him, due to me never caring enough to read almost anything claiming to refer to him… My teacher was my empathetic wife’s kind behaviors. I have learned more in that kindness than any books or authors you are impressed by. All the rest is research on specific points but I truly do most right out of my own mind.

Marquis Amon “Those that write you off fail to demonstrate philosophy. You give them the opportunity to debate, to exchange ideas. Rejected and disrespected based on your appearance, it is their minds that are closed.”

Damien Marie AtHope “I didn’t make my philosophy for them (Academics) anyway. I made it for my friends, to empower them, so together we can change the world.”

Marquis Amon “That is why you make a difference, because you focus on helping people, namely those that need it. In my opinion, many academic philosophers will not debate some people because there isn’t any ‘prestige’ or fan fair. Whereas philosophy as you show, should be used by everyone.”

Some Academics Don’t like me, boohoo. lol

I didn’t make my philosophy for them, not Academics nor Capitalism. I offer it all for free to anyone. I made it for my friends, to empower them, so together we can change the world. Be a good Human.

Hi, as a rationalist, Reason is my full-time job. How about you?

Carl A Perry

“And business is booming ‘cause folks be asking questions now! We gotta do our part, some parts are small but very important to the overall “bigger picture!”

Damien Marie Athope

“Carl A Perry, You are indeed a very wise person. Hey, I am just lucky enough to have the privilege of calling you one of my longest or oldest friend, on Facebook. I know I said that odd so Ii will make it simpler. I respect what you do and who you are. You make us all proud. I still remember fondly talking to you about how I am mildly intersex and genderqueer and how I wish people would stop seeing me or at least thinking of me as just a man. and you were there for me. I felt alone you had like 4,000 or so friends I thought you were like a god. I had like 78 friends. I was amazed by you. then you treated me with such kindness I thought, now this is my people. I really appreciated how caring you were to me when I felt alone even from other LGBTQIA people. Much love.”

Carl A Perry

“Damien Marie Athope – I often think back on the days when we talked, cried, and shared so many things and love! It was my pleasure! I’m glad to see how you have reached out to others that were once isolated and scorned. I’m sure, you have made an impact on their lives too! Please, keep doing you! The world is a much better place. Thanks so very much for those encouraging words! Peace or Raise Hell- big hugs!”

If you are a religious believer, may I remind you that faith in the acquisition of knowledge is not a valid method worth believing in. Because, what proof is “faith”, of anything religion claims by faith, as many people have different faith even in the same religion?

Above everything remain teachable… Be open to change…

Watch out, I am a far-leftist radical, you know the spooky lefty monster I keep hearing about from Trump.

Rise to the greatness of kindness. Dont be brought down by the evilness of hate!

We rise by helping each other…

Sometimes we just do what is right even if it is hard but being kind in this way is a gift to your own humanity.

Having Bias-Blindness is easy as biases happen without even trying, however, the removing or overcoming of bias takes a lot of deliberate work. The hard work one puts into self-improvement is a lifetime gift to their wellbeing and likely that of others around them as well.

Disproof by logical contradiction

‘A Logical Impossibility’ Axiological “Presumptive-Value Failure”

In classical logic, a contradiction consists of a logical incompatibility between two or more propositions. It occurs when the propositions, taken together, yield two conclusions which form the logical, usually opposite inversions of each other. Contradiction by the creation of a paradox, Plato’s Euthydemus dialogue demonstrates the need for the notion of contradiction. In the ensuing dialogue, Dionysodorus denies the existence of “contradiction”, all the while that Socrates is contradicting him: “… I in my astonishment said: What do you mean Dionysodorus? I have often heard, and have been amazed to hear, this thesis of yours, which is maintained and employed by the disciples of Protagoras and others before them, and which to me appears to be quite wonderful, and suicidal as well as destructive, and I think that I am most likely to hear the truth about it from you. The dictum is that there is no such thing as a falsehood; a man must either say what is true or say nothing. Is not that your position?” Indeed, Dionysodorus agrees that “there is no such thing as a false opinion … there is no such thing as ignorance” and demands of Socrates to “Refute me.” Socrates responds “But how can I refute you, if, as you say, to tell a falsehood is impossible?”. – Wikipedia

I am an Axiological (Theoretical and Normative VALUE Theorist philosopher) Atheist

“Axiology and Value Theory?”

“Value theory is 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. This investigation began in ancient philosophy, where it is called axiology or ethics.”– Wikipedia

“The term “Value Theory” is used in at least three different ways in philosophy. In its broadest sense, “value theory” is a catch-all label used to encompass all branches of moral philosophy, social and political philosophy, aesthetics, and sometimes feminist philosophy and the philosophy of religion — whatever areas of philosophy are deemed to encompass some “evaluative” aspect. In its narrowest sense, “value theory” is used for a relatively narrow area of normative ethical theory particularly, but not exclusively, of concern to consequentialists. In this narrow sense, “value theory” is roughly synonymous with “axiology”. Axiology can be thought of as primarily concerned with classifying what things are good, and how good they are. For instance, a traditional question of axiology concerns whether the objects of value are subjective psychological states or objective states of the world. But in a more useful sense, “value theory” designates the area of moral philosophy that is concerned with theoretical questions about value and goodness of all varieties — the theory of value. The theory of value, so construed, encompasses axiology, but also includes many other questions about the nature of value and its relation to other moral categories. The division of moral theory into the theory of value, as contrasting with other areas of investigation, cross-cuts the traditional classification of moral theory into normative and metaethical inquiry, but is a worthy distinction in its own right; theoretical questions about value constitute a core domain of interest in moral theory, often cross the boundaries between the normative and the metaethical, and have a distinguished history of investigation.” – (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

Why is your Atheism so strong against god it is almost Arrogant, Damien?

I know enough to surprise archaeologists but they don’t realize I have been researching since 2006 when I became an atheist. I wanted to know. I am also going t publish my book that will shock the world at how much I have figured out. it is breathtakingly amazing.

“You atheists just don’t get, god (your god-something claim) is mysterious.”

Well, well, is that not just special, class, lets all marvel at this absurdity in reasoning, I mean seriously… Would you hire someone who works in mysterious ways? Or say you trust in mysterious ways to navigate morality? Or feel just claiming to know anything if your fall back, answer is, to always assume faith without evidence or just blindly assume someone who works in mysterious ways? You should let facts lead your beliefs, not let your beliefs lead how you see facts. What even is a god anyway? I hear people say a creator, but that is an attributed behavior, of a thing, not the thing in question, and I always ask, “what is a god?”, not what you think a god-something did in your beliefs. G.O.D. Group Originated Delusion, thus a fixed unreality belief that is not amenable to change in light of conflicting evidence.

Intellectual honesty:

“Intellectual honesty is honesty in the acquisition, analysis, and transmission of ideas. A person is being intellectually honest when they, knowing the truth, state that truth. There are disincentives to intellectual honesty. Academics may find themselves pressured to argue for the stances of their benefactors, including governments and private entities that fund grants (in fact, this is trained into them in education, as the same pressures are exerted by teachers and professors upon their students). Judges may face political pressure to render a judicial opinion endorsing a legal argument that they know to be flawed. Auditors may issue a favorable opinion of a company’s financial statements, despite having serious misgivings about their adherence to generally accepted accounting principles, in order to continue receiving business from that company. (In general, perverse incentives and conflicts of interest provide highly fertile ground for intellectual dishonesty.) The more complicated the issue and the murkier the facts, the easier it may be for an intellectual to get away with presenting a plausible but flawed argument. In a world where people, including intellectuals, often pursue incentives more eagerly than they seek after high ideals, it is important that ways be found to make the interests of intellectuals coexist with the interests of those whose well-being depends on their intellectual honesty, if intellectual dishonesty is to be consistently avoided.” ref

“Intentionally committed fallacies in debates and reasoning are called intellectual dishonesty. Harvard ethicist Louis M. Guenin describes the “kernel” of intellectual honesty to be “a virtuous disposition to eschew deception when given an incentive for deception”. Intellectual honesty is an applied method of problem-solving, characterized by an unbiased, honest attitude, which can be demonstrated in a number of different ways:

One’s personal beliefs or politics do not interfere with the pursuit of truth;
Relevant facts and information are not purposefully omitted even when such things may contradict one’s hypothesis;
Facts are presented in an unbiased manner, and not twisted to give misleading impressions or to support one view over another;
References, or earlier work, are acknowledged where possible, and plagiarism is avoided.” ref

Intellectual dishonesty:

“Common forms of intellectual dishonesty include plagiarism, applying double standards, using false analogies, exaggeration and overgeneralization, presenting straw man arguments, and poisoning the well (not literally). A form of intellectual dishonesty common on conservative sites like Conservapedia is the suppression of evidence that contradicts their orthodoxy by reverting without explanation any edit that links to or otherwise presents such evidence.” ref

“When a lot of money is involved, intellectual dishonesty rises to the level of industry-sponsored denialism campaigns, often under the umbrella of think tanks or industry lobbying groups: asbestos, Global warming (fossil fuel), lead, and tobacco smoking. Some intellectual dishonesty can be subtle. For example, relevant facts and information may be purposefully omitted when such things contradict one’s hypothesis, or facts may be presented in a biased manner or twisted to give misleading impressions. Broadly speaking, any of the following behaviors would fall under intellectual dishonesty.” ref

“Arguing for a viewpoint you yourself disbelieve would fall under intellectual dishonesty.
- Exception: The role of devil’s advocate, when consciously acted out, is not intellectually dishonest. A good devil’s advocate will express the opposition’s strongest arguments, and draw attention to the weaknesses of the arguments of co-thinkers. This is a valuable tool for intellectual rigor and honesty, and also helps to ward off the dangers of echo chambers and the resulting groupthink.
- Exception: arguing in practice debates, debate classes, or debate competitions
Deliberately ignoring facts and arguments that would undermine your position. (willful ignorance)
Knowingly using a logical fallacy.” ref

Michael Lamb – “Epicurus summed that up in antiquity.”

My response, Yes, more axiological atheism thnking. Most things around morality/ethics/moral reasoning issues, can be thought to relate to an axiological assumption (some Presumptive-value) or presupposition, they don’t realize they are assuming (some Presumptive-value).

Marquis Amon – “Having omnipotence and omniscience can be considered possible. Yet the argument of evil in terms of morality requires that the person use those things in reality. Therefore the presence of evil proves the nonexistence of god because regardless of being omnipotent and omniscient that the person fails on the grounds of morality. In other words, it is a paradox, you can’t be omnipotent, omniscient, and moral while evil exists in the world. The paradox is that omniscience requires morality. Mr. Lamb is correct on what he stated on this point as well, I just wanted to explain what the paradox really is and why it is such. I also wanted to add that there is often a logical fallacy used by theists that claims that the allowance of evil’s presence is somehow morally justified, by unspecified(nonexistent, divine reason). Evil is fundamentally immoral and therefore disproves god.”

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Where did we come from? Do humans have value? Etc. Etc. Etc.

Theist thinking he is superior to atheists in a debate group???

My response, Have you asked yourself those questions? Intellectually honest people would. And they would not start with any limitations on reason to guide them. So again, were you an honest thinker when, you say you ask yourself first?

“Damien, I have asked myself these questions and I’ve answered them. I’m being intellectually honest, and I am simply asking what “your” answers to these questions are.” – Theist Poster

My response, Ok, if so, what was your favorite answer, and what was the valid reasoning used to reach your chosen conclusion? Please, explain fully. Thanks.

“Damien, why are you just asking me what I’m asking you? I’m wanting to know your answers.” – Theist Poster

My response, Interesting question as you did that very thing did you not? I am waiting on your response? I am looking for your intellectual honesty in your account of how you reached your chosen answers. If you fully and honestly answer then so will I.

“I already, answered you, sir.” – Theist Poster

My response, Good, then you will answer my questions? No, you will not, but we must ask why??? Can you imagine the level of intellectual dishonesty of a Theist Poster asking atheists questions as if only an atheist has any objections to answer??? I don’t respect such people, do you??? You agree that we have a morality duty, to be honest thinkers intellectually, right?

“Damien, I’m not sure where the disconnect is, but I’ll say again: I asked the question. You don’t have to answer, but you shot my question back at me. It sounds like you want to hear not just what my answers are, but how and why I concluded those answers logically and philosophically. There is nothing wrong with your question, but I’m not trying to argue the logical and philosophical route I took to conclude what I did. I’m not asking anyone to prove why they chose the answer they chose.The reason I’m asking these four question is because I’m interested in what others think because I believe everyone has to face them. I simply want to know what others think. You already know what you think and I already know what I think. I’m not interested in debating the answers. I’m just asking for yours. You don’t have to answer.” – Theist Poster

My response, You have never given me a good full answer to my honest question. You are evading answering. Thus this very behavior is labeled as lacking in intellectual honesty. It could be raised to intellectual dishonesty. As if you are added over and over again, it stopped being an accident and became purposed. Thus you then have been intellectually dishonest in this point I am addressing. If you don’t want to be seen as such, the best way is to honesty answer. If again you willfully reject this intellectual morality duty, what should we think of you? So please answer me? Thanks.

“No, Damien. You can call me what you want, but just be careful you don’t become a hypocrite. You haven’t answered me either, and it seems like you want to hold me to a standard you won’t hold yourself to. I don’t even know you.” – Theist Poster

My response, I don’t want to call you anything, I just want, an honest thinker, answer. That is it. I am an honest thinker above everything. And I was wondering if you were???

