Truth Navigation: Techniques for Discussions or Debates


I do truth navigation, both inquiry questions as well as

strategic facts in a tag team of debate and motivational teaching.


My eclectic set of tools involves:

*The Hammer of Truth: ontology, epistemology, and axiology

*REMS: reason, evidence, and methodological skepticism

*Utilizing Dignity: strategic dignity attacks or dignity enrichments

*Dialectical Rhetoric = truth persuasion (motivational teaching)

Asking the right questions at the right times with the right info can also change minds it’s just you can’t just use facts all on there own. Denial likes consistency, the pattern of thinking can not vary from a fixed standard of thinking, or the risk of truth could slip in. Helping people alter skewed thinking is indeed a large task but most definitely a worthy endeavor.


The Ethics of Character in arguments or debates 

I wish to not simply think one-sided but strive for truth, even if I may be the one wrong. I also always strive to not let anger or frustration become a potential for unkind or unethical behaviors:

………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

*Don’t assume ask then strive to understand not just react

*Don’t see them as an enemy they are a fellow learner

*Don’t see it as win-lose it’s about teaching

………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

*Utilize nice behavior

*Utilize nice language

*Utilize nice voice


Dignity, in my thinking, involves/encompass a phenomenological/psychological-awareness/cognitive-realization and the emotional sensitivity of our sense of self or the emotional understanding about our sense of self.

What we need to understand as well as acknowledge is how we should honour others who are fellow dignity beings and the realization of the value involved in that. As well as strive to understand how an attack to a person’s “human rights” is an attack to the value and worth of a dignity being.

Our dignity is involved when you feel connected: feelings with people, animals, plants, places, things, and ideas. Our dignity is involved when we feel an emotional dignity bond “my god”, “my religion”, “my faith”, “my family”, “my pet”,  “my sport’s team” etc. This involvement of emotional dignity bond will indeed make the challenging of peoples “god”, “religion”, or “faith” such a difficult task and requires a skilled navigation to get them to see things differently but it can be done.

To attribute something as sacred is to attach an extremely high emotional dignity bond to it and you should or at least would think such seemingly special things must carry some kind of need to involve an actual thing that does actual good, not empty claims of things not evident in reality.
 
But as one’s conception of gods, religion, or faith in supernatural anything often involves this proposed made up “other-than natural-or-real-thing” as being something sacred which they thus attribute a “sacred honor” and the valued high emotional dignity bond that comes with it which is underserved for such made up flights of fantasy, just empty claims of things not evident in reality…
I will openly say faith is foolish lacking credibility and it is stupid to hold on to beliefs that are disproved by science fact. However, I don’t usually call people names even ones saying things I believe are ridiculous nor do I belittle them instead I strive to and support attacking the thinking and not the person.

Dignity arises in our emotional awareness depending on cognition.

May my lips be sweetened with words of encouragement and compassion. May my Heart stay warm in the arms of kindness. May my life be an expression of love to the world.

To me when we say it’s wrong to kill a human, that person is appealing to our need to value the dignity of the person.’ The person with whom may possibly be killed has a life essence with an attached value and moral weight variations. And moral weight,’ which is different depending on the value of the dignity being you are addressing understanding moral weight as a kind of liability, responsibility, or rights is actualized.

So, it’s the dignity to which we are saying validates the right to life. But I believe all living things with cognitively aware have a dignity. As to me, dignity is the name I home to the emotional experience, emotional expression, emotional intelligence or sensitivity at the very core of our sense of self the more aware the hire that dignity value and thus worth. I am not just different in my thinking on one subject, rather I am usually refined in all my thoughts. Rationalist is my nature, anti-authoritarian thinking is my methodology, atheism is my conclusion, Ignostic is my opinion, antitheism, as well as antireligionism, are my value judgments and anarchistic humanitarianism is my motivation. People are assholes, but then I remembered I too am people; and thus, I saw how I am responsible.


“Damien, so what do you think are the best ways to cultivate dignity?” – Questioner

My response, dignity is not a fixed thing and it feels honoured or honouring others as well as help self-helping and other-helping; like ones we love or those in need, just as our dignity is affected by the interactions with others. We can value our own dignity and we can and do grow this way, but as I see it because we are social animals, we can usually we cannot fully flourish with our dignity. Thus dignity is emotionally needy for other dignity beings that is why I surmise at least a partially why we feel empathy and compassion or emotional bonds even with animals is a dignity awareness and response. Like when we say “my pet” cat one is acknowledging our increased personal and emotional connecting. So, when we exchange in experiences with say a pet animal what we have done is we raise their dignity.

To me, our dignity flourishes with acceptance, understanding, and support. Moreover, our dignity, in a sense, withers with rejection, misunderstanding, and opposition. Dignity thus in my thinking is the emotional sensitivity of our sense of self or the emotional understanding about our sense of self.

Dignity: Containing Value, and Moral Weight


“Admit it, Damien: How hard is it to challenge the mentally-challenged?” – Challenger

My response, I have just gotten better as I even better know what I will always try in my attacks Ontology, (understanding the thingness of things; like what is or can be real, like not god) epistemology, (understanding what you know or can know; as in you do have anything in this reality to know anything about this term you call god, and no way of knowing if There is anything non-naturalism beyond this universe and no way to state any about it if there where) and then end with axiology (understanding what is good or valuable as well as what is evil or unvaluable like how the stories about theist theistic gods are often racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic intersexphobic, xenophobic, etc. Thus they are directly against humanity and thus are evil and unvaluable. Unvaluable; as in the god concept you have is evil and demonstrably harmful and thus is highly unvaluable to humanity).

Why care? Well because we are cognitively advanced emotionally aware beings with fragile psychologies desperately needing of prosocial interactions with others. To me, we bloom in kindness and wither under unkindness, and we are prone to mental anguish from a trauma that can list a lifetime. We simply need people, and they need us. And because kindness is like chicken soup to the essence of who we are, by validating the safety needs of our dignity.

As I see it now, how odd I find it to have prejudice or bigotry against other humans who are in fact previous fellow beings of dignity, we too often get blinded by the external packaging that holds a being of dignity internally.

Because of the core sensitivity of our dignity, we feel that when we connect, then we are also acknowledging, understanding, and supporting a perceived sense of dignity. Even if it’s not actually a dignity being in the case of plants, places, things, and ideas; and is rightly interacting with a dignity being in people and animals. We are trying to project “dignity developing motivation” towards them somewhere near equally even though human and animals don’t have the same morality weight to them. To further discuss my idea of *dignity developing motivation” can be seen in expressions like, I love you and I appreciate you. Or the behaviour of living and appreciating.
 
However, this is only true between higher cognitive aware beings as dignity and awareness of selfness is directly related to dignity awareness. The higher the dignity awareness the higher the moral weight of the dignity in the beings dignity as well as a higher responsibility to utilize good morality.

The common concept of dignity is often similar to my thinking of Dignity:

“Moral, ethical, legal, and political discussions use the concept of dignity to express the idea that a being has an innate right to be valued, respected, and to receive ethical treatment. In the modern context, dignity can function as an extension of the Enlightenment-era concepts of inherent, inalienable rights. English-speakers often use the word “dignity” in prescriptive and cautionary ways: for example in politics it can be used to critique the treatment of oppressed and vulnerable groups and peoples, but it has also been applied to cultures and sub-cultures, to religious beliefs and ideals, to animals used for food or research, and to plants. “Dignity” also has descriptive meanings pertaining to human worth. In general, the term has various functions and meanings depending on how the term is used and on the context” ref


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

I am putting forth a sound thinking debate or discussion persuasion style called methodological rationalism. I am trying to make an somewhat easy and thus a reproducible standardized argument template to follow, even for those not well versed in argumentation to utilize the force of critical thinking rationality in a position dismantling three-step method to ensure it’s effective use both with others but as well as with yourself as the first person a reasonable thinker challenge should be themselves and only after following epistemic rationality fixing in addition to the reason (Rationalism) or evidence (Empiricism) and of course filtering it through continued universal critical review and scrutiny before, during and after belief(s) (My Methodological Skepticism Style).

You only PRETEND to not respect my Atheism
 
I have yet to meet a god fanatic yet who does not wholeheartedly support and agree with my Atheism when referring to a god they also reject. So, I ask you is it really my Atheism you don’t like or just don’t enjoy it’s crushing force against your one unjustified god myth hold out?

“Do you believe in God?”
 
One could answer in three different ways:
 
Defense – “talk about one’s self, their “own-belief” (ontology involved).
 
Attack – “talk about another’s claims” (epistemology involved).
 
Or both “talk about one’s self and the other’s claims compare and contrast the related value” (axiology involved).
God, the Presuppositional Error

First, truly what is a god and how can you claim to know about it? Guessing is not evidence, neither is wild, unfounded assertions that are written in reality devoid documents such as holy books. Atheists do not have to prove that gods do not exist, as gods have never been proven to exist. Nor is there any good reason to think they could exist!

PS. In the branch of linguistics known as pragmatics, a presupposition is an implicit assumption about the world or background belief relating to an utterance whose truth is taken for granted in discourse.


Ontology delineation: unpack and lay bare WHAT is being said, assumed or believed and is this valid and reliable in a reasonable amount, expression and or qualities.

Epistemology deconstruction: unpack and lay bare WHY it is being said, assumed, or believed and is this valid and reliable in a reasonable amount, expression, and or qualities.

Axiology discrediting: unpack and lay bare HOW it is being said, assumed, or believed and is this valid and reliable in a reasonable amount, expression, and or qualities.

Address Thinking (Ontology)

Identify what they are talking about, investigate its thingness, its beingness, its purpose, how it works and question the elements that would be involved and their thingness, beingness, and purpose.

Analyze Thinking (Epistemology)

Identify how they can claim to know what they think they know, as well as its detailed information, assumptions, implications, and challenge their belief etiquette on what they claim is their way of acquiring what they say they believe or know, in addition to when and how they claimed to know.

Assess Thinking (Axiology)

Identify how they can claim worth, value, accuracy, relevance, depth, significance, logic, reason, justification, warrant, and fairness of what they think they know. This refers to the assessment of thinking or supposed evidence and is a value judging stage in the systematic inquiry which is challenging the quality of what is being offered.


