Religious Fallacies: Appeal to Emotion and its Multiple Fallacy Subheadings

Religious Fallacies:

“Appeal to Emotion and its Multiple Fallacy Subheadings”

Some may think what is wrong with an Appeal to Emotion as Emotions are an important part of our lives. Yes, Emotions can be both useful to understanding and fallacious as arguments. But how do emotions affect our reasoning or are arguments is the important issue? Sometimes this is ok, such as when the emotion is appropriate and relevant. However, emotions can also be used in inappropriate ways as well when appropriated as logical fallacies. Many rhetorical devices are used to invoke certain kinds of emotions. One should stop and think critically, pondering emotional offerings thinking is the language used to invoke a type of motion that is irrelevant to the issue? Even if it is an appropriate type of emotion, is it unreasonably exaggerated? ref

To me, “Appealing to Emotion” as a general unfair argument tactic involves sloppy thinking regardless if it is either confusion, delusion, and/or Intellectual honesty.

Intellectual honesty is an applied method of problem-solving, characterized by an unbiased, honest attitude, which can be demonstrated in a number of different ways:

One’s personal faith does not interfere with the pursuit of truth;
Relevant facts and information are not purposefully omitted even when such things may contradict one’s hypothesis;
Facts are presented in an unbiased manner, and not twisted to give misleading impressions or to support one view over another;
References, or earlier work, are acknowledged where possible, and plagiarism is avoided.

Harvard ethicist Louis M. Guenin describes the “kernel” of intellectual honesty to be “a virtuous disposition to eschew deception when given an incentive for deception”. Intentionally committed fallacies in debates and reasoning are called intellectual dishonesty. Intellectual honesty is honesty in the acquisition, analysis, and transmission of ideas. A person is being intellectually honest when he or she, knowing the truth, states that truth. There are disincentives to intellectual honesty. Academics may find themselves pressured to argue for the stances of their benefactors, including governments and private entities that fund grants (in fact, this is trained into them in education, as the same pressures are exerted by teachers and professors upon their students). Judges may face political pressure to render a judicial opinion endorsing a legal argument that they know to be flawed. Auditors may issue a favorable opinion of a company’s financial statements, despite having serious misgivings about their adherence to generally accepted accounting principles, in order to continue receiving business from that company. (In general, perverse incentives and conflicts of interest provide highly fertile ground for intellectual dishonesty.) The more complicated the issue and the murkier the facts, the easier it may be for an intellectual to get away with presenting a plausible but flawed argument. In a world where people, including intellectuals, often pursue incentives more eagerly than they seek after high ideals, it is important that ways be found to make the interests of intellectuals coexist with the interests of those whose well-being depends on their intellectual honesty if intellectual dishonesty is to be consistently avoided. Some intellectual dishonesty can be subtle. For example, relevant facts and information may be purposefully omitted when such things contradict one’s hypothesis or facts may be presented in a biased manner or twisted to give misleading impressions. Broadly speaking, any of the following behaviors would fall under intellectual dishonesty. Arguing for a viewpoint you yourself disbelieve. Exception: The role of devil’s advocate, when consciously acted out, is not intellectually dishonest. A good devil’s advocate will express the opposition’s strongest arguments, and draw attention to the weaknesses of the arguments of co-thinkers. This is a valuable tool for intellectual rigor and honesty, and also helps to ward off the dangers of echo chambers and the resulting groupthink. Deliberately ignoring facts and arguments that would undermine your position. (willful ignorance) Knowingly using a logical fallacy. Common forms of intellectual dishonesty include plagiarism, applying double standards, using false analogies, exaggeration and overgeneralization, presenting straw man arguments, and poisoning the well (not literally). A form of intellectual dishonesty common on conservative sites like Conservapedia is the suppression of evidence that contradicts their orthodoxy by reverting without explanation any edit that links to or otherwise presents such evidence. ref & ref

What is a logical fallacy?

A logical fallacy (“List of Fallacies”) is not the same as lying, although it is still an error if you commit one (and dishonest if you know you are committing one). A lie in logic is a premise that one offers while knowing that it is false. In reasoning to argue a claim, a fallacy is reasoning that is evaluated as logically incorrect and that undermines the logical validity of the argument and permits its recognition as unsound. Regardless of their soundness, all registers and manners of speech can demonstrate fallacies. Because of their variety of structure and application, fallacies are challenging to classify so as to satisfy all practitioners. Fallacies can be classified strictly by either their structure or content, such as classifying them as formal fallacies or informal fallacies, respectively. A fallacy is the use of invalid or otherwise faulty reasoning, or “wrong moves” in the construction of an argument. A fallacious argument may be deceptive by appearing to be better than it really is. Some fallacies are committed intentionally to manipulate or persuade by deception, while others are committed unintentionally due to carelessness or ignorance. The soundness of legal arguments depends on the context in which the arguments are made. ref, ref

The Faith Fallacy vs. Critical Thinking

The faith fallacy is an impairment in critical thinking starting and ending with circular reasoning assuming they are right, such as the act of faith validating faith (Begging the question fallacy); makes jumps in logic that don’t follow logic (Non sequitur fallacy); questionable cause like proposing false cause and effect (Post hoc fallacy); incomplete evidence, suppressing evidence, or selectively uses facts a propaganda technique (Cherry picking fallacy); makes false or misleading comparisons (False equivalence or False analogy fallacy); overgeneralizes (Hasty Generalization or Faulty generalization fallacy) asserts that lots of peoples agree (Bandwagon Fallacy) asks for special treatment or a double standard, attempting an exception for faith (Special pleading fallacy). Contrary to the faith fallacy tactics of using fallacious reasoning to try to persuade blind faith, critical thinkers would try to persuade by offering relevant evidence and valid reasoning, that a conclusion is true or likely to be true.