My response, “We have a moral duty, to be honest. This duty is especially important when we share ideas that can inform or persuade others. Intellectual honesty is honesty in the acquisition, analysis, and transmission of ideas. A person is being intellectually honest when he or she, knowing the truth, states that truth. Intellectual honesty pertains to any communication intended to inform or persuade. This includes all forms of scholarship, consequential conversations such as dialogue, debate, negotiations, product and service descriptions, various forms of persuasion, and public communications such as announcements, speeches, lectures, instruction, presentations, publications, declarations, briefings, news releases, policy statements, reports, religious instructions, social media posts, and journalism including not only prose and speech, but graphs, photographs, and other means of expression. Intellectual Honesty combines good faith with a primary motivation toward seeking true beliefs. Intellectual honesty is an applied method of problem-solving, characterized by an unbiased, honest attitude, which can be demonstrated in a number of different ways including: Ensuring support for chosen ideologies does not interfere with the pursuit of truth; Relevant facts and information are not purposefully omitted even when such things may contradict one’s hypothesis; Facts are presented in an unbiased manner, and not twisted to give misleading impressions or to support one view over another; References, or earlier work, are acknowledged where possible, and plagiarism is avoided. Harvard ethicist Louis M. Guenin describes the “kernel” of intellectual honesty to be “a virtuous disposition to eschew deception when given an incentive for deception”. Intentionally committed fallacies and deception in debates and reasoning are called intellectual dishonesty.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_honesty

“Trump supporter warns MSNBC he will ‘take up arms’ if Biden wins: ‘If that’s what it comes to.” – LinkedIn Post

My response, on a LinkedIn post, Such people are Un-American and totally Anti-democracy! Phonies, claiming to be American patriots. What a fucking joke, go read a book on American history, so your ignorance can stop, some time!!! I have AntiFa friends, armed and ready, to keep your hate in check!

“Damien AtHope ” – Challenger

My response, Is that a line of Trump supporters? Asking for a friend. Lol

“Damien AtHope, No. You too ugly, my friend.” – Challenger

My response, I did not know you were looking for a date? Good luck, with that, bro.

“Damien AtHope but you got nice mouth boy.” – Challenger

My response, Thanks, I am totally cool with you having homosexual feelings but I am not into it, like you. I still hope you find love, though.

“Damien AtHope but come on boy, you anarchist, you can handle a good fukin.” – Challenger

My response, We anarchist respect the dignity of others, so, I don’t act in unhonorable ways. What good behavior standards do you support?

“You don’t even have respect for yourself. You have no idea what you kids Are even what rebelling about.” – Challenger

My response, So no behavior standards for you? I hope you respect your honor better than that, right? I mean do you feel you are, a good, person? If so do you think good people act a certain way? Like acting in a way, you know, that we know they are good by the example the behavior inspires??? Can we judge you, by your behavior here, it is an example for all good people to follow?

“Damien AtHope, HEY, anarchist, you ever been outside of USA???” – Challenger

My response, So you evade an honest question of your behavior to show me, what that you don’t value your self nor respect others? Are you an honest thinker? How would I know by your behavior? So what are your behavior standards?

“Damien AtHope, I don’t follow any group.just me myself & You believe in socialism???” – Challenger

My response, So you don’t care about the human rights or dignity of others, I am just trying to follow as you are not giving a direct answer to a direct question, almost if your shamefulness is even apparent to you, am I right? Do you have any honor? If so what behavior of yours has exemplified this attribute, as I don’t see any honor in your behavior yet, is it coming soon? I hope you choose to be a person of honor and respect the dignity and human rights of others. Can we not agree on this?

Marquis Amon – “That is the essence of the two-party system, it is really about allowing evil because one is part of a party. That the end justifies the means. That there isn’t an real objectivity and accountability in our system.”

Marquis Amon – “It is about understanding that demanding respect and giving orders doesn’t net any gain, rather understanding and demonstrating character gives children reason to respect you, reason to listen, because you show them what you mean.”

Marquis Amon – “In other words truth is something that not only possesses evidence, but quality evidence that gives a more definitive position. For example, several sources of science support evolution. Biology and genetics, for example. When you can confirm things with more than one methodology it further supports justification and likelihood of it being true, this also lends to certainty.”

Marquis Amon – “Faith says something is true because they believe it to be true. Suppose there is a literal box, one that is closed. Never examined. Suppose people think of all the potential wonderful things they believe are in the box…yet the never open the box. None the less continue to think wonderful things are inside it, that’s faith. Faith confirms nothing. Nor does it possess logic, reason, or evidence. You just believe.”

Michael Lamb – “Faith is nothing. It is like driving without eyes…”

Marquis Amon – “Yes, let’s give blind people driver’s licenses and hope they don’t hit anything. If that doesn’t make sense, then my statement means we have to have faith they don’t.”

Unrealized Presumptive-value?

Yes, you hold a lot of unrealized Presumptive-value, in almost everything?

Well, to me, as an Axiological (philosophic “value-theory”) theorist, most things around morality/ethics/moral reasoning issues can be thought to relate to an axiological assumption (some Presumptive-value) or presupposition they don’t realize they are assuming (some Presumptive-value).

Here is my blog post explaining this further:

Sound thinking, Presumptive-value, Axiology, and Disciplined-Rationality

Truth Navigation: Techniques for Discussions or Debates

I do truth navigation, both inquiry questions as well as strategic facts in a tag team of debate and motivational teaching.

Truth Navigation and the fallacy of Fideism “faith-ism”

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.

Turning a Theist Attack into a Chance for Their New Learning: “an open dialog”

Utilizing Dignity Dignity Enrichment: 1. acceptance of thinking or behavior, 2. show understanding, and 3. offer support for who and what they are. Dignity Attacks: 1. critical challenge of thinking or behavior, 2. expose confusion or irrationalism, and 3. offer rebuttal or rebuke of who and what they are.

Here is a rough breakdown of a response to an atheist philosopher on a debate over the term “spiritual” saying to him: “good reasons” to believe in spiritual?

(Dignity Attack)– More like a loose looking “thinking claim.”

(Dignity Attack)- You will be quite hard-pressed to prove such a thing.

(Dignity Attack)- But as always I am more than ready to receive your evidence substantiation.

Or this response I said to him:

(Dignity Attack)- Stating your education is great and still no evidence then you have training.

(Dignity Attack)- Not that you employ your philosophy education with a universal truth to all claims.

(Dignity Attack)- And I am taken back that you think you can push any claim against me without your full sound warrant… I want evidence, please?

Attacking the Person?

I strive to attack thinking and not people but I sometimes may use dignity attacks or character attacks about behavior or thinking people are doing. I only say things they can quickly fix or change. Then I will pressure them to change it. My point in doing this is help mirror the bad or errored thinking or behavior so they can change if they wish I try to never do it to hurt anyone as I see this as not a productive and potentially abusive.

However, if I only spend my time pointing fingers have I not wasted times I could have also offered helping hands. Thus, even though somethings things need to be harshly pointed out so too is there a need to be involved in the benefit of helping where we can. May my drive to help not be somehow silenced just because there is a need to fight all that is wrong. I want to thank everyone throughout my life that have treated me with compassion and kindness. From something as simple as a smile or comforting word, to things that create impacts so big they were life-altering; you have written with the pen of love across my heart and have helped me be a person who strives to also show and treat others with compassion as well as kindness. I do not respect faith, I respect people. I value the sanctity of “rights” of every person to self-define their beliefs and do not attack people because of what they believe. I say, attack thinking not people. We who truly value ourselves and others can and do make a better world. May we together fill the world with this shining example of humanity.

I Don’t Have to Respect Ideas

People get confused ideas are not alive nor do they have beingness, Ideas don’t have rights nor the right to even exist only people have such a right. Ideas don’t have dignity nor can they feel violation only people if you attack them personally.

Ideas don’t deserve any special anything they have no feelings and cannot be shamed they are open to the most brutal merciless attack and challenge without any protection and deserve none nor will I give them any if they are found wanting in evidence or reason. I will never respect Ideas if they are devoid of merit I only respect people.

When I was young it was all about me, I wanted to be liked.
Then I got older and it was even more about me, I wanted power. Now I am beyond a toxic ego and it is not just about me, I want to make a difference.

Sexism is that evil weed that can sadly grow even in the well-tended garden of the individual with an otherwise developed mind. Which is why it particularly needs to be attacked and exposed; and is why I support feminism.

Here are four blogs on that: Activism Labels Matter, thus Feminism is Needed, Feminist atheists as far back as the 1800s?, Sexism in the Major World Religions and Rape, Sexism, and Religion?

Having privilege in race, gender, sexuality, ability, class, nationality, etc. does not mean one did not have it hard in life, it just was not hard due to race, gender, sexuality, ability, class, nationality, etc. if one has privilege in that area.

“Ideas don’t deserve respect. In fact, they deserve the opposite: Examination, scrutiny, ridicule, dissection, taunting, testing, testing, testing. Until only the ideas which survive the most rigorous and repeated testing of every type, including cruel and unsociable taunts, are left standing. Ideas have no feelings. Ideas have no emotions. Ideas can’t be injured.” – Atheist Commenter

“Ideas should be only valued based on their logical benefit to human existence. For example, human rights make sense, we can and have examined, dissected them, and put them under much scrutiny. Unfortunately, even now we are still fighting for them despite the evidence of their benefit when we apply them. The same thing goes with traffic laws, we follow these procedures because their logic and use, in reality, has shown to prevent accidents. They make sense. God? Not proven to exist, believing it exists has no benefit to humanity in reality. Suffice to say, I agree with you. I just wanted to explain why. I want only the best ideas to survive, only the strongest ideas to be promulgated. That which can be destroyed by the truth, should be destroyed by the truth.” – Marquis Amon

Religions Promote Pseudo-Morality

If you are a religious believer in your religion’s exclusive brand of confessed morality, may I remind you that faith in the acquisition of knowledge is not a valid method, worth, believing in. Because, what proof is “faith”, of anything religion claims by faith, as many people have different faith even in the same religion? All religions have some form of self-shaming institution, such as “sin” or its equivalents such as karma or something else often used to describe actions that create negative self-outlook or other-outlook where truly there is none.

This idea of sin points out how religions promote pseudo-morality. The easiest aspect to grasp about pseudo-morality is when it is claimed that you can do something immoral to yourself that is pseudo-morality. True morality is how one conducts themselves with others. There is no ethical violation of self. To understand this concept considers how consent violations are unethical and how one does not need to get consent from oneself. Thus, there cannot be a consent violation against “self” and the aspect of sin is pseudo-morality, which promotes that there can be a violation of the self.

Some will try to say that the violation is of a god but this is wrong because this is saying that someone else has control over what ethical things you do to yourself and what you do to yourself under your own consent. Likewise, another aspect of pseudo-morality is how religions seem to take the position that those people over there are different. Once you separate yourself from others, it is a short step from that to dehumanizing them. Once you do that, you open the door to hate people and dehumanizing hate tends to lead to violence.

Imagine you are god with all the normal powers claimed by religions: What would you do, to (for) the world, if you were god for a day? What wrongs would you right? What diseases would you wipe out? Who would you help? What peoples would you bless such that they were able to turn themselves around and really prosper? Now ask yourself: why does the religionist’s claimed god(s) not DO these things? Answer: because most humans just like you are more moral and caring than god(s) that is why.

As an axiological atheist, I understand and utilize value or actually “Value Consciousness” to both give a strong moral “axiological” argument (the problem of evil) as well as use it to fortify my humanism and positive ethical persuasion of human helping and care. Value-blindness gives rise to sociopathic evil.

Marquis Amon – “As for as pseudo morality goes, one can easily determine the difference is. You pointed out that morality affects others as behavior which is either beneficial or detrimental. Lust for example. If I desire a woman, have sexual thoughts of her but not touch or inform her, she is not affected. Essentially claiming otherwise is indicative to a thought crime. You have made this point yourself. Wrath? I am angry, but as you say, if you don’t allow it to transform into unethical behavior, there is no violation of another. Pride, same thing, of course, it can be detrimental because it could increase one’s ego, however, it in and of itself is not an ethical violation. Sloth? There is an animal called that, it lives its life just fine. Envy is another baseless moral point. “You have a great wife, I wish I was married to her”. Again, harmless if there is no unethical behavior. Eating a forbidden apple, fantasy. Jesus spoke to a woman who asked him to heal her daughter, he regards her people as dogs feeding on scraps of the table of masters. After insulting her, she still begs him, he agrees only on seeing her faith of him. In other words, he dehumanized her, specifically inequality. Simple question. Could humans be moral without religion? Yes. We evolved this way for positive social maintenance.”

Addressing the Seven Dreaded Thinking Errors of Atheism

1. Don’t use or follow “Faith-Thinking” as any kind of support for beliefs; especially strong believes in anything, even more, be careful to not use, full-belief, in general, before reasonable investigation.

2. Don’t use or follow “Strong-Belief(s)” without reasonable justification like sound epistemic evidence. Not without valid and/or reliable reason and/or evidence as a sound/good support/justification for reasoned beliefs should.

3. Don’t use or follow “Strong Unsupported Claim(s), like claiming to know things you do not or cannot really claim justifiably to know. Knowing means you have epistemic evidence to convince others by its soundness and evidence quality.

4. Don’t fear or resist being thoughtfully questioned, if you are right you may get t grasp this better if wrong you are giving yourself the opportunity to see it differently, and if needed, change or amend the old thinking, belief(s), assumption(s), found wanting. Lies, fear questions truth should welcome them.

5. Don’t fear or resist Facts/Truth, instead of loving sound/soundness in offered/believed/accepted/assumed which is supported and justified with epistemic certainty that is valid and reliable in its nature or attributes.

