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 interested in existence claims or agnostics who are open to god beliefs but are unsure if they should believe.
 
8. Weak Explicit Theism: “negative” / “weak” / “soft” theists some beliefs but unsure they can fully accept a belief that one or any deities exist some call this agnostic theism.
 
9. Strong Explicit Theism: “positive” / “strong” / “hard” theists either generally accept the god(s) concept(s) or week conscious accepting of belief in one, many or any deities, some could call this standard theism.
 
10. Strongest Explicit Theism: “positive” / “strong” / “hard” theists assert that at least one deity exists or strong conscious belief in one, many or any deities, some could call this gnostic theism.
 

 


“I’m on 3. Weak Explicit Atheism and or, 7. Weak implicit Theism.” – Challenger 

My response, So you have no belief in any gods but don’t know and you have belief in gods but don’t know? So you either have or don’t have belief.

“I just edited. In my view, materialism is almost on the same route as theism since materialism as a philosophical stance or position can’t be proven either.” – Challenger 

My response, So you don’t believe in gods thus are a 3.

“I’m neither because I don’t really know and I admit that I’m a bit sympathetic to it lately.  Although I’m still not sure.” – Challenger 

My response, Giving an excuse to why you don’t believe so yep still a 3 now with an argument for why you are a #3, ok. Logic is either A or not A.

“Agnosticism so middle but now I admit that I’m more Theistic than Atheistic which was my worldview before. Until I find good and better arguments perhaps I could go back to atheism again. But only a little move towards Theism since I don’t find good arguments lately. https://youtu.be/9bsj_y2oZX” – Challenger 

My response, Agnosticism s not a standard approach to epistemology, it is a set of usually folk philosophy and folk logic erroring in thinking to validate what Agnostic thinkers think. I am anti-agnostic it’s generally invalid to me.

“To me, there’s nothing wrong in stating that you don’t know. Damien Marie AtHope, to me, there’s nothing wrong in stating that you don’t know.” – Challenger 

My response, As always WHAT is a god to even say you don’t know or to say you can doubt? I don’t start my disbelief on the dilutions of god claims I assess are these claims warranted they are not so nothing to doubt so agnosticism starts with a presupposition of the term god to say they are unsure about this to me making a thinking error as there is no presupposition god term to reality. I stand with ignosticism, roughly that the term god is given to much leeway as a valid offering of a possible real thing when no god claim if limited to only reality coherent attributes all add nonsense like supernatural things one of which at its simplest a being or at least a thinking thing with no physical mind but can think, an invisible thing and of courses an immaterial thing such as the no physical body in any way. And there we see the problem with accepting any god claim as even reality coherent as it is not. All claims must be coherent with or correspond to reality and just like many theological nonsense terms such as the soul. I don’t know what people are talking about when they say the term “soul” (it’s a made-up concept which connects to nothing that is reality coherent) as there is no part of the body exhibits as such magic thinking idea, soul, thus a debunked claim and does not need doubt. Similarly, I don’t know what people are talking about when they say the term “god” (it’s a made-up concept which connects to nothing that is reality coherent) as there is no part of the body exhibits as such magic thinking idea, god, thus a debunked claim and does not need doubt.

“I agree with Wittgenstein that asking questions about the soul is a misleading question since the soul is not a physical object. I’m not a professional philosopher of religion but the I believe that the “I” is fundamental and I don’t find inductive arguments against Theism as strong as I once thought it to be back then.” – Challenger 

My response, What is it you don’t know about the thing labeled/termed gods, that is not a justified claim to anything real, to begin with? What is a valid god claim to even accept as valid to start doubting, how can you claim to have knowledge of a thing you don’t know so you can say you don’t know it. Do you believe the foundation of all thinking is agnosticism as you say its a label for not knowing? Is agnosticism a pre-belief or post belief an a priori stance before the question of “do you believe” is addressed?  What is a soul? I’m not a professional philosopher of religion, also, so we are the same in that way. \m/ “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.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignosticism

“So, what are your arguments against Theism?” – Challenger 

My response, What is a god?

 

 

“Omniscient, Omnipotent, Serene Supreme Being which is the source of all finite beings and lies outside space and time.” – Challenger 

 

 

My response, “Omniscient, Omnipotent, Serene Supreme Being which is the source of all finite beings and lies outside space and time.” a bunch of illogical assertions so you can’t truly know anything about them in reality, that not, in reality, is not real. Offer something real or what you are talking about is not reality.

Damien Marie AtHope, how do you define reality(Theory of Knowledge)?” – Challenger 

 

https://youtu.be/FPCzEP0oD7I While the premise which lies outside the universe can be doubted, I don’t think the contingency of ontological beings can be.” – Challenger 

My response, I can only assess the possibility of things from the reference limited to reality, and reality is the thing we can assess and determine or that set of facts as determined through a sensory filter and thinking logic that which is valid and reliable to the state of facts we can assess or tested and the accumulation of the minds of others sharing that which is valid and reliable to the state of facts we can assess or tested even though I don’t think we know everything we have enough shared data points to rationally grasp that the reality that presents itself is naturalism only. If one thinks its otherwise Reality is only assessed by tests in demonstrable reality so do you have some valid non-realty method?

I can’t help you that much because I’m trying to understand potency to act right now however before you dismiss this, I’ll state the common objections: First is that existence is not an attribute by Immanuel Kant. That is to say, you can’t simply deduce the existence of something by defining attributes alone. And second and finally, you can’t deduce the existence of something as existing extramentally or outside your mind by simply conceiving it mentally or in your mind.
https://youtu.be/xBmAKCvWl74
 Damien Marie AtHope, I deny Scientism because it lacks Ontological Foundation. By Scientism, I mean that empirical knowledge is the only means of knowing since it is not itself an empirical but rather a metaphysical claim. I believe in M theory as an ongoing hypothesis which frankly already go beyond physics however concerning science and scientism—-I distinguish the difference between empirical theorizing and metaphysical argumentation or propositions.” – Challenger 

My reference, Saying, I deny Scientism and yet kinda believe theology??? If so that is quite odd indeed, not a standard applied equally at all is it.

“Scientism is the belief that nature is all there(The cosmos is all there is or ever was or ever will be|the universe just is claimed by Carl Sagan and Bertrand Russell). This is a confession of materialist metaphysics.” – Challenger 

My response, Let’s get back to your (burden of proof) claim that god(s) are “Omniscient, Omnipotent, Serene Supreme Being which is the source of all finite beings and lies outside space and time.” But hold up if you don’t agree that there is a naturalistic reality with a definable and testable space and time?

 Damien Marie AtHope, I don’t deny physical explanations, I deny scientism as a metaphysics because I believe there are questions which precedes science. Like what is this, “I”?” – Challenger 

My response, Scientism is the view that only scientific claims are meaningful. It is often widely abused as a term to refer to science and attitudes associated with science, and its primary use these days is as a pejorative. The non-pejorative, and therefore boring, sense of the term denotes the “methods and attitudes typical of or attributed to the natural scientist.” You are denying science because you claim to not know about the I, how is that some proof for anything in theology as this is about your unjustified claims of a god something?

“Scientism is a mockery of science because as I understand it, it claims that there is no knowledge which isn’t empirically based. That is to say, the only writers worth reading are Feynman, Darwin, Einstein, Curie, and others, that is to say, philosophical discussions from Plato to Sartre or Derrida are to be disregarded.” – Challenger 

My reference, Scientism can be thought of as a scientific worldview that encompasses natural explanations for all phenomena, eschews supernatural and paranormal speculations, and embraces Empiricism and reason as the twin pillars of a philosophy of life appropriate for an Age of Science.

“Empiricism alone isn’t enough as far as it cannot even demonstrate itself as a (Meta)physical or Philosophical Position.” – Challenger

My response, To me, science is philosophy, I don’t see it as outside that, so there is no battle of philosophy and science to me and I would reject any thinking that trys to say that they are not a connected team.

 

 

I am an ignostic atheist and reject the proposition that “agnostics/agnostic-atheists” like to claim that agnosticism is the only logical position.

Ignosticism or igtheism, basically as a philosophic position concludes the belief in or a possibility of a supernatural being, ultimate or otherwise as reality misinterpreted, reality confused, reality incoherent, and reality unintelligible.

I see agnostic thinking often even by deep thinkers choosing to hold some foundations built on folk logic as STEVEN D. HALES calls it.

Steven D. Hales is the professor department of philosophy Bloomsburg University, here is an article on that: You Can Prove a Negative. It is a PRINCIPLE OF FOLK LOGIC that you can’t prove a negative. Skeptics and scientists routinely concede the point in debates about the possible existence of everything from Big Foot and Loch Ness to aliens and even God. In a recent television interview on Comedy Central’s The Colbert Report, for example, Skeptic publisher Michael Shermer admitted as much when Stephen Colbert pressed him on the point when discussing Weapons of Mass Destruction, the comedian adding that once it is admitted that scientists cannot prove the nonexistence of a thing, then belief in anything is possible. Even Richard Dawkins writes in The God Delusion that “you cannot prove God’s non-existence is accepted and trivial, if only in the sense that we can never absolutely prove the non-existence of anything.” There is one big problem with this. Among professional logicians, guess how many think that you can’t prove a negative? That’s right, zero. http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/07-12-05/

I get that my harsh critiques of the god concept to you may be foreign and you may feel that you don’t see it how I see it. But I put forward that the god concept is a well packaged container of emptiness masqueraded as the elixir of life. The god concept to me is a web of lies polished and glorified as the end all do all even though it is empty of all facts to warrant any holding as true. This bogus god concept has been sold so insidiously to the masses through gradual indoctrination of one generation after another that my truth exposing the fallaciousness of the god concept may to one from the indoctrinated seem so utterly preposterous that I as is orator seem like a raving lunatic when in actuality I am clearly professing the truth.