Appeal to emotion or argumentum ad passiones is a logical fallacy characterized by the manipulation of the recipient’s emotions in order to win an argument, especially in the absence of factual evidence. This kind of appeal to emotion is a type of red herring and encompasses several logical fallacies, including appeal to consequences, appeal to fear, appeal to flattery, appeal to pity, appeal to ridicule, appeal to spite, and wishful thinking. Instead of facts, persuasive language is used to develop the foundation of an appeal to an emotion-based argument. Thus, the validity of the premises that establish such an argument does not prove to be verifiable. Appeals to emotion are intended to draw inward feelings such as fear, pity, and joy from the recipient of the information with the end goal of convincing him/her that the statements being presented in the fallacious argument are true. ref

Appeal to Consequences

(Hell or Heaven threats?)

Appeal to consequences, also known as argumentum ad consequentiam (Latin for “argument to the consequences”), is an argument that concludes a hypothesis (typically a belief) to be either true or false based on whether the premise leads to desirable or undesirable consequences. This is based on an appeal to emotion and is a type of informal fallacy, since the desirability of a premise’s consequence does not make the premise true. Moreover, in categorizing consequences as either desirable or undesirable, such arguments inherently contain subjective points of view. In logic, appeal to consequences refers only to arguments that assert a conclusion’s truth value (true or false) without regard to the formal preservation of the truth from the premises; appeal to consequences does not refer to arguments that address a premise’s consequential desirability (good or bad, or right or wrong) instead of its truth value. Therefore, an argument based on an appeal to consequences is valid in long-term decision making (which discusses possibilities that do not exist yet in the present) and abstract ethics, and in fact, such arguments are the cornerstones of many moral theories, particularly related to consequentialism. Appeal to consequences also should not be confused with argumentum ad baculum, which is the bringing up of artificial consequences (i.e. punishments) to argue that an action is wrong. ref

Appeal to Desire

(Hell or Heaven threats?)

Any case of wishful thinking is an appeal to desire, like an appeal to people‘s desire for things such as safety, pleasure, and hedonism to manipulate or unjustifiably persuade. The Logical Fallacy of Appeal to Self-Interest / Appeal to Desire / Appeal to Personal Interest / Homily Ad Hominem (type of) occurs when an appeal is made to the personal the likes, interests, preferences, prejudices, predispositions, fears, etc. of others so they will accept the conclusion and self-interest is the reason for believing something to be true. This is a fallacy only when those personal interests are not relevant to the truth or falsity of the argument. Argument from consequences is a negative form of this fallacy. There is a positive form where something is believed because of what will be gained by believing. “I believe in Jesus because I want to go to Heaven.” Well, that appeal to desire, to go to Heaven can’t make Jesus exist nor is an appeal to desire, to go to Heaven or not go to Hell a confirmation of any value to if either exists either. ref, ref

Appeal to Fear

(Hell threats?)

An appeal to fear (also called argumentum ad metum or argumentum in terrorem) is a fallacy in which a person attempts to create support for an idea by attempting to increase fear towards an alternative. Fear appeals are often used in marketing and social policy, as a method of persuasion. Fear is an effective tool to change attitudes, which are moderated by the motivation and ability to process the fear message. Others argue that it is not the level of fear that is decisive in changing attitudes via the persuasion process. Rather, as long as a scare-tactics message includes a recommendation to cope with the fear, it can work. When fear, not based on evidence or reason, is being used as the primary motivator to get others to accept an idea, proposition, or conclusion. Fear-arousing persuasive messages work well to manipulate. A meta-analysis of the fear-appeals literature indicating that overall, increasing fear is associated with increased persuasion. ref, ref, ref

Appeal to fear (scare tactics)

by John Jackson

The claim that some action should be taken to prevent undesirable consequences of not taking that action. It is often presented as a warning.

It takes the form:

X is a something to fear; therefore
Y should be implemented to prevent X.

The fallacy occurs when the level of fear created does not relate to the truth of the claim. The appeal to fear can be strong or weak depending on whether the preventative action (Y) really can be shown to prevent circumstance X.

House fires can kill you and your family: fit smoke detectors to your house. (strong)
You ought to believe in God. After all, if you do not accept the existence of God, then you will face the horrors of hell. (weak)

Appeals to fear work on our emotions and our general lack of ability to understand risk. They work by:

Identifying a threat (real or imagined);
Offering a prevention;
Convincing others that the prevention will be effective;
Convincing others that they are capable of facilitating the recommended prevention.

Appeals to fear are common in advertising, conspiracy theories, politics, propaganda, and promotion of alternative medicine. In fact, it is a useful tool for anyone who wishes to influence the behavior of others. Scaremongering works by exploiting our natural fears and insecurities. Those who oppose vaccination, for example, often state: vaccines contain poisons, do you want to poison your children?

To counteract falling for an appeal to fear we need to:

Ascertain whether or not the perceived threat is actually real;
If it is, find out what the real level of risk faced is;
Decide whether or not the proposed preventative measures actually reduce the risk;
If any of the above are not true, then the appeal to fear is a fallacious one. ref

Appeal to Flattery

(Trust Manipulation, a variation of Emotion Manipulation? )

Appeal to flattery is a fallacy in which a person uses a Superficial charm type of flattery, excessive compliments, in an attempt to appeal to their audience’s vanity to win support for their side. It is also known as apple polishing, wheel-greasing, brown nosing, appeal to pride, appeal to vanity or argumentum ad superbiam. The appeal to flattery is a specific kind of appeal to emotion, emotion control, emotional Manipulation, empathetic manipulation or mood control with the intent to manipulate. Flattery is often used to hide the true intent of an idea or proposal. Praise offers a momentary personal distraction that can often weaken judgment. Moreover, it is usually a cunning form of appeal to consequences, since the audience is subject to be flattered as long as they comply with the flatterer. Example: “Surely a man as smart as you can see…..XYZ is true!” A refusal which does not deny the compliment could be formulated thus: “I may be [positive attribute], but that doesn’t mean that I will (perform an action) for you or (see things the way you do).” An appeal to flattery is a logical fallacy that occurs when a debater tries to compliment people into an opinion. Someone uses a Superficial charm type of flattery on someone else in order to appeal to them and make them more favorable towards a premise that they would not like otherwise. This kind of argumentation makes use of the Dunning-Kruger effect among other things if used successfully. It is virtually always fallacious, because it never looks into facts, but only exploits the basic human need for appreciation. Such as, “You are a nice, good person. Nice people accept my arguments. Therefore you will accept my arguments. As in, compliment the other person, make them feel good about themselves, show that you approve of them and their actions, tell them that they look good, and then ask them to agree with you. ref, ref, ref

Appeal to Pity

(Accommodationist Arguments against Firebrand Atheists?)

