Which is more reasonable, Atheism or Theism?
Atheism is more reasonable as it is only holding to the proven naturalism confirmed by science. Whereas, theism puts forth faith, magical thinking and stories about the history of the world, who’s beliefs either don’t match or are debunked by the proven naturalism confirmed by science. To value faith as a means to know reality or the truth or something, is a mental weakness of wanting one’s beliefs about reality to matter more than the actual reality. Faith in relation of truth is at best just wishful emotions over rational understanding.
The Empty God Box
In scientific terms a “LACK OF EVIDENCE” is/can be proof of non-existence. As with all things as new evidence is discovered views can change. I can prove something does not exist by its lack of existence, the box is empty? Is a box empty? I can prove god is not in the box, but some say I can never prove the box is empty. But is it right to say the god Box is never empty even if we remove its needed contents. It’s an exercise in rhetoric with what we do know to say the god Box is not empty of all evidence and reason thus all it can be is empty of validity. And still today people say empty god boxes are possibly not empty? The god Box is, was, and will always “LACK OF EVIDENCE” thus empty proving the god concepts non-existence. Think I am wrong then you go and keep looking or trying to empty that already empty box labeled god devoid of all facts or reason.
Theists and Atheists as well as Agnostics?
An agnostic is a person that does not know that they are an Atheist and if they don’t like that then choose which one you are because you either are one or the other. Saying you don’t know which one you believe is avoiding the question as one either accepts or rejects. If you don’t care about the question, then you are an Apatheist but even then one has rejected a choice of believing thus is an Atheist.
Agnosticism is a Non-Standard Epistemological Belief About Knowledge & Certainty
“Here are several responses, I mixing into one set of text, though it was different people responding.”
*“Damien, how can you say God(s) is not even possible?” – Commenter
My response, Well, for a thing to be assessed as possible it needs a starting point in reality, the man-made God concepts not only don’t have such tangibility they can’t even justify what a god actually could be other that state regurgitating wishful thinking stories that involve empty unwarranted claims of supernatural beings with supernaturalism caricaturists devoid of any supporting demonstrable or testable evidence. So saying that you know or hold open to possibility is to be posturing from ignorance as you not only don’t know anything about non-natural things (no one rightly can) you likewise do nor justifiability can say what if anything could be beyond the natural world as that is all we have. Thus saying one believes that some God, any God is real or possible is wrong until evidence of supernatural anything is proven. Stating a possibility is to state a knowledge claim of the posable, meaning if justifiable it must connect to that which would support such a claim. So how can anyone truly say a god (unknown and evidenceless assumed thing only expressed by imagination) could be possible?
*“Damien, I hear you reject agnosticism thinking, but an agnostic is a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as God, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience. Nothing more, nothing less.” – Commenter
My response, to not know is not to believe, thus is Atheism.
*“Damien, I’m sorry Damien, but you are wrong here. I know plenty of Christians who are also Agnostic. That is, they don’t have knowledge of god, but they still believe. In fact, one could argue that if knowledge exists, then there is no need for faith. However, I agree that there is a common usage of the term Agnostic that is more like, “I’m not sure if I believe in god or not.”. That’s not really a correct usage, but it is fairly common. Many of those who use it this way are probably really Atheists, but are afraid of using that word. BTW, I am an Atheist and an Agnostic. The two terms are not incompatible.” – Commenter
My response, Agnostic Christians = believe in God, thus is theism. Weak/soft theism to be specific.
*“Damien, yes, theist, but also agnostic.” – Commenter
My response, saying one does not know is a lack of belief thus Atheist if one states that they don’t know but believe they are a theist.
*“Damien, an agnostic is the person who isn’t sure whether or not there’s a god. The truth is, we are all agnostic because no one is sure whether or not there’s a god. Now, you have people that chose to believe there’s a god. This is the agnostic theist. Then you have the one that doesn’t believe there’s one, this is the agnostic atheist.” – Commenter
My response, what are we to be not sure of? There is not one piece of evidence to even support any not intelligent supernatural let alone an intelligent one and to state otherwise to me is preposterous.
*“Damien, the reason no one is sure is because we haven’t explored the entire universe. When you are done doing this, then you can be sure.” – Commenter
My response, it seems agnostics like to say they don’t have knowledge then turn right around and make a knowledge claim about how we can’t be sure but a true exhibition of not knowing is to not make any claims at all.
*“Damien, what I’m saying is that no one can affirm for fact whether or not there’s a god out there, that’s the reason we are all agnostic by definition, because no one knows.” – Commenter
My response, well on that point, no one has or can affirm a fact about what a god could be. Thus, this proposed question involves an unjustified and unwarranted claim that can be rejected of hand until someone can demonstrate the opposite whether or not there’s some justified or warranted qualities or characteristics to start thinking what otherwise is an empty claim of god.
*“Damien, but knowledge and belief are not the same thing. Well, I don’t want to argue about it. Matt Dillahunty has spoken on this many times and I would suggest you check out his discussion on this.” – Commenter
My response, I am an Ignostic as the concept of God(s) is a nothing statement lacking justifiable reason or evidence thus meaningless to state one does not know if it’s possible as to state such is to give the claim more substance that is deserves. Matt Dillahunty only asserts belief not knowledge. If I remember correctly, he told me there is not knowledge only levels of belief. I don’t agree with that. As for what famous Atheists think Aron Ra States something like an agnostic is someone who does not know they are an Atheist and Peter Boghossian states something like there is no need for using Agnostic.
