Religion is the thing you do when playing at really is more important than understanding or being in reality. And belief in god(s) is the thing you believe in when the truth of reality is not really a big concern, but the lies about it are: No Magic No gODs or “No gODs, No Masters”
If anyone wants to say you are stupid because you are Atheist and not agnostic at all on the god question tell them about me. I am far from stupid and I actually think it’s the other way around as in one has to be very smart, well enough to construct a sturdy enough argument to reject all gods intellectually as it requires not just a powerful Hypothesis it requires it is rich with evidence as well which I have done as others like me have. It’s not an easy way to defend but don’t worry it is quite defendable: The God Fallacy
I am a Realist in Many ways, 1) I have a positive epistemic attitude (belief) towards or in philosophical realism that there is a real external world and that is can be know or substantially approximated by humans objectively. 2) I have a positive epistemic attitude towards or in scientific realism that the content of the best scientific theories, models, and aspects of the world described by the sciences can be know or substantially approximated by humans objectively. 3) I have a positive epistemic attitude towards or in logical realism such as that logic is the means of discovering the structure of facts and its projection in the language such as the Law of Non-Contradiction or logical fallacies which represent logical truths pertaining to aspects of the world and can be know or substantially approximated by humans objectively. 4) I have a positive epistemic attitude towards or in mathematical realism such as that 2 + 2 equals 4 even if there are no intelligences or minds. Because math is in a sense a method of communication or description of and or about aspects of the world quantifying what can be know or substantially approximated by humans objectively. 5) I have a positive epistemic attitude towards or in value realism roughly speaking, is that value claims (such as, nurturing a baby is good and abusing a baby is bad) can be literally true or false; that some such claims are indeed true; that their truth can be know or substantially approximated by humans objectively. 6) I have a positive epistemic attitude towards or in epistemological realism roughly speaking, is that what you know about an object exists independently of your mind. Relating directly to the correspondence theory of truth, which claims that the world exists independently and innately to our perceptions of it. Our sensory data then reflect or correspond to the innate world and that such truths can be know or substantially approximated by humans objectively. 7) I have a positive epistemic attitude towards or in moral realism roughly speaking, is that some moral claims do purport to report facts and are true if they get the facts right. Moreover, wile not all at least some moral claims actually are true or have connection to additional commitments which the truth can be reached, and those facts in some specified way can be know or substantially approximated by humans objectively.
For more on this kind of thinking: Superstition to Religion “The Tree of Lies and its Hidden Roots”, Did Neanderthals teach us “Primal Religion” or at least burial and maybe thoughts of an afterlife 120,000 Years Ago?, Humans are Prone to Thinking Errors, and Yes This Includes Theism. We All Should Reject the Supernatural, The Rational Imperative, How Does One Know Things?, Stone Age Art: 500,000 – 233,000 Years Old, Climate Change and Human Evolution, The Evolution of Fire Sacralizing and/or Worship, An Old Branch of Religion Still Giving Fruit: Sacred Trees, and Chimpanzees Sacralizing Trees?
Let’s END faith’s corruption of rational thinking. It is in our power if we truly try. The folly of faith and its use as a method to truth or knowledge has been a great unreason, which has plagued humanity for thousands of years.
How can we stop the use and promotion of faith’s errors in rational thinking and champion something new?
It is easy; all we need is a RATIONALISM REVOLUTION, accepting only the realism of naturalism’s proven reality and rejecting the disproven superstitions as well as unproven supernaturalism of religions’ nonreality or otherworldly pseudo-reality. As modern rationalists we need to encourage a reasoned epistemology revolution, allowing only justified true belief built on valid and reliable reason and evidence, because that is in our power to create and make happen in the here and now. We do not need force or weapons to champion this worthy endeavor. Rather, we need to follow rational critical thinking ourselves and inspire others to do the same, instead of falling back to the irrationalism of faith thinking one of the most failed epistemologies to validate anything.
1) addresses a variety of concepts of God held by major religions and
2) demonstrates that each of these concepts of God not only contradicts empirical facts and scientific theories but is self-contradictory, and
3) provides an ever more formidable cumulative case against the existence
The Disproof Atheism Society, founded in 1994:
— is an independent, Boston-based, worldwide network of people interested
in logic, science, and analytic philosophy who support the development
of disproof atheism.
— holds monthly talks, discussions, and other events, usually at Boston
University and frequently with a featured speaker.
— hosted in 2010 the first-ever Disproof Atheism Conference, an all-day
academic conference focused on conceptual disproofs of God.
— provides resources and references on disproof atheism. http://disproofatheism.org/
1. COSMOLOGICAL DISPROOFS
2. TELEOLOGICAL DISPROOFS
3. EVIDENTIAL EVIL DISPROOFS
4. NONBELIEF DISPROOFS
1. SINGLE ATTRIBUTE DISPROOFS
2. MULTIPLE ATTRIBUTES DISPROOFS
3. LOGICAL EVIL DISPROOFS
4. DOCTRINAL DISPROOFS
1. DEFINITIONAL DISPROOFS
2. FINITE ATTRIBUTES DISPROOFS
3. “BEYOND HUMAN UNDERSTANDING” DISPROOFS
4. META DISPROOFS
*No God: atheism 72.8%; theism 14.6%; other 12.6%.
*Meta-ethics: moral realism 56.4%; moral anti-realism 27.7%; other 15.9%.
*Moral judgment: cognitivism 65.7%; non-cognitivism 17.0%; other 17.3%.
*Moral motivation: internalism 34.9%; externalism 29.8%; other 35.3%
*Science: scientific realism 75.1%; scientific anti-realism 11.6%; other 13.3%.
*Truth: correspondence 50.8%; deflationary 24.8%; epistemic 6.9%; other 17.5%.
It should be acknowledged that this target group has a strong (although not exclusive) bias toward analytic or Anglocentric philosophy. As a consequence, the results of the survey are a much better guide to what analytic/Anglocentric philosophers (or at least philosophers in strong analytic/Anglocentric departments) believe than to what philosophers from other traditions believe. http://philpapers.org/archive/BOUWDP
For more reading check out the following links:
I know that most christians believe that their bible gOD is a good and loving god, and wants people to do good things. I believe that most people want to do good things and behave morally. I also believe that many christians haven’t really read the bible, or just read certain passages in church. This is understandable, as the bible is hard to read due to its archaic language and obscure references. Also many priests and preachers don’t like to read certain passages in the Bible because they present a message of hate not love. If you follow the links on this site you will learn about all the nasty things in the bible that are usually not talked about by priests and preachers.
Want to know how I became an atheist, click the link: https://damienmarieathope.com/atheism/
I am a caring firebrand atheist, wishing to be hard on ideas but kind to people.
I am not the thing abuse made, I am a shooting star blazing bright, shining far pass my past.
If you think you believe in a god, “what do you mean by god,” saying a name tells me not one thing about the thing I am asking to know “its” beingness/thingness/attributes/qualities. Thus, what is the thing “god” to which you are talking about and I want you to explain its beingness/thingness/attributes/qualities? Religious/theistic people with supernatural beliefs often seem as though they haven’t thought much about and that is something we can help using ontology questions about the beingness/thingness/attributes/qualities they are trying to refer too. What do you mean by god, when you use the term god? And, I am not asking you for the name you attach to the thing you label as a god. I don’t need to know what the god you believe is known “by.” I am asking, what is the thing you are naming as a god and what that thing is, its qualities every detail like all things have if they are real. Are you just making stuff up or guessing/hoping or just promoting unjustified ideas you want to believe, what is a god?
Do you want what is true or want what you believe without concern for what may actually be true?
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.
No God: No evidence, No intelligence, and No goodness = Valid Atheism Conclusion
1. No evidence, To move past the Atheistic Null Hypothesis: There is no God/Gods (in inferential statistics, a Null Hypothesis generally assumed to be true until evidence indicates otherwise. Thus, a Null Hypothesis is a statistical hypothesis that there is no significant difference reached between the claim and the non-claim, as it is relatively provable/demonstratable in reality in some way. “The god question” Null Hypothesis is set at as always at the negative standard: Thus, holding that there is no God/Gods, and as god faith is an assumption of the non-evidentiary wishful thinking non-reality of “mystery thing” found in all god-talk, until it is demonstratable otherwise to change. Alternative hypothesis: There is a God (offered with no proof: what is a god and how can anyone say they know), therefore, results: Insufficient evidence to overturn the null hypothesis of no God/Gods.
2. No intelligence, Taking into account the reality of the world we do know with 99 Percent Of The Earth’s Species Are Extinct an intelligent design is ridiculous. Five Mass Extinctions Wiped out 99 Percent of Species that have ever existed on earth. Therefore like a child’s report card having an f they need to retake the class thus, profoundly unintelligent design.
3. No goodness, Assessed through ethically challenging the good god assumptions as seen in the reality of pain and other harm of which there are many to demonstrates either a god is not sufficiently good, not real or as I would assert, god if responsible for this world, would make it a moral monster ripe for the problem of evil and suffering (Argument from Evil). God would be responsible for all pain as life could easily be less painful and yet there is mass suffering. In fact, to me, every child born with diseases from birth screams out against a caring or loving god with the power to do otherwise. It could be different as there is Congenital insensitivity to pain (CIP), also known as congenital analgesia, in which a person cannot feel (and has never felt) physical pain.
I Believe Archaeology not Religion’s Myths
I fully enjoy the value (axiology) of archaeology (empirical evidence from fact or artifacts at a site) is knowledge (epistemology) of the past, adding to our anthropology (evidence from cultures both the present and past) intellectual (rational) assumptions of the likely reality of actual events from time past.
