About Damien

Damien Marie AtHope was born and raised in Southern California. Damien was raised in a broken home with both parents pushing their “follow the rules” morals and brand of the Christian religion on him. Damien’s father was from a Christian religious cult called The Local Church and his mom’s Christian church was Pentecostal Evangelical were they danced in the aisles, flailing their arms in the air, and chanting. These two different and radical versions of Christianity were weird to Damien and seemed far removed from any idea of love and respect. Both parents like their faiths, said they believed in loved but more often just gave hate and pushed fear. Their fear worked and from the age of 13 to 15, Damien thought he was possessed by demons. Damien rejected their brand of Christianity until he tried to become sober. At 17, Damien became sober and again tried this god thing and became a strong Christian though not fundamentalist like his parents and much of his family. Damien was a true believer and did not doubt his Christianity. At 36, Damien entered college for psychology, was educated in science and religions, and turned atheist. Damien chose to leave god, his parents, and the other bullshit behind.

Damien is an Axiological Atheist, Antitheist, Antireligionist, Ignostic, Secularist, Humanist, Rationalist, Writer, Artist, Poet, Philosopher, Advocate, and Activist. He has a bachelor in Psychology, with addiction treatment, sociology, and a little teaching and criminology, and is an autodidact in many other subjects, thus is somewhat educated in philosophy, science, archeology, anthropology, and history. He promotes Science, Realism, Axiology, Liberty, Justice, Ethics, Anarchism, Socialism, Progressivism, Liberalism, Philosophy, Psychology, Archaeology, and Anthropology. He is an advocate for Sexual, Gender, Child, Secular, LGBTQIA+, Race, Class Rights, and Equality. Damien is also involved in advocating/activism for human rights in general but atheist and humanist as a main focus and even performing street activism for both.

I am virtuous to the vulnerable and champion justice, so valiantly, as I have experienced the hateful lash of unkindness and wish to champion its opposite, radical kindness in an unkind world, a sigh of true bravery. It seems that there are two main types of philosophers: Thinkers and Specialists, and I have always thought of myself as a thinker. 🙂

I excel above and beyond others when it comes to these three top skills:

Rationalism/reason, Creative thinking, Dedicated work ethic, Persuasion/negotiation, and Critical Reasoning.

I am skilled in the following specific skills:

Axiological Ethics, Methodological Rationalism, Axiological Atheism, Anarcho-Humanism, Dialectical Rhetoric, Truth Persuasion (motivational teaching), Utilizing/supporting Dignity, Big Picture Intellectual Thinking, Emotional Intelligence, Methodological Skepticism, Art, Creativity, Writing, Research, Negotiation, Persuasion, communication tactics and teaching.

I would like my next job to be in the following industry/industries:

Education/Training, Humanitarianism/Activism, Philosophy/Critical Thinking, Atheism/Humanism, Marketing/Advertising, Art/Creative Illustration, or Creative Director/Promoter

I am an activist and teaching in public is part of that endeavor. I wish to be “Servant Leader,” it really resonated with me and is a similar desire I have as a leader hoping to add other leaders and to be a student as well wanting to be a life learner open to expand and learn as well as put forth efforts to teach. I dig good people who are kind and want to help others, like me; together we will aid in building a flourishing humanity, we rise by helping each other. I like that kind of people as contacts they are helping make the world better as I try to do.

I am not the thing abuse made, I am a shooting star blazing bright, shining far pass my past. I am a high thinking primate, just trying to live an honorable life, being of service to others, and I wish as a life’s mission to be a kindness aficionado.

I think back on my life, and it’s not the times I was the most selfish but the times I was kind, that brighten my life. May I now make an even stronger effort to do so in all I do, as it’s so valuable to an enriched wellbeing in life. Life is too short, to not be kind because, in the end, all we really have is each other, this is true no matter what you think happens after we die, we all live in the hear and now.

“I create art, memes, quotes, writings, blogs, YouTube videos, and Public speaking events and/or activism events.”

Also, I create video chats with Intelligent/thoughtful people who are kind and are doing good things in the world as well as video chats with atheists or nontheists of course; to share ideas, debate/dialog or for empowerment. And I do video chats with theists or agnostics to share ideas, debate/dialog or provide a place for learning/teaching.

Damien wishes to make a difference in others’ lives, to give back, and to bring about change in himself and others. Damien wishes to be bold in what he believes in and to match his actions with his words. Damien believes that many forms of bigotry and hate are still major problems in the world today and should be addressed thoughtfully. These issues of inequality need more than a voice of reason; they need the momentum of “action” and more action! Damien lives with his wife Shayna, with whom he has an open marriage and their two cats “Demon” and “Spirit.” Damien is a prolific writer and meme creator on Facebook with many followers, shares, and likes. In addition, he has a web page with a blog and a YouTube. Soon, Damien will publish an atheist book called: “The Tree of Lies and its Hidden Roots” (Exposing the Evolution of Religion and Removing the Rationale of Faith).

Axiological Ethics not Pseudo Morality

Empathy and Human Dignity?

Self-ownership, Human Rights, and Societal Liberty or Freedoms

Real Morality: Emotional Shame?

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.

Out Atheist?

I am an Axiological Atheist, with a Rationalist Persuasion, who Supports Anarcho-Humanism

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?

What do you mean by god? 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.

What do you mean by god? 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.

What do you mean by god? 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 do you mean by god? 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 fro 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?

What do you mean by god? 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.

YouTube: Damien AtHope

Twitter: @AthopeMarie

Here are 6 of my blog posts:

1. Losing My Religion and MY Faith Addiction

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

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

4. Axiological Atheism Morality Critique: of the bible god

5. Why care? Because we are Dignity Beings.

6. Don’t be Boxed in by Abstraction

Here are 6 of my YouTube posts:

1. Religion Presentation at the meetup: Firebrand Atheism

2. Atheist in a Wheelchair challenges a street preacher.

3. My Journey to Disbelief then Axiological Atheism

4. My speech at the Bring Back our Motto Atheist rally

5. Firebrand Atheists Unite

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

Losing My Religion

I don’t know if I should be called a just an atheist as this is too limited to define my disbelief.

