Error Crushing Force of the Dialectic Questions and the Hammer of Truth

by | Dec 14, 2016 | Blog

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Philosophy to the Rescue: explaining Reason, Logic, Evidence, Truth, Certainty, Reality, and Science

Talking about “Religion and Deity Evolution” on Twitter (X) Questions and Answers

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

Error Crushing Force of the Dialectic Questions and the Hammer of Truth

Belief-Etiquette (Disciplined-Rationality)

“The Hammer of Truth” is my folk name for the Methodological use of Philosophy: Ontology, Epistemology, and Axiology questions to remove errors and add accuracy.”

So again to be clear my Hammer of Truth (i.e. ontology, epistemology, and axiology; three philosophies that I use methodologically) style is a hammer of truth that both builds and destroys: it aids in building accuracy towards truth and destroy bad claims that are untrue.

*(Ontology) What are you talking about, please slow down and give me each specific detail individually?

*(Epistemology) How do you know that and why do you think it is justified or warranted?

*(Axiology) What is its value if any and why do you value that or why would anyone?

If you don’t already know, Dialectic is the art of investigating or discussing the truth of opinions.

What I am trying to say in this message of Dialectic Questions in order to find truth by giving people three questions that can be put towards almost anything and it help remove error and thus improved accuracy.

Strong vs Weak Thinkers

A strong thinker can deeply analyze their own positions removing all that are unworthy and updating to the most currently accurate. Whereas a weak thinker can only offer deep attacks to the positions of others that differ in thinking.

Just think, are your beliefs further supporting rhetoric or accuracy to the facts and are you ready to change if you have it the other way around?

Believer vs Thinker

When you can, with all honesty, say that you put a similar voracity to one’s own ideas as they demand for others then they are a thinker, not just a believer. And when you can quickly and eagerly relinquish any and all ideas, even the most cherished if they were not true; yes a willingness to discuss or discard if required, even if you like them is being a thinker and not just an unthinking believer.

We Love Generalizations (even if wrong)

We don’t like slow clear accurate thinking, no, we are biased irrational compulsive disordered hasty generalizations thinking beings.

We build our “belief” of the accuracy of our hasty generalizations one assertion at a time. In other words, we add undue increasing assurance because we keep saying it over and over again, not because it’s actually accurate to the facts. We may cherry pick a few facts to support this error in thinking but that is intellectual dishonestly, as if it can be destroyed by the truth it should be.

 

Here is my blog on rhetoric and stereotypes:

Rhetoric & Stereotypes: Rethinking How We Think.

And, here is some information on hasty generalizations (also known as: argument from small numbers, statistics of small numbers, insufficient statistics, unrepresentative sample [form of], argument by generalization, faulty generalization, hasty conclusion [form of], inductive generalization, insufficient sample, lonely fact fallacy, over generality, overgeneralization)

Description: Drawing a conclusion based on a small sample size, rather than looking at statistics that are much more in line with the typical or average situation.

Logical Form:

Sample S is taken from population P.
Sample S is a very small part of population P.
Conclusion C is drawn from sample S.

Example #1:

My father smoked four packs of cigarettes a day since age fourteen and lived until age sixty-nine. Therefore, smoking really can’t be that bad for you.

Explanation: It is extremely unreasonable (and dangerous) to draw a universal conclusion about the health risks of smoking by the case study of one man.

Example #2:

Four out of five dentists recommend Happy Glossy Smiley toothpaste brand. Therefore, it must be great.

Explanation: It turns out that only five dentists were actually asked. When a random sampling of 1000 dentists were polled, only 20% actually recommended the brand. The four out of five results was not necessarily a biased sample or a dishonest survey, it just happened to be a statistical anomaly common among small samples.

Exception: When statistics of a larger population are not available, and a decision must be made or opinion formed if the small sample size is all you have to work with, then it is better than nothing. For example, if you are strolling in the desert with a friend, and he goes to pet a cute snake, gets bitten, then dies instantly, it would not be fallacious to assume the snake is poisonous.

Tip: Don’t base decisions on small sample sizes when much more reliable data exists.

Variation: The hasty conclusion is leaping to a conclusion without carefully considering the alternatives — a tad different than drawing a conclusion from too small of a sample. Ref

Addressing The Ethics of Belief

Yes, We All Have Beliefs; But What Does That Mean?

Critical or Analytical Thinking and Suspension of Judgment, Disbelief or Belief

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.

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.

Sound thinking (soundness arguments and statements) as it relates to philosophical thinking.

“Soundness: a property of both arguments and the statements in them, i.e., the argument is valid and all the statement are true. Sound Argument: (1) valid, (2) true premisses (obviously the conclusion is true as well by the definition of validity).” Ref

VALID AND SOUND ARGUMENTS

From: An Introduction to Critical Thinking and Creativity: Think More, Think Better

by  J. Y. F. Lau 

9.1 VALIDITY AND SOUNDNESS

Validity is a most important concept in critical thinking. A valid argument is one where the conclusion follows logically from the premises. But what does it mean? Here is the official definition:

‘An argument is valid if and only if there is no logically possible situation in which the premises are true and the conclusion is false.’

To put it differently, whenever we have a valid argument, if the premises are all true, then the conclusion must also be true. What this implies is that if you use only valid arguments in your reasoning, as long as you start with true premises, you will never end up with a false conclusion. Here is an example of a valid argument:

This simple argument is obviously valid since it is impossible for the conclusion to be false when the premise is true. However, notice that the validity of the argument can be determined without knowing whether the premise and the conclusion are actually true or not. Validity is about the logical connection between the premises and the conclusion. We might not know how old Marilyn actually is, but it is clear the conclusion follows logically from the premise. The simple argument above will remain valid even if Marilyn is just a baby, in which case the premise and the conclusion are both false. Ref

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.

  • Hammer of Truth: Yes, you too, have lots of beliefs…

  • “The Hammer of Truth” Process

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

  • I don’t believe in religion, I believe in people. I don’t respect religion, I respect people. I attack bad thinking and bad behaviors, not people. I do not hate religious people, I hate the religion they are indoctrinated in and I speak out to stop the indifference to the harm religions can cause as well as the ignorance they support. Hell yes, I am against the fraud that is the world religions.

    Why not be against the promotion of woo-woo pseudo-truth, when I am very against all pseudo-science, pseudo-history, and pseudo-morality and the harm they can produce. Along with the hate, such as sexism and homophobia are too often seen or the forced indoctrination of children. And this coercive indoctrination of the world religions, with their pseudo-science, pseudo-history, and pseudo-morality mainly furthered by forced Hereditary Religion (family or cultural, religious beliefs forced on children because the parent or caregiver believes that way). This is sadly done, even before a child can be expected to successfully navigate reason; it’s almost as if religious parents believe their “woo-woo pseudo-truth” lies will not be so easily accepted if they wait on a mind that can make its own choice. Because we do see how hard it is for the ones forced into Hereditary Religion.

    It seems difficult for them to successfully navigate reason in relation to their woo-woo pseudo-truth, found in a religion they were indoctrinationally taught to prefer, because after being instructed on how to discern pseudo-truth as truth than just wishing that their blind servitude belief in a brand of religious pseudo-truth devoid of justified, valid or reliable reason and evidence. I care because I am a rationalist, as well as an atheist. Thus, this religious set of “woo-woo pseudo-truth” pushed on the simple-minded as truth bothers me greatly. So, here it is as simple as I can make it you first need a good thinking standard to address beliefs one may approach as a possible belief warranted to be believed. I wish to smash that lying pig of religion with the Hammer of Truth: Ontology, Epistemology, and Axiology Questions (a methodological use of philosophy).

    Overall, I wish to promote in my self and for others; to value a worthy belief etiquette, one that desires a sound accuracy and correspondence to the truth: Reasoned belief acquisitions, good belief maintenance, and honest belief relinquishment. May we all be authenticly truthful rationalists that put facts over faith. Calling out a liar is not the same as lying.

  • I am a BIG fan of the truth.
     
    “Where did you find it?! Mankind has been diligently seeking truth since time memorial!” – Challenger
     
    My response, Your statement is a “truth claim” right after asking about truth: “Where did you find it?! Mankind has been diligently seeking truth since time memorial! (a “truth claim” emphasized with two exclamation marks seeming to demonstrate that you believed you had said a confirmed truth. So you do believe you have found a truth while acting as if you don’t know, and seemingly by your strength of assertion, believe I guess, that no one can but here I am teaching you truth!!!

    Anti-Accommodationism Is Pro-Philosophy?

    By Dr. Daniel Fincke, who has his PhD in philosophy as well as spent 11 years teaching in college.

