Axiological Leftist

“We rise by helping each other.”

I am a caring firebrand atheist, wishing to be hard on ideas but kind to people.

Atheism or disbelief in things like ghosts, goblins, and gods is the thing people do when they require their beliefs to be based on reason and evidence derived from our provable reality, not myths or wild unfounded speculation. And belief in gods, monsters, and religions are the things people do until they require facts to justify their beliefs instead of just their emotions. Evidence favors one model for understanding the real world and that model is scientific naturalism. So, religious supernaturalism you had your chance to prove something outlandish you claimed was true, but yours is a history of failure and emptiness to prove anything special at all, just more empty belief. I have an open mind but require evidence. Thus, I feel compiled to be an atheist. Any mind that thinks it is never wrong is in that fantasy are demonstrating how wrong in thinking it truly is. Religions are the things people do until they require facts. In this way religions are like organized lying. 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? Faith is the socially acceptable make-believe seen as reality. The Economics of Anarchy | – The Anarchist Library

Politically, I am somewhat hard to define but I will try so you can see. I am an eclectic Liberal with Leftist conceptions mainly involve or lean towards: Philosophical Anarchism, Educational Anarchism, Atheist Natural Rights Libertarianism, Left-Libertarianism, Anarcho-Naturism, Green Anarchism, Dialectical Naturalism, Anti-capitalism, Anarcho-collectivism, Progressive, Secularism, Socialist Anarchism, Democratic Socialism, Libertarian Municipalism, Radical Minarchism, Anarcho-Feminism, Queer anarchism, Left-wing market anarchism, Green anarchism, Naturist Anarchism, and Anarcho-Mutualism Political Philosophies with Axiology. To put it more simply I want the most freedom, liberty, compassion, well being and justice for individuals, groups, our shared humanity as well as other living things around us and our earth because we have to live here. Are YOU Like Me, an Anti-Authoritarian Thinker?

A Different Kind of Atheist:

“Axiological, Methodological, Anarchist, Universal Ethicist, Realist, and Rationalist”

Damien Marie AtHope: Axiological Atheist, Anti-theist, Anti-religionist, Secularist, Humanist, Rationalist, Writer, Artist, Poet, Philosopher, Advocate, Activist, with schooling in Psychology and Sociology as well as an Autodidact in Science, Archeology, Anthropology, and Philosophy. Damien Promotes Science, Realism, Axiology, Liberty, Justice, Ethics, Anarchism, Socialism, Progressivism, Liberalism, Philosophy, Psychology, Archaeology, and Anthropology; advocating for Sexual, Gender, Child, Secular, LGBTQIA+, Race, Class Rights, and Equality.

Dear of Seed of Hate, I no longer love you.

Where did the seeds of hate come from you may ask: well, “That is only mine”, “only they are me”, “they are only allowed there” “only they are allowed this/that” or “only I matter”, all of which have quite often sent a seed of hate in the world and we have been responding to them for years on end. Who is wrong? Once I was wrong. And then wrong again. In fact, I have been wrong all my life. One has not found truth if they believe that they are never wrong. I am sure this plague of my side bias is a fantastic way of not learning new-truth if that matters to you? Dear thinkers welcome you’re being completely shown to be wrong, as who wants to spend another second believing a lie. You don’t honestly want to believe lies or half-truths do you? Gods at best are unknown, thus are morally irrelevant, so just say NO to divine morals. And to humanity, which we do know, and its human-derived ethics, just say YES.

Often what we don’t understand we can come to fear. That which we fear we often learn to hate. Things we hate we usually seek to destroy. It is thus upon us to try and understand the unknown or unfamiliar not letting fear drive us into the unreasonable arms of hate and harm.

MORALITY: values, morals, and ethics

To me “morals, values, and ethics” as we standardly think of them are not the same and often are contradictory. Thus, unless they are justified they are not a compilation of truth, other than one’s chosen thinking idea of reality.

I would like to offer my understanding of how I see the layout of morality, values, morals, and ethics as I see them. I see the term “morality” proper as the main moniker to a philosophic group (values, morals, and ethics) or a main heading that involves the subheadings of values, morals and ethics. Values, morals, and ethics, in a basic observational way, should be understood as falling under branches expressing different but similar thinking and behavioral persuasion. Values are the internal catalyst often motivating our thinking and behaviors. Such as, a value of all human life, would tend to motivate you to not wantonly end human lives. Just as a lack of value for all human life, may tend to motivate you do not have an issue with the wanton ending of human lives. Morals to me, are the personal persuasion that you value, such as having a desire for truthfulness. Then we have ethics and we know this is a different branch of the morality tree, as there is business ethics/professional ethics but not really business morals or professional morals; other than one’s self-chosen persuasion which may be adopted from business ethics/professional ethics. Ethics are as I have expressed our social universal prescriptions/persuasions public morality whereas morals to me are personal morality. Therefore, we can hold others to universal ethics standards (public morality) and not our moral proclivities that are not universal on others, as morals are for us (personal morality).

