Doubt or disbelief requires justification just like all other beliefs.
 
Simply to me all thinking needs justification to demonstrate its validity. No thoughts are above challenge or a need for support and that does not exclude doubt but doubt generally doesn’t need much to inspire justified doubt. I generally follow the ethics of belief. To me, it comes down to the question, would you be intellectually honest enough to want to know if your belief was completely false? And once knowing it was an unjustified belief, realize it lacks warrant and the qualities needed for belief-retention, as well as grasp the rationality that compels belief-relinquishment due to the beliefs insufficient supporting reason and evidence. The act of believing, just because one wants to believe, when everything contradicts the belief is intellectually unethical or deluded. Beliefs are directly connected to behavior, behavior is directly involved in ethics, and ethics requires involvement in social thinking which requires us to mature or discipline our beliefs. I also generally hold to a kind of justificationism the view that for belief to be rational it must be justified by sound arguments or by valid and reliable worthy reasons. And evidentialism a stance involving epistemic justification and what it takes for one to believe justifiably, or reasonably to be a justifiable belief/disbelief to be thought of as knowledge. So, all that is in a general way expressed in my support for epistemic rationality as a guiding principle to assist in the acquisition of increased accurate beliefs/disbeliefs about the world as well as what is not or cannot be thought of as part of the real world including thinking standards like continuing to update what is perceived (trying to control basis), believed or disbelieved depending upon valid and reliable epistemic justification (degree of its validation and reliability) of reason and/or evidence to why you believe/disbelieve what you believe/disbelieve. To me, the test for belief/disbelief analysis in relation to the offered evidence attempting to affirm the belief/disbelief, would be is it sufficient evidence such as, could any rational addresser of the belief/disbelief in question to find the essential elements of the issue sufficiency evidence is beyond a reasonable doubt. it is reasonable to require a greater level of evidence proportional to the importance of the belief or the external effects of the belief.

Why are all gods unjustified?

So, anything you claim needs justification but no one has evidence of god claim attributes they are all unjustified. All god talk as if it is real acts as if one can claim magic is real by thinking it is so or by accepting someone’s claim of knowing the unjustifiably that they understand an unknowable, such as claims of gods being anything as no one has evidence to start such fact devoid things as all knowing (there is no evidence of an all-knowing anything). Or an all-powerful (there is no evidence of an all-powerful anything). Or the most ridiculous an all-loving (there is no evidence of an all loving anything). But like all god claims, they are not just evidence lacking, the one claiming them has no justified reason to assume that they can even claim them as proof (it’s all the empty air of faith). Therefore, as the limit of all people, is to only be able to justify something from and that which corresponds to the real-world to be real and the last time I checked there is no magic of any kind in our real-world experiences. So, beyond the undefendable magical thinking not corresponding to the real-world how much more ridicules are some claimed supreme magical claimed being thus even more undefendable to the corresponding real-world, which the claimed god(s) thinking is a further and thus more extremely unjustified claim(s).


What is this god you seem to think you have any justification to claim?

Saying that some features of reality are not fully know is not proof of god myth claims. II’s not like every time we lack knowledge, we can just claim magic and if we do we are not being intellectually honest to the appraisal of reality that is devoted of anything magic. So what is a god, when no one has some special knowledge to say what it could be and shot gunning unjustifiable hypothetical claims that one thing or another that you like must gold some magic which there is no evidence of magic anything? Thus, to assert magic anything s by its nature an unjustified ascertain to even present. God claims are presupposition errors in how they are most often assumed to be a hypothetical explanation to the unknown or fear of something it’s not from facts in reality.


Do you know god?

Every child born with horrific deformities shows that those who believe in a loving god who is in control and values every life is not just holding a ridiculous belief; it is an offensive belief to the compassion for life and a loving morality. What is this god-nothing, you claim after claim but don’t define in reality?

 
You say you believe in a possibility of your favored god-claim, believer?”
 
