My Atheism: “Axiological Atheism”
Axiological/axiology (value theory/value science) Atheism?
*Philosophic Axiology (value theory)
Christian 36 years, read the bible twice, and took two religious classes before the conclusion of atheism.
Yes, I was a undoubting Christian until the age of 36 years old while in my second religious studies classes and so you know I have read the entire bible twice before I ever took the two college classes on religion and the bible before realizing I was an atheist; I was a very superstitious supernaturalist as well as a strong theist not even once did I think to doubt or even question. I am sad to say I was not much of a rationalist now that is my driving force. Now, I question everything and think through almost everything.
This is like blaming Frankenstein’s monster for Mary Shelley writing Frankenstein. He had nothing whatsoever to do with the bible, even according to the traditional Christian account.
“The NT was not written by the time he allegedly died, so you can’t be referring to the NT. But just the Tanakh is not what people usually mean when they say “holy bible,” but rather Tanakh + NT, so this meme is inaccurate regardless of whether the historical Jesus supported the Tanakh. – Challenger
My responce, and the Tanakh is rich with hate and fear literature, so yes he is indeed responsible for that so try again.
“You’re just repeating yourself now. I already specified why this meme is inaccurate. If you want to keep it up, that’s on your intellectual integrity to share false information, but I would delete it because I have intellectual integrity. And anyway, you didn’t say “WANTED: for SUPPORTING the Holy Bible,” but rather for “producing” it, which is just ridiculous. He did not write any of it either. This meme is just all kinds of falseness wrapped in a bundle. I see you criticize theists all the time for not being truthful. Do you not hold yourself to the same standard?” – Challenger
My responce, see you still are the one inaccurate as the bible contains the old testament and jesus in only found in the new testament so your argument is beyond odd to say one cannot refer to the new testament the only place we would even know about the jesus character and in which irt is claimed to have not stayed dead and thus returned to the god state which was then claimed to continue to influence the bible so yes he is responsible by the bible itself. So, I need to hear a better argument from you than jesus id not responsible for the bible.
“Jesus could not have supported or “produced” the NT because every shred of it was written AFTER he allegedly died. That should be obvious, but your typo-filled run-on sentences do not establish the contrary. For someone who doesn’t think Jesus is god, this is just a dumb argument to suppose that he is in order to criticize him. It’s like giving something with one hand and taking it away with the other. Anyhow, you are not coming off as very intelligent here. Honestly, quite the contrary. Is it too much to ask that if you are going to produce antitheist memes, that you don’t inject the belief in god into them first (a very strange stance to take, but then you defend it)? You are a muddled mess, and it’s like you’ve never even pondered what it is you’re trying to accomplish on a pragmatic level.” – Challenger
My responce, so no good argument to support your claim that the bible is not influenced by god/jesus?
Produce a meme against the belief in god, but then inject the belief in god into it, so that it’s only construed to be accurate if god exists? That is one of the dumbest things I’ve ever heard of in the atheist community, FYI. Yes, god and Jesus don’t exist. No need to have fictional characters produce or support or influence anything. If that’s not enough, then I have nothing more to offer.” – Challenger
My responce, don’t you know you need more than empty claims that don’t prove your point that the general believers do not think the bible is not inspired by god/jesus?
“My estimation of your IQ just dropped by 35 points. How is it an empty claim if you also don’t believe god exists. Are you going to tell me that I need to somehow argue to you that god does not exist for this post to be inaccurate?” – Challenger
My responce, this is one of the oddest things I have heard that someone would try to say that the general believers do not think the bible is not inspired by god/jesus. The meme is to address what bible believers believe its a visual added critique as one who talks of IQ would seem to be likely to know but here you are, asking how, “is it an empty claim if you also don’t believe god exists” trying to act as if you dont get what is being offered in the meme. Rather it makes you mad because of some other reason than actually claiming Jesus believers don’t think he influenced most if not all of the bible. To jesus believers jesus is god and influenced almost everything in the bible. I have a BA in Psychology with some sociology/addictions therapy as well as an Autodidact in Science, Archeology, Anthropology, and Philosophy.
“That is correct in terms of what Christians believe. They are, furthermore, comfortably ensconced in those beliefs in Jesus and god and the bible. The point of an atheist producing a meme against Christianity is to influence believers to not believe in Christianity as much, or otherwise it’s a circle-jerk between atheists, if atheists are the only intended audience. But an atheist producing a meme which takes fundamental Christian tenets to be pre-suppositionally true is not going to be effective because it does not push Christians to go outside their comfort zones. Before the meme, they thought Jesus is god and god exists and the bible is true. And the meme MAKES this same argument and so after the meme they are going to think Jesus is god and god exists and the bible is true. This is basic pragmatics, which obviously Damien has not studied via his auto-didacticism. So, yes, it is just a big atheist circle-jerk. I guess it’s too much to ask for an atheist to create and share memes which don’t take fundamental Christian beliefs as accurate. I mean, what would the world have to come to for that obvious point to have to be implemented?” – Challenger
My responce, it was to point out two truths you are seemingly not wishing to address, like how it’s a wanted poster so it’s pointing out jesus is missing and the intellectual joke in that if you miss it is that the jesus character is not coming back and the other if you missed it was to attach the remainder of the bible’s hate and fear and connecting t to the jesus character. And as we stand is you tried to do a read herring logical fallacy trying to turn it to my education, then your ad hominem attack just for fun I guess and yet with all your believed superior to me talk are inferior in argument where is counts my friend. I must wonder if you now see you were wrong as still have not addressed your continual weak argument that is not yet supported as you still don’t have support that jesus/god is not responsible for inspiring the bible.
My college books where:
Promoting Religion as Real is Harmful?
