I am an Axiological Atheist, with a Rationalist Persuasion, who Supports Anarcho-Humanism


Hi Damien, I’m Justin Clark and I host a weekly atheist podcast called Reason Revolution. I would love to have you on a guest. I really like your perspective, especially on secularism. I recently made one of your quotes into a meme for my site. Anyway, let me know if you’re interested. You can check out my show at the link below. Best wishes. www.reasonrevolution.org


Check out our website: www.reasonrevolution.org. All episodes and additional content is available there.Give us a like…

Posted by Reason Revolution on Friday, December 22, 2017


 Yes! We’re all set to chat that night for my podcast. 7 pm EST January 31

“Really looking forward to it! I really dig your perspective, Damien.” – Justin Clark


Thanks, Have you checked out my blogs or videos? My perspective is as a rationalist who is an axiological atheist that is an anarcho-humanist and my debate style is truth navigation. 🙂 “Value Theory/Value Science” atheism: AXIOLOGICAL ATHEISM. Is bible god ethical? And, Would It Be Bad or Good if God Exists? (axiological “value theory” questions).

“Yep! Damien, I’ve watched a few and read some of your blogs. Super interesting stuff.” – Justin Clark

My response, Cool, I am also a Strongest Explicit Atheism “positive” / “strong” / “hard” atheist. I can give a blog on each issue if you’re interested?


“Please do. I’m also really interested in your views on anarchy-humanism, Damien” – Justin Clark

My response, Right on, here you go a few of my blogs addressing anarchism and so you know Axiological Atheism almost the opposite of Nihilist Atheism.
*(Anarcho-Feminism) Feminist Atheists as far back as the 1800s: http://damienmarieathope.com/2017/08/feminist-atheists-as-far-back-as-the-1800s/

“Definitely. It’s a value-positive form of atheism that is paired with a positive affirmation of secularism and humanism. In that sense, I definitely identify as one Damien.” – Justin Clark

My response, Cool, here is my best video on axiology atheism and atheist morality: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aClnoupJ4Hk&t=9318s

“Great, Damien, I will watch this to prepare. I am so excited about this conversation. I think you’re doing something really unique in this space.” – Justin Clark

My response, Thanks, I am trying to bring very high philosophy to the common person where they to can use it to benefit people’s lives. Here is another video to check out, where I address anarchy a little as well as addressing atheism, anti-religionism, politics, and society: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nQuWLQ1wK9s&t=1676s and this video is full of anarchism as well: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aY4NqGWPL_k&t=1309s


I love it. I’m doing some of that with my podcast as well. We’ve been having some in-depth discussions on free will for my show, Damien. Cool, cool. I’ll watch this as well. Here’s a recent episode I did about the philosophical issue of free will: http://reasonrevolution.org/episode-28-the-architecture-of-choice/” – Justin Clark

My response, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aUzZVQsOXBU&t=34s that one as well is addressing anarchism.

“Great, Damien – Justin Clark

My response, Cool, thanks, I will post it.

“Thank you! I appreciate that, Damien.” – Justin Clark


 My response, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QbwBBa6DBS4&t=5s that is a video almost only on anarchism.

 “Great. I’ve got all these in the queue to check out. Thank you.” – Justin Clark

My response, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-IxeBC4x8TQ&t=22s this is on some of My Atheist and Humanist Activism. And here is a video addressing my thoughts on an anarchism approach to banking: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P8QAB-0XHzg&t=220s

So, here s a little more on me: I am an Axiological Atheist, Anti-theist, Anti-religionist, Secular Humanist. Rationalist, Writer, Artist, Poet, Philosopher, Advocate, Activist, with schooling in Psychology and Sociology as well as an Autodidact in Science, Archeology, Anthropology, and Philosophy. Damien Promotes Science, Realism, Axiology, Liberty, Justice, Ethics, Anarchism, Socialism, Progressivism, Liberalism, Philosophy, Psychology, Archaeology, and Anthropology; advocating for Sexual, Gender, Child, Secular, LGBTQIA+, Race, Class Rights and Equality. 


“Ooh, interesting. I’m working on an article for my website about the atheism of Emma Goldman. She’s such a hero to me.” – Justin Clark

My response, Cool, I address her in the blog on feminism.

“Great! I look forward to reading that.” – Justin Clark

My response, http://damienmarieathope.com/2017/10/my-strongest-explicit-atheism-positive-strong-hard-atheists-similar-to-antitheist-atheism/ this is a blog about My Strongest Explicit Atheism. And this is on my Truth Navigation: Techniques for Discussions or Debates: http://damienmarieathope.com/2017/12/truth-navigation-techniques-for-discussions-or-debates/ because in 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… But, 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. Here is my website: damienmarieathope.com

*Here is my blog, Axiological Atheism Explained http://damienmarieathope.com/2015/10/axiological-atheism-explained/

“I love these memes. And, I made another one of your quote for my site.” – Justin Clark

 My response, Great, I have hundreds.

“Here is the meme I made of your quote for my site.” – Justin Clark

My response, Great, Here is a link to my writer page: https://www.facebook.com/DamienMarieAtHope/?ref=bookmarks and here is my atheist art page: https://www.facebook.com/AtHope-Wicked-Designs-287913388398828/?ref=bookmarks

“Cool! I liked it a while back. Thanks for liking and following my Reason Revolution page, Damien.” – Justin Clark

My response, We rise by helping each other.

“I totally agree. This community succeeds when we all succeed, Damien.” – Justin Clark


Here are some thoughtful memes:


“I really love that first one of this set you just sent me.” – Justin Clark


My response, great, here are a few more: 

“These are all wonderful. I’m so glad you’re sharing this stuff with me. I think we’re going to have a great conversation. By the way, you’re more than welcome to mirror our conversation on your YouTube.” – Justin Clark


My response, Thanks, I am trying to change the world for the better and I am not asking permission.

“Awesome. Here’s my YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/user/thedailyclark” – Justin Clark

Here is a meme:

My response, I shared your YouTube. 

“Thank you so much!” – Justin Clark

Here are some relavant memes:
My response, We thrive on greed in America and that needs to change. And it’s my art by the way. Here are some more memes:

“Nice! All pretty interesting stuff. I’ve had an anarcho-syndicalist on my show recently and we had a fruitful conversation.” – Justin Clark

My response, I am somewhat similar to an anarcho-syndicalist in ways but very different in others.

“Thank you so much for posting my stuff on your pages. It means a lot. I’ll do the same for you.” – Justin Clark


By the way, I checked out your free will podcast and I don’t agree with sam harris nor your caller on “free will” and we should have a talk on this.