“I believe in god. But it’s not a claim about god. Just a claim about my belief.” – Challenger
My response, “what is a god?”
“God is the thing on which everything else depends. And from which everything derives. The relationship of the universe to god is like the relationship of a dream to the dreamer.” – Challenger
My response, “what kind of non-answer to my question what is a god, as all you offered was more of what you think the god claim you favor. You made more unsupported additional claims about your undefined god instead trued to say claims about your somethingism about your nothingism god claim is the beginning and active supporter of everything, which doesn’t matter to my question what is a god not the fake magic you believe it can do. Please tell me what is a god?”
“I have a feeling that the above paragraph is represents a good example of the response I am going to get regardless of what I post.” – Challenger
My response, “so, non-answers? What I asked and you still have not answered was, please tell me what is a god?
“I like you. You are a character for sure.” – Challenger
My response, “so, non-answers? What I asked and you still have not answered was, please tell me what is a god?
“I like you. You are a character for sure.” – Challenger
My response, “So we can agree you don’t have a valid offering to answer my question, what is a god?”

Don’t ever let them side step, answering the question: “what is a god?”

Believers in gods and other religious nonsence like to sometimes say, “You have to agree, there is a possibility of god.” No I don’t, possibility, my friend, is not a thing in isolation; as in one needs a frame of reference or there is no possibility to discern anything to attach a possibility to. Without a frame of reference, all you have is just an uncalculated and unknown communicated claim with no relevance or attributed properties to assert. We need to think deep and broad to see many things missed. This reality itself requires a belief, in many presuppositions like there is reality, I the thinker, am actually in control of my thinking, that this thinking is rational and that what I observe is real and corresponds to that real reality, I am an active agent awake and not dreaming this is mostly an internal awareness in confrontation in how I interact with it. We can bypass this and say we don’t believe it but we all actively relate in the world so it is valid to believe. What many of my questions are generally striving to do is use strategies from my invented philosophy tool: “Hammer of Truth.” Here is an application of my Hammer of Truth, in response to the believer assertion: “I Believe in god.”

“Damien, God exists go to YouTube and type in Dr.Dino u will understand.”- Challenger
 
“What is a god and how do you know some claim about that concept is real?” – Damien Marie Athope
 
“How can u believe that a spinning created life and I also wonder why we don’t see people evolve now days can u observe evolution”- Challenger
 
“Dot.”- Challenger
 
“You have no responce? Exactly.”- Challenger
 
“What do you think you did? You did nothing at all to demonstrate magic was real did you? NO. Again what is a god?” – Damien Marie Athope

Stop Promoting Errors in Thinking, like gods 

Theists seem to have very odd attempts as logic, as they most often start with some evidence devoid god myth they favor most often the hereditary favorite of the family or culture that they were born into so a continuous blind acceptance generation after generation of force indicated faith in that which on clear instinctually honest appraisal not only should inspire doubt but full disbelief until valid and reliable justification is offered.


Do beliefs need justification?

Yes, it all requires a justification and if you think otherwise you should explain why but then you are still trying to employ a justification to challenge justification. So, I still say yes it all needs a justification and I know everything is reducible to feeling the substation of existence. I feel my body and thus I can start my justificationism standard right there and then build all logic inferences from that justified point and I don’t know a more core presupposition to start from. A presupposition is a core thinking stream that like how a tree of beliefs always has a set of assumed sets of presuppositions or a presupposition is relatively a thing/thinking assumed beforehand at the beginning of a line of thinking point, belief projection, argument or course of action. And that as well as everything needs justification to be concluded as reasonable. Sure, you can believe all kinds of things with no justification at all but we can’t claim them as true, nor wish others to actually agree unless something is somehow and or in some way justified. When is something true that has no justification? If you still think so then offer an example, you know a justification. Sure, there can be many things that may be true but actually receiving rational agreement that they are intact true needs justification.


Epistemically Rational with Beliefs?