Sometimes, when you look at things, things which seem hidden at first, only come clearer into view later upon reselection or additional information. So, in one’s earnest search for truth one’s support is expressed not as a onetime event and more akin to a life’s journey to know what is true. I am very anti-religious, opposing anything even like religion, including atheist church. but that’s just me. Others have the right to do atheism their way. I am Not just an Atheist, I am a proud antireligionist. I can sum up what I do not like about religion in one idea; as a group, religions are “Conspiracy Theories of Reality.” These reality conspiracies are usually filled with Pseudo-science and Pseudo-history, often along with Pseudo-morality and other harmful aspects and not just ancient mythology to be marveled or laughed at. I regard all this as ridiculous. Promoting Religion as Real is Mentally Harmful to a Flourishing Humanity To me, promoting religion as real is too often promote a toxic mental substance that can divide a person from who they are shaming them for being human. In addition, religion is a toxic mental substance that can divide a person from real history, real science or real morality to pseudohistory, pseudoscience and pseudomorality. Moreover, religion is a toxic mental substance that can divide a person from rational thought, critical thinking, or logic. Likewise, religion is a toxic mental substance that can divide a person from justice, universal ethics, equality, and liberty. Yes, religion is a toxic mental substance that can divide a person from loved ones, and religion is a toxic mental substance that can divide a person from humanity. Therefore, to me, promoting religion as real is too often promote a toxic mental substance that should be rejected as not only false but harmful as well even if you believe it has some redeeming quality. To me, promoting religion as real is mentally harmful to a flourishing humanity. Religion may have once seemed great when all you had or needed was to believe. Science now seems great when we have facts and need to actually know.
The art of know yourself, love yourself, be yourself?
The art of knowing yourself: this involves getting to the place of knowing oneself they, which they must first understand why knowing oneself is important, as well as how to comprehend they don’t already know themself or that most people don’t know themselves even if they think they do.
The art of loving yourself: this involves getting to the place of knowing oneself they, which they must first understand why knowing one’s self is important, as well as how to comprehend they don’t already know them self or that most people don’t know themselves even if they think they do. First one must think about what love looks like wouldn’t it be a growth producing or would it build self-enlightenment and self-truth? Do you feel I or anyone can define your truth (about who you are)? If someone defined truth for you would you really own it? Wouldn’t it make more sense instead for me to broaden your ability to see the question? First would you think a question like this of such a personal relevance has right answers? To start thinking on what love is would we look at are fallible behavior or some philosophical definition? If we look at are relations with others could we be convicted of loving? If we wish for a philosophical definition of love what realities does it hold in our real lives? Is love a feeling or a behavior? If we look at love as feeling what emotional substance does it stem from? If we look at love as behavior is it fixed in the behaviors of others?
The art of being yourself: this involves getting to the place of being one self they, which they must first understand why knowing one’s self is important, as well as how to comprehend they don’t already know them self or that most people don’t know themselves even if they think they do. Be yourself; everyone else is already taken. Being yourself is celebrating you, as an individual – learning to express yourself and be happy with who you are. Define yourself by yourself: You can’t be yourself if you don’t know, understand, and accept yourself first. It should be your primary goal to find this out. Be YOU authentically: don’t put too much care about how other people perceive you including your parents or family. The fact is, it really doesn’t matter in the long run and lf love must be bought bartered for or molded to be received, is it a love worth having. It’s impossible to be yourself when you’re caught up in wondering “Do they like or accept me?” To be yourself, you’ve got to let go of these concerns and just let your behavior flow, with only your consideration of others as a lens to reference with not own as your own. Don’t Hide: everyone is unique has quirks as well as imperfections; we are all at different stages in life. Be honest with yourself, but don’t be too hard on yourself; apply this philosophy to others, as well. There is a difference between being critical and being honest; learn to watch the way you say things to yourself and others. Own who you are: if you’re always working to be someone you’re not, you’ll never be a happy person. Be yourself and show the world you’re proud of the way you are! Nobody knows you better than you and that’s how it should be. You deserve to be your own best friend, so start trying to figure out how you can do that. If you had to hang out with yourself for a day, what is the most fun type of person you could be, while still being yourself? What is the best version of you? Believe in this idea and use that as your starting point. And how we use this thinking to change how we interact with others is, Knowing society, Loving the Humanity of Society, and Being the Humanity in Society.
A Rational Mind Values Humanity and Rejects Religion and Gods
A truly rational mind sees the need for humanity, as they too live in the world and see themselves as they actually are an alone body in the world seeking comfort and safety. Thus, see the value of everyone around then as they too are the same and therefore rationally as well a humanistically we should work for this humanity we are part of and can either dwell in or help its flourishing as we are all in the hands of each other. You are Free to think as you like but REALITY is unchanged. While you personally may react, or think differently about our shared reality (the natural world devoid of magic anything), We can play with how we use it but there is still only one communal reality (a natural non-supernatural one), which we all share like it or not and you can’t justifiably claim there is a different reality. This is valid as the only one of warrant is the non-mystical natural world around us all, existing in or caused by nature; not made or caused by superstitions like gods or other monsters to many sill fear irrationally.
Do beliefs need justification?
Yes, it all requires a justification and if you think otherwise you should explain why but then you are still trying to employ a justification to challenge justification. So, I still say yes it all needs a justification and I know everything is reducible to feeling the substation of existence. I feel my body and thus I can start my justificationism standard right there and then build all logic inferences from that justified point and I don’t know a more core presupposition to start from. A presupposition is a core thinking stream that like how a tree of beliefs always has a set of assumed sets of presuppositions or a presupposition is relatively a thing/thinking assumed beforehand at the beginning of a line of thinking point, belief projection, argument or course of action. And that as well as everything needs justification to be concluded as reasonable. Sure, you can believe all kinds of things with no justification at all but we can’t claim them as true, nor wish others to actually agree unless something is somehow and or in some way justified. When is something true that has no justification? If you still think so then offer an example, you know a justification. Sure, there can be many things that may be true but actually receiving rational agreement that they are intact true needs justification.
No god Claims have Justification, Challenge?
“Damien, (responding to me saying no god claims have justification) there are problems thinking everything you believe needs a justification.” – Challenger
My response, so, are you saying something can be claimed as real but have no warrant to justify why one should agree or even entertain it?