*“Damien, so are you suggesting we remove the word Gnossis from the English language? When people like Aron Ra state that an agnostic is someone who doesn’t know they are atheist, I believe he is using the term agnostic in the common usage, not the correct usage. A (without) Gnostic (knowlege). I.e., if you tell me you have a dog, I would probably believe you. I have not reason not to, even though I have no ‘knowledge’ of your statement. I would be agnostic re: your statement of a dog, but I would still believe it. Belief does NOT require knowledge, but it certainly is boosted by knowledge and facts.” – Commenter
My response, Agnostics as thinkers are playing a game, making up things about epistemology that are not the case. Knowledge is an epistemic property of belief just like certainty. Yes, the folk philosophy used in support of agnostic arguments is one of the problems. Second sure get rid of the religious term Gnostic as it is not a required word in epistemology neither is agnostic for that matter. As an Ignostic Atheist I say the term God is no more real than the term fod. Ignosticism goes further than agnosticism; while agnosticism states that “you can’t really know either way” regarding the existence or non-existence of gOD, ignosticism posits that “you haven’t even agreed on what you’re discussing, as its nothing”. Ignosticism is the idea that the question of the existence of God is meaningless, because the term “god” has no unambiguous definition. Ignosticism requires a good, non-controversial definition of god before arguing on its existence. In epistemology there are various kinds of certainty. I am psychologically certain there is no supernatural anything because of epistemic certainty about the natural only world devoid of magic anything Thus I fully reject the made up evidence devoid concept of gods. There is no warrant to do otherwise . And I hold all beliefs to the standard that it must relate to or corresponds with the reality of the world. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/certainty/
*“Damien, It’s okay to remain open to any idea or philosophy.. I think it’s worse to pick one idea and decide to stick to it for all of your existence. There’s no reason why anyone must “choose a side.” – Commenter
My response, we all should an honest thinker therefore be open to credible information even if it means we need to amend or change our beliefs. Not choosing a side is in fact choosing Atheism as to lack belief is the default of Atheism only active belief is Theism.
*“Damien, your just wrong. I was agnostic for many years, saying I was fairly sure there were no Gods but not 100%. I am now, but there are plenty who could legitimately call themselves agnostic.” – Commenter
My response, the lacking 100% to me is still saying one doubts the claims of God’s thus does not believe them thus is an Atheist. To me the 100% knowledge claim is unwarranted as we can say we are not 100% about many things in science and that doesn’t diminish the justification for believing them or similar there are things science doesn’t 100% know they are false and yet we have justification for not believing them. Think also in courts of law there is almost never anything close to 100% certainty and that doesn’t mean we are forever lost as in the can be a state of beyond a reasonable doubt. Which to me also shows there is a state of thinking where the doubt can be unreasonable or at least not warranted.
*“Damien, agnostic means you don’t give a shit if there is a god or not. You don’t know, don’t care.” – Commenter
My response, that is an Apatheist and apatheism, also known as pragmatic atheism or practical atheism.
*”Damien, making up a word doesn’t change what an agnostic truly is.” – Commenter
My response, I didn’t make up the word Apatheist. apathetic agnosticism claims that no amount of debate can prove or disprove the existence of one or more deities, and if one or more deities exist, they do not appear to be concerned about the fate of humans. Therefore, their existence has little to no impact on personal human affairs and should be of little theological interest. Which is still known as pragmatic atheism or practical atheism. http://atheism.about.com/od/Atheist-Dictionary/g/Definition-Apatheist.htm https://www.pdcnet.org/pdc/bvdb.nsf/purchase?openform&fp=wcp22&id=wcp22_2008_0045_0087_0093
Still Questioning If There is Disproof of Gods?
In the link there are offered empirical disproofs of god, such as: COSMOLOGICAL DISPROOFS, TELEOLOGICAL DISPROOFS, EVIDENTIAL EVIL DISPROOFS, & NONBELIEF DISPROOFS
*“Damien, I’m agnostic. No shame.” – Commenter
My response, I didn’t say it held shame I said it is a state of not actively believing thus is Atheism or weak/soft Atheism to be specific. Here is some philosophy info on Agnosticism:
Though there are a couple of references in The Oxford English Dictionary to earlier occurrences of the word ‘agnostic’, seems introduced by T. H. Huxley at a party in London to found the Metaphysical Society. Huxley thought that as many of these people liked to describe themselves as adherents of various ‘isms’ he would invent one for himself. He took it from a description in Acts 17:23 of an altar inscribed ‘to an unknown God’. Huxley thought that we would never be able to know about the ultimate origin and causes of the universe. Thus he seems to have been more like a Kantian believer in unknowable noumena than like a Vienna Circle proponent of the view that talk of God is not even meaningful. Huxley’s agnosticism seems nevertheless to go with an extreme empiricism, nearer to Mill’s methods of induction than to recent discussions of the hypothetico-deductive and partly holistic aspect of testing of theories. Though we might not be able to prove the existence of God might we be able to disprove it? Many philosophers hold that the existence of an omnipotent, omniscient and good God is empirically refuted by the existence of evil and suffering, and so would be happy to be called atheists rather than agnostics. As was hinted earlier, a person may call herself an agnostic, as Huxley did, because of questionable philosophical motives. Huxley thought that propositions about the transcendent, though possibly meaningful, were empirically untestable. We have seen that it is unclear that the conclusion of the fine tuning argument is untestable. One can at least compare it with other and non-theistic hypotheses. Thus there are conjectures that there are many universes, so many of them that is not surprising that there should be some among them in which the constants of physics allow for the possibility of life, and if so our universe must be one of them. Some cosmologists give independent grounds for thinking that new universes are spawned out of the back of black holes. Others think that there are independent grounds for thinking of a single huge Universe that has crystallised out into various universe sized regions each with randomly different values for the fundamental constants. Some such speculations get some support (it has been suggested) from string theory. Though such speculations are at present untestable and should be taken with a grain of salt, one or another may well one day be absorbed into a testable theory. It must be left to cosmologists and mathematical physicists to go into the pros and cons here, but they are mentioned here to indicate a grey area between the testable and the untestable. Some scientists when canvassing these issues of philosophical theology may prefer to call themselves ‘agnostics’ rather than ‘atheists’ because they have been over impressed by a generalised philosophical scepticism or by a too simple understanding of Popper’s dictum that we can never verify a theory but only refute it. Such a view would preclude us from saying quite reasonably that we know that the Sun consists largely of hydrogen and helium. When we say ‘I know’ we are saying something defeasible. If later we discover that though what we said was at the time justified, it nevertheless turned out to be false, we would say ‘I thought I knew but I now see that I didn’t know’. Never or hardly ever to say ‘I know’ would be to deprive these words of their usefulness, just as the fact that some promises have to be broken does not deprive the institution of promising of its legitimacy. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/atheism-agnosticism/
*“Damien, I just don’t pretend to know for sure, because I don’t. My husband is a strong atheist.” – Commenter
My response, what does for sure mean to a nothing term God lacking any proof of anything. If we said I don’t pretend to state knowledge of the pretend would that be reasonable? Think about using your standard for god, would it be reasonable in a court of law? It there a specific thinking that states if no corroborating evidence is available we must say I don’t pretend to know for sure? Or do we say without evidence you have no case? I am Ignostic as they lack any evidence thus they have no case, there has been nothing offered of substance to justify belief. It’s like saying I don’t pretend to know if my child’s imaginary friend is actually imaginary. To me belief needs supporting reason and evidence and doubt needs supporting reason and evidence. Such as if I tell you I have the Nile River in my pocket no reasonable person would or should reserve doubt, instead it would be rejected out of hand. Similarly, the god claim involves super amounts of supernatural but nothing ever tested holds anything supernatural so such claims should be rejected out of hand. This is holding to the epistemology standard of the correspondence theory of truth. The correspondence theory of truth states that the truth or falsity of a statement is determined only by how it relates to the world and whether it accurately describes (i.e., corresponds with) that world. Correspondence theories claim that true beliefs and true statements correspond to the actual state of affairs.
