“I’m on 3. Weak Explicit Atheism and or, 7. Weak implicit Theism.” – Challenger 

My response, So you have no belief in any gods but don’t know and you have belief in gods but don’t know? So you either have or don’t have belief.

“I just edited. In my view, materialism is almost on the same route as theism since materialism as a philosophical stance or position can’t be proven either.” – Challenger 

My response, So you don’t believe in gods thus are a 3.

“I’m neither because I don’t really know and I admit that I’m a bit sympathetic to it lately.  Although I’m still not sure.” – Challenger 

My response, Giving an excuse to why you don’t believe so yep still a 3 now with an argument for why you are a #3, ok. Logic is either A or not A.

“Agnosticism so middle but now I admit that I’m more Theistic than Atheistic which was my worldview before. Until I find good and better arguments perhaps I could go back to atheism again. But only a little move towards Theism since I don’t find good arguments lately. https://youtu.be/9bsj_y2oZX” – Challenger 

My response, Agnosticism s not a standard approach to epistemology, it is a set of usually folk philosophy and folk logic erroring in thinking to validate what Agnostic thinkers think. I am anti-agnostic it’s generally invalid to me.

“To me, there’s nothing wrong in stating that you don’t know. Damien Marie AtHope, to me, there’s nothing wrong in stating that you don’t know.” – Challenger 

My response, As always WHAT is a god to even say you don’t know or to say you can doubt? I don’t start my disbelief on the dilutions of god claims I assess are these claims warranted they are not so nothing to doubt so agnosticism starts with a presupposition of the term god to say they are unsure about this to me making a thinking error as there is no presupposition god term to reality. I stand with ignosticism, roughly that the term god is given to much leeway as a valid offering of a possible real thing when no god claim if limited to only reality coherent attributes all add nonsense like supernatural things one of which at its simplest a being or at least a thinking thing with no physical mind but can think, an invisible thing and of courses an immaterial thing such as the no physical body in any way. And there we see the problem with accepting any god claim as even reality coherent as it is not. All claims must be coherent with or correspond to reality and just like many theological nonsense terms such as the soul. I don’t know what people are talking about when they say the term “soul” (it’s a made-up concept which connects to nothing that is reality coherent) as there is no part of the body exhibits as such magic thinking idea, soul, thus a debunked claim and does not need doubt. Similarly, I don’t know what people are talking about when they say the term “god” (it’s a made-up concept which connects to nothing that is reality coherent) as there is no part of the body exhibits as such magic thinking idea, god, thus a debunked claim and does not need doubt.

“I agree with Wittgenstein that asking questions about the soul is a misleading question since the soul is not a physical object. I’m not a professional philosopher of religion but the I believe that the “I” is fundamental and I don’t find inductive arguments against Theism as strong as I once thought it to be back then.” – Challenger 

My response, What is it you don’t know about the thing labeled/termed gods, that is not a justified claim to anything real, to begin with? What is a valid god claim to even accept as valid to start doubting, how can you claim to have knowledge of a thing you don’t know so you can say you don’t know it. Do you believe the foundation of all thinking is agnosticism as you say its a label for not knowing? Is agnosticism a pre-belief or post belief an a priori stance before the question of “do you believe” is addressed?  What is a soul? I’m not a professional philosopher of religion, also, so we are the same in that way. \m/ “Ignosticism or igtheism is the idea that every theological position assumes too much about the concept of God and other theological concepts; including (but not limited to) concepts of faith, spirituality, heaven, hell, afterlife, damnation, salvation, sin and the soul. Ignosticism is the view that any religious term or theological concept presented must be accompanied by a coherent definition. Without a clear definition such terms cannot be meaningfully discussed. Such terms or concepts must also be falsifiable. Lacking this, an ignostic takes the theological noncognitivist position that the existence or nature of the terms presented (and all matters of debate) is meaningless. For example, if the term “God” does not refer to anything reasonably defined then there is no conceivable method to test against the existence of god. Therefore, the term “God” has no literal significance and need not be debated or discussed.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignosticism

“So, what are your arguments against Theism?” – Challenger 

My response, What is a god? 

Ask yourself honestly what is a god anyway?

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

Again, What is a god?

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

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

So, what is a god?

Debate Group on Facebook:

“Elo guys, I’m new here…for my first pots is HOW DO YOU KNOW ATHEISM is TRUE?” – New Poster

My response, What is a god?

“not related.” – New Poster

My response, So you don’t know?

“God for me is the creator of the universe.” – New Poster

My response, Ok but creative is a behavior of something. I would like to know what the unknown is that you think created. I am asking for what a god is?

“God is a supreme being…” – New Poster

My response, And do you have an example because I don’t know what that is? What is a supreme being? As it is also an unknown. So I need to know. Please. Thanks

“You can google it.” – New Poster

My response, So you have a google god-something, not a personal-god then, right? It is ok if you don’t know? Just says I don’t know what a god is or even could be but I want to believe, so you just do even when you don’t even know what it is you are believing in. What is a god? You hold the burden of proof as an honest thinker. You are intellectually honest, right?

“I don’t know what do you want from me… I don’t respond to ad-hom and insults.” – New Poster

My response, I am showing you why I as an atheist don’t believe in god. Not one person neither a street preacher, nor pastors, nor religious philosophers can answer this simple question and thus disbelief in theism assumptions or assertions is required for any honest thinker!

“Don’t beat yourself…being intellectually superior to others…its kinda arrogant way of presenting the way you behave.” – New Poster

My response, Show me where I insulted you or did an adhom, please. Thanks, and if you can show me and it is actually, then I will apologize.

My response, “Intellectual honesty is an applied method of problem-solving, characterized by an unbiased, honest attitude, which can be demonstrated in a number of different ways: One’s personal beliefs or politics do not interfere with the pursuit of truth; Relevant facts and information are not purposefully omitted even when such things may contradict one’s hypothesis; Facts are presented in an unbiased manner, and not twisted to give misleading impressions or to support one view over another; References, or earlier work, are acknowledged where possible, and plagiarism is avoided. Furthermore, Harvard ethicist Louis M. Guenin describes the “kernel” of intellectual honesty to be “a virtuous disposition to eschew deception when given an incentive for deception”. Oppositely, Intentionally committed fallacies in debates and reasoning are called intellectual dishonesty.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_honesty

• Faith Drunk thinking: Divine fallacy, Argument from Incredulity, and Argument from ignorance
• Truth Navigation and the fallacy of Fideism “faith-ism”
• Religious Fallacies: Appeal to Emotion and its Multiple Fallacy Subheadings
• Two Dogmatic-Propaganda Fallacies and the fallacy of Fideism “faith-ism”
• The Faith Fallacy vs. Critical Thinking
• The God Fallacy

THERE, IS, NO, GOD.

“What if someone says in the same manner, “THERE IS GOD” Then you’ll ask for reason/proof. Then that person will say God is beyond reason and proof. Then you’ll say that doesn’t mean anything, why should you believe this? Then that person will say well don’t (believe) but your disbelief doesn’t remove the existence of God. Then you’ll start discussing what exists, and then you will find that you can’t prove that you exist and yet you know that you exist. And then you’d want to take in another direction, why should you believe in an entity to which has no effect on the world, and then that person will say well… effect and mechanism of working need not be simplistic like the entity has to appear and do things on the same way that you do… God this is becoming a tiresome screed…” – Linkedin Challenger 

My response, Well, let’s start with your clear and in-depth information on what is a god?

“Damien AtHope, God is a shapeless entity that breathes fire into ‘nothing’ and outcomes ‘something’, and can exist on its own, without ‘something’ (something within our perception domain).” – Linkedin Challenger 

My response, So do you have a reality-example of anything even close to your unsupported assumptions of a “shapeless entity that breathes fire into ‘nothing’ and outcomes ‘something.”?

“Damien AtHope, I would refer to my first comment (not for the example, but for the structure of arguments in such discussions.” – Linkedin Challenger 

My response, I will rewrite it so you can more clearly see my issue:

“The Unknown” (your claims of something you Label, as a god-something) is a shapeless entity that breathes fire into ‘nothing’ and outcomes ‘something’, and can exist on its own, without ‘something.”

“Damien AtHope, yes, the “Unknown”. That’s why I don’t say ” THERE IS NO GOD”, I can I don’t know! Now that comes to “knowledge” So, effectively every knowledge has only one basis – that some experience is registered to mind. And the way this happens is through sense perception. Now, if someone genuinely has some religious sort of experience (discounting the skepticism) I would not completely reject the possibility. If the mind is the ultimate endpoint in knowledge and experience, why would an entity from outside our domain feel need to come through sense perception? It appeared in someone’s (again genuinely), is that not enough for him/her?” – Linkedin Challenger 

My response, How odd, you sound as if you think your choice is the smarter one. lol Yet, you said that unreason as if you making positive baseless claims believing without reason, then not saying the negative as if such a rejection of unfounded claims is even close to the intellectual dishonesty of bad reasons to believe anything, there is no god, you admit not knowing it seems bit yet there you are talking as if you know, I call people liers that tell things they know are not true as if true. So you need some humility as you are not owed anything but help thinking better. Don’t go foolishly into unreason, saying there is a god when all that you can confirm is nothing and all you know is there are still things unknown to science. What is a god, it seems you need to just say, I don’t know.

Ask yourself honestly what is a god anyway?

Not some labeled name gifted arbitrarily but the actual thing put forward as the thing the label is describing as this god-something? How can we not reject the concept of gods, aka: supposed supreme magical beings, when not even some simple magic is supported in reality. So how then is it not even more ridiculous to claim some supreme magic aka: gods which are even further from reality? Again, What is a god?  “David Hume’s considered view that in respect of our idea of god we have no relevant impression(s) that can serve as the origin of this idea.

Given his theory of meaning, this leaves the term god “altogether insignificant” making him, to me, an Ignostic Atheist. The fundamental point that emerges is that Hume agrees with Hobbes that in respect of our idea of god our predicament is much the same as that of a blind man trying to form the idea of fire, making Hobbes also an Ignostic Theist, to me.” ref “Ignosticism is the idea that the question of the existence of God is meaningless because the term “god” has no unambiguous definition. Ignosticism requires a good, non-controversial definition of god before arguing on its existence.” So, what is a god?

Hi, fuck the noise, you called god, Silence!

How are we not smarter than people of the past? 

Look, I found proof of the first religious mythology with both types of general-themed deities now found throughout the world. Sky father and earth mother. So to recap, mommy and daddy. Can’t you see that? The people of the past did not know “science” but they did know, family. So, to simplify, as we don’t have three hours for me to fully break it all down for you but thankfully I was prepared enough to through together a three-hour video instead. How sad it is that we now suffer under some ancient dud’s mommy issues. Not me I am a proud supporter of mental health therapy.

Yes, you actually are an Animist type of religionist.

“Well, you are not “you”… Without the trillions of organisms that comprise you. Those trillions of organisms too are atoms, Emergence, Smaller things make bigger things, Our microbiome, Controls us. We are a composition of other things. An individual isn’t truly an individual.” – Challenger  

My response, I get it, you are an animist, cool it is one of the mildest religions but I need you to know I am not.

“So too is the makeup of everything… My words are based on science. Zero mysticism. Zero magic. Zero ghosts, Spirits, Souls, Etc. It’s a composition of quantum mechanics, neuroscience, anthropology, and biology.” – Challenger  

My response, I hear you and I want you to know that you are not alone. Only 30% of animists believe in god.

“I’m irreligious… No magic!” – Challenger  

My response, I know, I know, I get this subject like few do. irreligious animist is an interesting take I agree, see you are a special little star-dust. You, and understand I am just addressing what I can see as one with training in mental health therapy skills, you expressed animistically themed thinking in your views.

(And I say in my head, I am not attacking you about it, just highlighting the issue. Feel free to not accept my thinking on this as you can call animism whatever name you prefer.)

My response, I say to him, look, if you were an animist, cool. I am not all out against them anyway.

“Okay, although advanced enough science could be construed as such.” – Challenger

My response, I understand the motivations of fear

“I’m not afraid, if reasoning led to knowing that there is only finality… I would be 100% fine with it. Just as there is no such thing as nothingness.” – Challenger 

My response, The clear beginning of animism is about 100,000 years old, so I get it has been with us so long we forgot it was not true.

“There is only, somethingness. Therefore that connotes infinite energy. Infinite energy = infinite possibilities. Therefore all possibilities. Simultaneously.” – Challenger 

My response, Animism is found at levels of 90-100% in 35 of the world’s hunter-gathers living today, or something close to that. It’s a big game of telephone tag.

“It’s not, it is infinite energy= infinite possibilities. It’s pure Logic.” – Challenger  

My response, Infinite energy = infinite possibilities, sounds like an animistic mindset that there could be other magical worlds/beings

“Keeping it simple… let’s play a game…” – Challenger 

My response, Ok, I will start, Animism is a classic sign of a child’s egocentrism. For example, a child of 3 years old may have a favorite dolly toy on which they have bestowed human characteristics and emotions onto. The child believes that everyone around them can also see these human-like characteristics of the doll. The child only has one viewpoint, which is their own.

“Where are the borders of our Universe?” – Challenger 

My response, And what answer justifies assumptions from a “natural only” (without agency) universe? Then to assume anything but that?

“Because we exist and probity is inherent to understanding Therefore wanting to identify our experience and the “why”?” – Challenger 

My response, Look, I found proof of the first religious mythology with both types of general-themed deities now found throughout the world. Sky father and earth mother. So to recap, mommy and daddy. Can’t you see that?

“That doesn’t answer my question regarding the Universe though. You do believe in the existence of our Universe?” – Challenger 

My response, Ok, the people of the past did not know science but they did know, family. So, to simplify it as we don’t have three hours for me to fully break it all down for you but thankfully I was prepared enough to through together a three-hour video instead. How sad it is that we now suffer under some ancient dud’s mommy issues. Not me I am a proud supporter of mental health therapy.

“I’m not referencing anything mythological. Just the Universe, is it finite or Infinite?” – Challenger 

My response, What exactly do you mean by “Universe” are you asking a cosmology question?

“Correct, Our universe, the one We reside inside of.” – Challenger 

My response, Well, finite or Infinite what would that matter in the what is a god question or answer?

“It matters because it provides us with additional insights, Probing.” – Challenger 

My response, I do believe we exist and there is stuff around us best explained by science.

“Understanding is Learning.” – Challenger  

My response, How does it change anything about the unknown labeled as a god?

“Ignore the term God for a moment, please.” – Challenger 

My response, I am all from learning, I likely know more on religion them most religious scholars.

“The whole premise of God is that we are God individually. Don’t believe in external believe in internal.” – Challenger 

My response, I always, Ignore the term God. lol That is my entire point, this conversation is to show you that.

“That is also mine. A misinterpretation. You are your own God.
That is what the Thesis is.” – Challenger 

My response, So, I am my own unknown? I thought you believed better of me. lol

“You are you. And all of the trillions of things that make you.” – Challenger 

My response, I am will to power, fuck god. I don’t need her.

“You. Exactly there is no mystical magic being.” – Challenger 

My response, I am all I have and I am enough.

“Precisely. That is reality. Except. You are also me. And a tree. And a rock. At a fundamental level. That’s proven. By quantum mechanics.” – Challenger  

My response, Right, again to me, I hear animism themes holding all that together that adds to your phenomenology to let you see science and nature in a (spiritual = animistic themed thinking) connected way that supports the feeling needs of our minds. So you know, the first known symbols for god related to stars.

“Stars are creation engines. All of our materials come from them.” – Challenger 

My response, The bull symbol is a star-related symbol and that is in full display in ancient Egypt.

“Including us. Yup. Humanity has been searching externally for answers. To existence.” – Challenger 

My response, Not that I believe but I think my future is in the stars. lol

“Which is weird. Because each of us exists. Therefore we are existence. Consciousness is existence.” – Challenger 

My response, There is no need to believe anything magic like the religious claimed in the rolly-polly books. I fucking know it all I figured out the entire history of religion. I don’t know every detail but I know a lot, certainly enough to find stories of gods as nothing more than comic book mythology.

“Consciousness is just pattern recognition plus memory X actions. I personally agree I derive “faith” from my comic books.” – Challenger  

My response, Right on and we are we because of it. lol

“I’m Batman.” – Challenger 

My response, I wonder, do you think a theist is thinking of this, maybe I derive “faith” from my comic books and think they are much better at caring for the world they are associated with. News flash, your claimed god has not even bothered to stop over and say hi… lol

“The human brain consumes vast amounts of energies. Survival instinct is our Prime directive. Theism absolves individuals from burning as much energy (fact). Easy button. Less thinking. Less energy “wasted”. It’s akin to lifting a 1 pound weight (religion) aka lite on thinking. Versus 100 pounds. Science. Reasoning.” – Challenger 

My response, I have to do other things but it was fun chatting.

Marquis Amon: “It is in my personal opinion that so many see animism as innate and thus not recognize it as a religion. It is a religion because the concept is not rooted in science. That anything that isn’t strictly metaphysical and science-based, it is a religion, likely animism. It is also in my opinion that the use of the term “spirituality” is virtually animism. That as you say animism is the belief in things having “spirit” or ultimately possess ‘energy’ and action not meant in the physiological context. Which whenever someone says energy and existing after death, that they are literal animists. People want to have a hypothesis about the universe’s creation and our own. Scientifically we see a path and through biology reverse engineered cells by their function at the most basic level. Technically that’s biochemistry, but serves the point that our existence came from things in the universe. Evolution shows us that it was a natural process. How was the universe created? I don’t know, I am perfectly content in admitting that, I have no need to make shit up. Nor does mad-up bullshit serve any purpose in living our lives. Is the amoeba religious? Of course not, is it alive? Yes. It focuses on living.”

Here was his reply when I posted what you said telling him you were addressing people in general.

Here you go: “Just a word of caution…”, “Science is a process…”, “Nothing more.”, “Necessity is the mother of invention.”, “We created Math, Science etc.”, “Out of a necessity.”, Existence existed before either system was created.” “The cosmos is not math or science.” “Those are tools to help us further understand.” “Math can be just as creative as language.” and “They’re just symbols.” – Challenger  

Overall, I see myself as an Educator working through my resources like my website: damienmarieathope.com, and my atheist investigations often relate to my future book: The Tree of Lies and its Hidden Roots, and atheism, as well as my humanism activism, also can tend to related to this nonfiction novel as well. 

Stop this foolishness Empiricism-Denier

No, you not only don’t have evidence of god, not one human alive has established, what is a god? when II ask them. Don’t get me wrong some try only to get mired in my world of reason, leaving al saying, well there is n answer but I believe anyway because I have faith. I know, I know, mister religious thinker, I think of you sadly as the faith drunk. Please don’t think like the faith drunk.

What do you mean by god Evidence?

Atheistic Null Hypothesis: There is no God/Gods!

Sorry, You Have No Evidence?

Folk Logic: YOU CAN’T PROVE A NEGATIVE because you can PROVE A NEGATIVE!

“Scientific knowledge,” to me?

Who am I, right? Take a look in me, I think you will be quite surprised!

To be scientific the knowledge must be:

*communicable: It is something which is discussed.

*general: generalized vs. separate fragments of knowledge

*conceptual: represented by concepts vs. intuitive ideas (i.e. explicit and propositional knowledge)

*true or provable argument: It can be proved or demonstrated.

The scientific methods should also fill some criteria, which try to guarantee the quality of scientific knowledge. (These are important and quite permanent part of the general paradigm of science):

*progressive: knowledge base is expanded by using this method

*self-correcting: the errors get corrected by this method

*publicity: arguments are public for anyone

*justifiable: the arguments are satisfactory as scientific

My Thoughts on Science vs. Faithism

Science, unlike faith, uses more Critically Open-Minded Reasoning (open assessment and reflective correctability) the effort to overcome all of those issues common with Induced Delusional Disorder or “faith brainwashed” thinking. With science, unlike faith thinking, all facts are welcomed, even if they contradict a treasured theory or model, which must then be rejected immediately.

A true scientist will be delighted at having found a new aspect of science, especially if it changes a scientific view, whereas a true religionist/fideist motivated by faith or Induced Delusional Disorder will deny it and try to explain it away. Admittedly science is not a single category, approach, or thinking, however, nobody who is reasonable and informed can or should reject or deny the truths it produces.

Religion too is not a single category, approach, or thinking, however, nobody who is reasonable and informed can accept its deluded or reality devoid beliefs, as any kind of truths. The scientific method assumes a priori of methodological naturalism about the nature of reality that is devoid of considering supernatural causes, it is not agnostic about this.

The scientific method is using a form of philosophical rationalism to establish this view about the nature of reality along with the commonly held philosophy of empiricism, because looking for proof or truth devoid of considering supernatural causes by using a priori assumptions is employing rationalism.

“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.”

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.

•  Interviewing Dr. David Miano, Historian, and Educational YouTuber
• Stefan Milo: “Atheist Archaeologist YouTuber”, Creating Videos on Human Evolution and Prehistory 
• Atheist Pastor: Historian Christopher Atlee
• Bernard Lamborelle: Abrahamic Faith by Means of Deification 
• Hammer of Truth that lying pig RELIGION: challenged by an archaeologist
• Flood Accounts: Gilgamesh epic (4,100 years ago) Noah in Genesis (2,600 years ago)
• Why are basically all monotheistic religions ones that have a male god?

