“god-something” Claims are a Non-Reality commodity

I can say I know that no gods exist because a god is a non-reality commodity. 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?

Pragmatic Ethical/Axiology Driven Assumptions, Overcome the Weight of Solipsism Doubt

To profess the Non-Reality Commodity “god” into reality is to make an excuse for one’s willful ignorance or wishful thinking instead basing ones thinking on the intellectual honesty of accepting the proven naturalistic reality we have at hand.

“But I have faith that non-reality commodities exist. Beat that, smarty!” – Questioner

My Response, If a thing is of non-reality, than one admits they have unrealistic beliefs.

“Damien AtHope I know that dreams don’t exist because dreams are a non-reality commodity.  Because dreams are not real this means that dreams don’t exist.  Now you can argue that of course dreams exist, because you have them and allegedly so do other people.  But if you define reality by the ability to prove conclusively to others that you have something, you might find this really rather difficult to do when it is not possible to define that something through the auspices of the five senses.  Can you smell someone else’s dream, or taste it, or even see it?  The answer is no.  You are just going on faith that someone has had a dream.  And it is that faith that gives dreams reality in your mind because when it comes down to it, how do you give a provable fact that dreams exist?” -Challenger

My response, Dreams don’t exist they are an idea in an active mind, not a thing at all.  Cognitive neuroscience of dreams: “Two main frontal areas have been implicated in the dream process. The first involves the deep white matter of the frontal lobes (just above the eyes). The main systems at work here involve the mesolimbic and mesocortical dopaminergic pathways. There are connecting fibres that run between frontal and limbic structures. A dopaminergic pathway runs from the ventral tegmental area, ascends through the lateral hypothalamus, various basal forebrain areas (nucleus basalis, stria terminalis, shell of nucleus accumbens) and terminates in the amygdala, anterior cingulate gyrus and frontal cortex. Damage to the dopaminergic pathway results in a loss of dreaming. Furthermore, chemical stimulation of the pathway (with L-DOPA for example) increases the frequency and vividness of dreams without affecting REM sleep.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_neuroscience_of_dreams

“The problem is, counter intuitively, and in rejection of my original comment, I believe passionately in the existence of dreams.  They are real to me because I have experienced dreaming (without prompting from anyone) so many times.  I’m not alone.  Many, many people have dreams and see them as real things.  And, because they are real, then they must exist.  Therefore, if they exist then they must be a “thing”.  Even if it is a thing which cannot be touched or heard by anyone else.  There are a lot of things out there which we cannot identify through our five senses alone, but that does not mean they don’t exist.” -Challenger

My Response, You can believe in what you want and an idea or dream is still a mind limited thing not external proof of anything.

“Damien AtHope  What is your definition of external proof? ” -Challenger

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

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

“Damien AtHope  Thank you for that explanation.  But, logically, you are not putting the cart before the horse if you argue that you start with an idea (right thinking) and then try and find scientific proof to support that idea?  (I am working on the presumption that your definition of external proof is scientific proof.)  Should you not be starting with the science and then coming up with explanations?  If I understand your initial argument correctly, what you are saying about God/Gods is that without scientific proof to back their “reality” then they don’t exist.  So, logical progression – no proof, no reality, no existence.  Or, working backwards, you can’t argue existence without reality, which in turn is based on proof.  Which works for Gods.  But if you transpose something else, replace Gods with dreams, for example, then your logical argument falls flat, because everyone has experienced dreams, which makes them real, which means they exist.  And if your logic was robust it should not fall flat.” -Challenger

My Response, What is a god you act as is if that term even has meaning or substance?  What do you mean by logic? Logic is two main things one is internal constancy (the coherence theory of truth) and external constancy (the correspondence theory of truth) which starts from a pragmatic set of assumptions (pragmatic theory of truth) derived from reason.

