“I value common sense, and the ability of people to live without labels, which helps me easily recognize idiots that need 30 “ist” labels to explain who they are. As even one “ist” label is too many, as they are a sure sign that people are joining tribes, and movements instead of being an independent thinker. #IdentitypoliticsIsPoison #StopJoiningTribes #GrowUP #NobodyCares” – Challenger

My response, So you don’t like labels (short expressions that transfer a group of information you know like hashtags but I get to you they are all good, well good for you. Do you not get you said not one thing that makes you better, but different.

“Labels are intellectual poison to any society, and they are almost always divisive.” – Challenger

My response, sounds like a claim evidence, please?

“Really just open up a history book. Even secular ideologies such as communism and socialism have supported tribalistic thinking, and violence. Even atheism has why don’t you read up on the league of militant atheists. Any time we start using labels to define people it leads to disaster.” – Challenger

My response, I am kindly waiting for your proof?

“No you are being a troll. Every war humanity has ever fought has been based in an us vs them dichotomy derived from people joining tribes, and movements. Do you want this explained in further detail? exactly what kind of proof would you find sufficient? The answer is none, because your entire persona is based on these labels, and you are too damn lazy to actually read a book.” – Challenger

My response, Well, it is you that is more like the one being a troll. I am answering your challenge.

“Your labels are redundant, unnecessary, divisive, and in some cases illogical. “Axiological Atheism” is not a thing. You are trying to build a belief system around a concept of disbelief. You are no different than any other religious fanatic. Atheism is the disbelief in god. That is it, end of discussion.” – Challenger

My response, you saying, “you are too damn lazy to actually read a book.” look is this a logical fallacy trying to strawman me then use it as an invalid character attack as if you make a real challenge against me. If you wish to challenge me intellectually try not using logical fallacies, just a pro tip.

“I will not be kind, I am tired of this crap, and pseudo intellectuals like you peddling your bullshit in atheist groups. You have no idea what you are talking about and it is high time you were called out on it. Yeah well I have not read much on the process of not collecting stamps either so…” – Challenger

My response, Well, the end conclusion stemming from atheism is a lack of belief or a disbelief but that does not mean the reason one sees this conclusion are reached the same way, held the same way, applied the same way or defended the same, actually it’s quite varied. What do we see? Well, you have not demonstrated much that you have read much on atheism but try to say I don’t read. Atheism and Agnosticism: (https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/atheism-agnosticism/) You, still are not making any valid arguments why it is bad to be informed on atheism or have labels to transmit one’s views. 10 facts about atheists: (http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/06/01/10-facts-about-atheists/)

“stop posting your links, not only I have read what the stanford encyclopedia of philosophy has to say on the topic, I actually minored in philosophy, and have a college education much unlike yourself…” – Challenger

My response, you minored in philosophy but yet debate me supported with a few logical fallacies?

“You are the result of what happens when an uneducated dolt spends too much time on the internet, and begins to imagine himself to be an actual intellectual. When I want advice from an unemployed truck driver living on disability I will let you know.” – Challenger

My response, You saying, “college education much unlike yourself..” There you go again, yet another logical fallacy straw man, you are bad at this logical debating thng. I have a degree in psychology, by the way. lol

“Yeah, that is not straw man, I think you meant to say it was an ad hominem, but even that would not be accurate because I am not attacking you to discredit your argument, I am simply pointing out how ridiculous it is for you to be posting links to encyclopedias as if I had no idea what information was contained there. As I do in fact have a degree, and you do not. It is sort of like if you were trying to debate physics with an actual physicists, and then posted a link to a page that has information on it which every first year college student is already aware of.” – Challenger

My response, You saying, “When I want advice from an unemployed truck driver living on disability, I will let you know.” Well, yep more troll behaviour and the choice of all losing a debate the character attack not one thing to do with what we are talking about. You really should value your character more than how you are behaving, and yes someone needs to call it out. straw man, as what you said was untrue and made up in your head. And, yes you have done several, ad hominem too.

“You have demonstrated that you have no idea what a strawman or ad hominem even is.” – Challenger

My response, now you are again making ridiculous claims like the lies you so easily utter. Funny how it’s the same person who claimed his way was not us against them but look at you that is just what you have been doing all the while claiming that it is me but I have strived to be civil, not attacking you with the logical fallacies that you have given me, plus you deep vitriol is quite us vs them, you show yourself not to be different than that you say you are not.

