Do you believe in god?
What is a god? Are you asking me if magic exists? Well my answer as an ignostic atheist is first prove the actuality of simple magic before you try to ask anyone about the possibility of some supreme magic. What theists seem to forget is that the concept of gods including one they favor are a thing limited to belief they are not some proven fact known. Thus, atheists not believing have no extended requirement to disprove the concept of gods that have never been proven or substantiated in any knowable way to begin with, in this way the concept of gods are like a failed hypothesis that lack any need for continued acceptance. Such reasoning appeals to the thinking that claims offered without real evidence can just as simply be dismissed without real evidence as well. Not believing things unproven have no requirement to disprove offhand unless we make a claim there is no gods or that the thing in question is proven in which case it would have a requirement to disprove if one disbelieves as disbelieving proven things carries the moniker of denialism unless one provides otherwise. So without a reality coherent definition, “god” is a meaningless concept unworthy of genuine consideration outside of it connecting to claims in myths and fables.

Consider the proposition of the existence of a “pink unicorn”. When asserting the proposition, one can use attributes to at least describe the concept such a cohesive idea is transferred in language. With no knowledge of “pink unicorn”, it can be described minimally with the attributes “pink”, “horse”, and “horn”. Only then can the proposition be accepted or rejected. The acceptance or rejection of the proposition is distinct from the concept. 1

Hitchens’s razor is an epistemological razor asserting that the burden of proof regarding the truthfulness of a claim lies with the one who makes the claim; if this burden is not met, the claim is unfounded and its opponents need not argue further in order to dismiss it. It is named, echoing Occam’s razor, for the journalist and writer Christopher Hitchens, who, in a 2003 Slate article, formulated it thus: “What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. The dictum also appears in God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything, a book by Hitchens published in 2007. However, Hitchens’s razor is actually an English translation of the Latin proverb “Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur” (“what is freely asserted is freely dismissed”), which was commonly used in the 19th century. 1

But isn’t the Hitchens Razor asserted without evidence?

To me, Hitchens’s razor is a argument challenge axiom, a statement or proposition that is regarded as being self-evidently true, not a claim and as such it is not a clam just a rule of thumb thinking standard for good belief etiquette to in a sense demand they meet the burden of proof or the claim is thus rejected. So, like Occam’s Razor it is a helpful “rule of thumb,” but,  not a rule of formal logic. Hitchens’s razor in this way as a “rule of thumb” argument challenge axiom is not claiming anything about the truth status of the claim other than it fails to meet the burden of proof, only that the argument in in question is asserted without evidence if it is entirely absent of the needed supporting evidence so the claim is thus rejected.

An extraordinary claim requires extraordinary proof.

— Marcello Truzzi, ‘On the Extraordinary: An Attempt at Clarification”, Zetetic Scholar, Vol. 1, No. 1, p. 11, 1978

Carl Sagan popularized this as “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence”, which later came to be known as the Sagan standard.

If someone asserts a claim, without any evidence, that the Tooth Fairy does exist, why is the sound thinker required to offer evidence that the Tooth Fairy doesn’t exist?

What is a god? 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 (Ignostic thinking exposing the lack of a good Ontology). Given his theory of meaning, this leaves the term god “altogether insignificant” making him 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 an Ignostic Theist. “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.” So, what is a god?

Take for instance how Religion supporters try the evaluation tactic of saying “there are peaceful Religions.”

I may respond, what do you mean by Religion and what do you mean by painful or good” (asking to find the truth or as usual expose the lack of a good Ontology)

Then, I may respond, “how do you know that, what is your sources and how reliable they are” (asking to find the truth or as usual expose the lack of a good Epistemology)

Then, I may respond, “what value do you think what you are saying has and to what level of proof do you feel truth needs as well as how do you insure Accuracy” (asking to find the truth or as usual expose the lack of a good Axiology)

“Damien you asked, “What is a god?” Interesting question. Do we reject the dictionary definition? Or just modify it?” – Questioner
My responce, is a the dictionary definition of the concept of gods that is accurate to some real evidence or a vague theism placeholder of attributes all also claimed on faith alone? 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?


“Damien, the truth is subjective.”

