First if you are interested: “Main deity or religious belief systems”

Some people don’t seem to understand that you can be a christian and a humanist or an atheist and a humanist. It seems people forget most of the early humanists were christian anyway and many still are. Thus, why the need for saying secular humanism; still trying to counter saying atheist but acknowledging that just humanism meant addressing the existence of gods question. I am an atheist who is psychologically certain there is no god, mostly because of epistemic certainty of the natural world validated by Scientific Realism.

For more on certainty http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/certainty/

For more on Scientific Realism http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scientific-realism/

 

The Evolution of Religion and Removing the Rationale of Faith

Are you an atheist and not a theist?

“the agnosticism some like to claim is either weak theism or weak atheism philosophically”

You said humanist when I asked if you were an atheist. So, you seem to be projecting a thinking that a humanist stance removes the theist or not theist/atheist question, it does not, so do you believe in some god or gods?

It seems that too many Christians think they are better than atheists.

Atheists and christian are not the same at all…

People look down on atheists as somehow dangerous and have terrible hate filled lives. But this is not just inaccurate it is demonstrably wrong. There are next to no atheists in prison only 0.1%. ref Just like there are no atheist gangs, no atheist terror groups, and no atheist hate groups. You heard that right, there is not one atheist hate group in America but there is a whopping shameful number of 83 christian hate groups. Southern Poverty Law Center has a list of Christian hate groups

Challenger – “I beg to submit that they are all atheists. Of course, they tell a different story, for reasons of their own.”

Damien Marie AtHope, “even if that was so which is flat out wrong, lets side step that and ask well what about all the religious hate groups mot one atheist?”

Challenger – “you see it that way. Belief is something that is difficult to define precisely. It takes a bit of patience to forestall conclusions within oneself.”

Damien Marie AtHope, “please, offer proof as I did.”

Challenger – “Do I have a sufficient motivation for this? That is the question I must ask myself. When dealing with assumptions, one should not be too specific, but wait for discovery of the underlying premise of the assumptions. There are beliefs. What are they? If we are not reading the same narrative, it is pointless to argue.”

Damien Marie AtHope, “Where is the proof that I was in error please?”

Challenger – “Damien, I said “Ï beg to submit”. Not a claim.”

I now am starting to wonder if you mean to add truth or some other motivation. What you offer is not at all accurate in stating my stated position “There are next to no atheists in prison only 0.1%. Just like there are no atheist gangs, no atheist terror groups, and no atheist hate groups” is, somehow in error? You stated, “I see it that way.”, as if there are other facts that can change my facts. No I gave facts and you made a challenge without facts and continue to seem unwilling to back it up and now are using evasion from giving evidence. So, are you now saying you claim made to challenge me was a mistake or not making a truth claim against my facts?

Damien Marie AtHope, “moreover, you most definitely submitted the claim that they are all atheists and in so doing by saying all people in prison and only atheists, is a big intellectual lie or a confused non-critical thinking assertion: “I beg to submit that they are all atheists.”, which is demonstrably in error as clearly there are many strong religious people in prison and they are not all lying. You know that is a form of the no true Scotsman fallacy. No true Scotsman is a kind of informal fallacy in which one attempts to protect a universal generalization from counterexamples by changing the definition in an ad hoc fashion to exclude the counterexample. Rather than denying the counterexample or rejecting the original claim, this fallacy modifies the subject of the assertion to exclude the specific case or others like it by rhetoric, without reference to any specific objective rule (“no true Scotsman would do such a thing”; i.e., those who perform that action are not part of our group and thus criticism of that action is not criticism of the group).”

We should try to hold generalizations suspect for hasty generalizations. People like generalization as they can be good tools to distribute falsehoods as fact or support something they don’t know much about and are hopping you don’t require details and accurate evidence which they likely lack.

“Hasty generalization is an informal fallacy of faulty generalization by reaching an inductive generalization based on insufficient evidence—essentially making a hasty conclusion without considering all of the variables.

The fallacy is also known as:

*Illicit generalization

*Fallacy of insufficient sample

*Generalization from the particular

*Leaping to a conclusion

*Hasty induction

*Law of small numbers

*Unrepresentative sample

*Secundum quid

So, when referring to a generalization made from a single example it has been called the fallacy of the lonely fact or the proof by example fallacy. When evidence is intentionally excluded to bias the result, it is sometimes termed the fallacy of exclusion and is a form of selection bias.” Ref

The irrationalist sees reason as irrational. that’s why we can’t often reason with them, until we first crack the flawed thinking paradigm they reason through.  In the irrationalist mind, denying the authority of reason is almost as strong as their will to not see what is true over what is believed. It’s almost a lost cause from the beginning for many, but even some hard cases turn around and enlighten themselves eventually.

3 ways To Reason with Unreasonable People

  1. Do not apologize for their mistakes (hold them accountable intellectually)
  2. Try not cry or show anger
  3. Ask lots of questions Ref

3 Simple strategies for dealing with toxic, mean, or unreasonable/aggressively unstable people,

  1. Minimize time with them
  2. Keep it logical and rational
  3. Focus on them in conversations Ref

We must be rational and give up the daydream that they will one day be the person you wish they’d be, they will be who they wish to be.

