Fighting a Troll?

Turning a Theist Attack into a Chance for Their New Learning: “an open dialog”

I do truth navigation, both inquiry questions as well as

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

My Hammer of Truth (i.e. ontology, epistemology, and axiology; three philosophies that I use methodologically) both builds and destroys: it aids in building accuracy towards truth and destroy bad claims that are untrue.

A General Thinking in all My Epistemology Theorizing is Justificationism

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

Trying to Help Promote Knowledge: Philosophy and Science.

Dogmatic–Propaganda vs. Disciplined-Rationality

Belief-Etiquette

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

What we generally call “truth” is a “value judgment” of what we believe is the reality of the case. So, a claim of truth then like all claims needs some type supporting justification. The claim of truth’s integrity requires testing of what the theme of the offered truth involves if validly justified it should not be distrusted. However, if the claim of truth’s integrity is not justified then the term “Truth” has not been itself attacked rather it’s the using the word “Truth” that cannot substantiate the term that it should be distrusted because it is seemingly in error or a lie-pseudo truth. Therefore, the user/claimer of the improper use of the word “Truth” but believe in and promote pseudo-truth because it does not have a sound basis in logic or fact demonstrate the validity and reliability of their truth assertion. So, I love truth, its claims of the term “Truth” with no justification that I can’t stand because such claims are pseudo-truth. It’s like how science as a term is quite corrupted by pseudoscience right? Yes and No. Yes, because fake science is believed as real science where the user/claimer of the improper use of the word “Science” believe in and promote pseudo-science but because it does not have a sound basis in logic or fact demonstrate the validity and reliability of their truth assertion. However, we can know science from pseudoscience as the term is given other methodological structure to which to evaluate then prove true science or prove a claim as not science and in fact pseudoscience so to do we sadly have to a methodological structure to prove a claim as not truth and in fact pseudo-truth.

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?

A shallow thinker quickly talks, often with boastful postulations, likely just as often are pushed strongly and loudly as if this adds substance, and they do this before fully understanding what’s is really involved or if actually confirmed as true or have a high likely hood to be soundly justified. Whereas, a Sound Thinker are truth seekers of actually confirmed as truth or things that have a high likelihood to be soundly justified. Thus, often a Sound Thinker first poses Questions to understand slowing down and assessing all the facts or factors involved and then builds their argument or ideas. Just remember a simple rule all beliefs need something to support them or they are at best unsupported accepted assertions, arguments or ideas. At worst completely baseless, misinterpreted confusions, or outright falsehoods. See it’s like this, if one feels something requires faith (unsupported cognition of acceptance) to see the thing as real; without realizing it, one has affirmed that such a thing is not likely a true part of reality.

A Sound Thinker: uses disciplined rationality

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

I Don’t Have to Respect Ideas

People get confused ideas are not alive nor do they have beingness, Ideas don’t have rights nor the right to even exist only people have such a right. Ideas don’t have dignity nor can they feel violation only people if you attack them personally. Ideas don’t deserve any special anything they have no feelings and cannot be shamed they are open to the most brutal merciless attack and challenge without any protection and deserve none nor will I give them any if they are found wanting in evidence or reason. I will never respect Ideas if they are devoid of merit I only respect people.

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

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

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

*REMS: reason (rationalism), evidence (empiricism), and methodological “truth-seeking” skepticism (Methodic doubt) (the basic or general approach)

*The Hammer of Truth: ontology, epistemology, and axiology (methodological use of philosophy)

*Dialectical Rhetoric = truth persuasion: use of facts and reasoning (motivational teaching)

*Utilizing Dignity: strategic dignity attacks or dignity enrichments (only used if confusion happens or resistance is present)

Asking the right questions at the right time with the right info can also change minds, you can’t just use facts all on their own. Denial likes consistency, the pattern of thinking cannot vary from a fixed standard of thinking, or the risk of truth could slip in. Helping people alter skewed thinking is indeed a large task but most definitely a worthy endeavor.

I posted a video: Atheist in a Wheelchair challenges a street preacher: https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=share&v=_P7voWUkJnA&app=desktop

Challenger, The atheist in the wheelchair looks like he ate his former Christian self. He is against Jesus because Jesus commanded his followers to fast. God doesn’t exist because that fat piece of shit ate him.

My response, I am the Atheist in the video so you are talking directly to me and I feel ashamed for your lack of intellectual integrity with your comments attacking the person like an inferior quality person. Bring it on then. Lol

Challenger, You are a social justice warrior, I find that to be enough comedy.

My response, I would laugh at your shamefulness but it’s quite immoral so all I can do is see we have such lack of moral standards as thinkers and hope one day you respect yourself more.

Challenger, There is nothing immoral in stating facts. Prove I said anything immoral.