Some thinkers like neuroscientist and philosopher Adina Roskies think these studies can still only show, unsurprisingly, that physical factors in the brain are involved before decision making. In contrast, Haggard believes that “We feel we choose, but we don’t”. Researcher John-Dylan Haynes adds “How can I call a will ‘mine’ if I don’t even know when it occurred and what it has decided to do?”. Philosophers Walter Glannon and Alfred Mele think some scientists are getting the science right, but misrepresenting modern philosophers. This is mainly because “free will” can mean many things: It is unclear what someone means when they say “free will does not exist”. Mele and Glannon say that the available research is more evidence against any dualistic notions of free will – but that is an “easy target for neuroscientists to knock down”. Mele says that most discussions of free will are now had in materialistic terms. In these cases, “free will” means something more like “not coerced” or that “the person could have done otherwise at the last moment”. The existence of these types of free will is debatable. Mele agrees, however, that science will continue to reveal critical details about what goes on in the brain during decision making. This issue may be controversial for good reason: There is evidence to suggest that people normally associate a belief in free will with their ability to affect their lives. Philosopher Daniel Dennett, author of Elbow Room and a supporter of deterministic free will, believes scientists risk making a serious mistake. He says that there are types of free will that are incompatible with modern science, but he says those kinds of free will are not worth wanting. Other types of “free will” are pivotal to people’s sense of responsibility and purpose (see also “believing in free will”), and many of these types are actually compatible with modern science. The other studies described below have only just begun to shed light on the role that consciousness plays in actions and it is too early to draw very strong conclusions about certain kinds of “free will”. It is worth noting that such experiments – so far – have dealt only with free will decisions made in short time frames (seconds) and maynot have direct bearing on free will decisions made (“thoughtfully”) by the subject over the course of many seconds, minutes, hours or longer. Scientists have also only so far studied extremely simple behaviors (e.g. moving a finger). Adina Roskies points out five areas of neuroscientific research: 1.) action initiation, 2.) intention, 3). decision, 4.) Inhibition and control, and 5.) the phenomenology of agency, and for each of these areas Roskiesconcludes that the science may be developing our understanding of volition or “will”, but it yet offers nothing for developing the “free” part of the “free will” discussion. There is also the question of the influence of such interpretations in people’s behaviour. In 2008, psychologists Kathleen Vohs and Jonathan Schooler published a study on how people behave when they are prompted to think that determinism is true. They asked their subjects to read one of two passages: one suggesting that behaviour boils down to environmental or genetic factors not under personal control; the other neutral about what influences behaviour. The participants then did a few math problems on a computer. But just before the test started, they were informed that because of a glitch in the computer it occasionally displayed the answer by accident; if this happened, they were to click it away without looking. Those who had read the deterministic message were more likely to cheat on the test. “Perhaps, denying free will simply provides the ultimate excuse to behave as one likes,” Vohs and Schooler suggested. Neuroscientist and author Sam Harris believes that we are mistaken in believing the intuitive idea that intention initiates actions. In fact, Harris is even critical of the idea that free will is “intuitive”: he says careful introspection can cast doubt on free will. Harris argues “Thoughts simply arise in the brain. What else could they do? The truth about us is even stranger than we may suppose: The illusion of free will is itself an illusion”. Neuroscientist Walter Jackson Freeman III nevertheless talks about the power of even unconscious systems and actions to change the world according to our intentions. He writes “our intentional actions continually flow into the world, changing the world and the relations of our bodies to it. This dynamic system is the self in each of us, it is the agency in charge, not our awareness, which is constantly trying to keep up with what we do.” To Freeman, the power of intention and action can be independent of awareness. It is quite likely that a large range of cognitive operations are necessary to freely press a button. Research at least suggests that our conscious self does not initiate all behavior. Instead, the conscious self is somehow alerted to a given behavior that the rest of the brain and body are already planning and performing. These findings do not forbid conscious experience from playing some moderating role, although it is also possible that some form of unconscious process is what is causing modification in our behavioral response. Unconscious processes may play a larger role in behavior than previously thought. It may be possible, then, that our intuitions about the role of our conscious “intentions” have led us astray; it may be the case that we have confused correlation with causation by believing that conscious awareness necessarily causes the body’s movement. This possibility is bolstered by findings in neurostimulationbrain damage, but also research into introspection illusions. Such illusions show that humans do not have full access to various internal processes. The discovery that humans possess a determined will would have implications for moral responsibility. ref

Free Will and Neuroscience: From Explaining Freedom Away to New Ways of Operationalizing and Measuring It by Andrea Lavazza*  . 2016; 10: 262. Published online 2016 doi:  10.3389/fnhum.2016.00262

Abstract

The concept of free will is hard to define, but crucial to both individual and social life. For centuries people have wondered how freedom is possible in a world ruled by physical determinism; however, reflections on free will have been confined to philosophy until half a century ago, when the topic was also addressed by neuroscience. The first relevant, and now well-known, strand of research on the brain correlates of free will was that pioneered by Libet et al. (), which focused on the allegedly unconscious intentions taking place in decisions regarded as free and voluntary. Libet’s interpretation of the so-called readiness potential (RP) seems to favor a sort of deflation of freedom (Soon et al., ). However, recent studies seem to point to a different interpretation of the RP, namely that the apparent build-up of the brain activity preceding subjectively spontaneous voluntary movements (SVM) may reflect the ebb and flow of the background neuronal noise, which is triggered by many factors (Schurger et al., ). This interpretation seems to bridge the gap between the neuroscientific perspective on free will and the intuitive, commonsensical view of it (Roskies, ), but many problems remain to be solved and other theoretical paths can be hypothesized. The article therefore, proposes to start from an operationalizable concept of free will (Lavazza and Inglese, ) to find a connection between higher order descriptions (useful for practical life) and neural bases. This new way to conceptualize free will should be linked to the idea of “capacity”: that is, the availability of a repertoire of general skills that can be manifested and used without moment by moment conscious control. The capacity index, which is also able to take into account the differences of time scales in decisions, includes reasons-responsiveness and is related to internal control, understood as the agent’s ownership of the mechanisms that trigger the relevant behavior. Cognitive abilities, needed for one to have capacity, might be firstly operationalized as a set of neuropsychological tests, which can be used to operationalize and measure specific executive functions, as they are strongly linked to the concept of control. Subsequently, a free will index would allow for the search of the underlying neural correlates of the capacity exhibited by people and the limits in capacity exhibited by each individual.

I am not impressed with the study with the buttons if I remember right it only had a 60 percent accuracy on guessing the button. And as 50 50 is pure guess show me 100% or 90% accuracy in multiple tests by multiple different tasks more emotionally involved than button pushing to thing that simple nothing is disproof of all human action or thought. As, we are emotional beings at every lever neurologically even when we rationalize and in that way we are motivated but not determined.

Effects of Compassion on the Brain “Compassion Training Alters Altruism and Neural Responses to Suffering” “Have you ever wondered if someone with even the hardest exterior could learn sensitivity and love? A new study shows that we can be trained to feel compassion for others just like we learn many other skills. Researchers at the University of Wisconsin Madison discovered human kindness is teachable, and what’s more – it can change how the brain works, making acts of kindness in others and ourselves more commonplace. We’ve been told through the ages that we need to develop compassion for our fellow humans and other sentient creatures on this planet, but that emotional state has been difficult to pin down scientifically. Motivating altruistic behavior in people was a big puzzle – until now.”

