Value-blindness gives rise to sociopathic evil.
No God: No evidence, No intelligence, and No goodness = Valid Atheism Conclusion
- No evidence, to move past the Atheistic Null Hypothesis: There is no God/Gods (in inferential statistics, a Null Hypothesis generally assumed to be true until evidence indicates otherwise. Thus, a Null Hypothesis is a statistical hypothesis that there is no significant difference reached between the claim and the non-claim, as it is relatively provable/demonstratable in reality some way. “The god question” Null Hypothesis is set at as always at the negative standard: Thus, holding that there is no God/Gods, and as god faith is an assumption of the non-evidentiary wishful thinking non-reality of “mystery thing” found in all god talk, until it is demonstratable otherwise to change. Alternative hypothesis: There is a God (offered with no proof: what is a god and how can anyone say they know), therefore, results: Insufficient evidence to overturn the null hypothesis of no God/Gods.
- No intelligence, taking into account the reality of the world we do know with 99 Percent Of The Earth’s Species Are Extinct an intelligent design is ridiculous. Five Mass Extinctions Wiped out 99 Percent of Species that have ever existed on earth. Therefore like a child’s report card having an f they need to retake the class thus, profoundly unintelligent design.
- No goodness, assessed through ethically challenging the good god assumptions as seen in the reality of pain and other harm of which there are many to demonstrates either a god is not sufficiently good, not real or as I would assert, god if responsible for this world, would make it a moral monster ripe for the problem of evil and suffering (Argument from Evil). God would be responsible for all pain as life could easily be less painful and yet there is mass suffering. In fact, to me, every child born with diseases from birth scream out against a caring or loving god with the power to do otherwise. It could be different as there is Congenital insensitivity to pain (CIP), also known as congenital analgesia, in which a person cannot feel (and has never felt) physical pain.
New Psychology Revisited
1. Nature and nurture organized our values around three dimensions (cognitive“mechanisms”) dedicated to values and valuations that give rise to behavioral “content” such as emotions, motivations, aesthetic values, political values, ethical values, moral values, etc. The distinction is one of the deep axiological mechanisms vs. superficial axiological content. The underlying dimensions or mechanisms have technical names, but we’ll stick with intuitive, but slightly deceptive, descriptors like Feeler (F), Doer (D) and Thinker (T). With the brain’s help, they become the “building blocks” of behavior. Tapping into them allows the measurement of one’s General Capacity to Value, and one’s capacity to value in each of three core dimensions of value.
2. Each dimension possesses sensitivity. It varies across dimensions and among individuals. Mental health depends on an optimum level of FDT sensitivities along a continuum from value-acuity,” to “value-astigmatism,” to “value-blindness.” Value-blindness gives rise to sociopathic evil. It is measurable.
3. Mental health also depends on balance; meaning sensitivity that doesn’t spike too high or too low in any dimension. Balance favors flexibility in the mobilization of FDT profiles in response to persons and situations. It promotes desirable pro-self, pro-social behavior as opposed to anti-self, anti-social behavior. This is measurable.
4. Axiological plasticity vs. axiological rigidity. Mental health builds on plasticity and shuns rigidity. Certain situations are processed by dedicated FDT profiles Keep in mind that bad things don’t upset us, it is how we interpret with FDTs, or think about them, that upsets us. This is the power of cognitive processing with FDT profiles. The profile associated with empathic behavior is very different from that associated with analytical behavior. FDT profiles can be fluid and fleeting or they can be crystallized when associated with more enduring personality states and traits.
FDT rigidity is very self-defeating as seen in the perseverative, formulaic, and binary thinking of borderline patients, and some PTSD patients. Given today’s fanaticism associated with ideological terrorism, issues concerning ideology and rigidity loom larger than ever. Evidence suggests an active involvement of both the molecular brain and the axiological mind in cases of rigidity involving preemptory ideation or the firmly held preoccupations of minds called idée fixe. These are descriptive, not diagnostic terms. I use them for impact. They emphasize the point I want to make concerning rigid, obsessive ideologies in today’s world. It’s not new. We’ve always had ideological anarchism and solipsism in the extreme, and the political ideologies of war, but it’s all amplified these days by social networks in the global village.
5. This principle refers to dimensional priorities, or what amounts to the order of influence of FDT dimensions and profiles. Mental health builds on the priority and supremacy of the Feeler dimension. This is given by the selective pressures of biosocial and psychosocial evolution. Its influence can be proximal (near and immediate) or distal (far and remote), but it’s a constant presence. It is normative for Doer and Thinker selves to function within the more global Feeler self. Feeler bias is the command and control center that mediates pro-self, pro-social behavior. This dimension of valuation is connected to the brain’s mirror neurons and it is a good example of how neuroscience and axiological science can work together. We cannot always live as Feelers. Sometimes wearing our heart on our sleeves may not be best for us. The influence of the Feeler self on the Doer and Thinker selves ebbs and flows in response to situational demands. There are individuals in whom the Feeler self is blunted (2o damage), or even fails to develop (1o damage). Both impact mental status. How it’s handled can become the genesis of psychopathology or evil. This can be measured.
Measuring Values: HVP
Our theme “it can be measured” is important. This is what separates axiological psychology from old clinical and behavioral psychology. The instrument in question is The Hartman Value Profile (HVP). Historically, the HVP is a merciful “handle” on philosopher Hartman’s Theory of Value. It cleared a path for my research testing the validity of Hartman’s operational definition of good, his mathematical modeling of values and valuations, his hypothesis of three axes of valuation, and his test of one’s general capacity to value. These data have since transformed value theory into a science of values.
Business Applications: HVP
Entrepreneurs have long marketed the HVP to clients in their business-to-business relations around the world. This is accompanied by the success you might expect of those focused on the bottom line. (In some cases they develop proprietary “derivatives” and “parallel forms” of the HVP to meet client needs). The proprietary nature of their work limited data sharing. My presentations of research findings before annual conferences on the campus of the University of Tennessee at Knoxville and publication of The New Science of Axiological Psychology came under no such limitations. In the end, the friendly competition among members of the Hartman Circle has served to advanced axiological science and a new climate of cooperation promises further advances in the future.
Psychology and Testing:
Psychologists study behavior and behavior is a manifestation of values and valuations. Values are universal and so values research has broad implications for the social sciences and all human activity. For one hundred years psychology has studied behavior using the tools of natural or material science. This has yielded insights into the brain but not the mind. Axiological science is mind science. Natural science is brain science. Neuroscience is to brain and molecules, as axiological science is to the mind and values. The three dimensions of value function like three letters of an alphabet writing the “language” of behavior, including emotions and motivations. Psychology gave us psychological testing. Axiological science has given us value testing and amounts to “psychological testing” without psychological tests. The power of values to reveal human psychology exists because of the universality of values that lurk beneath behavior. We now have a science to go after those values and take us “beyond psychology,” so as to enrich psychology.
Caveat Emptor: Like all behavioral tests and measures, the HVP is a “rubber ruler.” However, the explanatory, descriptive, and predictive powers of the HVP are well documented in published research and are continually demonstrated by practitioners meeting the needs of their business clients with the HVP on a daily basis.