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”

• I was asked what is a good book on how I use rationalism?
• CRITICAL THINKING: Discernment Detachment Delineation
• Critical Thinking, What Does it Mean to Be Open to Learn?
• The Fun of Harassing Street Preachers. Counter-Protesting is Fun.
• Rationalism and the Enlightenment
• Challenging Agnosticism Assumptions
• Folk Logic: YOU CAN’T PROVE A NEGATIVE because you can PROVE A NEGATIVE
• Atheistic Null Hypothesis: There is no God/Gods
• Anti-theism makes no logical sense?
• Damien What are some of the books you have read?
• Guest post: Atheism’s Conclusion by Rational Thinking” by Marquis Amon
• Skepticism and or Rationalism Leads to Humanism and Atheism?
• Rationalist thinkers vs Skeptic thinkers
• As a rationalist I strongly stand up for reality
• A Rational Mind Values Humanity and Rejects Religion and Gods
• Epistemically Rational with Beliefs?
• The Struggle of a Rationalist
• Rationalist through and through
• Religion is Antirationalism
• Scientific Values: fallibilism, realism, & rationalism
• The Scientific Method & Naturalistic Rationalism
• Are aliens real? Think so than prove evidence, not a just conjecture hypothesis and inference speculations.
• Weak Theism and Weak Atheism being called Agnostic?
• My Kindness is more Cognitive Empathy, not as much Emotional Empathy
• Live Group Chat with Damien Marie AtHope, Jimmy Lew, and Jeff DeGange

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 reasoned, methodological, logical, empirical, profound; an intellectual) quickly talks, often with boastful postulations, likely just as often pushed strongly and loudly as if this adds substance, and they do this before fully understanding what’s is really involved. 

Whereas, a Sound Thinker is reasoned (comparative more reasoned, superlative most reasoned) generally based on reasoning; being the result of logical thought. As a first debate process, a Sound Thinker commonly poses Questions to understand slowing down and assessing all the facts or factors involved and then builds their argument or ideas. In classical logic, the law of non-contradiction (LNC) (also known as the law of contradiction, 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”

• On the Nature of Value (axiology)
• Truth is a Value (axiological) Judgment.
• My quick definition of Axiology and Axiological Atheism?
• Axiological Ethics not Pseudo Morality
• Axiological Morality Critique of Pseudo-Morality/Pseudomorality?
• Axiological Atheism not Nihilist Atheism
• Applying Axiological Thinking
• Axiological Atheism is Intellectualism
• Axiological Atheism Starts in Apatheism?
• “Value Theory/Value Science” atheism: AXIOLOGICAL ATHEISM
• I am an Axiological Atheist?
• As an Axiological Atheist, I wish for Human Flourishing
• I am an Axiological Atheist, with a Rationalist Persuasion, who Supports Anarcho-Humanism
• Axiological Leftist
• Axiological Atheist “Damien” Live at 25 MeetUps: Atheist Reality TV
• Is bible god ethical? & Would It Be Bad or Good if God Exists? (axiological “value theory” questions)
• My Atheism: “Axiological Atheism”
• I am a caring firebrand axiological atheist, wishing to be hard on ideas but kind to people.
• Chastised in a Message on My Axiological Atheist Page & My Responses
• Caring Firebrand Axiological Atheist, Antitheist, and Antireligionist as a Valuized Ethical Duty.
• Using Axiological Awareness to Assist in Argumentation.
• Moral fear and Moral love (which together motivate my axiological ethics)?
• Axiological Dignity: “Value Consciousness vs Value-Blindness”
• Axiological Dignity Being Theory
• Axiological/axiology (value theory/value science) Atheism?
• Axiological Atheism Explained
• Axiological Atheist Interviews
• Interview of Formal Axiological Atheist Dr. William Kelleher
• Axiological Atheist Damien Marie AtHope interviews BABA BRINKMAN
• Explaining Axiological theism, Axiological agnosticism, and Axiological atheism
• Axiological Atheism Morality Critique: of the bible god

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 philosophy, normative statements make claims about how things should or ought to be, how to value them, which things are good or bad, and which actions are right or wrong. Normative claims are usually contrasted with positive (i.e. descriptive, explanatory, or constative) claims when describing types of theories, beliefs, or propositions. Positive statements are (purportedly) factual statements that attempt to describe reality. Normative statements and norms, as well as their meanings, are an integral part of human life. They are fundamental for prioritizing goals and organizing and planning. Thought, belief, emotion, and action are the basis of much ethical and political discourse; indeed, normativity is arguably the key feature distinguishing ethical and political discourse from other discourses (such as natural science). Much modern moral/ethical philosophy takes as its starting point the apparent variance between peoples and cultures regarding the ways they define what is considered to be appropriate/desirable/praiseworthy/valuable/good etc. (In other words, variance in how individuals, groups, and societies define what is in accordance with their normative standards.) 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’)?

Axiological “Presumptive-Value” 

Your god myth is an Axiological “Presumptive-Value” Failure

I am an Axiological (value theorist) Atheist, and Claims of god are a Presumptive-Value failure. Simply, if you presume a thing is of value that you can’t justify, then you have committed an axiological presumptive value failure.

Axiological “presumptive-value” Success: Sound Thinker: uses disciplined rationality (sound axiological judgment the evaluation of evidence to make a decision) supporting a valid and reliable justification.

Axiological “presumptive-value” Failure: Shallow Thinker: undisciplined, situational, sporadic, or limited thinking (unsound axiological judgment, lacking required evidence to make a “presumptive-value” success decision) lacking the support of a needed valid and reliable justification.

“Ok, So basically, the difference between reasoning with evidence and without?” – Questioner

My response, Well with or without valid justification because of evidence. As in you can’t claim to know the value of something you can’t demonstrate as having good qualities to attach the value claim too so if you lack evidence of the thing in question then you can not validate its value. So it’s addressing justificationism (uncountable) Theory of justification, An (philosophy standard) approach that regards the justification of a claim as primary, while the claim itself is secondary; thus, criticism consists of trying to show that a claim cannot be reduced to the authority or criteria that it appeals to. Think of is as a use matrix. If I say this is of great use for that, can you validate its use or value, and can I use this as a valid method to state a valid justification for my claims without evidence to value judge from? No, thus an axiological presumptive-value failure as a valid anything. 

Theory of justification is a part of epistemology that attempts to understand the justification of propositions and beliefs. Epistemologists are concerned with various epistemic features of belief, which include the ideas of justification, warrant, rationality, and probability. Loosely speaking, justification is the reason that someone (properly) holds a belief. When a claim is in doubt, justification can be used to support the claim and reduce or remove the doubt. Justification can use empiricism (the evidence of the senses), authoritative testimony (the appeal to criteria and authority), or reason. – Wikipedia

“Presumptions are things that are credited as being true until evidence of their falsity is presented. Presumptions have many forms and value (Axiology) is just one. In ethics, value denotes the degree of importance of something or action, with the aim of determining what actions are best to do or what way is best to live (normative ethics), or to describe the significance of different actions. It may be described as treating actions as abstract objects, putting VALUE to them. It deals with right conduct and living a good life, in the sense that a highly, or at least relatively high valuable action may be regarded as ethically “good” (adjective sense), and that an action of low value, or relatively low in value, may be regarded as “bad”. What makes an action valuable may, in turn, depend on the ethic values of the objects it increases, decreases or alters. An object with “ethic value” may be termed an “ethic or philosophic good” (noun sense). Values can be defined as broad preferences concerning appropriate courses of actions or outcomes. As such, values reflect a person’s sense of right and wrong or what “ought” to be. “Equal rights for all”, “Excellence deserves admiration”, and “People should be treated with respect and dignity” are representatives of values. Values tend to influence attitudes and behavior and these types include ethical/moral values, doctrinal/ideological(religious, political) values, social values, and aesthetic values. It is debated whether some values that are not clearly physiologically determined, such as altruism, are intrinsic, and whether some, such as acquisitiveness, should be classified as vices or virtues.” ref, ref

“Methodological”

• Methodological Rationalism (Ontology, Epistemology, & Axiology) and Skepticism
• My Methodological Rationalism: investigate (ontology), expose (epistemology) and judge (axiology)
• My Methodological Skepticism Style
• Basics of my Methodological Rationalism Epistemology Approach
• My “Methodological Rationalism” approach
• Objective and Subjective Logic?
• Addressing a Theistic Philosopher with Fallacious Thinking
• Apistevist atheism (anti-Fideist atheism)
• Truth Navigation and the fallacy of Fideism “faith-ism”
• Dealing with Presuppositionalism, a school of Christian apologetics (Fascistic Fideism or “faith-ism”)
• Fideism/Faith-ism (“faith-drunk-thinkers”)
• Presuppositional Apologetics is Just Fascist Fideism
• Two Dogmatic-Propaganda Fallacies and the fallacy of Fideism “faith-ism”
• Hammer of Truth: Yes, you too, have lots of beliefs…
• Using Ontology to Attack Theistic Errors
• Grasping the status of truth (ontology of truth): pre-logic, logic, and post-logic?

Objectivism atheism: objectivism holds that in order to obtain knowledge, man must use an objective process of thought. The essence of objective thought is, first, integration of perceptual data in accordance with logic and, second, a commitment to acknowledging all of the facts of reality, and only the facts. In other words, the only thoughts to consider when forming knowledge of reality are those logically derived from reality. objectivism as an atheistic thinking upholds ultimate reason, not faith of any kind could be seen as a form of agnosticism. Objectivism atheist asserts proof of disbelief by our level of knowledge such as a certainty of religious rightness only a subjective deduction, probability of rightness is an unreasonable inconclusive induction, probability of wrongness is the most reasonable conclusive induction, certainty of complete wrongness holds more reason but still can be only a subjective deduction. Regardless of what certain religions, scientists, or philosophers believe or say they have to either prove that a thing is certain (i.e. it can never be altered) or they have to accept its probabilistic nature (i.e. there might be a time in the future or unobserved past when the reason does not hold). 1

Investigative atheism: investigative atheism may take some interest in showing how the skeptical theistic way of reasoning, brought into the larger flow of total evidence skepticism, can be used to expose certain additional sources of doubt about theism sufficient to prevent overhasty migration to theism on the part of those left unconvinced by atheism. Moreover, and more positively, it can be used to inspire a greater openness to new religiously-relevant investigative results in the future. With these thoughts in mind, let’s add two more skeptical theses to our list: We have no good reason for thinking that the arguments from horrors or hiddenness against theism we know of are representative, relative to the property of (potentially) constituting a successful proof that theism is false, of the arguments from horrors or hiddenness against theism there are. And we have no good reason for thinking that the possible goods we know of are representative, relative to the property of consistency with a person being axiologically ultimate, of the possible goods there are but are always investigating and open. 1

Logical atheism: logical atheism holds that the various conceptions of gods, such as the personal god, are ascribed logically inconsistent qualities. Such atheists present deductive arguments against the existence of God, which asserts the incompatibility between certain traits, such as perfection, creator-status, immutability, omniscience, omnipresence, omnipotence, omnibenevolence, transcendence, personhood (a personal being), non-physicality, justice, and mercy.   Logical arguments for atheism attempt to show that the concept of god is self-contradictory with some known fact. These incompatible-properties arguments attempt to demonstrate a contradiction in the concept of God. If an argument of this type were successful, it would mean that the existence of god is utterly impossible; there is a 0% probability that gods exists. 1 2

Evidential atheism: thinks that whether or not belief in a divine being is epistemically acceptable will be determined by the evidence. I intend to treat “evidence” in a broad sense including a priori arguments, arguments to the best explanation, inductive and empirical reasons, as well as deductive and conceptual premises. (Also note that one could be an evidentialist theist.) The evidentialist theist and the evidentialist atheist may have a number of general epistemological principles concerning evidence, arguments, implication in common, but then disagree about what the evidence is, how it should be understood, and what it implies. They may disagree, for instance, about whether the values of the physical constants and laws in nature constitute evidence for intentional fine-tuning, but agree that whether God exists is a matter that can be explored empirically. 1

Philosophical atheism: uses philosophy to justify non-belief. Philosophical atheists have not shared a common set of atheism no god or gods exist views, philosophical convictions can often set them off from other groups of atheism thinkers. There are different kinds of philosophical atheists as well as many philosophical justifications for atheism. Many rationalist atheists feel that the idea of a god something as presented by the major religions is essentially self-contradictory and that it is logically impossible that such a god something could exist. Others are atheists through skepticism, because they see no evidence that a god something exists. Of course, some people are atheists without having any particular logical argument to back up their atheism. For some, it is simply the most comfortable, common-sense position to take. Philosophical atheism is different addressing one of agnosticism’s biggest objections the limit to knowledge a god something exists or agnosticism’s believed impossibility to prove the nonexistence of something. There are many counterexamples to prove the nonexistence of something. 

For example, it is quite simple to prove that there does not exist a prime number larger than all other prime numbers. Of course, this deals with well-defined objects obeying well-defined rules. Whether a god somethings or universes are similarly well-defined is a matter for debate. However, assuming for the moment that the existence of a god something is not provably impossible, there are still subtle reasons for assuming the nonexistence of a god something. If we assume that something does not exist, it is always possible to show that this assumption is invalid by finding a single counterexample. If on the other hand, we assume that something does exist, and if the thing in question is not provably impossible, showing that the assumption is invalid may require an exhaustive search of all possible places where such a thing might be found, to show that it isn’t there. Such an exhaustive search is often impractical or impossible. There is no such problem with the largest primes because we can prove that they don’t exist. Therefore it is generally accepted that we must assume things do not exist unless we have evidence that they do. 

To assume that a god something exists is to make an assumption that probably cannot be tested. We cannot make an exhaustive search of everywhere a god something might be to prove that he doesn’t exist anywhere. If a god something interacts with our universe in any way, the effects of his interaction must have some physical manifestation. Hence his interaction with our universe must be in principle detectable. If a god something is essentially undetectable, it must therefore be the case that he does not interact with our universe in any way. Many atheists would argue that if a god something does not interact with our universe at all, it is of no importance whether he exists or not. A thing which cannot even be detected in principle does not logically exist. Things do not exist merely because they have been defined to do so. We know a lot about the definition of Santa Claus–what he looks like, what he does, where he lives, what his reindeer are called, and so on. But that still doesn’t mean that Santa exists. 1

Ontological atheism: ontological atheism asserts Ontological theism arguments aim too high. Just like logical calculus cannot ascertain a specific basic proposition is correct, existential calculus should not be able to conclude that some specific being exists. Logical calculus can show that if a bachelor exists then a man exists (since a bachelor is, specifically, a man), and existential calculus might be able to show that if certain things exist then a god something exists. But ontological arguments try to prove that something (god) exists without committing to the existence of any specific thing. They can, therefore, be roughly divided into several types:- (a) ones that assume that a god something exists from the get-go, but disguise it in some way; (b) ones that make an error in existential calculus, so are not sound; (c) ones that are correct but trivial, e.g. showing that the sum of all things exists in some sense. rethinks if one agrees that the existence of a god something has indeed been proven, you still really don’t know much about that god other than that it is infinite and perfect. These characteristics seem to be quite dangerous in light of the characteristics of a god something that have been posited by many organized religions. They posit someone who cares for us and who would simultaneously damn us to eternity in hell for our failure to believe in him thus we cannot and should not believe in a god something. 

Using rationality, one cannot conceive of a god something with infinite perfection, with anthropomorphic qualities (i.e. human motivation, characteristics, or behavior) or an infinite god holding judgments or care about what humans do. Ontological atheism reveals that the Ontological theism argument is problematic on four grounds: A) It defines a god something as a Necessary being which is necessarily O, and then “derives” that god is a necessary being. This isn’t so much a flaw as it is misleading. B) It assumes that which it seeks to prove, namely it assumes that the Necessary-god-Something is logically possible, which denies the very possibility that god doesn’t exist. Instead of wrestling with the claim that god doesn’t exist and showing it is false, the argument a-priori assumes that it is false. C) It relies on a confusion between epistemic and logical possibility. As a broad proposition, the Necessary-god-Something needs to be treated as an epistemic possibility, leading to a weakened 1B which cannot support the rest of the argument. D) Even the weakened 1B should not be accepted. Like all Necessary postulates, that a Necessary-god-Something exists is either true in all possible worlds or not true in all possible worlds. The argument doesn’t advance the position that it is true in all possible worlds. Ontology (Greek meaning ontos, “being; that which is”; and logos meaning “discourse, study, ratio, calculation, reason”). Ontology is the philosophical study of the nature of being, becoming, existence, or reality, as well as the basic categories of being and their relations. 

*Ontology (thingness of things) questions to define or compare and contrast thingness.* Ontology “Reality” questions/assertion: Witness gives evidence about the claim. Ontology, (understanding the thingness of things; like what is or can be real, like not god). -What is your claim? -What aspects must be there for your claim? -What makes your claim different than other similar claims? Take for instance how Religion supporters try the evaluation tactic of saying “there are peaceful Religions.” I may respond, what do you mean by Religion and what do you mean by painful or good” (asking to find the truth or as usual expose the lack of a good Ontology). 

To me, belief-ontologies address the conceptual schemas involved, at the intersection of three elements: A belief is a placeholder for a mental agreement to an offered idea, behavior, or thing. We don’t know what us being accurately believed and this means all beliefs are open to challenge or they should be. Many people either have no standard to how they test or process their thinking and thus have untrustworthy and such a lack of a developed thought structure employ thinking systems with a high susceptibility to flaws, And this is where we use ontological challenging or ontological disproofs which are logical arguments posed against arguments made by an attacker/challenger to hone in and access the thinking of believing flaws, and the attacker capability to exploit a flaw. Ontological disproofs, are sophisticated ontological arguments, ontological challenges, or ontological disproofs accusations that demand equally sophisticated responses, to which, many people are unprepared. Belief or argument forms should be valid, to prove them sound or unsound, strong/weak, or well defined/undefined, as weak premises must be shown to be false. By use ontological challenging, you are shining a light on its ways claimed or points proposed, outlined, or arranged which equals a thing or its qualities to define it that makes the depth and fullness to a being or thing, like just what is provisional about the thing in question or offer, are the characteristics of adequate development structure and infrastructure of the ontology involved in claims or propositions as truth, fact, or knowledge? 

One ontological criticism focuses on the semantics that are given for quantifiers qualities used or involved as the notation of the language representations of the contents of belief talk, proposing that the qualities offered are fully alike (unequivocal) when the items or properties identified to you are likely one of the three partly unlike (equivocal). To me, ontologies are like an adequate way or web of elements involved in the thingness of things or ideas. Point by slow methodological point, is the most effective way to use ontological challenging. Ontologically challenge needs to be done, in order to develop in the other person, an ontological insecurity about what the person, place, thing, or idea are the construction of and just what is being claimed, portrayed, or proposed as truth, fact, or knowledge? A belief or set of beliefs, likely have a relationship between ideas of the thing expose the cracks and fissure in the conceptualizations divided up or overlap but often while a belief or set of beliefs are offered with assurance, they instead ontologically inadequate or almost completely ontologically empty. 

By exposing ontological vulnerabilities or weakness in a belief or set of beliefs can rise person’s sense of ontological Insecurity as the thinker realized they may not know that that know. In my way of thinking as ontological insecurity refers or relates to in an existential sense a person’s sense of “belief” deflation, discrediting, or disproving. Such an ontologically insecure thinker, maybe so ontologically desperate, to stop/lower believing/accepting the level of “reality or existence” of the things or ideas they were just referring to. In contrast, the ontologically secure thinker, maybe so ontologically stable in relation to ontological commitment of their fragments involved to feel a high level. Ontological arguments or Ontological commitment need to demonstrate or require demonstration of the disciplined or disordered structures but, a priori and necessary premises to the conclusion. 1, 2

Metaphysical atheism: metaphysical atheism can include any doctrines that hold to a atheistic metaphysical monism (the homogeneity of reality). Only a metaphysical atheism is based on absolute metaphysical atheism thus subscribe to some degree of physicalism, and explicitly deny the existence of non-physical beings most notably gods. Metaphysical atheism may be either: a) absolute — an explicit denial of God’s existence associated with materialistic monism (all materialistic trends, both in ancient and modern times); b) relative — the implicit denial of God in all philosophies that, while they accept the existence of an absolute, conceive of the absolute as not possessing any of the attributes proper to God: transcendence, a personal character or unity. Relative atheism is associated with idealistic monism (apantheism, pantheism, panentheism, deism). Metaphysical atheism could be the view that a god exists but doesn’t have a mind, which is basically a special type of deism. One important distinction is precisely whether an atheist can be a deist or pantheist. One view of atheism is that no gods can exist. Another view is merely that personal gods don’t exist. 1

Epistemological atheism: highlights a branch of philosophy that deals with determining what is and what is not true, and why we believe or disbelieve what we or others do. On one hand, this is begging the question of having the ability to measure “truth” – as though there is an “external” something that one measures against. Epistemology is the analysis of the nature of knowledge, how we know, what we can and cannot know, and how we can know that there are things we know we cannot know. In Greek episteme, meaning “knowledge, understanding”, and logos, meaning “discourse, study, ratio, calculation, reason. Epistemology is the investigation of what distinguishes justified belief from opinion. In other words, it is the academic term associated with study of how we conclude that certain things are true. Epistemology: the theory of knowledge, especially with regard to its methods, validity, and scope. From this atheist orientation, there is no, nor has there ever been, nor will there ever be, any “external” something so there can be no god-concept. Many debates between atheist and theists revolve around fundamental issues which people don’t recognize or never get around to discussing. Many of these are epistemological in nature: in disagreeing about whether it’s reasonable to believe in the existence of a god something, to believe in miracles, to accept revelation and scriptures as authoritative, and so forth, atheists and theists are ultimately disagreeing about basic epistemological principles. Without understanding this and understanding the various epistemological positions, people will just end up talking past each other. it’s common for Epistemological atheism to differ in what they consider to be appropriate criteria for truth and, therefore, the proper criteria for a reasonable disbelief. Atheists demand proof and evidence for other worldviews, yet there is no proof and evidence that atheism is true. Also, despite the abundant evidence for Christianity and the lack of proof and evidence for atheism, atheist reject the truth of Christianity. 