“Compassion is a key motivator of altruistic behavior, but little is known about individuals’ capacity to cultivate compassion through training. We examined whether compassion may be systematically trained by testing whether (a) short-term compassion training increases altruistic behavior and (b) individual differences in altruism are associated with training-induced changes in neural responses to suffering. In healthy adults, we found that compassion training increased altruistic redistribution of funds to a victim encountered outside of the training context. Furthermore, increased altruistic behavior after compassion training was associated with altered activation in brain regions implicated in social cognition and emotion regulation, including the inferior parietal cortex and dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC), and in DLPFC connectivity with the nucleus accumbens. These results suggest that compassion can be cultivated with training and that greater altruistic behavior may emerge from increased engagement of neural systems implicated in understanding the suffering of other people, executive and emotional control, and reward processing.” http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0956797612469537

My degree is in psychology, so you know. Here is my blog on the evolutionary roots of morality: http://damienmarieathope.com/2016/02/evolutionary-roots-of-compassion/ First to me all things start at pragmatics, I think therefore I am. So your guest and every one has to start at a presupposition of pragmatic belief in reality: http://damienmarieathope.com/2017/06/pragmatic-theory-of-truth-coherence-theory-of-truth-and-correspondence-theory-of-truth/

Pragmatic theory of truth, Coherence theory of truth, and Correspondence theory of truth
To me, there are three main approaches to truth (ontology of truth) from the very subjective (Pragmatic theory of truth), subjective (Coherence theory of truth), or to the objective (Correspondence theory of truth).
 
*Pragmatic theory of truth: very subjective
 
“our ideas are true if they work to solve problems, are useful”
 
A common feature is a reliance on the pragmatic maxim as a means of clarifying the meanings of difficult concepts such as truth; and an emphasis on the fact that belief, certainty, knowledge, or truth is the result of an inquiry. The pragmatic maxim is a normative recommendation or a regulative principle in the normative science of logic, its function is to guide the conduct of thought toward the achievement of its purpose, advising on an optimal way of “attaining clearness of apprehension”. Ref Ref
   
*Coherence theory of truth: subjective/objective
 
“our ideas are true if they are internally consistent not contradictory”
 
A common thinking is to regard truth as coherence within some specified set of sentences, propositions or beliefs. There is no single set of such “logical universes”, but rather an assortment of perspectives that are commonly discussed under this title. A positive tenet is the idea that truth is a property of whole systems of propositions and can be ascribed to individual propositions only derivatively according to their coherence with the whole. While modern coherence theorists hold that there are many possible systems to which the determination of truth may be based upon coherence, others, particularly those with strong religious beliefs hold that the such truth only applies to a single absolute system. In general, then, truth requires a proper fit of elements within the whole system. Very often, though, coherence is taken to imply something more than simple formal coherence. Ref 
 
*Correspondence theory of truth: objective
 
“our ideas are true if they accurately correspond to reality and its facts”
 
A common thinking 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. There is a sense in which that which is truth depends on the world it can be demonstrated in, similar to the scientific methods presupposition of methodological naturalism. Methodological naturalism is not a “doctrine” but an essential aspect of the methodology of science, the study of the natural universe. If one believes that natural laws and theories based on them will not suffice to solve the problems attacked by scientists – that supernatural and thus nonscientific principles must be invoked from time to time – then one cannot have the confidence in scientific methodology that is prerequisite to doing science. The spectacular successes over four centuries of science based on methodological naturalism cannot be denied. Correspondence theories claim that true beliefs and true statements correspond to the actual state of affairs. Bertrand Russell theorized that a statement, to be true, must have a structural isomorphism with the state of affairs in the world that makes it true.The truth predicate of interest in a typical correspondence theory of truth tells of a relation between representations and objective states of affairs, and is therefore expressed, for the most part, by a dyadic predicate. In general terms, one says that a representation is true of an objective situation, more briefly, that a sign is true of an object. The nature of the correspondence may vary from theory to theory in this family. The correspondence can be fairly arbitrary or it can take on the character of an analogy, an icon, or a morphism, whereby a representation is rendered true of its object by the existence of corresponding elements and a similar structure. Historically, most advocates of correspondence theories have been ontological realists; that is, they believe that there is a world external to the minds of all humans. Ref Ref Ref

Actually, I think the difference between them is not either or but which one is applicable to the amount or qualities of valid and reliable reason and or evidence. One theory the pragmatic theory of truth where you don’t have much or almost no evidence but it seems the most reasonable to assume something like “I am typing on a Facebook post and I am not in a matrix simulation, then I increase the perceived truth if what is being communicated is what most likely is true because the expression of what it could be is at least coherent to what is said and how it’s said not holding an internal inconsistency, which is the coherence theory of truth. And most trusted of all and the main one science is pretty much using most often is the correspondence theory of truth.
 
ps. In my opinion, people don’t realize there presuppositions, truth is one of the big ones, as already we likely believed a certain persuasion of viewing the thing truth can be (ontology thinking) about the ontology status of truth (often not fully realized or actualized either. whew we often have confusion around or about truth is because we often just jump to the epistemology of truth, but how can we establish truth characteristics (epistemology thinking)
 
“Ontology and epistemology are both important elements of the philosophy of knowledge. If they often overlap, they have a clear distinction: epistemology is about the way we know things when the ontology is about what things are. Ontology is the study of what there is. Epistemology is the study of what you know and how you know it. The two are intimately related. Any statement of ontology (e.g. “Bees are a kind of insect”) is intended to be a statement of “truth”, and epistemology is trying to figure out what it means to be “true”. But the notion of “truth” is inherently grounded in our idea that there’s some kind of world out there for which the distinction between “truth” and “not-truth” is relevant.” Ref
 
What I am saying is one cannot say “truth is…” (epistemology thinking) until they have the (ontology thinking) of the “thingness” of truth (ontology: the nature of being, becoming, existence or reality as well as the basic categories of being and their relations). The part “truth is…” wishes to explain (epistemology thinking) nature of a “thing” or its “thingness” (ontology thinking). So, the “is” part (epistemology thinking) means the attached characteristics of the “thing” called truth (ontology) when the epistemological question is offered without acknowledging or establishing the thing being called truth (ontology thinking). So, ontology is about what is this thing true or what true is and epistemology then is about methods of figuring out those truths. Ref

“Cool, I agree. As you probably figured out while listening to the podcast, I’m a compatibilist.” – Justin Clark

My response, I see truth as a progressive acquisition of knowledge available thus starts at a pragmatic hypothesis then we test and can then claim a higher level of truth.