“Like I said you have no idea what you are talking about. Virtually every comment you make demonstrates your ignorance. You have a rudimentary understanding of the words you are using, and not to be too particular about this, but it is the sort of thing that makes it obvious that you have never learned about these concepts in any type of formal educational setting. You are using words out of context, and in nonsensical ways. And again I never said I like everybody, or feel any obligation to be nice to everybody. It is okay to hate some people especially demagogues, ideologues, and people who hold divisive or abhorrent tribalistic views such as extreme religious fanatics, or in your case just your average everyday despicable fast talking used cars salesmen trying to gain a following on social media. we have no need for people like you.” – Challenger

My response, well as you have tried to make this about me a poor move as a debater and not the truth of your arguments, even acting as the very thing you claim to not do, “you vs me or us vs them.” You should truly think about what you do and what is valued behaviour in one who is rational.

“Also you do not understand what axiology is, and should probably stop calling yourself and axiologist as it is really just advertising to the world that you have no idea what you are talking about.” – Challenger

My response, Yes I do. Axiology is both a philosophy and a science of value. Value is how you make an assessment of what is good, invaluable, worth, helpful or moral and what is bad, unvalued unworthy, harmful, or immoral. Axiology can be thought of being an alternate title: theory of value. Axiology, (from Greek axios, “worthy”; logos, “science”), also called the philosophical study of goodness, or value, in the widest sense of these terms. Its significance lies (1) in the considerable expansion that it has given to the meaning of the term value and (2) in the unification that it has provided for the study of a variety of questions—economic, moral, aesthetic, and even logical—that had often been considered in relative isolation. The term “value” originally meant the worth of something, chiefly in the economic sense of exchange value, as in the work of the 18th-century political economist Adam Smith. A broad extension of the meaning of value to wider areas of philosophical interest occurred during the 19th century under the influence of a variety of thinkers and schools. Because “fact” symbolizes objectivity and “value” suggests subjectivity, the relationship of value to a fact is of fundamental importance in developing any theory of the objectivity of value and of value judgments. Whereas such descriptive sciences as sociology, psychology, anthropology, etc. all attempt to give a factual description of what is actually valued, as well as causal explanations of similarities and differences between the valuations, it remains the philosopher’s task to ask about their objective validity. (https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/value-theory/)'”Value Theory (axiology) – Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

“You are just making stuff up now, good bye. .” – Challenger

My response, Here is a video of me interviewing formal axiological atheist Dr. William Kelleher: (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aClnoupJ4Hk&t=9314s) And (http://www.philosophybasics.com/branch_atheism.html) in this link there are a few lines about axiological atheism.

“Look buddy, I have no idea what you are even talking about at this point. You are either high or just really stupid. In either case grow the hell up, and stop peddling your BS, your brand, your “art”, and your ideology all around atheist groups. Atheist are like cats we do not need or want a leader, nobody is ever going to buy a book you write, and nobody cares.” – Challenger

My response, First, you are wrong that my ideas or are is not valued because it is and yes people do care, you saying they don’t is that you trying that (us vs them) as in what you don’t like get to be made into you get to speak for others against me, interesting how you have to use so many personal attacks just to feel better, I feel sorry for you. Oh, no, not more of my good ideas. Lol

“*rolls eyes*” – Challenger

“Yes keep these silly quotes coming, I am saving them up so every time I see you post in a group from now on, I can make another one showing how ridiculous you are.” – Challenger

“Epistemology is just another word for saying knowledge. Just so you know religious claims trespass overtly on scientific knowledge so they in fact are not different fields of knowledge. The methods being used to obtain knowledge are different, but both science, and religion are making claims about the world, and are therefore overlapping matters. The only people besides you who think they should be separate are religious moderates who want to be able to also say science and religion cover differents fields of knowledge so as to avoid reconciling their own cognitive dissonance. The above posted meme really is just an expression of how impressively bad you are at this. As in an attempt to make an argument against religion, you actually make one for it. But just keep these idiotic photo replies coming, and I am not going to keep debunking them here. I am saving them for later original post whenever I see once again trolling atheist groups.” – Challenger

My response, you make a claim about epistemology is more than just a word or term. Here is a scientist-philosopher agreeing that my outline was basically correct: (https://www.facebook.com/DamienMarieAtHope/videos/1040276432747409/) And here is another meme.