    “Accommodationist” atheists are those who do not want atheists to vigorously publicly attack religious beliefs and institutions, lest they risk alienating open-minded liberal and moderate religious people and turn them off to belief in evolution, climate change, science-based education and medicine, separation of church and state, or other crucial matters of public policy. Accommodationists fear, for example, that if the New Atheists convince religious people that evolution is incompatible with belief in God, then religious people will be more inclined to cling to their faith in God and reject both evolution and its proper place in biology curricula as threats to it. Essentially, accommodationists judge that those religious beliefs which stay segregated from public debates and, so do no harm to the broader body politic, are matters that should not be challenged. Religious people have to be intellectually and politically challenged enough as it is, and it is too much to ask of them to abandon any more of their faith than they minimally have to accept modern science. Now even though many New Atheists are both atheists and suspicious of religions ostensibly for scientific reasons, and even though many New Atheists resort to a default positivism or scientism when dealing with metaphysics and ethics, they nonetheless are essentially taking a generally pro-philosophy stand in refusing accommodationists’ compromises with faith-based, authoritarian religions. I say this because essentially the New Atheists’ concerns are, first and foremost, epistemological and not strictly scientific. They are adamant that the scientists’ rigorous commitment to severe standards for belief and knowledge claims be applied not just to strictly scientific questions but just as scrupulously to the matters religions presume to pronounce upon. They are adamant that the rejection of willful faith believing that is the core of scientific success be not only applied to politics, but even to the matters of belief about “souls” and “gods”. Many New Atheists develop explicit accounts of epistemology that distinguish why faith-beliefs are improper in principle. Many want to argue for the philosophical implications of scientific findings and show how they really can give just cause for philosophical inferences rejecting belief in gods (and, specifically, belief in the Abrahamic personal designer God of Western theism). And, as I argued this morning, the New Atheists reserve, and fiercely and extensively exercise, the right to publicly agitate on numerous ethical matters which, while sometimes informed by science, are not decided scientifically but philosophically. Essentially, the New Atheists’ insistence on a vigorous public debate about faith-based, superstitious, authoritarian religion is through and through an insistence that philosophical questions related to ethics, epistemology, metaphysics, philosophy of science, and philosophy of religion be publicly hashed out and not ceded to the unwarranted authority of clerics. Whether the average New Atheist is well-enough apprised of the cutting edge research in professional philosophy related to these questions, the New Atheists are most certainly the ones who are dragging philosophy kicking and screaming out of self-imposed captivity in the ivory towers and into the public square. We are the ones knocking insistingly on the church and mosque and temple doors demanding that the pastors and priests and mullahs stop systematically brainwashing the average person into a set of long ago refuted philosophical superstitions that hitherto were rarely adequately challenged in public, laymen’s terms. We are the ones who think and behave like the average person is capable of thinking about philosophical questions rigorously for themselves and like it is a matter of supreme moral, epistemological, and political importance that they start doing so already.” Ref

    “What methods of human psychology do Evangelists use to lure people into their fold?” Questioner
     
    My response, well like all religious beliefs it would depend on the specific case as there are some who are extreme and others more moderate but in general, to me all religious beliefs greatest power is childhood indoctrination and programming no matter the religion and to your question to Christian theology (of a version they may believe or focus on) specifically. Thus, to put it another way, it involves generally lifelong brainwashing “forced pseudo-educating” to their chosen beliefs. Often this religious brainwashing is accompanied by physical and/or psychological stress, threats, or punishment for not following or agreeing to the indoctrination and programming of the Christian theology, intense social pressure, and a variety of persuasion techniques. Of Course, in America with its heavily judeo christian presence the indoctrinating is occurring relatively in all of society, constantly seen or heard in movies, tv, radio, art, etc. with fideistic, theistic and vague christian theology promoting the amiableness of potential converts at some possibly point, as they (America) are already somewhat being subjugated in this “societal” religious brainwashing, especially so if they already had a dose of childhood indoctrination and programming from “family” religious brainwashing.
     
    According to most experts, “the intense indoctrination associated with the term brainwashing unfolds in a series of stages. The earliest stage entails strong forms of psychological and physical stress. Here, the indoctrinee, or recruit, is almost always sequestered in a retreat or a training center away from their normal friends, coworkers, and family, where they are surrounded instead by members of the indoctrinating group and other indoctrinees. Here prolonged sleep deprivation is extremely common, as are changes in diet and pattern of dress. Public self-criticism is generally encouraged often under the guise of self-analysis. The recruit’s time is carefully regimented and filled with a multitude of activities most often related to, and advocating, an unfamiliar, complex doctrine. This advocacy can take the form of lectures, readings, and other group activities. This initial stage can be as short as a few days but also can extend for weeks. It is designed to evoke such emotions as fear, guilt, exhaustion, and confusion on the part of the recruit. This introductory stage segues subtly into the second stage of indoctrination in which the recruit is encouraged to “try out” various group activities. These activities may involve such things as self-analysis, lectures, praying, and working at group-related chores. This tentative collaboration may be spurred by such elements as social pressure, politeness, legitimate curiosity, or a desire to curry favor with authority figures. Eventually however, this collaboration leads the recruit to begin to seriously consider the wisdom of the doctrine in question, thereby leading to the third stage of indoctrination in which actual belief change begins. In this third stage, the recruit is typically surrounded by believers and kept isolated from anyone who might disagree with the doctrine, thereby producing particularly potent peer pressure. In addition, the information and reading provided to recruits is carefully screened to justify the group teachings. Added to this, the recruit generally remains physically and mentally exhausted and is given little time for unbiased analysis of the doctrine. This makes it difficult for the recruit to generate private cognitive objections to the group doctrine. As a result, sincere belief change commonly begins at this point in the process. In the final stage of indoctrination, initial belief change regarding the group and its doctrine is consolidated and intensified to the point that the new recruit comes to accept group teachings and decisions uncritically while viewing any contrary information as either enemy propaganda or necessary “means/ends tradeoffs.” By this point, the recruit has been cajoled into taking a series of public and/or irrevocable actions in service to the group. These acts entail increased effort, cost, and sacrifice over time. As one example, when Patricia Hearst was being indoctrinated by the Symbionese Liberation Army, she initially was asked to just train with the group. Then she was asked to tape-record a prewritten radio speech. Next she was asked to both write and record such a talk. Soon after that, she was required to accompany the group on a bank robbery carrying an unloaded weapon. Thus, the level of sacrifice required of her escalated over her time with the group. In this final stage, as before, recruits remain surrounded by those who endorse the doctrine. These co-believers corroborate the recruit’s expressions of that doctrine. Moreover, they admire, reward, and endorse the recruit’s acts of loyalty and sacrifice. Interestingly, according to recent news reports, these procedures correspond quite closely to those followed in the training of suicide bombers once they express an initial willingness to make such a sacrifice. Such individuals are kept secluded in safe houses, cut off from family, and often make videos to be used in later propaganda efforts. Experts note that the procedures (stages) described in the previous paragraphs coordinate a variety of potent persuasive techniques. Peer pressure is known to be particularly effective when an individual faces a united consensus especially if the individual is confused, frightened, or facing an ambiguous issue. People’s ability to resist a flawed persuasive message is particularly impaired when they lack the opportunity to think clearly about inadequacies of the message due to fear, sleep deprivation, and/or overactivity. Moreover, when likeminded individuals (such those found in extremist groups) discuss a topic they basically agree upon, the result is a polarization of opinion, with group members taking a more extreme view after discussion. Similarly, extreme attitudes also result when people find that others share and admire their opinions. In addition, when individuals agree to costly (and public) sacrifices, they have a strong tendency to justify such actions by intensifying any attitudes that support these acts, a process referred to as the reduction of cognitive dissonance. Finally, the grandiose goals of many extremist groups appeal to the human need to feel important, significant, and part of some timeless, meaningful social movement be it religious, political, scientific, or historic. In this emotional context, the intense indoctrination associated with the term brainwashing combine to create a persuasive milieu that, at least for some targets, has the power to evoke surprising changes in both belief and behavior.” Ref
  • I have been asked before, how can I stand to deal with illogical, ones lacking critical thinking, the unreasonable, misinformed but fully believe, deliberately uninformed or deluded people, often so kindly?
  •  
    Well, I believe in others, or at least their ability to reason even if you don’t know how or are not paying attention currently. I can do deal with most people as I am often fighting for them even if they only feel I am against them and it usually is not that hard to do with a heart of compassion, as I care for the future of humanity and people have value. And, if people don’t listen or grasp logic, I try something else like reasoning. If they will not listen or grasp reasoning, I will try just getting them to think, maybe on something they can agree or they do understand trying to work them back to the rationalism they are not getting or are avoiding. Then, if I can get them to reason, I build that up to logic. If they don’t seem to get them to thinking or are trying to avoid I can draw them back to feelings, maybe on something they can agree or they do understand trying to work them back to thinking, then reasoning, and then finally back to logic with which they are not getting or are avoiding. 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.
    Here is why “Reason is my only master”

    The most Base Presupposition begins in reason. Reason is needed for logic (logic is realized by the aid of reason enriching its axioms). Logic is needed for axiology/value theory (axiology is realized by the aid of logic). Axiology is needed for epistemology (epistemology is realized by aid of axiology value judge and enrich its value assumptions as valid or not). Epistemology is needed for a good ontology (ontology is realized by the aid of epistemology justified assumptions/realizations/conclusions). Then when one possesses a good ontology (fortified with valid and reliable reason and evidence) they can then say they know the ontology of that thing.

    So, I think, right thinking is reason. Right reason is logic. Right logic, can be used for mathematics and from there we can get to science. And, by this methodological approach, we get one of the best ways of knowing the scientific method. Activating experience/event occurs, eliciting our feelings/scenes. Then naive thoughts occur, eliciting emotions as a response. Then it is our emotional intelligence over emotional hijacking, which entrance us but are unavoidable and that it is the navigating this successfully in a methodological way we call critical thinking or as In just call right thinking. So, to me, could be termed “Right” thinking, that is referring to a kind of methodological thinking. Reason is at the base of everything and it builds up from pragmatic approaches. And, to me, there are three main approaches to truth (ontology of truth) from the very subjective (Pragmatic theory of truth), to subjective (Coherence theory of truth), then onto objective (Correspondence theory of truth) but remember that this process as limited as it can be, is the best we have and we build one truth ontop another like blocks to a wall of truth.