6. Don’t “Fear or Resist” saying, you do not “know” when you don’t know. I know that seems simple, but few do it publicly enough. Do it more often!!!

7. Don’t use, follow, or unsupported beliefs/thinking “Faithism-Beliefs”, and after new explanation(s)/evidence(s)/justification(s) shows a need to adapt or change, you eagerly change. Especially after intellectually honest investigation shows or at least seems to express the old thinking/beliefs hold errors, or are even, possibly, now fully disproved, or deeply removed from the accuracy with the valid and reliable reason and/or evidence that is shown epistemically sound.

I value a reasoned thinking standard of myself as a Rationalist:

I hold a belief etiquette, that we should strive, to not believe things without first having reasoned belief acquisitions. Then good belief maintenance to check up on old assumed beliefs to see if their accuracy still matches the available evidence and/or reason. And lastly, honest belief relinquishment to any beliefs found wanting and amending those that still can be somewhat saved with new adapted changes.

Ask yourself honestly what is a god anyway?

Not some labeled name gifted arbitrarily but the actual thing put forward as the thing the label is describing as this god-something? How can we not reject the concept of gods, aka: supposed supreme magical beings, when not even some simple magic is supported in reality. So how then is it not even more ridiculous to claim some supreme magic aka: gods which are even further from reality?

Again, What is a god?

“David Hume’s considered view that in respect of our idea of god we have no relevant impression(s) that can serve as the origin of this idea. Given his theory of meaning, this leaves the term god “altogether insignificant” making him, to me, an Ignostic Atheist. The fundamental point that emerges is that Hume agrees with Hobbes that in respect of our idea of god our predicament is much the same as that of a blind man trying to form the idea of fire, making Hobbes also an Ignostic Theist, to me.” ref

“Ignosticism is the idea that the question of the existence of God is meaningless, because the term “god” has no unambiguous definition. Ignosticism requires a good, non-controversial definition of god before arguing on its existence.” ref

So, what is a god?

I Am a Different Kind of Atheist: “Axiological, Methodological, Anarchist, Universal Ethicist, Realist, and Rationalist”

I am an axiological atheist and Axiological Atheism is like humanistic anti-theism and anti-religionism with strong secularism. And to more quickly understand Axiological Atheism, it is like humanistic anti-theism and anti-religionism with strong secularism.

Highlighting Sound-Reasoning?

Religious beliefs often don’t stay in the “belief” category, as if it is something chosen temporarily if needed or changeable if required. No, what is most common is that religious beliefs are completely infused to the person’s identity, thus it’s not what they believe it is more a factor of who they are. What this means is if they are later challenged and given reason to let the belief go this is largely disrupted because they and the belief are mixed with the person’s identity making its loss, not just a possible belief loss but a perceived personal identity loss. Faith is being inspired to strong belief in that which, by the lack of proof, should inspire strong doubt. Faith is the self-indoctrination process of coming to believe in unjustified belief.

The turbulent seas of denial are ever crashing like a tsunami of avoidance on religion’s shores. With minds of cognitive decadence and intellectual dishonesty, they welcome this eroding of the religion-believers perceived need to change belief in the face of facts when they want to keep belief regardless. Thus, they joyfully dive in swimming deep under denials dark waters to the safety of blind ignorance.

Religions continuing in our modern world, full of science and facts, should be seen as little more than a set of irrational conspiracy theories of reality. Nothing more than a confused reality made up of unscientific echoes from man’s ancient past. Rational thinkers must ask themselves why continue to believe in religions’ stories. Religion myths which are nothing more than childlike stories and obsolete tales once used to explain how the world works, acting like magic was needed when it was always only nature.

These childlike religious stories should not even be taken seriously, but sadly too often they are. Often without realizing it, we accumulate beliefs that we allow to negatively influence our lives. In order to bring about awareness, we need to be willing to alter skewed beliefs. Rational thinkers must examine the facts instead of blindly following beliefs or faith.

Normalize people being nice to you without assuming they wanna sex. I strive to be nice to everyone but out of humanity, not sex seeking. I am not claiming to not have sex needs but it is not why I do kindness. I think people of high character should express humanity as freely as others seem to champion hate. I have Compassion, not Patience as an Atheist Activist. When challenging other on most things can induce aggressive feelings, thinking, words or behaviors thus failing at the excellence of thoughtfulness, openness, and compassion When we see people that have been indoctrinated as a child to believe it requires in, to me, for us nonbeliever atheist to require compassion for those we see as being blinded by forces in the mind of their past, that informed them in what to think or believe and they are hindered from reanalyzing the reason of what should or should not be believed.

I know I hold deep compassion for them, as I was them until 35 years old in college. Before that, I had started school to become a Christian counselor for alcohol and drug addiction, and during that learning, mainly I realized the truth of atheism. Having Bias-Blindness is easy as biases happen without even trying, however, the removing or overcoming of bias takes a lot of deliberate work. The hard work one puts into self-improvement is a lifetime gift to their wellbeing and likely that of others around them as well.

Scientific atheism: uses the scientific method to justify non-belief in gods or the supernatural and scientific atheists may also reject all things not materialistic or evolutionary derived. Scientific atheists often start with the position of philosophical atheism and then, due to their scientific theorizing, concluding that the actions of a “god” have no place in any scientifically-controlled experiment and are simply myths people created to explain the natural scientific world they in less modern times could not understand. Informed consensus rule is a cornerstone of Atheistic thought. Scientific Atheism works on the principle that the utilisation of credible evidence in personal, political and national decisions be the main guide for societies. The consequences of choices take into account the understanding of a common empathy and compassion. Scientific Atheism analytically examines the failings of systems, which allow preferential treatment to the disadvantage of arbitrarily victimised groups. It acknowledges that the rich tapestry of humanity is not open to the selective interpretation of writings from ignorant times. ref

Pigeonholing scientific Atheism into a decidedly unacceptable category reeks of irresponsible promotion. It misrepresents a positive response to the dire circumstances afflicting a world in turmoil. Scientific Atheism places Homo sapiens in proper perspective in the Universe, away from unevidenced, dangerous and improbable illusions erroneously manufactured in the superstitious cauldrons of antiquity. Scientific Atheism unequivocally affirms that we are alone in a cosmos devoid of supernatural realms. The existence of such mental notions are invalidated by the total absence of evidence. Consequently, humanity has to deal with the psychological implications of that knowledge effectively if we are to survive. ref

Naturalist atheism: naturalist atheism is the philosophical doctrine that the observable physical world is all there is thus there can be no god. Most philosophers of science adhere strictly to this view and positively deny that any supernatural or miraculous effects or forces are possible thus one is almost required to hold a view of atheism. Naturalist atheists are driven by the humility lacking desire to plumb the depths of reality, to know what objectively exists, to understand how things fundamentally work, and to have maximally transparent explanations of phenomena. Naturalist atheism thus is a philo-scientific way of knowing what can justifiably believe which gets us reliable beliefs about the world. Naturalist atheism can be called a philo-scientific epistemology because it combines openness to philosophical critique with a reliance on scientific criteria of explanatory adequacy as vetted by that critique and the actual practice of science. Naturalist atheism holds that science and philosophy are continuous, interpenetrating and collaborative in our investigation of reality; neither is foundational to the other. Naturalist atheism mainly wants not to be deceived by supernatural or divine being claims, or to make errors of logic or method or assumptions when understanding the world which leave open the possibility of a God’s existence. ref

Materialistic atheism: materialists most likely value physicalism and may say that morality and concepts of god evolved thus extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence so god is not reality nor is such myths authoritative. Atheists are usually materialists of some sort, rejecting the idea that there exists anything independent of the workings of matter and energy. Materialism often entails atheism unless a person believes in a purely physical god, but atheism does not entail materialism. It may be hard to believe in a god in a materialistic philosophy, but an atheistic philosophy need not be materialistic. Materialistic atheism could involve an individualistic thinking earthier consciously or subconsciously to fulfill a survival of the fittest “things” or “needs” (to consume or accumulate) in order to “survive” are a value physicalism requires since you are the only thing you can count on, knowing no god is waiting to help. ref

Empiricism atheism: empiricism is an epistemological theory which argues that all knowledge must be acquired a posteriori and that nothing can be known a priori. Another way of putting it is that empiricism denies the existence of purely intellectual knowledge and argues that only sense-knowledge can exist. Empiricism is a common philosophical belief among many atheists. They believe that empirical science is the only true path to understanding. If you cannot see it, smell it, taste it, hear it, etc., it cannot be known. Empiricism atheists say that if you cannot prove something empirically, such as the existence of God, you are irrational for believing it. ref, ref

Promoting Religion as Real is Mentally Harmful to a Flourishing Humanity. To me, promoting religion as real is too often promote a toxic mental substance that can divide a person from who they are shaming them for being human. In addition, religion is a toxic mental substance that can divide a person from real history, real science or real morality to pseudohistory, pseudoscience, and pseudomorality. Moreover, religion is a toxic mental substance that can divide a person from rational thought, critical thinking, or logic. Likewise, religion is a toxic mental substance that can divide a person from justice, universal ethics, equality, and liberty.

Yes, religion is a toxic mental substance that can divide a person from loved ones, and religion is a toxic mental substance that can divide a person from humanity. Therefore, to me, promoting religion as real is too often promote a toxic mental substance that should be rejected as not only false but harmful as well even if you believe it has some redeeming quality. To me, promoting religion as real is mentally harmful to a flourishing humanity. Religion may have once seemed great when all you had or needed was to believe. Science now seems great when we have facts and need to actually know. Theism is presented as adding love to your life…

But to me, more often it peddles in ignorance (pseudo-science, pseudo-history, and pseudo-morality), tribalism (strong in-group loyalty if you believe like them and aversion to difference; like shunning: social rejection, emotional distance, or ostracism), and psychological terrorism; primarily targeting well being both safety and comfort (you are born a sinner, you are evil by nature, you are guilty of thought crimes, threats of misfortune, suffering, and torture “hell”). Hell yes, I am against the fraud that is the world religions. Why not be against the promotion of woo-woo pseudo-truth, when I am very against all pseudo-science, pseudo-history, and pseudo-morality and the harm they can produce. Along with the hate, such as sexism and homophobia are too often seen or the forced indoctrination of children.

And this coercive indoctrination of the world religions, with their pseudo-science, pseudo-history, and pseudo-morality mainly furthered by forced Hereditary Religion (family or cultural, religious beliefs forced on children because the parent or caregiver believes that way). This is sadly done, even before a child can be expected to successfully navigate reason; it’s almost as if religious parents believe their “woo-woo pseudo-truth” lies will not be so easily accepted if they wait on a mind that can make its own choice. Because we do see how hard it is for the ones forced into Hereditary Religion. It seems difficult for them to successfully navigate reason in relation to their woo-woo pseudo-truth, found in a religion they were indoctrinationally taught to prefer, because after being instructed on how to discern pseudo-truth as truth than just wishing that their blind servitude belief in a brand of religious pseudo-truth devoid of justified, valid or reliable reason and evidence. I care because I am a rationalist, as well as an atheist.

Thus, this religious set of “woo-woo pseudo-truth” pushed on the simple-minded as truth bothers me greatly. So, here it is as simple as I can make it you first need a good thinking standard to address beliefs one may approach as a possible belief warranted to be believed. I wish to smash that lying pig of religion with the Hammer of Truth: Ontology, Epistemology, and Axiology Questions (a methodological use of philosophy). Overall, I wish to promote in my self and for others; to value a worthy belief etiquette, one that desires a sound accuracy and correspondence to the truth: Reasoned belief acquisitions, good belief maintenance, and honest belief relinquishment. May we all be authenticly truthful rationalists that put facts over faith. I have made many mistakes in my life but the most common one of all is my being resistant to change. However, now I wish to be more, to be better, as I desire my openness to change if needed, not letting uncomfortable change hold me back.

May I be a rationalist, holding fast to a valued belief etiquette: demanding reasoned belief acquisitions, good belief maintenance, and honest belief relinquishment. Quit Trying to Invent Your God From the Scraps of Science. What religious in most of their arguments try to do, is to act as if they reverse engineer facts of reality, trying to prove a god something or other has to be the only way it could be the way it is. Of course, as an atheist but more importantly a supporter of science and the valid and reliable reason and evidence they work from I know religion is false. I know the work of reverse engineer facts of reality has largely been done and is being done by science which is why we know about the truth of evolution over creationism in the first place as well as the truth of reality that contradicts or completely challenges any argument the supporters of religion can offer. I realize they are trying to reoffer thinking that is already reasonably been disregarded as the wishful thinking fantasies it always was.

No, science CAN NOT be with religion. Science is a method to understand the world as it is, which is naturalistic only, not one shred of magic. In fact, the scientific method assumes Methodological Naturalism, because that is all that has ever been found and is the most likely thing that ever will be found. As religion is not intended to represent the world as it is but instead what it is not the stupid supernatural, which is the thing of fantasy, wishful thinking, and delusion. Science is a system where justified true beliefs are derived from objective methodologies such as the scientific method and religion is a system of unjustified beliefs based on subjective faith or revelation.

While scientists can agree upon the empirical nature of science, the steps from observations to law or theory are not without philosophical issues thus our beliefs. But as I say they are justified true beliefs validated with reliability following reason and evidence to reach beliefs worthy to be called knowledge religion is not. The issue of word usage of belief is troubling for many science-minded thinkers who don’t get the epistemology consideration of words they mostly think of standard usage. In epistemology, knowledge is an epistemic property of belief, as in general when a belief is justified and true because of valid and/or reliable reason and evidence it is warranted to be called knowledge. Many still think that ‘to believe’ has no connection with ‘to know’ believing this because it is thought ‘knowledge’ is derived from facts and ‘belief’ is derived without facts, so the verbs knowing and believing too many are therefore seen different.