*Epistemology (knowledge of things) questions to explode or establish and confirm knowledge. Epistemology “Truth” questions/assertion: Lawyer searches for warrant or justification for the claim. Epistemology, (understanding what you know or can know; as in you do have anything in this reality to know anything about this term you call god, and no way of knowing if there is anything non-naturalism beyond this universe and no way to state any about it if there were). -How do know your claim? -How reliable or valid must aspects be for your claim? -How does the source of your claim make it different than other similar claims? I may respond, “how do you know that, what is your sources and how reliable they are” (asking to find the truth or as usual expose the lack of a good Epistemology) Atheists refuse to go where the evidence clearly leads. 

In addition, when atheist make claims related to naturalism, make personal claims, or make accusations against theists, they often employ lax evidential standards instead of employing rigorous evidential standards. For the most part, atheists have presumed that the most reasonable conclusions are the ones that have the best evidential support.  And they have argued that the evidence in favor of a god something’s existence is too weak, or the arguments in favor of concluding there is no a god something are more compelling.  Traditionally the arguments for a god something’s existence have fallen into several families: ontological, teleological, and cosmological arguments, miracles, and prudential justifications.  For a detailed discussion of those arguments and the major challenges to them that have motivated the atheist conclusion, the reader is encouraged to consult the other relevant sections of the encyclopedia. Arguments for the non-existence of a god something are deductive or inductive.  

Deductive arguments for the non-existence of a god something are either single or multiple property disproofs that allege that there are logical or conceptual problems with one or several properties that are essential to any being worthy of the title “GOD.”  Inductive arguments typically present empirical evidence that is employed to argue that a god something’s existence is improbable or unreasonable.  Briefly stated, the main arguments are: a god something’s non-existence is analogous to the non-existence of Santa Claus.  The existence of widespread human and non-human suffering is incompatible with an all-powerful, all-knowing, all good being.  Discoveries about the origins and nature of the universe, and about the evolution of life on Earth make the a god-something hypothesis an unlikely explanation.  Widespread non-belief and the lack of compelling evidence show that a god something who seeks belief in humans does not exist.  Broad considerations from science that support naturalism, or the view that all and only physical entities and causes exist, have also led many to the atheism conclusion. 1 2 3 4

Apistevist atheism (To me, it is what I would call anti-Fideist atheism): an atheist is one who is not a theist, one who is not a believer; an agnostic is one who lacks knowledge; Apistevist is the term for one who lacks or denies faith, especially of the religious or superstition variety. 

Apistevist, I happen to know many people who are hard-core theists and insist that their faith is rational, based on things they see as evidence supporting or convincing what they feel is a need for religious faith. Then there are other religious believers who go the route of pure and simple faith without feeling the need for evidence. Apistevist (noun) – a person who does not use faith to know things, especially in the religious sense. An Apistevist atheist (anti-Fideist atheist) rejects how many theists arguing for their beliefs coming from faith alone even if believers think it has some kind of evidence. Popular YouTube atheist Aron Ra states that he is an apistevist who denies that he has faith (in anything). AronRa defines ‘faith’ as: Belief without evidence and got this term “apistevist” from Kate Fahr (BionicDance) I believe. Apistevism means specifically “not relying on religious faith to discern facts.” The god claim is a clown car in the magic big top of Fideism! Fideism/Faith-ism (“faith-drunk-thinkers”) (/ˈfiːdeɪɪzəm, ˈfaɪdi-/) is an epistemological theory which maintains that faith is independent of reason, or that reason and faith are hostile to each other and faith is superior at arriving at particular truths (see natural theology). The word fideism comes from fides, the Latin word for faith, and literally means “faith-ism.” Theologians and philosophers have responded in various ways to the place of faith and reason in determining the truth of metaphysical ideas, morality, and religious beliefs. 

A fideist is one who argues for fideism. Historically, fideism is most commonly ascribed to four philosophers: Pascal, Kierkegaard, William James, and Wittgenstein; with fideism being a label applied in a negative sense by their opponents, but which is not always supported by their own ideas and works or followers. There are a number of different forms of fideism. Alvin Plantinga defines “fideism” as “the exclusive or basic reliance upon faith alone, accompanied by a consequent disparagement of reason and utilized especially in the pursuit of philosophical or religious truth.” The fideist therefore “urges reliance on faith rather than reason, in matters philosophical and religious,” and therefore may go on to disparage the claims of reason. The fideist seeks truth, above all: and affirms that reason cannot achieve certain kinds of truth, which must instead be accepted only by faith. Plantinga’s definition might be revised to say that what the fideist objects to is not so much “reason” per se—it seems excessive to call Blaise Pascal anti-rational—but evidentialism: the notion that no belief should be held unless it is supported by evidence. The doctrine of fideism is consistent with some, and radically contrary to other theories of truth:

• Correspondence theory of truth
• Pragmatic theory of truth
• Constructivist epistemology
• Consensus theory of truth
• Coherence theory of truth
• Subjectivism

Another form of fideism is assumed by Pascal’s Wager. Blaise Pascal invites the atheist considering faith to see faith in God as a cost-free choice that carries a potential reward. He does not attempt to argue that God indeed exists, only that it might be valuable to assume that it is true. Of course, the problem with Pascal’s Wager is that it does not restrict itself to a specific God, although Pascal did have in mind the Christian God as is mentioned. Criticism of Pascal’s Wager began in his own day, and came from both atheists, who questioned the ‘benefits’ of a deity whose ‘realm’ is beyond reason, and the religiously orthodox, who primarily took issue with the wager’s deistic and agnostic language. It is criticized for not proving God’s existence, the encouragement of false belief, and the problem of which religion and which God should be worshipped. Nature as not a proof of the existence of God. Voltaire (another prominent French writer of the Enlightenment), a generation after Pascal, rejected the idea that the wager was “proof of God” as “indecent and childish”, adding, “the interest I have to believe a thing is no proof that such a thing exists”. 

Pascal, however, did not advance the wager as a proof of God’s existence but rather as a necessary pragmatic decision which is “impossible to avoid” for any living person. He argued that abstaining from making a wager is not an option and that “reason is incapable of divining the truth”; thus, a decision of whether to believe in the existence of God must be made by “considering the consequences of each possibility”. Voltaire’s critique concerns not the nature of the Pascalian wager as proof of God’s existence, but the contention that the very belief Pascal tried to promote is not convincing. As Étienne Souriau explained, in order to accept Pascal’s argument, the bettor needs to be certain that God seriously intends to honor the bet; he says that the Wager assumes that God also accepts the bet, which is not proved; Pascal’s Bettor (a person who bets, typically regularly or habitually) is here like the fool who seeing a leaf floating on a river’s waters and quivering at some point, for a few seconds, between the two sides of a stone, says: “I bet a million with Rothschild that it takes finally the left path.” 

And, effectively, the leaf passed on the left side of the stone, but unfortunately for the fool, Rothschild never said “I [will take that] bet”. Fideism (faith-ism) is Theistic Reality Confusion, theists like to confuse the understanding of atheism to lessen its obvious reason. So here’s a definition of atheism: all offered claims of god(s) are baseless and devoid of a shred of testable or provable evidence and the claims of or about gods either don’t represent in reality or claim to represent things contrary to reality requiring a conclusion of atheism (lack of belief or disbelief in theism). The god claim, is a clown car in the magic big top of Fideism (faith-ism)! Two Dogmatic-Propaganda Fallacies and the fallacy of Fideism “faith-ism” 1, 2, 3

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. Some of my ideas are because I am educated both some in college (BA in Psychology with addiction treatment, sociology, and a little teaching and criminology) and also as an autodidact, I have become somewhat educated in philosophy, science, archeology, anthropology, and history but this is not the only reason for all my ideas. It is also because I am a deep thinker, just striving for truth. 

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

“Where did you find it?! Mankind has been diligently seeking truth since time memorial!” – Challenger

My response, Your statement is a “truth claim” right after asking about truth: “Where did you find it?! Mankind has been diligently seeking truth since time memorial! (a “truth claim” emphasized with two exclamation marks seeming to demonstrate that you believed you had said a confirmed truth. So you do believe you have found a truth while acting as if you don’t know, and seemingly by your strength of assertion, believe I guess, that no one can but here I am teaching you truth!!! I have been asked before, how can I stand to deal with illogical, ones lacking critical thinking, the unreasonable, misinformed but fully believe, deliberately uninformed or deluded people, often so kindly? Well, I believe in others, or at least their ability to reason even if you don’t know how or are not paying attention currently. I can do deal with most people as I am often fighting for them even if they only feel I am against them and it usually is not that hard to do with a heart of compassion, as I care for the future of humanity and people have value. 

And, if people don’t listen or grasp logic, I try something else like reasoning. If they will not listen or grasp reasoning, I will try just getting them to think, maybe on something they can agree or they do understand trying to work them back to the rationalism they are not getting or are avoiding. Then, if I can get them to reason, I build that up to logic. If they don’t seem to get them to thinking or are trying to avoid I can draw them back to feelings, maybe on something they can agree or they do understand trying to work them back to thinking, then reasoning, and then finally back to logic with which they are not getting or are avoiding. In a general way, all reality, in a philosophic sense, is an emergent property of reason, and knowing how reason accrues does not remove its warrant. Feelings are experienced then perceived, leading to thinking, right (sound) thinking is reason, right (sound) reason is logic, right logic is mathematics, right mathematics is physics and from there all science.

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

My response, “Omniscient, Omnipotent, Serene Supreme Being which is the source of all finite beings and lies outside space and time.” a bunch of illogical assertions so you can’t truly know anything about them in reality, that not, in reality, is not real. Offer something real or what you are talking about is not reality.

“Damien Marie AtHope, how do you define reality(Theory of Knowledge)?” – Challenger 

“https://youtu.be/FPCzEP0oD7I While the premise which lies outside the universe can be doubted, I don’t think the contingency of ontological beings can be.” – Challenger 

My response, I can only assess the possibility of things from the reference limited to reality, and reality is the thing we can assess and determine or that set of facts as determined through a sensory filter and thinking logic that which is valid and reliable to the state of facts we can assess or tested and the accumulation of the minds of others sharing that which is valid and reliable to the state of facts we can assess or tested even though I don’t think we know everything we have enough shared data points to rationally grasp that the reality that presents itself is naturalism only. If one thinks its otherwise Reality is only assessed by tests in demonstrable reality so do you have some valid non-realty method?

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

“I can’t help you that much because I’m trying to understand potency to act right now however before you dismiss this, I’ll state the common objections: First is that existence is not an attribute by Immanuel Kant. That is to say, you can’t simply deduce the existence of something by defining attributes alone. And second and finally, you can’t deduce the existence of something as existing extramentally or outside your mind by simply conceiving it mentally or in your mind.
https://youtu.be/xBmAKCvWl74 Damien Marie AtHope, I deny Scientism because it lacks Ontological Foundation. By Scientism, I mean that empirical knowledge is the only means of knowing since it is not itself an empirical but rather a metaphysical claim. I believe in M theory as an ongoing hypothesis which frankly already go beyond physics however concerning science and scientism—-I distinguish the difference between empirical theorizing and metaphysical argumentation or propositions.” – Challenger 

My reference, Saying, I deny Scientism and yet kinda believe theology??? If so that is quite odd indeed, not a standard applied equally at all is it.

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

“Scientism is the belief that nature is all there (The cosmos is all there is or ever was or ever will be) the universe just is claimed by Carl Sagan and Bertrand Russell). This is a confession of materialist metaphysics.” – Challenger 

My response, Let’s get back to your (burden of proof) claim that god(s) are “Omniscient, Omnipotent, Serene Supreme Being which is the source of all finite beings and lies outside space and time.” But hold up if you don’t agree that there is a naturalistic reality with a definable and testable space and time?

 Damien Marie AtHope, I don’t deny physical explanations, I deny scientism as a metaphysics because I believe there are questions which precedes science. Like what is this, “I”?” – Challenger 

My response, Scientism is the view that only scientific claims are meaningful. It is often widely abused as a term to refer to science and attitudes associated with science, and its primary use these days is as a pejorative. The non-pejorative, and therefore boring, sense of the term denotes the “methods and attitudes typical of or attributed to the natural scientist.” You are denying science because you claim to not know about the I, how is that some proof for anything in theology as this is about your unjustified claims of a god something?

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

“Scientism is a mockery of science because as I understand it, it claims that there is no knowledge which isn’t empirically based. That is to say, the only writers worth reading are Feynman, Darwin, Einstein, Curie, and others, that is to say, philosophical discussions from Plato to Sartre or Derrida are to be disregarded.” – Challenger 

My reference, Scientism can be thought of as a scientific worldview that encompasses natural explanations for all phenomena, eschews supernatural and paranormal speculations, and embraces Empiricism and reason as the twin pillars of a philosophy of life appropriate for an Age of Science.

“Empiricism alone isn’t enough as far as it cannot even demonstrate itself as a (Meta)physical or Philosophical Position.” – Challenger

My response, To me, science is philosophy, I don’t see it as outside that, so there is no battle of philosophy and science to me and I would reject any thinking that tries to say that they are not a connected team.

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

I am an ignostic atheist and reject the proposition that “agnostics/agnostic-atheists” like to claim that agnosticism is the only logical position.

Ignosticism or igtheism, basically as a philosophic position concludes the belief in or a possibility of a supernatural being, ultimate or otherwise as reality misinterpreted, reality confused, reality incoherent, and reality unintelligible.

I see agnostic thinking often even by deep thinkers choosing to hold some foundations built on folk logic as STEVEN D. HALES calls it.

Steven D. Hales is the professor department of philosophy Bloomsburg University, here is an article on that: You Can Prove a Negative. It is a PRINCIPLE OF FOLK LOGIC that you can’t prove a negative. Skeptics and scientists routinely concede the point in debates about the possible existence of everything from Big Foot and Loch Ness to aliens and even God. In a recent television interview on Comedy Central’s The Colbert Report, for example, Skeptic publisher Michael Shermer admitted as much when Stephen Colbert pressed him on the point when discussing Weapons of Mass Destruction, the comedian adding that once it is admitted that scientists cannot prove the nonexistence of a thing, then belief in anything is possible. Even Richard Dawkins writes in The God Delusion that “you cannot prove God’s non-existence is accepted and trivial, if only in the sense that we can never absolutely prove the non-existence of anything.” There is one big problem with this. Among professional logicians, guess how many think that you can’t prove a negative? That’s right, zero. http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/07-12-05/

I get that my harsh critiques of the god concept to you may be foreign and you may feel that you don’t see it how I see it. But I put forward that the god concept is a well packaged container of emptiness masqueraded as the elixir of life. The god concept to me is a web of lies polished and glorified as the end all do all even though it is empty of all facts to warrant any holding as true. This bogus god concept has been sold so insidiously to the masses through gradual indoctrination of one generation after another that my truth exposing the fallaciousness of the god concept may to one from the indoctrinated seem so utterly preposterous that I as is orator seem like a raving lunatic when in actuality I am clearly professing the truth.

I see agnostic as a belief about the ability to have knowledge, it is in that way not following epistemology which is the philosophy of knowledge. Agnostic thinking is stating its own theological seminary of what it sees as abilities to grasp god knowledge. I address agnostic not because I think people cannot choose to believe in this way if they choose. The reason I so often address agnosticism is that I hear so many say it like they have no choice which is simply not true. Most of the beloved statements offered as reasoning to why there is no other choice but a agnostic conclusion hinge on folk logic and folk concepts of knowledge or misunderstood application of philosophy of science. This is true even of scientists who have disbelief as most of them disregard philosophy as well which is a large contributing factor for the confusion. The scientific method which all science largely uses requires an amount of pre-belief (a priori) in the not complete knowledge concept of realism philosophy or naturalism philosophy both of which are connected. My point is people don’t go around saying they are science agnostic. Both scientific realism and naturalism reject all supernatural claims and thus would not be agnostic about the possibility of a supernatural being called god. I hold agnostic thinking also as not a professional epistemology thus it is not usable to delineate a professional philosophical knowledge stance it is a personal belief forming a theory of knowledge. knowledge is largely a justified true belief in philosophy. epistemology is the study of knowledge and justified belief. As the study of knowledge, epistemology is concerned with the following questions: What are the necessary and sufficient conditions of knowledge? What are its sources? What is its structure, and what are its limits? As the study of justified belief, epistemology aims to answer questions such as: How we are to understand the concept of justification? What makes justified beliefs justified? Is justification internal or external to one’s own mind? Understood more broadly, epistemology is about issues having to do with the creation and dissemination of knowledge in particular areas of inquiry. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/epistemology/

Philosophical vs. Pragmatic Reasons for Preferring the Term ‘Agnostic’

A person may call herself an agnostic, as Huxley did, because of questionable philosophical motives. Huxley thought that propositions about the transcendent, though possibly meaningful, were empirically untestable. We have seen that it is unclear that the conclusion of the fine-tuning argument is untestable. One can at least compare it with other and non-theistic hypotheses. Thus, there are conjectures that there are many universes, so many of them that is not surprising that there should be some among them in which the constants of physics allow for the possibility of life, and if so our universe must be one of them. Some cosmologists give independent grounds for thinking that new universes are spawned out of the back of black holes. Others think that there are independent grounds for thinking of a single huge Universe that has crystallized out into various universe sized regions each with randomly different values for the fundamental constants. Some such speculations get some support (it has been suggested) from string theory. Though such speculations are at present untestable and should be taken with a grain of salt, one or another may well one day be absorbed into a testable theory. It must be left to cosmologists and mathematical physicists to go into the pros and cons here, but they are mentioned here to indicate a grey area between the testable and the untestable. Some scientists when canvassing these issues of philosophical theology may prefer to call themselves ‘agnostics’ rather than ‘atheists’ because they have been over impressed by a generalized philosophical skepticism or by a too simple understanding of Popper’s dictum that we can never verify a theory but only refute it. Such a view would preclude us from saying quite reasonably that we know that the Sun consists largely of hydrogen and helium. When we say, ‘I know’ we are saying something defeasible. If later we discover that though what we said was at the time justified, it nevertheless turned out to be false, we would say ‘I thought I knew but I now see that I didn’t know’. Never or hardly ever to say, ‘I know’ would be to deprive these words of their usefulness, just as the fact that some promises have to be broken does not deprive the institution of promising of its legitimacy. Another motive whereby an atheist might describe herself as an agnostic is purely pragmatic. In discussion with a committed theist this might occur out of mere politeness or in some circumstances from fear of giving even more offence. Samuel Butler, though a complete unbeliever in the doctrines of Christianity, in the preface to one of his books Erewhon Revisited (Butler 1932) described himself as the broadest of broad churchmen. That is, I take it that broad churchmen often were unbelievers, but treated the doctrine as mere myth suitable for literal consumption by the local yokels in the interests of social stability. It is unclear to me whether or not Butler was sympathetic to a very abstract sort of theism. Some may call themselves ‘agnostics’ rather than ‘atheists’ merely because they are equally repelled by the fanaticism associated with some forms of theism and by the boring obsessiveness of what Hilary Putnam has called ‘the village atheist’. (Contrast, however, Clifford’s view of the matter and also the example of the radical and intellectual tinker, Mr. Shaw, in Butler’s powerful novel The Way of All Flesh.) Still, these considerations are perhaps more a matter for sociologists than for philosophers. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/atheism-agnosticism/

“Isn’t ignosticism the idea that the word “god” has not been well enough defined to make a judgement regarding existence?” – Challenger

My response, Well is may be for some not others as you started right for me god claims are contradictions and make believe that ae expressed but offer nothing. If you can’t define something then it’s not even a valid hypothesis and just unjustified claims that attach to nothing are unworthwhile.