*“Damien, an agnostic is the person who isn’t sure whether or not there’s a god. The truth is, we are all agnostic because no one is sure whether or not there’s a god. Now, you have people that chose to believe there’s a god. This is the agnostic theist. Then you have the one that doesn’t believe there’s one, this is the agnostic atheist.” – Commenter
My response, what are we to be not sure of? There is not one piece of evidence to even support any not intelligent supernatural let alone an intelligent one and to state otherwise to me is preposterous.
*“Damien, the reason no one is sure is because we haven’t explored the entire universe. When you are done doing this, then you can be sure.” – Commenter
My response, it seems agnostics like to say they don’t have knowledge then turn right around and make a knowledge claim about how we can’t be sure but a true exhibition of not knowing is to not make any claims at all.
*“Damien, what I’m saying is that no one can affirm for fact whether or not there’s a god out there, that’s the reason we are all agnostic by definition, because no one knows.” – Commenter
My response, no one has or can affirm a fact about what a god could be. Thus, this proposed question involves an unjustified and unwarranted claim that can be rejected of hand until someone can demonstrate the opposite whether or not there’s some justified or warranted qualities or characteristics to start thinking what otherwise is an empty claim of god. moreover, saying no one can say for a fact whether or not there’s a god, seems to show you still are accepting the nothing, evidence devoid term god.
Hitchens’ razor is an epistemological razor asserting that the burden of proof regarding the truthfulness of a claim lies with whoever made the claim; if this burden is not met, the claim is unfounded and its opponents need not argue further in order to dismiss it. It is named, echoing Occam’s razor, for the journalist and writer Christopher Hitchens, who, in 2003, formulated it thus: “What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.”
Hitchens’ razor is actually a translation of a Latin law code precept and also proverb “Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur”, which has been widely used at least since the early 19th century, and Ernest Renan. However, Hitchens’s English rendering of the phrase has made it more widely known to the English-speaking audience. It is used, for example, to counter presuppositional apologetics. This quotation appears by itself in God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything, a book by Hitchens published in 2007. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitchens%27s_razor
*“Damien, I still don’t know. And that’s ok.” – Commenter
My response, true, and no one even truly knows anything real about the term god either. 😀
*“Damien, you seem like a very confident atheist, what makes you so sure that an eternal physical brute fact exists and caused the universe to exist?“ – Commenter
My response, even if one does not know what caused the universe, what do you think such a gap in knowledge can actually do in relation to a somethingism god could be added to the gap there is nothing that limits a god of such vague theism to any gods ever offered as creator? But there is no reason to arbitrarily add myths to the lack of knowledge, as in from the unknown origins of the universe we can tell no facts at all which would include lacking any information to support a myth of gods or religions. Because not knowing something is not a set of evidence for something, well any more than the thing in question is unknown.
Ps. I am giving you a good video to explain your origins of the universe question called: Science, Religion, and the Big Bang
I am giving you a good video to explain the how and why creationists are misinformed called: Why I am no longer a Creationist
*“Damien, I love a lot of theists who are also good people. I really don’t think about it so much.” – Commenter
My response, I love a lot of people that think a lot of stuff I find ridiculous as long as they are good people.
You may want your planet to be cubical. Just about every other force in the universe wants it round. http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/3011/what-would-it-be-like-walking-around-on-a-cube-shaped-planet
To me Agnosticism Beliefs Involve “FOLK LOGIC” Thinking to learn more on this check out the link: https://damienmarieathope.com/2016/01/12/agnosticism-beliefs-involve-folk-logic-thinking/
For more on “My Anti-Agnostic Atheism Thinking” check out the link: https://damienmarieathope.com/2016/02/12/my-anti-agnostic-atheism-thinking/
For more on “Questions and Challenges to My Atheism” check out the link: https://damienmarieathope.com/2016/02/15/questions-and-challenges-to-my-atheism/
Yes, We All Have Beliefs; But What Does That Mean? https://damienmarieathope.com/2015/12/23/yes-we-all-have-beliefs-but-what-does-that-mean/
Challenging Agnosticism Assumptions
Theists and Atheists as well as Agnostics?
A Challenge to My Anti-Agnostic Thinking?
Weak Theism and Weak Atheism being called Agnostic?
Addressing “ATHEISM”, reasons for it and its possible types/styles
Explaining Axiological theism, Axiological agnosticism, and Axiological atheism
Agnosticism Beliefs Involve “FOLK LOGIC” Thinking?