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

Epistemology (Greek episteme, meaning “knowledge, understanding”, and logos, meaning “discourse, study, ratio, calculation, reason”) it is the theory of knowledge, especially with regard to its methods, validity, and scope. Epistemology is the investigation of what distinguishes justified belief from opinion.

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

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

Ontology: what is the nature of being or what can rightly even be claimed as existing as a being, thing, or a defined idea’s qualities including what potentially can be said to contain the qualities for truth, facts, or evidence to be seen a real, existing in reality, or even possibly real concepts (Ontology)?

Epistemology: what is the nature of knowledge or what can rightly even be claimed as existing as truth, facts, or evidence including what potentially can be said to contain the conditions for truth, facts, or evidence to be seen a knowledge (Epistemology)?

Axiology: And lastly, what is the nature of value, good, worth, or beneficialness or what can rightly even be claimed as existing as good, worth, or beneficial including what potentially can be said to contain the conditions as well as the qualities for truth, facts, or evidence to be seen a knowledge of value, good, worth, or beneficialness (Axiology).

Ontology, Epistemology, & Axiology OEA (The Hammer of Truth)

OEA “Hammer of Truth” Questions:

Ontology, Epistemology, & Axiology questioning tools in inquiry, disagreements, arguments, or debates.

*Ontology (thingness of things) questions to define or compare and contrast thingness.

*Epistemology (knowledge of things) questions to explode or establish and confirm knowledge.

*Axiology (value/worth/goodness of things) questions to valueize (value judge) or establish and confirm value or disvalue, worth or dis-worth, as well as goodness or un-good.

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

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

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


“The Divisions of Philosophy” Ontology, Epistemology, & Axiology
 
By Archie, Lee C, (August 16, 2007) URL: http://philosophy.lander.edu/intro/what.shtml
 
The Main Branches of Philosophy are divided as to the nature of the questions asked in each area. The integrity of these divisions cannot be rigidly maintained, for one area overlaps into the others.
 
Ontology or Metaphysics:
 
the study of what is really real. Metaphysics deals with the so-called first principles of the natural order and “the ultimate generalizations available to the human intellect.” Specifically, ontology seeks to identify and establish the relationships between the categories, if any, of the types of existent things. What kinds of things exist? Do only particular things exist or do general things also exist? How is existence possible? Questions as to identify and change of objects—are you the same person you were as a baby? as of yesterday? as of a moment ago? How do ideas exist if they have no size, shape, or color? (My idea of the Empire State Building is quite as “small” or as “large” as my idea of a book. I.e., an idea is not extended in space.) What is space? What is time? E.g., Consider the truths of mathematics: in what manner do geometric figures exist? Are points, lines, or planes real or not? Of what are they made? What is spirit? or soul? or matter? space? Are they made up of the same sort of “stuff”? When, if ever, are events necessary? Under what conditions are they possible?
 
Epistemology:
 
the study of knowledge. In particular, epistemology is the study of the nature, scope, and limits of human knowledge. Epistemology investigates the origin, structure, methods, and integrity of knowledge. Consider the degree of truth of the statement, “The earth is round.” Does its truth depend upon the context in which the statement is uttered? For example, this statement can be successively more accurately translated as … “The earth is spherical” or “The earth is an oblate spheroid” (i.e., flattened at the poles). But what about the Himalayas and the Marianas Trench? Even if we surveyed exactly the shape of the earth, our process of surveying would alter the surface by the footprints left and the impressions of the survey stakes and instruments. Hence, the exact shape of the earth cannot be known. Every rain shower changes the shape. (Note here as well the implications for skepticism and relativism: simply because we cannot exactly describe the exact shape of the earth, the conclusion does not logically follow that the earth does not have a shape.) Furthermore, consider two well-known problems in epistemology: Russell’s Five-Minute-World Hypothesis: Suppose the earth were created five minutes ago, complete with memory images, history books, records, etc., how could we ever know of it? As Russell wrote in The Analysis of Mind, “There is no logical impossibility in the hypothesis that the world sprang into being five minutes ago, exactly as it then was, with a population that “remembered” a wholly unreal past. There is no logically necessary connection between events at different times; therefore nothing that is happening now or will happen in the future can disprove the hypothesis that the world began five minutes ago.” For example, an omnipotent God could create the world with all the memories, historical records, and so forth five minutes ago. Any evidence to the contrary would be evidence created by God five minutes ago. (Q.v., the Omphalos hypothesis.) Suppose everything in the universe (including all spatial relations) were to expand uniformly a thousand times larger. How could we ever know it? A moment’s thought reveals that the mass of objects increases by the cube whereas the distance among them increases linearly. Hence, if such an expansion were possible, changes in the measurement of gravity and the speed of light would be evident, if, indeed, life would be possible. Russell’s Five-Minute-World Hypothesis is a philosophical problem; the impossibility of the objects in the universe expanding is a scientific problem since the latter problem can, in fact, be answered by principles of elementary physics.
 
Axiology:
 
the study of value; the investigation of its nature, criteria, and metaphysical status. More often than not, the term “value theory” is used instead of “axiology” in contemporary discussions even though the term “theory of value” is used with respect to the value or price of goods and services in economics. Some significant questions in axiology include the following: Nature of value: is value a fulfillment of desire, a pleasure, a preference, a behavioral disposition, or simply a human interest of some kind? Criteria of value: de gustibus non (est) disputandum (i.e., (“there’s no accounting for tastes”) or do objective standards apply? Status of value: how are values related to (scientific) facts? What ultimate worth, if any, do human values have? Axiology is usually divided into two main parts. Axiology also relates to ethics: the study of values in human behavior or the study of moral problems: e.g., (1) the rightness and wrongness of actions, (2) the kinds of things which are good or desirable, and (3) whether actions are blameworthy or praiseworthy. Consider this example analyzed by J. O. Urmson in his well-known essay, “Saints and Heroes”: “We may imagine a squad of soldiers to be practicing the throwing of live hand grenades; a grenade slips from the hand of one of them and rolls on the ground near the squad; one of them sacrifices his life by throwing himself on the grenade and protecting his comrades with his own body. It is quite unreasonable to suppose that such a man must be impelled by the sort of emotion that he might be impelled by if his best friend were in the squad.” Did the soldier who threw himself on the grenade do the right thing? If he did not cover the grenade, several soldiers might be injured or be killed. His action probably saved lives; certainly, an action which saves lives is a morally correct action. One might even be inclined to conclude that saving lives is a duty. But if this were so, wouldn’t each of the soldiers have the moral obligation or duty to save his comrades? Would we thereby expect each of the soldiers to vie for the opportunity to cover the grenade? Axiology also relates to Æsthetics: the study of value in the arts or the inquiry into feelings, judgments, or standards of beauty and related concepts. Philosophy of art is concerned with judgments of sense, taste, and emotion. E.g., Is art an intellectual or representational activity? What would the realistic representations in pop art represent? Does art represent sensible objects or ideal objects? Is artistic value objective? Is it merely coincidental that many forms in architecture and painting seem to illustrate mathematical principles? Are there standards of taste? Is there a clear distinction between art and reality? ref

ONTOLOGY is the philosophical study of the nature of being, becoming, existence or reality as well as the basic categories of being and their relations. Traditionally listed as a part of the major branch of philosophy known as metaphysics, ontology often deals with questions concerning what entities exist or may be said to exist and how such entities may be grouped, related within a hierarchy, and subdivided according to similarities and differences. Although ontology as a philosophical enterprise is highly theoretical, it also has practical application in information science and technology, such as ontology engineering. 

Some philosophers suggest that the question of “What is?” is (at least in part) an issue of usage rather than a question about facts. Suppose a person refers to a “spirit” as a “demon” or “god” and makes some comments pertinent to a spirit, but uses the word “demon” consistently throughout instead of some “god” one listening may get confused yet possibly also catch on that this person simply calls a spirit, demon or a god the same thing and the oddity is thus somewhat understood even though we don’t know why or what they are trying to assert ‘there are’ such-and-such by referring to more unproven/disproven ‘such-and-such’ still tells nothing about the positive anything exist, we might conclude that these people are confused, trying to misinform, or are not thinking enough about that which they refer to, they simply use empty claims of ‘there are’ this or that such-and-such. The question of What is being said, assumed, or believed and is this valid and reliable in a reasonable amount, expression, and/or qualities. “What is being talked about,” is at least partially a topic in the philosophy of language, and yet is not entirely about ontology itself and it is the ontology of what is being said is what I see is of importance.


Rationalist: when encountering offered thinking, assertions, propositions, or arguments they are likely to choose the default reasoning.
Skeptic: when encountering offered thinking, assertions, propositions, and or arguments they are likely to choose the default of doubting.

“I am a methodological rationalist.”

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


Mock Debate court using the “Hammer of Truth”

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

Always try to follow this attack order:

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

-What is your claim?

-What aspects must be there for your claim?

-What makes your claim different than other similar claims?

*Epistemology, (understanding what you know or can know; as in you do have and thing in this reality to know anything about this term you call god, and no way of knowing if there is anything non-naturalism beyond this universe and no way to state any about it if there were)

-How do know your claim?

-How reliable or valid must aspects be for your claim?

-How does the source of your claim make it different than other similar claims?

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

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

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

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


Take for instance how Religion supporters try the evaluation tactic of saying “there are peaceful Religions.”

I may respond, what do you mean by Religion and what do you mean by painful or good” (asking to find the truth or as usual expose the lack of a good Ontology)

Then, I may respond, “how do you know that”, “what is your sources and how reliable they are” (asking to find the truth or as usual expose the lack of a good Epistemology)

Then, I may respond, “what value do you think what you are saying has and to what level of proof do you feel truth needs as well as how do you ensure an amount of Accuracy” (asking to find the truth or as usual expose the lack of a good Axiology)


 Why are lies more appealing than the truth?


Basics of my Methodological Rationalism Epistemology Approach




Epistemology: the theory of knowledge, especially with regard to its methods, validity, and scope. Epistemology is the investigation of what distinguishes justified belief from opinion. Ref

In my epistemology quest, I generally follow the standard in philosophy JTB: Justified True Beliefs.
Justified / True / Beliefs

 
Justified? To established justification, I use the philosophy called Reliabilism.
 
