If I never look, I will always find only what I am looking for, which is, simply, nothing if I never looked. 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 vice 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? I like to say I am a rationalist atheist it’s not that I don’t value Skepticism as I do as a tool to minimize errors. I see skepticism as a way to protect against or remove falsehoods, but think in the unbelief community it is over emphasized from a tool to a full way of being. I don’t see it as a way of being for me as it in no way is a method to bring truth nor new knowledge. Skepticism is defined as the method of suspended judgment, systematic doubt, an attitude of doubt or a disposition to incredulity either in general or toward a particular object, or doubt concerning basic religious principles (as immortality, providence, and revelation). People who call themselves skeptics say it’s about critical thinking but if you look up critical thinking it never even mentions skepticism. The National Council for Excellence in Critical Thinking (a non-profit organization based in the U.S.) defines critical thinking as the intellectually disciplined process of actively and skillfully conceptualizing, applying, analyzing, synthesizing, and/or evaluating information gathered from, or generated by, observation, experience, reflection, reasoning, or communication, as a guide to belief and action. https://www.criticalthinking.org/pages/defining-critical-thinking/766

Rationalism is defined as the belief that reason and experience and not emotions or religious beliefs should be the basis for your actions, opinions, etc. Rationalism was first formulated in classical times by philosophers such as Socrates and Plato. Rationalism thinking should strive to be consistent with logic, a rationalist must be as free from logical fallacies as possible, striving for critical thinking. Many of the Socratic dialogues would use a conversational process to work out logical inconsistencies in ideas that were held by contemporaries to be “common sense,” such as the definition of “the good.” The term is more commonly used to refer to a synthesis of continental rationalism with its former rival philosophy, empiricism. This rationalism holds that empirical observation is more useful than intuition for gaining one’s starting axioms, but one can use deductive reasoning from these axioms just as well. The best embodiment of this way of gaining knowledge is the scientific method; hence, rationalists tend to give high regard to science, designating it as the primary or sole proper source of truth. http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Rationalism
Moreover, rationalism as a philosophy added to atheism or nonbelief can be further defined as using reason and logic as the reliable basis for testing any claims of truth, seeking objective knowledge about reality, making judgments and drawing conclusions about the limits of reality and in that way rejecting supernatural nonreality. To me, rationalism as a philosophy cares about that which is ethical and moral. What is ethical or good and bad, unethical or evil are variations of human interaction not in any way in reality attached to some other worldly opinions. Good, Bad or Evil to me have nothing to do with superstition nonsense like sin or violations of some arbitrary religious obligations. In the age of reason we are not limited to myths or religion moral theorizing. As atheists or even the scientific evidence minded we can realizing the bad unethical or harm behavior which causes moral outrage (what I deem as evil) no longer should be confused as tied to mystic religious questions with their superstition answers or even left as questions only for philosophy. But more rightly the questions of good, ethical or bad, unethical and evil behaviors must also involve formal axiology, psychology, sociology, neurology, biology as well as should be viewed from an evolutionary perspective.
Many rationalists will possibly hold that since the god concept is not a logically well-defined nor a meaningful concept, all definitions of god in any religious thinking runs into contradictions and logical inconsistency. Therefore, the existence of god or other connected supernatural nonreality are both logically meaningless to a rationalist. A rationalist thus will likely take a noncognitivist or ignosticism position in the god or supernatural context. Ignosticism or igtheism is the idea that every theological position assumes too much about the concept of God and other theological concepts; including (but not limited to) concepts of faith, spirituality, heaven, hell, afterlife, damnation, salvation, sin and the soul. Ignosticism is the view that any religious term or theological concept presented must be accompanied by a coherent definition. Without a clear definition such terms cannot be meaningfully discussed. Such terms or concepts must also be falsifiable. Lacking this an ignostic takes the theological noncognitivist position that the existence or nature of the terms presented (and all matters of debate) is meaningless. For example, if the term “God” does not refer to anything reasonably defined then there is no conceivable method to test against the existence of god. Therefore the term “God” has no literal significance and need not be debated or discussed. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignosticism
“The scientific method is the best way yet discovered for deciphering the truth from lies and delusion.”
— the three pillars of the Scientific Method
What is scientific thinking? At this point, it is customary to discuss questions, observations, data, hypotheses, testing, and theories, which are the formal parts of the scientific method, but these are NOT the most important components of the scientific method. The scientific method is practiced within a context of scientific thinking, and scientific (and critical) thinking is based on three things: using empirical evidence (empiricism), practicing logical reasoning (rationalism), and possessing a skeptical attitude (skepticism) about presumed knowledge that leads to self-questioning, holding tentative conclusions, and being undogmatic (willingness to change one’s beliefs). These three ideas or principles are universal throughout science; without them, there would be no scientific or critical thinking. http://pbisotopes.ess.sunysb.edu/esp/files/scientific-method.html