“But each god hypothesis is pretty well defined. There is little reason to bother describing non-god concepts or hypothetical god concepts.” – Challenger

My response, A definition of a leprechaun does not mean it’s a valid hypothetic in reality only that humans gave an idea anthropomorphic characteristics not valid qualities for a real ontology. You can makeup all kinds of unreal non-defined in reality things there is only a limit on time to how many one could mentally conceive and not one of them is valid if not corresponding in and of reality. If I define for you what a square circle is like that would not add it to reality as it is a logical contradiction as reality has limits that we use to know that some things are impossible and only possible when the qualities match reality.”

“The definition is the only thing that allows you to say that. It is a well defined non thing. Perhaps gods are just well defined non things.” – Challenger

My response, “A scientific hypothesis is the initial building block in the scientific method. Many describe it as an “educated guess,” based on prior knowledge and observation. Mover, a hypothesis is a suggested solution for an unexplained occurrence that does not fit into current accepted scientific theory. The basic idea of a hypothesis is that there is no pre-determined outcome. A null hypothesis is the name given to a hypothesis that is possibly false or has no effect. Often, during a test, the scientist will study another branch of the idea that may work, which is called an alternative hypothesis. During testing, a scientist may come upon two types of errors. A Type I error is when the null hypothesis is rejected when it is true. A Type II error occurs when the null hypothesis is not rejected when it is false, according to the University of California, Berkeley. So, what is this nothing none evidence god somethingism?”

“God isn’t a scientific hypothesis. As are many things in our society.” – Challenger

My response, “god somethingism, like all proposed gods can’t pass the A Type II error so the null hypothesis is not rejected and thus god somethingism, like all proposed gods are false, god is nonsense.”

“That is simply atheism. I agree there, but that doesn’t mean there are particularly good definitions for various gods. Like story books use great definitions about dragons and pixies. It is well defined nonsense. We aren’t lacking definition.” – Challenger

My response, “Agnosticism, Ignosticism apatheism, secular humanism are all atheist, unless they have some belief. No belief is always atheism it’s a philosophical stance that occurs one need not actively choose it, but lack belief and atheism is occurring. I am an ignostic atheist. https://damienmarieathope.com/2015/11/17/i-am-an-ignostic-atheist/”

My response, “Agnosticism is a belief about knowledge built on folk logic and nonstandard philosophy it is not a true branch of the philosophy of knowledge at all, in fact it is more connected to philosophical skepticism which is against asserting any firm knowledge claim. I hear people time and again asserting the 100% knowledge or truth claim that because they believe there is no such thing as asserting the 100% knowledge or truth claim that by default Every atheist is agnostic. Do you see the self-contradictory claim which would or I guess if one holds such a belief in the limits of knowledge, should refrain from making global affirming truth claims that one cannot make global affirming truth claims?”

My response, “What is Ignosticism, or igtheism position? If followed to its logical end it concludes that the entire question about a god’s existence is a non-question and that taking a yes, no or even ambivalent position is absurd. It is based on an expectation of strong critical rational analysis of any proposition including the existence of god(s). As with any topic, and especially in the realm of the supernatural and woo, the subject of any debate should be coherently defined. If one offers a clear definition of an entity, then in order to take a position whether it exists or not the definition of the entity must be one in which its existence can be falsified (there is a rational and logical method by which we can test the existence of the subject as it has been defined). Few theists ever offer a clear definition of god. The few who do offer a definition almost never offer one in which the existence of that god(s) could be tested. The rare falsifiable definition offered regarding a god’s existence is easily falsified. And so as with any subject (such as the existence of almost all supernatural entities) debate about the existence of god(s) is, for the far majority of such conversations, pointless.

Ignosticism goes further than agnosticism; while agnosticism states that “you can’t really know either way” regarding the existence or non-existence of gOD, ignosticism posits that “you haven’t even agreed on what you’re discussing, as its nothing”. http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Ignosticism

My response, “Bigfoots, Unicorns, and Gods the rational conclusion using axiology:

So how do we form rational conclusions? More importantly how do we differentiate between the levels involved to establish a conclusions rational viability. It takes axiology or the value judgment the worthiness or lack thereof in relation to the available reason and evidence.

So, let’s start with the axiological viability of Bigfoots

There is no available evidence for Bigfoots but is their proposition outside of reason?

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

The axiological viability of Unicorns (ie. a horse with a single horn on its head)

There is no evidence for Unicorns but is their proposition outside of reason?

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

Now the axiological validity of god(s)

There is no evidence for gods but is their proposition outside of reason?

As always start in reality from the evidence we do know, such as never in the history of scientific research or investigation has any supernatural claims shown to be true. So, it is completely outside of possibility and is utterly ridiculous. Therefore, belief should be rejected as there are no warrants at all and it is axiologically unworthy to such a preponderance to demand disbelief.

“I take an ambivalent position to most things. Statistically unlikely things happen. Logic is simply a normative tool for discussing things. As bad as this sounds, proving logic is a difficult thing, because it would be illogical to disprove it. Even multiple views of the same phenomena doing the same thing can lead to incorrect views. Language is equally normative. If something doesn’t make sense, we can’t rule out that the language in use (or any language) is sufficient to explain everything. Using language as a basis for possibility strikes me much the same as an ontological argument. It seems like a word game which attempts to define things into or out of existence. To be honest, there isn’t really a means of enquiry I trust, it’s just a bunch of hypothetical models to varying degrees of likelyhood. We might be right about stuff, but we have little way of knowing it. The last bit is part of why I’m atheist. If there was a god worth believing in and who wanted us to, we’d likely have the capacity to know.” – Challenger

My response, Faith is an invalid method to know the reality qualities of the world. Thus, every theory proposed from or with faith is equally invalid and since all gods and religions require faith at some point in the belief ownership process as or in place of evidence and/or valid reasoning about reality. Therefore, they are all automatically invalid due to the limitation of faith not being able to produce things into reality. To me, the origin of Logics is Naturalistic Observation:

Valid reasoning has been employed in all periods of human history. However, logic studies the principles of valid reasoning, inference and demonstration. It is probable that the idea of demonstrating a conclusion first arose in connection with geometry, which originally meant the same as “land measurement”. In particular, the ancient Egyptians had empirically discovered some truths of geometry, such as the formula for the volume of a truncated pyramid. Another origin can be seen in Babylonia. Esagil-kin-apli’s medical Diagnostic Handbook in the 11th century BC was based on a logical set of axioms and assumptions, while Babylonian astronomers in the 8th and 7th centuries BC employed an internal logic within their predictive planetary systems, an important contribution to the philosophy of science. So, we have real world origins such as sky observation in Babylonian astrology and land observation in Egyptian Geometry (from the Ancient Greek: geo- “earth”, -metron “measurement”). The field of astronomy, especially as it relates to mapping the positions of stars and planets on the celestial sphere and describing the relationship between movements of celestial bodies, served as an important source of geometric problems during the next one and a half millennia. In the classical world, both geometry and astronomy were considered to be part of the Quadrivium, a subset of the seven liberal arts considered essential for a free citizen to master. While the ancient Egyptians empirically discovered some truths of geometry, the great achievement of the ancient Greeks was to replace empirical methods by demonstrative science. The systematic study of this seems to have begun with the school of Pythagoras in the late sixth century BC. The three basic principles of geometry are as follows: Certain propositions must be accepted as true without demonstration; such a proposition is known as an axiom of geometry. Every proposition that is not an axiom of geometry must be demonstrated as following from the axioms of geometry; such a demonstration is known as a proof or a “derivation” of the proposition. The proof must be formal; that is, the derivation of the proposition must be independent of the particular subject matter in question. Fragments of early proofs are preserved in the works of Plato and Aristotle.

Where do these laws of logic come from? If we want to get a causal explanation of the origin of logical laws (apart from positing them as fundamental to the universe), the proper way to understand their origin IS as derivative on rationality as developed by non-rational evolutionary means.

Thus, in a way we could say laws of logic didn’t come from anywhere; these just are the rules of rationality as they can be articulated by explicitly rational beings. When rational beings came into existence by purely non-rational evolutionary processes, they came into being as following these rules. And then, at some later point in time they became aware of themselves following these rules, and able to represent them explicitly.

When we see there as being implicitly logically-governed behavior in nature, we interpret nature in accordance with the way we understand ourselves as explicitly logical. We think of the behavior of entities of nature as if they represented their rational behavior like we do, it is our way of explicitly representing the norms of rationality. These non-rational entities of nature don’t have the slightest clue what the laws of logic are. But they behave as we do, and that’s how “we” see them. We can only make explanatory sense of how “we” have become explicitly aware of logical laws by showing how we are the result of beings that evolved an implicit awareness of these laws. And yet, we can only understand our natural ancestors as having implicit grasp of logic once we’ve garnered an explicit grasp of logic. That’s the only way we can make sense of them as actually following the laws of logic.

The reason it is unproblematic for an explanation to conceptually (but not causally) presuppose that laws of logic is that we cannot hope to get out of these laws conceptually, since they just are, the bounds of sense. When sense-makers like us naturally evolve this just is the way in which we must make sense of things. It’s is the essential structure of sense-making, so to speak. And since explanation is a sense-making enterprise, and any coherent explanation will conform to sense’s bounds—the things we’ve come to describe as the laws of logic. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_logichttps://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geometry https://absoluteirony.wordpress.com/2014/…/23/laws-of-logic/”

“Doubt is far superior. Go back to Heb 1:11. And have a good look at it and see the implications. It is utterly absurd.” – Challenger

My response, How do you not doubt “doubt itself” and thus are appealing to reason to decide this and not doubt, I mean not the presses of “doubt itself” as that is more a conclusion of the unworthy status for something or a realization of an uninformed/limited-informed if a thing in question is not so unsupported or unwarranted to debunk it at which pint doubt is then reassemble warranted to doubt is as a process to conclude you should decide to doubt or see doubt as advised and this conclusion of a need to doubt is a secondary response to the use of reason/rationalism.”

“You can’t doubt “doubt,” or what validity would the doubt you applied have?” – Challenger

My response, I reason and use critical thinking that is superior to just doubt and is not even listed in the description of critical thinking found at the critical thinking foundation: “A well cultivated critical thinker: raises vital questions and problems, formulating them clearly and precisely; gathers and assesses relevant information, using abstract ideas to interpret it effectively comes to well-reasoned conclusions and solutions, testing them against relevant criteria and standards; thinks open-mindedly within alternative systems of thought, recognizing and assessing, as need be, their assumptions, implications, and practical consequences; and communicates effectively with others in figuring out solutions to complex problems. Critical thinking is, in short, self-directed, self-disciplined, self-monitored, and self-corrective thinking. It presupposes assent to rigorous standards of excellence and mindful command of their use. It entails effective communication and problem-solving abilities and a commitment to overcome our native egocentrism and sociocentrism.” http://www.criticalthinking.org/pages/defining-critical-thinking/766

My response, Philosophical skepticism is distinguished from methodological skepticism in that philosophical skepticism is an approach that questions the possibility of certainty in knowledge, whereas methodological skepticism is an approach that subjects all knowledge claims to scrutiny with the goal of sorting out true from false claims.

“I’m a negativist. I prefer to assume we are probably wrong and look for other possibilities.” – Challenger

My response, Doubt or disbelief requires justification just like all other beliefs.”

“I can easily justify doubt. The unreliable nature of all current methods of human enquiry (they’ve all made mistakes which have been later corrected, it is unlikely this just stopped happening). Add to that, when you are wrong, you normally don’t know you are wrong. Being doubtful of complete accuracy is prudent, and possibility highly pragmatic. For example, i dint debate evolution. Even if someone tries to bring it up, they normally aren’t arguing about biology, but something else, so there is no need to further muddy the waters with more evolution talk. I won’t commit to it. It is a neat model, pretty plausible, a decent amount of unanswered questions we are aware of (this is good, it is the questions we aren’t aware of that are the problem) but hey, nothing is perfect. I am an atheist independant of evolution. It took me a while to soften to after deconversion. I dont need to accept it or reject it as it has little affect on things i consider pragmatic. And where it might have influence, that influence will be there whether I am aware or not. This, so far as i would describe it is not believing evolution. I’m not saying it didn’t happen, I’m just not passionate about the sibject and really don’t care that much. This turns out to be very handy as I dont get stuck trying to explain biology to a fellow layman who doesnt want it to be real. I get to talk about the god ideas instead, which is really the aim.” – Challenger

My response, Yes doubt can be justified by appealing to valid and reliable reason and/or observable/demonstrable evidence not doubt so that which is first is the best not the product of its use (doubt). So, which do you favor?” You are stating, “Doubt is far superior” is a truth claim and I would like to see you use doubt to justify that claim and you must stick with doubt to make the undoubted truth claim about doubt. To me stating doubt is super could only be reasoned by the elimination of doubt not the other way around so saying it as a universal is a contradiction. For once you believe it is superior you demonstrate it is not. Doubt, then, is the opposite of certainty see the problem, you must appeal to reason.”

“Havent slept and it is 7am. I afriad I will have to come back when my mind is working.” – Challenger

My response, It’s cool I enjoyed talking take care and have a good night.”

“Damien, as a philosophical position, agnosticism is the only honest position……. but it fails when presented with physical evidence.. and so it is the middle way…” – Challenger

My response, What is a god to doubt? I don’t start my disbelief on the dilutions of god claims I assess are these claims warranted they are not so nothing to doubt so agnosticism starts with a presupposition of the term god to say they are unsure about thus to me making a thinking error as there is no presupposition god term to reality. I stand with ignosticism, roughly that the term god is given to much leeway as a valid offering of a possible real thing when no god claim if limited to only reality coherent attributes all add nonsense like supernatural things one of which at its simplest a being or at least a thinking thing with no physical mind but can think, an invisible thing and of courses an immaterial thing such as the no physical body in anyway. And there we see the problem with accepting any god claim as even reality coherent as it is not. All claims must be coherent with or correspond to reality and just like many theological nonsense terms such as the soul. I don’t know what people are talking about when they say the term “soul” (it’s a made-up concept which connects to nothing that is reality coherent) as there is no part of the body exhibits as such magic thinking idea, soul, thus a debunked claim and does not need doubt. Similarly, I don’t know what people are talking about when they say the term “god” (it’s a made-up concept which connects to nothing that is reality coherent) as there is no part of the body exhibits as such magic thinking idea, god, thus a debunked claim and does not need doubt.

Ignosticism or igtheism, basically as a philosophic position concludes the belief in or a possibility of a supernatural being, ultimate or otherwise as reality misinterpreted, reality confused, reality incoherent, and reality unintelligible.

Ignosticism or igtheism (desire a good, well defined and supported ontology), basically as a philosophic position (rationalism, if one is addressing a mental aspect or claim and empiricism, if one is addressing a real world aspect or claim) concludes the belief in (Ignosticism in this lack of belief/disbelief is atheism) or a possibility of (Ignosticism in this lack of “a possibility of” is using an Ethics of Belief, justificationism, reliabilism and anti-agnosticism) a supernatural being, ultimate (gods) or otherwise as reality misinterpreted, reality confused, reality incoherent, and reality unintelligible.

Weak Theism (Agnostic)

1. Weak Theism: Yes, a god(s) and/or goddess(es) exists though I am not sure or don’t know about god(s) and/or goddess(es) at this time.
2. Weak Theism: Yes, a god(s) and/or goddess(es) exists. However, we have no possibility or certainty of knowing anything about God, now or in the future.
3. Weak Theism: I think that a god(s) and/or goddess(es) exists, but have no proof.
4. Weak Theism: I think so, but cannot be positive that a god(s) and/or goddess(es) exists.
5. Weak Theism: I don’t know but will lead my life assuming that a god(s) and/or goddess(es) does exist just to be careful, perhaps because of the rewards or to stop some punishments one would receive if a god(s) and/or goddess(es) does exist.
6. Weak Theism: I worship a god (or a god and goddess, or a goddess, or some combination of god(s) and/or goddess(es) but cannot prove that they exist.
7. Weak Theism: I doubt it, but cannot be sure a god(s) and/or goddess(es) doesn’t exist.

Weak Atheism (Agnostic)

1. Weak Atheism: I don’t know if a god(s) and/or goddess(es). (So they don’t believe theism thus are atheists)
2. Weak Atheism: There will never be any way to know. (So they don’t believe theism thus are atheists)
3. Weak Atheism: There is no way to know, but perhaps someone will find a proof or disproof in the future. (So they don’t believe theism thus are atheists)
4. Weak Atheism: I cannot give an opinion because there is no way that we can prove the existence or non-existence of God given currently available knowledge. (So they don’t believe theism thus are atheists)
5. Weak Atheism: I don’t know but will lead my life in the assumption that no god(s) and/or goddess(es) exists. (So they don’t believe theism thus are atheists)
6. Weak Atheism: I will have to withhold my opinion/belief until god(s) and/or goddess(es), if one or many exists, decides to make his, her or their presence known by a strong provable indicator, which until now has ever happened. (So they don’t believe theism thus are atheists)
7. Weak Atheism: The god(s) and/or goddess(es) that various believers worship are like unicorns: they are obviously fictional. However, who knows, I do not have certain disproof.

• Feel you don’t know what god is or could be you might be a Ignostic but if so you don’t or can’t believe in theism. Ignosticism is the idea that the question of the existence of God is meaningless, because the term “god” has no unambiguous definition. Ignosticism requires a good, non-controversial definition of god before arguing on its existence. (So they don’t believe theism thus are atheists)
• Feel you don’t care what god is or could be you might be an Apatheist but if so you don’t believe in theism. An apatheist is someone who is not interested in accepting or denying any claims that gods exist or do not exist. An apatheist lives as if there are no gods and explains natural phenomena without reference to any deities. (So they don’t believe theism thus are atheists) 1, 2, 3

According to Peter Klein, “By a philosopher depending on a claim that a proposition is worthy of “assent” an expression of approval or agreement (where “assent” is the pro-attitude required for knowledge) only if there are no genuine grounds for doubting it. The characterization of genuine grounds for doubt could be put as follows:

Some proposition, d, is a genuine ground for doubt of p for S iff:

1. d added to S‘s beliefs makes assent to p no longer adequately justified;
2. S is not justified in denying d;
3. S has no way to neutralize d.^[9]

Note that, given this characterization of genuine grounds for doubt, S need not have any evidential support for d. It could be any proposition that S entertains. In addition, it could be false. Finally, it could be a ground for doubt for one person but not for another person (or the same person at another time), depending upon what each beliefs (at the time). For only one of them might have a belief that is adequate evidence for denying dor neutralizing d (at the time). That explains why, rational meditating, can have a genuine ground for doubting the testimony of one’s senses at an early point in the rational meditating and be able to neutralize and/or reject the ground at a later point in the rational meditating. That assumes, of course, that rational meditating can produce new adequately justified beliefs; but that seems reasonable enough for a philosopher to believe!” https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/skepticism/

Agnosticism is a belief about knowledge built on folk logic and nonstandard philosophy it is not a true branch of the philosophy of knowledge at all, in fact it is more connected to philosophical skepticism which is against asserting any firm knowledge claim.

I hear people time and again asserting the 100% knowledge or truth claim that because they believe there is no such thing as asserting the 100% knowledge or truth claim that by default Every atheist is agnostic. Do you see the self-contradictory claim which would or I guess if one holds such a belief in the limits of knowledge, should refrain from making global affirming truth claims that one cannot make global affirming truth claims.

Some likely have such thinking because of they are using agnosticism’s folk philosophy ideology you like it are asserting something about the nature of knowledge and belief which is not how philosophy works. Here is what standard philosophy uses it is called epistemology and it never uses anything called agnosticism. Epistemology is the study of knowledge and justified belief. As the study of knowledge, epistemology is concerned with the following questions: What are the necessary and sufficient conditions of knowledge? What are its sources? What is its structure, and what are its limits? As the study of justified belief, epistemology aims to answer questions such as: How we are to understand the concept of justification? What makes justified beliefs justified? Is justification internal or external to one’s own mind? Understood more broadly, epistemology is about issues having to do with the creation and dissemination of knowledge in particular areas of inquiry. A common concept in epistemology is “Knowledge is Justified True Belief”

There are various kinds of knowledge: knowing how to do something (for example, how to ride a bicycle), knowing someone in person, and knowing a place or a city. Although such knowledge is of epistemological interest as well, we shall focus on knowledge of propositions and refer to such knowledge using the schema ‘S knows that p’, where ‘S’ stands for the subject who has knowledge and ‘p’ for the proposition that is known. Our question will be: What are the necessary and sufficient conditions for S to know that p? We may distinguish, broadly, between a traditional and a non-traditional approach to answering this question. We shall refer to them as ‘TK’ and ‘NTK’.

According to TK, knowledge that p is, at least approximately, justified true belief (JTB). False propositions cannot be known. Therefore, knowledge requires truth. A proposition S doesn’t even believe can’t be a proposition that S knows. Therefore, knowledge requires belief. Finally, S’s being correct in believing that p might merely be a matter of luck. Therefore, knowledge requires a third element, traditionally identified as justification. Thus we arrive at a tripartite analysis of knowledge as JTB: S knows that p if and only if p is true and S is justified in believing that p. According to this analysis, the three conditions — truth, belief, and justification — are individually necessary and jointly sufficient for knowledge.