“Reliabilism is a general approach to epistemology that emphasizes the truth-conduciveness of a belief-forming process, method, or another epistemologically relevant factor. The reliability theme appears both in theories of knowledge and theories of justification.” Ref

True? For the true part, I use the philosophy called 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.” Ref

Beliefs? For the beliefs part, I use what philosophy calls The Ethics of Belief.
 
“The “ethics of belief” refers the intersection of epistemology, philosophy of mind, psychology, and ethics. The central is norms governing our habits of belief-formation, belief-maintenance, and belief-relinquishment. It morally wrong (or epistemically irrational, or imprudent) to hold a belief on insufficient evidence. It morally right (or epistemically rational, or prudent) to believe on the basis of sufficient evidence, or to withhold belief in the perceived absence of evidence. It always obligatory to seek out all available epistemic evidence for a belief.” Ref


I was asked about the Gettier Problem, well, to me Edmund Gettier only points out that more than just JTB is needed as there may be some beliefs outside of simply JTB which I do, I feel all stages need analysis and support not just some simple use of JTB. With my Methodological Rationalism Epistemology Approach, I try to show how to build accuracy in beliefs, of course, there are always many non-accurate ways beliefs may be arrived at, analyze or maintained, as well as updated or remove beliefs if found to be in error. We conceptualize epistemological attitudes and beliefs as components of metacognitive knowledge. As such, they serve an important function in regulating the use of epistemic strategies such as knowledge-based validation of information and checking arguments for internal consistency. Ref Epistemic Attitudes: Belief, Disbelief and Suspended Judgement. click here is an interesting but complicated article on this subject. To me when assessing belief, one should think about reliabilism.I usually try to use a reliabilism approach to epistemology which emphasizes the truth-conduciveness of a belief-forming process, method, or other epistemologically relevant factors. The reliability theme appears in theories of knowledge, of justification, and of evidence. “Reliabilism” is sometimes used broadly to refer to any theory that emphasizes truth-getting or truth indicating properties. Ref When assessing belief one should think about the Correspondence Theory of Truth. I like the correspondence theory of truth to analyze beliefs or statements if they are true. People may think or analyze in a similar way without knowing the term or the method as it is reasonable and uses thinking that could be equally reached by critical thinking. The difference is having a go-to standard helps clarify thinking quickly with a high accuracy. The correspondence theory of truth states that the truth or falsity of a statement is determined 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. Ref

The Scientific Method & Naturalistic Rationalism

Why not Find Out if what you believe is True?

Scientific Thinking not Faith Thinking

Rationalist through and through


My “Methodological Rationalism” approach(REMS) Reason, Evidence & Methodological Skepticism

We don’t really defend atheism, to me as much as present reason and evidence to why theism is unjustified, unwarranted and found baseless to the point that atheism is almost like a default conclusion; it is reasonable when the belief proposition of theism fails as it always will. I have been told that me challenging or correcting people’s religious falsehoods was harmful. I say, “what”, ((sarcastically)) then responded, “yes”, just like challenging or correcting people’s lies is harmful…. Well, ok it’s harmful to falsehoods keeping their unjustified persuasive power.

My style when doing atheist outreach is basically to challenge with valid and reliable reason and evidence with a “reflective equilibrium” to what appears to be, has some high likelihood of being or has some strong confirmation.

The rationale of why reason is first is because if you can’t reason with them and at times this is obviously a factor with some people, just stop as all things revolve around reason. Thus, roughly stated as rationalism (which for me is reasonable use or application of things in philosophy methods or tools like reasonlogicaxiologyontology and epistemology, etc.), and empiricism (which for me is reasonable use or application of things in philosophy methods or tools like evidence ie. facts like science, history, and archeology, etc.) as well as navigating all this with “methodological skepticism” instead of (Philosophical skepticism) which is an approach that subjects all knowledge claims to scrutiny with the goal of sorting out true from false claims.


To me, when assessing belief, one should think about the Correspondence Theory of Truth and Justificationism:
 
I like the correspondence theory of truth to analyze beliefs or statements if they are true. People may think or analyze in a similar way without knowing the term or the method as it is reasonable and uses thinking that could be equally reached by critical thinking. The difference is having a go-to standard helps clarify thinking quickly with a high accuracy. The correspondence theory of truth states that the truth or falsity of a statement is determined 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. Ref

A General Thinking in all My Epistemology Theorizing is Justificationism

I like Justificationism to analyze beliefs or statements if they are true even more than Correspondence theories. People may think or analyze in a similar way without knowing the term or the method as it is reasonable and uses thinking that could be equally reached by critical thinking just like that in Correspondence theories. The difference is having a go-to standard like Correspondence theories or Justificationism helps clarify thinking quickly with a higher accuracy than randomly trying to employ critical thinking alone. Moreover, as a general thinking in all my epistemology is Justificationism:(philosophy) 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. “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 In a general way, “Justificationism” 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. I don’t have trust issues it’s just from experience I know many beliefs are full of shit thus lack any good justifacation. I am 100 % psychologically 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. Reason is my only master, whereas faith offered as reality is most defiantly not my friend. 


Empiricism and Rationalism in relation to epistemology?
 
Well, both, no matter how both may tend to differ are still philosophies that are together under the umbrella of epistemology, their argument lies in the understanding of the warrant, which is under the wider epistemic umbrella of the theory of justification. Well, defined narrowly, 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. This article will provide a systematic overview of the problems that the questions above raise and focus in some depth on issues relating to the structure and the limits of knowledge and justification. The theory of justification is the 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. Of these four terms, the term that has been most widely used and discussed by the early 21st century is “warrant”. Loosely speaking, justification is the reason that someone (probably) holds a belief. If “A” makes a claim, and “B” then casts doubt on it, “A”‘s next move would normally be to provide justification. The precise method one uses to provide justification is where the lines are drawn between rationalism and empiricism (among other philosophical views). Much of the debate in these fields are focused on analyzing the nature of knowledge and how it relates to connected notions such as truth, belief, and justification. 12

(REMS) Reason, Evidence & Methodological Skepticism

Folk Logic: YOU CAN’T PROVE A NEGATIVE because you can PROVE A NEGATIVE

We don’t really defend atheism, to me as much as present reason and evidence to why theism is unjustified, unwarranted and found baseless to the point that atheism is almost like a default conclusion; it is reasonable when the belief proposition of theism fails as it always will. I have been told that me challenging or correcting people’s religious falsehoods was harmful. I say, “what”, ((sarcastically)) then responded, “yes”, just like challenging or correcting people’s lies is harmful…. Well, ok it’s harmful to falsehoods keeping their unjustified persuasive power.

My style when doing atheist outreach is basically to challenge with valid and reliable reason and evidence with a “reflective equilibrium” to what appears to be, has some high likelihood of being or has some strong confirmation.

The rationale of why reason is first is because if you can’t reason with them and at times this is obviously a factor with some people, just stop as all things revolve around reason. Thus, roughly stated as rationalism (which for me is reasonable use or application of things in philosophy methods or tools like Reason “rationalism” tools: ontologyepistemology, and axiology, etc.), and Evidence “empiricism” tools: (which for me is reasonable use or application of things in philosophy methods or tools like evidence ie. facts like science, history, and archeology, etc.) as well as navigating all this with “methodological skepticism” instead of (Philosophical skepticism) which is an approach that subjects all knowledge claims to scrutiny with the goal of sorting out true from false claims.

Legal burden of proof and Philosophic burden of proof: Understanding and utilizing evidence and evidence critique. There is a common need to grasp the issues surrounding “evidence”, deconstructing evidence-based claims and the pathways in thinking needed to control what is offered or accepted as evidence, is it really even evidence or does it matter to supporting an assertion.?Evidence, broadly construed, is anything presented in support of an assertion. This support may be strong or weak. The strongest type of evidence is that which provides direct proof of the truth of an assertion. At the other extreme is evidence that is merely consistent with an assertion but does not rule out other, contradictory assertions, as in circumstantial evidence. In lawrules of evidence govern the types of evidence that are admissible in a legal proceeding. Types of legal evidence include testimonydocumentary evidence, and physical evidence. The parts of a legal case which are not in controversy are known, in general, as the “facts of the case.” Beyond any facts that are undisputed, a judge or jury is usually tasked with being a trier of fact for the other issues of a case. Evidence and rules are used to decide questions of fact that are disputed, some of which may be determined by the legal burden of proof relevant to the case. Evidence in certain cases (e.g. capital crimes) must be more compelling than in other situations (e.g. minor civil disputes), which drastically affects the quality and quantity of evidence necessary to decide a case. Scientific evidence consists of observations and experimental results that serve to support, refute, or modify a scientific hypothesis or theory, when collected and interpreted in accordance with the scientific method. In philosophy, the study of evidence is closely tied to epistemology, which considers the nature of knowledge and how it can be acquired.  The burden of proof is the obligation of a party in an argument or dispute to provide sufficient evidence to shift the other party’s or a third party’s belief from their initial position. The burden of proof must be fulfilled by both establishing confirming evidence and negating oppositional evidence. Conclusions drawn from evidence may be subject to criticism based on a perceived failure to fulfill the burden of proof. Two principal considerations are: 1) On whom does the burden of proof rest? Or 2) To what degree of certitude must the assertion be supported? The latter question depends on the nature of the point under contention and determines the quantity and quality of evidence required to meet the burden of proof. In epistemology, the burden of proof (Latinonus probandi (shorthand for Onus probandi incumbit ei qui dicit, non ei qui negat)) is the obligation on a party in a dispute to provide sufficient warrant for their position. Holder of the burden: When two parties are in a discussion and one asserts a claim that the other disputes, the one who asserts has a burden of proof to justify or substantiate that claim. An argument from ignorance occurs when either a proposition is assumed to be true because it has not yet been proved false or a proposition is assumed to be false because it has not yet been proved true. This has the effect of shifting the burden of proof to the person criticizing the proposition. While certain kinds of arguments, such as logical syllogisms, require mathematical or strictly logical proofs, the standard for evidence to meet the burden of proof is usually determined by context and community standards and conventions. In public discourse: Burden of proof is also an important concept in the public arena of ideas. Once participants in discourse establish common assumptions, the mechanism of the burden of proof helps to ensure that all parties contribute productively, using relevant arguments. Proving a negative: negative claim is a colloquialism for an affirmative claim that asserts the non-existence or exclusion of something. There are many proofs that substantiate negative claims in mathematics, science, and economics including Arrow’s impossibility theorem. A negative claim may or may not exist as a counterpoint to a previous claim. A proof of impossibility or an evidence of absence argument are typical methods to fulfill the burden of proof for a negative claim. Example: Atheist internet personality Matt Dillahunty gives the example of a large jar full of gumballs to illustrate the burden of proof. The number of whole gumballs in the jar is either even or odd, but the degree of personal acceptance or rejection of claims about that characteristic may vary. We can choose to consider two claims about the situation, given as: 1. The number of gumballs is even. or 2. The number of gumballs is odd. Either claim could be explored separately; however, both claims represent the same proposition and do in fact ask the same question. Odd in this case means “not even” and could be described as a negative claim. Before we have any information about the number of gumballs, we have no means of checking either of the two claims. When we have no evidence to resolve the proposition, we may suspend judgment. From a cognitive sense, when no personal preference toward opposing claims exists, one may be either skeptical of both claims or ambivalent of both claims. If there is a claim proposed and that claim is disputed, the burden of proof falls onto the proponent of the claim. If there is no agreeably adequate evidence to support a claim, the claim could be considered to be an argument from ignorance. RefRef Rationalism is any view appealing to intellectual and deductive reason (as opposed to sensory experience or any religious teachings) as the source of knowledge or justification. I personally lean to a  type of modern rationalism similar to what was held during the middle of the 20th Century where there was a strong tradition of organized Rationalism (represented in Britain by the Rationalist Press Association, for example), which was particularly influenced by free thinkers and intellectuals.

