Challenging Agnosticism Assumptions

Damien Marie AtHope’s Scale of Theistic and Nontheistic Assumptions   1. Weakest implicit Nontheistic/Atheism: “negative” / “weak” / “soft” nonbelief includes infants or babies who do not believe or do not know that a deity or deities exist and agnostics who have not explicitly rejected or eschewed such a belief (absence of religious motivation).   2. Strong implicit Atheism: “negative” / “weak” / “soft” nonbelief include apatheist atheists who are not interested in gods exist claims agnostics who explicitly rejected that one can make a choice in god beliefs.   3. Weak Explicit Atheism: “negative” / “weak” / “soft” atheists but unsure they can fully reject a belief that any deities exist, some call this agnostic atheism.   4. Strong Explicit Atheism: “negative” / “weak” / “soft” atheists either reject the god concept or week conscious rejection of belief any deities some could call this ignostic atheism.   5. Strongest Explicit Atheism: “positive” / “strong” / “hard” atheists assert that it is false that any deities exist or at least one, many deities don’t exist or a strong conscious rejection of belief, one or any deities some could call this antitheist atheism.   6. Weakest implicit Theistic thinking/Theism: “negative” / “weak” / “soft” belief includes small children who are indoctrinated and don’t know or understand what and why they believe, only believe as told to believe or those who believe in deism, pantheism, vague theism, or somethingism as possibilities of god beliefs (absence of full religious motivation).   7. Weak implicit Theism: “negative” / “weak” / “soft” belief includes apatheist theists who kind of believe but are not that...

Understanding how children use magical thinking

Ages & Stages: How Children Use Magical Thinking By Susan A. Miller Ed.D., Ellen Booth Church, and Carla Poole Understanding how children use magical thinking to learn about and explore their world. DEVELOPMENT 0 to 2 “NO! IT GET ME!” by Caria Poole A young baby’s world revolves around her own experiences. Those experiences are dominated by physical sensations, such as a gas bubble or a soft blanket, with blurred distinctions between herself and the rest of the world. She lives in the moment. For example, 4-month-old Jessica is fascinated by a toy her teacher is holding. She stares at it intently. Yet, when the toy is dropped out of view, Jessica doesn’t look down to find it. She simply looks at another object that is in her direct line of sight. Her behavior implies, “I see the toy, therefore it exists. I don’t see the toy and it doesn’t.” Her worldview is a series of images based on her own experiences rather than a sequence of logical events. Moments of Magical Thinking By 12 months, an infant’s thinking becomes more rooted in the reality that objects and people remain the same even when out of sight. This concept of object permanence, along with an expanding memory, makes the baby’s life a bit more predictable. But, she still often misinterprets reality. For instance, 1-year-old Jemima voices displeasure and is frightened when a toy unexpectedly rolls just a few inches toward her. The world is a mystical place, and babies have a fragile understanding of the difference between animate and inanimate objects. Seeing is Believing When working with toddlers, it’s important to...

Axiological Ethics not Pseudo Morality

First here are my thoughts on Real Morality vs. Pseudo Morality: +Morals (Personal Morality relating to a “self” morality): are not held by all in the same way since all are not held to Orthodox faith and though most start with good and bad or right and wrong values, which usually are personally, familially, socially or religiously give or in some way otherworldly defined, thus not universal. +Ethics (Social Morality relating to a “others” morality): Ethics are not constrained by a given religion’s value systems to motivate its ideas of right and wrong instead it relies on universal truths found in universal principles of just human action. Ethics is set standers uses to personally engage with others and universal truths assist goals of universal ethics standards. Thus, ethics are general prosocial prescription we as morality aware beings in a rather universal way tend to have some awareness of and it is not just an awareness as in one who holds to ethics often get it applies to all peoples. Some may wish to devalue people but to do so is not really unethical, though often it can lead to unethical behavior. So what I am trying to highlight is how in the behavior that the ethics violation could occur as the internal attitude of devaluing others would only be a possible morals violation such as one who valued virtue and not getting it but failing by the persuasion of devaluing the life of other humans. This simple internal devaluing of humans, that they may be doing is vile. But ethics would not be involved until public behaviors with others,...