To me a good use of rationality is to test concepts with skeptical thinking to see if one has errors, if so use rationalism again to clarify them and find truth belief which is knowledge. So it is not excluding the use of skepticism just not holding skeptical thinking as a main focus instead as I see it rationalism and rational thinking is the star. 

As a rationalist I strongly stand up for reality

“Damien, do you believe creation could be a possibility yet very improbable, even life itself at a single cell level evolving there after pending creator’s Omnipotence, Omniscience, Omnipresence ???” – Questioner

My response, “I can only assess the possibility of things from the reference limited to reality, so no.”

“Reality as determined through a sensory filter that demonstrably cannot detect 90% of said reality. We’re peeking in on reality through a keyhole. There’s more than meets the eye. While nothing is what it seems, how can what we see be what we get?” – Challenger

My response, Reality is only assessed by tests in reality so do you have some valid non-realty method?

“Those tests are unfortunately locked onto our sensory filter. Our senses are fallible and only work on 10% of the bigger picture.” – Challenger

My response, so, no test method that is outside reality means all we know as I said is reality, right?

“We don’t know what reality is, dear friend. In fact the brightest minds in the world are leaning towards the nature of reality being in fact, not at all real. ” – Challenger

To make the “anti-claim” is a hidden acceptance of reality to gain such knowledge so you already are seemingly agreeing with my reality to know reality starting point. If you don’t start with my reality point what do you think you gather this claimed non-reality evidence that we do not know reality? I feel your claim attaches not an understanding of reality to even then go to justifying it thus you appeal presuppositional to the thing you mean to use to then say you don’t know it but you claim to know that so a full knowledge claim of a lack of knowledge claim?

“I don’t believe in reality, Damien. My own research has lead me to the conclusion that reality is a simulation. How can I accept any individual’s interpretation of reality when I don’t believe in reality?” – Challenger

My response, you don’t believe in reality because what justification that is not appealing to this reality? To ask, “How can I accept any individual’s interpretation of reality” is a what doubt of yourself or others? You already said the opposite, that you believe the thinking of the brightest minds in the world are leaning towards the nature of reality being in fact, not at all real. So, you appealed both to the reality of others and that they can be trusted, right?

“I don’t believe in reality for a vast array of reasons. I could never sum it up in a simple phrase. For instance the relativistic effect of supposed reality makes me suspect of its true nature. Everything about reality is relative to the consciousness interpreting it. There’s no static reality, what us true for some minds is false to others and vice versa.” – Challenger

My response, So, is this “relativistic effect” is a test in reality or outside reality, or some other non-reality thing? “Everything about reality is relative to the consciousness interpreting it.” Let’s ponder this knowledge claim about reality, claiming to know but not? You know this or do you simply like it and I guess, are unjustifiably believe this?

“Sure. Reality to an insect colony is nothing like reality for a bird, or indeed a human consciousness. The world is wholly different to each individual consciousness, and in this strict context they’re mutually valid.” – Challenger

My response, Relativistic effects are important for the heavier elements with high atomic numbers. So you agree there is reality just how we understand it is not complete?

“Time is also relative. Two minds experiencing the same thing can have totally opposite interpretation. No, I simply don’t believe in reality.” – Challenger

My response, ok, but that is referring to different perception in reality not a removing of reality, right?

“Yes but the fact that these two totally conflicting view points both carry equal validity means that consensus reality and personal reality are two different things. There’s so many kinds of reality that you can’t peg down a definition. Attempts to do so are at least esoteric and at most nebulous. Indeed why believe in reality at all? I can’t think of one reason. ” – Challenger

My response, that is not how science works as there are better models and less effective models and you have not yet used an effective model outside reality to make a anti-reality claim and so do many smart people, so they are like most making unjustified claims about reality all the while appealing to reality (all can and do error even me but that does not remove truth does it. Don’t forget you did make several seeming truth claims.