However, Rationalism in this sense has little in common with traditional Continental Rationalism, and is marked more by a reliance on empirical science. It accepted the supremacy of reason but insisted that the results be verifiable by experience and independent of all arbitrary assumptions or authority. (1)

Rationalism, since the Enlightenment, historically emphasized a “politics of reason” centered upon rational choice,utilitarianismsecularism, and irreligion – the latter aspect’s antitheism later ameliorated by utilitarian adoption of pluralistic rationalist methods practicable regardless of religious or irreligious ideology. In this regard, rationalism, as a methodology, became socially conflated with atheism, In the past, particularly in the 17th and 18th centuries, the term ‘rationalist’ was often used to refer to free thinkers of an anti-clerical and anti-religious outlook. The use of the label ‘rationalist’ to characterize a world outlook which has no place for the supernatural is becoming less popular today; terms like ‘humanist‘ or ‘materialist‘ seem largely to have taken its place.(2)

Moreover, both rationalism and empiricism are known as two major approaches to natural philosophy. Empiricism involved the method of inductive reasoning, which was applied on experience, including observation and experimentation. Rationalism, while not discounting induction entirely, maintained that deductive reasoning was the means to establish true knowledge. Deduction is reasoning from given premises to necessary conclusions. (3)

The modern scientific method synthesizes rationalism and empiricism. The logic of the rationalist is combined with the observational experience of the empiricist. There is an overwhelming consensus, though, that empiricism is the main emphasis. No matter how much logical deduction and mathematical analysis is used, at some point, the world must be checked for the confirmation of a belief. The modern scientific method synthesizes rationalism and empiricism. The logic of the rationalist is combined with the observational experience of the empiricist. There is an overwhelming consensus, though, that empiricism is the main emphasis. No matter how much logical deduction and mathematical analysis is used, at some point, the world must be checked for the confirmation of a belief. Historically, however, spurred on by the power of mathematics and the tendency to conclude that we know something even though complete empirical observations are not available, rationalism has played both a constructive and creative role in the development of science.

The criticism of those who are too rationalistic and who create ivory-tower fantasies from speculative logic, overlooks the fact that many great discoveries have been made by scientists sitting at desks or standing in front of chalkboards. It is difficult for many people today to imagine that the Earth is moving and not the Sun. We do not experience ourselves moving at 1,000 miles per hour; instead we “observe” the Sun to move. That a belief is inconsistent with our common observational experience is not by itself a conclusive argument that it is false. Empirical scientists do believe in the ability of the human mind to figure things out. Any fundamental inconsistency between common sense and reason is seen as nature’s way of taunting us, of revealing one of her important secrets. The confidence in the logical and mathematical powers of human thinking has been a key ingredient in the development of modern science. “Theory Must Agree With Reality” (4)

Radical skepticism cannot be reasonable, we should nonetheless take his method seriously enough that we remain diffident in our judgments – that we not take things dogmatically, but rather critically, ready to recognize evidence that can challenge the rational acceptability of those judgments. So long as we do not take ‘clear’ and ‘distinct’ as rigidly, it is not a bad rule to include nothing more in one’s judgments than what presents itself to one’s mind so clearly and distinctly that one has no reason to doubt it. This is what reasonable persons do, too many it is now the norm. (5)

A question to believers: “if your religion was false would you want to know about it?” If you’re sure of your response is that truly coming from a place of open honesty. We must never forget that just because an idea or belief has mass approval or a wide acceptance, this tells nothing of its truth status, its accuracy, or any provable validity.

The Rational Imperative, How Does One Know Things?

I am aggressive with ideas, but I am kind to people. My motto is attackthinking not people. I do not respect religion, but I respect people. I do not believe in religion as it has a high potential for bad, but I believe in the potential for good in people. That is my style as a Firebrand Atheist that is a Humanistic Person.

My Atheist Activism Acknowledged in College Paper: http://damienmarieathope.com/2015/11/20/my-atheist-activism-acknowledged-in-college-paper-2/

I often say to believers on the street, no, you don’t believe in god or religion. What you do or did was were told, (most often by family) this is what you need to believe or this is what we believe and you say ok, only after that as an adult, (especially when challenged) you try to support this post-acceptance commitment as if it has a rationalization. You are attempting to support that you did not choose wrong overlooking any faults or defects in order to feel justified and the psychological desire to stay consistent with that commitment.

So, what you likely have now is a kind of Post-purchase rationalization. Which is also known as Buyer’s Stockholm Syndrome, a cognitive bias whereby someone who has purchased an expensive product or service overlooks any faults or defects in order to justify their purchase. It is a special case of choice-supportive bias. This rationalization is based on the Principle of Commitment and the psychological desire to stay consistent with that commitment. (6)

I am a rationalist and support reasonable skepticism, thus, I am not a skeptic though I somewhat am a fan. Lol

I do not call myself a skeptic, I do not doubt that which is unreasonable to require doubt. I am a rationalist who uses methodological skepticism and also may utilize scientific skepticism. Methodological skepticism is a way of using the process of doubting in order to arrive at certainty. And scientific skepticism is the practice of questioning whether claims are supported by empirical research and have reproducibility, as part of a methodological norm pursuing “the extension of certified knowledge” Some people who doubt what is rational or proven say they are skeptics or being skeptical they are denialists or possibly using philosophic skepticism. 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. Methodological skepticism, is a systematic process of being skeptical about (or doubting) the truth of one’s beliefs, it is similar to scientific skepticism. Likewise, scientific skepticism is different from philosophical skepticism, which questions our ability to claim any knowledge about the nature of the world and how we perceive it. Scientific skeptics believe that empirical investigation of reality leads to the truth, and that the scientific method is best suited to this purpose. Scientific skeptics attempt to evaluate claims based on verifiability, reliability, and often adhering to falsifiability discouraging acceptance of claims on faith or anecdotal evidence. There does seem to be a lot of improper use of the term skeptic attached to conspiracy theories and denialism. In human behavior, denialism is exhibited by individuals choosing to deny reality as a way to avoid dealing with an uncomfortable truth. Then again, I have skepticism for “extreme philosophical skepticism or universal skepticism philosophy”. Radical skepticism about the external world is the idea that we cannot have accurate knowledge about the physical world outside of our minds. That idea, if true, would block the truth-seeker’s attempt to gain knowledge by assessing the natural world. Sure, reasonable skepticism gets us to a good solid starting point to remove flawed beliefs but there is a need to move beyond skepticism if it removes any sureness of things that are actually demonstrative as true then to me it can become pseudo skeptic and denialist thinking. Granted I do think all claims or beliefs we think are true should be open to challenge and reassessment and if found wanting corrected or abandoned. Scientific skepticism is also called rational skepticism, and it is sometimes referred to as skeptical inquiry. I see philosophy as a set of tools, some are viral, some not needed as much but still useful, other not very useful but still needed and others just some gimmick people were conned into buying that is entirely unusual and even harmful. I am not anti-skeptical or anti-skeptic it is just not the accurate label for my thinking. if the term “Skeptic” was limited to only methodological skepticism I would champion the term as well. I think skeptic should automatically infer the methodological skepticism approach and likewise, denialist thinking should not be seen as a true philosophical approach to skepticism as there is a difference between a skeptic and denialist. Denialist “pseudo-skeptics” are often religionists, magical thinkers, conspiracy theorist, supporters of woo-woo, and other whack jobs these days. Religion and other magical thinking woo-woo distorts reality. How can we expect people to make rational decisions when they believe in non-reality as if it is reality? Reasonable skepticism to me is or should be more about the process of applying reason and critical thinking to determine validity or reliable reason or evidence. It’s the process of finding a supported conclusion, not the justification of a preconceived conclusion. 1234

Moral Judgment and Value Theorizing?


Rationalism, Freethinker, Humanism & Secular humanism?

I am a am a rationalist, freethinker, humanist and a secularist.

*Rationalism is a philosophy in which a high regard is given to reason (specifically logic) and to empirical observation.

*Freethinker a person who forms his or her own opinions about important subjects (such as religion and politics) instead of accepting what other people say.

*Humanism is a philosophical and ethical stance that emphasizes the value and agency of human beings, individually and collectively, and generally prefers critical thinking and evidence (rationalism, empiricism) over established doctrine or faith (fideism).

*Secular humanism is a comprehensive, nonreligious life stance incorporating: A naturalistic philosophy. A cosmic outlook rooted in science. A consequentialist ethical system.


