Faith is a delusion of reason: Faith creates a reason blindness.

by | Aug 13, 2015 | Blog

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Faith is the folly and reason blindness of even otherwise great thinkers, in other regards that is… Faith is offering feelings when the question was on facts. All this and more are why I oppose faith so much as a tool for anything but fantasies. But HEY, that’s just me, some people seem to thrive on unreason called faith as some people don’t seem to require any thinking at all. Like telling me No one can judge God because God is God, as if that “divine fallacy” explains anything but you stopped looking. Others drunk on faith don’t seem to require reason, nor evidence, to acquire or keep unjustified beliefs, not much different from how unwilling some seem to let go of disproven beliefs, in general. Instead, thinkers so faith drunk just loves to use faith whenever thinking seems too hard or the potential answer, if followed through, using anything other than faith, would lose its value. So, the Faith Drunk happily brings faith to the rescue, to employ faith, please close the eyes of your mind, and believe on “faith, #feelings.” Just thinking about it, makes me dissatisfied, to say the least!

Faith held as truth or reality is exhibiting a reason delusion, thus faith is a delusion of reason. Faith is being inspired to strong belief in that which by the lack of proof should inspire strong doubt. Faith creates a reason blindness. Here are some quotes exhibiting faith is a delusion of reason:

1.“Faith is to believe what you do not see; the reward of this faith is to see what you believe.” Saint Augustine 

(believing what you don’t have proof used to create a pseudo proof mirroring your believed wishful thinking is more like foolishness and exhibiting a reason delusion then a worthy style of belief verification)

2. “To one who has faith, no explanation is necessary. To one without faith, no explanation is possible.” Thomas Aquinas 

(having faith held as truth or reality not requiring any rational is confirming it’s not a rational derived belief or faith, and if lacking faith removes any valid explanation then the thing you have faith in is a wishful or delusion thinking a foolishness unworthy style of belief verification.)

3. “In faith there is enough light for those who want to believe and enough shadows to blind those who don’t.” Blaise Pascal 

(wanting to believe something is no measure of truth, such faith is the quality that creates cognitive biases, mistaken or delusional beliefs. There is no substance in faith but usually shadows pseudo assurance. Again want to believe wishful thinking over sound reason is more like foolishness then a worthy style of belief verification)

4. “Without faith a man can do nothing; with it all things are possible.” Sir William Osler 

(with faith you only gain emotionally invented certainty, pseudo assurance, irrational derived beliefs, and to say without faith’s inspired unreasoned strong belief one is lacking anything is a foolishness exhibiting a reason delusion of what is or can be truth and reality.)

5. “I would rather err on the side of faith than on the side of doubt.” Robert Schuller 

(Faith is a feeling so if you are trying to use faith as truth or reality what you have done is a reasoning error already, to doubt wishful thinking is a worthy attitude when belief verification has no substance.)

6. “Faith is daring the soul to go beyond what the eyes can see.” William Newton Clark 

(intellectual honesty should motivate the ethics of belief so you can only tell others or oneself how to see the reason in things that have reason not motivate creating belief out of nothing or that which lacks all reason.)

7. “Faith is deliberate confidence in the character of God whose ways you may not understand at the time.” Oswald Chambers 

(to have which you admit is not understandable by reason is to have a delusion of reason.)

8. “Faith is a knowledge within the heart, beyond the reach of proof.” Khalil Gibran (to call faith a knowledge

of anything more than knowing one has the emotion of faith is to promote a reasoning not just beyond the reach of proof but to exhibit a full reason delusion.)

9. “Faith is not belief without proof, but trust without reservation.” D. Elton Trueblood 

(if faith is trust without reservation one is confirming the emotion of faith is indeed beyond belief without proof, it can be a belief in spite of disproof, which is to have a delusion of reason.)

10. “Keep the faith, don’t lose your perseverance and always trust your gut extinct.” Paula Abdul 

(faith at times maybe a wishful thinking gut extinct but that is not a way to validate properties in reality and certainly not a reliable methodology to know truth from falsehood. To think otherwise is a reason delusion.)

11. “Without faith, nothing is possible. With it, nothing is impossible.” Mary McLeod Bethune

(saying nothing is possible without faith or only with faith is exhibiting a reason delusion as faith is nothing but emotional thinking, unwarranted confidence or confidence built only on the desire to believe something not proven at all.)

12. “Faith is what someone knows to be true, whether they believe it or not.” Flannery O’Connor 

(to have faith in what you don’t even believe your self is complete and profound unreason or at least a reason delusion.)

13. “Talk unbelief, and you will have unbelief; but talk faith, and you will have faith.” Ellen G. White 

(if you admit that faith nods nothing more that talking about it demonstrates you agree it is baseless and if all it takes to remove faith is talking doubt then what one has faith in is substanceless, thus exhibiting a reason delusion.)

By Damien Marie AtHope

The “EGO-Prison” of Faith and its Intentionally Untested “desired-beliefs”

I  am always amazed that my call for humanity and justice is so offensive to, dare I say not free-thinking people.

I am glad that I make bigots feel uncomfortable.

BSc, MSc, PgC, PhD (Innovation Management), Founder at Library Builders (SCIO): “Faith is a reality for billions of people across the world. The limitations of reason only serve to solidify these beliefs.”

My response, Fath (is a favorite way of beliefs on hope or desire, not facts demonstrating reality) is an (untested but fully believed) reality (added untested beliefs to what we know is reality) for billions of people.  Or put another way the favorite fallacies of unjustified thinking. I would like to hear your full explanation of what you think are limits in reason? Thanks. Faith is being inspired to accumulate untested beliefs but is that a good thing?

BSc, MSc, PgC, PhD (Innovation Management), Founder at Library Builders (SCIO): “It’s not easy to distinguish between good and bad but our capacity to test beliefs is not very reliable. I’m not advocating for faith but I feel that since it exists in billions of minds, we cannot simply invalidate it. What is your opinion about intuition?”

My response, So you are unsure if rape is a good thing? You are unsure if loving others is good? Is it possible to be unsure if we are doing good feeding the starving? We all know what is true and what is good!

BSc, MSc, PgC, PhD (Innovation Management), Founder at Library Builders (SCIO): “Damien AtHope So why is there conflict on every level if we all know?”

My response, EGO. People worship their EGO, not truth or humanity.

BSc, MSc, PgC, PhD (Innovation Management), Founder at Library Builders (SCIO): “Damien AtHope What is truth?”

My response, You already answered your question, was this a riddle? Would anyone rightly feel shame if we exchanged “words” that are not becoming of good humans, and after talking one of us died? Would you not want the last words to be honorable? Are you a good person, and what demonstratable expressed behaviors embody this? Would we not often do better lighting a candle, than cursing at the darkness? We need people with the height of bravery, to be openly as kind as others openly hate.

My response, By the way, we should connect. I love deep thinking. That is why I never read one book from another philosopher nor any book on logic. Here are some things I know.

Here are several of my blog posts on history:

My response, I just want to be a good human, kind to all, and as of benefit to the world as possible, as humanity is worth giving my life for. I may never know just how beautiful you are, until you are kind.

My response, In case you had not guessed, by now, Yes, I am Wicked Smart and an Autodidactic Polymath. And this is so even though my college schooling stopped at the 7 the class in my masters with a 4.0 I realized I needed to stop my selfishness and have from 2006 devoted my life to activism and being of help to the world. I started with no schooling in religion but two classes, but I realized then I knew nothing but due to EGO blindness believed I already knew everything. I see now even standing on the top of the heist mountain with me as the world authority on the evolution of religion and do you know the best thing I learned? That is the answer to everything is understanding the beginning. I see now we need to go back to our original homeland Africa and her oldest children to learn what we forgot in all our Bloated and vile worship of our little gold star, EGO.

My response, I want to make something clear as I can, as simple as I can, even though I classify Animism   (animated and alive from Latin: anima, ‘breath, spirit, life‘ or peoples’ “spiritual” or “supernatural” perspectives. Potentially, in some animism perceives, all things may relate to some spiritual/supernatural/non-natural inclinations, even a possible belief that objects, places, and/or creatures all possess a distinct spiritual essence, and/or thinking things like all things—animals, plants, rocks, rivers, weather systems, human handiwork, and perhaps even words— could be as animated and alive)   as the first expression of religious thinking or religion, it is not less than, nor is it not equal to any other religion, or religious thinking.

My response, I see all religious people as at least animists any way, so everyone is at least animist, how could it be less than other religions as all other religions have at least some amount, kind, or expression of animism. Animism, +? is what I think about all that say they are spiritual or religious in thinking. Regardless if they know it, understand it, or claim it, they all, to me, an animistic-thinker, plus a paganistic, totemistic, and shamanistic-monotheist, calling themselves a Christian, Jew, or Muslim, as an example of my thinking. Animism (is the other-then-reality thinking relates to, thus it is in all such non-reality thinking generally.

My response, Furthermore, I actually am impressed by animist cultures in Africa, others have seen them as primitive or something, help with that, they are revolutionaries with women’s rights, child rights. I mean if I had to choose a religion it would be animism only like in Africa so I don’t look down on them nor any indigenous peoples, who I care about, as well as I am for “humanity for all.” I challenge religious Ideas, and this is not meant to be an attack on people, but rather a challenge to think or rethink ideas, I want what is actually true. May we all desire a truly honest search for what is true even if we have to update what we believe or know. I even have religious friends, as I am not a bigot.

Here are a few of what I see as “Animist only” Cultures:

“Aka people” Central African nomadic Mbenga pygmy people. PRONUNCIATION: AH-kah

“The Aka people are very warm and hospitable. Relationships between men and women are extremely egalitarian. Men and women contribute equally to a household’s diet, either a husband or wife can initiate divorce, and violence against women is very rare. No cases of rape have been reported. The Aka people are fiercely egalitarian and independent. No individual has the right to force or order another individual to perform an activity against his or her will. Aka people have a number of informal methods for maintaining their egalitarianism. First, they practice “prestige avoidance”; no one draws attention to his or her own abilities. Individuals play down their achievements.” ref

“Mbuti People”

“The Mbuti people are generally hunter-gatherers who commonly are in the Congo’s Ituri Forest have traditionally lived in stateless communities with gift economies and largely egalitarian gender relations. They were a people who had found in the forest something that made life more than just worth living, something that made it, with all its hardships and problems and tragedies, a wonderful thing full of joy and happiness and free of care. Pygmies, like the Inuit, minimize discrimination based upon sex and age differences. Adults of all genders make communal decisions at public assemblies. The Mbuti people do not have a state, or chiefs or councils.” ref

“Hadza people”

“The Hadza people of Tanzania in East Africa are egalitarian, meaning there are no real status differences between individuals. While the elderly receive slightly more respect, within groups of age and sex all individuals are equal, and compared to strictly stratified societies, women are considered fairly equal. This egalitarianism results in high levels of freedom and self-dependency. When conflict does arise, it may be resolved by one of the parties voluntarily moving to another camp. Ernst Fehr and Urs Fischbacher point out that the Hadza people “exhibit a considerable amount of altruistic punishment” to organize these tribes. The Hadza people live in a communal setting and engage in cooperative child-rearing, where many individuals (both related and unrelated) provide high-quality care for children. Having no tribal or governing hierarchy, the Hadza people trace descent bilaterally (through paternal and maternal lines), and almost all Hadza people can trace some kin tie to all other Hadza people.” ref

My response, Would not the world be better if we lived like what I see as “Animist only” Cultures? 