  • Pragmatic theory of truth, Coherence theory of truth, and Correspondence theory of truth
  • Some think they don’t have beliefs and in fact, the belief you don’t have beliefs, is, itself a belief. Thus, I wish to help people increase their philosophic accuracy by understanding beliefs and how the terms facts, truth, knowledge, certainty, as well as objective and how every one of them are labels that we believe in as “markers of accuracy” in one’s belief and the actual state of afters. In addition, how they are all still connected in that they are all epistemic properties of beliefs. Yes, facts are labels, just like truth, that we put on claims we think are proven somehow, in that assertions are believed to match the state of affairs (if you are making realistic assumptions from science then likely supported by the beliefs in science realism), that generally promote the Correspondence theory of truth “similar to both Rationalism and Empiricism” or coherence theory of truth “similar to just Rationalism” its all still epistemic property of beliefs, whether one’s claim is of knowledge or certainty.

  • Science is not common sense?

    Science is quite the opposite of just common sense. To me, common sense in a relative way as it generally relates to the reality of things in the world, will involve “naive realism.” Whereas, most of those who are scientific thinkers, generally hold more to scientific realism or other stances far removed from the limited common sense naive realism. Science is a multidisciplinary methodological quest for truth. Science is understanding what is, while religion is wishing on what is not.

    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. 

  •  
  • Psychological certainty and Epistemic certainty: Link
  •  
  • What is belief? (philosophy): Link
  •  
  • What is belief? (neuroscience): Link
  •  
  • What is belief? (Psychology): Link
  •  
  • Yes, We All Have Beliefs; But What Does That Mean?: Link

  • Taking down god assertions in 123

    1. What is a goD? (an ontology question) 
    2. How can one claim to know anything about a god? (an epistemology question) 
    3. How valid, good or worthy is a claim that one knows anything about a god? (an axiological question)

  • Below I have added the 13 blogs and the sequence they should be read,

    so as I believe are in the best order to fully grasp my “The Hammer of Truth” Process.

    Ontology (Greek meaning ontos, “being; that which is”; and logos meaning “discourse, study, ratio, calculation, reason”) Ontology is the philosophical study of the nature of being, becoming, existence, or reality, as well as the basic categories of being and their relations.

    Epistemology (Greek episteme, meaning “knowledge, understanding”, and logos, meaning “discourse, study, ratio, calculation, reason”) it is the theory of knowledge, especially with regard to its methods, validity, and scope. Epistemology is the investigation of what distinguishes justified belief from opinion.

    Axiology (Greek meaning axia, “value, worth”; and logos meaning “discourse, study, ratio, calculation, reason”) it is the philosophical study of value as well as ethics and aesthetics. Formal Axiology is a specific branch of the science of Axiology. Axiology also studies of goodness, value or worth, in the widest sense of these terms. Its significance lies in the unification that it has provided for the study of a variety of questions—economic, moral, aesthetic, and even logical—that had often been considered in relative isolation.

    “Hammer of Truth” response to “Do you Believe in god?”

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

    I use a kind of Dialectical Rhetoric = truth persuasion (motivational teaching)

          “The Hammer of Truth: Ontology, Epistemology and Axiology”

    Mock Debate court using the “Hammer of Truth”

    1. Ontology “Reality” questions/assertion: Witness gives evidence about the claim.
    2. Epistemology “Truth” questions/assertion: Lawyer searches for warrant or justification for the claim.
    3. Axiology “Goodness-for” questions/assertion: Judge/Jury assesses and value judges because of qualities in or lacking in the claim.

    Always try to follow something similar to this attack order:

    *Ontology, (understanding the thingness of things; like what is or can be real, like not god)

    -What is your claim?

    -What aspects must be there for your claim?

    -What makes your claim different than other similar claims?

    *Epistemology, (understanding what you know or can know; as in you do have and thing in this reality to know anything about this term you call god, and no way of knowing if there is anything non-naturalism beyond this universe and no way to state any about it if there where)

    -How do know your claim?

    -How reliable or valid must aspects be for your claim?

    -How does the source of your claim make it different than other similar claims?

    *Axiology, (understanding what is good or valuable as well as what is evil or unvaluable like how the stories about theist theistic gods are often racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic intersexphobic, xenophobic, etc. Thus, they are directly against humanity and thus are evil and unvaluable. Unvaluable; as in the god concept you have is evil and demonstrably harmful and thus is highly unvaluable to humanity)

    -Why are your objects of proposed value subjective psychological states or objective physiological external world states for your claim?

    -Why do your purposed descriptive words fit qualities for valuation (such as “powerful”, “knowing”, and “present” in the Omnipotent: all-powerful, Omniscient: all-knowing, and Omnipresent: all-present god assertion) your claim?

    -Why is your value-for, worth-for, and/or goodness-for claims different than other similar claims?

    Take for instance how Religion supporters try the evaluation tactic of saying “there are peaceful Religions.”

    I may respond, what do you mean by Religion and what do you mean by painful or good” (asking to find the truth or as usual expose the lack of a good Ontology)

    Then, I may respond, “how do you know that what is your sources and how reliable they are” (asking to find the truth or as usual expose the lack of a good Epistemology)

    Then, I may respond, “what value do you think what you are saying has and to what level of proof do you feel truth needs as well as how do you ensure Accuracy” (asking to find the truth or as usual expose the lack of a good Axiology)

    Let’s look at the “gOD claim” with the Hammer of Truth

    To me god is a the Presuppositional Error it assumes unsupported oncology assumptions. First, truly what is a god and how can you claim to know about it? Guessing is not evidence, neither is wild, unfounded assertions that are written in reality devoid documents such as holy books. Atheists do not have to prove that gods do not exist, as gods have never been proven to exist. Nor is there any good reason to think they could exist! In the branch of linguistics known as pragmatics, a presupposition is an implicit assumption about the world or background belief relating to an utterance whose truth is taken for granted in discourse.

    Let me explain why as an axiological atheist (value theory atheist) even the belief in the concept of god is ethically vile to me. God belief is inherently immoral to me it is the belief that supports an all-powerful being who willfully allows suffering, something that no ethical person would tolerate if they had the ability to do otherwise. Moreover, a common attribute of god belief is support of this claimed greater being of high intelligence and self will forcing its will and standards on other beings of high intelligence and self-will. This force is unethical and abusive to the rights of humanity. Furthermore, many who subscribe to this force abusive relationship god claim an even more revolting ethical atrocity called hell where eternal horror and suffering is dished out by direct will of the claimed stronger immoral god being against the defenseless undeserving subjugated humanity. Thus, being one, who values rights and ethics, it sickens me to even speak of such willful misconduct of justice. Your god concept is vile… (axiology value judgment).

    The god claim is like a clown car rolling in from out of nowhere and it seems like it is only one or possibly a few bad ideas, but no. No, it is a dark festival that masquerades as truth but it is only an evil funhouse of mirrors that distorts reality. The term god is an empty meaningless term and if it was not for man-made myths or wild speculations which are usually the misinterpretations of nature, no one would claim to know what a god is or could be. Unless one falls back to the circus of fallacies in the magic big top of fideism and the faith fallacy that you do not need anything but faith to validate, justify, or prove any mystical belief you so desire.

    The God Fallacy is that there is no epistemically warranted or justifiably reliable evidence for god(s) existence; most ideas offered are stretches of unreason promoting seemingly implausible knowledge or reality claims. Moreover, beyond this is the self-evident realization that there is no reliable and /or verifiable evidence that could be used to define what god term actually is or could be assured to involve. Because it is never good to just randomly conceptualize or fabricate from bias trying to force connections into existence. epistemically warranted or justifiably reliable evidence or even a preset of proofs that do not hold gaps a believer want to fill with an arbitrary beliefs things need a god explanation and yet again what does god even mean. One his furthered nothing with god talk until they offer clear links to understand what could rightly make up the empty term g. o. d. (Group Originated Delusion).

    Any reasonable thinker should conclude that clear links to any knowledge are required to comprehend what to ask, where to look, or what to state is involved. This would seem especially important since what is on the line is the actual truth or falsehood of the great believed “IT” of somethingism. Do you wish to just assemble or make up your god thinking as you go, greedily forcing anything that seems slow enough to not get away or is the actual truth in reality you seek even if godless as finding the true is the main pursuit, as your aim is what true right, taken with the deepest integrity? One should desire such intellectual rigor in order to even distinguish if we need to inquire or have a way to question a possibility of existence, as this empty termed “it” god of nothingism is unknown in every way even in its “it” status outside of faith superstitions, Dogmatic–Propaganda, delusion, myths and lies.

    Religion is just Dogmatic–Propaganda, such as how it is wrong to start with full belief built only upon faith: then search and anything unknown, claiming it somehow justifies or is evidence for their specific God Fallacy.