Basics of my Methodological Rationalism Epistemology Approach


Why I Am A Rationalist

by Bertrand Russell

The Rational Habit Of Mind Is A Rare One

I am, in this age when there are a great many appeals to unreason, an unrepentant Rationalist. I have been a Rationalist ever since I can remember, and I do not propose to cease to be so whatever appeals to unreason may be made. We have listened to a speech, by which I think we were all much moved, about the pioneers in the past who have done what they could to promote the cause of freedom of thought. I suppose it is for me to speak about the great need of continuing this work in our own day, and about how much there is that remains for all who sympathize with its objects to accomplish. We are not yet, and I suppose men and women never will be, completely rational. Perhaps, if we were, we should not have all the pleasures that we have at present; but I think complete rationality is so distant a prospect that we need not be much alarmed by it, and the nearest approach that we are likely to get is sure to be all to the good. I certainly find that there is a very great deal of irrationality still about in the world. While Professor Graham Wallas was speaking about the bequests that have been made to the Rationalist Press Association I was thinking: What is its creed, what is its dogma, and what is going to be the, so to speak, doctrine that these benefactions are going to be devoted to propagating? You have, of course, to be a little careful, when you find yourself landed with endowments and benefactions, lest you should become another endowed church. (Laughter.) As far as I can see, the view to which we are committed, one which I have stated on a former occasion, is that we ought not to believe, and we ought not to try to cause others to believe, any proposition for which there is no evidence whatever. That seems a modest proposition, and if you can stick to that you will be fairly sure that you are not going to become a sort of ossified endowed church. We ought not to commit ourselves to dogmatic negations any more than to dogmatic affirmations; we ought merely to say that there are a great many propositions about which men and women feel pretty certain, but, concerning which they have no right to feel certain, and it is our business as Rationalists to try to make them see that those things are not certain. I am told that that is a very wicked position to maintain. I have here a book recently published which I commend to your attention. You may or may not know that some little time ago, under the auspices of the National Secular Society, I delivered a lecture on “Why I am Not a Christian.” Now, It appears that I did not know why it is that I am not a Christian; and here is a book which will tell you why I am not — by Mr. H. G. Wood, who is a somewhat eminent member of the Society of Friends, a body for which I have the greatest respect. His book is called Why Mr. Bertrand Russell is Not a Christian. It seems that the reasons are not those which I thought they were. He says in one sentence: “The main reason why he is not a Christian is that he simply does not know what religion is.” One might say that Mr. Wood is not an Agnostic because he does not know what Agnosticism is. After all, I had all the benefits of a Christian education, and he did not have the benefits of an Agnostic education; so that possibly the argument might be considered two-edged. Nevertheless, I commend the book to your attention, and you will then know why it is that I am not a Christian. There is a very large amount of Rationalist work required in the world. I think the battle is quite as fierce as ever it was. Take, for example America. America is a very important country. What America thinks today the rest of the world will be forced to think tomorrow, and therefore what America thinks is important. There are some hopeful features about America. I was recently on a boat going to America, and a minister of religion on the boat invited me to speak to his congregation about my views on religion. I said: “Yours must be a very broad-minded congregation”; and this minister of religion, somewhat to my surprise, replied: “Oh, of course, I do not believe in God.” I met other ministers of religion in America who took the same line. That, I must say, somewhat surprised me; but they are, I am afraid, rather a small minority, and the great bulk of Americans are still extremely theological. Moreover, we have to face the very serious position due to the growth of the Roman Catholic Church in America, because, as far as I can see, the Roman Catholic Church is likely to dominate America in another fifty or a hundred years by the sheer increase of numbers, and not by rational propaganda. That is a very grave matter, and a matter which I think will affect the whole of the civilized world very much. Of course, you know that already in Boston, which was once the home of advanced Protestantism, the Roman Catholics rule the whole place; and there is a censorship upon literature more severe than in any other part of America. I expect you know that in America men are still sent to prison for Atheism, not only in Fundamentalist States, but even in States of the East, and altogether there is in that part of the world an enormous need of propaganda on these matters. It is very important to all of us, because the Americans tend more and more to rule the world, and we shall find ourselves in a very difficult position unless we can more or less liberalize them — a mission, I may say, in which I have done what I can, and my wife has also. We have to realize that the attitude of Rationalism, which I defined as that of not believing a proposition or causing others to believe it unless there is at least some reason for supposing it to be true, is by no means widespread. Take the matter of education, concerning which Professor Graham Wallas spoke. In most countries of the world a great many extremely dubious propositions are taught to the young with great emphasis, and the young grow up accepting those extremely dubious propositions. If by any chance you attempt, as my wife and I are attempting at this moment, to bring up a small number of young people free from superstition, you find yourself in a very difficult situation. You find, of course, that the public money which goes to education will not be given to any education that involves no element of superstition; you find that support is extremely difficult to obtain; you find that altogether it is thought that, whatever grown men and women may be allowed to think, the young, at any rate, ought to believe a whole lot of absurdities, and that it is quite impossible for the young to attain the necessary minimum of virtues unless you produce an extremely large number of very bad arguments in favor of that virtue-arguments which, of course, they will see through as soon as they get a little older; but it is thought that what they do then when they see through them does not so much matter. I cannot quite take that view. I think that any virtue that you may believe in should be one that you can support from the very first without appealing to anything that you do not yourself believe. Education will have to be quite enormously transformed if that view is accepted. I believe that it is at present illegal in every country of the world except Russia to teach children in the kind of way which skilled medical practitioners would consider the best for their mental health. That is one point upon which irrational convictions as generally held interfere, and there are a number of ways in which it is at present impossible to educate rationally without coming up against the authorities. The authorities are organized upon a basis of certain irrational dogmas, and those dogmas are not all of them theological. Some are theological, and some are of other sorts; but the rational habit of mind is a very rare one. I think that we ought to do all that we can to bring before the world the importance of the attitude that we are not going to believe a thing unless there is some reason to think that it is true. I know that that is thought to be very shocking. It is supposed that there are a lot of things that you ought to believe because good people believe them, and not because there is any reason for them. I do not take that view. I think anything that is worth believing must have some positive ground in its favor. There are always new grounds being alleged in favor of irrationality; perpetually new things come up. Take, for example, the kind of use that has been made by some people of psycho-analysis. If you read the works of the founder of psycho-analysis, you find an entirely rationalist attitude; but if you listen to some of the minor disciples you will imagine that this doctrine has swept away the idea that opinions can be based upon reason at all. That, of course, is not the truth of it. You will always find a number of clever people engaged in perversions of anything that comes up — engaged in saying that the latest results of science prove that the people who always opposed science are after all in the right. That is where there is always humbug. Anybody who tells you that the latest results of science prove something, he himself not being a scientist, you may be pretty sure is talking nonsense. Ref


Utilizing Dignity
 
Dignity Enrichment1. acceptance of thinking or behavior, 2. show understanding, and 3. offer support for who and what they are.
 
Dignity Attacks: 1. critical challenge of thinking or behavior, 2. expose confution or irrationalism, and 3. offer rebuttal or rebuke of who and what they are.

Attacking the Person?

I strive to attack thinking and not people but I sometimes may use dignity attacks or character attacks about behavior or thinking people are doing. I only say things they can quickly fix or change. Then I will pressure them to change it. My point in doing this is help mirror the bad or errored thinking or behavior so they can change if they wish I try to never do it to hurt anyone as I see this as not a productive and potentially abusive.

However, if I only spend my time pointing fingers have I not wasted times I could have also offered helping hands. Thus, even though somethings things need to be harshly pointed out so to is there a need to be involved in the benefit of helping where we can. May my drive to help not be somehow silenced just because there is a need to fight all that is wrong. I want to thank everyone throughout my life that have treated me with compassion and kindness. From something as simple as a smile or comforting word, to things that create impacts so big they were life altering; you have written with the pen of love across my heart and have helped me be a person who strives to also show and treat others with compassion as well as kindness. I do not respect faith, I respect people. I value the sanctity of “rights” of every person to self-define their beliefs and do not attack people because of what they believe. I say, attack thinking not people. We who truly value ourselves and others can and do make a better world. May we together fill the world with this shining example of humanity.

*Axiological Dignity Being Theory*

An Axiological assessment of human beings” shows with an axiological awareness a logic of values is clear which takes as its basic premise that “all persons always deserve positive regard.” – Progressive Logic by William J. Kelleher, Ph.D. And the reason why we should are is because we are Dignity Beings.

 “Dignity is an internal state of peace that comes with the recognition and acceptance of the value and vulnerability of all living things.” – Donna Hicks (2011). Dignity: The Essential Role It Plays in Resolving Conflict

— Why care? Because we are Dignity Beings. —

Just Another Fellow Being of Dignity
 
I once thought no one is friendly, so, I decided to start trying to be a friend to others. No one even seemed to care, so, I realized, I needed to care. No one really made “you” feel as if you mattered, so, I started valuing others, I see the world I wish to live in starts with me. After all other people are just fellow beings of dignity like me…

I am inspired by philosophy, enlightened by archaeology and grounded by science that religious claims, on the whole, along with their magical gods, are but Dogmatic-Propaganda, myths and lies. Kindness beats prayers every time, even if you think prayer works, you know kindness works. Think otherwise, do both without telling people and see which one they notice. Aspire to master the heavens but don’t forget about the ones in need still here on earth. You can be kind and never love but you cannot love and never be kind. Therefore, it is this generosity of humanity, we need the most of. So, if you can be kind, as in the end some of the best we can be to others is to exchange kindness. For too long now we have allowed the dark shadow of hate to cloud our minds, while we wait in silence as if pondering if there is a need to commiserate. For too long little has been done and we too often have been part of this dark clouded shame of hate. Simply, so many humans now but sadly one is still left asking, where is the humanity?

Why Ought We Care?

