Why not Find Out if what you believe is True?

What you were taught to believe, is it definable in reality, “i.e. does it correspond to something in reality” (an ontology question)? Is you were taught to believe, demonstrable to be true “i.e. does is it a justified, warranted. and fact rich belief” (an epistemology question)? Is what you were taught to believe moral “i.e. is it a Real Morality belief or a Pseudo Morality belief just cloaking unethical behavior “in moral wrappings”” (an axiological question)? Why not find out?

Real Morality?

Real Morality is referring to “ethics” we use in judging the behaviors in a social dynamic behavioral event or interaction and can only accrue in a social dynamic (social behavioral realm) as such all morality propositions removed from a social dynamic and which accrue only in a personal dynamic lack attachment to “Real Morality” referring to the social nature of “ethics.” In other words, if you are by yourself and do something only to yourself, it is neither ethical nor immorality; thus, doing a behavior that is only personal (a believed moral or otherwise) by yourself and only something to yourself, is amorality to everyone but that chosen person doing a behavior that is only personal. One can chouse to personally value some moral standard for themselves but because morals (the personal valued behaviors) as opposed to ethics (the interpersonal/socal valued behaviors; which there is business never business morals as ethics is about our social behaviors we can hold others to, whereas, morals are only something we can hold ourselves to).

“The Hammer of Truth” Ontology, Epistemology, & Axiology

*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”


Welcome to My world of Reason?

I am a Rationalist Atheist and what others may not realize because of this I mainly use and try to inspire Reason not Doubt as I feel is more common with Skeptic style Atheism. It seems to me they hold a big value in the power of doubt but I don’t see doubt, as that useful as it doesn’t establish truth. I want to show others by bringing them into my world of reason, that reason is the only master. And that they didn’t use reason for their beliefs. I let reason do the rest. I can even change minds and never even address doubt with my style. 

The Unifying theme of Unreliability?

You know one common problem several major religions have? They were not written by the person they claim to represent the main figure. The Torah, was not written by Moses. The claimed sacred texts of Buddhism were not written by Buddha (also known as Siddhārtha Gautama). And of course, not even one written word was put in the Christian Bible authored by Jesus, let me make this fully clear for the students in the back, not any part of the bible was written by Jesus, think long and hard on this. Jesus came according to most Christians it seems, to save the world, and create a new religion “Christianity”, one would assume as well, but then why did he not just simply write the books himself? Oh, let’s not forget the late bloomer, the Koran not written by Muhammad, not even one word. Nor did he say to write a Koran either, strange, right? But the shit show must go on, I guess. Neither was the Taoism or Daoism “Tao Te Ching” written by Lao-Tzu, so you see the theme I see, right?


Do you see the problem now??? I can’t believe, you believe! Lol 

Why, do all you can?  

I am trying to use every aspect of my life to help the world. I want all the positive changes as possible. I ultimately just want a kind world where we all can live in as one humanity. I am trying to get people to realize, the wisest thing I have ever done, was to be kind as a way of life. I always think, of any mean people, how smart can they be, if they are not wise enough to see the beauty of kindness? The world needs more Truly honest thinkers, hopefully, people just like you – that are above all things, deeply intellectually-honest, as it is these deep thinkers and philosophers that want to help people who aid us all in changes. Please, don’t stop, if that is you! 

“You atheists just don’t get, god (your god-something claim) is mysterious.”

Well, well, is that not just special, class, lets all marvel at this absurdity in reasoning, I mean seriously… Would you hire someone who works in mysterious ways? Or say you trust in mysterious ways to navigate morality? Or feel just claiming to know anything if your fall back, answer is, to always assume faith without evidence or just blindly assume someone who works in mysterious ways? You should let facts lead your beliefs, not let your beliefs lead how you see facts. What even is a god anyway? I hear people say a creator, but that is an attributed behavior, of a thing, not the thing in question, and I always ask, “what is a god?”, not what you think a god-something did in your beliefs. G.O.D. Group Originated Delusion, thus a fixed unreality belief that is not amenable to change in light of conflicting evidence.

Intellectual honesty: https://lnkd.in/gnr7PyF

Intellectual dishonesty: https://lnkd.in/gjJAtRu 

Michael Lamb – “Epicurus summed that up in antiquity.” 

My response, Yes, more axiological atheism thnking. Most things around morality/ethics/moral reasoning issues, can be thought to relate to an axiological assumption (some Presumptive-value) or presupposition, they don’t realize they are assuming (some Presumptive-value). 

Marquis Amon – “Having omnipotence and omniscience can be considered possible. Yet the argument of evil in terms of morality requires that the person use those things in reality. Therefore the presence of evil proves the nonexistence of god because regardless of being omnipotent and omniscient that the person fails on the grounds of morality. In other words, it is a paradox, you can’t be omnipotent, omniscient, and moral while evil exists in the world. The paradox is that omniscience requires morality. Mr. Lamb is correct on what he stated on this point as well, I just wanted to explain what the paradox really is and why it is such. I also wanted to add that there is often a logical fallacy used by theists that claims that the allowance of evil’s presence is somehow morally justified, by unspecified(nonexistent, divine reason). Evil is fundamentally immoral and therefore disproves god.”

Where did we come from? Do humans have value? Etc. Etc. Etc. Theist thinking he is superior to atheists in a debate group???

My response, Have you asked yourself those questions? Intellectually honest people would. And they would not start with any limitations on reason to guide them. So again, were you an honest thinker when, you say you ask yourself first?

“Damien, I have asked myself these questions and I’ve answered them. I’m being intellectually honest, and I am simply asking what “your” answers to these questions are.” – Theist Poster

My response, Ok, if so, what was your favorite answer, and what was the valid reasoning used to reach your chosen conclusion? Please, explain fully. Thanks.

“Damien, why are you just asking me what I’m asking you? I’m wanting to know your answers.” – Theist Poster

My response, Interesting question as you did that very thing did you not? I am waiting on your response? I am looking for your intellectual honesty in your account of how you reached your chosen answers. If you fully and honestly answer then so will I.

“I already, answered you, sir.” – Theist Poster

My response, Good, then you will answer my questions? No, you will not, but we must ask why??? Can you imagine the level of intellectual dishonesty of a Theist Poster asking atheists questions as if only an atheist has any objections to answer??? I don’t respect such people, do you??? You agree that we have a morality duty, to be honest thinkers intellectually, right?

“Damien, I’m not sure where the disconnect is, but I’ll say again: I asked the question. You don’t have to answer, but you shot my question back at me. It sounds like you want to hear not just what my answers are, but how and why I concluded those answers logically and philosophically. There is nothing wrong with your question, but I’m not trying to argue the logical and philosophical route I took to conclude what I did. I’m not asking anyone to prove why they chose the answer they chose.The reason I’m asking these four question is because I’m interested in what others think because I believe everyone has to face them. I simply want to know what others think. You already know what you think and I already know what I think. I’m not interested in debating the answers. I’m just asking for yours. You don’t have to answer.” – Theist Poster

My response, You have never given me a good full answer to my honest question. You are evading answering. Thus this very behavior is labeled as lacking in intellectual honesty. It could be raised to intellectual dishonesty. As if you are added over and over again, it stopped being an accident and became purposed. Thus you then have been intellectually dishonest in this point I am addressing. If you don’t want to be seen as such, the best way is to honesty answer. If again you willfully reject this intellectual morality duty, what should we think of you? So please answer me? Thanks.

“No, Damien. You can call me what you want, but just be careful you don’t become a hypocrite. You haven’t answered me either, and it seems like you want to hold me to a standard you won’t hold yourself to. I don’t even know you.” – Theist Poster

My response, I don’t want to call you anything, I just want, an honest thinker, answer. That is it. I am an honest thinker above everything. And I was wondering if you were???

My response, “We have a moral duty, to be honest. This duty is especially important when we share ideas that can inform or persuade others. Intellectual honesty is honesty in the acquisition, analysis, and transmission of ideas. A person is being intellectually honest when he or she, knowing the truth, states that truth. Intellectual honesty pertains to any communication intended to inform or persuade. This includes all forms of scholarship, consequential conversations such as dialogue, debate, negotiations, product and service descriptions, various forms of persuasion, and public communications such as announcements, speeches, lectures, instruction, presentations, publications, declarations, briefings, news releases, policy statements, reports, religious instructions, social media posts, and journalism including not only prose and speech, but graphs, photographs, and other means of expression. Intellectual Honesty combines good faith with a primary motivation toward seeking true beliefs. Intellectual honesty is an applied method of problem-solving, characterized by an unbiased, honest attitude, which can be demonstrated in a number of different ways including: Ensuring support for chosen ideologies does not interfere with the pursuit of truth; Relevant facts and information are not purposefully omitted even when such things may contradict one’s hypothesis; Facts are presented in an unbiased manner, and not twisted to give misleading impressions or to support one view over another; References, or earlier work, are acknowledged where possible, and plagiarism is avoided. Harvard ethicist Louis M. Guenin describes the “kernel” of intellectual honesty to be “a virtuous disposition to eschew deception when given an incentive for deception”. Intentionally committed fallacies and deception in debates and reasoning are called intellectual dishonesty.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_honesty

“Trump supporter warns MSNBC he will ‘take up arms’ if Biden wins: ‘If that’s what it comes to.” – LinkedIn Post

My response, on a LinkedIn post, Such people are Un-American and totally Anti-democracy! Phonies, claiming to be American patriots. What a fucking joke, go read a book on American history, so your ignorance can stop, some time!!! I have AntiFa friends, armed and ready, to keep your hate in check!

