Religion’s slave no more?
Plage infested mind the religion virus, is strongly in control of all but a few truly free minds humanities last hope made true. But the religion master is relentless traping every mind it can, forcing its will on humanity. Yet, here I am, a religion slave no more, just as so many before me, the ones that cut out this religious cancer. Now I too ripped myself from this eternal death of truth as religions conspiracies-of-reality force ‘TRUTH” to walk the deadman’s plank of the faith damned. I for one am a religion slave no more!
Am I a survivor?
I fell as you tripped me again and from your hate, I remove myself from such mind and being corruption freely walking into the gates of love so longed for. You have not beaten me, you cannot stop me, you don’t want me to live, to thrive, to be all the best I can be but you hate and yet I am still here, a survivor, a full life liver, a thriver, as well as a warrior for kindness and compassion, reaching the care I was rarely offered, as a gift to the ones so desperately oppressed under your harsh gaze. May we all be free and the positive best we can be, I know I am as best I can. I am here growing stronger every day. Who am I, you ask, I respond loud and proud, I am a survivor and even in these chains from my past, you will not stop me.
I am a survivor!
I am a firebrand atheist, but to me, there is no 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 just being my friend and supporting me never even telling anyone they are atheist. If you can and it is safe and you want to being out as an atheist 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 asked if I was an angry atheist. No, I am not an angry atheist but I am a firebrand atheist, so I am outspoken. Though my moto is, attack thinking not people. I believe in people I just don’t believe in gods or religions. If religious people comment on my page I try to inform them not abuse them. I want to make a positive difference in the world with my atheism. But I am also not just limited to nonbelief as I am a humanist. So I try to inspire care for others as well not just rejection of gods and religion. Let’s do atheism with style. When you realize the word spiritual means nothing, it hits you right in the face. Many who now deeply grasp justice, were themselves victims of injustice. I once was an innocent child, religion you robbed that from me, religion you are not blameless!
Firebrand atheism, is people standing up against the lie of god and the indoctrination of lies that is religion. A good heart thrives on helping others, whereas a bad heart only cares for itself. 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 only wish a simple life but that is not my plight in life, with such need in the world. The road of life may be individually experienced, but this is not a determination that it must stay that way. There is a world of people that one can travel with. May I as much as I can, help my fellow travelers. And where, when, as well as who I cannot directly travel with may I at least be one who points the way.
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. Firebrand Atheists Unite……
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:
Atheism is the reality position.
Theism is the anti-reality position!
I am will to power!
“Reason is my only master, whereas faith offered as reality is most defiantly not my friend.”
As ethical atheists, we are not ok with pretend. So we are not silent because sacred falsehoods must end, even if the truth may offend. What is Faith but an unjustified belief that is willfully supported in violation to The Ethics of Belief, as faith holds a burden of proof until justified so faith claiming to “know” anything by this means is intellectually dishonest, uninformed on good belief etiquette or confused thinking offered as pseudo-knowledge? 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). The god claim, is like a clown car in the magic big top of Fideism “faith-ism”, and Presuppositional Apologetics is Just Fascist Fideism all of which demonstrates the Theistic Reality Confusion. Sure there are intelligent theists and that does not in any way make theism even reasonable as one can be brilliant and hold logical fallacies as their truth and that like any thinking errors like theism can happen to an otherwise sound thinker. I strive to be a sound thinker thus I am an axiological atheist and some may wonder what is that? Axiological Atheism (“philosophic” value theory/value science “formal axiology” social science” atheism) is Classed Under Anthropocentric (human-centered) arguments: “Axiological atheism favors humanity as the absolute source of ethics and values, and permits individuals to resolve moral problems without resorting to God. Marx, Nietzsche, Sartre, and Freud all used this argument to some extent to convey messages of liberation, full-development, and unfettered happiness.” – Link
“Damien, your Axiological Atheism sounds Highly interesting! One point, though. Have you considered that all of this philosophizing will mean nothing when you are dead? Human ideology on the concepts of mortality have been around since the dawn of mankind and will continue until every last human being is dead.” – Challenger
My response, philosophizing like all science will mean nothing after “we” are dead but I care about more than me I want universal betterment and true humanity flourishing so philosophizing like all science matter in this goal does it not? I am Not just Atheist, I am a proud Anti-religionist as well as Anti-theist. Those atheists who still like esoteric religions or religious philosophies, that is not me at all I oppose it all. Yes, you read that right, I reject it all, every religion or even pseudo-religion like. Just so I am not misunderstood, this includes buddhism, satanism, taoism, paganism, wicca, spiritualism, etc. Don’t get me wrong I am against ALL religion. What makes some believed Truth is actually True? To me, truth, in general, is a value judgment we place on what we think or believe is evidence or reason. Therefore, the rational imperative on us as intellectually honest thinkers to demonstrate that the proposed evidence or reasoned assumption is actually of a high epistemic standard with as much valid and reliable reason and evidence as possible from a credible source as possible which then makes some believed “Truth” actually worthy to be seen as Epistemologically True thus a “justified true belief”. Broadly, epistemic means “relating to knowledge (itself) or to the degree of its validation” and epistemological means ” critical study of knowledge validity, methods, as well as limits to knowledge and the study or theory of various aspects of or involved in knowledge”.