(Moralism appeals?)

Unwarranted moral criticism downgrades the force of legitimate moral criticism and that this is why moralism should be seen as a vice.

An appeal to pity (also called argumentum ad misericordiam, the sob story, or the Galileo argument) is a fallacy in which someone tries to win support for an argument or idea by exploiting his or her opponent’s feelings of pity or guilt. It is a specific kind of appeal to emotion. The name “Galileo argument” refers to the scientist’s suffering as a result of his house arrest by the Inquisition. The attempt to distract from the truth of the conclusion by the use of pity. Like any argument, if it is agreed that logic and reason should take a back seat to emotion, and there is no objective truth claim being made, but rather an opinion of something that should or should not be done, then it could escape the fallacy, but that is not valid for truth claims. Avoid pity in argumentation. It is a clear indicator that you have weak evidence for your argument. An appeal to pity is a logical fallacy that occurs when something is claimed to be true because (a) it is saddening or (b) its falsity would cause sadness. Its inverse is the appeal to hate. It is an emotional appeal and an informal fallacy. An appeal to pity attempts to persuade using emotion—specifically, sympathy—rather than evidence. Playing on the pity that someone feels for an individual or group can certainly affect what that person thinks about the group; this is a highly effective, and so quite common, fallacy. This type of argument is fallacious because our emotional responses are not really a good guide to truth; emotions can cloud, rather than clarify, issues. We should base our beliefs upon reason, rather than on emotion if we want our beliefs to be true. ref, ref, ref, ref

Appeal to Ridicule

(Discrimination against atheists?)

Appeal to ridicule (also called appeal to mockery, ab absurdo, or the horse laugh), is an informal fallacy which presents an opponent’s argument as absurd, ridiculous, or humorous, and therefore not worthy of serious consideration. Appeal to ridicule is often found in the form of comparing a nuanced circumstance or argument to a laughably commonplace occurrence or to some other irrelevancy on the basis of comedic timing, wordplay or making an opponent and their argument the object of a joke. This is a rhetorical tactic that mocks an opponent’s argument or standpoint, attempting to inspire an emotional reaction (making it a type of appeal to emotion) in the audience and to highlight any counter-intuitive aspects of that argument, making it appear foolish and contrary to common sense. This is typically done by making a mockery of the argument’s foundation that represents it in an uncharitable and oversimplified way. Such as, mock the other person’s claim and argument, make fun of it, trying to get people to laugh at it. Alternatively, mock the alternatives that they might choose, giving them only one option that you have not mocked. Ridiculing something is to place it at a lower social position. If a person is associated with that thing, then they, too, are moved to that lower position. When others see a person in a lower social position, they will not associate themselves with that person, for fear of being dragged down to that position. The original person knows this and will seek to avoid loss of social status. The ridiculed thing is thus poisoned and made undesirable, and people will distance themselves from it. Appeal to ridicule is a fallacy that attempts to make a claim look ridiculous by mocking it or exaggerating it in a negative way. Appeal to ridicule often uses sarcasm to make an argument look ridiculous. ref, ref, ref

Appeal to Spite

An appeal to spite (Latin: argumentum ad odium) is a fallacy in which someone attempts to win favor for an argument by exploiting existing feelings of bitterness, spite, or schadenfreude in the opposing party. It is an attempt to sway the audience emotionally by associating a hate-figure with opposition to the speaker’s argument. Fallacious ad hominem arguments which attack villains holding the opposing view are often confused with appeals to spite. The ad hominem can be a similar appeal to a negative emotion, but differs from it indirectly criticizing the villain —that is unnecessary in an appeal to spite, where hatred for the disfavored party is assumed. ref

Appeal to Hate

An appeal to hate is a logical fallacy that occurs when something is claimed to be true because (a) it is maddening or (b) its falsity would cause anger. Its inverse is the appeal to pity. All poisoning the well is an appeal to hate. It is an emotional appeal and an informal fallacy. Just because something makes you mad does not mean that it is more or less true. Examples: Don’t listen to him, he’s a [slur]. Prior to meeting someone, you are told that they always try to get money from acquaintances. When you meet, everything you hear is tainted. Galileo claims that the Earth revolves around the Sun. But remember, he’s heretic scum. Can you trust a man like that? Why shouldn’t prisoners be forced to do hard labor? Prisons are full of scumbags! How could you believe in God? He’s such a horrible tyrant! ref

Appeal to Anger

An Appeal to Anger is when the emotions of anger, hatred, or rage are substituted for evidence in an argument(also known as: appeal to hatred, loathing, appeal to outrage, etc.). This is a common tactic to play on the emotions of others to get them to do what you want them to do. The fact is, no evidence was given or claim was made linking your “XYZ something” with the problems going away. The user of the appeal to anger will hope you will make the connection while they can claim innocence down the road when the people attempt to hold the politician to a promise she really never made. Ignoring the fact that we didn’t evolve from monkeys (we share a common ancestor with modern African apes), and the simple fact that an “appeal-to-anger” arguer is obviously offended is irrelevant to the facts. Exception: Like all appeals to emotion, they work very well when used, in addition to a supported conclusion, not in place of one. ref

Appeal to Shame

An appeal to shame is a logical fallacy that occurs when someone’s actions or arguments are described as “shameful” (meaning, looked down upon by others in society) and therefore wrong. Such as, “Aren’t you ashamed for having that opinion?”, “Only the most degenerate, morally depraved, cretinous imbecile could fail to see the truth of my argument.”, May be combined with Godwin’s law (for example: Aren’t you ashamed to be in favor of building highways, just like Hitler was?). Oh, you’re only an “XYZ.” You can’t have an interest/knowledge in that as an “XYZ.” ref