“Damien AtHope ” – Challenger 

My response, Is that a line of Trump supporters? Asking for a friend. Lol

“Damien AtHope, No. You too ugly, my friend.” – Challenger

My response, I did not know you were looking for a date? Good luck, with that, bro. 

“Damien AtHope but you got nice mouth boy.” – Challenger

My response, Thanks, I am totally cool with you having homosexual feelings but I am not into it, like you. I still hope you find love, though. 

“Damien AtHope but come on boy, you anarchist, you can handle a good fukin.” – Challenger

My response, We anarchist respect the dignity of others, so, I don’t act in unhonorable ways. What good behavior standards do you support?

“You don’t even have respect for yourself. You have no idea what you kids Are even what rebelling about.” – Challenger

My response, So no behavior standards for you? I hope you respect your honor better than that, right? I mean do you feel you are, a good, person? If so do you think good people act a certain way? Like acting in a way, you know, that we know they are good by the example the behavior inspires??? Can we judge you, by your behavior here, it is an example for all good people to follow? 

“Damien AtHope, HEY, anarchist, you ever been outside of USA???” – Challenger

My response, So you evade an honest question of your behavior to show me, what that you don’t value your self nor respect others? Are you an honest thinker? How would I know by your behavior? So what are your behavior standards?

“Damien AtHope, I don’t follow any group.just me myself & You believe in socialism???” – Challenger

My response, So you don’t care about the human rights or dignity of others, I am just trying to follow as you are not giving a direct answer to a direct question, almost if your shamefulness is even apparent to you, am I right? Do you have any honor? If so what behavior of yours has exemplified this attribute, as I don’t see any honor in your behavior yet, is it coming soon? I hope you choose to be a person of honor and respect the dignity and human rights of others. Can we not agree on this? 

Marquis Amon – “That is the essence of the two-party system, it is really about allowing evil because one is part of a party. That the end justifies the means. That there isn’t an real objectivity and accountability in our system.”

Marquis Amon – “It is about understanding that demanding respect and giving orders doesn’t net any gain, rather understanding and demonstrating character gives children reason to respect you, reason to listen, because you show them what you mean.”

Marquis Amon – “In other words truth is something that not only possesses evidence, but quality evidence that gives a more definitive position. For example, several sources of science support evolution. Biology and genetics, for example. When you can confirm things with more than one methodology it further supports justification and likelihood of it being true, this also lends to certainty.”

Marquis Amon – “Faith says something is true because they believe it to be true. Suppose there is a literal box, one that is closed. Never examined. Suppose people think of all the potential wonderful things they believe are in the box…yet the never open the box. None the less continue to think wonderful things are inside it, that’s faith. Faith confirms nothing. Nor does it possess logic, reason, or evidence. You just believe.”

Michael Lamb – “Faith is nothing. It is like driving without eyes…”

Marquis Amon – “Yes, let’s give blind people driver’s licenses and hope they don’t hit anything. If that doesn’t make sense, then my statement means we have to have faith they don’t.”

Unrealized Presumptive-value?

Yes, you hold a lot of unrealized Presumptive-value, in almost everything?

Well, to me, as an Axiological (philosophic “value-theory”) theorist, most things around morality/ethics/moral reasoning issues can be thought to relate to an axiological assumption (some Presumptive-value) or presupposition they don’t realize they are assuming (some Presumptive-value). 

Here is my blog post explaining this further: 

Sound thinking, Presumptive-value, Axiology, and Disciplined-Rationality 

Truth Navigation: Techniques for Discussions or Debates

I do truth navigation, both inquiry questions as well as strategic facts in a tag team of debate and motivational teaching.

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

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.

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

Utilizing Dignity Dignity Enrichment: 1. acceptance of thinking or behavior, 2. show understanding, and 3. offer support for who and what they are. Dignity Attacks: 1. critical challenge of thinking or behavior, 2. expose confusion or irrationalism, and 3. offer rebuttal or rebuke of who and what they are.

Here is a rough breakdown of a response to an atheist philosopher on a debate over the term “spiritual” saying to him: “good reasons” to believe in spiritual? 

(Dignity Attack)– More like a loose looking “thinking claim.” 

(Dignity Attack)- You will be quite hard-pressed to prove such a thing. 

(Dignity Attack)- But as always I am more than ready to receive your evidence substantiation. 

Or this response I said to him: 

(Dignity Attack)- Stating your education is great and still no evidence then you have training. 

(Dignity Attack)- Not that you employ your philosophy education with a universal truth to all claims. 

(Dignity Attack)- And I am taken back that you think you can push any claim against me without your full sound warrant… I want evidence, please? 

Attacking the Person?

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

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

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.

“Ideas don’t deserve respect. In fact, they deserve the opposite: Examination, scrutiny, ridicule, dissection, taunting, testing, testing, testing. Until only the ideas which survive the most rigorous and repeated testing of every type, including cruel and unsociable taunts, are left standing. Ideas have no feelings. Ideas have no emotions. Ideas can’t be injured.” – Atheist Commenter 

“Ideas should be only valued based on their logical benefit to human existence. For example, human rights make sense, we can and have examined, dissected them, and put them under much scrutiny. Unfortunately, even now we are still fighting for them despite the evidence of their benefit when we apply them. The same thing goes with traffic laws, we follow these procedures because their logic and use, in reality, has shown to prevent accidents. They make sense. God? Not proven to exist, believing it exists has no benefit to humanity in reality. Suffice to say, I agree with you. I just wanted to explain why. I want only the best ideas to survive, only the strongest ideas to be promulgated. That which can be destroyed by the truth, should be destroyed by the truth.” – Marquis Amon 


Religions Promote Pseudo-Morality

If you are a religious believer in your religion’s exclusive brand of confessed morality, 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? All religions have some form of self-shaming institution, such as “sin” or its equivalents such as karma or something else often used to describe actions that create negative self-outlook or other-outlook where truly there is none. 

This idea of sin points out how religions promote pseudo-morality. The easiest aspect to grasp about pseudo-morality is when it is claimed that you can do something immoral to yourself that is pseudo-morality. True morality is how one conducts themselves with others. There is no ethical violation of self. To understand this concept considers how consent violations are unethical and how one does not need to get consent from oneself. Thus, there cannot be a consent violation against “self” and the aspect of sin is pseudo-morality, which promotes that there can be a violation of the self. 

Some will try to say that the violation is of a god but this is wrong because this is saying that someone else has control over what ethical things you do to yourself and what you do to yourself under your own consent. Likewise, another aspect of pseudo-morality is how religions seem to take the position that those people over there are different. Once you separate yourself from others, it is a short step from that to dehumanizing them. Once you do that, you open the door to hate people and dehumanizing hate tends to lead to violence. 

Imagine you are god with all the normal powers claimed by religions: What would you do, to (for) the world, if you were god for a day? What wrongs would you right? What diseases would you wipe out? Who would you help? What peoples would you bless such that they were able to turn themselves around and really prosper? Now ask yourself: why does the religionist’s claimed god(s) not DO these things? Answer: because most humans just like you are more moral and caring than god(s) that is why.

As an axiological atheist, I understand and utilize value or actually “Value Consciousness” to both give a strong moral “axiological” argument (the problem of evil) as well as use it to fortify my humanism and positive ethical persuasion of human helping and care. Value-blindness gives rise to sociopathic evil. 

Marquis Amon – “As for as pseudo morality goes, one can easily determine the difference is. You pointed out that morality affects others as behavior which is either beneficial or detrimental. Lust for example. If I desire a woman, have sexual thoughts of her but not touch or inform her, she is not affected. Essentially claiming otherwise is indicative to a thought crime. You have made this point yourself. Wrath? I am angry, but as you say, if you don’t allow it to transform into unethical behavior, there is no violation of another. Pride, same thing, of course, it can be detrimental because it could increase one’s ego, however, it in and of itself is not an ethical violation. Sloth? There is an animal called that, it lives its life just fine. Envy is another baseless moral point. “You have a great wife, I wish I was married to her”. Again, harmless if there is no unethical behavior. Eating a forbidden apple, fantasy.
Jesus spoke to a woman who asked him to heal her daughter, he regards her people as dogs feeding on scraps of the table of masters. After insulting her, she still begs him, he agrees only on seeing her faith of him. In other words, he dehumanized her, specifically inequality. Simple question. Could humans be moral without religion? Yes. We evolved this way for positive social maintenance.”