I have justification to claim to know what I claim to know, that is proof, not faith which is unproof “Unjustified Belief.” Do you have such Justification? By claiming to know something by faith is to act in a way mirroring a dishonest thinker, as intellectually honest thinkers don’t claim knowledge without justification.
As a general thinking in all my epistemology is Justificationism:(philosophy) is an approach that regards the justification of a claim as primary, while the claim itself is secondary; thus, criticism consists of trying to show that a claim cannot be reduced to the authority or criteria that it appeals to. In a general way, “Justificationism” to me, is the presupposition that claims to knowledge must be authenticated, certified, verified, validated, confirmed, proven, corroborated, back up, show to be accurate, confirmed or in some other way shown to be justified. In other words, if a belief is knowledge, then it is in some way justified, and if a belief is unjustified then it is not knowledge. Justificationism” is the presupposition that claims to knowledge are on trial and the desire is make sure or demonstrate that (something) is true, thus in a Justificationism presupposition inquiry any claim to knowledge can be analyzed, for value by asking for its justification, and failure to provide sufficient justification is enough to reject that claim to knowledge until adequate justification is provided. In this context, a rational ethical belief (Ethics of Belief), is one which is justified, and a rational person is one who provides a rational ethical belief, with good reasons or proof to justify what is believed. For a justificationist, the purpose of philosophical investigation is not a search for faith (unjustified) belief, but only a search for justified true belief. This difference is subtle but important: while a justified belief is always rationally justified as true, it still must be realized that an unjustified belief is not necessarily always false but indeed is not justified. Failure to provide sufficient justification is enough to reject an offered claim to knowledge as unjustified belief (faith: belief without evidence or belief even up against contradictory evidence). These presuppositions constitute a reinforced justificationism uses and defines the rules by which competing proposals are evaluated, it can ensure any attempt to introduce faith (unjustified) belief(s) can be dismissed as unjustified. “Theory of justification is a part of epistemology that attempts to understand the justification of propositions and beliefs. Epistemologists are concerned with various epistemic features of belief, which include the ideas of justification, warrant, rationality, and probability. Loosely speaking, justification is the reason that someone (properly) holds a belief. When a claim is in doubt, justification can be used to support the claim and reduce or remove the doubt. Justification can use empiricism (the evidence of the senses), authoritative testimony (the appeal to criteria and authority), or logical deduction.” Ref
I have to challenge your beliefs, because you won’t. To me, every religion was new at some point and had someone who made shit up, yes all of them, every religion. As an atheist, I am a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of god or gods. In my non-belief, I am also ignostic feeling that every theological position assumes too much about the concept of god(s). As an ignostic, I am a person who rational no idea of anything from reality whatever to label as “a concept of god” thus I can say I have no idea of anything that can connect to the term god and no reason to think anyone else can either. As an anti-theist, I am a person who is active in opposition to theism: both the concepts of god(s) as well as the religions that support them. This is because theistic concepts and theistic religions are harmful and that even if theistic beliefs were true, they would be undesirable. As an anti-religionist, I am a person who can look at religion on the whole and see it is detrimental to the progress of humanity thus am in opposition to all and every religion, not even just opposition to organized religion. In case you were wondering, I am anti-pseudoscience, anti-supernatural, and anti-superstition as well. Therefore, I am a proud anti-religionist, not just atheist or even anti-theist. Yes, I am an atheist, anti-theist, and an anti-religionist. I am against flawed superstitious magical beliefs like god(s) and/or religion. However, I am not against people. I have many strong opinions and beliefs as well as my challenge of others or I am against many types of beliefs especially if they involve supernatural or superstitious, or harm. However, I am not against people nor am I against their free right to believe as they wish. To me, everyone owns themselves and their beliefs are theirs as well, and will be held accountable for those beliefs. Thus, to me, not I or anyone has the right to force people on what to believe. 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. Proudly, I am an atheist, anti-theist, and an anti-religionist.