Beyond Good and Evil:
Having looked “beyond psychology,” I suggest we look beyond good and evil by simply asking “what’s beyond good and evil?” Philosopher Nietzsche found Social Darwinism. This appealed to a borderline personality named Adolf Hitler and the Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterparteior; or Nazi Party (1920-1945). It helped them organize evil in a world that knew nothing about organizing good with any scientific precision. It appears axiological science exists beyond good and evil and this gives us the opportunity to organize good on a scientific basis so as to combat perpetual efforts by some to organize evil. This adds a new dimension of humanism for the humanities. It gives us hope for the future.
© Dr. Leon Pomeroy, Ph.D.
Teaching Humanities in College: David Brooks’ recent article on the Op-Ed page of the June 21, 2013 New York Times is entitled “The Humanist Vocation.” He reports that fifty years ago 14% of college degrees were given to majors in the humanities. Today the figure is 7%. He acknowledges the job market is a factor, but argues that teaching the humanities in college is “committing suicide because many humanists have lost faith in their own enterprise.” It is an enterprise devoted to the cultivation of the “human core, spirit, soul, wisdom, truthfulness, and courage.” Brooks believes that “somewhere along the way, many people in the humanities lost faith in their uplifting mission.” Instead of focusing on higher values like truth, spiritual depth, personal integrity, beauty, critical thinking and goodness, the humanities drifted to a focus on sociopolitical categories like race, class, and gender while liberal arts professors became “moralistic about politics but more tentative concerning private morality less they offend somebody.” He argues this made the humanities less relevant to college students searching to know thyself, “self-understanding and moral goodness” which leaves the humanities in crisis. One can ask, where is the passion that Brooks and I felt when we were college undergraduates? My involvement with the development of axiological science keeps the passion alive in me. I’d like to believe the issues addressed in this Blog will contribute to the revival of interest in the humanities. In the meantime, The American Academy of Arts and Sciences appears to be listening and is responding to this crisis involving the decline and fall of humanities on college campuses.
Comment Concerning FTD Profiles: A pragmatic FDT profile is behind behavior that is necessary and sufficient for a purpose. An empathic FDT profile challenges the notion that the ends justify the means. It also enables us to make-love and make-work. If the Feeler self is undeveloped sociopathic evil emerges. An analytic FDT profile helps with problem solving. At the center of normative valuations is the Feeler self. Its influence on Doer and Thinker behavior may be immediate or remote. FDT profiles are sensitivity profiles, balance profiles, priority profiles, and plasticity-rigidity profiles. They may be fluid or crystalized. Fluid profiles have their “moment in the sun” when evoked to deal with special situations falling within some range of convenience. Otherwise, they fade into a “cache” until needed again. Storing a FDT profile in a “cache” is a way of retaining it for quick retrieval and activation. This is called a “cache hit.” Otherwise, the profile must be recalculated or pulled from more remote storage, which invites inefficiencies and errors. This is called a “cache miss.” Axiological science and psychology are ripe for computer simulation, systems theory, information theory, and improved mathematical modeling. Because axiological science is focused on values and valuations its findings have implications for all the social sciences, including economics, and the pressing need to balance capitalism with socialism and socialism with capitalism to curb greed, extreme business cycles, financial and asset bubbles, booms and busts, and income inequality in an age of globalization and electronic social networks that can easily trigger social unrest on a massive scale. We can no longer safely toy with or game monetary and fiscal policies. Ref
Leon Pomeroy Ph.D.
Beyond Good and Evil, More than moral reasoning
Why is it Easier to Organize Evil than Good?
Inclined to think in terms of values, my thoughts turn to the axiological concepts of “Transposition” and “Composition” which have to do with how we combine values. I offer the following to explain what I mean:
In my youth I read stories by James Fenimore Cooper which dealt with the American frontier and Indian life. At times they “transported my imagination” into the darkness of woods at night where the sound of a broken twig or branch under foot can be the harbinger of danger. I knew the sound because in “real life” I would go Coon Hunting with dogs at night with my father, his pals, and my brother in rural Western Massachusetts. This sound at night suggests the presence of someone and all this might imply! This is the context and meaning of “Transposition.” On the other hand, the noise of a stream of running water or wind in the trees is the meaning of a “Composition of values.” Put simply, a “Transposition” is analogous to sawdust on ice cream, while a “Composition” is analogous to chocolate on ice cream (1).
Such terminology concerns value-vision based on how we habitually combine Feeler (Intrinsic), Doer (Extrinsic), and Thinker (Systemic) values forming the three dimensions of value within our “inner world of values.” An internal world that is parallel and somewhat analogous to our external world of three dimensions involving length (L), height (H), and width (W). “Navigational” strategies apply to both, and so it’s not surprising we talk about a “moral compass.”
My friend and colleague in Germany, Uli Vogel, refers to these dimensions of value within us as the active “Human,” “Factual,” and “Principal” dimensions of value which “interpret and process” the more passive sensations of five sensory modalities which include vision, hearing, touch, taste, and smell. The point is, our ever expanding values and valuations become organized around three cognitive dimensions dedicated to forming structural values and exercising valuations. The structure and functional dynamism of these dimensions have emotional and behavioral consequences which can be identified and measured employing axiological science and psychology!
Values Gone Mad:
Let’s consider an example of transposition of values “gone mad” (i.e., the existence and use of a negative value combination “gone mad“). I have in mind the pathology (i.e., very bad habit ) of “treating persons as things all the time while insensitive to doing so!” This amounts to an extreme devaluation of the uniqueness, individuality, and infinite value of a person. This “Transposition” is encountered in some forms of mental illness. It is a definition of Evil. It is behavior associated with some schizophrenics, psychopaths, and borderline personalities like Adolf Hitler (Why so many Germans followed him to war is another story involving many “nodes” and “moving parts” discussed in previous blogs).
Consistently treating a person as a “thing” is a hallmark of Evil as opposed to Good. In this context, Good involves the recognition of the singularity, individuality and uniqueness of persons. The sensitivity and insensitivity to “Transpositions” of “Self” and “Others” is rooted in human nature; meaning the “gun is loaded.” In response, we must educate and build a society that avoids pulling triggers indiscriminately and recklessly. This begs questions concerning critical thinking, scientific method, values, moral reasoning, moral science, and moral education aimed at building tomorrow’s preventive psychology today in support of preventive medicine; recalling that health care is the fastest growing failing business in the world today!
The General Capacity to Value and Beyond:
Discriminating “Combinatorial Transpositions and Compositions” is specifically related to our individual and collective General Capacity to Value (GCV). This in turn is based on how we organize and exercise Feeler, Doer, and Thinker values behind degrees of value-vision, value-astigmatism, and value-blindness or degrees of “seeing with values” beyond the five modalities of pure sensations. The cognitive processing dedicated to values and valuations (i.e., value-vision) allows us to go from the “is” of sensation to the “ought” of valuation, and hopefully without greatly impaired value-vision.
I’m suggesting Evil (Represented by the Black Face) involves seriously disturbed value-vision made up of pathological value-combinations called “Transpositions” which result in anti-self, anti-social behavior; while Good (Represented by the White Face) involves more pro-self, pro-social value “Compositions.” These outcomes are in turn related to changing levels of sensitivity, balance, priority, and plasticity of Feeler, Doer, Thinker dimensions of value-vision “driving” emotions and behavior. People differ in their overall General Capacity to Value as well as function in each of the three dimensions of value!