My response, Interesting that you say that, as you seem to think “that claim of all truth is subjective is being offered as a truth itself, and I am guessing you think it is objectively true? Why I am guessing that is you seem to believe it is so “true” you think I must surrender to its truth and fully agree without question that it is in fact true. You seem to want to offer it, as indeed, a universal truth. See the problem is you only can validate that you believe, that what you said was true but if it is true universally, that “truth is subjective”, then, so is the “claim” you made; meaning it’s not really objectively true or if you think what you said was always true then you are contradicting your own claim, with your own claim. If you say it’s still true and not self-contradictory, prove it. Furthermore, how do you know that “The truth is subjective”. And, can you please explain as well as give evidence that corroborates your claim please?

Suppose I accused you of a crime without evidence. Should the police arrest you and a court of law sentence you to prison on that basis alone? In other words, is the burden of proof now on you, the accused, to offer evidence that you are innocent?

To me, god is a the Presuppositional Error it assumes a unsupported oncology assumptions.First, truly what is a god and how can you claim to know about it? Guessing is not evidence, neither is wild, unfounded assertions that are written in reality devoid documents such as holy books. Atheists do not have to prove that gods do not exist, as gods have never been proven to exist. Nor is there any good reason to think they could exist! In the branch of linguistics known as pragmatics, a presupposition is an implicit assumption about the world or background belief relating to an utterance whose truth is taken for granted in discourse.

Let me explain why as an axiological atheist (value theory atheist) even the belief in the concept of god is ethically vile to me. God belief is inherently immoral to me it is the belief that supports an all powerful being who willfully allows suffering, something that no ethical person would tolerate if they had the ability to do otherwise. Moreover, a common attribute of god belief is support of this claimed greater being of high intelligence and self will forcing its will and standards on other beings of high intelligence and self will. This force is unethical and abusive to the rights of humanity. Furthermore, many who subscribe to this force abusive relationship god claim an even more revolting ethical atrocity called hell where eternal horror and suffering is dished out by direct will of the claimed stronger immoral god being against the defenseless undeserving subjugated humanity. Thus, being one, who values rights and ethics, it sickens me to even speak of such willful misconduct of justice. Your god concept is vile… (axiology value judgment).

The god claim is like a clown car rolling in from out of nowhere and it seems like it is only one or possibly a few bad ideas, but no. No, it is a dark festival that masquerades as truth but it is only an evil funhouse of mirrors that distorts reality. The term god is an empty meaningless term and if it was not for man-made myths or wild speculations which are usually the misinterpretations of nature, no one would claim to know what a god is or could be. Unless one falls back to the circus of fallacies in the magic big top of fideism and the faith fallacy that you do not need anything but faith to validate, justify, or prove any mystical belief you so desire.

The God Fallacy is that there is no epistemically warranted or justifiably reliable evidence for god(s) existence; most ideas offered are stretches of unreason promoting seemingly implausible knowledge or reality claims. Moreover, beyond this is the self-evident realization that there is no reliable and /or verifiable evidence that could be used to define what god term actually is or could be assured to involve. Because it is never good to just randomly conceptualize or fabricate from bias trying to force connections into existence. epistemically warranted or justifiably reliable evidence or even a preset of proofs that do not hold gaps a believer want to fill with an arbitrary beliefs things need a god explanation and yet again what does god even mean. One his furthered nothing with god talk until they offer clear links to understand what could rightly make up the empty term g. o. d. (Group Originated Delusion).

Any reasonable thinker should conclude that clear links to any knowledge are required to comprehend what to ask, where to look, or what to state is involved. This would seem especially important since what is on the line is the actual truth or falsehood of the great believed “IT” of somethingism. Do you wish to just assemble or make up your god thinking as you go, greedily forcing anything that seems slow enough to not get away or is the actual truth in reality you seek even if godless as finding the true is the main pursuit, as your aim is what true right, taken with the deepest integrity? One should desire such intellectual rigor in order to even distinguish if we need to inquire or have a way to question a possibility of existence, as this empty termed “it” god of nothingism is unknown in every way even in its “it” status outside of faith superstitions, Dogmatic–Propaganda, delusion, myths and lies.

Religion is just Dogmatic–Propaganda, such as how it is wrong to start with full belief built only upon faith: then search and anything unknown, claiming it somehow justifies or is evidence for their specific God Fallacy.