    Another attribute of the God Fallacy is that believers seem to insinuate, if they can in anyway demonstrate (even the possibility of a thing that could seem to be a something attributed to a god) then they have proved that the god they believe in is true. And yet is it not true that man will always fail to prove a specific god? Religion is big on claims but small on reasoning. Take the Abrahamic faiths; they propose a very specific, well-defined god, but in reality, they advocate a very unspecified god; a naturalistic, inferred-theistic-creationism or the god of intelligent design. In other words, when pressed to demonstrate god in the world, or as the reason for the big bang, they can at best only try to surmise a magical power or unknown and unknowable possible something as the “creator.” But the question needs to asked, how does that prove any specific god? So even if we were to concede, for the sake of argument, that some god, phantom-menace started things, they still have to show that this god is the very same as the god in which they believe.

    The truth is, for all the appeals they make to nature in order to justify their god, not one appeal is valid in any way to confirm that their god (and only their god) is true, they must always leave the facts and return to faith. Thus, these haughty theists always fail to show any naturalistic reasons for believing in their special-needs god. What they show instead is a belief, not in the god of some myth or scriptures, but belief in a projected somethingism-god attributed to nature, which is indistinguishable from a nothingism, godless reality attributed by nature. However, the issues don’t stop there, as they also would have to prove, or give warrant, as well as justification for every attribute and claimed character trait attached to their specific god using only natural arguments, not some Holy Book or otherworldly revelation.

    A Coherent Definition of god?

    I am an Ignostic atheist and not only do not believe in the term gods I reject that even the term or concept of god has any real thing or true reality connected definition. To me there is no one coherent definition of god even if they think articulation proves real meaning, this proves little more than me saying someone believes in a “Triangle-Square-Circle”. To the term god I thus regard it as empty of real meaning and or real definition constancy, so I see it as something that is not really known or knowable or coherently define-able as a real object even if it can add arbitrary words to articulate it is still not something outside man-made arbitration.

    One may say no the god definition is real one cannot say it is not, as most people generally know what the term god means thus that cannot be rejected. Really?? I could be misunderstanding this reasoning put against Ignostic Atheist thinking but to me it seems to hold the opinion, saying I must accept the god concept as something definable in reality because of ad populum? In argumentation theory, an argumentum ad populum (Latin for “appeal to the people”) is a fallacious argument that concludes that a proposition is true because many or most people believe it: “If many believe so, it is so.”

    Bigfoot’s, Unicorns, and Gods the rational conclusion using Axiology

    So how do we form rational conclusions? More importantly, how do we differentiate between the levels involved to establish a conclusions rational viability.

    It takes axiology or the value judgment the worthiness or lack thereof in relation to the available reason and evidence. So let’s start with the axiological viability of Bigfoots:

    There is no available evidence for Bigfoots.

    But is their proposition outside of reason?

    Always start in reality from the evidence we do know, such as a primate/nonhuman hominid close to that of both humans and other nonhuman primates is not entirely outside all possibility of reason even though lacking all evidence. Therefore, belief is not warranted and the axiological worthiness of possibility is low enough to motivate disbelief.

    Next the Axiological viability of Unicorns (ie. a horse with a single horn on its head):

    There is no evidence for Unicorns.

    But is their proposition outside of reason?

    As always start in reality from the evidence we do know, such as by looking at the evolution of the horse not once was there a horn on any of the several stages of animals to the horse we know today. So it is relatively outside of possibility though as it is still only claiming non-fantastic attributes it is only somewhat ridiculous. Therefore, belief is not in any way warranted and the axiological worthiness is so low to highly support disbelief.

    And, now the Axiological validity of Gods:

    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.

    The following are some evidence against a caring god working in the world. A recent study of the current living conditions throughout Africa shows that more than one billion people do not have enough clean water to provide for their basic human needs. As a result, more than 2,500 children are dying each day. I guess it is that god gives us free will by keeping children from clean water in an unproportioned amount to the civilized science filled world. I ask you, does your god not hear their prayers? According to Missionaries of Africa (2008), there is a water crisis and diseases that are living in dirty water are wiping out entire villages and communities. Does god exist? Does the magic chanting of prayer seem to work? Suppose for a minute with the understanding of religious believe, if there was a loving god and it answered even some prayers, would not the most deserving be the non-sinning? Moreover, what living human could be said to be less sinning than a baby and thus the most deserving. In addition, babies or children are likely the ones religionists/fideists pray most often, for when they are in trouble. Belief changes nothing. Whatever circumstances you are in or not, has nothing to do with belief. If you are poor, belief does not make you not poor. If you are rich, you do not stay rich because of belief. You would think that poor people would have the benefit of the heavenly means and have god on their side, if anyone would, right? Overall, in 186 countries, first-day child death rates for babies are 6.9%. Where was god? In Angola, 8% of the babies die and 95% of the population is christian. In Congo, 7.5% of the babies die and 95.8 % of the population is christian. Whereas in Guinea-Bissau, 9% of the babies die and 10 % of the population is christian and in Niger 8.7% of the babies die and 5% of the population is christian. Therefore, being a christian and begging for an all-powerful all-loving god myth to do something that any half-decent human being would hardly even need to be asked to help an innocent child, shows that belief seems to make no difference in the world because the world is godless and sadly babies die. Isaiah 45:7 “I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I god do all these things.” Ref

    Just think, the bible god “could” have banned slavery or shellfish and he chose to ban shellfish (Leviticus 11:12) and actually support slavery (Leviticus 25:44-46) even in the new testament (Ephesians 6:5; 1 Timothy 6:1-2) and Jesus clearly approves of beating slaves even if they didn’t know they were doing anything wrong (Luke 12:47-48) how crazy and immoral is that for a man-made fairy tales. I will openly say faith is foolish lacking credibility and it is stupid to hold on to beliefs that are disproved by science fact. However, I don’t usually call people names even ones saying things I believe are ridiculous nor do I belittle them instead I strive to and support attacking the thinking and not the person.

    What is a god? Just a Empty Label.

    Doubt god(s)? No, I stopped believing Fairytales.

    Here are some more of my blogs that relate: 

    My “Methodological Rationalism” approach

    Grasping the status of truth (ontology of truth)

    The Ontology of Humanistic Economics in Society?

    Why care? Because we are Dignity Beings.

    Psychological certainty and Epistemic certainty?

    Yes, I am certain there is not any validity to the god term, thus no god.

    I Believe Archaeology, not Myths & Why Not, as the Religious Myths Already Violate Reason!

    Archaeological, Scientific, & Philosophic evidence shows the god myth is man-made nonsense.

    “I will respect your beliefs Damien after you respect mine.” – Challenger

    My response, Well I don’t care if you respect or don’t respect my beliefs as your approval is not needed to validate reality.

    god Claims are a Non-Reality Commodity

    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?

    Certainty like knowledge is an epistemic property of belief.

    Once one has a valid and reliable belief formed on true reason and evidence then one has knowledge. When such knowledge is held with a high warrant it can provide certainty. There is not only one kind of certainty and most wrongly confuse certainty with incorrigibility or incorrectibility.

    One kind of certainty is psychological certainty:

    A belief is psychologically certain when the subject who has it is supremely convinced of its truth. Certainty in this sense is similar to incorrigibility, which is the property a belief has of being such that the subject is incapable of giving it up.

    But psychological certainty is not the same thing as incorrigibility. A belief can be certain in this sense without being incorrigible; this may happen, for example, when the subject receives a very compelling bit of counterevidence to the (previously) certain belief and gives it up for that reason.

    Another kind of certainty is epistemic certainty:

    A belief is epistemically certain when it has the highest possible epistemic status. Epistemic certainty is often accompanied by psychological certainty, but it need not be. It is possible that a subject may have a belief that enjoys the highest possible epistemic status and yet be unaware that it does. In such a case, the subject may feel less than the full confidence that her epistemic position warrants.

    I am psychological certain the is no gods because of epistemic certainty of Scientific Realism and Methodological Naturalism demonstrating no supernatural magic of any kid exists and never has. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/certainty/

    Certainty and Probability

    Philosophical Skepticism, Solipsism and the Denial of Reality or Certainty

    Trying to Help Promote Knowledge: Philosophy and Science.

    What makes a belief an epistemically justified belief? 

    Probability, best explanation, logical consistency, natural
    consistency, reliability, and the broadest possible view of plausibility, are some of the standards that must be met. http://philosophyideas.com/…/papers/Justified%20belief.pdf

    Truth is a Value (axiological) Judgment.

    A fact is a statement that is consistent with reality or can be proven with evidence. The word “fact” derives from the Latin factum, and was first used in English with the same meaning: a thing done or performed, a meaning now obsolete. The common usage of “something that has really occurred or is the case” dates from the middle of the sixteenth century. Fact is sometimes used synonymously with truth, as distinct from opinions, falsehoods, or matters of taste. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact

    Religion vs. Science, Don’t Confuse Beliefs

    Understanding Religion Evolution

    No Magic Zone: including politics and religion

    “The Bold Writing below are “blog” links click on them to read that blog, the writing below then is just a short bit of the information you will find inside.”