Thus I am best described as an Axiological atheist: (Ethical/Value theory Reasoned and Moral Argument driven) Atheism, Anti-theism, Anti-religionism, and Secular Humanism I also value Ignosticism or igtheism. I was raised and forced to be Christian and for a time lived my whole life believing in the Christian faith. Though, I could have never have been touted as a holy person or a true follower of the Christian moral rules. My life more often resembled the sinner than the saint. However, I truly believed what was taught to me about Christianity was the truth. Though, I nitpicked and had qualms with some of the philosophy, I still wholeheartedly was a believer and felt I was born again.

So what changed?

The beginning of the change was getting a bachelor of arts in Psychology, grasping critical thinking, rational analysis, universal ethics, and the need of proof. However, the true starting point was Biology. In essence, learning that we all begin as female and it takes specific processes to turn into a male. But what fully made me “change” was two classes on religion the first comparative religions the second understanding the bible halfway through that class I stopped believing. So if woman was created first! If the Bible starts on a lie, how can it ever find truth? I started using a new rationale to analyze the Bible and not accepting it as truth outright. I thought how positive would we view a parent who puts a 2 years old child next to a cookie jar and tells them not to eat any cookies. Then not only punish them for the rest of their life but to every generation to the end of time for an action they did not understand. No parent would be seen as just. Even the Bible says we should forgive after 7 years and how can it be justified to punish everyone who is guiltless for the action of one even if they did understand. That would not be convictable in any court anywhere in the world. Yet, we are taught to praise a god who did just that. I could go on and on about my views on the Bible and Christianity but I will end with one statement. The Bible touts that the most important thing is the word. The word is so important that God himself wrote on stone with a lightening finger. Yet, we are to believe that Jesus comes to earth and does not write a word. Was he illiterate? If he was, how could he be God? Jesus never asked anyone to write anything more in the Torah. Maybe he just forgot since he was so busy or maybe he was not God. He had 12 disciples; why did not all of them author a book on his behalf? Instead they too are silent. If Jesus and his disciples were silent, maybe he was not God. Of if he was God, maybe he was silent because the Torah was already perfect. That would make the Christian Bible heresy.

I am unplugged from the faith Matrix

The matrix is all the biases, values, morals, stereotypes, beliefs, judgments, and requirements that society and religion mythologies force upon us. The faith matrix of religion tells us how to act, think, and behave, what is right or wrong, and good or bad. The religion matrix is often the heartstring of every culture. It forces upon us what it feels as right and never caring about what we really need. The matrix binds us and confines who we really are.  To me, “Pseudo Morality” is seen when holy books or people “cognitively reconstruct” an inhumane idea or behavior to make it into something different from than it is, to something more moral than what it actually is. Or turn something highly immoral in to something highly moral. One way to do that is to cloak the behavior “in moral wrappings” or “in divine authority” such as god hates gays, gays are evil, thus killing gays is doing good by destroying evil. This thinking is obviously pseudomorality as gays are not evil but killing them is evil and inhumane idea or behavior thus very immoral. The god justified immorality into what is then called moral is some of the most common pseudomorality, though political leaders and others in power tend to employ it as well. They all are using “pseudomoral justifications” to describe something immoral as moral.  True morality is not as simple as the golden rule… True morality is a valued behavior we do that interacts with others; it is not really related to what we do to ourselves.

Which is why I do not agree with the so-called golden rule as it is what you don’t want do to others but this fails in that its focused on ourselves which is us focused and true morality needs to be other focused on what valued behavior we do that interacts with others. I say treat others the way they should be treated. People have self-ownership, self-rights, right to dignity, freedom and equality. True morality is a valued behavior we do that interacts with others starting with the conception that people matter, they have worth and value, It is in this way they should be treated. Real Morality is referring to “ethics” we use in judging the behaviors in a social dynamic behavioral event or interaction and can only accrue in a social dynamic (social behavioral realm) as such all morality propositions removed from a social dynamic and which accrue only in a personal dynamic lack attachment to “Real Morality” referring to the social nature of “ethics.”

In other words, if you are by yourself and do something only to yourself, it is neither ethical nor immorality; thus, doing a behavior that is only personal (a believed moral or otherwise) by yourself and only something to yourself, is amorality to everyone but that chosen person doing a behavior that is only personal. One can chouse to personally value some moral standard for themselves but because morals (the personal valued behaviors) as opposed to ethics (the interpersonal/socal valued behaviors; which there is business never business morals as ethics is about our social behaviors we can hold others to, whereas, morals are only something we can hold ourselves to). I hold the assumptions that to understand morality more fully we need to understand its synthesis and properties by emphasizing its relations to conceptual tools understanding motivation and behavior such as biopsychosocial model, Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs, Bronfenbrenner’s ecological systems theory, kohlberg’s moral development theory and formal axiology interactions across multiple levels.

Real Morality is an emergent aspect limited to a sphere of social dynamics (social) result in human progress and social evolution understood in mental processes of high cognitively developed beings (biological) with developed psychological quality of awareness (psychological) and the so-called moral facts and the values that support or motivate them is limited to the realm of possible harm psychological or physical (actual external world or experiential internal world). I would like to offer my understanding of how I see the layout of morality, values, morals and ethics as I see them. I see the term “morality” proper as the main moniker to a philosophic group (values, morals and ethics) or a main heading that involves the subheadings of values, morals and ethics.