“Damien, what’s your philosophical position? Are you a materialist who believes that everything is reducible to physical? Idealism, Neutral Monist, etc.?” – Questioner
My response, I am a metaphysical naturalist (basically everything is reducible to physical) because of the universal reliable truth of the application of the scientific methods reliable and only demonstration using methodological naturalism, no magic, not even simple supernatural found in any amount ever anywhere by anyone.
“Damien, regardless of fancy wording we can not prove something is true without evidence just the same as we can not prove something is not true without evidence. Do you not agree that is the real argument?” – Questioner
My response, No, I don’t agree, it is always so. If I say I have the Nile River in my pocket you can’t see in my pocket but if you are rational and assess just what is allowable in reality, you don’t have to even look I know as you such a claim is preposterous to the point it can defy reason thus anyone would rightly reject a claim that a very limited space of a pants pocket watch can only at most fit something about 10 inches long but the Nile River is 4,258 mi long and even if it could be moved, which it can’t, more issues, but all and all it is clear that you can with certainty say that the Nile River in my pocket does not exist. I will give you another. Or say I said I have a money in my front pocket and you look finding nothing where it would be if there thus you now have negative evidence of my pocket which is empty when reasonably searched and nothing, you rightly can confirm with certainty that the pocket is, in fact, empty and not filled with money as I had claimed. You are certain there is no money in my pocket exists. There are many more examples but I think you can see what I am saying. To me even your question, while a good one exposes how the approach to reason may be used differently depending on the thinker. I am a Methodological Rationalist, I rarely am pushed to doubt as a default, instead, I see reason as my default and at times it may be responsible to doubt, but I get to that conclusion because of reasoning. A common saying in pseudologic is “You can’t prove a negative.” This is, simply not true. This is clearly not true because any statement can be rewritten into the negation of its negation. Any provable statement can be written as a negative. For example, “X is true” can be rewritten as “X is not false”, a negative statement! If “X is true” can be proven true, then you have also proven a negative statement “X is not false”. Moreover, even if it is widely believed that you can’t prove a negative. Going so far as to have people thinking that it is a law of logic—you can’t prove that Santa Claus, unicorns, the Loch Ness Monster, God, pink elephants, WMD in Iraq and Bigfoot don’t exist. This widespread belief is flatly, 100% wrong. In this little essay, I show precisely how one can prove a negative, to the same extent that one can prove anything at all. Evidence of absence is evidence of any kind that suggests something is missing or that it does not exist. Per the traditional aphorism, “absence of evidence is not evidence of absence”, positive evidence of this kind is distinct from a lack of evidence or ignorance of that which should have been found already, had it existed. In this regard Irving Copi writes: “In some circumstances, it can be safely assumed that if a certain event had occurred, evidence of it could be discovered by qualified investigators. In such circumstances, it is perfectly reasonable to take the absence of proof of its occurrence as positive proof of its non-occurrence.” — Copi, Introduction to Logic (1953), p. 95
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.