I see agnostic as a belief about the ability to have knowledge, it is in that way not following epistemology which is the philosophy of knowledge. Agnostic thinking is stating its own theological seminary of what it sees as abilities to grasp god knowledge. I address agnostic not because I think people cannot choose to believe in this way if they choose. The reason I so often address agnosticism is that I hear so many say it like they have no choice which is simply not true. Most of the beloved statements offered as reasoning to why there is no other choice but a agnostic conclusion hinge on folk logic and folk concepts of knowledge or misunderstood application of philosophy of science. This is true even of scientists who have disbelief as most of them disregard philosophy as well which is a large contributing factor for the confusion. The scientific method which all science largely uses requires an amount of pre-belief (a priori) in the not complete knowledge concept of realism philosophy or naturalism philosophy both of which are connected. My point is people don’t go around saying they are science agnostic. Both scientific realism and naturalism reject all supernatural claims and thus would not be agnostic about the possibility of a supernatural being called god. I hold agnostic thinking also as not a professional epistemology thus it is not usable to delineate a professional philosophical knowledge stance it is a personal belief forming a theory of knowledge. knowledge is largely a justified true belief in philosophy. epistemology is the study of knowledge and justified belief. As the study of knowledge, epistemology is concerned with the following questions: What are the necessary and sufficient conditions of knowledge? What are its sources? What is its structure, and what are its limits? As the study of justified belief, epistemology aims to answer questions such as: How we are to understand the concept of justification? What makes justified beliefs justified? Is justification internal or external to one’s own mind? Understood more broadly, epistemology is about issues having to do with the creation and dissemination of knowledge in particular areas of inquiry. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/epistemology/

Philosophical vs. Pragmatic Reasons for Preferring the Term ‘Agnostic’

A person may call herself an agnostic, as Huxley did, because of questionable philosophical motives. Huxley thought that propositions about the transcendent, though possibly meaningful, were empirically untestable. We have seen that it is unclear that the conclusion of the fine-tuning argument is untestable. One can at least compare it with other and non-theistic hypotheses. Thus, there are conjectures that there are many universes, so many of them that is not surprising that there should be some among them in which the constants of physics allow for the possibility of life, and if so our universe must be one of them. Some cosmologists give independent grounds for thinking that new universes are spawned out of the back of black holes. Others think that there are independent grounds for thinking of a single huge Universe that has crystallized out into various universe sized regions each with randomly different values for the fundamental constants. Some such speculations get some support (it has been suggested) from string theory. Though such speculations are at present untestable and should be taken with a grain of salt, one or another may well one day be absorbed into a testable theory. It must be left to cosmologists and mathematical physicists to go into the pros and cons here, but they are mentioned here to indicate a grey area between the testable and the untestable. Some scientists when canvassing these issues of philosophical theology may prefer to call themselves ‘agnostics’ rather than ‘atheists’ because they have been over impressed by a generalized philosophical skepticism or by a too simple understanding of Popper’s dictum that we can never verify a theory but only refute it. Such a view would preclude us from saying quite reasonably that we know that the Sun consists largely of hydrogen and helium. When we say, ‘I know’ we are saying something defeasible. If later we discover that though what we said was at the time justified, it nevertheless turned out to be false, we would say ‘I thought I knew but I now see that I didn’t know’. Never or hardly ever to say, ‘I know’ would be to deprive these words of their usefulness, just as the fact that some promises have to be broken does not deprive the institution of promising of its legitimacy. Another motive whereby an atheist might describe herself as an agnostic is purely pragmatic. In discussion with a committed theist this might occur out of mere politeness or in some circumstances from fear of giving even more offence. Samuel Butler, though a complete unbeliever in the doctrines of Christianity, in the preface to one of his books Erewhon Revisited (Butler 1932) described himself as the broadest of broad churchmen. That is, I take it that broad churchmen often were unbelievers, but treated the doctrine as mere myth suitable for literal consumption by the local yokels in the interests of social stability. It is unclear to me whether or not Butler was sympathetic to a very abstract sort of theism. Some may call themselves ‘agnostics’ rather than ‘atheists’ merely because they are equally repelled by the fanaticism associated with some forms of theism and by the boring obsessiveness of what Hilary Putnam has called ‘the village atheist’. (Contrast, however, Clifford’s view of the matter and also the example of the radical and intellectual tinker, Mr. Shaw, in Butler’s powerful novel The Way of All Flesh.) Still, these considerations are perhaps more a matter for sociologists than for philosophers. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/atheism-agnosticism/

“Isn’t ignosticism the idea that the word “god” has not been well enough defined to make a judgement regarding existence?” – Challenger

My response, “Well is may be for some not others as you started right for me god claims are contradictions and make believe that ae expressed but offer nothing. If you can’t define something then it’s not even a valid hypothesis and just unjustified claims that attach to nothing are unworthwhile.”

“But each god hypothesis is pretty well defined. There is little reason to bother describing non-god concepts or hypothetical god concepts.” – Challenger

My response, “A definition of a leprechaun does not mean it’s a valid hypothetic in reality only that humans gave an idea anthropomorphic characteristics not valid qualities for a real ontology. You can makeup all kinds of unreal non-defined in reality things there is only a limit on time to how many one could mentally conceive and not one of them is valid if not corresponding in and of reality. If I define for you what a square circle is like that would not add it to reality as it is a logical contradiction as reality has limits that we use to know that some things are impossible and only possible when the qualities match reality.”

“The definition is the only thing that allows you to say that. It is a well defined non thing. Perhaps gods are just well defined non things.” – Challenger

My response, “A scientific hypothesis is the initial building block in the scientific method. Many describe it as an “educated guess,” based on prior knowledge and observation. Mover, a hypothesis is a suggested solution for an unexplained occurrence that does not fit into current accepted scientific theory. The basic idea of a hypothesis is that there is no pre-determined outcome. A null hypothesis is the name given to a hypothesis that is possibly false or has no effect. Often, during a test, the scientist will study another branch of the idea that may work, which is called an alternative hypothesis. During testing, a scientist may come upon two types of errors. A Type I error is when the null hypothesis is rejected when it is true. A Type II error occurs when the null hypothesis is not rejected when it is false, according to the University of California, Berkeley. So, what is this nothing none evidence god somethingism?”

“God isn’t a scientific hypothesis. As are many things in our society.” – Challenger

My response, “god somethingism, like all proposed gods can’t pass the A Type II error so the null hypothesis is not rejected and thus god somethingism, like all proposed gods are false, god is nonsense.”

“That is simply atheism. I agree there, but that doesn’t mean there are particularly good definitions for various gods. Like story books use great definitions about dragons and pixies. It is well defined nonsense. We aren’t lacking definition.” – Challenger

My response, “Agnosticism, Ignosticism apatheism, secular humanism are all atheist, unless they have some belief. No belief is always atheism it’s a philosophical stance that occurs one need not actively choose it, but lack belief and atheism is occurring. I am an ignostic atheist. http://damienmarieathope.com/2015/11/17/i-am-an-ignostic-atheist/

My response, “Agnosticism is a belief about knowledge built on folk logic and nonstandard philosophy it is not a true branch of the philosophy of knowledge at all, in fact it is more connected to philosophical skepticism which is against asserting any firm knowledge claim. I hear people time and again asserting the 100% knowledge or truth claim that because they believe there is no such thing as asserting the 100% knowledge or truth claim that by default Every atheist is agnostic. Do you see the self-contradictory claim which would or I guess if one holds such a belief in the limits of knowledge, should refrain from making global affirming truth claims that one cannot make global affirming truth claims?”

My response, “What is Ignosticism, or igtheism position? If followed to its logical end it concludes that the entire question about a god’s existence is a non-question and that taking a yes, no or even ambivalent position is absurd. It is based on an expectation of strong critical rational analysis of any proposition including the existence of god(s). As with any topic, and especially in the realm of the supernatural and woo, the subject of any debate should be coherently defined. If one offers a clear definition of an entity, then in order to take a position whether it exists or not the definition of the entity must be one in which its existence can be falsified (there is a rational and logical method by which we can test the existence of the subject as it has been defined). Few theists ever offer a clear definition of god. The few who do offer a definition almost never offer one in which the existence of that god(s) could be tested. The rare falsifiable definition offered regarding a god’s existence is easily falsified. And so as with any subject (such as the existence of almost all supernatural entities) debate about the existence of god(s) is, for the far majority of such conversations, pointless.

Ignosticism goes further than agnosticism; while agnosticism states that “you can’t really know either way” regarding the existence or non-existence of gOD, ignosticism posits that “you haven’t even agreed on what you’re discussing, as its nothing”. http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Ignosticism

My response, “Bigfoots, 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.

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 god(s)

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.

“I take an ambivalent position to most things. Statistically unlikely things happen. Logic is simply a normative tool for discussing things. As bad as this sounds, proving logic is a difficult thing, because it would be illogical to disprove it. Even multiple views of the same phenomena doing the same thing can lead to incorrect views. Language is equally normative. If something doesn’t make sense, we can’t rule out that the language in use (or any language) is sufficient to explain everything. Using language as a basis for possibility strikes me much the same as an ontological argument. It seems like a word game which attempts to define things into or out of existence. To be honest, there isn’t really a means of enquiry I trust, it’s just a bunch of hypothetical models to varying degrees of likelyhood. We might be right about stuff, but we have little way of knowing it. The last bit is part of why I’m atheist. If there was a god worth believing in and who wanted us to, we’d likely have the capacity to know.” – Challenger

My response, “Faith is an invalid method to know the reality qualities of the world. Thus, every theory proposed from or with faith is equally invalid and since all gods and religions require faith at some point in the belief ownership process as or in place of evidence and/or valid reasoning about reality. Therefore, they are all automatically invalid due to the limitation of faith not being able to produce things into reality. To me, the origin of Logics is Naturalistic Observation:

Valid reasoning has been employed in all periods of human history. However, logic studies the principles of valid reasoning, inference and demonstration. It is probable that the idea of demonstrating a conclusion first arose in connection with geometry, which originally meant the same as “land measurement”. In particular, the ancient Egyptians had empirically discovered some truths of geometry, such as the formula for the volume of a truncated pyramid. Another origin can be seen in Babylonia. Esagil-kin-apli’s medical Diagnostic Handbook in the 11th century BC was based on a logical set of axioms and assumptions, while Babylonian astronomers in the 8th and 7th centuries BC employed an internal logic within their predictive planetary systems, an important contribution to the philosophy of science. So, we have real world origins such as sky observation in Babylonian astrology and land observation in Egyptian Geometry (from the Ancient Greek: geo- “earth”, -metron “measurement”). The field of astronomy, especially as it relates to mapping the positions of stars and planets on the celestial sphere and describing the relationship between movements of celestial bodies, served as an important source of geometric problems during the next one and a half millennia. In the classical world, both geometry and astronomy were considered to be part of the Quadrivium, a subset of the seven liberal arts considered essential for a free citizen to master. While the ancient Egyptians empirically discovered some truths of geometry, the great achievement of the ancient Greeks was to replace empirical methods by demonstrative science. The systematic study of this seems to have begun with the school of Pythagoras in the late sixth century BC. The three basic principles of geometry are as follows: Certain propositions must be accepted as true without demonstration; such a proposition is known as an axiom of geometry. Every proposition that is not an axiom of geometry must be demonstrated as following from the axioms of geometry; such a demonstration is known as a proof or a “derivation” of the proposition. The proof must be formal; that is, the derivation of the proposition must be independent of the particular subject matter in question. Fragments of early proofs are preserved in the works of Plato and Aristotle.

Where do these laws of logic come from? If we want to get a causal explanation of the origin of logical laws (apart from positing them as fundamental to the universe), the proper way to understand their origin IS as derivative on rationality as developed by non-rational evolutionary means.

Thus, in a way we could say laws of logic didn’t come from anywhere; these just are the rules of rationality as they can be articulated by explicitly rational beings. When rational beings came into existence by purely non-rational evolutionary processes, they came into being as following these rules. And then, at some later point in time they became aware of themselves following these rules, and able to represent them explicitly.

When we see there as being implicitly logically-governed behavior in nature, we interpret nature in accordance with the way we understand ourselves as explicitly logical. We think of the behavior of entities of nature as if they represented their rational behavior like we do, it is our way of explicitly representing the norms of rationality. These non-rational entities of nature don’t have the slightest clue what the laws of logic are. But they behave as we do, and that’s how “we” see them. We can only make explanatory sense of how “we” have become explicitly aware of logical laws by showing how we are the result of beings that evolved an implicit awareness of these laws. And yet, we can only understand our natural ancestors as having implicit grasp of logic once we’ve garnered an explicit grasp of logic. That’s the only way we can make sense of them as actually following the laws of logic.