Values, morals, and ethics, in a basic observational way should be understood as falling under branches expressing different but similar thinking and behavioral persuasion. Values are the internal catalyst often motivating our thinking and behaviors. Such as, a value of all human life, would tend to motivate you to not wantonly end human lives. Just as a lack of value for all human life, may tend to motivate you to not have an issue with the wanton ending of human lives. Morals to me, are the personal persuasion that you value, such as having a desire for truthfulness. Then we have ethics and we know this is a different branch of the morality tree, as there is business ethics/professional ethics but not really business morals or professional morals; other than one’s self-chosen persuasion which may be adopted from business ethics/professional ethics. Ethics are as I have expressed our social universal prescriptions/persuasions public morality whereas morals to me are personal morality. Therefore, we can hold others to universal ethics standards (public morality) and not our moral proclivities that are not universal on others, as morals are for us (personal morality).

How did I unplug from the religious and god matrix?

The first and most crucial element that must be grasped and lived wholeheartedly to be removed from the matrix and stay unplugged is the unilateral valuing of women, the way they think, and their gift of being to the world. Without this understanding of women, one can never be removed from the matrix. The matrix is male dominated in its width and breath and in the movie “The Matrix”  movie all the agents were men.

Equality in power in important and how men and women do this is often different. Women under stress are more pron to tend and befriend then fight or flight and in our modern society this is of higher need. I am not saying this is only limited to women as there is some men who do this also but we need most men to move past the fight or flight as it would make a more humanistic world.  When women lead it is more common everyone has largely rights and when men rule it is more common only men have the greatest rights. If you have a country or people who allow or support torture, mostly such a a country is one that women are not equal or valued and are oppressed. Its not the only factor but they do tend to go together.

The greatest unused asset occurring in the world that is untapped and could help solve many of the world’s problems is women. I have and do value women and am a feminist. Another key aspect is to remove religion. I started to unplug myself when I removed religion mythologies its pseudo science, pseudo history as well as its pseudo-morality and replaced them with real science, history, ethics and axiology. An ethics and axiologcal value removed from god deluded morals and sin. I no longer have religion morals which are pseudo moral judgments and sin which is a condemnation built on a judgment. I have axiologcal value driven ethics. I no longer follow good or bad handed down by some deity, culture, or family value. I have axiologcal value driven valuations of good or bad. I do what is healthy and pleasurable. I do not do what is harmful or causes pain. In this endeavor, I do not claim perfection. I am but a traveler and seeker of value, ethics, justice, and pleasure. Check out: Reasons for or Types of Atheism

My college books where:

Understanding The Bible – By Stephen L. Harris – (7th Edition)

Living Religions – by Mary Pat Fisher – (6th Edition)

I am a firebrand atheist roughly understood as outspoken atheism which for most who don’t know is in contrast with quiet personal atheism or atheist accommodationism. “Accommodationist” atheists are those who frown upon outspoken atheism or atheists who publicly attack gods or religious beliefs, most especially because they think people have the right to religious beliefs and believe firebrand atheism risks alienating so called open-minded liberal and moderate religious people, hinder support for separation of church and state, or other crucial matters of public policy.

To the thought of “accommodationism” atheist, I just say “NO” as I am a firebrand atheist and that is not to be against others choice of atheists styles. It is just my style and one I champion. According to an atheist philosopher Daniel Fincke “Anti-Accommodationism” is pro-philosophy. Anyway, I oppose anything even like religion including atheist church but that’s just me.

Some with the accommodationist approach seem to champion religious freedom while not extending this believed equality to outspoken atheism as I have been chastised by such atheist accommodationists many times and thus there are those using this accommodationism in regards to the separation of church and state opposes the separationist approach which has been dominant in the courts. According to accommodationists, the First Amendment should be read much more narrowly than it has been in recent years. Some go so far as to argue that the First Amendment prohibits the government from doing nothing other than creating a National Church and everything else is permitted. Some “accommodationist” atheist may prefer to be “semi-accommodationist” only okay with opposition to the bad stuff religion does.

Accommodationists, for example, usually look unfavorably as what is labeled “New Atheism” automatically seeing firebrand atheists as roughly New Atheism or an outgrowth of New Atheism. This thinking is wrong as to me atheist accommodationism is the “New Atheism” as old atheism is largely outspoken atheism. Of course, atheism was and is oppressed and could and still can get you hurt and or killed so quiet personal atheism was always a forced rather than happy uncoerced chosen norm. During the early modern period, the term “atheist” was used as an insult and applied to a broad range of people, including those who held opposing theological beliefs as well as immoral or self-indulgent people. Atheistic beliefs were seen as threatening to order and society by philosophers such as Thomas Aquinas 1225 to 1274 a Roman Catholic priest to Thomas More Lord High Chancellor of England 1529 to 1532 said that religious tolerance should be extended to all except atheists and John Locke 1632 to 1704, a founder of modern notions of religious liberty, argued that atheists should not be granted full citizenship rights.

Discrimination against atheists, both at present and historically, includes the persecution of those identifying themselves or labeled by others as atheists, as well as the discrimination against them. As atheism can be defined in various ways, those discriminated against on the grounds of being atheists might not have been considered as such in a different time or place. As of 2015, it was noted that 19 countries punish their citizens for apostasy, and in 13 of those countries it is punishable by death.

What is labeled “New Atheism” is seen as outspoken atheism or firebrand atheism and is far from anything “New”. We see such thinking in Robert Ingersoll 1833 to 1899 an American lawyer, political leader, and orator of disbelief in the United States during the Golden Age of Free Thought. The Golden Age of Free Thought is roughly from 1875 to 1914 and is referred to as “the high-water mark of freethought as an influential movement in American society”.