Appeal to Guilt

An appeal to guilt involves an argument or arguer who attempts to persuade by making the person to be persuaded feel guilty for not accepting the position. The fallacy of Appeal to Guilt mimics this situation in which a reasoner criticizes his listener for failing to correctly follow the offered reasoning. However, in this case, the reasoner has not actually offered any reasoning for the listener to follow. The criticism (and accompanying guilt) create an illusion that a complex logical argument has been offered, implying that anyone who fails to be persuaded by it simply failed to understand. Words and phrases can carry different meanings for different people. As a result, we may fail to follow an argument that is perfectly sound. When this occurs, it is to be expected that the other person–the person making the argument–will criticize our inability to understand. Being permitted to point out that a misunderstanding has occurred is necessary in a conversation in which misunderstandings might occur. Hence, it is only good reasoning to permit criticism. Moreover, if my own understanding of an argument turns out to be deficient in some way, it is even natural for me to feel a degree of shame or guilt. ref

Appeal to Pride

An appeal to pride is an inverse form of an appeal to shame. Instead of saying that something is shameful, something is described as something you should be proud of — eg, “Smart people like you …”, “You deserve XYZ”, or “aren’t you proud of XYZ, then HOW COME YOU DON’T BELIEVE XYZ?” When you want to persuade someone to do something (or resist doing something), focusing on the pride is a good manipulator where people will feel they need to comply with your request rather than the shame they may feel if they do not comply. ref, ref

Appeal to Popularity

Using the popularity of a premise or proposition as evidence for its truthfulness is an Argumentum ad populum, (“argument to the people“) which is a fallacious argument that concludes that a proposition must be true because many or most people believe it, often concisely encapsulated as: “If many believe so, it is so.” This is a fallacy which is very difficult to spot because our “common sense” tells us that if something is popular, it must be good/true/valid, but this is not so, especially in a society where clever marketing, social and political weight, and money can buy popularity. The popularity of the belief in XYZ is not related to the truthfulness of XYZ claims. The appeal to popularity, argumentum ad populum is a red herring and genetic fallacy. It appeals on probabilistic terms; given that 75% of a population answers A to a question where the answer is unknown, the argument states that it is reasonable to assume that the answer is indeed A. In cases where the answer can be known but is not known by a questioned entity, the appeal to majority provides a possible answer with a relatively high probability of correctness. There is the problem of determining just how many are needed to have a majority or consensus. Is merely greater than 50% significant enough and why? Should the percentage be larger, such as 80 or 90 percent, and how does that make a real difference? Is there real consensus if there are one or even two people who have a different claim that is proven to be true? It is logically fallacious because the mere fact that a belief is widely held does not necessarily guarantee that the belief is correct; if the belief of any individual can be wrong, then the belief held by multiple persons can also be wrong. ref, ref

Red Herring

A red herring is something that misleads or distracts from a relevant or important issue. As an informal fallacy, the red herring falls into a broad class of relevance fallacies. Unlike the straw man, which is premised on a distortion of the other party’s position, the red herring is a seemingly plausible, though ultimately irrelevant, a diversionary tactic. This fallacy is also known as: beside the point, misdirection [form of], changing the subject, false emphasis, the Chewbacca defense, irrelevant conclusion, irrelevant thesis, clouding the issue, ignorance of refutation. Attempting to redirect the argument to another issue to which the person doing the redirecting can better respond. While it is similar to the avoiding the issue fallacy, the red herring is a deliberate diversion of attention with the intention of trying to abandon the original argument. ref, ref

Wishful Thinking

Wishful thinking is the formation of beliefs and making decisions according to what might be pleasing to imagine instead of by appealing to evidence, rationality, or reality. It is a product of resolving conflicts between belief and desire. Studies have consistently shown that holding all else equal, subjects will predict positive outcomes to be more likely than negative outcomes (see unrealistic optimism). However, research suggests that under certain circumstances, such as when threat increases, a reverse phenomenon occurs. As a fallacy Wishful thinking is likely expressing or emulating a cognitive bias and a poor way of making decisions, wishful thinking is commonly held to be a specific informal fallacy in an argument when it is assumed that because we wish something to be true or false, it is actually true or false. This fallacy has the form “I wish that XYZ were true/false; therefore, XYZ is true/false.” Wishful thinking, if this were true, would rely upon appeals to emotion, and would also be a red herring. Wishful thinking may cause blindness to unintended consequences. ref

Appeal to Hope

The appeal to hope argument attempts to persuade by invoking hopes and desires. This fallacy includes appeals to sex, since being more sexy, or meeting sexy people, is something that most people hope for. Hopes like desires, can be good or bring issues nor is hoping a bad state of mind to be in but reasoning based should be based on the genuine connections between what we desire and good reasoning. Of course, this means that our hopes can sometimes lead us to be irrational and why we need to be thoughtful. Like the Appeal to Fear fallacy, the fallacy of Appeal to Hope exploits our inability to make accurate estimates of probability. However, rather than making something seem more likely by appealing to our fears, this fallacy makes something seem more likely by appealing to our hopes and desires. ref