“Motivated but not determined” loved that phrase.” – Justin Clark

My response, That is kinda my persuasion to but my thinking is my own.

“I totally agree with you on knowledge. I’m influenced by John Dewey and pragmatism.” – Justin Clark

My response, Genes motivate not determine, don’t forget randomness/variations lead to evolution.

“Definitely! Dennett makes a similar point in Elbow Room. – Justin Clark

My response, If everything was controlled then not one thing would have ever evolved from stars, we are always evolving and adapting.

“Yep. I find hard determinism to be sort of a godless theology, where causation takes the place of god.” – Justin Clark

Here is my blog on Moral fear and Moral love (which together motivate my axiological ethics): http://damienmarieathope.com/2017/09/moral-fear-and-moral-love/

To me, it’s Real Morality vs. Pseudo Morality

+Morals (Personal Morality relating to a “self” morality): are not held by all in the same way since all are not held to Orthodox faith and though most start with good and bad or right and wrong values, which usually are personally, familially, socially or religiously give or in some way otherworldly defined, thus not universal.

+Ethics (Social Morality relating to a “others” morality): Ethics are not constrained by a given religion’s value systems to motivate its ideas of right and wrong instead it relies on universal truths found in universal principles of just human action. Ethics is set standers uses to personally engage with others and universal truths assist goals of universal ethics standards. Thus, ethics are general prosocial prescription we as morality aware beings in a rather universal way tend to have some awareness of and it is not just an awareness as in one who holds to ethics often get it applies to all peoples. Some may wish to devalue people but to do so is not really unethical, though often it can lead to unethical behavior. So what I am trying to highlight is how in the behaviour that the ethics violation could occur as the internal attitude of devaluing others would only be a possible morals violation such as one who valued virtue and not getting it but failing by the persuasion of devaluing the life of other humans. This simple internal devaluing of humans, that they may be doing is vile. But ethics would not be involved until public behaviors with others, as such ethics is not so much a persuasion as an adherence to a standard(s) that should cover all thus it is highly applicable to utilize in environmental decision making. Real Morality is referring to “ethics” (Social Morality relating to a “others” morality) as opposed to morals (Personal Morality relating to a “self” morality) because we use Real Morality or need to to assist in judging the behaviors in a social dynamic behavioral event or interaction and can only accrue in a social dynamic (social behavioral realm) as such all morality propositions removed from a social dynamic and which accrue only in a personal dynamic lack attachment to “Real Morality” referring to the social nature of “ethics.”

In other words, to me, if you are by yourself and do something only to yourself, it is neither ethical nor immorality; thus, doing a behavior that is only personal (a believed moral or otherwise) by yourself and only something to yourself, is amorality to everyone but that chosen person doing a behavior that is only personal. One can choose to personally value some moral standard for themselves but because morals (the personal valued behaviors) as opposed to ethics (the interpersonal/social valued behaviors; which there is business never business morals as ethics is about our social behaviors we can hold others to, whereas, morals are only something we can hold ourselves to). I hold the assumptions that to understand morality more fully we need to understand its synthesis and properties by emphasizing its relations to conceptual tools understanding motivation and behavior such as biopsychosocial model, Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs, Bronfenbrenner’s ecological systems theory, Kohlberg’s moral development theory and formal axiology interactions across multiple levels. Real Morality is an emergent aspect limited to a sphere of social dynamics (social) result in human progress and social evolution understood in mental processes of high cognitively developed beings (biological) with developed psychological quality of awareness (psychological) and the so-called moral facts and the values that support or motivate them is limited to the realm of possible harm psychological or physical (actual external world or experiential internal world). Pseudo Morality is seen when holy books or people “cognitively reconstruct” an inhumane idea or behavior to make it into something different from than it is, to something more moral than what it actually is. Or turn something highly immoral in to something highly moral. One way to do that is to cloak the behavior “in moral wrappings” or “in divine authority” such as god hates gays, gays are evil, thus killing gays is doing good by destroying evil. This thinking is obviously pseudo morality as gays are not evil but killing them is evil and inhumane idea or behavior thus very immoral. The god justified immorality into what is then called moral is some of the most common pseudo-morality, though political leaders and others in power tend to employ it as well. They all are using “pseudo-moral justifications” to describe something immoral as moral. True morality is not as simply as the golden rule… True morality is a valued behavior we do that interacts with others; it is not really related to what we do to ourselves. Which is why I do not agree with the so-called golden rule as it is what you don’t want do to others but this fails in that its focused on ourselves which is us focused and true morality needs to be other focused on what valued behavior we do that interacts with others. I say treat others the way they should be treated. People have self-ownership, self-rights, right to dignity, freedom and equality. True morality is a valued behavior we do that interacts with others starting with the conception that people matter, they have worth and value, It is in this way they should be treated.

*Here is a blog on my, Axiological Dignity Being Theory: http://damienmarieathope.com/2017/01/axiological-dignity-being-theory/
*Here is a blog on my, Methodological Rationalism: investigate (ontology), expose (epistemology) and judge (axiology) http://damienmarieathope.com/2017/10/my-methodological-rationalism-investigate-ontology-expose-epistemology-and-judge-axiology/
*Here is a blog on Using Ontology to Attack Theistic Errors http://damienmarieathope.com/2017/08/using-ontology-to-attack-theistic-errors/

In the blog Axiological Dignity Being Theory, I address, “axiological assessment of human beings” which 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 care 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

Babies & Morality? Yes“They believe babies are in fact born with an innate sense of morality, and while parents and society can help develop a belief system in babies, they don’t create one. A team of researchers at Yale University’s Infant Cognition Center, known as The Baby Lab, showed us just how they came to that conclusion. http://www.cnn.com/2014/02/12/us/baby-lab-morals-ac360/ Are we born with a moral core? The Baby Lab says ‘yes’ – CNN It is one of life’s biggest questions: Are we born knowing the difference between good and evil? Yale’s “Baby Lab” says “yes.” cnn.com

 Here is a link that explains how Animals can tell right from wronghttp://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/wildlife/5373379/Animals-can-tell-right-from-wrong.html
 And a link for, Wild Justice: The Moral Lives of Animals: https://www.amazon.com/Wild-Justice-Moral-Lives-Animals/dp/0226041638

 “Scientists have long counseled against interpreting animal behavior in terms of human emotions, warning that such anthropomorphizing limits our ability to understand animals as they really are. Yet what are we to make of a female gorilla in a German zoo who spent days mourning the death of her baby? Or a wild female elephant who cared for a younger one after she was injured by a rambunctious teenage male? Or a rat who refused to push a lever for food when he saw that doing so caused another rat to be shocked? Aren’t these clear signs that animals have recognizable emotions and moral intelligence? With Wild Justice Marc Bekoff and Jessica Pierce unequivocally answer yes. Marrying years of behavioral and cognitive research with compelling and moving anecdotes, Bekoff and Pierce reveal that animals exhibit a broad repertoire of moral behaviors, including fairness, empathy, trust, and reciprocity. Underlying these behaviors is a complex and nuanced range of emotions, backed by a high degree of intelligence and surprising behavioral flexibility. Animals, in short, are incredibly adept social beings, relying on rules of conduct to navigate intricate social networks that are essential to their survival. Ultimately, Bekoff and Pierce draw the astonishing conclusion that there is no moral gap between humans and other species: morality is an evolved trait that we unquestionably share with other social mammals.”