Although the Golden Age of Free Thought should more rightly be thought to have begun around 1856 with the publication and popularization of Charles Darwin’s Origin of Species, as well as the push for woman’s suffrage, and other political, scientific, and social trends that clashed with religious orthodoxy and caused people to question their traditional ideas about the world. Freethought is a philosophical position that holds that ideas and opinions should be based on science and reason, and not restricted by authority, tradition, or religion.

Moreover, greats of the past who championed firebrand atheism or outspoken atheism are not limited to Robert Ingersoll, we have Sigmund Freud, Karl Marx, and David Hume just to highlight few.

Sigmund Freud 1856 to 1939 the father of psychology, was an uncompromising out atheist who wrote in his book “The Future of an Illusion,” where he described belief in god as a collective neurosis. Freud regarded god as an illusion, based on the infantile need for a powerful father figure which can be set aside in favor of reason and science.

Karl Marx 1818 to 1883 a philosopher and revolutionary socialist and published The Communist Manifesto in 1848 is said to disliking religion and their gods for at least three reasons. First, they are irrational, as in religion is a delusion and a worship that avoids recognizing reality. Second, religion negates all that is dignified in a human being rendering them submissive and more accepting the status quo. Third, religion is hypocritical. Marx stated “I hate all gods,” with addition that they “do not recognize man’s self-consciousness as the highest divinity.” “Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world” and “Religion is the opium of the people or masses.”

David Hume 1711 to 1776 a Scottish philosopher who is best known today for his highly influential system of radical empiricism, skepticism, and naturalism. Hume, asserts that certainty about anything is impossible, so one can never know for sure whether or not a god exists. However, Hume held that such unobservable metaphysical concepts as gods should be rejected as “sophistry and illusion”.

But out atheism goes further back as far back as 2,570 to 2,270 years ago.

Between 2,570 – 2,270 years ago there is a conformation of doubting as well as atheistic thinking mainly by Greek philosophers. However, doubting gods is likely as old as the invention of gods which should erode the thinking that belief in god(s) belief is some “default.” The Greek word is apistos (a “not” and pistos “faithful,”) thus not faithful or faithless because one is unpersuaded and unconvinced by god. Short Definition: unbelieving or unbeliever. Likewise, apistia derived from apistos, signifies unbelief.

Xenophanes who lived around 2,570 to 2,475 years ago is known for composing the first recorded atheistic critics, and famously stated “Men create the gods in their own image.” Xenophanes’ surviving writings display a skepticism that became more commonly expressed during the fourth century. He satirized traditional religious views of his time as human projections and once said “But mortals think that the gods are born and have the mortals’ own clothes and voice and form.” Xenophanes was critical of claims of the anthropomorphic conception of gods, summarized as, if cattle, horses and lions had hands or could paint with their hands and create works such as men do, they would like humans depict the gods’ shapes like their bodies of such a sort as the form they themselves have so horses would make their gods like horses, cattle would make their gods like cattle, and lions would make their gods like lions also. We see this in how Ethiopians of central eastern Africa say that their gods are snub–nosed and black while the Thracians of southeastern Europe say that they gods are pale and red-haired.

According to The Story of Civilization book series certain African pygmy tribes from around 2,400 to 2,500 years ago have no identifiable gods, spirits, or religious beliefs or rituals and even what burials accrue are without ceremony.

Democritus, who lived around 2,460 to 2,370 years ago, considered to be the “father of modern science” possibly had some disbelief amounting to atheism.

Around 2,430 years ago, we know Diagoras of Melos was accused by Greek courts of charges amounting to atheism and fled punishment.

Around 2,399 years ago, we know Socrates was accused by Greek courts of charges amounting to atheism of the gods that the city acknowledges thus was sentenced to death.

Epicurus who lived around 2,341 to 2,270 years ago is known for composing atheistic critics, and famously stated “Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him god?”

Again I will proudly state I am a firebrand atheist, but to me there is no one right way to be an atheist. Atheism is done right if it is stopping belief in gods and it is not for everyone to have to be outspoken to the world as if that is the only worthy atheism style.

I have been helped a lot by atheists who were just being my friend and supporting me and never even telling anyone they are atheist. If you can and it is safe and you want to be out as an atheist, it can be rewarding but it is not an all or nothing. We all do a lot supporting each other in the cause of a reality devoid of god superstitions. I was once asked if I was an angry atheist. In said I am not really an angry atheist but I am a firebrand atheist, so I am outspoken with passion. My moto is always try to attack thinking not people. I believe in people. I just don’t believe in gods or religions. I want to make a positive difference in the world with my atheism.

Firebrand atheism, is people standing up against the lie of god and the indoctrination of lies that is religion. We ignite excitement, action and change in the cause of reality. By challenging, exposing or insulting the inaccuracies and flawed reasoning, found in faith, gods, and other outdated untrue beliefs or methods. Like all reason-motivated atheism, firebrand atheists fight for freedom from the mental enslavement found in religious dogmatic-propaganda. Firebrand Atheism is a community of outspoken atheists with the goal of creating awareness, but we do this with strong challenge, free of aggression; knowing aggression is only needed when your argument is weak.

When your argument is strong, as the truth of atheism is, its power has no need for aggression, and is only hindered by adding it. Firebrand atheists are reality revolutionaries, we will no longer be quiet, why, because we care too damn much. Never again will we close our eyes to the harms of religion or faith in imaginary things like gods.

Humans are prone to thinking errors, especially when they are uninformed and when they are limited to themselves and only a simple amount of knowledge about the world without science.  For instance, if you are sitting or standing or lying down and not in motion you would say you are in a fixed place in time and space even common sense would seem to support this thinking however, you are on a planet that is spinning on an axis and it is likewise hurling through space in a revolving pattern around the sun. So without science understanding one may be fooled into thinking things that in reality are just not true. Some people think I tell about the flaw in thinking theism is true as some ploy to convert people to atheism. But this thinking is in error. I only want people to believe what is true and it just so happens that truth of the real proven world is in line with atheism.

