For the Love of Firebrand Atheism?
I am a firebrand atheist some call this being militant but I ask you how militant is it just too strongly defend reality from those who wish to impose it be burdened with false claims of things like ghosts, goblins, or god. Being a Firebrand Atheist is about speaking out against harmful ideas, bigotry and lies often used by religions and its followers of god believers it is attacking this very thing of unjustifiable superstitious or supernatural thinking and not directed at the people believing it unless they are actively promoting the harming of others. I wish secularism, not some atheist world domination, although it would be nice if the world collectively woke up to the crazy thought that Naturalism is all there is. I don’t wish some dark place of servitude, to the contrary as a secularist I wish freedom of all religious and nonreligious alike and actively opposed the fanatic theists or religionists from imposing some theocracy oppression they commonly seek. Furthermore, as a firebrand atheist secularist I do not in anyway support harm to believers or removing of rights to freely believe if people so wish but I will boldly call it out as the lies it is. I hate religion ideas as the mind twisting properties they can be I do not religious people, especially ones who live in peace. And what must be understood is not all hate is bad, as the hate of injustice in the positive motivation for justice whereas the hate of people is often the motivation for injustice. And that is the bedrock of having a positive motivation for justice and a hate of injustice that my firebrand atheism strongly sits on. I am at my greatest as an activist, not when I fight for my rights alone but when I also champion the rights of others. Every time others are unkind, unfair, or unjust to me I take it as a call for me to polish up on my sensitivity to the needs of kindness, fairness, and justice for everyone around me. Oh, the torturous roads we often find ourselves on. What dark passengers do we harbor in our angered tongues? How far do we go in a land laid bare in its corrupt impregnated hate of people and selfishness? And on that downtrodden conception of this sad reality one question rings in my mind, what am I willing to do to make things better? The epistemical character (epistemic rationality) of a thinker is proportional to the level of willingness to allow for the open invitation of new ideas and the removal or updating of old ideas for ones found with a greater accuracy. We cannot let science and evolution to be contaminated with the putrid stench of pseudo-science called creationism or intelligent design, which does not even reach the level of good science fiction. While I don’t see all hate as unbeneficial, it would be wrong to not acknowledge hates massive juggernaut like power to destroy, to do otherwise would be to open up one’s thinking to potential error. Hate, too often you are my guilty pleasure. Hate, like a toxic lover I reject you only to ask you back again. Hate, you are the starvation of a clear mind like no other. Hate is the poison one willingly gives to themselves which kills their peace. Hate is but a coffin nail in the wellspring of new growth. Hate, may I divorce you from my mind as much as is reasonable, reaching out from your crushing depths to the arms of hope found in love. I hate bad harmful ideas and their destructive and humanity corrosive behaviors, and not unharmful people who may believe some outlandish things. I do respect people, I do not respect religion. I believe in people, I do not believe in religion. Tolerance has its limits for it will not stand for blind ignorance and the intolerance of bigotry and it’s connected injustice cross that line first. I will NOT tolerate the unjust intolerance of oppression and harm. An epistemically virtuous person is a critical thinker through and through, with such qualities as curiosity, caution, conscientiousness, coachability, creativity, imaginativeness, interpretive sensitivity, intellectual honesty, intellectual humility, and impartiality. Epistemic of or relating to knowledge or the conditions for acquiring it. Ref Epistemology (from Greek epistēmē, meaning ‘knowledge’, and logos, meaning ‘logical discourse’) is the branch of philosophy concerned with the theory of knowledge. Epistemology studies the nature of knowledge, justification, and the rationality of belief. Much of the debate in epistemology centers on four areas: (1) the philosophical analysis of the nature of knowledge and how it relates to such concepts as truth, belief, and justification, (2) various problems of skepticism, (3) the sources and scope of knowledge and justified belief, and (4) the criteria for knowledge and justification. Epistemology addresses such questions as “What makes justified beliefs justified?”, what does it mean to say that one knows something? and fundamentally, how do we know that we know? Ref Lines of evidence: The science of evolution? At the heart of evolutionary theory is the basic idea that life has existed for billions of years and has changed over time. Overwhelming evidence supports this fact. Scientists continue to argue about details of evolution, but the question of whether life has a long history or not was answered in the affirmative at least two centuries ago. The history of living things is documented through multiple lines of evidence that converge to tell the story of life through time. The lines of evidence that are used to reconstruct this story. These lines of evidence include:
*Fossil evidence
*Distribution in time and space Ref
Creationism is nothing but a debunked religious conspiracy theory of reality.