My response, immoral: violating moral principles; not conforming to the patterns of conduct usually accepted or established as consistent with principles of personal and social ethics. “Intellectually honest” means you make arguments you think are true, as opposed to making the arguments you are “supposed” to make and/or avoiding making arguments that you think are true that you aren’t “supposed” to make. Yes, can’t stand the message and cannot defend or challenge a belief without shaming your character. People of honor would challenge me not you. You desecrate you trying to shame me. Good going. 🙂

Challenger, I just hate Brian Fields, and this picture was funny.

My response, “Lie” as you did nothing different to me or him, so tell the “Real truth”, you thought you could step out and attack me too. So, tell us your real intent? The words we use matter and often can speak to who we are, this is not something any real thinker understands, or should with their words and behavior. You never defend “Faith,” faith has different meanings between religions and people using it:

complete trust or confidence in someone or something, synonyms: trust, belief, confidence, conviction;

strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.

My response, Stop Putting Faith in Faith: https://damienmarieathope.com/2015/10/15/stop-putting-faith-in-faith/

My response, I had done a speech and was being pushed back to my car when in the middle of my way was this theist so I decided it was a great time to show we can challenge them effectively, as I did. My video speech was on removing in gOD we trust from American money: https://youtu.be/04RWcnuEqKI

My response, If you are interested in my general challenging style, check out my blog posts: https://damienmarieathope.com/2016/10/13/ontology-epistemology-axiology-argumentchallenge-protocol/

https://damienmarieathope.com/2017/12/truth-navigation-techniques-for-discussions-or-debates/

https://damienmarieathope.com/2018/06/hammer-of-truth-yes-you-too-have-lots-of-beliefs/

https://damienmarieathope.com/2017/06/i-use-a-kind-of-dialectical-rhetoric-truth-persuasion-motivational-teaching/

https://damienmarieathope.com/2017/07/utilizing-dignity/

Challenger, I think it is ironic, that an atheist is more concerned about 3 letters on a piece of paper, then the reality of it which is Federal Reserve Notes are NOT real money. Muh education.

My response, Money is credit that is universally transferable between users. I am against government establishing religious thinking on our money, god was not on paper money in the US until 1950’s with the red scare.

Challenger, Why are you posting in this forum at all? Christian preachers have nothing to do with the Flat Earth.

My response, Are you sure it’s me who needs an education? Nice try, Flat Earth, is predicated on religious thinking where do you thinking such misguided thinking started. The earliest of these flat-Earth promoters was the African Lactantius (AD 245-325), a professional rhetorician who converted to Christianity mid-life. He rejected all the Greek philosophers, and in doing so also rejected a spherical Earth. Lactantius was a vigorous defender of the now-spreading Christian faith. http://www.creationmoments.com/content/inventing-flat-earth

Challenger, It is like going to a baseball game and then talking about hockey the entire time.

My response, And still no challenge at all just make more remarks that mean nothing, you sure did not care before about your content in this post have you not? “Pastor Ernest Flat Earth Street Preaching” https://www.youtube.com/shared?ci=Jal4-KT-1M4

My response, I am not an uninformed thinker on religion think I am, watch my video presentations on the evolution of religion. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m93FqHShUDE

My response, As far as knowing similar people I don’t really know, we may as I have several personal profiles, several pages and a few groups with at least 10,000 friends or so. So, I will not argue that point. Here is my writer page: https://www.facebook.com/DamienMarieAtHope/?ref=bookmarks

My response, In regards to your defaming and writing on my picture, Is this your picture?

Challenger, Yeppers, we also likely have some similar friends.

My response, So, it is you see? And yet, I did not say well from your pic it appears you may too seem to enjoy food but I don’t think it is right even if you did it to me first, as I see that lacks intellectual character; which is why you and I both should not do such things.

Challenger, Yet, I don’t need a machine to push my fat ass around do I?

My response, So again, you further defame yourself without honor as you are so low to try and shame my disabilities, sad.

Challenger, Sorry, I don’t give a shit about your feelings. This is why if we went to war with Russia, we would fucking lose. American men are so weak minded and feminized, we let mere words hurt us now. Need your safe space?

My response, You need the safe space not me as I am quite strong as a person. 🙂

Challenger, But wait, social justice warriors are known for needing a safe space from evil language and hurt feelings. If you believe men are women and women are men, I am the least of your problems.

My response, What, as if you were ever a problem for me. Lol

My response, Scientists must work harder on equality: http://www.nature.com/news/science-and-gender-scientists-must-work-harder-on-equality-1.19064

My response, The idea of two sexes is simplistic. Biologists now think there is a wider spectrum than that. http://www.nature.com/news/sex-redefined-1.16943

Challenger, But, yes, congrats. You can take a photo and copy it.