A Challenge to My Democratic Political Thinking

“One question, I do have is what if the public decides democratically it has no use for your brand of politics? What happens then?” – Questioner

My response, Well, a global hypothetical of change is always in play for any social structure and can only be met with a hypothetical of ideas as well. Thus, things may always need to change or adapt to needs but for me, this always should strive to social well-being as its society that is in question, and psychological well-being as society is but a community of individuals. Also, note that “democratic” is not referring to the political party in this instance, but a democracy, specifically direct democracy.

Direct democracy (also known as pure democracy) is a form of democracy in which people decide (e.g. vote on, form consensus on) policy initiatives directly. This differs from the majority of modern Western-style democracies, which are indirect democracies. Depending on the particular system in use, direct democracy might entail passing executive decisions, the use of sortition, making laws, directly electing or dismissing officials and conducting trials. Two leading forms of direct democracy are a participatory democracy and deliberative democracy. Most countries that are representative democracies allow for three forms of political action that provide limited direct democracy: referendum (plebiscite), initiative, and recall.

Have you ever felt like the government doesn’t really care what you think?

Professors Martin Gilens (Princeton University) and Benjamin I. Page (Northwestern University) looked at more than 20 years worth of data to answer a simple question: Does the US government represent the people?

Their study took data from nearly 2000 public opinion surveys and compared it to the policies that ended up becoming law. In other words, they compared what the public wanted to what the government actually did. What they found was extremely unsettling: The opinions of 90% of Americans have essentially no impact at all. https://represent.us/action/theproblem-4/

I am a happy human, one at a state of internal happiness that I wish to share with others. I am not trying to say or act as if I am perfect, but my goal is to strive to be a more caring and understanding human being, as well as try to help others do the same. We may not always think of it but we need others all our lives in one way or another. We are not alone. Instead, we share one world. As such this is our planet, all humans are my people, and I want to help the world if I can. We all need to see the benefit of showing more compassion, not to ideas but rather, to people. Simply, we must be kinder to one another, even if we are different or believe differently, because people matter. May we not forget we rise by helping each other. I am just a happy human, one who is proudly good without god!

The Personal Bio of Damien Marie AtHope & The Professional Bio of Damien Marie AtHope

My personality is ENTJ-A (ENTJ Personality Type – “Chief” Profile):

Extraverted (E), Intuitive (N), Thinking (T) and Judging (J) – A (assertive)

While ENTJs 16personalities.com takes this typing a step further with a hyphenated suffix at the end of the 4-letter code, either the letter A (assertive) or T (turbulent). Guess which one this ENTJ got? A, of course. ENTJ-A.

My personality is ENTJ-A (ENTJ Personality Type – “Chief” Profile):

Extraverted (E), Intuitive (N), Thinking (T) and Judging (J) – A (assertive)

The ENTJ personality type is nicknamed the “Chief” and belongs to the NT Intellectual temperament. ENTJs are natural and decisive leaders. They are analytical, efficient and hardworking. They live in the world of ideas and have a great ability to debate. Their goal-oriented and self-confident nature enables them to take charge. They thrive on achievement. ENTJs direct their energy outward. They are gregarious, talkative and very assertive. They are enthusiastic and expressive. Chiefs are Intuitive and future-oriented. They are imaginative, complex and abstract in their thinking. ENTJs are Thinkers. They are logical and objective. They make decisions with their head rather than their heart. ENTJs are rational, impersonal and critical in thought. They are firm with people and are thick-skinned. ENTJs are decisive, enjoy finishing tasks and seek closure. They like structure and schedules. They are disciplined and responsible. ENTJs are independent. They seek autonomous and productive relationships. They are competitive and interested in what other people know. They turn most of their relationships into opportunities to teach or mentor. Although very career oriented when they are committed to a relationship they put a lot of effort into it. Chiefs are often avid learners and voracious readers. They have unlimited curiosity and desire to gain knowledge and mastery. They do well in school as long as they are engaged. They are self-motivated and can learn very well on their own. They can have a hard time relaxing. Chiefs do not like to waste time. ENTJs make up 4% of all 16 personality types. ENTJs are one of the least common personality types. Of the Extraverted types, ENTJs are the rarest (along with ENFJs). 1 in every 18 males is an ENTJ (5.5% of all males). 1 in every 40 females is an ENTJ (2.5% of all females). Female ENTJs are one of the rarest type-gender combinations. There are significantly more male ENTJs than there are female ENTJs, with males outnumbering females more than 2 to 1. One reason there are more male ENTJs is that males tend to be Thinkers (T) while females are more often Feelers (F). ref

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?