Ad Hominem

Argumentum ad hominem (from the Latin, “to the man”) is an informal logical fallacy that occurs when someone attempts to refute an argument by attacking the claim-maker, rather than engaging in an argument or factual refutation of the claim. There are many subsets of ad hominem, all of them attacking the source of the claim rather than attacking the claim or attempting to counter arguments. They are a type of fallacy of relevance. The fallacy is a subset of the genetic fallacy, as it focuses on the source of the argument, at the expense of focusing on the truth or falsity of the actual argument itself. An ad hominem should not be confused with an insult, which admittedly attacks a person, but does not seek to rebut that person’s arguments by doing so — that type of rhetoric is better termed as poisoning the well. Of note: if the subject of discussion is whether or not somebody is credible and/or competent — eg, “believe X because I am Y” — then it is not an ad hominem to criticize their qualifications. While an ad hominem attack is not synonymous with “crass insult” it is also true that you can make a fallacious ad hom argument without being rude or crass about it. As a result, these can go unacknowledged as fallacious. The circumstantial ad hominem, or appeal to motive, happens where an opponent’s argument is discarded on the basis that they have some motivation for making it; for example, that it is in a banker’s best interests to say he has not stolen from his company’s accounts, so obviously he has. All “well they would say that, wouldn’t they?” arguments are based on this form of ad hominem and can regularly be found propping up conspiracy theories when their existence is denied by an authority. A good rule of thumb to spot the fallacy here is that this sort of argument devalues the denial, but does not bolster the original assertion. There is common confusion about what is, and what isn’t, ad hominem — that is, what does and does not employ fallacious reasoning. Generally, ad hominem does not mean “crass insult”. When debating about a person, ad hominem arguments are only fallacious if they do not follow (non sequitur), if the argument and the person’s character are related then there may not be a fallacy. In particular, a criticism is not an ad hominem argument if a person’s merits are actually the topic of the argument. If the subject of the debate is the inherent trustworthiness of someone, or what prior probability you would assign to them telling the truth, then their previous track record is relevant to the subject. If debating a person’s ability to do a task, then their effectiveness at that task or suitably similar ones is relevant. Ad hominem attacks are strictly fallacious when the attack has little or no bearing on the argument at hand. For example, dismissing a female scientist’s opinion on a subject because she is a woman would be a fallacious ad hominem argument. Dismissing it for being incorrect with relevant evidence or reasoning, but making a sexist comment at the same time, would not employ formally fallacious reasoning. On the flip-side, dismissing that evidence or reasoning because it came packaged with a sexist comment wouldn’t follow. Though the fact that something is not a logical fallacy does not automatically make it a desirable debating tactic. Even if the underlying argument is sound, snide remarks and obnoxious insults can form an effective part of the rhetoric and cause people to dismiss an argument as the incidental attack triggers their own prior biases. ref

Poisoning the Well

Poisoning the well (also called the smear tactic) is a rhetorical technique and logical fallacy that uses the association of negative emotions to distract a subject from actual evidence in an argument. Poisoning the well is an appeal to hate. The usual method is to point out the unpleasant nature of the person making the opposing argument, in which case it is a special case of a personal attack or ad hominem. In general, “to poison the well” means to pre-provide any information that could produce a biased opinion of the reasoning, positive or negative. It can be done subtly or quite blatantly. A subtle way of poisoning the well would be to use particular adjectives in introducing something that would influence people who are about to hear an argument. A good example would be introducing an argument that you disagree with by using the phrase ‘Do you believe this rubbish?’ The word ‘rubbish’ poisons the well. In a more blatant display, someone can make an outright personal attack in an introduction. For example, asking people to remember that a person has been in prison before listening to their statements; the well is now “poisoned” because people are likely to distrust a person making an argument knowing that they’re a convict, regardless of the reasoning that they put forward. ref

Loaded language

Loaded language or prejudicial language is language intended to produce an emotional response in the mind of the audience, in order to directly affect their views on a topic. The use of loaded language confers certain qualities to a statement that often amount to an emotional appeal. “Liberal“, for instance, may be (and often is) used among Conservatives in the United States as an insult, implying that the person so-labeled disregards normal moral standards. The true meaning of such a term often becomes obscured due to the prevalence of the coded meaning. When the meaning is intentionally obfuscated in order to disparage a particular minority or belief without raising an alarm among those who would be offended by the meaning, it is sometimes called dog whistle politics, after the idea (often not actually true) that the out-group can’t hear the meaning in the hidden message behind the words. Whether or not the out-group gets it, the in-group knows exactly what is meant by the code. For example, in certain settings in US politics, claiming to be “tough on crime” might be intended to subtly convey or take advantage of racism. Code words and dog whistle politics often use loaded language to convey their meaning to the in-group. ref

Argument from Authority

An argument from authority, also called an appeal to authority, or argumentum ad verecundiam is a form of defeasible argument in which a claimed authority’s support is used as evidence for an argument’s conclusion. It is well known as a fallacy, though it is used in a cogent form when all sides of a discussion agree on the reliability of the authority in the given context. Insisting that a claim is true simply because a valid authority or expert on the issue said it was true, without any other supporting evidence offered. Also, see the appeal to false authority. Be very careful not to confuse “deferring to an authority on the issue” with the appeal to authority fallacy. Remember, a fallacy is an error in reasoning. Dismissing the council of legitimate experts and authorities turns good skepticism into denialism. The appeal to authority is a fallacy in argumentation, but deferring to an authority is a reliable heuristic that we all use virtually every day on issues of relatively little importance. There is always a chance that any authority can be wrong, that’s why the critical thinker accepts facts provisionally. It is not at all unreasonable (or an error in reasoning) to accept information as provisionally true by credible authorities. Of course, the reasonableness is moderated by the claim being made (i.e., how extraordinary, how important) and the authority (how credible, how relevant to the claim). ref, ref

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

Formal Axiology: Another Victim in Religion’s War on Science by Dr. Kelleher

Interview of Formal Axiological Atheist Dr. William Kelleher

Axiology and Value Theory?

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

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

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

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

Disproof by logical contradiction

‘A Logical Impossibility’

(especially in reductio ad absurdum arguments)

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

What is a god?

If you think you believe in a god, “what do you mean by god,” saying a name tells me not one thing about the thing I am asking to know “its” beingness/thingness/attributes/qualities. Thus, what is the thing “god” to which you are talking about and I want you to explain its beingness/thingness/attributes/qualities? Religious/theistic people with supernatural beliefs often seem as though they haven’t thought much about and that is something we can help using ontology questions about the beingness/thingness/attributes/qualities they are trying to refer too. What do you mean by god, when you use the term god? And, I am not asking you for the name you attach to the thing you label as a god. I don’t need to know what the god you believe is known “by.” I am asking, what is the thing you are naming as a god and what that thing is, its qualities in every detail like all things have if they are real. Are you just making stuff up or guessing/hoping or just promoting unjustified ideas you want to believe, what is a god?

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

To me, there simply is and rightly must be an intellectual “ethical-belief-responsibility” (burden of proof) to justify the believed truth that is claimed to others is actually demonstrably as being true with valid and reliable reason and/or evidence when it is stated as such. Yes, intellectually one should provide (justificationism) for their assertions that map the sort of governing good habits of belief-formation, belief-maintenance, and belief-relinquishment.