My response, I strive to be a servant leader that teaches teachers and builds more servant leaders to go out and also lead leaders and teach teachers. And this all starts in my willingness to be a student of the world. Let me give an example of how I can be the best student, I hear things, when no words are said. I am light-hearted, very loving, and live a life of kindness. I was taught by a respected teacher, my cat, who is only love. I have learned, such deep care, from her. I am a better person because she loves me.

BSc, MSc, PgC, PhD (Innovation Management), Founder at Library Builders (SCIO): About

“Uchenna Ilo holds a PhD in the field of Innovation Management. He is an author, life purpose thought leader, philosopher, and social entrepreneur. His writings have been published on Wall Street Journal and USA Today best-selling books, Simple Reminders Network, and several other motivational websites. His writings cut across diverse dimensions of the human experience including spirituality, love and relationships, leadership, excellence, success, healthy living, passion, purpose, innovation, creativity, and business management.” ref

‘Uchenna’s philosophy is rooted in his very sober and honest reflections of his past and current experiences in life. He believes that life is a journey of self-discovery, and that until we truly understand who we are and why we are here, we will not realize our full potential. He believes that it is possible to live in peace with yourself and with your neighbors and that true love really exists and can be attracted by living a life of honesty and truthfulness. The purpose of his writings is to bring healing to people who feel they have been broken by the sufferings of life and who may have lost hope in themselves. He believes that happiness, inner peace, and true love can be achieved if we understand how to conduct our lives in the right manner.” ref

“Uchenna has made academic distinctions across different academic disciplines spanning the life sciences and research philosophy. He holds degrees in Microbiology, Biotechnology with Business, and Research Methods, and has received an academic award and prize for his outstanding academic performance. Uchenna has gained extensive leadership and resource management experience from his previous employment in the banking industry and various entrepreneurial pursuits. He currently holds a PhD in the field of business management with a special interest in the responsible management of the innovation process in businesses.” ref 

Atheism became obvious once you see faith is not facts, it’s feelings. What that has to do with atheism, in general, is how all gods need faith to be believed and thus, once one lacks faith and demands facts they realize they are already an atheist.

“Damien, facts are facts, but the power of faith is always met with great rewards, so you can keep your facts and I will keep my faith.” – Commenter

My response, Can faith ever fail or do you just decide it is always right or just never wrong?  What do you mean by faith and how have you confirmed it is an accurate method and if it is such an accurate method do you believe it works for everyone that uses it with the same accuracy no matter the use or beliefs it is used for?  

“Logical positivism failed as a philosophy because its Central claims were themselves not derivable from logic. They were assumptions. It could be saved by calling it presuppositional logical positivism. But almost any system, including Christianity, can be made sound through presuppositionalism. The problem is if we say science and rationality are the best way to knowledge, those claims are not themselves scientific or rational claims.” – Challenger 

My response, All thinking has presuppositions including what you just posted as if you stated hard facts. What do you mean by science and rationality? Are you not making a rationality attempt set of claims as if they are true? Please identify your method of accuracy to assume the truth that you report to offer? Let’s start with that? What do you mean by knowledge? Saying that something falls means you have a method to account for this and that you are ready to demonstrate it is accurate so please do that. Are your central claims derived from logic?

“Yea, I think we need some Wittgenstein here. He would say that every utterance is a move in a language game with many unstated rules. Kant said it first: “Perception without conception is blind.” Every perception comes with some conceptions behind it. So, yes, my claims assume some rational basis, so it would be contradictory if I used them to undermine rationality itself. The idea is not that rationality is invalid. I’m just pointing out the noncontroversial idea (supported by Haidt and other research) that humans often don’t arrive at their values that way. They feel first, then reason toward their feelings. This is true even for scientific types. We are just the ones who can accept that science gives us facts. It feels right to us, and doesn’t violate any of our deeply held feelings. To a point. I gave the example of free will. I think science shows that we don’t have it, but I can’t shake the feeling that I do. Delete or hide this.” – Challenger  

My response, So are you appealing to authority or do you feel you are making freethinking claims? I think you should welcome a recorded video with me, right?

“I got muted on the Iowa Atheists and Freethinkers site. They removed comments and muted people after discussion got heated. I think they were worried about losing members, so I understand. It turns out that most of the members looked at their group as an oasis, a haven from religion, and their real aim wasn’t freethought, but to be with likeminded people. That’s the opposite of freethought! I haven’t found a group yet that is really committed to freethinking, full court. I think human nature makes it hard or impossible.” – Challenger  

My response, Why some group choose to remove people may have many reasons I was removed from the group for Indiana atheists as they made a comment about one of my videos and I challenged them and the person didn’t like being shown wrong thus was not open to see things in a new way I don’t blame the group nor even the person as I get we are first emotional thinkers and only as an afterthought or secondary thought we may choose to processes things rationally and I know I too can get emotionally hijacked and thus part of championing openness is also compassion for others when they choose emotions in responses that require reason or would be better suited with reason. What do you mean by freethought as you state it so strongly with your statement claims? How did you assure with accuracy that you actually did use freethinking? “Definition of freethinker: a person who thinks freely or independently: one who forms opinions on the basis of reason independently of authority especially: one who rejects or is skeptical of religious dogma.” https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/freethinker

“I’m with you, that for too long we have only seen through the hate of difference but if we value liberty, we’ll let people hate and discriminate. For instance, I discriminated when was dating. I’d hate it if an arranged marriage was forced on me, or if my wife was chosen at random. When I reflect that way, it’s not a leap to understand that people would like to choose their kids’ teachers (to not be gay, for instance). They might be morally wrong, but liberty must include the right to be wrong, or it doesn’t mean much. So, there’s a tension between liberty and love.” – Challenger 

My response, Who said I keep people from the liberty of hating in public? What I do is I openly challenge the errors in thinking, or the harmful behaviors not deny there right to make errors. I don’t remove their rights in public, but I may remove them from my profile as I have a right to my space and being on my personal profile is a privilege, not a right. However, I allow all manner of ignorance and hate on my YouTube, a fully public arena to me, just read the comments on my most popular video to see this proof. And yet even there I am hard on ideas or behaviors but strive to be kind to people. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_P7voWUkJnA&t=98s 

My response, Hammer of Truth: Investigate (ONTOLOGY), Expose (EPISTEMOLOGY), and Judge (AXIOLOGY) 

“Ok, but judging requires a standard (as you have pointed out), so by itself, this Hammer doesn’t say what that standard is. Two people can share ontology and epistemology, but feel differently about things because of their evolved psychology and emotional natures. They will thus reach different conclusions. They will both be wrong by the other’s values, but right by theirs.” – Challenger  

My response, You didn’t ask what the standard or find out why it was not or if it is valid as would have been better so a question is are you demonstrating free thinking? As in do you want to learn from me or only challenge me out of a desire to try to one-up me? Are you demonstrating things I need to learn from you on how to correctly do freethinking? If so point them out, please and how you are confirming they are accurately freethinking?

The “Hammer of Truth” is my folk name for the Methodological use of Philosophy to address/brake errors or confirm/build truth: Ontology, Epistemology, and Axiology questions to remove errors and add accuracy.”

Ontology (Greek meaning ontos, “being; that which is”; and logos meaning “discourse, study, ratio, calculation, reason”) Ontology is the philosophical study of the nature of being, becoming, existence, or reality, as well as the basic categories of being and their relations.

Epistemology (Greek episteme, meaning “knowledge, understanding”, and logos, meaning “discourse, study, ratio, calculation, reason”) it is the theory of knowledge, especially with regard to its methods, validity, and scope. Epistemology is the investigation of what distinguishes justified belief from opinion.

Axiology (Greek meaning axia, “value, worth”; and logos meaning “discourse, study, ratio, calculation, reason”) it is the philosophical study of value as well as ethics and aesthetics. Formal Axiology is a specific branch of the science of Axiology. Axiology also studies of goodness, value or worth, in the widest sense of these terms. Its significance lies 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.

Mock Debate court using the “Hammer of Truth”

Ontology “Reality” questions/assertion: Witness gives evidence about the claim.

Epistemology “Truth” questions/assertion: Lawyer searches for warrant or justification for the claim.

Axiology “Goodness-for” questions/assertion: Judge/Jury assesses and value judges because of qualities in or lacking in the claim.

Always try to follow something similar to this attack order:

*Ontology, (understanding the thingness of things; like what is or can be real, like not god)

-What is your claim?

-What aspects must be there for your claim?

-What makes your claim different than other similar claims?

*Epistemology, (understanding what you know or can know; as in you do have anything in this reality to know anything about this term you call god, and no way of knowing if there is anything non-naturalism beyond this universe and no way to state any about it if there were)

-How do know your claim?

-How reliable or valid must aspects be for your claim?

-How does the source of your claim make it different than other similar claims?

*Axiology, (understanding what is good or valuable as well as what is evil or unvaluable like how the stories about theist theistic gods are often racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic intersexphobic, xenophobic, etc. Thus, they are directly against humanity and thus are evil and unvaluable. Unvaluable; as in the god concept you have is evil and demonstrably harmful and thus is highly unvaluable to humanity)

-Why are your objects of proposed value subjective psychological states or objective physiological external world states for your claim?

-Why do your purposed descriptive words fit qualities for valuation (such as “powerful”, “knowing”, and “present” in the Omnipotent: all-powerful, Omniscient: all-knowing, and Omnipresent: all-present god assertion) your claim?

-Why is your value-for, worth-for, and/or goodness-for claims different than other similar claims?

Take for instance how Religion supporters try the evaluation tactic of saying “there are peaceful Religions.”

I may respond, what do you mean by Religion and what do you mean by painful or good” (asking to find the truth or as usual expose the lack of a good Ontology)

Then, I may respond, “how do you know that what is your sources and how reliable they are” (asking to find the truth or as usual expose the lack of a good Epistemology)

Then, I may respond, “what value do you think what you are saying has and to what level of proof do you feel truth needs as well as how do you ensure Accuracy” (asking to find the truth or as usual expose the lack of a good Axiology)

A general thinking in all “My Ontology, Epistemology, and Axiology theorizing” involves some expression of Justificationism. As in, I require a worthy argument, that is justified with a good warrant(s), quality rich with valid and reliable reason and evidence that is connected to the accuracy of the truth claimed.

*(Ontology) What are you talking about, please slow down and give me each specific detail individually?

*(Epistemology) How do you know that and why do you think it is justified or warranted?

*(Axiology) What is its value if any and why do you value that or why would anyone?

If you don’t already know, Dialectic is the art of investigating or discussing the truth of opinions.

What I am trying to say in this message of Dialectic Questions in order to find truth by giving people three questions that can be put towards almost anything and it help remove error and thus improved accuracy.

To me, the first requirement in free thinking is to stop assuming so much and ask questions then honestly respond to what is claimed. 