“The idea that Induction is reliable can be claimed and seems like an important assumption, but arguments for it are fallacious. There are similar issues with thinking an external world exists.” – Challenger
My response, ok, and how do we discern any of it, if nothing has a need for justification? Because to me, I see you’re saying something is fallacious as asserting a justification stance and thus, is similar to what I think, which is valid, that there is a rationalistic need for justification. You are telling me I am wrong and that needs a justification, just as me showing your thinking wrong took a justification. If not then tell me how I am wrong utilizing no justification at all. So, try to prove me wrong because even if you do you will have provided a justification so then further proving my assertion of the need for justification.
“You are missing part of the conversation. Can you prove every belief needs a justification? Let’s say every belief needs a justification. Then you have to argue for every premise of every argument. That requires infinite arguments. What exactly is your argument that all beliefs require a justification? I am not challenging the importance of justification. I am challenging the idea that every belief has to have a justification. The example above is induction. Hume showed why arguments for induction will be fallacious. I did not just make the claim. Go ahead and prove induction is reliable if you can. It would revolutionize philosophy. In response to >>sure you can believe all kinds of things with no justification at all but we can’t claim them as true not wish others to actually agree unless something is somehow and or in some way justified. I already said every challenged claim in a debate has to be argued for. Every claim has a burden of proof anyway. Most beliefs that do not require justification are things basically everyone already agrees with. But if you debate someone who rejects the existence of an external world or the reliability of induction, you can’t prove that they have to agree as far as I can tell. In response to >>When is something true that has no justification? Lots of things are true and we don’t know they are true. To claim to know something is true is another issue. But maybe we know induction is reliable. Maybe we know there is an external world. If so, it’s not clear how we know those things. I already mentioned induction above and you never talked about it.” – Challenger
My response, “Sure, there can be many things that may be true but actually receiving rational agreement that they are intact true needs justification.”
“Right, I think we might have talked past one another a bit. I don’t expect agreement without a good argument.” – Challenger
My response, so you, like me want a justification?
Of course, it is a very important thing to me in general.” – Challenger
“Damien, you are evil.” – Attacker
My response, I am only evil in your pseudomorality.
“Good luck bro lol Hell is waiting.” – Attacker
My response, tell me what kind of thinking is it that has such joy, at the thought of others suffering? I will tell you not a humanistic one nor an ethical one, more proof of your pseudomorality is affecting your honest care as a human and still you don’t see it.
Without Nonsense, Religion Dies
I am against ALL Pseudoscience, Pseudohistory and Pseudomorality. And all of these should openly be debunked, when and where possible. Of course, not forgetting how they are all highly represented in religion. All three are often found in religion to the point that if they were removed, their loss would likely end religion as we know it. I don’t have to respect ideas. People get confused ideas are not alive nor do they have beingness, Ideas don’t have rights nor the right to even exist only people have such a right. Ideas don’t have dignity nor can they feel violation only people if you attack them personally. Ideas don’t deserve any special anything they have no feelings and cannot be shamed they are open to the most brutal merciless attack and challenge without any protection and deserve none nor will I give them any if they are found wanting in evidence or reason. I will never respect Ideas if they are devoid of merit I only respect people.
I Hear Theists?
I hear what theists say and what I hear is that they make assertions with no justification discernable of or in reality just some book and your evidence lacking faith. I wish you were open to see but I know you have a wish to believe. I however wish to welcome reality as it is devoid of magic which all religions and gods thinkers believe. I want to be mentally free from misinformed ancient myths and free the minds of those confused in the realm of myths and the antihumanism views that they often attach to. So, I do have an agenda human liberation from fears of the uninformed conception of reality. Saying that some features of reality are not fully know is not proof of god myth claims. II’s not like every time we lack knowledge, we can just claim magic and if we do we are not being intellectually honest to the appraisal of reality that is devoted of anything magic. Theists seem to have very odd attempts as logic, as they most often start with some evidence devoid god myth they favor most often the hereditary favorite of the family or culture that they were born into so a continuous blind acceptance generation after generation of force indicated faith in that which on clear instinctually honest appraisal not only should inspire doubt but full disbelief until valid and reliable justification is offered. Why are all gods unjustified? Well, anything you claim needs justification but no one has evidence of god claim attributes they are all unjustified. All god talk as if it is real acts as if one can claim magic is real by thinking it is so or by accepting someone’s claim of knowing the unjustifiably that they understand an unknowable, such as claims of gods being anything as no one has evidence to start such fact devoid things as all knowing (there is no evidence of an all-knowing anything). Or an all-powerful (there is no evidence of an all-powerful anything). Or the most ridiculous an all-loving (there is no evidence of an all loving anything). But like all god claims, they are not just evidence lacking, the one claiming them has no justified reason to assume that they can even claim them as proof (it’s all the empty air of faith). Therefore, as the limit of all people, is to only be able to justify something from and that which corresponds to the real-world to be real and the last time I checked there is no magic of any kind in our real-world experiences. So, beyond the undefendable magical thinking not corresponding to the real-world how much more ridicules are some claimed supreme magical claimed being thus even more undefendable to the corresponding real-world, which the claimed god(s) thinking is a further and thus more extremely unjustified claim(s). What is this god you seem to think you have any justification to claim?
God: “antihumanism thinking”
God thinking is a superstitiously transmitted disease, that usually is accompanied with some kind of antihumanism thinking. Relatively all gods in general are said to have the will and power over humans. Likewise, such god claims often are attributed to be the ones who decide morality thus remove the true morality nature in humans that actually assist us in morality. So, adding a god is to welcome antihumanism burdens, because god concepts are often an expression. This is especially so when any so-called god somethingism are said to makes things like hells is an antihumanism thinking. A general humanism thinking to me is that everyone owns themselves, not some god and everyone is equal. Such humanism thinking to me, requires a shunning of coercion force that removes a human’s rights or the subjugation of oppression and threats for things like requiring belief or demanding faith in some other unjustified abstraction from others. Therefore, humanism thinking is not open to being in such a beliefs, position or situations that violate free expression of one’s human rights which are not just relinquished because some people believed right or their removal is at the whims of some claimed god (human rights removing/limiting/controlling = ANTIHUMANISM). Humanism to me, summed up as, humans solving human problems through human means. Thus, humanism thinking involve striving to do good without gods, and not welcoming the human rights removing/limiting/controlling, even if the myths could somehow come to be true.