“I have the simulation hypothesis. Research it, my friend. ” – Challenger

My response, thinking is occurring and it is both accessible as well as guided by what feels like me; thus, it is rational to assume I have a thinking mind, so, I exist. But, some skeptics challenge reality or certainty (although are themselves appealing to reason or rationality that it self they seem to accept almost a priori themselves to me). Brain in a vat or jar, Evil Demon in your mind, Matrix world as your mind, & Hologram world as your reality are some arguments in the denial or challenge of reality or certainty.

The use of “Brain in a vat” type thought experiment scenarios are common as an argument for philosophical skepticism and solipsism, against rationalism and empiricism or any belief in the external world’s existence. Such thought experiment arguments do have a value are with the positive intent to draw out certain features or remove unreasoned certainty in our ideas of knowledge, reality, truth, mind, and meaning. However, these are only valuable as though challenges to remember the need to employ Disciplined-Rationality and the ethics of belief, not to take these thought experiment arguments as actual reality. Brain in a vat/jar, Evil Demon, Matrix world, and Hologram world are logical fallacies if assumed as a reality representations. First is the problem that they make is a challenge (alternative hypotheses) thus requiring their own burden of proof if they are to be seen as real. Second is the problem that they make in the act of presupposition in that they presuppose the reality of a real world with factual tangible things like Brains and that such real things as human brains have actual cognition and that there are real world things like vats or jars and computers invented by human beings with human real-world intelligence and will to create them and use them for intellectually meaningful purposes. Third is the problem of valid and reliable slandered as doubt is an intellectual professes needing to offer a valid and reliable slandered to who, what, why, and how they are proposing Philosophical Skepticism, Solipsism and the Denial of Reality or Certainty. Though one cannot on one had say I doubt everything and not doubt even that. One cannot say nothing can be known for certain, as they violate this very thought, as they are certain there is no certainty. The ability to think of reasonable doubt (methodological Skepticism) counteracts the thinking of unreasonable doubt (Philosophical Skepticism’s external world doubt and Solipsism). Philosophical skepticism is a method of reasoning which questions the possibility of knowledge is different than methodological skepticism is a method of reasoning, which questions knowledge claims with the goal finding what has warrant, justification to validate the truth or false status of beliefs or propositions. Fourth is the problem that external world doubt and Solipsism creates issues of reproducibility, details and extravagancy. Reproducibility such as seen in experiments, observation and real world evidence, scientific knowledge, scientific laws, and scientific theories. Details such as the extent of information to be contained in one mind such as trillions of facts and definable data and/or evidence. And extravagancy such as seen in the unreasonable amount of details in general and how that also brings the added strain to reproducibility and memorability. Extravagancy in the unreasonable amount of details also interacts with axiological and ethical reasoning such as why if there is no real world would you create rape, torture, or suffering of almost unlimited variations. Why not just rape but child rape not just torture but that of innocent children who would add that and the thousands of ways it can and does happen in the external world. Extravagancy is unreasonable, why a massive of cancers and infectious things, millions of ways to be harmed, suffer and die etc. There is a massive amount of extravagancy in infectious agents if the external world was make-believe because of infectious agents come in an unbelievable variety of shapes, sizes and types like bacteria, viruses, fungi, protozoa, and parasites. Therefore, the various types of pleasure and pain both seem an unreasonable extravagancy in a fake external world therefore the most reasonable conclusion is the external world is a justified true belief. Fifth is the problem that axiological or ethical thinking would say we only have what we understand and must curtail behavior ethically to such understanding. Think of ability to give consent having that reasoning ability brings with it the requirement of being responsible for our behaviors. If one believes the external world is not real, they remove any value (axiology) in people, places or things and if the external world is not real there is no behavior or things to interact with (ethics) so nothing can be helped or harmed by actions as there is no actions or ones acting them or having them acting for or against. In addition, if we do not know is we are actually existing or behaving in the real world we also are not certain we are not either, demanding that we must act as if it is real (pragmatically) do to ethical and axiological concerns which could be true. Because if we do act ethically and the reality of the external world is untrue we have done nothing but if we act unethical as if the reality of the external world is untrue and it is in fact real we have done something to violate ethics. Then the only right way to navigate the ethics of belief in such matters would say one should behave as though the external world is real. In addition, axiological or ethical thinking and the cost-benefit analysis of belief in the existence of the external world support and highly favors belief in the external world’s existence. Solipsism (from Latin solus, meaning “alone”, and ipse, meaning “self”) is the philosophical idea that only one’s own mind is sure to exist. To me, solipsism is trying to limit itself to rationalism only to, of, or by itself. Everyone, including a Solipsist, as the mind to which all possible knowledge flows; consider this, if you think you can reject rational thinking as the base of everything, what other standard can you champion that does not at its core return to the process of mind as we do classify people by intelligence. If you cannot use rationalism what does this mean, irrationalism? A Solipsist, is appealing to rationalism as we only have our mind or the minds of others to help navigate the world accurately as possible. Okay let’s think about your claim, “I have the simulation hypothesis.” in which I am guessing, you don’t appeal to anything in reality to reach such a thinking?