The reason it is unproblematic for an explanation to conceptually (but not causally) presuppose that laws of logic is that we cannot hope to get out of these laws conceptually, since they just are, the bounds of sense. When sense-makers like us naturally evolve this just is the way in which we must make sense of things. It’s is the essential structure of sense-making, so to speak. And since explanation is a sense-making enterprise, and any coherent explanation will conform to sense’s bounds—the things we’ve come to describe as the laws of logic. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_logichttps://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geometry https://absoluteirony.wordpress.com/2014/…/23/laws-of-logic/

“Doubt is far superior. Go back to Heb 1:11. And have a good look at it and see the implications. It is utterly absurd.” – Challenger

My response, “How do you not doubt “doubt itself” and thus are appealing to reason to decide this and not doubt, I mean not the presses of “doubt itself” as that is more a conclusion of the unworthy status for something or a realization of an uninformed/limited-informed if a thing in question is not so unsupported or unwarranted to debunk it at which pint doubt is then reassemble warranted to doubt is as a process to conclude you should decide to doubt or see doubt as advised and this conclusion of a need to doubt is a secondary response to the use of reason/rationalism.”

“You can’t doubt “doubt,” or what validity would the doubt you applied have?” – Challenger

“I reason and use critical thinking that is superior to just doubt and is not even listed in the description of critical thinking found at the critical thinking foundation:

My response, “A well cultivated critical thinker: raises vital questions and problems, formulating them clearly and precisely; gathers and assesses relevant information, using abstract ideas to interpret it effectively comes to well-reasoned conclusions and solutions, testing them against relevant criteria and standards; thinks open-mindedly within alternative systems of thought, recognizing and assessing, as need be, their assumptions, implications, and practical consequences; and communicates effectively with others in figuring out solutions to complex problems. Critical thinking is, in short, self-directed, self-disciplined, self-monitored, and self-corrective thinking. It presupposes assent to rigorous standards of excellence and mindful command of their use. It entails effective communication and problem-solving abilities and a commitment to overcome our native egocentrism and sociocentrism.” http://www.criticalthinking.org/pages/defining-critical-thinking/766

My response, “Philosophical skepticism is distinguished from methodological skepticism in that philosophical skepticism is an approach that questions the possibility of certainty in knowledge, whereas methodological skepticism is an approach that subjects all knowledge claims to scrutiny with the goal of sorting out true from false claims.”

“I’m a negativist. I prefer to assume we are probably wrong and look for other possibilities.” – Challenger

My response, “Doubt or disbelief requires justification just like all other beliefs.”

“I can easily justify doubt. The unreliable nature of all current methods of human enquiry (they’ve all made mistakes which have been later corrected, it is unlikely this just stopped happening). Add to that, when you are wrong, you normally don’t know you are wrong. Being doubtful of complete accuracy is prudent, and possibility highly pragmatic. For example, i dint debate evolution. Even if someone tries to bring it up, they normally aren’t arguing about biology, but something else, so there is no need to further muddy the waters with more evolution talk. I won’t commit to it. It is a neat model, pretty plausible, a decent amount of unanswered questions we are aware of (this is good, it is the questions we aren’t aware of that are the problem) but hey, nothing is perfect. I am an atheist independant of evolution. It took me a while to soften to after deconversion. I dont need to accept it or reject it as it has little affect on things i consider pragmatic. And where it might have influence, that influence will be there whether I am aware or not. This, so far as i would describe it is not believing evolution. I’m not saying it didn’t happen, I’m just not passionate about the sibject and really don’t care that much. This turns out to be very handy as I dont get stuck trying to explain biology to a fellow layman who doesnt want it to be real. I get to talk about the god ideas instead, which is really the aim.” – Challenger

My response, “Yes doubt can be justified by appealing to valid and reliable reason and/or observable/demonstrable evidence not doubt so that which is first is the best not the product of its use (doubt). So, which do you favor?” You are stating, “Doubt is far superior” is a truth claim and I would like to see you use doubt to justify that claim and you must stick with doubt to make the undoubted truth claim about doubt. To me stating doubt is super could only be reasoned by the elimination of doubt not the other way around so saying it as a universal is a contradiction. For once you believe it is superior you demonstrate it is not. Doubt, then, is the opposite of certainty see the problem, you must appeal to reason.”

“Havent slept and it is 7am. I afriad I will have to come back when my mind is working.” – Challenger

My response, “It’s cool I enjoyed talking take care and have a good night.”

“Damien, as a philosophical position, agnosticism is the only honest position……. but it fails when presented with physical evidence.. and so it is the middle way…” – Challenger

My response, what is a god to doubt? I don’t start my disbelief on the dilutions of god claims I assess are these claims warranted they are not so nothing to doubt so agnosticism starts with a presupposition of the term god to say they are unsure about thus to me making a thinking error as there is no presupposition god term to reality. I stand with ignosticism, roughly that the term god is given to much leeway as a valid offering of a possible real thing when no god claim if limited to only reality coherent attributes all add nonsense like supernatural things one of which at its simplest a being or at least a thinking thing with no physical mind but can think, an invisible thing and of courses an immaterial thing such as the no physical body in anyway. And there we see the problem with accepting any god claim as even reality coherent as it is not. All claims must be coherent with or correspond to reality and just like many theological nonsense terms such as the soul. I don’t know what people are talking about when they say the term “soul” (it’s a made-up concept which connects to nothing that is reality coherent) as there is no part of the body exhibits as such magic thinking idea, soul, thus a debunked claim and does not need doubt. Similarly, I don’t know what people are talking about when they say the term “god” (it’s a made-up concept which connects to nothing that is reality coherent) as there is no part of the body exhibits as such magic thinking idea, god, thus a debunked claim and does not need doubt.

Ignosticism or igtheism, basically as a philosophic position concludes the belief in or a possibility of a supernatural being, ultimate or otherwise as reality misinterpreted, reality confused, reality incoherent, and reality unintelligible.

Ignosticism or igtheism (desire a good, well defined and supported ontology), basically as a philosophic position (rationalism, if one is addressing a mental aspect or claim and empiricism, if one is addressing a real world aspect or claim) concludes the belief in (Ignosticism in this lack of belief/disbelief is atheism) or a possibility of (Ignosticism in this lack of “a possibility of” is using an Ethics of Belief, justificationism, reliabilism and anti-agnosticism) a supernatural being, ultimate (gods) or otherwise as reality misinterpreted, reality confused, reality incoherent, and reality unintelligible.

My response, how you pose the question of how I feel about agnostics, seems to infer the people who are agnostic unless I am misunderstanding, and on such a question of how I feel towards my fellow humans, I strive to treat them humanistically, fairly, and equally. If you are instead asking if I am consenting in any way to agnostic thinking, my answer would unequivocally state no. I see agnostic thinking as a flaw in reasoning that seems to at least in some way accept the empty assertions of religion. I always work to attack thinking and not people. Furthermore, I have friends on Facebook that are religious and don’t attack or even give them a hard time, I just address my thinking on my pages not at anyone unless they challenge me or the like. Allowing that magical thinking or the possibility of magical thinking being real is clearly not supported by any facts in reality. Thus, it is just more a social engineering “indoctrinated belief” connected to learned magical thinking supernaturalism and/or superstitionism. When asked whether they believe in the existence of one or more Gods and/or Goddesses, Theists will say yes; strong Atheists will say no. Agnostics will say I don’t know or often cannot give a straight “Yes” or “No” answer but are still either classified as either Weak Theism or Weak Atheism as it’s a belief question and no mater how one tries to add or subtract other things the main issue still is, “do you believe in theism” if the answer is anything but yes or some variant of maybe yes then it’s a no; thus one is an atheist as all it takes is a lack of believing theism but it can be disbelief even a beliefs there is no god. Agnostics might respond with one of the following (Weak Theism or Weak Atheism):

Weak Theism (Agnostic)

  1. Weak Theism: Yes, a god(s) and/or goddess(es) exists though I am not sure or don’t know about god(s) and/or goddess(es) at this time.
  2. Weak Theism: Yes, a god(s) and/or goddess(es) exists. However, we have no possibility or certainty of knowing anything about God, now or in the future.
  3. Weak Theism: I think that a god(s) and/or goddess(es) exists, but have no proof.
  4. Weak Theism: I think so, but cannot be positive that a god(s) and/or goddess(es) exists.
  5. Weak Theism: I don’t know but will lead my life assuming that a god(s) and/or goddess(es) does exist just to be careful, perhaps because of the rewards or to stop some punishments one would receive if a god(s) and/or goddess(es) does exist.
  6. Weak Theism: I worship a god (or a god and goddess, or a goddess, or some combination of god(s) and/or goddess(es) but cannot prove that they exist.
  7. Weak Theism: I doubt it, but cannot be sure a god(s) and/or goddess(es) doesn’t exist.

Weak Atheism (Agnostic)

  1. Weak Atheism: I don’t know if a god(s) and/or goddess(es). (So they don’t believe theism thus are atheists)
  2. Weak Atheism: There will never be any way to know. (So they don’t believe theism thus are atheists)
  3. Weak Atheism: There is no way to know, but perhaps someone will find a proof or disproof in the future. (So they don’t believe theism thus are atheists)
  4. Weak Atheism: I cannot give an opinion because there is no way that we can prove the existence or non-existence of God given currently available knowledge. (So they don’t believe theism thus are atheists)
  5. Weak Atheism: I don’t know but will lead my life in the assumption that no god(s) and/or goddess(es) exists. (So they don’t believe theism thus are atheists)
  6. Weak Atheism: I will have to withhold my opinion/belief until god(s) and/or goddess(es), if one or many exists, decides to make his, her or their presence known by a strong provable indicator, which until now has ever happened. (So they don’t believe theism thus are atheists)
  7. Weak Atheism: The god(s) and/or goddess(es) that various believers worship are like unicorns: they are obviously fictional. However, who knows, I do not have certain disproof.
  • Feel you don’t know what god is or could be you might be a Ignostic but if so you don’t or can’t believe in theism. Ignosticism is the idea that the question of the existence of God is meaningless, because the term “god” has no unambiguous definition. Ignosticism requires a good, non-controversial definition of god before arguing on its existence. (So they don’t believe theism thus are atheists)
  • Feel you don’t care what god is or could be you might be an Apatheist but if so you don’t believe in theism. An apatheist is someone who is not interested in accepting or denying any claims that gods exist or do not exist. An apatheist lives as if there are no gods and explains natural phenomena without reference to any deities. (So they don’t believe theism thus are atheists) 123

According to Peter Klein, “By a philosopher depending on a claim that a proposition is worthy of “assent” an expression of approval or agreement (where “assent” is the pro-attitude required for knowledge) only if there are no genuine grounds for doubting it. The characterization of genuine grounds for doubt could be put as follows:

Some proposition, d, is a genuine ground for doubt of p for S iff:

  1. d added to S‘s beliefs makes assent to p no longer adequately justified;
  2. S is not justified in denying d;
  3. S has no way to neutralize d.[9]

Note that, given this characterization of genuine grounds for doubt, S need not have any evidential support for d. It could be any proposition that S entertains. In addition, it could be false. Finally, it could be a ground for doubt for one person but not for another person (or the same person at another time), depending upon what each beliefs (at the time). For only one of them might have a belief that is adequate evidence for denying dor neutralizing d (at the time). That explains why, rational meditating, can have a genuine ground for doubting the testimony of one’s senses at an early point in the rational meditating and be able to neutralize and/or reject the ground at a later point in the rational meditating. That assumes, of course, that rational meditating can produce new adequately justified beliefs; but that seems reasonable enough for a philosopher to believe!” https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/skepticism/

Agnosticism is a belief about knowledge built on folk logic and nonstandard philosophy it is not a true branch of the philosophy of knowledge at all, in fact it is more connected to philosophical skepticism which is against asserting any firm knowledge claim.