Atheism is not looking for followers, it is a conclusion that the god claims are devoid of supporting evidence and are left with supported wishful thinking hopes of finite beings fearful of death and wanting to have control and hope in an often grubby often painful as much as pleasurable dangerous short life. You think looking honestly at the evidence available and not making things up needs to be promoted in some better way so people like it that sounds odd but how about the joy of intellectual honesty without myths devoid of reality for one. So, I say firebrand atheists unite. We heed the call, because we are firebrand atheists, won’t you join us. Firebrand Atheists Unite……

References: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15

Ps. Firebrand atheism, is people standing up against the lie of god and the indoctrination of lies that is religion. We ignite excitement, action and change in the cause of reality. By challenging, exposing or insulting the inaccuracies and flawed reasoning, found in faith, gods, and other outdated untrue beliefs or methods. Like all reason-motivated atheism, firebrand atheists fight for freedom from the mental enslavement found in religious dogmatic-propaganda. Firebrand Atheism is a community of outspoken atheists with the goal of creating awareness, but we do this with strong challenge, free of aggression; knowing aggression is only needed when your argument is weak. When your argument is strong, as the truth of atheism is, its power has no need for aggression, and is only hindered by adding it. Firebrand atheists are reality revolutionaries, we will no longer be quiet, why, because we care too damn much. Never again will we close our eyes to the harms of religion or faith in imaginary things like gods. We heed the call, because we are firebrand atheists, won’t you join us. I like almost all other atheists, who are actively outspoken am a Firebrand not a militant. Here is why just read the definitions:

I am a Realist in Many ways

I have a positive epistemic attitude (belief) towards or in philosophical realism that there is a real external world and that is what can be known or substantially approximated by humans objectively.

I have a positive epistemic attitude towards or in scientific realism that the content of the best scientific theories, models, and aspects of the world described by the sciences can be known or substantially approximated by humans objectively.

I have a positive epistemic attitude towards or in logical realism such as that logic is the means of discovering the structure of facts and their projection in the language such as the Law of Non-Contradiction or logical fallacies. Which represent logical truths pertaining to aspects of the world and can be known or substantially approximated by humans objectively.

I have a positive epistemic attitude towards or in mathematical realism. Such as that 2 + 2 equals 4 even if there are no intelligences or minds. Because math is in a sense a method of communication or description of and or about aspects of the world quantifying what can be known or substantially approximated by humans objectively.

I have a positive epistemic attitude towards or in value realism roughly speaking “axiological realism,” is that value claims (such as nurturing a baby is good and abusing a baby is bad) can be literally true or false. That some such claims are indeed true; that their truth can be known or substantially approximated by humans objectively.

I have a positive epistemic attitude towards or in epistemological realism roughly speaking, which is that what you know about an object exists independently of your mind. This relates directly to the correspondence theory of truth, which claims that the world exists independently and innately to our perceptions of it. Our sensory data then reflect or correspond to the innate world and that such truths, can be known, or substantially approximated by humans objectively.

I have a positive epistemic attitude towards or in moral realism roughly speaking, which is that some moral claims do purport to report facts and are true if they get the facts right. Moreover, while not all at least some moral claims actually are true or have a connection to additional commitments, in which the truth can be reached, and those facts in some specified way can be known or substantially approximated by humans objectively. Truth is a value judgment we confirm with valid and reliable reason as well as evidence, available or connected logically to them.

(Rachels, James. Ethical Theory) a moral theory must be able to solve:

The ontological problem: an adequate theory must account for ethics without assuming the existence of anything that does not actually exist.

The epistemological problem: if we have knowledge of right and wrong, an adequate theory must explain how we acquire such knowledge.

Sociological and Psychological Ontology of Morality in Relation to the Objective and Subjective Correspondence to Reality.

To me morality (relatively involves moral actors, moral reasoning, moral capital, moral concerns and moral compulsions) is a thinking in relation of behavior to or with “other” and is involved in a cognitive aware (psychological development of, pertaining to, or affecting the mind, especially as a function of awareness, feeling, or motivation) interaction (most commonly social interaction) by humans and thus is both a subjective aspect in the world as it is only positioned to cognitive aware interaction of humans and objective to impacts on the moral actors, moral reasoning, moral capital, moral concerns and moral compulsions choices positioned to cognitive aware interactions of humans.

Nonhuman animals are not doing or held accountable for this thing/things we label morality, though this does not remove all moral capital they hold or moral weight in our relations to them, because what happens to nonhuman animals can be attach to moral relevant interactions with them or some indirect secondary connections to other factors (i.e. someone’s pet). I feel that morality and the moral relevant choices only relates to occurrences linked to thinking in relation of behavior involved in relation to or with “other” in cognitive aware interaction of humans.

I thus feel with no interaction relation to or with “other” then there is no such thing as morality occurring. In a sense to me when nothing of interaction is happening to an external “other” even if, the internal self in question is a cognitive aware human. Such as, if one is by them self and only do things to themselves there is no morality involved. I feel morality in a sense cannot happen to you by you, it is your interacting with others, other things, or their relation to “other” but to me this is likely an unavoidable reality that corresponds to morality.

Axiology, Realism, and the Problem of Evil (THOMAS L. CARSON)

Although moral realism is the subject of lively debate in contemporary philosophy, it would seem almost all standard discussions of the problem of evil presuppose the truth of moral realism. So, if nonrealism is true, then it would seem we need to rethink and/or re-frame the entire discussion about the problem of evil. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1933-1592.2007.00079.x/abstract 

Evolutionary Morality?

If evolutionary critics of morality seek to critique by revealing the unreliability of evolutionary origins by showing that they have generated moral beliefs we know to be false. Indeed, this sort of critique would be self-defeating, for if we were able to sort true moral beliefs from false ones, then we could rely on that knowledge to correct for any epistemically harmful effect, especially in a gradual or subtle way evolutionary influence on the formation of our moral beliefs.