Axiological “Presumptive-Value”

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

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

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

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

Often I get disheartened to see that so many people can look at the unknown or that which is devoid of any and all understanding and claim to know that this is evidence for some god or another. How can they with all honesty even say that they somehow already know about an established scientific unknown, when all along it is what it ever was, which I will remind you, is currently holding a confirmed status of unknown. Thus, still fully intact as currently unknowable (I.e. you simply cannot justifiability claim that such unknown is god or evidence of god). What really is a god anyway? The term god equals mystery that is used to explain the mysterious leaving us with yet more mystery, thus explains nothing. Claims of god are a Presumptive-Value failure. Simply, if you presume a thing is of value that you can’t justify, then you have committed an axiological presumptive value failure. Axiological “presumptive-value” Success: Sound Thinker: uses disciplined rationality (sound axiological judgment the evaluation of evidence to make a decision) supporting a valid and reliable justification.

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

My response, Well with or without valid justification because of evidence. As in you can’t claim to know the value of something you can’t demonstrate as having good qualities to attach the value claim too so if you lack evidence of the thing in question then you can not validate its value. So it’s addressing justificationism (uncountable) Theory of justification, An (philosophy standard) approach that regards the justification of a claim as primary, while the claim itself is secondary; thus, criticism consists of trying to show that a claim cannot be reduced to the authority or criteria that it appeals to. Think of is as a use matrix. If I say this is of great use for that, can you validate its use or value, and can I use this as a valid method to state a valid justification for my claims without evidence to value judge from? No, thus an axiological presumptive-value failure as a valid anything. Theory of justification is a part of epistemology that attempts to understand the justification of propositions and beliefs. Epistemologists are concerned with various epistemic features of belief, which include the ideas of justification, warrant, rationality, and probability. Loosely speaking, justification is the reason that someone (properly) holds a belief. When a claim is in doubt, justification can be used to support the claim and reduce or remove the doubt. Justification can use empiricism (the evidence of the senses), authoritative testimony (the appeal to criteria and authority), or reason. – Wikipedia

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

The Way of a Sound Thinker?

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

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

A shallow thinker (i.e. not a Deep Thinker, a person whose thoughts are reasoned, methodological, logical, empirical, profound; an intellectual) quickly talks, often with boastful postulations, likely just as often pushed strongly and loudly as if this adds substance, and they do this before fully understanding what’s is really involved. Whereas, a Sound Thinker is reasoned (comparative more reasoned, superlative most reasoned) generally based on reasoning; being the result of logical thought. As a first debate process, a Sound Thinker commonly poses Questions to understand slowing down and assessing all the facts or factors involved and then builds their argument or ideas. In classical logic, the law of non-contradiction (LNC) (also known as the law of contradiction, principle of non-contradiction (PNC), or the principle of contradiction) states that contradictory statements cannot both be true in the same sense at the same time, e.g. the two propositions “A is B” and “A is not B” are mutually exclusive. It is the second of the three classic laws of thought.

Sound Thinkers don’t value FAITH

Critical Thinking, What Does it Mean to Be Open to Learn?

A General Thinking in all My Epistemology Theorizing is Justificationism

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

My response, “No, I don’t agree, you don’t have faith in gravity or gravitation, as it is “a fundamental force” you have proof or if lacking some direct proof would use inference and if even less evidence you use conjecture, not faith. Do you gauntly thinking you need faith in gravity because you wonder or worry that when walking down a set of stairs that you going to fall back up? You don’t need faith (strong belief without evidence) as there is massive proof, almost to the point that it is easily self-evident. You don’t need faith (strong belief without evidence) for anything, as if its warranted it will or should have evidence or it doesn’t deserve not only strong belief but any amount of belief at all as sound beliefs need something to ground their worthiness in relation to reality; the only place evidence comes.

“Gravity, or gravitation, is a natural phenomenon by which all things with mass are brought toward (or gravitate toward) one another, including planets, stars, and galaxies. Gravity is responsible for various phenomena observed on Earth and throughout the Universe; for example, it causes the Earth and the other planets to orbit the Sun, the Moon to orbit the Earth, the formation of tides, the formation and evolution of the Solar System, stars and galaxies. Since energy and mass are equivalent, all forms of energy, including light, also cause gravitation and are under the influence of it. On Earth, gravity gives weight to physical objects and causes the ocean tides. The gravitational attraction of the original gaseous matter present in the Universe caused it to begin coalescing, forming stars – and the stars to group together into galaxies – so gravity is responsible for many of the large-scale structures in the Universe.” Ref

Understanding how children use magical thinking

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

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

with valid and reliable reason and evidence.

Dogmatic–Propaganda vs. Disciplined-Rationality

Religionists and fideists, promote Dogmatic-Propaganda whereas atheists and antireligionists mostly promote Disciplined-Rationality. Dogmatic–Propaganda commonly is a common motivator of flawed or irrational thinking but with over seventy belief biases identified in people, this is hardly limited to just the religious or faith inclined. Let me illustrate what I am saying, to me all theists are believing lies or irrationally in that aspect of their lives relating to god belief. So the fact of any other common intellectual indexers where there may be right reason in beliefs cannot remove the flawed god belief corruption being committed. What I am saying is like this if you kill one person you are a killer. If you believe in one “god” I know you are a follower of Dogmatic-Propaganda and can not completely be a follower of Disciplined-Rationality. However, I am not proclaiming all atheists are always rational as irrationally is revolving door many people believe or otherwise seem to stumble through. It’s just that god belief does this with intentionally.

Disciplined-Rationality is motivated by principles of correct reasoning with emphasis on valid and reliable methods or theories leading to a range of rational standpoints or conclusions understanding that concepts and beliefs often have consequences thus hold an imperative for truth or at least as close to truth as can be acquired rejecting untruth. Disciplined-Rationality can be seen as an aid in understanding the fundamentals for knowledge, sound evidence, justified true belief and involves things like decision theory and the concern with identifying the value(s), reasonableness, verification, certainties, uncertainties and other relevant issues resulting in the most clear optimal decision/conclusion and/or belief/disbelief. Disciplined-Rationality attempts to understand the justification or lack thereof in propositions and beliefs concerning its self with various epistemic features of belief, truth, and/or knowledge, which include the ideas of justification, warrant, rationality, reliability, validity, and probability.