In life, we may be both loved and hated for the very same thing. As hard as it can be to understand some people will hate you while others want nothing but to love you and which one it is may be more about others than always pointing to something we did or who we are. In your supported god beliefs, where is your constancy to any coherent evidence? As faith, I remind you, is one’s feelings about a belief and in no way coherent evidence by itself. Supporting pseudoscience is to open up otherwise good thinkers to epistemological oppression and reasoning harm, stop supporting religious nonsense. I strive to be a freethinker and to me, a free-thinker is not the same as non-thinker, anything-thinker, nor an irrational thinker. Freethinker how I see it means one engages in epistemically open thinking not being so dogmatic one blocks new thinking if it is warranted. If science disagrees, one would be very hard pressed to demonstrate that they are connected to valid and reliable reason and evidence to not deserve the title of pseudoscience. I often look back on my life and it is hard to imagine those challenges that seemed so impassable and unachievable have disappeared. Now they seem manageable and insignificant. I must never forget my trials and struggles to achieve my triumphs. I must be slow to judge others and see where I can promote change not just be irritated by the strife. Through my personal understanding, I must remember to give others who are struggling gentleness and patience. Now I look forward to my future. I have said a lot and must stay humble, remembering the strongest truth that I am responsible. I must hold dear my thirst for life and remember that all its joy can only happen through my internal change. 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 as well as contradicts each other requiring a conclusion of atheism (lack of belief or disbelief in theism).

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.

Out Atheist?
I am so out about my disbelief as I support reality and not because I feel better that a believer in supernatural things, gods or religions. Actually, I too once was the same until somewhat late in my life. In fact, I did not stop being this way until I was 36. I am so open now with good belief etiquette focusing on reasoned belief acquisitions, good belief maintenance, as well as honest belief relinquishment and challenging not out of hate or loathing, but out of deep compassion and understanding. This care wishes to save the indoctrinated victims of magical thinking falsehoods. I wish then self-esteem, self-ownership, self-leadership, self-efficiency, self-empowerment, self-love and self-mastery all of which can and in some way, are undermined by God’s and Religions; which either directly attack/challenge or subvert in some lesser realized way. Did you know Moses write nor asked for the writing of the Torah, the first five books Jewish holy book (the old testament)? Well, Moses didn’t, and neither did Jesus write nor asked for the writing of anything not one word in the Bible, just like how Mohammed did not write nor asked for the writing of the Quran: holy book of Islam. Do you see a theme? Well, here you go, because neither did Lao-Tzu write nor asked for the writing of the Tao Te Ching, the holy book of Taoism, and guess what neither did Gautama Buddha (the first Buddha) write nor asked for the writing of a book in Buddhism. And what do you know just like all the rest neither did nor guru Nanak write nor asked for the writing of Guru Gobind Singh the holy book in Sikhism. Funny isn’t it how almost all of the world’s religions share the same facts that the claimed holy teacher never wrote their holy book and for that matter are not even sure if they are historical or made up. But please don’t say they were not fake or that we don’t know the truth about them. Ha, ha, ha, please, I feel safe in my anti-religionism, thank you very much. I wish more than simply inspiring doubt in gods and religion. I wish to expose the errors in believing that allows Belief to be maintained as reasonable, warranted, justified or supported. I wish to highlight the many errors in the thinking offered as well as the many faulty presuppositions used trying to maintain as reasonable, warranted, justified or supported; removing all of their credibility to believe in them or to keep believing. Just remember a simple rule all beliefs need something to support them or they are at best unsupported accepted assertions, arguments or ideas. At worst completely baseless, misinterpreted confusions, or outright falsehoods. See it’s like this if one feels something requires faith (unsupported cognition of acceptance) to see the thing as real; without realizing it, one has affirmed that such a thing is not likely a true part of reality. My atheism is a fell defended and philosophically rich nonbelief/disbelief position or style and its well supported thinking of axiological atheism. Axiological (value theory or value science; a social science) atheist. Or put it in an easier way think of it kind of like moral argument reasoned and ethical driven strong atheism (disbelief in god’s). Axiological atheism: (Ethical/Value theory Reasoned and Moral Argument driven) Atheism, Anti-theism, Anti-religionism, and Secular Humanism. Axiological atheism = Strong Disbelief as well as Strong Secularism and Humanism. To learn more check out: “Axiological Atheism Explained”