Science, as we know it is not just an accumulation of facts or evidence from observation and experimentation it is also interpretation which that can turn into scientific knowledge, scientific laws, and scientific theories. But it is this interpretation that reaches conclusions which are “accepted” as knowledge is saying epistemologically are a justified true belief which equals knowledge. Religion Vc. Science, don’t confuse beliefs. We must not confuse beliefs, religion is beliefs built from myths devoid of corroborating evidence. Science uses corroborating evidence to establish what is true and that offers something worthy to believe.

“Rationalist”

Rationalist atheism: Almost all rationalists are atheists or agnostics. There has been a long link between rationalism and the scientific method. There is also a long tradition of philosophers who have approached philosophical and ethical questions from a rationalist perspective. Bertrand Russell’s “The Faith of a Rationalist” is an example of a rationalist approach to religious belief. Rationalism is an approach to life-based on reason and evidence. Rationalism encourages ethical and philosophical ideas that can be tested by experience and rejects authority that cannot be proved by experience. Because rationalism encourages people to think for themselves, rationalists have many different and diverse ideas and continue in a tradition from the nineteenth century known as freethought. However, most rationalists would agree. There is no evidence for any arbitrary supernatural authority e.g. God or Gods. The best explanation so far for why the natural world looks the way it does is the theory of evolution first put forward by Charles Darwin.

All human beings should have fundamental rights. Some rationalists and humanists go further and argue that animals should also have rights as they are living, sensate beings. Society is should be an “open society”, where each individual is able to live “freely and equally practice their chosen life stance, and in which human potential is realized to the benefit of the individual and the community at large.” (Levi Fragell, President of International Humanist and Ethical Union, 2001) As well as approaching life through reason, rationalists enjoy those things in life where emotion and imagination are to the fore. Rationalist atheists wish to follow and inspire in others a desire or value in or for epistemology, axiology, and rationality.

Rationalist atheists want to strive for a corresponding and coherent value assessment along with an epistemological rationally, rational epistemology, as well as an accurate or at least a methodological rationally connecting to an epistemic value of the epistemology state of things or ideas. Rationalist atheists want to know what is it to be Rational? To be “rational” is generally considered to mean employing logical consistency and deriving appropriate conclusions from acceptable assumptions. Epistemic value is a kind of value which attaches to cognitive successes such as true beliefs, justified beliefs, knowledge, and understanding.

These kinds of cognitive success do of course often have practical value. True beliefs about local geography help us get to work on time; knowledge of mechanics allows us to build vehicles; understanding of general annual weather patterns helps us to plant our fields at the right time of year to ensure a good harvest. By contrast, false beliefs about the existence of weapons of mass destruction can lead nations to fight hugely expensive wars that are ultimately both destructive and useless. It is fairly uncontroversial that we tend to care about having various cognitive or epistemic goods, at least for their practical value, and perhaps also for their own sakes as cognitive successes.

There is not just one type of rationalism or use of rationally. Epistemic rationality: believing, and updating on evidence, so as to systematically improve the correspondence between your map and the territory. The art of obtaining beliefs that correspond to reality as closely as possible. This correspondence is commonly termed “truth” or “accuracy”, and we’re happy to call it that. Instrumental rationality: achieving your values. Not necessarily “your values” in the sense of being selfish values or unshared values: “your values” means anything you care about. The art of choosing actions that steer the future toward outcomes ranked higher in your preferences. On LW we sometimes refer to this as “winning”. 1 2 3

I am a Rationalist, I wish to follow and inspire in others a desire or value in or for epistemology, axiology, and rationality. I want to strive for a corresponding and coherent value assessment along with an epistemological rationally, rational epistemology, as well as an accurate or at least a methodological rationally connecting to an epistemic value of the epistemology state of things or ideas. What is it to be Rational? To be “rational” is generally considered to mean employing logical consistency and deriving appropriate conclusions from acceptable assumptions. Epistemic value is a kind of value which attaches to cognitive successes such as true beliefs, justified beliefs, knowledge, and understanding.

Be thoughtful in what you say, because, words once released have power, due them being a method of transferring feelings not just ideas. Words are world builders and dramatic destructors. They can build mental castles to protect or dungeons to torment. May I strive to be kind to others with my words. And, I think back on my life, it’s not the times I was the most selfish but the times I was kind, that brighten my life. May I now make an even stronger effort to do so in all I do, as it’s so valuable to an enriched wellbeing in life. It saddens me when proponents of atheism also seem to be proponents of anti-intellectualism either in rejecting philosophy or science. I am against all pseudoscience, pseudohistory, and pseudo-morality and the harm they can produce. I am a rationalist, as well as an atheist.

Therefore, I am happy to correct the errors in thinking many atheists, agnostics, and skeptics may have, mainly because of the overconfidence in skepticism and the lack of a respect for the supremacy reason needed for logic which is needed to standardize validity. Religion should be seen as ancient mythology to be marveled and laughed at, rather than promoted as truth when it is only feeble pseudo-truth. And why do we so often error it thinking to wish on myths and not believe in scientific proven “godless-reality”, is because We are emotional beings who have a thinking strategy called reason we only sometimes use. Simply, We are not rational beings who have a bonding strategy called emotions we sometimes use. People all the time talk about, “I believe” in regards to religion and gods. No, likely you never had a chance to first investigate all the facts then choose what to believe or not believe.

You like everyone else raised in a religious house were indoctrinated to the same religion your family held before your birth. So you did not so much “believe” as “give in and slavishly agreed” to what you were told. Thus, you are more rightly called an agreer then a believer, especially when you don’t read the holy book you say you totally believe in. It seems to me, religious believers are usually ignorant of the truth or willfully uninformed, foolish or indoctrinated to keep believing these conspiracy theories of reality that religions are with their magic claims, when presented with the facts and stupid or brainwashed to keep believing when they realize that the beliefs they have contained falsehoods, inaccurate information, or lies.

Atheists talk about gods and religions for the same reason doctors talk about cancer, they are looking for a cure or a firefighter talking about fires because they burn people and they care to stop them. We atheists too often feel a need to help the victim’s of mental slavery, held in the bondage that is the false beliefs of gods and the conspiracy theories of reality found in religions. Science is a multidisciplinary methodological quest for truth. Rationalism, Freethinker, Humanism & Secular humanism? Rationalism is a philosophy in which a high regard is given to reason (specifically logic) and to empirical observation. Freethinker a person who forms his or her own opinions about important subjects (such as religion and politics) instead of accepting what other people say.

Humanism is a philosophical and ethical stance that emphasizes the value and agency of human beings, individually and collectively, and generally prefers critical thinking and evidence (rationalism, empiricism) over established doctrine or faith (fideism). Secular humanism is a comprehensive, nonreligious life-stance incorporating: A naturalistic philosophy. A cosmic outlook rooted in science. A consequentialist ethical system.

Moreover, HUMANISM: to me, is relatively the philosophic thinking that humans can solve human problems by human means, without feeling a need to appeal to the likes of holy books, mystical anything, nor the belief in gods or religions. But, instead, aspires to a true belief in humanity, viewing it with a persuasion of equality. This caring realist thinking found in humanism utilizes an unstated assumption or aspiration, to do no harm as much as possible and to do good whenever one can.

The need for Epistemic Rationality. I hate when you are so ignorant about something that you have no idea just how ignorant you are about it and sadly likewise don’t even know where to correctly seek out what you need to stop being as ignorant about it as you are. Being Epistemically Rational?

The Way of a Sound Thinker?Sound Thinkers don’t value FAITH

Sound thinking to me, in a general way, is thinking, reasoning, or belief that tends to make foresight a desire to be as accurate as one can with valid and reliable reason and evidence.

A General Thinking in all My Epistemology Theorizing is Justificationism

“Damien, I am an atheist but I have faith in gravity tho, but it isn’t exactly “faith.” – Challenger

My response, No, I don’t agree, you don’t have faith in gravity or gravitation, as it is “a fundamental force” you have proof or if lacking some direct proof would use inference and if even less evidence you use conjecture, not faith. Do you gauntly thinking you need faith in gravity because you wonder or worry that when walking down a set of stairs that you going to fall back up? You don’t need faith (strong belief without evidence) as there is massive proof, almost to the point that it is easily self-evident. You don’t need faith (strong belief without evidence) for anything, as if it’s warranted it will or should have evidence or it doesn’t deserve not only strong belief but any amount of belief at all as sound beliefs need something to ground their worthiness in relation to reality; the only place evidence comes. “Gravity, or gravitation, is a natural phenomenon by which all things with mass are brought toward (or gravitate toward) one another, including planets, stars, and galaxies. Gravity is responsible for various phenomena observed on Earth and throughout the Universe; for example, it causes the Earth and the other planets to orbit the Sun, the Moon to orbit the Earth, the formation of tides, the formation and evolution of the Solar System, stars and galaxies. Since energy and mass are equivalent, all forms of energy, including light, also cause gravitation and are under the influence of it. On Earth, gravity gives weight to physical objects and causes the ocean tides. The gravitational attraction of the original gaseous matter present in the Universe caused it to begin coalescing, forming stars – and the stars to group together into galaxies – so gravity is responsible for many of the large-scale structures in the Universe.” Ref

Sound axiological judgment, to me, a “presumptive-value” success, is value judged opinions expressed as facts with a valid and reliable justification. In an informal and psychological sense, it is used in reference to the quality of cognitive faculties and adjudicational (relating to adjudication) capabilities of particular individuals, typically called wisdom or discernment. In a legal sense, – used in the context of a legal trial, to refer to a final finding, statement, or ruling, based on a considered weighing of evidence, called, “adjudication“.

A shallow thinker (i.e. not a Deep Thinker, a person whose thoughts are reasoned, methodological, logical, empirical, profound; an intellectual) quickly talks, often with boastful postulations, likely just as often pushed strongly and loudly as if this adds substance, and they do this before fully understanding what’s is really involved.

Whereas, a Sound Thinker is reasoned (comparative more reasoned, superlative most reasoned) generally based on reasoning; being the result of logical thought. As a first debate process, a Sound Thinker commonly poses Questions to understand slowing down and assessing all the facts or factors involved and then builds their argument or ideas. In classical logic, the law of non-contradiction (LNC) (also known as the law of contradiction, principle of non-contradiction (PNC), or the principle of contradiction) 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. It is the second of the three classic laws of thought.

Sound thinking, to me, in a general way, is thinking, reasoning, or belief

that tends to make foresight a desire to be as accurate as one can

with valid and reliable reason (sound reasioning) and evidence.

Dogmatic–Propaganda vs. Disciplined-Rationality (Highlighting Sound-Reasoning?)

Religionists and fideists, promote Dogmatic-Propaganda whereas atheists and antireligionists mostly promote Disciplined-Rationality. Dogmatic–Propaganda commonly is a common motivator of flawed or irrational thinking but with over seventy belief biases identified in people, this is hardly limited to just the religious or faith inclined. Let me illustrate what I am saying, to me all theists are believing lies or irrationally in that aspect of their lives relating to god belief. So the fact of any other common intellectual indexers where there may be Right (sound reasoning) reason in beliefs cannot remove the flawed god belief corruption being committed. What I am saying is like this if you kill one person you are a killer.

Sound/Soundness is often used to mean sure/sureness/epistemic certainty, or clear and reasoned reasoning, or critically throughout thinking. Sound reasoning/thinking is simply reasoning that makes sense and follows some sort of logic. Sound reasoning means logical reasoning. Reasoning in this context is similar to meaning that one can give, has given, or will give epistemic quality support or justification reasons and it involves logic. ref

If you believe in one “god” I know you are a follower of Dogmatic-Propaganda and can not completely be a follower of Disciplined-Rationality. However, I am not proclaiming all atheists are always rational as irrationally is a revolving door many people believe or otherwise seem to stumble through. It’s just that god-belief does this with intentionally. Religion and it’s god myths are like a spiritually transmitted disease of the mind. This infection even once cured holds mental disruption which can linger on for a lifetime.

Disciplined-Rationality is motivated by principles of correct reasoning with emphasis on valid and reliable methods or theories leading to a range of rational standpoints or conclusions understanding that concepts and beliefs often have consequences thus hold an imperative for truth or at least as close to epistemic truth as can be acquired rejecting untruth. Disciplined-Rationality can be seen as an aid in understanding the fundamentals for knowledge, sound evidence, justified true belief and involves things like decision theory and the concern with identifying the value(s), reasonableness, verification, certainties, uncertainties, and other relevant issues resulting in the clearest optimal decision/conclusion and/or belief/disbelief.

Disciplined-Rationality attempts to understand the justification or lack thereof in propositions and beliefs concerning its self with various epistemic features of belief, truth, and/or knowledge, which include the ideas of justification, warrant, rationality, reliability, validity, and probability. I can say I know that no gods exist because a god is a non-reality commodity (unjustified claim referring to a proposed thing not evident in reality). Thus, by definition is not a thing that exists in reality, therefore such a claimed thing is not real to reality, and this means in reality gods don’t exist. Unless you have some reality provable facts to support claims of these non-reality gods to which are unjustifiably claimed? Facts are labels, just like truth, that we put on claims we think are proven somehow, in that assertions are believed to match the state of affairs (if you are making realistic assumptions from science then likely supported by the beliefs in science realism), that generally promote the Correspondence theory of truth “similar to both Rationalism and Empiricism” or coherence theory of truth “similar to just Rationalism” its all still epistemic property of beliefs, whether one’s claim is of knowledge or certainty.

