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
“Really looking forward to it! I really dig your perspective, Damien.” – 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?
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
“Thank you! I appreciate that, Damien.” – 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.
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
“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
“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
Here is a meme:
“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.
“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 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.
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.
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
“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.
My response, I agree.
My response, I have facts, in a separate blog for the different religions if you are interested.
Here it is:
As you know the picture is of Robert Green Ingersoll. http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/quotes/ingersoll.htm
“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 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.
*The God Delusion: http://www.amazon.com/The-God-Delusion-Richard-Dawkins/dp/0618918248
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
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.
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.
My response, Here is a meme on that:
“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
“Love it. I’ve been watching your videos.” – Justin Clark
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. 1, 2, 3, 4
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.
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?
Here is my external pages or content: Facebook Witter Page, My YouTube, My Linkedin, Twitter: @AthopeMarie, Instagram: damienathope, Personal Facebook Page, Secondary Personal Facebook Page, Main Atheist Facebook Page, Secondary Atheist Facebook Page, Facebook Leftist Political Page, Facebook Group: Atheist for Non-monogamy, Facebook Group: (HARP) Humanism, Atheism, Rationalism, & Philosophy and My Email: email@example.com