On the other hand, you have religions (unproven/disproven conspiracies of reality) supported by myths (collection of reality questionable stories) inaccurate accounts of the past or tails to establish thinking or behaviors, supporting faith (non-rationality, if seen as proven reality) in some unreal belief, behavior, or creative fiction of nonevents or actual events.
Anarchy atheism: advocate of freethought and anti-religious activism. If you don’t believe any god should control you, you shouldn’t believe any other human being should believe in a sky king or supernatural master and more than human kings or masters. An anarchist would most likely be atheist, anti-theist, agnostic, or apatheist believing there should be no rulers thus reject god whether they think one does or doesn’t exist. Certainly excludes rulers like gods, kings, or the state. Anarchy atheism likewise could be anti-religion as well seeing parallels between organized religion external control instead of the individual (even if god was removed) and the state (the primary target of most anarchists) are striking thus rejected. Politicians and preachers are one and the same: both work for a higher power than you, money and power. Ultimately, anarchy to atheism, goes past a simple atheism tendency to only attack god, while ignoring the state, capital, and other possible forms of domination, when anarchy atheists believe they have to attack all of it. “No gods, no masters” is an anarchist, feminist, and labor slogan. No gods, no masters comes from a pamphlet handed out by the Industrial Workers of the World during the 1912 Lawrence Textile Strike. The phrase is derived from the French slogan “Ni dieu ni maître!” (literally ‘Neither God nor master’) coined by the socialist Auguste Blanqui in 1880. First feminist usage was in 1914, Margaret Sanger launched The Woman Rebel, an eight-page monthly newsletter that promoted contraception using the slogan “No Gods, No Masters”. Margaret Sanger insisted that every woman was the mistress of her own body.”Women without superstition: No gods – No Masters!” by Annie Laurie Gaylor is a collection of writings by women freethinkers during the 19th and 20th century. Today the slogan continues to find use in anarchist politics. An anthology of anarchist writing was collected under the title “No Gods, No Masters: An Anthology of Anarchism” Anarchism is a political philosophy that advocates self-governed societies based on voluntary institutions. These are often described as stateless societies, although several authors have defined them more specifically as institutions based on non-hierarchical free associations. Anarchism holds the state to be undesirable, unnecessary, and harmful. While anti-statism is central, anarchism entails opposing authority or hierarchical organization in the conduct of all human relations, including, but not limited to, the state system. Anarchism does not offer a fixed body of doctrine from a single particular worldview, instead of luxing and flowing as a philosophy. Many types and traditions of anarchism exist, not all of which are mutually exclusive. Anarchist schools of thought can differ fundamentally, supporting anything from extreme individualism to complete collectivism. Strains of anarchism have often been divided into the categories of social and individualist anarchism or similar dual classifications. Anarchism is usually considered a radical left-wing ideology, and much of anarchist economics and anarchist legal philosophy reflects anti-authoritarian interpretations of communism, collectivism, syndicalism, mutualism, or participatory economics.
I am an anarcho-humanist (basically a socialist-collectivist-mutualist-anarchist as well as rather liberal, progressive, and revolutionary, I want all positive change) You keep attacking activists and while you’re doing that, other activists and I will keep fighting for change. Sadly, you may change a few people where they lose their way in the momentum of activism. However, happily, while you’re doing that, other activists and I will help positively change the world. I hate when someone states anarchism is about not wanting to pay taxes, as if they don’t know the main persuasion of true anarchism is humanity, not the selfishness of self only concern as in “i” language instead of “we” language of true anarchism is socialist anarchism that wishes to add us all in the liberation of humanity from oppressors, as much as possible. With a general rationale of compassion and comradery with our fellow humans, who we know are all our fellow humans, sisters, brothers, and others are all equal beings of dignity in one human family. My anarchism is because of my care for humanity. I will leave selfishness for the capitalists where it belongs. I do not support sucker-punching people, even Nazis. To me, violence should be for self-defense or other-defense. I only hit those that try to hit me or others around me, I am for non-aggression. But I am violence optional if needed as I am not a pacifist not is that what I promote. I am non-aggression or needed limited aggression or violence as is reasoned, ethical, and just, always wanting non-aggression.
What Inspires My Anarcho-Humanism:
- We are all one connected human family.
- No one owns the earth.
- If you can’t trust people with freedom how can you trust them with power?
What inspires my anarcho-humanism has three core truths to my ethical anarchist persuasion:
1. 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 = “Anarcho”).
2. No one 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)
3. If you can’t trust people with freedom how can you trust them with power? Government is only as good as what they provide but I don’t trust ones that have rights over my body. How much more of a violation do you need to show their harm? I am not anti-society, I value good governance just don’t need the extra dead weight of government. There is not one thing a government is valued for that a non-government group with the same financial support and resources could not also do. I get we rise by helping each other and supporting universal betterment and human flourishing. Helping is Helpful: Valuing, Motivating, Supporting humanity is limited by nationalism and the, us Vs them, as if you should feel connected to only a few humans just because people invented the mental concept of land ownership, you mean you assert that you will harm others for an amount of the earth’s surface.
Seeing with anarcho-humanism eyes helps you see how to Grow in Our Positive Outcomes: Gratitude, Empathy, and Kindness. We can become a more quality person by actively being aware and developing a gratitude for life, which supports as well as grows our feelings of empathy, which then motivates the behavior of kindness. And kindness flourishes in openness and freedom. (No gods no masters as well as do no harm and do good = Anarcho-humanism) Lastly, I Am an Atheist-Humanist who is a Socialist, Collectivist, Mutualist, Anarchist: (Anarcho-Humanist) But Why do I Hate Religion? Religion and gods are an attack to self-freedom and self-mastery. I was asked why I openly and publicly am so passionate in my hate of religion. further asking what specifically in your life contributed to this outcome. I hate harm, oppression, bigotry, and love equality, self-ownership, self-empowerment, self-actualization, and self-mastery, as well as truth and not only does religion lie, it is a conspiracy theory of reality. Moreover, not only is religion a conspiracy theories of reality, it is a proud supporter of pseudohistory and or pseudoscience they also push pseudomorality.
Religion on the whole to me deserves and earns hate, or at least disfavor when you really analyze it. Not to mention the corruption it has on politics or laws. As well as how destructive this unworthy political influence has and creates because of these false beliefs and the harm to the life of free adults but to the lives of innocent children as well (often robbed of the right to choose and must suffer indoctrination) as the disruption of educated even in public schools. Etc… I as others do have the right to voice our beliefs, just as I or others then have the right to challenge voiced beliefs. Religions and their god myths are a direct threat to Self-ownership and thus Human Rights. Long live mental freedom… 1, 2, 3
Why are most anarchists atheists?
It is a fact that most anarchists are atheists. They reject the idea of god and oppose all forms of religion, particularly organized religion. So why do so many anarchists embrace atheism? The simplest answer is that most anarchists are atheists because it is a logical extension of anarchist ideas. If anarchism is the rejection of illegitimate authorities, then it follows that it is the rejection of the so-called Ultimate Authority, God. Anarchism is grounded in reason, logic, and scientific thinking, not religious thinking. Anarchists tend to be rationalists and/or skeptics, and not believers. Most anarchists consider the Church to be steeped in hypocrisy and the Bible a work of fiction, riddled with contradictions, absurdities, and horrors. It is notorious in its debasement of women and its sexism is infamous. Yet men are treated little better. Nowhere in the bible is there an acknowledgment that human beings have inherent rights to life, liberty, happiness, dignity, fairness, or self-government. In the bible, humans are sinners, worms, and slaves (figuratively and literally, as it condones slavery). God has all the rights, humanity is nothing. This is unsurprisingly, given the nature of religion. Bakunin put it best:
“The idea of God implies the abdication of human reason and justice; it is the most decisive negation of human liberty, and necessarily ends in the enslavement of mankind, both in theory and in practice.
“Unless, then, we desire the enslavement and degradation of mankind . . . we may not, must not make the slightest concession either to the God of theology or to the God of metaphysics. He who, in this mystical alphabet, begins with A will inevitably end with Z; he who desires to worship God must harbour no childish illusions about the matter, but bravely renounce his liberty and humanity.