Because kindness is like chicken soup to the essence of who we are, by validating the safety needs of our dignity. When the valuing of dignity is followed, a deep respect for one’s self and others as dignity beings has become one’s path. When we can see with the eyes of love and kindness, how well we finally see and understand what a demonstrates of a mature being of dignity when we value the human rights of others, as we now see others in the world as fellow beings of dignity. We need to understand what should be honored in others as fellow dignity beings and the realization of the value involved in that. As well as strive to understand how an attack to a person’s “human rights” is an attack to the value and worth of a dignity being. Yes, I want to see “you” that previous being of dignity worthy of high value and an honored moral weight to any violation of their self-ownership. And this dignity being with self-ownership rights is here before you seeking connection. what will you do, here you are in the question ever present even if never said aloud, do you see me now or are you stuck in trying to evaluate my value and assess worth as a fellow being of dignity. A violation of one’s dignity (Which it the emotional, awareness or the emotional detection of the world) as a dignity being can be quite harmful, simply we must see how it can create some physiological disturbance in the dignity being its done to. I am a mutualistic thinker and to me we all are in this life together as fellow dignity beings. Therefore, I want my life to be of a benefit to others in the world. We are natural evolutionary derived dignity beings not supernatural magic derived soul/spirit beings. Stopping lying about who we are, as your made-up magic about reality which is forced causing a problem event (misunderstanding of axiological valuations) to the natural wonder of reality. What equals a dignity worth being, it is the being whose species has cognitive awareness and the expense of pain. To make another dignity being feel pain is to do an attack to their dignity as well as your own. What equals a dignity worth being, it is the being whose species has cognitive awareness and the expense of pain. When I was younger I felt proud when I harmed those I did not like now I find it deserving even if doing it was seen as the only choice as I now see us for who we are valuable beings of dignity. I am not as worried about how I break the box you believe I need to fit as I am worried about the possibility of your confining hopes of hindering me with your limits, these life traps you have decided about and for me are as owning character attacks to my dignity’s needs which can be generalized as acceptance, understanding, and support. As I see it now, how odd I find it to have prejudice or bigotry against other humans who are intact previous fellow beings of dignity, we too often get blinded by the external packaging that holds a being of dignity internally. What I am saying don’t judge by the outside see the worth and human value they have as a dignity being. Why is it easier to see what is wrong then what is right? Why do I struggle in speaking what my heart loves as thorough and as passionate as what I dislike or hate? When you say “an act of mercy” the thing that is being appealed to or for is the proposal of or for the human quality of dignity. May my lips be sweetened with words of encouragement and compassion. May my Heart stay warm in the arms kindness. May my life be an expression of love to the world. Dignity arises in our emotional awareness depending on cognition. Our dignity is involved when you feel connected feelings with people, animals, plants, places, things, and ideas. Our dignity is involved when we feel an emotional bond “my family”, “my pet”, “my religion”, “my sport’s team” etc. Because of the core sensitivity of our dignity, we feel that when we connect, then we are also acknowledging, understanding, and supporting a perceived sense of dignity. Even if it’s not actually a dignity being in the case of plants, places, things, and ideas; and is rightly interacting with a dignity being in people and animals. We are trying to project “dignity developing motivation” towards them somewhere near equally even though human and animals don’t have the same morality weight to them. I am anthropocentric (from Greek means “human being center”) as an Axiological Atheist. I see humans value as above all other life’s value. Some say well, we are animals so they disagree with my destination.  But how do the facts play out? So, you don’t have any difference in value of life? Therefore, a bug is the same as a mouse, a mouse is the same as a dolphin, a dolphin is the same as a human, all to you have exactly the same value? You fight to protect the rights of each of them equally? And all killing of any of them is the same crime murder? I know I am an animal but you also know that we do have the term humans which no other animal is classified. And we don’t take other animals to court as only humans and not any other animals are like us. We are also genetically connected to plants and stars and that still doesn’t remove the special class humans removed from all other animals. A society where you can kill a human as easily as a mosquito would simply just not work ethically to me and it should not to any reasonable person either. If you think humans and animals are of equal value, are you obviously for stronger punishment for all animals to the level of humans? If so we need tougher laws against all animals including divorce and spousal or child support and we will jail any animal parent (deadbeat animal) who does not adequately as we have been avoiding this for too long and thankfully now that in the future the ideas about animals being equal we had to create a new animal police force and animal court system, not to mention are new animal jails as we will not accept such open child abuse and disregard for responsibilities? As we don’t want to treat animals as that would be unjust to some humans, but how does this even make sense? To me it doesn’t make sense as humans a different from all other animals even though some are similar in some ways. To further discuss my idea of *dignity developing motivation” can be seen in expressions like, I love you and I appreciate you. Or the behavior of living and appreciating. However, this is only true between higher cognitive aware beings as dignity and awareness of selfness is directly related to dignity awareness. The higher the dignity awareness the higher the moral weight of the dignity in the being’s dignity. What do you think are the best ways to cultivate dignity? Well, to me dignity is not a fixed thing and it feels honored or honoring others as well as help self-helping and other helping; like ones we love or those in need, just as our dignity is affected by the interactions with others. We can value our own dignity and we can and do grow this way, but as I see it because we are a social animals we can usually we cannot fully flourish with our dignity. Thus, dignity is emotionally needy for other dignity beings that is why I surmise at least a partially why we feel empathy and compassion or emotional bonds even with animals is a dignity awareness and response. Like when we say “my pet” cat one is acknowledging our increased personal and emotional connecting. So, when we exchange in experience with a pet animal what we have done is we raze their dignity. Our dignity flourishes with acceptance, understanding and support. Our dignity withers with rejection, misunderstanding, and opposition. Dignity: is the emotional sensitivity of our sense of self or the emotional understanding about our sense of self. When you say, they have a right to what they believe, what I hear is you think I don’t have a right to comment on it. Dignity is the emotional sensitivity of our sense of self or the emotional understanding about our sense of self. To me when we say it’s wrong to kill a human, that person is appealing to our need to value the dignity of the person.’ The person with whom may possibly be killed has a life essence with an attached value and moral weight valuations. And moral weight,’ which is different depending on the value of the dignity being you are addressing understanding moral weight as a kind of liability, responsibility, or rights is actualized. So, it’s the dignity to which we are saying validates the right to life. But I believe all living things with cognitively aware have a dignity. As to me dignity is the name I home to the emotional experience, emotional expression, emotional intelligence or sensitivity at the very core of our sense of self the more aware the hire that dignity value and thus worth. Dignity is often shredded similar to my thinking: “Moral, ethical, legal, and political discussions use the concept of dignity to express the idea that a being has an innate right to be valued, respected, and to receive ethical treatment. In the modern context dignity, can function as an extension of the Enlightenment-era concepts of inherent, inalienable rights. English-speakers often use the word “dignity” in prescriptive and cautionary ways: for example, in politics it can be used to critique the treatment of oppressed and vulnerable groups and peoples, but it has also been applied to cultures and sub-cultures, to religious beliefs and ideals, to animals used for food or research, and to plants. “Dignity” also has descriptive meanings pertaining to human worth. In general, the term has various functions and meanings depending on how the term is used and on the context.” Dignity, authenticity and integrity are of the highest value to our experience, yet ones that we must define for ourselves. People of hurt and harm, you are not as free to attack other beings of dignity without any effect on you as you may think. So, I am sorry not sorry that there is no such thing in general, as hurting or harming other beings of dignity without psychological destruction to the dignity being in us. This is an understanding that once done hunts and harm of other beings of dignity emotionally/psychologically hurts and harms your life as an acceptance needy dignity being, as we commonly experience moral discuss involuntary as on our deepest level as dignity beings. Disgust is deeply related to our sense of morality.

Using Axiological Awareness to Assist in Argumentation
 
I hear some saying that the universe does not care and thus no one matters. However, the universe is not aware to make any thought or judgment of any kind. Just as a tree or rock, not understanding love does nothing to devalue love. Therefore, the universe not caring about humans is an invalid argument because it cannot be said to assess humans’ value. Because of this fact, it is disqualified to provide any valid rebuke of value or what matters. Let me make this clearer, the universe can make no assessment at all and this means nothing to the truth status of anything, such as I could say the universe does not know I exist but that expresses nothing about me existing or not.

The Axiology of Knowing Others, the World and Oneself
 
Axiology (theory of value) Knowing Others and the World
 
1. INTRINSICALLY = empathy thinking: value who others and the world are
2. EXTRINSICALLY = practical thinking: what value others and the world have
3. SYSTEMICALLY = structured thinking: other-definition / world-definition and expectations
 
Axiology (theory of value) Knowing Oneself
 
4. INTRINSICALLY = empathy thinking: inner self value who I am
5. EXTRINSICALLY = practical thinking: outer value what I am to others and the world
6. SYSTEMICALLY = structured thinking: self-definition and expectations
 
Smith, B. (2011). Axiology for human behavior professionals. Dallas, TX: Clear Direction.

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

Dialectic or dialectics (Greek: διαλεκτική, dialektikḗ), also known as the dialectical method, is a discourse between two or more people holding different points of view about a subject but wishing to establish the truth through reasoned arguments. In philosophy, dialectic or dialectical method implied a methodology used for examining and cognition of philosophical objects. Dialectical methods demands the users to examine the objects in relation to other objects and to the whole system, and examine the objects within a dynamic, evolutionary environment. Dialectical method is usually contrasted with metaphysical method, which examine the objects in a separated, isolated and static environment. Dialectical method has three main forms corresponding to three developmental stages. Naive dialectic, emerging in ancient history, mainly relied on intuition and personal experience with limited supporting scientific evidences. Idealistic dialectic, a product of classic German idealism and reaching its zenith in the works of Hegel, was the first systematic form of dialectical method. Materialistic dialectics, built mainly by Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels and Vladimir Lenin, adapted the Hegelian dialectic into traditional materialism. The term dialectic is not synonymous with the term debate. While in theory debaters are not necessarily emotionally invested in their point of view, in practice debaters frequently display an emotional commitment that may cloud rational judgment. Debates are won through a combination of persuading the opponent, proving one’s argument correct, and proving the opponent’s argument incorrect. Debates do not necessarily require promptly identifying a clear winner or loser; however, clear winners are frequently determined by a judge, a jury or group consensus. The term dialectics is also not synonymous with the term rhetoric, a method or art of discourse that seeks to persuade, inform, or motivate an audience. Concepts like “logos” or rational appeal, “pathos” or emotional appeal, and “ethos” or ethical appeal, are intentionally used by rhetoricians to persuade an audience. Socrates favoured truth as the highest value, proposing that it could be discovered through reason and logic in discussion: ergo, dialectic. Socrates valued rationality (appealing to logic, not emotion) as the proper means for persuasion, the discovery of truth, and the determinant for one’s actions. To Socrates, truth, not aretē (moral virtue), was the greater good, and each person should, above all else, seek truth to guide one’s life. Therefore, Socrates opposed the Sophists and their teaching of rhetoric as art and as emotional oratory requiring neither logic nor proof. Different forms of dialectical reasoning have emerged throughout history from the Indosphere (Greater India) and the West (Europe). These forms include the Socratic method, Hindu, Buddhist, Medieval, Hegelian, Marxist, Talmudic, and Neo-orthodoxy dialectics.” ref

I don’t really follow the Socratic method, as I feel it is limited for me, it mainly is a dialectical only approach, seeking truth without persuasion. Like most dialectical approaches, It is a form of cooperative dialogue to stimulate critical thinking and to draw out ideas and underlying presumptions.
 