    1. Ontology, Epistemology, & Axiology argument/challenge protocol

    by Damien AtHope | Oct 13, 2016 | Blog

    Ontology (Greek meaning ontos, “being; that which is”; and logos meaning “discourse, study, ratio, calculation, reason”) Ontology is the philosophical study of the nature of being, becoming, existence, or reality, as well as the basic categories of being and their relations. Epistemology (Greek episteme, meaning “knowledge, understanding”, and logos, meaning “discourse, study, ratio, calculation, reason”) it is the theory of knowledge, especially with regard to its methods, validity, and scope. Epistemology is the investigation of what distinguishes justified belief from opinion. Axiology (Greek meaning axia, “value, worth”; and logos meaning “discourse, study, ratio, calculation, reason”) it is the philosophical study of value as well as ethics and aesthetics. Formal Axiology is a specific branch of the science of Axiology. Axiology also studies of goodness, value or worth, in the widest sense of these terms. Its significance lies in the unification that it has provided for the study of a variety of questions—economic, moral, aesthetic, and even logical—that had often been considered in relative isolation. “The Hammer of Truth” is the use of Ontology, Epistemology and Axiology questions to remove errors and add accuracy. It is also my folk name for Scientific Philosophy: Ontology, Epistemology, and Axiology” Ontology, Epistemology, & Axiology OEA (The Hammer of Truth) OEA “Hammer of Truth” Questions: Ontology, Epistemology, & Axiology questioning tools in inquiry, disagreements, arguments, or debates. *Ontology (thingness of things) questions to define or compare and contrast thingness. *Epistemology (knowledge of things) questions to explode or establish and confirm knowledge. *Axiology (value/worth/goodness of things) questions to valueize (value judge) or establish and confirm value or disvalue, worth or dis-worth, as well as goodness…

    2. Grasping the status of truth (ontology of truth)

    by Damien AtHope | Sep 18, 2016 | Short-writing or Quotes

    I hold in general Truth is a value judgment we place on what we think is evidence. There are three main approaches to truth (ontology of truth) from the very subjective, subjective, or to the objective.   *Pragmatic theory of truth: very subjective   “our ideas are true is they work to solve problems, are useful”   A common feature is a reliance on the pragmatic maxim as a means of clarifying the meanings of difficult concepts such as truth; and an emphasis on the fact that belief, certainty, knowledge, or truth is the result of an inquiry. The pragmatic maxim is a normative recommendation or a regulative principle in the normative science of logic, its function is to guide the conduct of thought toward the achievement of its purpose, advising on an optimal way of “attaining clearness of apprehension”. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pragmatic_theory_of_truthhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pragmatic_maxim   *Coherence theory of truth: subjective   “our ideas are true if they are internally consistent not contradictory”   A common thinking is to regard truth as coherence within some specified set of sentences, propositions or beliefs. There is no single set of such “logical universes”, but rather an assortment of perspectives that are commonly discussed under this title. A positive tenet is the idea that truth is a property of whole systems of propositions and can be ascribed to individual propositions only derivatively according to their coherence with the whole. While modern coherence theorists hold that there are many possible systems to which the determination of truth may be based upon coherence, others, particularly those with strong religious beliefs hold that the such truth only applies to a…

    3. Challenged or Challenging? (questions of ontology)

    by Damien AtHope | Dec 3, 2016 | Blog

    Challenged or Challenging? All thinkers should know that ontological (thingness) definition require answers and that need to answers in can we confirm or conclude what a god even is could be to as well as if god exists, what is a god, and how or where/how did you acquire such definitions; impossible or possible for a god to exist. “From a confirmed or concluded” you have or do not have well definite if a god to the reality of a god. When anyone talks of challenges they are generally in some way even if only a unstated presupposition will include or involve three things: 1. the ontology (the thingness of things), 2. the epistemology ( how you know what you think you believe or know) and 3. the axiology (what and why of value/worth/good)? The ontology is of core importance to require it by asking for ontological definition or definition. This would make a good first act of fighting without having to fight, by always try starting by making them define the details of any claims but it can be done just as easily for attacks as well. Ontology attacks: slow down and unpack any claims, “you said you know god is real.” What do you mean by the qualities, attribution, or thingness of the things involved in the term god or what do you know about the term god and is an estimate for the faith reality you agree to believe in. Ontology defense: slow down and unpack any attacks, “you said I can’t be moral or good without god.” What do you mean by the qualities, attribution, or…

    4. Let to tell you about ontology as I see it and use it.

    by Damien AtHope | Jun 12, 2017 | Blog

    Let to tell you about ontology as I see it and use it.   Ontology (Greek meaning ontos, “being; that which is”; and logos meaning “discourse, study, ratio, calculation, reason”)   Ontology is the philosophical study of the nature of being, becoming, existence, or reality, as well as the basic categories of being and their relations.   *Ontology (thingness of things) questions to define or compare and contrast thingness.   Ontology “Reality” questions/assertion: Witness gives evidence about the claim.   Ontology, (understanding the thingness of things; like what is or can be real, like not god)   -What is your claim?   -What aspects must be there for your claim?   -What makes your claim different than other similar claims?   Take for instance how Religion supporters try the evaluation tactic of saying “there are peaceful Religions.”   I may respond, what do you mean by Religion and what do you mean by painful or good” (asking to find the truth or as usual expose the lack of a good Ontology)   To me belief ontologies address the conceptual schemas involved, at the intersection of three elements:   A belief is a placeholder for a mental agreement to a offered idea, behavior or thing. We dont know what us being accurately believed and this mans all beliefs are open to challenge or they should be. Manky people either have no standard to how they test or process their thinking and thus have untrustworthy and such a lack of a developed thought structure employ thinking systems with a high susceptibility to flaws,   And this is where we use ontological…

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

    by Damien AtHope | Jan 13, 2017 | Blog

    Ontology, Epistemology, & Axiology argument/challenge protocol Ontology (Greek meaning ontos, “being; that which is”; and logos meaning “discourse, study, ratio, calculation, reason”) Ontology is the philosophical study of the nature of being, becoming, existence, or reality, as well as the basic categories of being and their relations. Epistemology (Greek episteme, meaning “knowledge, understanding”, and logos, meaning “discourse, study, ratio, calculation, reason”) it is the theory of knowledge, especially with regard to its methods, validity, and scope. Epistemology is the investigation of what distinguishes justified belief from opinion. Axiology (Greek meaning axia, “value, worth”; and logos meaning “discourse, study, ratio, calculation, reason”) it is the philosophical study of value as well as ethics and aesthetics. Formal Axiology is a specific branch of the science of Axiology. Axiology also studies of goodness, value or worth, in the widest sense of these terms. Its significance lies in the unification that it has provided for the study of a variety of questions—economic, moral, aesthetic, and even logical—that had often been considered in relative isolation. “The Hammer of Truth” is the use of Ontology, Epistemology and Axiology questions to remove errors and add accuracy. It is also my folk name for Scientific Philosophy: Ontology, Epistemology, and Axiology” I received this message: “Hey Damien, how are things? I came across your video “Atheist in a Wheelchair challenges a street preacher.” and was wondering to see if you’re willing to make a video of questions for Christians (preferably myself) and I make a response video discussing and answering those questions you have for believers of God. (Christ) I am a Christian and would like to share…

    6. Basics of my Methodological Rationalism Epistemology Approach

    by Damien AtHope | Mar 16, 2017 | Blog

    Basics of my Methodological Rationalism Epistemology Approach The Disproof Atheism Society: EMPIRICAL, CONCEPTUAL, and DISPROOFS of gOD Epistemology: the theory of knowledge, especially with regard to its methods, validity, and scope. Epistemology is the investigation of what distinguishes justified belief from opinion. Ref   I generally follow the standard in philosophy JTB: Justified True Beliefs. 1. Knowledge as Justified True Belief 1.1 The Truth Condition 1.2 The Belief Condition 1.3 The Justification Condition   Justified / True / Beliefs   Justified?   To established justification I use the philosophy called Reliabilism.   “Reliabilism is a general approach to epistemology that emphasizes the truth-conduciveness of a belief-forming process, method, or other epistemologically relevant factor. The reliability theme appears both in theories of knowledge and theories of justification.” Ref   True?   For the true part I use the philosophy called The Correspondence Theory of Truth.   “The correspondence theory of truth states that the truth or falsity of a statement is determined only by how it relates to the world and whether it accurately describes (i.e., corresponds with) that world.” Ref Beliefs?   For the beliefs part I use what philosophy calls The Ethics of Belief.   “The “ethics of belief” refers the intersection of epistemology, philosophy of mind, psychology, and ethics. The central is norms governing our habits of belief-formation, belief-maintenance, and belief-relinquishment. It morally wrong (or epistemically irrational, or imprudent) to hold a belief on insufficient evidence. It morally right (or epistemically rational, or prudent) to believe on the basis of sufficient evidence, or to withhold belief in the perceived absence of evidence. It always obligatory to seek out…

    7. The Gettier Problem Helps MY Epistemology style

    by Damien AtHope | Dec 16, 2016 | Blog

    “You also seem to be ignoring those elusive things called Gettier problems, Damien.” Why do people believe that, they have proof that one must not ever use JTB? “Gettier problems” or cases are named in honor of the American philosopher Edmund Gettier, who discovered them in 1963. They function as challenges to the philosophical tradition of defining knowledge of a proposition as Justified True Belief  “JTB” in that proposition. Ref My response, you mean that sometimes there may be a requirement to add further delineation to one’s JTB understanding of what constitutes knowledge. Yes, it’s not a problem it showed we must do more than hasty generalizations for our epistemological methodology, not a problem for me at all as a methodological rationalist. it only validates my thinking with the others around me once they get what I am doing with my conception of knowledge  Justified True Beliefs?  I follow the standard in philosophy JTB Justified True Beliefs. “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. Of these four terms, the term that has been most widely used and discussed by the early 21st century is “warrant”. 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 logical deduction.” Ref Justified /…