Do you support Human Rights, Are you a Humanist?
How can one claim to be a humanist and somehow not feel compelled to question all beliefs that oppose human values? Simply the world we live in requires that we care, for if we don’t we still live there but can hardly be thought of as a humanistic supporter. Sometimes the greatest fight, in an unfair uncaring world, is not to let it change you for the worst. We should be our best and change the world instead. And not to let it stop us from wishing to be as fair and kind as we can. For the world is not only one we live in but one we help create. Let’s create a better world we can all be proud of together, one of freedom, equality, love and care.
Axiological/axiology (value theory/value science) atheism?
“Axiological Atheism can be thought to involve ethical/value theory reasoned and moral argument driven apatheism, ignosticism, atheism, anti-theism, anti-religionism, secularism, and humanism.”
My quick definition of Axiology?
Axiology is a philosophy (value theory) and a social science (formal axiology) mainly involving the “what, why, and how” of “value” the way epistemology approaches “knowledge” as in what is of value/good/worth/beneficial/ or useful? Why is the thing in question of value/good/worth/beneficial/ or useful? How should the value/good/worth/beneficial/ or useful be interacted with?
*(axiology as ) value theory/
“Value theory encompasses a range of approaches to understanding how, why, and to what degree persons value things; whether the object or subject of valuing is a person, idea, object, or anything else. Intuitively, theories of value must be important to ethics. This investigation began in ancient philosophy, where it is called axiology or ethics.” Ref
*(axiology as ) formal axiology/
“Formal axiology is a branch of axiology in general. Axiology in general or “as such” is value theory in all its ramifications, ranging from meta-theory to ethics, aesthetics, logic, and any other dimension of human interest that involves questions of good and evil, right and wrong, correctness or incorrectness, beauty and ugliness, truth and falsity, and every other conceivable value issue, dimension, or interest. Formal axiology, focuses initially upon the most formal features of human values, then upon applications of these formalities to the concrete details of what we value (values) and how we value (valuations). Robert S. Hartman created a logically abstract (he would say “synthetic”) to features of all human values and valuations; the formal definition of “good” or “value,” which he regarded as the “axiom” of formal axiology — Good is concept (or standard) fulfilment, the three basic kinds of value, intrinsic, extrinsic, and systemic, the hierarchy of value, where the three basic kinds of value are themselves ranked with respect to their relative worth, an association of the three basic kinds of value with set theory and transfinite mathematics.” Ref
Roughly understood axiological atheism = Strong Disbelief as well as Strong Secularism and Humanism.
I am an Axiological Atheist, which roughly can be understood as a value theory or value science Atheist. Axiology to Atheism is also meant to denote an atheistic rejection of the existence of gods or supreme beings in favor of a “higher absolute” such as humanity, formal axiology, or naturalistic or universal ethical principles. My stating a kind of “higher absolute” is not stating a belief in some absolute morality, instead it is meaning nothing but naturalistic human centered morality is used or forms of valued good is derived from a rational thinking by humanity (Ie. humanity as the absolute source of ethics and values, and permits individuals to resolve moral problems without resorting to god myths or religious philosophies). Axiological Atheism can be thought to involve ethical/value theory reasoned and moral argument driven atheism, anti-theism, anti-religionism, ignosticism, apatheism, secularism, and humanism. I am anthropocentric as an Axiological Atheist. I see humans value as above all other life’s value. Some say well, we are animals so they disagree with my destination. But how do the facts play out? So you don’t have any difference in value of life? So a bug is the same as a mouse, a mouse is the same as a dolphin, a dolphin is the same as a human, all to you have exactly the same value? You fight to protect the rights of each of them equally? And all killing of any of them is the same crime murder? I know I am an animal but you also know that we do have the term humans which no other animal is classified. And we don’t take other animals to court as only humans and not any other animals are like us. We are also genetically connected to plants and stars and that still doesn’t remove the special class humans removed from all other animals. A society where you can kill a human as easily as a mosquito would simply just not work ethically to me and it should not to any reasonable person either. Anthropocentrism (from Greek ánthrōpos, “human being”; and kéntron, “center”) the belief that considers human beings to be the most significant entity of the world and interprets or regards the world in terms of human values and experiences.
Formal Axiology (Scientific Axiology/Scientific Value Theory) takes a realistic, or fact-based, view of the world when assessing or understanding value/good/worth. Formal axiology understands that people have and act upon values. Scientific axiologists will seek to understand what those values are, and to analyze their structure. That empirical orientation is why scientific axiology can serve as the formal side of the yet to be developed value sciences. To illustrate this value realism, suppose a theist states they love god(s). Since the science of value has an empirical orientation, a value scientist would see the theistic belief in god(s) not as some actual existing being, instead understand it as a conception in the mind of theist not anything realistic or fact-based. Ref
In my opinion, when it comes to the god concept, an axiological atheist would start with ignosticism which is rejecting the concept of gods because the god concept and the term god has no meaning nor anything in reality to attach its meaning to. Thus, god is not any different than any other made up three word such as fod, which has no meaning as a real thing. If an axiological atheist were asked how important it is to disprove a god or even care about the god question, they would simply not care since the question is meaningless such as looking for an invisible pink unicorn or the jolly green giant. Thus, an axiological atheist could be seen as using apatheism, unless they are under serious challenge or feeling a need to challenge theists or religion believers. An axiological atheist would thus not believe in a god in anyway and likely, this would be called strong atheism. An axiological atheist is more than simply an atheist since axiological atheism sees the god concept as fake or not real and harmful to a free humanity. Thus, an axiological atheist takes an active opposition to theism and their fake gods and even if some god(s) are found to somehow be real then an axiological atheist would start hating that real god and until then, they will hate all manmade god concepts.