Another attribute of the God Fallacy is that believers seem to insinuate, if they can in anyway demonstrate (even the possibility of a thing that could seem to be a something attributed to a god) then they have proved that the god they believe in is true. And yet is it not true that man will always fail to prove a specific god? Religion is big on claims but small on reasoning. Take the Abrahamic faiths; they propose a very specific, well-defined god, but in reality, they advocate a very unspecified god; a naturalistic, inferred-theistic-creationism or the god of intelligent design. In other words, when pressed to demonstrate god in the world, or as the reason for the big bang, they can at best only try to surmise a magical power or unknown and unknowable possible something as the “creator.” But the question needs to asked, how does that prove any specific god? So even if we were to concede, for the sake of argument, that some god, phantom-menace started things, they still have to show that this god is the very same as the god in which they believe.

The truth is, for all the appeals they make to nature in order to justify their god, not one appeal is valid in any way to confirm that their god (and only their god) is true, they must always leave the facts and return to faith. Thus, these haughty theists always fail to show any naturalistic reasons for believing in their special-needs god. What they show instead is a belief, not in the god of some myth or scriptures, but belief in a projected somethingism-god attributed to nature, which is indistinguishable from a nothingism, godless reality attributed by nature.However, the issues don’t stop there, as they also would have to prove, or give warrant, as well as justification for every attribute and claimed character trait attached to their specific god using only natural arguments, not some Holy Book or otherworldly revelation.

Coherent Definition of god?

I am an Ignostic atheist and not only do not believe in the term gods I reject that even the term or concept of god has any real thing or true reality connected definition. To me there is no one coherent definition of god even if they think articulation proves real meaning, this proves little more that me saying someone believes in a “Triangle-Square-Circle”. To the term god I thus regards it as empty of real meaning and or real definition constancy, so I see it as something that is not really know or knowable or coherently define able as a real object even if it can add arbitrary words to articulate it is still not something outside man-made arbitration.

One may say no the god definition is real one cannot say it is not, as most people generally known what the term god means thus that cannot be rejected. Really?? I could be misunderstanding this reasoning put against Ignostic Atheist thinking but to me it seems to hold the opinion, saying I must accept the god concept as something definable in reality because ad populum? In argumentation theory, an argumentum ad populum (Latin for “appeal to the people”) is a fallacious argument that concludes that a proposition is true because many or most people believe it: “If many believe so, it is so.”

Bigfoot’s, Unicorns, and Gods the rational conclusion using Axiology

So how do we form rational conclusions? More importantly how do we differentiate between the levels involved to establish a conclusions rational viability.

It takes axiology or the value judgment the worthiness or lack thereof in relation to the available reason and evidence.

So let’s start with the axiological viability of Bigfoots

There is no available evidence for Bigfoots.

But is their proposition outside of reason?

Always start in reality from the evidence we do know, such as a primate/nonhuman hominid close to that of both humans and other nonhuman primates is not entirely outside all possibility of reason even though lacking all evidence. Therefore, belief is not warrant and the axiological worthiness of possibility is low enough to motivate disbelief.

Next The axiological viability of Unicorns (ie. a horse with a single horn on its head)

There is no evidence for Unicorns.

But is their proposition outside of reason?

As always start in reality from the evidence we do know, such as by looking at the evolution of the horse not once was there a horn on any of the several stages of animals to the horse we know today. So it is relatively outside of possibility though as it is still only claiming non fantastic attributes it is only somewhat ridiculous. Therefore, belief is not in any way warranted and the axiological worthiness is so low to highly support disbelief.

Now the axiological validity of Gods

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.