“If God is, man is a slave; now, man can and must be free; then, God does not exist.” [God and the State, p. 25]
For most anarchists, then, atheism is required due to the nature of religion. “To proclaim as divine all that is grand, just, noble, and beautiful in humanity,”Bakunin argued, “is to tacitly admit that humanity of itself would have been unable to produce it — that is, that, abandoned to itself, its own nature is miserable, iniquitous, base, and ugly. Thus we come back to the essence of all religion — in other words, to the disparagement of humanity for the greater glory of divinity.” As such, to do justice to our humanity and the potential it has, anarchists argue that we must do without the harmful myth of god and all it entails and so on behalf of “human liberty, dignity, and prosperity, we believe it our duty to recover from heaven the goods which it has stolen and returned them to earth.” [Op. Cit., p. 37 and p. 36]
As well as the theoretical degrading of humanity and its liberty, religion has other, more practical, problems with it from an anarchist point of view. Firstly, religions have been a source of inequality and oppression. Christianity (like Islam), for example, has always been a force for repression whenever it holds any political or social sway (believing you have a direct line to god is a sure way of creating an authoritarian society). The Church has been a force of social repression, genocide, and the justification for every tyrant for nearly two millennia. When given the chance it has ruled as cruelly as any monarch or dictator. This is unsurprising:
“God being everything, the real world and man are nothing. God being truth, justice, goodness, beauty, power and life, man is falsehood, iniquity, evil, ugliness, impotence, and death. God being master, man is the slave. Incapable of finding justice, truth, and eternal life by his own effort, he can attain them only through a divine revelation. But whoever says revelation, says revealers, messiahs, prophets, priests, and legislators inspired by God himself; and these, as the holy instructors of humanity, chosen by God himself to direct it in the path of salvation, necessarily exercise absolute power. All men owe them passive and unlimited obedience; for against the divine reason there is no human reason, and against the justice of God no terrestrial justice holds.” [Bakunin, Op. Cit., p. 24]
Christianity has only turned tolerant and peace-loving when it is powerless and even then it has continued its role as apologist for the powerful. This is the second reason why anarchists oppose the church for when not being the source of oppression, the church has justified it and ensured its continuation. It has kept the working class in bondage for generations by sanctioning the rule of earthly authorities and teaching working people that it is wrong to fight against those same authorities. Earthly rulers received their legitimisation from the heavenly lord, whether political (claiming that rulers are in power due to god’s will) or economic (the rich having been rewarded by god). The bible praises obedience, raising it to a great virtue. More recent innovations like the Protestant work ethic also contribute to the subjugation of working people. That religion is used to further the interests of the powerful can quickly be seen from most of history. It conditions the oppressed to humbly accept their place in life by urging the oppressed to be meek and await their reward in heaven. As Emma Goldman argued, Christianity (like religion in general) “contains nothing dangerous to the regime of authority and wealth; it stands for self-denial and self-abnegation, for penance and regret, and is absolutely inert in the face of every [in]dignity, every outrage imposed upon mankind.” [Red Emma Speaks, p. 234]
Thirdly, religion has always been a conservative force in society. This is unsurprising, as it bases itself not on investigation and analysis of the real world but rather in repeating the truths handed down from above and contained in a few holy books. Theism is then “the theory of speculation” while atheism is “the science of demonstration.” The “one hangs in the metaphysical clouds of the Beyond, while the other has its roots firmly in the soil. It is the earth, not heaven, which man must rescue if he is truly to be saved.” Atheism, then, “expresses the expansion and growth of the human mind” while theism “is static and fixed.” It is “the absolutism of theism, its pernicious influence upon humanity, its paralyzing effect upon thought and action, which Atheism is fighting with all its power.” [Emma Goldman, Op. Cit., p. 243, p. 245 and pp. 246–7]
As the Bible says, “By their fruits shall ye know them.” We anarchists agree but unlike the church we apply this truth to religion as well. That is why we are, in the main, atheists. We recognize the destructive role played by the Church, and the harmful effects of organized monotheism, particularly Christianity, on people. As Goldman summaries, religion “is the conspiracy of ignorance against reason, of darkness against light, of submission and slavery against independence and freedom; of the denial of strength and beauty, against the affirmation of the joy and glory of life.” [Op. Cit., p. 240]
So, given the fruits of the Church, anarchists argue that it is time to uproot it and plant new trees, the trees of reason and liberty. That said, anarchists do not deny that religions contain important ethical ideas or truths. Moreover, religions can be the base for strong and loving communities and groups. They can offer a sanctuary from the alienation and oppression of everyday life and offer a guide to action in a world where everything is for sale. Many aspects of, say, Jesus’ or Buddha’s life and teachings are inspiring and worth following. If this were not the case, if religions were simply a tool of the powerful, they would have long ago been rejected. Rather, they have a dual-nature in that contain both ideas necessary to live a good life as well as apologetics for power. If they did not, the oppressed would not believe and the powerful would suppress them as dangerous heresies. And, indeed, repression has been the fate of any group that has preached a radical message. In the middle ages, numerous revolutionary Christian movements and sects were crushed by the earthly powers that be with the firm support of the mainstream church. During the Spanish Civil War the Catholic church supported Franco’s fascists, denouncing the killing of pro-Franco priests by supporters of the republic while remaining silent about Franco’s murder of Basque priests who had supported the democratically elected government (Pope John Paul II is seeking to turn the dead pro-Franco priests into saints while the pro-Republican priests remain unmentioned). The Archbishop of El Salvador, Oscar Arnulfo Romero, started out as a conservative but after seeing the way in which the political and economic powers were exploiting the people became their outspoken champion. He was assassinated by right-wing paramilitaries in 1980 because of this, a fate which has befallen many other supporters of liberation theology, a radical interpretation of the Gospels which tries to reconcile socialist ideas and Christian social thinking. Nor does the anarchist case against religion imply that religious people do not take part in social struggles to improve society. Far from it. Religious people, including members of the church hierarchy, played a key role in the US civil rights movement of the 1960s. The religious belief within Zapata’s army of peasants during the Mexican revolution did not stop anarchists taking part in it (indeed, it had already been heavily influenced by the ideas of anarchist militant Ricardo Flores Magon). It is the dual-nature of religion that explains why many popular movements and revolts (particularly by peasants) have used the rhetoric of religion, seeking to keep the good aspects of their faith will fighting the earthly injustice its official representatives sanctify. For anarchists, it is the willingness to fight against injustice which counts, not whether someone believes in god or not. We just think that the social role of religion is to dampen down a revolt, not encourage it. The tiny number of radical priests compared to those in the mainstream or on the right suggests the validity of our analysis. It should be stressed that anarchists, while overwhelmingly hostile to the idea of the Church and an established religion, do not object to people practicing religious belief on their own or in groups, so long as that practice doesn’t impinge on the liberties of others. For example, a cult that required human sacrifice or slavery would be antithetical to anarchist ideas, and would be opposed. But peaceful systems of belief could exist in harmony within in anarchist society. The anarchist view is that religion is a personal matter, above all else — if people want to believe in something, that’s their business, and nobody else’s as long as they do not impose those ideas on others. All we can do is discuss their ideas and try and convince them of their errors. To end, it should be noted that we are not suggesting that atheism is somehow mandatory for an anarchist. Far from it. As we discuss in section A.3.7, there are anarchists who do believe in god or some form of religion. For example, Tolstoy combined libertarian ideas with a devout Christian belief. His ideas, along with Proudhon’s, influences the Catholic Worker organisation, founded by anarchists Dorothy Day and Peter Maurin in 1933 and still active today. The anarchist activist Starhawk, active in the current anti-globalization movement, has no problems also being a leading Pagan. However, for most anarchists, their ideas lead them logically to atheism for, as Emma Goldman put it, “in its negation of gods is at the same time the strongest affirmation of man, and through man, the eternal yea to life, purpose, and beauty.” [Red Emma Speaks, p. 248] – An Anarchist FAQ – Medium
Anarchists have traditionally been skeptical of or vehemently opposed to organized religion. Nevertheless, some anarchists have provided religious interpretations and approaches to anarchism, including the idea that glorification of the state is a form of sinful idolatry. Anarchists “are generally non-religious and are frequently anti-religious, and the standard anarchist slogan is the phrase coined by a non-anarchist, the socialist Auguste Blanqui in 1880: ‘Ni Dieu ni maître!’ (Neither God nor master!)…The argument for a negative connection is that religion supports politics, the Church supports the State, opponents of political authority also oppose religious authority”. William Godwin, “the author of the Enquiry Concerning Political Justice(1793), the first systematic text of libertarian politics, was a Calvinist minister who began by rejecting Christianity, and passed through deism to atheism and then what was later called agnosticism.” The pioneering German individualist anarchist Max Stirner, “began as a left-Hegelian, post-Feuerbachian atheist, rejecting the ‘spooks’ of religion as well as of politics including the spook of ‘humanity’”. Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, “the first person to call himself an anarchist, who was well known for saying, ‘Property is theft’, also said, ‘God is evil’ and ‘God is the eternal X’”. Published posthumously in French in 1882, Mikhail Bakunin‘s God and the State was one of the first anarchist treatises on religion. Bakunin expounds his philosophy of religion’s place in history and its relationship to the modern political state. It was later published in English by Mother Earth Publications in 1916. Anarcho-communism‘s main theorist Peter Kropotkin, “was a child of the Enlightenment and the Scientific Revolution, and assumed that religion would be replaced by science and that the Church, as well as the State, would be abolished; he was particularly concerned with the development of a secular system of ethics which replaced supernatural theology with natural biology”. Errico Malatesta and Carlo Cafiero, “the main founders of the Italian anarchist movement, both came from freethinking families (and Cafiero was involved with the National Secular Society when he visited London during the 1870s)”. In the French anarchist movement Eliseé Reclus was a son of a Calvinist minister, and began by rejecting religion before moving on to anarchism. Sebastien Faure, “the most active speaker and writer in the French movement for half a century, “ wrote an essay titled Twelve Proofs of God’s Inexistence. German insurrectionary anarchist Johann Most wrote an article called “The God Pestilence”. In the United States “freethought was a basically anti-christian, anti-clerical movement, whose purpose was to make the individual politically and spiritually free to decide for himself on religious matters. A number of contributors to Liberty were prominent figures in both freethought and anarchism. The individualist anarchist George MacDonald was a co-editor of Freethought and, for a time, The Truth Seeker. E.C. Walker was co-editor of the excellent free-thought / free love journal Lucifer, the Light-Bearer“. “Many of the anarchists were ardent freethinkers; reprints from freethought papers such as Lucifer, the Light-Bearer, Freethought and The Truth Seeker appeared in Liberty…The church was viewed as a common ally of the state and as a repressive force in and of itself”.Late 19th century/early 20th Century anarchists such as Voltairine de Cleyre were often associated with the freethinkers movement, advocating atheism. In Europe, a similar development occurred in French and Spanish individualist anarchist circles. “Anticlericalism, just as in the rest of the libertarian movement, in another of the frequent elements which will gain relevance related to the measure in which the (French) Republic begins to have conflicts with the church…Anti-clerical discourse, frequently called for by the French individualist André Lorulot, will have its impacts in Estudios (a Spanish individualist anarchist publication). There will be an attack on institutionalized religion for the responsibility that it had in the past on negative developments, for its irrationality which makes it a counterpoint of philosophical and scientific progress. There will be a criticism of proselitism and ideological manipulation which happens on both believers and agnostics.”. These tendencies will continue in French individualist anarchism in the work and activism of Charles-Auguste Bontemps and others. In the Spanish individualist anarchist magazine Ética and Iniciales “there is a strong interest in publishing scientific news, usually linked to a certain atheist and anti-theist obsession, a philosophy which will also work for pointing out the incompatibility between science and religion, faith and reason. In this way, there will be a lot of talk on Darwin´s theories or on the negation of the existence of the soul.”. Spanish anarchists in the early 20th century were responsible for burning several churches, though many of the church burnings were actually carried out by members of the Radical Party while anarchists were blamed. The implicit and/or explicit support by church leaders for the National Faction during the Spanish Civil War greatly contributed to anti-religious sentiment. Emma Goldman wrote in Anarchism: What It Really Stands For:
Anarchism has declared war on the pernicious influences which have so far prevented the harmonious blending of individual and social instincts, the individual and society. Religion, the dominion of the human mind; Property, the dominion of human needs; and Government, the dominion of human conduct, represent the stronghold of man’s enslavement and all the horrors it entails.