Addressing the Seven Dreaded Thinking Errors of Atheism

1. Don’t use or follow “Faith-Thinking” as any kind of support for beliefs; especially strong believes in anything, even more, be careful to not use, full-belief, in general, before reasonable investigation.

2. Don’t use or follow “Strong-Belief(s)” without reasonable justification like sound epistemic evidence. Not without valid and/or reliable reason and/or evidence as a sound/good support/justification for reasoned beliefs should.

3. Don’t use or follow “Strong Unsupported Claim(s), like claiming to know things you do not or cannot really claim justifiably to know. Knowing means you have epistemic evidence to convince others by its soundness and evidence quality.

4. Don’t fear or resist being thoughtfully questioned, if you are right you may get t grasp this better if wrong you are giving yourself the opportunity to see it differently, and if needed, change or amend the old thinking, belief(s), assumption(s), found wanting. Lies, fear questions truth should welcome them.

5. Don’t fear or resist Facts/Truth, instead of loving sound/soundness in offered/believed/accepted/assumed which is supported and justified with epistemic certainty that is valid and reliable in its nature or attributes.

6. Don’t “Fear or Resist” saying, you do not “know” when you don’t know. I know that seems simple, but few do it publicly enough. Do it more often!!!

7.  Don’t use, follow, or unsupported beliefs/thinking “Faithism-Beliefs”, and after new explanation(s)/evidence(s)/justification(s) shows a need to adapt or change, you eagerly change. Especially after intellectually honest investigation shows or at least seems to express the old thinking/beliefs hold errors, or are even, possibly, now fully disproved, or deeply removed from the accuracy with the valid and reliable reason and/or evidence that is shown epistemically sound. 

I value a reasoned thinking standard of myself as a Rationalist:

I hold a belief etiquette, that we should strive, to not believe things without first having reasoned belief acquisitions. Then good belief maintenance to check up on old assumed beliefs to see if their accuracy still matches the available evidence and/or reason. And lastly, honest belief relinquishment to any beliefs found wanting and amending those that still can be somewhat saved with new adapted changes. 

Ask yourself honestly what is a god anyway?

Not some labeled name gifted arbitrarily but the actual thing put forward as the thing the label is describing as this god-something? How can we not reject the concept of gods, aka: supposed supreme magical beings, when not even some simple magic is supported in reality. So how then is it not even more ridiculous to claim some supreme magic aka: gods which are even further from reality?

Again, What is a god?

“David Hume’s considered view that in respect of our idea of god we have no relevant impression(s) that can serve as the origin of this idea. Given his theory of meaning, this leaves the term god “altogether insignificant” making him, to me, an Ignostic Atheist. The fundamental point that emerges is that Hume agrees with Hobbes that in respect of our idea of god our predicament is much the same as that of a blind man trying to form the idea of fire, making Hobbes also an Ignostic Theist, to me.” ref

“Ignosticism is the idea that the question of the existence of God is meaningless, because the term “god” has no unambiguous definition. Ignosticism requires a good, non-controversial definition of god before arguing on its existence.” ref


So, what is a god?

I Am a Different Kind of Atheist: 

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

I am an axiological atheist and Axiological Atheism is like humanistic anti-theism and anti-religionism with strong secularism. And to more quickly understand Axiological Atheism, it is like humanistic anti-theism and anti-religionism with strong secularism.

Highlighting Sound-Reasoning? 

Religious beliefs often don’t stay in the “belief” category, as if it is something chosen temporarily if needed or changeable if required. No, what is most common is that religious beliefs are completely infused to the person’s identity, thus it’s not what they believe it is more a factor of who they are. What this means is if they are later challenged and given reason to let the belief go this is largely disrupted because they and the belief are mixed with the person’s identity making its loss, not just a possible belief loss but a perceived personal identity loss. Faith is being inspired to strong belief in that which, by the lack of proof, should inspire strong doubt. Faith is the self-indoctrination process of coming to believe in unjustified belief.

The turbulent seas of denial are ever crashing like a tsunami of avoidance on religion’s shores. With minds of cognitive decadence and intellectual dishonesty, they welcome this eroding of the religion-believers perceived need to change belief in the face of facts when they want to keep belief regardless. Thus, they joyfully dive in swimming deep under denials dark waters to the safety of blind ignorance.

Religions continuing in our modern world, full of science and facts, should be seen as little more than a set of irrational conspiracy theories of reality. Nothing more than a confused reality made up of unscientific echoes from man’s ancient past. Rational thinkers must ask themselves why continue to believe in religions’ stories. Religion myths which are nothing more than childlike stories and obsolete tales once used to explain how the world works, acting like magic was needed when it was always only nature.

These childlike religious stories should not even be taken seriously, but sadly too often they are. Often without realizing it, we accumulate beliefs that we allow to negatively influence our lives. In order to bring about awareness, we need to be willing to alter skewed beliefs. Rational thinkers must examine the facts instead of blindly following beliefs or faith.

Normalize people being nice to you without assuming they wanna sex. I strive to be nice to everyone but out of humanity, not sex seeking. I am not claiming to not have sex needs but it is not why I do kindness. I think people of high character should express humanity as freely as others seem to champion hate. I have Compassion, not Patience as an Atheist Activist. When challenging other on most things can induce aggressive feelings, thinking, words or behaviors thus failing at the excellence of thoughtfulness, openness, and compassion When we see people that have been indoctrinated as a child to believe it requires in, to me, for us nonbeliever atheist to require compassion for those we see as being blinded by forces in the mind of their past, that informed them in what to think or believe and they are hindered from reanalyzing the reason of what should or should not be believed. 

I know I hold deep compassion for them, as I was them until 35 years old in college. Before that, I had started school to become a Christian counselor for alcohol and drug addiction, and during that learning, mainly I realized the truth of atheism. Having Bias-Blindness is easy as biases happen without even trying, however, the removing or overcoming of bias takes a lot of deliberate work. The hard work one puts into self-improvement is a lifetime gift to their wellbeing and likely that of others around them as well. 

Scientific atheism: uses the scientific method to justify non-belief in gods or the supernatural and scientific atheists may also reject all things not materialistic or evolutionary derived. Scientific atheists often start with the position of philosophical atheism and then, due to their scientific theorizing, concluding that the actions of a “god” have no place in any scientifically-controlled experiment and are simply myths people created to explain the natural scientific world they in less modern times could not understand. Informed consensus rule is a cornerstone of Atheistic thought. Scientific Atheism works on the principle that the utilisation of credible evidence in personal, political and national decisions be the main guide for societies. The consequences of choices take into account the understanding of a common empathy and compassion. Scientific Atheism analytically examines the failings of systems, which allow preferential treatment to the disadvantage of arbitrarily victimised groups. It acknowledges that the rich tapestry of humanity is not open to the selective interpretation of writings from ignorant times. ref 

Pigeonholing scientific Atheism into a decidedly unacceptable category reeks of irresponsible promotion. It misrepresents a positive response to the dire circumstances afflicting a world in turmoil. Scientific Atheism places Homo sapiens in proper perspective in the Universe, away from unevidenced, dangerous and improbable illusions erroneously manufactured in the superstitious cauldrons of antiquity. Scientific Atheism unequivocally affirms that we are alone in a cosmos devoid of supernatural realms. The existence of such mental notions are invalidated by the total absence of evidence. Consequently, humanity has to deal with the psychological implications of that knowledge effectively if we are to survive. ref

Naturalist atheism: naturalist atheism is the philosophical doctrine that the observable physical world is all there is thus there can be no god. Most philosophers of science adhere strictly to this view and positively deny that any supernatural or miraculous effects or forces are possible thus one is almost required to hold a view of atheism. Naturalist atheists are driven by the humility lacking desire to plumb the depths of reality, to know what objectively exists, to understand how things fundamentally work, and to have maximally transparent explanations of phenomena. Naturalist atheism thus is a philo-scientific way of knowing what can justifiably believe which gets us reliable beliefs about the world. Naturalist atheism can be called a philo-scientific epistemology because it combines openness to philosophical critique with a reliance on scientific criteria of explanatory adequacy as vetted by that critique and the actual practice of science. Naturalist atheism holds that science and philosophy are continuous, interpenetrating and collaborative in our investigation of reality; neither is foundational to the other. Naturalist atheism mainly wants not to be deceived by supernatural or divine being claims, or to make errors of logic or method or assumptions when understanding the world which leave open the possibility of a God’s existence. ref

Materialistic atheism: materialists most likely value physicalism and may say that morality and concepts of god evolved thus extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence so god is not reality nor is such myths authoritative. Atheists are usually materialists of some sort, rejecting the idea that there exists anything independent of the workings of matter and energy. Materialism often entails atheism unless a person believes in a purely physical god, but atheism does not entail materialism. It may be hard to believe in a god in a materialistic philosophy, but an atheistic philosophy need not be materialistic. Materialistic atheism could involve an individualistic thinking earthier consciously or subconsciously to fulfill a survival of the fittest “things” or “needs” (to consume or accumulate) in order to “survive” are a value physicalism requires since you are the only thing you can count on, knowing no god is waiting to help. ref

Empiricism atheism: empiricism is an epistemological theory which argues that all knowledge must be acquired a posteriori and that nothing can be known a priori. Another way of putting it is that empiricism denies the existence of purely intellectual knowledge and argues that only sense-knowledge can exist. Empiricism is a common philosophical belief among many atheists. They believe that empirical science is the only true path to understanding. If you cannot see it, smell it, taste it, hear it, etc., it cannot be known. Empiricism atheists say that if you cannot prove something empirically, such as the existence of God, you are irrational for believing it. ref, ref 

Promoting Religion as Real is Mentally Harmful to a Flourishing Humanity. To me, promoting religion as real is too often promote a toxic mental substance that can divide a person from who they are shaming them for being human. In addition, religion is a toxic mental substance that can divide a person from real history, real science or real morality to pseudohistory, pseudoscience, and pseudomorality. Moreover, religion is a toxic mental substance that can divide a person from rational thought, critical thinking, or logic. Likewise, religion is a toxic mental substance that can divide a person from justice, universal ethics, equality, and liberty. 