Discussions on Agnosticism and Atheism
Agnosticism: Non-Standard Epistemology
Agnosticism No Thanks, I am Ignostic
I am a caring firebrand atheist, wishing to be hard on ideas but kind to people.
My life; the good, the bad, and the ugly on the road to the Mental Freedom of Atheism
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.
I am not the thing abuse made, I am a shooting star blazing bright, shining far pass my past.
Challenging Agnosticism Assumptions
Theists and Atheists as well as Agnostics?
A Challenge to My Anti-Agnostic Thinking?
Weak Theism and Weak Atheism being called Agnostic?
Addressing “ATHEISM”, reasons for it and its possible types/styles
Explaining Axiological theism, Axiological agnosticism, and Axiological atheism
Agnosticism Beliefs Involve “FOLK LOGIC” Thinking?
Discussions on Agnosticism and Atheism
Agnosticism: Non-Standard Epistemology
Agnosticism No Thanks, I am Ignostic
I am a caring firebrand atheist, wishing to be hard on ideas but kind to people.
My life; the good, the bad, and the ugly on the road to the Mental Freedom of Atheism
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.
I am not the thing abuse made, I am a shooting star blazing bright, shining far pass my past.
I will now offer helpful but simplistic definitions of why a position of atheism could be chosen it is of course just an over-generalization but it will highlight the main idea though it always will be more substantive in reality and who is applying it.
Here is my list of non-theistic and theistic assumptions:
Nonbelief:
- Weakest implicit Nontheistic/Atheism “negative” / “weak” / “soft” nonbelief similar to Nontheism
- Strong implicit Atheism “negative” / “weak” / “soft” nonbelief similar to Apatheist Atheism.
- Weak Explicit Atheism “negative” / “weak” / “soft” atheists similar to Agnostic Atheism.
- Strong Explicit Atheism “negative” / “weak” / “soft” atheists similar to Ignostic Atheism.
- Strongest Explicit Atheism “positive” / “strong” / “hard” atheists similar to Antitheist Atheism.
Belief:
- Weakest implicit Theistic thinking/Theism “negative” / “weak” / “soft” belief similar to Somethingism(Ietsism)/Vague Theism
- Weak implicit Theism “negative” / “weak” / “soft” belief similar to apatheist theists.
- Weak Explicit Theism “negative” / “weak” / “soft” theists similar to agnostic theism.
- Strong Explicit Theism “positive” / “strong” / “hard” theists similar to standard theism.
- Strongest Explicit Theism “positive” / “strong” / “hard” theists similar to Gnostic theism.
What is a god?
Allowing that magical thinking or the possibility of magical thinking being real is clearly not supported by any facts in reality. Thus, it is just more a social engineering “indoctrinated belief” connected to learned magical thinking supernaturalism and/or superstitionism. When asked whether they believe in the existence of one or more Gods and/or Goddesses, Theists will say yes; strong Atheists will say no. Agnostics will say I don’t know or often cannot give a straight “Yes” or “No” answer but are still either classified as either Weak Theism or Weak Atheism as it’s a belief question and no matter how one tries to add or subtract other things the main issue still is, “do you believe in theism” if the answer is anything but yes or some variant of maybe yes then it’s a no; thus one is an atheist as all it takes is a lack of believing theism but it can be disbelief even a beliefs there is no god. Agnostics might respond with one of the following (Weak Theism or Weak Atheism):
One may ask what about just plain Agnosticism, Well there is no plain Agnosticism to me it is either some kind of weak theism or weak atheism and thus people are labeling themselves as agnostics but actually are some kind of weak theism or weak atheism.
Weak Theism and Weak Atheism Agnostics?
*Weak Theism (Agnostic)?
Weak Theism: Yes, a god(s) and/or goddess(es) exists though I am not sure or don’t know about god(s) and/or goddess(es) at this time.
Weak Theism: Yes, a god(s) and/or goddess(es) exists. However, we have no possibility or certainty of knowing anything about God, now or in the future.
Weak Theism: I think that a god(s) and/or goddess(es) exists but have no proof.
Weak Theism: I think so but cannot be positive that a god(s) and/or goddess(es) exists.
Weak Theism: I don’t know but will lead my life assuming that a god(s) and/or goddess(es) does exist just to be careful, perhaps because of the rewards or to stop some punishments one would receive if a god(s) and/or goddess(es) does exist.
Weak Theism: I worship a god (or a god and goddess, or a goddess, or some combination of god(s) and/or goddess(es) but cannot prove that they exist.
Weak Theism: I doubt it but cannot be sure a god(s) and/or goddess(es) doesn’t exist.
*Weak Atheism (Agnostic)?
Weak Atheism: I don’t know if a god(s) and/or goddess(es). (So, they don’t believe theism thus are atheists)
Weak Atheism: There will never be any way to know. (So, they don’t believe theism thus are atheists)
Weak Atheism: There is no way to know, but perhaps someone will find a proof or disproof in the future. (So, they don’t believe theism thus are atheists)
Weak Atheism: I cannot give an opinion because there is no way that we can prove the existence or non-existence of God given currently available knowledge. (So, they don’t believe theism thus are atheists)
Weak Atheism: I don’t know but will lead my life in the assumption that no god(s) and/or goddess(es) exists. (So, they don’t believe theism thus are atheists)
Weak Atheism: I will have to withhold my opinion/belief until god(s) and/or goddess(es), if one or many exist, decides to make his, her or their presence known by a strong provable indicator, which until now has ever happened. (So, they don’t believe theism thus are atheists)
Weak Atheism: The god(s) and/or goddess(es) that various believers worship are like unicorns: they are obviously fictional. However, who knows, I do not have certain disproof.