Initially, we may say that the role of justification is to ensure that S’s belief is not true merely because of luck. On that, TK and NTK are in agreement. They diverge, however, as soon as we proceed to be more specific about exactly how justification is to fulfill this role. According to TK, S’s belief that p is true not merely because of luck when it is reasonable or rational, from S’s own point of view, to take p to be true. According to evidentialism, what makes a belief justified in this sense is the possession of evidence. The basic idea is that a belief is justified to the degree it fits S’s evidence. NTK, on the other hand, conceives of the role of justification differently. Its job is to ensure that S’s belief has a high objective probability of truth and therefore, if true, is not true merely because of luck. One prominent idea is that this is accomplished if, and only if, a belief originates in reliable cognitive processes or faculties. This view is known as reliabilism.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/epistemology/#JTB

Some thinkers and philosophers deny the validity of agnosticism assertions in general, seeing it as a limitation of man’s capacity to know the reality, affirming that “not being able to see or hold some specific thing does not necessarily negate its existence,” using gravity, entropy, reason and thought as examples.
Agnosticism is the position of believing that knowledge of the existence or non-existence of god is impossible.

Finally, there is an argument, popular among some who fancy themselves intellectuals, that agnosticism is the only intellectually honest position to take with regard to gods. According to this viewpoint, theism and atheism are arrogant affirmations of being certain about something that is intrinsically unknowable. It is, of course, true that it is possible there is some unknowable being or entity who creates universes, has unimaginable powers, and is like nothing we have any experience of. No atheist that I know of has ever denied such a possibility, nor have we denied the possibility of an unknowable Easter Bunny who lays eggs on Saturn or any other imaginable epistemic improbability. So what? Atheists and theists do not concern themselves with epistemic improbabilities, but with gods about whom stories have been told for millennia. The more we learn about the universe, the less reason there is for believing that any of these gods were not created by human imagination. Agnosticism regarding Zeus or Abraham’s god is not an intellectually honest position, as it can be maintained only by a fatuous and dishonest treatment of the available evidence. That evidence shows beyond a reasonable doubt that all gods fashioned thus far in the minds of men are highly improbable. Agnosticism regarding unimaginable, unknowable beings is redundant.

http://www.skepdic.com/agnosticism.html

We can sert 100% psychological certainty we do it all the time. What most agnostics likely mean is they don’t want to claim epistemic certainty thinking it like knowledge is disconnected from belief. However, like knowledge, certainty is an epistemic property of beliefs.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/certainty/

Sometimes a person who is really an atheist may describe herself, even passionately, as an agnostic because of unreasonable generalized philosophical skepticism which would preclude us from saying that we know anything whatever except perhaps the truths of mathematics and formal logic.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/atheism-agnosticism/

Knowledge and belief

Knowledge is an intellectual commodity which is true and believed and justified. There are two slightly different meanings of belief that must be distinguished. In the first sense, John might “believe in” his cousin Joe. This may mean that he is willing to lend Joe money, trusting in his paying it back. In this sense, John might say, “I know it is safer to fly than drive, yet I don’t believe it,” in which case John doesn’t trust in the safety of aircraft, even though as a cognitive matter he may understand the pertinent statistics.

In the second sense of belief, to believe something just means to think that it is true. That is, to believe P is to do no more than to think, for whatever reason, that P is the case. It is this sort of belief that philosophers most often mean when they are discussing knowledge. The reason is that, in the view of most philosophers, in order to know something, one must think that it is true—one must believe (in the second sense) it to be the case.

Consider someone saying, “I know that P, but I don’t think P is true.” The person making this utterance seems to have contradicted himself. If one knows that P, then, amongst other things, one thinks that P is indeed true. If one thinks that P is true, then one believes P.

Knowledge is usually held to be distinct from belief and opinion. If someone claims to believe something, they are claiming that they think that it is the truth. But of course, it might turn out that they were mistaken, and that what they thought was true was actually false. This is not the case with knowledge. For example, suppose that Jeff thinks that a particular bridge is safe, and attempts to cross it; unfortunately, the bridge collapses under his weight. One might say that Jeff believed that the bridge was safe, but that his belief was mistaken. One would not say that he knew that the bridge was safe, because plainly it was not. For something to count as knowledge, it must be true—at least as knowledge is usually understood anyway.

Similarly, two people can believe things that are mutually contradictory, but they cannot know (unequivocal) things that are mutually contradictory. For example, Jeff can believe the bridge is safe, while Jenny believes it unsafe. But Jeff cannot know the bridge is safe and Jenny know that the bridge is unsafe. Two people cannot know contradictory things.

http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Epistemology

Rationality

If one does not reject rationality, but still wishes to maintain that knowledge claims cannot be or are not justified, one might be termed a non-justificationist. Here philosophers are on firmer philosophical ground; since non-justificationists accept the validity of reason, they can present logical arguments for their case.For instance, the regress argument has it that one can ask for the justification for any statement of knowledge. If that justification takes the form of another statement, one can again reasonably ask for that statement also to be justified, and so forth. This appears to lead to an infinite regress, with every statement justified by some other statement.

It would be impossible to check that each justification is satisfactory, and so relying on such a series quickly leads to skepticism.Alternately, one might claim that some knowledge statements do not require justification. Much of the history of epistemology is the story of conflicting philosophical doctrines claiming that this or that type of knowledge statement has special status. This view is known as Foundationalism.One can also avoid the regress if one supposes that the assumption that a knowledge statement can only be supported by another knowledge statement is simply misguided.

Coherentism holds that a knowledge statement is not justified by some small subset of other knowledge statements, but by the entire set. That is, a statement is justified if it coheres with all other knowledge claims in the system. This has the advantage of avoiding the infinite regress without claiming special status for some particular sorts of statements. But since a system might still be consistent and yet simply wrong, it raises the difficulty of ensuring that the whole system corresponds in some way with the truth.

http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Epistemology

Ignosticism, or igtheism position?

If followed to its logical end it concludes that the entire question about God’s existence is a non-question and that taking a yes, no or even ambivalent position is absurd. It is based on an expectation of strong critical rational analysis of any proposition including the existence of God.

As with any topic, and especially in the realm of the supernatural and woo, the subject of any debate should be coherently defined. If one offers a clear definition of an entity, then in order to take a position whether it exists or not the definition of the entity must be one in which its existence can be falsified (there is a rational and logical method by which we can test the existence of the subject as it has been defined). Few theists ever offer a clear definition of God. The few who do offer a definition almost never offer one in which the existence of that God could be tested. The rare falsifiable definition offered regarding God’s existence is easily falsified. And so as with any subject (such as the existence of almost all supernatural entities) debate about the existence of God is, for the far majority of such conversations, pointless.

Ignosticism goes further than agnosticism; while agnosticism states that “you can’t really know either way” regarding the existence or non-existence of gOD, ignosticism posits that “you haven’t even agreed on what you’re discussing, as its nothing”.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Ignosticism

I am Ignostic not agnostic and you should consider it too…

Which is more reasonable, Atheism or Theism?

Atheism is more reasonable as it is only holding to the proven naturalism confirmed by science. Whereas, theism puts forth faith, magical thinking and stories about the history of the world, who’s beliefs either don’t match or are debunked by the proven naturalism confirmed by science. To value faith as a means to know reality or the truth or something, is a mental weakness of wanting one’s beliefs about reality to matter more than the actual reality. Faith in relation to truth is at best just wishful emotions over rational understanding.

The Empty God Box

In scientific terms a “LACK OF EVIDENCE” is/can be proof of non-existence. As with all things as new evidence is discovered views can change. I can prove something does not exist by its lack of existence, the box is empty? Is a box empty? I can prove god is not in the box, but some say I can never prove the box is empty. But is it right to say the god Box is never empty even if we remove its needed contents. It’s an exercise in rhetoric with what we do know to say the god Box is not empty of all evidence and reason thus all it can be is empty of validity. And still today people say empty god boxes are possibly not empty? The god Box is, was, and will always “LACK OF EVIDENCE” and “LACK OF A VALID JUSTIFICATION” thus empty proving the god concepts non-existence. Think I am wrong then you go and keep looking or trying to empty that already empty box labeled god devoid of all facts EVIDENCE or reason.

*Damien, how can you say God(s) is not even possible?

My response, well for a thing to be assessed as possible it needs a starting point in reality, the man-made God concepts not only don’t have such tangibility they can’t even justify what a god actually could be other that state regurgitating wishful thinking stories that involve empty unwarranted claims of supernatural beings with supernaturalism caricaturists devoid of any supporting demonstrable or testable evidence. So saying that you know or hold open to possibility is to be posturing from ignorance as you not only don’t know anything about nonnatural things (no one rightly can) you likewise do nor justifiability can say what if anything could be beyond the natural world as that is all we have. Thus saying one believes that some God, any God is real or possible is wrong until evidence of supernatural anything is proven. Stating a possibility is to state a knowledge claim of the posable, meaning if justifiable it must connect to that which would support such a claim. So how can anyone truly say a god (unknown and evidenceless assumed thing only expressed by imagination) could be possible?

*Damien, I hear you reject agnosticism thinking, but an agnostic is a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as God, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience. Nothing more, nothing less.

My response, To not know is not to believe, thus, is a form of Atheism.

*Damien, I’m sorry Damien, but you are wrong here. I know plenty of Christians who are also Agnostic. That is, they don’t have knowledge of god, but they still believe. In fact, one could argue that if knowledge exists, then there is no need for faith. However, I agree that there is a common usage of the term Agnostic that is more like, “I’m not sure if I believe in god or not.”. That’s not really a correct usage, but it is fairly common. Many of those who use it this way are probably really Atheists, but are afraid of using that word. BTW, I am an Atheist and an Agnostic. The two terms are not incompatible.

My response, Agnostic Christians = believe in God, thus is theism. Weak/soft theism to be specific.

*Damien, yes, theist, but also agnostic.

My response, Saying one does not know is a lack of belief thus Atheist if one states that they don’t know but believe they are a theist.

*Damien, an agnostic is the person who isn’t sure whether or not there’s a god. The truth is, we are all agnostic because no one is sure whether or not there’s a god. Now, you have people that chose to believe there’s a god. This is the agnostic theist. Then you have the one that doesn’t believe there’s one, this is the agnostic atheist.

My response, What are we to be not sure of? There is not one piece of evidence to even support any not intelligent supernatural let alone an intelligent one and to state otherwise to me is preposterous.

*Damien, the reason no one is sure is because we haven’t explored the entire universe. When you are done doing this, then you can be sure.

My response, It seems agnostics like to say they don’t have knowledge then turn right around and make a knowledge claim about how we can’t be sure but a true exhibition of not knowing is to not make any claims at all.

*Damien, what I’m saying is that no one can affirm for fact whether or not there’s a god out there, that’s the reason we are all agnostic by definition, because no one knows.

My response, Well on that point, no one has or can affirm a fact about what a god could be. Thus, this proposed question involves an unjustified and unwarranted claim that can be rejected of hand until someone can demonstrate the opposite whether or not there’s some justified or warranted qualities or characteristics to start thinking what otherwise is an empty claim of god.

*Damien, but knowledge and belief are not the same thing. Well, I don’t want to argue about it. Matt Dillahunty has spoken on this many times and I would suggest you check out his discussion on this.

My response, I am an Ignostic as the concept of God(s) is a nothing statement lacking justifiable reason or evidence thus meaningless to state one does not know if it’s possible as to state such is to give the claim more substance that is deserves. Matt Dillahunty only asserts belief not knowledge. If I remember correctly, he told me there is not knowledge only levels of belief. I don’t agree with that. As for what famous Atheists think Aron Ra States something like an agnostic is someone who does not know they are an Atheist and Peter Boghossian states something like there is no need for using Agnostic.

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

If god does not want people to go to a hell and knows in advance that they will, is it not more ethical to just not create them in the first place? You can’t say god has no choice or control, then you are affirming god is not all powerful. Similarly, if he chooses to create someone he knows will go to hell he is not all good.

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

*Damien, so are you suggesting we remove the word Gnossis from the English language? When people like Aron Ra state that an agnostic is someone who doesn’t know they are atheist, I believe he is using the term agnostic in the common usage, not the correct usage. A (without) Gnostic (knowledge). I.e., if you tell me you have a dog, I would probably believe you. I have not reason not to, even though I have no ‘knowledge’ of your statement. I would be agnostic re: your statement of a dog, but I would still believe it. Belief does NOT require knowledge, but it certainly is boosted by knowledge and facts.

My response, Agnostics are playing a game making up things about epistemology that are not the case. Knowledge is an epistemic property of belief just like certainty. Yes, the folk philosophy used in support of agnostic arguments is one of the problems. Second, sure get rid of the religious term Gnostic as it is not a required word in epistemology neither is agnostic for that matter. As an Ignostic Atheist I say the term God is no more real than the term fod. Ignosticism goes further than agnosticism; while agnosticism states that “you can’t really know either way” regarding the existence or non-existence of gOD, ignosticism posits that “you haven’t even agreed on what you’re discussing, as its nothing”. Ignosticism is the idea that the question of the existence of God is meaningless, because the term “god” has no unambiguous justified definition. Ignosticism requires a good, non-controversial definition of god before arguing on its existence. In epistemology, there are various kinds of certainty. I am psychologically certain there is no supernatural anything because of epistemic certainty about the natural only world devoid of magic anything Thus I fully reject the made-up evidence devoid concept of gods. There is no warrant to do otherwise. And I hold all beliefs to the standard that it must relate to or corresponds with the reality of the world. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/certainty/

*Damien, It’s okay to remain open to any idea or philosophy… I think it’s worse to pick one idea and decide to stick to it for all of your existence. There’s no reason why anyone must “choose a side. ”

My response, We all should an honest thinker, therefore, be open to credible information even if it means we need to amend or change our beliefs. Not choosing a side is, in fact, choosing Atheism as to lack belief is the default of Atheism only active belief is Theism.

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

*Damien, your just wrong. I was agnostic for many years, saying I was fairly sure there were no Gods but not 100%. I am now, but there are plenty who could legitimately call themselves agnostic.

My response, The lacking 100% to me is still saying one doubts the claims of God’s thus does not believe them, thus, is an Atheist. To me, the 100% knowledge claim is unwarranted as we can say we are not 100% about many things in science and that doesn’t diminish the justification for believing them or similar there are things science doesn’t 100% know they are false and yet we have justification for not believing them. Think also in courts of law there is almost never anything close to 100% certainty and that doesn’t mean we are forever lost as in the can be a state of beyond a reasonable doubt. Which to me also shows there is a state of thinking where the doubt can be unreasonable or at least not warranted.

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

*Damien, agnostic means you don’t give a shit if there is a god or not. You don’t know, don’t care.

My response, That is an Apatheist and apatheism, also known as pragmatic atheism or practical atheism.

*Damien, making up a word doesn’t change what an agnostic truly is.

My response, I didn’t make up the word Apatheist. apathetic agnosticism claims that no amount of debate can prove or disprove the existence of one or more deities, and if one or more deities exist, they do not appear to be concerned about the fate of humans. Therefore, their existence has little to no impact on personal human affairs and should be of little theological interest. Which is still known as pragmatic atheism or practical atheism. http://atheism.about.com/od/Atheist-Dictionary/g/Definition-Apatheist.htm https://www.pdcnet.org/pdc/bvdb.nsf/purchase?openform&fp=wcp22&id=wcp22_2008_0045_0087_0093

Still Questioning If There is Disproof of Gods?

In the link, there are offered empirical disproofs of god, such as: COSMOLOGICAL DISPROOFS, TELEOLOGICAL DISPROOFS, EVIDENTIAL EVIL DISPROOFS, & NONBELIEF DISPROOFS Link:http://disproofatheism.org/4.html

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

*Damien, I’m agnostic. ITS No shame.

My response, I didn’t say it held shame I said it is a state of not actively believing thus is Atheism or weak/soft Atheism to be specific. Here is some philosophy info on Agnosticism:

Though there are a couple of references in The Oxford English Dictionary to earlier occurrences of the word ‘agnostic’, seems introduced by T. H. Huxley at a party in London to found the Metaphysical Society. Huxley thought that as many of these people liked to describe themselves as adherents of various ‘isms’ he would invent one for himself. He took it from a description in Acts 17:23 of an altar inscribed ‘to an unknown God’. Huxley thought that we would never be able to know about the ultimate origin and causes of the universe. Thus he seems to have been more like a Kantian believer in unknowable noumena than like a Vienna Circle proponent of the view that talk of God is not even meaningful. Huxley’s agnosticism seems nevertheless to go with an extreme empiricism, nearer to Mill’s methods of induction than to recent discussions of the hypothetico-deductive and partly holistic aspect of testing of theories. Though we might not be able to prove the existence of God might we be able to disprove it? Many philosophers hold that the existence of an omnipotent, omniscient and good God is empirically refuted by the existence of evil and suffering, and so would be happy to be called atheists rather than agnostics. As was hinted earlier, a person may call herself an agnostic, as Huxley did, because of questionable philosophical motives. Huxley thought that propositions about the transcendent, though possibly meaningful, were empirically untestable. We have seen that it is unclear that the conclusion of the fine tuning argument is untestable. One can at least compare it with other and non-theistic hypotheses. Thus there are conjectures that there are many universes, so many of them that is not surprising that there should be some among them in which the constants of physics allow for the possibility of life, and if so our universe must be one of them. Some cosmologists give independent grounds for thinking that new universes are spawned out of the back of black holes. Others think that there are independent grounds for thinking of a single huge Universe that has crystallised out into various universe sized regions each with randomly different values for the fundamental constants. Some such speculations get some support (it has been suggested) from string theory. Though such speculations are at present untestable and should be taken with a grain of salt, one or another may well one day be absorbed into a testable theory. It must be left to cosmologists and mathematical physicists to go into the pros and cons here, but they are mentioned here to indicate a grey area between the testable and the untestable. Some scientists when canvassing these issues of philosophical theology may prefer to call themselves ‘agnostics’ rather than ‘atheists’ because they have been over impressed by a generalised philosophical scepticism or by a too simple understanding of Popper’s dictum that we can never verify a theory but only refute it. Such a view would preclude us from saying quite reasonably that we know that the Sun consists largely of hydrogen and helium. When we say ‘I know’ we are saying something defeasible. If later we discover that though what we said was at the time justified, it nevertheless turned out to be false, we would say ‘I thought I knew but I now see that I didn’t know’. Never or hardly ever to say ‘I know’ would be to deprive these words of their usefulness, just as the fact that some promises have to be broken does not deprive the institution of promising of its legitimacy. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/atheism-agnosticism/

*Damien, I just don’t pretend to know for sure, because I don’t. My spouse is a strong atheist.

My response, What does for sure mean to a nothing term God lacking any proof of anything. If we said I don’t pretend to state knowledge of the pretend would that be reasonable? Think about using your standard for god, would it be reasonable in a court of law? It there a specific thinking that states if no corroborating evidence is available we must say I don’t pretend to know for sure? Or do we say without evidence you have no case? I am Ignostic as they lack any evidence thus they have no case, there has been nothing offered of substance to justify belief. It’s like saying I don’t pretend to know if my child’s imaginary friend is actually imaginary. To me belief needs supporting reason and evidence and doubt needs supporting reason and evidence. Such as if I tell you I have the Nile River in my pocket no reasonable person would or should reserve doubt, instead it would be rejected out of hand. Similarly, the god claim involves super amounts of supernatural but nothing ever tested holds anything supernatural so such claims should be rejected out of hand. This is holding to the epistemology standard of the correspondence theory of truth. The correspondence theory of truth states that the truth or falsity of a statement is determined only by how it relates to the world and whether it accurately describes (i.e., corresponds with) that world. Correspondence theories claim that true beliefs and true statements correspond to the actual state of affairs.

*Damien, an agnostic is the person who isn’t sure whether or not there’s a god. The truth is, we are all agnostic because no one is sure whether or not there’s a god. Now, you have people that chose to believe there’s a god. This is the agnostic theist. Then you have the one that doesn’t believe there’s one, this is the agnostic atheist.

My response, what are we to be not sure of? There is not one piece of evidence to even support any not intelligent supernatural let alone an intelligent one and to state otherwise to me is preposterous.

*Damien, the reason no one is sure is because we haven’t explored the entire universe. When you are done doing this, then you can be sure.

My response, it seems agnostics like to say they don’t have knowledge then turn right around and make a knowledge claim about how we can’t be sure but a true exhibition of not knowing is to not make any claims at all.

*Damien, what I’m saying is that no one can affirm for fact whether or not there’s a god out there, that’s the reason we are all agnostic by definition, because no one knows.

My response, no one has or can affirm a fact about what a god could be. Thus, this proposed question involves an unjustified and unwarranted claim that can be rejected of hand until someone can demonstrate the opposite whether or not there’s some justified or warranted qualities or characteristics to start thinking what otherwise is an empty claim of god. moreover, saying no one can say for a fact whether or not there’s a god, seems to show you still are accepting the nothing, evidence devoid term god.