But Why do I Hate Religion?
I was asked why I openly and publicly am so passionate in my hate of religion. further asking what specifically in your life contributed to this outcome. I hate harm, oppression, bigotry, and love equality, self-ownership, self-empowerment, self-actualization, and self-mastery, as well as truth and not only does religion lie, it is a conspiracy theory of reality. Moreover, not only is religion a conspiracy theory of reality, it is a proud supporter of pseudohistory and or pseudoscience they also push pseudomorality. Religion on the whole to me deserves and earns hate, or at least disfavor when you really analyze it. Not to mention the corruption it has on politics or laws. As well as how destructive this unworthy political influence has and creates because of these false beliefs and the harm to the life of free adults but to the lives of innocent children as well (often robbed of the right to choose and must suffer indoctrination) as the disruption of educated even in public schools. Etc…
I as others do have the right to voice our beliefs, just as I or others then have the right to challenge voiced beliefs.
Long live mental freedom…

I am a firebrand atheist roughly understood as outspoken atheism which for most who don’t know is in contrast with quiet personal atheism or atheist accommodationism. “Accommodationist” atheists are those who frown upon outspoken atheism or atheists who publicly attack gods or religious beliefs, most especially because they think people have the right to religious beliefs and believe firebrand atheism risks alienating so called open-minded liberal and moderate religious people, hinder support for separation of church and state, or other crucial matters of public policy.

To the thought of “accommodationism” atheist, I just say “NO” as I am a firebrand atheist and that is not to be against others choice of atheists styles. It is just my style and one I champion. According to an atheist philosopher Daniel Fincke “Anti-Accommodationism” is pro-philosophy. Anyway, I oppose anything even like religion including atheist church but that’s just me.

Some with the accommodationist approach seem to champion religious freedom while not extending this believed equality to outspoken atheism as I have been chastised by such atheist accommodationists many times and thus there are those using this accommodationism in regards to the separation of church and state opposes the separationist approach which has been dominant in the courts. According to accommodationists, the First Amendment should be read much more narrowly than it has been in recent years. Some go so far as to argue that the First Amendment prohibits the government from doing nothing other than creating a National Church and everything else is permitted. Some “accommodationist” atheist may prefer to be “semi-accommodationist” only okay with opposition to the bad stuff religion does.

Accommodationists, for example, usually look unfavorably as what is labeled “New Atheism” automatically seeing firebrand atheists as roughly New Atheism or an outgrowth of New Atheism. This thinking is wrong as to me atheist accommodationism is the “New Atheism” as old atheism is largely outspoken atheism. Of course, atheism was and is oppressed and could and still can get you hurt and or killed so quiet personal atheism was always a forced rather than happy uncoerced chosen norm. During the early modern period, the term “atheist” was used as an insult and applied to a broad range of people, including those who held opposing theological beliefs as well as immoral or self-indulgent people. Atheistic beliefs were seen as threatening to order and society by philosophers such as Thomas Aquinas 1225 to 1274 a Roman Catholic priest to Thomas More Lord High Chancellor of England 1529 to 1532 said that religious tolerance should be extended to all except atheists and John Locke 1632 to 1704, a founder of modern notions of religious liberty, argued that atheists should not be granted full citizenship rights.

Discrimination against atheists, both at present and historically, includes the persecution of those identifying themselves or labeled by others as atheists, as well as the discrimination against them. As atheism can be defined in various ways, those discriminated against on the grounds of being atheists might not have been considered as such in a different time or place. As of 2015, it was noted that 19 countries punish their citizens for apostasy, and in 13 of those countries it is punishable by death.