Feel you don’t know what god is or could be you might be an Ignostic but if so you don’t or can’t believe in theism. Ignosticism is the idea that the question of the existence of God is meaningless because the term “god” has no unambiguous definition. Ignosticism requires a good, non-controversial definition of god before arguing on its existence. (So, they don’t believe theism thus are atheists)
Feel you don’t care what god is or could be you might be an Apatheist but if so you don’t believe in theism. An apatheist is someone who is not interested in accepting or denying any claims that gods exist or do not exist. An apatheist lives as if there are no gods and explains natural phenomena without reference to any deities. (Thus, they don’t believe theism thus are atheists)
I am not agnostic, so yes, while I have heard of the website, but it does not interest me I would be classified as anti-agnostic. Thanks for asking. My Anti-Agnostic Atheism Thinking: https://damienmarieathope.com/2016/02/my-anti-agnostic-atheism-thinking/
And, A Challenge to My Anti-Agnostic Thinking?: https://damienmarieathope.com/2018/04/a-challenge-to-my-anti-agnostic-thinking/
“Damien, I love most everything about you, but how can one be MORE than an agnostic without being dishonest with themselves? I mean, we tell the right they need to have evidence and use logic,… but then as atheists, one does the very thing they just said not to do to religious people… We cannot know for a FACT that there is a god, I understand that… But without some evidence to the contrary, we cant KNOW that there ISNT…. Human intellect and logic only goes so far.. Sure, i CHOOSE to live as though there is no god, but in being perfectly honest with ME, I cannot say there isn’t until I have proof… And the argument that you cant prove a negative is debunked… In math you can prove a negative, so you can do it in other realms as well… The point is, no evidence, no proof, no belief or disbelief. And using the other argument that an atheist is BORN THAT WAY, because it is just no belief is a bunch of crap. By now, atheists have proven that there is a logical thought based attachment to the term “atheist”. One can bring out the definition all one want, but the evidence is born out every day in the life of an atheist that it is a CHOICE one makes after having weighed the AVAILABLE evidence (or lack thereof) for a god, and dismissing it. The most honest position is to say, “I DONT KNOW, but I CHOOSE to act or be this way”. It has nothing to do with not having balls, or not having an education or intellect ( I have multiple degrees and a 146 IQ).” – Challenger
My response, Did you read my blogs above?
“IS it rational to ASSUME anything without evidence????? Didn’t you just justify the religious faith of billions????” – Challenger
My response, What! What is a god? Stop claiming to know “things” you do not know nor which you have no clue.
“Damien Marie AtHope if you didn’t understand that then you didn’t read it…. you ASSUMED…. that is performing an action of thought without the requisite LOGIC knowledge to support it, is it NOT?? How then, do you define faith?” – Challenger
My response, You don’t have a universal claim of what a god is, so first do that and make it valid and reliable to even require an assessment.
“Damien Marie AtHope Funny that you would IMMEDIATELY resort to ASSUMING that I believe in a god….Again, you’re assuming something on the basis that I provided an opposition to your thinking…. shame on you.” – Challenger
My response, I understand that all claims of god are made up nothing devoid of any kind of valid and reliable justification or warrant.
“Damien Marie AtHope and the belief you don’t have to provide an argument for something not proven is an easy out for the person that cant admit they don’t KNOW something but nevertheless claim there is no such thing……… Your problem is you try to shut down all dialog with the same claim….” – Challenger
My response, Again, no value is offered to require an assessment for the term god that is not truly anything.
“Damien Marie AtHope that you SAY is not truly anything…. smfh, and again, you shut down all dialog why???? Do you just not WANT to have the conversation??? Do you think there is a possibility there may be a flaw I YOUR logic so you don’t want to pursue it? I don’t understand… help me to understand, instead of stomping on me.” – Challenger
My response, No, I demand a valid offering of the claim and I know that not a person on the Earth can provide me what I asked and thus it is their failure to establish the burden of proof, not me. Lol And, great read my blogs and then ask me specific questions if you like.
“Damien Marie AtHope and AGAIN, because you can’t get past that SAME LAME front, you won’t try to think any more than the position you CHOOSE to hold… that’s sad.” – Challenger
My response, Do you think logic is evidence?
“Damien Marie AtHope I did… and I JUST DID! Do you??? Be careful how you answer as you will destroy your own walls….” – Challenger
My response, Ask it again relating to a claim I made in the blog.
“Damien Marie AtHope do you think LACK of evidence is evidence?” – Challenger
My response, Reason is my only master. And, No, I can “validate” all my claims.
“Damien Marie AtHope you just want to control things… I see that now… NO, I will ask it in the way I CHOOSE to… you will refuse to answer on that basis, proving my point for me. Damien Marie AtHope so you’re perfect?” – Challenger
My response, Is reason evidence? Archaeological, Scientific, & Philosophic evidence shows the god myth is man-made nonsense: https://damienmarieathope.com/2017/10/archaeological-scientific-philosophic-evidence-showing-the-god-myth-is-man-made-nonsense/
“NO!!! Don’t go to pointing me to other places… that is BULLSHIT! And that does NOTHING anyway, as I am NOT TRYING TO PROVE A GOD…. See? you lack the understanding as to what my position even is….. You do this often.” – Challenger
My response, What is a god to doubt? I don’t start my disbelief on the dilutions of god claims I assess are these claims warranted they are not so nothing to doubt so agnosticism starts with a presupposition of the term god to say they are unsure about, thus to me making a thinking error as there is no presupposition god term to reality. I stand with ignosticism, roughly that the term god is given to much leeway as a valid offering of a possible real thing when no god claim if limited to only reality coherent attributes all add nonsense like supernatural things one of which at its simplest a being or at least a thinking thing with no physical mind but can think, an invisible thing and of courses an immaterial thing such as the no physical body in any way. And there we see the problem with accepting any god claim as even reality coherent as it is not. All claims must be coherent with or correspond to reality and just like many theological nonsense terms such as the soul. I don’t know what people are talking about when they say the term “soul” (it’s a made-up concept which connects to nothing that is reality coherent) as there is no part of the body exhibits as such magic thinking idea, soul, thus a debunked claim and does not need doubt. Similarly, I don’t know what people are talking about when they say the term “god” (it’s a made-up concept which connects to nothing that is reality coherent) as there is no part of the body exhibits as such magic thinking idea, god, thus a debunked claim and does not need doubt. Kurtz, New Skepticism, 220: “Ignosticism or igtheism, finds the belief in a metaphysical, transcendent being basically incoherent and unintelligible.” And moreover, “Ignosticism or igtheism is the idea that every theological position assumes too much about the concept of God and other theological concepts; including (but not limited to) concepts of faith, spirituality, heaven, hell, afterlife, damnation, salvation, sin and the soul. Ignosticism is the view that any religious term or theological concept presented must be accompanied by a coherent definition. Without a clear definition, such terms cannot be meaningfully discussed. Such terms or concepts must also be falsifiable. Lacking this, an ignostic takes the theological noncognitivist position that the existence or nature of the terms presented (and all matters of debate) is meaningless. For example, if the term “God” does not refer to anything reasonably defined then there is no conceivable method to test against the existence of god. Therefore, the term “God” has no literal significance and need not be debated or discussed.