This isn’t “blue sky,” “theoretical talk.” We can test and measure these axiological variables (Transpositions, Compositions, General Capacity to Value, Feeler value-vision, Doer Value-Vision, Thinker Value-Vision, and their interactions), and come up with hypotheses concerning personality profiles and useful clinical, and vocational information. Like the quantum mechanics of physics, psychology deals in hypotheses and statistical probabilities because of the large number of interacting variables involved, and Axiological Science and Axiological Psychology are no exceptions.
But, in the final analysis, must we assume Good and Evil, as well as Heaven and Hell, are“other people;” or is there more to it than this? The Hitlers of the world turn values upside down and inside out in the service of existential egos producing lethal “Transpositions of Madness!” It’s important that we are able to spot such behavior and react appropriately. Our new science helps us do just that! The behavior in question is grounded in evolutionary biology and developmental psychology where the impact of mass psychology (i.e., the zeitgeist, climate-of-opinion, mass-mind, weltanschauung or spirit-of-the-times) is often ignored! Axiological Psychology is needed to more properly understand the interesting co-play and counter-play (i.e., dynamism) between the psychology of individuals, the psychology of collectives, and their interactions! The loss of interpersonal face-time with the explosion of more impersonal social media is speeding up this dynamism involving individuals and collectives and psychology needs to catch up!
Because “Transpositions” grab attention and evoke fear we think more about them and dwell on them more than “Compositions;” recalling that “fear attracts.” “Compositions” favor habituation rather than arousal and selective attention. This makes it easier to organize the “Transpositions of Evil” than the “Compositions of Good.” There is also the biological advantage of “Transpositions” favoring basic adaptation and survival, but it is the value “Compositions” that allow us to flourish!
There is something very biological about “Transpositions” and very psychological about “Compositions.” We’re dealing with discrimination at the level of values and valuations which is reflected in seeing the metaphorical “trees from the forest” and vice versa.
We are dealing with valuations which is cognitive processing dedicated to the formation of values and valuations. We are also dealing with the “conservation of energy” where Thinking (i.e., Systemic ideation or valuation) and Doing (i.e., Extrinsic ideation or valuation) are less of a burden on “cognitive machinery,” and less complex than that related to the cognitive processing of Feeling or intrinsic ideation. This has consequences! In the words of my friend and colleague Steve Byrum, “the Systemic (Thinking) and Extrinsic (Doing) are less complex than the Intrinsic (Feeling), and so once again the paths of least resistance triumph” … making it easier to organize Evil than Good.
Avignon and History:
As I walk around the preserved Roman Coliseum before me and head to the Palace of the Popes, in a region of Provence often painted by artists, I note the extreme lengths to which the Romans went to organize Good around the “Compositional values” of their “bread and circus” for the masses. History tells us how they also entertained the masses with Lions eating slaves in the Coliseum. This savage act exploited the power of “Transpositional” values to capture attention, thrill, and entertain. I see before me how the Popes had taken elaborate measures to protect themselves against real-world “Transpositions” (Forgive the persistent abstraction of “Transpositions” and “Compositions,” but I’m trying to breath life into these concepts) by living securely within an elaborately walled city, inside a massively fortified Palace, while promoting the “Compositional” or humanistic values of Good for the faithful.
In the spirit of breaking an egg to make an omelet, the Roman organization of values (i.e., which included balancing “Transpositions” and “Compositions) managed to build, but not sustain, an empire. This was a consequence of their superior organization of civic life around the bread and circus, and military life around aggressive and well organized military policies. The “barbarians” they faced existed in greater numbers but were less organized. The Romans proved better at organizing Evil than the “barbarians,” but fell short when it came to organizing Good over the long term, and in the end Rome collapsed from within; apart from being poisoned by lead in their food and water. Romans fell victim to the nature of human nature involving the superior management of facts, but mismanagement of values; referring to the unfinished business of managing “Transpositions” without the guidance of a science of values and morals beyond the mere adoption of Christianity. Does this sound familiar? Should we draw lessons from this? I’m thinking that as important as religion is it isn’t enough!
The Popes to their credit, were more involved than Rome with the balancing of “Transpositions” and “Compositions” aimed at maximizing Good for the faithful. Their relative skill with “Compositional Values” allowed the adopted Religion of Rome to outlast the Rome. These days, the legacy of half-smart humanism, without moral education, is beginning to wear thin in today’s world in need of an education that goes beyond merely learning one’s ABCs and 123s. I’m thinking as important as today’s education is it isn’t enough!
The Two Palaces:
The city before me, Avignon, got me thinking about all this as I recovered from climbing the many steps of the Papal Palace.
The Problem Revisited:
From my perch at Avignon, atop a “mountain of history,” enjoying the wines of Provence, I continue to think about the problem of organizing Good and how it must be rooted in the nature of human nature fostering the conclusion that “we’ve met the enemy and it is us.” Wandering about the ruins and restorations of this ancient city, I thought of Nietzsche who had written that Beyond Good and Evil is “survival of the fittest.” He had also written that Beyond Good and Evil there is “love.” How he resolved the apparent contradiction escapes me. Perhaps it is my reading of him that confuses me in this regard.
Not to worry, I reach for another glass of wine recalling my participation in the discovery of Axiological Science (i.e., Value Science) beyond good and evil; a science that rejects “Social Darwinism” in favor of “Love;” a new science promoting culture-free, religiously-neutral moral education and moral reasoning capable of enriching all humanistic traditions including philosophy and the religions of the world in need of support from an Axiological Science perspective!
At Avignon I looked back on having rejected Hartman’s theory of value in 1973 as an intern at the Ellis Institute, but with satisfaction for having rediscovered and taken him seriously in 1979 when few in my profession did so. Indeed, none had stepped forward to plan, execute, and publish the peer review research needed to prove or disprove this philosopher’s contributions to the study of values. Knowing there was no way I”d be scooped, I proceeded at my own pace to go where no one had gone before, never looked back, and succeeded in establishing the validity of Hartman’s contributions which had inspired my search for an approach to values having clinical relevance beyond academic relevance!
Wine, Remembering, and Celebrating:
With a camera in hand and the comfort of a glass of wine, I took satisfaction in having personally published research spanning some twenty-five years as summarized in the pages of The New Science of Axiological Psychology. Research which supports philosopher Hartman’s theoretical achievement, mathematical modeling, and value profiling methodology. I want to believe that Hartman and my achievements resemble in many ways the relationship that existed between Charles Darwin and T. H. Huxley; for in some respects, it can be said I have become Hartman’s “Bulldog” much as Huxley became Darwin’s “Bulldog.”
Yes! I mean to compare Robert S. Hartman with Charles Darwin given the scope and importance of Hartman’s theoretical achievement. Let’s not forget he received a nomination for the Nobel Prize in recognition of what he had done. On the other hand, I don’t want to sell myself short! “Bulldog?” Doesn’t my publish research supporting Hartman’s Theory of Value effectively transform it into a Science of Value in keeping with the role and importance of reason plus empiricism in the history of science and the scientific method?