Understanding the 10 Most Destructive Human Behaviors

Compared with most animals, we humans engage in a host of behaviors that are destructive to our own kind and to ourselves. We lie, cheat and steal, carve ornamentations into our own bodies, stress out and kill ourselves, and of course kill others. Science has provided much insight into why an intelligent species seems so nasty, spiteful, self-destructive and hurtful. Inside you’ll learn what researchers know about some of our most destructive behaviors.

To learn more check out the link: Understanding the 10 Most Destructive Human Behaviors

Here is my Scale of Theistic and Nontheistic Assumptions

  1. Weakest implicit Nontheistic/Atheism “negative” / “weak” / “soft” nonbelief includes infants or babies who do not believe or do not know that a deity or deities exist and agnostics who have not explicitly rejected or eschewed such a belief (absence of religious motivation).
  2. Strong implicit Atheism “negative” / “weak” / “soft” nonbelief include apatheist atheists who are not interested in gods exist claims agnostics who explicitly rejected that one can make a choice in god beliefs.
  3. Weak Explicit Atheism “negative” / “weak” / “soft” atheists but unsure they can fully reject a belief that any deities exist, some call this agnostic atheism.
  4. Strong Explicit Atheism “negative” / “weak” / “soft” atheists either reject the god concept or week conscious rejection of belief any deities some could call this ignostic atheism.
  5. Strongest Explicit Atheism “positive” / “strong” / “hard” atheists assert that it is false that any deities exist or at least one, many deities don’t exist or a strong conscious rejection of belief, one or any deities some could call this antitheist atheism.
  6. Weakest implicit Theistic thinking/Theism “negative” / “weak” / “soft” belief includes small children who are indoctrinated and don’t know or understand what and why they believe, only believe as told to believe or those who believe in deism, pantheism, vague theism, or somethingism as possibilities of god beliefs (absence of full religious motivation).
  7. Weak implicit Theism “negative” / “weak” / “soft” belief includes apatheist theists who kind of believe but are not that interested in existence claims or agnostics who are open to god beliefs but are unsure if they should believe.
  8. Weak Explicit Theism “negative” / “weak” / “soft” theists some beliefs but unsure they can fully accept a belief that one or any deities exist some call this agnostic theism.
  9. Strong Explicit Theism “positive” / “strong” / “hard” theists either generally accept the god(s) concept(s) or week conscious accepting of belief in one, many or any deities, some could call this standard theism.
  10. Strongest Explicit Theism “positive” / “strong” / “hard” theists assert that at least one deity exists or strong conscious belief in one, many or any deities, some could call this gnostic theism.

http://damienmarieathope.com/2016/10/18/damien-marie-athopes-scale-of-theistic-and-nontheistic-assumptions/

Atheism and Humanism are two Different Philosophic Arenas

People are often confused thinking that they are only an atheist if they use the word and are not one if they just don’t use the word like saying there humanist instead or some other less stigmatized word. People need to see how atheism is a philosophic conclusion that you don’t believe in gods which is the philosophic stance called “atheism.” And yes, all who don’t believe in gods are some amount or kind of atheist. It is still so, whether they like it or not; it’s still atheism when you lack a belief in the concept of gods. If you wish to say but wait I don’t know but still don’t or cannot believe, welcome to the fold you my thinking friend are still are holding the philosophic stance of atheism maybe just week atheism, become the only thing not a form of none belief un gods is some belief in gods, if you believe you will be removed from the group no matter what else you call yourself. I wish to remove such confusion of humanism as well. As for humanism, it is a philosophy that does not address the do gods exist question but roughly in a general classification is 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). The meaning of the term humanism has fluctuated, according to the successive intellectual movements which have identified with it. Generally, however, humanism refers to a perspective that affirms some notion of human freedom and progress. In modern times, humanist movements are typically aligned with secularism, and today “Humanism” typically refers to a non-theistic life stance centered on human agency, and looking to science instead of religious dogma in order to understand the world.

When I was a Christian I was always wondering if my life was good enough to go to heaven and was always fearful of failure that I had not repented enough not to go to hell. There was always a terrorizing dread of the afterlife. Now as an atheist seeing all that afterlife talk as nonsense indoctrination control tactics by means of fear mongering and carrot waving. It’s no longer scary for me to think of death as you just stop being. It’s peace and while it’s the end for you, it’s not always the end in the minds of others for there we often live on. I am not worried about even that if I don’t live on in memory as I am trying to live on in dead. I want to live my life in a way that I strive to make a difference in the world for the better as much as I can. That is how I wish to live on, by the difference I can make.

True Morality Not the Golden Rule…

Champion of Kindness

To be a champion of kindness with all the trying things or people in life can be quite heard at times. But the task of kindness is often self-rewarding in how it is life enriching to others around you. Such recipients of acts of kindness are often motivated to themselves do similar acts of kindness, which can lessen the reaction to the noise of all the trying things or people in life.