“Damien AtHope  Of course the concept of God has meaning and substance.  Just because you don’t believe in God does not mean that it is not important to other people, hence for them it has meaning.  But, is that the real problem here?  You have offered an argument, based on a demand for external proof.  You have not denied that this, to you, means scientific proof.  You must be careful when demanding scientific proof, because this can change dramatically with new discoveries.  Try explaining nuclear energy to a Medieval man or woman.  They would never have understood it because they would not have had the scientific background needed to understand it.  Yet we accept the existence of nuclear energy without any problem whatsoever, even if most of us could not explain it.  So how do we know, now, that something will not be discovered within the next 100 years time that can scientifically prove the existence of God? What is truth?” -Challenger

My Response, So, you can not answer my questions?  What is a god? What do you mean by logic?

“Damien AtHope.  Well, you are not answering my questions either, but lets not nitpick.  What do I mean by logic?  Logic is a method by which people can tell good arguments from bad ones and it is the form of the argument which counts, something known as logical form.  When the logical form of that argument is good then when its validity is tested, it stands up to the testing and is known as a valid argument.  There are lots of ways that validity can be tested.  The simplest is to reduce the argument to its basic form and re-establish the argument using other quantifiers.  i.e. I used dreams instead of Gods.  If your argument had been valid then nothing I replaced would make a difference to the basic reasoning of the argument.  Unfortunately, this was not the case with your original premise.  You need to go away and rethink your argument to make it a valid one.” -Challenger

My Response, Thanks for answering the easy one on logic and yet you seem to have missed a try at a good ontology for your claims on god. So again, what is a god?  I know why you can’t answer the “what a god is” question, is that as I stated before, “a god is a non-reality commodity.” And, here is an answer to your question on truth. Grasping the status of truth (ontology of truth): https://damienmarieathope.com/2016/09/grasping-the-status-of-truth-ontology-of-truth-pre-logic-logic-and-post-logic/

“Damien AtHope My mother was diagnosed with Alzheimer’s two years before she died.  One of the symptoms of losing her short and medium term memory was that she lost her ability to reason.  I notice that the basis of your argument on truth is that you start with reason.  Based on my mother’s symptoms, reason seems to be linked with memory.  So, if this is correct, could it be that there are many types of reason, since there are many types of memories?  And if this is the case, could it be that there are many types of truth?” -Challenger

My Response, So again you ask and I have answered but still not one valid attempt at answering my question asked and not answered multiple times, “what is a god?” And until you answer this question we can not move on. So what is a god?  And as your new question established that you see science as valid in diagnosing your mom you are starting with it as a reality than making claims from that confirmed knowledge set are you not?  Saying things like someone is real and science, in reality, has provided understanding in that reality already demonstrates that you are not denying external reality or must give me an establishment of external proof and that includes your support for your claims to this truth that you state while trying to only obligated me to such standards.

“Damien AtHope.  Re my new question.  Yes.  I am starting from an observation I have made and offering a hypothesis about the possible relationship between two sets of state – that of memory and that of the ability to reason.  Whether there is a meaningful relationship is another matter, but if it is taken that there is, then it could follow that the human ability to reason is based in part on human memories.” -Challenger

My Response, Reason uses justification and that can come from several sources as evidence, memories can and often will be a part of this. And I sill am waiting for your reply on what is a god?  And, here are some of my thoughts on justification: https://damienmarieathope.com/2017/10/a-general-thinking-in-all-my-epistemology-theorizing-is-justificationism/

“Damien AtHope.  Re your question about God and your request for proof based on external realities.  I can’t offer you any.  I am only getting your answers after a delay so my answers may be coming back in a rather strange sequence.  You seem to keep asking me to prove that God exists.  Whether this is because you are really interested in an answer or because you are trying to avoid accepting that your initial argument which started this discussion is perhaps not as great as you think it is, I have no idea.  But, I cannot prove to you, in the way you want, that God exists.  So I guess you will have to keep believing he does not exist.  However, in the meantime, I do hope that you relook at your argument and work out how to make it stronger.” -Challenger