Religions have undialectical rhetoric = non-truth persuasion
 
I use a kind of Dialectical Rhetoric = truth persuasion (motivational teaching)
 
Aristotelian Rhetoric as Proof-Centered and Pertinent
 
“Aristotle joins Plato in criticizing contemporary manuals of rhetoric. But how does he manage to distinguish his own project from the criticized manuals? The general idea seems to be this: Previous theorists of rhetoric gave most of their attention to methods outside the subject; they taught how to slander, how to arouse emotions in the audience, or how to distract the attention of the hearers from the subject. This style of rhetoric promotes a situation in which juries and assemblies no longer form rational judgments about the given issues, but surrender to the litigants. Aristotelian rhetoric is different in this respect: it is centered on the rhetorical kind of proof, the enthymeme (see below §6), which is called the most important means of persuasion. Since people are most strongly convinced when they suppose that something has been proven (Rhet. I.1, 1355a5f.), there is no need for the orator to confuse or distract the audience by the use of emotional appeals, etc. In Aristotle’s view, an orator will be even more successful when he just picks up the convincing aspects of a given issue, thereby using commonly-held opinions as premises. Since people have a natural disposition for the true (Rhet. I.1, 1355a15f.) and every man has some contribution to make to the truth (Eudemian Ethics I.6, 1216b31,) there is no unbridgeable gap between the commonly-held opinions and what is true. This alleged affinity between the true and the persuasive justifies Aristotle’s project of a rhetoric that essentially relies on the persuasiveness of pertinent argumentation, and it is just this argumentative character of Aristotelian rhetoric that explains the close affinity between rhetoric and dialectic. Aristotle’s point of view: Even those who just try to establish what is just and true need the help of rhetoric when they are faced with a public audience. Aristotle tells us that it is impossible to teach such an audience, even if the speaker had the most exact knowledge of the subject. Obviously, he thinks that the audience of a public speech consists of ordinary people who are not able to follow an exact proof based on the principles of a science. Further, such an audience can easily be distracted by factors that do not pertain to the subject at all; sometimes they are receptive to flattery or just try to increase their own advantage. And this situation becomes even worse if the constitution, the laws, and the rhetorical habits in a city are bad. Finally, most of the topics that are usually discussed in public speeches do not allow of exact knowledge, but leave room for doubt; especially in such cases, it is important that the speaker seems to be a credible person and that the audience is in a sympathetic mood. For all those reasons, affecting the decisions of juries and assemblies is a matter of persuasiveness, not of knowledge. It is true that some people manage to be persuasive either at random or by habit, but it is rhetoric that gives us a method to discover all means of persuasion on any topic whatsoever.”ref

Religion vs. Science
Don’t Confuse Beliefs

Science is a system where justified true beliefs are derived from objective methodologies such as the scientific method and religion is a system of unjustified beliefs based on subjective faith or revelation. We must not confuse beliefs, religion is beliefs built from myths devoid of corroborating evidence. Science uses corroborating evidence to establish what is true and that offers something worthy to believe. Modern Science is not a thing, it’s a group of different specialties aiming to test (generally with the scientific method) and try to figure out the world as it presents itself in reality, which is devoid of supernatural magic.


We must not confuse beliefs, religion is beliefs from myths devoid of corroborating evidence or reason. Whereas, science uses as well as demands corroborating evidence and reason to establish what is true and that offers something worthy to believe in. Thus, we have a belief without valid and reliable warrant or justification, so it’s an issue involving religion believers violating the ethics of belief. Do you believe in god? What is a god? When someone asks me if I believe in gods I think, 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.e. the claims of gods. So, let’s recap, likely no religion follower is honestly going to stop belief because of lack of evidence or reason, or they would have already done so. Just as no science follower is honestly going to start believing something if it has a lack of evidence or reason. Remember, we honest thinkers need to adhere to beliefs in an ethical way, like exhibit good belief etiquette: reasoned belief-acquisitions, good belief-maintenance, and honest belief relinquishment. I can’t stand when people try to say that atheism and religion use faith. We atheists, have archaeology that proves religion is a lie, so no faith is needed. Moreover, We atheists, have science which shows that every mystery has ever turned out to be nature and not magic. There is nothing that the only explanation is magic or supernatural anything, so for religion it has no evidence at all. All religion has is faith without any proof and do not try to say that atheism is anything like that. Promoting religion as real is mentally harmful to a flourishing humanity. To me, promoting religion as real is too often promote a toxic mental substance that can divide a person from who they are shaming them for being human. In addition, religion is a toxic mental substance that can divide a person from real history, real science or real morality to pseudohistory, pseudoscience and pseudomorality. Moreover, religion is a toxic mental substance that can divide a person from rational thought, critical thinking, or logic. Likewise, religion is a toxic mental substance that can divide a person from justice, universal ethics, equality, and liberty. Yes, religion is a toxic mental substance that can divide a person from loved ones, and religion is a toxic mental substance that can divide a person from humanity. Therefore, to me, promoting religion as real is too often promote a toxic mental substance that should be rejected as not only false but harmful as well even if you believe it has some redeeming quality. To me, promoting religion as real is mentally harmful to a flourishing humanity. Religion may have once seemed great when all you had or needed was to believe. Science now seems great when we have facts and need to actually know. I proudly reject all gods and religions. It should be understood, that religion as well as its love of gods, must be seen for what they are, which beyond their pomp and circumstance are exposed as little more than indoctrinated cultural products, the conspiracy theories of reality no one should believe today in our world of science. Simply, religion and its gods are the leftovers of an ignorant age trying to explain and control a fearful world which seems now favored by the uninformed, misinformed, emotional/physical/social support seekers and conmen. To me, a rational mind values humanity and rejects religion and gods as real until valid and reliable reason and evidence that passes scientific consensus that what is being offered is as it is claimed, so no belief without proof. A truly rational mind sees the need for humanity, as they too live in the world and see themselves as they actually are an alone body in the world seeking comfort and safety. Thus, see the value of everyone around them as they too are the same and therefore rationally as well a humanistically we should work for this humanity we are part of and can either dwell in or help its flourishing as we are all in the hands of each other. You are Free to think as you like but REALITY is unchanged. While you personally may react, or think differently about our shared reality (the natural world devoid of magic anything), We can play with how we use it but there is still only one communal reality (a natural non-supernatural one), which we all share like it or not and you can’t justifiably claim there is a different reality. This is valid as the only one of warrant is the non-mystical natural world around us all, existing in or caused by nature; not made or caused by superstitions like gods or other monsters to many sill fear irrationally.


Who knows what a “god-claim” really is?
 
Who knows a god rather they simply believe in a god claim they think they know on faith as if that is proof of anything but feelings. Be honest, who knows a what a god claim really is outside reality it’s an empty claim, as it’s all make-believe. I mean come on, you don’t know a god anything as you only remember the myths don’t you or you make up your own that are no better right? All I have ever hear are evidence lacking claims or misinterpreted nature claimed as being god or evidence of god but not one god claim ever is any truer than any others as they are all reality confused claims, yes most are quite dumb outright as not once has magic ever been proven, not even in small ways. So claims of super magic gods are thus even more ridiculous claims to believe right? I know what all god claims are, which is they are flawed conspiracy theories of reality.

You will always fail to prove a specific god?
 
Religion is big on claims but small of real reasoning. Take the Abrahamic faiths they propose a very specific well-defined god but are fond of a very unspecified god of naturalistic inferred theistic creationism or intelligent design. In other words when pressed to demonstrate god in the world or as the reason for the big bang they can only at best try and surmise a magical power or unknown and unknowable possible something as the “creator” but how does that do a thing to prove any specific anything. So even if we were to concede for the sake of argument that some god phantom menace started things they still have to show it’s their very specific claimed god. But the issues don’t stop there, as they also would have to prove or give warrant as well as justification for every attribute and claimed character trait attached to their specific god using only nature arguments, not some holy book or otherworldly revelation. The truth is for all the appeals to nature for god they do, not one is valid in any way to confirm that their god and only their god is true, they must always leave the facts and return to faith. Thus they always will fail to show any naturalistic reasons for believing their special needs god. What they show instead is a belief not in the god of some myth or scriptures but belief in a projected somethingism god attributed to nature which is indistinguishable from a nothingism godless reality attributed by nature.

Do Beliefs Need justification?