Religion has been a reason for violence and harm and at times a promoter of peace. Science does not need to fill the gap of religion. We need to remove it as it was always an abstraction not a realistic thing to being with. Not one thing religion offers that is thought of as good that cannot be done by persons not following any religion. Atheist generally is simply life with religion removed, all its pseudo meaning as well as pseudoscience, pseudohistory, and pseudo-morality. We have real science, realistic history and can access real morality with a blend of philosophy, anthropology, psychology, sociology, and cognitive science.

World, do you hear me now, because you were nothing but silent as I suffered extreme religious oppression and to this news, you simply spit in my face telling my religious freedom and all I can think is, no, you mean my parent’s religious freedom, which may I remind you is a violation of my religious freedom and was instead my religious oppression. Where are you now, while millions await this same fate if you keep doing nothing? If the only rights you fight for are your own, then you have a lot to learn about the value of rights. Childhood Indoctrination is often the gateway drug, to a life of irrational magical thinking superstitions, like ghosts, gods, or guardian spirits.

ps. “Sound Thinker”, “Shallow Thinker”, “Dogmatic–Propaganda” & “Disciplined-Rationality” are concepts/terms I created*

My goal is not just to be an atheist but use my life and talent to create Educational Writing, Art, Blogs, Video, Speaking, and Poetry a lot of them which I use directly or indirectly for my out atheism activism, thus I am mostly an activist, to me. Am I a survivor? I fell as you tripped me again and from your hate, I remove myself from such mind and being corruption freely walking into the gates of love so longed for. You have not beaten me, you cannot stop me, you don’t want me to live, to thrive, to be all the best I can be but you hate, and yet I am still here, a survivor, a full life liver, a thriver, as well as a warrior for kindness and compassion, reaching the care I was rarely offered, as a gift to the ones so desperately oppressed under your harsh gaze.

May we all be free and the positive best we can be, I know I am as best I can. I am here growing stronger every day. Who am I, you ask, I respond loud and proud, I am a survivor and even in these chains from my past, you will not stop me. Sometimes, we need to see the truth, that many people are liars and deniers while claiming they are believers. Once we stop seeing the dignity of others we feel free to violate them with impunity. But when dignity is a friend respect has become once path. I am a survivor! May I not be a silent watcher as millions of children are subjugated almost before their birth let alone when they can understand thought and are forcibly coerced, compelled, constrained, and indoctrinated in the mental pollution that religion can be. My main goal against religion is to fully stop as much as possible forced indoctrination, one could ask but then why do I challenge all adults faith? well, who do you think is doing the lying to children in the first place. End Hereditary religion, if its a belief let them the equal right to choose to believe.

Some people may notice I am kind of a different kind of atheist this is because I am an axiological atheist (value theory or value science atheist). Axiological Atheism is like humanistic anti-theism and anti-religionism with strong secularism. Remember when someone announces that they are an atheist; listeners may assume there is only one type of atheist available, when really she is a different type of atheist. As an axiological atheist Axiology is a large motivation and it is value theory which is a lens to view and valuize or value judge worth or what is worthy as well as what is good or bad of greater or lesser value.

To read more on value theory check it out online at: Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (value theory) Link

As an axiological atheist, I see intrinsic value in people and want them to see that value in themselves as well as others. Doing such would never allow for a god who devalues you and asks you to devalue others. Similarly to follow such a high standard I too must value myself, value others, and strive to help other people value others. I strive to be as strong in devaluing myths and lies as I am in valuing the person who may hold them. Value to an axiologist has multiple realms/categories and meanings going from internal value, external value, and systemic or global value. Likewise, there can be value distinctions differentiating, for example, between the instrumental value (being good for some purpose) and technical value (being good at doing something) or between the contributory value (being good as part of a whole) and final value (being good as a whole).

Marquis Amon – “Axiological atheism makes sense on the premise that god is a nonempirical being. Next, as you address, it is a null hypothesis.An idea that through testing has proven to be false. It was Epicurus who addressed the no goodness in god most famously. The presence of evil and the inaction of god either means god is powerless against evil or allows it. If god is powerless against evil, god deserves no regard. If god allows it, then god is evil. Then let us consider the “Hitchen’s challenge” that is to say does religion offer any benefit that lacks a secular equivalent. So far, no one ever found one… So that means in terms of reality that all human accomplishments come from humans only(no god/divine intervention). So we can say that morality and any claim associated with god is false and the metaphysical position says these things are evolutionary in human development.”

To read more on axiology check it out online at: Encyclopedia Britannica (axiology) Link

To read more on the science of axiology check it out online at: Robert S. Hartman Institute (applications of axiology) Link

Axiological Atheism is a type of atheist philosophy it can be thought of as similar to existentialist antitheism and Humanist antitheism. Moreover, here is a short explanation from Wikipedia, Axiological atheism: “Axiological, or constructive, atheism rejects the existence of gods in favor of a “higher absolute”, such as humanity. This form of atheism favors humanity as the absolute source of ethics and values permitting individuals to resolve moral problems without resorting to God. Marx and Freud used this argument to convey messages of liberation, full-development, and unfettered happiness. One of the most common criticisms of atheism has been to the contrary—that denying the existence of a god leads to moral relativism, leaving one with no moral or ethical foundation, or renders life meaningless and miserable. Blaise Pascal argued this view in his Pensées.” To read more on atheist philosophies check it out online at: Wikipedia (Atheism – Atheist philosophies) Link

Axiological Atheism would affirm rejecting gods and does not have to lead to moral nihilism or moral relativism but can allow and axiological atheism supports a kind of atheistic objective morality foundation. Also, axiological atheism supports that life has value and meaning as well as can be rich and meaningful. To read more on objective morality check it out online at: Strong Atheism (case for objective morality) Link

Again, some may not like what I am but your lack of agreement to my educated philosophical unbelief stance does little to either diminish its reticence or truth. Atheism is just the beginning; now it’s time to solve the harder questions. There are many different kinds of atheism but to offer a cleaner rough view here are a few organized common categories, 7 sets will be offered some kinds of atheism can be combined in a person, and some cannot.

1. Difference in Knowledge

2. Difference in Affirmation

3. Difference in Scope

4. Difference in the Assessed Rationality of Theism

5. Difference in Openness

6. Difference in Action

7. Difference in Bent on Religiosity

To read more on this check it out online at: Commonsense Atheism (17 Kinds of Atheism) Link

Some may say it’s all atheism why complicate the issue? To say why complicate you’re thinking is paramount to saying “why Be educated at all in your unbelief?” “Why defend it with reasoning or evidence?” “Why strive to be more informed on the untruth of religion or gods?” That can’t truly be something we who are critical thinkers really support to champion an uninformed atheist position just because it is simpler? I support nonbelievers just calling themselves, an atheist. I am not saying my way of being an axiological atheist is the only or even the best way for all other nonbelievers, in fact, I only am only mentioned, “me”, my philosophical atheist stance and wanted to quickly explain how, why and in what way I disbelieve.

I am not the thought police nor would I ever support that or let others be thought police to me. As they say atheism is not a group movement or a cult-like religion so to me there is no one correct liable all should or must follow. Just like how some atheists prefer bright, freethinker, skeptic, rationalist, secular humanist, etc. whatever xyz. We who value critical thinking must hold reason above opinions. So I say go you I value people being authentic in whatever way they see right to define their personal disbelief. Atheists come in a variety of shapes, colors, beliefs, convictions, and backgrounds.

To read more on this check it out online at: American Atheists (What is Atheism?) Link

Atheists, as a whole, are not a unified group, so the accusation that “atheists” are doing x, y, and z hold little water. In fact, a disaffection with organized religion, and the potential for groupthink, is what causes many believers to abandon faith and come out as atheists. It doesn’t follow that such individuals would happily join another organized group. The debate within the atheistic community is robust – debates even about whether there is even an “atheistic community” at all, for instance – and the fact that this debate exists presupposes no dogmatic mandate from an organized group. It does follow from this lack of organization that there is no atheist equivalent of the Bible, Koran, or other holy text. There are, of course, atheist writings, but one does not need to adhere to opinions held by Friedrich Nietzsche, Richard Dawkins or Christopher Hitchens to be considered an atheist. Some atheists will actively oppose what these kind of authors do and say.

To read more on this check it out online at: Rational wiki (Atheism) Link

Some argue strong atheists add some dictator killed people so we should not have hard atheist stances. I reject this as flawed thinking most claimed atheist killers did not kill for atheism but were killers who may have rejected the concept of gods. Likewise, in two other ways, I will reject this reasoning first my hard stance is humanitarian such as the hate of injustice is the motivation for justice. The other being even if atheists had killed it means little as it would be only the people involved. In a since all atheists are an island of personal persuasion, belief, and accountability. As such atheism is not an actual group or sect like a religion so we have no affiliations to the action or philosophical thinking of any other nonbelievers.

“Axiological”

Axiological Atheist: Facebook Page

Axiological atheism: is a constructive Value centered ethics driven atheism which rejects the existence of gods in favor of a “higher absolute,” such as humanity and society. This form of atheism favors humanity as the absolute source of ethics and values, and permits individuals to resolve moral problems without resorting to faith or god myths. Axiological or constructive atheism conveys messages of liberation, full-development, and unfettered happiness. Axiological or constructive atheism life meaning in humanity, ethics, and values surpasses one of the most common criticisms of atheism that denying the existence of a god leads to moral relativism, leaving one with no moral or ethical foundation or renders life meaningless and miserable. 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. 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 to 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 the 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 the 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 involve a width and diversity of their philosophical views, but 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. 1 2 3

As an axiological atheist, I understand and utilize value or actually “Value Consciousness” to both give a strong moral “axiological” argument (the problem of evil) as well as use it to fortify my humanism and positive ethical persuasion of human helping and care. Value-blindness gives rise to sociopathic evil.

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

I am a Methodological Rationalist, I rarely am pushed to doubt as a default, instead, I see reason as my default and at times it may be responsible to doubt, but I get to that conclusion because of reasoning. A common saying in pseudologic is “You can’t prove a negative.” This is, simply not true. This is clearly not true because any statement can be rewritten into the negation of its negation. Any provable statement can be written as a negative. For example, “X is true” can be rewritten as “X is not false”, a negative statement! If “X is true” can be proven true, then you have also proven a negative statement “X is not false”. Moreover, even if it is widely believed that you can’t prove a negative. Going so far as to have people thinking that it is a law of logic—you can’t prove that Santa Claus, unicorns, the Loch Ness Monster, God, pink elephants, WMD in Iraq, and Bigfoot don’t exist. This widespread belief is flatly, 100% wrong. In this little essay, I show precisely how one can prove a negative, to the same extent that one can prove anything at all. Evidence of absence is evidence of any kind that suggests something is missing or that it does not exist. Per the traditional aphorism, “absence of evidence is not evidence of absence”, positive evidence of this kind is distinct from a lack of evidence or ignorance of that which should have been found already, had it existed. In this regard, Irving Copi writes: “In some circumstances, it can be safely assumed that if a certain event had occurred, evidence of it could be discovered by qualified investigators. In such circumstances, it is perfectly reasonable to take the absence of proof of its occurrence as positive proof of its non-occurrence.” — Copi, Introduction to Logic (1953), p. 95

Here is why “Reason is my only master”

The most Base Presupposition begins in reason. Reason is needed for logic (logic is realized by the aid of reason enriching its axioms). Logic is needed for axiology/value theory (axiology is realized by the aid of logic). Axiology is needed for epistemology (epistemology is realized by the aid of axiology value judge and enrich its value assumptions as valid or not). Epistemology is needed for a good ontology (ontology is realized with the aid of epistemology justified assumptions/realizations/conclusions). Then when one possesses a good ontology (fortified with valid and reliable reason and evidence) they can then say they know the ontology of that thing. Thinking is good and one claiming otherwise is indeed a person erroring in reason. Which may I remind you is terrible since the most Base Presupposition in our understanding of everything begins in reason.

So, I think, right thinking is reason. Right-reason (Sound reasoning) is logic. Right logic, can be used for mathematics, and from there we can get to science. And, by this methodological approach, we get one of the best ways of knowing the scientific method. Activating experience/event occurs, eliciting our feelings/scenes. Then naive thoughts occur, eliciting emotions as a response. Then it is our emotional intelligence over emotional hijacking, which entrance us but are unavoidable, and that it is the navigating this successfully in a methodological way we call critical thinking or as In just call right thinking. So, to me, could be termed “Right” thinking, that is referring to a kind of methodological thinking. Reason is at the base of everything and it builds up from pragmatic approaches. And, to me, there are three main approaches to truth (ontology of truth) from the very subjective (Pragmatic theory of truth), to subjective (Coherence theory of truth), then onto objective (Correspondence theory of truth) but remember that this process as limited as it can be, is the best we have and we build one truth ontop another like blocks to a wall of truth.