“You stated, “thus they are directly Against Humanity and are evil and unvaluable.” This is a position that is not shared by everyone. Some people value God more than Humanity. So people who do not share this premise will not be persuaded by your arguments. And there might be people who cannot feel that humanity’s concerns should be primary. To such people it is an intuition and just obvious and self-evident that God should come first. They probably can’t justify that according to your system, but since it is a felt passion like loving their kids, they don’t need to.” – Challenger
 
My response, There is indeed many theistic people who value God more than Humanity. That doesn’t remove humanities value just because some don’t see it and there are many other reasons beyond theism this can and does happen. Sexists don’t value women and racists don’t value all races, etc. That is their errors not a lowering of the actual value. I would first say what is a god? And I agree they probably can’t justify that according to my system. “Loving their kids” is a reality thing and I can judge them in error if they don’t love their kids and instead abuse them horribly. 

My response, Real Morality vs. Pseudo Morality?

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

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

Real Morality is referring to “ethics” (Social Morality relating to a “others” morality) as opposed to +Morals (Personal Morality relating to a “self” morality) because we use Real Morality or need to to assist in judging the behaviors in a social dynamic behavioral event or interaction and can only accrue in a social dynamic (social behavioral realm) as such all morality propositions removed from a social dynamic and which accrue only in a personal dynamic lack attachment to “Real Morality” referring to the social nature of “ethics.” In other words, if you are by yourself and do something only to yourself, it is neither ethical nor immorality; thus, doing a behavior that is only personal (a believed moral or otherwise) by yourself and only something to yourself, is amorality to everyone but that chosen person doing a behavior that is only personal. One can choose to personally value some moral standard for themselves but because morals (the personal valued behaviors) as opposed to ethics (the interpersonal/social valued behaviors; which there is business never business morals as ethics is about our social-behaviors we can hold others to, whereas, morals are only something we can hold ourselves to).

I hold the assumptions that to understand morality more fully we need to understand its synthesis and properties by emphasizing its relations to conceptual tools understanding motivation and behavior such as biopsychosocial model, Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs, Bronfenbrenner’s ecological systems theory, Kohlberg’s moral development theory and formal axiology interactions across multiple levels. Real Morality is an emergent aspect limited to a sphere of social dynamics (social) result in human progress and social evolution understood in mental processes of high cognitively developed beings (biological) with developed psychological quality of awareness (psychological) and the so-called moral facts and the values that support or motivate them is limited to the realm of possible harm psychological or physical (actual external world or experiential internal world). Pseudo Morality is seen when holy books or people “cognitively reconstruct” an inhumane idea or behavior to make it into something different from that it is, to something more moral than what it actually is. Or turn something highly immoral into something highly moral. One way to do that is to cloak the behavior “in moral wrappings” or “in divine authority” such as god hates gays, gays are evil, thus killing gays is doing good by destroying evil. This thinking is obviously pseudo morality as gays are not evil but killing them is evil and inhumane idea or behavior thus very immoral. The god justified immorality into what is then called moral is some of the most common pseudo-morality, though political leaders and others in power tend to employ it as well. They all are using “pseudo-moral justifications” to describe something immoral as moral. True morality is not as simple as the golden rule…

True morality is a valued behavior we do that interacts with others; it is not really related to what we do to ourselves. Which is why I do not agree with the so-called golden rule as it is what you don’t want do to others but this fails in that its focused on ourselves which is us focused and true morality needs to be other focused on what valued behavior we do that interacts with others. I say treat others the way they should be treated. People have self-ownership, self-rights, right to dignity, freedom, and equality. True morality is a valued behavior we do that interacts with others starting with the conception that people matter, they have worth and value, It is in this way they should be treated.  

Moral fear and Moral love (which together motivate my axiological ethics)? 

“You stated, “That is their errors not a lowering of the actual value. True morality is a valued behavior we do that interacts with others” Well, “Actual” and “true” sound like you’re proposing there is an Absolute Morality. That’s hard to defend. You have to show:

1. That absolute moral objects exist. (BTW, I basically agree with the morality you’ve put forth, but it’s based on human flourishing. An alpha male could say he doesn’t value the flourishing of all humans, just himself and his loved ones, or just the loyal ones. I’d have no way to say he was wrong by his values, or he might not even care if he was wrong.)

2. That humans can know what they are. 

Then, even if you could show all that, we’d still have the social problem that millions of humans aren’t feeling it, or their feelings say they know what the real morality is and it’s different from yours. In our country, their vote is equal to yours, so that’s how we decide moral issues, and they have the right to be wrong.” – Challenger 

My response, I work to reason with others to see the need to see our shared humanity and the value of human flourishing, as we rise by helping each other. I agree not all do and it will be a hard task for some but I appreciate the chance to do all I can.

“Damien AtHope Yea, one of the hardest things to get my liberal mind around is that many people don’t care about flourishing of all people. They feel just fine taking care of their own. I thought egalitarianism was a universal value, but I was just ignorant and wrong. I could only think that by living in my liberal bubble, and not reading Hobbes or Plato, who both advised rule by elites. Finally, if I value liberty, I have to allow them to be selfish. Ayn Rand followers are equal citizens and their vote is as good as mine.” – Challenger  

My response, I thought we were more evolved or getting there in wishing better flourishing of humanity together too, then Trump and the rise again of the Alt-Right really reminded me of the power of hate and selfishness. This further showed me this will be way more than just a life’s mission to help it will indeed be a never-ending battle all humanity will always face and need to struggle against. It shows me we are responsible to get involved where we can and inspire others to do the same to show or help others understand egalitarianism as a universal value. 

“Damien AtHope That was my wish, too. Except game theory. The more we succeed at getting people to adopt egalitarianism, the more opportunity it will create for cheaters and other exploits. And the reward for cheating is highest when there are the fewest cheaters. And even if humans didn’t cheat, AI might. My conclusion is that there are no universal values, only ones we wish were.” – Challenger  

My response, Babies & Morality? “They believe babies are in fact born with an innate sense of morality, and while parents and society can help develop a belief system in babies, they don’t create one. A team of researchers at Yale University’s Infant Cognition Center, known as The Baby Lab, showed us just how they came to that conclusion.” Ref Animals and Morality? 5 Animals With a Moral Compass Moreover, Animals can tell right from wrong: Scientists studying animal behavior believe they have growing evidence that species ranging from mice to primates are governed by moral codes of conduct in the same way as humans. Likewise, in the book: Wild Justice: The Moral Lives of Animals: Scientists have long counseled against interpreting animal behavior in terms of human emotions, warning that such anthropomorphizing limits our ability to understand animals as they really are. Yet what are we to make of a female gorilla in a German zoo who spent days mourning the death of her baby? Or a wild female elephant who cared for a younger one after she was injured by a rambunctious teenage male? Or a rat who refused to push a lever for food when he saw that doing so caused another rat to be shocked? Aren’t these clear signs that animals have recognizable emotions and moral intelligence? With Wild Justice Marc Bekoff and Jessica Pierce unequivocally answer yes. Marrying years of behavioral and cognitive research with compelling and moving anecdotes, Bekoff and Pierce reveal that animals exhibit a broad repertoire of moral behaviors, including fairness, empathy, trust, and reciprocity. Underlying these behaviors is a complex and nuanced range of emotions, backed by a high degree of intelligence and surprising behavioral flexibility. Animals, in short, are incredibly adept social beings, relying on rules of conduct to navigate intricate social networks that are essential to their survival. Ultimately, Bekoff and Pierce draw the astonishing conclusion that there is no moral gap between humans and other species: morality is an evolved trait that we unquestionably share with other social mammals. To me, my morality is more Universal Ethics and I strive to inspire that. 

Here are the universal principles of Social/Global Ethics:

*Global justice (as reflected in international laws)
*Society before self / social responsibility
*Environmental stewardship
*Interdependence & responsibility for the ‘whole’
*Reverence for place

Here are the universal principles of Professional/ Political Ethics:
*Impartiality; objectivity
*Openness; full disclosure
*Confidentiality
*Due diligence / duty of care
*Fidelity to professional responsibilities
*Avoiding potential or apparent conflict of interest

Here are the universal principles of Personal Ethics:
*Concern for the well-being of others
*Respect for the autonomy of others
*Trustworthiness & honesty
*Willing compliance with the law (with the exception of civil disobedience)
*Basic justice; being fair
*Refusing to take unfair advantage
*Benevolence: doing good
*Preventing harm (Larry Colero). 

“Damien AtHope that all sounds good, but if there is not enough food I am going to feed my kids before your kids. And I wouldn’t blame you if you did too.”  – Challenger 

My response, “All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is a declaration adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on 10 December 1948.” ref  

“Damien AtHope First, that is obviously aspirational. No sane person could think it’s actually true.” – Challenger 

My response, It, to me, is more about prescriptive or normative ethics (How should people act) than descriptive ethics (What do people think is right). And I would say that there is no such thing as “just rape” as for an actually true ethic. Descriptive ethics is a form of empirical research into the attitudes of individuals or groups of people. Because descriptive ethics involves empirical investigation, it is a field that is usually investigated by those working in the fields of evolutionary biology, psychology, sociology or anthropology. Value theory can be either normative or descriptive.  Normative ethics is the study of ethical action. It is the branch of philosophical ethics that investigates the set of questions that arise when considering how one ought to act, morally speaking. ref, ref 

“We all participate in shared fictions like money marriage and capitalism. They are real and the checks cash just fine. This is how religious belief is for billions of people. It is as real as money. It is a shared currency they all use and the checks cash. Moreover, there is no feeling-free way to arrive at facts. Science is not a dispassionate purely rational endeavor. All humans are driven by their passions and then look for facts to support them.” Challenger

My response, I am an anti-capitalist and though I don’t think it is a fiction, I do think that it is a method of oppression. Please explain what you mean by capitalism is a fiction? Do you believe you have just offered facts or your feelings? And as to your statement money is a fiction what do you mean?

Are you implying that people believe that paper money has little to no intrinsic value unto its self? If so are you implying people think it does? And as to your statement marriage is a fiction what do you mean? And as to your statement, there is no feeling-free way to arrive at facts are you saying that there are no facts? As in are you as a fact regardless of feeling or no feeling not responding to a post I made on my profile and as a fact not on your profile? Or a fact regardless of feeling or no feeling, are we not as a fact not communicating over the internet and on Facebook as well as using the English language?

Your statement, all humans are driven by their passions doesn’t prove your claims that it seems you are wanting to prove or maybe I don’t get what you mean by the word facts so then please fully explain what you mean by fact?

Faith is in favor with low truth-hobbyists or occasional truth-vacationers, who “feel” this wishful-thinking of faith without evidence or justification is then seen to them as “true” presumably because they wish to have faith in it. As in, if it feels “true-ish” to their wishes then they seem to say, hey, even if it’s a claim with a ridiculous magic assertion as long as they wish it true it is accepted as such because they want to believe, then they simply do so on faith (strong belief without evidence). 

They do so even when or if there is no proof at all. In this state of being so faith drunk, even the absurd to such a faith-affected generally see the truth in a wished belief if it involves holding a high amount of faith even over reason see “the quality of faith” as a possible pseudo-fact, which they will, of course, wish to call a fact, even though it is no such thing. 

And, upon the quicksand of the mind called FAITH, they seem to blindly believe that faith itself is some sort of magic producing evidence simply do to the faith involved in the belief as well as see this folly of faith’s “will-to-believe” as if it is some kind of actual evidence, not ever seeming to see a need to question, is really true. 