I hear people time and again asserting the 100% knowledge or truth claim that because they believe there is no such thing as asserting the 100% knowledge or truth claim that by default Every atheist is agnostic. Do you see the self-contradictory claim which would or I guess if one holds such a belief in the limits of knowledge, should refrain from making global affirming truth claims that one cannot make global affirming truth claims.

Some likely have such thinking because of they are using agnosticism’s folk philosophy ideology you like it are asserting something about the nature of knowledge and belief which is not how philosophy works. Here is what standard philosophy uses it is called epistemology and it never uses anything called agnosticism. Epistemology is the study of knowledge and justified belief. As the study of knowledge, epistemology is concerned with the following questions: What are the necessary and sufficient conditions of knowledge? What are its sources? What is its structure, and what are its limits? As the study of justified belief, epistemology aims to answer questions such as: How we are to understand the concept of justification? What makes justified beliefs justified? Is justification internal or external to one’s own mind? Understood more broadly, epistemology is about issues having to do with the creation and dissemination of knowledge in particular areas of inquiry. A common concept in epistemology is “Knowledge is Justified True Belief”

There are various kinds of knowledge: knowing how to do something (for example, how to ride a bicycle), knowing someone in person, and knowing a place or a city. Although such knowledge is of epistemological interest as well, we shall focus on knowledge of propositions and refer to such knowledge using the schema ‘S knows that p’, where ‘S’ stands for the subject who has knowledge and ‘p’ for the proposition that is known. Our question will be: What are the necessary and sufficient conditions for S to know that p? We may distinguish, broadly, between a traditional and a non-traditional approach to answering this question. We shall refer to them as ‘TK’ and ‘NTK’.

According to TK, knowledge that p is, at least approximately, justified true belief (JTB). False propositions cannot be known. Therefore, knowledge requires truth. A proposition S doesn’t even believe can’t be a proposition that S knows. Therefore, knowledge requires belief. Finally, S’s being correct in believing that p might merely be a matter of luck. Therefore, knowledge requires a third element, traditionally identified as justification. Thus we arrive at a tripartite analysis of knowledge as JTB: S knows that p if and only if p is true and S is justified in believing that p. According to this analysis, the three conditions — truth, belief, and justification — are individually necessary and jointly sufficient for knowledge.

Initially, we may say that the role of justification is to ensure that S’s belief is not true merely because of luck. On that, TK and NTK are in agreement. They diverge, however, as soon as we proceed to be more specific about exactly how justification is to fulfill this role. According to TK, S’s belief that p is true not merely because of luck when it is reasonable or rational, from S’s own point of view, to take p to be true. According to evidentialism, what makes a belief justified in this sense is the possession of evidence. The basic idea is that a belief is justified to the degree it fits S’s evidence. NTK, on the other hand, conceives of the role of justification differently. Its job is to ensure that S’s belief has a high objective probability of truth and therefore, if true, is not true merely because of luck. One prominent idea is that this is accomplished if, and only if, a belief originates in reliable cognitive processes or faculties. This view is known as reliabilism.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/epistemology/#JTB

Some thinkers and philosophers deny the validity of agnosticism assertions in general, seeing it as a limitation of man’s capacity to know the reality, affirming that “not being able to see or hold some specific thing does not necessarily negate its existence,” using gravity, entropy, reason and thought as examples.
Agnosticism is the position of believing that knowledge of the existence or non-existence of god is impossible.

Finally, there is an argument, popular among some who fancy themselves intellectuals, that agnosticism is the only intellectually honest position to take with regard to gods. According to this viewpoint, theism and atheism are arrogant affirmations of being certain about something that is intrinsically unknowable. It is, of course, true that it is possible there is some unknowable being or entity who creates universes, has unimaginable powers, and is like nothing we have any experience of. No atheist that I know of has ever denied such a possibility, nor have we denied the possibility of an unknowable Easter Bunny who lays eggs on Saturn or any other imaginable epistemic improbability. So what? Atheists and theists do not concern themselves with epistemic improbabilities, but with gods about whom stories have been told for millennia. The more we learn about the universe, the less reason there is for believing that any of these gods were not created by human imagination. Agnosticism regarding Zeus or Abraham’s god is not an intellectually honest position, as it can be maintained only by a fatuous and dishonest treatment of the available evidence. That evidence shows beyond a reasonable doubt that all gods fashioned thus far in the minds of men are highly improbable. Agnosticism regarding unimaginable, unknowable beings is redundant.

http://www.skepdic.com/agnosticism.html

We can sert 100% psychological certainty we do it all the time. What most agnostics likely mean is they don’t want to claim epistemic certainty thinking it like knowledge is disconnected from belief. However, like knowledge, certainty is an epistemic property of beliefs.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/certainty/

Sometimes a person who is really an atheist may describe herself, even passionately, as an agnostic because of unreasonable generalized philosophical skepticism which would preclude us from saying that we know anything whatever except perhaps the truths of mathematics and formal logic.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/atheism-agnosticism/

Knowledge and belief

Knowledge is an intellectual commodity which is true and believed and justified. There are two slightly different meanings of belief that must be distinguished. In the first sense, John might “believe in” his cousin Joe. This may mean that he is willing to lend Joe money, trusting in his paying it back. In this sense, John might say, “I know it is safer to fly than drive, yet I don’t believe it,” in which case John doesn’t trust in the safety of aircraft, even though as a cognitive matter he may understand the pertinent statistics.

In the second sense of belief, to believe something just means to think that it is true. That is, to believe P is to do no more than to think, for whatever reason, that P is the case. It is this sort of belief that philosophers most often mean when they are discussing knowledge. The reason is that, in the view of most philosophers, in order to know something, one must think that it is true—one must believe (in the second sense) it to be the case.

Consider someone saying, “I know that P, but I don’t think P is true.” The person making this utterance seems to have contradicted himself. If one knows that P, then, amongst other things, one thinks that P is indeed true. If one thinks that P is true, then one believes P.

Knowledge is usually held to be distinct from belief and opinion. If someone claims to believe something, they are claiming that they think that it is the truth. But of course, it might turn out that they were mistaken, and that what they thought was true was actually false. This is not the case with knowledge. For example, suppose that Jeff thinks that a particular bridge is safe, and attempts to cross it; unfortunately, the bridge collapses under his weight. One might say that Jeff believed that the bridge was safe, but that his belief was mistaken. One would not say that he knew that the bridge was safe, because plainly it was not. For something to count as knowledge, it must be true—at least as knowledge is usually understood anyway.

Similarly, two people can believe things that are mutually contradictory, but they cannot know (unequivocal) things that are mutually contradictory. For example, Jeff can believe the bridge is safe, while Jenny believes it unsafe. But Jeff cannot know the bridge is safe and Jenny know that the bridge is unsafe. Two people cannot know contradictory things.

http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Epistemology

Rationality

If one does not reject rationality, but still wishes to maintain that knowledge claims cannot be or are not justified, one might be termed a non-justificationist. Here philosophers are on firmer philosophical ground; since non-justificationists accept the validity of reason, they can present logical arguments for their case.For instance, the regress argument has it that one can ask for the justification for any statement of knowledge. If that justification takes the form of another statement, one can again reasonably ask for that statement also to be justified, and so forth. This appears to lead to an infinite regress, with every statement justified by some other statement.

It would be impossible to check that each justification is satisfactory, and so relying on such a series quickly leads to skepticism.Alternately, one might claim that some knowledge statements do not require justification. Much of the history of epistemology is the story of conflicting philosophical doctrines claiming that this or that type of knowledge statement has special status. This view is known as Foundationalism.One can also avoid the regress if one supposes that the assumption that a knowledge statement can only be supported by another knowledge statement is simply misguided.

Coherentism holds that a knowledge statement is not justified by some small subset of other knowledge statements, but by the entire set. That is, a statement is justified if it coheres with all other knowledge claims in the system. This has the advantage of avoiding the infinite regress without claiming special status for some particular sorts of statements. But since a system might still be consistent and yet simply wrong, it raises the difficulty of ensuring that the whole system corresponds in some way with the truth.

http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Epistemology

Ignosticism, or igtheism position?

If followed to its logical end it concludes that the entire question about God’s existence is a non-question and that taking a yes, no or even ambivalent position is absurd. It is based on an expectation of strong critical rational analysis of any proposition including the existence of God.

As with any topic, and especially in the realm of the supernatural and woo, the subject of any debate should be coherently defined. If one offers a clear definition of an entity, then in order to take a position whether it exists or not the definition of the entity must be one in which its existence can be falsified (there is a rational and logical method by which we can test the existence of the subject as it has been defined). Few theists ever offer a clear definition of God. The few who do offer a definition almost never offer one in which the existence of that God could be tested. The rare falsifiable definition offered regarding God’s existence is easily falsified. And so as with any subject (such as the existence of almost all supernatural entities) debate about the existence of God is, for the far majority of such conversations, pointless.

Ignosticism goes further than agnosticism; while agnosticism states that “you can’t really know either way” regarding the existence or non-existence of gOD, ignosticism posits that “you haven’t even agreed on what you’re discussing, as its nothing”.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Ignosticism

I am Ignostic not agnostic and you should consider it too…

Which is more reasonable, Atheism or Theism?

Atheism is more reasonable as it is only holding to the proven naturalism confirmed by science. Whereas, theism puts forth faith, magical thinking and stories about the history of the world, who’s beliefs either don’t match or are debunked by the proven naturalism confirmed by science. To value faith as a means to know reality or the truth or something, is a mental weakness of wanting one’s beliefs about reality to matter more than the actual reality. Faith in relation to truth is at best just wishful emotions over rational understanding.

The Empty God Box

In scientific terms a “LACK OF EVIDENCE” is/can be proof of non-existence. As with all things as new evidence is discovered views can change. I can prove something does not exist by its lack of existence, the box is empty? Is a box empty? I can prove god is not in the box, but some say I can never prove the box is empty. But is it right to say the god Box is never empty even if we remove its needed contents. It’s an exercise in rhetoric with what we do know to say the god Box is not empty of all evidence and reason thus all it can be is empty of validity. And still today people say empty god boxes are possibly not empty? The god Box is, was, and will always “LACK OF EVIDENCE” and “LACK OF A VALID JUSTIFICATION” thus empty proving the god concepts non-existence. Think I am wrong then you go and keep looking or trying to empty that already empty box labeled god devoid of all facts EVIDENCE or reason.

The superstitious mind is a mind bent on the engagement of folly in thinking, avoiding clear sight only seeing through the lens of delusion and misrepresentation. Such a mind is bent on wishful thinking over truth and finding this desired quality of nonsense everywhere, they look only to what they feel offers some confirmation. However, why they see magic everywhere is because they only see what they want to see. It’s an inverted way of seeking, where one only confirms what excites them and fits to what they enjoy believing. Therefore, the superstitious mind is out looking for confirmation of its fears or its need for mystical wonderment. Thus, such a mind is arbitrarily making magic out of the yet unknown and creatively as well as unwarrantedly making superstitious the natural wonderment of the known, in order to allow it to wrongly be seen as containing magic.