“Super interesting stuff. Reminds me of reading about Peter Singer’s “expanding circle” of moral values.” – Justin Clark


My response, I like that you talked about ontology I don’t here others use it but I love ontology.


“Thanks. I think it’s important to distinguish between that which is ontological and descriptive and what is moral and normative. I’m not saying they’re mutually exclusive but rather complementary. – Justin Clark

My response, I agree.


“Awesome outline here. I’m loving this conversation already. Can’t wait to sit down on Wednesday. – Justin Clark

My response, I use philosophy as I like I hold little regard for most other thinkers unless I value their thoughts. I am just impressed by the force of the questions and their validity in thought regardless of the source of the thinker be it an ignorant child or a scholared professor, nothing, nor anyone, nor any idea is free from challenge.

“I couldn’t agree more. That’s why my page, Reason Revolution, highlights thinkers from across the atheist/humanist spectrum. Diversity of thought is a value I hold very dear. – Justin Clark

 Here is a meme on my style:
I have impressed professional philosophers before with my original thinking but my goal is not for them it’s the regular people who need the help of philosophy but find it too hard. I want to help as many as possible think their best and inspire others to do the same as well. Here are some memes: 
 My response, I wish to make more people critical thinkers and rationalists. 

“Me too. – Justin Clark

My response, So you know, I am not a skeptic though I do use methodological skepticism: http://damienmarieathope.com/2017/03/my-methodological-skepticism-style/

“You could say I identify as a skeptic, but I distinguish that from cynicism or nihilism, which many think are the same thing. And, I outline this a bit in an essay I wrote on secular humanism.http://reasonrevolution.org/promise-of-secular-humanism/ – Justin Clark
The Promise of Secular Humanism: Towards a Better Way of Life | Reason Revolution, Every minute we waste speculating about the afterlife limits the value of our lives right now.  http://reasonrevolution.org/promise-of-secular-humanism/  Secular humanism is the best way forward for humanity. reasonrevolution.org – Justin Clark

Here is a meme of mine:
My response cool link, I will share it. 🙂

“Thank you! Much appreciated. I’ll share more of your stuff over the next few days, to get people excited for our conversation. And, I do know the differences. – Justin Clark

My response, Of course, I know you do. I’ve just run into this with others. Feel free to post anything I said as nothing to me needs to be private.

“Cool, will do! I’ll definitely be making more memes of your quotes for my site,  I am also open to being taught by anyone. Definitely! I look forward to learning from you during our conversation. – Justin Clark

My response, Cool, here is a few more of my memes:
I think we may need to do a few talks if you’re interested? 😀

“Haha, I’m down! – Justin Clark

My response, Right on, me too, I think you are smart I like deep minds. I get to play more intellectually than with some who are more shallow thinkers.

“Thank you, likewise. – Justin Clark

My response, I don’t know if you know but I am also somewhat versed in archaeology as an autodidact and the evolution of religion, have you seen my stuff on that?

“A little. More so the philosophy work you do. – Justin Clark

My response, Here are some memes with my art and ideas on the evolution of religion:
“Very cool. Love seeing that progression in each graphic. – Justin Clark

My response, Here is a blog on rape and religion: http://damienmarieathope.com/2017/06/rape-and-religion/
Oh yeah, you’re right about this, for sure. Why is it that God couldn’t put “Don’t Rape” in the Ten Commandments?
Or Not owning another person as property? Oh, that’s right, because these acts are often sanctioned as moral by the Old Testament.

My response, I have facts, in a separate blog for the different religions if you are interested.


“For sure, I can check that out. – Justin Clark
“Damn, you really have laid this out! Awesome. You’re a treasure trove of wisdom. – Justin Clark

My response, There. I have done a lot as it is a big issue for me. I also have many 100 blogs on archaeology and religious history. And here is a blog with several links to Archaeological, Scientific, & Philosophic evidence shows the god myth is man-made nonsense. http://damienmarieathope.com/2017/10/archaeological-scientific-philosophic-evidence-showing-the-god-myth-is-man-made-nonsense/

“Very cool, thank you so much. Love this last graphic. These three were pretty much why I became an atheist, except I broadly studied history, rather than specifically archaeology. – Justin Clark

My response, thanks.

“I’m a historian by training.” – Justin Clark

My response, how cool.

“I wrote my master’s thesis on Robert Ingersoll and midwestern freethought. – Justin Clark

My response, we will have great talks then.

“Most definitely! – Justin Clark 

My response, I see myself as closest to him more than any other atheist.

“Likewise, Damien. – Justin Clark 

My response, Robert Ingersoll in a art I made. 

“Discovering Robert Ingersoll changed my life. – Justin Clark 

Here it is:

As you know the picture is of Robert Green Ingersoll. http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/quotes/ingersoll.htm

The quote on the chock board is my quote:

“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.”

My website: http://damienmarieathope.com/

The M symbol stands for Mutualism (an anarchist economic theory). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutualism_(economic_theory)

The magazines displayed are Popular Science & Psychology Today. http://subscriptions.popsci.com/Popular-Science/Magazine & https://www.psychologytoday.com/magazine/archive/2015/09

The books displayed are The God Delusion, God Is Not Great, Archaeology of Ritual and Religion, Religion and Violence, and The Bible Unearthed.

“I really like that quote! That might, by my next meme of you. Haha. And yes, that photo is very popular. It was taken around 1875 or so. I think it’s available through the library of Congress.” – Justin Clark 

My response, Great and thanks for your support.

“No problem.” – Justin Clark 
“I have this in my office. It’s a cartoon of Ingersoll from Puck Magazine, circa 1881. It’s an original.
I picked it up in an antique shop last summer for 20 bucks.” – Justin Clark 

My response, Cool.