“Damien AtHope okay good that sounds a lot like WK Clifford in his ethics of belief. It also fits well with Bertrand Russell’s epistemology. But let’s follow the evidence. We have learned a lot about human knowledge since that time. Even before then Hume pointed out that reason is and ought to be a slave to the Passions. The passions tell us what we care about and we then reason toward those conclusions. In modern times we know that we are full of confirmation bias and motivated reasoning. Now this is just a descriptive not prescriptive. Many times we try to overcome our biases. But many times we don’t. For instance if there were good reasons for me to sacrifice my children, I would not be very open to that. It would violate my passions. Also on things like free will, I am fairly convinced that we do not have free will but I am just as convinced that I cannot ever feel that way. So I continue to act as if I have it and I speak as if I have it and I even make moral decisions based on myself and other people having it even while I am pretty sure we don’t. Then in the sixties Thomas Kuhn show that science is a social activity full of passion and bias and politics. That doesn’t mean it cannot arrive at the truth. We can keep science as long as we have a fallible list approach to it. We must remain aware that in any given time we all believe many false things. The difference in rational scientific people is that we are ready to give them up if something better comes along.” – Challenger 

My response, Saying we have learned a lot of evidence is not a discounting of a method of thinking nor does it provide accuracy for your many truth claims and to me actually sound like more assertions of facts to which in your first post seem to try and delude or refute in some way or amount. And I am still waiting for direct answers to my questions of your many claims, not more fact or truth claims, we can get to those but you need to answer first.

“So if all of that is correct, science is not a dispassionate detached activity. It may still be the best way to find out knowledge about the world though. The way in which money is a fiction is that it is not independently real. It is a shared system that works as long as we all agree on it. So it is not real the way the electron is real oh, but we have to say that it is real. Marriage and law firms and corporations and nations are real in this way too. Games are a great example. When we are in a video game, there are appropriate and inappropriate things to do and some things are in the world they are real and some things are not in the world, they are just absent or not real in that world. Our brains are virtual reality generators, so this comes very naturally to us. Now it seems to be a matter of psychology or preference weather we consider those virtual realities to be as significant as the external reality discovered through science. I once thought I was a hard-nosed realist, and the only real things were made out of quarks and gluons. But I am much more willing now to let things like money and commitment and language into my ontology. I think it is obvious they are real, even if they are not independently real.” – Challenger  

My response, Let’s start one by one you stated, “So if all of that is correct, science is not a dispassionate detached activity. It may still be the best way to find out knowledge about the world through.” So then please explain what that means when you stated, Science is not a dispassionate purely rational endeavor. All humans are driven by their passions, and then look for facts to support them.” is it as some proof against my post? If so how and if not was it just you offering your ideas an I wonder why and also see you did say “That doesn’t mean it cannot arrive at the truth.” what then are you responding for and to what point as I do hold that we can know though and if you agree how are you saying this is accomplished outside of science by what standard or method if you think it so dissimilar to what I have said as it seems you are both agreeing and trying to disagree unless I am misunderstanding?  Saying “The way in which money is a fiction is that it is not independently real.” I feel is odd, as in do you think or are you claiming that it is seen as a real-world product? It is seen as an agreement that relates to the ability to transfer worth thus a concept of value not limited to external reality value unto its self.  In your response about “Marriage and law firms and corporations and nations are real in this way too” again these are social contracts thus it is odd for you to say they don’t exist as some tangible thing and saying they don’t further a valuable claim, as they are not seen that way, to begin with. Thus, we are back at you need to explain why you address them as such and as they are not conceived in the way you say that would make them fictions you seem to be adding a nothing assertion that intellectually starts nowhere and then goes nowhere and thus provides nothing of real use to support your assumptions. If you feel I am misunderstanding please do fully explain. 

“The short version is that feelings are facts about people. Some feelings constitute a virtual reality for that person. And the people who accept what science says are just the people whose feelings will let them! Everyone, no matter how committed to science, has positive illusions (I’m smart, I’m loyal, I’m virtuous, I’m moral, etc) that are not based on evidence. They are feelings that are psychological and emotional facts about that person. People who can’t accept evolution or climate change are the people who have a value or passion that would be violated if they accepted them. They are like me when it comes to free will. We simply can’t feel that I don’t have it. My evolved brain and emotions don’t have that capacity. I think many religious people are so constituted that they can not accept certain things that violate their values. And we are the same, but about different things. So, I have given up saying that all people OUGHT to accept what science has to tell us. When I believed that, I didn’t know enough about psychology. Now, I can see that it’s unreasonable to expect a person to accept something that violates their values. It’s like expecting a dog to feel bad after killing a rabbit. It’s not in him.” – Challenger    

My response, Stating that “feelings are facts about people” to me is to address another point not provide me proof of your claims nor discredit my claims. If we agreed feelings are facts relating to people we would then be addressing that feelings are Phenomenology structures of experience and consciousness, not external demonstrations to real external world facts all by themselves. I imagine with all the intellectual words you seem to enjoy and have professed that you do know there is not just one type of certainty there are at least two one psychological (feelings certainty that philosophy cares little about) and epistemic certainty and that is one valued by both philosophy and science. A belief is psychologically certain when the subject who has it is supremely convinced of its truth. The second kind of certainty is epistemic. Roughly characterized, a belief is certain in this sense when it has the highest possible epistemic status. Epistemic certainty is often accompanied by psychological certainty, but it need not be. It is possible that a subject may have a belief that enjoys the highest possible epistemic status and yet be unaware that it does. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/certainty/ 

“Damien AtHope yeah well that fits with what I am saying.” – Challenger   

My response, You stated, I can see that it’s unreasonable to expect a person to accept something that violates their values.” So am I to assume you are not trying to change my thinking or approach just sharing ideas you like as it makes you happy to do so or you just have time to kill and are writing on my post making lots of claims challenging me for kicks? Surely not wanting me to accept something that violates their values, right? You offered your ideas, in my opinion, trying to directly change or challenge what I said unless you feel you where agreeing and I just misunderstand? This is a fun talk we should do a recorded video sometime. 

“Damien AtHope >you offered your ideas, in my opinion, trying to directly change or challenge what I said” I get your point, but if what I’m saying hangs together, then WHETHER my ideas are persuasive to you depends on your values. Since I don’t know you, I have no idea how they will fit with your values. Now, you could say I want others to adopt my values, but the key point I am making is that that might be impossible. If humans are constituted differently (and Haidt’s research says they are), then people can’t just change their values. They are bred into them. It’s like not feeling disgust at certain things. For instance, I am not open to changing my view of gay marriage. I support it, and I can tell I’m not open-minded about it. This makes me think that a gay marriage opponent might be made so that she can’t or won’t change her mind as well.” – Challenger  

My response, So are you open to doing a recorded video? I think it would be fun. I am an axiologist thinker thus a value theorist. I want a war of ideas where the loser is ignorance or hate and the victor is kindness and a rational mind. Not another religious war with people where the loser is always humanity no matter the victor. What I hope for with my discussions or expressed ideas is not so much to strive to change people’s mind. But instead, I wish to inspire your mind to reason and to thrive on the search for valid and reliable evidence as well as a high standard n your ethics of belief. This ethics of belief I hope everyone adopts is something like this: reasoned belief acquisitions, good belief maintenance, and honest belief relinquishment. 

 As an Axiological (value theorist) Atheist, and Claims of god are a Presumptive-Value failure. Simply, if you presume a thing is of value that you can’t justify, then you have committed an axiological presumptive value failure.

Axiological “presumptive-value” Success: Sound Thinker: uses disciplined rationality (sound axiological judgment the evaluation of evidence to make a decision) supporting a valid and reliable justification.

Axiological “presumptive-value” Failure: Shallow Thinker: undisciplined, situational, sporadic, or limited thinking (unsound axiological judgment, lacking required evidence to make a “presumptive-value” success decision) lacking the support of a needed valid and reliable justification.

Often I get disheartened to see that so many people can look at the unknown or that which is devoid of any and all understanding and claim to know that this is evidence for some god or another. How can they with all honesty even say that they somehow already know about an established scientific unknown, when all along it is what it ever was, which I will remind you, is currently holding a confirmed status of unknown. Thus, still fully intact as currently unknowable (I.e. you simply cannot justifiability claim that such unknown is god or evidence of god). What really is a god anyway? The term god equals mystery that is used to explain the mysterious leaving us with yet more mystery, thus explains nothing.

Claims of god are a Presumptive-Value failure. Simply, if you presume a thing is of value that you can’t justify, then you have committed an axiological presumptive value failure. Axiological “presumptive-value” Success: Sound Thinker: uses disciplined rationality (sound axiological judgment the evaluation of evidence to make a decision) supporting a valid and reliable justification. 

Here is a little on Axiology and Value Theory  

“Value theory is 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. This investigation began in ancient philosophy, where it is called axiology or ethics.” – Wikipedia

“The term “Value Theory” is used in at least three different ways in philosophy. In its broadest sense, “value theory” is a catch-all label used to encompass all branches of moral philosophy, social and political philosophy, aesthetics, and sometimes feminist philosophy and the philosophy of religion — whatever areas of philosophy are deemed to encompass some “evaluative” aspect. In its narrowest sense, “value theory” is used for a relatively narrow area of normative ethical theory particularly, but not exclusively, of concern to consequentialists. In this narrow sense, “value theory” is roughly synonymous with “axiology”. Axiology can be thought of as primarily concerned with classifying what things are good, and how good they are. – (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

“For instance, a traditional question of axiology concerns whether the objects of value are subjective psychological states or objective states of the world. But in a more useful sense, “value theory” designates the area of moral philosophy that is concerned with theoretical questions about value and goodness of all varieties — the theory of value. The theory of value, so construed, encompasses axiology, but also includes many other questions about the nature of value and its relation to other moral categories.” – (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

“The division of moral theory into the theory of value, as contrasting with other areas of investigation, cross-cuts the traditional classification of moral theory into normative and metaethical inquiry, but is a worthy distinction in its own right; theoretical questions about value constitute a core domain of interest in moral theory, often cross the boundaries between the normative and the metaethical, and have a distinguished history of investigation.” – (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

Faith is not ever needed.

There is no requirement to use faith we can use conjecture or inference faith is not needed. Conjecture involves forming an opinion or supposition about (something) on the basis of incomplete information. Inference involves forming a conclusion reached on the basis of evidence and reasoning. Religious beliefs often don’t stay in the “belief” category, as if it is something chosen temporarily if needed or changeable if required. No, what is most common is that religious beliefs are completely infused to the person’s identity, thus it’s not what they believe it is more a factor of who they are. 

What this means is if they are later challenged and given reason to let the belief go this is largely disrupted because they and the belief are mixed with the person’s identity making its loss, not just a possible belief loss but a perceived personal identity loss. Religions continuing in our modern world, full of science and facts, should be seen as little more than a set of irrational conspiracy theories of reality. Nothing more than a confused reality made up of unscientific echoes from man’s ancient past. Rational thinkers must ask themselves, why continue to believe in religions’ stories? 