Moral disagreement (Geoff Sayre-McCord)

The mere fact of disagreement does not raise a challenge for moral realism. Disagreement is to be found in virtually any area, even where no one doubts that the claims at stake purport to report facts and everyone grants that some claims are true.

But disagreements differ and many believe that the sort of disagreements one finds when it comes to morality are best explained by supposing one of two things: (i) that moral claims are not actually in the business of reporting facts, but are rather our way of expressing emotions, or of controlling others’ behavior, or, at least, of taking a stand for and against certain things or (ii) that moral claims are in the business of reporting facts, but the required facts just are not to be found.

Taking the first line, many note that people differ in their emotions, attitudes and interests and then argue that moral disagreements simply reflect the fact that the moral claims people embrace are (despite appearances) really devices for expressing or serving their different emotions, attitudes, and interests.

Taking the second line, others note that claims can genuinely purport to report facts and yet utterly fail (consider claims about phlogiston or astrological forces or some mythical figure that others believed existed) and then argue that moral disagreements take the form they do because the facts that would be required to give them some order and direction are not to be found.

On either view, the distinctive nature of moral disagreement is seen as well explained by the supposition that moral realism is false, either because cognitivism is false or because an error theory is true.

Interestingly, the two lines of argument are not really compatible. If one thinks that moral claims do not even purport to report facts, one cannot intelligibly hold that the facts such claims purport to report do not exist. Nonetheless, in important ways, the considerations each mobilizes might be used to support the other. For instance, someone defending an error theory might point to the ways in which moral claims are used to express or serve peoples’ emotions, attitudes, and interests, to explain why people keep arguing as they do despite there being no moral facts. And someone defending noncognitivism might point to the practical utility of talking as if there were moral facts to explain why moral claims seem to purport to report facts even though they do not.

Moreover, almost surely each of these views is getting at something that is importantly right about some people and their use of what appear to be moral claims. No one doubts that often peoples’ moral claims do express their emotions, attitudes, and do serve their interests and it is reasonable to suspect that at least some people have in mind as moral facts a kind of fact we have reason to think does not exist.

Moral realists are committed to holding, though, that to whatever extent moral claims might have other uses and might be made by people with indefensible accounts of moral facts, some moral claims, properly understood, are actually true. To counter the arguments that appeal to the nature of moral disagreement, moral realists need to show that the disagreements are actually compatible with their commitments.

An attractive first step is to note, as was done above, that mere disagreement is no indictment. Indeed, to see the differences among people as disagreements—rather than as mere differences—it seems as if one needs to hold that they are making claims that contradict one another and this seems to require that each side see the other as making a false claim. To the extent there is moral disagreement and not merely difference, moral realists argue, we need at least to reject noncognitivism (even as we acknowledge that the views people embrace might be heavily influenced by their emotions, attitudes, and interests). While this is plausible, noncognitivists can and have replied by distinguishing cognitive disagreement from other sorts of disagreement and arguing that moral disagreements are of a sort that does not require cognitivism. Realists cannot simply dismiss this possibility, though they can legitimately challenge noncognitivists to make good sense of how moral arguments and disagreements are carried on without surreptitiously appealing to the participants seeing their claims as purporting to report facts.

In any case, even if the nature of disagreements lends some plausibility to cognitivism, moral realists need also to respond to the error theorist’s contention that the arguments and disagreements all rest on some false supposition to the effect that there are actually facts of the sort there would have to be for some of the claims to be true. And, however moral realists respond, they need to avoid doing so in a way that then makes a mystery of the widespread moral disagreement (or at least difference) that all acknowledge.

Some moral realists argue that the disagreements, widespread as they are, do not go very deep—that to a significant degree moral disagreements play out against the background of shared fundamental principles with the differences of opinion regularly being traceable to disagreements about the nonmoral facts that matter in light of the moral principles. On their view, the explanation of moral disagreements will be of a piece with whatever turns out to be a good explanation of the various nonmoral disagreements people find themselves in.

Other moral realists, though, see the disagreements as sometimes fundamental. On their view, while moral disagreements might in some cases be traceable to disagreements about nonmoral matters of fact, this will not always be true. Still, they deny the anti-realist’s contention that the disagreements that remain are well explained by noncognitivism or by an error theory Instead, they regularly offer some other explanation of the disagreements. They point out, for example, that many of the disagreements can be traced to the distorting effects of the emotions, attitudes, and interests that are inevitably bound up with moral issues. Or they argue that what appear to be disagreements are really cases in which the people are talking past each other, each making claims that might well be true once the claims are properly understood (Harman 1975, Wong 1984). And they often combine these explanatory strategies holding that the full range of moral disagreements are well explained by some balanced appeal to all of the considerations just mentioned, treating some disagreements as not fundamentally moral, others as a reflection of the distorting effects of emotion and interest, and still others as being due to insufficiently subtle understandings of what people are actually claiming. If some combination of these explanations works, then the moral realist is on firm ground in holding that the existence of moral disagreements, such as they are, is not an argument against moral realism. Of course, if no such explanation works, then an appeal either to noncognitivism or an error theory (i.e. to some form of anti-realism) may be the best alternative. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-realism/

Benefit of Seeing Morality as a Matter of Objective Facts

(Liane Young & A.J. Durwin) getting people to think about morality as a matter of objective facts rather than subjective preferences may lead to improved moral behavior, Boston College researchers report in the Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022103112002375

Reject Moral Realism?

(Geoff Sayre-McCord) those who reject moral realism are usefully divided into (i) those who think moral claims do not purport to report facts in light of which they are true or false (noncognitivists) and (ii) those who think that moral claims do carry this purport but deny that any moral claims are actually true (error theorists).