The following are some evidence against a caring god working in the world. A recent study of the current living conditions throughout Africa shows that more than one billion people do not have enough clean water to provide for their basic human needs. As a result, more than 2,500 children are dying each day. I guess it is that god gives us free will by keeping children from clean water in an unproportioned amount to the civilized science filled world. I ask you, does your god not hear their prayers? According to Missionaries of Africa (2008), there is a water crisis and diseases that are living in dirty water are wiping out entire villages and communities. Does god exist? Does the magic chanting of prayer seem to work? Suppose for a minute with the understanding of religious believe, if there was a loving god and it answered even some prayers, would not the most deserving be the non-sinning? Moreover, what living human could be said to be less sinning than a baby and thus the most deserving. In addition, babies or children are likely the ones religionists/fideists pray most often, for when they are in trouble. Belief changes nothing. Whatever circumstances you are in or not, has nothing to do with belief. If you are poor, belief does not make you not poor. If you are rich, you do not stay rich because of belief. You would think that poor people would have the benefit of the heavenly means and have god on their side, if anyone would, right? Overall, in 186 countries, first-day child death rates for babies are 6.9%. Where was god? In Angola, 8% of the babies die and 95% of the population is christian. In Congo, 7.5% of the babies die and 95.8 % of the population is christian. Whereas in Guinea-Bissau, 9% of the babies die and 10 % of the population is christian and in Niger 8.7% of the babies die and 5% of the population is christian. Therefore, being a christian and begging for an all-powerful all loving god myth to do something that any half-decent human being would hardly even need to be asked to help an innocent child, shows that belief seems to make no difference in the world because the world is godless and sadly babies die. Isaiah 45:7 “I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I god do all these things.” Ref

Just think, the bible god “could” have banned slavery or shellfish and he chose to ban shellfish (Leviticus 11:12) and actually support slavery (Leviticus 25:44-46) even in the new testament (Ephesians 6:5; 1 Timothy 6:1-2) and Jesus clearly approves of beating slaves even if they didn’t know they were doing anything wrong (Luke 12:47-48) how crazy and immoral is that for a man-made fairy tales. I will openly say faith is foolish lacking credibility and it is stupid to hold on to beliefs that are disproved by science fact. However, I don’t usually call people names even ones saying things I believe are ridiculous nor do I belittle them instead I strive to and support attacking the thinking and not the person.

What is a god? Just a Empty Label.

Doubt god(s)? No, I stopped believing Fairytales.

Credibility, Accuracy, & Reasonableness
I challenge the credibility (“worthy of belief”) as well as the accuracy of ideas just as I do with uncredible (“unworthy of respect”) behaviors.
Ideas do not have a dignity. They do not have a right to exist. People have a dignity. People have a right to exist.
Thus, I don’t respect beliefs unless they are respectable as in they are warranted and justified by valid and reliable reason and evidence. People deserve respect unless they behave unrespectable. I always strive to attack thinking not people. In this theme of respect is the integrity of responsibility and reasonableness of being a good human. Thus, I challenge uncredible behaviors as well. Furthermore, I don’t force people to believe things, I only try to inspire in myself and others to see the need for using accurately rational and reasonably ethical held standards in beliefs and behaviors. While I will treat ideas brutally, I strive to treat people kindly. I do not believe in any value in concepts of gods or religions but I do believe in the value of people. I will not respect the concepts of gods or religions but I always try and respect people. So, I make an effort to attack thinking and not people.

When assessing belief one should think about the Correspondence Theory of Truth
I like the correspondence theory of truth to analyze beliefs or statements if they are true. People may think or analyze in a similar way without knowing the term or the method as it is reasonable and uses thinking that could be equally reached by critical thinking. The difference is having a go to standard helps clarify thinking quickly with a high accuracy. The correspondence theory of truth states that the truth or falsity of a statement is determined by how it relates to the world and whether it accurately describes (i.e., corresponds with) that world. Correspondence theories claim that true beliefs and true statements correspond to the actual state of affairs. Ref

*Epistemology (knowledge of things) questions to explode or establish and confirm knowledge*
Epistemology: the theory of knowledge, especially with regard to its methods, validity, and scope. Epistemology is the investigation of what distinguishes justified belief from opinion. Epistemology (Greek episteme, meaning “knowledge, understanding”, and logos, meaning “discourse, study, ratio, calculation, reason”) it is the theory of knowledge, especially with regard to its methods, validity, and scope. Epistemology takes on the scope of inquisitor, it is the investigation of what distinguishes justified belief from opinion. Ref

Epistemology generally involves “Truth” questions/assertion: like a Lawyer searching for warrant or justification for the claim.*Epistemology, (understanding what you know or can know; as in you do have and thing in this reality to know anything about this term you call god, and no way of knowing if there is anything non-naturalism beyond this universe and no way to state any about it if there where)

-How do know your claim?

-How reliable or valid must aspects be for your claim?

-How does the source of your claim make it different than other similar claims?