Furthermore, an axiological atheist would most likely hate religions for some of the same reasons it opposes god(s) and thus, will be an anti-religionist who sees that religions on the whole to be harmful to humanity. However, an axiological atheist is not against people whether they believe in god concept or religion, they center their hate on harmful ideas such as gods or religions. This hate towards harmful ideas is motivated from a deep ethical care for humanity and thus involves humanism. So, axiological atheism is a humanistic philosophical and ethical stance which emphasizes individually and collectively, the value and agency of human beings and prefers critical thinking and evidence (rationalism, empiricism) over any kind of established doctrines (holy books) or faith (fideism). Moreover, even with axiological atheism’s extremely strong opposition to gods and religion, it does value every persons self-right to define beliefs for themselves and thus, supports secularism (freedom for religion and freedom from religion), protects the religious and nonreligious as well as antireligious from governmental interference and protect the government from the religious, nonreligious as well as antireligious. That being said axiological atheism would like beliefs in gods or religions to be demoted to where they are seen as little more than fantasy or myths but are somewhat harmful and certainly not safe for children.
Axiological atheism: (is thinking that a god’s existence to be a bad thing)
Axiological atheism is the thinking that no god(s) or goddess(es) exist and they lack all worth and value to humans even if they existed. Such myth should be rejected in favor of believing in humanity, seeing secularism and humanism as a kind of “higher absolute” or form of valued good. (Ie. humanity as the absolute source of ethics and values, and permits individuals to resolve moral problems without resorting to god myths or religious philosophies).
An axiological atheist could be thought of as thinking no gods no masters and thus would never worship a god or any being especially if it was by threat, force or the act of coercing to any extent. An axiological atheist may even question if any being is worthy of the title god or be ignostic that every theological position assumes too much about the concept of god and see this as extending to other theological concepts; including (but not limited to) concepts of faith, spirituality, heaven, hell, afterlife, damnation, salvation, sin and the soul.
Thus regarding that as ridiculous and not worthy at all and should be shown Ridicule and Disdain. Therefore as you can guess they would say we are better off that no god(s) or goddess(es) existed and it would be much worse if they did.
Axiological Atheist, can be understood as a value theory or value science Atheist.
As such axiological atheism’s ethically reasoning is constructive and pro-humanity. We who believe we are thinking rational, leading to opposition or hate of religion may that be limited to the nonfactual or oppressive ideology and not the people. Beyond just not being something lets be something, rational thinking should challenge myths but also prove our love for humanity and care for all living beings. In most cases, Axiological atheism would assert the traditional concept of “Atheism” answers only a single question: Is there a creator god or not? That is an important question, but if your answer is “no”, it is only a starting point and not a way of life.
You may have reached that viewpoint based on your respect for logic, evidence, science,and personal experience which too are vital values. Yet, after you have reached that initial “no god” answer, all the other important questions in life, all the options for mental and emotional wholeness and social and environmental harmony, ethics and morality, personal fulfillment, social values, philosophy and psychology remain open. That is where “Axiological Atheism” holds a connection to both further challenging the god concept and devaluing religion and adding a value meaning and ethical axiological ideology to guide universally desirable secular ethical way of being or a value driven life lived in this reality.
What is Axiology, Formal Axiology & Axiological Profiling?
Axiology is the name for “value theory.” It is derived from the Greek word “axios” meaning “worth.” Formal axiology is the logic-based science of value anchored in a “hierarchy of meaning” from the most meaningful or richest value to the most destructive or greatest value loss. The logic specifies 18 different levels of richness. Hartman’s “hierarchy of value” is the mathematical measuring standard for human evaluative judgment and decision-making in life and in all social sectors of life in our culture.
When people make value judgments, they use both their mental and emotional capacities to arrive at their decision. Some people have very solid and reliable decision-making abilities – while others routinely make wrong or inaccurate choices. Axiological profiles measure the quality of the respondent’s judgment and decision-making by gauging both their mental clarity and their emotional orientation & conditioning.
Dr. Leon Pomeroy in his book, The New Science of Axiological Psychology (Pomeroy, 2005), has shown that formal axiology is also empirically valid. Thus, in our axiological assessment profiles we have the solid support of both scientific methods: the deductive logic-based axiomatic method and the inductive, empirical method. Dr. Pomeroy spent over 20 years collecting statistical data for his book cross-nationally, from numerous and diverse eastern and western countries and cultures, and proving that cultures all over the world make value judgments in the same way.
Neuro‐Axiology: merges Neuroscience understanding how the brain works with Axiology’s formal science that makes possible the objective measurement of value how humans make value judgments. (You will ALWAYS choose what you think adds the MOST value to your life.) Accepting the standard of neuroscientific model of consciousness means that everything we think, feel, remember, and do is a function of the brain. This includes the emotion of empathy. We are not empathic because it makes sense to be empathic – meaning that most humans don’t simply reason their way to empathy. Nor do we simply learn empathy (although brain development is an interactive process with the environment, so we can’t rule out environmental influences). For the most part, we have empathy because our brains are wired with empathy as a specific function.
Like every function of the body you can think of, if it is not essential for survival then some subset of the human population likely has a disorder or even absence of this function. We recognize the biological limits of empathy or absence of empathy as the disorder, psychopathy. It is estimated that about 1% of the general population are psychopaths, while about 20-30% of the US prison population. Dr. Robert S. Hartman discovered that people hold back a 40% latent reserve of cooperation and productivity until they have been valued as human beings.
Axiology is the science of how humans value and make value judgments as well as how they relate to ethics (not moral values often religious or culture relative).
