Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Believing in claims devoid of evidence (faith claims) are not the same as disbelieving in claims devoid of evidence (faith claims).

God(s) doesn’t Exist from Logical Evidence

Think of the offered concepts of God(s) such as stuff like all-knowing, all-powerful, all-good, and all-loving, but such concepts beyond being empty of worth or reality, are self-arbitrary since there is no proof of such things or to show such attributes are warranted, true, or even contain a possible truth. Instead, what we actually see is a natural only world at all levels, with no magic added.

And we can show as proof from a logical conclusion in regards to such an empty claim a belief in god(s). What do we know from all the claims of god(s): all-invisible, all-unjustified, all-defenseless, all-indifferent, and all-confusing to the point we get it is just human-made stories from our unscientific superstitious past.

Thus, you as such can see why every reasonable thinker should at least doubt claims of god(s). How could you honestly say you are sure from proof on any claim poof god(s) and do so with no faith at all? Therefore, can’t you see the thinking shame called faith in god xyz to do anything. God does not exist from the clear evidence we do know, stop believing if just to save sound reason over blind faith.

The term god is an empty meaningless term outside of manmade myth unless one falls back to the circus of fallacies in the magic big top of fideism and the faith fallacy that you do not need anything but faith to validate, justify or prove any mystical belief you so desire. The god claim is like a clown car rolling in from out of nowhere and it seems like it is only one or possibly a few bad ideas, but no.

No they, the proponents for the god claim, will act like the web of lies the god claim it tied to, can then somehow be woven into something real, if only they try hard enough. Therefore, they, the proponents for the god claim, will act as a person drowning, reaching out to anything they can grab, saying it is or could stick to their Velcro conception of god.

Maybe it’s more like a Mr. Potato Head god concept, simply add or remove to suit the believer. For as we all know gods often think like the people who invent them. So everything not fast enough to get away will be claimed as god and the crazy clowns will just keep piling up even if the logical attachment to reason is nowhere to be found and the joke on reason stops being funny real quick. Therefore, we can say the term god is an unnecessary redundancy not an accurate explanation for anything.

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

No God: No evidence, No intelligence, and No goodness = Valid Atheism Conclusion

1. No evidence, To move past the Atheistic Null Hypothesis: There is no God/Gods (in inferential statistics, a Null Hypothesis generally assumed to be true until evidence indicates otherwise. Thus, a Null Hypothesis is a statistical hypothesis that there is no significant difference reached between the claim and the non-claim, as it is relatively provable/demonstratable in reality in some way. “The god question” Null Hypothesis is set at as always at the negative standard: Thus, holding that there is no God/Gods, and as god faith is an assumption of the non-evidentiary wishful thinking non-reality of “mystery thing” found in all god-talk, until it is demonstratable otherwise to change. Alternative hypothesis: There is a God (offered with no proof: what is a god and how can anyone say they know), therefore, results: Insufficient evidence to overturn the null hypothesis of no God/Gods.

2. No intelligence, Taking into account the reality of the world we do know with 99 Percent Of The Earth’s Species Are Extinct an intelligent design is ridiculous. Five Mass Extinctions Wiped out 99 Percent of Species that have ever existed on earth. Therefore like a child’s report card having an f they need to retake the class thus, profoundly unintelligent design.

3. No goodness, Assessed through ethically challenging the good god assumptions as seen in the reality of pain and other harm of which there are many to demonstrates either a god is not sufficiently good, not real or as I would assert, god if responsible for this world, would make it a moral monster ripe for the problem of evil and suffering (Argument from Evil). God would be responsible for all pain as life could easily be less painful and yet there is mass suffering. In fact, to me, every child born with diseases from birth screams out against a caring or loving god with the power to do otherwise. It could be different as there is Congenital insensitivity to pain (CIP), also known as congenital analgesia, in which a person cannot feel (and has never felt) physical pain.

I Believe Archaeology not Religion’s Myths

I fully enjoy the value (axiology) of archaeology (empirical evidence from fact or artifacts at a site) is knowledge (epistemology) of the past, adding to our anthropology (evidence from cultures both the present and past) intellectual (rational) assumptions of the likely reality of actual events from time past.

On the other hand, you have religions (unproven/disproven conspiracies of reality) supported by myths (collection of reality questionable stories) inaccurate accounts of the past or tails to establish thinking or behaviors, supporting faith (non-rationality, if seen as proven reality) in some unreal belief, behavior, or creative fiction of nonevents or actual events.

So, what is a god?

Debate Group on Facebook:

“Elo guys, I’m new here…for my first pots is HOW DO YOU KNOW ATHEISM is TRUE?” – New Poster

My response, What is a god?