My response,  “But, logically, you are not putting the cart before the horse” your claim in the second response, so what is a god? Then you stated, you can’t argue existence without reality, which in turn is based on proof.  Which works for Gods,” a claim about the empty term god you have not in anyway justified with a valid answer to my question of what is a god? What do you mean by god?  So, even though You may say terms like god(s), as if that term universally means anything, without a connected myth people believe in (appeals to faith Fideism “FAITH-ISM”: faith is independent of reason, superior to reason, or reliance upon faith alone in some (generally religious) chosen beliefs and not others, even if reason is valued). But you don’t believe in a know-nothing theism “FAITH-ISM”, do you? People can believe it’s a god-term but even if one could be agree upon which there is not, honestly that would at best only get you the vague unjustified god c;aim as always, nothing more as your possibility before all the nature and reality we do know. However, we both get such a god does not fit a given religion vague something unknown god c;aim or sets of claims, if real has shown complete indifference to life on earth and reality. Religious holy book myth gods are well defined and not at all like the undefined something that could have been concluded as something before the big bang, which leaves us at, we don’t know but what is it about this unknown that can be believed to be a god. What do you mean by god? Are you just making stuff up or guessing/hoping or just promoting unjustified ideas you want to believe, what is a god? What makes you think this naturalistic reality contains unproven magic or supernatural anything and how do you know that you are not in error?  As I thought, YOU do not have an answer to what a “god” is? https://damienmarieathope.com/2018/04/you-do-not-have-an-answer/

“god is Nothing but a Factless Myth Held in an Invisible Box” of Ideas Favored by People who Value Faith over Facts. https://damienmarieathope.com/2018/03/god-is-nothing-but-a-factless-myth-held-in-an-invisible-box/

“god is Nothing but a Factless Myth Held in an Invisible Box”

---

---

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.

What proof is “faith” of anything religion claims by faith, as many people have different faith even in the same religion?

I Don’t Have to Respect Ideas

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

As an atheist, I feel more wonder than I did as a theist because I thought, “big deal” to any wonder I experienced, thinking god could do anything. So with such an unrealistic mindset, everything lost its wonder but it’s the opposite as an atheist. As a theist, the world was full of superstitions and supernatural magic possibilities and thus utilized thinking that was not in the real world. As an atheist all I have now is the real world, not that all atheists seem to get this, we all are in a real world devoid of magic anything, therefore, everything adds to my feeling of awe.

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.

The Mental Parasite Called God? God is not simply a myth, it a mental parasite feeding off your life, is like a mental prison concept, disemboweling you, and any religion that supports the concept of god(s), becomes like a controlling jailer to the mind of the god believer. What is love, if it is so cheap, that it is for wholesale to myths? To me, it is truly a sad thing, when you have people offer more love to an unknown and at best unproven thing they call god; not even evident in this world, over real people, even loved ones, which are known in this world. Sadly, all too often a mind full of god(s) myths have no appetite for reason.I am an anti-religionist, not just an atheist, and here is why summed up in three ideas I am against. And, in which these three things are common in all religions: “pseudo-science”, “pseudo-history”, and “pseudo-morality”. And my biggest thing of all is the widespread forced indoctrination of children, violating their free choice of what to not believe or believe, I hate forced hereditary religion. And my biggest thing of all is the widespread forced indoctrination of children, violating their free choice of what to not believe or believe, I hate forced hereditary religion. As well as wish to offer strong critiques regarding the pseudo-meaning of the “three letter noise” people call “G.o.d” (group originated delusion)!

 Let’s make it simple:

Atheism is the reality position.

Theism is the anti-reality position!

I don’t need religion or its fake gods.

“Reason is my only master.”

I am will to power!

Here is why “Reason is my only master”

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

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

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

In a general way, all reality, in a philosophic sense, is an emergent property of reason, and knowing how reason accrues does not remove its warrant. Feelings are experienced then perceived, leading to thinking, right thinking is reason, right reason is logic, right logic is mathematics, right mathematics is physics and from there all science.

Science is not common sense?