Religion myths which are nothing more than childlike stories and obsolete tales once used to explain how the world works, acting like magic was needed when it was always only nature. These childlike religious stories should not even be taken seriously, but sadly too often they are. Often without realizing it, we accumulate beliefs that we allow to negatively influence our lives. In order to bring about awareness, we need to be willing to alter skewed beliefs. Rational thinkers must examine the facts instead of blindly following beliefs or faith.

To me, there simply is and rightly must be an intellectual “ethical-belief-responsibility” (burden of proof) to justify the believed truth that is claimed to others is actually demonstrably as being true with valid and reliable reason and/or evidence when it is stated as such. Yes, intellectually one should provide (justificationism) for their assertions that map the sort of governing good habits of belief-formation, belief-maintenance, and belief-relinquishment.  

If you are a religious believer, may I remind you that faith in the acquisition of knowledge is not a valid method worth believing in. Because, what proof is “faith”, of anything religion claims by faith, as many people have different faith even in the same religion?  

I do not respect faith, but I do respect people. Simply I value the sanctity of “human rights” and the dignity of every person to self define their beliefs and do not attack people because of what they believe. I say attack thinking not people. 

Truth Navigation: Techniques for Discussions or Debates

I do truth navigation, both inquiry questions as well as strategic facts in a tag team of debate and motivational teaching.

Truth Navigation and the fallacy of Fideism “faith-ism”

Compare ideas not people, attack thinking and not people. In this way, we have a higher chance to promote change because it’s the thinking we can help change if we address the thinking and don’t attack them.

My eclectic set of tools for my style I call “Truth Navigation” (Techniques for Discussions or Debates) which involves:

Asking the right questions at the right time with the right info can also change minds, you can’t just use facts all on their own. Denial likes consistency, the pattern of thinking cannot vary from a fixed standard of thinking, or the risk of truth could slip in. Helping people alter skewed thinking is indeed a large task but most definitely a worthy endeavor. Some of my ideas are because I am educated both some in college (BA in Psychology with addiction treatment, sociology, and a little teaching and criminology) and also as an autodidact I have become somewhat educated in philosophy, science, archeology, anthropology, and history but this is not the only reason for all my ideas. It is also because I am a deep thinker, just striving for truth. Moreover, I am a seeker of truth and a lover of that which is true.

Faith Drunk thinking:

Divine fallacy, Argument from Incredulity, and Argument from ignorance

“Damien, perhaps it isn’t as clear-cut as we think. The universe being a physical entity stretching into infinity is very difficult to wrap our minds around, but stretching into infinity is not as difficult in our imagination. What if reality is more perception than physical? Isn’t imagination more in tune with infinity than something physical? Could it be collective consciousness that created the universe and everything in it? I agree a glorified version of man is not the creator of the universe, especially one that suffers the same childishly immature emotions that plague mankind such as jealousy and vengeance.” – Challenger

My response, (Isn’t imagination more in tune with infinity) a logical fallacy as it is irrelevant to the accuracy of reality. To the question (What if reality is more perception than physical?) No, as there is no universal state of all human perception equally, perception is fluid reality is not. So no reality is not simply perception. And, to the question (Could it be collective consciousness that created the universe) Again, no there is reality consistent outside human perceptions including collective, “whatever that means” or otherwise and if reality was due only to perceptions collective, whatever it would be fluid and as it is not that can’t remove them as invalid.

Divine fallacy

The divine fallacy is an informal fallacy that often happens when people say something must be the result of superior, divine, alien or supernatural cause because it is unimaginable for it not to be so. A similar fallacy, known as an argument from incredulity, appeal to common sense, or personal incredulity, asserts that because something is so incredible or difficult to imagine, it is wrong. Arguments from incredulity are called non sequiturs. Arguments from incredulity can take the form:

  1. I cannot imagine how P could be true; therefore P must be false.
  2. I cannot imagine how P could be false; therefore P must be true.

Arguments from incredulity happen when people make their inability to comprehend or make sense of a concept in their argument.

References

  1. Sen, Madhucchanda (2011). An Introduction to Critical Thinking. Pearson Education India. Retrieved 2016-11-26.
  2. Carroll, Robert T.“divine fallacy (argument from incredulity)”. The Skeptic’s Dictionary. Retrieved 5 April 2013.
  3. Divine fallacy – European Society for General Semantics
  4. Personal incredulity – yourlogicalfallacyis.com
  5. “Toolkit for Thinking”. ref

Argument from incredulity

The argument from incredulity is a logical fallacy that occurs when someone decides that something did not happen, because they cannot personally understand how it could happen. The fallacy is an argument from ignorance and an informal fallacy.

The fallacy lies in the unstated premise. If a state of affairs is impossible to imagine, it doesn’t follow that it is false; it may only mean that imagination is limited. Moreover, if no one has yet managed to imagine how a state of affairs is possible, it doesn’t follow that no one will ever be able to. If there is positive evidence for the conclusion, then, of course, we have other reasons for accepting it, but a lack of proof it is true is not proof it is false. (Where ‘proof’ means the cogency of evidence that compels acceptance of a truth, or the process of establishing the validity of a statement by derivation from other statements in accordance with principles of reasoning.) Forbidding this type of reasoning is not the same as a reasonable “presumption” (such as the presumption of ‘No guilt’ in court) like this: Any proposition like “There is X” is reasonably presumed false (not argued false, just presumed false, taken for granted) unless proven true. This is a basic principle of logic since the burden of proof can never be shifted to the negation in any case. ref

Example: The Big Bang Theory doesn’t make any sense to me, therefore it could not have happened.

Personal incredulity: Another form, the argument from personal incredulity, takes the form “I can’t believe P, therefore not-P.” Merely because one cannot believe that, for example, homeopathy is no more than a placebo does not magically make such treatment effective. Clinical trials are deliberately designed in such a way that an individual personal experience is not important compared to data in aggregate. Human beings have extremely advanced pattern recognition skills, to the extent that they are objectively poor judges of probability. ref

  • “This is unexplainable” (meaning, of course, “I can’t explain this”). This is the argument from personal incredulity, and it contains the (usually unwritten) assumption that the speaker is a superhuman genius who should be able to understand everything -unless they are missing an assumption. So the superhuman genius concludes that some assumption (‘God did it’, ‘aliens did it’, ‘psi was involved’ or whichever) is true, because it makes things easier to understand.
  • For example: “There is no way I can explain how the human mind really works using conventional physics. (Unwritten assumption: If the brain really was governed by simple physics, I should be able to understand it). Therefore, it must be tapping into the computational power of the quantum universe.” ref

General incredulity: Sometimes argument from incredulity is applied to epistemological statements, taking the form “One can’t imagine how one could know whether P or not-P, therefore it is unknowable whether P or not-P.” This is employed by some (though not all) strong agnostics who say it is unknowable whether gods exist. The argument, in this case, is, “No one has thought of a way to determine whether there are gods, so there is no way.” The implied major premise, “If there were such a way, someone would have thought of it,” is disputable. ref

Argument from ignorance

An argument from ignorance (Latin: argumentum ad ignorantiam), or appeal to ignorance (‘ignorance’ stands for “lack of evidence to the contrary“), is a fallacy in informal logic. It says something is true because it has not yet been proved false. Or, that something is false if it has not yet been proved true. This is also called a negative proof fallacy. This also includes the (false) assumption there are only two options (true or false). There may be as many as four choices: 1. true, 2. false, 3. unknown, or 4. unknowable. Appeals to ignorance are often used to suggest the other side needs to do the proving. Rules of logic place the burden (responsibility) of proving something on the person making the claim. A logical fallacy is simply a bad argument. Using bad logic does not necessarily mean the argument is false (or true). It is basically a hasty conclusion, one that is arrived at incorrectly. But it still may be convincing to some audiences. This is why it is used in politics and advertising. ref

The God Fallacy

To me, the God Fallacy is that there is no epistemically warranted or justifiably reliable evidence for god(s) existence; most ideas offered are stretches of unreason promoting seemingly implausible knowledge or reality claims. Moreover, beyond this is the self-evident realization that there is no reliable and /or verifiable evidence that could be used to define what god term actually is or could be assured to involve. Because it is never good to just randomly conceptualize or fabricate from bias trying to force connections into existence. epistemically warranted or justifiably reliable evidence or even a preset of proofs that do not hold gaps a believer want to fill with an arbitrary beliefs things need a god explanation and yet again what does god even mean. One his furthered nothing with god talk until they offer clear links to understand what could rightly make up the empty term g. o. d. (Group Originated Delusion).

Any reasonable thinker should conclude that clear links to any knowledge are required to comprehend what to ask, where to look, or what to state is involved. This would seem especially important since what is on the line is the actual truth or falsehood of the great believed “IT” of somethingism. Do you wish to just assemble or make up your god thinking as you go, greedily forcing anything that seems slow enough to not get away or is the actual truth in reality you seek even if godless as finding the true is the main pursuit, as your aim is what true right, taken with the deepest integrity? One should desire such intellectual rigor in order to even distinguish if we need to inquire or have a way to question a possibility of existence, as this empty termed “it” god of nothingism is unknown in every way even in its “it” status outside of faith superstitions, Dogmatic–Propaganda, delusion, myths and lies.

Religion is just Dogmatic–Propaganda, such as how it is wrong to start with full belief built only upon faith: then search and anything unknown, claiming it somehow justifies or is evidence for their specific God Fallacy.

Another attribute of the God Fallacy is that believers seem to insinuate, if they can in anyway demonstrate (even the possibility of a thing that could seem to be a something attributed to a god) then they have proved that the god they believe in is true. And yet is it not true that man will always fail to prove a specific god? Religion is big on claims but small on reasoning. Take the Abrahamic faiths; they propose a very specific, well-defined god, but in reality, they advocate a very unspecified god; a naturalistic, inferred-theistic-creationism or the god of intelligent design. In other words, when pressed to demonstrate god in the world, or as the reason for the big bang, they can at best only try to surmise a magical power or unknown and unknowable possible something as the “creator.” But the question needs to asked, how does that prove any specific god? So even if we were to concede, for the sake of argument, that some god, phantom-menace started things, they still have to show that this god is the very same as the god in which they believe.

The truth is, for all the appeals they make to nature in order to justify their god, not one appeal is valid in any way to confirm that their god (and only their god) is true, they must always leave the facts and return to faith. Thus, these haughty theists always fail to show any naturalistic reasons for believing in their special-needs god. What they show instead is a belief, not in the god of some myth or scriptures, but belief in a projected somethingism-god attributed to nature, which is indistinguishable from a nothingism, godless reality attributed by nature. 

However, the issues don’t stop there, as they also would have to prove, or give warrant, as well as justification for every attribute and claimed character trait attached to their specific god using only natural arguments, not some Holy Book or otherworldly revelation. Facts are labels, just like truth, that we put on claims we think are proven somehow, in that assertions are believed to match the state of affairs (if you are making realistic assumptions from science then likely supported by the beliefs in science realism), that generally promote the Correspondence theory of truth “similar to both Rationalism and Empiricism” or coherence theory of truth “similar to just Rationalism” its all still epistemic property of beliefs, whether one’s claim is of knowledge or certainty.