“not related.” – New Poster

My response, So you don’t know?

“God for me is the creator of the universe.” – New Poster

My response, Ok, but creative is a behavior of something. I would like to know what the unknown is that you think created. I am asking for what a god is?

“God is a supreme being…” – New Poster

My response, And do you have an example because I don’t know what that is? What is a supreme being? As it is also an unknown. So I need to know. Please. Thanks

“You can google it.” – New Poster

My response, So, you have a google god-something, not a personal-god then, right? It is ok if you don’t know? Just says I don’t know what a god is or even could be but I want to believe, so you just do even when you don’t even know what it is you are believing in. What is a god? You hold the burden of proof as an honest thinker. You are intellectually honest, right?

“I don’t know what do you want from me… I don’t respond to ad-hom and insults.” – New Poster

My response, I am showing you why I as an atheist don’t believe in god. Not one person neither a street preacher, nor pasters, nor religious philosophers can answer this simple question and thus disbelief in theism assumptions or assertions is required for any honest thinker!

“Don’t beat yourself…being intellectually superior to others…its kinda arrogant way of presenting the way you behave.” – New Poster

My response, Show me where I insulted you or did an adhom, please. Thanks, and if you can show me and it is actually, then I will apologize.

My response, “Intellectual honesty is an applied method of problem-solving, characterized by an unbiased, honest attitude, which can be demonstrated in a number of different ways: One’s personal beliefs or politics do not interfere with the pursuit of truth; Relevant facts and information are not purposefully omitted even when such things may contradict one’s hypothesis; Facts are presented in an unbiased manner, and not twisted to give misleading impressions or to support one view over another; References, or earlier work, are acknowledged where possible, and plagiarism is avoided. Furthermore, Harvard ethicist Louis M. Guenin describes the “kernel” of intellectual honesty to be “a virtuous disposition to eschew deception when given an incentive for deception”. Oppositely, Intentionally committed fallacies in debates and reasoning are called intellectual dishonesty.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_honesty

Fallacy fallacy?

Alternate names:

• argument from fallacy
• argumentum ad logicam
• bad reasons fallacy
• fallacist’s fallacy

“The fallacy fallacy, which could also be called the “metafallacy”, is a logical fallacy that occurs when it is claimed that if an argument contains a logical fallacy, the conclusion it was used to support is wrong. A true statement can be defended using false logic, so using false logic to defend an opinion is not proof of the opinion being wrong. This is where one needs to make a clear distinction between “sound“, “valid” (including the distinction between scientific validity and logical validity) and “true”, instead of taking all of them as synonymous. The fallacy fallacy is sometimes rephrased as a command: Don’t shoot the message. Just because the messenger is stupid, doesn’t mean the message is. The fallacy is a special case of denying the antecedent and is a formal fallacy. It is related to Rapoport’s Rules.” ref

“It takes the following form:

P1: Argument A supports proposition P.
P2: Argument A contains a logical fallacy.
C: Proposition P is false.” ref

“There is nothing wrong with pointing out that the argument A is invalid. However, claiming that the entirety of proposition P (which could otherwise be an objective scientific truth or is supported by better arguments) is false, just because it could be, or is being, supported by fallacious argument A, is the fallacy fallacy.” ref

Fallacy fallacy fallacy?

“Like Cohen’s Law, this stacks nicely, or with amusing confusion. For a start, since the fallacy fallacy is itself a fallacy, it cannot be used to label an argument’s conclusion as false without committing it in the process. “You have used the fallacy fallacy, therefore you are wrong” is as much an example as “you have used an ad hominem, therefore you are wrong” would be.” ref

“In addition:

• A fallacy is an argument that doesn’t follow proper rules of logic.
• A fallacy fallacy happens because true statements can be defended through fallacious arguments. Merely proving that an argument is fallacious does not prove that the whole entire position that it defends is immediately false.
• A fallacy fallacy fallacy then, is the claim that disproving particular arguments or versions of a position is irrelevant to disproving the position itself. While fallacious reasoning in support of a position does not, in itself, provide absolute proof that the position is false, it does mean that the person making the argument has failed to present any case for it to be true.” ref

“Assertions that are supported only by fallacious reasoning and special pleading to get around debunked arguments, are unlikely to have much truth value. An example where this is very common is among psychics. Numerous individual psychics have been proven to be frauds, and study after study has shown that particular psychic abilities do not exist. Yet still there is an inexhaustible supply of psychics and alleged psychic abilities — and people willing to pay them. Hence, if any of this mountain of evidence against psychic powers is cited, psychics can merely reply “Well, you haven’t proven me to be a fraud.” ref

Fallacy fallacy fallacy fallacy?