Towards a Better World:
This new science promises to save natural science from itself and humankind from itself at a time of growing cynicism concerning both! I also took satisfaction in having posted Psychology Today blogs aimed at introducing this new science to the wider world beyond the “Hartman Circle” of pioneers engaged in developing and applying this new science. If this sounds slightly grandiose, blame the wine and my surroundings! Better yet, acknowledge how we have worked hard developing this new approach to values and the normative values we call morals! https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/beyond-good-and-evil
I also thought about blogs covering other topics such as my interest in biological medicine long before it became fashionable with advances in molecular biology and genetics. I hoped to have shed some axiological light on psychology and biological light on medicine; the two fields which have held my professional interest for many years as one trained in psychology at Austin and biology at Amherst. As I move about Avignon with my Leica M9 and Digital Canon engaged in street photography and in search of photo-ops, I recalled the blog I wrote entitled Discover Your Self Through Photography. https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/beyond-good-and-evil/201407/discove…
Photography teaches me to see with sensations. Axiological science teaches me to see with values. Of course they overlap! Neither sensations nor values (i.e., empiricism and reason) are enough to “find” ourselves or “save” us from ourselves. In a formal sense, sensations and values come together with the help of yesterday’s “scientific method” and today’s “axiological science.” We need the reason of minds and the empiricism of sensations. This is consistent with the philosophy of Aristotle and Kant which oppose to the half-smart philosophies of Hume’s empiricism and Decartes’ reason! It’s common sense these days, but this was not always the case. Let this be known to all promoting the new discipline of “Philosophical Counseling” in this century!
In pauses between photo-ops, I also recalled the three dimensions of the physical space I was moving in and how ironic it is that our puppeteer mind, pulling the strings of our puppet brain, is organized around three dimensions of value producing Triaxiomatic Value-Vision. Equally interesting is the fact that my perception of color, captured by cameras, is also organized around three primary dimensions of color called Trichromatic Color-Vision. Finally, I recall the quote from Ecclesiastes 4:12 that reminds us how “a cord of three strands is not quickly broken.” https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/beyond-good-and-evil/201508/are-you…
As you might expect Triaxiomatic Value-Vision is very different from Trichromatic Color-Vision. It is based on the organization of values and valuations around three dimensions of value referred to as the Feeler (Human-Intrinsic); Doer (Practical-Extrinsic), and Thinker (Principal-Systemic) dimensions of value (During our long march developing the science of values, I have my friends and colleagues Wayne Carpenter (i.e., “Feeler, Doer, Thinker”) and Uli Vogel (i.e., “Human, Practical, Principal“) to thank for their more intuitive relabeling of Hartman’s philosophical terminology (i.e., “Intrinsic, Extrinsic, Systemic“).
The descriptive, explanatory, and predictive powers of these dimensions is thoroughly supported and validated by my transparent, peer-reviewed, published research beyond proprietary considerations. The merciful organization of values around three dimensions keeps us from “choking” on values as they grow in number from their “humble” origin in the biology of “protoplasmic irritability.” This enables their more effective use meeting the demands of adaptation, survival, and flourishing.
Sitting at a Café, observing people and the mix of Medieval and contemporary surroundings, I recalled how Hartman did not use the mathematics of Factor Analysis I had studied in college to “break out” these core dimensions of value. Instead, he used the mathematics of “set theory” which I never studied in college.
Colonel Frank Forrest, Ph.D. (West Point Graduate) and I often discussed “set theory” at annual meetings of the Hartman Institute. I remember listening to his careful explanation of how it worked and his thoughts concerning the scoring of Hartman’s test of values, and how Hartman’s theoretical achievements, including the definition of Good, and my empirical research converged to give us the science of values the ancients dreamed about, and the best minds of history had failed to discover.
Frank and I, in agreement with others on our long march, believe axiological science has come along just in time, and that it promises to enrich lives in years to come while improving our ability to organize Good in a world where the organization of evil has stolen the show since the beginning of time.
With all this behind me, and having had enough red wine for the day, I move on! Let it also be known that I am not “crying” because my vacation in France is coming to an end….I’m smiling because it all happened!
© Dr. Leon Pomeroy, Ph.D.
Avignon, France, October 31, 2015
(1) Technical Note: “Transposition” and “Composition” are important because our science of structural values and dynamic valuations can measure them. They are correlated with problems in living just as the sensitivity, balance, order of influence, and plasticity of the three core dimensions of value relate to problems in living. The degree of confusion (i.e., value–vision vs. value-astigmatism vs. value-blindness…to employ the “optical metaphor”) concerning them varies among individuals.
Consider the following: In the axiological range of “Compositions” would you value “a good meal” more or less than “a baby?” In the axiological range of “Transpositions” would you value “nonsense” more or less than “a rubbish heap?” How about your ranking of the relative importance of “My working conditions are poor and ruin my work” (i.e., a “Transposition”) vs. “I feel at home in the world” (i.e., a “Composition”)? Some comparisons are “no brainers,” others we struggle with, and still others at the frontier of change in today’s society and world pose a real challenge to moral reasoning (e.g., medical ethics), legal reasoning (e.g., supreme court decisions), and so forth.
There are many other examples of “Transpositions” and “Compositions” to plug into our test asking patients or clients to rank a total of nine “Compositions” and nine “Transpositions. This eighteen item test has a pleomorphic “face validity” in response to the linguistic proxies (e.g., “a good meal,” etc.) chosen to represent each of the eighteen mathematical formulae forming the basis of the test known as The Hartman Value Profile (HVP). I’ve used this test in my practice for many years, apart from my published research examining its cross-cultural and biomedical validity; and its use profiling the personalities and clinical status of combat veterans, POWs, patients with different problems in living, students, doctors, substance abusers, and high achievers.
Finally, there are many business entrepreneurs engaged in marketing this test (HVP) to clients on a proprietary basis in many countries throughout the world today; all of which reflects favorably on the validity of our new science of values behind it all. This test of values is important because it is at the tip of a revolution in science which holds many unexplored implications and potential applications. You’re likely hearing about it here for the first time because it remains one of the world’s best kept secrets at the moment.
p.s. Paris! May your spirits soar !!!
Returning to the US before the tragedy of November 13th, and as a former resident of Manhattan for thirty-three years with vivid memories of 911, I share the sadness of it all. I know that in the end the power of Good & Love in the World will triumph over this new face of Evil & Hate. I trust our developing science of values will make it easier to spot and deal with this and all forms of Evil in years to come! Ref
Leon Pomeroy Ph.D.
Simplicity because everyone knows the meaning of feeling, doing, and thinking. Power because we’re prisoners of the values behind them. Power because they allow us a test of how we organize and exercise values for better or worse. Power because we now have a science of values and can measure them…a new science, a second science that never existed before. Power because we all stand to benefit from the cultivation of an expanded awareness of what’s behind Our “Three Little Words.”
“Three Little Words” happens to be the title of a popular song of the 1930s by Kalmar and Ruby. With minimal paraphrasing, I give you a few lyrics of Their “Three Little Words”to help us remember Our “Three Little Words:“
Oh I need to remember that wonderful phrase
To hear those three little words
“Feeler, Doer, Thinker”
For the rest of my days
And what I feel in my heart
They tell me sincerely
What no other words can tell me so clearly
Three little words
Which simply mean “Feeler, Doer, Thinker”
And what I feel in my heart
They say sincerely
What no other words can tell me so clearly
I am an Out Atheist, Antitheist, and Antireligionist as a Valuized Ethical Duty.