People all the time talk about, “I believe” in regards to religion and gods. No, likely you never had a chance to first investigate all the facts then choose what to believe or not believe. You like everyone else raised in a religious house where indoctrinated to the same religion your family held before your birth. So you did not so much “believe” as “give in and slavishly agreed” to what you were told. Thus, you are more rightly called an agreer then a believer, especially when you don’t read the holy book you say you totally believe in. It seems to me, religious believers are usually ignorant of the truth or willfully uninformed, foolish or indoctrinated to keep believing these conspiracy theories of reality that religions are with their magic claims, when presented with the facts and stupid or brainwashed to keep believing when they realize that the beliefs they have contained falsehoods, inaccurate information, or lies.

As an atheist, I feel more wonder than I did as a theist because I thought, “big deal” to any wonder I experienced, thinking god could do anything. So with such an unrealistic mindset, everything lost its wonder but it’s the opposite as an atheist. As a theist, the world was full of superstitions and supernatural magic possibilities and thus utilized thinking that was not in the real world. As an atheist all I have now is the real world, not that all atheists seem to get this, we all are in a real world devoid of magic anything, therefore, everything adds to my feeling of awe. There should be little debate with atheist acknowledging discernable reality compared to theists with non-reality claims. Yes, I have way more awe and wonder as an atheist than I ever had as a theist because as a theist anything was possible with god. 

Therefore, as a theist things where not that amazing. However, as an atheist grasping what an absolute accidental or how random things are, with a 95 to 99 % of all life ever existing on this planet went extinct. I am thoroughly amazed we are even here the evolved children of ancient exploded stars, likely born in galaxies born in supermassive black holes, it’s all amazing. I am all for free thinking, if the evidence is there. Great, go down the rabbit hole but do not eat the rabbit shit offered as real; when its proof disappears like a mental mirage, gone in a poof magic as simple as the magical thinking that inspires all manner of flawed beliefs.

If the only rights you fight for are your own, then you have a lot to learn about the value of rights.

Religion has been a reason for violence and harm and at times a promoter of peace. Science does not need to fill the gap of religion. We need to remove it as it was always an abstraction not a realistic thing to being with. Not one thing religion offers that is thought of as good that cannot be done by persons not following any religion. Atheist generally is simply life with religion removed, all its pseudo meaning as well as pseudoscience, pseudohistory, and pseudo-morality. We have real science, realistic history and can access real morality with a blend of philosophy, anthropology, psychology, sociology and cognitive science. 

World, do you hear me now, because you were nothing but silent as I suffered extreme religious oppression and to this news, you simply spit in my face telling my religious freedom and all I can think is, no, you mean my parent’s religious freedom, which may I remind you is a violation of my religious freedom and was instead my religious oppression. Where are you now, while millions await this same fate if you keep doing nothing? I fell as you tripped me again and from your hate, I remove myself from such mind and being corruption freely walking into the gates of love so longed for. You have not beaten me, you cannot stop me, you don’t want me to live, to thrive, to be all the best I can be but you hate and yet I am still here, a survivor, a full life liver, a thriver, as well as a warrior for kindness and compassion, reaching the care I was rarely offered, as a gift to the ones so desperately oppressed under your harsh gaze. 

May we all be free and the positive best we can be, I know I am as best I can. I am here growing stronger every day. Who am I, you ask, I respond loud and proud, I am a survivor and even in these chains from my past, you will not stop me. Sometimes, we need to see the truth, that many people are liars and deniers while claiming they are believers. Once we stop seeing the dignity of others we feel free to violate them with impunity. But when dignity is a friend respect has become once path. May I not be a silent watcher as millions of children are subjugated almost before their birth let alone when they can understand the thought and are forcibly coerced, compelled, constrained, and indoctrinated in the mental pollution that religion can be. 

Religion is an “Evolved Product” and yes, religion is like fear given wings. And, it seems ancient peoples had to survived amazing threats in a “dangerous universe (by superstition perceived as good and evil),” and human “immorality or imperfection of the soul” which was thought to affect the still living, leading to ancestor worship. This ancestor worship presumably led to the belief in supernatural beings, and then some of these were turned into the belief in gods. This feeble myth called gods were just a human conceived “made from nothing into something over and over, changing, again and again, taking on more as they evolve, all the while they are thought to be special,” but it is just supernatural animistic spirit-belief perceived as sacred. 

Quick Evolution of Religion? 

So, it all starts in a general way with Animism (theoretical belief in supernatural powers/spirits), then this is physically expressed in or with Totemism (theoretical belief in mythical relationship with powers/spirits through a totem item), which then enlists a full-time specific person to do this worship and believed interacting Shamanism (theoretical belief in access and influence with spirits through ritual), and then there is the further employment of myths and gods added to all the above giving you Paganism (often a lot more nature-based than most current top world religions, thus hinting to their close link to more ancient religious thinking it stems from). My hypothesis is expressed with an explanation of the building of a theatrical house (modern religions development).

Let’s make it simple:

Atheism is the reality position.

Theism is the anti-reality position!

I don’t need religion or its fake gods.

“Reason is my only master.”

I am will to power!

My main goal against religion is to fully stop as much as possible forced indoctrination, one could ask but then why do I challenge all adults faith? well, who do you think is doing the lying to children in the first place. End Hereditary religion, if its a belief let them the equal right to choose to believe.

If the only rights you fight for are your own, then you have a lot to learn about the value of rights.

Childhood Indoctrination is often the gateway drug,

to a life of irrational magical thinking superstitions, like ghosts, gods, or guardian spirits.

The Mental Parasite Called God?

God is not simply a myth, it a mental parasite feeding off your life, is like a mental prison concept, disemboweling you, and any religion that supports the concept of god(s), becomes like a controlling jailer to the mind of the god believer. What is love, if it is so cheap, that it is for wholesale to myths? To me, it is truly a sad thing, when you have people offer more love to an unknown and at best unproven thing they call god; not even evident in this world, over real people, even loved ones, which are known in this world. Sadly, all too often a mind full of god(s) myths have no appetite for reason.I am an anti-religionist, not just an atheist, and here is why summed up in three ideas I am against. 

And, in which these three things are common in all religions: “pseudo-science”, “pseudo-history”, and “pseudo-morality”. And my biggest thing of all is the widespread forced indoctrination of children, violating their free choice of what to not believe or believe, I hate forced hereditary religion. And my biggest thing of all is the widespread forced indoctrination of children, violating their free choice of what to not believe or believe, I hate forced hereditary religion. As well as wish to offer strong critiques regarding the pseudo-meaning of the “three letter noise” people call “G.o.d” (group originated delusion)!

It seems, in general, the less education and higher poverty have a higher correlation to being religious.

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

“I often find that the quality of a person is written in their thinking and behavior.”

The Faith Fallacy vs. Critical Thinking

The faith fallacy is an impairment in critical thinking starting and ending with circular reasoning assuming they are right, such as the act of faith validating faith (begging the question fallacy); makes jumps in logic that don’t follow logic (non-sequitur fallacy); questionable cause like proposing false cause and effect (post hoc fallacy); incomplete evidence, suppressing evidence, or selectively uses facts a propaganda technique (cherry picking fallacy); makes false or misleading comparisons (false equivalence or analogy fallacy); overgeneralizes (hasty or faulty generalization fallacy) asserts that lots of peoples agree (bandwagon fallacy) asks for special treatment or a double standard, attempting an exception for faith (Special pleading fallacy). Contrary to the faith fallacy tactics of using fallacious reasoning to try to persuade blind faith, critical thinkers would try to persuade by offering relevant evidence and valid reasoning, that a conclusion is true or likely to be true.

Dogmatic-Propaganda Fallacies and the fallacy of Fideism “faith-ism”

Truth Navigation and the fallacy of Fideism “faith-ism”

Fideism/Faith-ism (“faith-drunk-thinkers”)

Here are three favorite logical fallacies of religionists and fideists and their Dogmatic-Propaganda:

  • Complex Question Fallacy and Appeal to Ignorance Fallacy, which is often used in tandem kind of like this, the universe had a beginning, and if god was not the power before the beginning of the universe you must explain what was. So if you cannot prove that god was not the power before the beginning or that god is not needed or does not exist, that means god was the needed power to create the universe and god must exist.
  • The Complex Question Fallacy is roughly when someone asks a question that presupposes something (often with loaded language or questions) that is not proven. wiki/Complex_question
  • The Appeal to Ignorance Fallacy is roughly acting that something must be true because it has not been, or cannot be, proven false even if it has not in any way ben demonstrated as true. wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

Dealing with Presuppositionalism, a school of Christian apologetics (Fascistic Fideism or “faith-ism”)

Fideism (faith-ism) is Theistic Reality Confusion

The god claim is a clown car in the magic big top of Fideism!

Dogmatic-Propaganda Must not go Unchallenged

Religionists like to act as if it is they who are being persecuted when it is them forcing what and how they believe on others and asking stupid questions to atheists, such as, I do not understand why you cannot just let religion believers live and let live. I could say, I don’t understand why religious never has, nor ever will just live and let live. However, I already know why, they are Dogmatic-Propaganda that wishes self-replication and oppression of those who don’t fall in line and thus every ethical rational thinker must see this as the enemy to a civil humanity that it is, has been and will continue to be if left unchallenged.

Hate the Dogmatic-Propaganda Not the People

Religion is a joke to rationality, that sadly, too many believe. I hate the Dogmatic-Propaganda that is religion, not the indoctrinated victims who believe it. Of course, that concession is only for the flawed belief. As I do hold people accountable for harmful behaviors and religion as it is today is not a reason for harm, it is a commonly used excuse employed by those who wish to harm.

Dogmatic–Propaganda vs. Disciplined-Rationality

Religionists and fideists promote Dogmatic-Propaganda, whereas atheists and anti-religionists mostly promote Disciplined-Rationality.

Dogmatic–Propaganda commonly is a standard motivator of flawed or irrational thinking but with over seventy belief biases identified in people, this is hardly limited to just the religious or faith inclined. Let me illustrate what I am saying, to me all theists are believing lies or irrationally in that aspect of their lives relating to god belief. So the fact of any other common intellectual indexers where there may be right reason in beliefs cannot remove the flawed god belief corruption being committed. What I am saying is like this if you kill one person you are a killer. If you believe in one god you are a follower of Dogmatic-Propaganda and can not completely be a follower of Disciplined-Rationality. However, I am not proclaiming all atheists are always rational as irrationally is revolving door many people believe or otherwise seem to stumble through. It’s just that god belief does this with intentionally.

Disciplined-Rationality is motivated to principles of correct reasoning with emphasis on valid and reliable methods or theories leading to a range of rational standpoints or conclusions understanding that concepts and beliefs often have consequences thus hold an imperative for truth or at least as close to truth as can be acquired rejecting untruth. Disciplined-Rationality can be seen as an aid in understanding the fundamentals for knowledge, sound evidence, justified true belief and involves things like decision theory and the concern with identifying the value(s), reasonableness, verification, certainties, uncertainties and other relevant issues resulting in the most clear optimal decision/conclusion and/or belief/disbelief. Disciplined-Rationality attempts to understand the justification or lack thereof in propositions and beliefs concerning its self with various epistemic features of belief, truth, and/or knowledge, which include the ideas of justification, warrant, rationality, reliability, validity, and probability. ref, ref

ps. “Dogmatic–Propaganda” & “Disciplined-Rationality” are concepts/terms I created*

A General Thinking in all My Epistemology Theorizing is Justificationism

Trying to Help Promote Knowledge: Philosophy and Science.