What is labeled “New Atheism” is seen as outspoken atheism or firebrand atheism and is far from anything “New”. We see such thinking in Robert Ingersoll 1833 to 1899 an American lawyer, political leader, and orator of disbelief in the United States during the Golden Age of Free Thought. The Golden Age of Free Thought is roughly from 1875 to 1914 and is referred to as “the high-water mark of freethought as an influential movement in American society”.

Although the Golden Age of Free Thought should more rightly be thought to have begun around 1856 with the publication and popularization of Charles Darwin’s Origin of Species, as well as the push for woman’s suffrage, and other political, scientific, and social trends that clashed with religious orthodoxy and caused people to question their traditional ideas about the world. Freethought is a philosophical position that holds that ideas and opinions should be based on science and reason, and not restricted by authority, tradition, or religion.

Moreover, greats of the past who championed firebrand atheism or outspoken atheism are not limited to Robert Ingersoll, we have Sigmund Freud, Karl Marx, and David Hume just to highlight few.

Sigmund Freud 1856 to 1939 the father of psychology, was an uncompromising out atheist who wrote in his book “The Future of an Illusion,” where he described belief in god as a collective neurosis. Freud regarded god as an illusion, based on the infantile need for a powerful father figure which can be set aside in favor of reason and science.

Karl Marx 1818 to 1883 a philosopher and revolutionary socialist and published The Communist Manifesto in 1848 is said to disliking religion and their gods for at least three reasons. First, they are irrational, as in religion is a delusion and a worship that avoids recognizing reality. Second, religion negates all that is dignified in a human being rendering them submissive and more accepting the status quo. Third, religion is hypocritical. Marx stated “I hate all gods,” with addition that they “do not recognize man’s self-consciousness as the highest divinity.” “Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world” and “Religion is the opium of the people or masses.”

David Hume 1711 to 1776 a Scottish philosopher who is best known today for his highly influential system of radical empiricism, skepticism, and naturalism. Hume, asserts that certainty about anything is impossible, so one can never know for sure whether or not a god exists. However, Hume held that such unobservable metaphysical concepts as gods should be rejected as “sophistry and illusion”.

But out atheism goes further back as far back as 2,570 to 2,270 years ago.

Between 2,570 – 2,270 years ago there is a conformation of doubting as well as atheistic thinking mainly by Greek philosophers. However, doubting gods is likely as old as the invention of gods which should erode the thinking that belief in god(s) belief is some “default.” The Greek word is apistos (a “not” and pistos “faithful,”) thus not faithful or faithless because one is unpersuaded and unconvinced by god. Short Definition: unbelieving or unbeliever. Likewise, apistia derived from apistos, signifies unbelief.

Xenophanes who lived around 2,570 to 2,475 years ago is known for composing the first recorded atheistic critics, and famously stated “Men create the gods in their own image.” Xenophanes’ surviving writings display a skepticism that became more commonly expressed during the fourth century. He satirized traditional religious views of his time as human projections and once said “But mortals think that the gods are born and have the mortals’ own clothes and voice and form.” Xenophanes was critical of claims of the anthropomorphic conception of gods, summarized as, if cattle, horses and lions had hands or could paint with their hands and create works such as men do, they would like humans depict the gods’ shapes like their bodies of such a sort as the form they themselves have so horses would make their gods like horses, cattle would make their gods like cattle, and lions would make their gods like lions also. We see this in how Ethiopians of central eastern Africa say that their gods are snub–nosed and black while the Thracians of southeastern Europe say that they gods are pale and red-haired.

According to The Story of Civilization book series certain African pygmy tribes from around 2,400 to 2,500 years ago have no identifiable gods, spirits, or religious beliefs or rituals and even what burials accrue are without ceremony.

Democritus, who lived around 2,460 to 2,370 years ago, considered to be the “father of modern science” possibly had some disbelief amounting to atheism.

Around 2,430 years ago, we know Diagoras of Melos was accused by Greek courts of charges amounting to atheism and fled punishment.

Around 2,399 years ago, we know Socrates was accused by Greek courts of charges amounting to atheism of the gods that the city acknowledges thus was sentenced to death.

Epicurus who lived around 2,341 to 2,270 years ago is known for composing atheistic critics, and famously stated “Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him god?”