Which is more epistemically rational? Believing that which by lack of evidence could be false or disbelieving that which by insufficient evidence could be true? Incapable of making a decision on if there is or not a god? “Epistemic rationality is part of rationality involving, achieving accurate beliefs about the world. It involves updating on receiving new evidence, mitigating cognitive biases, and examining why you believe what you believe.” Ref

Being Epistemically Rational

Knowledge without Belief? Justified beliefs or disbeliefs worthy of Knowledge?

Justifying Judgments: Possibility and Epistemic Utility theory

To me, the choice is to use the “Ethics of Belief” and thus the more rational approach one would be more motivated is to disbelieve, rather than “Believing that which by lack of evidence could be false”, otherwise you would accept any statement or claim as true no matter how at odds with other verified facts. The ethics of belief refers to a cluster of related issues that focus on standards of rational belief, intellectual excellence, and conscientious belief-formation as well as norms of some sort governing our habits of belief-formation, belief-maintenance, and belief-relinquishment. Contemporary discussions of the ethics of belief stem largely from a famous nineteenth-century exchange between the British mathematician and philosopher W. K. Clifford and the American philosopher William James. . In 1877 Clifford published an article titled “The Ethics of Belief” in a journal called Contemporary Review. There Clifford argued for a strict form of evidentialism that he summed up in a famous dictum: “It is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone to believe anything on insufficient evidence.” As Clifford saw it, people have intellectual as well as moral duties, and both are extremely demanding. People who base their beliefs on wishful thinking, self-interest, blind faith, or other such unreliable grounds are not merely intellectually slovenly; they are immoral. Such bad intellectual habits harm both themselves and society. We sin grievously against our moral and intellectual duty when we form beliefs on insufficient evidence, or ignore or dismiss evidence that is relevant to our beliefs. 1, 2


No god Claims have Justification, Challenge?

“Damien, (responding to me saying no god claims have justification) there are problems thinking everything you believe needs a justification.” – Challenger

My response, so, are you saying something can be claimed as real but have no warrant to justify why one should agree or even entertain it?

“The idea that Induction is reliable can be claimed and seems like an important assumption, but arguments for it are fallacious. There are similar issues with thinking an external world exists.” – Challenger

My response, ok, and how do we discern any of it, if nothing has a need for justification? Because to me, I see your saying something is fallacious as asserting a justification stance and thus, is similar to what I think, which is valid, that there is a rationalistic need for justification. You are telling me I am wrong and that needs a justification, just as me showing your thinking wrong took a justification. If not then tell me how I am wrong utilizing no justification at all. So, try to prove me wrong because even if you do you will have provided a justification so then further proving my assertion of the need for justification.

“You are missing part of the conversation. Can you prove every belief needs a justification? Let’s say every belief needs a justification. Then you have to argue for every premise of every argument. That requires infinite arguments. What exactly is your argument that all beliefs require a justification?  I am not challenging the importance of justification. I am challenging the idea that every belief has to have a justification. The example above is induction. Hume showed why arguments for induction will be fallacious. I did not just make the claim. Go ahead and prove induction is reliable if you can. It would revolutionize philosophy. In response to >>sure you can believe all kinds of things with no justification at all but we can’t claim them as true not wish others to actually agree unless something is somehow and or in some way justified. I already said every challenged claim in a debate has to be argued for. Every claim has a burden of proof anyway. Most beliefs that do not require justification are things basically everyone already agrees with. But if you debate someone who rejects the existence of an external world or the reliability of induction, you can’t prove that they have to agree as far as I can tell. In response to >>When is something true that has no justification? Lots of things are true and we don’t know they are true. To claim to know something is true is another issue. But maybe we know induction is reliable. Maybe we know there is an external world. If so, it’s not clear how we know those things. I already mentioned induction above and you never talked about it.” – Challenger

My response, “Sure, there can be many things that may be true but actually receiving rational agreement that they are intact true needs justification.”

“Right, I think we might have talked past one another a bit. I don’t expect agreement without a good argument.” – Challenger

My response, so you, like me want a justification

Of course, it is a very important thing to me in general.” – Challenger


“Damien, you are evil.” – Attacker

My response, I am only evil in your pseudomorality.