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. Ones 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.

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 (secular humanism).

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.

Is there Justice in Life and Is Life Fair?

“Damien, I want to ask you a few questions, is there justice in life? Is life fair? Because atheistic mindset makes life sounds as if there is no justice in it?” – Questioner

My response, we can make Justice in life as Justice involves fair, caring or respectful behaviors etc. there is no karma nor any supernatural anything working on our behalf if that is what you are asking.

“Damien, I’m just saying that if that’s the case, then theistic mindset could offer more satisfaction in life.” – Questioner

My response, it is the case and magic beliefs of any kind can add to how things feel and so too does denialism and romanticism or idealism where no gOD is required. But that is meaningless as lies are still lies, saying lies feel good; does not change the fact they are lies.

“Damien, I’m a deist… But if I gave you the theistic view, this God wouldn’t force people into joining his side..” – Questioner

My response, if your beloved god does not add or ensure Justice in this life it is doing nothing, nothing more than a godless universe and that is all you can know. Saying that there is anything else is making stuff up that you not only don’t know you have no way of knowing.

“Damien, well I don’t see that atheism is bringing any justice either.. Enlighten me if I’m wrong..” – Questioner

My response, atheism is not claiming to but it’s a conclusion that Theism and it’s baseless arguments fail so it’s not trying to. People are who can and cannot engage in acts of kindness, love or justice so it’s closer to an Atheism line of thinking compared to some theistic one where magic non-real world unproven supernatural powers or beings are said to do such things as well, but this is evidence devoid empty assertions nothing more.

Fight to End Abuse and Injustice

What is “Justice”? When I was young and I saw people abused or treated unjustly, I was manly happy it was not me. But as I developed my humanity, I started to thoroughly despise abuse and injustice universally, wishing all abuse and injustice would end. I started to be vocal and compiled through my compassion to join the fight to end abuse and injustice. So. now that I have positively changed, I want to promote all the positive prosocial relating and kindness between all people I can; with a hope that they to will join to fight with me to help put an end abuse and injustice for everyone.

Blasphemy laws are abusive religious fascism: Fascism (in general use) expresses extreme right-wing/religious right, authoritarian, or intolerant views or practice; political factions characterized by their strong support of socially conservative religious policies to force some aspect of the religious belief or values. Then you only have to pair “fascism” with the religious system committing a fascism violation such as: “Christian: Christofascism,” “Islamic: Islamofascism,” “Jewish: Judeofascist,” “Hindu: Hindufascism,” “Buddhist: Buddhofascism,” Etc.

One of the many reasons why I am so antireligious, beyond the falsehoods is that there is such a thing as a religious exemption for child abuse: Most states allow religious exemptions from child abuse and neglect laws

Let justice and kindness reign, are you with me?

To quickly understand Axiological Atheism,

it is like humanistic anti-theism and anti-religionism with strong secularism.

Axiological Leftist: involves eclectic Liberal and Leftist conceptions mainly involve Natural Rights Libertarianism, Left-Libertarianism, Anarcho-Naturism, Green Anarchism, Dialectical Naturalism, Anti-capitalism, Progressive, Secularism, Democratic Socialism, Libertarian Municipalism, Radical Minarchism, and Anarcho-Mutualism Political Philosophies with Axiology.

Axiological Leftist would value mutualistic municipal type minarchism small-government egalitarianism with nobody as one leader no president, governor, mayor, etc. Two things I think you’ll find common to most mutualists: an advocacy of a kind of market socialism and a strong emphasis on ethics, particularly on “mutuality” and reciprocity. While this page may be outright negative to the right, conservatives, or republicans and at times somewhat positive to some democrat values or positions, It will challenge and attack Democrats as well if applicable.

Overall Axiological Leftist is not Statist (Hierarchicy) but can lean toward Liberal values, supporting Civil Rights, Women’s Rights, LGBTQI Rights, Human Rights, Universal Health Care, Abortion Rights, Same-Sex Marriage, Radical Federalism, Direct Democracy, Non-Hierarchical Governance, Reasonable Gun Control, and Environmental Protection.