Yes, religion is a toxic mental substance that can divide a person from loved ones, and religion is a toxic mental substance that can divide a person from humanity. Therefore, to me, promoting religion as real is too often promote a toxic mental substance that should be rejected as not only false but harmful as well even if you believe it has some redeeming quality. To me, promoting religion as real is mentally harmful to a flourishing humanity. Religion may have once seemed great when all you had or needed was to believe. Science now seems great when we have facts and need to actually know. Theism is presented as adding love to your life… 

But to me, more often it peddles in ignorance (pseudo-science, pseudo-history, and pseudo-morality), tribalism (strong in-group loyalty if you believe like them and aversion to difference; like shunning: social rejection, emotional distance, or ostracism), and psychological terrorism; primarily targeting well being both safety and comfort (you are born a sinner, you are evil by nature, you are guilty of thought crimes, threats of misfortune, suffering, and torture “hell”). 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. I have made many mistakes in my life but the most common one of all is my being resistant to change. However, now I wish to be more, to be better, as I desire my openness to change if needed, not letting uncomfortable change hold me back. 

May I be a rationalist, holding fast to a valued belief etiquette: demanding reasoned belief acquisitions, good belief maintenance, and honest belief relinquishment. Quit Trying to Invent Your God From the Scraps of Science. What religious in most of their arguments try to do, is to act as if they reverse engineer facts of reality, trying to prove a god something or other has to be the only way it could be the way it is. Of course, as an atheist but more importantly a supporter of science and the valid and reliable reason and evidence they work from I know religion is false. I know the work of reverse engineer facts of reality has largely been done and is being done by science which is why we know about the truth of evolution over creationism in the first place as well as the truth of reality that contradicts or completely challenges any argument the supporters of religion can offer. I realize they are trying to reoffer thinking that is already reasonably been disregarded as the wishful thinking fantasies it always was. 

No, science CAN NOT be with religion. Science is a method to understand the world as it is, which is naturalistic only, not one shred of magic. In fact, the scientific method assumes Methodological Naturalism, because that is all that has ever been found and is the most likely thing that ever will be found. As religion is not intended to represent the world as it is but instead what it is not the stupid supernatural, which is the thing of fantasy, wishful thinking, and delusion. Science is a system where justified true beliefs are derived from objective methodologies such as the scientific method and religion is a system of unjustified beliefs based on subjective faith or revelation. 

While scientists can agree upon the empirical nature of science, the steps from observations to law or theory are not without philosophical issues thus our beliefs. But as I say they are justified true beliefs validated with reliability following reason and evidence to reach beliefs worthy to be called knowledge religion is not. The issue of word usage of belief is troubling for many science-minded thinkers who don’t get the epistemology consideration of words they mostly think of standard usage. In epistemology, knowledge is an epistemic property of belief, as in general when a belief is justified and true because of valid and/or reliable reason and evidence it is warranted to be called knowledge. Many still think that ‘to believe’ has no connection with ‘to know’ believing this because it is thought ‘knowledge’ is derived from facts and ‘belief’ is derived without facts, so the verbs knowing and believing too many are therefore seen different. 

Science, as we know it is not just an accumulation of facts or evidence from observation and experimentation it is also interpretation which that can turn into scientific knowledge, scientific laws, and scientific theories. But it is this interpretation that reaches conclusions which are “accepted” as knowledge is saying epistemologically are a justified true belief which equals knowledge. Religion Vc. Science, don’t confuse beliefs. We must not confuse beliefs, religion is beliefs built from myths devoid of corroborating evidence. Science uses corroborating evidence to establish what is true and that offers something worthy to believe.


Rationalist atheism: Almost all rationalists are atheists or agnostics. There has been a long link between rationalism and the scientific method. There is also a long tradition of philosophers who have approached philosophical and ethical questions from a rationalist perspective. Bertrand Russell’s “The Faith of a Rationalist” is an example of a rationalist approach to religious belief. Rationalism is an approach to life-based on reason and evidence. Rationalism encourages ethical and philosophical ideas that can be tested by experience and rejects authority that cannot be proved by experience. Because rationalism encourages people to think for themselves, rationalists have many different and diverse ideas and continue in a tradition from the nineteenth century known as freethought. However, most rationalists would agree. There is no evidence for any arbitrary supernatural authority e.g. God or Gods. The best explanation so far for why the natural world looks the way it does is the theory of evolution first put forward by Charles Darwin. 

All human beings should have fundamental rights. Some rationalists and humanists go further and argue that animals should also have rights as they are living, sensate beings. Society is should be an “open society”, where each individual is able to live “freely and equally practice their chosen life stance, and in which human potential is realized to the benefit of the individual and the community at large.” (Levi Fragell, President of International Humanist and Ethical Union, 2001) As well as approaching life through reason, rationalists enjoy those things in life where emotion and imagination are to the fore. Rationalist atheists wish to follow and inspire in others a desire or value in or for epistemology, axiology, and rationality. 

Rationalist atheists want to strive for a corresponding and coherent value assessment along with an epistemological rationally, rational epistemology, as well as an accurate or at least a methodological rationally connecting to an epistemic value of the epistemology state of things or ideas. Rationalist atheists want to know what is it to be Rational? To be “rational” is generally considered to mean employing logical consistency and deriving appropriate conclusions from acceptable assumptions. Epistemic value is a kind of value which attaches to cognitive successes such as true beliefs, justified beliefs, knowledge, and understanding. 

These kinds of cognitive success do of course often have practical value. True beliefs about local geography help us get to work on time; knowledge of mechanics allows us to build vehicles; understanding of general annual weather patterns helps us to plant our fields at the right time of year to ensure a good harvest. By contrast, false beliefs about the existence of weapons of mass destruction can lead nations to fight hugely expensive wars that are ultimately both destructive and useless. It is fairly uncontroversial that we tend to care about having various cognitive or epistemic goods, at least for their practical value, and perhaps also for their own sakes as cognitive successes. 

There is not just one type of rationalism or use of rationally. Epistemic rationality: believing, and updating on evidence, so as to systematically improve the correspondence between your map and the territory. The art of obtaining beliefs that correspond to reality as closely as possible. This correspondence is commonly termed “truth” or “accuracy”, and we’re happy to call it that. Instrumental rationality: achieving your values. Not necessarily “your values” in the sense of being selfish values or unshared values: “your values” means anything you care about. The art of choosing actions that steer the future toward outcomes ranked higher in your preferences. On LW we sometimes refer to this as “winning”. 1 2 3

I am a Rationalist, I wish to follow and inspire in others a desire or value in or for epistemology, axiology, and rationality. I want to strive for a corresponding and coherent value assessment along with an epistemological rationally, rational epistemology, as well as an accurate or at least a methodological rationally connecting to an epistemic value of the epistemology state of things or ideas. What is it to be Rational? To be “rational” is generally considered to mean employing logical consistency and deriving appropriate conclusions from acceptable assumptions. Epistemic value is a kind of value which attaches to cognitive successes such as true beliefs, justified beliefs, knowledge, and understanding. 