An agnostic is a person that does not know that they are an Atheist and if they don’t like that then choose which one you are because you either are one or the other. Saying you don’t know which one you believe is avoiding the question as one either accepts or rejects. If you don’t care about the question, then you are an Apatheist but even then one has rejected a choice of believing thus is an Atheist.

“Here are several responses, I mixing into one set of text, though it was different people responding.”

*Damien, how can you say God(s) is not even possible?

My response, well for a thing to be assessed as possible it needs a starting point in reality, the man-made God concepts not only don’t have such tangibility they can’t even justify what a god actually could be other that state regurgitating wishful thinking stories that involve empty unwarranted claims of supernatural beings with supernaturalism caricaturists devoid of any supporting demonstrable or testable evidence. So saying that you know or hold open to possibility is to be posturing from ignorance as you not only don’t know anything about nonnatural things (no one rightly can) you likewise do nor justifiability can say what if anything could be beyond the natural world as that is all we have. Thus saying one believes that some God, any God is real or possible is wrong until evidence of supernatural anything is proven. Stating a possibility is to state a knowledge claim of the posable, meaning if justifiable it must connect to that which would support such a claim. So how can anyone truly say a god (unknown and evidenceless assumed thing only expressed by imagination) could be possible?

*Damien, I hear you reject agnosticism thinking, but an agnostic is a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as God, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience. Nothing more, nothing less.

My response, to not know is not to believe, thus, is a form of Atheism.

*Damien, I’m sorry Damien, but you are wrong here. I know plenty of Christians who are also Agnostic. That is, they don’t have knowledge of god, but they still believe. In fact, one could argue that if knowledge exists, then there is no need for faith. However, I agree that there is a common usage of the term Agnostic that is more like, “I’m not sure if I believe in god or not.”. That’s not really a correct usage, but it is fairly common. Many of those who use it this way are probably really Atheists, but are afraid of using that word. BTW, I am an Atheist and an Agnostic. The two terms are not incompatible.

My response, Agnostic Christians = believe in God, thus is theism. Weak/soft theism to be specific.

*Damien, yes, theist, but also agnostic.

My response, saying one does not know is a lack of belief thus Atheist if one states that they don’t know but believe they are a theist.

*Damien, an agnostic is the person who isn’t sure whether or not there’s a god. The truth is, we are all agnostic because no one is sure whether or not there’s a god. Now, you have people that chose to believe there’s a god. This is the agnostic theist. Then you have the one that doesn’t believe there’s one, this is the agnostic atheist.

My response, what are we to be not sure of? There is not one piece of evidence to even support any not intelligent supernatural let alone an intelligent one and to state otherwise to me is preposterous.

*Damien, the reason no one is sure is because we haven’t explored the entire universe. When you are done doing this, then you can be sure.

My response, it seems agnostics like to say they don’t have knowledge then turn right around and make a knowledge claim about how we can’t be sure but a true exhibition of not knowing is to not make any claims at all.

*Damien, what I’m saying is that no one can affirm for fact whether or not there’s a god out there, that’s the reason we are all agnostic by definition, because no one knows.

My response, well on that point, no one has or can affirm a fact about what a god could be. Thus, this proposed question involves an unjustified and unwarranted claim that can be rejected of hand until someone can demonstrate the opposite whether or not there’s some justified or warranted qualities or characteristics to start thinking what otherwise is an empty claim of god.

*Damien, but knowledge and belief are not the same thing. Well, I don’t want to argue about it. Matt Dillahunty has spoken on this many times and I would suggest you check out his discussion on this.

My response, I am an Ignostic as the concept of God(s) is a nothing statement lacking justifiable reason or evidence thus meaningless to state one does not know if it’s possible as to state such is to give the claim more substance that is deserves. Matt Dillahunty only asserts belief not knowledge. If I remember correctly, he told me there is not knowledge only levels of belief. I don’t agree with that. As for what famous Atheists think Aron Ra States something like an agnostic is someone who does not know they are an Atheist and Peter Boghossian states something like there is no need for using Agnostic.

Question for god believers:

If god does not want people to go to a hell and knows in advance that they will, is it not more ethical to just not create them in the first place? You can’t say god has no choice or control, then you are affirming god is not all powerful. Similarly, if he chooses to create someone he knows will go to hell he is not all good.

*Damien, so are you suggesting we remove the word Gnossis from the English language? When people like Aron Ra state that an agnostic is someone who doesn’t know they are atheist, I believe he is using the term agnostic in the common usage, not the correct usage. A (without) Gnostic (knowlege). I.e., if you tell me you have a dog, I would probably believe you. I have not reason not to, even though I have no ‘knowledge’ of your statement. I would be agnostic re: your statement of a dog, but I would still believe it. Belief does NOT require knowledge, but it certainly is boosted by knowledge and facts.

My response, agnostics are playing a game making up things about epistemology that are not the case. Knowledge is an epistemic property of belief just like certainty. Yes, the folk philosophy used in support of agnostic arguments is one of the problems. Second, sure get rid of the religious term Gnostic as it is not a required word in epistemology neither is agnostic for that matter. As an Ignostic Atheist I say the term God is no more real than the term fod. Ignosticism goes further than agnosticism; while agnosticism states that “you can’t really know either way” regarding the existence or non-existence of gOD, ignosticism posits that “you haven’t even agreed on what you’re discussing, as its nothing”. Ignosticism is the idea that the question of the existence of God is meaningless, because the term “god” has no unambiguous justified definition. Ignosticism requires a good, non-controversial definition of god before arguing on its existence. In epistemology, there are various kinds of certainty. I am psychologically certain there is no supernatural anything because of epistemic certainty about the natural only world devoid of magic anything Thus I fully reject the made-up evidence devoid concept of gods. There is no warrant to do otherwise. And I hold all beliefs to the standard that it must relate to or corresponds with the reality of the world. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/certainty/

*Damien, It’s okay to remain open to any idea or philosophy… I think it’s worse to pick one idea and decide to stick to it for all of your existence. There’s no reason why anyone must “choose a side. ”

My response, we all should an honest thinker, therefore, be open to credible information even if it means we need to amend or change our beliefs. Not choosing a side is, in fact, choosing Atheism as to lack belief is the default of Atheism only active belief is Theism.

*Damien, your just wrong. I was agnostic for many years, saying I was fairly sure there were no Gods but not 100%. I am now, but there are plenty who could legitimately call themselves agnostic.

My response, the lacking 100% to me is still saying one doubts the claims of God’s thus does not believe them, thus, is an Atheist. To me, the 100% knowledge claim is unwarranted as we can say we are not 100% about many things in science and that doesn’t diminish the justification for believing them or similar there are things science doesn’t 100% know they are false and yet we have justification for not believing them. Think also in courts of law there is almost never anything close to 100% certainty and that doesn’t mean we are forever lost as in the can be a state of beyond a reasonable doubt. Which to me also shows there is a state of thinking where the doubt can be unreasonable or at least not warranted.

*Damien, agnostic means you don’t give a shit if there is a god or not. You don’t know, don’t care.

My response, that is an Apatheist and apatheism, also known as pragmatic atheism or practical atheism.

*Damien, making up a word doesn’t change what an agnostic truly is.

My response, I didn’t make up the word Apatheist. apathetic agnosticism claims that no amount of debate can prove or disprove the existence of one or more deities, and if one or more deities exist, they do not appear to be concerned about the fate of humans. Therefore, their existence has little to no impact on personal human affairs and should be of little theological interest. Which is still known as pragmatic atheism or practical atheism. http://atheism.about.com/od/Atheist-Dictionary/g/Definition-Apatheist.htm https://www.pdcnet.org/pdc/bvdb.nsf/purchase?openform&fp=wcp22&id=wcp22_2008_0045_0087_0093

Still Questioning If There is Disproof of Gods?

In the link, there are offered empirical disproofs of god, such as: COSMOLOGICAL DISPROOFS, TELEOLOGICAL DISPROOFS, EVIDENTIAL EVIL DISPROOFS, & NONBELIEF DISPROOFS Link:http://disproofatheism.org/4.html

*Damien, I’m agnostic. ITS No shame.

My response, I didn’t say it held shame I said it is a state of not actively believing thus is Atheism or weak/soft Atheism to be specific. Here is some philosophy info on Agnosticism:

Though there are a couple of references in The Oxford English Dictionary to earlier occurrences of the word ‘agnostic’, seems introduced by T. H. Huxley at a party in London to found the Metaphysical Society. Huxley thought that as many of these people liked to describe themselves as adherents of various ‘isms’ he would invent one for himself. He took it from a description in Acts 17:23 of an altar inscribed ‘to an unknown God’. Huxley thought that we would never be able to know about the ultimate origin and causes of the universe. Thus he seems to have been more like a Kantian believer in unknowable noumena than like a Vienna Circle proponent of the view that talk of God is not even meaningful. Huxley’s agnosticism seems nevertheless to go with an extreme empiricism, nearer to Mill’s methods of induction than to recent discussions of the hypothetico-deductive and partly holistic aspect of testing of theories. Though we might not be able to prove the existence of God might we be able to disprove it? Many philosophers hold that the existence of an omnipotent, omniscient and good God is empirically refuted by the existence of evil and suffering, and so would be happy to be called atheists rather than agnostics. As was hinted earlier, a person may call herself an agnostic, as Huxley did, because of questionable philosophical motives. Huxley thought that propositions about the transcendent, though possibly meaningful, were empirically untestable. We have seen that it is unclear that the conclusion of the fine tuning argument is untestable. One can at least compare it with other and non-theistic hypotheses. Thus there are conjectures that there are many universes, so many of them that is not surprising that there should be some among them in which the constants of physics allow for the possibility of life, and if so our universe must be one of them. Some cosmologists give independent grounds for thinking that new universes are spawned out of the back of black holes. Others think that there are independent grounds for thinking of a single huge Universe that has crystallised out into various universe sized regions each with randomly different values for the fundamental constants. Some such speculations get some support (it has been suggested) from string theory. Though such speculations are at present untestable and should be taken with a grain of salt, one or another may well one day be absorbed into a testable theory. It must be left to cosmologists and mathematical physicists to go into the pros and cons here, but they are mentioned here to indicate a grey area between the testable and the untestable. Some scientists when canvassing these issues of philosophical theology may prefer to call themselves ‘agnostics’ rather than ‘atheists’ because they have been over impressed by a generalised philosophical scepticism or by a too simple understanding of Popper’s dictum that we can never verify a theory but only refute it. Such a view would preclude us from saying quite reasonably that we know that the Sun consists largely of hydrogen and helium. When we say ‘I know’ we are saying something defeasible. If later we discover that though what we said was at the time justified, it nevertheless turned out to be false, we would say ‘I thought I knew but I now see that I didn’t know’. Never or hardly ever to say ‘I know’ would be to deprive these words of their usefulness, just as the fact that some promises have to be broken does not deprive the institution of promising of its legitimacy. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/atheism-agnosticism/

*Damien, I just don’t pretend to know for sure, because I don’t. My spouse is a strong atheist.