Chinese anarchists led the opposition to Christianity in the early 20th century, but the most prominent of them, Li Shizeng, made it clear that he opposed not only Christianity but all religion as such. When he became president of the Anti-Christian Movement of 1922 he told the Beijing Atheists’ League: “Religion is intrinsically old and corrupt: history has passed it by” and asked, “Why are we of the twentieth century… even debating this nonsense from primitive ages?” – Wikipedia
Ask yourself honestly what is a god anyway?
Not some labeled name gifted arbitrarily but the actual thing put forward as the thing the label is describing as this god-something? 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?
Again, What is a god?
“David Hume’s considered view that in respect of our idea of god we have no relevant impression(s) that can serve as the origin of this idea. Given his theory of meaning, this leaves the term god “altogether insignificant” making him, to me, an Ignostic Atheist. The fundamental point that emerges is that Hume agrees with Hobbes that in respect of our idea of god our predicament is much the same as that of a blind man trying to form the idea of fire, making Hobbes also an Ignostic Theist, to me.” ref
“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.” ref
So, what is a god?
Debate Group on Facebook:
“Elo guys, I’m new here…for my first pots is HOW DO YOU KNOW ATHEISM is TRUE?” – New Poster
My response, What is a god?
“not related.” – New Poster
My response, So you don’t know?
“God for me is the creator of the universe.” – New Poster
My response, Ok but creative is a behavior of something. I would like to know what the unknown is that you think created. I am asking for what a god is?
“God is a supreme being…” – New Poster
My response, And do you have an example because I don’t know what that is? What is a supreme being? As it is also an unknown. So I need to know. Please. Thanks
“You can google it.” – New Poster
My response, So you have a google god-something, not a personal-god then, right? It is ok if you don’t know? Just says I don’t know what a god is or even could be but I want to believe, so you just do even when you don’t even know what it is you are believing in. What is a god? You hold the burden of proof as an honest thinker. You are intellectually honest, right?
“I don’t know what do you want from me… I don’t respond to ad-hom and insults.” – New Poster
My response, I am showing you why I as an atheist don’t believe in god. Not one person neither a street preacher, nor pasters, nor religious philosophers can answer this simple question and thus disbelief in theism assumptions or assertions is required for any honest thinker!
“Don’t beat yourself…being intellectually superior to others…its kinda arrogant way of presenting the way you behave.” – New Poster
My response, Show me where I insulted you or did an adhom, please. Thanks, and if you can show me and it is actually, then I will apologize.
My response, “Intellectual honesty is an applied method of problem-solving, characterized by an unbiased, honest attitude, which can be demonstrated in a number of different ways: One’s personal beliefs or politics do not interfere with the pursuit of truth; Relevant facts and information are not purposefully omitted even when such things may contradict one’s hypothesis; Facts are presented in an unbiased manner, and not twisted to give misleading impressions or to support one view over another; References, or earlier work, are acknowledged where possible, and plagiarism is avoided. Furthermore, Harvard ethicist Louis M. Guenin describes the “kernel” of intellectual honesty to be “a virtuous disposition to eschew deception when given an incentive for deception”. Oppositely, Intentionally committed fallacies in debates and reasoning are called intellectual dishonesty.”
An evil bible quote for today…
“Kill the Entire Town if One Person Worships Another God”
Suppose you hear in one of the towns the LORD your God is giving you that some worthless rabble among you have led their fellow citizens astray by encouraging them to worship foreign gods. In such cases, you must examine the facts carefully. If you find it is true and can prove that such a detestable act has occurred among you, you must attack that town and completely destroy all its inhabitants, as well as all the livestock. Then you must pile all the plunder in the middle of the street and burn it.
Put the entire town to the torch as a burnt offering to the LORD your God. That town must remain a ruin forever; it may never be rebuilt. Keep none of the plunder that has been set apart for destruction. Then the LORD will turn from his fierce anger and be merciful to you. He will have compassion on you and make you a great nation, just as he solemnly promised your ancestors. “The LORD your God will be merciful only if you obey him and keep all the commands I am giving you today, doing what is pleasing to him.” (Deuteronomy 13:13-19 NLT)
“If God existed, where would he be?” – Questioner
My response, So, here is how I hear it: “if the Unknown existed where would it be.” So you can see why I need to know what you mean by a god?
Quit trying to invent your god from the scraps of science.
What religious in most of their arguments try to do, is to act as if they reverse-engineering facts of reality, trying to prove a god something or other has to be the only way it could be the way it is. Of course, as an atheist but more importantly a supporter of science and the valid and reliable reason and evidence they work from I know religion is false. I know the work of reverse engineering facts of reality has largely been done and is being done by science which is why we know about the truth of evolution over creationism in the first place as well as the truth of reality that contradicts or completely challenges any argument the supporters of religion can offer. I realize they are trying to reoffer thinking that has already been reasonably disregarded as the wishful thinking fantasies it always was.
The Flaw of God morality or God’s goodness
What can be said of a God ethics if nothing a God could do is unethical? Appealing to a morality system limited from God brings several problems starting with how it cannot be said that God is all good and that this God gave us our sense of good without lapsing into tautology. Or explained in a different way the statement’s negation or refutation is unsatisfiable, so nothing can be deemed as wrong, and any behavior is good or right.
For then we are merely saying that God morality or God’s goodness is unfalsifiable as what amounts to God morality or God’s goodness is true in every possible interpretation of behaviors or commands with nothing to explain or show otherwise. Thus, God morality or God’s goodness is, therefore, untestable outside of God, as whatever is said or done is bound to or in accordance with God’s actions and standards, so God has no other possibilities then good, making the term good only what it is said God may order or do, and nothing God could order or do is bad or unethical meaning it is not real morality. To be completely honest, I am not much for the nonsense assuming that is packed inside god-bothers’ beliefs. Just stop.
An honest mind, enjoys just correction.
My Favorite Put Down of God Believers?
I was asked what is my favorite put down of believers. Well, I don’t worry about putting anyone down, my goal is offering info to challenge what believers think they know hoping to change their minds. When I post other more offensive stuff to religious ideas it is more for the enjoyment of nonbelievers than attacks at believers, though if it offends believers why care as no one has the right to not be offended. My motto is to attack thinking, and not people.
I am a truth-addict and wish to expose falsehoods. But for me, this is a goal, a needed endeavor, or a cause I feel needs championing. It is a worthy cause but it is not what gives my life meaning.
What truly gives my life meaning is the depth of my emotional support and connectedness, in conjunction with my hope, love, care, empathy, compassion, kindness, altruism, etc. for both myself and others.
If you know of god, what Exemplary behaviors are you doing in the world? Because I am told by you that God is love. Just a heads up, one of my least favorite things is unkind people. I don’t like this world, please can we make another, a kinder one? The world gave me its gods its hate and harm, its very shame. To which I only think, wow, how the world needs me, a kind unbeliever fighting for good, and why is being kind so hard for some people? My thinking is strong like a bomb and deep like the ocean as well as so creatively imaginative it is as if a star shining brightly.
No, science CAN NOT rightly be with religion.
People may add unwarranted things to their conception or use of science but not rightly so. Science is a warranted method to understand the world as it is, which is naturalistic only, not one shred of magic. In fact, the scientific method assumes Methodological Naturalism, because that is all that has ever been found and is the most likely thing that ever will be found. As religion is not intended to represent the world as it is but instead what it is not the stupid supernatural, which is the thing of fantasy, wishful thinking, and delusion.
Change an Atheist?
If you really want other people to believe your-god you can, just have your god show up. Challenge yourself first, ask your god to show itself to you proving existence; before you tell others it is true or exists. I promise to believe in your god, only when and if it declares itself existent, by showing up. If your god cannot provide its existence to you, why would you think anyone else should believe in your god’s possible existence. But even if your god proving its existence could be possible, I would never worship your god. No worries though, as your god surely doesn’t exist. How do I know? Simply our god is not real and thus will never show up nor prove existence, just like all imaginary friends.
Empty Vs. Valid Claims
I reject Empty Claims and Desire Valid-Justification in order to feel a motivation to believe that claims have met their burden of proof in the substantiation of the proposed meaning. To me, empty claims, assertions, assumptions, and beliefs are ideas that equal offered opinions without the fortifying substance of a valid justification to substantiate its proposed meaning. A general thinking in all my epistemology theorizing is Justificationism. By claiming to know something by faith is to act in a way mirroring a dishonest thinker, as intellectually honest thinkers don’t claim knowledge without justification.