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

Religion vs. Science, Don’t Confuse Beliefs

A basic outline of scientific epistemology: Science: Hypotheses (Rationalism/Deductive, Inductive, or Abductive Reasoning etc.) + Testing (Empiricism/Systematic Observation) – Checking for errors (Skepticism/Fallibilism) + Interpret/Draw a Conclusion (Rationalism/Deductive, Inductive, or Abductive Reasoning etc.) *if valid* = Scientific Laws (describes observed phenomena) or Scientific Theory (substantiated and repeatedly tested explanation of phenomena) = Justified True Belief = Scientific Knowledge = Epistemic Certainty supportive of correctability *being epistemically certain, is believing a truth has the highest epistemic status, often with warranted psychological certainty but it may not, neither is it a requirement*

Why Be an Out Atheist Like Me?

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.

What do you mean by god?

“Damien. atheism and theism are both based on faith, not fact, and thus are similarly irrational.” My response, No, only “theism prefers faith over facts,” atheism, does not use faith and is only hindered if faith was added which it’s not even needed as theism is baseless by default. This is so as its claims are devoid of any evidence thus atheism is true. And let me explain faith as there seems to be a confusion. Faith is strong belief without evidence or contrary to evidence. I see all available evidence and not even one bit of it is supernatural and everything once believed to be magic turned out to be just natural no magic at all. To think that the belief in magic and the rejection of magic are equal is misunderstanding the evidence available, thus, is uninformed, unthinking, irrational, confused or lying.When you say “GOD,” what do you mean by god?Again, When you say “Proof of GOD,” Are you really asking me, What happened before the big bang?“What do you mean by god?”What is really being asked is, what happened before the universe of naturalism we do know exists; hoping you don’t know so it leaves open the possibility for their gOD myth of choice. What is before the big bang, “I don’t know” but I am waiting for science to one day tell us all. But, much more humble is the acknowledgement that we currently don’t know. However, it’s only reasonable to consider that all the things before are natural as that is what the big bang produced, only naturalism. With the amazing world of science facts, all one after another disproving the faulty claims of gods and religions; we need to stop asking whether believing in gods or religion is rational, and instead start asking how strongly holding onto religious belief is even cognitively possible.

Science Facts Should Make Religious Belief Impossible

What do you mean by god? So, even though You may say terms like god(s), as if that term universally means anything, without a connected myth people believe in (appeals to faith Fideism “FAITH-ISM”: faith is independent of reason, superior to reason, or reliance upon faith alone in some (generally religious) chosen beliefs and not others, even if reason is valued). But you don’t believe in a know-nothing theism “FAITH-ISM”, do you? You only value reason and evidence, right? Now, be honest when you think of god the influences of some god myth come in your head not an unknown and unknown possibly god somethingism, a vague unjustified theistic possibility thing you think came before the big bang. And, whatever, people can believe it’s a god but even if one could agree with you, honestly that would at best only get you the vague unjustified god nothing as your possibility before all the nature and reality we do know. However, we both get such a god does not fit a given religion hella vague something unknown before the big bang god if real has shown complete indifference to life on earth. So, all the religions are out the door or you could say almost all god claims can fit an origins unknown like what the big bang would limit and in that we find the problem. Religious holy book myth gods are well defined and not at all like the undefined something that could have been concluded as something before the big bang, which leaves us at, we don’t know but what is it about this unknown that can be believed to be a god something does nothing for you just as it tells you nothing and is most likely nothing but more nature just as everything we do know is a nature nothing magical. 

Again, what do you mean by god?

God, should stand for confusion, well: G.group–O.origonated–D.delusion that is.

Not all people who say they believe in “gOD” agree on any of what they choose to agree on starts or completes a chosen god belief. Which should offer new possible ideas concerning why disbelief actually beats belief in a god something but just like there is no exact definition of a god concept existence, some stuff will hold a never-ending problem. Therefore, in trying to define or analyze chosen god belief styles in this way any may find some aspects that definitely hold reason to challenge, the differences in god belief attribution and god belief make up of this thing called god even in members of the same religion. The utter confusion of and about what others think amounts to or demonstrates what god myth should lead a reasonable person to conclude they all have or are currently making it up. There are no gods nor supernatural anything, think otherwise prove it with valid and reliable reason and evidence. To simplify, the general idea of “god” is likely derived from a man-made animistic assumption that nature contains magic thus a magic designer or controller called gods. Some people who are atheists were never theists.