How can we silently watch as yet another generation is indoctrinated with religious faith, fear, and foolishness? Religion and it’s god myths are like a spiritually transmitted disease of the mind. This infection even once cured holds mental disruption which can linger on for a lifetime. What proof is “faith,” of anything religion claims by faith, as many people have different faith even in the same religion? When you start thinking your “out, atheism, antitheism or antireligionism is not vitally needed just remember all the millions of children being indoctrinated and need our help badly and who desperately need our help with the truth. 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.
I am an Axiological (Theoretical and Normative VALUE Theorist philosopher) Atheist
Axiology and Value Theory?
“The division of philosophy into a practical and a theoretical discipline has its origin in Aristotle‘s moral philosophy and natural philosophy categories. Theoretical philosophy is sometimes confused with Analytic philosophy, but the latter is a philosophical movement, embracing certain ideas and methods but dealing with all philosophical subject matters, while the former is a way of sorting philosophical questions into two different categories in the context of a curriculum. – Wikipedia
Here are examples of theoretical philosophy subjects I delve into:
- Secular humanism
- Theories of truth
- Questions on knowledge
- Practical philosophy
- Questions on Morality
- Feminist philosophy
- Philosophy of science
- Philosophy of language
- Philosophy of mind
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 lacking a valid and reliable justification.
“Presumptions are things that are credited as being true until evidence of their falsity is presented. Presumptions have many forms and value (Axiology) is just one. In ethics, value denotes the degree of importance of something or action, with the aim of determining what actions are best to do or what way is best to live (normative ethics), or to describe the significance of different actions. It may be described as treating actions as abstract objects, putting VALUE to them. It deals with right conduct and living a good life, in the sense that a highly, or at least relatively high valuable action may be regarded as ethically “good” (adjective sense), and that an action of low value, or relatively low in value, may be regarded as “bad”. What makes an action valuable may, in turn, depend on the ethic values of the objects it increases, decreases or alters. An object with “ethic value” may be termed an “ethic or philosophic good” (noun sense). Values can be defined as broad preferences concerning appropriate courses of actions or outcomes. As such, values reflect a person’s sense of right and wrong or what “ought” to be. “Equal rights for all”, “Excellence deserves admiration”, and “People should be treated with respect and dignity” are representatives of values. Values tend to influence attitudes and behavior and these types include ethical/moral values, doctrinal/ideological(religious, political) values, social values, and aesthetic values. It is debated whether some values that are not clearly physiologically determined, such as altruism, are intrinsic, and whether some, such as acquisitiveness, should be classified as vices or virtues.” ref, ref
Disproof by logical contradiction
‘A Logical Impossibility’
“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.”
Sound axiological judgment, to me, a “presumptive-value” success, is value judged opinions expressed as facts with a valid and reliable justification. In an informal and psychological sense, it is used in reference to the quality of cognitive faculties and adjudicational (relating to adjudication) capabilities of particular individuals, typically called wisdom or discernment. In a legal sense, – used in the context of a legal trial, to refer to a final finding, statement, or ruling, based on a considered weighing of evidence, called, “adjudication“.
Sound Thinkers don’t value FAITH
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.
Dogmatic–Propaganda vs. Disciplined-Rationality
Religionists and fideists, promote Dogmatic-Propaganda whereas atheists and antireligionists mostly promote Disciplined-Rationality. Dogmatic–Propaganda commonly is a common 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” I know 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 by 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.
ps. “Sound Thinker”, “Shallow Thinker”, “Dogmatic–Propaganda” & “Disciplined-Rationality” are concepts/terms I created*
Axiological atheism can be thought to involve ethical/value theory reasoned and moral argument driven apatheism, ignosticism, atheism, anti-theism, anti-religionism, secularism, and humanism. The valuations move up the latter as the levels of evaluation is made to value judge all the elements to better understand the value or disvalue available to reach the most accurate valuation reasonable with a sound aware value conciseness. Axiological atheism can be thought to involve Ethical Atheism.
1. Apatheism: we are born and by the fact reality is devoid of magic removes theological desires to understand the obvious naturalistic world, until we learn otherwise. (a “presumptive-value” failure, thus no motivation to adequately start the evaluation needed to understand if there is real value for an Axiology assessment to accurately place it in the value hierarchy). = no value
2. Ignosticism: Sees theological arguments and language as equivocation, contradictory, and/or un-cognitively relatable other than emotionalism or the like. I see Ignosticism as using the Theological non-cognitivism arguments of “mind understanding issues” (rationalism challenging) and an evidentialist/verificationist arguments of “lacking evidence issues” (empiricism challenging). As an atheist, I am a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of god or gods. In my non-belief, I am also ignostic feeling that every theological position assumes too much about the concept of god(s). As an ignostic, I am a person who rational no idea of anything from reality whatever to label as “a concept of god” thus I can say I have no idea of anything that can connect to the term god and no reason to think anyone else can either. (again a “presumptive-value” failure, no good Ontology of the thing for Identifying values that could influence belief but without what is needed to understand if there is real value for an axiology assessment to accurately place it in the value hierarchy). = no value
3. Atheism: How can we not reject the concept of gods, aka: supposed supreme magical beings, when not even some simple magic is supported in reality. So how then is it not even more ridiculous to claim some supreme magic aka: gods which are even further from reality. 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? As an atheist, I am a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of god or gods. In my non-belief, I am also ignostic feeling that every theological position assumes too much about the concept of god(s). As an ignostic, I am a person who rational no idea of anything from reality whatever to label as “a concept of god” thus I can say I have no idea of anything that can connect to the term god and no reason to think anyone else can either. Atheists talk about gods and religions for the same reason doctors talk about cancer, they are looking for a cure or a firefighter talking about fires because they burn people and they care to stop them. We atheists too often feel a need to help the victim’s of mental slavery, held in the bondage that is the false beliefs of gods and the conspiracy theories of reality found in religions. If you think you believe in a god, “what do you mean by god,” saying a name tells me not one thing about the thing I am asking to know “its” beingness / thingness / attributes / qualities. Thus, what is the thing “god” to which you are talking about and I want you to explain its beingness /thingness / attributes/ qualities? Religious/theistic people with supernatural beliefs often seem as though they haven’t thought much about and that is something we can help using ontology questions about the beingness / thingness / attributes/ qualities they are trying to refer too. What do you mean by god, when you use the term god? And, I am not asking you for the name you attach to the thing you label as a god. I don’t need to know what the god you believe is known “by.” I am asking, what is the thing you are naming as a god and what that thing is, its qualities every detail like all things have if they are real. Are you just making stuff up or guessing/hoping or just promoting unjustified ideas you want to believe, what is a god? 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 super-massive black holes, it’s all amazing. There is no evidence for Gods. But is their proposition outside of reason? As always start in reality from the evidence we do know, such as never in the history of scientific research or investigation has any supernatural claims shown to be true. So it is completely outside of possibility and is utterly ridiculous. Therefore, belief should be rejected as there are no warrants at all and it is axiologically unworthy to such a preponderance to demand disbelief. (yet again a “presumptive value” failure, no good Ontology of the thing not the cognitively meaningful claims relatable to reality that must be attached to all magic and gods claims for Identifying values that could influence belief but without what is needed to understand if there is real value for an axiology assessment to accurately place it in the value hierarchy).