    8. Pragmatic theory of truth, Coherence theory of truth, and Correspondence theory of truth

    by Damien AtHope | Jun 20, 2017 | Blog

    Pragmatic theory of truth, Coherence theory of truth, and Correspondence theory of truth To me, there are three main approaches to truth (ontology of truth) from the very subjective (Pragmatic theory of truth), subjective (Coherence theory of truth), or to the objective (Correspondence theory of truth).   *Pragmatic theory of truth: very subjective   “our ideas are true if they work to solve problems, are useful”   A common feature is a reliance on the pragmatic maxim as a means of clarifying the meanings of difficult concepts such as truth; and an emphasis on the fact that belief, certainty, knowledge, or truth is the result of an inquiry. The pragmatic maxim is a normative recommendation or a regulative principle in the normative science of logic, its function is to guide the conduct of thought toward the achievement of its purpose, advising on an optimal way of “attaining clearness of apprehension”. Ref Ref    *Coherence theory of truth: subjective/objective   “our ideas are true if they are internally consistent not contradictory”   A common thinking is to regard truth as coherence within some specified set of sentences, propositions or beliefs. There is no single set of such “logical universes”, but rather an assortment of perspectives that are commonly discussed under this title. A positive tenet is the idea that truth is a property of whole systems of propositions and can be ascribed to individual propositions only derivatively according to their coherence with the whole. While modern coherence theorists hold that there are many possible systems to which the determination of truth may be based upon coherence, others, particularly those with strong religious beliefs hold…

    9. Axiology and Value Consciousness

    by Damien AtHope | Jan 19, 2017 | Blog

    We need to make everyone understand the nature of values (axiology). So, one could ask what is axiology? Axiology (Greek meaning axia, “value, worth”; and logos meaning “discourse, study, ratio, calculation, reason”) it is the philosophical study of value as well as ethics and aesthetics. Formal Axiology is a specific branch of the science of Axiology. Axiology also studies of goodness, value or worth, in the widest sense of these terms. Its significance lies in the unification that it has provided for the study of a variety of questions—economic, moral, aesthetic, and even logical—that had often been considered in relative isolation. Yes, axiology, the very impartation of value consciousness is what is required.   So, one could ask what is Value Consciousness?   Value consciousness / Value awareness or Aware Value Critiques / Valid Value Judgments. Value-blindness Gives Rise to Sociopathic evil. Axiological Dignity Being Theory   There can be several different ways to view “Value Consciousness” such as following specific thinking tools people use and assessing them reliably: some limited thinking tools we employ are desire, interest, taste, feeling, faith, etc. The characteristics of these or such tools must not conflate there truth acquisition or truth conformation ability or potential. First assessing them with a “Value Consciousness” exposes that they have obvious limitations or even inability to see or adequately judge objective truth worthy to be called knowledge. Instead “they” (desire, interest, taste, feeling, faith, etc) at best can only project a situational subjective half-truth and are in stark contrast to valid distinctions rightly following forms of Value consciousness / Value awareness or Aware Value Critiques / Valid Value…

    10. Axiology, Naturalism, Realism and Moral Theory Ideas

    by Damien AtHope | Oct 10, 2015 | Blog

    I am a Realist in Many ways, 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. 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. 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. 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. I have a positive epistemic attitude towards or in value realism roughly speaking “axiological realism,” 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. I have a positive epistemic attitude towards or in epistemological realism roughly speaking, is that what you know about…

    11. Applying Axiological Thinking

    by Damien AtHope | May 7, 2017 | Blog

    Applying Axiological Thinking:   Dr. Hartman identified three dimensions of reality, which he called the Dimensions of Value. We value everything in one of these three ways or in a combination of these dimensions. The Dimensions of Value are systemic, extrinsic, and intrinsic. Ref   People: Intrinsic Mostly Intuitive thinking   Systems: systemic Mostly conceptual thinking   Tasks: extrinsic Mostly pragmatic thinking Axiological Valuation by Ecological Systems Theorizing I made this to help others understand how axiology can be applied as I see it. To learn more about Formal Axiology check out this link: https://www.academia.edu/4545325/Formal_Axiology_Another_Victim_in_Religions_War_on_ScienceAxiological Valuation of Goodness I made this to help others understand how axiology can be applied as I see it. To learn more about Formal Axiology check out this link: https://www.academia.edu/4545325/Formal_Axiology_Another_Victim_in_Religions_War_on_ScienceAxiological Atheism: Ethical/Value theory Reasoned and Moral argument driven atheism, anti-theism, anti-religionism, and secular humanism   As such axiological atheism’s ethically reasoned antitheism & antireligionism is constructive and pro-humanity. We who believe we are thinking rational, leading to opposition or hate of religion may that be limited to the nonfactual or oppressive ideology and not the people. Beyond just not being something lets be something, rational thinking should challenge myths but also prove our love for humanity and care for all living beings. In most cases, Axiological atheism would assert the traditional concept of “Atheism” answers only a single question: Is there a creator god or not? That is an important question, but if your answer is “no”, it is only a starting point and not a way of life.   You may have reached that viewpoint based on your respect for logic, evidence, science,and…

    12. Axiological Morality Critique of Pseudo-Morality/Pseudomorality?

    by Damien AtHope | Apr 22, 2017 | Blog

    To me, “Pseudo Morality” is seen when holy books or people “cognitively reconstruct” an inhumane idea or behavior to make it into something different from than it is, to something more moral than what it actually is. Or turn something highly immoral in to something highly moral.   One way to do that is to cloak the behavior “in moral wrappings” or “in divine authority” such as god hates gays, gays are evil, thus killing gays is doing good by destroying evil. This thinking is obviously pseudomorality as gays are not evil but killing them is evil and inhumane idea or behavior thus very immoral.   The god justified immorality into what is then called moral is some of the most common pseudomorality, though political leaders and others in power tend to employ it as well. They all are using “pseudomoral justifications” to describe something immoral as moral.   True morality is not as simple as the golden rule…   True morality is a valued behavior we do that interacts with others; it is not really related to what we do to ourselves. Which is why I do not agree with the so called golden rule as it is what you don’t want do to others but this fails in that its focused on ourselves which is us focused and true morality needs to be other focused on what valued behavior we do that interacts with others.   I say treat others the way they should be treated. People have self-ownership, self-rights, right to dignity, freedom and equality. True morality is a valued behavior we do that interacts with…

    13. Error Crushing Force of the Dialectic Questions and the Hammer of Truth

    by Damien AtHope | Dec 14, 2016 | Blog

    Error Crushing Force of the Dialectic Questions and the Hammer of Truth *(Ontology) What are you talking about, please slow down and give me each specific detail individually? *(Epistemology) How do you know that and why do you think it is justified or warranted? *(Axiology) What is its value if any and why do you value that or why would anyone? If you don’t already know, Dialectic is the art of investigating or discussing the truth of opinions. What I am trying to say in this message of Dialectic Questions in order to find truth by giving people three questions that can be put towards almost anything and it help remove error and thus improved accuracy. Ontology, Epistemology, & Axiology argument/challenge protocol Grasping the status of truth (ontology of truth) The Ontology of Humanistic Economics in Society? Challenged or Challenging? Openness to Critique? Strong vs Weak Thinkers A strong thinker can deeply analyze their own positions removing all that are unworthy and updating to the most currently accurate. Whereas a weak thinker can only offer deep attacks to the positions of others that differ in thinking. Just think, are your beliefs further supporting rhetoric or accuracy to the facts and are you ready to change if you have it the other way around? Believer vs Thinker When you can, with all honesty, say that you put a similar voracity to one’s own ideas as they demand for others then they are a thinker not just a believer. And when you can quickly and eagerly relinquish any and all ideas, even the most cherished if they were not true; yes…

    Truth is a Value (axiological) Judgment

    Grasping the status of truth (ontology of truth): pre-logic, logic, and post-logic?

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

    Some think they don’t have beliefs and in fact, the belief you don’t have beliefs, is, itself a belief. Thus, I wish to help people increase their philosophic accuracy by understanding beliefs and how the terms facts, truth, knowledge, certainty, as well as objective and how every one of them are labels that we believe in as “markers of accuracy” in one’s belief and the actual state of afters. In addition, how they are all still connected in that they are all epistemic properties of beliefs. Yes, facts are labels, just like truth, that we put on claims we think are proven somehow, in that assertions are believed to match the state of affairs (if you are making realistic assumptions from science then likely supported by the beliefs in science realism), that generally promote the Correspondence theory of truth “similar to both Rationalism and Empiricism” or coherence theory of truth “similar to just Rationalism” its all still epistemic property of beliefs, whether one’s claim is of knowledge or certainty.

    If you are a religious believer, may I remind you that faith in the acquisition of knowledge is not a valid method worth believing in. Because, what proof is “faith”, of anything religion claims by faith, as many people have different faith even in the same religion?

    To Find Truth You Must First Look

    Archaeology Knowledge Challenge?

    Stone Age Art: 500,000 – 233,000 Years Old

    Pre-Animism: Portable Rock Art at least 300,000-year-old

    Did Neanderthals teach us “Primal Religion (Pre-Animism/Animism?)” 120,000 Years Ago?

    Animism: an approximately 100,000-year-old belief system?