Soundness

“In logic, more precisely in deductive reasoning, an argument is sound if it is both valid in form and its premises are true. Soundness also has a related meaning in mathematical logic, wherein logical systems are sound if and only if every formula that can be proved in the system is logically valid with respect to the semantics of the system. In deductive reasoning, a sound argument is an argument that is both valid, and all of whose premises are true (and as a consequence its conclusion is true as well). An argument is valid if, assuming its premises are true, the conclusion must be true.” ref

An example of a sound argument is the following well-known syllogism:

“All men are mortal. Socrates is a man. Therefore, Socrates is mortal.” Because of the logical necessity of the conclusion, this argument is valid; and because the argument is valid and its premises are true, the argument is sound. However, an argument can be valid without being sound. For example: “All birds can fly. Penguins are birds. Therefore, penguins can fly.” This argument is valid because, assuming the premises are true, the conclusion must be true. However, the first premise is false. Not all birds can fly (penguins, ostriches, kiwis etc.) For an argument to be sound, the argument must be valid and its premises must be true.” ref

The soundness of a deductive system is the property that any sentence that is provable in that deductive system is also true on all interpretations or structures of the semantic theory for the language upon which that theory is based. In symbols, where S is the deductive system, L the language together with its semantic theory, and P a sentence of L: if ⊢S P, then also ⊨L P.” ref

Strong soundness

“Strong soundness of a deductive system is the property that any sentence P of the language upon which the deductive system is based that is derivable from a set Γ of sentences of that language is also a logical consequence of that set, in the sense that any model that makes all members of Γ true will also make P true. In symbols where Γ is a set of sentences of L: if Γ ⊢S P, then also Γ ⊨L P. Notice that in the statement of strong soundness, when Γ is empty, we have the statement of weak soundness.” ref

Pragmatic theory of truth, Coherence theory of truth, and Correspondence theory of truth

In a general way, all reality, in a philosophic sense, is an emergent property of reason, and knowing how reason accrues does not remove its warrant. Feelings are experienced then perceived, leading to thinking, right thinking is reason, right reason is logic, right logic is mathematics, right mathematics is physics and from there all science.

Right-(SOUND)-Reason: is reasoning to the highest soundness available.

Science is not common sense?

Science is quite the opposite of just common sense. To me, common sense is experience-related interpretation, relatively, as it generally relates to the reality of things in the world, which involves “naïve realism” as well as possible psychological certainty and low epistemic certainty. Whereas, most of those who are scientific thinkers, hold typically more to scientific realism or other stances far removed from the limited common sense of naive realism. Science is a multidisciplinary methodological quest for truth. Science understands what is, while religion is wishing on what is not. Scientific realism sees external reality as described by science is what is REAL and thus TRUE with the highest epistemic certainty regardless of possible psychological certainty.

Getting Real with Logic

Logic is the result of rationalism, as what do you think gets you to logic if not starting at reason? I want to hear your justification for your claims, all the presuppositions you are evading to explain the links in your claims of truth. As it is invalid to just claim this without a justification for your professed claims and the presupposing you do to get there, that is not trying to use rationalism to refuse rationalist thinking. How are you making the statement and not appearing to what is the rationale behind it? If not, you must want to think “Logic is self-generating as valid” and this understood value is to you not reducible to reason? You are devoid of an offer of your burden of proof, first just try to keep up with the thinker’s responsibility to provide more than unjustified claims. Logic is derived by axioms and thus using rationalism to validate them, think otherwise provide your proof. My Rationalism: is two things externalistic “scientific rationalism” a belief or theory that opinions and actions should be based on reason and knowledge rather than on religious belief or emotional response. And internalistic “philosophic rationalism” the theory that reason is the most base presupposition before all others, rather than simply trying to rely on experience is the foundation of certainty in knowledge. Activating experience occurs we then have thinking, right (methodological) thinking (critical thinking) is reason, right reason is logic, right logic can be used for math, right math in response to the natural world is physics, and from there all other Sciences, physics is the foundation for chemistry and chemistry is the foundation of biology. May Right-(SOUND)-Reason be your only master and may you also master reason.

Religion vs. Science, Don’t Confuse Beliefs

A basic outline of scientific epistemology:

Science: Hypotheses (Rationalism/Deductive, Inductive, or Abductive Reasoning etc.) + Testing (Empiricism/Systematic Observation) – Checking for errors (Skepticism/Fallibilism) + Interpret/Draw a Conclusion (Rationalism/Deductive, Inductive, or Abductive Reasoning etc.) *if valid* = Scientific Laws (describes observed phenomena) or Scientific Theory (substantiated and repeatedly tested explanation of phenomena) = Justified True Belief = Scientific Knowledge = Epistemic Certainty supportive of correctability

*being epistemically certain, is believing a truth has the highest epistemic status, often with warranted psychological certainty but it may not, neither is it a requirement*

“Damien, I have a question: Who/what gives humans value?”

My response, We give value, as value is an awareness and judgment, it is an emergent property of validation; the ability to use critical thinking and logic in a useful way, to conclude worth, benefit, or good.

I am the “one” you have been waiting for. I am will to power, a deep thought so true it has taken flight to the lofty aspirations dreamed for and a care transmitted to offer hope to humanity. I believe in you and will strive to champion you with all I have for you are so worthy… I am that freak of nature, a power from the anti-power crusaders, warring against the power dynamic to return it back where it belongs- the hands of the people. I am a free-thinking invader into the shell of malignancy infecting humanity which strangles reason out of the world. A proud anarchy theorist, I breathe the fire of the heathens, a thought revolutionary and mental freedom fighter. I am a humanist atheist who desires a better world for us all, one that is kinder, more just, and more rational in its pursuits.

I am a “Scientific Axiology” minded “Philosophic Axiologist.”

*Philosophic Axiology (Value Theory)

*Scientific Axiology (Formal Axiology)

Axiological atheism can be thought to involve ethical/value theory reasoned and moral argument-driven apatheism, ignosticism, atheism, anti-theism, anti-religionism, secularism, and humanism. The valuations move up the latter as the levels of evaluation is made to value judge all the elements to better understand the value or disvalue available to reach the most accurate valuation reasonable with a sound aware value conciseness. Axiological atheism can be thought to involve Ethical Atheism. Below shows the 7 axiological atheism argument flow to show the value layers and my thoughts on it:

1. Apatheism: starts at real, we are born and by the fact reality is devoid of magic removes theological desires to understand the obvious naturalistic world, until we learn otherwise. (a “presumptive-value” failure, thus no motivation to adequately start the evaluation needed to understand if there is real value for an Axiology assessment to accurately place it in the value hierarchy). = no value

2. Ignosticism: sees theological arguments and language as equivocation, contradictory, and/or un-cognitively relatable other than emotionalism or the like. I see Ignosticism as using the Theological non-cognitivism arguments of “mind understanding issues” (rationalism challenging) and an evidentialist/verificationist arguments of “lacking evidence issues” (empiricism challenging). As an atheist, I am a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of god or gods. In my non-belief, I am also ignostic feeling that every theological position assumes too much about the concept of god(s). As an ignostic, I am a person who rational no idea of anything from reality whatever to label as “a concept of god” thus I can say I have no idea of anything that can connect to the term god and no reason to think anyone else can either. (again a “presumptive-value” failure, no good Ontology of the thing for Identifying values that could influence belief but without what is needed to understand if there is real value for an axiology assessment to accurately place it in the value hierarchy). = no value

3. Atheism: How can we not reject the concept of gods, aka: supposed supreme magical beings, when not even some simple magic is supported in reality. So how then is it not even more ridiculous to claim some supreme magic aka: gods which are even further from reality. May I remind you that faith in the acquisition of knowledge is not a valid method worth believing in. Because, what proof is “faith”, of anything religion claims by faith, as many people have different faith even in the same religion? As an atheist, I am a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of god or gods. In my non-belief, I am also ignostic feeling that every theological position assumes too much about the concept of god(s). As an ignostic, I am a person who rational no idea of anything from reality whatever to label as “a concept of god” thus I can say I have no idea of anything that can connect to the term god and no reason to think anyone else can either. Atheists talk about gods and religions for the same reason doctors talk about cancer, they are looking for a cure or a firefighter talking about fires because they burn people and they care to stop them. We atheists too often feel a need to help the victim’s of mental slavery, held in the bondage that is the false beliefs of gods and the conspiracy theories of reality found in religions. If you think you believe in a god, “what do you mean by god,” saying a name tells me not one thing about the thing I am asking to know “its” beingness / thingness / attributes / qualities. Thus, what is the thing “god” to which you are talking about and I want you to explain its beingness /thingness / attributes/ qualities? Religious/theistic people with supernatural beliefs often seem as though they haven’t thought much about and that is something we can help using ontology questions about the beingness / thingness / attributes/ qualities they are trying to refer too. What do you mean by god, when you use the term god? And, I am not asking you for the name you attach to the thing you label as a god. I don’t need to know what the god you believe is known “by.” I am asking, what is the thing you are naming as a god and what that thing is, its qualities in every detail like all things have if they are real. Are you just making stuff up or guessing/hoping or just promoting unjustified ideas you want to believe, what is a god? As an atheist, I feel more wonder than I did as a theist because I thought, “big deal” to any wonder I experienced, thinking god could do anything. So with such an unrealistic mindset, everything lost its wonder but it’s the opposite as an atheist. As a theist, the world was full of superstitions and supernatural magic possibilities and thus utilized thinking that was not in the real world. As an atheist all I have now is the real world, not that all atheists seem to get this, we all are in a real world devoid of magic anything, therefore, everything adds to my feeling of awe. There should be little debate with atheist acknowledging discernable reality compared to theists with non-reality claims. Yes, I have way more awe and wonder as an atheist than I ever had as a theist because as a theist anything was possible with god. Therefore, as a theist things where not that amazing. However, as an atheist grasping what an absolute accidental or how random things are, with a 95 to 99 % of all life ever existing on this planet went extinct. I am thoroughly amazed we are even here the evolved children of ancient exploded stars, likely born in galaxies born in super-massive black holes, it’s all amazing. 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. (yet again a “presumptive value” failure, no good Ontology of the thing not the cognitively meaningful claims relatable to reality that must be attached to all magic and gods claims for Identifying values that could influence belief but without what is needed to understand if there is real value for an axiology assessment to accurately place it in the value hierarchy).

4. Antitheism: Anti-theism requires more than either merely disbelieving in gods or even denying the existence of gods. Anti-theism requires a couple of specific and additional beliefs: first, that theism is harmful to the believer, harmful to society, harmful to politics, harmful, to culture, etc.; second, that theism can and should be countered in order to reduce the harm it causes. If a person believes these things, then they will likely be an anti-theist who works against theism by arguing that it be abandoned, promoting alternatives, or perhaps even supporting measures to suppress it. It’s worth noting here that, however, unlikely it may be in practice, it’s possible in theory for a theist to be an anti-theist.This may sound bizarre at first, but remember that some people have argued in favor of promoting false beliefs if they are socially useful. To me, I think many may have a misconception of the term. Atheism and anti-theism so often occur together at the same time and in the same person that it’s understandable if many individuals fail to realize that they aren’t the same. Making a note of the difference is important, however, because not every atheist is anti-theistic and even those who are, aren’t anti-theistic all the time. Atheism is simply the absence of belief in gods; anti-theism is a conscious and deliberate opposition to theism.Many atheists are also anti-theists, but not all and not always. To me as an antitheist, I see the concept of gods antihumanistic and wholly harmful to a free humanity and if the so-called gods somehow do end up being real that I will switch to direct opposition as I would any tyrant oppressing humanity. Antitheism (sometimes anti-theism) is a term used to describe an opposition to theism. The term has had a range of applications and definitions. In secular contexts, it typically refers to direct opposition to the validity of theism, but not necessarily to the existence of a deity. As an anti-theist, I am a person who is active in opposition to theism: both the concepts of god(s) as well as the religions that support them.This is because theistic concepts and theistic religions are harmful and that even if theistic beliefs were true, they would be undesirable. (And, again a “presumptive value” failure, of the other value challenges of the lesser evaluations and value judgments addressed in the apatheism, ignosticism, atheism value judgment conclusion and an Axiological Atheism assessment of the god concept that must be attached to all magic and gods claims Identifying a lack of value and/or disvalue that influence harm to real value in an axiology assessment to accurately place its value violations in the value hierarchy).

5. Antireligionism: Not just Atheist, axiological atheists should be antitheists but this generally will involve anti-religionism. it would generally thus hold anti-religionist thinking. Especially, I am an anti-religionist, not just an atheist, and here is why summed up in three ideas I am against. And, in which these three things are common in all religions: “pseudo-science”, “pseudo-history”, and “pseudo-morality”. And my biggest thing of all is the widespread forced indoctrination of children, violating their free choice of what to not believe or believe, I hate forced hereditary religion. And my biggest thing of all is the widespread forced indoctrination of children, violating their free choice of what to not believe or believe, I hate forced hereditary religion. As well as wish to offer strong critiques regarding the pseudo-meaning of the “three letter noise” people call “G.o.d” (group originated delusion)!As an anti-religionist, I am a person who can look at religion on the whole and see it is detrimental to the progress of humanity thus am in opposition to all and every religion, not even just opposition to organized religion. In case you were wondering, I am anti-pseudoscience, anti-supernatural, and anti-superstition as well. May I not be a silent watcher as millions of children are subjugated almost before their birth let alone when they can understand thought and are forcibly coerced, compelled, constrained, and indoctrinated in the mental pollution that religion can be. My main goal against religion is to fully stop as much as possible forced indoctrination, one could ask but then why do I challenge all adults faith?Well, who do you think is doing the lying to children in the first place. End Hereditary religion, if its a belief let them the equal right to choose to believe. “Religion is an Evolved Product” and Yes, Religion is Like Fear Given Wings… (And, one last time a “presumptive value” failure, of the other value challenges of the lesser evaluations and value judgments addressed in the apatheism, ignosticism, atheism value judgment conclusion and an Axiological Atheism assessment of the god concept and anti-theism assessment of the god show not just a lack of value but a possibly or likely harm demonstrating bot just a lack of value but a real disvalue and that includes the religions potentially removing value in an axiology assessment to accurately place it in the value hierarchy).