Axiological Political Science: For Hartman, “the science of Politics and Social Ethics” consists in the application of intrinsic value to groups of persons. Formal Axiology originally developed by Robert S. Hartman. Formal axiology identifies the general patterns involved in (1) the meaning of “good” and other value concepts, in (2) what we value (value-objects), and in (3) how we value (valuations or evaluations). It explains the rational, practical, and affective aspects of evaluation and shows how to make value judgments more rationally and effectively. It distinguishes between intrinsic, extrinsic, and systemic values and evaluations, and discusses how and why they fall into a rational hierarchy of value. It demonstrates the intrinsic worth of unique conscious beings and develops an axiological ethics in the three value dimensions.

The ending paragraph Hartman wrote for The Structure of Value, states, the application of axiology to actual situations through the applied axiological sciences is a task for new generations of pure and applied axiologists, pure and applied social and moral scientists, and finally, the mechanics and craftsmen of social and moral situations. As the achievements of the natural scientists analyzing natural situations in terms of mathematics, have led to the building of factories turning out new and undreamed of things, so the achievements of the moral scientists of the future, analyzing moral situations in terms of formal axiology, will lead to the building of a new society with new people, living on higher levels of awareness and possessing undreamed of insights into the subtleties and depths of moral reality.

The authors of The Federalist Papers clearly understood that following the right kind of political system can result in the political happiness of the population, and that a political system is “right” if following its guidelines results in the political happiness of the people who dwell within that system. Facilitating the achievement of this felicitous circularity is the aim of axiological political science.

Natural-rights libertarianism: also known as deontological libertarianism, philosophical libertarianism, deontological liberalism, rights-theorist libertarianism, natural rights-based libertarianism, or libertarian moralism, refers to the view that all individuals possess certain natural or moral rights, mainly a right of individual sovereignty, and that therefore acts of initiation of force and fraud are rights violations and that is sufficient reason to oppose those acts. ref

Left-libertarianism: (socialist libertarians, anarcho-socialist, or Left-wing libertarianism) names several related but distinct approaches to politics, society, culture, and political and social theory, which stress equally both individual freedom and social justice. Libertarian socialism is the anti-state tradition of socialism. In a broad sense, people who may share with “traditional socialism a distrust of the market, of private investment, and of the achievement ethic, and a commitment to the expansion of the welfare state” might sometimes be described as “left-libertarians.” ref

Anarcho-naturism: for me is advocating free love, nudism, hiking and an ecological worldview within anarchist groups and outside them. Anarcho-naturism promoted an ecological worldview, nudism as a way to avoid the artificiality of the industrial mass society of modernity. Naturist individualist anarchists saw the individual in their biological, physical and psychological aspects and tried to eliminate social determinations. ref

Green anarchism (or eco-anarchism): is a school of thought within anarchism which puts a particular emphasis on environmental issues. ref

Dialectical naturalism: (often seen with the scientistic dialectical materialism of orthodox Marxists) explores the complex interrelationship between social problems, and the direct consequences they have on the ecological impact of human society. Dialectical naturalism can be seen as a contrast to “empyrean, basically antinaturalistic dialectical idealism” of Hegel, and “the wooden, often scientistic dialectical materialism of orthodox Marxists.” As a philosophy, dialectical naturalism stresses the incorporation and advancement of scientific understanding as an integral part of the development of an ecological human understanding. Dialectical Naturalism rejects “the revival of ‘pre-scientific’ archaisms,” and stressed the importance of incorporating a broad scientific understanding from the literature of multiple disciplines. As such, the project of social ecology is a holistic one, dealing with communities and ecosystems in their totalities not just as the sum of their parts, but as the fullness of the interdependence of the many diverse and special parts make, as the saying goes, the whole become more than the sum of its parts. ref

Libertarian Municipalism: represents a serious, indeed a historically fundamental project, to render politics ethical in character and grassroots in organization. It is structurally and morally different from other grassroots efforts, not merely rhetorically different. It seeks to reclaim the public sphere for the exercise of authentic citizenship while breaking away from the bleak cycle of parliamentarism and its mystification of the “party” mechanism as a means for public representation. In these respects, libertarian municipalism is not merely a “political strategy.” It is an effort to work from latent or incipient democratic possibilities toward a radically new configuration of society itself-a communitarian society oriented toward meeting human needs, responding to ecological imperatives, and developing a new ethics based on sharing and cooperation. Libertarian municipalism proposes a radically different form of economy one that is neither nationalized nor collectivized according to syndicalist precepts. ref