I see the need for justification as part of the Burden of proof necessity and the rational requirement in the ethics of belief and these are Intellectual honest parts of good belief-etiquette. I value good Belief-Etiquette: reasoned belief-acquisitions, good belief-maintenance, and honest belief relinquishment. I am first always a rationalist, as reason is my only master. May I always be a truth seeker and not a blind faith believer. Thinking is good and one claiming otherwise is indeed a person erroring in reason.
The Religion Problem?
What a turbulent maelstrom that we see the innocent as the die slowly under the mental oppression of illusions. What gnarled path are we forced upon? Silence is not our own it is like a plague forced on us from birth. Alone we struggle as the roots of hate are pushed deep among the children of the earth. How can we not act? How can one stay silent at the farming of innocent minds to where they are so locked in that without any proof at all they willingly believe in mental servitude the most ridiculous non-real things? This problem of religion started before the time of reason and like living only for gods or afterlives pushed upon the innocent from birth to the point many disparage this current an only life wishing for the make-believe next life.
Bro, what the hell?
I once got two of the weirdest questions at my atheist-humanist outreach. The first was as a theist inquiring “as an atheist how do you stand up for yourself without god?” So, it to me is like asking without believing unbelievable things lacking justification for warranted belief, how do you stand up for yourself. Moreover, the first one could not get how you could love or believe in yourself without god. And the other as an atheist what is your opinion on spousal abuse?
The second theist did not think without a god I could be moral and not abuse others. So, it to me is like asking without believing unbelievable things lacking justification for warranted belief, how could be moral and not abuse others. I am floored at just how deluded some believers are about living life free of myths and imagery friends. I tried to set the record straight. I am an atheist-humanist, and I not only believe in good, I wish good for others and to actively do things to promote good.
We found your stupid bible god. lol
“Israeli archaeologist says he found 3,000-year-old clay head depicting the biblical God of Israel. Colleagues respond the image doesn’t represent Yahweh, a deity and maybe not even a man” ref
Hi, fuck the noise, you called god, Silence!
THERE, IS, NO, GOD.
“What if someone says in the same manner, “THERE IS GOD” Then you’ll ask for reason/proof. Then that person will say God is beyond reason and proof. Then you’ll say that doesn’t mean anything, why should you believe this? Then that person will say well don’t (believe) but your disbelief doesn’t remove the existence of God. Then you’ll start discussing what exists, and then you will find that you can’t prove that you exist and yet you know that you exist. And then you’d want to take in another direction, why should you believe in an entity to which has no effect on the world, and then that person will say well… effect and mechanism of working need not be simplistic like the entity has to appear and do things on the same way that you do… God this is becoming a tiresome screed…” – Linkedin Challenger
My response, Well, let’s start with your clear and in-depth information on what is a god?
“Damien AtHope, God is a shapeless entity that breathes fire into ‘nothing’ and outcomes ‘something’, and can exist on its own, without ‘something’ (something within our perception domain).” – Linkedin Challenger
My response, So do you have a reality-example of anything even close to your unsupported assumptions of a “shapeless entity that breathes fire into ‘nothing’ and outcomes ‘something.”?
“Damien AtHope, I would refer to my first comment (not for the example, but for the structure of arguments in such discussions.” – Linkedin Challenger
My response, I will rewrite it so you can more clearly see my issue:
“The Unknown” (your claims of something you Label, as a god-something) is a shapeless entity that breathes fire into ‘nothing’ and outcomes ‘something’, and can exist on its own, without ‘something.”
“Damien AtHope, yes, the “Unknown”. That’s why I don’t say ” THERE IS NO GOD”, I can I don’t know! Now that comes to “knowledge” So, effectively every knowledge has only one basis – that some experience is registered to mind. And the way this happens is through sense perception. Now, if someone genuinely has some religious sort of experience (discounting the skepticism) I would not completely reject the possibility. If the mind is the ultimate endpoint in knowledge and experience, why would an entity from outside our domain feel need to come through sense perception? It appeared in someone’s (again genuinely), is that not enough for him/her?” – Linkedin Challenger
My response, How odd, you sound as if you think your choice is the smarter one. lol Yet, you said that unreason as if you making positive baseless claims believing without reason, then not saying the negative as if such a rejection of unfounded claims is even close to the intellectual dishonesty of bad reasons to believe anything, there is no god, you admit not knowing it seems bit yet there you are talking as if you know, I call people liers that tell things they know are not true as if true. So you need some humility as you are not owed anything but help thinking better. Don’t go foolishly into unreason, saying there is a god when all that you can confirm is nothing and all you know is there are still things unknown to science. What is a god, it seems you need to just say, I don’t know.
Ask yourself honestly what is a god anyway?
Not some labeled name gifted arbitrarily but the actual thing put forward as the thing the label is describing as this god-something? 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? Again, What is a god? “David Hume’s considered view that in respect of our idea of god we have no relevant impression(s) that can serve as the origin of this idea.
Given his theory of meaning, this leaves the term god “altogether insignificant” making him, to me, an Ignostic Atheist. The fundamental point that emerges is that Hume agrees with Hobbes that in respect of our idea of god our predicament is much the same as that of a blind man trying to form the idea of fire, making Hobbes also an Ignostic Theist, to me.” ref “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, what is a god?
How are we not smarter than people of the past?
Look, I found proof of the first religious mythology with both types of general-themed deities now found throughout the world. Sky father and earth mother. So to recap, mommy and daddy. Can’t you see that? The people of the past did not know “science” but they did know, family. So, to simplify, it as we don’t have three hours for me to fully brake it all down for you but thankfully I was prepared enough to through together a three-hour video instead. How sad it is that we now suffer under some ancient dud’s mommy issues. Not me I am a proud supporter of mental health therapy.
Religion is the thing that sadly happens when a
fear of powerlessness becomes a power to be feared.
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.
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.
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. Faith is commonly claimed as personal but this is avoiding its deep social connected group thinking nature as seen in faith believers that claim to completely have faith belief in a holy book they hardly know nor may have never fully read.
Religions continuing in our modern world, full of science and facts, should be seen as little more than a set of irrational conspiracy theories of reality. Nothing more than a confused reality made up of unscientific echoes from man’s ancient past. Rational thinkers must ask themselves why continue to believe in religions’ stories. Religion myths which are nothing more than childlike stories and obsolete tales once used to explain how the world works, acting like magic was needed when it was always only nature. These childlike religious stories should not even be taken seriously, but sadly too often they are. Often without realizing it, we accumulate beliefs that we allow to negatively influence our lives. In order to bring about awareness, we need to be willing to alter skewed beliefs. Rational thinkers must examine the facts instead of blindly following beliefs or faith.
Yes, you actually are an Animist type of religionist.
“Well, you are not “you”… Without the trillions of organisms that comprise you. Those trillions of organisms too are atoms, Emergence, Smaller things make bigger things, Our microbiome, Controls us. We are a composition of other things. An individual isn’t truly an individual.” – Challenger
My response, I get it, you are an animist, cool it is one of the mildest religions but I need you to know I am not.
“So too is the makeup of everything… My words are based on science. Zero mysticism. Zero magic. Zero ghosts, Spirits, Souls, Etc. It’s a composition of quantum mechanics, neuroscience, anthropology, and biology.” – Challenger
My response, I hear you and I want you to know that you are not alone. Only 30% of animists believe in god.
“I’m irreligious… No magic!” – Challenger
My response, I know, I know, I get this subject like few do. irreligious animist is an interesting take I agree, see you are a special little star-dust. You, and understand I am just addressing what I can see as one with training in mental health therapy skills, you expressed animistically themed thinking in your views.
(And I say in my head, I am not attacking you about it, just highlighting the issue. Feel free to not accept my thinking on this as you can call animism whatever name you prefer.)
My response, I say to him, look, if you were an animist, cool. I am not all out against them anyway.
“Okay, although advanced enough science could be construed as such.” – Challenger
My response, I understand the motivations of fear
“I’m not afraid, if reasoning led to knowing that there is only finality… I would be 100% fine with it. Just as there is no such thing as nothingness.” – Challenger
My response, The clear beginning of animism is about 100,000 years old, so I get it has been with us so long we forgot it was not true.
“There is only, somethingness. Therefore that connotes infinite energy. Infinite energy = infinite possibilities. Therefore all possibilities. Simultaneously.” – Challenger
My response, Animism is found at levels of 90-100% in 35 of the world’s hunter-gathers living today, or something close to that. It’s a big game of telephone tag.
“It’s not, it is infinite energy= infinite possibilities. It’s pure Logic.” – Challenger
My response, Infinite energy = infinite possibilities, sounds like an animistic mindset that there could be other magical worlds/beings
“Keeping it simple… let’s play a game…” – Challenger
My response, Ok, I will start, Animism is a classic sign of a child’s egocentrism. For example, a child of 3 years old may have a favorite dolly toy on which they have bestowed human characteristics and emotions onto. The child believes that everyone around them can also see these human-like characteristics of the doll. The child only has one viewpoint, which is their own.
“Where are the borders of our Universe?” – Challenger
My response, And what answer justifies assumptions from a “natural only” (without agency) universe? Then to assume anything but that?
“Because we exist and probity is inherent to understanding Therefore wanting to identify our experience and the “why”?” – Challenger
My response, Look, I found proof of the first religious mythology with both types of general-themed deities now found throughout the world. Sky father and earth mother. So to recap, mommy and daddy. Can’t you see that?
“That doesn’t answer my question regarding the Universe though. You do believe in the existence of our Universe?” – Challenger
My response, Ok, the people of the past did not know science but they did know, family. So, to simplify it as we don’t have three hours for me to fully break it all down for you but thankfully I was prepared enough to through together a three-hour video instead. How sad it is that we now suffer under some ancient dud’s mommy issues. Not me I am a proud supporter of mental health therapy.