6. Secularism: is the only honorable way to value the dignity of others. If it was not true that there is a large unequal distribution of religion contributing to violence then there would be equal religion and atheist secularism violence. You do not see atheists bombing agnostics the very idea is laughable however even different branches of the same religion do will and have killed one another. So, violence not who we are it’s something we need to be compelled to do. Therefore, please support secularism. We are all one connected human family, proven by DNA showing we should treat each other as fellow dignity beings, supported equally (no gods and no masters). States may often have powers, but only citizens have the glue of morality we call rights. And, as they say, in my “dream society”, lots of things are free (aka. planting free food everywhere, free to everyone); but I wonder what you mean when people say you can’t just let things be free, I think, yeah, how can I take free stuff from a free earth.If one observes the virtues of (T. R. U. E. “The Rational Universal Ethics” or “The Responsible Universal Ethics”) that connect to all things as that of the connectedness equality like those which mirror the rays of the sun, fall down equally with a blind but fair indifference. (what is being expressed is that this sun shining will not favor one over another, no, the same upon everyone offering its light to all plant, animal, human, women, men, single or married, homosexual, bisexual, heterosexual, nonreligious, religious, people of means and those without, able-bodied and those which special needs, people of color, and those who are not, those with access to resources and those which out, young and elderly, etc.) All who wish to follow T. R. U. E. thus embodying a universalize equalitarian standard of ethics should strive to be like a ray of connected light to the world, shining equally and freedom to all of the world by such efforts a nonbiased unitive ethical approach is possible, one would have an increase in positive feelings to help others understanding equalitarian connectedness. If you don’t think different you will not behave differently, if you have never lived differently it is hard to see things differently and if you do not strive to understand difference one is thus unknowingly or not bound by limited encapsulation. I am for a Free Secular Society. I am not for oppression or abuse of religious believer and want a free secular society with both freedoms of religion and freedom from religion. Even though I wish the end of faith and believing in myths and superstition, I wish this by means of informing the willing and not force of the unwilling. I will openly challenge and rebuff religious falsehoods and misunderstanding as well as rebuke and ridicule harmful or unethical religious ideology or behavior.

7. Humanism: is the philosophic thinking that humans can solve human problems by human means, without feeling a need to appeal to the likes of holy books, mystical anything, nor the belief in gods or religions. But, instead, aspires to a true belief in humanity, viewing it with a persuasion of equality. This caring realist thinking found in humanism utilizes an unstated assumption or aspiration, to do no harm as much as possible and to do good whenever one can.Moreover, we are all one connected human family, proven by DNA showing we should treat each other as fellow dignity beings, supported equally. And, no one really owns the earth, we may make claims to it even draw lines on maps thinking this makes the fantasy borders, illusion supported by force and the potential for threat. Thus the ethical truth is we need to share the earth as communally as possible. And use the resources as safe and ethically as possible striving towards sharing and caring. (do no Harm and do good = Humanism). My core definition of humanism is that humans can solve human problems by human means. I am not saying other things can’t or shouldn’t be added to it but to me, a definition of humanism must always contain something coherent to such a thinking or not contradict such as I have offered. Thus, why it is appropriate to say “good without god” when one is a humanist.

Dogmatic–Propaganda vs. Disciplined-Rationality

Religionists and fideists, promote Dogmatic-Propaganda whereas atheists and antireligionists mostly promote Disciplined-Rationality. Dogmatic–Propaganda commonly is a common motivator of flawed or irrational thinking but with over seventy belief biases identified in people, this is hardly limited to just the religious or faith inclined. Let me illustrate what I am saying, to me all theists are believing lies or irrationally in that aspect of their lives relating to god belief. So the fact of any other common intellectual indexers where there may be “right” reason in beliefs cannot remove the flawed god belief corruption being committed. What I am saying is like this if you kill one person you are a killer. If you believe in one “god” I know you are a follower of Dogmatic-Propaganda and can not completely be a follower of Disciplined-Rationality. However, I am not proclaiming all atheists are always rational as irrationally is a revolving door many people believe or otherwise seem to stumble through. It’s just that god-belief does this with intentionally.

Disciplined-Rationality is motivated by principles of correct reasoning with emphasis on valid and reliable methods or theories leading to a range of rational standpoints or conclusions understanding that concepts and beliefs often have consequences thus hold an imperative for truth or at least as close to the truth as can be acquired rejecting untruth. Disciplined-Rationality can be seen as an aid in understanding the fundamentals for knowledge, sound evidence, justified true belief and involves things like decision theory and the concern with identifying the value(s), reasonableness, verification, certainties, uncertainties, and other relevant issues resulting in the clearest optimal decision/conclusion and/or belief/disbelief. Disciplined-Rationality attempts to understand the justification or lack thereof in propositions and beliefs concerning its self with various epistemic features of belief, truth, and/or knowledge, which include the ideas of justification, warrant, rationality, reliability, validity, and probability.

ps. “Sound Thinker”, “Shallow Thinker”, “Dogmatic–Propaganda” & “Disciplined-Rationality” are concepts/terms I created*

Atheists but I have faith in gravity tho, but it isn’t exactly “faith”???

My response, “No, I don’t agree, you don’t have “faith” in gravity or gravitation, as it is “a fundamental force” you have proof or if lacking some direct proof would use inference, and if even less evidence you use conjecture, not faith. Do you gauntly thinking you need faith in gravity because you wonder or worry that when walking down a set of stairs that you going to fall back up? You don’t need faith (strong belief without evidence) as there is massive proof, almost to the point that it is easily self-evident. You don’t need faith (strong belief without evidence) for anything, as if it’s warranted it will or should have evidence or it doesn’t deserve not only strong belief but any amount of belief at all as sound beliefs need something to ground their worthiness in relation to reality; the only place evidence comes. “Gravity, or gravitation, is a natural phenomenon by which all things with mass are brought toward (or gravitate toward) one another, including planets, stars, and galaxies.” Ref

“Gravity is responsible for various phenomena observed on Earth and throughout the Universe; for example, it causes the Earth and the other planets to orbit the Sun, the Moon to orbit the Earth, the formation of tides, the formation and evolution of the Solar System, stars and galaxies. Since energy and mass are equivalent, all forms of energy, including light, also cause gravitation and are under the influence of it. On Earth, gravity gives weight to physical objects and causes the ocean tides. The gravitational attraction of the original gaseous matter present in the Universe caused it to begin coalescing, forming stars – and the stars to group together into galaxies – so gravity is responsible for many of the large-scale structures in the Universe.” Ref

Axiological “Presumptive-Value”

Your god myth is an Axiological “Presumptive-Value” Failure, and I as an Axiological (value theorist) Atheist am compelled to speak out on how Claims of god are a Presumptive-Value failure. Simply, if you presume a thing is of value that you can’t justify, then you have committed an axiological presumptive value failure.

Axiological “presumptive-value” Success: Sound Thinker: uses disciplined rationality (sound axiological judgment the evaluation of evidence to make a decision) supporting a valid and reliable justification.

Axiological “presumptive-value” Failure: Shallow Thinker: undisciplined, situational, sporadic, or limited thinking (unsound axiological judgment, lacking required evidence to make a “presumptive-value” success decision) lacking the support of a needed valid and reliable justification.

Often I get disheartened to see that so many people can look at the unknown or that which is devoid of any and all understanding and claim to know that this is evidence for some god or another. How can they with all honesty even say that they somehow already know about an established scientific unknown, when all along it is what it ever was, which I will remind you, is currently holding a confirmed status of unknown. Thus, still fully intact as currently unknowable (I.e. you simply cannot justifiability claim that such unknown is god or evidence of god). What really is a god anyway? The term god equals mystery that is used to explain the mysterious leaving us with yet more mystery, thus explains nothing. Claims of god are a Presumptive-Value failure. Simply, if you presume a thing is of value that you can’t justify, then you have committed an axiological presumptive value failure. Axiological “presumptive-value” Success: Sound Thinker: uses disciplined rationality (sound axiological judgment the evaluation of evidence to make a decision) supporting a valid and reliable justification.

“Ok, So basically, the difference between reasoning with evidence and without?” – Questioner

My response, Well with or without valid justification because of evidence. As in you can’t claim to know the value of something you can’t demonstrate as having good qualities to attach the value claim too so if you lack evidence of the thing in question then you cannot validate its value. So it’s addressing a kind of justificationism (uncountable) Theory of justification, An (philosophy standard) approach that regards the justification of a claim as primary, while the claim itself is secondary; thus, criticism consists of trying to show that a claim cannot be reduced to the authority or criteria that it appeals to. Think of is as a use-matrix. If I say this is of great use for that, can you validate its use or value, and can I use this as a valid method to state a valid justification for my claims without evidence to value judge from? No, thus an axiological presumptive-value failure as a valid anything.

Theory of justification is a part of epistemology that attempts to understand the justification of propositions and beliefs. Epistemologists are concerned with various epistemic features of belief, which include the ideas of justification, warrant, rationality, and probability. Loosely speaking, justification is the reason that someone (properly) holds a belief. When a claim is in doubt, justification can be used to support the claim and reduce or remove the doubt. Justification can use empiricism (the evidence of the senses), authoritative testimony (the appeal to criteria and authority), or reason. – Wikipedia

“Presumptions are things that are credited as being true until evidence of their falsity is presented. Presumptions have many forms and value (Axiology) is just one. In ethics, value denotes the degree of importance of something or action, with the aim of determining what actions are best to do or what way is best to live (normative ethics), or to describe the significance of different actions. It may be described as treating actions as abstract objects, putting VALUE to them.

It deals with right conduct and living a good life, in the sense that a highly, or at least relatively high valuable action may be regarded as ethically “good” (adjective sense), and that an action of low value, or relatively low in value, may be regarded as “bad”. What makes an action valuable may, in turn, depend on the ethical values of the objects it increases, decreases, or alters. An object with “ethic value” may be termed an “ethic or philosophic good” (noun sense). Values can be defined as broad preferences concerning appropriate courses of actions or outcomes. As such, values reflect a person’s sense of right and wrong or what “ought” to be.

“Equal rights for all”, “Excellence deserves admiration”, and “People should be treated with respect and dignity” are representatives of values. Values tend to influence attitudes and behavior and these types include ethical/moral values, doctrinal/ideological(religious, political) values, social values, and aesthetic values. It is debated whether some values that are not clearly physiologically determined, such as altruism, are intrinsic, and whether some, such as acquisitiveness, should be classified as vices or virtues.” ref, ref

The Way of a Sound Thinker?

“Sound thinking to me, in a general way, is thinking, reasoning, or belief that tends to make foresight a desire to be as accurate as one can with valid and reliable reason and evidence.”

Sound axiological judgment, to me, a “presumptive-value” success, is value judged opinions expressed as facts with a valid and reliable justification. In an informal and psychological sense, it is used in reference to the quality of cognitive faculties and adjudicational (relating to adjudication) capabilities of particular individuals, typically called wisdom or discernment. In a legal sense, – used in the context of a legal trial, to refer to a final finding, statement, or ruling, based on a considered weighing of evidence, called, “adjudication“.

A shallow thinker (i.e. not a Deep Thinker, a person whose thoughts are reasoned, methodological, logical, empirical, profound; an intellectual) quickly talks, often with boastful postulations, likely just as often pushed strongly and loudly as if this adds substance, and they do this before fully understanding what’s is really involved. Whereas, a Sound Thinker is reasoned (comparative more reasoned, superlative most reasoned) generally based on reasoning; being the result of logical thought. As a first debate process, a Sound Thinker commonly poses Questions to understand slowing down and assessing all the facts or factors involved and then builds their argument or ideas. In classical logic, the law of non-contradiction (LNC) (also known as the law of contradiction, the principle of non-contradiction (PNC), or the principle of contradiction) 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. It is the second of the three classic laws of thought.

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

Axiology and Value Theory?