“Do the research. Yes it’s a testable hypothesis, and some scientists are so convinced that they’re looking for errors in the code. You don’t mean to tell me you’re afraid of a little research? No, I won’t spoon feed it to you. The keys are in your hands. ” – Challenger

My response, I already have and I reject it fully, as I did here; unless if you now can disprove all my challenges about the starting point philosophic reference being the reality your effort to use to deny reality relatively not objectively and you think I am the one needing more research? Okay let’s think about your claim, “a testable hypothesis” in which I am guessing, you don’t appeal to anything in reality to reach such a thinking?

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. 

Ontology, Epistemology, & Axiology argument/challenge protocol

Ontology (Greek meaning ontos, “being; that which is”; and logos meaning “discourse, study, ratio, calculation, reason”) Ontology is the philosophical study of the nature of being, becoming, existence, or reality, as well as the basic categories of being and their relations.

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 is the investigation of what distinguishes justified belief from opinion.

Axiology (Greek meaning axia, “value, worth”; and logos meaning “discourse, study, ratio, calculation, reason”) it is the philosophical study of value as well as ethics and aesthetics. Formal Axiology is a specific branch of the science of Axiology. Axiology also studies of goodness, value or worth, in the widest sense of these terms. Its significance lies in the unification that it has provided for the study of a variety of questions—economic, moral, aesthetic, and even logical—that had often been considered in relative isolation.

“The Hammer of Truth” is the use of Ontology, Epistemology and Axiology questions to remove errors and add accuracy. It is also my folk name for Scientific Philosophy: Ontology, Epistemology, and Axiology”

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.

(OEA challenge protocol; is part of my, Methodological Rationalism approach)

Expressed in its simplest form, The Hammer of Truth: Ontology, Epistemology and Axiology. We and credible thinkers should adopt rationality assumptions, as necessary constraints on interpretation, as well as practical issues in addressing methodological problems faced by:

gatherers: “Ontology”, inquisitors: “Epistemology”, & judgers: “Axiology.”


“The Hammer of Truth: Ontology, Epistemology and Axiology”


Mock Debate court using the “Hammer of Truth”

  1. Ontology “Reality” questions/assertion: Witness gives evidence about the claim.
  1. Epistemology “Truth” questions/assertion: Lawyer searches for warrant or justification for the claim.
  1. Axiology “Goodness-for” questions/assertion: Judge assesses and value judges because of qualities in or lacking in the claim.

Always try to follow this attack order:

*Ontology, (understanding the thingness of things; like what is or can be real, like not god)

-What is your claim?

-What aspects must be there for your claim?

-What makes your claim different than other similar claims?

*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?

*Axiology (understanding what is good or valuable as well as what is evil or unvaluable like how the stories about theist theistic gods are often racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic intersexphobic, xenophobic, etc. Thus, they are directly against humanity and thus are evil and unvaluable. Unvaluable; as in the god concept you have is evil and demonstrably harmful and thus is highly unvaluable to humanity)

-Why are your objects of proposed value subjective psychological states or objective physiological external world states for your claim?

-Why do your purposed descriptive words fit qualities for valuation (such as “powerful”, “knowing”, and “present” in the Omnipotent: all-powerful, Omniscient: all-knowing, and Omnipresent: all-present god assertion) your claim?

-Why is your value-for, worth-for, and/or goodness-for claims different than other similar claims?

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)

Let’s look at the “gOD claim” with the Hammer of Truth

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.

Axiological Atheism Explained