My response, Yes, I was teaching you something about personal character and unlike you ,I did not make any bad comments on your physical person see how easy that was to show some intellectual class? 🙂

Challenger, If you are so fat, you need a fucking wheelchair to roll around in, you need to lose weight. You’d think believing this is your only life, you’d take your health more seriously, so you live as long as possible.

My response, You never asked and no I don’t have a wheelchair do to being fat I am fat as I have nerve damage due to a big rig trucking accident that left me 22% disabled so you are picking on a disabled person (shame on you) but you picked someone quite able to take on a rude person and still not lower my intellectual character as we all can and should do. so, your judgments are wrong and you wrote on my picture so you know I can sometimes stand. One’s intellectual character is easy to ruin but hard to master. See here I am standing, fighting back, counter protesting the Westboro Baptist church in Hollywood California.

Challenger, You see, I admit I’m an asshole who is an equal opportunity shamer.

My response, I am not shaming any quality of a person, as I strive to attack thinking not people. I am not saying I am always the greatest at doing it as sometimes I too can error but you are striving for it as a goal and that is quite sad.

Challenger, Are you actually open minded to having your point of view be changed or wrong?

My response, I am open to truth: valid and reliable reason and evidence, are you? How do you think I became an atheist I was open to new truth? Losing My Religion: https://damienmarieathope.com/atheism/

My response, Doubt god(s)? No, I stopped believing Fairytales. https://damienmarieathope.com/2016/10/14/doubt-about-gods-no-i-stopped-believing-fairytales/

My response, Reasons for or Types of Atheism: https://damienmarieathope.com/2015/07/25/reasons-for-or-types-of-atheism/

Truth Navigation: Techniques for Discussions or Debates

I do truth navigation, both inquiry questions as well as

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

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

Ok, I am a kind of “Militant” Atheist

I want a war of ideas where the loser is ignorance or hate and the victor is kindness and a rational mind. Not another religious war with people where the loser is always humanity no matter the victor. What I hope for with my discussions or expressed ideas is not so much to strive to change people’s mind. But instead, I wish to inspire your mind to reason and to thrive on the search for valid and reliable evidence as well as a high standard n your ethics of belief. This ethics of belief I hope everyone adopts is something like this: reasoned belief acquisitions, good belief maintenance, and honest belief relinquishment. Sadly the professed thing of hope, “Religion” can be an and too often is an easy excuse to do horrible things, which is clear throughout history.

I am a BIG fan of the truth.

Utilizing Dignity

Dignity Enrichment: 1. acceptance of thinking or behavior, 2. show understanding, and 3. offer support for who and what they are.

Dignity Attacks: 1. critical challenge of thinking or behavior, 2. expose confusion or irrationalism, and 3. offer rebuttal or rebuke of who and what they are.

Here is a response to an atheist philosopher on a debate over the term “spiritual” saying to him:

“good reasons” (Dignity Attack)– loose looking “thinking claim” (Dignity Attack) you will be quite hard pressed to prove such a thing but as always I am more than ready to receive your evidence substantiation. (Dignity Attack)

Or this response I said to him:

Stating your education is great and still no evidence then you have training, (Dignity Attack) not that you employ it with a universal truth to all claims to such a person (Dignity Attack) and I am taken back that you think you can push any claim against me without your full valid warrant… I want evidence, please? (Dignity Attack)

Attacking the Person?

I strive to attack thinking and not people but I sometimes may use dignity attacks or character attacks about behavior or thinking people are doing. I only say things they can quickly fix or change. Then I will pressure them to change it. My point in doing this is help mirror the bad or errored thinking or behavior so they can change if they wish I try to never do it to hurt anyone as I see this as not a productive and potentially abusive.

However, if I only spend my time pointing fingers have I not wasted times I could have also offered helping hands. Thus, even though somethings things need to be harshly pointed out so too is there a need to be involved in the benefit of helping where we can. May my drive to help not be somehow silenced just because there is a need to fight all that is wrong. I want to thank everyone throughout my life that have treated me with compassion and kindness. From something as simple as a smile or comforting word, to things that create impacts so big they were life-altering; you have written with the pen of love across my heart and have helped me be a person who strives to also show and treat others with compassion as well as kindness. I do not respect faith, I respect people. I value the sanctity of “rights” of every person to self-define their beliefs and do not attack people because of what they believe. I say, attack thinking not people. We who truly value ourselves and others can and do make a better world. May we together fill the world with this shining example of humanity.

Real Truth Seekers?

Axiology and Value Consciousness

Grasping the status of truth (ontology of truth)

Challenged or Challenging? (questions of ontology)

Ontology, Epistemology, & Axiology argument/challenge protocol

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

“The Hammer if Truth” (scientific philosophy: Ontology, Epistemology, & Axiology) in action.