I am so out about my disbelief as I support reality and not because I feel better than 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. Science is an intellectual endeavor to search for that which is accurate to the way the world is while religion is still desperately relying on fantasy stories and about what the world is not full of many inconsistencies as well as glaring inaccuracies in relation to true reality, thus religion is an unintellectual endeavor forcing a non-accurate/non-truth “faith” over “valid and reliable reason and evidence” so a blind searching to not understand the accurate to the way the world actually is in reality. This is likely because religions are not “real truth” searching endeavors and beyond all the other negative things, on the whole religions and their make-believe are but conspiracies theories of reality not worth believing in. 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 am a reality revolutionary fighting hard to defend reality as it actually is in a world working hard to do the opposite. To offer that which is not true to reality is to offer a conspiracy theory about it, including the beliefs of ghosts, gods, and religions. Believe me wrong prove it with valid and reliable reason and evidence or I don’t believe you nor would anyone have good reason to either including your self if you are an honest thinker. I don’t really have trust it is just from experience I know many beliefs people like holding are not worth believing in and full of shit. Why do most religious people claim to have religious or spiritual experiences is they add make-believe to “reality.” And the general “WHY” people profess to have religious or spiritual experiences is because we are emotional beings, that while we can employ the thinking strategy of rationalism over faith or unreason/illogical beliefs, we still often seem to prefer to follow emotional driven thinking or simply learn to appeal to emotionalism. Things are not the other way around as we are not rational beings who understand the world accurately by employing the logical thinking strategies and not thinking clouded emotionalism needed to replace faith or unreason/illogical beliefs that follow such thinking, right? We are all emotional and thus will experience emotional wonder. This common experience of things like emotional wonder or awe is just a positive emotional hijacking, as the experience of joy, but that is just the joy of being alive, it’s wholly cheapened to me by fantasy daydreaming delusions (supernatural) to this beautiful magic devoid reality. To me, rationalistic thinkers of intellectual character engaging in a thoughtful critical challenge, and thus should strive to disagree, debate, dispute, debunk, and degrade harmful unjustified beliefs (such as pseudo-science, pseudo-history, and or pseudo-morality the stuff religions love to promote) and not the swindled or reality deluded believer. However, I understand how we treat others matters even as an atheist dealing with theists. When I get angry or frustrated, I strive to have understanding and patience. When I get to where I think I will say something hurtful, so I strive, to say it a better way if possible, as I want to help not hurt. So, I wish to something not often offered to me; I wish to be kind, compassionate, and thoughtful as much as I can, as often as I can because how we treat others matters. Therefore, even as an out firebrand atheist 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. Because I want to live a value-driven life to promote kindness and human flourishing as an axiological atheist not just the call for reason in thinking but also thinking in behaviors as well. Simply how we treat others reflects on us just like how we make others feel about themselves tells a lot about our chosen character. Thus how we choose to treat others, respond or react to others, will often identify the kind of person we are striving to be. I wish to be a person of value. I am 100 % sure not you nor anyone can honestly justify their claim of knowing even the concept of gods, if one like me simply demands a valid and reliable ontology of the term god. I see no honesty is saying that god anything as not one person can truly even say what it is and defiantly can offer no valid justification for the thinking either the concept of gods is a thinking error period. You have no ontology of god as you have not validated the term to mean anything but myths or confusions. Provide a support to even claim what a god could or could not be then validated hoe you know this and why it is valid and reasonable or as I already know, no one honestly can they must intellectually lie or be so under confusion they can’t think clear to do so. What is this god whatever you are supposedly agnostic about? if you don’t know then you don’t have something to doubt rather you are holding open a thinking error possibility from some myth others invented without reason as if it was reason. The concept of gods begins with a faulty presupposition of an unsound thinker who has failed to demand justification an simply accepts the absurd. May the actions of my life be written deep with the poetry of my humanity. I have one big goal in life, I just want to make the world kinder. I am intelligent enough that I see I must be open to learn from everyone around me. I don’t try to compare people, Instead, I compare ideas. I am willing to have anyone teach me something and I hope I am always so wise. Some wish for empirical proof of some god. I say no start at what is god and how is it that you are claiming to know anything about it with a sound justification. I say empirical proof of what, when you cannot justify what the term god should contain? Start by justifying there is anything in the term god other than simply a three letter noise. Theists love their faith