Hitchens’ razor is an epistemological razor asserting that the burden of proof regarding the truthfulness of a claim lies with whoever made the claim; if this burden is not met, the claim is unfounded and its opponents need not argue further in order to dismiss it. It is named, echoing Occam’s razor, for the journalist and writer Christopher Hitchens, who, in 2003, formulated it thus: “What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.”

Hitchens’ razor is actually a translation of a Latin law code precept and also proverb “Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur”, which has been widely used at least since the early 19th century, and Ernest Renan. However, Hitchens’s English rendering of the phrase has made it more widely known to the English-speaking audience. It is used, for example, to counter presuppositional apologetics. This quotation appears by itself in God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything, a book by Hitchens published in 2007. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitchens%27s_razor

*Damien, I still don’t know. And that’s ok.

My response, True, and no one even truly knows anything real about the term god either.

*Damien, you seem like a very confident atheist, what makes you so sure that an eternal physical brute fact exists and caused the universe to exist?

My response, Even if one does not know what caused the universe, what do you think such a gap in knowledge can actually do in relation to a somethingism god could be added to the gap there is nothing that limits a god of such vague theism to any gods ever offered as creator? But there is no reason to arbitrarily add myths to the lack of knowledge, as in from the unknown origins of the universe we can tell no facts at all which would include lacking any information to support a myth of gods or religions. Because not knowing something is not a set of evidence for something, well any more than the thing in question is unknown.

Ps. I am giving you a good video to explain your origins of the universe question called: Science, Religion, and the Big Bang I am giving you a good video to explain the how and why creationists are misinformed called: Why I am no longer a Creationist

*Damien, I love a lot of theists who are also good people. I really don’t think about it so much.

My response, I love a lot of people that think a lot of stuff I find ridiculous as long as they are good people.

My response, One may want a planet to be cubical. Just about every other force in the universe wants it round. http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/3011/what-would-it-be-like-walking-around-on-a-cube-shaped-planet

Agnosticism Beliefs Involve “FOLK LOGIC” Thinking?

Well, I have been asked If I am an Atheist can I explain about my anti-agnostic thinking and to explain why I say agnosticism beliefs involve “FOLK LOGIC” thinking.

My anti-agnostic thinking is a challenge to the agnostic thinking not an attack on the people who hold the agnostic thinking. My anti-agnostic thinking is not me trying to tell others they are not atheist enough or not real atheists nor is it trying to say you have no right to believe you are an agnostic.

For me my anti-agnostic thinking is about “The Ethics of Belief” as I see it. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ethics-belief/

I don’t claim to know what agnostics know or don’t, think or don’t other than to say I disagree with the “I don’t know”, “I am not sure” or “I can’t be certain” about the god concept question. I am not against people calling themselves agnostic if they wish I am against the thinking that one would once informed would still see value in agnostic thinking. I see agnostic thinking often even by deep thinkers choosing to hold some foundations built on folk logic as STEVEN D. HALES calls it. Steven D. Hales is the professor department of philosophy Bloomsburg University, here is an article on that: You Can Prove a Negative. A PRINCIPLE OF FOLK LOGIC is that you can’t prove a negative: Skeptics and scientists routinely concede the point in debates about the possible existence of everything from Big Foot and Loch Ness to aliens and even God. In a recent television interview on Comedy Central’s The Colbert Report, for example, Skeptic publisher Michael Shermer admitted as much when Stephen Colbert pressed him on the point when discussing Weapons of Mass Destruction, the comedian adding that once it is admitted that scientists cannot prove the nonexistence of a thing, then belief in anything is possible. Even Richard Dawkins writes in The God Delusion that “you cannot prove God’s non-existence is accepted and trivial, if only in the sense that we can never absolutely prove the non-existence of anything.” There is one big problem with this. Among professional logicians, guess how many think that you can’t prove a negative? That’s right, zero. http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/07-12-05/

I see agnostic as a belief about the ability to have knowledge, it is in that way not following epistemology which is the philosophy of knowledge. Agnostic thinking is stating its own theological seminary of what it sees as abilities to grasp god knowledge. I address agnostic not because I think people cannot choose to believe in this way if they choose. The reason I so often address agnosticism is that I hear so many say it like they have no choice which is simply not true. Most of the beloved statements offered as reasoning to why there is no other choice but an agnostic conclusion hinge on folk logic and folk concepts of knowledge or misunderstood application of the philosophy of science. This is true even of scientists who have disbelief as most of them disregard philosophy as well which is a large contributing factor for the confusion. The scientific method which all science largely uses requires an amount of pre belief (a priori) in the not complete knowledge concept of realism philosophy or naturalism philosophy both of which are connected. My point is people don’t go around saying they are science agnostic. Both scientific realism and naturalism reject all supernatural claims and thus would not be agnostic about the possibility of a supernatural being called god. I hold agnostic thinking also as not a professional epistemology thus it is not usable to delineate a professional philosophical knowledge stance it is a personal belief forming a theory of knowledge. To me, knowledge is largely an Epistemology of justified true belief as is understood in philosophy, with my own variation to validate each part. Epistemology is the study of knowledge and justified belief. As the study of knowledge, epistemology is concerned with the following questions: What are the necessary and sufficient conditions of knowledge? What are its sources? What is its structure, and what are its limits? As the study of justified belief, epistemology aims to answer questions such as: How we are to understand the concept of justification? What makes justified beliefs justified? Is justification internal or external to one’s own mind? Understood more broadly, epistemology is about issues having to do with the creation and dissemination of knowledge in particular areas of inquiry. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/epistemology/

“Philosophical vs. Pragmatic Reasons for Preferring the Term ‘Agnostic’A person may call herself an agnostic, as Huxley did, because of questionable philosophical motives. Huxley thought that propositions about the transcendent, though possibly meaningful, were empirically untestable. We have seen that it is unclear that the conclusion of thefine-tuning argument is untestable. One can at least compare it with other and non-theistic hypotheses. Thus there are conjectures that there are many universes, so many of them that is not surprising that there should be some among them in which the constants of physics allow for the possibility of life, and if so our universe must be one of them. Some cosmologists give independent grounds for thinking that new universes are spawned out of the back of black holes. Others think that there are independent grounds for thinking of a single huge Universe that has crystallized out into various universe-sized regions each with randomly different values for the fundamental constants. Some such speculations get some support (it has been suggested) from string theory. Though such speculations are at present untestable and should be taken with a grain of salt, one or another may well one day be absorbed into a testable theory. It must be left to cosmologists and mathematical physicists to go into the pros and cons here, but they are mentioned here to indicate a grey area between the testable and the untestable. Some scientists when canvassing these issues of philosophical theology may prefer to call themselves ‘agnostics’ rather than ‘atheists’ because they have been over-impressed by a generalized philosophical skepticism or by a too simple understanding of Popper’s dictum that we can never verify a theory but only refute it. Such a view would preclude us from saying quite reasonably that we know that the Sun consists largely of hydrogen and helium. When we say ‘I know’ we are saying something defensible. If later we discover that though what we said was at the time justified, it nevertheless turned out to be false, we would say ‘I thought I knew but I now see that I didn’t know’. Never or hardly ever to say ‘I know’ would be to deprive these words of their usefulness, just as the fact that some promises have to be broken does not deprive the institution of promising of its legitimacy. Another motive whereby an atheist might describe herself as an agnostic is purely pragmatic. In discussion with a committed theist this might occur out of mere politeness or in some circumstances from fear of giving even more offence. Samuel Butler, though a complete unbeliever in the doctrines of Christianity, in the preface to one of his books Erewhon Revisited (Butler 1932) described himself as the broadest of broad churchmen. That is, I take it that broad churchmen often were unbelievers, but treated the doctrine as mere myth suitable for literal consumption by the local yokels in the interests of social stability. It is unclear to me whether or not Butler was sympathetic to a very abstract sort of theism. Some may call themselves ‘agnostics’ rather than ‘atheists’ merely because they are equally repelled by the fanaticism associated with some forms of theism and by the boring obsessiveness of what Hilary Putnam has called ‘the village atheist’. (Contrast, however, Clifford’s view of the matter and also the example of the radical and intellectual tinker, Mr. Shaw, in Butler’s powerful novel The Way of All Flesh.) Still, these considerations are perhaps more a matter for sociologists than for philosophers. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/atheism-agnosticism/

To read more why Agnosticism is a Belief about knowledge Built on Folk Logic: https://damienmarieathope.com/2016/01/12/agnosticism-is-a-belief-about-knowledge-built-on-folk-logic/

Matt Dillahunty addresses  Atheist Debates – You’re not an atheist, you’re an agnostic

https://www.youtube.com/shared?ci=rjtBRm12G70

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

I am an Atheist, Antitheist, Antireligionist, Humanist, Writer, Artist, Poet, Philosopher & Activist.

I wish more than simply inspiring doubt in gods and religion. I wish to expose the errors in believing that allows Belief to be maintained as reasonable, warranted, justified or supported. I wish to highlight the many errors in the thinking offered as well as the many faulty presuppositions used trying to maintain as reasonable, warranted, justified or supported; removing all of their credibility to believe in them or to keep believing. Just remember a simple rule all beliefs need something to support them or they are at best unsupported accepted assertions, arguments or ideas. At worst completely baseless, misinterpreted confusions, or outright falsehoods. See it’s like this, if one feels something requires faith (unsupported cognition of acceptance) to see the thing as real; without realizing it, one has affirmed that such a thing is not likely a true part of reality.

My atheism is a fell defended and philosophically rich nonbelief/disbelief position or style and its well supported thinking of axiological atheism. Axiological (value theory or value science; a social science) atheist. Or put it in an easier way think of it kind of like moral argument reasoned and ethical driven strong atheism (disbelief in god’s). Axiological atheism: (Ethical/Value theory Reasoned and Moral Argument driven) Atheism, Anti-theism, Anti-religionism, and Secular Humanism. Axiological atheism = Strong Disbelief as well as Strong Secularism and Humanism. To learn more check out: “Axiological Atheism Explained” https://damienmarieathope.com/2015/10/30/axiological-atheism-explained/

I am a rationalist, not a skeptic:

To me, a “Rationalist”, knowing it or not will be more prone to axiology, strong atheism and or ignosticism. And “Skeptic”, knowing it or not will be more prone to nihilism, weak atheism and or agnosticism. Don’t get me wrong, “I Am a Rationalist and Support Reasonable Skepticism” https://damienmarieathope.com/2016/03/02/support-reasonable-skepticism/

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

What it is to BE WISE

“Reason is my only master, whereas faith offered as reality is most defiantly not my friend.” 

What do you mean by god Evidence?

As ethical atheists, we are not ok with pretend. So we are not silent because sacred falsehoods must end, even if the truth may offend. What is Faith but an unjustified belief that is willfully supported in violation to The Ethics of Belief, as faith holds a burden of proof until justified so faith claiming to “know” anything by this means is intellectually dishonest, uninformed on good belief etiquette or confused thinking offered as pseudo-knowledge? Theists like to confuse the understanding of atheism to lessen its obvious reason. So, here’s a definition of atheism: all offered claims of god(s) are baseless and devoid of a shred of testable or provable evidence and the claims of or about gods either don’t represent in reality or claim to represent things contrary to reality as well as contradicts each other requiring a conclusion of atheism (lack of belief or disbelief in theism). The god claim, is like a clown car in the magic big top of Fideism “faith-ism”, and Presuppositional Apologetics is Just Fascist Fideism all of which demonstrates the Theistic Reality Confusion. Sure there are intelligent theists and that does not in any way make theism even reasonable as one can be brilliant and hold logical fallacies as their truth and that like any thinking errors like theism can happen to an otherwise sound thinker. I strive to be a sound thinker thus I am an axiological atheist and some may wonder what is that? Axiological Atheism (“philosophic” value theory/value science “formal axiology” social science” atheism) is Classed Under Anthropocentric (human-centered) arguments: “Axiological atheism favors humanity as the absolute source of ethics and values, and permits individuals to resolve moral problems without resorting to God. Marx, Nietzsche, Sartre and Freud all used this argument to some extent to convey messages of liberation, full-development, and unfettered happiness.” – Link 

“Damien, your Axiological Atheism sounds Highly interesting! One point, though. Have you considered that all of this philosophizing will mean nothing when you are dead? Human ideology on the concepts of mortality have been around since the dawn of mankind and will continue until every last human being is dead.” – Challenger 

My response, philosophizing like all science will mean nothing after “we” are dead but I care about more than me I want universal betterment and true humanity flourishing so philosophizing like all science matter in this goal does it not? I am Not just Atheist, I am a proud Anti-religionist as well as Anti-theist. Those atheists who still like esoteric religions or religious philosophies, that is not me at all I oppose it all. Yes, you read that right, I reject it all, every religion or even pseudo-religion like. Just so I am not misunderstood, this includes buddhism, satanism, taoism, paganism, wicca, spiritualism, etc. Don’t get me wrong I am against ALL religion. What makes some believed Truth is actually True? To me, truth, in general, is a value judgment we place on what we think or believe is evidence or reason. Therefore, the rational imperative on us as intellectually honest thinkers to demonstrate that the proposed evidence or reasoned assumption is actually of a high epistemic standard with as much valid and reliable reason and evidence as possible from a credible source as possible which then makes some believed “Truth” actually worthy to be seen as Epistemologically True thus a “justified true belief”. Broadly, epistemic means “relating to knowledge (itself) or to the degree of its validation” and epistemological means ” critical study of knowledge validity, methods, as well as limits to knowledge and the study or theory of various aspects of or involved in knowledge”. 

I have justification to claim to know what I claim to know, that is proof, not faith which is unproof “Unjustified Belief.” Do you have such Justification? By claiming to know something by faith is to act in a way mirroring a dishonest thinker, as intellectually honest thinkers don’t claim knowledge without justification. 

As a general thinking in all my epistemology is Justificationism:(philosophy) is an approach that regards the justification of a claim as primary, while the claim itself is secondary; thus, criticism consists of trying to show that a claim cannot be reduced to the authority or criteria that it appeals to. In a general way, “Justificationism” to me, is the presupposition that claims to knowledge must be authenticated, certified, verified, validated, confirmed, proven, corroborated, back up, show to be accurate, confirmed or in some other way shown to be justified. In other words, if a belief is knowledge, then it is in some way justified, and if a belief is unjustified then it is not knowledge. Justificationism” is the presupposition that claims to knowledge are on trial and the desire is make sure or demonstrate that (something) is true, thus in a Justificationism presupposition inquiry any claim to knowledge can be analyzed, for value by asking for its justification, and failure to provide sufficient justification is enough to reject that claim to knowledge until adequate justification is provided.

In this context, a rational ethical belief (Ethics of Belief), is one which is justified, and a rational person is one who provides a rational ethical belief, with good reasons or proof to justify what is believed. For a justificationist, the purpose of philosophical investigation is not a search for faith (unjustified) belief, but only a search for justified true belief. This difference is subtle but important: while a justified belief is always rationally justified as true, it still must be realized that an unjustified belief is not necessarily always false but indeed is not justified. Failure to provide sufficient justification is enough to reject an offered claim to knowledge as unjustified belief (faith: belief without evidence or belief even up against contradictory evidence).

These presuppositions constitute a reinforced justificationism uses and defines the rules by which competing proposals are evaluated, it can ensure any attempt to introduce faith (unjustified) belief(s) can be dismissed as unjustified. “Theory of justification is a part of epistemology that attempts to understand the justification of propositions and beliefs. Epistemologists are concerned with various epistemic features of belief, which include the ideas of justification, warrant, rationality, and probability. Loosely speaking, justification is the reason that someone (properly) holds a belief. When a claim is in doubt, justification can be used to support the claim and reduce or remove the doubt. Justification can use empiricism (the evidence of the senses), authoritative testimony (the appeal to criteria and authority), or logical deduction.” Ref I have to challenge your beliefs, because you won’t. 

To me, every religion was new at some point and had someone who made shit up, yes all of them, every religion. As an atheist, I am a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of god or gods. In my non-belief, I am also ignostic feeling that every theological position assumes too much about the concept of god(s). As an ignostic, I am a person who rational no idea of anything from reality whatever to label as “a concept of god” thus I can say I have no idea of anything that can connect to the term god and no reason to think anyone else can either. As an anti-theist, I am a person who is active in opposition to theism: both the concepts of god(s) as well as the religions that support them. This is because theistic concepts and theistic religions are harmful and that even if theistic beliefs were true, they would be undesirable. As an anti-religionist, I am a person who can look at religion on the whole and see it is detrimental to the progress of humanity thus am in opposition to all and every religion, not even just opposition to organized religion. In case you were wondering, I am anti-pseudoscience, anti-supernatural, and anti-superstition as well.

Therefore, I am a proud anti-religionist, not just atheist or even anti-theist. Yes, I am an atheist, anti-theist, and an anti-religionist. I am against flawed superstitious magical beliefs like god(s) and/or religion. However, I am not against people. I have many strong opinions and beliefs as well as my challenge of others or I am against many types of beliefs especially if they involve supernatural or superstitious, or harm. However, I am not against people nor am I against their free right to believe as they wish. To me, everyone owns themselves and their beliefs are theirs as well, and will be held accountable for those beliefs. Thus, to me, not I or anyone has the right to force people on what to believe. I as others do have the right to voice our beliefs, just as I or others then have the right to challenge voiced beliefs. Long live mental freedom. Proudly, I am an atheist, anti-theist, and an anti-religionist. 

“Damien, what’s your philosophical position? Are you a materialist who believes that everything is reducible to physical? Idealism, Neutral Monist, etc.?” – Questioner 

My response, I am a metaphysical naturalist (basically everything is reducible to physical) because of the universal reliable truth of the application of the scientific methods reliable and only demonstration using methodological naturalism, no magic, not even simple supernatural found in any amount ever anywhere by anyone. 

“Damien, regardless of fancy wording we can not prove something is true without evidence just the same as we can not prove something is not true without evidence. Do you not agree that is the real argument?” – Questioner 

My response, No, I don’t agree, it is always so. If I say I have the Nile River in my pocket you can’t see in my pocket but if you are rational and assess just what is allowable in reality, you don’t have to even look I know as you such a claim is preposterous to the point it can defy reason thus anyone would rightly reject a claim that a very limited space of a pants pocket watch can only at most fit something about 10 inches long but the Nile River is 4,258 mi long and even if it could be moved, which it can’t, more issues, but all and all it is clear that you can with certainty say that the Nile River in my pocket does not exist. I will give you another. Or say I said I have a money in my front pocket and you look finding nothing where it would be if there thus you now have negative evidence of my pocket which is empty when reasonably searched and nothing, you rightly can confirm with certainty that the pocket is, in fact, empty and not filled with money as I had claimed. You are certain there is no money in my pocket exists.

There are many more examples but I think you can see what I am saying. To me even your question, while a good one exposes how the approach to reason may be used differently depending on the thinker. I am a Methodological Rationalist, I rarely am pushed to doubt as a default, instead, I see reason as my default and at times it may be responsible to doubt, but I get to that conclusion because of reasoning. A common saying in pseudologic is “You can’t prove a negative.” This is, simply not true. This is clearly not true because any statement can be rewritten into the negation of its negation. Any provable statement can be written as a negative.

For example, “X is true” can be rewritten as “X is not false”, a negative statement! If “X is true” can be proven true, then you have also proven a negative statement “X is not false”. Moreover, even if it is widely believed that you can’t prove a negative. Going so far as to have people thinking that it is a law of logic—you can’t prove that Santa Claus, unicorns, the Loch Ness Monster, God, pink elephants, WMD in Iraq and Bigfoot don’t exist. This widespread belief is flatly, 100% wrong. In this little essay, I show precisely how one can prove a negative, to the same extent that one can prove anything at all. Evidence of absence is evidence of any kind that suggests something is missing or that it does not exist. Per the traditional aphorism, “absence of evidence is not evidence of absence”, positive evidence of this kind is distinct from a lack of evidence or ignorance of that which should have been found already, had it existed. In this regard Irving Copi writes: “In some circumstances, it can be safely assumed that if a certain event had occurred, evidence of it could be discovered by qualified investigators. In such circumstances, it is perfectly reasonable to take the absence of proof of its occurrence as positive proof of its non-occurrence.” — Copi, Introduction to Logic (1953), p. 95 

Here are some links about proving a negative: Link, Link, Link, Link, Link, Link

Do you believe in god?

What is a god? Are you asking me if magic exists? Well, my answer as an ignostic atheist is, first prove the actuality of simple magic before you try to ask anyone about the possibility of some supreme magic. I am a hardcore methodological rationalist and will believe nothing without valid and reliable reason and evidence neither will I ever be pushed any skepticism unless I first appeal to its reason. Thus my default is like a null hypothesis: “no beliefs are true” then it must be proven otherwise with valid and reliable reason and evidence before I entertain any firm belief. I strive to employ an intellectually high standard in my thinking and value good belief etiquette.

I Am a Strong Atheist: “I am psychologically certain god(s) don’t exist”

My #5 Strongest Explicit Atheism “positive” / “strong” / “hard” atheists similar to Antitheist Atheism.