The basics of Axiology are in its 3 Classes of Value and 6 “Advisors”. The following are the Classes of Value:
1. Systemic: plans, rules, best practices, procedures; ideas or expectations
2. Extrinsic: practical or situational; measurable, tracked; tasks (tangible)
3. Intrinsic: personal or transcendent; infinitely valuable; irreplaceable; human beings (intangibles)
The following are the 6 Advisors which consist of 2 views of one inward and one outward and one must remember people are neither their thoughts nor their advisors.
1. World View: Empathy-Intuition “people”, Practical Judgment “tasks, & Systems Thinking “plans & ideas”
2. Self View: Self-Esteem “who you are”, Role Awareness “what you do,” & Self Direction “where you go”.
The word “Axiological” (to the term “Axiological atheism” is meant to denote an atheistic “Value” rejection of the existence of gods or supreme beings and in favor of a “higher absolute” such as humanity or universal ethical principles. The perception of moral obligation removed from ethical sensitivity to universal justice [is] thus unintelligible as “higher absolute”. As a form of atheism, Axiological favors humanity as the absolute source of holistic ethics and care values which permits individuals to resolve moral problems without resorting to a god’s moral obligation which is anti-humanity and not needing to connect to equal justice. Axiological Atheism can be seen as ethically reasoned antitheism and antireligionism where it is all about axiology values that underlie the universal truths. A few examples of universal truths such as there is no such thing as just rape, no honorable thoughtful unwanted torture, and no just humanistic caring abuse of the innocent. You can offer excuses but the true values violations hold true. Axiologists are broadly concerned with all forms of value including aesthetic values, ethical values, and epistemic values. In a narrow sense, axiologists are concerned with what is intrinsically valuable or worthwhile—what is desirable for its own sake. All axiological issues are necessarily connected to ontological and epistemological assumptions.
Axiology in Axiological Atheism can be seen as applying science of morality, referring to its ethically naturalistic views basing morality on rational and empirical consideration of the natural world. The idea of a science of morality has been explored by writers like Joseph Daleiden in The Science of Morality: The Individual, Community, and Future Generations or more recently by neuroscientist Sam Harris in the 2010 book The Moral Landscape. Harris’ science of morality suggests that scientists using empirical knowledge, especially neuropsychology and metaphysical naturalism, in combination with axiomatic values as “first principles”, would be able to outline a universal basis for morality. Harris and Daleiden chiefly argue that society should consider normative ethics to be a domain of science whose purpose amounts to the pursuit of flourishing (well-being). “Science” should not be so narrowly defined as to exclude important roles for any academic disciplines which base their conclusions on the weight of empirical evidence. The term “science of morality” is also sometimes used for the description of moral systems in different cultures or species.
The axiological movement emerges from the phenomenological method. The axiologists sought to characterize the notion of value in general, of which moral value is only one species. They argue against Kant, that goodness does not exclusively derive from the will, but exists in objective hierarchies. They emphasize the extent to which it is through emotions and feelings that human beings discern values. The notion of right action is understood derivatively in terms of the values which emotions reveal. Evolutionary psychology seems to offer an account of the evolution of our “moral sense” (conscience) that dispenses with any reference to objective values. Its apparent elimination of objective values on the grounds of their being unneeded in explanation has led the skeptical writings of J.L. Mackie and Michael Ruse. By contrast, Robert Nozick has resisted this interpretation of evolution (1981) arguing that an evolutionary account of the moral sense can no more dispense with values than an evolutionary account of perception can dispense with perceptual objects objectively present in the world. Axiologists in contemporary ethics are Platonists such as Iris Murdoch and Neo-Kantian theorists such as John Rawls and Robert Nozick.
Tenets of Secular Ethics
Despite the width and diversity of their philosophical views, secular ethicists generally share one or more principles:
• Human beings, through their ability to empathize, are capable of determining ethical grounds.
• Human beings, through logic and reason, are capable of deriving normative principles of behavior.
• Human beings have the moral responsibility to ensure that societies and individuals act based on these ethical principles.
• Societies should, if at all possible, advance from a less ethical, less empathy, and unjust form to a more ethical, more empathy and just form.
My Facebook Page: Axiological Atheist
– Humanist Manifesto III, 2003
Knowledge of the world is derived by observation, experimentation, and rational analysis. Humanists find that science is the best method for determining this knowledge as well as for solving problems and developing beneficial technologies. We also recognize the value of new departures in thought, the arts, and inner experience—each subject to analysis by critical intelligence.
Humans are an integral part of nature, the result of unguided evolutionary change. Humanists recognize nature as self-existing. We accept our life as all and enough, distinguishing things as they are from things as we might wish or imagine them to be. We welcome the challenges of the future, and are drawn to and undaunted by the yet to be known.
Ethical values are derived from human need and interest as tested by experience. Humanists ground values in human welfare shaped by human circumstances, interests, and concerns and extended to the global ecosystem and beyond. We are committed to treating each person as having inherent worth and dignity, and to making informed choices in a context of freedom consonant with responsibility.
Life’s fulfillment emerges from individual participation in the service of humane ideals. We aim for our fullest possible development and animate our lives with a deep sense of purpose, finding wonder and awe in the joys and beauties of human existence, its challenges and tragedies, and even in the inevitability and finality of death. Humanists rely on the rich heritage of human culture and the lifestance of Humanism to provide comfort in times of want and encouragement in times of plenty.
Humans are social by nature and find meaning in relationships. Humanists long for and strive toward a world of mutual care and concern, free of cruelty and its consequences, where differences are resolved cooperatively without resorting to violence. The joining of individuality with interdependence enriches our lives, encourages us to enrich the lives of others, and inspires hope of attaining peace, justice, and opportunity for all.
Working to benefit society maximizes individual happiness. Progressive cultures have worked to free humanity from the brutalities of mere survival and to reduce suffering, improve society, and develop global community. We seek to minimize the inequities of circumstance and ability, and we support a just distribution of nature’s resources and the fruits of human effort so that as many as possible can enjoy a good life.