“A fallacy fallacy fallacy fallacy describes the improper application of a fallacy fallacy fallacy. Additionally, a fallacy fallacy fallacy fallacy may be misrepresented, resulting in a fallacy fallacy fallacy fallacy fallacy… ad infinitum. But seriously now. Pointing out any fallacy might sound good, but if the whole argument turns into pointing out fallacies instead of… essentially arguing, the debate becomes pointless.” ref

Inverse fallacy fallacy?

“A rare beast is the inverse fallacy fallacy, which holds that:

P1: Argument A supports proposition P.
P2: Proposition P is true.
C: Argument A does not contain a logical fallacy.” ref

“This is equally ludicrous. If one argues that the sky must be blue because kittens are cute, and the sky actually is blue, this doesn’t make the argument any less irrelevant.” ref

Fallacy misidentification?

“Fallacy misidentification occurs when a logical fallacy is misidentified, or simply misunderstood.” ref

Legitimate similar arguments?

“A fallacy fallacy does not occur if a debater merely points out that the opponent uses fallacies, without asserting that the opponent’s position is therefore incorrect. An argument of this form is perfectly valid when all possible arguments for a proposition are fallacious — indeed showing that all propositions are fallacies or somehow wrong is the way to disprove something, barring the proposition being unprovable, of course. This also allows for the prevention of abuse of the fallacy fallacy to create a argument from ignorance. Fallacies of distraction or relevance (e.g. Straw man, Red herring) are something of a special case; if one of these fallacies is demonstrably present, the conclusion is not necessarily wrong, but it is, by definition, irrelevant. However, due to the likely large number of arguments and fallacious arguments (from someone attempting a Gish gallop, for instance) in support of a proposition P, it would be easier to prove not P than to go about countering the various fallacious arguments, although this can be difficult when one’s opponent is just asking questions and otherwise spewing bullshit, not even directly claiming that P is true.” ref

Examples?

• “Bob argues that 64/16=4/1 because this is what is yielded by cancellation of the sixes. Alice commits the fallacy fallacy by claiming that Bob must be wrong since cancelling digits doesn’t preserve the original ratio.
• Alice argues that the world is created because it exhibits design. Bob commits the fallacy fallacy by concluding that the world must not have been created, because Alice’s argument is a non sequitur.” ref

“The following argument displays the fallacy fallacy:

P1: The argument from design supports the proposition “God exists.”
P2: The argument from design is fallacious.
C: Therefore, God does not exist.” ref

“Although the premises do provide strong evidence against a God as an interfering designer, these alone do not arrive at the more general conclusion of “God does not exist.” ref

Prevalence?

“This fallacy’s use is staggeringly common during internet debates, where pseudo-intellectualism reigns supreme. A person will seek out and attack any logical fallacy you use and dismiss your argument out of hand, without ever addressing the proposition. Fairly often, you might spot someone who will not even bother explaining why the fallacy is appropriate in that context. Some of the possible causes of this phenomenon include: they are being lazy and are just arguing by assertion, they are trying to distract from their argument and are poisoning the well, or they learned a fancy new Latin phrase and want to use it regardless of its applicability. If they have incorrectly used the fallacy then they have committed the fallacy fallacy fallacy.” ref

• Faith Drunk thinking: Divine fallacy, Argument from Incredulity, and Argument from ignorance
• Truth Navigation and the fallacy of Fideism “faith-ism”
• Religious Fallacies: Appeal to Emotion and its Multiple Fallacy Subheadings
• Two Dogmatic-Propaganda Fallacies and the fallacy of Fideism “faith-ism”
• The Faith Fallacy vs. Critical Thinking
• The God Fallac

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Philosophy to the Rescue: explaining Reason, Logic, Evidence, Truth, Certainty, Reality, and Science

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

My best Video talking about My thoughts on “Religion and Deity Evolution” with Questions and Answers

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Damien Marie AtHope (Said as “At” “Hope”)/(Autodidact Polymath but not good at math):

Axiological Atheist, Anti-theist, Anti-religionist, Secular Humanist, Rationalist, Writer, Artist, Jeweler, Poet, “autodidact” Philosopher, schooled in Psychology, and “autodidact” Armchair Archaeology/Anthropology/Pre-Historian (Knowledgeable in the range of: 1 million to 5,000/4,000 years ago). I am an anarchist socialist politically. Reasons for or Types of Atheism

My Website, My Blog, & Short-writing or Quotes, My YouTube, Twitter: @AthopeMarie, and My Email: damien.marie.athope@gmail.com