I am so out about my disbelief as I support reality and not because I feel better than a believer in supernatural things, gods or religions. Actually, I too once was the same until somewhat late in my life. In fact, I did not stop being this way until I was 36. I am so open now with good belief etiquette focusing on reasoned belief acquisitions, good belief maintenance, as well as honest belief relinquishment and challenging not out of hate or loathing, but out of deep compassion and understanding.

This care wishes to save the indoctrinated victims of magical thinking falsehoods. I wish then self-esteem, self-ownership, self-leadership, self-efficiency, self-empowerment, self-love and self-mastery all of which can and in some way, are undermined by God’s and Religions; which either directly attack/challenge or subvert in some lesser realized way. Science is an intellectual endeavor to search for that which is accurate to the way the world is while religion is still desperately relying on fantasy stories and about what the world is not full of many inconsistencies as well as glaring inaccuracies in relation to true reality, thus religion is an unintellectual endeavor forcing a non-accurate/non-truth “faith” over “valid and reliable reason and evidence” so a blind searching to not understand the accurate to the way the world actually is in reality.

This is likely because religions are not “real truth” searching endeavors and beyond all the other negative things, on the whole religions and their make-believe are but conspiracies theories of reality not worth believing in. Did you know Moses write nor asked for the writing of the Torah, the first five books Jewish holy book (the old testament)? Well, Moses didn’t, and neither did Jesus write nor asked for the writing of anything not one word in the Bible, just like how Mohammed did not write nor asked for the writing of the Quran: holy book of Islam. Do you see a theme? Well, here you go, because neither did Lao-Tzu write nor asked for the writing of the Tao Te Ching, the holy book of Taoism, and guess what neither did Gautama Buddha (the first Buddha) write nor asked for the writing of a book in Buddhism.

And what do you know just like all the rest neither did nor guru Nanak write nor asked for the writing of Guru Gobind Singh the holy book in Sikhism? Funny isn’t it how almost all of the world’s religions share the same facts that the claimed holy teacher never wrote their holy book and for that matter are not even sure if they are historical or made up. But please don’t say they were not fake or that we don’t know the truth about them.

Ha, ha, ha, please, I feel safe in my anti-religionism, thank you very much. I am a reality revolutionary fighting hard to defend reality as it actually is in a world working hard to do the opposite. To offer that which is not true to reality is to offer a conspiracy theory about it, including the beliefs of ghosts, gods, and religions. Believe me wrong prove it with valid and reliable reason and evidence or I don’t believe you nor would anyone have good reason to either including your self if you are an honest thinker. I don’t really have trust it is just from experience I know many beliefs people like holding are not worth believing in and full of shit.

Why do most religious people claim to have religious or spiritual experiences is they add make-believe to “reality.” And the general “WHY” people profess to have religious or spiritual experiences is because we are emotional beings, that while we can employ the thinking strategy of rationalism over faith or unreason/illogical beliefs, we still often seem to prefer to follow emotional driven thinking or simply learn to appeal to emotionalism.

Things are not the other way around as we are not rational beings who understand the world accurately by employing the logical thinking strategies and not thinking clouded emotionalism needed to replace faith or unreason/illogical beliefs that follow such thinking, right? We are all emotional and thus will experience emotional wonder. This common experience of things like emotional wonder or awe is just a positive emotional hijacking, as the experience of joy, but that is just the joy of being alive, it’s wholly cheapened to me by fantasy daydreaming delusions (supernatural) to this beautiful magic devoid reality.

To me, rationalistic thinkers of intellectual character engaging in a thoughtful critical challenge, and thus should strive to disagree, debate, dispute, debunk, and degrade harmful unjustified beliefs (such as pseudo-science, pseudo-history, and or pseudo-morality the stuff religions love to promote) and not the swindled or reality deluded believer. However, I understand how we treat others matters even as an atheist dealing with theists. When I get angry or frustrated, I strive to have understanding and patience. When I get to where I think I will say something hurtful, so I strive, to say it a better way if possible, as I want to help not hurt.

So, I wish to something not often offered to me; I wish to be kind, compassionate, and thoughtful as much as I can, as often as I can because how we treat others matters. Therefore, even as an out firebrand atheist I do respect people, I do not respect religion. I believe in people; I do not believe in religion. Tolerance has its limits for it will not stand for blind ignorance and the intolerance of bigotry, and it’s connected injustice cross that line first.

I will NOT tolerate the unjust intolerance of oppression and harm. Because I want to live a value-driven life to promote kindness and human flourishing as an axiological atheist not just the call for reason in thinking but also thinking in behaviors as well. Simply how we treat others reflects on us just like how we make others feel about themselves tells a lot about our chosen character. Thus how we choose to treat others, respond or react to others, will often identify the kind of person we are striving to be. I wish to be a person of value. I am 100 % sure not you nor anyone can honestly justify their claim of knowing even the concept of gods, if one like me simply demands a valid and reliable ontology of the term god.

I see no honesty is saying that god anything as not one person can truly even say what it is and defiantly can offer no valid justification for the thinking either the concept of gods is a thinking error period. You have no ontology of god as you have not validated the term to mean anything but myths or confusions. Provide a support to even claim what a god could or could not be then validated hoe you know this and why it is valid and reasonable or as I already know, no one honestly can they must intellectually lie or be so under confusion they can’t think clear to do so. What is this god whatever you are supposedly agnostic about? if you don’t know then you don’t have something to doubt rather you are holding open a thinking error possibility from some myth others invented without reason as if it was reason.

The concept of gods begins with a faulty presupposition of an unsound thinker who has failed to demand justification an simply accepts the absurd. May the actions of my life be written deep with the poetry of my humanity. I have one big goal in life, I just want to make the world kinder. I am intelligent enough that I see I must be open to learn from everyone around me. I don’t try to compare people, Instead, I compare ideas. I am willing to have anyone teach me something and I hope I am always so wise. Some wish for empirical proof of some god. I say no start at what is god and how is it that you are claiming to know anything about it with a sound justification. I say empirical proof of what, when you cannot justify what the term god should contain?

Start by justifying there is anything in the term god other than simply a three letter noise. Theists love their faith so much they unjustifiably appealed to the term god as if its attributes were a given, well they are not and to claim they are is uninformed, intellectually dishonest or confused. Actually, I know there is no theist that has done anything but start with something unjustified “the god claim” empty of worth to begin with, then take said unjustified claim to add something to this unjustifiably defined god term and then assert this willful theist with its myth and superstition driven attributes that not one of them are justified to be packed into the term god seems a kind of mental masturbation inventing unjustified attributes drunk on some wishful thinking hijacking, may simply be confused/uninformed, not truly thinking just willfully believing or outright intellectually dishonest.

God talk is unjustified until you can demonstrate that you can know anything even belongs in the term with valid and reliable reason and justification. What is a god is the first burden of proof that is required. Some wish for empirical proof of some god. I say no start at what is god and how is it that you are claiming to know anything about it with a sound justification. I say empirical proof of what, when you cannot justify what the term god should contain? Start by justifying there is anything in the term god other than simply a three letter noise.

Theists love their faith so much they unjustifiably appealed to the term god as if its attributes were a given, well they are not and to claim they are is uninformed, intellectually dishonest or confused. Actually, I know there is no theist that has done anything but start with something unjustified “the god claim” empty of worth to begin with, then take said unjustified claim to add something to this unjustifiably defined god term and then assert this willful theist with its myth and superstition driven attributes that not one of them are justified to be packed into the term god seems a kind of mental masturbation inventing unjustified attributes drunk on some wishful thinking hijacking, may simply be confused/uninformed, not truly thinking just willfully believing or outright intellectually dishonest.

God talk is unjustified until you can demonstrate that you can know anything even belongs in the term with valid and reliable reason and justification. What is a god is the first burden of proof that is required. You say some wish for empirical proof. I say no start at what is god and how is it that you are claiming to know anything about it with a sound justification. I say empirical proof of what, when you cannot justify what the term god should contain? Start by justifying there is anything in the term god other than simply a three letter noise.

Theists love their faith so much they unjustifiably appealed to the term god as if its attributes were a given, well they are not and to claim they are is uninformed, intellectually dishonest or confused. It is not intellectually honest to support that that lacks a sound justification. So there is no way a theist or agnostic can honestly assess to know, it’s like you saying you without looking can affirm what is in box A compared to box B. You nor anyone can honestly know anything get it the god term (asserted unknown box you have not looked inside, nor an you: thus you cannot claim anything is inside the hypothetical available posable attributes) you and others see as something is an unjustified list of things added without justification thus you don’t know nor can anyone justify claim knowing what should be added removed from a possible god term, not one, one attribute, nothing… and each peace anyone wishes to add must be justified. All terms are empty of reality anything unless justified, there is nothing to add to justify the term god after doing so I will create a justifiably offered concept of a god something. What else do you have as a justification if you are a theist or an agnostic available something to assert? I am all ears? It is nothing that I have to know other than the term god is offered without justifying anything in the term deserves to be in the term. Is god, hod fod, nod, who knows its just letters put together, is this unknown whatever a woman, man, tansgender, or intersex? Is god pink, black collarless? All claims to everything or anything and there is no such valid confirmation for anything wished to be added in the term god must be proven to intellectually claim to know them. No such thing has ever happened or could thus there is no justified thing called god, period. So, are an ignostic now and agree no one can justifiably claim to know anything about the term god but myth terms or descriptions? I don’t start with debunking the offered term god instead I wish to show the absurdity of claiming the term god has anything of value. I begin with an argument of presumptive value, prove the accurate values for anything you wish to define the term god I assert until this is done the term god and all connected ideas that appeal to the god terms meaning which had not even justifiably been defined. You can’t get any church to 100% agree on what a fod/god is or how they think or behave because there is no valid ontology to begin with before everyone gets to do that, not even one of all the famous theistic apologetics nor any reported theist in history at all are the same no it’s a shit show with ideas all over the place, all are a little different you know like myths.

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

“Damien, you don’t know gods are lies, no atheist could know this.” – Challenger

My response, Yes, I can and yes we can, we know that the god myth is man-made nonsense as we can know about what time male gods myths came along and a hypothesis for why.

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

The Evolution of Religion and Removing the Rationale of Faith

[Antireligionist] My blogs that address Religion: Archaeology, Anthropology, Philosophy and History

What About Neanderthals?

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

Why do people think Religion is much more than supernaturalism and superstitionism?

Chimpanzees Sacralizing Trees?

Archaeological/Anthropological/Historical (evidence showing the god myth is man-made nonsense):

It’s around 5,500 to 6,000 years ago (seemingly not any further back than 7,000 years ago) that the male gods emerge, with the birth of state cities (birth of masculinity worship). But female goddesses seem to go back at least 12,000 years ago close to around the time of animal domestication and the cultivation of seed-bearing plants (fertility goddesses) or maybe to 40,000 years ago as fertility (female figurines) and hunting magic/protection (female items) of the peoples labels Aurignacian culture and the birth of developed art it seams shamanism, totemism, and animism. It is the earliest modern human culture, which, like modern humans (like us) which started accruing around 50,000 years ago. But, we do know that the first worship and it was not likely a god or goddess just a reflection of nature worship by means of a stone shake around 70,000 years ago around the time of a supervolcano in Indonesia and humanity almost going extinct. This time was an ice age and smoke may have lingered in or on clouds possibly looking similar to snakes. And, at 100,000 language development begins around the time human burial begins, do language and magical thinking help each other? Yes, they sure do today and it is not so strange to think myth needs language too. So, it’s safe to say we worshiped nature long before the gods we thought created it, thus we know all gods and goddesses are made up lies. I Believe Archaeology, not Myths. The value (axiology) of archaeology (empirical evidence) is knowledge (epistemology) of the past adding to our intellectual (rational) reality of actual events. On the other hand, myths (collection of stories) inaccurate accounts of the past or tails to establish thinking or behaviors, supporting faith (nonrationality) in some unreal belief, behavior or creative fiction of nonevents or actual events. 

The interconnectedness of religious thinking Animism, Totemism, Shamanism, and Paganism? So, to me, it all starts in a general way with Animism (theoretical belief in supernatural powers/spirits), then this is physically expressed in or with Totemism (theoretical belief in mythical relationship with powers/spirits through a totem item), which then enlists a full-time specific person to do this worship and believed interacting Shamanism (theoretical belief in access and influence with spirits through ritual), and then there is the further employment of myths and gods added to all the above giving you Paganism (often a lot more nature-based than most current top world religions, thus hinting to their close link to more ancient religious thinking it stems from).

My hypothesis is expressed with an explanation of the building of a theatrical house (modern religions development). Humans are Part of Evolution, not a Special Creation, 400,000 Years Old Sociocultural Evolution, My thoughts on religious progression, Religion is an Evolved Product, Religion Progression, Superstition to Religion “The Tree of Lies and its Hidden Roots”, Yes, you need to know about Animism to understand Religion, Animism, Totemism, Shamanism, and Paganism, Sky Burials: Animism, Totemism, Shamanism, and Paganism, Sedentism and the Creation of goddesses as well as gods, Paganism, Folk religion, & Ethnic/indigenous religion, Promoting Religion as Real is Harmful, God is us?, Who knows what a “god-claim” really is?, You will always fail to prove a specific god?, Don’t Spend Your Life Chasing Invisible Shadows, I reject that even the term god has any valid coherent meaning outside myths., My Atheism: “Axiological Atheism”, Arguments over the term god?, Vague Theism or god Somethingism: just say NO, I proudly reject gods and religions, Doubt or Disbelief Requires Justification just like all Other Beliefs., A Rational Mind Values Humanity and Rejects Religion and Gods, You say you believe in a possibility of your favored god-claim?, gOD Believer, Pease Think Critically, Who determines what’s reasonable?, It’s Not the Deity You See as Possible But How Many You Reject, Religion is a Form of Malignant Inflated Egotistical Narcissism God translates as I don’t know things but like the comfort of thinking I do, even if to do so denies reality. No, Humans are Not that Special, (good without and before god)

Forget Religions’ Unfounded Myths, I Have Substantiated “Archaeology Facts.”, Archaeology Knowledge Challenge?

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

And this is not even mentioning all the other science and philosophy that can be used to accumulatively finish the answer with we know that there is no gods as much as we relatively can claim to know anything. Science and Philosophy?

Scientific (evidence showing the god myth is man-made nonsense):

Science is not common sense?, Origin of Logics is Naturalistic Observation, Analytical atheism, Atheistic Null Hypothesis: There is no God/Gods, Science Facts Should Make Religious Belief Impossible, What Do YOU mean you don’t Trust SCIENCE?, Religion vs. Science, Don’t Confuse Beliefs, Religion and Science are Completely Different Epistemologies, What is the Difference Between Science or Non-science?, Science and Justified True Beliefs, What do you mean by god Evidence?, Religious Faith as Evidence, is an Intellectual Reasoning Error, Sorry You Have No Evidence, Naturalism and Logical Positivism?, The Religious Faith Problem?, Scientific Thinking not Faith Thinking, The Scientific Method & Naturalistic Rationalism, If you believe in science as well as evolution how do you believe in an afterlife?, Aquatic Ape Theory/Hypothesis? As Always, Just Pseudoscience., Creationism (pseudoscience), Science and Philosophy, Explaining science to remove MISCONCEPTION, Quit Trying to Invent Your God From the Scraps of Science.,  Science vs. Religion, Science Facts Should Make Religious Belief Impossible, I Hate Religion Just as I Hate Pseudoscience, Evolution Of Science, Genetic studies on Jewish DNA is not 6,000 years old but has origin links to about 20,000 to 30,000 years ago?, Thinking About Our Belief Motivation, “Damien, I have a question, can something come from nothing?”, Yes, Karma is the Same Old Nonsense, Why are lies more appealing than the truth?, Scientific Realism & Scientific Anti-Realism?, Religious OCD Subtype?, How could a religion be a lie is it because it’s not true?, Empiricism-Denier, Experiential Atheism, Creationism is a Debunked Religious Conspiracy Theory., The Harm of Conspiracies, Metaphysical naturalism?, Is Evolution a Theory or a Fact? “It is both.”, Belief in god(s) May Involve Suppressing Analytical and Critical thinking, “Dead is Dead” no ghosts, spirits or souls…, Interview of Formal Axiological Atheist Dr. William Kelleher, Scientific Values: fallibilism, realism, & rationalism, My review of “Foundational Falsehoods of Creationism” by Aron Ra, Ancient Aliens Conspiracy Theorists are Pseudohistorians, Evolution of the Earth?, Authoritarian Truth Seekers and Anti-Authoritarian Truth Seekers?, Oxygen is an Evolutionary Constant as well as a Constraint., Humans are Prone to Thinking Errors, and Yes This Includes Theism., Evidence Against a Caring God?, Thoughts on Spirituality?, Technological Advances in Evolution, Scientific Misinterpretations Promote Relativism, We All Should Reject the Supernatural, Spiritual Woo Woo, Trying to Make Magic of Reality.

Philosophic (evidence showing the god myth is man-made nonsense):

To Believe???, Philosophical Skepticism, Solipsism and the Denial of Reality or Certainty, The Rational Imperative, How Does One Know Things?, Don’t Talk About Beliefs, Without Justifying They are True and How You Know This., The Beginning of Atheistic Doubt, Folk Logic: YOU CAN’T PROVE A NEGATIVE because you can PROVE A NEGATIVE, The Trap of Intellectual Honesty and the Freedom from Moral Theism, Using Ontology to Attack Theistic Errors, Who knows what a “god-claim” really is?, You will always fail to prove a specific god?, Challenged or Challenging? (questions of ontology), Ontology, Epistemology, & Axiology argument/challenge protocol, Error Crushing Force of the Dialectic Questions and the Hammer of Truth, “The Hammer of Truth” Process, “The Hammer of Truth” (scientific philosophy: Ontology, Epistemology, & Axiology) in action., No there is No gods and No we are not a Brain in a Vat, The Battle of Truth, Psychological certainty and Epistemic certainty?, To Find Truth You Must First Look, Theological Noncognitivist & Ignosticism, Epistemological Atheism, Pragmatic theory of truth, Coherence theory of truth, and Correspondence theory of truth, Rationalist atheism, Arguments over the term god?, Ignostic Atheist?, The word FAITH?, Faith is not Reason, Epistemically Rational with Beliefs?, My Methodological Skepticism Style, Why not Find Out if what you believe is True?, Incapable of making a decision on if there is or not a god?, “I have no beliefs”, is a Confusion (about beliefs) I Hear Some Atheists Say, That is not accurate in any way… Challenging Claims?, Real Truth Seekers?, All positions if questioned far enough are circular?, My “Methodological Rationalism” approach, My Methodological Rationalism: investigate (ontology), expose (epistemology) and judge (axiology), Axiological Atheism Morality Critique: of the bible god, Grasping the status of truth (ontology of truth), Being Epistemically Rational, Discussions on Agnosticism and Atheism, Questions and Challenges to My Atheism., My Anti-Agnostic Atheism Thinking, Agnosticism Beliefs Involve “FOLK LOGIC” Thinking?, Yes, We All Have Beliefs; But What Does That Mean?, Axiological Atheism Explained, Philosophy to The Rescue, Two Atheists philosophers: debate “spiritual”, Crazy Beliefs Need Rational Thought, Addressing The Ethics of Belief,  ,

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

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

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

My Methodological Rationalism: investigate (ontology), expose (epistemology) and judge (axiology)

Damien, I want to read some discussions or debate you’ve been through.

For the Love of Firebrand Atheism?

Antireligionist Atheism

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Challenging Agnosticism Assumptions

Theists and Atheists as well as Agnostics?

A Challenge to My Anti-Agnostic Thinking?

Weak Theism and Weak Atheism being called Agnostic?

Addressing “ATHEISM”, reasons for it and its possible types/styles

Explaining Axiological theism, Axiological agnosticism, and Axiological atheism

Agnosticism Beliefs Involve “FOLK LOGIC” Thinking?

Discussions on Agnosticism and Atheism

Agnosticism: Non-Standard Epistemology

Agnosticism No Thanks, I am Ignostic

I am a caring firebrand atheist, wishing to be hard on ideas but kind to people.

My life; the good, the bad, and the ugly on the road to the Mental Freedom of Atheism

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

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

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

Psychological certainty and Epistemic certainty?

god Claims are a Non-Reality Commodity

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

People don’t commonly teach religious history, even that of their own claimed religion. No, rather they teach a limited “pro their religion” history of their religion from a religious perspective favorable to the religion of choice. 

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

ref, ref, ref, ref 

Animism: Respecting the Living World by Graham Harvey 

“How have human cultures engaged with and thought about animals, plants, rocks, clouds, and other elements in their natural surroundings? Do animals and other natural objects have a spirit or soul? What is their relationship to humans? In this new study, Graham Harvey explores current and past animistic beliefs and practices of Native Americans, Maori, Aboriginal Australians, and eco-pagans. He considers the varieties of animism found in these cultures as well as their shared desire to live respectfully within larger natural communities. Drawing on his extensive casework, Harvey also considers the linguistic, performative, ecological, and activist implications of these different animisms.” ref

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

We are like believing machines we vacuum up ideas, like Velcro sticks to almost everything. We accumulate beliefs that we allow to negatively influence our lives, often without realizing it. Our willingness must be to alter skewed beliefs that impend our balance or reason, which allows us to achieve new positive thinking and accurate outcomes.