Belief-Etiquette

I value good Belief-Etiquette: reasoned belief-acquisitions, good belief-maintenance, and honest belief relinquishment. I am first always a rationalist, as reason is my only master. May I always be a truth seeker and not a blind faith believer. Thinking is good and one claiming otherwise is indeed a person erroring in reason. Which may I remind you is terrible since the most Base Presupposition in our understanding of everything begins in reason.

What we generally call “truth” is a “value judgment” of what we believe is the reality of the case. So, a claim of truth then like all claims needs some type supporting justification. The claim of truth’s integrity requires testing of what the theme of the offered truth involves if validly justified it should not be distrusted. However, if the claim of truth’s integrity is not justified then the term “Truth” has not been itself attacked rather it’s the using the word “Truth” that cannot substantiate the term that it should be distrusted because it is seemingly in error or a lie-pseudo truth. 

Therefore, the user/claimer of the improper use of the word “Truth” but believe in and promote pseudo-truth because it does not have a sound basis in logic or fact demonstrate the validity and reliability of their truth assertion. So, I love truth, its claims of the term “Truth” with no justification that I can’t stand because such claims are pseudo-truth. It’s like how science as a term is quite corrupted by pseudoscience right? 

Yes and No. Yes, because fake science is believed as real science where the user/claimer of the improper use of the word “Science” believe in and promote pseudo-science but because it does not have a sound basis in logic or fact demonstrate the validity and reliability of their truth assertion. However, we can know science from pseudoscience as the term is given other methodological structure to which to evaluate then prove true science or prove a claim as not science and in fact pseudoscience so to do we sadly have to a methodological structure to prove a claim as not truth and in fact pseudo-truth.

Good Belief-Etiquette = Disciplined-Rationality (addressing The Ethics of Belief)

The Way of a Sound Thinker?

Sound thinking to me, in a general way, is thinking, reasoning, or belief that tends to make foresight a desire to be as accurate as one can with valid and reliable reason and evidence.

A shallow thinker quickly talks, often with boastful postulations, likely just as often pushed strongly and loudly as if this adds substance, and they do this before fully understanding what’s is really involved. Whereas, a Sound Thinker first poses Questions to understand slowing down and assessing all the facts or factors involved and then builds their argument or ideas.

A Sound Thinker: uses disciplined rationality

A Shallow Thinker: undisciplined, situational, sporadic, or limited thinking.

Truth Navigation: Techniques for Discussions or Debates

I do truth navigation, both inquiry questions as well as

strategic facts in a tag team of debate and motivational teaching.

What we generally call “truth” is a “value judgment” of what we believe is the reality of the case. So, a claim of truth then like all claims needs some type supporting justification. The claim of truth’s integrity requires testing of what the theme of the offered truth involves if validly justified it should not be distrusted. However, if the claim of truth’s integrity is not justified then the term “Truth” has not been itself attacked rather it’s the using the word “Truth” that cannot substantiate the term that it should be distrusted because it is seemingly in error or a lie-pseudo truth. Therefore, the user/claimer of the improper use of the word “Truth” but believe in and promote pseudo-truth because it does not have a sound basis in logic or fact demonstrate the validity and reliability of their truth assertion. 

So, I love truth, its claims of the term “Truth” with no justification that I can’t stand because such claims are pseudo-truth. It’s like how science as a term is quite corrupted by pseudoscience right? Yes and No. Yes, because fake science is believed as real science where the user/claimer of the improper use of the word “Science” believe in and promote pseudo-science but because it does not have a sound basis in logic or fact demonstrate the validity and reliability of their truth assertion. However, we can know science from pseudoscience as the term is given other methodological structure to which to evaluate then prove true science or prove a claim as not science and in fact pseudoscience so to do we sadly have to a methodological structure to prove a claim as not truth and in fact pseudo-truth.

Hammer of Truth: Yes, you too, have lots of beliefs…

I don’t believe in religion, I believe in people. I don’t respect religion, I respect people. I attack bad thinking and bad behaviors, not people. I do not hate religious people, I hate the religion they are indoctrinated in and I speak out to stop the indifference to the harm religions can cause as well as the ignorance they support. Hell yes, I am against the fraud that is the world religions.

Why not be against the promotion of woo-woo pseudo-truth, when I am very against all pseudo-science, pseudo-history, and pseudo-morality and the harm they can produce. Along with the hate, such as sexism and homophobia are too often seen or the forced indoctrination of children. And this coercive indoctrination of the world religions, with their pseudo-science, pseudo-history, and pseudo-morality mainly furthered by forced Hereditary Religion (family or cultural, religious beliefs forced on children because the parent or caregiver believes that way). This is sadly done, even before a child can be expected to successfully navigate reason; it’s almost as if religious parents believe their “woo-woo pseudo-truth” lies will not be so easily accepted if they wait on a mind that can make its own choice. Because we do see how hard it is for the ones forced into Hereditary Religion.

It seems difficult for them to successfully navigate reason in relation to their woo-woo pseudo-truth, found in a religion they were indoctrinationally taught to prefer, because after being instructed on how to discern pseudo-truth as truth than just wishing that their blind servitude belief in a brand of religious pseudo-truth devoid of justified, valid or reliable reason and evidence. I care because I am a rationalist, as well as an atheist. Thus, this religious set of “woo-woo pseudo-truth” pushed on the simple-minded as truth bothers me greatly. So, here it is as simple as I can make it you first need a good thinking standard to address beliefs one may approach as a possible belief warranted to be believed. I wish to smash that lying pig of religion with the Hammer of Truth: Ontology, Epistemology, and Axiology Questions (a methodological use of philosophy).

Overall, I wish to promote in my self and for others; to value a worthy belief etiquette, one that desires a sound accuracy and correspondence to the truth: Reasoned belief acquisitions, good belief maintenance, and honest belief relinquishment. May we all be authenticly truthful rationalists that put facts over faith. Calling out a liar is not the same as lying.

I am a BIG fan of the truth.

“Where did you find it?! Mankind has been diligently seeking truth since time memorial!” – Challenger

My response, Your statement is a “truth claim” right after asking about truth: “Where did you find it?! Mankind has been diligently seeking truth since time memorial! (a “truth claim” emphasized with two exclamation marks seeming to demonstrate that you believed you had said a confirmed truth. So you do believe you have found a truth while acting as if you don’t know, and seemingly by your strength of assertion, believe I guess, that no one can but here I am teaching you truth!!!I have been asked before, how can I stand to deal with illogical, ones lacking critical thinking, the unreasonable, misinformed but fully believe, deliberately uninformed or deluded people, often so kindly? 

Well, I believe in others, or at least their ability to reason even if you don’t know how or are not paying attention currently. I can do deal with most people as I am often fighting for them even if they only feel I am against them and it usually is not that hard to do with a heart of compassion, as I care for the future of humanity and people have value. And, if people don’t listen or grasp logic, I try something else like reasoning. If they will not listen or grasp reasoning, I will try just getting them to think, maybe on something they can agree or they do understand trying to work them back to the rationalism they are not getting or are avoiding. 

Then, if I can get them to reason, I build that up to logic. If they don’t seem to get them to thinking or are trying to avoid I can draw them back to feelings, maybe on something they can agree or they do understand trying to work them back to thinking, then reasoning, and then finally back to logic with which they are not getting or are avoiding. In a general way, all reality, in a philosophic sense, is an emergent property of reason, and knowing how reason accrues does not remove its warrant. Feelings are experienced then perceived, leading to thinking, right thinking is reason, right reason is logic, right logic is mathematics, right mathematics is physics and from there all science.

Here is why “Reason is my only master”

The most Base Presupposition begins in reason. Reason is needed for logic (logic is realized by the aid of reason enriching its axioms). Logic is needed for axiology/value theory (axiology is realized by the aid of logic). Axiology is needed for epistemology (epistemology is realized by aid of axiology value judge and enrich its value assumptions as valid or not). Epistemology is needed for a good ontology (ontology is realized by the aid of epistemology justified assumptions/realizations/conclusions). Then when one possesses a good ontology (fortified with valid and reliable reason and evidence) they can then say they know the ontology of that thing. 

So, I think, right thinking is reason. Right reason is logic. Right logic, can be used for mathematics and from there we can get to science. And, by this methodological approach, we get one of the best ways of knowing the scientific method. Activating experience/event occurs, eliciting our feelings/scenes. Then naive thoughts occur, eliciting emotions as a response. Then it is our emotional intelligence over emotional hijacking, which entrance us but are unavoidable and that it is the navigating this successfully in a methodological way we call critical thinking or as In just call right thinking. 

Thus, to me, could be termed “Right” thinking, that is referring to a kind of methodological thinking. Reason is at the base of everything and it builds up from pragmatic approaches. And, to me, there are three main approaches to truth (ontology of truth) from the very subjective (Pragmatic theory of truth), to subjective (Coherence theory of truth), then onto objective (Correspondence theory of truth) but remember that this process as limited as it can be, is the best we have and we build one truth on top another like blocks to a wall of truth.

Pragmatic theory of truth, Coherence theory of truth, and Correspondence theory of truth

Some think they don’t have beliefs and in fact, the belief you don’t have beliefs, is, itself a belief. Thus, I wish to help people increase their philosophic accuracy by understanding beliefs and how the terms facts, truth, knowledge, certainty, as well as objective and how every one of them are labels that we believe in as “markers of accuracy” in one’s belief and the actual state of afters. In addition, how they are all still connected in that they are all epistemic properties of beliefs. Yes, facts are labels, just like truth, that we put on claims we think are proven somehow, in that assertions are believed to match the state of affairs (if you are making realistic assumptions from science then likely supported by the beliefs in science realism), that generally promote the Correspondence theory of truth “similar to both Rationalism and Empiricism” or coherence theory of truth “similar to just Rationalism” its all still epistemic property of beliefs, whether one’s claim is of knowledge or certainty.

Science is not common sense?

Science is quite the opposite of just common sense. To me, common sense in a relative way as it generally relates to the reality of things in the world, will involve “naive realism.” Whereas, most of those who are scientific thinkers, generally hold more to scientific realism or other stances far removed from the limited common sense naive realism. Science is a multidisciplinary methodological quest for truth. Science is understanding what is, while religion is wishing on what is not.

Religion vs. Science, Don’t Confuse Beliefs

A basic outline of scientific epistemology:

Science: Hypotheses (Rationalism/Deductive, Inductive, or Abductive Reasoning etc.) + Testing (Empiricism/Systematic Observation) – Checking for errors (Skepticism/Fallibilism) + Interpret/Draw a Conclusion (Rationalism/Deductive, Inductive, or Abductive Reasoning etc.) *if valid* = Scientific Laws (describes observed phenomena) or Scientific Theory (substantiated and repeatedly tested explanation of phenomena) = Justified True Belief = Scientific Knowledge = Epistemic Certainty supportive of correctability*being epistemically certain, is believing a truth has the highest epistemic status, often with warranted psychological certainty but it may not, neither is it a requirement*

“Damien, I have a question: Who/what gives humans value?” – Challenger 

My response, We give value, as value is an awareness and judgment, it is an emergent property of validation; the ability to use critical thinking and logic in a useful way, to conclude worth, benefit, or good. 