These kinds of cognitive success do of course often have practical value. True beliefs about local geography help us get to work on time; knowledge of mechanics allows us to build vehicles; understanding of general annual weather patterns helps us to plant our fields at the right time of year to ensure a good harvest. By contrast, false beliefs about the existence of weapons of mass destruction can lead nations to fight hugely expensive wars that are ultimately both destructive and useless. It is fairly uncontroversial that we tend to care about having various cognitive or epistemic goods, at least for their practical value, and perhaps also for their own sake as cognitive successes. Ref 

There is not just one type of rationalism or use of rationally. Epistemic rationality: believing, and updating on evidence, so as to systematically improve the correspondence between your map and the territory. The art of obtaining beliefs that correspond to reality as closely as possible. This correspondence is commonly termed “truth” or “accuracy”, and we’re happy to call it that. Instrumental rationality: achieving your values. Not necessarily “your values” in the sense of being selfish values or unshared values: “your values” means anything you care about. The art of choosing actions that steer the future toward outcomes ranked higher in your preferences. On LW we sometimes refer to this as “winning”. Ref 

Be thoughtful in what you say, because, words once released have power, due them being a method of transferring feelings not just ideas. Words are world builders and dramatic destructors. They can build mental castles to protect or dungeons to torment. May I strive to be kind to others with my words. And, I think back on my life, it’s not the times I was the most selfish but the times I was kind, that brighten my life. May I now make an even stronger effort to do so in all I do, as it’s so valuable to an enriched wellbeing in life. It saddens me when proponents of atheism also seem to be proponents of anti-intellectualism either in rejecting philosophy or science. I am against all pseudoscience, pseudohistory, and pseudo-morality and the harm they can produce. I am a rationalist, as well as an atheist. 

Therefore, I am happy to correct the errors in thinking many atheists, agnostics, and skeptics may have, mainly because of the overconfidence in skepticism and the lack of a respect for the supremacy reason needed for logic which is needed to standardize validity. Religion should be seen as ancient mythology to be marveled and laughed at, rather than promoted as truth when it is only feeble pseudo-truth. And why do we so often error it thinking to wish on myths and not believe in scientific proven “godless-reality”, is because We are emotional beings who have a thinking strategy called reason we only sometimes use. Simply, We are not rational beings who have a bonding strategy called emotions we sometimes use. People all the time talk about, “I believe” in regards to religion and gods. No, likely you never had a chance to first investigate all the facts then choose what to believe or not believe. 

You like everyone else raised in a religious house were indoctrinated to the same religion your family held before your birth. So you did not so much “believe” as “give in and slavishly agreed” to what you were told. Thus, you are more rightly called an agreer then a believer, especially when you don’t read the holy book you say you totally believe in. It seems to me, religious believers are usually ignorant of the truth or willfully uninformed, foolish or indoctrinated to keep believing these conspiracy theories of reality that religions are with their magic claims, when presented with the facts and stupid or brainwashed to keep believing when they realize that the beliefs they have contained falsehoods, inaccurate information, or lies. 

Atheists talk about gods and religions for the same reason doctors talk about cancer, they are looking for a cure or a firefighter talking about fires because they burn people and they care to stop them. We atheists too often feel a need to help the victim’s of mental slavery, held in the bondage that is the false beliefs of gods and the conspiracy theories of reality found in religions. Science is a multidisciplinary methodological quest for truth. Rationalism, Freethinker, Humanism & Secular humanism? Rationalism is a philosophy in which a high regard is given to reason (specifically logic) and to empirical observation. Freethinker a person who forms his or her own opinions about important subjects (such as religion and politics) instead of accepting what other people say. 

Humanism is a philosophical and ethical stance that emphasizes the value and agency of human beings, individually and collectively, and generally prefers critical thinking and evidence (rationalism, empiricism) over established doctrine or faith (fideism). Secular humanism is a comprehensive, nonreligious life-stance incorporating: A naturalistic philosophy. A cosmic outlook rooted in science. A consequentialist ethical system. 

Moreover, HUMANISM: to me, is relatively the philosophic thinking that humans can solve human problems by human means, without feeling a need to appeal to the likes of holy books, mystical anything, nor the belief in gods or religions. But, instead, aspires to a true belief in humanity, viewing it with a persuasion of equality. This caring realist thinking found in humanism utilizes an unstated assumption or aspiration, to do no harm as much as possible and to do good whenever one can. 

The need for Epistemic Rationality. I hate when you are so ignorant about something that you have no idea just how ignorant you are about it and sadly likewise don’t even know where to correctly seek out what you need to stop being as ignorant about it as you are. Being Epistemically Rational?

The Way of a Sound Thinker?Sound Thinkers don’t value FAITH

Sound thinking to me, in a general way, is thinking, reasoning, or belief that tends to make foresight a desire to be as accurate as one can with valid and reliable reason and evidence.

A General Thinking in all My Epistemology Theorizing is Justificationism

“Damien, I am an atheist but I have faith in gravity tho, but it isn’t exactly “faith.” – Challenger 

My response, No, I don’t agree, you don’t have faith in gravity or gravitation, as it is “a fundamental force” you have proof or if lacking some direct proof would use inference and if even less evidence you use conjecture, not faith. Do you gauntly thinking you need faith in gravity because you wonder or worry that when walking down a set of stairs that you going to fall back up? You don’t need faith (strong belief without evidence) as there is massive proof, almost to the point that it is easily self-evident. You don’t need faith (strong belief without evidence) for anything, as if it’s warranted it will or should have evidence or it doesn’t deserve not only strong belief but any amount of belief at all as sound beliefs need something to ground their worthiness in relation to reality; the only place evidence comes. “Gravity, or gravitation, is a natural phenomenon by which all things with mass are brought toward (or gravitate toward) one another, including planets, stars, and galaxies. Gravity is responsible for various phenomena observed on Earth and throughout the Universe; for example, it causes the Earth and the other planets to orbit the Sun, the Moon to orbit the Earth, the formation of tides, the formation and evolution of the Solar System, stars and galaxies. Since energy and mass are equivalent, all forms of energy, including light, also cause gravitation and are under the influence of it. On Earth, gravity gives weight to physical objects and causes the ocean tides. The gravitational attraction of the original gaseous matter present in the Universe caused it to begin coalescing, forming stars – and the stars to group together into galaxies – so gravity is responsible for many of the large-scale structures in the Universe.” Ref

Sound axiological judgment, to me, a “presumptive-value” success, is value judged opinions expressed as facts with a valid and reliable justification. In an informal and psychological sense, it is used in reference to the quality of cognitive faculties and adjudicational (relating to adjudication) capabilities of particular individuals, typically called wisdom or discernment. In a legal sense, – used in the context of a legal trial, to refer to a final finding, statement, or ruling, based on a considered weighing of evidence, called, “adjudication“.

A shallow thinker (i.e. not a Deep Thinker, a person whose thoughts are reasonedmethodological, logical, empirical, profound; an intellectual) quickly talks, often with boastful postulations, likely just as often pushed strongly and loudly as if this adds substance, and they do this before fully understanding what’s is really involved. 

Whereas, a Sound Thinker is reasoned (comparative more reasoned, superlative most reasoned) generally based on reasoning; being the result of logical thought. As a first debate process, a Sound Thinker commonly poses Questions to understand slowing down and assessing all the facts or factors involved and then builds their argument or ideas. In classical logic, the law of non-contradiction (LNC) (also known as the law of contradiction, principle of non-contradiction (PNC), or the principle of contradiction) states that contradictory statements cannot both be true in the same sense at the same time, e.g. the two propositions “A is B” and “A is not B” are mutually exclusive. It is the second of the three classic laws of thought.

Sound thinking, to me, in a general way, is thinking, reasoning, or belief

that tends to make foresight a desire to be as accurate as one can

with valid and reliable reason (sound reasioning) and evidence.

Dogmatic–Propaganda vs. Disciplined-Rationality (Highlighting Sound-Reasoning?)

Religionists and fideists, promote Dogmatic-Propaganda whereas atheists and antireligionists mostly promote Disciplined-Rationality. Dogmatic–Propaganda commonly is a common motivator of flawed or irrational thinking but with over seventy belief biases identified in people, this is hardly limited to just the religious or faith inclined. Let me illustrate what I am saying, to me all theists are believing lies or irrationally in that aspect of their lives relating to god belief. So the fact of any other common intellectual indexers where there may be Right (sound reasoning) reason in beliefs cannot remove the flawed god belief corruption being committed. What I am saying is like this if you kill one person you are a killer. 

Sound/Soundness is often used to mean sure/sureness/epistemic certainty, or clear and reasoned reasoning, or critically throughout thinking. Sound reasoning/thinking is simply reasoning that makes sense and follows some sort of logic. Sound reasoning means logical reasoning. Reasoning in this context is similar to meaning that one can give, has given, or will give epistemic quality support or justification reasons and it involves logic. ref 

If you believe in one “god” I know you are a follower of Dogmatic-Propaganda and can not completely be a follower of Disciplined-Rationality. However, I am not proclaiming all atheists are always rational as irrationally is a revolving door many people believe or otherwise seem to stumble through. It’s just that god-belief does this with intentionally. Religion and it’s god myths are like a spiritually transmitted disease of the mind. This infection even once cured holds mental disruption which can linger on for a lifetime.