“Damien Marie AtHope and therein lies your contradiction!” – Challenger
My response, It is not bullshit to provide blogs that explain what you are trying to ask and I have been arguing with agnostic thinkers for over 10 years.
“Damien Marie AtHope and REPOSTING a repaste of the link I wished NOT to read is lame.” – Challenger
My response, There is no contradictory thing I stay what is a god, then challenge the offered assumptions.
“Damien Marie AtHope, it is bullshit to not form ORIGINAL thought SPECIFICALLY tailored to MY specific question in the NOW…. And, you’re trying to START the conversation with your OWN premise….” – Challenger
My response, Wrong, I start with “What is a god” question, remember, the one, no one can offer?
“Damien Marie AtHope AGAIN, I READ IT IN THE PAST!!!! YOURE the one not reading… and if you’re done like that, then you’re not the person you claim to be… you just lost my respect and unfriending. You just corporatized yourself, you’re no better than a bully.” – Challenger
My response, You do know that I am not the only public atheist what is not agnostic right so is Aron RA, Matt Dillahunty, David Silverman, and Peter Boghossian?
“Damien Marie AtHope so? I thought you were done… I was talking TO YOU because I respected you…. You want to treat me like a cookie cutter cut out you can throw pre-worded dialog at…. I deserve better than that. I am done here.” – Challenger
My response, Well, to you asking me if reason was evidence, absolutely. In a general way, all reality, in a philosophic sense, is an emergent property of reason, and knowing how reason accrues does not remove its warrant. Feelings are experienced then perceived, leading to thinking, right thinking is reason, right reason is logic, right logic is mathematics, right mathematics is physics and from there all science.
My response, Here is why “Reason is my only master”
The most Base Presupposition begins in reason. Reason is needed for logic (logic is realized by the aid of reason enriching its axioms). Logic is needed for axiology/value theory (axiology is realized by the aid of logic). Axiology is needed for epistemology (epistemology is realized by aid of axiology value judge and enrich its value assumptions as valid or not). Epistemology is needed for a good ontology (ontology is realized by the aid of epistemology justified assumptions/realizations/conclusions). Then when one possesses a good ontology (fortified with valid and reliable reason and evidence) they can then say they know the ontology of that thing.
My response, So, I think, right thinking is reason. Right reason is logic. Right logic, can be used for mathematics and from there we can get to science. And, by this methodological approach, we get one of the best ways of knowing the scientific method. Activating experience/event occurs, eliciting our feelings/scenes. Then naive thoughts occur, eliciting emotions as a response. Then it is our emotional intelligence over emotional hijacking, which entrance us but are unavoidable and that it is the navigating this successfully in a methodological way we call critical thinking or as In just call right thinking. So, to me, could be termed “Right” thinking, that is referring to a kind of methodological thinking. Reason is at the base of everything and it builds up from pragmatic approaches. And, to me, there are three main approaches to truth (ontology of truth) from the very subjective (Pragmatic theory of truth), to subjective (Coherence theory of truth), then onto objective (Correspondence theory of truth) but remember that this process as limited as it can be, is the best we have and we build one truth ontop another like blocks to a wall of truth.
Here is a response from another person seeing this dialog:
“Damien Marie AtHope I’ve encountered this troll before. Don’t waste your time. He’ll be threatening you next from whatever made up a place he claims to live in. When I dealt with him he was from Portland. Your best bet is to block this clear theist troll. I don’t argue with avatars and you are an obvious theist troll. Peace…” – Other Respondent
“And remember you piece of shit, I BLOCKED YOU!! (Other Respondent), you run your mouth online, JUST LIKE YOU ARE DOING HERE, then when I give you my address to come talk that shit in person, you run away like THE TROLL YOU ARE! And thank you for proving my point once again.” – Challenger
I blocked you, bro. Now you are lying. And this is your 4th or 5th profile I’ve seen you under. Explain that?
(Other Respondent), yet here you are….” – Challenger
Not to argue with you. I’m only here to let Damien Marie AtHope know who he is dealing with.
“No, I am NOT an OBVIOUS theist anything. If oyu had ANY intelligence, you would see that I am an OBVIOUS AGNOSTIC human being, and YOU are STILL the proven troll. Again… yet here you are… trolling. (Other Respondent), so Damien is too stupid??? Is that what you’re saying??? Damien, EVEN I give you more credit than that!!! Now burn the fuck out you piece of coward shit troll. NO, I BLOCKED YOU!!! Why are YOU lying???!!! I have PLENTY of accounts… Why is THAT any of YOUR business??? Nor does it change the definition of a troll…AGAIN, you’re here spreading LIES that can be PROVEN BY my multiple accounts… I am NOTHING like a theist. Troll, you don’t do definitions though I see… And, Damien, you REALLY should find a better base. At least Trumps ADMIT they don’t care about the truth…“ – Challenger
My response, Challenger, you are the one now acting troll-like and you have tried many personal attacks on me and now others, simply this is not acceptable and not a valid way to talk to people. Please improve your discussion etiquette, as I would and do value as a positive intellectual standard of sticking to ideas and not making it about the people, thanks.