“I’m not referencing anything mythological. Just the Universe, is it finite or Infinite?” – Challenger
My response, What exactly do you mean by “Universe” are you asking a cosmology question?
“Correct, Our universe, the one We reside inside of.” – Challenger
My response, Well, finite or Infinite what would that matter in the what is a god question or answer?
“It matters because it provides us with additional insights, Probing.” – Challenger
My response, I do believe we exist and there is stuff around us best explained by science.
“Understanding is Learning.” – Challenger
My response, How does it change anything about the unknown labeled as a god?
“Ignore the term God for a moment, please.” – Challenger
My response, I am all from learning, I likely know more on religion them most religious scholars.
“The whole premise of God is that we are God individually. Don’t believe in external believe in internal.” – Challenger
My response, I always, Ignore the term God. lol That is my entire point, this conversation is to show you that.
“That is also mine. A misinterpretation. You are your own God.
That is what the Thesis is.” – Challenger
My response, So, I am my own unknown? I thought you believed better of me. lol
“You are you. And all of the trillions of things that make you.” – Challenger
My response, I am will to power, fuck god. I don’t need her.
“You. Exactly there is no mystical magic being.” – Challenger
My response, I am all I have and I am enough.
“Precisely. That is reality. Except. You are also me. And a tree. And a rock. At a fundamental level. That’s proven. By quantum mechanics.” – Challenger
My response, Right, again to me, I hear animism themes holding all that together that adds to your phenomenology to let you see science and nature in a (spiritual = animistic themed thinking) connected way that supports the feeling needs of our minds. So you know, the first known symbols for god related to stars.
“Stars are creation engines. All of our materials come from them.” – Challenger
My response, The bull symbol is a star-related symbol and that is in full display in ancient Egypt.
“Including us. Yup. Humanity has been searching externally for answers. To existence.” – Challenger
My response, Not that I believe but I think my future is in the stars. lol
“Which is weird. Because each of us exists. Therefore we are existence. Consciousness is existence.” – Challenger
My response, There is no need to believe anything magic like the religious claimed in the rolly-polly books. I fucking know it all I figured out the entire history of religion. I don’t know every detail but I know a lot, certainly enough to find stories of gods as nothing more than comic book mythology.
“Consciousness is just pattern recognition plus memory X actions. I personally agree I derive “faith” from my comic books.” – Challenger
My response, Right on and we are we because of it. lol
“I’m Batman.” – Challenger
My response, I wonder, do you think a theist is thinking of this, maybe I derive “faith” from my comic books and think they are much better at caring for the world they are associated with. News flash, your claimed god has not even bothered to stop over and say hi… lol
“The human brain consumes vast amounts of energies. Survival instinct is our Prime directive. Theism absolves individuals from burning as much energy (fact). Easy button. Less thinking. Less energy “wasted”. It’s akin to lifting a 1 pound weight (religion) aka lite on thinking. Versus 100 pounds. Science. Reasoning.” – Challenger
My response, I have to do other things but it was fun chatting.
Marquis Amon: “It is in my personal opinion that so many see animism as innate and thus not recognize it as a religion. It is a religion because the concept is not rooted in science. That anything that isn’t strictly metaphysical and science-based, it is a religion, likely animism. It is also in my opinion that the use of the term “spirituality” is virtually animism. That as you say animism is the belief in things having “spirit” or ultimately possess ‘energy’ and action not meant in the physiological context. Which whenever someone says energy and existing after death, that they are literal animists. People want to have a hypothesis about the universe’s creation and our own. Scientifically we see a path and through biology reverse engineered cells by their function at the most basic level. Technically that’s biochemistry, but serves the point that our existence came from things in the universe. Evolution shows us that it was a natural process. How was the universe created? I don’t know, I am perfectly content in admitting that, I have no need to make shit up. Nor does mad-up bullshit serve any purpose in living our lives. Is the amoeba religious? Of course not, is it alive? Yes. It focuses on living.”
Let’s make it simple:
Atheism is the “reality” position.
Theism is the “anti-reality” position!
I don’t need religion or its fake gods.
“Reason is my only master.”
I am will to power!
Don’t let ANGER become an unethical behavior.
I want to make a difference in the world and try to bring hope and new thinking to others where I can. I also wish to champion kindness as often as I champion challenge in thinking and hope for wisdom as much as reason or doubt. I see it is easier to break others down than help them see a way back up. More than just my disbelief in religion and gods or all woo-woo, I hope people get how much I care about humanity and all the different people who are apart of it. We rise by helping each other. May I be thoughtful and care, as well as seek knowledge and share. May we all be good humans to ourselves and others.
It is just as important to challenge one’s own behavior as to challenge the behavior of others.
I don’t generally assume everyone agrees to the facts and that it is often upon me to help them navigate truth. 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. 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. I am not the thing abuse made, I am a shooting star blazing bright, shining far pass my past. 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? Do you want what is true or want what you believe without concern for what may actually be true?
I am a Methodological Rationalist, I rarely am pushed to doubt as a default, instead, I see reason as my default and at times it may be responsible to doubt, but I get to that conclusion because of reasoning. A common saying in pseudologic is “You can’t prove a negative.” This is, simply not true. This is clearly not true because any statement can be rewritten into the negation of its negation. Any provable statement can be written as a negative. For example, “X is true” can be rewritten as “X is not false”, a negative statement! If “X is true” can be proven true, then you have also proven a negative statement “X is not false”. Moreover, even if it is widely believed that you can’t prove a negative. Going so far as to have people thinking that it is a law of logic—you can’t prove that Santa Claus, unicorns, the Loch Ness Monster, God, pink elephants, WMD in Iraq, and Bigfoot don’t exist. This widespread belief is flatly, 100% wrong. In this little essay, I show precisely how one can prove a negative, to the same extent that one can prove anything at all. Evidence of absence is evidence of any kind that suggests something is missing or that it does not exist. Per the traditional aphorism, “absence of evidence is not evidence of absence”, positive evidence of this kind is distinct from a lack of evidence or ignorance of that which should have been found already, had it existed. In this regard, Irving Copi writes: “In some circumstances, it can be safely assumed that if a certain event had occurred, evidence of it could be discovered by qualified investigators. In such circumstances, it is perfectly reasonable to take the absence of proof of its occurrence as positive proof of its non-occurrence.” — Copi, Introduction to Logic (1953), p. 95
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 the aid of axiology value judge and enrich its value assumptions as valid or not). Epistemology is needed for a good ontology (ontology is realized with 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. Thinking is good and one claiming otherwise is indeed a person erroring in reason. Which may I remind you is terrible since the most Base Presupposition in our understanding of everything begins in reason.
So, I think, right thinking is reason. Right-reason (Sound reasoning) 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.
“In logic, more precisely in deductive reasoning, an argument is sound if it is both valid in form and its premises are true. Soundness also has a related meaning in mathematical logic, wherein logical systems are sound if and only if every formula that can be proved in the system is logically valid with respect to the semantics of the system. In deductive reasoning, a sound argument is an argument that is both valid, and all of whose premises are true (and as a consequence its conclusion is true as well). An argument is valid if, assuming its premises are true, the conclusion must be true.” ref
An example of a sound argument is the following well-known syllogism:
“All men are mortal. Socrates is a man. Therefore, Socrates is mortal.” Because of the logical necessity of the conclusion, this argument is valid; and because the argument is valid and its premises are true, the argument is sound. However, an argument can be valid without being sound. For example: “All birds can fly. Penguins are birds. Therefore, penguins can fly.” This argument is valid because, assuming the premises are true, the conclusion must be true. However, the first premise is false. Not all birds can fly (penguins, ostriches, kiwis etc.) For an argument to be sound, the argument must be valid and its premises must be true.” ref
The soundness of a deductive system is the property that any sentence that is provable in that deductive system is also true on all interpretations or structures of the semantic theory for the language upon which that theory is based. In symbols, where S is the deductive system, L the language together with its semantic theory, and P a sentence of L: if ⊢S P, then also ⊨L P.” ref
“Strong soundness of a deductive system is the property that any sentence P of the language upon which the deductive system is based that is derivable from a set Γ of sentences of that language is also a logical consequence of that set, in the sense that any model that makes all members of Γ true will also make P true. In symbols where Γ is a set of sentences of L: if Γ ⊢S P, then also Γ ⊨L P. Notice that in the statement of strong soundness, when Γ is empty, we have the statement of weak soundness.” ref
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.
Right-(SOUND)-Reason: is reasoning to the highest soundness available.
Science is quite the opposite of just common sense. To me, common sense is experience-related interpretation, relatively, as it generally relates to the reality of things in the world, which involves “naïve realism” as well as possible psychological certainty and low epistemic certainty. Whereas, most of those who are scientific thinkers, hold typically more to scientific realism or other stances far removed from the limited common sense of naive realism. Science is a multidisciplinary methodological quest for truth. Science understands what is, while religion is wishing on what is not. Scientific realism sees external reality as described by science is what is REAL and thus TRUE with the highest epistemic certainty regardless of possible psychological certainty.
Getting Real with Logic
Logic is the result of rationalism, as what do you think gets you to logic if not starting at reason? I want to hear your justification for your claims, all the presuppositions you are evading to explain the links in your claims of truth. As it is invalid to just claim this without a justification for your professed claims and the presupposing you do to get there, that is not trying to use rationalism to refuse rationalist thinking. How are you making the statement and not appearing to what is the rationale behind it? If not, you must want to think “Logic is self-generating as valid” and this understood value is to you not reducible to reason? You are devoid of an offer of your burden of proof, first just try to keep up with the thinker’s responsibility to provide more than unjustified claims. Logic is derived by axioms and thus using rationalism to validate them, think otherwise provide your proof. My Rationalism: is two things externalistic “scientific rationalism” a belief or theory that opinions and actions should be based on reason and knowledge rather than on religious belief or emotional response. And internalistic “philosophic rationalism” the theory that reason is the most base presupposition before all others, rather than simply trying to rely on experience is the foundation of certainty in knowledge. Activating experience occurs we then have thinking, right (methodological) thinking (critical thinking) is reason, right reason is logic, right logic can be used for math, right math in response to the natural world is physics, and from there all other Sciences, physics is the foundation for chemistry and chemistry is the foundation of biology. May Right-(SOUND)-Reason be your only master and may you also master reason.