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

I am a “Scientific Axiology” minded “Philosophic Axiologist.”

*Philosophic Axiology (Value Theory)

“Scientific Axiology (Formal Axiology).

Axiological atheism can be thought to involve ethical/value theory reasoned and moral argument driven apatheism, ignosticism, atheism, anti-theism, anti-religionism, secularism, and humanism. The valuations move up the latter as the levels of evaluation is made to value judge all the elements to better understand the value or disvalue available to reach the most accurate valuation reasonable with a sound aware value conciseness. Axiological atheism can be thought to involve Ethical Atheism.

Below shows the 7 axiological atheism argument flow to show the value layers and my thoughts on it:

1. Apatheism: we are born and by the fact reality is devoid of magic removes theological desires to understand the obvious naturalistic world, until we learn otherwise. (a “presumptive-value” failure, thus no motivation to adequately start the evaluation needed to understand if there is real value for an Axiology assessment to accurately place it in the value hierarchy). = no value

2. Ignosticism: Sees theological arguments and language as equivocation, contradictory, and/or un-cognitively relatable other than emotionalism or the like. I see Ignosticism as using the Theological non-cognitivism arguments of “mind understanding issues” (rationalism challenging) and an evidentialist/verificationist arguments of “lacking evidence issues” (empiricism challenging). 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. (again a “presumptive-value” failure, no good Ontology of the thing for Identifying values that could influence belief but without what is needed to understand if there is real value for an axiology assessment to accurately place it in the value hierarchy). = no value

3. Atheism: How can we not reject the concept of gods, aka: supposed supreme magical beings, when not even some simple magic is supported in reality. So how then is it not even more ridiculous to claim some supreme magic aka: gods which are even further from reality. May I remind you that faith in the acquisition of knowledge is not a valid method worth believing in. Because, what proof is “faith”, of anything religion claims by faith, as many people have different faith even in the same religion? 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. 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. If you think you believe in a god, “what do you mean by god,” saying a name tells me not one thing about the thing I am asking to know “its” beingness / thingness / attributes / qualities. Thus, what is the thing “god” to which you are talking about and I want you to explain its beingness /thingness / attributes/ qualities? Religious/theistic people with supernatural beliefs often seem as though they haven’t thought much about and that is something we can help using ontology questions about the beingness / thingness / attributes/ qualities they are trying to refer too. What do you mean by god, when you use the term god? And, I am not asking you for the name you attach to the thing you label as a god. I don’t need to know what the god you believe is known “by.” I am asking, what is the thing you are naming as a god and what that thing is, its qualities in every detail like all things have if they are real. Are you just making stuff up or guessing/hoping or just promoting unjustified ideas you want to believe, what is a god? 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. There should be little debate with atheist acknowledging discernable reality compared to theists with non-reality claims. Yes, I have way more awe and wonder as an atheist than I ever had as a theist because as a theist anything was possible with god. Therefore, as a theist things where not that amazing. However, as an atheist grasping what an absolute accidental or how random things are, with a 95 to 99 % of all life ever existing on this planet went extinct. I am thoroughly amazed we are even here the evolved children of ancient exploded stars, likely born in galaxies born in super-massive black holes, it’s all amazing. There is no evidence for Gods. But is their proposition outside of reason? As always start in reality from the evidence we do know, such as never in the history of scientific research or investigation has any supernatural claims shown to be true. So it is completely outside of possibility and is utterly ridiculous. Therefore, belief should be rejected as there are no warrants at all and it is axiologically unworthy to such a preponderance to demand disbelief. (yet again a “presumptive value” failure, no good Ontology of the thing not the cognitively meaningful claims relatable to reality that must be attached to all magic and gods claims for Identifying values that could influence belief but without what is needed to understand if there is real value for an axiology assessment to accurately place it in the value hierarchy).

4. Antitheism: Anti-theism requires more than either merely disbelieving in gods or even denying the existence of gods. Anti-theism requires a couple of specific and additional beliefs: first, that theism is harmful to the believer, harmful to society, harmful to politics, harmful, to culture, etc.; second, that theism can and should be countered in order to reduce the harm it causes. If a person believes these things, then they will likely be an anti-theist who works against theism by arguing that it be abandoned, promoting alternatives, or perhaps even supporting measures to suppress it. It’s worth noting here that, however, unlikely it may be in practice, it’s possible in theory for a theist to be an anti-theist. This may sound bizarre at first, but remember that some people have argued in favor of promoting false beliefs if they are socially useful. To me, I think many may have a misconception of the term. Atheism and anti-theism so often occur together at the same time and in the same person that it’s understandable if many individuals fail to realize that they aren’t the same. Making a note of the difference is important, however, because not every atheist is anti-theistic and even those who are, aren’t anti-theistic all the time. Atheism is simply the absence of belief in gods; anti-theism is a conscious and deliberate opposition to theism. Many atheists are also anti-theists, but not all and not always. To me as an antitheist, I see the concept of gods antihumanistic and wholly harmful to a free humanity and if the so-called gods somehow do end up being real that I will switch to direct opposition as I would any tyrant oppressing humanity. Antitheism (sometimes anti-theism) is a term used to describe an opposition to theism. The term has had a range of applications and definitions. In secular contexts, it typically refers to direct opposition to the validity of theism, but not necessarily to the existence of a deity. 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. (And, again a “presumptive value” failure, of the other value challenges of the lesser evaluations and value judgments addressed in the apatheism, ignosticism, atheism value judgment conclusion and an Axiological Atheism assessment of the god concept that must be attached to all magic and gods claims Identifying a lack of value and/or disvalue that influence harm to real value in an axiology assessment to accurately place its value violations in the value hierarchy).