It is worth noting that, while moral realists are united in their cognitivism and in their rejection of error theories, they disagree among themselves not only about which moral claims are actually true but about what it is about the world that makes those claims true. Moral realism is not a particular substantive moral view nor does it carry a distinctive metaphysical commitment over and above the commitment that comes with thinking moral claims can be true or false and some are true. Still, much of the debate about moral realism revolves around either what it takes for claims to be true or false at all (with some arguing that moral claims do not have what it takes) or what it would take specifically for moral claims to be true (with some arguing that moral claims would require something the world does not provide).

Moral Judgments?

(Shin Kim) the cognitivist understanding of moral judgments is at the center of moral realism. For the cognitivist, moral judgments are mental states; moral judgments are of the same kind as ordinary beliefs, that is, cognitive states. But how are we to know this? One manageable way is to focus on what we intend to do when we make moral judgments, and also on how we express them. Moral judgments are intended to be accurate descriptions of the world, and statements express moral judgments (as opposed to command or prescription) just as statements express ordinary beliefs. That is, statements express moral language. The statements that express moral judgments are either true or false just as the statements that express ordinary beliefs are. Moral truths occur when our signs match the world. Language allows us to communicate with one another, typically using sentences and utterances. A large part of language involves, among many other things, influencing others and us. Normative language, in contrast with descriptive language, includes moral language (that is, moral language is part of evaluative or normative language). It is even more important not to be swayed by moral language because moral reality grips us. It is bad that others try to deceive us, but it is worse that we deceive ourselves into accepting moral facts simply because of the language that we use. That is, moral language — if it is not to describe the world —must not be mistaken as descriptive. Moral language binds us in a certain manner, and the manner in which it binds us is important.

If it is noncognitivism that provides the antirealist a way of rejecting moral truth, moral knowledge, and moral objectivity, the denial of noncognitivism (that is, cognitivism) must be necessary for the realist to properly claim them. Cognitivism is the view that moral judgments are cognitive states just like ordinary beliefs. It is part of their function to describe the world accurately. The realist argument that stems from cognitivism — as we saw from the above argument— is oftentimes guided by the apparent difficulties that the noncognitivist analysis of moral judgments faces. For instance, there is the famous Frege-Geach problem, namely, the noncognitivist difficulty of rendering emotive, prescriptive or projective meaning for embedded moral judgments.

Geach (1965) uses the “the Frege point,” according to which “a proposition may occur in discourse now asserted, now unasserted, and yet be recognizably the same proposition,” to establish that no noncognitivist (“the anti-descriptive theorist”) analysis of moral sentences and utterances can be adequate.

Consider a simple moral sentence: “Setting a kitten on fire is wrong.” Suppose that the simple sentence means, “Boo to setting a kitten on fire!” The Frege point dictates that the antecedent of “if setting a kitten on fire is wrong, then getting one’s friends to help setting a kitten on fire is also wrong” must mean the same as the simple sentence. But this cannot be because the antecedent of the conditional makes no such assertions while the simple moral sentence does. In other words, the noncognitivist analysis of moral sentences cannot be given to the conditional sentences with the embedded simple moral sentence. The problem can be generally applied to cases of other compound sentences such as “It is wrong to set a kitten on fire, or it is not.” Even if the noncognitivist analysis of the simple sentence were correct, compound sentences within which a simple moral sentence is embedded should be given an analysis independently of the noncognitivist analysis of it.

This seems unacceptable to many. For the following argument is valid: “It is wrong to set a kitten on fire, or it is not; it is not ‘not wrong’; hence, it is wrong to set a kitten on fire.” If the argument is valid, then the conclusion must mean the same as one of the disjuncts of its first premise. The argument would be otherwise invalid because of an equivocation, and the noncognitivist seems to be forced to say that the argument is invalid.
The Frege-Geach problem demonstrates the noncognitivists’ requirement of adequately rendering emotive, prescriptive, expressive, or projective meaning of those moral sentences that are embedded within compound moral sentences. (For more on the Frege-Geach problem, see Non-Cognitivism in Ethics. See also Darwall, Gibbard, and Railton 1992: 151-52.) http://www.iep.utm.edu/moralrea/

What do Professional Philosophers Believe?

What are the philosophical views of 1,972 contemporary professional philosophers?

On God: atheism 72.8%; theism 14.6%; other 12.6%.

Meta-ethics: moral realism 56.4%; moral anti-realism 27.7%; other 15.9%.

Axiology (value science) & Neuroscience (brain science)

(Demarest, Peter D.; Schoof, Harvey J. ) Axiogenics™ is, “the mind-brain science of value generation.” It is a practical life-science based on applied neuro-axiology1 — the integration of neuroscience (brain science) and axiology (value science). Neuroscience is the study of the biochemical mechanics of how the brain works. We are, of course, primarily interested in the human brain, which, owing to our genetics, is one of the most complex and magnificent creations in the known universe. Axiology is the study of how Value, values and value judgments affect the subjective choices and motivations of the mind—both conscious and sub-conscious. Formal axiology is the mathematical study of value—the nature and measurement of value and people’s perception of value. Both axiology and neuroscience have existed separately for years.

In many ways, the two sciences have approached the same question (What makes people tick?) from opposite directions. Neuroscience, a relatively young science, seeks to understand brain function and explain human behavior from a neuro-biological perspective. In contrast, for 2500 years, axiologists have sought to understand and explain human behavior and motivation from the perspective of the moral, ethical, and value-based judgments of the mind. Many human sciences, including neuroscience and axiology, have come to the realization that the mind-brain is value-driven. That is, Value, values, and value judgments drive many, if not most or even all, of the processes of both the brain and the mind, including our sub-conscious habits of mind.