A basic outline of scientific epistemology:
Science: Hypotheses (Rationalism/Deductive, Inductive, or Abductive Reasoning etc.) + Testing (Empiricism/Systematic Observation) – Checking for errors (Skepticism/Fallibilism) + Interpret/Draw a Conclusion (Rationalism/Deductive, Inductive, or Abductive Reasoning etc.) *if valid* = Scientific Laws (describes observed phenomena) or Scientific Theory (substantiated and repeatedly tested explanation of phenomena) = Justified True Belief = Scientific Knowledge = Epistemic Certainty supportive of correctability
*being epistemically certain, is believing a truth has the highest epistemic status, often with warranted psychological certainty but it may not, neither is it a requirement*
“Damien, I have a question: Who/what gives humans value?”
My response, We give value, as value is an awareness and judgment, it is an emergent property of validation; the ability to use critical thinking and logic in a useful way, to conclude worth, benefit, or good.
I am the “one” you have been waiting for. I am will to power, a deep thought so true it has taken flight to the lofty aspirations dreamed for and a care transmitted to offer hope to humanity. I believe in you and will strive to champion you with all I have for you are so worthy… I am that freak of nature, a power from the anti-power crusaders, warring against the power dynamic to return it back where it belongs- the hands of the people. I am a free-thinking invader into the shell of malignancy infecting humanity which strangles reason out of the world. A proud anarchy theorist, I breathe the fire of the heathens, a thought revolutionary and mental freedom fighter. I am a humanist atheist who desires a better world for us all, one that is kinder, more just, and more rational in its pursuits.
*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: starts at real, 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.
Dogmatic–Propaganda vs. Disciplined-Rationality
Religionists and fideists, promote Dogmatic-Propaganda whereas atheists and antireligionists mostly promote Disciplined-Rationality. Dogmatic–Propaganda commonly is a common motivator of flawed or irrational thinking but with over seventy belief biases identified in people, this is hardly limited to just the religious or faith inclined. Let me illustrate what I am saying, to me all theists are believing lies or irrationally in that aspect of their lives relating to god belief. So the fact of any other common intellectual indexers where there may be “right” reason in beliefs cannot remove the flawed god belief corruption being committed. What I am saying is like this if you kill one person you are a killer. If you believe in one “god” I know you are a follower of Dogmatic-Propaganda and can not completely be a follower of Disciplined-Rationality. However, I am not proclaiming all atheists are always rational as irrationally is a revolving door many people believe or otherwise seem to stumble through. It’s just that god-belief does this with intentionally.
Disciplined-Rationality is motivated by principles of correct reasoning with emphasis on valid and reliable methods or theories leading to a range of rational standpoints or conclusions understanding that concepts and beliefs often have consequences thus hold an imperative for truth or at least as close to the truth as can be acquired rejecting untruth. Disciplined-Rationality can be seen as an aid in understanding the fundamentals for knowledge, sound evidence, justified true belief and involves things like decision theory and the concern with identifying the value(s), reasonableness, verification, certainties, uncertainties, and other relevant issues resulting in the clearest optimal decision/conclusion and/or belief/disbelief. Disciplined-Rationality attempts to understand the justification or lack thereof in propositions and beliefs concerning its self with various epistemic features of belief, truth, and/or knowledge, which include the ideas of justification, warrant, rationality, reliability, validity, and probability.
ps. “Sound Thinker”, “Shallow Thinker”, “Dogmatic–Propaganda” & “Disciplined-Rationality” are concepts/terms I created*
Atheists but I have faith in gravity tho, but it isn’t exactly “faith”???
My response, “No, I don’t agree, you don’t have “faith” in gravity or gravitation, as it is “a fundamental force” you have proof or if lacking some direct proof would use inference, and if even less evidence you use conjecture, not faith. Do you gauntly thinking you need faith in gravity because you wonder or worry that when walking down a set of stairs that you going to fall back up? You don’t need faith (strong belief without evidence) as there is massive proof, almost to the point that it is easily self-evident. You don’t need faith (strong belief without evidence) for anything, as if it’s warranted it will or should have evidence or it doesn’t deserve not only strong belief but any amount of belief at all as sound beliefs need something to ground their worthiness in relation to reality; the only place evidence comes. “Gravity, or gravitation, is a natural phenomenon by which all things with mass are brought toward (or gravitate toward) one another, including planets, stars, and galaxies.” Ref
“Gravity is responsible for various phenomena observed on Earth and throughout the Universe; for example, it causes the Earth and the other planets to orbit the Sun, the Moon to orbit the Earth, the formation of tides, the formation and evolution of the Solar System, stars and galaxies. Since energy and mass are equivalent, all forms of energy, including light, also cause gravitation and are under the influence of it. On Earth, gravity gives weight to physical objects and causes the ocean tides. The gravitational attraction of the original gaseous matter present in the Universe caused it to begin coalescing, forming stars – and the stars to group together into galaxies – so gravity is responsible for many of the large-scale structures in the Universe.” Ref
Your god myth is an Axiological “Presumptive-Value” Failure, and I as an Axiological (value theorist) Atheist am compelled to speak out on how Claims of god are a Presumptive-Value failure. Simply, if you presume a thing is of value that you can’t justify, then you have committed an axiological presumptive value failure.
Axiological “presumptive-value” Success: Sound Thinker: uses disciplined rationality (sound axiological judgment the evaluation of evidence to make a decision) supporting a valid and reliable justification.
Axiological “presumptive-value” Failure: Shallow Thinker: undisciplined, situational, sporadic, or limited thinking (unsound axiological judgment, lacking required evidence to make a “presumptive-value” success decision) lacking the support of a needed valid and reliable justification.
Often I get disheartened to see that so many people can look at the unknown or that which is devoid of any and all understanding and claim to know that this is evidence for some god or another. How can they with all honesty even say that they somehow already know about an established scientific unknown, when all along it is what it ever was, which I will remind you, is currently holding a confirmed status of unknown. Thus, still fully intact as currently unknowable (I.e. you simply cannot justifiability claim that such unknown is god or evidence of god). What really is a god anyway? The term god equals mystery that is used to explain the mysterious leaving us with yet more mystery, thus explains nothing. Claims of god are a Presumptive-Value failure. Simply, if you presume a thing is of value that you can’t justify, then you have committed an axiological presumptive value failure. Axiological “presumptive-value” Success: Sound Thinker: uses disciplined rationality (sound axiological judgment the evaluation of evidence to make a decision) supporting a valid and reliable justification.
“Ok, So basically, the difference between reasoning with evidence and without?” – Questioner
My response, Well with or without valid justification because of evidence. As in you can’t claim to know the value of something you can’t demonstrate as having good qualities to attach the value claim too so if you lack evidence of the thing in question then you cannot validate its value. So it’s addressing a kind of justificationism (uncountable) Theory of justification, An (philosophy standard) approach that regards the justification of a claim as primary, while the claim itself is secondary; thus, criticism consists of trying to show that a claim cannot be reduced to the authority or criteria that it appeals to. Think of is as a use-matrix. If I say this is of great use for that, can you validate its use or value, and can I use this as a valid method to state a valid justification for my claims without evidence to value judge from? No, thus an axiological presumptive-value failure as a valid anything.
Theory of justification is a part of epistemology that attempts to understand the justification of propositions and beliefs. Epistemologists are concerned with various epistemic features of belief, which include the ideas of justification, warrant, rationality, and probability. Loosely speaking, justification is the reason that someone (properly) holds a belief. When a claim is in doubt, justification can be used to support the claim and reduce or remove the doubt. Justification can use empiricism (the evidence of the senses), authoritative testimony (the appeal to criteria and authority), or reason. – Wikipedia
“Presumptions are things that are credited as being true until evidence of their falsity is presented. Presumptions have many forms and value (Axiology) is just one. In ethics, value denotes the degree of importance of something or action, with the aim of determining what actions are best to do or what way is best to live (normative ethics), or to describe the significance of different actions. It may be described as treating actions as abstract objects, putting VALUE to them.
It deals with right conduct and living a good life, in the sense that a highly, or at least relatively high valuable action may be regarded as ethically “good” (adjective sense), and that an action of low value, or relatively low in value, may be regarded as “bad”. What makes an action valuable may, in turn, depend on the ethical values of the objects it increases, decreases, or alters. An object with “ethic value” may be termed an “ethic or philosophic good” (noun sense). Values can be defined as broad preferences concerning appropriate courses of actions or outcomes. As such, values reflect a person’s sense of right and wrong or what “ought” to be.
“Equal rights for all”, “Excellence deserves admiration”, and “People should be treated with respect and dignity” are representatives of values. Values tend to influence attitudes and behavior and these types include ethical/moral values, doctrinal/ideological(religious, political) values, social values, and aesthetic values. It is debated whether some values that are not clearly physiologically determined, such as altruism, are intrinsic, and whether some, such as acquisitiveness, should be classified as vices or virtues.” ref, ref
The Way of a Sound Thinker?
“Sound thinking to me, in a general way, is thinking, reasoning, or belief that tends to make foresight a desire to be as accurate as one can with valid and reliable reason and evidence.”