4. Antitheism: Anti-theism requires more than either merely disbelieving in gods or even denying the existence of gods. Anti-theism requires a couple of specific and additional beliefs: first, that theism is harmful to the believer, harmful to society, harmful to politics, harmful, to culture, etc.; second, that theism can and should be countered in order to reduce the harm it causes. If a person believes these things, then they will likely be an anti-theist who works against theism by arguing that it be abandoned, promoting alternatives, or perhaps even supporting measures to suppress it. It’s worth noting here that, however, unlikely it may be in practice, it’s possible in theory for a theist to be an anti-theist. This may sound bizarre at first, but remember that some people have argued in favor of promoting false beliefs if they are socially useful. To me, I think many may have a misconception of the term. Atheism and anti-theism so often occur together at the same time and in the same person that it’s understandable if many individuals fail to realize that they aren’t the same. Making a note of the difference is important, however, because not every atheist is anti-theistic and even those who are, aren’t anti-theistic all the time. Atheism is simply the absence of belief in gods; anti-theism is a conscious and deliberate opposition to theism. Many atheists are also anti-theists, but not all and not always. To me as an antitheist, I see the concept of gods antihumanistic and wholly harmful to a free humanity and if the so-called gods somehow do end up being real that I will switch to direct opposition as I would any tyrant oppressing humanity. Antitheism (sometimes anti-theism) is a term used to describe an opposition to theism. The term has had a range of applications and definitions. In secular contexts, it typically refers to direct opposition to the validity of theism, but not necessarily to the existence of a deity. As an anti-theist, I am a person who is active in opposition to theism: both the concepts of god(s) as well as the religions that support them. This is because theistic concepts and theistic religions are harmful and that even if theistic beliefs were true, they would be undesirable. (And, again a “presumptive value” failure, of the other value challenges of the lesser evaluations and value judgments addressed inthe apatheism, ignosticism, atheism value judgment conclusion and an Axiological Atheism assessment of the god concept that must be attached to all magic and gods claims Identifying a lack of value and/or disvalue that influence harm to real value in an axiology assessment to accurately place its value violations in the value hierarchy).
5. Antireligionism: Not just Atheist, axiological atheists should be antitheists but this generally will involve anti-religionism. it would generally thus hold anti-religionist thinking. Especially, 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)! As an anti-religionist, I am a person who can look at religion on the whole and see it is detrimental to the progress of humanity thus am in opposition to all and every religion, not even just opposition to organized religion. In case you were wondering, I am anti-pseudoscience, anti-supernatural, and anti-superstition as well. May I not be a silent watcher as millions of children are subjugated almost before their birth let alone when they can understand thought and are forcibly coerced, compelled, constrained, and indoctrinated in the mental pollution that religion can be. 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. “Religion is an Evolved Product” and Yes, Religion is Like Fear Given Wings… (And, one last time a “presumptive value” failure, of the other value challenges of the lesser evaluations and value judgments addressed in the apatheism, ignosticism, atheism value judgment conclusion and an Axiological Atheism assessment of the god concept and anti-theism assessment of the god show not just a lack of value but a possibly or likely harm demonstrating bot just a lack of value but a real disvalue and that includes the religions potentially removing value in an axiology assessment to accurately place it in the value hierarchy).
6. Secularism: is the only honorable way to value the dignity of others. If it was not true that there is a large unequal distribution of religion contributing to violence then there would be equal religion and atheist secularism violence. You do not see atheists bombing agnostics the very idea is laughable however even different branches of the same religion do will and have killed one another. So, violence not who we are it’s something we need to be compelled to do. Therefore, please support secularism. We are all one connected human family, proven by DNA showing we should treat each other as fellow dignity beings, supported equally (no gods and no masters). States may often have powers, but only citizens have the glue of morality we call rights. And, as they say, in my “dream society”, lots of things are free (aka. planting free food everywhere, free to everyone); but I wonder what you mean when people say you can’t just let things be free, I think, yeah, how can I take free stuff from a free earth. If one observes the virtues of (T. R. U. E. “The Rational Universal Ethics” or “The Responsible Universal Ethics”) that connect to all things as that of the connectedness equality like those which mirror the rays of the sun, fall down equally with a blind but fair indifference. (what is being expressed is that this sun shining will not favor one over another, no, the same upon everyone offering its light to all plant, animal, human, women, men, single or married, homosexual, bisexual, heterosexual, nonreligious, religious, people of means and those without, able-bodied and those which special needs, people of color, and those who are not, those with access to resources and those which out, young and elderly, etc.) All who wish to follow T. R. U. E. thus embodying a universalize equalitarian standard of ethics should strive to be like a ray of connected light to the world, shining equally and freedom to all of the world. By such efforts a nonbiased unitive ethical approach is possible, one would have an increase in positive feelings to help others understanding equalitarian connectedness. If you don’t think different you will not behave differently, if you have never lived differently it is hard to see things differently and if you do not strive to understand difference one is thus unknowingly or not bound by limited encapsulation. I am for a Free Secular Society. I am not for oppression or abuse of religious believer and want a free secular society with both freedoms of religion and freedom from religion. Even though I wish the end of faith and believing in myths and superstition, I wish this by means of informing the willing and not force of the unwilling. I will openly challenge and rebuff religious falsehoods and misunderstanding as well as rebuke and ridicule harmful or unethical religious ideology or behavior.
7. Humanism: is the philosophic thinking that humans can solve human problems by human means, without feeling a need to appeal to the likes of holy books, mystical anything, nor the belief in gods or religions. But, instead, aspires to a true belief in humanity, viewing it with a persuasion of equality. This caring realist thinking found in humanism utilizes an unstated assumption or aspiration, to do no harm as much as possible and to do good whenever one can. Moreover, we are all one connected human family, proven by DNA showing we should treat each other as fellow dignity beings, supported equally. And, no one really owns the earth, we may make claims to it even draw lines on maps thinking this makes the fantasy borders, illusion supported by force and the potential for threat. Thus the ethical truth is we need to share the earth as communally as possible. And use the resources as safe and ethically as possible striving towards sharing and caring. (do no Harm and do good = Humanism). My core definition of humanism is that humans can solve human problems by human means. I am not saying other things can’t or shouldn’t be added to it but to me, a definition of humanism must always contain something coherent to such a thinking or not contradict such as I have offered. Thus, why it is appropriate to say “good without god” when one is a humanist.
- I Believe Archaeology, not Myths & Why Not, as the Religious Myths Already Violate Reason!
- Archaeological, Scientific, & Philosophic evidence shows the god myth is man-made nonsense.
- Truth is a Value (axiological) Judgment.