I generally follow the standard in philosophy JTB: Justified True Beliefs.
Justified / True / Beliefs
To established justification I use the philosophy called Reliabilism.
“Reliabilism is a general approach to epistemology that emphasizes the truth-conduciveness of a belief-forming process, method, or other epistemologically relevant factor. The reliability theme appears both in theories of knowledge and theories of justification.” Ref
For the true part I use the philosophy called The Correspondence Theory of Truth.
“The correspondence theory of truth states that the truth or falsity of a statement is determined only by how it relates to the world and whether it accurately describes (i.e., corresponds with) that world.” Ref
For the beliefs part I use what philosophy calls The Ethics of Belief.
“The “ethics of belief” refers the intersection of epistemology, philosophy of mind, psychology, and ethics. The central is norms governing our habits of belief-formation, belief-maintenance, and belief-relinquishment. It morally wrong (or epistemically irrational, or imprudent) to hold a belief on insufficient evidence. It morally right (or epistemically rational, or prudent) to believe on the basis of sufficient evidence, or to withhold belief in the perceived absence of evidence. It always obligatory to seek out all available epistemic evidence for a belief.” 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.”

A shallow thinker 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 first poses Questions to understand slowing down and assessing all the facts or factors involved and then builds their argument or ideas.

A Sound Thinker: uses disciplined rationality

A Shallow Thinker: undisciplined, situational, sporadic, or limited thinking.

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 can not 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 one god 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 revolving door many people believer or otherwise seam to stumble through. Its just that god belief does this with intentionally.

Disciplined-Rationality is motivated be 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 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 most clear 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*

“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

The Struggle of a Rationalist

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, hold firm against their rhetoric)
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.

Rationalist through and through

I am so much a rationalist requiring valid and reliable reason and evidence that even if somehow a god was proven to exist that doesn’t mean all the unsubstantiated claims about it are to be believed without proof. As we all should reasonably follow the ethics of belief, thus, even a somehow proven god something, must prove everything they are saying. The rationale is not skepticism of beliefs it’s a rationalist call for accuracy and truth reached by justifiable beliefs supported by facts.

Belief that is not justifiable is reckless, because unjustifiable beliefs are agreeing with unsubstantiated and/or unreasonable/ridiculous claims that are not supported by facts. Don’t forget taking a position “To Believe” without knowledge, proof, or even investigating and questioning is a violation to rationalism as well as the ethics of belief and it is almost guaranteed to lead to limitations or errors in thinking. What if an entity claiming to be a god was supernatural but not a god at all and only claiming to be a god? Or if they can prove they are a god that still would not be proof in and of itself that it was not just claiming to be a god that created the universe, a god like anyone would need to prove those claims before it would be warranted to believe.

Faith is not a reasoned, be a rationalist willing to look and be a truth seeker. If I never look, I will always find only what I am looking for, which is, simply, nothing. However, if I truly seek truth, I may find more than I could imagine. If you only look for nothing, you will find nothing. However, to look earnestly, you will always find a new truth waiting to be found. Be willing to look and be a truth seeker. When you believe, you can have little or no facts and need only faith, you demonstrate no real love of truth. I implore you be a rationalist and accepting nothing but facts upon facts connected to reality. Faith is a proclamation of belief in the absence of or contrary to evidence.

Faith is not a reasoned virtue; it is the voice of emotionalism. If it requires faith to see a thing as real, then you are admitting such a thing has nothing to do with reality. Can you not see that in the acquisition of knowledge faith, as a method is not worth believing in? Critical thinking requires you to work on your thinking continually, to make your thinking the object of thought, to make your behavior the object of your thinking, and to make your beliefs the object of your thinking. For example, take your religious thinking: All over the world, there are many belief systems and each is certain of its truth on the evidence devoid property of faith. As such, on average if you are raised where buddhism is most common, then you become a buddhist. If you are raised where hinduism is most common, then you become a hindu. Christian, you become a christian. Etc.

According to the Encyclopedia Britannica, you have 500 choices. Honestly, how many study religions before they pick one rather than it being picked for them? As a rationalist atheist, when in doubt, applying skepticism at this point is also a highly rational position. Certainly, it is more rational to be skeptical than trying to pretend to know something when you do not know or accept something on faith. Philosophical views are typically classed as skeptical when they involve advancing some degree of doubt regarding claims that are elsewhere taken for granted.