Yes, it all requires a justification and if you think otherwise you should explain why but then you are still trying to employ a justification to challenge justification. So, I still say yes it all needs a justification and I know everything is reducible to feeling the substation of existence. I feel my body and thus I can start my justificationism standard right there and then build all logic inferences from that justified point and I don’t know a more core presupposition to start from. A presupposition is a core thinking stream that like how a tree of beliefs always has a set of assumed sets of presuppositions or a presupposition is relatively a thing/thinking assumed beforehand at the beginning of a line of thinking point, belief projection, argument or course of action. And that as well as everything needs justification to be concluded as reasonable. Sure, you can believe all kinds of things with no justification at all but we can’t claim them as true, nor wish others to actually agree unless something is somehow and or in some way justified. When is something true that has no justification? If you still think so then offer an example, you know a justification. Sure, there can be many things that may be true but actually receiving rational agreement that they are intact true needs justification. Remembering my past, it all goes back to such troubles, which were so dark as was my mind, it was like being dead while alive. I had made my life unclean with excessive or even exclusive concern, for myself, my own advantage, and relatively my own pleasure regardless of the welfare of others or with little concern for them. Limited in caring I looked only for me, me, me getting what I could take from life not what I could give and was almost drowning in selfishness and pain. Trying to have fun no matter the cost. I was left feeling worthless. I needed something for my insides felt empty. I was like a screen smeared with darkness of selfness. My hearts tongueless words sang of my despair. My dark mind felt lost in a crowd. I needed to do something. It is as if my log lost empathy start to feel a call. Yes, I started to see past the mountain of me that strong and selfish tree. Something is changing. It’s as if my inner being has a mind of its own or it cries out for change. Bright life seems at hand by caring, to feel the connection not just with others but indeed a new and welcoming empathetic new me. I now seek that sweet day of caring connection and stop this night only selfishness bent on care of only me. My frozen shell shatters. It is hard to trust, but I must and seek others to help. I cried out, and listened to my need for change for the first time! I want to be more than my dark mind and self-limited life. I want to be my bright emotional wellbeing! Then joy spring forth in my every fiber mind and inner being. It’s as if I am on fire. Hope touch like a flame is was a soft breath that sets me free. I feel it, my bright inner thinking of love and care I now live in me adding to the freedom in the world. I may still have at times have a dark mind but have now created a bright life full of concern for the welfare of myself and others. I wish you a bright life especially if you to suffer with a dark mind. However, when I was young I raged at the world, for abuse I received from my religious parents. Then I developed some, so I held my parents accountable, raging at them and the world; as so much was out there, like them. Then I fully developed and became an atheist, thus I started to see my parents were two different versions of christofascism (christian and fascism), as well as I saw that relatively all religions in some way are part of religiofascism (religion and fascism) especially how they often force hereditary religion of children by cursive force or oppression and I became an antireligionist atheist raging against religion as well as the lies of gods.


Religion and Science are Completely Different Epistemologies

Some try to say that science and religion ear not that different saying they both use faith. This is utter nonsense, not only does science not use faith as a method for anything, religion and science are completely different epistemologies. Scientists reason differently than most nonscientists because of a standardized focus on scientific based reasoning and scientific epistemology.
 
A basic outline of scientific epistemology:
 
Science: Hypotheses (Rationalism/Deductive, Inductive, or Abductive Reasoning etc.) + Testing (Empiricism/Systematic Observation) – Checking for errors (Skepticism/Fallibilism) + Interpret/Draw a Conclusion (Rationalism/Deductive, Inductive, or Abductive Reasoning etc.) *if valid* = Scientific Laws (describes observed phenomena) or Scientific Theory (substantiated and repeatedly tested explanation of phenomena) = Justified True Belief = Scientific Knowledge = Epistemic Certainty supportive of correctability
 
*being epistemic certainty is believing a truth has the highest epistemic status, often with warranted psychological certainty but it may not, neither is it a requirement*
 
A basic outline of religious epistemology:
 
Religion: Culture/Testimony/ Myths/Scriptures/Revelation/Prophecies (arbitrary and unjustified way of coming to ideas or Idealism) + Mysticism, Supernaturalism, Spirtualism, or Theology (arbitrary and unjustified to form explanations, Idealism or misuse of Rationalism; often self-justified or even believe they are beyond a need for justification) – Denial of Relevant Alternatives and Basis (Fideism/Dogmatic Foundationalism/Pseudo-Skepticism/Anti-Rationalism/Anti-Empiricism or Anti-Skepticism) + Superstition, Falsehood, Misconception, Fantasy, or Delusion (unsubstantiated ideas and unjustified way of coming to ideas or Idealism) = Religion Reality Theory = Unjustified Untrue Faith Belief = Religion Faith or Beliefs as Knowledge = Unwarranted Psychological Certainty supportive of incorrectability
 
*being psychologically certain believing a truth does not mean that something is not actually false*

The Earth is approximately 4.6 billion years old, an estimate is that a terrestrial biosphere emerged as early as 4.1 billion years ago. Ref The earliest evidences for life on Earth is 3.7 billion years old from Greenland and 3.48 billion years old from Australia. Ref The earliest evidences for sexual reproduction first appears 1200 million years ago and may have increased the rate of evolution and kick started or probably contributed to the evolution of sexual dimorphism (two sexes), where organisms within a species adopted different strategies of parental investment and what would later involve a reliance on caregiver compassion. Most plants unlike most animals are hermaphroditic (both male and female sexes) but approximately 6% of plants have separate males and females or have what amounts to serial sexual dimorphism. Most animals unlike plants are not hermaphroditic but approximately 5% are as well as some are sequential hermaphrodites in which the individual is born as one sex, but can later change into the opposite sex. RefRefRef

Forget Survival of the Fittest: It Is Kindness That Counts

Moreover, we may never completely know when and why caregiver compassion in general or familial compassion specifically. However, the fossil record can, in principle, provide a glimpse and what we see is altruism and even levels of compassion are seen in a variety of species and Kin Selection (genetic), Familial (upbringing) or Familiars (chance) Compassion are the primary evolutionary mechanism. Ref The fossil record shows the arthropod “Kunmingella douvillei” 515 million years ago, arthropod “Waptia fieldensis” 508 million years ago, and arthropod “Ostracods” 450 million years ago to exhibit changes that played a key role in the early evolution of parental care. Ref 1.9 million years ago Homo habilis, the first of our genus Homo who appeared, with modest expansion of a language part of the brain and 1.8 million years ago Homo erectus appeared and had a larger expansion of brain beginning to be regulated as an emotion integrated with rational thought and seem to demonstrate forms of compassion such as caring of sick which represents an extensive compassionate investment. By 500,000 years ago Homo heidelbergensis developed language skills and intelligence and what seems to have been upward march in the commitments to the welfare of others. And evidence from 120,000 years ago demonstrates modern humans where involved in compassion which was extended to strangers, animals, objects and abstract concepts. Thus we cannot think of survival of the fittest without realizing that the aspects of altruism, compassion, empathy, and kindness are part of what assists in that survival. RefRef

In general, all social animals (which includes humans and their evolutionary ancestors) have had to modify or restrain their behaviors for group living which involves iinteractinghighly with other animals, usually of their own species. Social animals are cooperative animals adding to their evolutionary fitness in this solidarity and can roughly be said to exhibit one of more of these behaviors: cooperative sustenance, cooperative upbringing, cooperative generational living, cooperative defense, and cooperative learning. Ref

Kindness is in our genes, how desire to do good deeds is hard-wired into us by evolution

The Evolutionary Biology of Altruism, Compassion, cooperation, and community are key to our survival 

What Price Kindness: Exposing the life and work of a visionary and troubled scientist opens a window onto the evolution of altruism. 

The Evolution of Empathy by Frans de Waal We tend to think of empathy as a uniquely human trait. But it’s something apes and other animals demonstrate as well, says primatologist Frans de Waal. He shows how our evolutionary history suggests a deep-rooted propensity for feeling the emotions of others. Ref

Compassion: An Evolutionary Analysis: What is compassion? And how did it evolve? In this review, we integrate three evolutionary arguments that converge on the hypothesis that compassion evolved as a distinct affective experience whose primary function is to facilitate cooperation and protection of the weak and those who suffer. Our empirical review reveals compassion to have distinct appraisal processes attuned to undeserved suffering, distinct signaling behavior related to caregiving patterns of touch, posture, and vocalization, and a phenomenological experience and physiological response that orients the individual to social approach. This response profile of compassion differs from those of distress, sadness, and love, suggesting that compassion is indeed a distinct emotion. We conclude by considering how compassion shapes moral judgment and action, how it varies across different cultures, and how it may engage specific patterns of neural activation, as well as emerging directions of research.  Ref Human inclinations are not primarily selfish: kindness and altruism have been evolutionarily valued in mates, and even the youngest children often try to be helpful. Ref

Endangered Bonobos Reveal Evolution of Human Kindness: Experiments show the great apes share with strangers and empathize. 

The Homeless Scientist Who Tried to Prove Selflessness Doesn’t Exist. 

Does evolution explain human nature.


A.T.H.E.I.S.T.= Against Theological Heresy Endangering Intelligent Sensible Thinking

I will now offer helpful but simplistic definitions of why a position of atheism could be chosen it is of course just an over-generalization but it will highlight the main idea though it always will be more substantive in reality and who is applying it.


“Damien, do you find that when showing someone their belief is wrong (he is asking about when I do it in public in my atheism activism outreach) that most often the response is to dig in their heels and believe even more strongly?” – Questioner

My response, It depends on their and my personality, if calm then maybe they think more and dig in less as we get heated they did in but I understand for some this is just a quick defense it has little teeth to last. Sso I keep pushing and some give in to reason, many actually give in but some check out just wanting to get away others actually start to really think and some of them get upset at me for making them think others thank me.


Here is my list of non-theistic and theistic assumptions

Nonbelief:

  1. Weakest implicit Nontheistic/Atheism “negative” / “weak” / “soft” nonbelief similar to Non-Theism
  2. Strong implicit Atheism “negative” / “weak” / “soft” nonbelief similar to Apatheist Atheism.
  3. Weak Explicit Atheism “negative” / “weak” / “soft” atheists similar to Agnostic Atheism.
  4. Strong Explicit Atheism “negative” / “weak” / “soft” atheists similar to Ignostic Atheism.
  5. Strongest Explicit Atheism “positive” / “strong” / “hard” atheists similar to Antitheist Atheism.

Belief:

  1. Weakest implicit Theistic thinking/Theism “negative” / “weak” / “soft” belief similar to Vague Theism
  2. Weak implicit Theism “negative” / “weak” / “soft” belief similar to apatheist theists.
  3. Weak Explicit Theism “negative” / “weak” / “soft” theists similar to agnostic theism.
  4. Strong Explicit Theism “positive” / “strong” / “hard” theists similar to standard theism.
  5. Strongest Explicit Theism “positive” / “strong” / “hard” theists similar to gnostic theism.

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