My response, what does for sure mean to a nothing term God lacking any proof of anything. If we said I don’t pretend to state knowledge of the pretend would that be reasonable? Think about using your standard for god, would it be reasonable in a court of law? It there a specific thinking that states if no corroborating evidence is available we must say I don’t pretend to know for sure? Or do we say without evidence you have no case? I am Ignostic as they lack any evidence thus they have no case, there has been nothing offered of substance to justify belief. It’s like saying I don’t pretend to know if my child’s imaginary friend is actually imaginary. To me belief needs supporting reason and evidence and doubt needs supporting reason and evidence. Such as if I tell you I have the Nile River in my pocket no reasonable person would or should reserve doubt, instead it would be rejected out of hand. Similarly, the god claim involves super amounts of supernatural but nothing ever tested holds anything supernatural so such claims should be rejected out of hand. This is holding to the epistemology standard of the correspondence theory of truth. The correspondence theory of truth states that the truth or falsity of a statement is determined only by how it relates to the world and whether it accurately describes (i.e., corresponds with) that world. Correspondence theories claim that true beliefs and true statements correspond to the actual state of affairs.

*Damien, an agnostic is the person who isn’t sure whether or not there’s a god. The truth is, we are all agnostic because no one is sure whether or not there’s a god. Now, you have people that chose to believe there’s a god. This is the agnostic theist. Then you have the one that doesn’t believe there’s one, this is the agnostic atheist.

My response, what are we to be not sure of? There is not one piece of evidence to even support any not intelligent supernatural let alone an intelligent one and to state otherwise to me is preposterous.

*Damien, the reason no one is sure is because we haven’t explored the entire universe. When you are done doing this, then you can be sure.

My response, it seems agnostics like to say they don’t have knowledge then turn right around and make a knowledge claim about how we can’t be sure but a true exhibition of not knowing is to not make any claims at all.

*Damien, what I’m saying is that no one can affirm for fact whether or not there’s a god out there, that’s the reason we are all agnostic by definition, because no one knows.

My response, no one has or can affirm a fact about what a god could be. Thus, this proposed question involves an unjustified and unwarranted claim that can be rejected of hand until someone can demonstrate the opposite whether or not there’s some justified or warranted qualities or characteristics to start thinking what otherwise is an empty claim of god. moreover, saying no one can say for a fact whether or not there’s a god, seems to show you still are accepting the nothing, evidence devoid term god.

Hitchens’ razor is an epistemological razor asserting that the burden of proof regarding the truthfulness of a claim lies with whoever made the claim; if this burden is not met, the claim is unfounded and its opponents need not argue further in order to dismiss it. It is named, echoing Occam’s razor, for the journalist and writer Christopher Hitchens, who, in 2003, formulated it thus: “What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.”

Hitchens’ razor is actually a translation of a Latin law code precept and also proverb “Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur”, which has been widely used at least since the early 19th century, and Ernest Renan. However, Hitchens’s English rendering of the phrase has made it more widely known to the English-speaking audience. It is used, for example, to counter presuppositional apologetics. This quotation appears by itself in God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything, a book by Hitchens published in 2007. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitchens%27s_razor

*Damien, I still don’t know. And that’s ok.

My response, true, and no one even truly knows anything real about the term god either.

*Damien, you seem like a very confident atheist, what makes you so sure that an eternal physical brute fact exists and caused the universe to exist?

My response, even if one does not know what caused the universe, what do you think such a gap in knowledge can actually do in relation to a somethingism god could be added to the gap there is nothing that limits a god of such vague theism to any gods ever offered as creator? But there is no reason to arbitrarily add myths to the lack of knowledge, as in from the unknown origins of the universe we can tell no facts at all which would include lacking any information to support a myth of gods or religions. Because not knowing something is not a set of evidence for something, well any more than the thing in question is unknown.

Ps. I am giving you a good video to explain your origins of the universe question called: Science, Religion, and the Big Bang I am giving you a good video to explain the how and why creationists are misinformed called: Why I am no longer a Creationist

*Damien, I love a lot of theists who are also good people. I really don’t think about it so much.

My response, I love a lot of people that think a lot of stuff I find ridiculous as long as they are good people.

My response, one may want a planet to be cubical. Just about every other force in the universe wants it round. http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/3011/what-would-it-be-like-walking-around-on-a-cube-shaped-planet

Agnosticism Beliefs Involve “FOLK LOGIC” Thinking?

Well, I have been asked If I am an Atheist can I explain about my anti-agnostic thinking and to explain why I say agnosticism beliefs involve “FOLK LOGIC” thinking.

My anti-agnostic thinking is a challenge to the agnostic thinking not an attack on the people who hold the agnostic thinking. My anti-agnostic thinking is not me trying to tell others they are not atheist enough or not real atheists nor is it trying to say you have no right to believe you are an agnostic.

For me my anti-agnostic thinking is about “The Ethics of Belief” as I see it. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ethics-belief/

I don’t claim to know what agnostics know or don’t, think or don’t other than to say I disagree with the “I don’t know”, “I am not sure” or “I can’t be certain” about the god concept question. I am not against people calling themselves agnostic if they wish I am against the thinking that one would once informed would still see value in agnostic thinking. I see agnostic thinking often even by deep thinkers choosing to hold some foundations built on folk logic as STEVEN D. HALES calls it. Steven D. Hales is the professor department of philosophy Bloomsburg University, here is an article on that: You Can Prove a Negative. A PRINCIPLE OF FOLK LOGIC is that you can’t prove a negative: Skeptics and scientists routinely concede the point in debates about the possible existence of everything from Big Foot and Loch Ness to aliens and even God. In a recent television interview on Comedy Central’s The Colbert Report, for example, Skeptic publisher Michael Shermer admitted as much when Stephen Colbert pressed him on the point when discussing Weapons of Mass Destruction, the comedian adding that once it is admitted that scientists cannot prove the nonexistence of a thing, then belief in anything is possible. Even Richard Dawkins writes in The God Delusion that “you cannot prove God’s non-existence is accepted and trivial, if only in the sense that we can never absolutely prove the non-existence of anything.” There is one big problem with this. Among professional logicians, guess how many think that you can’t prove a negative? That’s right, zero. http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/07-12-05/

I see agnostic as a belief about the ability to have knowledge, it is in that way not following epistemology which is the philosophy of knowledge. Agnostic thinking is stating its own theological seminary of what it sees as abilities to grasp god knowledge. I address agnostic not because I think people cannot choose to believe in this way if they choose. The reason I so often address agnosticism is that I hear so many say it like they have no choice which is simply not true. Most of the beloved statements offered as reasoning to why there is no other choice but an agnostic conclusion hinge on folk logic and folk concepts of knowledge or misunderstood application of the philosophy of science. This is true even of scientists who have disbelief as most of them disregard philosophy as well which is a large contributing factor for the confusion. The scientific method which all science largely uses requires an amount of pre belief (a priori) in the not complete knowledge concept of realism philosophy or naturalism philosophy both of which are connected. My point is people don’t go around saying they are science agnostic. Both scientific realism and naturalism reject all supernatural claims and thus would not be agnostic about the possibility of a supernatural being called god. I hold agnostic thinking also as not a professional epistemology thus it is not usable to delineate a professional philosophical knowledge stance it is a personal belief forming a theory of knowledge. To me, knowledge is largely an Epistemology of justified true belief as is understood in philosophy, with my own variation to validate each part. Epistemology is the study of knowledge and justified belief. As the study of knowledge, epistemology is concerned with the following questions: What are the necessary and sufficient conditions of knowledge? What are its sources? What is its structure, and what are its limits? As the study of justified belief, epistemology aims to answer questions such as: How we are to understand the concept of justification? What makes justified beliefs justified? Is justification internal or external to one’s own mind? Understood more broadly, epistemology is about issues having to do with the creation and dissemination of knowledge in particular areas of inquiry. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/epistemology/

“Philosophical vs. Pragmatic Reasons for Preferring the Term ‘Agnostic’A person may call herself an agnostic, as Huxley did, because of questionable philosophical motives. Huxley thought that propositions about the transcendent, though possibly meaningful, were empirically untestable. We have seen that it is unclear that the conclusion of thefine-tuning argument is untestable. One can at least compare it with other and non-theistic hypotheses. Thus there are conjectures that there are many universes, so many of them that is not surprising that there should be some among them in which the constants of physics allow for the possibility of life, and if so our universe must be one of them. Some cosmologists give independent grounds for thinking that new universes are spawned out of the back of black holes. Others think that there are independent grounds for thinking of a single huge Universe that has crystallized out into various universe-sized regions each with randomly different values for the fundamental constants. Some such speculations get some support (it has been suggested) from string theory. Though such speculations are at present untestable and should be taken with a grain of salt, one or another may well one day be absorbed into a testable theory. It must be left to cosmologists and mathematical physicists to go into the pros and cons here, but they are mentioned here to indicate a grey area between the testable and the untestable. Some scientists when canvassing these issues of philosophical theology may prefer to call themselves ‘agnostics’ rather than ‘atheists’ because they have been over-impressed by a generalized philosophical skepticism or by a too simple understanding of Popper’s dictum that we can never verify a theory but only refute it. Such a view would preclude us from saying quite reasonably that we know that the Sun consists largely of hydrogen and helium. When we say ‘I know’ we are saying something defensible. If later we discover that though what we said was at the time justified, it nevertheless turned out to be false, we would say ‘I thought I knew but I now see that I didn’t know’. Never or hardly ever to say ‘I know’ would be to deprive these words of their usefulness, just as the fact that some promises have to be broken does not deprive the institution of promising of its legitimacy. Another motive whereby an atheist might describe herself as an agnostic is purely pragmatic. In discussion with a committed theist this might occur out of mere politeness or in some circumstances from fear of giving even more offence. Samuel Butler, though a complete unbeliever in the doctrines of Christianity, in the preface to one of his books Erewhon Revisited (Butler 1932) described himself as the broadest of broad churchmen. That is, I take it that broad churchmen often were unbelievers, but treated the doctrine as mere myth suitable for literal consumption by the local yokels in the interests of social stability. It is unclear to me whether or not Butler was sympathetic to a very abstract sort of theism. Some may call themselves ‘agnostics’ rather than ‘atheists’ merely because they are equally repelled by the fanaticism associated with some forms of theism and by the boring obsessiveness of what Hilary Putnam has called ‘the village atheist’. (Contrast, however, Clifford’s view of the matter and also the example of the radical and intellectual tinker, Mr. Shaw, in Butler’s powerful novel The Way of All Flesh.) Still, these considerations are perhaps more a matter for sociologists than for philosophers. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/atheism-agnosticism/

To read more why Agnosticism is a Belief about knowledge Built on Folk Logic: http://damienmarieathope.com/2016/01/12/agnosticism-is-a-belief-about-knowledge-built-on-folk-logic/


Matt Dillahunty addresses  Atheist Debates – You’re not an atheist, you’re an agnostic

https://www.youtube.com/shared?ci=rjtBRm12G70

I value Ignosticism which uses Theological noncognitivism
Theological noncognitivism is the argument that religious language – specifically, words such as “god” – are not cognitively meaningful. It is sometimes considered as synonymous with ignosticism. 1
 
I see Theological noncognitivism as a kind of duel attack a semantic/logical and a reasoned psychological that the mind must be able to conceptualize.
 