“Good luck bro lol Hell is waiting.” – Attacker

My response, tell me what kind of thinking is it that has such joy,

at the thought of others suffering? I will tell you not a humanistic one

nor an ethical one, more proof of your pseudomorality is

affecting your honest care as a human and still you don’t see it.


Without Nonsense, Religion Dies

I am against ALL Pseudoscience, Pseudohistory and Pseudomorality. And all of these should openly be debunked, when and where possible. Of course, not forgetting how they are all highly represented in religion. All three are often found in religion to the point that if they were removed, their loss would likely end religion as we know it. 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.


The word FAITH
 
“first off, I nether need, use or value it”
 
Some people may try and say but we can use faith without religion like saying “I have faith in humanity.” To me, the word faith is paramount to a feeling/emotion, it has no “evidence” value in the acquisition of knowledge of the establishing of truth nor does it in itself explain what the feeling is one is referring to. Humans are emotional pattern seeking beings that like to attach beingness to non being things, experiences or feelings which is why there is both beliefs in ghosts and gods. But we need to see the truth that this is just unfounded emotionalism that no matter how real it can seem even when we want to believe it is not real. Remember you just cant wish things into reality. Your feelings just don’t makes things real. Let’s take the statement I have faith in humanity. What is the thing you are expressing in the emotional word faith as it could be positive or negative it is incomplete as faith is not a complete expression: such as saying “I have faith in humanity” could be I have faith in humanity and its need to destroy itself or I have faith in humanity as a self-destructive self-centered entity. faith in, hope in, belief in, guessing in, wishing in, desire in, expectation in, wanting in, etc.

Faith is unnecessary there are better words with more meaning and less confusion or religious undertones. 


Theists like to claim I cannot see the truth of theism, because I don’t have faith.

Believing in the evidence quality of faith is likely “Fideism” (faith-ism) which is “Theistic Reality Confusion”

Theists like to confuse the understanding of atheism to lessen its obvious reason. So here’s a definition of atheism: all offered claims of god(s) are baseless and devoid of a shred of testable or provable evidence and the claims of or about gods either don’t represent in reality or claim to represent things contrary to reality requiring a conclusion of atheism (lack of belief or disbelief in theism). The god claim, is a clown car in the magic big top of Fideism (faith-ism)! This just sounds like a fideist, they think faith is better than reason or possibly even evidence. But faith is strong belief either without evidence or contrary to reason or evidence. Thus, in the acquisition of knowledge faith is not worth believing in and furthermore if it takes faith to see a thing as real you’re admitting such a thing has nothing to do with reality. The term “Fideism” itself derives from fides, the Latin word for faith, and can be rendered literally as faith-ism. Ref


FAITH is a mind splinted by reality confusion
 
Why was faith so alluring from the start instead of just accepting the world as it is only natural? The understanding comes by seeing how primitive humankind were motivated by fear and misunderstanding which provides the impetus making them feel they just “had to believe” in some higher entity or beneficial type rituals to controlled things in their world and the unseen spirit universe they thought was all around them. Faith is delusional mind echoes, a reason removed, nontangible, emotionally driven substance, unjustified offering that stems from a state of self-solace control born in the face of fear or knowledge egocentrism, as when one lacks understanding yet is claiming to understand.
 

Sound Thinker don’t value FAITH

“value thinking”

“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 its 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 Thinking

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.

I Hear Theists?