Disciplined-Rationality is motivated by principles of correct reasoning with emphasis on valid and reliable methods or theories leading to a range of rational standpoints or conclusions understanding that concepts and beliefs often have consequences thus hold an imperative for truth or at least as close to epistemic truth as can be acquired rejecting untruth. Disciplined-Rationality can be seen as an aid in understanding the fundamentals for knowledge, sound evidence, justified true belief and involves things like decision theory and the concern with identifying the value(s), reasonableness, verification, certainties, uncertainties, and other relevant issues resulting in the clearest optimal decision/conclusion and/or belief/disbelief. 

Disciplined-Rationality attempts to understand the justification or lack thereof in propositions and beliefs concerning its self with various epistemic features of belief, truth, and/or knowledge, which include the ideas of justification, warrant, rationality, reliability, validity, and probability. I can say I know that no gods exist because a god is a non-reality commodity (unjustified claim referring to a proposed thing not evident in reality). Thus, by definition is not a thing that exists in reality, therefore such a claimed thing is not real to reality, and this means in reality gods don’t exist. Unless you have some reality provable facts to support claims of these non-reality gods to which are unjustifiably claimed? 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. 

Religion has been a reason for violence and harm and at times a promoter of peace. Science does not need to fill the gap of religion. We need to remove it as it was always an abstraction not a realistic thing to being with. Not one thing religion offers that is thought of as good that cannot be done by persons not following any religion. Atheist generally is simply life with religion removed, all its pseudo meaning as well as pseudoscience, pseudohistory, and pseudo-morality. We have real science, realistic history and can access real morality with a blend of philosophy, anthropology, psychology, sociology, and cognitive science. 

World, do you hear me now, because you were nothing but silent as I suffered extreme religious oppression and to this news, you simply spit in my face telling my religious freedom and all I can think is, no, you mean my parent’s religious freedom, which may I remind you is a violation of my religious freedom and was instead my religious oppression. Where are you now, while millions await this same fate if you keep doing nothing? If the only rights you fight for are your own, then you have a lot to learn about the value of rights. Childhood Indoctrination is often the gateway drug, to a life of irrational magical thinking superstitions, like ghosts, gods, or guardian spirits.

ps. “Sound Thinker”, “Shallow Thinker”, “Dogmatic–Propaganda” & “Disciplined-Rationality” are concepts/terms I created*

My goal is not just to be an atheist but use my life and talent to create Educational Writing, Art, Blogs, Video, Speaking, and Poetry a lot of them which I use directly or indirectly for my out atheism activism, thus I am mostly an activist, to me. Am I a survivor? I fell as you tripped me again and from your hate, I remove myself from such mind and being corruption freely walking into the gates of love so longed for. You have not beaten me, you cannot stop me, you don’t want me to live, to thrive, to be all the best I can be but you hate, and yet I am still here, a survivor, a full life liver, a thriver, as well as a warrior for kindness and compassion, reaching the care I was rarely offered, as a gift to the ones so desperately oppressed under your harsh gaze. 

May we all be free and the positive best we can be, I know I am as best I can. I am here growing stronger every day. Who am I, you ask, I respond loud and proud, I am a survivor and even in these chains from my past, you will not stop me. Sometimes, we need to see the truth, that many people are liars and deniers while claiming they are believers. Once we stop seeing the dignity of others we feel free to violate them with impunity. But when dignity is a friend respect has become once path. I am a survivor! May I not be a silent watcher as millions of children are subjugated almost before their birth let alone when they can understand thought and are forcibly coerced, compelled, constrained, and indoctrinated in the mental pollution that religion can be. My main goal against religion is to fully stop as much as possible forced indoctrination, one could ask but then why do I challenge all adults faith? well, who do you think is doing the lying to children in the first place. End Hereditary religion, if its a belief let them the equal right to choose to believe.

Some people may notice I am kind of a different kind of atheist this is because I am an axiological atheist (value theory or value science atheist). Axiological Atheism is like humanistic anti-theism and anti-religionism with strong secularism. Remember when someone announces that they are an atheist; listeners may assume there is only one type of atheist available, when really she is a different type of atheist. As an axiological atheist Axiology is a large motivation and it is value theory which is a lens to view and valuize or value judge worth or what is worthy as well as what is good or bad of greater or lesser value. 

To read more on value theory check it out online at: Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (value theory) Link

As an axiological atheist, I see intrinsic value in people and want them to see that value in themselves as well as others. Doing such would never allow for a god who devalues you and asks you to devalue others. Similarly to follow such a high standard I too must value myself, value others, and strive to help other people value others. I strive to be as strong in devaluing myths and lies as I am in valuing the person who may hold them. Value to an axiologist has multiple realms/categories and meanings going from internal value, external value, and systemic or global value. Likewise, there can be value distinctions differentiating, for example, between the instrumental value (being good for some purpose) and technical value (being good at doing something) or between the contributory value (being good as part of a whole) and final value (being good as a whole).  

Marquis Amon – “Axiological atheism makes sense on the premise that god is a nonempirical being. Next, as you address, it is a null hypothesis.An idea that through testing has proven to be false. It was Epicurus who addressed the no goodness in god most famously. The presence of evil and the inaction of god either means god is powerless against evil or allows it. If god is powerless against evil, god deserves no regard. If god allows it, then god is evil. Then let us consider the “Hitchen’s challenge” that is to say does religion offer any benefit that lacks a secular equivalent. So far, no one ever found one… So that means in terms of reality that all human accomplishments come from humans only(no god/divine intervention). So we can say that morality and any claim associated with god is false and the metaphysical position says these things are evolutionary in human development.”

To read more on axiology check it out online at: Encyclopedia Britannica (axiology) Link 

To read more on the science of axiology check it out online at: Robert S. Hartman Institute (applications of axiology) Link 

Axiological Atheism is a type of atheist philosophy it can be thought of as similar to existentialist antitheism and Humanist antitheism. Moreover, here is a short explanation from Wikipedia, Axiological atheism: “Axiological, or constructive, atheism rejects the existence of gods in favor of a “higher absolute”, such as humanity. This form of atheism favors humanity as the absolute source of ethics and values permitting individuals to resolve moral problems without resorting to God. Marx and Freud used this argument to convey messages of liberation, full-development, and unfettered happiness. One of the most common criticisms of atheism has been to the contrary—that denying the existence of a god leads to moral relativism, leaving one with no moral or ethical foundation, or renders life meaningless and miserable. Blaise Pascal argued this view in his Pensées.” To read more on atheist philosophies check it out online at: Wikipedia (Atheism – Atheist philosophies) Link 

Axiological Atheism would affirm rejecting gods and does not have to lead to moral nihilism or moral relativism but can allow and axiological atheism supports a kind of atheistic objective morality foundation. Also, axiological atheism supports that life has value and meaning as well as can be rich and meaningful. To read more on objective morality check it out online at: Strong Atheism (case for objective morality) Link 

Again, some may not like what I am but your lack of agreement to my educated philosophical unbelief stance does little to either diminish its reticence or truth. Atheism is just the beginning; now it’s time to solve the harder questions. There are many different kinds of atheism but to offer a cleaner rough view here are a few organized common categories, 7 sets will be offered some kinds of atheism can be combined in a person, and some cannot.

1. Difference in Knowledge

2. Difference in Affirmation

3. Difference in Scope

4. Difference in the Assessed Rationality of Theism

5. Difference in Openness

6. Difference in Action

7. Difference in Bent on Religiosity

To read more on this check it out online at: Commonsense Atheism (17 Kinds of Atheism) Link 

Some may say it’s all atheism why complicate the issue? To say why complicate you’re thinking is paramount to saying “why Be educated at all in your unbelief?” “Why defend it with reasoning or evidence?” “Why strive to be more informed on the untruth of religion or gods?” That can’t truly be something we who are critical thinkers really support to champion an uninformed atheist position just because it is simpler? I support nonbelievers just calling themselves, an atheist. I am not saying my way of being an axiological atheist is the only or even the best way for all other nonbelievers, in fact, I only am only mentioned, “me”, my philosophical atheist stance and wanted to quickly explain how, why and in what way I disbelieve. 

I am not the thought police nor would I ever support that or let others be thought police to me. As they say atheism is not a group movement or a cult-like religion so to me there is no one correct liable all should or must follow. Just like how some atheists prefer bright, freethinker, skeptic, rationalist, secular humanist, etc. whatever xyz. We who value critical thinking must hold reason above opinions. So I say go you I value people being authentic in whatever way they see right to define their personal disbelief. Atheists come in a variety of shapes, colors, beliefs, convictions, and backgrounds. 

To read more on this check it out online at: American Atheists (What is Atheism?) Link 

Atheists, as a whole, are not a unified group, so the accusation that “atheists” are doing x, y, and z hold little water. In fact, a disaffection with organized religion, and the potential for groupthink, is what causes many believers to abandon faith and come out as atheists. It doesn’t follow that such individuals would happily join another organized group. The debate within the atheistic community is robust – debates even about whether there is even an “atheistic community” at all, for instance – and the fact that this debate exists presupposes no dogmatic mandate from an organized group. It does follow from this lack of organization that there is no atheist equivalent of the Bible, Koran, or other holy text. There are, of course, atheist writings, but one does not need to adhere to opinions held by Friedrich Nietzsche, Richard Dawkins or Christopher Hitchens to be considered an atheist. Some atheists will actively oppose what these kind of authors do and say. 