“Thanks. I’ve written a lot about 19th Century freethought in the Midwest.
Both for my own site and for my job. I work for a state agency for history. – Justin Clark 

My response, Here is my blog of mine on the history freethought/atheism: http://damienmarieathope.com/2016/03/firebrand-atheists-unite/

“Very cool.” – Justin Clark 

My response, Atheism goes further back at least as far back as 2,570 to 2,270 years ago. Between 2,570 – 2,270 years ago there is a confirmation of doubting as well as atheistic thinking mainly by Greek philosophers. However, doubting gods is likely as old as the invention of gods which should erode the thinking that belief in god(s) belief is some “default.” The Greek word is apistos (a “not” and pistos “faithful,”) thus not faithful or faithless because one is unpersuaded and unconvinced by god. Short Definition: unbelieving or unbeliever. Likewise, apistia derived from apistos, signifies unbelief. Xenophanes who lived around 2,570 to 2,475 years ago is known for composing the first recorded atheistic critics, and famously stated: “Men create the gods in their own image.” Xenophanes’ surviving writings display a skepticism that became more commonly expressed during the fourth century. He satirized traditional religious views of his time as human projections and once said: “But mortals think that the gods are born and have the mortals’ own clothes and voice and form.” Xenophanes was critical of claims of the anthropomorphic conception of gods, summarized as, if cattle, horses and lions had hands or could paint with their hands and create works such as men do, they would like humans depict the gods’ shapes like their bodies of such a sort as the form they themselves have so horses would make their gods like horses, cattle would make their gods like cattle, and lions would make their gods like lions also. We see this in how Ethiopians of central eastern Africa say that their gods are snub-nosed and black while the Thracians of southeastern Europe say that they gods are pale and red-haired. According to The Story of Civilization book series certain African pygmy tribes from around 2,400 to 2,500 years ago have no identifiable gods, spirits, or religious beliefs or rituals and even what burials accrue are without ceremony. Democritus, who lived around 2,460 to 2,370 years ago, considered to be the “father of modern science” possibly had some disbelief amounting to atheism. Around 2,430 years ago, we know Diagoras of Melos was accused by Greek courts of charges amounting to atheism and fled punishment. Around 2,399 years ago, we know Socrates was accused by Greek courts of charges amounting to atheism of the gods that the city acknowledges thus was sentenced to death. Epicurus who lived around 2,341 to 2,270 years ago is known for composing atheistic critics, and famously stated “Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him god?”

“Very cool. There’s a great book that came out a couple years ago about a Greek and Roman Atheism by Tim Whitmarsh called Battling the Gods. Here’s something I’ve written about humanism and Kurt Vonnegut. https://blog.history.in.gov/?p=456 – Justin Clark

My response, cool, I will share it too.

“Thank you! You’re too kind. I’ll share some of yours as well. You’ve just given me so much to choose from, which is great!” – Justin Clark

My response, I thought you could appreciate this and I am a scientific realist.

“I do! This is very helpful. I’m not sure where I would fit on this, as I do identify as a pragmatist in some ways. Having said that, I would lean more to the realist side of it. Hold on. I see Dennett on this chart. I’d be close to him.” – Justin Clark

My response, As a rationalist not a true skeptic that I am already figured you are likely more rationalist than skeptic but I will rub off on you and you will see I can take down almost any skeptic. lol


“Haha, right on. I’m open to new thinking all the time.” – Justin Clark

My response, Oh, have a blog on Extreme Skepticism: Solipsism? http://damienmarieathope.com/2017/11/extreme-skepticism-solipsism/
Rationalist atheism: Almost all rationalists are atheists or agnostics. There has been a long link between rationalism and scientific method. There is also a long tradition of philosophers who have approached philosophical and ethical questions from a rationalist perspective. Bertrand Russell’s “The Faith of a Rationalist” is an example of a rationalist approach to religious belief. Rationalism is an approach to life based on reason and evidence. Rationalism encourages ethical and philosophical ideas that can be tested by experience and rejects authority that cannot be proved by experience. Because rationalism encourages people to think for themselves, rationalists have many different and diverse ideas and continue in a tradition from the nineteenth century known as freethought. However, most rationalists would agree. There is no evidence for any arbitrary supernatural authority e.g. God or Gods. The best explanation so far for why the natural world looks the way it does is the theory of evolution first put forward by Charles Darwin. All human beings should have fundamental rights. Some rationalists and humanists go further and argue that animals should also have rights as they are living, sensate beings. Society is should be an “open society”, where each individual is able to live “freely and equally practice their chosen life stance, and in which human potential is realized to the benefit of the individual and the community at large.” (Levi Fragell, President of International Humanist and Ethical Union, 2001) As well as approaching life through reason, rationalists enjoy those things in life where emotion and imagination are to the fore. Rationalist atheists wish to follow and inspire in others a desire or value in or for epistemology, axiology, and rationality. Rationalist atheists want to strive for a corresponding and coherent value assessment along with an epistemological rationally, rational epistemology, as well as an accurate or at least a methodological rationally connecting to an epistemic value of the epistemology state of things or ideas. Rationalist atheists want to know what is it to be Rational? To be “rational” is generally considered to mean employing logical consistency and deriving appropriate conclusions from acceptable assumptions. Epistemic value is a kind of value which attaches to cognitive successes such as true beliefs, justified beliefs, knowledge, and understanding. These kinds of cognitive success do of course often have practical value. True beliefs about local geography help us get to work on time; knowledge of mechanics allows us to build vehicles; understanding of general annual weather patterns helps us to plant our fields at the right time of year to ensure a good harvest. By contrast, false beliefs about the existence of weapons of mass destruction can lead nations to fight hugely expensive wars that are ultimately both destructive and useless. It is fairly uncontroversial that we tend to care about having various cognitive or epistemic goods, at least for their practical value, and perhaps also for their own sakes as cognitive successes. There is not just one type of rationalism or use of rationally. Epistemic rationality: believing, and updating on evidence, so as to systematically improve the correspondence between your map and the territory. The art of obtaining beliefs that correspond to reality as closely as possible. This correspondence is commonly termed “truth” or “accuracy”, and we’re happy to call it that. Instrumental rationality: achieving your values. Not necessarily “your values” in the sense of being selfish values or unshared values: “your values” means anything you care about. The art of choosing actions that steer the future toward outcomes ranked higher in your preferences. On LW we sometimes refer to this as “winning”.  123

 “Yeah, I’m definitely not an extreme skeptic.” – Justin Clark

 My response, I think you are a rationalist atheist (http://damienmarieathope.com/2015/07/reasons-for-or-types-of-atheism/). Yes, I think you are a rationalist atheist that was told that all atheists are skeptics and wanted me to remind you that was not true. lol

“Haha, right on. But what about folks like James Randi, Michael Shermer, and others who identify as “skeptics?” I would say, based on examining their work, that they’re closer to us than the label applies. I guess they’re “methodological skeptics,” as you define them here. They certainly not solipsistic.” – Justin Clark

My response, James Randi is a true skeptic atheist, good in what he does and I appreciate that, but not the same on philosophy as you or me I think.