Again I will proudly state I am a firebrand atheist, but to me there is no one right way to be an atheist. Atheism is done right if it is stopping belief in gods and it is not for everyone to have to be outspoken to the world as if that is the only worthy atheism style.

I have been helped a lot by atheists who were just being my friend and supporting me and never even telling anyone they are atheist. If you can and it is safe and you want to be out as an atheist, it can be rewarding but it is not an all or nothing. We all do a lot supporting each other in the cause of a reality devoid of god superstitions. I was once asked if I was an angry atheist. In said I am not really an angry atheist but I am a firebrand atheist, so I am outspoken with passion. My moto is always try to attack thinking not people. I believe in people. I just don’t believe in gods or religions. I want to make a positive difference in the world with my atheism.

Firebrand atheism, is people standing up against the lie of god and the indoctrination of lies that is religion. We ignite excitement, action and change in the cause of reality. By challenging, exposing or insulting the inaccuracies and flawed reasoning, found in faith, gods, and other outdated untrue beliefs or methods. Like all reason-motivated atheism, firebrand atheists fight for freedom from the mental enslavement found in religious dogmatic-propaganda. Firebrand Atheism is a community of outspoken atheists with the goal of creating awareness, but we do this with strong challenge, free of aggression; knowing aggression is only needed when your argument is weak.

When your argument is strong, as the truth of atheism is, its power has no need for aggression, and is only hindered by adding it. Firebrand atheists are reality revolutionaries, we will no longer be quiet, why, because we care too damn much. Never again will we close our eyes to the harms of religion or faith in imaginary things like gods.

Humans are prone to thinking errors, especially when they are uninformed and when they are limited to themselves and only a simple amount of knowledge about the world without science.  For instance, if you are sitting or standing or lying down and not in motion you would say you are in a fixed place in time and space even common sense would seem to support this thinking however, you are on a planet that is spinning on an axis and it is likewise hurling through space in a revolving pattern around the sun. So without science understanding one may be fooled into thinking things that in reality are just not true. Some people think I tell about the flaw in thinking theism is true as some ploy to convert people to atheism. But this thinking is in error. I only want people to believe what is true and it just so happens that truth of the real proven world is in line with atheism.

Atheism is not looking for followers, it is a conclusion that the god claims are devoid of supporting evidence and are left with supported wishful thinking hopes of finite beings fearful of death and wanting to have control and hope in an often grubby often painful as much as pleasurable dangerous short life. You think looking honestly at the evidence available and not making things up needs to be promoted in some better way so people like it that sounds odd but how about the joy of intellectual honesty without myths devoid of reality for one. So, I say firebrand atheists unite. We heed the call, because we are firebrand atheists, won’t you join us. And if your local to Washington state think of joining My Firebrand Atheism Meetup:

Firebrand Atheists Unite……

By Damien Marie AtHope




Ps. Firebrand atheism, is people standing up against the lie of god and the indoctrination of lies that is religion. We ignite excitement, action and change in the cause of reality. By challenging, exposing or insulting the inaccuracies and flawed reasoning, found in faith, gods, and other outdated untrue beliefs or methods. Like all reason-motivated atheism, firebrand atheists fight for freedom from the mental enslavement found in religious dogmatic-propaganda. Firebrand Atheism is a community of outspoken atheists with the goal of creating awareness, but we do this with strong challenge, free of aggression; knowing aggression is only needed when your argument is weak. When your argument is strong, as the truth of atheism is, its power has no need for aggression, and is only hindered by adding it. Firebrand atheists are reality revolutionaries, we will no longer be quiet, why, because we care too damn much. Never again will we close our eyes to the harms of religion or faith in imaginary things like gods. We heed the call, because we are firebrand atheists, won’t you join us. I like almost all other atheists, who are actively outspoken am a Firebrand not a militant. Here is why just read the definitions:
*Fire·brand: noun “identify a class of people,” a person who is passionate about a particular cause, typically inciting change and taking radical action. (intellectually challenging not physical aggression and or confrontation methods)
*Mil·i·tant: adjective “naming behavioral attributes,” combative and aggressive in support of a particular cause, and typically favoring extreme, violent, or confrontational methods.