“Damien Marie AtHope I am most CERTAINLY not the one acting troll-like. AGAIN, the definition fits HIS comment, NOT mine…AND AGAIN, all I did was ask a question you went off… stop lying… Personal attacks???? wow… poor you. NOt making it about the people?? Really? You just said that with a straight face???? “So you are not reading then I am finished talking about this with you, cool. Take care.” THIS is why I unfriended you… you’re a liar and a deceiver… AND you make it all about you…. then accuse me of attacking you… I NEVER attacked YOU, I attacked you THINKING… but GOD forbid someone should EVER do that to the great late Damien Marie AtHope… smfh. Then to top it off,… you call ME a troll when WE were the ones IN A CONVERSATION.. or trying to… and then this piece f shit jumps in, THE DEFINITION of a troll… but you IGNORE him because he AGREES with you… YOURE THE ONE that made this the shit it is… Don’t try turning it around. You’re a TYPICAL atheist and prove my point all the way. Atheists are NEVER wrong… And everyone else ALWAYS is… smfh…” – Challenger
My response, Challenger, And this behavior by you is why I am now happy if you do unfriended me. Take care.
——————————————————————————————————————————————————————————–
Challenging Agnosticism Assumptions: https://damienmarieathope.com/2017/11/challenging-agnosticism-assumptions/
Ignostic Atheist?: https://damienmarieathope.com/2017/05/ignostic-atheist/
Damien, how do you feel about agnostics?:
“Damien, how do you feel about agnostics, such as myself. I admire some of the values of some religions as a guide to life, but I get to choose. I am with Pascal and Einstein, I don’t think the concept of God is rational, but I lose nothing by being a decent person, just in case.” Questioner
My response, How you pose the question of how I feel about agnostics, seems to infer that people who are agnostic unless I am misunderstanding, and on such a question of how I feel towards my fellow humans, agnostic or otherwise, well I strive to treat them humanistically, fairly, and equally. If you are instead asking if I am consenting in any way to agnostic thinking, my answer would unequivocally state no. I see agnostic thinking as a flaw in reasoning that seems to at least in some way accept the empty assertions of religion. I always work to attack thinking and not people. Furthermore, I have friends on Facebook that are religious and don’t attack or even give them a hard time, I just address my thinking on my pages not at anyone unless they challenge me or the like.
“Theists, there has to be a god, as something can not come from nothing.”
Well, thus something (unknown) happened and then there was something. This does not tell us what the something that may have been involved with something coming from nothing. A supposed first cause, thus something (unknown) happened and then there was something is not an open invitation to claim it as known, neither is it justified to call or label such an unknown as anything, especially an unsubstantiated magical thinking belief born of mythology and religious storytelling.
While hallucinogens are associated with shamanism, it is alcohol that is associated with paganism.
The Atheist-Humanist-Leftist Revolutionaries Shows in the prehistory series:
Show two: Pre-animism 300,000 years old and animism 100,000 years old: related to “Anarchism and Socialism”
Show tree: Totemism 50,000 years old: related to “Anarchism and Socialism”
Show four: Shamanism 30,000 years old: related to “Anarchism and Socialism”
Show five: Paganism 12,000 years old: related to “Anarchism and Socialism”
Show six: Emergence of hierarchy, sexism, slavery, and the new male god dominance: Paganism 7,000-5,000 years old: related to “Anarchism and Socialism” (Capitalism) (World War 0) Elite and their slaves!
Prehistory: related to “Anarchism and Socialism” the division of labor, power, rights, and recourses: VIDEO
Pre-animism 300,000 years old and animism 100,000 years old: related to “Anarchism and Socialism”: VIDEO
Totemism 50,000 years old: related to “Anarchism and Socialism”: VIDEO
Shamanism 30,000 years old: related to “Anarchism and Socialism”: VIDEO
Paganism 12,000 years old: related to “Anarchism and Socialism” (Pre-Capitalism): VIDEO
Paganism 7,000-5,000 years old: related to “Anarchism and Socialism” (Capitalism) (World War 0) Elite and their slaves: VIEDO
Paganism 5,000 years old: progressed organized religion and the state: related to “Anarchism and Socialism” (Kings and the Rise of the State): VIEDO
Paganism 4,000 years old: related to “Anarchism and Socialism” (First Moralistic gods, then the Origin time of Monotheism): VIEDO
I do not hate simply because I challenge and expose myths or lies any more than others being thought of as loving simply because of the protection and hiding from challenge their favored myths or lies.
The truth is best championed in the sunlight of challenge.
An archaeologist once said to me “Damien religion and culture are very different”
My response, So are you saying that was always that way, such as would you say Native Americans’ cultures are separate from their religions? And do you think it always was the way you believe?
I had said that religion was a cultural product. That is still how I see it and there are other archaeologists that think close to me as well. Gods too are the myths of cultures that did not understand science or the world around them, seeing magic/supernatural everywhere.
I personally think there is a goddess and not enough evidence to support a male god at Çatalhöyük but if there was both a male and female god and goddess then I know the kind of gods they were like Proto-Indo-European mythology.