Sound axiological judgment, to me, a “presumptive-value” success, is value judged opinions expressed as facts with a valid and reliable justification. In an informal and psychological sense, it is used in reference to the quality of cognitive faculties and adjudicational (relating to adjudication) capabilities of particular individuals, typically called wisdom or discernment. In a legal sense, – used in the context of a legal trial, to refer to a final finding, statement, or ruling, based on a considered weighing of evidence, called, “adjudication“.
A shallow thinker (i.e. not a Deep Thinker, a person whose thoughts are reasoned, methodological, logical, empirical, profound; an intellectual) quickly talks, often with boastful postulations, likely just as often pushed strongly and loudly as if this adds substance, and they do this before fully understanding what’s is really involved. Whereas, a Sound Thinker is reasoned (comparative more reasoned, superlative most reasoned) generally based on reasoning; being the result of logical thought. As a first debate process, a Sound Thinker commonly poses Questions to understand slowing down and assessing all the facts or factors involved and then builds their argument or ideas. In classical logic, the law of non-contradiction (LNC) (also known as the law of contradiction, the principle of non-contradiction (PNC), or the principle of contradiction) states that contradictory statements cannot both be true in the same sense at the same time, e.g. the two propositions “A is B” and “A is not B” are mutually exclusive. It is the second of the three classic laws of thought.
Here are examples of theoretical philosophy subjects I delve into:
Theories of truth
Questions on knowledge
Questions on Morality
Philosophy of science
Philosophy of language
Philosophy of mind
Axiology and Value Theory?
“Value theory is a range of approaches to understanding how, why, and to what degree persons value things; whether the object or subject of valuing is a person, idea, object, or anything else. This investigation began in ancient philosophy, where it is called axiology or ethics.”– Wikipedia
“The term “Value Theory” is used in at least three different ways in philosophy. In its broadest sense, “value theory” is a catch-all label used to encompass all branches of moral philosophy, social and political philosophy, aesthetics, and sometimes feminist philosophy and the philosophy of religion — whatever areas of philosophy are deemed to encompass some “evaluative” aspect. In its narrowest sense, “value theory” is used for a relatively narrow area of normative ethical theory particularly, but not exclusively, of concern to consequentialists. In this narrow sense, “value theory” is roughly synonymous with “axiology”. Axiology can be thought of as primarily concerned with classifying what things are good, and how good they are. – (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
For instance, a traditional question of axiology concerns whether the objects of value are subjective psychological states or objective states of the world. But in a more useful sense, “value theory” designates the area of moral philosophy that is concerned with theoretical questions about value and goodness of all varieties — the theory of value. The theory of value, so construed, encompasses axiology, but also includes many other questions about the nature of value and its relation to other moral categories. – (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
The division of moral theory into the theory of value, as contrasting with other areas of investigation, cross-cuts the traditional classification of moral theory into normative and metaethical inquiry, but is a worthy distinction in its own right; theoretical questions about value constitute a core domain of interest in moral theory, often cross the boundaries between the normative and the metaethical, and have a distinguished history of investigation.” – (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
“Normative generally means relating to an evaluative standard. Normativity is the phenomenon in human societies of designating some actions or outcomes as good or desirable or permissible and others as bad or undesirable or impermissible. A norm in this normative sense means a standard for evaluating or making judgments about behavior or outcomes. – Wikipedia
Normative is sometimes also used, somewhat confusingly, to mean relating to a descriptive standard: doing what is normally done or what most others are expected to do in practice. In this sense a norm is not evaluative, a basis for judging behavior or outcomes; it is simply a fact or observation about behavior or outcomes, without judgment. Many researchers in this field try to restrict the use of the term normative to the evaluative sense and refer to the description of behavior and outcomes as positive, descriptive, predictive, or empirical. – Wikipedia
In philosophy, normative statements make claims about how things should or ought to be, how to value them, which things are good or bad, and which actions are right or wrong. Normative claims are usually contrasted with positive (i.e. descriptive, explanatory, or constative) claims when describing types of theories, beliefs, or propositions. Positive statements are (purportedly) factual statements that attempt to describe reality. Normative statements and norms, as well as their meanings, are an integral part of human life. – Wikipedia
They are fundamental for prioritizing goals and organizing and planning. Thought, belief, emotion, and action are the basis of much ethical and political discourse; indeed, normativity is arguably the key feature distinguishing ethical and political discourse from other discourses (such as natural science). Much modern moral/ethical philosophy takes as its starting point the apparent variance between peoples and cultures regarding the ways they define what is considered to be appropriate/desirable/praiseworthy/valuable/good etc. (In other words, variance in how individuals, groups, and societies define what is in accordance with their normative standards.) – Wikipedia
This has led philosophers such as A.J. Ayer and J.L. Mackie (for different reasons and in different ways) to cast doubt on the meaningfulness of normative statements. Philosophers, such as Christine Korsgaard, have argued for a source of normative value which is independent of individuals’ subjective morality and which consequently attains (a lesser or greater degree of) objectivity. In the social sciences, the term “normative” has broadly the same meaning as its usage in philosophy, but may also relate, in a sociological context, to the role of cultural ‘norms‘; the shared values or institutions that structural functionalists regard as constitutive of the social structure and social cohesion. – Wikipedia
These values and units of socialization thus act to encourage or enforce social activity and outcomes that ought to (with respect to the norms implicit in those structures) occur, while discouraging or preventing social activity that ought not to occur. That is, they promote social activity that is socially valued. While there are always anomalies in social activity (typically described as “crime” or anti-social behavior, see also normality (behavior)) the normative effects of popularly endorsed beliefs (such as “family values” or “common sense“) push most social activity towards a generally homogeneous set.” – Wikipedia
“The division of philosophy into a practical and a theoretical discipline has its origin in Aristotle‘s moral philosophy and natural philosophy categories. Theoretical philosophy is sometimes confused with Analytic philosophy, but the latter is a philosophical movement, embracing certain ideas and methods but dealing with all philosophical subject matters, while the former is a way of sorting philosophical questions into two different categories in the context of a curriculum. – Wikipedia
Hammer of Truth that lying pig RELIGION: challenged by an archaeologist
“The Hammer of Truth” -ontology question- What do You Mean by That?
Hammer of Truth: Investigate (ONTOLOGY), Expose (EPISTEMOLOGY), and Judge (AXIOLOGY)
Hammer of Truth: Yes, you too, have lots of beliefs…
“The Hammer of Truth” Process
“Hammer of Truth” response to “Do you Believe in god?”
“The Hammer of Truth” (scientific philosophy: Ontology, Epistemology, & Axiology) in action.
Error Crushing Force of the Dialectic Questions and the Hammer of Truth
Atheist Rationalist Talking on “TRUTH” with a Spiritualist Philosopher
Damien AtHope: Pre-Historical Writer/Researcher chats with Lisa For Truth: Origins of Religion and Anthropology of Religion
Truth Navigation: “Belief-Etiquette”
Truth Navigation and the fallacy of Fideism “faith-ism”
Truth Navigation: Techniques for Discussions or Debates
Science and the word “TRUTH”
Truth Navigation and the fallacy of Fideism “faith-ism”
Truth is a Value (axiological) Judgment.
Why are lies more appealing than the truth?
The Battle of Truth
To Find Truth You Must First Look
Pragmatic theory of truth, Coherence theory of truth, and Correspondence theory of truth
I use a kind of Dialectical Rhetoric = truth persuasion (motivational teaching)
Religion is not about truth
#rationalism #philosapgy #atheism
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 six: Emergence of hierarchy, sexism, slavery, and the new male god dominance: Paganism 7,000-5,000 years old: related to “Anarchism and Socialism” (Capitalism) (World War 0) Elite and their slaves!
Show eight: Paganism 4,000 years old: Moralistic gods after the rise of Statism and often support Statism/Kings: related to “Anarchism and Socialism” (First Moralistic gods, then the Origin time of Monotheism)
Prehistory: related to “Anarchism and Socialism” the division of labor, power, rights, and recourses: VIDEO
Pre-animism 300,000 years old and animism 100,000 years old: related to “Anarchism and Socialism”: VIDEO
Totemism 50,000 years old: related to “Anarchism and Socialism”: VIDEO
Shamanism 30,000 years old: related to “Anarchism and Socialism”: VIDEO
Paganism 12,000 years old: related to “Anarchism and Socialism” (Pre-Capitalism): VIDEO
Paganism 7,000-5,000 years old: related to “Anarchism and Socialism” (Capitalism) (World War 0) Elite and their slaves: VIEDO
Paganism 5,000 years old: progressed organized religion and the state: related to “Anarchism and Socialism” (Kings and the Rise of the State): VIEDO
Paganism 4,000 years old: related to “Anarchism and Socialism” (First Moralistic gods, then the Origin time of Monotheism): VIEDO
I do not hate simply because I challenge and expose myths or lies any more than others being thought of as loving simply because of the protection and hiding from challenge their favored myths or lies.
The truth is best championed in the sunlight of challenge.
An archaeologist once said to me “Damien religion and culture are very different”
My response, So are you saying that was always that way, such as would you say Native Americans’ cultures are separate from their religions? And do you think it always was the way you believe?
I had said that religion was a cultural product. That is still how I see it and there are other archaeologists that think close to me as well. Gods too are the myths of cultures that did not understand science or the world around them, seeing magic/supernatural everywhere.
I personally think there is a goddess and not enough evidence to support a male god at Çatalhöyük but if there was both a male and female god and goddess then I know the kind of gods they were like Proto-Indo-European mythology.
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 reached 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 of the rise of the male god 7,000 years ago 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 mover across the world.
The Mind of a Skeptical Leftist (YouTube)
Cory Johnston: Mind of a Skeptical Leftist @Skepticalcory
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.”
He needs our support. We rise by helping each other.
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.”
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