Psychological certainty and Epistemic certainty:Link

What is belief? (philosophy):Link

What is belief? (neuroscience):Link

What is belief? (Psychology):Link

Yes, We All Have Beliefs; But What Does That Mean?: Link

To Dispel Myths, Redirect the Belief

Beliefs can be hard to change, even if they are scientifically wrong. But those on the fence about an idea can be swayed after hearing facts related to the misinformation, according to a study led by Princeton University. ref

Faith seems to be found among the foolish but is an imprisoned tormented fool among the wise. Faith is like the Gloryhole of bad thinking and the Champion of unsupported beliefs. I reject the notion that humans are born with the inclination for Religion. Rather, we are born with a superstitious Animism thinking mind until the age of about 7 years old and it is out of this child like daydreaming that Religion emerges with the help of people desiring to control. 

Supporting truth in the face of lies is a kindness to humanity.

My thoughts on the Evolution of Religion: from Animism to Paganism

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

Talking about “Religion and Deity Evolution” on Twitter (X) Questions and Answers

You can’t change people, by reason and evidence. WRONG, I do it all the time.

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

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

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

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

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

ref, ref, ref

“Theists, there has to be a god, as something can not come from nothing.”

Well, thus something (unknown) happened and then there was something. This does not tell us what the something that may have been involved with something coming from nothing. A supposed first cause, thus something (unknown) happened and then there was something is not an open invitation to claim it as known, neither is it justified to call or label such an unknown as anything, especially an unsubstantiated magical thinking belief born of mythology and religious storytelling.

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Advocating Anarchism: Morality, Non-coercion, Anti-hierarchy, Solidarity, Internationalism, Mutualism, Cooperationism, Empowermentism, etc.

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

While hallucinogens are associated with shamanism, it is alcohol that is associated with paganism.

The Atheist-Humanist-Leftist Revolutionaries Shows in the prehistory series:

Show one: Prehistory: related to “Anarchism and Socialism” the division of labor, power, rights, and recourses.

Show two: Pre-animism 300,000 years old and animism 100,000 years old: related to “Anarchism and Socialism”

Show tree: Totemism 50,000 years old: related to “Anarchism and Socialism”

Show four: Shamanism 30,000 years old: related to “Anarchism and Socialism”

Show five: Paganism 12,000 years old: related to “Anarchism and Socialism”

Show six: Emergence of hierarchy, sexism, slavery, and the new male god dominance: Paganism 7,000-5,000 years old: related to “Anarchism and Socialism” (Capitalism) (World War 0) Elite and their slaves!

Show seven: Paganism 5,000 years old: progressed organized religion and the state: related to “Anarchism and Socialism” (Kings and the Rise of the State)

Show eight: Paganism 4,000 years old: Moralistic gods after the rise of Statism and often support Statism/Kings: related to “Anarchism and Socialism” (First Moralistic gods, then the Origin time of Monotheism)

Prehistory: related to “Anarchism and Socialism” the division of labor, power, rights, and recourses: VIDEO

Pre-animism 300,000 years old and animism 100,000 years old: related to “Anarchism and Socialism”: VIDEO

Totemism 50,000 years old: related to “Anarchism and Socialism”: VIDEO

Shamanism 30,000 years old: related to “Anarchism and Socialism”: VIDEO

Paganism 12,000 years old: related to “Anarchism and Socialism” (Pre-Capitalism): VIDEO

Paganism 7,000-5,000 years old: related to “Anarchism and Socialism” (Capitalism) (World War 0) Elite and their slaves: VIEDO

Paganism 5,000 years old: progressed organized religion and the state: related to “Anarchism and Socialism” (Kings and the Rise of the State): VIEDO

Paganism 4,000 years old: related to “Anarchism and Socialism” (First Moralistic gods, then the Origin time of Monotheism): VIEDO

I do not hate simply because I challenge and expose myths or lies any more than others being thought of as loving simply because of the protection and hiding from challenge their favored myths or lies.

The truth is best championed in the sunlight of challenge.

An archaeologist once said to me “Damien religion and culture are very different”

My response, So are you saying that was always that way, such as would you say Native Americans’ cultures are separate from their religions? And do you think it always was the way you believe?

I had said that religion was a cultural product. That is still how I see it and there are other archaeologists that think close to me as well. Gods too are the myths of cultures that did not understand science or the world around them, seeing magic/supernatural everywhere.

I personally think there is a goddess and not enough evidence to support a male god at Çatalhöyük but if there was both a male and female god and goddess then I know the kind of gods they were like Proto-Indo-European mythology.

This series idea was addressed in, Anarchist Teaching as Free Public Education or Free Education in the Public: VIDEO

Our 12 video series: Organized Oppression: Mesopotamian State Force and the Politics of power (9,000-4,000 years ago), is adapted from: The Complete and Concise History of the Sumerians and Early Bronze Age Mesopotamia (7000-2000 BC): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=szFjxmY7jQA by “History with Cy“

Show #1: Mesopotamian State Force and the Politics of Power (Samarra, Halaf, Ubaid)

Show #2: Mesopotamian State Force and the Politics of Power (Eridu: First City of Power)

Show #3: Mesopotamian State Force and the Politics of Power (Uruk and the First Cities)

Show #4: Mesopotamian State Force and the Politics of Power (First Kings)

Show #5: Mesopotamian State Force and the Politics of Power (Early Dynastic Period)

Show #6: Mesopotamian State Force and the Politics of Power (King Lugalzagesi and the First Empire)

Show #7: Mesopotamian State Force and the Politics of Power (Sargon and Akkadian Rule)

Show #8: Mesopotamian State Force and the Politics of Power (Naram-Sin, Post-Akkadian Rule, and the Gutians)

Show #9: Mesopotamian State Force and the Politics of Power (Gudea of Lagash and Utu-hegal)

Show #10: Mesopotamian State Force and the Politics of Power (Third Dynasty of Ur / Neo-Sumerian Empire)

Show #11: Mesopotamian State Force and the Politics of Power (Amorites, Elamites, and the End of an Era)

Show #12: Mesopotamian State Force and the Politics of Power (Aftermath and Legacy of Sumer)

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

The “Atheist-Humanist-Leftist Revolutionaries”

Cory Johnston ☭ Ⓐ Atheist Leftist @Skepticallefty & I (Damien Marie AtHope) @AthopeMarie (my YouTube & related blog) are working jointly in atheist, antitheist, antireligionist, antifascist, anarchist, socialist, and humanist endeavors in our videos together, generally, every other Saturday.

Why Does Power Bring Responsibility?

Think, how often is it the powerless that start wars, oppress others, or commit genocide? So, I guess the question is to us all, to ask, how can power not carry responsibility in a humanity concept? I know I see the deep ethical responsibility that if there is power their must be a humanistic responsibility of ethical and empathic stewardship of that power. Will I be brave enough to be kind? Will I possess enough courage to be compassionate? Will my valor reach its height of empathy? I as everyone, earns our justified respect by our actions, that are good, ethical, just, protecting, and kind. Do I have enough self-respect to put my love for humanity’s flushing, over being brought down by some of its bad actors? May we all be the ones doing good actions in the world, to help human flourishing.

I create the world I want to live in, striving for flourishing. Which is not a place but a positive potential involvement and promotion; a life of humanist goal precision. To master oneself, also means mastering positive prosocial behaviors needed for human flourishing. I may have lost a god myth as an atheist, but I am happy to tell you, my friend, it is exactly because of that, leaving the mental terrorizer, god belief, that I truly regained my connected ethical as well as kind humanity.

Cory and I will talk about prehistory and theism, addressing the relevance to atheism, anarchism, and socialism.

At the same time as the rise of the male god, 7,000 years ago, there was also the very time there was the rise of violence, war, and clans to kingdoms, then empires, then states. It is all connected back to 7,000 years ago, and it moved across the world.

Cory Johnston: https://damienmarieathope.com/2021/04/cory-johnston-mind-of-a-skeptical-leftist/?v=32aec8db952d  

The Mind of a Skeptical Leftist (YouTube)

Cory Johnston: Mind of a Skeptical Leftist @Skepticallefty

The Mind of a Skeptical Leftist By Cory Johnston: “Promoting critical thinking, social justice, and left-wing politics by covering current events and talking to a variety of people. Cory Johnston has been thoughtfully talking to people and attempting to promote critical thinking, social justice, and left-wing politics.” http://anchor.fm/skepticalleft

Cory needs our support. We rise by helping each other.

Cory Johnston ☭ Ⓐ @Skepticallefty Evidence-based atheist leftist (he/him) Producer, host, and co-host of 4 podcasts @skeptarchy @skpoliticspod and @AthopeMarie

Damien Marie AtHope (“At Hope”) Axiological Atheist, Anti-theist, Anti-religionist, Secular Humanist. Rationalist, Writer, Artist, Poet, Philosopher, Advocate, Activist, Psychology, and Armchair Archaeology/Anthropology/Historian.

Damien is interested in: Freedom, Liberty, Justice, Equality, Ethics, Humanism, Science, Atheism, Antiteism, Antireligionism, Ignosticism, Left-Libertarianism, Anarchism, Socialism, Mutualism, Axiology, Metaphysics, LGBTQI, Philosophy, Advocacy, Activism, Mental Health, Psychology, Archaeology, Social Work, Sexual Rights, Marriage Rights, Woman’s Rights, Gender Rights, Child Rights, Secular Rights, Race Equality, Ageism/Disability Equality, Etc. And a far-leftist, “Anarcho-Humanist.”

I am not a good fit in the atheist movement that is mostly pro-capitalist, I am anti-capitalist. Mostly pro-skeptic, I am a rationalist not valuing skepticism. Mostly pro-agnostic, I am anti-agnostic. Mostly limited to anti-Abrahamic religions, I am an anti-religionist.

To me, the “male god” seems to have either emerged or become prominent around 7,000 years ago, whereas the now favored monotheism “male god” is more like 4,000 years ago or so. To me, the “female goddess” seems to have either emerged or become prominent around 11,000-10,000 years ago or so, losing the majority of its once prominence around 2,000 years ago due largely to the now favored monotheism “male god” that grow in prominence after 4,000 years ago or so.

My Thought on the Evolution of Gods?

Animal protector deities from old totems/spirit animal beliefs come first to me, 13,000/12,000 years ago, then women as deities 11,000/10,000 years ago, then male gods around 7,000/8,000 years ago. Moralistic gods around 5,000/4,000 years ago, and monotheistic gods around 4,000/3,000 years ago. 

To me, animal gods were likely first related to totemism animals around 13,000 to 12,000 years ago or older. Female as goddesses was next to me, 11,000 to 10,000 years ago or so with the emergence of agriculture. Then male gods come about 8,000 to 7,000 years ago with clan wars. Many monotheism-themed religions started in henotheism, emerging out of polytheism/paganism.

Gods?
 
“Animism” is needed to begin supernatural thinking.
“Totemism” is needed for supernatural thinking connecting human actions & related to clan/tribe.
“Shamanism” is needed for supernatural thinking to be controllable/changeable by special persons.
 
Together = Gods/paganism

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

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This