Varieties of skepticism can be distinguished in two main ways, depending upon the focus and the extent of the doubt. As regards the former, skeptical views typically have an epistemological form, in that they are focused on the epistemic status of certain beliefs. For example, one common variety of skepticism concerns our beliefs about the past and argues that such beliefs lack positive epistemic status – that they are not justified, or are not rational, or cannot constitute knowledge (and perhaps even all three). Where skepticism does not have this epistemological focus, then it tends to be of an ontological form in that it is directed at beliefs about the existence of some supposedly problematic entity, such as the self or God. Here the target of the skepticism is not so much one’s putative knowledge of these entities (though it may be that as well), but rather the claim that they exist at all.

Are you a Rationalist?

If you think that you are a rationalist and you have come to some conclusion of supernatural or supreme supernatural “i.e. gods” to the natural only reality of this world, you expose how on this issue you’re not a true rationalist. Well, I am a rationalist and I am not a skeptic, though I somewhat am a fan. Lol

I do not call myself a skeptic, I do not doubt that which is unreasonable to require doubt. I am a rationalist who uses methodological skepticism and also may utilize scientific skepticism.

*Methodological skepticism is a way of using the process of doubting in order to arrive at certainty. And scientific skepticism is the practice of questioning whether claims are supported by empirical research and have reproducibility, as part of a methodological norm pursuing “the extension of certified knowledge.” Some people who doubt what is rational or proven say they are skeptics or being skeptical they are denialists or possibly using philosophic skepticism.

*Philosophical skepticism is distinguished from methodological skepticism in that philosophical skepticism is an approach that questions the possibility of certainty in knowledge. Whereas methodological skepticism is an approach that subjects all knowledge claims to scrutiny with the goal of sorting out true from false claims. Methodological skepticism, is a systematic process of being skeptical about (or doubting) the truth of one’s beliefs, it is similar to scientific skepticism.

*Scientific skepticism is different from philosophical skepticism, which questions our ability to claim any knowledge about the nature of the world and how we perceive it. Scientific skeptics believe that empirical investigation of reality leads to the truth, and that the scientific method is best suited to this purpose. Scientific skeptics attempt to evaluate claims based on verifiability, reliability, and often adhering to falsifiability discouraging acceptance of claims on faith or anecdotal evidence.

There does seem to be a lot of improper use of the term skeptic attached to conspiracy theories and denialism. In human behavior, denialism is exhibited by individuals choosing to deny reality as a way to avoid dealing with an uncomfortable truth. Then again, I have skepticism for “extreme philosophical skepticism or universal skepticism philosophy”. Radical skepticism about the external world is the idea that we cannot have accurate knowledge about the physical world outside of our minds. That idea, if true, would block the truth-seeker’s attempt to gain knowledge by assessing the natural world. Sure, reasonable skepticism gets us to a good solid starting point to remove flawed beliefs but there is a need to move beyond skepticism if it removes any sureness of things that are actually demonstrative as true then to me it can become pseudo skeptic and denialist thinking.

Granted, I do think all claims or beliefs we think are true should be open to challenge and reassessment and if found wanting corrected or abandoned. Scientific skepticism is also called rational skepticism, and it is sometimes referred to as skeptical inquiry. I see philosophy as a set of tools, some are viral, some not needed as much but still useful, other not very useful but still needed and others just some gimmick people were conned into buying that is entirely unusual and even harmful.

I am not anti-skeptical or anti-skeptic it is just not the accurate label for my thinking. if the term “Skeptic” was limited to only methodological skepticism I would champion the term as well. I think skeptic should automatically infer the methodological skepticism approach and likewise denialist thinking should not be seen as a true philosophical approach to skepticism as there is a difference between a skeptic and denialist.

*Denialist “pseudo-skeptics” are often religionists, magical thinkers, conspiracy theorist, supporters of woo woo, and other whack jobs these days. Religion and other magical thinking woo woo distorts reality. How can we expect people to make rational decisions when they believe in non-reality as if it is reality?

Reasonable skepticism to me is or should be more about the process of applying reason and critical thinking to determine validity or reliable reason or evidence. It’s the process of finding a supported conclusion, not the justification of a preconceived conclusion. 1234

By Damien Marie AtHope