I hear what theists say and what I hear is that they make assertions with no justification discernable of or in reality just some book and your evidence lacking faith. I wish you were open to see but I know you have a wish to believe. I however wish to welcome reality as it is devoid of magic which all religions and gods thinkers believe. I want to be mentally free from misinformed ancient myths and free the minds of those confused in the realm of myths and the antihumanism views that they often attach to. So, I do have an agenda human liberation from fears of the uninformed conception of reality. Saying that some features of reality are not fully know is not proof of god myth claims. II’s not like every time we lack knowledge, we can just claim magic and if we do we are not being intellectually honest to the appraisal of reality that is devoted of anything magic. Theists seem to have very odd attempts as logic, as they most often start with some evidence devoid god myth they favor most often the hereditary favorite of the family or culture that they were born into so a continuous blind acceptance generation after generation of force indicated faith in that which on clear instinctually honest appraisal not only should inspire doubt but full disbelief until valid and reliable justification is offered. Why are all gods unjustified? Well, anything you claim needs justification but no one has evidence of god claim attributes they are all unjustified. All god talk as if it is real acts as if one can claim magic is real by thinking it is so or by accepting someone’s claim of knowing the unjustifiably that they understand an unknowable, such as claims of gods being anything as no one has evidence to start such fact devoid things as all knowing (there is no evidence of an all-knowing anything). Or an all-powerful (there is no evidence of an all-powerful anything). Or the most ridiculous an all-loving (there is no evidence of an all loving anything). But like all god claims, they are not just evidence lacking, the one claiming them has no justified reason to assume that they can even claim them as proof (it’s all the empty air of faith). Therefore, as the limit of all people, is to only be able to justify something from and that which corresponds to the real-world to be real and the last time I checked there is no magic of any kind in our real-world experiences. So, beyond the undefendable magical thinking not corresponding to the real-world how much more ridicules are some claimed supreme magical claimed being thus even more undefendable to the corresponding real-world, which the claimed god(s) thinking is a further and thus more extremely unjustified claim(s). What is this god you seem to think you have any justification to claim?


God: “antihumanism thinking”

God thinking is a superstitiously transmitted disease, that usually is accompanied with some kind of antihumanism thinking. Relatively all gods in general are said to have the will and power over humans. Likewise, such god claims often are attributed to be the ones who decide morality thus remove the true morality nature in humans that actually assist us in morality. So, adding a god is to welcome antihumanism burdens, because god concepts are often an expression. This is especially so when any so-called god somethingism are said to makes things like hells is an antihumanism thinking.  A general humanism thinking to me is that everyone owns themselves, not some god and everyone is equal. Such humanism thinking to me, requires a shunning of coercion force that removes a human’s rights or the subjugation of oppression and threats for things like requiring belief or demanding faith in some other unjustified abstraction from others. Therefore, humanism thinking is not open to being in such a beliefs, position or situations that violate free expression of one’s human rights which are not just relinquished because some people believed right or their removal is at the whims of some claimed god (human rights removing/limiting/controlling = ANTIHUMANISM). Humanism to me, summed up as, humans solving human problems through human means. Thus, humanism thinking involve striving to do good without gods, and not welcoming the human rights removing/limiting/controlling, even if the myths could somehow come to be true.


Do you support Human Rights, Are you a Humanist?

How can one claim to be a humanist and somehow not feel compelled to question all beliefs that oppose human values? Simply the world we live in requires that we care, for if we don’t we still live there but can hardly be thought of as a humanistic supporter.  Sometimes the greatest fight, in an unfair uncaring world, is not to let it change you for the worst. We should be our best and change the world instead. And not to let it stop us from wishing to be as fair and kind as we can. For the world is not only one we live in but one we help create. Let’s create a better world we can all be proud of together, one of freedom, equality, love and care. A truly rational mind sees the need for humanity, as they too live in the world and see themselves as they actually are an alone body in the world seeking comfort and safety. Thus, see the value of everyone around then as they too are the same and therefore rationally as well a humanistically we should work for this humanity we are part of and can either dwell in or help its flourishing as we are all in the hands of each other. You are Free to think as you like but REALITY is unchanged. While you personally may react, or think differently about our shared reality (the natural world devoid of magic anything), We can play with how we use it but there is still only one communal reality (a natural non-supernatural one), which we all share like it or not and you can’t justifiably claim there is a different reality. This is valid as the only one of warrant is the non-mystical natural world around us all, existing in or caused by nature; not made or caused by superstitions like gods or other monsters to many sill fear irrationally.