5. Antireligionism: Not just Atheist, axiological atheists should be antitheists but this generally will involve anti-religionism. it would generally thus hold anti-religionist thinking. Especially, 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)! 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. May I not be a silent watcher as millions of children are subjugated almost before their birth let alone when they can understand thought and are forcibly coerced, compelled, constrained, and indoctrinated in the mental pollution that religion can be. My main goal against religion is to fully stop as much as possible forced indoctrination, one could ask but then why do I challenge all adults faith? well, who do you think is doing the lying to children in the first place. End Hereditary religion, if its a belief let them the equal right to choose to believe. “Religion is an Evolved Product” and Yes, Religion is Like Fear Given Wings… (And, one last time a “presumptive value” failure, of the other value challenges of the lesser evaluations and value judgments addressed in the apatheism, ignosticism, atheism value judgment conclusion and an Axiological Atheism assessment of the god concept and anti-theism assessment of the god show not just a lack of value but a possibly or likely harm demonstrating bot just a lack of value but a real disvalue and that includes the religions potentially removing value in an axiology assessment to accurately place it in the value hierarchy).

6. Secularism: is the only honorable way to value the dignity of others. If it was not true that there is a large unequal distribution of religion contributing to violence then there would be equal religion and atheist secularism violence. You do not see atheists bombing agnostics the very idea is laughable however even different branches of the same religion do will and have killed one another. So, violence not who we are it’s something we need to be compelled to do. Therefore, please support secularism. We are all one connected human family, proven by DNA showing we should treat each other as fellow dignity beings, supported equally (no gods and no masters). States may often have powers, but only citizens have the glue of morality we call rights. And, as they say, in my “dream society”, lots of things are free (aka. planting free food everywhere, free to everyone); but I wonder what you mean when people say you can’t just let things be free, I think, yeah, how can I take free stuff from a free earth. If one observes the virtues of (T. R. U. E. “The Rational Universal Ethics” or “The Responsible Universal Ethics”) that connect to all things as that of the connectedness equality like those which mirror the rays of the sun, fall down equally with a blind but fair indifference. (what is being expressed is that this sun shining will not favor one over another, no, the same upon everyone offering its light to all plant, animal, human, women, men, single or married, homosexual, bisexual, heterosexual, nonreligious, religious, people of means and those without, able-bodied and those which special needs, people of color, and those who are not, those with access to resources and those which out, young and elderly, etc.) All who wish to follow T. R. U. E. thus embodying a universalize equalitarian standard of ethics should strive to be like a ray of connected light to the world, shining equally and freedom to all of the world. By such efforts a nonbiased unitive ethical approach is possible, one would have an increase in positive feelings to help others understanding equalitarian connectedness. If you don’t think different you will not behave differently, if you have never lived differently it is hard to see things differently and if you do not strive to understand difference one is thus unknowingly or not bound by limited encapsulation. I am for a Free Secular Society. I am not for oppression or abuse of religious believer and want a free secular society with both freedoms of religion and freedom from religion. Even though I wish the end of faith and believing in myths and superstition, I wish this by means of informing the willing and not force of the unwilling. I will openly challenge and rebuff religious falsehoods and misunderstanding as well as rebuke and ridicule harmful or unethical religious ideology or behavior.

7. Humanism: is the philosophic thinking that humans can solve human problems by human means, without feeling a need to appeal to the likes of holy books, mystical anything, nor the belief in gods or religions. But, instead, aspires to a true belief in humanity, viewing it with a persuasion of equality. This caring realist thinking found in humanism utilizes an unstated assumption or aspiration, to do no harm as much as possible and to do good whenever one can. Moreover, we are all one connected human family, proven by DNA showing we should treat each other as fellow dignity beings, supported equally. And, no one really owns the earth, we may make claims to it even draw lines on maps thinking this makes the fantasy borders, illusion supported by force and the potential for threat. Thus the ethical truth is we need to share the earth as communally as possible. And use the resources as safe and ethically as possible striving towards sharing and caring. (do no Harm and do good = Humanism). My core definition of humanism is that humans can solve human problems by human means. I am not saying other things can’t or shouldn’t be added to it but to me, a definition of humanism must always contain something coherent to such a thinking or not contradict such as I have offered. Thus, why it is appropriate to say “good without god” when one is a humanist.

I argue for Atheism on scientific, archaeologically/anthropologically, philosophical, social/humanitarianism and prehistorical/historical grounds.

Archaeological, Scientific, & Philosophic grounds: Link

Prehistorical/historical grounds: Link

Social/humanitarianism grounds: Link

I am an Out Atheist, Antitheist, and Antireligionist as a Valuized Ethical Duty.

How can we silently watch as yet another generation is indoctrinated with religious faith, fear, and foolishness? Religion and it’s god myths are like a spiritually transmitted disease of the mind. This infection even once cured holds mental disruption which can linger on for a lifetime. What proof is “faith,” of anything religion claims by faith, as many people have different faith even in the same religion? When you start thinking your “out, atheism, antitheism or antireligionism is not vitally needed just remember all the millions of children being indoctrinated and need our help badly. Ones who desperately need our help with the truth. 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.

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

Eleven Common Fallacies When Thinking About God

Fallacy 1: The World Needs God As Creator Fallacy
Fallacy 2: The Science Fallacy
Fallacy 3: The Human Psychology Fallacy
Fallacy 4: The Argument From Authority Fallacy
Fallacy 5: The Extraordinary Happenings Fallacy
Fallacy 6: The Humans Could Indentify God Fallacy
Fallacy 7: The God Outside The Universe Fallacy
Fallacy 8: The Indescribable God Fallacy
Fallacy 9: The Defining God Into Existence Fallacy
Fallacy 10: The God Can Completely Escape Notice In This World Fallacy
Fallacy 11: The Fallacy Of Any Possible A Priori Proof Of God’s Existence

There can be no way the existence of God (whatever monotheistic God is different to Nature, as God needs to be) can be proved or shown to exist by either a priori (see Fallacy 11) or by a posteriori (see Fallacies 5 and 6) means. Indeed as nothing can prove beyond even reasonable doubt (and possible changes in circumstance to its environment) that it itself is God, no God can exist. Read More at: http://www.godfallacies.com/

Religious Fallacies: Appeal to Emotion and its Multiple Fallacy Subheadings

Religious Fallacies:

“Appeal to Emotion and its Multiple Fallacy Subheadings”

What is a logical fallacy?

To counteract falling for an appeal to fear we need to:

What is a god?

The Atheist-Humanist-Leftist Revolutionaries Shows in the prehistory series:

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

Recent Posts

Archives

Categories

Pages

Meta

Advertisement

Pin It on Pinterest