Radical/ Libertarian Minarchism *Night-watchman state*: does not refer to any old vaguely “small government” philosophy, but specifically to what I would call “radical minarchism” or a strictly “bare bones” view of government. There is an assumption that both libertarian anarchism and libertarian minarchism share the many of the same basic premises, the basic difference that distinguishes them can be thought of simply in terms of what conclusions are reached from those premises. At a basic level, libertarian minarchism proposes that the initiation of the use of force is wrong and concludes that we should have a government that is limited to the point at which it does not initiate the use of force, while libertarian anarchism proposes that the initiation of the use of force is wrong and concludes that we should have no government. So here we arrive at the basic conflict between “limited government” and “no government”. At this point, an interesting question that arises is the extent to which the disagreement between these two ultimate conclusions revolve around nothing more than semantics over the word “government”. The minarchist tends to define “government” in a way that leaves open the possibility of having a government that does not initiate force, while the anarchist tends to define “government” as inherently involving the initiation of force. I personally prefer to make a formal distinction between “state” and “government.”

Anarcho-Mutualism (economic theory): is an economic theory and anarchist school of thought that advocates a society where each person might possess a means of production, either individually or collectively, with trade representing equivalent amounts of labor in the free market. Integral to the scheme was the establishment of a mutual-credit bank that would lend to producers at a minimal interest rate, just high enough to cover administration. Mutualism is based on a labor theory of value that holds that when labor or its product is sold, in exchange, it ought to receive goods or services embodying “the amount of labor necessary to produce an article of exactly similar and equal utility”.

Democratic socialism: is a political ideology advocating a democratic political system alongside a socialist economic system, involving a combination of political democracy (usually multi-party democracy) with social ownership of the means of production.

To help you get my Political Page I am not bound to any specific political Ideology exclusively I do as I see right I want and support all progressive positive humanitarian equalitarian change.

For those who only know the standard Libertarian (right-Libertarian, to me), this is like their opposite similar to how liberal is different than conservative. Put it easier for some on a political test I am 86% Democrat and only 7% Republican.

References 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10

I have a Facebook page: Axiological Leftist

Formal Axiology and Karl Marx | by William J. Kelleher, Ph.D.

Karl Marx wrote with an astute intuitive grasp of Formal Axiology. We see how the Value Calculus is implicit in Marx’s basic criticisms of the nightmarish value disorder in capitalism. “Communism” was not a defined standard for criticizing capitalism. His critique began with the person as an intrinsic value, and then he described and denounced all the transpositions thereof. The essay illustrates how Formal Axiology can help people who want to see capitalist social relations as Marx saw them – as structures of value. Robert S. Hartman predicted that the precise knowledge of the value sciences “ought to make us more sensitive to moral reality.” Just as the natural sciences have improved the quality of health and of material life for much of humanity, Hartman hoped that the new value sciences would lead to a rise in the moral level of human civilization. ref

Here is a great starting place: https://independent.academia.edu/WilliamJKelleherPhD

Power Authority Oppression

Limiting the power to a point in authority, maximize the potential for oppression. This is referring to the need for greater inclusion of many instead of the exclusion driven only by the few. Moreover, how this greater inclusion can be adopted is non-hierarchical political structure and more direct democracy. Such as a “Heterarchy” which is a system of organization where the elements of the organization are unranked (non-hierarchical) or where they possess the potential to be ranked a number of different ways. Definitions of the term vary among the disciplines: in social and information sciences, heterarchies are networks of elements in which each element shares the same “horizontal” position of power and authority, each playing a theoretically equal role. 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?

You say I believe in things…..

I say, “so what”, everyone has beliefs. In fact, every thinking being including animals forms and has some kind of beliefs. What makes one’s beliefs valid is their adherence to justified and reliable reason and evidence. Religious beliefs are supposedly confirmed on the F-word called faith. But faith is not the other F-word facts, instead, it is an invalid placeholder for beliefs one has that do not adhere to justified or reliable reason or evidence. Thus, to claim faith is to pronounce one realizes their beliefs are devoid of facts thus wishful or baseless.

I am a “Scientific Axiology” minded “Philosophic Axiologist.”

*Philosophic Axiology (Value Theory)

“Scientific Axiology (Formal Axiology).

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.

Below shows the 7 axiological atheism argument flow to show the value layers and my thoughts on it:

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 in 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 in the 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 argue for Atheism on scientific, archaeologically/anthropologically, philosophical, social/humanitarianism and prehistorical/historical grounds.

Archaeological, Scientific, & Philosophic grounds: Link

Prehistorical/historical grounds: Link

Social/humanitarianism grounds: Link

Axiological Leftist

Axiological Leftist

Fight to End Abuse and Injustice

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

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

Recent Posts

Archives

Categories

Pages

Meta

Advertisement

Pin It on Pinterest