“Value theory is 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. This investigation began in ancient philosophy, where it is called axiology or ethics.”– Wikipedia

“The term “Value Theory” is used in at least three different ways in philosophy. In its broadest sense, “value theory” is a catch-all label used to encompass all branches of moral philosophy, social and political philosophy, aesthetics, and sometimes feminist philosophy and the philosophy of religion — whatever areas of philosophy are deemed to encompass some “evaluative” aspect. In its narrowest sense, “value theory” is used for a relatively narrow area of normative ethical theory particularly, but not exclusively, of concern to consequentialists. In this narrow sense, “value theory” is roughly synonymous with “axiology”. Axiology can be thought of as primarily concerned with classifying what things are good, and how good they are. – (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

For instance, a traditional question of axiology concerns whether the objects of value are subjective psychological states or objective states of the world. But in a more useful sense, “value theory” designates the area of moral philosophy that is concerned with theoretical questions about value and goodness of all varieties — the theory of value. The theory of value, so construed, encompasses axiology, but also includes many other questions about the nature of value and its relation to other moral categories. – (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

The division of moral theory into the theory of value, as contrasting with other areas of investigation, cross-cuts the traditional classification of moral theory into normative and metaethical inquiry, but is a worthy distinction in its own right; theoretical questions about value constitute a core domain of interest in moral theory, often cross the boundaries between the normative and the metaethical, and have a distinguished history of investigation.” – (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

Normative Philosophy? – Wikipedia

“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. – Wikipedia

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. – Wikipedia

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. – Wikipedia

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.) – Wikipedia

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. – Wikipedia

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

Hammer of Truth that lying pig RELIGION: challenged by an archaeologist
“The Hammer of Truth” -ontology question- What do You Mean by That?
Hammer of Truth: Investigate (ONTOLOGY), Expose (EPISTEMOLOGY), and Judge (AXIOLOGY)
Hammer of Truth: Yes, you too, have lots of beliefs…
“The Hammer of Truth” Process

“Hammer of Truth” response to “Do you Believe in god?”
“The Hammer of Truth” (scientific philosophy: Ontology, Epistemology, & Axiology) in action.
Error Crushing Force of the Dialectic Questions and the Hammer of Truth
Atheist Rationalist Talking on “TRUTH” with a Spiritualist Philosopher
Damien AtHope: Pre-Historical Writer/Researcher chats with Lisa For Truth: Origins of Religion and Anthropology of Religion
Truth Navigation: “Belief-Etiquette”
Truth Navigation and the fallacy of Fideism “faith-ism”
Truth Navigation: Techniques for Discussions or Debates
Science and the word “TRUTH”
Truth Navigation and the fallacy of Fideism “faith-ism”
Truth is a Value (axiological) Judgment.
Why are lies more appealing than the truth?
The Battle of Truth
To Find Truth You Must First Look
Pragmatic theory of truth, Coherence theory of truth, and Correspondence theory of truth
I use a kind of Dialectical Rhetoric = truth persuasion (motivational teaching)
Religion is not about truth

#rationalism #philosapgy #atheism

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

36250814_378508602672639_2324338968046338048_n-LAPTOP-KIB0FGT7

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

36275770_378508059339360_6401377974179856384_n-LAPTOP-KIB0FGT7

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

36229371_378508262672673_6770847910138478592_n-LAPTOP-KIB0FGT7

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

18622183_431430980574719_2281486975641121955_n

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

ref, ref, ref

“Theists, there has to be a god, as something can not come from nothing.”

Well, thus something (unknown) happened and then there was something. This does not tell us what the something that may have been involved with something coming from nothing. A supposed first cause, thus something (unknown) happened and then there was something is not an open invitation to claim it as known, neither is it justified to call or label such an unknown as anything, especially an unsubstantiated magical thinking belief born of mythology and religious storytelling.

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Advocating Anarchism: Morality, Non-coercion, Anti-hierarchy, Solidarity, Internationalism, Mutualism, Cooperationism, Empowermentism, etc.

50626195_2231791236887767_8408273929398910976_n

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

While hallucinogens are associated with shamanism, it is alcohol that is associated with paganism.

The Atheist-Humanist-Leftist Revolutionaries Shows in the prehistory series:

Show one: Prehistory: related to “Anarchism and Socialism” the division of labor, power, rights, and recourses.

Show two: Pre-animism 300,000 years old and animism 100,000 years old: related to “Anarchism and Socialism”

Show tree: Totemism 50,000 years old: related to “Anarchism and Socialism”

Show four: Shamanism 30,000 years old: related to “Anarchism and Socialism”

Show five: Paganism 12,000 years old: related to “Anarchism and Socialism”

Show six: Emergence of hierarchy, sexism, slavery, and the new male god dominance: Paganism 7,000-5,000 years old: related to “Anarchism and Socialism” (Capitalism) (World War 0) Elite and their slaves!

Show seven: Paganism 5,000 years old: progressed organized religion and the state: related to “Anarchism and Socialism” (Kings and the Rise of the State)

Show eight: Paganism 4,000 years old: Moralistic gods after the rise of Statism and often support Statism/Kings: related to “Anarchism and Socialism” (First Moralistic gods, then the Origin time of Monotheism)

Prehistory: related to “Anarchism and Socialism” the division of labor, power, rights, and recourses: VIDEO

Pre-animism 300,000 years old and animism 100,000 years old: related to “Anarchism and Socialism”: VIDEO

Totemism 50,000 years old: related to “Anarchism and Socialism”: VIDEO

Shamanism 30,000 years old: related to “Anarchism and Socialism”: VIDEO

Paganism 12,000 years old: related to “Anarchism and Socialism” (Pre-Capitalism): VIDEO

Paganism 7,000-5,000 years old: related to “Anarchism and Socialism” (Capitalism) (World War 0) Elite and their slaves: VIEDO

Paganism 5,000 years old: progressed organized religion and the state: related to “Anarchism and Socialism” (Kings and the Rise of the State): VIEDO

Paganism 4,000 years old: related to “Anarchism and Socialism” (First Moralistic gods, then the Origin time of Monotheism): VIEDO

I do not hate simply because I challenge and expose myths or lies any more than others being thought of as loving simply because of the protection and hiding from challenge their favored myths or lies.

The truth is best championed in the sunlight of challenge.

An archaeologist once said to me “Damien religion and culture are very different”

My response, So are you saying that was always that way, such as would you say Native Americans’ cultures are separate from their religions? And do you think it always was the way you believe?

I had said that religion was a cultural product. That is still how I see it and there are other archaeologists that think close to me as well. Gods too are the myths of cultures that did not understand science or the world around them, seeing magic/supernatural everywhere.

I personally think there is a goddess and not enough evidence to support a male god at Çatalhöyük but if there was both a male and female god and goddess then I know the kind of gods they were like Proto-Indo-European mythology.

This series idea was addressed in, Anarchist Teaching as Free Public Education or Free Education in the Public: VIDEO

Our 12 video series: Organized Oppression: Mesopotamian State Force and the Politics of power (9,000-4,000 years ago), is adapted from: The Complete and Concise History of the Sumerians and Early Bronze Age Mesopotamia (7000-2000 BC): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=szFjxmY7jQA by “History with Cy“

Show #1: Mesopotamian State Force and the Politics of Power (Samarra, Halaf, Ubaid)

Show #2: Mesopotamian State Force and the Politics of Power (Eridu: First City of Power)

Show #3: Mesopotamian State Force and the Politics of Power (Uruk and the First Cities)

Show #4: Mesopotamian State Force and the Politics of Power (First Kings)

Show #5: Mesopotamian State Force and the Politics of Power (Early Dynastic Period)

Show #6: Mesopotamian State Force and the Politics of Power (King Lugalzagesi and the First Empire)

Show #7: Mesopotamian State Force and the Politics of Power (Sargon and Akkadian Rule)

Show #8: Mesopotamian State Force and the Politics of Power (Naram-Sin, Post-Akkadian Rule, and the Gutians)

Show #9: Mesopotamian State Force and the Politics of Power (Gudea of Lagash and Utu-hegal)

Show #10: Mesopotamian State Force and the Politics of Power (Third Dynasty of Ur / Neo-Sumerian Empire)

Show #11: Mesopotamian State Force and the Politics of Power (Amorites, Elamites, and the End of an Era)

Show #12: Mesopotamian State Force and the Politics of Power (Aftermath and Legacy of Sumer)

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

The “Atheist-Humanist-Leftist Revolutionaries”

Cory Johnston ☭ Ⓐ Atheist Leftist @Skepticallefty & I (Damien Marie AtHope) @AthopeMarie (my YouTube & related blog) are working jointly in atheist, antitheist, antireligionist, antifascist, anarchist, socialist, and humanist endeavors in our videos together, generally, every other Saturday.

Why Does Power Bring Responsibility?

Think, how often is it the powerless that start wars, oppress others, or commit genocide? So, I guess the question is to us all, to ask, how can power not carry responsibility in a humanity concept? I know I see the deep ethical responsibility that if there is power their must be a humanistic responsibility of ethical and empathic stewardship of that power. Will I be brave enough to be kind? Will I possess enough courage to be compassionate? Will my valor reach its height of empathy? I as everyone, earns our justified respect by our actions, that are good, ethical, just, protecting, and kind. Do I have enough self-respect to put my love for humanity’s flushing, over being brought down by some of its bad actors? May we all be the ones doing good actions in the world, to help human flourishing.

I create the world I want to live in, striving for flourishing. Which is not a place but a positive potential involvement and promotion; a life of humanist goal precision. To master oneself, also means mastering positive prosocial behaviors needed for human flourishing. I may have lost a god myth as an atheist, but I am happy to tell you, my friend, it is exactly because of that, leaving the mental terrorizer, god belief, that I truly regained my connected ethical as well as kind humanity.

Cory and I will talk about prehistory and theism, addressing the relevance to atheism, anarchism, and socialism.

At the same time as the rise of the male god, 7,000 years ago, there was also the very time there was the rise of violence, war, and clans to kingdoms, then empires, then states. It is all connected back to 7,000 years ago, and it moved across the world.

Cory Johnston: https://damienmarieathope.com/2021/04/cory-johnston-mind-of-a-skeptical-leftist/?v=32aec8db952d

The Mind of a Skeptical Leftist (YouTube)

Cory Johnston: Mind of a Skeptical Leftist @Skepticallefty

The Mind of a Skeptical Leftist By Cory Johnston: “Promoting critical thinking, social justice, and left-wing politics by covering current events and talking to a variety of people. Cory Johnston has been thoughtfully talking to people and attempting to promote critical thinking, social justice, and left-wing politics.” http://anchor.fm/skepticalleft

Cory needs our support. We rise by helping each other.

Cory Johnston ☭ Ⓐ @Skepticallefty Evidence-based atheist leftist (he/him) Producer, host, and co-host of 4 podcasts @skeptarchy @skpoliticspod and @AthopeMarie

Damien Marie AtHope (“At Hope”) Axiological Atheist, Anti-theist, Anti-religionist, Secular Humanist. Rationalist, Writer, Artist, Poet, Philosopher, Advocate, Activist, Psychology, and Armchair Archaeology/Anthropology/Historian.

Damien is interested in: Freedom, Liberty, Justice, Equality, Ethics, Humanism, Science, Atheism, Antiteism, Antireligionism, Ignosticism, Left-Libertarianism, Anarchism, Socialism, Mutualism, Axiology, Metaphysics, LGBTQI, Philosophy, Advocacy, Activism, Mental Health, Psychology, Archaeology, Social Work, Sexual Rights, Marriage Rights, Woman’s Rights, Gender Rights, Child Rights, Secular Rights, Race Equality, Ageism/Disability Equality, Etc. And a far-leftist, “Anarcho-Humanist.”

I am not a good fit in the atheist movement that is mostly pro-capitalist, I am anti-capitalist. Mostly pro-skeptic, I am a rationalist not valuing skepticism. Mostly pro-agnostic, I am anti-agnostic. Mostly limited to anti-Abrahamic religions, I am an anti-religionist.

To me, the “male god” seems to have either emerged or become prominent around 7,000 years ago, whereas the now favored monotheism “male god” is more like 4,000 years ago or so. To me, the “female goddess” seems to have either emerged or become prominent around 11,000-10,000 years ago or so, losing the majority of its once prominence around 2,000 years ago due largely to the now favored monotheism “male god” that grow in prominence after 4,000 years ago or so.

My Thought on the Evolution of Gods?

Animal protector deities from old totems/spirit animal beliefs come first to me, 13,000/12,000 years ago, then women as deities 11,000/10,000 years ago, then male gods around 7,000/8,000 years ago. Moralistic gods around 5,000/4,000 years ago, and monotheistic gods around 4,000/3,000 years ago.

To me, animal gods were likely first related to totemism animals around 13,000 to 12,000 years ago or older. Female as goddesses was next to me, 11,000 to 10,000 years ago or so with the emergence of agriculture. Then male gods come about 8,000 to 7,000 years ago with clan wars. Many monotheism-themed religions started in henotheism, emerging out of polytheism/paganism.

Gods?

“Animism” is needed to begin supernatural thinking.

“Totemism” is needed for supernatural thinking connecting human actions & related to clan/tribe.

“Shamanism” is needed for supernatural thinking to be controllable/changeable by special persons.

Together = Gods/paganism

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

11406234_754565204651868_2328529661034816546_o-LAPTOP-KIB0FGT7

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Damien Marie AtHope (Said as “At” “Hope”)/(Autodidact Polymath but not good at math):

Axiological Atheist, Anti-theist, Anti-religionist, Secular Humanist, Rationalist, Writer, Artist, Jeweler, Poet, “autodidact” Philosopher, schooled in Psychology, and “autodidact” Armchair Archaeology/Anthropology/Pre-Historian (Knowledgeable in the range of: 1 million to 5,000/4,000 years ago). I am an anarchist socialist politically. Reasons for or Types of Atheism

My Website, My Blog, & Short-writing or Quotes, My YouTube, Twitter: @AthopeMarie, and My Email: damien.marie.athope@gmail.com

“Hammer of Truth” response to “Do you Believe in god?”

“Hammer of Truth” response outline to the question: “Do you Believe in god?”

No God: No evidence, No intelligence, and No goodness = Valid Atheism Conclusion

If you were taken to Court, would you be convicted of a life lived in love?

Rationalist, I am and I am will to power.

Some Academics Don’t like me, boohoo. lol

Disproof by logical contradiction

Unrealized Presumptive-value?

I Don’t Have to Respect Ideas

Religions Promote Pseudo-Morality

Addressing the Seven Dreaded Thinking Errors of Atheism

So, what is a god?

Pragmatic theory of truth, Coherence theory of truth, and Correspondence theory of truth

The Atheist-Humanist-Leftist Revolutionaries Shows in the prehistory series:

Damien Marie AtHope (Said as “At” “Hope”)/(Autodidact Polymath but not good at math):

Recent Posts

Archives

Categories

Pages

Meta

Advertisement

Pin It on Pinterest