How lucky not to have endured what I did. Some of these Gold Star Atheists “never-theist” atheists may wonder if they missed out on something by not being raised theistically. Yes, you missed something alright, you missed a mind full of bullshit that is as hard to escape for some me included to even begin to see clearly, is my response but likely quite similar to many other because us Brown Star Atheists “theistically-raised” atheists, we think you missed out on the fun of Something terrible like missing out on a unilateral mind rape of faith toxic beliefs…

What do you mean by god Evidence?

What do you mean by god? Are you just making stuff up or guessing/hoping or just promoting unjustified ideas you want to believe, what is a god? What makes you think this naturalistic reality contains unproven magic or supernatural anything and how do you know that you are not in error?

Do you want what is true or want what you believe without concern for what may actually be true?

Character is not something you get by accident. Just like caring for humanity should not be something you only do if it is not to hard or support equality if it’s convenient. One makes a choice to champion what is right because it is right, knowing that to do so will take hard work and one is proud to do so because they have character. I see a care for humanity as an honor for the direct part I play in it. Again, what do you mean by god and are you really “ok” with just pretend or do you seek to truly know, such as are you ethical in your prosses of forming, developing and maintaining beliefs?

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.

What do you mean by god? 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”. 

What do you mean by god? 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

What do you mean by god? 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.

What do you mean by god? 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 We fight IDEAS, not people, so while I wish to destroy harmful or false ideas I wish to uplift and empower people by inspiring their will to reason and know REASON is often the enemy of ignorance.

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

What is a god? (video): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WU19nWLK_R8&t=104s

————————————————————————————-

Here are two favorite logical fallacies of religionists and fideists and their Dogmatic-Propaganda:

Complex Question Fallacy and Appeal to Ignorance Fallacy, which are often used in tandem kind of like this, the universe had a beginning, and if god was not the power before the beginning of the universe you must explain what was. So if you cannot prove that god was not the power before the beginning or that god is not needed or does not exist, that means god was the needed power to create the universe and god must exist.

The Complex Question Fallacy is roughly when someone asks a question that presupposes something (often with loaded language or questions) that is not proven.

The Appeal to Ignorance Fallacy is roughly acting that something must be true because it has not been, or cannot be, proven false even if it has not in any way ben demonstrated as true.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complex_question

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

——————————————————————————–

Talking to Teach not Attack

“Im a christian from slovenia country in europe and i saw your video and i was kinda sad that you are aginst christianity im just wondering why do you think like that. And thanks for accepting me it meens alot, have you ever read a bible? I have many questions…” – Questioner

My response, I read the entire bible Twice, once in King James and once NIV. All religion is conspiracy theories of reality and must be exposed for the universal frauds they are.

“And must be exposed so basicly you belive in evil couse you are acting evil aginst christianity and so on you are religious and you are exposing you self but hiding something greter than that in you you need to open you hart for Jesus and be happy for life he gived you Ill pray for you Damien I really will. Right now I readed your blog and I discovered that I could prove to you many things wrong such as “how can you belive without evidence”. The religion is based on beliving Jesus has given us his word and it’s up on us to belive or not but Its said that those who trully will will be saved. I would really like to discuss whit you and maybe even get into a call so we can talk and than talk more on these things I hope you are ito this and I recomend watching movie God is not dead in wich I got many answears and I also belive that so will you so you see God is real…” – Questioner

My response, Well, what is a god?

“Tell me than.” – Questioner

My response, Deities are an idea from agricultural religion, that emerged about 13,000/12,000 years ago or so.

Sedentism and the Creation of goddesses as well as gods: https://damienmarieathope.com/2017/08/sedentism-and-the-creation-of-goddesses-as-well-as-gods/

Archaeological, Scientific, & Philosophic evidence shows the god myth is man-made nonsense: https://damienmarieathope.com/2017/10/archaeological-scientific-philosophic-evidence-showing-the-god-myth-is-man-made-nonsense/

————————————————————————————-

As I thought, YOU do not have an answer to what a “god” is?