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref 

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref 

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref

Low Gods “Earth” or Tutelary deity and High Gods “Sky” or Supreme deity

“An Earth goddess is a deification of the Earth. Earth goddesses are often associated with the “chthonic” deities of the underworld. Ki and Ninhursag are Mesopotamian earth goddesses. In Greek mythology, the Earth is personified as Gaia, corresponding to Roman Terra, Indic Prithvi/Bhūmi, etc. traced to an “Earth Mother” complementary to the “Sky Father” in Proto-Indo-European religion. Egyptian mythology exceptionally has a sky goddess and an Earth god.” ref

“A mother goddess is a goddess who represents or is a personification of nature, motherhood, fertility, creation, destruction or who embodies the bounty of the Earth. When equated with the Earth or the natural world, such goddesses are sometimes referred to as Mother Earth or as the Earth Mother. In some religious traditions or movements, Heavenly Mother (also referred to as Mother in Heaven or Sky Mother) is the wife or feminine counterpart of the Sky father or God the Father.” ref

“Any masculine sky god is often also king of the gods, taking the position of patriarch within a pantheon. Such king gods are collectively categorized as “sky father” deities, with a polarity between sky and earth often being expressed by pairing a “sky father” god with an “earth mother” goddess (pairings of a sky mother with an earth father are less frequent). A main sky goddess is often the queen of the gods and may be an air/sky goddess in her own right, though she usually has other functions as well with “sky” not being her main. In antiquity, several sky goddesses in ancient Egypt, Mesopotamia, and the Near East were called Queen of Heaven. Neopagans often apply it with impunity to sky goddesses from other regions who were never associated with the term historically. The sky often has important religious significance. Many religions, both polytheistic and monotheistic, have deities associated with the sky.” ref

“In comparative mythology, sky father is a term for a recurring concept in polytheistic religions of a sky god who is addressed as a “father”, often the father of a pantheon and is often either a reigning or former King of the Gods. The concept of “sky father” may also be taken to include Sun gods with similar characteristics, such as Ra. The concept is complementary to an “earth mother“. “Sky Father” is a direct translation of the Vedic Dyaus Pita, etymologically descended from the same Proto-Indo-European deity name as the Greek Zeûs Pater and Roman Jupiter and Germanic Týr, Tir or Tiwaz, all of which are reflexes of the same Proto-Indo-European deity’s name, *Dyēus Ph₂tḗr. While there are numerous parallels adduced from outside of Indo-European mythology, there are exceptions (e.g. In Egyptian mythology, Nut is the sky mother and Geb is the earth father).” ref

Tutelary deity

“A tutelary (also tutelar) is a deity or spirit who is a guardian, patron, or protector of a particular place, geographic feature, person, lineage, nation, culture, or occupation. The etymology of “tutelary” expresses the concept of safety and thus of guardianship. In late Greek and Roman religion, one type of tutelary deity, the genius, functions as the personal deity or daimon of an individual from birth to death. Another form of personal tutelary spirit is the familiar spirit of European folklore.” ref

“A tutelary (also tutelar) in Korean shamanism, jangseung and sotdae were placed at the edge of villages to frighten off demons. They were also worshiped as deities. Seonangshin is the patron deity of the village in Korean tradition and was believed to embody the Seonangdang. In Philippine animism, Diwata or Lambana are deities or spirits that inhabit sacred places like mountains and mounds and serve as guardians. Such as: Maria Makiling is the deity who guards Mt. Makiling and Maria Cacao and Maria Sinukuan. In Shinto, the spirits, or kami, which give life to human bodies come from nature and return to it after death. Ancestors are therefore themselves tutelaries to be worshiped. And similarly, Native American beliefs such as Tonás, tutelary animal spirit among the Zapotec and Totems, familial or clan spirits among the Ojibwe, can be animals.” ref

“A tutelary (also tutelar) in Austronesian beliefs such as: Atua (gods and spirits of the Polynesian peoples such as the Māori or the Hawaiians), Hanitu (Bunun of Taiwan‘s term for spirit), Hyang (Kawi, Sundanese, Javanese, and Balinese Supreme Being, in ancient Java and Bali mythology and this spiritual entity, can be either divine or ancestral), Kaitiaki (New Zealand Māori term used for the concept of guardianship, for the sky, the sea, and the land), Kawas (mythology) (divided into 6 groups: gods, ancestors, souls of the living, spirits of living things, spirits of lifeless objects, and ghosts), Tiki (Māori mythology, Tiki is the first man created by either Tūmatauenga or Tāne and represents deified ancestors found in most Polynesian cultures). ” ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref

Mesopotamian Tutelary Deities can be seen as ones related to City-States 

“Historical city-states included Sumerian cities such as Uruk and Ur; Ancient Egyptian city-states, such as Thebes and Memphis; the Phoenician cities (such as Tyre and Sidon); the five Philistine city-states; the Berber city-states of the Garamantes; the city-states of ancient Greece (the poleis such as Athens, Sparta, Thebes, and Corinth); the Roman Republic (which grew from a city-state into a vast empire); the Italian city-states from the Middle Ages to the early modern period, such as Florence, Siena, Ferrara, Milan (which as they grew in power began to dominate neighboring cities) and Genoa and Venice, which became powerful thalassocracies; the Mayan and other cultures of pre-Columbian Mesoamerica (including cities such as Chichen Itza, Tikal, Copán and Monte Albán); the central Asian cities along the Silk Road; the city-states of the Swahili coast; Ragusa; states of the medieval Russian lands such as Novgorod and Pskov; and many others.” ref

“The Uruk period (ca. 4000 to 3100 BCE; also known as Protoliterate period) of Mesopotamia, named after the Sumerian city of Uruk, this period saw the emergence of urban life in Mesopotamia and the Sumerian civilization. City-States like Uruk and others had a patron tutelary City Deity along with a Priest-King.” ref

“Chinese folk religion, both past, and present, includes myriad tutelary deities. Exceptional individuals, highly cultivated sages, and prominent ancestors can be deified and honored after death. Lord Guan is the patron of military personnel and police, while Mazu is the patron of fishermen and sailors. Such as Tu Di Gong (Earth Deity) is the tutelary deity of a locality, and each individual locality has its own Earth Deity and Cheng Huang Gong (City God) is the guardian deity of an individual city, worshipped by local officials and locals since imperial times.” ref

“A tutelary (also tutelar) in Hinduism, personal tutelary deities are known as ishta-devata, while family tutelary deities are known as Kuladevata. Gramadevata are guardian deities of villages. Devas can also be seen as tutelary. Shiva is the patron of yogis and renunciants. City goddesses include: Mumbadevi (Mumbai), Sachchika (Osian); Kuladevis include: Ambika (Porwad), and Mahalakshmi. In NorthEast India Meitei mythology and religion (Sanamahism) of Manipur, there are various types of tutelary deities, among which Lam Lais are the most predominant ones. Tibetan Buddhism has Yidam as a tutelary deity. Dakini is the patron of those who seek knowledge.” ref

“A tutelary (also tutelar) The Greeks also thought deities guarded specific places: for instance, Athena was the patron goddess of the city of Athens. Socrates spoke of hearing the voice of his personal spirit or daimonion:

You have often heard me speak of an oracle or sign which comes to me … . This sign I have had ever since I was a child. The sign is a voice which comes to me and always forbids me to do something which I am going to do, but never commands me to do anything, and this is what stands in the way of my being a politician.” ref

“Tutelary deities who guard and preserve a place or a person are fundamental to ancient Roman religion. The tutelary deity of a man was his Genius, that of a woman her Juno. In the Imperial era, the Genius of the Emperor was a focus of Imperial cult. An emperor might also adopt a major deity as his personal patron or tutelary, as Augustus did Apollo. Precedents for claiming the personal protection of a deity were established in the Republican era, when for instance the Roman dictator Sulla advertised the goddess Victory as his tutelary by holding public games (ludi) in her honor.” ref

“Each town or city had one or more tutelary deities, whose protection was considered particularly vital in time of war and siege. Rome itself was protected by a goddess whose name was to be kept ritually secret on pain of death (for a supposed case, see Quintus Valerius Soranus). The Capitoline Triad of Juno, Jupiter, and Minerva were also tutelaries of Rome. The Italic towns had their own tutelary deities. Juno often had this function, as at the Latin town of Lanuvium and the Etruscan city of Veii, and was often housed in an especially grand temple on the arx (citadel) or other prominent or central location. The tutelary deity of Praeneste was Fortuna, whose oracle was renowned.” ref

“The Roman ritual of evocatio was premised on the belief that a town could be made vulnerable to military defeat if the power of its tutelary deity were diverted outside the city, perhaps by the offer of superior cult at Rome. The depiction of some goddesses such as the Magna Mater (Great Mother, or Cybele) as “tower-crowned” represents their capacity to preserve the city. A town in the provinces might adopt a deity from within the Roman religious sphere to serve as its guardian, or syncretize its own tutelary with such; for instance, a community within the civitas of the Remi in Gaul adopted Apollo as its tutelary, and at the capital of the Remi (present-day Rheims), the tutelary was Mars Camulus.” ref 

Household deity (a kind of or related to a Tutelary deity)

“A household deity is a deity or spirit that protects the home, looking after the entire household or certain key members. It has been a common belief in paganism as well as in folklore across many parts of the world. Household deities fit into two types; firstly, a specific deity – typically a goddess – often referred to as a hearth goddess or domestic goddess who is associated with the home and hearth, such as the ancient Greek Hestia.” ref

“The second type of household deities are those that are not one singular deity, but a type, or species of animistic deity, who usually have lesser powers than major deities. This type was common in the religions of antiquity, such as the Lares of ancient Roman religion, the Gashin of Korean shamanism, and Cofgodas of Anglo-Saxon paganism. These survived Christianisation as fairy-like creatures existing in folklore, such as the Anglo-Scottish Brownie and Slavic Domovoy.” ref

“Household deities were usually worshipped not in temples but in the home, where they would be represented by small idols (such as the teraphim of the Bible, often translated as “household gods” in Genesis 31:19 for example), amulets, paintings, or reliefs. They could also be found on domestic objects, such as cosmetic articles in the case of Tawaret. The more prosperous houses might have a small shrine to the household god(s); the lararium served this purpose in the case of the Romans. The gods would be treated as members of the family and invited to join in meals, or be given offerings of food and drink.” ref

“In many religions, both ancient and modern, a god would preside over the home. Certain species, or types, of household deities, existed. An example of this was the Roman Lares. Many European cultures retained house spirits into the modern period. Some examples of these include:

• Brownie (Scotland and England) or Hob (England) / Kobold (Germany) / Goblin / Hobgoblin
• Domovoy (Slavic)
• Nisse (Norwegian or Danish) / Tomte (Swedish) / Tonttu (Finnish)
• Húsvættir (Norse)” ref

“Although the cosmic status of household deities was not as lofty as that of the Twelve Olympians or the Aesir, they were also jealous of their dignity and also had to be appeased with shrines and offerings, however humble. Because of their immediacy they had arguably more influence on the day-to-day affairs of men than the remote gods did. Vestiges of their worship persisted long after Christianity and other major religions extirpated nearly every trace of the major pagan pantheons. Elements of the practice can be seen even today, with Christian accretions, where statues to various saints (such as St. Francis) protect gardens and grottos. Even the gargoyles found on older churches, could be viewed as guardians partitioning a sacred space.” ref

“For centuries, Christianity fought a mop-up war against these lingering minor pagan deities, but they proved tenacious. For example, Martin Luther‘s Tischreden have numerous – quite serious – references to dealing with kobolds. Eventually, rationalism and the Industrial Revolution threatened to erase most of these minor deities, until the advent of romantic nationalism rehabilitated them and embellished them into objects of literary curiosity in the 19th century. Since the 20th century this literature has been mined for characters for role-playing games, video games, and other fantasy personae, not infrequently invested with invented traits and hierarchies somewhat different from their mythological and folkloric roots.” ref

“In contradistinction to both Herbert Spencer and Edward Burnett Tylor, who defended theories of animistic origins of ancestor worship, Émile Durkheim saw its origin in totemism. In reality, this distinction is somewhat academic, since totemism may be regarded as a particularized manifestation of animism, and something of a synthesis of the two positions was attempted by Sigmund Freud. In Freud’s Totem and Taboo, both totem and taboo are outward expressions or manifestations of the same psychological tendency, a concept which is complementary to, or which rather reconciles, the apparent conflict. Freud preferred to emphasize the psychoanalytic implications of the reification of metaphysical forces, but with particular emphasis on its familial nature. This emphasis underscores, rather than weakens, the ancestral component.” ref

“William Edward Hearn, a noted classicist, and jurist, traced the origin of domestic deities from the earliest stages as an expression of animism, a belief system thought to have existed also in the neolithic, and the forerunner of Indo-European religion. In his analysis of the Indo-European household, in Chapter II “The House Spirit”, Section 1, he states:

The belief which guided the conduct of our forefathers was … the spirit rule of dead ancestors.” ref

“In Section 2 he proceeds to elaborate:

It is thus certain that the worship of deceased ancestors is a vera causa, and not a mere hypothesis. …

In the other European nations, the Slavs, the Teutons, and the Kelts, the House Spirit appears with no less distinctness. … [T]he existence of that worship does not admit of doubt. … The House Spirits had a multitude of other names which it is needless here to enumerate, but all of which are more or less expressive of their friendly relations with man. … In [England] … [h]e is the Brownie. … In Scotland this same Brownie is well known. He is usually described as attached to particular families, with whom he has been known to reside for centuries, threshing the corn, cleaning the house, and performing similar household tasks. His favorite gratification was milk and honey.” ref

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref

“These ideas are my speculations from the evidence.”

I am still researching the “god‘s origins” all over the world. So you know, it is very complicated but I am smart and willing to look, DEEP, if necessary, which going very deep does seem to be needed here, when trying to actually understand the evolution of gods and goddesses. I am sure of a few things and less sure of others, but even in stuff I am not fully grasping I still am slowly figuring it out, to explain it to others. But as I research more I am understanding things a little better, though I am still working on understanding it all or something close and thus always figuring out more. 

Sky Father/Sky God?

“Egyptian: (Nut) Sky Mother and (Geb) Earth Father” (Egypt is different but similar)

Turkic/Mongolic: (Tengri/Tenger Etseg) Sky Father and (Eje/Gazar Eej) Earth Mother *Transeurasian*

Hawaiian: (Wākea) Sky Father and (Papahānaumoku) Earth Mother *Austronesian*

New Zealand/ Māori: (Ranginui) Sky Father and (Papatūānuku) Earth Mother *Austronesian*

Proto-Indo-European: (Dyḗus/Dyḗus ph₂tḗr) Sky Father and (Dʰéǵʰōm/Pleth₂wih₁) Earth Mother

Indo-Aryan: (Dyaus Pita) Sky Father and (Prithvi Mata) Earth Mother *Indo-European*

Italic: (Jupiter) Sky Father and (Juno) Sky Mother *Indo-European*

Etruscan: (Tinia) Sky Father and (Uni) Sky Mother *Tyrsenian/Italy Pre–Indo-European*

Hellenic/Greek: (Zeus) Sky Father and (Hera) Sky Mother who started as an “Earth Goddess” *Indo-European*

Nordic: (Dagr) Sky Father and (Nótt) Sky Mother *Indo-European*

Slavic: (Perun) Sky Father and (Mokosh) Earth Mother *Indo-European*

Illyrian: (Deipaturos) Sky Father and (Messapic Damatura’s “earth-mother” maybe) Earth Mother *Indo-European*

Albanian: (Zojz) Sky Father and (?) *Indo-European*

Baltic: (Perkūnas) Sky Father and (Saulė) Sky Mother *Indo-European*

Germanic: (Týr) Sky Father and (?) *Indo-European*

Colombian-Muisca: (Bochica) Sky Father and (Huythaca) Sky Mother *Chibchan*

Aztec: (Quetzalcoatl) Sky Father and (Xochiquetzal) Sky Mother *Uto-Aztecan*

Incan: (Viracocha) Sky Father and (Mama Runtucaya) Sky Mother *Quechuan*

China: (Tian/Shangdi) Sky Father and (Dì) Earth Mother *Sino-Tibetan*

Sumerian, Assyrian and Babylonian: (An/Anu) Sky Father and (Ki) Earth Mother

Finnish: (Ukko) Sky Father and (Akka) Earth Mother *Finno-Ugric*

Sami: (Horagalles) Sky Father and (Ravdna) Earth Mother *Finno-Ugric*

Puebloan-Zuni: (Ápoyan Ta’chu) Sky Father and (Áwitelin Tsíta) Earth Mother

Puebloan-Hopi: (Tawa) Sky Father and (Kokyangwuti/Spider Woman/Grandmother) Earth Mother *Uto-Aztecan*

Puebloan-Navajo: (Tsohanoai) Sky Father and (Estsanatlehi) Earth Mother *Na-Dene*

ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref 

Sky Father/Sky Mother “High Gods” or similar gods/goddesses of the sky more loosely connected, seeming arcane mythology across the earth seen in Siberia, China, Europe, Native Americans/First Nations People and Mesopotamia, etc.

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

ref, ref

Hinduism around 3,700 to 3,500 years old. ref

 Judaism around 3,450 or 3,250 years old. (The first writing in the bible was “Paleo-Hebrew” dated to around 3,000 years ago Khirbet Qeiyafa is the site of an ancient fortress city overlooking the Elah Valley. And many believe the religious Jewish texts were completed around 2,500) ref, ref

Judaism is around 3,450 or 3,250 years old. (“Paleo-Hebrew” 3,000 years ago and Torah 2,500 years ago)

“Judaism is an Abrahamic, its roots as an organized religion in the Middle East during the Bronze Age. Some scholars argue that modern Judaism evolved from Yahwism, the religion of ancient Israel and Judah, by the late 6th century BCE, and is thus considered to be one of the oldest monotheistic religions.” ref

“Yahwism is the name given by modern scholars to the religion of ancient Israel, essentially polytheistic, with a plethora of gods and goddesses. Heading the pantheon was Yahweh, the national god of the Israelite kingdoms of Israel and Judah, with his consort, the goddess Asherah; below them were second-tier gods and goddesses such as Baal, Shamash, Yarikh, Mot, and Astarte, all of whom had their own priests and prophets and numbered royalty among their devotees, and a third and fourth tier of minor divine beings, including the mal’ak, the messengers of the higher gods, who in later times became the angels of Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Yahweh, however, was not the ‘original’ god of Israel “Isra-El”; it is El, the head of the Canaanite pantheon, whose name forms the basis of the name “Israel”, and none of the Old Testament patriarchs, the tribes of Israel, the Judges, or the earliest monarchs, have a Yahwistic theophoric name (i.e., one incorporating the name of Yahweh).” ref

“El is a Northwest Semitic word meaning “god” or “deity“, or referring (as a proper name) to any one of multiple major ancient Near Eastern deities. A rarer form, ‘ila, represents the predicate form in Old Akkadian and in Amorite. The word is derived from the Proto-Semitic *ʔil-, meaning “god”. Specific deities known as ‘El or ‘Il include the supreme god of the ancient Canaanite religion and the supreme god of East Semitic speakers in Mesopotamia’s Early Dynastic Period. ʼĒl is listed at the head of many pantheons. In some Canaanite and Ugaritic sources, ʼĒl played a role as father of the gods, of creation, or both. For example, in the Ugaritic texts, ʾil mlk is understood to mean “ʼĒl the King” but ʾil hd as “the god Hadad“. The Semitic root ʾlh (Arabic ʾilāh, Aramaic ʾAlāh, ʾElāh, Hebrew ʾelōah) may be ʾl with a parasitic h, and ʾl may be an abbreviated form of ʾlh. In Ugaritic the plural form meaning “gods” is ʾilhm, equivalent to Hebrew ʾelōhîm “powers”. In the Hebrew texts this word is interpreted as being semantically singular for “god” by biblical commentators. However the documentary hypothesis for the Old Testament (corresponds to the Jewish Torah) developed originally in the 1870s, identifies these that different authors – the Jahwist, Elohist, Deuteronomist, and the Priestly source – were responsible for editing stories from a polytheistic religion into those of a monotheistic religion. Inconsistencies that arise between monotheism and polytheism in the texts are reflective of this hypothesis.” ref

Jainism around 2,599 – 2,527 years old. ref

Confucianism around 2,600 – 2,551 years old. ref

Buddhism around 2,563/2,480 – 2,483/2,400 years old. ref

Christianity around 2,o00 years old. ref

Shinto around 1,305 years old. ref

Islam around 1407–1385 years old. ref

Sikhism around 548–478 years old. ref

Bahá’í around 200–125 years old. ref

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

ref, ref, ref

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

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

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

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