    Stone Snake of South Africa: “first human worship” 70,000 years ago

    Similarities and differences in Animism and Totemism

    History of Drug Use with Religion or Sacred Rituals possibly 58,000 years ago?

    Totemism: an approximately 50,000-year-old belief system?

    Australia & Aboriginal Religion at least around 50,000 years old

    Modern Humans start around 50,000 years ago Helped by Feminisation

    Out of Africa: “the evolution of religion seems tied to the movement of people”

    Possible Religion Motivations in the First Cave Art at around 43,000 years ago?

    40,000 years ago “first seeming use of a Totem” ancestor, animal, and possible pre-goddess worship?

    Prehistoric Egypt 40,000 years ago to The First Dynasty 5,150 years ago

    Shamanism: an approximately 30,000-year-old belief system

    Early Shamanism around 30,000 to 20,000 years ago: Sungar (Russia) and Dolni Vestonice (Czech Republic)

    ‘Sky Burial’ theory and its possible origins at least 12,000 years ago to likely 30,000 years ago or older.

    Genetic studies on Jewish DNA is not 6,000 years old but has origin links to about 20,000 to 30,000 years ago?

    Dog Domestication and Emerging Sacred Mortuary Rituals around 16,500 to 12,000 years ago

    Paganism: an approximately 12,000-year-old belief system

    Sedentism and the Creation of goddesses around 12,000 years ago as well as male gods after 7,000 years ago.

    12,000 – 7,000 Years Ago – Paleo-Indian Culture (The Americas)

    12,000 – 2,000 Years Ago – Indigenous-Scandinavians (Nordic)

    J DNA and the Spread of Agricultural Religion (paganism)

    Natufians: an Ancient People at the Origins of Agriculture and Sedentary Life

    Gobekli Tepe: “first human-made temple” around 12,000 years ago.

    12,000 – 10,000 years old Shamanistic Art in a Remote Cave in Egypt

    First Patriarchy: Split of Women’s Status around 12,000 years ago & First Hierarchy: fall of Women’s Status around 5,000 years ago.

    Pre-Pottery Neolithic Skull Cult around 11,500 to 8,400 Years Ago?

    Catal Huyuk “first religious designed city” around 10,000 years ago

    Horned female shamans and Pre-satanism Devil/horned-god Worship? at least 10,000 years ago

    Kurgan 6,000 years ago/dolmens 7,000 years ago: funeral, ritual, and other?

    Sumerian Creator Being was a Female, not Male possibly around 6,000 years ago or more

    “Jiroft culture” 5,100 – 4,200 years ago and the History of Iran

    Progressed organized religion starts, an approximately 5,000-year-old belief system

    Origin of Logics is Naturalistic Observation at least by around 5,000 years ago.

    Ziggurats (multi-platform temples: 4,900 years old) to Pyramids (multi-platform tombs: 4,700 years old)

    42 Principles Of God Maat around 4,400 years ago, 2000 Years Before Ten Commandments

    4,250 to 3,400-Year-old Stonehenge from Russia: Arkaim?

    Kultepe? An archaeological site with a 4,000 years old women’s rights document.

    When was the beginning: TIMELINE OF CURRENT RELIGIONS? Around 4,000 years ago.

    Confucianism’s Tiān (Shangdi god 4,000 years old): Supernaturalism, Pantheism or Theism?

    The Weakening of Ancient Trade and the Strengthening of Religions around 3000 years ago?

    Dating the BIBLE: naming names and telling times (written less than 3,000 years ago, provable to 2,200 years ago)

    Dating the BIBLE: naming names and telling times

    The Beginning of Atheistic Doubt at least by around 2,500 years ago.

    Empiricism-Denier?

    I Don’t Have to Respect Ideas

    People get confused ideas are not alive nor do they have beingness, Ideas don’t have rights nor the right to even exist only people have such a right. Ideas don’t have dignity nor can they feel violation only people if you attack them personally. Ideas don’t deserve any special anything they have no feelings and cannot be shamed they are open to the most brutal merciless attack and challenge without any protection and deserve none nor will I give them any if they are found wanting in evidence or reason. I will never respect Ideas if they are devoid of merit I only respect people. When I was young it was all about me, I wanted to be liked. Then I got older and it was even more about me, I wanted power. Now I am beyond a toxic ego and it is not just about me, I want to make a difference. Sexism is that evil weed that can sadly grow even in the well-tended garden of the individual with an otherwise developed mind. Which is why it particularly needs to be attacked and exposed; and is why I support feminism. Here are four blogs on that: Activism Labels Matter, thus Feminism is Needed, Feminist atheists as far back as the 1800s?, Sexism in the Major World Religions and Rape, Sexism and Religion?

    Having privilege in race, gender, sexuality, ability, class, nationality, etc. does not mean one did not have it hard in life, it just was not hard due to race, gender, sexuality, ability, class, nationality, etc. if one has privilege in that area.

    Empathy: think in another’s thinking, try to feel their feeling, and care about their experience.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KdUn3PWHKQg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6aFmHYw0Z7c
Skilled Attack is one of the Best Defence
 
Attack the claim or assertions
 
*Challenger, this promotes a false dichotomy between religion and science, as if those were the only choices on the menu. Existentialism takes this to task by considering truth as interpretation, not as infallible perspective.
 
Damien Marie Athope, that is a great claim not please give a point by detailed point to validate your assertion.
 
**Different challenger, experience and observation are not science. It’s more than that.
 
Damien Marie Athope Ok, great. Explain in a detailed point by point rationale with valid and reliable reason and evidence that I should in any way be persuaded by your point, as if I’m wrong I am the first one that wants to know so I can remove all thinking errors.Aren’t you?
Defence as a Hidden Philosophical Attack
 
“Damien Marie Athope, you are wrong, xyz…….”
 
Ok, thanks for telling me something you think I don’t see. Please give the specific detailed point by point or at least a point and the valid and reliable reason and or evidence to prove your point to where I can be impressed and change my thinking?

Challenger, that article doesn’t add much to this discussion. What’s your point?

Notice the person is challenging back by first dismissing the evidential power what i showed, no the person is evading and discounting without Merit.

Damien Marie Athope, what valid knowledge are you asserting full belief in so we can dissect and either remove your error or we will see my error and any truth seeker would only want the truth no matter who is actually holding it in an ontological or existential frame or schema.

“The Hammer of Truth” Process

I use a kind of Dialectical Rhetoric = truth persuasion (motivational teaching)

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

My thoughts on Religion Evolution with external links for more info:

“Religion is an Evolved Product” and Yes, Religion is Like Fear Given Wings…

Atheists talk about gods and religions for the same reason doctors talk about cancer, they are looking for a cure, or a firefighter talks about fires because they burn people and they care to stop them. We atheists too often feel a need to help the victims of mental slavery, held in the bondage that is the false beliefs of gods and the conspiracy theories of reality found in religions.

“Understanding Religion Evolution: Animism, Totemism, Shamanism, Paganism & Progressed organized religion”

Understanding Religion Evolution:

“An Archaeological/Anthropological Understanding of Religion Evolution”

It seems ancient peoples had to survived amazing threats in a “dangerous universe (by superstition perceived as good and evil),” and human “immorality or imperfection of the soul” which was thought to affect the still living, leading to ancestor worship. This ancestor worship presumably led to the belief in supernatural beings, and then some of these were turned into the belief in gods. This feeble myth called gods were just a human conceived “made from nothing into something over and over, changing, again and again, taking on more as they evolve, all the while they are thought to be special,” but it is just supernatural animistic spirit-belief perceived as sacred.

 

Quick Evolution of Religion?

Pre-Animism (at least 300,000 years ago) pre-religion is a beginning that evolves into later Animism. So, Religion as we think of it, to me, all starts in a general way with Animism (Africa: 100,000 years ago) (theoretical belief in supernatural powers/spirits), then this is physically expressed in or with Totemism (Europe: 50,000 years ago) (theoretical belief in mythical relationship with powers/spirits through a totem item), which then enlists a full-time specific person to do this worship and believed interacting Shamanism (Siberia/Russia: 30,000 years ago) (theoretical belief in access and influence with spirits through ritual), and then there is the further employment of myths and gods added to all the above giving you Paganism (Turkey: 12,000 years ago) (often a lot more nature-based than most current top world religions, thus hinting to their close link to more ancient religious thinking it stems from). My hypothesis is expressed with an explanation of the building of a theatrical house (modern religions development). Progressed organized religion (Egypt: 5,000 years ago)  with CURRENT “World” RELIGIONS (after 4,000 years ago).

Historically, in large city-state societies (such as Egypt or Iraq) starting around 5,000 years ago culminated to make religion something kind of new, a sociocultural-governmental-religious monarchy, where all or at least many of the people of such large city-state societies seem familiar with and committed to the existence of “religion” as the integrated life identity package of control dynamics with a fixed closed magical doctrine, but this juggernaut integrated religion identity package of Dogmatic-Propaganda certainly did not exist or if developed to an extent it was highly limited in most smaller prehistoric societies as they seem to lack most of the strong control dynamics with a fixed closed magical doctrine (magical beliefs could be at times be added or removed). Many people just want to see developed religious dynamics everywhere even if it is not. Instead, all that is found is largely fragments until the domestication of religion.