“Not clicking on your BS links, I already know what these words, and I am aware how they are defined in scholarly discussions. You clearly are not, and are the one who should be doing some research.” – Challenger

My response, “Epistemology (/ɪˌpɪstɪˈmɒlədʒi/ ( listen); from Greek ἐπιστήμη, epistēmē, meaning ‘knowledge’, and λόγος, logos, meaning ‘logical discourse’) is the branch of philosophy concerned with the theory of knowledge. Epistemology studies the nature of knowledge, justification, and the rationality of belief.”- Epistemology – Wikipedia

“Congratulations! You know how to use to google, and how to read. Now let us just work on the comprehension aspect so you can use these words in a way that actually makes sense.” – Challenger

My response, a General Thinking in all My Epistemology Theorizing is Justificationism: (http://damienmarieathope.com/2017/10/a-general-thinking-in-all-my-epistemology-theorizing-is-justificationism/)

“Again, stuff covered in philosophy 101, but keep on copying, and pasting random information. Trust me it is no revealing your complete lack of education on the topic at all.” – Challenger

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

“If you can’t even make a coherent meme, what on earth makes you think anybody would read anything else you have to say on the topic.” – Challenger

My response,

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

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

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

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

“go take some philosophy classes, at your local community college.” – Challenger

“The stupid it hurts.” – Challenger

My response, So, I see all you really seem to commonly like to make personal attacks and putdowns, like one disregarding their own critical thinking, so I am done talking to you. Have a good night.

“Yeah, whatever buddy, go back to school, don’t do drugs, and stop spreading you BS ideology around every single atheist group as if there was no escape from your stupidity.” – Challenger

“I stopped halfway but we have a clear winner. Challenger, is a dumbass who only attacks a person rather than an argument. Winner Damien, and it’s not even close.” – Commenter

My response, Thanks for your support Commenter. 🙂

Commenter, I have had in depth conversations with this Damien Marie AtHope he is a complete idiot, and is using philosophical terms out of context with incorrect definitions, He has never been to college, and does not understand even the foundational basis for the arguments he is attempting to make. I understand how he may seem like some deep thinker to other equally uneducated idiots like yourself, but you are only indicting your own stupidity by declaring him “winner”. This is not even a contest, i was not even attempting to engage Damien in a debate as he is not worthy of the intellectual effort, and apparently neither are you so have a nice day, and fuck off.” – Challenger

“Lmfao!!! This is why u suck. Out of that entire engagement, you never said anything. U just put ppl down like that makes you cool.” – Commenter

“yeah, Commenter, well I may suck, and I may be an asshole, but what you can’t say is that I am wrong, now fuck off. I never claimed to be cool.” – Challenger

“You’re wrong, Challenger. There I said it. You lose again.” – Commenter

Commenter Do not care about being “cool” I am right, and Damien is a dumb ass. As if that settled anything, I am right and you are an idiot.” – Challenger

“How do you know? Claims require demonstration on this page. “Admin” Don’t ya think? Several made in this thread with no demonstration.” – Commenter

“I am under no obligation to teach a philosophy class here. There are people who spend their entire careers just trying to define terms such as epistemology, ontology, and axiology. It would take literally hours to go through the incoherent word salad Damien Marie Athope spews out every other minute.He has no idea what he is talking about, and I am not inclined to attempt to provide an entire college education to him in a FB thread. And “Admin” since we are tgging admins now I guess. You should know this Damien Marie Athope spams atheists groups on a regular basis with his nonsense, using scientific jargon to provide the appearance at least that he knows what he is talking about. His arguments do not, and never have stood up to scrutiny, they could easily be debunked by any first year philosophy student, and unless you want your group filled full of illiterate people putting forward nonsensical arguments against religion I would recommend putting a check on this. Damien Marie Athope has only one real goal and that is to promote himself, and some future book he plans on writing. Only thing he does not know is a book covering so many philosophical concepts would for sure be sent to a person with an actual degree in philosophy before any publisher would even look at it, and it will never make it out of that stage.” – Challenger

Damien Marie AtHope you’re the Kent Hovind of atheism. I think it would be accurate to describe you as Kent Hovind’s intellectual doppelganger.” – Challenger

My response, Kent Hovind, I had a street debate with him when I was protesting the creationism conference. Here is a video, that man in the pic was working with Kent Hovind: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5jFBmgIgM-g