I see Ignosticism as using the Theological noncognitivism arguments of “mind understanding issues” (rationalism challenging) and an evidentialist/verificationist arguments of “lacking evidence issues” (empiricism challenging).
 
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. Moreover, 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. Ignosticism and theological noncognitivism are similar although whereas the ignostic says “every theological position assumes too much about the concept of god”, the theological noncognitivist claims to have no concept whatever to label as “a concept of god”, but the relationship of ignosticism to other nontheistic views is less clear. 1

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

“Damien, I had a difficult time believing in God or any type because it seems unlikely that one supreme being could control everything yet allow hate, war, misery, suffering, and pain to hurt everyone on earth.” – Messanger

My response, well to hold the thinking that it is unlikely that one supreme being could control everything yet allow hate, war, misery, suffering, and pain to hurt everyone on earth. is actually an axiological atheism argument or moral argument against god(s).


No god Claims have Justification, Challenge?

“Damien, (responding to me saying no god claims have justification) there are problems thinking everything you believe needs a justification.” – Challenger

My response, so, are you saying something can be claimed as real but have no warrant to justify why one should agree or even entertain it?

“The idea that Induction is reliable can be claimed and seems like an important assumption, but arguments for it are fallacious. There are similar issues with thinking an external world exists.” – Challenger

My response, ok, and how do we discern any of it, if nothing has a need for justification? Because to me, I see you’re saying something is fallacious as asserting a justification stance and thus, is similar to what I think, which is valid, that there is a rationalistic need for justification. You are telling me I am wrong and that needs a justification, just as me showing your thinking wrong took a justification. If not then tell me how I am wrong utilizing no justification at all. So, try to prove me wrong because even if you do you will have provided a justification so then further proving my assertion of the need for justification.

“You are missing part of the conversation. Can you prove every belief needs a justification? Let’s say every belief needs a justification. Then you have to argue for every premise of every argument. That requires infinite arguments. What exactly is your argument that all beliefs require a justification?  I am not challenging the importance of justification. I am challenging the idea that every belief has to have a justification. The example above is induction. Hume showed why arguments for induction will be fallacious. I did not just make the claim. Go ahead and prove induction is reliable if you can. It would revolutionize philosophy. In response to >>sure you can believe all kinds of things with no justification at all but we can’t claim them as true not wish others to actually agree unless something is somehow and or in some way justified. I already said every challenged claim in a debate has to be argued for. Every claim has a burden of proof anyway. Most beliefs that do not require justification are things basically everyone already agrees with. But if you debate someone who rejects the existence of an external world or the reliability of induction, you can’t prove that they have to agree as far as I can tell. In response to >>When is something true that has no justification? Lots of things are true and we don’t know they are true. To claim to know something is true is another issue. But maybe we know induction is reliable. Maybe we know there is an external world. If so, it’s not clear how we know those things. I already mentioned induction above and you never talked about it.” – Challenger

My response, “Sure, there can be many things that may be true but actually receiving rational agreement that they are intact true needs justification.”

“Right, I think we might have talked past one another a bit. I don’t expect agreement without a good argument.” – Challenger

My response, so you, like me want a justification?

Of course, it is a very important thing to me in general.” – Challenger


Agnosticism No Thanks, I am Ignostic

Is it correct to hold a belief that theists, such as Christians actually have a concept of something nonexistent labeled “GOD”, just like we all have a concept of something nonexistent labeled “unicorns”?

Do they really have any reality tangible concept to label “the god concept” because without it are not beliefs about “the god concept” reality intangible? A concept of something nonexistent labeled “GOD”, is not tangible and is incapable of being perceived as something in or of reality. It is an unknowable reality intangible unfounded speculation, not a known concept.

Such as, can we not form a somewhat reality tangible concept to label “the unicorn concept,” for we can conceive of a horse and a singular horn in order to intelligibly have a unicorn concept. Can we not generate a mental picture of a concept that fits the label unicorn, but one cannot really close their eyes and conjure up any concept of anything labeled “GOD” even though no one has any more reason to believe in unicorns then gods.

I do reject that the god label has any meaning in reality and that any effort given to a god concept is still nothing but lies made up claiming to know or give believed qualities and it is that which I am rejecting as an atheist. But when asked if I believe an offered deity such as Allah to me I am a ignostic atheist (I reject the god label as expressing anything real and also reject the belief of any god concept connecting to anything real).

I don’t believe that the label “God” refers to anything imaginable. That doesn’t mean I don’t also reject the claim offered thus am Atheist as well. You are saying I must choose and I am saying I don’t think I have to. If you ask is god an intelligible thing no. Do I believe the claims given to it? No. Thus, to me, I can be both, hold in myself the stance it (all god claims) is meaningless (lack any coherent offering linking reality to the term labeled gods) therefore, reason would seem to require an honest thinker to profess “Ignostic Thinking” (whether or not they know what the term labeled “Ignostic” even is) and reject their claim of a god so am an atheist. Furthermore religionists personally in most of my personal experience whether it is Christians, Jews, Muslims, etc., none really or truly understand much of what they like to talk about as if it’s fact magic that is not yet once even proven in a small way thus them asking other to somehow take serious their big magic claims is not even require much consideration at all as its self debunking with no valid and reliable ontology to find or offer thus such claims as gods something offered with evidence of nothing are not really believable in a real way and are instead believed in a psychological way and it is this psychological battle that we must address as the so-called believers are just self-lying and in a real way also do not really believe in a god at all as no one can, as there is no way to actually believe in an undefinable in reality, unknown from reality, and nonpositional to reality as the opposite is required to know something, therefore this only believe that they believe that the label “God” refers to something imaginable but god is like a square circle statable in words even understandable as separate pieces but impossible by design when added together. So we much over come the psychological certain belief that is not a normal reality belief, it is instead a psychological blind acceptance of the pseudo-reality thinking that is needed to formulate or accept a god (big magic claim or actually often a set of magic nonreality/pseudo-reality claim/claims) as if it was even more real than the actual reality (“faith-ism” or fideism).

I am an Atheist, Antitheist, Antireligionist, Humanist, Writer, Artist, Poet, Philosopher & Activist.

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” http://damienmarieathope.com/2015/10/30/axiological-atheism-explained/

I am a rationalist, not a skeptic:

To me, a “Rationalist”, knowing it or not will be more prone to axiology, strong atheism and or ignosticism. And “Skeptic”, knowing it or not will be more prone to nihilism, weak atheism and or agnosticism. Don’t get me wrong, “I Am a Rationalist and Support Reasonable Skepticism” http://damienmarieathope.com/2016/03/02/support-reasonable-skepticism/

 

What it is to BE WISE

“Reason is my only master, whereas faith offered as reality is most defiantly not my friend.” 

When you say “GOD,” what do you mean by god?
 
With the amazing world of science facts, all one after another disproving the faulty claims of gods and religions; we need to stop asking whether believing in gods or religion is rational, and instead start asking how strongly holding onto religious belief is even cognitively possible. Science Facts Should Make Religious Belief Impossible You may say terms like god(s) as if that term means anything without a connected myth people believe in. But you don’t believe in a know-nothing theism, do you? be honest when you think of god the influences of some god myth come in your head not an unknown and unknown possibly god somethingism, a vague unjustified theistic possibility thing you think came before the big bang. And, whatever, people can believe it’s a god but even if one could agree with you, honestly that would at best only get you the vague unjustified god nothing as your possibility before all the nature and reality we do know. However, we both get such a god does not fit a given religion hella vague something unknown before the big bang god if real has shown complete indifference to life on earth. So, all the religions are out the door or you could say almost all god claims can fit an origins unknown like what the big bang would limit and in that we find the problem. Religious holy book myth gods are well defined and not at all like the undefined something that could have been concluded as something before the big bang, which leaves us at, we don’t know but what is it about this unknown that can be believed to be a god something does nothing for you just as it tells you nothing and is most likely nothing but more nature just as everything we do know is a nature nothing magical. What do you mean by god? God, should stand for confusion. Not all people who say they believe in “gOD” agree on any of what they choose to agree on starts or completes a chosen god belief. Which should offer new possible ideas concerning why disbelief actually beats belief in a god something but just like there is no exact definition of a god concept existence, some stuff will hold a never-ending problem. Therefore, in trying to define or analyze chosen god belief styles in this way any may find some aspects that definitely hold reason to challenge, the differences in god belief attribution and god belief make up of this thing called god even in members of the same religion. The utter confusion of and about what others think amounts to or demonstrates what god myth should lead a reasonable person to conclude they all have or are currently making it up. There are no gods nor supernatural anything, think otherwise prove it with valid and reliable reason and evidence. To simplify, the general idea of “god” is likely derived from a man-made animistic assumption that nature contains magic thus a magic designer or controller called gods. Some people who are atheists were never theists. How lucky not to have endured what I did. Some of these Gold Star Atheists “never-theist” atheists may wonder if they missed out on something by not being raised theistically. Yes, you missed something alright, you missed a mind full of bullshit that is as hard to escape for some me included to even begin to see clearly, is my response but likely quite similar to many other because us Brown Star Atheists “theistically-raised” atheists, we think you missed out on the fun of Something terrible like missing out on a unilateral mind rape of faith toxic beliefs…

What do you mean by god Evidence?

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, confirmedprovencorroborated, 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 Here are some links about proving a negative: LinkLinkLinkLinkLinkLink

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 a hardcore methodological rationalist and will believe nothing without valid and reliable reason and evidence neither will I ever be pushed any skepticism unless I first appeal to its reason. Thus my default is like a null hypothesis: “no beliefs are true” then it must be proven otherwise with valid and reliable reason and evidence before I entertain any firm belief. I strive to employ an intellectually high standard in my thinking and value good belief etiquette.

I Am a Strong Atheist: “I am psychologically certain god(s) don’t exist”

My #5 Strongest Explicit Atheism “positive” / “strong” / “hard” atheists similar to Antitheist Atheism.

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.

Archaeological, Scientific, & Philosophic evidence shows the god myth is man-made nonsense.

“Damien, you don’t know gods are lies, no atheist could know this.” – Challenger

My response, Yes, I can and yes we can, we know that the god myth is man-made nonsense as we can know about what time male gods myths came along and a hypothesis for why.

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

The Evolution of Religion and Removing the Rationale of Faith

[Antireligionist] My blogs that address Religion: Archaeology, Anthropology, Philosophy and History

What About Neanderthals?

Did Neanderthals teach us “Primal Religion (Animism?)” 120,000 Years Ago?

Why do people think Religion is much more than supernaturalism and superstitionism?


Chimpanzees Sacralizing Trees?