To read more on this check it out online at: Rational wiki (Atheism) Link 

Some argue strong atheists add some dictator killed people so we should not have hard atheist stances. I reject this as flawed thinking most claimed atheist killers did not kill for atheism but were killers who may have rejected the concept of gods. Likewise, in two other ways, I will reject this reasoning first my hard stance is humanitarian such as the hate of injustice is the motivation for justice. The other being even if atheists had killed it means little as it would be only the people involved. In a since all atheists are an island of personal persuasion, belief, and accountability. As such atheism is not an actual group or sect like a religion so we have no affiliations to the action or philosophical thinking of any other nonbelievers.


Axiological Atheist: Facebook Page

Axiological atheism: is a constructive Value centered ethics driven atheism which rejects the existence of gods in favor of a “higher absolute,” such as humanity and society. This form of atheism favors humanity as the absolute source of ethics and values, and permits individuals to resolve moral problems without resorting to faith or god myths. Axiological or constructive atheism conveys messages of liberation, full-development, and unfettered happiness. Axiological or constructive atheism life meaning in humanity, ethics, and values surpasses one of the most common criticisms of atheism that denying the existence of a god leads to moral relativism, leaving one with no moral or ethical foundation or renders life meaningless and miserable. Axiological Atheism can be thought to involve ethical/value theory reasoned and moral argument-driven atheism, anti-theism, anti-religionism, ignosticism, apatheism, secularism, and humanism. Axiological Atheist, can be understood as a value theory or value science Atheist. As such axiological atheism’s ethically reasoning 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 personal experience which to are vital values. Yet, after you have reached that initial “no god” answer, all the other important questions in life, all the options for mental and emotional wholeness and social and environmental harmony, ethics and morality, personal fulfillment, social values, philosophy, and psychology remain open. That is where “Axiological Atheism” holds a connection to both further challenging the god concept and devaluing religion and adding a value meaning and ethical axiological ideology to guide universally desirable secular ethical way of being or a value-driven life lived in this reality. What is Axiology, Formal Axiology & Axiological Profiling? Axiology is the name for “value theory.” It is derived from the Greek word “axios” meaning “worth.” Formal axiology is the logic-based science of value anchored in a “hierarchy of meaning” from the most meaningful or richest value to the most destructive or greatest value loss. The logic specifies 18 different levels of richness.

Hartman’s “hierarchy of value” is the mathematical measuring standard for human evaluative judgment and decision-making in life and in all social sectors of life in our culture. When people make value judgments, they use both their mental and emotional capacities to arrive at their decision. Some people have very solid and reliable decision-making abilities – while others routinely make wrong or inaccurate choices. Axiological profiles measure the quality of the respondent’s judgment and decision-making by gauging both their mental clarity and their emotional orientation & conditioning. Dr. Leon Pomeroy in his book, The New Science of Axiological Psychology (Pomeroy, 2005), has shown that formal axiology is also empirically valid. Thus, in our axiological assessment profiles we have the solid support of both scientific methods: the deductive logic-based axiomatic method and the inductive, empirical method. Dr. Pomeroy spent over 20 years collecting statistical data for his book cross-nationally, from numerous and diverse eastern and western countries and cultures, and proving that cultures all over the world make value judgments in the same way. Neuro‐Axiology: merges Neuroscience understanding how the brain works with Axiology’s formal science that makes possible the objective measurement of value how humans make value judgments. (You will ALWAYS choose what you think adds the MOST value to your life.) Accepting the standard of the neuroscientific model of consciousness means that everything we think, feel, remember, and do is a function of the brain. This includes the emotion of empathy. We are not empathic because it makes sense to be empathic – meaning that most humans don’t simply reason their way to empathy.

Nor do we simply learn empathy (although brain development is an interactive process with the environment, so we can’t rule out environmental influences). For the most part, we have empathy because our brains are wired with empathy as a specific function. Like every function of the body you can think of, if it is not essential for survival then some subset of the human population likely has a disorder or even absence of this function. We recognize the biological limits of empathy or absence of empathy as the disorder, psychopathy. It is estimated that about 1% of the general population are psychopaths, while about 20-30% of the US prison population. Dr. Robert S. Hartman discovered that people hold back a 40% latent reserve of cooperation and productivity until they have been valued as human beings. Axiology is the science of how humans value and make value judgments as well as how they relate to ethics (not moral values often religious or culture relative). The basics of Axiology are in its 3 Classes of Value and 6 “Advisors”. The following are the Classes of Value: 1. Systemic: plans, rules, best practices, procedures; ideas or expectations 2. Extrinsic: practical or situational; measurable, tracked; tasks (tangible) 3. Intrinsic: personal or transcendent; infinitely valuable; irreplaceable; human beings (intangibles). The following are the 6 Advisors which consist of 2 views of one inward and one outward and one must remember people are neither their thoughts nor their advisors. 1. World View: Empathy-Intuition “people”, Practical Judgment “tasks, & Systems Thinking “plans & ideas” 2. Self View: Self-Esteem “who you are”, Role Awareness “what you do,” & Self Direction “where you go”. 

The word “Axiological” (to the term “Axiological atheism” is meant to denote an atheistic “Value” rejection of the existence of gods or supreme beings and in favor of a “higher absolute” such as humanity or universal ethical principles. The perception of moral obligation removed from ethical sensitivity to universal justice [is] thus unintelligible as “higher absolute”. As a form of atheism, Axiological favors humanity as the absolute source of holistic ethics and care values which permits individuals to resolve moral problems without resorting to a god’s moral obligation which is anti-humanity and not needing to connect to equal justice. Axiological Atheism can be seen as ethically reasoned antitheism and antireligionism where it is all about axiology values that underlie the universal truths. A few examples of universal truths such as there is no such thing as just rape, no honorable thoughtful unwanted torture, and no just humanistic caring abuse of the innocent. You can offer excuses but the true values violations hold true. Axiologists are broadly concerned with all forms of value including aesthetic values, ethical values, and epistemic values. In a narrow sense, axiologists are concerned with what is intrinsically valuable or worthwhile—what is desirable for its own sake. All axiological issues are necessarily connected to ontological and epistemological assumptions. Axiology in Axiological Atheism can be seen as applying the science of morality, referring to its ethically naturalistic views basing morality on rational and empirical consideration of the natural world. The idea of a science of morality has been explored by writers like Joseph Daleiden in The Science of Morality: The Individual, Community, and Future Generations or more recently by neuroscientist Sam Harris in the 2010 book The Moral Landscape. Harris’ science of morality suggests that scientists using empirical knowledge, especially neuropsychology and metaphysical naturalism, in combination with axiomatic values as “first principles”, would be able to outline a universal basis for morality. Harris and Daleiden chiefly argue that society should consider normative ethics to be a domain of science whose purpose amounts to the pursuit of flourishing (well-being). “Science” should not be so narrowly defined as to exclude important roles for any academic disciplines which base their conclusions on the weight of empirical evidence. The term “science of morality” is also sometimes used for the description of moral systems in different cultures or species.

The axiological movement emerges from the phenomenological method. The axiologists sought to characterize the notion of value in general, of which moral value is only one species. They argue against Kant, that goodness does not exclusively derive from the will, but exists in objective hierarchies. They emphasize the extent to which it is through emotions and feelings that human beings discern values. The notion of right action is understood derivatively in terms of the values which emotions reveal. Evolutionary psychology seems to offer an account of the evolution of our “moral sense” (conscience) that dispenses with any reference to objective values. Its apparent elimination of objective values on the grounds of their being unneeded in explanation has led the skeptical writings of J.L. Mackie and Michael Ruse. By contrast, Robert Nozick has resisted this interpretation of evolution (1981) arguing that an evolutionary account of the moral sense can no more dispense with values than an evolutionary account of perception can dispense with perceptual objects objectively present in the world. Axiologists in contemporary ethics are Platonists such as Iris Murdoch and Neo-Kantian theorists such as John Rawls and Robert Nozick. Tenets of Secular Ethics involve a width and diversity of their philosophical views, but secular ethicists generally share one or more principles: • Human beings, through their ability to empathize, are capable of determining ethical grounds. • Human beings, through logic and reason, are capable of deriving normative principles of behavior. • Human beings have the moral responsibility to ensure that societies and individuals act based on these ethical principles. • Societies should if at all possible, advance from a less ethical, less empathy, and unjust form to a more ethical, more empathy and just form. 1 2 3

As an axiological atheist, I understand and utilize value or actually “Value Consciousness” to both give a strong moral “axiological” argument (the problem of evil) as well as use it to fortify my humanism and positive ethical persuasion of human helping and care. Value-blindness gives rise to sociopathic evil.