This series idea was addressed in, Anarchist Teaching as Free Public Education or Free Education in the Public: VIDEO
Our 12 video series: Organized Oppression: Mesopotamian State Force and the Politics of power (9,000-4,000 years ago), is adapted from: The Complete and Concise History of the Sumerians and Early Bronze Age Mesopotamia (7000-2000 BC): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=szFjxmY7jQA by “History with Cy“
Show #1: Mesopotamian State Force and the Politics of Power (Samarra, Halaf, Ubaid)
Show #2: Mesopotamian State Force and the Politics of Power
Show #3: Mesopotamian State Force and the Politics of Power (Uruk and the First Cities)
Show #4: Mesopotamian State Force and the Politics of Power (First Kings)
Show #5: Mesopotamian State Force and the Politics of Power (Early Dynastic Period)
Show #6: Mesopotamian State Force and the Politics of Power
Show #7: Mesopotamian State Force and the Politics of Power (Sargon and Akkadian Rule)
Show #9: Mesopotamian State Force and the Politics of Power (Gudea of Lagash and Utu-hegal)
Show #12: Mesopotamian State Force and the Politics of Power (Aftermath and Legacy of Sumer)
The “Atheist-Humanist-Leftist Revolutionaries”
Cory Johnston ☭ Ⓐ Atheist Leftist @Skepticallefty & I (Damien Marie AtHope) @AthopeMarie (my YouTube & related blog) are working jointly in atheist, antitheist, antireligionist, antifascist, anarchist, socialist, and humanist endeavors in our videos together, generally, every other Saturday.
Why Does Power Bring Responsibility?
Think, how often is it the powerless that start wars, oppress others, or commit genocide? So, I guess the question is to us all, to ask, how can power not carry responsibility in a humanity concept? I know I see the deep ethical responsibility that if there is power their must be a humanistic responsibility of ethical and empathic stewardship of that power. Will I be brave enough to be kind? Will I possess enough courage to be compassionate? Will my valor reach its height of empathy? I as everyone, earns our justified respect by our actions, that are good, ethical, just, protecting, and kind. Do I have enough self-respect to put my love for humanity’s flushing, over being brought down by some of its bad actors? May we all be the ones doing good actions in the world, to help human flourishing.
I create the world I want to live in, striving for flourishing. Which is not a place but a positive potential involvement and promotion; a life of humanist goal precision. To master oneself, also means mastering positive prosocial behaviors needed for human flourishing. I may have lost a god myth as an atheist, but I am happy to tell you, my friend, it is exactly because of that, leaving the mental terrorizer, god belief, that I truly regained my connected ethical as well as kind humanity.
Cory and I will talk about prehistory and theism, addressing the relevance to atheism, anarchism, and socialism.
At the same time as the rise of the male god, 7,000 years ago, there was also the very time there was the rise of violence, war, and clans to kingdoms, then empires, then states. It is all connected back to 7,000 years ago, and it moved across the world.
Cory Johnston: https://damienmarieathope.com/2021/04/cory-johnston-mind-of-a-skeptical-leftist/?v=32aec8db952d
The Mind of a Skeptical Leftist (YouTube)
Cory Johnston: Mind of a Skeptical Leftist @Skepticallefty
The Mind of a Skeptical Leftist By Cory Johnston: “Promoting critical thinking, social justice, and left-wing politics by covering current events and talking to a variety of people. Cory Johnston has been thoughtfully talking to people and attempting to promote critical thinking, social justice, and left-wing politics.” http://anchor.fm/skepticalleft
Cory needs our support. We rise by helping each other.
Cory Johnston ☭ Ⓐ @Skepticallefty Evidence-based atheist leftist (he/him) Producer, host, and co-host of 4 podcasts @skeptarchy @skpoliticspod and @AthopeMarie
Damien Marie AtHope (“At Hope”) Axiological Atheist, Anti-theist, Anti-religionist, Secular Humanist. Rationalist, Writer, Artist, Poet, Philosopher, Advocate, Activist, Psychology, and Armchair Archaeology/Anthropology/Historian.
Damien is interested in: Freedom, Liberty, Justice, Equality, Ethics, Humanism, Science, Atheism, Antiteism, Antireligionism, Ignosticism, Left-Libertarianism, Anarchism, Socialism, Mutualism, Axiology, Metaphysics, LGBTQI, Philosophy, Advocacy, Activism, Mental Health, Psychology, Archaeology, Social Work, Sexual Rights, Marriage Rights, Woman’s Rights, Gender Rights, Child Rights, Secular Rights, Race Equality, Ageism/Disability Equality, Etc. And a far-leftist, “Anarcho-Humanist.”
I am not a good fit in the atheist movement that is mostly pro-capitalist, I am anti-capitalist. Mostly pro-skeptic, I am a rationalist not valuing skepticism. Mostly pro-agnostic, I am anti-agnostic. Mostly limited to anti-Abrahamic religions, I am an anti-religionist.
To me, the “male god” seems to have either emerged or become prominent around 7,000 years ago, whereas the now favored monotheism “male god” is more like 4,000 years ago or so. To me, the “female goddess” seems to have either emerged or become prominent around 11,000-10,000 years ago or so, losing the majority of its once prominence around 2,000 years ago due largely to the now favored monotheism “male god” that grow in prominence after 4,000 years ago or so.
My Thought on the Evolution of Gods?
Animal protector deities from old totems/spirit animal beliefs come first to me, 13,000/12,000 years ago, then women as deities 11,000/10,000 years ago, then male gods around 7,000/8,000 years ago. Moralistic gods around 5,000/4,000 years ago, and monotheistic gods around 4,000/3,000 years ago.
To me, animal gods were likely first related to totemism animals around 13,000 to 12,000 years ago or older. Female as goddesses was next to me, 11,000 to 10,000 years ago or so with the emergence of agriculture. Then male gods come about 8,000 to 7,000 years ago with clan wars. Many monotheism-themed religions started in henotheism, emerging out of polytheism/paganism.
Damien Marie AtHope (Said as “At” “Hope”)/(Autodidact Polymath but not good at math):
Axiological Atheist, Anti-theist, Anti-religionist, Secular Humanist, Rationalist, Writer, Artist, Jeweler, Poet, “autodidact” Philosopher, schooled in Psychology, and “autodidact” Armchair Archaeology/Anthropology/Pre-Historian (Knowledgeable in the range of: 1 million to 5,000/4,000 years ago). I am an anarchist socialist politically. Reasons for or Types of Atheism
My Website, My Blog, & Short-writing or Quotes, My YouTube, Twitter: @AthopeMarie, and My Email: damien.marie.athope@gmail.com