Religions, as we think of them today, are a new fad, even if they go back to around 6,000 years in the timeline of human existence, this amounts to almost nothing when seen in the long slow evolution of religion at least around 70,000 years ago with one of the oldest ritual worship. Stone Snake of South Africa: “first human worship” 70,000 years ago. This message of how religion and gods among them are clearly a man-made thing that was developed slowly as it was invented and then implemented peace by peace discrediting them all. Which seems to be a simple point some are just not grasping how devastating to any claims of truth when we can see the lie clearly in the archeological sites.

I wish people fought as hard for the actual values as they fight for the group/clan names political or otherwise they think support values. Every amount spent on war is theft to children in need of food or the homeless kept from shelter.

Here are several of my blog posts on history:

I am not an academic. I am a revolutionary that teaches in public, in places like social media, and in the streets. I am not a leader by some title given but from my commanding leadership style of simply to start teaching everywhere to everyone, all manner of positive education. 

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

ref, ref, ref

“Theists, there has to be a god, as something can not come from nothing.”

Well, thus something (unknown) happened and then there was something. This does not tell us what the something that may have been involved with something coming from nothing. A supposed first cause, thus something (unknown) happened and then there was something is not an open invitation to claim it as known, neither is it justified to call or label such an unknown as anything, especially an unsubstantiated magical thinking belief born of mythology and religious storytelling.

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Advocating Anarchism: Morality, Non-coercion, Anti-hierarchy, Solidarity, Internationalism, Mutualism, Cooperationism, Empowermentism, etc.

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

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 one: Prehistory: related to “Anarchism and Socialism” the division of labor, power, rights, and recourses.

Show two: Pre-animism 300,000 years old and animism 100,000 years old: related to “Anarchism and Socialism”

Show tree: Totemism 50,000 years old: related to “Anarchism and Socialism”

Show four: Shamanism 30,000 years old: related to “Anarchism and Socialism”

Show five: Paganism 12,000 years old: related to “Anarchism and Socialism”

Show six: Emergence of hierarchy, sexism, slavery, and the new male god dominance: Paganism 7,000-5,000 years old: related to “Anarchism and Socialism” (Capitalism) (World War 0) Elite and their slaves!

Show seven: Paganism 5,000 years old: progressed organized religion and the state: related to “Anarchism and Socialism” (Kings and the Rise of the State)

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.

This series idea was addressed in, Anarchist Teaching as Free Public Education or Free Education in the Public: VIDEO

Our 12 video series: Organized Oppression: Mesopotamian State Force and the Politics of power (9,000-4,000 years ago), is adapted from: The Complete and Concise History of the Sumerians and Early Bronze Age Mesopotamia (7000-2000 BC): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=szFjxmY7jQA by “History with Cy“

Show #1: Mesopotamian State Force and the Politics of Power (Samarra, Halaf, Ubaid)

Show #2: Mesopotamian State Force and the Politics of Power (Eridu: First City of Power)

Show #3: Mesopotamian State Force and the Politics of Power (Uruk and the First Cities)

Show #4: Mesopotamian State Force and the Politics of Power (First Kings)

Show #5: Mesopotamian State Force and the Politics of Power (Early Dynastic Period)

Show #6: Mesopotamian State Force and the Politics of Power (King Lugalzagesi and the First Empire)

Show #7: Mesopotamian State Force and the Politics of Power (Sargon and Akkadian Rule)

Show #8: Mesopotamian State Force and the Politics of Power (Naram-Sin, Post-Akkadian Rule, and the Gutians)

Show #9: Mesopotamian State Force and the Politics of Power (Gudea of Lagash and Utu-hegal)

Show #10: Mesopotamian State Force and the Politics of Power (Third Dynasty of Ur / Neo-Sumerian Empire)

Show #11: Mesopotamian State Force and the Politics of Power (Amorites, Elamites, and the End of an Era)

Show #12: Mesopotamian State Force and the Politics of Power (Aftermath and Legacy of Sumer)

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

The “Atheist-Humanist-Leftist Revolutionaries”

Cory Johnston ☭ Ⓐ Atheist Leftist @Skepticallefty & I (Damien Marie AtHope) @AthopeMarie (my YouTube & related blog) are working jointly in atheist, antitheist, antireligionist, antifascist, anarchist, socialist, and humanist endeavors in our videos together, generally, every other Saturday.

Why Does Power Bring Responsibility?

Think, how often is it the powerless that start wars, oppress others, or commit genocide? So, I guess the question is to us all, to ask, how can power not carry responsibility in a humanity concept? I know I see the deep ethical responsibility that if there is power their must be a humanistic responsibility of ethical and empathic stewardship of that power. Will I be brave enough to be kind? Will I possess enough courage to be compassionate? Will my valor reach its height of empathy? I as everyone, earns our justified respect by our actions, that are good, ethical, just, protecting, and kind. Do I have enough self-respect to put my love for humanity’s flushing, over being brought down by some of its bad actors? May we all be the ones doing good actions in the world, to help human flourishing.

I create the world I want to live in, striving for flourishing. Which is not a place but a positive potential involvement and promotion; a life of humanist goal precision. To master oneself, also means mastering positive prosocial behaviors needed for human flourishing. I may have lost a god myth as an atheist, but I am happy to tell you, my friend, it is exactly because of that, leaving the mental terrorizer, god belief, that I truly regained my connected ethical as well as kind humanity.

Cory and I will talk about prehistory and theism, addressing the relevance to atheism, anarchism, and socialism.

At the same time as the rise of the male god, 7,000 years ago, there was also the very time there was the rise of violence, war, and clans to kingdoms, then empires, then states. It is all connected back to 7,000 years ago, and it moved across the world.

Cory Johnston: https://damienmarieathope.com/2021/04/cory-johnston-mind-of-a-skeptical-leftist/?v=32aec8db952d  

The Mind of a Skeptical Leftist (YouTube)

Cory Johnston: Mind of a Skeptical Leftist @Skepticallefty

The Mind of a Skeptical Leftist By Cory Johnston: “Promoting critical thinking, social justice, and left-wing politics by covering current events and talking to a variety of people. Cory Johnston has been thoughtfully talking to people and attempting to promote critical thinking, social justice, and left-wing politics.” http://anchor.fm/skepticalleft

Cory needs our support. We rise by helping each other.

Cory Johnston ☭ Ⓐ @Skepticallefty Evidence-based atheist leftist (he/him) Producer, host, and co-host of 4 podcasts @skeptarchy @skpoliticspod and @AthopeMarie

Damien Marie AtHope (“At Hope”) Axiological Atheist, Anti-theist, Anti-religionist, Secular Humanist. Rationalist, Writer, Artist, Poet, Philosopher, Advocate, Activist, Psychology, and Armchair Archaeology/Anthropology/Historian.

Damien is interested in: Freedom, Liberty, Justice, Equality, Ethics, Humanism, Science, Atheism, Antiteism, Antireligionism, Ignosticism, Left-Libertarianism, Anarchism, Socialism, Mutualism, Axiology, Metaphysics, LGBTQI, Philosophy, Advocacy, Activism, Mental Health, Psychology, Archaeology, Social Work, Sexual Rights, Marriage Rights, Woman’s Rights, Gender Rights, Child Rights, Secular Rights, Race Equality, Ageism/Disability Equality, Etc. And a far-leftist, “Anarcho-Humanist.”

I am not a good fit in the atheist movement that is mostly pro-capitalist, I am anti-capitalist. Mostly pro-skeptic, I am a rationalist not valuing skepticism. Mostly pro-agnostic, I am anti-agnostic. Mostly limited to anti-Abrahamic religions, I am an anti-religionist.

To me, the “male god” seems to have either emerged or become prominent around 7,000 years ago, whereas the now favored monotheism “male god” is more like 4,000 years ago or so. To me, the “female goddess” seems to have either emerged or become prominent around 11,000-10,000 years ago or so, losing the majority of its once prominence around 2,000 years ago due largely to the now favored monotheism “male god” that grow in prominence after 4,000 years ago or so.

My Thought on the Evolution of Gods?

Animal protector deities from old totems/spirit animal beliefs come first to me, 13,000/12,000 years ago, then women as deities 11,000/10,000 years ago, then male gods around 7,000/8,000 years ago. Moralistic gods around 5,000/4,000 years ago, and monotheistic gods around 4,000/3,000 years ago. 

To me, animal gods were likely first related to totemism animals around 13,000 to 12,000 years ago or older. Female as goddesses was next to me, 11,000 to 10,000 years ago or so with the emergence of agriculture. Then male gods come about 8,000 to 7,000 years ago with clan wars. Many monotheism-themed religions started in henotheism, emerging out of polytheism/paganism.

Gods?
 
“Animism” is needed to begin supernatural thinking.
“Totemism” is needed for supernatural thinking connecting human actions & related to clan/tribe.
“Shamanism” is needed for supernatural thinking to be controllable/changeable by special persons.
 
Together = Gods/paganism

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

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

Axiological Atheist, Anti-theist, Anti-religionist, Secular Humanist, Rationalist, Writer, Artist, Jeweler, Poet, “autodidact” Philosopher, schooled in Psychology, and “autodidact” Armchair Archaeology/Anthropology/Pre-Historian (Knowledgeable in the range of: 1 million to 5,000/4,000 years ago). I am an anarchist socialist politically. Reasons for or Types of Atheism

My Website, My Blog, & Short-writing or Quotes, My YouTube, Twitter: @AthopeMarie, and My Email: damien.marie.athope@gmail.com

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This