Archaeological/Anthropological/Historical (evidence showing the god myth is man-made nonsense):

It’s around 5,500 to 6,000 years ago (seemingly not any further back than 7,000 years ago) that the male gods emerge, with the birth of state cities (birth of masculinity worship). But female goddesses seem to go back at least 12,000 years ago close to around the time of animal domestication and the cultivation of seed-bearing plants (fertility goddesses) or maybe to 40,000 years ago as fertility (female figurines) and hunting magic/protection (female items) of the peoples labels Aurignacian culture and the birth of developed art it seams shamanism, totemism, and animism. It is the earliest modern human culture, which, like modern humans (like us) which started accruing around 50,000 years ago. But, we do know that the first worship and it was not likely a god or goddess just a reflection of nature worship by means of a stone shake around 70,000 years ago around the time of a supervolcano in Indonesia and humanity almost going extinct. This time was an ice age and smoke may have lingered in or on clouds possibly looking similar to snakes. And, at 100,000 language development begins around the time human burial begins, do language and magical thinking help each other? Yes, they sure do today and it is not so strange to think myth needs language too. So, it’s safe to say we worshiped nature long before the gods we thought created it, thus we know all gods and goddesses are made up lies. I Believe Archaeology, not Myths. The value (axiology) of archaeology (empirical evidence) is knowledge (epistemology) of the past adding to our intellectual (rational) reality of actual events. On the other hand, myths (collection of stories) inaccurate accounts of the past or tails to establish thinking or behaviors, supporting faith (nonrationality) in some unreal belief, behavior or creative fiction of nonevents or actual events. The interconnectedness of religious thinking Animism, Totemism, Shamanism, and Paganism? So, to me, it all starts in a general way with Animism (theoretical belief in supernatural powers/spirits), then this is physically expressed in or with Totemism (theoretical belief in mythical relationship with powers/spirits through a totem item), which then enlists a full-time specific person to do this worship and believed interacting Shamanism (theoretical belief in access and influence with spirits through ritual), and then there is the further employment of myths and gods added to all the above giving you Paganism (often a lot more nature-based than most current top world religions, thus hinting to their close link to more ancient religious thinking it stems from). My hypothesis is expressed with an explanation of the building of a theatrical house (modern religions development). Humans are Part of Evolution, not a Special Creation, 400,000 Years Old Sociocultural Evolution, My thoughts on religious progression, Religion is an Evolved Product, Religion ProgressionSuperstition to Religion “The Tree of Lies and its Hidden Roots”, Yes, you need to know about Animism to understand ReligionAnimism, Totemism, Shamanism, and Paganism, Sky Burials: Animism, Totemism, Shamanism, and PaganismSedentism and the Creation of goddesses as well as godsPaganism, Folk religion, & Ethnic/indigenous religionPromoting Religion as Real is HarmfulGod is us?Who knows what a “god-claim” really is?You will always fail to prove a specific god?Don’t Spend Your Life Chasing Invisible ShadowsI reject that even the term god has any valid coherent meaning outside myths.My Atheism: “Axiological Atheism”Arguments over the term god?Vague Theism or god Somethingism: just say NOI proudly reject gods and religionsDoubt or Disbelief Requires Justification just like all Other Beliefs.A Rational Mind Values Humanity and Rejects Religion and GodsYou say you believe in a possibility of your favored god-claim?gOD Believer, Pease Think CriticallyWho determines what’s reasonable?It’s Not the Deity You See as Possible But How Many You RejectReligion is a Form of Malignant Inflated Egotistical Narcissism God translates as I don’t know things but like the comfort of thinking I do, even if to do so denies reality. No, Humans are Not that Special(good without and before god)


Hidden Religious Expressions
 
“animist, totemist, shamanist & paganist”
 

*Believe in spirit-filled life and/or afterlife (you are a hidden animist/Animism : an approximately 100,000-year-old belief system)

 *Believe in spirit-filled life and/or afterlife can be attached to or be expressed in things or objects (you are a hidden totemist/Totemism: an approximately 50,000-year-old belief system)
*Believe in spirit-filled life and/or afterlife can be attached to or be expressed in things or objects and these objects can be used by special persons or in special rituals can connect to spirit-filled life and/or afterlife (you are a hidden shamanist/Shamanism: an approximately 30,000-year-old belief system)
*Believe in spirit-filled life and/or afterlife can be attached to or be expressed in things or objects and these objects can be used by special persons or in special rituals can connect to spirit-filled life and/or afterlife who are guided/supported by a goddess/god or goddesses/gods (you are a hidden paganist/Paganism: an approximately 12,000-year-old belief system)


Religious Evolution?
 In my thinking on the evolution of religion, it seems a belief in animistic spirits” (a belief system dating back at least 100,000 years ago on the continent of Africa), that in totemism (dating back at least 50,000 years ago on the continent of Europe) with newly perceived needs where given artistic expression of animistic spirits both animal or human “seemingly focused on female humans to begin with and only much much later is there what look like could be added male focus”, but even this evolved into a believed stronger communion with more connections in shamanism (a belief system dating back at least 30,000 years ago on the continent of Aisa) with newly perceived needs, then this also evolved into Paganism (a belief system dating back at least 13,000 years ago on the continent of eastern Europe/western Asia turkey mainly but eastern Mediterranean lavant as well to some extent or another) with newly perceived needs where you see the emergence of animal gods and female goddesses around into more formalized animal gods and female goddesses and only after 7,000 to 6,000 do male gods emerge one showing its link in the evolution of religion and the other more on it as a historical religion. Ps. Progressed organized religion starts approximately 5,000-year-old belief system)

Forget Religions’ Unfounded Myths, I Have Substantiated “Archaeology Facts.”Archaeology Knowledge Challenge?

Stone Age Art: 500,000 – 233,000 Years Old

And this is not even mentioning all the other science and philosophy that can be used to accumulatively finish the answer with we know that there is no gods as much as we relatively can claim to know anything. Science and Philosophy?


Scientific (evidence showing the god myth is man-made nonsense):

Science is not common sense?Origin of Logics is Naturalistic ObservationAnalytical atheismAtheistic Null Hypothesis: There is no God/GodsScience Facts Should Make Religious Belief ImpossibleWhat Do YOU mean you don’t Trust SCIENCE?Religion vs. Science, Don’t Confuse BeliefsReligion and Science are Completely Different EpistemologiesWhat is the Difference Between Science or Non-science?Science and Justified True BeliefsWhat do you mean by god Evidence?Religious Faith as Evidence, is an Intellectual Reasoning ErrorSorry You Have No EvidenceNaturalism and Logical Positivism?The Religious Faith Problem?Scientific Thinking not Faith ThinkingThe Scientific Method & Naturalistic RationalismIf you believe in science as well as evolution how do you believe in an afterlife?Aquatic Ape Theory/Hypothesis? As Always, Just Pseudoscience.Creationism (pseudoscience)Science and PhilosophyExplaining science to remove MISCONCEPTIONQuit Trying to Invent Your God From the Scraps of Science.,  Science vs. ReligionScience Facts Should Make Religious Belief ImpossibleI Hate Religion Just as I Hate PseudoscienceEvolution Of ScienceGenetic studies on Jewish DNA is not 6,000 years old but has origin links to about 20,000 to 30,000 years ago?Thinking About Our Belief Motivation“Damien, I have a question, can something come from nothing?”Yes, Karma is the Same Old NonsenseWhy are lies more appealing than the truth?Scientific Realism & Scientific Anti-Realism?Religious OCD Subtype?How could a religion be a lie is it because it’s not true?Empiricism-DenierExperiential AtheismCreationism is a Debunked Religious Conspiracy Theory.The Harm of ConspiraciesMetaphysical naturalism?Is Evolution a Theory or a Fact? “It is both.”Belief in god(s) May Involve Suppressing Analytical and Critical thinking, “Dead is Dead” no ghosts, spirits or souls…Interview of Formal Axiological Atheist Dr. William KelleherScientific Values: fallibilism, realism, & rationalismMy review of “Foundational Falsehoods of Creationism” by Aron RaAncient Aliens Conspiracy Theorists are PseudohistoriansEvolution of the Earth?Authoritarian Truth Seekers and Anti-Authoritarian Truth Seekers?Oxygen is an Evolutionary Constant as well as a Constraint.Humans are Prone to Thinking Errors, and Yes This Includes Theism.Evidence Against a Caring God?Thoughts on Spirituality?Technological Advances in EvolutionScientific Misinterpretations Promote RelativismWe All Should Reject the SupernaturalSpiritual Woo Woo, Trying to Make Magic of Reality.


Philosophic (evidence showing the god myth is man-made nonsense):

To Believe???Philosophical Skepticism, Solipsism and the Denial of Reality or CertaintyThe Rational Imperative, How Does One Know Things?Don’t Talk About Beliefs, Without Justifying They are True and How You Know This.The Beginning of Atheistic DoubtFolk Logic: YOU CAN’T PROVE A NEGATIVE because you can PROVE A NEGATIVEThe Trap of Intellectual Honesty and the Freedom from Moral TheismUsing Ontology to Attack Theistic ErrorsWho knows what a “god-claim” really is?You will always fail to prove a specific god?Challenged or Challenging? (questions of ontology)Ontology, Epistemology, & Axiology argument/challenge protocolError Crushing Force of the Dialectic Questions and the Hammer of Truth“The Hammer of Truth” Process“The Hammer of Truth” (scientific philosophy: Ontology, Epistemology, & Axiology) in action.No there is No gods and No we are not a Brain in a VatThe Battle of TruthPsychological certainty and Epistemic certainty?To Find Truth You Must First LookTheological Noncognitivist & IgnosticismEpistemological AtheismPragmatic theory of truth, Coherence theory of truth, and Correspondence theory of truthRationalist atheismArguments over the term god?Ignostic Atheist?The word FAITH?Faith is not ReasonEpistemically Rational with Beliefs?My Methodological Skepticism StyleWhy not Find Out if what you believe is True?Incapable of making a decision on if there is or not a god?“I have no beliefs”, is a Confusion (about beliefs) I Hear Some Atheists SayThat is not accurate in any way… Challenging Claims?Real Truth Seekers?All positions if questioned far enough are circular?My “Methodological Rationalism” approachMy Methodological Rationalism: investigate (ontology), expose (epistemology) and judge (axiology)Axiological Atheism Morality Critique: of the bible godGrasping the status of truth (ontology of truth)Being Epistemically RationalDiscussions on Agnosticism and AtheismQuestions and Challenges to My Atheism.My Anti-Agnostic Atheism ThinkingAgnosticism Beliefs Involve “FOLK LOGIC” Thinking?Yes, We All Have Beliefs; But What Does That Mean?Axiological Atheism ExplainedPhilosophy to The RescueTwo Atheists philosophers: debate “spiritual”Crazy Beliefs Need Rational ThoughtAddressing The Ethics of Belief,  ,


You can’t change people, by reason and evidence. WRONG, I do it all the time.

Turning a Theist Attack into a Chance for Their New Learning: “an open dialog”

I use a kind of Dialectical Rhetoric = truth persuasion (motivational teaching)

My Methodological Rationalism: investigate (ontology), expose (epistemology) and judge (axiology)

Damien, I want to read some discussions or debate you’ve been through.

For the Love of Firebrand Atheism?

Antireligionist Atheism

I reject all gods concepts and the religions that champion them. Just the fact that so many harm or kill for gods does not prove that gods exist, it only demonstrates what a toxic harmful concept of gods can be and why it is the concept itself that needs to be killed. We should never stop believing in people or their ability to change. If we do not believe in them, how can we expect them to believe in their power to change? Some people just need our help, understanding, and care to see through the fog that was forced on to them by religion. I hope I never stop seeing how wonderful my fellow humans are and offer all I can to show them that there is a better way than gods, religion, and magic. I believe in all the best my fellow atheists possess and that they too will do the same. We are reality revolutionaries! Long live the championing of mental freedom that is Atheism!