Disproof by logical contradiction

‘A Logical Impossibility’ Axiological “Presumptive-Value Failure”

“In classical logic, a contradiction consists of a logical incompatibility between two or more propositions. It occurs when the propositions, taken together, yield two conclusions that form the logical, usually opposite inversions of each other. Contradiction by the creation of a paradox, Plato’s Euthydemus dialogue demonstrates the need for the notion of contradiction. In the ensuing dialogue, Dionysodorus denies the existence of “contradiction”, all the while that Socrates is contradicting him: “… I in my astonishment said: What do you mean Dionysodorus? I have often heard, and have been amazed to hear, this thesis of yours, which is maintained and employed by the disciples of Protagoras and others before them, and which to me appears to be quite wonderful, and suicidal as well as destructive, and I think that I am most likely to hear the truth about it from you. The dictum is that there is no such thing as a falsehood; a man must either say what is true or say nothing. Is not that your position?” Indeed, Dionysodorus agrees that “there is no such thing as a false opinion … there is no such thing as ignorance” and demands of Socrates to “Refute me.” Socrates responds “But how can I refute you, if, as you say, to tell a falsehood is impossible?”.” – Wikipedia

No God: No evidence, No intelligence, and No goodness = Valid Atheism Conclusion

  1. No evidence, to move past the Atheistic Null Hypothesis: There is no God/Gods (in inferential statistics, a Null Hypothesis generally assumed to be true until evidence indicates otherwise. Thus, a Null Hypothesis is a statistical hypothesis that there is no significant difference reached between the claim and the non-claim, as it is relatively provable/demonstratable in reality some way. “The god question” Null Hypothesis is set at as always at the negative standard: Thus, holding that there is no God/Gods, and as god faith is an assumption of the non-evidentiary wishful thinking non-reality of “mystery thing” found in all god talk, until it is demonstratable otherwise to change. Alternative hypothesis: There is a God (offered with no proof: what is a god and how can anyone say they know), therefore, results: Insufficient evidence to overturn the null hypothesis of no God/Gods.
  2. No intelligence, taking into account the reality of the world we do know with 99 Percent Of The Earth’s Species Are Extinct an intelligent design is ridiculous. Five Mass Extinctions Wiped out 99 Percent of Species that have ever existed on earth. Therefore like a child’s report card having an f they need to retake the class thus, profoundly unintelligent design.
  3. No goodness, assessed through ethically challenging the good god assumptions as seen in the reality of pain and other harm of which there are many to demonstrates either a god is not sufficiently good, not real or as I would assert, god if responsible for this world, would make it a moral monster ripe for the problem of evil and suffering (Argument from Evil). God would be responsible for all pain as life could easily be less painful and yet there is mass suffering. In fact, to me, every child born with diseases from birth scream out against a caring or loving god with the power to do otherwise. It could be different as there is Congenital insensitivity to pain (CIP), also known as congenital analgesia, in which a person cannot feel (and has never felt) physical pain. ref

I am an Axiological (Theoretical and Normative VALUE Theorist philosopher) Atheist

“Axiology and Value Theory?”

“Value theory is a range of approaches to understanding how, why, and to what degree persons value things; whether the object or subject of valuing is a person, idea, object, or anything else. This investigation began in ancient philosophy, where it is called axiology or ethics.”– Wikipedia

“The term “Value Theory” is used in at least three different ways in philosophy. In its broadest sense, “value theory” is a catch-all label used to encompass all branches of moral philosophy, social and political philosophy, aesthetics, and sometimes feminist philosophy and the philosophy of religion — whatever areas of philosophy are deemed to encompass some “evaluative” aspect. In its narrowest sense, “value theory” is used for a relatively narrow area of normative ethical theory particularly, but not exclusively, of concern to consequentialists. In this narrow sense, “value theory” is roughly synonymous with “axiology”. Axiology can be thought of as primarily concerned with classifying what things are good, and how good they are. For instance, a traditional question of axiology concerns whether the objects of value are subjective psychological states or objective states of the world. But in a more useful sense, “value theory” designates the area of moral philosophy that is concerned with theoretical questions about value and goodness of all varieties — the theory of value. The theory of value, so construed, encompasses axiology, but also includes many other questions about the nature of value and its relation to other moral categories. The division of moral theory into the theory of value, as contrasting with other areas of investigation, cross-cuts the traditional classification of moral theory into normative and metaethical inquiry, but is a worthy distinction in its own right; theoretical questions about value constitute a core domain of interest in moral theory, often cross the boundaries between the normative and the metaethical, and have a distinguished history of investigation.” – (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)Normative Philosophy? – Wikipedia

“Normative generally means relating to an evaluative standard. Normativity is the phenomenon in human societies of designating some actions or outcomes as good or desirable or permissible and others as bad or undesirable or impermissible. A norm in this normative sense means a standard for evaluating or making judgments about behavior or outcomes. Normative is sometimes also used, somewhat confusingly, to mean relating to a descriptive standard: doing what is normally done or what most others are expected to do in practice. In this sense a norm is not evaluative, a basis for judging behavior or outcomes; it is simply a fact or observation about behavior or outcomes, without judgment. Many researchers in this field try to restrict the use of the term normative to the evaluative sense and refer to the description of behavior and outcomes as positive, descriptive, predictive, or empirical. In philosophynormative statements make claims about how things should or ought to be, how to value them, which things are good or bad, and which actions are right or wrong. Normative claims are usually contrasted with positive (i.e. descriptive, explanatory, or constative) claims when describing types of theoriesbeliefs, or propositions. Positive statements are (purportedly) factual statements that attempt to describe reality. Normative statements and norms, as well as their meanings, are an integral part of human life. They are fundamental for prioritizing goals and organizing and planning. Thoughtbeliefemotion, and action are the basis of much ethical and political discourse; indeed, normativity is arguably the key feature distinguishing ethical and political discourse from other discourses (such as natural science). Much modern moral/ethical philosophy takes as its starting point the apparent variance between peoples and cultures regarding the ways they define what is considered to be appropriate/desirable/praiseworthy/valuable/good etc. (In other words, variance in how individuals, groups, and societies define what is in accordance with their normative standards.) This has led philosophers such as A.J. Ayer and J.L. Mackie (for different reasons and in different ways) to cast doubt on the meaningfulness of normative statements. Philosophers, such as Christine Korsgaard, have argued for a source of normative value which is independent of individuals’ subjective morality and which consequently attains (a lesser or greater degree of) objectivity. In the social sciences, the term “normative” has broadly the same meaning as its usage in philosophy, but may also relate, in a sociological context, to the role of cultural ‘norms‘; the shared values or institutions that structural functionalists regard as constitutive of the social structure and social cohesion. These values and units of socialization thus act to encourage or enforce social activity and outcomes that ought to (with respect to the norms implicit in those structures) occur, while discouraging or preventing social activity that ought not to occur. That is, they promote social activity that is socially valued. While there are always anomalies in social activity (typically described as “crime” or anti-social behavior, see also normality (behavior)) the normative effects of popularly endorsed beliefs (such as “family values” or “common sense“) push most social activity towards a generally homogeneous set.”  – Wikipedia

Theoretical philosophy? – Wikipedia

“The division of philosophy into a practical and a theoretical discipline has its origin in Aristotle‘s moral philosophy and natural philosophy categories. Theoretical philosophy is sometimes confused with Analytic philosophy, but the latter is a philosophical movement, embracing certain ideas and methods but dealing with all philosophical subject matters, while the former is a way of sorting philosophical questions into two different categories in the context of a curriculum– Wikipedia

Noradrenaline and our Presumptions of Reality (regulation of the Brain’s ‘Inner World’)?

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

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

I am not the thing abuse made, I am a shooting star blazing bright, shining far pass my past.

I am a high thinking primate, just trying to live an honorable life, being of service to others, and I wish as a life’s mission to be a kindness aficionado.

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

The Personal Bio of Damien Marie AtHope

The Professional Bio of Damien Marie AtHope

I think back on my life and it’s not the times I was the most selfish but the times I was kind, that brighten my life. May I now make an even stronger effort to do so in all I do, as it’s so valuable to an enriched wellbeing in life.

Damien’s Kickstarter and Damien’s Patreon

Here are three video Chats With:

May the actions of my life be written deep with the poetry of my humanity.

Be Virtuous to the Vulnerable and a Terror to Tyrants, be an Honorable Human.

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

“Damien Marie AtHope. Even though I didn’t have a name for it, it was the epistemology described by your Axiological Atheism that led me to reject the notion of God when it was presented to me as a child.” – fan

Art by Damien Marie AtHope

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.

Art by Damien Marie AtHope

The “Atheist-Humanist-Leftist Revolutionaries”

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

Why Does Power Bring Responsibility?

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

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

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

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

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 @Skepticalcory

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

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


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

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

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

Art by Damien Marie AtHope

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, My (free accesses) Patreon, My (free accesses) Patreon Blog & Short-writing or Quotes  My YouTube, Twitter: @AthopeMarie, and My Email: damien.marie.athope@gmail.com

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This