Think about it—have you ever made a conscious choice that wasn’t, at that moment, an attempt to add greater value at some level? Unfortunately, to our knowledge, the neuroscientists and axiologists have not been comparing notes. Consequently, until now, the amazing value-based connection between the mind and brain has been overlooked. This book makes that connection and more. Axiogenics is not some rehashed mystical, moral, or religious philosophy, nor is it a newfangled twist on the rhetoric of so-called “success gurus.” It is a fresh, new paradigm for personal, leadership and organizational development. It is a science-driven technology for deliberately creating positive changes in how we think, how we perceive, the kinds of choices we make, and the actions we take.

Life is about adding value. Whether you realize it yet or not, your entire life is about one thing: creating value. Virtually every thought, action, choice, and reaction you have is an attempt to create or preserve value. Success in life, love and leadership requires making good value judgments. Real personal power is in knowing which choices and actions will create the greatest net value.

Axiogenics is based on four core principles. They are:
1. Value drives success in all endeavors.
2. Your mind-brain is already value-driven.
3. There is an objective, universal Hierarchy of Value.
4. Accurately answering The Central Question is the key to maximizing your success.

Demarest, Peter D.; Schoof, Harvey J. (2011-06-24). Answering The Central Question (Kindle Locations 130-136). Heartlead Publishing, LLC. Kindle Edition.

Moral Reasoning & Crime (Carey Goldberg)

People who commit crimes are dumb, but what happens is, in the moment, that information about costs and consequences can’t get into their decision-making.

Research shows that brain biology governs not just our choices but also our moral judgments about what is right and wrong.

Too quick to condemn?

Real Morality is both Nature and Nurture: Babies and Morality?

Are we born with a moral core? The Baby Lab says ‘yes’ Moreover, Studies have shown babies are good judges of character in fact, Even Babies Think Crime Deserves Punishment thins should make you consider The Case for Objective Morality.

Real Morality is both Nature and Nurture: Animals and Morality?

5 Animals With a Moral Compass Moreover, Animals can tell right from wrong: Scientists studying animal behaviour believe they have growing evidence that species ranging from mice to primates are governed by moral codes of conduct in the same way as humans. Likewise, in the book: Wild Justice: The Moral Lives of Animals: Scientists have long counseled against interpreting animal behavior in terms of human emotions, warning that such anthropomorphizing limits our ability to understand animals as they really are. Yet what are we to make of a female gorilla in a German zoo who spent days mourning the death of her baby? Or a wild female elephant who cared for a younger one after she was injured by a rambunctious teenage male? Or a rat who refused to push a lever for food when he saw that doing so caused another rat to be shocked? Aren’t these clear signs that animals have recognizable emotions and moral intelligence? With Wild Justice Marc Bekoff and Jessica Pierce unequivocally answer yes. Marrying years of behavioral and cognitive research with compelling and moving anecdotes, Bekoff and Pierce reveal that animals exhibit a broad repertoire of moral behaviors, including fairness, empathy, trust, and reciprocity. Underlying these behaviors is a complex and nuanced range of emotions, backed by a high degree of intelligence and surprising behavioral flexibility. Animals, in short, are incredibly adept social beings, relying on rules of conduct to navigate intricate social networks that are essential to their survival. Ultimately, Bekoff and Pierce draw the astonishing conclusion that there is no moral gap between humans and other species: morality is an evolved trait that we unquestionably share with other social mammals.

Moral Naturalism (James Lenman)

While “moral naturalism” is sometimes used to refer to any approach to metaethics intended to cohere with naturalism in metaphysics more generally, the label is more usually reserved for naturalistic forms of moral realism according to which there are objective moral facts and properties and these moral facts and properties are natural facts and properties. Views of this kind appeal to many as combining the advantages of naturalism and realism. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/naturalism-moral/

Realism, Naturalism, and Moral Semantics (David O. Brink)

he prospects for moral realism and ethical naturalism have been important parts of recent debates within metaethics. As a first approximation, moral realism is the claim that there are facts or truths about moral matters that are objective in the sense that they obtain independently of the moral beliefs or attitudes of appraisers. Ethical naturalism is the claim that moral properties of people, actions, and institutions are natural, rather than occult or supernatural, features of the world. Though these metaethical debates remain unsettled, several people, myself included, have tried to defend the plausibility of both moral realism and ethical naturalism. I, among others, have appealed to recent work in the philosophy of language—in particular, to so-called theories of “direct reference” —to defend ethical naturalism against a variety of semantic worries, including G. E. Moore’s “open question argument.” In response to these arguments, critics have expressed doubts about the compatibility of moral realism and direct reference. In this essay, I explain these doubts, and then sketch the beginnings of an answer—but understanding both the doubts and my answer requires some intellectual background. http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=3117452

Formal Axiology: Efficiency of good?

“I thought to myself, if evil can be organized so efficiently [by the Nazis] why cannot good? Is there any reason for efficiency to be monopolized by the forces for evil in the world? Why have good people in history never seemed to have had as much power as bad people? I decided I would try to find out why and devote my life to doing something about it.” – Robert S. Hartman http://www.hartmaninstitute.org/resources/journal-formal-axiology/

Formal Axiology?

Formal Axiology is a specific branch of the science of Axiology. The late Dr. Robert S. Hartman developed this science between 1930 and 1973. It is a unique social science because it is the only social science that has a one to one relationship between a field of mathematics (transfinite set calculus) and its dimensions.

More About Formal Axiology http://www.cleardirection.com/docs/formalaxiology.asp

More About Dr. Robert S. Hartman http://www.cleardirection.com/docs/articles/drhartman.asp

The Dimensions of Value

Dr. Hartman identified three dimensions of reality, which he called the Dimensions of Value. We value everything in one of these three ways or in a combination of these dimensions. The Dimensions of Value are Systemic, Extrinsic, and Intrinsic.

More About The Dimensions of Value
http://www.cleardirection.com/docs/dimensions.asp