“Right on. Was curious what your take on this would be. Randi is a huge influence on me. So are Penn and Teller. Without them, I wouldn’t be who I am today. They introduced me to the world of skepticism, science, and atheism. I’m also a big Shermer fan. Really looking forward to reading his newest book, which debunks claims of the afterlife, utopias, etc.” – Justin Clark

My response, Michael Shermer is good in what he does and I appreceate that, but to me he is not a pure skeptic and even claims many forms of skepticism are not reasonable but how does he know that only using skepticism, he doesn’t and also is not always great on his thinking, I called him out on the main thinking in his presentation in Canada and he admitted after my challenge that I was indeed right and he was wrong but that means his hour presentation I had to suffer through as premised on a lie. Yes, I will take the heightened thinking of rationalism deep thinking over the too often limited skeptic doubting and only some thinking. I am a rationalist subjugated, in a world of skepticism. Skeptism is not a path to truth it is a challange to it. I see. Why do you think skepticism challenges our path to truth? I always assumed a healthy amount of skepticism was good in evaluating claims and getting to the truth. It is a nonreasoned challange as extream ignorance (skepticism is not a way of knowing its a process of challenge to truth) as to why a skeptic challenges will vary depending on motifs as religious try to use skepticism against atheists all the time. To hold anything as true is to affirm something other than skepticism.

“Ok, I see what you’re saying.” – Justin Clark

My response, A healthy use of skepticism is a process, rather than an end position. In that sense, we are in agreement.
Think of it like this relatively every epistemology,including empiricism and rationalism, is an accuracy or is challenged by skepticism. you need good belief standards and no you don’t have to ever appeal to skepticism and can know the accuracy of things. A healthy skepticism, but what standard as skepticism can make such assertions using skepticism?
can’t not can healthy would be an axiology term worth, value, good, beneficial, healthy: axiology terms. To me, skeptics often like to talk logic but how logic is started by axioms and pragmatism?

“That’s fair. There are things which we must establish in an axiomatic way, such as existence exists, consciousness exists, the logical absolutes exist.” – Justin Clark

My response, “we must” does not sound like a skeptic thinking. lol YOU rationalist you. 🙂 As a rationalist, there are things which we must establish in an axiomatic way, you dd not defend skepticism in the video on free will as you don’t totally agree and are looking for what does make sense I feel I saw that anyway, you may feel different. I feel you demonstrate a superior thinking architecture to be limited by skepticism.

“Well, thank you. I guess I’ve always taken skepticism to just being a critical thinker, but you’re right in the broader philosophical sense about the term.” – Justin Clark

My response, If one can’t think deep or don’t like to think as deep as one can then skepticism is the thing for you but to truly think deep to me one must move far past the thinking limitations of true skepticism. Now all god rationalists use methodological skepticism that is quite different from philosophical skepticism. 

“Exactly. And when I’m talking about skepticism, I use it In the context of methodological skepticism.
I always loved the maxim: “Have an open mind but not so open that your brains fall out.” – Justin Clark

Critical thinking uses logic and reason or in other words rationalism. If you read the long description of critical thinking from the international critical thinking institute they don’t mention skepticism or doubt even once. 

(Taken from Richard Paul and Linda Elder, The Miniature Guide to Critical Thinking Concepts and Tools, Foundation for Critical Thinking Press, 2008) criticalthinking.org 

“Right on. I’ll check this out, too. This conversation underscores the importance of defining terms and being consistent in their use. 🙂” – Justin Clark

My response, I don’t mean to rant its just I take mass errors in thinking from skeptics thinking they know what I later how they don’t.

“No, it’s fine. And I don’t think we were actually far off. It was just clarifying language. So it’s
cool.” – Justin Clark

My response, I love clarification its central in my hammer of truth style. Don’t assume, ask or state to clarify.
“my art”

“Agreed. That’s what I spend so much of discussions doing, especially with believers. I ask people to define what they mean so I understand their position. Loose language turns into even looser arguments.” – Justin Clark

My response, I always try to ask What is a god? And that is my art too.
My response, That is another of my anarchism and my art as well.

“Very cool. That’s a good start. I usually phrase it as “what do you mean by God?” And follow with “how do you know you God is manifested in reality?” – Justin Clark

My response, What is it to be Rational? To be “rational” is generally considered to mean employing logical consistency and deriving appropriate conclusions from acceptable assumptions. Epistemic value is a kind of value which attaches to cognitive successes such as true beliefs, justified beliefs, knowledge, and understanding. These kinds of cognitive success do of course often have practical value. True beliefs about local geography help us get to work on time; knowledge of mechanics allows us to build vehicles; understanding of general annual weather patterns helps us to plant our fields at the right time of year to ensure a good harvest. By contrast, false beliefs about the existence of weapons of mass destruction can lead nations to fight hugely expensive wars that are ultimately both destructive and useless. It is fairly uncontroversial that we tend to care about having various cognitive or epistemic goods, at least for their practical value, and perhaps also for their own sakes as cognitive successes.

“This is very good. I agree.” – Justin Clark

My response, There is not just one type of rationalism or use of rationally. Epistemic rationality: believing, and updating on evidence, so as to systematically improve the correspondence between your map and the territory. The art of obtaining beliefs that correspond to reality as closely as possible. This correspondence is commonly termed “truth” or “accuracy”, and we’re happy to call it that. Instrumental rationality: achieving your values. Not necessarily “your values” in the sense of being selfish values or unshared values: “your values” means anything you care about. The art of choosing actions that steer the future toward outcomes ranked higher in your preferences. On LW we sometimes refer to this as “winning”. And, by the way, See, I now know you are a deep thinker, I am having fun conversing with you and I barely chat with anyone. 

“Thank you, likewise. This has been a real pleasure. Our podcast next week will be a blast. Ideas are my life. I spend so much time with them. They give me purpose and joy and meaning.” – Justin Clark

My response, Yes, we to me I think we have started a good friendship, I enjoy it I need people that get me. lol

“For sure. That’s why I love doing my podcast. I get to meet and chat with interesting, like-minded folks who appreciate what I’m doing.” – Justin Clark

My response, Here is a meme that is relavant:

“Yes! Very well put. That’s what we’re fighting for as atheists and humanist.” – Justin Clark

My response, Here is a meme on that:


“Yep! I loved this quote. That’s the second one I made of yours.” – Justin Clark
“This is one I shared on my site recently.” – Justin Clark

My response, I like him, he stated he too, was a rationalist.