Humanists are concerned for the well being of all, are committed to diversity, and respect those of differing yet humane views. We work to uphold the equal enjoyment of human rights and civil liberties in an open, secular society and maintain it is a civic duty to participate in the democratic process and a planetary duty to protect nature’s integrity, diversity, and beauty in a secure, sustainable manner.
Thus engaged in the flow of life, we aspire to this vision with the informed conviction that humanity has the ability to progress toward its highest ideals. The responsibility for our lives and the kind of world in which we live is ours and ours alone.
Humanist Manifesto is a trademark of the American Humanist Association
© 2003 American Humanist Association
Axiological atheism: (Ethical/Value theory Reasoned and Moral Argument driven) Atheism, Anti-theism, Anti-religionism, and Secular Humanism. Roughly then axiological atheism = Strong Disbelief as well as Strong Secularism and Humanism
Here’s What Being Good Without God Actually Means
The Pew Research Center took a look at what people without a religious affiliation think is essential to morality.
nones.” Nones are people who, when asked to describe their religious affiliation, respond that they are atheist, agnostic, or “nothing in particular.” As of 2014, the nones, also known as the “unaffiliated,” are the second largest religious grouping in America, coming in just under evangelical Christians. As a whole, the unaffiliated tend to be less religious by the standards that surveyors have traditionally used to measure religiosity — attendance at worship services, for example, or daily prayer. But if they’re not religious by these standards, how exactly are the nones approaching the question of what it means to be a moral person? Thanks to the Pew Research Center, we now have some data on this. In a recent report on religion in everyday life, the organization asked unaffiliated people whether 16 pre-selected beliefs and behaviors were essential, important but not essential, or not important to what they think it means to be a “moral person.” For the unaffiliated, honesty tops the list, with about 58 percent of the nones saying that “being honest at all times” was essential to being a moral person. When Harvard chaplain Greg Epstein heard that honesty came out on top, it made a lot of sense to him. As author of “Good Without God: What a Billion Nonreligious People Do Believe,” Epstein has spent a considerable amount of time thinking about what nonbelievers actually hold to be true about tolerance, community, and morality. “Of course these are people who are interested in honesty and integrity,” Epstein told The Huffington Post. “[Because if you’re coming out as non-religious], then you probably feel a very strong pull to tell the truth and to be honest with yourself and others about who you are.” Epstein suggested that the act of coming out as a nonbeliever requires a good deal of soul searching and introspection. In a country like America, where the overwhelming majority of people belong to some sort of religion, and where statistics show most of the public has negative feelings towards people who don’t believe in God, Epstein said that there really isn’t any incentive or social pressure to come out as non-religious, or atheist, or agnostic. Some other essentials that the unaffiliated believe make a moral person are being grateful for what you have (53 percent), committing to spend time with family (47 percent), forgiving those who have wronged you (39 percent), and working to protect the environment (35 percent). Beliefs and practices that have been traditionally used to measure religiosity fell near the bottom of the list. About 10 percent of the unaffiliated believe praying regularly is essential to being moral. Two percent believe attending religious services is part of a moral life. In an open-ended question, about a quarter (23 percent) of nones wrote that the “Golden Rule,” a behavior cited by Jesus in the Bible, was essential to morality. For Epstein, the results of the Pew survey are evidence that the religiously unaffiliated community values action over belief in the supernatural. “[Humanist and nonreligious people] respect completely the fact that our religious neighbors also feel the need to pray, but our view is that action is irreplaceable,” Epstein said. “Actions ultimately make the difference between living a good life and not living a good life.”In recent years, researchers have begun to study the moral practices of a relatively new and growing group within America’s religious landscape — the “
Even the best thinking, beliefs, or ideas if not connected to action are but wasted words.
Any claimed god or supreme power that threatens extreme suffering to those who are vulnerable and of lesser power is abusive. This is especially so, with the human horror of injustice that would be hell. Which once created means its creator cannot also be called or connected to something all loving or all just.
Any reasonable person can know killing the entire planet in a flood if real which it is not would be the greatest act of mass murder, than that done by any other madman ever know in history.
Evil bible god?
There is plenty of evil in “the Good Book,” but here are some highlights:
1. God drowns the whole earth.
In Genesis 7:21-23, God drowns the entire population of the earth: men, women, children, fetuses, and perhaps unicorns. Only a single family survives. In Matthew 24:37-42, gentle Jesus approves of this genocide and plans to repeat it when he returns.
2. God kills half a million people.
In 2 Chronicles 13:15-18, God helps the men of Judah kill 500,000 of their fellow Israelites.
3. God slaughters all Egyptian firstborn.
In Exodus 12:29, God the baby-killer slaughters all Egyptian firstborn children and cattle because their king was stubborn.
4. God kills 14,000 people for complaining that God keeps killing them.
In Numbers 16:41-49, the Israelites complain that God is killing too many of them. So, God sends a plague that kills 14,000 more of them.
5. Genocide after genocide after genocide.
In Joshua 6:20-21, God helps the Israelites destroy Jericho, killing “men and women, young and old, cattle, sheep and donkeys.” In Deuteronomy 2:32-35, God has the Israelites kill everyone in Heshbon, including children. In Deuteronomy 3:3-7, God has the Israelites do the same to the people of Bashan. In Numbers 31:7-18, the Israelites kill all the Midianites except for the virgins, whom they take as spoils of war. In 1 Samuel 15:1-9, God tells the Israelites to kill all the Amalekites – men, women, children, infants, and their cattle – for something the Amalekites’ ancestors had done 400 years earlier.
6. God kills 50,000 people for curiosity.
In 1 Samuel 6:19, God kills 50,000 men for peeking into the ark of the covenant. (Newer cosmetic translations count only 70 deaths, but their text notes admit that the best and earliest manuscripts put the number at 50,070.)
7. 3,000 Israelites killed for inventing a god.