- Axiological Atheism not Nihilist Atheism
- Interview of Formal Axiological Atheist Dr. William Kelleher
- I am an Axiological Atheist, with a Rationalist Persuasion, who Supports Anarcho-Humanism
- Axiological Atheism is Intellectualism
- “Value Theory/Value Science” atheism: AXIOLOGICAL ATHEISM
- Explaining Axiological theism, Axiological agnosticism, and Axiological atheism
- Axiological Atheism Supports Humanism & Secularism
- Axiological Atheism Morality Critique: of the bible god
- As an Axiological Atheist, I wish for Human Flourishing
- Psychological certainty and Epistemic certainty?
- Losing My Religion and MY Faith Addiction
- Ignostic Atheist: Do you Have a Coherent Definition of god?
- god Claims are a Non-Reality Commodity
- My Blogs on the Evolution of RELIGION
- Explaining My thoughts on the Evolution of Religion
- My Blogs Somewhat Relating to Science
- I am against Hereditary religion?
What is a god?
If you think you believe in a god, “what do you mean by god,” saying a name tells me not one thing about the thing I am asking to know “its” beingness/thingness/attributes/qualities. Thus, what is the thing “god” to which you are talking about and I want you to explain its beingness/thingness/attributes/qualities? Religious/theistic people with supernatural beliefs often seem as though they haven’t thought much about and that is something we can help using ontology questions about the beingness/thingness/attributes/qualities they are trying to refer too. What do you mean by god, when you use the term god? And, I am not asking you for the name you attach to the thing you label as a god. I don’t need to know what the god you believe is known “by.” I am asking, what is the thing you are naming as a god and what that thing is, its qualities every detail like all things have if they are real. Are you just making stuff up or guessing/hoping or just promoting unjustified ideas you want to believe, what is a god?
Do you want what is true or want what you believe without concern for what may actually be true?
I am not the thing abuse made,
I am a shooting star blazing bright, shining far pass my past.
Religion and it’s god myths are like a spiritually transmitted disease of the mind. This infection even once cured holds mental disruption which can linger on for a lifetime. And, 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?
- To Find Truth You Must First Look
- Archaeology Knowledge Challenge?
- The Evolution of Fire Sacralizing and/or Worship 1.5 million to 300,000 years ago and beyond?
- Stone Age Art: 500,000 – 233,000 Years Old
- 400,000 Years Old Sociocultural Evolution
- Pre-Animism: Portable Rock Art at least 300,000-year-old
- Did Neanderthals teach us “Primal Religion (Pre-Animism/Animism?)” 120,000 Years Ago?
- Animism: an approximately 100,000-year-old belief system?
- Stone Snake of South Africa: “first human worship” 70,000 years ago
- Similarities and differences in Animism and Totemism
- History of Drug Use with Religion or Sacred Rituals possibly 58,000 years ago?
- Totemism: an approximately 50,000-year-old belief system?
- Australia & Aboriginal Religion at least around 50,000 years old
- Modern Humans start around 50,000 years ago Helped by Feminisation
- Out of Africa: “the evolution of religion seems tied to the movement of people”
- Possible Religion Motivations in the First Cave Art at around 43,000 years ago?
- 40,000 years ago “first seeming use of a Totem” ancestor, animal, and possible pre-goddess worship?
- Prehistoric Egypt 40,000 years ago to The First Dynasty 5,150 years ago
- Shamanism: an approximately 30,000-year-old belief system
- Early Shamanism around 30,000 to 20,000 years ago: Sungar (Russia) and Dolni Vestonice (Czech Republic)
- ‘Sky Burial’ theory and its possible origins at least 12,000 years ago to likely 30,000 years ago or older.
- Similarity in Shamanism?
- Black, White, and Yellow Shamanism?
- Shamanistic rock art from central Aboriginal Siberians and Aboriginal drums in the Americas
- Horned female shamans and Pre-satanism Devil/horned-god Worship?
- 12,000 – 10,000 years old Shamanistic Art in a Remote Cave in Egypt
- Fertile Crescent 12,500 – 9,500 Years Ago: fertility and death cult belief system?
- 12,400 – 11,700 Years Ago – Kortik Tepe (Turkey) Pre/early-Agriculture Cultic Ritualism
- Gobekli Tepe: “first human-made temple” around 12,000 years ago.
- Sedentism and the Creation of goddesses around 12,000 years ago as well as male gods after 7,000 years ago.
- First Patriarchy: Split of Women’s Status around 12,000 years ago & First Hierarchy: fall of Women’s Status around 5,000 years ago.
- Natufians: an Ancient People at the Origins of Agriculture and Sedentary Life
- J DNA and the Spread of Agricultural Religion (paganism)
- Paganism: an approximately 12,000-year-old belief system
- Need to Mythicized: gods and goddesses
- “36cu0190” a Historic and Prehistoric site in Pennsylvania
- 12,000 – 10,000 years old Shamanistic Art in a Remote Cave in Egypt
- 12,000 – 7,000 Years Ago – Paleo-Indian Culture (The Americas)
- 12,000 – 2,000 Years Ago – Indigenous-Scandinavians (Nordic)
- Norse did not wear helmets with horns?
- Pre-Pottery Neolithic Skull Cult around 11,500 to 8,400 Years Ago?
- 9,000-8500 year old Female shaman Bad Dürrenberg Germany
- Kurgan 6,000 years ago/dolmens 7,000 years ago: funeral, ritual, and other?
- Connected “dolmen phenomenon” of above-ground stone burial structures?
- Evolution Of Science at least by 5,500 years ago
- 5,500 Years old birth of the State, the rise of Hierarchy, and the fall of Women’s status
- “Jiroft culture” 5,100 – 4,200 years ago and the History of Iran
- Progressed organized religion starts, an approximately 5,000-year-old belief system
- Origin of Logics is Naturalistic Observation at least by around 5,000 years ago.
- Ziggurats (multi-platform temples: 4,900 years old) to Pyramids (multi-platform tombs: 4,700 years old)
- “Happy Easter” Well Happy Eostre/Ishter
- 4,250 to 3,400 Year old Stonehenge from Russia: Arkaim?
- When was the beginning: TIMELINE OF CURRENT RELIGIONS, which start around 4,000 years ago.
- Kultepe? An archaeological site with a 4,000 years old women’s rights document.
- Single God Religions (Monotheism) = Man-o-theism started around 4,000 years ago?
- Confucianism’s Tiān (Shangdi god 4,000 years old): Supernaturalism, Pantheism or Theism?
- Yes, Your Male God is Ridiculous
- The Weakening of Ancient Trade and the Strengthening of Religions around 3000 years ago?
- Are you aware that there are religions that worship women gods, explain now religion tears women down?
- Animistic, Totemistic, and Paganistic Superstition Origins of bible god and the bible’s Religion.
- Jews, Judaism, and the Origins of Some of its Ideas
- An Old Branch of Religion Still Giving Fruit: Sacred Trees
- Dating the BIBLE: naming names and telling times (written less than 3,000 years ago, provable to 2,200 years ago)
- Did a Volcano Inspire the bible god?
- No “dinosaurs and humans didn’t exist together just because some think they are in the bible itself”
- Everyone Killed in the Bible Flood? “Nephilim” (giants)?
- Hey, Damien dude, I have a question for you regarding “the bible” Exodus.
- Archaeology Disproves the Bible
- Bible Battle, Just More, Bible Babble
- The Jericho Conquest lie?
- Canaanites and Israelites?
- Archaeology Knowledge Challenge?