“Very cool. Love Russell. Why I Am Not A Christian was one of the first books I read on my path to atheism.” – Justin Clark

My response, As a rationalist I strongly stand up for reality: http://damienmarieathope.com/2017/05/as-a-rationalist-i-strongly-stand-up-for-reality/

*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.
*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.
*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.
Credibility, Accuracy, & Reasonableness, I challenge the credibility (“worthy of belief”) as well as the accuracy of ideas just as I do with uncredible (“unworthy of respect”) behaviors. Ideas do not have a dignity. They do not have a right to exist. People have a dignity. People have a right to exist. Thus, I don’t respect beliefs unless they are respectable as in they are warranted and justified by valid and reliable reason and evidence. People deserve respect unless they behave unrespectable. I always strive to attack thinking not people. In this theme of respect is the integrity of responsibility and reasonableness of being a good human. Thus, I challenge uncredible behaviors as well. Furthermore, I don’t force people to believe things, I only try to inspire in myself and others to see the need for using accurately rational and reasonably ethical held standards in beliefs and behaviors. While I will treat ideas brutally, I strive to treat people kindly. I do not believe in any value in concepts of gods or religions but I do believe in the value of people. I will not respect the concepts of gods or religions but I always try and respect people. So, I make an effort to attack thinking and not people. And, have you seen the Michael shermer’s skeptic video Its funny: Skeptic Presents: What is a Skeptic? https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=224&v=JQOcdPohRKw it’s a fun and informative look at the principles of Skepticism. And, here is the link to, “Why I Am A Rationalist” by Bertrand Russell; “The Rational Habit Of Mind Is A Rare One” http://www.personal.kent.edu/~rmuhamma/Philosophy/RBwritings/iRationalist.htm
“I have, a while back. So, if I’m understanding you correctly, you think that Shermer goes too far with his skepticism? That he beers into philosophical skepticism territory?” – Justin Clark
My response, He states in the video that philosophy skepticism is not reasonable and in that we both agree and it’s still a funny video. 

“Haha, right on. Well that’s good, at least. Thank you for such an amazing conversation. I’m really looking forward to our chat on Wednesday. 🙂” – Justin Clark

My response, I too am really looking forward to our chat on Wednesday. I am an Axiological Atheist, with a Rationalist Persuasion, who Supports Anarcho-Humanism.

“Love it. I’ve been watching your videos.” – Justin Clark 

My response, Wonderful, I am glad to hear it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m93FqHShUDE&t=3008s  You should watch that video its a little on the evolution of religion I made.
Rationalist thinkers vs Skeptic thinkers
 
I am a Rationalist and supports reasoned skepticism.
 
To me, “Rationalists” tend to be more prone to axiology, strong atheism and or ignosticism. A rationalist should wish to test propositions for warrant or justification; thus at some point should or will tend to use a methodological skepticism. This type of rationalism thinker will feel a level of accuracy is important, which supports an amount of certainty, holding that claims which don’t reach the level of proof or are resectable do to reason or evidence removing their credibility likely don’t need to be doubted as they lack warrant to even inspire doubt. That is not to say if there is some reasonable warrant doubt will not be utilized.
 
To me, “Skeptics” tend to be more prone to nihilism, weak atheism and or agnosticism. A skeptic may start with philosophical skepticism thus may use doubt or uncertainty as much or likely more than rationally to assess propositions. Though it to will generally agreed that knowledge requires justification or at least some proof to support beliefs. However this type of skepticism thinker also may not be sure things are disproved without facts to demonstrate this thus resulting in doubt.

I Am a Rationalist and Support Reasonable Skepticism

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 it should be 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


The Struggle of a Rationalist?

The irrationalist sees reason as irrational. that’s why we can’t often reason with them, until we first crack the flawed thinking paradigm they reason through.  In the irrationalist mind, denying the authority of reason is almost as strong as their will to not see what is true over what is believed. It’s almost a lost cause from the beginning for many, but even some hard cases turn around and enlighten themselves eventually.

3 ways To Reason with Unreasonable People
 
1. Do not apologize for their mistakes (hold them accountable, hold firm against their rhetoric)
2. Try not cry or show anger
3. Ask lots of questions ref
3 Simple strategies for dealing with toxic, mean, or unreasonable/aggressively unstable people,
 
1. Minimize time with them
2. Keep it logical and rational
3. Focus on them in conversations ref
We must be rational and give up the daydream that they will one day be the person you wish they’d be, they will be who they wish to be.

Rationalist through and through???

I am so much a rationalist requiring valid and reliable reason and evidence that even if somehow a god was proven to exist that doesn’t mean all the unsubstantiated claims about it are to be believed without proof. As we all should reasonably follow the ethics of belief, thus, even a somehow proven god something, must prove everything they are saying. The rationale is not skepticism of beliefs it’s a rationalist call for accuracy and truth reached by justifiable beliefs supported by facts.

Belief that is not justifiable is reckless, because unjustifiable beliefs are agreeing with unsubstantiated and/or unreasonable/ridiculous claims that are not supported by facts. Don’t forget taking a position “To Believe” without knowledge, proof, or even investigating and questioning is a violation to rationalism as well as the ethics of belief and it is almost guaranteed to lead to limitations or errors in thinking. What if an entity claiming to be a god was supernatural but not a god at all and only claiming to be a god? Or if they can prove they are a god that still would not be proof in and of itself that it was not just claiming to be a god that created the universe, a god like anyone would need to prove those claims before it would be warranted to believe.

Faith is not a reasoned, be a rationalist willing to look and be a truth seeker. If I never look, I will always find only what I am looking for, which is, simply, nothing. However, if I truly seek truth, I may find more than I could imagine. If you only look for nothing, you will find nothing. However, to look earnestly, you will always find a new truth waiting to be found. Be willing to look and be a truth seeker. When you believe, you can have little or no facts and need only faith, you demonstrate no real love of truth. I implore you be a rationalist and accepting nothing but facts upon facts connected to reality. Faith is a proclamation of belief in the absence of or contrary to evidence.

Faith is not a reasoned virtue; it is the voice of emotionalism. If it requires faith to see a thing as real, then you are admitting such a thing has nothing to do with reality. Can you not see that in the acquisition of knowledge faith, as a method is not worth believing in? Critical thinking requires you to work on your thinking continually, to make your thinking the object of thought, to make your behavior the object of your thinking, and to make your beliefs the object of your thinking. For example, take your religious thinking: All over the world, there are many belief systems and each is certain of its truth on the evidence devoid property of faith. As such, on average if you are raised where buddhism is most common, then you become a buddhist. If you are raised where hinduism is most common, then you become a hindu. Christian, you become a christian. Etc.

According to the Encyclopedia Britannica, you have 500 choices. Honestly, how many study religions before they pick one rather than it being picked for them? As a rationalist atheist, when in doubt, applying skepticism at this point is also a highly rational position. Certainly, it is more rational to be skeptical than trying to pretend to know something when you do not know or accept something on faith. Philosophical views are typically classed as skeptical when they involve advancing some degree of doubt regarding claims that are elsewhere taken for granted.

Varieties of skepticism can be distinguished in two main ways, depending upon the focus and the extent of the doubt. As regards the former, skeptical views typically have an epistemological form, in that they are focused on the epistemic status of certain beliefs. For example, one common variety of skepticism concerns our beliefs about the past and argues that such beliefs lack positive epistemic status – that they are not justified, or are not rational, or cannot constitute knowledge (and perhaps even all three). Where skepticism does not have this epistemological focus, then it tends to be of an ontological form in that it is directed at beliefs about the existence of some supposedly problematic entity, such as the self or God. Here the target of the skepticism is not so much one’s putative knowledge of these entities (though it may be that as well), but rather the claim that they exist at all.

Are you a Rationalist?