so much they unjustifiably appealed to the term god as if its attributes were a given, well they are not and to claim they are is uninformed, intellectually dishonest or confused. Actually, I know there is no theist that has done anything but start with something unjustified “the god claim” empty of worth to begin with, then take said unjustified claim to add something to this unjustifiably defined god term and then assert this willful theist with its myth and superstition driven attributes that not one of them are justified to be packed into the term god seems a kind of mental masturbation inventing unjustified attributes drunk on some wishful thinking hijacking, may simply be confused/uninformed, not truly thinking just willfully believing or outright intellectually dishonest. God talk is unjustified until you can demonstrate that you can know anything even belongs in the term with valid and reliable reason and justification. What is a god is the first burden of proof that is required. Some wish for empirical proof of some god. I say no start at what is god and how is it that you are claiming to know anything about it with a sound justification. I say empirical proof of what, when you cannot justify what the term god should contain? Start by justifying there is anything in the term god other than simply a three letter noise. Theists love their faith so much they unjustifiably appealed to the term god as if its attributes were a given, well they are not and to claim they are is uninformed, intellectually dishonest or confused. Actually, I know there is no theist that has done anything but start with something unjustified “the god claim” empty of worth to begin with, then take said unjustified claim to add something to this unjustifiably defined god term and then assert this willful theist with its myth and superstition driven attributes that not one of them are justified to be packed into the term god seems a kind of mental masturbation inventing unjustified attributes drunk on some wishful thinking hijacking, may simply be confused/uninformed, not truly thinking just willfully believing or outright intellectually dishonest. God talk is unjustified until you can demonstrate that you can know anything even belongs in the term with valid and reliable reason and justification. What is a god is the first burden of proof that is required. You say some wish for empirical proof. I say no start at what is god and how is it that you are claiming to know anything about it with a sound justification. I say empirical proof of what, when you cannot justify what the term god should contain? Start by justifying there is anything in the term god other than simply a three letter noise. Theists love their faith so much they unjustifiably appealed to the term god as if its attributes were a given, well they are not and to claim they are is uninformed, intellectually dishonest or confused. It is not intellectually honest to support that that lacks a sound justification. So there is no way a theist or agnostic can honestly assess to know, it’s like you saying you without looking can affirm what is in box A compared to box B. You nor anyone can honestly know anything get it the god term (asserted unknown box you have not looked inside, nor an you: thus you cannot claim anything is inside the hypothetical available posable attributes) you and others see as something is an unjustified list of things added without justification thus you don’t know nor can anyone justify claim knowing what should be added removed fro a possible god term, not one, one attribute, nothing… and each peace anyone wishes to add must be justified. All terms are empty of reality anything unless justified, there is nothing to add to justify the term god after doing so I will create a justifiably offered concept of a god something. What else do you have as a justification if you are a theist or an agnostic available something to assert? I am all ears? It is nothing that I have to know other than the term god is offered without justifying anything in the term deserves to be in the term. Is god, hod fod, nod, who knows its just letters put together, is this unknown whatever a woman, man, tansgender, or intersex? Is god pink, black collarless? All claims to everything or anything and there is no such valid confirmation for anything wished to be added in the term god must be proven to intellectually claim to know them. No such thing has ever happened or could thus there is no justified thing called god, period. So, are an ignostic now and agree no one can justifiably claim to know anything about the term god but myth terms or descriptions? I don’t start with debunking the offered term god instead I wish to show the absurdity of claiming the term god has anything of value. I begin with an argument of presumptive value, prove the accurate values for anything you wish to define the term god I assert until this is done the term god and all connected ideas that appeal to the god terms meaning which had not even justifiably been defined. You can’t get any church to 100% agree on what a fod/god is or how they think or behave because there is no valid ontology to begin with before everyone gets to do that, not even one of all the famous theistic apologetics nor any reported theist in history at all are the same no it’s a shit show with ideas all over the place, all are a little different you know like myths.
Here is my external pages or content: Facebook Witter Page, My YouTube, My Linkedin, Twitter: @AthopeMarie, Instagram: damienathope, Personal Facebook Page, Secondary Personal Facebook Page, Main Atheist Facebook Page, Secondary Atheist Facebook Page, Facebook Leftist Political Page, Facebook Group: Atheist for Non-monogamy, Facebook Group: (HARP) Humanism, Atheism, Rationalism, & Philosophy and My Email: email@example.com