- Accurate Account on how did Christianity Began?
- Let’s talk about Christianity.
- So the 10 commandments isn’t anything to go by either right?
- Misinformed christian
- Debunking Jesus?
- Paulism vs Jesus
- Ok, you seem confused so let’s talk about Buddhism.
- Unacknowledged Buddhism: Gods, Savior, Demons, Rebirth, Heavens, Hells, and Terrorism
- His Foolishness The Dalai Lama
- Yin and Yang is sexist with an ORIGIN around 2,300 years ago?
- I Believe Archaeology, not Myths & Why Not, as the Religious Myths Already Violate Reason!
- Archaeological, Scientific, & Philosophic evidence shows the god myth is man-made nonsense.
- Aquatic Ape Theory/Hypothesis? As Always, Just Pseudoscience.
- Ancient Aliens Conspiracy Theorists are Pseudohistorians
- The Pseudohistoric and Pseudoscientific claims about “Bakoni Ruins” of South Africa
- Why do people think Religion is much more than supernaturalism and superstitionism?
- Religion is an Evolved Product
- Was the Value of Ancient Women Different?
- 1000 to 1100 CE, human sacrifice Cahokia Mounds a pre-Columbian Native American site
- Feminist atheists as far back as the 1800s?
- Promoting Religion as Real is Mentally Harmful to a Flourishing Humanity
- Screw All Religions and Their Toxic lies, they are all fraud
- Forget Religions’ Unfounded Myths, I Have Substantiated “Archaeology Facts.”
- Religion Dispersal throughout the World
- I Hate Religion Just as I Hate all Pseudoscience
- Exposing Scientology, Eckankar, Wicca and Other Nonsense?
- Main deity or religious belief systems
- Quit Trying to Invent Your God From the Scraps of Science.
- Archaeological, Scientific, & Philosophic evidence shows the god myth is man-made nonsense.
I Don’t Have to Respect Ideas
People get confused ideas are not alive nor do they have beingness, Ideas don’t have rights nor the right to even exist only people have such a right. Ideas don’t have dignity nor can they feel violation only people if you attack them personally. Ideas don’t deserve any special anything they have no feelings and cannot be shamed they are open to the most brutal merciless attack and challenge without any protection and deserve none nor will I give them any if they are found wanting in evidence or reason. I will never respect Ideas if they are devoid of merit I only respect people. When I was young it was all about me, I wanted to be liked. Then I got older and it was even more about me, I wanted power. Now I am beyond a toxic ego and it is not just about me, I want to make a difference. Sexism is that evil weed that can sadly grow even in the well-tended garden of the individual with an otherwise developed mind. Which is why it particularly needs to be attacked and exposed; and is why I support feminism. Here are four blogs on that: Activism Labels Matter, thus Feminism is Needed, Feminist atheists as far back as the 1800s?, Sexism in the Major World Religions and Rape, Sexism and Religion?
Having privilege in race, gender, sexuality, ability, class, nationality, etc. does not mean one did not have it hard in life, it just was not hard due to race, gender, sexuality, ability, class, nationality, etc. if one has privilege in that area.
Empathy: think in another’s thinking, try to feel their feeling, and care about their experience.
Theism is presented as adding love to your life… But to me, more often it peddles in ignorance (pseudo-science, pseudo-history, and pseudo-morality), tribalism (strong in-group loyalty if you believe like them and aversion to difference; like shunning: social rejection, emotional distance, or ostracism), and psychological terrorism; primarily targeting well being both safety and comfort (you are born a sinner, you are evil by nature, you are guilty of thought crimes, threats of misfortune, suffering, and torture “hell”).
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.
I have made many mistakes in my life but the most common one of all is my being resistant to change. However, now I wish to be more, to be better, as I desire my openness to change if needed, not letting uncomfortable change hold me back. May I be a rationalist, holding fast to a valued belief etiquette: demanding reasoned belief acquisitions, good belief maintenance, and honest belief relinquishment.
I do truth navigation, both inquiry questions as well as
strategic facts in a tag team of debate and motivational teaching.
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:
*The Hammer of Truth: ontology, epistemology, and axiology (methodological use of philosophy)
*Dialectical Rhetoric = truth persuasion: use of facts and reasoning (motivational teaching)
*Utilizing Dignity: strategic dignity attacks or dignity enrichments (only used if confusion happens or resistance is present)
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.
Ok, I am a kind of “Militant” Atheist
“Damien, what I find interesting is how an atheist like you
spends so much time and energy on God and religion.” – Challenger
My response, Well, let’s see, maybe because we atheists and anti-religionists care to inform our fellow humans who have been lied to and are lying to others and often forcing religion on children indoctrinating them with lies over truth and it’s harming us all. You know, all the religious hate groups and religious violence stuff and the like. What I find interesting is how could a responsible caring ethical person stay silent against religions, that my friend is a much better question.
A Rational Mind Values Humanity
A truly rational mind sees the need for humanity, as they too live in the world and see themselves as they actually are an alone body in the world seeking comfort and safety. Thus, see the value of everyone around them, as they too are the same and therefore, rationally as well a humanistically, we should work for this humanity we are part of. Moreover, we simply can either dwell in or help its flourishing (the humanity we are part of), as we are all in a metaphoric way, are in the hands of each other and communally need each other. We rise by helping each other and we may fail if we keep going as hurtful as humans too often are to each other. May we be good humans. We can be builders of life or its destruction. The person is political so the actions of my life are the expression of my political values even before I tell you what brand I may claim. We are not our past, though we are bound to it. We are also not our future self yet. So, just be the best you in the here and now. May the actions of my life be written deep with the poetry of my humanity. What do your actions say?
I am a high thinking primate, just trying to live an honorable life, being of service to others, and I wish as a life’s mission to be a kindness aficionado. And, I like to contemplate humans, humanity, and human flourishing.
My core definition of Humanism, is that humans can solve human problems by human means. I am not saying other things can’t or shouldn’t be added to it but to me, a definition of humanism must always contain something coherent to such a thinking or not contradict such as I have offered. Thus, why it is appropriate to say “good without god” when one is a humanist.
We as humanity must work together as one people and one human race. We can no longer sit back and watch the world burn. We are accountable for the world staying the same thus leading to extended suffering, or change the world to start alleviating suffering. For too long we have gotten comfortable with eyes of hate, which only seem to find victims, instead of eyes of love, helping us find friends. I am not calling for fighting for a political party; I am trying to inspire humanitarian flourishing not limited to even a country. As I wish to look to the big picture, that we are all global citizens, and I say it’s time we start acting like it. I, as others, promise to strive to help be the change so needed in this world. Will you join us?
Here is my external pages or content: Facebook Witter Page, My YouTube, My Linkedin, Twitter: @AthopeMarie, Instagram: damienathope, Personal Facebook Page, Main Atheist Facebook Page, Secondary Atheist Facebook Page, Facebook Leftist Political Page, Facebook Group: Atheists Against Trump, Facebook The History Voyagers Page, Facebook Group: The History Voyagers, Facebook Group: (HARP) Humanism, Atheism, Rationalism, & Philosophy, Facebook Atheist for Non-monogamy Page, Facebook Group: Atheist for Non-monogamy, and My Email: firstname.lastname@example.org