In Exodus 32, Moses has climbed Mount Sinai to get the Ten Commandments. The Israelites are bored, so they invent a golden calf god. Moses comes back and God commands him: “Each man strap a sword to his side. Go back and forth through the camp from one end to the other, each killing his brother and friend and neighbor.” About 3,000 people died.
8. The Amorites destroyed by sword and by God’s rocks.
In Joshua 10:10-11, God helps the Israelites slaughter the Amorites by sword, then finishes them off with rocks from the sky.
9. God burns two cities to death.
In Genesis 19:24, God kills everyone in Sodom and Gomorrah with fire from the sky. Then God kills Lot’s wife for looking back at her burning home.
10. God has 42 children mauled by bears.
In 2 Kings 2:23-24, some kids tease the prophet Elisha, and God sends bears to dismember them. (Newer cosmetic translations say the bears “maul” the children, but the original Hebrew, baqa, means “to tear apart.”)
11. A tribe slaughtered and their virgins raped for not showing up at roll call.
In Judges 21:1-23, a tribe of Israelites misses roll call, so the other Israelites kill them all except for the virgins, which they take for themselves. Still not happy, they hide in vineyards and pounce on dancing women from Shiloh to take them for themselves.
12. 3,000 crushed to death.
In Judges 16:27-30, God gives Samson strength to bring down a building to crush 3,000 members of a rival tribe.
13. A concubine raped and dismembered.
In Judges 19:22-29, a mob demands to rape a godly master’s guest. The master offers his daughter and a concubine to them instead. They take the concubine and gang-rape her all night. The master finds her on his doorstep in the morning, cuts her into 12 pieces, and ships the pieces around the country.
14. Child sacrifice.
In Judges 11:30-39, Jephthah burns his daughter alive as a sacrificial offering for God’s favor in killing the Ammonites.
15. God helps Samson kill 30 men because he lost a bet.
In Judges 14:11-19, Samson loses a bet for 30 sets of clothes. The spirit of God comes upon him and he kills 30 men to steal their clothes and pay off the debt.
16. God demands you kill your wife and children for worshiping other gods.
In Deuteronomy 13:6-10, God commands that you must kill your wife, children, brother, and friend if they worship other gods.
17. God incinerates 51 men to make a point.
In 2 Kings 1:9-10, Elijah gets God to burn 51 men with fire from heaven to prove he is God.
18. God kills a man for not impregnating his brother’s widow.
In Genesis 38:9-10, God kills a man for refusing to impregnate his brother’s widow.
20. The coming slaughter.
According to Revelation 9:7-19, God’s got more evil coming. God will make horse-like locusts with human heads and scorpion tails, who torture people for 5 months. Then some angels will kill a third of the earth’s population. If he came today, that would be 2 billion people.
Now, Christians have spent thousands of years coming up with excuses for a loving god that would allow or create such evil. In fact, they’ve come up with 12 basic responses, which are the subject of The Tale of the Twelve Officers.
You should also check out: evilbible.com
This website (evilbible.com), is designed to spread the vicious truth about the Bible. For far too long priests and preachers have completely ignored the vicious criminal acts that the Bible promotes. The so called God of the Bible makes Osama Bin Laden look like a Boy Scout. This God, according to the Bible, is directly responsible for many mass-murders, rapes, pillage, plunder, slavery, child abuse and killing, not to mention the killing of unborn children. I have included references to the Biblical passages, so grab your Bible and follow along.
It always amazes me how many times this God orders the killing of innocent people even after the Ten Commandments said Thou shall not kill. For example, God kills 70,000 innocent people because David ordered a census of the people (1 Chronicles 21).
God also orders the destruction of 60 cities so that the Israelites can live there. He orders the killing of all the men, women, and children of each city, and the looting of all of value (Deuteronomy 3). He orders another attack and the killing of all the living creatures of the city: men and women, young, and old, as well as oxen sheep, and asses(Joshua 6). In Judges 21 He orders the murder of all the people of Jabesh-gilead, except for the virgin girls who were taken to be forcibly raped and married. When they wanted more virgins, God told them to hide alongside the road and when they saw a girl they liked, kidnap her and forcibly rape her and make her your wife!
Just about every other page in the Old Testament has God killing somebody! In 2 Kings 10:18-27, God orders the murder of all the worshipers of a different god in their very own church! In total God kills 371,186 people directly and orders another 1,862,265 people murdered
The God of the Bible also allows slavery, including selling your own daughter as a sex slave (Exodus 21:1-11), child abuse (Judges 11:29-40 & Isaiah 13:16), and bashing babies against rocks (Hosea 13:16 & Psalms 137:9). This type of criminal behavior should shock any moral person.
Murder, rape, pillage, plunder, slavery, and child abuse can not be justified by saying that some god says it’s OK. If more people would actually sit down and read the Bible there would be a lot more atheists like myself. Jesus also promoted the idea that all men should castrate themselves to go to heaven: For there are eunuchs, that were so born from their mother’s womb: and there are eunuchs, that were made eunuchs by men: and there are eunuchs, that made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it (Matthew 19:12). I don’t know why anyone would follow the teachings of someone who literally tells all men to cut off their privates.
The God of the Bible also was a big fan of ritual human sacrifice and animal sacrifice.
And just in case you are thinking that the evil and immoral laws of the Old Testament are no longer in effect, perhaps you should read where Jesus makes it perfectly clear: It is easier for Heaven and Earth to pass away than for the smallest part of the letter of the law to become invalid (Luke 16:17). There are many more quotes on this topic at myDo Not Ignore the Old Testament web page.
I know that most Christians believe that God is a good and loving god, and wants people to do good things. I believe that most people want to do good things and behave morally. I also believe that many Christians haven’t really read the Bible, or just read certain passages in church. This is understandable, as the Bible is hard to read due to its archaic language and obscure references. Also many priests and preachers don’t like to read certain passages in the Bible because they present a message of hate not love.
If you follow the links on this site you will learn about all the nasty things in the Bible that are usually not talked about by priests and preachers.
Want to know how I became an atheist, click the link: http://damienmarieathope.com/atheism/
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